A History of the Tidds of Ohio
By Howard H. Tidd

Foreword

Seldom do family groups gather for reunions or visitations without questions arising pertaining to family background or references made to ancestral anecdotes. Sometimes friendly arguments develop as to origins; while these may be entertaining they are not particularly enlightening. For some time the writer has felt that a study ought to be made that would gather all possible information relative to the family background, and present it in an historical setting. The idea of accumulating current information was a natural sequence. Every reasonable effort has been made to obtain information relative to each phase of the problem. It is obvious that when pertinent information is not forthcoming, it cannot be presented; hence, the current history is at times impaired.

However, an amazing amount of material is accessible which furnishes opportunity for us to become well acquainted with our history. The reader will find that considerable attention has been given to the early settlement of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This is necessary in order that an understanding be had concerning the first early migrations from the colonies and how they worked their way westward. The history of the Tidds is directly involved in these early migrations.

Part I

Undaunted by the stories of hardship and suffering endured by the men and women who had chosen to go to the colonies in the "New World," there continued to be an ever-increasing number eager to make the change from what might be considered the safety of known ways of life to the known perils which surely awaited them, once the transition had been made. It was no secret that a large portion of the settlers in Jamestown, Virginia had fallen victims to the "starving time;" while the only attempt made by the Plymouth Company to colonize had met with miserable failure in 1607 on the Kennebec River. A single winter of disease and starvation was enough to reduce the colony by half and send the survivors back to England with "their former hopes frozen to death." What, then, could have been the motivations responsible for the 'ever-increasing number' to risk their lives in this determined effort to seek new homes across the sea? Whatever the motives, we can recognize that they were fundamental, and positive, and powerful. Among the problems faced by the people of that day, that of making a living was becoming more difficult.

The farmers were in distress because of higher rents and taxes. Due to the Enclosure Acts large tracts of land were being converted into sheep patures. One result of the rapid expansion of weaving in Flanders was the unusual demand for English wool. A small number of men could care for a large acreage of pasture and flocks of sheep; thus, many families were evicted from the land which had formerly furnished them employment. We read in Queen Elizabeth's day of the great "increase in idle rogues and beggars," and of the attempt to relieve them by the so-called "poor laws." The people resented being treated as objects of charity. If the Lords of Wool were to be allowed to monopolize the acres of England, there were broader lands beckoning from beyond the Atlantic. The plight of the townspeople was no less miserable. Higher taxes and higher prices, with fewer jobs because of the competition of the people from the rural sections, made the outlook dark indeed; they, too, turned to the opportunities promised by colonization.

In addition to the economic reasons for unrest, many people were beginning to feel the harsh effects of a Religious persecution entirely new in England. There was widespread acceptance among the middle-class people of the Protestant doctrine of the individual's responsibilty to God alone for his religion. Determined resistance to any form of coersion within this religious province was increasingly demonstrated by many persons.

We find that the religious life of England at that time was dominated by the Anglican Church, which was the State Church established by law. This was, and had been for nearly a century, Protestant in philosophy and concept. However, there had been developing for some time within the English Church certain groups at variance with accepted procedures; and disagreeing with certain forms and ceremonies as being to "popish." One group, quite moderate in their protests, were known as Puritans. They had no desire to leave the Established Church, but did object to the wearing of vestments, such as the surplice and the cope, and to the idea that the clergy have distinctive dress when outside of church. The Puritans merely wished to "purify" the church of its "Romish leanings." Continued agitation pertaining to these objections finally led to the passage of the "Act of Uniformity" which laid a fine on anyone refusing to attend church; and ministers found in agreement with these Puritan ideas were punished. Puritans willing to obey the Act were called "Conformists;" those refusing to obey became "Non-Conformists," and upon these the ire of the King later descended.

A group of intellectual men, who actually did not want to conform but wished to work out a peaceful solution, met the new king, James I with what was called the Millenary Petition, so-called because it was claimed to have been signed by one thousand ministers of the Church. This occured in 1603. During the following year the King called into session the Hampton Court Conference for the sole purpose of considering the Petition. Under the influence of the Bishops, and fearful of admitting a wedge into the Established Church that might smack of Presbyterianism, he refused to grant the tenets of this Petition and openly declared, "I will make them conform, or else I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse." The plight of the Non-Conformists soon became unbearable; for the King, true to his word, began a program of persecution which left the group little choice--either conform or suffer the consequences. James I had no intention of actually driving anyone out of England, but he did intend that these people would bow to his imperial will and obey his edicts even though harsh measures might have to be employed. The moderates, and those of a lesser caliber, chose to conform; however, those considering it a moral issue with important principles at stake took the extreme position and refused to comply. They became known as Separatists, and began to look for a place of refuge. The only place on the Continent where men were not persecuted for their religious beliefs was Holland. In the year 1608 about a hundred Separatists fled to Holland; still these exiles were not entirely happy in their new homes despite the fact that they were unmolested from the standpoint of religious worship. They referred to themselves as "pilgrims and strangers, longing for a home under the English flag." The new land of America beckoned, but they had neither money nor friends at court. In time, however, they secured permission to settle within the Virginia Company's territory, and found some financial backing by London merchants. Therefore, in 1620, the Mayflower, with thirty-five "pilgrims" and nearly twice that number who were not Separatists, sailed for the New World. The story of their landing and settlement at Plymouth is common knowledge to all. This colony, which never became large, established a pattern however, that was followed by the important colony of Massachusetts in which we are vitally interested.

A group of merchants, some ministers, and others, mostly Puritans, formed the New England Company in 1628, and obtained from the old Council for New England a grant of land with certian boundaries, and immediately sent about forty men who settled at Salem. The next spring this Company secured a charter from King Charles I granting the right of settlement and self-government within certain specified limits; the charter also designated the name to become the Company of Massachusetts Bay. A dozen influential members of the company prepared to move to the new settlement with their families and all of their belongings, thus transferring the actual control of the company to the colony rather than allowing the control to remain in London. This plan was aceepte din the famous Cambridge Agreement; conequently the following year, 1630, the controlling body, with over one thousand persons under the leadership of Governor John Winthrop, crossed the Atlantic and settled on the site of the present city of Boston. The Puritan character of the colony was manifested in several ways: only freemen had voting privileges and only members of a Puritan church were recognized as "freemen;" these represented about one-fifth of the population. The remaining four-fifths of the inhabitants, called "mutes," might live in the colony as long as they did not resist "Church Authority" although they were taxed for the support of the churches along with the regular church members.

Continued persecution of the Puritans in England under Charles I, together with heavy taxes, sent greater numbers to the colonies every year. Particularly was this true during the troubled years of the "Personal Rule without Parliament" of Charles I. During the 1630's two hundred ships carryinh nearly twenty thousand colonists with their belongings and supplies, came to the Massachusetts Bay Colony making it the richest and strongest of any of the early English settlements. While it is true that the desire for religious freedom figured prominently among the causes which led to colonization; nevertheless, it must be recognized that large numbers of people came to these shores seeking opportunities to estblish homes and make their living unfettered by the conflicts and restrictions of Stuart Kings. THe building of houses, and the clearing of land for the growing of crops was fundamental. Soon shipbuilding and fishing became important enterprises together with fur-trading. Within seven years of their landing, the Plymouth Company was able to take up the debt which they owed to the London merchants. This was made possible through the profits in fur-trading and fishing. While constant vigilance had to be exercised to prevent surprise attacks from the Indians, no full-scale war was waged by the natives until the ferocious uprising of the Narraganset Indians, known as King Philip's War, wiped out many of the unprotected settlements. Life in the sea-coast towns, particularly in Boston, rather quickly took on the well-ordered routine of daily living. There was work for all, and, under the stern discipline of the Puritan controlled society, all were working. Thus it was when in 1637 we find the Tidds in Charleston going about their daily work with the others.

Several genealogies, including historical genealogies, contain information relative to the early Tidd families of Massachusetts. (It might be well to state here that not the slightest trace of any other immigration of Tidds has been found anywhere in any of the early colonies.) No single genealogy contains all of the names of the earliest Tidd family; however a compliation of the genealogies gives us, as nearly as possible, a complete and accurate account. Thus, it is found that in the year 1637 a certain John Tidd and family were living in Charlestown of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Whether or not this is the exact year of his immigration is not important. Related incidents have led historians to accept 1637 as the year of his settlement in the colony; at least, it is known that he was living in Charlestown at that time. In his will, probated several years later, he identifies himself as "being a tailor." His former place of residence is given as Hertford, England. Upon making application he was admitted to church membership on March 10, 1639 in Charlestown; which fact lends credence to the acceptance that John Tidd was established as a worthwhile and dependable citizen, because church membership was not extended to persons until a reasonable period of "testing" had proved the applicant's qualifactions conformed to the rigid church requirements. An interesting point shows up here in the record--Joshua Tidd, a presumed brother of John Tidd was also admitted to church membership on March 10, 1639.

On April 23, 1638, the Charlestown Proprietors had land laid out to them "on Mystic side" toward what later became Malden, and at that time John Tidd received lot No. 86 on the basis of a taxable estate of [pounds symbol] 10/20s [schillings], while Joshua Tidd received lot No. 74 on the basis of a taxable estate of [pounds symbol] 5/15s. Neither one removed to that locality.

A few words will suffice relative to Joshua Tidd, for, according to all genealogies, he did not figure prominently in establishing a direct perpetuating line. His wife, Sarah, died in 1677. He soon married a woman named Rhoda; however, this marriage did not last long for he died in 1678 at the age of 71. Thus his date of birth stands as 1607, which fits nicely into the picture as being a brother of John Tidd. Joshua became quite prosperous; the record shows that he owned a small vessel for the purpose of fur trading, several pieces of land, and a salt-house for the curing of fish.

As time went on, John acquired eight pieces of land in Charlestown, as well as one and three-quarters "cow commons," having purchased the three-quarter portion. The pieces of land varied in size from one acre to several acres. He must have become fairly prosperous for, when Thomas Moulton was removing to "mystic side," John was able to purchase the Moulton home in Charlestown.

In May, 1640, Charlestown petitioned the General Court for additional land which was granted, and in December, 1640, thirty two men who planned to settle on it, signed the "Town Orders" as original propietors of what in 1642 was named Woburn. John Tidd and Francis Kendall were among the signers and they soon removed to the new location where land must be cleared, houses built, and the whole process of pioneering gone through once more. John Tidd lived in this place the remainder of his life. He was made sergeant of the training band in Woburn in 1643 and again in 1646, becoming the "first citizen of Woburn named by a military title in the records." The earliest extant tax list shows that he was taxed for the "country rate" (colony tax) in 1645. He was, in the same year, chosen "surveyor of fences," and important position in a pioneer locality. In 1646 he had the task of "ringing the bell for church and town meetings," for which service the town "owed" him [pounds symbol] 1/10s. In 1647 he helped collect the local taxes, and later served as "Commissioner for the Country Rate." All information points to the conclusion that John Tidd was a prominent and respected citizen of Woburn; and that he was fairly prosperous is evidenced by the fact that at his death in 1656 his net worth was appraised at [pounds sign] 163, no mean sum for that early period.

One item of considerable interest portraying his mettle and courage appears in 1653, when, with others, he signed a petition to the General Court which dared to express an opinion entirely divergent from a ruling of that body. That petition throughout the years has been called the "Woburn Memorial for Christian Liberty," and they who signed it were dubbed "the bold petitioners."

John Tidd was born in or before 1600. His children were all born before his coming to the colony of Massachusetts. His wife was named Margaret, and the following were their children, although possibly not listed in the proper chronological order: Hannah, Samuel, Elizabeth, Mary, John, Joseph, and James.

John Tidd's wife, Margaret, died in Woburn in 1651; later he married Alice, who out-lived him and was mentioned in his will. His daughter Hannah, married William Savell in 1641; to this union were born four children: John, Samuel, Benjamin, and Hannah. His daughter Mary, married Francis Kendall in 1644; to them at least one child was born, named John Kendall. His daughter Elizabeth, married Thomas Fuller in 1643; to them at least on child was born, named Thomas Fuller. John Tidd's son, Samuel, married and to them was born a daughter. John Tidd's son, John, was born in England in 1625, and in 1650 he married Rebecca Wood in Woburn, where he resided for several years. Later he removed to Lexington, known early as "Cambridge Farms." To John and Rebecca were born eight children: Hannah, John, Mary, Samuel, James, Joseph, Rebecca, and Daniel. As to John Tidd's son Joseph, and son James, there is no further genealogical record. Neither son was mentioned in the father's will. It is thought possible that each son might have been given a portion directly by the father before his death; or that distance or other causes had so separated them that their whereabouts was unknown. There is no record that either son ever lived in Woburn again.

On April 9, 1656 John Tidd made his will, and on April 24 of the same year, he died. The will was proved on November 10, 1656, by Thomas Danforth, Recorder. (Only the pertinent items will be reconstructed.)

"I, John Tidd, senior, of Woburn Town, in the County of Middlesex, Tailor, being in good and perfect memory--bequeath to my beloved wife Alice the house wherein I now dwell together with the orchard and land thereunto belonging--until the day of her death or six years after her next marriage, providing it be kept in good repair, and then to come and remain to my three grandchildren Benjamin Savell, Hannah Savell, and my son Samuel's daughter, equal between them.

Item - I give to my (other) two grandchildren, John Savell, and Samuel Savell, twenty shillings to either of them.

Item - I, John, do give to my son John the value of [pounds] 5 to be paid withing two years of my decease--It is further my will that my son (in-law) Savell shall keep the portions bequeathed to my grandchildren till they become of age as well as my son Samuel's daughter, as his own.

Item - I give to my two grandchildren, Thomas Fuller and John Kendall, sixteen acres of land lately purchased of Thomas Chamberlain equally to be divided between them, and one parcel of meadow lying in Step Rock to be divided among them also."

Attached was a copy of appraisement made in July, 1656. "An Investory of the lands, goods, chattels late belonging to 'Sargeant' John Tidd of Woburn. Total value [pounds] 163. duly signed - Edward John, John Monsall, Samuel Walker. duly recorded - Thomas Danforth, Recorder."

It is apparent from the foregoing will that Samuel Tidd had died prior to the death of John Tidd. A search of records has revealed two very important pieces of information. (1) That under date of August 26, 1650, a grant of land was made to Samuel Tidd. (2) The following "testamentary paper" probably written by his wife, but was endorsed by the Court as "Samuel Tidd's Will, 1651." "Samuel Tidd upon his death bed did wish and desire me to give unto his three brethern, to each of them, one of his suights (suits) and the rest of his estate I to have to myself. This my husband spoke the day of his death being in perfect memory and understanding. The mark of Samuel Tidd Accepted by the Court."

The great importance of this "testamentary paper" is as follows: (1) If John Tidd gave to son Samuel a grant of land six years before his death, it is reasonable to suppose that he, John, might have settled some portion of his belongings on his other sons, Joseph and James; hence it would not have been necessary to have named them in his will. In other words, the fact that Joseph and James were not mentioned in the will does not in any way prove that they did not exist. (2) If further evidence is necessary to prove the existence of Joseph and James as sons of John Tidd let us again look to the "testamentary paper" which was accepted by the Court as "Samuel Tidd's Will, 1651." In it we read "Samuel Tidd upon his death bed did wish and desire me to give unto his three brethern, to each of them, one of his suights (suits)." Turning to the list of chldren of John Tidd we find the following names: John, Samuel, Joseph, and James. Taking into consideration the fact that we are critically appraising the will of Samuel Tidd, it becomes very obvious that his intention was to give to John, to Joseph, and to James, each, one of his suits.

A cursory reading of the genealogies dealing with the early Tidds could easily lead to confusion and misunderstandingas it has so obviously done in the past. Historians, hunting for the beginnings of the early families of New England, and elsewhere, often jump to conclusions without having made a thorough and critical examination of the material and information available. Sometimes the information is so confusing and meager that the most astute searcher becomes guilty of precipitance. When others try to build upon their faulty premise, the result is often a complete distortion of the facts. This has been the case whereby certain conclusions drawn and perpetuated by careless or incompetent persons has caused considerable misunderstandings when read in the Tidd genealogies.

An item of information appeared at one time concerning a John Tidd, 19 years of age, who was a servant (indentured) of Samuel Greenfield of Norwich. Said John Tidd sailed from Yarmouth, England May 12, 1637, landing in Charlestown, Massachusetts the same year. Information was also accessable that a John Tidd joined the church in 1639 in Charlestown, Mass. Also that a John Tidd signed the "Town orders" in 1640 which brought into being the town of Woburn. The avid, though precocious, historian finding so many John Tidds in the same general area and at about the same time, jumped to the conclusion that they were one and the same person. But when he tried to arrange them genealogically and chronologically, he ran into the following difficulties--how could he correlate the fact that in one case John Tidd had three daughters, all marrying between the years 1641 and 1644, with the fact that in the other case, John Tidd, age 19, sailed from Yarmouth, England in 1637. Obviously there was no possible correlation. Therefore this unscientific researcher glibly proposed the idea that the John Tidd, father of three daughters, actually was the same person who sailed from England in 1637 but that he falsified his age in order to procure ship-passage. Another would-be historian suggested that the John Tidd who sailed from England at the age of 19 was the son of John Tidd, the father of three daughters. This was only slightly less absurd than the first proposal, because John Tidd, the son of John Tidd, was born in 1625. It can easily be seen that in 1637 he would have been but twelve years of age, and could scarcely have passed as a person of 19 years of age. No other proposals were forthcoming, and there the matter rested. A reader of the genealogies of the Tidds could accept either proposal or substitute one of his own; consequently, work of this type has done much to discourage and confuse the person who must rely on the information available.

Time passed and no additional light was shed on the subject until 1949, when Mary Backus, working on the genealogy of a New England family, traced Samuel Greenfield, his family and servant, John Tidd, from Charlestown in 1637 to Salem, thence to Hampton and finally to Exeter, New Hampshire, where on May 12, 1643 the two men signed a petition to the General Court. As John Tidd, he was listed in Exeter on November 4, 1647. This carried him well past the says of the early settlement of Woburn during which time John Tidd of Woburn was playing a prominent part in the daily life of the Massachusetts town. Thus the mystery of the double identity and the absurd accusation of age falsification has been cleared.

The founding of Woburn (1640-1642), in which John Tidd played an important part, was representative of similar activities by all of the sea-coast towns. The thousands that poured into the Massachusetts towns during the decade of the 1630's necessitated the movement into the interior. While at first, the new areas to be settled were contiguous; nevertheless, the adventurous pioneers were soon pushing into regions well back from the coast line. Thomas Hooker had led his group of "petitioners who desired to transport themselves and their estates unto the River Connecticut, there to reside and inhabit," in what became a major enterprise. The towns of Hartford, Windsor, and Wethersfield were established on 'the long river;' and by 1650 several settlements were made in the vicinity of what is now Springfield. Several reasons were responsible for this "hinterland push." The attraction of the rich valley land of the Connecticut River was tremendous when one compares that land with the thin, stony soil of eastern Massachusetts. In addition to the richness of the soil from a farming standpoint, numerous sites had been found where "bog ore" occurred in sufficient quantity and of a quality that merited smelting operations. The rapidly increasing demand for iron products (such as kettles, fire-place equipment, common hardware necessities, and guns) had sorely taxed the capabilities of England to provide; consequently, every effort was made to find and use nearby supplies of minerals. Only slightly less important, within the field of mineral deposits, was the discovery of "clay pits" that gave rise to the rapid development of the "glazed earthenware" industry which provided all types of crockery dishes and jugs, for which the pioneer housewife could find no substitute. The immense natural resources of the forests gave rise to one of the most important of the Colonial industries--that of ship-building. Large quantities of lumber of all types and for all purposes were shipped directly to England to augment its diminishing supplies. Not only were the colonies self-supporting from the standpoint of major food products, but very soon they were shipping large amounts of food to the mother country. English officials looked with pleasure upon the prospects of large quantities of raw materials being supplied by the colonies; in fact, the leading figures in England considered this to be the main benefit of colonization. Thus, unhampered by restrictions, the economic life within the colonies was one of expanding activity. Some road-building was attempted; however, the rivers were the main arteries of travel and transportation. Although the area along the lower reaches of the Hudson River was closed to the English colonists, they had penetrated to the middle areas of the Hudson River Valley and established several settlements within this region long before the end of the 1600's.

Henry Hudson, an experienced English navigator in the service of the Dutch East India Company, in 1609 sailed up the river that bears his name. Just prior to his discovery of the Hudson River, he had sailed and explored the lower reaches of the Delaware River. The claim of the Dutch on this area was further strengthened when Captain Jacob Mey of Holland, in 1613, landed and built a fort on what is now Gloucester Point, New Jersey. Later, in 1631, Fort Oplandt was built and a settlement was established. This settlement was well supplied with cattle, seed, agricultural implements, and household furnishings. Considerable progress was made by this group until the leadership passed into the hands of Giles Osset, who soon aroused the enmity of the Indians. Things went from bad to worse, with the result that the Indians massacred most of the inhabitants and burned all of the buildings. The place was entirely rebuilt by the Dutch, only to be destroyed by the English in 1664. Peter Minuit, in 1638, esatblished a settlement at what is now Wilmington; this too, was captured by the English at the time when the Dutch power in the New World was broken. A few minor settlements were made by the Dutch only to be taken over by the Swedes, who were their early colonial rivals in this area, although this enmity did not involve the mother countries, who were allies, at least on the surface.

Queen Christina, of Sweden, afflicted with a mild case of "colonizing fever," desired to establish some Swedish colonies; therefore, she was instrumental in equipping an expedition under Captain Pritnz, who, in 1643, built a fort and established a settlement farther up the Delaware River on Tinicum Island. Despite the fact that this fort changed hands several times, the building itself stood until the year 1800. The Swedes were very successful with their settlements, partly due to their industrious work habits, and partly to realizing that farming must be the fundamental enterprise within a new colony. Soon prosperous Swedish settlements dotted both sides of the Delaware. Governor Printz built the first grist mill on Cobbs Creek, a tributary of the Schuykill River. His daughter received land and built a very fine house at Printz Village, near what is now Chester, Pennsylvania. Incidentally, this house was slept in by William Penn on the first night of his arrival in America. Successful tobacco culture, the growing of grain, and the production of cattle-horses-and hogs, added to the reputation of Printz as a colonizer. He soon built a fort at the mouth of Salem Creek to challenge all intruders.