General History of Connecticut, from Its First Settlement Under George Fenwick to its Latest Period of Amity with Great BritainPeters, Samuel
History
General History of Connecticut, from Its First Settlement Under George Fenwick to its Latest Period of Amity with Great Britain
Peters, Samuel
Connecticut -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775; Connecticut -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783
But it cannot be supposed that Hooker and his associates could derive
any title to the soil, from this permission and commission granted by
the Massachusets colony, who had not the least right to it themselves.
The emigrants not only did not entertain any such idea, but, as soon
as they had discovered a situation that pleased them, they even set at
naught the commission which they took with them, the professed object
of which was to secure the authority and jurisdiction claimed by the
Massachusets colony over them. Knowing that they had passed the limits
of that province, they voted themselves an independent people, and
commenced despots, pleading the old adage, _Salus populi suprema lex_.
It has never been suggested, I believe, that this party entered
Connecticut with any other semblance of authority than this ridiculous
permission and commission of the Massachusets dictators.[11]
As to the third party, headed by Eaton and Davenport, they took
possession, as is already mentioned, without even pretending any
purchase, grant, permission, or commission, from any one. Of these
three parties, then, it appears that the last two had not the least
shadow of original right to the lands they possessed themselves in
Connecticut; and the claims of the first I have shown to be
ill-founded. I will now consider the right they are pretended to have
acquired after possession; in regard to which they seem to have been
put upon the same footing, by a general war between them and the
Indians, occasioned by the ambitious, oppressive, and unjust conduct
of Hooker and Davenport. This war opened a door to king-killing and
king-making, violence, and injustice, in America, similar to what we
have of late years shuddered to hear of in India. Hence the colonies
have endeavored to establish a title to the lands by purchase of the
natives. Accordingly, they have produced deeds of sale signed by
Sunksquaw, Uncas, Joshua, Moodus, and others, whom Mr. Neal and Dr.
Mather call sachems, and consequently owners of the soil. Whether
those gentlemen knew, or did not know, that Connecticut was owned by
these sachems only, who, with their wives and families, were killed by
the English, and who never would give a deed of any land to the Dutch
or English, is not material; since it is a fact that not one of those
Indians who have signed those famous deeds was ever a sachem or a
proprietor of a single foot of land claimed by the colony.
It is true that Uncas (whom Mr. Neal calls a sachem, because the
colonists declared him King of Mohegan, to reward him for deserting
Sassacus, sachem of the Pequods) gave deeds of the land that he had no
right or title to; and so did Sunksquaw, who, after murdering his
sachem Quinnipiog, was also declared sachem by the English
Dominion[12] of Newhaven. Gratitude, or pride, induced all those
English-made sachems to assign deeds to their creators.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account