USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 3
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
29 Ibid., p. 71; Bradford's History, pp. 72-373.
Chapter II The Settlement of Connecticut
T HE IMPULSES for the effective settlement of Connecticut came in part from Old England and in part from the New. To escape the tyranny of a William Laud or of a John Winthrop, many men took their chances in the wilderness. The vast expanse of land was an irresistible lure to others on both sides of the Atlantic. With or without title to the land, small groups of Puritans came from England and Massachusetts to begin life anew in Connecticut. From 1635 to 1639, they traveled the wilderness roads, erected palisades, sub- dued the Indians, and laid the basis for a permanent settlement.
Impulses for Settlement
In the period before the settlement of Connecticut, the power of rule in colonial New England was centered in the indomitable spirit of John Winthrop. The inflexible will of this opinionated, impatient, and arbitrary leader frequently led to bitter protest from equally wilful men. Almost from the beginning, a center of discontent, and the one from which the main stream of the Connecticut migration was to come, was Newtown (Cambridge in Massachusetts). Its principal citi- zens were John Haynes, a "gentleman of estate," and Thomas Dudley, the founder of the settlement, both of whom were frequently at odds with Winthrop. The decision of Winthrop to make Boston, rather than Newtown, the capital of Massachusetts Bay was the first of a series of quarrels. Dudley and Winthrop were in the midst of such a dispute, over the question of whether the people of Newtown should assist in the building of a fort in Boston, when Thomas Hooker assumed the
18
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Newtown pastorate, October 11, 1633, and almost immediately became involved in the public life of the community.1
Hooker had been born in the tiny hamlet of Marfield, England, on July 7, 1586.2 He prepared at Market-Bosworth for Cambridge,
HE ADOL WRITERSA APY
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
MIDDLETOWN-TERCENTENARY LOG CABIN, 1935
where he remained ten years, until he was twenty-eight years of age. Emmanuel College, where Hooker pursued his advanced studies, was a center of Puritanism. His non-conformity caused Hooker to choose, as his first ministry, Esher in Surrey, where the beneficence of one Francis Drake enabled him to remain relatively free from the Bishop of London. Esher's nearness to London favored Hooker's recognition as a preacher, and, in 1626, he was invited to Chelmsford as Lecturer.
Hooker's lecturing in Chelmsford became repugnant to the Church
19
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
of England but popular with the populace. Chelmsford was only twenty miles from London and was the center of strong Puritan sympathies. These lectures were supplements to regular church services and were held on market-days and Sunday afternoons. They attempted to substi- tute "efficient preaching" for the utterances of the "dumb ministers" who confined themselves to the rites and services prescribed by the Church. Hooker sensed the feeling of the time and effectively substi- tuted a direct application of the gospel to men's hearts and conscience for the usual discourse on doctrine. Hooker was regarded as the most ef- fective and learned of the lecturers. As his followers continued to in- crease, it came to be believed that as long as he remained in the diocese his genius would haunt the pulpits of the country where any of his scholars were permitted to teach "what he hath brewed." The Bishop of London wanted to rid his diocese of "obnoxious blowers of the bel- lows of sedition" and Hooker became the special object of his atten- tion. Hooker was forced to relinquish his lectureship and retire to Little Baddow, where he kept school until he was cited by the Court of High Commission. Rather than face almost certain punishment, Hooker fled, through the aid of the Earl of Warwick, to Holland.
Even in Holland, Hooker was not completely removed from the in- fluence of the Church of England. Whether because of jealousy, as Cotton Mather charged, or because of Hooker's "willingness to accord fellowship" to those who wished to separate from the Church of Eng- land as Paget charged, Hooker failed to receive an appointment as an associate to the Reverend John Paget, of the British Presbyterian Church. Hooker left Amsterdam and found more congenial surround- ings at Delft and Rotterdam. His plans went forward for coming to America, and sometime in 1633 he returned to England, where he re- mained cautiously out of the reach of church authorities until he sailed for America.
As soon as Hooker was established at Newtown, he and John Haynes were sent by Dudley on a mission to Winthrop to protest the requisition on Newtown for assistance in the building of a fort at Bos- ton. Winthrop refused to retain the provocative note presented by the two emissaries and told them that the issue would be settled by the Court. Soon afterwards, Winthrop offered a fatted pig in testimony of
20
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
his good will. Dudley, Haynes, and Hooker accepted the Governor's good will, but desired "without offence, to refuse your offer" of the pig. In this way, the affair was, in the words of Winthrop, "very lovingly concluded."3 Two days later, it was formally concluded when the Court ordered that Newtown should do the work requested. The resentment against Winthrop found no similar termination. Despite the plea of John Cotton that "a magistrate should not be turned into a private citizen without just cause," Winthrop was replaced as Governor in May, 1634, by Dudley.4
The day after Dudley's election, the General Court recognized the acute want of land for settlers at Newtown by giving them permission "to look out either for enlargement or removal."5 Men were sent to ap- praise Agawam and Merrimack. Some of these observers boarded the Blessing of the Bay and sailed with it to New Amsterdam. Apparently these wished to observe the Connecticut River area with a view to the possibility of settling there.6
When it was revealed that the settlers wished to go beyond the limits of Massachusetts, a tempest arose in the September meeting of the General Court. In support of the request, the petitioners alleged the crowded conditions of Massachusetts, the "fruitfulness and commodi- ousness of Connecticut," and the "strong bent of their spirits to remove thither." The opponents countered by offering land within the limits of Massachusetts, pointing out the dangers in Connecticut from the Dutch and Indians, and threatening that, to protect the King's right to the land of Connecticut, Massachusetts would rise against any attempted settlement.7
In the General Court, which was composed of the Governor, Deputy Governor, Magistrates or Assistants, and deputies representing the sev- eral towns, a majority favored removal by a vote of fifteen to one. The solidarity of Massachusetts, however, was not to be broken by mere majority rule. The patent had provided that six Assistants and a Gov- ernor were required to be included in a lawful Court. In 1631, however, the Court had ordered that whenever the Governor and all of his as- sistants numbered less than nine, it should be lawful for a majority of these to hold a court even though the quorum should not be seven as the charter provided. Yet, when this majority vote was counter to his
21
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
opinion, Winthrop considered patent requirements binding and en- tered in his journal that "no vote was recorded [on the removal], be- cause there were not six assistants in the vote, as the patent requires." The majority did not wish to yield to accord this power of negation to the Assistants, and the foundations of rule by the élite were challenged in the debate which followed. After "divers" days of discussion, a "day of humiliation" was set aside "to seek the Lord." The Court recessed for a week, and before it formally reconvened, John Cotton showed the members the error of their ways. The principle of the Negative Voice was upheld: removal to Connecticut was delayed.8
Those who voted against removal justified their position by the effect they thought such an event would have upon the Bay colony. Hooker was greatly respected as an eminent divine, and it was asserted that his departure would not only draw many from the colony at the time he left, but also would subsequently divert many others. It was urged that "they ought not to depart from us, being knit to us in one body, and bound by oath to seek the welfare of this commonwealth . . . [for] we were now weak and in danger to be assailed." It might be consid- ered that there was some basis for the fear that the Massachusetts settle- ment would be left dangerously depleted, since the flood-tide of immi- gration to Massachusetts was not reached until a year later.9
By 1635, however, there were enough people that the land prob- lem had become especially acute. The population of the colony had increased to 8,000, and it had become difficult for newcomers to find a place in which to locate. Boston ruled that land should not be granted to those who were not likely to become members of the Church and forbade landowners to sell their property to any such new- comers. Outlying towns continued to complain of their lack of space and were given permission to expand their premises, provided they re- mained within the boundaries of Massachusetts.1º Satisfactory land for the enlargement of holdings was not found. Winthrop wrote that "the people and the cattle are so increased as the place will not suffice them."11
Meanwhile, information about Connecticut continued to increase. In sharp contrast to Massachusetts, land could be had in Connecticut without rent or sale. The Indian menace had been reduced, as John
22
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Winthrop thought, by God's intervention. He wrote: "God's hand hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space, the greatest parts of them are swept awaye by the small poxe. ... God hathe hereby cleared our title to this place."12 The few remaining Indians even sought to in- duce the English to come to Connecticut. The Indians pointed to the trade advantages in the Connecticut valley, and, in exchange for trade
rav
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
NEW LONDON-HOME OF JOHN WINTHROP, BUILT OF STONE IN 1646. (A COPY.) WINTHROP SCHOOL NOW STANDS ON THIS SITE
and protection, it was reported, offered to surrender their rights to Con- necticut.13 The irresistible lure of this comparatively large amount of land was the magnet, perhaps, that attracted the majority of settlers to Connecticut.
Contrary to popular belief, the search for greater freedom of re- ligion seems not to have been a powerful motive of those who came to Connecticut. It is true that English friends of the colony regarded it as "a great scandal" that in Massachusetts one minister preached against
23
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
another's doctrine. Winthrop, however, always minimized these differ- ences. In July, 1635, he gave assurances that Hooker was going to Con- necticut, but asserted that it was not because of any differences be- tween him and Cotton, who, he added, "do hold a most sweet and brotherly communion together."14 The close examination undertaken by Charles M. Andrews of the doctrinal dispute between Hooker and Cotton indicates that, if anything, Hooker was even less liberal in Church policy than was Cotton. Hooker was always on the side of or- thodoxy in the religious disputes that then raged in Massachusetts.15 During the defection of Anne Hutchinson in 1637, he returned to Massachusetts to give his counsel against her. He found the religious views of Roger Williams no more acceptable.16 If measured by the ec- clesiastical society which was established in Connecticut, there is little evidence that those who came wished to do any more, insofar as re- ligion was concerned, than to strengthen the way of the Congregation- alists.
Hooker's® differences with John Winthrop, which were personal and political, were of more consequence as a motive for settling in Con- necticut than were doctrinal questions. Hooker clashed with Win- throp's arbitrariness soon after arriving in Massachusetts when he served as the Newtown emissary in a court dispute. The use of the Neg- ative Voice to block his removal to Connecticut in 1634 intensified Hooker's antagonism. He stepped aside silently and permitted John Cotton to deliver the sermon to the court on that occasion. It would seem that this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the Neg- ative Voice, however, for this vote must have loomed large in his memory when later, in commenting on the civil procedure of the Bay colony, he stated his belief that it led "directly to tyranny, and so, to confusion" and "if it was in my liberty, I should choose neither to live nor leave my posterity under such a government."17
It appears that Hooker may have been the symbol, rather than the cause, of the widespread opposition to Winthrop. Many, such as Haynes and Dudley, had voiced their opposition. Among the settlers of Massa- chusetts were men possessed of wealth, of intellect, of strong will, of great ambition, and of qualities of leadership. They combined their talents in the protection of orthodoxy, but quarreled among them-
24
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
selves over routine problems, such as taxes, forts, and constables. At times, at least, their attitudes on public problems seemed determined by personal, political ambition. Ludlow, as Deputy Governor, for ex- ample, voted against Hooker's removal to Connecticut. The next year, when he had been left out of the magistracy, he became the avowed leader of the Dorchester adventure in Connecticut.18 These men, am- bitious and eager for the opportunities of the frontier, used their wealth to finance a wilderness settlement, to create a domain of their own.
Whether because of the discontent in Massachusetts, the ambitions of the leaders, the opportunities in the new territory, the interplay of these factors, or for these and more reasons, the year 1635 is properly identified as the beginning of effective settlement in Connecticut. Con- ditions were favorable for settlement and there were those who were willing to take their chance in the wilderness.
Squatters in the Connecticut Valley
The first settlers came to Connecticut without any claim to the land other than that which they could enforce by their own will. They were squatters who based their claims on actual possession. They came into conflict with one another as they vied for possession of the most de- sirable locations.
There arrived from England in the middle of June, 1635, an ex- pedition organized and financed by Sir Richard Saltonstall and led by Francis Stiles. Stiles incurred a delay of ten days at Boston Harbor which proved very costly.19 A group of residents in Dorchester, Massa- chusetts, heard of Stiles' arrival in Boston and immediately hurried over- land to establish a prior claim to territory along the Connecticut River.2º The Dorchester group found settlers from Plymouth in the Windsor area by whom they were well received and from whom they received help for the exploration of the lands thereabout. While the Dorchester settlers were reconnoitering up the river, the settlers from Plymouth were joined by the Stiles' group of twenty men who immedi- ately set to work erecting houses.21
The people from Dorchester could not find any place so well adapted to their needs as the area already occupied by Plymouth set-
25
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
tlers. They returned and took possession of it, saying "God by his providence" cast them upon it. The Puritan could quote scripture to Pilgrim as well as to Indian, when seeking a rationale for land acquisi- tion. "It was the Lord's waste" and altogether devoid of inhabitants who could use it "to the right ends for which the land was created." They concluded that, therefore, the land was free for themselves to own and improve. The Pilgrims replied: "Our mind is otherwise and ... you cast a partial, if not a covetous eye, upon that which is your neighbor's. . .. Look that you do not abuse God's providence."22 The settlers from Plymouth launched a formal protest in August of that year, which was repeated many times in the two years that ensued before it was settled by the Puritans' agreeing to pay for that which they had already appropriated.23
The Dorchester Puritans used force to drive Stiles and his group of Puritans to the northern fringe of settlement, an area insufficient in meadow land. Saltonstall, the backer of the Stiles group, at various times enlisted the support of leaders in New England to assist him in laying out a tract of 1,600 acres between New Plymouth and the falls of the Connecticut and to secure payment for his losses which he estimated to be 1,000 to 1,500 pounds.24 He protested vigorously, but in vain, and could but lament: "Had I but imagined they would have thus greedily snatched up all the best grounds upon the River, my pinnace should rather have sought a pilate at New Plymouth than to have stayed ten days as she did in the Bay and to have given them such warneing thus to prevent me."25
The initial Dorchester pioneers were followed in October by an- other contingent of their group, fifty men, women, and children. These settled to the south of Windsor and were later referred to as the "north- siders" of Hartford. When an early winter endangered the colony, a group of seventy or more settlers battled their way to the mouth of the Connecticut, where they found a vessel and attempted unsuccessfully to send back aid to the Windsor settlement. Another small group met with harrowing experiences as they attempted to return to Massachusetts, and, for those who remained at Windsor, it was a tragic winter. Inter- est in moving to Connecticut continued, but opportunity for settlement without a semblance of legal sanction had passed.26
26
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Settlement under the Warwick Patent and March Commission
The settlement of Connecticut now entered a new phase. The first settlers had come into Connecticut as squatters and based their rights to the land on the possession of the territory. Now an attempt was made to give legal form to the claim to the Connecticut territory. By an in- genious arrangement, the Warwick Patent was utilized in the formation of the March Commission, which provided the first rudimentary form of government for Connecticut.
A patent for land extending 120 miles west of the Narragansett River, including the whole of Connecticut, was granted by the Earl of Warwick in 1632 to a group of eleven gentlemen, who included the Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Brooke, and Sir Richard Saltonstall.27 The Earl, who had demonstrated his friendship for colonizing efforts in the New World, was President of the New England Council, which, nom- inally at least, had the right to make grants of territory. A question may be raised, however, as to the validity of this document, although Con- necticut later based her claim for a charter upon it. Warwick, as an in- dividual, even though President of the Council, did not have undis- puted right to make grants of land. He was relying upon his influence within the Council, rather than upon his authority, to assure the grant. The next year, 1633, the New England Council agreed to a rough draft of the patent, but there is no evidence that the Council ever is- sued an actual patent. In the absence of this formal confirmation, the grant remained without final validity. It is clear, nevertheless, that Warwick and others believed that they had sufficient authorization for settlement, and when conditions became particularly difficult for the Massachusetts Puritans in the winter of 1634-35, plans were made to lay claim to the territory delineated in the Warwick grant.28
It was decided that southern Connecticut should be the location of the projected Puritan colony. John Winthrop, Jr., who had gone to England in the fall of 1634 soon after his father had been deposed from the Governorship, and who was apparently disillusioned with Massachusetts and desirous of settling elsewhere, was commissioned leader of the expedition. He was ordered to provide at least fifty able men for erecting fortifications and houses at the mouth of the Connect- icut River. He was granted 2,000 pounds which he took with him
27
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
when he sailed from England and was sent at least another 1,000 pounds at a later date. Leaders of the company impressed upon Win- throp the necessity of preempting the territory and emphasized the necessity of erecting fortifications immediately. In November, one month after Winthrop arrived in Massachusetts, a vessel with twenty men started off for the Connecticut River to take formal possession of the territory. They arrived on the 24th of November, and under the di- rection of Lion Gardiner, an English engineer, they built houses and a fort and constructed a palisade of whole trees set in the ground.29
This settlement sent to Saybrook by Winthrop raised the question of the title of those squatters who had already moved into the Connecti- cut area and of others who were planning to move there. Winthrop as- sumed that the Warwick patent had been officially granted and wished to know by what right others "have lately taken up their plantations" within the area of the patent and "what government they intended to live under, because the said country is out of the claim of the Massa- chusetts patent." He asked if they acknowledged the rights and claims of the grantees of the Warwick patent and if they would submit to his counsel and direction as Governor. If, instead, they intended to en- trench upon the lands unjustly, he requested that they inform him what answer could be given to the patentees in England.30
The question of title, thus posed, was indeed difficult, for Massa- chusetts had already given official support to some of the settlements al- though the Massachusetts patent did not permit it to authorize settle- ments outside its limits.31 An effort was made to solve the problem in a manner that would be mutually acceptable. Conferences on the sub- ject of removal must have occurred between October 1635 and March 1636 among interested parties. These would have included Thomas Hooker, who was known to be planning to remove to Connecticut the following spring, and Roger Ludlow, who was back from the Dorchester settlement at Windsor. To speed the solution of the difficulty, Win- throp suggested that the meetings be held in secrecy. Apparently an effort was made to contact Lord Saye and Sele, but no reply had been received when agreement was reached on March 3, 1636.32
Under this agreement, reached under the nominal arbitration of the Massachusetts General Court, those in Connecticut and those wish-
28
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
ing to go there recognized Winthrop as Governor and the validity of the Warwick deed to the whole territory. Winthrop, on the other hand. recognized the right of the Hooker group to settle within the limits of
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
WETHERSFELD-GREAT ELM, PLANTED IN 1758 LARGEST TREE IN CONNECTICUT, NOW GONE
the grant, although his instructions did not give him the authority to permit the establishment of such independent settlements. An im- portant part of this agreement, too, was the creation of a rudimentary form of government, afterwards known as the March Commission. It was provided that a commission of eight men (two from each of the settlements of Windsor, Wethersfield, Hartford, and Springfield) would
29
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
be the governing body for Connecticut for the first year. These commis- sioners were empowered to perform all the ordinary functions of gov- ernment such as policing, defense, judication, regulation of commerce, and assembling of inhabitants for the purpose of executing their in- structions. 33
As a legal contract, the March Commission may be open to ques- tion. It had the strength, however, that is derived from the consent of those governed, for it seems in fact to have emanated from among the settlers themselves. Later, during a dispute over the jurisdiction of the two colonies, when Massachusetts claimed that Connecticut had been settled in her name since the March Commission had been prepared un- der the auspices of her General Court, the Connecticut delegates in- sisted stoutly that the March Commission had originated with the im- migrants. A comparison of the March Commission provisions with the Massachusetts codification, then being made by John Cotton, indi- cates such dissimilarity that it seems unlikely that the Massachusetts Court could have produced the March Commission. The similarity of the March Commission provisions to the later Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, however, would support the idea that they did emanate from the same source. Roger Ludlow is credited with the authorship of both documents, in conformity to the ideas and purposes of Hooker and others.34
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.