Update

Just the next family in chapter four. As usual, the photos are just floating on top, and also I can't find one of the ones I used, showing where the Cook ferry was, so I used this ugly version with the typing on it for the blog.

John Cook (#772) and Mary Borden (#773)

772. JOHN COOK
773. MARY BORDEN
Parents: Thomas Cooke (#1544) and Mary ? (1545)
Parents: Richard Borden (1546) and Joan Fowle (#1547)
BAPT: 30 Mar, 1630
BORN: 13 Jan, 1632
Netherbury, Dorset, England
Headcorn, Kent, England
DIED: 16 May, 1691
DIED: 23 Dec, 1690
Portsmouth, Rhode Island
Portsmouth, Rhode Island

MARRIED: ca 1652 in Portsmouth, Rhode Island

CHILDREN


i.
Elizabeth
b. ca. 1653,

ii.
John
b. ca. 1655

iii.
Mary
b. ca 1656

iv.
Sarah
b. ca. 1658

v.
Hannah
b. ca 1660
386.
vi.
Joseph
b. ca 1662

vii.
Thomas
b. ca 1664

viii.
Deborah
b. ca 1666

ix.
Martha
b. ca 1668

x.
Amy
b. ca 1671

xi.
Samuel
b. ca. 1674

Both John Cook and Mary Borden were born in England, and traveled as children with their families to Massachusetts. (John was born a Cooke, but dropped the “e” from his surname when in America.) The Bordens moved to Portsmouth, Rhode Island in 1638, while the Cooks arrived five years later. John and Mary were married circa 1652. The Cooks were Baptists and the Bordens were Quakers, but it’s unclear what religion John and Mary’s new family followed. Their children, however, primarily married into Quaker families.

John undoubtedly started life as a farmer, but he soon diversified his interests. In 1654, he registered a distinctive mark he placed on his cattle’s ear, a common practice since all the town’s livestock grazed on a common field. John’s first recorded real estate acquisition occurred in March, 1656, when he took part in the Coanicut purchase. He received 1/250 of the island, now known as Jamestown. In 1660, John’s parents granted him sixty acres in the north of Portsmouth, which may have been used as a lumber business. In 1668, he and Daniel Wilcox were awarded the franchise for running the ferry between Portsmouth and Tiverton. At a much later date, the ferry route was replaced by the Stone Bridge, whose abutments jutting into the water can be seen in the photo below. The Stone Bridge was about a mile south of the current bridge connecting Portsmouth to Tiverton.

The "bridge" picture goes here.

In March, 1669 he received a shipment of “six hundred and three quarters and three” pounds of iron, which I assume is 678 pounds. As I mentioned in the previous chapter, John’s father had received a large amount of iron, so perhaps this shipment was in connection with this family blacksmith business.

John continued buying and selling real estate. In 1671 he purchased land in Dartmouth, Massachusetts and in 1673 sold land in Portapeage, New Jersey. In 1680 he sold the land in Dartmouth for a sixty percent profit. In April, 1680 John made his largest real estate acquisition, buying two parcels from his son-in-law, William Manchester for one hundred thirty pounds (approximately $400,000 in today’s economic power). As a result of King Philip’s War, Plymouth Colony was heavily indebted, and agreed to sell Tiverton to a group of eight investors, including William Manchester. William received five shares in March, and sold two of these shares to John a month later. On the same day, John purchased half of William’s holdings in Puncatest Neck, which is now part of present-day Tiverton. (Incidentally, William had purchased this land from our ancestor Thomas Lawton in 1687). Over the next decade, John continued buying and selling smaller plots of land in Puncatest Neck and Portsmouth, often involving the Sissons and Browns.

John also took on several government responsibilities in tandem with his business dealings. In 1665 he served on a special committee to raise a tax to pay for Rev. John Clarke’s mission to England to secure a royal charter for the colony. He served on the grand jury in 1667, 1669 and 1673, as a deputy to the General Assembly in 1670, and as Portsmouth’s constable in 1671. He appears once more in town records, in 1676, as a witness in the murder of Zoeth Howland by a group of Indians in Little Compton.

John’s wife Mary died in December, 1690, possibly of smallpox. Five months later, on 15 May, 1691 John prepared his will, stating that although he was of sound memory and understanding, “yet being aged and calling to mind the brevity and uncertainty of this life not knowing how soon the Lord may call me from hence, Especially considering the sore visitation of the smallpox wherewith many are now visited and many have been taken away.” This preamble sounds like John was merely being prudent and putting his affairs in order, but surprisingly he died the next day, on 16 May. Eldest son John received 150 acres of farmland and a house in Puncatest Neck, and four acres of meadowland, cattle and a house at Little Compton. He also received the “Negro woman Betty”. Thomas received land in Tiverton. Our ancestor Joseph (#386) was appointed executor of the will, and received the bulk of John’s property in Portsmouth, including the family home and main farm. Joseph also received “the Negro man called Jack who is of service for time of his Life”, as well as the Indian woman Maria, who was to serve Joseph for ten years and then freed, and the Indian boy Goan Francisco, to serve Joseph until he turned 24, at which time he was to be put in good apparel, given corn and a horse, and freed.

Joseph was responsible for the remainder of the estate bequests. He was to give sister Mary ten pounds and ten sheep, and sisters Elizabeth, Sarah, Hannah, Amy and Martha ten pounds. Sister Deborah received only one shilling, and each of the sisters also received one cow (except Amy, who lived in New Jersey so cow delivery was impractical). Samuel received land in Tiverton, but for reasons discussed below he was unable to sell the land without the approval of Joseph and the two overseers (George Sisson and Isaac Lawton).

John and Mary are buried in a small burial ground in what is now an open field on the Glen Farm in Portsmouth, on the south side of Glen Road about three tenths of a mile east of East Main Road. John’s stone reads that he “lived neare 60 years”. Mary’s stone is broken, but states that she was 57 years old. In 1860 there were forty graves in this Cook cemetery, but now only the stones of John, Mary, their grandson Joseph Cook Jr and Joseph’s infant son Paul are visible.

John and Mary had eleven children, the youngest of whom, Samuel (xi) was mentally challenged. As mentioned above, he received some land from his father, but wasn’t allowed to dispose of it. Our ancestor Joseph (#386) took care of Samuel. In 1701 the Superior Court at Bristol granted Joseph one hundred pounds raised from the profits of Samuel’s land for having maintained Samuel, “he being an Idiott and not able to provide for himself.”

Elizabeth (i) married William Briggs, the son of our ancestors John Briggs (#1548) and Sarah Cornell (#1549). This was the first of three marriages between the children of John Briggs and John Cook, who must have been close friends. William and Elizabeth lived in Little Compton, (now Rhode Island, but part of Massachusetts at the time). They lived on a 100 acre farm encompassing what is now Briggs Beach and Briggs Marsh, off of Shaw Road. The Briggs House, pictured here, was built by William.

House picture goes here.

William and Elizabeth died in 1716 in a smallpox epidemic, along with one of their children. They left an estate of 3,043 pounds (approximately $9 million in today’s economic power) to their five surviving children. William and Elizabeth, along with many generations of their descendants, are buried in the Briggs cemetery on this property.

John (ii) married Ruth Shaw of Little Compton. John and Ruth lived in Tiverton, on the land John inherited from his father. They had seven children, my favorite being daughter Ruth, solely due to the name of her husband, Preserved Fish. John died in 1737, and his wife died sometime after him. Alfred Deakin, Australia’s second prime minister, is descended from John and Ruth.

Mary (iii) married William Manchester, one of the eight original purchasers of Tiverton from Plymouth Colony. As mentioned above, William subsequently sold a portion of his Tiverton shares to his father in law, John Cook. They resided in Tiverton and raised eleven children. Mary died in 1716, quite possibly of smallpox since that is the year her sister Elizabeth and her husband died of smallpox in Little Compton. William may have had smallpox as well, since he wrote his will around the time of Mary’s death, although he didn’t die until 1718. He left an estate of 1,586 pounds, (approximately $4.5 million in economic power).

Sarah (iv) married Thomas Waite. They moved frequently between Tiverton and Little Compton. His name appears often in the early records, mostly involving land sales or mortgaging of property. I may be reading too much into this, but from the records I have seen he seemed to struggle financially. He probably inherited land from his father, and he made one acquisition, as the smallest shareholder in the purchase of Tiverton, with one share. He immediately sold one fourth of that share, and land in Dartmouth, Massachusetts. In this transaction he was referred to as a tailor. He continued selling land and buildings, and in 1691 he was in Little Compton, and owned a windmill. In 1697 he conveyed three separate land parcels, and in 1699 he posted a huge bond of
2,012 pounds to Thomas Walker & Sons of Boston. The following year he had to grant land to the bondsmen. In 1700 he conveyed land to our ancestors George Sisson and Joseph Cooke, and his wife (who was also Joseph Cooke’s sister) had to sign away any claims to the land as well. In the same year he issued a mortgage against his home and farm in Tiverton to Joseph Cooke. Conveyances continued, but at a slower rate, possibly because he was running out of assets. Our ancestor William Peabody obtained land and the windmill in Little Compton, and Job Briggs received the last holdings in Tiverton. Thomas and Sarah are shown as living in Dartmouth, Massachusetts in 1727. Thomas died in 1733, and was apparently a tailor again judging from the inventory compiled by his wife. The inventory consisted of a substantial amount of apparel, three wheels of linen and two wheels of wool, in addition to two bibles, some livestock and some silver cups and spoons. They had three children.

Hannah (v) married Daniel Wilcox circa 1680 in Portsmouth. They had five children, the last of whom was born in 1689. The record then becomes very confusing. There are three children born in the 1690’s to Hannah Cook and Enoch Briggs, another son of our ancestors John Briggs and Sarah Cornell. Then, Hannah, referred to as “widow of Daniel” and Enoch were married in Portsmouth on 2 March, 1699. Obviously, having children before getting married was hardly the norm in colonial New England. One additional unusual fact here is a marriage between Daniel Wilcox and Mary Wordell in 1697. On 23 March, 1697, the Rhode Island General Assembly took the unusual step of declaring this marriage illegal, and impeaching William Gibson, Assistant, for “marrying Daniel Wilcox and Mary Wordell contrary to the laws of this colony”. There are no definite records confirming this Daniel Wilcox was Hannah’s first husband, but it seems likely. Jane Fletcher Fiske, author of “Thomas Cooke of Rhode Island” has a theory tying these facts together that seems plausible. She believes that Daniel Wilcox abandoned Hannah circa 1690 and disappeared. Hannah was unable to remarry while Daniel was missing, so she began a common law family with Enoch Briggs. Ten years after his disappearance she was probably able to get a statutory declaration that Daniel was dead, and she was then free to marry Enoch. Her missing husband meanwhile had moved somewhere else in Rhode Island, started a new life, and married Mary Wordell around the same time he was being declared dead in Portsmouth. Of course this means that he legally had two wives at the time, and this provoked the General Assembly to declare the second marriage illegal and impeach the wedding officiant. It is unclear how this mess affected Hannah’s second marriage, since she would also have been married to two men at this time as well. Enoch died in April, 1734, leaving his estate to his wife, with the request that she leave everything only to the three children they had together. Hannah died two years later, and followed her husband’s wishes, except for the bequest of a white chest to her granddaughter Hannah Wilcox, daughter of her son Daniel by her first husband. Hannah’s most illustrious descendant was Sir Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister during the seond world war.

Our ancestor Joseph (#386) married the third of the Briggs siblings, Susanna, and will be covered in the next chapter. Thomas (vii) married Mary Cory, daughter of William Cory and Mary Earle, in 1692. He had inherited substantial land in Tiverton in 1691 from his father, but Thomas and Mary remained in Portsmouth initially. Thomas was a cordwainer (a high end shoe maker, as opposed to a cobbler, who repaired shoes and made rough work shoes). They had two children while in Portsmouth, before moving to their farm in Tiverton around 1698. They had four more children in Tiverton. Thomas was elected town constable four times, and the town’s sealer of leather for at least ten years. Thomas died in June, 1726, while Mary died sometime after 1744.

Deborah Cook (viii) married William Almy, the son of Christopher Almy and Elizabeth Cornell, in July, 1688. William’s father was another of the eight investors who purchased Tiverton from Plymouth Colony. Christopher amassed considerable wealth and held many public offices, culminating in his being elected governor of Rhode Island, a position he refused to accept. His excuse was he hadn’t the time to devote to the position, and accepted the assistant role instead. William expanded on his father’s land holdings, acquiring substantial land in Dartmouth, Tiverton and Puncatest Neck. Deborah died sometime prior to 1722, when he remarried to Hope Borden. William died in 1747, leaving an estate valued at 7,500 pounds ($22 million in economic power). The Dartmouth Historical Society has a series of photos of William’s various manor homes in Tiverton, Portsmouth, Newport and Dartmouth. The descendants of William and Deborah were prominent industrialists in Fall River (originally part of Tiverton), often allied with our relatives the Bordens. Their most famous descendant was William Durant, the founder of General Motors.

Martha (ix) married William Cory, the brother of Thomas’s (vii) wife. Martha and William lived in Portsmouth, where they had eight children. Martha and William died in May, 1704. They were both in their forties, so presumably they died of a contagious sickness. Lastly, Amy (x) married William Clayton. They moved to Monmouth County, New Jersey, where they had five children. David died in 1730, and Amy in 1740.

Thomas Lawton (#770) and Elizabeth Salisbury (#771)

770. THOMAS LAWTON
771. ELIZABETH SALISBURY
Parents: George Lawton (1540) and Isabell Smith (#1541)
Parents:
BORN: 17 April, 1614
BORN: 1616
Cranfield, Bedfordshire England
Cranfield, Bedfordshire, England
DIED: 29 Sep, 1681
DIED: 16 Nov, 1654
Portsmouth, Rhode Island
Portsmouth, Rhode Island

MARRIED: 29 May, 1635 in Cranfield, Bedfordshire England

CHILDREN


i.
Elizabeth
b. 10 Sep, 1637, d. aft 16 Mar, 1719

ii.
Daniel
b. 1639, d. 28 Jun, 1719

iii.
Rebecca
b. 1641

iv.
Ann
b. 1645, d. 1703
385.
v.
Sarah
b. 16 Sep, 1647, d. 5 Jul, 1718

vi.
Isaac
b. 11 Dec, 1650, d, 25 Jan, 1731

Thomas Lawton and Elizabeth Salisbury were married at the Church of Sts Peter and Paul in Cranfield, Bedfordshire on 29 May, 1635. He was a farmer, and most likely did not own his own land. Elizabeth’s parents are frequently said to be John Salisbury and Margaret Crowley, but I can’t find any supporting evidence for that. Thomas and Elizabeth soon had their first child, Elizabeth, who was baptized at the Cranfield church on 10 September, 1637. Then, for reasons that are not at all clear, the family, along with Thomas’s brother George (and also our ancestor #884), departed for Portsmouth, Rhode Island. At this time, the king was deeply unpopular for many reasons, and many Englishmen were leaving to start a new life in America. The Puritans almost invariably departed for Massachusetts or Connecticut, so it is clear by choosing Rhode Island that they were not Puritans. Once in Massachusetts, many Puritans fell in with various dissenting preachers and followed them in exile to Rhode Island or New Hampshire. Rhode Island later became a safe haven for Baptists and Quakers, but these religions were unknown in America at the time of the Lawtons’ migration. Those leaving for purely economic reasons generally settled outside of New England, given the strict religious environment there. So at this point I don’t really know why Thomas and George brought their family to the fledgling, bickering, religiously strident colony of Portsmouth. My best guess is that the Lawtons were Puritan sympathizers, but may have had friends or relatives who became followers of Anne Hutchinson while in Boston. So perhaps the Lawtons originally planned to meet their connections in Boston, but following the exile of the Hutchinsonians to Portsmouth, the Lawtons changed plans and met the Hutchinson exiles directly in Portsmouth.

This is of course just guesswork, but what is known is that Thomas and Elizabeth were in Portsmouth soon after the first settlers. Shortly after their arrival, there was a schism in the community, with people loyal to the Hutchinsons remaining in Portsmouth and those loyal to William Coddington leaving to found Newport. Thomas was one of the 29 original signatories to the Portsmouth Compact, which was the governing compact for those who remained in Portsmouth. (Thomas signed his mark, while brother George was able to sign his name.) Since the Lawtons didn’t appear to be particularly distinguished in England, and the other signatories had been part of the exiles from Boston, I think his being admitted as a signatory may further support my hypothesis that he had family or other connections to some of the Hutchinsonian exiles.

Thomas and Elizabeth had five more children all born in Portsmouth. The first of these, David, was born sometime in 1639, the same year as their arrival in America, so in all likelihood Elizabeth was pregnant at the time of the voyage. The Lawtons were given land in town, but Thomas also used his probably limited savings to augment his land holdings. The town sold land to townspeople at the rate of 2 shillings per acre until all the land was purchased by 1713 (approximately $15 per acre in today’s money adjusted for inflation, or $300 in today’s economic power). He was originally granted land at the top of Quaker Hill, on the east coast of Aquidneck along present-day E. Main Street and now the location of the town hall. He gradually expanded this plot to approximately 50 acres. He also received a grant along Union Street, which runs across the middle of the island between the two main roads from Portsmouth to Newport. This became his Hunting Swamp Farm. He also acquired a second farm in Portsmouth which he named the Long Swamp Farm, in very close proximity to Hunting Swamp Farm and possibly adjoining it. Long Swamp Farm lies further south toward Newport, bounded by E. Main Road to the west, Wapping Road to the east, Sandy Point Road to the north and Bramans Lane to the south. The two farms aggregated to around 160 acres. Thomas also acquired substantial holdings outside of Portsmouth, including six hundred acres in Warwick, Rhode Island, land in Puncatest Neck, Tiverton, Rhode Island, a house and lot on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, land in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, and land in Shrewsbury, New Jersey. He also received a grant of land in Narragansett from the local Indian sachem Cadganaguant in 1660, who had “formerly received several kindnesses from” Thomas.

Thomas appeared to be focused on farming and land speculation rather than civic duties. For such a large landowner, his involvement in government and religion seems light. He served as town commissioner in 1655, 1656, 1658 and 1661, and as Portsmouth’s deputy to the general assembly in 1666. As far as I can tell he doesn’t appear prominently in the records of any of the town’s churches, although several generations of his descendants were Quakers.

Wife Elizabeth died sometime after 1654, the year in which she last appeared in the Portsmouth records by signing a land deed. Thomas later remarried, to Grace Parsons, in Portsmouth on 9 August, 1663. Grace was the daughter of Hugh and Elizabeth Parsons of Portsmouth, and the widow of William Bailey. Their marriage was not a happy one, but it’s hard to develop an accurate picture of what happened. Most Lawton family histories state that Thomas probably left to fight in King Philip’s War in 1675, and Grace petitioned the town and later the state for financial aid during her husband’s absence. I view this as unlikely given the town records. Many even say he died during the war, which is plainly incorrect as Thomas’s will was proved several years after the war.

Thomas was 61 at the time of King Philip’s War, unusually old for an army volunteer. He also had no reason to get involved, as Portsmouth was never at risk of Indian attacks given its island location, and Thomas had no prior history of military involvement or training. By the time he had written his will in 1674, it is clear that the marriage was under strain. His will states that “although Grace have not behaved herself towards me as a wife ought to do towards an husband, yet for the manifestation of my care of her, I do hereby give, bequeath unto her all the goods that are yet remaining in my custody of those that were hers when I married her and also one good feather bed and bolster; also 12 pounds per annum for life in lieu of all right she has.” Then, in 14 June, 1676, the Portsmouth town records state that Grace had presented her many grievances to the town often, and to the (Rhode Island) Assembly several times for due and sufficient maintenance. The town found that, since Grace had been severely neglected in Thomas’s absence, his son Daniel, whom they referred to as the agent of Thomas, should pay Grace six shillings a week, that in turn all moveable goods in Grace’s possession should be given to Daniel, and that Grace should have the right to remain in the house she was currently occupying. While most histories believe Thomas’s absence was related to King Philip’s War, I think given his age and the reference in his earlier will to their marital problems, Thomas most likely had moved to one of the other towns where he maintained farms. Also, almost every family in New England was affected by King Philip’s War, but none that I have seen were petitioning for relief from the government. In a normally functioning family they would have taken care of one another, and certainly the Lawtons had ample funds to take care of Grace. So I think that Thomas’s family had rejected Grace and frozen her out of the family’s finances, and her grievances were about this mistreatment rather than her difficulties due to her husband’s war activities. The subsequent resolution of this problem seems more like a divorce settlement than a welfare case as well.

There is one last reference to Thomas and Grace, an agreement dated 20 April, 1677 between Thomas and Grace’s son from her first marriage, John Bailey. I am guessing that Grace was unhappy with the six shillings a week she was receiving from Daniel, and continued to press for better financial treatment. In the agreement between Thomas and John Bailey, Thomas leased a house, with farm and orchards to John for as long as Grace was alive. As payment, John was required to pay Grace ten pounds a year, and another three pounds was due to Thomas’s daughter Elizabeth. When combined with David’s payments, Grace would now be receiving twenty five pounds annually, or approximately $70,000 in today’s economic power, plus the free use of her home. It is unclear whether these agreements superseded the provisions in Thomas’s 1674 will entitling Grace to twelve pounds annually. It is clear, however, that all these agreements show that Thomas and Grace were not living together, and that Thomas was trying to placate Grace and buy her cooperation when his estate was finally settled.

Thomas most likely died in September, 1681 as his will was proved on 29 September. In summary, he left most of his Portsmouth property to eldest son Daniel, the Tiverton property to Isaac, and the remaining Portsmouth property and the Dartmouth property to eldest daughter Elizabeth. Daughter Anne received a token amount, having already received her share, and daughter Sarah received fifty pounds. The full will reads as follows:

"In the name of God Amen the 5th day of June in the year of our Lord OneThousand Six Hundred Seventy Four, Anno Regm Regis Carolus Secundi AnglisCXXV3...I, Thomas Lawton of Portsmouth upon Rhode Island in New England, yeoman, being in perfect bodily health and sound memory pray to Almighty God for his soul knowing the uncertainty of this present life and being desirous to settle that outward estate that this Lord hath...I do make this my last will and testament in manner and form following (that is to say first and principally I recommend my soul to Almighty God, hoping to receive full pardon and remission of my sins by Jesus Christ my [...] and my body to the earth to be buried in decent manner as by my executors or overseers hereafter named shall be thought most convenient.And as touching such worldly estate this Lord has sent me my will and meaning is that the same shall be employed and bestowed as herein and by this my will is expressed.)Imprimis, I do pronounce and make void all wills by me formerly made and I declare and appoint this my last will and testament.I will that all debts I justly owe to any manner of person or persons shall be paid in convenient time after my decease, by Executors hereinafter named. I do hereby declare that although Grace have not behaved herself towards me as a wife ought to do toward an husband, yet for the manifestation of my care of her I do hereby give and bequeath unto her all the goods that are yet remaining in my custody of those that were hers when I married her, as also one good feather bed and bolster. Item, I give and bequeath unto the said Grace the sum of 12 pounds per annum in current pay at Rhode Island during the time of her natural life to be paid unto her by my executors hereinafter named, in lieu of what right or interest she might have or claim on any of my lands or to anyother of my estate. Item, I give and bequeath unto my son Daniel Lawton, his heirs and assigns forever all that farms that is now in his possession commonly called and known by the name of Long Swamp farms with the rights, privileges and appurtenances to the same belonging. Item, besides what assurance I have formerly given unto my said son Daniel Lawton of a certain farm commonly called Hunting Swamp farms upon Rhode Island aforesaid I do hereby further ratify and confirm the said farms unto my son Daniel Lawton, his heirs and assigns forever. And my will is that William Wodell shall have and enjoy the said farms with the store upon the same for and during the term of years that are yet to come and unexpired as they are mentioned in a lease that I have granted unto him under my hand and seal. That the said William performing his part of the covenant therein exprest. Item, I give and bequeath unto my son, Isaac Lawton his heirs and assigns forever all that farms of mine lying and being at Puncatest with the privileges and appurtenances to the same belonging. As also all the lands rights and privileges that I have, may or shall have upon Martha's Vineyard in New England aforesaid. Item, I give and bequeath unto my daughter Elizabeth Shearman the wife of Peleg Shearman, and her heirs forever one quarter share of land lying and being unto the said Peleg.... at Pon..ganset in the Township of Dartmouth in New England. Item, I give and bequeath unto my said daughter, Elizabeth Shearman her heir and assigns for ever all that plot or parcel of land mine that is now in the tenure and occupation of the said Peleg Shearman lying in Portsmouth aforesaid, and adjoining to that land that Philip Shearman gave unto the said Peleg. Item, I give and bequeath unto my said daughter Elizabeth Sherman her heirs and assigns forever all that my now dwelling house with all the land belonging to this same as the same is situated, lying and being between the land of William Wodell and the land of Philip Shearman. Item, I give and bequeath unto my said daughter Elizabeth Shearman her heirs and assigns for ever all that pasture of mine in Portsmouth aforesaid that is commonly called and known by the name of the 50 acres as the same is lying and being betwixt the land of William Hall and the land of Thomas Wood.Item, I give and bequeath unto my daughter, Anne Slocum the sum of 5shillings in lawful money of New England to be paid unto her by my executors here after named immediately after my decease as the full of her portion (with what I have already given her) from my estate. Item, I give and bequeath unto my daughter, Sarah Sisson the full sum of 50 pounds in lawful money of New England to be paid unto her by my executors within the space of one year next after my decease. Item, I give and bequeath unto my overseers hereafter named the full sum of pounds in lawful money of New England as a token of my love. Item, I give and bequeath all the remainder of my real and personal estate whatsoever it may be found unto my daughter Elizabeth Shearman and Sarah Sisson their heirs and assigns to be equally divided between them. Item, I do hereby nominate and appoint my son Daniel as the sole executor of this my last will and testament. Item, I do hereby also nominate and appoint my loving friend William Wodell and my loving son-in-law George Sisson to be overseers of this my last will and testament assigning them to assist my executor as they can in the performance of this my last will and testament. Item, my will is that my executor shall not sell or dispose of any part of my estate but by the advice of my overseers or one of them. And further my will is that my executor shall not under any pretense whatsoever claim any more of my estate than is exprest to be given unto him in this my last will and testament.Also my will is that all the debts that I shall justly owe at the time of my decease be paid out of my personal estate before the division be made betwixt my daughters aforesaid. For witness I the said Thomas Lawton have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year first above written.”

Thomas and Elizabeth had six children. There is a reference to a Rebecca Lawton (iii) in the Cranfield records, who is assumed to be the daughter of Thomas and Elizabeth. She is not named in Thomas’s will, however, so if she were in fact their daughter, she must have died before her father. All the children were Quakers and married into Portsmouth Quaker families. The eldest daughter, Elizabeth (i), was born in Cranfield in 1637, and came to Portsmouth with her parents at the age of two. She married Peleg Sherman in Portsmouth on 25 November, 1657. He was a farmer who, like many of his generation, left Portsmouth as all the available farmland was already purchased. He and Elizabeth moved to the new town of Kingstown in southern Rhode Island, where they raised eight children. Peleg died in 1719 and Elizabeth died some time later, most likely in Kingstown.

Daniel (ii) was most likely born in Portsmouth in 1639. He married Rebecca Mott in Portsmouth on 26 May, 1669. He was a farmer who inherited substantial property in Portsmouth from his father in 1681. Daniel and Rebecca had twelve children, all born in Portsmouth. (I believe that one of these daughters, Rebecca, is causing the confusion mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and incorrectly being counted as a child of Thomas and Elizabeth, rather than a grandchild). Daniel and Rebecca both died in 1719. I assume some type of epidemic was afflicting Rhode Island in 1719, since three of the four children of Thomas and Elizabeth then alive died that year, including our ancestor Sarah (#385). Ann (iv) was born in 1645, and married Giles Slocum, the son of the Giles Slocum that built Portsmouth’s gristmill on the property of our ancestor Thomas Cooke (#1544). Giles and Ann had seven children, all in Portsmouth. Their great granddaughter, Mary Coggeshall, returned to England around the time of the American Revolution (A large number of Lawton descendants were loyalists and either returned to England or moved to Canada during the war). Mary Coggeshall married into the English aristocracy, and Queen Elizabeth II of England is descended from her, making our ancestors Thomas and Elizabeth Lawton one of the few American families from whom royalty is descended rather than the other way around. Lastly, Isaac (vi) was born 11 December, 1650. He married Mary Sisson, the sister of our ancestor George Sisson (#384), in 1672. Mary died in 1674, most like during childbirth. Isaac remarried shortly thereafter to Elizabeth Tallman, with whom he had eleven children, all in Portsmouth. Elizabeth died in 1701, and Isaac promptly remarried, this time to Naomi Hunt. Naomi was married to Isaac’s cousin George, (the son of Thomas’s brother, George), who died in 1697. Isaac was the only Lawton to live through whatever happened in 1719, dying in Portsmouth on 25 January, 1731, at age 81.

George Lawton (#1540) and Isabell Smith (#1541)

1540. GEORGE LAWTON
1541. ISABELL SMITH
Parents: Thomas Lawton (#3080) and ?
Parents:
BORN: 1581
BORN: 1585
Cranfield, Bedfordshire England
Cranfield, Bedfordshire, England
DIED: 26 Nov, 1641
DIED:
Cranfield, Bedfordshire, England
Cranfield, Bedfordshire, England

MARRIED: 13 November, 1606 at Cranfield, Bedfordshire England

CHILDREN

884.
i.
George
b. 23 Sep, 1607, d. 5 Oct, 1693

ii.
Sarah
b. 1 Oct, 1609

iii.
Mary
b. 28 Oct, 1611

iv.
Bennet
b. 27 Feb, 1613, d. 21 Jul, 1623
770.
v.
Thomas
b. 17 Apr, 1614, d. 29 Sep, 1681

vi.
Isaac
b. 3 Nov, 1616

vii.
Nicholas
b. 20 Feb, 1621, d. 17 Mar, 1622

viii.
Elizabeth
b. 29 May, 1623

The marriage of George Lawton and Isabell Smith appears in the church records of Sts Peter and Paul church in Cranfield in Bedfordshire. The church was built in the thirteenth century and has several records of the Lawton family in Cranfield going back at least three generations from Thomas. These include a burial record for a Thomas Lawton (#3080) on 8 December, 1605, who is assumed to be George’s father.


The Lawtons did not appear to be landowners, as George’s father refers to himself in his will as a husbandman, and there is a record of his grandfather renting land from the local lord. George and Isabell were therefore most likely of husbandman class as well.
The baptisms of eight of their children are entered in the parish records. They also record the burial of two of these children who died young, Bennet, at age ten, and Nicholas, at age one. There is no further record of the other children who remained in England, but our two ancestors, George (#884) and Thomas (#770) left England for Portsmouth, Rhode Island and will be discussed in the next chapter.

The birth of Thomas is recorded in the Cranfield parish registry in 1614. as was his marriage to Elizabeth Salisbury at the Church of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 May, 1635.

Richard (#768) and Mary (#769) Sisson

768. RICHARD SISSON
769. MARY ?
Parents: ?
Parents: ?
BORN: 1608
BORN: ca 1615
England
England
DIED: Feb, 1684
DIED: 22 Sep, 1692
Portsmouth, Rhode Island
Dartmouth, Massachusetts

MARRIED: ?

CHILDREN

384.
i.
George
b. ca 1645, d. 7 Sep, 1718

ii.
Anne
b. ca 1647, d. aft 1718

iii..
Elizabeth
b. 8 Apr, 1650, d. 1740

iv.
James
b. 2 Nov, 1652, d. Dec, 1734

v.
Mary
b 1653, d. 1674

vi.
John
b. ca 1658, d. 24 Jun, 1687

Much effort has been expended by the Sisson family to determine the English ancestry of immigrant Richard Sisson, with little reward to date. Two English genealogists retained by the Sisson family have located two Richard Sissons from old English records. The first is from Snaith, Yorkshire, where a Richard Sisson was married to a Mary Atkinson on 14 February, 1632. This matches well with Richard, since we know from New England records that his wife’s name was Mary, and his birth year of 1608 meshes well with this marriage date. The one negative with this couple is that they had a son George who was baptized on 17 July, 1636, whereas we know that our ancestor George was born around 1645. This can be explained by George having given incorrect age information in New England, or perhaps the baptism is for a George who died young, and our ancestor George was born later and given the same name, a fairly frequent occurrence. The second Richard Sisson was born in Saxton-on-Elnet, also in Yorkshire, baptized in 1615. This is several years later than Richard had said he was born in New England records, and lacks the additional corroboration of a wife named Mary. An earlier, undocumented source also mentions a Richard Sisson born in Greystoke, Cumbria and that there were several Sisson records found in the Penrith, Cumbria area. At this stage probably the best we can guess is that Richard came from northern England, where both Yorkshire and Cumbria are located, but even that vague assertion could easily be wrong.

There is additional confusion as to when Richard and Mary migrated to New England, with two possible answers. The first alternative is that the family migrated to Dartmouth, a town in southeastern Massachusetts then part of Plymouth colony, in 1639. They then moved to nearby Portsmouth, Rhode Island in 1651. The second alternative is that they migrated directly to Portsmouth, Rhode Island in 1651. Several facts are indisputable that may help choose between these alternatives. First, the Sissons were definitely Quakers in Rhode Island. Second, Richard maintained two homes, one in Dartmouth and one in Portsmouth. Third, the first appearance of Richard in any New England records is in 1651. I think on balance that these facts argue for the second alternative. The Quaker religion was flourishing in both England and Rhode Island, but definitely not in Massachusetts. If he were living in Plymouth colony, he would have been much less exposed to Quaker teachings when the religion took root beginning in 1650. More likely he was an early convert in England, and set off for the safe harbor of Rhode Island the following year, possibly as a missionary. Also, there are many records of Richard beginning in 1651, which draws attention to their absence prior to that date. It is hard to see how there would be no records for twelve years if he had actually been living in Dartmouth since 1639.

Assuming the second alternative is correct, Richard and Mary would already have joined the Society of Friends, or Quakers, in 1650, and migrated to Rhode Island with their three eldest children, born in England. At that time England was governed by the Puritans under Oliver Cromwell, so most of the Puritan migration to New England had stopped; however, Quakers were unpopular in England so they continued to migrate during the Cromwell government. Richard’s first documented appearance in New England was his admission as an inhabitant in Portsmouth on 16 June, 1651. He was then admitted as a freeman to both Portsmouth and Dartmouth in 1653, which is unusual. He was also elected constable in Portsmouth in 1653, a position he held for many years. In that election, he was referred to as “Goodman Sisson”, a title usually, though not always, given to people of yeoman status.

At a Portsmouth town meeting on 30 November, 1657, Richard and nine other freemen were awarded planting rights on Hog Island (in Mount Hope Bay between Portsmouth and Bristol). On 6 July, 1658, he purchased 1/300th of both Coanicut Island and Dutch Island. (Coanicut Island is present-day Jamestown, the second largest island in Rhode Island after Aquidneck, and Dutch Island is a smaller island to the west of Coanicut Island that was used as an Indian trading post by the Dutch). This must have been a speculative venture, as two years later he sold these island holdings, plus an additional 1/300th of each island that he must have purchased along the way to Peleg Sanford.

In 1667, he moved to Dartmouth, Massachusetts, where he had probably owned land since being admitted as a freeman in 1653. (Under a royal decree from King Charles I, Massachusetts was no longer permitted to imprison Quakers, so it was now safe to make the move.) He was the first inhabitant in what is now Westport, Massachusetts, establishing a large farm on the west bank of the Coakset River. His house was located in what is now the historical village of the Head of Westport, on what is now the corner of the road leading from the Head of Westport to South Westport, and the “Rhode Island Way” leading between Sandy Pond and Stafford Pond to the Sakonnet River. This area was far from the town center of Dartmouth, and a very risky place to live in light of the simmering tensions with the Indians. With the outbreak of King Philip’s War in 1675, the Sissons returned to their safer Portsmouth home.

Richard appears one last time in New England records, with his testimony in an Indian dispute presided over by our ancestor John Alden. Two of Richard’s friends, John Sanford and John Archer, had contracted to purchase Sakonnet Point from the Indian princess Namumpan, but there were apparently irregularities in the contract. Namumpan protested to the Plymouth court, and Richard and Mary testified in the proceedings. To their credit, they sided with Namumpan against their friends. Richard testified that “John Archer, being at my house did speak as followeth, and said the deed of gift made by Namumpan to John Sanford and himself was a cheat, and the intent thereof was to deceive Namumpan, squaw Sachem of her land: and they were to have both corn and peague to secure her land from Wamsutta or Peter Tallman, and was to resign up the deed at her demand.” Wife Mary also testified as follows: “And I, Mary Sisson, do testify that I heard the same words at the same time, and further, when my husband was gone out of the house, I heard them both say they were troubled in conscience they had concealed it so long, and did refuse to take part of the gratification.” While I can’t piece together all the details, it appears that Archer and Sanford confessed to the Sissons that they cheated the land from the Indians, and planned to offer them corn and peague (Indian money) in recompense, or surrender the land to make amends. I would guess that they later had second thoughts and decided to keep the land, which precipitated the court case.

Richard died in Portsmouth in February, 1684, leaving a will dated 18 October, 1683 and an estate inventory 15 November, 1683. His will is fairly confusing, but in it he leaves his wife Mary “my dwelling house and movables during her life, and twelve pounds sterling yearly rent; with firewood, orchard fruit, land for garden, liberty to keep poultry for her use, and also a horse to be maintained and kept at her command to ride on, also 2 oxen and two cows that I bought with my money; all debts due me I give to my wife. She shall have a milch cow maintained for her use, with winter shelter and summer pasture during live and two parts of all my swine. Also she shall have her corn carried to the mill and the meal brought home again sufficient for use during life, and 10 bushels of Indian corn, 3 of Rye and half of my wheat and barley.” His daughter Anne received a tract of land on Pogansett Pond in Dartmouth. Son James was named executor of the will, and received all of Richard’s home and land in Dartmouth “excepting land near Pogansett Pond and reservations to wife as aforesaid.” Son John received all the land and home in Portsmouth. Son George and daughter Elizabeth each received five pounds, and George’s daughter Mary was to receive three cows and a bed, plus a pewter flagon and brass kettle that had belonged to her Aunt Mary, at the time of her wedding. Finally, he left his Indian servant Samuel a two year old mare. As far as I can understand, I believe wife Mary was to live in the Dartmouth property left to James. James already had a large farm adjacent to this property, so I believe he was meant to take care of his mother during her lifetime, after which this property would become his. I don’t understand the reference to twelve pounds rent, but perhaps part of the property was leased to someone else, and Richard was granting that rental income to Mary during her lifetime. Son John received the Portsmouth property, while eldest son, our ancestor George, received no property, nor was he named executor of the will. This seemed to be a snub to hint at a disagreement between George and his son, but George’s daughter was given a wedding dowry, partly from the estate of Richard’s daughter Mary who had already died (the “Aunt Mary” mentioned above”. I know that George in fact owned Richard and Mary’s original property in Portsmouth, where he built his house on the foundations of Richard and Mary’s old house. So my best guess is that there was no falling out between father and son, but that Richard had given his Portsmouth property to son George at the time of his move to Dartmouth. He then purchased another home when he returned to Portsmouth during King Philip’s War, and it is this house that he left to son John, not the original Sisson homestead. This would explain why son George received very little in the will, and why George ended up owning the original Sisson homestead when the will says the Portsmouth property was given to son John. I’ve made a number of assumptions in putting this together, all of which could be wrong, but it seems plausible to me.

Richard’s estate was worth six hundred pounds, equivalent to approximately $1.7 million in today’s economic power. Interestingly the inventory valued Richard’s beds at fifty pounds, greater than the value of his Dartmouth farm (forty pounds), reflecting the relative scarcity of English furniture versus land in New England. It also included an “Indian servant” valued at ten pounds and a “Negro servant” valued at twenty eight pounds.

Wife Mary died eight years later, in Dartmouth on 22 September, 1692. She had apparently been quite ill for some time, as in her will dated “the fifteenth day of the second month called April, 1690, she described herself as “very ill in body”. (For those paying close attention you will have noticed a discrepancy in the date of the will. This is because Quakers refused to use the names of the months since they derived from Pagan sources, and used the Julian rather than Gregorian calendar, which began in March. Therefore the Quaker second month is equivalent to our April.) She gave our ancestor George, thirty five pounds and a bible and the children of her son John thirty five pounds. Her remaining estate, consisting of brass, pewter, iron, linen and wools, chests, spinning wheels, milk vessels and pails, was divided into three parts. Her daughters Elizabeth and Ann, and George’s daughter Mary, each received one part. Mary’s estate also included 29 cheeses, the ultimate disposition of which is unknown.

Richard and Mary had six children, of whom the first three, including our ancestor George (#384) were most likely born in England and the others born in Portsmouth. With the next generation, the Sissons generally shifted from Portsmouth to Dartmouth. Eldest daughter Anne (ii) married Peleg Tripp in Portsmouth ca 1666. Peleg’s parents owned land in both Dartmouth and Portsmouth, like the Sissons, and Peleg and Anne moved frequently between the two. They had ten children, whose descendants include General Motors founder William Durant, and Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Warren Harding. Elizabeth (iii) married Caleb Allen at the Quaker Meeting House in Sandwich, Massachusetts. They had seven children, all born in Sandwich. Elizabeth appears to have moved back to Dartmouth, as her death is recorded there in 1740, perhaps to live with one of her siblings after her husband’s death.

James (iv) was the first of Richard’s children to be born in Portsmouth, in 1652. He married Lydia Hathaway in 1680 in Portsmouth, and was the first of Richard’s children to move to Dartmouth, purchasing a farm near Richard’s Dartmouth property. When Richard died in 1684, he named James the executor of his will and left him the Dartmouth house and property, as well as various obligations to take care of Richard’s widow, Mary. James was a farmer but also held several local government positions. James and Lydia had ten (possibly twelve) children, all born in Dartmouth. The Sissons of Massachusetts are all descended from James and Lydia. Lydia died in 1714, and James in 1734. Although they both died in Dartmouth, they were buried in the Common Burial Ground in Newport, Rhode Island. Many Sissons of subsequent generations are also buried here.

Mary (v), born ca 1653, married Isaac Lawton, the son of our ancestors Thomas Lawton and Elizabeth Salisbury. Mary died in 1674 during the birth of her first child. John (vi), born ca 1658, also died young. John married a Mary, surname unknown, in Newport in 1681. John and Mary both died in 1687. They had two children before they died, and it is unknown who took care of them after their parents’ death, although Richard’s wife Mary left them thirty five pounds in her will. Of the two children, one son survived to adulthood, and raised a family in Newport. While the large majority of Rhode Island Sissons are descendants of George, a small minority of Rhode Island Sissons are descended from this son of John.

Chapter IV: Introduction

Chapter 4
The Founding of Rhode Island

As Rhode Island was founded primarily as a place of refuge for dissenters from the Congregational orthodoxy of the rest of New England, the colony was started after the main New England colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts. This chapter, which covers the tenth generation, still discusses several ancestors in Plymouth, Massachusetts and Connecticut colonies. However, the large majority of this generation made Rhode Island their home, so I will provide some historical background to the colony’s formation here. In the early years, present-day Rhode Island was actually two colonies; Providence, founded by Roger Williams, and Rhode Island, which was actually just the town of Portsmouth, founded by Anne Hutchinson. Two additional towns, Newport, part of the Rhode Island colony, and Warwick, were established soon afterwards. Throughout the seventeenth century these four towns bickered and cooperated in various combinations, but ultimately became the foundations for a united Rhode Island colony. Since our ancestors were overwhelmingly based in Portsmouth and Newport, I will focus this background discussion more on those two towns, touching briefly on Providence. Since virtually all migration into Rhode Island, either from Massachusetts or directly from England, was religiously motivated, a brief summary of the religious thinking driving our ancestors is in order before discussing other developments in Rhode Island.

The most important religious dissidents in Rhode Island history are of course Roger Williams, founder of Providence, and Anne Hutchinson, founder of Rhode Island (Aquidneck). However, neither person would consider themselves members of any particular sect, except broadly as true Puritans, differing with their Congregational brethren on some points, but actually more Puritan than the Puritans. Their chief difference with the authorities that exiled them had to do with the relationship between religion and government rather than major theological differences. While Williams and Hutchinson had many followers, neither developed a lasting church (although Williams briefly joined the Baptists). Their beliefs certainly paved the way for Rhode Island’s two main religions, but it would take others to establish formalized church structures. The individual stories of the two leaders are covered elsewhere (Hutchinson’s in Chapter 2’s discussion of Rev. Francis Marbury (#3570) and Williams’ in Chapter 3’s discussion of Richard Scott (#1784).

Baptists

The clearest distinction between Baptists and Congregationalists involves the sacrament of baptism. Congregationalists retained the infant baptism practiced by the Catholic and Anglican churches of their heritage, while Baptists insisted on adult baptism. However, in New England, the Baptists seemed to have arrived at this distinction almost as an afterthought. For Roger Williams, who is credited with establishing the Baptist church in America even though he abandoned it several months after creating it, his main preoccupation was the separation of church and state. He overwhelmingly agreed with the Puritan orthodoxy of Massachusetts, but rejected what he considered the unholy mixture of the divine church with the dirty day to day business of politics. Williams and the Congregationalists wholeheartedly believed that everyone but a small minority, the Elect, would be damned to Hell, and that decision had been made at the beginning of time by an all-powerful God. Williams asked if God has already decided who will get into Heaven and nothing can be done to change that outcome, why are the Congregationalists obsessed with running the government, banning dissent and forcing everyone to join their church? Williams believed that Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers and other wrongthinking people are already damned, and the Congregationalists certainly agreed. But Williams believed the true church shouldn’t care about these people, or anything else in the public sphere, but focus exclusively on ministering to God’s chosen people.

His second key differentiating point was his even more emphatic rejection of religious hierarchy and institutions. Congregationalists had already done away with all forms of hierarchy, and established a series of independent churches. But Williams believed that the ministers retained too much power in their congregations, and their importance was overblown. God had established a direct personal relationship with his Elect, and the symbol of this relationship is the relevatory, “born again” experience. Again, the difference with Congregationalists was one of degree. Both denominations believed in the personal relevation, but for Congregationalists that was a mark of being in the Elect only. For Baptists, this was something stronger; if God was talking to you directly, why not listed to Him rather than the minister?

Williams seemed comfortable leaving things at that, and had never spoken out about baptism prior to founding Providence. It is likely that our ancestor Katherine Marbury Scott (#1785) persuaded him on an explicitly Baptist theology. Since Rogers believed that direct relevatory experience was paramount, then it is easy to believe that baptism, the only Baptist sacrament, should wait until an adult experienced it. Persuaded on this point, Williams was baptized in the river at Providence, then proceeded to baptize another eleven men. He soon came to believe, however, that all denominations and ministers were forever corrupted as the link between Jesus and contemporary ministers ran through the corrupt Catholic church. For this reason, he abandoned his newfound church. With the departure of Williams and the arrival of explicitly Baptist refugees from Massachusetts and England, the church in Rhode Island began to look like other Baptist churches around the world. Differentiated by adult baptism, the Baptists also put less emphasis on learned, authoritative ministers. Baptist ministers tended to be less educated, and speak more passionately about their personal revelatory experience rather than study the Bible for inspiration. Because of its organizational flexibility and emphasis on preaching from the heart, the Baptist church eventually grew to be America’s largest denomination, although along the way it fractured into many different sub-denominations. Rhode Island’s Baptists now constitute the American Baptist Church, a much more liberal denomination than the larger Southern Baptists.




Quakers

While today Quakers and Baptists almost represent polar ideological opposites, in the beginning they could be seen as the next step in the decentralization evolution. While Catholic and Anglican priests held the keys to Heaven, all New Englanders believed that only God determined their fates. While Congregationalists followed the lead of their educated minister to help them interpret the Bible and set the rules for godly living, Baptists believed that the revelations God delivered personally to a born-again person were more important than Biblical scholarship. Baptist ministers were powerful orators rather than intellectuals, and inspired the congregation to develop closer relationships with God. Quakers wholeheartedly agreed that the direct revelatory experience was key. But they took the next logical step, and simply dispensed with ministers of any kind. They also solved the infant vs adult baptism controversy by dispensing with sacraments entirely.

While this sounds close to anarchy, the Quakers combined this extreme organizational decentralization with strong social centralization. Quakers were renowned for their social cohesion, the numerous charitable and educational institutions they established, and their strong personal ties that kept them marrying and doing business with each other rather than with non-Quakers. Similarly, Quakers insisted on strong religious discipline as well. A Quaker service consisted of the congregation sitting silently together until one of them was moved by the Holy Spirit to share a personal revelation with fellow members. They each took turns inspiring with their personal experiences, without any clerical intermediation. But for this system to work, everyone had to participate and lead inspirational lives. Quakers practiced strong discipline against members who failed to come to meetings, or lived sinful lives.

While Puritan dress codes were beginning to lighten up, and women began to wear brighter colors and jewelry, the Quakers rejected all such frivolity. Both men and women wore plain dress and no jewelry, with the men keeping their hair short and wearing a round hat. Women wore white aprons over their dark dresses and hoods over their hair. They used an eccentric Biblically based English, refused to take oaths and were pacifists in all but the most extreme circumstances. Ironically, then, their total absence of ministers and rituals was combined with the strictest behavioral code. Their communal cohesion and strong work ethic inspired many converts both in England and New England. Other denominations were particularly harsh toward Quakers, partly due to the challenge they presented to the ruling clerical class. Although Roger Williams personally hated the Quakers, the colony he founded became the first refuge for Quakers, founded on the principle of separation of church and state.

While both Providence and Rhode Island had Quakers and Baptists, Baptists were the majority in Providence, while Quakers came to dominate Rhode Island colony.

Gortonians

In the interest of completeness I should add a word about the followers of Samuel Gorton. Gorton was banished from almost every New England colony, including Rhode Island. Again, Gorton’s beliefs can be viewed as one step further than the Quakers, although they were combined with a quarrelsome nature that loved to goad any and all authority. He agreed with the Quakers that clergy can be dispensed with, but while the Quakers stopped there, he heaped derision on clergy, and his followers demonized ministers at every opportunity. Clergy not only were unnecessary to understand God’s direct revelation, they were actively harmful to its understanding and needed to be banned. To make matters worse, Gorton and his followers actively opposed all government as well. The only orders needed were from God, and governments had no divine mandate to issue laws. It is easy to understand why this basically anarchist position was unpopular throughout New England. He and his followers purchased land from the Indians and founded the new settlement of Warwick. The Massachusetts authorities promptly sent their militia to Warwick to capture the men, who were imprisoned. The situation was eventually resolved, and Gorton returned to Warwick, where, ironically he formed a government, though not a church of any sort. The Gortonite movement continued in Warwick until the end of the eighteenth century.

Growth of the Colony

The following page has the best map I could find showing the growth of Rhode Island and Providence. Unfortunately it’s practically illegible when shrunk to fit the page. Most of the area shown on this map as Rhode Island was in fact disputed territory among Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The large majority of our ancestors lived on the tiny island of Aquidneck, divided into Newport in the south and Portsmouth in the north. We have some ancestral connections to Providence and Warwick as well, the only other towns on Narragansett Bay. While they look quite expansive on the map, the population lived in a much smaller area huddled by the bay. The southern half of the state, labeled Narragansett Country on the map, is where most of our ancestors later moved to, but during the seventeenth century it was disputed territory between Rhode Island and Connecticut, and populated primarily by Indians.

(THE MAP AT TOP IS SUPPOSED TO GO HERE)

From a collection of muddy log cabins strung along a river bank in the case of Providence or the shore in the case of Aquidneck, each town was developing rapidly in the latter part of the seventeenth century. While Providence had a bit of a head start, it suffered from poor location, away from main shipping routes. It was also poorly set up, as each settler wanted land along the river, so the result was a town two miles long and one street wide. Lastly, it was heavily exposed to Indian attacks, an isolated settlement surrounded by the Narragansett Indians, the strongest tribe in New England. This vulnerability was made clear in King Philip’s War, when Providence was burned to the ground.

Portsmouth was settled next, and had several advantages over Providence. The soil on Aquidneck island was fertile, and largely cleared of trees, making it an ideal farming location. Its island location protected it from Indian attacks, and made it a more convenient shipping and fishing location. These advantages, however, also caused its inhabitants to spread around the island building large farms, since the protection of a walled town center was unnecessary. This in turn meant economic development beyond farming was difficult relative to its more urbanized neighbor, Newport.

Newport, the last of the original three towns, developed as a result of a schism in Portsmouth. The governor and his allies were thrown out of Portsmouth, and they established a new town at the southern tip of the island. This was the most convenient location for shipping, and afforded the best port. The inhabitants wisely decided to focus on trading rather than agriculture, becoming the logistics and supply hub for the farmers of Portsmouth. As Rhode Island attracted more and more Quaker and Baptist refugees, they tended to favor Newport as a base, since the best farming land in the other towns had already been allocated. The Quakers, in particular, flocked to Newport, bringing strong business skills and valuable trading networks with other Quaker communities. Newport became the favored gateway for trading with Barbados and other English colonies in the Caribbean. The infamous slave trade, to which Rhode Island made a major contribution, soon followed. As the largest town, Newport became the capital when the various towns were united as “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations”, which further reinforced its comparative advantage.

The overall population of the combined Rhode Island colony was 3000 in 1675. Portsmouth and Providence each had 200 houses, with Newport having twice that. Housing stock was becoming better quality, and the “Connecticut model” of a large two story house built around a central chimney was replacing the earlier pioneer stock of smaller homes with a chimney on the side. All Rhode Island towns busied themselves with minute regulations of the economy. Prices were fixed for almost all consumer goods, licenses restricted the number of blacksmiths, bakers, pubs and other businesses to ensure limited competition. Inspectors regularly visited businesses to ensure goods were sold at the weight indicated, and no tipping of scales took place. Each town allocated its land under different systems, but regardless of the system the process gave rise to many disputes. While town governments, with varying degrees of success, managed to regulate their economic affairs, they failed miserably to construct a workable governing structure across the towns. Rhode Island towns battled each other over land rights and tax obligations, and tried as hard as possible to ignore whatever dictates came down from the governor and general assembly. The colonial government in Newport was largely obeyed on Aquidneck Island, but found it difficult to extend its power to the mainland. It had much greater success in preventing any interference from England. While other colonies reported on a regular basis to royal councils and received English delegations cordially, Rhode Island basically ignored whatever England attempted to do with its most ungovernable colony. Given this frosty relationship, the colonial government should be given great credit for warding off the constant encroaches of its neighbors, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The three colonies were engaged in constant border disputes, and, amazingly, Rhode Island was able to win repeatedly by enlisting English support. This support is of course surprising given the way Rhode Island treated her nominal overlord. When King James II tired of the insubordination of Rhode Island and, to a lesser extent, the other New England colonies, he ordered them to combine in a Dominion of New England, to be run by royally appointed overseers. Rhode Island even managed to ignore this closer regulatory regime, which lasted all of two years and ended when King James was overthrown and the inhabitants of Boston rebelled and imprisoned Sir Edmund Andros, the supposed overseer of the hated Dominion.

King Philip’s War
The New England colonies did manage to put aside their differences during the most traumatic event in the seventeenth century, King Philip’s War. One of Roger Williams’ key differences with Massachusetts was over relations with the Indians. He insisted on fair dealings with them in land purchases, and maintained good relations with them throughout his lifetime. The Massachusetts and Connecticut authorities were indifferent to the Indians, and viewed them as a source for advantageous land sales and profitable business transactions. This constant friction boiled over in King Philip’s War in 1675, which has been estimated to be the most destructive war in American history based on the percentage of the population killed or wounded. During the three years of the war over half of all English settlements were attacked across New England, and as you will read, many of our relatives died during the war. While war raged across New England, Rhode Island and its main Indian tribe, the Narragansetts, stayed neutral. However, the Connecticut, Plymouth and Massachusetts militias decided to launch a preemptive attack on the neutral Narragansetts, marching into Rhode Island and slaying hundreds of Indians in the Great Swamp Fight. This had the unsurprising effect of enlisting Narragansetts in the war, and dragging Rhode Island along as well. While Newport and Portsmouth were protected by their island location, all the other settlements in Rhode Island were attacked, with Providence burned to the ground. The war was effectively over with the slaying of the Indian leader at Mt.Hope in 1676, although skirmishes continued in northern New England for another year.