Hi Jane: Very interesting info you have given. As I mentioned 'pro- hibitive cost' as being a deterrent to travel by water, I looked to a book I have titled: "Planters of the Commonwealth" originally pub- lished in 1930. In it I find that the Pilgrims of the Mayflower & the other ships of that era which brought colonists to the New World were charged a fee under a 7year contract which was 10pounds, & they furnished, as far as possible, their own subsistence. This fee was for adults only, with a separate fee schedule for children based on age. In addition to the passenger fares, the cost of shipping house- hold goods increased the financial problem for the emigrant. It was necessary to carry these things across the ocean as there was no way to obtain them in the early years of an unsettled country. The rate for this service was fixed at '4 li, a tonn for goods.' For an av- erage family of 8 persons with a ton of freight the cost would be about 30 pounds, or nearly a thousand dollars in our 'present mon- ey'-(Remember 'present' was in the year 1930 when the book was written..What would that equate to in 'today's money?') Those em- igrants who also traveled by water from New England to NY State would also have had to bring their household goods with them, thus I feel that the term 'cost prohibitive' could have applied equally as well to them. Just a view of what our forebearers endured phys- ically, as well as financially, in the hope of finding a new & better life. I also imagine many stayed & continued to endure their life as it was at that time, due simply to: "They could not afford to do otherwise." Bill Waterhouse Mystic, CT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, all, I haven't been following this thread closely, but want to say that water was the predominant way to travel in colonial days because ships or small boats could duck around easily across bodies of water. By the late 1700s certainly there were well established roads across New England, and the men who had marched across in the French and Indian War and Revolution would have known them. However I do know that a lot of people used the boat to go from Fall River to Albany. My own ancestor David Cook went that way to go back to Westport, Mass., for a second wife after the first one died in Schoharie Co., NY, in the 1830s. In compiling the Thomas Cooke Gen., I found some correspondence and bills of lading that showed relatives coming to visit around 1810, by boat down the coast and then up the Hudson to New Baltimore, where I guess they took off by foot or by horse. I can't imagine that the long overland trip would have been less expensive than the boat trip, given the number of days involved and the wear and tear on a horse. I grew up next to the Hudson River, and the "Landings" in various towns were still there although used only by the Dayboat between NY and Albany, and only a very few major ones for that. My grandfather was Capt. of a river boat in the mid to late 1800s, and they hauled freight as well as passengers, and stopped at all the little landings up and down the Hudson. Jane ==== RIGENWEB Mailing List ==== Visit and/or join our Rhode Island off topic Mail list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rhode_Island/?yguid=86367525 Subscribe: Rhode_Island-subscribe@yahoogroups.com