USA > Connecticut > New London County > Stonington > History of the town of Stonington, county of New London, Connecticut, from its first settlement in 1649 to 1900 with a genealogical register of stonington families > Part 1
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65
Gc 974.602 St72w 1149137
GENEALOGY COLLECTION
TI
ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 1833 00826 6436
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015
https://archive.org/details/historyoftownofs00whee 1
19%
Aida B.c.
Richard Milhuelas.
Richard About
HISTORY
OF THE
TOWN OF STONINGTON.
COUNTY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT,
FROM ITS
FIRST SETTLEMENT IN 1649 TO 1900,
WITH A
GENEALOGICAL REGISTER
OF STONINGTON FAMILIES.
BY RICHARD ANSON WHEELER,
Member of the New England Historic Genealogical Society ; Life Member and one of the Vice Presidents of the Connecticut Historical Society, and Life Member of the New London County Historical Society.
" I have remembered the days of old and the years that are passed."
NEW LONDON, CONN. PRESS OF THE DAY PUBLISHING COMPANY, 1900.
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1900, by RICHARD A. WHEELER, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
1149131
DEDICATION.
To my daughters, MISS EMILY AVERY WHEELER and MISS GRACE DENISON WHEELER, who have greatly assisted me in its compilation, I affectionately dedicate this Book. Richard Miller.
PREFACE.
Having been frequently requested by my friends to write and publish a History of Stonington, from its first settlement in 1649 to the present time, has induced me to undertake the task of its compilation and in so doing have spared no labor of research into all of the available sources of historical information, includ- ing the Connecticut Charters and records of the Town and Churches here and regret that from their imperfect records, I have not been able to produce a more perfect book.
There are but few of our early planters here whose lineal de- scendants can be accurately traced by our local records to the present time. For reasons not now generally understood the graves of many of our early settlers have no headstones to mark their last earthly resting places, and in many instances their names do not appear on our town or church records, which has greatly embarrassed me in my work and with all its imperfection, with grateful acknowledgements to all persons who have assisted me in its compilation, this book is now submitted to the public, with the hope that they will kindly excuse all errors that may appear therein.
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS -TO THE-
HISTORY OF STONINGTON.
Page 46, insert John Hilliard, Corporal.
Page 164, year 1883, Hadlai A. Hull in place of Alexander S. Palmer. AVERY FAMILY-Page 200, tenth line from top, 1656 for 1636. No. 44 m. Sarah Denison (No. 68).
No. 45 Omit (No. 68).
No. 134 wife d. Jan. 14, 1769-70; m. 2nd, Experience Stanton, dau. of No. 135, Apr. 14, 1770. No. 178a Jonas, b; d. y.
No. 178b Mary b. July 14, 1779.
No. 178c Christopher b. Oct. 4, 1781.
No. 211 d. 1862.
BABCOCK FAMILY-No. 80 m. John Bours. No. 182 d. y.
No. 190 m. 1852, d. 1860.
No. 191 d. 1879.
No. 198 b. August 4.
No. 242 m. Elizabeth Franklin.
No. 245 m. Cornelia Franklin.
BENTLEY FAMILY-No. 27 m. Desire Denison (No. 276).
No. 23 m. Amy Carter, daughter of Jemima Wilcox (No. 36) and Owen Cartey or Carter.
BILLINGS FAMILY-No. 179 Patty.
No. 55 m. Holmes (No. 26).
BREED FAMILY-No. 34 m. 2nd, Polly Sheffield. Their children are Nos. 133, &c.
No. 93 No children; no second wife.
No. 94 should be 104a.
No. 108 Anna or Nancy m. Capt. Silas Beebe. He m. 2nd (No.110). the widow of Prentice Morgan.
No. 111 Omit. No. 112 Omit.
CHAD BROWN FAMILY-No. 81 m. Mary Palmer (No. 244).
No. 99 b. 1782, m. had dau. Sally A., m. Dewey. EDWARD BROWN FAMILY-No. 20 Joseph W.
No. 23 b. 1794.
LYNN BROWN FAMILY-No. 170 m. Lydia Palmer, b. Nov. 1, 1766. Page 262, sixth line, Thomas Brown (No. 47) not 22. No. 31 John b. Dec. 1701.
BURROWS FAMILY-No. 137 b. June 8, 1792.
No. 138 b. Sept. 25, 1798.
CHAPMAN FAMILY-No. 1 m. Sarah Brown (No. 21) Lynn Brown family. No. 14 had also Eunice, Allen, Reuben and Prentice.
CHESEBROUGH FAMILY-No. 8 Junia.
No. 32 d. June 28, 1750; she d. Aug. 23, 1751.
Page 294, third line from the bottom, omit great before granddaugh- ter.
No. 38 m. John Palmer (No. 114).
No. 54 m. 1st, Andrew Davison and m. 2nd, Samuel Turner. Omit 3rd m.
No. 156 m. Mercy Goddard, dau. of Ebenezer Goddard.
2
No 205 Omit initial B.
No. 207 m. Hannah Page (No. 19). No. 328 m. 1st Martha, 2nd Sarah. COLLINS FAMILY-No. 16 b. Jan. 20, 1800.
DENISON FAMILY-No. 92 d. unmarried.
No. 277 Esther. FISH FAMILY-No. 46 d. 1861.
FRINK FAMILY-No. 1 was one of the first carpenters in town; he d. Feb. 10th, 1717-18, and his wife d. March 7th, 1716-17.
No. 34 d. June 4, 1773, and his wife d. August 26th, 1791.
No. 35 m. Thomas Holmes March 15, 1764.
No. 40 m. Walter Brown.
No. 84 m. Prentice Frink Jr., (No. 112).
GALLUP FAMILY-No. 78 m. Samuel Miner. No. 79 m. David Frink. No 87 m. Park Allyn of Groton.
No. 266 m. Whitney.
GORE FAMILY-Page 398, tenth line from bottom, Sheshequin.
HALEY FAMILY-No. 16 m. 1784.
HANCOX FAMILY-No. 22 m. John Breed (No. 93).
HOBART FAMILY-Page 433, fourteenth line from bottom, insert before Chesebrough (No. 207) Elisha.
HOLMES FAMILY-No. 41 had also Eunice, Martha, Lucy, Elias, Nancy, Hal- sey and Ezra.
No. 26 m. 1st, Billings (No. 55); m. 2nd, David Main (No. 164).
HOXIE FAMILY-Page 442, fourth line from bottom, omit all words after Davis till you read had daughter.
HYDE FAMILY-No. 2 m. Jane Lee, dau. of Thomas Lee.
No. 50 d. 1824.
HULL FAMILY-No. 33 m. Hannah Arnold; m. 2nd, Fannie M. Abbott, 1881. No. 37 m. Hannah Argall.
No. 42 m. Wm. Henry Argall in 1857.
MAIN FAMILY-No. 123 m. Stanton (No. 94).
MASON FAMILY-No. 23 d. Nov. 15, 1742.
No. 67 m. 2d Anna (Miner) Mason, widow of Samuel.
No. 70 m. Holmes (No. 33).
No. 93 Omit date of birth and marriage.
MINER FAMILY-No. 127 m. Feb. 20, 1755.
No. 136a omit.
Page 468, twelfth line from bottom enclose (Linken.) Nos. 329 and 361 should be Bethia.
NOYES FAMILY-No. 167 d. 1851.
No. 197 John B. b. 1773, m. Sarah Berry, b. Rhode Island, 1776; he d. 1854, she d. 1857 in New York State, where they went in 1802 with 3 children: Lydia, b. 1799, m. John Fowler; Samuel b. 1801, m. Catharine Jackson in 1827; Asenath, b. 1802, m. Almeron Sprague, 1823; Clarinda, b. 1807, m. L. B. Balcom; Lovinia, b. 1808, m. George Wood, 1832; Sally m. Randall Hewlett; Leonard, b. 1815, m. Jane Jessup; Laura m. David Husk; Lyman m. 1st - -, 2nd, McKnight. No. 217 m. 1st Anne Collins (No. 16), had 5 children, viz .: William, b. 1821; Abby E., b. 1823, d. y .; Daniel, b. 1825, d. y .; Jesse D., b. 1830, m. Hannah E. Sutton Oct. 31, 1852; John, b. 1835, d. y .; Mrs. Noyes, d. Jan. 9, 1838, and he m. 2nd, Mrs. Hannah (Cottrell) Sutton Oct. 1843 and had Jane, b. 1844, m. Charles W. Knowles; Annie, b. 1847, d. young lady.
No. 263 m. Nov. 19, 1818.
No. 264 m. Feb. 2, 1820.
No. 325 b. 1823.
No. 339 omit initial B.
No. 340 Clementina A.
No. 343 m. Mrs. Elizabeth S. (Silkman) Thatcher.
3
No. 359 b. Nov. 16, 1822, d. May 11, 1890. No. 373 b. 1822.
No. 374 b. Feb. 23, 1824.
No. 375 b. May 6, 1829. No. 376 b. May 6, 1831. No. 377 b. May 7, 1834. No. 378 b. 1843.
No. 379 b. 1836.
No. 380 b. 1839.
No. 381 b. Feb. 18, 1848.
No. 382 b. 1850, d. 1879.
No. 403 Frances, m. Henry S. Taintor.
Miss Harriet E. Noyes of New Hampshire says: From recent investiga- tions in England the name of Rev. William Noyes' wife was proven to be Anne Stephens, d. of Nicholas Stephens of Burdrop Manor, England, and sis- ter of Dorothy Stephens, the mother of Rev. Thomas Parker.
PAGE FAMILY-No. 20 m. Cyrus Babcock (No. 175).
No. 24 b. about 1660, m. Mary Witter (No. 5) that family. No. 26 m. Eveline Whiteman.
No. 30 m. Almira Hull (No. 19).
PALMER FAMILY-No. 28 m. Hannah; had John b. 1697, Ephraim b. 1699, Joseph b. 1704, Hannah b. 1706, Mary b. 1709.
Page 513, No. 28 should be 14.
No. 92 b. March 26, 1715.
No. 95a b. May 7, 1722.
No. 95b Elizabeth b. Nov. 28, 1724.
No. 114 m. Ann Chesebrough (No. 38).
No. 122 Omit marriage.
No. 157 had also children, Benjamin, Elijah and Elisha.
No. 171 m. Zerviah, dau. of (No. 120) Stanton family.
No. 198 b. 1753.
No. 202 b. 1752.
No. 204a Prudence b. 1769.
No. 234 m. 1st Lydia Utley, had 5 children she d. May 3, 1760 and he m. 2nd Mary Grant and had 6 children, she d. Aug. 24, 1793.
No. 244 b. June 30, 1753 m. Jesse Brown (No. 81).
No. 284 called Jo Upper and 267 called Jo Downer because one lived up the road towards Voluntown while the other lived down the road towards Stonington.
No. 308 m. 1775.
No. 312a Rebecca, m. - Slosson.
No. 324 Omit initial W.
No. 329 Frank.
No. 333 Emily.
No. 342 m. Chesebrough (No. 436).
No. 365a Mary.
No. 452 b. March 9.
PARK FAMILY-Page 527, seventeenth line from bottom, Robert Chapin or Chaplin.
PENDLETON FAMILY-Pendleton Fletcher, son of (No. 2) d. 1699. £ 3 at Stonington 1674, Westerly 1679.
No.
No. 15, Erase.
No. 20 Ten other children.
No. 23 m. Isaac Sheffield.
No. 27 b. Mch. 27, 1741. No. 67 b. Dec. 15, 1776, m. Oliver Rhodes. (No. 9). No. 89 m. Sally Breed (No. 104a.)
No. 106 m. Bradley Miner (No. 299).
4
PRENTICE FAMILY-No. 14 m. Mary Wheeler of Preston, bap. Aug. 27, 1707, dau. of John and Mary (Giles) Wheeler of Beverly, Mass., son of William and Hannah (Buss) Wheeler of Concord, Mass. Children: Joseph, Priscilla, Eleazer, Elisha, Jonathan, Mary, Hannah, Manas- sah and Ephraim Prentice.
RHODES FAMILY-Page 556, No. 1 m. Sarah Champlin.
No. 2 Nancy b. and d. y.
No. 3 m. Nancy Champlin.
No. 4 Omit.
No. 7 Omit.
No. 10 m. Emma, dau. of John and Eunice Wells-Rathbun.
No. 11 Nancy, 1774 m. Foster.
SEARLE FAMILY-No. 34, Hettie m. Wm. Miller.
No. 35 Leonard, m. Emily Tarbill.
SMITH FAMILY-No. 107 by 1st wife, had dau. Emma A, by 2nd wife Joseph, who m. Susan Brown, others, d. y.
No. 108 had Charlotte A., Nancy, Maria, and Nathan, who m. Mary Judson.
No. 109 had Mary, Hannah and Charlotte A., who m. Robert Eldred. STANTON FAMILY-No. 36 m. Sarah Breed (No. 29).
No. 42 m. Frink (No. 117).
No. 103 m. Jane Baker.
No. 104 b. 1812.
No. 158 m. Thankful Billings (No. 138).
No. 208 m .; had one child.
No. 216 should be 219a, twin to Rebecca.
No. 246 m. David Wells.
No. 272 m. John McDowell.
No. 282 Omit
No. 363 m. Hannah Alexander.
No. 398a John and (401a) Polly, children of No. 375.
No. 430 d. y.
No. 457 drowned in 1816.
SWAN FAMILY-No. 183, Jabez.
No. 24 m. Mehitable Brown (No. 35).
No. 84 m. Polly Frink (No. 92).
Page 615 Omit (No. 84) from the fifth line from the top.
WHEELER FAMILY-No. 22 m. in 1743.
No. 82 m. Dec. 29, 1765.
No. 133 b. 1766. No. 134 b. 1768.
No. 343 m. 1761.
No. 360 b. 1763.
No. 361 b. 1766.
No. 374 b. 1789.
No. 429 had Eliza M. who m. Henry Tyler and Emily A. m. Seth Noyes Williams, son of (No. 67) William Williams family, by the 1st wife and Grace D. by 2nd wife.
No. 526 m. Mrs. Fanny (Hunter) Beebe.
WILCOX FAMILY-No. 95'm. Thompson Burdick.
No. 35 m. 2nd, Mrs. Elizabeth (Main No. 20) Brown. No. 101 m. Joseph Denison.
WILLIAMS FAMILY-No. 305 b. Aug. 10.
WILLIAM WILLIAMS FAMILY-No. 65 b. 1828.
No. 68 b. 1832.
WITTER FAMILY-Page 687, tenth line from top, children of Josiah and Elizabeth Wheeler Witter. No. 5 m. John Park (No. 24). No. 15 m. Daniel Brewster in 1727. No. 17 m. 1st Jan. 1st, 1733-4. No. 25 b. 1726-7.
No. 26 m. Samuel Branch Jr., March 17, 1752.
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.
Page 58. Seventh line from the top, insert Wheeler after Paul.
Page 58. Seventh and fifth line from the bottom, read said, in place of d meeting.
Page 59. Fifteenth line from the top, read said inhabitant, instead of d inhabitant.
Page 61. Fifth line from the top, read brave, instead of grave.
Page 223. Ninth line from top, read Jane Willis, instead of Wissis.
Page 229. Second line from top, read d. Oct. 22, 1691, instead of married.
Page 303. For Eunice (No. 291), read Junice.
Page 319. Eleventh line from top, read she was living in 1770, instead of she died childless in 1755.
Page 407. Eighth line from top, read Almy, not Amy.
Page 439. Seventh line from top, read Kemp, not Kempt.
Page 446. Read Rev. William Hyde (No. 37), and omit Rev. from Charles Hyde (No. 36).
Page 490. In the Note about Col. Joseph Noyes, read several months, instead of years.
Page 497. Read Jennie, not Jessie, Page.
Page 541. No. 2, Dea. Medad, not Medid.
Page 612. Mary Swan (No. 57) m. Thomas Wheeler (No. 74), not 54.
Page 668. Read Abel H., instead of Abel N. Simmons.
Page 250. Hannah Brewster, b. ,m. 1st, John Thompson; 2nd, Samuel Starr, Dec. 15, 1664. She is the dau. of Jonathan Brewster (No. 2), that family, and is omitted in his family.
ABBREVIATIONS.
b. means born.
bapt. baptized. m.
,,
married.
d.
died.
dau.
"
daughter.
HISTORY OF STONINGTON.
The territory embraced in the boundaries of the original Town of Stonington was included in the first patent of Connecticut, granted by Robert, Earl of Warwick, in 1631 to William, Viscount Say and Seal, the right honorable Robert, Lord Brook and others, acting therein by authority vested in him by Lord Charles, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. The colony of Massachusetts having furnished men and munitions of war for the conquest of the Pequot Indians in 1637,1 claimed an interest by right of conquest in all the lands held by the Pequots before their overthrow, and determined to occupy it in advance of any settlement on the part of the Connecticut authorities, though they had asserted jurisdiction as early as
1 "At a General Corte, at Boston, the 6th, 3rd mo, 1646, Whereas John Winthrope, Junior, & othrs have by alowance of this Corte, begun a plantation in ye Pequod country, wch appertaines to this jurisdiction, as pt of or pportion of ye conquered country, & whereas this Corte is informed yt some Indians, who are now planted upon ye place where this said plantation is begun, are willing to remove from their planting ground for ye more quiet & con- venient settleing of ye English there, so that they may have anothr convenient place appointed-It is therefore ordred, yt ye said Mr. Winthrop may appoint unto such Indians as are willing to remove to othr lands or ye othr side, yt is, or ye east side of ye great ryver of the Pequod country, or some othr place for their convenient planting & subsistence, wch may be to ye good likeing and due sitisfaction of ye said Indians, & likewise to such of ye Pequod Indians as shall desire to live there, submitting themselves to ye English governt, (reserving to ye commissionrs of ye United Colonies what pply belongs to their disposing concrning ye said Pequods), & also to set out ye place for ye said plantation, & to set out lots for such of ye English as are there already planted, or shall come to them, and to governe ye people according to lawe, as occasion shall require, untill this Corte shall take further ordr therein; & whereas Mr. Thom: Peter is intended to inhabite in ye said plantation, this Corte doth think fit to joyne him to assist ye said Mr Winthrope, for ye better cariing on ye worke of ye said plantation according to this ordr." -Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, vol. i, 160, 161."
2
HISTORY OF STONINGTON.
1640-41-42 by granting lands thereof to Capt. John Mason and others. But notwithstanding all this, Mr. John Winthrop, Jr., located himself at Pequot as early as 1645. The next year the Massachusetts General Court gave Mr. Winthrop a commission to begin a plantation there in behalf of that colony. Connect- icut resisted the claims of Massachusetts, and in order to reach a peaceable settlement of all questions in dispute relative to jurisdiction, both colonies united in referring the whole matter to the Commissioners of the United Colonies, who, after an exhaustive hearing in the premises decided in favor of Con- necticut.2
2 "At a meeting of the Commissioners for the United Colonies of New Eng- land at New Haven, September 9, 1646.
"An English plantation being lately begun by Mr. John Winthrop junior at Pequat, a question grew to which Colony the jurisdiction should belong. The Commissioners for the Massachusetts propounded an interest by conquest, the Commissioners for Connecticut by patent, purchase and conquest. It was remembered that in a treaty betwixt them at Cambridge 1638, not perfected, a proposition was made that Pequat River in reference to the conquest should be the bounds between them, but Mr. Fenwick was not then there to plead the patent, nor had Connecticut then any title to those lands by purchase or deed of gift from Uncas. But the plantation is on the west side of Pequat, and so within the bounds at first propounded for Connecticut. The Commis- sioners jointly agreed that an English plantation there being well ordered may in sundry respects be of good use to all the Colonies, and thought fit it should have all due encouragements, only they conceived unless hereafter the Mas- sachustts shew better title the jurisdiction should belong to Connecticut."- C. J. Hoadley.
3 "At a Meeting of the Commissioners for the United Colonies of New Eng- land, held at Boston the 26th of July, 1647.
"The question concerning the jurisdiction of the English plantation lately settled on the east side of Pequat River was again taken into consideration by the Commissioners.
"Mr. John Winthrop now present exprest himself as more indifferent but affirmed that some of the planters sat down there in reference to the govern- ment and in expectation of large privileges from the Mattachusetts, and should be much disappointed if that plantation fall and be settled under any other jurisdiction.
"The Commissioners considering what passed at New Haven last year, and that in all the Colonies though the title to land may be several ways acquired, yet jurisdiction goeth constantly with the patent, they told Mr. John Winhrop that they doubted not but Connecticuty would tenderly consider and afford such privileges as may suit a plantation so remote, but concluded that the jurisdiction of that plantation doth and ought to belong to Connecticut."- C. J. Hoadley.
3
HISTORY OF STONINGTON.
Mr. Winthrop's planting at Pequot, or Nameaug, now New London, was the first settlement in Eastern Connecticut, and after the last decision of the Commissioners he recognized the jurisdiction of this colony, who in 1649 established the boundaries of his new township at four miles wide on the east side of the river Thames, and six miles from the sea northwardly. During that time Mr. Winthrop was engaged in the settlement of New London he became acquainted with William Chesebrough, then a resident of Rehoboth, in the Plymouth Colony, and invited him to join in the settlement of his new plantation.
Mr. Chesebrough visited the place during the year 1645, but finding it unsuitable to his expectations, did not conclude to settle there. On his way home he examined our town and selected a place for his future residence, and on which he erected a dwelling-house, and removed his family there during the year 1649, supposing that his new home was within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.
Connecticut having assumed jurisdiction and asserted au- thority over all the territory embraced within her chartered limits, summoned Mr. Chesebrough to appear before Capt. Mason at Saybrook, or some other magistrate upon Connecticut River, to give an account to him or them of what he was doing alone in the wilderness outside the limits of any recognized township. Mr. Chesebrough at first disregarded this order, claiming that his new home was within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, but, subsequently, acting under the advice and assurance of Mr. Winthrop and other friends at Pequot, he so far yielded to the authority of the colony of Connecticut as to appear at the General Court at Hartford in March, 1651, and in answer to their sum- mons said that he was not engaged in any unlawful trade with the Indians, and also assured them that his religious sentiments were in accordance with those of the General Court; that it was not his intention to remain alone and lead a solitary life in the wilderness, but that he should endeavor to induce a suitable number of his friends to join him and establish a new township.
On hearing his statement, the court so far changed its de- termination as to permit him to remain, on condition that he would give bonds not to engage in any unlawful trade with the Indians, and furnish to the court before the next winter the
4
HISTORY OF STONINGTON.
names of such persons as he might induce to settle with and around him at Wequetequock, as hereinafter more particularly described.
The planters at New London were friendly with Mr. Chese- brough, and did not want him to remove unless he went there to live, nor did they like the idea of a new township in this region. After repeated conferences with him, they engaged that if he would put himself on the footing of an inhabitant of that town, they would confirm to him the title to his lands at Wequetequock.
To this proposition he acceded, but the townsmen. of New London soon discovered that they were making pledges that they had not the power to fulfill for the eastern boundary of their then township, did not extend but four miles east of the river Thames.
However, on request, the General Court extended the eastern boundary of New London to Pawcatuck River, and then New London gave to Mr. Chesebrough a home-lot over there, which he never occupied.
In January, 1652, the town of New London redeemed its promise to him, and gave a grant of confirmation to Mr. Chese- brough and his sons of all the land they claimed in Stonington. Previous to the agreement of the General Court with Mr. Chesebrough, and the confirmation of his land to him and his sons by the town, Thomas Stanton, in 1650, procured of the General Court a license to erect a trading-house at Pawcatuck, with the exclusive right of trade in that region for three years. He immediately built and occupied the trading-house, but did not bring his family to Stonington until 1658. Thomas Miner, a former resident of Charlestown, Mass., and then of Hingham, came to New London in 1645, received a home-lot there, and built a house on it the same year. He continued to reside there until 1652, when he came to this place, and took up a tract of land east of and adjoining Wequetequock Cove, and during that year and in the next erected a house thereon, which is more at large hereinafter described.
On the 30th day of June, 1652, the town of New London granted a tract of three hundred acres of land to Governor Haynes for a farm lying together on the east side of Wequete- quock Cove.
5
HISTORY OF STONINGTON.
When Walter Palmer (yielding to the request of his old friend Chesebrough to join him, in settling the new township) came here and purchased this tract of land of Governor Haynes, but, before he took his deed he found it covered and embraced the house and lands of Thomas Miner. So he and the governor entered into a written agreement that Palmer should give a hundred pounds for the place and such cattle as Mr. Haynes should select out of Palmer's stock. If any disagreement should arise, as to the price of the stock, it should be decided by in- different persons. This contract recognized the title to the house and lands occupied by Mr. Miner and was dated July 15th, 1653. Mr. Miner was selected to put Mr. Palmer in possession of the land purchased of Governor Haynes and did so by a written instrument, embodying therein a conveyance of his own land and dwelling-house (included in the boundaries of the Haynes land) to Mr. Palmer, reserving the right, however, to occupy his said house until he could build another at Mistuxet, now Quiambaug. The western boundary of Governor Haynes' land sold to Walter Palmer, including the house and lot of Thomas Miner, rested on Wequetequock Cove and the rivulet that enters the cove. The other grants and purchases of land to and by Walter Palmer lay south of this purchase and on the eastern slope of Taugwonk or Togwonk, crossing Anguilla Brook, embracing the large farms of the late Col. William and Dudley Randall, in all, some twelve hundred acres. Mr. Thomas Miner built his new house at Mistuxet in 1652-3. Capt. George Denison and family joined the new settlement in 1654, erecting his house near Pequotsepos Brook. Capt. John Gallup and Robert Park, with their families, came the same year, and settled near Mystic River. The new settlement being com- posed of men of note, progressed as rapidly as could be expected under the circumstances. Mr. Chesebrough was now surrounded by a sufficient number of inhabitants to claim corporate powers from the General Court. The first local name that the settlement received was Mystic and Pawcatuck; Mystic embracing the territory between Mystic River on the west and Stony Brook on the east; Pawcatuck embracing the territory between Paw- catuck River on the east and Stony Brook on the west. It being understood by the planters here, as a condition precedent to the new settlement that as soon as a suitable number had
6
HISTORY OF STONINGTON.
joined them, they should be incorporated as a new town. So in 1654 they applied to the General Court for corporate powers. But no sooner made than it was opposed by New London, embracing Groton, and defeated. The planters did not rest satisfied with their defeat, and resolved to agitate the matter until they succeeded sooner or later. They were of the inde- pendent Puritan stamp, and ready to make any sacrifice in defense of the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. But to to be taxed for a minister at New London, some twelve miles away, with two rivers to cross to get there, and no ferry-boats, was a little too much for their Puritanism, so they were determined to have a town and a church of their own, and continued to ask for them of the General Court, but were denied as often as they applied. In the early part of 1657, the Rev. William Thompson came here to reside, and preached to the planters a part of the time, and the rest of the time to the Pequot Indians. He was employed by the Com- missioners of the United Colonies, who were acting as the agents of the London Missionary Society. The first religious services were held at the dwelling-house of Walter Palmer, March 22, 1657. Services were subsequently held at the dwelling-houses of the planters, whose efforts were continued with unremitting determination to break loose from New London and organize for themselves a new town and church. They remembered that Massachusetts had previously claimed a part or all of the Pequot territory, embracing Groton, Stonington, and Westerly, so they sought the friendship of Massachusetts in their contests, and in October the planters, joined by the Rev. Mr. Thompson, pre- pared a memorial to the Massachusetts General Court,4 complain-
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.