Feeling on both sides had now become quite embittered. At a special meeting of the federal commissioners in July, 1649, Ma.s.sachusetts renewed her objections, and during the discussions her commissioners produced an order,[12] pa.s.sed two months before by their general court, which, reciting the decision against Springfield, laid a tax upon all articles imported to Boston from any one of the other three confederate colonies, or exported to them from "any part of the Bay."

This proceeding was justly interpreted by the federal commissioners to mean not only a retaliation upon Connecticut for the Saybrook tax, but a punishment upon the other two colonies--Plymouth and New Haven--for taking her side in the court of the confederation.

The commissioners acted with dignified firmness, and forwarded to Ma.s.sachusetts a remonstrance in which they pointedly desired "to be spared in all further agitations concerning Springfield."[13]

Ma.s.sachusetts reluctantly yielded and the next year repealed her impost,[14] while Connecticut continued to tax the trade of Springfield till the ten years expired. Whether the tax imposed by Connecticut was right or not, Ma.s.sachusetts had, nevertheless, gone dangerously near to nullification in these proceedings.

Not less interesting is the history of the dealings of the commissioners with the French and Dutch. Encouraged by the favor which had been extended to him in Ma.s.sachusetts, De la Tour arrived in person in Boston, June 12, 1643, to crave a.s.sistance against D'Aulnay, his rival. As, notwithstanding the French king's order of the previous year, he showed a commission from the vice-admiral of France which styled him as lieutenant-general of Acadia, Governor Winthrop, influenced by the merchants of Boston, whose cupidity was excited by the valuable fur trade of Acadia, permitted him to hire both men and shipping in Ma.s.sachusetts. When his preparations were completed he sailed away, accompanied by a fleet of four ships and a pinnace, the property of two intimate friends of the governor--Major Gibbons and Captain Hawkins--the latter of whom went along in charge of the Puritan contingent.[15]

In permitting this expedition Winthrop not only violated the articles of confederation and the laws of neutrality, but exposed himself to the reproach of Endicott and some of the more straitlaced elders, that he consorted with "idolators" and "antichrists," as Puritans chose to call Roman Catholics. It seems that Winthrop and his Boston friends did not intend to do more than to restore De la Tour to St. Johns, which D'Aulnay was then besieging. But the original wrong had its natural result. When D'Aulnay saw his rival's formidable fleet approaching he promptly raised the blockade and made haste to get under the protection of his stronghold at Port Royal. De la Tour followed and attacked, and, though he failed to dislodge his enemy, with the a.s.sistance of the Boston men he killed several of D'Aulnay's soldiers, burned his mill, and did much other damage.

After this, while D'Aulnay went to France to get fresh orders from the king against his rival, De la Tour came to Ma.s.sachusetts in May, 1644, in hopes of again interesting the Puritans there in his fortunes. But John Endicott had been elected governor in the place of Winthrop, and all the cheer De la Tour could get in return for permitting free-trade was the promise of a letter addressed to D'Aulnay urging peace with De la Tour and protesting against the capture of Ma.s.sachusetts' trading vessels.[16]

In September, 1644, the federal commissioners met at Hartford, and showed dislike of the conduct of ex-Governor Winthrop by pa.s.sing a resolution to the effect that "no jurisdiction within this confederation shall permit any voluntaries to go forth in a warlike way against any people whatever without order and direction of the commissioners of the other jurisdictions." In the mean while, D'Aulnay came back from France with fresh orders from the king for the arrest of De la Tour, and in October, 1644, sent to Boston an envoy with the new credentials. The Ma.s.sachusetts authorities were reluctant to abandon De la Tour, but seeing no alternative they made a treaty for free-trade, subject to confirmation by the federal commissioners.[17]

Still the ties that bound the Boston merchants to De la Tour were not wholly dissolved even now. They gave an asylum to De la Tour's wife at Boston, and sent her with supplies to his fort at Port Royal; and when the fort succ.u.mbed under D'Aulnay's attack they fitted her husband out with a ship and truck for trading. At last De la Tour's dealings thoroughly opened their eyes. When the ship came to Cape Sable, De la Tour and his Frenchmen suddenly arose against the English crew, put them out in the woods, and seized and appropriated the vessel and cargo. Prominent among those who had lent money and influence to De la Tour was Major Edward Gibbons, who lost upward of 2500.

D'Aulnay retaliated and took a ship belonging to Ma.s.sachusetts, and in September, 1646, a new treaty was made with him by envoys representing the confederacy. The English made a formal acknowledgment of error, and the French accepted in full satisfaction a present to D'Aulnay of a sedan-chair, which had been sent as a present by the viceroy of Mexico to his sister, but was captured in the West Indies by Cromwell and given by him to Governor Winthrop.[18]

In 1648 the colony of Ma.s.sachusetts applied to the French officials at Quebec for a reciprocity of trade. As the Iroquois had proved very destructive to the French and their Algonquin and Huron allies, the French governor caught at the plan of granting the desired privileges in return for military aid. Accordingly, in 1650, the French governor, D'Aillebout, sent the Jesuit father Druillettes, who had acted as missionary among the Algonquins of Maine, as envoy to Boston to negotiate a treaty.[19] But Ma.s.sachusetts did not repeat the error of former times, and would do nothing without consent of the federal commissioners. To them, therefore, the matter was referred, with the result that the commissioners declined to involve the confederacy in a war with the Iroquois by authorizing any a.s.sistance to be given the French privately or officially.[20]

In the relations with the Dutch the temperate and conservative force in the confederacy was Ma.s.sachusetts, who took steady ground for peace and opposed hostile measures. In doing so, however, she went the whole length of nullification and almost broke up the confederacy. William Kieft, the governor of New Netherland (1637-1647), seemed to recognize at once the significance of the confederacy as well as the importance of making friends with Ma.s.sachusetts; and in July, 1643, before the commissioners had time to hold their first meeting, he wrote a letter of congratulations to Governor Winthrop, which he loaded, however, with complaints against Connecticut for intruding upon the land of the Dutch fort at Hartford. Governor Winthrop in reply a.s.sured Kieft that the influence of Ma.s.sachusetts would be on the side of peace, for that "the ground of difference being only a small parcel of land" was a matter of too small value to cause a breach between two people so nearly related as the Dutch and English.

When the federal commissioners met in September they showed a hostile spirit, and addressed vehement letters to the Swedish and Dutch on account of their "foul injuries" offered the New Haven settlers on the Delaware. In March, 1644, letters came from the Swedes and Dutch full of expressions of regard for the English and "particularly for Ma.s.sachusetts." They promised to refrain from interfering with visitors who should bring authority from the commissioners, which so encouraged some Boston merchants that they sent to the Delaware a pinnace to search for a great lake reported to be its source. But when they arrived at the Delaware, the Swedish and Dutch governors, while telling the captain that he might go up the river as far as he chose, prohibited him from any trafficking with the Indians, which caused the return of the pinnace to Boston. After this the war which Kieft provoked with the Indians so occupied the Dutch that for two years they had no time to give attention to their English neighbors. So hard pressed were they that, instead of making further reclamations on New Haven, they earnestly but unsuccessfully solicited her aid. After great losses to both the Dutch and the Indians the Mohawks intervened as arbitrators, and brought about a peace in September, 1645.[21]

In 1646 the men of New Haven set up a trading-house near the mouth of the Housatonic, and thereupon Kieft wrote to the commissioners, who met at New Haven in April, 1646, a bl.u.s.tering letter of which the following is a good sample: "We protest against all you commissioners met at the Red Mount (New Haven) as against breakers of the common league, and also infringers of the rights of the lords, the states, our superiors, in that you have dared, without our express and especial consent, to hold your general meeting within the limits of New Netherland."[22] At the close of Kieft's administration in 1647 the whole province of New Netherland could furnish not more than three hundred fighting-men and contained a population of not more than two thousand. Compared with the population of New England these figures seem insignificant enough, and render highly improbable the story popular with some New England historians that the Dutch were enlisted in a great scheme of uprooting the English colonies.

In 1647 Peter Stuyvesant was sent over as governor. He had the sense to see that the real safety of the Dutch consisted not in bl.u.s.ter, but in settling a line between the possessions of the two nations as soon as possible. The charter of the West India Company called for the territory between forty and forty-five degrees north lat.i.tude, but to a.s.sert the full extent of the patent would have been to claim the jurisdiction of Ma.s.sachusetts. Accordingly, Stuyvesant, soon after his arrival, addressed a letter to Governor Winthrop, a.s.serting the Dutch claim to all the land between the Connecticut and Delaware and proposing a conference. But it is evident that in claiming the Connecticut he was actuated more by a hope of deterring the further aggressions of English settlers than otherwise. The federal commissioners returned a polite reply, but showed no anxiety to come to an accommodation. Soon after a fresh quarrel broke out with New Haven, and in March, 1648, Stuyvesant wrote to the governor of Ma.s.sachusetts offering to submit to him and the governor of Plymouth the matter in dispute. He then wrote home for instructions, and as diplomatic relations between England and Holland were suspended, the West India Company bade him make such terms as he could with his English neighbors.[23]

Accordingly, in September, 1650, Stuyvesant visited Hartford while the federal commissioners were in session there. The discussions were carried on in writing, and Stuyvesant dated his letter at "New Netherland." The federal commissioners declined to receive this letter, and Stuyvesant changed the address to "Connecticut." This proving satisfactory to the commissioners, Stuyvesant set out his territorial claim and the imputed wrongs suffered by the Dutch from the English, and the federal commissioners rejoined in a similar manner. Then Stuyvesant proposed to refer the question in dispute to four arbitrators, all Englishmen, two to be appointed by himself and two by the federal commissioners.

The offer was accepted, and after a full hearing by these arbitrators, Thomas Willet, George Baxter, Simon Bradstreet, and Thomas Prince, declined to decide upon the wrongs complained of by either party and rendered an award upon the territorial question only. They decided that the Dutch should retain their fort on the Connecticut, and that the boundary should begin at a point on the west side of Greenwich Bay, about four miles from Stamford, and run due north twenty miles.

From that point it should be extended as the Dutch and New Haven might agree, provided that the line should not come nearer the Hudson River than ten miles. The English obtained most of Long Island besides, for in that quarter the line was declared to be a meridian drawn through the westernmost part of Oyster Bay.[24] If these terms subjected Stuyvesant to severe criticism at New Amsterdam, it was really a stroke of statesmanship to obtain, even at a sacrifice, what was for the first time an international barrier to English intrusion.

The southern flank of New Netherland was left unprotected, and in 1651 New Haven once more endeavored to plant a colony on the Delaware. The failure of the former attempt bore heavily upon the wealthy merchants of the town, and they had ill luck in another adventure. In January, 1646, they sent an agent to England to solicit a charter from the English government. The ship in which he sailed carried seventy other prominent citizens of the place and a cargo valued at 5000. A great storm ensued after the ship's departure and she was lost at sea.[25]

So disheartening was this misfortune that many at New Haven entertained the idea of removing to the West Indies or Ireland.

Now, in 1651, under a commission from Governor Eaton, fifty men from New Haven prepared to sail for the Delaware.[26] Their ship touched at New Amsterdam, and Stuyvesant arrested both pa.s.sengers and officers, and only released them on their promise to return home. The adventurers appealed to the commissioners, and these officials wrote a letter to Stuyvesant protesting against his course.[27]

Next year war broke out between Holland and England, and the war spirit spread to this side of the ocean. Rumors got afloat that the Dutch and Indians had conspired against the English, and Connecticut and New Haven became hysterical for war; while Rhode Island commissioned John Underhill, lately escaped from the Dutch, to take all Dutch vessels he could find.[28] Stuyvesant indignantly denied the charge of conspiring with the Indians, and proposed to refer the examination of the facts to any impartial tribunal. Nevertheless, all the old complaints were revived.

In 1652 the federal commissioners resolved on hostilities,[29] but the Ma.s.sachusetts general court, which had all along taken a position in favor of peace, refused to be bound by a vote of six commissioners representing Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven.[30] On the other hand, the commissioners of the three smaller colonies protested against the conduct of the court of Ma.s.sachusetts as violating the confederation.[31] New Haven and Connecticut took measures to wage war on their own account,[32] and in April, 1654, Connecticut sequestered the Dutch fort at Hartford.[33]

When, in June, 1654, a fleet despatched by Cromwell, in response to appeals made to him, appeared in Boston harbor, Connecticut and New Haven were overjoyed, and proceeded with alacrity to make arrangements for an attack on the hated Dutch. Ma.s.sachusetts refused to raise troops, although she gave her citizens privilege to enlist if they chose. Yet her policy of peace prevailed in the end, for before the preparations described could be completed a stop was put to them by the news that a treaty of peace had been signed between England and Holland April 5, 1654.[34]

Ma.s.sachusetts had successfully nullified the plain provisions of the articles, and for a time it looked as if the dissolution of the confederacy would be the consequence. New Haven voted at first not to choose commissioners, but finally decided to do so,[35] and meetings of the commissioners went on apparently as before. Nevertheless, the effect of the action of Ma.s.sachusetts was far-reaching--from that time the respective colonies diverged more and more, till the hope of a permanent intercolonial bond vanished.

[Footnote 1: Winthrop, _New England_, I., 283, 342-344.]

[Footnote 2: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 95, 99, 102, 121-127.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid., 121.]

[Footnote 4: _Simplicities Defence_ (Force, _Tracts_, IV., No. vi., 93).]

[Footnote 5: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 203, 243, 301, 463.]

[Footnote 6: _Plymouth Col. Records_, IX., 32-49.]

[Footnote 7: Palfrey, _New England_, II., 187-198, 332-341, III., 141; Hutchinson, _Ma.s.sachusetts Bay_, I., 153.]

[Footnote 8: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 325.]

[Footnote 9: Palfrey, _New England_, II., 234.]

[Footnote 10: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 508.]

[Footnote 11: Ibid., 165, 166; Palfrey, _New England_, II., 240-249.]

[Footnote 12: _Ma.s.s. Col. Records_, III., 152.]

[Footnote 13: _Plymouth Col. Records_, IX., 158.]

[Footnote 14: _Ma.s.s. Col. Records_, IV., pt. i., II.]

[Footnote 15: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 128, 130, 153.]

[Footnote 16: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 163, 180, 219, 220.]

[Footnote 17: _Plymouth Col. Records_, IX., 59.]

[Footnote 18: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 244, 335.]

[Footnote 19: Parkman, _Jesuits_, 327-335.]

[Footnote 20: Hutchinson, _Ma.s.sachusetts Bay_, I., 156-158.]

[Footnote 21: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 155, 157, 169, 189, 193, 229; Brodhead, _New York_, I., 409.]

[Footnote 22: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 158.]

[Footnote 23: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 382, 395; Brodhead, _New York_, I. 499.]

[Footnote 24: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 189-192.]

[Footnote 25: Winthrop, _New England_, II., 325, 337.]

[Footnote 26: Trumbull, _Connecticut_, I., 196.]

[Footnote 27: _Plymouth Col. Records_, IX., 210-215.]