The history and genealogies of ancient Windsor, Connecticut, Vol. I, Part 7

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909
Publication date: 1891
Publisher: Hartford, Conn., Press of the Case, Lockwood & Brainard company
Number of Pages: 1038

USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Windsor > The history and genealogies of ancient Windsor, Connecticut, Vol. I > Part 7

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).

1 Governor Bradford, with a quiet reference to the previous caution of the Massa- chusetts folks, says : "Some of their neighbors in ye Bay, hearing of ye fame of Conightacute River, had a hankering mind after it (as was before noted), and now under- standing that ye Indians were swepte away with ye late great mortalitie, the fear of whom was an obstacle unto them before, which being now taken away, they began now to proseente it with great egernes." P. 338.

The animus of the people of the Bay, in this matter, is unconsciously revealed by Winthrop (i. 140), who, in his account of the session of the general court at Newtown, Sept. 4, 1634, at which the subject was long and earnestly discussed, states the Following as among the " principal reasons " assigned for removal to Connecticut : " The fruit- fulness and commodiousness of Connecticut, and the danger of having it possessed by otherx, Dutch or English."

And " The strong bent of their spirits to remove thither."

2 Winthrop, i. 155.

3 Ilutchinson, i. 41.

HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.

Did the Massachusetts men expect when they came on, that summer of 1635, to make provision for their families, that their familes would follow them that season ? They were too late to raise a crop for their support through the coming winter, and we see no reason ercept to secure possession, why they should transport their winter provision to Connecti- out for their families and their live stock, rather than have them remain in Massachusetts. But one company did come; Winthrop tells us. under date of Oct. 15-25, that " about sixty men, women, and children went by land to Connectient with their cows, horses, and swine, and after a difficult and tedious journey arrived there safe." 1

[Their household furniture, bedding. and winter provisions, were sent around by water. That which is now a four or five hours' trip. was to them, encumbered as they were with women and children and slow moving cattle, a journey of two weeks." Before they reached the Con- neeticut, the hues of autumn had faded from the forests, and their leafless branches were swaying to and fro in the wintry storm. Winter,

1 Winthrop says (vol. i. p. 171), ahout sixty men, women, and children, went by land to Connecticut, with their cows, heifers, and swine, and after a tedious and diffi- cult journey, arrived there safe. We believe that this party of 1635, who drove their cattle before them, were Dorchester people. For they are particularly mentioned by the same author as suffering much, and losing most of their cattle during the succeed- ing severe winter. Haines, in his account of Dorchester, Mass .. says that about one hundred people removed to Connecticut in 1635, most of which were Dorchester people. joined by a few from Newtown and Watertown. Trumbull says that Mr. Warham did not remove with his charge at this time, but came to Connectient in September, 1636. But we find no mention of him during this time, in Massachusetts, though Mr. Hooker (of Hartford) took part in councils until the next summer. Nor can we understand why a new church should have been formed at Dorchester while Mr. Warham remained. Winthrop says a council was called April 11, 1636, to form a new church, "a great part of the old one being gone to Connectient." Its formation, however, from theo- logical reasons, was deferred until August. In view of these circumstances, we feel warranted in our belief that the emigration of 1635 consisted mostly of Dorchester peo- ple, who settled at Windsor, and that their pastor came with them. See, also, Blake's .Innals of Dorchester, pp. 13, 14.

2 In regard to the course of the first settlers, on their way to the Connecticut, Dr. Mellure's MSS., in possession of Connecticut Historical Society, preserve the following narrative :

" In a conversation with the late aged and respectable Captain Sabin, of Pomfret, ('t., he related to me the following discovery, viz .: About 40 years ago he felled : large and ancient oak, about the north line of Pomfret, adjoining Woodstock. On cutting within some inches of the heart of the tree, it was seen to have been out and chipped with some sharp tool like an axe. Rightly judging that at the time when it must have been done, the Indians, so far inland, were destitute and ignorant of the use of iron tools, he counted The number of the anular circular rings from the said marks to the bark of the tree, and found there were as many rings as the years which had in- tervened from the migration of the Dorchester party to that time. Hence the proba- bility is that they journeyed along the north border of Pomfret, and as they traveled by a compass, the conjecture is corroborated by that course being nearly in a direct line from Boston to the place of their settlement on the Connecticut river."

THE EMIGRATION FROM DORCHESTER TO WINDSOR.

indeed, set in unusually early. By the 15th-25th of November, the river was closed, and as yet the vessel containing their household goods and provisions had not arrived, nor were there any tidings of it. They were able to get only a portion of their cattle across the river [ Dr. B. Trumbull]. At this time ( November 26th) a party of thirteen returned to Massachusetts through the woods. One of the number fell through the ice and was drowned, and the remainder would have perished "but that, by God's providence, they lighted upon an Indian wigwam."' As it was they were ten days in reaching the Bay.2 By the first of December. the condition of these families was perilous in the extreme. Many were nearly destitute of provisions: and the only alternative was to reach their vessel, which was supposed to be fast in the ice below. A company of seventy, of all ages and both sexes ( see Note 2, p. 35) now set ont in search of their provisions. Shelterless, and scantily supplied with food, they toiled on, day after day, through snows and storm, hop- ing at every turn of the river to discover the wished-for relief. Who can picture the sufferings of that painful march. But God was not unmindful of his suffering ones. His arm was stretched out to save. 1 small vessel, the Rebecca, of sixty tons, which had attempted to ascend the river to trade before the winter set in, had brevme entangled in the ice, twenty miles from the river's month.3 Fortunately, a storm of rain came up, which released the vessel which came to their relief ; and Providence sending favorable winds. " they came," says Governor Winthrop. " to Massachusetts in 5 days, which was a great merey of God, for otherwise they had all perished with famine, as some did." The few who remained in Connectient through this fearful winter suffered much, as did their cattle also, from insufficiency of both food and shel-

1 Winthrop, i. 273.

2 Winthrop's Journal.

3 Winthrop also states that while the Rebecca lay there in the ice, the Dutch sent a sloop to take possession of the mouth of the river, but the men got two pieces (cannon) on shore, and would not suffer them to land.

Notwithstanding the early closing of the river in 1635, there is certain evidence that the winter of 1635-6, was an open one. It is, with one exception, very many years since the Connectient was frozen over at Windsor as early as November 15-25th ; but about twenty years ago, at a time when the water was extremely low for that season of the year, on the morning of November 19th, the ice stopped, and the river was frozen over at Windsor, but only for a few hours. If the closing of the river mentioned by Winthrop had been such as occurs later in the season, there would have been no occasion for wintering their cattle there, or they would have driven them over on the ice. And we rarely have so open a winter in later times that cattle could live through it. without shelter, or other provision than could be provided for them in the forest : and these families who "dieted " on "acorns" during the winter, doubtless, had bare ground lo gather them on after the 15-25th of November. Winthrop says (i. 176. dale January, 1635-6), " this month one man went by land to Connecticut and returned safe " - he probably had little snow to contend with.

HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.

ter. They literally lived on acorns, malt, and grains, with what food they could gain by hunting, and not unlikely assisted by the Plymouth and Stiles parties who were doubtless both provided. Their losses were very heavy, that of the Dorchester people being as much ( Winthrop says, on authority of Mr. Ludlow) as £2,500 in cattle alone.

Early in March, 1635-6, Connecticut was set apart as a separate colony, under a commission granted by the General Court of Massachu- setts, "to several persons to govern the people at Connectient for the space of a year [then] next coming. The commission thus named eon- sisted of Mr. Roger Ludlow and William Phelps of Windsor, John Steele, William Westwood, and Andrew Ward of Hartford, and William Pyncheon of Springfield, William Swaine and Henry Smith of Wethers- field.

With the first dawn of spring ( AApril 16, 1636) those who had been compelled to return to Dorchester again turned their faces toward the Connecticut. They comprised the larger part of the Dorchester church, with, as some say, their surviving pastor, Rev. John Warham.1 Their settlement at Matiannek was named Dorchester, after their Massachusetts home.

About the same time, Mr. Pyncheon and others, from Roxbury. Mass., settled at Agawam, now the city of Springfield. And, in June following, came the venerable Hooker, with his companions from Cam- bridge, Mass., who settled at Suckiang, now the city of Hartford. Wethersfield, also, began its settlement near by ; and thus, simultane- ously, in the rich soil and the choicest spots of the beautiful Connecticut Valley, were the seeds planted, which were destined to take root and germinate into a mighty commonwealth. And the history of that com- monwealth, for more than two centuries, has borne witness to the strong faith and courageous persistence of its founders, so appropriately and significantly expressed in the motto of colony and state,

"QUI TRANSTULIT SUSTINET." [s.]

We think it clear that the company which left the Bay, Oct. 15, 1635 ( Winthrop, i. 171), with their cattle, were Dorchester families coming to Windsor, and that the object of their setting forth so late in the year was to " make assurance doubly sure " by settling their families and stock on the disputed territory, before the Lords and Gentlemen in England had time to renew their efforts to get possession of the Great Meadow. It seems, from Saltonstall's letter (p. 45) that he and his

Winthrop's Journal, date of April 7-17th, 1636 .- Max. Ilist. Soc. Coll .. vi. 4. series 515. Winthrop also (i. 161) notes the arrival of two Dutch ships bringing to Boston 27 Flanders mares, at 937 each : 63 heifers, at $12 a beast ; and SS sheep, at 50x. each. This would make Windsor's share 92,500 loss, equal to 130 cowsand 25 horses; Dorches- ter cows and cattle, 150 .- Wonder Working Providence, 42.

THE QUESTION OF PRIORITY OF SETTLEMENT.

associates, the Patentees, still claimed that particular spot, and that, later, Gov. Winthrop, Jr., was authorized, " if they have built any houses thereon," to make good their " reasonable" expenses on the same. Probably, the latest advices which the Patentees had received from Wind- sor did not include information as to this October movement of the Dorchester people to ocenpy the houses which were being erected in September and October. Again, if the Dorchester people had originally planned to winter their stock in Connecticut, would they not have made provision for it in the hay-making season ? Or, would they have put off sending provision for their families so late as to risk the disaster that finally befell them. of having the river close before it could reach them ?

There has been, very naturally, some rivalry between the natives of " the Three Towns," in these later days, as to the question of priority of settlement. Andrews, in his River Towns of Connecticut, a Study of Wethersfield, Hartford, and Windsor (p. 17), puts it thus : " From the point of habitation by white men, Hartford was first occupied by the Dutch : from the view of occupation by Englishmen, Windsor can claim to be the earliest settled [by the Plymouth Company ] : but from the point of view of settlement by Massachusetts Bay people, by agricultur- ists and permanent colonists, Wethersfield has imdoubted right to title."' This is very well for a Wethersfield man -very fairly stated indeed ; but when he bases his argument (1) on a microscopieally close comparison of certain dates to prove that Mr. Oldham, probably, in Sept., 1634. led his party of eight men to Wethersfield, where they barely lived (according to tradition ) through the succeeding hard winter: (2) on the interlineation in the old Court Record, giving to Wethersfield the honor of being the oldest town (see p. 31, note 2), a decision which can only be construed as a persistent ignoring by the then Colonial Court of any Plymouth claims as opposed to those of Massachusetts ; and (3) the Mix Mss. 1693-1737," we are led to inquire whether, if the tradition (Trumbull, i. 49) that, " a small number of men," in hastily erected log- Its, " made a shift to winter in Wethersfield, 1634-5," could be verified, it would be fair to call them settlers, and not accord the same status to those men at Windsor, who were well-housed and able to defend them- selves against armed foes in 1633 ? If he considers the Plymouth Com- pany's party as merely traders, we have already shown reason why they also should be considered as " agriculturists and permanent colonists." 3

But is there not really a higher standard of " settlement " to be con- sidered in all this discussion, viz .. the family, without which all this rushing to and fro upon the earth would be of little account ?

1 For Windsor's claim on this point, see Mr. J. HI. Hayden's article in Hartford Cour- ant, Sept. 26, 1883.

2 Trumbull's Hist. Conn., i. 49, note.

8 Sce ante, p. 39.

HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.

Among those of the 1635 emigration, who remained here through the winter, subsisting on seanty fare, we may presume there were fami- lies from Dorchester ("men, women, and little children "). The Pat- entee, or Stiles party, had, when they sailed from London, three women and two children (Stiles) : and, though their vessel remained ten days in Boston, there is no reason to doubt that both women and children came on to Windsor with the vessel, arriving here July, 1635. And, although the family tradition (mentioned on page 44) gives to the women of the Stiles party the honor of being the first English women on Con- neetient soil, is there positive evidence that there were no women or families in the Plymouth Trading House ? Jonathan Brewster had a wife and children in New England at this date, and it is possible that they were with him at Matiannek, where he resided probably from the first, 1633 - certainly 1634 and 1635.

In this connection then, will it be considered impertinent if we . inquire, whether there is sufficient evidence to show that there were any families of "men, women, and little children." (or any wives without children,) in either Hartford or Wethersfield before 1636 ?1

The settlement at Windsor by the Dorchester party being now an accomplished fact, we hear but little more of the claims of the aristo- cratie Connecticut Patentees. Gov. Winthrop, it is true, at Saltonstall's request, came up to Windsor from Saybrook in the spring of 1636, to endeavor to effect some arrangement with the Dorchester people, and reported thereupon to Lords and Gentlemen in England .? Both

1 " 11 Briefe Discription of New England and the & rerall Tournes therein, together with the Present Government the reef," somewhat recently discovered by Mr. Henry T. Waters. in the British Museum, among the Egerton MISS. (No. 2395 if .. 397-411, and published in Muss, Hist. Noe. Proceedings, ed Series, i. 1884-5; also. N. Eng. Hist. Gen. Register, 1885, p. 33), throws considerable light upon this matter. This MS., written in 1660, by Samuel Maverick (son of Rev. John Maverick, the original senior pastor of the Dor chester (Mass.) church, which removed to Windsor with Mr. Warham), who was at one time a Royal Commissioner, contains an account of all the towns east of the Hudson River, and presents a picture of what may be called the " prehistoric state" of New England at that time. In this description we find:

" WINDSOR. From Hartford to Windsor, 9 miles, this was the first Towne on this River, settled first by people issuing from Dorchester in the Massachusetts Bay about the year 1636."

This proves that, in the knowledge and estimation of those then living, after a lapse of only twenty-four years from the settlements upon the Connecticut River (and while, certainly, many of the first settlers were still living), WINDSOR was the oldest of the three river towns.

" Winthrop's Life and Letters, 156. " Letter to his son, the Governor, upon the mouth of the Connecticut, 10th of 4h mo. [July] 1636. I received a very loving letter from Lord S-, wherein be expresseth a great deal of satisfaction in your proceedings, but srith withal that those up the river [the Dorchester party] have carved largely for themselves, which he thinks they will after repent when they see what helps they have deprived themselves of " [i. e., the defense of the mouth of the river and the patronage of the Lords and Gentlemen. J

THE POLITICO-RELIGIOUS SITUATION IN ENGLAND;

he and Sir Henry Vane had already negotiated, fruitlessly, as the sequel proved, with the Dorchester party at Boston. But political events at home were beginning to forecast new troubles, and conspired to lessen the probabilities of any adjustment of these colonial embar- rassments.

From Macanlay's Essay on John Hampden 2 we learn that the struggle between the prominent Puritans of England and the Government was very bitter at this time. John Hampden, one of the original Patentees of Connectient in 1631, had (in 1636) been defeated before the courts in his resistance to the payment of " ship-money," (a tax never before levied on the interior counties) and had become so obnoxious to the government, that, in 1637, " his person was scarcely safe," and he pro- posed to escape by sailing for Connectient. Macaulay gives no anthori- ties in support of this statement, and whether Hampden and Cromwell at one time actually took ship for America is, to-day, a matter of doubt. From this time on, however, Puritanism was gaining in political influ- ence, and on the eve of gaining the ascendency in Parliament, and secur- ing an abatement of grievances under which it suffered. Probably the hope of relief at home at an early day contributed to moderate the zeal of such Lords and Gentlemen as had contemplated emigrating from the turmoil of England to the Valley of the Connectiont. Possibly, as Macaulay says, the English authorities did prevent them. Lord Saye, Mr. William Woodcocke, and Sir Richard Saltonstall had already sent over funds, in the expedition of 1635, for investment ; and the subse- quent prosecution of their claims through the Colonial Courts," throws some additional light upon the situation of affairs at Windsor in the summer of 1635, and later.

The Patentees maintained their fort and settlement at the month of the river (Saybrook ) until 1644, when they sold out to the up-river

1 See p. 46.

2 " Hampden determined to leave England. Beyond the Atlantic Ocean a few of the persecuted Puritans had formed in the wilderness of Connecticut a settlement, which has since become a prosperous commonwealth, and which, in spite of the lapse of time and of the change of government, still retains something of the character given to it by its first founders. Lord Saye and Lord Brooke were the original projectors of the scheme of emigration. Hampden had been early consulted respecting it. He was now, it appears, desirous to withdraw himself beyond the reach of oppressors, who, as he probably suspected, and as we know, were bent on punishing his manful resistance to their tyranny. He was accompanied by his kinsman, Oliver Cromwell. . The cousins took their passage in a vessel which lay in the Thames, and which was bound for America. They were actually on shipboard, when an Order of Council appeared, by which the ship was prohibited from sailing. Seven other ships filled with emigrants were stopped at the same time." -- Macanlay's Essays, i. 201 5.

" The "accounting " of Barnabas Davis (Latchford's Notes, Trans. Im. Antig. Sr., vii. 365) the atlidavits of Stiles and Hayden (Vol. Rec., xv.). See also the East Windsor portion of this work; and items in Col. Rer., i. 33. 62. cte.

VOL. I .- 8

HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.

towns, in consideration of certain tolls on furs, grain, etc., "that shall pass out of at the river's mouth," also a tax of twelve pence per anmim for ten years on certain live-stock, "within any of the towns or farms upon the river."

From Barnabas Davis' "Accounting" with the heirs of William Woodcocke in England, we learn that Mr. Francis Stiles, who had charge of the party sent by the Lords and Gentlemen to Windsor, after having builded himself " a sufficient honse at Connecticut,"" returned to England (probably in the winter of 1636-7); and as he had neither built the house nor enclosed the 400 acres of land which he had engaged to do for Mr. Woodcocke, he sold to Mr. Woodcocke the house he had builded for himself, and promised " that the towne would accommodate Mr. Woodcocke with 400 acres thereunto." Stiles returned from Eng- land (probably in spring of 1637 ) and Davis followed him to look after Woodrocke's interests, and, while here, the Pequot War broke out ( May, 1637), and Davis was impressed as a soldier (probably the " Sergeant Davis" referred to in Capt. Mason's account of the Pequot fight ). Davis seems to have had the assistance of Rev. Messrs. Hooker of Hart- ford, Warham of Windsor, and others, in "treating the cause [with Stiles ], and they determined that Stiles had dealt ill with Mr. Wood- cocke in not procuring 400 acres of land? to be laid out to the said house, and impaling it as he undertook." Again, Davis went back to England to report to my Lord Say and Mr. Woodcocke, the latter of whom died soon after, and his brother John, having charge of the estate, sent Davis over the third time, June, 1639. In the September following, Mr. Edward Hopkins of Hartford, attorney for Woodcocke, snes Stiles in the sum of $300 for breach of contract and gets a verdict for .£300 "for not taking up 400 acres of ground according to bargain that Mr. Stiles should take the house [which he sold Woodcocke while in England] back again, and repay back the 8230 and $70 for arrearages." Davis says the $300 "lies in the hands of Mr. Hopkins in Connecticut." Then, 1611. Mr. Saltonstall brings an action against "Edward Hopkins as an assignee to Woodcocke" for £200,2 and hath an attachment granted against Mr. Hopkins.3 Whether this suit grew out of their mutual re- lations with Stiles, or some other unrecorded transaction in Connecticut is uncertain. What pecuniary interest Lord Saye had in this business which brought Davis over is unknown, but both times when the latter returned to England to report, he goes by the advice of Rey. Mr.

1 It is pretty certain that Stiles had the 400 acres ready for Woodcocke in 1637. but it was located "over the Great River." considerable distance away from "the said house." and this " breach of contract " was what led the court to find a verdict in favor of Woodcocke.

2 ('onn. Col. R&c., i. 66.

" Ibid., i. 67.

ADDENDA-"BROWNISM" A FACTOR IN THE CONTROVERSY.

Hooker and takes letters from him both to Lord Saye and Mr. Wood- rocke, and apparently about the same business.

Sir Richard Saltonstall, Knight, who, as we learn from his letter (p. 45), bore a large part of the expense of that first expedition (1635) " rame to New England with Gov. Winthrop, in 1630, and returned the next year."' Possibly, indeed, he came to Connecticut, for he seems to have given Stiles very definite instructions where to " prepare a house against my coming, and enclose grounds for my cattle, . . . between the Plymouth Trucking House and the falls." Sir Richard afterwards sent his sons, Richard and Robert, constituting the latter his attorney to manage his business in New England. Richard died in Massachusetts, having a family from whom descended Gurdon Saltonstall (great-grand- son of Sir Richard), who was Governor of Connectient (1707-1724) and who inherited Saltonstall Park, a tract of 2,000 acres of land at Warehouse Point, of which matter further mention is made in the chapter on East Windsor.

ADDENDA.

The Massachusetts men have, of late, been sharply criticised for declining to enter into partnership with those of Plymouth in beginning a settlement on the Connecticut in 1633, and then, themselves, two years later, settling " the three towns," to the serious detriment of Plymouth. But there was an important element in the controversy which is generally overlooked. Both parties were Puritans; but those of Plymouth were believed by the authorities in England to be tainted with " Brownism" -a taint which the Massachusetts men were anxious to escape. The "Brownists," so called by their opponents, were a set which had been specially obnoxious to the Crown, and for half a century the authorities had pursued them with greater vigor than they had any other class of Puritans. The " Brownists" were so named from one Robert Browne, who was for a time pastor of a church of English Puritans who fled to Zealand to escape perse rution.2 In 1571, Browne, then about twenty-one years of age, " became domestic chap lain to the Duke of Norfolk, and as taking opportunity of that place to disseminate doctrines which, as they were distasteful to the authorities, were decreed seditions as well." He was cited to appear before an ecclesiastical commission, but the Duke (who was a relation) took his part, pleading that the position was a privileged one.3 About ten years later (1580 or 1581) we find Browne at Norwich. And there, by his prompting. and under his guidance was formed the first church in modern days, of which I have any knowledge, which was intelligently, and as one might say, philosophically, Congre gational in its platform and processes, he becoming its pastor."+ In April. 1581. we find the Bishop of Norfolk sending the Lord Treasurer Burleigh articles of complaint "against one Robert Browne and his personal answers thereto," alleging that " the said party had been lately apprehended on complaint of many godly preachers for delivering unto the people corrupt and contentious doctrine." It was further declared.

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.

The history and genealogies of ancient Windsor, Connecticut, Vol. I, Part 7

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909 Publication date: 1891 Publisher: Hartford, Conn., Press of the Case, Lockwood & Brainard company Number of Pages: 1038

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909
Publication date: 1891
Publisher: Hartford, Conn., Press of the Case, Lockwood & Brainard company
Number of Pages: 1038