Thomas Casey, a Pioneer of Newport, R. I.
Thomas Casey, a Rhode Island settler, was born about 1636, and died in 1719. That Ireland was his native land is generally conceded. A suggestion has been set up in some quarters, however, that he was of English parentage.
To support this idea, a “tradition” is produced. Yet Casey as a family name is Irish of the Irish. For centuries it has been prominent in the east and south of Ireland. It derives from O’Cathasaigh which has been anglicized O’Casey, Cahasy, Casey, Casie, and Case. Those intent on making out an English, rather than an Irish, parentage for Thomas Casey, the immigrant, declare that “By tradition, he was a son of one of the English planting families in Ulster county, Ireland. His father and mother and all his family were destroyed in the Irish massacre [1641], he, a child, being saved by his uncle and carried to his relatives in Gloucestershire. It is further asserted that he sailed for America from Plymouth, England.”
The “tradition” here noted is radically defective. In the first place, there is no Ulster county in Ireland. Perhaps the province of Ulster was what the writer was aiming at. In the second place, the “Irish massacre” mentioned never happened. For a long period, writers in the English interest asserted that on October 23, 1641, the Irish Catholics rose and slaughtered in cold blood thousands of English and other Protestants then in the country. But the charge is now rejected as untrue by impartial historians. W. J. O’Neill Daunt brands the story of such a massacre as “a thorough and most impudent falsehood,” and as being another of those “stupendous calumnies” circulated by the enemies of the Irish people. Other authoritative writers similarly testify.
“It has been represented,” says Prendergast, a Protestant,[[10]] “that there was a general massacre [by the Irish], surpassing the horrors of the Sicilian Vespers, the Parisian Nuptials, and Matins of the Valtelline, but nothing is more false.”
Consequently, as there was no massacre by the Irish Catholics, then as charged, Thomas Casey’s “father and mother and all his family” could not have perished in it. In February, 1642, however, a dreadful massacre was ordered—not by the Irish Catholics, but by the English lords justices. The mandate was issued to Lord Ormund, the lords justices signing the fearful instructions, being Dillon, Rotheram, Loftus, Willoughby, Temple, and Meredith.
The mandate for the massacre as issued to Ormund was, “That his lordship do endeavor with his majesty’s forces to wound, kill, slay, and destroy, by all the ways and means he may, all the said rebels, their adherents, and relievers; and burn, waste, spoil, consume, destroy, and demolish all the places, towns, and houses, where the said rebels are, or have been, relieved or harbored, and all the hay and corn there; and kill and destroy all the men there inhabiting capable to bear arms.”
The orders were only too well obeyed. Men, women and children perished alike. The English soldiery made no distinction between age or sex. In their savage fury they committed massacre after massacre. The English garrison of Carrickfergus alone murdered 3,000 men, women and children in that neighborhood. Lord Broghill perpetrated like cruelties in Cork and Waterford. In County Wicklow Sir Charles Coote was guilty of a massacre so horrible that after it, to use his own language, “not a child, were it but a hand high, was left alive.”
It is probable that the family of Thomas Casey, the Rhode Island settler, were Irish Catholics, and if they perished in a massacre it is quite possible it was in the one thus inaugurated by the English. It is quite likely that the author of the “tradition” and “Ulster county” got matters somewhat mixed. Hosts of Irish Catholics fled the country at the period mentioned, and if Thomas Casey’s uncle did so, taking the child with him, it would be entirely in accord with the facts and conditions here described. The statement that Thomas eventually sailed from Plymouth, England, if he did so sail, has no particular significance and proves nothing.
Thomas Casey is first heard of in Rhode Island at Newport. His wife’s name was Sarah. They had, so far as known, three children, Thomas, Adam and Samuel. In 1692, the father and his son, Thomas, witnessed a deed given by James Sweet of East Greenwich, R. I., to Thomas Weaver of Newport. Adam Casey, another son, was a lieutenant in 1742, and in 1750 purchased 50 acres in Scituate, R. I. In 1760, Adam and his son, Edward Casey, sold 100 acres to Nathan Brown of Swanzey, Mass., and removed to Coventry, R. I. Adam Casey’s will was proved in 1765.
Samuel, the third son of Thomas Casey, the immigrant, lived at different times in Newport, Kings Town and Exeter, R. I. He held various town offices. At his death, his personal estate inventoried £2,803 18s. 6d. He had six children; his brother, Thomas, four; and Adam, five. Several members of this noted family have been distinguished in American civil and military life. The family is still represented in Rhode Island.