The Myth of Russian Collusion The Inside Story

of How Donald Trump REALLY Won Roger Stone

install download

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-myth-of-russian-collusion-
the-inside-story-of-how-donald-trump-really-won-roger-stone/

Download more ebook instantly today - get yours now at textbookfull.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit textbookfull.com
to discover even more!

Endgame Inside the Impeachment of Donald J Trump First

Edition Eric Swalwell

https://textbookfull.com/product/endgame-inside-the-impeachment-
of-donald-j-trump-first-edition-eric-swalwell/

Inside Trump s White House The Authorized Story Doug

Wead

https://textbookfull.com/product/inside-trump-s-white-house-the-
authorized-story-doug-wead/

Melania Trump - The Inside Story From a Slovenian

communist Village to the White House 1st Edition Bojan
Pozar

https://textbookfull.com/product/melania-trump-the-inside-story-
from-a-slovenian-communist-village-to-the-white-house-1st-
edition-bojan-pozar/

How Money Became Dangerous The Inside Story of Our

Turbulent Relationship with Modern Finance Christopher
Varelas

https://textbookfull.com/product/how-money-became-dangerous-the-
inside-story-of-our-turbulent-relationship-with-modern-finance-
christopher-varelas/
The Management of Savagery How America s National
Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda ISIS and
Donald Trump Max Blumenthal

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-management-of-savagery-how-
america-s-national-security-state-fueled-the-rise-of-al-qaeda-
isis-and-donald-trump-max-blumenthal/

The Faith of Donald J Trump A Spiritual Biography First

Edition Brody

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-faith-of-donald-j-trump-a-
spiritual-biography-first-edition-brody/

The Russian job the forgotten story of how America

saved the Soviet Union from ruin First Edition American
Relief Administration

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-russian-job-the-forgotten-
story-of-how-america-saved-the-soviet-union-from-ruin-first-
edition-american-relief-administration/

Routledge Handbook of Russian Security Roger E Kanet

https://textbookfull.com/product/routledge-handbook-of-russian-
security-roger-e-kanet/

13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in

Benghazi First Trade Edition Zuckoff

https://textbookfull.com/product/13-hours-the-inside-account-of-
what-really-happened-in-benghazi-first-trade-edition-zuckoff/
Copyright © 2019 by Roger Stone

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the
express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical
reviews or articles. All inquiries should be addressed to Skyhorse Publishing, 307 West
36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018.

Skyhorse Publishing books may be purchased in bulk at special discounts for sales
promotion, corporate gifts, fund-raising, or educational purposes. Special editions can also
be created to specifications. For details, contact the Special Sales Department, Skyhorse
Publishing, 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018 or
info@skyhorsepublishing.com.

Skyhorse® and Skyhorse Publishing® are registered trademarks of Skyhorse Publishing,

Inc.®, a Delaware corporation.

Visit our website at www.skyhorsepublishing.com.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available on file.

Jacket design by Brian Peterson

Print ISBN: 978-1-5107-4936-8

Ebook ISBN: 978-1-5107-4937-5

Printed in the United States of America

 Acknowledgments

Dedicated to President Richard M. Nixon, who first recognized Donald

Trump’s potential to become leader of the Free World.
Also dedicated to Juanita Broaddrick, a brave and courageous woman
who told the truth about being sexually assaulted and bitten by Bill Clinton
and spoke out despite pressure on her to remain silent.
This book is also dedicated to Dr. Jerome S. Corsi, mentor, colleague,
and one of the most effective investigative reporters writing today.
Thanks also to Dr. Eric Paddon, Christopher Cox, Kevin Ryan, Jacob
Engels, Saint John Hunt, Michael Caputo, A. Gore Vidal, Randy Short,
John Kakanis, Tyler Nixon, Kate Koptenko, Milo Yiannopoulous, Matthew
J. Boyle, Matt Drudge, Alex Jones, Stephen K. Bannon, David Urban, Ed
McMullen, Susie Wiles, Matt Labash, Tucker Carlson, and Laury Gay. In
addition, the book is dedicated to my mother, who passed away at ninety-
five in 2016. If you are familiar with Tony Soprano’s mother Olivia, you
completely understand my Sicilian mother. She insisted that Hillary Clinton
was “a crook and a liar.” I only regret that she did not live long enough to
vote for Donald Trump, whom she danced with at my wedding.
Also dedicated to my beloved wife Nydia, a woman of infinite patience
and wisdom.
Roger J. Stone
New York City
 Table of Contents

Introduction 2019
Preface

Part 1 How Donald Trump Hijacked the Republican Presidential

Nomination
Chapter 1 Trump vs. the Elites
Chapter 2 Round One: GOP Candidates Debate
Chapter 3 Round Two: GOP Primaries Pick Trump

Part 2 How Hillary Clinton Stole the Democratic Presidential

Nomination
Chapter 4 Bernie Sanders, the Old Socialist, Challenges Hillary
Clinton, the President Presumed
Chapter 5 Round One: Hillary Declares Victory over Sanders
Chapter 6 Round Two: Hillary Pivots to Attack Trump

Part 3 How Trump Won the White House

Chapter 7 The Vice Presidential Picks and the National Nominating
Conventions
Chapter 8 The Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates
Chapter 9 Closing Arguments

Conclusion: Trump Wins

Appendix A
Appendix B
Endnotes
 INTRODUCTION 2019

IwaswrotetitledtheThe
book you now hold in your hands two years ago. In hardcover it
Making of the President 2016, and it was the first in-depth
examination of how Trump’s campaign tapped into the national mood to
deliver a stunning victory that almost no one saw coming. As an adviser
with intimate insight into the campaign and someone who had urged
Donald to run for president more than thirty years ago, I was proud to have
been a part of the campaign.
Sadly, I considered titling this new edition of the book The Unmaking of
the President 2016–2019 because we are in the midst of an unprecedented
effort by the permanent political establishment to undo the results of the
2016 election and remove Donald Trump from the White House.
I believed three major factors contributed to the most improbable upset
victory in the history of American presidential politics: the political
establishment of both parties underestimating the level of public
dissatisfaction with the two-party ruling elite who had run America into the
ground; the advent of a robust and widely accessible Internet which broke
the mainstream media monopoly on America’s political narrative; and the
dogged persistence of Donald Trump.
Even though I had chronicled the track record of the military-industrial
complex (commonly known as the Deep State today) in my previous books,
The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, The Bush Crime
Family, The Clintons’ War on Women, and Nixon’s Secrets, even I
underestimated the shock of the two-party duopoly over the loss of “their”
White House and their resolve to undo the results of the 2016 election.
 We now know that the Obama national security apparatus, including the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the
Obama Justice Department, took the danger that a Trump presidency posed
to them far more seriously than I had ever suspected. In fact, the Obama
administration would engage in an abuse of power in which FISA warrants
were illegally and unconstitutionally used to launch surveillance of Donald
Trump’s top advisers.
Imagine my shock when I read on page one of the New York Times on
January 20, 2017, that I was among three Trump advisers who had been
under active surveillance during the presidential campaign. To this day I do
not know under what authority I was spied on and what probable cause
could have been presented to any court to justify this flagrant violation of
my Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. Clearly, I was targeted for
strictly political reasons; I have been an adviser to Donald Trump for forty
years.
Additionally, we now know that the Obama FBI used human assets to
infiltrate the Trump campaign. Although the FBI now admits that their
investigation into alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign
began in July 2016, I was approached in May 2016 by a man calling
himself “Henry Greenberg,” who attempted to sell me what he said was
negative information on Hillary Clinton. Greenberg wanted $2 million for
this information, a laughable prospect I quickly rejected. What I did not
know at the time was that Greenberg’s real name was Gennady Vasilievich
Vostretsov, and that he was a veteran FBI informant whose very presence in
the United States was only possible because of an informant’s visa
approved by the Miami office of the FBI.
In June 2016, WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange told CNN he had
obtained information on Hillary Clinton and would publish it. In late July,
Randy Credico, a New York City–based progressive talk-show host with
whom I had worked on drug-law reform issues, told me that a source close
to WikiLeaks informed him that the information Assange had teased was
“political dynamite” and “would end Hillary’s campaign.” Credico said
these disclosures would come in October.
After receiving this valuable tip, I began avidly following the
WikiLeaks Twitter feed as well as setting a Google news alert for Julian
Assange and quickly reading the many interviews that the WikiLeaks
publisher gave to media outlets big and small. I also began relentlessly
hyping the coming October disclosure of the WikiLeaks material.
I publicized the coming WikiLeaks disclosures without knowing the
actual source or content of the material, not to aggrandize myself or to curry
favor with Donald Trump’s campaign (which I had voluntarily departed in
August 2015), but in order to draw maximum voter and media attention to
what I was told would be politically damaging material about Hillary
Clinton and her campaign before the upcoming election.
While I was euphoric on election night, Trump’s victory did not shock
me. Veteran Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, who was polling for the
Trump campaign, had aggressively pushed the Trump effort to invest
heavily of the candidate’s time and resources in Michigan, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, and Florida. Fabrizio recognized that Hillary Clinton had
taken the first three states for granted, failing to campaign in them in the
closing weeks and cutting back her media expenditures based on an
assumption that those states were safely in her column. Fabrizio and I also
noted that Trump was running significantly better among blue-collar white
union and nonunion voters than had his predecessors, Mitt Romney and
John McCain. This allocation of late resources would prove pivotal and
would carry the election of the New York billionaire to the greatest upset
since Truman vs. Dewey.
I spent election night doing election coverage for Infowars.com out of
their Austin, Texas, studios. While I was exhausted, I was, of course,
pleased with the results. My cohost that night, Alex Jones, was strangely
downbeat and seemed to be in a foreboding mood. “This is not the end,” he
said, “this is just the beginning.”
How right he turned out to be.
As a young aide to Governor and then President Ronald Reagan, I had
seen firsthand how the political establishment in Washington effectively
moves to co-opt an outsider president who threatens the status quo. I had
also seen them do it to Jimmy Carter, an outsider and former governor of
Georgia who had the effrontery to address the abuses at the Central
Intelligence Agency and clean house. These efforts would be child’s play
compared to the efforts to co-opt the Trump presidency.
To my shock and surprise, Trump turned to former Republican National
Chairman Reince Priebus to staff his government. Although nationalist
Steve Bannon, who had joined the Trump campaign late and awarded
himself the title of “chief strategist,” would join the White House staff, it
quickly became clear that Bannon would spend no political capital to install
Trump loyalists in the new government. The Trump White House quickly
assembled a staff that would have been identical to that of Governor Jeb
Bush had he been elected president!
Although Trump had won as a “noninterventionist” who pledged to end
America’s involvement in several costly and long-running foreign wars in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, he staffed his National Security Agency and
State Department with neocon war hawks like General H. R. McMaster and
Rex Tillerson, as well as South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who
became UN Ambassador.
In the first two years of the Trump presidency, these advisers effectively
overruled the president’s instincts to extract America from these costly
foreign adventures and to leave America’s headlong advance to globalism
untouched.
Trump’s initial appointments in the domestic realm were equally
disappointing. Although Trump had severely criticized Wall Street
powerhouse Goldman Sachs, first for their illegal loans to finance the
campaign of Senator Ted Cruz and then for their $690,000 honorarium to
Hillary Clinton for a speech (the contents of which she insisted remain
secret), Trump would turn to Goldman Sachs Chairman Gary Cohn, an
ardent advocate of carbon tax credits and an outspoken opponent of tax
reduction, as his chief economic adviser. Fortunately, the president would
recognize this error and overcome the opposition of his own economic
advisers to enact deep but largely unheralded regulatory reform, as well as
the largest tax cuts in American history. Trump would also wisely replace
Cohn with economic growth advocate Larry Kudlow, who had coauthored
Trump’s dynamic economic platform during the campaign.
The result was the greatest economic comeback in American history.
Since Trump’s election, 4.2 million jobs and counting have been created.
GDP growth has averaged 4.2 percent; unemployment is at the lowest point
in America since 1969. Manufacturing jobs, which President Barack Obama
said were “never coming back,” have grown at an astounding 714 percent.
Business confidence is soaring, in part thanks to Trump’s rollback of
regulations. Consumer sentiment has skyrocketed—by one measure, it is at
its highest level in eighteen years. Corporate profits have approached
record-setting levels thanks to the Trump corporate tax cuts. Clearly
President Trump’s deep cuts in taxes and business regulation have spurred
some of the most robust economic growth in American history. Trump’s
economic program was very simple: an attack on taxes and regulations with
an extra dose of spending on infrastructure and the military that would
create a supply shock to a stalling economy.
Perhaps the president’s single greatest mistake was the appointment of
Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Although Sessions had
been a stalwart supporter of and inspiration for Trump’s hard-line
immigration policies in the 2016 campaign, he would shockingly recuse
himself from authority when the Deep State made its move to delegitimize
the Trump presidency by claiming that Trump had only been elected with
the assistance of collusion by the Russian state.
This Russian collusion myth was both an offensive and defensive
weapon. The Obama-Clinton-Bush ruling class used it as a diversion from
its own more serious crimes involving the abuse of power, in which they
used US intelligence services to spy on and infiltrate the Trump campaign.
They also used it as a pretext for a still-festering effort to remove Donald
Trump from the presidency.
We now know that the Clinton campaign laundered money through
Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm, for the fabrication of the Steele
Dossier, which alleged both sexual impropriety by and undue Russian
influence on Donald Trump. This fabricated document found its way
through several sources, including Senator John McCain, to the Obama
Justice Department, which then utilized it as the rationale for the issuance
of FISA warrants to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign.
For reasons that remain a mystery, the president has refused so far to
declassify the contents of the bogus FISA warrant application on campaign
volunteer Carter Page and other documents that would prove that the
Obama administration used the intelligence services to spy on the Trump
campaign and to initiate an “insurance policy” to discredit and remove the
president in the unlikely event that he won the 2016 election. Congressman
Devin Nunes, who served as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
until January 2019 and has the security clearances to see these documents,
has publicly hinted they will expose the entire plot to spy on and undermine
Trump. He has also publicly beseeched the president to release the
unredacted material to the public to save his presidency.
After the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the firing of FBI
Director James Comey by President Trump, acting Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein unilaterally appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller to
launch an investigation into Trump, his campaign, and his presidency. (The
day before his appointment by Rosenstein, the president interviewed Mr.
Mueller to be the head of the FBI and did not offer him the job, thus
creating a conflict Mr. Mueller can’t waive.) Because the nation’s special
counsel law had lapsed, Mueller was able to operate essentially without
oversight and with the authority to investigate any matter at whim.

In January 2017, I could not have predicted that my involvement in the

campaign would become the center of this conspiracy. I now find myself on
Crooked Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s hit list because I’ve advised
Donald Trump for the past forty years. I am being targeted not because I
committed a crime, but because the Deep State liberals want to silence me
and pressure me to testify against my good friend.
For months, Mueller’s Russian investigation has tried to implicate me
by saying I had direct knowledge of plans by WikiLeaks to release
information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. There is no evidence
whatsoever to support this claim, even after at least twelve of my current
and former associates have been browbeaten by the FBI and at least six of
them were dragged before Mueller’s grand jury.
Mr. Mueller may frame me for some bogus charge in order to silence
me or induce me to testify against the president. At the end of the day, this
epic fight could cost me over $2 million and destroy me and my family. The
financial cost of this witch hunt has been debilitating. The relentless leaks
of fake news have largely dried up my successful consulting business and I
have been faced with the possibility of personal bankruptcy. I was forced to
liquidate a small fund I had set aside from the proceeds of my book sales to
pay for the college education of my grandchildren.
Despite this multimillion-dollar inquisition into every aspect of my life,
neither Congress nor the special counsel has found any evidence of Russian
collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration, or any other illegal act on my part in
connection with the 2016 election. You would not know this, however, if
you were watching CNN, MSNBC, or reading the Wall Street Journal, the
Washington Post, The Atlantic, or the New York Times.
All of this has been a most extraordinary personal nightmare as Mueller
has investigated me for over two years, probing deeply into every aspect of
my personal, private, family, business, and political life. According to CNN,
Mueller has reviewed all of my personal financial records, and there is
substantial evidence that all of my emails, text messages, and phone calls
have been reviewed by the special counsel.
Despite the fact that, by law, the special counsel is expected to operate
in confidence, I have been subjected to a relentless flow of illegal leaks
falsely defaming me with charges that I had some advance knowledge of
the source or content of allegedly hacked or allegedly stolen emails
published by WikiLeaks. This is most definitely not the case.
In September 2017, I went voluntarily to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence for four and a half hours of testimony behind
closed doors. I had requested that my testimony be public so that the
American people could judge my veracity and see the partisan nature of my
inquisitors and their trick questions, but this request was denied.
I reluctantly revealed that my former friend Randy Credico was my
only link to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, but that I did not know the
source or content of the Clinton campaign emails, or that they were even in
the hands of WikiLeaks before WikiLeaks announced the same. Since then,
Credico has denied this, telling anyone who would listen—including
Mueller’s grand jury—that I had lied. For months I struggled to defend
myself.
Thankfully my lawyers were able to extract the smoking gun—in the
form of text messages—from a cell phone I stopped using in 2016. These
texts suggest that Credico lied to the grand jury if he denied being the
source of the Assange information.
 Those texts and the book you now hold set the record straight and
explain what involvement I had in the Trump campaign. It’s this book—not
Credico, not Mueller, not the liberal media—that tells the true story. Donald
Trump neither needed or received help from the Russian state to defeat
Hillary Clinton.
California Democratic Representative Adam Schiff—the ultimate
example of the sort of slippery, duplicitous, manipulative defamation and
distraction artist, fake-news fabricator, and flat-out liar that has become the
standard profile of a Democrat officeholder in America today—has
repeatedly charged that I was less than honest in my testimony. He is, to
coin a phrase, full of schiff.
In fact, it’s Adam Schiff’s fabrications that are ever shifting. He
brazenly stated on March 22, 2017, that “there is more than circumstantial
evidence now” for collusion. In an exchange with Chuck Todd on Meet the
Press Daily, Todd suggested that the evidence of collusion was at best
circumstantial. “Actually, no, Chuck,” Schiff said. “I can tell you that the
case is more than that. And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more
than circumstantial evidence now. . . . I will say that there is evidence that is
not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation.” To date, the
congressman from West Hollywood has produced no such evidence.
Schiff is a genuine standout among what has become a ruthless,
repugnant rogues’ gallery of thoroughly corrupt, pathologically
megalomaniacal partisan sleaze merchants who would sooner destroy
democracy than have a country not incessantly held in the grip of the
Democratic Party’s authoritarian central government careerists, hacks, and
political lifers.
There was most definitely evidence of Russian collusion in the 2016
election, but it was not on behalf of President Trump. The Clinton
Foundation, a slush fund set up to benefit the Clintons and the vehicle for
the facilitation of numerous multimillion-dollar “bribes,” received $145
million from board members of the state-owned Russian energy company
Rosatum. I believe this ensured approval of the sale of 25 percent of
America’s enriched uranium to the control of the Russian company in what
was perhaps the largest treasonous financial crime in US history.

As I detail in this book, the rise of a robust and vibrant Internet by 2016
ended the mainstream and corporate-owned media monopoly on political
discourse in America. This, in turn, led to the election of Donald Trump.
Realizing this, the Deep State and their allies among the tech giants have
moved aggressively to ban anyone from the Internet who does not support
the establishment narrative about Donald Trump, the 2016 election,
unfettered illegal immigration, radical Islam, mandatory vaccinations, trade,
or war. Websites like Infowars and thousands of conservatives, libertarians,
Republicans, and even antiwar progressives have found themselves banned
on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other wide-reaching social media
platforms. I myself was banned for life by Twitter in 2017 for violating their
vague and unequally enforced “community guidelines.” In other words,
Keith Olbermann can advocate the violent assassination of President Trump
on Twitter and he will not be banned, but when I hurt CNN’s Jake Tapper’s
feelings I am banned for life.

Incredibly, in January 2019 we learned that in the wake of President

Trump’s firing of corrupt FBI Director James Comey, who covered up
Hillary Clinton’s crimes and breaches of national security in her use of a
secret private email server, the FBI opened an investigation into whether
President Trump himself was “working for the Russians.” Both Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray (a
Deep Stater appointed by President Trump) lied to both Congress and the
president about the existence of this investigation.
Make no mistake about it: the Democratic majority that took control of
the House in the 2018 elections (in which voter fraud was unprecedented)
will move to enact articles of impeachment against Donald Trump on any
pretext necessary. That would lead to a trial in the Republican-held US
Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required to remove the president. While
that result may seem improbable today, one only need look at the entirely
baseless, media-created public hysteria whipped up by the likes of CNN,
MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and their ilk in the
fight to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice to see what is
to come. It should be pointed out Kavanaugh’s nomination prevailed by one
vote. The accusers who later admitted to fabricating charges of sexual
assault and gang rape against him have paid no penalty.

Historians will one day write about these dark days in which America’s
ruling elite conspired to create the biggest witch hunt in our country’s
history. I hope that when they do, they will use the book that you are about
to read as the definitive account of how Donald Trump shocked the world
by winning the 2016 election.
Roger J. Stone
New York City
January 2019
 PREFACE

The Trumpster

O n November 8th, 2016, Donald John Trump was elected the forty-fifth
President of the United States. This is a singular accomplishment that
can only be attributed to the talent, energy, and foresight of Donald Trump
himself.
Trump’s sprint across eight states in the closing days led to the greatest
upset since 1948, when President Harry S. Truman barnstormed across the
country by train, breaking all railroad speed regulations, making six or
seven stops per day, and ensuring his victory over New York Governor
Thomas E. Dewey. The physical energy that Trump expended going down
the stretch was indeed Herculean. There is no question that his final push
into Wisconsin, Michigan, and returning to western Pennsylvania, was an
act of pure will that, while Clinton was already celebrating, propelled him
to victory.
The 2016 election was the first in which the mainstream media lost its
monopoly over political media coverage in the United States. The
increasingly vigorous alternative media, whose reporting standards are
superior to the networks and the cable news behemoths, is where more and
more voters are getting their information.
Trump’s skillful courting of the conservative media, like The Daily
Caller, Breitbart News, WND.com, and InfoWars, made Trump the first
presidential candidate to reach these disaffected and highly motivated
Americans effectively. At the same time, Trump’s relentless attacks on the
media as “unfair” and “dishonest” came right out of the Nixon playbook,
where both Nixon and Trump exploited the resentment of the biased media,
so hated by their supporters.
Trump’s willingness to challenge openly the media outlets that went
after him kept them somewhat honest in their coverage of his campaign but
the relentless cable news networks’ attacks on him were unlike anything I
have seen in the nine presidential campaigns in which I worked. The media
dropped all pretext of objectivity. Their motives and tactics were naked.
Most of this would largely backfire. American voters have finally
become hip to the fact that the media and the political establishment work
hand-in-glove to conceal many facts from the American people. The voters
no longer believe the media.
Donald Trump is his own strategist, campaign manager, and tactician,
and all credit for his incredible election belongs to him. I’m just glad to
have been along for the ride. I wanted him to run for President since 1988
and had served as chairman of his Presidential Exploratory Committee in
2000, as well as serving as a consultant to his 2012 consideration of a
candidacy.
I have worked for Trump with the Trump Organization, the Trump
Shuttle, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, and several political explorations
over a forty-year period. He is perhaps the greatest salesman in US history,
with the spirit of a promoter and the infectious enthusiasm of an
entrepreneur who likes making money and winning.
Trump waged the first modern “all communication” campaign,
eschewing polling, expensive television advertising, sophisticated analytics,
and all of the traditional tools of a modern presidential campaign.
At the same time, Trump’s campaign was centered around a “set piece
rally,” just as Richard Nixon’s campaign had been. That Trump ran as the
candidate of “the Silent Majority,” appealing to forgotten Americans,
running as the law and order candidate and in the end, the peace candidate,
was not accidental. Trump’s campaign was much like Nixon’s. He
understood that politics is about big issues, concepts, and themes, and that
the voters didn’t really care about wonkish detail. If they had, then Newt
Gingrich would have been president.
Although there are similarities between Ronald Reagan’s victory in
1980 and Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency, Trump’s election is less an
ideological victory and more a manifestation of a genuine desire for a more
competent government. Like Nixon, Trump is more pragmatic, interested in
what will work, as opposed to what is philosophically pure. He’s tired of
seeing America lose. He is exactly the cheerleader the country needs.
Like Truman’s whistle-stop events, Trump rallies became the focal point
of his entire campaign, amplified by the cable news networks that carried
his rally speeches around the clock. He drew enormous crowds and voters
found him funny and genuine. All the while, his trusted press aide Hope
Hicks was booking as many one-on-one interviews into his schedule as
humanly possible. There was literally a time when you could not turn on the
television without seeing and hearing Donald Trump. The cable networks of
course did it for the ratings. The fact that Trump was unrehearsed, un-
coached, and unhandled, meant that voters found him refreshing and
authentic.
I met Donald Trump through Roy Cohn, the legendary mob and
celebrity lawyer, who was an attorney and advisor to the young real estate
mogul.
In 1979, I signed on to run Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president in
New York, among other northeastern states. I was given a card-file that
supposedly held Governor and Mrs. Reagan’s “friends in New York” who
might be solicited for help. Among them was a card for Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
with the law firm of Saxe, Bacon and Bolan. I called Cohn’s office to make
an appointment.
 When I arrived at Cohn’s brownstone law firm on the Upper East Side, I
cooled my heels for about an hour in the waiting area. Finally, I was told to
go to a second floor dining room where Mr. Cohn would meet me. He was
wearing a silk dressing gown. His heavy-lidded eyes were bloodshot, most
likely from a late night of revelry. Seated with Cohn was his client, a heavy-
set gentleman who had been meeting with Cohn.
“Meet Tony Salerno,” said Roy.
I was face-to-face with “Fat Tony” Salerno, at that time the boss of the
Genovese crime family. In October 1986, Fortune magazine would call the
seventy-five-year-old Salerno America’s “top gangster in power, wealth,
and influence.”
It’s true that as a New York developer, Donald Trump bought concrete
from a mob-connected company controlled by Salerno. On the other hand,
the State of New York, the City of New York, and most major developers
bought their concrete there as well, the reason being their excellent union
relationships. The company had a virtual monopoly on concrete, with the
state and federal government among their biggest customers. The company
was properly licensed to do business in New York State.
After Salerno left, we got down to brass tacks and I pitched Cohn on
helping Governor Reagan in New York State. Roy was nominally a
Democrat, the son of a legendary Tammany judge, and a quiet power in the
New York Democratic Party.
He was so feared because of his viciousness in the courtroom, that most
plaintiffs settled immediately when they learned that Cohn was opposing
counsel. Trump used this power with Roy as his attorney.
“So how can I help you, kid? This Jimmy Carter is a disaster. I told
Stanley Friedman and Meade Esposito that the peanut farmer was no damn
good,” Cohn exclaimed. “Ronnie and Nancy are friends from the 1950’s
when I was working for Joe McCarthy, the poor dumb drunk son-of-a-bitch.
Ronnie stood up to the Commies in Hollywood and was a personal favorite
of J. Edgar Hoover.”
I told Cohn I needed to start a finance committee, locate and rent a
headquarters, have phones installed, and launch a legal petition-gathering
effort to put Reagan delegates’ names on the New York Republican primary
ballot.
Cohn stared out a picture window, then suddenly said, “What you need
is Donald Trump. Do you know Donald Trump?” I told the beady-eyed
lawyer I only knew Trump from the tabloids. Cohn said he would set up a
meeting immediately but Donald was very busy and could only give me a
limited amount of time.
Roy also told me that I had to go to Queens to meet with Donald’s
father, Fred Trump. “Fred is a personal friend of Barry Goldwater and has
been generous to conservative and Republican candidates and causes. I
guarantee you he likes Reagan,” said the twice-indicted attorney.
Following Cohn’s advice, I went to see Donald Trump.
At the appointed hour, Norma Foederer, Trump’s longtime gatekeeper
and assistant, ushered me into Trump’s office. “It’s a pleasure to meet you,
Mr. Trump,” I said. “Please call me Donald,” the mogul said with a smile.
Trump was interested in politics just as he was interested in sports. He
was savvy in the use of legal political money and employed a platoon of
lobbyists over the years. He had a low regard for Carter and, as he put it,
“this George Bush is a dud.”
“Ya see, Reagan’s got the look,” he said. “Some guys have the look.
Sinatra. JFK. And your man, Reagan. People are hungry for a strong leader,
as Carter looks vacillating and weak.” Trump asked quite a few questions
about polling and agreed to join the Reagan finance committee, raising
$100,000, split between himself and his father.
Once The Donald was on board, I heard from him constantly. He
wanted the latest polling and wanted to see poll results between Reagan and
Carter in some western and southern states. Trump helped facilitate our
rental of a once grand, but now shabby mansion, on 52nd Street, next to the
21 Club.
The old brownstone had been magnificent in its day, but at some point
in the 1970s, it was divided up into office space and ultimately fell into
disrepair. It had a nasty green carpet and the cheapest possible cubicle
dividers. It had the advantage of many smaller rooms for offices as well as a
cavernous conference room where volunteers could stuff envelopes or make
phone calls to prospective Republican primary voters. A day did not go by
without a rat running across my desk. At the same time, the location
couldn’t be beat.
The 21 Club was Roy Cohn’s clubhouse, as well as a favorite of Donald
Trump’s. One day, vaudeville comedian George Jessel dropped by after
lunch at the 21 Club. A New York Times photographer captured the moment
of me and the over-the-hill comic with a beaming George L. Clark, New
York State party chairman, and a Reagan supporter since Reagan’s
challenge to sitting President Gerald Ford in 1976.
Trump was repeatedly implored by state Republican leaders to run for
governor or mayor. In 2006, for example, the New York State Senate
Republican’s wily leader Joe Bruno convinced the New York State
Independence Party, which controlled a valuable ballot position, to
announce that they would cross-endorse Donald Trump for Governor if he
would seek the Republican nomination. It was a hot story for twenty-four
hours, until The Donald threw cold water on it. “I always thought he should
have let it run a while,” said Bruno, “but now I understand the job was too
small for him . . . His timing of running [for president] in 2016 allowed him
to take unique advantage of a perfect storm when it comes to voter
disenchantment and the widespread belief that the system is rigged against
the little guy. Sure, he’s sometimes crude but his voters love it. It’s like
sticking your thumb in the eye of the establishment who have run the
country into the ground,” said the ex-prizefighter.
Donald has a wicked sense of humor and is enormously fun to hang out
with. He has always had an exceptional eye for female beauty. He has the
same eye for architecture, preferring towering buildings with clean lines,
lots of brass, and always large signage. His construction standards are
above and beyond industry norms and he has always enjoyed a good
relationship with organized labor, which is particularly important in
Democrat-dominated New York City.
Notwithstanding the glitter and gold of his buildings, there really is
nothing fancy or pretentious about Donald Trump. He likes meatloaf,
cheeseburgers, and diet coke. He thrives on a steady diet of cable news.
While the rest of the country may have been fooled by his genius, I, in
fact, knew that he had quietly trademarked the phrase “Make America Great
Again” with the US Patent and Trademark Office only days after Romney’s
defeat. He told me on New Year’s Day 2013 that he was running for
president in 2016. When I pointed out that some in the media would be
skeptical that he would actually run based on his previous flirtations with
public office, he replied, “That will disappear when I announce.” And so it
did.

President Donald J. Trump. I like the sound of it, but then I’ve liked the
idea since 1987. I can’t take credit for the idea of Donald Trump running for
president because the first known progenitor of the idea was himself a
former president. It was Richard M. Nixon who first noticed the potential
for a presidential bid by Donald Trump.
I had grown close to the former president after I was assigned the job of
briefing him weekly on the status of Governor Ronald Reagan’s campaign
against Jimmy Carter.
 Nixon met Trump in George Steinbrenner’s box in Yankee Stadium and
was immediately impressed. “Your man’s got it”, Nixon said to me in our
regularly scheduled Saturday morning phone call in which the former
President satisfied his voracious appetite for political gossip and
intelligence.
Nixon would famously write to Trump claiming that Mrs. Nixon had
seen Donald on the Phil Donahue Show and thought if he ever ran for office
he would win. This is typical of Nixon’s circumlocution. In this case he
attributes his own thoughts to Mrs. Nixon.
“I did not see the program, but Mrs. Nixon told me that you were
great,” Nixon wrote Trump (underlining the word “great” in his own hand).
“As you can imagine, she is an expert on politics and she predicts whenever
you decide to run for office you will be a winner!”
Trump was intrigued by Nixon’s understanding of the use of power.
Nixon’s pragmatism also appealed to the New York developer. At Nixon’s
request, I extended an invitation to Donald and his wife Ivana for a
weekend in Houston. Joining this cozy foursome was former Texas
Governor John Connally, who had been gravely wounded during the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Connally had actually screwed Nixon in Texas in 1968, appearing at a
last-minute Dallas rally for Hubert Humphrey, reneging on a secret
agreement to deliver the Texas bourbon Democrats to Nixon. Nevertheless,
Nixon was always impressed with Connally’s swagger and certitude and he
was also a prized ally for Nixon because of Connally’s historic association
with John Kennedy. In 1972, Connally made good on his earlier promise to
help Nixon, heading a group called “Democrats for Nixon” before formally
switching to the Republican Party and serving as Nixon’s Treasury
Secretary. It was Connally who sold Nixon on wage and price controls,
perhaps one of the greatest blunders of Nixon’s presidency.
Other documents randomly have
different content
 HISTORY OF WATERTOWN. 1021 some of the old ones
vacated or changed. In laying out the lots and roads, the survejor
seems to have made no use of chain or compass. § 85. It is
probable that, of the homestalls and homelots, allotted to the first
planters, few or none exceeded 16 A. They varied from this to one
acre, and their average was probably about 5 or 6 Acres. In the
schedules of possessions there are several much larger homestalls, a
few of which were grants ; but it is very doubtful whether any of
them were made at first. William Jennison had a homestall of 50 A.
granted him ; but, as in the case of Abraham Browne, John Warren,
Isaac Sterne, Ephraim Child, W. Hammond, and others, he had at
first a smaller lot granted him nearer to the river, and the large lot
was probably a subsequent grant. It is certain that most of the
homestalls exceeding 16 A. were not grants to the possessors, and
that very few of the holders of large homestalls were first planters.
The records show that, in some instances, they were acquired by
purchase, and made up of several small lots, obtained of grantees,
who migrated early to other plantations ; as in the case of Jeremiah
Norcross, wtose homestall of 26 A. was composed of 4 lots,
purchased of different persons. John Benjamin, who moved from
New Town to Watertown about 1637, Kad a homestall of 60 A.,
probably obtained and made up in the same manner, as no part of it
was granted to him. In some instances they were obtained partly by
grant and partly by purchase, as in the case of Simon Stone, ^yho
had a homestall of 50 A., of which only 12 A. were granted, and the
rest purchased of several different persons. The diminutive size and
great number of the small lots led to frequent early changes in
proprietorship, and this circumstance enhances very much the
difficulty, already referred to, of determining the spots, where the
primitive settlers first planted.* § 86. 2d. The Great Dividends. After
the small lots, the earliest general grant of lands by the freemen was
that of the Great Dividends, dated " July 25, 1636." "A grant of the
Great Dividends [allotted] to the freemen [and] to all the Townsmen
then inhabiting, being 120 in number. The land being divided into
four divisions, every division being 160 rods in breadth, — beginning
next to the small lots, and bounded with Cambridge Line on the
North side, and with the Plowlands on the South. To be laid out
successively one after another (all the meadows and cartways
excepted), for them to enclose or feed in common." These four
divisions were sometimes called the Squadrons, and the lines
dividing them, the Squadron lines. These divisions are said "to begin
next to the small lots," but it is difficult to determine this line exactly.
Pequusset Meadow is described as bounded on the North by
Cambridge Line, and on the West by the Great Dividends. It is
conjectured that the Dividends began not far from the present
boundary between Watertown and Waltham, and that for some
distance these were bounded by the road (now Warren St.), which
was the western boundary of the Town Plot. The following are the
names of the grantees, with the number of the lot and the number
of acres. The dividends were numbered from the south 1, 2, 3,4 ;
the 4th being bounded N. by Cambridge Line. Many of the lots
changed owners before 1644, and the name of the purchaser follows
that of the grantee, in these tables. § 87. The First Great Dividend,
beginning at the small lots at the East, was bounded on the South
by the Beaver Brook Plowlands ; running W. N. W. as follows : 1.
John CooUdge, 30 A., 12 A. sold to John 2. Edmund Sherman, 50 A.
N. Busby. 3. John Tucker, 25 A. John Woolcot; by his wid. to Edmund
White. 4. Isaac Mixer, 30 A. 5. Robert Veazy, 20 A., probably Geo.
Woodward, after he m. Veazy's wid. 6. Hugh Mason, 30 A. John
Stowers. G A. to R. Veazy. 7. John Stowers, 30 A. 8. Robert
Jennison, 20 A. John Stowers. * Since this paragraph was written,
notwithstandini; the disconraRement presentpti, we have .succeeded
in determining the localities, or relative position, of a great portion of
the homwstalls. as originally granted. We hope to have the results of
this in^e^tigatioa sufficiently matured to be presented in Appendix
III.
 1022 APPENDIX I. 9. John Vahan, 20 A. T. Hawkins. 10.
Kichard Beers, i!5 A. 11. William Paine, 70 A., J. Livennore,
bequeathed to his Bon, N. Livermore. 12. Thomas Hastings, 25 A.
13. John Simpson, 30 A. Geo. Parkhurst, by him sold to T. Arnold,
and by him sold to Geo. Parkhurst, Jr. 14. Robert Betts, 20 A. 15.
Henry Dengaine, 20 A. John Bigelow. 16. John Rose, 20 A. Thomas
Flagg. 17. John Kingsbury, 40 A. 18. Gregory Stone, 40. Thomas
Boylston. 19. Bryan Pendleton, 70 A. P. Noyes. 20. John Browne, 30
A. Abraham Browne. 21. John Dwight, 30 A. David Fiske. 22. John
Barnard, 60 A. 23. William Knapp, 30 A. 24. Daniel Peirce, 25 A. 25.
John Hayward, 50 A. 26. Edmund Lewis, 30 A., sold by his wid., of
Lynn, to William Page. 27. Geo. Richardson, 25 A. John Traine. 28.
James Cutler, 25 A. 29. John Griggs, 25 A. John Prescott. 30. Henry
Goldstone, 60 A. John Stowers, 40 A., and Rt. Jennison, 20 A. 31.
John Cutting, 60 A. § 88. 2d Great Dividend, beginning at the Small
Lots, and bounded on the south by the Squadron Line, separating it
from the First Great Dividend. 16. .Tohn Firmin, 60 A., by his heirs to
B. i arr ; and by him to Rd. Beers. 17. Nicholas Enapp, 30 A., sold to
B. Pendleton, 1646. 18. William Barsham, 30 A. 19. Robert Tucke, 30
A. Jere. Norcross. 20. John Batchelor, 35 A. J. Norcross. 21. John
Smith, Jr., 30 A. Rd. Woodward. 22. Abraham Browne, 60 A. John
Coolidge. 23. William Bridges, 35 A. J. Brabrook. 24. Richard
Browne, 50 A. John Sherman. 25. Gregory Taylor, 35 A. 26. Thomas
Brooks, 20 A. S. Saltonstall. 27. John Gay, 35 A. Samuel Freeman.
28. George Phillips, 80 A. 29. Matthew Hitchcock, 20 A. D. Patrick.
30. George Munnings, 30 A. J. Sherman, (?) bounded West by
Sudbury line. 1. John Eaton, 40 A. 2. Edward Garfield, 80 A. 8. John
Smith, Sen., 35 A. John Page. 4. Robert Daniel, 35 A. 5. Edward
Goffe, 60 A. John Clough, 25 A. Hugh Mason, 35 A. 6. Thomas
Mason, 20 A. Jere. Norcross. 7. Simon Stone, 70 A. John Biscoe. 8.
Ephraim Child, 60 A. 9. Charles Chadwick, 36 A. 10. Robert Feake,
80 A. John Benjamin. 11. Abram Shaw, 70 A. J. Woolcot, by his wid.
to Edmund White. 12. Samuel Hosier, 35 A. 13. Robert Lockwood, 35
A. B. Pendleton, in 1646. 14. Henry Cuttris, 20 A. 15. Samuel [Wm.]
Swaine, 60 A. J. Biscoe. § 89. 3d Great Dividend, beginning at the
Small Lots and separated by the Squadron Line from the 2d Great
Dividend on the south. 1. Thomas Arnold, 30 A. G. Parkhurst, 1655 ;
in 1663, with dwelling-house and 30 A., sold by T. Tarball to Thomas
Hastings. 2. Thomas Smith, 20 A. Charles Steams. 3. Henry Kemball,
35 A. 4. Edward Dix, 30 A. 5. Nathaniel Bowman, 35 A. 6. Edward
Lamb, 25 A., sold to Charles Stearns, in 1648. 7. Thomas Rogers, 30
A. John Sherman. 8. Benjamin Crispe, 20 A. T. Boyden, in 1666. 9.
Martin Underwood, 25 A. 10. Lawrence Waters, 25 A. 11. Emanuel
White, 25 A. John Eddy. 12. Thomas Mayhew, 80 A., sold by John
Page to Thomas Hastings, in 1663, for £21.5. 13. John Spring, 35 A.
14. William Swift, 40 A. John Knight. 16. Edward How, 70 A. 16.
John Whitney, 50 A. 17. John EUet, 25 A. 18. Thomas Bartlett, 30 A.
19. Daniel Morse, 20 A. 20. Richard Woodward, 35 A. 21. John
Loveran, 80 A. 22. Thomas Parish, 20 A. T. Wincoll. 23. Miles Nutt,
25 A. 24. John Winter, 25 A. 25. William Jennison, 60 A. T. Ruck, by
him sold to Isaac Sterne. 26. Joseph Morse, 25 A. 27. John Finch, 30
A. 28 William Palmer, 30 A. J. Wincoll, 15 A., and to N. Theale, 15 A.
29. Esther Pickeram, 26 A., by Joshua Stubbs, sold to Joseph
Underwood, in 1654. 30. Sir Richard Saltonstall, 100 A. ; son Henry.
§ 90. 4th. Great Dividend, beginning at the Small Lots, and
separated by the Squadron Line from the 3d Great Dividend, and
bounded N. by Camb. line.
 HISTORY OF WATERTOWN. 1023 1. Simon Eire, 60 A. 2.
Roger Wellington, 20 A. 3. William Baker, 25 A. Joseph Bemis. 4.
Leonard Chester, 60 A. John Biscoe. 5. William Hammond, 40 A. 6.
Isaac Cummins, 35 A. J. Lawrence. 7. Philip Tabor, 30 A. Edmund
White. 8. Richard Sawtel, 25 A. 9. John Page, 50 A. Michael Barstow.
10. John Eddy, 50 A. 11. John LiTermore, 25 A. Miles Nutt. 12. John
Doggett, 30 A. Richard Wait.. 13. Edmund James, 40 A. Thos.
Andrews. 14. Robert Abbot, 35 A. R. Wellington. 15. Isaac Sterne, 50
A. 16. Thos. Philbrick, 35 A. in 1646, sold to L Sterne. 17. John [?
Wm.] Gutteridge, 25 A. 18. John Lawrence, 30 A. Edm. White. 19.
Frances Onge, 30 A. Justinian Holden. 20. Henry Bright, 30 A. 21.
Garret Church, 20 A. 22. John Tomson, 25 A. Wm. Clark. 23.
Christopher Grant, 25 A. 24. Barnabas Windes, 35 A. J. Brabrook.
25. Thomas WincoU, 25 A. John Warren. 26. John Warren, 60 A. 27.
John Gosse, 35 A. J. Wincoll, 15 A. 28. Richard Kimball, 50 A. ; son
Henry. (?) N. Theale, 15. 29. Thomas Cakebread, 50 A. John Grout.
§ 91. Sd Beaver Brook Plowlands. The next general grant of land
was that of the Beaver Brook Plowland, partly meadow, and partly
upland, the record of which ia as follows: "1636 [36-7], Feb. 28. A
grant of plowlands at Beaver Brook Plains, divided and lotted out by
the freemen to all the Townsmen then inhabiting, being 106 in
number, allowing one acre for a person, and likewise for cattle
valued at £20 the head ; beginning next the Small Lots beyond the
wear, and bounded with the Great [Dividend] Lots on the north side,
and Charles River on the south, divided by a cartway in the midst ;
the first lot to begin next the river, the second on the north side of
the cartway, and to be laid out successively until the lots are ended."
It is probable that the grant was made in Sept., 1636, when a
committee was appointed to " devise to every man his propriety of
Meadow and Upland that is plowable, and the rest to lie common ;"
and that the date of the record (Feb. 28, 1636-7), was the time
when the allotments and schedules were completed. The lands then
granted amounted to 741 acres, of which about 285 A. were at the
east of Beaver Brook, and were designated, "lots in the Hither Plain,"
sometimes called the Little Plain. The rest of the lots were situated
west of Beaver Brook, and were called the " lots in the Further
Plain," sometimes called the Great Plain. § 92. The lots in the Hither
Plain began at the Driftway (now called Gore St.), and a line
continued southwardly, from the S. end of the Driftway, to the river.
These lots were arranged or plotted in two series or ranges. One of
them was bounded on the south by the river, and on the north by
the cartway betwixt lots [Pleasant St.]; and the lots in it were
designated by the odd numbers, 1, 3, 5, &c., to 43 or 45, and each
lot extended from the cartway to the river. The other series,
beginning at the Driftway, were baunded on the south by the
cartway betwixt lots, and on the north by the highway, afterwards
long known as the Sudbury Road, now called Main Street. Each lot
extended from one of these streets to the other, and they were
designated by the even numbers, 2, 4, 6, &c., to 36. These two
ranges did not extend so as to be contiguous to Beaver Brook. A
small strip of land on its eastern border was retained as town or
common land. § 93. Although the 40 A. lot of Mr. Phillips is placed at
the head of the schedule of these grants, it is evident it was within
the limits of the Small Lots, and did not properly belong to the
Beaver Brook plowland grants, from which it was separited by the
Driftway. It belonged to " the small lots beyond the wear," and the
grant was probably made to him, at the same time that others, in
the immediate neighborhood and contiguous to it, were granted to
Sir Richard Saltonstall, Edward How, and Abraham Browne. This
improper insertion of the name of Mr. Phillips, will account in part for
the discrepancy between the number of grants said to have been
made [106] and the number of names on the list [108]. The same
thing occurred in regard to the list and allotments of the Town Plot.
The name of Mr. Phillips is the first on the list, although his lot was
not in the Town Plot, and it was probably granted to him some time
before the allotments of that plot.
 1024 APPENDIX I. § 94. In the grant of the Beaver Brook
Plowlands, they are described as "beginning next the small lots
beyond the wear." The following is the order of the lots, with the
names of the grantees, between Sudbury Eoad on the north and the
way betwixt lots (Pleasant St.) on the south, beginning at the way to
the Little Plain (Howard St.). Ist. The homestall and adjoining
homelots of Abraham Browne, 40 A. 2d. A lot of 12 A. granted to
Edward How, and by his heirs sold to Robert Harrington, from whom
it passed to his son Edward, and after probably to his grandson
Edward. 3d. A 40 A. lot granted to Rev. George PhillipSj and by his
heirs sold to Edward Garfield, about 1650. This was bounded on the
west by the Driftway, which was the boundary between the Small
Lots and the Beaver Brook Plowlands. In the Inventory of E.
Garfield, this lot is described as " on the Little Plain, near Sudbury
Roajl," and it was then (1672), apprized at £60. In late times it
became the elegant residence of Governor Gore, and it now belongs
to J. S. Copley Greene, Esq. Immediately south of this lot of Mr.
Phillips, and separated from it by the cartway betwixt lots, was a 20
A. lot of plowland, granted to Sir R. Saltonstall. It was bounded on
the west by the first lot (John Whitney's) in the Beaver Brook
Plowlands, and his son Samuel afterwards sold it to Whitney. As this
lot was bounded W. by the land of Whitney, it appears that the
Driftway did not extend to the river. Situated E. and S. E. of this lot
of Sir Richard, between the river and Pleasant Street, were lots
belonging to John Knight, Edward How, Joseph Morse, Richard
Woodward, and Abraham Browne. § 95. The lots in the Further Plain
(in later times called Waltham Plain), beginning at Beaver Brook,
were bounded on the south by Charles River, and on the N. by the
Great Dividends, or " common land." They were plotted in two
ranges, like those in the Hither Plain, and separated from each other
by Sudbury Road, now called Main Street. The range next the river
were designated by the odd numbers, continued from the Hither
Plain, beginning No. 45, and each lot extended from the river to
Sudbury Road. The other range, on the north side of the highway,
were designated by the even numbers, continued from the Hither
Plain, and each lot extended from Sudbury Road to Great Dividend
lands. The following table shows the names of the grantees in each
of the four ranges, their order of arrangement, and the number of
acres granted "to each. Many of the lots changed proprietors before
1644, and the second name to a lot is that of the purchaser. The
year, added in a few instances, shows that the sale took place at a
later date than 1644. The range of lots in the Hither Plain, next the
river. 1. John Whitney, 10. 3. Rd. Woodward, 6. John Griggs.* 5. C.
Chadwick, 3. 9. H. Goldstone, 7. 11. John Tomson, 2; E. Child. 13. J.
Eddie, 7 ; E. ChUd. 15. B. Crispe, 3; J. Knight; T. Underwood. 17.
Edmund Sherman, 6; N. Busby. 19. G. Taylor, 6 ; S. Eire, Sen. 21. D.
Patrick, 14 ; S. Eire, Sen. 23. E. Child, 16. 25. F. Onge, 6, 1 T. Eire,
20. 27. S. Eire, Sen., 18, / S. Eire, Jr., 6. 29. Sir Kichard Saltonstall,
30 A., E. Child, 28, and S. Eire, Jr. 2. 31. N. Baker, 5 ; John Traine.
33. 6. Munnings, 4 ; E. Garfield. 35. N. Knapp, 6 ; B. Pendleton,
1646. 37. John Ellet, 4; B. Pendleton, 1646. 39. John Eaton, 6 ; E.
How. 41. W. Jennison, 10; E. Child. 43. S. Hosier, 5 ; E. ChUd. 45.
(?) S. Freeman, b.f • This name occurs in the schedule, but It seems
to be superfluous in the numbering of the lots, t Names with this
mark are not in the original schedule, but these lots were grants,
probably made soon after the date of the schedaie.
 HISTORY OP WATERTOWN. 1025 The North range of lota in
the Hither Plain. 2. Thomas Hastings, 2. 4. K. Beits, 1 ; (?) Edmund
White. 6. John Simson, 4 ; S. Eire, Jr. 8. K. Veazey, 1. 10. J. Smith,
Sen., 4; S. Eire, Jr. 12. S. Eire, Jr. ; not a grantee. 14. W. Barsham, 3.
W. Bridges, 5; (?) S. Eire, Jr. . J. Coolidge, 5 ; A. Browne. (?){ 20,
22. J. Morse, 2 ; E. Child. 24. R. Lockwood, 6; R. Daniel; E. Garfield,
1651. 26. *John Gay, 5 ; S. Freeman. 28. H. Bright, Jr., -3 ; I. Mixer,
1653. 30. R. Sawtel, 1. 32. Francis Smith, 8 ; R. Woodward. 34. J.
Loveran, 20; B. Garfield, 1685. 36. fE. Blois, 4 ; [See Sect. 148.] The
range of lots in the Further Plain, next to the river. 40. John Goss
("Goffee"), 4. next to the Brook ; sold to J. Stowers. N. Bowman, 7;
J. Stowers, March 13, 1643-4 : T. Hammond, 1650. R. Kemball, 12;
J. Stowers. R. Browne, 9. J. Tucker, 3 ; W. Woolcott. E. Dix, 3. T.
Hawkins, 2; J. Brabrook. J. Cutler, 3 ; J. Brabrook. Daniel Peirce, 1 ;
J. Prescott. J. Kingsbury, 6. I. Sterne, 11. M. Nutt, 8. T. Philbrick, 9;
I. Sterne, Jan., 1645-6. Robert Daniel, 8. E. How, 24. T. Mayhew, 30.
J. Firmin, 9. E. Mason, 1. "j J. Bachelor, 6. I J. Norcross. R. Tucke, 5.
J J. Knight, 5. E. Lewis, 6 ; Wm. Page, 1652. Wm. Swift, 5 ; John
Knight. E. Lamb, 3 ; C. Stearns. R. Wellington, 2. John Nicarson
(Nichols), 2 ; M. Ives. E. Piokeram, 6 ; J. Stubbs, 1646. J. Warner, 7
; M. Barstow. E. Garfield, 7. H. Mason, 3. T. Bartlett, 2. L. Waters, 4.
G. Church, 3. The range of lots in the Further Plain, N. of Sudbury
Boad; next the Great Dividends ; beginning at Beaver Brook. John
Page, 13; J. Bisco. T. Wincoll, 6. B. Pendleton, 12; P. Noyes. J.
Lawrence, 3 ; Edm. White. T. Cakebread, 8 ; J. Grout. H. Cuttris, 1.
J. Bernard, 10. T. Brooks, 4 ; Saml. Saltonstall. G. Stone, 10; T.
Boylston. John Cutting, 10; J. Stowers. B. Windes, 6; R. Benjamin.
R. Feake, 24; John Benjamin. T. Smith, 2 ; T. Flagg, 1659. J. Rose, 3
; S. Onge; (?) H. Dow. J. Hayward, 7. Simon Stone, 14. Isaac Mixer,
4. H. Dengaine, 1 ; T. Andrews. E. James, 5 ; T. Andrews. J. Warren,
13. Wm. Knapp, Sen., 7. H. Kemball, Sen., 6. (?) W. Palmer, 1 ; (? J.
Knight.) J. Finch, 4 ; J. WincoU. J. Winter, 3. C. Grant, 3 ; John
Harrington, 1683. (?) J. Smith, Jr., 1. J. Dwight, 7 ; D. Fiske. J.
Spring, 6. Em. White, 3; (?) E. Child. W. Gutterig, 3; C. Grant; John
Harrington, 1683. T. Rogers, 5 ; J. Sherman. John Doggett, 6 ; (?) R.
Wait. M. Underwood, 2. W. Paine, 24. (?) A. Shaw, 10 ; W. Woolcot ;
Edm. White. § 96. 4ih. Remote or the West Pine Meadows. The next
general grant of lands was made only a few months after that of the
Beaver Brook Plowlands, and the following is the record of it. " 1637,
June, 26. A grant of the Remote or West Pine Meadow, divided and
lotted out to all the Townsmen then inhabiting, being * In the list of
S. Freeman's possessions, this lot ia included as Affrani. This ie
probably a mistake, unless Gay had reUnquiBhed it to the town. 65
 1026 APPENDIX I. 114 in number, allowing one acre for a
person, and likewise for cattle, valued at 201b. the head, beginning
next the Playne Meadow, and to go on until the lots are ended.
Granted to Robert Feake, forty acres; to Edward How, twenty-four
acres." By comparing this order with that granting the Beaver Brook
Plowlands, it will be seen that in each of them the same rule was
adopted as to the quantity of land allotted to each individual. The
lots were numbered, with the number of acres in each, with the
exception of those of R. Feake, and E. How, which seem to have
been distinct from the others. These meadows were probably in the
southern and southeastern part of Weston ; but their location and
dimensions have not been ascertained, nor has it been discovered
that there was any regular order or series in the arrangement of the
lots. § 97. 5th. Town Plot, Township, Town Lots. July 30, 1635, it was
"Agreed, by the consent of the freemen, that two hundred acres of
upland near the Mill shall be reserved as most convenient to make a
township." This was a year before any of the general grants of land
were made ; but the records do not show that there was any order
for the survey or allotment of this reservation until Ap. 9, 1638,
when it was ordered thatthe Selectmen "shall have power to give
out the land upon the Town Plots to several persons, according to
their discretions." At a town meeting, two weeks later (Ap. 23), it
was " Ordered, that those freemen of the congregation [#o whom
these lots were assigned] shall build and dwell upon their lots at the
town plot, and not to alienate them by selling or exchanging them to
any foreigner, but to the freemen of the congregation; it being our
real intent to sit down there close together, and, therefore, these lots
were granted to those freemen, that inhabited most remote from the
meeting-house, and dwell most scattered." [See p. 996.] At the date
of this order, it is probable that the meeting-house was at the east of
Mount Auburn. § 98. There has been much perplexity in
ascertaining, or even conjecturing, where this reservation for a town
plot was located ; for there is nothing in the town records indicating
its locality, boundaries, or dimensions. We have, however, after a
careful collation and analysis of circumstantial data, arrived at a
conclusion, which is satisfactory, if not clearly demonstrable, viz. :
that it was that tract of land, bounded E. by Lexington St., S. by
Sudbury Road (Main St.), N. by Belmont St., and W. by that
continuation of Belmont St. (a part of which is now called Warren
St.), where it turns to the south until it intersects Main Street. A road
ran E. and W. through the middle of it, now called Warren Street.
There was one range of lots on the south side of Belmont St. ; one
on the north, and another on the south side of Warren St., and a
fourth range on the N. side of Main St., (Sudbury Road). As no
penalty was attached to the order, requiring the grantees to build
and settle on their lots, and forbidding their alienation to any except
freemen, the order appears to have been entirely disregarded, as it
is clear that very few, if any, of the grantees ever resided on them.
The greatest part of the lots very soon passed into other hands, and
in many instances to those who were never admitted freemen, or
not until a long time afterwards. § 99. In the volume of town records
containing the other schedules of possessions, is the following list of
the grantees of the town plot. The name and lot of Rev. George
Phillips is at the head of the list, although, as in the schedule of the
Beaver Brook Plowlands [Sect. 93], this lot was not in the town plot,
but on the east side of Lexington Street. At least three lots (6 A. to
John Whitney, Sen. ; 6 A. to John Sherman ; and 8 A. to T. Arnold),
were granted in this plot, after the following list was recorded. "
1638, Ap. 9. A Division of land at the Town Plot, No. 40. George
Phillips, 12 Acres ; Robert Feake, 9 A. ; Richard Browne, 9 A. ;
Daniel Patrick, 9 A. ; Winifred Woolcott, 6 A. ; John Firmin, 6 A. ;
Samuel Hosier, 6 A. ; Simon Stone, 6 A.; John Smith, 6 A.; Simon
Eire, 6 A.; Edmund James, 6 A.; John Doggett ; 6 A. ; Nicholas
Busby, 6 A. ; Richard Beers, 6 A. ; John Coolidge, 6 A.; Edmund
Lewis, 6 A.; John Stowers, 6 A.; Barnaby Windes, 6 A.; Hugh
 HISTORY OP WATERTOWN. 1027 Mason, 6 A.; Frances
Onge, 6 A.; Samuel Freeman, 6 A.; Henry Bright, Jr., 6 A. ; John
Nicarson, 6 A. ; David Fiske, 6 A. ; Henry Dow, 6 A. ; Gregory Taylor,
6 A.; John Tomson, 6 A.; Thomas Hastings, 6 A.; Daniel Pierce, 6 A.;
Charles Chadwick, 6 A.; Edward How, 9 A.; John Eaton, 3 A.; John
Smith, Jr., 3 A.; Isaac Mixer, 6 A.; Edmund Blois, 6 A.; John Baker, 3
A.; Abraham Browne, 6 A. ; William Potter, 4 A. ; Thomas Philbrick, 3
A ; Thomas Carter, — A." The reservation ordered for a township
was to contain 200 A.; but the above grants, deducting that of Mr.
Phillips, amounted to 238 Acres. To this, are to be added the lots
subsequently granted to Whitney, Sherman, and Arnold. § 100. Qth.
Lieu of Township Lots, or lots beyond the Further Plain. On the 17th
July, 1638, three months after the allotment of the Township Lots, it
was by the freemen " Ordered, that all those freemen that have no
lots at the Township, shall have 12 Acre lots beyond Beaver Plain,
and all other townsmen shall have 6 Acre lots in [ (?) beyond] the
said Plain." The lots thus granted, are those often mentioned in
inventories and lists of possessions, as Lieu of Township land. They
were situated at the west of Waltham [Beaver] Plain, immediately
south of the Great Dividends, and extended westward beyond Stony
Brook. The names of at least 67 grantees are found in the records,
and their lots amounted to about 800 acres. The lots were all
numbered, but the records do not show that there was any regular
order or series in the arrangement of them. ^ § 101. On the same
day (July 17, 1638), that the Lieu of Township land was granted, it
was " Ordered, that all the land lying beyond the Plowland and the
lots granted in lieu of the township, having the Great Dividends on
the one [North] side, Charles River and Dedham bounds on the
other [south] side, and the Farm lands at the farther end [west side]
of it, shall be for a common for cattle, to the use of the freemen of
the town and their heirs forever, and not to be alienated without the
consent of every freeman and their heirs forever." This was called
the Freemen's Common. Notwithstanding this attempt at absolute
perpetuity, on the 27th Nov., 1639, the freemen granted this tract
conditionally to the Farms. [See Section 81.] § 102. 1th. The Farms,
or Farm Lands. The first notice in the records of the Farm lands is in
the preceding order, concerning the Freemen's Common. Three
months afterwards (Oct. 14, 1638), it was " Ordered, that the Farms
granted shall begin at the nearest meadow to Dedham Line, beyond
the line that runneth at the end of the Great Dividends, parallel to
the line at the end of the town bounds [Sudbury Line], and so to go
on successively from Dedham bounds, in order as they are given
out, as they which are deputed to lay them out shall see good, and
appoint the proportion of meadow, being twenty acres to one
hundred and fifty acres of upland." At the same time it was "
Ordered, that Daniel Patrick, Abraham Browne, John Stowers,
Edmund Lewis, and Simon Eire, or the major part of them, shall lay
out the Farms as they are ordered." The next year (Nov. 27, 1639), it
was " Ordered, that if the Land in view for Farms shall not sufiice to
accommodate the rest of the townsmen that are behind, that then
they shall have their farms out of the Freemen's Common, upon the
same condition that the rest have theirs." § 103. In the Files of the
County Court, is the following document. The summaries in brackets,
here inserted, are not in the original ; and a name in brackets,
following that of a grantee, shows who had become proprietor of the
lot previous to 1644. This order for allotting the Farms by 10 in a
division, and with the lots so numbered, is by no means lucid, and
is, indeed, enigmatical. " 1642, 3 m. 10 d. Ordered [by the town],
that all the townsmen that bad not farms laid out formerly, shall take
them by "10 in a division, and to cast lots for the several divisions,
allowing 13 Acres of upland to every head of persons or estates."
 1028 APPENDIX I. " lat Lot, or Divition. No. of the lot 43.
George Richardson, [John Traine.j 92. John Barnard, 21. William
Potter, 63. William Knapp, 104. Rd. Beers, 87. Garret Church, 53.
Chr. Grant, 55. Geo. Parkhnrst, 23. William Cutting (Qutterig), 49.
WiUiam Clarke, Acres. 287 54 93 49 58 117 55 91 58
[10farm8=896A.] 2d Lot, or Divaion. 69. Simon Stone, [Samuel
Saltonstall.] 103. Charles Chadwick, 85. Gregory Taylor, 97. John
Smith, . 56. Wm. Barsham, 75.1 Samuel Hosier, 90 Nich's Knapp, .
47. Robt. Lockwood, . 9. David Fiske, . 18. Martin Underwood, 158
99 75 78 88 39 117 134 149 43 [10farmB=980A.] Zd Lot, or
Division. 27. Samuel Freeman, 7. Joseph BemiB, . 2. John Peirce, 20.
Anthony Peirce, 72. Nichs. Busby, 68. Miles Ives, 15. Thos. Philbrick,
33. John Warren, . 6. John [Isaac] Steams, 25. John Winter, . 121 44
78 86 86 78 127 162 259 34 [10 fannB=1070A.] 4th Lot, or Livieion.
38. John Bisco, . 98. Thos. Bartlett, . 76. William Hammond, 44.
John Lawrence, 28. Edwd. Dix, . 62. Timothy Hawkins, 16. Benjn.
Crispe, 29. Thomas Smith, 60. James Cutler, Bth Lot, or Division. 17.
H. Goldstone, 89. Henry Bright, . 30. r.obert Veazey, 102. Henry
Dow, 54. John Clough, 39. Benjn. Bullard, 40. Michael Barstow, 86.
John Simson, [Geo. Parkhurst.] [9 farms250 66 165 93 105 64 64 84
82 =973 A.] 209 125 32 97 91 88 129 78 No. of the Lot 69. George
Munning, 12. Nicholas Guy, Acres. 73 64 [10 farmB=986 A.] 6(A Lot,
or Division. 3. Thos. Arnold, 74. Esther Pickeram, 1. John Finch, .
[Thos. WincoU.] 41. John Ellet, . 34. Lawrence Waters, 99. Edward
Lamb, 35. Isaac Mixer, 26. Nathl. Bowman, . 52. Joseph Morse, . 22.
WilUam Eaton, . 97 99 91 78 105 65 92 83 73 80 [10farmB=863A.]
7th Lot, or Division. 24. John "GofF" [Goss], 96. Saml. Saltonstall, .
66. R. Wellington, 4. Richard Wait, . 77. Wm. Bridges, 36. Henry
Cuttris, . 73. Barnabas Windes, 68. John Loveran, . 59. Justinian
Holden, 49 157 67 60 77 17 110 150 40 [9fanns=727A.] Sth Lot, or
Division. 71. Winifred Woolcott, 88. John Knowles, 57. Thos. Carter,
19. John Knight, 93. John Eddy, . 84. Edm. Blois, 82. Rd. Woodward,
71. John Spring, 81. Henry KembaU, Sen, 100. MUes Nutt, 183 100
92 270 120 43 125 71 105 51 [10fannB=1160A.] 9th Lot, or
Division. 101. William JenniBon, 67. Rd. Browne, 91. Hugh Mason,
79. Thos. Hastings, 78. Ephm. ChUd, 83. John Sherman, 64. Rt.
Jennison, 13. John Prescott, , 46. John Coolidge, 45. Thos. Wincoll,
14. Thos. Boylston, 11. Rd. Sawtel, 65. Henry Greene, 94. Francis
Smith, [Rd. Woodward.] 150 150 71 71 150 171 65 90 119 144 78
67 67 131 [14 farmB=1519A.] [Total, 92 farms=7674 Acres.]
 HISTORY OF WATERTOWN. 1029 " This is a true copy,
taken out of a transcript of the Town Book of Watertown, this 7 (2),
1668, (signed), John Sherman. Confessed in Court, by Mr. John
Sherman, 6 (2), 1669, Thomas Danforth." § 104. By examining this
schedule, it will be found that there are the names of 92 grantees,
while the highest number of a lot is 104, and that there are 12 or 13
numbers blank, or without a grantee's name. In one or two
instances, the same number is attached to the lots of two grantees,
probably, oversights in making the schedule, or in the copy of it. la
the introduction to the schedule, mention is made of " farms laid out
formerly," that is, previous to May, 1642. A range of lots, on the
south side of the highway [? Sudbury Road], was laid out to the
following persons, whose names are not in the preceding schedule.
The 1st lot in the range, adjoining Sudbury Line, was that of Bryan
Pendleton, by him sold to Peter Noyes, and very early purchased by
George Munning. The next, adjoining it on the east, was that of
Daniel Patrick ; next, Simon Eire, 200 A. ; next, John Stowers, 130
A. ; next, Abraham Browne, 130 A.; next, John Whitney, 120 A.;
next, Edward How, 200 A.; next, Jeremiah Norcross, 250 A.; next,
Thomas Mayhew, 250 A. To these may be added the following
names, not found in the preceding schedule, viz. ; Sir Richard, 300
A., granted to him by the General Court, which farm passed to his
son Henry ; Edmund Lewis, 100 A. ; Edward Garfield, 100 A. It will
be perceived that the committee of Oct., 1638, to lay out the farm
lands, was composed of persons here named, and not contained in
the schedule, and, that during three years and a half after their
appointment, they seem to have laid out few besides their own
farms. § 105. It may be seen, in the order for the laying out the
Great Dividends, that all the meadows within them were excepted.
Among these were Patch Meadow, whose location has not been
clearly ascertained ; Pond Meadow, in the N. E. part of Waltham;
Rock Meadow, on the borders of the upper part of Beaver Brook,
and situated partly in Watertown [Waltham], and partly in
Cambridge [W. Camb. and Lex.] ; West Meadow, on the northern
border of the town, adjoining Cambridge [Lex.], but the exact
location not ascertained. Numerous proprietors of lots in these
meadows are found in the schedules of possessions and inventories.
Besides the Beaver Brook Plowlands, a considerable number of
meadow lots on Beaver Brook were held by diflFerent persons.
Perhaps, these were identical with Rock Meadow. Other meadows
are mentioned, of which we know very little. Chester Meadow, was
on Chester Brook, the outlet of Sherman's Pond. Edward Garfield, in
his Will, mentions a "meadow further side of Chester Brook, called
Plane Meadoiu," and in his Inventory, it is called Chester Meadow.
Pequusset Meadow [See Section 81]. Several small tracts of
meadow, not designated by distinct names, were situated among the
Small Lots. Cherry Meadow, was probably on Cherry Brook, a W.
branch of Stony Brook. Crooked Meadow, Long Meadow, Slendergut
Meadow, &c. § 106. For much additional information respecting the
allotment of lands ; regulations for fencing and feeding in common ;
for surrounding the plowlands in common enclosures, &c., see the
transcript of the original records, as printed, pp. 995 &c. § 107.
There was much dissatisfaction among the Watertown people, with
the early allotments of the Remote Meadows, the lands in lieu of
township, and of the farm lands, which led to much contention and
repeated surveys. Jan. 10, 1647-8, Mr. Bisco, Lieut. Mason, and
Isaac Stearns, were appointed a committee " to determine the
wrong in laying out the Remote Meadows;" and at the same time a
committee of 7 (Lieut. Mason, John Coolidge, Dea. Hastings, Mr.
Bisco, John Sherman, John Warren, and Mr. Pendleton), was
appointed to consider the disputes " about lands in lieu of township."
The dissatisfaction and contontion continued many years, at least
until 1663, and it was probably this state of affairs, that acquired for
a considerable tract of land, in the S. W. part of Watertown, the
name of " the land of contention," terms frequently occurring in
deeds. About 1663,
 1030 APPENDIX I. this part of Watertown was again
sarveyed and plotted out bj Capt. John Sherman, in order to be
allotted to those to whom it was granted. It contained 1102 acres,
including that covered by water, and was bounded on the south by
Dedham ; west by Natick and Sudbury, otherwise by Watertown
farm-land. There is in the county records a delineation of the outline
of this tract, as surveyed, but not a plot of the farms within it. SOIL,
FORMATION OP THE LAND. § 108. For an account of the soil, and of
theformation of the land, within the three precincts of Watertown,
we must rely chiefly upon the descriptions of them by those who
resided there, and were very competent observers. § 109. Rev. Dr.
Francis, in his History of Watertown, says : "The soil of Watertown is
in general remarkably good. A portion of the southeastern extremity
of the town is sandy, poor, aud barren ; but with this exception, the
land is among the best and most productive in the Commonwealth.
The soil consists for the most part, of black loam, having a
substratum of hard earth, so that it suflFers little comparatively from
drought in the summer. There is [in 1830], very little woodland in
the town, nearly all the land having been cleared and cultivated." We
may infer, from the early records, printed in the preceding pages,
and from the subsequent records, that it was not well wooded at the
first settlement, as strict orders were passed very early to prevent
the destruction of trees ; as trees, single or in small numbers, were
sometimes granted or accepted as a compensation for debt or
service, and individuals were sometimes permitted by a town order,
to take dead trees on the common land. Townships are rarely found,
especially in New England, where so very large a proportion of the
land is well adapted to tillage, and where there is so very little
broken or waste land, as in Watertown. § 110. There are few hills of
any considerable elevation, and only two or three appear to be
named in the early records. The first is Strawberry Hill, repeatedly
mentioned in the early schedules of possessions. There has been
much perplexity and uncertainty, as to its locality; whether it was
identical with Schoolhouse Hill, or was situated farther north, near
the Cambridge Line, or a little west of Fresh Pond. It is stated, on
page 47, on what then seemed to be suflBcient grounds, that the 50
Acre homestall of Capt. Jennison, was situated on the northern side
of Belmont Street, where J. P. Gushing, Esq., now resides. This
homestall was bounded on the north by the lot of Thomas Philpot,
which lot was bounded on the north by Strawberry Hill. In 1697,
Mary, wid. of William Price, sold to Samuel Livermore her house and
12 acre lot, which was bounded N. E. by Cambridge Line, and west
by Philpot's lot. Any evidence, that Philpot had more than one lot of
land, had been sought in vain. We now suppose that, after the
schedule of possessions was completed, in 1644, and before Philpot
became insane, about 1646 or 7, he had purchased a second lot
near Cambridge Line, upon which he built a house, and which the
town held and rented to various persons, for more than 70 years ;
that the lot between Jennison's homestall on the south, and
Strawberry Hill on the north, was the one sold, in 1651, to John
Clary, by order of the Court, to defray the expense of Philpot's
imprisonment, and which Clary, in 1688, sold to William Bond, Esq.,
then proprietor of the Jennison homestall. This supposition is
favored by the circumstance that, in the schedule of possessions, the
Philpot lot at Strawberry Hill contained, by estimation, 10 acres,
while the lot, so long rented by the town, contained between 3 and
4 acres. It now seems to be clearly ascertained, that Capt.
Jennison's homestall, of 50 A., was on the north side of Mount
Auburn Street [at first called Mill Street], between Common and
School Streets, and that Strawberry Hill was identical with School-
house Hill, afterwards called Meeting-house Hill. In
 HISTORY OF WATERTOWN. 1031 the Mid. Registry of
Deeds, p. 383, is a deed, dated May 25, 1694, by Thomas
Underwood and wife Mary, conveying to Nathaniel Fisk " land on the
south side of Strawberry Hill (or the School-house Hill)," bounded
east " by highway over the hill by the school-house." This seems to
prove the identity of Strawberry and School-house Hills. It is the
highest point of land in the town. § 111. WhiCnei/'s Hill, is supposed
to be the same which has of late been called White's Hill. The
homestall of John Whitney, of 16 A., bought of John Stickling, was
situated east of it [see Whitney, 1 and 60]. Oct. 29, 1697, Joshua
Whitney, then of Groton, sold this 16 A. homestall to Corp.
[afterwards Dea.] Nathan Fiske, and it was then bounded on the N.
by Joseph Sherman, and Henry Spring; E. by Thomas Bond ; S. by
Lieut. Jonas Bond; W. by N. Fiske. At an early date, John Whitney,
Sen., and his sons, had become proprietors on the north and west
sides of this hill. In IS'W, the homestall of John Whitney, Jr., was on
or near the spot where Mr. Charles- Whitney now or lately resided,
and he owned the lot in the Town Plot at the S. W. corner of
Belmont and Lexington Streets. The meeting-house, built about
1695, where Mr. Angier was settled, was at the S. E. angle of the
Belmont and Lexington Street cross-roads, and it was ordered to be
built between wid. (Hannah) Stearns and Whitney's Hill, and was
sometimes described as. between the Pound and Whitney's Hill. The
Pound was then at those cross-roads, where it was constructed
about 1687. Elbow Hill is sometimes mentioned in the description of
roads, and was probably nothing more than a declivity in Lexington
Street, at first called the Concord Road. The highest point in Mount
Auburn Cemetery is less than 100 feet above tide water, and before
its present appropriation, this tract, or a part of it, was called Stone's
Woods. It does not seem to have been deemed of sufScient height
or importance to be designated or referred to in any of the records.
§ 112. A writer in the Mass. Hist. Coll., 2d Ser. III., in describing
Waltham [the middle precinct of Watertown], says : " The land in
the south part of the town, which runs parallel with Charles River,
the distance of two miles, and half a mile in breadth [i. e. the Hither
and Further Plains], is very level, and is mostly of a light, sandy soil,
not very deep. Adjoining the river it is fertile. The interior of the
town is of a hard, loamy soil, upon a gravelly bottom, and tolerably
fertile ; in general the land is uneven, and in some parts rocky.
Almost every farm is or may be fenced with stone-wall, from its own
grounds; and probably few towns in the country exhibit more
excellent walls. * * * * In the north and westerly parts of the town,
the land is much broken, and somewhat hilly, but productive." There
are a few high points of land in Waltham, con.siderably higher than
any in Watertown. The highest and most conspicuous is Prospect
Hill, about half a mile west of Waltham Plain. It rises with a regular
rounded surface, like the back of a porpoise, to the height of 482
feet above tide-water. A large pine tree formerly stood on its
summit, and it was one of the first points seen by mariners ou
approaching Boston harbor. It commands a very wide, diversified,
and beautiful prospect. In an ancient record it is called Knapp's
Garden. Bear Hill, west of Prospect Hill, and bordering on Weston,
has about the same height. Miickerel Hill, near the N. E. corner of
the town, is less elevated, but commands a beautiful prospect,
including Boston harbor. It has borne this name from a very early
date. The first hill within the ancient limits of Watertown, that is
noticed in the early records, is Mount Feake, named for Mr. Robert
Feake, of Watertown. It was discovered and named by Governor
Winthrop and his exploring party, in January, 1631-2. It is too
insignificant in magnitude to be entitled a mount, or even to be thus
noticed as a hill; and the party must have been in a jocose mood,
when they gave it its designation and importance. Much of it has
been removed or destroyed of late in the grading of a railroad. There
has been, heretofore, some uncertainty about its locality. [See Dr.
Kendal's Centennial Sermon, p. 28.] This uncertainty seems to be
dispelled. It was near the east border of the Oldham Farm, a little
distance S. W. of the western
 1032 APPENDIX I. end of the Further [Waltham] Plain.
According to the terms of the Grant of the Oldham Farm, in Ap.
1634, it lay " near Mount Feake, on the northwest of Charles River."
Mr. Richard Browne had a grant of 12 acres of meadow " at Mount
Feake, at the turn of the river," which was bounded W. by the
Oldham Farm, and E. by the river. § 113. In the appendix to the
Centennial Sermon of Rev. Dr. Samuel Kendal, of Weston [the
farmers' precinct], he says: "The town is in general uneven, and in
8ome parts, a broken tract of land. High cliffs or ledges of rocks are
found within its limits. * * * A considerable proportion of the town is
elevated above the common level of the adjacent country, and gives
an extensive view of other parts. A hill of excellent land on the
southwesterly part of the town presents a very extensive, and, in the
month of May, a very romantic prospect. The soil in the elevated and
rocky parts of the town is, in general, a deep-red strong loam, very
favorable to the growth of fruit trees. There are several tracts of
plain land ; but these are of no considerable extent. The hills are
mostly springy, and very little subject either to frost or drought. A
number of brooks and rivulets accommodate the inhabitants, and
pay their tribute to the bordering streams. The greatest part of these
brooks rise within the town, and are fed by springs. There are few or
no stagnant waters, but several tracts of meadow, that abound with
excellent peat." No hills are named in Weston, in the early records.
ROADS. § 114. The' attempt to identify the primitive or very early
roads, residences, and other localities, is attended with much
difiSculty and perplexity, for reasons already stated. [See Sect. 8-1.]
Most of the present roads in the town are undoubtedly of very early
date, with slight changes or variations in some instances, but not
such as to affect their identity. It is probable, however, that some
highways, cartways, and lanes, then made use of to reach the very
numerous small lots into which the town was at first divided, were
long since vacated, or so changed that they cannot now be clearly
identified with the originals. A few of the roads received names very
early, and others are so described that they can be clearly identified.
§ 115. The earliest reference to roads in the town records, is in
1635, probably Sept. 14, when it was " agreed, that John Warren
and Abraham Browne shall lay out all the highways, and to see that
they be sufficiently repaired." In 1636 (probably in Nov.), it was "
Ordered, that there shall be an highway left sufficient at the hither
end all the great dividends or lots." In 1637, it was " Ordered, that
there shall be eight days appointed for every year for the repairing
the highways ; and every man that is a soldier or watchman to come
at his appointed time, with a wheelbarrow, mattock, spade, or
shovel, and for default hereof, to pay for every day 5s. to the town,
and a cart for every day to pay 19s." Dec. 30, 1637, it was "
Ordered, that there shall be a highway between Ephraim Child and
Thomas Rogers' ground, lying in Dorchester Field, leading to the
Flats." This was probably what was sometimes called Crooked Lane,
running between E. Child and John Sherman, who bought Rogers' lot
after his decease. § 116. The two most important roads, at least the
most so at first, were Mill Street and Sudbury Road, the one
terminating and the other beginning at the Mill, near to the wear.
Mill Street began below Mount Auburn, where Sir Richard Saltonstall
began his plantation, and selected his homestall lot, and passing by
the ancient graveyard, it extended to the Mill, at the first or lowest
falls on Charles River. It did not long retain this name, but acquired
that of the Cambridge Road, or the Road to the College, and
sometimes the County Road. It has recently been named Mount
Auburn Street.
 HISTORY OF WATERTOWN. 1033 § 117. The road
extending westward from the Mill, was at first sometimes called
i^ieCountry Road, but it has been much more commonly known as
the Sudbury Road, since the planting of that town. It was the County
Road, and it is often designated as such in deeds, inventories, &c. It
is now Main Street, and it retains this name through Waltham to
Weston. It is said that, for a long time, there was more travel on it,
than on any others road in the colonies. It was the great
thoroughfare from Boston and its vicinity, passing over Boston Neck,
through Roxbury, Brookliue, New Cambridge (Newton), and over Mill
Bridge ; thence westward through Watertown, including Waltham
and Weston ; to the western part of the Colony, to Connecticut, New
York, and the Southern Colonies. Some of this travel was diverted by
the tjuilding of Cambridge Bridge ; and still more by the Worcester
turnpike. The recent construction of railroads has diverted so much
of what was retained, that as a thoroughfare it is now comparatively
deserted. It has not been ascertained that the direct road from
Cambridge to Waltham, which is very ancient, had any distinct name
in very early times, when the first schedules of possessions were
made. In later times it has been commonly designated as the Back
Road, and recently it has been named Belmont Street. The road now
called Lexington Street, beginning at Belmont Street, and extending
northward by Elbow Hill, was anciently called the Concord Road. In
Dec. 1638, it was " Ordered that the highway leading to Concord,
shall be 6 rods broad." Whether that part of Lexington Street,
extending southward from Belmont to Main Street, had any distinct
designation in early times, has not been ascertained, but the whole
of it is of a very early date. What is now called Howard Street, was
at first called the Way to the Little Plain, and in later times, the Road
to Dirty Green. That part of the present Pleasant Street, extending
westward from Howard Street, was at first only a cartway, laid out
for the accommodation of the Beaver Brook Plowlands in the Hither
Plain ; and in the early schedules of possessions, it was commonly
called the Way betwixt Lots. [See Sect. 93.] That part of Pleasant
Street, extending eastward from Howard Street to the Mill, was
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com