USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 8
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
Massachusetts altered her view on the desirability of immediate war when, in the summer of 1654, ships of the British navy arrived at
75
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
Boston harbor to vindicate the rights of the English. Preparations for war were made hastily. Commissioners were appointed to plan the cam- paign against the Dutch. Three hundred volunteers were to come from Massachusetts, 200 from Connecticut, and 133 from New Haven.
(Courtesy Conn. Devel. Comm.)
ESSEX-PRATT'S SMITHY
These were to be joined by 200 men from the English ships. It seemed possible that a force of 900 foot and a troop of horse would move against New Netherlands on June 27, 1654, the day appointed for the march to begin. On April 22, 1654, however, knowledge was received of the peace between England and the Netherlands.49
Despite the turn of events, New Haven continued efforts to de- velop the Delaware territory. Her venture of 1654-55 was different from earlier attempts which had been primarily experimental, exploratory,
76
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
and commercial. It was now attempted to establish a permanent colony which would have definite ties with New Haven. The importance at- tached to the venture is revealed, not only by the fact that the leading men of the colony were invited to participate in it, but also because the General Court agreed that if the settlement should prosper the court might sit alternately at New Haven and on the Delaware. It was antici- pated that eventually the seat of government might be moved there.50 In the end, New Haven's ambitions were thwarted. Not only were her attempts at expansion on the Delaware to fail, but also she was to lose the contest with Connecticut for leadership in southern New England.
The Charter of 1662
The restoration of the Stuarts was of great concern to New Haven and to Connecticut. The passage of a navigation act in the first year of the restoration indicated that England intended an aggressive policy toward the Dutch.51 It was feared, however, that Charles II intended an equally aggressive effort at controlling the colonies. Therefore, the Navigation act was regarded as unfavorable restriction, even though it did not in fact hurt commerce. The dangers considered implicit in the restoration seemed especially imminent to Connecticut and to New Haven who did not have indisputable charters from the Crown. New Haven's title rested solely upon the blessings of Massachusetts and upon Indian titles. Connecticut had come to realize the legal weaknesses of the Warwick deed. Neither colony had secured any title clarification or substantiation.52
News of the restoration stimulated Connecticut to immediate ac- tion. At the suggestion of Gov. John Winthrop, Jr., the magistrates agreed to recommend to the next General Court, that of March, 1661, the necessity of informing Charles II that the residents of Connecticut were his faithful subjects and of requesting the continuance and con- firmation of such liberties and privileges as were essential for the com- fortable and peaceable settlement of the colony. At its meeting the Court, in addition, authorized the expenditure of £500 in the effort to secure confirmation of Connecticut's title. Two months later Winthrop submitted to the Court drafts of an address to the Crown and of a letter to noble personages who might be favorably inclined toward the colony.
77
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
A committee was appointed to work on these drafts and to draft a peti- tion for a patent.53
Christ's Kingdom in New Haven made no immediate overtures to the Stuart monarch, and in the first months of panic actually negotiated with the Dutch concerning inclusion within the bounds of their ancient enemy.54 When Leete, the Deputy Governor of New Haven, learned of Connecticut's plans, he proposed to Winthrop that Connecticut's ef- forts be extended into an effort to secure a patent for the two separate and distinct colonies. Apparently, John Davenport did not completely agree with Leete's assumption that once Connecticut secured such a charter she would permit New Haven to continue in the same inde- pendence as before.55
New Haven's reactions and Leete's decision to cast the colony's lot with Connecticut may have been colored by a conviction that suspi- cion of her role in the escape of two of the regicides prejudiced her chances in direct negotiation. On the accession of Charles II, the House of Commons ordered the arrest of all those who had sat in judgment on his father. Two members of this High Court of Justice, Major General Edward Whalley and Major General William Goffe, who were among those who had signed the death warrant, escaped to Boston. They were well received until the imposition of the death sentence on 29 regicides and the offer of a reward of 100 pounds for the apprehension, dead or alive, of the two in New England indicated that England was sternly disposed in the matter. Massachusetts did not favor arresting the two and issued such a warrant only after their departure to the more remote area of New Haven.
New Haven proved insecure because of the receipt there of the King's proclamation and the arrival of two zealous royalists from Massa- chusetts with a warrant of arrest. Despite the general knowledge that Whalley and Goffe were in the vicinity and the intelligence provided by certain willing informers, the regicides were successfully concealed. Three days after the royalists left to continue their search in Manhattan, the New Haven General Court declared with Puritan earnestness that it had not been known that the two wanted men had been in the colony and that both magistrates and deputies wished that a diligent search, which would now be made throughout the jurisdiction of the whole
78
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
plantation, had been made sooner. By the expedient of showing them- selves in public in New Haven, the regicides, who had been living in West Rock cave, relieved Davenport of further suspicion of concealing them. They removed to Milford, in August, 1661, where they remained with friends for the next two years.56
Although Governor Endicott of Massachusetts spared no oppor- tunity to warn New Haven of the danger in which they had placed their own colony and the other colonies of New England, the extent to which the incident endangered New Haven's security is not clear. There is some reason to believe that the concern of Davenport and Leete mag- nified the affair. In the colony's and their own defense, they elaborated a rationale in which they submitted the idea that the royalists were pre- vented from apprehending the regicides "by god's overruilling Provi- dence," and that the same Providence could have foiled the King's men if they had "bine in London, or in the Tower."57 There is no evidence of any attempted retaliation against the colony or its leaders because of the incident, although New Haven's hope for independence was doomed.
John Winthrop, Jr., excellently represented Connecticut in Eng- land. It was a time when Puritans were out of favor. Intense opposition stemmed from Samuel Maverick who, from New Amsterdam, had writ- ten Lord Clarendon in an attempt to check Connecticut's negotiations. Clarendon, in turn, greatly influenced Sir Edward Nicholas, the prin- cipal secretary of His Majesty's government. It was to the latter that Connecticut's petition was handed.58 Winthrop took up residence in Coleman Street where he was among friends and he used his connections in England to counteract the antipathy of those in power. He made use of his acquaintances in the Royal Society. Robert Boyle, the chemist, was especially important, for Boyle had been appointed to member- ship in the new Council for Foreign Plantations. There is some evi- dence to suggest that he had Nehemiah Bourne, a former New England merchant and a friend, buy the support of Colonel Thomas Middleton. another member of the plantation council. Winthrop, also, worked through Lord Saye and Sele, Sir Thomas Temple, and William Brere- ton. Winthrop was successful in securing approval of the petition on April 23, 1662.59
79
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
This charter restated and sanctioned the procedures and practices which had been followed in internal affairs in Connecticut. The colony continued to be administered by a Governor, Deputy Governor, and Assistants, chosen, as before, by the Freemen of the colony. The colony was authorized to exercise police power, provide for defense, regulate commerce, control immigration, Christianize the Indians, elect officers once annually, and hold sessions of its Assembly twice annually. The oath of fidelity was still required of the Freemen and all Admitted In- habitants.60
It was in an altered relationship with England that the charter changed Connecticut life. Connecticut was now a legally recognized corporate government. It was invested with a common seal, and its settlers were invested with the liberties and responsibilities of English- men. It held its land free and commonsafe, owing no quit rent to the Crown. However, the oath of supremacy was to be administered, the laws of the colony could not be at variance with those of England, and all writs were to be in the King's name. As an officially recognized colony, the relation of Connecticut to England could no longer be ignored as it had been in the Fundamental Orders.61
The boundaries defined by the charter showed the effectiveness of the "crowding on" of settlement. Connecticut's limits extended from the Narragansett Bay on the East, to the Massachusetts line on the North, to the Sound on the South, and to the South Sea on the West. To Connecticut, these bounds wiped out all other claims to the area, such as that of New Haven. Even among Puritans, there were those who settled more effectively than others.62
Union of New Haven and Connecticut
New Haven, whose territory was included within the boundaries drawn for Connecticut, indicated to the Commissioners of the United Colonies, that she could not yet see that the patent would be acceptable. Connecticut notified the settlements along the Sound that they fell within the province of Connecticut and invited them to send deputies to the General Court. A majority of the inhabitants of Southold on Long Island and factions in Guilford and Stamford were discontented
80
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
with the narrow franchise and strict rule of New Haven, and accepted Connecticut's invitation. Constables were appointed for the mainland towns, including Greenwich, and a Commissioner appointed for Long Island. Connecticut offered liberal terms to New Haven. Connecticut promised not to disturb churches of New Haven and to receive New Haven's Freemen as Freemen of the colony. She indicated further that she would choose a proportionate number of Assistants from within limits of New Haven, and create a county organization for New Haven, Milford, Branford, and Guilford. Within this county, powers of judi- cature would be exercised with appeals heard by a Court of Assistants sitting at New Haven. Each town of the county would be permitted to send two representatives to the General Court. New Haven refused to accept union.63
Belatedly, New Haven contemplated a direct appeal to Charles II, through John Scott who had fought for Charles I and whose father had advanced £14,300 and given his life in the same cause. This appeal was to be made, however, only if satisfactory clarification could not be ob- tained from John Winthrop, Jr., who was still in London. It was felt that he had understood that Leete's request had been that Connecticut secure a single patent to cover New Haven, but not to control it. It was felt that the charter and Winthrop had not intended to replace two separate and independent jurisdictions by one. Winthrop dispatched a letter to John Mason, the Deputy Governor of Connecticut, which satisfied Scott, but followed it by a second which explained the tone of the first. In both, however, he urged that the union not be forced. The agents of New Haven felt it unnecessary to place their plea before the Crown.64
Winthrop, Jr., opposed coercion of New Haven, but he favored its union with Connecticut. The main point at issue between New Haven and Connecticut was the qualifications of Freemen, for which New Haven wished to retain her church membership requirements. Connect- icut had not made political franchise dependent upon Congregational Church membership. Technical conformity did not prevent a system of certification as to religious character nor property qualifications which achieved the same ends and this seems implicit in her explanation to New Haven. New Haven was not satisfied and again flirted with the
81
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
idea of direct negotiation and with the possibility of removal to New Netherlands.65
The directors of the Dutch West India Company had directed Stuyvesant to encourage the migration of New Haveners to the extent of permitting them to bring their laws and of waiving certain appeals in criminal cases. Stuyvesant, in the name of authorities of New Nether- lands, but not of those of The Netherlands, agreed to give settlers from New Haven practical autonomy and began negotiations with Indians to secure land titles for them. It seemed certain that New Haven would remove. The conquest of New Netherlands in the name of the Duke of York, however, ended this plan. Connecticut's "liberal" Congrega- tionalism was deemed preferable to the Duke's Anglicanism.66
The threat of possible rearrangements, posed by the arrival of royal commissioners who were to inquire into the state of New England, was a further pressure toward union. In addition, New Haven's treasury was nearly empty, for the secessionist towns refused to pay rates. On August 11, 1664, the magistrates and General Court requested Connecticut to assert its claim to the New Haven Colony on the terms offered in previous negotiations and to defend the colony against any contrary dis- position by the royal commissioners. It added the qualification "untill the Comissioners of the Colonies doe meete." The Commissioners on meeting merely advised that agreement be reached lest sad consequences follow their contentions. Connecticut considered that the New Haven colony had come to an end and appointed officers in its several planta- tions. However, it was not until the Royal Commissioners set bounda- ries dividing all lands between Connecticut and the Duke of York with- out recognition of New Haven that a General Court on December 13 voted to submit to Connecticut and consummate union. On January 7, 1665, the town of New Haven surrendered.67 The union had taken place without the formal consent of the Confederation, which its Articles had stipulated as necessary, and submission of the terms of the union had, also, been refused. It was accepted by the other colonies of the Confederation, however, and their responsibilities discharged by including in the revised Articles of Confederation, the statement that the union "shall alwaies be Interpreted by their owne Concession and not otherwise."68
82
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
The English conquest of New Netherlands had not solved matters entirely to the satisfaction of New Haven, nor did it constitute, for Con- necticut, a satisfactory end to its conflict with the Dutch. Stuyvesant, with the naïveté which had characterized New Haven's faith in John Winthrop, Jr., expected Connecticut to honor the boundary arrange- ments stated in the Treaty of Hartford. Connecticut was very dilatory in the matter. In desperation, when no confirmation was made, Stuyve- sant agreed to cede Westchester to Connecticut on the understanding that there would be no coercion of the English towns on the western end of Long Island. That Connecticut's delay in fixing a boundary consti- tuted a reluctance to give up any territory within her charter grant became clear to Stuyvesant. Winthrop, Jr., favored the conquest, if need be, of such of these areas as fell within New Netherlands, and, as was opportune, he attempted to exercise presumed charter rights. Winthrop, Jr., cooperated in the English conquest of New Netherlands. Connecticut, however, felt sharp disappointment that the disposition of these lands defined the grant to the Duke of York in a manner to deprive Connecticut of Long Island and even of title to western Connecticut.69
NOTES-CHAPTER IV
1 Dorothy Deming, "Settlement of the Connecticut Towns," Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ., pp. 31 ff.
2 Ibid., p. 21; and see Dorothy Deming, "Settlement of Litchfield County," Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ., p. 15. Miss Deming discusses Connecticut settlement in terms of four stages.
3 Calder, New Haven Colony, p. 76; Deming, "Settlement of the Connecticut Towns," pp. 23-24, 44-46.
4 Ibid., pp. 44-46; Percy Wells Bidwell and John I. Falconer, History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620-1860 (Washington, 1925), pp. 49-58; Leonard W. La- baree, "Milford," Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ., pp. 3-4.
5 Deming, "Settlement of the Connecticut Towns," pp. 31-33; Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 165-66, 207, 209, 216, 235, 240, 298, 301, 306, 362.
6 Deming, "Settlement of the Connecticut Towns," pp. 49-52.
7 Labaree, "Milford," pp. 4-24.
8 Deming, "Settlement of the Connecticut Towns," pp. 52 ff. See below, Ch. VI.
9 Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, p. 47. 10 Ibid., p. 46. See above, Ch. I.
11 Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 68, 565; Brodhead, History of New York, p. 295.
12 Conn. Col. Rec., I. pp. 51, 52, 68, 75. See above, ch. I.
13 Andrews, Colonial Period, II, p. 118.
83
EXPANSION AND CONFLICT
14 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 57, 61-63.
15 Ibid., pp. 64-65; Brodhead, History of New York, p. 324; Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, p. 52.
16 New Haven Col. Rec., 1638-49, P. 57.
17 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 57-60; Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, pp. 58-61.
18 Brodhead, History of New York, p. 296.
19 Brodhead, History of New York, p. 322.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid., p. 340.
22 Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, p. 48.
23 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, IX, p. 13; Hosmer, ed., Winthrop's Journal, II, pp. 141-42; Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, p. 78.
24 Brodhead, History of New York, pp. 361-63.
25 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 186-87.
26 Ibid., pp. 54-63. New Haven strengthened and extended her holdings on Long Island and along the Connecticut shore. Connecticut, which had sought to stimulate interest in the Pequot territory as early as 1641, finally established New London in 1646. Farmington was founded and organized as a town in 1645. In 1647, traders were attracted to the area that was organized as the town of Mattabesect and, in 1651, renamed Middletown.
27 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 164-165.
28 Brodhead, History of New York, pp. 478-82; Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, pp. 79-80; Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 164-65; Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, IX, pp. 107-108, 113-15, 149; New Haven Col. Rec., 1636-48, pp. 264-66, 333, 335.
29 Brodhead, History of New York, pp. 478-82; Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, p. 80.
30 Ibid., p. 77; Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, IX, pp. 107-108; Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 114, 163, 197.
31 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, IX, pp. 113-15, 148-49.
32 Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, pp. 80-81.
33 Ibid., p. 82.
34 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, IX, pp. 171-90.
35 Quoted in Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, p. 82.
36 Ibid., pp. 82-85.
37 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, IX, pp. 171-90. Ibid., p. 189.
39 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 191-92.
40 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, IX, p. 214; Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 192-93.
41 Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, pp. 85-90.
42 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, X, PP. 35-77.
43 Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, p. 99.
44 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, X, p. 5.
45 See above.
46 Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, pp. 99-100.
47 Ibid., p. 101.
48 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, X, pp. 74-77.
49 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 198-202.
50 Ibid., pp. 204-205; Andrews, Colonial Period, II, pp. 171-72.
51 Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, pp. 104-106.
52 Andrews, Colonial Period, II, pp. 184-86.
84
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
53 Ibid., p. 131; Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 361-62, 367-68; "The Charter of Connecticut, 1662," Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ., pp. 1-22.
54 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 216-219.
55 Ibid., pp. 220-21; New Haven Col. Rec., 1653-65, p. 521. Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 369-70, 579-85.
56 L. Aiken Wells, "The Regicides in Connecticut," Conn. Ter. Comm. Publ .; Calder, New Haven Colony, p 221.
57 Ibid., p. 225.
58 Andrews, Colonial Period, II, p. 133.
59 Ibid., pp. 130-31, 135; Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 227-28, 230; Bernard Bailyn, "The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century" (unpublished doctoral thesis, Harvard, 1953), p. 295.
60 Andrews, Colonial Period, II, p. 137-42.
61 Ibid., p. 137.
62 Ibid., pp. 141-42.
63 Ibid., pp. 286-87, 288; Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 232-34.
64 Ibid., pp. 236-38.
65 Ibid., pp. 238-39.
66 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, X, pp. 299, 304; Conn. Col. Rec., I, pp. 415-16; Collections (Conn. Hist. Soc.), XXI, pp. 145-46; Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 242-46; Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, pp. 109-10; and see above, ch. III.
67 Calder, New Haven Colony, pp. 249-52; Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, X, PP. 318-19.
68 Ibid., pp. 323-51; Calder, New Haven Colony, p. 253.
69 Fox, Yankees and Yorkers, pp. 107-116; Andrews, Col. Period of Am. Hist., II, pp. 192- 193; Trumbull, History of Connecticut, I. pp. 216-23.
Chapter V The Economic Order
A CERTAIN COMPATIBILITY between the developing capital- istic system and the economic ethic of Protestantism is undeni- able whether one concludes that Calvinism merely articulated the principles of an already existent economic order1 or whether one believes that the system effectuated the stated tenets.2 Emphasis upon this interaction and upon the classification of Puritan immigrants as bourgeoisie, however, has impaired a just estimate of the balance that existed between the mediaeval and conservative elements and the more progressive tendencies in the initial thought of 17th century Connect- icut.3 The Puritan portrait has been overlaid by a picture of a burgeon- ing capitalist drawn with libertarian concepts which are grossly anachronistic. Economic thought of the 17th century, including that of the Puritans, had not approached the individualistic practice nor articulated the libertarian tenets of a later period. It still emphasized authoritarian regulation as necessary to the achievement of desirable economic order. It is only as the practical application of initial theory was modified on the basis of experience that the tenets of the modern American economic system emerge.
Initial Thought
Advanced 17th century theory had but begun to elaborate the principle that protection and regulation within the larger area of the total state should supersede protection and regulation by the guild unit within a city. Although the mercantilistic concepts being shaped were prefatory to modern economics in their concern with monetary prob- lems and encouragement of commerce and manufacturing, they were
86
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
still mediaeval in the idea that matters should and could be regulated in great detail on the basis of a determination of absolute right sub- serving the general welfare.4 At the time, the only challenge that possibly represented an advance over mercantilistic theory was the rising crescendo of criticism against royal grants of trade monopoly. This seemed to stem from English port towns and to be directed princi- pally against London merchants.5 The apex was reached in the law of 1624 by which monopolies were presumably restricted. There was little change in practice, however, for much the same arrangements as before passed under the guise of protection for new inventions, or contribution to public interest, or necessity in securing order. In spite of the pro- visions of the new law, trading companies developed oligarchic ad- ministrative controls and monopolistic practices.6 For the most part, the conviction that national power and economic strength were inter- dependent inclined both government and adventurer to cooperate in establishing a system in which, in effect, the state gradually arrogated the guild's regulatory powers and made controls nationally applicable.
In the 17th century, however, while the new mercantilistic theory of state control was gaining acceptance, the guilds were still operative and their more conservative theory still enjoyed wide currency. The guilds had modified their internal power structure to become limited corporations of capitalists, excluding journeymen from advancement, but protecting masters from any organized protests of journeymen. They were undemocratic and exclusionist to the point of encouraging the intermarriage of their children, although efforts absolutely to limit marriage to daughters of liverymen, or members, had failed. Guild purpose was still to secure special benefits and privileges for members and to control workers and the sale of goods. These objectives had been subverted solely to the masters' interests and no longer offered opportunity and protection to subordinates. Rules were relaxed, for example, to allow the employment of greater numbers of journeymen and apprentices, so that, in effect, masters were capitalistic employers. The individual was subordinated to this general welfare to the extent that the authority of the companies, which was maintained by force or fine, extended to regulation of spiritual and temporal matters in a detail indicated by the typical bans on beards and football. There was free
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.