USA > Connecticut > Fairfield County > Norwalk > The romance of Norwalk > Part 6
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
63
64
ROMANCE OF NORWALK
millwright drew the wheelwright, the carpenter, the black- smith and of course their families and shops and apprentices.
As to the erection of ladders, mentioned above, the house- holders were ordered in meeting of January, 1655, to "sett up a good and sufficient ladder reaching up to the chimney above the house." Chimneys in those days were of stupen- dous size and would often burn logs five feet in length, which furnished both heat and light for the family. Naturally, in midwinter, fires were fierce and roaring and frequently dan- gerous. Ladders were ordered by the town fathers so that the roof might quickly be reached in case of sparks or cinders falling on the top of the house. Sometimes the ladder was a fallen tree spiked for footholds. In addition to providing quick access to the roof in case of fire, these ladders were used by the "chimney viewers." The latter were patrolmen whose business it was to see that the great flues were kept clean of soot and free of any debris which might start a conflagration.
CARE OF INDIANS
The two townsmen who were appointed to look after the Indians and to whom reference has been made, were Leeif- tenant Olmsted and Thomas Fitch. They were to see not only that the Indians were kept in their place but also that the latter were accorded their just rights and that the whites took no advantage of them.
There were not many Indians in Norwalk at the time. Their leaders were:
Ponus, sachem of Rippowams of Stamford and sagamore of Toquams, prior to 1650. He lived in west New Canaan. Ponasses Path led from his wigwam to this town.
Catonah, a sagamore, also sachem of the Ramapo Indians of the province of New York. He too, really lived outside of Norwalk though he figured in Norwalk history as did Ponus.
Piamikin, sagamore of Rooton (Five Mile River).
65
GROWTH OF TOWN
Naramake, sachem of Pampaskeshanke (Belden's or Wil- son's Point).
Mamachimons, one of the last Indian chiefs here. He assisted the settlers in establishing ancient bounds. Mama- chimons Island was named for him.
Mahachemo, a sachem and hunter. He lived on the west bank of Saugatuck River.
Runckingheage, ruler of Rooton. His realm overlooked Long Island Sound.
Winnipauke, a sachem and owner of one of Norwalk's Islands. He lived on the Winnipauk Ridge and was a great friend of the Rev. Hanford's, to whom he bequeathed his island property in 1690.
Tomakergo, Tokaneke and Prosewamenos, signers with Mahachemo of Ludlow's 1640 deed.
Aashowshack, Chachoamer, Annanupp and Anthitunn, mentioned in the Patrick-Goodyear "confirmation" deed, but with no certain Norwalk status.
Compow, belonging to territory east of Saugatuck.
Registered in 1667 also were: Annanup, Benhowonon, Cockenoe, Concuskenow, Cownefius, James, Jonas, Jovus, Joseph, Laxett, Magise, Maqushetowes, Matumpun, Mex- ander, Noxanowe, Pampaskeshanke, Pemanante, Pobheag, Pokesake, Poovawaugh, Popperg, Poronhum, Poxanowe, Prodax, Pumpowin, Runckemunutt, Sassakun, Shoakecum, Soanamatum, Sowasan, Sukering, Suwaxun, Tomatootuman, Towneton, Wampasum, Wawnton, Womasunne, Wonun- mon.
The Indians, with their "trappes, dogges and arrowes" were not very harmful. They were given certain land in the planting field, and as long as they tended to their beans and corn and kept inside their own fences everything went smoothly. As a matter of fact they often stood the settlers in good stead, especially in the defining of the boundaries on all sides of Norwalk, when disputes arose with neighbor- ing towns.
Of one redskin in particular may Norwalk be especially
66
ROMANCE OF NORWALK
proud and that is Cockenoe. He it was, a converted Indian, who taught John Elliot, the great Indian apostle, the red- man's tongue. With his help Elliot translated the ten com- mandments and large portions of the Bible into their lan- guage. Of Cockenoe, William Wallace Tooker, author, says :
"For the part he took in the rise and development of our settlement, a life work unparalleled by that of any other Long Island or New England Indian, he deserves to be en- rolled upon the page of honor. A scarred and battered frag- ment from Nature's world, a glacial boulder, typical of the past, should be his monument, on one side a sculptured en- tablature inscribed :
" 'To the memory of a captive in the Pequot War, the first Indian teacher of John Elliot, a firm friend of the Eng- lish colonists, Cockenoe-de-Long-Island.' "
FIRST MEETING HOUSE
The first mention of a meeting house in the town records occurred May 22, 1655, when the townsmen were instructed "to procuer nayles, with all speed, for the meeting house, and at as reasonable rate as they can,-Towne's account." Proof that our Norwalk forefathers did not live in any "fast modern age" is evidenced by the fact that not until nearly four years later in 1659, was the meeting house mentioned again. What happened to the "nayles" in the meantime, we have no idea. January 3, 1659, it was finally decided to build the house.
This first meeting house was a very rude structure. It was evidently of logs, 30 feet long and 18 feet wide and not even. shell plastered inside. There was probably but one window, judging from the record of 1660 wherein the townspeople decided to "claboard the meetinghouse with inside so hy as the window." That one light aperture was placed on the op- posite side from the habitations of the Indians, to guard
67
GROWTH OF TOWN
against the encouragement of any stray arrows through the window.
In the beginning, the structure was used for both town gatherings and for religious sessions. There was no church bell, but in 1665 Walter Haite was engaged to beat the drum for meetings, for which he was to receive ten shillings. The drummer who followed Walter Haite, Robert Stewart, son of one of the richest men in town, was given the "drumb" for his services. Thomas Benedict was to have 20 shillings for keeping the meeting house "swept for the yeere ensuing.'
Inside, were bare benches without backs. The men sat on one side, the women on the other, while the children re- mained in the rear. There was no heat in the church, even when the temperature was below zero, and church sessions were usually from three to five hours in length. Since the settlers had neither newspapers, books, nor lecturers, they must needs get their education in the church.
Coming marriages were announced by the pastor in the church or meeting house one or two Sundays before the event was scheduled. The interested parties stayed away, but others felt it proper not only to be present but to stand for the announcements. After our Norwalk minister had read the intentions at the close of the service he very carefully went outside and pasted said intentions on the church door, that all might see. It is a curious fact, that although it was the clergyman's duty to read the intentions of marriage and proclaim same to the world, he was not asked to officiate at the wedding, at least in the early days. It was not until the beginning of the 18th century that the pastor married mem- bers of his flock. The town clerk usually officiated and we presume that Norwalk followed this custom.
Sermons, three and four hours in length, both morning and afternoon were the rule in the early Norwalk church. When one stops to think that children were required to at- tend all services, unless prevented from doing so by serious illness, and were scarcely allowed to move during the lengthy discourses, it is no wonder that from time to time the church
68
ROMANCE OF NORWALK
wardens complained of trouble with "ye restless boys and girls." To such an extent were the youngsters mischievous that it was found necessary on several occasions to take up the subject in town meetings with resultant rules.
In 1668, Thomas Lupton was chosen "to look after the young people in the meting house on the Lord's day and to doe his best indevor to kepe them from playing and unsivill behaviour in time of publik worship." In 1681, Thomas Barnum took over the duties, "to oversee and to keep good Decorum amongst the youth in times of exercise on the Sab- bath and other Publique meetings; and the Towne doe im- power him if he see any disorderly, for to keep a small stick to correct such with ; oneley he is desired to doe it with clem- ency; and if any are incoridgable in such disorder, he is to present them either to their parents or masters; and if they do not reclaime them, then to present such to authority."
What was the fate of the young culprits who fell into the hands of such authority? Under Roger Ludlow's code, they might be put into the house of correction, subject to "hard labor and severe punishment"; or if sixteen years of age, they might fall under the death penalty of the Mosaic code. In such firm handed manner did the elders treat their youth. They treated themselves just as harshly and so one can hardly wonder that they drank tobacco. They needed some sort of stimulation and pleasure to compensate them for some of the many rigorous laws of all kinds that continu- ally forced them along the straight and narrow path.
Yet they couldn't even drink the sort of tobacco they desired, for an early law decreed that: "It is ordered that what person or persons within this jurisdiction shall after September, 1641, drink any other tobacco but such as is or shall be planted within these libertyes, shall forfeit for every pound so spent, five shillings, except they have license from the Court."
BARNUM ANCESTOR HERE
Thomas Barnum, mentioned a few paragraphs back, first appears in the town records under date of 168 1 when he was
69
GROWTH OF TOWN
ordered to "keep good decorum among the youth," in the church. This very same Barnum is thought to have been the ancestor of all the Barnums in America, including the re- nowned Phineas T. Barnum of Bridgeport, known all over the world for his circus.
That Barnum came of excellent family is the belief of His- torian Sellick who says that he sprang from (son or grand- son of) Sir Martin and Judith (Calthorpe) Barnham; that his mother or grandmother was the daughter of Sir Martin Calthorpe, Lord Mayor of London; that Sir Francis Barn- ham, Knight of Hollingbourne was either his step-brother or his own uncle and that the wife of Francis Bacon, (Lord Bacon), Great Lord Chancellor and Viscount, was, if not his first, at least his second cousin. It would seem that his exact generation from Sir Barnham must have been second rather than first. Had he been the son, he would have been 72 years old when appointed disciplinarian in the Norwalk church.
Barnum sr., came to this section in 1663. He was a mar- ried man at the time and Thomas, the second, was born on July 9 of the same year. During the 21 years spent in Nor- walk, ten children were born to Thomas Barnum, Sr .; Thomas 2nd, Francis, Richard, John, Ebenezer, Hannah and four other daughters.
Why did Barnum come to America in the first place ? That is a hard question to answer. He was not very prominent in the little Norwalk settlement, at least in town affairs, his two chief occupations having been keeping the children quiet in church and capturing wolves. Although Barnum spent the greater part of his time in Norwalk, in his home at the foot of Strawberry hill, he also kept up his residence in Fairfield where he owned some land. In 1684, he and his family removed to Danbury. Barnum, Sr., was one of the founders of that settlement.
The following will perhaps make clear, the relation of the Norwalk Barnum to the famous "P. T.":
Generation one, Thomas Barnum Sr., of Norwalk.
70
ROMANCE OF NORWALK
Generation two, Thomas 2nd, married to Sarah Beardsley. Generation three, Ephraim Ist, and Mehitable Barnum. Generation four, Ephraim 2nd, and Keziah Covill Barnum Generation five, Joseph Barnum first, born Aug. 14, 1761. Joseph Barnum, first, was half brother of Philo Barnum, born April 4, 1778, who was the father of the Hon. P. T. Barnum of Bethel and Bridgeport, born July 5, 1810.
It is interesting to think that Norwalk blood went into the founding of that internationally famous circus.
BOUNDARY DISPUTES
CHAPTER VII
Norwalk and Fairfield Squabble Over Strip of Land-Quar- rel With Stamford over Five Mile River Territory-Con- necticut and New York War for Two Hundred Years Over Land on Which Norwalk Stands.
THREE distinct boundary disputes, one of which threat- ened to take Norwalk from the state of Connecticut and to hand it over to New York state jurisdiction, occupied the attention of the settlers during the third quarter of the 17th century. All three of the disputes, the Norwalk-Fairfield argument, the Norwalk-Stamford squabble and the Connec- ticut-New York trouble, dragged on for an interminable number of years until at times it seemed that Norwalk would never be definitely nor permanently defined.
First mention of the Norwalk-Fairfield dispute occurs in the town records in 1664. In 1670 the matter again came before the house; and in 1687, the two towns were still arguing, coming to no settlement until the beginning of the 18th century. The Norwalk-Stamford row first appears in the records in 1666; recurs in 1668 and again figures in the town records in 1670. As for the fight between the states of Connecticut and New York over the ownership of a small strip of land between the two, that battle commenced in 1650 and was not ended till 1879.
DISPUTE WITH FAIRFIELD
The dispute between Norwalk and Fairfield really had its beginning in 1650 when Fairfield was given by the Gen- eral Court the following permission: "doe grant unto said
71
72
ROMANCE OF NORWALK
towne of Fairefield said parcell of land to Sagatuck river provided the said Sagatuck doe not exceed two myles from the bounds of the said Fairefield."
This new grant gave Fairfield jurisdiction over a piece of land which commenced at the Sasqua or Mill river and ex- tended west two miles. The small strip of land between the new extension of Fairfield property and the alleged east- ernmost limits of Norwalk property was then claimed by both towns. The General Court took a hand May 21, 1653, when it ordered that each town send two men "to viewe the place and debate betwixt themselves." In 1664, Thomas Fitch was voted "to be assisting in the business." In 1670, Lieutenant Olmsted and John Gregory, sr., were added to the list of peace propagandists. June 4, 1674, Norwalk having become tired of waiting for any definite settlement, voted allotments on the east side of Saugatuck "to the utter- most of our bounds eastward."
1687 found both Norwalk and Fairfield again in a deadlock with Norwalk hotly declaring in town meeting that "they shall not comply nor agree with the aforesayed per- sons, viz., Captain Eells, Captain Beard, Mr. Judson, as a committee, or any persons in the measuring of any mile or running any dividend lyne upon any land of ours lawfully purchased by us; allso doe hereby forewarne any person or persons' on any land of ours soe to do at present."
However, it was not long after this outburst that the trouble was peacefully settled, the boundaries definitely placed, and Norwalk allowed that strip of land which included the old Indian "Compoe" domain. Evidence of the futility of those 20 years of argument is given in the fact that when Westport was first organized it helped itself to portions from both sides of Saugatuck river.
QUARREL WITH STAMFORD
While the quarrel with Fairfield was in progress, a dis- agreement which threatened to become a serious breach,
73
BOUNDARY DISPUTES
took place with Stamford, over the Five Mile land boun- daries. An Indian was at the bottom of this trouble. March 24, 1645, Piamikin, a sagamore, exchanged for "divers rea- sons and considerations," land lying west of Five Mile River and deeded same to Andrew Wood and Richard Law, two prominent Stamford men.
Six years later, Piamikin figured in a conveyance of prop- erty whereby several Norwalk planters were given quiet and peaceful enjoyment of a portion of the same territory. Neither Stamford nor Norwalk knew of this double trade and consequently both claimed that choice piece of land west of Five Mile river where the forests were good and the farming land was excellent. So the Norwalkers went merrily about their work, crossing the stream, cutting the hay and felling the trees, blithely disregarding the protests of the Stamfordites.
Backing up its citizens, Norwalk voted at a town meeting under date of August 26, 1666, "that such men of our inhabitants as doe goe to cutt hay on the other side of five mile river, the towne will stand by them in the action to de- fend them, and to beare an equall proportion of the damage they shall sustaine upon that account; and if they shall be afronted by Stamford men, the towne will take as speedy a course as they can to prosecute them by law, to recover their just rights touching the lands in controversy; and also they have chosen and deputed Mr. Thomas Fitch to goe with the sayed men when they goe to cutt or fetch away, to make answer for and in behalfe of the towne and the rest to be silent."
In 1668, Norwalk, becoming weary of the continual argu- ing voted to send a letter to the Stamford townspeople to see what could be done about an agreement. In 1670, in desperation, Norwalk dispatched Mr. Fitch, Lieutenant Olmsted and Daniel Kellogg as a committee to go to Stam- ford, "to treat with the inhabitants their, to se if they and we can come to a loving and neighborly issue and agree- ment." Stamford won and Norwalk gave up the piece of
74
ROMANCE OF NORWALK
land to which she laid claim, west of Five Mile River in Rowayton.
NORWALK IN PERIL 200 YEARS
All this time, while Norwalk was embroiled in land argu- ments with her neighbors on both sides, a much bigger argu- ment was going on concerning the ownership of the very land upon which Norwalk stood, both Connecticut and New York states claiming it. Thus we have three wrangles within one big wrangle and all over portions of the same section of land. During the argument, Norwalk, Connecticut, very nearly became Norwalk, New York.
The trouble between Connecticut and New York, over the ownership of the southwestern corner of this state and over the western boundary line of Connecticut, commenced in 1650, and was not finally nor definitely settled until 1879. Thus for more than 200 years the little town of Norwalk never knew from one moment to the next when she would be torn from the protection of the Connecticut colony and thrust under the jurisdiction of New York.
During those years, the boundary lines were changed sev- eral times, many agreements were made and many broken. A brief glance at the map will reveal three distinctly differ- ent boundary lines : in the center, a short one agreed upon in 1650; to the left, a second, agreed upon in 1664; to the right, a third, agreed upon in 1731 and confirmed in 187.9.
The story of the squabble between Connecticut and New York, which so vitally affected Norwalk, is very interesting, but it is also very complicated. In fact, so many different boundaries are given in so many different histories, that ad- dling of the brain is apt to result with those who would unravel the tangle. Of all explanations given, that offered by Clarence Winthrop Bowen in his 1882 book, "The Boun- dary Disputes of Connecticut," was found to be the most reliable. And so we will try to present, as simply as possi- ble, a resume of the situation, with Mr. Bowen's work as the basis of the information.
In the very beginning, by an early grant, Connecticut
75
BOUNDARY DISPUTES
claimed that her western lands extended right across the country, with the Pacific Ocean as the boundary. Naturally, any such assertion conflicted with the ideas of the Dutch, who had settled in the New Netherlands. In 1650, the Eng- lish met the Dutch, and the boundary line marked Q to R on the map was agreed upon. This line ran up the west side of Greenwich bay, "about four miles from Stamford," in a northerly direction about 20 miles.
Nothing came of the agreement, however, after all the elaborate preparations, because before the treaty was rati- fied between the parent states in Europe, war broke out between England and Holland and the agreement died. Aug. 27, 1664, New Amsterdam became New York, named in honor of the Duke of York.
December 1, 1664, a definite agreement was reached be- tween Connecticut and the Duke of York. The line agreed upon is marked on the left hand side of the map under date of 1664. It commenced at the Mamaroneck river, "13 miles east of West Chester" and continued in a north-north- westerly direction, crossing the Hudson river above Peeks- kill, and going on until it touched what was then the southern boundary of Massachusetts, and now is the northwest corner of Ulster county in New York state. Note that at that time, Massachusetts claimed territory right across the north- ern part of New York state and set her southern boundary line, as indicated on the map. Under the new agreement, Long Island was declared New York's property.
See how large Connecticut would have been, had the new agreement concerning our state's western boundary held. A large portion of New York state would have been ours, all of Connecticut as it now stands, and in addition, Port Chester and Rye.
Connecticut was immensely pleased with this boundary, for instead of losing half her colony as she had feared, she gained considerable territory. But the boundary was never even surveyed.
In 1674, Connecticut appointed a commission to run the
76
ROMANCE OF NORWALK
line from the Mamaroneck river to the Hudson river. This state even went so far as to make a few settlements on its new land, up the Hudson river by virtue of the treaty. New York looked with disfavor on these settlements and then announced her claim to half of this state as far east as the Connecticut river, according to a grant made to the Duke of York by England.
In 1682 New York was insisting upon all land as far as 20 miles east of the Hudson river and said if she didn't get that territory, she would push her claim for all the land as far east as the Connecticut river. November 28, 1683, a new agreement was reached between the two colonies. The Byram river between Greenwich and Rye was established as the westernmost bounds of Connecticut. The line ran up the river a little way and then went north, northwest for eight miles, then east, parallel to the Sound for 12 miles, then north to the Massachusetts line. It was placed 20 miles from the Hudson river and parallel to it.
Follow the line on the map, commencing at the mouth of the Byram river, thence to letter D, thence to H, then I, then north to the Massachusetts line. As the first part of the line, Byram river to letter D, came nearer than 20 miles to the Hudson river, it was agreed that New York should have a piece of land on the rest of Connecticut's boundary line, equal to the amount which New York gave up on the Connecticut coast.
By this agreement Connecticut lost Rye and Portchester, but it did gain Greenwich, Stamford, Darien, New Canaan, part of Wilton and Norwalk. Note dotted lines on map encircling Greenwich, Stamford, Darien, New Canaan, Wil- ton and Norwalk, which lines mark the piece of territory given up by New York on the coast. In return, New York received a strip of land I and 3-4 miles and 20 rods wide along the west side of Connecticut, parallel to and 20 miles distant from the Hudson river. This was called the Oblong or "Equivalent Tract" and included 61,440 acres. See map.
In 1731 a joint survey was made of the oblong territory.
New
¥7
YORK
Connecticut
42
-1-
37
35
33
15
O Poughkeepsie
OB LOY
Line of 1731 Confirmed in 1979
Connecticut Riven
- -
- -.
West Point
PORKSKILL
Line
Riogefielo Angle
1650
PounD
Wilton Angle
Wilton 1
Sing Sing
New Candan
R
DuKes Thee S
NORMAL
Stam- FORD
1
Goose I.
Damien
L. Island
Sound
MAMARD Neck R
Great Captain Clano
NYCity
MAP OF NEW YORK,-CONNECTICUT BOUNDARY DISPUTE
The dispute, which lasted more than 200 years, kept Norwalk in doubt for two centuries as to which state she belonged. Note the first boundary line agreed upon, short line marked Q, 1650. The second definite boundary line agreed upon, which gave this state a vast amount of additional territory in New York state, is marked to the left of the map, 1664. The third definite boundary line agreed upon in 1731 and confirmed in 1879, is marked to the right of the other two lines. The Sound boundary line was set in 1879. Note "Oblong" territory between dotted lines ceded by Connecticut to New York. In return Connecticut received territory which included Norwalk.
Line Agreed on in 1664
Hudson River
0
OR
-
---
Equivalent Tract
NEW BURGH
Water Boundary Line Between Conn. and New YORK as Agreed Upon By BounDary Line Commissioners Dec. 1879
Fishers I. Belongs to MY
RIDGE
BYRAM
77
BOUNDARY DISPUTES
Owing to the hilly nature of the country and the variations of the compass, the dividing line was a crooked one and bulged into the state of Connecticut (see heavy black crooked line on map), instead of being straight from I to K as in- tended. Yet for the next 125 years there was no dispute respecting this crooked boundary line. The Oblong (that portion of territory marked on map between the two long dotted lines ), according to the final agreement of 1731, was formally ceded to New York.
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.