00000261 |
Previous | 261 of 597 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
236 HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
was the outstanding grant from the English crown of the territory immediately north of the northern limits of Maryland at the time of the grant to
Lord Baltimore. Its southern limit, it will be noticed, lies ■ on the very
parallel of latitude which constituted the northern boundary of Maryland.
With this common boundary so exactly-defined, no room was left for controversy, except as to the territorial location of the parallel. And even this
could not be mistaken, as the description of the bounds of the province was
manifestly framed by the aid of the admirable and astonishingly accurate
map accompanying Smith's History of Virginia.
Within the limits of New England, the southern boundary of which, as
wre have shown,, coincided with the northern boundary of Maryland, the
settlement of New Plymouth had been planted in 1620, and that of Massachusetts bay, in 1629; but these were so remote that no disputes about
Iboundaries ever arose between them and the authorities of Maryland. ■ The
rights of the Plymouth Company had been long extinct, and several distinct
colonial governments had been carved out of its territory, before the proprietary of Maryland was involved in contests about the northern limits of his
province, all which arose from grants subsequent to his own.
The causes of Virginian dissatisfaction with the grant of Baltimore have
already been partially explained. The Maryland grant lay within the limits
•originally established by the Virginia charter; and though that charter had
been afterwards annulled and it had become a royal government, the province
continued to retain its ancient boundaries until they were changed by the
royal grant to Baltimore. No settlements of any kind had been made upon
the territory granted to Baltimore, down to the time of that grant, either
under the authority of the crown or of the charter governments, except the
trading-post established by Claiborne on Kent Island, and the unauthorized
settlement of the Dutch on the Delaware, which, as we have seen, had already
heen abandoned. True, the Dutch may have regarded their abandonment as
but temporary; but from the English point of view they were mere interlopers, who had planted themselves, without permission, on land belonging
to the English crown; and Lord Baltimore, in his representations to the
king, could not possibly take account of their former residence as in any way
obstructing or invalidating his grant. In fact, as early as 1632, Charles I.
had notified the New Netherland authorities that some years before, on the
complaint of his father, James I., the States General " had interdicted their
subjects from trading in those regions." And, in answer to a memorial from
the Dutch ambassadors, the British ministry replied the same year (1632),
that the roaming savages of America were not "bona, fide possessors " of, the
land, and, therefore, they could not alienate it.
The title of the English was asserted to be by "first discovery, occupation and possession," and by charters-and patents from their sovereigns, and
the ministry boldly denied the Dutch title to any portion of New Netherland, and claimed it as English territory. The strenuous assertion of prior
| Title | History of Maryland - 1 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000261 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | 236 HISTORY OF MARYLAND. was the outstanding grant from the English crown of the territory immediately north of the northern limits of Maryland at the time of the grant to Lord Baltimore. Its southern limit, it will be noticed, lies ■ on the very parallel of latitude which constituted the northern boundary of Maryland. With this common boundary so exactly-defined, no room was left for controversy, except as to the territorial location of the parallel. And even this could not be mistaken, as the description of the bounds of the province was manifestly framed by the aid of the admirable and astonishingly accurate map accompanying Smith's History of Virginia. Within the limits of New England, the southern boundary of which, as wre have shown,, coincided with the northern boundary of Maryland, the settlement of New Plymouth had been planted in 1620, and that of Massachusetts bay, in 1629; but these were so remote that no disputes about Iboundaries ever arose between them and the authorities of Maryland. ■ The rights of the Plymouth Company had been long extinct, and several distinct colonial governments had been carved out of its territory, before the proprietary of Maryland was involved in contests about the northern limits of his province, all which arose from grants subsequent to his own. The causes of Virginian dissatisfaction with the grant of Baltimore have already been partially explained. The Maryland grant lay within the limits •originally established by the Virginia charter; and though that charter had been afterwards annulled and it had become a royal government, the province continued to retain its ancient boundaries until they were changed by the royal grant to Baltimore. No settlements of any kind had been made upon the territory granted to Baltimore, down to the time of that grant, either under the authority of the crown or of the charter governments, except the trading-post established by Claiborne on Kent Island, and the unauthorized settlement of the Dutch on the Delaware, which, as we have seen, had already heen abandoned. True, the Dutch may have regarded their abandonment as but temporary; but from the English point of view they were mere interlopers, who had planted themselves, without permission, on land belonging to the English crown; and Lord Baltimore, in his representations to the king, could not possibly take account of their former residence as in any way obstructing or invalidating his grant. In fact, as early as 1632, Charles I. had notified the New Netherland authorities that some years before, on the complaint of his father, James I., the States General " had interdicted their subjects from trading in those regions." And, in answer to a memorial from the Dutch ambassadors, the British ministry replied the same year (1632), that the roaming savages of America were not "bona, fide possessors " of, the land, and, therefore, they could not alienate it. The title of the English was asserted to be by "first discovery, occupation and possession," and by charters-and patents from their sovereigns, and the ministry boldly denied the Dutch title to any portion of New Netherland, and claimed it as English territory. The strenuous assertion of prior |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| G |
|
| H |
|
| M |
|
| T |
|
| U |
|
| Y |
|
|
|
