USA > New York > Suffolk County > Southampton > The early history of Southampton, L. I., New York, with genealogies, 2nd ed. > Part 2
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
See Trumbull's Ct. vol. 1, p 192.
19
ACCOUNTS OF EARLY SETTLERS.
vious discovery of the continent gave the English a still greater. But Verazzano's voyage of discovery before Cabot's was consid- cred by Henry IV. of France a sufficient basis for his granting all the (now) Middle and New England coast states to M. des Monts. And still previous to this, the Pope conferred the title of the whole continent upon Ferdinand and Isabella. It will be remem- bered that the elder Cabot actually made the discovery of the con- tinent of America some fourteen months before *Columbus saw the main land. And for this reason the pretensions of the Pope were in 1620 treated with derision in the English Parliament. With all these conflicting claims, the best title seems to have been actual possession maintained by the sword.
* Bancroft, Hakluyt.
.
20
HISTORY OF SOUTHAMPTON.
CHAPTER III.
THE SETTLEMENT AND TIIE SETTLERS.
OF the movements of the English immediately after the expul- sion, the town records afford no clue, and tradition happily is dumb. I am inelined to think the leading minds of the com- pany, in harmony with Governor Winthrop, proposed in the begin- ning to plant a colony as near the Dutch settlements as possible, as a barrier to their further eastward progress, and failing in this, to establish a strong colony as a center or basis of operations on the eastern part of the Island. The former plan having failed, they immediately proceeded to execute the latter. Whether there was such a plan or not, the fact remains that such a course was actually pursued. This settlement was effected in the early part of the following June, and makes Southampton the first town settled by the English in the State of New York. The general impression has been that the sister town of Sonthold, settled in October (Wood) of the same year, was entitled to this distinction. But this impression was based upon the supposition that the Southampton emigrants came there in the month of December, in which month the deed which they received from the Indians is dated. Now although this is no great matter, yet as a point of historie interest, we may as well know, if we can, the precise date of the occupation of this territory by the English. The reasons that seem to establish the fact of this settlement in the early part of June are as follows :
1. The presumption is in favor of an immediate attempt to seenre a settlement. That was their prime business. Delay in- volved the loss of a planting season. They held in their hands a commission from Farrett authorizing them to select and oeeupy, and the land was all before them where to choose.
2. Other instruments from Farrett show the same. June 12,
21
THE SETTLEMENT AND THE SETTLERS.
1639* (or rather 1640), James Farrett makes a conveyancet of land from sea to sea between Peaconeck and Montauk Point, to Edward Howell & Co., for £400 already received, they having been (as saith the instrument) driven off by the Dutch previous to this transaction. This writing has that vagueness in defining the limits characteristic of the imperfect knowledge that might be acquired by the visit of the " Blessing." It is probable that one of the company went on to obtain this second writing from Farrett in person, while the others continned on their voyage and settlement. The memorandum, as it is called, of July 7, 1640, appears to have been obtained by a second embassage to Farrett, after actual occupation of the new plantation. We in- fer this from its mention of local names and the precise bounda- ries which could only be learned on the spot. August 20, 1640, Lord Stirling confirms this sale. And as he was in Scotland, suf- ficient time for sending by a sailing vessel across the Atlantic, the application for a deed of sale from him, must be allowed, so that this fact confirms a settlement at least as early as the first part of July, 1640. A temporary verbal agreement was made with the Indians as the deed of December intimates, for the sale of their lands, ratified by the said deed of December 13, 1640, which ac- knowledges that partial payment for the land had been made previous to that date.
3. Felt,¿ in an account of Rev. Hugh Peters, says, that he (Peters) attended the ordination of Mr. Abraham Pierson at Lynn, and the organization at the same time and place of a church " composed of individuals who had emigrated from that place and settled at Southampton." This was in November, 1640, showing the settlement had been effected before December. The same historian§ says in another work that a church was formed in Massachusetts, part of the emigrants being there at the time of Rev. Abraham Pierson's ordination in November, and part on Long Island at their plantation. By another New England his-
* The date of the year, 1639, is evidently an error. It is so found in the London documents which are a copy. The Dutch records and those of the town are in agreement on all points. t Col. Ilist. of N. Y., v. 3, pp. 21, 22.
# Hist. and Gen. Reg., v. 5, p. 233.
§ Eccles. Hist. of N. E., v. 1, p. 418.
22
HISTORY OF SOUTHAMPTON.
torian it is said that on the 11th of October, 1640, Mr. Pierson was appointed at Boston, to be the minister of the colony then settled and residing at Southampton.
4. There is another clause in the* Indian deed of December 13, 1640, which leads to the same conclusion. It is, " as also all the old ground formerly planted lying eastward from the first creek, etc." The phrase " old ground " is used a number of times in the town records to signify land that the settlers themn- selves had broken up and cropped. When this had been done by Indians, such land was called "the Indian field." The set- tlers had, therefore, come in time that season to raise one crop of oats and Indian corn and gather hay for their cattle.
5. Edward Johnson in hist Wonder Working Providence, has this statement which contains other points of interest.
" CHAPTER XVII - Of the Planting of Long Island. - This year [1640] came over divers godly and sincere servants of Christ, as I suppose, among whom came over the reverend godly Mr. Peirson. This people [of Southampton], finding no place in any of the former erected colonies to settle in to their present content, repaired to an island severed from the Continent of Newhaven, with about 16 miles off the salt sea, and called Long Island, being about 120 miles in length, and yet but nar- row : here this people erected a Town and called it South Hamp- ton, there are many Indians on the greatest part of this Island who at first settling of the English there did much to annoy their Cattel with the multitude of Doggs they kept, which ordinarily are young wolves brought up tame, continuing of a very ravening nature. This people gathered into a church and called to office Mr. Peirson, who continued with them 7 or 8 yeares, and then he, with the greatest number of the people, removed farther into the Island ; the other part that remained invited Mr. Foordum, and a people that were with him, to come and joyne with them, who accordingly did, being wandered as far as the Dutch planta- tion, and there unsettled, although he came into the Country be- fore them."
* See appendix.
+ Mass. Hist. Coll., 2 s., v. 7, p. 22.
23
THE SETTLEMENT AND THE SETTLERS.
To this it is necessary to remark : (1.) The title of the chapter and the first sentence presuppose this to be the first venture of the English into an unsettled region of the country. There could have been no previous settlement at Southold known to Johnson. (2.) The name of this settlement is almost universally written in the records and in New England documents of early times as Southampton. (3.) There is evident over-statement of the truth concerning the number of families who removed with Mr. Pier- son to Branford, Connecticut, and not to any other part of Long Island. Few comparatively left at that time and no considerable number came in with Mr. Fordham.
6. * Lechford, in his " Plaine Dealing," 1641, speaks of a settle- ment by the Lynn people, but knows nothing about a plantation at Southold, though apparently very conversant with the affairs of the colonies.
7. But Winthrop, t in his History of New England, says ex- pressly the second and successfulattempt at a settlement was made in the fourth month (or June) of the year 1640.
There is one other curious fact which fixes the dates of the Farrett deed, June 12, 1639, the memorandum of July 7, 1639, and the Stirling deed of August 20, 1639, to belong all of them to the year 1640. The London documents, as we have remarked, by some strange perversion, have them as above, in 1639. In the Dutch account of the attempt of the Lynn men to settle at Cow Bay in the Colonial History of New York, volume 2, page 149, it is said that on Saturday, May 19, 1640, the English were re- leased from captivity. Now May 19, 1640, by the Dutch reck- oning (as they had then adopted the new or Gregorian calendar). fell on a Saturday, but May 19, 1639, would fall on Thursday. So that this attempt to settle on the west end of Long Island was really in 1640, and not 1639, as it is dated in the English deed on page 21 of volume 3 of the same work, where the having been " drove off by the Dutch " is spoken of as an event which had occurred before June 12, 1639 ( ¿. e. 1640), when the deed was given. Furthermore, May 19th of the Dutchi calendar was May 9th of the English, leaving the settlers ample time to get to South- ampton before June 1, 1640.
* Mass. Hist. Col., 3 s., vol. 3, p. 98. + Vol. 2, p. 4.
24
HISTORY OF SOUTHAMPTON.
The English records in the office of the Secretary of State at Albany also correct the dates of these London documents. In the MSS. book marked "Court of Assizes," volume 2, page 439, is recorded the first deed to the Southampton settlers of date April 17, 1640, under which they were to take up eight miles square of land where they should select on Long Island. This record gives the date 1640, and not 1639, thus being in harmony with the Dutch records.
Finally, among the records in the office of the town clerk at Southampton a writing has been discovered which begins with the words "Southampton, June, 1640." The day of the month is given also, but I do not remember it at the time of writing this.
In a later edition of Winthrop's History, edited by Savage, page 5, an account is given of another settlement somewhere on Long Island, effected before August, 1641. James Farrett makes a vigorous and solemn protest against their intrusion on the rights of the Earl of Stirling. But these people had no connection whatever with the settlers from Lynn, as Savage, in a foot-note, seems to think. They were what we should now term filibusters, and probably soon returned to the main land.
But to return to the movements of the little colony. Sailing up the Peconic Bay, they landed at what is now called North Sea, a little hamlet about three miles from the village of Southamp- ton, whence they took up their march through the woods to find a place for their new homes. It was a perilous undertaking to venture with their wives and little ones into a wilderness, hem- med in on two sides by water, and the other two by savage tribes. Like their brethren of Plymouth, however, they were brave men and Christians, resolved on doing their part toward forming an empire for freedom and Christianity.
The Indians whom they found here proved to be friendly, and released to the settlers sufficient land for their necessities in " consideration of sixteen coates already received, and also three score bushels of Indian corne to be paid upon lawful demand the last of September, which shall be in the year 1641, and further in consideration that they above named English shall defend us the said Indians from the unjust violence of whatever Indians
25
THE SETTLEMENT AND THE SETTLERS.
shall illegally assail us." The date of this deed is December 13, 1640. Two additional purchases from the natives were after- ward effected extending considerably the limits of the town, and finally when a new generation of Indians were causing trouble, as they saw their old hunting grounds melt away, the colony, in order to preserve peace, again bought the whole township of them for twenty pounds, for which a deed was given of date August 16, 1703. The first of these purchases, known as the Quogue purchase, was made by the town in 1663 .* The second, known by the name of Topping's purchase, is recorded as having been sold to Thomas Topping, April 10, 1662, for twenty fathoms of wampum by Weany, (Sunk Squa) Anabackus, Jackanapes, Cobish, Toqnobin and Wetaugom, all Shinnecocks except Weany, the widow of the Montauk Chief. The purchase ran from Niamuck or Canoe Place, westward to Seatuck and thence northward to the head of Peconie Bay. Again September 17, 1666, a number of Indians claiming the right to Topping's pur- chase, gave a deed of sale of the same to the "Townsmen of Southampton " for such consideration as Governor Nicoll shall determine.
The first attempt at a settlement here was in a place now called the Old Town, about three-quarters of a mile from the main street of the present village. Here they remained for about eight years as appears from the following orders.
"June 11th, 1647, it is ordered by all the inhabitants of this towne, this daye, that this towne is to bee divided into fortie house lots, some biger, some less - as men have put in a share sixe thousen pounds to be devided into fortie parts."
"This instant, the +23d of March, 1648, it is ordered by the fiue men apoynted for towne affaires that the whole towne shall be called together on the second day next, at the setting of the sunne, to consider of a towne plot that shall be then and there presented to them, and to determine concerning the said plot or some others that may be presented by any other mans advice, and also to consider of such home accommodations as may be most suit-
* See appendix for a copy of all these deeds.
+ March 23, 1618, would, corrected according to new style, be April 2, 1648.
4
26
HISTORY OF SOUTHAMPTON.
able to the comfort, peace & welfare of this plantation as touching the proportion to every man in his taking vp acording to his valu- ation, & that there be men apointed forthwith to devide the same, and this to put in execution the order abone written."
March 27, 1648, three acres for a home lot was settled upon as to the proportion to a fifty right.
The main street to this day retains the divisions then made of house lots of three acres, though, in the changes of two centuries, some of the old landmarks have been removed. Here, then, at last, they find permanent homes after all their wanderings. The articles of agreement entered into before their departure from Lynn showed that they formed a joint-stock company, owning the land as tenants in common until it was set apart, according to the regulations of the company, to individual occupation. Each man was entitled to a house lot of four acres (afterward changed to three acres), twelve acres for cultivation, and about thirty-four acres of meadow and upland, together with a certain number of shares or rights in the undivided common land, according to the amount of money he had disbursed toward the expenses of the settlement and the purchase of the town. These were called Pro- prietor's Rights, and were handed down with inherited estate from father to son. There is no question but the land of the town was, from the first, and always down to the present time, owned in two distinct modes or tenures - first, as divided into certain lots, whether homesteads, meadows, uplands, arable lands or wood lands; and, secondly, the remainder of the undivided lands within the limits of the town was owned by the proprietors, their heirs, assigns or successors in joint tenantry. Latterly, it became a question whether, under the patent of Governor Dongan, all of the inhabitants of the town had not each an equal right in the undivided lands of the town. The records preserve this dis- tinetion of tenure, and, upon the coming of a stranger into the place, it appears that he simply owned what he bought - a pur- chased freehold estate by no means entitled him to any share or right in the undivided land of the town. He might purchase a proprietor right, but the purchase itself proves the distinction of tenure. Such is the historical view of this question, the legal merits of which must be decided by the courts.
27
THE SETTLEMENT AND THE SETTLERS.
The time came when the proprietors, however, began to claim the products of the bays of the town, hitherto regarded, as in England, as property common to all the inhabitants. This claim was met by a counter-claim by the inhabitants in general, not only to these products, but to all the rights and privileges of the pro- prietors in land or water in the town. The basis of this claim was the patent of Governor Dongan, which, in their opinion, abolished all the proprietor rights. Whether this claim was good we need not here discuss. The proprietors, however, were alarmed. De- cember 23, 1816, a town meeting was held, the whole matter dis- cussed and a committee of ten men was appointed on the part of the town to confer with the proprietors. It was further voted, " That this committee confer with the committee of the proprie tors, that if the proprietors will give up their exclusive right to the waters in the said town, the town at large will give up their right to the undivided land and meadows which the proprietors claim. Also for the town to have free access to the waters in any part of said town when they please, and to have all the products arising from said water."
February 17, 1818, the affair, still remaining unsettled, a special town meeting was called in which two committees were appointed, respectively by the town and the proprietors, to agree upon a proper bill to be presented to the Legislature to settle the whole question forever. This bill was read and approved by both parties, and, being taken to Albany, passed the Legislature on the 15th of April of the same year.
It vested in the trustees of the proprietors the right to superin- tend and manage, to sell, lease or partition, the undivided lands. meadows and mill-streams of the town, and that is all it did give them. It further says: "Nothing in the fore-recited act shall be construed to give the proprietors or their trustees any power to make laws, rules or regulations concerning the waters (other than the mill-streams), the fisheries, the sea-weed, or any other productions of the waters of said town, or in any manner or way to debar the inhabitants of said town from the privilege of taking sea-weed from the shores of any of the common lands of said town, or carting or transporting to or from, or landing prop-
28
HISTORY OF SOUTHAMPTON.
erty on said shores, in the manner heretofore practiced ; which waters, fisheries, sea-weed and productions of the waters shall be managed by the trustees of the freeholders and commonalty of the town of Southampton for the benefit of said town, as they had the power to do before the passing of this act."
As Shinnecock Hills was then the common undivided property of the proprietors, the right to the sea-weed drifted on the shores thereof could not be sold with the sale of that tract in 1861. The rights that were given to the town in 1818 have never been alien- ated, and cannot be, except by the town itself. The common right of fishery in the town pond, in the two fresh ponds on the road to North Sea, and to old town pond is, therefore, for the same reason, as good and as clear to-day as it ever was, The right to the productions of Mecox and Shinnecock bays also remains vested in the commonalty of the town, as the town has, to this day, done nothing to alienate its rights therein.
From the following extract from the town records, it will appear there was some difficulty with the Indians concerning the title of the colony to the lands of the town.
" At a town meeting held in Southampton, the 23d day of No- vember, 1686,- it is agreed upon by major vote of the town that Major John Howell shall go to New York about the present affair of making good our title to our lands called into question at Shinnecock, and Henry Ludlam is likewise chosen to wait upon him.
" At the same meeting it is ordered that the patentees concerned in our patent, shall make a conveyance of the land held within our township to the persons respectively, according to the inter- est of allotment of hundred and fifties, or fifties when they hold in this town.
" Also, there are chosen six men to be a committee in behalf of the men, to give Major Howell his instructions, and also to at- tend Col. Youngs when he comes to hear the Indians acknowl- edge our deed ; and the men so chosen are Mr. Edward Howell, Henry Pierson, Matthew Howell, Thomas Cooper, Obadiah Rogers and Joseph Pierson."
The immediate result of this order was the obtaining of Gov-
29
THE SETTLEMENT AND THE SETTLERS.
ernor Dongan's Patent, dated December 6, 1686, which is given in the appendix. So far as the records show, this step appeared to quiet the Indians until 1703, when, as before narrated, they united in conveying the whole township again to the colonists.
But besides this trouble with the Indians which is alluded to in the records above rather indefinitely, Governor Dongan issued an order that the towns on the east end of Long Island should take out a patent from himself. Against this order the people of Southampton protested on the ground that they were living in peace and quiet possession of their lands under a patent already given by the Governor of the Colony of New York, and that an- other patent was superfluous. However, to keep the peace, and prevent trouble and litigation, they sent their committee as be- fore stated to obtain their patent. It is not easy to discover any good reason why Governor Dongan should issue such an order to these towns at that late day, unless to make a show of his official authority, or to increase the revenues of his office.
As to the locality of the settlement, the mass of evidence goes to show it was for the first few years in the village alone. I con- cur with the opinion of Mr. Wm. S. Pelletrean, who says on this point : "Notwithstanding the common impression upon this sub- ject, that settlements were begun simultaneously at North Sea, Sagabonack and Southampton, it is certain such was not the case ; nor is it at all probable that in the beginning of the settlement and at a time when there were but few families, and these in constant fear of the Indians, they would venture to scatter their numbers so widely." The first permanent one, after the one at Southampton, was at North Sea, in 1650, when John Ogden re- ceived permission from the town to settle there with six families, who were to have 321 acres of land, and were to form a conimu- nity by themselves upon conditions agreed upon as follows : " Feb. 21, 1649 [ ¿. e. 1649-50]. It is granted by the major parte of this towne that Mr. Ogden and his company shall have Cow Neck and Jeffery Neck for their owne proper Right; also, that they shall have for their planting Land in either or both of said necks three hundred 24 Acres of said Land provided they set- tle upon it and upon the same grant they are to have all the
30
HISTORY OF SOUTHAMPTON.
meadow betwixt the brook by the Sachems house and Hogneek Spring for their proper Right, provided it bee not above a mile from the sea side the North Sea: Upon these conditions follow- ing: first that they must pay to all Common Rates with the Towne after the rate of nine hundred pounds according to the takeings up of those men that dwell in the Towne: 2ly that Hee shall plant there six familyes or more that shall there Live and have there abode :' 3ly that In Case the whole bounds of the towne come to bee stinted for Cattell, then they must bee stinted for summer feed as they are that live at the towne : by the same Rule in Common Rates as aforesaid is alsoe included the misters means."
The land at Sagg or Sagabonaek as it was then called, was di- vided in 1653, and settled very soon after, since in an order of the court it is mentioned that Josiah Stanbrough had a residence there in 1658. In 1670, there was quite a settlement upon the east side of Sagabonack pond (whence the present village of Sagg derives its name), and along the shores of Mecox bay.
In 1679, Mecox is spoken of as "lately layed" out to the inhabitants, and in 1680, Hogneck to be "suddenly " ( ¿. e. soon), divided.
The names of the eight original "undertakers " are as follows : Edward Howell, Edmond Farrington, Edmund Needham, Thomas Sayre, Josiah Stanborough, George Welbe, Henry Walton, Job Sayre, and, if we inelnde the Captain of the Ves- sel, Daniel How, making nine. To these were added eleven other heads of families before the company departed from Lynn, viz. : John Cooper, Allen Breed, William Harker, Thomas Halsey, Thomas Newell, John Farrington, Richard Odell, Philip Kyrtland, Nathaniel Kirtland, Thomas Farrington and Thomas Terry.
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.