Our notice of Professor Patterson's Address, in the _Advertiser_ of
the 11th of April, has drawn from "Sabino" an extended reply, which
appeared ten days later. As our object in noticing the Address was not
controversy; and as "Sabino," skirmishing here and there, has made no
effective attack on any historical position taken in the criticism, we
have doubted the propriety of making a rejoinder. The world is not in
haste to become Pophamized. The memories and associations of more than
two centuries, grounded on historic truth, are not to be pushed aside
by the most absurd and baseless theory ever addressed to the human
understanding.
"Sabino" has done us the honor of acknowledging, that we have
contributed to this discussion some historical facts that had not
before fallen under his notice, and he thanks us for the same. The
most courteous acknowledgment we can make is, confessedly, a
rejoinder. We shall therefore examine somewhat minutely several of the
positions taken by our Eastern friend, hoping still to deserve his
kind eulogium, by contributing other facts that may not have come
within his observation.
We feel especially favored in having, as a disputant in this
discussion, no amateur nor journeyman Pophamite; but the
master-workman, the original inventor and patentee, the Magnus Apollo
of the theory; he who compiled the "Memorial Volume;" who arranges
annually those agreeable junketings, in midsummer, at Sabino Head; who
is perpetual manager of the controversy and overseer of the press for
all Popham publications. He kindly informs us (for no one knows so
well as himself) why Mr. Kidder's letter was printed, confirming the
impression expressed in our notice. Every fact and inference, favoring
his side of the question that "Sabino" is not master of, is not worth
knowing.
It is unfortunate that one so profound in Pophamistic lore should not
express his ideas in clear and idiomatic English. Some of his
sentences, after careful study, we confess our inability to
understand; and he often makes use of words out of their ordinary
meaning. For instance, he says, "We who live in the valley of the
Kennebec have always supposed, that faith is belief founded in
evidence; and that all other demands on faith, if answered, are
credulity." How _demands_ on faith can in any event be _credulity_, is
to us as obscure as the metaphysical nomenclature in vogue in the
valley of the Kennebec. Faith is defined by the best lexicographer of
the language as "the assent of the mind to the truth of what is
declared by another, resting on his authority or veracity, without
other evidence." We, at the Bay, accept an older definition, running
after this fashion: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
and the evidence of things not seen." We apprehend that if there is,
in the valley of the Kennebec, any faith in the Popham theory, other
than that held by our clerical friend and his copartners, it is
grounded solely on the assertion of "Sabino & Co.," (the corporate
style of the firm is the _Maine Historical Society_,) as something _to
be hoped for_, but the evidence for which _is not seen_.
"Sabino," on the other hand, objects to our style, as not appropriate
for a grave historical discussion. He is shocked that we should speak
of his theorizing as "historical waggery, which we read, as we do
other fiction, to be amused." Style, after all, is greatly a matter of
taste, for which there is no accounting. We are now, however, to deal
with History; and we promise our friend that our style shall be as
rigid and matter-of-fact as he can desire.
"Sabino" complained that we commented on the Popham theory without
"stating the theory itself." Our notice was written to be read only by
those who are conversant with the historical discussions of the day,
not one of whom, probably, is ignorant of what he and his Society have
been doing and printing for the past four years. He supplied what he
deemed an omission in our notice. We copy his carefully-prepared
statement in full, and insert numerals, for convenience in its
examination:--
"That in 1607 an English colony, under President George
Popham, was founded (1) at the mouth of the Kennebec;--was
inaugurated and continued with the sacred service of the
Christian religion (2);--was in actual possession of the
region afterwards known as New England (3), under a royal
charter never denied nor abrogated (4);--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 (5);--and was followed by a succession of
occupancies, that proved title, as against the former and
never-renewed chums of France" (6).
"These facts," "Sabino" says, "we are ready to take in all their
dimensions." "These facts," we, on the other hand, propose to submit
to a critical examination.
1. Was an English colony _founded_ at the mouth of the Kennebec in
1607? An attempt was made then and there to found such a colony; but
the speedy result of the experiment was a disgraceful failure, and
proved a warning to all future undertakers. This warning comes to us
in the inimitable writings of Lord Bacon. His lordship was personally
conversant with the circumstances; and to him Strachey dedicates his
"Historie of Travaile," which contains the best contemporaneous
account we have of the affair. We quote from the first complete
edition of Lord Bacon's Essays, 1625, p. 199:--
"It is a Shamefull and Vnblessed Thing, to take the Scumme of
People, and Wicked, Condemned Men, to be the People with whom
you Plant: And not only so, but it spoileth the Plantation;
For they will euer liue like Rogues, and not fall to worke,
but be Lazie, and doe Mischief, and spend Victuals, and
quickly weary, and then Certifie ouer to their Country to the
Discredit of the Plantation."
"Sabino" shuns the usual expression "planted" for the more pretentious
"founded," as if the affair was a reality, and had a foundation. A
thing may be planted, and that be the end of it. If the seed be bad,
it rots in the hill. Such was the fact, and fate of the Popham Colony.
2. The religious history of the Popham Colony is the briefest
narrative of the kind on record. All that is known of it may be
comprised in one sentence. A sermon was preached on two occasions; and
some Indians were taken on a Sunday to the "place of public prayer,"
when they listened "with great reverence and silence." This conduct
was highly commendable in the Indians; and, if the colonists, "the
wicked, condemned men," had behaved as well, something, after all,
might have come of the enterprise.
3. How much of "the region afterwards known as New England" was this
Colony "in actual possession of"? A few acres of ground on the
Promontory of Sabino, where they intrenched themselves, and nothing
more! From this narrow foothold they were driven, on one occasion, by
the Indians, who took possession of their Fort, their stock of
provisions and military stores. Not understanding the nature of
gunpowder, the Indians blew themselves up; and the survivors--regarding
the explosion as an expression of disapproval on the part of the Great
Spirit for their rudeness in driving, with arrows and clubs, forty-five
Englishmen out of a Fort that was trenched, and mounted twelve pieces
of ordnance--restored the premises to its gallant defenders, and
proposed henceforth to live on terms of friendship. (See Williamson's
History of Maine, i. p. 200.) Why does "Sabino" limit their possessions
to New England? Why not give them North America, and the whole Western
Continent?
4. The Popham theorists maintain, that King James's North Virginia
Charter of 1606 had some special virtue as a barrier to French
supremacy in New England. Both nations claimed the whole
territory;--the English on the ground of Cabot's discovery, and of
Gilbert's taking formal possession in 1583; and the French on the
ground of prior settlement. The question of supremacy was to be
determined by permanent occupancy, by enterprise, and by valor in
arms; not by royal proclamations and charters. No royal charter to a
trading company could strengthen the title England already possessed
by right of discovery and former occupation. The Plymouth Colony
landed in New England without a charter, and the event will never be
the less significant on that account.
5. The Popham Colony "came to an end within a year, by reason of the
death of its two chief supporters." Did it ever occur to "Sabino,"
that his Colony must have had a very slender _foundation_ to have
fallen in ruins at the death of two, out of a hundred and twenty,
persons engaged in it? The Plymouth Colony lost by death, in four
mouths after the landing, fifty-one out of one hundred and two, and
still the Colony lived. We neither accept nor deny "Sabino's"
statement as to the cause by which _his_ Colony came to its end.
Mourners, in doubtful cases, should be allowed to settle these
questions for themselves. It was a case of complicated diseases, any
one of which would have resulted in dissolution. Sworn testimony and a
coroner's jury would be necessary to determine the approximate cause.
The first question before such a tribunal would be whether the patient
could be said to have ever lived. Waiving this point, we should, if
pressed for a verdict, give--"Died by visitation of the Almighty."
Who were the two persons whose lives were so intimately entwined with
that of the Colony? They were George Popham, who came over as
president, and his brother, Sir John Popham, who never came over--both
very aged persons. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who was "interested in all
these misfortunes," and knew more of the end of the Colony than any
other person whose writings have come down to us, did not regard the
president's death as a matter of importance. He says, his death "was
not so strange, in that he was well stricken in years before he went,
and had long been an infirme man" (Briefe Narration, p. 10). Raleigh
Gilbert, a younger and more energetic man, "a man," says Gorges,
"worthy to be beloved of them all for his industry," was forthwith
appointed president; and the change was rather a benefit, than
otherwise, to the Colony, if anything could benefit what was _in
articulo mortis_.
The death of Sir John Popham was a more serious matter. He was the
head and front of the enterprise; the brother was only his agent. It
was Sir John's Colony. He furnished the bulk of the capital, provided
the colonists, gave his name and his own personal infamy to the
undertaking. Who, then, was Sir John Popham? He was Lord Chief Justice
of England, and was seventy-six years of age. In his youth he had been
a highwayman, and probably a garroter. "He frequently sallied forth at
night from a hostel in Southwark, with a band of desperate characters,
and, planting themselves in ambush on Shooter's Hill, or taking other
positions favorable for attack and escape, they stopped travelers and
took from them not only their money, but any valuable commodities
which they carried with them. The extraordinary and almost incredible
circumstance is, that Popham is supposed to have continued in these
courses after he had been called to the bar, and when, being of mature
age, he was married to a respectable woman." (Lord Campbell's Lives of
the Chief Justices, 1849-57, i. p. 210.) Lord Campbell was not the man
to speak unadvisedly of one who had occupied the highest judicial
office, save one, in England. "Popham's portrait," he says,
"represented him as 'a huge, heavy, ugly man,' and I am afraid he
would not appear to great advantage in a sketch of his moral
qualities, which, lest I should do him injustice I will not
attempt."--Idem, p. 229.
With regard to his law reports, Lord Campbell says "they are
wretchedly ill done, and they are not considered of authority. We
should have been better pleased if he had given us an account of his
exploits when he was chief of a band of freebooters." (p. 229.) "The
reproach urged against him was extreme severity to prisoners. He was
notorious as a 'hanging judge.' Not only was he keen to convict in
cases prosecuted by the government; but in ordinary larcenies, and
above all in highway robberies, there was little chance of an
acquittal before him."--Idem, p. 219.
"He left behind him the greatest estate that had ever been amassed by
any lawyer. Some said as much as £10,000 a year; but it is not
supposed to be all honestly come by; and he is reported even to have
begun to save money when 'the road did him justice.'"--Idem, p. 229.
His other biographers, Fuller, Aubrey, Lloyd, Wood and Foss, paint his
character in similar colors. They allude to, and several of them state
at large, the shocking details of the manner in which he came into
possession of Littlecote Hall, his estate in Wiltshire, by compounding
with felony. Foss, the latest biographer of the Judges of England, who
is disposed to soften the hard places in Popham's record, mentions
this dark story, and says, (vi. pp. 183-84,) "It is extraordinary that
no refutation should have been attempted; for, if any existed, it is
to be presumed that such a writer as Sir Walter Scott, while detailing
the charge [in Rokeby] would have noticed the answer." The "horrible
and mysterious crime" alluded to by Macaulay (Hist. of Eng., ii. p.
542) refers to this affair. Here is the man, who--the Maine Historical
Society would have us believe--planted civilization on this continent.
Let us see how he did it.
His position as Chief Justice gave him a controlling influence in all
the jails and penitentiaries in the realm. Aubrey (Letters, iii. p.
495) says "he stockt or planted [Northern] Virginia out of all the
gaoles of England." Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses (Bliss's ed. ii. p. 22)
says, "he was the first person who invented the plan of sending
convicts to the plantations." The statement should have been limited
to Englishmen; for the French had practised this mode of colonization
many years before. Cartier in 1547, La Roche in 1598, and De Montes in
1604, all used this material for colonists. The permission which the
King of France gave Cartier to ransack the jails of Paris may be found
in Hazard, i. p. 21. Any sort of criminals he could take, except
those convicted of treason, or counterfeiting the King's currency.
Thomas Fuller (Worthies of England, ii. p. 284) says "his [Popham's]
justice was exemplary on Theeves and Robbers." Wood quotes this
passage, adding, "whose wayes and courses he well understood when he
was a young man," and connects it with the fact of his sending
convicts to the plantations. Fuller, in his essay on Plantations, in
"Holy and Profane States," 1642, says: "If the planters be such as
leap thither from the gallows, can any hope for cream out of scum,
when men send, as I may say, Christian savages to heathen savages? It
is rather bitterly than _falsely_ spoken concerning _one_ of our
Western plantations, consisting of most dissolute people, that it was
very like unto England, as being spit out of the very mouth of it."
David Lloyd (State Worthies, 1760, ii. p. 46) gives a sketch of Chief
Justice Popham, in which, quoting the words of Fuller, already cited,
he goes on to say: "neither did he only punish malefactors, but
provide for them. He first set up the discovery of New England to
maintain and employ those that could not live honestly in the Old."
Lloyd also, in this connection, quotes the passage we have cited from
Lord Bacon (p. 23), showing that it was understood by the old English
historians as applying to the Popham Colony.
The authorities seem to be conclusive as to the character of the
colonists sent to Sagadahoc, the person by whom, and the manner in
which, they were "prepared;"--for that is the expression Strachey uses
(p. 163) with regard to these very colonists. Popham had sent out the
year before (1606) a colony of one hundred persons destined to the
same place. The ship was captured by the Spaniards, and the persons
taken to Spain, and "made slaves in their gallions." The loss of the
ship and outfit was suitably lamented; but not one word of sympathy
was expressed by the old writers for the persons enslaved by the
Spaniards; nor did Popham, so far as we know, make any attempt to
rescue them from their hard fate; but he forthwith "prepared a greater
number of planters,"--that is, the one hundred and twenty persons who
afterwards landed at Sabino. If it is pretended that the first company
were honest, worthy men, the assumption carries with it the necessary
inference that Popham was a heartless wretch; but, assuming that they
also were criminals, it was natural that he should leave them to their
fate.
The death of Popham, on the 10th of June, 1607,--only eleven days
after the Popham colonists sailed[8]--was of course fatal to the
original plan of the undertaking. There was no authority left to
"prepare" convicts,--colonists, we mean. A criminal colony needs
constant recuperation. Seventy-five of the hundred and twenty
abandoned the colony before the end of four months. Why they returned
to England on the first opportunity that offered, is not recorded. As
they were the majority, they probably entered into a conspiracy, and
deserted; or they behaved so badly, that the managers were glad to be
rid of them, expecting that the Chief Justice would "prepare" others.
But his Lordship was dead, though they knew it not; and with him died
all hopes of continuing the enterprise. The good ship "Mary and John"
returned in the spring with provisions, but with no recruits; and
wound up the concern, by taking back to England the managers, and such
of the wretched culprits as wished to return.
Perhaps we may as well notice here, as in another place, the only
evidence "Sabino" brings forward to show that the Sagadahoc colonists
were not convicted criminals, only convicted vagabonds and political
offenders. It is this: "Chalmers says there was no transportation of
any class of the guilty till 1619. Therefore there was none to
Sagadahoc." Chalmers, we beg to submit, is not an original authority.
He died only about forty years ago; and our surprise is that
"Sabino" should quote him in the face of the old writers. Chalmers had
no means of information which writers to-day do not possess, and it
seems he did not even use what he had. He was so little acquainted
with the history of the Popham Colony as not to know the name of the
president who died at Sagadahoc. He gives the name of the person as
Gilbert. It is but justice to the name of Chalmers to state that he
made no such statement as "Sabino" attributes to him. He says simply
that the policy of sending convicts to the plantations originated with
King James; and, that in the year 1619, he issued an order to send one
hundred dissolute persons to Virginia. There is not an intimation in
Chalmers that "there was no transportation of any class of the guilty
till 1619."
"Sabino" also finds much consolation "that the law has not been shown
requiring transportation as a punishment for moral guilt during the
time of the incipiency, continuance and end of the Popham Colony."
Will "Sabino" please point out the "law" under which James sent off
one hundred convicts in 1619 that did not exist in 1606? It seems
never to have occurred to "Sabino," that, under the impulse of
avarice, or baser motives, some things can be done without law. There
was no statute of the realm requiring John Popham to commit highway
robbery, yet he did waylay travelers at night, and relieve them of
their purses and other valuables. But there was a law in 1606, (39
Elizabeth, ch. iv.) which, under Popham's construction, was
sufficiently ample to cover his plan of colonization. But we must
return to the examination of "Sabino's" theory.
6. We confess our inability to understand the concluding clause of
"Sabino's" statement. The Popham Colony "was followed by a succession
of occupancies that proved title, &c." What occupancies, pray? There
was no later occupancy of New England till the Pilgrims arrived in
1620. No genuine Pophamite would, for an instant, admit that the
Plymouth Colony had any relation to English supremacy in New England.
"Regarded as a political event the Pilgrim settlement was not of the
slightest consequence or importance." (Mr. John A. Poor's Vindication
of Gorges, p. 72). The next event in New England history was the
occupancy of Massachusetts Bay. He cannot allude to this. "Puritan" is
a more distasteful word to the Maine theorists than "Pilgrim."
Besides, Puritan and Pilgrim have no relation to, or connection with,
Popham. We are evidently drifting away from the true interpretation,
and for the present must remain in blissful ignorance of the full
meaning of this Delphic utterance.
The general intent of "Sabino" is not obscure. He would have his
readers understand that the Popham affair led to something that was
favorable to English supremacy. This we deny, and for proof, again
appeal to the record. Can "Sabino" name one of the Popham men that
ever took part in, or encouraged, any subsequent settlement? Does he
not know that they circulated the most unfavorable reports of the
country, and prevented for many years any attempt to occupy New
England? Judge Sullivan (History of District of Maine, p. 53) says,
"The sufferings of this [Popham] party, and the disagreeable account
which they were obliged to give to excuse their own conduct,
discouraged any further attempts by the English." Brief Relation,
1622, (in Purchas, iv. p. 1826,) says, "The arrival of these [Popham]
people in England was a wonderful discouragement to all the first
undertakers, insomuch as there was no more speech of setting any more
Plantations in those parts for a long time after." Gorges, (Briefe
Narration, p. 10) speaking of the return of the Popham colonists,
says, "by which means all our former hopes were frozen to death."
Among his misfortunes, which he goes on to enumerate,--for he was a
large holder of Popham stock,--was that the country was "wholly given
over by the body of the adventurers, as also that it self was branded
by the returne of the Plantation as being over cold, and in respect to
that, not habitable by our Nation." This statement he must have had
from the principal men of the Colony, avid shows that they were as
destitute of veracity, as the main body of the colonists were wanting
in the cardinal virtues enjoined in the Decalogue. Assuming Strachey's
account to be correct, we know that the winter of 1607-8, on the coast
of Maine, could not have been severe for that locality, whatever the
season was in Europe. After the 15th of December, they finished
trenching the fort, which shows that there was little or no frost in
the ground. The amount of work also performed in the winter would have
been absolutely impossible in a severe season. Gorges thus expressed
his disbelief in the reports he received, as to the severity of the
weather: "I have had too much experience in the World to be frighted
with such a blast."
Sir William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, the patentee of Nova Scotia,
(Description of New England, 1630, p. 30) thus describes what the
Popham Colony did for English supremacy in New England:--
"Those that went thither, being pressed to that enterprize,
as endangered by the Law, or their own necessities, (no
enforced thing prouing pleasant, discontented persons
suffering while they act can seldom haue good successe, and
neuer satisfaction) they after a Winter stay dreaming of new
hopes at home returned backe with the first occasion, and to
iustify the suddennesse of their returne, they did coyne many
excuses, burdening the bounds where they had beene with all
the aspersions that possibly they could deuise, seeking by
that meanes to discourage all others."
"Our people abandoning the plantation," says "Brief Relation,"
(Purchas, iv. p. 1828) "in this sort as you have heard, the Frenchmen
immediately took the opportunity to settle themselves within our
limits." So far, then, from keeping the Frenchmen out, the Colony
invited them in. In the face of such evidence "Sabino" asserts, that
the Popham affair "proved title as against the former and
never-renewed claims of France." Does he mean that the French claims
were never renewed after 1608? Would he wipe out from history the
French and Indian wars, and the bloody strife for supremacy between
the French and English, that went on for a century and a half, and
culminated in the overthrow of French power in 1760?
We have thus with patience, and we trust with candor, examined in
detail "Sabino's" statement of the Popham theory; and, if in our
former article we slighted its historic claims, they have now, we
hope, received due attention.
"Sabino" omitted from his formal statement--but inserted it in another
part of his paper--the claim which Popham writers usually bring into
the foreground, namely, that the Popham Colony was "the _first_
colonial occupation of the soil of New England under English
enterprise." What rank will he assign to Bartholomew Gosnold's
occupation of Cuttyhunk, on the south shore of Massachusetts, in 1602?
Gosnold there and then made a settlement, which he intended to be
permanent. He and his men built a fort and a storehouse, and collected
a valuable freight to send home to England. The cellar walls of the
house they occupied can be identified at the present day. They planted
wheat, barley and oats. "Here," says Bancroft, (i. p. 112,) "the
foundations of the first New England colony were to be laid." We do
not claim that Gosnold founded a colony. He attempted it, and failed;
but he did all that the Popham people did, and even more. He made
American colonization an honorable enterprise, and showed that it
could be made profitable. Gosnold's men were not convicts. They each
had a share in the undertaking; and jealousy as to the distribution of
their gains led to the return of the whole company to England. The
sale of their freight made it a profitable adventure. They spread the
most favorable reports of the regions they had visited, and brought
the best evidence that it was a country worth possessing. The Popham
men, on the other hand, returned to England in penury and disgrace,
"burdening the bounds where they had beene with all the aspersions
that possibly they could deuise, seeking by that meanes to discourage
all others." The death of Queen Elizabeth prevented Gosnold's return
to the Elizabeth Islands; but his representations and cheerful energy
awakened an interest in America that resulted in the Charter of 1606,
under which the Northern and Southern Virginia settlements were
projected. When we compare what Gosnold and his men did in 1602, with
what Popham and his felons did in 1607, it requires a degree of
audacity rising to sublimity to assert, that "the Popham Colony was
the _first_ colonial occupation of the soil of New England under
English enterprise."
Ex-Governor Washburn, of Cambridge, in a speech he made at the first
Popham Celebration in 1862, suggested that if they would set up the
claim that Noah's Ark landed on one of the adjacent hills, and arrange
a Celebration in honor of the event, he would volunteer to come and
take part in it, without doubting it was true (Pop. Mem., p. 157). The
suggestion is worthy of the serious consideration of the Pophamites.
The historical difficulties in the way are but mole-hills compared
with the Alpine absurdities of their present theory. Noah's Ark was an
important fact in the history of the human race. Noah and his family
were respectable persons. The only circumstance we know, to the
discredit of the old patriarch, is excusable on the ground that there
was then no "Maine Law," or even a "judicious license system." The
prejudice attached to the descendants of one of his sons, has been
neutralized by the Emancipation Proclamation, and the passage of the
Civil Rights Bill over the head of President Johnson. The coast is now
clear for Noah's Ark. Let the Celebration come off by all means. Why
is it more unreasonable to suppose that the Eastern Continent was
settled from the Western, than _vice versa_? Much as we hate
celebrations of all kinds, we also volunteer; and, if we cannot
attend, we promise to write a letter, developing still further the
theory; and "Sabino" shall have full permission to print it as an
Appendix to the public address.
"Sabino" is evidently in trouble about the "cannon story," and well he
may be. He says "Williamson is inclined to discredit it." Williamson
has this inclination, not on the ground of lack of evidence that it
occurred; but on the ground of its shocking inhumanity, and the
discredit it throws upon the colonists. We are inclined to discredit
it, because of the disgrace it casts upon the human race. But the ugly
fact still remains (to use Williamson's words) that it was "believed
to be true by the ancient and well-informed inhabitants on the
Sagadahoc." Again "Sabino" would have us believe, that, whereas the
Indians, several years later, told the Jesuit missionaries some of the
outrages they had suffered from the Popham colonists, and did not tell
them this, therefore the story was invented in Massachusetts, seventy
years after it was alleged to have happened. The Jesuits, in their
Relations, were describing the friendly feelings of the Indians
towards themselves. They doubtless heard, with the other cruelties
mentioned, the cannon story; but they rightly judged, that, while it
would not contribute to the point they were illustrating, it would
appear to readers so inhuman, and hence so improbable, as to weaken
the credibility of their other statements. Besides, "Sabino's"
argument founded on an omission, if it proves anything, proves too
much for him. It proves that not one of the many propositions set up
by the Pophamites are true, for not one of them is mentioned in the
Jesuit Relations. The insinuation that the cannon story originated in
Massachusetts, is a curious and comical blunder. The District of
Maine, Fort Popham included, was at the date specified a part of
Massachusetts. "Sabino" sees this footnote in Williamson: "Supplement
to King Philip's Wars, A. D., 1675, p. 75," and he supposes that 1675
was the date the statement was published, whereas it was the date when
King Philip's War commenced. The book was not printed till 1716. He
does not inform us how "the ancient and well-informed inhabitants on
the Sagadahoc" could have been misled by a statement invented in
Massachusetts in 1716.
"Sabino" firmly holds, with Mr. Kidder, that the vessel of thirty
tons, built at Sagadahoc, made a voyage across the ocean. "Brief
Relation, 1622," he says, "gives us much information about its arrival
in England as about the arrival of the ship." But "Brief Relation"
says nothing about the arrival of either vessel. It records simply,
"the arrival of _these people_ here in England was a wonderful
discouragement," etc. The leaders, and the main body of these people,
we believe, returned safely to England in the "Mary and John;" and
this is sufficient to fulfil all the conditions of the narrative in
"Briefe Narration," Strachey and the other old chroniclers. "Sabino,"
however, is ambitious that all (including those who left in the
"pretty pynnace") should arrive in England, and show up the new craft.
He says, "This word _all_ used by Gorges and Ogilby utterly forbids
the statement of your correspondent." Gorges's _all_ has no reference
to the arrival in England. His words are, "all resolved to quit the
place (Sagadahoc) and with one consent to away." That "Sabino" should
quote Ogilby as an authority, indicates an unfamiliarity in the
authentic sources of New England history which we regret to see. Mr.
John A. Poor (Popham Memorial, p. 73) says: "It is well known that the
Popham Colony, _or a portion of them_, returned to England in 1608."
It strengthens Mr. Poor's argument on the importance of the Colony in
maintaining English supremacy, to claim that a portion of the
colonists remained in the country. We have quoted the opinion of our
esteemed Portland friend for "Sabino's" benefit; and not because it
carries additional conviction to our mind. One who writes after this
fashion: "They finished their vessel of fifty (?) tons in the winter
and spring, called the Virginia, of Sagadahoc, in which they returned
to England,"--thus adding twenty tons to the size of the vessel, and
crowding all into the "pretty pynnace," leaving the "Mary and John" to
return in ballast,--is not amenable to the common code of literary and
historical criticism.
The Popham Colony, in fine, was a scandalous and complete failure. The
thing, as an historical event, was dead and buried. The grass, for
more than two centuries and a half, had kindly grown over it,
obliterating even from the memory of man the spot where those
disgraceful scenes were enacted. In the year 1849, the Hakluyt Society
of London printed Strachey's narration, and furnished a clew to the
burial place. Nothing would satisfy a few excellent people in Maine
but to dig up the sickening remains, and flaunt them under the
nostrils of the community. Here was an offense against decency and
sanitary regulations, indictable at common law. In cholera times the
proceeding is insufferable.
No one imagines that the Popham investigators commenced operations
with any other than the amiable motive of contributing to the historic
glories of their native State. But they knew not for what they were
digging. Their first mistake was, that, when they came to the putrid
mass, they did not carefully replace the sod, and say nothing about
it. Instead of this, every man shouted "Eureka!" They arranged a
monster gathering, and invited all creation to celebrate with them the
Two-hundred and Fiftieth Popham Anniversary. People came from the ends
of the earth; enjoyed a generous Eastern hospitality; "drank water, if
not inspiration, out of the existent Popham well" (Query--Is "Sabino"
quite sure that the inspiration came from the _well_?), believed as
much as they could, and had a good time generally. Perhaps history
manufactured in this way will stand; but we think not.
Because historical writers have presumed to examine and question their
theory, they have grown sullen and morose. They abuse Massachusetts;
they spit at Plymouth Rock; they berate the Puritans; they eulogize
Sir John Popham; and they sigh for a system of mediæval barbarism
which Popham and Gorges could not plant on New England soil, because
God, in his mercy to the human race, had decreed otherwise.
The true historic glory of the noble State of Maine seems to have been
lost sight of, in the antiquarian researches of her zealous
sons,--which is, that the State sprang from the loins of
Massachusetts. To this fact, the State to-day is indebted for every
one of those distinctive elements of general intelligence, enterprise
and thrift that make her what she is,--a New England State, instead of
a feudal Virginia or a South Carolina. The Massachusetts Puritans came
in early, and took possession of the land, under a technical
construction they gave to their own charter, organized municipalities,
set up their churches and schools, and put down with a strong hand all
opposition to their authority. The historian of New Hampshire has
given a faithful picture of the social condition of the Gorges
plantation on the Agamenticus (York) River, when the Puritans
commenced their missionary operations.
"The people were without order or morals, and it is said of
some of them, that they had as many shares in a woman, as
they had in a fishing-boat.... No provision was made for
public institutions, schools were unknown, and they had no
ministers, till, in pity of their deplorable state, two went
thither from Boston on a voluntary mission." Belknap's
American Biography, i. p. 387-8. See also Hutchinson's
Collections, p. 424.
The appearance of the Puritans among them did not to the Gorges men
seem joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yielded the
peaceable fruit of civilization and godliness unto them who were
exercised thereby. The territory was thus saved from the ethics of
Popham, the prelacy of Laud and the Stuarts, and the barbarism of a
colony of outlaws. The civilization of the District of Maine, during
the colonial period, was as essentially Puritan, as that of
Massachusetts Bay; and the District was represented in the General
Court at Boston, from the year 1653. This close political and social
union continued till the admission of the State into the Union in
1820.
It is the privilege, therefore, of the historical writers of Maine, to
turn from the unpleasant topic that of late has engaged their
attention, to the more congenial theme we have suggested. Let them,
with filial affection, recount the virtues and deeds of their Puritan
ancestors; and, if they must have an event to celebrate, let it be the
landing on Plymouth Rock in 1620, or the arrival of Winthrop and the
Charter in 1630,--events which are theirs to celebrate, as well as
ours.