USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 9
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
87
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
enterprise only in the sense that each member worked independently on his own capital, but there was not freedom from regulation nor free competition. Yet since the guilds, as reshaped, conformed to the capi-
(Angell Collection)
(Courtesy Norwalk Historical Society)
NORWALK-GOVERNOR FITCH HOUSE, SOUTH SIDE
talistic interests of the masters, these opposed further modification and resisted encroachment upon their privilege by the Crown or by un- organized new trades. Inevitably the guilds, though capitalistic, became the bulwark of one of the more conservative strands in the economic thought of the age.7
88
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
At the time, too, although capital had invaded agriculture and was enabling the enclosure movement, the economic arrangements of the feudal manorial system still predominated and still received general sanction. The application of capital to agriculture had benefited only a limited number of landlords, leaving the majority, like John Win- throp, impecunious and debt ridden, and leaving the masses displaced and insecure.8
The modification of mediaeval economic theory by the Reforma- tion allowed numerous traditional concepts and many conventional applications to remain intact. It was not held that the objective of life had changed: there was still a distinct element of otherworldiness, for life on earth was still regarded merely as preparation for a more im- portant afterlife. That which was changed by the Protestant theory of calling was the definition of the proper way in which to prepare for life after death. Now, one worshipped through his work. The "ringing and abiding conviction" of the Puritan as to the theory of calling was articulated by John Cotton in The Way of Life in 1641. Personal property was a right based on natural and divine rights as well as on human, for everyone had a talent of God. However, private property was merely a temporary trust, for God was the absolute Lord of all things. The temporal possessor, then, was in the position of a steward, and, so, obligated to labor to increase that which was entrusted to him. Rewards, however, were gifts of God, not consequences of industrious- ness nor of conditions. Thus, a balance should be maintained between religious and material ends. One should dedicate oneself to making a profit, but should then practise an asceticism, an abstinence. The result may have been, as Weber emphasizes, to increase the aggregations of capital, but it served, too, to moderate fluctuations which otherwise might have rapidly altered status. The Puritans held, with Calvin, that after success one should still be content in his calling: one could best serve God by remaining in the station to which he was divinely appointed.9
Puritan economic theory was still premised on a belief of fixed divine principle by which things were right or wrong intrinsically, not relatively, and right presumably subordinated individual to public good. The very responsibility to have a calling was a personal obligation to
89
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
general welfare. As John Cotton said, "though thou hast two thousands to spend, yet if thou hast no calling, tending to publique good, thou art an uncleane beast." Yet the definition of "public good" was flexible and the Puritans had accepted modification of the mediaeval concepts of just price and usury. William Ames, the outstanding theorist of Puritan Congregationalism, had tended toward an acceptance of the market price as the just price in his writings on the subject. There was some confusion among the Puritans as to this interpretation, however, and the Puritan divines and magistrates in America hardly went so far as Ames in their definitions of just price. Both agreed that interest was permissible on business loans though not on charitable loans. People were free when they willed to do right, and if such free will were not evident, their conduct should be guided by minute regulations which would be enforced for the "publique good."10
It was with the operation of capital within this 17th century frame- work of merchantilistic, guild, manorial, and Protestant theory and practice that the Puritans were familiar. There is some evidence to indicate that the settlers in New England and Connecticut represented its more conservative strands, because of the position which they occu- pied in English society. It has been emphasized conventionally that the Puritan leaders and many of the other settlers were largely drawn from the middle class that was developing in England. This new middle class was still close to its peasant origins and far from attaining the wealth, power, and status, or the concomitant aggressive individualism of later centuries. The failure to understand this constitutes an error of evalua- tion that dims understanding of the concepts accepted by the settlers. In examining the backgrounds of the settlers, one must distinguish, too, between the names of sponsors selected from "gentlemen of honor and blood" to bolster the prestige of charter applicants and the more modest names of those contemplating emigration. The Dorchester merchants who were interested in fishing privileges in North America, for example, since they were "relatively inconspicuous," deliberately interested people of position and influence in the project to enhance their chances of securing a charter.11
Most of those who came, as is indicated in the extant passenger lists, had an agrarian background. The largest numbers of passengers were
90
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
listed as husbandmen. Husbandmen varied in their material position, some transporting two or more servants and some traveling alone with meager goods. No sharp line divided the husbandman from yeoman, who, also, farmed and generally had a freehold, but was a step higher on the scale. There were a number of yeomen listed as well. Servants, who composed the second largest group, seemed, also, to have essentially rural backgrounds and rarely came with a merchant. A rural distress ap- parently made both servant and husbandman migrate, with the hus- bandman paying the more unfortunate servant's fare in return for his promise of labor. Many practising tradesmen, plowrights, carpenters, sawyers, and joiners and an occasional miller or cooper, also, had a rural background, in that they had practised their trade in the country dis- tricts. Gentlemen were, also, listed and became leaders among the set- tlers. They apparently, for the most part, bridged the gap between gentry and bourgeoisie, with roots in the yeoman class, as William Pynchon, or having made the transfer from trade as in the case of Winthrop. Acquisition of land, education in a university, and a "good" marriage were conventional phases in this transition.12
In general, the agrarian background, in the case of gentleman as well as of husbandman, had involved unpleasant consequences from the operation of capital in agriculture. These immigrants were interested, therefore, in maintaining a system which would secure each person in holdings and privileges adequate for maintenance. They were seeking the security of the close-knit community that existed for common benefit which had been offered by mediaeval manorial theory. They were largely out of sympathy even with the degree of liberalization in mercantile theory. They were quick to suspect and condemn malprac- tices in trade and quick to feel that imposition of a just price was justi- fied by the subordination of individual to general welfare. Their atti- tudes are of particular importance, because from the gentlemen of rural backgrounds came the magistrates in Massachusetts and Connecti- cut. They were able and did impose the restrictions which they felt desirable.13
In the overall Puritan migration settlers with mercantile back- grounds were exceptional, but included weavers and tailors in some number as well as clothiers, drapers, glovers, curriers, shoemakers, and
91
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
tanners. Only occasionally was a mercer, chirurgeon, lawyer or mer- chant listed. Those with mercantile backgrounds seem to have been relatively prominent among the Connecticut settlers. Some of those with landed backgrounds had some additional connection with com-
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
LEBANON-THE TRUMBULL WAR OFFICE
merce. John Winthrop, Jr., who became Connecticut's outstanding ad- venturer, was descended from a member of the Merchant Clothiers as- sociation. His father, though he had owned a manor, also held an inferior magistracy in the Court of Wards and Liveries, where he super- vised the inheritances of minors. Many of those of the original Dorches- ter settlement moved to Connecticut, bringing the same interests and mercantile background. Conspicuous, too, are the settlers of New
92
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Haven, who represented those with associations in the Livery Com- panies of London and, more rarely, connections in the trading com- panies.14
The attitudes represented by the mercantile backgrounds of these groups, however, did not constitute bold defiance of the prevailing con- ventions of economic organization. No merchant considered to be of first rank in England came as a settler. Mathew Craddock, whose name is connected with the migration, and who held lands in Connecticut, managed them through an agent and never personally came. Theoph- ilus Eaton was the most important to come to Connecticut and one of the two most important merchants in the entire migration. Eaton was worth 4,000 pounds when he converted his properties before leaving England. Most of those with mercantile backgrounds were small trades- men and shopkeepers in London. Their ideas had been formed in the associations of London. The London Livery companies, as the guilds there came to be called from the time of Edward III, are used as the classic example of how capital had reshaped the guilds and subverted them to the exclusive interests of the capitalistic guild masters. The connection of individual settlers with the trading companies is more difficult to substantiate, but is generally assumed to have existed in some instances as perhaps in that of John Davenport, minister of New Haven. The members of the established trading companies were stoutly de- fending themselves against the charges made by the opponents of monopolies.15 These were not the people quarreling with association or with the status arrangements institutionalized in the company, guild, and manor.
The theory brought over was neither mediaeval nor modern, but transitional-in its initial application, established practices were fol- lowed closely, as can be seen in the various specific phases of Connecti- cut's economy. The model city seemed to differ less from Augustine's than from a modern metropolis. Practice, however, was altered in time, when the arrangements made no longer seemed adequate. This is indi- cated, first, by the impossibility of enforcement of regulations which failed to receive consent. Attention should be given to the gradual modi- fications, for they indicated the emerging of the modern concepts, and principles of modern capitalistic theory.16
93
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
Land Division
The tracts or "town grants" on which settlements were made in Connecticut varied in area from four to ten square miles. Near the center, a site was selected for a village green and streets were laid out on both sides of it. Along these streets, home lots were granted. These were usually large enough for a house, outbuildings, and a feeding enclosure, but they varied in size generally even within the same settle- ment. The next step in land division was roughly to survey several hundred acres which were divided into numbered strips and distributed among the settlers. Land was distributed proportionately upon the basis of the size of an individual's estate and the size of his family, with special favor often granted to the minister or magistrate of the com- munity. The size of grants was modified, too, by a process of "sizing," or evaluation of holdings. One securing comparatively poor land or land located inconveniently or at a distance from the town would receive a larger grant.17
Although there was less inequality of distribution early in the seventeenth century than subsequently, there was considerable dis- parity even in the size of the early holdings. In New Haven, some were as small as 10 acres and some as large as 1,000. Out of 123 grantees, there were nine persons whose holdings were more than 300 acres and 32 whose holdings ranged from 100 to 300. In Hartford, the largest farm under the first distribution among 121 proprietors was 169 acres; 41 were from 1 to 10 acres; and 70 grants, from 10 to 20 acres.18 Professor Labaree, in a careful analysis of Milford land records, has demonstrated how a community, in its late land distributions, gave progressively greater amounts of land to those with the largest holdings and largest taxable estates, markedly discriminating in favor of the wealthier owners. The disparity in land holdings increased considerably in the last quarter of the century.19
Land retained for the proprietors' use in common, the proprietary commons, was not accessible to all inhabitants. The original proprietors and their heirs constituted a privileged group in the town. They not only controlled the proprietors' commons, but all the undivided lands in the town. They granted allotments to those permitted to settle within the community and forbade the sale of land to new inhabitants except
94
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
with the approval of the community. Proprietors' meetings were distinct from town meetings and after the proprietors did not constitute prac- tically all of the population this became an important distinction. The next century saw a struggle between the proprietors and the towns for control of the town commons.20
The town commons were fields open to the use of all inhabitants for pasturage or procurement of wood. The town commons included all land not reserved to the proprietors and not allotted to later comers. Sometimes by paying the town a small rent, persons, frequently former servants, were allowed to build upon this land. Hartford, for example, granted certain cottagers lots which they were to have only at the "town's courtesy" with liberty to fetch wood and keep swine or cows on the commons.21 The commons were gradually diminished through allot- ment for various uses though some land was still held in common through much of the next century. In Waterbury, for example, when many of the proprietors were moving away, land and a propriety of £40 in the commons was voted to bachelors to encourage them to stay. Typi- cally the grants were conditioned on occupation with a house of not less than 16 x 16 within four years.22
It seems that the influx of population had served to use up the land in large part. In addition, some magistrates and some officers of the colonial militia were rewarded for their services by land grants. Only a little over a year after its founding the original inhabitants of Wethersfield were complaining of their straightened accommodations. When the plea for permission to settle in Connecticut had been made in Massachusetts, it was on the grounds that elbow-room was needed. John Cotton had remarked that people seemed ever to grow longer elbows. The pressure for additional land was a factor in the establish- ment of new communities.23
In its parcelling of strips for farming and commonage of pasturage. the system closely followed the arrangements in use on mediaeval manors. It was not adopted merely to follow a pattern, but rather be- cause it was felt that the system offered the greatest possibilities of balancing an individual personal proprietorship and a communal social interest.24 The method assured that each person had a certain amount of each type of land. In addition, an attempt was made to allocate in
95
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
proportion to an ability to develop it as indicated by the estate (capital) and numbers (labor) controlled.25 The subordination of individual interest to general welfare would be specifically indicated by the minute regulations governing the use of the commons, regulations which, with those of Massachusetts, constitute America's first formal conservation. In Connecticut, for example, timber felled must be carted together or improved into pipe staves or other merchantable commodities within a month after cutting.26 Attempts made to mitigate the difficulty of con- trolling breeding were indicated by a number of regulations even though little attention had been paid to this problem in England at this time. Windsor and Guilford appointed committees to view calves and determine which should be raised as bulls. In 1673, the General Court appointed three men in each plantation to keep rams and provided that none should run at large. The breeding of horses became important to the economy, for horses were an important item of export, and in 1674 it was required that all horses over a year old and under 13 hands high should be gelded. In spite of the difficulty of controlling breeding and disease, there was an economy of labor in common herding.27
There were many disadvantages inherent in the system not fully recognized in England at the time or for a while in America because of a lack of knowledge of such efficient agricultural methods as crop rota- tion. Land was wasted because of the necessity of allowing roads to give access to each strip; the narrowness of the strips prevented cross-harrow- ing or cross-ploughing; the distance from home caused loss of time; and there were restrictions on the choice of crops and the individual timing of agricultural processes.28
By 1673, recognition of some of the advantages of holding lands in one unit were implicit in the General Court order providing that grants of land to particular persons, which had not been taken up and laid out, were to be taken out in one entire piece "in a comely form" except by special liberty from the court. The particular problem causing this change was the difficulty of maintaining clear boundaries under the old system.29 As the disadvantages became evident, and as an interest in agricultural experimentation developed, there was a tendency, too, for lands to coalesce through marriage, purchase, and inheritance.30
Although the tendency for a holding to coalesce into a single unit
96
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
continued, the tendency toward centralization of holdings in a few hands was counterbalanced by the customary method of dividing in- heritances. Instead of following the English common law practice of primogeniture, the Puritans in Massachusetts and in Connecticut prac- ticed equal division of land among all children, except that a double share was sometimes given to the eldest son.31 In addition to conform- ing to the Mosaic Code, where the eldest son received a double por- tion.32 this accorded to the concept of equity which had operated in the initial land division, and to local land conditions. The labor of the younger sons was needed in the cultivation of the initial grants and could be held, as Governor Talcott explained at the time, only if these sons shared in the inheritance. The resultant increase in a concentrated population most rapidly improved the land and furnished the greatest defense.33
Agricultural Conditions
Productivity under the system of land holdings, at the existent stage of agricultural technique, and in view of the poor quality of the soil, was inadequate to meet successfully the food needs of the colony. The shortage was intensified and the general economy of the colony imperiled with the outbreak of the Pequot War. Each of the towns was directed to provide the necessary provisions, and men were levied from each of the plantations. This meant that, in the face of an unusual de- mand, men were absent from the fields during growing season. Prices rose; and a general tax, assessed to pay the cost of the conflict, added an additional burden. A particularly severe winter further endangered the food supply.34
During the war, to provide for the public good, the colony sought to regulate the corn trade. Lest an excessive number of traders advance the price, general trade with the Indians was prohibited. A trading ex- pedition was organized to operate in the Narragansett country. In addi- tion. William Pynchon was directed to supply the river plantations with 500 bushels of corn. He was reluctant to accept this monopoly with its regulated price proviso because it did serve to reduce profits. He de- faulted in the delivery of the corn, allegedly because permission to use the only available canoe for its transport was refused. Pynchon was
97
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
GUILFORD-WHITFIELD STONE HOUSE, BUILT IN 1639 BY REV. HENRY WHITFIELD. NOW THE HENRY WHITFIELD STATE HISTORICAL MUSEUM
judged to have been derelict in his duties as a magistrate by not having impressed the canoe and made delivery. He defended himself with the question "If magistrates . . . practice such a power . . . [over] men's properties how long would tyranny be kept out?" Nevertheless, he was fined 40 bushels of corn for failure to act in the public good. Pynchon articulated the strongest opposition to state grants of monopoly with
98
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
their restraints and taxes, as being against the public good and liberty of free men, especially when the court also "gave him" an additional monopoly of the fur trade on the river, for which he was to pay a tax on each skin. He already effectively controlled the trade which was thus bestowed on him as a monopoly. The Puritans justified monopoly only when it served the public good and was of short duration, but there was broad flexibility as to what exclusive privileges might be in the public interest. Also, certain of these passed, not as monopolistic grants, but as orderly regulation.35
Connecticut found it difficult to recover from the Pequot wars. The colony was more dependent than had been realized upon the In- dian for trade and for food and this trade languished until the confi- dence of the Red Man was regained. Also, Connecticut had benefited from the expansion of population in eastern Massachusetts as well as in Connecticut: there is little doubt that the newcomers had kept the colony supplied with foreign goods and specie. Immigration ceased sud- denly with the beginning of the Puritan Civil War in England. Both the local market created by the immigrants' needs and the supply of specie closed temporarily and prices fell. There was need to readjust the economy.36
In an attempt to meet its difficulties the colony again relied upon government regulation. A series of colonial controls were introduced in February, 1640, which related to agricultural production. Taxes and debts were made payable in corn, and the exchange rate for wampum was lowered from six a penny to four a penny and twopence. The tan- ning of leather was strictly regulated. The colony itself sent out a vessel to secure badly needed cotton for distribution to the several towns "ac- cording to the division of the last Country Rate." To provide for pay- ment for the cotton, the felling of timber and the sale of pipestaves were placed under strict control of the court.37
The lack of a staple crop, however, remained the fundamental economic problem of the colony. "Not knowing how this Common- wealth can be long supported unless some staple Comodity be raysed amongst us,"38 the court sought to encourage the planting of hemp and flax. For this purpose, inhabitants were encouraged to seek new lands. They were to be granted 100 acres of tillable land for each team, along
99
THE ECONOMIC ORDER
with 20 acres of meadow and an appropriate amount of upland, on the provision that twenty acres be improved the first year and 80 acres the second. As always, failure to improve the land would result in dispos- session by the court.39 Every family was ordered to plant at least one spoonful of English hemp seed the first year, and an increased amount the second. When it was complained that the seed could not be pro- cured, it was ordered that those who refused to sell the seed would have to plant an amount equal to that which they refused to sell. Hemp was never raised in quantities sufficient for it to become an export item. Flax culture flourished in virgin soil and enough was raised to make it figure in domestic use.40
Commerce
The commerce of Connecticut in colonial times was insignifi- cant. Since she had no staple crop to provide a dependable export, Connecticut had to attempt to produce small surpluses in a variety of items in order to secure an export cargo. Beaver skins were marketable in England and many of these were sent to Boston for transhipment. Pipestaves were in demand in the West Indies. Provisions, including grain, biscuit, and pork, were sent to the West Indies and to New- foundland. Livestock, in which horses became increasingly important, figured, too, in the trade to the West Indies. Shoes are known to have been included among the less usual exports. With these assorted car- goes, Connecticut regularly engaged in coastal trade, in a triangular trade that included the West Indies, and in direct trade to the Is- lands. However, the products of a subsistence economy were insuffi- cient to provide the basis for extensive trade and Connecticut was un- able to build up a capital, such as Massachusetts accumulated through the export of the cod. This, in turn, impeded the financing of voyages, including even the procurement of the local surpluses and the provi- sion of vessels.41
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.