Person Page 147

Thomas [MIX or MEEKS], New Haven 1643, m. 1649 Rebecca, d. of capt.Nathaniel Turner, had John, the eldest, b. 1649; Nathaniel, 14 Sept.1651; Daniel, 8 Sept. 1653; Thomas, 30 Aug. 1655; Rebecca, 4 Jan.1658, all bapt. 23 May 1658; Abigail, 1659, bapt. 22 Jan. 1660; Caleb,bapt. 15 Dec. 1661; Samuel, b. 11 Jan. 1664, bapt. 21 Feb. foll.;Hannah, 30 June 1666, bapt. 12 Aug. foll.; Esther, 30 Nov. 1668, d.within 2 yrs.; and Stephen, 1 Nov. 1672, H[arvard]. C[ollege]. 1690.He d. early in 1691, his inv[ventory]. wh. shows good est. being of 9June, nam. all the ten liv. ch. in his will of Apr. preced., made s.John and Stephen excors."

--- James Savage, *A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlersof New England, Showing Three Generations of Those Who Came beforeMay, 1692, on the Basis of Farmer's Register*; Boston (Little, Brown &Co.) 1860; v. 3, p. 222

Also, same, p. 223:"The name was first writ. Meekes."

"THOMAS MIX was born in London, England. He came to New Haven,Connecticut about 1643 and died there 1691. He helkd such offices asconstable and fence viewer. He was a shrewd business man and became asubstantial and wealthy citizen of New Haven. In 1649, he marriedRebecca Turner, daughter of Captain Nathaniel Turner. She was born1631 and died 1731. At his death Thomas Mix divided his large estateamong his children. All of whom became heads of families, and thesons of persons persons of repute [sic, 2 sentences]. A number of hisdescendants in the early days of the colonies graduated from Harvardand Yale Colleges. Among them have been farmers, clergymen,politicians, authors and business men. Members of the Mix familyintermarried into leading families of Connecticut and are related tothe following nationally known families, to-wit: Yale, Edwards, Burr,Fitch, Grant, Beecher, Foote and Cleveland. (P) Thomas and Rebecca Mixare the ancestors of: Rev. Stephen Mix, clergyman and author; StephenMix Mitchell, United States Senator and Chief Justice of the SupremeCourt of Vermont; Donald Grant Mitchell (Ik Marvel [!?]), authot andconsul to Venice, Italy. (P) The executors of the Will of Thomas Mixwere his sons John and Stephen. Children --- 1. John born 1649, diedJanuary 21, 1711, residence New Haven, married Elizabeth Wilmot. 2.Nathaniel born September 14, 1651, died October 14, 1725, residenceNew Haven, married Mary Pantry. 3. Daniel Mix [see Daniel (1) MIX].4. Thomas born August 30, 1655, residence Norwich, Connecticut,married June 30, 1677, Hannah Fitch. 5. Rebecca born January 4, 1657,died October 17, 1734, residence New Haven, married John Yale. 6.Abigail born 1659, residence Hartford, Connecticut, married JohnPantry. 7. Caleb born 1661, baptized December 15, 1661, died August12, 1708, residence New Haven, married first Hannah Chidney, secondmarried Mary Bradley. 8. Samuel born January 11, 1663, died April 10,1730, residence New Haven, married Rebecca Pardee, July 26, 1699. 9.Hannah born June 30, 1666, residence Hartford, married June 25, 1691,Thomas Olmstead. 10. Esther born November 30, 1668, died 1670. 11.Rev. Stephen born November 1, 1672, died August 23, 1738, residence,Wethersfield, Connecticut, where he was the pastor of the FirstCongregational Church for 44 years. He was a graduate of HarvardCollege. On December 1, 1696, he married Nancy Stoddard, daughter ofRev. Solomon Stoddard of Northampton, Massachusetts."

--- Arthur Orison Dillon, *The Ancestors of Arthur Orison Dillonand His Poems*, 1927, privately printed, p 27-28. His sources forMIX: Jacobus *New Haven*, *New Haven Colonial Records*, *ConnecticutMen in the Revolution*, *Histories of Meridian [sic], Cheshire andWallingford, Connecticut*,

"Revolutionary Army Records, Pension Bureau, Washington, D.C.","Records of Muskingum County, Ohio".

Under WAR RECORDS ... NEW HAVEN SOLDIERS ... KING PHILIP'S WAR: "MIX,THOMAS (1628?-1691), about 6 acres excess; m 1649 Rebecca Turner; 11children. Because of his age and large family, we may suspect anerror in the original figures [because 6 acres excess indicated longservice???]."

--- Donald Lines Jacobus, *Families of Ancient New Haven*,1922-1932, p 240

From same, p 1195: "MIX. FAM. 1. THOMAS of NH [New Haven], d 1691;m Rebecca da, Nathaniel Turner."

"Mr. Samuel Goodanhousen was called to give in security for theportions of his wives chilldren. Hee said he had paide Mr. Yale 35L,wch he accepted for full satisfaction for his wives portion, and forThomas Meekes he is willing to accept of the house and 19 acrs of landnext the towne (lying by ye necke highway) for ye portion of RebeckaTurner, now his wife, and Thomas Meekes declared in court that he iswilling to accept of ye said 19 acrs of land, be it more or less & yehouse & home lott & barne at towne, in full satisfaction for his wivesportion, and Mr. Goodanhouse did now in court pass the house, home lot& barne, and the said 19 acrs of land, be it more or less, wch wasCapt. Turners, and Thom Meekes accepted it for full satisfaction."

--- *Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, from 1638to 1649*, transcribed and edited by Charles J Hoadly, Hartford CT(Case, Tiffany and Co) 1857, p 480, under "AT A COURT HELD AT NEWHAVENTHE 4TH OF SEPTEMBER, 1649."

From Ed(win) F. Chesney, 362 Appleblossom Lane, Bay Village OH 44140Phone 216-871-7039, 19 May 1994: [THERE ARE SEVERAL PASSAGESSEPARATED BY ROWS OF HYPHENS, AND TERMINATED WITH A MESSAGE IN ALLCAPS]

"From the genealogy of Jonathan Mix [no further identification]:Thomas Meekes (Mix) of New Haven, 1643, born ----?, died early in1691, leaving good estate and names ten children all living; John andStephen executors; married 1649, Rebecca, daughter of CaptainNathaniel Turner. The twelve children are then listed, two of whichwere dead.

--------------------------

This write-up on Thomas Mix was sent to me [i.e., Ed Chesney] byNewell A. Williams, in 1983:

Thomas Mix

The normal picture, that we have, of the Puritans that settledNew England is that of sober, law-abiding, industrious men and women.In fact often they seem too good to be true. This little story will,to some extent, change that, and perhaps make them seem more human.The founder of the Mix family in America was Thomas Mix. The name wasspelled Meekes in the early New Haven records. Later he signed areport as Thom. Mexx. From whence he came, we do not know. He wasfirst mentioned in the New Haven records in 1647.

To set the stage for our story, let's talk a bit about NathanielTurner. He also is an ancestor of ours. He more nearly fits thepicture of the brave, hardy Puritan pioneer. Captain Turner was oneof the original founders of New HAven in 1639. He was a man of somemeans. His net worth was estimated to be 800 pounds in 1643. One ofthe more well-to-do planters, he helped explore the land inConnecticut as far west as the Hudson River, where he made contactwith the Dutch of New Amsterdam. There is some indication that hewent as far as the Delaware River into what is now Pennsylvania.

New Haven was a seaport, and some of the richer men decided tobuild a ship to promote trade with the other colonies and England. Itwas finished, and in January of 1646 it sailed for England withCaptain Turner on board. It was never heard of again. Two hundredyears later, Longfellow wrote a poem commemorating the tragic voyage.Turner left his wife an estate of about 450 pounds including a debt of14 pounds owed her by Thomas Mix. He also left her with severalchildren, one of whom was a daughter named Rebecca. Later Mrs. Turnerremarried [this time] a Mr. Samuel Goodanhousen, a Dutchman,presumably from New Amsterdam.

In 1649 Thomas and Rebecca got into trouble, or to put it morebluntly, Thomas got Rebecca in trouble. The following is a directquote from the New Haven Colonial Record.

"Thomas Meekes and Rebecka Turner was called before ye court toanswer to their sinfull miscariag [sic] in matter of fornication, withsundry lyes added therto by them both in grose and hainiouse manner.The matter hauing bine formerly heard before the gouerner in a privateway, wch was now declared to ye court in ther prsenc, and they calledto answer. Thomas Meekes said he could say nothing against whath binedeclared but it is true, and he desires to judge and condeme himselffor it in ye sight of God and his people. And for Rebecka Turner, sheacknowledg the things ye charged was true, and though she had saideThomas Meekes had had to do with her but once, yett it was oftener, asshe now saith."

There was further testimony which implied that Rebecka had had anaffair with another man [a Mr. Westerhousen], as the governor told thecourt.

"The Gouerner told ye court that they haue heard ye severallpassages of ye busines concerning Thomas Meekes and Rebecka Turner,wherin beside ye fornication ther hath bine much impudenc in lying,espicially one his pte [on his part], calling God to witness ye truthof a thing wch himselfe knew to be false, as he now professeth. Allsoye passages concerning Mr. Westerhousen, and what is proved vpon oath,yett not owned by him, which leaves the court much vnsatisfyed.

"Matters being thus prepared, before ye court proceeded sentence,Mr. Goodanhousen desired to speake, and desired the court to considerthat Rebecka is weake and haath sore breasts with a froward child,that therfore, if it may be, thay would spare corporall punishment,and if they laid a fine he would see it paid.

"The court having heard and weighed what was spoken, proceeded,and ordered that Thomas Meekes be severely whipped for his folly ofsinful vncleanness, and for lying and misscariages that way be fined 5pounds.

"For Rebecka Turner that she also be whipped, if in referenced[sic] to her self and child it may stand wth due mercy, but upon aview and search by midwife sister Kimberly, the court saw cause toforbeare that, and ordered her to paye a fine of 10 pounds, wch Mr.Goodanhousen Promised [sic] to paye for her." [Added later: Theforegoing quotation can be found in *Records of the colony andPlantation of New Haven from 1638 to 1649*, transvribed and edited byCharles J Hoadley, Hartford (Case, Tiffany and Company) 1857, p469-471, under "A COURT AT NEWHAVEN THE 3TH [sic] OF JULY, 1649", p467-479; Mr Goodanhousen is identified in testimony omitted in theabove quotation as Rebecca's "father"; actually he was her stepfather-- she was daughter of Nathaniel Turner and Margaret Leachland]

It can be stated here that Thomas and Rebecka were married. Underthe circumstances, they had no other choice, but this did not endtheir troubles.

A year or so after the above trial, a Richard Fido and NicholasSloper, indentured servants of neighbors of Thomas Meekes, werecharged with theft, lying, disorderly night meetings, drinking "strongwatter" and having feasts at night on stollen food from their master.The testimony brought Clements, who persuaded them to steal a pistolfrom one of their masters. Clements later sold it to an Indian for 12shillings.

Clements was a friend of Thomas Meekes, and introduced the twoservants to him. Clements suggested to Sloper that he live withThomas, after his term of servitude expired, stating "It was the bestplace he had found." At times the servants would steal meat fromtheir masters, and bring it to the Meekes' house. Here Rebecka wouldcook it, and they would eat and drink until late at night.

About this time the two servants stole a heifer. They cut offits ears, so that the identifying marks could not be seen. Then theysold it to Thomas. Several days later the heifer escaped and returnedto its rightful owner. Thomas knew where it was, but made no attemptto claim it.

On being called to the court, and being charged with theseinditements, Thomas answered as follows:

"It was true that James Clements did bring Fido and Sloper tosundrie meetings at his house, to drink strong watter, and eat somemeate, also at one time he did receive a bushell of corne, and a peeceor two of beefe wch Sloper brought wch they dressed for them tosupper, and told Sloper that if his Mistress gave him leave he mightcome. As for the heiffer, when James went away he told him he had aheiffer he would sell him wch Richard's master gave him. So he boughtthe heiffer for 5 pounds and pd James 3 pounds and was to pay 40shillings to Richard Fido. He kept her a while in his yard, but shegott out and went to Mr. Gibbard, and he going thither saw her in yeyard, but because he bought her of Fido, as well as James, he wouldnot speak to Mr. Gibbard, till hee had spake with Fido, and when hespake with him, he vunderstood that they had stole the heiffer fromMr. Gibbard, yet bpon his desire he promised to keepe it secrett.:

Thomas was told that servants could not own cattle, and that theears had been clipped, should have told him that the heifer had beenstolen. At this he was silent and could not answer, but said hedesired to owne his sinn."

"Rebecka Meekes, wife of Thomas Meekes, was called befor ye courtand told that amone severall others, she was charged with partakingwth them in ther sinn, intertaining mens servants in ye nite seasonwhen their Gouerners were in bed, that she had satt and drunke strongwatter wth them vnfitt for her sex in such season & in such manner,and when her husband had wth drawne, she hath kept them company, andreceived other stollen goods, and that it was a great agravation bothin her and her husband, that it was so quickly after they weresentence in this court for other sinnful miscariags. She was bid tospeak is she had anything to say to cleere herself. She answered sheknew not what to say."

The court sentenced the two servants to be jailed, whipped, andto work off their debts & fines, as for Thomas & Rebecka:

"They are guilty of intertaining & inviting mens servants such asthey might well suspect came in disorderly sinnful base way, in yenight when ther Gouernors were in bed, to drink strong watter, theyalso have received stollen goods, and that against ther light, forwhen Sloper brought the bushell of corne, he said it was not safe forhim to receive it, yet did so. They buy a heiffer of 5 pound pricewch they might vpon grounds declared to them, conceit [sic] shestollen, and when it was told them it was stole, yet then promised toconceal it. The Court considered what a micheivous example this is,and how dangerous it is to nourish vnrighteousness & disorder in aplantation.

"Therfore the sentenc of ye court is that Thomas Meekes payetwenty pownds a fine for these misdemenours and miscariages, and whenFido & Sloper is wipped, he and his wife are to come to ye whippingpost, and stand ther, putting each of them one hand into ye hole ofthe post, and stand ther while ye others whipped: that they may hauepart of ye shame wch ther sinn deserveth: and to give security for thefine, or paye it presently, and to paye the due charges of theprison..

"Mr. Goodanhouse before the court ingageth himselfe, for yepayment of this fine wthin a moneth: and ingageth himselfe in 10pounds more, for the appearance of Thomas Meekes and his wife tofullfil the sentence of ye Court when Fido and Sloper are whipped."[Added later: The preceding quotations can be found in *Ancient TownRecord, Volume I: New Haven Town Records 1649-1662*, edited byFranklin Bowditch Dexter, New Haven CT (New Haven Colony HistoricalSociety) 1917, p 3-14, under "AT A COURT HELD AT NEW-HAVEN THE 5TH OFFEBRUARY 1649 [i.e. 1649-50], p 1-14]

Samuel Goodanhouse proved to be a good stepfather &stepfather-in-law to the two young people. They continued to live inNew Haven, and with age became more respectable. Thomas later becamea freeman and constable. He lived in New Haven 40 more years, andRebecca lived until 1731, when she must have been around 100 yearsold.

Their son, Daniel, married Ruth Rockwell, daughter of JohnRockwell, and great-granddaughter of Bernard Capen. My wife [i.e.Newell A. Williams' wife], Pauline Reed Williams, was of Capenancestry, both on her mother's and father's side of the family. Ourchildren can trace their lineage back to Bernard Capen through threefamilies.

Daniel Mix was one of the first settlers of Wallingford,Connecticut. The Mix family lived there for over one hundred years.During this time they seemed to be closely associated with the Roycefamily, as there were several marriages between the two families. Inthe City of Wallingford, there is still the Royce House, which ispreserved as a historical monument.

Josiah Mix married Keziah Royce (now changed to Rice). Josiah,who had been a Revolutionary War soldier, joined the great westernmigration, and moved to Rootstown, Portage County, Ohio, in 1816.Their graves can still be seen in the Old Rootstown Cemetery (1980).

Josiah's son, Samuel Rice Mix, grew up in Ohio, and was thefather of Newell Mix. Newell Mix married Ruth Elizabeth Kent, andabout 1875 moved to Varthage, Missouri. Ruth was birn in Southwick,Massachusetts, but grew up in Atwater, Ohio. She was on a visit toSouthwick when she married Newell, who had been going to college inMassachusetts.

I never knew my grandfather, Newell Mix, but my grandmother Mixwas everything a grandmother should be, a little old lady who lived inan old brick house with an old barn to play in. The house had a darkmysterious cellar, and a fascinating attic with all kinds oftreasures. Above all, grandmother made the best cookies in the worldfor her ten year old grandson.

Newell A. Williams --- August 22, 1981"

------------------------

The Potter-Richardson memorial has the following:

Mix, Thomas, born about 1628, came to New Haven, Connecticut, about1643 from London, England. He married in New Haven in 1649, RebeccaTurner, 1631-1731, daughter of Nathaniel Turner of New Haven. Townrecords show them involved in a series of misdemeanors between 1649and 1652. Later he became a fence viewer, constable, served in thewars, and in 1668 was a contributor to the Hopkins Grammar School. Hedied in New Haven in 1691; his widow died in 1731. (references: NewHaven Town records and Families of Ancient New Haven by Jacobus.)

[END OF QUOTATION FROM EDWIN CHESNEY'S FAMILY GROUP RECORD]

"Mr. [John] Davenport's efforts in favor of education in New Haven,appear throughout the colonial records. His design was, to havefirst, common schools, then, grammar schools, and finally a college.Common schools were immediately begun. By a donation of Gov. Hopkins,obtained chiefly through the influence of Mr. Davenport, a grammarschool was established; and a foundation for a college was laid by agrant from the town of New Haven. ..... (P) Mr. John Davenport, senior[at a town meeting] ..... first propounded to the town, whether theywould send their children to the school, to be taught for the fittingthem for the service of God, in church and commonwealth. If theywould, then, he said, that the grant of that part of Mr. Hopkins hisestate, formerly made to this town, stands good; but if not, then itis void; because it attains not the end of the donor. Therefore, hedesired they would express themselves. Upon whoch Roger Allingdeclared his purpose of bringing up one of his sons to learning; alsoHenry Glover one of Mr. William Russell's, John Winston, Mr. Hodshon,Thomas Trowbridge, David Atwater, Thomas Meeks {Mix); and Mr. Augursaid that he intended to send for a kinsman from England. Mr. SamuelStreet declared, that there were eight at present in Latin, and threemore would come in summer, and two more before next winter. Uponwhich Mr. Davenport seemed to be satisfied; but yet declared, that hemust always reserve a negative voice, that nothing be done contrary tothe true intent of the donor..... (P) What was accomplished at thistown meeting went beyond mere declarations. There was actions as wellas profession. James Alling, son of Roger Alling, was graduated atHarvard College, 1679. James Alling was a congregational minister inSalisbury, Massachusetts. His father, Roger Alling, was one of thesigners of the "fundamental agreement." (P) Noadiah Russell, who wasgraduated at Harvard College in 1681, was son of William Russell, andgrandson of James Russell, one of the first planters. Mr. Glover wasnamed guardian of Noadiah Russell, in the will of his father, WilliamRussell. Noadiah Russell was minister of MIddletown, and was a man ofgreat respectability and influence. (P) Nathaniel Hudson, whose nameappears in the Harvard Catalogue, as one of the class of 1693, was theson of John Hodson or Hodgson, merchant, of New Haven. The will ofJohn Hodson is dated July, 1690, and in it, provision is made for thecollege expenses of his son Nathaniel. Of the subsequent history ofNathaniel Hodson, I am ignorant. (P) Stephen Mix, minister ofWethersfield, Connecticut, was graduated at Harvard College, 1690, andwas son of Thomas Mix of New Haven. The Rev. Stephen Mix was one ofthe most able of the Congregation ministers of his time. (P) Theadvantage to the colony from this single effort in facor of liberaleducation, cannot easily be estimated. The reason that so manybelonging to New Haven, were educated at Harvard before the year 1700,is found chiefly in the zeal and widely extended influence of Mr.Davenport."

--- James L. Kingsley, *A Historical Discourse Delivered by Requestbefore the Citizens of New Haven, April 25, 1838, the Two HundredthAnnicersay of the First Settlement of the Town and Colony*, New Haven(B & W Noyes) 1838, p 91-2.

"AT A TOWNE MEETING HELD AT NEWHAVEN NOVEMBER 9TH 1668: ..... TheTowne was informed yt now was ye time agreed upon to Choose newConstables for ye yeare ensueing, & the Votes being given in itappeared That Thomas Morris & Thomas meekes [sic] were Chosen at yetowne, and Samll Hemmingway at ye iron workes, all for ye yeareensueing. Tho: meekes & Sam;; Hemmingway now tooke oath, but ThomasMorris dsired a little time to Consider of it, which was grauntedhim."

--- *Ancient Town Records, Volume II, New Haven Town Records1662-1684*, edited by Franklin Bowditch Dexter, New Haven CT (NewHaven Colony Historical Society) 1919, p 240.

He was living with his parents at New Haven Oct. 4, 1670. There is no further record of him found at New Haven. He exchanged his "house & home Lot" at New Haven for a "Dwelling house & home Lott containing by Estimation an acre" at New London with John Stevens "of New London now resident at New Haven." March 10, 1676-7, Ack. March 10, 1686. (New London Land, Book 5, p. 92.) Savage gives the baptism of three children of Jonathan Hall at New London, 1676 to 1680. These are also given in Dr. Blake's Later History of the first church of Christ, New London, to which is added "Mrs. Hannah Hall's child, bapt. Oct. 30, 1692," no name. From the fact that his first dau. was Hannah and there were no other Halls in New London, this Hannah Hall is thought to have been the wife of Jonathan Hall. On May 23, 1682, Jonathan Hall of New London appointed his "Brother Jno Hall of Wallingford" his attorney to answer for him in an action for debt brought by Major Tho. Clarke, of Boston, at the County Court of New Haven, but no record of the trial is there found, presumably because the case was settled out of court. The home lot of one acre, at New Lond, was bounded at the front and rear, or east and west, by "a cove," and a warantee deed of the same was given by Daniel Hall to Nathan Morrow, Feb. 11, 1734, nothing being of record to show how Daniel Hall became the owner. A part of the early Probate records of New London were burned during the Revolutionary war. This deed from Stevens shows that Jonathan Hall owned a house and a home lot at New Haven in 1676-7, but there are practically no land records covering that period. We find, however, that this John Stevens, on Feb., 9, 1698-9, sold a house and home lot, at New Haven, of one acre, the same size as the New London lot, and, presumably, this was the lot he bought of Jonathan Hall. The New London home lot was bounded on two sides by a cove, and the New Haven home lot on the "south by the sea," both of them being just such a lot as a marriner would be likely to own. On May 21, 1724, Daniel Hall, Hannah Lester, widow, and Elizabeth Hall of New London, deed to John Hall the third, of Wallingford, their "whole right, laid out, divided or unlaid out," in land "which descend to us from our Grandfather John Hall of Wallingford dec'd." (Wallingford Land, Book 4, p. 397.) Daniel Hall m. 1716 Elizabeth Mayhew. It is thought that widow Hannah Lester named in the above deed was the dau. Hannah bapt. 1683, and that Elizabeth Hall was the wife of the said Daniel. This, taken in connection with the sale of Jonathan Hall's home lot by Daniel Hall, leads us to believe that the said Daniel was the son of the said Jonathan, and the Wallingford deed above named was the said Jonathan's share of land from his father's estate. No son of John(1) Hall, except Jonathan, is supposed to have had both a son Daniel, and a dau. Hannah. The fact that Daniel, alone, sold the only real estate of record to Jonathan Hall, is believed to show that this Daniel was, in 1734, the sole surviving heir of Jonathan Hall. Another distinct family of Halls appear later on the New London records, but no record of any descendents of Jonathan is found of a later date than the sale of the home lot, in 1734.

One Jonathan Hall of Saybrook was fined at New London, July 27, 1690, for setting sail on the Sabbath, and in the warfare on the northern frontier, 1697, Jonathan Hall was paid for "himself and sloop for ye gunns L3." (History New London, pp. 253 and 258.) No record of any Jonathan Hall is found in the town records of Saybrook, prior to 1700.