Two “Must Check” Sources Most Genealogists Miss When Researching Colonial Connecticut

What documents should you check when researching a family in colonial Connecticut? Birth, death and marriage records (often people check the Barbour Collection instead); previous literature on the family; gravestone inscriptions (the Hale Collection); probate files; maybe manuscript or court records? There are two more “must check” sources that genealogists often miss.

The first is church records. Connecticut had an establishment or state church until 1818. While requirements about attendance changed over time, the strong presence of the Congregational Church meant many – even most – families were Congregational by default. That means marriages, burials, and baptisms may have also been recorded in church records. Many Congregational records have been digitized. Visit https://connecticutroots.org/church-records/ to learn more.

The second is land records. In a Connecticut that was largely agricultural, land was often the family’s most valuable asset. They may have taken more care in recording those transactions than they would others. While land records are generally not going to list the exact dates and places of birth, death and marriage, they may indicate family relationships or probate sales, providing a rough date of death. To learn more about accessing land records, visit https://connecticutroots.org/land-records/.

What’s a literature search – and why does it matter for researching your Connecticut ancestors?

Literature searches aren’t talked about much in genealogy anymore… A quick internet search returned blog entries from 2012-2015 but not much more recent. Yet, it’s still a valuable starting point for Connecticut genealogy projects, especially for colonial research.

  • What is a literature search? A literature search is a review of previous material published on our genealogy research question. In the world of internet research, that could include both traditional publications, including books and journals, and blogs, websites, and family trees.
  • Why take the time? A literature search can tell you what is already known about the family and what has yet to be documented. It can reveal where to find sources containing crucial information, as well as possible gaps in the research. While not every family will be covered, it’s generally worth taking the time to find out.
  • Where do I start with a literature search for a Connecticut ancestor? Consider the major genealogical libraries and online repositories for family genealogical publications. For journals, consider the New England Historic Genealogical Society; Connecticut Ancestry Society; and Connecticut Society of Genealogists.

… and once you’ve finished your research, perhaps it’s time to consider adding your own literature to the search!

Connecticut land record not in land records or probate? It might be a minister’s lease…

Until 1818, the Congregational Church was the established church of the state of Connecticut. As part of the governance of the church, the local community was expected to “settle a minister.” This meant finding a minister, paying their salary, and more.

Sometimes, it meant granting or leasing them land. Fowler’s History of Durham, Connecticut recounts how, in 1708, the minister was given both a home and property for serving the community. Later ministers were only granted the use of the minister’s lot. In other towns, the minister’s property was entirely leased, although the home built on it might have been handed down to the family’s heirs (and later, possibly sold).

Minister’s grants and leases are often not recorded in the land records but will instead appear in governmental records. Start with the town records, then check the public records of the colony or state.

Myth or Truth: Were Connecticut men of color conscripted as body servants under the 1780 quota act?

Based on the available evidence, this is a myth.

To learn more about the 1780 quota act, see a prior blog post. In short, the quota act required “classes” or subgroups of militia in each town to provide “a good able-bodied effective recruit” to serve on the Continental Line. The wording of the act strongly suggests it was intended to recruit soldiers.

A link between the quota act and body servants seems to have been made largely to explain a 19th century account of a man of color serving during the American Revolution. The original account, which can be read here, says that: “He was a servant to different officers in the Revolutionary War; had been sent on errands by General Washington, and said he had ‘straddled many a cannon when fired by the Americans at the British troops.'” This account dates from 1844, decades after the end of the War.

Yet, there’s strong evidence that body servants serving with Connecticut troops were held in slavery or paid by individual officers. See this blog post for my prior discussion on the subject. No evidence has been uncovered to date that an individual was hired or recruited to serve multiple officers, although this was common practice during the American Civil War (at least in the South).

Taking the strong evidence that the quota act was intended to recruit soldiers together with information on the known patterns for engaging body servants, it seems unlikely an individual was recruited under the 1780 quota act to serve as a body servant.

Historical Societies and Researching Your Connecticut Ancestor

One of the more frustrating moments in research is when a genealogist contacts a historical society about governmental records. Connecticut’s historical societies don’t typically hold governmental records (although some have ended up with records through transfers, dumpster diving and more)… How can they help with your genealogy research?

    … and more…

    While Connecticut’s historical societies likely can’t help with questions requiring access to governmental records, they can still be of great help with your genealogy research.

    5 Crucial Dates in 19th Century Connecticut History That May Impact Your Genealogy

    These dates are just a few moments in a packed century! I hope you’ll consider doing more reading…

    1. April 1814: The burning of Essex, demonstrating the impact of the War of 1812 on the state.
    2. 1815: First steamboat voyage on the Connecticut River, marking the beginning of a shift in the river trades.
    3. 1818: The passage of the Constitution of 1818. In effect until 1965, it was the first state constitution for Connecticut. It also disestablished the Congregational Church.
    4. 1848: Slavery is abolished in Connecticut.
    5. 1 Jul 1897: The first day when copies of vital records (birth, death, and marriage certificates) were required to be sent to the state of Connecticut by the towns.

    Born in Connecticut, died in New York?: Effectively Researching 18th and early 19th Century Migratory Connecticut Ancestors

    Does the death record of your New York, Ohio, or Michigan ancestor list a birth place of Connecticut? Is there a profile in a county history listing a county of birth? It’s common for researchers to use that information to try to leap right into researching in Connecticut records… You shouldn’t.

    To start, you don’t really have enough information to find your ancestor in Connecticut. Most Connecticut records are stored on the town level. That means you need to know the town to find your ancestor’s records. Yes, there are resources that allow you to search across multiple towns, such as the Barbour Collection. Yet, these resources may not include every known record: the Church Record Abstracts, for example, include only 25% of the State Library’s Collection. And ancestors often skipped recording certain types of records. Birth records were required beginning in the 1640s; compliance was not general until after 1900.

    Second, you’re likely missing records that may contain information. Particularly after 1800, it was possible for an ancestor to go right from Connecticut to a farm in New York or the Midwest. Yet, it was just as likely for a family to move 2, 3, or 4 times. Unless you’ve checked their migration pattern and built a strong timeline, you won’t know.

    How do you build that timeline? Those vital records, probate files, county histories, and obituaries you’ve already found can provide a good starting point. Add in the census, and most importantly land records. If you’re lucky, you’ll be able to trace the family move by move and perhaps find additional information in the process.

    What did your ancestor’s Connecticut farm look like?

    I’ve spent a lot of time explaining why New England farms are different from farms in the Midwest over the last few weeks. Since the reasons are grounded in history and can help you better understand why your ancestor’s farm did or did not look a certain way, I thought a blog post might be helpful in answering a few questions.

    1. Many Connecticut farms are small. Aren’t they just hobby farms? A 2024 study put the average Connecticut working farm size (businesses) at 74 acres. It’s not a significant decrease from Connecticut’s average working farm size in the 1800s. The state charted a peak of 106 acres in 1850 and decreased to an average of 86 acres in 1900. I suspect none of those farming in 1850 thought their farm was a hobby!
    2. There aren’t very many of them, are there? In comparison to the 19th century, the number of farms has significantly decreased. A 1900 census survey numbered 26,948 farms; that 2024 survey, 5,058. The shift had to do with late 19th and early 20th century shifts in agriculture: competition with Western farms stressed the finances of farmers, while the Great Depression wiped many out completely. (The long standing comment that New England “grows rocks” is a valid one: hence the stone walls.) Dairy hung on a bit longer, but eventually the value of their land led many families to sell out. A few families have continued to farm against the odds. Others have started from scratch.
    3. Why doesn’t Connecticut grow wheat or other grain crops? It did. In fact, during the American Revolution, Connecticut was referred to as the Provisions State. Yet, during the early 1800s, the state suffered a number of crop losses. That factor, combined with competition from larger farms in the Midwest and West, reduced the value to farmers in growing wheat and other grain crops. (That competition also made New England farms generally less viable.)

    Those farming in Connecticut today are bringing forward an agricultural tradition that has deep roots in the state. But it’s one that looks very different from farms in the Midwest and West.

    Prince Mortimer of Middletown (purportedly 1724-1834): Examining Claims of Revolutionary War Service

                     Since the 2006 release of Denis Caron’s A Century in Captivity: The Life and Trials of Prince Mortimer, a Connecticut Slave, discussion of the life of Prince Mortimer of Middletown has largely centered around the trial for attempted murder that resulted in Mortimer’s imprisonment in Old New-Gate Prison.[1] Yet some studies of Mortimer have referenced Revolutionary Service for Mortimer. One author indicated: “During the American Revolution Prince served various officers and was sent on errands by George Washington.”[2] As new scholarship increases the understanding of the role of veterans of color in the American Revolution, it is worth asking: how accurate were such claims?

    The Source

                     Claims about Prince Mortimer’s Revolutionary War service appear to date to 1860. In that year, Richard Harvey Phelps published A History of Newgate of Connecticut, at Simsbury, Now East Granby. In a discussion of Prince Mortimer, Phelps explains that “He [Mortimer] was a servant to different officers in the Revolutionary war; had been sent on errands by General Washington, and said he had ‘straddled many a cannon when fired by the Americans at British troops.”’[3] Although Phelps claims to quote Mortimer, he cites no source for a statement printed over twenty years after Mortimer’s death.

    A Servant?

                     Body servants – individuals assigned as servants to certain officers – have been documented in Connecticut units during the American Revolution.[4] The best known of these men is likely Jordan Freeman, body servant to Col. William Ledyard, who was killed during the Battle of Groton Heights.[5]  Other documented body servants include Jethro Martin, servant to Col. David Humphreys and “Kitt” Putnam,  servant to Gen. Israel Putnam.[6] Accounts of Kitt Putnam’s age suggest he may have begun service after the War, but his role hints that Putnam may have had a prior servant.[7]

     Except for Martin, whose legal status and history is unknown, each of these men appears to have had a personal connection to the officer whom they served.[8] Freeman, although free at the time of the War, was formerly enslaved by the Ledyard family.[9] Putnam remained with General Putnam’s son after the elder Putnam’s death, suggesting either enslavement or a strong tie.[10] Although the limited number of cases currently documented impacts any survey, the available evidence suggests that most body servant served a single officer. The claims about Mortimer serving multiple officers would therefore be outside the norm.

    Another Role?

                     Soldiers of color had a well-documented place in Connecticut’s Revolutionary War Army. As one author claimed, “[…] by 1777, almost every unit in Connecticut had a black soldier.”[11] Is it possible that Mortimer’s claims of service came not from a role as a body servant but as a soldier ?

                     Mortimer’s purported age would suggest against another role. Phelps put Mortimer’s birth year as about 1724.[12] That would have made him 52 at the start of the Revolutionary War. Mandatory military service ended at 45, and although men up to 60 could be called up for alarms, their service was not as intense.[13] It was possible for an older man to volunteer and still serve.[14]

                     Yet, Mortimer’s legal status would have limited his ability to volunteer himself. Prince Mortimer was enslaved to Philip Mortimer, the owner of Middletown’s ropewalk.[15] Rope spinners, Prince Mortimer’s documented trade, were considered skilled workers and would have been essential for the ropewalk to complete its product.[16] The decision of Prince Mortimer’s service would have been made by his enslaver.  

    Such service seems likely only if the 1780 quota act came into play. The act required each town to provide a certain number of recruits for the Continental Army.[17] The enlistment of enslaved men provided a way for the towns to meet that quota.[18] Middletown’s quota records are not publicly accessible, and it is possible Prince Mortimer was engaged under the act to protect another family member from serving.

    Is it possible that the account is wrong?

                     It is very possible that the account is inaccurate. First, A History of Newgate was not published until 1860, decades after the start of the Revolution and over twenty years since the death of Prince Mortimer. Such a gap in time would allow for memories of events to weaken. Second, the information is unsourced. Third, and most importantly, the phrasing in the narrative resembles  that of the “Loyal Slave” narrative that began to be widely recounted in the years after the Civil War.[19] For a discussion of the subject, visit https://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/features/essays/ray_wise/. While Mortimer’s apparent loyalties are to the leaders of the Revolution, the wording is too close to be ignored. What was Phelps trying to convey by the choice?

    What research is still needed?

                     Two pieces of information would be helpful to clarify Prince Mortimer’s actual role during the American Revolution. The first would be his actual age or a close approximation thereof. While accounts put him at 110 at death, the available statistics suggest that reaching  such an age would be rare even thirty years later.[20] That estimate of 110 would also suggest, based on Philip Mortimer’s will, that the Mortimer family expected Prince Mortimer to labor on the ropewalk into his early 70s before he could be manumitted.[21] Such a condition would be illegal under  a May 1792 Connecticut law, which permitted the emancipation of an enslaved individual only if they were under 45.[22] Philip Mortimer’s will is dated July 1792.[23] A more accurate estimate of Prince Mortimer’s age would allow for a better accounting of his possible roles in the Revolution. The second is a better understanding of the economic dynamics of the ropewalk, especially in comparison to the pay for a body servant or soldier. Would it have made sense, either economically or socially, for Philip Mortimer to have sent Prince Mortimer to War?

    [1] Josh Kovner, “Writer Tells Story of Old Slave; Man Died at 110 in State Prison,” Hartford Courant, 3 May 2006, page B5; digital images, ProQuest (https://www.proquest.com/hartfordcourant/newspapers/writer-tells-story-old-slave-man-died-at-110/docview/256989475/sem-2?accountid=46995: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [2] Karl J. Winter, “Prince Mortimer (CA. 1724-1834),” BlackPast, 8 March 2007 (https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/people-african-american-history/mortimer-prince-ca-1724-1834/: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [3] Richard Harvey Phelps, A History of Newgate of Connecticut (Albany, NY: J. Munsell, 1860), 101; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/historyofnewgate00phel/page/100/mode/2up: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [4] “Body Servant,” Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/body%20servant: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [5] “Jordan Freeman” CT State Library (https://libguides.ctstatelibrary.org/c.php?g=1416831: accessed 6 February 2025). “History,” Jordan Freeman Chapter DAR (http://jordanfreemandar.org/history.htm?fbclid=IwY2xjawIRgmlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHdBd2Bhpq6fiZW6s2JuFEV2ABfUushnWAkr9GfOTYDbpIGgzaTjcsjCkSA_aem_efdhjdHjcVzHXJOzqNb-zw: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [6] “David Humphreys (1752-1818)”, George Washington’s Mount Vernon (https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/david-humphreys-1752-1818: accessed 6 February 2025). S.P. Hildreth, Pioneer History: Being an Account of the First Examinations of the Ohio Valley (New York: A.S. Barnes & Co, 1848), 388; digital images, Google Books (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pioneer_History/dyoVAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22kitt%20putnam%22&pg=PA388&printsec=frontcover: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [7] Hildreth, Pioneer History, 388

    [8] “David Humphreys (1752-1818).”

    [9] “History.”

    [10] Hildreth, Pioneer History, 388.

    [11] “The True Story of Chatham Freeman,” The 6th Connecticut Regiment (https://www.6thconnecticut.org/page4: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [12] Phelps, A History of Newgate of Connecticut, 101.

    [13] John K. Robertson, “Decoding Connecticut Militia 1739-1783,” Journal of the American Revolution (https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/07/connecticut-militia-1739-1783/: accessed 6 February 20250.

    [14] Robertson, “Decoding Connecticut Militia 1739-1783,” Journal of the American Revolution.

    [15] “Ropewalks of Essex,” Town of Essex, Connecticut (https://www.essexct.gov/home/pages/ropewalks-of-essex: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [16] Middletown CT, Probate Records, Vol. 6, page 191, will of Philip Mortimer; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L92K-B278?view=fullText&keywords=Philip%20Mortimer&lang=en&groupId=TH-1971-45598-17969-60 : accessed 6 February 2025). “11. Life as a Ropemaker,” B. Keith Ropemaker (https://bkeithropemaker.com/Rope_Chapt_11.html: accessed 6 February 2025). “Ropewalks of Essex,” Town of Essex, Connecticut.

    [17] Bryna O’Sullivan, “What was the 1780 quota act – and why does it matter?” Connecticut Roots (https://connecticutroots.org/2024/11/24/what-was-the-1780-quota-act-and-why-does-it-matter/: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [18] O’Sullivan, “What was the 1780 quota act – and why does it matter?” Connecticut Roots.

    [19] Kevin M. Levin, “The Pernicious Myth of the ‘Loyal Slave’ Lives on in Confederate Memorials,” Smithsonian Magazine, 17 August 2017 (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/pernicious-myth-loyal-slave-lives-confederate-memorials-180964546/: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [20] “Health History: Health and Longevity Since the Mid-19th Century,” Stamford Medicine: Ethnogeriatrics (https://geriatrics.stanford.edu/ethnomed/african_american/fund/health_history/longevity.html: accessed 6 February 2025)

    [21] Middletown CT, Probate Records, Vol. 6, page 191, will of Philip Mortimer.

    [22] Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson & Goodwin, 1805), 399; digital images, HathiTrust (https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433009068960?urlappend=%3Bseq=421%3Bownerid=27021597768686807-465: accessed 6 February 2025).

    [23] Middletown CT, Probate Records, Vol. 6, page 191, will of Philip Mortimer.

    Rethinking the Historical Approach: Using Genealogy to Tell the Story of a Veteran of Color, Pvt. Sharp Liberty, Connecticut Continental Line

    Rethinking the Approach

    In recent years, scholars of Connecticut history have begun to grapple with the prior discussions of the participation of Connecticut soldiers of color in the American Revolution. As one historiographical study notes, the easy accessibility of two problematic texts on the subject online poses potential issues to future research. The author describes them as “false foundation to the historigraphical record.” While this effort is leading to greater awareness of the soldiers among public and academic historians, it’s unclear if that awareness translates to true awareness of the role these soldiers played in the general public’s image of the American Revolution. Introducing genealogical methodologies into the discussion may change that.

    Genealogy and History have long had a somewhat contentious relationship. In a 2015 blog series, the National Council on Public History invited scholars to address the role of genealogy in the sphere of public history. In her response, Dr. Regina Poertner argued: “Genealogy needs to be seen in the context of practices of ancestor worship, attitudes towards death, codes of conduct defining family shame and honour, and occasionally a belief in the continuing spiritual presence of the deceased amongst the living.” Yet, even in the midst of such arguments, there have been calls for collaboration.

    Such calls are slowly leading into joint projects, most often in the field of campus history. The GU272 Memory Project, for example, delves into the history of the individuals enslaved by Georgetown University sold by the University in 1828. Yet, in such projects, genealogists are most often being restricted to “traditional” roles of tracing ancestry and descendants.

    Yet, there is a potential for a much greater collaboration. First, on a research level. Although rarely cast as such, genealogy is an extreme form of microhistory. Genealogists tend to approach the study of a single ancestor as a jumping off point for a greater understanding of their family tree or even themselves. Yet, their approach could be equally well applied to an understanding of a historical period, practice or more. The depth of source knowledge of a genealogist is often much deeper than that of the average history. A combination of source knowledge with training in historical analysis would be a powerful one. Second, on public appeal. In a 2018 opinion piece, historian John Sedgewick noted that genealogy’s basic appeal is in personal connection to the past. In a 2020 interview, historian Tiya Miles noted that the “key trait” of public history “is an engagement of history beyond the walls of the campus or classroom.” If the goal of Public History is engagement, and it is known that genealogical methodologies tend to produce that engagement, why not take advantage of “what works” in genealogy to further deepen the historical approach?

    Private Sharp Liberty

    Private Sharp Liberty has been the subject of previous study, but only in a limited way. In 2014, The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History produced a student discussion guide on a pay warrant issued to Liberty. In that guide, they noted: “Before the war, he had been enslaved in Wallingford, Connecticut. In 1777, he enlisted in the army, served in the 6th Connecticut and 4th Connecticut, and was manumitted for the end of the war for his service.” In 2020, Christine Pittsley pulled together several references to Liberty in an effort to support the much needed restoration of Hillside Cemetery in Cheshire. Her 2011 PowerPoint on the same subject can be found here. A closer look at Pvt. Liberty’s life provides the ability to contextualize discussions about slavery, manumission, and the challenges of researching the African American community in Connecticut in the period of the American Revolution.

    The affidavit offered by Lucy Mix, the “former widow” of Sharp Liberty, included in her application for a widow’s pension provides a significant amount of detail on his life. According to that affidavit, Liberty’s first enlistment was under Captain Sloper of Stonington. The two married in Middlefield in 1780 by Rev. Abner Benedict. Sharp Liberty died on 29 January 1809. Lucy remarried to Sharp Mix of Wallingford. She further noted “that at the commencement of said war he was held as a slave, but in consequence of his faithful services through the whole of the Revolutionary War he was at its close emancipated[…]”

    Sharp Liberty enlisted from Wallingford on 3 March 1778. At the time, the unit was part of the 6th Connecticut. Details of his service can be found in his Compiled Military Service Records, which have been digitized by FamilySearch. The last note in the file indicates that he deserted from the 4th Connecticut in 1781.

    Liberty was apparently paid a bounty in 1780, of which the town of Cheshire demanded repayment in 1782, apparently well aware of his desertion. The timing suggests that he reenlisted under the Bounty Act of 1780. As Liberty had married the same year, it’s possible his desertion was a response to discovering his wife was pregnant and may have desperately needed his support at home.

    The marriage records from Middlefield are not among the surviving records digitized by FamilySearch. Yet, the minister named in the pension affidavit did serve in Middlefield at that point – and was noted as an abolitionist. It is possible that the couple chose to marry in Middlefield, where they apparently never lived, due to that fact.

    Sharp Liberty’s story, even in this brief overview, raises several points of historical importance which could be further examined as well as one genealogical point. The first is the participation of veterans of color in the Revolutionary War and the implications of that service for discussions of citizenship and emancipation. The second, similar discussions on the state level that would lead the couple to chose to marry in Middlefield. Finally, a methodological gap: although sources suggest Liberty was enslaved prior to his enlistment, there is not a good way to begin to search for the name of his enslaver. If a manumission was filed, it may be in either Cheshire or Wallingford records – or it may never have been recorded.