USA > Connecticut > The trade of Revolutionary Connecticut > Part 3
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
.
- "-Special concessions were made, however, in land policies, and gratuities were offered to attract actual settlers as quickly as possible. The normal process of selling lands for profit to shareholders was impossible. Ibid., pp. 30-51.
'Boyd, pp. 27, 32-35. Also, Dutcher, "The Connecticut Background of the Settlement of the Wyoming Valley," in Proceedings of the Wyoming Valley Commemorative Association, v. 157.
46c. R. XIV, 217-220.
29g
issue in Commecticut in 1774. Fitch and supporters drew up opposition tickets, but they scattered their fire so that Trumbull was easily re-elected. 47: According to the 1774 census, no less than 1922' people" lived in Westmoreland -a striking testimony to Connecticut's expansive parer!" Throughout the Revolution Westmoreland remained completely int, possession of Connecticut settlers, and under Connecticut's jurisdiction, despite bitter Pennsylvania attacki. 48 cmossles' promotions.54 .
- The lengthy and bitter dispute between Connestious. and Permsylvania was formally adjudicated by a special court set up under Article IK of:, the Articles of Confederation." This court sat at Trenton in November and December, 1782, heard the counsel for the' two states, and awarded" the decision to Pennsylvania, Connecticut accepted the decision as final, although considerable private litigation over land titles enmed-z for a decade or two more.
Other distant Connecticut settlements were made by the Delaware Company on the Delaware River, by the Phineas Lyman Colony near Natobes
49
in the lower Mississippi Valley, and by the Midway group in Georgia.
No accurate statistics exist as to the mmbers who left Connecticut, but the total must have been large. If we assume that the population increased very nearly at the physiological maximum (doubling every twenty-five years), then in the period 1756-1774 Connecticut showed & - 3% .
. fifty two per cent increase-against a "natural increase" to be expected of seventy-two per cent. Hence, in each decade, the State probably was
Boyd, pp. 30-38.'-
has
es.
of "
r L
Ibid. , Po. 430-
457.
Rosenberry, Pp. 15-17.
28.
losing about ten per cent of its natural increase in the form of emigration.50
One can point out several strong reasons for the heavy emigration of the late colonial periods over-population in terms of poor agricultural techniques, chesper lands elsewhere, economic and political discontent,.
- poor transportation facilities (noticeably heavier migration from such 4
areas), land speculation, and the land companies' promotions. 51
The results of the heavy emigration were important. It took from Connecticut towns and countryside many of the most ambitious, energetic," and progressive young men. The departure of such elements left behind those who tended more to conservatism and uniformity. Comocticut was indeed rapidly becoming known for her "steady habits" and set ways, This conservative outlook could not help but affect her economic policies during the War.
1 .
6. Rank among the Thirteen Colonies
What was Cormecticut's relative rank mong the thirteen colonies?
-
It is difficult to answer this, as the best-mnom estimates vary - considerably. In 1775 members of Congress estimated a grand total of ......
50 Cf. Peroy W. Bidwell, Paral Boomowy in New England, p. 386 for similar figures.
51 Morrow, p. 5.
52 Tbid., p. 22. The safety valve theory has been at least partially discredited by recent studies, Sse George W. Pierson, "Recent Studies of Turzer and the Frontier Doctrines," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXXIV (December, 1947), 457. In any case, the loss of those young mon was a serious blow to Connecticut, whether or not it ralløved political and economic tensicess. ..
29.
3,016,678 people, divided as follows in ranks 53
1- Virginia 640,000 ¿
2 Massachusetts
400,000
3 Pennsylvania
350,000
(Delavare included)
4 Maryland 320,000
5.North Carolina
300,000 .
8 New York 250,000
-7 South Carolina
225,000: **
8 Connecticut 192,000
9. New Hampshire 150,000
10 New Jersey 130,000
11 Rhode Island 59,678 18
Delaware and Georgia were known to have fewer people than Rhode Island.º4 Two other estimates place Commectiout ahead of both New York and South Carolina; one placea Connecticut even ahead of Maryland; while in the Public Papers of Governor Clinton, Connecticut, New York; and North Carolina are ranked together as 200,000 apiece in fourth place.º The author's inclination is to rank Connecticut in 1774 tentatively in fifth . -. place, practically tied with North Carolina, ahead of South Carolina, and New York, and behind Maryland. If one uses the 1774 Tucker computation, which seems to be more accurate than the Congressional estimate,
Connecticut had slightly under eight per cent of the total population, 56 There is no reason to believe that this percentage had changed substantially by the end of the Revolution.
.
-
63 Greene and Harrington, pp. 6-7.
54 Delaware had 40,000 and Georgia 30,000 according to George . .. ... Tucker in History of the United States, I, 96. Tucker placed Comeotiout in sixth place with 200,000 population.
55 Greene and Harrington, p. 7.
567.7 per cent .. According to the Clinton estimate the percentage would be 8.3 per cent; to the Congressional estimate, 6.3 per cent.
.
. . ..
30,
7. Population Trends during the War
5 .
Between 1774 and 1782 no census appears to have been taken. An act of the general assembly in May, 1776 called for an enumeration being taken. " The Continental Congress had called for this census by an act . 57 of December 26, 1775. There is evidence that Mansfield and Penfret : selectmen did take the time to make a count, although the totals are not available.58 One source gives a population of 5037 for Middletem as of September 1, 1776 (4836 whites and 201 Negeres)-remarkably well in lino .
with the 1774 census figures of 4878.59 Various tidbits of information on the local level shar a very slow rate of increase during this period. For example, Woodstock's population was reported as 2054 in 1776 and 2052 in 1782. The Trumbull Papers report 2212 for 1779.60
The best source of information for the war years is the census . f 1782 as found in the Archivos. 61 The State called for the census in
accord with a Congressional request of December 11, 1781.62
1 :7.3
57c. R. XV, 312-313.
58 1
Ibid., p. 313, fta.
59 Charles C. Adams, Middletown Upper Houses (New York, 1908), p. 57.
Clarence W. Brown, History of Woodstock, p. 545. 61 A. R. W., 2d Ser., X, 124-126.
62g. R. IV, 23-24.
1
3
Census of 178263
COUNTY
WHITES
NEGROES AND INDIAN
TOTAL
Hartford ..
55,647
1320
56,967
New Haven®
25,092
885
25,977
New London
30,831
1920
32,751
Fairfield
29,722
1134
30,856
Windhon
28,158
485
28,643
Idtohfield
33,127
529
33,656
202,577
6273
208,850
Hartford County
WHITES
HEGROES AND INDIANS
TOTAL
Bolton
1071
10
1081
Chatkaa
2824
49
2873
Colchester
3169
196
8365
Esat Hadden
2668
57
2725
East Windsor
3210
27
3237
Enfield
1651
11
1562
Farmington
5453
89
5542
Glastonbury
2250
96
2346
Baddam
1938
12
1950
Hartford
6317
178
5495
Esbrom . .. .
2185
70
2205
Middletam
4418
194
4612
Scmors
1051
7
1058
Southington
1857
29
1886
Stafford
1518
16
1534
Enffield
2248
58
2501
Simsbury
4650
14
4664
Tolland
1550
31
1861
Wethersfield
8597
136
3733
Willington
1063
2
1055
Windsor.
2339
45
2382
New Haven County
Branford
2067
100
2167
Cheshiro
1974
41
2015
Derby
2039
79
2118
Darbas
1040
21
1063
Guilford
2894
2947
Milford
2044
151
2195
How Haven
7717
240
7966
Wallingford
3098
175
5268
Waterbury
2224
16
2240
Low London
County
7
Groto
3486
337.
3823
5576
216
3792
Killingworth
1832
21
1855
Lor London
5217
471
6682
Vorsich :
7003
283
7525
Preston
2208
79
2287
.
.
A. R. M .. 2d s Ser .. X. . X. 124-126.
52.
COUNTY . wo 16 .... WHITES :
NEGROES AND . INDIANS . . . 12 TOTAL 8
New London County (Cont. )A:
Saybrook
2688
8
2738
Stonington
4731
514
5245
Fairfield
1,1
: "
for. :
Danbury
2697
50
2747
Fairfield
5003.
-7
275
5276
Greenwich
. 2530
93
2623
Her Fairfield
1 .1429 : 1:
12
1441
Howtown
2554-1' .
50
2404
Borwalk
3919 .
132
4051
Rodding
1257
53
1310
Ridgefield
1672
25
1697
Stanford
3756
78
3834
Stratford
5105
868
5473
Windham :
Ashford' " : :
2251 >
2286
Canterbury
2476
38
2514
' Coventry
2006
19
2025 .:
Killingly
3366
12
3378
Lebanon
5837 !
94
3932
Mansfield
2556
9
2565
Plainfield :
1519
54
1573. .
Panfret
2489
77
2566
Union - [
551
552
Voluntam
1590
40
1630
Windham
3496
77
8571 .;: ~~
Woodstock
2023
29
2052
Litchfield
Barkhamsted
466
37
505
Canaan
- 1987
74
-
2061''
Colebrook
272
1
273
Corzrall
1146.
14
1188
Goshen
1439
11
1460
Hartland
.961
961
Harwinton
1210
5
1215
Int
1835
1883
Litchfield
8018
59
3077-
Her Hartford
1274
22
1286
How Milford
2966
59
3015 .** *
Norfolk
1243
8
1246
Salisbury
2190;
35
2225.
1 Sharon ,
2184
46
2250
Torrington
1075
1077
Washington-
1495
1503
Watertown
2717
15
2752
Winchester
683
6
688
Woodbury
4980
83'
5063
Total ,
202,577
6,273
208,850
-
What would the population in 1782 have been by counties if the
Stato then had been divided into the present eight counties instead of ..
the six which it actually had? An estimate is given below. pintadoat
In the area of the
1782
present county of
Population
Hartford
37,500
Ler London
33,100
Litchfield
31,500
4
Fairfield
30,900
Hoy Haven
26,500
Windhan
19,100
Middlesex
17,800
Tolland
12,900
The density of population in the State was approximately 42 persons per square mile in 1782 as compared with 39.5 in 1774 ... .
The census of 1782 reveals a marked slewing up in the rate of .7 population growth for the period 1774-1782 as compared with 1756-1774. The gain was only 11, 267 persona, or 5.69 per cent in eight years. It averaged about .7 per cent yearly as compared with nearly 3 per cent in the 1756-1774 period. In other words, Comsotiout grow. only one- fourth as fast as in the preceding census period.
Why the marked dimimtion in growth? Doubtless war operated as + usually has as a check upon population. In addition, the emigration to Vermont, Massachusetts and elsewhere continued, ' Noanthile immigration nearly ceused. 65 More than a few Loyalists departed, mostly near the end
"All totals are given to the nearest hundred. Some help was obtained from figures in B. L. Hoermance's work. The lack of omnsus figures for any parts of tomas in 1782 (or earlier ) prevents strict socuracy in many cases. Hartford, Litchfield and New Haven Counties offered special difficulties, while Fairfield County (exact total obtained, 30,856) provided the forest problems.
"Horses explains it as follows: "This comparatively small increase . of inhabitants may be satisfactorily accounted for from the destruction of the war, and the numerous emigrations to Vermont, the western parts of New Hampshire, and other states." p. 218.
34 ..
of the War. 66 In fact, this Loyalist mmigration comprised one of the chief causes of the general slow growth of population for the State as a whole. The most reliable estimates available on this point indicato that about one-half of the Loyalist families left the State, which would mean 1,000 families or about 8,000 persons.
Connecticut was not alone among New England states in this loss. Rhode Island suffered a decline from 59,706 in 1774 to 51,887 iu 1783, a loss of 7,819.68 In Massachusetts the population climbed slowly from 338,667 in 1776 to 357,511 in 1784-a mere 5.6 per cent increase-almost 1
exactly the same as Connectiout' :. 69 1
The effects of the war itself are hard to measure . Large numbers of Connecticut's younger men were away for varying periods of time in military service. Some were killed, more died of disease, and others were permanently disabled. Although accurate statistics are lacking, one can perhaps assume a slightly lower birth-rate and a slightly higher death rate. Emigration meanwhile contimed at a high rate throughout the war, especially in the period from 1780 on. 70
66 9. C. Johnson, History of Emigration from the United Kingdom to North America, 1783-1Val (London, 1915) pp. 5-6.
67 Oscar Zeichner, "The Rehabilitation of Loyalists in Connecticut, 1 New England Quarterly, XI, 809. Also, W. H. Siebert, "Tho Refugee Loyalists of Connecticut," Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada, V (1916-1917), 92. Comparative census figures for two of the towns with large Tory minorities at the outbreak of the War are of interest as they do reveal a small loss for the war period. Stratford's totals for 1774 and 1782 were 5555 and 5473 respectively; New Haven's, 8095 and 7966.
8 Greene and Harrington, pp. 69-70.
69 Toid., pp. 17. and 48.' 64 ..
70 Mathews, pp. 120-131. 124Tels in North Murtra; 2, 24, 28, 43,
.
55.
There is samo evidence of a slight movement fromm British-occupied 1 . ... ..... areas to Comectiout during the War. A number of Long Island patriots, for example, crossed the Bound to live in Milford during the Revolution. 71 Again the growth of population is noticeably unaven. Litchfield - County registered by far the largest gain 6311 (23.1 per cent). The others, in order, weres Hartford, 5077 (9.7 per cent); Fairfield .. 706 (2.3 per cent ); Windham 542, (2 per cent); New London 527 (1.6 per oent) and Now Haven -839 (3.1 per cent loss). .
Dne of the puzzling problems of local population study fer this
2
1973
-- period is to determine the member of people who lived in the villaro 72, 93 community within the township. The consus figures tell only the total 1,424 for the temship as a whole-an area usually roughly about six miles , square. Obviously, however, the compact village settlement of, ~ Farmington, for example, zambored only a small proportion of the total 43.3 of people residing in the tomship.
Some evidence is available on this problem. The keen observer; the Marquis de Chastelluz, in his travels through the State in 1781, noted the approximate mumber of houses in several of the villages.12
3 From this a suggestive table has been worked out. ". + . .
4
History of Milferd, p. 64.
72
Marquis de Chastelluz, Travels in North America, I, 28, 50,
455.
₹
.. .
.
36.
1782 Consus
., Village
73
Por Cont in Village Proper
Farmington
5542
350
6
Lebanon®
3931
AT 700
18' . .: 2
Windhas
3571
280-350
8-10
Litchfield
- 3077 -
350
16,121
1680-1740
10.75 to 11.25
-
twelve Leading towns of Connecticut?
74
1782
1782
1774
Per Cent Chang in Population
Tom List of 1782
Town List of 1773
:
Rank
1 .
7966
8295
-4
58,461
72,395
Korvich
2
7525
7327
59,772
68,649
Her London
3
5632
5888
-3
29,052
5. .
56,424
Farmington
5542
6069
-75
52,694
67,519
Hartford
5493
5031
42,845 . 1.
49,036
Stratford
6
5473
5555
-1
48,599
52,000
Fairfield
7
5276
4863
48
41,771
51,000
Stonington
8
5245
5412
-5
32,327
37,839
Woodbury 76
5063
5313
-576
49,652
60,000
Middletowz
10
4612
4078
39,897
43,153
Norwalk
11
4051
4868
8
34,428
44,076
Wallingford77
12
3288
4215
-3477
28.405
51,051
67,934
৳ 617,705
৳ 633,142
A conversion ratio of seven persons per house was employed. Chastellux gave Farmington about 50 houses, Lebanon about 100, Litchfield about 50, and Windham 40 to 50.
74
To the nearest per cent or pound.
75 Southington was incorporated from Farmington in 1779. With ™ Southington's 1886 persons; Farmington would have 7428, the second highest, and an izereass of 22 per cent.
Woodbury lost a mall area to the new tem of Washington, created in 1779. Eenoo the 1774 ares of Woodbury probably suffered no loss in population.
Chsah! ra was carrod out of Wallingford in 1780. The addition of Cheshire's 2015 would give Wallingford 5283, an increase of 7 por osnt.
74
74
75
*
·
..
Proper
Township
In the sight-year period, 1774-1782, what had happened to the " +,
57:
1. Despite a four per cent declino New Haven retained first place. Hartford, Fairfield, the old Farmington, and the old Woodbury showed"> population gains, while the other eight towns lost or practically stood still. The ravages of the War, and of British raids, in some cases, reflected themselves in the disappearance of the lusty growth of the 1756-1774 period. Simsbury, not included in the first twelve in 1774, had jumped into tenth place in 1782 with 4664 persons, a gain of 964 5x over 1774, or 26 per cent. . It affords a netable ezooption to the general picture.
The decline in the towns lists illustrates forcefully the depressing economic effects of the war. The towns hit by British raids-such How London, New Haven, Fairfield and Morwalk-particularly show this. ₹ . .
8. Herrees and Indians in Corsotions
Distribution of Negroes and Indians in Comootiout. ; by Counties in 1756, 1774 and 1782.78
County
1756 Census
1774 Census
1782 Census
Megrees
Indians
Indians
Kegross and Indians
New London
829
617
1194
842
1920
Hartford
854
1093
122
1320
Fairfield
711
1153
61
1134
New Haven
226
862
61
888
Litchfield
54
831
109
529
Windham
845
476
150
485
8019
617
5109
1363
8275
1
The Negro element comprised a very small percentage of the total- About 2.3 per cent in 1756 and 2.6 per cent in 1774. During the Revolution the mmmber probably doolined somewhat. 79 The 1782 census unfortunately
78 Basod upon C. R. XIV, 483-492 and Marse, p. 218. An excellent study of the Negro in Commeotiout is Bornard C. Steiner's History of Slavery in Connecticut, (Baltimore, 1893).
7ºRalph F. Weld, Slavery in Corsotient (Publications of the Tercentenary Commission, No. 37), p.
-
2
..
38.
lumps Negroes and Indians together so that the actual decline in negroes cannot be ascertained. It seems probable, though, that these factors
operated to produce a slight decrease: British raids in the heaviest slave holding sections, service in the armies, and emigration of Loyalist
-masters with their slaves.
80
Among the New England States at the outbreak of the struggle
A
Connecticut ranked second in proportion of slaves to population, and in
actual numbers too. This table illustrates the situation.
Year
Colony
Total Population
Whites
Negroes
- Per Cent Negroes
1776
Massachusetts
338,667
333,418
5249
1.5
1774 Connecticut
197,910
191,448
5109
2.6
1774 Rhode Island
59,678
54,435
. 3761
6.3
1775 New Hampshire
81,060
80,394
656
.1.1
1771 Vermont
4,669
4,650
19
.04
81-
1771 ' New York
168,007
148,124
19883
11.8
7 ...
The distribution of negroos in the Colony in 1774 showed a wide
variation both in the counties and in the towns. New London County led
,80 Lorenzo J. Greene, Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776, Pp. 89-90.
. -
81. Ibid., p. 74. Corrections have been made because Groene used the total number of Negroes and Indians in calculating the percentage of Negroos; C. R. XIV, 483-491, with slight corrections; Groene and Harrington, pp. 17, 63, 74, 91.
(
..
the procession with 1194 negroes followed by Fairfield with 1153, -
6. The largest Hartford with 1093, New Haven with 862, Windham with 476 and Litchfield with 351. 2 How London county apparently had more negroes than any
other county in How England.
83-3-101 @9! .
The three leading slave-holding towns were closely buncheds Stratford, with 319; New London, 316; Fairfield, 315. Next in order stood New Haven, 262; Stonington, 243; Middletom, 198; Lyme and Groton, 174 each; Colchester, 175. At the other end of the scale there could
.
-
be listed Barkhamsted, Colebrook, Hartland and Westmoreland with nos,
and Stafford, Willington, Union, Somers, and Bolton with from one to four.%
It is very difficult to indicate even roughly what proportion of .. Connecticut's negross were free in the Revolutionary era. There oan be little doubt that the majority were still in servile status before and at the end of the Revolution. It is true that many masters granted freedom to their slaves if they joined the American army. Some took -. advantage of this, 8 3 and a few undoubtedly were mammitted anyway. The clergy campaigned incessantly for abolition, and labor was very - scarce. It is not surprising, therefore, to find a bill for gradual emancipation being passed in 1784 which freed all negroes after --
C. R. XIV. 483-1 ......... .
83 Suffolk led in Massachusetts with 1019 (in 1776), Greene and :* Harrington, p. 30; Howport in Rhode Island with 837 (in 1783). Ibid., P. 67.
6 C. R. XIV, 483-491.
C. C. 8., II, 257-258. Charles M. Andrews "Slavery in Connecticut," Magazine of American History, XXI, 422-423.
.
40.
March 1, 1784 at the age of twenty-five ...... 86 2" :" Further light upon the location of the negro slaves can be secured from a consideration of the owners of the slaves. Among the largest -? slave holders of the colonial period were thesd ment ,87
William Headley
- Branford
N. Bsoll - Crie Peter Quoll
- Coventrylos sas 617, 431
- Coventry
(Squire) Bassett
- Derby. Ferssind 13:2
Agar Tomlinson
- Derby
Indiaas ::: : Col. Wooster. :
- Darby ===== 4, Win-
Rev. Joseph Elliot
Guilford
Col. Jeresich Wadsworth
. Hartford
Rev. Jensthan Edwards
Hartford
The In Los "Edward Hopkins. "
- Eartferd
Jom Talcott
Hartford
George Wyllys
٢
- Hartford
104:
Timothy Woodbridge
- Hartford
Rev. Jared Eliet
- Killingworth
Litchfield
Litenfield
- Middletom
- No Haren
How Haven
Jared Ingersoll :
New Haven .
Rev. Ezra Stiles
- New Haven
- New London
- How London
- Korwich
. Norwich
Jacob Griswold
Wethersfield
Sammel Woloott John Ealbono -
- Windhan
Sammel Chapman
- Windsor >> > ari ir.
Henry Wolcott, Jr.
Windsor
Rev. Tin. Worthington
- Saybrook ....
The remnant of Indians in Connecticut was inconsequential. The - power of the Indians had been broken beyond repair in the Pequot War
.2.4 : - M
Lots and Laws of the State of Connecticut (New London, 1784),
P. 235
GrosDe, pp .: SBort ..
-
"Col. Benjamin Tallmadge : Oliver Woloott Joseph Stocking John Davenport Theophilus Baton
-
Jemen Rogers John Whiting Nathaniel Huntington The Lathrops Benjamin Isaacs
- Torwalk
- Wethersfield
. A .-....
41 ..
of the late 1630's, though various incidents occurred later in the ... ----
seventeenth century. After about 1655 the Indians no longer occupied an important place in the life of Connecticut. 88 The Colony aided her sister colonies in King Philip's War of 1675-76, but did not suffer Indian invasion. t. 4
The number of Indians reported in the census of 1756 was 617, all". in New London County. The more complete 1774 census revealed 1365, Indians distributed by counties as follows: New London- 842, Windhan -- 158, Hartford-122, Litchfield -- 109, New Haven-71, and Fairfield-61.89 .
The Indians were most mmerous in Stonington which had 237. Others standing high included New London, 206; Groton, 186; Lyme, 104; Kent, 62; and Norwich, 61.
The probability is that the member of Indians in Comeotiout remained practically constant during the Revolutionary War. The 1782 census failed to differentiate between Indians and Negroes in its total of 6273 for both.
9. Homoronoity
The homogeneity of Connecticut's population was remarkable. Almost all of Connecticut's citizens could look back to an English origin. Connecticut indeed was an integral part of "New" England.
Contemporary evidence of the solidly English nature of the white population is not lacking. Jedidiah Norse, in his able discussion of Connecticut, declared that "the inhabitants are almost entirely of -
8 C. C. S., I, 243-244.
1. Norwich
C. R. XIV, 483-492. 4.00.
* *!
42.
English descent. There are no Dutch, French or Germans, and very few Scotch or Irish people in any part of How England."".
There were, however, exceptions to this general statement.
Scattered clusters or individuals of non-English white stook could be found in Connecticut. A few Dutch had strayed across the western 1. border; and some Germans lived here and there. In several tomas one or more Huguenot artisan(s) had settled." All of these people together . t
constituted only a tiny and negligible proportion of the total white .. . .. 1% .
population.
さい
·
10
4
· Roa:
Morse, p, 219.
.
The Haguenot silversmiths, Reno Grignon who worked in Kerrieh, (1708-15). and Timothy Bontecou, active in New Haven (1735-1784), are examples. See Curtis, pp. 47, 48, 52. .
CHAPTER IIICá
**** * pet'sIon For
Transportation and Communication
Introduction
The way Connectiout people "got around" over the country was a- source of mcazement to Americans in colonial timos, as at later days. Comocticut travelers, businessmen and emigrants popped up almost everywhere. It reached a point, in fact, where any stranger or now settler promptly was nicknamed a "Connecticut Yankee."1 12 :11415
Although Connecticut residents showed a sest for traveling abroad, it was not accompanied by a comparable enthusiasm for building good - ៛ roads st homs. The inescapable conclusion is that Commeotiout roads t the late colonial period were abominably bad.2
Since trade depends upon the transportation facilities available,
it is important to examine Connecticut's transportation system. What is said about the late colonial period may .be applied to the revolutionary era as well, for no significant changes were made. As a matter of fact, 2. 1 :
1 the entire colonial period was one in which no real improvement was made
.- +. in methods of transportation."
4
Construction and Maintenance of Roads
Responsibility for roads in Connecticut was laid upon the towns by
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.