OK. So here's another ancestor who lived through tough times, but of whom we know very little. I've ordered a book about the history of Dedham, Massachusetts because we have so many ancestors there, but it's not here yet. Perhaps it will tell us more about Ephraim and perhaps we will still not know much.
First, the name Ephraim is unusual. It was not carried down in our line; at least none of our later ancestors have that first name. It comes from the Old Testament; Ephraim was a child of Joseph and Asenath, and the patriarch of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Biblical names were frequently used by the Puritans of Massachusetts, and Ephraim's parent qualified in that regard.
Ephraim was a son of Henry and Mary Metcalf Wilson (sometimes spelled Willson), His parents, both immigrants, married in 1642 in Dedham, Massachusetts Bay Colony, and Ephraim was born in 1656, the last of their five children.
The first record I can find of Ephraim is during King Philip's War, when he was about 20 years old. He earned twelve shillings for serving under Captain Jacob in Medfield, where native Americans attacked and destroyed about half the town despite there being a relatively large garrison there. Because Ephraim's pay record is from June of 1676 and the attack occurred in February, it's possible that he was not there when the town was attacked, but was sent after the fact to guard against further attacks. Interestingly, the towns were responsible for paying the soldiers and then were reimbursed by the colony. So Ephraim's family, probably his father, received the pay and we don't know whether Ephraim received any of it or not. The family may have used it to help replace whatever income was lost to them when Ephraim left his job and went to war.
I don't know what kind of job Ephraim had. He didn't marry until 1681, when he married Rebecca Sumner, daughter of Samuel and Rebecca Staples Sumner. They had at least five children together-Samuel, Rebecca, Nathaniel, John and Ephraim. Ephraim was a little older than was typical for the time and place, which could indicate that he was still busy establishing himself in his trade or on a farm prior to his marriage.
He died February 20, 1733, a few months short of 77 years. His stone is still standing and can be seen on his Find A Grave memorial. Unfortunately, I've not found a will or inventory for Ephraim. That could tell us a lot about what his occupation may have been, possibly his religion, perhaps items that would indicate a financial status. The likelihood is that he was a Puritan, that he was a farmer, and that he worked hard for a living. I can't wait till the Dedham book arrives to see if there are any gems there that will tell us more.
The line of descent is:
Ephraim Wilson-Rebecca Sumner
Samuel Wilson-Elizabeth Hawes
Rebecca Wilson-Jonathan Wright
Molly Wright-Amariah Holbrook
Nahum Holbrook-Susanna Rockwood
Joseph Holbrook-Mary Elizabeth Whittemore
Fremont Holbrook-Phoebe Brown
Loren Holbrook-Etta Stanard
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Friday, October 25, 2019
Holbrook line: Nathaniel Joslin, of Marlsboro
There is so much erroneous information about our ancestor Nathaniel Joslin, on so many trees and websites, that I hesitate to write this post. I hope I have weeded out most of the false information and I think I can add a few details to his story. I would absolutely love to hear from anywone who knows more about this Nathaniel, the son of Nathaniel and Sarah King Joslin.
The first thing we don't know is when he was born. It was not Aril 21, 1658, as is often stated. That son Nathaniel died in 1667. We know our Nathaniel was the son of the above couple because he is mentioned several times in his father's will. But we don't know his birthdate, or location, or why it would have been omitted from town records that seem complete otherwise. Perhaps his name was on a scrap of paper that was stuck in the records, intending that it be recorded later, and the scrap of paper was mislaid. Another possibility is that Nathaniel was not Sarah's child, and so was not recorded, but there is no indication of that and surely it would have been noted somewhere.
Nathaniel married Hester Morse, daughter of Joseph and Susannah Shattuck Morse, on July 20,1682, and that is the first record we have of him. Presumably this would give him a birth date in the early 1660's. He was next named on a list of inhabitants in Marlboro in 1686, and would likely have been at least 21 years old to have made that list. So again, we point to the early 1660's. Nathaniel and Hester (also seen as Esther, same lady) were the parents of perhaps as many as eleven children, although that would mean Hester had children into her 40's, which is surely not impossible.
The list of inhabitants from 1686 that includes the names of both father and son, the two Nathaniels, is not one to be particularly proud of. The men of Marlboro wanted more land and not long after King Philip's War they began settling on land that was owned by the native Americans. The General Court told them their deed was invalid and declared null and void, but the men of the settlement connived, basically, to continue settling on those lands and tried to make it look legal. It wasn't. The land was in dispute for at least 23 years after the 1686 list, but I didn't find a final resolution, except the results were that the colonists kept the land.
Many of the settlers of Marlboro had ties to Lancaster, Massachusetts, which was burned by the natives in King Philip's War. Nathaniel Senior lost a brother, sister in law, and nephew during the massacre, and other townspeople lost family members, too. It was a raw wound. That doesn't excuse their later actions but it helps put it in a bit of perspective.
King Philip's War didn't end the difficulties with some of the native tribes, and in 1711 our Nathaniel was appointed to a committee to assigned families to garrisons. If the natives threatened the town, each family was to go to one of the stronger fortified homes in the area, where soldiers were also assigned. Nathaniel's family was assigned to Captain Kerley's garrison. We don't know if there was ever a time when the family was forced to go there or not.
Nathaniel must have had a good reputation, because he was chosen selectman in 1701, and also a good education, because he was town clerk from 1714 until 1725.
I've not found a mention of Nathaniel's occupation, nor have I found his will. (The will frequently attached to his name on websites is from Scituate, Plymouth, Massachusetts. That Nathaniel was a cousin of some sort to ours, and the similar death dates are a coincidence). If his will and inventory could be found, we could possibly answer the question of his occupation, find out if he had books, get a clue as to how he did financially, and perhaps get a clue as to his religion. It would be wonderful to find those estate records, just as it would be wonderful to find his birth record!
The line of descent is
Nathaniel Joslin-Hester or Esther Morse
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The first thing we don't know is when he was born. It was not Aril 21, 1658, as is often stated. That son Nathaniel died in 1667. We know our Nathaniel was the son of the above couple because he is mentioned several times in his father's will. But we don't know his birthdate, or location, or why it would have been omitted from town records that seem complete otherwise. Perhaps his name was on a scrap of paper that was stuck in the records, intending that it be recorded later, and the scrap of paper was mislaid. Another possibility is that Nathaniel was not Sarah's child, and so was not recorded, but there is no indication of that and surely it would have been noted somewhere.
Nathaniel married Hester Morse, daughter of Joseph and Susannah Shattuck Morse, on July 20,1682, and that is the first record we have of him. Presumably this would give him a birth date in the early 1660's. He was next named on a list of inhabitants in Marlboro in 1686, and would likely have been at least 21 years old to have made that list. So again, we point to the early 1660's. Nathaniel and Hester (also seen as Esther, same lady) were the parents of perhaps as many as eleven children, although that would mean Hester had children into her 40's, which is surely not impossible.
The list of inhabitants from 1686 that includes the names of both father and son, the two Nathaniels, is not one to be particularly proud of. The men of Marlboro wanted more land and not long after King Philip's War they began settling on land that was owned by the native Americans. The General Court told them their deed was invalid and declared null and void, but the men of the settlement connived, basically, to continue settling on those lands and tried to make it look legal. It wasn't. The land was in dispute for at least 23 years after the 1686 list, but I didn't find a final resolution, except the results were that the colonists kept the land.
Many of the settlers of Marlboro had ties to Lancaster, Massachusetts, which was burned by the natives in King Philip's War. Nathaniel Senior lost a brother, sister in law, and nephew during the massacre, and other townspeople lost family members, too. It was a raw wound. That doesn't excuse their later actions but it helps put it in a bit of perspective.
King Philip's War didn't end the difficulties with some of the native tribes, and in 1711 our Nathaniel was appointed to a committee to assigned families to garrisons. If the natives threatened the town, each family was to go to one of the stronger fortified homes in the area, where soldiers were also assigned. Nathaniel's family was assigned to Captain Kerley's garrison. We don't know if there was ever a time when the family was forced to go there or not.
Nathaniel must have had a good reputation, because he was chosen selectman in 1701, and also a good education, because he was town clerk from 1714 until 1725.
I've not found a mention of Nathaniel's occupation, nor have I found his will. (The will frequently attached to his name on websites is from Scituate, Plymouth, Massachusetts. That Nathaniel was a cousin of some sort to ours, and the similar death dates are a coincidence). If his will and inventory could be found, we could possibly answer the question of his occupation, find out if he had books, get a clue as to how he did financially, and perhaps get a clue as to his religion. It would be wonderful to find those estate records, just as it would be wonderful to find his birth record!
The line of descent is
Nathaniel Joslin-Hester or Esther Morse
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Holbrook line: Edward Smith of Rhode Island, Immigrant 1633-1693
Edward Smith was one of the younger children of Christopher and Alice Gibbs Smith. He was christened on March 17, 1633 at Holy Trinity Church, Stratford on Avon, Warwickshire, England. He was one of at least 9 children. Some of the siblings settled in Rhode Island and others settled in Hartford, Connecticut, for reasons that are not yet evident.
Christopher was in Providence, Rhode Island by 1649, and possibly sooner. He was a Quaker according to John Osborne Astin's Genealogical Record of Rhode Island, because during King Philips War he and the family went to Newport, which was not attacked. At that time Quakeer records call him "an ancient Friend of Providence". But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Edward came to Providence with his parents and some siblings, and on August 26, 1656 he was granted common equal to other townsmen, and was to have a vote with inhabitants. He was a hayward (kept stray animals out of fields) in 1656, a freeman on May 12, 1638, and a juryman in 1639. He must have handled his early responsibilities well, because he was a town sergeant (not sure about this-watchman, maybe?- in 1662 and was to be paid 20 shillings in "peage". "Peage" was also known as wampum, and was treated as legal tender in the colonies, as cash was in short supply.
His marriage intention, to Amphillis Angell, was recorded on May 9, 1663 but there doesn't seem to be a record of the marriage. Nevertheless, the marriage is accepted by genealogists. He participated in a division of lands in 1665, and ten years later, just before King Philip's War broke out, he asked for an accommodation of difficulties-basically an arbitration. It had to do with the division of lands with his neighbors.
He was 7 times a deputy and 9 times a town council member. In 1688. about 25 years after he was married, he was taxed on 5 cows, 4 three year olds, 2 two year olds, 4 yearlings, 2 oxen, 2 horses, 1 1/2 shares of meadow, 5 acres tilage, 4 acres pasture, 5 acres wild pasture, and 140 acres of woods. The number of cattle is a bit surprising, as it is a larger herd than many in that location had.
Edward and Amphillis had at least seven children together, and some stayed in Providence. I would like to know whether his children stayed in the Quaker meeting, or whether they changed religion at some point.
It isn't know what kind of relationship Edward had with his Connecticut siblings. I wonder whether perhaps there was a religious difference, and the Connecticut siblings were Puritans whereas Edward and his father remained Quaker. That is just my speculation.
Edward died shortly before January 2, 1694, when administration of the estate was granted to Amphillis and his son Edward. I have as yet not found the estate papers, inventory, or will, but I do have a case number which may help me track it down.
Edward's record shows him to be a well respected man of principle, a good provider and a good citizen. We can be proud of him and honor his memory with respect.
The line of descent is:
Edward Smith-Amphillis Angell
Amphillis Smith=Zechariah Eddy
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phetteplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Christopher was in Providence, Rhode Island by 1649, and possibly sooner. He was a Quaker according to John Osborne Astin's Genealogical Record of Rhode Island, because during King Philips War he and the family went to Newport, which was not attacked. At that time Quakeer records call him "an ancient Friend of Providence". But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Edward came to Providence with his parents and some siblings, and on August 26, 1656 he was granted common equal to other townsmen, and was to have a vote with inhabitants. He was a hayward (kept stray animals out of fields) in 1656, a freeman on May 12, 1638, and a juryman in 1639. He must have handled his early responsibilities well, because he was a town sergeant (not sure about this-watchman, maybe?- in 1662 and was to be paid 20 shillings in "peage". "Peage" was also known as wampum, and was treated as legal tender in the colonies, as cash was in short supply.
His marriage intention, to Amphillis Angell, was recorded on May 9, 1663 but there doesn't seem to be a record of the marriage. Nevertheless, the marriage is accepted by genealogists. He participated in a division of lands in 1665, and ten years later, just before King Philip's War broke out, he asked for an accommodation of difficulties-basically an arbitration. It had to do with the division of lands with his neighbors.
He was 7 times a deputy and 9 times a town council member. In 1688. about 25 years after he was married, he was taxed on 5 cows, 4 three year olds, 2 two year olds, 4 yearlings, 2 oxen, 2 horses, 1 1/2 shares of meadow, 5 acres tilage, 4 acres pasture, 5 acres wild pasture, and 140 acres of woods. The number of cattle is a bit surprising, as it is a larger herd than many in that location had.
Edward and Amphillis had at least seven children together, and some stayed in Providence. I would like to know whether his children stayed in the Quaker meeting, or whether they changed religion at some point.
It isn't know what kind of relationship Edward had with his Connecticut siblings. I wonder whether perhaps there was a religious difference, and the Connecticut siblings were Puritans whereas Edward and his father remained Quaker. That is just my speculation.
Edward died shortly before January 2, 1694, when administration of the estate was granted to Amphillis and his son Edward. I have as yet not found the estate papers, inventory, or will, but I do have a case number which may help me track it down.
Edward's record shows him to be a well respected man of principle, a good provider and a good citizen. We can be proud of him and honor his memory with respect.
The line of descent is:
Edward Smith-Amphillis Angell
Amphillis Smith=Zechariah Eddy
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phetteplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, October 18, 2019
Holbrook line: Joseph Robbins 1668-1709
Sometimes I forget that we had some ancestors who lived in New Jersey for a generation or two. This is one of those ancestors, He was actually born in Woodbridge, Middlesex County and died in Freehold, Monmouth County, so he spent his whole, although relatively brief, life there.
Joseph Robbins was the son of Daniel and Hope Potter Robins. (The second "b" was a fixture in Joseph's name but not in Daniel's.) Daniel was from somewhere in Scotland, apparently. He may have come to the colonies as a Covenanter, or he came have come as an indentured servant, for the same reasons ohters came to the Colonies.
Joseph was one of at least 11 children of Daniel and Hope Potter Robins. The first we find of him is his marriage to Anna Pack on June 8, 1692 in Woodbridge. Anna is the daughter of George and Anna possibly Cranmer Pack. Joseph and Anna had at least 9 children, before Joseph's premature death ion May 10, 1709.
We don't know any more about Joesph than that, except that he sold l100 acres of land in Woodbridge to his son Joseph when he moved to Monmouth, That is a clue that he was a farmer of some sort, and in his will he calls himself "yeoman".
Several of Joseph's children were minors when he died. He left everything to his widow during her life, then gave each son (except Richard, who was born after Joseph's death) land that was to be his after the widow's death. Each son was to provide for one or two of his sisters, ten pounds each two years after taking possession of the land. Each son was also to give 25 pounds to the unborn baby if it was a boy, and nothing if a girl.
I haven't yet located land records for Joseph but records surely must exist. There may be an inventory somewhere, also, but I've not yet located it. I've also not yet located a deaath record for Anna, nor guardianship records regarding her children. There is much work yet to do!
The line of descent is:
Joseph Robbins-Anna Pack
Bethia Robbins-John Nation
Christopher Nation-Elizabeth Swaim
Joseph Nation-Jerretta Vickery
Elizabeth Nation-Christopher Myers
Phoebe Myers-John Adam Brown
Phoebe Brown-Fremont Holbrook
Loren Holbook-Etta Stanard
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Joseph Robbins was the son of Daniel and Hope Potter Robins. (The second "b" was a fixture in Joseph's name but not in Daniel's.) Daniel was from somewhere in Scotland, apparently. He may have come to the colonies as a Covenanter, or he came have come as an indentured servant, for the same reasons ohters came to the Colonies.
Joseph was one of at least 11 children of Daniel and Hope Potter Robins. The first we find of him is his marriage to Anna Pack on June 8, 1692 in Woodbridge. Anna is the daughter of George and Anna possibly Cranmer Pack. Joseph and Anna had at least 9 children, before Joseph's premature death ion May 10, 1709.
We don't know any more about Joesph than that, except that he sold l100 acres of land in Woodbridge to his son Joseph when he moved to Monmouth, That is a clue that he was a farmer of some sort, and in his will he calls himself "yeoman".
Several of Joseph's children were minors when he died. He left everything to his widow during her life, then gave each son (except Richard, who was born after Joseph's death) land that was to be his after the widow's death. Each son was to provide for one or two of his sisters, ten pounds each two years after taking possession of the land. Each son was also to give 25 pounds to the unborn baby if it was a boy, and nothing if a girl.
I haven't yet located land records for Joseph but records surely must exist. There may be an inventory somewhere, also, but I've not yet located it. I've also not yet located a deaath record for Anna, nor guardianship records regarding her children. There is much work yet to do!
The line of descent is:
Joseph Robbins-Anna Pack
Bethia Robbins-John Nation
Christopher Nation-Elizabeth Swaim
Joseph Nation-Jerretta Vickery
Elizabeth Nation-Christopher Myers
Phoebe Myers-John Adam Brown
Phoebe Brown-Fremont Holbrook
Loren Holbook-Etta Stanard
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Holbrook line: John Jordan of Guilford, Connecticut, Immigrant
The only mysteries we have about John Jordan are these: Who were his parents? When and where was he born? What did he do for a living? Was he literate? What happened to his will? In other words, we don't know much.
The first time we see John Jordan is on a ship heading from England to Guilford, Connecticut. This was the first town in New England to be settled directly and entirely by immigrants, rather than being an overflow of colonists who for one reason or another wished to leave their original home in New England. Henry Whitfield was the leader and pastor of this group. Whitfield was a pastor who was not willing to comply with government requirements in support of the Church of England. He and about 70 other people, including 25 men, signed an agreement while still on board ship regarding how the group would govern themselves. Among the names on that list is John Jordan. It is thought that his (probable) brother Thomas was also on board, but not yet of age to sign the compact.
Many of the men on the ship were young farmers, and until I find something to the contrary, I will postulate that John fell into this class. He and others like him were expected to grow crops to support the others, including Pastor Whitfield. Apparently life in Guilford went well, because when Charles I was executed in 1649, there were requests for Puritans to come back "home"/ Henry Whitfield answered that request, as did Thomas Jordan and a few others who were early settlers.
John, however, stayed in Guilford. He had married Ann Bishop, daughter of John BIshop (who was also on the original ship and signed the original compact) in October of 1639, probably soon after arriving in Connecticut. John and Ann had at least five children together. John was early a trustee of the lands of Guilford, and also a justice of the peace, so perhaps he had at least some education.
That is pretty much the end of his story, for John died in January of 1650. Indications are that he was likely a young man, perhaps around the age of 40. It's unknown whether it was an accident or an illness that killed him. He left a will, but it's been lost. His wife, Ann, married Thomas Clarke.
Please don't write a thesis stating that John's wife was Ann Bishop, daughter of John. Some think that she was his widowed daughter in law, which is possible, although I've seen no evidence for that. If that's so, we don't know who Ann's parents were, either.
I'm ending this blog post with one more mystery than I started with. However, we do know that John came to Guilford and stayed in Guilford. He helped get the new village started and so was important to the history of Connecticut, and to our family!
The line of descent is:
John Jordan-Ann Bishop
John Jordan-Katherine Chalker
Hannah Jordan-John Stannard
John Stannard-Hannah Hanchett
Libbeus Stannard-Eunice Pomeroy
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The first time we see John Jordan is on a ship heading from England to Guilford, Connecticut. This was the first town in New England to be settled directly and entirely by immigrants, rather than being an overflow of colonists who for one reason or another wished to leave their original home in New England. Henry Whitfield was the leader and pastor of this group. Whitfield was a pastor who was not willing to comply with government requirements in support of the Church of England. He and about 70 other people, including 25 men, signed an agreement while still on board ship regarding how the group would govern themselves. Among the names on that list is John Jordan. It is thought that his (probable) brother Thomas was also on board, but not yet of age to sign the compact.
Many of the men on the ship were young farmers, and until I find something to the contrary, I will postulate that John fell into this class. He and others like him were expected to grow crops to support the others, including Pastor Whitfield. Apparently life in Guilford went well, because when Charles I was executed in 1649, there were requests for Puritans to come back "home"/ Henry Whitfield answered that request, as did Thomas Jordan and a few others who were early settlers.
John, however, stayed in Guilford. He had married Ann Bishop, daughter of John BIshop (who was also on the original ship and signed the original compact) in October of 1639, probably soon after arriving in Connecticut. John and Ann had at least five children together. John was early a trustee of the lands of Guilford, and also a justice of the peace, so perhaps he had at least some education.
That is pretty much the end of his story, for John died in January of 1650. Indications are that he was likely a young man, perhaps around the age of 40. It's unknown whether it was an accident or an illness that killed him. He left a will, but it's been lost. His wife, Ann, married Thomas Clarke.
Please don't write a thesis stating that John's wife was Ann Bishop, daughter of John. Some think that she was his widowed daughter in law, which is possible, although I've seen no evidence for that. If that's so, we don't know who Ann's parents were, either.
I'm ending this blog post with one more mystery than I started with. However, we do know that John came to Guilford and stayed in Guilford. He helped get the new village started and so was important to the history of Connecticut, and to our family!
The line of descent is:
John Jordan-Ann Bishop
John Jordan-Katherine Chalker
Hannah Jordan-John Stannard
John Stannard-Hannah Hanchett
Libbeus Stannard-Eunice Pomeroy
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, October 11, 2019
Holbrook line: John Graves of Roxbury, Immigrant
Just when I thought I'd written about all the immigrants who could be traced at all, here is John Graves. While much information about him is lacking, there is also much information that we know. We are really fortunate when an ancestor is included in Robert Charles Anderson's Great Migration project, because that typically gives us much information. We are also fortunate to have John's will. I haven't found his inventory yet, but I would love to do that. And I learned a fascinating term and a new occupation for an ancestor. Have I convinced you yet to read on?
John Graves was born probably about 1600 but it could be a few years either way because his birth records have not yet been identified. "John Graves" is a fairly common name. It is thought that he came from the area around Nazing, Essex, England. This is where John Eliot came from, and he was a close friend of the Apostle to the Indians. We know John had a sister named Lydia, and we know his mother came to New England also, but we don't know when she arrived or with whom.
John's occupation was "cowleech". I'd never heard of such a thing, but Google quickly informed me that he treated diseases in cows. Presumably leeching was one of the treatments. So he was an early form of veterinarian, although we don't know whether he treated horses, swine, or sheep also. Almost every household in early New England would have had a cow or two, so he was probably in demand, although I don't know whether that also meant he made money, or had any kind of status because of his job. I don't know if that indicates that he had any kind of formal education in the field, or whether he had learned as an apprentice, or how he got started in his career. Still, "cowleech". That's interesting.
Also interesting is John's marital status. Anderson thinks he may have had three wives. The first wife was Sarah Finch, with whom he had two children, John and Sarah. The second wife is unidentified. She was the mother of Samuel, Jonathan and Mary, and she died shortly after the family arrived in Roxbury. His third wife was Judith Alward, who was or had been a "servant girl". They were married in Roxbury in December of 1635 and their daughter Hannah was born September 8, 1636. The sad thing is that after son John's death a year after his father's, Hannah is the only child who can be traced.
John became a member of the church in Roxbury in 1635 and was made a freeman in 1637. He acquired several plots of land in the 10 years or so he was in Roxbury, apparently all as part of land divisions made by the town. He died November 4, 1644, as reported by John Eliot "John Grave, a godly brother of the church, he took a deep cold, which swelled his head with rheum and overcame his heart. (He and Thomas Ruggles) broke the knot first of the Nazing Christians. I mean they first died of all those Christians that came from that town in England."
In his will, John provided for his wife and for all the children except Sarah. It is possible that he omitted her because she had received a bequest from her maternal grandfather, or perhaps he had otherwise given her what he could. Judith went on to marry William Potter on June 2, 1646, and then Samuel Finch on December 13, 1654, and lived until October of 1683.
The line of descent is:
John Graves-Judith Alward
Hannah Graves-John Mayo
Mehitable Mayo-Samuel Morris
Abigail Morris-John Perrin
Benjamin Perrin-Mary
Mary Perrin-David Fay
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Update May 24, 2020: John Graves and Judith Alward are now "former ancestors". Abigail Morris was not the daughter of Mehitable Mayo, so the lines above that are incorrect. See the post about Samuel Morris for further explanation.
John Graves was born probably about 1600 but it could be a few years either way because his birth records have not yet been identified. "John Graves" is a fairly common name. It is thought that he came from the area around Nazing, Essex, England. This is where John Eliot came from, and he was a close friend of the Apostle to the Indians. We know John had a sister named Lydia, and we know his mother came to New England also, but we don't know when she arrived or with whom.
John's occupation was "cowleech". I'd never heard of such a thing, but Google quickly informed me that he treated diseases in cows. Presumably leeching was one of the treatments. So he was an early form of veterinarian, although we don't know whether he treated horses, swine, or sheep also. Almost every household in early New England would have had a cow or two, so he was probably in demand, although I don't know whether that also meant he made money, or had any kind of status because of his job. I don't know if that indicates that he had any kind of formal education in the field, or whether he had learned as an apprentice, or how he got started in his career. Still, "cowleech". That's interesting.
Also interesting is John's marital status. Anderson thinks he may have had three wives. The first wife was Sarah Finch, with whom he had two children, John and Sarah. The second wife is unidentified. She was the mother of Samuel, Jonathan and Mary, and she died shortly after the family arrived in Roxbury. His third wife was Judith Alward, who was or had been a "servant girl". They were married in Roxbury in December of 1635 and their daughter Hannah was born September 8, 1636. The sad thing is that after son John's death a year after his father's, Hannah is the only child who can be traced.
John became a member of the church in Roxbury in 1635 and was made a freeman in 1637. He acquired several plots of land in the 10 years or so he was in Roxbury, apparently all as part of land divisions made by the town. He died November 4, 1644, as reported by John Eliot "John Grave, a godly brother of the church, he took a deep cold, which swelled his head with rheum and overcame his heart. (He and Thomas Ruggles) broke the knot first of the Nazing Christians. I mean they first died of all those Christians that came from that town in England."
In his will, John provided for his wife and for all the children except Sarah. It is possible that he omitted her because she had received a bequest from her maternal grandfather, or perhaps he had otherwise given her what he could. Judith went on to marry William Potter on June 2, 1646, and then Samuel Finch on December 13, 1654, and lived until October of 1683.
The line of descent is:
John Graves-Judith Alward
Hannah Graves-John Mayo
Mehitable Mayo-Samuel Morris
Abigail Morris-John Perrin
Benjamin Perrin-Mary
Mary Perrin-David Fay
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Update May 24, 2020: John Graves and Judith Alward are now "former ancestors". Abigail Morris was not the daughter of Mehitable Mayo, so the lines above that are incorrect. See the post about Samuel Morris for further explanation.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Allen line: Richard Falley, more of a hero than I knew
One of the first blog posts that I wrote, over 6 years ago, told about our ancestor, Richard Falley Jr., who was captured by native Americans in the French and Indian War, held a prisoner in Canada, and then eventually released and returned home. He was also a lieutenant at the battle of Bunker Hill in the American Revolution, and then, I thought, sent home to make rifles. Well, he was much more than that.
This is the body of a letter written by Russel Falley, his grandson on September 7, 1831, and printed in "Westfield, Massachusetts 1669-1969". It gives us a lot mere detail about what actually happened to young Richard during the French and Indian War. Enjoy this letter from our distant cousin.
This is the body of a letter written by Russel Falley, his grandson on September 7, 1831, and printed in "Westfield, Massachusetts 1669-1969". It gives us a lot mere detail about what actually happened to young Richard during the French and Indian War. Enjoy this letter from our distant cousin.
"My grandfather (Richard Falley) was a
native of the Isle Guernsey. When a young child he was going to
school with some other children. They were delayed by some sailors
on board a boat by the promise of presents and were put on board
their vessel and brought to Boston where they were sold and my
grandfather was brought up in the vicinity of Boston and Salem and at
the business of husbandry.
He married Anna Lamb, she was a native
of Dublin, Ireland and it has been said of her that she was very
cheery in her temper and that she was a pious Christian. Some years
after their marriage they removed to Westfield, Massachusetts. They
had three sons and three daughters.My father, Richard Falley, 1; Samuel
Falley, 2, Frederick the latter died young. The daughter, Elizabeth,
4, married Mr. William Ford. They had a numerous family and resided
many years in Pittsfield, Mas, then removed to Vermont. Rachel, 5,
married Mr. Hubbard. They resided in Pittsfield and had two sons and
two daughters. Their eldest daughter married Mr. John Francis,
Baptist preacher. The other daughter married Mr. Goodrich. The
oldest son died of dysentery.
My father returned from the taking of
Burgoyne and after visiting Daniel Hubbard of Pittsfield went to
Lennox to visit his brother, Samuel Falley. His nephew, Daniel
Falley accompanied him and slept with him one night and took from him
the distemper which was fatal to him. Richard Falley had taken this
disease in camp and observed in relating the account that the
dysentery which he had was attended with a dreadful fever. The child
returned and died soon after and Richard returned to Westfield and
was soon restored. The youngest, who was born after the disease, was
named after him. He lived to marry and died at about thirty, leaving
a widow and some children. Sarah, 6, the youngest of Richard Sr, was
diseased by reason of fits and died in 1804 aged fifty.
Richard Falley learned the blacksmith's
trade, partly in Westfield and partly of Mr. Chapin in Springfield.
In the interim of his business he went as a soldier against the
French at Canada at Fort William Henry (in 1757). After a
troublesome siege of a few days the garrison surrendered to the
enemy. He was taken prisoner. He went a few miles to Lake George
where the Indians with their prisoners slept. His repose, although a
prisoner among savages, was refreshing and delightful on account of
his being deprived of sleep for several nights by the confusion of
the camp.
They crossed Lake George in bark
canoes. From there to Lake Champlain they traveled loaded with both
Indians and prisoners. Encamped there, the Indians gave themselves
up to drunkenness. One under penalty of death must keep sober to
watch the prisoners. He, too, indulged himself with the precious
liquors. He would take a spoonful at at time at a short interval and
would always give as much to the prisoners. By the extreme
drunkenness of the Indians the lives of prisoners were endangered.
When would commence the work of destruction, whether on man or
beast, the whole drunken gang would unite and the victim was not left
until he was hewn to pieces.
At this time a lady came daily in her
coach with an attendant to visit the prisoners. Richard, at first
cautiously lest the Indians should know his desire to leave them,
begged the gentlewoman to buy him and the purchase was made. He with a
number walked toward town. A little girl, unbought, was huddled with
the company toward the gate. They hoped to have got her without the
gate as she would have been safe from the Indians but her keeper
missing her came running with the swiftness of the wind caught her
and bore her back crying hideously to the great grief of her friends.
He was taken from Montreal to Quebec
and put in prison and by eating dry food was sick. Through a hole in
the well (wall?) of the prison he was enabled to get into an
adjoining garden at night, by procuring fruit in this way he was
cured, after being there a while he went on board a vessel with other
passengers and went to Boston. On the voyage he had the small pox
but lightly and soon got well. On arriving at Boston, he went to
Westfield. His mother was so afftected at seeing him, although she
had been informed of his safe arrival, that she swooned in his arms.
He became a Christian early in life and constantly prayed with his
family morning and evening and was a constant attendant in Divine
Worship. He died at the age of sixty eight. He was a man nearly six
feet in height of fine proportion and great strength.”
Richard's grandson's recollections of Richard's story are priceless. They match closely with what we know of Fort William Henry and the subsequent taking and treatment of prisoners. We can surely be proud of this man. In another post, I will write about Richard Falley in the American Revolution. That story, too, is richer than the few details I've known.
The line of descent, again, is:
Richard Falley Jr.-Margaret Hitchcock
Samuel Falley-Ruth Root
Clarissa Falley-John Havens Starr
Harriet Starr-John Wilson Knott
Edith Knott-Edward Allen
Richard Allen-Gladys Holbrook
Their descendants
Friday, October 4, 2019
Holbrook line: Robert Amos 1741-1818
Have I mentioned lately how much I love the process of researching for these blog posts? When I decided to see what could be found about Robert Amos, my initial Google search turned up only a Find a Grave site, which was better than nothing. It had the basic information I already had. I was surprised that the family sites I searched had very little about the man, but I kept searching. Eventually, I found census information for him for 1790,1800, and 1810 on Ancestry. I found his will and his inventory on Family Search. I found him mentioned more than once in a history of Harford County. And I found him on the DAR website. I also found a mystery (not the answer, just the questions) about his religion, and possibly his wife's. It's been a fun beginning to knowing a bit about this man.
So, here's what I think I now know: Robert Amos was born May 31, 1741 at St George's Parish, Baltimore, Maryland. He was the son of James and Hannah Clarke Amos, one of at least seven children, but appears to be the oldest of the children. He was probably named for Robert Clarke, his maternal grandfather. The church where he was christened was probably the St George's (Church of England) near Perryman, Maryland, rather than the one in Baltimore City. This area in what later became Harford County was part of Baltimore County at the time, and this is near the locations that had Amos families for generations before and after our Robert.
We know little of Robert's youth, other than that he was part of a large family, and lived on a farm or plantation. He married Martha McComas, daughter of Daniel and Martha Scott McComas, on December 12, 1765, again in "Baltimore County". He was apparently not in the first tier of leaders in what became Harford County, but he took the oath of fidelity to the patriot cause in 1778, and was justice of the peace in 1780. He was also the sheriff of Harford County in 1785 and a member of the State House of Delegates in 1792. He was, therefore, a respected member of his community and one who took his responsibilities seriously.
George Washington was at Havre de Grace in Harford County on his way to his New York inauguration, and it's fascinating to think that Robert may have taken his wife and family to see or even to honor him. But we don't know, other than the oath of fidelity, what his contribution, if any, to the war effort actually was. As he was possibly of the Anglican religion (possibly, I said), he may have not been a fan of the Revolution, at least not at the beginning. Also it appears that Martha may have had strong Quaker leanings, and that may have influenced his decision to stay home, if that's indeed what he did.
Martha Amos's name is found in several Quaker meeting records at Gunpowder Meeting house as she asked to be relieved of the job of overseer in 1773, and asked for transfer to Baltimore Meeting in 1801. But was this our Martha Amos? I am not sure...If Robert was Anglican, then Martha would have been dismissed for marrying outside the faith. And if this is our Martha, how did she justify her husband's slave holding, and her own after he died? Quakers in Philadelphia in 1776 forbade slave holding by their members, and Harford County wasn't all that far from Philadelphia. The idea, if not the enforcement, would have been the topic of much discussion there.
I haven't pinpointed exactly where Robert's land was, nor how much land he owned. It must have been sufficient to support their twelve children, and the slaves he held. The cemetery he is buried in is near Jarrettsville, Md, not far from the Pennsylvania border. That's the best clue I have at the moment, so this is a subject that still needs research.
We can follow Robert Amos (sometimes spelled Amoss) through the US census of 1790, 1800, and 1910. In 17902, there were 5 males under the age of 16, 4 16 and over, and 7 females of all ages in his household. There were also 9 slaves. In 1800, his location is listed as "District 4, Harford County, Md" and there were two males aged 10-15, two 16-25, one 26-44, and one over 45. There was also 1 female aged 10-15, one 16-25, one 26-44, and 2 females over the age of 45. Martha and who else, one wonders? Interestingly, "all other free persons" totaled 4 and the number of slaves was just 2. I'm not sure how to interpret that information. Were the "all other free persons" servants? In the 1810 census, he was listed at Havre de Grace, Harford County. By now there is one male 16-25, 3 26-44, one male over 45, and one female 45 and over. There are also 10 slaves. Martha's census in 1820 shows a total of 5 males, one over 45, and two females. This year, the slaves are sort of listed, too. There is no mention of names, but we do know there were two males above the age of 14, two females under fourteen, i female 26 thru 44, and one female 45 and over.
Robert died March 10, 1818 in Harford County. We have his will and his inventory to help us understand a little bit of his life at that time period. Some of his sons received very little in the will, because of what he had already given them. Several parcels of land were given to other sons, but there is no mention of the acreage included in each. One is identified as being at Otter Island, at the head of the Bush River, which may be close to the Amos home. The slaves are given to various children. Wife Martha is to receive the dwelling house and its lands, in lieu of dower. Special provision is made for daughter Elizabeth, as she is given a room and the room above it to live in, plus rights to the garden, for life. My speculation is that there is some reason Robert didn't expect her to marry, either a physical or a mental condition of some type.
And now, we come to the inventory, which is where I first found mention of slaves. It took my breath away. At first I was thinking "oh, tobacco" but the inventory doesn't include anything that makes me think tobacco was the main crop, or even a crop, on the Amos farm. The value of the slaves was about $1550 of the $3720 total value of the estate, excluding real property. Their were several horses, various cattle, and swine listed, as well as quite a few grain crops, and flax. There were the usual tools and farm equipment, and a shoemaker's bench and equipment, as well as old books and 9 silver spoons. It sounds like a farm that was mostly self sufficient, not too different from a farm elsewhere in the country, except-those slaves.
In order to help anyone who might wonder if "their" slaves were here, I'll list the names of those mentioned in the inventory: Ned, or possibly Namer Ned, was a 50 year old male; Sam was about 45 years old; Rose was a woman, aged 45; Joseph was 29 and valued the most highly, at $500; Phillis was 26; Milkey was 9, and Ann was four years old. It is easy to think that Rose was Sam's wife, Joseph or Phillis was their child, and that Milkey and Ann were the children of Joseph and Phillis. That may not be the way it was at all, of course, but it is some comfort to think that this was a three generational family-until, sadly,l they were split up at Robert's death.
Robert has told us some of his story. I'd like to know more. What religion, if any, did he actually practice? Where exactly was his land? Why did he think slaves were necessary? What did he think about the American Revolution, and did the war change his thinking in any way? There is always more to learn and think about with these ancestors of ours.
The line of descent is:
Robert Amos-Martha McComas
Robert Amos-Elizabeth Amos (yes, cousins)
Martha Amos-Peter Black
Elizabeth Black-Isaac Hetrick
Mary Alice Hetrick-Louis Stanard
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
So, here's what I think I now know: Robert Amos was born May 31, 1741 at St George's Parish, Baltimore, Maryland. He was the son of James and Hannah Clarke Amos, one of at least seven children, but appears to be the oldest of the children. He was probably named for Robert Clarke, his maternal grandfather. The church where he was christened was probably the St George's (Church of England) near Perryman, Maryland, rather than the one in Baltimore City. This area in what later became Harford County was part of Baltimore County at the time, and this is near the locations that had Amos families for generations before and after our Robert.
We know little of Robert's youth, other than that he was part of a large family, and lived on a farm or plantation. He married Martha McComas, daughter of Daniel and Martha Scott McComas, on December 12, 1765, again in "Baltimore County". He was apparently not in the first tier of leaders in what became Harford County, but he took the oath of fidelity to the patriot cause in 1778, and was justice of the peace in 1780. He was also the sheriff of Harford County in 1785 and a member of the State House of Delegates in 1792. He was, therefore, a respected member of his community and one who took his responsibilities seriously.
George Washington was at Havre de Grace in Harford County on his way to his New York inauguration, and it's fascinating to think that Robert may have taken his wife and family to see or even to honor him. But we don't know, other than the oath of fidelity, what his contribution, if any, to the war effort actually was. As he was possibly of the Anglican religion (possibly, I said), he may have not been a fan of the Revolution, at least not at the beginning. Also it appears that Martha may have had strong Quaker leanings, and that may have influenced his decision to stay home, if that's indeed what he did.
Martha Amos's name is found in several Quaker meeting records at Gunpowder Meeting house as she asked to be relieved of the job of overseer in 1773, and asked for transfer to Baltimore Meeting in 1801. But was this our Martha Amos? I am not sure...If Robert was Anglican, then Martha would have been dismissed for marrying outside the faith. And if this is our Martha, how did she justify her husband's slave holding, and her own after he died? Quakers in Philadelphia in 1776 forbade slave holding by their members, and Harford County wasn't all that far from Philadelphia. The idea, if not the enforcement, would have been the topic of much discussion there.
I haven't pinpointed exactly where Robert's land was, nor how much land he owned. It must have been sufficient to support their twelve children, and the slaves he held. The cemetery he is buried in is near Jarrettsville, Md, not far from the Pennsylvania border. That's the best clue I have at the moment, so this is a subject that still needs research.
We can follow Robert Amos (sometimes spelled Amoss) through the US census of 1790, 1800, and 1910. In 17902, there were 5 males under the age of 16, 4 16 and over, and 7 females of all ages in his household. There were also 9 slaves. In 1800, his location is listed as "District 4, Harford County, Md" and there were two males aged 10-15, two 16-25, one 26-44, and one over 45. There was also 1 female aged 10-15, one 16-25, one 26-44, and 2 females over the age of 45. Martha and who else, one wonders? Interestingly, "all other free persons" totaled 4 and the number of slaves was just 2. I'm not sure how to interpret that information. Were the "all other free persons" servants? In the 1810 census, he was listed at Havre de Grace, Harford County. By now there is one male 16-25, 3 26-44, one male over 45, and one female 45 and over. There are also 10 slaves. Martha's census in 1820 shows a total of 5 males, one over 45, and two females. This year, the slaves are sort of listed, too. There is no mention of names, but we do know there were two males above the age of 14, two females under fourteen, i female 26 thru 44, and one female 45 and over.
Robert died March 10, 1818 in Harford County. We have his will and his inventory to help us understand a little bit of his life at that time period. Some of his sons received very little in the will, because of what he had already given them. Several parcels of land were given to other sons, but there is no mention of the acreage included in each. One is identified as being at Otter Island, at the head of the Bush River, which may be close to the Amos home. The slaves are given to various children. Wife Martha is to receive the dwelling house and its lands, in lieu of dower. Special provision is made for daughter Elizabeth, as she is given a room and the room above it to live in, plus rights to the garden, for life. My speculation is that there is some reason Robert didn't expect her to marry, either a physical or a mental condition of some type.
And now, we come to the inventory, which is where I first found mention of slaves. It took my breath away. At first I was thinking "oh, tobacco" but the inventory doesn't include anything that makes me think tobacco was the main crop, or even a crop, on the Amos farm. The value of the slaves was about $1550 of the $3720 total value of the estate, excluding real property. Their were several horses, various cattle, and swine listed, as well as quite a few grain crops, and flax. There were the usual tools and farm equipment, and a shoemaker's bench and equipment, as well as old books and 9 silver spoons. It sounds like a farm that was mostly self sufficient, not too different from a farm elsewhere in the country, except-those slaves.
In order to help anyone who might wonder if "their" slaves were here, I'll list the names of those mentioned in the inventory: Ned, or possibly Namer Ned, was a 50 year old male; Sam was about 45 years old; Rose was a woman, aged 45; Joseph was 29 and valued the most highly, at $500; Phillis was 26; Milkey was 9, and Ann was four years old. It is easy to think that Rose was Sam's wife, Joseph or Phillis was their child, and that Milkey and Ann were the children of Joseph and Phillis. That may not be the way it was at all, of course, but it is some comfort to think that this was a three generational family-until, sadly,l they were split up at Robert's death.
Robert has told us some of his story. I'd like to know more. What religion, if any, did he actually practice? Where exactly was his land? Why did he think slaves were necessary? What did he think about the American Revolution, and did the war change his thinking in any way? There is always more to learn and think about with these ancestors of ours.
The line of descent is:
Robert Amos-Martha McComas
Robert Amos-Elizabeth Amos (yes, cousins)
Martha Amos-Peter Black
Elizabeth Black-Isaac Hetrick
Mary Alice Hetrick-Louis Stanard
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
Allen line: The third Daniel Scofield, 1680 to 1745
I wonder what name he went by. His grandfather was Daniel, as was his father. Did families use nicknames in colonial times, to help keep the generations straight? It's fairly easy to trace Daniel I because he died in 1680 and then Daniel II, or Jr., became Daniel Sr. and this Daniel became Daniel Junior. This Daniel, our Daniel, may or may not have had a son also named Daniel, but there were numerous other Daniels down through the years, many of whom stayed in Stamford. .
Just because he was born in Stamford, Connecticut and died in Stamford, Connecticut doesn't mean we know a lot about his life, though. For instance, his birth seems to have gone unrecorded. It is reported to be as early as 1674 and as late as 1680. Daniel's parents were Daniel and Abigail Merwin Scofield, who married ion July 12, 1677. So either Daniel was born sometime after that date or he had a different mother than the one traditionally assigned to him. The records I found seem to all have dates in the early 1700s so perhaps the early birth records were lost. (Or maybe I haven't looked in the right places).
Stamford itself was founded in 1640 so it was a well established town by the time our Daniel was born. It was in the far western part of Connecticut and bordered on Long Island Sound. Many of the residents made their living in trade and on the ocean, fishing or transporting goods to and from other colonial seaports as well as England. But I don't know for sure how Daniel made his living.
He married Hannah Hoyt April 17, 1701 in Stamford. She was the daughter of Benjamin and Hannah Weed Hoyt, although there is some slight doubt about this set of parents. This is the one that makes the most sense to me but facts will always change my mind.
Daniel and Hannah had eight or nine children together, depending on whether you attribute the Daniel mentioned above to this couple. Other than the births of their children, the only fact I really found about Daniel was from 1701, when his estate (valuation for tax purposes), was listed as 55 pounds and 10 shillings. He was still young, in his early twenties, so this was a good start to his life.
And then...silence. Was he a Puritan, or of another religious belief? Did he hold any town offices? Was he a good guy, or a scoundrel, or just a man trying to make a living and support his family? I don't have answers to those questions, and I certainly wish I did.
He may have been ill for some time before his death, because his will was written in 1743 and he died July 15, 1745, in his late sixties or early seventies. His will leaves personal property, 1/3, to his widow forever and a third in his :mansion house and barn, and land" during her natural life. Apparently he wasn't concerned that she would remarry. Four sons got the majority of the estate, with no mention of Charles, also believed to be a son, who was alive and well at the time the will was drawn up. Daughter Hannah was unmarried at the time of her father's death and was given some income from land until she married, which turned out to be only five months, as well as a small cash bequest.
As for his inventory, it seems to be valued at somewhere around 2200 pounds, but this was, I believe, in "Connecticut money", which was roughly one seventh the value of Massachusetts money at this time. So to compare to other ancestors, if that is possible, it was not a large estate although he had quite a bit of land, including a home for son Josiah and for son Reuben, besides his own home. He had a part interest in a flour mill and in what may have been a ship or boat of some kind. The inventory includes mention of 21 books, so he had some education, or wanted his family to be able to read, anyway. He didn't have a lot of farm equipment, and only two cows that I can make out, so it's probably safe to think he made his living other than farming. I also didn't see any mention of guns or ammunition, which may only mean that he had already passed them along to a son.
So that's the story of the third Daniel Scofield, or as much of it as I've been able to find so far. As always, I'm grateful for this much information but regret that there isn't more. The search goes on.
The line of descent is:
Daniel Scofield-Hannah Hoyt
Hannah Scofield-Nathaniel Finch
Jesse Finch-Hannah
Hannah Finch-John Bell
Hannah Bell -Thomas Knott
John Wilson Knott-Harriet Starr
Edith Knott-Edward Allen
Richard Allen-Gladys Holbrook
Their descendants
Just because he was born in Stamford, Connecticut and died in Stamford, Connecticut doesn't mean we know a lot about his life, though. For instance, his birth seems to have gone unrecorded. It is reported to be as early as 1674 and as late as 1680. Daniel's parents were Daniel and Abigail Merwin Scofield, who married ion July 12, 1677. So either Daniel was born sometime after that date or he had a different mother than the one traditionally assigned to him. The records I found seem to all have dates in the early 1700s so perhaps the early birth records were lost. (Or maybe I haven't looked in the right places).
Stamford itself was founded in 1640 so it was a well established town by the time our Daniel was born. It was in the far western part of Connecticut and bordered on Long Island Sound. Many of the residents made their living in trade and on the ocean, fishing or transporting goods to and from other colonial seaports as well as England. But I don't know for sure how Daniel made his living.
He married Hannah Hoyt April 17, 1701 in Stamford. She was the daughter of Benjamin and Hannah Weed Hoyt, although there is some slight doubt about this set of parents. This is the one that makes the most sense to me but facts will always change my mind.
Daniel and Hannah had eight or nine children together, depending on whether you attribute the Daniel mentioned above to this couple. Other than the births of their children, the only fact I really found about Daniel was from 1701, when his estate (valuation for tax purposes), was listed as 55 pounds and 10 shillings. He was still young, in his early twenties, so this was a good start to his life.
And then...silence. Was he a Puritan, or of another religious belief? Did he hold any town offices? Was he a good guy, or a scoundrel, or just a man trying to make a living and support his family? I don't have answers to those questions, and I certainly wish I did.
He may have been ill for some time before his death, because his will was written in 1743 and he died July 15, 1745, in his late sixties or early seventies. His will leaves personal property, 1/3, to his widow forever and a third in his :mansion house and barn, and land" during her natural life. Apparently he wasn't concerned that she would remarry. Four sons got the majority of the estate, with no mention of Charles, also believed to be a son, who was alive and well at the time the will was drawn up. Daughter Hannah was unmarried at the time of her father's death and was given some income from land until she married, which turned out to be only five months, as well as a small cash bequest.
As for his inventory, it seems to be valued at somewhere around 2200 pounds, but this was, I believe, in "Connecticut money", which was roughly one seventh the value of Massachusetts money at this time. So to compare to other ancestors, if that is possible, it was not a large estate although he had quite a bit of land, including a home for son Josiah and for son Reuben, besides his own home. He had a part interest in a flour mill and in what may have been a ship or boat of some kind. The inventory includes mention of 21 books, so he had some education, or wanted his family to be able to read, anyway. He didn't have a lot of farm equipment, and only two cows that I can make out, so it's probably safe to think he made his living other than farming. I also didn't see any mention of guns or ammunition, which may only mean that he had already passed them along to a son.
So that's the story of the third Daniel Scofield, or as much of it as I've been able to find so far. As always, I'm grateful for this much information but regret that there isn't more. The search goes on.
The line of descent is:
Daniel Scofield-Hannah Hoyt
Hannah Scofield-Nathaniel Finch
Jesse Finch-Hannah
Hannah Finch-John Bell
Hannah Bell -Thomas Knott
John Wilson Knott-Harriet Starr
Edith Knott-Edward Allen
Richard Allen-Gladys Holbrook
Their descendants
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)