The daily morning journal and courier., 1896-08-19


 grated, and ten speak of three Munson brothers, On examining these twelve traditions one is impressed with the idea that they are devoid of validity. Two of them settle.the three emigrants in "Connecticut," and seven settle them in dozen places, no two agreeing. For some occult reason, the eonjectural number of migrating brothers Is quite commonly three. There is interesting peculiarity in a tradition furnished by Ezra (S), of Illinois: Three young men by the name of Munson came from England in the seventeenth century; one ded two married and raised large families; one family was composed of girls, the other of boys; the latter were the ancestors of the people named Nun son. Our researches find nothing in support of this story. Seven traditions mention two brothers as migrating; but in two cases, the Munsons migrating are of the sixth generations: in another of the fourth, in another of the third, and no one of the sixth appears to be of any consequence One of thenh probably two of them, were invented to account for the New Haven and the Wallingford divisions of the family, which originated, as we know, in the second and third generations. Four traditions speak of one immigrant as the source of our family; while this view Is supported by investigation, the traditions are invalid, as one of them goes only to the second generation, one to the third, one to the fourth, and the nf HA tta e IL c.. sheds no light on the question, How many Munsons originally immigrated? Research discovers, among the prlmi- tive colonists, only one man named Munson It should be observed, how ever, that as early as 1644 the marriage of 6 woman, Anne Munson, occurred at Springfield, Mass.
 III. What was the period of the first Munson migration?
 We have already touched this ques- tion incidentally. Four writers men ton their own ancestry as immigrating without indicating whether the persons named were understood to be the an- eestors of us all; but two of these mil grations were in the sixth generation, viz, Joseph K. (6) and the brothers Da- vid(O and Isaac (6), and two were in the fifth, viz, Samuel (5) and Lieuten- ant Levi (5). Of the general traditions one carries the migration back to the landing of the Pilgrims or soon after that event. another to "the first expedi- tion after the Mayhower," and third to date soon after the Pilgrims land- ed. We disbelieve immediately that these are primitive traditions; they are traditionary coDjectures, mediaeval imaginings,-or they may be modern guesses. One mixed tradition locates the migration in the fifth generation. Three or four others locate it in the fourth generation, making Obadiah (G, Daniel t4), and Caleb (D, respectively, the source of the family. Three tradi- tions locate the coming over in the third generation; of course the third posed Two or three others locate the removal of the family in the second generation. apparently, one of them dating it about the time of the Wal lingford settlement; while this period is early, 1t Is too late. No genuine tra- dit.on concerning the time of the mi grafton goes back far enough; each goes back as far as it's memory can reach, but never to the beginning.
 ". Where, according to the tradi- tions, did the family first settle?
 Two brothers in Connecticut; three brothers i'll Connecticut, according to two traditions, one pioneer near the mouth of Connecticut river; eight brothers settled in or near New Haven; of three brothers, one settled in Con- nectieut, one went south, and one to Canada; of three brothers, one settled in Massachusetts, one in Rhode Island, and one in Connecticut; of three broth CTS, two settled in New Haven, and the other went to New Hampshire; of three brothers, one settled in New Haven, one on Long Island, and the third in Vermont; of three Munsons, one settled in Boston, one in New Haven, and one on Long Island; of three brothers, one settled in Wallingford, one in Massa- chusetts, and one in Rhode Island; of two brothers, one settled in New Haven and the other in Wallingford, according to two distinct traditions. Some of these traditional settlements appear to
 
 relate to descendants of the original settler if any are genuine and authen- tic, research has hitherto failed to dis cover and verify the fact. There is no real evidence that in the earliest time any male Munson settled in Walling- ford, or Boston, or Massachusetts or Vermont, or Canada, or Rhode slli.d, or the south. Twepty-seven years af- ter Thomas Munson appears in Hart ford, Richard Munson is found in Portsmouth, New Hampshire; it has been, and is, my firm belief that the Munson name came to that settlement by a separate migration. As to Long Island, one John Munson was dwelling in Brook Haven, March 1, 1712-13; be- fore May 20, 1715, he had removed to Derby, Conn. His wife was Hannah. Their son John, born April 24, 1890, mar ried Elizabeth* This second John re- moved to New Concord, in the county of Albany and province of New York, where he was living December 25, ITO. can give no account of the origin of John Munson of Brook Haven, Long Island. The mention of Massachusetts a moment ago may be qualified in this way: It is probable that our pioneer, Thomas Munson, sojourned for an un- certain time in some old Massachusetts Bay settlement before migrating to the Connecticut river. Perhaps in the fu- ture more light upon some of these tra- ditional settlements may break forth from some oI1arter I do not feel san-