Chapter 1: The Life & Times of Aaron Stark [1608-1685]

 [Home] [Table of Contents] [ Preface ] [ Chapter 1 ] [ Chapter 2 ] [ Chapter 3 ] [ Chapter 4 ] [ Chapter 5 ] [ Chapter 6 ] [ Chapter 7 ] [ Chapter 8 ] [ Daniel Stark ] [ Moses Stark ] [ Walter O. Shriner Letters ]

[ Back ] [ Next ]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Map Revealing location of Pequot Fort, Mason Land Grant, and approximate boundaries of Aaron Stark's Homestead in Groton Township, New London County, Connecticut. Source: Connecticut, from actual survey / made in 1811 by and under the direction of Moses Warren and George Gillet, and by them compiled ; engraved by Abner Reed.

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.

Author’s Introduction: Was our ancestor, Aaron Stark, a participant in the Pequot War? The following personal testimony, given in 1673, would suggest that he was:

John Mason’s account, A Brief History of the Pequot War, describes several events that would seem to bear on this issue.

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

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.”

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 question⁹ has five sentences, as follows:

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.

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.

On July 2, 1640, the Particular Court directed ¹¹ that:

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.

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

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.

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. 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

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 21^st, 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 15^th or 16^th 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."

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 titled 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.

Aaron was granted fifty-acres located on the Pachaug River (Near Norwich) in October of 1670.²⁹ 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 Jun^r, John Stanton, Moses Palmer, Benjam: Palmer, Gershom Palmer, Ephraim Minor, Joseph Minor, Aaron Start, James York Sen^r, Mr. Noice, Nath^ll Chesborough, Elisha Chesborough. Mr. Thomas Stanton is to administer the frem^ns oath to those, and y^e 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 30l. 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 y^e future, such as desire to be admitted freeman of this Corporation shal p^rsent themselues with a certificate vnder y^e maior part [170] of the Townesmen where they liue, that they are p^rsons of civill, peaceable and honest conversation, and that they attained the age of twenty one yeares and haue 20l. Estate, besides their person, in the List of estate; and that such persons, soe qualified to y^e Courts approbation, shalbe presented at October Court yearly, or some adjourned Court, and admitted after y^e Election at y^e 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 o^r 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 Com^rs,” 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 w^th 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 “p^rsons 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 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

Other than that work created by other acknowledged contributors or sources, the articles presented were authored and edited by Clovis LaFleur and the genealogical data presented in this publication was derived and compiled by  Pauline Stark Moore; Copyright © 2003. All rights are reserved. The use of any material on these pages by others will be discouraged if the named contributors, sources, or Clovis LaFleur & Pauline Stark Moore have not been acknowledged.

This publication and the data presented is the work of Clovis LaFleur & Pauline Stark Moore. However, some of the content presented has been derived from the research and publicly available information of others and may not have been verified. You are responsible for the validation of all data and sources reported and should not presume the material presented is correct or complete.