[2] Strachey says, "the chief shipwright was one Digby, of London." He
also speaks of "the carpenters."--Chap. x.
[_Boston Daily Advertiser, April 21, 1866._]
"THE LAST POPHAM ADDRESS."
_To the Editors of the Boston Daily Advertiser_:--
By the courtesy of some unknown friend, I have received your paper of
the 11th inst., containing a notice of Prof. Patterson's Address at
the last Celebration at Fort Popham. As it presents some matters
needing amendment, I trust your greater courtesy will allow space in
your columns for a few observations.
Your correspondent has confessed a partiality for the literature
growing out of the first colonial occupation of the soil of New
England under English enterprise; and forthwith, in a style of
pleasantry, bearing with it the edge of ridicule, speaks of the
efforts of its writers as scarcely better than advocates indulging in
"historical waggery," whose pages "we read," as in other fiction, "to
be amused."
But without attempting to reply with smiles alone to such attempts at
smiling away the force of historic verities, it is pertinent to say,
that when your correspondent speaks of the "false theory" of the
believers in the Popham Colony, it would have been quite as lucid a
mode of treatment, if he had stated the "theory" itself. We had
supposed that we were dealing with _facts_; and were not responsible
for any deductions drawn therefrom, either by affection or prejudice.
And the _facts_, though prominent, may be comprised in a short
enumeration: That in 1607 an English colony, under President George
Popham, was founded at the mouth of the Kennebec;--was inaugurated and
continued with the sacred services of the Christian religion;--was an
actual possession of the region afterwards known as New England, under
a Royal Charter never denied nor abrogated;--and, though intended, as
the documents show, to be perpetual, it came to an end within a year,
by reason of the death of its two chief supporters;--and was followed
by a succession of occupancies, that proved title, as against the
former and never-renewed claims of France.
Now, if these facts make the "extraordinary theory," which your
correspondent has not ventured to describe, we are ready to take it in
all its dimensions, and furnish your readers the proofs, as readily as
you will grant your columns. But we are not inclined to shut our
mouths, or stop our pens, by the terror of any such words as "false
and extraordinary theory," "empty assertion and vapid declamation." We
do not ask "Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay gracefully to yield the
honors of their exalted position," any farther than "the stern logic
of truth" may demand; and we shall not be unwilling to say, that the
claims of history are worthy of respect, even among the present
dwellers in those ancient and time-honored colonies. As to the remark
about "'the Church Colony' of Sagadahoc," that may pass as a piece of
pleasantry, though it was a fact.
The question is asked, in regard to the opening sentence of Mr.
Patterson's Address, "Why is this hallowed ground?" We had supposed,
that any place where religion had held its services continuously, and
in connection with important events, might properly bear such a
designation. The orator evidently thought so; and his very large
audience, out of the thousands assembled on that day, did not once
think of a criticism upon the expression. But the question seems to
have been proposed, not so much for disputing the religious
associations connected with the undertaking, as to bring in _two_
charges against the colonists, of no force whatever against the great
purposes of the settlement.
The _first_ charge is, that "a colony of convicted felons landed here
in 1607." Now who believes this? We who live in the valley of the
Kennebec have always supposed, that faith is belief founded on
evidence; and that all other demands on faith, if answered, are
credulity. What is the evidence that the charge is true? Not a
particle. The only pretence of proof is the casual remark of Sir
William Alexander, who says of these colonists,--of course he means
the laboring part of their number, and not the ten in authority,--that
they went to these western shores, "as endangered by the law, or their
own necessities." But was there no other law than that against social
crime? Contemporaneous history shows that their _endangerment_
proceeded from the statutes against vagrancy. At that time, in
consequence of the state of the country, a poor man could hardly avoid
their grasp. Surely poverty was no crime. Gorges sought persons of
this necessitous class to aid in carrying forward his noble purposes
of colonization.[3] While history is the best comment on language, the
five words of Sir William are entitled to its explanation. True
charity never requires us to give the worst interpretation, when the
circumstances allow the best. Here they require it.
It is most unfortunate for the truth of the charge about the felons in
the colony, that Chalmers--than whom no man has had a longer and
better opportunity of searching the British State Papers of this
period, and who has the credit of being reliable as to facts--says the
law for the transportation of convicts was not enforced till 1619; and
Bancroft says, that, when they were enforced, "it must be remembered,
the crimes of which they were convicted were chiefly political. The
number transported to Virginia for social crimes was never
considerable; scarcely enough to sustain its pride in its scorn of the
laboring population; certainly not enough to affect its character."[4]
If there had been any convicts in the Kennebec Colony, it would be
fair to infer from this declaration, that they were "chiefly
political" offenders, and "certainly _not numerous enough to affect_
its character."
But Chalmers says there was no transportation of any class of the
guilty till 1619.[5] Therefore there was none to Sagadahoc; and for
the additional and better reason than his statement, that the law has
not yet been shown requiring transportation as a punishment for moral
guilt, during the time of the incipiency, continuance and end of the
Popham Colony. Convicts could not be transported without a law. Any
charge, therefore, as about the felons of the colony, is injuriously
brought against the memory of the helpless dead.
The _second_ charge comes from the cannon story: that the men at the
fort induced the Indians to man the drag-ropes, and to stand in the
line of direction of the piece aimed for execution; and then fired off
the piece upon the whole body of the unfortunates, when thus "in
line, and blew them to atoms." This is a tale of woe rather tougher
than the quoted Williamson gives it,--who is inclined to discredit it.
But is even Williamson's reluctant account true?
The best reply to this allegation of horror is to be found in the
narrative of the Jesuits, in 1611, who went to the Kennebec by the
inland passage, in quest of corn. The Indians met them. They gave them
an account of their treatment of the colonists, whom they represented
as having been defeated by them. They "flattered" the French, saying
that "they loved them well;" and, to gain their favor, told them how
the English drove them from their doors and tables with clubs, and
made their dogs bite them. All this might have been done for
protection, under a renewal of the hostile attitude assumed by the
natives on Gilbert's trip up the Androscoggin. The French were good
listeners to any charge against English Protestants. Now, if this
story about the cannon had been as true as its reality would have been
cruel, why should not these Indians have told its barbarities to such
good auditors? A cannon ball, with the explosion from the muzzle,
would have made a more damaging narrative than a club or a dog-bite.
Yet no syllable of the great event is recorded, while the little ones
are faithfully chronicled to the disparagement of the Protestants. It
is doubtful whether any cruelties did occur so utterly at variance
with the known kind treatment of them by the "worthy" President. For
the Jesuits say of these Indians, that they were "flatterers," and
"the greatest speech-makers (_harangueurs_) in the world." When they
had encouraged their visitors (_honied_ them, _emmieloyent_) with
promises of grain, they put them off by trucking in beaver.[6] Such
witnesses do not amount to much; and, if Mr. Parkman uses the language
of your correspondent in calling these uncertain incidents "the most
shocking barbarities," it might be well wished that so able and
interesting a historian as he, had given the brief narrative itself,
rather than to have derived such a "theory" from its statements. Were
there no "shocking barbarities" elsewhere against the natives?
The first known utterance of this cannon story was made in
Massachusetts, about seventy years after its asserted occurrence.
A few words may be allowed as to the letter in the Appendix, which
comes in for a large share of notice. It is intimated that other
letters were not worthy of preservation. The reason why they were not
printed was because they were notes of courtesy to the Committee, not
needing public expression. Mr. Kidder's letter was thought to have a
historical value, as illustrating the skillful and industrious
abilities of the colonists; and is certainly proved to be of some
importance, or it would not have received so much attention.
The first criticism is verbal, on the non-apparent distinction between
"works" and "formal acts recorded." To us, who have drank water, if
not inspiration, from the still existent Popham well, beneath the
shadow of Sabino Head, it appears that "formal acts recorded," were
the acts of taking possession with chartered rights, placed on the
minutes by "John Scammon, Secretary." The "works" were the daily toils
of the laborers, in trenching, fortifying, building the storehouse and
church and the "pretty pynnace."
We thank your correspondent for presenting the fact of a French vessel
built at Port Royal forty years before any naval architecture was
attempted at Sabino. We have been so much in the habit of thinking of
English colonization, that perhaps we have had too narrow a horizon.
But, better taught, hereafter we will be careful to put the patrial
adjective as the proper predecessor, and say "the _English_ 'pioneer
ship,'" and so again adhere to fact.
As to another "pynnace," built before this one claimed as the first,
we are also glad to be assured of the fact for the first time. We had
supposed that the two mentions, made in the Popham journal as given by
Strachey, related to the one vessel,--in another writer called a
"pretty bark."[7] But, if there were two, so much the better for Mr.
Kidder's illustration touching the skill and energy of the colonists.
Strachey says, they all embarked in the ship that arrived with
supplies from England, "and in the new pynnace, the 'Virginia,' and
set sail for England." This word _all_, used also by Gorges and
Ogilby, and its equivalent by a contemporaneous writer, forbids
utterly the statement of your correspondent, that a considerable
portion of the colonists took the other "pynnace"--which we cannot yet
see was built--to fish, and "lead generally a wild and free life."
It is also intimated that the "Virginia" did not reach England. But
the "Briefe Relation," 1622, gives as much information about its
arrival in England as about the arrival of the ship. A fair hearing of
the old writer is enough to show that both reached the expected haven;
and, doubtless, the first _English_ vessel built in these wild regions
did awaken curiosity in the beholders at home. But this may be
"theory."
As to the improbability of the building of this vessel in the time
allowed, and in the unusually cold winter, with the few men, it is
enough to reply, that the "Briefe Relation" says this: "Having in the
time of their abode there (notwithstanding the coldness of the season,
and the small help they had,) built a pretty bark of their own, which
served them to good purpose, as easing them [_i. e._ in the other
vessel] in their returning."
The application of the term "hangman" is made to the Chief Justice
Popham. But it is not easy to see what connection it has with the
purpose of the colony. If the laws of the land required criminals to
be hung, he cannot be blamed for their administration. Sad indeed will
it be for magistrates, if they are to be thus designated because they
execute the laws. It would not be difficult to place his character
in an honorable light, as he was seen by his contemporaries; and as to
his brother, George Popham, he has been truly styled by the historian
of ancient Pemaquid, the "worthy" President, whom "New England counts
as among the earliest, if not the very first, of her 'illustrious
dead.'"