USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 6
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
In the Puritan scheme of things, as in all political conceptions of that era, there was little evidence of the democratic ideals of a later time. The great concern of the Puritans was always the solidarity of
52
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
the community. Itinerants and strangers were at liberty to stay away. When a new settlement was created, the land was given to the commu- nity, which distributed it to individuals. Frequently those with greater estates received proportionately larger shares of land. The town gov- erned most of the affairs which involved the relation of one individual to another, as in the use of the forests, the meadows, the waste, and all other natural resources. In these, and in other things, the community came first. Democracy was not only not practiced, it was antithetical to the belief in a society of the elect, which was the very basis of Puritan- ism.40
Although it might be agreed that the Fundamental Orders do not merit the appraisals so frequently accorded them, and although it is im- portant to note the mediaeval overtones, especially as they paralleled guild arrangements, they nevertheless contained important principles of representative government. The intent of the Fundamental Orders patently was not merely to reproduce the practices of government else- where, and the legislative method initially outlined for Connecticut was radically different from that practiced in Massachusetts when Hooker was there. The General Court of the Bay Colony consisted of the Governor, Deputy Governor, other magistrates (or assistants), and the deputies. The passage of a proposal could be killed by a "Negative Voice" of the magistrates. This "Negative Voice" was frequently used, as Winthrop said, "to balance the greater number of the deputies."41 Thomas Hooker had seen it used effectively to refuse him permission to remove to Connecticut in 1634 even though the majority of the court had then voted for removal. Later, in reply to Winthrop's often quoted assertion "that the best part was always the least and that of the best part the wiser part was always the lesser," Hooker declared that he "chose neither to live or to have his posterity live under such a government."42 In Connecticut, the first arrangement under the Fundamental Orders did not allow the magistrates a "Negative Voice." The voice of the deputies was supreme. However, in 1644, legislation reducing the num- ber of magistrates necessary to form a lawful court was coupled with the provision that "No act shall passe or stand for a law wch is not con- firmed both by the major part of the said magestrates, and by the major prte of the deputies then present in Court, both magestrates and depu-
53
THE BASIS OF GOVERNMENT
ties being allowed, eyther of thee, a negative voate."43 Although this alteration occurred in 1644, the Fundamental Orders at first had in- augurated a basis of control which was broader than in Massachusetts.
It is significant that the Connecticut government originated among the settlers themselves.44 The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut were patterned for the demands of a Puritan Commonwealth which intended "to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus." The document served the purposes of its originators remarkably well. In addition, it contributed to the growth of represent- ative government. It is important not merely for the limited benefits which it conferred, but also because the import attributed to it subse- quently was itself an indication of the flowering of a concept which had been furthered, though not fathered, by the Fundamental Orders.
Town Government
The machinery of Connecticut government was extended to the towns when, in October, 1639, the General Court established the priv- ileges and limitations of local governments. The laws of concern to the towns were forwarded to town constables to be published. The con- stables, also, were to read aloud, once a year, those that had been re- pealed. The towns were to enforce the laws of the General Court and could enact laws of their own if these did not conflict with those of the Court. Although the towns were permitted to name their own officers, the selection, apparently, was always subject to the approval of the Court. The clerk of the town was to keep vital statistics and transmit these to the Secretary of the Court for recording. In each of the settle- ments, there was established a town court, which was to meet every two months to hear all controversies between parties of the same town, pro- vided the amount involved was not greater than forty shillings.45 Thus, from the beginning the considerable extent of the control exercised by the central government over the towns was evident.
The New Haven Government
The government of the New Haven colony during the first year of its settlement was very similar to the initial arrangements in other
54
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
New England communities. On "the first day of Extraordinary humili- ation," a plantation covenant was entered into for the purpose of ar- ranging the civil affairs of the colony. It is probable that several of the settlers had agreed on the main features of government.46 It would have been extraordinary indeed for the guiding hands of Davenport and Eaton not to have been apparent in these first months of settlement.
Their period of residence in Massachusetts had provided an op- portunity for them to become familiar with Massachusetts forms. Davenport lived for nine months in the house of John Cotton, who had presented to the General Court of Massachusetts on October 25, 1636, a code of laws which he recommended as "a model of Moses his judicials compiled in an exact method." It consisted of ten chapters dealing with matters of concern to the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the colony. The code reflected the practices which existed in Massachusetts at the time: it provided for Congregational churches, and limited the fran- chise and the right to hold office to church members. This limitation of franchise, which was a new idea to Davenport, was one to which he was receptive. A copy of the code was not available, apparently, when Davenport moved to New Haven but was sent later, and in the mean- time, Davenport carried Cotton's Discourse About Civil Government.47
When the free planters of New Haven met in Robert Newman's barn on June 4, 1639, the fundamental query posed by Davenport for determination by the assemblage concerned the qualifications for suf- frage and office holding. Davenport presented his conviction that all free burgesses should be members of the church of New Haven or of another approved church of New England. The recommendation did not elicit any discussion, so Eaton moved the question. By unanimous vote, it was established that only such church members should have the right to choose magistrates and officials, make laws, transact public business, divide inheritances, and perform other similar duties in the colony.48
Only after unanimous assent had been twice accorded did a protest come from a dissenter, uncertainly identified for us. In this protest it was granted that freemen and magistrates should be God-fearing men and that such men would ordinarily be found in the church, but it was suggested, nevertheless, that free planters should not permit all power
55
THE BASIS OF GOVERNMENT
to slip from their hands and it was proposed that provision be made for the planters to resume their power if "things were nott orderly carryed." The dissenter declined to elaborate his views since he had let the vote pass previously without protest. Davenport apparently found the sug- gestions obnoxious, and, to efface their effect, he called for a third vote of reaffirmation, after suggesting as lure for consent that "the rest . . . expect in time to be of ye livery themselves, and to have the same power." The free planters had already agreed that they desired to be "admitted into church-fellowship according to Christ, as soon as God shall fitt them thereunto," and did not impair their chances of selection by any recalcitrance at this point. The third vote was again unanimous and reinforced by the assertions of some "that they were now fully con- vinced thatt itt is the minde of God."49 Thus, New Haven resolved the basic principles of government which constituted its "Foundamentall Agreement" or written constitution.
Later, the outlying settlements of Guilford, Milford, and Stamford joined the New Haven settlement to secure the protection of the confederation of New England colonies which had been established. A distinction was then made between the town and the colony of New Ha- ven, and, for the latter, the structure of a colonial government was estab- lished. In general, the principles of the Cotton Code were extended. Structurally, the fundamental orders of New Haven provided for a government which was similar to that of Connecticut. The code was extended and amended until, in 1654-55, Governor Eaton was directed by the General Court to review the laws and to draw up those which he believed necessary. Eaton did not merely rely upon the laws in existence in New Haven but also drew heavily upon the Massachusetts Code of 1648. When prepared, the laws were printed in London and, in the summer of 1656, were forwarded to the settlements within the jurisdic- tion of New Haven.50
The New England Confederation
As New Haven and Connecticut were inaugurating new forms of government for internal affairs, Thomas Hooker and John Haynes, while on a visit to Boston in May 1639, revived a proposal for the cre- ation of a league of friendship among the New England colonies. The
56
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
need for such an organization had been recognized as early as 1637. This need was emphasized by challenges to religious orthodoxy, such as the Anne Hutchinson controversy in Massachusetts; by the danger from the Indians; and by the potential threat of the Dutch and French. The nu- merous differences between Connecticut and Massachusetts make it diffi- cult to determine the specific reasons for delay. Jealousy, prejudice, and self-interest on the part of both states, however, played a part. John Win- throp feared for his colony to be bound by determinations influenced by the democracy which he considered to exist in Connecticut. He had expostulated earlier about the "unwarrantableness and unsafeness of referring matters of counsel or judication to the body of the people."51 Massachusetts interjected claims to Springfield and to the right to navi- gate the Connecticut as conditions to the proposed agreement. Con- necticut's fear of being absorbed by the older colony contributed to her reluctance to league with Massachusetts. Her irritation was sharpened by the belief that Massachusetts was discouraging immigration to Con- necticut. She refused, in 1638, to accept the proposal that the decision of the majority of Commissioners of the colonies should be final. In- stead, Connecticut, at that time, insisted upon a veto power by suggest- ing that the Commissioners' decision should be final only when agree- ment was unanimous.52
The French menace increased the interest of each of the New Eng- land colonies in cooperation. An attempt to achieve confederation su- perseded negotiations for bilateral agreements. Hooker had secured an agreement of cooperation with George Fenwick of Saybrook and had sought a similar agreement with Rhode Island. The Massachusetts Gen- eral Court, however, refused to enter into any league which included Roger William's colony. Connecticut, in the realization that any effec- tive alliance must include Massachusetts, then appointed John Haynes and Edward Hopkins to go to the Bay colony to effect a confederation of the New England colonies, or to secure an agreement between Massa- chusetts and Connecticut. To New Haven, confederation was a neces- sity. The commercial interests of her settlers had created new points of conflict as they expanded into territories claimed by the Dutch and the Swedes. In May of 1643, Eaton and Gregson from New Haven met with the delegates sent by Connecticut to Massachusetts, two delegates from
57
THE BASIS OF GOVERNMENT
Plymouth, and six appointed by the Massachusetts General Court to confer upon the matter of confederation.53
The deliberations in Boston resulted in the creation of a league of friendship among Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Haven, and Plymouth to perpetuate the truth and liberties of the gospel and to pro- mote the mutual safety and welfare of the colonies. Each colony was to appoint two Commissioners who would meet the first Thursday of each September and in extraordinary session as required. Two meetings in each five-year cycle were to be held in Boston; the other three in Hart- ford, New Haven, and Plymouth. The President, who was chosen from among the Commissioners, was not to cast tie-breaking votes. Decisions by the Commissioners had to be based on a vote of six out of the eight. Otherwise, questions were to be referred to the General Courts of the four colonies for conclusion.54
The arrangements constituted a confederation. It was provided that the colonies would have "peculiar Jurisdiction and government within their limmetts," and, in its administration, the Council of the Confederation was to guard against "intermedling with any of the Juris- dictions." The relation of the Council and the several General Courts, however, remained ambiguous. Since the prerogatives of the Council were more specifically defined than those of the member colonies, the General Courts of the colonies ultimately dominated the Council. This development was made easy by the General Courts' control of the purse.55
In civil affairs, the Confederation was "to frame and establish agree- ments and orders in genall cases" which included the preservation of peace among themselves, free and speedy justice in all the colonies, and the admission without certificate of those who moved to one colony from another. Provisions were made for the return of escaped servants and prisoners. It was established, too, that the colonies within the con- federation would conduct their relations with the Indians in such a way that the latter would neither grow insolent nor be injured. The con- federation adopted an attitude of paternalism toward the Indians, dis- bursing funds for their Christianization when this was undertaken.56
To provide for the security of the colonies, it was established in theory that if any three magistrates of any of the jurisdictions called for
58
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
assistance, the other colonies should respond without delay. The regis- tration of all males in each colony between the ages of sixteen and sixty was required. For every 100 men furnished by Massachusetts, each of the other three member colonies was to supply 40, "if that were not too great a proportion." The number and proportion of men could be al- tered by the General Courts.57
A conscious effort was apparently made to prevent any one colony from involving the others in aggressions to further some special interest. Inasmuch as "the justest war may be of dangerous consequences espe- cially to the smaller plantations," it was provided that no one of the colonies nor any part of them should engage in war without the consent of at least six of the eight commissioners. In keeping with this caution, although it was provided that the cost of a war was to be borne propor- tionately, it was arranged that no charge would be made to any of the confederates until the commissioners had approved the justness of the war and had agreed upon the amount of money to be paid. It was pro- vided further that if investigation showed that a war presumed to be de- fensive had been caused by a fault of the colony invaded, that colony would have to make satisfaction to the invaders and bear all the costs of the war alone.58
The resources of Massachusetts made it inevitable that she would dominate the confederacy. Her preponderance was recognized by the other colonies when they agreed that for two years out of every five confederation meetings would be held in Boston and that Massachusetts representatives should sign first after the confederation President and have first place at all public meetings. The temper of the Massachusetts General Court was revealed when it insisted, in 1645, upon its right to commission the forces sent in defense of Uncas. Massachusetts yielded to the Commissioners of the Confederation upon this occasion only with the warning that Massachusetts reserved this right in the future. Iron- ically, Massachusetts exerted her influence over the Confederation, not by votes of her Commissioners in opposition to projects which would entail her being called upon to supply the greater proportion of men and materials, but by the refusal of her General Court to supply the necessary aid and assistance to which the decisions of the confederation technically bound her.59
59
THE BASIS OF GOVERNMENT
The attempt of Connecticut to cooperate with other New England colonies was beset with difficulties from the beginning. The relative power positions of the colonies were not reflected in comparable voting powers in the confederation. The arrangement could last, then, only so
SOMETIMES TEACHE
NOI WHO DYED
our vilall grain
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
WINDSOR-TOMB OF REV. EPHRAIM HUIT, OLDEST TOMBSTONE IN THE STATE, DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 1644
long as it was of particular advantage to the colony with the greatest strength. When it ceased to be offered this, such a colony would be un- willing to accept the dimunition of power entailed in membership. Ironically, it was Massachusetts, the strongest colony, who had refused what would have amounted to veto power when she had opposed Con- necticut's suggestion that decisions should be based on an unanimous vote. Yet, when Massachusetts no longer felt herself menaced by the
60
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
French, she found few compensations and many liabilities attending membership in the confederation. The Council of the Confederation received its sternest test in matters concerning the relation of Connecti- cut to her neighbors. There is little to suggest that the organization or its provisions had a great influence on history.
NOTES-CHAPTER III
1 Preamble, Fundamental Orders.
2 Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England.
3 Andrews, "Early Aspects of Connecticut," pp. 8-9; and above Ch. II.
4 Perry Miller, The New England Mind, From Colony to Province (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), P. 54.
5 Samuel Eliot Morison, The Puritan Pronaos, Studies in the Intellectual Life of New England in the Seventeenth Century (New York, 1936), p. 155.
6 Ibid., pp. 155-57; Miller, New England Mind, p. 21; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 102-103.
7 Miller, New England Mind, pp. 21-26, 53-54.
& See above, Ch. II.
9 Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., I, p. 20; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 101.
10 George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory (New York: c. 1937), (1955 ed.), pp. 362, 365, 367-70, 372 ff., 376-84; William Y. Elliott and Neil A. McDonald, Western Political Heritage (New York: c. 1949), (1950 ed.), pp. 382, 385-86.
11 Ibid., pp. 388; Sabine, History of Political Theory, p. 358; Thomas P. Jenkin, "The Study of Political Theory" (New York, 1955), p. 38.
12 Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., I, p. 20.
13 Jenkin, "Study of Political Theory," p. 25.
14 Andrews, Colonial Period of American History, II, p. 105, note 1.
15 Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 2-20; William M. Maltbie, "Judicial Administration in Connecticut Colony before the Charter of 1662," Connecticut Bar Journal, June 1949. The second part of the same discussion is found in the September, 1949, issue of the same journal.
16 Conn. Col. Rec., I, p. 118. The alteration is recorded under the date of February 5, 1644. Internal evidence, however, suggests that this date is more likely in the year 1645.
17 Concluded on the basis of an analysis of the sessions of the Court from 1639 to 1659. See Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 20-334.
19 Ibid., pp. 20-334.
20 General Statutes, State of Connecticut, 1955 Supplement, Vol. I (Hartford), Title I, Ch. I, Sec. 5d, p. 2.
21 Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 20-334.
22 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 110-11.
23 Crane Brinton, Ideas and Men, The Story of Western Thought (New York, c. 1950), pp. 293-94; Sabine, History of Political Theory, pp. 372-73, 383-84.
24 Brinton, Ideas and Men, pp. 294-95.
25 Andrews, "Early Aspects of Connecticut," pp. 8-9.
26 Brinton, Ideas and Men, pp. 260-61.
61
THE BASIS OF GOVERNMENT
27 William B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1789, I (Boston and New York, 1890), p. 222; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 111-13.
28 Miller, New England Mind, pp. 53, 82.
29 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 142-43, note.
30 See above, Ch. II.
31 Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 119, 138, 150, 256, 290, 293, 351.
32 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 111.
33 Andrews, "Early Aspects of Connecticut," pp. 11-12.
34 Conn. Col. Rec., I, p. 293; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 104-105.
35 Ibid., p. 118.
36 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 106.
37 Ibid., pp. 106-107.
38 Ibid., p. 105, note 4.
39 Ibid., p. 106.
40 Ibid., p. 112.
41 Conn. Col. Rec., I, p. 133.
42 Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 88. See above, Ch. II.
43 Conn. Col. Rec., I, p. 119.
44 See above, Ch. II.
45 Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 36-40.
46 Charles J. Hoadley, ed., Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, from 1638 to 1649 (Hartford, 1857), pp. 12, 20; Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 50-52.
47 Ibid., and pp. 41-44; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, p. 156.
48 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 106-107; Charles H. Levermore, The Republic of New Haven (Baltimore, 1886), pp. 17-25; New Haven Col. Rec., 1638-49, pp. 11-20.
49 Ibid., pp. 14-15.
50 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 116-129.
51 Ibid., pp. 79-80.
52 Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, I, pp. 231-32, 287-91, 301-302; Conn. Col. Rec., I, p. 30; Collections, Conn. Hist. Soc., I, "Rev. Thomas Hooker's Letter," pp. 1-18.
53 Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 30, 68, 82; Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, I, p. 30; Mass. Col. Rec., I, p. 305, II, p. 82; New Haven Col. Rec., 1638-49, p. 87; Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 113-15.
54 David Pulsifer, ed., Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England, IX, "Acts of the Commissioners of the United Colonies of New England, 1643-1651," (Boston, 1859), pp. 3-8.
55 Ibid., pp. 3-8, 31; Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 178-79, 196.
56 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, IX, pp. 3-8.
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid., pp. 25-109.
Chapter IV Expansion and Conflict
A FTER THE early settlements in Connecticut and that of New Haven had been firmly established under the terms of their po- litical covenant, there was persistent expansion along the shoreline, across the Sound, beyond the Hudson, and down the Dela- ware. Transportation limitations dictated that new settlements should be located along the Sound or along rivers. A residue of Indian hostility deterred settlement in certain areas, as around Middletown, which was not considered safe until 1646, and lingered much longer in outlying areas. The great wilderness backcountry was still the province of a few traders.1
The Extension of Settlements
The development of the towns falls into rather definite cycles. In the first of these, towns were established by groups coming from outside the colony. This cycle ended with the founding of Guilford in 1639. The towns established during this first period then served as "mother towns," constituting the source of all new settlements until the last quarter of the century. In the last phase, these new settlements, in turn, pushed out and formed communities such as Woodbury in 1673 and Danbury in 1685. All settlements planted after 1639 were offshoots of established communities.2
For the most part new settlement was undertaken because the re- maining extent of unappropriated land within established towns was not adequate to absorb further population increase. However, although all settlements were expected to walk properly in the light of God, sometimes the new settlements stemmed from incompatible interpreta-
63
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
tion as to what was so revealed. The ecclesiastical life of Wethersfield grew so unsettled that John Davenport was called in to resolve the diffi- culties. The situation was apparently beyond his persuasive powers, and, in 1641, he invited one group to remove to Stamford. Similar dis- satisfaction in Stratford resulted in the settlement of Woodbury. In 1665, the preaching of the second pastor of Stratford aroused the indig- nation of certain of his congregation who invited another to preach to them. For a time the meeting house was shared, but the dissension aroused such emotions as to prevent the continuance of the arrange- ment. Finally, one minister petitioned for removal to Woodbury, and fifteen of his congregation settled there.3
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.