The Popham Colony. Ballard Edward
the mouth of the Kennebec; – was inaugurated and continued with the sacred services of the Christian religion; – was an actual possession of the region afterwards known as New England, under a Royal Charter never denied nor abrogated; – and, though intended, as the documents show, to be perpetual, it came to an end within a year, by reason of the death of its two chief supporters; – and was followed by a succession of occupancies, that proved title, as against the former and never-renewed claims of France.
Now, if these facts make the "extraordinary theory," which your correspondent has not ventured to describe, we are ready to take it in all its dimensions, and furnish your readers the proofs, as readily as you will grant your columns. But we are not inclined to shut our mouths, or stop our pens, by the terror of any such words as "false and extraordinary theory," "empty assertion and vapid declamation." We do not ask "Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay gracefully to yield the honors of their exalted position," any farther than "the stern logic of truth" may demand; and we shall not be unwilling to say, that the claims of history are worthy of respect, even among the present dwellers in those ancient and time-honored colonies. As to the remark about "'the Church Colony' of Sagadahoc," that may pass as a piece of pleasantry, though it was a fact.
The question is asked, in regard to the opening sentence of Mr. Patterson's Address, "Why is this hallowed ground?" We had supposed, that any place where religion had held its services continuously, and in connection with important events, might properly bear such a designation. The orator evidently thought so; and his very large audience, out of the thousands assembled on that day, did not once think of a criticism upon the expression. But the question seems to have been proposed, not so much for disputing the religious associations connected with the undertaking, as to bring in two charges against the colonists, of no force whatever against the great purposes of the settlement.
The first charge is, that "a colony of convicted felons landed here in 1607." Now who believes this? We who live in the valley of the Kennebec have always supposed, that faith is belief founded on evidence; and that all other demands on faith, if answered, are credulity. What is the evidence that the charge is true? Not a particle. The only pretence of proof is the casual remark of Sir William Alexander, who says of these colonists, – of course he means the laboring part of their number, and not the ten in authority, – that they went to these western shores, "as endangered by the law, or their own necessities." But was there no other law than that against social crime? Contemporaneous history shows that their endangerment proceeded from the statutes against vagrancy. At that time, in consequence of the state of the country, a poor man could hardly avoid their grasp. Surely poverty was no crime. Gorges sought persons of this necessitous class to aid in carrying forward his noble purposes of colonization.3 While history is the best comment on language, the five words of Sir William are entitled to its explanation. True charity never requires us to give the worst interpretation, when the circumstances allow the best. Here they require it.
It is most unfortunate for the truth of the charge about the felons in the colony, that Chalmers – than whom no man has had a longer and better opportunity of searching the British State Papers of this period, and who has the credit of being reliable as to facts – says the law for the transportation of convicts was not enforced till 1619; and Bancroft says, that, when they were enforced, "it must be remembered, the crimes of which they were convicted were chiefly political. The number transported to Virginia for social crimes was never considerable; scarcely enough to sustain its pride in its scorn of the laboring population; certainly not enough to affect its character."4 If there had been any convicts in the Kennebec Colony, it would be fair to infer from this declaration, that they were "chiefly political" offenders, and "certainly not numerous enough to affect its character."
But Chalmers says there was no transportation of any class of the guilty till 1619.5 Therefore there was none to Sagadahoc; and for the additional and better reason than his statement, that the law has not yet been shown requiring transportation as a punishment for moral guilt, during the time of the incipiency, continuance and end of the Popham Colony. Convicts could not be transported without a law. Any charge, therefore, as about the felons of the colony, is injuriously brought against the memory of the helpless dead.
The second charge comes from the cannon story: that the men at the fort induced the Indians to man the drag-ropes, and to stand in the line of direction of the piece aimed for execution; and then fired off the piece upon the whole body of the unfortunates, when thus "in line, and blew them to atoms." This is a tale of woe rather tougher than the quoted Williamson gives it, – who is inclined to discredit it. But is even Williamson's reluctant account true?
The best reply to this allegation of horror is to be found in the narrative of the Jesuits, in 1611, who went to the Kennebec by the inland passage, in quest of corn. The Indians met them. They gave them an account of their treatment of the colonists, whom they represented as having been defeated by them. They "flattered" the French, saying that "they loved them well;" and, to gain their favor, told them how the English drove them from their doors and tables with clubs, and made their dogs bite them. All this might have been done for protection, under a renewal of the hostile attitude assumed by the natives on Gilbert's trip up the Androscoggin. The French were good listeners to any charge against English Protestants. Now, if this story about the cannon had been as true as its reality would have been cruel, why should not these Indians have told its barbarities to such good auditors? A cannon ball, with the explosion from the muzzle, would have made a more damaging narrative than a club or a dog-bite. Yet no syllable of the great event is recorded, while the little ones are faithfully chronicled to the disparagement of the Protestants. It is doubtful whether any cruelties did occur so utterly at variance with the known kind treatment of them by the "worthy" President. For the Jesuits say of these Indians, that they were "flatterers," and "the greatest speech-makers (harangueurs) in the world." When they had encouraged their visitors (honied them, emmieloyent) with promises of grain, they put them off by trucking in beaver.6 Such witnesses do not amount to much; and, if Mr. Parkman uses the language of your correspondent in calling these uncertain incidents "the most shocking barbarities," it might be well wished that so able and interesting a historian as he, had given the brief narrative itself, rather than to have derived such a "theory" from its statements. Were there no "shocking barbarities" elsewhere against the natives?
The first known utterance of this cannon story was made in Massachusetts, about seventy years after its asserted occurrence.
A few words may be allowed as to the letter in the Appendix, which comes in for a large share of notice. It is intimated that other letters were not worthy of preservation. The reason why they were not printed was because they were notes of courtesy to the Committee, not needing public expression. Mr. Kidder's letter was thought to have a historical value, as illustrating the skillful and industrious abilities of the colonists; and is certainly proved to be of some importance, or it would not have received so much attention.
The first criticism is verbal, on the non-apparent distinction between "works" and "formal acts recorded." To us, who have drank water, if not inspiration, from the still existent Popham well, beneath the shadow of Sabino Head, it appears that "formal acts recorded," were the acts of taking possession with chartered rights, placed on the minutes by "John Scammon, Secretary." The "works" were the daily toils of the laborers, in trenching, fortifying, building the storehouse and church and the "pretty pynnace."
We thank your correspondent for presenting the fact of a French vessel built at Port Royal forty years before any naval architecture was attempted at Sabino. We have been so much in the habit of thinking of English colonization, that perhaps we have had too narrow a horizon. But, better taught, hereafter we will be careful to put the patrial adjective as the proper predecessor, and say "the English 'pioneer ship,'" and so again adhere to fact.
As to another "pynnace," built before this one claimed as the first, we are also glad to be assured of the fact for the first time. We had supposed that the two mentions, made in the Popham journal as given by Strachey, related to the one vessel, – in another writer called a "pretty bark."7 But,
Briefe Narration, Chap. ii.
Hist. U. S., Vol. ii. p. 191. – Ed. 1837.
Political Annals, p. 46.
Fuller information, gained from the military letters of Biard and Masse, shows that the treatment referred to was connected with an occupation of the same location, by the English, in the year
Briefe Relation.