Green’s Farms Church & the West Parish of Fairfield, 1711-1736

The establishment of the Congregational Church of America dates back to the founding of this nation with the arrival of religious dissenters from England to Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1620. Called Puritans in England — a derogatory term referring to their zeal for simplicity in church organization and worship — they believed each church should be organized with members who enter a covenant agreement and had the right to choose their own minister.

In the 1630s and 1640s, thousands of Puritans arrived in New England and flourished with the conviction that they were chosen by God to play a central role in the unfolding of this new land and human history at large. As such, churches and church leaders played an important role in shaping New England society. The organizational system of Congregational churches required mutual trust and personal commitment, yet this was not always a given. Voting in Massachusetts was limited to individuals who had been formally admitted to the church after a detailed interrogation of their religious views and experiences. Thomas Hooker disagreed with the limitation of suffrage in the Massachusetts Colony and in 1636, led one hundred followers to found Hartford. After 1636, freeman (eligible voter) settlements were formed throughout Connecticut.

In 1639, Roger Ludlowe and a group of settlers from Windsor came to modern day Fairfield and formed The First Church of Fairfield. By 1644, Fairfield was the fourth largest town among the colony’s nine towns and extended from Stratford to Norwalk. As populations grew and church attendance was mandatory, groups began campaigning for the right to establish their own parishes.  In 1708, the Bankside farmers, Thomas Newton, John Green, Henry Gray, Daniel Frost and Francis Andrews started their petition to form the West Parish of Fairfield, which is the modern day Green’s Farm Church in Westport.

Green’s Farms Church, 1711 – 1736 

Rendering by unknown artist

Loan from Green’s Farms Church 

In 1708, a group of Fairfield residents commonly known as the Bankside farmers petitioned the Connecticut Colonial Legislature for permission to leave Fairfield Parish.  They wanted to establish a parish closer to their homes in the area between the current Weston center to the north, Long Island Sound as the southern border, the Saugatuck River to the west, and today’s West Parish Road as the eastern boundary. After a three-year debate ensued, the Legislature granted their request in 1711.  

The first parish meeting was held on June 12, 1711, and Reverend Daniel Chapman was chosen as minister, with the promise of 70 pounds annual salary and one year’s worth of firewood. The modest meetinghouse, pictured here, took nine years to build and was 35 square feet wide and 16 feet high, with 4 ½ foot wide clapboard siding. It stood on the common at Green’s Farms Road and Morningside Drive, commemorated today by the Machamux boulder. 

Tea Bowl and Saucer, c. 1720 

Ceramic 

Loan from Green’s Farms Church 

This tea bowl and saucer belonged to Reverend Daniel Chapman, the first minister of Green’s Farms Church. The congregation paid for Chapman’s ordination in 1714, and he  served the West Parish of Fairfield for 31 years. Porcelain was costly in the 18th century and common folks used pewter or even wood vessels. Reverend Chapman, in contrast, likely had a full set as evidenced by the five remaining pieces the church still owns.  

Tea was also an expensive 18th century indulgence. The fact that Reverend Chapman owned a full set indicates he was highly valued and lived in refined style. The earliest tea cups had no handles and were referred to as tea bowls.  In the 18th century, saucers were typically very deep compared to modern day saucers. It is believed that tea was poured from the bowl to the saucer to cool and was then drunk from the saucer.

Green’s Farms Church Covenant, 1742 

Rewritten Copy of 1711 Document 

Courtesy of Fairfield Museum and History Center 

As they formed a new congregation in 1711, one of the first orders of business for the Bankside farmers was to create a covenant of faith. The covenant outlined the expectations of the congregation…”Denying all ungodliness and worldly Lusts, to live Soberly, righteously and Godly in this present world.” It was signed by the original settlers of Green’s Farms: Joseph Lockwood, Jonathan Squire, Joshua Jennings, Henry Gray, Samuel Couch, John Andrews, and Thomas Nash who later became known as the Bankside Farmers. 

Bankside Farmers, 1648-1711

Back in 2018, Westport Museum (then Westport Historical Society) did a year-long exhibit called “History of Westport in 100 Objects” in which we shared the nearly four hundred year history of the town using different objects. We are bringing back that always-popular exhibit here–virtually. Check back each week for a new post and photos of items that tell our collective story. Have a suggestion for an object to include? Email us a photo and description at virtualmuseum@westporthistory.org and we’ll consider including it on our facebook page.

When Connecticut was a British colony, the area east of the Saugatuck River to the border of Fairfield and west of the Mill River was known as Green’s Farms. Thomas Newton, John Green and Henry Gray were given a land grant to settle the area in 1648 with Daniel Frost and Francis Andrews joining them within a few years. The group later became known as the Bankside Farmers. In subsequent generations, others like Joshua Jennings possessed landholdings encompassing a large parcel of Green’s Farms. 

Settlers cultivated the rich soil of Greens Farms initially for their own subsistence and later for commercial profit. Positioned on the Long Island Sound, Green’s Farms was also a seafaring community which tapped into the export trade. Flax was grown for linen, and corn–also known by the Native name maize–was grown for the settlers’ families, their cattle, and for export to the Caribbean where it was used to feed enslaved people. 

Food was also harvested from the sea and fish, clams, and oysters were part of the bounty. Fish and lobsters were so plentiful they were also used for fertilizer. 

Firearms, c. 1820

Mixed-metal firearm remnants (2) 

Private Collection of Peter Jennings

Colonists used firearms to defend themselves and their livestock, but they were also an important part of farming life for hunting everything from ducks to deer.  Still in its infancy, firearm design was of the flintlock type where a piece of stone was used with a trigger mechanism to create a spark and ignite the powder charge inside the barrel.  Some flintlocks were converted to a percussion mechanism after the 1820’s, as shown in these examples, that were unearthed during excavation around Compo Beach. 

Oyster Shell

Shell

Private Collection of Norman Bloom

Typically only a few inches long today, oysters breed in beds, often in shallow waters where they can be gathered by hand or with small rakes.  Early settlers cultivated oysters that were as large as dinner plates.  In the 18th century, oyster rakes were used from small boats to gather oysters in deeper waters; and in the 19th century, long-handled tongs made the job easier.  By the latter 19th century, scallop dredges were attached to boats to scrape oyster beds at the bottom of the ocean floor.  Because dredges tended to damage the beds, their use was highly restricted.  Dredging was limited to sailboats until 1969 to control over-harvesting in Connecticut, and the oyster sloop was designed for this purpose.  Built in 1948, Hope is considered the last-built Connecticut oyster sloop. 

Land Deed, 1703-1704

Ink, Parchment

Private Collection of Peter Jennings

This document, written July 4, 1703 and signed March 20, 1704 by Joseph Jennings was witnessed by Thomas Staples and John Meredith.  It describes the transfer of a property from Joshua Jennings “of Fairfield in Connecticut Colony in New England” to Joseph Jennings, for a piece of land in the Mill River vicinity, now known as Green’s Farms.  The Jennings family were among the largest landowners and farmers in the area, and in 1850 were the largest landowners in Westport. 

Land Grant, 17th Century

Scan of Original

Fairfield Town Clerk 

Copy of the original land grant to John Green, Henry Gray, Thomas Newton, Daniel Frost, and Francis Andrews.  These men became known as the Bankside Farmers in the area we call today Green’s Farms. 

A Town Born from Battle, 1637

Back in 2018, Westport Museum (then Westport Historical Society) did a year-long exhibit called “History of Westport in 100 Objects” in which we shared the nearly four hundred year history of the town using different objects. We are bringing back that always-popular exhibit here–virtually. Check back each week for a new post and photos of items that tell our collective story. Have a suggestion for an object to include? Email us a photo and description at virtualmuseum@westporthistory.org and we’ll consider including it on our facebook page.

There was no “Westport” in the 1630s. Instead, using the Saugatuck River as the boundary, the town was divided between Fairfield and Norwalk. On the Fairfield side, many farmers settled along the Long Island Sound–amidst the original settlements of the Paugusset Natives who were “cousins” and allies of the larger, more powerful Pequot tribe.

By 1637, there was all out “war” between the two groups. Originating in Massachusetts, Europeans hounded the Pequots all the way to the swampy area between what is now Southport and Greens Farms. The massacre that ensued was called the Great Swamp Fight and effectively ended the war and the Native presence in this part of the colony.

The Native People who survived were either absorbed by other tribes or sold into slavery. Over the years, their presence has been erased except for the now familiar place names they left behind like Saugatuck and Aspetuck.

Powderhorn, 19th Century 

Unknown Artist 

Animal horn and wood 

WHS Collection, Unnumbered 

Animal horns were commonly used throughout the Colonial period of Connecticut to hold gunpowder. Horns from cattle or oxen were readily available and popular with militiamen before the adoption of paper cartridges. Susceptible to sparks and explosions, metal receptacles could not be used to hold powder but other containers, known as powder flasks, crafted from leather or wood, were employed. The powderhorn seen here would have been refilled through the large opening, with powder poured through the tapering end for each shot, and worn slung over the shoulder from a leather strap. Powderhorns were used both by hunters and the militiamen raised under orders of the Colonial Governor to engage Native People in battles for territory. A powderhorn such as this one would have likely been used by colonists during battles like the Great Swamp Fight at the border of present day Greens Farms and Southport. 

Arrowheads, 12oo BC-950 AD 

Unknown Native People 

Quartz and Quartzite 

WHS Collection, 1978.11.5 (1-5) 

Arrowheads found in Connecticut date back as early as 1,400 years ago as seen at the Tower Hill Road Site in the southeastern part of the state. Many of the arrowheads over this timespan were made from quartz and quartzite, and their designs varied. The Mohegan, Pequot, Pocumtuc, and Narragansett people were based in southern New England for thousands of years. Native People hunted wild game and fought tribal wars using arrows outfitted with these sharp stone heads. As white settlers arrived, conflicts ensued such as the King Philip’s and Pequot Wars including the Great Swamp Fight just past today’s Green’s Farms on the border of Southport. While white settlers used guns, Native Peoples attempted to protect their land using bow and arrow. Arrowheads found today help historians track the paths of these conflicts. 

A First Hand Account of the Pequot War1637 (published 1736) 

Major John Mason

Book, stitched parchment in custom board/leather binding box

WHS Collection,  30073 

On July 13, 1637, Major John Mason, Captain and Commander of the Connecticut forces, brought his men to battle with Native People during the Pequot War in swampy land in what is today Southport in the area where I-95 crosses over the Post Road. This is an original surviving copy of that account first published in 1736.  Pages 15-18 describe the Swamp Fight. Mason’s militia men comprised local farmers.  The Sachem of the Pequot, Sassacus, was captured along with some 180 men, women, and children of the Pequot tribe–making this the last official battle of the war. You can see a monument dedicated to the battle in the center divider at the intersection of Post Road and Old Post Road near the Athena Diner in Southport today.  

“We then Marching on in a silent Manner, the Indians that remained fell all into the Rear, who formerly kept the Van; (being possessed with great Fear) we continued our March till about one Hour in the Night: and coming to a little Swamp between two Hills, there we pitched our little Camp.” 

Pequot War Mural, 1937 

Scan of Original Painting 

Courtesy of Fairfield Museum and History Center

Depictions such as this Great Depression era mural by artist George Avison told a romanticized—if inaccurate—story about the Great Swamp Fight. Similar to other  art commissioned by the Works Progress Administration to glorify the era of American nation building, this mural was one in a series of five murals depicting Fairfield’s history. Completed in 1937 and hung in the Roger Ludlowe High School building, now known as Tomlinson Middle School, where all five remain today as a reminder that history is most often told through the eyes of the “victors.” 

Battlefields of the Pequot War 

Courtesy of Fairfield Museum and History Center Pequot War Battlefield Project 

This map created by the Fairfield Museum and History Center as part of a multi-year collaboration with the National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program shows the locations of the Connecticut battle areas in the Pequot War. The Southport site has been mapped topographically to create a site plan for professional archaeologists to conduct low-impact field analysis of the Pequot Swamp battle site to locate possible artifacts. To learn more, please visit the Pequot War Battlefield Project at fairfieldhistory.org

George Washington & The Disinformation Troll: A President’s Week Story

During President’s Day—and week—we hear many a story about the glory of George Washington. Today, historians are taking a holistic approach to viewing historical figures—observing all aspects of their life, in as much as the available record allows.

One such interesting aspect was that the first President was the victim of an aggressive media troll. Propelled almost single-handedly by an individual acting as the tool of others, the attacks on the first President actually encouraged readers to go to the presidential mansion in Philadelphia to shout epithets and threats.

The troll was Benjamin Franklin Bache, grandson and apprentice of the more famous Ben Franklin. Bache published the Philadelphia Aurora newspaper and used it to print accusations largely based on information sent to him by those who opposed Washington’s policies.

Portrait of Benjamin Franklin Bache

Back then, before the brief heyday of objective journalism some centuries later, there was nothing to stop Bache from excerpting material—or even lying—to create the story he wanted to tell. Without independent editorial oversight, his paper functioned very much like that of some modern-day “news” outlets: unchecked, heavy on opinion and bombast.*

Yet Washington kept his own counsel—confidant that Bache’s unfounded fury would eventually fade in the light of the truth. Although, for more than a year after Washington retired, Bache continued his libelous attacks until his own death of Yellow Fever in 1798 at age 29.**

Benjamin Franklin Bache

Why was Bache so against George Washington? In part, because of Bache’s own self-importance—Bache was enraged that Washington refused to grant him (and others like him) fame and position in deference to the achievements of their famous forebears. But Washington was staunchly opposed to patronage—believing that just because things usually went someone’s way didn’t mean they always had to.

Another reason for Bache’s pseudo-journalistic assaults was that he considered Washington an “outsider.” He did not believe Washington, a Virginian, to be “one of them”. To Bache, Washington was an interloper who was not a “real” Philadelphian. To Bache’s mind, Washington’s work on behalf of the republic paled because the first president simply didn’t “know his place.”

Today, the “us” vs. “them” of that era is portrayed clearly: “us” equals patriots and “them” equal the British. Yet, truthfully, only one-third of the nation supported Revolution, while another third opposed it and the remaining didn’t care either way.

For Washington whose father’s untimely death cost him opportunities in status and education, “them” specifically comprised people whom he believed had more chances than he did and, later, his political rivals. In larger American society, “them” equaled native people, enslaved Africans, other people of color and women.

Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation

For Bache, “us” equaled those other supercilious persons who, like him, believed in their own exalted significance. “Them” were all who failed to be cowed by the malevolent bludgeon of his publication. Bache’s 18th century the language of othering people into “us” and “them” took the same predictable forms as today: “not one of us”; “not really from here” and “who does that person think they are?” All were used by Bache in some form.

First page of the Jay Treaty

Ultimately, Benjamin Franklin Bache was most skillful at tapping into his readers’ fear of change, couching personal attacks on Washington within social questions guaranteed to trigger outrage. When Washington decided America should remain neutral during the French Revolution, Bache accused him of disloyalty to a trusted ally. It was an observation that didn’t explore the other side: America’s potential reputational damage supporting a frenzied, blood-thirsty revolt.

And again, in 1795, Washington felt he had no choice but to sign the Jay Treaty to avert another war with Britain, Bache obtained a copy of the Treaty and pre-published it to tap residual anti-British sentiment—ignoring the legitimate financial reasons that necessitated agreement. Later, Bache went so far as to publish forged documents implying Washington’s motives in the Revolutionary War were entirely self-serving.

Yet, the truth was that Washington was making hard, unpopular, decisions to protect the infant United States from chaos and financial ruin. In so doing, it’s easy to imagine he was following an admonition he wrote to himself as a teenager in a small diary he entitled Rules of Civility–and continued to follow in his life as a military commander, politician and Free Mason:

labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience

Join us to learn more interesting and unusual facts about President Washington at our Ale to the Chief Washington Beer Bash on his birthday, this Saturday, February 22.


* Kohn, George C. The New Encyclopedia of American Scandal, Benjamin Franklin Bache: Vengeance Through Journalism p20 Facts on File, 2000.

** Benjamin Franklin Bache, mountvernon.org

Are Things Always As They Appear?

In 1992, the Museum (then Westport Historical Society) received the gift of an invitation date December 13th 1798 from President George Washington to a Mr. Sprague. Precious as it was, this gift was carefully locked away in the Museum vault and only its facsimile made public appearances.

It was, arguably, the most important holding in the Museum’s collection.

And it was also a fake.

George Washington engraving

The original intake paperwork for the gift clearly indicated that the invitation was authentic but that the signature was most likely not Washington’s. Still, lore among volunteers, staff and visitors nonetheless quickly spread that the Museum owned an authentic Washington autograph.

George Washington engraving c. 1876, Courtesy Library of Congress

The truth wasn’t discovered until almost 30 years later when a Museum staff member with an expertise in Washingtonia quickly recognized that the signature did not belong to the first president. After being taken out of its frame, the deception would prove to go even further. The signature was on the back of an invitation to a presidential dinner dated December 13th, 1798—almost two years after Washington left office.

Portrait of John Adams

Even though the fake was obvious, we nonetheless sent it to our colleagues at Mount Vernon for authentication. In the museum world–as in other fields such as journalism and the law–multiple sources to prove or disprove the appearance of fact are considered best practice. However, as expected, Mount Vernon quickly confirmed what we already knew (that the signature was a fraud) and what we suspected (that the invite itself wasn’t even real.)

Portrait of John Adams, Courtesy of Library of Congress

Ultimately, it turned out that the printed invitation was one often used by the Adams administration—as confirmed by the John Adams Papers Project experts at the Massachusetts Historical Society.

So, who was the invited guest—this Mr. Sprague? There was a Representative called Peleg Sprague serving his last year in Congress at the time of this invite. The dinner in question was held on a Thursday—which was in fact the customary day of the week for official Congress dinners first held by Washington and later, Adams.

Presidential dining table fully set

More intriguing, Washington was in Philadelphia (then the nation’s capital) as was President John Adams December 13th 1798. Washington was there to raise an army for what the government believed might be an impending invasion by France. Washington’s diaries indicate, however, that he dined alone in his rooms on the day in question.

Presidential dining as depicted in the A. Alfred Taubman Gallery of the Donald W. Reynolds Museum, Courtesy mountvernon.org

Grains of truth (the date; that it was a real invite of the Adams era; the presence of all parties in the capital city on that date) lent veracity to what was, essentially, a false representation of facts. No doubt Peleg Sprague was invited to official dinners on Thursdays by President Adams but he certainly wasn’t invited to one on this day by George Washington.

Coincidentally, another Sprague– William B.– was a known autograph collector and the first person to gather the signatures of all the signers of the Declaration Of Independence. At the time of his death, he had amassed over 10,000 signatures including those written upon an impressive array of presidential pamphlets, papers and invitations.

But in 1798, the date of our invitation, William B. Sprague was only 3 years old.

Is it possible that our document was a humorous conceit on the part of the later autograph aficionado Sprague? Or was it something more nefarious—someone’s carefully, curated document presenting a limited perspective because there was little fear that it would be picked apart and the fraud discovered?

Indeed, the trickery might not ever have been made plain had someone not come along to question what was presented and taken for fact.

Now, the value of our “Washington signature” centers not on its veracity but in the success of its deception. It is proof of how a lie, well told, can become the truth—at least in the minds (and sadly pocketbooks) of some.

Despite the corroboration of experts, there are still those who hold dearly to the idea that the signature we own is an authentic Washington. We can understand why—it’s hard to relinquish carefully held ideas built around our own fervent beliefs but, in the end, facts will out.

In honor of President’s Day visitors can see for themselves this and other scams at our next Tuesday Treasures—Counterfeit History: Fun With Fakes & Phonies, Tuesday, February 4th at 6:30pm.