(Abt 1550-1595)
(Abt 1554-)
(Abt 1559-)
Richard OLMSTED, Sr
Frances SLANY
(Abt 1587-1630)


Family Links

1. Thomas NEWELL, Jr

2. John BIGELOW, Jr


  • Born: 20 Feb 1623/24, Fairsted, Essex, England
  • Christened: Great Leighs, Essex, England
  • Married (1): 1641-1642, , , Connecticut, USA
  • Married (2): 6 Oct 1664, Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
  • Died: 24 Feb 1697/98, , , Connecticut, USA

   Another name for Rebecca was ALMSTEAD.

   Ancestral File Number: 9L0J-JH. User ID: 2319.

   General Notes:

Planters of the Commonwealth 1620-1640, Charles Edward Banks, Riverside Press, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1930
p85: "'Lyon'. This ship was famous in the history of the early emigration to Massachusetts, and her Master was equally noted for his skillful seamanship and his sympathy with the policy of the Puritan leaders. In 1630, 1631, and 1632 she made four voyages hither in quick succession under his command with the regularity of a ferry, and on one of them saved the new settlement from starvation and death by her timely arrival with provisions and anti-scorbutics. The official connection of the 'Lyon' with the Winthrop Fleet is of the same character as related of the 'Mary and John,' as both were doubtless approved by the Governor and Assistants. In his letter of 28 Mar 1630 to his wife written from the 'Arbella' off the Isle of Wight, after noting the sailing of the 'Mary and John', Winthrop wrote: 'and the ship which goes from Bristowe...'"
p87: "'Mary and John', Thomas Chubb, Master. She sailed from Plymouth, England, March 20, 1630, with one hundred and forty passengers from the counties of Somerset, Dorset, and Devon under the patronage of the Reverend John White. She arrived at Nantasket May 30, and all the passengers settled at Mattapan which was renamed Dorchester. There is no list of the emigrants, but the following persons are believed to have come in this ship according to evidences from contemporary authorities. All setted at Dorchester, Massachusetts. (See Banks: 'The Winthrop Fleet of 1630' pp100-105, and Clapp: 'Memoirs'..."
p101: "James Olmstead of Fairstead, County Essex, to Cambridge.
"Mrs Joyce Olmstead, Nehemiah Olmstead, Nicholas Olmstead, Richard Olmstead, John Olmstead, Rebecca Olmstead..."

Connecticut Soldiers in the Pequot War of 1637, James Shepard, Journal Publish- ing Co, Meridian CT, 1913, p22:
"Nicholas Olmstead...Enlisted from Hartford...He was son of James Olmstead, came to Boston with his father in the Lion, 1632, and probably came to Hartford with his father in 1636... "Richard Olmstead...Enlisted from Hartford...Came to Boston with his Uncle James in the Lion, 1632, was an original proprietor of Hartford. Removed to Norwalk, 1651..."

The Dorchester Group Puritanism and Revolution, Ann Natalie Hansen, Columbus Ohio, 1987, p29:
"The Great Migration was beginning- that vast movement of Englishmen across the Atlantic to the shores of New England. In the first year, 1630, seventeen vessels would cary over 2000 settlers, and by 1643, some 21200 would have said faewell to England, most of them never again to see the land of their birth. Probably the first ship to sail was the 'Margrett and John' of 200 tons burden, with John Edgcombe, master, and Henry Lee, mate. She left Plymouth on February 22, 1630, and never returned to her home port. It seems unlikely that she ever reached New England. The 'Lyon' sailed from Bristol in February and landed at Salem in May. Next to go was the 'Mary and John', carrying the 140 members of the Dorchester Group. She sailed from Plymouth on March w0, and arrived at Nantasket May 30. On April 8, the four chief vessels of the Winthrop fleet, the 'Arbella', the 'Jewel', the 'Ambrose', and the 'Talbot', got under sail from Yarmouth,Isle of Wight, and reached Salem in mid-June. Other ships to go to New England in that first year were the 'Mayflower', 'Whale', 'Hopewell', 'William and Francis', 'Trial', 'Charles', and 'Success', all from Southampton. The 'Gift', 'Handmaid',and two others whose names are unrecorded left from ports likewise unrecorded..."

John North of Farmington, Dexter North, Washington DC, 1921, xi 322p 24 cm, 22-22879, CS71.N86 1921: "John North of Farmington Connecticut and his descendants;with a short account of other early North families."
p12: "5. Thomas North (John1), fourth son of John and Hannah (Bird) North, was born in 1649, and died at Northington, now Avon, in 1712, aged 63. He married in 1669, Hannah, daughter ofThomas and Rebecca (Olmstead) Newell...
"...Thomas Newell was from Hertfordshire, England. He was an early settler of Hartford, and an original settler of Farmington in 1640. He died 13 Sep 1689. [See `Newell Genealogy']. Rebecca Olmsteadwas a niece of James Olmstead, with whom she came from England in the `Lion'."

A History of the American People, Vol I, The Swarming of the English, Woodrow Wilson, 1901, Ch V, The Expansion of New England, p144:
"Dutch seamen had discovered the Connecticut so long ago as 1614, when the Virginia Company was still young, and the Massachusetts colony not yet thought of. They had explored also the shores of the Sound below, and both river and Sound had seen their trading boats pass often to and fro these many years. The Dutch had seen the English multiplying fast at Plymouth and the Bay of Massachusetts; had realized that they must be quick to secure what they had discovered and meant to claim; had formally purchased atract of land from the Indians at the mid-course of the Connecticut; and at last, just before the English came, had built a little fort there to mark their possession, placing it at the fine turn of the river to which, as it fell out, Mr Hookeralso and his congregation from Newtown were presently to take a fancy. The Dutch agent in charge had hardly got further in his first work there than the throwing up of an earthen redoubt of two and the planting of a couple of small guns, and had but just named his post `Good Hop' (1633), when the English began to come. Men from Plymouth came first, to build a trading post, and then there followed these congregations from the Bay, as careless of the rights of the Plymouth men as of the rights of the Dutch. When once their coming had begun they crowded in faster and faster, closer and closer, despite every protest. Not many years went by before they were ploughing the very piece of land upon which the little Dutch fort stood, saying that it was a shame to let good bottom soil lie idle..."

Thomas Newell and His Descendants, Mrs Mary A (Newell) Hall, Southington Conn, Cochrane Bros Book and Job Printers, 1878, 268p 19cm, 9-12539, CS71.N545 1878: "Thomas Newell, who settled in Farminton Connecticut AD 1632 and his descendants, (Incl.) A Genealogical table."

The Annals of America, Vol I, 1493-1754, Discovering a New World, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1976, p157, Fundamental Orders of Connecticut: "The Connecticut settlement at Hartford was established in 1636 by settlers from the New Towne (now Cambridge), Massachusetts, congregation of the Reverend Thomas Hooker. This group had been preceded by others which had located at Windsorand Wethersfield. In January 1639, the freemen of these three townships assembled and drew up the so-called Fundamental Orders of Connecticut often hailed as the first written American constitution...It contained a preamble that is essentiallya compact, the remainder being a body of laws. Hooker's move was prompted primarily by political considerations. He opposed the dominant figures at Boston, who looked down on democracy- believing it to be `no fit government either for church orcommonwealth...'"

Digest of Early Connecticut Probate Records, C W Manwaring, Vol I, p490-491: "Thomas Newell, Farmington. Invt L448-17-06. Taken 7 Nov 1689. The Children: John Newell 42 years, Thomas 39, Samuel 28, Rebeckah Woodford 46, MaryBascom 44, Hester Stanly 37, Srah Smith 34, & Hannah North 31. Whereas, Thomas Newell of Farminton, lately deceased, died without any Will, it is mutually agreed between the Widow of the sd. Newell & all the Children that were present at the County Court when the Dist of Thomas Newell's Estate was made...

Digest of Early Connecticut Probate Records, C W Manwaring, Vol I, p490-491: "Thomas Newell, Farmington, Dist of Estate: The Widow & Relict of the Sd. Thomas Newell reserveth thefull dispose of her thirds of all the Moveable Estate for her maintenance...Unto all which we have set to our Hands & Seals the 8th of November, 1689, Rebeckah Newell, Ls. 6 Nov 1689: Adms to the Widow and Samuel Newell."

A History of the American People, Vol I, The Swarming of the English, Woodrow Wilson, 1901, Ch V, The Expansion of New England, p141:
"There was not a little uneasiness and disquiet, nevertheless. These stirring, austere, uncompromising Puritans, who had crossed the sea to live in a wilderness rather than submit to Laud and the King, were not likely to be all of one mind, or always submissive to one another when they differed; and within less than five years after Mr Winthrop's first company had established themselves at the Bay signs of a partial breaking up began to appear...Congre- gations had and kept their several characters; the politics of the growing commonwealth sprang out of their differences; and their ministers were their politicians. The Reverend Thomas Hooker, of Newtown, and the Reverend John Cotton, of Boston, were, in those first days, the most notable men among all the ministers of the colonies. Laud had picked both of them out as heretics specially to be feared and disciplined; they had been obliged to make their escape very secretly from England, and had been welcomed at the Bay with a special satisfaction and distinction of greeting upon their landing, in 1633. They were both scolars, and both orators whom it moved men to hear; but they were of opposite views and unlike tempers in dealing with affairs. It was observed after Mr Hooker was settled at Newtown `that many of the freemen grew very jealous of their liberties.' The men of Watertown, near by, ventured to protest very strongly against being taxed for a fort to be built at Newtown, notwithstanding it was meant to serve in case of need against a common enemy; and it was doubted that Mr Hooker's very liberal opinions inmatters of government had spread to them, and inclined them thus to press their independence. He was very downright, very formidable in debate; Newtown was contesting with Boston the right to be considered the capital and centre of the Bay settlements; the freemen of the lesser towns looked to it for leadership, and found Mr Hooker clear in cousel and fit to lead...
"...The Newtown people, who deemed Mr Hooker no less a master of wise speech and sound doctrine than Mr Cotton, and Mr Haynes, their chief citizen, as worthy to be governor as Mr Winthrop himself, or Mr Dudley, one or the other of whom the freemen seemed determined always to choose, grew jealous of a government which seemed to lie so entirely with Boston.The found the combined government of church and company itself a little burdensome. The water, too, at their wharves was too shallow, the soil on their fields too thin, and they were straitened for lack of meadow. Interest, pride, and opinionwere very subtly compounded in their disquietude, and neither soft words nor harsh could rid them of it.
"They were too loyal and too prudent to wish to disturb the peace and order of the colony by insisting too strenuously or too hastilyupon having their own way; but they did not dissemble their discontent, and asked leave of the company's government to remove to another place of settlement. There was not a little alarm and opposition when it was learned that they wished actually to go outside the Massachusetts grant and establish themselves entirely apart on the distant Connecticut. But it became evident very soon that their spirits were too strongly bent upon their new purpose to be restored to ease or contentmentwhere they were. Moreover, the same desire to get away began to show itself elsewhere- in Watertown and Roxbury and Dorchester; and, with great bodies of new settlers constantly coming in, there seemed no conclusive reason why they should be held, unwilling, within the colony. Though the matter had to be fought through long debates and many delays, therefore, the magistrates at last felt themselves constrained to grant Newtown's petition; and the people of Watertown, Roxbury, and Dorchester chose to consider themselves included in the permission. The three years 1635-1637 saw a notable migration begin. By the spring of 1637 there were fully eight hundred settlers on the banks of the Connecticut and on the shores of the Sound below."
p154: "The Pequots had grown very hot against the English crowding in. No Englishman's life was safe anywhere, upon the river or the Sound, because of them through the anxious winter of 1636-1637...When summer came, therefore,the settlers set themselves ruthlessly to exterminate the tribe. A single bloody season of fire and the sword, and the work was done; the braves of the tribe were slain or driven forth in little despairing groups to the far Hudson in the west;the few women who survived were taken and made slaves of. The terrible business cleared all the river valley and all the nearer regions by the Sound, and English settlers began to pour in again with a new heart.
"Massachusetts had lent her aid to the annihilation of the tribe, but the Connecticut towns had begun the deadly work unaided. Until then Massachusetts had maintained a formal oversight, an unbroken assumption of authority among them; but now (1637), being clearly outside the Massachusetts grant, they took leave to hold a General Court of their own and assume independent powers. They had, indeed, no grant themselves, either of land or of authority, from the crown; but there were no King's officers there in the quiet wilderness, and they would not, for the present at any rate, be molested. For two years (1637- 1639) they acted without even formal agreement among themselves regarding the method or organization of their government, choosing and obeying their magistrates, electing and holding their assemblies, according to their habit before they came. But in 1639 they adopted a formal constitution, which they called their `Fundamental Orders.' Mr Hooker's liberal temper showed itself very plainly in the principles by which they resolved to be governed. `The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people...By a free choice the hearts of the people will be more ready to yield obedience.' This was the principle ofthe Fundamental Orders. Their governor was always to be a member of some appporved congregation; but any man might be a feeman and voter and fill any other magistracy whose town admitted him to be a resident, without test of doctrine or churchmembership; and the freemen were to elect the deputies by whom the laws of the colony were to be made in General Court."

Ancestral File Ver 4.13 7TTP-ZF John BIGELOW Born 11 Dec 1646 Watertown Middlesex MA Mar 6 Oct 1664 Rebecca OLMSTEAD (ALMSTEAD) (AFN:9L0J-JH) Hartford Hartford Conn.

IGI Birth 5001605-29-Not Available Rebecca OLMSTEAD Father Richard OLMSTEAD Mother Frances SLANY 1624 Fairsted Essex England.

   Marriage Information:

Rebecca married Thomas NEWELL, Jr, son of Thomas NEWELL, Sr and Frances, in 1641-1642 in , , Connecticut, USA. (Thomas NEWELL, Jr was born about 1610-1620 in , Hertfordshire, England, christened on 14 Jun 1611 in , Hertfordshire, England and died on 13 Sep 1689 in Farmington, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.)

   Marriage Information:

Rebecca also married John BIGELOW, Jr, son of John BIGELOW, Sr and Mary WARREN, on 6 Oct 1664 in Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut, USA. (John BIGELOW, Jr was born on 27 Oct 1643 in Watertown, Middlesex, Massachusetts, USA and died on 31 Aug 1684 in Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.)

Home | Table of Contents | Surnames | Name List

This Web Site was Created 27 Mar 2002 with Legacy 4.0 from Millennia