USA > Massachusetts > Hampden County > Springfield > Springfield, 1636-1886 : history of town and city, including an account of the quarter-millennial celebration at Springfield, Mass., May 25 and 26, 1886 > Part 8
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
Probably nothing in the history of the plantation caused deeper grat- ification than the definte prospect of owing a house of worship, - not thatched like many of the houses on the street, but a veritable framed and windowed temple in the wilderness. It was in February, 1645, that the contract was made in open town-meeting for the building of the first Springfield meeting-house. Each inhabitant was to furnish twenty-eight days' work, " when he shall be required by him who shall undertake ye buildinge of it." No inhabitant could be forced to work more than six consecutive days. Thomas Cooper contracted with the town for the work, and it was satisfactorily performed. The building was 40 X 25 feet in size, " 9 foote betwixt joynts, double studded," and had two large windows on either side, and a smaller window at each end. There was a large door on the south side, and two smaller doors elsewhere. Joists were laid for a gallery when it could be af- forded. The roof was shingled, and was broken by two towers, one for a bell and one for a "watch-howse." The underpinning was stone " dawbed " in the old style. Cooper received " fower score
76
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
pownds," which was paid in quarterly instalments of " wheate, pease, porke, wampam, deptes," and labor above the twenty-eight days re- quired of each inhabitant. Mr. Cooper had until September, 1646, to fulfil this contract, but the last stroke was done by the March previous.
William Pynchon and Henry Smith signed in February, 1644, this document : -
Accordinge to trust imposed on ns, the partys undernamed by ye plantation : we have treated wtn Thomas Stebbins and ffrancis Ball, for the purchas of a parsell of grownd of them in theyre house lotts next the river. Wth ffrancis Ball we have agreed for one acre of grownd, and to give him two aeres for it, in recom- pense, in his second lott on the other side of the river : with Thomas Stebbines we have agreed for one acre and an halfe. of weh we have conditioned to have 2 rod in bredth to ye meeting house : and in recompense of this acre & halfe, we agree to give him 3 acres of land adjoyning to his third greate lott on ye other side of ye greate river.
We do not know of any early local scene that so challenges our curiosity and cordial sympathy as this when the pioneers gathered in their new house, with Mr. Pynchon sitting under the pulpit and Mr. Moxon offering thanks ; while the voice of praise rose from a full- hearted though small congregation. There can be counted in that men- orable gathering no less than sixteen men, founders of families, and from them have come thousands of descendants, through each line of which run the distinctive traits of mind and heart that were the mak- ing of Springfield. It had been said at Boston and it had been said at Hartford that the Agawam settlement would not hold out; and it did take nearly a decade of lonely toil to secure a footing.
Mr. Moxon's connection with the witch excitement of Springfield has led to the erroneous conclusion that he was a weak and a super- stitious person. Those who have deciphered his sermons and have examined the meagre traces of his teachings come to a far different conclusion. He was what might be called an exhaustive preacher. Ile always followed out an elaborate scheme of sermonizing, covering about all that could be said upon his subject, dividing and subdividing
77
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
his topic with reckless prodigality of time ; and, if the sermon hour closed before the sermon did, he simply announced that the discourse would be continued upon the Sabbath following. It had happened back in 1640, when William Pynchon was at loggerheads with the Windsor church, and the heavens hung low with clouds spiritual and temporal, that he felt called upon to fortify the position of his little congregation by the text : "Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work " (2 Thess. ii, 17). Here was a vast subject. It touched both the doctrine and deeds of men. Loyalty to the gospel, the fate of individual souls, and the future of the plan- tation itself seemed to hang upon the voice from the pulpit. He began that sermon February 16, and finished it March 15, when the church probably felt refreshed in more senses than one. His exhortation to be " settled in well doing and to be stable in sound doctrine " was hammered into the mettle of every soul present.
The nature of the satisfaction granted to Mr. Pynchon for the sup- plementary purchase of the Indians of land on the banks of the Agawam seems to be furnished by the following rating, recorded May 6, 1644. It was Mr. Pynchon's habit to furnish a large percentage of the funds necessary for any project of public concern, and then later to secure himself by a formal rating, which, by the way, was not always paid promptly.
d
Mr: Pynchon
1
Mr: Moxon
1
01
08
Ell: Holyoke
2
00
00
Tho: Cooper
0
11
00
Hen: Smith
06
06
Sam: Chapen
0
08
10
John Dober
0
07
04
Rich: Sykes
0
09
02
Will: Warener
0
10
00
Tho: Stebbines
0
08
09
Fra: Ball
0)
07
06
Robt: Ashly
0
15 00
78
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
.
d
Jno: Leonard
0)
10
04
Tho: Mirack
0
13
03
James Bridgeman
0)
12
06
Alex: Edwards
0
11
10
Sam: Hubbard
0
10
09
Jno: Beeble
0
8
05
Morgan Jolm
0
3
00
Rowl: Stebbines
0
11
06
Sam: Write
0
12
05
Henry Burt
0
12
07
Jno: Harman'
0
08
10
Rodger Prichard
0)
6
06
Totall is
19
18
04
For some reason to us unknown this money was not paid, and in January, 1647, the rating was declared null and void. In the spring of 1644 we find this record: "It is ordered yt those Lotts from Roger Prichards downward shall have theyr 2d alotments below Agga- wan River month every man to have 5 acres apeice to runn in length 80 rodd theyr lotts to abutt agaynst ye greate river."
Shortly after this it was specially ordered that Samuel Chapin should have his second allotment next to Mr. Holyoke, and that John Dober should have the lot next below him. Thomas Cooper's second lot abutted his old one, and next above came Roger Prichard's second lot.
The settlement of disputes by the " arbitrament of two Indifferent men " relieved the magistrate of much labor, but the town-meeting continued to feel the burdens of its fence and land supervision. In September, 1645, it was voted : -
It is also further ordered, that if any neighbor from ffrancis Balls lott to Goodman Coolys shall desire to enclose his yard wth a garden or an orchard : if his next neighbor refuse to Joyne for ye one half of the s' fence: he may compell his neighbors on each side of his lot to beare ye one halfe of his fence. prvided he compell them not to joyne for above 20 rodds in length, and in case his neighbor shall refuse to doe his share of the sd fence wthin 3 months after
79
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
demande : He shall be lyable to pay damages as two Indifferent men shall award, wych shall be chosen by the partyes in Controversy : or in Case they agree not then upon Complainte, ye magistrates shall appoynt them : prvided alsoe yt ye sd fence exceede not ye charge of a sufficient five foote pale, or 5 rayles.
The appearance of the name of Cooley and a vote at this meeting to force landholders in the southern part of the town to build fences is a reminder that the little settlement was growing to the south, which finally developed into the quaint remnant of the past, known in our day as the town of Longmeadow. Several, having plant- ing-grounds there, complained that a part refused to break up and fence these grounds. They succeeded in getting an order through the town-meeting, forcing the latter to " beare a pportionable share in a Comon fence gaynst all cattell, accordinge to ye severall quan- titys of theyre alottments." Each man was also required to " cutt his fencinge stuff upon his owne grounds except he first have ye consent of his neighbor to fell uppon his : and excepte it be for ye fencinge of the two outsides, then it shall be lawfull for such as fence ye two outsides to fell in any man's lot y' is next to hand : and it is alsoe p'vided yt those yt that let out every mans pportion of fence, shall as neere as they can place every man to doe the more of his owne lott."
Such legislation bore immediate fruits, as the following action shows : -
Whereas divers neighbors between ffrancis Ball his lott and Benjamin Coolys lott have complayned that some of yt Neighborhood refuse to Joyne wth y" in makinge a fence to save theyr neighbors harmeless: Therefore it is or- dered that all the sayd Inhabitants shall Joyne together in a sufficient Generall fence, every man bearinge a pportionable share, accordinge to each man's quan- tity of acres : and in case any Cattell breake through any part of sd generall fence : Then two indifferent men shall be chosen by ye partys in Controversy. to vew ye sd fence and trespass, and he whose fence is found defective, shall beare ye damadge as two indifferent men shall award : And in case yt any cattell breake in out of mens particular yeards, They shall pay such damadges as ye two Indifferent men shall award, and they shall amende theyr fences as the s' indif- ferent men shall order and appoynt. And if ye partys in controversy do not
80
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
agree in ye choyce of ye two Indifferent men, then uppon complaynt ye Magistrate shall appoynt them : And this generall fence is to be finished by ye first of Aprill next, or else they will be lyable to pay damages as ye sd two Indifferent men shall award ; alsoe ye end next ye River is to be rayled, leaving out a sufficient highway next ye River.
A few months before this (May 14, 1645), the plantations had been deep in another matter that occasioned much uneasiness, - the third apportionment of common lands. The unanimous action finally reached was this : -
It is ordered with ye Joynt Consent of all ye Plantation at a publique meetinge after sufficient warninge: That whereas there was formerly a 3d Alotment of Plantinge grounde granted to all ye Inhabitants fro Rodger Pritchards lott & upwards. The sd Inhabitants are now freely content to lay downe ye sd 3d alotments, and are content to stand to ye determination and alotment of seaven men chosen by y" wholl assembly for ye appoyntinge of 3d and 4th alotments to ye wholl Towne : viz: Henry Smith : Elizur Holyoke: Sam: Chapen : Tho: Cooper : Tho: Mirack : Rich: Sykes, Hen: Burt : who are to divide ye towne in equall parts for estates and persons : and soe halfe ye Towne downward oc- cordinge to an equall division of estates, and as in discretion they shall Judge fit and Just, are to have theyr third and 4th alotments in ye Longe meddowe. and one ye other side of ye River over agaynst ye Longe meddowe : And ye upper part of ye towne are to have theyr third and 4th Alotments in ye playne above ye 3 corner Brooke and one ye other side ye greate river at ye end of ye five aere lotts. And all with one consent doe freely puis to stand to ye aforesd determi- mation and alotment : and all former orders about the 3d alotments to be nullified.
These apportionments were, of course, town-meeting affairs, and so in form were the acts regulating the various common fields ; and in the latter branch of legislation it will be noticed that in every town order it is expressly stated that the immediate proprietors of the common fields concurred therein. The importance of this will appear later. The following vote, taken September 23, 1645, may pass as a good instance in point : -
Whereas the Plantinge of Indian Corne in ye meddowe Swamp on ye other side of Agaam river, hath occationed a long stay after moowinge tyme before
81
SPRINGFIELD. 1636-1886.
nien can put over theyr Cattell thither : Therefore, it is ordered (with the con- sent of all those that have plantinge ground there) that no more Indian corne shall be planted, neither in ye meddowe nor in ye Swampes, that so the Cattell of all those that have alotments there may be put over by ye 15th of September : provided they take a sure course to keepe theyr Cattell from goinge over ye river by a Keeper in ye day tyme, & by keeping ym in some fenced place in the night tyme : only Calves may be put over thither by the 14th of August. Complayut beinge made that divers that keepe teames on the other side of ye River in ye springe tyme to plough them. have formerly much damnifyed other men by theyr Cattell, in eating the greene corne, and ye first sprout of mens meaddows : It is ordered, therefore, yt ye sd teames of Cattell shall be kept in some howse or yeard till ye first of May, and if any keepe them longer there, they are to pasture them uppon theyr owne ground, or uppon ye Comon, or uppon ye 3d lotts, not beinge meddow nor imprved to tilladge, soe they bind ym wth a sufficient keeper.
In the last week of October of the year 1645 the Springfield community was called upon to witness two marriages within three days of each other ; and while at that time there appeared no con- nection between the two events, they stand to us for two sharp lines of divergence running down our local history, and to group them together here may serve to retain the impression of a social dis- tinction which not even a Puritan democracy could obliterate. Caste is seen in the apportionments of land to the inhabitants, in the dress which was regulated by the State, and in the assignment of seats in the meeting-house. The marriages of 1645 in question were upper and
lower class events. There had come to Springfield, some time before the year 1645, a married woman by the name of Mary Lewis. Her husband was a Roman Catholic, but she had not lived with him for seven years. It can well be imagined that if Mrs. Lewis had lived at Boston, where a governor had taken his sword and ent out the eross from the British flag because it was a hated papal emblem, she must have had a very dismal career there, and may have sought Springfield as a place of refuge. She was evidently a woman of a highly nervous organization. Mrs. Lewis was compelled either to
82
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
work or marry, and she chose the latter lot. There was in Spring- field at that time a bricklayer, of somewhat voluble disposition, by the name of Hugh Parsons, - a " queer stick," one would say, and a man quite unworthy to be matched with a woman of Mrs. Lewis's tempera- ment. It was known in Springfield that Mr. Lewis was a Roman Catholic, but she claimed that the seven years' abandonment hy her husband gave her the privilege of marrying again under the laws of England. Mr. Pynchon was in great doubt what to do, and he wrote to Boston for advice, explaining that Mrs. Lewis had "falen into a leauge of amity with a bricke-maker." She was in great haste for an answer, and Pynchon urged upon John Winthrop an immediate decision. A favorable reply was sent, and on October 27 Hugh Parsons, the brick-maker, and Mary Lewis were married. It was, however, the union of necessity with opportunity, and promised no good either to them or to the village.
Three days later there was a wedding in Connecticut which delighted the heart of the founder of the town. His son, John Pynchon, destined to cut even a more prominent figure than he had in public affairs, had sued and won the hand of Amy, daughter of Governor George Wyllys, of Connecticut, the famons Governor Haynes performing the ceremony. John Pynchon was about twenty-three years of age, a quiet, thoughtful young man, who really had had no boyhood, the Puritan convulsions in Europe and the migration to the wilderness having turned the spirit of youth into the prematurely serions disposition of the pioneer. The father did not attempt to conceal his delight at this alliance, and he even wrote to the governor of the colony expressing his satisfaction that the young man had concluded to live at " my house where he may continue as long as he finds it for his comfort & benefitt."
John Pynchon was well educated, and seems to have been under the influence of a lawyer. Possibly he formed his legal habits from his father, who was trained in the ways of the law ; but John Pynchon was an entirely different kind of man from the founder of Springfield.
CHAPTER VI.
1645-1650.
Connecticut imposes a River Tariff. - Purchase of Saybrook Fort. - William Pynchon refuses to pay the Duty. - The Commissioners of the United Colonies sustain Con- neetieut. - Springfield's Case in Detail. - Massachusetts imposes Retaliatory Duties. - Connecticut removes the River Duties on Springfield Goods. - Floods and Local Incidents. - Taxes. - Miles Morgan. - The Freeman's Oath. - Trouble as to Swine. - Town Orders. - Pynchon's Court.
OUTSIDE affairs again demanded the attention of the frontier plan- tation ; and he who had antagonized the colony down the river was again placed where he must renew the battle or retire from the valley. During the five years beginning with 1645 Springfield and Hartford kept up a running sword-play over the custom duties on the Connect- icut river. It was the first tariff war in New England, and finally involved all of the colonies. It would not be candid to charge that Connecticut was urged into this contest by a special hostility to Springfield ; because the colony was nursing a commercial ambition, and was bound to further her material interests by all legitimate means. However, it will be seen by the temper of some of the charges formulated at Hartford that the bitterness was not lessened by a neighborly feeling towards Springfield.
Near the close of the year 1644 Connecticut had bargained for the fort at Saybrook, Mr. Fenwick, the owner, agreeing to accept certain duties, including 2d. per bushel upon exported grain passing the fort, and 6d. per hundred upon biscuit. There was also an annual tax put upon hogs and cattle, to be paid to Fenwick ; all of these tributes to continue ten years, when the fort was to become the abso- lute property of Connecticut. Officers were stationed at Windsor,
84
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
Hartford, and Wethersfield, to give clearance papers to masters of out-going vessels, and these papers were presented to Fenwick's agent at Saybrook. Connecticut at once concluded to bring Springfield, which was doing a good business with Boston, under the tariff. But the Hartford government had not secured the jurisdiction of the mouth of the river with the prospective ownership of the fort. The duty upon exports was the purchase-money for the fort. Springfield was thus being asked to aid in this payment ; if she had yielded, and paid the duty, she would have had no proprietary interest in the fort itself. In fact, Springfield was being forced to help secure for Con- nectient a title to the very fort that might prove a menace to its own commerce.
The Massachusetts General Court, when informed of the Connecti- cut tariff, voted that " none of ours" shall pay the tribute. Mr. Pynchon was threatened with utter ruin in a business way, and he at once gave direction to his sailors to pay no attention to the order, and to refuse to file invoices, or to ask for clearance papers. His order was disobeyed for some unknown reason, and one cargo of corn was entered under the tariff provision. Mr. Pynchon appears to have been very much annoyed at this, and he said at once : " If they would arest our goods, I had rather they should doe it now than another tyme." His next ship passed the Saybrook fort in defiance of the Connecticut officer ; but the little cannon which constructively swept the river did not open fire. Pynchon wrote to Governor Winthrop at Boston in July, 1646 : " But if we should be forced to such a thinge [payment of duty] this plantation will be deserted. I think no man will dwell here to be brought under such payments. I desyre your advise, whether we were best to enter our goods or no. My owne apprehensions are that we ought not to doe it, & so Jehovah cause His face to shine uppon you ever."
The commissioners of the United Colonies, which had now been in existence for three years as a sort of itinerary Congress, met at Ilartford two months later to adjust this matter. They heard many
85
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
arguments, the most important one being that the maintenance of a fort at Saybrook was as important to Springfield as to Hartford ; but Mr. Pynchon was not present. No definite action was taken by the commissioners at the Hartford meeting, possibly on account of the in- tense feeling ; but the Massachusetts General Court, in November, 1646, made a full declaration of its position ; and, it may be here added, carried out its programme to the end. The court held that Hart- ford had no legal right to force an outsider to buy a fort for the Con- necticut colony, that the Saybrook fort was no protection to Spring- field, and that a tariff dispute hindered the confederation several years before, and that now to resort to it would "put us to new thoughts." "If Hartford jurisdiction," continues the General Court, " shall make use of their power over any of o's, we conceave we have ye same pow' to imitate ym in ye like kind, wch we deesier may be for- borne on both sides." This strong language brought the commis- sioners of the United Colonies to Boston in special session, in July, 1647. Deputy-Governor Hopkins and Captain Mason were the com- missioners from Connecticut. Mason was thus confronted by his old antagonist of Springfield, and the struggle that followed turned very much upon the old lines. Captain Mason had a short time before been given the military command at Saybrook, -an act of discretion only, as the fort, owing to a recent fire, was little short of a military expression.
The Massachusetts commissioners were Thomas Dudley and John Endicott. The resolutions of Massachusetts passed in November were read. Mr. Hopkins was given time to reply in detail, which he did, with much vigor, on the 27th of July. He argued in the first place that, provided the tax were just, " it concernes not the party that payes " what is done with the money, his point being that the tax was justifiable because a fort at Saybrook had been, was and would be useful to Springfield. He claimed that it was five rather than ten years that any delay in forming a confederation was caused by the discussion of a river tariff. The Massachusetts General Court
86
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
had said it was very hard for those in the Massachusetts jurisdiction to weaken their estates by being " forced to such a bondage," and Hopkins replied that "if weakeninge of estates be a sufficient plea to free men from payinge of taxes, we know not who will pay, for all such payments doe weaken men's estates." Mr. Hopkins continues :
Nor can we yeild a ready beleefe to what is affirmed, that if they (Springfield planters) had foreseen the present imposition would have been required, they would not then have planted, for the thing carryeth that evidence of equity with it that Mr. Pinchon, while he looked upon himself as a member of that jurisdic- tion, acknowledged the same & yielded upon a motion made by himself to Mr. Fenwicke (as we have it from this testimony deserving credit) that the trade of beaver upon the River, which is the greatest thing now stuck at, ought in reason to contribute to the chardg of the forte: besides the incouragement given by Mr. Pinchon under his owne hand to others to the gentlemen interested in Sea- brooke forte, which might well draw out from them an addition to the former expense, there seems to deserve some weight of consideration in the present case.
Mr. Pynchon had said in his written protest that he did not propose to be taxed by two governments, even if he had said that a Saybrook fort was a good thing for the colonies. There was a principle of government involved in this unfortunate affair which did not appear in its true light to the dispntants. A fort was useful to all the col- onies, and its maintenance, like the war charges, should have been a burden on all. The commissioners of the United Colonies were not able to grasp the full notion of federated unity. They chose rather to stand by Connecticut. The debate was at first carried on by the Connecticut and Massachusetts members of the commission, and it was some time before Mr. Pynchon himself was called in; but he simply referred to the action of the Massachusetts General Court as reflecting fully his views. The commissioners, in spite of the fact that no duties were imposed upon the Dutch trading vessels, passed a vote in which it was said that " it is no impeachment of any liberty granted by patent to the Massachusetts that Springfeild, seated upon the River of Connecticut, doe beare a moderate & equal parte of
87
SPRINGFIELD, 1636-1886.
charges, whether of scouring any parte of that River, or River's mouth (if there should be occasion) or in making or mainetayning such a fort as is in question to secure the passage to and fro." The river tariff was therefore approved. The report was signed by the Ply- mouth and New Haven commissioners only.
This decision, failing as it did to receive the signatures of all the commissioners, only added to the difficulties of the situation. Mr. Pynchon bluntly refused to pay 2d. per bushel on grain. There has been recently discovered a copy of an undated letter of Mr. Pynchon upon this subject, which was evidently written shortly after the action of the commissioners of the United Colonies. It is here tran- scribed. except certain incomplete sentences ; -
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.