Kitabı oku: «The Popham Colony», sayfa 4

We have thus with patience, and we trust with candor, examined in detail "Sabino's" statement of the Popham theory; and, if in our former article we slighted its historic claims, they have now, we hope, received due attention.

"Sabino" omitted from his formal statement – but inserted it in another part of his paper – the claim which Popham writers usually bring into the foreground, namely, that the Popham Colony was "the first colonial occupation of the soil of New England under English enterprise." What rank will he assign to Bartholomew Gosnold's occupation of Cuttyhunk, on the south shore of Massachusetts, in 1602? Gosnold there and then made a settlement, which he intended to be permanent. He and his men built a fort and a storehouse, and collected a valuable freight to send home to England. The cellar walls of the house they occupied can be identified at the present day. They planted wheat, barley and oats. "Here," says Bancroft, (i. p. 112,) "the foundations of the first New England colony were to be laid." We do not claim that Gosnold founded a colony. He attempted it, and failed; but he did all that the Popham people did, and even more. He made American colonization an honorable enterprise, and showed that it could be made profitable. Gosnold's men were not convicts. They each had a share in the undertaking; and jealousy as to the distribution of their gains led to the return of the whole company to England. The sale of their freight made it a profitable adventure. They spread the most favorable reports of the regions they had visited, and brought the best evidence that it was a country worth possessing. The Popham men, on the other hand, returned to England in penury and disgrace, "burdening the bounds where they had beene with all the aspersions that possibly they could deuise, seeking by that meanes to discourage all others." The death of Queen Elizabeth prevented Gosnold's return to the Elizabeth Islands; but his representations and cheerful energy awakened an interest in America that resulted in the Charter of 1606, under which the Northern and Southern Virginia settlements were projected. When we compare what Gosnold and his men did in 1602, with what Popham and his felons did in 1607, it requires a degree of audacity rising to sublimity to assert, that "the Popham Colony was the first colonial occupation of the soil of New England under English enterprise."

Ex-Governor Washburn, of Cambridge, in a speech he made at the first Popham Celebration in 1862, suggested that if they would set up the claim that Noah's Ark landed on one of the adjacent hills, and arrange a Celebration in honor of the event, he would volunteer to come and take part in it, without doubting it was true (Pop. Mem., p. 157). The suggestion is worthy of the serious consideration of the Pophamites. The historical difficulties in the way are but mole-hills compared with the Alpine absurdities of their present theory. Noah's Ark was an important fact in the history of the human race. Noah and his family were respectable persons. The only circumstance we know, to the discredit of the old patriarch, is excusable on the ground that there was then no "Maine Law," or even a "judicious license system." The prejudice attached to the descendants of one of his sons, has been neutralized by the Emancipation Proclamation, and the passage of the Civil Rights Bill over the head of President Johnson. The coast is now clear for Noah's Ark. Let the Celebration come off by all means. Why is it more unreasonable to suppose that the Eastern Continent was settled from the Western, than vice versa? Much as we hate celebrations of all kinds, we also volunteer; and, if we cannot attend, we promise to write a letter, developing still further the theory; and "Sabino" shall have full permission to print it as an Appendix to the public address.

"Sabino" is evidently in trouble about the "cannon story," and well he may be. He says "Williamson is inclined to discredit it." Williamson has this inclination, not on the ground of lack of evidence that it occurred; but on the ground of its shocking inhumanity, and the discredit it throws upon the colonists. We are inclined to discredit it, because of the disgrace it casts upon the human race. But the ugly fact still remains (to use Williamson's words) that it was "believed to be true by the ancient and well-informed inhabitants on the Sagadahoc." Again "Sabino" would have us believe, that, whereas the Indians, several years later, told the Jesuit missionaries some of the outrages they had suffered from the Popham colonists, and did not tell them this, therefore the story was invented in Massachusetts, seventy years after it was alleged to have happened. The Jesuits, in their Relations, were describing the friendly feelings of the Indians towards themselves. They doubtless heard, with the other cruelties mentioned, the cannon story; but they rightly judged, that, while it would not contribute to the point they were illustrating, it would appear to readers so inhuman, and hence so improbable, as to weaken the credibility of their other statements. Besides, "Sabino's" argument founded on an omission, if it proves anything, proves too much for him. It proves that not one of the many propositions set up by the Pophamites are true, for not one of them is mentioned in the Jesuit Relations. The insinuation that the cannon story originated in Massachusetts, is a curious and comical blunder. The District of Maine, Fort Popham included, was at the date specified a part of Massachusetts. "Sabino" sees this footnote in Williamson: "Supplement to King Philip's Wars, A. D., 1675, p. 75," and he supposes that 1675 was the date the statement was published, whereas it was the date when King Philip's War commenced. The book was not printed till 1716. He does not inform us how "the ancient and well-informed inhabitants on the Sagadahoc" could have been misled by a statement invented in Massachusetts in 1716.

"Sabino" firmly holds, with Mr. Kidder, that the vessel of thirty tons, built at Sagadahoc, made a voyage across the ocean. "Brief Relation, 1622," he says, "gives us much information about its arrival in England as about the arrival of the ship." But "Brief Relation" says nothing about the arrival of either vessel. It records simply, "the arrival of these people here in England was a wonderful discouragement," etc. The leaders, and the main body of these people, we believe, returned safely to England in the "Mary and John;" and this is sufficient to fulfil all the conditions of the narrative in "Briefe Narration," Strachey and the other old chroniclers. "Sabino," however, is ambitious that all (including those who left in the "pretty pynnace") should arrive in England, and show up the new craft. He says, "This word all used by Gorges and Ogilby utterly forbids the statement of your correspondent." Gorges's all has no reference to the arrival in England. His words are, "all resolved to quit the place (Sagadahoc) and with one consent to away." That "Sabino" should quote Ogilby as an authority, indicates an unfamiliarity in the authentic sources of New England history which we regret to see. Mr. John A. Poor (Popham Memorial, p. 73) says: "It is well known that the Popham Colony, or a portion of them, returned to England in 1608." It strengthens Mr. Poor's argument on the importance of the Colony in maintaining English supremacy, to claim that a portion of the colonists remained in the country. We have quoted the opinion of our esteemed Portland friend for "Sabino's" benefit; and not because it carries additional conviction to our mind. One who writes after this fashion: "They finished their vessel of fifty (?) tons in the winter and spring, called the Virginia, of Sagadahoc, in which they returned to England," – thus adding twenty tons to the size of the vessel, and crowding all into the "pretty pynnace," leaving the "Mary and John" to return in ballast, – is not amenable to the common code of literary and historical criticism.

The Popham Colony, in fine, was a scandalous and complete failure. The thing, as an historical event, was dead and buried. The grass, for more than two centuries and a half, had kindly grown over it, obliterating even from the memory of man the spot where those disgraceful scenes were enacted. In the year 1849, the Hakluyt Society of London printed Strachey's narration, and furnished a clew to the burial place. Nothing would satisfy a few excellent people in Maine but to dig up the sickening remains, and flaunt them under the nostrils of the community. Here was an offense against decency and sanitary regulations, indictable at common law. In cholera times the proceeding is insufferable.

No one imagines that the Popham investigators commenced operations with any other than the amiable motive of contributing to the historic glories of their native State. But they knew not for what they were digging. Their first mistake was, that, when they came to the putrid mass, they did not carefully replace the sod, and say nothing about it. Instead of this, every man shouted "Eureka!" They arranged a monster gathering, and invited all creation to celebrate with them the Two-hundred and Fiftieth Popham Anniversary. People came from the ends of the earth; enjoyed a generous Eastern hospitality; "drank water, if not inspiration, out of the existent Popham well" (Query – Is "Sabino" quite sure that the inspiration came from the well?), believed as much as they could, and had a good time generally. Perhaps history manufactured in this way will stand; but we think not.

Because historical writers have presumed to examine and question their theory, they have grown sullen and morose. They abuse Massachusetts; they spit at Plymouth Rock; they berate the Puritans; they eulogize Sir John Popham; and they sigh for a system of mediæval barbarism which Popham and Gorges could not plant on New England soil, because God, in his mercy to the human race, had decreed otherwise.

The true historic glory of the noble State of Maine seems to have been lost sight of, in the antiquarian researches of her zealous sons, – which is, that the State sprang from the loins of Massachusetts. To this fact, the State to-day is indebted for every one of those distinctive elements of general intelligence, enterprise and thrift that make her what she is, – a New England State, instead of a feudal Virginia or a South Carolina. The Massachusetts Puritans came in early, and took possession of the land, under a technical construction they gave to their own charter, organized municipalities, set up their churches and schools, and put down with a strong hand all opposition to their authority. The historian of New Hampshire has given a faithful picture of the social condition of the Gorges plantation on the Agamenticus (York) River, when the Puritans commenced their missionary operations.

"The people were without order or morals, and it is said of some of them, that they had as many shares in a woman, as they had in a fishing-boat… No provision was made for public institutions, schools were unknown, and they had no ministers, till, in pity of their deplorable state, two went thither from Boston on a voluntary mission." Belknap's American Biography, i. p. 387-8. See also Hutchinson's Collections, p. 424.

The appearance of the Puritans among them did not to the Gorges men seem joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yielded the peaceable fruit of civilization and godliness unto them who were exercised thereby. The territory was thus saved from the ethics of Popham, the prelacy of Laud and the Stuarts, and the barbarism of a colony of outlaws. The civilization of the District of Maine, during the colonial period, was as essentially Puritan, as that of Massachusetts Bay; and the District was represented in the General Court at Boston, from the year 1653. This close political and social union continued till the admission of the State into the Union in 1820.

It is the privilege, therefore, of the historical writers of Maine, to turn from the unpleasant topic that of late has engaged their attention, to the more congenial theme we have suggested. Let them, with filial affection, recount the virtues and deeds of their Puritan ancestors; and, if they must have an event to celebrate, let it be the landing on Plymouth Rock in 1620, or the arrival of Winthrop and the Charter in 1630, – events which are theirs to celebrate, as well as ours.

P.

P.S. – We ought perhaps to acknowledge Mr. Kidder's kindness in sending to us a corrected copy of his article in the Portland Advertiser, in reply to our notice of Prof. Patterson's Address. The article still has so many literary and historical errors, that it would be unkindness to its author to review it in its present condition. We can imagine the inconvenience of having one's writings printed so far from home. If Mr. Kidder will furnish us with another copy, still further revised, we promise to give it all the attention it deserves.

P.

[Boston Daily Advertiser, July 28, 1866.]
THE POPHAM COLONY, "FINALLY."

To the Editors of the Boston Daily Advertiser: —

Absences have prevented my notice of the article of your correspondent "P.," as early as I could have wished. I now take it up for some remarks on its most prominent positions.

To his criticisms, both merited and unmerited, I desire to bow in meek thankfulness. They are merited only as the imperfections were the result of haste in writing on the eve of a journey. Though they may injure the advocate, the cause stands as impregnable as ever. The unmerited are to be attributed to the indistinctness of my rapid penmanship. If our articles shall have the fortune to come to a second edition, he will not be sorry to see that his sagacity has been made useful in aid of my argument.

As to the pervading personalities in the communication, I have but little to say. Of my position and acts in connection with the commemorations of the colony, it asserts matters which never existed, and attributes to me motives which I have never entertained. These allegations do not change the facts of history. It is because of this personal phase of the discussion, that I propose to make no farther reply to your correspondent, even if he should attempt a sur-rejoinder. I do not know him. But he seems to know me, in this connection, more than well, – more than I know of myself, or any one knows or can know of me.

In ascribing to me the origination of the celebrations of the Popham Colony, the communication ignores the fact, that the "founding" thereof (and I use the word in its dictionary sense) was commemorated, in "a bi-centenary celebration," by the Rev. Dr. Jenks, "with a party of gentlemen, in 1807." So that, if there could be claimed any virtue for an Episcopal origination of the commemorative visit to Sabino, – which has never been claimed by any one acquainted with the facts, – this early act by this lover of the olden days would take it all away. Indeed, I have had nothing to do with the later celebrations, as their "original inventor and patentee," in any sense whatever. Its suggestion even was not Episcopal, but simply historical. I have been only auxiliary.

The communication has not a little to say about the bad traits of character in Chief Justice Popham, as displayed in a portion of his early manhood. But it wholly neglects testimony – elsewhere cited – to traits of an opposite kind, appearing in his more matured years. This evidence appears in the writings of his cotemporaries, who speak of him in terms of high commendation. Whatever might have been his earlier life, the path of repentance and amendment was open for his entrance. After his marriage, he changed his early courses; and by his diligence in his legal studies qualified himself for his later eminent position. When Strachey, Smith, Croke and Mather, writing after his death, and of course after his character was completed, call him "the upright and noble gentleman," "that honorable pattern of virtue," "a person of great learning and integrity," "the noble lord," with other words of approval, and none of censure, a reader of the paper cannot but wonder that the better part of his later life was not noticed as well as the worse parts of his earlier. Fuller has placed him among the "Worthies," and says: "If Quicksilver could really be fixed, to what a treasure would it amount! Such is wild youth seriously reduced to gravity, as by this young man did appear."

The opinion of Lord Campbell in his favor should not be neglected by an impartial seeker for truth. He is severe on most of the Chief Justices, not sparing even the good Sir Matthew Hale. His commendations are therefore the more valuable. In his "Life" of this Chief Justice, he describes the particular traits to his discredit, when, with other young men, he entered on his illegal acts on the highway; and then says, "We must remember that this calling was not then so discreditable as it became afterwards." He speaks of the change in his purposes; his diligence as a student; and, after some quotations, presented in this discussion, he says, "He held the office (of Chief Justice) fifteen years, and was supposed to conduct himself in it very creditably." "Many of his judgments in civil cases are preserved, showing that he well deserved the reputation which he enjoyed." "On the trial of actions between party and party, he is allowed to be strictly impartial, and to have expounded the law clearly and soundly." "I believe that no charge could justly be made against his purity as a judge."

And then, as to the reasons why censures were brought against him, this biographer says, "Yet, from the recollection of his early history, some suspicion always hung about him, and stories, probably quite groundless, were circulated to his disadvantage." "Of these we have a specimen" about "Littlecote Hall." It is "unfair to load the memory of a judge with the obloquy of so great a crime, upon such unsatisfactory testimony." A distinguished ruler – more exalted than Popham, whom Palfrey calls "that eminent person" – once wrote, "Remember not the sins of my youth."

If he was called "the hanging judge," it was because criminals were to be punished. Lloyd says, to his credit, that "the deserved death of some scores preserved the lives and livelihood of some thousands; travellers owing their safety to this judge's severity many years after his death." Aubrey says the same.

But, if all were true, as alleged to the disparagement of the Chief Justice, is there so necessary a connection between him and the colonists at Sabino as that they, except the ten men in office, must therefore have been "villains and convicts"? He certainly has on all sides the praise of having been the earliest and the most active promoter of colonization on our wild New England shores. In this relation he gained the distinct commendation of Hubbard, as "the first that ever procured men or means to possess New England," – "the main pillar" of the enterprise, with not the remotest allusion to any such acts in its accomplishment as are mentioned by your correspondent. His statement leads one to think, that he regarded these early movements as preparatory to the settlements in Massachusetts. He certainly has said nothing that can lead us to suppose he connected "convicts" with Popham's efforts.

There is a statement made, derived from Strachey's use of the word "prepared," in two instances, as though this preparation consisted chiefly in furnishing convicts for transportation to Sagadahoc. Where is the proof? There is not a word in the context to warrant any such application, and indeed no where else. One of the "prepared" expeditions was captured by a Spanish fleet, and the men held in a kind of piratical duress. The communication proceeds to say, in condemnation of the old historians and Popham, that "no word of sympathy was expressed by the old writers for the persons enslaved by the Spaniards; nor did Popham, so far as we know, make any attempts to rescue them from their hard fate." Alas! where is the proof of this sweeping assertion? Exactly opposite was the fact. His humane regard for the captives was forthwith put into action. It would have been well for the furtherance of history, if one well versed in "the old writers" against Popham had also seen and produced a single testimony in his favor. Take one sentence from Gorges, relating to this Spanish capture: "The affliction of the captain and his company put the Lord Chief Justice to charge and myself to trouble in procuring their liberties, which was not soon obtained." This citation is enough to show his efforts for their release, and proves great humanity on the part of this "noble patron of justice and virtue," as he has been well described; and that he was not herein "a heartless wretch," as your correspondent writes, and furnishes no proof of his allegation.

The quotations from Lloyd – himself mostly valuable for his quotations – are prominently presented, as bearing on the character of the colonists. He says that Popham "provided for malefactors." But that is no certain proof that he sent them to Sagadahoc. The plan and its completion are different things, and its completion was not necessarily here. "He first set up the discovery of New England to maintain and employ those that could not honestly live in the Old." But this proposal, this "setting up," if made in regard to Sagadahoc, does not prove that the suggestion was ever carried out. With the singularly imperfect knowledge of foreign geography, that has always characterized English education, all Virginia seems to have been New England, and vice versa. New England was North and South Virginia. We admit the plan. We demand the proof that convicts were banished to this region. Besides, where is the inhumanity of the proposal, or its fulfilment? It was intended to save the lives of criminals, who otherwise would have been hung, according to evidence and the laws of their time; and doubtless the culprits condemned would have deemed the provision merciful, that by banishment allowed them to live.

The quotation from Sir William Alexander has been often made; and it is valuable, as coinciding accurately with the views expressed in my communications. His book is rare; and I take his words from your columns: —

"Those that went thither being pressed to that enterprize, as endangered by the Law, or their own necessities, (no enforced thing prouing pleasant, discontented persons suffering while they act can seldom have good success and neuer satisfaction) they after a Winter stay dreaming of new hopes at home returned back with the first occasion."

Here we are accurately taught that the people – that is, the laborers in the colony – went "as endangered by the law, or their own necessities." How were they "endangered"? By what "law"? By what "necessity"? A writer of that time furnishes the reply, – in the crowded population, the poverty of the working class, and the encroachments of their rich neighbors; and urges emigration as the relief. He writes the following: —

"Look seriously into the land, and see whether there bee not just cause, if not a necessity to seek abroad. The people do swarme in the land as young bees in a hive in June: insomuch that there is hardly room for one man to live by another. The mightier, like old strong bees, thrust the weaker, as younger out of their hives. Lords of manors convert townships, in which were a hundredth or two hundredth communicants, to a shepheard and his dog. The true laboring husbandman, that sustaineth the prince by the plow, who was wont to feed many poore, to set many people on work, and pay twice as much subsidie and fifteenes to the king for his proportion of earth, as his landlord did for ten times as much; that was wont to furnish the church with saints, the musters with able persons to fight for their soveraigne, is now turned laborer, and can hardly scape the statutes of rogues and vagrants… The poore metall man worketh his bones out and swelteth himself in the fire; yet for all his labor, having charge of wife and children, he can hardly keep himselfe from the almes box… The poor man receiveth very neere four pence for every sixepeny worth of work. The thoughtfull poore woman that hath her small children standing at her side and hanging on her breast, she worketh with her needle and laboureth with her fingers, her candle goeth not out by night, she is often deluding the bitterness of her life with sweete songs, that she singeth to a heavy heart… I warrant you her songs want no passion; she never saith, O Lord, but a salt teare droppeth from her sorrowfull heart, that weepeth with the head for company with teares of sweetest bloud. And when all the week is ended, she can hardly earn salt enough for her water gruel to feede on upon the Sunday."

Surely here is a picture of extreme poverty, – fully corroborated by a document in Mather, – showing how "the land grew weary of her inhabitants;" and how "children, neighbors and friends, especially the poor, were counted the greatest burdens." It tells us how the honest yeomanry and worthy laborers of that day were harassed by the encroachments of their "mightier" neighbors, and the rigid oppression of the civil law. They were "endangered" through no fault of their own. One cannot but recall a part of the petition of Agur, – "lest I be poor, and steal" to support life. But are we to consider such men as "rascals and villains"? And were any such men, sentenced, as men of guilt, to go forth as a part of the colony? Symonds here gives a full and sufficient interpretation to the meaning of Lloyd and Alexander.