USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 33
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
Opposition to ratification ran high in the interior towns of Massa- chusetts, where there was a distrust of the merchants and capitalists of the seaboard, especially after Shays' rebellion. Ratification in Massa- chusetts finally came in February, but not until amendments were added which purportedly lessened the power of the central govern- ment and significantly strengthened the states. The cultural affinity of the Connecticut Valley on other occasions had proved stronger than state boundaries. It seems likely that the northern Connecticut towns were reflecting the political attitudes of the Massachusetts towns. Con- necticut, in general, however, opposed the Bill of Rights strongly. Roger Sherman held that for the ratifying conventions to add amend- ments was improper. He held that amendment was properly a province
368
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
of the legislatures of the several states, and, since the Philadelphia convention had agreed on a basis of government, alterations should come on the basis of experience. Nonetheless, six of the seven states voting after the Massachusetts Convention included the amendments and the concession won additional supporters for the constitution. The General Assembly received copies of the amendments in its session of October 1789, but the conservative forces of the state apparently were not sufficiently interested in their ratification to secure their approval. When Virginia approved them in 1791, the Bill of Rights was incorpo- rated without Connecticut's support.123
Plans were quickly made for beginning the new government under the Constitution of the United States. The Continental Congress re- solved on September 13, that representatives should meet in New York on the first Wednesday of March, 1789. William Samuel Johnson and Oliver Ellsworth were chosen as the first Senators to represent the state and the October session of the 1788 General Assembly directed the free- men of the colony to meet and cast their vote for the nomination of twelve to stand for election as the five representatives of Connecticut. The election committee named to receive and count the ballots met in Middletown on November 19 to determine the nominees. The first election was held December 22 and in the January session the General Assembly announced the election of Roger Sherman, Jonathan Sturges, Benjamin Huntington, Jonathan Trumbull [Jr.] and Jeremiah Wads- worth. Although elected as representatives at large the Congressmen came from four different counties.124 The new government was in safe hands and the federalists were rapidly becoming entrenched in Con- necticut.
NOTES-CHAPTER XIV
1 Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, and Oliver Wolcott, to Jonathan Trumbull, May 18, 1778 in Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, vol. 2, pp. 231-34.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Boardman, Sherman, pp. 174-75; Jensen, New Nation, p. 261.
5 Ibid., pp. 261-62.
6 Wallace Evans Davies, "The Society of the Cincinnati in New England, 1783-1800," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., Vol. 5, 1948.
7 Ibid., pp. 6-7.
369
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
8 Ibid., pp. 19-20.
9 Ibid., p. 23.
10 Oscar Zeichner, "The Rehabilitation of Loyalists in Connecticut," New England Quarterly, Vol. II (1938), pp. 308-21.
11 State Rec., Vols. IV, V, VI, passim.
12 Ibid.
13 State Rec., Vol. I, p. 539, Vol. II, pp. 57-58, 488; Boyd, Susquehanna Co., p. 43; Frederick W. Gnichtel, "The 'Pennamite Wars' and the Trenton Decree of 1782," Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, Vol. VI, 1921, p. 28.
14 Boyd, Susquehanna Co., p. 43.
15 Ibid.
16 Groce, Wm. Sam. Johnson, pp. 116-17; Gnichtel, " 'Pennamite Wars,' " p. 31-32.
17 St. Rec., Vol. V, p. 11.
18 Boyd, Susquehanna Co., pp. 43-48; Gnichtel, " 'Pennamite Wars,' " p. 32.
19 Clark, Hist. of Conn., p. 293.
20 Oliver Wolcott to Jonathan Trumbull, Jan. 1, Mar. 24, 1781, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, Vol. 3, pp. 183, 210.
21 Ibid.
22 Richard J. Purcell, Connecticut in Transition, 1775, 1818 (Washington: American Historical Association, 1918), pp. 177-78.
23 Ibid., pp. 202-204; St. Rec., Vol. V, p. 323.
24 St. Rec., Vol. VI, p. 404.
25 Ibid., pp. 10-11, 93.
26 The towns of Middletown, Haddam, Killingworth, Saybrook, East Haddam, and Chatham were the original towns of Middlesex County. Tolland, Stafford, Bolton, Somers, Hebron, Willington, Union, and Ellington were the original towns of Tol- land County. Coventry was added to Tolland County in May, 1786. Ibid., p. 154.
27 Ibid., Vol. V, pp. 257-77, 342-73.
28 Amos A. Browning, "The Mayoralty in Connecticut," Conn. Mag., Vol. V, 1899, pp. 27 ff.
29 Ibid.
30 St. Rec., Vol. VI, p. xii; Berlin, East Haven, Bristol, and Thompson were incorporated in 1785; Lisbon, Hamden, Brooklyn, Franklin, Warren, Ellington, Bozrah, Granby, New Haven, Montville, and Hampton in 1786; Southbury, Bethlehem, and Weston in 1787; Brookfield in 1788; and Huntington (now Shelton) in 1789.
31 St. Rec., Vol. VI, pp. 323-25; William Garrott Brown, Life of Oliver Ellsworth (New York, 1905), pp. 111-12.
32 Ibid .; Norris Galpin Osborn, Editor, History of Connecticut in Monographic Form, Vol. III (New York, 1925), pp. 68-73.
33 Brown, Ellsworth, pp. 110-11.
34 Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New York, Vol. I (London, 1823), p. 246.
35 St. Rec., Vol. VI, p. 229.
36 Bronson, Currency, pp. 136-38; Brown, Ellsworth, p. 96; Boardman, Sherman, p. 199; Jensen, New Nation, p. 303; Clark, Hist. of Manufacturing, Vol. I, p. 227; Weeden, Ec. and Soc. Hist., Vol. II, p. 793. For a brief discussion of war profits see Hall, Talmadge, pp. 81-87. Whereas it is almost impossible to judge with any degree of accuracy the aggregate profits of those engaged in privateering during the war, the privateers ran out of almost every town along the coast and from every navigable river. It seems almost certain that the practice contributed to the increase in the amount of specie available. See also, Evarts Boutell Greene, The Revolutionary
370
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Generation, 1763-1790, A History of American Life, Vol. IV (New York, c. 1943), p. 268 and Louis F. Middlebrook, History of Maritime Connecticut During the American Revolution, 1775-1783 (Salem, 1925). Typical of those engaged in trade and privateering were Jeremiah Wadsworth, Barnabas Deane, Nathaniel Greene, and Benjamin Talmadge.
36a Stiles, Diary, Vol. III, p. 128.
37 Records of the Bureau of Customs, District of New Haven, cited in Jensen, New Nation, p. 215.
38 Stiles, Diary, Vol. III, p. 128.
38a Quoted in John David Ronalds Platt, "Jeremiah Wadsworth; Federalist Entre- preneur" (unpublished doctoral thesis, Columbia University, 1955), p. 61.
39 Jacob Sebor to Silas Deane, Nov. 10, 1784, Papers, Conn. Hist. Soc., Vol. XXIII, p. 201.
40 Barnabas Deane to Silas Deane, Oct. 14, Oct. 15, 1787, Sept. 28, 1788, Papers, Conn. Hist. Soc., Vol. XXIII, pp. 215-17.
41 Jensen, New Nation, pp. 154-169, 194-218.
42 St. Rec., Vol. V, p. 454. For loyalists, see Stiles, Diary.
43 St. Rec., Vol. V, p. 325; Platt, "Wadsworth," p. 86.
44 Weeden, Soc. and Ec. Hist., Vol. II, p. 819.
45 Jacob Sebor to Silas Deane, Nov. 10, 1784, Papers, Conn. Hist. Soc., Vol. XXIII, p. 201.
46 Wurfel, Webster, p. 99.
47 St. Rec., Vol. IV, pp. 153-54, Vol. V, pp. 326-40.
48 Ibid., and Vol. VI, pp. 15-18.
49 Ibid., p. 503.
49a See Platt, "Wadsworth," for an excellent discussion of Hartford as a center of trade. 50 Hall, Talmadge, pp. 103-18.
51 Albert Lavern Olson, Agriculture, Economy, and the Population in Eighteenth Cen- tury Connecticut, Tercentenary Commission of the State of Connecticut, Committee on Historical Publications (New Haven, n.d.), p. 17. Although Wadsworth did not benefit monetarily from his position as Commissary General, he reaped handsome profits after he resigned this position from a contract to supply the French Army. See Platt, "Wadsworth," pp. 2-60.
52 Bidwell and Falconer, Hist. of Agriculture, p. 98.
53 St. Rec., Vol. V, pp. 256, 342, Vol. VI, p. 291.
54 Jensen, New Nation, p. 376.
57 Bronson, Currency, p. 126 and note.
58 Ibid., pp. 127-34.
59 Robert Morris to Jonathan Trumbull, May 9, 1782, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, Vol. 3, pp. 344-48.
60 St. Rec., Vol. IV, pp. 168-69; Jensen, New Nation, p. 377.
61 Wolcott to Trumbull, Jan. 8, 21, 1782, Collections, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 7, Vol. 3, PP. 344-448.
62 Jensen, New Nation, p. 378.
63 St. Rec., Vol. VI, pp. 412-13.
64 Ibid., p. 506.
65 St. Rec., Vol. VII, p. 192, note.
66 Boutell, Sherman, p. 128; Brown, Ellsworth, p. 117; Groce, Johnson, p. 136.
67 Ibid., p. 137.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid., p. 136.
70 St. Rec., Vol. VI, pp. 292-93.
371
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR
71 William Grayson to James Monroe, May 29, 1787, in Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. III (New Haven, 1937), p. 30.
72 Jeremiah Wadsworth to Rufus King, June 3, 1787, in Ibid., pp. 33-34.
73 Max Farrand, The Constitution of the United States (New Haven, 1913), pp. 33-34. 74 Ibid.
75 Farrand, Framing of the Const., p. 84; Jeremiah Wadsworth to Rufus King, Jan. 3, 1787, in Farrand, Records of the Convention, Vol. III, pp. 33-34.
76 Farrand, Records of the Convention, Vol. I, pp. 462, 469.
78 Ibid., pp. 47, 52, 64-68.
79 Ibid., pp. 335-41.
80 Groce, Johnson, pp. 21-22, 139-40.
81 Farrand, Framing of the Constitution, p. 84.
82 Brown, Ellsworth, p. 127.
83 Farrand, Records of the Convention, Vol. I, pp. 313, 322.
84 Ibid., pp. 322-24.
85 Ibid., pp. 335-36.
86 James Madison to Thomas Cooper, Dec. 26, 1826, same to N. P. Trist, Dec., 1831, same to John Tyler, 1833, in ibid., Vol. III, pp. 474, 516, 524-30.
87 Farrand, Framing of the Constitution, pp. 92-93.
88 Farrand, Records of the Convention, Vol. I, pp. 52, 130, 148-50, 192-93, 204, 406-07, 414.
89 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 436.
90 Ibid., pp. 468-69.
91 Ibid., p. 499.
92 Ibid., pp. 482-84.
93 Ibid., p. 476.
94 Ibid., pp. 485-87.
95 Ibid., pp. 469-70, 495, 510. One state was divided.
96 Farrand, Framing of the Constitution, pp. 96-97.
97 Brown, Ellsworth, pp. 144-45; Stiles, Diary, Vol. III, p. 296.
98 Brown, Ellsworth, p. 144, note 2.
100 Farrand, Records of the Convention, Vol. I, p. 532.
101 Ibid., pp. 524-606, Vol. II, pp. 1-20; Farrand, Framing of the Constitution, pp. 98-105.
102 Ibid., pp. 92-93.
103 Ibid., p. 105.
104 Farrand, Records of the Convention, Vol. I, pp. 52, 130, 148-50, 192-93, 204, 406-407, 414.
105 Farrand, Framing of the Constitution, p. 106.
105a Andrews, Colonial Period of American History, Vol. IV, p. 412, note 2.
St. Rec., Vol. VI, p. ix.
107 Farrand, Framing of the Constitution, pp. 113-23.
108 Ibid., pp. 122-23.
109 Ibid., pp. 134 ff.
110 Ibid., 179, 180-82; Groce, Johnson, pp. 147-48.
111 Farrand, Framing of the Constitution, pp. 176-178, 182-83.
112 Ibid., p. 192.
113 John David Ronalds Platt, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Federalist Entrepreneur, unpubl. doctoral thesis, Columbia University, 1955.
114 Ibid., p. 205.
115 Ibid., p. 206; Groce, Johnson, pp. 152-53; Stiles, Diary, Vol. III, p. 296.
117 St. Rec., Vol. VI, p. 553.
372
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
118 St. Rec., Vol. VI, pp. 553-57.
119 St. Rec., Vol. VI, pp. 557-58.
120 Ibid., pp. 558-64.
121 St. Rec., Vol. VI, pp. 564-71.
122 St. Rec., Vol. VI, pp. 549-52.
123 Conn. Col. Rec., Vol. VII, pp. xxi; Thomas H. Le Duc, "Connecticut and the First Ten Amendments to the Federal Constitution," Senate Document No. 96, 75th Cong., ist sess., Washington, 1937.
124 St. Rec., Vol. VI, pp. 474-76, 496-97.
Chapter XV Federalism at High Tide
P OLITICAL DEVELOPMENT. The method of electing repre- sentatives to the new national Congress was left up to the states, and, in Connecticut, went through a process of refinement for al- most a decade. The Act of 1789 was the basic law governing these elections in Connecticut. This provided that the Freemen of the sev- eral towns were to select, first in April 1790 and each two years there- after, twelve nominees from whom the five representatives permitted the state would be chosen.1 In the election of 1790, the method of cast- ing votes for these nominees varied so from town to town that the As- sembly ruled that all votes which appeared to "have been fairly and up- rightly given" should be counted, providing the ruling would not be regarded as a precedent.2
It was assumed that vacancies which occurred during a term would be filled from the remaining nominees. When two vacancies occurred in the congressional delegation in 1793, only two persons remained on the nominating list, since the others had been elected or had accepted court appointments. The press agitated against a situation which, in fact, did not permit a choice. Dedication to the principle that the peo- ple should have a choice of representatives was reinforced by questions as to the federalist convictions of one of the two on the list. The state drew up a special list of nominees in November 1793 to meet the im- mediate situation but did not then make provision to meet a recur- rence.3 The number of nominees was increased, however, to fourteen when Connecticut representatives were increased from five to seven after the census of 1790. In 1797, the number of nominees was further increased to 18, apparently because of the unusual situation of 1793.4
374
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
LITCHFIELD CHURCH
Pressure soon developed in support of electing representatives by districts. The idea was opposed by the dominant political group, per- haps in the belief that control of the delegation could be more easily retained if the nominees were candidates at large. It was argued that if election were by district, the voters would be partial and unjust, since they would be too close to the candidate.5
In 1790, Mathias Nicoll, representative for Stratford, had intro- duced a bill to exclude members of Congress and federal officeholders
375
FEDERALISM AT HIGH TIDE
from the state legislature and judiciary. As amended and passed by a small majority, it provided only that members of Congress would be excluded from seats in the Assembly, and this was negatived in Coun- cil.6 The next year it was provided that federal officeholders, who were ineligible for Congress by virtue of their office, would, also, be ineligi- ble for the state legislature.7
Connecticut accepted the concept of federal union, yet it deter- minedly guarded its own sovereignty. When the United States Supreme Court by its decision in the Chisholm vs. Georgia case permitted a citizen of one state to sue another state in the Federal courts, Con- necticut objected strenuously. In the October session of the General Assembly, the state's representatives in Congress used their influence to procure an alteration which in the future would prevent any state's being liable to such a suit against its own will. Congress acted promptly. The following May, Connecticut ratified the eleventh amendment deny- ing Federal Courts jurisdiction in suits against a state brought by an alien or resident of another state.8
Economic Development
The confidence in the new federalism was nowhere more clearly evidenced than through the development of financial institutions in the state. Before the formation of the federal union, the country mer- chant had served as financier and broker. Hamilton's financial policy engendered confidence in the American system at a time when the supply of money increased and when European wars cut off foreign loans, reduced imports, and lessened the drain on specie. Insurance and banking interests emerged as distinct institutions. The Hartford Bank and the Union Bank of New London were chartered in 1792, the New Haven and Middletown banks followed in 1795, and the Norwich Bank in 1796.
These first banks were essentially democratic. In the first charter for the Hartford Bank, for example, no one except the State could hold more than thirty shares and voting procedures were weighted to give the small shareholder an advantage over the larger. In voting each stockholder was allowed one vote for one share if he held no more than two shares, one vote for each two shares above two and not exceeding
376
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
ten, one vote for each four shares above ten shares, except that no one (i.e., person, copartnership, or body politic) could have more than ten votes.9 By 1795, this democratic characteristic was beginning to be lost. The number of shares which one could hold was no longer limited, and voting strength was determined by the number of shares held. Sub- scription was theoretically open to all investors. In practice, however, the close association of the bank to the General Assembly and to the church established a preference in choosing subscribers for stocks re- garded as safe and as a rising investment.10 The banks effectively con- centrated the capital of the state and made it available for an expand- ing industry and commerce.
Closely associated with this expanding economy was the need for sharing the risk of a single voyage by a number of persons, who, in turn, would share in the profits. Informal arrangements, in which a number of underwriters assumed a specified proportion of the risk on a vessel with one of their number acting as agent, were replaced by incorporated companies. In 1795, the Mutual Assurance Company of Norwich was incorporated, and, in 1797, the New Haven Insurance Company. The insurance companies and the banks were to a great extent controlled by the same men, most of whom were also interested in the rapidly ex- panding trade.11
The accumulation of wealth in the last decade of the eighteenth century was furthered by the impetus given the shipping industry by the foreign wars.12 Connecticut schooners carried products to the South, particularly to Charleston; numerous small vessels went as far as the West Indies; and a few ships cleared New Haven and New London for Europe. However, from one third to one half of the total trade was carried on through New York.13 The export trade was extended to the towns of the Connecticut Valley; the mast trade was located primarily in the river towns, and these, with towns on the coast, became centers of ship building.14 The whaling industry, after a halting start in 1784, had developed to place New London in competition with Nantucket by 1798.15 The lucrative China trade had attracted Connecticut as early as 1784, when a subsidy had been requested and refused by the General Assembly. Timothy Dwight, however, reported the return of the Nep- tune from the Orient in 1796, with a cargo worth two hundred and
377
FEDERALISM AT HIGH TIDE
forty thousand dollars.16 In the last decade of the eighteenth century, principal articles of export, as indicated by attempts at regulation, were: pork, beef, fish, pot and pearl ashes, flour, cornmeal, butter, lard, tobacco, timber, lumber, pipe staves, and shingles.17 The increase in commerce after 1789 was due in large part to the European wars and to the opening of the West Indies to neutrals. Washington's proclama- tion of neutrality, which permitted trade with all nations, was ap- proved. The fear of involvement which would limit markets was in- tensified by British seizures of American ships. The state took steps for the defense of its coast and, in general, supported the temporary em- bargo of 1794, perhaps in the hope that this would avoid a longer loss of market. Except that the short-lived Peace of Amiens caused a decline in shipping, prosperity continued until the passage of the Non-Inter- course and Embargo acts, which were opposed bitterly by the Federalists by whom they were decried as a conscious effort to ruin New England's trade.18
These same acts, however, were expected to stimulate manufactur- ing, which had already made significant, although slight progress prior to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Tench Coke, an English traveler, observed that the state could not hope to support its growing population under the existing economic system and recommended that more attention be given to manufacturing. Others, too, suggested the desirability of broadening economic activities, but the necessity of fur- thering industry was not completely grasped. Some regarded it merely as a method of preventing idleness of poor children. To Governor Sam- uel Huntington, its support was no more than a method for allaying the dissatisfaction of the populace.19
Private capital was being invested almost exclusively in commerce and land, especially in view of British competition in manufacturing. Therefore, those who were interested in manufacturing turned to the state for assistance. As in the colonial period, monopolies were granted and establishments were made free of taxes for varying, but specified, periods. In the textile industry, the exemption was extended to the laborers. In 1783, all manufactured articles were freed from excise tax. In several instances, lotteries were permitted as a means of raising cap- ital. The owners of the Salisbury iron works, whose works had been
378
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
attached and who were "obliged to shut themselves up to avoid im- prisonment," were granted exemption from attachment, execution, arrests, or imprisonment in civil cases for a period of three years.20
Even with this state aid, foreign competition made the success of a manufacturing enterprise uncertain. Despite the consideration given the owners of the Salisbury furnaces and the tax exemption allowed those engaged in the iron industry, for example, the iron trade in any commercial or industrial sense was lost, as the domestic products could not compete with the European imports.21 Again, English competition eventually caused the failure of the early woolen manufacturing plants.
However, with state encouragement there was accomplished the procurement of textile machinery, the establishment of a number of mills, and the development of production skills. Also, the woolen mills expanded into the production of other textiles and achieved successful competition in cotton manufacturing in the next century. In addition, it was in the development of textile manufacturing that it became ev- ident that business organization was assuming a more definite form. Although silk manufacturing proved unsuccessful, primarily, it was said, because of the lack of skilled workers, the incorporation of the Connecticut silk manufacturers in 1789 is regarded as the first formal incorporation of a manufacturing concern in the United States.22 Under the state policy a certain advance occurred.
The first textile machines imported into this country may have been brought in by Samuel Loomis, who, in May 1787, was given a monopoly of the manufacture of textiles within a thirty-mile area of Colchester upon the claim that he had secured machines which would make cloth more easily than previously. There is, however, no indica- tion that these works were completed.23 In Hartford the following year, Jeremiah Wadsworth began a plant which specialized in making broadcloth. This is described as "the first purely wool-manufacturing concern founded on a strictly business basis, and the first in which power machinery was employed."24 Wadsworth's plant was begun with a capital of 1,250 pounds, later increased to 2,800 pounds, and then, again, in 1790, increased to approximately 4,800 pounds through an authorized lottery. The General Assembly voted a bounty of one penny on the pound for woolen cloth woven before June 1789. The establish-
379
FEDERALISM AT HIGH TIDE
ment was exempted from taxes for a period of five years and the laborers for two.25 Under these incentives, the company produced 10,000 yards of woolens in the first 18 months of operation. Yet the plant had to close in 1794. The inefficiency of the factory, inferiority of its product, and inadequacy of capital (in spite of the authorized lottery and state loans) made it impossible for the factory to compete with British im- ports.26 Tax exemptions for woolen manufacturers and their employees were extended in 1789 and 1790 to the mills of Atwater and Lyon in New Haven, Stephen Brownson in Farmington, Lemuel Grosvenor of Pomfret, William Candal of Killingly, and John William Holley of Stamford.27
It became conventional for woolen manufacturing to be combined with the manufacture of other textiles. Jeremiah Wadsworth had con- templated expansion of the Hartford Woolen Manufacture into silk manufacture, and in applying for state benefits John William Holley had indicated he was engaged in the manufacture of other textiles.28 One of the first factories established primarily for the manufacture of cotton textiles, although it also engaged in the production of linen and silk fabrics, was that established in 1791 in Westville by William Mc- Intosh in association with David Dixon and John R. Livingston. For a few years, large quantities of cotton cloth, cotton yarn, wick, table cloths, and calico were produced here, but the factory was not rebuilt after being destroyed by fire in 1837.29 A smaller neighboring factory was built by Abel Buel, the silversmith, who is credited with having brought McIntosh from Scotland. This was judged by Stiles as more likely to succeed although smaller and less "grand."30
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.