When Did the Burnham Brothers Appear?

I was trying to figure out some more on the Burnham Brothers and their not being on the Angel Gabriel.  There is a list of proprietors of Ipswich (called commoners in the text) dated 28 February 1641/42.  There are 111 names on this list.  No Burnhams.  That says something.  Of the people on the list, I descend from several including Regnald Foster, John Perkins, and Moses Pengry.

I suspect that if you wanted to speculate on other passengers on the Angel Gabriel, I would see who else was made a freeman from Ipswich at the same time as John Cogswell.  Then I would see if any of those persons left any records prior that.  If not, that would be a start for a speculative list.  It is common that people from the same ship tended (at least at first) to live in the same community.  That's another reason that the Burnhams were put on board.  The Ipswich connection.

Comments

[Bruce Roberts]

FWIW: the many online sites referring to the Burnham brothers frequently quote a (presumably 19th century) source that may have used the Schofield volume you cite above (or the records it catalogs). Earlier in the volume, it is noted that in 1639 the "committee for the Pequitt Soldiers" granted 8 acres to John Burnham. If he was a Pequot War veteran that would presumably put him in Ipswich 1-2 years earlier (~1637), yes?

Those same online sources typically say that Thomas Burnham was also a Pequot veteran, though I didn't see a mention of that in Schofield in a quick scrolling; his presence at that early date would not be consistent with the GM reference you made earlier, that Thomas didn't arrive in Ipswich until 1642.

But, setting Thomas aside, it would appear that John was in Ipswich sometime during the Pequot War, and was a land grantee in 1639. I am guessing that that land grant was insufficient to let John show up as a "commoner" on the 1641 list (since none of the other "Pequitt Soldiers" granted land show up on the list either). Is that correct? Or was he just missed somehow? (which to my --totally amateur-- eye seems possible, since there are no Cogswells on the list either, and John Cogswell had been a freeman there for 5 years at that point?)

In any case, 1637 isn't that much later than the 1635 date of the Angel Gabriel wreck. If John wasn't on the Angel Gabriel, there's a fairly narrow window during which he must have arrived if he was indeed a "Pequitt Soldier" (and 1636 wasn't a big year for ship arrivals in New England). Or am I reasoning from false premises here?

[Martin Hollick]

Good comment! Clearly if you believe Anderson, a person arrives and creates some sort of document within a year of arrival. Conversely, he is noting the arrival time as the year before the first document found. So, if you follow his formula, John Burnham arrives in 1638. Since John and Robert marry women whose maiden names we do not know, they are not given years (for some reason) in the sketch of Robert Andrews 1634-5, I:52-56. However, Thomas married Mary Lawrence who did arrive in 1635 and in her sketch (IV:258-59) he is given as arriving in 1642 and marrying her in 1643. So, what can we glean from this. First of all it has always been an assumption that John, Thomas, and Robert arrived together. They seem to have arrived separately, John being the first. John arriving in 1638 or even 1637, puts him no closer to being on the Angel Gabriel then before. We must believe that he generated no records for 2 or 3 years. Clearly Cogswell generated a record and so did Johns kinsman Robert Andrews. I find it unlikely that John left no trace. It is also an assumption that 1636 wasnt a big year for ships. The fact we know so many ships arrived in 1634 and 1635 is happenstance that the London port records for those years survive, noting the ships that went to New England. There may have been as many ships in 1636, but we just dont know how many because of a gap in the records. According to the Great Migration Newsletter, Schofields transcription of the list of commoners left off a few names that could not be deciphered by him. Those are five names that only have one or two letters. It is conceivable that Cogswell and John Burnham fall there (although how improbable 5 out of 116, is slightly less that a 5% chance.) So Ive ranted about Google Books, and will pursue new leads the next time Im in the NEHGS library. Lastly, using Melinde Sanborns book on Ages From Court Records, I averaged the birth dates of all three Burnhams. John is clearly the eldest, born ca. 1614; Thomas is second born ca. 1618 and Robert is the youngest born ca. 1624. Although John would have been 21 in 1635, the other two would have been minors and less likely to travel without their parents, about whom we know nothing.

[Bruce Roberts]

Thanks for the long and serious answer, Martin. It deals with some of my puzzlement, but leaves open a few questions for me.

I get it with respect to Anderson’s premise (when you show up in the records, one year prior is a good guess as to arrival time). Sounds very plausible, as a rule-of-thumb. Two, or especially three, years unrecorded for John Burnham seems … dubious, so I agree with your view on that. Not on the Angel Gabriel.

I agree that, if the three brothers aren’t automatically assumed to be on the Angel Gabriel, there’s no real basis to assume they necessarily came together. So, dropping that premise, John Burnham is the first to come over, as both the eldest and the first to be recorded.

John shows up in 1639 as a land grantee. But he is said to be a “Pequitt Soldier” (according to Schofield) – doesn’t that suggest 1637, not 1638, for that soldiering? (it’s a matter of history here, and I don’t know that history well , but the northern MA effort in that war, as distinct from CT and Plymouth, seems to be summer 1637 from what I’ve read, yes?).

There are 10 men granted land in 1639 as “Pequitt Soldiers,” according to the list in Schofield: William Whitred, Andrew Storye, John Burnham, Rob Cross, Francis Wainwright, Robert Filbrick, John Andrews, Palmer Tingsley, William Swyndon, Robert Castell. Several have apparently documented arrival dates, in the preceding years. Others might well be sons of documented arrivals.

None of them show up on the commoners list of 1641. Neither does John Cogswell, who we know was a freeman as of 1635/6. That’s 11, at least, who should (?) have been listed (or is my assumption wrong here)?

Only 5 names are said to be unintelligible on the Schofield list.

Huh? Shouldn’t John Burnham as a land grantee qualify as a commoner? But if he does qualify and was simply missed or mistranscribed, why aren’t any of the other guys there? It would seem that absence from the list proves little.

Your explanation about the scarcity of 1636 ships to New England (records missing) makes perfect sense. I didn’t know that.

So… John arrived either no later than 1637 (when he was an enlistee in the war) or else as late as 1638 (following the Anderson logic). No reason to believe he came in 1635, on the Angel Gabriel. No reason to believe he was fresh off the boat in 1639 either. But … any way to guess at when (or on what ship), within that interval? Perhaps that's the research problem?

[Martin Hollick]

I am so enjoying this discussion. Too bad I have to work for a living. Id have love to spend time just on this and bop from the NEHGS library to the Mass. Historical Society and Mass. State Archives all day. I will prepare a response, but in the form of another posting. Maybe tonight or tomorrow.