We find another contribution to the literature of Popham, in the
elegantly printed Address of the Hon. James W. Patterson, delivered at
the Peninsula of Sabino, on the 258th Popham Anniversary; which, as
all the world knows without our giving the information, was August 29,
1865. Thick, creamy paper, John Wilson and Sons' best typography, and
Mr. Wiggin's imprint, were among the least of the motives that induced
us to seize upon and devour the contents of this delectable pamphlet.
We confess to a partiality for Popham literature. Its theory is so
original, so free from conventional trammels, so utterly at variance
with the accepted facts of history, that it is often difficult to
persuade one's self that its advocates intend anything more than
historical waggery. So we read on, as in other fiction, to be amused.
A false theory zealously defended commonly finds more sympathy than
the truth feebly supported. The Pophamites have nailed their flag to
the mast, and ask for no favors from any quarter. We admire their
pluck, and, for their sakes, regret that they have so few historical
verities in their ammunition locker. We have read their "Memorial
Volume," from title-page to errata, as well as Mr. Poor's facetious
Addenda in "Vindication of Sir Ferdinando Gorges;" not shying either
at his Appendix of fifty-two solid nonpareil pages. Every other
Address on the subject, and every scrap of newspaper controversy
accessible, we have diligently perused; and yet the impression remains
on the mind that the facts to sustain this extraordinary theory have
not yet been developed. For some reason, (perhaps to surprise us the
more when it does come,) the stern logic of truth is withheld; and we
are served to empty assertion and vapid declamation in its stead.
Every new publication, therefore, of Popham origin, or from the Maine
Historical Society, is of interest, as possibly it may contain the
suppressed developments. Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay are waiting,
gracefully to yield the honors awarded them in history for more than
two hundred years to "the Church Colony" of Sagadahoc. Is the pamphlet
before us the coming document? Let us see.
Mr. Patterson is well known as a gentleman and a scholar. He has been
Professor at Dartmouth College, and now is Representative in Congress
from New Hampshire. Of his early local affinities we know nothing; but
there was every reason to expect from him a valuable contribution to
this historical discussion. His opening sentence is sonorous and
impressive. "This [Fort Popham] is hallowed ground." Why "hallowed
ground?" we would detain the Professor for a moment, meekly to
inquire; but he hurries on to other glittering generalities. Is this
spot "hallowed ground," because a colony of convicted felons landed
here in August, 1607, more than half of whom deserted the next
December, and all abandoned the spot the following Spring, leaving
with the neighboring Indians the memory of the most shocking
barbarities committed upon them? (See Relations des Jésuites, 1858,
tom. i. p. 36; Parkman's Pioneers of France, p. 266.) Was it because
these sportive colonists enticed friendly Indians into this same Fort,
under the pretense of trade; and, causing them to take the drag-ropes
of a loaded cannon, fired off the piece when the Indians were in line,
and blew them to atoms? (See Williamson's Hist. of Maine, vol. i. p.
201.) "The lines of an eventful history," Mr. Patterson goes on to
say, "stretching through more than two centuries and a half, converge
to this beautiful promontory of Sabino." We think not. Heaven spare
the land from such a disgrace! Mr. Patterson devotes two pages to
general assertions of similar import, and then branches off into
another subject having no relation to the historical question. Into
this we do not propose to follow him.
A curious feature in this pamphlet is an isolated Letter,[1] written
by a respectable Boston gentleman, found in the Appendix. This alone,
of the correspondence received by the Committee on Invitations, we are
told, was found worthy of preservation. It was certainly not so much
the name of the writer that rescued this letter from the oblivion of
the waste-basket, common to its fellows, as the impression on the
minds of the managers of the Celebration, that it contained historical
information tending to confirm their theory.
The letter-writer finds that the "works" of the colonists, during the
few months they stopped at Sabino, "were far more important than their
formal acts recorded." The distinction he would make between "works"
and "formal acts" is not quite apparent. Among the "works" he
specifies, is "a vessel, the dimensions of which are unknown; but fit
to cross the ocean." Strachey tells us what we know about this vessel.
He says it was "a pretty Pynnace of about some thirty tonne." Whether
it was fit to cross the ocean, we will presently consider. The writer
claims for this fishing-boat the honor of being "the pioneer ship
built in North America." This claim is nothing new. Mr. John A. Poor
made it in Popham Memorial, (page 73,) and other writers of less
_weight_ have repeated it. The real fact, however, is that a vessel
was built in the harbor of Port Royal (now Hilton Head) forty-four
years before this, by Huguenot colonists, in which a party of more
than twenty crossed the ocean. But, leaving out of the account the
Huguenot vessel, a similar pinnace had been built at Sabino before
this. Strachey says, under the date of 28th of August: "Most of the
hands labored hard about the fort, and the carpenters about the
buylding of a small pinnace, the president overseeing and applying
every one to his worke." The other craft, called the "Virginia," for
which the above pretensions are set up, was not framed till after
Captain Davies had sailed for England,--that is, after the 15th of
December.
The letter-writer further garnishes his theme by talking about this
fishing-boat's "safe voyage to England," and the curiosity she excited
in an English port. For the sake of these historical statements, the
Committee have thought proper to preserve this letter. Their theory
must be in a desperate condition to need such a confirmation.
We have a word to say with regard to this vessel. Writers on New
England have generally stated that the departing colonists took this
craft with them. This, however, is very different from the statements
made above, that she was "fit to cross the ocean," that she made a
"safe voyage to England," _etc._ A part of the company were not over
anxious to revisit their native land. They had saved their necks once
by emigrating, and were not in haste to put them again into the
halter. With this "pretty pynnace" they could catch codfish, and cure
them along shore; barter them for other commodities with some of the
hundreds of vessels from Europe employed in the fisheries on the
coast; harass the Indians; and lead generally a wild and free life,
such as was congenial to their character and dispositions. The
vessels, doubtless, left Sabino at the same time. When the main body
of the colonists departed, it was necessary that all should leave; for
they had so incurred the enmity of the Indians by their barbarities,
that any left behind would have been murdered. Strachey's account is
entirely consistent with this. He says "they all ymbarqued in this new
arrived ship [the 'Mary and John'] and in the new pynnace, the
Virginia, and sett saile for England. And this was the end of that
northerne colony uppon the river Sachadehoc." Brief Relation, 1622,
says, "they built a pretty barke of their owne, which served them a
good purpose, as easing them in their returning." Certainly; but we do
not read that the "new pynnace" arrived in England, and was there an
object of admiration, as a specimen of naval architecture.
The improbability that this "pynnace" was sea-worthy, and made a
voyage across the Atlantic, will appear from the following
considerations;--
1. There was not time between the 15th of December and Spring to build
a sea-worthy vessel. There were but forty-five persons left in the
colony, and this number was reduced before Spring by disease and
squabbles with the Indians. There were probably not ten carpenters in
the company. The Winter, we are told, was unseasonable and intensely
severe. Strachey says, that, "after Capt. Davies's departure they fully
finished the fort, trencht and fortified it with 12 pieces of ordnance,
and built 50 howses, besides a church and a storehouse,"--sufficient
work, we might suppose, to employ forty-five Old Bailey convicts till
Spring, without building a sea-going vessel. If Strachey does not tell
the truth in this matter, we know nothing at all about this vessel.
2. They had no need of a sea-going vessel. These were furnished by the
English undertakers. What they needed was a small craft in which to
take fish along shore. The Huguenots built their vessel in 1563 to
return home in; it being their only means of escaping starvation.
There was no intention of abandoning the Popham settlement till Capt.
Davies returned in the Spring with the news that their patron saint,
Sir John Popham, surnamed "the hangman," was dead.
3. We know that the Popham colonists were knaves; but it is not
necessary to infer that they were fools. Here was a good, stanch ship,
the "Mary and John," of London, Captain Davies, master, about to sail
for England. The whole company was now reduced to about forty souls.
This same ship had brought over, a few months before, more than double
that number. The graduates of penal institutions have usually as keen
a regard for their corporal safety as other persons. Cowardice is
commonly their ruling characteristic. Is it reasonable to suppose that
any of that godless company would have risked their lives to a voyage
across the Atlantic in that "pretty pynnace," built of green pine, in
midwinter, when they could have had safe and comfortable quarters in
the "Mary and John"? If the intention, on the part of the managers,
was to transport the colonists safely to England, there was no motive
nor excuse for putting any on board the new craft. If there was a
willingness on the part of some of the colonists to embark in it, they
must, we think, have had some other project in view than a trip across
the Atlantic. The assertion that the vessel made the voyage is purely
gratuitous.