USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > Derby > The history of the old town of Derby, Connecticut, 1642-1880. With biographies and genealogies > Part 23
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 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85
A ferry was continued, at least until 1833, when a proposi- tion was made in town meeting to give it up, but just when it did stop is not ascertained.
From 1770, onward for some years, there was much specula- tion in lots of land at Derby Narrows, the people supposing that really a New Boston was to arise to be a great city, if not to eclipse any other city of that name.
CHAPTER VI.
DERBY IN THE REVOLUTION.
1774-1783.
HE history of the American Revolution is yet to be written, and when such a work shall be completed it will have been gathered as well from local history as the more public prints and archives. It is also within the narrow scope of local history, giving particulars for which the general historian cannot find room, that we may gain some of the most definite views of those hardships which were a part of the great sum by which our fathers obtained their freedom, and in order to know the full force of such an event on the lo- cal community it is necessary to understand the relations of such local town to the state and of the state and nation to the causes of such an event. And, as it is the practice at the present day to give a distorted or perverted meaning to the actual relations and principles which caused the Revolution, it is important to repeat and delineate those causes, in order that those who are disposed may have a just understanding of those principles. '
The policy of England with reference to the American Colo- nies had long been of a nature to produce uneasiness and re- sistance in the minds of the more intelligent classes. The Eng- lish who came hither were from the first unwilling to be con- sidered as having lost any rights they had possessed at home, and boasted themselves as loyal subjects to the ruler whoever it might be of the parent country in almost every written trans- action and deed of land executed in the country. One of the principles concerning which they were most tenacious, was that of taking part in framing the laws by which they were to be governed. It was held at an early day that no law of Eng- land ought to be binding upon the people of the Colonies with- out their own consent, and as they were not allowed a repre- sentation in the English Parliament they claimed that all enact- ments of Parliament for the Colonies were without force until
I66
HISTORY OF DERBY.
assented to by the Colonial Assemblies ; and this idea had been instituted and cherished under the idea of Constitutional Gov- ernment as maintained by a large proportion of the people of the mother country. Had England at that time possessed statesman of no extraordinary ability, instead of arbitrary dicta- tors there would have been no Revolution in the Colonies. This claim was especially insisted upon in regard to measures for their taxation, whether direct or by way of import duties.
Little account, however, was made in England of the pre- tended rights of the colonists as subjects of the crown, although they had in part sanctioned these claims for many years, both in their parliamentary legislation and the grants of the crown. It became necessary to increase the revenue of the kingdom, and the British ministry determined to do this by means of a tax on the people of America.
There was the religious element, also, that came into consid- eration. It was well known that after the restoration of Charles II. there was a strong purpose in the government and a large party, to make the Church of England the ruling church in America, and it was in regard to this idea that much contro- versy had been indulged among the leading men of the Colo- nies for more than fifty years previous to the Revolution. The starting point to the re-establishment of church authority was to subjugate the Colonies politically or by governmental author- ity and hence they maintained that the power of Great Britain to tax them without their consent, must be asserted and main- tained at all costs, and to this end many efforts had been planned but failed to be effective.
The French war had left the Colonies greatly reduced and some of them heavily burdened. In 1762, the public debt of New York was £300,000 and the population of that province was taxed £40,000 per annum to discharge it; yet the Assem- bly granted a new appropriation demanded by England for the support of the army. Connecticut had been issuing bills, dur- ing the war against Spain from 1740 to 1750, and again to sup- port the war against France from 1755 to 1763, until the mother country ordered the Colony to stop, (about 1760,) at which time it took eight dollars of paper to buy one of silver, or there- abouts, and suddenly they came to flat hard times. Then in
167
OPPRESSIVE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
March, 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act. This law, which provided for the raising of a revenue in the Colonies by requiring the use of paper bearing a government stamp for every legal or commercial instrument in writing, produced so much disturbance, and awakened so much opposition both in England and in America, that it was repealed the next year. But the determination to tax the Americans was by no means abandoned. In 1767, a bill was passed imposing duties upon tea and certain other articles imported from Great Britain into the colonies. This law, more directly than any other measure, led to the conflict which resulted in the Revolution. A passive resistance was at first offered throughout the country, to the designs of the government, by an agreement of the people not to import the articles upon which this tax had been laid. The first meeting held for the purpose of entering into such an agree- ment took place in Boston, October 28, 1767, and was followed by similar meetings in the towns of Connecticut and New York. The firmness and self-denial with which these resolutions were very generally carried out, tended greatly to increase a spirit of self-reliance and independence in the popular mind.
Other measures of the British government excited the colon- ists to more violent resistance. The Stamp Act, which was re- ceived with riotous demonstrations in various places, had been accompanied by another bill quite as offensive, which remained in force when the former was repealed. This bill obliged the several Assemblies of the provinces to provide quarters for the British troops maintained in America, and to furnish them with sundry supplies, at the expense of each province. New York refused to make any appropriation for this purpose ; and Parlia- ment to punish the refractory colonists, passed a law depriving that province of all powers of legislation until its orders should have been complied with. This was an infringement of their liberties which greatly alarmed the colonists. About the same time, their irritation was increased by the stringent measures taken with a view to the enforcement of the revenue laws. Un- der the oppressive and arbitrary system of duties which had been established, smuggling had come to be considered as a matter of course. The colonists, denied of all participation in making of laws which affected their interests, thought it no
I68
HISTORY OF DERBY.
wrong to evade those which were manifestly unreasonable and injurious. The attempt at this moment to enforce them led to repeated disturbances, especially in Boston and New York. These various acts of the British government tended to one result, which every deed of violence and bloodshed hastened, namely, the union of the Colonies in a pronounced opposition to the control of the mother country.
It may be imagined with what interest the news of public events at this period must have heen received by the inhabi- tants of Derby. The doings of Parliament ; the meetings of the Colonial Congress ; the proceedings of the "sons of liberty ;" the outrages of the British soldiery ; the risings of the exasper- ated people ; these and other tidings came from week to week to this quiet neighborhood, in the columns of the small gazettes, whose dingy pages wear such an old-fashioned look at present, but which to them were so full of fresh and lively import.
The course of events was watched with various feelings, for there were warm partisans of the British cause at Derby, as well as a large number who earnestly espoused the side of re- sistance, which they regarded religiously as well as civilly a righteous thing in the sight of the Lord. The prevailing mood was one of uncertainty. As yet none had any thought of the matter reaching any state except resistance to these special acts of Parliament.
The first recorded action of the town of Derby took place at a legal town meeting, November 29, 1774. It was after the closing of the port of Boston, in consequence of the famous tea- party which occurred in Boston on the 16th of December, 1773, and in punishment the government declared the port of Boston closed. Upon this, public meetings were held throughout the Colonies, renewing the agreement against the use of tea and ex- pressing sympathy with the people of Boston. At the meeting in Derby, "Daniel Holbrook, Esq., was chosen moderator of the meeting.
"At said meeting the extracts of the doings of the respect- able Continental Congress held at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1774, were considered, and the same appearing to us to be a wise and judicious plan, and most likely to effect the much to be desired union between Great Britain and the American Colonies; there-
---
169
LOYALTY TO GREAT BRITAIN.
fore, we do resolve that we will faithfully adhere to and abide by the association entered into by said Congress.
" Again, voted that the gentlemen hereafter named be a com- mittee to see the same carried into execution, viz. :
Capt. John Holbrook,
Capt. John Coe,
Mr. Henry Tomlinson,
Capt. Nathan Smith,
Major Jabez Thompson,
Lieut. John Bassett,
Mr. Joseph Pickett,
Capt. Henry Whiting,
Capt. Thomas Clark,
Capt. Joseph Riggs,
Mr. Abraham Smith,
Lieut. Bradford Steele,
Mr. Thomas Gale,
Lieut. Ebenezer Buckingham.
"Again, voted that in case a county Congress should be agreed upon in this county, then the aforesaid committee shall choose and appoint two of their number to attend such Congress.
"Again, the town have taken into their consideration the needy and distressed circumstances of the poor of the town of Boston, by the operation of a late act of Parliament blocking their harbor, the town is of opinion it is necessary and their duty to contribute for their relief."
Here it may be seen that they declare it to be their opinion that this movement was the "most likely to effect the much to be desired union between Great Britain and the American Colo- nies," as though the idea of a permanent separation had scarcely entered their minds, and much less was it entertained as a probable event, showing that nothing but persevering violations of their rights by Parliament ever drove them to revolution. This was the case throughout the country wherever action was taken at this period. Dr. Franklin, just before the fight at Lexington, told the Parliament committee that he had more than once traveled almost from one end of the continent to the other, and kept a variety of company, eating, drinking, and con- versing with them freely, and never had heard in any conversa- tion, from any person, drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for a separation, or a hint that such a thing would be ad- vantageous to America." John Adams said afterwards : "There was not a moment during the Revolution when I would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided we could have had a sufficient security for its continuance."
22
I 70
HISTORY OF DERBY.
As confirming this sentiment and showing the public senti- ment of the people at the time, a quotation is given from the records of the town of Rye, N. Y., a near neighbor to Derby in associations at the time, expressed at a public meeting, held July 6, 1774:1
"This meeting being greatly alarmed at the late proceedings of the British Parliament, in order to raise a revenue in Amer- ica, and considering their late most cruel, unjust and unwar- rantable act for blockading the port of Boston, having a direct tendency to deprive a free people of their most valuable rights and privileges, an introduction to subjugate the inhabitants of the English Colonies, and render them vassals to the British House of Commons.
"Resolved First : that they think it their greatest happiness to live under the illustrious House of Hanover, and that they will steadfastly and uniformly bear true and faithful allegiance to his Majesty, King George the Third, under the enjoyments of their constitutional rights and privileges, as fellow subjects with those in England.
" Second, That we conceive it a fundamental part of the British Constitution, that no man shall be taxed but by his own consent or that of his representative in Parliament ; and as we are by no means represented, we consider all Acts of Parlia- ment imposing taxes on the Colonies, an undue exertion of power, and subversive of one of the most valuable privileges of the English Constitution."
The fourth resolution of that meeting in Rye, reveals the object for which the colonists were seeking at that time, and is the same as intimated in the resolution of the people of Derby, a little later in the same year : viz. : "That the unity and firm- ness of measures in the colonies, are the most effectual means to secure the invaded rights and privileges of America, and to avoid the impending ruin which now threatens this once happy country."2 "2
The fifth resolution of that meeting, expressed the purpose
1 Many like resolutions were passed in public meetings throughout the state of Connecticut at that time. See Hinman's War of the Revolution.
2Many like resolutions were passed in the towns in Connecticut at that time. See Hinman's Hist. of the Revolution.
171
PRIVILEGES OF FREEDOM.
to support the counsels and doings of the General Congress, as was expressed with marvelous unanimity throughout the country. Many extracts like these might be made, but are un- necessary, as the oneness of the people at that time, in the general, is a conceded matter.
But what were the rights and privileges that the people of the Colonies claimed, or were striving to maintain ? Certainly not those of universal liberty and freedom, as entertained in the United States since the Revolution. No such liberty was then dreamed of. The statement of Dr. Benjamin Trumbull in the commencement of his History of Connecticut, that, "The set- tlement of New England, purely for the purposes of religion, and the propagation of civil and religious liberty, is an event which has no parallel in the history of modern ages," is clearly true in a limited sense, but the extent and broadness of religious and civil liberty as developed by the American Revolution was no part of the plan of the first settlers, nor of the claims of the people of New England up to the battle of Lex- ington, on the 19th of April, 1775. When Patrick Henry said " Give me liberty or give me death," he made the key that unlocked the mind and heart of man, to the grand idea of Hu- man Liberty. Since that day it has been very easy to declaim about freedom, but before that it was but certain, or particular rights and privileges that were claimed by anybody, anywhere in Christendom. These particulars as claimed by the Colonists were, first to order their churches as they had done from the first, as they judged the Bible directed, without being governed by the English, or any other church; and second, the civil privileges guaranteed, as they believed were guaranteed, and as they had enjoyed by and under the British Constitution. These are the historical facts, according to hundreds of sermons and public documents of those times. The Rev. Alexander Gillet, one of the most learned young men of the period, preached a sermon of two hours and a half in length, in Wolcott, Conn., on Fast day, 1774, in which these definite points and claims are stated, and this is corroborated by hundreds of other sermons of that time, as well as by the declaration of rights by the Co- lonial Congress in September, 1774, and the Declaration of In- dependence.
172
HISTORY OF DERBY.
If then the fathers before the Revolution are found acting upon principles not in accordance with universal freedom, it should be no mystery ; for they knew of nothing of the kind, and professed nothing of the kind. If any be so unfamiliar with history as to ask whether the fathers propagated a larger degree of liberty in these Colonies than they could and would have enjoyed in the mother country, it would be easy to answer in the affirmative, by a mass of historical testimony sufficient to convince any but the willful. Obedience to the majority vote of the persons interested, was a principle not allowed in England, but practiced here by extending the application, from the first. The Rev. John Beach of Newtown, in writing to England in 1767, said ;3 " It is some satisfaction to me to ob- serve that in this town, of late, our elections, the church peo- ple make the major vote, which is the first instance of that kind in this Colony, if not in all New England." How strange such an expression. The people of Derby, an adjoining town to Mr. Beach, had practiced on that principle from 1681, nearly one hundred years, in all their church business. Mr. Beech could have learned the fact if he had been disposed to look at the records of the town, at any time. Mr. Beech also says in the same communication, " And I am full in the opinion, that if those great men, upon whose pleasure it depends to grant us such a blessing, [a bishop] did but know as we do that the church people here are the only fast friends to our subjection to, or connection with England, as hath lately appeared, they would, even upon political reasons, grant us the favor which we have so long wished and prayed for." What was the significance of the £45,000 raised in Connecticut, to aid England in the war against Spain, in 1740, and the equipping and sending the sol- diers who with Massachusetts captured Louisburg, where sev- eral millions of dollars worth of war material were captured, and not a dollar's worth allowed to those who did the work; and the fitting a vessel, The Defence, on which were sent in 1741, two hundred soldiers, to Cuba in this same Spanish war ? What meant the immense taxes levied in Connecticut, and soldiers sent in the French war of 1755 to 1763, in which Connecticut had but little to gain and much to lose, if it did not mean loy-
3Beardsley's History of The Church in Connecticut, vol. 1, 251.
2
173
OPENING OF THE WAR.
alty to, "and connection with " England ? Connecticut raised about 5,000 soldiers during the first three years of the French war, for the several campaigns against Crown Point ; and the whole expenses of that war, to Connecticut, must have exceeded £500,000 ; a sum immense for the number and circumstances of the people. What is loyalty, if this is not ?
At a meeting of the General Assembly in April, 1775, a law was passed to raise one-fourth of the militia for the special de- fense of the Colony, formed into companies of one hundred men each, and into six regiments. A major general, two brigadier generals and six colonels were appointed. This force was sent to Boston immediately after the fighting at Lexington. Major Jabez Thompson, Captain Nathaniel Johnson and their thirty- two men from Derby were among the companies sent, and after- wards drew ten pounds and four shillings as part pay of the expenses of that journey. Therefore Derby had a part in the first rally in the great struggle for freedom.
The officers from Derby at this time were : David Wooster, Esq., major general ; Jabez Thompson, Ist major of the Ist regi- ment, and captain of the 2d company ; Bradford Steele, Ist lieutenant in the same company ; Nathan Pierson, ensign, and Nathaniel Johnson, captain, of another company.
This company was probably in the battle of Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775.
On the first day of the next July, the Connecticut Assembly ordered two more regiments, the seventh and eighth, to be fitted at once and sent forward to the army at Boston. Wil- liam Hull of Derby was appointed first lieutenant in the second company of the seventh regiment.4 While the Derby troops were on this expedition to Boston, one of the most brilliant ex- ploits of the Revolution, the capture of Ticonderoga, was planned, principally by General David Wooster, a Derby citizen, in consultation with some of his associates in the Legislature, and the expedition started on its war mission ; the accomplish- ment of which surprised both the Old and the New World. General Wooster and some others became responsible for the expenses of this expedition, but they were afterwards relieved from them by the Colony.
4Royal R. Hinman's War of the Revolution-Connecticut.
174
HISTORY OF DERBY.
The fall of Ticonderoga alone gave to Congress, aside from the importance of the place, about one hundred and twenty iron cannon, fifty swivels, two mortars, one howitzer, one coehorn, ten tons of musket balls, three cart loads of flints, thirty new carriages, a large quantity of shells, one hundred stands of arms, ten barrels of powder, two brass cannon, to say nothing of materials for ship building, pork, flour, beans, peas and other valuables.
In August of the same year, Giles Hall was appointed cap- tain of the brig Minerva, and Thomas Horsey of Derby first lieutenant on the same vessel.
In the summer of 1775, General Wooster in command of a regiment nearly full of Connecticut troops, in which were some from Derby, was sent to New York for the defense of that place. A correspondent of those times has given the following pleasant notice of these soldiers :
"Our people now begin to see something of the pomp and circumstance of war. June 12, 1775, the Connecticut forces encamped near Greenwich are reviewed by General Wooster. A great number of gentlemen and ladies and a prodigious con- course of the inhabitants of the surrounding country have gath- ered to witness the review. The troops are an exceeding fine body of men and perform their exercises and evolutions with spirit and exactness, much to the satisfaction of their officers and to the spectators also. On the 27th instant, these troops, or a portion of them, pass through Rye on their way to New York, and they are to encamp a short distance from the city. General Wooster with seven companies of his regiment, and Col. Waterbury with his regiment complete, constitute the force. They appear to be a healthy, hearty body of men, about 1,800 in number, and some of them at least were destined to become well acquainted with Rye, for General Wooster afterwards had his head-quarters here for a considerable length of time."5
After the battle of Bunker Hill it became very evident that a heavy struggle of war was at hand, and the hope of a friendly settlement seemed to have departed forever. The courage of the Americans was high, for, although defeated at Bunker Hill, that defeat was in effect equal to a victory, from the fact that
5 History of Rye, N. Y., 224.
175
COMMITTEE OF INSPECTION.
a few militia soldiers had resisted so successfully for some hours the regular army of England. The colonists now began to act with great vigor in putting the country in a state of de- fense. The long line of sea coast, without a navy to protect it, demanded and received as far as possible, particular atten- tion, especially that of Connecticut, which was greatly exposed to the enemy. Some considerable division of sentiment existed as to the propriety and right of engaging in a war of resistance to the mother country. This made it necessary to watch the movements of all persons throughout the country, lest enemies at home might do more harm than any abroad ; and therefore it became necessary to appoint in each town a Committee of In- spection, as the following for Derby, appointed Dec. II, 1775 :
Capt. John Holbrook,
vMr. Henry Tomlinson,
Col. Jabez Thompson,
Mr. Joseph Pickett, Capt. Thomas Clark,
Mr. Abraham Smith,
Mr. Thomas Yale,
Mr. John Coe,
Mr. Noah Tomlinson, Capt. Nathaniel Johnson, Capt. Timothy Baldwin, Mr. John Howd, Mr. John Humphrey,
Capt. Nathan Smith,
Lieut. John Bassett,
Capt. Joseph Riggs,
Mr. John Riggs, jun., Mr. Ebenezer Keeney,
Lieut. Bradford Steele,
Capt. Ebenezer Gracey,
Capt. Ebenezer Buckingham,
James Beard, Esq.,
Charles French, Esq.,
Mr. Agar Tomlinson,
John Davis, Esq., Eliphalet Hotchkiss, Esq.,
Mr. Benjamin Tomlinson, Samuel Wheeler, jun.
Capt. John Tomlinson, Daniel Holbrook, Esq., Capt. Zechariah Hawkins, Sheldon Clark,
It should not be supposed that all the captains above titled were military men, unless all the men, women and children of Derby were soldiers, but some two or three of them may have been captains of vessels, yet having as much honor, or more than the military captains.
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.