USA > Massachusetts > Dukes County > Marthas Vineyard > The history of Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County, Massachusetts, Volume I > Part 9
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
Another account of about the same period appears in a book of "Travels," written by one of the many persons who prepared similar books for the market to satisfy a growing interest in the new nation: - 1
In the fall of 1632, or a year or two later, a vessel bound from England to South Virginia, fell in with the South Shoal of Nantucket, came up through the Vineyard Sound and anchored off Cape Poge on account of a distemper which, like a plague, raged among the passengers and crew, twenty-five of whom died. Or according to another account, scarcity of - provisions was the cause. Four men with their families, requested to be put ashore, preferring to take their chance with the natives, than to pursue the voyage under such distressing circumstances. They landed at the spot since called (Pease' Point) Edgartown. Their names were John Pease, Thomas Vincent, Trapp and Browning or Norton. A red coat, presented on landing, by Pease, to the Chief or Sachem, secured at once the good offices of the tribe, and they were treated with hospitality.
In order to shelter themselves from the approaching winter, Pease and his company made excavations in the side of a hill near the water, whence they could command a full view of the harbor and adjacent bay. Some vestiges of these caves still remain. They remained here through the cold season, and were joined by others at different times, until in 1642 the whole number of families amounted to 24. At this period the Mayhews arrived.
1Kendall, "Travels in the United States," 1807.
91
History of Martha's Vineyard
In order that all the points bearing upon the subject may be stated, a letter from Rev. Mr. Thaxter to Rev. Dr. Free- man under date of Dec. 12, 1814, is reproduced in amplifi- cation of some other details, and including arguments offered in support of the story as related at that time.
The account which I gave you of the gathering of the church in this town, was taken from either a preface or an appendix to a sermon preached at the ordination of Mr. Newman, by Mr. Experience Mayhew, and is probably correct. I have searched the records of the town: they are tran- scribed from a former record, and go no further back than 1661. It is said that the old record was, for reasons now unknown, destroyed. It is beyond a doubt true that several years before the Mayhews had a grant of Martha's Vineyard there were a number of families settled on the island, of which I gave you the traditionary accounts. I am confirmed in this by the division of the town: The Mayhews and their associates had twenty-five shares: the others were called half-share men: and made the number of shares forty-two. These half-share men, it is presumed, were settled here when the Mayhews obtained the grant. It is highly probable that the Mayhews, at least the younger, had been on the Island some time before the grant was obtained. He was a zealous preacher and undoubtedly collected a church in 1641. Experience Mayhew must have had evidence of the fact; other- wise, it is presumed he would not have said it.
Further, as showing the amplification of the tradition in detail, as time progressed, the following statement prepared in recent years by the late Hebron Vincent represents the complete picture of the legendary settlements: -
The account given to the writer nearly seventy years ago by some of the then oldest inhabitants, who themselves received it from an immediate ancestry, is substantially as follows :- That some years preceding the May- hew purchase, the exact time not averred, but thought to have been from seven to ten years, a vessel from England filled with passengers, bound west and south, came to anchor, for some cause, in or near the outer harbor of what is now Edgartown; that a boat's company-mostly passengers-at- tempted a landing at what is known as "Starbuck's Neck" near the present site of that town; that a large company of Indians with their Chief appeared upon the bank, apparently peaceful, but supicious, to whom the men of the boat made signs of friendship to secure their confidence; that one of the company, John Pease, having been in the military service in England, and having with him his red coat, made signs to the chief an offer of the coat as a present, which after various manifestations of fear and of hesitation, was accepted, and that after some unsuccessful attempts at putting it on aright, it was properly adjusted by the white man, and the Indians set up a great shout. The further account is that such was the honor shown and the distinction accorded to the head man, and such the kindly feeling inspired, the Chief or Sachem, in whom the titles of the Indian lands vested, so far as the natives had any titles, gave to John Pease and others a large section of land, including the site on which Edgartown is built; that there- upon four of the passengers-Pease, Vinson, Trapp and Browning-decided
92
The Legendary Settlement Before 1642
to discontinue their voyage, and risk the fortunes of life here; that these four men prepared caves in which to winter, about half a mile south of the present town, at a place called "Green Hollow," traces of which remain yet visible. It was further said that some other men came soon after who were allowed to share in the division of the section given by the Chief; that John Pease was a man of some education, kept a record of the settlement and of the division of lands in a book called the "Black Book," from the color of the cover; that subsequently to the purchase by the Mayhews, the division above named and this book which perpetuated the evidence of it, became an annoyance and an embarrassment, and that when John Pease died in 1674 and was lying dead in his house, two men came to the house of the deceased, and desired of the man in charge to be allowed to see this book; that he complied -placing the book upon the table-and withdrew to attend to other duties, and that upon his return to the room the two men were gone and the book was also gone, the latter never having been seen by the public since; that the record evidence of whatever title to the land they had in the way related being burned-as was supposed-or as some believed abstracted for a pur- pose, and their chief man being dead, those early settlers found themselves deprived of their rights-such as they were-the rights under the Crown being held to control any others, however acquired, and that hence the settlement of claims could go no further back than the dates of the purchase by Thomas Mayhew and his son Thomas.1
One other relation of the narrative by a contemporary of these persons will suffice to disclose the legend in all its forms and complete its lineage. This story also comes from Pease sources, but is told by Susannah (Butler) Pease (born 1777), the wife of Timothy Pease (1769-1846), and it is fair to say that she obtained her version from her husband's family. It has the merit of brevity, and varies some as to the reasons for the settlement as told by her: -
John Pease and company came into martha's Vineyard sound in the winter, got frozen in and was obliged to remain there until spring. Made friends with the Indians by presenting the Indian Chief with his red coat. The Chief in return gave him a deed of what afterwards became Edgartown. In the spring Pease left the Island and was gone some time (Mrs. Pease thought to England), but finally returned with family and made the place his home. After Mayhew came there the "black book" was lost, and Pease lost the title to his land.
It now remains for us to consider the subject in all its bearings in the light of contemporary history, as to the internal evidence, together with the inherent probability of the story with its variations and embellishments. This will best be done by taking up the discussion in accordance with this method.
1Rev. Hebron Vincent was born Aug. 21, 1805, and died Feb. 13, 1890. The account was probably prepared not long before his death, as seventy years would carry him back to 1820, when he was fifteen years old. He was son of Samuel and Betsey (Pease) Vincent, and thus of Pease ancestry.
93
History of Martha's Vineyard
IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.
I. Contemporary historians are silent upon the subject of the alleged settlement. Governor Winthrop, in his history of New England written in journal form from time to time as events occurred before his death in 1649, makes no men- tion of such an incident, and he omitted no detail of any importance concerning such matters. He records the de- parture of the Mayhews "to begin a plantation at Martin's Vineyard," but nothing else as to any prior occupation. The distinguished voyager, Capt. William Pierce, sailed along the sound in 1634 and reported his observations to Winthrop without any reference to settlers living on the Vineyard. He stated that "Nantucket is an island full of Indians."
II. John Underhill in his "Newes from America," pub- lished in 1638, says of Martin's Vineyard that it was "as yet uninhabited."
III. Thomas Lechford, in his book on New England, written in Boston probably before the summer of 1641, when he left for England, and which was published in 1642, states that Martin's Vineyard was then "uninhabited by any Eng- lish, but Indians."
IV. Daniel Gookin, the early historian of the Indians of New England, writing in 1671 about the Vineyard and the younger Mayhew says: "he was as I take it the first Eng- lishman that settled that Island."
As far as can be ascertained from persons living at that time who wrote anything at all on the subject, no one lends any support to the story of a band of persons living on the Vineyard prior to 1642, when the younger Mayhew came hither with "divers families" from Watertown. This is in the nature of negative evidence, but it is none the less ap- plicable in the requirements of proving a negative.
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE.
If any statements in the story are manifestly improbable, the entire legend becomes open to suspicion. To ascertain if this be the case, it will be necessary to take up the various parts of it where corroboration can be had or refutation ac- complished.
I. It is stated in one account that the ship bearing this company was bound for Port Penn on the Delaware. There
94
1
The Legendary Settlement Before 1642
was no such place as Port Penn in existence at that date nor for many years after. William Penn, for whom Port Penn was named, did not arrive in this country till 1682, and while this objection is not fatal, it seriously discredits it at the start. It may be that the place where Port Penn later arose is in- tended in the narrative.
II. The persons said to have landed were John Pease, (William) Vincent, (Nicholas) Norton and (Thomas) Trapp; in another version Malachi Browning appears in the place of Norton. If either of these persons can be located elsewhere in 1630 or 1632 and before 1641 or 1642, the story must be seriously compromised. This will now be considered :-
(a) JOHN PEASE. Under the title of Sketches of the Early Settlers (Edgartown) the identity of John Pease of Martha's Vineyard and Salem, Mass., is considered, and in order to prevent unnecessary repetition a recital of this will not be made here. Briefly stated, a John Pease was a passenger on the ship "Francis" sailing from Ipswich, England, in Nov- ember, 1634, with a cabin list of eighty-three persons, and a John Pease with a brother Robert and a widow Margaret Pease, all names in the Great Baddow, Essex, family, appear in Salem some time before 1636-7, on which date grants of land were made to the two brothers. The name of John Pease appears in the Salem records, 1638, 1639 (when he was stated to be absent), 1641 and 1643. His brother Robert continues to be mentioned until 1644 when he died, and the death of their mother Margaret, also in 1644, marked the breaking up of that family. Possibly this determined John Pease to remove, and he sold his estate in Salem that year, and in a year or two more a John Pease appears on the Edgar- town records as a resident at the Vineyard. These facts do not disprove the alleged landing at the Vineyard some time prior to the above dates. Neither do they help it out much, for the story presupposes continuous residence at Great Har- bor from the first landing until the Mayhews arrived. This would have been an inherent improbability in the case of John Pease of Great Baddow, Salem, and Great Harbor, whose life in Salem is well accounted for.
(b) (WILLIAM) VINCENT. It is supposed that our William Vincent is meant, but such could not have been the case. He was not born until 1627 and he could not have participated in any settlement here prior to 1640 except as a boy. Some
95
History of Martha's Vineyard
other Vincent, not identified, must be considered, and as no Christian name is mentioned the particular one who is supposed to have been one of the alleged landing party must remain an unknown quantity. One account states that it was Thomas Vincent, but this does not help the discussion in any particular.
(c) (NICHOLAS) NORTON. If the member of the alleged early settlement was our Nicholas Norton who, if the story be true, again returned to the Vineyard in 1659, it becomes necessary to ascertain his whereabouts. The first mention of him in New England is at Weymouth, Mass., about 1637, where he was a settler and where he resided for twenty years as the records show. There is some reason to believe he came over in 1635 with a company, under the leadership of Rev. John Hull. As some doubt exists whether it was Norton, as in one account, or Malachi Browning, as in another, the former may be dismissed with the statement that what is known of his movements in this country does not help the story we are considering.
(d) MALACHI BROWNING. This early settler at the Vine- yard is found at Watertown in 1640 and until 1642, when his homestead lot is mentioned, but nothing appears of record before that date to show whether he was an earlier resident in New England. Therefore, he could have been one of the supposed party, at some anterior time, by negative reasoning. In 1647 he calls himself "late of Watertown," as he had then become a resident of the Vineyard.
(e) (THOMAS) TRAPP. As our Thomas Trapp was born about 1635 it is clear that he could not have been the compan- ion of John Pease. In the absence then of any more definite identification his name must be dismissed as an inherent improbability. We are unable to learn of any other person bearing this name in New England at an early date.
It will thus be seen that of the persons alleged to have settled and remained on the island as squatters until Mayhew came, there is such an element of doubt in each case as to amount to a denial of the probability that either one of those named could have done the thing claimed. It requires us to place these four or five men here before 1641 and that we have seen them to be elsewhere on those dates seems to es- tablish a fair alibi for those who were not too young to have their names considered. The idea that "a number of fam-
96
The Legendary Settlement Before 1642
ilies" as stated by Parson Thaxter, settled on the island, and all evidence of them remained unknown for nearly two centuries is almost too much for serious consideration.
THE "BLACK BOOK" INCIDENT.
The "Black Book" plays a part in all the versions, and is told with insinuations of fraudulent dealing on the part of some persons, presumably acting in the interest and at the instigation of the Mayhews. The main point is that with the mysterious disappearance of this "black" volume the descendants of John Pease lost all records and titles to this prior settlement and his lands. This belief is apparently well fixed among those responsible for this legend. It is certain that John Pease, in his lifetime enjoyed his property unmolested. There is no allegation to the contrary by the relators, and for forty years his title was unimpeached. This alleged "site of Edgartown" which he and three others ac- quired must have gone into the possession of some others after his death, but the records do not contain any line show- ing that his heirs ever attempted to recover this alleged loss; and if his descendants were deprived of "rights," so equally were the descendants of Vincent and Trapp, neither of whom appear in any suit to establish titles to this supposed property, of which they had been defrauded after forty years of peace- able possession. As far as can be seen by the records, Pease, Trapp, Vincent and Browning participated in all the divi- sions of land as proprietors in equal shares with the rest.
Thomas Mayhew, Senior, was very careful to purchase everybody's claim to "rights," alleged or otherwise, to land on the Vineyard, Stirling's, Gorges' and the Indians. In several recitals of all this expense and effort he had undergone to quiet all claims, he does not once mention this legendary settlement of whites before he came, whose title might jeopard his own. At that time he was not calculating the historical aspects of the case, but telling his many endeavors to satisfy everyone's claim to property rights on the island. This set- tlement, if it existed, was more of a menace to his proprietary interests than the Indian's "right," which he scrupulously bought, and it is not to be supposed that by any conspiracy he could enact a wholesale confiscation of the property of several families.
97
History of Martha's Vineyard
Rev. Mr. Thaxter states that "the old record was for reasons unknown, destroyed," and Mr. Richard L. Pease has left a more circumstantial account which is as follows: -
Tradition says that the early records were kept in a book with a black cover, thence called the Black Book, and that at the time of his decease John Pease was the Clerk. During his illness a woman attended upon him as nurse. On the day of the funeral this book was seen, but never publicly since. That it was in existence for many years afterwards I have no doubt, and such was the general belief of the community.
This story was told to him by Capt. Valentine Pease before mentioned. The dramatic story of the abstraction of the "Black Book" told by the late Hebron Vincent strains hard upon our credulity when we consider that the alleged circumstances occurred in a little village of not more than twenty families at that date, and that such an event could not be concealed, or the identity of the thieves lost in a mul- titude. This feature of the legend reduces it to an indictment, of which the title might be "Pease versus Mayhew." It is too fantastic for serious consideration. The writer states that he heard these stories from his grandfather, Zachariah Pease (1750-1845), as well as from Obed Pease, before referred to, as one of the sponsors of the legend. The attention of the reader will be attracted to the variation in the details of this portion of the legend from those previously given.
The question then will naturally arise - is there any reason for the existence of the tradition in the subsequent annals of the settlement at Great Harbor, as respects the treatment of the persons named? The theory evolved by Rev. Mr. Thaxter that in the divisions of land the Mayhews and their associates had twenty-five whole shares, and "the others were called half-share men" is not borne out by the records in any sense. The land divisions of Edgartown are described elsewhere and it will not be necessary to enter into details here. In the first recorded division in 1653, there were but twenty shares, of which Pease and Browning, the only ones of the alleged squatters, received one each with Mayhew and the rest. The "half lots" were simply half shares which had been sold by original proprietors to new comers. The same sub-division of lots occurred in Tisbury and Chilmark by identical means, and so far from the possession of a half-lot indicating early arrival, it shows in reality a later settlement. The best evidence on this point, however, is that no discrimi-
98 ;
The Legendary Settlement Before 1642
nation in these divisions is shown in the case of the four men who figure in the story. As previously stated there is no known evidence existing that John Pease or any of his four or more companions were ever deprived of their lands, whether obtained rightfully or illegally. Many settlers undertook to acquire land of the Indians after the settlement, being often tempted by the ignorance of the natives about such matters. In order to prevent fraud the town passed a law that no one should do this without consent under a penalty of fro for each acre so purchased. John Daggett disobeyed this, as will appear later, and had to stand suit for it, and it is possi- ble that Pease did the same thing in the early days and had to return the land to the natives. It may be the basis of the "red coat" story, a payment given by Pease to the Chief for the land. In similar way Mayhew paid the Indians in clothing, as part of the bargain he made with them.
THE PROBABILITIES AND CHARACTER OF THE TRADITION.
The story of the supposed landing and settlement of John Pease and his companions first obtained currency and publicity about a century ago or about 175 years after the alleged events transpired. It has no support outside of the descendants of one of the four (or more) supposed settlers. There are no Vincents, Nortons or Trapps who have garnered this tradition in their families, though the last named has not been represented in the male line for over a century on the island. Stories of this sort, however, can be handed down through female lines, and there are numerous descendants of the Trapps, as well as of Browning, who defaulted of male descendants, as far as known. An author previously quoted (1807), endeavored a century ago to get some corroboration of this story in other directions, but failed, and thus states his conclusions: -
An effort has been made by enquiry of the oldest inhabitants of Mar- tha's Vineyard, who are descendants of the families that landed as aforesaid, to ascertain the port from whence they sailed, and the name of the ship, which has been entirely fruitless; none of them having the least recollection in relation to it, notwithstanding some of them are nearly a hundred years old, and have the use of their faculties unimpaired.
DISCREPANCIES IN THE LEGEND.
The story is consistent and insistent in one particular only, that these persons "came before the Mayhews." In
99
History of Martha's Vineyard
other details the disagreement is marked. The personnel of the unwritten settlement consisted variously of "four" men, unmarried; of "a number of families" ; of "eight or ten English families"; and finally of "twenty-four families." The motive or cause of this landing and unexpected settle- ment is given as variegated a color as there are versions quoted. The ship was bound for Port Penn on the Delaware, as well as for Virginia. She was "short of provisions" in one case, and afflicted with a "distemper, which like a plague raged among the passengers and crew"; in another version they chanced here and were tempted to leave the ship by a gift of land; and again that the party "got frozen in and was ob- liged there to remain until spring." Whether a barren and uninhabited island was the natural place for a ship to deposit its passengers, either sick or starving, is a practical question in this connection.1
The story of the "red coat" is repeated in all versions with more or less amplification, according to the imagination of the relator. The earliest versions are the simpler, and the latest undertakes to account for the coat as a uniform belong- ing to Pease, who is stated to have been in the military service in England. No evidence has ever been offered to prove this statement. One account states that they went to the Cape for wives, and another that Pease probably went back to England and returned with a family. It has no real bear- ing upon the main point, except to show disagreement in the detail of the alleged settlement.
The character of the legend requires us to conclude that everybody has conspired to blot out all recollection of this alleged settlement, because of the fanciful interpretation given to a supposed loss of a certain "black book." This feature and the "red coat" incident can be explained upon ordinary grounds, and the digging of caves for houses at first is not an evidence of priority of settlement. It is pretty certain that this happened in every new settlement at that period. It will not be seriously argued that the first comers found building materials all ready for constructing houses. That the first comers had to "rough it" with crude shelters for a long time, is evident to our sense of the situation confronting them.
1One version states that "in the Spring they went to the great Marshes. . . returning to the Vineyard to winter." This seems a reversal of the probabilities. Under the circumstances, they would be more likely to go to the mainland "to winter" and return to the island in the Spring, on account of food supplies.
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.