chosen by all, to transact business which concerns all, I conceive most suitable to rule and most safe for relief of the whole." Winthrop and Cotton taught that the magistrates' authority had divine sanction. Hooker preached a great political sermon to teach that (1) "the foundation of authority is laid in the consent of the governed"; (2) "the choice of magistrates belongs to the people"; and (3) "those who have power to appoint officers, have also the right to set bounds to their authority." Democratic theory found here its first clear expositor in America. Fiske calls Hooker "the father of American democracy." Alexander Johnston says, "It is under the mighty preaching of Thomas Hooker . . that we draw the first breath of that atmosphere now so familiar to us.” 126. For a time the three Connecticut towns kept their Massachusetts names. Later, they were known as Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor. At first they recognized a vague authority in commissioners appointed over them by Massachusetts; but each town managed freely its own local affairs, and, in 1639, an independent central government was provided by a mass meeting of the inhabitants of the colony. This gathering adopted a set of eleven "Fundamental Orders" "the first written constitution" in the modern sense.1 The document set up a plan of government similar to that which had been worked out in Massachusetts, emphasizing, however, all democratic features found there and adding a few of its own. The "supreme power of the Commonwealth" was placed in a "Generall Courte" of deputies and magistrates.2 The deputies were chosen by their respective towns. The magistrates corresponded to the Massachusetts "Assistants" or the Virginia "Council." They were nominated in a way which was more democratic than Massachusetts then used but which was soon imitated there (§ 99). They were elected at a "Courte of 1 The document deserves study (Source Book, No. 93, with comment). 2 They sat in one House until 1698. The constitution, however, guaranteed to the deputies the right of caucusing by themselves (as had then come to pass in Massachusetts), and the power to judge of their own elections. § 127] STATE AND CHURCH 109 Elections," for one year only, by papers, just as like officers in Massachusetts had been chosen since 1635. The governor held office for one year only, and he could not serve two terms in succession.1 He had no veto, and in two other respects he lacked authority usually possessed by an English executive: (1) the General Court could not be dissolved except by its own vote; and (2) it could be elected and brought together, on occasion, without the governor's summons. The right of the General Court is expressly asserted to "call into question" magistrate or governor, and even (in modern phrase) to "recall" them during their short term of office. The franchise was never restricted to church members, as in Massachusetts. At first, any one whom a town allowed to vote in town meeting could vote also in the General Court of Elections. That is, the towns fixed not only the local, but also the general franchise. But in 1659 the General Court ordered that thereafter no one should vote for governor or for members of the General Court unless he were possessed of thirty pounds' worth of property, real or personal. Even in democratic Connecticut this property qualification stood, with slight change, until long after the American Revolution. 127. Connecticut did not reject theocracy. Hooker believed in a Bible commonwealth as zealously as Cotton did, though he understood his Bible differently on political matters. The governor had to be a member of a church; the preamble of the Orders states the first purpose of the government to be the maintaining of "the discipline of the churches, which according to the truth of the gospell is now practiced amongst us"; and the first code of laws, in 1650, authorizes the government "to see [that] the force, ordinances, and rules of Christe bee observed in every Church according to his word." The General Court placed ministers, defined their powers, and even decided who should be admitted to the sacraments. 1 The democratic party had tried in vain to establish this rule by practice in Massachusetts (§ 93, note). FOR FURTHER READING. -Straus' Roger Williams and Walker's Thomas Hooker are admirable short biographies. EXERCISE. When did Massachusetts get a two-House legislature ? What forms between a one-House and two-House plan were tried? While the two orders sat together, what were the chief matters of difference between them? By what different devices was a union of church and state maintained? Give instances of political influence by Massachusetts ministers. Find ten men mentioned in chapter xiii whose names and work are worth remembering; and place each one clearly in a few words. Distinguish between the ideals of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Distinguish between the ideals of Connecticut and Plymouth. What powers have been mentioned as exercised in Massachusetts which were not authorized by the charter of 1629? Name four limitations upon the usual power of a colonial governor in the Connecticut Fundamental Orders. How many of the "theme sentences" at the head of chapters or divisions can you repeat? What other phrases or passages in your reading have you found worthy of exact memorizing? Note instances in the history so far of the aristocratic classes trying indirectly to regain power which they had agreed to surrender. What distinction can you make, for Massachusetts history, between the colonial franchise and the local franchise? If the class have access to the Source Book, let members phrase questions based upon material found there and not covered in this text, - especially as to town government. Let each member of the class make a list of ten questions on New England for brief answers by others of the class. CHAPTER XV THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION 128. The New England colonies had hardly established themselves in the wilderness before they began a movement toward federal union. The Connecticut valley was claimed by the Dutch New Netherlands. Moreover, the English settlers in the valley found themselves at once involved in war with the Pequod Indians. Connecticut felt keenly the need of protection by the other English colonies; and, in 1637, Hooker (present at Boston for the synod that condemned Mrs. Hutchinson)1 proposed to Massachusetts a federal compact. For the moment the negotiations fell through because of States-rights jealousy. Much as Connecticut feared Dutchman and Indian, she feared interference in her own affairs hardly less, and hesitated to intrust any real authority to a central government. But, in 1643, commissioners from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Haven (§ 120), and Plymouth met at Boston, and organized the New England Confederation. Rhode Island and the New Hampshire towns asked in vain for admission to this union. The leaders of Massachusetts were wont to refer to Rhode Island as "that sewer"; and regarding the exclusion of New Hampshire, Winthrop wrote: " 'They ran a different course from us, both in their ministry and civil administration . . . for they . . . had made a tailor their mayor and had entertained one Hull, an excommunicated person, and very contentious, to be their minister." The date (1643) suggests an important relation between English and American history. The union of the colonies without sanction from England was really a serious defiance of authority. The United States would not permit such a subordinate union between a group of the States to-day. But war had just broken out in England between King Charles and the 1 Observe, a sort of church union preceded political union. Puritans. Accordingly, the colonies could excuse themselves (as they did) on the ground of necessity, since the home government was temporarily unable to protect them; while really they were influenced still more by the fact that it could not interfere. The preamble to the Articles states all other motives for the union admirably, but, naturally, it omits this last consideration. This is an illustration of the fact that official 99 sources sometimes omit the most significant matters, which the historian must read in, between the lines. 66 129. The Articles of Confederation (Source Book, No. 94) established "a firm and perpetual league." For matters of com 1. It in you Jouenye to ve fro; any 15 my way to any house should the Comissions will me? H. Endecott Dent. John Cullick is my Kathorner SIGNATURES OF THE COMMISSIONERS, 1653. Massachusetts State Archives. mon concern, a congress of eight commissioners, two from each of the four colonies, was elected annually. These commissioners had "full power from their severall Generall Courtes respectively" to determine upon war or peace, divide spoils, admit new confederates, and to manage "all things of like nature, which are the proper concomitants or consequents of such a Confederation for amity, offence, and defence, not intermeddling with the Government of any of the Jurisdictions, which . . . is reserved entirely to themselves." The vote of six commissioners was to be final in all matters; but if in any case six could not agree, then the matter was to |