[3] Briefe Narration, Chap. ii.
[4] Hist. U. S., Vol. ii. p. 191.--Ed. 1837.
[5] Political Annals, p. 46.
[6] Fuller information, gained from the military letters of Biard and
Masse, shows that the treatment referred to was connected with an
occupation of the same location, by the English, in the year _after_
the Popham Colony had departed.--_Reports, edited by Carayon._
[7] Briefe Relation.
[_Portland Advertiser, April 26, 1866._]
"THE LAST POPHAM ADDRESS."
Under the above caption there was printed in the _Boston Daily
Advertiser_ of the 11th instant, over the signature of "P.," what
purports to be a review of Prof. Patterson's Address at the
Celebration of the two hundred and fifty-eighth Anniversary of the
Planting of the Popham Colony, at Sagadahoc.
At the first reading of this somewhat curious review, I supposed the
writer had intended to throw ridicule on the Popham celebrations, and
all concerned in them; but, on a closer perusal, I concluded that he
has, to the extent of his abilities, really undertaken to overthrow
the whole history of that settlement, and all that has been written
about them, by the force of his arguments.
He commences his theme by ridiculing the "Popham Memorial," the
"Vindication of Gorges," and some other publications; but without
attempting to reply to any part of them. He next goes on to tell us
that Mr. Patterson is a scholar, has been a Professor at Dartmouth
College, and is now a Member of Congress; and then commences his
onslaught by stating, that on that spot (Sabino) a colony of convicted
criminals landed in 1607, more than half of whom deserted the next
December, and the remainder left the next spring, after committing the
most shocking barbarities on the Indians; and refers to Williamson's
History of Maine, and Parkman's Pioneers,--neither of which
authorities justify any such statement; and, although trying to
ridicule some of Professor Patterson's sentiments, charges him with
branching off into a subject that has no relation to the question at
all.
Leaving the thirty odd pages of the Address without any remarks, he
attacks a letter, written as a reply to an invitation to be present on
that occasion, in which the writer notices the building of a ship by
the colonists, as a fact of some importance, which, all the writers on
that expedition say, took part of the colonists to England. But let us
follow him through his many wild and unsupported assertions relating
to that vessel. And here it may be proper to say, that the letter does
not endorse the authors of the Popham Memorial, or any part of their
theory, but at the outset expresses a dissent to many of the claims
made by those writers, and refers almost entirely to the ship and its
history. This reviewer, after some grand denunciations, finally
concentrates his arguments into three stately propositions.
First, that the vessel never was built, because there was not time,
and also that there was not over ten carpenters, or forty persons, in
all the colony to do it,--while we know that since that day vessels of
five times her size have been built with half that force, and in much
less time, in that immediate vicinity. Second, that there was no need
of a vessel; and third, that she was built of green pine, and no one
would wish himself in her; and so the idea that she made the voyage is
absurd. Now this is exactly the famous kettle argument over again,
with results just as conclusive.
In reply to these three formal propositions, it is only necessary to
say, that the fact of the building of the vessel rests on as good
authority as any historical statement relating to that colony; that
there were sufficient men and full time to do it in; and that there
can be no doubt it was intended to build a ship when the expedition
left England, from the fact that they brought out a master
ship-builder and workmen. That she was built of "green pine" is an
assumption very improbable, when we know that the growth along that
shore was mainly hardwood, while pine predominates in the interior.
But his most severe tirades are poured out upon the poor colonists,
calling them felons, knaves, cowards, and almost exhausting the
vocabulary of Billingsgate. To this I will not attempt to reply, but
merely remark, that his language, style and logic, is as far removed
from the "pure well of English undefiled" as a _pool_ of stagnant
water is from a perennial fountain.
A passing reader of his famous review would be at a loss to understand
why this terrible onset is made on this small pamphlet,--nine-tenths
of which he says does not refer to the Popham subject at all,--as
though he expected to conquer them, Chinese-like, by only making a
great noise. But a friend at my elbow says that this is a broadside in
advance, or, rather, the fire of his skirmish line, and only
preparatory to the advance of his big guns, which are to come in the
shape of a preface to a reprint, in which he intended to entirely
annihilate the Pophams, the Gorges, all their followers and
biographers, great and small, rich and poor, so completely that our
histories will have to be rewritten, and these old names that have
been so prominent in our early annals obliterated entirely; and
finally to destroy the granite walls of Fort Popham, memorial stone
and all, and by further displays of his cut-and-thrust logic prove
conclusively that it is all a myth, and nothing of the kind ever
existed. _Nous verrons._