General History of Connecticut, from Its First Settlement Under George Fenwick to its Latest Period of Amity with Great Britain

In Short

This work serves as both a historical narrative and a passionate political tract written by an expatriate loyalist. It details the early settlement of Connecticut, the friction between its competing colonies, and the eventual rise of an insurgent spirit that the author condemns as a betrayal of both religion and the King. Because it was written in 1781 by an embittered exile, it remains a singular, controversial document that captures the intense, often distorted animosities of the Revolutionary era, providing a rare window into the perspective of those who opposed the American cause.

The Story

The narrative begins with a firm rejection of the standard accounts of New England’s settlement. The author argues that Connecticut was not merely an extension of Massachusetts, but a distinct territory with its own complex, often ignoble history. He describes the original colonization as a series of land grabs lacking true legal authority, dismissing the colonists’ claims of purchase from the indigenous population. The focus shifts to the early divisions between the three primary colonies: Saybrook, Hertford, and New Haven. Each operated under its own peculiar, often fanatical, governing philosophy—some claiming authority through conquest, others through religious mandates—which led to an atmosphere of perpetual discord and administrative chaos.

Throughout these early years, the author highlights the severity of the "Blue Laws," which governed life with harsh, punitive measures, reflecting a culture he views as dangerously intolerant. He chronicles the survival of the colonies through conflicts with the Dutch and the indigenous tribes, portraying these engagements not as noble struggles, but as brutal manifestations of colonial ambition and hypocrisy. The narrative frequently pivots from historical analysis to sharp social commentary, detailing the strange superstitions and legal absurdities that defined the early life of the province.

As the account moves toward the mid-18th century, the tone becomes increasingly frantic. The author laments the rising influence of religious revivalists, whom he views as charlatans, and the growing complexity of legal disputes that left property rights in a state of perpetual uncertainty. The climax of the book is the author’s own experience leading up to the Revolutionary War. He presents the move toward independence not as a virtuous struggle for liberty, but as a calculated, deceitful conspiracy orchestrated by provincial leaders and local mobs. He details how he was personally targeted by these factions for his loyalty to the Church of England and the British Crown, eventually being driven from his home to seek safety in England. The book concludes as a justification of his flight, casting his departure as a necessary escape from a region he characterizes as having abandoned civilization, law, and God for the sake of rebellion and factional power.

How It Unfolds

The origins of discord The text asserts that Connecticut’s founding was marked by illegal land seizures and a lack of proper authority. It argues that the settlers suppressed the truth about their status to maintain a façade of legitimacy.

The rule of the Blue Laws The narrative examines the rigid, punitive codes of the early settlements. These laws, which sanctioned extreme physical punishments, are cited as evidence of the settlers’ fanatical and intolerant character.

The instability of the law The author illustrates the chaos of the local legal system through examples of shifting court judgments. He describes how flood-driven changes in property lines led to endless, ruinous litigation that highlights the region's instability.

The path to rebellion The account details the economic and political tensions following the 1763 revenue requisitions. It portrays local leaders as master manipulators who deceived the British authorities while secretly arming for insurrection.

The exile of the loyalist The concluding sections detail the personal persecution of the author by local mobs. It ends with his dramatic escape on a British ship, presenting his departure as the ultimate consequence of the colony’s moral collapse.

The People

The book is populated by figures who represent the author’s stark divide between loyalist order and revolutionary chaos. Governor Jonathan Trumbull stands as the primary antagonist, a man whom the author blames for instigating the mobs and orchestrating the betrayal of the King. Trumbull is depicted as a hypocritical leader who publicly spoke of peace while secretly funding military expeditions against British forts. In direct contrast is the author himself, the Reverend Samuel Peters, who portrays his own actions as those of a principled, pious clergyman merely trying to uphold the law and the Church. He views himself as a victim of a "tyranny of the mobs" that had no place for dissent. Figures like Dr. Elliot, an inventor of steel, receive rare praise for their intellectual contributions, but most other leaders—especially the clergy who governed through fear and superstition—are dismissed as narrow-minded demagogues who exploited the public’s gullibility to maintain their own power.

In Its Own Voice

"Europe at this day might well say the Religion of the first settlers at Newhaven was fanaticism turned mad; and did not similar laws still prevail over New-England as the common law of the country, I would have left them in silence along with Dr. Mather’s Patres conscripti, and the renowned Saints of Mr. Neal, to sleep to the end of time."

The author characterizes the early religious laws of Connecticut as dangerously extreme and hypocritical.

"I am able to declare, with great sincerity, that this mode of converting the native Indians is godlike in comparison with that adopted by the Africans."

This claim is made in a discussion comparing the brutal treatment of indigenous peoples by European colonists to the conditions of enslaved people.

"Thus suffered the venerable and exemplary Dr. Samuel Peters, only for obeying his conscience, his God, his king, and the laws of his native country, by censuring the rioters and destroyers of the teas, the property of the East-India Company."

The author defends his own political stance and actions during the build-up to the American Revolution.

What It's Really About

At its core, this book is an argument about the nature of authority and the dangers of unchecked religious and political zeal. The author suggests that the American Revolution was not a product of enlightened democratic ideals, but a natural evolution of the fanaticism that had poisoned the region since its inception. He posits that when a society abandons established institutions like the Church of England and the British legal tradition, it inevitably falls into a state of "glorious uncertainty" where law becomes a tool for the powerful to exploit the weak. It is a work that questions the moral foundation of the colonial project, arguing that the pursuit of liberty in Connecticut was always a mask for intolerance and greed.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of the American Revolution will find this an unsettling, vital primary source. It is not an objective history, but a window into the mind of a "Tory"—a loyalist whose world was shattered by the very revolution that forged the United States. You will encounter a voice that is unapologetically biased, often sarcastic, and frequently outraged. The prose is dense with 18th-century sensibilities, and the author’s tendency to mix serious political critique with bizarre anecdotes about local frogs or miraculous ship sightings can be disorienting. However, it is precisely this lack of modern detachment that makes it compelling. It captures the raw, bitter emotions of the era in a way that polished textbooks cannot. Those who appreciate the "other side" of history—the perspective of the losers in a great conflict—will find much to reflect upon here. It serves as a reminder that the formation of a nation is often experienced as a traumatic rupture for those on the losing side of the argument, and the author’s voice, while deeply flawed, remains an unforgettable artifact of that transition.