Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/981

Rh notice; to act as intensely and vigorously as possible when action seemed necessary and promising; but to say as little as possible, and evade as much as possible when open resistance was evident folly.”

The relations of Connecticut with neighbouring colonies were notable for numerous and continuous quarrels in the 17th century. Soon after the first settlements were made, a dispute arose with Massachusetts regarding the boundary between the two colonies; after the brief war with the Pequot Indians in 1637 a similar quarrel followed regarding Connecticut’s right to the Pequot lands, and in the New England Confederation (established in 1643) friction between Massachusetts and Connecticut continued. Difficulty with Rhode Island was caused by the conflict between that colony’s charter and the Connecticut charter regarding the western boundary of Rhode Island; and the encroachment of outlying Connecticut settlements on Dutch territory, and the attempt to extend the boundaries of New York to the Connecticut river, gave rise to other disputes. These questions of boundary were a source of continuous discord, the last of them not being settled until 1881. The attempts of Governors Joseph Dudley (1647–1720), of Massachusetts, and Thomas Dongan (1634–1715) of New York, to unite Connecticut with their, colonies also caused difficulty.

The relations of Connecticut and New Haven with the mother country were similar to those of the other New England colonies. The period of most serious friction was that during the administration of the New England colonies by (q.v.), who in pursuance of the later Stuart policy both in England and in her American colonies visited Hartford on the 31st of October 1687 to execute quo warranto proceedings against the charter of 1662. It is said that during a discussion at night over the surrender of the charter the candles were extinguished, and the document itself (which had been brought to the meeting) was removed from the table where it had been placed. According to tradition it was hidden in a large oak tree, afterwards known as the “Charter Oak.” But though Andros thus failed to secure the charter, he dissolved the existing government. After the Revolution of 1688, however, government under the charter was resumed, and the crown lawyers decided that the charter had not been invalidated by the quo warranto proceedings.

Religious affairs formed one of the most important problems in the life of the colony. The established ecclesiastical system was the Congregational. The Code of 1650 (Connecticut) taxed all persons for its support, provided for the collection of church taxes, if necessary, by civil distraint, and forbade the formation of new churches without the consent of the general court. The New England Half Way Covenant of 1657, which extended church membership so as to include all baptized persons, was sanctioned by the general court in 1664. The custom by which neighbouring churches sought mutual aid and advice, prepared the way for the Presbyterian system of church government, which was established by an ecclesiastical assembly held at Saybrook in 1708, the church constitution there framed being known as the “Saybrook Platform.” At that time, however, a liberal policy towards dissent was adopted, the general court granting permission for churches “soberly to differ or dissent” from the establishment. Hence a large number of new churches soon sprang into being. In 1727 the Church of England was permitted to organize in the colony, and in 1729 a similar privilege was granted to the Baptists and Quakers. A religious revival swept the colony in 1741. The very existence of the establishment seemed threatened; consequently in 1742 the general court forbade any ordained minister to enter another parish than his own without an invitation, and decided that only those were legal ministers who were recognized as such by the general court. Throughout the remaining years of the 18th

century there was constant friction between the establishment and the nonconforming churches; but in 1791 the right of free incorporation was granted to all sects.

In the War of American Independence Connecticut took a prominent part. During the controversy over the Stamp Act the general court instructed the colony’s agent in London to insist on “the exclusive right of the colonists to tax themselves, and on the privilege of trial by jury,” as rights that could not be surrendered. The patriot sentiment was so strong that Loyalists from other colonies were sent to Connecticut, where it was believed they would have no influence; and the copper mines at Simsbury were converted into a military prison; but among the nonconforming sects, on the other hand, there was considerable sympathy for the British cause. Preparations for war were made in 1774; on the 28th of April 1775 the expedition against Ticonderoga and Crown Point was resolved upon by some of the leading members of the Connecticut assembly, and although they had acted in their private capacity funds were obtained from the colonial treasury to raise the force which on the 8th of May was put under the command of Ethan Allen. Connecticut volunteers were among the first to go to Boston after the battle of Lexington and more than one-half of Washington’s army at New York in 1776 was composed of Connecticut soldiers. Yet with the exception of isolated British movements against Stonington in 1775, Danbury in 1777, New Haven in 1779 and New London in 1781 no battles were fought in Connecticut territory.

In 1776 the government of Connecticut was reorganized as a state, the charter of 1662 being adopted by the general court as “the Civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the people thereof, independent of any King or Prince whatever.” In the formation of the general government the policy of the state was national. It acquiesced in the loss of western lands through a decision (1782) of a court appointed by the Confederation (see ); favoured the levy of taxes on imports by federal authority; relinquished (1786) its claims to all western lands, except the Western Reserve (see ); and in the constitutional convention of 1787 the present system of national representation in Congress was proposed by the Connecticut delegates as a compromise between the plans presented by Virginia and New Jersey.

For many years the Federalist party controlled the affairs of the state. The opposition to the growth of American nationality which characterized the later years of that party found expression in a resolution of the general assembly that a bill for incorporating state troops in the Federal army would be “utterly subversive of the rights and liberties of the people of the state, and the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the same,” and in the prominent part taken by Connecticut in the Hartford Convention (see ) and in the advocacy of the radical amendments proposed by it. But the development of manufactures, the discontent of nonconforming religious sects with the establishment, and the confusion of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government in the existing constitution opened the way for a political revolution. All the discontented elements united with the Democratic party in 1817 and defeated the Federalists in the state election; and in 1818 the existing constitution was adopted. From 1830 until 1855 there was close rivalry between the Democratic and Whig parties for control of the state administration.

In the Civil War Connecticut was one of the most ardent supporters of the Union cause. When President Lincoln issued his first call, for 75,000 volunteers, there was not a single militia company in the state ready for service. Governor William A. Buckingham (1804–1875), one of the ablest and most zealous of the “war-governors,” and afterwards, from 1869 until his death, a member of the United States Senate, issued a call for volunteers in April 1861; and soon 54 companies, more than five times the state’s quota, were organized. Corporations, individuals and towns made liberal contributions of money. The general assembly made an appropriation of $2,000,000, and the state furnished approximately 48,000 men to the army.