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
charter was not so bad as to usurp a vacated charter.” The General
Assembly were obliged to be content with this answer, as it contained
much truth, and came from the clergy, whose ambition and power are not
to be trifled with.
Whatever might be the reason of the English Government’s winking at
the contempt shewn to their authority by the people of Connecticut, it
certainly added to their ingratitude and bias to usurpation. Having
been in possession of that country one-hundred and forty years, the
General Assembly, though unsupported either by law or justice,
resolved to take up and settle their lands west not only of Hudson but
Susquehanna river, and extending to the South-Sea. In pursuance of
this resolution, they with modesty passed over New-York, and the
Jerseys, because they are possessed by Mynheers and fighting
christians, and seized on Pensylvania, claimed by Quakers, who fight
not for either wife or daughter. They filled up their fathers
iniquities, by murdering the Quakers and Indians, and taking
possession of their lands; and no doubt, in another century, they will
produce deeds of sale from Sunksquaw, Uncas, or some other
supposititious Sachem. This is a striking instance of the use I have
said the Colony sometimes make of their charter, to countenance and
support their adventurous spirit of enterprize. They plead that their
charter bounds them on the west by the South-Sea; but they seem to
have forgotten that their charter was surreptitiously obtained; and
that the clause on which they dwell is rendered nugatory, by the
petitioners having described their lands as lying upon Connecticut
river, and obtained partly by purchase and partly by conquest. Now, it
being a fact beyond all controversy, that they then had not conquered,
nor even pretended to have purchased, any lands west of
Hudson’s-River, it is evident that their westernmost boundary never
did or ought to extend further than to that river. Not that Mr. Pen
has any just title to those lands on Susquehanna river which are the
bone of contention, and which lie north of his patent: they belong to
the assigns of the Plymouth Company, or to the Crown of England.
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