USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 4
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
It had been agreed that Hooker and a group of Newtown residents could remove to Connecticut, but the departure of Hooker, himself, had to be delayed until someone was found who was sufficiently in- structed in the ecclesiastical policy of Massachusetts to assume Hooker's duties as Pastor at Newtown. At least two contingents of the Hooker group of settlers preceded him to Connecticut: a group in 1635 under the leadership of William Goodwin, and another group in the spring of 1636.35 Before Hooker's arrival, then, negotiations had been begun with the Indians, a constable had been appointed, and rules had been drawn for the control of the livestock.36 After instruction, the Reverend Thomas Shepard, who had been a fellow passenger of John Winthrop, Jr.'s, on his return voyage from England, assumed the pastoral respon- sibilities of Newtown. Shepard and his followers bargained for the houses of those who had already gone to Connecticut and of those who
30
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
were planning to go. Arrangements were made, too, for the water trans- portation of the household goods of the group. On May 31, 1636, Hooker and a group of thirty-five men, with women and children, and sufficient cattle to stake a new colony, departed for Connecticut, follow- ing the "Old Bay Path" marked by the earlier settlers.37
The River plantations, as the settlements on the Connecticut were called, were typical frontier communities. In them, the greatest effort was given to securing the necessary subsistence for survival. Attempts were made to maintain amicable relations with the Indians, necessary defenses were organized, constables were appointed, a form of a jury was established, and, of course, efforts were made to protect the morals of the residents. The boundaries of the settlements were surveyed and the names of the towns changed. Dorchester became Windsor, Pyquag became Wethersfield, and Newtown became Hartford. The towns as- sumed a more permanent status with the creation of a General Court.38
The General Court was formed when difficulties arose with the Pequot Indians and it seemed that war was approaching. It was believed that the towns should assume responsibility for the conduct of the war. The inhabitants of each of the three towns were asked, therefore, to come together for the purpose of electing representatives who were to sit with the magistrates as a General Court at Hartford on the first day of May.39 The immediate business of the court was the prosecution of the Pequot War.40
The Pequot War
The Pequots invaded Connecticut, it is thought, some time in the sixteenth century. Although the traditional view is that they came from the Hudson River Valley, this is by no means certain. Linguistically they are more closely identified with the Indians of Massachusetts. As the Pequots invaded the Connecticut Valley, they drove all before them, separating the Nehantics and establishing themselves on Long Island Sound. In return for trade and for assistance against the Narragansett Indians, the Pequots had, on at least two occasions, invited the English to share their territory. On the eve of their war against the English, they claimed authority over all of Connecticut east of the river and of the
31
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
coast as far west as New Haven. Their chief, Sassacus, commanded about five hundred warriors and controlled twenty-six subordinate tribes.41
The English had, at first, recognized the Indians' rights to the land based on the law of nature and had purchased title to it. After the In- dians had murdered Englishmen, however, it was felt that they had sacrificed their natural rights. The land was then free, it was believed, for settlement according to the Lord's will by those who used it more productively.42 The Puritans in Massachusetts determined that the Pequots and all other Indians should submit to the will of the white man. They organized an expedition to establish their supremacy and that of English law in a territory outside the boundaries of Massachu- setts, although from the beginning Lion Gardiner at Saybrook opposed the war and insisted that it had been unnecessarily provoked.43
Ostensibly, the Puritans organized their expedition to avenge the murders of John Oldham and John Stone. Yet neither of these was greatly respected in Massachusetts. Shortly before his death, Stone had been ordered by the Massachusetts Court "upon pain of death to come here no more, without the license of the court."44 Oldham, upon whom religious convictions rested lightly, was a member of the Church of England and "soe affected to his owne opinion as not to be removed from it neither by reason nor any persuasion." Although he later made his peace with the colony, it is clear that he was not a favorite of Mas- sachusetts.45 Yet, on July 20, 1636, under the leadership of John Ende- cott, four groups of twenty men each, under the separate commands of John Underhill, Nathaniel Turner, Ensign William Jaysen, and Ensign Davenport, were dispatched to avenge Oldham's and Stone's murders.46
Endecott demanded that the Indians immediately deliver the mur- derers and 1,000 fathoms of wampum, or, in lieu of the indemnity, twenty children as hostages. The Indians refused to meet these de- mands. In reprisal, the Endecott mission was able merely to destroy some Indian wigwams, canoes, and corn.47 Then, without murderers or indemnity, the Endecott forces returned to Massachusetts, as Gardiner had foretold, leaving the wasps they had raised about his ears.48
The anger of the Pequots had been aroused. They attempted to bring other Indians into alliance with them, arguing "that the English were minded to destroy all Indians."49 At the urgent request of Mas-
32
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
sachusetts, Roger Williams used his long friendship with the Narra- gansetts to thwart Pequot negotiations with them. Thereby, he saved his own settlement, and, even, the whole of lower New England.50 Dip- lomatic failure, however, did not deter the Pequots from independent acts of hostility. During the winter they killed three of Gardiner's men and captured another, whom they roasted alive. In a raid on Wethers- field, the Pequots killed three women and six men and took two maids captive. Although the captives were rescued, at Gardiner's pleas, by a Dutch captain, the threat of Indian fury had become a reality in Con- necticut.51
The Connecticut General Court, on May 1, 1637, declared "that there shall be an offensive war agt the Pequoitt." A force of ninety men, with necessary provisions and material, was levied from Hartford, Windsor, and Wethersfield.32 The services of Uncas, a Mohegan chief, and a former Pequot who had desired to be head of the Pequots, were accepted.53 The force proceeded to Saybrook, where it was joined by John Underhill and nineteen or twenty men from Massachusetts. Ma- son decided to approach the Pequot country through Narragansett ter- ritory rather than by the Pequot River, as ordered by the General Court. Even those who opposed this decision at the time it was made, judged in retrospect that it was this strategy which had lured the Pe- quots into a feeling of false security that enabled their surprise and defeat. When permission was secured to cross Narragansett territory, the party left immediately, too fearful of delay to await a force of forty men which had been sent from Massachusetts under Captain Daniel Patrick. A two day march brought the force within sound of the Pequot fort at Mystik.54
Mason and Underhill divided their forces, and, at daybreak, crept toward the fort. The troops entered separate gates and attacked the In- dians who were still groggy from sleep. The battle had raged for an hour, when Mason decided that, since he could not subdue the Pequot quickly, the fort must be fired. "Great and doleful was the bloody sight .. . , to see so many souls lie gasping on the ground, so thick, in some places, that you could hardly pass along." It was asked: "Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion?"55 And it was an- swered: "Thus did the Lord judge among the heathen."56 Those who
33
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
judged the matter thus considered their judgment reinforced when a successful rear guard action against 300 Pequots who came from a nearby fort allowed Mason and his men to reach the boats which had been brought to the Pequot harbor by Captain Patrick.57 "It was the Lord's doings," it was said, "and it is marvelous in our eyes!"58
It was considered necessary that the Pequots be completely annihi- lated, and the remnants fleeing to the West were stalked by the English. For pursuit, Connecticut outfitted forty men under Mason to join the 120 furnished by Massachusetts under Israel Stoughton. The Pequots were trailed to the great swamp at Fairfield.59 Various plans were ad- vanced for bringing the Indians to their knees. Thomas Stanton, who was familiar with the Indians, went among them and persuaded 200 non- combatants to surrender. During the night, the others were surrounded. Although some 60 or 70 managed to break through, there remained 180 captives, who were distributed among the Mohegans, Narragansetts, and Niantics. "Thus did the Lord scatter his enemies with his strong Arm."60
The Pequot War was the first of the white man's organized efforts to rid the country of heathen. The pattern of conquest during the next 250 years varied only in detail. The pleading of the humanitarians, such as Roger Williams, was lost amidst the fear of the majority for their security. Group after group of defeated Indians were sold into slavery or distributed among other Indian tribes. Individuals from such groups who escaped capture were hunted down by whites and by other Indians. The wigwam was replaced by the framed house. A primitive people gave way to that which Christian standards judged an advanced civili- zation.
The consequences of the war were not limited to the sphere of the settlers' relations with the Indians but were also evidenced in the eco- nomic sphere. "Although in strictness there was but three weekes and 3 dayes" due the soldiers, the General Court granted a full month's pay and later granted land for service in the war. Connecticut was heavily in debt, and a levy of six hundred and twenty pounds was ordered. A treasurer was appointed and collectors named for each of the towns. The war was followed by unusually high prices and a shortage of food. In the winter following the war, special measures were taken to supply
34
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the necessary corn. William Pynchon of Springfield was named the special agent of the colony in this matter. Connecticut felt his efforts afforded too little general relief and too much personal profit, and this
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
NEW LONDON-WINTHROP'S MILL, BUILT IN 1650 THE WINTHROP SCHOOL AT RIGHT, 1935
incident widened the rift between Springfield and other settlements along the Connecticut River.61
The political overtones of the Pequot War had but underscored the basic detachment of Springfield from the other new settlements. Although it was one of the original river settlements and its resident. Pynchon, one of the original eight commissioners of Connecticut, there was never a close relation between Springfield and the other towns. Springfield was on the frontier of settlement and became increasingly
35
1450878
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
independent. Its representative to the Connecticut General Court, Pynchon, attended only once. The intensification of differences between Pynchon and Hooker reflected the settlements' differences which stemmed from distance and from the rivalry between an agricultural economy and one based on fur trading. Springfield had not been asked to contribute troops for the prosecution of the Pequot War, although she was assessed 86 pounds and 15 shillings as her portion of indebted- ness. By 1639, the people of Springfield were inclined toward Massachu- setts. When she was not included in the Connecticut Commonwealth as organized under the Fundamental Orders in January, 1639, Springfield was recognized as an independent state by the Massachusetts General Court. When the New England Confederation was formed in 1643, Springfield chose to come in as an adjunct to Massachusetts.62
The New Haven Colony
The actuality of Indian hostility did not arrest migration to the Con- necticut area. While the Pequot War was in progress, there arrived in Boston Harbor a contingent of orthodox Puritans who became the set- tlers of New Haven. They came from Saint Stephen's Parish, Coleman Street, London. As occupants of the better houses that lined Coleman Street, they had been a closely knit community: those not related by blood or marriage were connected by business association. They illus- trated the close union which prevailed between Puritanism and capi- talism. They were interested in the flourishing livery companies and the enterprising trading companies of the time. The men who led them to New Haven, Theophilus Eaton and John Davenport,63 shared this com- mercial interest. Eaton was a member of the Eastland Company, and Davenport was interested in the Virginia Company, although it is not certain that he was actually a member of it. Both of these had contrib- uted funds for securing the charter for the Massachusetts Bay Company, and Davenport had been active in its affairs until it left England. It is not surprising that, from the beginning, the New Haven settlers showed little interest in agriculture but were intent on establishing a com- mercial colony.
The members of the group were strong Puritans, who had backed their non-conformity with their purses. The Bishop of London could
36
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
appoint a Vicar of his choice to Saint Stephens at an annual salary of eleven pounds. To a Vicar of their choice, however, the congregation would grant, in addition, a gratuity of 39 pounds. In 1626 a self-perpet- uating group of twelve or thirteen individuals had sought to acquire titles to ecclesiastical properties throughout England and Wales and to manipulate stipends to encourage ministers who had their favor and to eliminate those of whom they disapproved. The individuals in this group sought by this stratagem to alter the Church of England to suit their views. John Davenport had been a member of this group and was greatly relieved in 1633 when Charles I decided not to proceed against the members as individuals. Now Davenport decided that reformation of the Church of England was impossible and that he was no longer in agreement with the church discipline.
Until this time Davenport had not been ready to sacrifice the ad- vantage of sufferance by the Church. He had accepted the assistance of friends at court to have his conformity certified so that he would not lose his appointment to Saint Stephen's parish. He had replied accept- ably when called before the Court of High Commission for advocating a collection for the exiled Protestants of the Palatinate. On occasions he had defended conformity in disputations. Now, however, he felt sure that the new Archbishop, William Laud, would punish him to the ut- most for his part in the attempt to secure reform by controlling appoint- ments, and, as soon as he could place the affairs of his parish in order, he left for Holland in November, 1633.
Davenport's experiences in Holland somewhat paralleled those of Thomas Hooker, who, with John Cotton, had been partially responsi- ble for Davenport's conversion to non-conformity. The irascible and aged John Paget, who had earlier prevented the installation of Thomas Hooker as his co-Pastor, became ill. Davenport had assumed pastoral duties during Paget's illness but failed to secure a permanent position. The non-conformists of Amsterdam were then under the careful sur- veillance of agents of the Church of England and Paget lent willing ears to the reports of Davenport's unorthodoxy. Despite this opposition, the elders of the Church offered Davenport the position of co-Pastor, which he refused, and then they sought to secure his services as Lecturer or Assistant Pastor, which Paget prevented. Davenport found employment
37
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
at Rotterdam, where Hugh Peter was teaching the tenets of Congrega- tionalism. Davenport's writings irritated the English Church in Amster- dam, and, in 1636, he was ordered to appear before Sir William Boswell, the English Resident there. To avoid the summons, he disguised him- self as a country gentleman, returned to England, and, with Eaton, or- ganized a company to begin a settlement in the New World.
Because the Davenport group had many friends in Massachusetts, it seemed the logical place for their settlement. This had been their intention when they left England, but they were not pleased with con- ditions which they found in Massachusetts. The antinomian contro- versy, then rife in Massachusetts, was disturbing; and, despite the offers of various towns, there was no land available on a harbor where they could engage in commerce. They knew, too, that the crown was threat- ening to take over the Massachusetts charter. They heard favorable re- ports of the land around the Quinnipiac River, knew of the Saybrook settlement nearby, and were aware that the area was within that of the Warwick deed. On the last day of August, 1637, Eaton and several others started out to see this earthly paradise. According to tradition, they were so favorably impressed with the territory that several of their number remained at the site to secure their claim while Eaton returned to Boston, where he and Davenport attracted many new members to their group.
The company which entered the harbor of the Quinnipiac early in April, 1638, was without a clear title to the land: a condition which led eventually to the absorption of the colony by Connecticut. The group knew that the land was within the Warwick patent and appar- ently depended upon their friendship with the grantees to assure title if the question arose. At Davenport's request, they did begin negotiations for the purchase of the lands from the Indians, "which may pretend title thereunto." It seemed to be the practice of New Haven and of sur- rounding towns to make multiple purchases of the same piece of land when there were conflicting Indian claims in order to secure a clear title. In exchange for assorted cutlery, clothing, and tools, large areas of land were secured. The Indians retained planting land on the river and the right to hunt, to fish, and to kill beaver. Squatters on the land generally renounced their claims and joined the established settlement.
38
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
At its farthest limits, New Haven extended from the Hammonassett River to the western boundary of Milford and from the eastern bound- ary of Stamford to the western boundary of Greenwich.64 Title to this whole area was based primarily on Indian purchases which probably would not have stood close examination by an English court.65 The fate of the New Haven colony was determined finally, however, not by its independent expansion but by the more effective settlement and the more effective negotiations of the colony on the Connecticut River.
NOTES-CHAPTER II
1 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., I, p. 444; II, p. 34; Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, III, pp. 84-88; William De Loss Love, The Colonial History of Hartford (Hartford, Conn., 1914), pp. 2-7.
2 George Leon Walker has written the only worthwhile biography of Thomas Hooker, and the subsequent discussion is based primarily on this work. See Walker's Thomas Hooker (New York, 1891), pp. 1-44.
3 Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, I, p. 114.
4 Ibid., p. 125.
5 Ibid., p. 124.
6 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 74.
7 Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, I, pp. 132-34.
8 Ibid .; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., I, pp. 438-39.
9 Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, I, p. 133.
10 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., I, pp. 495, 510-11.
11 Allan Bailey Forbes, ed., Winthrop Papers (Boston, 1929-1944) (Massachusetts His- torical Society), III, p. 200.
12 Ibid., pp. 171-172.
13 Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, I, p. 130.
14 Forbes, ed., Winthrop Papers, III, p. 111.
15 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 84-86; Charles M. Andrews, "Some Early Aspects of Connecticut," New England Quarterly, XVII, March 1944, pp. 8-9.
16 Ibid., p. 82.
17 Ibid., p. 88.
18 Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, I, p. 133; Henry R. Stiles, The History of Ancient Windsor (New York, 1859), pp. 18-20.
19 Ibid.
20 Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, I, p. 163.
21 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 72-73.
22 Ibid .; Stiles, History of Ancient Windsor, pp. 17-25.
23 Forbes, ed., Winthrop Papers, III, pp. 220-30.
24 Arthur Percival Newton, The Colonizing Activities of the English Puritans (New Ha- ven, 1914), pp. 83-84. 174-77; Forbes, ed., Winthrop Papers, III, pp. 217-18, 243, 377- 86.
25 Ibid., p. 230.
26 Stiles, History of Ancient Windsor, p. 25; Winthrop's Journal, I, p. 163; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 75.
39
THE SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT
27 R. V. Coleman, in a short essay which deserves attention, has raised significant ques- tions relative to the Warwick Patent, upon which Connecticut based her territorial claims. Mr. Coleman holds that there is no positive evidence that Lord Saye and Sele and Lord Brooks knew before 1635 that they had a grant to a large area of land. Coleman contends that valid claims to the land were derived when the Council of New England distributed the lands of New England to its members just prior to concluding the official affairs of the Council. It is suggested that the settlers recog- nized this and chose to settle on the west side of the river in the area given by the Council to the Earl of Carlisle, who was expected to adopt a friendly attitude toward settlers. Coleman supports this by pointing out that the limits of Saybrook conformed to the limits of Carlisle's grant. It is conjectured further that this awareness of tenu- ous and conflicting claims may explain the lack of identification of the "persons of quality" mentioned in connection with Connecticut land titles in Winthrop's letter to the Massachusetts Court. It does seem, as Coleman states, that the English recog- nized their doctrine of effective occupation when practiced by English settlers against other Englishmen. See Coleman's The Old Patent of Connecticut (Westport, 1936). 28 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 75-77; Newton, Colonizing Activities, pp. 80- 84, 170-75.
29 Ibid., pp. 178-80; Forbes, ed., Winthrop Papers, II, pp. 198-99, 212-13.
30 James Savage, ed., "Winthrop's Journal" in Records of the Colony of Massachusetts, Nathaniel B. Shurtleft, ed., I (Boston, 1853), pp. 119, 148, 159. (Hereafter cited as Mass. Col. Rec.)
31 Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, I, pp. 477-78.
32 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 77.
33 Shurtleft, ed., Mass. Col. Rec., I, pp. 170-75; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 78-79.
34 Ibid., pp. 79-82.
35 Ibid .; Love, Colonial History of Hartford, pp. 10-16.
36 The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut (Hartford, 1850-1890), I, pp. 1-3. (Hereafter cited as Conn. Col. Rec.)
37 Love, Colonial History of Hartford, pp. 30-46; Florence S. Marcy Crofut, Guide to the History and the Historic Sites of Connecticut (New Haven, 1937), I, pp. 5-11.
28 Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 3-9; Love, Colonial History of Hartford, p. 40; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 92.
39 Professor Andrews implied that a General Court met prior to the first of May, 1637, when he referred to a General Court meeting of February 9, 1637. (See Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 94, n. 2.) The date 1637, ascribed to the document in the printed record (see Conn. Col. Rec., I, p. 12) is obviously an error in view of the statement in the report that "it is ordered there shal be forthwith a levey of sixe hundred and twenty poundes to be levied for to defray the charges of the late designes of warr that is already past." If the war had ended, the meeting must have been held in 1638.
40 Andrews, Col. Period of Conn. Hist., II, p. 92; Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 9-10. There has been a difference of opinion as to whether these Committees, as the representatives were called, were named by the Court or whether they were selected by the towns. Andrews is of the opinion that they were "selected" by the towns (II, p. 92); Donald Lines Jacobus agrees (see his "Connecticut's Colonial System," Connecticut Bar Jour- nal, Oct., 1937, pp. 359-65); E. F. Humphrey and Roger Wells hold that the Committees were named by the General Court (See Humphrey, "Connecticut's Colonial System," Connecticut Bar Journal, Oct., 1936, pp. 239-247).
40
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
41 Smithsonian Eth. Bull. No. 43, pp. 213-14; Smithsonian Eth. Bull. No. 145, pp. 44; DeForest, Indians of Connecticut, pp. 59-62.
42 Pearce, Savages of America, pp. 1-35. The attitude of the Puritan toward the Indian is elaborated in this source. Also, see above, ch. I.
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.