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
It was insisted that New Haven had been owned as a distinct
government, not only by her sister colonies, by Parliament,
and the Protector, during their administration, but by his
Majesty, King Charles II.; that it was against the express
articles of confederation, by which Connecticut was no less
bound than the other colonies; that New Haven had never been
notified of any design as to their incorporation with
Connecticut, and that they had never been heard on the
subject. It was further urged that, had it been designed to
unite them with Connecticut, some of their names, at least,
would have been put into the patent, with the other
patentees; but none of them were there. Hence it was
maintained that it never could have been the design of his
Majesty to comprehend them within the limits of the Charter.
It was argued, that for them to consent to a union would be
inconsistent with their oath to maintain that Commonwealth,
with all its privileges, civil and religious. It was also
urged that it would be incompatible both with their honor
and most essential interests.
After the affair had been fully debated, the freemen
resolved that an answer to Connecticut should be drawn up
under the following heads:
I. “Bearing a proper testimony against the great sin of
Connecticut in acting so contrary to righteousness, amity,
and peace.
II. “Desiring that all future proceedings relative to the
affair might be suspended until Mr. Winthrop should
return, or they might otherwise obtain further information
and satisfaction.
III. “To represent that they could do nothing in the
affair until they had consulted the other confederates.”
The magistrates and elders, with Mr. Law, of Stamford, were
appointed a committee, and drew up a long letter in reply to
the General Assembly of Connecticut, stating that they did
not find any command in the patent to dissolve covenants and
alter orderly settlements of New England, nor a prohibition
against their continuance as a distinct government. They
represented that the conduct of Connecticut, in acting at
first without them, confirmed them in those sentiments; and
that the way was still open for them to petition his
Majesty, and obtain immunities similar to those of
Connecticut. They declared that they must enter their appeal
from the construction which Connecticut put upon the patent,
and desired that they might not be interrupted in the
enjoyment of their distinct privileges.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account