History of Litchfield county, Connecticut, Part 135

Author: J.W. Lewis & Company (Philadelphia, Pa.)
Publication date: 1881
Publisher: Philadelphia : J.W. Lewis & Co.
Number of Pages: 1532

USA > Connecticut > Litchfield County > History of Litchfield county, Connecticut > Part 135

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).

" Sacred to the memory of Daniel Landon, of Litchfield, who died July 11, 1790, aged 77 years; who served as clerk to the Episcopal Church in Litchfield forty years.

" His God he served with pious zeal, The sacred dome was his delight ; Far distant from his holy hill He took his everlasting flight. Lo! here I leave this earthly clay, And fly beyond the ethereal bluo, Unchained into eternal day, To sing the praise of God anew."*

Seth Landon, son of Daniel Landon, was born in Litchfield, Conn., Dec. 18, 1749; married Anna Beach, Dec. 26, 1771. He was a gentleman of good mental powers, amiable in the relations of life, of strict hon- esty, unbending integrity, and exemplary piety. He died Feb. 4, 1832, leaving children ; one, Seth, Jr., born April 13, 1777, married Sally Catlin, March 11, 1802, and died Oct. 18, 1843, leaving children ; one, IIuldah Seymour Landon, married Frederick W. Plumb, of Litchfield.+

James Landon, an extensive farmer in Salisbury, is a son of Ashbel Landon, and grandson of James Landon, the first of this family to settle in Salisbury,

Conn., before the Revolutionary war, on the place known as " Tory Hill." Said James Landon, Sr., was a Tory during the Revolutionary war, and a firm adherent of the old Episcopal Church, as his ances- tors had been. He had eleven children, of whom Ashbel was the tenth, born Aug. 7, 1773, on the farm now owned by his son James.

James, Sr.'s, conduct during the Revolutionary war cost him his real estate during his lifetime. He was a member of the Colonial Legislature in May, 1759, and took an active part in everything that had for its object the building up of society. He was a farmer by occupation, and died at a ripe old age.

Ashbel Landon married Lorain Chapman, April 3, 1783. She was born June 3, 1764. Their children were Betsey, Letty, Edmund, William, Horace, and James.

Mr. Landon was a well-to-do farmer, and a man re- spected by all. He was a warden in the Episcopal Church, and held various town offices. He died Sept. 11, 1846, and his wife died Oct. 11, 1835.

James Landon, son of Ashbel, was born on the old Landon homestead, at Tory Hill, Salisbury, Conn., Oct. 2, 1804. His advantages for an education were very limited, yet, by that same indomitable energy which is a very marked characteristic of his nature, we find him able to teach school ere he had reached manhood's years. This he followed several winters ; but as his father desired him to remain at home with him on the farm, he did so, and upon the death of his father, in 1846, came in possession of the old home- stead by paying the other heirs.

To his once small farm he has kept adding little by little, until now (1881) he and his only son own some twelve hundred acres of as good land as there is to be found in old Litchfield County. He has dealt extensively in stock, and in that way has made money. In politics a Republican.

In the May session of the State Legislature of 1859, just one hundred years after his honored grandfather, James Landon, had occupied a place in the halls of legislation, we find him there, serving as a member on the bank committee. He also has filled many town offices to the general satisfaction of his constitu- ents.

Ile has been twice married, first to Jane E. Heath, daughter of Stephen Heath, March 6, 1833. Their children are Jane L., wife of George B. Clark, of Salisbury ; and James H., a large farmer in Sharon. Mrs. Landon died March 24, 1836. Mr. Landon's second wife was Mary Darrow, whom he married Oet. 10, 1838. She died June 11, 18G8.

James H. Landon was born March 14, 1836; married Mary Barton, daughter of L. Barton, of Salisbury, and to them have been born three children, viz .: Harriet, Albert, and Edith.

* Composed by himself.

+ See history of Plumb family.

562

HISTORY OF LITCHFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT.

CHARLES H. BISSELL.

Charles H. Bissell, son of William and Ann Eliza (Loveland) Bissell, was born on the farm where he now resides, in Salisbury, Conn., Oct. 24, 1829. His great-grandfather was Col. George Bissell, who came probably from Litchfield, and settled on the farm above mentioned long before the Revolutionary war. He settled on "Tory Hill," and his property has always been in possession of the family. He had brothers and sisters, and married for his first wife a Gay, for his second, a Hoskens. He at the Revolu- tion swore allegiance to George III .; was drafted, and fled ; was pursued and captured, and was released by his sons. His children were Joseph, George, Azubal, Elizabeth, and John. This John was a cap- tain, married a Kilbourn, of Litchfield, and died, a farmer, at an old age. Their children were Charles, Milo, Monrovia, Benjamin, Charlotte, William, Her- man, Mary, John, and Lucy. Benjamin enlisted in the war of 1812, was wounded, and drew a pension for his services. Lucy married a Meigs, an army officer. Milo was killed by a horse. Monrovia was drowned. Herman died in the island of Cuha .*

William Bissell was born March 30, 1794, and died April 5, 1869. He settled on the homestead, and married Ann Eliza Loveland, by whom he had children,-Marion, Mary, Maria, Charles H., Janc, William, and Ann Eliza. He afterwards married Roxanna Nobles. Their only child, Frank, died, aged nine years. All are now (1881) living but Ann Eliza and Frank.

William Bissell was a farmer, and did well his part among the people. He was selectman, and held other town offices. He was a Democrat in politics.

Charles H. Bissell was reared to a farmer's life, and entered into his work, and is to-day, with his two hundred and thirty acres of fertile land, one of Salis- bury's substantial and representative farmers. He married, Oct. 27, 1859, Thankful Ann, daughter of John Cleveland, of Salisbury. Their son Frank died young.

Mr. Bissell believes in the Democratic principles of government, and is a supporter of the candidates of that party. He has been selectman, member of board of relief, assessor, and represented his town in the Legislature of 1877. Mr. and Mrs. Bissell are sup- porters of Christianity, and attendants on its services.

During all his life Mr. Bissell has walked among the people of Salisbury, and has won many friends. He is deeply interested in everything tending to ad- vance the interests of Salisbury, and is respected and honored by a large circle. He is a true type of the genial New England farmer, whose local attachment is strong, and who, with intelligence, industry, and economy, is making those improvements and advance- ments which are the wonder of the world.

* For further history of Bissell family, see biography of H. B. Bissell, Litchfield.

JOHN F. CLEAVELAND.

John F. Cleaveland, son of Bradford and Eunice (Farnum) Cleaveland, was born in Copake, N. Y., Feb. 18, 1802. His father was a son of P. Cleaveland, and was born in Canterbury, Conn .; married Eunice Farnum, of Salisbury, and settled in Copake, N. Y., where six of his seven children were born, viz .: Elisha W., Mason, John F., Bezaleel (deceased), Cyrus, Mary J., and Frederick F. (deceased), born in Salisbury. In 1810, Bradford Cleaveland settled in Salisbury, Conn., with his family, where he continned to reside till his death, April 21, 1849. His wife died the same day, and was buried in the same grave with her husband. Mr. Cleaveland was a cooper by trade while a resident of Copake, N. Y., but after his set- tlement in Salisbury, Conn., he followed the occupa- tion of a farmer, and in connection owned and ran a saw-mill.

John F. Cleaveland removed to Salisbury with his parents when but eight years of age, and with the exception of three years which he spent in the mer- cantile business in Livingston Co., N. Y., has resided in Salisbury. Mr. Cleaveland worked four years by the month at eleven dollars a month for his wife's uncle, Thomas N. Smith.

About 1826 or '27, Mr. Cleaveland went to Living- ston Co., N. Y., where he was engaged in the mercan- tile business some three years. July 1, 1829, he mar- ried Mary S., daughter of Thaddeus and Hannah (Curtis) Smith. Mrs. Cleaveland was born Jan. 27, 1805, and at five years of age went to live with her uncle, Thomas N. Smith, and continued with him till her marriage. In March, 1830, Mr. Cleaveland re- turned to Salisbury, and took Mr. Thomas N. Smith's farm on shares, which he continued to work till the . death of Mr. Smith (March 1, 1857), when he pur- chased the same of the heirs, his wife receiving about the half interest as a munificent gift from her uncle. Mr. Cleaveland now owns some five hundred acres of well-improved land on Town Hill, Salisbury, Conn. In politics a Republican. He has held various town offices. Mr. and Mrs. Cleaveland are regular attend- ants and supporters of the Congregational Church. Their children are Thankful A., wife of Charles H. Bissell, and Smith, who resides at home, nnmarried.

THOMAS N. SMITH.

Thomas N. Smith, son of Jared Smith and Dorcas, daughter of Ebenezer Beecher, was born in Southbury, Conn., Sept. 10, 1768. He settled in Salisbury, Conn. (that part known as Town Hill), some time previous to the year 1800, where he owned some three hundred acres of good land, and where he followed the occu- pation of a farmer. He was twice married, first to Thankful, daughter of Aaron Page. She died in 1837, and he married for his second wife Susan Hin- man, of Southbury, Conn. She died in 1867. In politics a Republican, he was a prominent man in

Chas H. Bissell

Thomas M Smith

›

John F Cleaveland

563

SHARON.

Salisbury, having been selectman fourteen years, mem- ber of the State Legislature three terms, besides hold- ing many other town offices. He was often called upon to settle estates, which he did with credit to him- self, and generally to the satisfaction of the parties interested. He was a member of the Congregational Church, and a liberal supporter of all religious insti- tutions. He died March 1, 1857, aged nearly eighty- nine years. He lived respected and died regretted.

Thaddeus Smith was born in Southbury, Conn .; married Hannah Curtis, and had four children, viz. : Ira D., Maria, Harriet, and Mary S., wife of John F. Cleaveland. Mr. Smith settled in Salisbury about 1803, and continued there till he was killed by a horse, in June, 1805.

CHAPTER LVI. SHARON .*

· Geographical-Topographical-Conflicting Claims to Territory-Survey of the Town-Line Between New York and Connecticut Defined- Iadian History-The First Settlemeet-Richard Sackett-Sale of the Towe-List of Original Purchasers-Pateet of the Tewn-The Settle- meat in Distress-The First Death-The First Birth-First Marriage -The Moravians-The Revolutionary War-Shay's Rebellion-List of Early Settlers.

THIS town is located in the western part of the county, and is bounded as follows : on the north by Salisbury ; on the east by the Housatonic River, which separates it from Cornwall, on the south by Kent, and on the west by Dutchess Co., N. Y. The surface of the town is hilly in the eastern part, while the western portion forms a part of an extensive valley.

"The northwestern part of Connecticut was sold and settled at a much later period than any other portion of the State. As early as the year 1686 nearly all the lands in the colony had been disposed of, ex- cept those lying north of Waterbury and Woodbury and west of Simsbury. Under the charter of Charles II., obtained in 1662, the colony of Connecticut, though nominally dependent on the crown, enjoyed, in fact, a strictly republican form of government, the only service they were required to render to the crown of England being the one-fifth part of the produce of such mines of gold and silver as should be discovered. Charles was succeeded by his brother, James II., n prince of very arbitrary and vindictive propensities, and no sooner was he firmly seated on his throne than he began to manifest his tyrannieal disposition by causing the charters which had been granted by his predecessors to be vacated, and by assuming to himself the right of appointing Governors for the different colonies. It was feared by the people that these royal Governors would seize upon all the public lands which had not been sold and granted by the

colony, and measures were taken to prevent such un- justifiable proceedings. It was believed that if the public lands were sold, and the title to them guaran- teed by the Governor and Company of the colony, they could not be seized for the king, and under this im- pression the lands within the limits just mentioned were, on the 26th day of January, 1686, conveyed to the towns of Hartford and Windsor. The grant, however, did not include the lands west of the Ousa- tonic River, the Assembly probably supposing that, on account of their great distance from the settled parts of the colony, they were beyond the reach of the royal Governor's rapacity. In October, after the grant just mentioned, Sir Edmund Andross came into the colony, and, by virtue of a commission from King James, took upon himself the administration of the government, and continued in it about two years, or until the deposition of King James, when the people quietly resumed their ancient form of government under the charter.

" The lands above mentioned being deemed of little value, and the more fertile parts of the State being but thinly populated, it was more than thirty years before any attempts were made to settle them. About the year 1722 the public attention was turned to the 'Western Lands,' as they were called; and as they be- gan to rise in value the towns of Hartford and Wind- sor laid claim to them, under the ancient grant which had been made to them under the circumstances which have been mentioned. This claim created a strong excitement throughout the colony, and a long and bitter controversy ensued, which resulted in a division of the .lands between the towns and the colony, the towns taking the castern portion and the colony the western.

"This contention with Hartford and Windsor had re- tarded the sale of the 'Western Lands,' but that dith- culty was now adjusted, and the Assembly took mcas- ures, soon after 1730, to effect this object; and for this purpose they were surveyed, and laid out into town- ships of suitable dimensions. At the session in May, 1732, Edmund Lewis, Esq., Capt. Stephen Noble, and Mr. William Gaylord were appointed a committee to view the colony lands west of the Ousatonic River, and to lay out a township in the northern section of them. They were also endowed with discretionary power to lay out a township on the south of the one just mentioned, if, upon viewing the lands, they should be of opinion that they were of such a quality as to render them a desirable place for a new settlement. This committee entered promptly upon their duties, and by their report, dated at New Milford, Oct. 9, 1732, it appears they laid out both townships. The north township, now Salisbury, they denominated 'the township of M,' and the south township they called N. S. The remainder of the country lands west of the Ousatonie River were afterwards annexed to Kent. The boundaries of the sccond township are thus described by the committee :

* Condensed, by permission, from lloa. Charles F. Sedgwick's excellent " IlIstery ef Shareu."

564

HISTORY OF LITCHFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT.

"' Then, having taken a view of the whole tract, we proceeded and laid out a second township, which begins at the southwest corner of the aforesaid township of M, it being a stake set in the ground, and many stones laid to it, standing on the east side of a pond, as above set forth ; and from thence the line runs 1216 D. W., with the line of partition be- tweon said province of New York and the Colony of Connecticut, nine miles to a heap of stones laid on a rock, in the aforesaid line of partition, and is about two miles east from Captain Sackett'e dwelling-house, which is the southwest corner bonnde of said second township,-from thence we run the south line of said second township E. 912 D, south four miles and a half and 115 roda, to the Queatonic River, where we marked a white- oak tree, and laid many stones to it, for the southeast corner bounds of said second township, and we have marked many trees and made many monuments in the said conth line. Thus we have surveyed and laid out the township of N. S., and it is bounded north on the township of M., south on the country lands, west on the aforesaid line of partition between the province of New York and the Colony of Connecticut, and east On the Ousatonic River.' The above work was completed October 7, 1732.

"It would seem that the way was now prepared for the sale and settlement of the township, but the Hart- ford and Windsor lands, being nearer the settled por- tions of the colony, probably afforded a more desirable field for the enterprise of new settlers, and the colony lands were neglected. Other circumstances also ex- isted which produced a serious delay in bringing the lands in Sharon into market. The line of partition between the colony of Connecticut and the province of New York was defined and established in May, 1731. The commissioners to settle the boundaries between the different jurisdictions on the part of Con- necticut were Samuel Eells, Roger Wolcott, and Ed- mund Lewis; on the part of New York, Cadwalader Colden, Vincent Mathews, and Jacobus Bruyn, Jr .; and the articles of settlement are dated Dover, May 14, 1731."

INDIANS IN SHARON.

"There was a somewhat numerous tribe of Indians in Sharon before its settlement by the white inhabit- ants. Their principal village was on the eastern border of Indian pond, in the northwest corner of the town, where they had considerable clearings. The Indian name of this pond was Weequagnock. There were numbers of them, too, on the borders of the other pond, and in the valley of the Ten-Mile River. The Indian name of this stream was Webotuck. They were never sufficiently numerous to prove dan- gerous to the safety of the settlers, but their dissatis- faction because of the refusal of the proprietors to acknowledge their claims to a certain quantity of land which they insisted was reserved to them in their sale to Thomas Lamb, and the agitation of that matter for nearly fifteen years, was a cause of fear and anxiety to their immediate neighbors during that period. The matter was brought before the Assembly by a joint memorial of the proprietors and Indians, presented in 1742, which will at once give an explanation of the pending troubles, and which was in the words following :

"' To the Honorable, the General Assembly of the Colony of Connecticut in General Court assembled, at Hartford, in said Colony, on the second Thurs- day in Muy, A.D. 1742.

"The memorial of Peter Pratt, Nathaniel Skinner, and Jonathon Dun- ham, agents for said town, and Stephen Nequitimaugh Nauhoon, and others of the Indian natione, residing in sald Sharon, humbly choweth-

"' That they, the said Stephen Nequitimaugh Nanhoon, and others of the Indian Datives, residing in Sharon, were the proper owners of the lande contained in the said township of Sharon and Salisbury, adjoining to said Sharon, and that a considerable part of said lands was honorably purchased of said Indiane, and paid for by Thomae Lamb of said Salis- bury, and that he, the said Lamb, in negotiating the said purchases of said Indians, did take advantage of their ignorance, and as they have since understood, did obtain a deed or deede from them or some of them for more of said land than ever they sold or intended to sell to said Lamb, and particularly the place at the northwest corner of Said Sharon, where the said Indiane live and improve, and always designed to re- serve to themselves for a settlement, besides several other parcele that have never been sold to the English ; that the Government's Committee have obtained the rights purchased by said Lamb of the Indiens, and have sold all the lande in the townshipe of Salisbury and Sheron to the proprietors of said Towns, who are now improving and are entering OD the said lands etill claimed by the said Indians, which has aroused a great deal of uneasiness among the Indians, they looking upon them- selves as defrauded of their rights.

"'That many of the Proprietors of Sharon are likewise inclined to believe that the said Indians, who were the proper owners of said land, did never, to this day eell to the said Lamb or to this government, all the lands in said Sharon or Salisbury, but that they have etill an honest right to that said tract where the said Indians now live, as also to one mile in width across the south end of said town of Sheron, and that they are willing the said tract where the Indians now live should be restored to them and confirmed to the said Indians, though the Proprietors have purchased the same of the government, Provided they can have it made good to them by other reasonable satisfaction.

' " Whereupon your Honors' memorialists humbly pray that the HOD- orable Assembly would take the case into their consideration and would appoint a Committee to repair to Sharon to hear and examine and to en- quire into the claime of the said Indians, and purchases that have been obtained from them either by the said Lamb or others, with power to agree, settle, and iletermine all matters of difference and controversy relating to the premises, and for the quieting the said Proprietors and the said Indians, or that your Honore would in some other way, as in your wisdom you shall think fit, find a remedy.

"' Your memorialists further show that their is a very considerable number of said Indians, living nt said northwest corner of said Sheron, and others not far from them, that are desirous of being instructed in the Doctrinee of the Gospel; to be taught to read the Holy Scriptures, and be informed of the way of salvation therein revealed ; and that their children may be educated according to Christianity ; which your memo- rialiste also recommend to your Honors consideration, hoping that your Honors will be inclined to do something towards their encouragement; and your Honors' memorialists as in duty bound shall ever pray. Dated in Hartford this 13th day of May A.D. 1742.'

" Upon this memorial a committee was appointed, consisting of the Hon. Thomas Fitch, afterwards Governor of the colony, Daniel Edwards, Esq., of Hartford, afterwards a judge of the Superior Court, and Robert Walker, Esq., of Hartford, who was a large proprietor of the lands in Salisbury, whose duty it should be to investigate the subject matter of the memorial ; and they met the parties iu Sharon on the 11th day of October, 1742, and heard them by their interpreters and witnesses.

" They made a long aud elaborate report, in which they gave a history of Lamb's purchase, and, believing that the Indians had misunderstood the bargain, rec- ommended that a certain quantity, not exceeding fifty acres, should be set off to them, that some equivalent should be allowed the proprietors, and that some pro- vision should be made for the religious teachings of the Indians.

"The Assembly approved the views of the com- mittee, and requested Mr. Pratt, the minister of Sharon, to devote some time to the advancement of

565

SHARON.

the spiritual interests of the tribe, but, as they made no provision to remunerate the proprietors, no final adjustment of the difficulty was effected. The Indian improvements contained some ninety acres, and, be- sides this, they demanded a large tract on the adjoin- ing mountains for firewood. To this the proprietors would not consent without a compensation from the government, and the old troubles returned with in- creased acrimony.

" In 1745 another effort was made to call the atten- tion of the Assembly to these Indian troubles. The proprietors of Sharon advised their honors that the Indians were uneasy and restless, in view of the state of their affairs, and they added : 'We can't but think needful for some proper care, in this difficult time, to be taken.'

" This memorial was continued in the Assembly till 1746, when William Preston, of Woodbury, and Sam- uel Canfield, of New Milford, were appointed a com- mittee to lay out the Indian lands by metes and bounds. This committee, in the prosecution of their duties, employed the celebrated Roger Sherman, then a humble shoemaker at New Milford, to lay out the Indian lands, in his capacity of county surveyor, and to mark out definitely their boundaries. All this was accomplished by Mr. Sherman, but nothing was done to remunerate the proprietors, and both parties were left to contest their rights as best they could. The Indians were stimulated in their quarrel by certain disorderly persons, who made them believe they were their special friends, whose counsels were prevalent in shaping their course. Under the guidance of those persons they were emboldened to resistance, and gave great uneasiness and trouble to the proprietors. One Van Arcnan, a Dutchman, pretended to make a new purchase of their lands, and it became necessary to take strong measures to prevent open and forcible col- lision. This state of things portended so much danger that Governor Law found it necessary to issue a for- mal proclamation to the intruders, warning them that their Indian titles were worthless, and that the rights of the proprietors would be protected at all hazards.

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.

History of Litchfield county, Connecticut, Part 135

Author: J.W. Lewis & Company (Philadelphia, Pa.) Publication date: 1881 Publisher: Philadelphia : J.W. Lewis & Co. Number of Pages: 1532

Author: J.W. Lewis & Company (Philadelphia, Pa.)
Publication date: 1881
Publisher: Philadelphia : J.W. Lewis & Co.
Number of Pages: 1532