Talk:Hanton City, Rhode Island

United States: Rhode Island Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Rhode Island portal This article is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island (assessed as Low-importance).

Ghost towns Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ghost towns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ghost towns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ghost townsWikipedia:WikiProject Ghost townsTemplate:WikiProject Ghost townsGhost town articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

A few points about the theories of Hanton City's origins. The idea that it couldn't have been runaway slaves is not well founded. Slavery did not end in RI till the early 1800's. RI did not abolish slavery in 1652 it only restricted it and even those restrictions were not enforced. In 1715 a law was passed legalizing slavery as it was a major industry for many in Newport. RI began gradual emancipation in 1784, but that usually meant the captive holder did not have to free his captive until he/she was 21 or 25 years old. See <http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm>
As for the ability to procure building materials or having supplies for day to day, there were a great many settlers without the convenience of such goods and they did just fine. Most towns kept pest houses for times of epidemic where any with such communicable diseases were housed.
The theory of loyalists is a real stretch as many RI loyalists went to Canada. It is doubtful that a group of loyalists would have gone into hiding in a remote village outside of Smithfield.
The most likely explanation is that it was a community of free-Africans. Free-Africans did not have the same rights and freedoms as whites and it was not uncommon for them to establish such communities. This would also explain why there is no written history or mention in the local histories. There would have been no interest (at the time) in documenting such a community, and there may have been very few whites who ever ventured there. This would also explain why there are only a few stones (in the Smith plot) belonging to that area. Free-Africans usually could not afford to buy headstones for their loved ones, field stones were more likely as well as small stone piles. There was also a fairly large free-African community in Smithfield at the time. The 1790 census shows 82 free blacks and 5 slaves. 1800 the number of free balcks drops to 46 ( with 1 slave) which could indicate that many of the free-Africans formed their own community outside the reach (or interest) of the census taker.
Barkhamstead Lighthouse (part of Barkhamstead CT and Danbury Quarter (part of Winchester CT) are two good examples of these communities.
See <http://www.skyweb.net/~channy/BarkLight.html> Capittsley 02:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While growing up in Smithfield, I always heard from the old timers that it was most likely a village of slaves or freed men, as well as some indians. They reportedly built a good many of the stone walls on the area's farms.

I never heard anything about Loyalists. I would imagine they would have made themselves scarce by that time.63.167.255.24 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of similar sites in Rhode Island. It's very likely just a remote farmstead supporting one or two families. Since locals have preserved the lore that Indians and/or African-Americans settled the site, this theory is quite possible. But it may also be just a charming bit of supposition about an otherwise unremarkable spot in the woods. The theory that loyalists settled the site is utter poppycock, since locals at the time were fervent patriots and would not have tolerated their presence.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Carnes (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]