USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > Waterbury > The history of Waterbury, Connecticut; the original township embracing present Watertown and Plymouth, and parts of Oxford, Wolcott, Middlebury, Prospect and Naugatuck. With an appendix of biography, genealogy and statistics > Part 11
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 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58
At the October Session, in 1707, the General Court made liberal grants of money to the frontier towns for their prompt- ness and zeal in fortifying themselves. Waterbury received £15, to be divided among its people according to the amount of labor performed.
At the October (?) Session of the Assembly, in 1708, it was enacted, that two forts should be erected in Waterbury, and that garrisons should be maintained at the public charge at Simsbury and Waterbury, two in each place. Thus the gov- ernment assumed the responsibility and the expense of de- fending the people of Waterbury. The latter, however, still supported one of the forts at their own cost :-
Novem" 15th 1708 ye town agree to have three forts in ye Town one built at ye . west end of ye Town on the cuntry account one at Leiu Stanlys on ye cuntry ac- count one at John hopkins hous on ye Town account-[Dec. 13, 1708] the fort to be bult at the west end of the town shall be bult about Mr. Southmayds hous.
These fortifications, so called, were distributed in such a way as to be of convenient access to the scattered population. They were constructed of logs or sticks of timber placed firmly in the ground, perpendicularly and close together, with a door prop- erly secured for passing in and out. The houses to be for- tified were thus surrounded by a high and strong wooden wall. Such a wall would afford very good security against Indian attacks. A small body of troops placed within one of the en- closures, well provided with guns and ammunition, and firing through crevices, could resist and beat off a large body of hos- tile savages. To these fortified houses all the people resorted at night, returning again in the morning to their houses and
105
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
the labors of the day. But, notwithstanding all that was done, the affairs of the settlement remained in a critical state.
In the spring of 1709, the New England colonies, at the in- stance of the royal government, fitted out an expedition against Canada, which was to meet an English force at Boston and sail for Quebec. Of the three hundred and fifty men which Connecticut provided, Waterbury furnished four. The English fleet never arrived and the enterprise was a failure. One quarter or more of the troops, says Dr. Trumbull, died. Connecticut lost ninety men.
In 1710, a party of Indians, or French and Indians, made a visit to Simsbury and Waterbury. In the south part of what is now Plymouth, they killed a man named Holt. (He may have been a transient person, or a hunter from another town.) The place is called Mount Holt, from the circumstance of the massacre. It is a spur of Mount Toby. About the same time, some Indians came down from Canada, on their customary errand, and ascended a hill, or mountain, on the west side of the river, opposite Mount Taylor, to reconnoitre. They saw Jonathan Scott seated under a large oak tree, in Hancock's Meadow, eating his dinner, with his two sons, aged fourteen and eleven, at a little distance. The Indians approached stealthily, keeping in a line with the tree and Mr. Scott. In this way they reached him unperceived and made him pris- oner. The boys took to their heels; but the father, in order to save his own life, which he was given to understand would be taken if he refused, recalled his sons. Thus the three were captured. The Indians then retraced their steps rapidly with their prizes, having taken the precaution to cut off Scott's right thumb, in order to cripple him if he should make resist- ance.
The wife of Jonathan Scott was Hannah Hawks, the daugh- ter of John Hawks of Deerfield. Her mother was killed in the Indian attack on that town on the terrible twenty-ninth of February, 1704. Her only sister, Elizabeth, was taken pris- oner and put to death on her way to Canada. Her only brother John and his wife and three children, were also slain. Poor John Hawks was thus bereft of all his family except Hannah of Waterbury. What must have been the anguish of
106
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
both when this new bereavement became known! Hawks spent his latter days with his daughter in Waterbury.
The following vote explains itself :
[July 26th 1710] the town by vote gaue jonathan Scott his town rat for 1709 for getting out of town wiliam stanerds wife [a transient person whom the select- men had warned out of town,] and in consideration of his present surcumstanses he being in captivity.
The General Court, also, in 1711, abated the colony tax of Hannah Scott, "in consequence of her husband being in cap- tivity in Canada."
After the peace, Jonathan Scott, with his eldest son, Jona- than, returned to Waterbury. The younger son, John, be- came accustomed to savage life, preferred it, and never return- ed. This preference, under similar circumstances, is not a solitary instance. White people who have been a long time with the Indians, particularly if their acquaintance began in childhood, very generally become attached to them and their mode of living. It is far casier to make a savage out of, than into, a civilized man .*
At the May session of 1721, Scott applied to the General Assembly for pecuniary assistance on account of the expenses of his captivity and his attempts to release his son. He was allowed ten pounds. In October, 1725, he again petitioned ; this time for aid to get his son out of bondage, and obtained a grant of £5.
The capture of Scott and his sons, of course, produced great excitement among the inhabitants of Waterbury. The alarm was greater from their not knowing the extent of the danger, or the time an impending storm might break over them. Their utmost vigilance might fail to give them the needed warning. It was in this state of uncertainty that the following vote was taken :
July 26, 1710 the town by uote mad chose of Mr. john Soth mad de Thomas Judd Ift timothy standly sr John hopkins a comity to draw up in writing the sur- comstanses of the town in this tim of ware and reprosent to the general cort to be holden in New haven on agst 4 1710 by their dubotys to be by them presented to said cort
The General Court made provision for the safety of the town, as appears from the colony records :
* See Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, II, p. 128, note.
107
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
In consideration of the remoteness of the town of Waterbury from the County town and the committee of war appointed there, by reason whereof they cannot have so speedy relief up on the sudden approach of the enemy as is requisite --- This Assembly do constitute and appoint John Alling, Esq., Major Samuel Ells, Jeremiah Osborn, Esq., and Capt John munson or any three of them, to be a 'committee of war with full power up on the application of the inhabitants of said town of Waterbury, and in case of danger on the approach of the enemy, to raise and send men thither from New Haven County for their relief by scouting or lying in garrison there, as occasion may require.
The next year, in consequence of the continued threaten- ing aspect of affairs, the town appointed a committee as fol- lows :
At a town meeting in waterbury Aprill 9th 1711 the town by uote mad ehos of Mr. John Sonthmad Ift Timothy Standly Thomas Judd: John Hopkins sr Isac brunson sr stenen upson gorg scott as a commity to writ to the commity of safety at new haven and to Represent our cas to said commity consarning our present fears of the common enymy to take their aduice and counsel in said afar
It is difficult to picture to ourselves the condition of our forefathers at the time of which I have been speaking. They numbered only from thirty to thirty-three families throughout the whole period, there being one family less in 1713, accord- ing to my estimate, than in 1685. The whole population, doubtless, did not amount to more than two hundred souls. They were far removed from sympathizing friends, and were destitute of many of the comforts and all the luxuries of life. They toiled all day to wring a livelihood from an unwilling soil, and too frequently spent the night in watching. Theirdwellings at this day would hardly be called tenantable. They all slept, during periods of supposed danger, in the fortified houses, as before stated. These were larger than the others, and were selected in part for that reason ; but the three, or the two, when but two existed, could not have properly accommodated so many. In the winter season, when all needed shelter, they must have been crowded to an inconvenient and unwholesome degree. Indian warfare is of a kind calculated to fill the breasts of a peaceful and exposed population with dreadful apprehensions and to chill the blood of the most courageous. The Indian prowls about by night and conceals himself by day and delights most to strike his victim unseen. The se- crecy of his movements is only equaled by his fleetness. He
108
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
disdains the arts and also the virtues of civilized warfare. He falls upon the weak and unprotected, slaughters old men, women and children, waylays the traveler and tortures the captive. Cunning, treacherous, bloodthirsty, he dogs the foot- steps of his enemy and waits his chance. He may be beaten back, but he returns to the attack and is subdued with diffi- culty. It is not so much his object to obtain victory as to de- stroy his adversary and lay waste his country. This is the foe with which the early settlers of Waterbury were threatened. It does not appear that they were actually assailed, except in the instances mentioned ; but they were for long periods in a state of constant apprehension, expecting an attack and fear- ing surprise. The perplexing uncertainty and frequent alarms to which they were exposed, doubtless tried their fortitude, putting it to a severer test than the dangers of active and open war. In the latter, there are excitements and incentives which keep up the spirits. The idea of " glory " strengthens the arm and makes the heart courageous. But Indian warfare has few attractions. The laurels won in an Indian fight are not many. A wound received in some great civilized battle is deemed honorable, but there is little glory in being scalped.
After the peace of 1713, there was but little trouble or ap- prehension from the natives for several years. In 1720, how- ever, hostilities were begun, on the part of the Indians, on. the eastern frontier of New England, when Canso, an English settlement in Nova Scotia, was attacked and several of its in- habitants killed. This outrage and others which followed led to a declaration of war by Massachusetts, in 1722. Connecti- cut was invited to join in the contest, but declined. She, how- ever, agreed to send a small force to protect the county of Hampshire from threatened attacks from the north and took vigorous measure to put her own frontier towns in a posture of defense. In the new town of Litchfield, a man (Capt. Jacob Griswold) was captured by a party of Indians and carried off, but he made his escape the first night. Soon after, (Ang. 1722,) one Joseph Harris was murdered near the place where Griswold was taken .* In 1724, the Assembly gave Water- bury authority to employ six men "to guard ye men in
* Morris's Statistical Account of Litchfield.
109
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
their outfields at the discression of ye commission officers of sd. Town." The authority thus given was exercised for about one month.
Though danger was sometimes apprehended, the early col- onists of this State did not suffer much from the resident tribes of Indians in the northwestern part of the Colony.' The lat- ter, few in number, were generally peaceful and friendly. They may sometimes have regarded the progress of the whites with jealousy and seriously contemplated hostilities ; but, as a common thing, they courted their alliance and gave them kindly assistance in extremity. For a time, they regarded with satisfaction the growth among them of a new power which promised to protect them from their dreaded enemies and oppressors, the Mohawks of the west, to whom they paid tribute.
Still, our fathers were essentially a martial people. They loved and honored a military life. No race of men ever held in higher esteem individual bravery and strategical skill. The circumstances of their position influenced their opinions. The warlike virtues were to them a necessity. They were obliged to cultivate them for their own protection ; and what- ever such men seriously undertake they excel in. This conti- nent never could have been settled and subdued by a timid or even by an unmilitary people. There was a demand for war- riors and warriors of a superior order came forth. The early colonists attained the same excellence in the Indian fight that Cromwell's men did in the pitched battle. They soon became an overmatch for the most warlike of their enemies. They beat them in their own mode of carrying on a contest. They fought for their firesides and their existence. They prayed for aid to the God of Battles ; but they did not despise carnal weapons, or neglect the lessons of worldly wisdom. They put their trust in Providence ; but they also kept their powder dry.
Military titles were in high repute among the colonists. They were preferred to civil or ecclesiastical honors. A cor- poral was on the road to distinction. His office was occasion- ally, but not usually, attached to his name. A sergeant had attained distinction and his title was never omitted. An en-
110
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
sign or a lieutenant was lifted quite above the heads of his fel- lows. A captain was necessarily a man of great influence, whose opinion was taken in all the weighty concerns of a town. Few aspired to the exalted rank of a major. It was the reward of the most distinguished services. Major Talcott and Major Treat were rendered illustrious by their titles as well as their achievements.
The drum was a favorite instrument among our ancestors, and was put to many nses. It answered the purpose of a town bell. It called the people to meeting on Sundays. It summoned them to the fortified houses at night. It gave the signal for the town gatherings on public business. It told the people when to turn out "to burn about the common fence."
A law of the colony at the time of and after the settlement of Mattatuck, required that " all white male persons, from the age of sixteen to sixty years, except magistrates, justices of the peace, the secretary, church officers, allowed physicians, chyrurgeons, schoolmasters, representatives or deputies for the time being, one miller to each grist-mill, constant herdsmen and mariners, sheriffs, constables, constant ferrymen, lame per- sons, or otherwise disabled in body," should bear arms and be subject to military duty. Six days yearly were devoted to martial exercises, and a guard in every town, in no case of less than eight soldiers, was required to be maintained on the sabbath and other days of public worship. This guard, how- ever, was dispensed with in 1714, there no longer being occa- sion for it .* The law also provided, that every train band of sixty-four soldiers should have a captain, lieutenant, ensign and four sergeants-that a train band of thirty-two soldiers should have a lieutenant, ensign and two sergeants, and that a train band of twenty-four soldiers should " have but two ser- geants," in all cases, exclusive of officers.
The Mattatuck settlers probably organized themselves into a military company so soon as their numbers warranted this measure. There is no record showing this, and they were not at that period exposed to the attacks of an enemy, but such was the custom of the times. As early as 1682, they had two
* Field's Middlesex County.
111
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
sergeants in the persons of Thomas Judd, Sen. and John Stan- ley. (These individuals at that date were so denominated.) They must then have numbered, at least, twenty-four soldiers besides officers. In records bearing the dates of 1686, 1687, and 1688, Judd is, in a few instances, called ensign, but these are copied records, and a title which he afterwards bore, not found in the original, may have been applied to him negli- gently ; for, it will be observed, he is repeatedly styled ser- geant during the years mentioned.
After Andros' usurpation and the resumption of the govern- ment under the charter in 1689, the Waterbury train band was found to number, at least, thirty-two rank and file and became entitled to a higher grade of officers. It was then, Oct. 1689, that John Stanley was appointed and confirmed by the Gene- ral Court as lieutenant, and Thomas Judd, (Sen.,) as ensign. At the same time, Samuel Hickox (Sen.) and (probably) Tim- othy Stanley were chosen sergeants. Isaac Bronson and John Welton were the corporals.
After Lient. Stanley's removal from the town and Sergeant Hickox's death, both about 1694-5, Ensign Judd was made lientenant; Sergeant Timothy Stanley, ensign ; Corporal Isaac Bronson and (probably) Dea. Thomas Judd, sergeants. Lieut. Judd died in 1702-3, and Ensign Stanley succeeded him in command of the company, while Deacon Thomas Judd was made ensign. These continued to be the officers till 1:15, when the soldiers of the company numbered, for the first time, sixty-four, and from this circumstance were allowed to have a captain. Lieut. Thomas Judd (the deacon) was pro- moted to this high position, and Ens. John Hopkins was ap- pointed lieutenant. The next captains before 1732, were, suc- cessively, Dr. Ephraim Warner, William Hickox and William Judd. In 1732, the company was divided into two by author_ ity of the Assembly. William Judd and Timothy Hopkins appear to have been the captains in that year.
But during the period to which the preceding remarks im- mediately refer, Waterbury suffered severely from other causes than war. In Feb., 1691, happened the Great Flood, so called. Owing to rains and the sudden melting of the snows, the river left its banks and covered the meadows, rising to a
112
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
height never known before or since. The water flowed along the low ground back of the house of Mrs. Giles Ives, and sub- merged a portion of the Green which is in front of the Epis- copal Church. Great damage was done to the river lands and sore distress was the consequence. A large proportion had been recently plowed, while the surface had been loosened and softened by the rains and the coming out of the frost. As a consequence, the soil was wholly washed away in many places, while that which remained was covered with sand and stones. Thus the suffering inhabitants saw their labors come to naught. Their best lands were almost ruined and their hopes for the present blasted. This dreadful calamity was the cause of great discouragement. Many forsook the place in despair.
We have recently had examples of what the Naugatuck can do in freshet-time. On the 13th day of November, 1853, there came down the valley, on short notice, such a body of water as had not been seen by the oldest persons living. Those not acquainted with the ancient performances of our usually quiet and orderly river, were astonished and in some instances dis- mayed. Some of the manufacturing companies suffered greatly from the washing away of their race-way embankments. Bridges were carried off, and in Derby (Ansonia) some persons were drowned who happened to be crossing a foot-bridge at the time it gave way.
On the thirteenth of April, 1854, there was another great flood, the water rising in Waterbury within eighteen inches as high as in the previous November. At Derby, owing to a greater freshet in the Housatonic, the water was highest in April.
The most recent of the great floods, previous to the two last, occurred in 1801.
One reason, doubtless, why the floods of the Naugatuck do less damage now-a-days than formerly to the meadows upon its banks, is owing to the fact that the trees and bushes which once obstructed the current, forcing the water out of its natu- ral course and throwing it into eddies, have been removed. It is when water is resisted by a barrier, or is fretted continually by obstacles, that it becomes such a terrific physical agent.
Ele Jerry
113
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
In October, 1712, a great sickness, mortal beyond example in the previous history of the town, broke out. It raged until September, 1713, carrying off, in eleven months, more than one tenth of the population. It was known afterwards, for a long time, as the Great Sickness. The well were not numerous enough to take care of the sick and bury the dead. Several families lost three of their number, and several others two. Of the twenty-one victims, (ten of them heads of families,) seven died between the sixth and twenty-first of March, 1712-13.
CHAPTER X.
BACHELOR PROPRIETORS.
BY reason of the Indian wars, the great flood, the great sick- ness and other causes incident to a new and feeble settlement, in want of almost everything, to say nothing of a laborions and niggardly agriculture, Waterbury did not flourish for a long time after its settlement. The population was as great (if not greater) in 1685 or 1686, eight or nine years after the planters left their Farmington homes, as at any time during the first thirty-five years. It was at the period first named that the pro- prietors, who had secured their rights, began to remove from the town. Joseph Hickox led the way, setting a very bad ex- ample. He may have been deficient in " backbone." He was in Woodbury early in 1686. He died there the next year, his being the first death among the old proprietors. In 1687, Thomas Hancox sold his house and returned to Farmington. Soon after, Benjamin Jones removed to New Haven and died in 1689. Thomas Newell disappeared in 1690, going back to S
114
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Farmington. Samuel Scott followed him in the same year, or the year after. John Newell and John Stanley turned their footsteps in the same direction, the first in 1694, the last early in 1695. Stanley was a prominent and most influential man, but not, it seems, of the iron mould required for the valley of the Naugatuck. His defection was much regretted. John Scovill went off in 1696 and brought up in Haddam. John Warner stuck by till about 1703, when he too gave up and went back to Farmington. Joseph Gaylord's courage held out till 1707, when he followed his sons to Durham. Thomas Judd, Jr., town clerk and school master, whom the people de- lighted to honor, persevered in a course of well-doing till 1709, when, for some reason unknown to the writer, he removed to Hartford, (now West Hartford.) He was the last of the old proprietors of Waterbury who thought it their duty or for their interest to leave their brethren in the hour of darkness and peril. They numbered eleven in all. One only, Richard Porter, went away at a later period. All the others continued at their posts and laid their bones in the town they had founded.
During the period of gloom about which I have been writ- ing, many of the proprietors who remained were removed by death. The first who died was Robert Porter, the second, Philip Judd, both in 1689. The next was John Carrington, in 1690. Edmund Scott, Sen., died in 1691 ; Abraham Andruss, (cooper,) in 1693; Samuel Hickox, a leading man, in 1694 ; John Bronson, in 1696 ; Jeremiah Peck, the first minister, in 1699 ; Obadiah Richards, late in 1702 ; Thomas Judd, Sen., second to none as a man of character, early in 1703 ; Thomas Richason, in 1712. There were ten in all, which number, added to the eleven that removed, makes twenty-one of the original proprietors who had disappeared in 1713, leaving fif- teen who were still living in Waterbury at that time.
It has been often remarked that sickness and mortality are greater in the first years of a settlement than at a later period. While the first generation is short-lived, the second or third is often distinguished by unusual longevity. These facts are illustrated in the history of Waterbury. Its early inhabitants,
115
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
in too many instances, died young, while its later population is somewhat remarkable for instances of old age."
Besides the losses referred to, there were many young men, sons of proprietors, who either died or removed from the town during the period in question. The mortality among them was very considerable. The families of the proprietors who died, in many cases, left the place. This was the fact with the entire families of Philip Judd, John Carrington and Abra- ham Andruss, 2d, and parts of the families of Samuel Hickox, John Bronson, Obadiah Richards and Thomas Richason. If a proprietor removed, he, as a general rule, took all his near kindred with him ; or if any were left, they did not stay long. Thus the names of Hancox, Jones, Newell, Stanley, and Gay- lord, became extinct, temporarily or permanently.
After several of the inhabitants had removed from the town, and the young men had manifested an inclination to follow the example on account of the gloomy prospects at home, the proprietors began to inquire what the emergency demanded. That their own sons should threaten to leave them in the midst of their trials, was the source of unaffected grief. Them, therefore, they thought to make contented by more liberal of- fers of certain pecuniary advantages. They resorted to the means that the fathers of the present age sometimes employ, when their children contract roving habits. That they might stick by their sires and thus manifest their attachment, they gave them an important portion of their estate. In a proprie- tors' meeting held in December, 1697, the proprietors granted to each young man certain lands and a propriety of £40 in the commons, all on certain conditions. For very good reasons, the new proprietors were not to have a voice in giving away lands. This limitation of power was designed to prevent them from helping themselves too liberally, as boys are wont to do, when they have free access to the paternal estate. I give be- low an exact copy of the record.
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.