USA > Connecticut > Tercentenary pamphlet series, v. 1 Connecticut and the British Government > Part 25
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
It was fortunate for Rhode Island that she persevered in the long struggle, as being so small, even after her victory, she would have been almost destroyed if Con- necticut's claims to the Narragansett country had been vindicated.
In the next controversy that we shall describe-that of Connecticut and Massachusetts-the rôles are, to a large extent, reversed. Massachusetts was the larger colony and Connecticut the smaller. While a complete victory for Massachusetts would not have destroyed Connecticut, it would have resulted in a loss which would have cut quite a segment from her northern and eastern boundaries.
Massachusetts claimed part of the Pequot territory as a reward for aid in the Pequot War, and insisted that the boundary had been set, by agreement, at the Mystic
I5
River. As soon as Connecticut's charter was granted, which included this territory, Connecticut repudiated the agreement and as, legally, Massachusetts had no claim to this area, it being outside her own chartered bounds and within those of Connecticut, Massachusetts soon re- linquished the attempt to keep this territory, and the big problem of the boundary running east and west be- tween the two colonies became the paramount issue.
According to the Massachusetts charter the line should run west from a point three miles south of the southern- most part of the Charles River, but just where this line would fall in Connecticut was uncertain. At first it was thought that Springfield was south of this line, and for several years that settlement was considered part of Connecticut, but in 1644 Massachusetts' claim to Spring- field was sustained at a meeting of the commissioners of the New England Confederation, although Springfield was required to pay a tax to Connecticut on goods sent down the Connecticut River-which money was used in part payment for the Warwick Patent bought from George Fenwick.
The claim to Springfield by Massachusetts was based upon a survey made in 1642 to determine Massachusetts' southern boundary. This line was determined by Nathan- iel Woodward and Solomon Saffery under Massachusetts authority. These men were not qualified for the position and made a mistake which was the foundation of the Massachusetts-Connecticut boundary strife. They start- ed the line at a point they thought to be three miles south of the most southern part of the Charles River and instead of running it across country, as they should have done, they sailed round Cape Cod and up the Connecticut River to a point which they thought would be on the same degree of latitude with their starting point. The
16
point they chose was eight miles too far south, thereby cutting a segment, eight miles at its widest point and about four miles at its narrowest, from certain parts of Connecticut's northern area.
Westfield,
1
1
1
1
B
True Line
D
X BYI
1
LOT
Suffield
River
Enfield
Woodstock
1
1
1
Crystal 1
1
Simsbury!
Windsor
Woodward~Saffery Lines
Scale of Miles
House
0
2 3 4 5 67 8 910
1935
This shows the error in the Woodward-Saffery Line with the resulting uncer- tainty as to which colony Suffield, Enfield, and Woodstock should belong.
Connecticut was not slow to discover this mistake and protested against this line at a meeting of the New England Confederation in 1649. She even voiced once again her claim to Springfield. Massachusetts denied her claims, and Connecticut was powerless.
Time passed, and as the town of Windsor grew the question as to where the Woodward-Saffery line should pass through that town became the dominant issue.
Massachusetts proposed a re-survey of the Woodward and Saffery line and was even willing to compromise to the extent of permitting the north line of Windsor to extend up the Connecticut River within forty rods of the Great Island, then east of the river four miles, and then south to the old line.
Connecticut refused the compromise and threatened in 1680 to make a new survey alone, if Massachusetts would not unite in making one with her. At this time several of the border towns, Suffield in 1686 and Enfield in 1693,
I7
P
L
Connection
Bissell
complained of the encroachments of Massachusetts, and petitioned Connecticut to protect them. Before taking any aggressive steps, Connecticut thought it wiser to have a new survey made. Connecticut asked Massachu- setts to join in the survey, but upon her refusal, she ap- pointed John Butcher and William Whitney to make the survey alone, which they completed on August 20, 1695. They started from a point three miles south of Wrentham Pond which was in latitude 42º-3', the same point from which Woodward and Saffery had also started, but had, through error, thought it to be in 41º-55' N. Lat. Today 42º-3' N. is the northern boundary of Connecticut, al- though Butcher and Whitney in their report accused Woodward and Saffery of another error, stating that the point the line should have been run from was 42º-4' north.
Massachusetts objected to the above report saying that the old line should not be disturbed. Connecticut made no reply but quietly began to settle upon lands in Enfield and Suffield. Massachusetts again objected, and Connecticut in 1700 appointed commissioners to make an agreement with Massachusetts as to the boundary line.
Massachusetts at first refused the Connecticut com- missioners' proposals, but later made counter proposals that the Suffield town line should be continued sixteen miles west and the Enfield line eight miles east and then south to the old line if that part of Woodstock which was south of the Woodward and Saffery line be granted to her. Connecticut yielded all claim to Woodstock and pro- posed that a line be run from 42º-3' N. Lat. due west, all towns along this line to belong to the colony which had first settled them.
In 1702 James Taylor of Massachusetts, and Pitkin and Whiting of Connecticut, confirmed the line of 1695
18
which, as we have seen, returned to Connecticut seven miles of the territory she had lost because of Wood- ward's and Saffery's error. Massachusetts failed to grant Taylor full power in this survey and so refused to recog- nize this settlement. In order to force Connecticut to for- feit any claim due to this agreement, Massachusetts threatened to appeal to Queen Anne if any change from the boundary of 1662 were made. Connecticut replied with threats of a similar appeal unless the line of Taylor and Pitkin were confirmed. Massachusetts gave in a little by agreeing that Windsor might have jurisdiction up the river to Taylor's line but would not permit Enfield and Suffield to join Connecticut. A year later, even the con- cession to Windsor was withdrawn and Massachusetts claimed all the land down to the old line.
It was a most unsettled time. Persons from Connecticut went into Massachusetts territory and there insulted the inhabitants, claiming jurisdiction over them. In return, men from Enfield and Suffield crossed into Windsor and Simsbury to steal timber and turpentine, and to im- prison the inhabitants.
In 1708 Connecticut made a final conciliatory attempt to settle the problem with Massachusetts. Commissioners were appointed by the general assembly with full powers to meet with like commissioners from Massachusetts. An appeal to the queen was threatened in case of refusal on the part of Massachusetts to appoint commissioners. Massachusetts refused and both colonies sent memorials to London.
Little that was new was brought out in the two memo- rials. Massachusetts claimed the old line of 1642 to be almost, if not entirely correct, stating "artists alike skilful may differ in a point or some minute thing but it is very improbable and unlikely the difference can be so
19
great" as Connecticut claimed. She also pointed out that the old line had existed for sixty-six years.
Connecticut indicated just what the error was in the old line and showed the differences between the Wood- ward and Saffery line and the Taylor's line. She sent her memorial to her agent, Sir Henry Ashurst, but unfortu- nately for the colony's aspirations he soon died. Condi- tions in England at the time were unfavorable to both Massachusetts and Connecticut. A strong party in Eng- land wanted to annul the private charters and make Connecticut a royal colony. It was therefore to the ad- vantage of both colonies to avoid drawing the attention of the British government to themselves. Largely due to the fear that British settlement might result in mutual disaster, Massachusetts and Connecticut came to an im- portant agreement in 1713. Massachusetts was to have jurisdiction over her old border towns although they fell south of the new boundary line. In return for this con- cession, Massachusetts was to compensate Connecticut with an amount of land in western Massachusetts and New Hampshire equal in size to the amount of land taken from her south of the boundary line. The tract around Windsor was to be given over to Connecticut. In all, the lands taken by Massachusetts south of her boundary line came to 107,793 acres. Connecticut sold the lands granted, in exchange for £683 New England currency April, 1716, and gave the money to Yale College. In 1717 commissioners from both colonies ran the line from the Connecticut River to the New York line without further controversy.
It would seem that the agreement of 1713-1717 would have settled for all time the boundary controversies be- tween Massachusetts and Connecticut. Both of the colo- nies were satisfied, Massachusetts having received the land
20
she desired, and Connecticut having received money as a recompense. However, one very important factor had been omitted in making the settlement, the desires of the inhabitants of the border towns of Woodstock, Enfield, and Suffield. They had not been consulted as to their wishes with regard to whether they were to be governed by Massachusetts or by Connecticut and, due to the fact that taxes were higher in Massachusetts than Connecti- cut, were not at all pleased by being handed over to the Massachusetts government. Almost at once, movements were started in these towns to get away, as they called it, from Massachusetts.
In 1724 both Enfield and Suffield petitioned the gen- eral assembly of Connecticut for permission to be joined to that colony. The general assembly replied that nothing could be done in that respect as Connecticut must adhere to the agreement of 1713.
In 1747 the inhabitants of Woodstock, although the town had been settled by Massachusetts people origi- nally, felt that they would be benefited if they joined with Suffield and Enfield in an attempt to leave Massachu- setts for Connecticut. They petitioned the Connecticut general assembly and claimed that as they were within the charter limits of Connecticut, Connecticut had no right under the said charter to permit Massachusetts to have jurisdiction over them. They also pointed out that the agreement of 1713 had been without their consent, and so was of no value. They asked to be annexed to Connecticut.
By this time Connecticut had begun to regret the agreement of 1713. Forty-four years had lapsed since it had been made and a new group of men were in charge of the government. Thus, instead of an absolute refusal, as in 1724, a committee was appointed by the general as-
21
sembly to investigate the matter and to ascertain whether anything could be done to bring Woodstock into Con- necticut. Commissioners were also appointed to discuss the problem with Massachusetts. Massachusetts, having nothing to gain and everything to lose by any reopening of the question, refused to deal with the Connecticut commissioners.
Woodstock was greatly encouraged by Connecticut's action and appointed Thomas Chandler and Henry Bowen to go to Hartford and urge the Connecticut gen- eral assembly to even more definite action. In case they were unable to get the assembly to agree to their union with Connecticut they were to appeal to "the great Court of England." Another strong argument in their favor was that the agreement of 1713 had never received royal confirmation and so was in no way binding. Con- necticut was of course anxious to receive the towns. She was strengthened in her position by a written opinion from New York, signed by R. Bradley, the attorney- general, William Smith, and Richard Nichols, which stated that all towns south of the Connecticut-Massachu- setts boundary should by law be part of Connecticut and that under her charter she had no right to give up juris- diction over them.
Two years later, May, 1749, after due consideration, Connecticut voted to receive the towns of Enfield, Suf- field, Somers, and Woodstock, appointed commissioners to meet similar Massachusetts commissioners in order to change the line, and threatened to appeal to George II for confirmation of her actions if Massachusetts did not agree.
Massachusetts was furious over the action of Connect- icut in receiving the towns. She wrote her agent in London to have the agreement of 1713 confirmed. Con-
22
necticut, however, had written her agent to guard against the confirmation of this agreement. Woodstock at once held a special town meeting and elected Thomas Chand- ler and Henry Bowen members of the Connecticut gen- eral assembly. Massachusetts again protested but Gov- ernor Law of Connecticut replied that he did not see how Massachusetts could maintain her authority outside her patent limits. Massachusetts was not ready to meet Connecticut's commissioners to discuss the matter, but Connecticut, feeling that possession was nine points of the law, insisted on a settlement according to the charters which would of course have given the towns to Con- necticut. Massachusetts continued to send petitions, write letters, and threatened violence. Connecticut maintained her position. An impasse had been reached and it seemed that the only way a settlement could be made would be through an appeal to the crown. Rhode Island, who was also disputing her boundary with Massachusetts, agreed to join Connecticut in the appeal. Committees were appointed by these two colonies April 4, 1752. They reported that Massachusetts, through the error of Wood- ward and Saffery, held a tract of four miles along the entire boundary line which did not belong to her. This report was sent to England in the following year. The attorney-general, Lord Mansfield, after considering the matter, stated, "I am of the opinion that in settling the above bound, the crown will not disturb the settlement of the two Provinces in 1713."
If the problem had been decided in England, Massachu- setts, on the strength of Lord Mansfield's statement, might have received the decision. However, at that time England was busy with the Seven Years' War and had no time to bother with disputes between two far distant colonies. What was of importance to the men of Massa-
23
chusetts and Connecticut, and of great moment to the men who lived in the disputed towns, was of no impor- tance to the men who lived in England and were fighting the French for a colonial empire. So nothing was done in England. In New England Massachusetts continued to protest and Connecticut continued to govern the towns. This went on until the time of the Revolution, the towns remaining in Connecticut's possession. One result of Woodstock's annexation to Connecticut was the loss of a strip of land which had been part of the town before this union, but which was certainly north of any possible interpretation of Connecticut's charter and so became province territory of Massachusetts. It was known as the Middlesex Gore until 1794, when it was annexed to the towns of Dudley and Sturbridge.
It is an interesting point ethically whether or not Connecticut should have taken these towns after Massa- chusetts had paid her for them in 1713. At first glance it would seem that Connecticut should have returned the money she had received for the sale of equivalent land before taking back the towns. Another way of looking at it is that this sum of money represented rent paid by Massachusetts for the use of these towns over a period of years, the towns always legally being part of Connect- icut. Connecticut's attitude seems a little specious as Massachusetts certainly had no thought of such impli- cation when this payment was made. While the ethics of Connecticut may be questioned as to the money involved, there can be no question but that the towns were legally within the bounds of Connecticut's charter, that the in- habitants of the towns wished to be governed by Connect- icut rather than by Massachusetts, and that when given a chance to show their preference they voiced it most de- cisively in favor of Connecticut.
24
We now come to that dent in the northern boundary which shows on all modern maps of Connecticut. The town of Southwick in Massachusetts had been settled before any agreement had been reached between Connect- icut and Massachusetts for the boundary. Now that the boundary had been defined, it was found that the south-
Southwick
-
7
A
B
Suffield
River®
Granby
Connecticut
This shows the compromise of 1804 between Massachusetts and Connecticut. Massachusetts claimed A and B which were south of the then State line as part of the town of Southwick. Connecticut also claimed A and B as part of the towns of Suffield and Granby. In the compromise Connecti- cut received B and Massachusetts A. This agreement is still in effect and accounts for the indentation in the Connecticut-Massachusetts bound- ary line.
ern part of Southwick extended into the townships of Granby and Suffield. In 1774 Connecticut attached this land and ten years later appointed a committee to es- tablish the boundary between Southwick and Granby and Suffield. Nothing came of this attempt until 1793, when both states appointed commissioners to run the boundary line from Southwick west to the New York line.
25
Four years later, joint commissioners also examined the line east of the Connecticut River. The report approved the line with two exceptions; there was an irregularity at the corners of Woodstock and Union, and commissioners believed that a tract two and a half miles square at Southwick should be given Massachusetts in compensa- tion for the towns of Woodstock, Enfield, Suffield, and Somers, which Connecticut still held under Massachu- setts protest. Connecticut refused to capitulate in 1801, but in 1804 a compromise was reached, and the slice of Southwick under dispute was divided at the pond in Southwick, all territory east of the pond to be given Connecticut, all west, given Massachusetts. In this di- vision Massachusetts got about five-eighths and Connect- icut three-eighths of the two and a half square miles under dispute. The amount of land involved was very small, but as this indentation has remained until the present day and shows clearly on every state map, there remains more than a matter of local interest as to its origin.
There is another jog in the northern border of Connect- icut which has never been corrected. The line begins at the Connecticut River and runs irregularly north and east forming the northern boundary of the town of En- field as well as the inter-state boundary line. The reason that this was not corrected can be found in the local his- tory of Enfield.
Prior to Enfield's becoming part of Connecticut, its boundary with the Massachusetts town of Longmeadow was in part the Longmeadow River. The mouth of this river fell below the true line of the Massachusetts patent. After Enfield became part of Connecticut no attempt was made to change the northern town boundary. The com- missioners, who examined the line in 1797 and issued a
26
joint report as to how it should be run, stated as far as Enfield was concerned:
In Enfield there has been some uncertainty but no very serious difficulties have arisen. On Connecticut River the town of Springfield now Longmeadow extended below the line, and though it is very crooked yet the practical jurisdic- tion is so well known, and settled as to admit of no dispute.
In 1826 when the final settlement was made, the line was commenced forty rods south of the Longmeadow River, for the commissioners believed that the Long-
Longmeadow
River
C
Patent Line7
B
Boundary
1
A Final
Connecticut
Enfield
The line A-B had been the boundary between Enfield and Longmeadow while Enfield was a part of Massachusetts. No attempt was made to straighten it or to bring it up to the true Patent Line C-B by either Enfield or Connecticut.
meadow River had shifted its course to that extent since the town of Enfield had been laid out and that the former, rather than the present mouth of that river should be considered the true boundary. It seems strange that Con- necticut should not have protested Longmeadow's ex- tending below the true patent line, but apparently she did not. It may be that Connecticut felt that, as Enfield was satisfied with her irregular northern boundary, and as Massachusetts was willing to concede Connecticut's
27
possession of Enfield, Somers, Woodstock, and Suffield, it would be foolish to antagonize the town of Long- meadow and so possibly fail to reach an agreement with Massachusetts.
The only remaining point to settle was the gore at
c-
A D E
B -F
Union
Woodstock
This shows the elimination of the irregularity of the boundary line between Massachusetts and Connecticut at the junction of Union and Woodstock. The line at first ran C-D-E-F. This was corrected to the line A-B which took a small strip of land from Union and added an equal amount to Woodstock.
Union. As the northeast corner of Union had extended into Massachusetts 120 rods and the northwest corner of Woodstock was 48 rods too far south, a jog had been left in the colony line between Woodstock and the corner of Union. This was corrected in 1826, which year marked the end of the long controversy between Massachusetts and Connecticut.
The last boundary to be discussed in this paper is that between Connecticut and New York. An agreement had been made between the Dutch and Connecticut in 1650, but this had never been ratified by either home govern- ment. The Dutch soon disappeared from the scene, due to the conquest of New Amsterdam by the English in 1664. Charles II granted a patent to his brother James, Duke of York, March 12, 1664. The boundaries of this land included "all that island or islands commonly called
28
by the general name or names of Matawax or Long Island ... and all the land from the west side of Connect- icut River to the East side of Delaware Bay." A large part of this land had been granted to the Governor and Company of Connecticut by royal charter and even the Dutch in New Amsterdam had recognized that the rights of Connecticut extended to within ten miles of the Hud- son River and to the eastern half of Long Island. Now, however, under the Duke of York's patent, Connecticut was to be left only the land east of the Connecticut River, and none of Long Island.
A word should be said about Long Island before we discuss the problem on the mainland. A patent for Long Island, had been granted the Earl of Stirling by the Council for New England. To be valid it should have been confirmed by the king in the form of a royal charter, but this was never done. However, Stirling acted under it as if he had received the king's approval and made grants in Long Island. In 1641, after Stirling's death, his agent, James Forrett, mortgaged the greater part of the island to George Fenwick of Saybrook, John Haynes, George Wyllys, and Edward Hopkins of Connecticut, Theophilus Eaton, Stephen Goodyear, and Thomas Gregson of New Haven, who were acting as representa- tives of their colonies, for £110. The mortgage was never paid and the land was considered as belonging to the three colonies involved. The union of Saybrook and Connecticut brought the greater part of eastern Long Island under Connecticut, who upheld this claim until 1662 when she was granted the entire island by her charter. Unfortunately for Connecticut the Duke of York bought the Earl of Stirling's patent from his heirs, and with the additional patent received, as mentioned above, from Charles II, laid claim to the entire island.
29
In the other disputes over the boundary lines, the issue at stake was not of great importance to Connecticut. Regardless of whether or not she absorbed most of Rhode Island, Connecticut herself could continue as a self-sufficient community. That is also true in the case of the Massachusetts dispute. The loss or gain of those towns was not of vital importance to Connecticut. But in the case of New York, the problem was much more seri- ous. Connecticut, without any land west of the Connecti- cut River, and without Long Island, would have been in almost as unfortunate a position as Rhode Island would have been without the Narragansett country.
The men of Connecticut, realizing this, at once tried to make some agreement with the new New York govern- ment. Commissioners were sent to New York to congrat- ulate the new government there on their conquest of the Dutch, and to uphold Connecticut's claims to her charter limits. An agreement was soon concluded. Long Island was granted to New York and the river Mamaroneck was designated as the beginning of the boundary line on the mainland. The point on the river where the fresh water falls into the salt at high tide was taken as the starting point. From there the line was to run north-northwest to the Massachusetts line. This line was much more favor- able to Connecticut than her agreement with the Dutch in 1650, as it passed through Peekskill, and crossed the Hudson River a few miles higher up. It touched the projected Massachusetts line near the northwest corner of what is now Ulster County in New York state.
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.