ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 129 
of each other; in other words, we do not find a group 
of distinct communities, but we find one little state, 
the further development of which might make a great 
state, as it did, but could never make a federation of 
states. If we look at such a colony as Pennsylvania, 
where Church and State were from the outset com- 
pletely separated, quite as much as in Rhode Island, 
we find a similar compactness of growth; we find the 
colony presenting to the wilderness a solid front. If 
we next consider New Netherland, we notice a slight 
difference. There we find a compact colony with its 
centre on Manhattan Island, and far up the river an- 
other settlement at Albany quite beyond easy support- 
ing distance and apparently exposed to all the perils of 
the wilderness. But this settlement of Albany is read- 
ily explained, for there was the powerful incentive of 
the rich fur trade, while the perils of the wilderness 
were in great measure eliminated by the firm alliance 
between Dutchmen and Mohawks. 
Now when we come to the settlement of New Eng- 
land, we find things going very differently. Had the 
Puritan settlers behaved like most other colonists, their 
little state, beginning on the shores of Massachusetts 
Bay, would have grown steadily and compactly west- 
ward, pushing the Indians before it. First, it would 
have brushed away the Wampanoags and Naticks; 
then the Narragansetts and Nipmucks would have 
succumbed to them, and in due course of time they 
would have reached the country of the Pequots and 
Mohegans. That would have been like the growth of 
Virginia. It would have been a colonial growth of the 
ordinary type and it would have resulted in a single 
New England state, not in a group bearing that name. 
2K 
