The governors were chosen by the people in secret ballot, until the liberal charter granted by Charles I. was revoked, and a royal governor was placed over the four confederated Colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven.  This confederation was not a federal union, but simply a league for mutual defence against the Indians.  Each Colony managed its own internal affairs, without interference from England, until 1684.

Down to this time the Colonies had been too insignificant to attract much notice in England, and hence were left to develop their institutions in their own way, according to the circumstances which controlled them, and the dangers with which they were surrounded.  One thing is clear:  the infant Colonies governed themselves, and elected their own magistrates, from the governor to the selectmen; and this was true as well of the Middle and Southern as of the Eastern Colonies.  Even in Virginia quite as large a proportion of the people took part in elections as in Massachusetts.  It is difficult to find any similar instance of uncontrolled self-government, either in Holland or England at any period of their history.  Either the king, or the Parliament, or the lord of the manor, or the parish priest controlled appointments or interfered with them, and even when the people directly selected their magistrates, suffrage was not universal, as it gradually came to be in the Colonies, with slight restrictions,—­one of the features of the development of American institutions.

Another thing we notice among the Colonies, which had no inconsiderable influence on their growth, was the use of fire-arms among all the people, to defend themselves from hostile Indians.  Every man had his musket and powder-flask; and there were several periods when it was not safe even to go to church unarmed.  Thus were the new settlers inured to danger and self-defence, and bloody contests with their savage foes.  They grew up practically soldiers, and formed a firm material for an effective militia, able to face regular troops and even engage in effective operations, as seen afterwards in the conquest of Louisburg by Sir William Pepperell, a Kittery merchant.  But for the universal use of fire-arms, either for war or game, it is doubtful if the Colonies could have won their independence.  And it is interesting to notice that, while the free carrying of weapons, in these later days at least, is apt to result in rough lawlessness, as in our frontier regions, among the serious and law-abiding Colonists of those early times it was not so.  This was probably due both to their strict religious obligations and to the presence of their wives and children.