This is my personal genealogy hobby site. The data contained here has been gathered through 20 years of genealogy. Some of it is my research, much of it has been shared with me.

DISCLAIMER: This is my speculative data. I've verified very little of it. Use it for hints and pointers, but do your own research!

It costs me over $50 (US) a month to have this data on the web, so your support would be appreciated! If clicking on advertisments is not your thing, please consider a donation!

Rob Salzman
e-familytree.net
PO Box 25335
Beaverton, OR
97298-0335

sponsored links

This data changes often. If you've arrived from a search engine, it's could be that you don't see the information you were looking for. The current index for e-familytree.net can be found here. You can email me at genealogy at e-familytree.net for updates, removal requests, etc.

Family Sheet

HUSBAND
Name: Nathaniel Merriman Note Born: 2 Jun 1613 at London, , Middlesex County, England Married: Abt 1647 at Wallingford, , , CT Died: 13 Feb 1694 at Wallingford, , , CT Father: George Merriman Mother: Hannah
WIFE
Name: Joan Lines Born: 20 Oct 1628 at New Haven, , New Haven Colony, CT Died: 8 Dec 1709 at Wallingford, , New Haven County, CT Father: John Lines Mother: Unknown
CHILDREN
Name: Nathaniel Merriman Jr. Born: Oct 1648 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Died: 19 Dec 1675 at RI, , ,
Name: Hannah Merriman Born: 16 May 1651 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Died: Aft 1682 at Wallingford, , , CT Husband: John Ives
Name: Abigail Merriman Born: 18 Apr 1654 at Wallingford, , , CT Died: 1679 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Husband: John Hitchcock
Name: Mary Merriman Born: 12 Jul 1657 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Died: Aft 1701 at Wallingford, , New Haven County, CT Husband: Thomas Curtis
Name: John Merriman Born: 28 Feb 1659 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Died: 1741 at Wallingford, , , CT Wife: Hannah Lines
Name: Samuel Merriman Born: 29 Sep 1662 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Died: Sep 1694 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Wife: Anna Street
Name: Caleb Merriman Born: 16 May 1665 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Died: 19 Jul 1703 at Wallingford, , , CT Wife: Mary Preston
Name: Moses Merriman Born: 1667 Died:
Name: Elizabeth Merriman Born: 14 Sep 1669 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Died: 2 Feb 1749 at Cheshire, , New Haven, CT Husband: Ebenezer Lewis
Name: Grace Merriman Born: 1671 Died:
Name: Sarah Merriman Born: 1673 Died: Husband: William Frederick
NOTES
1). NATHANIEL MERRIMAN IN NEW HAVEN 1640 TO 1670 BY Miss ALICE M. MERRIMAN Seventh in Descent from Nath a n i e l through hisson John In attempting a sketch of our ancestor during hi s l i f e i n New Haven from1640 to 1670, it may not he ina ppro pr ia te t o picture briefly theconditions under whic h he w a s le d to s ettle here, since such a settingcan pe rhaps g iv e u s a glimp seof the character of the man. Religious unrest had been working for a long time in E n g l a nd, and many,rich as well as poor, were ready to jo i n R e v . John Davenport, ex vicar ofSt. Stephen s churc h , Cole m a n Street, London, when he left home andcountr y a nd arri v e d in Boston in June, 1637. To he sure we he ar m ost oft h e pr ominent ones, Theophilus Eaton, afterwa rds G overno r o f Ne w HavenColony, and others of his stat io n and whi le i t i s known that ourancestor did not co m e with this co mpany , ye t he musthave left Englandon l y a few years in a dvance nev ertheless at a date nea r en ough for himto hav e been i nfluen ced by the same rel igiou s ideas and the sam edetermin ation t o come to a ne w count ry, wherein those id eas andcon viction s might.ha ve ful l sway. Davenport s imm ediate comp anions c ame,a s we know , not only from London h ut from th e near by d i ocese ofCa nterbury. It would seem , however, th at our for ef ather mu st have been aresident o f London, fro m the wi ll whi ch ap pears indisputably to hav e beenmade b y his f ather Gor g e Merriman, a citizen and co oper of Londo n, o nOctober 3 1, 1 655. Since the man in whose honor we are assembled was t h e o n l y NathanielMerriman living in New England in 165 5 , we c a n s carcely doubt that he wasthe son referred t o i n tha t wi ll hence it is not impossible that he may, in e arly l ife , hav e been one of Davenport s London pari shion ers. Th isfa ct a s well as his experience in the Peq uot wa r, and c onseq uenta cquaintance with this part of t he coun try, ma y very e asil y have led tohis decision t o join tho se who h ad begu n the f ormation of a colony at Quinnipiac. We may picture to ourselves briefly the settlemen t i n 1 6 4 0 in that yearfirst called New Haven when our a nces to r pe rh aps arrived here. East andWest Creeks, stre ams l on g Sinc e f orgotten, were then navigable, and over the fo rme r, at h ig h tide, vessels could be floated, i n the be d o f theprese n t railroad or old canal, as far a s Chape l Stre et. Ahea d l ay aplain extending inland ab out tw o miles , at which di stan ce stood basalticrocks co lored w ith iron , and so promi nen t in the landscape tha t the Dut chhad cal led the place R oden bergh or Red Mount . On the w est of thi s plainwere broa d sal t meadows, bor dering wha t is now cal led West River, a ndexte nding inla nd almost t o West Rock on the east side w ere sti ll mor eextensive s alt meadow s spread out on eithe r side of t he Quinnipiac , orEast Ri ver, and also on bot h side s o f a stream flowi ng into i t a shortdistance abov e it s outlet , the presen t Mill Rive r. The meadows on theQu i nnipiac exte nded muc h further t o the north than thos e o n West River.The se sa lt meadows , extensive and ric h in pro vender, had doubt le ssgreatly i nfluenced the com pany in sel ecting this pla c e for theirse ttlement. The first business of the planters had been to la y o u t t h e town in ninesquares, the central one having b ee n re serv e d as the market place. Theremaining eight sq uar es ha d be e n divided into house lots and assigned tot he p lanter s sev er ally, in proportion to the size of th e fami ly an d alsot o th e amount which each planter had i nveste d in th e enterp rise , thefuture citizens having ap parentl y groupe d themsel ves a ccording topersonal acquai ntance a nd friend ship in th e moth er country. In January ,1640, ar rangement s were mad e for th e division of the neck, tha t is, thel and betwee n Mill an d Quinnipiac Riv ers, the sa lt meadows , as well a s theuplan d of the cent er. Every f ree planter had some l and in th e neck,so me in the mea dows, and so me in the upl and, taxe s bein g fixed at thefo llowing rates all the upla nd in th e fi rst division, wit h all themeado ws in the plant ation, w a s taxed at 4d. pe r acre yearly a ll the landin th e sec ond d ivision,tha t is, the farm land , at 2d. To encourage colonization, thirty two of the compa n y w e r e gratuitouslysupplied with house lots, these pla nt er s ha vi ng no rights of commonageand being drawn by l ot . Th is di vis ion evidently took place in 1641, sincei n Ma rch o f tha t yea rwe find our ancestor mentioned a s thir d in or der a s thei r lots were drawn, and he rece ive d a small lo t on w hat i s nowEast Water Street. We ma y pe rhaps imagin e his ma rriag e at about thistime, altho ugh n o specific re cord of i t ha s thusfar been discover ed.Bes ides his hom e on East Wa ter S treet, we may also l ocate h is farm inFai r Haven, sinc e in 1 648 Nathaniel M errima n et al. desir e to have theirl and o n ye east side , betwi xt the red roc k & Mr. Davenport s farm, and onNo vember 2 0th of that yea r the Court ordere d that t his la nd shoul d beassigned to h im. The followin g year Mar c h 10, 1649 he and four othe rsasked that the y might hav e some lan d and meadows to se ttle vp farms one the eas t side , nex tthe sea, beyond th e Cove River. Thi s mus t have been i n the vicinity of Morr is Cove. The farme r s already settl e d near byobjected an d a committee wa s appo inted to inve stig ate. Two months la ter,the petiti oners ask ed the Cour t fo r a decision on thi s about thi s time herece ived cert ain me adow and farm la nd, whic h he was to divid e withM athias Hit chcock and Isaa c Whit ehead. Although a church service was strictly observed fr o m t h e f irst, it wasnot until June 4, 1639, that a meet in g w a s hel d to consult aboutsettling civil governmen t ac cord in g to G od, and about the nomination ofperson s tha t migh t h e found ,by consent of all, fittest in al l resp ectsfo r th e foundat ion work of a cburch. 11 At th is meet ing i t was v oted thatt he right of suffrage shoul d be con ferre d on chur ch member s only. Thereare sixty three si gner s for this fundamenta l agreement, and i n the lastp aragr aph it is sta ted that al l who are subse quently rece ived a s plantersshal l also subsc ribe to th e same conditi ons. Be low the names o f theorigina l signe rs, appear, i n two colu mns, forty eigh t others, whic h weredoubtless p laced ther e later on and h ere appears f o r the first tim e thename o f Nathaniel Merrim an, also t hat o f Richard Me rriman. Th is is theonly cas e in whic h the nam e of Rich ard Merrima n occurs in the colo nialhi story of Ne w Englan d, which giv es rise to the quer y whe ther the name,b ein g somewhat ille gible in the origina l , may not reall y b e that ofsomeone e lse. In 1644, we read that Nathaniel Merriman received t h e o a t h of fidelityat the General Court held at New Hav e n o n t h e 1st day of July. ThisGeneral Court was the c on trol lin g b ody f the new settlement, and thefact tha t o ur an cest or w asmade thus early one of its members p rove s himt o hav e bee n a citizen in good and regular st andin g, i n both c hurc h andstate, as well as a man of u sefuln ess i n the comm unity . Further extractsfrom the Re cords c onfir m the latte r idea . OnMay 25th, 1646, we re ad that Nathan iel Merriman and o thers were freed fro m attendin g the Co urt tohelp Mr . Malbo n get goods a sho re. Also o n June 11 , 1649 Mr. Ev ansdesir ed liberty fo r Thomas Mo ris & Nath aniel Merriman t o depar t ye court, to go to d o a little wo rk to a vessel wh ich lay s loade n & was read y to goaway, a nd they had libert y. On N ove mber 29tb, 16 49, also, Natha nielMerriman and Wi lliam Ru s sell are chos en as assessor s in ye room ofThoma s Muns o n & Francis Br owne. We may judge somewhat of Nathaniel s social positi o n b y t h esereferences, as well as from allusions to h im sel f an d h is wife asregards their seats in church . A you ng m an wa s gi ven no prefix to hisname until be b ecam e a maste r work manthen, if he were an artisan o r ahusb andman, a s we hav e se en was the case with our wo rthy for ebear, hem ight be a ddres sed by the honorary tit le of Goo dman and hi s wife mig ht bec alled Goodwife or G oody. A ma n who employ ed laborer s but di dnot workwit h them was di stinguished b y the titl e of Mr. T his latte r term ofrespe ct was given t o elders, m agistrates , teac hers, merchants , and men ofwea lth, whethe r engaged i n m erchandise or li ving in retireme nt fromtrade . Social ra n kwas strikingl y manifested in th e seating o f themeet ing h ouse. The G overnor and Deputy Governor wer e give n the fron tform ent ire others occupie d places behin d t hem accordin g to soc ialstanding. In thi s way we can s e e a gradual ris e inou r forefather spositi on at the f irs t seating his nam e do es not appear at all but astim e goe s on, and there fol l ow a second and a thi rd seatin g, he i s givenfirst a pla c e at the side, and the n is ad vanced t o a seat, with six othe rs,in the middle a lley or aisle while his wife , known f irst asGoodwife Me rr iman, is assi gned seat No . 6 in the si de seats all al o ng, together wit h Goodwi fe Barnes, Jno. Be nham s wif e a nd Edwa. Camp swif e. Thi s was on February 11t h,165 5 a t the next seating , on Fe bruary20, 1661, we fin d S iste r Merriman assigne d sea t No. 8 in the longseat s f or wom en, with Goodwife M ans field, Goodwife Hitchco ck, Goo dwif eHarrison, Sister Bar n es, and John Johnson s wife. Doub tless the youngpeople s a t in the gallery, a s only the hea d s of families are men tio ned inthe seatin g. In 1653, Nathaniel sold his home on East Water Str e e t t o FrancisBrowne and all his lands web belonge d t o h im o n y e east side againstDragon point. At thi s time , h e undo ubte dly went to live on his farm. Sixyea rs late r, i n 1659 , a la nd question of unusual interes t and impo rtanc earos e withi n the limits of the town, wh ich was no t settl ed unt il after the Revolution. It wa s a serious di fferenc e of opi nion betw een thedwellers i n the New Have n town pl ot and th e inhabita nts of the ou tlyingfarms wh o wished t o establis h villages o f their o wn. Attendanc e at churchwa s of cours e rigorously d emand ed of all bu t at so pea t a distance as Fair Haven or E a st Haven, it p roved a ver y difficult matte r. Hence thefa rmers asked th e privileg e of establishing su bordinate v illage s, having their own c hurches and constable s, so a s to have t he ess entials ofre ligious and civic gove rnme nt close at han d . To this the d wellers of thetown stre n uously objecte d on account of th e loss to them in rate s ortaxes. A t own me eting was cal led at which the boun dari es of the pr oposedvil lages of Fa ir and East Haven w ere des cribed, an d the condit ions setf orth that the vil lagers sho uld pa y rates as did other pla ntations alsot hat every lan dhol der in the village s houl d pay rates i n the village, ev e n if not a resident. Mr . Da venport wa s by far the large s t landholderin Fair Haven , b ut he sp oke at length in fa vo r of the petitioners, making the po int that they shoul d pr event sin in the farms a n d tha t the Sabbath ough t to b e sanctified, but with th e fa r mers living at suc h adistanc e, it could not be kep t a s a d ay of rest. A fu rther sugges tion wasthat the chil d ren wer edebarred fro m school privil eges. The city fathers opposed the measures of the farm e r s , a s has happenedsometimes since and here our ances t o r to ok p art in the contention,bringing upon himself t h e c ritic ism f rom Levermore of being the spitefulman. I t se ems t o me, h owever, that this censure is a bit h ar d on hi m,sinc e ther e was certainly perfect fairness i n h is poin t of vie w an d fromsome characteristics tha t I ha ve happe ned to ob serv e in a few of hisdescendants , I ca n ventur e to say tha t hi s complete conviction o f right,c ombined w ith his vehem enc e of manner, may hav e furnishe d the groun d forthis stat emen t. His part in t he controve rsy is thu s described He threw a firebrand into the midst by saying th a t a t t h e first therewere many of them looked upon as m e n t o liv e b y their labor. They hadsmall lots given the m , bu t whe n th e Town for their support gave themthes e lo ts, i t wa s upon c ondition that they should inhabi t them . And n owth e Town wou ld call them off their farms . He w as answe red t hat then th efarmers came to town wi th thei r familie s on th e last day o f the week, and stay ed til l after th e Sabbath, and that the farms were gi ven the m thatcor n and cattl e might be raise d yet now t hey nee d come fro m the town. Our historian leaves us in the dark as to the outc o m e o f t his specialmeeting but since the question wa s n o t deci de d until more than a hundredyears later, o f cour s e we mus t c onclude that it amounted to little el setha n a n expressi on o fopinion evidently a decided one . It m ay q uitepossibl y b e that the annoyance thus exper ience d had i ts bearing o n hi ssubsequent removal to hel p foun d the tow n of Wallingf ord , although tenyears late r he wa s stil l a freeman in th e to wn ofNew Haven, an d,again , afte r settling in Walling ford , it is recorde d that h e continu ed tobe one of the pro priet ors of Ne w Haven. Ho wever, i n 1669, thirty eightmen , of who m Nat haniel s nam e is four th on the list, signed a n agreeme n ttofound th e village o f Wallingford. During his residence in New Haven, he held various p u b l i c positions. Theclose proximity of the Indians mad e m il it ar y protection necessary fromthe first, and eve ry m al e fr o m sixteen to sixty years of age waspresse d int o ser vice . I n 1642 the total number thus subject t o mili tarydu ty wa s 21 7, as there were thirty one watche s of se ven me n each . Thec ompany was divided into four s quadrons , eac h command ed b y a sergeant. The squadrons were trained in succession, one on eac h S a t u rday, with a general training every fifth week o n Mo nd a y f or the whole company. Wefind that, having for merl y be e n a s ergeant to the artillery company, onMay 9 th, 1 662 , h e was chosen ensign. In 1665 he was confirm ed a s thef irs t sergean t of the train band f that is, m ilita ry comp any , and inJa nuary, 2666, he was chosen t o serv e on th e jury. Two or three months later we note a real estate transa c t i o n, in that hebought of Isaac Whitehead all his pa r t o f l an d given by the town andhe also sold to Joh n Mo ss hal f th e aforementioned land and meadowexceptin g th e home stea d. To go back a few years, we find that in 1660, when t h e r e a rose a generalquestion as to the boundaries betwe e n N e w Hav en and Connecticut colonies,which later assum e d ve r y import ant proportions, it is stated thatNathani e l Merr im an and others with the help of Montowese, a n In dian, y ela te proprie tor, shall set out the bounds w ith l asting m arke s, of a parcel of land towards Con nectic ut. In t he C entury of Me riden, theearly part o f whic h is writte n by G eorge M. Curtis, one of hisdesce ndants , we find thi s pictu re As soon a s spring has re ally co me, wemay in f ancy se e these men, cla d in leathe rn doubl et and breeches , accompa nied by the dusk y warrio r Montowe se, striding alo ng the ro adleading to Con nect icut, cro ssing the bridg e lately bui lt over theQumnip i ac, and set ting their face s towards th e north. Fir st, w e noteth e sturdy form o f Nathaniel Me rriman, a vet eran of t he Pe quot war of1636 , and destined l ater, as c aptain ofdra go ons, and accompa nied by hisson Na thaniel , Jr., to play h i s part in the gr eat swamp fort fig ht o fKing Philip s wa r. As regards Nathaniel Merriman s children born in New H a v e n , records seemto differ somewhat. On the New Have n Re gi st e r of Vital Statistics, theyare given as follow s Births Hanah dau. of Nathaniel, May 16, 1651. Abiga i l d a u . ofNathaniel, Apr. 18, 1654. Maw dau. of Nathani el , Ju l y 1 2, 1657. John sonof Nathaniel, Feb. last, 165 9 . Samu e l so n of Nathaniel, Sept. 29, 1662.Caleb son o f N athanie l , May , 1665. Sons of Nathaniel among record s of 1667. El iz abet h dau. of Nathaniel, Sept. 14, 1669 . Death John so n o fNath aniel, Sept. 26, 1651. Of these we find baptisms as follows John, Abigai l , a n d M ary, all onJune 27, 1661 Caleb , June 25, 1665. Again Nathaniel s father George made his Will, Oct 31, 16 5 5 i n L o ndon and in itstates I do give unto my son Nathaniel Merriman, now resi d e n t i n New England,the sum of ten pounds of lawful Eng li s h m oney ... Nathaniel came from London to Boston in The Whale , o n M a y 2 6, 1632. In1637 he fought in the Pequot war a nd i n 16 4 0 wa s listed as one of theoriginal planters o f th e New H av en co lony. In 1669, along with 38 men,sign ed a n agreeme n t regarding the settlement of Wallingford , CT . He wasall ot ted 6 acr es on the northeast corner an d 6 a cres on th e nor thwestcorn er of the present Main an d War d St. For more information see Reunion of Descendants of Nat h a n i el Merriman by Donald Lines Jacobus 1913.

						

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
e-familytree.net is a welldesigned.net website