See COLOMBIAN STATES.
----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: Start--------
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1623-1631.
Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
First colonies planted.
The naming of the province.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.
The claims of Massachusetts asserted and defeated.
According to its terms, the Massachusetts patent embraced a
territory extending northward three miles beyond the
head-waters of the Merrimack, and covered, therefore, the
greater part of Mason's New Hampshire grant, as well as that
of Gorges in Maine. In 1641, when this fact had been
ascertained, the General Court of Massachusetts "passed an
order (with the consent of the settlers at Dover and
Strawberry-bank, on the Piscataqua), 'That from thenceforth,
the said people inhabiting there are and shall be accepted and
reputed under the Government of the Massachusetts,' etc. Mason
had died, and confusion ensued, so that the settlers were
mostly glad of the transfer. A long controversy ensued between
Mason's heirs and Massachusetts as to the right of
jurisdiction. The history of New Hampshire and Maine at this
period was much the same. In 1660, at the time of the
Restoration, the heirs of Mason applied to the
Attorney-General in England, who decided that they had a good
title to New Hampshire. The Commissioners who came over in
1664 attempted to re-establish them; but as the settlers
favored Massachusetts, she resumed her government when they
left. Mason's heirs renewed their claim in 1675, and in 1679
it was solemnly decided against the claim of the Massachusetts
Colony, although their grant technically included all lands
extending to three miles north of the waters of the Merrimack
river. John Cutt was the first President in New Hampshire, and
thenceforward, to the American Revolution, New Hampshire was
treated as a Royal province, the Governors and
Lieutenant-Governors being appointed by the King, and the laws
made by the people being subject to his revision."
_C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 1, chapter 26._
ALSO IN:
_G. Barstow,
History of New Hampshire,
chapters 2-5._
_J. Belknap,
History of New Hampshire,
volume 1, chapters 2-9._
_N. Adams,
Annals of Portsmouth,
pages 28-64._
See, also,
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
{2318}
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1675.
Outbreak of the Taranteens.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War and the taking of Louisburg.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1749-1774.
Boundary dispute with New York.
The grants in Vermont, and the struggle of the
"Green Mountain Boys" to defend them.
See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany,
and Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and 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 HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: 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 HAMPSHIRE: 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 HAMPSHIRE: 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 HAMPSHIRE: 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 HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.
The end of royal government.
Adoption of a constitution.
Declaration of Independence.
The New Hampshire Assembly, called by Governor Wentworth, came
together June 12, 1775, in the midst of the excitements
produced by news of Lexington and Ticonderoga. Meantime, a
convention of the people had been called and was sitting at
Exeter. Acting on a demand from the latter, the assembly
proceeded first to expel from its body three members whom the
governor had called by the king's writ from three new
townships, and who were notorious royalists. "One of the
expelled members, having censured this proceeding, was
assaulted by the populace, and fled for shelter to the
governor's house. The people demanded him, and, being refused,
they pointed a gun at the governor's door; whereupon the
offender was surrendered and carried to Exeter. The governor
retired to the fort, and his house was pillaged. He afterwards
went on board the Scarborough and sailed for Boston. He had
adjourned the assembly to the 28th of September. But they met
no more. In September, he issued a proclamation from the Isles
of Shoals, adjourning them to April next. This was the closing
act of his administration. It was the last receding step of
royalty. It had subsisted in the province 95 years. The
government of New Hampshire was henceforth to be a government
of the people. … The convention which had assembled at
Exeter was elected but for six months. Previous to their
dissolution in November, they made provisions, pursuant to the
recommendations of congress, for calling a new convention,
which should be a more full representation of the people. They
sent copies of these provisions to the several towns, and
dissolved. The elections were forthwith held. The new
convention promptly assembled, and drew up a temporary form of
government. Having assumed the name of 'House of
Representatives,' they adopted a constitution [January, 1776],
and proceeded to choose twelve persons to constitute a
distinct and a co-ordinate branch of the legislature, by the
name of a Council." The constitution provided for no
executive. "The two houses assumed to themselves the executive
duty during the session, and they appointed a committee of
safety to sit in the recess, varying in number from six to
sixteen, vested with executive powers. The president of the
council was president of the executive committee. … On the
11th of June, 1776, a committee was chosen by the assembly,
and another by the council of New Hampshire, 'to make a
draught of a declaration of the independence of the united
colonies.' On the 15th, the committees of both houses reported
a 'Declaration of Independence,' which was adopted
unanimously, and a copy sent forthwith to their delegates in
congress."
_G. Barstow,
History of New Hampshire,
chapter 9._
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776.
The ending of Slavery.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence.
Peace with England.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1783.
Revision of the State constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1788.
Ratification of the Federal constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: End--------
----------NEW HAVEN: Start--------
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1638.
The planting of the Colony and the founding of the City.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1639.
The Fundamental Agreement.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1640-1655.
The attempts at colonization on the Delaware.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1643.
Progress and state of the colony.
The New England Confederation.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
{2319}
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1660-1664.
The protection of the Regicides.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1662-1664.
Annexation to Connecticut.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1666.
The migration to Newark, N.J.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1779.
Pillaged by Tryon's marauders.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779
WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.
----------NEW HAVEN: End--------
NEW HOPE CHURCH, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
----------NEW JERSEY: Start--------
NEW JERSEY:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1610-1664.
The Dutch in possession.
The Patroon colony at Pavonia.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614; and 1621-1646.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1620.
Embraced in the patent of the Council for New England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.
See NEW ALBION.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1635.
Territory assigned to Lord Mulgrave on the dissolution
of the Council for New England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
The attempted colonization from New Haven, on the Delaware.
The London merchants who formed the leading colonists of New
Haven, and who were the wealthiest among the pioneer settlers
of New England, had schemes of commerce in their minds, as
well as desires for religious freedom, when they founded their
little republic at Quinnipiac. They began with no delay to
establish a trade with Barbadoes and Virginia, as well as
along their own coasts; and they were promptly on the watch
for advantageous openings at which to plant a strong
trading-post or two among the Indians. In the winter of
1638-39, one George Lamberton of New Haven, while trafficking
Virginia-wards, discovered the lively fur trade already made
active on Delaware Bay by the Dutch and Swedes [see DELAWARE:
A. D. 1638-1640], and took a hand in it. His enterprising
townsmen, when they heard his report, resolved to put
themselves at once on some kind of firm footing in the country
where this profitable trade could be reached. They formed a
"Delaware Company," in which the Governor, the minister, and
all the chiefs of the colony were joined, and late in the year
1640 they sent a vessel into Delaware Bay, commanded by
Captain Turner, who was one of their number. Captain Turner
"was instructed by the Delaware Company to view and purchase
lands at the Delaware Bay, and not to meddle with aught that
rightfully belonged to the Swedes or Dutch. … But New
Haven's captain paid little heed to boundaries. He bought of
the Indians nearly the whole southwestern coast of New Jersey,
and also a tract of land at Passayunk, on the present site of
Philadelphia, and opposite the Dutch fort Nassau. … On the
30th of August, 1641, there was a Town-Meeting at New Haven,
which voted to itself authority over the region of the
Delaware Bay. The acts of the Delaware Company were approved,
and 'Those to whome the affaires of the towne is committed'
were ordered to 'Dispose of all the affayres of Delaware Bay.'
The first instalment of settlers had previously gone to the
Bay. Trumbull says that nearly fifty families removed. As they
went by New Amsterdam, Governor Kieft issued an unavailing
protest, which was met, however, by fair words. The larger
portion of the party settled in a plantation on Varkin's Kill
(Ferkenskill, Hog Creek?), near what is now Salem, New Jersey.
A fortified trading-house was built or occupied at Passayunk.
This was the era of Sir Edmund Plowden's shadowy Palatinate of
New Albion, and, if there is any truth in the curious
'Description,' there would seem to be some connection between
this fort of the New Haven settlers and Plowden's alleged
colony." The Dutch and the Swedes, notwithstanding their
mutual jealousies, made common cause against these New England
intruders, and succeeded in breaking up their settlements.,
The exact occurrences are obscurely known, but it is certain
that the attempted colonization was a failure, and that,
"slowly, through the winter and spring of 1643, the major part
of [the settlers] … straggled home to New Haven. … The
poverty and distress were not confined to the twoscore
households who had risked their persons in the enterprise. The
ill-starred effort had impoverished the highest personages in
the town, and crippled New Haven's best financial strength.
"Yet the scheme of settlement on the Delaware was not
abandoned. While claims against the Dutch for damages and for
redress of wrongs were vigorously pressed, the town still
looked upon the purchased territory as its own, and was
resolute in the intention to occupy it. In 1651 a new
expedition of fifty persons set sail for the Delaware, but was
stopped at Manhattan by Peter Stuyvesant, and sent back,
vainly raging at the insolence of the Dutch. All New England
shared the wrath of New Haven, but confederated New England
was not willing to move in the matter unless New Haven would
pay the consequent costs. New Haven seemed rather more than
half disposed to take up arms against New Netherland on her
own responsibility; but her small quarrel was soon merged in
the greater war which broke out between Holland and England.
When this occurred, "concerted action on the part of the New
Englanders would have given New Holland to the Allies, and
extended New Haven's limits to the Delaware, without any one
to gainsay or resist. After the Commissioners [of the United
Colonies] declared for war, Massachusetts refused to obey,
adopted the role of a secessionist, and checked the whole
proceeding. New Haven, with whom the proposed war was almost a
matter of life and death, was justified in adverting to the
conduct of Massachusetts as 'A provoaking sinn against God,
and of a scandalous nature before men.' The mutinous schemes
of Roger Ludlow and of some New Haven malcontents complicated
the problem still more both for Connecticut and New Haven.
Finally, just as an army of 800 men was ready [1654] to march
upon New Amsterdam, tidings came of a European peace, and New
Haven's last chance was gone. But the town did not lose hope."
Plans for a new colony were slowly matured through 1654 and
1655, but "the enterprise was completely thwarted by a series
of untoward events," the most decisive of which was the
conquest of New Sweden by Stuyvesant in October, 1655. "But
the dream of Delaware was not forgotten."
_C. H. Levermore,
The Republic of New Haven,
chapter 3, section 5._
ALSO IN:
S. Hazard,
Annals of Pennsylvania,
pages 57-178.
{2320}
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
The English occupation and proprietary grant to
Berkeley and Carteret.
The naming of the province.
The Newark immigration from New Haven.
"Before the Duke of York was actually in possession of his
easily acquired territory [of New Netherlands, or New
York—see NEW YORK: A. D. 1664], on the 23d and 24th of June,
1664, he executed deeds of lease and release to Lord John
Berkeley, Baron of Stratton, and Sir George Carteret, of
Saltrum in Devon, granting to them, their heirs and assigns,
all that portion of his tract 'lying and being to the westward
of Long Island and Manhitas Island, and bounded on the east
part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and hath
upon the west, Delaware bay or river, and extending southward
to the main ocean as far as Cape May, at the mouth of Delaware
bay; and to the northward, as far as the northernmost branch
of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is 41° 40' of
latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to
Hudson's river, in 41° of latitude; which said tract of land
is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Cæsarea,
or New Jersey.' The name of 'Cæsarea' was conferred upon the
tract in commemoration of the gallant defence of the Island of
Jersey, in 1649, by Sir George Carteret, then its governor,
against the Parliamentarians; but the people preferred the
English name of New Jersey, and the other was consequently
soon lost. The grant of the Duke of York from the crown
conferred upon him, his heirs and assigns, among other rights
appertaining thereto, that most important one of government;
the power of hearing and determining appeals being reserved to
the king; but, 'relying,' says Chalmers, 'on the greatness of
his connection, he seems to have been little solicitous to
procure the royal privileges conferred on the proprietors of
Maryland and Carolina,' whose charters conferred almost
unlimited authority. 'And while as counts-palatine they
exercised every act of government in their own names, because
they were invested with the ample powers possessed by the
prætors of the Roman provinces, he ruled his territory in the
name of the king.' In the transfer to Berkeley and Carteret,
they, their heirs and assigns, were invested with all the
powers conferred upon the duke. … Lord Berkeley and Sir
George Carteret, now sole proprietors of New Jersey, on the
10th February 1664, signed a constitution, which they made
public under the title of 'The Concessions and agreement of
the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all and every
of the adventurers, and all such as shall settle and plant
there.' … On the same day that this instrument was signed,
Philip Carteret, a brother to Sir George, received a
commission as governor of New Jersey. … The ship Philip,
having on board about 30 people, some of them servants, and
laden with suitable commodities, sailed from England in the
summer, and arrived in safety at the place now known as
Elizabethtown Point, or Elizabeth Port, in August of the same
year. What circumstance led to the governor's selection of
this spot for his first settlement, is not now known, but it
was, probably, the fact of its having been recently examined
and approved of by others. He landed, and gave to his embryo
town the name of Elizabeth, after the lady of Sir George. …
Governor Carteret, so soon as he became established at
Elizabethtown, sent messengers to New England and elsewhere,
to publish the concessions of the proprietors and to invite
settlers. In consequence of this invitation and the favorable
terms offered, the province soon received large additions to
its population."
_W. A. Whitehead,
East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments
(New Jersey Historical. Society Collections.,
volume 1), period 2._
"In August, 1665, he [Governor Carteret] sent letters to New
England offering to settlers every civil and religious
privilege. Mr. Treat and some of his friends immediately
visited New Jersey. They bent their steps toward the New Haven
property on the Delaware Bay, and selected a site for a
settlement near what is now Burlington. Returning by way of
Elizabeth, they met Carteret, and were by him influenced to
locate on the Passaic River. … Early in the spring of 1666,
the remnant of the old New Haven, the New Haven of 1638, under
the leadership of Robert Treat and Mathew Gilbert, sailed into
the Passaic. … In June, 1667, the entire force of the little
colony was gathered together in their new abode, to which the
name 'Newark' was applied, in honor of Mr. Pierson's English
home. [Mr. Pierson was the minister at Branford, in the New
Haven colony, and his flock migrated with him to Newark almost
bodily.] The Fundamental Agreement was revised and enlarged,
the most notable expansion being the following article: 'The
planters agree to submit to such magistrates as shall be
annually chosen by the Friends from among themselves, and to
such Laws as we had in the place whence we came.' Sixty-four
men wrote their names under this Bill of Rights, of whom 23
were from Branford, and the remaining 41 from New Haven,
Milford, and Guilford. Most of them were probably heads of
families, and, in all the company, but six were obliged to
make their marks. … It seems to me that, after 1666, the New
Haven of Davenport and Eaton must be looked for upon the
banks, not of the Quinnipiac, but of the Passaic. The men, the
methods, the laws, the officers, that made New Haven Town what
it was in 1640, disappeared from the Connecticut Colony, but
came to full life again immediately in New Jersey. … Newark
was not so much the product as the continuation of New Haven."
_C. H. Levermore,
The Republic of New Haven,
chapter 4, section 6._
ALSO IN:
_Documents Relating to the Colonial History New Jersey,
volume 1._
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.
The sale to new Proprietors, mostly Quakers, and
division of the province into East Jersey and West Jersey.
The free constitution of West Jersey.
In 1673 Lord Berkeley, one of the original proprietors, "sold
his one-half interest in the Province for less than $5,000.
John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, two English Quakers, were
the purchasers. A dispute arose between the new proprietors
about the division of their property, and William Penn, who
afterward became the founder of Pennsylvania, was chosen
arbitrator to settle the difficulty, and succeeded to the
satisfaction of all parties interested. Fenwick sailed from
London, in 1675, in the ship 'Griffith,' with his family and a
small company of Quakers. This was the first English vessel that
came to New Jersey with immigrants.
{2321}
The party sailed up the Delaware bay, and, entering a creek,
landed on its banks three miles and a half from the Delaware.
This creek, and the settlement founded on it, Fenwick named
Salem. This was the first English settlement permanently
established in West Jersey."
_J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
History of New Jersey,
chapter 1._
In July, 1676, the province was divided, Philip Carteret
taking East Jersey, and the successors of Berkeley taking West
Jersey. "Thereupon, Carteret, by will, devised his plantation
of New Jersey to trustees to be sold for certain purposes, by
him stated, in 1681-2. … He had not a peaceable time.
Indeed, anything like constant peace was the lot of very few
of New Jersey's early Governors. Governor Andros, of New York,
disputed Carteret's authority; nay, failing by peaceable means
to gain his point, he sent a party of soldiers by night
[1678], who dragged Carteret from his bed, carried him to New
York, and there kept him close until a day was set on which he
was tried before his opponent himself in the New York Courts,
and three times acquitted by the jury, who were sent back with
directions to convict, but firmly each time refused. The
authority of Carteret was confirmed by the Duke of York, and
Andros was recalled. … The trustees of Sir George Carteret
could not make sale of East Jersey. After ineffectual attempts
at private sale they offered it at public auction, and William
Penn and eleven associates, most if not all Quakers, bought it
for £3,400. It was too heavy a purchase, apparently, for their
management. Each sold half his right to another, and so were
constituted the twenty-four Proprietors. They procured a deed
of confirmation from the Duke of York March 14th, 1682, and
then the twenty-four Lords Proprietors by sealed instrument
established a council, gave them power to appoint overseers,
and displace all officers necessary to manage their property,
to take care of their lands, deed them, appoint dividends,
settle the rights of particular Proprietors in such dividends,
grant warrants of survey, in fine, to do everything necessary
for the profitable disposition of all the territory. … The
new Proprietors were men of rank. William Penn is known to all
the world. With him were James, Earl of Perth, John Drummond,
Robert Barclay, famous, like Penn, as a Quaker gentleman, and
a controversialist for Quaker belief; David Barclay. … Each
Proprietor had a twenty-fourth interest in the property,
inheritable, divisible, and assignable, as if it were a farm
instead of a province. And by these means the estate has come
down to those who now own the property. … In New Jersey …
our Legislature has nothing at all to do with our waste or
unappropriated land. It all belongs to the Proprietors, to
those, namely, who own what are known as Proprietary rights,
or rights of Proprietorship, and is subject to the disposition
of the Board of Proprietors. … What is left in their control
is now [1884] of comparatively slight value."
_C. Parker,
Address, Bi-Centennial Celebration of the
Board of American Proprietors of East New Jersey._
The division line between East Jersey and West Jersey, as
established by the agreement between the Proprietors, began at
Little Egg Harbor and extended northwestward to a point on the
Delaware river in 41 degrees of north latitude. "After this
line had been established, John Fenwick's interest in West
Jersey was conveyed to John Eldridge and Edmund Warner in fee,
and they were admitted into the number of proprietors. In
order to establish a government for the Province of West
Jersey, provisional authority was given to Richard Hartshore
and Richard Guy, residents of East Jersey, and to James Wasse,
who was sent especially from England to act on behalf of the
proprietors. These persons were commissioned on the 18th of
August, 1676, by Byllinge and his trustees, in conjunction
with Eldridge and Warner, and full power was given them to
conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with
instructions from the proprietors. Fenwick, who had founded a
settlement at Salem, refused to recognize the transfer of his
portion of the Province to Eldridge and Warner, and declared
himself to be independent of this new government. It therefore
became the first duty of the commissioners to settle this
difficulty. All efforts, however, for that purpose failed. The
original plan of the government was devised by William Penn
and his immediate associates. It was afterward approved by all
the proprietors interested in the Province, and was first
published on the 3d of March, 1676, as 'The Concessions and
Agreements of the proprietors, freeholders and inhabitants of
the Province of West Jersey in America.' This constitution
declared that no man or number of men on earth had power or
authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters;
and that no person or persons within the Province should be in
any wise called in question or punished, in person, estate or
privilege, on account of opinion, judgment, faith or worship
toward God in matters of religion. … That all the
inhabitants of the Province should have the right to attend
court and be present at all proceedings, 'to the end that
Justice may not be done in a corner, nor in any covert
manner.' … The executive authority of the government was
lodged in the hands of commissioners, to be appointed at first
by the proprietors or a majority of them; but after the
further settlement of the Province they were to be chosen by
the resident proprietors and inhabitants, on the 25th of March
of each year. The first election for commissioners occurred in
1680. … One of the most remarkable features in this
instrument is the fact that no authority is retained by the
proprietary body. 'We put the power in the people,' was the
language of the fundamental law."
_J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
History of New Jersey,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_W. A. Whitehead,
East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments,
pages 66-99._
_Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New Jersey,
volume 1._
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1674.
Final recovery by the English.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688.
Joined with New England under the Governorship of Andros.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.
Extinguishment of the Proprietary political powers.
Union of the two Jerseys in one royal province.
"In New Jersey, had the proprietary power been vested in the
people or reserved to one man, it might have survived, but it
was divided among speculators in land, who, as a body, had
gain, and not the public welfare, for their end. In April,
1688, 'the proprietors of East New Jersey had surrendered
their pretended right of government,' and the surrender had
been accepted.
{2322}
In October of the same year, the council of the proprietaries
of West New Jersey voted to the secretary-general for the
dominion of New England the custody of 'all records relating
to government.' Thus the whole province fell, with New York
and New England, under the government of Andros. At the
revolution, therefore [the English Revolution of 1688-89], the
sovereignty over New Jersey had reverted to the crown; and the
legal maxim, soon promulgated by the board of trade, that the
domains of the proprietaries might be bought and sold, but not
their executive power, weakened their attempts at the recovery
of authority, and consigned the colony to a temporary anarchy.
A community of husbandmen may be safe for a short season with
little government. For twelve years, the province was not in a
settled condition. From June, 1689, to August, 1692, East New
Jersey had apparently no superintending administration, being,
in time of war, destitute of military officers as well as of
magistrates with royal or proprietary commissions. They were
protected by their neighbors from external attacks: and there
is no reason to infer that the several towns failed to
exercise regulating powers within their respective limits. …
The proprietaries, threatened with the ultimate interference
of parliament in provinces 'where,' it was said, 'no regular
government had ever been established,' resolved to resign
their pretensions. In their negotiations with the crown, they
wished to insist that there should be a triennial assembly:
but King William, though he had against his inclination
approved triennial parliaments for England, would never
consent to them in the plantations. In 1702, the first year of
Queen Anne, the surrender took place before the privy council.
The domain, ceasing to be connected with proprietary powers,
was, under the rules of private right, confirmed to its
possessors, and the decision has never been disturbed. The
surrender of 'the pretended' rights to government being
completed, the two Jerseys were united in one province; and
the government was conferred on Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury,
who, like Queen Anne, was the grandchild of Clarendon.
Retaining its separate legislature, the province had for the
next thirty-six years the same governors as New York. It never
again obtained a charter: the royal commission of April 1702,
and the royal instructions to Lord Cornbury, constituted the
form of its administration. To the governor appointed by the
crown belonged the power of legislation, with consent of the
royal council and the representatives of the people. … The
freemen of the colony were soon conscious of the diminution of
their liberties."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. O. Raum,
History of New Jersey,
chapter 8 (volume 1)._
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1711.
Queen Anne's War.
See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745: and 1745-1748.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775: 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1766-1774.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774:
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776.
End of royal government.
Adoption of a State Constitution.
In the person of William Franklin, unworthy son of Benjamin
Franklin, New Jersey was afflicted, at the outbreak of the
Revolutionary struggle, with an arbitrary and obstinately
royalist governor. Finding the assembly of the colony
refractory and independent, he refused to convene it in 1774,
when the people desired to send delegates to the Continental
Congress. Thereupon a convention was held at New Brunswick;
and this body not only commissioned delegates to the general
Congress, but appointed a "general committee of
correspondence" for the Province. The committee, in May of the
following year, called together, at Trenton, a second
Provincial Convention, which took to itself the title of the
"Provincial Congress of New Jersey," and assumed the full
authority of all the branches of the government, providing for
the defense of the Province and taking measures to carry out
the plans of the Continental Congress. "Governor Franklin
convened the Legislature on the 16th of November, 1775. No
important business was transacted, and on the 6th of December
the Assembly was prorogued by the governor to meet on the 3d
of January, 1776, but it never reassembled, and this was the
end of Provincial legislation in New Jersey under royal
authority. … Though the Provincial Congress of New Jersey
had to a great extent assumed the control of public affairs in
the Province, it had not renounced the royal authority. … On
the 24th of June, a committee was appointed to draft a
constitution. … New Jersey was, however, not yet disposed to
abandon all hopes of reconciliation with the Crown, and
therefore provided in the last article of this constitution
that the instrument should become void whenever the king
should grant a full redress of grievances, and agree to
administer the government of New Jersey in accordance with the
constitution of England and the rights of British subjects.
But, on the 18th of July, 177[6] the Provincial Congress
assumed the title of 'The Convention of the State of New
Jersey,' declared the State to be independent of royal
authority, and directed that all official papers, acts of
Assembly and other public documents should be made in the name
and by the authority of the State." Before this occurred,
however, Governor Franklin had been placed under arrest, by
order of Congress, and sent to Connecticut, where he was
released on parole. He sailed immediately for England. "When
the State government was organized under the new constitution,
the Legislature enacted laws for the arrest and punishment of
all persons who opposed its authority."
_J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
History of New Jersey,
chapters 10-11._
ALSO IN:
_T. F. Gordon,
History of New Jersey,
chapter 12._
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Siege of Boston.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
{2323}
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1776-1778.
The battle ground of Washington campaigns.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776; 1776-1777; and 1778 (JUNE).
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1777-1778.
Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1779.
British raids from New York.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1778-1779.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1783.
The war on the Hudson, on the Delaware, and in the South.
Surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778, to 1783.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1787.
Ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
----------NEW JERSEY: End----------
NEW MADRID, The capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
NEW MARKET, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
NEW MARKET (Shenandoah Valley), Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.
----------NEW MEXICO: Start----------
NEW MEXICO: Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
The American conquest and occupation by Kearney's expedition.
"While the heaviest fighting [of the Mexican War] was going on
in Old Mexico [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847], the Government
[of the United States] easily took possession of New Mexico
and California, by means of expeditions organized on the
remote frontiers. New Mexico was wanted for the emigration to
the Pacific. If we were to have California we must also have
the right of way to it. In the hands of the Spaniards, New
Mexico barred access to the Pacific so completely that the
oldest travelled route was scarcely known to Americans at all,
and but little used by the Spaniards themselves. If now we
consult a map of the United States it is seen that the
thirty-fourth parallel crosses the Mississippi at the mouth of
the Arkansas, cuts New Mexico in the middle, and reaches the
Pacific near Los Angeles. It was long the belief of statesmen
that the great tide of emigration must set along this line,
because it had the most temperate climate, was shorter, and
would be found freer from hardship than the route by way of
the South Pass. This view had set on foot the exploration of
the Arkansas and Red Rivers. But if we except the little that
Pike and Long had gathered, almost nothing was known about it.
Yet the prevailing belief gave New Mexico, as related to
California, an exceptional importance. These considerations
weighed for more than acquisition of territory, though the
notion that New Mexico contained very rich silver-mines
undoubtedly had force in determining its conquest. … With
this object General Kearney marched from Fort Leavenworth in
June, 1846, for Santa Fe, at the head of a force of which a
battalion of Mormons formed part. After subduing New Mexico,
Kearney was to go on to California, and with the help of naval
forces already sent there, for the purpose, conquer that
country also. … General Kearney marched by the Upper
Arkansas, to Bent's Fort, and from Bent's Fort over the old
trail through El Moro and Las Vegas, San Miguel and Old Pecos,
without meeting the opposition he expected, or at any time
seeing any considerable body of the enemy. On the 18th of
August, as the sun was setting, the stars and stripes were
unfurled over the palace of Santa Fe, and New Mexico was
declared annexed to the United States. Either the home
government thought New Mexico quite safe from attack, or,
having decided to reserve all its strength for the main
conflict, had left this province to its fate. After organizing
a civil government, and appointing Charles Bent of Bent's
Fort, governor, General Kearney broke up his camp at Santa Fe,
September 25. His force was now divided. One part, under
Colonel Doniphan, was ordered to join General Wool in
Chihuahua. A second detachment was left to garrison Santa Fe,
while Kearney went on to California with the rest of his
troops. The people everywhere seemed disposed to submit
quietly, and as most of the pueblos soon proffered their
allegiance to the United States Government, little fear of an
outbreak was felt. Before leaving the valley, a courier was
met bearing the news that California also had submitted to us
without striking a blow. This information decided General
Kearney to send back most of his remaining force, while with a
few soldiers only he continued his march through what is now
Arizona for the Pacific."
_S. A. Drake,
The Making of the Great West,
pages 251-255._
ALSO IN:
_H. O. Ladd,
History of the War with Mexico,
chapters 9-12._
_P. St. G. Cooke,
The Conquest of New Mexico and California._
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 12, chapter 17._
_H. O. Ladd,
The Story of New Mexico,
chapter 16._
NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
Cession to the United States.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1850.
Territorial organization.
See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.
NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1875-1894.
Prospective admission to the Union.
A bill to admit New Mexico to the Union as a state was passed
by both houses of Congress in 1875, but failed in consequence
of an amendment made in the Senate too late for action upon it
in the House of Representatives. Attempts to convert the
scantily populated territory into a state were then checked
for several years. At this writing (July 1894) a bill for
organizing and admitting the state of New Mexico has again
passed the House of Representatives, and is likely to have a
favorable vote in the Senate.
----------NEW MEXICO: End----------
NEW MODEL, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL).