USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > The memorial history of Hartford County, Connecticut, 1633-1884, Vol. I > Part 4
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 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88
From the wording of this vote it is obvious that the Court did not then contemplate any removal of the Cambridge people except to some place within or just outside the existing settlements in the Bay. This was in May, 1634. In the September following (September 25) the subject came up again. Grants of meadow land, heretofore belonging to Watertown, and some grounds about Muddy River, which had be- longed to Boston, were given to Newtowne, -
"Provided . . . that if Mr. Hooker and the congrecon nowe setled here shall remove lrence, then the aforesaid meadowe ground shall returne to Waterton, and the ground at Muddy Ryver to Boston." 2
As already said, the first of these extracts makes it plain that the members of the Court at that time could not have been thinking of any distant removal. It would have been quite unnecessary to hint that a settlement there could be "to pindice a plantacon already setled."
This uneasy spirit, however, continued to spread. At the General Court held May 6, 1635,
"There [was] liberty graunted to the inhabitants of Waterton to remove themselves to any place they shall think meete to make choise of, pvided they continue still vnd this goûmt " $
At the same court,
" The inhabitants of Rocksbury hatlı liberty grannted them to remove them- selves to any place they shall thinke meete, not to piudice another plantacon, pvided they continue still vnder this goûmt."
And at the adjourned Court, June 3,
" There [was] like leave graunted to the inhabitants of Dorchestr, for their removall, as Waterton hath graunted to them." 4
1 Massachusetts Records, vol. i. p. 119 ..
2 Ibid., pp. 129, 130.
3 Ibid., p. 146.
4 Ibid., p. 148.
21
THE RIVER TOWNS PLANTED.
Such wide-spread restlessness in four of the chief settlements of the Massachusetts Bay, within four years after these towns were planted, is, of itself, a curious fact for the historical student. It was not that these people had repented of coming to America. In all this zeal for removal there seems to have been no desire to return to their old homes in Eng- land. And if they were to remain on these shores, there was no place where they could have such security against the dangers by which they were surrounded as in the Massachusetts Bay. Here society was already organized with a large measure of strength, and the blessings of neighbor- hood, so desirable in a new land, could be found there as nowhere else. Yet in spite of all considerations of this kind, here were four of the chief settlements in the Massachusetts colony filled with a spirit of unrest and dissatisfaction with their surroundings. Of the four towns which had obtained the right to remove, Roxbury does not particularly concern us, since the company led out from that place by William Pynchon founded Springfield, Mass., then called by its Indian name Agawam. There was a tendency at first to link Agawam, as to government, with the towns below ; but after a little it was determined that it was in Massachusetts, and it was governed accordingly.
As we have seen, the right to remove had been granted by the depu- ties of the General Court, but there are evidences that the magistrates were strongly opposed to the scheme and did all that they reasonably could do to frustrate it. It was certainly natural that they should feel so. Here was a great enterprise intrusted to their keeping, which at the best was beset with many difficulties, and which was now, in its very infancy, threatened with the loss of a large portion of its intelligence and strength. It was exceedingly depressing that the high hopes at- tendant upon the beginning of the planting in the Bay should be so soon overshadowed with doubt. At the first, as we have already said, when these suggestions of removal began to be whispered abroad, it was sup- posed that the new settlements would be near at hand, and that the real strength of the Massachusetts plantations would not be materially weak- ened. But at length it began to appear that the distant valley of the Connecticut was the territory to be occupied. In various ways, since 1630, this rich and fertile valley had been brought to the notice of the Massachusetts settlers. An Indian sachem came to Boston in 1631, hoping to secure an English colony to be settled on the river. Through this, and the various movements of the Dutch and the Plymouth people, as also the giving of land grants on the territory, there was considerable knowledge of the Connecticut River and the rich lands along its borders at the time when these questions of removal were up for consideration. To all these discontented people the privilege of removal had been granted, " pvided they continue still vndr this goum"." The charter of Massachusetts had been defined in general terms, but no surveyor had yet been sent through the wilderness to fix the boundary lines in accordance with the language of the charter. No man in Boston could then tell certainly where the southern boundary of Massachusetts would cross the Connecticut River. Long afterward it was settled that this line was coincident with the southern boundary of the present town of Longmeadow. But in 1635 the men of Boston, looking off upon the western wilderness, could only have a bewildered idea of lines and limi- tations. Though it cannot very well be doubted that the chief desire
22
MEMORIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD COUNTY.
for change on the part of those removing was that they might no longer be under the Massachusetts government, yet, for the time being, it was convenient not to discuss those points too critically.
At the session of the General Court in September, 1634, this whole business of the removal came up for long and warm discussion. We find no report of this discussion in the "Massachusetts Records," but Governor Winthrop has preserved a detailed account of it in his Jour- nal. Everything in his description goes to show that this was regarded as a most important debate : -
September 4. "The general court began at Newtown, and continued a week, and then was adjourned fourteen days. Many things were there agitated and concluded. .. . But the main business, which spent the most time, and caused the adjourning of the court, was about the removal of Newtown. They had leave, the last general court, to look out some place for enlargement or removal, with promise to have it confirmed to them if it were not prejudicial to any other plan- tation : and now they moved that they might have leave to remove to Connecti- cut. The matter was debated divers days, and many reasons alleged pro and con."
Here follow the heads of the principal reasons and arguments, on both sides ; and
"Upon these and other arguments, the court being divided, it was put to vote ; and of the deputies, fifteen were for their departure and ten against it. The Governour and two assistants were for it, and the Deputy and all the rest of the assistants were against it (except the Secretary, who gave no vote); where- upon no record was entered, because there were not six assistants in the vote, as the patent requires. Upon this grew a great difference between the governour and assistants, and the deputies." 1
The governor that year was Thomas Dudley ; the deputy-governor, Roger Ludlowe; and the assistants were John Winthrop, Sr., John Humfry, John Haynes, John Endicott, William Pynchon, Increase Nowell, William Coddington, John Winthrop, Jr., and Simon Brad- street. But all of these assistants were not present at the meeting.
In the spring of 1635 John Haynes was chosen governor in the place of Thomas Dudley, and one of the first acts of the General Court of Election (May 6) was to grant " liberty to the inhabitants of Water- ton to remove themselves to any place they shall thinke meete to make choise of, pvided they continue still vnder this goumt." At an ad- journed session of this Court, June 3, after a vote of "like leave granted to the inhabitants of Dorchester, for their removeall, as Water- ton hath graunted to them," -
" Also, there are three peeces [cannon] granted to the plantacons that shall remove to Conecticott, to ffortifie themselves withall." 2
This is the first formal recognition of the plantations "at Connecti- cut" which appears in the records of the General Court. Three months later, at the September Court, several orders were made for the protec- tion and good government of these distant plantations : -
" Wittm Westwood is sworne constable of the plantacons att Conecticott till some other be chosen."
1 Winthrop, vol. i. pp. 140, 141.
2 Massachusetts Records, vol. i. p. 148.
23
THE RIVER TOWNS PLANTED.
"There is power graunted to any magistrate to sweare a constable att any plantacon att Conecticott, when the inhabitants shall desire the same." 1
" It was ordered, that there shalbe two drakes [small cannon] lent to the plantacons att Conecticott, to ffortifie themselues withall, as also sixe barrells of powder (2 out of Waterton, 2 out of Dorchester, & 2 out of Rocksbury), also 200 shott, with other implemts belonging to the peeces, that may conveniently be spared, all wch are to be returned againe vpon demaund. Captaine Vnderhill & Mr. Beecher are to deliver theis things." 2
" It was ordered, that euy towne vpon Conecticott shall haue liberty to chuse theire owne constable, whoe shalbe sworne by some magistrate of this Court." 3
It is to be noticed that these orders of the General Court were made some time before the companies of emigrants had left their Massachu- setts homes. Individuals had gone to prospect and prepare the way, but the great body of the colonists did not leave until the spring of 1636. Some of " those of Dorchester" " removed their cattle to Con- necticut before winter," 1635, and " were put to great straits for want of provisions," and " a great part of the old [church of Dorchester]" had gone before the first of March, 1636.4 They knew not certainly, any more than the magistrates in the Bay, whether or not they were going outside of the Massachusetts jurisdiction, nor did they then care to discuss that point. They departed as "freemen and members " of the Massachusetts Bay Company, and bound for the present to obey its laws. They accepted, apparently without objection, the appoint- ment of eight men from among the colonists, to whom the business of government should be intrusted for one year, and who should hold themselves responsible to the power that appointed them. So, in the year 1636, the three bodies of emigrants coming from Watertown, Cam- bridge, and Dorchester, were gathered here in the Connecticut valley, bringing the names of their old homes along with them. What were soon the towns of Wethersfield, Hartford, and Windsor were at the first Watertowne, Newtowne (the early name of Cambridge), and Dorchester plantations.
If we inquire into the causes producing this wide-spread dissatis- faction and desire for change among the people of the Massachusetts Bay, it may be difficult to state the case fully and exactly. Some of the reasons urged for removal certainly were not very weighty. The settlers in the Bay complained that they had not room enough for ex- pansion, had not sufficient pasturage for their cattle. But surely the unoccupied world around them was very large. The territory then taken up by them was only an infinitesimal fraction of the broad domain covered by the Massachusetts charter. If it was land only that they wanted, they might have helped themselves to the spreading acres reach- ing off on every side, and still kept themselves within the shelter and protection of established society.
The reports which had from time to time been brought to them of the Connecticut valley had doubtless stirred their imaginations. The word " Connecticut " meant to them then only the valley. Of the hill country east and west of the river, which now makes so large a portion
1 Massachusetts Records, vol. i. p. 159.
2 Ibid., p. 160.
8 Ibid., p. 160.
4 Winthrop, vol. i. pp. 183, 184.
24
MEMORIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD COUNTY.
of the State, they knew little or nothing. But the story of the valley, its richness, beauty, and extent, had reached their ears and charmed their thoughts. It was lying there, in the far west, like some fair promised land waiting for its chosen people. But they could not be unaware of the great hardships and dangers which must attend the attempt to remove thither, and if there had not been some causes of irritation and disturbance greater than those already mentioned, we may be quite sure that they would have remained, for the time being, quietly in the Massachusetts Bay.
The great controversies about Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and her doc- trines, which so convulsed Boston and the neighboring towns, had not begun at the time when this uneasiness first manifested itself in the Massachusetts settlements. Mrs. Hutchinson did not come over until 1634. When the New Haven colony came into the Boston Bay in 1637, with the general intention of settling in that vicinity, this strife about faith and works was in full activity and was rending society with its fierce antagonisms. There can be no doubt that this fact had much to do in turning the New Haven people away to seek another home. But this cannot be urged as the source of that discontent of which we are now trying to find the causes. It is true, before the Connecticut emi- grants left the bay, the seeds of this religions strife had been sown and the wordy war was beginning, and this may have made those preparing to depart only the more ready to hasten their steps.
There used to be a rude and summary way of settling the question now before us. It was said that Mr. Thomas Hooker and Mr. John Cotton were jealous of each other, - that they were both too great to live peaceably under the same jurisdiction, and so Mr. Hooker with- drew, and the Connecticut Colony was born out of this contest for supremacy. How crude this is as a piece of political philosophy will appear from a few brief considerations. Mr. Cotton and Mr. Hooker came over in the same vessel, the ship " Griffin," in 1633. Mr. Hooker's old friends, to whom he had ministered in England, with some others, had already gathered themselves together at Cambridge (then New- towne) and were eagerly looking for his arrival. This he understood ; and when he landed here in September, 1633, he had no other thought or wish except to join immediately his waiting people. Nothing but the sternest sense of duty could have prevailed upon him to take any other course. It was not determined beforehand where Mr. Cotton should go; and when he found his natural place in the Boston church, as colleague with Mr. John Wilson, it was not so certainly true that he had found the place he wanted, as it was that Mr. Hooker had found the place he wanted. Again, if Mr. Hooker was the chief mover of discontent, how should it happen that there was almost as early and as strong a desire for removal in the Dorchester plantation as in the Newtowne ? The ministers at Dorchester, Mr. John Maverick and Mr. John Warham, did not wish to undertake the planting of a new colony. They much preferred to remain where they were, and threw their influ- ence in that direction. But their people, in spite of the opinions of the ministers, were bent on removing. Mr. Maverick died before the jour- ney was made, but Mr. Warham was carried to Windsor by the prevail- ing opinion of his church and people, and not of his own motion.
In Watertown the case was different. The movement from that
25
THE RIVER TOWNS PLANTED.
place was by individuals, and not by the church as a body. It is claimed that some of the Watertown people, removing to what is now Wethers- field, were earlier on the Connecticut soil than any of the settlers in the other plantations. It would appear that some of them were here in the year 1634. But this movement from Watertown, continued more at length and in little companies, did not carry the church organization with it.1
The ministers and magistrates of the Massachusetts Bay as a rule did not favor this emigration, but opposed it. They belonged to the privileged and governing class, and were content with their lot. The only real exception appears to have been in the case of Mr. Hooker. Mr. Stone, his associate, would doubtless remain with him on these shores, whether he went to Hartford or stayed at Newtowne. In the circumstances of the case he was almost a part of Mr. Hooker himself. But Mr. Hooker's sympathies clearly ran with the discontented people in the Massachusetts settlements. Governor John Haynes, who came over with Mr. Hooker in the ship " Griffin," was of the same mind.
When we speak of organized churches removing in bodies, a word of caution may be needful to prevent misunderstanding. It is not meant that the whole membership of the Hooker church at Newtowne went to Hartford, or the whole membership of the church of Dorchester to Windsor. The question of going or staying was doubtless in both cases decided by the major vote of the voting members. None of full age were compelled to go who preferred to remain. On the other hand, the emigrants were not limited to church-members. The Dorchester company had been at their American home five years before this new enterprise was undertaken. There had grown up in that plantation a considerable population additional to that which came over in the " Mary & John " in 1630. The increase had been partly by birth, but chiefly by new-comers who were dropping in every year. When the question of removal came up, the major part of the church decided to go. But not a few church-members stayed behind ; and within three months after the John Warham church left for Windsor, another church was organ- ized on that soil under the pastoral care of Mr. Richard Mather. So at Newtowne, when the Hooker company had taken their departure, a church under Mr. Thomas Shepard (afterward son-in-law of Mr. Hooker) was immediately formed in that settlement, to meet the wants of those who remained behind and of others coming in.
But still the question returns upon us, what were the causes incit- ing to this wide-spread desire in men to remove out of the bounds of the Massachusetts Bay. The shape and order of the government of the Massachusetts Bay Company were fixed in England before the charter came over in 1630. It was a system in which the real powers
1 The church of Watertown, organized in the closing days of July, 1630, and placed under the pastoral care of Mr. George Phillips, is still on the Watertown soil, and celebrated there its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary in July, 1880. On the other hand, the church organized in Plymouth, England, on the 30th of March, 1630, which came directly over in a body and settled in Dorchester, - that church celebrated its two hundred and fiftieth anni- versary, March 30, 1880, in the town of Windsor, Conn., because, as an organized church, it left Dorchester, Mass., in the year 1636, and ever after made its home in Windsor. In like manner the church which was organized in Cambridge, Mass., in October, 1632 or 1633, cele- brated its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary in Hartford, Conn., in October, 1883. The anniversary dated from the installation of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone at Newtown, but the church may have been organized the previous year.
26
MEMORIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD COUNTY.
and prerogatives of government were lodged in the hands of a few men, and the great body of the common people had little or nothing to do with it. The leaders of the colony were men who had felt themselves oppressed in Old England, and they had betaken themselves to New England that they might breathe the air of liberty. But it is hard for men anywhere to clear themselves at once from the ideas and entangle- ments of the past. Even when they think they are taking great strides toward freedom and justice, they will yet be held fast in the chains of old routine and habit. Governor John Winthrop and the chief men associated with him were noble and just men, and meant to do that which was good and right. But they had been trained under a kingly and aristocratic system, where full-grown men, belonging to the com- mon orders, were thought to have no more to do with government in matters of Church or State than little children in their nurses' arms. That idea, embodied virtually in the constitution of the Massachusetts company, was taken over in 1630 from Old England to New England. Some seeds of liberty were there which would work themselves out into fruit in the course of time ; but in the years 1630-1636 the government of the Massachusetts Bay, in the final resort, was in the hands of the governor of the colony and a few men closely associated with him. The people might be amused with the idea that they were making and execut- ing the laws. They might be permitted to play with the ontward forms. But the governor, magistrates, and ministers settled all questions at the last.
In this connection, it is to be remembered that in the Massachusetts Bay system none but church-members were even called freemen. None but church-members were permitted even the pleasure of playing with the machinery of government. It was not so down in the Plymouth Colony, where the Pilgrims had had their government in working order for several years before the Puritans came to the Massachusetts Bay. In Plymouth all men, whether church-members or not, except such as were scandalous and corrupt in their lives, were made voters, and shared in the privileges of the free government. We say were made voters, for then nowhere would a man be considered a voter simply by reaching a certain age and paying a poll-tax. He would be received on his mer- its. But at Plymouth there was no system in operation which would exclude a man of fair character from membership in the body politic. Miles Standish was not a church-member, and was sometimes a little rough and stormy in his ways ; but he could be a voter and a magistrate under the Plymouth system.
In a government like that in the Massachusetts Bay common men felt themselves oppressed. They were interfered with in a thousand little matters which were of a private nature, and which might best have been left to themselves. Mr. Hooker, when he came to Boston and Cambridge in 1633, found the common people throughout these new plantations suffering under this sense of oppression. There was a meddlesome interference with them as individuals which warred with their self-respect and disturbed their peace. They felt this the more keenly in New England than they would have felt it in Old England. They had come out here as from a land of bondage to a place of liberty ; and to encounter in this their new home all the annoyances which they before had, was a special aggravation.
27
THE RIVER TOWNS PLANTED.
Sir Richard Saltonstall, the first of the eighteen assistants named in the Massachusetts Bay charter, came over with Governor Winthrop in 1630, and cast in his lot with the Watertown people. In 1631 he returned to England, leaving his affairs here in the hands of his two sons. From England he wrote a letter to the ministers of Boston from which we make one or two brief extracts. He says : -
" It doth not a little grieve my spirit to hear what sadd things are reported daily of your tyranny and persecutions in New England, as that you fyne, whip, and imprison men for their consciences. . . . These rigid ways have laid you very low in the hearts of the saynts. We pray for you and wish you prosperitie euery way and not to practice these courses in the wilderness which you went so far to prevent. . . . I hope you do not assume to yourselves infallibilitie of judg- ment, when the most learned of the apostles confessed he knew but in part and saw but darkly as through a glass. Oh that all those who are brethren, though yet they cannot think and speak the same things, might be of one accord in the Lord. .. . The Lord give you meeke and humble spirits and to striue so much for uniformitie as to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace."
Mr. Hooker held very different ideas from those current among the magistrates in the Bay touching the rights of the individual man and his place in a human government. His philosophy, instead of starting with the divine right of kings and lords and flowing downward, started with the individual and worked outward and upward. We have, fortunately, the abstracts of two sermons or lectures preached by Mr. Hooker in connection with the making and putting into operation of the original constitution for the government of the Connecticut Colony in 1638 and 1639. These abstracts were preserved in short- hand in a manuscript note-book of Mr. Henry Wolcott, of Windsor.1 These heads of discourse are brief, but full of meaning. They mark the strength and amplitude of Mr. Hooker's mind. The first sermon or lecture was given on Thursday, May 31, 1638, from the text, Deut. i. 13, "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you." . " Captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds - over fifties - over tens," etc.
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.