Skip to content

Three Signatories

Southern New England, 1639-45, image 1 of 19
The First Connecticut Constitution
“The colony thus founded a Christian Commonwealth and a purely democratic republic upon the first written constitution of any State in America, if not indeed, in the world. And this, with such slight changes in its practical provisions as the increase of population demanded, was the fundamental law of Connecticut for nearly two centuries. Its first governor, chosen in April 1639, was John Haynes, who had already been a governor of Massachusetts Bay; it second, elected the next year, was Edward Hopkins. The constitution provided that the chief magistrate should be chosen for a single year only, and was ineligible for the year next ensuing. The letter of the law was observed while its spirit was not lost. The people of Connecticut knew when they had a good governor, and for many years, with two or three exceptions at the outset, Haynes and Hopkins were alternately elected to that office.”Three Signatories of the First Connecticut Constitution

“The rule of the magistrate in the young Commonwealth was rigid. The common welfare demanded implicit submission to a compact for mutual protection. The virtuous and the orderly might be, as they usually are, a law unto themselves; but there was special need of watchfulness and restraint of the idle, the vicious, and the violent, who, relieved from the accustomed rule of a long organized society, would riot in the license of relaxed law. All the old bonds that hold society together, and kept anarchy at arms-length were loosened. The habit of obedience to constituted authority needed to be reestablished by fresh subjection and enforced discipline. In this respect the colonies were all alike. Each had to work out for itself with such wisdom and such vigor as it could command, the problem of self-government; and each addressed itself, first of all, to the question of self-preservation. Large consideration of the science of government concerned them less at this early stage of their existence than the daily conduct of each individual citizen. There was nothing in morals or in manners, as to what men should eat and drink and wherewithal they should be clothed; how they should dispose of their time and their industry; what their relations should be to each other, to the state, to their wives, to their children; - in all the affairs of life, whether small or great, there was nothing of which the law did not take cognizance. It was needful to the preservation and good order of society so newly organized that it should do so; and if sometimes – indeed very often – the true and sole function of perfected government, protection of person and property, was overstepped, and intellectual freedom encroached upon in the attempt to regulate religious belief and coerce the conscience, such exercise of power is to be pardoned to the exigencies of the times.”

“There were not probably more than a thousand people in the three Connecticut towns when the Pequot war was finished; the first English child born on the banks of that river (David, son of Captain Lion Gardiner, born at Saybrook Fort, April, 1636) was at that time only eighteen months old. It was not difficult for the watchful eyes of the magistrates to scan carefully the life and conversation of each man and woman. Nor could it be doubted that a community made up, in some degree, of mere adventurers, should have its vicious element, though each settlement was at first a church led in a body by its pastor from three Massachusetts towns – Newton, Watertown, and Dorchester. Even the godly people of the Dorchester church were led, Governor Bradford said, by a “hankering mind” to the pleasant Connecticut meadows on which Holmes’s colony from Plymouth had already settled; and by sheer weight of numbers and the influence of the stronger government behind them, they dispossessed the first comers. When such were the saints what might not be looked for from the sinners? The devil lurked even among the churches of the Puritans, and if he could not be got rid of altogether at least he could be watched with unceasing vigilance.”

John Davenport’s Church

Southern New England, 1639-45, image 2 of 19
John Davenport and His Church
“And the vigilance was unceasing. The records of the proceedings of the General Court that chose the first chief magistrate of the new Commonwealth, also show that by the decree of that fountain of law one Edmunds was to be whipped at a cart’s tail on a lecture day at Hartford; that one Williams was to stand upon the pillory from the ringing of the first bell to the end of the lecture, and to be whipped at the cart’s tail, both in Hartford and Windsor; and that one Starke was to be punished in the same way, to pay a heavy fine, and to have besides the letter R branded upon his cheek. The crime of each and all was wrong done one Mary Holt, - such wrong that Starke was also condemned to marry her; which, however, he probably never did. At the Next General Court, four months afterwards, it was ordered that Mary Holt herself be whipped for misconduct with a fourth paramour, and be banished from the jurisdiction’ not that she was good enough for Boston, but that Boston, perhaps, could better manage her.”John Davenport’s Hartford Connecticut Church

“But offenses of this kind – of the frequency and often most revolting character of which, notwithstanding the severity of the laws of the Puritans, there is abundant evidence in the early records of all the colonies – were by no means the only ones which the magistrates undertook at once to expose and to punish. Unseasonable and immoderate drinking, or even the suspicion of it; any violence of language or of conduct; reflections upon the actions of the General Court; ‘the sin of lying which,’ says the record (1640), ‘begins to be practiced by many persons in this Commonwealth;’ extravagance in the fashion of apparel, ‘that divers persons of several ranks are observed to exceed in;’ the selling of goods beyond reasonable prices; ‘a stubborn or rebellious carriage against parents or governors;’ - these and other offences of a like character, which in older societies are usually left to the control of private conscience, or judgment, or influence, were subjects of legislation, and brought upon the perpetrators prompt and sever penalties.”

John Davenport

Southern New England, 1638-45, 3 of 19
John Davenport
“The supremacy obtained over the Indians by arms was confirmed by law over those who survived the Pequot war. It was a penal act to sell them arms, or even to mend those of which they were already in possession. Theft, and intimidation for the sake of theft, the crimes to which the savages were most inclined, were severely punished. If they could not be made good citizens, - and that was hardly attempted, - it was hoped, at least, that as vagabonds they might be rendered harmless. The dealings of the colonists with them were so far just that they paid for the lands they wanted, and permitted the Indians to retain those the English did not want, provided they were peaceful and kept within their own bounds. When these conditions were not observed a raid upon their cornfields and wigwams renewed the lesson of the war. Whoever recognized the higher duty of attempting to lead them to a knowledge of Christianity was quite free to do so without interference from the State; but their most efficient teachers were the lives the Christians led, and the examples they followed were naturally those which were most evil.”Protrait of John Davenport

“While the Pequot was in progress a fresh colony from England arrived in Boston and was looking for a place of settlement. Edward Hopkins, who soon after went to Hartford, was in this company; John Davenport, a clergyman of some note from London, was their pastor, and the leading man among them was Theophilus Eaton, a merchant of reputation and of affluence. It was a company of wealth and respectability, and the magistrates of Massachusetts would have gladly retained them within their jurisdiction.”

Signature of Momauguin

Southern New England, 1638-45 4 of 19
Signature of Momauguin
“But there were two reasons, imperative with the new-comers, for seeking a place for their future home without the bounds of Massachusetts: there was too much theological controversy and not sufficient harbor accommodation about the Bay. The banishment of Mrs. Hutchinson was not the extirpation of heresy, and Mr. Davenport, it is said, was fearful lest his flock should be led astray by the fatal doctrines of the Antinomians. Whatever other dangers might lurk in the wilderness, the Indians would not, at least, unsettle men’s minds as to sanctification and justification. The other point was equally clear: the farming lands near all the good harbors about the Bay were already occupied. Agriculture must, of course, be their immediate reliance; but they hoped to found a commercial colony, and therefore sought for a commodious port where trade would grow, while lands not too far off to be conveniently cultivated should yield them a subsistence. Another reason given was that they wished to put themselves beyond the reach of a general governor, should one be appointed for all New England; but as this had ceased to be probably, the alleged fear of it could only have been a thin disguise for a more substantial purpose – a wish to escape the jurisdiction of Massachusetts and have an independent government of their own.”Signature of Momauguin

“In the spring of 1638, the whole company sailed from Boston for Quinnipiack, now New Haven, purchased the preceding autumn from Momauguin, the Indian sachem, for twelve coats of English cloth, twelve alchemy spoons, twelve hatchets, twelve hoes, two dozen knives, twelve porringers and four cases of French knives and scissors.”

First Sunday at New Haven, Connecticut

Southern New England, 1638-45, image 5 of 19
John Davenport’s First Sunday at New Haven, Connecticut
“Several of their number had held possession through the winter, but the first solemn and formal act of occupation was on the 18th of April, the Sunday after their arrival. Then this new band of Pilgrim Fathers assembled beneath the spreading branches of a giant oak, and the pastor, Davenport, preached to them from the text, - Matthew iv.1: ‘Then was Jesus lead up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.’ ‘He had a good day.’ He said afterwards; and doubtless his hearers, who all looked up to him with great reverence, were as much edified with his expounding of the temptations that were to beset them in the wilderness, as he was satisfied with his own performance.”John Davenport’s First Sunday at New Haven, Connecticut

“Their undertaking was sanctified not long after by a day of fasting and prayer, when they entered into a covenant that in all things, whether in Church or in State, they would be guided by the rules ‘which the Scripture held forth to them.’ The temptations of the wilderness could not have been many or great to a community which could live for more than a year without other government than this simple compact.”

Site of Newman’s Barn

Southern New England, 1638-45, image 6 of 19
Site of Newman’s Barn New Haven, Connecticut
“But in June of the next year preliminary measures were taken for a permanent political organization. These were of a remarkable character, whether looked upon as an instance of the intense earnestness of the religious convictions of the Puritans, or of the submissive deference they were accustomed to yield to their spiritual guides. The whole community gathered together in a barn – for want of any other building large enough to hold them – and the first business of the assembly was to listen to a sermon of instruction and exhortation from Mr. Davenport. (The tradition is that the barn belonged to Robert Newman, and it is supposed to have stood at the corner of Grove and Temple Streets, on land afterwards occupied by the house of Noah Webster, the lexicographer.) His text was from Proverbs ix. 1: ‘Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars.’ Herein he found warrant and direction for the gathering of a Church and the formation of a State.”Site of Newman’s Barn New Haven, Connecticut

“The Church was to rest upon seven pillars and the foundation of the State was the Church. The right and the duty to gather the one and create the other were inherent, no derivative. There was no recognition of either hierarch or king. The assembled people were to choose from among themselves twelve men the most esteemed for their virtue and their wisdom, and these twelve were to elect seven others who were to be the seven pillars. On the pillars the Church was to be built; the seven men, that is, were to call about them such persons as they deemed fit to be members of the Church, and these members were to form the state. For in the Scriptures was to be found a perfect rule for the guidance and government of men in all human affairs, in the family, in the commonwealth, in the church. Church-membership was citizenship; he who was not fit for that, was unfit for this, for the state must be ‘according to God.’”

Signature of Theophilus Eaton

Southern New England, 1639-45, image 7 of 19
Signature of Theophilus Eaton
“Two months later the people were again assembled; again they were exhorted and counseled by Davenport, with the Bible between his hands. He was now, however, more than leader by weight of character and respect for his learning; the church had chosen him as the pastor, content to accept him as consecrated to the duties of his sacred office by the simple laying on of hands of two of their own number, indifferent to apostolic succession and the authority of bishops. He spoke, therefore, now with greater authority than ever; and under his guidance the popular church proceeded to the organization of a popular government.”Signature of Theophilus Eaton

“Theophilus Eaton was chosen its first governor. In its general provisions – as to the holding of General Courts, the number and choice of magistrates, the exercise of legislative and judicial power, the rights of the citizen, and his responsibility to the law – it was essentially the same as that of Connecticut in all outward form, as in its purely democratic spirit. But after all it was democracy with a proviso; the right of self government in holding or in choosing to office was restricted to those who were members of that church. Others, who also assumed to call themselves Christians, were as completely shut out from any share in the government as a hundred and fifty years later the Constitution of the United States excluded “Indians not taxed” and “persons held to service or labor.”

Old House in Guilford, Connecticut

Southern New England, 1638-45, image 8 of 19
Old House in Guilford, CT
“On this model established at New Haven other churches were soon gathered in other places, and each church was a town. Some were within the boundaries of Connecticut, and sent their representatives to the General Court at Hartford; others were for some years entirely independent, recognizing no civil rule outside of their own organization. Among these last was Saybrook, to which a colony under George Fenwick was sent by lords Say and Brook, and which was already known by their combined names. Places like Guilford, Milford, Stratford, perpetuating in their names the tender memories of old English homes, were planted on commodious havens, or at the mouths of navigable streams, along the inner coast of Long Island Sound. Thither fresh emigrants flocked from Connecticut, from Massachusetts Bay, sometimes directly from England. Old House in Guilford, ConnecticutThe country, as it was gradually occupied, was fairly purchased from the natives – purchased at insignificant prices, indeed, but large enough to create a title in fee-simple, while they were satisfactory to the original owners, who set small value upon limited tracts of that wide wilderness which they claimed as their own. It was the avowed policy of the State to deal justly with the savages, that offences might be avoided; and, on the whole, the rule was no doubt carefully observed, from choice as well as from necessity. On the other hand, if the savages, were sometimes insensible to kindness, and incapable of understanding principles of justice incompatible with their wild notions of individual right, the lesson of the late war was not lost upon them. If not always peaceable, and if often annoying, they were rarely at this period dangerous neighbors. So these English villages were left to take root and grow in strength and thrift when the storm of savage warfare swept over and almost desolated the settlements of their jealous rivals, the Dutch, throughout the boundaries of New Neatherland.”

Mouth of the Connecticut River

Southern New England, 1638-45, image 9 of 19
Mouth of the Connecticut River
“Nor could the claim of the Dutch West India Company to the Fresh River – the Connecticut – by right of prior discovery and occupation, through so pertinaciously urged, seriously hinder the steady progress of the English along the shores of the Sound toward the valley of the Hudson. From the time of the first settlement at Hartford the advanced guard of the more energetic race had pushed on, in spite of the protest and threats, the rage – furious but harmless – of the Dutch. The quiet energy and determination of the English were stronger than the loudest and most indignant complaints; for success lay naturally with the party that acted rather than with the one that, for the most part, only talked. The two people were moved, moreover, by totally different motives.” Mouth of the Connecticut River

“The Fresh River, and all the region it watered, the Dutch looked upon only as a back country, rich in beaver skins, to be made tributary to the great trading station at New Amsterdam. It best served their purposes while it remained a hunting-ground for the Indians, with here and there a half-military, half-trading post, to regulate the traffic in the peltries which the Indians gathered. When the Dutch wanted to colonize, if they went out of the valley of the Hudson, or beyond the immediate vicinity of their chief colony, it was to dispute with the Swedes the possession of the beautiful shores that extended on the South River from the Capes of the Delaware a hundred miles into the interior of the mouth of the Schuylkill. They had no such designs of settlement along the coast of New England, however much they coveted the possession of the country for the sake of its trade.”

Gardiner’s Island, Long Island, New York

Southern New England, 1638-45, image 10 of 19
Gardiner’s Island, Long Island, New York
“Not only was the “crowding” pushed along the shores of the mainland, but it crossed the Sound. In 1639, Lion Gardiner purchased of the Indians the island Manchonack – since know as Gardiner’s Island – near Montauk Point. Shelter Island, still further up the bay, was taken possession of by James Farrett, who was sent out by William, Early of Stirling, as his agent, he claiming the whole of Long Island under the deed from the Plymouth Company, made before its dissolution by order of the king. Farrett visited Manhatten, and was held for a short time under arrest by the Dutch governor, Kieft, for asserting Lord Stirling’s title.”Gardiner’s Island, Long Island, New York

“The enterprising New Englanders, however, were not to be deterred by such measures. In 1640 a company from Lynn, Massachusetts, appeared, under the leadership of Captain Daniel How, at Cow Neck, within the present town of North Hempstead, Long Island, and attempted a settlement. They tore down the arms of the Prince of Orange, which they found upon a tree, and carve in place of the shield an absurd face, as their country men had done some years before at Kievit’s Hook, at the mouth of the Connecticut. The insult and intrusion were resented by Kieft with spirit, and How and his companions were compelled to retreat. But it was only toward the other end of the island, where they settled South Hampton and East Hampton, at the eastern extremity.”