USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 4
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
1 "Holland Documents," in Doc. Rel. to the Colonial History of New York, I: 128.
23
SETTLEMENT UNDER TIIE WARWICK PATENT
for a provisional government, to purchase the land from the Indians. They could then assert their right by patent and purchase to all the land between Windsor and Wethers- field, including that occupied by the Dutch. The sequel shows that such a claim was made before Hooker arrived, and, in due time, the majority of the settlers of 1636 located on the land south of the Little River.
The counter claims made by the Dutch will be examined more minutely hereafter. It is sufficient, here, to define their boundaries. As stated in their own records, they claimed the "flat extending about one league down along the river, and one-third of a league in width to the high land, and beyond the hill upwards, being a flat extending to the next adjoining little stream." 1 Another version informs us that the "one league down along the river," was measured "across through the wood." In this direction were their "bouwerie" or garden, hay land and wood lot. The "next adjoining little stream" was Folly Brook. It was "about one league" from this brook northward to the "Kill" [creek] or Little River. Beyond this the tract extended a "musket shot" up Connecticut River, thus including the land projecting southward, since known as "Dutch Point." This low land was directly east of the House of Hope. The northern boundary of the Dutch- men's claim, therefore, was the Little River, and a line projected eastward from its bend across to the Connecticut River.
The original conveyance, from the Indians to the founders of Hartford, has long since disappeared. The deed by which Sequassen's successors, in 1670, confirmed it, contains one statement that has an important bearing on the sequence of events and the settlement that was made under the Warwick Patent. It states that the original purchase was made by Mr. Samuel Stone and Mr. William Goodwin "about the yeare sixteen hundred thirty-six." Dr. Trum- bull says "in 1635 or 1636." The English repeatedly asserted, in their controversy with the Dutch, that they had purchased the disputed lands before their settlement upon them. There is no reason to deny this statement.
1 Ibid., II: 139, 140; Mem. Hist. of Hartford County, I: 13.
24
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
The above words of Lord Saye and Sele confirm it. If we admit it, however, the query is suggested, in view of the circumstances, whether this purchase was not made early in the spring, just before or just after the begin- ning of the year, old style. If it was, then Rev. Samuel Stone removed to Suckiaug early that season, perhaps with the intention of making such a purchase before the arrival of Hooker's company, his associate in that business, Elder Goodwin, being already there. Let us consider the circumstances that are reconciled by this supposition. The reader must judge whether the evidence warrants its acceptance as a fact.
There was a Newtown party that removed to Suckiaug early in the spring of 1636. Historians of repute have made this statement. The documentary evidence concerns, principally, John White and Samuel Wakeman. The former was a prominent settler. He was, later, chosen ruling elder of the Second Church of Christ. He sold his home at Newtown, October 20, 1635, and was then of that town. When he executed a conveyance of land, however, on May 30, 1636, he was "of the New Towne vppo Quinetuc- quet River." As Thomas Hooker's company did not start until May 31st, John White certainly removed before that date and probably early in the season. Samuel Wakeman was sworn constable of Newtown plantation, April 26, 1636. There is no trace of his presence among the pioneers. He was probably a recent arrival. As to Samuel Stone, he had sold his Newtown home before February 8, 1635-6, to Roger Harlackenden, Esq., of Shepard's company. Although we know of no evidence of his subsequent resi- dence there, he doubtless spent the winter in Cambridge, in the performance of his duties. Winthrop does not mention his departure with Thomas Hooker's company, nor does Goodwin note his arrival with the pastor. Yet he was actively connected with the emigrants' plans in the removal. At his house the meeting with Shepard's com- pany was held, and, on several occasions later, he repre- sented the settlers in an executive capacity. This is admitted to be negative evidence, of little value considered alone. It surely would have been a natural and wise pro-
25
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT
cedure, under the circumstances, to send Samuel Stone early in the spring to Suckiaug, with John White, Samuel Wakeman and perhaps others. They intended to inaugurate the provisional government at once. Its first court was held April 26th. John Winthrop, Jr., set out in March, to assume his responsibilities at Saybrook. It must have been evident that the declaration of their rights under the patent could not wait upon their convenience. The issue with the Dutch rested entirely with the Newtown emi- grants. Neither Windsor nor Wethersfield had any claim to advance to the land south of the Little River. The pioneers were well settled on the north-side. It naturally devolved upon some one from Newtown, with a show of authority, to advance their claim under the patent, and, "to obviate all difficulties," the purchase of the land from the natives was necessary.
These are not the only circumstances that lead to such a conclusion. We have evidence that the English had, before Hooker's arrival, asserted their patent rights, and had presumably taken such action under them that the Dutch made a formal protest against them as trespassers. On June 22, 1636, Elder William Goodwin, dating his letter from Suckiaug, wrote to Governor John Winthrop, Jr., at Saybrook fort, as follows: "I am requested by our neighbores the Dutchmen to mind you of what you willed me to tell them, viz., that if they thought good to call to you as they went out [of the river] with ther sloope (and did desire so much of you) you would then giue them answer in wryteing to ther protest. The Sirgion is now going to ther plantation [Manhattan] and meaneth to come to you about it, and desired me to signifie so much vnto your worship, which is all I haue at this tyme." The postscript of this letter advises Winthrop of the arrival of Hooker.1
It is clear that the protest of the Dutch had been made some time before Goodwin wrote as above. He and Win- throp had met at Saybrook or Suckiaug, or information concerning the protest had been transmitted to Winthrop, and an answer had been returned. Apparently also the Dutch had been waiting some time, for a convenient occa-
1 4 Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., VII: 44.
26
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
sion to call at Saybrook fort as they went out of the river in their sloop. Moreover, the protest had doubtless been called forth by some overt act of settlement on the part of the English. It would seem that they had entered upon the land that the Dutch claimed, and had justified their act on the ground that they had rights there under the Warwick Patent, and by purchase from the Indians. This situation alone would have made it proper for the Suckiaug settlers to refer the matter to Governor Winthrop, the regent under the patentee, and for the Dutch to seek from him an answer to their protest, in writing, to be forwarded, no doubt, on their arrival at Manhattan, to their superiors of the West India Company. The Dutch had made no protest against the occupation of the land north of the Little River. It was outside of their bounds. Entrance by another party upon their land, held for years by occupancy and purchase, was quite a different matter. It seems almost to have been a part of the program, previously arranged between the settlers and Governor Winthrop at Saybrook, that the issue should be forced early in the season - an issue foreseen and unavoidable, if their rights under the Warwick Patent, in which, we do not doubt, they honestly trusted, were of any value.
Is there any evidence of an overt act of settlement upon the Dutchmen's land, which would call forth this protest? The Hartford land records seem to give us an answer. If John White and Samuel Wakeman were like all other plant- ers, their first concern was to secure eligible house-lots for themselves. They could have done so among the pioneers north of the Little River. There was land enough and to spare, as desirable as any that had been chosen. We do not find them there. As already stated, one of the princi- pal highways of the pioneers' settlement was the "Road from the Little River to the North Meadow," now named Front Street. At its southern end, there was a fordway, crossing the Little River. It is here that we find the two emigrants, who had arrived in the spring of 1636, settled on the South-side, making a beginning of that plantation. John White is on the east side of the path or road to Weth- ersfield, and Samuel Wakeman on the west side, beyond
27
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT
William Hills, who occupied the corner lot. Apparently, these adventurous scouts had boldly, and with design, crossed the Little River, and settled on the Dutchmen's land. They doubtless believed that they had a lawful right there, and considered it their own promised Canaan. Samuel Wakeman was soon sworn constable. Under the circumstances, it was a suitable residence for an officer of defence. We may even suspect that it was his post of danger, in case of trouble with the Dutch, that suggested his appointment. Yet this settlement on the Dutchmen's land was precisely what some of Thomas Hooker's company intended to do, and did, upon their arrival. It did not mat- ter how soon the issue was made. They could not settle under the Warwick Patent and avoid it.
If, therefore, these two settlers did locate their lots within the Dutchmen's claim, with William Hills and possibly others, in the spring of 1636, thus giving good reasons for the above protest, and it is true, as the English afterward asserted, that they had purchased the land from the Indians before any such settlement was made, then Samuel Stone, who, with William Goodwin, bought the land, must have been a member of this springtime company.
The reader, who has a sense of the humorous, can hardly suppress a smile at this exhibition of the traditional shrewd- ness of the Connecticut Yankee, in the character of our forefathers. The patentees had forced them into a position where they were obliged to accept settlement under the Warwick Patent. They did so, without incurring any obligation of allegiance to the patentees' governor. And yet, these settlers, either by design or chance, at once made an issue with their neighbors, that could only be defended on the ground of a superior patent right. When the Dutch made a protest against them as trespassers, they received it with equanimity, and referred them to His Excellency at Saybrook fort, while they went calmly about their business of ploughing and sowing the Dutchmen's fields.
The English occupied and divided among themselves the land south of the Little River, where they founded the South-side Plantation. They allowed their neighbors to
28
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
continue in possession of such parcels as they had put to use. There the matter was allowed to rest for a time. We do not know of any better statement of the case than has been given by an early Dutch writer in the following language: "It finally came to pass that they [the English] arrived on the above-mentioned river in the years 1635 and 1636, with numbers of families and cattle, established them- selves there, far and near, even on the land situate around and by our fort, and belonging to us, which land they have divided among themselves, endeavoring to prescribe laws to us, because they, having built a house or two at the mouth of the river pretended thereby to have the key thereof." 1
Here we lose sight of their differences, until 1639, and our story is continued in a later chapter. The patentees were not allowed to forget their responsibilities toward the river plantations. In 1642, Lord Saye and Sele, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and the Earl of Warwick, came loyally to the assistance of the colonists in the defence of their rights. If we only had some reminiscences by the younger Governor Winthrop, it is probable that our chapter would not lack a most entertaining conclusion. His authority dwindled very rapidly. In the latter part of March, his honored father addressed him as "Governour of Conecticott." Within a month, he changed the title to "Governor of the new Plantation upon Connecticutt," which was sufficiently indefinite. In June, however, when Thomas Hooker's company were well on the way, he had become simply "Governor of the Plantation upon the mouth of the Con- ecticot." These changing titles furnish a good illustration of what actually took place. Winthrop came to Connecticut to represent the patentees. He gave the settlers such stand- ing and defence as he could; but he quietly turned over to them the authority of government. We cannot doubt that in doing so, he was conforming to the known wishes of his superiors. He soon relinquished his post, returned to Boston, and, with grace and honor, withdrew from such perplexing responsibilities, concluding, no doubt, that the river plantations could look after their own interests. We have a strong conviction that he fully understood, from the
1 "Report and Advice," in O'Callaghan's Hist. of New Netherland, I: 421.
29
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT
first, the purpose of the play that had thus been put upon the stage, and enjoyed the rôle that had been assigned to him, as the friend of the colonists. He served them well. After the curtain had fallen, they were glad to have him settle down at Pequot and participate in the blessings that the Warwick Patent, which has yet to be discovered, had been the means of bestowing upon the people of Connecticut.
CHAPTER III
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER
THE distinctive features of the settlement of Hartford were: the wisdom that characterized the removal of its founders, the dual establishment of the plantation, and its early organization of town government. In these respects, Hartford has a right to claim honor among her sister towns, though she must yield to Windsor and Wethersfield in prior- ity of settlement.
It is clearly an error to speak of the company that Thomas Hooker personally conducted as making the beginning of the Suckiaug plantation. It was begun in 1635. The Newtown emigrants did not trust to the fortunes, which one party might expect to encounter in the wilderness. After two companies had gone forward to prepare the way, the main body followed. In the larger sense, they may all be included in Hooker's company. Each party was chosen to fill an honorable place in our history.
Nor did the success of the removal depend upon any one man. Thomas Hooker seems to have been most concerned, personally, with the larger interests of the movement. When great principles were under discussion - such as their right to remove, and the organization of government - he looms up like an ancient prophet. He had inspired the emigration. As a minister he was its attracting force. Yet, in carrying out their plans, he trusted to others, who shared his con- fidence. Samuel Stone, on several occasions, was the man of practical affairs. Other settlers, such as Goodwin, Steele and Westwood, were well fitted for the service to which they were appointed. Many others, whose names are familiar, contributed to the success of their venture. Still a master-mind was in control of the movement, through the sway of personal influence. This was the great and merited honor due Thomas Hooker.
31
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER
In the spring of 1636, there was general anxiety among the main company to hasten their departure. Aside from the natural rivalry between emigrating towns, there were urgent reasons for haste in the season's labors.1 The settlers had to clear away the forest, break up the virgin soil, gather fodder for the winter and prepare shelter for themselves and their cattle. Yet they experienced delays. In a letter of April 26th, Winthrop says: "Mr. Hooker and his com- pany intend to set forth three weeks hence." Their date then was May 17th. Some of them did not sell their homes before that month. Perhaps they were also delayed in securing transportation by water for their goods. Of that season, Lion Gardiner at Saybrook wrote: "Heare hath come many vessels with provision to goe vp to the planta- tions." We surmise, however, that they may have thought it wise to make their journey during the pleasant days of summer. There were gentle women among them, unac- customed to hardships in the forest, and mothers with their little children. None of our modern conveniences for camp life were known to them. They were to cook and eat their humble fare by the wayside; find shelter from dew and rain under overhanging boughs, and go to their rest in the ominous darkness, on the matted needles of ancient pines. Surely the shepherd that led forth that flock may have wisely sought the favor of nature's best season.
The day of their departure was Tuesday, May 31, 1636, Winthrop places it under that date in his history. In a letter, also, of June 10th, he distinctly says: "Mr. Hooker went hence upon Tuesday the last day of May."
How many were numbered in this company, and of whom did it consist? The only statement we have as to their number is that there were "about an hundred persons." This expression, if we accept its authority, is indefinite. It may mean some more than one hundred. In the writer's opinion, the company did considerably exceed that. Such
1 The Dorchester people returned early to Windsor. "A great part" of their old church had "gone to Connecticut" by April 1st. Pynchon's company from Roxbury went early to Springfield. They planned to ship their goods on the Blessing "as soon as she can be laden" after April 14th. Their records at Agawam begin with May 14th. Winthrop's History, I: 218, 219, 465.
32
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
a party could not have included, by a liberal estimate, more than thirty-five settlers, the remainder being wives, children and servants. This centenary number must have had the room that the Mayflower is said to have given to furniture, to accommodate all the ancestors for whom the honor has been claimed. The list of Newtown house- holders, February 8, 1635-6, must be the basis of a census. The location of settlers' house-lots at Hartford is also of value, for the majority who came in 1636, settled on the South-side. As a rule, arrivals after that year had lots in the suburbs. The following list of those who were members of the Newtown congregation, and are thought to have removed in Hooker's company, makes no pretense of being other than what a careful and unprejudiced study of the records seems to the author to warrant. It includes those who probably secured lots at Suckiaug in 1635, and returned to Newtown. The order follows the list of proprietors of Hartford, except as to Thomas Hooker himself.
Mr. Thomas Hooker, Mr. Mathew Allyn, John Talcott, James Olmsted, William Wadsworth, William Lewis, Tim- othy Stanley, Edward Stebbins, John Pratt, William Ruscoe, James Ensign, John Hopkins, George Steele, Stephen Post, Thomas Judd, Thomas Lord, Sen., John Stone, Richard Lord, John Maynard, Jeremy Adams, Samuel Greenhill, Robert Day, Nathaniel Richards, Joseph Mygatt, Richard Butler, John Arnold, Thomas Bull, George Stocking, Seth Grant, Richard Olmsted, Joseph Easton, Clement Chaplin, Thomas Lord, Jr., John Olmsted and Samuel Whitehead.
There were others, however, who came from Massachu- setts towns, or soon after their arrival from England, and doubtless became settlers of Hartford in 1636. Such were Thomas Welles - who is said to have come from Saybrook - John Webster and William Whiting. The location of lots gives reason to believe that the following came that season - perhaps some of them with Hooker: Andrew Bacon, John Baysey, George Grave, William Hyde, Richard Lyman, John Marsh, John Moody, William Parker, John Skinner, Arthur Smith, Nathaniel Ward, John Wilcox and Gregory Wolterton. Thomas Stanton was in Connecticut
-----
- .
-
SH CLARK
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER
33
. THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER
in 1637, and perhaps secured his lot earlier, through his father-in-law, Thomas Lord. A number of young men, also, arrived late in 1636, or early in 1637, for they were soldiers in the Pequot War. William Gibbons, steward of George Wyllys, who followed in 1638, is said to have arrived in 1636, "with twenty men," to erect Wyllys's house and prepare his fields. Our inability to identify any of this company awakens the suspicion that some of them may have been among the soldiers of 1637, and later may have received land by the town's courtesy. Some of the most prominent members of Hooker's congregation were detained at Newtown. Benjamin Burr and Thomas Hosmer seem to have been there June 6, 1636, but probably followed that season. William Andrews, William Blumfield, John Clarke, John Haynes, Thomas Spencer and Andrew Warner removed early in 1637, and William Spencer in 1638. Edward Hop- kins had an early reservation of a house-lot, but arrived in 1637. Surely the number that came to Hartford in 1636 has been underestimated. In view of this conclusion, we can better appreciate the effect of declining emigration, and the protest of Thomas Hooker, in 1638, at the efforts of some at the Bay to discourage the movement.
There are only two original authorities as to the details of Thomas Hooker's pilgrimage. These demand a critical examination. In the course of time, they have received such embellishments that the present popular impression of that journey is unworthy of credence. Winthrop's story is confined to the following paragraph:
"Mr. Hooker, pastor of the church of Newtown, and most of his congregation, went to Connecticut. His wife was carried in a horse litter; and they drove one hundred and sixty cattle, and fed of their milk by the way." 1
In one of Winthrop's letters, we have this additional information :
"With that company, viz - by Tho. Bull and a man of mine own, I sent six cows, four steers and a bull." 2
These cattle were to be sent on to his son at Saybrook, and were doubtless delivered there soon after the company
1 Winthrop's History, I: 223.
2 Ibid., I: 468.
34
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
arrived.1 The details of this narrative are valuable, and worthy of entire confidence.
Our second authority is Cotton Mather, who wrote, in the Magnalia, as follows: "Reader, come with me now to behold some worthy, and learned, and genteel persons going to be buried alive on the banks of Connecticut, having been first slain by the ecclesiastical impositions and persecutions of Europe. . .. Accordingly, in the month of June, 1636, they removed an hundred miles to the westward, with the purpose to settle upon the delightful banks of the Connecti- cut River; and there were about an hundred persons in the first company that made this removal; who not being able to walk above ten miles a day took up near a fortnight in the journey, having no pillows to take their nightly rest upon, but such as their father Jacob found in the way to Padan-Aram." 2
Cotton Mather was the original authority for the enbel- lished narrative, which Governor Thomas Hutchinson re- corded in his history, published in 1764. From the latter historian, our popular misconceptions of Thomas Hooker's pilgrimage have been derived.3 Hutchinson's version is as follows:
"They did not take their departure until June the next year, and then about an hundred perfons in the firft com- pany, fome of them had lived in fplendour and delicacy in England, fet out on foot to travel an hundred and twenty or thirty miles with their wives and children, near a fort- nights journey, having no pillars but Jacob's, and no canopy but the heavens, a wildernefs to go thro' without the leaft cultivation, in moft places no path nor any marks to guide them, depending upon the compafs to fteer by, many hideous fwamps and very high mountains, befide five or
1 Probably the men who delivered this herd were the "bretheren," referred to in Goodwin's letter of June 22nd to Winthrop.
2 Mather's Magnalia, edn. 1855, I: 81, 342.
3 Dr. Samuel Mather wrote a letter, in 1784, to his son Samuel, in which he said, of certain manuscripts, "I lent [them] to your careless Uncle, Mr. Hutchinson, and, as I suppose, they are irrecoverably lost and gone: I furnished him, as I suppose you know, with most of the Materials, of which his History was composed: And I am sorry that he made no better use of them: For he has misrepresented and misapplied several Things, of which I had given him better Information"- Ma- ther's History of King Philip's War, 1862, p. xxii.
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.