Elizabeth T. Tiano
Keeping in mind the background of imperialism and British imperial policy in the American colonies, we will now turn our attention to the major purpose of our discussion, the imperial relationship of the Connecticut colony and Great Britain. In 1636, the Reverend Thomas Hooker and his congregation of Calvinist Puritans migrated from Massachusetts Bay Colony to form a settlement in the valley of the Connecticut River. Eventually, the towns of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield were founded and became the nucleus of Connecticut. [For the story of the settlement and early government of Connecticut, see Units I and II.] One reason Hooker left Massachusetts Bay was because he objected to the centralized authority of the General Court there. Calvinist Puritans believed in the covenant theory of government. This theory espoused the idea that the people and the government entered into an agreement and both parties were bound to uphold the accord. Some of these early settlers believed it might be the duty of the people to overthrow a government that broke the agreement or dictated action contrary to God’s word.
Three years later, in 1639, the colony of New Haven was founded by Theophilus Eaton and the Reverend John Davenport. New Haven remained an independent colony until 1664 when a royal commission recognized Mew Haven as part of Connecticut. In December of that year New Haven agreed to join the Connecticut colony, despite earlier resistance to in corporation.
8
With this background in mind we will now discuss the reasons why Connecticut’s development was different from the other colonies. Connecticut was a small agricultural colony isolated from the mainstream of the Empire and from the other colonies. Since it had neither a staple crop for export or a deep sea port, the colony did not become engaged in direct trade with England or foreign nations. Because there were not adequate roads or other means of transportation, farmers were not encouraged to grow surplus crops for export until early in the 18th century. This isolation caused Connecticut to be largely ignored by the Crown for a long period of time.
Because the founders of Connecticut had migrated to the Connecticut River Valley without royal sanction, the colony had no charter until 1662. Connecticut’s leaders knew they were operating the colony without a firm legal basis. They thought the Warwick Patent, Fundamental Orders, and various Indian grants held by Connecticut might not be recognized by the Crown. [See Appendixes A-D of Unit I for the Fundamental Orders and the Charter of 1662.] In 1660 Charles II was restored to the British throne. The Connecticut leaders feared the new king would put them under the control of Massachusetts. To avoid their absorption into the Massachusetts Bay Colony, they drafted a charter and sent it with John Winthrop, Jr. to England for the King’s signature. The Privy seal was affixed in 1662. This was a corporate charter which gave Connecticut broad legislative powers. The colony was allowed to elect its own governor and lawmakers. It had a bicameral legislature consisting of a Council and a General Assembly. The Assembly could only be dissolved by the approval of its own majority, not by royal prerogative.
9
Connecticut was not required by charter to send its laws to England for confirmation or disallowance. In effect, the king had no power or right to appoint officials or interfere with legislation. Because there was little communication between the colony and England, Connecticut was allowed to become a semi-independent, self governing colony.
While, for the most part, Connecticut was ignored by the Crown, the colony was not entirely free of British attempts to assert imperial authority. One challenge to Connecticut’s laws was the 1728 royal disallowance of Connecticut’s 1669 intestacy law. There had been three cases appealed to the Privy Council between 1701 and 1745 by Connecticut citizens who were heirs to relatives who had died intestate (without leaving a will). Connecticut’s London agents had fought these cases on the grounds that British common law did not apply to Connecticut because land ownership and distribution in the colony was different from that of England. Disallowance was a violation of Connecticut’s charter privileges. Nevertheless, the colony dropped its appeal on this decision because the Board of Trade was suggesting that a new charter for Connecticut would be more in the interest of Great Britain. Connecticut did not repeal its intestacy law nor did it act as though the law had been disallowed. When certain families refused to cooperate the courts simply delayed decisions on their cases. This was how matters stood until 1745. In that year another intestate case was appealed to England by one Samuel Clark. In this case, Connecticut successfully argued that British common law did not automatically apply to the colonies and pointed out that Massachusetts intestacy law had been upheld by the Privy Council even though it violated common law. Connecticut won and the intestacy issue was finally resolved in the colony’s favor.
10
Connecticut was not always consistent in its views on British law, however. In the dispute over the Mohegan lands the colony found it convenient to appeal to common law to protect its boundary rights. In this case the heirs of one John Mason claimed lands that had been granted to Mason by the Mohegan sachem Uncas. The heirs claimed that when Mason surrendered his 1661 deed to the colony he only allowed jurisdiction over these lands, not rights to the soil. Connecticut argued this case on the grounds that questions concerning land title could only be dealt with by a jury trial as was guaranteed by British common law. The first appeal to the Crown was made by Mason’s heirs in 1704. The dispute was not finally settled until 1772 when the Privy Council gave Connecticut clear title to the lands. Connecticut had won the case but not through the process of common law as the colony had claimed as its right.
11
Another challenge to Connecticut’s autonomy were the attempts made by England to revoke the colony’s charter and bring Connecticut under complete British control. The major threat to the charter occurred in 1685. In that year the Dominion of New England was formed as an attempt to consolidate the New England colonies and later New York and New Jersey under one royal governor. In this struggle with the Crown, Connecticut played a waiting game. The colony refused to join the new government without being pushed into it by the King. To further stall consolidation, Connecticut let it be known that it was considering joining the colony of New York whose governor, Thomas Dongan, was offering generous terms for such a merger. However, if Connecticut was to lose its independence it preferred consolidation with Massachusetts. When Connecticut in formed the lords of this desire it was interpreted as submission, and the colony was incorporated into the Dominion. The Dominion lasted until 1689 when Massachusetts revolted, in the wake of the Glorious Revolution in England, and imprisoned the royal governor Andros. Connecticut then resumed its own government under its charter.
12
The collapse of the Dominion of New England did not end the Crown’s attempts to revoke Connecticut’s charter. The Board of Trade made seven different attempts to regulate or nullify the colony’s charter. In every instance Connecticut politely but firmly refused to surrender its charter to the Crown.
13
And the colony interpreted its charter rights in the broadest possible terms. Connecticut even claimed certain powers that were not legal under the terms of a trading charter or agreeable to the principles of British policy.
Connecticut’s stubborn defense of its charter in the face of British incursions should not lead one to infer that the colony was not concerned with the welfare of the empire. The citizens of Connecticut on the whole considered themselves loyal British subjects. The people of Connecticut were willing to meet reasonable demands of British authorities that did not interfere with their charter rights. Connecticut complied with most elements of the Navigation Acts, generally obeyed circular instructions (notices issued by the Crown for distribution in the colonies) concerning matters of piracy, ships passes, prayers for the royal family, relations with the enemy in time of war, admitted the authority of the King in Council in matters concerning controversies, and recognized the right of the Treasury Board and the Commissioners of Customs to appoint customs officials for the collection of the plantation duty. Connecticut governors took the oath required by the acts of trade, and freemen of the colony took oaths to be faithful and loyal to their lawful sovereign, the King of England. Generally, the colony expressed its loyal obedience to the royal will whenever it wrote to the secretary of state or the Board of Trade.
14
At the same time, despite its strong desire to remain free of royal interference Connecticut would not hesitate to appeal to the mother country for protection or assistance in times of need.
15
Also, when called upon by England for assistance in British war efforts, Connecticut often did more than its fair share.
We will now turn our attention to the year of 1765 when, as you will recall, the British government attempted to levy internal taxes on the colonies. The small colony of Connecticut played a significant and active role in colonial opposition. When Parliament passed the Stamp Act in 1765, the Connecticut press and some of its leaders expressed resistance to what they considered the Crown’s interference in their internal affairs. Connecticut newspapers and some of its leaders raised the question of independence. They said that this imperial interference in colonial affairs could or might lead to the eventual independence of the colonies. The Connecticut Assembly drafted a resolution to Parliament that presented its case against the Stamp Act. They said the Act was a violation of the rights granted to them under their charter. It also violated their traditional rights as Englishmen in that British subjects could only be taxed by laws they approved. At the same time the Assembly expressed its loyalty to the Crown in all matters except their own internal affairs.
While the Connecticut colonists were opposed to the tax, not all the citizens agreed with the view that England did not have the right to pass this law. For Example, the conservative Governor Fitch did not agree with the tax but said the citizens of Connecticut had to obey the law because the British government was the supreme authority.
Because of strong colonial opposition and pressure from British merchants, whose profits were reduced because of colonial boycotts, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766. When news of the repeal arrived in Connecticut the General Assembly set aside a special day of celebration and at the same time instructed the governor, who was to be assisted by a committee, to draft a communication to the King expressing their gratitude for the repeal of the Stamp Act and their loyalty to his Majesty.
16
With the Stamp Act repealed, Parliament still had to solve the problem of the war debt. In 1767 the British government in the Townshend Acts passed new taxes on the colonies. These new taxes levied duties on certain British manufactured goods, such as paper, glass, paint, and the East India Company’s tea. Parliament at the same time removed duties on colonial wheat and whale oil entering British ports.
England’s leaders believed that the Townshend duties avoided the constitutional question of internal taxation because the taxes were on British goods entering colonial ports, and were not collected in interior towns. Connecticut disagreed. In the first place Benjamin Gale, a leading politician, said it would be unwise for Connecticut to buy English goods because not only would this add to the profits of British merchants, but the tax would also increase the revenue of the Crown all at the expense of Connecticut citizens. In the second place, Connecticut opposed the tax because it had been passed without colonial consent.
17
Connecticut’s radicals urged the people to stop importing and buying British goods. The patriots warned again that the colonies might eventually become independent of the Empire. Connecticut’s conservatives were concerned about the rashness of the radicals. They were fearful that antagonizing the Crown would cause the loss of their charter privileges.
18
Nevertheless, non-importation helped bring about the partial repeal of the Townshend duties in 1770. The duties on British manufactures were removed; however, Parliament retained the tax on tea.
Hostilities with the Crown were resumed in 1773 with the passage of the Tea Act which gave the British East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade in the colonies. In December of 1773, the Massachusetts Sons of Liberty, dressed as Indians, boarded three ships in Boston harbor and destroyed the East India Company’s tea. The British considered the Tea Party a criminal act and passed the Coercive Acts (the colonists called them the Intolerable Acts) to punish the city of Boston.
When news of the Coercive Acts reached Connecticut, the people became uneasy over the way Parliament had altered the Massachusetts charter and closed the port of Boston. They again feared the loss of their own charter. Connecticut radicals, under the leadership of the Sons of Liberty, and the press urged the public to send assistance to the Patriots in Boston. The
Connecticut Courant
carried reports of assistance given to Bostonians by their fellow patriots in Connecticut.
19
Officially, Connecticut was apprehensive about this new threat to its charter; however it was not willing to take the drastic measures Massachusetts proposed as retaliation against the Crown. In lieu of these measures the Assembly passed a set of resolves in which they again stated their loyalty to the Crown, and insisted again upon their Charter rights, especially, the right to self-taxation and trial by a jury of their peers. These resolves also held that only a local government could close a port, and Parliament’s actions regarding Boston were a threat to liberty. Governor Trumbull, addressed the Assembly and expressed Connecticut’s loyalty to the King and his family. Trumbull also said he looked forward to a constitutional settlement of this new difficulty. The governor said the citizens of Connecticut had the responsibility to protect those rights guaranteed them by British law.
20
The Assembly also empowered a Committee of Correspondence to meet with other such committees to discuss this problem. Silas Deane, the secretary for the committee, sent letters to the other colonies proposing a meeting of colonial representatives.
21
In 1774, the colonies agreed to send delegates to an inter-colonial congress which met in Philadelphia. The Connecticut delegates to the First Continental Congress, Silas Deane, Eliphalet Dyer and Roger Sherman, were strong in their support of colonial rights. This support earned them a good reputation among the members of the Congress. Only Massachusetts delegates enjoyed greater renown. A Yankee, most especially a man from Connecticut, was very respected.
The Continental Congress prepared two documents which were to be sent to the King. One was the Olive Branch Petition, 1775 which appealed to the King’s reason and said that it was his ministers who were responsible for the present problems and not the King himself. Connecticut’s delegates did not support this petition. However, they did support a Declaration which stated the causes and necessity of taking up arms and also made clear that the colonial cause was just. The King ignored both petitions.
The experience of Connecticut citizens as members of a great colonial system taught them that such systems must be organized for the mutual benefit of all and based on the advice and consent of all. When the central government became exploitive it lost its claim to legitimacy, and outlying members were free to break away. This concept is best stated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, but the Connecticut people, to expressed it as well. Jonathan Trumbull in a proclamation issued in 1776, stated Connecticut’s position on independence. [Appendix A]
In his statement Governor Trumbull said colonial forefathers had left England to escape the injustice and oppression of haughty kings who sought to destroy the constitutional rights of the people. For many years the American colonists enjoyed the freedom and liberty their forefathers had left England to obtain. Now a new king was violating his sacred obligations to the people, and with the advice of his counsellors was attempting to take from the colonists the rights established and recognized by the solemn compact made with previous kings of Great Britain.
The burden laid upon the people by George III was too great to be born. By issuing cruel and oppressive decrees, the King was depriving the colonists of their natural and lawful rights, and attempting to subject them to the absolute power of the British government. The colonies had sought relief from this oppression by humble and dutiful complaints and petitions. Instead of receiving redress, their complaints and petitions were treated with scorn and contempt. Fresh injuries were laid upon the people and hostile armies and ships were sent to the colonies. This threat to their freedoms left the colonists with no alternative except to submit to slavery or take up arms to defend their natural and constitutional rights.
Therefore, in 1776 when news of Lexington and Concord reached Connecticut, patriots spontaneously picked up their guns and set out for Boston. The American Revolution had begun and the colony of Connecticut rallied to the cause providing men and provisions for the war effort.
