ACTON'S FIRST SETTLER
This is from the website
"THE ACTON MINUTEMEN"
____________________________
Acton's Forgotten Man. “The First Settler”
Marion E. H. Houghton
Acton was never “founded” as Boston and Concord were founded. No band of settlers headed by a minister or magistrate, pushed into the wilderness beyond Concord and said, - “We'll plant our town- here!” When the white man first possessed it, Acton was a part of Concord and settlers trickled in gradually from other parts of town. Because its early history is concurrent with that of Concord, it will be helpful to review the factors in Concord's history that influenced the settlement of Acton.
Simon Willard arrived in Boston in May 1634 and settled in Cambridge. Starting in to trade for furs with the Indians, he explored the land towards the west. In the decade of the thirties with thousand of new settlers pouring in, new towns were constantly springing up and those who had money to invest could make fortunes in land speculations. The prospect seemed attractive to Willard and, selecting a possible town site, he contracted various people with money to invest including Rev. Peter Bulkeley. This group appealed to the General Court and in September 1635 a grant of six miles square was made to Bulkeley, and Willard and about twelve families. These were the stockholders, some of whom never moved to Concord at all. It is thought that there were about forty actual settlers allotted land in 1636 in the first division.
The site Willard had chosen was on the bank of a brook which would furnish water for the livestock, temporarily also for settlers until wells were dug. The brook ran through grassy meadows and a river nearby also had wide meadows where hay could be cut for winter-feed for the livestock. This river was called by the Indians Musketaquid, which meant “Marsh-grass River.” The root is the same as that of mosquito, “ the marsh insect”. The river is now generally called the Sudbury. In the present more urban generation it is little realized how important natural meadowland was to a settler arriving in thickly wooded country. In Sudbury later divisions of land were based directly on how much meadow had been assigned each person in the beginning. For newcomers and sons comes to manhood this posed a hardship, and occasioned so much dissatisfaction that settlement of Marlborough was a direct result. Concord seemed to be well endowed with meadows. They had moreover, some planting fields already cleared by the Indians. The tribe resident in the Concord area had suffered an epidemic of smallpox in 1633 and there was only a remnant of the tribe left. These were willing enough to sell their land providing they retained their hunting rights, and a formal but friendly agreement was signed with them in 1636.
Edward Johnson in his “Wonder Working Providences of Sion's Savior in New England” printed gave a graphic description of the trails of these earliest settlers. He tells a much length of their difficulties in reaching their new homes. Concord was the first inland settlement not reached by water and there were no roads. The first dwellings, he says, were burrows in the side of Revolutionary Ridge supported by rough posts. The little settlement had heavy going at first. The first land cleared gave a poor crop and the marshes proved to be to wet that they were unable to get out a good crop of hay. Those who had invested heavily in livestock lost most of their animals. Some thought it was because of the lack of salty in their diets. Sheep especially failed to thrive and wolves ate the pigs. Many settlers left. In 1645 the town appealed to the General Court for an abatement of their taxes, citing their poor soil, wet meadows and low numbers.
Some late arrivals had noticed that to the west, just beyond Concord's six square miles of land, two brooks wandered through wide, grassy meadows, and in 1642 they petitioned the Court to grant this additional land to Concord because the best of the land had already given out. The petition was approved on condition that a settlement be made within two years. But Concord was at it lowest ebb and nothing was done so the land was forfeited. Again in 1650 a request was made and again it was granted. But Concord was just beginning to get on its feet and again no settlement was made. In 1653 the Court granted land for the settlement of Chelmsford and the same year John Eliot asked that his Praying Indians be given a township of their own to the west. Both of these encroached somewhat on the forfeited claim. By this time Concord had finally begun to prosper. Even faster than the increase in population had been increased in livestock. The meadowlands were inadequate and common pasture lands becoming overcrowded. Once more Concord eyed the meadow to the west. A complaint to the General Court about the encroachment of other grants brought the suggestion that the remaining lands be surveyed which was speedily done. The next year, 1655, 5000acres were given to Concord “for feeding”.
This time Concord made sure that it held onto its new land. Within a year the town's sheep - an animal not in daily use like cows and horses - were installed in the New grant in the care of a shepherd. None of the local histories makes this statement outright, but it seems a natural inference for a variety of reasons. It was for town pasturage that the land was granted to Concord and Fletcher in his Acton in History, comments that “the new grant land was granted to Concord and was familiarly called, and with some reason, `Concord's sheep pasture' “. Shattuck tells us that a settler was there by 1656. What was he doing there, on common land, unless he was performing a service for the town? Cutter in his “Middlesex County” remarks that this man John Law was known by the odd nickname of “Shepherd”. People used to be addressed by their calling - we are accustomed to hearing about Farmer Brown and Lawyer Jones - why not Shepherd Law? So it seems reasonable to assume that john Law was sent to the New grant by town people of Concord to look after their sheep. Who was John Law? Family tradition says that he was a Scot about 1635. Cutter suggests that probably that he came to Massachusetts as a prisoner of war.
After Charles I was beheaded in 1649, Oliver Cromwell devoted himself to wiping out areas of royal resistance. The Scottish Parliament had proclaimed Prince Charles, later Charles II, as their king and has called out the clans. They gathered at Dunbar on the east coast of Scotland, an unorganized horde, and each chief with his brave but untrained and poorly armed clansmen. Against them Cromwell sent the best soldiers in Europe, disciplined, efficient and well armed. The battle on Sept. 3, 1650 became a rout. Ten thousand were taken prisoner of whom about half were so disabled that they were released. Five thousand able-bodies prisoners were marched down to Durham where the Cathedral was turned into a prison. Conditions were appalling and sixteen hundred died. The Privy Council met hastily to determine what to do with them. Transportation of convicts as slave labor to the tobacco fields of Virginia was an established practice and about a thousand of the healthiest were sent off there. Many more went to Ireland. A Londoner who was interested in the establishment of a ironworks at Saugus, Massachusetts requested sixty men and a group of one hundred and fifty were sent to Boston on the ship Unity. No list of these deportees had been found. After a wintry, stormy voyage, those still alive and destined for the ironworks were sold off to the highest bidder. A large group went to Maine to work in the sawmills. There is an area in Berwick, Maine called Unity Parish (after the name of the ship which brought them over) where a number of these men settled when their terms of servitude were up. Another similar area in York is still called Scotland. Others of the prisoners were scattered through Massachusetts and the New Hampshire.
White slaves were something new to New England and some people had qualms about it. The Rev. John Cotton felt called upon to ease his conscience by writing Cromwell describing how well they were treated at Saugus. In a defensive tone he explained that this particular group was well fed, well clothed and comfortably housed and that they would be freed after about eight years of servitude. Cromwell couldn't have cared less.
Back in Scotland, Price Charles was still active and, organizing another army, they met Cromwell's troops at Worcester precisely a year to the day after Dunbar with exactly the same results. This time all the officer prisoners and every tenth private were executed for rebellion. About three hundred prisoners of war were sent to Massachusetts Bay in 1652. There is a record of the names of most of these, but the clerk had difficulty understanding the Scottish burr that the transcript cannot be considered accurate. No John Law is named in this second group. Concord is listed, however, as one of the towns to receive Scottish prisoners of war. An 1830 map of Concord has a section of town labeled Scotland and no one knows why. Perhaps there was a group pf these deportees who settled in the area. Whether John law came to Concord, as a prisoner of war must be considered a conjecture, but a strong probability. It seems also probable that he was experienced in the care of sheep, with an aptitude for successful care of sick animals. Scots were then generally viewed by the English as uncivilized, wild men. In the public records of the Bay colonies these prisoners were classed Negroes and Indians. The Scots have always been a proud race and to be treated with such disdain would be most galling to a man of spirit. Life alone in the wilderness where wolves, bears, wildcats and transient Indians roamed would frighten off many a man, but John Law may well have welcomed a chance to hold up his head like other men and forget his slavery among the animals he understood.
Being a chattel himself he could not own land and, of course, could not enter into any legal agreement so no written contact was executed. He was assigned certain lands for his use, and presumably - since all the lands remained in the town's ownership anyways - he was allowed to help in the selection of the site for the sheepfold he would build. He chose the bank of a small spring fed brook, which would furnish water for both him and the animals. Close to the border of the New Grant it flowed down to the grassy meadows and the great Brook, later called by his name, Law's Great Brook. The land rose rather steeply to the northwest and into this he could burrow out a shelter much as the early settlers of Concord did for their first homes. Nearby were the meadows where he could cut hay for the sheep. Here he lived alone except for his sheep and perhaps a dog for four lonely years.
In the spring of 1660 he married Lydia, daughter of Roger Draper of Concord. She was born in Concord in 1641, during the second year that records were kept there. A year later their son John was born, the first white chills born in what is now Acton, although at that time it was called Concord's New Grant.
In 1660 also, once again John law's life was affected by his historical events. Cromwell had died and England, in turmoil invited Charles II to return and occupy the throne. Suddenly Law was no longer a traitor who had rebelled against the government, he was a loyal subject to the king. Considering himself released from his bondage, he felt that some recompense was due him for what he had - wrongfully to his mind - undergone. He was penalized fro supporting the King, while those who had defied their rightful king were prospering. Full ownership of the land he lad cleared was little enough compensation. Some townsmen were in sympathy with him, but others were more literal - nothing had ever been said about giving him the land. Presumably also, the man who had laid out money on his purchase price thought that he should at least get his investment back. This controversy posed a real problem for the Concord people, which went on for many years.
In 1661 another change came into John Law's life when he acquired a neighbor. John Shepherd of Concord had met with ah accident and lost an arm. The town seems to feel some responsibility towards him - perhaps he had been working out his taxes on the road or building a bridge - and it voted in town meeting, to grant him thirty acres in the New Grant “in consideration of the hand of God upon him in the loss of one of his arms”. He was given land near the old Concord town line just to the north of the area where Law was living. He was the first landowner of Acton to settle on his property and his name always comes first in any mention of the early settlers. He built his house upstream from Law beside the same little brook. It was taken down or burned about 1850 and even the cellarhole disappeared about 1960 when the land was graded for a development. Already married when he came, his wife had a son john, born that same year, nine months after John Law, Jr.
For eight years more the two families were the only recorded settlers of Acton. There may have been transient woodcutters, or possibly even families, on the Ironworks farm property in what is now South Acton, but nothing is known of them. John Law remained on the sheep farm. Probably he continued for a time to serve as town shepherd with the differences that now the owners of the sheep paid him rather than his former master. Payment was undoubtedly “in kind” - grain or other food, or perhaps a spring lamb he had nurtured. In this way he could build up a flock of his own. His family grew too. After John Jr. in 1661 came Thomas in 1663 Steven in 1665, two girls Elizabeth and Mary and Samuel in 1680.
The earliest records in Concord were kept in cheap paper books, which became so worn that in 1664 the town voted to buy new leather covered book into which would be copied “what is useful in the old book”. Not much was considered “useful” and we have thereby lost much information on what went on in the early days. It is possible, however to do some reading between the lines. It would seem that it was proposed that Law be allowed to remain as a tenant of the town under a annual rent of “one Indian corn” to be paid on town meeting day. It would also seem that John Law was stubborn and considering himself a proprietor rather than a tenant, and no rent was paid. In 1672 those who were opposed to him pushed through a vote “to let out the land & housing where now John Law dwells; for the benefit of the town”. Later at the same meeting the more moderate element, feeling that this was too harsh, prevailing upon the townsmen to instruct the selectmen to be lenient towards Law.
In 1669 he had acquired another neighbor. The town commons of Concord were so overcrowded it had been decided to send the dry cows to the New Grant in the care of a herdsman. Capt. Thomas Wheeler undertook this project. Concord had learned something through its controversy with Law. This time the arrangement was to be carefully spelled out and recorded in black and white. It was made quite clear that the land was only leased, and that after a period of twenty years, it was to be returned to the town along with the buildings that Wheeler was instructed to erect on it. He was assigned land to the north of Shepherd's grant, and the description mentions Shepherd's house, “the house now inhabited by john Law”' a bridge and Law's fenced pasture. Wheeler did not live to complete his contract with the town. Six years later King Philips War broke out, and both he and his son were so wounded in an engagement at Brookfield that both died within the year.
The next year was a time of much uneasiness. Lancaster was attacked that same summer, also some of the Connecticut valley towns. Nearer home settlers were killed in Framingham. During the winter Lancaster was attacked again and abandoned. On the western edge of Concord's New grant near Lake Nagog two Shepard brothers - not related to John Shepherd mentioned earlier - were killed by the Indians and their sister captured. The Praying Indians of Nashoba were moved to Concord for their own protection. In the spring it was Groton's turn, then Marl borough's, and in April there was an attack in Sudbury. During all this the Law and Shepherd families stayed on unprotected and unharmed. Gradually the fighting moved into Maine and in August Philip was killed, after which the war dwindled away. There was a general burst of colonization towards the west after King Philip's War, and it may have been at this time that Concord gave up the idea of keeping its New Grant as pastureland and allow settlers to move in.
Gov. Andros' arrival in 1686 was the signal for much turmoil about land titles. He claimed that the colony's General Court has no right to grant land, and that purchase from the Indians lad no validity whatsoever. In 1689 Concord's selectmen complied a list of all those who, though not free men entitled to vote in colony affairs, were, nevertheless, accredited landowners. John Shepherd is on this list, but not john Law. While the land ownership problem were still unsolved word came that William of Orange had driven James II from the throne with the backing of England's Protestants. Andos was jailed and sent back to England. King William upheld the actions of the General Court and all Massachusetts landowners once more breathed freely. Nine years later in 1698, a committee was “chosen by the town of Concord to determine a list of the proprietors of the New Grant otherwise known as Concord Village”. The first name is that of John Barker, Jr. upon the account of John Shepherd, Sr. who had died. Next comes John Law. After forty years persistence had paid off, and the town was finally willing to admit his claim. Ten years later John was dead.
John Jr. was dead also. The next two sons, Thomas and Steven, although in there fifties, were still living at home unmarried. Elizabeth was married and Mary soon to be. Samuel, the youngest, had become a doctor. It would be interesting to know where he had obtained his training. Perhaps he practiced first on his father's sheep, then, finding he had an aptitude for healing, branched out to work on people. He married, following his father's death, then three years later, sold his house built a cross the little brook from his father and moved to Groton, Conn. There he died in 1727 from a dose of fresh physic just received from Boston, but apparently adulterated.
John Law made a will Dec. 13, 1707, “being sick of body but of perfect mind and memory” It is in the handwriting of Samuel Buttrick, one of the witnesses, but was dictated by Law and proofread with occasional insertions for classification. He signed it himself, very legibly, with an elegant flourish to the capital J. He commits his soul to God and his body to the earth “hoping that both soul and body shall be glorified together with my Blessed Redeemer forever. And as for the outward estate which God hath given me I so dispose in manner following __”. I am quoting rather fully because his reverent and dignified attitude are so at variance with the characteristics Phalen in his History of Acton imputes to him - “avarice, shiftlessness, laziness, stupidity, carelessness and contentiousness”. We know that John law was stubborn, proud and held himself aloof from outsiders, but he was also brave, hard working and devoted to his family. We have no need to be ashamed of the character of our first settler. Phalens seems to have a violent prejudice against the Law family, apparently based on a misunderstanding of Law's determination to hold fast to his home. In the will Law goes on to provided fro “my beloved wife” by giving her most of the movables in the house, including a bed and bedding, a horse, cow and heifer, also the sole use of his orchard for life. The last would provide her with an independent income for necessary purchases. Thomas, the oldest remaining son, was to have the land south of the road and help maintain “his honored mother”. Steven was to have the home place and land on the north of the road and the maintenance of his mother for her lifetime. Dr. Samuel had already built across the little brook and was given the five acres his house stood on. There is no sign of the location of this house now. Mary, the daughter at home, was to have a large brass kettle. When it was sold, she was to give Elizabeth twenty shillings out of the proceeds. Law seems to have had the European attitude that girls were of little importance compared to sons. A very through appraisal of his effects was made, even to listing two water pails worth two shillings. Other interesting items were printed books valued at a pound, pewter, a sword and cutlass and table linens valued at a pound. In the barn there were four sheep, as well as horses, cows and a steer. Altogether in the house there were twenty three yards of linsey woolsey cloth, half of it dyed and pressed, also twelve pounds of wool ready for spinning, which seems like a lot to have around the house for moths to work on. Did he, perhaps, like many Scots even now, combine the occupations of sheep raising and weaving? Was Mary's brass kettle his dye kettle? Lydia, his beloved wife must then have been an expert spinner and we are presented with a pleasant picture of a snowy day with the sheep snug in the barn, Lydia sitting by the glowing fireplace making her spinning wheel hum, while John sat at his loom in the corner, swinging his beater with a thump. His total estate was valued at 150 pounds, which was about average for the period, and rather good for a man who had started with nothing.
Thomas built a house on his lot across the road, and about 1711 brought his bride Sarah ---. They had six children. Steven also married, but he and his wife Deborah - - had no children. His nephew took over the house after his death, and the two houses stayed in the Law family for many years. During the Revolutionary there were six members of the Law family in Acton who served in the army. Ruben Law was one of those Minutemen who marched with Isaac Davis to North Bridge on April 19, 1775. Later he fought at Bunker Hill. There is an amusing story about Reuben. In those days men wore their hair long. Gentlemen tied it back with a ribbon, but farmers and artisans more generally braided their in a queue. At bunker Hill Reuben's queen was shot clear away which Reuben describes as “plaguey careless shooting”. About 1820 the house on the south side of the road passed out of the law family, and in 1848 John's house. Or a later one built on the same site, also changed hands. There are now no families by the name of Law in Acton. One early member moved to Stow and may have left descendants there. The telephone book lists two families under Maynard and one in Hudson. Law girls married into the Read, Davis, Wood, Gate, Emerson and Brown families so without much doubt, there are still in Acton people in whose veins flow the blood Acton's first settler.