|
|
|
Part 1: The First Generation in
New England
Page
11
Chapter
2
The Life & Times of Aaron Stark [1608-1685]
Author's Introduction
Aaron Stark's name was first documented in New England on April 11, 1639, when he appeared before the Particular Court of Connecticut accused, along with two other men, of "unclean practices.” He subsequently appeared before the court twice more; in July of 1640 when he was accused of bestiality;
and in April of 1643 (the accusation not reported in the court record). The charges brought by the court against Aaron on these three occasions have not reflected well on his character; indeed, they have been a source of embarrassment for many past and present Stark family genealogists. But other aspects of his life
also need to be taken into account, for they provide a more complete and positive picture of this man who was the progenitor of so many American Starks. The work to follow will seek to present a full and balanced account of Aaron Stark and his times.
These charges prompted many early researchers to register some harsh judgments. James Savage, in his 1860 book on genealogy in New England before 1700, described Aaron as an "unpromising youth." R. R.
Hinman, in his Catalogue of Names of the First Puritan Settlers, compiled
and published in 1848, reported; "Starke, Aaron, Hartford, 1639 - (This case is inserted to show the extreme severity of their punishment for
bastardy)..." Hinman quotes the charges and the punishment Aaron received in his first appearance before the court. Even worse, the reference to "bestiality"
and the embarrassment it engendered caused Stark family researchers to suppress altogether Aaron's second appearance before the court: all we knew was that when the court met in April of 1643, it ordered Aaron to serve Captain Mason "during ye pleasure of ye Court."
Was young Aaron Stark a mean, unprincipled, or even dishonest man? Was he truly or wrongly accused? We know he was not an educated man, was not a Puritan, couldn't write his own name, and had no known skills (other than Indian fighting, perhaps). Despite his early troubles and these handicaps, he
survived to the age of 77 in a hostile environment, became a land owner and farmer, became a husband and father, and earned the trust and respect of his neighbors and mentor, John Mason. Aaron may not have been a saint and possibly did have serious character flaws, but he certainly deserves to be known for more than
these early records. Perhaps his spirit still roams Connecticut looking to gain understanding and respect, and perhaps our study will help him to do so.
The factual part of Aaron's life will be drawn from surviving documentation. Other aspects of his life will be based on reasoned speculation and what we can learn about the activities of other individuals with whom he no doubt associated. Most of the factual records to be presented in this narrative
have been gleaned from the research of Pauline Stark Moore, Carolyn Smith, Donn Neal, and Gwen Boyer Bjorkman, all of whom also shared their own interpretations of Aaron Stark with me.
Clovis
LaFleur
January
2006
__________________________________________
Historical
Background Suggesting Aaron’s Old World Home
From
their first arrival aboard the Mayflower in 1620, until 1629, only
about 300 Puritans had survived in New England, scattered in small and
isolated settlements. In 1630, their population was significantly
increased when the ship Mary and John arrived in New England
carrying 140 passengers from the English West Country counties of
Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. It was the first of the ships
later called the Winthrop Fleet to land in Massachusetts.
While
the passenger list related to this voyage is not well documented, we
know the immigrants founded the First Parish Church of Dorchester in
1631, the place name of their new community taken from Dorchester,
Devon County, England. In the 17th century this English town was at
the center of the Puritan emigration to America, and the local rector,
Rev. John White, was instrumental in organizing the voyage and
supported the settlement of Dorchester, Massachusetts. For his
efforts on behalf of Puritan dissenters, White has been called one of
the unheralded founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
In
1633, the Plymouth Trading Company established the first Connecticut
settlement, a trading post at what would later become Dorchester,
Connecticut in territory the Dutch claimed and in which they
maintained a fort and trading post, about seven miles downriver in
what was later Hartford, Connecticut. In 1635, Puritan and
Congregationalist members of Reverend Warham’s and Reverend
Maverick's congregation, including, John Mason, Roger Ludlow, Henry
Wolcott, and others, all prominent settlers in the new community,
became dissatisfied with the rate of Anglican reforms. They sought
permission from the Massachusetts General Court to establish a new
ecclesiastical society subject to their own rules and regulations.
About 60 individuals, totaling 23 heads of households, undertook a
two-week's journey about 100 miles to the west. They founded a new
town they initially also named Dorchester. Later, on February 21,
1636, the Connecticut General Count changed the name of the settlement
from Dorchester to Windsor, believed to be named after the city of
Windsor, England located on the River Thames. The new town was the
first English settlement in the now state of Connecticut.
All
of the above suggests Aaron could have been one of these immigrants
arriving in New England during this early historical period.
Therefore, it would seem reasonable to begin a search for Aaron’s
old world home in the southern part of England between 1608 to 1637
and his parents in the region before 1608.
Genetic
observations
provide credible evidence Aaron Stark may have been born south
of the Thames River in England. Several of the earliest records
of the surname Stark in this region of England were William Stark
(1314) of Essex County and Rannulf Stark (1222) of
Suffolk County. The Genetic evidence further suggests Aaron's
deep ancestral roots could be connected to the early Anglo,
Saxon, and Frisian Germanic Tribes that invaded England between 600AD and 800AD.
However, the search for Aaron's Ancestral home continues.[1a]
__________
|
1) |
The
deposition, dated June 11, 1673 states: "The Testimony
of Aron Starke Aged Sixtie five yeares or there abouts…”
From this statement we can estimate Aaron was born in about
the year 1608 but the exact year of birth is not known with
certainty. {Stonington, New London County, Connecticut Deeds
1664-1714, Book 2, page 280, June 11, 1673. LDS Microfilm
Film #5593, transcribed by Gwen Boyer Bjorkman.} |
| 1a) |
Aaron Stark's (1608-1685) Ancestral Roots; A
Theory |
|
|
Page
12
Aaron's Early Years
We know almost nothing about Aaron's early years, for there are no records to tell us where he was born, what he was doing during his early years, and where he was living before the 1630s. On June 11, 1673, Aaron gave a deposition recorded in the Stonington Town
Records, which gave his age as sixty-five “or there abouts” providing us with the clue that his year of birth was about 1608.[1] As there is no documented evidence of Aaron’s arrival in New England, we cannot state with absolute certainty when he came to America, although some earlier researchers
speculate his migration to have been as early as 1627 or 1629.[2]
There is no definite information about the parents and origins of Aaron Stark [1608-1685]. (Some researchers have mistakenly concluded that he was the son of an earlier Aaron Stark and Mary Holt, but the facts do not support
this.) In addition, an early (1848) publication sparked speculation that Aaron's father might be a Henry Stark who willed a clock to the church in Hartford in 1640, but an analysis of the records of that period seems to indicate that this man was actually named Henry
Packs or Park.[3]
In England or Scotland, his apparent homeland, Aaron may have been expelled for political, religious, or criminal reasons; alternatively, he might have paid for his passage to New England by becoming an indentured or bonded servant. Based on what we know
about Aaron’s military activities in Connecticut, it seems more likely that he was a Scottish mercenary soldier who came to New England with John Mason, who some historians contend, served in the Netherlands alongside Sir Thomas Fairfax under Sir Horace Vere at the decisive siege of
Bois-le-Duc from April to August
of 1630.[4]
Mason's arrival in New England also is not certain, but he is documented as the Lieutenant Mason who served under John Gallop in December of 1632. Gallop was commissioned by the Governor and Magistrates of Massachusetts to search for the pirate called Dixy Bull.[5]
Perhaps Mason was engaged by the Massachusetts Bay Colony to come to New England to protect the colony’s interests. Because Aaron had a very close relationship with Mason in Connecticut, it's conceivable Aaron, being young and adventurous, had volunteered to serve in the Netherlands and subsequently came to
New England with Mason after the siege at Bois-le-Duc: we know that some of these troops, especially those from Scotland, became mercenaries after Horace Vere returned to England in 1632.
By March of 1635, Mason was the representative from Dorchester to the Massachusetts General Court. Later in that year or early in the next year, he moved to the settlement which became known as Windsor, Connecticut, and was a member of Rev. John Warham's
congregation in Dorchester.[5] Warham, a minister at Exeter, Devon, England, with Rev. John Maverick, had sailed from Plymouth, England on March 20, 1630, aboard the Mary and John with about 60 members of his newly formed Congregational Church. In addition to the two ministers, the passengers selected
for passage were two magistrates of the Massachusetts Bay Company, several older men with adult families, and a group of single or just married men, some chosen for their military experience. It seems possible, at least, that Aaron Stark was among these single men.
The Mary and John arrived at Nantasket on May 30, 1630, after seventy days at sea. After some exploration of the region, the company settled at Dorchester. After thriving as a community for 5 years, news arrived of the fertile lands in the Connecticut River Valley
and half of the families living in Dorchester, weary of working the rocky fields around their first settlement, sold their property to recent arrivals from England. With Warham as their leader, they left Plymouth, sailed up the Connecticut River, and established their new settlement at the confluence of the Farmington
and Connecticut Rivers. They named their new home Dorchester (changed to Windsor by the Connecticut General Court on February 21, 1636). Although not known with certainty, Aaron Stark has been listed by some publications as an early settler of Windsor along with John Warham and John Mason."[6]
The Pequot Nation, Connecticut’s principal community of Native Americans, became increasingly hostile towards the new settlers from the north. On May 1, 1637, after several attacks by the Pequot, the 9th Session of the General Court of Connecticut decided to
undertake an offensive war against them. The court appointed Captain Mason commander of a force of ninety men, drawn from the settlements of Wethersfield (18 men), Windsor (30 men), and Hartford (42 men). We know from later records that Aaron Stark was a participant in this war, and also that he had a close
relationship with Mason, so it seems very likely that he was one of the soldiers recruited from one of these three towns.[1,7] Mason later wrote A Brief History of the Pequot War, which was published in 1736. This narrative collaborates the statements in Aaron Stark's 1673 deposition, which
asserts that he participated in Mason’s attack on the Pequot camp, and is our primary source for the events of the Pequot War, to which we turn next.
__________
| 2) |
Source
1: In a historical sketch of the
late Hon. Benjamin Stark, published in the "Ships and
Engine Magazine,” the statement is made that his ancestor,
Aaron Stark, landed at Salem, Mass., in 1627, and that he
joined up with the Rev. Joseph Hooker and journeyed to
Wethersfield, Conn." {Ackley, Hattie Stark, 1937 Stark
Family Yearbook publication, Historian's Report, page 31.} Source
2: The Old Northwest Genealogical Quarterly,
Volume XII, No. 4, October, 1909, page 195, "Stark
Descendant Family Lines," states that Aaron arrived in
1629. |
| 3) |
See
"Common Genealogical Myths, Mistakes, &
Misconceptions." Source 1: Was Aaron Stark [1608-1685] the son
of parents named Aaron Stark & Mary Holt?) Source
2: (Who Was Henry Stark?) |
| 4) |
The
earliest known source of this statement came from Rev.
Thomas Prince in his introduction to John Mason's narrative,
"A Brief History of the Pequot War," which
was published in 1736. Prince wrote: "Major Mason
having been trained up in the Netherlands War under Sir
Thomas Fairfax; when the Struggle arose in England between
K. Charles I. and the Parliament about the Royal Powers and
the National Liberties; that Famous General had such an
esteem for the Major's Conduct and Bravery, that he wrote to
the Major to come over and help Him." Later historians
added this phrase to John Mason's biography, but a footnote
on page 8 of the pamphlet points out that ”Fairfax went to
the Netherlands in April of 1630, and though but eighteen,
was a volunteer in the army and was with Sir Horace Vere at
the siege of Bois-le-Duc, which surrendered in July of that
year. Young Fairfax was then ordered by his grandfather to
leave camp and travel in France; and there he remained for
about eighteen months, returning to England in February of
1632. Since the total service of Fairfax in the Low
Countries extended over but four months, and was somewhat in
the nature of a youthful adventure, it can hardly be said
that Mason was ‘trained up’ under him though the story
has been repeated by nearly every biographer since Prince.
He may, however, have been a companion in arms with Fairfax,
though of this there is no direct proof." {A Brief
History of the Pequot War: Especially of the Taking of their
Fort at Mistick in Connecticut in 1637. Written by Major
John Mason, a principle Actor therein, as then chief Captain
and Commander of Connecticut Forces. With an Introduction
and some Explanatory Notes by the Reverend Mr. Thomas
Prince. Boston: Printed and sold by S. Kneeland & T.
Green in Queen Street, 1736.} |
| 5) |
Caulkins,
Frances Manwaring, History of New London, Connecticut.
From the First Survey of the Coast in 1612 to 1860.
Published in 1895, 696 pp., 2 vols. |
| 6) |
Web Page: <Connecticut
State Library --- Founders of Windsor> (Source also
dated 1996. Contributed by Del Rickel). While some may
dispute Aaron Stark was a founder, Aaron’s appearances
before the Particular Court of Connecticut suggests he was a
resident in 1639 and 1640. His residency before 1639 is not
known with certainty. |
| 7) |
The
Public Records of the Colony of
Connecticut, Prior to the Union With New Haven Colony, by J.
Hammond Trumbell, 1850. Volume 1, page 9. |
|
|
Page
13
Author's
Introduction to the Pequot War
Was our ancestor, Aaron Stark, a participant in the Pequot War? The following personal testimony, given in 1673, would suggest that he was:
"The Testimony of Aron Starke Aged Sixtie five yeares or there Abouts testifieth and sayth that we being souldiers under Capt: John Mason with many more when wee went Agaynst the Pequitts Indeans wee being Landed in the Naragansett Country where many of the Naragansetts
Came Armed and tendered themselves to goe with us in that Cervise Agaynst the Pequitts wherein they was Redily Accepted And marched with us through part of the Naragansett Country until they Came within four or five miles of Pawcatuck River where wee made A halt: where Nenecraft And Miantinomye with many others did
declare unto our Commanders that wee were come into the Pequitt Country And therefore did Advise them to bee verie Carefull of themselves Least they Should be destroyed. Aron Stark And Jacob Waterhouse Appeared this 11th of June 1673 and made oath to what is Above written before me John Allyn Justice. The
Above written deposition was entered in Stonington Records April the 25: 1699 Pr me John Stanton Town Clarke." {Stonington, New London County, Connecticut Deeds 1664-1714, Book 2, page 280, June 11, 1673. LDS Microfilm Film #5593, transcribed by Gwen Boyer Bjorkman.}
John Mason’s account,
A Brief History of the Pequot War, describes several events that would seem to bear on this issue.
| 1) |
Mason reports that the men who participated were recruited from the settlements of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield. We will later learn that Aaron may have been a resident of Windsor in 1639 and 1640, though his place of residence at the time of his
recruitment in 1637 is not known with certainty. We can only establish he was in New England before May of 1637 and that he was most likely living in one of the three communities Mason names when the hostilities began. |
| 2) |
When Captain Underhill joined the expedition with twenty additional men, all of whom lived at Saybrook Fort, 20 of those originally recruited from Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield returned home. Aaron’s testimony suggests he could not have been one of the 20
men who returned, for his testimony describes events that occurred after Mason and his men left Saybrook Fort for the Narragansett Country. Aaron’s testimony further indicates he and Jacob Waterhouse were “souldiers under Capt.: John Mason;” suggesting that they were not men in Captain Underhill’s
detachment. Aaron and Jacob were most likely not residents of Saybrook Fort when the hostilities began. |
| 3) |
Aaron’s testimony concludes when the expedition was about to enter into the Pequot Country. We can only surmise that Aaron probably continued the march on to the Pequot Fort and participated in its destruction, but because his testimony is silent on this aspect
of the war we cannot go further than that. |
| 4) |
Mason does not report that any men under his command turned back once the expedition reached the Pequot country, so if Aaron left Saybrook with Mason he most likely did participate in the attack on the fort. |
John Mason’s publication represents the best contemporary account of the Pequot War. Increase Mather’s 1677 manuscript gave credit to John
Allyn, as the author of A Brief History of the Pequot War. However, as reported in Reverend Thomas Prince’s
introduction, the author was actually John Mason. John Allyn was the same justice who in 1673 heard the testimony of Aaron Stark and Jacob Waterhouse. Therefore, through John Mason‘s account of his participation in the Pequot War, we are able to observe the events witnessed by our ancestor first hand. Only those
passages in John Mason’s publication relevant to Aaron’s testimony have been included here.
Mason’s assault on the fort occurred on Friday, May 26, 1637. The English casualties were two dead and about 20 wounded. Mason later learned that about 150 warriors from the further fort had come to join in the festivities of the previous night and had perished in the
battle. (Date and casualties reported in Mason’s publication.) In all, according to the
Pequot's, six to seven hundred of their number were killed, with fourteen taken captive (of whom seven would later escape).
This attack was the decisive battle in the Pequot campaign, which ultimately led to victory for the colonists and the abandonment by the
Pequot's of all of the lands between the present-day border of Connecticut and Rhode Island and the Connecticut River. This event thus
opened this key region to later settlers who would name the region New London County. Assuming that Aaron Stark was indeed a member of Mason’s force, which would seem to be a fair reading of the extant evidence, he participated in one of the turning points in 17th-century American history.
Clovis
LaFleur
September
2006
|
Source of the following: A Brief History of the Pequot War: Especially of the Memorable Taking of their Fort at Mistick in Connecticut in 1637. Written by Major John Mason, a principal Actor therein, as then chief Captain
and Commander of Connecticut Forces. With an Introduction and some Explanatory Notes by the Reverend Mr. Thomas Prince. Boston: Printed and Sold by S. Kneeland and T. Green in Queen Street, 1736.
Online Source:
http://bc.barnard.columbia.edu/~rmccaugh/earlyAC/readings/pequot/pequot.pdf
|
|
|
Page
14
Excerpt from:
A Brief History of the Pequot War, by Major John Mason
Excerpt from Reverend Mr. Thomas Prince’s Introduction dated December 23, 1735 in Boston:
“I have only now to observe, that in The Relation of the Troubles which happened to New England by the Indians
from 1614 to 1675, Published by the then Mr. Increase Mather in 1677, I find a copy of the following Narrative, but without the prefaces, had been communicated to him by Mr. John Allyn then the Secretary of Connecticut Colony; which that Rev. Author took for Mr. Allyn’s and calls it his. But we must inform the
Reader, that the Narrative was originally drawn by Major Mason. And as his Eldest Grandson Capt. John Mason now of New London has put it into my Hands; I have been more than usually careful in Correcting the Press according to the Original; as the most authentic Account of the Pequot, and as a standing Monument both of
the extraordinary Dangers and Courage of our pious Fathers, and of the eminent Appearance of Heaven to save them.”
In the Beginning of May 1637 there were sent out by Connecticut Colony Ninety Men under the Command of Capt. John Mason against the
Pequots, with Onkos an Indian Sachem living at Mohegan,[a] who was newly revolted from the
Pequots; being Shipped in one Pink, one Pinnace, and one Shallop; who sailing down the river of Connecticut fell several times a ground, the Water being very low; the Indians not being wonted to such Things with their small Canoes, and also being impatient of Delays, desired they might be set on
Shoar, promising that they would met us at Saybrook; which we
granted: They hastening to their Quarters, fell upon Thirty or forty of the Enemy near Saybrook Fort, and killed seven of them out right;[b] Having one of their’s wounded, who was sent back to ?Connecticut in a Skiff: Capt. John Underhill also coming with him, who informed us what was performed by Onkos and
his Men; which we looked at as a special Providence; for before we were somewhat doubtful of his Fidelity: Capt. Underhill then offered his Service with Nineteen Men to go with us, if Lieutenant Gardner would allow of it, who was Chief Commander at Saybrook Fort; which was readily approved of by Lieutenant Gardner and
accepted by us; In lieu of them we sent back twenty of our Soldiers to Connecticut.
Upon a Wednesday we arrived at
Saybrook, where we lay Windbound until Friday; often consulting how and in what manner we should proceed in our
Enterprize, being altogether ignorant of the Country. At length we concluded, God assisting us, for Narragansett, and so to March
through their Country, which Bordered upon the Enemy; where lived a great People, it being about fifteen Leagues beyond Pequot: the Grounds and Reasons of our so Acting you shall presently understand:
“First, the Pequots our Enemies, kept a continual Guard upon the river Night and Day.
“Secondly, their Numbers far exceeded ours; having sixteen Guns with Power and Shot, as we were informed by the two Captives forementioned (Where we declared the Grounds of this War) who were taken by the Dutch and restored to us at
Saybrook; which indeed was a very
friendly Office and not to be forgotten.
“Thirdly, they were on Land, and being swift of Foot, might much impede our Landing, and possibly dishearten our Men; we being expected only by Land, there being no other Place to go on Shoar but in that River, nearer than Narragansett.
“Fourthly, By Narragansett we should come upon their Backs and possibly might surprize them unawares, at worst we should be on firm Land as well as they.” All which proved very successful as the Sequel may evidently demonstrate.
But yet for all this our Counsel, all of them except the Captain, were at a stand and could not judge it meet to sail to Narragansett: And indeed there was a very strong Ground for it; our Commission limiting us to land our Men in Pequot River; we had also the same Order
by Letter of Instruction sent us to Saybrook.
But Capt. Mason apprehending an exceeding great Hazard in so doing, for the Reasons
forementioned, as also some other which I shall forbear to trouble you with, did therefore earnestly desire Mr. Stone that he would commend our Condition to the Lord, that Night, to direct
how and in shat manner we should demean ourselves in that Respect: He being our Chaplin and lying aboard our Pink, the Captain on
Shoar. In the Morning very early Mr. Stone came ashoar to the Captain’s Chamber, and told him, he had done as he had desired, and was fully satisfied to sail for Narragansett. Our Council
was then called, and the several Reasons alleged: In fine we all agreed with one accord to sail for Narragansett, which the next Morning we put in Execution.
I declare not this encourage any Soldiers to Act beyond their Commission, or contrary to it; for in so doing they run double Hazard. There was a great Commander in Belgia who did the States great service in taking a City; but by going beyond his Commission lost his Life:
His name was Grubbendunk. But if a War be Managed duly by Judgment and Discretion as is requisite, the Shews are many times contrary to what they seem to pursue: Wherefore the more an Enterprize is dissembled and kept secret, the more facil to put in Execution; as the Proverb, The farthest way about is sometimes the
nearest way home. I shall make bold to present this as my present Thoughts in this Case; in Matters of War, those who are both able and faithful should be improved; and then bind them not up into too narrow a Compass: for it is not possible for the wisest and ablest Senator to foresee all Accidents and Occurrents that
fall out in the Management and Pursuit of a War: Nay although possibly he might be trained up in Military Affaires; and truly much less can have any great Knowledge who hath had but little Experience therein. What shall I say? God led his People through many difficulties and Turnings; yet by more than an ordinary Hand
of Providence he brought them to Canaan at last.
On Friday Morning we set Sail for Narragansett Bay, and on Saturday towards Evening we arrived at our desired Port, there we kept the Sabbath.
_________
|
a) |
Onkos,
usually called Uncas, the Great Sachem of the Moheags. |
| b) |
Mr.
Increase Mather, in his History of the Pequot War, says this was
on May 15. |
|
|
Page
15
On
the Monday the Wind Blew so hard at North-West that we could not go
on Shoar; as also on the Tuesday until Sun set; at which time Capt.
Mason landed and Marched up to the Place of the Chief Sachem’s
Residence; who told the Sachem, "That we had not an opportunity
to acquaint him with our coming Armed in his Country sooner; yet not
doubting but it would be well accepted by him, there being Love
betwixt himself and us, well knowing also that the Pequots and
themselves were Enemies, and that he could not be unacquainted with
those intolerable Wrongs and Injuries these Pequots had lately done
unto the English; and that we were now come, God assisting, to
Avenge our selves upon them; and that we did only desire free
Passage through his Country." Who returned this answer,
"That he did accept of our coming, and did also approve of our
Design; only he thought our Numbers were to weak to deal with the
Enemy, who were (as he said) very great Captains and Men skilful in
War." thus he spake somewhat slighting of us.
On
the Wednesday Morning, we Marched from thence to a Place called
Nayanticke, it being about eighteen or twenty mils distant, where
another of those Narragansett Sachems lived in a Fort; it being a
Frontier to the Pequots. They carrying very proudly towards us; not
permitting any of us to come into their Fort.
We
beholding their Carriage and the Falsehood of Indians, and fearing
least they might discover us to the Enemy, especially they having
many times some of their near Relations among their greatest Foes;
we therefore caused a strong Guard to be set about their Fort,
giving Charge that no Indian should be suffered to pass in or out:
We also informed the Indians, that none of them should stir out of
the Fort upon peril of their Lives: so as they would not suffer any
of us to come into their Fort.
There
we quartered that Night , the Indians not offering to stir out all
the while.
In
the Morning there came to us several of Miantamo[c] his Men, who
told us, they were come to assist us in our Expedition, which
encouraged divers Indians of that Place to Engage also; who suddenly
gathering into a Ring, one by one, making solemn Protestations how
gallantly the would demean themselves, and how many Men they would
Kill.
On
the Thursday about eight of the Clock in the Morning, we Marched
thence towards Pequot, with about five hundred Indians: But through
the Heat of the Weather and want of Provisions some of our Men
fainted: and having Marched about twelve Miles, we came to Pawcatuck
River, at a Ford where our Indians told us the Pequots did usually
Fish; there making an Alta, we stayed some small time: The
Narragansett Indians manifesting great Fear, in so much that many of
them returned, although they had frequently despised us , saying,
That we durst not look upon a Pequot, but themselves would perform
great Things; though we had often told them that we came on purpose
and were resolved, God assisting, to see the Pequots, and to fight
with them, before we returned, though we perished. I then enquired
of Onkos, what he thought the Indians would do? Who said, The
Narragansetts would all leave us, but as for Himself He would never
leave us: and so it proved: For which Expressions and some other
Speeches of his, O shall never forget him. Indeed he was a great
Friend, and did great Service.
And
after we had refreshed our selves with our mean Commons, we Marched
about three Miles, and came to a Field which had lately been planted
with Indian Corn: There we made another Alt, and called our Council,
supposing we drew near to the Enemy; and being informed by the
Indians that the Enemy had two Forts almost impregnable; but we were
not at all Discouraged, but rather Animated, in so much that we were
resolved to Assault both their Forts at once. But understanding that
one of them was so remote that we could not come up with it before
Midnight, though we Marched hard; whereat we were grieved, chiefly
because the greatest and bloodiest Sachem there resided, whose name
was Sassacous: We were then constrained, being exceedingly spent in
our March with extream Heat and want of Necessaries, to accept of
the nearest.
We
then Marching on in a silent Manner, the Indians that remained fell
all into the Rear, who formerly kept the Van; (being possessed with
great Fear) we continued our March till about one Hour in the Night;
and coming to a little Swamp between two Hills, there we pitched our
little Camp; much wearied with hard Travel, keeping great Silence,
supposing we were very near the Fort; as our Indians informed us;
which proved otherwise: The Rocks were our Pillows; yet Rest was
pleasant: The Night proved Comfortable, being clear and Moon Light:
We appointed our Guards and placed our Sentinels at some distance;
who heard the Enemy singing at the Fort, who continued that Strain
until Midnight, with great Insulting and Rejoycing, as we were
afterwards informed: They seeing our Pinnaces sail by them some Days
before, concluded we were afraid of them and durst not come near
them; the Burthen of their Song tending to that purpose.
In
the Morning, we awaking and seeing it very light, supposing it had
been day, and so we might have lost our Opportunity, having purposed
to make our Assault before Day; rowsed the Men with all expedition,
and briefly commended ourselves and Design to God, thinking
immediately to go to the Assault; the Indians shewing us a Path,
told us that if led directly to the Fort. We held on our March about
two Miles, wondering hat we came not to the Fort, and fearing we
might be deluded: But seeing Corn newly planted at the Foot of a
great Hill, supposing the Fort was not far off, a Champion Country
being round about us; then making a stand, gave the Word for some of
the Indians to come up: At length Onkos and one Waquash appeared: We
demanded of them, Where were the Rest of the Indians?
_________
|
c) |
He was
usually called Miantonimo, the Great Sachem of the Narragansett
Indians. |
|
|
Page
16
They
answered, Behind, exceedingly afraid: We wished them to tell the
rest of their Fellows, That they should by no means Fly, but stand
at what distance they pleased, and see whether English Men would now
Fight or not. Then Capt. Underhill came up, who Marched in the Rear;
and commending our selves to God, divided our Men: There being two
Entrances into the Fort, intending to enter both at once: Captain
Mason leading up to that on the North East Side; who approaching
within one Rod, heard a Dog bark and an Indian crying Owanux! Owanux!
Which is Englishmen! Englishmen! We called up our Forces with all
expedition, gave Fire upon them through the Pallizado; the Indians
being in a dead indeed their last Sleep: Then we wheeling off fell
upon the main Entrance which was blocked up with Bushes about Breast
high, over which the Captain passed, intending to make good the
Entrance, encouraging the rest to follow. Lieutenant Seeley
endeavored to enter; but being somewhat cumbred, stepped back and
pulled out the Bushes and so entered, and with him about sixteen
Men: We had formerly concluded to destroy them by Sword and save the
Plunder.
Whereupon
Captain Mason seeing no Indians, entered a Wigwam; where he was
beset with many Indians, waiting all opportunities to lay Hands on
him, but could not prevail. At length William Heydon espying the
Breach in the Wigwam, supposing some English might be there,
entered; but in his Entrance fell over a dead Indian; but speedily
recovering himself, the Indians some fled, others crept under their
Beds: The Captain going out of the Wigwam saw many Indians in the
Lane or Street; he making towards them, they fled, were pursued to
the End of the Lane, where they were met by Edward Pattison, Thomas
Barber, with some others; where seven of them were Slain, as they
said. The Captain facing about, Marched a slow Pace up the Lane he
came down, perceiving himself very much out of Breath; and coming to
the other End near the Place where he first entered, saw two
Soldiers standing close to the Pallizado with their Swords pointed
to the Ground: The Captain told them that We should never kill them
after that manner: The Captain also said, We must Burn them; and
immediately stepping into the Wigwam where he had been before,
brought out a Fire-Brand, and putting it into the Matts with which
they were covered, set the Wigwam on Fire. Lieutenant Thomas Bull
and Nicholas Omsted beholding, came up; and when it was thoroughly
kindled, the Indians ran as Men most dreadfully Amazed.
And
Indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their
Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames,
where many of them perished. And when the Fort was thoroughly Fired,
Command was given, that all should fall off and surround the Fort:
which was readily attended by all; only one Arthur Smith being so
wounded that he could not move out of the Place, who was happily
espied by Lieutenant Bull, and by him rescued.
The
Fire was kindled on the North East Side to windward; which did
swiftly over-run the Fort, to the extream Amazement of the Enemy,
and great Rejoycing of our selves. Some of them climbing to the Top
of the Pallizado; others of them running into the very Flames; many
of them gathering to windward, lay pelting at us with their Arrows;
and we repayed them with our small Shot: Others of the Stoutest
issued forth, as we did guess, to the Number of Forty, who perished
by the Sword.
What
I have formerly said, is according to my own Knowledge, there being
sufficient living Testimony to every Particular.
But
in reference to Captain Underhill and his Parties acting in this
Assault, I can only intimate as we were informed by some of
themselves immediately after the Fight, thus They Marching up to the
Entrance on the South West Side, there made some Pause; a valiant,
resolute Gentleman, one Mr. Hedge, stepping towards the Gate,
saying, If we may not Enter, wherefore came we here; and immediately
endeavored to Enter; but was opposed by a sturdy Indian being slain
by himself and Sergeant Davis, Mr. Hedge Entered the Fort with some
others; but the Fort being on Fire, The Smoak and Flames were so
violent that they were constrained to desert the Fort.
Thus
were they now at their Wits End, who not many Hours before exalted
themselves in their great Pride, threatning and resolving the utter
Ruin and Destruction of all English, Exulting and Rejoycing with
Songs and Dances: But God was above them, who laughed his Enemies
and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven:
Thus were the Stout Hearted spoiled, having slept their last Sleep,
and none of their Men could find their Hands: Thus did the Lord
judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies!
And
here we may see the just Judgment of God, in sending even the very
Night before this Assault, One hundred and fifty Men from their
other Fort, to join with them of that Place, who were designed as
some of themselves reported to go forth against the English, at that
very Instant when this heavy Stroak came upon them, where they
perished with their Fellows. So that the Mischief they intended to
us, came upon their own Pate: They were taken in their own Snare,
and we through Mercy escaped.[d]
Of
the English, there were two Slain out right, and about twenty
Wounded: Some Fainted by reason of the sharpness of the Weather, it
being a cool Morning, and the want of such Comforts and Necessaries
as were needful in such a Case; especially our Chyrurgeon was much
wanting, whom we left with our Barks in Narragansett Bay, who had
Order there to remain until the Night before our intended Assault.
_________
|
d) |
The
Place at the Fort being called Mistick, this Fight was called
Mistick Fight: And Mr. Increase Mather, from a Manuscript He met
with, tells us; It was Friday, May 26, 1637, a memorable Day. |
|
|
Page
17
Appearances
before the Particular Court of Connecticut
The
first official document that shows Aaron Stark was living in New
England, and within the jurisdiction of the Particular Court of
Connecticut, was dated April 11, 1639. From this and two later
documents we discover why Aaron’s character was later described by
James Savage as "an unpromising youth, appearing before the
court and punished by being whipped," for when Aaron appeared
before the Particular Court on this date, he was accused of and
convicted for engaging in certain "unclean practices."[8]
The
record in question has five sentences, as follows:[9]
| 1) |
Jn.
Edmunds, Aaron Stark, and Jn. Williams were censured for
vncleane practises as foll. |
| 2) |
Jn.
[Edmunds] Williams to be whipt att a Carts arse vppon a
lecture day att Hartford. |
| 3) |
Jn.
Williams to stand vppon the pillory from the ringing of the
first bell to the end of the lecture then to be whipt att a
Carts arse and to be whipt in like maner att Windsore within
8 dayes following. |
| 4) |
Aaron
Starke to Stand vppon the pillory and be whipt as Williams
and to haue the letter R burnt vppon his cheeke and in
regard of the wrong done to Mary Holt to pay her parents 10L
and in defect of such to the Common Wealth and when both are
fit for that Condition to marry her; |
| 5) |
It is the mind of the Court that Mr.
Ludlow and Mr. Phelps see some publique punishment inflicted
vppon the girle for Concealing it soe long. |
After
the first sentence named Aaron Stark as one of three men
"censured for vncleane practises," the remaining four
sentences that follow specified the punishment the court ordered for
each of the three men. Let us examine and analyze each of these four
sentences in turn and see what the document tells us — and what it
does not. According to the second sentence of the transcription,
John Edmunds was to receive the punishment described therein. A note
in the 1928 publication in which this transcription is found states,
however, that in the original document the name Edmunds had been
struck through by the recorder, who presumably also wrote in above
the name Williams. (This leads to some confusion, because the third
sentence also describes punishment for John Williams. Assuming John
Edmunds was in fact accused, as stated in the first sentence, he
either received no physical punishment or the second sentence
actually describes the punishment John Edmonds was to receive. This
point, while interesting, is not central to the matter of Aaron’s
punishment.)
The
punishment John Williams was to receive included standing upon the
pillory all day, being pulled and whipped behind a cart through the
settlement of Hartford, and, within eight days, being similarly
pulled and whipped behind a cart through the settlement of Windsor.
The
fourth sentence states that Aaron's punishment was to be identical
to that of John Williams; that is, Aaron was to be chastised in the
manner, and in the same settlements, as prescribed in the third
sentence. But sentence four goes on to mention additional punishment
for Aaron. He was also to have a "R" burned into his
cheek, and "in regard of the wrong done to Mary Holt" he
was ordered to pay the substantial sum of 10 pounds to her parents
and to marry the young woman.
Although
Mary Holt had not been censured in the first sentence, the last
sentence of the court’s judgment did direct that she was to
receive a public punishment "for Concealing it soe long."
The implication of the sequence of punishments, and the wording of
this last phrase, leads us to believe that Mary Holt was pregnant
with Aaron’s child at the time the court met and that Aaron was
held responsible for the pregnancy, although the absence of any
reference to other women also suggests that all three men had
transgressed with Mary.
We
turn now to the punishments inflicted and what we can learn from
them. The first issue is what they may tell us about Aaron’s place
of residence. The fourth sentence ordered him to "Stand vppon
the pillory and be whipt as Williams." Williams was to be
whipped first in Hartford and then again (within eight days) at
Windsor. This phrase can be read in different ways, though. It could
mean that Williams was to be whipped not only in the colony’s
capital, Hartford, but in Windsor (his home?) as well, while Aaron
was to be punished in his own town, whether Hartford, Windsor, or
some other place. But the use of the words "whipt as
Williams" makes it more likely that both men were to be whipped
not only in the seat of the court but a second town in which both
men lived: Windsor. Thus we have a clue — though not proof —
that Aaron Stark might have been a resident of Windsor in 1639.
_________
|
8) |
Savage,
James, A Genealogical Dictionary of The First Settlers of New
England, Showing Three Generations of Those Who Came Before May,
1692. On The Basis Of Farmer's Register. Originally published in
Boston, 1860-1862. "STARKE, or START, ARRON, Hartford 1639,
or Windsor 1643, an unpromis. youth, subject. by sentence of
Court to whip. rem. to New London 1655, near Stonington, freem.
1669; d. as, 1685, leav. s. Aaron, John, William, and had ds. wh.
m. John Fish and Josiah Haynes." |
|
9) |
Records
of the Particular Court of Connecticut, 1639-1663. Published by
the Connecticut Historical Society and the Society of Colonial
Wars in the State of Connecticut, Hartford, 1928, page 3. |
|
|
Page
18
Why
was Aaron branded on the cheek with the letter "R"? Could
it be because he was regarded as a rapist (in contemporary language,
a "ravisher")? We see how serious an offense this was from
the General Lawes adopted in December, 1641, by the General Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bay, which stated the following in
Article 15 of its Capital Laws.
If
any man shal RAVISH any maid or single womã, cõmitting carnal
copulation with her by force, against her own will; that is
above the age of ten years he shal be punished either with
death, or with some other grievous punishment according to
circumstances as the Judges, or General court shal determin."
This
would have been a serious offense, though we do not know that the
new colony of Connecticut had such a law of its own. In any case,
the existence of a law cannot convict a man: the court’s record
shows only that Aaron and the others were charged with "vncleane
practices," not with raping Mary Holt. An alternative
explanation is that Aaron was being branded as a "rogue,"
a designation, according to some authorities, Puritans reserved for
those in the community deemed as having "acted out" in a
"lude and lascivious" way. In being so branded, they were
"culled out, or removed, from the other specimens (i.e. the
"normal" men of mankind)." At this distance of time
and cultural change, we can only speculate exactly why Aaron was
branded, for the record does not provide us with additional
information, though we can be sure that his offense was regarded as
a serious one.
Did
Aaron Stark marry Mary Holt? Despite the court’s order that the
couple wed, there is no evidence that they did so, and neither is
there any evidence a child was ever born to Mary. Furthermore, four
months after this April court appearance, on August 1, 1639, the
Particular Court took up another matter involving Mary Holt. In its
decision, it stated that "Jn Bennett & Mary Holt were both
censured to be whipt for unclean practises and the girls Mr. is
injoyned to send her out of this Jurisdiction before the last of the
next month."[10] This court record would seem to verify that
Aaron did not marry Mary Holt, at least not between April 11, 1639
and August 1, 1639, for if she were the wife of Aaron Stark on
August 1 the records would have referred to her as Mary Stark. And
if Mary Holt was the wife of Aaron in August, wouldn’t she — and
Bennett — have been accused of adultery rather than unclean
practices? Instead, the court record suggests that Mary Holt and
John Bennett were single persons at that time, which leads us to
believe that Mary and Aaron Stark had not married by August 1, 1639.
Then
who was the Mr. "injoyned to send her out of this Jurisdiction
before the last of the next month"? Had Mary Holt been the wife
of Aaron Stark at the time of the August 1639 court session, then
most certainly the "Mr." could have been Aaron Stark. Had
Mary Holt been an indentured servant, on the other hand, the
"Mr." would have been the man who owned her contract, who
probably would have been ordered to remove her from the court’s
jurisdiction. Since (as we have seen) the court record suggests that
Aaron and Mary were not a married couple on August 1, 1639, and
since the April court specifically and clearly ordered Aaron Stark
to pay the parents of Mary Holt 10 pounds, is it not more likely
that the "Mr." was Mary Holt’s father?
However,
after reviewing these comments, John Choate contributed the
following regarding the identification of the "Mr." who
was to remove Mary Holt from the community:
"Mr.
was an abbreviation for "Minister" not just a random
designation of a male. The minister was elected by the
congregation, and was literate, and a preacher. At this time,
probably also schooled and educated as an ordained minister. He
had a flock, and this was a theocracy (i.e. the church was the
government)."
Having
the "Minister" remove a member of his congregation
from the jurisdiction of the Church (and the
community) would have been more likely in that day and
time.
Thus
we should not accept the April court record in itself as proof of a
marriage between Mary Holt and Aaron Stark, for other evidence
argues persuasively to the contrary. There is one more intriguing
aspect of this matter, however. The last sentence in the April
document stated that Mary Holt was to be punished "for
concealing it soe long," which certainly seems to suggest Mary
Holt may have been in a fairly advanced state of pregnancy that
spring. How does this bear upon a possible marriage between her and
Aaron? It could be that Aaron did not follow through and marry Mary
because she was never pregnant at all, which in the eyes of the
community would have released him from any obligation he might have
felt.
Lastly,
let us ask ourselves this: was Aaron an innocent? Certainly not, and
neither was Mary. But this one incident, unpleasant as it was, is
hardly enough to convict Aaron of a life of debauchery, although
there is much we do not know about the kind of life he did lead
during these years. Unfortunately, however, Aaron got into trouble
again the next year, 1640, and this time the infraction was worse
— so bad, in fact, that the earliest Stark family researchers seem
to have ignored or even suppressed the facts, for reasons that are
understandable.
_________
|
10) |
Records
of the Particular Court of Connecticut, 1639-1663.
Published by the Connecticut Historical Society and the Society
of Colonial Wars in the State of Connecticut, Hartford, 1928, page
4. Has the passage about Mary Holt and John Bennett. |
|
|
Page
19
On
July 2, 1640, the Particular Court directed that: [11]
| • |
Nicholas
Senthion for not appearing to witnesse agaynst Aron Starke
is ffyned to pay ffyne pownd to the Country. |
| • |
John
Porter one of the Constables of Wyndsor is to keepe the said
Aron Starke with locke and Chaine and hold him to hard
labour & course dyet vntil he be cauled to bring him
forth vppon the next somons. |
| • |
The
said Aron being accused of buggery with a heifer, confesseth
that he leaned crosse over the heifers fflanke, though at
the first he denyed that he came neere her, lastly he
acknowledgeth that he had twice comitted the acte with the
heifer but that shee was to narrowe. |
Here
again we do not know whether this was a crime yet in Connecticut, as
it became in Massachusetts a little more than a year later:
"If
any man or woman shall LYE WITH ANY BEAST, or bruit creature, by
carnall copulation; they shall surely be put to death and the
beast shall be slain, & buried, and not eaten. Lev. 20, 15.
16."
A
modern researcher, John M. Murrin, has interpreted Aaron’s two
court appearances in a manner that gives us food for thought.[12] He
writes:
"In
July 1640 Aaron Starke of Windsor was accused of buggering a
heifer. A year earlier he had been whipped and fined, and the
letter R was burned upon his cheek (for attempted rape?), for
``the wrong done to Mary Holt . . . and when both are fit for
that Condition to marry her.'' Instead, a month or two later she
was whipped and banished for ``vncleane practises'' with John
Bennett. Starke was still single when accused of bestiality. He
``confesseth that he leaned crosse over the heifers Flanke,
though at the first he denyed that he came neere her, lastly he
acknowledgeth that he had twice committed the acte wth the
heifer but that shee was to narrowe.'' The court ordered a
constable to keep him ``wth locke and Chaine and hold him to
hard labour & course diet'' until summoned to trial.
Nicholas Sension, the lifelong homosexual, was fined for not
appearing to testify at this trial. One has to wonder how
intimate the relationship was between these two men. The records
of the next several courts have not survived, but Stark was not
executed. Connecticut had not yet declared bestiality a capital
crime, and the court may also have concluded that his confession
amounted to no more than admission of the attempt, not the act. 20"
Since
(as Murrin points out) Aaron’s action, while distasteful to
consider, was not yet a capital offense in Connecticut in 1640, his
treatment by the Particular Court was measured and moderate, though
we do not know exactly what it was. An interesting dimension of this
matter is that Nicholas Senthion (Sension) was fined five pounds for
not appearing as a witness. Murrin provides one possible
explanation, which may or may not be correct. Although the text of
the court record implies the accusation against Aaron was based on
the act being witnessed by Nicholas Sension, we know nothing of his
motives, and we do not know if Sension’s testimony was voluntary
or forced. It was not uncommon for false accusations to be made
against persons by those with a vindictive spirit, especially
individuals lower in station in the community than themselves.
Perhaps, either because Aaron had rejected his advances or in order
to preserve his own reputation, Sension falsely accused Aaron and
later decided not to testify because he knew that Aaron was
innocent. Perhaps Sension’s testimony had been obtained by
coercion and he later declined to testify, despite the penalty.
Whatever
the facts of the matter, this case closed in an uncertain manner,
but the very subject matter of the accusation led to its virtual
disappearance from the Stark family history.
_________
|
11) |
Records
of the Particular Court of Connecticut, 1639-1663. Published by
the Connecticut Historical Society and the Society of Colonial
Wars in the State of Connecticut, Hartford, 1928, Page 13. Has
the July 2, 1640 appearance before the court. |
|
12) |
John
M. Murrin, "Things Fearful to Name": Bestiality in
Colonial America." Published in the quarterly journal,
Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies (Volume
65, Number 5, Special Supplement Issue, 1998, pages 8-43).
{Mullins Source for note 20: Records of the Particular Court of
Connecticut, 1639-1663 (Hartford: Connecticut Historical
Society, 1928), pages 3, 4, 13, 20.} |
|
|
Page
20
On
April 6, 1643, though, Aaron was back before the Court. This time
the court record states: "Aron Starke is aiudged to be
whiped at Winsor tomorrow, & then to serve Captaine Mason during
ye pleasure of ye Court."[13] The record also shows that
Mason was present in court that day. By now, Aaron was at risk of
being banished altogether. Circumstantial evidence suggests that
Mason, acquainted with Stark and held responsible for the safety of
the Connecticut settlements, intervened in Aaron's behalf —
probably because he could not afford the loss of a single fighting
man, and perhaps because he saw some redeeming qualities in Stark.
It may be that Mason (or one of the members of the court) suggested
that Aaron be directed to serve the Captain for an indefinite period
of time. The gamble paid off, and this remedy ensured that Aaron's
days of getting into trouble would come to an end.
Thus
this brief period in Aaron's life, with its three court appearances
— all of them for actions that do not reflect positively upon his
character and moral behavior, helps to explain why so many
researchers over the years depicted him in a negative manner. He may
well have been an unsavory person, though there is hardly enough
evidence to establish that point, but there is another way to look
at what we have seen. The later behavior of Mary Holt and Nicholas
Sension suggests that Aaron could have been guilty of associating
with the wrong people, who led him astray until he found a strong
and moral mentor in John Mason. It does seem noteworthy that after
the last of these three appearances before the Particular Court,
Aaron had no further charges brought against him, either because he
realized the errors of his way or because Mason straightened him
out. As we will learn, he became a trustworthy servant of John Mason
and a solid citizen, and in the end this fact seems more significant
than these youthful indiscretions that blackened his reputation for
so many years.
Author’s
Comment: As we have seen, Captain
John Mason [ca.1600-1672] of Connecticut was a key figure in the
life of Aaron Stark. There were two men by that name and rank who
were prominent in New England history, and it is important not to
confuse the Captain John Mason [1585-1635] of New Hampshire fame
with the man we are discussing here.[14]
_________
|
13) |
Records
of the Particular Court of Connecticut, 1639-1663, Pages 19
& 20. Reveals John Mason was present at the April 6, 1643
appearance before the court and reports the court order for
Aaron Stark to serve Mason. |
|
14) |
For
more information on the New Hampshire Mason, see Peter Wilson
Coldham’s "The Complete Book of Emigrants,
1607-1660." Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc.
Baltimore, Maryland, 1987. |
|
|
Page
21
Aaron
Stark, Tenant Farmer on the John Mason Stonington Land Grant
Aaron’s
first two court appearances mentioned the settlement of Windsor,
Connecticut, which suggests that he may have been a resident there
in the years 1639 and 1640. (We can say with certainty only that he
was a resident of one of the three communities from which Captain
John Mason’s soldiers in the Pequot War were recruited, and one of
those towns was Windsor.) But when the court ordered Aaron to
"serve Captaine Mason during ye pleasure of ye Court," we
can be quite confident that he had become a resident of Windsor, for
this was where Mason lived at the time.
During
the years between 1643 and 1653 there are no records of Aaron's own
activities. We assume that he must have been serving Mason,
principally as a tenant or caretaker for Mason’s property but
perhaps in other capacities as well. By examining what Mason was
doing at that time, where he was living, and also the historical
context in Connecticut, we get a sense of what was happening around
Aaron Stark during this silent decade before he reappears in the
surviving records in 1653. We can also speculate about where Aaron
was living at various times.
For
background on what Mason was doing at that time, we turn to Frances
Manwaring Caulkins’ History of Norwich, which states:[15]
"With
the residence of Capt. Mason at Windsor, all the stirring scenes
of the Pequot war are connected…{description of Mason’s
exploits during the Pequot war}… The skill, prudence, firmness
and active courage displayed by Mason in this exploit, were such
as to gain him a high standing among military commanders. From
this period he became renowned as an Indian fighter, and stood
forth a buckler of defense to the exposed colonists, but a
trembling and a terror to the wild people of the wilderness.
In
1637, he was appointed by the General Court the chief military
officer of the colony, his duty being "to train the military
men" of the several plantations ten days in every year:
salary, forty pounds per annum.* ["The saide Capt. Mason
shall have liberty to traine the saide military men in every
planation tenn days in every yeare, see as it be not in June or
july." Conn. Col. Rec., 1, 15.] At the later period, (1654),
he was authorized to assemble all the train-bands of the colony
one in two years for a general review. The office was equivalent
to that of Major-General. He retained it through the remainder of
his life, thirty-five years, and during that time appears to have
been the only person in the colony with the rank and title of
Major.When the Fort at Saybrook was transferred by Col. Fenwick to
the jurisdiction of the colony, Mason was appointed to receive the
investment, and at the special request of the inhabitants he
removed to that place and was made commander of the station. Here
he had his home for the next twelve years.
The
people of New Haven were not entirely satisfied with their
location, and formed a design of removing to a tract of land which
they had purchased on the Delaware River. In 1651 they proposed
this matter to Capt. Mason, urgently requesting him to remove with
them and take the management of the company. This invitation is a
proof of the high opinion his contemporaries had formed both of
his civil and military talents. The offers they made him were
liberal, and he was on the point of accepting, when the
Legislature of Connecticut interfered, entreating him not to leave
the colony, and declaring that they could by no means consent to
his removal. Finding that his presence was considered essential to
the safety of Connecticut, he declined the offers of New Haven. If
he went there was no one left who could make his place good;
neither had New Haven any person in reserve who could fill the
station designed for him, and therefore the projected settlement
never took place. The active disposition of MASON, however, never
lacked employment. There was scarcely a year in which he was not
obliged to go on some expedition among the Indian tribes to
negotiate, or to fight, or to pacify their mutual quarrels. At one
time his faithful friend Uncas was in danger from a powerful
league of the other tribes, but the seasonable preparations of
MASON for his relief frightened the foe into peace and submission.
At another time he was sent with arms and men to the assistance of
the Long Island Indiana against Ninigrate, the powerful sachem of
the Nahanticks, who threatened them with extirpation. This service
he gallantly performed, but only two years afterwards was
compelled to appear again on that island with a band of soldiers,
in order to chastise the very Indians, mischievous and ungrateful,
whom he had before relieved."
Without
documentary evidence we cannot prove that Aaron was himself involved
in any of Mason’s activities during these years, but because he
was sentenced to serve Mason personally – and because we know
Aaron was a soldier in the Pequot War – we are probably correct in
drawing two conclusions. The first is he would have remained
physically close to Mason, moving when and where his master and/or
landlord did. The second is that Aaron most likely would have been a
member of any fighting force that Mason collected and employed
during the decade from 1643 to 1653. Further discussion of Mason’s
movements and activities are thus relevant here.
_________
|
15) |
Caulkins,
Frances Manwaring, "History of Norwich, Connecticut."
Pages 141&142. |
|
|
Page
22
According
to Caulkins, Mason's first three children (Priscilla, Samuel, and
John) were born in Windsor, where Aaron was serving. Caulkins
described John Mason as "stern and unrelenting in the execution
of justice, and as a magistrate and commander, dictatorial and
self-reliant."[15] About 1646, Saybrook Fort was transferred to
the control of Connecticut and, as Caulkins stated, Mason moved to
Saybrook, where he remained for the next twelve years. The
Particular Court of Connecticut ordered Mason to take command of
Saybrook Fort June 2, 1647.[16]
"It
was then further Ordered, that Capten Mason should for the
peace, safty and good asurance of this Comon welth, haue the
comaund of all souldears and inhabitants of Seabrooke, and in
case of alarum or daynger by approch of an enimy, to drawe forth
or put the said souldears & inhabitants in such posture for
the defence of the place, as to him shall seeme best…. Whereas
Capten Mason , at the spetiall instance and request of the
inhabitance of Seabrooke, together wth the good likeing of this
Comon welth, did leaue his habitio in the riur and repaire
thither, to exercise a place of trust."
Additional
Mason children (Rachel, Anne, Daniel, and Elizabeth) were born in
Saybrook.[17] Because Aaron was still in the service of Mason, one
would suppose he also moved to Saybrook.
John
Mason received his two land grants east of the Mystic River from the
town of Pequot on March 16, 1650/51, and on November 15, 1651. By
granting these properties, the townsmen of Pequot had ensured that
Mason would acquire a personal interest in the welfare of this
region. A more practical motive may have been the court’s desire
to monitor and, if necessary, check the activities of a recent
immigrant from Massachusetts named William Chesebrough, who they
suspected might be engaged in trading with or even stirring up the
Indians. This interpretation is strengthened by the following
phrase, found in Mason’s second land grant: "The Townsmen
of Pequet having considered of the spetiall use they are like to
have of there land toward Mistick and Pocatuck for feeding of cattle
- doe conceive it very necessary either to remove the Indians from
the place by Mistick wch was once allowed to some familis (Expresly
nominated) to have to live there the townsmen have agreed forthwith
to remove them and have the Captain Mason to yield us what help he
can in this pricular who hath promised with our consent to effect
wch joyntly wee have consented...."[18]
Soon
thereafter, Aaron Stark reappears after ten years in the shadows.
First, the New London land records report that on June 1, 1653, he
was a witness with Matthew Beckwith to a deed made between William
Chesebrough and the Indians.[19] Six months later, Aaron was
mentioned for the first time in the diary of Thomas Minor, a
resident of what would evolve into the town of Stonington,
Connecticut. Minor began this invaluable document early in 1653 and
continued it for another three decades. A diary entry on December 8
of that year probably refers to Aaron when it says "Captin
Masons man Came for one yoke of oxen. "[20] (It is possible
that Mason had other servants, but it is a reasonable assumption
that the reference is to Aaron because Minor’s diary does not
mention any other such servants.) Thomas Minor had been appointed
military sergeant in the town of Pequot May of 1649. On October 15,
1652, Minor sold his property in Pequot and purchased the property
of Cary Latham, which bordered the property laid out for John Mason
at the mouth of the Mystic River.
Thus,
Thomas Minor would have been Aaron Stark’s close neighbor, as the
frequent references to Stark in the former’s diary would seem to
confirm. Minor’s loan of oxen was probably made to allow Aaron to
start clearing the land for planting in the spring. Since there is
no indication that Mason himself moved to the Stonington area, now
or later, it would appear that Aaron Stark had now earned the
opportunity to work without Mason’s close supervision; the
financial relationship of Mason and Stark may also have changed at
this point, but we can only speculate about this topic.
Aaron
may have married in Saybrook before moving to the Mason land grant
in 1653. This supposition is based on the probable years of birth of
his children, along with the dates of Minor’s diary entries. Aaron’s
two oldest sons (Aaron, Jr., and John) both served in King Phillip's
War in 1675, which meant they had to have been born between about
1654 and 1659 for them to have reached the minimum age for militia
service (16 years old) that year.
________
|
16) |
J.
Hammond Trumbell, "The Public Records of the Colony of
Connecticut." Volume 1, pages 155&156. |
|
17) |
Caulkins,
Frances Manwaring, "History of Norwich, Connecticut."
Page 146. |
|
18) |
New
London Town Records, 1651-1660; page 7. |
|
19) |
Stark,
Helen. Article prepared in 1937 titled, "Known Facts &
Authorities". Her source was the New London Land Records. |
|
20) |
Original
publishers of the Diaries: Sidney H. Minor and George D.
Stanton, publishers of Thomas’ Diary in 1899; and Frank
Denison Minor and Hannah Minor, publishers of Manasseh’s Diary
in 1915. (LDS microfilm number 1036221.) Page 6. "1653; The
tenth month desember .31. days thursday the first, thursday the
.8. and wensday the .14. Captin masons man Came for one yoke of
oxen and thursday the .15. & thursday the .22. I had plowed
two days crose the (la)nd and this same day I begun to (torn)
timber at the mill broocke"; Translation:
1653, The Tenth month, December, which has 31 days. Thursday was
the first day of the month. The 8th. was on Thursday. Wednesday
was the 14th. Captain Mason's man came for one yoke of oxen on
Thursday the 15th. On Thursday the 22nd I had plowed two days
across the land and on this day I then began to ?cut/chop?
timber at the mill brook. [Author‘s comments:
Why was December the tenth month? Because the English New Year
started March 25th. The rest of Europe started the New Year on
January 1st.] (Contributor: Gwen Boyer Bjorkman) |
|
|
Page
23
No
record of marriage for Aaron Stark, Sr., has been found nor seems
likely to be found, but it is thought the name of his bride was
Sarah: a Sarah Stark was one of the witnesses to a deed of sale made
by Aaron in 1670, the year (as we will learn later) he sold his
Stonington land grant to Robert Fleming.[21]
We
can only speculate, too, about Sarah’s given name and her family.
Since she bore children well into the 1660s, she was evidently
considerably younger than Aaron, who was about 45 in 1653. Could she
have been the daughter of one of Mason's servants, and was their
marriage one of convenience? One can easily imagine that Aaron's
reputation (reinforced by his scar) would have made it difficult for
him to find in the Connecticut communities a woman who would
willingly marry him. Mason, charged with responsibility for Aaron's
behavior, could have arranged a marriage with a young woman also in
his employ. In Mason’s view, such a marriage might help to
encourage Aaron’s proper behavior while he was living some
distance from Mason in Saybrook.
We
turn now to other Stark-related entries in Minor’s diary, many of
which document the normal relationships of rural neighbors. On
Monday, January 2, 1653/54, Minor delivered oxen to "Aron
Starke" for the use of Major Mason.[22] The next year, on March
15 (1654/55) and again on June 5 (1655), Aaron lent his oxen to
Thomas for plowing. Thomas bought a hat from Aaron and paid him in
part with a calf but still owed 9 more shillings to complete the
payment for services rendered. During January of 1657/58, Thomas
appears to have been building a house, for he writes he received his
"ribs" for the house (probably rafters for the roof) on
Friday, January 15. One week later, he worked with Aaron Stark,
which likely means that Stark came to work on Minor’s house. (The
term "wroght" used by Thomas could mean work, or if the
intended word were "wrought" it could mean
"hammered.")[23]
On
March 2, 1660/61, Thomas requested that Aaron meet with him nine
days later to establish the boundary between his property and John
Mason's property. Aaron replied he could not do this until Major
Mason was available, which underscores the fact that Stark was the
hired hand of an absentee master or landlord. In January 1661/62,
Thomas and others apparently "fetched" a heifer from
Aaron's place for "Sam and Hanna," which may mean that the
heifer had wandered on to the Mason property and that Aaron had
claimed ownership – presumably for Mason.[23]
The
next entry in March 1661/1662 was significant because it is the
first one in which Minor refers to Aaron as "Goodman
Starts." Minor calls many individuals "Goodman" but
does not use the term for others. Could his use of
"Goodman" for Aaron here hint at his having achieved a
higher status within the church or community, or does it only show
that Minor had warmed to his neighbor after several years in close
proximity? Also in this entry, Minor reports that Aaron's Indian
came to visit on Friday, March 7. Who could this Indian have been
– another servant of Mason, or perhaps an Indian informer Aaron
had been supervising for the Captain? Later, on Tuesday, March 11,
Minor reports the framing of Aaron's house was completed. Since
Aaron had helped Minor with the building of his own house, it may be
that Minor had returned that favor.[23]
________
|
21) |
Church
of Latter-day Saints of Jesus Christ Microfilm Film #5593,
Stonington, New London County, Connecticut. Deeds: 1664-1714,
Book 1, page 123; September 26, 1670. |
|
22) |
Minor,
John A., The Minor Diaries, Page 6; "1653 (The) Eleventh
month Januarie .31 (days saba)th day the first (mo)nday (torn) (deliver)ed
.2. oxen to Aron Starke for the yuse of major masson satterday
the (torn) theare was a greate snow" Translation:
1653, The Eleventh month, January, which has 31 days. ???? was
the first Monday ????. Delivered on the 2nd oxen to Aron Starke
for the use of Major Mason. Saturday, the ?probably day? there
was a great snow. [Author‘s comment: It would
appear Thomas Minor took his oxen to Aaron Stark, living on the
Mason property, on the 2nd day of January.] |
|
23) |
Ibid.
{Page 13: 1654/5 - The first month is march and
hath .31. days being the yeare 1655. Thursday the first and
thursday the eight I went to mill and thursday the .15. that
weeke I had Arons oxen to plow and thursday .22. I was at mill.}
{Page 14: 1655 - The fourth month is June and hath
.30. days friday the first and satterday the .2. We had the
wooll from goodwife shaw and tusday the .5. I had a calfe of
Aron Starke in parte of pay for my hat and 9 shillings still is
due and Friday the .8. the Indeans begun to play. (Author’s
Comment: This could also be interpreted to mean Aaron
paid Thomas for a hat or Thomas paid Aaron for a hat. The term
"I had a Calfe of Aron Starke in parte of pay for my
hat" is confusing as to who was paying who for the hat.)} {Page
27: 1657 - The Leventh month is Januarie . & friday
the .15 I had got ribs for the house and friday the .22 I
wrought wt Aron Stark I agreed with herman garek about my canoow
the .29} {Page 43: 1660 - The second of march I
sent to Aron Start to com the .11. of march and renew the bounds
between us and he sent me word he would not till the major did
com.} {Page 48: 1661 - The eleventh month is
Januarie .31. days . the .13. day being monday we fetched sam
& hanah ther heighfer from Arons & wensday the 22. mr
Brigden was at poquatucke.} {Page 49: 1661/2 - The
first month march & hath 31 days . tusday Thomas was at new
London Friday the 7th Goodman starts Indian came to him saterday
the .8 tusday the 11th we made an end of framing at starts our
whit calvfe died saterday the 15 I was ill in my head the 16.
day I took phisicke} |
|
|
Page
24
On
October 15, 1663, Sarah apparently gave birth to a child who died on
this day, as Minor recorded the child’s death.[24] Since neither
the name nor sex of the child was given, we presume this child was
an infant who was never named. On May 13, 1664, Thomas Minor reports
in his diary that a beech tree that marked a boundary between the
Minor and Mason properties had been destroyed by fire, perhaps by a
lightning strike.[24] Minor, Robert Hempstead, and Captain Denison
had been witnesses to the setting of this mark when the property was
originally laid out for Mason. Minor called upon Aaron Stark, Sr.,
and John Gallop, Sr., to go with him as witnesses that the tree had
been destroyed and to assist in resetting the boundary with another
mark. This entry concludes those in Minor’s diary that mention
Aaron’s specific activities, but several more in 1663 and 1664,
though difficult to comprehend, may reflect the fact that Aaron’s
position in the community was changing.
On
July 6, 1663, a Captain Morrice was reported to be a "prisoner
at Aaron’s," which suggests that Aaron had been given some
official responsibility involving enforcement of the laws. In
August, the diary has another entry, which has been transcribed as
follows: "On August 21st, Aaron Stark told us that about
five weeks before, Captain Denison said it (??) did not matter, all
though I (Thomas Minor) did argue I might do what I could for
Tagwouncke (Minor‘s name for his property). I (Thomas) could not
tolerate it for it was the Coledges land. It was about the 15th or
16th of July this was spoken of to Jo Fish and Aaron Stark at the
Morgans." Whatever "it" is in this passage,
clearly Minor and Stark are now more like equals than they were
before, when the latter was merely Mason’s servant. Evidently the
matter was unsettling to Minor, for he seems to feel uneasy about
either the outcome or perhaps some event that happened in July.[24]
Then, in 1664, exact date unknown, Minor writes another unclear
entry, which would seem to read as follows: "The choice was
made before Goodman Cheesebrough challeged Mr. Stanton to make good
his promise to go with him ?while? another showed it afterward and
Aaron foretold it 7 days earlier."[24] The general topic
evidently was the dispute over jurisdiction of the region east of
the Mystic River, but the reference to Aaron’s having
"foretold it" puzzles Stark researchers: did Aaron make a
prediction about the matter, or did he have some advance word about
the outcome and tip off his friends?
This
dispute came about because the General Court of Connecticut claimed
jurisdiction to the Pawcatuck River (present day border with Rhode
Island). Massachusetts questioned this claim, which was then
referred to the Commissioners of the United Colonies for a decision.
While awaiting the decision, the planters in the region were advised
"to carry themselves & order their affaires peaceably, and
by common agreement." On June 30, 1658, a local government was
formed and a constitution was prepared titled "The Association
of Poquatuck People." Those signing the document were: William
Chesebrough and his three sons, Samuel, Nathaniel, and Elisha;
Thomas Stanton and his son Thomas; Walter Palmer (father-in-law of
Thomas Minor) and his two sons, Elihu and Moses; George Denison; and
Thomas Shaw.
Three
months later the Commissioners of the United Colonies decided that
the territory in dispute belonged to Massachusetts, and the General
Court of that colony named it "Southertown" and placed it
under the jurisdiction of Suffolk County. It remained a township of
Massachusetts until the Charter of Connecticut issued by King
Charles II (dated April 25, 1662) fixed the eastern boundary of
Connecticut at the Pawcatuck River. The return of the region to the
jurisdiction of Connecticut was not acceptable to some of the
planters, who were unwilling to acknowledge the change in
jurisdiction. In 1664, however, they united in choosing William
Chesebrough as their first representative to the General Court of
Connecticut. With much effort and considerable delay, he was
successful in resolving the disturbed relations between the
plantations east of the Mystic and the court. In 1665, the name of
Southertown was changed to that of Mystic, and in the year following
to Stonington.
Perhaps
the passage in the Minor diary was related to these events. On
October 13, 1664, the court record reported the reconciliation and
acceptance of Connecticut’s jurisdiction by the plantations east
of the Mystic River.[25]
"Mistick
& Pawcatuck haueing by Mr. Cheesbrook petitioned this Court
for their fauoure to pass by their offences, the Court haueing
considered the same doe hereby declare that what irregularities or
abusiue practices haue proceeded from them, whereby they haue
seemed to offer contempt to the authority here established, it
shall be forgiuen and baryed in perpetuall obliuion and
forgetfuliness, and this to extend it selfe to all ye members of
the aforesaid plantation, Captain Denison onely excepted, whoe
hath neglected or refused to submitt himself peaceably to the
order of the Councill of this Colony."
________
|
24) |
Minor,
John A., The Minor Diaries {Page 58: 1663 - The
fifte month is July & hath .31. days wensday the first
monday the 6th I came whome from Coneticut Captaine morrice was
a prisonor at Arons wensday the .8. Samuell Cheesbrough brought
The Execution.}{Pages 59&60: 1663 - The eight
moneth is october & have .31. days Thursday the first
Thursday the .8. I was at the generall Court Thursday the 15 I
came whome The same day Aron starts Childe died & Thursday
.22. Clement was heare} {Pages 189&190: The
21. of Agust 1663 Aron start tould us that about yt day .5.
weeks before the Captayne Denison said it was no matter though I
did build I might do what I would at tagwouncke I should never
enjoy it for it was the Coledges land it was about the 15 or 16.
of July this was spoken: Jo: fish: Aron stark: at morgans.} {Pages
192-193: The 13. of may 1664. the originall Bound Tree
marked in a litell swamp: on the west side of the Creek between
the major mason and Carie latham being a great Beech tree marked
by Thomas minor and Robert hempsteed being apointed thereunto:
and Captaine denison a witness with us: was burned downe and
Aron start senior and John gallop senior did both goe with me
and see it did say in my hearing that washam did it the 6 day of
the week.} {Page 201: 1664: The Choyce was made
before: for goodman Cheesbrough Chalenged mr stanton to make
good his p mise to goe with him another owned it afterward and
Aron fore-tould it 7 days} |
|
25) |
J.
Hammond Trumbell, "The Public Records of the Colony of
Connecticut." Volume 1, pages 433&434. |
|
|
Page
25
That
same day, October 13, 1664, the General Court of Connecticut acted
in a way that would have a profound impact on Aaron Stark‘s future
when it ruled:[25]
"Whereas,
Mr. Wm. Thomson of New London, is remoueing himself from thence to
Virginia, and is indebted by Bills the sume of Twenty nine pounds,
seven shillings and fower pence, which Bill is in the hands of
John Packer, This Court orders the Constable of New London to
secure so much of the estate of Mr. Thomson in his hands, as it
shall be apprized by indifferent men, and the sayd Constable is to
keep it in his hands, till he hath order from this Court or the
Court of Magistrates, to dispose of it to the right owner which is
according to Mr. Thomsons tender to the Court of Magistrates,
October 11, 1664."
About
a month later, on November 5, 1664, Aaron Stark purchased the
property of Rev. William Thompson, located in New London at the head
of the Mystic on the west side of the river.[26]
Aaron
Becomes a Property Owner & Freeman
The
records show, however, that on March 22, 1663/64, Aaron had been
granted 150 acres by the Townsmen of "Southertown."[27]
".....on
the 22 of March 1664 (?March 22, 1663/64?), by the order of the
town was Layed out one hundred and fiftie Acres of Land unto Aaron
Stark of Southertown, as followeth The Length of it east & be
South The cross line south & be west with a freshit running
through it, with the medow belonging thereunto this sayd Land
lieth neer the head of Thomas Parkes Land…"
Presuming
this date to be correct, then Aaron received this land grant –
from the township of "Southertown," it should be noted, a
place that did not acknowledge the jurisdiction of Connecticut –
about seven months before he purchased the Thompson property (a
topic that will be discussed in more detail later). Did this reflect
the fact that the earlier grant was ultimately considered invalid,
or did Aaron simply pursue a better opportunity that came along
afterwards?
Thompson
had an interesting role in colonial Connecticut as a missionary to
the Pequots. Charles R. Stark, in his publication entitled "Groton,
Conn. 1705-1905," quoted Rev. Frederick Denison as
follows:[28]
"At
an early day a missionary was chosen to labor among them (the
Indians). By invitation, we infer, from Capt. George Denison, the
Rev. William Thompson, son of the Rev. William Thompson was
engaged in 1657 by the court of commissioners, acting as agents
for the; ‘Society for Propagating the Gospel in New England,’
and received a salary of ten pounds per annum for the first two
years and twenty pounds per annum for the next two, after which
the stipend was withheld for alleged ‘neglect.’ His residence
was usually in New London but he ministered to the Pequots at
Mystic and Pawcatuck…Owning to the intractable character of the
Pequots and his own feeble health, Mr. Thompson left them and
removed to Surrey County, Virginia, in 1663..."
Again,
according to Stark:
"Rev.
William Thompson was appointed missionary to the Pequots. He was
the owner of a farm in Groton which he sold to Aaron Starke
between 1666 and 1669. Probably he never resided upon this farm,
though his missionary labors were confined to the Indians of
Mystic and Pawcatuck."
Aaron
may have purchased 500 acres or more from Thompson, so by the end of
1664 he had 150 acres in Stonington and the Thompson property in New
London – quite a bit of land. The deed (to be quoted later) only
states: "Know all men by these presents That I William
Thomson Late of New London in the Jurisdiction of Conecticot
Minister upon serious Good and valluable consideration sell Alienate
pass and make over unto Aaron Starke of Mistick these following
parcells of upland and meadows,"[26] Where did Aaron get
the money to purchase the Thompson property, which must have cost at
least 29£ if its sale was to pay off Thompson‘s debt? It may be
that Mason assisted Aaron with his purchase, for he was present at
the October court.
Aaron
and Sarah continued to live on the Mason grant: later records reveal
they did not live on the land grant in Stonington, and neither did
they move to the Thompson property until between 1667 and 1668.
Sarah Stark, their oldest daughter, was born about 1660 on the Mason
land grant, and their youngest son, William Stark, Sr., was born
there in 1664.
________
|
26) |
New
London Town Records 1647-1666 (Extracted by Eva Butler,
Historian ), page 123. |
|
27) |
Church
of Latter-day Saints of Jesus Christ Microfilm Film #5593
Stonington, New London County, Connecticut. Deeds: 1664-1714;
Book 1, page 58 (Transcribed by Gwen Boyer Bjorkman). |
|
28) |
Charles
R. Stark, Groton, Conn. 1705-1905. Pages 51&72.
Self-published a book. Palmer Press of Stonington, Connecticut.
Printed 300 copies. |
|
|
Page
26
Aaron
was granted fifty-acres located on the Pachaug River (Near Norwich)
in October of 1670. In the public record will be found a May 8, 1679
court entry mentioning this land grant:[29]
"This
Court appoints Mr. Tho: Tracy and Mr. Tho: Lefingwell to lay out
to Mr. Amos Riches on a former grant of land to him according to
his grant and to Aron Start and to James Rogers or theire
assignest theire grants of land according to their respective
grants."
Aaron’s
fifty-acres and the fifty-acres granted to James Rogers, apparently
adjacent to Aaron’s property, were laid out in one piece for
Thomas Parke (Senior) May 28, 1679.[29] The surveys must have been
ordered in preparation for the sale of these two fifty-acre tracts
to Thomas Parke. These grants were located within the boundary of
New London County and Aaron's was probably awarded to him by the
County (his place of residence in October of 1670). This was Aaron
Stark’s last known property transaction.
On
May 10, 1666, the Connecticut Court announced their approval of men
who were to become freemen. The record states: "And to these
of Stonington (approved to become freemen); — Nehe: Palmer, Tho:
Shaw, Thomas Stanton Junr, John Stanton, Moses Palmer, Benjam:
Palmer, Gershom Palmer, Ephraim Minor, Joseph Minor, Aaron Start,
James York Senr, Mr. Noice, Nathll Chesborough, Elisha Chesborough.
Mr. Thomas Stanton is to administer the fremns oath to those, and ye
oath of Fidelity to such in Stonington as haue not taken it."[30]
Why
had it taken so long for Aaron to become a freeman? Sydney E.
Ahlstrom, in discussing the experience of a group of Connecticut
settlers, points out that "Once established, the Connecticut
colony did not categorically require freemen to be church members."[31]
The Connecticut Colony did have certain other requirements, though.
At its March 9, 1658/59, meeting, the Connecticut court ordered:
"that for the future it shalbe presented to be made freemen
in this Jurisdiction, or haue the priuilidge of freedome conferd
vpon them, vntil they haue fulfild the age of twenty one years and
haue 30£. Of personal estate, or haue borne office in the
Como wealth; such persons qualified as before, and being men of an
honest and peaceable conversation, shalbe presented in an orderly
way at the General Court in October, yearly, to prevent tumult and
trouble at the Court Election."[32]
At
this time, we know Aaron did not own real property and most likely
did not have a personal estate valued at 30£, so he would not have
been eligible to become a freeman. On October 9, 1662, however, the
court modified the requirements as follows: "This assembly
doth order, that for ye future, such as desire to be admitted
freeman of this Corporation shal prsent themselues with a
certificate vnder ye maior part [170] of the Townesmen where they
liue, that they are prsons of civill, peaceable and honest
conversation, and that they attained the age of twenty one yeares
and haue 20£. Estate, besides their person, in the List of estate;
and that such persons, soe qualified to ye Courts approbation,
shalbe presented at October Court yearly, or some adjourned Court,
and admitted after ye Election at ye Assembly in May. And in case
any freeman shal walke scandalously or commit any scandalous
offence, and be legally convicted thereof, he shalbe disfranchised
by any of or civill Courts."[33] But in 1662, Aaron still
did not meet the property value of 20£.
Three
years later, on April 20, 1665, the court made yet another revision
to the requirements, which was presented to them as a proposition
from "his Majesties Honourable Comrs," Sir Robert
Carr, Colonel George Cartwright, and Samuel Maverick: "2d.
Propos: That all men of competent estates and of ciuill
conversation, though of different judgments, may be admitted to be
freemen, and haue liberty to chuse or to be chosen officers, both
military and civill. To the 2d, our order for admission of freemen
is consonant wth that proposition." Proposition 1 required
all inhabitant households to take the oath of allegiance in the name
of the King and Proposition 3 stated: "That all persons of
civill liues freely injoy the liberty of their consciences, and the
worship of God in that way which they thinks best, provided that
this liberty tend not to the disturbance of the publique, or to the
hindrance of the mayntenance of ministers regularly chosen in each
respective parish or township."[34]
By
the date of this third change, Aaron Stark owned not only the 150
acres in Stonington but the Thompson property, which by itself was
most likely worth more than the required 20£. Based on the
procedure the 1662 revision laid out, Aaron Stark’s certificate of
approval from the townsmen of Stonington must have been presented to
the court at its meeting in October 1665, because he was officially
designated a Freeman of Connecticut at its meeting on May 10, 1666.
Hence, because a majority of the townsmen of Stonington considered
Aaron worthy of becoming a freeman, he had finally earned the
respect of his community and was considered to be one of the "prsons
of civill, peaceable and honest conversation…"
Minor's
diary had two more entries about Aaron before he moved to the
Thompson property. One of them, in March 1665/66, states: "The
tenth moneth is December … Thursday the 13 day mr Richerson came
to my house to swear Aron Start."[35]
________
|
29) |
J.
Hammond Trumbell, "The Public Records of the Colony of
Connecticut." Volume 3, page 29. Foot note at the
bottom of this page states: "50 Acres granted to Aaron
Start, Oct. 1670, and 50 acres granted to James Rogers, Oct.
1678, laid out, in one piece, May 28, 1679, on Pachaug river,
for Thomas Parke Sen." Trumbell’s source was reported
to be "Col. Rec. Lands I. 455. |
|
30) |
Ibid.
Volume 2, page 32. |
|
31) |
Sydney
E. Ahlstrom, "A Religious History of the American People."
Published 1973 by Yale University. Page 152. |
|
32) |
J.
Hammond Trumbell, "The Public Records of the Colony of
Connecticut." Volume 1, page 331. |
|
33) |
Ibid.
Volume 1, page 389. |
|
34) |
Ibid.
Volume 1, page 439. |
|
35) |
Minor,
John A., The Minor Diaries, Page 76. |
|
|
Page
27
Not
long before Aaron was to become a freeman, he was involved in a
brawl with Thomas Parke and John Gallop. Minor reports he was
informed of this fight when he returned from a town meeting in New
London on March 8, 1665/66, and that a hearing on the matter was
scheduled for March 15. The swearing of Aaron presumably was
connected with his providing testimony about the matter. Whatever
the outcome of the incident, it did not interfere with Aaron’s
elevation to freeman. The other entry is dated one year later, March
19, 1666/67. It mentions several persons, including Captain Denison,
Aaron Stark, and "the Constable," then goes on to say that
Minor delivered the "Warrant for the rate...." The rest of
the entry is not known, but it suggests again that Aaron had
attained some sort of official position, perhaps having to do with
tax collection.[36]
Soon
after Aaron became a freeman, Aaron and Sarah evidently moved to the
Thompson property, within the jurisdiction of New London, for Aaron
is on the minister's tax list at New London on December 2, 1667.[37]
On October 14, 1669, he was accepted as a freeman in New London.[38]
Aaron had not been on the New London minister's tax list in 1664,
which supports the conclusion that he moved to New London from
Stonington only after May 10, 1666, when the court approved his
petition to become a freeman. Henceforth, he would reside in New
London, and our next section will discuss his life there.
Aaron
and Sarah's New London Homestead
At
the time Aaron and Sarah moved to New London, they still owned a
land grant in Stonington; however, Aaron had not recorded its
boundaries as originally laid out. On March 1, 1669/70, therefore,
the Stonington town surveyors, Thomas Stanton and John Gallop,
surveyed the property and entered the description in the town
records. This was most likely done in anticipation of Aaron’s sale
of the property to Robert Fleming of Stonington on September 26,
1670, in a transaction that was witnessed by Sarah Stark, presumably
the wife of Aaron. The town records tell us that:[39]
(page
118)…upon the 22 of March 1664 Land Layed out for Aron Stark as
Followeth beginning att a Black Oake in a Swamppie pond and so
runeing east south east neerest in line Score? Rod to a stooping
white oake and ? runeing south southeast nearest a hundred rod to
a tree… out blacke Oake nohirh? was dead marked on ffouer sides
and so runeing west north west norwest five ???? score? rod to a
greate white oake tree marked on ffouer sides, and so winding
north north east nearest a hundred rod to the affore said blacke
oake in the swamp= pie pond, all nohirh? land above spesiffied
amounteting to A hundred and fittie Ackers, highways excepted.
Tho.
Stanton, John Gallop, Towne Sirvayors
For
as much as Aron Start hath bin remis in not recording his paper of
the boundaries of this land above mentioned, we have veiwed his
bound markes and reained? them Exactly as they were then layed out
and have recorded them againe for him as you may goe above only
the day then if not layd out we cannot remember but re?? it to the
Towne booke of records: this first of March 1669/70 the day ?hen
this was first Layd out is as above written the 22 of March 1664:
as apeares in the second leafe of the Towne booke Tho. Stanton
John Gallop his wart of land above written was Recorded the 13th
of July 1670 Pr me Thomas Minor Recorder.
With
this survey in place, Aaron could then sell the property, as the
following deed documents:[39]
"(Page
123) Know all men by these presents that I Aron Starke of New
London heare by sell ------ Allinate pass away and make over unto
Robert Flemen of Stoneington my whole right in my tract of Land in
Stoneington ------- tract of Land being one hundred and fifty
ackers as according to grant and bounded as in the Records in the
booke of Records in Stoneington the said Tract of Land with all
Privledges appurtenances belongeing there unto and binde my selfe,
heiers, & Excutors, Administrators, assignes that the sayd
Robert Flemen he his heiers Executors, Administrators, Assigns
shall quietly and peaceably Improve, poses and Injoy the sayd
bargained premises with out molestation from me or any other maner
of person or persons whatsoever as Desposting Title unto whith
deed of sale & sett to my hand and subscribe in the day and
yeare as followeth September the 26 1670.
Signed:
The marke of Aron A Starke.
Witness:
John Fish, Sarah Starke S her marke
This
deed was owned and delivered by these (to) Mr. Thomas Minor Comr.
(Commissioner) 21 November 1670. Sealed and delivered In the
Prsense of the witnesses. A testing This deed above written was
Recorded the 22: Day of November: 1670: Pr me Thomas Minor,
Recorder."
________
|
36) |
Minor,
John A., The Minor Diaries, {Page 67: 1665 - The
first moneth is march . I was warned to a towne meeting the 2
day to chuse officers I was at london for malasses and paid
Richard dart I was informed by Edward Fanings of the broyle
between Aron & Tho parke and John gallop wensday The 8.
heare should have been a courte and wensday 15.} {Page 73:
1666 - The first moneth is march . Thursday the 15. I was at
lams my wheeles came from Tagwoncke monday 19 day hanah Averie
was heare & Captain Denison John Gallop Aron start & the
Constable I delivered the warrant for the rate.} |
|
37) |
Stark,
Helen. Article prepared in 1937 titled, "Known Facts &
Authorities". Her source for Ministers list was the New
London Town Records. |
|
38) |
J.
Hammond Trumbell, "The Public Records of the Colony of
Connecticut." Volume 2, page 116. |
|
39) |
Church
of Latter-day Saints of Jesus Christ Microfilm Film #5593
Stonington, New London Co, CT Deeds 1664-1714, Book 1, pages
118&123. (Transcribed by Gwen Boyer Bjorkman.) |
|
|
Page
28
The
New London property Aaron purchased from Reverend William Thompson
was located west of present day Old Mystic, Connecticut. The
transaction transferred four parcels of land from Thompson to Aaron.
The first parcel contained 200 acres; the second, well-described in
the deed, was 100 acres; the third consisted of meadow, extent
undetermined, but perhaps also 200 acres; and the fourth parcel was
10 acres. The first three of these were apparently adjacent to each
other.
The
deed conveying the land to Aaron Stark reads as follows:[40]
Know
all men by these preasents That I William Thomson Late of New
London in the Jurisdiction of Conecticot Minister upon serious
Good and valluable consideration sell Alienate pass and make over
unto Aaron Starke of Mistick these following parcells of upland
and meadows as in this Deed exprest. Viz
Two
hundred ackers of upland upon the westward of Culvers Land and
upon the westward of Mistick River toward the head of it as given
me and bounded out by the measurers and as it is upon record.
Also
on the great hill towardes Mistick one hundred Ackers of upland
more or less on the north of Land Laide out to Mr. Thomson two
hundred rod from a marked oake in a bottom at the head of a
parcell of meadowe laid out to James Avery to a Chestnut tree
marked on the east side of the hill and from the eastward marked
tree westward to a small marked oake by a small rock wth a stone
upon it, more or less eighty rod for the breadth and at the other
end on the same Lyne from the oak aforesaid to a Chestnut tree on
the side of a ledg of rocks in sight of the aforesaid meadowe the
same breadth, Also a parcell of meadowe that I bought of James
Avery commonly called by the name of the pond, being a pond and a
run of water in the midst of it this parcell be it more or less,
Also Ten Ackers of meadow if it be to be had that was given me by
the Towne of New London neere to my farme not hindring former
Grants, And for a more full confermation heareof I the aforesaid
William Thomson, doe, for myselfe my Heires Executors
Administrators and Assignes Covenant promise and Grant to and wth
the aforesaid Aron Starke his Heires Executors Administrators and
Assignes to have and to hould all the aforesaid upland and meadowe
according to the foregoing premises with all the priviledges and
Appurtenances thereto belonging formerly and also to us Dispose
Improve posess and Injoy the same wthout let hindrance trouble
molestation or obligation of me the said William Thomson or of any
other person or psons whatsoeaver by from or through any meanes of
me or my me or any under us for performance heareof I set to my
hand the 5th of November 1664;
Witness:
Obadiah Bruen, William Thomson, James Morgan his marke;
Know
all men by these preasents that I William Thomson Doe give full
powre unto James Morgan to give unto Aaron Starke full posesion of
yt land and meadowe above mentioned and what he doth shall be
eavery way as sufficient as if I myselfe had Done it as witness my
hand this 5th November 1664; Signed William Thomson ; All above is
Drawne out according to the Deed returned per me Obadiah Bruen
Recorder.

Aaron
Stark Homestead in New London
Source
Stark
Family Association Yearbook, 1908, page 21.
________
|
40) |
New
London Town Records 1647-1666, page 123. (Transcribed by Eva
Butler, Historian. Contributor: Carolyn Smith) |
|
|
Page
29
From
Thompson’s earlier acquisitions we learn more about what would
become Aaron’s home for the remainder of his life. Thompson had
been granted two hundred acres in December 1658, and this was the
first parcel of land the 1664 deed mentions. It was described as
being westward of Culver's land, which placed it west of the Mystic
River and near the head waters of that river:[41]
"200
ackers of upland upon the westward of Culvers land wch is upon the
westward of Mistick river towardes the head of it, bounded wth and
to runn from a tree marked upon a ledg of rockes west and by nore
the breadth of the land to a Chesnut tree marked by great rock and
from thence south and by west to a black oacke marked by a swomp
side, and from theance to runn east and by south to another tree
marked and from thence to runn north and by east to the first
bound marke runing also upon this north and by east lyne to the
river wch river west and by nore boundes the bredth of the
land...."
The
second parcel of land, which had been given to Thompson, was briefly
described in the New London Town Records in December 1658, as
follows:[41]
"Mr.
Thomson as under Mr. Tinkers hand Hath given him on the Great hill
toward Mistick one hundred acker of upland on the norward of
(large space) runing the full length of his land more or less 200
(small space) from a marked oake in a bottom at the (small space)
out to James Avery to a marked chesnut tree (large space) the east
side of the hill and from the east etc."
In
the Thompson-to-Stark deed there is a more complete description of
this parcel:[40,42]
•
The southeast corner of this 100 acres
is marked by a oak tree in a bottom at the head of a parcel of
meadow laid out to James Avery.
•
The line runs north from an oak 200
rods (1,100 yds.) to a chestnut tree, marked, on the east side
of the hill. This would be the northeast corner of this 100
acres.
•
The line runs westward from the chestnut tree 80 rods (440 yds.)
to small oak, marked, located by a small rock with a stone on
it. This would be the northwest corner of this 100 acres.
•
The line runs west, 80 rods (440 yds.), from the oak tree in
(a), the southeast corner of the property, to a chestnut tree
growing on the side of a ledge of rocks in sight of James
Avery’s meadow. This includes the area commonly called by
the name of "The Pond," being a pond with a stream
running through it. This is the southwest corner of the 100
acres. The ledge of rocks described in this deed could be the
same ledge mentioned in the earlier deed for 200 acres, but
could actually be a different ledge located east of this
property.
Thompson
also purchased from Avery the third parcel of land, then
subsequently sold it to Aaron Stark. The relevant deed, found in the
New London land records and dated November 1, 1664, states:[43]
"James
Avery to Mr. Will. Thomson a parcel of meadow commonly knowne by
the name of the pond, being a pond and a run of water in the
midst of it--bound on the east wth land wch the Towne gave James
Rogers wthin two myles of Mistick and on the north wth great
Rocky hills, on the west wth the Common, south wth the common.
Nov. 1, 1664."
These
three parcels of land came to more than 300 acres in all, but there
was a fourth parcel of land that Thompson sold to Aaron at the same
time. This consisted of 10 acres that Thompson had received as a
gift from Richard Blinman on April 11, 1659. The location of this
property relative to the first three parcels of land is not known.
The deed for this small parcel, found in the New London Land
Records, Book Reversed, states:[43]
"Loveing
freind Mr. Tomson I was told by brother Parker formerlly to tender
a small gift to you viz, a peece of swomp wch was given mee for a
woodlot; lying towardes the west of Will Comstocks hills wch if
you please to accept of as a token of my love, I doe hereby give,
and confirme it to you, and yor Heires forever, to have hold use,
and enjoy, wthout any let or molestation from me or myne and if
you please let it be recorded in the Towne booke, John Stibben is
to have away through it to his land ther; you will see the boundes
of it in the Towne booke, and John Stibbens can shew them. New
Haven Your loving freind, April 11th 1659, Richard Blinman."
On
today’s map, this property was located between Old Mystic and
Centre Groton. Present day Highway 184 would have been within the
northern boundary with the greater portion of the property being
south of the highway.
________
|
41) |
New
London Town Records 1647-1666, Page 14, Dec. 1658. |
|
42) |
There
are several units of measure used in these deeds that should be
defined if the reader is not familiar with them. One
"Chain" equals 66 feet equals 22yards. One
"Rod" equals 16.5 feet equals 5.5 yards. One square
"Rod" equals 30.25 square yards. One acre equals 4,840
square yards. In the above 100 acres, the property is described
as a rectangle 200 rods by 80 rods to the side. From the above
this is equal to 1,100 yards by 440 yards which is 484,000
square yards. Since 4,840 square yards equals one acre, then
484,000 yards divided by 4,840 yards equals 100 acres, the
number of acres the deed says Aaron was to receive. |
|
43) |
New
London Land Records, Vol. 3, page 182, dated November 1, 1664. |
|
|
Page
30
Aaron
and Sarah's second daughter, Elizabeth Stark, was probably born on
this New London property between 1667 and 1673. (The latest year of
her birth would have been about 1673, based on her marriage to Micah
Lambert on April 19, 1688.) Anna Stark, probably Aaron and Sarah’s
youngest daughter, married William Read on May 4, 1699, in Norwich,
Connecticut, and she too would have been born on this land.[44] We
get another perspective on Aaron Stark’s land from Caulkins’s
"History of New London, Connecticut," which states:[45]
"The
swamps around New London were infested to an unusual degree with
these perilous animals (wolves). After 1667, the bounty was
sixteen shillings... In 1673, this bounty was claimed by ... Aaron
STARKE, two; making nineteen howling tenants of the forest
destroyed within the limits of the town that year. The havoc made
by wild beasts was a great drawback on the wool-growing interest
which was then of more importance to the farmers than at the
present day."
Our
final two glimpses of the living Aaron Stark come again from the
diary of Thomas Minor. On June 16, 1675, Minor attended the marriage
of the Widow Cheesebrough at Aaron's home in New London. A bit more
than a year later, on November 27, 1676, Minor noted in his diary
that Aaron Stark, Jr. and Mehitabel Shaw had been married.[46]
More
Indian Troubles
Although
the Pequot War had been a major victory for the settlers, problems
between the Indians and settlers did not disappear. For many years,
though, mutual helpfulness and trade were fostered by both the early
Massachusetts colonists and the Indian leader Massasoit, Grand
Sachem of the Wampanoags. But by the 1660's, the settlers had
outgrown their dependence on the Indians for wilderness survival
techniques and had substituted fishing and commerce for the earlier
lucrative fur trade. The "Great Migration" of new settlers
that occurred from 1630 to 1640 had brought new waves of land-hungry
settlers, who had begun to encroach upon Indian territories in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Inland.
Rather
than be pushed from their homelands, the Indians began to attack
them; in turn, the settlers counterattacked. In the ensuing (mostly
small-scale) clashes, nearly all able-bodied colonial males,
whatever their ages, were called upon to assist in defending the
settlers. Thus we can expect that Aaron most likely was involved in
this pattern of attacks and counterattacks, as were virtually all of
the men over sixteen years of age. These bloody clashes resulted in
the deaths of many men, women, and children on both sides, but an
even larger conflict was yet to come.
In
1661, Massasoit died and was succeeded by his second son, King
Philip (Indian name Metacom). He vowed to resist further expansion
of the English settlers and won the support of almost all of the
other tribes in New England. During the years between 1661 and 1675,
the small-scale raids continued and even intensified. Then, in June
1675, three Wampanoags were executed for the murder of an informer
named John Sassamon. King Philip could no longer hold his warriors
in check, and the war that bears his name began.
Ruthless
Indian attacks erupted against settlements from the Connecticut
River into Massachusetts and Narragansett Bay. These were followed
by equally ruthless assaults on Indian villages by the militia of
these colonies. The Indians maintained the advantage until their
crops were destroyed in the spring of 1676 and the settlers began to
use "Praying Indians" (Indians converted to Christianity)
as scouts. In August 1676, King Philip died and all Indian
resistance collapsed, ending the war.
Records
show that Aaron Stark's sons, Aaron Stark, Jr., and John Stark
served in the militia during King Philips War, for which they were
rewarded with tracts of land in Voluntown, Connecticut in July of
1701. Some researchers say they were under the command of John
Mason, but the introduction to that man’s published account of the
Pequot War makes it clear that: "... he [John Mason] removed
thence to Norwich; where he died in 1672 or 1673, in the 73rd. year
of his age leaving three sons, viz. Samuel, John, and Daniel, to
imitate their Fathers example and inherit his virtues."
His
son, John Mason, Jr. did participate in the war and in fact was
killed during the conflict. It is possible that the Stark brothers
served under the younger man. Some researchers contend that Aaron
Stark [1608-1685] also fought in King Philip’s War. Because others
his age did participate, it seems probable that Aaron did so, but we
have no evidence of this. In this connection, some researchers
believe that the Aaron Stark, deceased, who was approved July 2,
1701 to receive a tract of land in Voluntown for his participation
in this conflict was Aaron Stark (Senior), but closer examination of
these later records suggests it was his son of the same name, who
probably died between 1698 and 1701.[47]
________
|
44) |
If
Anna was as young as 15 years old when she married, her latest
year of birth would have been 1684, one year before the death of
Aaron Stark, Sr. Thus it is not known with certainty that Anna
was the daughter of Aaron Stark, Sr.: she may have been,
instead, the daughter of Aaron Stark, Jr. Because there were no
other Stark families in the area, one has to presume she was a
member of the Stark family we are discussing. (To be discussed
in a later Chapter.") |
|
45) |
Caulkins,
Frances Manwaring, History of New London, Connecticut. From the
First Survey of the Coast in 1612 to 1860. Published in 1895,
696 pp., 2 vols. |
|
46) |
Minor,
John A., The Minor Diaries. {Page 130: 1675 -
"The fourerth moneth is June … 16. day I was at Arons the
widow Cheesbrough was married."} {Page 138:
1676 - "The Ninth moneth is November … monday the .27.
Aron Start Junior and mehitabel shaw were married..."} |
|
47) |
Bodge,
George M., "Soldiers in King Phillip's War," Boston,
1906. "Narragansett Township Granted to Connecticut
Volunteers in the Narragansett War, now Voluntown,
Connecticut." Pages 441-442. |
|
|
Page
31
Edmund
Randolph, an agent for the crown, estimated that 600 settlers and
3,000 Indians were killed in the almost two-year war; more than half
of the 90 settlements in the region were attacked, and a dozen of
them were destroyed; whole Indian villages were massacred and entire
tribes lost many of their members; and most of those Indians who
survived fled westward and northward. Except for the northern part
of the Connecticut Valley, the villages of Connecticut were spared
from the Indian attacks — although their men did participate with
the other colonies in the war effort. Thereafter, the settlers were
free to expand without fear into the former Indian lands all across
southern New England.Aaron Stark would not see that expansion. An
entry in the New London County records for June 3, 1685, informs us
that:[48]
"The
inventory of the Estate of Aaron Stark, deceased, being exhibited
in Court was proved and ordered to be recorded. The last will and
testament of Aaron Stark, being exhibited in Court, was proved,
approved and ordered to be recorded. Aron Stark, John Stark, and
William Stark, sons to Aron Stark, Sr., deceased, appearing in
Court and did declare and desire Capt. Samuel Mason might divide
the lands left there by their father, and bound the same between
them."
Thus
we know that Aaron Stark died sometime before June 2, 1685. His New
London property was divided among his three sons, Aaron (Junior),
John, and William. Another son of John Mason, Capt. Samuel Mason,
was asked to assist in the division of Aaron’s estate. William
Stark later (1716) sold a portion of his inheritance to the First
Baptist Church of Groton, Connecticut. A portion of it measuring one
and one-half acres was set aside for a family burying ground —
which was probably already in use before 1716. Here William would
later be buried, along with many other members of the Stark family.
The many unmarked grave sites in this cemetery may include Aaron's
resting place, and perhaps Sarah's as well.
Sarah:
Some Theories on Her Life & Origins
As
we have seen, Sarah Stark evidently survived Aaron. What happened to
her? Did she remarry? She would have been in her 40s when Aaron died
leaving her with two underage daughters. Elizabeth and Anna later
married and settled in Lisbon and Preston in the area around Norwich
where John Mason lived during his later years. Perhaps Sarah moved
to that region to be near her family, for they may have still been
part of Mason‘s household or followed Mason to Norwich. Because
there is no evidence informing us what happened to Sarah, we are
left with speculation.
In
the 1937 Stark Family Association Yearbook, Helen Stark wrote an
article entitled "More Theories and Some Questions."
On the subject of Sarah, she had this to say:
1.
Who was "widow" Stark?
January
27, 1696-7 Widow Stark owned land in present Groton, Conn.,
bounded east by that of Peter Crary, south by that of Joseph
Rogers, and west by that of William Stark, formerly William
Thompson. (Private Controversies, at State Library, Hartford.)
In
1708 Samuel Rogers sold this land to his son-in-law Theophilas
Stanton. It was still bounded east by Crary, south by heirs of
Joseph Rogers, west by William Stark, his northwest corner being
Stark's northeast one. Where did Samuel Rogers get this land
during this eleven-year period? I found no widow or any other
Stark recorded as selling it and I examined every Stark sale till
about 1775. Was the sale simply not recorded, or did Rogers
inherit it from Widow Stark2? [Mehitable Shaw, the wife of Aaron
Stark, Jr.] Or what seems more probable, did the widow remarry and
sell the land under her new name or have her new husband do so? It
should not be difficult to trace back from Rogers for that short
period and if we can find the one who obtained it immediately
after January 27, 1696-7, and from whom, it may be the key to the
identity of this widow. Whose widow was she? No grandchildren of
Aaron1 could have had a widow so early. [Aaron Stark, Sr.] Of his
sons, William was living, John dead, but his widow had married
John Weeks and had at least two Weeks children by that date.
[William Stark, Sr. and Elizabeth Packer, widow of John Stark who
then married John Weeks.] And especially since John Weeks was also
a Groton man she would hardly be called "Widow Stark,"
then that leaves Aaron1 or Aaron2.
We
don't know when Aaron2 died, so she may have been his widow, but
supposedly the bounds between the property inherited from their
father by Aaron2 and William are on record (Groton Deeds) and the
Aaron2 property lay to the southeast of William's. I should not
suppose from the description that it went any where near his
northeast corner. If this widow is widow of Aaron1 any information
about her is of the greatest importance to all of the Aaron Stark
line surely, while if she is Mehitable (Shaw) Stark it is very
important too. (Groton Deeds)
From
later research, it appears Aaron Stark (Junior) died before 1701. He
may have been deceased before January 27, 1696/97, but this is not
known with certainty. The author has not seen an abstract or copy of
this deed but believes Helen Stark was aware of such a document in
1937. The high probability that Aaron Stark (Junior) lived in Groton
before his death would further suggest that "Widow Stark"
could have been his wife (Mehitable Shaw). Until further proof can
be found, the "Widow Stark" will remain a mystery, and so
will the fate of Aaron’s widow, Sarah.
________
|
48) |
Helen
Stark, Aaron Stark Family, Known Facts & Authorities (1937,
unpublished). Archived Connecticut State Library, Hartford. (?S.
2664a, Miss Helen Stark) The source and its location was given
by Miss Stark as "County Court Records (?New London
County?), formerly at Norwich, now in State Library at
Hartford." (Contributor: Pauline Stark Moore.) |
|
|
Page
32
Conclusion
This
mystery is, as we have seen, only one of many that Aaron Stark left
behind. There are limits to what we can say with assurance. That
Aaron was a soldier before 1637 may be disputed, but we do know that
he was one in the Pequot War and probably afterwards. We cannot fix
in time when he arrived in New England, nor with whom he came, and
we can only guess at what Aaron was doing before the Pequot War. On
the other hand, Minor’s diary and other documents do give us
invaluable glimpses of Aaron over the space of many years —
including some through the eyes of a person who knew him well, and
that is quite rare.
Some
historians have treated Aaron's character harshly, based on the
three cases that came before the Particular Court of Connecticut. We
cannot say with certainty that Aaron was innocent of any wrongdoing,
but we can reasonably question the circumstances of those events and
balance them against what we know about the later stages of his
life. That balance actually seems to favor Aaron Stark:
•
Because he soon took responsibility for Mason’s Stonington
land grants in 1653, we know he had become, and remained, a
trusted servant of the Major.
•
Aaron married, became a father, successfully raised children who
went on to lead responsible lives, and survived to the age of 77
— in itself quite an achievement in such a hostile
environment.
•
While looking after Mason’s interest in Stonington, Aaron
earned the respect of his neighbors, the majority of whom signed
a certificate in October of 1665 recommending he become a
freeman of that township — an action the Connecticut General
Court took on May 10, 1666.
•
When Aaron moved to New London Township in 1669, he was accepted
there as a freeman.
•
Aaron was awarded land grants by both Stonington Township (1664)
and New London Township (1670) — presumably in recognition of
his contributions to those communities and to Connecticut.
•
All of these things occurred despite Aaron’s having a scar
that could not help but remind his neighbors and acquaintances
of his youthful lack of discretion and choice of companions.
These
documented events in Aaron’s life certainly suggest Aaron was a
man whose behavior and reputation evolved in a positive way. From
being regarded as an unpromising youth; he became a man
respected by his peers and community. We should give some
credit to John Mason and Sarah for having influenced Aaron’s
behavior, to be sure, but Aaron himself had to have had the will to
change, and that requires some strength of character.
With
these observations, we leave Aaron and Sarah, the first generation
of our Stark Ancestors in the New World. Grateful that he and his
family survived a difficult and dangerous time in colonial New
England, we turn now to how his children fared during the next era
of our country’s history.
|
|
|
|