Governor William Sprague mustered troops with great energy. After the
famous Massachusetts 6th, the Rhode Island 1st Militia with its 1st
Battery were the first reinforcements which arrived at Washington. In
field artillery, our volunteers were especially proficient.
The growth of the population of Providence is shown in the following
table:
1708 1,446
1730 3,916
1774 4,321
1800 7,614
1810 10,071
1820 11,745
1830 16,836
1840 23,172
1850 41,513
1860 50,666
1870 68,904
1880 104,857
1885 118,070
1895 145,472
We could not notice all parts of Providence in this cursory survey.
Small as well as large implements of iron, jewelry and silver, the
invention and immense production of wood-screws, india-rubber,
worsted,--all these complicated industries have built up an extending
and encroaching city, until now three hundred thousand people dwell
within a radius of ten miles from our City Hall.
Old Providence, the home of Williams and the Quakers, is fading away.
The “Towne Streete,” its meandering curves gradually straightening, will
hardly be recognized a century hence. The Mowry house, the homes of
Stephen and Esek Hopkins, are small, when compared with the mansions of
John Brown, Thomas P. Ives, Sullivan Dorr and Edward Carrington; while
the solid comfort prevailing in the eighteenth century, as embodied in
these houses, is surpassed, though it may not be bettered, by the more
pretentious domestic architecture of our day. The Independent worshipers
in the First Baptist and First Congregational churches would feel
strange under the domes of the beautiful Central Congregational. The
Anglicans of the first St. John’s would be bewildered by the pointed
arches of St. Stephen’s. The few Catholic immigrants, bringing the Host
across the seas with tender care, and resting at St. Peter and St.
Paul’s, would be amazed by the swarm of
[Illustration: THE CAPITOL.]
well-to-do citizens clustering beneath the massive towers of the
Cathedral.
The industrial and economic evolution is fully as great as the æsthetic
and architectural. The crazy little organism of Almy, Brown and Slater
is replaced by the long, whirling shafts, the spindled acres of the
Goddards’ Ann and Hope Mill at Lonsdale. The homely security of the
market house (present Board of Trade), the Providence Bank and the
“Arcade” is overshadowed by the City Hall, the Rhode Island Hospital and
Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company. University Hall burgeons into the
fair arches of Sayles Hall. No medieval builder worked more reverently
than Alpheus C. Morse, as he devotedly wrought at his task, getting the
best lines into stone and lime.
Not always does the work of the modern builders tend toward beauty. The
masterly brick arcades of Thomas A. Teft kept the city’s approaches for
a half-century. Swept away by the more convenient passenger station of
the New York and New Haven Railway, they will leave behind many regrets.
The magnificent marble State House will lift the observer away from and
above all the buildings below.
The growth of Providence runs even with the State’s, except in the
excrescent luxury of Newport in its summer bloom. We cannot stand still
like Holland; we must look outward or decay. The American destiny is
reaching out, notwithstanding the caution of the prudent, perhaps of the
judicious. The mystic Orient, no longer mysterious, beckons from the
West instead of the East. It led the Browns, Iveses, Carringtons,
Maurans, and their captains, the Holdens, Ormsbees, Paiges and
Comstocks, to opulence. Their descendants, with more abundant capital,
ready skill and better organization, ought not to lag in the world’s
march. Men must be forthcoming.
There has been always a cosmopolitan flavor in the little State,
isolated between the restless intellectual energy of Massachusetts and
the steady Puritan development of Connecticut. Boston had more trade
than Providence and Newport; she was not so truly commercial. The larger
Franklin went over to Pennsylvania, but the next man, Stephen Hopkins,
stayed in Rhode Island. The seed which Berkeley planted sprouted in
Channing, and that influence went throughout New England. The little
State has never been without ideas.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
HARTFORD
“THE BIRTHPLACE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY”
BY MARY K. TALCOTT
Among the historic cities of New England, Hartford claims a foremost
place. Not only was its settlement of great consequence at the time, but
for historical importance and far-reaching results this colony’s claims
to attention are second only to those of Plymouth and Boston. The
foundation of Hartford was a further application and development of the
ideas that brought the Puritans to this country, and, to quote the
historian, Johnston,--
“Here is the first practical assertion of the right of the people,
not only to choose, but to limit the powers of their rulers, an
assertion which lies at the foundation of the American system....
It is on the banks of the Connecticut, under the mighty preaching
of Thomas Hooker, and in the constitution to which he gave life, if
not form, that we draw the first breath of that atmosphere which
is now so familiar to us. The birthplace of American democracy is
Hartford.”
This constitution, first promulgated in Hartford, was the first written
constitution in history which was adopted by a people and which also
organized a government. John Fiske says:
“The compact drawn up in the Mayflower’s cabin was not, in the
strict sense, a constitution, which is a document defining and
limiting the functions of government. Magna Charta partook of the
nature of a written constitution as far as it went, but it did not
create a government.”
On the 14th of January, 1639, the freemen of the three towns, Windsor,
Hartford, and Wethersfield, assembled at Hartford, and drew up a
constitution, consisting of eleven articles, which they called the
“Fundamental Orders of Connecticut,” and under this law the people of
Connecticut lived for nearly two centuries, as the Charter granted by
King Charles II., in 1662, was simply a royal recognition of the
government actually in operation. Another writer says:
“We honor the limitations of despotism which are written in the
twelve tables; the repression of monarchical power in Magna Charta,
in the Bill of Rights, and
[Illustration: MAIN STREET.]
in that whole undefinable creation, as invisible and intangible as
the atmosphere but like it full of oxygen and electricity, which we
call the British Constitution. But in our Connecticut Constitution
we find no limitation upon monarchy, for monarchy is unrecognized;
the limitations are upon the legislature, the courts, and
executive. It is pure democracy acting through representation, and
imposing organic limitations. Even the suffrage qualification of
church membership, which was required by our older sister Colony of
Massachusetts, was omitted. Here in a New England wilderness a few
pilgrims of the pilgrims, alive to the inspirations of the common
law and of the British Constitution, so full of Christianity that
they felt the great throb of its heart of human brotherhood, and so
full of Judaism that they believed themselves in some special sense
the people of God, made a written constitution, to be a supreme and
organic law for their State.”
But for the immediate inspiration of this document we must look to a
“lecture,” preached by Mr. Hooker on Thursday, May 21, 1638, before the
legislative body of freemen. Dr. Bacon says of it:
“That sermon, by Thomas Hooker, is the earliest known suggestion of
a fundamental law, enacted, not by royal charter nor by concession
from any previously existing government, but by the people
themselves,--a primary and supreme law by which the government is
constituted, and which not only provides for the free choice of
magistrates by the people, but also sets the bounds and limitations
of the power and place to which each magistrate is called.”
But we must know something of a people to whom such doctrines were
preached--of a people capable of receiving and applying such truths. It
is said that three kingdoms were sifted to furnish the men who settled
New England, and it may also be said that the Massachusetts Colony was
sifted to supply the Connecticut settlers. Three of the eight
Massachusetts towns, Dorchester, Watertown, and Newtown (now Cambridge),
were not in full agreement with the other five, especially on the
fundamental feature of the Massachusetts polity, the limitation of
office-holding and the voting privilege to church-members. At first the
majority were unwilling to grant the minority “liberty to remove.” John
Haynes was made Governor of Massachusetts in 1635, probably with the
hope of retaining his friends in the Colony. But their desire to leave
was too strong; small parties of emigrants made their way to the banks
of the Connecticut during the year 1635, but the main body of the
colonists did not leave until the spring of 1636. Dr. Benjamin Trumbull,
the first historian of Connecticut, writing more than one hundred years
ago, says:
“About the beginning of June Mr. Hooker, Mr. Stone, and about a
hundred men, women, and children took their departure from
Cambridge, and travelled more than a hundred miles thro’ a hideous
and trackless wilderness to Hartford. They had no guide but their
compass; made their way over mountains, thro’ swamps, thickets, and
rivers, which were not passable but with great difficulty. They had
no cover but the heavens, nor any lodgings but those which simple
nature afforded them. They drove with them a hundred and sixty head
of cattle, and by the way subsisted on the milk of their cows. Mrs.
Hooker was borne through the wilderness upon a litter. The people
generally carried their packs, arms, and some utensils. They were
nearly a fortnight on their journey.”
Trumbull adds: “This adventure was the more remarkable, as many of this
company were persons of figure, who had lived in England in honor,
affluence, and delicacy, and were entire strangers to fatigue and
danger.” When dismissing these colonists Massachusetts sent with them a
governing committee, or commissioners, as they were called. At a meeting
of these commissioners, held February 21, 1637, the plantation, which
had been called Newtown, was named Hartford. As Governor
[Illustration: OLD CENTER BURYING-GROUND.]
Haynes was born in the immediate vicinity of the English Hertford, he
probably had much influence in naming the new plantation. On the 11th of
April, 1639, the first general meeting of the freemen under the
constitution was held, and John Haynes was elected the first Governor of
Connecticut. This selection shows his active sympathy and co-operation
with Hooker, and we can entirely agree with Bancroft, when he says:
“They who judge of men by their services to the human race will never
cease to honor the memory of Hooker, and of Haynes.”
But the soil of Hartford has had other occupants; not only the
aboriginal owners of the soil, for when the English came they found a
Dutch trading-post established on what is yet known as Dutch Point. The
English claimed the territory now comprehended in the State of
Connecticut by virtue of the discoveries of John and Sebastian Cabot in
1497, and more especially in 1498. This territory was included in the
grant to the Plymouth Company in 1606, but that organization undertook
no work of colonization. When the settlers of 1635 came they took
possession of this portion of the valley of the Connecticut under the
English flag, and claimed the territory by virtue of patents from the
English crown. They paid Sequassen, the Indian chief, who ruled the
river Indians, for his lands, and when the Pequots, his over-lords,
disputed Sequassen’s right to sell, the colonists attacked them, and
practically exterminated the tribe. The Dutch settlement originated from
discoveries by Adrian Block, who sailed through the Sound in 1614, and
up the Connecticut, or Fresh River, as he called it, in his sloop, _The
Unrest_, as far as the falls, and upon his report to the States-general,
a company was formed for trading in the New Netherlands. Only limited
privileges were granted to this company, and it was afterwards
superseded by the Dutch West India Company, to whom the exclusive
governmental and commercial rights for the territory were granted. The
Dutch were influenced much more by the desire for a lucrative trade with
the natives than by any wish to found a colony, and in 1633 they built a
fort on the spot still called Dutch Point, in Hartford, for the purpose
of protecting their traffic with the Indians, which they had been
carrying on for some ten years. This fort was known as the House of
Hope, and when the English came they settled all about it, but did not
interfere with the Dutch occupation. Naturally, there was friction
between the two nationalities, and petty trespasses of various kinds
were charged by both parties. Finally, after repeated complaints, the
Commissioners of the United Colonies, Massachusetts, Plymouth,
Connecticut, and New Haven, met at Hartford, September 11, 1650, with
Peter Stuyvesant, Director of the New Netherlands, to consult upon the
proper boundaries of the Dutch jurisdiction. The matter was referred to
arbitrators, and resulted in a transfer to the English of all the
territory lying west of the Connecticut except the land in Hartford
actually occupied by the Dutch, the New Netherlands taking the country
east of the river. But this arrangement did not last long, as, in 1653,
war was declared between England and Holland, and the colonies were
required by Parliament to treat the Dutch as the declared enemies of the
Commonwealth of England. Trumbull says:
“In conformity to this order the General Court was convened, and an
act passed sequestering the Dutch house, lands, and property of all
kinds at Hartford, for the benefit of the Commonwealth; and the
Court also prohibited all persons, whatsoever, from improving the
premises by virtue of any former claim or title had, made, or
given, by any of the Dutch nation, or any other person, without
their approbation.”
Even after this change of rulers a few of the Dutch traders remained in
Hartford, as is shown by references to them on the records, but they all
finally returned to the New Netherlands.
During the next thirty years the little settlement on the banks of the
Connecticut continued to grow and prosper, having very little to do with
the affairs of the outside world. In 1675 and 1676, King Philip’s War
caused great alarm and anxiety for a time, but after this conflict was
concluded by the subjugation of the Indians, peace and quietness again
reigned. Soon after the accession of James II., in 1685, this quiet was
however rudely disturbed by the issue of a writ of _quo warranto_
against the Governor and Company of Connecticut, summoning them to
appear before his Majesty, and show by what warrant they exercised
certain powers. In reply, the Colony pleaded the Charter, granted by the
King’s royal brother, made strong professions of their loyalty, and
begged a continuance of their privileges. Two more writs of _quo
warranto_ were issued against Connecticut, but she still refused to
surrender her Charter, and re-elected Robert Treat as Governor. The
Charter of Massachusetts had been vacated, and Chalmers, in his _History
of the American Colonies_, says that “Rhode Island and Connecticut were
two little republics embosomed in a great empire.” Rhode Island,
however, submitted to his Majesty, so Connecticut stood alone in
refusing to surrender her Charter. In the latter part of 1686, Sir
Edmund Andros arrived in Boston, bearing his royal commission as
Governor of New England. After some correspondence with Governor Treat,
who still stood firm, he left Boston for Hartford, with several members
of his Council and a small troop of horse. When he arrived in Hartford,
October 31, 1687, he was escorted by the Hartford County Troop, and met
with great courtesy by the Governor and his assistants. Sir Edmund was
conducted to the Governor’s seat in the council chamber, and at once
demanded the Charter. Trumbull says:
“The tradition is that Governor Treat strongly represented the
great expense and hardships of the colonists in planting the
country, the blood and treasure which they had expended in
defending it, both against the savages and foreigners; to what
hardships and dangers he himself had been exposed for that purpose;
and that it was like giving up his life now to surrender the patent
and privileges so dearly bought, and so long enjoyed. The important
affair was debated and kept in suspense until the evening, when the
Charter was brought and laid upon the table, where the Assembly
were sitting. By this time great numbers of people were assembled,
and men sufficiently bold to enterprise whatever might be
necessary, or expedient. The lights were instantly extinguished,
and one Captain Wadsworth, of Hartford, in the most silent and
secret manner carried off the Charter, and secreted it in a large
hollow tree, fronting the house of the Honorable Samuel Wyllys,
then one of the Magistrates of the Colony. The people appeared all
peaceable and orderly. The candles were officiously relighted, but
the patent was gone, and no discovery could be made of it, or of
the person who had conveyed it away.”
Sir Edmund was disconcerted, but declared the government of the colony
to be in his own hands, annexed Connecticut to Massachusetts and the
other New England colonies, appointed officers, and returned to Boston.
After the downfall of Andros, in 1689, Governor Treat resumed his
position as Governor of Connecticut, and the Charter reappeared from its
seclusion, and continued to be the organic law of Connecticut, although
in Parliament, during the remainder of the colonial period, various
attempts were made to have it abrogated. But the Charter Oak, where
tradition declared that the document was concealed, continued to be a
sacred and venerated object until its fall, August 21, 1856.
[Illustration: THE CHARTER OAK.]
A people that have no history are the happiest, therefore we may assume
that Hartford was a happy and flourishing town during the remainder of
the colonial period, and even during the Revolution there is but little
to tell of Hartford. Its situation, so far removed from the seacoast,
secured it from the attacks of the British troops, and it was for that
very reason a safe and desirable place for the meetings of Generals
Washington and Rochambeau, when they wished to arrange the plans for the
campaigns that ended with the surrender of Yorktown. The first of these
historic meetings took place September 17, 1780. Rochambeau came from
Newport through Eastern Connecticut, and Washington rode from New
Windsor on the Hudson with a guard of twenty-two dragoons. The meeting
took place in the public square on the site of the present post-office,
and as the two tall, fine-looking commanders-in-chief approached each
other bowing, an eye-witness said that it was like the meeting of two
nations. The following year another meeting took place at Wethersfield.
During the colonial period there was very little literary production in
America, except sermons and theological treatises, and Hartford was no
exception to this rule. Her first author was one of her founders, the
Rev. Thomas Hooker, “The Light of the Western Churches.” His writings
consisted exclusively of sermons. They were first published in London,
and but few have been reprinted in this country. No preacher of great
reputation succeeded him, nor any writers whatever. But during the
Revolution a star arose on the horizon,--_McFingal_. The first part of
the poem appeared as independent verses in the _Connecticut Courant_ in
1775. General Gage had issued a fierce proclamation, threatening to
exempt from general pardon some of the Continental leaders, and
Trumbull’s poem burlesqued the manifesto. It was at once reproduced in
the Philadelphia papers, and undoubtedly did a very important work in
stimulating the thought and passion of the American Revolution. About
1782 the whole work was published by Messrs. Hudson & Goodwin, “near the
Great Bridge, Hartford.” Tradition states that the scene of the “Town
Meeting” refers to the old South Church in this city. Nathaniel Patten,
an enterprising, and not over-scrupulous printer in Hartford, issued a
second edition of _McFingal_, without the author’s consent, and it is an
interesting fact that out of this piracy of Trumbull’s work here in
Hartford grew the national copyright law. Trumbull and Noah Webster
both exerted themselves strenuously in favor of such a law, and, in
1783, the General Assembly of Connecticut passed an “Act for the
Encouragement of Literature and Genius,” which secured to authors their
copyright within the State. The personal exertions of Noah Webster in
defense of his spelling-book led to the passage of similar laws by the
legislatures of other States, and finally to the passage of a general
law by Congress, modelled on the Connecticut act of 1783. All the
literature of that period in America bears the impress of the golden age
of Queen Anne, the _Spectator_ and the _Tatler_, Addison and Steele; and
_McFingal_ reminds the reader now of _Hudibras_, now of the _Dunciad_.
John Trumbull was born in Watertown, Connecticut, then Westbury, April
24, 1750. Both on his father’s side and his mother’s he was of the pure
Brahmin stock of New England, and through his mother he was related to
Jonathan Edwards, Timothy Dwight, his fellow-poet, and many other
writers of a later time. He exhibited marvellous precocity, and, his
father being engaged in preparing a youth of seventeen for examination
at Yale, the boy of seven was so eager to join in the elder youth’s
studies that his father allowed him to go through the same course of
Greek, Latin, and Mathematics. Both the lads passed, and were admitted
members of the college, but the boy of seven was not allowed to proceed
with his college course until he was older. He early began writing
essays of a satirical nature, and while a tutor at his Alma Mater he
wrote _The Progress of Dulness_, a keen and stinging satire on
contemporary life. It also shows, like _McFingal_, the technical
precision of the literary artist. The year 1774 Trumbull, spent in the
law-office of John Adams, in Boston, then returned to New Haven, and in
1781 took up his residence in Hartford, where he remained until 1825,
when he went to Detroit to live with a married daughter, and died there
in 1831. In his later life he gave up literature for the law, and was at
different times State Attorney for Hartford County, Representative to
the State Legislature, Judge of the Superior Court (1801-1819), and
Judge of the Supreme Court of Errors (1808-1819).