USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 23
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
Zachary Sandford kept this inn for twenty-five years. In 1713, his son-in-law, Jonathan Bunce, "reigned in his stead." A daughter, Sarah Bunce, then married Samuel Flagg, who acquired control in 1732. He established there the "Black Horse Tavern." His inn became equally famous. In 1740, he erected a new house. Under the date September 30th, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth made the entry in his diary, "Mr. Flaggs House raised." In 1756, when Samuel Flagg was omitted in the distribution of licenses, he petitioned the General Assembly for one. He then stated that he had "Largely laid out himself in accom- modable Buildings." His license was doubtless withheld because of the enmity he had engendered in the dispute over the rights of the ancient proprietors. He also informs us that his inn was then a resort for many officers and soldiers in the war, and that places of entertainment were needed in the town.1 Still, licenses had been granted that
1 State Archives: Travel, III: 381-383.
236
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
year to thirteen persons. When Samuel Flagg died in 1757, his widow, Mrs. Sarah Flagg, continued the inn. At her death in 1769, her son, Joseph Flagg, became the landlord. After the Revolutionary War, the Flagg estate passed to other hands. Then Captain John Chenevard, who had married Hannah Flagg, kept a tavern at or near the same place. Its later history is often referred to.1 We get a look into this tavern as Samuel Flagg left it, through his inventory. The furniture of his "Barr room" was as follows: a "Long table," "6 old chairs of ye common sort," a pair of cob-irons and tongs, pint and quart decanters, "5 foot drinking glasses," "2 blew stone quart mugs," "4 punch bowls," a "case of bottles," "snuff bottles," pint, half pint and gill measures, vials, grater, etc. The house had an "old kitchen," probably used as a dining-room. Dishes were kept there, and it was furnished with an oval table. There was also a "new kitchen," where the cooking was done. The house had besides these a kitchen bedroom, chamber and cellar in that section. In its "buttery" there was a tempting amount of old pewter. The main cellar contained a stock of port wine, cherry rum and rum of the ordinary New England kind. On the first floor there was a "South-east Bedroom," where the fire-arms and ammuni- tion were kept, and a "North Room," used doubtless as a parlor. The latter contained a library of twenty-seven books, among them "One Law Book of this Colony." On the second floor there were five bedrooms. A "Close room" and "Garret" are also mentioned. In an outbuilding, called a "Shop," tools of various kinds were kept. The landlord owned several cows, a yoke of oxen and horses for saddle use. He had no chaise. Such was the Flagg homestead of about three acres, largely covered today by fine insurance buildings.
This was by no means the only tavern in Hartford during the first century of the town's history. In 1663, Marshal Jonathan Gilbert bought the two acre house-lot formerly owned by Clement Chaplin. It was next north of Jeremy Adams's lot. Soon afterwards he removed thither from
1 Scaeva's Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 213; The Hartford Post, Oct. 14, 1893; The Hartford Times, April 3, 1906.
237
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE
the South-side, and was given liberty to retail wine. Here he kept a tavern until his death in 1682. His house was probably on the east end of his lot, near Meeting House Lane. His widow Mary Gilbert succeeded him, and, later, his son Samuel Gilbert. In 1703, the town's votes mention only Lieutenant Sandford and Samuel Gilbert as licensed to keep victualing-houses and retail liquors. There were other early inns, however, along the routes of travel from Hartford, such as John Sadler's in Wethersfield and Jona- than Gilbert's at Cold Spring in Meriden. Samuel Gilbert sold, in 1707, to Captain Caleb Williamson, who also kept an inn, which he leased in 1740, to William Tiley. The latter was the landlord for some years.
There were others in the seventeenth century who had licenses to sell liquors, but probably they did not entertain travellers. In 1693, the County Court granted a license to Mrs. Elizabeth Wilson. She was allowed to retail wines and liquors "to her neighbors, she not suffering it to be drunk in her house, and not selling it to servants or chil- dren." The record in the town votes in 1695 is, that "m's wilson is allowed by the town to retail drink to those that have occasion untill this time twelve months She attending the Law theirin." In 1703, Ebenezer Gilbert, another son of Jonathan, acquired a lot next north of the homestead. He established there "a publique house of entertainment." In 1718 he sold to Benjamin Smith, who continued the business. At an early date, a tavern was located on the north side of the square. In 1708, Jonathan Arnold bought part of the prison lot from Daniel Clark, and was licensed to keep a public house.
About 1760, Hezekiah Collyer occupied the home north of the Court House, which his father Captain Hezekiah Collyer had bought in 1739. The house had been built by James Church about 1722. Between it and the prison lot, was the homestead of Deacon John Edwards. The younger Col- lyer kept a tavern and inn until his death in 1768. His widow Jannet Collyer succeeded him. Her inn was well- known during the Revolutionary War, and quite popular, being without any suspicion of tory sentiment. Here, General Washington was entertained. After William Col-
238
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
lyer had kept this tavern several years, Frederick Bull, in 1788, established there the "City Coffee House."
On the west side of the meeting-house yard, where the Phoenix Bank building now stands, Samuel Pelton was licensed to sell liquors in 1747. He sold the property in 1751, to Samuel Smith of Middletown and David Bull of Westfield. The latter was licensed about the time of this purchase. He acquired the entire property in 1757, and added other tracts later. Here David Bull kept the famous "Bunch of Grapes" inn for many years. Cotton Murray also kept an inn, in 1783, at the sign of the "Globe," on the west side of Main Street, where others succeeded him.
One of the most popular locations for taverns in early Hartford was near the ferry. It is not unlikely that Thomas Cadwell, the first ferryman, kept an inn at the Scott-Ford homestead, after it passed into his hands. His son, Sergeant Edward Cadwell, who inherited the Stebbins homestead, was licensed in 1706 "to keep a house of entertainment for strangers." He did so for years. Daniel Messenger, Timothy Bigelow, Nathaniel Pease and Benjamin Bigelow, were successively licensed to sell liquors when they kept the ferry. On the east side of the river, "about thirty rods from the ferry," Widow Dorothy Burnham in 1753, and for several years thereafter, entertained travellers, who were hindered in crossing the river. The Pitkin tavern answered the same purpose, and, to some extent, Gideon Benjamin's. During the Revolutionary War, that of William and Jannet Knox, on the west side near the landing- place was the most popular.
On the South-side, also, there were several early inns or taverns. Joseph Mygatt was licensed in 1656. He lived near the present Capitol. In 1707, William Worthington received a license. He was probably then living on a place, which he bought in 1709, from Samuel Gilbert. It was located on the west side of a highway, then leading south- ward from Wyllys Street. Amos Hinsdale kept a tavern in this neighborhood as early as 1744, and for many years afterwards. He was located on the east side of the South Green. An advertisement in 1789, refers to Joseph Ash- ton as carrying on weaving "in the house where Amos
-
-
-
MOSES BUTLER'S TAVERN
239
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE
Hinsdale formerly kept a tavern at the south end of the city." Another public house of note before and during the Revolution, was the "Old Red Tavern," which formerly stood near the south-east corner of the Capitol grounds. Israel Seymour secured this property, in two tracts, in 1773 and 1775. On the latter there were "edifices," probably erected by the grantor, Jonathan Seymour. In these or a new building, Captain Israel Seymour kept the red tavern. It was a favorite resort for soldiers during the war. Here, the ministers were entertained at the installation of Rev. Benjamin Boardman. On August 16, 1784, Captain Sey- mour was killed by lightning, as he stood in his doorway.1
The most famous inn on the South-side was that of Moses Butler. This was located on the south-west corner of Main and Elm streets. It had formerly been the home- stead of Samuel Howard, who died in 1750. In the distri- bution of the estate in 1754, there was set off "To Sarah the wife of Moses Butler the north eaft part of the Homestead with the Building thereon." The south part was distrib- uted to the only son, Samuel Howard, from whom it passed, in 1788, to Norman Butler. The entire frontage was about nine rods. In 1754, there were two houses upon this property, an "old house" and a "new house," appar- ently connected, or not far apart. That year Moses Butler was licensed. He kept this inn for thirty years, and perhaps longer. It was a popular meeting place. The physicians and surgeons of Hartford County met there in 1784, and perhaps found it a convenient resort earlier. This was eight years before the formation of the county society. It is said that a number of elderly men were accustomed to gather there evenings, to learn the news. Each of them was allowed to spend seven coppers for half a mug of flip, and no more. They were called the "Seven Copper Club." Landlord Butler was very particular about sending fre- quenters home at nine o'clock.
There were, also, outlying inns in various sections of the town. One was at John Seymour's, on the road to Far- mington. Captain Timothy Seymour was the host in later
1 Dr. Parker's Hist. of the Second Church, p. 156; The Connecticut Courant, Aug. 17, 1784; The Hartford Times, Oct. 3, 1894.
240
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
colonial times, and was succedeed in 1779 by his son, Nor- man Seymour. The well-known Wadsworth inn was on the Simsbury road. It was kept by successive members of that family. On the east side of the river, Thomas Olcott, Ezekiel Webster, Russell Woodbridge, Benjamin Cheney, Gideon Benjamin and others, kept inns. Taverns, as places where liquor was sold, multiplied during the French wars. In 1756, there were no less than fourteen such resorts in Hartford.
The forefathers, of course, brought with them the drink- ing customs of England. Their experience here is interest- ing. It soon became necessary to prohibit sales to Indians. In 1643, they forbade all sales by unlicensed persons. This action was based distinctly on current abuses. Within a few years, these increased among persons of the inferior sort. A law regulating and restricting the use of liquor was enacted in 1647. It was aimed at the inn. One-half hour was the limit of time an inhabitant could spend in drinking at a "victualing house." He was also restricted as to the amount of liquor. It was forbidden to sell drink to be taken from the premises, except on an order from the master of a family or an allowed inhabitant. In the Code of 1650 some fine distinctions were made to prevent excess, For being drunk, so as to be bereaved or disabled in under- standing, speech or gesture, the fine was ten shillings; for drinking excessively - that is more than a half pint of wine at one time - it was three shillings four pence; for continued tippling, it was two shillings six pence; and for imbibing at unseasonable times, or after nine o'clock at night, it was five shillings. Persons were actually fined under one or more of these counts. Other regulations were made later. Some liquors, such as Barbadoes rum, called "Kill Devil" were discriminated against. A tariff was levied upon all importations. During King Philip's War, when a general reformation of morals was inaugurated, the laws were more rigidly enforced. They failed to prevent excess; and there was always more or less illegal selling. Their drinking customs, which English settlers were wont to consider harmless in moderation, were found to be de- moralizing. One reason was the enticing charm that lingered
241
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE
about their inns, as the principal resorts of their social life. Doubtless, their general Puritan strictness in other matters tended to increase this. They had difficulty, also, in exclud- ing those games that were customary in English taverns. In 1650, there was a law forbidding "shuffle board." This was amplified, in 1656, to include cards and dice. A more stringent law was enacted in 1686, because of the increase of such amusements. It specified gaming, singing, dancing and all riotous conduct in houses of public entertainment. The offenders in all such particulars were, of course, com- paratively few, and, judged by the court records, they were mostly of the lower classes. In reputable inns such viola- tions of the laws were not permitted. There is abundant testimony as to the decorum with which these were con- ducted, and the respectable standing of their landlords. President Dwight wrote of them in his Travels as follows: "The best old-fashioned New England inns were superior to any of the modern ones which I have seen. They were at less pains to furnish a great variety of food. Yet the variety was ample. The food was always of the best quality; the beds were excellent; the house and all its appendages were in the highest degree clean and neat; the cookery was remarkably good; and the stable was not less hospitable than the house. The family in the mean time were possessed of principle, and received you with the kindness and attention of friends. Your baggage was as safe as in your own house. If you were sick, you were nursed and befriended as in your own family. No tavern- haunters, gamblers, or loungers were admitted, any more than in a well ordered private habitation; and as little noise was allowed." 1
Their military organization and trainings also furthered social relations. John Adams included training-days among the factors that made New England. The church of colonial times had no social aims. It afforded little opportunity for acquaintance, except as attendants conversed between services. Gatherings of young people were looked upon with suspicion. There were no public charities in which
1 Dwight's Travels, IV: 249.
242
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
women could be associated. Acquaintance among them was fostered in their homes, at the spinning-wheel and other industrial pursuits. The tea-drinkings of later times gave them a better social occasion. From the first, however, the custom of visiting with friends within the town and abroad was general. Colonial dames frequently went visiting on horseback. In 1651 John Wilcox provided in his will that his wife should have the use of his mare, "to ride either to Windsor, to Wethersfield or to Hartford, or to The Sermon." To that end he gave her his "pannell and bridle." As entertainment in their homes was very simple, and required no advance preparation, the inter- change of social life among the young people was easily effected, and hence quite general. Corn-huskings and apple-parings were its natural opportunities. For the most part the daily occupation of the men gave them no chance for social intercourse. They were a hard-working race. Sunrise and sunset marked the limits of their working-day out of doors. By candle-light or the blaze of the open fire, they fashioned various implements, tools and articles for home or farm use. It required an occasion to get the men together. That was what the training-day did. In early years, the train-band demanded their attendance. Few were exempt. Later, the various military companies did the same. Nor was the honor of being a captain, lieutenant, ensign or sergeant, lightly regarded.
The General Court ordered the formation of a train-band in each plantation, in 1636. Every soldier kept his arms and ammunition at home. Once a month they had a train- ing-day. Then their arms were inspected and they were drilled. Absence, without lawful excuse, was punishable by a fine of five shillings. After the Pequot War, Major John Mason was made the commander-in-chief to train the soldiers of each plantation. Their practice in 1650 was embodied in a law on "Military Affaires." It provided that all men between sixteen and sixty years of age should bear arms, magistrates and church officers excepted, unless exempted by the court. Then trainings were held in March, April, May, September, October and November. In 1654, a general muster of all their military companies
243
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE
was ordered for every second year. They had pikemen, who wore corselets of wadded cotton for protection against Indian arrows, and musketeers, who carried bandoleers and rests. A troop was organized in 1657, which came to high dignity and usefulness as dragoons. From these beginnings, they developed a military system, which was the subject of much legislation during colonial times. It attained no mean proportions for that age. Hartford's train-band was given the precedence over all others in 1662. Later, this was divided into North-side and South-side companies. An East-side company was organized in 1698, and another in the West Division in 1714. When an enumeration was made in 1680, there were in Hartford County 835 trained soldiers and a troop of 60 horsemen.
Only imagine what must have transpired on a training- day in the old town. At eight o'clock in the morning, when the drum sounded, the soldiers were assembled in the meet- ing-house yard. The very appearance of the boy of sixteen and the man of sixty was significant. There might have been three generations of one family in the ranks. Some fathers were there with an array of stalwart sons. There was a roll-call by the clerk. Woe to him who was tardy or missing. Then, perhaps, their arms were inspected - old flint-locks, some of them used doubtless in English wars; pikes like those of ancient guardsmen, and swords of various patterns. Hours were passed in instruction and drilling. Then there was very likely a review in front of the inn, where the Governor and some of the magistrates had con- vened. Yet all this was only the formality of the day. After they were dismissed, there was time for feasting and merriment, and much of it, too, in homes and taverns to which they scattered. On the morning of such a day in 1737, Parson Wadsworth wrote in his diary, "Publick diversions often occasion much sin. I wish it may not be ye case with this." Be that as it may, they doubtless en- joyed the day. The older men discussed their farms, herds and crops; the younger men their work, play and the girls, quite as they would now. The occasion was, of course, highly useful. It kept alive the military spirit and generated patriotism. Still it won and held its place in public esteem
244
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
throughout colonial times largely because of its social features.
In this respect, election day in Hartford was not alto- gether unlike it. The political significance of a gathering of the freemen in early times, augmented public interest in the day. It gave the occasion a dignity that did not per- tain to a military training. This feature suffered little or no decline with passing years. The description a certain visitor gives of this day in 1807, would as well have answered for earlier times.1 He details the arrival of Governor Trum- bull from the eastward, on horseback, his reception by the horse and foot guards at the river, their escort of him to his lodgings, the procession of officials, clergy and repre- sentatives the next morning to the South Church, where the election sermon was preached, the dinner at the inn, the meeting of the General Assembly, the inauguration and the election ball. Election day, this writer declares, was a holiday in the state, as was the rest of the week. Families then exchanged visits and treated their guests with election cake.
The social life of Hartford in colonial times may seem to one who considers it superficially to exhibit little change. The warp of its fabric was very much the same. Inns, shops, markets and other resorts continued throughout this period, with no great alteration. They had election and training-days, corn-huskings and tea-drinkings that had run an uninterrupted course of fashion. Still the woof of the fabric was gradually changing. One generation was fol- lowed by another, of a different sort, and each looked askance upon its successor. It is a very difficult matter to trace this transformation of society with our scanty ma- terials. We know, however, that it had gone so far in 1675 as to demand a general reformation movement in New England. King Philip's War was thought to be a divine judgment upon a backslidden people. The ministers tes- tified against a multitude of provoking sins, and uttered - ominous prophecies of dreadful things that might be ex- pected. New laws against some social vices were enacted.
1 Kendall's Travels, pp. 1 ff.
245
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE
The magistrates enforced them in the courts with conse- crated zeal. In the election sermon of 1674, Rev. James Fitch referred to the "Many evil Cuftomes and Degenerate Manners" of that day. The context shows that he had in mind the contrast between them and those of earlier times, for he distinctly reminded his hearers of the settlement of the river towns. There were only a few of the orig- inal planters then living, some of whom were doubtless in his audience. How apparent the contrast must have been to them! The young people about them were unlike their grandfathers. Puritanism had changed. There was a difference in ideas, language, manners and dress. Still those youth grew to old age and passed through the same experience. The middle of the eighteenth century found the wealth of Hartford materially increased. Those families that had lived in the town for more than a century, assumed quite naturally that social standing which time alone can give. More attention was paid to education. Social refinements and culture were more highly regarded. Wealth had enabled some to escape much of the drudgery of life. The houses were better, their furnishings more luxurious. Rugs had begun to cover floors that had once been sanded. Chairs supplied the places of forms and stools. China had displaced pewter. New fashions of dress had come in. The elegance of some, when arrayed in their new French styles, was shocking; but the "granny" forgot how she had given a similar shock in her day. When The Connecti- cut Courant began to advertise what was for sale in the shops, fashions seemed to change more rapidly. The newspaper made the people aware of the arrival of a new assortment of dry-goods. Merchants offered "English and India goods" received by the latest ship. Sally Tryper had "female aprons imported from Europe" in her shop. Caleb Bull was more conservative. He had "beaver hatts made in Hartford." What a sensation there must have been in the old town in 1775, when Mary Gabiel opened as a "man- tua-maker and milliner from Paris." Society surely moved very fast after the French wars; and it might have been arrayed in cloth of gold in a few years, had it not been for the Revolutionary War. Then the men went back to their
246
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
old leather breeches, and the women, like Faith Trumbull, cast their scarlet cloaks upon the altar of freedom.
The dress of people during colonial times is, indeed, a fair exponent of social conditions. Inventories do not, of course, enable us to trace in detail the changing styles, but they furnish a reliable and accurate means of contrast- ing different periods. Jewelry, for instance, was very rare in early times. We have not met with any among the Puritan founders of Hartford, though some may have had seal rings. In 1662, Casper Varlett, or Judith his wife, had "A gold Ring wth a Diamond," but they were Dutch, and she was accused of being a witch. Doubtless the ring belonged to her. John Crow, a grandson of Elder William Goodwin, died at sea in 1667. He had several gold rings; but he was engaged in trade with the West Indies and likely to secure such, as sea-captains often did. Major James Richards also had "gold rings," at his death in 1680. His granddaughter, in 1759 had diamonds and much valuable jewelry. The great granddaughter of Rev. Thomas Hooker, in 1765 had a "gold Necklace & Locket," "gold Buttons," "4 gold Rings" and "1 pr Stone Earings sett in gold." We do not suspect that Madam Susanna Hooker had any such possessions, or her descendants for two generations. Early silver-smiths were mostly engaged in making and selling silver pieces for household use. The jewellers of later colonial times, like Ebenezer Austin, advertised, as a matter of course, "cyphered stone ear-rings set in gold," and other jewelry.
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.