In 1680, Peter Sanford, Governor of the colony of Rhode Island, wrote a letter to the lords of the committees of the colonies describing the state of the colony. He described Newport as 'the principal for trade...where the generality of the buildings are of wood and small.  He said that the colony was well-provided with harbors for shipping. He mourned the lack of merchants and men with large estates. He said their principal export was horses and provisions and their provisions usually came from Barbados. They were probably the same sort of goods that Peter Tallman brought with him: tobacco, cotton and rum. He recommended fishing as a good industry but complained that few were interested in it.  Though this letter was written after Peter Tallman had left Newport, it should describe well enough the town in which he had first settled.

In 1655, Peter Tallman was accepted as a freeman of Portsmouth.  This allowed him to vote in town meetings. It also meant that Peter Tallman owned land, since only landowners could be freemen. This also meant that in the future Peter Tallman would be called Mr. Peter Tallman. It implies that Tallman had been accepted by his fellow citizens. This is particularly noteworthy since he was not an Englishman. This illustrates well the relative openness of Rhode Island colony. In the 1670's this openness was rewarded by the immigration of Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal. Although the British Navigation laws forbade foreigners to become merchants, several did in the 1660's. In a test case, the General Assembly voted that they should receive full protection under the law as resident strangers.11 Peter Tallman also engaged in trade in New Amsterdam. There is no evidence that he ever lived there, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The first record of Peter Tallman in New Amsterdam is in a probate court. He owed 201 florins to the estate and was ordered to pay it.  It is unlikely that he moved to New Amsterdam since this was 1656, only one year after being established as a freeman in Newport. That same year, 1656, he was plaintiff in a case, suing Rutgert Jansen for defaulting on a debt.  In 1658, he was again in court to collect on a debt. This time he sued the defendant for fl. 60:6. The court awarded him two-thirds, the other thirds awaiting better proof. Debt was not taken lightly. The defendant, Tomas Yongh, was ordered to pay within twenty-four hours or face imprisonment.  When Peter brought in his accounts the court decided they were unsatisfactory. He was ordered to prove each item.

In March, 1659, his full account was finally approved.  Peter Tallman also served as interpreter for the court between the Dutch and the English.  Also in 1658, he appeared with Jan Denman; it isn't clear what his role was, but interpreter seems likely. The case was over Denman's losing his license to sell beer. He lost it because 'there is so great a noise and racket, that the whole neighborhood is kept awake.  He was given his license for a trial period since he promised to better control the noise level in the future. It would be interesting to know if Peter Tallman was there as a friend, partner, or merely as an interpreter. Unfortunately, the records are not that complete.

There were two other court cases in 1658 that were particularly interesting. In the first, Tallman was sued for withholding 297 pounds of tobacco that he had agreed to trade for Spanish wine and stockings. After receiving the wine and stockings, he defaulted on the payment. He did not show up for the first hearing, sending a letter of protest and filing a counter suit for 'all costs, damages and wrongs.  It seems that this country has been a litigious country from its beginnings. His case must have been poorly supported by the evidence because he lost at the first hearing.

The other case involved an arrest Tallman made. He arrested the surgeon of the ship Sphera Mundi, claiming this surgeon was acting as an attorney for Tallman's skipper, making him responsible for the skipper's debts and duties. Peter claimed that he was owed for an 'anker of brandy...and 400 pounds of tobacco.  The attorney of the skipper (in court) said the surgeon was merely a messenger; that the skipper had met Tallman; that Tallman had thanked the skipper, that the skipper had sent Tallman a letter and that Peter Tallman had also written the skipper a letter. Tallman asked for a continuance because he needed time to prove that the surgeon was the attorney. Unfortunately, the case in not continued in the records. Either Tallman realized his error and declined to press his claim any further or the records were not included in the collection. This entry raises more questions than it answers. In does indicate, though, that Peter Tallman was engaged in commerce. The evidence from the New Amsterdam records reveal that he was a merchant.

Taken with his definition of his occupation in the Aspinwall Notarial Records when he gave Mr. Elton his power of attorney, it seems likely that he sold Barbadian imports from his apothecary shop to the residents of Newport in exchange for grains and livestock which he could resell in Barbados for rum, cotton and tobacco. In New Amsterdam, he could sell some of what he obtained in Barbados diversifying his stock with wine, brandy and clothing. The book, New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century, describes this triangular trade pattern as fairly typical.  Trade was usually within a correspondence group. What this means is that Tallman probably had a friend in Barbados upon whom he depended to represent his interests. The trading partner would expect the same in return. This would work to each person's mutual benefit. There is no conclusive evidence as to whom the Barbadian trading partner may have been, but a relative of Ann Hill, Tallman's wife, seems likely.

In December, 1658, Peter Tallman moved to Portsmouth, Rhode Island.  Portsmouth was the other major merchant town in Rhode Island, second only to Newport. In Portsmouth, he bought land from Richard and Mary Morris and from William Willbore. Both properties were connected and together totaled fifteen acres, for which he paid thirty-five shillings per acre.  In the seventeenth century, land was still identified with social status. Merchants in England in the colonies would buy land to improve their social standing, trying to turn their children, if not themselves, into landed gentry. It is possible this was what Tallman was thinking when he purchased the land. Certainly with his apothecary and his commercial enterprises, he didn't need an additional source of income. It is also likely that with the number of children he had, he decided to secure their future by investing in real estate. Whatever his motive, after 1658 he continued to add to his land holdings, joining other colonials who enriched themselves with land speculation. Of course, many also impoverished themselves.

The deeds from the Morris land that Tallman bought are startling to those who are unaware of the privileged position of the women of Rhode Island. Both Richard and Mary Morris filed separate deeds.  Obviously, the land could not be sold without the approbation of both the husband and the wife. This was at the same time that women in England and Massachusetts could not own property if they were married. Upon marriage, a woman's property became her husband's. Requiring the validation of the wife as well as the husband illustrates the improved position of women in Rhode Island. Of course, this is only proper in Portsmouth, a town founded by Ann Hutchinson and her followers. When Peter moved to Portsmouth, he and his wife had two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, and a son born the previous March.

His first son's name was Peter. Peter followed his father's trade and became a physician as an adult.  Little is known about any of Peter and Ann's children, except for the son, Peter. They had six children in all; Mary, Elizabeth, Peter, Ann, Joseph, Susanna, and a girl whose name is unknown. That youngest of Ann and Peter's children married William Willbur, the son of the same Wiliam Willbore who sold Peter his land.  The marriages of these children tended to be with the children of the people with whom Peter Tallman traded and joined business venture. This is also quite typical of the merchants of that time. Romantic love was not a factor in marriage decisions. Marriages were basically economic alliances among families. In that, Tallman's children seem to have been brought up the same as most of New England's children were. They learned a trade, usually their father's trade, married the person chosen by their parents, usually from the same socio-economic class, and settle down to repeat the cycle.

An interesting conflict that Tallman got into in Portsmouth reveals a stubborn streak in his character with which few could compete. In December, 1660, Peter was ordered to put up a fence along the road that separated his property from that belonging to Lot Strange, which he didn't. Eleven years later, Strange protested to the meeting of the freemen of Portsmouth. Strange was granted permission to fence in the highway for one year and told to take Tallman to court or 'otherwise to cause the Sayd Talman to maintain his part of the fence against him.  Lot Strange must have been an extraordinarily patient man to have waited until 1671. Peter Tallman finally fenced the land between the two properties. That was not the end of the conflict, though.  In July 1675, a complaint was filed by several people against Tallman. He had fenced in the highway.  Lot Strange and two others were chosen by the town to plead the town's case against Tallman. They were also given the power to choose an attorney.  Eight days later, October 20, 1675, Tallman brought suit against Rebecca Sadler, the daughter-in-law of one of the men. He charged her with 'breach of the peace and threatening [his] family.  Clearly, they must have argued over this fence. This small series of events reveals a lot about Peter Tallman's character. He could be exceedingly obstinate.

It took them eleven years to force him to fence the road. When finally admitted defeat and fenced, he fenced it in the wrong place, closing the road to through-traffic and renewing the controversy. He did not give in gracefully and seems to have been a very poor loser. There are no records indicating whether or not he ever removed his fence from the road. He certainly must have held out as long as possible. His disagreement with Rebecca Sadler shows he, as well as she, had a choleric temperament. It takes two to make an argument where threats are made. In many ways this also typifies the problems in the colonial government of Rhode Island. It was a colony peopled with those who could not remain in peace under the Puritan government of Massachusetts. The people were independent in thought and action. They defended their individual rights with more ardor than the situation sometimes required. In the first decades of Rhode Island's settlement, people would refuse to recognize the government's power over them and would ignore its decisions, just as Peter Tallman did.

Tallman may have ignored the town government, but he became actively involved in the colonial government. In 1661, the freemen of Portsmouth elected him to the Court of Commissioners.32 This was the legislative branch of colonial government. Citizens retained an active voice even though the government had become representative. Most lawmaking was done by initiative and referendum. The Court of Commissioner also handled civil cases and matters that affected the colony as a whole, such as negotiating with other New England colonies. Tallman's first term was not his last. He served on the Court of Commissioners in May, 1661; August, 1661; and May, 1662.33 Each term had a separate election. In May, 1661, he was also elected to the General Court as General Solicitor of the colony.34 The General Court included the President, four Assistants, a General Recorder, a General Treasurer, a General Attorney, and a General Solicitor. This General Court had three main functions. They served as the Council of War, the bench of the Court of Trials, and an advisory committee for the governor. Their judiciary function was the most important. Although this may give the impression of a bicameral government, the colony's government was actually unicameral. Every one of the men chosen for the General Court was also a member of the Court of Commissioners. Since the Court of Commissioners only met in May and August, the General Court had to be there to handle what happened in between. Tallman served only one term as General Solicitor. Rhode Island was awarded her charter on July 8, 1663. This charter outlined a new government with the approbation of the king. Again the government was unicameral. The Court of Commissioners was disbanded and replaced by the General Assembly. The Charter was a very liberal document, allowing the Rhode Islanders a great amount of freedom for self-government. They liked their charter so much they retained it after the American Revolution.

Under the charter they were given the right to meet and make 'fuch laws, ordinances and conftitutions, of as not to be contrary and repugnant unto...the laws of this our realm of England.'35 From 1662 to 1665, Tallman continued as one of the ten Deputies to the General Assembly of the colony. In all there were twenty-two men in the General Assembly, ten Deputies, ten Assistant, the Governor and the Deputy Governor. During his time as Commissioner, he became involved in the most important struggle of early colonial Rhode Island. Some Rhode Islanders had purchased land from the Indians that had also been purchased by men from Connecticut and Massachusetts. The three colonies squabbled over that land for more than a decade. The Massachusetts purchasers were known as the Narragansett Proprietors, giving this dispute their name. The Rhode Island General Assembly received a letter from the Massachusetts Commissioners of the United Colonies dated September 13, 1661, warning them not to allow their citizens to settle in the Pawtucket or Pequot regions. The letter contained the gently worded threat to discontinue these actions 'which may draw vpon youer selues [yourselves] and vs vncomforatable confenquences.

Tallman was appointed to the twelve man committed chosen to reply to that letter.  The letter from this committee informed the Massachusetts contingent of documents they may have forgotten about, 'that may happily be lost, or in some custody so obscure, as that you have not had the least hint thereof.  The letter continued to explain why Rhode Islanders had every right to settle in the Narragansett region and why that region was in Rhode Island's jurisdiction. Letters continued to be exchanged between the two colonies, with Connecticut also joining in from time to time until a Royal Commission settled the question in Rhode Island's favor in 1674. By then Tallman had retired from politics.
It is interesting to note that the letter from Massachusetts begins with the salutation 'Louing Friends and Naighbours'39, and ends with the same; while the letter from Rhode Island merely begins with the phrase, 'Honored Gentlemen' and ends with 'Your very loueing and respected friends and neighbours.  Note that it says respected, not respectful. They must have enjoyed sending that letter. Much of the letter from Rhode Island Is unfriendly in tone, despite the courtesy of the language. It well underscored the inter-colonial conflict that typified the American colonies even after the Revolution.

Tallman ended his political involvement after 1665, but he was still active; after all he was only forty-three. He was divorced in 1665 and that certainly would have dampened any political career at that time. In 1664, Peter Tallman brought suit against Thomas Durfee, complaining that Durfee's attitude toward Tallman's wife, Ann, was disrespectful. Tallman said that Durfee's insolent carriage placed him in danger. The court sent for Durfee and advised him to behave.  They were too discreet to reveal whether Durfee was gossiping about Ann Tallman, saying rude things to her or courting her attention. The last is doubtful as Peter's son Benjamin married Patience Durfee, Tom Durfee's daughter, in 1708.  Tallman would never have permitted the marriage of his son to the daughter of a man who seduced his wife. Of course, that was the year that Peter Tallman dies so the possibility cannot be ruled out completely.

The reason the situation with Durfee seems significant is that about seven months later, in May 1665, Peter filed for divorce from his wife, accusing her of adultery.  In the Puritan colonies, adultery was a capital offense, though seldom punished to the full degree of the law. In Rhode Island, as well, adultery was a serious offense, but it was not punishable by death. According to the testimony in court, Ann Tallman wrote a letter to Peter Tallman informing his that her youngest daughter was not his. After hearing the letter read to her, Ann confessed to adultery. The court sentenced her to a fine of ten pounds and ordered that she be whipped. She was to receive fifteen lashes in Portsmouth, and the following week, fifteen lashes in Newport. She requested mercy of the court. In considering her petition, the Assembly asked if she was willing to reconcile with her husband, 'to which her answer was, that she would rather cast her selfe on the mercy of God if he take away her life, than to returne. That certainly makes Tallman sound as though he were hard to live with.

With Tallman's frequent travel to New Amsterdam for business and the other host cities of colonial government, Newport, Warwick and Providence; it is clear that Ann Tallman was home alone a good portion of the year. This may have loosened her marriage bonds enough to risk the significant dangers of adultery. Ann Tallman was sent to jail to await the carrying out of her sentence, but she escaped and fled to her brother in Virginia. In 1667, she returned to the colony and a warrant was issued for her arrest. Rather than being punished for her escape, she was rewarded. Her fine was forgiven and her sentence was cut in half. Instead of fifteen lashes in Portsmouth and Newport, she would only be whipped in Newport. This must have reduced her humiliation. The people of Portsmouth had been her friends and neighbors for the seven years before her divorce. Although she had lived in Newport for eight years, time had passed. It had to be better to receive her punishment in front of relative strangers. The decision of the Assembly may have been made out of consideration for Peter Tallman. It is unlikely that he wanted a public reminder of his unhappy marriage.

This experience certainly didn't sour Tallman on marriage as an institution. Two months after his divorce, on July 24, 1665, he filed a pre-marriage contract with Joan Briggs. He signed over his house and the property he had purchased from Richard Morris, William Willbore, and Daniel Wilcox.  The Wilcox deed is not available in the remaining records, but the marriage contract said that it bordered on the other property. He also gave her one-half his household goods, his best bed and its linens, three cows and a breeding mare.

Joan Briggs must have learned from Ann Hill's experience because the contract said that Tallman gave these things to her freely, 'Euer Quiatly and peacably to injoye..with out any trouble incomburance or disquiatness from [him].  Peter Tallman did not sign away all his property. He was buying property all over. It is impossible to be certain that contemporary research could locate the title transfers for all the property he purchased. For example, he had to give up the deed to some property he had received as a gift from an Indian. Plymouth colony laws forbade receiving lands from Indians as a gift. In 1674, he was imprisoned and forced to relinquish the land or stay in prison. He agreed.

There is no record indicating where or what land was in question. Another unlucky purchase of land ended in the same way. In 1663, he bought Indian lands in Holmes' Hole, Martha's Vineyard. Today it is known as Tisbury. This land he bought without the consent of all the Indians involved. He bought the land in partnership with Thomas Lawton; they were both sued for trespass and lost the case.

Interestingly, Tallman's daughter, Elizabeth, married Isaac Lawton, Thomas Lawton's son.  In January,1661, Peter Tallman purchased the land that earned him a footnote in history.  Wamsetta, the chief sachem of the Wapanoag Indians, sold him a large piece of land. Wamsetta was the older brother of the sachem Metacomet.  Wamsetta and Metacomet were both renamed by the Plymouth government. They were named Alexander and Phillip, respectively. Phillip was the Indian chief that led the Indians in King Phillips's War.

Wamsetta was told by the Plymouth government that couldn't sell land to people outside of the colony. This was a response to his sale to Peter Tallman, Thomas Olney and William Staples. They spoke to him after he sold the land, warning him not to repeat the mistake. He sold more land within eight days. The Plymouth government sent someone to arrest him. He was sick, but their agent didn't care. Wamsetta became seriously ill on the march. The agent sent him home and he died on the way. He was then succeeded by Metacomet, or King Phillip. Roger Williams was able to establish the colony of Rhode Island because of his good relationship with the Indians. It was a relationship based on mutual respect and friendship. Williams was one of the few New Englanders to learn the Indian language. When he first went to England to petition for the colony's patent in 1643, he published a book about their language, Key Into the Language of America. This gave him a favorable reception in London and he received the patent in 1644. Rhode Islanders usually followed Williams' example., Relations with the Indians there were usually friendly.

Wamsetta referred to Peter Tallman as his 'well-beloved friend' in the deed.  Although, this may have just been proper form, it is likely they were friends. One of Tallman's grandchildren, also named Peter Tallman, married an Indian woman.  They were married before Tallman's death and lived at Edgartown, Martha's Vineyard. Tallman served on two inquests investigating mysterious deaths while he lived in Portsmouth. Whether intentional or not, half the jurors selected were freemen and half were not. In the first inquest, they found that the victim 'wos drounded by stres of wethar Axedentually. The other, in April, 1684, was a suicide. The victim, John Crage, a tailor, hung himself from a cherry tree.

Peter Tallman disappears from public activity after that inquest in 1683. He probably retired around then. He was sixty-one. Two years later, in 1685, his wife Joan died. She had borne him six children during their marriage. They had two daughters and four sons. Their names were (in order of birth): Jonathan, James, a daughter (name unknown), John, Ruth, and Benjamin. The youngest, Benjamin, was just a year when his mother died.

Perhaps that is why Tallman married again in 1686. He married a woman named Esther, whose last name is unknown. She bore him one son, Samuel, in 1688. Tallman was sixty-six years old. The next time Tallman appears in the records is in 1703, when he swore an affidavit for Joseph Sheffield. The affidavit is an invaluable aid in researching Tallman's life, in particular his early life. Five years later, in 1708, Tallman's son, James, presented an inventory of Tallman's estate. Thus we know he died in 1708, but not a date. On May 3, 1709, the estate was probated. Tallman and Joan Briggs' son, Jonathan, was the administrator. Acquittances were signed by his brothers, sisters, and brothers-in-law. Those signing were: William Wilbur, Israel Shaw, Jonathan Tallman, James Tallman, Benjamin Tallman, Mary Pearce, Susanna Beckett, Peter Tallman, Isaac Lawton, William Potter, John Tallman. Joseph Tallman, and Samuel Tallman.

It may seem from this account that Peter Tallman was a typical New England merchant. He traded following the common triangular route along the coast. Like many, he made his money by trade and then purchased land and gentrified himself. Like many, he began to speculate in land, experiencing many of the successes and failures that they did. He had several children by three wives. It was common, until this century, for men to outlive their wives since many died in childbirth. Like many, he was fiercely protective of his rights and opinions. He also owned slaves, a practice common among wealthier New England families during the colonial period. Also, like most of those who became successful merchants, he came to New England with money and trade goods. He, like most of the successful colonists, did not start from scratch. In many ways, this portrait of Peter Tallman lacks depth. No letters to or from Tallman to his wives or children have survived. There is nothing to reveal the warm, compassionate side of this man and much to reveal the harder, less sympathetic characteristics he had. There are only clues. His descendants have continued to name their children Peter, unto this generation. Likewise, he has been remembered unto this generation. One of the Tallman descendants' most cherished heirlooms is a large conch shell that Peter Tallman picked up on the beach in Barbados. It passed to the Boorman family when Harriet Tallman married William Henry Boorman.  His descendent, Gary Boorman has it now and will pass it on to his eldest son, and with it, the memory of Peter Tallman will pass on to yet another generation.

It has long been a Tallman tradition that the family was of German origin.  The first American ancestor was PETER TALLMAN, found in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, in the middle of the seventeenth century, but it was not established until 1914 that he came from Hamburg, Germany.  The discoverer of this fact, George Andrews Moriarty, of the committee on English and foreign research of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, brought to light a deposition, transcribed on the town records of Portsmouth, and made by Joseph Sheffield on March 17, 1702/3, concerning a declaration made to him by Peter Tallman of Portsmouth on March 13 of that year.  Peter Tallman's statement was that in 1647 he came from Hambrough [Hamburg] to the Island of Barbados, and that subsequently he removed there from to Rhode Island.  The Sheffield Deposition was as follows:

"I am now 30 years of age and in the year 1647 I came from Hambrough to the Island of Barbados, and within two years after my arrival I married with Ann Hill the daughter of Phillip Hill and Ann his wife,"  and he was married in Christ Church Parish in said Island, and after seven or eight months after his marriage the said Tallman moved from the island of Barbados to Rhode Island bringing with him his wife and his wife's brother called Robert Hill, as likewise his wife's mother . . . and further said Tallman declared to me the said deponent that the Peter Tallman whose habitation is now at Guildford in the County of New Haven in Connecticut is eldest lawfull son of said Peter Tallman.

Acting upon clues presented the Genealogical Society's committee on English and foreign research commissioned Dr. Henry Presch, Jr., of Hamburg, Germany to make researches in the Hamburg records for the parentage and ancestry of Peter Tallman of Rhode Island, and entries were found in the books of the Parish of St. Nicholas, Hamburg, and the Hamburg Burgher Book.  From these Mr. Moriarty constructed a brief German pedigree of Peter Tallman of Barbados and Rhode Island, as follows:

i. Anna Maria Tallman, bapt. in the Church of St. Nicholas, Hamburg, Sept 20, 1616.

ii. Elisabeth Tallman, bapt. in the Church of St. Nicholas, Hamburg, March 24, 1619.

iii. Peter Tallman, b. about 1623, and made free in Hamburg Aug 14, 1646, being admitted as the son of a burgher; the emigrant to Barbadoes and New England.