USA > Massachusetts > Nantucket County > The history of Nantucket County, island, and town : including genealogies of first settlers > Part 17
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91
126
HISTORY OF NANTUCKET
As early as the 16th of the 8th month, 1662, it was determined that any Indian or Indians who stayed "on the. Land and made use of the same after the 14 day of October 1662 shall pay to the English 5s per Week, the fine to be taken out at the end of every Week they stay on the Land or otherwise as they see occasion." In February, 1663, the dogs belonging to the Indians evidently had become somewhat of a nuisance to the whites and a warning was issued to them to kill the animals. Controlling his nomadic life and limiting the number of dogs he was allowed to keep were serious matters to the Indians, but they seem to have shown no marked feeling of resentment.
A similar order regarding dogs was passed in February, 1667, and two Englishmen (Nathaniel Barnard and Isaac Coleman, ) and two Indians (Washaman and Obadiah,) were appointed to see that the order was complied with, or that the fine for non-com- pliance was collected.
August 3, 1668, the disputed line between the territory of Wanackmamack and Sposto was determined to be "on the North side the Spring at Shimmo Devides at the Southeast and at the South sea one third part by Measure from Napamak to the pond Seanakonkonit is allowed to Spotso and two-thirds East was alotted to Wanackmamack- a stright line from Mark to Mark as afore- mentioned Division between them."*
June 18, 1668, fines were assessed against the Indians who persisted in living on Powquomok Neck.
May 10, 1669, an order was passed forbiding any Indian who was dwelling on Mattaket from hunting or driving the cattle from that land or that part of the Common. To this order Tristram Coffin is recorded as dissenting, but the record does not say why. He may have thought the Indians were too strictly ruled against.
June 29, 1669, the troubles arising from the overbreeding of horses still continuing "it was ordered and concluded that no man shall sell a Liveing horse mare or colt to any Indian on the Island upon the penalty of five pound."
December 17, 1669, both English and Indians were ordered to give notice to the proper authority of any wrecked goods dis- covered on the shore. "If any English or Indian shall find any sich goods as before mentioned and Conseal the same if the goods be found in his hands he shall pay the double or if he hath disposed thereof without giving any' Acct he shall pay fourfold."
At a meeting on the 20th 11 mo., 1669, "It was agreed that from time to time the three prudentiall men are chosen to manage the government among the Indians with two others that shall from time to time be chosen by the Town to Joine with them, this present year Mr. Coffin and Mr. Starbuck are chosen."
On the 6th 12 mo., 1669, it was "Voted by the Town that the case between Nickanoose and the Town shall be heard on Tues- day next being. the Court Day according to Nickanooses Desire
*Spotso was married to Askommopoo, daughter of Nicormoose and granddaughter of Wauwinit.
127
HISTORY OF: NANTUCKET
notwithstanding anything to the contaray formerly acted by the Town."*
It would seem as though 'in 1670 there must have arisen some inconvenience from runaway servants for, on the 7th 8 mo., of that year, the Town ordered that "if any person English or Indian shall at any time carry in any Vessell any Indian servent to any English on the Island whosoever shall carry any such person of the Island without orders from his master shall be fined twenty shilling.'
On the 30th 11 mo., 1670, the Town voted "that any of the English Inhabitant on the Island shall after the date hereof put any Swine or cause to be put upon the Indian Land shall forfet the price thereof on half to the English and the other half to the Indians."
On the 16th 8 mo., 1671, "John Swain, Nat Starbuck and Eleazer Folger war chosen by the Town to go among the Indians and se what stroy there is Don in their Corn by the English Cattle and to agree with them in point of Sattisfaction if they can." On the 1st 1 mo., 1672, the Town again took action to prevent similar trespass and voted that "all the house lots between Cuppame Har- bour and the Southermost lot beyond Richard Swain butting upon the playn or Common shall be fenced by the last of May next with sufficient fence to keep our greate Cattle from going over the pond to destroy the Indian Corn upon the penalty of Two Shillings and sixpence a Rod for every rod that is not so fenced by the Day aforesaid * * * also it is ordered by the Town that all those that have any Interest in Lands and Common on the Island besides those concerned in the order abovesaid are to pay four pound a year towards the. hireing som one to keep the Cattle from going up the Island to destroy the Indian Corn."
There seemed to be a definite purpose on the part of the English settlers to be as careful about preventing trespass on the Indian property as they were not to permit the Indians or their beasts to trespass upon the English property, for there were many votes passed in restraint of their cattle and horses and to compel the English owners to maintain suitable fences.
There also seemed to be much danger of overstocking for many votes were passed forbidding indiscriminate sales of cattle, horses and sheep to the Indians, as well as to prevent their run- ning at large, or their importation. It is fair to say in this con- nection also that the early settlers applied the same rules regard- ing cattle to themselves that they did to the aborigines. The following vote will illustrate the spirit in which the laws seem to have been made and enforced: "Sharborn the 7 month 1692, the Town takeing into consideration the grate Increse , of the Indians, horses and cattle beyond their proportioned Liberty or Right reserved to the grate Damage of the cattle the Land being over stocked, do therefore order that any Indian haveing horses or cattle more than he or she hath Liberty for shall pay the same penalty for horses or best or sheep as by order for any Englishman
*Tt is not clear from the Records what action the Town had previ- ously taken.
128
HISTORY OF NANTUCKET
Comanors or non-Comanors* and William Worth John Swain and Nathaniel Starbuck and Stephen Coffin are Desired to prosecute this Order, and it is further Ordered that all persons that shall either neglect or refuse to pay for the being overstockd according to order formerly made in that behalf their horses and cattle or sheep shall be Taken up Destres and Sold for payment as aforesaid and the rest or overplus return'd if any be, and this order to Extend to either English or Indian."
It is unfortunate that the early Court records that were in the hands of Peter Folger at the time of the Insurrection, dis- appeared completely at that time and, so far as is known never have been seen since, so that whatever complaints were made by the Indians against the whites or by the whites against the Indians prior to that time have been consigned to oblivion, save in a very few sporadic cases, which were otherwise recorded.
The earliest recorded case in the Court seems to be Indian vs. Indian. Peteson, Mr. Larry Ahkeramo, Obadiah and George Nanahuma, complained that the sachems had sold the lands they formerly lived on to the English and refused to allow them to live on the land which was unsold. The Court thereupon after duly considering the matter ordered that Sachem Wanackmamack and Sachem Nickanoose "shall allow to the said gentlement as follows: Peteson and George Nanahuma 20 acres apiece in the bounds of Nickanoose, and to Mr. Larry Ahkeramo and Obadiah shall have 20 acres apiece in the bounds of Wanackmamack without paying any tribute to said sachems. But wood they shall have anywhere not generally prohibited." This order of the Court seemed entirely proper and the "parties declared themselves well satisfied and contented therwith.' The order was also given that all the other Indians who formerly resided at the west end of the Island shall be allowed by the sachems to live on the land remaining unsold "as the Indians and common people do within their precincts.
On June 20, 1672, some question having evidently been raised as to the status of the Indians on their unsold land, the Court, on the petition of Larry Ahkeramo, for himself and other Indians, ordered that they should have convenient places for habitation upon the land yet unsold, which places they should hold with the same rights and privileges under which they held their former lands. For the year then ensuing they were to live under the government of the sachems without being subject to any tribute. The sachems were allowed to produce evidence, if they so desired, before the next General Court that at the time of the coming of the English they had the right to receive such tribute. The lands assigned to them were never to be sold from them or their heirs, unless with the consent of themselves and their sachem.
Wauwinet and his father Nickanoose, for some reason, raised a question as to the ownership of Pakamaquok, and the record states that "At a General Court held at Nantucket July 19th, 1673,
*That is having shares in the common and undivided land or not.
"This indicates that they were petty sachems.
#George Nanahuma, alias Cowpohanet.
129
HISTORY OF NANTUCKET
The Town Complaines against Wauwinnit and his Father Nick- anoose for Defameing the Title of the English to the Nack called Pakamaquock-the Case was heard and Witnesses Examined with the Deeds all being duly examined that and duly considered the Sentance of the Court, that the Title of the Land is good- with the Cost of Court."
Occasionally there was an Indian whose ideas of his marital obligations were far from orthodox and the Court was called to bring him to a realizing sense of his deliquencies. Thus, at the same session as that in which the title to Pakamaquok was validated occurs the following record-"the Sentance of the Court is that Nakattactonnit must take again his wife that he Last put away and live loveingly with her or else he shall be severly whipped. Also the Sentance of the Court is that Nahkaquetan the woman that the aforesaid Indian hath kept Company withall as his wife shall be whipt Ten Stripe for Abusing of the Wif of said man."
Some of the Court entries regarding Indian affairs are self- explanatory, and show that in general the laws were administered to the Indians as fairly and justly as to the English. In July, 1673, an Indian made a complaint that he had not been granted land as he should have been. The record says: "Whereas Yawpasha called David Complained for Land the Court concluded that the said David had no right to any Division of Land, but as a Gentle- man in an Indian way, Spotso who is the Sachem must accomodate the said David sufficient for his use." At the same session the Court ordered that "that the Rack or Drift Whales in that bounds of the beach upon the plains from the pond of Richard Swain* to Smiths point shall be Divided Into Eight Shares-Washaman, Womhommin, Massaquat, Wapskowit, Wanaquin, Kanpakanit, We- quakesoo, Obadiah."
On April 21, 1674, Obadiah having complained that Spotso would neither divide or sell a part of the land they owned jointly, the Court finding in the plaintiff's favor gave Spotso three weeks in which to make a proper division; failing to do so the Court will make it. It is evident that Spotso for some reason did not comply with the Court's order, for on the 12th of May, the Court made the following division, which is useful as showing the relation of the land to other holdings: "the bounds is thus bounded At the East with the Spring at Shimmoo from thence unto the Cartway at the South end of Monomoy that Layeth in a little valley there, and on the North and West with the Harbour, and from the cartway of Monomoy aforesaid unto Wakataquage Pond that part of it as is half way between the brook Runing unto the said pond a little to the Southward of the House of Edward Starbuck and the Beach at the south sea, and so Joining in the north unto the English bounds. it is further agreed that Spotso hath Still Liberty to Devide the aforesaid Land that was in partnership between them within one Month unto four equal parts, and Obadiah Liberty to Chuse which of them four parts he will."
*Mr. Worth says that Richard Swain's house lot was "both sides of the cove formed by the northwesterly extension of Hummock Pond." (Land and Land Owners p. 16.)
130
HISTORY OF NANTUCKET
December 29, 1675, the Court ordered Joseph Coleman to pay Samuel, an Indian who was his servant, forty shillings. At the same Court Wauwinnitt was ordered to pay Jesper ten shillings for damage done to Jesper's corn by Wawinnitt's horse.
At the Court in September of the same year "Nanayape an Indian complained against John Coffin for taking away four bushels of Whet from him without his order, the Sentance of the Court is that John Coffin shall return to the Indian his whet and his charge in Loss of time about his complaint-also he is to pay a fine of Twenty Shillings of Contempt of Athority."*
At the same Court a complaint was brought by Mr. Henry (Harry) "against Spotso and Massaqua for taking away or Dis- poseing of his share of whale without his order." Evidently the Court took this matter under advisement for there was no decision at that time but at the next session of record, June 27, 1676, 'it is ordered that no Rack whale that comes a Shore in any Sachems bounds shall be cut up untill all the Masters of the shore that belongs to that whale do come together upon the penalty of twenty shilling fine to any that shall cut up and Despose of any part con- trary to the Order aforesaid-and Also if any Master be off the Island and leve no man to act for him he is to lose his share of whale for that time"
The order seems to have been made solely to secure fair play and justice among the Indians one with another.
Marital infelicities continue to have been by no means monop- olized by the whites. A case which came before the Court of Session on the 27th of March, 1677, while somewhat obscure in . its origin and nature, evidently had an ending not anticipated by the complainant. "Qush's wife," says the record, "complains against her husband, the Court findeth her gilty-the sentance of the Court is to give her an Admonish and that hence forward the Indian Court is to take cognisence of her-Qush sued to the Court for a Disavowance and it is granted and the woman that was his wife is fined twenty shillings to him In regrd to his Troble-"
Stephen Hussey seems to have won something of a reputation of being a persistent litigant. A goodly number of cases in the Court are where he is the plaintiff and sundry Indians are de- fendants, generally in suits for debt.
Obadiah, who seems to have had considerable trouble tirst and last, was summonsed before the Court June 26, 1677, "charged with Resisting the Authority of the Indian Court at Nantucket- in that he came with several persons with him and Endevered to Resque one that was to be whipt acording to the Sentance of the Court away out of the Constables hands the person to be punished but Fought with Apalel useing Reviling Speeches and speaking opprobious words against the members of the Court there present And being Charged and a reson Demanded of his so behaving him-
*It is not unlikely that there might be a question raised in this case as to the strict impartiality of the Court in this case as it was at a time when there was no surplusage of love between the Gardner party then in control and the Coffins. John might, too, have felt a contempt for the Court which he failed to conceal.
131
HISTORY OF NANTUCKET
self Denied not the substance of the Charge and manefesting the Reason why he so carried himself not only with regard to the present but other of Like nature as because the Magestrates are not right or do not that which is Just, but could make out nothing against them, but said they do not Love him* and the like-the Sentance of the Court is that he be fined three pound and be Whipt Twenty Stripes and to pay the Charge of Court."
During the same month Will the Cowkeeper and Jack Never were each fined nine bushels of Indian corn and twenty-two shillings and Sixpence for "breaking open Mr. Coffin's ware House at Wesco and Stealing Cloth." At the same session Hope "being complained of for speaking contemtis words against the Indian General Court" was sentenced to pay twenty shillings or "make such an acknowl- edgment as shall be Satisfactory to the Court."
Nor did the Court encourage the plan of married couples living apart, for at the same term, Dave and his wife were "charged by the Court that they Live together, and if they do not, the Indian General Court shall take Cognicence of them and deal with them according to their Demerit."
In several cases where appeals were taken from the decisions of the Indian General Court, the findings were upheld. The vital principle of the administration of English law, that an accused man should be tried by a jury of his peers, was exemplified at a Court held on the 7th of the 11 month, 1677, at which "Cosaeyen Alias Charles being Indited for striking mortal blowes upon the Body of Wappamoage and we finding the Cause vary doughful we ajorne the Court for a fuller Examination untill the 11th of this Instance." "At the Court of agornment held the 11th 11 mo. and the matter about Cosaeyen was heard and a Jury of Indians found him clear."
Several cases appear in the Court involving the rights of Indian sachems in stranded whales and they seem to have been settled with careful regard to the validity of the claims. Usually the cases in dispute were among the Indians themselves, but on the 24th, 2 mo., 1679, the record states "Mussaquat complained against Eleazur Folger for taking away his whale. the Court found for the defendant and Mussaquat appealed to the General Court." The case was tried before a jury of six who found for the plaintiff with the costs of Court. "The Court do adjudge the said defendant to pay for the whale the sum of 4 pounds in goods at the usual price of trading, and do allow his charge of 6s." William Worth and William Gayer testified against the defendant.t It would seem as though the Indians had more faith in the Eng- lish Court than in their own.
*Obediah seemed very friendly towards Mr. Gardner and followed in his footsteps.
¡Mr. Worth states that the jury was composed of Marthas Vine- yard men. In April 1678, Waquakeso, Nickanoose, Spotso and Mussa- quat were authorized to select 10 men as a committee to determine the particular rights in whales of all their men and report to the Court, the report to go to the General Court for confirmation.
Any one who felt wronged would be given a hearing.
132
HISTORY OF NANTUCKET
Naturally in a community like Nantucket, with the Indians apparently willing to sell and the English quite as willing to purchase, there were many transfers of real estate. The early settlers bought of Thomas Mayhew such rights as were lawfully his in the islands, but they recognized the fact that the Indians could not be arbitrarily dispossessed of their lands, and there are many deeds of purchase on record.
The earliest Indian deed on record was executed by Nickanoose and Nanahuma and reads as follows:
"This doth witness that we Nickanoose of Nantucket, Sachem, and Nanahuma of Nantucket, Sachem, have sold unto Thomas Mayhew of the Vineyard the plain at the west end of Nantucket that is according to the figure under written, to him and his heirs and assigns forever. In consideration whereof we have received by earnest of the said Thomas Mayhew the sum of twelve pounds. Also the said Sachems have sold the said Mayhew of the Vineyard the use of the meadow and to take wood for the use of him, the said Mayhew, his heirs and assigns forever.
In witness hereof, we the Sachems aforesaid have hereunto set our hands this 20th day of June, 1659.
The said Acamy lyeth north and by east, and south by west or near it."
NICKANOOSE (his + mark) NANAHUMA (his X mark)
Witness hereunto
MR. HARRY JOHN COLEMAN THOMAS MACY TRISTRAM COFFIN.
When Thomas Mayhew sold the Island to the First Purchasers he naturally sold only those rights of which he was possessed by virtue of his patent. The Purchasers lost little time in acquiring the Indian rights. It was necessary, as well as honest and ad- visable, to do so.
The earliest Indian deed on the Town Records was drawn in 1660 and was worded as follows:
"These presents witnesseth May the tenth sixteen hundred and sixty that we Wanackmamack and Nickanoose had sachems of Nantucket Island do give grant bargain and sell unto Mr. Thomas Mayhew of Martins Vineyard Tristram Coffin Sen'r Thomas Macy Christopher Hussey Richard Swain Peter Coffin Stephen greenieafe Thomas Barnard John Swain and William Pile all the Land, Meadows, Marshes, Timber and Wood and all appurtenances there- to belonging and being and lying from the West end of the Island of Nantucket unto the Pond called by the Indians wagutuquab and from the had of that pond upon a stright line unto the pond situated by Monomoy harbor or creek now called Wherfore Creek and so from the Northeast corner to the said Pond to the sea that is to say all the Right that we the aforesaid Sachems have in the sd tract of Land confirmed that none of the Indians Inhabitant
133
HISTORY OF NANTUCKET
in or about the Wood Land or whatsoever Indians Inhabit within the last Purchase of Land from the head of the Pond to Monomoy Harbour shall be removed without full satisfaction and we the aforesaid Sachems do give, grant, bargain and sell the one half of the Remainder of the Meadows and Marshes upon all other parts of the Island. and also that the English People shall . have what grass they shall need for to mowe out of the Remainder of the Meadows and Marshes on the Island so Long as the English Remain upon the Island. and Also free Liberty for timber and wood on any part of the Island within the Jurisdiction. and Also that the aforesaid Sachems do fully grant free Liberty to the Eng- lish for the feeding of all sorts of cattle on any part of the Island after Indian harvest is ended untill Planting time or untill the first day of May from year to year forever for and in Consideration of twelve pounds allready paid and fourteen Pounds to be paid within three Months after the date hereof-to have and to hold the aforesaid Purchase of Land and other appurtenances as afore- mentioned to them Mr. Thomas Macy Ttristram Coffin Thomas Mayhew and the Rest aforementioned and their heirs and assigns forever. in Witness whereof we the aforesaid Sachems have here- unto set our hands & seals the Day and year above written.
The sign of WANACKMAMACK O The sign of NICKANOOSE
Signed, sealed and Delivered in
presents of us.
PETER FOLGER FELIX KUTTASHAMAQUAT EDWARD STARBUCK
I do witness this Deed to be a true Deed according to the Interpretation of the Interpreter also I hard Wanackmamack but two weeks ago that the sale of Nick and he do say that he will do so whatever coms of it. Witness my hand this 17th 1 mo. 1664.
Witness MARY STARBUCK
PETER FOLGER JOHN COFFIN.
The Indian deeds as recorded in the Town Book of Records do not follow any regular order in their notation of land transfers, but doubtless occur in the Book in the order of recording. In some cases several years seem to elapse between the transfer and the recording of it. Or it may be in transcribing the Records that there was some carelessness shown regarding their order of suc- cession. The record of the doings at Town Meetings, in the same book, seems to follow very closely its proper order but the deeds that are interspersed among them follow no system:
On January 5, 1660, Nickanoose of his own "Volentary good will" gave to "Edward Starbuck all that parcel of Land called Coretue with all the privileges or Benefits as doth or may arise from the said Land above said with all the Timber, woods, marshes Ponds beeches and whatever appurtenances doth thereunto belong this the said Nickanoose to give the said Edward Starbuck him his heirs Executors and Administrators and assigns forever peceably to Injoie out of my free Volentary Love to the said Edward Star- buck. This deed was witnessed by Jane and Richard Swain .*
* This land appears to have been held by Edward Starbuck until August 30, 1663, when he assigned it "to the whole Company the Pur- (See next page)
134
HISTORY OF NANTUCKET
June 22, 1662, Wanackmamack, "Chiefe Sachem of Nantuck- et," sold to Tritstram Coffin and Thomas Macy "that whole Nack of Land called by the Indians Pacummohquah" the consideration being £5, to be paid in English goods or otherwise as the grantor may choose. This deed was witnessed by Peter Folger and Wawi- mesit" whose English name is Amas."
July 7, 1664, "Pakapenesaa being Impowered by Nanahuma and by the Consent and agreement of Jonas Kimmo and Harey the son of Wapskowet also greeing thereto" sold "unto the English Company belonging to Nantucket all the Old Fields belonging to the Neck commonly called Nanahumas Neck, with all the Interest on the Neck if any be for and in consideration of the sume of twenty five pounds to be paid in English goods at a Moderate or Reasonable price to be paid at two Several payments" the first half to be made in the first week in November next ensuing and the second half before November 1 of the following year. The grantors "engage that all the Indians shall be removed of the Neck aforesaid before the first day of November" and agree "to make good the sale against all the Indians."
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.