Holbrook line: Joseph Morse 1637-1676/77

 This sketch would be about two paragraphs long, I imagine, if I hadn't had a middle of the night thought.  Now I'm wondering if I've stumbled across something interesting, or if it was just a bit of indigestion that prompted this thought.

First, the basics.  Joseph Morse was born April 30, 1637 and died March 10, 1676/1677.  His parents were Joseph and Hester (Esther, Ester) Pierce Morse, and he was born in Watertown, Massachusetts.  He had at least seven siblings, and would have been raised to follow the occupation of his father, a weaver.  It is likely that weaving was a second occupation, to support the family during lean times, and the looms worked primarily when weather and farm chores permitted.  Joseph also would probably have received at least a rudimentary education, perhaps at home because Watertown in the early 1640s may not have had a school yet.   

We know that Joseph married Susannah Shattuck, daughter of William and Susanna (possibly Hayden) Shattuck, on April 12, 1661 in Watertown.  It looks like the young family had at least two of their children in Watertown, before moving to Groton, Massachusetts in 1666. Joseph was considered an original proprietor of Groton, which was founded in 1655 but apparently built up slowly.  He was granted 5 acres as an original proprietor, and in December of 1673, he also had meadow lands on the Pine Plains "near the fordway" of the Nashua River.  He may well have had other land.  We know that he likely had land earlier than the 1673 date because in 1672 he applied for and was admitted as a freeman to the settlement, meaning he owned property and now had the right to vote in matters concerning the town.  

Joseph and Susanna had at least 6 children, one site says 10, during their 15 years of marriage.  The youngest that I have knowledge of would have been just four years old, or possibly five, when Joseph's life came to an end. 

This is where it gets interesting, or at least it was in the middle of the night. Joseph's date of death is variously given, but the Early New England Families Study Project, in a biography of William Shattuck, gives his date of death as March 10, 1676/1677.  The town of Groton, where the Morses were living, was attacked by native Americans on March 9, 1676 and one man was killed, another captured but escaped.  Might this man have been Joseph?  Indications are that the family had gone back to Watertown, but we don't know when that was, and we don't know whether Joseph stayed behind to man one of the five garrisons protecting the town.  Joseph left no will, and an inventory (no inventory, just a record of inventory) gives a date of 1677 and the location of Groton.  So there is a possibility that the inventory was completed until 1677 because that's when people started returning to the burned out town, and that the March 10, 1676 death date is as accurate as someone's memory was.  All that we really know for sure is that he died without a will, on or about March 10, 1676/77 and his property was in Groton at the time of his death.

Joseph's wife, Susannah, married John Fay on July 5, 1678 and had four children with him, including David Fay, another of our ancestors.  Her final marriage was to Thomas Brigham on July 30, 1695. She died March 16, 1716. 

I would love it if someone has researched Joseph Morse's records on site in Massachusetts or in the state archives and has more complete information than I am able to provide.  

The line of descent is 

Joseph Morse-Susannah Shattuck

Esther Morse-Nathaniel Joslin 

Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland

Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay

David Fay-Mary or Marcy Perrin

Euzebia Fay-Libbeus Stanard

Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy

Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick

Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook

Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen

Their descendants

 

 

 

Allen line: Ensign John Hitchcock 1670-1751

 Too much information?  Not enough information?  Both of the above apply now that I am looking a little more closely at the life of John Hitchcock.  On the one hand, we have good vital records for his birth, marriage, and death.  His will and inventory are on line.  We know he was an ensign.  But what military service did he have that he would be called ensign, and why would his executors refuse to serve, and well, there are always questions.  

John was the second John Hitchcock to be born, and to die, in Springfield, Massachusetts.  By the time he died, he was connected by blood or marriage to many of the families of Springfield.  His parents were John and Hannah Chapin Hitchcock, and the Chapins also were very early Springfield residents.  So John grew up with not only a large family of brothers and sisters, but also aunts and uncles and cousins galore.  One grandfather lived until John was 6 years old and his two grandmothers died when John was in his teens, so he had roots in this town and a sense of permanence.  Except for military reasons, he may have never left Springfield.

As the oldest son of his father, he would have learned to read and write at the local school, and then he would have been his father's shadow, learning all he could of how to run a farm that was spread out over several locations, observing his father's business interests, and watching his father perform the civic duties of selectman, among others.  He also would have been part of the training band from the time he was 16, and he would have grown up with memories of sting in the garrison during the time of King Philip's War, and watching the town rebuild after the sad burning of 2/3 of the town.  

It's little wonder, then that he caught the eye and captured the heart of Mary Ball, daughter of Samuel and Mary Graves Ball.  The Balls were settlers of Springfield just a little later than the Hitchcocks and the Chapins, but they were there by September 24, 1691, when John and Mary were married.   John was just 21 and Mary not quite eighteen when they married, so it's likely that they lived with one family or the other for the first years of their marriage.  John and Mary are credited with as many as eleven children, so they added to the many cousins already living in town. 

John was not as active, or at least not as political, as his father in civic affairs.  He was selected as constable, as fence-viewer, and as surveyor of the highways at various times during his life.  Sometimes it's a little confusing in the Springfield records because it's hard to know for sure which John Hitchcock Jr was being mentioned.  John;s father John died in 1712 so one would think he would have then become John or John Sr.  And by the middle 1730's, there is John Jr. again.  Is this our John or his son John?  I'm not always sure.

I'm also not sure why John is listed as a colonial soldier from Springfield in the year 1709.  This was during the period of the second of four wars known as Queen Anne's Wars, in which the British and the French were fighting for control of what became Canada.  The French had Indian allies and being pretty much on the frontier, Springfield men would have been expected to join the fight.  He was apparently paid for a period of service in 1709, but I don't know how long he served or how far from home the British soldiers might have gone.  (Remember, John was a British colonial soldier.)

We are extremely fortunate to have a copy of John's will and inventory available on American Ancestors website.  Well, we have most of his will.  He adds a rather odd codicil referring to what he had left his daughters, but the will only refers to one daughter, Mary.  A closer examination shos that we have pages 1, 2, 3, 6 and a codicil (written 4 1/2 years after the will), but pages 4 and 5 seem to be missing.  

John had a lot of land to dispose of, various parcels on both sides of the Connecticut river, rights to the commons, a tract of land he inherited from his father including land granted for service at Turner Falls, and more. He gave his wife Mary good portions of land, plus a room in the dwelling house, 2 cows, parts of the bujldings on his home lot, as much room as son Samuel could spare in the cellar (Samuel got one of the houses).  Son John got what appears to be pretty much a double portion, but sons Samuel and Nathaniel were provided for, also.  His daughter Mary received 25 pounds and because of those missing pages, his other daughters probably also received something.  My understanding of the codicil is not very good, but it looks like he is giving more land to Samuel.  Whether this is land he acquired after he wrote his will or whether he has taken land from John and Nathaniel, I can't say.  

For whatever reason, his sons Nathaniel and Samuel refused to serve as executors, as did his wife Mary, finding it "inconvenient" to serve.  There are no actual distribution papers in the probate record, so I'm not sure whether John stepped in or whether someone else was appointed to oversee the distribution.  There is, however, a wonderful inventory, very detailed down to the number of spoons in the house.  But to me, tghe treasure is that the appraisers didn't just say "old books"; they listed the volumes that composed the Hitchcock library.  Because I'm a book lover, this just melted my heart.  He had "One Old Province Law Book", a Testament,  Mr. Henry on the Sacrament, (Doc?) Edwards's Whole Concern of Man, Mr. Dyar's Believers Golden Chain", Mr. Flavel's Token for Mourners. an Old Psalm Book, Mr Williams' History of His Captivity, Dr Cotton Mather on the Christian Religion, Assembly's Catechism, Proofs, The Second (     ), Monmouth on Military Discipline, Countryman's Guide to Good Husbandry, a Farrier's Book, Mr. Sergeants on the Causes and Dangers of Delusions in Religion, one spelling book, an old Bible, and 10 pamphlets.  We can almost take a walk through his mind, looking at this list, and we can get a clue as to how his children were raised, also.  

John died July 4, 1751 and Mary died October 14, 1760.  I didn't find a will for Mary, so apparently all of John's wishes were carried out as far as the final dispensation of what he had allotted Mary.  I enjoyed learning about John but of course there's that question of the military service, nagging at me.  But we know he served his country, raised a large family, acquired land and personal property, served his town and loved his God, and worked to learn what he needed to know to prosper.  He's a good ancestor to have on our side.

The line of descent is:

John Hitchcock-Samuel Ball

Samuel Hitchock-Ruth Stebbins

Margaret Hitchcock-Richard Falley

Samuel Falley-Ruth Root

Clarissa Falley-John Havens Starr

Harriet Starr-John Wilson Knott

Edith Knott-Edward Allen

Richard Allen-Gladys Holbreook

Their descendants 

 

 

 

 

 

Beeks line: Philip Price 1655ish to 1720, of Wales and Pennsylvania

 I think the origins of the Beeks family lines are thoroughly fascinating (as well as frustrating, sometimes).  There are the New England lines, some of which go back to royalty, the Dutch lines of New York and New Jersey, the Virginia and Maryland lines, and, right in the middle, the Pennsylvania lines.  I'm talking early Pennsylvania here, and I'm talking about Welsh origins. 

Philip Price is one such example.  His name, or his forefather's name, at one time was probably ap Rhys, but I'm glad that history is referring to them at this point as Price, because there are already enough Rees names in this family to make my head spin.  We don't know exactly when Philip was born, but 1655 seems to be as good a date as any.  I've seen two different sets of parents assigned to Philip, so at this point we are going to have to say his parents are unknown, but at least one source says he was from South Wales.  

William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, encouraged Quakers from the British Isles to settle in Pennsylvania, because he knew they were hard working people, and he may have had a heart for them, or he may have realized that many were un-educated and therefore easier to manipulate.  (He may also be responsible for cheating some of them but that is for historians to decide.  Since he was all powerful in Pennsylvania at first, I have my own suspicions.)  But Welsh Quakers, some of them, went to Pennsylvania very early, on the understanding that they would be allowed their own county where they would speak their own language, which was outlawed in Wales.  That turned out to be an unfulfilled promised, but the first shiploads of settlers were already in Pennsylvania before it became apparent that they would not be granted their own, separate land for settlement.  Nevertheless, the Welsh stayed. 

We're not sure when Philip arrived in Pennsylvania.  His name is shown as early as 1686 on at least one record, but that could have been generated in Wales, preparatory to leaving.  Some say he arrived in 1691 and others in 1693.  He owned land by 1693, 100 acres that was one mile long and 50 perches (about 925 feet) wide.  This first purchase was located between lands of Rowland Ellis and John Humphrey.  Because of its odd to us shape, it is likely that this was on the banks of the Schuylkill River, at the present location of Merion Station in Montgomery County, Pa.  The Welsh soon built a meeting house, which was erected in 1695, and it's believed Philip's land was very near that location.  (He is also thought to have been buried there.)

We don't know the name of Philip's first wife, but they are thought to have had 7 children together, some of them probably born in Wales and some in Pennsylvania.  Philip was a yeoman, a land owning farmer, and is called illiterate but I don't know what the basis for that statement is.  It is possible that he was literate in the Welsh language only, or it is possible that someone made a judgement based on whether he signed his name to his will.  (Illness accounts for more than one person making a mark on their will while on their sickbed,)  

One mistake Philip made was to contribute 5 pounds to a fund to establish a settlement further to the interior, on the Susquehanna River.  Many of his neighbors also gave, thinking they were buying an opportunity, but the settlement was never begun.  These people were not the first, nor the last, to lose their money to speculators. 

  Philip and his oldest son Isaac were listed on tax records of 1693, taxed on 40 acres (this may be the amount of land that was under cultivation).  The land was valued at 60 pounds.  Philip is said to purchased land in Plymouth town, 1000 acres, in 1697 for 135 pounds sterling..  If this is our Philip, he prospered in his new land.  He may also have ownedd land in Whitpain township.  Since this was a Quaker family, there would not have been a need for Philip to bear arms in the military, but surely he would have needed a musket for hunting and for protecting his family from the wild animals in the area.  It would be interesting to know the kind of house he and his family lived in, too. 

Philip wrote his will December 11, 1719 and it was proven November 22, 1720.  He had married Margaret Morgan about 1707.  She was younger than he was and possibly lived until 1774.  It's not known when his first wife, the mother of his children, died.  

Among others, Philip left bequests to his Rees grandchildren, and to Rebecca (his daughter, the wife of Thomas Rees "late of Haverford".  It's interesting to think of this family, speaking Welsh, working hard, and worshiping with their neighbors in the quiet of a Quaker church.  I wonder when the children or grandchildren started speaking English as well.  I'm glad they came, I'm glad they stayed to help make America what it is today, and of course, to contribute to the Beeks family.

The line of descent is:

Philip Price-

Rebecca Price-Thomas Rees

Thomas Rees-Margaret Bowen

Thomas Rees-Hannah Rees

Solomon Rees-Anna

Owen T Reese-Margaret Ellen Moon

Eliza Matilda Reese-Samuel G Dunham

Margaret Catherine Dunham-Harvey Aldridge

Cleo Aldridge-Wilbur Beeks

Mary Beeks-Cleveland Harshbarger

Their descendants

 

Allen line: Samuel Johnson of New Haven, mystery man

We know a little about Samuel Johnson, but not nearly enough.  We know that his parents were John and Hannah Parmalee Johnson, and we know he was born February 25, 1653 in New Haven, Connecticut and baptized on March 1 of the same year.  We know he was one of at least eight children, and he may have been the oldest in the family.  If so, his parents didn't follow the conventional naming pattern as he doesn't seem to have had a recent ancestor named Samuel.  

The first real mystery we have is that we don't know the name of his wife.  We don't even know her first name, although it could have been Abigail, or Elizabeth, or Mary, if they decided to use a familiar naming pattern.  All three names were common in the time period.  There was a fourth, unidentified child born to the couple and the supposition is that he or she didn't live long.  

The unknown wife, the mother of his children may have died sometime of the birth of their youngest daughter, Mary who was born January 1, 1694.  Many sources say that he next married Francis Wixom or Wicome in Rowley, Massachusetts, but I believe that is incorrect. She married a Samuel Johnson who was born in 1671, not 1653, and that other Samuel was from Massachusetts also. 

But before he married anyone, apparently, Samuel served in King Philip's War.  This is the conclusion that the esteemed genealogist Donald Lines Jacobus came to, based on the fact that he was unmarried and had no estate in 1680, when he received 7 acres of land from the town.  The amount of land granted was partly based on the length of military service and 7 acres seems to have been the highest amount given that year, so Samuel probably wsas involved in the wsar for more than just a few days or weeks.   

Samuel Johnson, senior is listed in the 1704 New Haven census with a total of 6 in his household, so either his wife was still alive or he had remarried, but if so, that possible second wife is unknown.  

Samuel may have left town briefly in the period following his father's death, for there was some trouble in settling the estate and eventually he and his brother appointed others to do that.  Samuel was at that time described as "having left this town".  This leads us to wonder whether the Samuel Johnson Senior mentioned in the 1704 census wsa our Samuel Johnson, but there is no evidence that it wasn't.  Samuel could have gone on a trip for any number of reasons, and then returned to his home as his children were born.  

The final mystery is when and where did he die.  There is a will probated in 1728 for Samuel Johnson of Guilford, Ct.  In it, he mentions daughters Abigail and Mary, but no Elizabeth, and he also mentions sons David, Nathaniel, William and Timothy. Mary is referred to as Mary Crittenden, so that seems to say this is not our man.  Also, in 1728, one would think that children born in the early 1690s would have married and had grandchildren, but this Samuel doesn't give his daughters last names in the will itself.    On the off chance that this is our Samuel, I'm including this information here but I'm thinking it's not our guy.  If someone knows something about the Guilford Samuel Johnson and can clarify this will, I'd be grateful. 

It's likely that Samuel was a husbandman, like his father before him, but it's always possible that he also was involved as a mariner, in one form or another.  It's another item we don't know about him. But he know that he lived, served his country, married and had a family, and is part of our heritage.  Maybe we will learn more about him someday.

The line of descent is:

Samuel Johnson-

Mary Johnson-Matthew Bellamy

Hannah Bellamy-John Royse

Elizabeth Royse-William McCoy

James McCoy-Nancy Lane

Vincent McCoy-Eleanor Jackson

Nancy McCoy-George Allen

Edward Allen-Edith Knott

Richard Allen-Gladys Holbrook

Their descendants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Holbrook line: Daniel Scott 1680-1744

Let's go back to colonial Maryland, because that to me is an interesting place.  I've written about some of the Amos family there, and the McComas family, but apparently I haven't written about the Scotts.  Daniel Scott, the second of that name in America, was born to Daniel and Jane Johnson Scott about 1680 near Benjie's Point, Baltimore County, Maryland.  His parents had probably arrived shortly before his birth, and by 1682 Daniel Scott Sr was acquiring land, lots of land.  Our Daniel benefited greatly from his father's zeal for land acquisitions, and Daniel also seems to have had an affinity for land.  Once again, I am getting ahead of the story.  

Daniel was one of at least six children born to Daniel (Senior) and Jane, and he was the oldest so he would have been taught and groomed to succeed his father.  That means he learned farming, real estate skills, and probably how to drive a hard bargain.  He probably didn't learn to write, as he witnessed documents with his mark, rather than his signature.  He of course could have been able to read without being able to write, but we don't know whether that was the case.  

He may very well have been able to read, because he was a member of the Maryland General Assembly representing Baltimore County several times between 1725 and 1744.  Perhaps he had an injured arm when he signed with his mark as a witness to a land document.  Either way, he was an intelligent man, well thought of because not only was he a member of the Assembly, but he also served his community as justice of the peace.  He also had at least one young man as an indentured servant or apprentice.  William Buttram, aged 8, bound himself to Daniel and Elizabeth Scott in 1714 at the age of 8, after the death of his mother, and stayed with the family until about 1742.  He would not have been forced by contract to stay that long, so he muyst have had a good position within the family business. 

Daniel married Elizabeth Whitaker (various spellings), daughter of John and Catherine (maiden name unknown) Whitaker about 1702 in 1702 or possibly 1704.  Elizabeth's parents were also from Baltimore County, from St George's Parish.  so these people were relatively early settlers of the area.  The couple had nine or ten children together, so Daniel had motivation to keep acquiring land.  

With all that land, he also was a slaveholder, as I'm sure you've guessed, if you've been reading this blog for a while.  And you also know how hard it is for me to write that, or even think that.  (My thought is, I wonder what I'm doing, or have done, that will be regarded as shameful in another 300 years?)  

When wrote his will in 1744, he named slaves Sambo, Hercules, Phillis, Pugg, Old Mingo, Marria, Jack, Nero, Jenny, Mingo, Tobee, Phoebe, Sall, Dina, Cesar, and Sampson.  These were all given in his will to his descendants.  There may have been a little compassion in him, however, because Old Mingo and Marria, his wife, were kept together and Phoebe and her daughter Sall were kept together.  Whether any of the rest were a family unit I don't know.  I also don't know whether these were the only slaves, or whether there were others who had already been sold or were simply considered inventory.  I've not yet located the inventory, but there should be one.  

So there were at least 16 slaves, and I believe over 3300 acres in the estate, in several different parcels.  Elizabeth got temporary use and possession of 390 acres, and  his son Daniel received about 1000 acres, with smaller but still substantial amounts to his other sons.  

It's interesting to think of Daniel, as a large land owner and as a politician.  He would have attended the local Church of England church as well, and may have been part of a local militia.  He must have been a busy man.  I wonder what his house was like-frame or brick?  Did it have a large hall for parties and balls? Was he a big part of the social scene?  It's fun to speculate about our ancestors, including  this one.  

The line of descent is:

Daniel Scott-Jane Johnson

Martha Scott- Daniel McComas 

Martha McComas-Robert Amos

Robert Amos-Elizabeth Amos 

Martha Amos-Peter Black

Elizabeth Black-Isaac Hetrick

Mary Alice Hetrick-Louis Stanard

Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook

Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen

Their descendants

 

 

 

 

 

Holbrook line: Edward Fay 1717-1801

Edward Fay was good at at least two things:  staying out of sight, and having children.  He was also a soldier who marched off at a rather advanced age on the Lexington alarm at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War.  For that reason alone, it's worth trying to get to know this ancestor. 

Edward was born May 16, 1717 at Marlborough, Massachusetts, the son of David and Sarah Larkin Fay.  He married Sarah Joslin, daughter of Israel and Sarah Cleveland Joslin, in either Marlborough or Southborough, Massachusetts on April 28, 1743.  The two towns are about 4 miles apart, and records were entered in both towns.  These towns were located just east of Boston, and Edward and Sarah would have had similar upbringings. 

However, Edward was one of at least 12 children and he may have determined that opportunities lay elsewhere for himself and his family, so he moved to Stafford, Connecticut soon after the birth of his third child.  (Incidentally, perhaps I should mention here that it is possible that Edward had a previous marriage or relationship. Hepzibah is generally given as his first child, with a birth date of October 4, 1740. That clearly doesn't mesh with the marriage date given above.)

Edward was most likely a farmer, because Stafford was formed as an agricultural community.  With three young children to raise and as many as ten more on the way, life may have been hard for the family, but of course a large family brings joy, too.

As for the rest of his life there, he seems to have been pretty much anonymous.  The one slight hint we have is that he was a corporal, and would have been about 58 years old, when he marched on the Lexington alarm.  So he was healthy at that point, and had had some kind of military experience that earned him the position of corporal.  This leads me to wonder what he was doing during the 1748 expedition to Canada and during the French and Indian War of 1756-1763.  Based on his location and what is known of some of our other ancestors, it is possible that he participated in one of more of these expeditions.  If so, again, his life would have been hard.  I don't know how far he marched on the alarm  Did they go all the way to Lexington or somewhere else in the vicinity of Boston, or did he stay in at the old Connecticut? 

So there are mysteries about Edward, and we don't seem to have a will or inventory to help us out.  Sarah died July 20, 1782 at the age of 60 and was buried at the Old Stafford Village Cemetery. 

Edward died November 12, 1801, according to his Find a Grave memorial, and was buried at Holland, Massachusetts, which was about 12 miles from Stafford.  At least one of his sons was living there at the time, and perhaps Edward was living with him.  I've seen several references that Edward died in 1806, but they are without a specific date or location.  Perhaps there is a reference to an estate or land sale in 1806, but if so, I have not yet found it.

 

Update:  Further research, caused by a question from a distant cousin, prompted me to go back and look at the records.  Edward Fay married Sarah Joslin February 26, 1739-40 in Southborough per the Southborough vital records.  There is no record there of a second marriage.  I apologize to my readers who expect better of me.  

The line of descent is

Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin

David Fay-Marcy Perrin

Euzebia or Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard

Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy

Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick

Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook

Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen

Their descendants

pe

o

s

Allen line: Samuel Fish 1656-1733

The main question about Samuel Fish is just where and when he was born.  After that, we have quite a bit of information about him, and it is mostly good.  The challenge is that Samuel's parents, John and Mary Ireland Fish, moved around quite a bit during the time period in which Samuel was born, 1656 or possibly 1657.  I've seen his birth place listed as Sandwich, Long Island, NY and as Groton, Stratford, Stonington, and Mystic, Ct.  I don't think anyone has a document that states Samuel was born at such and such a place, and until one is found, we will just have to be content knowing that he was born in colonial Connecticut (or possibly New York).

If Samuel grew up in Mystic, he would have been quite aware of the life of a mariner, whether or not he was part of that industry.  Mystic was on the Connecticut River and very close to Long Island Sound.  Coastal trading opportunities would have been plentiful.  He married Sarah Starke...but I'm getting ahead of the story...

Samuel and his father John each served in King Philip's war in 1675-1676, Samuel serving as a captain.  He served long enough to be given land in Groton as a reward for his service.  Samuel stayed in Groton long enough to meet, court, and marry Sarah Starke, daughter of Aaron and Sarah (maiden name unknown) Starke. It may or may not be a coincidence that he became a church member in 1680. Samuel and Sarah had at least 7 children together.  He seems to have been civic minded, serving as a select man for many years. 

Now, one thing I've learned in my years of genealogy work is that selectmen weren't chosen just because they were popular.  In general, they had an estate above the median level of the town.  Samuel seems to follow that trend.  His inventory isn't totaled, but he had 113 sheep, various other farm animals, several books, household inventory, and oh, dear, slaves.  There are four listed in the inventory and he has given several more to his children, so it's hard to know for sure how many there were.  Oh, dear. 

So the picture is confusing.  On the one hand, he held several slaves.  On the other hand, he directed that each of his children, or possibly grandchildren, be given Bibles.  I've seen just a few other men who have done that. 

I should mention that the wife mentioned in the will is Dorothy, because Sarah had died in 1722.  He mentions her daughter Anna Smith in the will, too.  Dorothy was to keep what she brought to the marriage in 1724, and then he added other provisions for her comfort, making sure she would be provided for. 

He's a man from a different world, and sometimes I think we shouldn't judge slaveholders, while other times I wonder what he was thinking.  But I'm glad I've learned a little more about him, and I wonder if you are glad, too. 

The line of descent is

Samuel Fish-Sarah Starke

Abigail Fish-Daniel Eldridge

Sarah Eldridge-Thomas Chester

Bathsheba Chester-Jonathan Havens

Elizabeth Chester Havens-John Starr

John Havens Starr-Clarissa Falley

Harriet Starr-John Wilson Knott

Edith Knott-Edward Allen

Richard Allen-Gladys Holbrook

Their descendants