We recently learned of two articles you might have missed, both by Dominic DeBrincat, Missouri Western State University. The first is The Spanish Ship Affair: Wreck, Salvage, and Contested Legal Authority in Colonial Connecticut, Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 19, no. 4 (Fall 2021): 699-734:
The second is The Long, Salty Arm of the Law: Colonial Connecticut’s Litigated Maritime Economy and the Origins of Modern Contracts, International Journal of Maritime History, 33 , no. 4 (November 2021): 690-706:In 1752, a wounded Spanish ship—laden with gold, silver, indigo, and other valuable goods—wrecked along the Connecticut coast. This episode initially appeared to be a tale of Samaritans rescuing the crew and safekeeping their payload. Such hospitality yielded to avarice as the loosely guarded cargo was plundered. This article looks closely at the county court in New London, Connecticut, to examine how judges, jurors, and local legal officials shouldered the burdens of securing some sense of justice for Spanish officials and British colonists ensnared in what became known as “The Spanish Ship Affair.” It highlights the importance of local colonial courts in maintaining peace, not only in their respective communities, but also in greater imperial contexts. This was especially important in the wake of ineffective responses from the governor, colonial assembly, and vice-admiralty court—institutions purportedly designed to handle inter-imperial conflicts. Emphasis on this county court reveals a flexible judiciary creatively punishing unredeemable criminals, merciful jurors willing to forgive repentant neighbors, and the resultant long-term changes in Connecticut’s political landscape and its legal approaches to shipwrecks.
This article examines maritime trade litigation tied to a typical New England jurisdiction – New London County, Connecticut – to reveal two important eighteenth-century trends. First, decision-makers prioritized honouring contract promises – a critical shift from earlier Puritan ideals that privileged fairness in agreements. This transition was essential to developing what became the will theory of contract, in which promise and performance replaced equity as the measures of valid agreements. This shift appeared in Connecticut nearly a century before scholars have suggested it did in the United States. The second trend involves litigants’ choice of court. Despite the availability of several tribunals for pursuing maritime-based legal actions, parties regularly chose the county court to resolve their issues. In an expanding and increasingly impersonal Atlantic marketplace, parties preferred the flexible and familiar proceedings of the local court because judges and jurors treated mariners as if they carried Connecticut's legal protections with them on their distant travels.–Dan Ernst
