USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 7
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
The techniques of settlement were well developed. Small groups of people, generally less than sixty, who sought to enlarge their accom- modations and to walk properly in the light of God, would petition the Court for permission. Occasionally, a site was purchased from an estab- lished settlement, but generally land was secured directly from the colonial government. Almost invariably, the title was reinforced by the additional formal purchase from the Indians. The privilege to settle was extended to compact groups of people who controlled the land, church, and government, and could be expected to project the accepted terms of the covenant into their management. To encourage the settle- ment, the court frequently freed it from taxes for a period of years, and, when the settlement was considered to be properly established, it was invited to send deputies to the General Court.4
Despite the regulatory efforts, there were instances of unauthorized settlement by individuals. Jonathan Brewster of New London, for ex- ample, established a trading house at the junction of the Shatucket and Quinebaug rivers without permission of the court. He was permitted to stay, but his actions were considered "very disorderly." Such leni- ency was not always exercised, however, as when William Cheesbor- ough infringed upon a monopoly when he attempted to establish a trading house at Pawcatuck. The interloper was not only ordered to leave, but was also placed under bond not to continue his trade with the Indians.5
Efforts were sustained for a long period to prevent land from be- coming an object of speculation. Many plantation agreements, or court
64
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
requirements, stipulated that every planter must settle within three months on the land allotted to him. Exceptions to this time requirement were made where the settlers were bound together by social and re- ligious fellowship, or the process of settlement very gradual, or the loyalty of the members unquestioned. If a grant were not improved and
--
(Courtesy Conn. Devel. Comm.)
ANSONIA-RICHARD MANSFIELD HOUSE. OWNED BY THE ANTIQUARIAN AND LANDMARKS SOCIETY
settled as required, it reverted to the colony for disposition at the court's pleasure. Under these arrangements lands were reserved almost exclu- sively for settlement until the last quarter of the century.6
Toward the end of the 17th century, and to a much greater extent in the 18th, land grants were made, not in the interest of town develop- ment, but for purposes of speculation. The inequities of the late dis- tributions of commons, where there was a marked discrimination in favor of the wealthier owners, may have invested certain individuals in tracts too large for individual improvement and large enough to be held
65
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
for speculation. This would seem the possible intent behind purchases of Indian lands by voluntary subscriptions in shares of specified amounts without relation to the estate criteria used in conventional allocations of town lands. These lands were held and regulated by the shareholders until divided among them.7 New opportunities were presented by the opening of the northeastern section of the colony. The proprietors no longer constituted a compact body of settlers planning to make land grants on a determination of merit. They were in business from a profit motivation. The amount of desirable land had decreased, and the price had risen accordingly. When in 1684, the shrewd and capable Captain James Fitch gained title to practically all of Windham, he was ready to promote what must have been one of the most successful land opera- tions in the history of Connecticut. This operation was not completed until well into the 18th century, but its beginnings foreshadowed de- velopments. The influence of the court over land distribution was prac- tically eliminated. Speculative distribution of land marked an end in Connecticut to the earlier principles of town development and suggests, perhaps, that the balance between economy and religion was weighted in favor of free enterprise.8
The expansion brought New Haven and Connecticut into conflict with Sweden and New Netherlands. Although settlers moved into ter- ritory claimed by the Dutch, they remained primarily English in their culture, and especially in their political concepts. They looked to Con- necticut and New Haven, to the New England Confederation, and to the Crown for assistance in their contest with the Dutch. Their infiltra- tion was so successful that when England acquired New York, the Puri- tan settlers proved to have been the vanguard of Anglicization. In the larger conflict between England and the Netherlands, the land claims of New Haven and Connecticut were sometimes placed in hazard. This circumstance impelled the colonies to seek a charter from the Crown as a protection. Connecticut's success and New Haven's failure in negoti- ating a charter resulted in their union as a single colony in 1664.
The Dutch Rivalry
Rivalry for land was an important element early in the contest between Connecticut and New Netherlands. After 1638, when New
66
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Netherlands no longer considered trade the complete raison d'etre of the colony and began to encourage agriculture, land became important to the Dutch.º In this contest for land, the Dutch held advantages de- rived from basing possession on priority of claim and occupation on au- thorization from their government. Although Connecticut settlers were without a clear title from the English government, they had denied. from the beginning, the right of the Dutch to the territory along the Connecticut. This challenge they based on English claims to the terri- tory and on the contention that the Dutch purchases from the Pequot Indians were invalid, inasmuch as the Pequots, according to the Eng- lish, were themselves usurpers.1º Inevitably and invariably, they found that the Lord's will accorded with their occupation and improvement of the land. When the Puritans plowed up a land reserve around the Dutch redoubt in Hartford, it was because, as Governor John Haynes explained, "it would be a sin to leave uncultivated so valuable a land, which could produce such excellent crops."11
Controversies raged for months over such trivial incidents as that a cow belonging to the Dutch ate grass claimed by an Englishman. Such incidents provoked retaliations and the English and Dutch took turns raiding each other's provisions, blocking roads, pulling fences, and confiscating livestock year after year. It was in the name of the home governments that letters were exchanged and protests filed, but author- ities in Europe were too busily engaged to become involved in such colonial controversies.12
The absence of official support from England did not prevent settlers of Connecticut and New Haven from pressing westward in the direction of the Dutch and establishing settlements along the Sound. In September, 1639, the General Court granted Roger Ludlow the privilege of purchasing land from the Indians and establishing a plan- tation at Pequannock, from which came the towns of Stratford and Fairfield.13 Peter Prudden and his followers purchased, in 1640, the original tract upon which Milford was begun. In the same year Na- thaniel Turner purchased land for the Stamford settlement, and Robert Feake and Daniel Patrick of Watertown, Massachusetts, founded Green- wich. It was expected that these settlements would arouse Dutch op- position, and Greenwich, which was placed initially under the jurisdic-
67
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
tion of New Haven, even had to submit to Dutch control a year later.14
Although the efforts of New Haven along the Delaware became a source of friction with New Netherlands, initially these had received Dutch sanction. Captain Nathaniel Turner purchased land on both sides of the Delaware in 1640, and, in the Spring of the next year, he and George Lamberton outfitted a company of 24 families which set sail under the command of Robert Cogswell. They stopped at Man- hattan as requested and were permitted to proceed after assuring Governor Kieft that they did not intend to settle in lands claimed by the Dutch.15 After lands were occupied and trading houses commenced, the New Haven General Court declared that the plantation along the Delaware should be considered in combination with the town of New Haven, and Nathaniel Turner was authorized to go to the plantation for his benefit and for the public good. This settlement figured as an issue later when the contest for land merged into a competition for trade.16
Concurrently, while advancing their ambitions in the west and along the Delaware, the enterprising settlers of New Haven took ad- vantage of an opportunity to gain a foothold across the Sound. James Forrett, the agent of a claimant to Long Island, had attempted to settle the area. After being repulsed three times by the Dutch, Forrett, with the aid of New Haven, established Southampton in December, 1640. The settlers at New Haven moved quickly to secure title to the terri- tory. When Forrett had thus effectuated his employer's titles, New Haven purchased from him the northeastern arm of Long Island known as Southold. After the death of his employer, Forrett found himself without funds and sold the island between the arms of the Sound, of which he had taken possession for himself, to Stephen Goodyear, who offered it to New Haven. When New Haven declined to purchase the island, Goodyear then sold it to a group of purchasers who proved out of sympathy with New Haven's religious ideals. New Haven, then, claimed jurisdiction over it. Before returning to Scotland in the Sum- mer of 1641, Forrett mortgaged the undisposed remainder of Long Is- land to residents of Connecticut and New Haven, through whom claims passed to the colonies.17
To thwart the advance of the English, the Dutch attempted to
68
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
bolster their claim to territory east of the Harlem River and pur- chased the Norwalk Islands in the Spring of 1640. The next year the Governor of New Netherlands planned to reinforce the Dutch fort at Hartford with fifty men. "It pleased the Lord," as Winthrop pointed out, "to disappoint the purposes of the Dutch," through an Indian at- tack that forced the Dutch to retain these men for defense. The Gov-
(Courtesy Stamford Historical Society)
STAMFORD-HOME OF THE STAMFORD HISTORICAL SOCIETY, BUILT ABOUT 1730
ernor had to content himself with a prohibition made the next year forbidding commercial relations with the English at Hartford.18
To strengthen her position in the contest with the Dutch, Con- necticut sought to enlist outside support. In June, 1641, the settlers of Connecticut referred their problem to Massachusetts. The Bay colony refused to take sides in the argument, urged moderation, and suggested that Connecticut might be lenient in its dealings with the Dutch. However, in the fall of that year, Massachusetts sent Hugh Peter, a minister at Salem, to Holland to attempt to settle the western
69
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
problem by the purchase of New Netherlands.19 William Boswell, the English agent at The Hague suggested that the mission might be furthered if persons of quality should acquaint the Dutch Ambassador with the problem or if a statement could be secured from Parliament or the House of Commons to indicate concern for the English in Amer- ica.20 The English government, engaged in a Civil War, was not in- clined to support the ambitions of the colonies officially. The basic English principle of effective settlement was given special reference to the Connecticut-Dutch problem, however, by an enunciation of Lord Saye and Sele, one of the original grantees of the Warwick patent. In a letter to the Dutch Ambassador, he emphasized that there had never been more than five or six Netherlanders in Connecticut, while there were two thousand Englishmen. He united the Puritan rationale for oc- cupation with the Elizabethan justification by asserting that the Dutch had lived in ungodly ways unbecoming to the gospel of Christ.21 He appealed further by pointing out that the settlement at Dutch Point had never made a profit and would always be an expense to the Nether- lands. When the effort to negotiate purchase failed, William Boswell suggested continuance of the course which the Puritans had been fol- lowing. He recommended that they "push forward their plantations and crowd on, crowding the Dutch out of those places where they have occupied, but without hostility or any act of violence."22
As a next step, however, the colonies of Connecticut and New Haven brought the problem to the attention of the New England Con- federation, presenting complaints in September, 1643, against both the Swedes and the Dutch. Lamberton had disregarded his promise not to encroach on Dutch territory and had been driven away by the Dutch who had encouraged the Swedes to take similar action. The Confederation ordered its President to enter into negotiation with the Director Generals of New Netherlands and New Sweden.23 A clue to the limited extent to which the Confederation might be expected to press for adjustment was Winthrop's statement to Governor Keift that the land in question was so slight that there was no reason for it to cause a breach.24 The complaints which were made before the Confederation were forwarded to Governor Keift, and matters rested after his reasser- tion of Dutch rights.25 Connecticut and New Haven, in the years im-
70
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
mediately following, turned their attention to the development of towns in the general vicinity of the original settlements.26
Conflicting trading interests made it impossible for contention between the colonies and New Netherlands to be eliminated, and the next land claims came not as a result of population expansion but in an attempt to protect commerce. The injuriously high duties exacted from English merchants by the Dutch West India Company caused fric- tion with New Haven. New Haven not only protested and struggled against impositions on its merchants, but encouraged even Dutch mer- chants in attempts at evasion of the levies to which they were liable.27 In such an attempt, the St. Beninio sailed from the Netherlands, directly to New Haven. It lay at anchorage and traded for a month be- fore its presence was communicated to Peter Stuyvesant who had re- cently arrived in New Netherlands. He allowed it to continue the trade on the provision that it would then sail to New Amsterdam and pay the duties for which it was liable. When he learned that it intended to sail for Virginia without stopping in New Amsterdam to pay duties. he placed a rading party on a vessel which had been recently sold to a New Haven settler, and camouflaged the transport of troops under guise of delivery of the vessel. Arrival was well timed for seizure of the St. Beninio. The New Haven residents were still at worship on a Sun- day morning in October, 1647. John Fiske recorded that "there was clamour and cursing enough to disturb Parson Davenport's sermon, and some rushing from the pews to the meeting-house door ensued, but it was too late to stop the exultant Dutchman as he sped away with his prize up the Sound before a spanking breeze." The Puritans were out- raged at the violation of the Lord's day and long protested against the combination of public and private business. They allowed the owners of the St. Beninio to escape the consequences of their violation by taking out citizenship in New Haven.28
The ensuing correspondence was punctuated with invective hardly seemly for such worshipful people as the New Haven citizenry. Even the New England Confederation entered into the matter, asking for information concerning Dutch impositions and threatening retaliation when a satisfactory reply was not received. In the heat of the discussion, counter claims to territory were exchanged. On the Tuesday following
71
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
the St. Beninio raid, Stuyvesant proclaimed sovereignty over all terri- tory to the east as far as Cape Cod and declared that the Dutch would maintain its claim by force if necessary. At the same time, Theophilus Eaton reasserted New Haven's claim to the lands purchased on the Delaware. In 1649, New Haven asked the Confederation for instruc- tions concerning the furthering of their interest in this area. The United Colonies declined to send men to possess the area, but left the merchants of New Haven "to theire Just libertie to dispose Improve or plant the land they have purchased in those parts or any part thereof as they shall see Cause." New Haven construed this to mean that she could extend her holdings on the Delaware when she desired.29
The strained relations of the Dutch and the English lent credence to the possibility of a combination of the Indians with either power against the other. As the settlers advanced to the West, the peril of the Indian increased and rumors of dangers were easily spread, each in- tensifying the fear of the consequences of selling arms to the Indian. Both the English and the Dutch accused the other of this traffic. The Confederation, in 1647, urged the Dutch to vigilance, agreeing that Dutch laws were adequate for the suppression of the trade, but pointing to the strong temptation for excessive gain.30 The next year the United Colonies complained that the trade continued and that they had not been informed of any steps taken by the Dutch to stop it. By the Sum- mer of 1649, the dangers were asserted to be so great that the Con- federation forbade the trade of any foreigner with Indians within Eng- lish territory, that is, any territory claimed by the English.31
Stuyvesant recognized the dangerous course of events and sought to deflect it by reference to the respective home governments. The home governments were not willing to become involved at this time. The Puritan Civil War had just been concluded, and the Dutch were not inclined to enter into negotiations with the parliamentary govern- ment on such an issue. The English and Dutch in America, then, were left to their own diplomacy, and Stuyvesant agreed to meet at Hartford with the Commissioners of the United Colonies in an attempt to settle the difficulties.32
To begin this "first international negotiation on American soil,"33 Stuyvesant arrived in Hartford on September 11. In his first communi-
72
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
cation he twitted the austere Puritans by inserting "New Netherlands" in his heading along with a date line indicating plainly that he was writing after arrival in Hartford. The Commissioners, replying under the heading of Hartford in New England, refused to proceed with nego- tiations in the face of such presumptuous impertinence. Stuyvesant agreed to forbear from such assertions if the Commissioners would re- ciprocate. Thereafter, Stuyvesant used "Connecticut" as a heading. The President of the Confederation stretched reciprocity as far as dis- cretion permitted and used "Hartford upon Connecticut."34 In spite of the initial petulance, a New England scribe wrote that the Commis- sioners of New England "got his Excellency so far along by a sweet and right subtle line" that he was soon willing to negotiate.35 A more fundamental reason for his tractability was the more effective settlement of the English, whose population outnumbered the Dutch five to one. Although Stuyvesant first repeated the traditional claim to territory as far as Cape Cod, there is reason to believe that he came to the confer- ence prepared to draw a line in the vicinity of Stamford.36
The conference ended in the Treaty of Hartford, which was duly signed on September 17, 1650. The treaty was ratified by the States- General of The Netherlands in 1656, but never by the English, for to do so would have recognized the legal existence of the New Nether- lands. The treaty was to bind New Netherlands and the United Col- onies, however, pending other settlement by the home governments. According to the boundary settlement of the treaty, all land on Long Island to the east of the westernmost point of Oyster Bay was assigned to the English, which gave them about two-thirds of the island. On the mainland, a line was drawn from the west side of Greenwich north for twenty miles, from which point it was to be extended as subsequently determined by the respective governments providing that the line would not be within ten miles of the Hudson River. Neither nation was to build within six miles of this line, although Greenwich, under the Dutch, and Stamford, under the English, were to remain. The Dutch were to retain the fort at Hartford as a trading agency, but within narrow, specified bounds.37 The arbiters could but recommend maintenance of the status quo on the Delaware and hope that proceed- ings there "may bee carried on in love and peace till the right may bee
73
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
further considered and Justly issued either in Europe or heere by the two States of England and Holland."38
New Haven defined status quo on the Delaware to include efforts at furtherance of her occupation as well as its mere existence. In 1651, she sent fifty men to settle in the area. When they arrived in New York, Stuyvesant challenged New Haven's treaty interpretation by promptly placing the leaders in prison. He released them only when they agreed to abandon the project.39 The Confederation refused to give active sup- port to New Haven's project, and it was not renewed until knowledge was received of the outbreak of the first Anglo-Dutch war.40
Colonial truce became more tenuous in the face of the enmity of the home governments. In 1651, Cromwell's parliament attempted to curtail Dutch trade by passage of the first Navigation Acts. Stuyvesant was instructed to collect duties on English ships whether they came from England or from her colonies. Some colonists took advantage of the war to secure letters of marque authorizing them to seize Dutch ships for their own profit. Spies, smugglers, and privateers infested Dutch waters. Thomas Baxter, who held citizenship in both New Amsterdam and New Haven, traversed into piracy as he preyed indiscriminately on both Dutch and English shipping. A variant on such depredations was the land action of Captain John Underhill, who used his dubious letter of marque as authorization for action against the Dutch Fort of Good Hope at Hartford. After his contribution in the Pequot war, he had returned to Boston to bask in the glory into which, it was said, he had wormed and squirmed his way, until the Fathers there adduced a strong tinge of heresy and relieved themselves of the embarrassment of his amorous inclinations. He settled in Stamford for a time. Then, after the Confederation had declined to aid the Dutch against the Indians, Underhill extended his services. He lived in Hemp- stead until he was banished in 1653 for advocating that Dutch tyranny be overthrown for English rule. He was now eager to save the English from destruction by his capture of Fort Good Hope. After seizure, he sold it not once, but twice, which was hardly less disconcerting to the purchasers than that Connecticut subsequently claimed it in 1654.41
Connecticut and New Haven pressed for war by the United Colonies against New Amsterdam. They rehearsed all the old difficul-
74
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
ties and included the rumor that the Dutch were planning to engage the support of the Indians in a war of extermination against the Eng- lish. Concrete evidence was difficult to produce. The Massachusetts General Court appointed its own committee to examine the data re- ceived by the Confederation. It was found that the Commissioners themselves were in disagreement over a recommendation and it was con- sidered wise to consult the clergy. The clerical conclusion was that evidences of danger were not conclusive enough to justify war and the Massachusetts Court decided that "they did not understand they were called to make a present war against the Dutch."42
Colonial discussion now centered around the issue of states' rights.43 The articles of agreement of the United Colonies had pro- vided that the federal body was authorized to "heare, weigh and dtermine all affaires of our warr or peace."44 There had been many in- dications of Massachusetts' tendency for independent action, how- ever, and the other colonies had had no choice but to defer to her wishes.45 Its control of two-thirds of the potential fighting force allowed Massachusetts to have its way. As Thomas Hutchinson remarked, "Where states in alliance are greatly disproportional, in strength and importance, power often prevails over right."46 When Connecticut and New Haven inquired as to Massachusetts' position in the event that Connecticut and New Haven engaged in war, together with those who might volunteer from elsewhere, Governor Hopkins offered his per- sonal view that the deputies of Massachusetts would not approve "the shedding of their subjects' blood, except that they could satisfy their conscience that God called for it."47 There was little that Massachusetts stood to gain at the moment from a war with the Dutch: her trade was comparatively independent of New Netherlands and her frontiers had not so advanced as to be menaced by the Dutch. Massachusetts presented to the Confederation the interpretation that all questions concerning offensive wars would have to be referred to the separate legislatures before Confederation recommendation would be binding on the sep- arate colonies.48 With this denial of the very principle of union, Mas- sachusetts had nullified the Articles of Confederation.
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.