The Slovak Yankee

Finding Possible Fathers for Polly B. Daniels Learned

Having spent twenty years chasing down Polly Learned as a Dudley (the Learned Genealogy calls  her a Dudley and she names a child Josiah Dudley Learned), I am now of the persuasion that she was a Daniels which is how she identifies herself on her marriage record.  This marriage record appears in the Dublin Town Records [“Index to births, marriages & deaths registered in Dublin, NH 1760-1990” by Nancy E. Campbell and John W. Harris (Dublin, NH: The Archives 1991), p. 13 and 34], and was then passed on to the state level and appears there.  It also appears in a Justice of the Peace record (although listed as Dolly rather than Polly Daniels). “’Til Divorce Do Us Part: Marriages and Divorces from Cheshire County, New Hampshire 1776-1899” by Milli S. Knudsen (Heritage Books, 2007), p. 63.

So what else do we know  about Polly?  She appears in the 1850 U.S. census as Mary Learned aged 63, born N.H.  Therefore, born 1787.  So she must appear as a child in the 1790 N.H. census in a Daniels household.  Well, there were 29 Daniels households in the N.H. 1790 census.  Here they are:

1. Reuben (indexed under Daniel) 2-0-3 Portsmouth
2. Aaron 1-2-2 Keene
3. Addington 1-2-4 Keene
4. Clement 1-3-8 Barrington
5. David 2-3-4 Madbury
6. Dodovah 1-0-2 Barrington
7. Elijah 1-0-1 Barrington
8. Eliphalet 3-1-2 Durham
9. Ephraim 1-1-1 Barrington
10. Increase 3-2-6 Westmoreland
11. James 1-0-1 Keene
12. John 2-3-3 Chesterfield
13. John 3-0-1 Keene
14. John 2-2-5 Deerfield
15. Jonathan 1-0-1 Deerfield
16. Joseph 2-0-4 Barrington
17. Joseph Jr. 1-0-3 Barrington
18. Minas 1-0-2 Exeter
19. Moses 3-0-2 Alstead
20. Nathaniel 1-0-0 Deerfield
21. Obadiah 1-0-1 Middleton
22. Pelatiah 2-2-8 Barrington
23. Reuben 1-4-4 Keene
24. Rheuben 1-0-2 Wakefield
25. Samuel 1-0-1 Keene
26. Samuel 1-1-4 Canterbury
27. Samuel 1-1-4 Exeter
28. Samuel 1-4-4 Pembroke
29. Samuel 2-0-3 Sandown

Several can be eliminated as having only 1 or less women in the household:  Elijah, Ephraim, James, John, Jonathan, Nathaniel, Obadiah, and Samuel (of Keene).  The closest town to Dublin is Keene also in Cheshire County.  There is obviously a family of Daniels living there.  Of them, Aaron, Addington, and Reuben could be candidates.  More exploration of these men is now called for.

 

John Briggs of Sandwich, Mass.

John Briggs of Sandwich first appears when he receives land there on 16 April 1640 and died shortly thereafter and certainly before his widow was granted administration on his estate on 1 June 1641 [Plymouth Colony Records 2:18, and Mayflower Descendant 3:224-25] .  It's very hard to learn much about people who leave so few records.  John's wife's name is Katherine as seen in the inventory of his estate which also mentions his two children, Samuel and Sarah.  This John is often confused with two other records for a John Briggs.  The first in Watertown actually belongs to John Griggs of Watertown.  The second is the passenger list for the ship Blessing in 1635.  It is doubtful the name is Briggs or Biggs, it is directly below a Thomas Briggs, and the passenger's age is listed as 20, too young for this man. [Anderson, The Great Migration 1634-1635, I:400-401]

Certainly this John Briggs, was a joiner (carpenter) and his inventory attests to that.  A joiner, out of apprenticeship, would be older than 20 in 1635.  Additionally his daughter Sarah marries in 1654 and if an average age of 21, she was born ca. 1633, when the passenger was only 18.  This is highly unlikely.  If married for the first time in 1632, our John Briggs was likely born circa  1607.

There so happens to be a clue, I've never followed up on.  A John Briggs, widower, married Katherine Coote, singlewoman on 19 June 1632 at St. John Timberhill, Norwich, Norfolk.  This seems like a good place to start.  John may have been older, this was a second marriage, and certainly perhaps he died say age 50 or so.   Sadly it seems Katherine, after the inventory and probate,  falls off the face of the earth as well.  Samuel Briggs married Elizabeth Ellis.   Sarah Briggs married as his second wife, Stephen² (John¹) Wing.

Additional Sources:

• John Briggs of Sandwich, Massachusetts by E.A. Hannibal (1962).
• An Emerson-Benson Saga: The Ancestry of Charles F. Emerson and Bessie Benson and the Struggle to Settle the United States by Edmund K. Swigart, Ph.D. (Gateway Press, Baltimore, 1995) [which has the 1635 mistaken identification].

 

John Drake of Windsor, Conn. Redux

I wrote a posting on John Drake, my ancestor, last December, which was a follow-up to a previous posting in June 2009.  He is also an entry in my bogus royal lines page.  A commenter left this message, which I am copying in full:

Robert Charles Andderson for some reason was bent on proving that John of Windsor was not part of the Devonshire Drakes. As for your dambing peace of evidnce being John was refered to as good man and not Mr. there are somethings to concider. #1. First of all Sir John of Ashe was his great grandfather. My great grandfather was in the civil war. What does that have to do with me? It doesn't make me speacial to anyone of give me any pirks. #2 Those people in Hartford were religious Christians who shunned British Royalty. As a Mormon whose ancestors gave up everything they had to go west to Utah Mr. Anderson should have understood what the Puritans were doing. #3. Mr. Anderson mentioned in his artical that Johns son was on record as having traveled to Piscadaway. This may prove the point more that he was from Devonshire as the Drakes in that Thomas Drake in Piscadaway was part of the Devenshire genealogy. He was going to visit his cousins who were also from that area. My father told me things about my genealogy that you will not find on the internet. I and several others have copies of a 10 page family letter about our line which comes from John of Windsor.

This is the kind of message I received all the time back in the Roots-L days and made me give up Internet genealogy the first time. However, I'd like to use this as an example.  The main problem with this type of message is that the commenter is wrong, and there is no way to kindly or graciously say that.  Certainly the tone of the paragraph above is confrontational, which doesn't help [especially since I read it first thing on Saturday morning.] So, one has two options: (1) let it go and allow this thinking to go on; or (2) wade into the tempest and set the record straight.  In my younger days I always did #2, much to my own regret.  

But let's examine the arguments above.

1. "Robert Charles Anderson was bent . . . "  This is a straw man.  It assumes that a genealogist has an agenda of some sort.  I can't imagine what the agenda would be.  You certainly can't get rich by saying this ancestor was this or that.  However, it does assign blame, which is important to many people.  However, that merely distracts from the arguments about John Drake's origins.  For the record, Robert Charles Anderson is one of the foremost genealogists of our time.  He is scholarly, thoughtful and precise.  He holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in history from Harvard.  I actually know him. 

2. The goodman v. gentleman argument.  If you know history and genealogy of that time period well, then you know this is a key piece of evidence.  I examined such things in this post.  Comparing 16th and 17th English customs and 19th and 20th century American customs doesn't work.  The commenter is using false logic.  One might as well say that the fact women couldn't own property in their own right prior to 1865 is the same reason why women face a glass ceiling in today's corporate America.  These are two separate things that must be interpreted by the time period and culture in which you find them.

3. "Those people in Hartford were religious Christians who shunned British Royalty."  This is 8th-grade history.  And poorly-taught 8th grade history at that.  The puritans who left England had no problem with royalty.   They had a problem of freedom of religion which a certain king wouldn't allow.  And remember that the Hartford people left Massachusetts because they disagreed with Winthrop's vision of a theocracy [i.e. the people of Connecticut were more tolerant that those in Massachusetts.]  And by the way, if I read that sentence correctly, it infers that Robert Charles Anderson is a Mormon, which he most certainly is not.

4. The Drakes of Piscataway were also not part of the Devonshire Drakes.  Another old-time error.  Again, those Drakes were from Halstead, Essex. See my postings above. 

5. "My father told me things about my genealogy that you will not find on the internet. I and several others have copies of a 10 page family letter about our line which comes from John of Windsor."  This is, of course, the crux of the matter.  It isn't about genealogy or history or good v. bad research.  It's about honoring his father.  His father's veracity (for some inexplicable reason) is on the line, so naturally this commenter will defend to the hilt this claim. I wrote about this regarding the Bearse family and another it-will-never-die-bad-genealogy claim.  We have to divorce ourselves from the love and respect we bear our parents and grandparents when doing genealogy and look at the records with clear and unbiased eyes.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Those people did their research with the best of intentions, but sadly were mistaken.  They didn't understand the context of the 17th century and couldn't wrap their minds around the coincidence that two contemporary John Drakes were in New England.  This does not reflect badly on them.  However, that is no reason to defend a false claim either.

In the end, none of this matters.  People will have to choose which of these conclusions to accept.  I'm certainly sure that no heritage society (say from Charlemagne or the Magna Carta Barons) will accept John Drake as a gateway ancestor--so save your money.  That's the only thing I can think might be of consequence to the outcome of this debate.   

Monday Madness: (Edwin) Nathaniel (Edwin) Pinkham 1846-1907

In my ongoing efforts in the ancestry of Mary Chamberlain Wallace 1814-1866, wife of Luther Hale Pinhkam, and probable daughter of Joseph and Rebecca (York) Wallace, I stumbled across this posting I made in 2001.  It is like a prototype for Monday Madness but posted long before this type of blogging existed.  First I was struck by the fact that I've been pursuing this for such a long time. I certainly know more than I did then.  However, the mystery of Edwin Nathaniel or Nathaniel Edwin has never been solved.  I'm not sure the initial poster ever contacted me regarding this.  I certainly don't remember any interaction or conversation (and nothing is my files).  There is now one error in the posting.  I wrote that when Charles Luther Pinkham died in 1903, his obituary listed that he was survived by one brother.  I now know he was survived by two, the other being Seth Taylor Pinkham 1852-1919 whose death record I finally found in Tewksbury, Mass. [Massachusetts Death Records for 1919, 101:344].  So, this just adds to the muddle of information and discrepancies. 

John Hidden of Kittery, Maine

In addition to my study of Josiah Berry of Kittery, I did a short study of his father-in-law, John Hidden.  This man leaves even less records that Josiah!

John³ HIDDEN was born at Rowley, Mass. about 1688, son of John² (Andrew¹) and Elizabeth (Jewett) Hidden.  It is likely that John married at Portsmouth, N.H. at the North Church on 4 July 1711 to (---) CROCKETT. [New Hampshire Genealogical Record 5(1908):41]  It should be noted that the transcription says Joseph Hidden, however, since John Hidden is immediately thereafter having children baptized in Kittery, this must be an error.  Perhaps the original document (which I have not seen) says J^o. Hidden which should be read John but is often mistaken for Joseph. 

John has seven children baptized at Kittery, Maine. [Parish Records of the First Church & Society of Kittery, Maine 1714-1791, reprinted at NEHGR 151 (1997), various pages].  John left no land records.  In fact, he is not even a witness to a land record in York County up to 1737 which is now searchable electronically.  He left no probate papers.  His first wife died after the birth of their last child in 1730 and before 1756.  On 4 January 1756 John was admitted to full communion at the Kittery church [NEHGR 151:52].  On 25 April 1756, Rachel Clinton was also admitted to full communion at the same church [NEHGR 151:52].  These events preceded their marriage on 28 July 1756. [Vital Records of Kittery, Maine To the Year 1892, ed. Joseph C. Anderson II and Lois Ware Thurston (Camden, Me.: Picton Press, 1991), hereinafter Kittery VRS, p. 125].  She seems to be Rachel DOLBY who was the successive widow of Lawrence Amee and Jacob Clinton.  John appears on a tax list at Kittery on 1 September 1760. He, thereafter, disappears from the records.

Most of this research is the product of one of his descendants, Richard M. Hunt, in his excellent article "The Hiddens Have Gone to Newburyport" The Essex Genealogist 24 (2004):165-68. I've added very little to his discoveries.  It should be noted that this Hidden family is different from the Hatten family of the Isle of Shoals and Kittery that variantly spelled their surname Hidden.  There is also a branch of the Heaton family living in Portsmouth.

The woman noted as [blank] Crockett in the first marriage record would seem to be part of the Thomas Crockett family of Kittery.  How is the question.  If married in 1711, she was born ca. 1690.  She was born no earlier than 1685 based on the 1730 birth of her last child.  Thomas had six sons: John (who died without children), Ephraim, Hugh, Elihu, Joseph, and Joshua. [All this from Gen. Dict. of Me. and N.H., p. 171-72] Ephraim left a will and his two daughters married men not named Hidden.  Hugh's first recorded child was Margaret born 12 May 1698 with three more.  If Margaret is the eldest, Hugh cannot be the father because any child of his would be too young to marry in 1711.  Elihu left precious few records and is only given one son Thomas.  Joseph left a will that named five daughters all by first name only.  At least two of those daughters were known to be married when he wrote his will on 12 March 1713/14.  All the daughters are accounted for with husbands except Mary Crockett who seems to be the woman who was admitted to full communion on 22 July 1716 at the Kittery Church as Mary Crockett  [NEHGR 151:42]. Lastly Joshua who lived at Newington is given five children, and he left no will.  There seems no conclusive evidence.  Based on naming and the fact that Mary, the daughter of Joseph is alive as of his will writing, it would seem logical that it was she that married John Hidden.  The 1716 Kittery church record could either apply to her sister-in-law Mary (Ball) Crockett, wife of Joseph (Jr.) or simply be scribal mistake and noted her maiden name rather than married name. Sadly, because John Hidden literally appears nowhere in land or probate records, there is no inference as to which Crockett branch he might belong to. 

Children of John³ and (---) (Crockett) HIDDEN, all born in Kittery:

i. Joseph⁴ baptized 18 September 1715 [NEHGR 151:220], married Newbury, Mass., 29 September 1737, Mary HALE.  This is the ancestor of Richard M. Hunt and the focal point of his article.  

ii. David⁴ baptized 5 August 1716 [NEHGR 151:221].  No further record.

iii. Mary⁴ baptized 22 May 1720 [NEHGR 151:224] and likely born earlier based on her sister's baptism.  Mary owned the covenant and was admitted to full communion on 30 July 1735 [NEHGR 151:46].  She is clearly the Mary Hidden, daughter of John named in a bastardy suit dated October 1739.  Sadly only the initial petition survives so the specifics of the case, including its outcome, do not survive.  However, Mary had intentions filed at Kittery on 5 March 1739/40 to David WELCH.  [Kittery VRs, p. 102] Perhaps this was the father of the child.  In any case, it appears the marriage never happened because intentions were filed again on 20 December 1740 to Josiah⁴ BERRY, son of George³ (James² William¹) and Deliverance (Haley) Berry.  [Kittery VRs, p. 103].  For their family see the above hyper-link to Josiah Berry.

iv. Elizabeth⁴ baptized 6 November 1720 [NEHGR 151:225].  No further records.

v. Anne⁴ baptized 17 March 1722/23 [NEHGR 151:226].  She married at Kittery on 2 October 1742 [Kittery VRs, p. 215], Benjamin BILLING, son of Joseph and Hannah (Wilson) Billing.  No further records. 

vi. William⁴ baptized 26 July 1730 [NEHGR 151:234], although born earlier based on his brother's baptismal date.  No further record.

vii. Robert⁴ baptized 20 September 1730 [NEHGR 151:234].  No further records.

Further thoughts on Andrew¹ Hidden.  I've seen many web sites and family trees that give his wife as Sarah Houston.  Clearly they were married at Rowley on 7th day 4 mo. 1654 as "Andrew Headen and Sarah Hosetine." I would posit that Hosetine is a variant of Hasetine or Hazeltine, and therefore some relation to the Haseltine brothers who came to Rowley: John and Robert.  See Patricia Law Hatcher's article on Rowley families in The Great Migration Newsletter 18 (2009):27 and National Genealogical Society Quarterly 68:10-11 for clues to their English origins.  Based on their relative ages (the two brothers) and Sarah's age, she cannot be their daughter, but perhaps a niece or cousin.

The Imperfect Search System: Finding Suitable Candidates for Deborah

I call this an imperfect search for many reasons.  In a perfect world the Kittery, Maine vital records and church records would be combined in one work, either in print or online, and searchable and/or indexed by first name.  But that world doesn't exist.  The next best thing is to search Ancestry.com's public trees which you can do by first name, state of birth and year of birth.  You must search year by year.  Now, you need hip boots to do this because what you find most of the time is sh** dreck.  Again, it's an imperfect system.  However, in the last thirty years, I'm guessing that we've hit some sort of critical mass on the entries in to personal databases of most of the information available in print.  The results of searching the name Deborah, born in Maine from 1754 back to 1742 follow.  What is given is:  Surname/Birth Place/Husband/Number of Trees.  I was amazed, although I shouldn't be, that so many people entered material so badly.  Although I said Maine, I got births from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and England.  No, I'm not kidding.  England.  Somersetshire.  More than once.

1754

• Cates, b. Gorham m. James Bangs: 7
• Durrell, b. Wells m. John Prendergast: 10
• Fisher, b. Dedham [Mass.] m. Thaddeus Stowell: 2
• Jacobs, b. Wells m. Jabez Dorman: 1

1753

• Bragdon, b. Scarborough m. Edward Plummer: 6
• Doane, b. Cape Elizabeth no husband, [see year 1745]: 1
• Dunning, b. York, m. Joseph Rains: 9
• Gifford, b. ?? m. Nathaniel Tobey: 1

1752

• Bradford, b. Turner: [s/b Kingston, Mass.], m. Barnabus Winslow:  2
• Dolliver, b. York, m. Elisha Dolliver: 14
• Lassell, b. Arundel m. Thomas Perkins: 11
• Morton, b. Thomaston m. Robert Jameson: 5
• Stacey, b. Somerset, England: 1
• Stover, b. York, m. Peter Heal: 34

1751

• Hussey, b. Biddeford, m. Paul Rogers: 10
• Jordan, b. Cape Elizabeth, no husband [but married Thomas Proctor] error for 1761: 4
• Rollins, b. Lincoln, m. Josiah Chase: 29
• Sylvester, b. Hanover, no husband, d. 1774: 1

1750

• Glass, New Gloucester, m. Barnabus Winslow [an error see 1752, Bradford]: 2

1749

• Aldrich, b. York, [s/b Rhode Island]: 1
• Lovell, b. Mass. [Cape Cod] m. Ebenezer Hamblen: 1
• Wentworth, b. Kittery, m. Joseph Ricker: 32
• Sawyer, b. Cape Elizabeth m. Benjamin Fickett: 17
• Webber, b. York, m. Paul Curtis: 47 [I particularly liked this one because the mother was named Meribah, a name Deborah (---) Wallis used for her second daughter.  However, this woman clearly married Paul Curtis and I even both on Findagrave.]

1748

• Lovett, b. Falmouth, m. Isaac Cobb: 5
• Sargent, b. York, no husband: 6* [parents: Jonathan and Mercy (Gray) Sargent]
• Soule, b. Woolwich, M. Isaac Savage:9
• Tuttle, b. Berwick, m. John Welch: 6

1747

• Bragdon: no further information [error, see 1753]: 1
• Strout, b. Brunswick, m. Benjamin Coombs: 8
• York, b. Cape Elizabeth m. George Copson Roberts: 19

1746

• Grant, b. Stonington, Conn.: m. Asa Brown: 1
• Tuttle, b. Berwick, same as 1748, m. John Welch: 1
• Yerington, b. Stonington, Conn. m. William Coats: 1

1745

• Berry, b. Kittery, no husband: 2* [parents: Josiah and Mary (Hidden) Berry]
• Doane, b. Falmouth, m. Joshua Westcott: 2
• Stover, b. York [see 1752]: 1
• Webber, [same as 1749]: 1

1744

• Hamilton, b. Berwick, m. James Marston: 5
• Ingersoll, b. Kittery, no husband: 2* [parents: John and Sarah (Tucker) Ingersoll]

1743

• Follett, b. Somerset (England), m. John Masters: 1
• Haley, b. Kittery, m. Mr. Dokam: 6 [as per her father's will of 1772]
• Holt, b. York, m. David Eames in 1770 in Woburn, Mass. which hardly seems likely: 3
• Metcalf, b. Rutland, Mass.: 3
• Small, Harpswell, m. Isaac Small: 34

1742

• Perkins, b. York, m. Stephen Littlefield: 53
• Ring, b. No. Yarmouth m. Josiah Cushman: 143
• Soule, [see 1748]: 1
• Turner, b. Cumberland, m. John Griffin: 1
• Walker, b. Kittery, m. John Parrott: 3

So collecting the starred (*) Deborahs we have the following candidates:

• Deborah Sargent, b. 1748 in York, daughter of Jonathan and Mercy (Gray) Sargent
• Deborah Berry, b. 1745 in Kittery, daughter of Josiah and Mary (Hidden)  Berry
• Deborah Ingersoll, b. 1744 in Kittery, daughter of John and Sarah (Tucker) Ingersoll

Starting with 44 separate Deborahs (some of whom are listed twice), only two are from Kittery, although York is close enough to call it Kittery.  In fact, Jonathan Sargent's land in York is described as abutting the Kittery town line.  Isn't Deborah Ingersoll, the same as the Deborah "Ingerson" who married William "Preast" on 15 July 1774 at the South Church in Portsmouth [NEHGR 82:290]?  And isn't Deborah Sargent the woman who married John Andros (i.e. Andrews) on 1 November 1772 at Georgetown, Maine? [Marriage Returns of Lincoln County, Maine to 1866 ed. Kelley and Adams (Camden, Me.: Picton Press, 2001), p. 13]  Indeed, known daughter Ruth Sargent married in Georgetown as well in 1767.  Eliminating those two leaves us with just Deborah Berry.  From 44 candidates to 1 in an imperfect search system.

Was Deborah Berry the Wife of Nathaniel Wallis?

Almost a year ago, I posted a message about, what I considered, my worst brick wall.  It was about the wife of Nathaniel⁵ (Samuel⁴ William^3-2 George¹) Wallis of Greenland, Epsom and Moultonborough, N.H.  Unlike some other stuck places in my ancestry, I had no leads on her whatsoever.  Judging by the time frame and the work I had done to date, I was sure that it was impossible to track her down.

As I've mentioned I discovered the death certificate of one of her children.  Massachusetts death records start ca. 1850 and can give a wealth of information including parents' names and places of birth.  This certificate from Haverhill dated 11 June 1861 [Massachusetts Deaths for 1861, 147:198] shows that Joseph was a widower, farmer, aged 80, born in Epsom, with a father named Nathaniel Wallace born in Greenland, N.H. and a mother named Deborah (---) born in Kittery, Maine.  In a perfect world, her maiden name would have been given, but as I look at all the entries on that page, none of the maiden names of the mothers are given.  The question must have been: Parents names?  Answer: Nathaniel and Deborah.  Done.

However, this was new and important information.  The accuracy of death certificates always have to be questioned since the decedent is not the person filling out the information.  However, the birth place of Joseph as Epsom is correct and the birth place of his father Nathaniel as Greenland is correct.  We have the baptism of Nathaniel in Greenland in 1746 to back this up.  It, therefore, seems quite probable that Deborah's birth place was also correct.  How to find her is now the problem.  The only other piece of information we have on Deborah is her relative age.  In the 1830 census she is given (unnamed of course) as aged 80 to 90.  So is her husband.  If accurate, she was born 1740-1750.  Her children are born from 1772 (eldest) to 1792 (youngest).  The 1772 date of Samuel Wallis is from his Bible record as reprinted at NEHGR 67 (1913):271-2.  The 1792 is based on Deborah (Wallis) Whipple's ages in the 1850 and 1860 censuses.  So, if a very young 16 at marriage in 1771, she was born ca. 1755.  If a very old 50 when she gave birth last in 1792, she was born ca. 1742.  Given all these parameters, you can set her probable birth between 1742 and 1750.

Using my new "imperfect" system of culling available females from Ancestry. com, I looked at all females named Deborah born between 1742 and 1754 in Kittery, Maine.  There is only one that is not given a husband.  She is Deborah Berry, baptized at Kittery on 8 December 1745, the daughter of Josiah⁴ (George³ James² William¹) and Mary (Hidden) Berry.  On the surface, this seemed like a good match.  It would mean that Nathaniel and Deborah were third cousins through the Wallis family [the wife of James² Berry was Eleanor Wallis].  The Berrys had family ties to Greenland as well.  She was the right age and born in the right place.  All in all, she was a worthwhile candidate to explore.

Sadly, I can find no evidence to either prove or disprove this relationship.  Indeed, I have found almost nothing on this family.  Using basic genealogical records, there is nothing: no vital records, church records, land records, probate records, etc. In a separate posting, I will explore what is known of Josiah Berry.  For now, the pros and cons are these:

Pros:

• We know Deborah was born in Kittery sometime between 1742 and 1750.  Deborah Berry was baptized at Kittery on 8 December 1745.  She would be about 25 at marriage; 26 at the birth of her first child and 46 at the birth of her last child.  In the 1830 census she would be 84.
• There is no husband given for Deborah.
• There are no records for the family of Josiah beyond the baptisms of his children.  He was poor and his estate when administered in 1792 was worth only 17 pounds (and change).  Therefore, whatever he would have given a daughter was done so during his lifetime.
• The two families would have known each other.

Cons:

• There is no marriage record for Nathaniel and Deborah.  None in Kittery Vital Records or in the Late Returns for York County, Maine.  None in neighboring Berwick, York, or Wells.  None in Portsmouth, Greenland, or Rye, N.H.  Barrington, N.H. marriages start in 1777 and therefore, are, as always, worse than useless. 
• Nathaniel and Deborah don't name any children Josiah or Mary.  On the other they also don't name a daughter Phebe, Nathaniel's known mother.  They name their daughters Elizabeth, Meribah, and Deborah.
• Neither Nathaniel nor any of his children use familial middle names that might support this conclusion such as Berry, Hidden, Haley or Crockett.
• There are no grantor or grantee deeds for Nathaniel or Deborah Wallis in York County, Maine, quitclaiming land.

On the one hand the lack of evidence makes this identification seem unlikely.  And yet, it is precisely that lack of evidence which has me convinced that the identification is true.  If a marriage record existed, someone long before me would have pieced this together.  In other words, if the "easy" evidence of genealogy were extant, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  If Josiah Berry left a will, even if in York Co., Maine, naming a daughter Deborah Wallis, someone would have written this up long ago.  The fact is the Berry family of Kittery is a poor family that lived well under the radar, leaving very few records at all.  The only reason to make this identification is the tie-in between a baptism in Kittery and a death record 120 years later two states over.  No one has ever put those two records together before.

I have a few research choices left, but they are "hail Mary passes."  

• I can check the death record at Haverhill to see if a maiden name was given that was left off the state record
• I can check the death records of Nathaniel Wallis in Ossipee, N.H. and his sister Elizabeth (Wallis) Drew in Holderness, N.H.  Neither appear in the state level N.H. death records.  Perhaps the records exist on a town level.
• Court records for York County, Maine.  They are online (indexed) only to 1740.  They exist in manuscript form at the NEHGS library from 1729-1792.  From 1792 onwards, I would have to go either the Maine State Archives or the York County Court House.
• Court records from either Rockingham or Strafford, N.H. counties.

Sadly, I know these are the last chances.   I have checked everything else including newspaper records. 

Assembling the family of Joseph Wallace 1781-1861

I recently discovered that Joseph Wallace died in Haverhill, Massachusetts on 11 June 1861, aged 80. [Massachusetts Deaths for 1861, 147:198] This death certificate has much information that will lead me to new avenues of research on his parents Nathaniel⁵ and Deborah (---) Wallace.  Sadly, Joseph left no probate papers in Essex County, Massachusetts.  This is not surprising since he is living with a daughter and her husband in both the 1850 and 1860 U.S. censuses.  How then to assemble his family in the absence of both probate papers and birth records in Moultonborough?

We start with the death certificates of two children whom we can prove were his.  Rebecca (Wallace) Towns, with whom Joseph is living in 1850 and 1860, died at Haverhill on 12 February 1878 and her death certificate gives her parents as Joseph and Rebecca Wallace. [Massachusetts Deaths for  1878, 301:187]  Daniel R. Wallace's death certificate in Lowell from 5 January 1908 gives his parents even more specifically as Joseph Wallace and Rebecca York. [Massachusetts Deaths for 1908, 55:375]. Further Daniel's marriage in Andover from 18 February 1849 shows his parents as Joseph and Rebecca Wallace. [Massachusetts Marriages for 1848-49, 37:130].  Based on censuses and their ages at death, Rebecca was born ca. November 1818 and Daniel ca. 1823.

Next we have Joseph Wallace (Jr.) who is in Moultonborough in the 1850 census age 33.  He is then in Center Harbor in 1860 age 46.  He dies before the 1870 census when his wife is listed alone back in Moultonborough.  Based on name, age, and location I believe this is the third child we can assign to Joseph (Sr.).  Joseph (Jr.) was born ca. 1816.

Rebecca (Wallace) Towne married her husband at Methuen (which is next to Haverhill) on 20 March 1842. [Vital Records of Methuen, Massachusetts to the Year 1849 (Topsfield, Mass.: Topsfield Historical Society, 1909), p. 282]  Marrying in the same town is a Deborah Wallace to Reuben G. Griffin on 19 September 1833.  This Deborah dies at Boston on 29 July 1887, aged 75 with parents given as Stephen and Sally, birth place as Center Harbor, N.H. [Massachusetts Deaths for 1887, 384:231] Stephen Wallace, son of Reuben Wallace of Sanbornton is given Abigail Tilton as a wife.  Based on her age; her name [that is, Joseph would have named a daughter after his mother], and the fact she marries in the same place as a known daughter of Joseph, I believe she too is his daughter and the death certificate is incorrect in naming her parents.  It should be noted that she was a widow and in an "asylum" when she died.  Deborah was born ca. 1812.

This leaves the two children who appear in New Durham.  My ancestress, Mary Chamberlain Wallis and Nathaniel A. Wallis who married Hannah Avery Pinkham on 6 March 1850 at New Durham.  I've always considered this a case of siblings marrying siblings.  Certainly Hannah Avery Pinkham was the sibling of Luther Hale Pinkham, the husband of Mary.  After the death of Nathaniel A. Wallis, Hannah remarried at Dover on 16 October 1868 to Edmund B. Sherman.  This couple then moves to Haverhill, Mass.  The connection to Haverhill is now apparent.  Hannah's son by her first husband, George A. Wallace dies at Haverhill on 28 February 1906. [Massachusetts Deaths for 1906, 44:135] The death certificate gives Nathaniel's birth place as Tuftonborough.  I think the added connection to Haverhill for Joseph strengthens the connection to Nathaniel and Hannah, and therefore to Luther and Mary.  Nathaniel was born ca. 1825 and Mary ca. 1814.

So, the children of Joseph and Rebecca (York) Wallace appear to be:

1. i. Deborah, b. ca. 1812
2. ii. Mary Chamberlain, b. ca. 1814
3. iii. Joseph, b. ca. .1816
4. iv. Rebecca, b. ca. 1818
5. v. Daniel R., b. ca. 1823
6. vi. Nathaniel A., b. ca. 1825

How does that square withe the census information for Joseph?  Joseph married Rebecca York on 4 September 1808 at Moultonborough.  In the 1810 census he is at Moultonborough next to his father Nathaniel with a household consisting of a man 26-44 and a woman 26-44.  This squares well for Joseph b. 1781 (and 29 in 1810) and Rebecca born ca. 1784.  In 1820, Joseph has one boy under 10 (Joseph Jr.), one man 26 to 45 (Joseph Sr. now 39); three girls under 10 (Deborah, Mary and Rebecca); two girls 10 to 16; one woman 26 to 45; and one person engaged in agriculture.  The two girls 10 to 16 are a bit of a mystery since they do not show up in the 1810 census.  However, there is a farm hand enumerated--perhaps these are his daughters? The problem with these early censuses is the guessing over who is who within a household.  If you take out those two girls 10-16, who are clearly not in the previous census, the children match perfectly.

In 1830, Joseph is still in Moultonborough with a household of one boy under 5 (Nathaniel A.); one 5-10 (Daniel R.); and one 10-15 (Joseph Jr.); one man 40 to 50 (Joseph himself); two girls 10 to 15 (Mary and Rebecca); one 15 to 20 (Deborah); one 20 to 30 (one of the other girls in the 1820 census); and one woman 40 to 50 (Rebecca). Again, except for the extra girl, this fits well.

In 1840, still at Moultonborough, Joseph has two males 15 to 20 (Daniel R. and Nathaniel A.); one 20 to 30 (Joseph, Jr.) and one 50 to 60 (Joseph Sr.); 2 women 20 to 30 (Rebecca and someone else); one 30 to 40 (another mystery, but still perhaps the earlier woman); one 50 to 60 (Rebecca) and one 60 to 70 (very likely Meribah Wallace, Joseph's sister who isn't separately enumerated in 1840, but shows up in 1850 in Moultonborough in the poor house aged 75).  Again this holds together.  Deborah marries in 1833.  Mary marries in April 1840 and is clearly enumerated with her husband Luther H. Pinkham in New Durham. 

Lastly, the other children all marry in the 1840s to precisely in 1850.  Joseph and Rebecca then appear with their daughter Rebecca and her husband Cyrus Towns in Londonderry, N.H., aged 69 and 64.

Using the above deductive reasoning, I believe we have a good and true picture of the family of Joseph and Rebecca (York) Wallace and their six children.

Mary, Wife of David Lawrence of Exeter, N.H.

In his will dated 16 February 1709/10, David Lawrence named a number of family members including "my brother Benjamin Taylor." [New Hampshire State Papers 31:649-51].  One of the witnesses to David's will was William Taylor who signed by mark.   There are three ways for David Lawrence and Benjamin Taylor to be brothers in the sense of familial connection: (i) David married Benjamin's sister; (ii) Benjamin married David's sister; or (iii) David and Benjamin married sisters.

Benjamin Taylor was the son of William and Anne (Wythe) Taylor.  Anne's last name is variantly given as Wythe or Wise and she was the daughter of Humphrey and Susan (Pakeman) Wythe whose English origins were published by Clifford Stott in The American Genealogist in 1993.  Anne (Wythe) Taylor was baptized 18 October 1632 at Woolverstone, England.  This is important because it becomes one of the known dates by which we can place people chronologically in this family.  The last of Anne's two Taylor children's births are given at Exeter: Mary on 26 October 1667 and Nathan on 5 February 1674.  Her other Taylor children, including Benjamin must have been older.  These dates rule out the possibility that David Lawrence married Mary Taylor as many, if not most, web sites have.  David's eldest daughter Phebe married on 29 November 1696 at Stratham to Thomas Rawlings (Jr.).  A woman born in 1667 would have had to marry at 14 (1681) and have a daughter at 15 (1682) who would in turn be only 14 when married in 1696.  Not bloody likely.

That eliminates possibility #1 for the relationship between David Lawrence and Benjamin Taylor.  Benjamin Taylor has three sons: Nathan, Benjamin and Edward.  Based on their respective marriage and death dates they were born ca. 1696, ca. 1700 and ca. 1705.  Benjamin and his wife, Rachel were therefore married ca. 1695.  They in turn were born say ca. 1670 (give or take).  Since Benjamin's birth is unrecorded between Mary and Nathan Taylor, it is more likely that he was born directly before Mary or ca. 1665.  Rachel (---) is still born ca. 1670.  David Lawrence is recorded first when he bought land in 1674.  That probably makes him at least 21 years old and likely older since he had to have made the money to buy the land (one assumes).  So David is born ca. 1650.  This makes him about 60 when he makes his will.  Although possible, if on opposite spectrums of the sibling list (i.e. David the eldest and Rachel the youngest), it doesn't seem that David and Rachel (---) were siblings either and seem to be of different generations.

That leaves us with the last possibility.  David Lawrence and Benjamin Taylor married two women who themselves were sisters.  So we are looking for two sisters, one named Mary born ca. 1655 and the other Rachel born ca. 1670, who are otherwise not given husbands in the literature available on 17th century New Hampshire people.  It should be do-able.  Of course, this brings up, yet again, my thoughts on better searching techniques for women.  I should be able to search a database for a Rachel born 1665-1675 in New Hampshire and get a list.  Then I can crosscheck it for those with a sister Mary.  It should be (theoretically) easy to do.

David and Mary (---) Lawrence's daughter Phebe (Lawrence) Rawlings appears in my ancestry three times, so it would be great to figure out her mother's maiden name.

N.B.  By using the imperfect way of searching Ancestry.com's trees year by year (1664-1675) for a Rachel, the only one available with a sister Mary are the daughters of John Bruster (i.e. Brewster) of Portsmouth, N.H. who left a will in 1691 wherein he mentions several daughters by first name only.  Not a bad choice for research since the Bruster family has had practically no real research done on it since the mid 1800s when a notorious descendant forged deeds and altered real Portsmouth 17th century documents to tie John Bruster with the Mayflower passenger William Brewster.  Most people either believe the malarkey or have a hard time sifting through the records for what is real and not forged.

When Are Brick Walls Telling You That You're On The Wrong Track?

There are all sort of brick walls in research.  Sometimes you have no idea of where to go next, i.e., no parents' names at all.  Sometimes there are names, but you have no idea of the place.  Sometimes you have a good idea of who the parents were, but you cannot find proof of the relationship.  It is this category with which I want to take issue.

Been there, done that, got all the T-shirts.  I discussed some of this in this posting.  I remember needing a Polly Dudley available to marry my Amos Learned on 10 December 1818 at Dublin, N.H. [Index to births, marriages & deaths registered in Dublin, NH 1760-1990 by Nancy E. Campbell and John W. Harris (Dublin, NH: The Archives 1991), p. 13 and 34.]  Polly is a diminutive of Mary, so I was searching both Pollys and Marys born ca. 1787 based on Polly's age in the 1850 census.  I narrowed my search to a Polly Dudley, the daughter of Nahum⁵ (Joseph⁴ Benjamin³ Joseph² Francis¹) and Margaret (Howe) Dudley of Westmoreland, N.H.  She was unresearched as was her entire family.  I worked on this for a good couple of years, but could never find the proof I needed.  Finally, I knew I was barking up the wrong tree, because in her mother's probate papers, she signed her name, whereas my Polly always signed deeds by mark.  

Defeated, I asked my friend, Marshall for some advice.  He noted that she named a child Josiah Dudley Learned.  As Marshall pointed out, she did not choose that name from a hat.  In fact, her last three children all had family names, the other two being Calvin Sanger Learned and Abiah Russell Learned [my great³-grandmother].  Calvin Sanger (after whom Sangerville, Maine was named) was a cousin from Sherborn, Mass.   Russell was the maiden name of Amos's maternal grandmother.  So, six or so years later, I still lack proof for Polly's parentage.  So, now the situation is this: (i) the proof doesn't exist; (ii) the proof does exist, but I'm looking in the wrong places; or (iii) there's no proof because the relationship didn't exist in the first place.  I'm beginning to think that option #iii is a distinct possibility.  So, now I need to wipe out all my preconceived and long-held notions--totally purge my thoughts, and start over with what I really know.

The Truth About Polly:

Amos Learned married Polly Daniels on 10 December 1818 in Dublin, New Hampshire.  This marriage record appears in the New Hampshire vital records, and is likely a late submission to the state from the town records of Dublin, which also notes the marriage.[1]  Dublin is noted at the residence of both bride and groom and no parents are given for either.  This marriage also appears in the records of Justice of the Peace, John Snow, where the couple is listed as Amos Learned and Dolly Daniels, both of Dublin on 10 December 1818.[2]

This couple appears in three secondary sources.  In the 1967 Learned Genealogy, the bride is called Polly (Dudley) Daniels and the year of the marriage is incorrectly given as 1817.[3]  This work is largely based on the 1882 Learned Genealogy which contains the same information.[4]  Tracing back even further, this 1882 genealogy must have relied on the 1855 History of Dublin, which notes the marriage as just 1818 and calls the bride Hannah Daniels.[5]  The question becomes, was Polly a Dudley or a Daniels?

After her marriage to Amos, Polly had two children born in Dublin:  Amos (Jr.) on 20 June 1819 and Louisa on 27 October 1820.[6]   Polly released her dower rights on several Cheshire Co. deeds between 1819 and 1821, in each of which she was called Polly B. Learned and signed with a mark.[7]  None of these deeds provided any clues to her parents.  There are no deeds in which she was either a grantee or grantor in her own right.  Shortly after February 1821, Amos and Polly removed to Weld, Maine, where they had four more children:  Jesse, born 10 December 1821, Josiah Dudley, born 4 December 1822, Calvin Sanger, born 19 August 1824, and Abiah Russell, born 5 June 1830.[8] Polly and Amos were living with their son Calvin in Canton, Maine in 1850.  She was aged 63 years; Amos was aged 69 years, and both were described as born in New Hampshire.[9]  By 1855, Amos was living in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, and Polly was not with him, presumably having died between 1850 and 1855.[10] 

---

[1] Nancy E. Campbell and John W. Harris, Index to births, marriages & deaths registered in Dublin, N.H., 1760-1990 (Dublin, N.H.:  Dublin Town Archives, 1991), hereinafter Dublin VRs, pp. 10 and 13.

[2] Milli S. Knudsen, ‘Til Divorce Do Us Part: Marriages and Divorces from Cheshire County, New Hampshire from 1776 to 1899 (Westminster, Md.: Heritage Books, 2007), p. 63. 

[3] Eugenia Learned James, The Learned Family in America 1630-1967 (US, 1967), p. 76.

[4] William Law Learned and Joseph G.E. Larned, The Learned family (Learned, Larned, Learnard and Lerned) being descendants of William Learned who was of Charlestown, Massachusetts in 1632 (Albany, NY, J. Munsell, 1882), p. 118.

[5] Charles Mason, The History of Dublin, N.H. (Boston, MA, J. Wilson and son, 1855), p. 360.

[6] Dublin VRs, p. 44-5.

[7] Cheshire County Deeds 79:478, 90:40, 90:86-7, and 90:171.  All the land was in Dublin and part of the fourth range there.

[8] Weld, Maine Town Book, p. 77.

[9]1850 U.S. Federal census, Canton, Oxford Co., Maine, family #145.

[10]Ann S. Lainhart, 1855 and 1865 Massachusetts State Censuses for Hopkinton (Boston:  The Author, 1990), 57.