See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.
{2306}
----------NEW ENGLAND: Start--------
NEW ENGLAND.
[Footnote: The greater part of New England history is given
elsewhere, as the history of the several New England states,
and is only indexed in this place, instead of being repeated.]
NEW ENGLAND:
The Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
NEW ENGLAND:
The Norumbega of early geographers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
First coasted by Sebastian Cabot.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1524.
Coasted by Verrazano.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1602-1607.
The voyages of Gosnold, Pring and Weymouth.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
Embraced in the region claimed as Acadia by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.
Coast explored by Champlain.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
Embraced in the grant to the North Virginia Company
of Plymouth.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1607-1608.
The Popham Colony on the Kennebec.
The fruitless venture of the Plymouth Company.
See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1614.
Named, mapped and described by Captain John Smith.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The voyage of the Mayflower and the planting of Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
Incorporation of the Council for New England,
successor to the Plymouth Company.
Its great domain and its monopoly of the Fisheries.
"While the king was engaged in the overthrow of the London
company [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624], its more loyal rival
in the West of England [the Plymouth company, or North
Virginia branch of the Virginia company] sought new
letters-patent, with a great enlargement of their domain. The
remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and the rights of
English commerce could delay for two years, but not defeat,
the measure that was pressed by the friends of the monarch. On
the 3d of November, 1620, King James incorporated 40 of his
subjects—some of them members of his household and his
government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English
nobility—as 'The Council established at Plymouth, in the
county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and
governing New England in America.' The territory, which was
conferred on them in absolute property, with unlimited powers
of legislation and government, extended from the 40th to the
48th degree of north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the
Pacific. The grant included the fisheries; and a revenue was
considered certain from a duty to be imposed on all tonnage
employed in them. The patent placed emigrants to New England
under the absolute authority of the corporation, and it was
through grants from that plenary power, confirmed by the
crown, that institutions the most favorable to colonial
independence and the rights of mankind came into being. The
French derided the action of the British monarch in bestowing
lands and privileges which their own sovereign, seventeen
years before, had appropriated. The English nation was
incensed at the largess of immense monopolies by the royal
prerogative; and in April, 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys brought the
grievance before the house of commons. … But the parliament
was dissolved before a bill could be perfected. In 1622, five
and thirty sail of vessels went to fish on the coasts of New
England, and made good voyages. The monopolists appealed to
King James, and he issued a proclamation, which forbade any to
approach the northern coast of America, except with the leave
of their company or of the privy council, In June, 1623,
Francis West was despatched as admiral of New England, to
exclude such fishermen as came without a license. But they
refused to pay the tax which he imposed, and his ineffectual
authority was soon resigned."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 1, chapter 13 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_C. Deane,
New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 9)._
_Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
Brief Narration
(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2)._
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
The grants made by the Council for New England.
Settlements planted.
Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire conferred.
Captain John Mason, a native of King's Lynn, in Norfolk,
became governor of Newfoundland in 1615. "While there he wrote
a tract entitled 'A Brief Discourse of the Newfoundland,' and
sent it to his friend Sir John Scot of Edinburgh, to peruse,
and to print if he thought it worthy. It was printed in the
year 1620. … In the spring or summer of 1621, Mason returned
into England, and immediately found proof of the effect of his
little tract. … Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of
Stirling, immediately sought him out. He had been appointed
Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Prince Henry, honored with
Knighthood, and was Master of Requests for Scotland. He
invited Mason to his house, where he discussed with him a
scheme of Scotch colonization, and he resolved to undertake
settling a colony in what is now Nova Scotia. He begged Mason
to aid him in procuring a grant of this territory from the
Council for New England, it being within their limits. Mason
referred him to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the Council and
their Treasurer. The king readily recommended Alexander to
Gorges, and Gorges heartily approved the plan. In September,
1621, Alexander obtained a Royal Patent for a tract of land
which he called New Scotland, a name attractive to his
countrymen. This must have been gratifying to Mason, who had
urged Scotch emigration in his tract printed only a year
before. The Council for New England, established in November,
1620, was now granting and ready to grant to associations or
to individuals parcels of its vast domain in America. … The
second patent for land granted by the Council was to Captain
John Mason, bearing date March 9, 1621-2. It was all the land
lying between the Naumkeag and the Merrimac rivers, extending
back from the sea-coast to the heads of both of these rivers,
with all the islands within three miles of the shore. Mason
called this Mariana. This tract of territory lies wholly
within the present bounds of Massachusetts. We now arrive at a
period when Mason and Gorges have a joint interest in New
England.
{2307}
On the 10th of August, 1622, the Council made a third grant.
This was to Gorges and Mason jointly of land lying upon the
sea-coast between the Merrimac and the Kennebec rivers,
extending three-score miles into the country, with all islands
within five leagues of the premises to be, or intended to be,
called the Province of Maine. Thus was the territory destined
seven years later to bear the name of New Hampshire, first
carved from the vast domain of New England, whose boundaries
were fixed by the great circles of the heavens. Thus was Capt.
Mason joint proprietor of his territory afterwards known as
New Hampshire, before a single settler had built a cabin on
the Pascataqua. Captain Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando,
was authorized to give the grantees possession of this new
Province. Great enthusiasm on the subject of colonization now
prevailed in England, extending from the king, through all
ranks. … Before the year 1622 closed, the Council issued
many patents for land, in small divisions, to persons
intending to make plantations. Among the grants, is one to
David Thomson and two associates, of land on the Pascataqua.
The bounds and extent of this patent are unknown. Only the
fact that such a patent was granted is preserved. … The
Council for New England, in view of the many intended
settlements, as well as the few already made, now proposed to
set up a general government in New England. Captain Robert
Gorges, recently returned from the Venetian wars, was
appointed Governor, with Captain Francis West, Captain
Christopher Levett, and the governor of New Plymouth as his
Council. Captain Gorges arrived here the middle of September,
1623, having been preceded some months by Captain West, who
was Vice-Admiral of New England as well as Councillor. Captain
Levett came as late as November. … The next year, 1624, war
between England and Spain broke out, and drew off for a while
Gorges and Mason from their interests in colonization. Gorges
was Captain of the Castle and Island of St. Nicholas, at
Plymouth, a post that he had held for thirty years; and he was
now wholly taken up with the duties of his office. Mason's
services were required as a naval officer of experience. …
In 1626 England plunged into a war with France, without having
ended the war with Spain. Captain Mason was advanced to be
Treasurer and Paymaster of the English armies employed in the
wars. There was no time now to think of American colonization.
His duties were arduous. … In 1629 peace was made with
France, and the war with Spain was coming to an end. No sooner
were Gorges and Mason a little relieved from their public
duties than they sprang at once to their old New England
enterprise. They resolved to push forward their interests.
They came to some understanding about a division of their
Province of Maine. On the 7th of November, 1629, a day
memorable in the history of New Hampshire, the Council granted
to Mason a patent of all that part of the Province of Maine
lying between the Merrimac and Pascataqua rivers; and Mason
called it New Hampshire, out of regard to the favor in which
he held Hampshire in England, where he had resided many years.
… This grant had hardly been made when Champlain was brought
to London, a prisoner, from Canada, by Kirke. The French had
been driven from that region. Gorges and Mason procured
immediately a grant from the Council of a vast tract of land
in the region of Lake Champlain, supposed to be not only a
fine country for peltry, but to contain vast mineral wealth.
The Province was called Laconia on account of the numerous
lakes supposed or known to be there, and was the most northern
grant hitherto made by the Council. The patent bears date
November 17, 1629, only ten days later than Mason's New
Hampshire grant. … For the purpose of advancing the
interests of Gorges and Mason in Laconia as well as on the
Pascataqua, they joined with them six merchants in London, and
received from the Council a grant dated November 3, 1631, of a
tract of land lying on both sides of the Pascataqua river, on
the sea-coast and within territory already owned by Gorges and
Mason in severalty. This patent, called the Pascataqua Patent,
covered, on the west side of the river, the present towns of
Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye and part of Greenland; on the east
side, Kittery, Eliot, the Berwicks, and the western part of
Lebanon."
_C. W. Tuttle,
Captain John Mason
(Prince Society Publications, 1887),
pages 12-24._
ALSO IN:
_S. F. Haven,
Grants under the Great Council for New England
(Lowell Institute. Lecture: Early History of Massachusetts,
pages 127-162)._
_J. P. Baxter, editor,
Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine
(Prince Society Publications 1890)._
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, page 397, foot-note._
See, also,
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1629.
The Dorchester Company and the royal charter to
the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The new patent to Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS:
A. D. 1623-1629 PLYMOUTH COLONY.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629-1630.
The immigration of the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay with their charter.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
The pioneer settlements in Connecticut.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
Dissolution of the Council for New England and partitioning
of its territorial claims by lot.
"The Council for New England, having struggled through nearly
fifteen years of maladministration and ill-luck, had yielded
to the discouragements which beset it. By the royal favor, it
had triumphed over the rival Virginia Company, to be
overwhelmed in its turn by the just jealousy of Parliament,
and by dissensions among its members. The Council, having, by
profuse and inconsistent grants of its lands, exhausted its
common property, as well as its credit with purchasers for
keeping its engagements, had no motive to continue its
organization. Under these circumstances, it determined on a
resignation of its charter to the king, and a surrender of the
administration of its domain to a General Governor of his
appointment, on the condition that all the territory, a large
portion of which by its corporate action had already been
alienated to other parties [see above: A. D. 1621-1631],
should be granted in severalty by the king to the members of
the Council. Twelve associates accordingly proceeded to a
distribution of New England among themselves by lot; and
nothing was wanting to render the transaction complete, and to
transfer to them the ownership of that region, except to oust the
previous patentees, of whom the most powerful body were
colonists in Massachusetts Bay. To effect this, Sir John
Banks, Attorney-General, brought a writ of 'quo warranto' in
Westminster Hall against the Massachusetts Company. …
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
{2308}
It seemed that, when a few more forms should be gone through,
all would be over with the presumptuous Colony. … But …
everything went on as if Westminster Hall had not spoken. 'The
Lord frustrated their design.' The disorders of the mother
country were a safeguard of the infant liberty of New
England."
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 10._
In the parcelling of New England by lot among the members of
the Council, the divisions were:
(1) Between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, to William Alexander.
(2) From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc,
in part to the Marquis of Hamilton.
(3) Between the Kennebec and Androscoggin; and
(4) from Sagadahoc to Piscataqua, to Sir F. Gorges.
(5) From Piscataqua to the Naumkeag, to Mason.
(6) From the Naumkeag round the sea-coast,
by Cape Cod to Narragansett, to the Marquis of Hamilton.
(7) From Narragansett to the half-way bound, between that and
the Connecticut River, and 50 miles up into the country,
to Lord Edward Gorges.
(8) From this midway point to the Connecticut River, to the
Earl of Carlisle.
(9 and 10) From the Connecticut to the Hudson,
to the Duke of Lennox.
(11 and 12) From the Hudson to the limits of the
Plymouth Company's territory, to Lord Mulgrave.
_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
History of the United States,
volume 1, page 337, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_T. Hutchinson,
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 1, pages 48-50._
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636.
Providence Plantation and Roger Williams.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;
and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1639.
The first American constitution.
The genesis of a state.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1641.
Public Registry laws.
See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.
"The region extending from the bounds of Rhode Island to the
banks of the Hudson was at the time of the colonization held
in strips of territory mainly by three tribes of the natives,
who had long had feuds among themselves and with other tribes.
They were the Narragansetts, the Mohegans, and the Pequots.
The Mohegans were then tributaries of the Pequots, and were
restive under subjection to their fierce and warlike
conquerors, who were estimated to number at the time 1,000
fighting men. … The policy of the whites was to aggravate
the dissensions of the tribes, and to make alliance with one
or more of them. Winthrop records in March, 1631, the visit to
Boston of a Connecticut Indian, probably a Mohegan, who
invited the English to come and plant near the river, and who
offered presents, with the promise of a profitable trade. His
object proved to be to engage the interest of the whites
against the Pequots. His errand was for the time unsuccessful.
Further advances of a similar character were made afterwards,
the result being to persuade the English that, sooner or
later, they would need to interfere as umpires, and must use
discretion in a wise regard to what would prove to be for
their own interest. In 1633 the Pequots had savagely mutilated
and murdered a party of English traders, who, under Captain
Stone, of Virginia, had gone up the Connecticut. The Boston
magistrates had instituted measures to call the Pequots to
account, but nothing effectual was done. The Dutch had a fort
on the river near Hartford, and the English had built one at
its mouth. In 1636 several settlements had been made in
Connecticut by the English from Cambridge, Dorchester, and
other places. John Oldham, of Watertown, had in that year been
murdered, while on a trading voyage, by some Indians belonging
on Block Island. To avenge this act our magistrates sent
Endicott, as general, with a body of 90 men, with orders to
kill all the male Indians on that island, sparing only the
women and little children. He accomplished his bloody work
only in part, but after destroying all the corn-fields and
wigwams, he turned to hunt the Pequots on the main. After this
expedition, which simply exasperated the Pequots, they made a
desperate effort to induce the Narragansetts to come into a
league with them against the English. It seemed for a while as
if they would succeed in this, and the consequences would
doubtless have been most disastrous to the whites. The scheme
was thwarted largely through the wise and friendly
intervention of Roger Williams, whose diplomacy was made
effective by the confidence which his red neighbors had in
him. The Narragansett messengers then entered into a friendly
league with the English in Boston. All through the winter of
1637 the Pequots continued to pick off the whites in their
territory, and they mutilated, tortured, roasted, and murdered
at least thirty victims, becoming more and more vindictive and
cruel in their doings. There were then in Connecticut some 250
Englishmen, and, as has been said, about 1,000 Pequot
'braves.' The authorities in Connecticut resolutely started a
military organization, giving the command to the redoubtable
John Mason, a Low-Country soldier, who had recently gone from
Dorchester. Massachusetts and Plymouth contributed their
quotas, having as allies the Mohegans, of whose fidelity they
had fearful misgivings, but who proved constant though not
very effective. Of the 160 men raised by Massachusetts, only
about 20, under Captain Underhill,—a good fighter, but a
sorry scamp,—reached the scene in season to join with Mason
in surprising the unsuspecting and sleeping Pequots in one of
their forts near the Mystic. Fire, lead, and steel with the
infuriated vengeance of Puritan soldiers against murderous and
fiendish heathen, did effectively the exterminating work.
Hundreds of the savages, in their maddened frenzy of fear and
dismay, were shot or run through as they were impaled on their
own palisades in their efforts to rush from their blazing
wigwams, crowded within their frail enclosures. The English
showed no mercy, for they felt none. … A very few of the
wretched savages escaped to another fort, to which the
victorious English followed them. This, however; they soon
abandoned, taking refuge, with their old people and children,
in the protection of swamps and thickets. Here, too, the
English, who had lost but two men killed, though they had many
wounded, and who were now reinforced, pursued and surrounded them,
allowing the aged and the children, by a parley, to come out.
{2309}
The men, however, were mostly slain, and the feeble remnant of
them which sought protection among the so-called river
Indians, higher up the Connecticut, and among the Mohawks,
were but scornfully received,—the Pequot sachem Sassacus,
being beheaded by the latter. A few of the prisoners were sold
in the West Indies as slaves, others were reduced to the same
humiliation among the Mohegans, or as farm and house servants
to the English. … But the alliances into which the whites
had entered in order to divide their savage foes were the
occasions of future entanglements in a tortuous policy, and of
later bloody struggles of an appalling character. … In all
candor the admission must be made, that the Christian white
men … allowed themselves to be trained by the experience of
Indian warfare into a savage cruelty and a desperate
vengefulness."
_G. E. Ellis,
The Indians of Eastern Massachusetts
(Memorial History of Boston, volume 1, pages 252-254)._
"More than 800 [of the Pequots] had been slain in the war, and
less than 200 remained to share the fate of captives. These
were distributed among the Narragansets and Mohegans, with the
pledge that they should no more be called Pequots, nor inhabit
their native country again. To make the annihilation of the
race yet more complete, their very name was extinguished in
Connecticut by legislative act. Pequot river was called the
Thames, Pequot town was named New London."
_S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
volume 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_G. H. Hollister,
History of Connecticut,
chapters 2-3._
_G. E. Ellis,
Life of John Mason
(Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3)._
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1638.
The purchase, settlement and naming of Rhode Island.
The founding of New Haven Colony.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
The growth of population and the rise of towns.
The end of the Puritan exodus.
"Over 20,000 persons are estimated to have arrived in New
England in the fifteen years before the assembling of the Long
Parliament [1640]; one hundred and ninety-eight ships bore
them over the Atlantic; and the whole cost of their
transportation, and of the establishment of the plantation, is
computed at about £200,000, or nearly a million of dollars.
The progress of settlement had been proportionally rapid. …
Hingham was settled in 1634. Newbury, Concord, and Dedham were
incorporated in 1635. And from that date to 1643, acts were
passed incorporating Lynn, North Chelsea, Salisbury, Rowley,
Sudbury, Braintree, Woburn, Gloucester, Haverhill, Wenham, and
Hull. West of Worcester, the only town incorporated within the
present limits of the state was Springfield, for which an act
was passed in 1636. These little municipalities were, in a
measure, peculiar to New England; each was sovereign within
itself; each sustained a relation to the whole, analogous to
that which the states of our Union hold respectively to the
central power, or the constitution of the United States; and
the idea of the formation of such communities was probably
derived from the parishes of England, for each town was a
parish, and each, as it was incorporated, was required to
contribute to the maintenance of the ministry as the basis of
its grant of municipal rights. Four counties were erected at
this time: Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Old Norfolk, all
which were incorporated in 1643. Each of the first three
contained eight towns, and Old Norfolk six."
_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 8._
"Events in England had now [1640] reached a crisis, and the
Puritan party, rising rapidly into power, no longer looked to
America for a refuge. The great tide of emigration ceased to
flow; but the government of Massachusetts went on wisely and
strongly under the alternating rule of Winthrop, Dudley, and
Bellingham. The English troubles crippled the holders of the
Mason and Gorges grants, and the settlements in New
Hampshire—whither Wheelwright had gone, and where turbulence
had reigned—were gradually added to the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts. In domestic matters everything went smoothly.
There was some trouble with Bellingham, and Winthrop was again
made Governor [1642]. The oath of allegiance to the King taken
by the magistrates was abandoned, because Charles violated the
privileges of Parliament, and the last vestige of dependence
vanished. Massachusetts was divided into counties; and out of
a ludicrous contest about a stray pig, in which deputies and
magistrates took different sides, grew a very important
controversy as to the powers of deputies and assistants, which
resulted [1644] in the division of the legislature into two
branches, and a consequent improvement in the symmetry and
solidity of the political system."
_H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 18._
See, also,
TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1655.
Colonizing enterprises of New Haven on the Delaware.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
The confederation of the colonies.
In May, 1643, "a confederacy, to be known as the United
Colonies of New England, was entered into at Boston, between
delegates from Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven on the one
hand, and the General Court of Massachusetts on the other.
Supposed dangers from the Indians, and their quarrels with the
Dutch of Manhattan, had induced the people of Connecticut to
withdraw their formal objections to this measure. Two
commissioners from each colony were to meet annually, or
oftener, if necessary; the sessions to be held alternately at
Boston, Hartford, New Haven, and Plymouth; but Boston was to
have two sessions for one at each of the other places. The
commissioners, all of whom must be church members, were to
choose a president from among themselves, and everything was
to be decided by six voices out of the eight. No war was to be
declared by either colony without the consent of the
commissioners, to whose province Indian affairs and foreign
relations were especially assigned. The sustentation of the
'truth and liberties of the Gospel' was declared to be one
great object of this alliance. All war expenses were to be a
common charge, to be apportioned according to the number or
male inhabitants in each colony. Runaway servants and fugitive
criminals were to be delivered up, a provision afterward
introduced into the Constitution of the United States; and the
commissioners soon recommended, what remained ever after the
practice of New England, and ultimately became, also, a
provision of the United States Constitution, that judgments of
courts of law and probates of wills in each colony should have
full faith and credit in all the others.
{2310}
The commissioners from Massachusetts, as representing by far
the most powerful colony of the alliance, claimed an honorary
precedence, which the others readily conceded. Plymouth,
though far outgrown by Massachusetts, and even by Connecticut,
had made, however, some progress. It now contained seven
towns, and had lately adopted a representative system. But the
old town of Plymouth was in decay, the people being drawn off
to the new settlements. Bradford had remained governor, except
for four years, during two of which he had been relieved by
Edward Winslow, and the other two by Thomas Prince. New Haven
was, perhaps, the weakest member of the alliance. Besides that
town, the inhabitants of which were principally given to
commerce, there were two others, Milford and Guilford,
agricultural settlements; Southold, at the eastern extremity
of Long Island, also acknowledged the jurisdiction of New
Haven, and a new settlement had recently been established at
Stamford. … The colony of Connecticut, not limited to the
towns on the river, to which several new ones had already been
added, included also Stratford and Fairfield, on the coast of
the Sound, west of New Haven. … The town of Southampton, on
Long Island, acknowledged also the jurisdiction of
Connecticut. Fort Saybrook, at the mouth of the river, was
still an independent settlement, and Fenwick, as the head of
it, became a party to the articles of confederation. But the
next year he sold out his interest to Connecticut, and into
that colony Saybrook was absorbed. … Gorges's province of
Maine was not received into the New England alliance, 'because
the people there ran a different course both in their ministry
and civil administration.' The same objection applied with
still greater force to Aquiday and Providence."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 10 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 1._
_G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 8._
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1644.
The chartering of Providence Plantation,
and the Rhode Island Union.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1651.
Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1650.
Adjustment of Connecticut boundaries with the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
The disputed jurisdiction in Maine.
The claims of Massachusetts made good.
See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of Quakers.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1657-1662.
The Halfway Covenant.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1664.
The protection of the Regicides.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
Under the Restored Monarchy.
The first collision of Massachusetts with the crown.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
The Union of Connecticut and New Haven by Royal Charter.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The Rhode Island charter, and beginning of boundary conflicts
with Connecticut.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675.
King Philip's War: Its causes and beginning.
"The Pokanokets had always rejected the Christian faith and
Christian manners, and their chief had desired to insert in a
treaty, what the Puritans always rejected, that the English
should never attempt to convert the warriors of his tribe from
the religion of their race. The aged Massassoit—he who had
welcomed the pilgrims to the soil of New England, and had
opened his cabin to shelter the founder of Rhode Island—now
slept with his fathers, and Philip, his son, had succeeded him
as head of the allied tribes. Repeated sales of land had
narrowed their domains, and the English had artfully crowded
them into the tongues of land, as 'most suitable and
convenient for them,' and as more easily watched. The
principal seats of the Pokanokets were the peninsulas which we
now call Bristol and Tiverton. As the English villages drew
nearer and nearer to them, their hunting-grounds were put
under culture, their natural parks were turned into pastures,
their best fields for planting corn were gradually alienated,
their fisheries were impaired by more skilful methods, till
they found themselves deprived of their broad acres, and, by
their own legal contracts, driven, as it were, into the sea.
Collisions and mutual distrust were the necessary consequence.
There exists no evidence of a deliberate conspiracy on the
part of all the tribes. The commencement of war was
accidental; many of the Indians were in a maze, not knowing
what to do, and disposed to stand for the English; sure proof
of no ripened conspiracy. But they had the same complaints,
recollections, and fears: and, when they met, they could not
but grieve together at the alienation of the domains of their
fathers. They spurned the English claim of jurisdiction over
them, and were indignant that Indian chiefs or warriors should
be arraigned before a jury. And, when the language of their
anger and sorrow was reported to the men of Plymouth colony by
an Indian tale-bearer, fear professed to discover in their
unguarded words the evidence of an organized conspiracy. The
haughty Philip, who had once before been compelled to
surrender his 'English arms' and pay an onerous tribute, was,
in 1674, summoned to submit to an examination, and could not
escape suspicion. The wrath of his tribe was roused, and the
informer was murdered. The murderers, in their turn, were
identified, seized, tried by a jury, of which one half were
Indians, and, in June, 1675, on conviction, were hanged. The
young men of the tribe panted for revenge: without delay,
eight or nine of the English were slain in or about Swansey,
and the alarm of war spread through the colonies. Thus was
Philip hurried into 'his rebellion;' and he is reported to
have wept as he heard that a white man's blood had been shed.
… What chances had he of success? The English were united;
the Indians had no alliance, and half of them joined the
English, or were quiet spectators of the fight: the English
had guns enough; few of the Indians were well armed, and they
could get no new supplies: the English had towns for their
shelter and safe retreat; the miserable wigwams of the natives
were defenceless: the English had sure supplies of food; the
Indians might easily lose their precarious stores. They rose
without hope, and they fought without mercy.
{2311}
For them as a nation there was no to-morrow. … At the first
alarm, volunteers from Massachusetts joined the troops of
Plymouth; on the twenty-ninth of June, within a week from the
beginning of hostilities, the Pokanokets were driven from
Mount Hope; and in less than a month Philip was a fugitive
among the Nipmucks, the interior tribes of Massachusetts. The
little army of the colonists then entered the territory of the
Narragansetts, and from the reluctant tribe extorted a treaty
of neutrality, with a promise to deliver up every hostile
Indian. Victory seemed promptly assured. But it was only the
commencement of horrors. Canonchet, the chief sachem of the
Narragansetts, was the son of Miantonomoh; and could he forget
his father's wrongs? Desolation extended along the whole
frontier. Banished from his patrimony where the pilgrims found
a friend, and from his cabin which had sheltered exiles,
Philip and his warriors spread through the country, awakening
their race to a warfare of extermination."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(author's last revision),
part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._
"At this time, according to loose estimates, there may have
been some 36,000 Indians and 60,000 whites in New England;
10,000 of the former fit for war, and 15,000 of the latter
capable of bearing arms. … At the outset, the Narragansetts,
numbering 2,000 warriors, did not actually second Philip's
resistance. But Canonchet, their sachem, might well remember
the death of his father Miantonomo [who, taken prisoner in a
war with the Mohegans, and surrendered by them to the English,
in 1643, with a request for permission to put him to death,
was deliberately returned to his savage captors, on advice
taken from the ministers at Boston—doomed to death without
his knowledge]. … No efforts at conciliation seem to have
been made by either party; for the whites felt their
superiority (were they not 'the Lord's chosen people?'); and
Philip knew the desperate nature of the struggle between
united and well-armed whites, and divided uncontrolled
savages; yet when the emergency came he met it, and never
faltered or plead from that day forth."
_C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 1, chapter 40._
ALSO IN:
_B. Church,
History of King Philip's War,
(Prince Society Publication 1867)._
_S. G. Drake,
Aboriginal Races of North America,
book 3._
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (July-September).
King Philip's War: Savage successes of the Indian enemy.
Increasing rage and terror among the colonists.
The Nipmucks, into whose country Philip retreated, "had
already commenced hostilities by attacking Mendon. They
waylaid and killed Captain Hutchinson, a son of the famous
Mrs. Hutchinson, and 16 out of a party of 20 sent from Boston
to Brookfield to parley with them. Attacking Brookfield
itself, they burned it, except one fortified house. The
inhabitants were saved by Major Willard, who, on information
of their danger, came with a troop of horse from Lancaster,
thirty miles through the woods, to their rescue. A body of
troops presently arrived from the eastward, and were stationed
for some time at Brookfield. The colonists now found that by
driving Philip to extremity they had roused a host of
unexpected enemies. The River Indians, anticipating an
intended attack upon them, joined the assailants. Deerfield
and Northfield, the northernmost towns on the Connecticut
River, settled within a few years past, were attacked and
several of the inhabitants killed and wounded. Captain Beers,
sent from Hadley to their relief with a convoy of provisions,
was surprised near Northfield and slain, with 20 of his men.
Northfield was abandoned and burned by the Indians. … Driven
to the necessity of defensive warfare, those in command on the
river determined to establish a magazine and garrison at
Hadley. Captain Lathrop, who had been dispatched from the
eastward to the assistance of the river towns, was sent with
80 men, the flower of the youth of Essex county, to guard the
wagons intended to convey to Hadley 3,000 bushels of
unthreshed wheat, the produce of the fertile Deerfield
meadows. Just before arriving at Deerfield, near a small
stream still known as Bloody Brook, under the shadow of the
abrupt conical Sugar Loaf, the southern termination of the
Deerfield mountain, Lathrop fell into an ambush, and, after a
brave resistance, perished there with all his company. Captain
Moseley, stationed at Deerfield, marched to his assistance,
but arrived too late to help him. That town, also, was
abandoned, and burned by the Indians. Springfield, about the
same time, was set on fire, but was partially saved by the
arrival of Major Treat, with aid from Connecticut. Hatfield,
now the frontier town on the north, was vigorously attacked,
but the garrison succeeded in repelling the assailants.
Meanwhile, hostilities were spreading; the Indians on the
Merrimac began to attack the towns in their vicinity; and the
whole of Massachusetts was soon in the utmost alarm. Except in
the immediate neighborhood of Boston, the country still
remained an immense forest, dotted by a few openings. The
frontier settlements … were mostly broken up, and the
inhabitants, retiring towards Boston, spread everywhere dread
and intense hatred of 'the bloody heathen.' Even the praying
Indians, and the small dependent and tributary tribes, became
objects of suspicion and terror. … Not content with
realities sufficiently frightful, superstition, as usual,
added bugbears of her own. Indian bows were seen in the sky,
and scalps in the moon. The northern lights became an object
of terror. Phantom horsemen careered among the clouds, or were
heard to gallop invisible through the air. The howling of
wolves was turned into a terrible omen. The war was regarded
as a special judgment in punishment of prevailing sins. …
About the time of the first collision with Philip, the
Tarenteens, or Eastern Indians, had attacked the settlements
in Maine and New Hampshire, plundering and burning the houses,
and massacring such of the inhabitants as fell into their
hands. This sudden diffusion of hostilities and vigor of
attack from opposite quarters, made, the colonists believe
that Philip had long been plotting and had gradually matured
an extensive conspiracy, into which most of the tribes had
deliberately entered, for the extermination of the whites.
This belief infuriated the colonists, and suggested some very
questionable proceedings. … But there is no evidence of any
deliberate concert; nor, in fact, were the Indians united. Had
they been so, the war would have been far more serious. The
Connecticut tribes proved faithful, and that colony remained
untouched. Even the Narragansetts, the most powerful
confederacy in New England, in spite of so many former
provocations, had not yet taken up arms. But they were
strongly suspected of intention to do so, and were accused,
notwithstanding their recent assurances, of giving aid and
shelter to the hostile tribes."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 14._
ALSO IN:
_R. Markham,
History of King Philip's War,
chapters 7-8._
_G. H. Hollister,
History of Connecticut,
volume 1, chapter 12._
_M. A. Green,
Springfield, 1636-1886,
chapter 9._
{2312}
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (October-December).
King Philip's War: The crushing of the Narragansetts.
"The attitude of the powerful Narragansett tribe was regarded
with anxiety. It was known that, so far from keeping their
compact to surrender such enemies of the English as should
fall into their hands, they had harbored numbers of Philip's
dispersed retainers and allies. While the Federal
Commissioners were in session at Boston [October], Canonchet,
sachem of the Narragansetts, came thither with other chiefs,
and promised that the hostile Indians whom they acknowledged
to be then under their protection should be surrendered within
ten days. But probably the course of events on Connecticut
River emboldened them. At all events, they did not keep their
engagement. The day for the surrender came and went, and no
Indians appeared. If that faithless tribe, the most powerful
in New England, should assume active hostilities, a terrible
desolation would ensue. The Commissioners moved promptly. The
fifth day after the breach of the treaty found them
reassembled after a short recess. They immediately determined
to raise an additional force of 1,000 men for service in the
Narragansett country. They appointed Governor Winslow, of
Plymouth, to be commander-in-chief, and desired the colony of
Connecticut to name his lieutenant. The General was to place
himself at the head of his troops within six weeks, 'a solemn
day of prayer and humiliation' being kept through all the
colonies meanwhile. … Time was thus given to the
Narragansetts to make their peace 'by actual performance of
their covenants made with the Commissioners; as also making
reparation for all damages sustained by their neglect
hitherto, together with security for their further fidelity.'
… It is not known whether Philip was among the Narragansetts
at this time. Under whatever influence it was, whether from
stupidity or from confidence, they made no further attempt at
pacification. … The Massachusetts troops marched from Dedham
to Attleborough on the day before that which had been
appointed by the Commissioners for them to meet the Plymouth
levy at the northeastern corner of the Narragansett country.
The following day they reached Seekonk: A week earlier, the
few English houses at Quinsigamond (Worcester) had been burned
by a party of natives; and a few days later, the house of
Jeremiah Bull, at Pettyquamscott, which had been designated as
the place of general rendezvous for the English, was fired,
and ten men and five women and children, who had taken refuge
in it, were put to death. … The place where the
Narragansetts were to be sought was in what is now the town of
South Kingston, 18 miles distant, in a northwesterly
direction, from Pettyquamscott, and a little further from that
Pequot fort to the southwest, which had been destroyed by the
force under Captain Mason forty years before. According to
information afterwards received from a captive, the Indian
warriors here collected were no fewer than 3,500. They were on
their guard, and had fortified their hold to the best of their
skill. It was on a solid piece of upland of five or six acres,
wholly surrounded by a swamp. On the inner side of this
natural defence they had driven rows of palisades, making a
barrier nearly a rod in thickness; and the only entrance to
the enclosure was over a rude bridge consisting of a felled
tree, four or five feet from the ground, the bridge being
protected by a block-house. The English [whose forces, after a
considerable delay of the Connecticut troops, had been all
assembled at Pettyquamscott on Saturday, December 18],
breaking up their camp [on the morning of the 19th] while it
was yet dark, arrived before the place at one o'clock after
noon. Having passed, without shelter, a very cold night, they
had made a march of 18 miles through deep snow, scarcely
halting to refresh themselves with food. In this condition
they immediately advanced to the attack. The Massachusetts
troops were in the van of the storming column; next came the
two Plymouth companies; and then the force from Connecticut.
The foremost of the assailants were received with a
well-directed fire," and seven of their captains were killed
or mortally wounded. "Nothing discouraged by the fall of their
leaders, the men pressed on, and a sharp conflict followed,
which, with fluctuating success, lasted for two or three
hours. Once the assailants were beaten out of the fort; but
they presently rallied and regained their ground. There was
nothing for either party but to conquer or die, enclosed
together as they were. At length victory declared for the
English, who finished their work by setting fire to the
wigwams within the fort. They lost 70 men killed and 150
wounded. Of the Connecticut contingent alone, out of 300 men
40 were killed and as many wounded. The number of the enemy
that perished is uncertain. … What is both certain and
material is that on that day the military strength of the
formidable Narragansett tribe was irreparably broken."
_J. G. Palfrey,
Compendious History of New England,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
volume 1, chapter 10._
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1676-1678.
King Philip's War: The end of the conflict.
"While the overthrow of the Narragansetts changed the face of
things, it was far from putting an end to the war. It showed
that when the white man could find his enemy he could deal
crushing blows, but the Indian was not always so easy to find.
Before the end of January Winslow's little army was partially
disbanded for want of food, and its three contingents fell
back upon Stonington, Boston, and Plymouth. Early in February
the Federal Commissioners called for a new levy of 600 men to
assemble at Brookfield, for the Nipmucks were beginning to
renew their incursions, and after an interval of six months
the figure of Philip again appears for a moment upon the
scene. What he had been doing or where he had been, since the
Brookfield fight in August, was never known. When in February,
1676, he reappeared, it was still in company with his allies
the Nipmucks, in their bloody assault upon Lancaster. On the
10th of that month at sunrise the Indians came swarming into
the lovely village.
{2313}
Danger had already been apprehended, the pastor, Joseph
Rowlandson, the only Harvard graduate of 1652, had gone to
Boston to solicit aid, and Captain Wadsworth's company was
slowly making its way over the difficult roads from
Marlborough, but the Indians were beforehand. Several houses
were at once surrounded and set on fire, and men, women, and
children began falling under the tomahawk. The minister's
house was large and strongly built, and more than forty people
found shelter there until at length it took fire and they were
driven out by the flames. Only one escaped, a dozen or more
were slain, and the rest, chiefly women and children, taken
captive. … Among the captives was Mary Rowlandson, the
minister's wife, who afterward wrote the story of her sad
experiences. … It was a busy winter and spring for these
Nipmucks. Before February was over, their exploit at Lancaster
was followed by a shocking massacre at Medfield. They sacked
and destroyed the towns of Worcester, Marlborough, Mendon, and
Groton, and even burned some houses in Weymouth, within a
dozen miles of Boston. Murderous attacks were made upon
Sudbury, Chelmsford, Springfield, Hatfield, Hadley,
Northampton, Wrentham, Andover, Bridgewater, Scituate, and
Middleborough. On the 18th of April Captain Wadsworth, with 70
men, was drawn into an ambush near Sudbury, surrounded by 500
Nipmucks, and killed with 50 of his men; six unfortunate
captives were burned alive over slow fires. But Wadsworth's
party made the enemy pay dearly for his victory; that
afternoon 120 Nipmucks bit the dust. In such wise, by killing
two or three for one, did the English wear out and annihilate
their adversaries. Just one month from that day, Captain
Turner surprised and slaughtered 300 of these warriors near
the falls of the Connecticut river which have since borne his
name, and this blow at last broke the strength of the
Nipmucks. Meanwhile the Narragansetts and Wampanoags had
burned the towns of Warwick and Providence. After the
wholesale ruin of the great swamp fight, Canonchet had still
some 600 or 700 warriors left, and with these, on the 26th of
March, in the neighbourhood of Pawtuxet, he surprised a
company of 50 Plymouth men, under Captain Pierce, and slew
them all, but not until he had lost 140 of his best warriors.
Ten days later, Captain Denison, with his Connecticut company,
defeated and captured Canonchet, and the proud son of
Miantonomo met the same fate as his father. He was handed over
to the Mohegans and tomahawked. … The fall of Canonchet
marked the beginning of the end. In four sharp fights in the
last week of June, Major Talcott of Hartford slew from 300 to
400 warriors, being nearly all that were left of the
Narragansetts; and during the month of July Captain Church
patrolled the country about Taunton, making prisoners of the
Wampanoags. Once more King Philip, shorn of his prestige,
comes upon the scene. … Defeated at Taunton, the son of
Massasoit was hunted by Church to his ancient lair at Bristol
Neck and there," betrayed by one of his own followers, he was
surprised on the morning of August 12, and shot as he
attempted to fly. "His severed head was sent to Plymouth,
where it was mounted on a pole and exposed aloft upon the
village green, while the meeting-house bell summoned the
townspeople to a special service of thanksgiving. … By
midsummer of 1678 the Indians had been everywhere suppressed,
and there was peace in the land. … In Massachusetts and
Plymouth … the destruction of life and property had been
simply frightful. Of 90 towns, 12 had been utterly destroyed,
while more than 40 others had been the scene of fire and
slaughter. Out of this little society nearly 1,000 staunch men
… had lost their lives, while of the scores of fair women
and poor little children that had perished under the ruthless
tomahawk, one can hardly give an accurate account. … But …
henceforth the red man figures no more in the history of New
England, except as an ally of the French in bloody raids upon
the frontier."
_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_W. Hubbard,
History of the Indian Wars in New England,
edited by S. G. Drake, volume 1._
_Mrs. Rowlandson,
Narrative of Captivity._
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1684-1686.
The overthrow of the Massachusetts charter.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1687.
The overthrow of the Connecticut charter.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of the "Territory and Dominion of
New England" under a royal governor-general.
"It was … determined in the Privy Council that Connecticut,
New Plymouth, and Rhode Island should be united with
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
country, and be made 'one entire government, the better to
defend themselves against invasion.' This was good policy for
England. It was the despotic idea of consolidation. It was
opposed to the republican system of confederation. …
Consolidation was indeed the best mode of establishing in his
colonies the direct government which Charles had adopted in
November, 1684, and which James was now to enforce. … For
more than twenty years James had been trying his "'prentice
hand" upon New York. The time had now come when he was to use
his master hand on New England. … By the advice of
Sunderland, James commissioned Colonel Sir Edmund Andros to be
captain general and governor-in-chief over his 'Territory and
Dominion of New England in America,' which meant Massachusetts
Bay, New Plymouth, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
country, or the King's Province. Andros's commission was drawn
in the traditional form, settled by the Plantation Board for
those of other royal governors in Virginia, Jamaica, and New
Hampshire. Its substance, however, was much more despotic.
Andros was authorized, with the consent of a council appointed
by the crown, to make laws and levy taxes, and to govern the
territory of New England in obedience to its sovereign's
Instructions, and according to the laws then in force, or
afterward to be established. … To secure Andros in his
government, two companies of regular soldiers, chiefly Irish
Papists, were raised in London and placed under his orders."
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapter 9._
See, also,
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.
New York and New Jersey brought under the
governor-generalship of Andros.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
{2314}
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689.
The bloodless revolution, arrest of Andros,
and proclamation of William and Mary.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War (the First Intercolonial War).
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.
Plymouth absorbed.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The Salem Witchcraft madness.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
Suppression of colonial manufactures.
Oppressive commercial policy of England.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
Queen Anne's War (the Second Intercolonial War):
Border incursions by the French and Indians.
The final conquest of Acadia.
"But a few years of peace succeeded the treaty of Ryswick.
First came the contest in Europe over the Spanish succession,"
and then the recognition of "the Pretender" by Louis XIV.
"This recognition was, of course, a challenge to England and
preparations were made for war. William III. died in March,
1702, and was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his wife, and
daughter of James II. War was declared by England against
France, May 15th, 1702. The contest that followed is known in
European history as the War of the Spanish Succession; in
American history it is usually called Queen Anne's 'War; or
the Second Intercolonial War. On one side were France, Spain,
and Bavaria; on the other, England, Holland, Savoy, Austria,
Prussia, Portugal, and Denmark. It was in this war that the
Duke of Marlborough won his fame. To the people of New
England, war between France and England meant the hideous
midnight war-whoop, the tomahawk and scalping-knife, burning
hamlets, and horrible captivity. To provide against it, a
conference was called to meet at Falmouth, on Casco Bay, in
June, 1703, when Governor Dudley, of Massachusetts, met many
of the chiefs of the Abenaquis. The Indians, professing to
have no thought of war, promised peace and friendship by their
accustomed tokens. … But, as usual, only a part of the
tribes had been brought into the alliance," and some lawless
provocations by a party of English marauders soon drove the
Abenaquis again into their old French Alliance. "By August,
500 French and Indians were assembled, ready for incursions
into the New England settlements. They divided into several
bands and fell upon a number of places at the same time.
Wells, Saco, and Casco were again among the doomed villages,
but the fort at Casco was not taken, owing to the arrival of
an armed vessel under Captain Southwick. About 150 persons
were killed or captured in these attacks." In February, the
town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, was destroyed, 47 of the
inhabitants were killed and 112 carried away captive. "On the
30th of July, the town of Lancaster was assailed, and a few
people were killed, seven buildings burned, and much property
destroyed. These and other depredations of war-parties along
the coasts filled New England with consternation. … It was
… resolved to fit out an expedition for retaliation, and as
usual the people of Acadia were selected to expiate the sins
of the Indians and Canadians. Colonel Benjamin Church was put
in command of 550 men, 14 transports, and 36 whale-boats,
convoyed by three ships of war. Sailing from Boston in May,
1704," Church ravaged the lesser French settlements on the
Acadian coast, but ventured no attack on Port Royal. "In 1705,
450 men under Subercase—soldiers, Canadian peasants,
adventurers, and Indians, well armed, and with rations for
twenty days, blankets and tents—set out to destroy the
English settlements in Newfoundland, marching on snow-shoes.
They took Petit Havre and St. John's, and devastated all the
little settlements along the eastern coast, and the English
trade was for the time completely broken up. Subercase was
made Governor of Acadia in 1706. The following spring New
England sent Colonel March to Port Royal with two regiments,
but he returned without assaulting the fort. Governor Dudley
forbade the troops to land when they came back to Boston, and
ordered them to go again. Colonel March was ill, and Colonel
Wainwright took command; but after a pretence of besieging the
fort for eleven days he retired with small loss, the
expedition having cost Massachusetts £2,200. In 1708 a council
at Montreal decided to send a large number of Canadians and
Indians to devastate New England. But after a long march
through the almost impassable mountain region of northern New
Hampshire, a murderous attack on Haverhill, in which 30 or 40
were killed, was the only result. … In 1709 a plan was
formed in England for the capture of New France by a fleet and
five regiments of British soldiers aided by the colonists. But
a defeat in Portugal called away the ships destined for
America, and a force gathered at Lake Champlain under Colonel
Nicholson for a land attack was so reduced by sickness—said
to have resulted from the poisoning of a spring by
Indians—that they burned their canoes and retreated. The next
year, Nicholson was furnished with six ships of war, thirty
transports, and one British and four New England regiments for
the capture of Port Royal. Subercase had only 260 men and an
insufficient supply of provisions." He surrendered after a
short bombardment, "and on the 16th of October the starving
and ragged garrison marched out to be sent to France. For the
last time the French flag was hauled down from the fort, and
Port Royal was henceforth an English fortress, which was
re-named Annapolis Royal, in honor of Queen Anne."
_R. Johnson,
History of the French War,
chapter 8._
"With a change of masters came a change of names. Acadié was
again called 'Nova Scotia'—the name bestowed upon it by James
I. in 1621; and Port Royal, 'Annapolis.'"
_R. Brown,
History of the Island of Cape Breton, letter 8._
ALSO IN:
_P. H. Smith,
Acadia,
pages 108-111._
See, also,
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1722-1725.
Renewed war with the northeastern Indians.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
{2315}
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.
King George's War (the Third Intercolonial War):
Hostilities in Nova Scotia.
"The war that had prevailed for several years between Britain
and Spain [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], inflicted upon the
greater number of the British provinces of America no farther
share of its evils than the burden of contributing to the
expeditions of Admiral Vernon, and the waste of life by which
his disastrous naval campaigns were signalized. Only South
Carolina and Georgia had been exposed to actual attack and
danger. But this year [1744], by an enlargement of the hostile
relations of the parent state, the scene of war was extended
to the more northern provinces. The French, though professing
peace with Britain, had repeatedly given assistance to Spain;
while the British king, as Elector of Hanover, had espoused
the quarrel of the emperor of Germany with the French monarch;
and after various mutual threats and demonstrations of
hostility that consequently ensued between Britain and France,
war [the War of the Austrian Succession] was now formally
declared by these states against each other.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and after.
The French colonists in America, having been apprized of this
event before it was known in New England, were tempted to
improve the advantage of their prior intelligence by an
instant and unexpected commencement of hostilities, which
accordingly broke forth without notice or delay in the quarter
of Nova Scotia. … On the island of Canso, adjoining the
coast of Nova Scotia, the British had formed a settlement,
which was resorted to by the fishermen of New England, and
defended by a small fortification garrisoned by a detachment
of troops from Annapolis. … Duquesnel, the governor of Cape
Breton, on receiving intelligence of the declaration of war
between the two parent states, conceived the hope of
destroying the fishing establishments of the English by the
suddenness and vigor of an unexpected attack. His first blow,
which was aimed at Canso, proved successful (May 13, 1744).
Duvivier, whom he despatched from his headquarters at
Louisburg, with a few armed vessels and a force of 900 men,
took unresisted possession of this island, burned the fort and
houses, and made prisoners of the garrison and inhabitants.
This success Duquesnel endeavoured to follow up by the
conquest of Placentia in Newfoundland, and of Annapolis in
Nova Scotia; but at both these places his forces were
repulsed. In the attack of Annapolis, the French were joined
by the Indians of Nova Scotia; but the prudent forecast of
Shirley, the governor of Massachusetts, had induced the
assembly of this province, some time before, to contribute a
reinforcement of 200 men for the greater security of the
garrison of Annapolis; and to the opportune arrival of the
succour thus afforded the preservation of the place was
ascribed. … The people of New England were stimulated to a
pitch of resentment, apprehension, and martial energy, that
very shortly produced an effort of which neither their friends
nor their enemies had supposed them to be capable, and which
excited the admiration of both Europe and America. … War was
declared against the Indians of Nova Scotia, who had assisted
in the attack upon Annapolis; all the frontier garrisons were
reinforced; new forts were erected; and the materials of
defence were enlarged by a seasonable gift of artillery from
the king. Meanwhile, though the French were not prepared to
prosecute the extensive plan of conquest which their first
operations announced, their privateers actively waged a
harassing naval warfare that greatly endamaged the commerce of
New England. The British fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia
were interrupted; the fishermen declared their intention of
returning no more to their wonted stations on that coast; and
so many merchant vessels were captured and carried into
Louisburg in the course of this summer, that it was expected
that in the following year no branch of maritime trade would
be pursued by the New England merchants, except under the
protection of convoy."
_J. Grahame,
History [Colonial] of the United States,
book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_P. H. Smith,
Acadia,
pages 123-128._
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.
King George's War.
The taking of Louisburg.
"Louisburg, on which the French had spent much money [see CAPE
BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745], was by far the strongest fort
north of the Gulf of Mexico. But the prisoners of Canso,
carried thither, and afterward dismissed on parole, reported
the garrison to be weak and the works out of repair. So long
as the French held this fortress, it was sure to be a source
of annoyance to New England, but to wait for British aid to
capture it would be tedious and uncertain, public attention in
Great Britain being much engrossed by a threatened invasion.
Under these circumstances, Shirley proposed to the General
Court of Massachusetts the bold enterprise of a colonial
expedition, of which Louisburg should be the object. After six
days' deliberation and two additional messages from the
governor, this proposal was adopted by a majority of one vote.
A circular letter, asking aid and co-operation, was sent to
all the colonies as far south as Pennsylvania. In answer to
this application, urged by a special messenger from
Massachusetts, the Pennsylvania Assembly … voted £4,000 of
their currency to purchase provisions. The New Jersey Assembly
… furnished … £2,000 toward the Louisburg expedition, but
declined to raise any men. The New York Assembly, after a long
debate, voted £3,000 of their currency; but this seemed to
Clinton a niggardly grant, and he sent, besides, a quantity of
provisions purchased by private subscription, and ten
eighteen-pounders from the king's magazine. Connecticut voted
500 men, led by Roger Wolcott, afterward governor, and
appointed, by stipulation of the Connecticut Assembly, second
in command of the expedition. Rhode Island and New Hampshire
each raised a regiment of 300 men; but the Rhode Island troops
did not arrive till after Louisburg was taken. The chief
burden of the enterprise, as was to be expected, fell on
Massachusetts. In seven weeks an army of 3,250 men was
enlisted, transports were pressed, and bills of credit were
profusely issued to pay the expense. Ten armed vessels were
provided by Massachusetts, and one by each of the other New
England colonies. The command in chief was given to William
Pepperell, a native of Maine, a wealthy merchant, who had
inherited and augmented a large fortune acquired by his father
in the fisheries; a popular, enterprising, sagacious man,
noted for his universal good fortune, but unacquainted with
military affairs; except as a militia officer. … The
enterprise … assumed something of the character of an
anti-Catholic crusade. One of the chaplains, a disciple of
Whitfield, carried a hatchet, specially provided to hew down
the images in the French churches.
{2316}
Eleven days after embarking at Boston [April, 1745], the
Massachusetts armament assembled at Casco, to wait there the
arrival of the Connecticut and Rhode Island quotas, and the
melting of the ice by which Cape Breton was environed. The New
Hampshire troops were already there; those from Connecticut
came a few days after. Notice having been sent to England and
the West Indies of the intended expedition, Captain Warren
presently arrived with four ships of war, and, cruising before
Louisburg, captured several vessels bound thither with
supplies. Already, before his arrival, the New England
cruisers had prevented the entry of a French thirty-gun ship.
As soon as the ice permitted, the troops landed and commenced
the siege, but not with much skill, for they had no engineers.
… Five unsuccessful attacks were made, one after another,
upon an island battery which protected the harbor. In that
cold, foggy climate, the troops, very imperfectly provided
with tents, suffered severely from sickness, and more than a
third were unfit for duty. But the French garrison was feeble
and mutinous, and when the commander found that his supplies
had been captured, he relieved the embarrassment of the
besiegers by offering to capitulate. The capitulation [June
17] included 650 regular soldiers, and near 1,300 effective
inhabitants of the town, all of whom were to be shipped to
France. The island of St. John's presently submitted on the
same terms. The loss during the siege was less than 150, but
among those reluctantly detained to garrison the conquered
fortress ten times as many perished afterward by sickness. In
the expedition of Vernon and this against Louisburg perished a
large number of the remaining Indians of New England,
persuaded to enlist as soldiers in the colonial regiments.
Some dispute arose as to the relative merits of the land and
naval forces, which had been joined during the siege by
additional ships from England. Pepperell, however, was made a
baronet, and both he and Shirley were commissioned as colonels
in the British army. Warren was promoted to the rank of rear
admiral. The capture of this strong fortress, effected in the
face of many obstacles, shed, indeed, a momentary luster over
one of the most unsuccessful wars in which Britain was ever
engaged."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 25 (volume 2)._
"As far as England was concerned, it [the taking of Louisburg]
was the great event of the war of the Austrian succession.
England had no other success in that war to compare with it.
As things turned out, it is not too much to say that this
exploit of New England gave peace to Europe."
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5)._
"Though it was the most brilliant success the English achieved
during the war, English historians scarcely mention it."
_R. Johnson,
History of the French War,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_T. C. Haliburton,
Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
_R. Brown,
History of Cape Breton, letters 12-14._
_S. A. Drake,
The Taking of Louisburg._
_U. Parsons,
Life of Sir William Pepperell,
chapters 3-5._
_F. Parkman,
The Capture of Louisbourg
(Atlantic Monthly, March-May, 1891)._
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
King George's War: The mortifying end.
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
and restoration of Louisburg to France.
"Elated by their success [at Louisburg], the Provincials now
offered to undertake the conquest of Canada; but the Duke of
Bedford, to whom Governor Shirley's plan had been submitted,
disapproved of it, as exhibiting to the colonists too plainly
their own strength. … He therefore advised to place the
chief dependence on the fleet and army to be sent from
England, and to look on the Americans as useful only when
joined with others. Finally, the Whigs determined to send a
powerful fleet to Quebec, at the same time that an army should
attack Montreal, by the route of Lake Champlain; and so late
as April, 1746, orders were issued to the several governors to
levy troops without limitation, which, when assembled on the
frontiers, the king would pay. From some unknown cause, the
plan was abandoned as soon as formed. The general appointed to
the chief command was ordered not to embark, but the
instructions to enlist troops had been transmitted to America,
and were acted on with alacrity. Massachusetts raised 3,500
men to co-operate with the fleet, which, however, they were
doomed never to see. After being kept a long time in suspense,
they were dispersed, in several places, to strengthen
garrisons which were supposed to be too weak for the defenses
assigned them. Upward of 3,000 men, belonging to other
colonies, were assembled at Albany, undisciplined, without a
commissariat, and under no control. After the season for
active operations was allowed to pass away, they disbanded
themselves, some with arms in their hands demanding pay of
their governors, and others suing their captains. In addition
to this disgraceful affair, the Provincials had the
mortification to have a large detachment of their men cut off
in Lower Horton, then known as Minas, situated nearly in the
centre of Nova Scotia. The Canadian forces, which had traveled
thither to co-operate with an immense fleet expected from
France, determining to winter in that province, rendered it a
subject of continued anxiety and expense to Massachusetts.
Governor Shirley resolved, after again reinforcing the
garrison at Annapolis, to drive them from the shores of Minas
Basin, where they were seated; and in the winter of the year
1746, a body of troops was embarked at Boston for the former
place. After the loss of a transport, and the greatest part of
the soldiers on board, the troops arrived, and reembarked for
Grand Pré in the district of Minas, in the latter end of
December. … The issue was, that being cantoned at too great
distances from each other, La Corne, a commander of the
French, having intelligence of their situation, forced a march
from Schiegnieto, through a most tempestuous snow-storm, and
surprised them at midnight. After losing 160 of their men, in
killed, wounded and prisoners, the party were obliged to
capitulate, not, however, on dishonorable terms, and the
French, in their turn, abandoned their post. On the 8th of
May, 1749, peace was proclaimed at Boston [according to the
terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, concluded October 7,
1748], much to the mortification of the Provincials; Cape
Breton was restored to France; and Louisburg, which had
created so much dread, and inflicted such injuries on their
commerce, was handed over to their inveterate enemies, to be
rendered still stronger by additional fortifications. The
French also obtained the islands of St. Pierre and Michelon,
on the south coast of Newfoundland, as stations for their
fisheries." England reimbursed the colonies to the extent of
£183,000 for the expenses of their vain conquest of Louisburg,
and £135,000 for their losses in raising troops under the
orders that were revoked.
_T. C. Haliburton,
Rule and Misrule of the English in America,
book 3, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. Hannay,
History of Acadia,
chapter 19._
_S. G. Drake,
Particular History of the Five Years French and Indian War,
chapters 6-9._
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 5, chapter 10 (volume 5)._
See, also,
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
{2317}
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1750-1753.
Dissensions among the colonies at the
opening of the great French War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany.
Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
The last Intercolonial, or French and Indian War,
and English conquest of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1761.
Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
Enforcement of the Sugar (or Molasses) Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1766.
The Stamp Act.
Its effects and its repeal.
The Stamp Act Congress.
The Declaratory Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765: and 1766.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767;
and 1767-1768.
NEW ENGLAND: 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.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1785.
The ending of Slavery.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781; 1769-1785; and 1774.
NEW ENGLAND: 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.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The country in arms and Boston under siege.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1783.
The War of the Revolution.
Independence achieved.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL), to 1783.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1787-1789.
Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.
The Embargo and its effects.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1814.
Federalist opposition to the war with England.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1828.
Change of front on the tariff question.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824;
and 1828.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
The rise of the Abolitionists.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
The war for the Union.
See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL), and after.
----------NEW ENGLAND: End----------