Chapter LXIV: Front Matter (64)

"In October, 1634, some men of Plymouth, led by William
Holmes, sailed up the Connecticut river, and, after bandying
threats with a party of Dutch who had built a rude fort on the
site of Hartford, passed on and fortified themselves on the
site of Windsor. Next year Governor Van Twiller sent a company
of seventy men to drive away these intruders, but after
reconnoitering the situation the Dutchmen thought it best not
to make an attack. Their little stronghold at Hartford
remained unmolested by the English, and, in order to secure
the communication between this advanced outpost and New
Amsterdam, Van Twiller decided to build another fort at the
mouth of the river, but this time the English were beforehand.
Rumours of Dutch designs may have reached the ears of Lord Say
and Sele and Lord Brooke--'fanatic Brooke,' as Scott calls him
in 'Marmion'--who had obtained from the Council for New
England a grant of territory on the shores of the Sound. These
noblemen chose as their agent the younger John Winthrop, son
of the Massachusetts governor, and this new-comer arrived upon
the scene just in time to drive away Van Twiller's vessel and
build an English fort which in honour of his two patrons he
called 'Say-Brooke.' Had it not been for seeds of discontent
already sown in Massachusetts, the English hold upon the
Connecticut valley might perhaps have been for a few years
confined to these two military outposts at Windsor and
Saybrooke. But there were people in Massachusetts who did not
look with favour upon the aristocratic and theocratic features
of its polity. The provision that none but church-members
should vote or hold office was by no means unanimously
approved. ... Cotton declared that democracy was no fit
government either for church or for commonwealth, and the
majority of the ministers agreed with him. Chief among those
who did not was the learned and eloquent Thomas Hooker, pastor
of the church at Newtown. ... There were many in Newtown who
took Hooker's view of the matter; and there, as also in
Watertown and Dorchester, which in 1633 took the initiative in
framing town governments with selectmen, a strong disposition
was shown to evade the restrictions upon the suffrage. While
such things were talked about, in the summer of 1633, the
adventurous John Oldham was making his way through the forest
and over the mountains into the Connecticut valley, and when
he returned to the coast his glowing accounts set some people
to thinking. Two years afterward, a few pioneers from
Dorchester pushed through the wilderness as far as the
Plymouth men's fort at Windsor, while a party from Watertown
went farther and came to a halt upon the site of Wethersfield.
A larger party, bringing cattle and such goods as they could
carry, set out in the autumn and succeeded in reaching
Windsor. ... In the next June, 1636, the Newtown congregation,
a hundred or more in number, led by their sturdy pastor, and
bringing with them 160 head of cattle, made the pilgrimage to
the Connecticut valley. Women and children took part in this
pleasant summer journey; Mrs. Hooker, the pastor's wife, being
too ill to walk, was carried on a litter. Thus, in the
memorable year in which our great university was born, did
Cambridge become, in the true Greek sense of a much-abused
word, the metropolis or 'mother town' of Hartford. The
migration at once became strong in numbers.
{497}
During the past twelvemonth a score of ships had brought from
England to Massachusetts more than 3,000 souls, and so great
an accession made further movement easy. Hooker's pilgrims
were soon followed by the Dorchester and Watertown
congregations, and by the next May 800 people were living in
Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield. As we read of these
movements, not of individuals, but of organic communities,
united in allegiance to a church and its pastor, and fervid
with the instinct of self-government, we seem to see Greek
history renewed, but with centuries of added political
training. For one year a board of commissioners from
Massachusetts governed the new towns, but at the end of that
time the towns chose representatives and held a General Court
at Hartford, and thus the separate existence of Connecticut
was begun. As for Springfield, which was settled about the
same time by a party from Roxbury, it remained for some years
doubtful to which state it belonged."

_J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England., chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, volume 1, chapter 11._

_G. L. Walker, History of the First Church in Hartford,
chapter 4-5._

_M. A. Green, Springfield, 1636-1886, chapter 1._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.
The constitutional evolution.

"It must be noted that [the] Newtown, Watertown, and
Dorchester migrations had not been altogether a simple
transfer of individual settlers from one colony to another. In
each of these migrations a part of the people was left behind,
so that the Massachusetts towns did not cease to exist. And
yet each of them brought its Massachusetts magistrates, its
ministers (except Watertown), and all the political and
ecclesiastical machinery of the town; and at least one of them
(Dorchester) had hardly changed its structure since its
members first organized in 1630 at Dorchester in England. The
first settlement of Connecticut was thus the migration of
three distinct and individual town organizations out of the
jurisdiction of Massachusetts and into absolute freedom. It
was the Massachusetts town system set loose in the wilderness.
At first the three towns retained even their Massachusetts
names; and it was not until the eighth court meeting, February
21 1636 (7), that it was decided that the plantacon [c tilde]
nowe called Newtowne slalbe called & named by the name of
Harteforde Towne, likewise the plantacon [c tilde] nowe called
'Watertowne shalbe called & named Wythersfeild,' and the
plantacon [c tilde] called Dorchester shalbe called Windsor.'
On the same day the boundaries between the three towns were
'agreed' upon, and thus the germ of the future State was the
agreement and union of the three towns. Accordingly, the
subsequent court meeting at Hartford, May 1, 1637, for the
first time took the name of the 'Genrall Corte,' and was
composed, in addition to the town magistrates who had
previously held it, of 'comittees' of three from each town. So
simply and naturally did the migrated town system evolve, in
this binal assembly, the seminal principle of the Senate and
House of Representatives of the future State of Connecticut.
The Assembly further showed its consciousness of separate
existence by declaring 'an offensive warr ag' the Pequoitt,'
assigning the proportions of its miniature army and supplies
to each town, and appointing a commander. ... So complete are
the features of State-hood, that we may fairly assign May 1,
1637, as the proper birthday of Connecticut. No king, no
Congress, presided over the birth: its seed was in the towns.
January 14, 1638 (9), the little Commonwealth formed the first
American Constitution at Hartford. So far as its provisions
are concerned, the King, the Parliament, the Plymouth Council,
the Warwick grant, the Say and Sele grant, might as well have
been non-existent: not one of them is mentioned. ... This
constitution was not only the earliest but the longest in
continuance of American documents of the kind, unless we
except the Rhode Island charter. It was not essentially
altered by the charter of 1662, which was practically a royal
confirmation of it; and it was not until 1818 that the
charter, that is the constitution of 1639, was superseded by
the present constitution. Connecticut was as absolutely a
state in 1639 as in 1776."

_A. Johnston, The Genesis of a New England State
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, number 11)._

The following is the text of those "Fundamental Orders"
adopted by the people dwelling on Connecticut River, January
14, 1638 (9), which formed the first of written constitutions:
"FORASMUCH as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise
disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of
things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor,
Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in
and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto
adioyueing; And well knowing where a people are gathered
togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace
and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and
decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and
dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as
occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne
our selues to be as one Publike State or ComonweIth; and doe,
for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be
adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination
and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and prsearue the
liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now
prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according
to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs;
As also in or Ciuell Affaires to be guided and gouerned
according to such Lawes, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be
made, ordered & decreed, as followeth:--1. It is Ordered,
sentenced and decreed, that there shall be yerely two generall
Assemblies or Courts, the one the second thursday in Aprill,
the other the second thursday in September following; the
first shall be called the Courte of Election, wherein shall be
yerely Chosen fro tyme to tyme soe many Magestrats and other
publike Officers as shall be found requisitte: Whereof one to
be chosen Gouernour for the yeare ensueing and vntill another
be chosen, and noe other Magestrate to be chosen for more than
one yeare; pruided allwayes there be sixe chosen besids the
Gouernour; wch being chosen and sworne according to an Oath
recorded for that purpose shall haue power to administer
iustice according to the Lawes here established, and for want
thereof according to the rule of the word of God; wch choise
shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and haue taken
the Oath of Fidellity, and doe cohabitte wthin this
Jurisdiction, (hauing beene admitted Inhabitants by the maior
prt of the Towne wherein they liue,) or the mayor prte of such
as shall be then prsent.
{498}
2. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that the Election of
the aforesaid Magestrats shall be on this manner: euery prson
prsent and quallified for choyse shall bring in (to the prsons
deputed to receaue the) one single papr wth the name of him
written in yt whom he desires to haue Gouernour, and he that
hath the greatest nuber of papers shall be Gouernor for that
yeare. And the rest of the Magestrats or publike Officers to
be chosen in this manner: The Secretary for the tyme being
shall first read the names of all that are to be put to choise
and then shall seuerally nominate them distinctly, and euery
one that would haue the prson nominated to be chosen shall
bring in one single paper written vppon, and he that would not
haue him chosen shall bring in a blanke: and euery one that
hath more written papers then blanks shall be a Magistrat for
that yeare; wth papers shall be receaued and told by one or
more that shall be then chosen by the court and sworne to be
faythfull therein: but in case there should not be sixe chosen
as aforesaid, besids the Gouernor, out of those wch are
nominated, then he or they wch haue the most written paprs
shall be a Magestrate or Magestrats for the ensueing yeare, to
make up the foresaid nuber. 3. It is Ordered, sentenced and
decreed, that the Secretary shall not nominate any prson, nor
shall any prson be chosen newly into the Magestraey wch was
not prpownded in some Generall Courte before, to be nominated
the next Election; and to that end yt shall be lawfull for ech
of the Townes aforesaid by their deputyes to nominate any two
who they conceaue fitte to be put to election; and the Courte
may ad so many more as they, iudge requisitt. 4. It is
Ordered, sentenced and decreed that noe prson be chosen
Gouernor aboue once in two yeares, and that the Gouernor be
always a meber of some approved congregation, and formerly of
the Magestracy wthin this Jurisdiction; and all the Magestrats
Freemen of this Comonwelth: and that no Magestrate or other
publike officer shall execute any prte of his or their Office
before they are seuerally sworne, wch shall be done in the
face of the Courte if they be prsent, and in case of absence
by some deputed for that purpose. 5. It is Ordered, senteneed
and decreed, that to the aforesaid Courte of Election the
seurall Townes shall send their deputyes, and when the
Elections are ended they may prceed in any publike searuice as
at other Courts. Also the other Generall Courte in Septemher
shall be for makeing of lawes, and any other publike occation,
wch conserns the good of the Comonwelth. 6. It is Ordered,
sentenced and decreed, that the Gournor shall, ether by
himselfe or by the secretary, send out sumons to the
Constables of eur Towne for the cauleing of these two standing
Courts, on month at lest before their seu'all tymes: And also
if the Gournor and the gretest prte of the Magestmts see cause
vppon any spetiall occation to call a generall Courte, they
may giue order to the secretary soe to doe wthin fowerteene
dayes warneing; and if vrgent necessity so require, vppon a
shorter notice, giueing sufficient grownds for yt to the
deputyes when they meete, or els be questioned for the same;
And if the Gournor and Mayor prte of Magestrats shall ether
neglect or refuse to call the two Generall standing Courts or
ether of the, as also at other tymes when the occutions of the
Comonwelth require, the Freemen thereof, or the Mayor prte of
them, shall petition to them soe to doe: if then yt be ether
denyed or neglected the said Freemen or the Mayor prte of them
shall haue power to giue order to the Constables of the
seuerall Townes to doe the same, and so may meete togather,
and chuse to themselues a Moderator, and may prceed to do any
Acte of power, wch any other Generall Courte may. 7. It is
Ordered, sentenced and decreed that after there are warrants
giuen out for any of the suid Generall Courts, the Constable
or Constables of ech Towne shall forthwth give notice
distinctly, to the inhabitants of the same, in some Pubhke
Assembly or by goeing or sending fro howse to howse, that at a
place and tyme by him or them lymited and sett, they meet and
assemble the selues togather to elect and chuse certen
deputyes to be att the Generall Courte then following to
agitate the afayres of the comonwelth; wch said Deputyes shall
be choseu by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the seurall
Townes and haue taken the oath of fidellity; pruided that non
be chosen a Deputy for any Generall Courte wch is not a
Freeman of this Comonwelth. The foresaid deputyes shall be
chosen in manner following; euery prson that is prsent and
quallified as before exprssed, shall bring thr names of such,
written in seurrall papers, as they desire to haue chosen for
that Imployment, and these 3 or 4, more or lesse, being the
nuber agreed on to be chosen for that tyme, that haue greatest
nuber of papers written for the shall be deputyes for that
Courte; whose names shall be endorsed on the backe side of the
warrant and returned into the Courte, wth the Constable or
Constables hand vnto the same. 8. It is Ordered, sentenced and
decreed, that Wyndsor, Hartford and Wethersfield shall haue
power, ech Towne, to send fower of their freemen as deputyes
to euery Generall Courte; and whatsoeuer other Townes shall be
hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many
deputyes as the Courte shall judge meete, a reasonable
prportion to the nuber of Freemen that are in the said Townes
being to be attended therein; wch deputyes shall have the
power of the whole Towne to giue their voats and alowance to
all such lawes and orders as may be for the publike good, and
unto wch the said Townes are to be bownd. 9. It is ordered and
decreed, that the deputyes thus chosen shall haue power and
liberty to appoynt a tyme and a place of meeting togather
before any Generall Courte to aduise and consult of all such
things as may concerne the good of the publike, as also to
examine their owne Elections, whether according to the order,
and if they or the gretest prte of them find any election to
be illegall they may seclud such for prsent fro their meeting,
and returne the same and their resons to the Courte; and if yt
proue true, the Courte may fyne the prty or prtyes so
intruding and the Towne, if they see cause, and giue out a
warrant to goe to a newe election in a legall way, either in
prte or in whole. Also the said deputyes shall haue power to
fyne any that shall be disorderly at their meetings, or for
not coming in due tyme or place according to appoyntment; and
they may returne the said fynes into the Courte if yt be
refused to be paid, and the tresurer to take notice of yt, and
to estreete or levy the same as he doth other fynes.
{499}
10. It is Ordered, sentenceJ and decreed, that euery Generall
Courte, except such as through neglecte of the Gou'nor and the
greatest prte of Magestrats the Freemen themselves doe call,
shall consist of the Gouernor, or some one chosen to moderate
the Court, and 4 other Magestruts at lest, wth the mayor prte
of the deputyes of the seuerall Townes legally chosen; and in
case the Freemen or mayor prte of the, through neglect or
refusall of the Gouernor and mayor prte of the magestrats,
shall call a Courte, yt shall consist of the mayor prte of
Freemen that are prsent or their deputyes, wty a Moderator
chosen by the: In wch said Generall Courts shall consist the
supreme power of the Comonwelth, and they only shall haue
power to make laws or repeale the, to graunt leuyes, to admitt
of Freemen, dispose of lands vndisposed of, to seuerall Townes
or prsons, and also shall haue power to call ether Courte or
Magestrate or any other prson whatsoeuer into question for any
misdemeanour, and may for just causes displace or deale
otherwise according to the nature of the offence; and also may
deale in any other matter that concerns the good of this comon
welth, excepte election of Magestrats, wch shall be done by
the whole boddy of Freemen. In wch Courte the Gouernour or
Moderator shall haue power to order the Courte to giue liberty
of spech, and silence vncensonable and disorderly speakeings,
to put all things to voate, and in case the voate be equall to
haue the casting voice. But non of these Courts shall be
adiorned or dissolued wthout the consent of the maior prte of
the Court. 11. It is ordered, sentenced and decreed, that when
any Gemerall Courte vppon the occations of the Comonwelth haue
agreed vppon any sume or somes of mony to be leuyed vppon the
seuerall Townes wthin this Jurisdiction, that a Comittee be
chosen to sett out and appoynt wt shall be the prportion of
euery Towne to pay of the said leuy, prvided the Comittees be
made vp of an equall nuber out of each Towne. 14th January,
1638, the 11 Orders abouesaid are voted."

_Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, volume 1._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
The planting of New Haven Colony.

"In the height of the Hutchinson controversy [see
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638], John Davenport, an eminent
nonconformist minister from London, had arrived at Boston, and
with him a wealthy company, led by two merchants, Theophilus
Eaton and Edward Hopkins. Alarmed at the new opinions and
religious agitations of which Massachusetts was the seat,
notwithstanding very advantageous offers of settlement there,
they preferred to establish a separate community of their own,
to be forever free from the innovations of error and
licentiousness. Eaton and others sent to explore the coast
west of the Connecticut, selected a place for settlement near
the head of a spacious bay at Quinapiack [or Quinnipiack], or,
as the Dutch called it, Red Hill, where they built a hut and
spent the winter. They were joined in the spring [April, 1638]
by the rest of their company, and Davenport preached his first
sermon under the shade of a spreading oak. Presently they
entered into what they called a 'plantation covenant,' and a
communication being opened with the Indians, who were but few
in that neighborhood, the lands of Quinapiack were purchased,
except a small reservation on the east side of the bay, the
Indians receiving a few presents and a promise of protection.
A tract north of the bay, ten miles in one direction and
thirteen in the other, was purchased for ten coats; and the
colonists proceeded to lay out in squares the ground-plan of a
spacious city, to which they presently gave the name of New
Haven."

_R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., volume 1, chapter 9._

"They formed their political association by what they called a
'plantation covenant,' 'to distinguish it from a church
covenant, which could not at that time be made.' In this
compact they resolved, 'that, as in matters that concern the
gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public
offices which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates
and officers, making and repealing of laws; dividing
allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature,'
they would 'be ordered by the rules which the Scriptures hold
forth.' It had no external sanction, and comprehended no
acknowledgment of the government of England. The company
consisted mostly of Londoners, who at home had been engaged in
trade. In proportion to their numbers, they were the richest
of all the plantations. Like the settlers on Narragansett Bay,
they had no other title to their lands than that which they
obtained by purchase from the Indians."

_J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, volume 1, chapter 13._

ALSO IN:
_C. H. Levermore, The Republic of New Haven, chapter 1._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.
The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.

"In June, 1639, the whole body of settlers [at Quinnipiack, or
New Haven] came together to frame a constitution. A tradition,
seemingly well founded, says that the meeting was held in a large
barn. According to the same account, the purpose for which
they had met and the principles on which they ought to proceed
were set forth by Davenport in a sermon. 'Wisdom hath builded
her house, she hath hewn out seven pillars,' was the text.
There is an obvious connection between this and the subsequent
choice of seven of the chief men to lay the foundation of the
constitution. ... Davenport set forth the general system on
which the constitution ought to be framed. The two main
principles which he laid down were, that Scripture is a
perfect and sufficient rule for the conduct of civil affairs,
and that church-membership must be a condition of citizenship.
In this the colonists were but imitating the example of
Massachusetts. ... After the sermon, five resolutions
[followed by a sixth, constituting together what was called
the 'fundamental agreement' of New Haven Colony], formally
introducing Davenport's proposals, were carried. If a church
already existed, it was not considered fit to form a basis for
the state. Accordingly a fresh one was framed by a curiously
complicated process. As a first step, twelve men were elected.
These twelve were instructed, after a due interval for
consideration, to choose seven out of their own number, who
should serve as a nucleus for the church. At the same time an
oath was taken by the settlers, which may be looked on as a
sort of preliminary and provisional test of citizenship,
pledging them to accept the principles laid down by Davenport.
Sixty-three of the inhabitants took the oath, and their
example was soon followed by fifty more. By October, four
months after the original meeting, the seven formally
established the new commonwealth. They granted the rights of a
freeman to all who joined them, and who were recognized
members either of the church at New Haven or of any other
approved church. The freemen thus chosen entered into an
agreement to the same effect as the oath already taken. They
then elected a Governor and four Magistrates, or, as they were
for the present called, a Magistrate and four Deputies. ...
The functions of the Governor and Magistrates were not
defined. Indeed, but one formal resolution was passed as to
the constitution of the colony, namely, 'that the Word of God
shall be the only rule attended unto in ordering the affairs
of government.'"

_J. A. Doyle, The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
volume 1, chapter 6._

{500}

"Of all the New England colonies, New Haven was most purely a
government by compact, by social contract. ... The free
planters ... signed each their names to their voluntary
compact, and ordered that 'all planters hereafter received in
this plantation should submit to the said foundamentall
agreement, and testifie the same by subscribing their names.'
It is believed that this is the sole instance of the formation
of an independent civil government by a general compact
wherein all the parties to the agreement were legally required
to be actual signers thereof. When this event occurred, John
Locke was in his seventh year, and Rousseau was a century
away."

_C. H. Levermore, The Republic of New Haven, page 23._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1640-1655.
The attempted New Haven colonization on the Delaware.
Fresh quarrels with the Dutch.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1643.
The confederation of the colonies.
The progress and state of New Haven and the River Colony.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.
Settlement of boundaries with the Dutch of New Netherland.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1663.
The beginning of boundary conflicts with Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
The protection of the regicides at New Haven.

"Against the colony of New Haven the king had a special
grudge. Two of the regicide judges, who had sat in the
tribunal which condemned his father, escaped to New England in
1660 and were well received there. They were gentlemen of high
position. Edward Whalley was a cousin of Cromwell and Hampden.
... The other regicide, William Goffe, as a major-general in
Cromwell's army, had won such distinction that there were some
who pointed to him as the proper person to succeed the Lord
Protector on the death of the latter. He had married Whalley's
daughter. Soon after the arrival of these gentlemen, a royal
order for their arrest was sent to Boston. ... The king's
detectives hotly pursued them through the woodland paths of
New England, and they would soon have been taken but for the
aid they got from the people. Many are the stories of their
hairbreadth escapes. Sometimes they took refuge in a cave on a
mountain near New Haven, sometimes they hid in friendly
cellars; and once, being hard put to it, they skulked under a
wooden bridge, while their pursuers on horseback galloped by
overhead. After lurking about New Haven and Milford for two or
three years, on hearing of the expected arrival of Colonel
Nichols and his commission [the royal commission appointed to
take possession of the American grant lately made by the king
to his brother, the Duke of York], they sought a more secluded
hiding place near Hadley, a village lately settled far up the
Connecticut river, within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.
Here the avengers lost the trail, the pursuit was abandoned,
and the weary regicides were presently forgotten. The people
of New Haven had been especially zealous in shielding the
fugitives. ... The colony, moreover, did not officially
recognize the restoration of Charles II. to the throne until
that event had been commonly known in New England for more
than a year. For these reasons, the wrath of the king was
specially roused against New Haven."

_J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England,
pages 192-194._

ALSO IN:
_G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 11._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.
The Royal Charter and annexation of New Haven to the River Colony.

"The Restoration in England left the New Haven colony under a
cloud in the favor of the new government: it had been tardy
and ungracious in its proclamation of Charles II.; it had been
especially remiss in searching for the regicide colonels,
Goffe and Whalley; and any application for a charter would
have come from New Haven with a very ill grace. Connecticut
was under no such disabilities; and it had in its Governor,
John Winthrop [the younger, son of the first governor of
Massachusetts], a man well calculated to win favor with the
new King. ... In March, 1660, the General Court solemnly
declared its loyalty to Charles II., sent the Governor to
England to offer a loyal address to the King and ask him for a
charter, and laid aside £500 for his expenses. Winthrop was
successful, and the charter was granted April 20, 1662. The
acquisition of the charter raised the Connecticut leaders to
the seventh heaven of satisfaction. And well it might, for it
was a grant of privileges with hardly a limitation.
Practically the King had given Winthrop 'carte blanche,' and
allowed him to frame the charter to suit himself. It
incorporated the freemen of Connecticut as a 'body corporate
and pollitique,' by the name of 'The Governor and Company of
the English Collony of Conecticut in New England in America.'
... The people were to have all the liberties and immunities
of free and natural subjects of the King, as if born within
the realm. It granted to the Governor and Company all that
part of New England south of the Massachusetts line and west
of the 'Norroganatt River commonly called Norroganatt Bay' to
the South Sea, with the 'Islands thereunto adioyneinge.' ...
It is difficult to see more than two points in which it [the
charter] altered the constitution adopted by the towns in
1639. There were now to be two deputies from each town; and
the boundaries of the Commonwealth now embraced the rival
colony of New Haven. ... New Haven did not submit without a
struggle, for not only her pride of separate existence but the
supremacy of her ecclesiastical system was at stake. For three
years a succession of diplomatic notes passed between the
General Court of Connecticut and 'our honored friends of New
Haven, Milford, Branford, and Guilford.' ...
{501}
In October, 1664, the Connecticut General Court appointed the
New Haven magistrates commissioners for their towns, 'with
magistraticall powers,' established the New Haven local
officers in their places for the time, and declared oblivion
for any past resistance to the laws. In December, Milford
having already submitted, the remnant of the New Haven General
Court, representing New Haven, Guilford, and Branford, held
its last meeting and voted to submit, 'with a salvo jure of
our former rights and claims, as a people who have not yet
been heard in point of plea.' The next year the laws of New
Haven were laid aside forever, and her towns sent deputies to
the General Court at Hartford. ... In 1701 the General Court
... voted that its annual October session should thereafter be
held at New Haven. This provision of a double capital was
incorporated into the constitution of 1818, and continued
until in 1873 Hartford was made sole capital."

_A. Johnston, The Genesis of a New England State,
pages 25-28._

ALSO IN:
_B. Trumbull, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 12._

_Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1665-78._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1664.
Royal grant to the Duke of York, in conflict with the charter.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1666.
The New Haven migration to Newark, N. J.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
Long Island and the western half of the colony granted to the
Duke of York.

In 1674, after the momentary recovery of New York by the
Dutch, and its re-surrender to the English, "the king issued a
new patent for the province, in which he not only included
Long Island, but the territory up to the Connecticut River,
which had been assigned to Connecticut by the royal
commissioners. The assignment of Long Island was regretted,
but not resisted; and the island which is the natural sea-wall
of Connecticut passed, by royal decree, to a province whose
only natural claim to it was that it barely touched it at one
corner. The revival of the duke's claim to a part of the
mainland was a different matter, and every preparation was
made for resistance. In July, 1675, just as King Philip's war
had broken out in Plymouth, hasty word was sent from the
authorities at Hartford to Captain Thomas Bull at Saybrook
that Governor Andros of New York was on his way through the
Sound for the purpose, as he avowed, of aiding the people
against the Indians. Of the two evils, Connecticut rather
preferred the Indians. Bull was instructed to inform Andros,
if he should call at Saybrook, that the colony had taken all
precautions against the Indians, and to direct him to the
actual scene of conflict, but not to permit the landing of any
armed soldiers. 'And you are to keep the king's colors
standing there, under his majesty's lieutenant, the governor
of Connecticut; and if any other colors be set up there, you
are not to suffer them to stand. ... But you are in his
majesty's name required to avoid striking the first blow; but
if they begin, then you are to defend yourselves, and do your
best to secure his majesty's interest and the peace of the
whole colony of Connecticut in our possession.' Andros came
and landed at Saybrook, but confined his proceedings to
reading the duke's patent against the protest of Bull and the
Connecticut representatives."

_A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12._

_Report of Regents of the University on the Boundaries of
the State of New York, page 21._

ALSO IN:
_C. W. Bowen, The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
pages 70-72._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
The hostile king and the hidden charter.
Sir Edmund Andros in possession of the government.

"During the latter years of the reign of Charles II. the king
had become so reckless of his pledges and his faith that he
did not scruple to set the dangerous example of violating the
charters that had been granted by the crown. Owing to the
friendship that the king entertained for Winthrop, we have
seen that Connecticut was favored by him to a degree even
after the death of that great man. But no sooner had Charles
demised and the sceptre passed into the hands of his bigoted
brother, King James II., than Connecticut was called upon to
contend against her sovereign for liberties that had been
affirmed to her by the most solemn muniments known to the law
of England. The accession of James II. took place on the 6th
day of February 1685, and such was his haste to violate the
honor of the crown that, early in the summer of 1685, a quo
warranto was issued against the governor and company of
Connecticut, citing them to appear before the king, within
eight days of St. Martin's, to show by what right and tenor
they exercised certain powers and privileges." This was
quickly followed by two other writs, conveyed to Hartford by
Edward Randolph, the implacable enemy of the colonies. "The
day of appearance named in them was passed long before the
writs were served." Mr. Whiting was sent to England as the
agent of the colony, to exert such influences as might be
brought to bear against the plainly hostile and unscrupulous
intentions of the king; but his errand was fruitless. "On the
28th of December another writ of quo warranto was served upon
the governor and company of the colony. This writ bore date
the 23d of October, and required the defendants to appear
before the king' within eight days of the purification of the
Blessed Virgin.' ... Of course, the day named was not known to
the English law, and was therefore no day at all in legal
contemplation." Already, the other New England colonies had
been brought under a provisional general government, by
commissioners, of whom Joseph Dudley was named president.
President Dudley "addressed a letter to the governor and
council, advising them to resign the charter into the king's
hands. Should they do so, he undertook to use his influence in
behalf of the colony. They did not deem it advisable to comply
with the request. Indeed they had hardly time to do so before
the old commission was broken up, and a new one granted,
superseding Dudley and naming Sir Edmund Andros governor of
New England. Sir Edmund arrived in Boston on the 19th of
December, 1686, and the next day he published his commission
and took the government into his hands. Scarcely had he
established himself, when he sent a letter to the governor and
company of Connecticut, acquainting them with his appointment,
and informing them that he was commissioned by the king to
receive their charter if they would give it up to him."

_G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut,
volume 1, chapter 14._

{502}

On receipt of the communication from Andros, "the General
Court was at once convened, and by its direction a letter was
addressed to the English Secretary of State, earnestly
pleading for the preservation of the privileges that had been
granted to them. For the first time they admitted the
possibility that their petition might be denied, and in that
case requested to be united to Massachusetts. This was
construed by Sir Edmund as a virtual surrender; but as the
days went by he saw that he had mistaken the spirit and
purpose of the colony. Andros finally decided to go in person
to Connecticut. He arrived at Hartford the last day of
October, attended by a retinue of 60 officers and soldiers.
The Assembly, then in session, received him with every outward
mark of respect. After this formal exchange of courtesies, Sir
Edmund publicly demanded the charter, and declared the
colonial government dissolved. Tradition relates that Governor
Treat, in calm but earnest words, remonstrated against this
action. ... The debate was continued until the shadows of the
early autumnal evening had fallen. After candles were lighted,
the governor and his council seemed to yield; and the box
supposed to contain the charter was brought into the room, and
placed upon the table. Suddenly the lights were extinguished.
Quiet reigned in the room, and in the dense crowd outside the
building. The candles were soon relighted; but the charter had
disappeared, and after the most diligent search could not be
found. The common tradition has been, that it was taken under
cover of the darkness by Captain Joseph Wadsworth, and hidden
by him in the hollow trunk of a venerable and noble oak tree
standing near the entrance-gate of Governor Wyllys's mansion.
The charter taken by Captain Wadsworth was probably the
duplicate, and remained safely in his possession for several
years. There is reason to believe that, some time before the
coming of Andros to Hartford, the original charter had been
carefully secreted, and the tradition of later times makes it
probable that, while the duplicate charter that was taken from
the table was hidden elsewhere, the original charter found a
safe resting place in the heart of the tree that will always
be remembered as The Charter Oak. This tree is said to have
been preserved by the early settlers at the request of the
Indians. 'It has been the guide of our ancestors for
centuries,' they said, 'as to the time of planting our corn.
When the leaves are the size of a mouse's ears, then is the
time to put it in the ground.' The record of the Court briefly
states that Andros, having been conducted to the governor's
seat by the governor himself, declared that he had been
commissioned by his Majesty to take on him the government of
Connecticut. The commission having been read, he said that it
was his Majesty's pleasure to make the late governor and
Captain John Allyn members of his council. The secretary
handed their common seal to Sir Edmund, and afterwards wrote
these words inclosing the record: 'His Excellency, Sir Edmund
Andros, Knight, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty's
Territory and Dominion in New England, by order from his
Majesty, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, the 31st of
October, 1687, took into his hands the government of this
colony of Connecticut, it being by his Majesty annexed to the
Massachusetts and other colonies under his Excellency's
government. Finis.' Andros soon disclosed a hand of steel
beneath the velvet glove of plausible words and fair
promises."

_E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 16._

ALSO IN:
_J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,
book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3)._

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686,
and MASSACHUSETTS: 1671-1686.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.
The reinstatement of the charter government.

"April, 1689, came at last. The people of Boston, at the first
news of the English Revolution, clapped Andros into custody.
May 9, the old Connecticut authorities quietly resumed their
functions, and called the assembly together for the following
month. William and Mary were proclaimed with great fervor. Not
a word was said about the disappearance or reappearance of the
charter; but the charter government was put into full effect
again, as if Andros had never interrupted it. An address was
sent to the king, asking that the charter be no further
interfered with; but operations under it went on as before. No
decided action was taken by the home government for some
years, except that its appointment of the New York governor,
Fletcher, to the command of the Connecticut militia, implied a
decision that the Connecticut charter had been superseded.
Late in 1693, Fitz John Winthrop was sent to England as agent
to obtain a confirmation of the charter. He secured an
emphatic legal opinion from Attorney General Somers, backed by
those of Treby and Ward, that the charter was entirely valid,
Treby's concurrent opinion taking this shape: 'I am of the
same opinion, and, as this matter is stated, there is no
ground of doubt.' The basis of the opinion was that the
charter had been granted under the great seal; that it had not
been surrendered under the common seal of the colony, nor had
any judgment of record been entered against it; that its
operation had merely been interfered with by overpowering
force; that the charter therefore remained valid; and that the
peaceable submission of the colony to Andros was merely an
illegal suspension of lawful authority. In other words, the
passive attitude of the colonial government had disarmed
Andros so far as to stop the legal proceedings necessary to
forfeit the charter, and their prompt action, at the critical
moment, secured all that could be secured under the
circumstances. William was willing enough to retain all
possible fruit of James's tyranny, as he showed by enforcing
the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter; but the law in
this case was too plain, and he ratified the lawyers' opinion
in April, 1694. The charter had escaped its enemies at last,
and its escape is a monument of one of the advantages of a
real democracy. ... Democracy had done more for Connecticut
than class influence had done for Massachusetts."

_A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12._

{503}

"The decisions which established the rights of Connecticut
included Rhode Island. These two commonwealths were the
portion of the British empire distinguished above all others
by the largest liberty. Each was a nearly perfect democracy
under the shelter of a monarchy. ... The crown, by reserving
to itself the right of appeal, had still a method of
interfering in the internal affairs of the two republics. Both
of them were included among the colonies in which the lords of
trade advised a complete restoration of the prerogatives of
the crown. Both were named in the bill which, in April, 1701,
was introduced into parliament for the abrogation of all
American charters. The journals of the house of lords relate
that Connecticut was publicly heard against the measure, and
contended that its liberties were held by contract in return
for services that had been performed; that the taking away of
so many charters would destroy all confidence in royal
promises, and would afford a precedent dangerous to all the
chartered corporations of England. Yet the bill was read a
second time, and its principle, as applied to colonies, was
advocated by the mercantile interest and by 'great men' in
England. The impending war with the French postponed the
purpose till the accession of the house of Hanover."

_G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's
last revision), part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1702-1711.
Queen Anne's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War and the taking of Louisbourg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1753-1799.
Western territorial claims.
Settlements in the Wyoming Valley.
Conflicts with the Penn colonists.

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1753-1799.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's plan of union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; 1756;
1756-1757; 1758; 1759; 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;
Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1760-1765.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765.
The revolt against the Stamp Act.

"The English government understood very well that the colonies
were earnestly opposed to the Stamp Act, but they had no
thought of the storm of wrath and resistance which it would
arouse. It was a surprise to many of the leaders of public
affairs in America. ... Governor Fitch and Jared Ingersoll,
with other prominent citizens who had done all in their power
to oppose the scheme of taxation ... counselled submission.
They mistook the feeling of the people. ... The clergy were
still the leaders of public opinion, and they were united in
denunciation of the great wrong. Societies were organized
under the name of the Sons of Liberty, the secret purpose of
which was to resist the Stamp Act by violent measures if
necessary. ... Mr. Ingersoll, who had done all in his power to
oppose the bill, after its passage decided to accept the
position of stamp agent for Connecticut. Franklin urged him to
take the place, and no one doubted his motives in accepting
it. The people of Connecticut, however, were not pleased with
this action. ... He was visited by a crowd of citizens, who
inquired impatiently if he would resign." Ingersoll put them
off with evasive replies for some time; but finally there was
a gathering of a thousand men on horseback, from Norwich, New
London, Windham, Lebanon and other towns, each armed with a
heavy peeled club, who surrounded the obstinate stamp agent at
Wethersfield and made him understand that they were in deadly
earnest. "'The cause is not worth dying for,' said the
intrepid man, who would never have flinched had he not felt
that, after all, this band of earnest men were in the right. A
formal resignation was given him to sign. ... After he had
signed his name, the crowd cried out, 'Swear to it!' He begged
to be excused from taking an oath. 'Then shout Liberty and
Property,' said the now good-natured company. To this he had
no objection, and waved his hat enthusiastically as he
repeated the words. Having given three cheers, the now
hilarious party dined together." Ingersoll was then escorted
to Hartford, where he read his resignation publicly at the
court-house.

_E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 29._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766.
The repeal of the Stamp Act.
The Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, and 1770.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1769-1784.
The ending of slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on tea.
Committees of Correspondence instituted.
The tea ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill.
The Massachusetts Act.
The Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
New England in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776.
Assumes to be a "free, sovereign and independent State."

"In May, 1776, the people had been formally released from
their allegiance to the crown; and in October the general
assembly passed an act assuming the functions of a State. The
important section of the act was the first, as follows: 'That
the ancient form of civil government, contained in the charter
from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the
people of this State, shall be and remain the civil
Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the
people thereof, independent of any king or prince whatever.
And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a
free, sovereign and independent State, by the name of the
State of Connecticut.' The form of the act speaks what was
doubtless always the belief of the people, that their charter
derived its validity, not from the will of the crown, but from
the assent of the people. And the curious language of the last
sentence, in which 'this Republic' declares itself to be 'a
free, sovereign, and independent State,' may serve to indicate
something of the appearance which state sovereignty doubtless
presented to the Americans of 1776-89."

A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 16.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

{504}

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776-1783.
The war and the victory.
Independence achieved.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1778.
The massacre at the Wyoming settlement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1779.
Tryon's marauding expeditions.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1786.
Partial cession of western territorial claims to the United States.
The Western Reserve in Ohio.

See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786;
PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799;
and OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1788.
Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

----------CONNECTICUT: End----------

CONNECTICUT TRACT, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

CONNUBIUM.

See MUNICIPIUM.

CONON, Pope, A. D. 686-687.

CONOYS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CONRAD I.,
King of the East Franks (Germany),
(the first of the Saxon line), A. D. 911-919.

Conrad II., King of the Romans (King of Germany), A. D. 1024-1039;
King of Italy, 1026-1039; King of Burgundy, 1032-1039;
Emperor, 1027-1039.

Conrad III., King of Germany (the first of the Swabian or
Hohenstauffen dynasty), 1137-1152.

Conrad IV., King of Germany, 1250-1254.

CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

The Roman senators were so called,--"Patres Conscripti." The
origin of the designation has been much discussed, and the
explanation which has found most acceptance is this: that
when, at the organization of the Republic, there was a new
creation of senators, to fill the ranks, the new senators were
called "conscripti" ("added to the roll") while the older ones
were called "patres" ("fathers"), as before. Then the whole
senate was addressed as "Patres et Conscripti," which lapsed
finally into "Patres-Conscripti."

_H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 4._

CONSCRIPTION, The first French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

CONSCRIPTION IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MARCH).

CONSERVATIVE PARTY, The English.