USA > Connecticut > Fairfield County > Stratford > A history of the old town of Stratford and the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut > Part 2
USA > Connecticut > Fairfield County > Bridgeport > A history of the old town of Stratford and the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut > Part 2
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
7 Col. Rec., i. 226.
8 Col. Rec., i. 62.
8
History of Stratford.
judged equall and allowed that he shall have the one-half for his paynes."
Not only did the Indians neglect to pay their tribute, but they committed depredations in many ways and manifested so much hostility, from 1643 to 1655, that the plantations on different occasions kept soldiers on watch nights and Sun- days, and at several times called out the militia. Also, the Indians made continued trouble by their demands for pay for their lands, for after the Court had given its decision, in 1656, the Milford Indians made a claim to some of the land within the Stratford territory. Ansantaway was chief then at Mil- ford, and he gave a deed9 for all the land his people claimed on the west side of the Housatonic river, and leaves the Eng- lish to give him whatever they should see fit, thus indicating that his claim had but little real merit.
In order to secure satisfaction among the Indians, and quiet to their English neighbors, the Connecticut Colony made another effort to settle the matter among all parties, by the following order :
" Hartford, March 7, 1658-59. By the Court of Magis- trates. This Court having taken into consideration, the busi- ness respecting the Indians pertayning to the plantations of Stratford and Fayrefeyld and finding in the last agreement made with the Indians while Mr. Willis and Mr. Allin were
9 Ansantaway's Deed to Stratford.
"This present writing declareth, we Ansantaway and my wife do make over and alienate unto the Inhabitants of Stratford all our right in a tract of land being as far as the River called the further milne river by Woronoke and westward as far as the bounds of us our Paugusit Indians lies, with the English of the afore- sayd Town and mark the trees as our bounds did goe before it was alienated to the English as abovesayd. We also do engadge that no other Indians shall lay any charge unto any of the aforesayd lands, and we doe leave it to the town afore- sayd to give us for this land as they shall see good and meet. And we doe give free liberty for the aforesayd Town their cattle to go beyond that further milne River northward and north-west as they did, peaceably and quietly ; we and Pau- gusit Indians doe thus agree as witness our hands in the name of the rest. This Febu. 22, 1658."
The recorder of this deed says: " This is a true copy of a bill of sale signed by Ansantaway, his wife and Towtanamy the chief Sagamore," but he was mis- taken, for he did not transcribe the Indian names, for the deed is without any sig- natures.
9
New Indian Papers.
down there, that those two plantations aforementioned are ingaged to asure and alow unto those respective Indians per- tayning to each town sufitient land to plant on for their subsistance and so to their heayres and sucsessors :
" It is therefore ordered by this Court, and required that each plantation forementioned exercise due care that the agreement made by the magistrates be fully attended without unnecessary delay, that so the Indians may have no just cause to complayne agaynst the English, but rather may be incouraged to attend and observe the agreement on their parts, that peace may be continued on both sides ; and further it is desired that the Indians may be allowed to improve theire antient fishing place which they desire.
" To the Constables of Stratford to be forthwith published and sent to Fayrfiyld to be published and recorded by the Register."
Three days after the above record the Court took further action :
" March 10, 1658-59. This Court having considered the agreement with the Indians as also for other reasons as par- ticularly that which the town of Fayrfeyld pleaded why their bounds should be enlarged was because they might provide for theire Indians which were many, do therefore order that the towne of Fayrfeyld shall forthwith attend the order as above sent from the magistrates and alow and lay out unto theire Indians that formerly did and now do belong unto that plantation, sufitient planting land for the present and future, that so there may be no disturbance twixt the Indians and the town of Stratford about any former improprieties which we find are renownced for the future by the last agree- ment. And the Court judges that the Indians that have for so many and several years been inhabitants of Fayrfeyld bounds shall now and for future be acounted as those that do properly belong to that plantation.
" Mr. Camfield and the deputies of Norwoke are apointed to see this efected by Fayrfeyld men or do it themselves.
DANIEL CLARKE, Secretary."
10 Stratford Records.
.
IO
History of Stratford.
About a month later a paper was recorded giving the agreement made between the two towns as above referred to.
The great hindrance in settling the boundaries between these two plantations and the Indians was the open or cleared land on the east side of what is now called Ash Creek, form- erly Uncoway River. It was good soil, and probably much of it cleared besides the portion which the Indians had planted for many years, called afterwards the Indian field. This is revealed in part by a paper from John Strickland,11 giving the reason that Fairfield wanted more room, and so desired the Indians pushed over east on Stratford territory, but the old line was retained while a tract of land was set off for the Indians on Golden Hill, and they retained their old field at the head of Black Rock Cove until 1681, when they sold it to Fairfield. There were, probably, several hundred acres of partially cleared land, now constituting the western part of the city of Bridgeport and Sea-Side Park, of which the Indian field containing about one hundred acres, with their fort, formed a central part.
In the spring of 1659, the question of title or right to the land in the plantations of Stratford and Fairfield was brought before the General Court at Hartford and settled. The Indians agreed that if the English could prove that they had received the land by purchase, gift or conquest, it should be theirs ; whereupon a number of men gave their testimony in writing under oath on the subject, and the Court decided in favor of the plantations, and the affidavits were recorded in the town book, and they are here produced in foot-notes because of various items of historical interest. These papers are prefaced on the records with the statement: " A Rec-
11 The Testimony of John Strickland. "I John Strickland, of Huntington Long Island having formerly lived at Uncoway now called Fayrfeyld do remem- ber that I was deputed with some others to treat with Stratford men about the bounds of those towns and accordingly we mett, we of Uncoway desired some inlargement of our bounds towards Stratford because we were burdened with many Indians, and to my best remembrance it was by Stratford men granted and by us all concluded that we of Uncoway should keep our Indians upon our own bounds.
John Strickling, his mark. April 23. 1659.
Taken upon oath before me.
Thomas Benedict."
II
New Indian Papers.
ord of several letters presented to the Court of Hartford, whereby together with other evidences the town of Stratford proved, and the Court granted a clear right to their land in reference to Paquannock Indians with whom they had to do."
The first paper is by the Rev. John Higginson,12 of Guil-
12 " A Testimony of Mr. Higison late pastor of the church at Guilford.
" Being desired to expose wt I remember concerning the transaction between the English at Conneckticott and the Indians along the Coast from Quilipioke to the Manhatoes about the land, the substance of it I can say is briefly this :
"That in the beginning of the year 1638, the last week in March Mr. Hop- kins and Mr. Goodwin,# being employed to treat with the Indians and to make sure of that whole tract of land in order to prevent the dutch and to accommodate the English who might after come to inhabit there, I was sent with them as an interpreter (for want of a better) we having an Indian with us for a guide, acquainted the Indians as we passed with our purpose and went as far as about Narwoke before we stayed. Coming thither on the first day we gave notice to the Sachem and the Indians to meet there on the second day that we might treat with them all together about the business. Accordingly on the second day there was a full meeting (as themselves sayd) of all the Sachems, old men and Captaynes from about Milford to Hudson's River. After they had understood the cause of our coming and had consulted with us and amongst themselves, and in as solemn a maner as Indians used to do in such cases they did with an unanimous consent approve their desire of the English friendship, their willingness the English should come to dwell amongst them and professed that they did give and surren- der up all their land to the English Sachems at Coneckticott and hereupon pre- sented us with two parcells of wampem the lesser they would give us for our mesage, the greater they would send as a present to the Sachims at Coneckticott, it being not long after the English conquest and the fame of the English being then upon them.
"It being moved among them which of them would go up with us to signifie this agreement and to present their wampem to the Sachem at Coneckticout, at last Waunetan and Wouwequock Paranoket, offered themselves, and were much applauded by the rest for it. Accordingly those two Indians went up with us to Harford. Not long after there was a comitee in Mr. Hooker's barne, the meeting house then not buylded, where they two did apeare and presented their wampum, (but ould Mr. Pinchin one of ye magistrates there then) taking him to be the inter- preter, then I remember I went out and attended the business no farther, so that what was further done or what writings there were about the buysness I cannot now say, but I supose if search be made something of the business may be found in the records of the Court, and I supose if Mr. Goodwin be inquired of he can
* Mr. Edward Hopkins and Mr. William Goodwin were among the principal planters at Hartford,
12
History of Stratford.
ford, Conn., in which he states that the land was given to the Connecticut Colony in 1638, and gives the reasons why the Indians did it, namely, for the security thereby obtained. These are corroborated by the fact that Towtanemow, Saga- more at Paugassett, gave to Lieut. Thomas Wheeler of Fair- field, about forty acres of land, what is now the southern part of Birmingham village, in Derby, if he would come and reside upon it, which he did some five or six years; then sold the land and improvements for two hundred pounds money.
This paper of Mr. Higginson informs that a convention was held with the Indians from New Haven to the Hudson river, at Norwalk in the last week in March (as we now reckon time), 1638, he himself being interpreter, when the Indians gave this territory to Connecticut, reserving only room to plant, and the treaty was ratified with due solemnity at Nor- walk and at Hartford, the council being held in Mr. Hooker's barn at. Hartford because the meeting-house was not then completed.
The date of this Norwalk Indian council shows it to have been held about fifteen days before the New Haven company landed at Quinnipiac.
The next testimony is that of Thomas Stanton,13 who was
say the same for substance as I doe and William Cornwell at Sebrook who was there."
Mr. Nicholas Knell [one of the first settlers at Stratford] testifies to ye same with Mr. Higgison as respecting ye Indians giving ye land to ye English, and recommended payment of money to ye Indians as gratuity for ye gifts. Taken this 3d Aprill Nicholas Knell Guilford May 5, 1659 John Higgison."
13 Testimony of Thomas Stanton.
"Loving friends I received your's dated may the 4th 1659, by John Minor wherein I understand of the insolent and unreasonable behavior and demands of the natives in your parts as chalenging all or the greatest part of your land so long since by you possest. Their chalenge is that if the English can prove the lands they possess were ever sould them or given them or conquered by them.
I much wonder at these times ; this lesson they have leayrned but of late years certainly. They well know the English did possess all these parts as Con- quered lands for from Newhaven to Sashquaket we did pursue the Pequets, killed divers at Newhaven and at Cupheag, only one house, or the karkise of one, we found at Milford without inhabitants. At the cuting [off ] of the Pequets all
13
New Indian Papers.
for many years the Indian interpreter at Hartford, which informs us that Connecticut Colony conquered the Pequots and Pequannocks at the same time-1637-took hostages of the Pequannock Indians and sold some of their women into servitude into Massachusetts. He also says the Pequots had conquered the tribes along the Sound west of Quinnipiac, and made them tributary before the English came, and states that the Pequannocks engaged with the Pequots, as their allies, in the fight at Cupheag, and also at the swamp on the western boundary of Fairfield. The fight said to be at Cupheag was probably at Pequannock river where afterwards a gun was found as shown by the following record.
"General Court, April, 1639. Thomas Bull informed the
their friends and confederates fled also being under the same condemnation with them. Tis true some at Paquannocke did formerly stand out but the Pequets did kill severell of them [i. e. in previous wars,] and conquered the country, [and] so brought all the Indians at [on] Long Island and the mayne [land] their tributaries from Pequet to Accomket beyond Hudson River. The English conquering the Pequets conquered them also and took Captains from Sashquaket [and] Poquan- ocke, for they several of them lived with the Pequets in time of their prosperitie and fought against the English also at Sashquaket, Poquanocke Indians fought against us, likewise some of those women are at and the Bay [Massachusetts] as captives to this day. I have informed some of the most Rational Pequets of this and they say that if the English do grant that the western Indians may sell their land, they [the Pequots] may do the like, for they say their land [the Pequannocks] is conquered as well as ours. Severall of themselves debate the poynt with them and prove it to the English before their faces. Also since the wars I can testify that the Indians at Paquanock did intreat Mr. Haynes and Mr. Hopkins [then Magistrates] that some (?) of the English would dwell by them that so they might not be in fear of their enemies, the uplanders, and that the English should have all their land only providing them some place for plant- ing ; which I think is but a reasonable request, and I hope you will atend rules of mercie in that case ; not that they shall be their own carvers what they will and where for exhorbitant humor will cary them to disposes you of your houses. Experience proves it ; give an Indian an inch and he will take an ell. I will Ingage myself to prove the land as before sayd conquered, and if I mistake not very much the English by gift firstlie from themselves desiring as above sayd the English to come and sit down upon it. I could wish this matter had been in question in Mr. Haynes days and Mr. Hopkins, but the commanders of the Bay [Massachusetts] soldiers, and commanders of Coneckticott, the antient Pequets, will prove it Conquered land, and I never heard of other ground by which the English did posses it but by Conquest and gift .. . Not else at present to trouble you I comit you to God and rest your's, to love and serve as God shall enable.
Thomas Stanton. Stratford Records."
.
14
History of Stratford.
Court that a musket with two letters, J. W., was taken up at Pequannocke in pursuit of the Pequatts, which was conceived to be John Woods who was killed at the River's mouth. It was ordered for the present [that] the musket should be delivered to John Woods friends until other appear."14
It has been generally maintained that at the time the English came here these Indians were tributary to the Mohawks, which has been an error according to this paper.
Mr. Stanton also says " only one house or the karkise of one we found at Milford without inhabitants." This was the last week in March, 1637, two weeks before the New Haven and the Milford companies arrived on what is now Connecti- cut territory. The question arises, who built this frame of a house at Milford in, or before 1638, before any of the Milford people came there ?
Another paper was given by Lieut. Thomas Wheeler.15 one of the first settlers at Fairfield, with his father as he him- self informs, and as the records show, from which place he
14 Col. Rec. i. 29.
15 Lieutenant Thomas Wheeler's Testimony.
"That in the time of his being an inhabitant of the town of Fayrefeyld and having several times in discourse ocation to speake with some of the cheife of that company which are now caled Uncaway Indians as Matawmuck, Nimrod and Anthony the Sagamore's brother of Uncoway, men well known to themselves, did relate to him concerning the land now in controversie as followeth :
"That they could lay no clayme or chalenge to any of the land on the east side [of] Hawkins' Brooke only they had liberty to hunt and fish.
"The ground of this discourse partly came from this the Lieutenant having a farm on the east side of this Hawkins Brooke and fearing least the Indians should lay clayme to it as well as to the land on the west side of the aforesayd named Broke did inquire of aforesayd named Indians concerning it. This the Lieutenant will take his oath to, it being legaly demanded.
"This Deponent further sayth, that Paquanock Sachem, the chief of the Paqua- nock Indians had his place of residence on the west side of the River com- only called Unkcaway River and that it was the proper wright of their pre- disesours from generation to generation. This was afirmed to this deponent by Queriheag the cheefe Sagamore of the Indians at the English first coming here. To this the deponent Lieutenant Wheeler offers to take his oath legally caled thereto.
Thomas Wheeler. Stratford Rec."
No date, but it was probably given in 1659, it following directly Mr. Higgin- son's letter.
15
New Indian Papers.
removed about 1657 to Derby, where the Indians gave him land, as heretofore stated. Mr. Wheeler says, the Pequan- nock sachem, whose name was Queriheag, being chief saga- more, when the English first came, had his residence on the west side of Uncaway river, and that it was the home and inheritance of his predecessors from generation to generation, giving us some idea of the importance and antiquity of this tribe. Hence it appears that the Pequannock Indians pos- sessed the territory from what is now the Pequannock river to Sasqua swamp.16
These Indians were numerous as appears from the many names attached to deeds, and as we are informed by Squire Isaac Sherman, that twenty years later, when some of them had removed farther north, there were one hundred wigwams occupied by them at Golden Hill. This on a medium esti- mate would give from five to eight hundred persons when the English first came here, and they were all Pequannock Indians, as shown by the names attached to Fairfield Indian deeds.
Another testimony is that of John Minor,17 one of the
16 See Fairfield Indian Deed dated Mar. 20, 1656, hereafter.
17 " The Testimony of John Minor taken upon oath.
" Being desired to speake to what I remember in order to what was spoken and acted by the Indians or English about Captain Beebee's action commenced against the town of Stratford at Fayrfeyld about Lands. The substance of what I can say is briefly thus without any correction or bias of affection contrary to truth and equity.
"Being desired by the Court then at Fayrfeyld with James Beers to treat with the Indians of Pequanocke who in regard of the present contagion* were not admited into the meeting house when the Court sate about the land then in debate. At our first coming to them the Indians there present did all agree in one that they had never given any land particularly to Captain Beebee but that they gave it to Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Haynes and the other comtee of Conecticoate Generally. Having received this answer we went a little remote from the Indians.
"The better to certifie each other how we understood them, several words passed between us but at last I related to the aforesayd Beers what I understood as above sayd. James Beers contradicted me saying he understood it otherways, whereupon we went to the Indians a second time before we went into the Court and they confirmed the same and sayed Captain Beebee had no particular interest
* The contagion was a severe sickness in the winter or spring of 1663.
16
History of Stratford.
early settlers and prominent men of Stratford, for many years an interpreter between the English and Indians and he was also town clerk of Stratford. His statement was taken for the particular purpose of disproving the claims of one Captain Beebe, in 1662, but it also shows that the Indians declared, at that time, that the land was given to Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Haynes twenty-four years previous, as stated by Rev. John Higginson. In this paper, also, Mr. Minor states incidentally, that there was then a " contagion " among the Indians, in consequence of which they were not permitted to go into the church at Fairfield, where the Court held its proceedings, and he also reveals the efforts made by unprincipled men to turn the Indians from truth and right, for selfish purposes.
The decision of the Court was rendered in 1659, and Golden Hill reservation was then laid out.
Golden Hill Reservation.18
" General Court, May, 1659. This Court having consid- ered the business respecting the Indians at Paquanack, and the difference twixt Stratford and Fairfield about the said
in any land from them but they gave it as above sayd. Several questions I pro- pounded to the Indians at this time so that now James Beers sayd I understood them well enough and as we were going from the Indians, as before Captain Beebee being a little ways from us James Beers caled to him, Captayne said he the land is gone, the Indians now uterly disown any perticular gift to you. Then gone it is says he.
"We now both agreeing that we understood the Indians aright went into the Court house to return our answer to the Court. Whilst we were abroad before we went into Court Captayne Beebee went to the Indians and the Captayne's Sonn. What they sayd to the Indians I know not but presently before we had delivered to the Court what the Indians had sayd there was a caling out that the Indians had something more to say. Upon which the Court desired us to go forth agayne and be fuly resolved what their minds were. At which then coming to them we found them of another turn, as may apear by our testimony upon oath.
This shall legally if called thereto to take my oath of 8th, 3d, 1663. .
John Minor. This action was tried about Michelmas, Anno, 1662.
Taken upon oath this 11th, 3d, 1663.
Samuel Sherman. Stratford Records."
18 Col. Rec., i. 335.
Golden Hill Reservation. I7
Indians ; do see cause to order that according unto the desire of the Indians they may quickly possess and enjoy from henceforth and for the future, that parcel of land called Gold Hill; and there shall be forthwith so much land laid out within the liberties of Fairfield as the Committee appointed by the Court shall judge fit, and in as convenient a place as may best answer the desire and benefit of the Indians fore- mentioned, for the future. And the said committee is to see so much land laid out within the bounds of Fairfield, for the use and accommodation of Stratford as that Golden Hill fore- mentioned is, for quantity and quality, and as may be most convenient for the neighbors of Stratford. And in case Strat- ford men are unwilling to accept of land, then the committee shall appoint how much and in what kind the inhabitants of Fairfield shall pay unto Stratford, in way of satisfaction. And it is ordered that this parcel of land called Gold Hill, sur- rendered by Stratford unto Paquanack Indians, according to the premises, shall be full satisfaction from them unto the Indians forenamed, and that neither they nor their successors ยท shall make any further claims or demands of land from Strat- ford, but shall henceforth be accounted as Fairfield Indians, or belonging to Fairfield, to be provided for by them for future as is forementioned in the order. And it is ordered that in case these Indians shall wholly at any time relinquish and desert Gold Hill, that then it shall remain to Stratford plantation, they repaying to Fairfield the one half of that which they received in consideration of the said land.
" The committee appointed by the Court to see this order put into execution are, of Norwalk, Mr. Camfield, Mr. Fitch, Richard Olmstead, Nathaniel Elye, who are to bound out the lands at Gold Hill, about 80 acres, beginning at the foot of the hill where the wigwams stood, and to run upwards on the hill and within Fairfield bounds, as is above mentioned. And the said committee is to make return to the Court in October, what they do in reference to this order."
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.