Zum Hauptinhalt springen

Eine Fellowship der Robert David Lion Gardiner Foundation · Stony Brook University

Town of IslipGeschichtsprojektGeschichtsprojekt der Town of Islip
Suchen

Für Lehrkräfte

Aktivitäten mit Primärquellen

Sieben kurze Aktivitäten, jede auf Grundlage eines einzelnen echten Dokuments aus der Geschichte von Islip. Jede gibt den Schülerinnen und Schülern einen kurzen Auszug, verständlichen Kontext, Vokabular und Fragen, die von der Herkunft der Quelle über das genaue Lesen bis zum historischen Denken führen.

Tipp: Nutzen Sie den Druckbefehl Ihres Browsers, um diese Seite zu drucken oder als PDF zu speichern.

Signing the Articles of Association, 1775

We, the Freemen, Freeholders, and inhabitants of Islip Precinct... do, in the most solemn manner, resolve never to become slaves; and do associate under the ties of religion, honor, and love to our country to adopt and endeavor to carry into execution, whatever measure may be recommended by the Continental Congress.

The Islip Precinct Articles of Association, May 10, 1775

Vollständige Quelle öffnen

Kontext

On May 10, 1775, weeks after the fighting at Lexington and Concord, Islip Precinct held a special meeting where residents could sign a local pledge to support the decisions of the Continental Congress. Signing was a serious act. The Town Historian explains that putting your name on this paper was treated as treason against the King. The record notes that about 35 eligible men signed, and only five residents were listed as refusing.

Vokabular

Articles of Association:
A written pledge that residents signed to promise they would support the Continental Congress and stand together against new British taxes and laws.
freeholder:
A person who owned land. In this period, land ownership often decided who could vote and sign public documents.
treason:
The crime of acting against your own government or ruler. Signing this pledge could be treated as treason against the King.
reconciliation:
Making peace and settling a disagreement. The signers said they still hoped Great Britain and America could reconcile.

Fragen zur Herkunft der Quelle

  1. Who wrote and signed this document, and what were they trying to do by putting their names on it?
  2. When was this signed, and what recent event (Lexington and Concord) might have pushed Islip residents to act in May 1775?
  3. This text comes to us through the Town Historian's records. Why might a historian want to know exactly how many people signed and how many refused?

Fragen zum genauen Lesen

  1. The signers say they "resolve never to become slaves." What do you think they meant by that phrase, and who in Islip was actually held in slavery at the time and could not sign?
  2. Find the words that show the signers still hoped for peace with Great Britain. Does the document sound like people who wanted a total break, or something more cautious?
  3. The record says women, enslaved people, free Black people, Native Americans, children, and Quakers were excluded or could not sign. How does that change how you read the words "We, the Freemen, Freeholders, and inhabitants of Islip Precinct"?

Fragen zum historischen Denken

  1. Only about 35 people signed, out of a precinct of roughly 375 residents. What does that number tell us, and what does it leave out?
  2. Signing was risky and could be called treason. Why might a person choose to sign anyway, and why might a neighbor choose not to?
  3. This document shows Islip residents making a political choice before any British soldiers arrived. How does that complicate the idea that people on Long Island were simply forced into one side or the other?

Warum ist das heute wichtig?

When people today sign a petition or add their name to a public statement, what are they risking or hoping to gain? How is that similar to or different from signing this pledge in 1775?

Schreibauftrag

Imagine you are a resident of Islip Precinct in May 1775 deciding whether to sign. Write a short paragraph explaining your choice. Name one reason to sign and one reason to be afraid, and be clear about which choice you make.

The 1776 Town Gun: Evidence and Inference

A Gun and the accutriments paid for at Said Town Meeting which are the property of the towns.

Islip Town Minutes, April 1776

Vollständige Quelle öffnen

Kontext

At the April 1776 town meeting, the clerk recorded that the town paid for "a Gun and the accutriments" and that these were the property of the town. That same year, elected leaders Isaac Thompson and Benajah Strong were helping organize Islip's militia company. It is tempting to connect the gun to the militia, but the minutes do not say why the town bought it. The date is suggestive, and the purpose is still an open research question.

Vokabular

accoutrements:
The extra equipment that goes with a piece of gear. For a gun, this could mean things like a powder horn, shot, or a carrying strap. The clerk spelled it "accutriments."
town property:
Something owned by the whole town together, not by one person. The minutes say the gun belonged to the town.
evidence:
The facts a source actually gives you. Here, the evidence is that the town bought a gun and recorded it as town property in April 1776.
inference:
A guess or conclusion you reach by reasoning beyond the evidence. Saying the gun was "for the militia" is an inference, not something the record states.

Fragen zur Herkunft der Quelle

  1. What kind of record is this, and why would a town clerk write down that the town had bought a gun?
  2. The minutes list who was elected to town offices in the same year. How does knowing that Thompson and Strong were both town officers and militia organizers shape the questions we can ask?
  3. This entry is very short. What does the clerk choose to record, and what does the clerk leave out?

Fragen zum genauen Lesen

  1. Read the sentence carefully. Exactly what does it tell you the town did, and what does it never mention?
  2. The minutes call the gun "the property of the towns." Why might it matter that the gun belonged to the whole town rather than to one person?
  3. Which of these statements is evidence and which is inference: (a) "The town bought a gun in 1776," and (b) "The gun was for the militia"? Explain how you can tell them apart.

Fragen zum historischen Denken

  1. Why is it important for a historian to say clearly which parts of a claim come from the source and which parts are a guess?
  2. What other reasons, besides a militia, might a town in 1776 have had to own a gun? List a few possibilities you cannot rule out.
  3. If you could find one more document to help answer why the town bought the gun, what would you look for, and where might you search?

Warum ist das heute wichtig?

Today we often see a fact online and quickly assume what it means. How can practicing the difference between evidence and inference help you judge what you read now?

Schreibauftrag

Write two short sentences about the town gun. In the first, state only what the record proves. In the second, state a careful guess about its purpose and begin it with the words "We cannot be sure, but it is possible that..."

Meeting Under the King's Name, 1777 to 1783

At a Town Meeting of Said Presinct held the first Tuesday of April in the Seventeenth year of his present Majesties Reign George the Third King of Great Britain &:C:... Isaac Thompson Supervisor.

Islip Town Minutes, April 1777

Vollständige Quelle öffnen

Kontext

British and Loyalist forces occupied Long Island from September 1776 until late 1783. Through all of it, Islip held its yearly town meeting every April, elected its usual officers, and kept its accounts. Because these were legal records made under Crown authority during the occupation, the clerk was required to date each meeting by the reign of King George III. This was the standard legal dating formula clerks had to use. It is not evidence that the townspeople were Loyalists or supported the King. Isaac Thompson, who had signed the patriot Articles of Association in 1775, was re-elected supervisor at every one of these meetings.

Vokabular

occupation:
When a foreign army takes control of a place and stays there. British and Loyalist forces occupied Long Island for most of the war.
regnal year:
Counting years by how long a king has reigned. "The Seventeenth year of his present Majesties Reign" means the 17th year that George III had been king.
legal dating formula:
The official, required wording clerks had to use to date a legal record. Under Crown rule, that formula named the king, whatever the clerk's own beliefs.
Loyalist:
A colonist who stayed loyal to the King and Great Britain during the Revolution. The King's name in these records does not by itself make the townspeople Loyalists.

Fragen zur Herkunft der Quelle

  1. Who wrote these headings, and why was a town clerk required to use this exact wording during the occupation?
  2. These meetings happened while a foreign army controlled Long Island. How might occupation have affected what the clerk was allowed to write?
  3. The same man, Isaac Thompson, signed a patriot pledge in 1775 and is named supervisor in these records. Why is it useful to know that about the person in the source?

Fragen zum genauen Lesen

  1. The 1777 heading dates the meeting by "his present Majesties Reign George the Third." Based on the context, is that the clerk's personal opinion, or a required legal formula? How can you tell?
  2. Aside from the dateline, what ordinary town business is still happening in these meetings? What does that tell you about daily life under occupation?
  3. Why might it be a mistake to read the words "King George the third" and conclude that Islip's people supported the King?

Fragen zum historischen Denken

  1. Historians warn against reading the King's name here as proof of loyalty. Why is it important to understand the rules a source had to follow before judging what it means?
  2. How can a town "keep governing itself" and re-elect a patriot supervisor while its records still carry the King's name? What does that reveal about how messy the road to independence really was?
  3. Compare these wartime headings with the way you would expect a town to record a meeting. What surprises you, and what does that surprise teach you about occupied Long Island?

Warum ist das heute wichtig?

Sometimes people must follow official rules or formats they did not choose and may not agree with. How can knowing the rules behind a document help you understand what it really tells you about the people who made it?

Schreibauftrag

A classmate reads "King George the third" in these minutes and says, "So Islip supported the King." Write a short reply, three or four sentences, explaining why the King's name in the dateline does not prove that.

Caring for Johanna Hutton, 1782 to 1783

It is Voted by the majority of the town that Johanah Hutton & Her Child for to begin at the west End of the town[.] & Each family to ceape [keep] ther in perposhion [proportion] as they are Rated.

Islip Town Minutes, poor relief, 1783

Vollständige Quelle öffnen

Kontext

Long before public welfare systems, the town itself was responsible for its poorest residents, and overseers of the poor were elected every April. In 1783, in the middle of the occupation, the town voted to care for Johanna Hutton and her child by having families take turns keeping them, family by family, in proportion to what each was taxed. Account entries written beside the 1782 minutes record payments to a "Joanna Hudson," apparently the same woman with her name spelled a different way.

Vokabular

overseers of the poor:
Town officers, elected each April, whose job was to arrange care and support for the town's poorest residents.
poor relief:
Help given to people who could not support themselves, such as food, money, or a place to stay. Here, the town organized it through the whole community.
in proportion as they are rated:
Each family contributed according to how much it was taxed. Wealthier, higher-taxed families were expected to give more.
rated:
Assessed for taxes. A family's "rate" was the amount of tax it owed, which the town used to divide the cost of care.

Fragen zur Herkunft der Quelle

  1. What kind of record is this, and who at the town meeting decided how Johanna Hutton and her child would be cared for?
  2. The town spelled her name "Johanah Hutton" in the minutes but "Joanna Hudson" in the accounts beside the 1782 records. Why should a careful reader treat these as apparently, not certainly, the same person?
  3. This vote was taken in 1783, while Long Island was still occupied. What does it tell you that the town kept handling poor relief during the war?

Fragen zum genauen Lesen

  1. The plan says families would keep her "in perposhion as they are Rated." In your own words, how did the town decide which families paid the most?
  2. What can and cannot this short entry tell us about Johanna Hutton herself, such as her age, her health, or how she came to need help?
  3. The clerk's spelling is uneven, with words like "ceape" for keep and "perposhion" for proportion. What does that tell you about writing and record-keeping in this time and place?

Fragen zum historischen Denken

  1. Why do historians say Hutton and Hudson are "apparently" the same woman instead of stating it as a fact? What would it take to be sure?
  2. This is one of the few places an ordinary poor woman enters Islip's public record. What do we gain by studying a document like this, and what voices are still missing from it?
  3. The town shared the cost of care across families by tax rate. What does that method suggest about how this community understood its responsibility to its neighbors?

Warum ist das heute wichtig?

Today, communities still argue about how to share the cost of caring for people in need. How is Islip's 1783 plan, where families gave in proportion to what they were taxed, similar to or different from how we fund help for others now?

Schreibauftrag

Using only what the record actually says, write a short paragraph describing how Islip planned to care for Johanna Hutton and her child. Then add one sentence beginning "One thing this record does not tell us is..." to name a question the source leaves open.

1784: Islip Dates Its Records by American Independence

At a town meting of the precenct held the first tuesday in April by the Authority of the good People of the State of new york and in the Eighth year of the American Independence...

Islip town minutes, April 1784 heading

Vollständige Quelle öffnen

Kontext

For every wartime meeting from 1777 to 1783, Islip's clerk was required to open the town record with the reign of King George III, because that was the standard legal dating formula for official records under Crown authority. It was not a sign that the townspeople were Loyalists. The British left New York in November 1783. When the town gathered the next April, the clerk opened the record with new words: the authority of the people of the State of New York and the year of American independence. Isaac Thompson, who had been supervisor through the whole war, was re-elected under the new heading.

Vokabular

precinct:
An early unit of local government. Islip was called the Precinct of Islip before it was recognized as a Town.
regnal year:
Counting the year by how long a king has reigned. Wartime clerks were legally required to date records by the reign of King George III; this was a formula, not proof of loyalty to the King.
American Independence (as a dating system):
Counting years from 1776, the year of the Declaration of Independence. The 'Eighth year of the American Independence' means 1784.
supervisor:
The town's top elected officer, who oversaw town business and accounts.

Fragen zur Herkunft der Quelle

  1. Who wrote this line, and for what kind of record was it written?
  2. Why would a town clerk open a routine meeting record with a statement about who holds authority?
  3. This heading opens the same annual meeting the town had held for decades. What can a record's opening words tell us that the list of officers elected cannot?

Fragen zum genauen Lesen

  1. Whose authority does the 1784 heading name, and how is that different from the 'his Majesty King George the third' wording used in the wartime headings?
  2. The clerk writes 'the Eighth year of the American Independence.' Counting forward from 1776, do the numbers add up to 1784? What does that tell you about how the town was now measuring time?
  3. Nothing else about the April 1784 meeting changed: the same offices, the same accounts. If the meeting stayed the same, what exactly changed in this heading?

Fragen zum historischen Denken

  1. Historians are careful to say the King's name in the wartime headings was a required legal formula, not proof the townspeople were Loyalists. Why does that distinction matter when we read the 1784 change?
  2. The Revolution is often pictured as battles. Here it arrives as a change in a record's opening words. What does that suggest about how big historical changes can show up in ordinary documents?
  3. Isaac Thompson was re-elected supervisor under both the King's-reign headings and the new independence heading. What does it tell us that the same person led the town through both dating systems?

Warum ist das heute wichtig?

Governments today still put their authority in official documents, on money, on courthouses, and in oaths. Why does it still matter in whose name a government says it acts?

Schreibauftrag

Imagine you are Islip's town clerk in April 1784, writing the first meeting record since the British left. In three to four sentences, explain to a reader two hundred years later why you chose to date the record by 'the American Independence' instead of by the King's reign.

Who Lived in Islip: The 1798 Conklin Description

There are in this Town about one hundred and twenty dweling [dwelling] houses twenty-five of which Indians, Mustees and free Negros live in.

Nathaniel Conklin, 'Description of the Town of Islip in Suffolk County,' January 11, 1798

Vollständige Quelle öffnen

Kontext

Supervisor Nathaniel Conklin wrote this description in 1798 to defend Islip's boundaries in a dispute with Huntington, but he ended up giving a full portrait of the town fifteen years after the Revolution: the farms, the bay's oysters and clams, the schoolhouses, the taverns, and who lived in the town's roughly 120 houses. In this passage he counts about 25 of those houses as home to Indian, mixed-ancestry, and free Black families. That means roughly one in five households in Islip was Native, mixed-ancestry, or free Black in the first generation after independence.

Vokabular

dwelling houses:
Houses where people lived. Conklin counted about 120 of them in the whole town.
Mustee (Mustees):
A term used in the historical period for people of mixed ancestry, commonly Native American and African. It is a word from Conklin's time; we explain it as a period term and do not use it as a label for people today.
free Negros:
Conklin's spelling for free Black people, meaning Black residents who were not enslaved. We quote his exact words but describe these neighbors today as free Black residents.
supervisor:
The town's top elected officer. Conklin was Islip's supervisor when he wrote this description.

Fragen zur Herkunft der Quelle

  1. Conklin wrote this to win a boundary argument with Huntington, not to record the town's people. How might that purpose have shaped what he chose to count and describe?
  2. Conklin was the town supervisor. What did his position let him know about the town's houses and households?
  3. This is one man's description from a single year. What kinds of people living in Islip might a count of 'houses' still leave out or undercount?

Fragen zum genauen Lesen

  1. Conklin says about 25 of roughly 120 houses were home to these families. Roughly what fraction of the town's households is that?
  2. The passage groups three different communities, Indian, Mustee, and free Black families, into one sentence. What does that grouping tell us, and what does it hide about these neighbors as distinct people?
  3. Conklin uses the period word 'Mustees' for people of mixed ancestry. Why do we quote his exact word but explain it rather than repeat it as a label for people today?

Fragen zum historischen Denken

  1. The Articles of Association that Islip signed in 1775 could not be signed by enslaved people, free Black people, or Native Americans. How does this 1798 count of who actually lived in Islip complicate the story of who the Revolution's promise was for?
  2. This single sentence is one of the only records that names these families' presence at all. What are the risks of reconstructing people's lives from a count made by someone else, for another purpose?
  3. Conklin's description and the town's poor-relief minutes both mention people of color in Islip. Why is it useful for a historian to compare more than one kind of record about the same community?

Warum ist das heute wichtig?

Islip has been a diverse town since its earliest records, not only in recent times. Why does it matter to know that a community's mix of peoples goes back to its founding generation?

Schreibauftrag

Conklin's sentence tells us about 25 households existed but almost nothing about the people in them. In four to five sentences, write down three specific questions you would want a historian to research about these Native, mixed-ancestry, and free Black families, and explain why each question matters.

York and Elizabeth: A 1783 Marriage Record

York, a Black servant to William Nicoll, Esq. ... Elizabeth, a free Indian Woman.

St. John's Episcopal Church parish record of a 1783 marriage

Vollständige Quelle öffnen

Kontext

A St. John's Episcopal Church parish booklet records a 1783 marriage between York, described as a Black servant to William Nicoll, and Elizabeth, described as a free Indian woman. The church noted that this record, together with others, offers a glimpse of the population of Islip Grange at the time: small, but ethnically mixed. York and Elizabeth appear only briefly in the record, yet they are part of Islip's real history. Records like this one document Black and Native people, some enslaved or formerly enslaved, whose lives were rarely written down.

Vokabular

parish record:
A record kept by a church of events like baptisms, marriages, and burials. Often it is the only surviving written trace of a person's life.
servant:
A word used in the records for a person who worked in a household. In this period the term could describe an enslaved person, so historians read it with care rather than assuming it means paid, freely chosen work.
free:
Not enslaved. The record calls Elizabeth 'a free Indian Woman,' which tells us she was not held in bondage, while York is not described as free.
Islip Grange:
The name of the early landholding tied to the Nicoll family that became part of the Town of Islip.

Fragen zur Herkunft der Quelle

  1. This marriage was written down by a church, not by York or Elizabeth themselves. How might that change what the record tells us, and what it leaves out?
  2. The record describes York and Elizabeth by their relationship to William Nicoll and by their status ('servant,' 'free'). What did the person keeping the record think was most important to note?
  3. A church booklet is the only source here. What other kinds of records might a historian look for to learn more about York and Elizabeth's lives?

Fragen zum genauen Lesen

  1. The record calls York 'a Black servant to William Nicoll' and Elizabeth 'a free Indian Woman.' What does the difference in how each person is described tell us about their situations?
  2. York's freedom is not mentioned, while Elizabeth's is. What does that silence make you wonder about York's status?
  3. Two people are marrying, yet the record identifies them mostly by race, status, and their tie to a landowner. What does this tell us about how people of color were recorded in this period?

Fragen zum historischen Denken

  1. York and Elizabeth appear in just a line or two. Why are brief records like this so important for telling the full history of a community?
  2. We must handle this record with dignity and accuracy. What is the difference between using York and Elizabeth to represent a theme and respecting them as two real people whose inner lives we cannot recover?
  3. Founding stories often center patentees, officials, and landowning families. How does this marriage record change the picture of who lived in early Islip?

Warum ist das heute wichtig?

Every community's history includes people whose names barely made it into the records. Why is it worth the effort today to find, preserve, and honor those brief traces?

Schreibauftrag

York and Elizabeth are real people we know almost nothing about. In four to five sentences, write about what this single record does tell us for certain, and then explain why a historian must be careful not to invent details the record does not give.
Zurück zu den Unterrichtsmaterialien