I cannot but think, also, that those who have found, or think that they
have found, an inimical design in any pleasantries in which I may have
indulged while describing the customs and manners of by-gone days--have
betrayed a _thin-skinnedness_, and an ignorance of the true glory of
Connecticut history, when they imagine that her fair fame can be
seriously tarnished by the fly-specks of certain customs--at no time
without their vigorous opponents--and long since rendered obsolete by
the march of improvement.

The fun of the thing, however, is, that the sentence which has thus
called forth the animadversions of the critics, will be found, with its
context, on closer examination, to have applied to the _New England
Colonies_, and not to Connecticut alone! In their haste to vindicate the
land of steady habits, they seem to have assumed more than their share
of the reproach involved in my simple historical statement.

As for myself, I am no believer in the theory that the objectionable
portions of history should be kept in the background, and that only the
bright side should be turned towards the world. If, as one has happily
said, "history is experience teaching by example," we most surely need
to have both sides fairly presented to us before we can properly extract
therefrom the lesson of good or of evil which is therein taught. It is
unnecessary to pursue the argument further. Suffice it to say, that
perfection is as little to be expected in the history of a state or a
community, as in the life of an individual. As to our ancestors, we must
take them as history shows them to us--"men of like passions with
ourselves," and "in all respects tempted as we are," yet neither worse,
nor, again, very much purer or better than ourselves.

In this spirit I have undertaken to trace, in the following pages, the