ia
northward to the St. Lawrence, eastward to the St. Croix, and westward
to the Pacific. There was an attempt here to reproduce, in size and
organization, the French Dominion of Canada, but the likeness was only
in appearance. To organize and defend his territory, Andros had two
companies of British regulars, half a dozen trained officers, the local
train-bands, which were not to be depended on for distant service, and
a meager supply of guns and ammunition. Instead of having under him a
body of colonials, such as were the belligerent gentlemen of Canada, who
were eager to take part in raids against the English and who led their
savage followers with the craft of the redskin and the intelligence of
the white man, he had many separate groups of people. Averse to war and
accustomed to govern themselves, most of these distrusted him and wanted
to be rid of him, and desired only the restoration of their old
governments without regard to those dangers which they were fully
convinced they could meet quite as well themselves.

Though Andros's authority stretched over such an enormous territory, his
actual government was confined to Massachusetts and the northern
frontier. He paid very little attention to Connecticut, Plymouth, and
Rhode Island. With but two or three exceptions, the meetings of his
council were held in Boston; the laws passed affected the people of that
colony; and the complaints against him were chiefly of Massachusetts
origin. Massachusetts was his real enemy, and it was Massachusetts that
finally overthrew him. Andros was a soldier who never forgot the main
object of his mission, and it is hardly surprising that he showed
neither tact nor patience in his dealings with a colony that did little
else but check and thwart the plans that had been entrusted to him for
execution. The people of Massachusetts charged him with tyranny and
despotism. Their leaders, many of whom were members of his council,
complained of the council proceedings, which, they said, were controlled
by Andros and his favorites, so that debate was curtailed, objections
were overruled, and the vote of the majority was ignored. There is much
truth in the charge, for Andros was self-willed, imperious, and
impatient of discussion. On the other hand the Puritan leaders
inordinately loved controversy and debate. If Andros was peremptory, the
Puritan councillors were obstructive.

A more legitimate charge was the absence of a representative assem