New England Colonists 1600-1700 Keeler-Knox

 Keeler

Ralph was at Hartford, Conn. in 1640 and Norwalk, Conn. by 1668.

Keeley

Edward came from London to N.E. as early as 1635 and is then found at New Haven, Conn. in 1685.

Keen, Kean

Arthur died in Boston in 1687.

John was a mariner from Southampton, England in Boston very early.

Josiah was married at Duxbury, Mass. pre=-1669.

William was at Salem in 1638.

Keeny, Keeney

Alexander was a freeman at Wethersfield, Conn. in 1667 and died there in 1689.

William was living in Gloucester, Mass. pre-1649 and is then seen at New London, Conn. in 1651. He died there in 1675.

Keep

John was an inhabitant of Springfield, Mass. in 1660 and was killed there by Indians in 1676.

Keese

John was married at Portsmouth, R.I. in 1682.

Keith

James was the first minister of Bridgewater, Mass in 1664. He was born in Aberdeen, Scotland in 1643 and came to New England in 1662. He died there in 1719.

Kellen, Killin, Kelling

James is seen as married at Charleston, Mass. in 1679.

Kellogg

Daniel was the son of Martin and was baptized in 1630 in Great Leighs, England . He is at Norwalk, Conn. in 1655.

Joseph, also son of Martin, was the fifth generation from Nicholas and was baptized at Great Lehigh, England in 1626. He was a weaver at Farmington, Conn. in 1654, at Boston in 1655, Roxbury by 1659 and in 1661, he is seen as a lieutenant at Hadley, Mass..

Nathaniel settled at Hartford, Conn. in 1640 and moved to Farmington, Conn. in 1653 where he died.

Kellond

Thomas was at Boston in 1661.

Thomas was also a resident of Boston in 1687.

Kelly, Kelley

Abel was at Salem in 1641.

Benjamin was a freeman at Mass. in 1669.

David was living in Boston pre-1653.

Edward went to Boston in 1635.

Reginald resided at Pemaquid, Maine in 1674.

Roger lived at the Isle of Shoals, N.H. in 1668.

Kelsey

William was born in England and went to Cambridge, Mass. in 1632. He then went to Hartford and Killingworth, Conn. by 1663.

Kelton

Thomas was living at Boston in 1664.

Kemp, Kempe

Edward was a blacksmith at Dedham,. Mass. pre-1638 before going to Wrentham, Mass. in 1651. He lastly is found at Chelmsford, Mass. in 1655.

Kempster

Daniel was a freeman at Cambridge, Mass. in 1647.

Kempthorne

Daniel was residing in Cambridge pre-1653.

Kempton

Ephraim is in the Plymouth Colony in 1627 and moved to Scituate in 1643 where he died two years later.

Manasseh, brother of Ephraim, was at Plymouth a year later than his brother. H3e died at Dartmouth in 1663.

Ken

Robert was at Reading, Mass. early.

Kendall

Francis, son of John, was born around 1620 in England and came to Charlestown around 1640. He is seen at Woburn, Mass. in 1645.

Thomas was brother to Francis and was known as Deacon Tomas. He is at Lynn, Mass. in 1648 and Reading four years later.

Kendrick, Kenrick

Caleb was a resident of Boston in 1652.

George was at Scituate in 1635 and Rehoboth in 1645.

John was living in either Rowley or Ipswich when he married in 1657.

Thomas was seen as married at Rehoboth in 1681.

Kenison

John was born around 1640 in England and resided in Dover, N.H. in 1663.

Kennard

Edward came from Kent, England and settled at Portsmouth, N.H. around 1660.

John was married at Haddam, Conn. in 1674.

Kennedy, Cannady

Alexander was a resident of Plymouth in 1678.

Daniel inhabited Salem in 1681.

Kennicut, Kinnicutt

Roger was married at Malden, Mass. in 1661 and moved to Swansey(now Barrington)Mass. in 1677.

Kenniston, Kiniston

Allen was at Salem in 1638 but died ten years later.

William was living at Dover, N.H. in 1646. He is not seen there in 1671.

Kenny, Kenney, Kinney

Andrew was at Malden in 1690.

Henry was born in 1624 at England and is seen first at Roxbury. By 1653, he is living at Salem.

John died at Salem in 1670.

Richard was of New Hampshire in 1680.

Thomas was at Gloucester in 1664.

Kent

James is at Newbury in 1634.

John was at Dedham in 1645 and Charlestown after.

Joseph was brother of John and went to Dedham in 1645, then to Taunton after.

Joshua, brother of preceding, was at Dedham in 1643 but returned to England a year later. He came back to Dedham in 1645, bringing his brother Joseph. He resided at Block Island, R.I. and Swansea, Mass. after.

Oliver was at Dover, N.H. in 1648 and died there in 1679.

Richard, brother of James, settled at Ipswich in 1634 and Newbury a year later.

Stephen was the brother of Richard and is found at Newbury in 1639. He then went to Haverhill and Woodbridge, N.J. after.

Thomas settled at Gloucester in 1643 and Sudfield, Conn. where he died in 1658.

William was married at Boston in 1662.

Kenyon

John was born in 1605 at England and lived at New Shoreman(Block Island), R.I..

Kerley, Carsley

William is at Hingham in 1637, Sudbury in 1641 and lastly at Lancaster, Mass. in 1647.

Keskeys

Henry was living at Boston in 1656.

Ketcham

Edward was at Ipswich in 1635.

Kettle

John resided at Gloucester pre-1658.

Richard was a butcher at Charlestown in 1635.

Robert was the brother of John and lived at Gloucester in 1653.

Key, Keys, Keyes

John was at Dover, N.H. pre-1657 and removed to Berwick, Maine where he was killed by Indians in 1690.

Robert was at Watertown in 1633, Newbury in 1643 and Sudbury in 1645.

Solomon was married at New bury in 1653.

Keyser

George was a tanner at Lynn in 1639 before removing to Salem after.

Thomas was a shipmaster and merchant and brother of George. He is living in Lynn in 1638 where he was involved in the slave trade.

Kibby, Kibbe, Kibbee

Arthur was a fisherman at Salem in 1659, they year he married.

Edward was a sawyer who was born in Exeter, England in 1611. He settled at Muddy River in Boston in 1639 and died there in 1661.

Henry was a tailor at Dorchester in 1642.

Joseph was married early at Salem.

William was at Hull, Mass. in 1642.

Kidby

John resided at Duxbury in 1640.

Lewis was a fisherman at Boston in 1640.

Kid, Kidd

James lived at Dover, N.H. in 1657.

Kidder

James was the son of James and born at East Gunstead County, Sussex, England in 1626. He settled at Cambridge in 1649.

Stephen was under Mason at Berwick, Maine in 1633.

Thaddeus was residing at Marblehead in 1674.

Kilbourn, Kilborne

George was the son to Thomas and bapt. at Wood Ditton, Cambridge, England in 1612. He moved to Roxbury in 1640.

Thomas was born at same place as George, in 1578 and is found at Boston in 1635. He is afterwards settled at Wethersfield, Conn, where he died in 1639.

Kilby

Christopher was a resident of Boston in 1694.

Edward is seen as married at Boston in 1662.

John, brother of Cristopher, lived at Boston in 1686.

Kilcup

William was a sieve maker at Boston in 1649 before removing to Charlestown.

Kilham, Killiam, Kelham

Daniel was living at Wenham, Mass in 1645.

Kilton

Robert came from England to New England pre-1690 and settled at Providence, R.I..

Kimball, Kemball

Ebeneezer was at Rowley in 1691.

Ephraim was a freeman at Wenham in 1690.

Henry was born in England in 1590 before going to Watertown, Mass. in 1634.

Henry was married at Charlestown in 1656,

John was married at Newbury in 1665.

John was at Amesbury in 1690.

Richard was a wheelwright and brother of the first Henry. He was baptized at Rattlesden, Suffolk, England in 1595. He first settled Watertown in 1634 and went to Ipswich four years later.

Thomas was a merchant at Charlestown in 1653.

Thomas was at Bradford and had a wife and 5 children who were taken by the Indians after killing him.

Kime

William was at Dover in 1668.

Kimwright

George was married at Dorchester in 1653 and moved to Cambridge in 1664.

Kincade, Kincaid

Daniel came from Scotland to New Hampshire in 1689.

Kind

Arthru was residing at Boston in 1646.

King

Alexander was at Wickford, R.I. in 1674.

Clement resided at Malden in 1668 and removed to R.I. after.

Daniel was a merchant at Lynn in 1647.

Hezekiah was at Weymouth in 1679.

James was the son of William and fifth generation from Thomas Kyne(who was born in 1538). He was born at Ugborough, England in 1647 and went to Ipswich pre-1674, then to Suffield, Conn. by 1675.

John was living at Hartford in 1645 and later is found at Northampton.

John was born in England in 1600 before being seen at Weymouth pre-1655.

Mark was of Charlestown in 1658.

Peter was a deacon in Sudbury in 1654.

Philip came from England to Weymouth in 1672.

Ralph was living  and married in Lynn in 1648.

Richard was at Salem in 1635.

Samuel resided at Plymouth in 1643.

Samuel was at Weymouth in 1659.

Thomas was born at England in 1615 and at Watertown in 1640.

Thomas was born at Shaston, Dorsetshire, England in 1600 before settling at Sudbury in 1642.

Thomas(Elder) was the son of George of Cold Norton, Essex, England and was born there in 1604. He settled at Scituate in 1635.

William was born in England in 1608 and settled at Salem in 1635.

William died at the Isle of Shoals, N.H. in 1664.

William was at Boston in 1655.

Kingman

Henry was of Welsh descent and is found at Weymouth in 1636.

Kingsbury

Ephraim was at Haverhill and the son of Henry below. He was killed on May 3, 1676 by Indians.

Henry was the sixth generation from John Kyngesbury and came from Assington, Suffolk, England with Winthrop's Fleet. He is seen at Ipswich as a founder in 1638.

Johwas at Watertown in 1636 and later that year, at Dedham.

John, brother of the preceding, also came with Winthrop and settled at Dedham in 1637.

Josephwas the brother of Henry and John and is seen at Dedham in 1637.

Kinglsey, Kinsley

John came from Hampshire, England to Dorchester in 1635, removing to Rehoboth in 1648.

John was married at Milton, Mass. pre-1676.

Samuel was at Billerica in 1651.

Stephen settled at Braintree, Mass. in 1640, then to Dorchester and Milton after.

Kingsnorth, Kngsworth

Henry was at Guilford, Conn. in 1639.

Kinsman

Robert came from England to Boston in 1634, then to Ipswich in 1637.

Kirby

John was born at Rowington, Warwickshire, England in 1624. At twelve years old, he came to Plymouth, then to Hartford by 1645 and nine years later to Cromwell, Conn..

Richard was the brother of John and came to Lynn in 1636. He then went to Lynn  then is seen at Sandwich in 1637 as a Quaker.

William was at Boston in 1642 and was well known at the city executioner in 1657.

Kirk

Henry was at Dover, N.H. in 1665.

Zechariah was living in Boston in 1686.

Kirkham, Kirkman

Thomas was at Wethersfield, Conn. in 1648.

Kirman

John was in Lynn in 1633.

Kirtland, Kirkland

Nathaniel was born in 1616 at Sherington, Bucks, England and settled at Lynn in 1635.

Philip was a shoemaker and brother of Nathaniel who settled at Lynn in 1635.

Kiskeyes, Keskeys

Henry was married at Boston in 1656.

Kitchell

Robert was at Guilford, Conn. in 1639 before removing to New Jersey later that year.

Kitchen

John was a shoemaker at Salem in 1643.

Kitcherell, Kecherell

Joseph was at Charlestown in 1636.

Samuel was residing at Hartford pre-1646.

Kitredge was a seaman at Billerica in 1660.

Knapp

Aaron went to Plymouth in 1638 and then to Tauin 1643.

Nicholas was born in England and came to New England in 1630. He settled at Watertown then by 1646, is seen at Stamford, Conn..

Roger was at new Haven in 1643.

William was a carpenter who was born in England in 1578 before living at Watertown in 1630.

Kneeland

Edward was born in Scotland in 1580 and came to New England in 1630.

John was born at England in 1632 and is in Boston in 1657 as one of the founders of the Scots Charitable Society.

Philip was residing in Lynn in 1637.

Knell, Kneale

Nicholas was at Stratford, Conn. in 1650.

Knight

Alexander came from Chelmsford, England to Ipswich in 1635.

Ezekiel was living in Salem in 1637 then moved to Wells, Maine and finally to Braintree.

Francis was at Pemaquid, Maine in 1648.

George was born at Barrow, Suffolk, England before coming to Hingham in 1638.

George died at Scarborough, Maine in 1671.

George was living at Hartford in 1671.

John was a tailor from Romsey, Hants, England  and settled at Newbury in 1635.

John was a maltster at Watertown in 1636, Sudbury in 1642 and Woburn in 1653.

John resided at Lynn pre-1657.

John was at Northampton in 1676.

Jonathan was a resident of Salem in 1670.

Joseph was a freeman at Woburn in 1652.

Mautlyn or Macklin resided at Boston in 1643.

Michael married at Woburn in 1657.

Richard was a slater at Weymouth in 1637 and by 1642, was at Boston.

Richard was a merchant at Hampton, N.H.  and Portsmouth, N.H. by 1643. He was also at Dover, N.H. by 1659 and at Boston by 1668.

Richard was a resident of Boston in 1652.

Richard was a carpenter at Newport, R.I. in 1648.

Richard was a bricklayer of Boston in 1673.

Robert was at Hampton, N.H. in 1640 before moving to Boston later.

Robert was at Kittery and York, Maine.

Roger was sent over to N.E. by Mason in 1631 and settled at Portsmouth, N.H..

Samuel was married at Roxbury in 1685.

Toby settled at Newport, R.I. in 1638.

Walter was born in 1587 at England and is seen at Salem as early as 1626 before moving to Duxutry by 1638.

William was a mason at Salem in 1637.

William was at New Meadows, now Topsfield, Mass. in 1638.

Knott

George was at Lynn and Sandwich, Mass. by 1637.

Richard was a surgeon at Marblehead in 1678.

Knower

George was a resident of Charlestown in 1631.

Thomas was the brother of George and at Charlestown in 1631.

Knowles, Knoll

Alexander was a freeman of Mass. in 1636 before moving to Fairfield, Conn..

Henry was born in 1609 at England before being seen at Portsmouth, R.I. in 1655. He is also seent at Warwick, R.I. after.

John was the second minister of Watertown and born at Lincolnshire, England. He came to N.E. in 1638 and settled as pastor at Watertown in 1640 but returned to England by 1651.

John was a mariner at Hampton, N.H. pre-1660.

Richard was born in England in 1638. He settled at Cambridge, then Hampton, N.H. where ie died in 1682.

Richard was at Plymouth pre-1639, the moved to Eastham, Mass. by 1653.

Thomas was living at New Haven in 1645.

Knowlton

John was at Ipswich in 1641.

Jonathan was at Malden pre-1688.

Nathaniel lived at Ipswich in 1683.

Samuel was a freeman at Wenham, Mass. in 1680.

Thomas was the brother of John and at Ipswich in 1648.

William was a Captain from Kent County, England. He was on his way to N.E. in 1638 but died on the voyage, leaving four sons...John, Samuel, Thomas and William.

Knox

John was a resident of Watertown pre-1686.

New England Colonists 1600-1700 Johns-Keayne

Johns, Johnes

Edward was the son of Richard of Somerset, England who came to Charlestown, Mass. in 1630, later settling at Boston by 1637.

                                                   Fort William and Mary, 1705

Johnson

Charles was living in New London, Conn. by 1690.

Davy is found at Dorchester, Mass. in 1630.

Edmund was born in England in 1612 and is found in Hampton, N.H. by 1639.

Capt. Edward was the author son of William and born at Hermehill, Kent, England in 1598. He came with Winthrop in 1630 and settled at Charlestown and Salem before returning to England in 1635. He then again came to Charlestown 2 years later and is found at Woburn, Mass. in 1642.

Edward was living at Branford, Conn. in 1690.

Francis was an inhabitant of Salem in 1631.

Isaac inhabited Charlestown in 1676.

James was a glover who was born in England in 1602 before being seen at Boston in 1636.

James was an agent of Mason in Portsmouth, N.H. in 1630.

Jeremiah was living in New Haven, Conn. in 1662.

John was born at Waterham, Hernshill Conaterbury, Kent, England and came to N.E. with Winthrop in 1630 and is a resident of Ipswich, Mass. in 1635.

John was of Newport, R.I. in 1638 and later at Wickford, R.I. by 1674.

John was a resident of Sandwich, Mass. in 1643.

John was born in 1609 at England and although he came to N.E. in 1635, he is first recorded at New Haven, Conn. in 1643.

John was born in 1612 at London, England and was a resident of Guilford, Conn. in 1669.

John is seen to have married at Rowley, Mass. in 1650.

John was in Lancaster, Mass. in 1654, Salisbury and Marlboro, Mass. later.

John was a blacksmith who is recorded to have married at Charlestown in 1656 and then removed to Haverhill by 1662.

John is living at Watertown, Mass. in 1650, married there the same year and removed to Lexington the following year.

John was married at N.H. in 1661.

John was a resident of Rehoboth, Mass. in 1673.

John was of Norwich, Conn. in 1677.

John was a Huguenot who came from Rochelle, France to Oxford, Mass. in 1685. He was killed by Indians in 1696 along with 3 of his children.

John was a lighterman in Salem in 1691.

Peter was a resident of Fairfield, Conn. in 1649.

Return was at Hampton, N.H. in 1678.

Richard was born in 1612 at England and settled at Charlestown in 1630, removing to Watertown and Lynn, Mass. later.

Robert came from Kingston-on-Hull, Leicestershire, England to New Haven, Conn. in 1638.

Robert was an inhabitant of Marblehead, Mass. in 1674.

Samuel was a mariner at Boston in 1653.

Samuel was of Lynn, Mass. in 1664.

Solomon was born at England in 1615 and came to Sudbury, Mass. in 1638. He later removed to Marlboro, Mass. by 1653.

Stephen is fist seen at Ipswich, and then Andover, Mass. where he was married in 1661.

Thomas was a cobbler at Hartford, Conn. in 1640.

Thomas was born at England in 1610 and came to N.E. in 1635 but drowned at Boston Harbor in 1656.

Thomas was of New London, Conn. in 1682.

Thomas was seen to have married at Andover in 1657.

Timothy was living at Andover in 1674.

William, brother of Capt. Edward, was born at Hernehill Canterbury, Kent, England in 1605 and was a resident of Charlestown, Mass. in 1634.

William was married and living at Guilford, Conn. in 1665.

William inhabited Stonington, Conn. by 1670.

William is seen as married at Andover in 1678.

Wingle, Windle, was married at new Haven in 1664.

Zechariah, Zachariah was a resident of Charlestown in 1672.

Johonnot

Daniel was a Huguenot was was born at Rochelle, France in 1668 before being seen at Oxford, Mass. in 1686.

Jones

Abel was a freeman at Northampton, Mass. in 1690.

Abraham resided at Hull, Mass. in 1657.

Alexander was an agent of Mason and is found at Portsmouth, N.H. in 1631.

Benjamin was living at Malden, Mass. by 1681.

Charles was born in 1614 England before on record at Dorchester in 1635.

Cornelius settled at Stamford, Conn. by 1652, the year of his death.

David was a freeman of Dorchester in 1665.

Griffin, Griffith, settled at Springfield in 1646.

Henry lived at Lynn, Mass. in 1642.

Hugh came from Wiscanton, Somersetshire, England to Salem in 1650.

Jacob died at New Haven, Conn. in 1675.

Jeffrey was living at Southold, L.I., N.Y. in 1664 and four years later, removed to Salem.

Jenkin was a settler at Dover, N.H. by 1666.

John was a clergyman and son of William and was born at Abergavonny, Monmouth, England. He si first seen at Concord in 1635.

John was of Providence, R.I. in 1655.

John  was born at London, England in 1615 and came to  Portsmouth, N.H. in 1635, leaving no issue.

John was born in England in 1620 and came to N.E. in 1635. His first recoded home was at Cambridge in 1648.

John was a resident of Boston pre-01665.

John was at Charlestown in 1672.

Lewis was born in England in 1600 and settled at Roxbury and Watertown, Mass. between 1635-1650.

Lewis was of Saybrook, Conn. in 1667.

Matthew lived at Boston in 1645.

Morgan was a clergyman and son of John. He was born at Newport, Monmouth, England before being seen at Killingworth and Branford, Conn pre-1680, when he is recorded at Newtown, Lng Island, N.Y..

Ralph settled at Plymouth pre-1643 and is also found at Barnstable by 1654.

Rice was at Boston in 1651.

Richard was at Dorchester in 1635, dying there in 1641.

Richard was at Farmington and Haddam, Conn. before dying at the latter in 1670.

Robert was at Hingham, Mass. in 1637 and Rehoboth by 1644.

Robert was married at Salisbury in 1659.

Robert was born at England in 1633 and is seen at Amesbury, Mass. in 1666.

Stephen was of Dover, N.H. in 1672.

Teague was an inhabitant of Yarmouth, Mass. in 1653.

Thomas was born at England in 1595, came to Dorchester in 1635 and died there in 1667.

Thomas was living at Newbury in 1637 before removing to Hampton, N.H. in 1639 and lastly to Kittery, Maine.

Thomas was a tailor who was bornin 1602 at Caversham, Oxfordshire, England. he is seen at Hingham, Mass. by 1638.

Thomas was bornin 1598 and is first seen at Gloucester in 1642,  then New London, Conn. by 1651.

Thomas was of Taunton in 1659. 

Thomas settled at Guilford, Conn. in 1639 but returned to England in 1651.

Thomas was married at Boson in 1654.

Thomas was a resident of Springfield, Mass. in 1678.

William was a mason at Cambridge in 1635 and Charlestown in 1658.

William was at Portsmouth, N.H. and Dover, N.H. by 1644.

William was a lawyer who was born in 1624 England before locating at New Haven, Conn. by 1660.

Jordan, Jorden

Francis was at Ipswich in 1634.

James was a resident of Dedham, Mass. pre-1655.

John is seen at Guilford, Conn. in 1639.

John is at Plymouth in 1643.

Robert was a clergyman from Worcester, England who came to Richmond Island, Maine in 1641. He then went to Portsmouth, N.H. by 1675 and died at Portsmouth, N.H. in 1679.

Stephen came to Ipswich in 1634 and Newbury after.

Josselyn, Jocelyn, Joslin

Henry was the son of Sir Thomas and was born at County Kent, England. He was an agent of Mason and Sir. Gorges by 1658 and died at Pemaquid, Maine in 1682.

John, brother of Henry, came to Boston in 1638 but returned to England in 1672. He was the author of New England Rarities.

Richard was at Saybrook, Conn. in 1669.

Thomas was born in 1592 England before coming to N.E. in 1635. He first settled at Hingham in 1637 and then at Lancaster, Mass. by 1654.

                                                  1780 New Hampshire currency

Joy

Jacob resided at Fairfield and Killingworth, Conn. by 1673.

Thomas was a carpenter at Boston inn 1638.

Walter was an inhabitant of Milford, Conn. in 1650.

Joyce, Jesse, Jose

Christopher was at Isle of Shoals, N.H. in 1651 and Portsmouth later.

David was a goldsmith and married at Boston in 1698.

John settled at Lynn and Sandwich, Mass. by 1637, later found at Yarmouth, Mass. by 1643.

Walter was at Marshfield, Mass. in 1667.

William is at Windsor, Conn. and Springfield, Mass. He drowned at Enfield Falls, Mass. in 1645.

Joyliffe

John was a resident of Boston in 1657.

Judd

Roger resided at Boston in 1638.

Samuel was married at Hingham, Mass. by 1667.

Thomas was at Gloucester in 1651.

Judson

Samuel was the son of Michael of Horton, Yorkshire, England and lived at Dedham in 1646.

William was born in Yorkshire, England before coming to Concord in 1634. He removed to Hartford, Conn in 1638, Stratford and New Haven, Conn. later.

                                              Old maple sugar camp of New England

Kame

Richard was at York, Maine in 1670.

Keayne

John came from Southampton, England in 1638 to Hingham, Mass. where he died in 1650.

Robert was born in England in 1595 and died at Boston in 1656.

William was a resident of Bosont in 1656.

Simple Yankee Way of Life

 

American and international literature is inundated with images of the old New England home and hearth. From Longfellow's depiction of Priscilla Mullins at her spinning wheel in The Courtship of Miles Standish to the fantastic musings of Harriet Beecher Stowe in Oldtown Folks. Frugality, hard word and dry morality are given "air-time" by Francis Underwood in Quabbin, but with equally warm, satisfying and level-headed principles paralleling. Some may say a Yankee home is the ideal home, a small cottage nestled in amongst the tall pines while the rest of the world whizzes by physically and technologically. In some ways, it is true but I do think that is why home and hearth(not to mention family ties) is so important to us and why New England has always been, and will continue to be, the epitome of comfort food.

Although I must preface my introduction to the New England way of living as relaxed, we are still informed. The domestic images that have enchanted New England writers and artists since time immemorial have been romanticized, but not exaggerated. Even many academic historians display their interpretation of the New England home and hearth with the same colorful representation as Whittier and Jewett. And you know the old adage, there is a grain of truth even in folklore.

Find below a brief account of who we are, for that has directly evolved from where we came from and how we got here. Let me tell you a little story.

During the early part of new England's colonization and well into the 19th century, families cooked in the fireplace. Large kettles or pots were seen in every home. Most of the time, a certain pot was solely used for soap making while boiling and stewing food was done in another. Having a nest of iron pots of different sizes, a gridiron, Dutch oven, skillets of various dimensions along with a spider and bakeware were essential to early cooking. For those who could afford it, brass kettles were often seen in door yards of old filled with pale, white, bubbling homemade soap or fresh tree sap being reduced for the family's year-long sugar needs.

Francis Underwood, author of Quabbin, extolled the "girth" of breakfasts in the late 19th centuries

 ..... "a substantial breakfast that was begun by a preliminary nip of hard cider. This might be followed by ham and eggs, or a salt fish prepared with cream, or of bean porridge(for which a ham bone furnished the stock), or of cold corned beef, with hot potatoes, and usually hot bread(called 'biscuits') resembling muffins; and with sauces, pickles, and other provocatives in plenty."

Although Mr. Underwood was writing fictionally, it truly resembled the breakfasts of a few generations ago.....well, maybe a light breakfast. This author has read accounts of much heartier morning fare. But why so much breakfast? Because Yankee's had much to do.

Harriet Beecher Stowe also mentions food in her Oldtown Folks, "I can inform all whom it may concern that rye and Indian bread, smoking hot, on a cold winter morning, together with savory sausges, pork, and beans, formed a breakfast fit for a king, if the king had earned it by getting up in a cold room, washing in ice-water, tumbling through snow drifts, and foddering cattle." There are also many accounts of family's waking up in the middle of the night or in the morning covered with a fine dusting of snow because of the unchinked openings between the logs of the home.

Harriet's representation of the New England breakfast was more of the norm than Mr. Underwood's, although many of our ancestors subsisted on any leftovers from the night before or simply milk, bread or porridge.

Although we do love our time together nestled around the dinner table and talking about the days events, back a couple of hundred years ago meals were, more often than not, just simply time enough to quench your hunger as opposed to relaxing and gossiping. This way, the days' work could either be started or finished without loosing much time.

The difference between lunch, dinner and supper.

The travelling aristocrats that came here from abroad often demeaned much of what us Yankee's either ate, were employed at or our everyday life habits. Cases in point. In many self written books from the Puritan to the Colonial era by these same affluent and wealthy "tourists", there are narratives about the pewter and ceramic serving dishes of the 'typical' New England family. This was not, and I repeat NOT, what most families ate from . Certainly a single large pewter platter or goblet was seen in many homes, but this was usually an artifact that was handed down from one generation to another or that particular family only was able to afford one. Homemade wooden trenchers were widespread throughout our homes, much to the chagrin of these wealthier travelers from abroad.

Also, the habit of 'taking dinner' in the middle of the day while 'refreshing our bodies' with a small viand(the supper) in the early evening was something often ridiculed by those who were ignorantly blind to our dinnerware. During what we call lunch now, our ancestors piled on the food in the middle of the table for everyone to dig into. And most of the time during this meal(especially in the backwoods of New England and the poorer communities) this consisted of a piece of pork surrounded by boiled beans. Nothing fancy, nothing extravagant, just pure fuel for our bodies. Sure we had cheeses, pies, cakes and various sweet treats, but these were lavished on the household infrequently up until the 19th century. It was from the early 1800s onward that we see variety on the kitchen table because of the prevalence of spices, fruits, sugar and all things that couldn't be grown in New England soil but were either bartered for or shipped into the local "store".

  Lyndon Freeman of Sturbridge, Massachusetts writes(early 1800s):

"At the setting in of winter every farmer was presumed to have at least a pork and beef of sufficient quantity. The larder was well supplied with butter, cheese, applesauce, pickles, sausages, souse, etc. Their dinner commonly consisted of boiled pork or beef or both, potatoes, cabbage, beets, carrots, etc.....A mug of cider was upon the table never forgotten of as all drank as freely as we do of water today. The meat and sauce left of the dinner were hash-up for breakfast the next morning. The supper was usually brown bread and milk for all."

Food was also a way of obtaining much needed supplies for a large family. There truly shouldn't be much of a distinction between bartering and paying from the early New England era. Since few people had actual cash, gong to the "store" to obtain and pay for supplies was usually done with whatever extra the family had. Wool, tools, pots and pans, ironwork and spices were bartered at every store and even this type of system was prevalent among neighbors. I f one family had an abundance of butter or cheese and their neighbors had a good stash of vegetables or rum, you bet neighbors subsisted on each others kindness. Many men would also take in any food items they were blessed with an abundance of to the nearest tavern as well, in exchange for a few nips of rum or port but store barter for barrels of coffee, tea, tools, molasses and flour. Over time, housewives were able to barter for cinnamon, sage, nutmeg, pepper, cloves, mace and many other essential additions in our well known baking repertoire.

For families to have bread or cakes, some type of meal was needed. Be it wheat, rye or corn, all three needed to me ground. And in the winter when the rivers and streams of New England froze, this was next to impossible for a community to do. In order to keep a supply on hand, you either had to plant plenty of corn to dry  and bring to the grist mill before winter or barter.

Some type of leavening was also needed for baking and this was rather easy to keep on hand, even the poorest of homes. Skimming the top barm from a barrel of cider usually did the trick for light and airy breads well as pinching a knob of dough from one unbaked loaf to keep for the next batch. Then another pinch would be taken from that loaf for the next. On and on this frugality occurred and now you know where us Yankee's get if from. There is even an account in my family of  Ol'  Gus Bailey who dipped his spoon in a pile of "new fallen snow" and mixed it in with biscuit batter in a lumber camp to leaven these white must-haves with baked beans. Did it work? Sure did!

Baking day was but once a week for those who had an oven built into their fireplaces. For those who didn't, this is where neighbors came in handy yet again! Many families had their own Dutch ovens though, because of the scarcity of neighbors in many rural communities. These were shallow iron kettles that stood over coals with three legs and were fitted with a deep lid onto which hot coals would be piled in order to offer all-around heat. Can you imagine puddings, pastries, cakes, gingerbreads, custards and cobblers baked this way?  I certainly would love to take a trip back in time just for one day not only to taste what was cooking on the open hearth but to sample the cheeses that were homemade, with not one tasting like the other.

Churning and cheese days were also a chore that, although needed to be done, was not met with open arms. With the females of the home obtaining the milk, this was just the beginning. The pails needed to be scrubbed first, then the milk was to be scalded, skimmed and churned. The butter then had to be worked and that was no easy chore.

Sarah Emery, an ancestor of mine, relates:

"In those summer days, when my recollection first opens, mother and aunt Sarah rose in the early dawn, and taking the well-scoured wooden pails from the bench by the back door, repaired to the cow yard behind the barn. We owned six cows; my grandmother four. Having milked the ten cows, the milk was strained, their fires built, and breakfast prepared...The milk being from the ten cows, my mother made cheese four days. Aunt Sarah having the milk the remainder of the week. In this way, good-sized cheeses were obtained. The curd having been broken into the basket, the dishes were washed, and unless there was washing or other extra work, the house was righted. By the time this was done, the curd was ready for the (cheese) press....After dinner the cheeses were turned and rubbed." The cheese would then be stored in the buttery.

More commonly known, at the time, as a buttery, this room was generally the cellar where the cool air was needed in order to set the pans of milk and ripen the  cheese. Many rural families denoted a lean-to as a buttery as well, using their cellar for vegetables and cider. But the cheeses were always kept down in this "root cellar" for keeping throughout the winter to prevent freezing, while meats were kept in these lean-to's.

There is nothing that irks me more than reading that meat and fish were not that plentiful for our ancestors. Many famous historians have mentioned that it was a rare treat for the man of the house to have any wild life barreled up for his family. That ranks right up there with another historical inaccuracy purveyed by most of the history professors and authors of New England life, which is that us Yankee's very seldom lived in log cabins. Absolutely rubbish this Yankee avers to both.

It is true that our Puritan ancestors relied heavily on salted meat and fish, but as the generations passed, fresh meat and fish was more the staple because of better guns and methods of fishing and trapping. Although historians say that fresh meat was hard for our 18th and 19th century forefathers to find, not only is this inaccurate, but we were still salting our meats for winter preservation. Why? Mostly because we always made sure our family's were secure in every aspect, but especially being fed. It was far better to have more than not enough and with such large families and hard work for everyone in the household, extra food was still not the norm.

When it was butchering time, usually in the late fall when the weather here in New England was cold enough to preserve without much salt, everyone helped with the slaughter. From cleaning the tripe, trying out tallow and lard, getting the head and feet ready for making headcheese or foot pies, cleaning out the intestines for sausage casings and cutting the meat into family-sized portions for preservation in fat or salt. Hams were salted as well, to ready it for the smoke house and fish was cleaned and hung from the rafters to dry out.

I am not ashamed to say that our poorer ancestors(as many of mine were) along with the more remote populations, forest creatures of every type were caught, trapped and shot for consumption. I have so many hand-written notes and recipes from my ancestors for partridges, quails, woodchucks, beaver, squirrel, birds of all types, musquash, rat, porcupine and skunks, to name a few.

The same holds true for our lakes, streams, rivers and ocean. My father(right up until the day he died) always prepared eel the same way, he said, our great great great grandmother did during the Revolutionary War period. I remember well Dad stringing up the eel on the side of the house and ,with a dry cloth and sharp knife, he would draw the skin from the tail end to the head. Gutting it was done while suspended, and leaving the head intact. He would then skewer that bad boy with a long, green stick from the woods behind our house and "barbecue" it over an open fire. To this day, that is the only way I will thoroughly enjoy eel.

Try this on for size! Did you know that lobsters were so plentiful in the early days of New England that many families, including the poorer farming households, looked at lobsters with disdain. The reason? Because before the over-harvesting of these delectables, these crustaceans literally littered our shoreline. They would wash up on shore by the hundreds, along the many miles of New England. After a number of years of the free-for-all taking, families simply stopped snatching them up because they 'had their fill'. I just can't imagine ever getting sick of lobsters, but then again I have never had the pleasure of eating them day in and day out.

It is easy to imagine the basis of our New England standby of codfish cakes and codfish balls every Saturday night and Sunday mornings. Fish of all sorts was that important and available throughout our waterways. The most abundant, believe it or not, was salmon, shad, mackerel and smelts. Unlike meat, fish could not be frozen to preserve. Salting or drying had to be accomplished in order to store for the winter when it was simply too much work to dig through the ice to fish. The most amazing dish I have ever eaten that was prepared according to an old-time "receipt" book was Cod Scootin 'Long the Shore. It was prepared by cutting up cod and placing in a cast iron skillet that is been greased with some bacon. On top of it lay some diced potatoes, beets, onions and some salt pork. Drizzle some oil over the top, salt and pepper liberally and cover. Baked in an oven until done. This classic Yankee dish rivals any Michelin-star meal served anywhere. Fish was often served or cooked with vegetables during our Yankee beginnings because of the salt used to cure fish. Vegetables seemed to take the 'bite' out of this spice.

I have had the pleasure of visiting my ancestors homes, although all that is left are their "root cellars", which were rock lined cellar holes. I have found two of them, one made by the hands of my great great grandfather(Josiah Bailey, 1778-1869) and his father(Nathaniel Bayley, 1740-1796). I just stand at the edge of each hole and marvel at the work it must have taken to not only dig the hole but roll these boulders into it to make these cellars. And to top it all off, within 20 feet of each was their rock lined water well. Now THAT was a marvel of engineering. One of them is at least 30 feet deep and lined with rocks that are still solidly intact unto this day(2013).

In these root cellars, our fore-families kept their apples, cabbage, pumpkins, turnip, beans, peas, beans, potatoes, carrots and squash. They would easily last the entire winter without softening in the least bit. As for the corn, we dug corn holes, or potato holes as some have referred in journals of old, in order to keep corn from shriveling up too fast. Although we dried much of our corn harvest for grinding, corn could be kept better by covering with birch bark and pine boughs, then covered with a layer of dirt to keep the wild-life from scavenging. This method was taught to us from our Native American friends. In fact, my ancestor, Nathaniel Bailey, was stabbed to death in 1796 by a Native American after digging a corn hole. He had agreed to pay a Passamaquoddy Indian in rum if he helped with the harvest and storage of corn in one of these corn holes. One night when the rum was all imbibed by the Passamaquoddy, he came back to Nathaniel's cabin on top of Bailey Hill in Baileyville, Maine and wanted more rum. Not having any left, the Native American began to get angry and stabbed Nathaniel to death.

My book, above and here n Amazon, tells Nathaniel's complete story for  the first time. An Amazing Journey also includes a treasure trove of information about life in New England from the 1600s to the 1800s, from the eyes of the backwoods family and those who eked out an existence. 

With regards to fruit and berries, there is no shortage of literature written about our love of all things naturally sweet. Pumpkins, of course, were the number one staple in our kitchen for generations. A seeded out whole pumpkin roasted in the embers of a fireplace, then removed and warm milk from the family's dairy cow poured into the center was a real treat with everyone.

Apples, of course, would be a very close second. When apple picking time was at hand, not only would they be baked in pies, made into applesauce and squeezed for cider and eaten as is, strings of sliced apples filled every home that dotted our landscape. When dried, they could be used for an entire year in everything from savory dishes to sweet. Apple Pie, and Apple Cider Pie, is truly not only an American dish, but a proud Yankee offering to the world.

It is funny to read journal entries of New England family's when they regale of the joy of sharing certain fruits with neighbors. Now you need to remember that many fruits that we take for granted today were simply too expensive and hard to find centuries ago.

In one entry, Ruth Bascom treats her neighbors to a delicacy. In August "sent a piece of our great Savannah Watermelon, which we received 2 or 3 weeks ago cut today and distributed a part to our neighbors."

Even up to my father's day, born in 1938, he would always add an orange to our Christmas stockings growing up in the 1960s. He followed that tradition to the day he died in 2001. I asked him why? Since oranges could be had anytime I wanted to take a trip to the supermarket, yet he made it a point to add one to my stocking every year. His answer was pure Yankee. "When I was a kid" he glumly explained "We didn't have the money to buy much fresh fruit. So when we did get  them, it was a treat. And oranges were too expensive, so my father used to buy them once a year and put them in our stocking".

Cooking and recipes was something that was passed down from one generation to another. I am aftraid that this custom is becoming more scarce as the years zoom by. In this generation, eating out seems to be more of the norm than preparing a meal and eating in. 

Many people thought cookbooks were a waste of money(again, a Yankee dread) because everything you needed to know was taught to you. One needn't measure by the teaspoon or cup. Simply add a pat of butter the size of an egg or scoop out flour with your teacup. You either cooked something over a fire or in a low, moderate or hot oven. Only the upper class, who wanted to indulge with food that was being enjoyed by their equally wealthy English counterparts, began the idea of purchasing cookbooks usually written by someone across the pond in the early days. It wasn't until Amelia Simmons, in 1796, that an American author had made such a great impact on the cookbook craze. What made her cookbook so successful was that she incorporated many ingredients and recipes with the New England housewife in mind. Johnny Cake and Indian Slapjacks are among the recipes that drew even the poorer families to purchase it.

Then along came Lydia Maria Child, the author of The American Frugal Housewife(my kind of lady). Not only did she incorporate great, simple recipes using everyday items but she added ways of using leftovers, taught frugality, preservation and remedies using herbs that were easily grown by anyone unfortunate enough to have the same type of rocky soil New England is known for.

I could go on and on with regards to New England food heritage, enough for a book actually, but I would like to summarize my introduction to New England cuisine by touching on the "personality" change of our kitchen over the generations.

I am so proud of my heritage, even though it wasn't one of extravagances or money. We come from a poor family and made do with whatever food we were able to grow or shoot. It was said that my father and grandfather could make a meal out of a pot of boiling water.

300 Year Old Riddle Solved?

After 300-plus years of defying scholarly debate and research, The answer to a life-long obsession by me and many others has finally come to a close.

 

Without going further than I have to with details and other ideas about the origination of why New Englanders are called Yankees, I will forward the most popular assumptions first and conclude with the actual answer to this debate. This question has actually lured learned scholars from around the world, as it did me for many years.

 

You read it right folks, around the world. You wouldn't think that this question of why New Englanders are saddled with, often-times, the negative connotation of a Yankee would be so popular, so universally, but it has sparked many debates and fallacies, not to mention ludicrous assumptions, and yet not to be determined. Well consider it determined!

 

I would like to start with the route that I have taken for the past 30-plus years, without an adequate answer, and end with one particular paragraph that blew the whole dilemma wide open, resulting with the answer. It took tenacity and an eye for details that brought me to my conclusion, with the help of many MANY unsubstantiated references that I was able to discount.

There have been many schools of thought regarding the word Yankee, but one(with what I thought was)textbook explanation with a twist that has led every single historian, linguist and researcher down the wrong path. Which could have been avoided with a little digging and a little common sense. Let me explain why.

Almost all encyclopedic references, in all research, for the word Yankee has been summarily denoted as beginning with the Dutch. From Jan Kaas(literally meaning John Cheese) to Janke(a diminutive of Jan, or John).There is even an explanation with a combination of these, stating that Jan Kaese means John Cheese(which of course is incorrect) and is seen in a poem by 16th century poet Roger Ascham. A snippet of this particular poem from 1570 reads;

 

"Of thou be thrall to none of thises,

Away good Peek goos, hens John Cheese."

 

Although the words John Cheese is shown in this portion of a poem someone posted online, there are some problems here. It only shows that the name John Cheese was used in the 16th century without actually helping our cause, but this also has a twist. And this twist is the largest reason I am completely discounting this as irrelevant. It hinges on the fact that Roger Ascham became fatally ill in 1568 and died in 1569. PLUS, after having searched his works, I find the above lines nowhere in his works. I consulted The Whole Works of Roger Ascham and only found an item or two that came close. These were letters Roger wrote to a John Cheke(pages 236 and 328).

Some say that Jankaase(pronounced as Yankees because the 'J' in Dutch is pronounced as an English 'Y') was not only a slang term for the Dutch but as a slang term for anyone resembling(in practice)the Dutch, much like other slangs for differing nationalities like Dago, the French Frog, German Kraut, and so on.

Another avenue almost all researchers have followed(yup, me too) was the supposed fact that the name Yankee was a derogatory nickname given to the Dutch by the Germans, Flemish and anyone else who came in contact with Dutch pirates, of which there were many sailing the oceans during the 17th and 18th centuries. It is also referenced that the English colonists here in America referred to Dutch settlers by the moniker Yankee because of either ethnic association or because of their trading practices throughout this country in the early days. Over time, it warped into a word of tribute to the cunning New Englander, much the same way 'cunning' was the immoral thread that the Dutch sewed the relationship with the Indians when buying land, protection and friendship.

It is known that the Dutch were extremely greedy when they dealt with the Indians in the Connecticut Valley, up into New York and into French Canada. Remember what the Dutch paid the Indians for New York don't you?

 

A classic Yankee Peddler from the late 1800s, courtesy of https://connecticuthistory.org/new-britains-yankee-peddlers-boost-18th-century-economy/

Take, for example, an observation by Jasper Danckaerts, dated October 18, 1679 and found on page 262. He saw how the Dutch inhabitants of Long Island dealt with the Indians unfairly:

                                                                                                           Jasper Danckaerts

"I must here remark in passing, that the people in this city, who are mostly traders in small articles, whenever they see an Indian enter the house, who they know has any money, they immediately set about getting hold of him, giving him rum to drink, ... They do not rest until they have cajoled him out of all his money, or most of it... And these miserable Christians are so much the more eager in this respect, because no money circulates among themselves, and they pay each other in wares, in which they are constantly cheating and defrauding each other."

 

Use of Yankee to refer to someone from New England is seen in 1765, from the poem Oppression, A Poem by an American.

"The source supreme, and center of all hate.

"If I forget him, then forget me Heaven !"

Or like a W(ILKES) , may I from right be driven.

From meanness first this PORTSMOUTH Yankey (d) rose,

And still to meanness, all his conduct flows ;

This alien upstart, by obtaining friends,

From T (o) WN (SEN) D S clerk, a M (A) LD (o) N member ends,

Would Heaven that day was dated in record,

Which shin d propitious, on one so abhorr d;

That day, which saw how threats and gold could bribe..."

It is mentioned, and probably obvious, that in "Portsmouth Yankey", the authoress was not only referring to herself, but to either Portsmouth, England or Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

 

Also cited in hundreds of research papers is the fact that the second time the word Yankee was referred to was in The Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, an archive of British government documents, dated 1683. The sources say it is contained as such;

"They sailed from Banaco; chief commanders, Vanhorn, Laurens, and Yankey Duch."

Two problems arise here as well. If this sentence were to be found, it would have referred to a sailor/pirate by the name of Captain John Yankey, a well-known pirate of the Atlantic Ocean. The biggest issue I have, though, is the fact that nowhere in these papers is the above sentence found, absolutely nowhere!

Then there are two references of the term Yankee being used by General James Wolfe in 1758 and the great (then Captain)Horatio Nelson to Captain William Locker in 1784. He is said to have used it as such;

 

1758 letter-My posts are now so fortified that I can afford you two companies of Yankees, and the more because they are better for ranging and scouting than either work or vigilance.

1784-I...am determined not to suffer the Yankies to come where the ship is.

1784: Adams letter. "We have curtains, it is true, and we only in part undress, about as much as the Yankee bundlers."

(This is a great sentence. Google bundling and understand the meaning.)

To give you a sense of the personal "mingling" of the Dutch and English colonists that may have given credence to past guess-work on trying to solve this Yankee dilemma, here is a very brief understanding of where the Dutch were in colonial New England and beyond.

The Dutch, as some of you are aware, established a settlement at present-day Manhattan in 1624. But before that, in 1621, the Dutch republic of Holland granted land encompassing the Delaware River on the south, the Connecticut River on the north, including Delaware, New Jersey and much of Connecticut. In the 1630s, they went up the Connecticut River to lands claimed by the English. In present day Albany, the Dutch "parleyed" with the Iroquois in order to keep the peace and to acquire more land, which didn't last long. Corruption and immoral trading practices were making the Indians distrustful, so they held back trading. The Dutch decided they wanted any and all land they could get, so they carried brutal campaigns against the "River Indians", at the same time creating tension between these Indians and the European settlers as well.

 

By 1640, the Indians wanted revenge. They sacked the Staten Island settlement of the English, mistaken them for Dutch. (Of course there were Dutch in the area and most likely 'encamped' with the English). After the killing of a "Hollander" by the Sagamore's son(a warrior), the Dutch now wanted revenge. The fighting dragged on and on, and all because of the ruthlessness, lies, deception and dishonesty of some of the Dutch traders, including the West India Company, who outfitted these settlers.

 

To make a long story shorter, the English declared war against the Dutch, resulting in New York, New Jersey and other land being reverted back to New England control.

 

To put it simply, the term Yankee is said to have been used by everyone to refer to anyone they didn't like. Every researcher's opinion, up to this point, has declared that Germans called the Dutch Yankees, the Swedes called the English Yankees, and on and on and on.

Take this into consideration with the above name calling. The province of New Netherland was estimated to contain only one-half Dutch, with Germans, Swedes and the Finnish making up the rest of the population of between 3,000 and 3,500 by 1665. There was also about 2,000 English inhabitants(from New England) around New Netherland, with at least half of the villages around New Amsterdam being of English stock.

By about 1650, both the Dutch and English were at each others throats because they each deemed each other competitors in the trade industry. This resulted in the Anglo-Dutch Wars, the first being from 1652-1654. Land around this area teetered back and forth between these two feuding factions during these wars, with the land being brought under the control of the British by 1674.

 

It is also said that the term Yankee was used by the British nationals and naval personnel, not the British colonists. These English sailors called the English settlers Yankees because many of the sailors of the colonies had Dutch names and were seen to be cavorting with them. People tend to forget that those sailing on behalf of the British government were vastly separate from those of the crown who escaped England to settle here. Therefore, there was derision between these two groups, ending in those who were in the British Navy to poke fun of and trying to humiliate the colonists by comparing them to the dastardly Dutch pirates and traders. Remember that the largest port in New England was at New York. I will tell you, however, that this explanation would have been my No. 2 choice.

The biggest question about this whole Dutch explanation remains unexplained however. How did a slang term for the Dutch come to mean New Englanders? It is thought that we didn't care for this word in the 17th and early 18th centuries but came to embrace it during and after the Revolutionary War.

                                                   A "cunning" Yankee Peddler

It is said by researchers that us Yankees were so cunning that we took the word Yankee and called ourselves such just to teach others a lesson.......You have got to be joking!!!! Not only is this foolish but entirely wrong! I don't believe that these New Englander's were referred to as Yankees by anyone intentionally by any nationality. It was a mistake, although I am proud of the moniker of being frugal, cunning and thrifty, regardless of where it came from. My explanation?

 

I would like to preface my following explanation with the following. It was, and still is among some linguists, a long held belief of another origin of the word Yankee. It has been told and retold that the Native Americans of Massachusetts were the progenitor of Yankee. Trying to pronounce English, or the French equivalent 'Anglais', it came out sounding like "Yengee", converting to Yankee over time. Although not too far-fetched, there are just as many researchers, scholars and especially linguists that have disregarded this. I think all these scholars jumped the gun however, and not thought 'outside the box'. Let me explain.

 

Consider The Riddle Solved!

The poem The Yankey in London was written by Royall Tyler(born 1757 and died 1826) in 1809 when he was over 50 years. Royall lived in Boston and died, with his wife, in Brattleboro, Vermont. He was a Federalist, served as Windham County State's Attorney, Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court and as Chief Justice. He was Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Vermont, Windham County's Registrar of Probate and above all(and very relevant to this story) the aide to General John Sullivan in the American Revolution. Can you think of anyone else with such credentials in order to complete a research? Certainly not me!                                                                 Royall Tyler

Royall was with Gen. Sullivan when Sullivan was commander in Quebec, although failing in the invasion of Canada. The original settlement of the Iroquois was in upstate new York, expanding to most of the Northeast region and eastern Canada. By 1675, the Iroquois claimed west from the north shore of Chesapeake Bay to the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, north along the Illinois River the the end of Lake Michigan, east across Michigan and finally through Northern New England. Because there were not enough of this tribe to physically inhabit all this land, they did, however, settle predominantly in upstate New York.                                                                                              Courtesy of chemungvalley.org

The Sullivan Expedition, the trail of which is shown above, was a massive campaign against the Iroquois in New York and led by General Sullivan, destroyed many Indian settlements.

 

It was in this region of the Sullivan Expedition that one band of the 'Praying Indians' lived. So called because they were converted to Catholicism (and prayed often) in the Ontario and Quebec region. The correct name for this band was the Caughnawaga(or Kahnawake) Indians. One of the Caughnawaga villages was an offshoot of the Mohawk nation near Fonda, New York. This, today, is the only completely excavated Iroquois village in the America. There are also "Praying Indian" settlements throughout Massachusetts and Connecticut.

 

They were converted by the Reverent John Eliot(of New England) around 1650. The conversion turned their demeanor from warrior-like to farmers, builders and peace loving people. They also intermarried with both whites, blacks, Dutch, German or whoever desired them. By the beginning of the Revolution, they were(in all intents and purposes) "Americanized".

 

Now you may be asking why, because of Sullivan's Expedition, did these Americanized Indians join on our side in the Revolutionary War when they were just pummeled by an American general? Simply put, because the Iroquois was known for aiding the British against our colonies. It didn't matter, it you were any part of the Iroquois nation, regardless if you were peace loving or joined only by name, you were an enemy of America. Some of these Praying Indians even served with Washington, with an estimated 5,000 aiding America's cause.

 

                        Praying Indians. Courtesy of the Natuck Historical Society

The reason I give you all this information? Because Royall Tyler in his poem entitled Yankey In London, pages 75-76, writes;

 

"I learned afterwards that this bookseller was considered, the respectable part of the trade, as the mere Curll of his day--ever prepared to falter, and ever ready to defraud. A friend, to whom I related this anecdote, said,"sir, did you not know he was from Yorkshire?" It seems they consider the Yorkshiremen as very subtle, if not dishonest. I was rather chargrined at this opprobium, because, you know, Governor Endicott, with most of our English ancestors, came from that respectable county.

The term Yankey is but a corruption of Yorkshire, being simply the Indian pronunciation. The natives of this country hearing the white men, during their early habitancy, frequently speaking of Yorkshire, styled them yankeys. To be satisfied of this, I once requested a Cognawagha Indian to pronounce Yorkshire: he immediately replied--"oh, Ya-ankah, you--you be "Ya-ankah." So that you perceive, if the Yorkshire bookseller had attempted again to flatter me into a bad bargain......"

 

I wanted to show (you who may think that Royall would not have had contact with the Iroquois or Praying Indians)that he had many opportunities to interact with these Indians. Though this would not have changed my judgement of him in giving a true origination of Yankee regardless(see below).

 

So it is not an Indian word for "English" or the French equivalent "anglais" that the Indians were trying to pronounce(as written above), but of the word "Yorkshire", with whom all Native Americans had the accompaniment of during the early colonization of America and Canada. It is extremely likely this is the basis for the word Yankee. Bear in mind, as well, that when these same Indians referred to us as such, their intentions were not demeaning, they were simply trying to pronounce an English word with NO intentions other than as an address. Any detrimental acknowledgement of the word Yankee came from other sources, of which I have ideas, but will wait to express them after some research. It is very easy to see how all European settlers were considered Yankees by the Native Americans with this explanation, and much easier than trying to understand how 'Jankaas' referred to New Englanders.

Now I know many of you, even amateur etymologists, may be sounding out 'Yorkshire' both on your own and as it is written by Royall, and concluding I am out of my mind. Let me give you a fresh perception however. This is the earliest reference to the word Yankee, with a direct origin, anywhere written. Although many people in the 18th and 19th centuries may have wondered about the origin, nobody ever wondered about this in written form during this time. There is not one document anywhere in the world that predates 1809 stating or questioning the origin of the word Yankee. Certainly it is referred to in texts and manuscripts, but that is where it ends. It is only into the mid-19th century that questions arise as to its origination. And by then, the origin had been forgotten as with many other beginnings. We are blessed to have this one attribution by Royall.

I do believe in Royall entirely, but.....

The only argument there ever will be with regards to this is the English word the Indian may have been trying to pronounce. If it wasn't Yorkshire, then the word English would be the "runner-up". I highly doubt that Mr. Tyler is mistaken however. Either way, the word Yankee derived from the Native Americans trying to pronounce Yorkshire, or at the very least, English.

 

I put my entire faith and belief in Royall, who grew up in Boston and was over 50 years of age in 1809(and who knew of the word "Yankey" even as a child)over someone who is conjecturing as to the origin over 100 years later based on assumption alone.

When Royall mentions "during their early inhabitancy", he is speaking of the men from Yorkshire, and the date would have been the first half of the 17th century with the great influx of English settlers. And as we have seen, and you can look up anywhere, Yorkshire immigrants were a huge percentage of the early settlers on our shores and in Canada.

 

I am in complete faith of this because Royall's father(himself born in Boston), or the very earliest his grandfather(also a Bostonian), would have been around when the word Yankee was first uttered on these shores by the white man. He most likely would have had first-hand knowledge about the word Yankee. If it had anything to do with the Dutch, being a Patriot and New Englander, Royall would have had absolutely no problem saying such. What I don't understand is why this manuscript has been ignored for so long. It has not been referenced in one single explanation of the word Yankee. I believe it wasn't known to the right researchers.

To me, this case is closed, the beginnings have been found and unless anyone can further evidence the origination with first-hand documentation predating 1759, and in that first persons hand, that comes out and states that the word Yankee is from whatever other source............

Well, in the words a great lady, the wife of the greatest showman on earth(not PT Barnum).........

I humbly "turn out the light".