USA > Connecticut > Fairfield County > Greenwich > Greenwich old & new; a history > 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
The soldiers advanced rapidly for the Indians were on the alert, but before they could surround the village a shower of arrows fell around their shoulders. "Fire as you can and charge," shouted Captain Underhill. A heavy fire of musketry was opened by the white men and after a furious conflict of an hour the Indians retreated to their wigwams but continued to shoot
[12 ]
Old & New
with bow and arrow from every available loop-hole. Captain Underhill ordered his men to tear off dead branches from the trees, to set them on fire and throw them on the bark huts. It took but a few minutes before the village burst into flames and warriors, women and children were burned to death. It is said that not a cry or scream was heard.
About five hundred Indians perished, while only about fifteen white men were wounded. The soldiers kindled large fires be- cause it was very cold and encamped for the rest of the night on the field of battle. The next morning they set out on their return and "The Lord enduing the wounded with extraordin- ary strength", they reached Stamford about noon.
A few days later public thanksgiving was celebrated at New Amsterdam.
Daniel Patrick did not live to take part in this dramatic battle which ended all further serious danger from the Indians. His death a few months earlier, in 1643, was quite character- istic. One Sunday afternoon at the home of John Underhill in Stamford, Captain Patrick became involved in a quarrel with a Dutchman from New Amsterdam. Patrick took some abuse silently, then spat in the Dutchman's face, and turning his back he walked away. The Dutchman drew a pistol and shot him through the head. In his journal Governor Winthrop re- marked, "It is observable that he was killed upon the Lord's Day in the time of afternoon exercise."
ROBERT FEAKS
IT IS said that the death of Daniel Patrick caused Robert Feaks to lose his reason, "for from the night he heard the news of this partner's death, he was never again the same man." Feaks had been mentally ill at intervals for some time so his wife Elizabeth was forced to assume most of the responsibility of their affairs. In 1647 it became necessary for the unfortunate husband to go to England "till he saw how God would deal
[13 ]
Greenwich
with him" as he himself expressed it in a letter to a friend. Before leaving Greenwich Feaks appointed Captain William Hallet manager of his estate, and intrusted his wife and children to this man's care. Hallet, who became military commander of the town after Captain Patrick's death, was an intimate friend of the family and as official guardian after Feaks' departure, he became a permanent member of the household.
Robert Feaks never saw his family again although he did return to America. He finally became completely insane and found refuge in the house of Samuel Thatcher at Watertown where he died in 1662. After Feaks left for England Elizabeth Feaks and her children continued to live in Greenwich with William Hallet as their protector, and as might be expected such an unconventional household was looked upon with dis- approval. More than that, it was used as an excuse to claim this valuable land. Both the Dutch at New Amsterdam and the English at Stamford attempted to confiscate the Feaks pro- perty. They pursued the unfortunate Elizabeth Feaks and her "paramour" until they were forced to leave Greenwich. Then they were formally banished in 1649. Meanwhile Elizabeth Feaks had sold parcels of her land to settlers coming to Green- wich. These sales were declared illegal by the citizens of Stamford and a serious quarrel was the result.
Elizabeth Feaks was the niece of Governor Winthrop of Mas- sachusetts. She had first married Henry Winthrop, the Gover- nor's son, who was drowned shortly after he came to America. Later she married Robert Feaks, but from the Winthrop fam- ily she received loyal support in her troubles. Upon her exile from Greenwich she went to New London and sought help from her cousin, John Winthrop, Jr., who wrote several letters on her behalf to Governor Stuyvesant at New Amsterdam. In spite of these efforts the Feaks family and William Hallet were not allowed to return to Greenwich to live on their land. In-
[ 14 ]
Old & New
stead they moved to Long Island and became the founders of Flushing.
But the Feaks property in Greenwich continued to be a source of contention. In desperation some inhabitants of Green- wich appealed to Governor Stuyvesant in a letter which in- cluded some statements that demonstrate the attitude toward Stamford. "Our neyghbors of Stamford hath allways desired and endeavored to depopulate this plase of Greenwich and to leave it without inhabitants so that the prophit may redowne to themselves." After explaining the claim on the Feaks pro- perty the Greenwich settlers again repeated that "it is Green- wich which they thirst for."
Governor Stuyvesant could do nothing to help Greenwich, however, because in the following year, 1650, the Dutch gave up their claims in Connecticut to the New Haven Colony. The boundary line between Dutch and English territory was to "begin at the west side of Greenwidge Bay, and soe to runne a northerly lyne twenty miles up into country, and after as it shall be agreed by the two governments of the Duch and New- haven provided the said lyne com not within 10 miles of Hud- son's River and it is agreed that the Duch shall not at any time hereafter build any house or habitacon within six miles of said lyne, the inhabitants of Greenwidge to remayne till further con- sideration under the government of the Duch."
STAMFORD RULE
A FEW years later Greenwich was definitely claimed by the New Haven Colony and was considered a part of the town of Stamford. But some of the Greenwich settlers thought differ- ently. They had not been consulted in regard to the boundary line, and so, not considering themselves as part of the New Haven Colony, they continued to live according to their own customs and laws, and disregarded the laws of Connecticut. Stamford objected violently to this state of affairs, and in 1655
[15 ]
Greenwich
at the May session of the General Court of New Haven the neighboring town issued a formal complaint against Greenwich.
The indignant Stamford deputies complained that Greenwich cattle were being pastured on the Stamford commons, that the people themselves lived in a disorderly and riotous manner, sold intoxicating liquors to the Indians, received and harbored serv. ants who fled from their masters, and, worst of all, Greenwich was a veritable Gretna Green where persons were unlawfully joined in marriage.
There is proof that the accusation against Greenwich as a Gretna Green was justified. In the records of New Amsterdam there is a decree which proclaims that Johannes Von Beecq, a free merchant of New Amsterdam, and Maria Verleth were "married by an unauthorized countryman named Goodman Crab, living at Greenwich, against the laudable laws and cus- toms of the United Netherlands. This marriage was declared un- lawful and void."
Richard Crab appears to have been the leader of Greenwich at this time. Somehow he had acquired Daniel Patrick's land and he was military commander after the departure of William Hallet. At any rate he led the rebellion against the New Haven jurisdiction. The General Court sent letters to the settlers in Greenwich demanding that they submit to its authority. Green- wich returned a spirited answer "declaring that New Haven had no right to such a claim and that they would never submit to its authority unless compelled to do so by Parliament."
Peremptory letters passed back and forth with Greenwich holding out for independence. The court then directed two Stamford deputies to go over to Greenwich and demand "the number of their males from sixteen to sixty years of age, to be delivered with the other males of the jurisdiction to the com- missioners the next year at Plymouth." At the same time the court passed a resolution that if the men of Greenwich failed to attend the meeting on June 25 at New Haven, "Richard
[16]
Old & New
Crab and some others of the more stubborn and disorderly ones were to be seized and sent to New Haven to answer for their contempt of authority." Not one of the men from Greenwich appeared at this court as demanded, but in the next year they finally agreed to submit to the New Haven jurisdiction. This agreement was signed by twelve representative citizens. For the next nine years Greenwich belonged to Stamford, and had no government of its own at all. The community lost much of its individuality and men were referred to as coming from "about Stamford or Greenwich."
The citizens of Stamford kept a rigid eye on Greenwich, try- ing to maintain discipline and control any rebellious spirits who did not conform to all church regulations. A few Quakers who lived in Greenwich were persecuted relentlessly and anyone who harbored any members of "this cursed sect of heretics" was equally liable for prosecution.
In 1658 Richard Crabb and his wife were brought before the court at New Haven and charged with interfering with the arrest of Thomas Marshall. It seems that a group of Stamford men had gone to Goodman Crab's house to search for Quaker books and to arrest the Quaker Thomas Marshall. Goodwife Crab protested, and entering another room closed the door against the officials. Obliged to break open the door in order to assert their authority, the officials were confronted by Good- wife Crab, who let forth a torrent of abuse. "Is this your fast- ing and praying?" she screamed. "Do ye thus rob us and break into our houses? How can Stamford men expect the blessing of God? Will He bear with your mean hypocrisy? You have taken away our lands without right. You have basely wronged us and let me tell you what I see without the help of your hireling priests, the vengeance of God Almighty will burst upon you."
The angry lady prophesied disaster and destruction until Goodman Francis Bell, a prominent Stamford citizen, stepped forward to calm her. But, turning on him, Mrs. Crab shouted,
[17]
Greenwich
"Thou arch traitor and hypocrite, thou villainous liar, God's wrath is on you and shall burn hotter and hotter on your God- less children. Out on you, poor priest ridden fool." John Water- bury, the town marshall, was the next one attacked and accused of "selling himself to do the dirty work of the God forsaken government of New Haven." Finally she ended by saying "Never, never shall I or mine trouble your Stamford meeting more. I shall die first." Goodwife Crab refused to appear before the court but Richard Crab was forced to appear and apologize for his wife, and explain that she was really a virtuous woman, but that "when she is suddenly surprised, she hath not power to restrain her passion."
Goodman Crab was sentenced to pay a fine of thirty pounds, give security of a hundred pounds for future good behavior and publicly acknowledge his errors at Stamford to the satisfaction of those who had been abused.
From this time on Greenwich became much more respectable and the population increased considerably. Jeffrey Ferris re- turned from Fairfield with a number of new settlers. Other new inhabitants came from Wethersfield, and a number of Stamford citizens acquired land in Greenwich. As in the case of the Mead family, the sons of the founders of Stamford came to Greenwich where there was more available land.
All of these men were God fearing, hard working farmers. They hewed down the trees of the forest and built their own homes. They cultivated their own land with their own hands and raised cattle, sheep and pigs. They were completely self- supporting because every necessity was home grown and home- made. All of this made them strong-minded, strong-willed and uncompromising. Religion was the pivot of their lives. Quite naturally they wanted their own church and their own govern- ment. The two went together, for the Bible was their law.
Although the inhabitants of Greenwich were more in sym- pathy with Stamford than in the earlier years, nevertheless they
[ 18 ]
Old & New
wanted their independence. In 1665 the colonies of Connecti- cut and New Haven were united under one government called Connecticut. At a session of the General Court at Hartford on May 11, 1665, Greenwich was granted a patent. This patent stated that "upon ye motion and desire of ye people of Green- wich, this court doth declare that Greenwich shall be a town- ship entire of itself, provided they procure and maintain an orthodox minister, and in the meantime and until that be effected, they are to attend ye ministry at Stamford and to con- tribute proportionately with Stamford to ye maintenance of the ministry there."
ZIG ZAG BOUNDARY EXPLAINED
DESPITE the action of the General Court in granting Greenwich a patent the boundary line dispute between Connecticut and New York was not finally settled for some time.
In 1664 England took possession of the New Netherlands and Charles II gave to his brother, the Duke of York, the new colony, which extended eastward to the Connecticut River. Two years earlier Connecticut had been granted land running as far west as the Pacific Ocean. So within a period of two years the King of England had managed to give nearly all of New York to Connecticut and most of Connecticut to New York.
Commissioners from the two colonies met to settle the bound- ary and they verbally agreed to set the New York limit at a line running parallel to the Hudson River at a distance of twenty miles east of the river.
A few weeks later the Connecticut commissioners persuaded Richard Nichols, the Duke of York's representative, to sign an agreement whereby the boundary line ran from the Mamaro- neck creek in a north, northwest direction to the line of Mas- sachusetts. Later New York woke up to the fact that Mamaro- neck was really ten miles from the Hudson River instead of twenty and that a line running north, north west from Mama-
[19 ]
Greenwich
roneck crossed the Hudson near West Point instead of running up to Massachusetts. Thus Connecticut was cutting off a large part of New York territory.
In 1683 Governor Dongan notified Connecticut that he was not satisfied with the agreement so a new boundary line was created. It soon became evident that a line running twenty miles east of the Hudson River would deprive Connecticut of several towns which were well established, such as Greenwich. So it became necessary to vary the line so that these towns should remain in Connecticut.
This explains the zig zag boundary line at the southern end of the state. As an offset for the territory thus given to Con- necticut an "equivalent tract" was taken from Connecticut. This tract, called the "oblong," was about two miles wide running from Ridgefield up to Massachusetts, bringing the New York line further east.
By this agreement of 1683 the boundary line began at the mouth of Byram River, following that stream to a certain wad- ing place where the common road crossed the river at a rock known as "The great stone at the Wading Place." From that stone the line was to run northwest until it reached a point eight miles from the Sound, then the line ran eastward for twelve miles parallel to the Sound.
In order to keep Ridgefield in Connecticut the line could not run straight northward, so it was agreed to make an angle and the line ran northwest for eight miles to Ridgefield and then straight up to Massachusetts, including the "equivalent tract."
The next year a survey of the line was begun but the sur- veyors only got as far as the end of the line running parallel to the Sound. At the east end they marked a tree "C. R." and this tree was known as the Duke's tree. The west end of the line north of Greenwich was marked by three white oaks also called the Duke's trees.
The rest of the boundary line was only indicated and the
[ 20 ]
Old & New
entire question remained open because Connecticut periodically re-claimed Rye and Bedford. Finally in 1731 a complete survey was accomplished with marks set all along the line. The three white oaks continued to mark the corner north of Greenwich.
CHURCH AND GOVERNMENT
THE first and most important business of the new town of Greenwich was to get a minister of its own, so that the settlers here would not have to depend on the Stamford church. In 1669 the Reverend Eliphalet Jones became the first minister of the Congregational Society of Greenwich although there was no church or parsonage. Services were first held in the houses of the settlers, and then in the school house built in 1667, which was also a general meeting place. Finally in 1670 a means of support for a church and a settled minister was obtained through William Grimes, who died that year. In his will this William Grimes bequeathed all his land to be used for the pub- lic good. He named Joseph Mead, John Reynolds and Eliphalet Jones as trustees of this estate, and they decided it should be used "for the support of a minister or if the town should be without a minister for the support of one who would teach the children to read." The Grimes land, consisting of over 30 acres of what is now Shorelands in Old Greenwich, thus be- came a part of the town and the church. Money for the church was obtained by renting out this land until 1906, when it was sold for $50,000.
In 1670 the first crude church was built on this land and "stood a little distance from the cove. It was made of rough logs with scant light from the door and slits in the low walls. The roof was thatched with reeds from the nearby salt marsh meadows. There was no chimney, and the seats were of solid unadorned wood. The worshippers always came to service arm- ed, and a guard stood in front of the meeting house to give warning in case the Indians approached."
[ 21 ]
Greenwich
The Reverend Eliphalet Jones only stayed here a short time, so it was not until 1678 that Jeremiah Peck came here as the first settled minister. The town meanwhile had erected a par- sonage and Mr. Peck was given the choice of a salary of fifty pounds with firewood or sixty pounds without firewood. Mr. Peck decided to chop his own wood and accept the extra ten pounds.
In Greenwich, as in all Puritan settlements, the church form- ed the foundation of the town government, for the leaders of the church were the leaders of the town. A man's status in the church determined his position in the community. Church membership was a requirement of citizenship and the regu- lations were very strict. A newcomer was not admitted to the town unless he could produce proper credentials from the min- ister and magistrates of the place he came from, testifying to his "orderly life and conversation. The minister had the lib- ertie of vout in order to ye receiving in of any inhabitant." Thus we find the minister one of the most influential person- ages of the town although the townsmen or selectmen were the official leaders.
In 1665 the town government was set up after the traditional New England system. The powers of the selectmen varied year- ly, but the control of all expenditures for church, town and school were in their hands. Of course this power was under the control of the people of the town because every freeman had the right to attend the town meetings and vote on all actions taken.
The town records were laboriously kept after the first meet- ing in 1665, and some of them are still in existence. The busi- ness attended to at these meetings reveals many interesting as- pects of town life. There were numerous officials whose very titles sound amusingly quaint to modern ears, such as fence viewers, cowkeepers, sheepmasters, .chimney viewers, leather sealers, horse branders and impounders. All of these officials were elected yearly at the town meetings and their work was
[ 22 ]
Old & New
essential for the welfare of the community. For example the position of fence viewer was an important post because this was a farming community. Cultivated lands had to be protected from the trampling feet of straying animals, and it was the duty of the fence viewers to see that the farmers kept their fences in good condition. At a town meeting in 1666 it was "ordered that all fences respecting hom lots or anie corn field shall bee made sufficient to preserve mens crops. Also hee or they that shall necklect mending or making up of his fence alonger time than twenty fower owers after they have warning from vewers, they or hee shall pay twelve pence for each rod."
Officials called impounders or pounders collected the fines and damages to be paid for animals which had done any harm. The animals were returned to the rightful owners who were easily found because of "eare marks" branded on all cattle, sheep and horses. In addition to branding, the "town brander" kept a record of the names of owners, the natural marks of horses as well as the "eare marks." Thus we find on "November the 23 Anno Domini 1698, David Meads eare mark is recorded which is a halfe peny on the fore side of the right eare and a nick under it next to the head on the fore side of the same eare."
Since individual farmers had little time to watch their ani- mals, a common herder daily led the cattle to a common pasture. There was even a common bull, for in 1689 it is recorded that "At a Towne meeting where as ye Towne have taken care to provide them Selves with a bull for ye towns use: Francis Thorne presenting himself to winter ye bull upon the following condition which is as followeth, ye said Thorne is hereby en- gaged to take Care of ye said bull in ye winter time and for sd thorns Recompence of sd charge ye towne hath hereby given ye sd bull to sd thorne." There was a sheep-master or shepherd to care for the sheep. This was an especially responsible position because there was constant danger from wolves. At the town meeting on February 10, 1695 there was a discussion about the
[23]
Greenwich
killing of "woolfses" and it was voted that any inhabitant who killed a wolf should be paid eight shillings as a reward.
Almost everyone shared in common work, whether for roads, bridges, mills, fences, or the church. There was a tremendous amount of work to be done and comparatively few workers. Thus large families became a necessity, for even very small chil- dren could share in the less laborious work on the farms. At the same time, as families increased, there came the desire for more land. Sons growing up and marrying wanted land of their own, so the community gradually spread westward across the Mianus River.
[ 24 ]
II. HORSENECK
P ASTURE LAND was more and more in demand as the animal stock increased, so in 1669 a group of men were chosen to investigate the land which belonged to a tribe of Indians known as the Miosehassekys. This land, which is now Greenwich proper, was found very desirable. There was a point of land which had been cleared by the Indians and was especi- ally suitable as a pasture for horses. It was surrounded by water on three sides and the narrow neck of land near the mainland could be fenced off. This point was called Horse Neck Field Point so the new settlement, established in 1670, was named Horseneck.
Official title to the property was not obtained from the Indians until 1686, but meanwhile the land was laid out in home lots. These lots were divided and granted to certain Greenwich set- tlers who were styled "the 27 Proprietors of 1672." A number of the children of these "proprietors" settled at Horseneck and among the proprietors themselves who moved westward we find Angell Husted, one of the original founders of the old town. He acquired land where Maple Avenue now joins Put- nam Avenue and his farm of many acres extended northward into the country.
It is interesting to note that many of the town's families of the present day are descended from the twenty seven men who
Greenwich
crossed the Mianus River 263 years ago in search of land. The names of the "proprietors" were as follows: Joseph Mead, William Hubbert, William Ratleff, Ephraim Palmer, Stephen Sherwood, Joseph Ferris, Jonathan Lockwood, John Renalds, Angell Husted, James Ferris, John Mead, Jonathan Renalds, John Asten, John Hobbe, William Rundle, Samuel Jankens, Walter Butler, Joseph Finch, Thomas Close, John Palmer, Daniel Smith, Joshua Knapp, John Bowers, Jeremiah Peck, Samuel Peck, Gershom Lockwood, John Marshall.
The settlement at Horseneck grew larger and more prosper- ous, so in 1703 it was decided that town meetings should be held one half of the time at Horseneck and the other half at Greenwich. In regard to church matters, it soon became evident that one minister could not take care of both towns. In 1696 services were held every third Sunday in Horseneck and the following year the Reverend Joseph Morgan preached half of the time in each town. Neither town was satisfied with this arrangement and a great dispute was the result. Poor Mr. Mor- gan, who was the center of the quarrel, finally chose to resign rather than bring about a hopeless division.
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.