USA > Vermont > Washington County > Waterbury > History of Waterbury, Vermont, 1763-1915 > Part 5
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
HON. EZRA BUTLER Esq".
as we have passed the Rubicon we wish to know how the public Pulse beats
J. R.
Apparently as a result of this request for a recommendation of officers and subalterns Henry Fisk Janes of Waterbury, later to become the son-in-law of Ezra Butler, and father of the late Doctor Henry Janes, received a commission as ensign in Captain Gideon Wheelock's company from Governor Galusha.
A letter bearing date, February 14, 1814, from President Daniel C. Sanders of the University of Vermont to Mr. Butler contains some interesting information about the progress of the war from which the following is an extract:
Two hundred sleighs are hiving in this vicinity (Burlington) to go to the French Mills to wait further orders, the object not yet known to us. The British are said to be engaged in building new vessels on Lake Cham- plain and if our government should not keep pace with equal steps, with them, it is feared, that the next campaigne will prove most disastrous
44
HISTORY OF WATERBURY, VERMONT
to our country in the vicinity of this Lake. I trust the Government will not long remain unmindful of an interest so highly important to the issue of the contest in which our country is engaged.
Waterbury was ably represented at the Battle of Platts- burg by General John Peck, who, as brigadier-general of Vermont Militia, participated with his command in that · engagement. Forty officers and privates in command of Captain George Atkins of Waterbury, belonging to the Fourth Regiment of Vermont Militia under Colonel Peck, about September 7, 1814, volunteered to go to Plattsburg. These participated in the battle of September II, and remained in Plattsburg a day or two after the battle, their service extending over the period of September 7 to September 17. The list taken from the rolls in the Adjutant-General's Office includes: Captain George Atkins, Lieutenant John G. Knights, Ensign Davis Marshall, Sergeant Guy J. H. Holding, Ser- geant David A. Towne, Corporal Luther Cleaves, Corporal Ezra O. Button, Corporal Abijah Towne, Privates Moses Coffin, Giles H. Holding, Asa Stearns, Ebenezer M. Man, Asa Austin, Richard W. Holding, Moses Nelson, Nathaniel Gublait (meaning Guptail or Guptil), John De Wolf, Benja- min Parry, Hosea Towne, Humphrey Gublait (Guptil), Oliver C. Rood, Truman Murry, Orin Austin, Israel Straw, Salem Towne, Edmond Towne, Johnson Bates, Nathaniel Perkins, Waldo H. Field, William Huckins, Joel Kilburn, Sylvanus Parker, David Austin, Justus Kenman, Bartholomew Knee- land, David Adams, Daniel Demon, Daniel H. Austin, Jotham Robbins.
The records in the office of the adjutant-general at Mont- pelier contain a statement made at Waterbury September 27, 1850, by Captain Chester Marshall, in which he says that when the Fourth Regiment was ordered out by Colonel John Peck, he himself was not ordered out but on Saturday, the day before the Battle of Plattsburg, the members of his company residing at Waitsfield rallied as volunteers. On Sunday he took command and marched his men to Burlington where he was ordered to attempt to get to Plattsburg, via Cumberland Head. Obeying this order, he with his command
45
PERIOD 1800-1830
reached the American forces at Plattsburg, Tuesday, Sep- tember 13. Captain Marshall made another sworn state- ment at Waterbury, October 12, 1850, verifying a statement of one Orson Skinner of Waitsfield that he, Skinner, had served in a company of cavalry, Fourth Regiment, Second Brigade, Third Division of Vermont Militia, commanded by Marshall.
Among those named in the list of forty volunteers is Moses Coffin, Sr., who lived on Blush Hill with his wife, Lydia Dustin Coffin, his two sons, Moses, Jr., and Daniel, and a daughter, Electa. The two sons died in the second year of the War of 1812, one (Moses, Jr.) at Fort George, Upper Canada, and the other (Daniel) at Plattsburg, New York, November 15, 1813. The daughter of Moses Coffin, Sr., Electa, was the mother of Mr. George W. Randall, the greater part of whose long life has been spent in Waterbury. Electa (Coffin) Randall, on her part, was the granddaughter of Hannah Dustin, whose heroic exploits in that stressful period of Massa- chusetts history, closing the Seventeenth century, gave her immortality. Nearly every schoolboy is familiar with the story of how the Indians swooped down upon the Dustin home at Haverhill, March 15, 1697; how the father managed to get seven children out of harm's way, fighting off the Indians single-handed; how the mother, Hannah Dustin, lying in bed with an infant daughter, one week old, and a woman attendant were taken captives by the Indians who forced the two women, with the infant, to take the rough trail lead- ing to a spot near the present site of Concord, New Hampshire. On the way, the Indians, not wishing to be burdened with the infant, dashed out her brains against a tree. The heroic mother, assisted by her woman companion and a fourteen- year-old captive boy, tomahawked ten of the twelve Indians comprising the party, while they slept, leaving a squaw and papoose to escape, and made her way with her companions back to Haverhill and Boston, where she was suitably rewarded for her bravery. Her name is still a household word in Con- cord, New Hampshire, where a monument was erected to her memory.
46
HISTORY OF WATERBURY, VERMONT
Among those whose army record, if fully available, would make good reading was Levi Gleason, soldier in the Revolu- tionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War. Gleason was a son of James Gleason of Westmoreland, New Hamp- shire, and grand-uncle of Mrs. G. W. Randall. He is described as "short and stout with dark straight hair." He was known . familiarly as "Tip" Gleason from his being in the Battle of Tippecanoe, November 7, 18II, and lived in Waterbury for some years.
Captain Chester Marshall was the son of Amasa Marshall, who lived where the condensed milk factory now stands on South Main Street, also owning the meadows below that place and the high land back of it on the same side of the river. Captain Marshall, as a young man, was noted for his deeds of daring. At the time of the great freshet in the early 30's, the Middlesex gorge became dammed with débris of all sorts. It was found that the key obstruction was a huge millstone which, lying submerged in the narrow channel, effectually blocked it. Marshall dived into the swirling stream and passed a chain through the hole of the millstone, enabling those on shore to remove it. Chester Marshall lived in Waterbury for the greater part of his life, removing to Stowe toward the latter part where he died at the age of eighty-four. He was the father of Mrs. William Deal of South Main Street.
Nathaniel and Humphrey Guptil, named in the list of forty volunteers from Waterbury at the battle of Plattsburg, were sons of Thomas Guptil, Jr., and grandsons of Thomas Guptil who came to Waterbury one hundred and thirty years ago, settled on Guptil Hill, there lived and died, and was buried in the Guptil family lot on the hill. All the Guptils were farmers, and Humphrey acquired some local reputation as surveyor. Another was Stephen J. Guptil, born February 11, 1816, and died April 10, 1891. His first wife was Mary (Wallace) Guptil, born April 21, 1817, and died April 8, 1847; his second wife was Hannah (Reed) Guptil, born November 10, 18II, and died January 26, 1894. Of this marriage was born Walter E. Guptil, May 10, 1851, who died March 3, 1895, also Eleanor
·
47
PERIOD 1800-1830
born July II, 1852, and Martha born April 10, 1856, who died August 7, 1857. The wife of Walter Guptil was Florence E. Stevens, born April 14, 1856, now living in Waterbury.
Guy Holden, a son of Richard Holden, was a teacher in the district school of Waterbury in 1810-1812. Attributed to him is an incident about the Battle of Plattsburg related by one of those furnishing matter supplementary to Mr. Parker's ad- dress in Hemenway's History of Washington County. On the day before the battle was fought, Holden, with a number of young boys, climbed a hill near the town to listen for the sounds of cannonading at Plattsburg. The narrator says: "On the day of the battle, Sunday, September II, 1814, there was no need of listening to hear the broadside discharges of artillery in the lake action, to which a hundred of Waterbury boys were witnesses," meaning, doubtless, that one hundred boys could have testified to the fact that the cannonading could be heard in Waterbury.
Some confusion has arisen as to the name of three of the volunteers in Captain Atkins' company of forty who went to Plattsburg about September 7 and took part in the battle September II. They are given in the list as Sergeant Guy J. H. Holding, Giles H. Holding and Richard W. Holding. These are, undoubtedly, sons of Richard Holden (so spelled), whose name appears so often in the town records as selectman, moderator, justice of the peace and as a member of the Con- stitutional Convention. The Guy Holden mentioned as having heard the cannonading from Plattsburg, September II, must be the Sergeant Guy Holding listed with the forty vol- unteers, in which case he could hardly have listened to the artillery fire in Waterbury and yet have taken part in the battle of Plattsburg.
Colonel (General) John Peck, commanding the Vermont troops, and Anna Peck were the parents of Emily, born June 17, 1801 ; Lucius B. (member of Congress), born November 17, 1802, and Julius C., born November 10, 1806. General Peck died at Burlington, Massachusetts, December 22, 1826.
It was too much to expect that the Madison administration should be exempted from being saddled with the responsibility
48
HISTORY OF WATERBURY, VERMONT
of the War of 1812. Indeed, it was sought to fix its ultimate cause upon certain alleged omissions to keep the country informed as to the terms of certain decrees promulgated by the French government. The intimation by the Federalist leaders in and out of Congress was that these decrees had either been purposely delayed or temporarily suppressed by the administration and that an earlier knowledge in respect of them might have put a different face upon the necessity for war. Supporting this contention was no less a person than Daniel Webster of New Hampshire who took his seat in the House of Representatives in May, 1813. It will probably come with some surprise to the readers of this book that the very first measures introduced in Congress by Daniel Web- ster, were a series of resolutions calling upon President Madi- son for a statement of the time and manner in which Napo- leon's pretended revocation of his decrees against American shipping had been announced to the United States and that these measures were vigorously opposed by Ezra Butler of Waterbury in his initial performance in Congress. As a mat- ter of historical interest it may be well to record here the fact that these resolutions were introduced by Mr. Webster, June 10, 1813. Thus it appears that the two men took their seats in Congress in the same term and their first legislative efforts there were directed to the same subject matter. The order of the day was called up on the second resolution, June 21, and at once engaged the attention of Ezra Butler in opposition. Mr. Butler's congressional career was not long, but it is doubtful if, during his incumbency, a more forceful speech than his on this occasion were made. He said in part:
Sir, I see no necessity for the information required, and to call on the President for documents that can be of no use would be improper. We may ask for information without giving the President the reasons, but we certainly ought to have good reasons ourselves for so doing. It has not once been intimated, that any act of the Legislature can be founded on the answer expected; much less that we should now declare war against France; I, therefore, can discover no profitable use that can be made of any answer in the power of the President to give.
It has been said that this inquiry ought to have been made by the friends of the administration; but as they have neglected their duty, these resolu- tions were introduced to give the President a fair opportunity, by his
49
PERIOD 1800-1830
answer, to remove the suspicions under which many of the people are laboring.
Sir, if that unfortunate class of the community had believed the most solemn assertions of the President, or even of their own senses in relation to his conduct for forty years past, they would not now be laboring under these painful suspicions. As no part of his conduct has laid the foundation for or given any support to these suspicions, nothing that he can do, nothing that he can place on paper will remove them. Should the President give the most satisfactory answer, it would only leave his character on the same high ground on which it now stands, and therefore would contribute nothing to his reputation. As to the motives of the honorable gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Webster], who introduced all these resolutions, I shall say nothing; I shall treat with equal charity all the arguments offered in their favor. It is sufficient for me to be fully satisfied that they can produce no other consequences than those that are deeply to be la- mented. According to all the arguments advanced by gentlemen on the other side of the House, it would appear that either the Government of France, or that of the United States, is responsible for all the blood and treasure that may be wasted in our war with Great Britain. They might as well say, in plain English, that the President and majority in Congress have been the sole cause of the war. It is only a circuitous course taken to enforce the charge with more effect. Through you all the people of the United States may be told this, and much sophistry urged to support it. I shall not say that the motives were bad; but that the effect must be so, is certain.
Sir, after having heard so many charges brought against our own Govern- ment, it may not be improper to inquire whether individuals in our country may not be, in one degree, chargeable with the consequences of this war. And in order to this, I will call your attention to two or three notorious facts. Near the commencement of that Congress, who afterwards declared war to exist, a number of resolutions were introduced, authorizing prepara- tions for war. Those resolutions were adopted almost unanimously by this House. The opinion of the Senate and of the President were also known. The faith of this Government was now pledged to resist the en- croachments of Great Britain unless she should abandon the ground she has taken, before we were prepared to resist her. This ought to have put all contention to rest; the benefits that would result to our country from union, must be obvious to all.
But here, sir, you find yourself in open view of conduct long to be la- mented-conduct that must enkindle emotions of shame, grief, and anger. You were told to your face, that there was no sincerity in your words and acts; that all was meant only to deceive, delude and scare. That the British had nothing to fear, and our own country nothing to hope from those in power. That you had not the least intention to declare war. That you had become too tame to resent any injury, however great. That you could not be kicked into a war.
50
HISTORY OF WATERBURY, VERMONT
Sir, you will now permit me to ask you one or two questions. Do you not believe that the conduct just mentioned was an encouragement to Great Britain to persist in her aggressions on your rights? Do you believe that Great Britain would have continued trampling on your rights if our country had been united to a man in the support of our own Govern- ment? Would she have risked a war with this country under such cir- cumstances?
I have stated some of my reasons for voting against the resolutions before you, and some of the objections I have against the arguments advanced in their favor. I shall now submit to your decision, whatever it may be, when I have placed my name where it will forever be pleasing to have it standing. Neither am I troubled at the thoughts of being in a minority; for, sir, I would give my vote in the negative, did I know it would stand entirely alone.
In spite of Mr. Butler's strong speech, Mr. Webster's measures passed.
It may not be amiss to observe here that the end of the War of 1812 saw the end of the Federalist party as such. Fac- tional strife was succeeded everywhere throughout New England by the "era of good feeling" and the dominant idea was that the ideal citizen should measure up to a standard later fixed by the ex-Federalist Daniel Webster: "He is to have no objects in his eye but American objects and no heart in his bosom but an American heart." These noble senti- ments so at variance with the attitude of Congressman Webster in 1813 were called forth by the action of Secretary of State Van Buren, of President Jackson's cabinet, in seeking to compose differences with the British government arising dur- ing John Quincy Adams' administration.
Another of the leading families of this period was the Wells family, the members of which will always be associated with the early beginnings, growth and maturity of the town. Roswell Wells, Sr., the head of the Waterbury family, was born in Greenfield, Massachusetts, September 6, 1769, and came to Waterbury in 1805, where he died July 26, 1826. He married Pamelia White, a descendant of the first white person born in New England. Two sons were born of this marriage, William Wellington and Roswell Wells, Jr. William Welling- ton Wells was born in Waterbury October 28, 1805. Studious in his youth, he was graduated from the University of Vermont
5I
PERIOD 1800-1830
in 1824 and began the study of law in the Burlington office of Charles Adams, Esq. After his admission to the bar of Chittenden County, he found that his presence was required in Waterbury in connection with the administration of his father's estate; in this way he became immersed in business pursuits which left small time for the practice of his profession. He had business affiliations both in Burlington and Water- bury, holding a large interest in a leading dry goods firm of the former city and a membership in the firm of Hutchins, Wells & Company, at Waterbury. Here he also became interested in the business of a tannery, a grist and flouring mill, north of the village and near the tannery and a dry goods store at Waterbury Center. Business life, however, did not engross his attention to the extent of blinding him to public duties. He served as town treasurer and selectman several years; was town representative in the Assembly in 1840, 1863, and 1864, besides being a member of the Council of Censors in 1855. When the War of the Rebellion broke out Mr. Wells was fifty-six years of age, but found a way of rendering devoted service as chairman of the board of selectmen for the four years of the war, seeing to it that every call for soldiers was promptly filled and so administering the town's finances that Waterbury emerged from the war period free from debt. Not content, however, with this necessary civil service he presented himself for enlistment, joined a company in Ran- dolph in the fall of 1862 and drilled for two weeks, only to be rejected as being over age and of impaired vision. Mr. Wells' ardor in the cause of temperance gave it an impetus in this community that is felt to this day; and so with every move- ment in which he became interested, giving lavishly of his time and means to accomplish any worthy public object. Mr. Wells was a man of rare intellectual attainments and learning. His intelligent interest in the town schools never flagged, and by precept and example he sought to impress the young with the necessity for habits of industry and self control. He had no patience with cant or hypocrisy but lived a life of sterling, unpretentious honesty in the sight of all men. His marriage with Miss Eliza Carpenter, second daughter of Judge Dan
52
HISTORY OF WATERBURY, VERMONT
Carpenter, January 13, 1831, was a remarkably happy union. Of this marriage seven sons and one daughter were reared; two children died in infancy. Roswell White Wells was born November 14, 1833, died February 4, 1883; Edward Wells, born October 30, 1835, died February 19, 1907; William Wells, born December 14, 1837, died April 29, 1892; Curtis Wells, born February 1, 1840, died March 16, 1898; Charles Wells, born June 22, 1845; Sarah Carpenter Wells, June 22, 1845; Henry Wells, born February 15, 1848, died January 7, 19II; Frederic Howard, born September 27, 1851. The father, William Wellington Wells, and the mother, Sarah Carpenter Wells, of this remarkable family, died respectively April 9, 1869, and August 5, 1873, in Waterbury. Four of the sons served in the War of the Rebellion in the Union army: Ed- ward, William, Curtis and Charles, William attaining to the rank of brevet major-general of volunteers. General Wells' career will be dwelt on more at length in its proper place.
Roswell Wells, the eldest of the family, went to Waupun, Wisconsin, where he entered upon a business life. Curtis became the cashier of the Waterbury National Bank, while Edward, Henry and Frederic were associated in the old whole- sale drug firm of Wells, Richardson & Company of Burlington. Charles for a time was employed in the Customs Department of the Government and lived in St. Albans. Mrs. Sarah Car- penter (Wells) Brock lived in Montpelier where she died on the Ist day of July, 1914. Charles Wells now resides in Bur- lington.
One of those who came to Waterbury from Connecticut, via New Hampshire, was John P. Calkins of New London. Mr. Calkins left his home town for Canaan, New Hampshire, but decided to throw in his lot with the new settlement at Waterbury, Vermont. He settled here on the river in 1796, and raised a large family of eight sons and three daughters. Most of the descendants removed to Ohio. Harris, the second son, settled in Waterbury where he died, leaving two sons and a daughter; Clarissa died in Ohio, aged eighty-nine. Mr. Calkins, Sr., died in 1877, aged ninety-four, while his wife (of the New Hampshire Gilmans) died a few years before,
53
PERIOD 1800-1830
aged eighty-six. Mr. Charles Calkins, whose reminiscences are given later in this book, writing in April, 1879, of the family's longevity says: "So there are living, George aged ninety-two, Jesse eighty-four and Jedediah eighty-two, and his wife; and but a few years ago, Clarissa died aged eighty- nine, Charles, ninety four and my mother, eighty-six." John P. Calkins is mentioned as one of those who supplied the pulpit in the meeting house before the coming of Mr. Warren.
Allusion has been made to George Kennan, whose long term of public service in town and state government made him a considerable factor in Waterbury's early history. He served as moderator and selectman in 1794, 1797 and 1804; he was justice of the peace and town representative. Mr. Kennan was the father of three sons: George, who was constable in 1802 and selectman in 1809; Thomas, a clergyman, who married Sally Lathrop February 19, 1795; and Jairus, de- scribed by a University of Vermont classmate in these words: "His intellectual powers were of a high order and he cultivated them with untiring devotion. He was distinguished for warmth of feeling, and kindness of manner, and, had he lived, would have taken high rank as a philanthropist. He was a bright example of what energy and ambition may accomplish."
It has been said with truth, too often mixed with cheap cynicism, that among the evils following in the wake of civili- zation is the lawyer. He is usually hailed as a harbinger of trouble by those who are the first to crave his assistance in sparsely settled communities. They succumb reluctantly to his ministrations but they ultimately are forced to recognize him as an institution. This, no doubt, was the early experi- ence of Dan Carpenter who came as a lawyer to Waterbury in 1804 from Norwich. Mr. Carpenter had a virgin field in the Mad River Valley, Duxbury, Stowe, Mansfield and Water- bury; his nearest rival was in Williston.
In due course Mr. Carpenter soon began to fill places of trust and confidence. He was known and described as a sound lawyer, of excellent practical judgment and a safe and conservative adviser. He was married, January 27, 1805, at Norwich to Miss Betsy Partridge and with her commenced
54
HISTORY OF WATERBURY, VERMONT
housekeeping in a modest one-story dwelling. In 1815 he built the two-story building which has been occupied for so many years by his grandson, Franklin Carpenter. Eight children were born to Judge and Mrs. Dan Carpenter, four of whom died in infancy; those reaching maturity were William, , born October 25, 1805, and three daughters, Sarah P. (the first wife of Paul Dillingham, Jr., by whom there were two daughters), born May 18, 1807; Eliza, December II, 1810, and Julia, December 3, 1812. After the death of Sarah (Carpen- ter) Dillingham, Paul Dillingham, Jr., married Julia Carpenter who died September 15, 1898.
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.