Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

slain;

nate, the high and imperious tone of indignation and contempt towards them, only used by their masters upon rare occasions, when they had presumed too far in affected independence, and needed to be checked, you will, we think, perceive their true condition. This view is illustrated by King Paxinos of the Shawanese, being sent on the responsible mission to the Christian Indians at Gnadenhutten; the return of Tedeuscung in obedience to the message sent him, his being furthwith elevated to the station of King of his Nation; and when, in scriptural language, "he waxed fat and kicked," assuming a tone of independence, the offence taken by the Iroquois, and their terrible vengeance wrought upon him. The same remark is applicable to the speech of Canassatego at the Treaty in Philadelphia in respect to the misconduct of the Delawares, in refusing to remove from land they had sold.

The Confederation of the Rhine was composed of sovereign states, independent communities, Kings who held their court in gorgeous state, free to do their own will-except that Napoleon was their master. So too, the French Senate and Senators were independent; they met, deliberated; the Emperor frequently attending consultations, arguing different questions, and sometimes yielding his own opinion, yet the anecdote is familiar; one of the members pressed with earnestness some point against Napoleon's wishes, until he became impatient. “Stop, stop," said he with suppressed emotion, "do not oblige me to speak with more decision.” The Iroquois, if less learned than the French Chief, were as profound statesmen, and as perfect adepts in the arts of Government as the Emperor; and he, holding Poland in his fist, with power to throw her into the lap of Russia or Austria, yet by policy bound the Polish Lancers so closely to his standard and person, that they would rush into the stream at his bidding, and the last expiring cry, when swallowed by the flood, was “ Vive la Napoleon." So too, I take it, the subject nations of the Iroquois were held in bondage by the ties of policy, as well as by the rod of power; until that Confederacy, wounded, yet not

broken, though not crushed, with instinctive perception of the true condition of affairs, they began more and more, and with bolder tone, to rear the crest, and speak the language of freemen.

Again, Col. Stone, while he speaks of the Six Nations, the A quanuschionis, meaning the “ United People,” leaves the impression that they were disunited in council, divided in action, some of the Confederacy taking part with the French, and others with the English. Such view of the matter, the reader is aware is at variance with the opinions we have constantly expressed in this work, and sincerely entertain. Such separation and division, I think, was rather apparent than real. The (roquois were neither deluded by the French nor the English, to adopt any system of policy they did not deem for their own peculiar interest. They were Iroquois, proud of their long continued national existence and supremacy; fond, to enthusiasm of their country; ambitious of power; desirous of renown; avaricious of dominion. They watched the daily augmenting strength of both England and France, with bitter jealousy and inextinguishable hate. No moment had existed since their purposes and power had been developed, so that fears for their own independence had been awakened, but the Indians would have been rejoiced if the whole white race had but one neck, and that submitted to their exterminating hatchet. Like every other people they were compelled to yield to circumstances. The French were favored in former years because they erected trading houses, bought furs, and made little encroachment on their lands, while the British colonies awakened greater jealousy by the dreaded invasion of the woodman's axe, and the hated encroachment of the farmer's plough; yet they wavered with the vicissitudes of war, and their policy varied with the shifting success of the rival parties, meaning on the issue, if possible, to be on good terms with the strongest.

“But at least for a part of the war the Mohawks and Onondagos, sided with the British, being under the influence of Sir William Johnson."

Say rather, Sir William Johnson was the subservient agent of their policy. With the rising star of British ascendancy the apparent influence of Sir William increased. Had the French continued victorious ; had not Fort William, Louisburgh, Oswego, Du Quesne,

fallen, rely on it, the influence of Sir William Johnson would have been lighter with them than the down of the thistle. But Sir William took to his bed a Mohawk maiden, the sister of a great chief. Say rather the sister of a Mohawk chief was permitted, or directed to become the partner of Sir William Johnson. However profound his policy, it was at least equally wise and effective on the part of the Indians. If Napoleon wedded a daughter of Hapsburg, remember, a daughter of Hapsburg, it was hoped, would prove a powerful ally; and minister in the court of the Emperor, to defend and sustain her father's failing fortunes, even perhaps to reveal to him the secrets of her husband.

The union of those two tribes with English interests, I regard as a deep stroke of policy; painful, perhaps humiliating, but the Iroquois were now between two fires, hard pressed and obliged to resort to every wile to preserve their tottering existence. The Mohawks were nearest the English, being within striking distance of the settlements on the Hudson. How manifest the policy that these should seem to side with the English, do just enough to preserve themselves from attack, and serve as a shield and barrier to their confederate nations, who thereby could put forth their whole force on other points in favor of the French. What was it, but a new edition of the old policy practised in England for hundreds of years, in civil wars, for families to divide, so that whichever party might prevail the estates should be preserved from confiscation. Every step of apparent division, as well as united action, I am persuaded was the result of cool deliberation, full consultation, mature councils, and unanimous consent. United certainly they were before the war-still we find them united, acting in perfect harmony in 1758, at the treaty held in Easton, which would have been inconceivable if they had been really at variance with each other a few months before. In our Revolution the same game of apparent neutrality or disunion of the nation was attempted to be played.

A brief note was all I intended, but lo! this exposition has swollen to half the limits of a letter,

LETTER VI.

Brief outline of controversy between Pennsylvania and Connecticut-Earliest Charters of

France and England-Great Plymouth Council incorporated-Massachusetts carved out of the Plymouth Patent-Warwick's Charter-Colony of Connecticut-Charter of King Charles, 1662–Extent of claim under Connecticut Charter, included Wyoming-Purchase of Indian right by Susquehanna Company-Incidental matters--Delaware Company's Purchase-First attempt to settle the lands-Adverse claims of Penn set forth-Charter to Wm. Penn, 1681.

Having brought down the history of Wyoming to 1763, including the murder of Tedeuscung, the massacre and expulsion of the first Connecticut settlers, and the general removal of Indians from the V ley, other matters of weighty interest call for our consideration.

For many years the public mind has been made familiar with the fact that a dispute long existed between Pennsylvania and Connecti. cut, for the jurisdiction and soil over a large extent of territory, within which the valley of Wyoming is included. So many important events trace their origin to this controversy, that it becomes necessary to set forth the grounds thereof somewhat in detail. Indeed, we cannot doubt but a fair and candid exhibition of the claims of the respective parties, will be acceptable not only to the general reader, but particularly so to every intelligent person resident within the contested limits. In an especial manner may it be desirable to the numerous descendants of those who first removed from New England, to make their home in this, then savage and inhospitable wilderness. The Connecticut Claim is at rest; dead and buried. Pennsylvania, so far from being regarded as an unkind step-mother, extending reluctant protection to the New England people, and their children, is universally esteemed as a kind parent, entitled to the warmest affection of every good citizen, who has the happiness to live within her borders, among whom the population on the old Susquehanna Claim, are second to none in true allegiance, veneration and love.

Were it conceded that the claim of Connecticut was a baseless speculation, merited reproach would necessarily attach to all those numerous settlers, who came to this debated land, with a view to its possession. Nor would the parent colony, or State, escape severe censure. With the two-fold view, therefore, of imparting information to those who wish to understand the ancient grounds of controversy, and to vindicate the State, and the early colonists from being reckless and unprincipled invaders of the property of others, we shall proceed to show-not that the Connecticut claim was absolutely just, but that there were at the time, with the lights before them, such grounds to believe in its justice, as to warrant the adoption of all proper measures to secure its possession.

Early after 1600, a contest commenced between France and Eng. land for the possession of North America. In November, 1603, Henry IV. of France, (a name that awakens all that is chivalrous in war, gallant in love, or romantic in incident,) granted to Sieur de Monts, American Territory, under the name of Acadia, extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of latitude. Aroused by this measure king James of England, three years afterwards, that is, in 1606, divided that part of North America lying between the 34th and 45th degrees of latitude, into two nearly equal parts; the northern half, namely, the country between the 38th and 45th degrees of latitude, he granted by patent to Thomas Hanham and others, principally inhabitants of Plymouth and Bristol. Out of this grant, as we shall trace it step by step, grew the Connecticut claim.

Subsequently the King, by letters patent dated November 3, 1620, incorporated the Great Plymouth Council, and granted “ all that circuit, continent, and limits in America, in breadth, from 40 degrees of northerly latitude, from the equinoxial line to 48 degrees of said northerly latitude, and in length, by all the breadth throughout the main land from sea to sea, with all the rivers, seas, &c., within the same degrees of latitude and longitude; and incorporated the Duke of Lenox, and divers other persons, by the name of the council established at Plymouth, in the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering and governing of New England in America; and to them and their successors grants all the lands, &c., viz: that aforesaid part of America, lying and being in breadth from 40 degrees of northerly latitude, from the equinoxial line, to 48 degrees of the said northerly latitude, inclusively, and in length, of and within all the breadth aforesaid throughout the main lands, from sea to sea,

together also with all the firm lands, soils, grounds, &c., and all and singular other commodities, jurisdictions, royalties, privileges, franchises and pre-eminences, both within the said tract, upon the land, upon the main, and also within the said islands, and seas adjoining: Provided always, that the said islands, or any of the premises hereinbefore mentioned, and by these presents intended and meant to be granted, were not actually possessed or inhabited by other Christian prince or state, nor within the bounds, limits or territories, of that southern colony heretofore by us granted, to be planted by divers of our loving subjects in the south part. And did further command and authorize the said Council and their successors, or the major part of them, to distribute, convey, assign, and set over such particular portions of said lands, tenements and hereditaments, to such subjects, adventurers and planters, as they should think proper.”

You will observe not only, that authority is given, but the charge is expressly made, that the Plymouth Council “ shall distribute, assign, and set over," to others, such portions of the territory as might be deemed politic and proper. Accordingly, Massachusetts was carved out of the Plymouth patent in 1628.—The grant for that purpose to Sir Henry Rosswell and others, runs thus: “All that part of New England in America aforesaid, which lies and extends between a great river there, commonly called Monomack, alias Merrimack, and a certain other river there, called Charles river, being in the bottom of a bay called Massachusetts, alias Mattachusetts, alias Mattattusetts bay, and all and singular, the lands and hereditaments whatsoever, lying within the space of three English miles, on the south part of said Charles river, or of any or every part thereof; and all and singular, the lands and hereditaments whatsoever, lying and being within the space of three English miles to the southward of the southernmost part of the said bay; and also, all those lands and hereditaments whatsoever, which lie and be within the space of three English miles to the northward of the said river, called Monomack, alias Merrimack, and to the northward of any and every part thereof; and all lands and hereditaments whatsoever, lying within the limits aforesaid, north and south in latitude and in breadth, and in length and longitude, of and within all the breadth aforesaid, throughout the main lands there, from the Atlantic and western sea and ocean on the east part, to the south sea on the west part; and all the lands, and grounds.” etc.,

King Charles confirmed this charter in 1629. It will attract particular attention that the words are clear, the language explicit

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »