USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, 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
THE STATE HOUSE OF 1792. 352
From a sketch made after various early pictures by Charles L. N. Camp for Mrs. Emily S. Holcombc, President of the Connecticut Society of Colonial Dames, and representing the edifice about 1835.
The Colonial History of Hartford
CHAPTER I
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635
THE reasons that moved the people of Newtown, under the leadership of Thomas Hooker, to remove from Massachu- setts to Connecticut, and thus become the founders of Hartford, have been fully discussed by historians. Agita- tion of the project began prior to May 15, 1634, on which date the General Court gave them permission "to seeke out some convenient place," promising to confirm it to them, provided the place chosen was not prejudicial to any planta- tion already settled. A removal outside of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts was not then contemplated, nor such permission intended; but subsequent events led them to interpret this action as liberty to go whither they desired. When a vote was taken, later, concerning the removal of Dorchester and Watertown, they were restricted to con- tinue still under Massachusetts government. The Newtown emigrants may have thought that the place to which they were going was within the Bay Colony, but no such condi- tion was ever imposed upon them. This early vote gave them more time and greater liberty to seek out a suitable location. It is important to follow the sequence of events after this action of May 15, 1634, for two years intervened between it and the pilgrimage of Thomas Hooker's company.
Shortly after they received the above permission, they sent men to Agawam and Merrimack "to find a fit place." They may have considered favorably the former location, for they "gave out they would remove"; but, even as they were reconnoitering, Rev. Thomas Parker and his com- pany, just arrived from England, went thither to settle, and they were shut out.
2
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
At that time two ships, at least, were on the ocean, among whose passengers were original settlers of Hartford. They had sailed from Ipswich, England, about "the last of April," and because they had a pleasant voyage, arriving early in June, and very likely, also, because several of the passengers went to Agawam to settle, they changed its name to Ipswich. One of these ships was the Elizabeth, with Thomas Scott, William Blumfield, Robert Day, and, some say, Nathaniel Ely and John Clarke. The other was the Francis, with William Westwood, John Barnard, Nicholas Gennings and William Holton. In one of the six ships that had arrived in May, William Pantry, Samuel Greenhill, Timothy Stanley, and probably Thomas Stanley, were passengers. The distribution of lands at Newtown, August 4, 1634, may indicate that the following new-comers were also passengers in one of the "fourteen great ships" that arrived in June: Joseph Easton, James Ensign, John Hopkins, Thomas Judd, Stephen Post and George Stock- ing. These accessions quickened the desires of Newtown for more extensive fields.
We are not surprised, therefore, that within a few weeks of their arrival, or early in July, Winthrop records the fact that "Six of Newtown went in the Blessing, (being bound to the Dutch plantations,) to discover Connecticut River, intending to remove their town thither." These men were agents of Newtown. Perhaps some of the new arrivals were among them. Hubbard says: "The place which those that went from Cambridge had by their agents chosen to settle upon, was by the Indians called Suckiaug, where some of them began the plantation in the end of the year 1635, Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone, the ministers of the church, engaging to follow them the next year, which they did and called it Hartford." 1 We have none of the names of these six agents. They doubtless accomplished their
1 Hubbard's History of New England, pp. 306, 307. Mather has the following passage in the Magnalia (1: 81): "It was in the year 1635, that this design was first formed; and the disposition of the celebrated Mr. Thomas Hooker, with his people now in Cambridge, to engage in the design, was that which gave most life unto it. They then sent their agents to view the country, who returned with so advantageous a report that the next year there was a great remove of good people thither."
3
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635
purpose and visited Suckiaug, but we have no account of their experiences.1 They were the first Hartford men to discover Suckiaug, unless some of the traders of 1633 visited the place and afterwards settled there. They returned home during the summer with a favorable report of the land.
The next General Court met September 3, 1634, and its main business was the removal of Newtown to Connecticut. Mr. Hooker urged the "fruitfulness and commodiousness of Connecticut," as one who was speaking upon the informa- tion of their agents. The point was made, in reply, that they would expose themselves to evident peril, both from the Dutch and from the Indians. The result of this con- troversy was that an enlargement of Newtown's bounds was proposed and outwardly accepted. This compromise temporarily delayed their removal.
The fact is - and it is evident upon a close study of the conditions in Newtown at this time - that the town had received some new settlers in the ships of 1634, who were unwilling to locate permanently under such uncertainty. Either Newtown must remove, or these and other prospec- tive settlers would go elsewhere. Grants of land were made to most of them, but their lots were inferior, and the town's bounds were limited. There is evidence in the Cambridge land records that some of the new-comers did not erect upon their lots houses worthy of being so named. Thus they passed the "winter of their discontent."
In the emigrant ships of 1635, others of the founders of Hartford arrived. The Elizabeth and Ann from London brought Clement Chaplin, John Holloway and Thomas Lord, while Mathew Marvin, William Ruscoe and John Warner were passengers in the Increase. Eight ships arrived during the first week of June. Some, who were early settlers in Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, and who
1 They were entertained, doubtless, by Jonathan Brewster, resident agent of the Plymouth Company at Windsor; and perhaps they visited the Dutch at the House of Hope. From the latter they would have received no encouragement. Brewster, in his letter of July 6, 1635, speaks in a confusing way of a party - perhaps Windsor pioneers - which he assisted with canoes and guides. "They got me to goe with them," he says, "to ye Dutch, to see if I could procure some [land] of them to have quiet setling nere them; but they did peremtorily withstand them." Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, p. 339.
4
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
have left no trace of an earlier residence in Massachusetts, probably came in these ships. Arriving at a time when the Connecticut fever was at its height, they were ready to join in an enterprise that had among its leaders some of the best men in the Colony.
Who were the brave pioneers of Hartford in 1635? When did they remove to Suckiaug, and where did they build their huts? No attempt has ever been made to answer these questions in detail. It is only possible to establish, in some particulars, a strong probability, based upon the harmony of correlated facts; but even such an answer may be worth while.
On October 5, 1635, Rev. Thomas Shepard and his com- pany from England, arrived at Newtown. This is his statement: "Monday October 5, we came (being sent for by friends at Newtown,) to them, to my brother Mr. Stones house. And the congregation being upon their removal to Hartford, at Connecticut, myself and those that came with me, found many houses empty, and many persons willing to sell, and hence our company bought off their houses to dwell in." 1 There were, therefore, if this statement is taken literally, "many houses empty" on October 5th. Were these vacancies caused by the removal of families to Connecticut, as Shepard seems to imply? An answer to this question is found in the Cambridge land records.
The Massachusetts General Court, on April 1, 1634, had ordered that all houses and lands be recorded within six months, and such record was to constitute evidence of estate. Hence this was necessary before an inhabitant could make a legal transfer of his home. At Newtown, they did not begin making such entries until May 1, 1635. Between that date and October 10th following, nearly all the emigrants to Connecticut complied with this order. Of these, twenty-four had done so before the arrival of Shepard; but on October 5th, nine did so, and on the 10th, nineteen. Only one is proved, by these records, to have sold before the above meeting at Samuel Stone's house - John Steele, who recorded his house and lands on August 20th and sold on the 28th. There were, however, some,
1 "Thomas Shepard's Memoir," in Young's Chronicles of Mass., p. 544.
5
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635
who removed to other Massachusetts towns, that had done so; and others apparently removed and sold afterwards. In view of these circumstances, we conclude that the empty houses had not been occupied by emigrants to Connecticut. On the other hand, it seems, on the face of the record, that some of the latter had made their entries because they had agreed to sell, and that others were preparing to do so. Thomas Scott sold on the very day of Shepard's arrival. Stephen Hart recorded his lands on the 5th and sold on the 7th. Others, who are thought to have removed to Con- necticut in 1635, probably did the same. Shepard testifies that he found many "willing to sell." Johnson, in his Wonder-working Providence, puts the case thus: "And therefore they onely waited now for a people of ftronger Faith then themfelves were to purchafe their Houfes and Land ... and accordingly they met with Chapmen, a people new come, who having bought their poffeffions, they highed them away to their new Plantation."
It is unfortunate that the records do not give the date when each emigrant sold his Newtown home, for the pre- sumption is that he removed at that time, or soon after- wards. However, we have, by inference, a record of those who had sold before February 8, 1635-6, and presumably did not spend that winter in Cambridge. On that date, the town took action restricting these sales, except on certain conditions. A list was then made of those who had houses that were accounted "houses of the town." 1 We find that those concerning whom we have evidence of a removal in 1635, are missing from it, and that those who are known to have accompanied Thomas Hooker in 1636, still retained their old homes. If we compare this list of householders with the former of recorded homes, we have another list that presumably includes all the house owners who removed to Suckiaug permanently in 1635. From this, we can erase the names of several who remained at Cambridge during the winter, or who were never North-side inhabitants of Hartford. We have thus a list, derived from the Cambridge records, composed of ten Hartford settlers, who are assumed to have emigrated thither in
1 Records of the Town and Selectmen of Cambridge, 1901, pp. 17-19.
6
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
1635. Their names may be arranged in the following order: Elder William Goodwin, John Steele, William Westwood, Thomas Scott, Stephen Hart, William Pantry, John Barnard, William Butler, William Kelsey and Nathan- iel Ely. We should add to this list, however, any who had only recorded land at Cambridge, and of whose removal in 1635 there is other evidence. Nicholas Clarke had only a small lot. He had sold or forfeited it and left Newtown before the above date. He is known to have spent the winter at Suckiaug. Richard Webb, Richard Goodman and Edward Elmer had recorded no houses. They are added upon evidence derived from the Hartford records. Two others may be added for the same reason. Mathew Marvin was a recent arrival, and we have no trace of his residence. Sergeant Thomas Stanley of Lynn was a deputy to the General Court, September 2, 1635, when the removal was decided. He was later fined at Lynn for absence. Let us, for the time, consider these sixteen early settlers of Hart- ford, as a tentative list of the pioneers of 1635.
On the other hand, there is positive evidence, derived from records and correspondence, that some of these men did remove in 1635 to Suckiaug. Elder William Goodwin was evidently an enthusiastic advocate of the emigration. He was present at the General Court, September 3, 1634, when it was under consideration. Although he was "a very reverend and godly man," says Winthrop, he was so interested that he indulged in "some unreverend speech" in the discussion, for which he "humbly acknowledged his fault," but was, very likely, more than ever determined to change his residence. In his letter, written from Suckiaug to John Winthrop, Jr., on June 22, 1636, he says in a post- script: "I suppose you here by our brethren of the arriueal of our pastore," implying his own previous residence. In 1639, moreover, he was one of those chosen to gather up for record the passages of God's providence that had been remarkable since the "first undertaking" of the plantation. Presumably he was thought to know about the experiences of 1635-6.
The records of the General Court, held at Newtown, September 2, 1635, have the following entry: "William
7
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635
Westwood is sworne constable of the plantacons att Connec- ticott till some other be chosen." The same court granted liberty to every town at Connecticut to choose constables and authorized magistrates to administer the oath of office. It also provided guns and ammunition for the plantations. Evidently this appointment of William Westwood was in anticipation of a removal to Suckiaug in the near future. Constables were then the proper civil officers for guard and defence. The emigrants had every reason to think they would be needed.
The Commission for a provisional government of Con- necticut, issued in March 1635-6, rehearses the fact that some of the settlers were from Newtown and states that "divers are there already." The representatives of Suck- iaug were John Steele and William Westwood. If certain persons were already there, men of that number would certainly have been chosen for this service.
Let us sum up our deductions, as we are about to leave Newtown with the pioneers. We know, from Shepard's statement, that the congregation there were, on October 5, 1635, "upon their removal," a phrase that means, in other instances, "about to remove"; that the land records do not warrant the opinion that any of them had as yet set out; that, immediately upon Shepard's arrival and a meeting at Stone's house, some were in haste to record their houses and lands, which was necessary in order to sell; that some did sell at once, and a certain number had sold before mid- winter; that some of these had for a month been preparing to remove; and that certain of their leaders in church and state did actually go to Connecticut in 1635. If now we read in the journal of a contemporary historian that a party set out for Connecticut shortly after these prepara- tions and sales, and we find the settlers of our tentative list in the Hartford land records, living side by side in the oldest part of the plantation, which certainly was settled in 1635, we may fairly consider the case to be proved, as far as the circumstances admit.
We come thus to that paragraph in Winthrop's journal, which has always been a bone of contention among the three river towns. Under the date October 15, 1635, he
8
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
says: "About sixty men, women and little children, went by land toward Connecticut with their cows, horses, and swine, and, after a tedious and difficult journey, arrived safe there." 1 In view of the above examination of the records, there are good reasons for the claim, which we here make, that this entry refers to the Hartford pioneers. Such has been the opinion of some of our most accurate local historians, formed even without the above study of the original records. Historians of Windsor, however, have claimed that most of this company "were Dorchester people, joined by a few from Newtown and Watertown." 2
The Dorchester people supplanted the Plymouth Com- pany, which had been at Windsor since September 16, 1633, and which they bought out May 15, 1637. The pioneer party under Roger Ludlow arrived late in June, 1635, or early in July. The Stiles party sailed from Boston June 26, 1635. On July 6th, Jonathan Brewster wrote from Windsor thus: "Ye Massachusetts men are coming almost dayly some by water & some by land." 3 He doubtless referred to these two parties. Besides some stragglers, there was another Dorchester company, which removed late in the season. Winthrop says their arrival was so late that some of their cattle "could not be put over the river," which was frozen up the 15th of November.4 They had sent their provisions around by water in "barks," to which they endeavored to retreat when famine stared them in the face; "but not meeting them, they went aboard the Rebecka," which was frozen in the ice towards the river's mouth.
This narrative relates to Windsor settlers, but it could hardly have referred to the emigrants who started on Oc- tober 15th, and "arrived safe there." The Windsor party did not arrive until after November 15th, when the river was frozen. The journey of the former company could not have required a month, especially as the lateness of the season urged them to haste. Thomas Hooker, with his encumbrances, only needed a "fortnight." If the Dor-
1 Winthrop's History of New England, I, 204.
2 Memorial History of Hartford County, I: 221; Stiles's History of Wethersfield,
I: 21; Stiles's History of Windsor, I: 52 n.
3 Bradford's History, p. 338.
4 Winthrop's History, I: 208, 209. Cf. p. 219.
9
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635
chester company started late in October, there was time to make ready for winter under ordinary conditions of the weather, for they had reason to expect that the pioneers had provided ample shelter, and they had sent forward abundant provisions. In both expectations, they were disappointed - hence their disaster, in which there is no evidence that the pioneers of Hartford participated.1 All these perplexing passages in Winthrop's narrative are harmonized by the conclusion - which we can hardly escape - that there were two companies that removed to Connecticut that autumn - one, from Newtown, starting October 15th, and another, later, following the Natick path, from Dorchester. This is confirmed by circumstances hereafter related.
The membership of the pioneer company from Newtown is interesting and an important factor in the case. Nearly one-half of them were recent arrivals from England. The majority were young men, and several were unmarried. Their families were small. Judged by their after lives, they were a hardy and courageous company .. Among them, were several who were classed later as wealthy settlers. Their religious leader was the elder of their church, a per- sonal friend of Thomas Hooker and a man to whose judg- ment large concerns in church and state were intrusted. John Steele and William Westwood were considered suitable men to be made magistrates, and proved themselves worthy of the honor. In the judgment of the wise, it was necessary for some to go forward to prepare the way, and there was at least a tacit agreement, to which the ministers were a party, that others would follow the next season. Surely this company had some qualifications for the task to which they devoted themselves. As those who had severed their relations with Newtown probably took their families with them, there were in this party, to the best of our knowledge, about fifty persons - men, women and children.
1 The pioneers of Windsor were doubtless handicapped by their land difficul- ties, and so were prevented from securing winter fodder for their cattle and build- ing more than a few "dug-outs." It is believed that they did not begin to lay out their first lots until September. Mathew Grant testified, April 21, 1675, that he measured and set out their lots "from our [their] firft beginning," which "come nixt September is 40 yere." State Archives, Private Controversies, I: 138.
10
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
It was doubtless during the last days of October that the pioneers of Hartford reached their destination. They found at Suckiaug only a group of Indian wigwams north of the Little River, and the Dutch at the House of Hope. The former were located, it is believed, on the tract of land west of the North Meadow creek. The Little Meadow extended westward from the Connecticut River to the line of the woodland.
The first English settlers at Suckiaug seem to have done the most natural thing in arranging their house-lots. Be- ginning at the northern end, they made divisions along the border line of the woodland as far south as the Little River. There, it is thought, the Indian trail ran. The houses eventually erected upon these lots thus faced the open meadow, with the Great River beyond. Along, in front of their homes, they soon widened the trail into a roadway. This highway was called the "Road from the Little River to the North Meadow." It was the first stage in the development of Front Street. The ridge of the hill behind their houses, was some distance westward and ran about parallel with their road. At its northern end was a mound or hill, coming gradually to a summit, which, very likely, had been used by the natives as a lookout, or for defence. It was called by the English "Centinel Hill." A path would naturally run from the Indian village up the slope to it, which became the "Road from Centinel Hill to the North Meadow," our present Village Street. At first it ran through Robert Day's lot. From this hill, they made a roadway southward along the ridge to the Little River, where they designed to erect their palisado or fort. Perhaps they found an Indian trail leading from the hill to the falls, which must have been a famous fishing place for the natives and offered the whites a mill site. This highway was called the "Road from Centinel Hill to the Palisado," and is now Main Street. About midway, they arranged for a public field or square, where to build their mecting-house. A road ran thence eastward, which was called the "Road from the Meeting House to the Little Meadow" or "to the Great River." This was the extent of their occupation and development. It was sufficient for their immediate needs.
Falls
Alisado
1 1
Sergt. Thomas Stanley
-
-
-
-
1
PALISADO
TO
CENTINEL
william.
Goodwill
"steele
Chaplin
clement
0
Thomas Hooker Reserved
Olmsted.
James
Pantry ..
Fwiliam:
Scott:
Thomas
stebbins Edward
stanley
Timothy
stone
John
Butler
Barnard
West wood
William
stephen
Marvin
Mathew
Indian Village Soldiers Field
Cow Yard
To
LITTLE RIVER TO
Marianuck
RIVER
LITTLE
RIVER
The North- Side Plantation 1635 House Lots of
Pioneers & Adventurers Im IS Loss Love 1914
TO PYQUAUG
"Richard:
webb
-
-
MEADOW
THE NORTH
-
To the Landing
371117
GREAT
Goodman
: Richard.
Lewis
William
Talcott
John
·Elmer
Edward.
Day
Kelsey
wm.
Allyn
Mathew
Meeting House Yard
Samuel Stone Reserved
Nicholas Clarke
:will
John
Robert .. Hart
HILL
Centine
L
-
MEADOW
11
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635
There is no doubt that this section is the oldest part of Hartford. It was the Suckiaug of the pioneers. Here they built their first huts or "dug-outs," and spent the winter of 1635-6.
Who were the original owners of house-lots within this section? The land records tell us. The answer is found on Porter's "Plan of Hartford in 1640." If we go southward along Front Street from the Indian village, using our type to point out the sixteen pioneers, the owners were: Mathew Allyn, Nicholas Clarke, Mathew Marvin, Stephen Hart, William Westwood, John Barnard, William Butler, John Stone, Timothy Stanley, Edward Stebbins, Thomas Scott, William Pantry, James Olmsted and Richard Webb. In like manner, going southward along Main Street, the owners were: William Kelsey, Robert Day, Nathaniel Ely, Edward Elmer, John Talcott, William Lewis, Richard Good- man, Clement Chaplin, John Steele, Sergeant Thomas Stanley west of the highway, and Elder William Goodwin east of it. Two lots facing Little River seem to have been reserved for their ministers, Thomas Hooker and Samuel Stone.
Most of these names are familiar. Here are all the sixteen pioneers of our tentative list. We have some reasons to believe that they were a company of emigrants seeking a new home in Connecticut; and here we find them at Suckiaug, settled close together in a compact body for mutual assistance and defence; on the one side, their Indian friends, and on the other, their palisado, beside an abundant stream, offering a serious warning to the Dutch- men living south of it, in the House of Hope.
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.