USA > Massachusetts > Hampden County > Springfield > Colonial justice in western Massachusetts, 1639-1702; the Pynchon court record, an original judges' diary of the administration of justice in the Springfield courts in the Massachusetts Bay Colony > 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 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45
to ascertain the facts. A short distance from the town they were fired upon; one was killed and the other mortally wounded. The town was then attacked. Although the defense was successful, most of the town was put to the torch. Late in the morning Treat reached the west bank of the River but could not cross in the face of the enemy. Fi- nally, a few hours later a force of almost two hundred men led by Major Pynchon and Captains Appleton and Sill approached from Hadley and the Indians abandoned the attack.31
In a letter to Governor Leverett, dated October 8, Pynchon re- lated the disaster, stating that he had "Called off all the Soldiers that were in Springfield leaving none to secure the Town the Commis- sioners order was so strict." Scouts had been unable to locate the enemy and Pynchon could not take the field with the troops since his presence was necessary at Springfield, the inhabitants being dis- couraged and threatening to leave. To desert Springfield would en- courage the "Insolent Enemy" and lead to abandonment of the towns above. However, to hold Springfield required many soldiers while lack of a mill made provisioning of a garrison difficult.32
As to himself, Pynchon declared:
Sir I am not capable of holding any Command being more and more unfit and almost confounded in my understanding, the Lord direct your Pitch on a meeter person then ever I was: According to Liberty from the Councill I shall devolve all upon Captain Appleton unless Major Treat return againe.
In closing, Pynchon reiterated that, "All these Towns ought to be Garrisoned," and reminded the Governor that he had advised this earlier and, had he been allowed to follow this course, the disaster might have been averted.
Governor Leverett wrote a letter of consolation to Pynchon, but indicated that, in some quarters at least, the plight of Springfield was laid at Pynchon's door, even though his suggestion for disarming the "friendly" Indians had been rejected by the Connecticut Council.33
Pynchon received the news that he had been relieved by Captain
31 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 113-115; A Narrative of the Indian Wars in New Eng- land (1803) 117-118; 1 Wright, Story Western Mass. 268-269.
32 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 117. For the effect of the attack in Connecticut see 2 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 372-373; Wyllys Papers, 226-228.
33 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 116; 1 Wright, Story Western Mass. 274. On the attitude of Connecticut toward disarming
the Indians at Springfield see 2 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 353-354, 356; Bodge, Soldiers in King Philip's War (1891) 97; 1 Conn. Ar- chives, War Colonial 167. Captain Mosely had written Leverett on the day of the at- tack that the Springfield Indians were thought "to be ready att any times when the enemy comes to oppose the towne to fall upon the English along with the en- emy." Bodge, Soldiers 26,
42
INTRODUCTION
Samuel Appleton on October 12, "the Councill having seriously con- sidered the earnest desires of Major Pincheon and the great affliction upon him and his family." Pynchon thanked Leverett for discharg- ing him from a trust which he had "noe ability to manage," and pledged that he would "cast in his mite and help Appleton and the cause and interest of God and the people." He hoped that the orders for the Captain would be less "strict," reminding the Governor that "Springfield was destroyed for this reason." Although urged to at- tend the General Court ("it may be of great use to the publique and not disservice to yourselfe") , Pynchon decided to stay "to encourage the Pople" for if he should go to Boston "all would fall here." 34 It seems doubtful that Pynchon played any significant advisory role in the later fighting in the Valley; his activity appears to have been lim- ited to commanding the garrison at Springfield.
Under Appleton, who lacked tact and personal ties, the reluc- tance of Connecticut to have its troops remain in garrison in Massa- chusetts towns, intensified by fear that Hartford and Wethersfield would become the scene of hostilities, constituted a serious opera- tional handicap. An October 18 attack upon Hatfield was followed by harassing activities at Westfield, where the Springfield inhabitants had to grind their grain, and Northampton. On October 27, Pynchon and other Springfield inhabitants were ambushed returning from a search for ore at Westfield. However, after early November there were no significant operations in the Valley, although a few Indians lurking in the swamps did some small mischief upon the outer dwell- ings at Springfield until the middle of next March when an attack upon Northampton was repulsed. Then on March 26 an attack was made upon a group of Longmeadow settlers going to meeting at Springfield by a small band of "known" Indians. Only one of four captives survived when a party sent out by Pynchon overtook the fleeing Indians. In late April an Indian raiding party was surprised near Springfield and three warriors slain. In the massacre at the In- dian camp at Turners Falls on May 19 and the disastrous retreat, many Springfield inhabitants served in the forces of Captains William Turner and Samuel Holyoke. A June 12 assault upon Hadley was the last offensive action by the Indians in the Valley; during July
34 67 Mass. Archives 246; 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 113, 116-118; 1 Wright, Story Western Mass. 270; Record of the Pynchon Family 21. There were some ties between Pynchon and Leverett in that John Pynchon, Jr. had married Margaret, the daughter of William Hubbard, the Ip- swich historian, while her brother, John, had married Ann, the daughter of Gov-
ernor Leverett. 1 Hubbard, A Narrative of the Troubles with the Indians in New England (ed. S. G. Drake, 1865) xxxii. The John Pynchon listed in Leverett's funeral cortege on March 25, 1679 was probably John Pynchon, Jr. A Memoir, Bi- ographical and Genealogical of Sir John Leverett, Knt., Governor of Massachusetts, 1673-9 (1856) 86.
43
JOHN PYNCHON
and August numerous Indians traveling westward were seen in the vicinity of Westfield, some of whom were successfully attacked by forces from Connecticut.35
The Indians who fled to the west were secured by Governor An- dros by putting them under the watch of the Five Nations. Pynchon wrote Leverett on August 15, 1676 that "surely it is the worst of Indi- ans that are gone thither, our Indians who most Treacherously ru- ined this Town and some of them that we know murdered our peo- ple without any provocation" and that Andros should be requested to deliver up the murderers. Andros never surrendered any fugitives to the Massachusetts authorities but with the death of Philip on Au- gust 12 and the refusal of the New York governor to allow an expe- dition against fugitives collecting on the Hudson, the war ground to an end and the soldiers under arms were discharged.36
Pynchon's military duties did not end with King Philip's War. In April 1677 Pynchon and James Richards of Hartford made a "long, troublesome and hazardous" journey to Albany on behalf of Connecticut and Massachusetts to renew ancient friendships with the Mohawks and to settle and conclude a "league of Freindship and amity between the English of New England" and the Mohawks, look- ing to protection for the "friendly Indians" and destruction of "en- emy" Indians allied with the French. The Mohawks made a great show of friendship for the English and bitter enmity toward the East- ern Indians, promising to pursue their quarrel against them to the utmost of their power. However, as was expected, distance of place and difficulty of journey prevented any great effect. In September 1677 when a group of Indians from Canada under Ashpelon carried off captives from Hatfield and Deerfield, Pynchon sought, without success, to have the authorities at Albany incite the Mohawks to pur- sue the retreating war party.37
1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 116, 124- 125, 128, 132, 135-136, 149, 154, 169-170, 173-175; A Narrative of the Indian Wars in New England 123, 127; 1 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (3rd ser.) 68-70. For the pre- dicament of Appleton, see his correspond- ence in Memorial of Samuel Appleton of Ipswich, Massachusetts (comp. I. A. Apple- ton, 1850) 96-148. See also Bodge, Soldiers 101-104 and the most recent account in Leach, Flintlock and Tomahawk: New England in King Philip's War (1958) 97- 100. For opposition to an order to aban- don Westfield see The Westfield Jubilee (1870) 124-127; Greenough, "Historical Relations of Springfield and Westfield," 2
Papers and Proc. Conn. Valley Hist. Soc. 252-263.
36 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 175-177. Andros, protesting charges by the Bay that Philip received gunpowder from Albany, received support from Edward Randolph. Hutchinson, Collection Original Papers 477, 490. In May 1677 the Connecticut au- thorities were still writing Andros that certain Indians on the Hudson should be delivered to justice. 1 Conn. Archives, War Colonial 120d.
37 5 Rec. Mass. Bay 138, 165-168; 1 Conn. Archives, War Colonial 117a, 119, 120, 123, 224-225; 2 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 492-494, 496-497, 506-507; 1 Sheldon, Hist.
44
INTRODUCTION
In October 1677 the towns in Hampshire "being in more hazard of the incursions of the heathen ennemy than some others," the Gen- eral Court ordered that a committee of John Pynchon and five others contrive that each town endeavor "the new moddelling the scittua- tion of their houses, so as to be more compact and live neerer to- gether, for theire better deffence against the Indians." At the same time the Major was to treat with Connecticut to join in keeping a garrison at Deerfield. In June 1680 the County Court of Hampshire, which Pynchon headed, was empowered, as far as concerned that county, to receive any Indian peace offers and to conclude such terms as were judged by them most conducive to the safety of the English inhabitants.38
In October 1680 Pynchon was commissioned by the General Court to repair to Fort Albany where, with the advice and consent of Sir Edmund Andros, he was to endeavor a treaty with the Mohawks "in order to the stopping of any invassions, depredation, and inso- lencys towards our neighbors, Indians and freinds, that live within this jurisdiction." His instructions make it clear that the April 1677 agreement had been disregarded. At a meeting on November 9 Pyn- chon, with some inner qualms, presented a bold front in accusing the Mohawks of breaching the earlier agreement. However, the next day he presented them with gifts "which they said sweetened the hard speech as they termed it." The answer received from the Mohawks, termed a "finall conclusion of peace," was returned to the General Court on May 27, 1681.39
In addition to holding many offices and engaging in numerous ac- tivities on the public behalf, John Pynchon was the foremost trader, merchant, and landowner of western Massachusetts. While the fur trade in the Connecticut Valley declined in importance after 1652, it still remained an important source of income for John Pynchon until a few years before King Philip's War.40 Most of his fur trading
Deerfield 183-184; Hubbard, General His- tory of New England (1815) 629-630; 8 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (4th ser.) 81; 2 Hist. and Proc. Pocumtuck Valley Mem. Asso. 497-498; D. W. Wells and R. F. Wells, A History of Hatfield, Massachusetts (1910) 467-470; Papers Concerning the Attack on Hatfield and Deerfield by A Party of Indi- ans from Canada, September Nineteenth, 1677 (ed. F. B. Hough, 1859) 51, 54-61. For the effect of news of the attacks when communicated to the Connecticut Council by Pynchon, see 1 Conn. Archives, War Colonial 228.
38 5 Rec. Mass. Bay 170-171, 238-239, 277.
39 5 Rec. Mass. Bay 299-300, 319-321; 30 Mass. Archives 252-255, 277. At an Au- gust 1682 Albany meeting the Mohawks stated: "The Ax which Major Pinchon (for New England) and wee have been buryed in the ground in this house, re- maines so (and we do not look out any- more) that way to go a fighting." 3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y. 328.
40 Data compiled by Sylvester Judd, Hadley historian, from the Pynchon Ac- count Books, now in the possession of the Connecticut Valley Historical Museum, show that during the period 1652-1657 Pynchon shipped to England almost 9,000 beaver skins valued at £13, 139. During
45
JOHN PYNCHON
activities were carried on through agents at such locations as West- field, Northampton, Hadley, and Albany.41
In 1659 Pynchon joined a number of influential merchants of Salem and Boston to form a company having as its objective a share in the western fur trade and an end to the Dutch monopoly. The ob- jective of the company was concealed under a grant by the General Court of a plantation ten miles square about two-thirds of the way from Springfield to Fort Orange. William Hathorne, the most active of the promoters, and Pynchon traveled to Fort Orange in August 1659, announced their intention of making a settlement east of the Hudson, provided the proposed site did not lie within Dutch juris- diction, and expressed a desire to supply the fort with cattle. The matter being referred to New Amsterdam, Director-General Stuy- vesant expressed fear that this was another attempt by the New Eng- landers "to get into our beaver-trade with their wampum and divert the trade"; he was instructed by the West India Company to prevent the English settlement by all means.42
Persuasion having failed, the company sought to apply pressure through the United Commissioners and the General Court, the lat- ter writing Stuyvesant for free passage up the Hudson for agents of the company. At the same time the objective of the company was revealed by a grant to the company of a monopoly of trade within fifteen miles of the Hudson for twelve years and liberty to trade in commodities such as the Dutch usually sold. Stuyvesant, under pres- sure from the Dutch traders, flatly refused the request for free pas- sage, and with the Restoration Massachusetts was in no position to press the matter. Although supplemental grants were obtained from the General Court and boundaries run, the company, after 1662,
the period 1658-1674 he shipped over 6,000 beaver skins and a substantial num- ber of muskrat, moose, otter, fox, raccoon, fisher, and other miscellaneous skins. He also had substantial losses to the Dutch. "The Fur Trade on Connecticut River in the Seventeenth Century," 11 N. Eng. Hist. and Gen. Reg. 217-219. See also the agreement in October, 1658 by which Pynchon for £20 secured the trading rights for one year at Springfield and Northampton. 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part I) 354.
41 Burt, Cornet Joseph Parsons 16-17; 1 Wright, Story Western Mass. 41; Leder and Carosso, "Robert Livingston (1654- 1728) : Businessman of Colonial New York," 30 Business History Review 18. See also Elizur Holyoke, Jr.'s letters of Octo- ber 3, 1678 and May 8, 1679 and Timothy Cooper's of October 2, 1678 to Robert
Livingston in Livingston Mss., Redmond Library, Hyde Park, New York. A frank comment on the treatment by the Albany authorities of New Englanders attempting to reach Canada to ransom Indian cap- tives, when intercepted, ended the Albany venture. See the March 18, 1677/8 letter from Cooper to Pynchon. 2 Hist. and Proc. Pocumtuck Valley Mem. Asso. 500-501. For the October 23, 1678 New York Coun- cil minutes as to Cooper's unsatisfactory explanation of his letter to Pynchon and ordering him to remove from Albany in the spring see O'Callaghan, Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State (English Mss., Part I, 1664-1776) 75.
42 Buffington, "New England and the Western Fur Trade, 1629-1675," 18 Pub. Col. Soc. Mass. 176-178.
46
INTRODUCTION
disappeared from view for ten years. The project was renewed in 1672, the settlement being urged as valuable in keeping the New England Indians loyal and in winning over the Mohawks. The Gen- eral Court in 1673 granted Governor Leverett and John Pynchon powers to regulate the affairs of the projected plantation, but noth- ing came of the grant, probably due to the Dutch occupation of New York in 1673-74 as well as the outbreak of King Philip's War.43
Pynchon, through his "country-store" activities, was the principal supplier of manufactured goods to Springfield and the upper towns. By sale or barter he obtained quantities of products such as corn, wheat and other grains, peas, flax, hay, beef, pork, tar, and timber. These products plus those from his own extensive lands were shipped from Warehouse Point to Boston and other New England ports, to New York, and even to the West Indies. Cattle might be driven overland to points such as New London and even Boston. John Pynchon, Jr. was a merchant in Boston for a number of years but the integration of the commercial enterprises of father and son has not been studied. John Pynchon was also a partner in land specula- tion with James Rogers, the foremost New London merchant of the sixties and seventies, and it seems likely they were engaged in joint mercantile enterprises.44 At various times Pynchon owned and oper- ated grist-mills, corn-mills, and sawmills.45
John Pynchon's far-flung ventures included an interest with Sam- uel Wyllys and Richard Lord of Connecticut (c. 1682-87) in a sugar plantation called Cabbage Tree in Antigua in the Leeward Islands.46 During the period between 1652 and 1689 he owned or had inter- ests in at least five vessels, apparently engaged largely in the coastal trade. In 1692 he had an interest in a plant for the distillation of turpentine and the production of rosin. In 1696/7 the town of Springfield granted Pynchon and Joseph Parsons the right to oper- ate an ironworks within the town bounds but there is no evidence that the project bore fruit. At a November 1700 Suffield town meet-
43 Ibid. 178-181, 183-187. Pynchon's ex- penditures in connection with this venture are to be found in the Pynchon Account Books which are in the possession of the Connecticut Valley Historical Museum.
44 1 Wright, Story Western Mass. 309; Caulkins, History of New London, Con- necticut (1852) 96, 133-134, 201-202. In a November 20, 1672 letter to his son Joseph in England Pynchon stated he was giving him 1000 acres of land at New London. Mass. Hist. Soc. Photostat. The Connecti- cut authorities in 1679 sought to acquire
from Pynchon lands on which to settle some Pequots and Niantics. 3 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn. 42, 54, 117, 125.
45 For Springfield see 1 Burt, Hist. Springfield 72, 247, 352, 354; 2 ibid. 84, 221; 1 Wright, Story Western Mass. 288. For Enfield see 1 Allen, History of Enfield, Connecticut 117; 3 ibid. 1919-1920. For Suffield see Sheldon, Doc. Hist. Suffield 21, 23-24, 62, 303.
46 For litigation concerning this planta- tion see Wyllys Papers 281, 282-287, 295- 296, 313-316, 383-385.
47
JOHN PYNCHON
ing the undertaking of Pynchon and John Eliot of Windsor to set up an ironworks was approved. Pynchon might also finance local artisans, such as blacksmiths, who could furnish goods useful in the Indian trade.47
Pynchon was also interested in several mining ventures. In the period 1657-59 he apparently had some interest in the "black lead" or graphite workings at Sturbridge. At the June 1685 General Court, upon petition of Pynchon and two others, a grant was made of 1000 acres above Deerfield, provided it was improved by settlement within twelve years. Petitioners alleged that they had been at much pains and costs in searching for metals. Trumbull indicates that Pynchon had an interest in a mining venture near Northampton and also one in Connecticut.48 Richard Wharton, writing from London in March 1687/8 concerning his attempts to secure a patent for all the mines in New England, stated that £13,000 had already been subscribed and that "without order" he had subscribed for Pynchon and a num- ber of others prominent in business in the Bay. However, this patent never issued.49
As already indicated, Pynchon was a large landowner. Some of these lands he inherited from his father; some he was granted by the General Court; some were purchased or obtained by exchange; some were taken in payment of debts; some were obtained as an allot- ment to a town proprietor; some were obtained by town grants in connection with the erection of sawmills, corn-mills, grist-mills, or ironworks. While Pynchon devoted much time and energy to service of the commonwealth, such services were rewarded in some instances by the General Court by grants of land.50
Although Pynchon has been accused in effect of immoral, if not illegal, conduct in using his "monopolistic" position to accumulate extensive land holdings, no evidence has been found supporting such accusations. An examination of his holdings at Deerfield, for in- stance, indicates that he made a bona fide attempt to improve his lands by use of long-term leases to tenant farmers who in return for low rents were obligated to build dwellings and barns. However, the statement has been made that Pynchon and James Rogers of
47 1 Wright, Story Western Mass. 41, 290; 2 Burt, Hist. Springfield 346-347; Sheldon, Doc. Hist. Suffield 137, 151-152; Banks, "Scotch Prisoners Deported to New England by Cromwell, 1651-52," 61 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. 13-14.
48 10 N. Eng. Hist. and Gen. Reg. 160; 5 Rec. Mass. Bay 482; Jones, "An Early Silver Mining Venture in Massachusetts Bay," 62 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. 374-375; 1
Trumbull, Hist. Northampton 262-263. See also the reference to iron ore on land sold by Pynchon. 1 Lockwood, Westfield and Its Historic Influences (1922) 218.
49 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (6th ser.) 11-14.
50 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part I) 402; 5 ibid. 329-330, 410, 486; 2 Mass. Archives 206; 3 ibid. 37a; 45 ibid. 82; 112 ibid. 414, 414a; 243 ibid. 4.
48
INTRODUCTION
New London, as partners in land speculation, "engrossed" over 2000 acres in Groton from small holders.51
Local historians have tended to overlook the impact upon John Pynchon's fortunes of the decline of the fur trade in the Connecti- cut Valley and the damage wrought by the Indians upon the build- ings, crops, and goods of Pynchon and of those inhabitants indebted to him. Between 1671 and 1675 several letters to his son Joseph, a Harvard graduate (1664) then intending to practice medicine in England, reflect these straitened circumstances.52 However, such pessimism may have been designed to prevent further drains on the parental purse.53
Although John Pynchon had ties of family, trade, and property with England and made occasional trips to the mother country, it is hard to detect his attitude in the political struggle between the Crown and the commonwealth which culminated in the scire facias proceeding against the First Charter.54 An intriguing question is whether Pynchon, the chief law enforcement officer of western Massachusetts, was ever aware of the presence in Hadley of the regicides William Goffe and Edward Whalley for a number of years after their arrival in October 1664. Seemingly, the principal pro- tectors of these fugitives were the Reverend John Russell and Peter Tilton, both of whom were closely associated with Pynchon on vari- ous occasions. Some mystery surrounds the part played by Pynchon in the Crown's attempts to take the regicides. An August 20, 1661 letter from Colonel Thomas Temple to Secretary Morrice in Eng- land states that the writer had joined in a secret design with "one Pinchin, and Captain Lord" (assumed to be John Pynchon and Captain Richard Lord, an eminent merchant of Hartford) , two of the most considerable persons in the southern parts of the country,
51 Burt, Cornet Joseph Parsons 66, 72- 73; 1 Sheldon, Hist. Deerfield 180; Caulk- ins, Hist. New London 96.
52 Record of the Pynchon Family 21 ff .; photostatic copy of November 20, 1672 let- ter in Mass. Hist. Soc .; November 14, 1671 fragmentary letter in Connecticut Valley Historical Museum. In the same tenor is a February 1, 1672/3 letter in the Yale Uni- versity Library.
53 Between 1669 and 1674 Pynchon ac- quired lands in Boston from Edward Raw- son, Secretary of the General Court. In 1680 £475 of the funds of the New Eng- land Company were placed with Pynchon. 1 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. (2nd ser.) 319; Winship, "Samuel Sewall and the New England Company," 67 Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc. 58-59. Pynchon retained his Wrays- bury holdings until July 1686. The July 6, 1686 indenture of release, signed by John Pynchon and his wife and John Pynchon, Jr. and his wife, is at the Connecticut Val- ley Historical Museum. A photostatic copy is in the Library of Congress (Genealogy Division) in Facsimiles of some English deeds, leases, and other documents .. . relating to William Pynchon and his son John. For a May 30, 1688 letter of Samuel Sewall regarding failure to pay off some mortgages see 1 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (6th ser.) 82-83.
54 See, however, Clarendon Papers, N.Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., Fund Pub. Series (1869) 127-128, 132-134 and 5 Rec. Mass. Bay 185.
49
JOHN PYNCHON
to use their utmost endeavors to apprehend the fugitives. Whether this was a bona fide design, whether Temple was placating his su- periors, or whether he was duped cannot be determined at this date.55
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.