USA > Connecticut > Tercentenary pamphlet series, v. 1 Connecticut and the British Government > Part 24
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
On the east the boundary line with Rhode Island starts at Long Island Sound at the mouth of the Pawcatuck River, follows this river as far as it runs north, and then continues on in the same direction to meet the northern boundary of the state.
The southern boundary is Long Island Sound, and so may be termed a natural boundary free of any special features.
On the west marked irregularities are again manifest.
I
Starting at the mouth of the Byram River, the line, after following the river a few miles, cuts north-northwest for eight miles, runs fifteen miles northeast parallel to the Sound, and then proceeds north-northwest for about sev- en miles until it turns north in a line parallel to the Hud- son River. It is the purpose of this paper to explain the irregularities of the boundaries and to summarize the con- troversies relative to the establishing of these boundaries.
The boundaries of Connecticut in the earliest times were based upon two grants of land, one by the Earl of Warwick to a group of gentlemen in England, and later bought by the Connecticut Colony, and the other by the crown in the charter issued to the Governor and Com- pany of Connecticut by Charles II in 1662. The Warwick Patent was of doubtful legal validity and as it was en- tirely superseded by the royal charter need not be con- sidered. It may be truthfully said that until Connecticut obtained her charter she had no certain legal right to ex- istence as a separate plantation.
The reason for Connecticut's freedom from interference from the English government during the years from 1635 to 1660 can be found in the struggle between Charles I and his parliament which culminated in the execution of Charles and the establishment of the Commonwealth. In turn the death of Cromwell, the overthrow of the Pro- tectorate, and the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II placed Connecticut in a dangerous position. It was therefore decided that Governor John Winthrop should be sent to England and attempt to obtain a char- ter from Charles II. The endeavor was successful. In 1662 the charter passed the seals and became the basis of all of Connecticut's future territorial claims.
The boundaries so granted were "on the east by the Narragansett River commonly called Narragansett Bay,
2
on the north by the line of the Massachusetts plantation, and on the south by the sea and so on the west to the South Sea or Pacific Ocean with the adjoining islands." Within the next few years these boundaries caused con- flicts with Rhode Island on the east and New York on the west, as well as with Massachusetts on the north.
Let us consider these various controversies in turn, beginning with that of Rhode Island.
At the time Governor Winthrop was in London getting the Connecticut charter, Dr. John Clarke was also in London on a similar mission for the Rhode Island colony. After the Connecticut charter had been granted, these two men met and drew up an agreement as to the bound- ary between their respective colonies. The territory in- volved was that obtained from the Narragansett Indians, the boundaries of which were undefined but were generally considered to extend from Narragansett Bay to the Pawcatuck River. Winthrop agreed to surrender to Rhode Island Connecticut's claims beyond the Pawca- tuck River and in accordance with this agreement the Rhode Island charter, which was granted fifteen months after that of Connecticut, contained the following:
Any grant or clause in a late grant to the Gov. & Company of Connecticut Colony in America to the contrary thereof in any way notwithstanding, the Pawcatuck River having byn yielded after much debate for the fixed and certain bounds between these our sayd colonies by the agents thereof, who have also agreed that the sayd Pawcatuck river shall bee also called alias Narragansett river, and to prevent other disputes that otherwise might arise thereby, forever hereafter shall be construed, deemed and taken to be the Narragansett River in our late graunt to Connecticut colony mentioned as the east- erly bounds of that colony.
The Connecticut assembly repudiated the Winthrop- Clarke agreement on the ground that Governor Winthrop
3
had been authorized to obtain a charter, but not to enter into any agreement with agents from other colonies as to what the boundaries granted under the charter should be. The question of the Narragansett territory was also com- plicated by events preceding the granting of the Connect- icut charter. Connecticut had claimed the territory under the Warwick Patent, Rhode Island had claimed it under a patent granted by the Long Parliament in 1644, and Massachusetts had claimed a portion of the land as a re- ward for the aid rendered Connecticut in the Pequot War.
In 1649 William Cheseborough and Thomas Stanton made settlements near Mystic under Massachusetts' sanction and denied the authority of a constable from Connecticut. In 1650 Massachusetts sent Captain Atherton into the Narragansett country to demand trib- ute from the Indians.
The dispute between Connecticut and Massachusetts over this strip of land between the Mystic and Pawcatuck Rivers dragged on until 1658 when the commissioners of the New England Confederation placed the line at the Mystic River giving Massachusetts all the land east of it. As soon as Connecticut received her charter, she repudi- ated this agreement and pressed her claims to all the land to the Narragansett River or Bay. In accordance with this claim, on July 10, 1663, Connecticut changed the name of the town of Narragansett to Wickford and ap- pointed town officers. The people of Wickford acquiesced in Connecticut's claims and asked for the usual privileges of new Connecticut towns. Rhode Island was angered by Connecticut's repudiation of the Winthrop-Clarke agreement and declared the establishment of Connecticut jurisdiction at Wickford to be legalized robbery, effected by underhand dealing. In the next year the Rhode Island governor wrote to the Connecticut governor complaining
4
of Connecticut's actions at Wickford and asking that a line be run between the two colonies. At the same time the people in Wickford petitioned Connecticut for protec- tion against Rhode Island. Connecticut supported the Wickford inhabitants by giving them magisterial powers. This did not deter Rhode Island from making arrests in the disputed districts, and thus continuous conflict was waged between the inhabitants and the Rhode Island offi- cials. Matters went from bad to worse, until Connecticut agreed to the appointment of commissioners to consult with similar Rhode Island commissioners in determining the boundary line. Before the commissioners were ap- pointed, however, Connecticut scored a point by having her claim sustained at a meeting of the commissioners of the New England Confederation on September 9, 1664. As Rhode Island had never been admitted to the New England Confederation it is not strange that the case was decided against her. In all this controversy, it is impor- tant to remember that, owing to her freedom in religious matters, Rhode Island was considered beyond the pale by all the other New England colonies who were very ortho- dox in their adherence to a strict Calvinistic puritan doc- trine. It is true that Connecticut did not require member- ship in the church as a qualification for freemanship but there were few freemen who were not church members. Massachusetts and New Haven demanded church mem- bership as a requirement for freemanship, whereas Rhode Island was established on the basis of religious freedom. It is only natural, then, that the strictly religious colonies should be prejudiced against what they considered radi- cally liberal Rhode Island.
When the commissioners from Connecticut and Rhode Island finally met, they were unable to reach an agree- ment. In the following year, 1665, commissioners from
5
Charles II arrived in New England with powers to in- vestigate all colonial matters and to adjust inter-colonial differences. Connecticut referred the dispute with Rhode Island to them, claiming all the land extending to the Narragansett Bay. The commissioners listened to the
M
A .
SSA
C
H
U
5
ETTS
The Red Line~Rhode Island's Claim of 1664
The Green Line of 1703 and Final Boundary (1725)
Line Claimed by Connecticut 1720
drawn from Head of Pauratuck River
VARRAGANSET
BAY
C
nd ::
Stonington
SOUND
Scale of Miles
O
10
15
20
LONG
ISLAND
New London Hor
R.B.A '33
The shaded area shows the King's Province.
The Red Line was measured twenty miles west of Warwick Point by Rhode Island. Connecticut claimed all land to the Narraganset Bay and River by the Charter of 1662 (line A-B-C-D-E).
Connecticut claims and decided that neither Connecticut nor Rhode Island should have this disputed territory; that the land in dispute should belong directly to the king of England. They called it "the King's Province" and absolutely separated it from either Connecticut's or Rhode Island's jurisdiction. The basis of this judgment by the king's commissioners was the fact that in 1644 the
6
Pauturet
Rive
RIVER
River
NNECT
E
R
I
S
native Indian sachems of the territory had surrendered their lands to the king in return for his protection. An Indian deed was produced to prove the surrender. The royal commissioners at first ordered all the inhabitants of the King's Province to leave the territory involved, but upon their protest this order was modified to permit those really living on the land to remain on their planta- tions and await the king's pleasure. Temporary juris- diction was given to Rhode Island on March 20, 1665, the Pawcatuck River being established as the eastern boundary of Connecticut. Connecticut refused to accept this ruling of the royal commissioners as final, hoping that the king and council in England might not confirm it.
While awaiting the final word from England, Connect- icut and Rhode Island, neither desiring a portion of land directly under the king so close to its borders, attempted to reach some agreement between themselves. Nothing came of these attempts, and again in 1668 Wickford and Southertown (Stonington) appealed to Connecticut for protection from Rhode Island. Connecticut promised them aid, and negotiations with Rhode Island dragged on for several years.
At last in 1670, three commissioners were appointed by each colony to settle the question of the boundary. They met at New London on June 14. Connecticut's case was seriously weakened by Governor Winthrop's action. He claimed, and justly, that as he had made the agreement with Clarke, Rhode Island should have jurisdiction to the Pawcatuck River, and that he, as governor of Connecti- cut, could not exercise jurisdiction east of that river. The other Connecticut commissioners declared that Winthrop was not bound by the agreement, but he asserted he was so bound until the king's pleasure was known. Rhode
7
Island threatened to appeal to the king if she was not given the Pawcatuck River as her boundary and demand- ed that Connecticut retire from the disputed territory. Connecticut refused to withdraw and demanded that Rhode Island do so instead. With such stubborn deter- mination on both sides, no agreement could be reached and the conference terminated after two days.
Later in the same year, agitation having somewhat subsided, Rhode Island wrote to Connecticut, pointing out the trouble and expense of an appeal to the king, and suggested that another attempt be made to settle the problem between themselves. Nothing came of this sug- gestion until 1671 when commissioners were appointed by both colonies. Before anything could be accomplished, trouble broke out along the border. A constable and fifty men from Stonington broke up a meeting of a court which Rhode Island had set up on the east of the Pawca- tuck River. Rhode Island now proposed a mutual refer- ence to the king, or a conference in which Winthrop and Clarke should be present. This was a clever move, as we have seen that Winthrop had conceded the disputed territory to Clarke in 1662.
Connecticut did not reply at once to Rhode Island's latest request, but, in a letter on October 12, agreed to negotiate a treaty if the commissioners appointed should have full power. This was an astute proposal, as, until this time, Rhode Island had held that under her charter she could not surrender the boundary of the Pawcatuck. If she should give her commissioners full power to estab- lish boundaries not in accordance with her charter limits, an important concession would have been granted. She refused to fall into the trap and in a letter, November 4, replied that she had no power to change her charter limits. Either her cleverness in avoiding the trap or her
8
--
obstinacy angered Connecticut, who retorted that she would not have troubled to reach a just settlement if she had suspected that Rhode Island had no intention of ad- mitting that negotiations could lead to no boundary adjustments.
It is too long a story for the space permitted to follow closely the negotiations of the next few years. Connecti- cut strengthened her claim slightly by the withdrawal of some of the Rhode Island settlers from the Narragansett country during King Philip's War and the settlement of these lands by people from Massachusetts, who wished to be under Connecticut's jurisdiction. After the war was over Rhode Island refused to countenance these Connect- icut claims. It was at last decided to petition the king. William Harris was appointed the Connecticut agent to go to London but he was captured by Algerine pirates and soon after his ransom died in London, so Connecticut contented herself with sending by letter a statement of her case to England. Rhode Island also sent her petition on August 1, 1679.
While waiting for a reply to these petitions a status resembling war existed between the colonies. In 1680 Rhode Island issued warrants for the arrest of Stephen Richardson, a Connecticut constable, who had been acting in an official capacity in Westerly. Despite Con- necticut's demand Rhode Island refused to release him, whereupon Connecticut in retaliation placed Joseph Clark of Westerly under arrest, and this reprisal was succeeded by such military preparations as to make it impossible for Rhode Island in the next two years to do more than protest.
Charles II on April 7, 1683, appointed commissioners to settle the dispute. They were to meet at Wickford, but Rhode Island forbade the court to sit within what
9
she claimed to be her boundaries. The court moved to Boston where Rhode Island did not appear, but Con- necticut handed in her claims. After hearing Connecti- cut's claims the commissioners decided in her favor, granting the Narragansett country to Connecticut and commanding Rhode Island not to interfere. The decision of the commission could not become effective until it had been confirmed by the Privy Council in England, and as the council took no action in the matter, the report was not accepted by Rhode Island and the quarrel continued.
In 1686 Sir Edmund Andros was appointed royal gov- ernor of the Dominion of New England, and the Connect- icut and Rhode Island charters were suspended. Rhode Island's claims to the Narragansett country were brought before him and were decided in her favor. Her right of jurisdiction was thus guaranteed her. Andros's rule lasted only three years and with the resumption of the charters under William and Mary the quarrel broke out again.
The question was once more sent on appeal to England and on October 28, 1696, the attorney-general of England decided in favor of Connecticut. Again there was no con- firmation by the Privy Council, and Rhode Island re- fused to accept the attorney-general's ruling.
In 1699 the Board of Trade requested the Earl of Bellomont to make a friendly settlement of the dispute. He came to Newport but was unable to reach an agree- ment satisfactory to both parties, so he ordered both colo- nies to send agents to London to settle the matter there.
Connecticut appointed, as her agent, Sir Henry Ashurst; Capt. Joseph Sheffield, with Brinton as his colleague, acted for Rhode Island.
Now that the dispute had been referred to England for a final decision, both Connecticut and Rhode Island began to fear that the Board of Trade might advise the
IO
withdrawal of both charters, on the grounds that they led to constant disagreements and that the colonies did not seem able to keep peace between themselves.
Prompted by this fear, Connecticut and Rhode Island in May, 1703, got together and reached an important agreement at Stonington.
The Pawcatuck River, from Long Island Sound to the Ashaway River, and then due north till it met the Massa- chusetts line, was chosen as the inter-colonial boundary. It was almost a complete victory for Rhode Island, as this was approximately the line for which she had fought so long and which had been granted her under her char- ter. Why Connecticut capitulated so completely after fighting for forty years is difficult to decide. Fear of losing her charter may have decided her, or Rhode Island's perseverance may have proved discouraging. During the years of altercation Connecticut had received four decisions in her favor, Rhode Island only three.
The agreement of 1703 was not the end of the conten- tion, as the line had not yet been surveyed. An attempt in 1714 to have it surveyed came to naught and in 1720 Rhode Island alone ran a line from Warwick Point west for twenty miles to a point which she claimed to be the western limit of the Warwick purchase and so the point from which to measure the north and south boundary, and gave notice of an appeal to the king to have this line confirmed. This re-opened the entire controversy and the governor of Connecticut, Gurdon Saltonstall, sent a letter to the Board of Trade in London claiming the entire Narragansett country. A map was enclosed which showed that Connecticut claimed all the land to Narra- gansett Bay. Although she felt this territory to be hers by right, in this letter she agreed to limit her demands to a line that should run north from a pond (Worden's Pond)
II
in the western part of the present town of South King- ston, which she claimed to be the head of the Pawcatuck River. Another map showing how this pond was connect- ed with the Pawcatuck River was enclosed as well as oaths of the people living near the pond to the effect that it had been known as the head of the Pawcatuck for many years.
This claim would have taken most of the Narragansett country from Rhode Island, who naturally protested, but agreed to leave the case in the hands of the king.
After the usual delay, the Board of Trade reported to the Privy Council. The report is a long and exhaustive review of all the various claims of the two colonies. Sev- eral angles of the controversy are emphasized, one, that Connecticut did not feel bound by the agreement of 1703, as the Connecticut commissioners "did not concur in marking the said boundary and that the same was drawn by those of Rhode Island only." The report con- tinues :
But upon further inquiry into the fact it appear'd to us by the confession of the agent of Connecticut that the Commis- sioners of Connecticut did actually meet and concur with those of Rhode Island in drawing of the said green line as a boundary. The said agent however contended that the agree- ment was invalid, the assembly of Connecticut having dis- allowed the proceeding of its own commissioners because those of Rhode Island were not fully impowered, but he pro- duced no act of assembly or any other proof of the fact except his own averment.
The Board of Trade summed up its decision in the fol- lowing words:
Upon the whole it seems probable to us, as well from the pretended grant of the Earl of Warwick and others to the colony of Rhode Island as from the submission of the bound- aries to arbitration by the agents of Connecticut and Rhode Island so soon after the Charter for Connecticut had been ob-
I2
tained that King Charles the 2nd was surprized in his grant to Connecticut and that His Majesty intended to redress the grievance complained of by Rhode Island by his subsequent charter to them, but the former Charter to Connecticut being still in force and never made void by scire facias or otherwise it is certain that the relief intended for Rhode Island is of no force in Law.
However, in justice to Rhode Island it must be observed that the transactions of the commissioners appointed by the respective colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island, when the Green line was drawn for a boundry between them, are strong proof that those of Connecticut did apprehend that the pretensions of Rhode Island were just and equitable.
... considering therefore that the matter in dispute has no relation to private property, that the contest which is purely for government and jurisdiction has already lasted sixty years, and may, unless the Royal Authority should interpose, be perpetual to the great disturbance of the peace of these colonies and to the discouragement of planting and settling the lands in dispute, it were to be wished that they would both voluntarily submit themselves to His Majesties immediate government, as some other colonies have done, and that they might be annexed to New Hampshire.'
Anyone with even a slight knowledge of Connecticut and Rhode Island history will understand with what consternation this suggestion, that they surrender their charters, was received by the two colonies. Both colonies considered their charters their most prized possession and would have gone to almost any length to protect them.
Their attitude was made known to the Privy Council, and at the same time both colonies agreed to submit to any ruling that might be made on the boundary question
I For the green line mentioned in this extract from the representation of the Board of Trade see the map from the Colonial Office papers at the end of this paper. This map has never before been reproduced. A fair copy of it may be found in Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial III, Appendix V.
I3
by the council without further protest. The Privy Council returned the report to the Board of Trade with the statement that surrender of the charters and annexa- tion to New Hampshire were not feasible, and asked for another recommendation.
This recommendation was made January 6, 1725-26, and was the basis for the final adjustment of the problem. Rhode Island received the decision and the boundary es- tablished was that of 1703. The explanation for the decision was given in the report as follows:
The agents of Connecticut in answer to this did then allege that John Winthrop after having obtained the charter for that province had no authority to submit the boundaries to a second determination.
But the agent for Rhode Island having now laid before us a new piece of evidence, which is the appointment by the Gen- eral Assembly of Connecticut, in October 1702, of certain commissioners to meet those of Rhode Island in order to settle the boundaries between the two colonies; it plainly appears from this instrument that the General Assembly of Connecticut were so far from thinking that their late agent Winthrop had exceeded his commission in submitting the boundries to arbitration, after their charter was passed, that they expressly provide, "That nothing to be done by the commissioners shall alter or change the property of any per- sons lands, but that property shall be saved according to the agreement of their late agent John Winthrop, made in the year 1663 with Mr. Clarke agent for Rhode Island."
These few words lost the case for Connecticut. If she recognized the property rights under the Winthrop- Clarke agreement she was forced to recognize the entire agreement as binding. There was a slight difference be- tween this agreement and that of 1703. This difference can be most easily seen on the map reproduced from the Colonial Office papers. The red line shows the Winthrop- Clarke agreement and the green line that of 1703. The
I4
green line was of advantage to Connecticut and was granted here in the following words:
But as some doubts have been made with respect to their bounds, even as they are stated in the Rhode Island charter, arising from the uncertainty and variety of names given to places and rivers; and as the green line on the annexed map was determined in 1703, to be the division line between the two colonies by the Commissioners respectively appointed for that purpose; we humbly propose that his Majesty may be gra- ciously pleased to signify His pleasure, that the aforesaid green line may hereafter be the settled Boundary between the two colonies.
In the following year the line was surveyed. Yet bad feeling continued to persist between the colonies, each claiming that the monuments erected along the line had been unfairly placed. Both colonies, however, had con- firmed the line by 1742. In 1840 the line was re-surveyed but no material changes were made, the line remaining approximately the same as in 1703.
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.