USA > Connecticut > Fairfield County > Bridgeport > A History of the Old Town of Stratford and the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut, Part I > Part 5
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 (link on the Part 1 page).
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
In order, therefore, to understand the whole history of this tribe of Indians it is important to refer to the deeds they gave of land in Fairfield, and to preserve their names the same as the signers of Stratford deeds.
The division line between Stratford and Fairfield passed through, north and south, the territory which these Indians had long cultivated, which constituted the open plains that the new settlers so much desired, that they could not settle the boundary line themselves and hence called on the General Court to do it. This they did by retaining the old line, nearly through the centre of the plain, allowing the Indians to still cultivate about eighty acres, called the old Indian field, near Uncoway River, in Fairfield, and appropriating eighty more on Golden Hill in Stratford, but making Golden. Hill the place of residence for all of them.
1
1
45
Indian Deeds.
The first deed' is a quitclaim of a large part of the orig- inal town of Fairfield, and is given by Pequannock Indians in 1656, nearly seventeen years after Mr. Ludlowe took posses- sion of the territory. In this deed they reserve the " pro- priety " or ownership of the Indian field, which they, being at Fairfield say, "is a small neck of land on ye other side of ye creeke ;" meaning Uncoway creek as elsewhere explained. That was the neck where the Gentlemen's Trotting Park is now located, the original field extending northward some distance from the present park. At the time the deed was given they were about to build a fort, and the only considera- tion that they received at the time, apparently, was an agree-
' Fairfield Indian Deed, dated March 20, 1656.
" Whereas several Indians have made claim to much of ye land yt ye Town of Fairfield have and do possess, ye Town of Fairfield having taken ye matter into consideration, ordered and appointed Alexander Knowles, Henry Jackson, Francis Purdy with several others to treat with Poquanuck Indians concerning and upon ye treaty with those Indians whose names are under written in ye behalf of all ye Pequannock Indians they have agreed as followeth :
"First they owne yt ye land yt ye Town is built upon from ye Creeke yt ye tide mill of Fairfield southwestward is called Sasqua which they owne has been purchased* from ye Indians and is now ye English land.
"2. Secondly ye sd. Indians have acknowledged, consented to and granted yt all that tract of land which they call Uncoway and which is from ye above sd Creek eastward unto ye bounds between Fairfield and Stratford, from ye See to run into ye country seven or eight miles, for ye future it shall be ye land and propriety of ye inhabitants of ye Town of Fairfield, giving and granting to ye sd Town all ye above sd tract of land called Uncoway with all creeks rivers etc. . . . . only it is to be noticed that the field which ye Indians now possess called yo Indian field, which is a small neck of land on ye other side of ye creeke is excepted, ye Indians still keeping their propriety in that small neck or field. Ye Indians are to have ye privilege of killing deer within ye abovesd tract of land, only they are not to set any traps within ye sd tract of land.
In witness, 20th March, 1656.
" Whereas ye above said land is granted to ye Town of Fairfield by ye sd Indians : We also manifest our respect unto them yt wee doe engage upon suffi- cient warning to cart their stuff for them to erect and build a fort yr. Upon this consideration ye sd Indians have acknowledged ye abovesd grant.
Umpeter Noset, marke. Nimrod or Pocunnoc, marke.
Matamuck, marke. Anthonyes, alias Lotashun, marke.
Weshun,
marke."
* "Purchased," means obtained, for in a later deed where all previous deeds are referred to, this one is the first mentioned.
I
46
History of Stratford.
ment on the part of the English to "draw the stuffe," with which to build this fort, but this may have taken time suffi- cient to balance quite a sum of money. Whether there had been a fort there or anywhere within Fairfield bounds is not stated, but a fort was at some time here, for in 1752, in giving the bounds of the Stratfield Society at this place, they say, " which said cove heads or terminates at or near the place called the Old.Fort.""
Another deed' of the same date-March 20, 1656-was given for "land commonly called Sasqua, lying west of Sasqua swamp, or on the west side of the present Mill River; Musquat, the first name on this deed, is the same as that on a deed in Stratford in 1671.
The third deed' was given to cover this same territory or a part of it because the Indians at Norwalk claimed an interest in it.
' Col. Rec., x. 147.
8 Second Indian Deed in Fairfield, date March 20, 1656.
" This was a deed of " land commonly called Susqua, . . . bounded on ye north- east with ye land called Uncaway, on ye southwest with ye land at Maximus, ye line on ye southwest runs close to ye English farms at Maximus, . . . . from the sea Straight up into ye country six miles at ye least."
Musquatt,
his mark. Santamartous poppoos, his mark.
Taspee,
his mark. Willecon, his mark.
Ponuncamo, his mark. James, alias Watusewa-
Cramkeago's Squaw,
satum, his mark.
Selamartous' Sister
Wompegan, his mark.
Wissashoes, her mark.
The following signed October 16, 1679.
Creconoe's mark.
Chickens' mark."
Indian Witnesses.
Nimrod's mark. Antony's mark."
4 Fairfield Indian Deed of Land claimed by Indians of Norwalk, in which it is said " Susqua did run west as far as Muddy Creek." Dated April 11, 1661.
Momechemen, mark.
Wenam, mark.
Tolpee, mark. Quanumsooe, mark.
Aucan, mark. Panoucamus, mark.
Maskot, mark.
James,
marke."
Indian Witnesses.
Mamachim's mark.
Weenam's mark."
47
Indian Deeds.
The next deed' here noticed-for the deed given in 1670 has not been seen-was given for claims, again, on the whole township, and a large part of it is given in the note to show the inside track of the business of buying lands of the Indians, and also because it was the final one, except for reservations, for the southern part of the township.
The interpreter in these sales was John Minor of Strat- ford, and several of these deeds are recorded on Fairfield
Fairfield Indian Deed, quitclaim, date October 6, 1680. .
"Know all men by these presents yt whereas y' towne of Fairfield hath form- erly bought of y" true Indian proprietors all ye lands contained within their township bounds which is seven miles broad upon ye sea coast and from ye sea at least twelve miles into ye country to y' northward of their bounds, bounded on y' east with ye sd. Town bounds as y" Court hath settled, on ye west with ye town bounds of Norwake, also Compaw Neck from ye old road to Norwake to Sagatuck River on ye west, and to ye sea on ye south, for which lands ye Indian proprietors have given ye sd Towne severall bills of sale-one bill bearing date 20th March, 1656, another bill dated 21 March, 1689, ye 3d bill bearing date ye 19th Jan., 1670, by all which bills of sale ye above lands are made over to ye Towne, Yet for ye maintenance of love and peace between ye sd Towne and us ye Indians y' wee may prevent trouble, yt neither we nor our heirs nor successors shall make any further claims . . . We the surviving Indians, inhabitants of Poquanock, Uncoway, Susqua and Aspetuck do covenant, etc. . . . . for a valuable considera- tion do alienate, etc. . . . . [In this deed the old Indian field was still reserved.] Witness this 6th day of October, 1680.
John Minor, John Sherwood,
Witnesses and Interpreter.
Old Anthony,
his mark. Panumset,
his mark.
Nimrod,
his mark.
Pupurah,
his mark.
Woywegun Nasque,
his mark.
Mamarashock,
his mark.
Yeerusqua,
her mark. Nausouate, his mark.
Washannaesuck,
his mark.
Sasqua James, his mark.
Koewop,
his mark.
Nusenpawes,
his mark.
Cooreco,
his mark.
Creconoc, his mark.
Weequombe,
his mark.
Norwake James,
his mark.
Poueri,
his mark.
Capt. Witree,
his mark.
Youyowwhy,
his mark.
Iletorow,
his mark.
Patchcock,
his mark.
Nasacoe,
his mark.
Sasapequun,
his mark.
Quatiart,
his mark.
Aquonke,
his marke.
Siacus,
his mark." .
October 13, 1680, the following names were added.
" Hassahan,
marke.
Wampum, marke.
Mittacke,
marke.
Warenet,
marke.
Womsoncowe,
marke.
Choromoke,
marke.
Chickins,
marke."
.
48
History of Stratford.
book in John Minor's handwriting, but testified to by Fair- field town clerk.
On this last deed are many names, some of which we find on Stratford deeds, and also on deeds given some years later further up the Housatonic river. Old Anthony, whose Indian name was Lotashun, was, we imagine, a noble old Indian, and really very old. Nimrod, whose Indian name was Pocunnoe, had been prosecuted thirty years before for killing a Mr. Buttler's hogs, being then a prominent man, and must have been quite old, and he it was who had his wigwam on the eastern part of the Golden Hill reservation, and after whom the lot was named, and known many years, near where the Bridgeport Gas Works now stand, and in his honor also was named a steamboat sailing from Bridgeport nearly two hundred years after Pocunnoe was named Nim- rod. Quite a number of these names with variations of spelling are to be seen several times in other deeds hereafter noticed ..
Only one year after the date of the last deed the Pequan- nock Indians prevailed with Fairfield men to buy their old field near Uncoway creek, although the Fairfield people urged them to keep it, as the bill of sale says, and on the 18th of May, 1681, the deed was signed ; the deed saying, " the Old Indian field on ye east side of Uncoway River.""
It is conclusive from the few names attached to this deed
Fairfield Indian Deed for the Indian field, dated May 18, 1681.
" This sale we have made for a valuable consideration."
Mamerushee Umperenoset's Cape, son, mark. Sow wahose squaw,
his mark.
Ponees,
his mark.
Naushuta's squaw,
her mark.
Washaganoset, his mark.
Anthony's son,
his mark.
Wissawahem squaw,
her mark. Choraromokes,
his mark."
"Indian Witnesses.
Sasqua James, his mark.
Runsh squa, her mark.
Crovecoe, his mark.
Pascoe, his mark.
Rorocway, his mark.
"Trushee an Indian who speaks very good English " was employed by both parties and signed this deed.
Trushee's mark."
her mark.
Old Anthony, his mark.
Nassansumk Young,
49
Fairfield Indian Deeds.
that quite many of the natives had removed, and we find also that during the previous year the Paugassett chief petitioned the General Court for more land to plant, and in October the Court ordered, and the reservation called Coram was devoted to their use, so that probably about this time a considerable emigration occurred to Pootatuck in Huntington, Pompe- raug on the Housatonic and to Pootatuck in Newtown.
Several other Indian deeds are recorded on Fairfield books ; one of a piece of land called Wolf Pit Neck, in the southeast part of the town joining Stratford line, dated Feb- ruary 12, 1685, and sold to Fairfield town.'
This deed and several others are signed by John Burr as Commissioner, and since it was unlawful for any persons or towns to purchase lands of the Indians without an order from the General Court, probably he was appointed to act in that capacity, and hence may have effected the purchase under the great oak tree, as tradition has reported, on the plain about a mile west of the wigwams at the foot of Golden Hill and in the northern part of the old open field.
--
This was a grand ancient tree, celebrated as such for the last two hundred years, but like all the lords of this earth, it had its day when it flourished and extended its branches to a great distance, and then came the processes of decay which were in operation probably more than one hundred years before the great monarch bowed his proud head and yielded to inevitable fate. It had attained to about six feet in diam- eter two feet above ground, and by actual count of the layers of wood so far as decay would permit, it must have attained to about four hundred years of age ; when in a strong east-
1 Fairfield Indian Deed dated Feb. 12, 1685.
" We Indians sell . . . for a valuable consideration . . . a neck of land called Wolf Pitt Neck ... on Stratford bounding line on ye northeast, on ye other sides with ye land of ye inhabitants of Fairfield. . The mark of Penomscot. The mark of Matamhe.
Cheroramag, his mark. The mark of Kahaco.
The mark of Asoraimpom.
The mark of Shaganoset.
The markof Machoka, acunk's Daughter. The mark of Pony.
The mark of Old Anthony.
The mark of Matamhe.
The mark of Pascog, Interpreter."
4
50
History of Stratford.
erly storm in the spring of 1884, it was blown down, and "great was the fall of it," and then by the fiat of the world- renowned showman' whose tender mercies and great respect for old age allowed it standing room in a most beautiful field for a number of years, although unfruitful, it was hewn in pieces and disappeared forever.
It is probable, that this celebrated ceremony took place under the branches of this great spreading oak, when the old Indian field was sold, which occurred in the balmy weather of spring on the 18th of May, 1681, just two hun- dred and three years before it fell by the strong winds from the great sea. Col. John Burr who held the council with the Indians and his descendants, owned the land on which this tree stood nearly two hundred years, their dwelling standing but a little distance from it. Miss Polly Burr, the last owner in the family name died in 1874, but had sold it to Hon. P. T. Barnum previous to her decease.
.
Another deed' was signed by the Indians for a highway through their reservation on Golden Hill in June, 1686, which was very nearly what is now Washington avenue, and this highway was for the convenience of the English and Indians. There were residing here then several English families, John Beardsley, Samuel Gregory, Henry Summers and others, on and near the old division line between Fairfield and Strat- ford, which was afterwards called Division street, and now Park avenue.
The next spring (in 1687) the General Court ordered the old King's highway laid out from Stratford to Fairfield, which highway, after nearly two hundred years, was so unfortunate as to have its name changed to the insignificant name of
8 The Hon. P. T. Barnum.
' Fairfield Indian Deed for highway, dated June 8, 1686.
" A highway from the highway between Fairfield and Stratford [now Park avenue] into the Indian field called Golden Hill, . . . .. . near where the path lieth from Samuel Gregory's across the Indian field that goeth toward Stratford."
John Beardsley.
Wowompon,
his mark.
Pascob,
his mark.
Panomscot,
his mark.
Pany,
his mark.
Siacus,
his mark.
Robin, his mark.
·
-
-
51
Fairfield Indian Deeds.
North avenue, thereby losing all its ancient renown and honor.
Two other deeds are recorded on the Fairfield book ; one .of land " called Umpawage lying westward from Fairfield in the wilderness;1º the other" " a piece of land about eighteen or twenty miles from the town of Fairfield . .. to the west- ward of north Fairfield in the woods, called Ompaquag, a mile square." All the Indians signing these deeds were prob- ably of the Pequannock tribe, and the last witness to this last deed-Cashesamay-was the Sachem at Pootatuck (Shelton) and afterwards at Newtown.
Trouble with the Indians.
.
The Indians made much trouble and brought many diffi- culties to the English settlers of Connecticut. The expendi- tures by the latter to defend themselves from the hostilities and trespasses of the former were more than a fair or proper value of the land as it was purchased from time to time until it was all secured by honorable deeds. There were two wars between the English and Indians in Connecticut ; the one in 1637, and the other in 1675 and 1676, and both, under the cir- cumstances then existing, were great wars with heavy expend-
10 Fairfield Indian Deed dated Dec. 29, 1686.
" This land is by estimation about two miles square, northwest bounds is by Sagatuck River which runeth by the path that goeth from Paquiag the English plantateon."
Nanascrow, his mark.
Mattake, his mark.
Crekano, his mark.
Mamorussuck, his mark.
Tontasonahas, his mark. .
Washogenoset, his mark.
Womumkaway, his mark.
Aquetwake, his mark.
Taquoshe, his mark.
"Indian Witnesses.
Sasco James, his mark.
Panomscot, his mark.
Roben,
his mark.
Messhawmish, his mark."
11 Fairfield Indian Deed dated Sept. 12, 1687.
" A parcel of land in Connecticut called Ompaquag, it being a mile square." Monaquitarah, Sen., his mark. Wamouncaway, his mark.
Nathascon, his mark. Wukerowam, his mark.
"Indian Witnesses.
Mamoroset, Sagawin, his mark. Robben, his mark.
Wanachecompum,
his mark. Cashesamay, Sachem, his mark."
.
52
History of Stratford.
itures and terrible consequences. The first of these was the Pequot war which began in May, 1637, and closed in June the same year in a swamp near what is now the village of South- port, in the town of Fairfield. The attack on the fort of the Pequots was made by Capt. John Mason and his ninety men about day-break in the morning of June 5th, and a great vic- tory was gained, resulting in the killing of many of the Indi- ans, and the remainder fleeing westward in great haste. These were pursued by the soldiers, crossing the Connecticut river and continuing along the shore of the Sound. At New Haven a number of Indians were killed in a skirmish or bat- tle, and the same in Stratford where the fugitives were joined by the Pequannock Indians; and finally the flying Indians took refuge in a swamp, now located a little north of the vil- lage of Southport, where they were surrounded, and after hard fighting some escaped with their lives.
At this time some hostages were taken of the Pequan- nock Indians and some of their women were sold to servitude in Connecticut and Massachusetts. The Pequot and Pequan- nock women and children taken in this war numbering two hundred" were all devoted to slavery for life, being distribu- ted, probably, sold by the governments of Connecticut and Massachusetts to pay expenses of the war, to the inhabitants of these commonwealths, and many of them, especially the male children, according to Governor Winthrop," were sold as slaves at the Bermuda Islands. This Pequot war was a savage war on the part of the English and produced terrible results. The historians have apparently nearly always avoided the full particulars and the disgrace of its barbarity. Even Dr. Trumbull either was ignorant of the aggravating facts or passed over them too lightly for a historian of high integrity. The slaughter of so many Indians-six or seven hundred-besides those assigned to slavery, produced on the minds of those who remained in the tribes, savages though they were, a terrible fear, a shudder of horror, but the reac- tion in their minds was an almost insatiable thirst for revenge, and this the colonists understood, and so dreaded that it is
12 Morton, 114.
18 Ibid, 113.
!
1
!
i
:
:
:
i
1 i 1
53
The Pequot War.
1
apparent on almost every movement they made for self-pro- tection, for fifty years, and the Narraganset, or King Phillip's War, was planned and carried on by the Indians with double secrecy and energy by the remembrance of this Pequot slaughter, for without it King Phillip could never. have formed the combination of tribes which he did. Also from the day the Pequots were slain the western Connecticut Indians had no faith in the white man's religion. Think of it! There were at the time in the Housatonic valley, from Long Island Sound northward, between two and three thous- and docile, friendly Indians, but a dozen reported conversions to Christianity were not made until the Moravian Mission- aries came to Scatacook in 1743, and yet these natives mingled freely and in scores of cases, familiarly with the white set- tlers during all these one hundred years.
As has been stated, the colonists dreaded and expected retaliation. Several times during the next seventy-five years it was rumored, with no foundation for the rumor but the fears of the whites or the threats of a few irritated natives, that the Indians of Fairfield county had joined with the Mohawks in a war of extermination ; and the General Court sent out companies of soldiers, into Fairfield and Litchfield counties, to detect, and resist such a combination, even as late as 1724. As late as during the French and Indian wars in 1758, this dread and expectation were still cherished and acted upon all along the western boundaries of Connecticut.
The destruction of the Pequots was ended in the town of Fairfield, and the Pequannocks were allies and joined in the fight against the whites, thus connecting Stratford and Fair- field with that war.
The causes which have been set forth by Dr. Trumbull for this war were entirely inadequate to the terrible mas- sacre of seven or eight hundred men, women and children, even in an Indian fort, and the enslaving of two hundred other women and children, and the only excuse for the persons who did it lies in the fact that they had just emigra- ted from England where such barbarity was the sentiment of the people, as was clearly exhibited by that people in the- American Revolutionary War.
-
54
History of Stratford.
Until the year 1643, following the Pequot war, the Indians were comparatively quiet and friendly, and the Gen- eral Court saw the need of making but few restrictions and regulations in regard to them, and what they did enact had as much, or more reference to the conduct of the English than to the Indians, but in this year and several following, the doings of the Indians in what is now Fairfield County were such as to awaken great apprehension for the safety of the people.
Five plantations were seriously in danger; Stratford, Fairfield, Norwalk, Stamford and Greenwich, but the last of these was at the time under the jurisdiction of the New York Governor. The settlers in each of these localities were not numerous, and they had had but little time or means to make- preparations against any Indian hostilities. The settlement at Stratford had been in progress four years, that of Fairfield, four years, that of Norwalk, three, that of Stamford, two, and that of Greenwich, three. The number of the Indians then. within the five plantations and their vicinities were, proba- bly, four or five to every white person, and they had all advantageous facilities for a complete massacre, or destruc- tion of the white people. The immediate cause for this dis- turbance was the war between the Hudson River Indians and the Dutch at New York. Dr. Trumbull" gives the fol- lowing account of the origin of this Indian and Dutch War: " The war between the Dutch and Indians began in this manner. A drunken Indian, in his intoxication, killed a Dutchman. The Dutch demanded the murderer, but he was not to be found. They then made application to their gov- ernor to avenge the murderer. He, judging it would be unjust or unsafe, considering the numbers of the Indians, and the weak and scattered state of the Dutch settlements, neg- lected to comply with their repeated solicitations. In the mean time the Mohawks, as the report was, excited by the Dutch, fell suddenly on the Indians, in the vicinity of the Dutch settlements and killed nearly thirty of them. Others. fled to the Dutch for protection. One Marine, a Dutch cap -.
:
:
---
:
1
1
i
! I
1
1 I
i
14 Vol. i. 138.
i
:
55
Dutch and Indian War.
tain, getting intelligence of their state, made application to the Dutch Governor, and obtained a commission to kill as many of them as it should be in his power. Collecting a com- pany of armed men, he fell suddenly upon the Indians, while they were unapprehensive of danger, and made a promiscu- ous slaughter of men, women and children, to the number of seventy or eighty. This instantly roused the Indians, in that part of the country, to a furious, obstinate and bloody war.
" In the spring, and beginning of the summer, they burnt the Dutch out-houses; and driving their cattle into their barns, they burned the barns and cattle together. They killed twenty or more of the Dutch people, and pressed so hard upon them that they were obliged to take refuge in their fort, and to seek help of the English. The Indians upon Long Island united in the war with those on the main, and burned the Dutch houses and barns. The Dutch governor, in this situation, invited captain Underhill from Stamford to assist him in the war. Marine, the Dutch captain, was so exasperated with this proceeding that he presented his pistol at the governor, and would have shot him, but was prevented by one who stood by him. Upon this one of Marine's tenants discharged his musket at the governor, and the ball but just missed him. The governor's sentinel shot the tenant and killed him on the spot. The Dutch, who at first were so for- ward for a war with the Indians, were now, when they experienced the loss and dangers of it, so irritated at the gov- ernor, for the orders which he had given, that he could not trust himself among them. He was obliged to keep a con- stant guard of fifty Englishmen about his person. In the sum- mer and fall the Indians killed fifteen more of the Dutch people, and drove in all the inhabitants of the English and Dutch settlements west of Stamford.
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.