Roger Thompson. Divided we stand. Watertown, Massachusetts,
1630-1680. Amherst, MA: Univ. of Massachusetts Press. 2001
There is some general information that seems relevant (mostly
economic).
I have also quoted every passage that refers to a Whitney, and the same
for footnotes. In a couple of cases the passage does not mention a
Whitney, but the footnote cites one as an example of the topic being
discussed in the main passage.
Watertown was first settled late summer of 1630. They were mostly folk
from North Essex and South Suffolk around the Stour River valley in
East
Angllia, led by Sir Richard Saltonstall. These settlers were among
the
thirteen to twenty thousand people who migrated to New Eng-land during
the
1630s. (11, 21). Three surges of immigration brought people to
Watertown:
one in 1630, a second from 1634 to 1636 (when John & Elinor
immigrated),
and a third and final wavelet in 1637. Some also came from Norfolk,
and a
few from London. Many of these East Anglians had been weavers, which
may
explain why John Whitney (a member of the Merchant Tailors Guild in
London) threw in his lot with them (22).
Watertown began with a grant of 23,456 acres of land. Beginning in
1630
each household re-ceived a "homestall" where they built their first
house
and shelters for animals as well as plant-ing their first crops.
"These
grants were located at the far eastern end of the town's domain, to the
east, north, and south of Mount Auburn, near the Newtown line." This
is
where the first meetinghouse was built. "Later arrivals" (like John
Whitney) "received homestalls to the west of this area." By the early
1640s the average homestall was 12 acres, although this varied
accord-ing
to the size of family, amount of livestock, and social standing (51).
In July 1636 4,595 acres of livestock pastureland was distributed in
four
huge divisions, known as the "Great Dividends" in the northern part of
the
town grant. Each of the four "squadrons" was one-half mile wide, with
30
lots in each. "On 28 February 1637 the freemen divided out po-tential
plowlands--often called uplands to distinguish them from low-lying
marsh
or meadow--on Beaverbrook Plain (divided by the brook into Hither and
Further Plains and situated north of the riverbank and southwest of the
town center) to all '106 townsmen then inhabiting.' A few of the
leaders
received sizable lots, but 86 of the 106 recipients got single figure
grants, some as little as one acre. ... In 1637 Beaver Brook marked the
western limits of any town settlement or cultivation" (53). It was the
town's expectation that this plowland would be cultivated in com-mon,
and
that during the summer months livestock would be herded together under
town-appointed herdsmen and shepherds (56).
Four months later, in June 1637, "the 'Remote or West Pine Meadows' on
land beyond Beaver-brook Plain granted 'by the freemen to 113 townsmen
then inhabiting' were specifically linked to mouths, human and bovine.
Most recipients again got single-figure acreages of these parcels of
natural meadowland dotted among the heavily wooded western section of
the
town domain. Many householders got the same allotment of fodder land
as
for plowland (53).
"The fourth allotment, on 9 April 1638, saw forty proprietors granted
relatively small lots, typi-cally six acres, on land called the Town
Plot,
a reserved area of 238 acres northeast of the town mill and two and a
half
miles west of the meetinghouse. The object was that forty families
should
'build and dwell upon their lots at the town plot, and not to alienate
them by selling or exchanging them to any foreigner, but [only] to the
freemen of the congregation; it being our in-tent to sit down there
close
together,and therefore, these lots were granted to those __freemen__
that
inhabited most remote from the meetinghouse, and dwell most
scattered.'"
(53).
Finally in 1642 all the townsmen that had not formerly received farms
(93
are named) each re-ceived 13 acres of upland to every head of persons
and
cattle. At this point some 20,206 acres of the town's total grant had
been lotted out. Only 3,250 acres remained town land (54).
Though desire for land ownership may have motivated some of this
largesse,
the principal con-cern seems to have been that unless the town
allocated
the land, it could be appropriated by neighboring settlements.
Distributing the land seems to have been a way to secure the rights of
the
town and its inhabitants. It was also a way to encourage those already
living there to remain in the town, rather than moving on in search of
better prospects elsewhere. At the same time, with most of the land
having been distributed, it discouraged outsiders from moving into the
community. Distribution was also a way of ensuring individual claim to
the land before its value increased so much that the elder generation
might be unable to provide for their offspring. Al-though less than
1800
acres were being farmed in 1651 (about 10 acres per household), this
massive distribution of land "was a prudential 'laying up for
posterity'.
Nonetheless, perceived in-justices in the allocation of land within
Watertown lead to disputes and court actions that lasted until 1669
(56-57, 62-63).
"In June 1641, as measures were announced to encourage servants to sin
hemp for twine-, rope-, and sack-making, a groujp of Watertown men were
rewared with over L4 between them for weaving 83 yards of cloth. A
further, overdue bounty was piad in October 1643. Two of these
beneficiaries were master weavers: Martin Underwood and Nicholas Busby.
The others had no recorded weaving experience21" (95)
f.n. 21. "Busby, a worsted weaver On Underwood, a
weaving-clothier,
with north Suffolk linen and northeast Essex textile connections,
see
(sources cited)). Others: Miles Nudd, John Whitney, Henry Kemball
(a
wheelwright), and John Witheridge or Wetherall, who figures in the
Watertown records as a champion fox trapper" (228).
Occasional assistance from the community was needed "by the Thomas
Whitneys in 1664 and 1678-79, when the family was struck down by
smallpox.
The town spent L1.10.0 on William Goddard for attending Thomas
Whitneyu,
fifteen shillings on a rig, nine on a bedstead and cider, four on
firewood
and milk. In all L5.4.5 was expended. All seem to have survived14"
(110).
f.n. 14. "Whitney, in serious difficulties in 1664, had been
appointed
scarer of dogs out of the meetinghouse at thirty shillings per year"
(233).
"If major breadwinners were going to be away for any length of time,
the
townsmen wanted guarantees that their families would be provided for.
When Daniel Metup and Jonathan Whitney proposed to go to Cape Fear, the
seven men insisted that enough assets be lodged with neighbors to keep
their dependents from want. They got court sanction for this
requirement
and, killing two birds with one stone, arranged for a cow to be left
with
the ill-nourished Beeches" (113).
"The selectmen were often the richer members of the community, but by
no
means always. There was nonetheless a relatively small gap between the
rich and the poor, and misfortune lurked everywhere. Even among
brothers,
like the Whitney boys, there could be considerable variations of
wealth.
John was comfortably well off; Thomas was near the breadline" (114).
"The settlement of Groton in the 1660s and 1670s saw the new generation
moving west in a con-certed group. In this new 'company.' along with
siblings or newly married neighbors, like min-ister's daughter Abigail
(Sherman) Willard, went paupers, troublemakers, orphans, and family
misfits. Twenty-eight out of the original fifty-one grantees of land
there had Watertown connec-tions"12 (118).
f.n. 12. "Siblings: Morses, Lawrences, and Holdens; paupers:
Sawtel,
Sanders,Onge, and Price. Newly married: Barrons, Fiskes, Clarkes,
Pearces, Tarbells, Whitneys, and Crisps; troublemakers: Benjamen
Allen and
James Knapp" (236).
"Sex fascinated many of these adolescents. Weddings were fraught with
sexual excitement. On 23 May 1674 teenagers Moses Whitney and Jonathan
Smith 'about noon, left work to see a wed-ding that we heard was to
pass
that way which was between William Shattuck and Goodman Randall's
daughter.' The bride's brother was later sued 'for making and
publishing
an obscene and scurrilous writing or libel tending to the corruption of
youth and defamation of several per-sons therein named as particularly
Phillip and Elizabeth Shattuck and others.' The (lost) libel was
probably
full of sexual innuendo and bawdy suggestions. This was a deprived,
but
not an innocent, age" (123).
Throughout the 17th century rising affluence and population lead to
construction of larger houses and "conspicuous consumption." both of
which
are reflected in the distribution of assets pre-scribed in individual
wills (130-131).
f.n. 27. Silver: Pewter: John Whitney Mx PR 4:99 Glass or
china: John Whitney Mx PR 4:99 Whitney (chest), Mx PR 4:99
(Ms Pr: Middlesex Probate Registers, vols. 1-5, MA: vols. 106 on
microfilm at Middle-sex Probate Registry, East Cambridge)
"Cross-generational relations were not always edgy and antagonistic.
As
aged parents sank into dependence'land-for-care' agreements were
common.
Though some arrangements were lovingothers built in safeguards implying
a
certain distrust.43"
f.n. 43. E.g. Whitney: Mx Deeds, 3:451-52, 4:344, 9 March 1670
(Mx Deeds: Middlesex Registry of Deeds,vols. 1-7, County
Courthouse, East Cambridge)
King Phillip's War (1675-76) stirred up colonial prejudices against the
Indians and fueled their paranoia about Indian "unreliability,
laziness,
treachery, and general savagery." Numerous Wa-tertown men were called
to
do battle. By December 1675 20 of them had been drafted (150-152).38
f.n. 38: Drafted: Michael Fleg, William's brother; John and Moses
Whitney, a couple of the town's ne'er-do-wells; plus (a list of the
others) (249)
In its early days Watertown looked like it would become an important
town.
But by the 1650s it had been overshadowed by Boston, Cambridge,
Charlestown and other settlements. By the 1670s it had become a quiet
parochial backwater. The first 50 years are also marked by chronic
discord and conflict-over religion, over land, over taxes. There were
disputes over who should be recognized as a member of the community.
"The
town leadership was three times unceremo-niously dumped by irate
townsmen." "There wee also regular spats between neighbors, often
over
stock and fences, but also involving personal rivalries and envies,
long-nursed grievances, dark suspicions, generational jealousies, and
family feuds. Although this drove some people out, "One of the most
striking characteristics of Watertown in its first fifty years-indeed
of
its first two hundred and fifty years-was its residential stability.
Individual family members might leave, but family names persisted
(169-174).
f.n. 14. "The old burial ground commemorates these pesistent
descendants:
forty-one original families, whose subsequent generations are buried
in
the Arlington Street Ceme-tery. The eighteenth-century records of
Watertown's 'Western Precinct,' which became Waltham in 1738, are
dominated by the names of founding families of Watertown. In the
1790
Census forty-three family names in Watertown perpetuate those of our
period and forty-four from Waltham. Heads of Families at the First
U.S.
Census. 1790 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1992), 156, 157.
In the 1850 Watertown map based on the sur-vey by S. Dwight Eaton
and Elbridge Whitney, thirty-one families who had settled in
Watertown by 1650 still held land in the town. List of Arlington
Street Cemetery (old burial ground) gravestones kindly supplied
by the Watertown Public Works Department; between them, the
Coolidge and Stone families have eighty-one headstones there.
Records of the Western Precinct of Watertown, 1720-1738 (Waltham:
Aldermanic Board, 1913) contains thirty familynames from the
first generation of Watertown settlers. MS map in the archives
of Watertown Public Library; my thanks to Ann Butler and Forrest
Mack"
(253).
APPENDIX B. Lists of Residents
List 1: Long-Term, First Generation
Criteria forInclusion: Arrival by 1640; residence for seven-year
minimum,
usually grantee of town land (proprietor), adult on arrival,
usuallymale
head of household.
96 men, including John WHITNEY
List 2: Short-Term, First Generation
Criteria: Unless they died, five or six years of residence, usually
continuous.
43 men, no Whitneys
List 3: "Perchers," First Generation
Criteria: Under five years, mostly 163s arrivals, hold land or
connected
in other documentary evidence.
64 men, no Whitneys
List 4: Latecomers, First Generation
Criteria: Arrival in Watertown after 1640, born before 1620, resident
for
decade or more.
32 men, no Whitneys
List 5: Incomers, Second Generation
Criteria: Born after 1620, arrived from elsewhere in Watertown after
1640.
25 men, no Whitneys
List 6: Long-Term, Second Generation
Criteria: Born between 1620 and 1650, lived ten adult years in
Watertown
before 1680 (except for early death), offspring of first or
occasionally
of second generation resident.
100 men, including " John, Jonathan, Richard, and Thomas WHITNEY"
Karl Schwerin
Wed Mar 30 2005 16:24 Whitney Research:
A relative in the Whitney Research Group extracted information from a book of the history of Watertown, Massachusetts. I'm saving it here so I can find it later. Many of the other (non-Whitney) people in this extract are relatives too.