The Chesley Family’s Connections to UNH: 52 Ancestors 2026 Prompt “A Spot on the Map”

 

The Students and President of the University of New Hampshire Walk in the Chesley’s Footprints

Benjamin Chesley: 1743-1831 (Maternal Fifth Great-Granduncle)
James Chesley: 1778-1825 (Maternal First Cousin 6x Removed)
Sally Runnels Chesley: 1779-1838 (Wife of Maternal First Cousin 6x Removed)
Abigail Flanders Chesley: 1803-1842 (Wife of Maternal 2^nd Cousin 5x Removed)

 

While researching the family of my fifth-great-granduncle Benjamin Chesley for the previous two posts, I ran across some interesting connections between the Chesley family and the University of New Hampshire. The land the university is built upon used to belong to Benjamin Chesley and his descendants, and specific locations on the campus map of today correspond to locations that were significant to the Chesley family.

I first discovered this connection to UNH when I read the following statement in a research document cited below (See Nascimento):

“What is now the UNH President’s Residence has been continuously occupied since Lieutenant Benjamin Chesley built it as his home in 1764. After more than a century of private ownership, the property was deeded to UNH (at the time, New Hampshire College of Agricultural and Mechanic Arts) where it has continued to house generations of university presidents.”

Benjamin referred to the home as his “mansion” in his will. He left the house and surrounding land to two grandsons, William and Valentine Chesley, the sons of Benjamin’s son James Chesley. Benjamin’s will stated:

“I give bequeath and devise to my two grand Sons viz: William Chelsey and Valentine Chelsey sons of my Son James Chelsey, deceased, their heirs and assigns forever all my lands in Durham with my mansion house in which I now live, and all the appurtenances thereunto belonging, together with my grist mill and all my right to the Saw Mill at Durham falls.”

Benjamin died in 1831, and sadly young Valentine Chesley died a year later on December 30, 1832. Valentine left all his property, except for a new house he had recently built, to his brother William. Therefore, we know that William Chesley owned the house and land that eventually was deeded to the University. It is unclear who inherited the property following William’s death in 1879. The house and land in Durham were not mentioned in William’s will, so he may have sold it or given it to his son years before his death. Some of the property must have eventually come into possession of the Mathes family, as the large house that became the university president’s residence was known as the Mathes House.

The home built by Benjamin Chesley that became the UNH President's residence. This house burned down in 1903 and was replaced with the present brick home.

The land was deeded to the university by Benjamin Thompson in 1891, whose connection, if any, to the Chesleys is unknown. The university was then known as the New Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts. The college president moved into the large wooden house that Benjamin Chesley had built, pictured below. Sadly, just as a new college president was moving into the home in 1903, the building caught fire. Since it was built of wood, the fire completely destroyed the house, leaving the new president homeless and also without most of his family’s possessions, which also burned. The wooden home was replaced by a large brick house on the same lot which still serves as the UNH President’s official residence.

Another university building with connections to the Chesley family is the Memorial Union Building (MUB), which is essentially the university’s student union. It is located across Main Street from the President’s House, on a small hill. That high ground had been known locally as Chesley’s Hill, as it was part of the Chesley lands.

Memorial Union Building on area once known as Chesley Hill

The final connection to the Chesley family is a sad and disturbing one. Apparently the Chesleys had a small family burial ground on their land. This cemetery was located on land transferred to the University under the Thompson will. All that is known about the burial ground is the information contained on three Applications for Disinterment that the University filed in August 1943, requesting permission to exhume three Chesley graves and move them to a cemetery in Lee, New Hampshire, five miles away. Among the family members who were disinterred was James Chesley, son of Benjamin Chesley and the father of Valentine and William Chesley who inherited the land that now houses the University. James and his family had once lived in Chesley “mansion” and died in 1825.

 

Also disinterred was Sally Runnels Chesley, James’ wife and William and Valentine’s mother. Sally died in 1838. The final grave belonged to Abigail Flanders Chesley, William’s first wife, who died in 1842. So obviously William still owned the house and farmland in 1842 when his wife died. However, by 1860 he was living in Dover, New Hampshire, so the property had probably changed hands at some point between those two dates.

 

Looking at the Application for Disinterment forms, the burial ground was described as lying near a University building called West Hall. I learned that East and West Halls were two large dormitory buildings that stood near Chesley Hill. They were torn down in the 1970s. Rather than construct new buildings on the site, the University chose to listen to student demands and turn the area into a park named East West Park, which lies behind the MUB. The locations are visible on the map below. The president’s House and the MUB are marked with red, and the larger East West Park area that once included the Chesley family cemetery is highlighted in yellow.

 

Why did the university need to move these three graves? I can find no records indicating that there were plans to build in the area, and when West Hall was torn down, nothing replaced it, so the land wasn’t needed for a specific project. I found posts on Facebook showing that UNH campus property contains other small family cemeteries, but those have not been removed. Why was the Chesley cemetery targeted? I could find no press coverage reporting on the removal of the Chesley cemetery. And I noted that the work was scheduled for the summer break, so there were no students to witness century-old graves being desecrated. It seems as if the University was trying to hide what they were doing. Were descendants of the Chesley family contacted before the disinterment? Did they know what happened to their ancestors’ graves?

I wonder if the graveyard contained any other family members whose markers may not have survived. Records indicate that Benjamin Chesley, the man who built the original UNH president’s house, was buried on the property. The location was described in a book on Durham’s history (see citation below) as follows: “Lieut. Benjamin Chesley…owned land west of the mill road and south of the Mast Road. He was buried in the northwest corner of the present field, near the pasture wall.” Benjamin’s wife, Deborah Randall Chesley, died just a year before him. Was she buried there as well? And was his burial site “near the pasture wall” the same location as family burial ground that was excavated?  Did the university conduct a proper archeological excavation of the area to check for other remains? I find it hard to believe that in a century of owning the property, the Chesley family only laid three people to rest there, all within a twenty-year period between 1825 and 1842.

I also wonder exactly what happened to the bodies of James, Sally and Abigail Chesley. They were supposedly removed to “Giles” Cemetery in Lee, New Hampshire by a funeral home company called, rather ironically, Tasker and Chesley. I looked for Findagrave’s Giles Cemetery information, and discovered that the cemetery is now called Old Parish Cemetery, but had several other names over the years including Thompson, Gluke and Giles Cemetery, as well as First Parish Burial Ground.

 

Findagrave had listings at Old Parish Cemetery for the three Chesley family members, but the only photos and information on their Findagrave entries were the disinterment applications filed by the University. There were no photos of the graves. This suggests that the graves are unmarked, since nearly all the Old Parish cemetery markers have been photographed and GPS- located. It appears that the Chesleys were reinterred without their headstones, assuming they were properly reinterred at all. What did the university and the gravediggers do with their headstones? Were they destroyed during the disinterment?

Were no photographs taken of the burial ground before the graves were dug up? Are there any records of the purchase and location of the grave sites in Old Parish Cemetery? Is there any proof that these people were ever properly reburied? The least the university could have done is pay for proper markers in the Old Parish Cemetery after digging these people up, assuming the Chesleys were actually reburied there at all. I feel the Chesleys were treated quite disrespectfully despite their historic ties to the University’s land. It is all quite disturbing.

Perhaps I will contact the University’s archivists and see if they can find any information on the disinterment and reburial of the Chesleys. There must be some sort of record explaining the decision, the reasoning behind it, and the procedure the University followed. Old Parish Cemetery records and Tasker and Chesley Funeral Home records should also be checked for information on the 1943 reburial.

It’s rather a shame that the University has no plaques or signs on campus recognizing the original owners of the University’s land. The Chesley home and family burial plot are now just spots on the campus map. Students have no idea they are walking in the footprints—and perhaps on the former graves-- of one of Durham’s founding families.

 

Sources:

A Photo Essay of Material Culture from the UNH President’s Residence. Emilia Nascimento. https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=spectrum

Family of Lieut. Benjamin Chisley of Durham New Hampshire. https://newhampshiregenealogy.com/strafford/genealogy-of-the-chesley-family-of-durham-new-hampshire.htm

History of the Town of Durham, New Hampshire (Oyster River Plantation) with Genealogical Notes. Vol. 2, pg.62. by Stackpole, Everett Schermerhorn; Thompson, Lucien; Meserve, Winthrop Smith. Publisher: Town of Durham. 1913. Ancestry.com.

Findagrave.com. Entries for James, Sally and Abigail Chesley.

A Will and a Way Before Death: 52 Ancestors 2026 Prompt “A Record I Read Differently Now”

Benjamin Chesley’s Will: Multiple Codicils, Six More Years of Life

Benjamin Chesley: 1743-1831 (Maternal Fifth-Great-Granduncle)

 

While researching the previous post on my fifth-great-granduncle Benjamin Chesley’s, which dealt with his signing eight petitions to various branches of government between 1787 and 1820, I ran across his will. I had seen the document during earlier research on his family, and it had made me question his purported death date. I decided to re-examine the will and try to resolve the discrepancies that had confused me in the past.

The will in question was written and signed in October of 1825. Wills of that era were normally written shortly before death, when the testator was in failing health and realized the end was near. As a result, some trees gave Benjamin Chesley a death year of 1825. Even Ancestry’s algorithm used the will to suggest a death year of 1825. But other records and trees—including mine --used a death date of 1831.

There were three possible explanations for the six year difference in death years. First, the person who wrote the will was not the correct Benjamin Chesley—I already knew there were several men with that name living in Massachusetts and New Hampshire during that time period, so it was a distinct possibility. Second, perhaps I had the wrong death date for Benjamin Chesley—perhaps he really did die in 1825 and the Chesley who died in 1831 was a different man. Third, Chesley actually wrote the will six years before he died, contrary to general practice of the time.

My first step to determine which possible explanation was correct was to read the will and identify the beneficiaries. Did they match my Benjamin Chesley’s children, or were there different children listed that would show the will was written by a different man?

The beneficiaries were as follows: Benjamin’s wife, Deborah.

Sons Isaac, Benjamin, Miles, Valentine, Israel and Thomas. He also leaves property to his son James’ sons William and Valentine—James had already died in 1823.

Daughters: Deborah Stone, Susanna Chesley, Nancy Hart, Molly Woodman and Abigail Hall. He also leaves the sum of $50 to Nancy Hart’s daughter (his granddaughter) Mary Chesley. He also left the paltry amount of $1.00 each to his grandchildren who were born to eldest daughter Abigail.

The sons primarily received land in the will. Benjamin seems to have had extensive land holdings in a variety of locations in New Hampshire, including Durham, New Durham, Middleton, and towns in Rockingham County including Nottingham, Barrington and New Market. In addition, his grandsons were to inherit a grist mill and saw mill at Durham Falls. The daughters primarily received money.

The beneficiaries perfectly correlate to Benjamin and Deborah’s eleven children in my tree. The name “Miles” in the handwritten copy of the will in the probate records looks more like the name “Moses”, and that is how AI transcribed it. However, I think it should read “Miles” as all the other records for that son show his name as “Miles”. Miles did have a son named Moses so perhaps an error was made in probate court when they copied the will into the court records.

This evidence persuades me that the will was indeed written by my fifth great-granduncle Benjamin Chesley. The next thing I needed to check was the date on the probate records. Was the will probated in 1825, or in a later year? When I took the time to examine the entire probate file, I discovered that Benjamin had added two codicils to his will in later years.

The first codicil was dated December 30, 1828, three years after the original will was signed. The codicil made two changes to his original will. First, Benjamin made an additional bequest to his daughter Nancy Hart, writing:

“And I do hereby give and bequeath unto my daughter Nancy Hart in addition to the provision made for her in my said Will the use and occupancy of my Hill house so called settled in said Durham together with the use and occupancy if one half acre of land and around said house where she shall chouse so long as she remains a widow and no longer.”

Signature section of First Codicil to Benjamin Chesley Will

He goes on to specify that Nancy must actually live in this house, and that she does not have permission to rent it out and collect the rents. He also directs his grandsons William and Valentine (sons of his dead son James) to provide Nancy with what is “sufficient for one to be wintered and summered and kept the year round.”

The second section of the codicil amends a provision Benjamin had made to Sally Chesley, the widow of his son James Chesley. He had given her “one full third of all my estate as might have happened to her by her husbands decease to whom she a former will” during her natural life. In other words, she would receive a life interest to one third of what her husband would have inherited from Benjamin. The remainder of James’ would-be inheritance was to go to James and Sally’s sons, William and Valentine Chesley. Benjamin amended this bequest to give her a full one-third of the property, not just a life interest, with the proviso that she not remarry.

Second Codicil to Benjamin Chesley will with date of codicil and date of probate highlighted

The second codicil was dated June 24, 1830, just a month after the death of Benjamin’s wife, Deborah Randall Chesley. The second codicil made the following changes: Benjamin leaves daughters Nelly Woodman and Deborah Stone fifty dollars each in addition to the bequests in the previous will. He also references his wife’s death and eliminates a clause in his original will giving his wife power to distribute the residual assets of the estate among his children as needed. Instead, he gives daughters Susannah Chesley and Mary Hart any residue of the estate, divided equally between them.

Section of Second Codicil noting the death of Benjamin's wife Deborah

The will and two codicils were presented to the probate court for execution on May 16, 1831. Benjamin died February 5, 1831. The probate date three months later seems reasonable.

After rereading the will and codicils, I feel I can understand why Benjamin Chesley chose to make his will long before his eventual death, which wasn’t typical in the early nineteenth century. He had a considerable estate to dispose of—extensive property, businesses, and money. He seems to have been a planner. He wanted to ensure that everything was prepared well in advance of his death. In addition, his son James had died unexpectedly young just two months earlier in August 1825. This probably prompted Benjamin to worry that death could strike him suddenly as well. He wanted to provide security for James’ widow and children.

He continued to think about how to best distribute his possessions as the years passed, and made adjustments to the will as his priorities and his family’s circumstances changed. I can also now see that he took responsibility for his family members, caring for his son’s widows and his grandchildren as well as his own children. I’m glad I took the time to re-examine and reassess this fascinating document.

 

Sources:

Probate Records, 1773-1946; Probate Indexes, 1773-1989; Author: New Hampshire. Probate Court (Strafford County) Will of Benjamin Chesley. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/8996/images/007131964_00155?treeid=46986934&personid=322240494464&usePUB=true&usePUBJs=true&pId=253469

Community Petitions: 52 Ancestors 2026 Prompt “Neighbors and Community”

 

Benjamin Chesley and Neighbors Band Together to Petition the Government in 1780s-1810s

Benjamin Chesley: 1743-1831 (Maternal Fifth Great-Uncle)

 

I recently discovered a new resource on Ancestry: a database titled “New Hampshire, U.S., Government Petitions, 1700-1826”. While the database had been available since 2021, I had never seen an Ancestry hint related to it, so had never examined the documents. While researching my fifth-great-uncle Benjamin Chesley, I found a hint that showed he was a signatory on a petition sent to the state government objecting to a planned road project in 1792. The document was fascinating, and I was able to find eight additional petitions my ancestor signed around the same time period. The petitions provide a window into the way neighbors and communities banded together to address concerns in the early decades of our nation.

Petitions bearing Benjamin Chesley's signature

Benjamin Chesley was born in Durham, New Hampshire on January 24, 1743, to parents Thomas Chesley and Mary Hill Chesley. He was one of their eight children. He married Deborah Randall, another of my fifth-great-grandaunts. He farmed and owned land in several locations. Benjamin and Deborah had eleven children, and lived in the Durham area.

The earliest petition I found that contained Benjamin’s signature was dated March 30, 1787.  The petition was simple and direct: the concerned residents of Strafford County asked that “his Excellency the President and the Honourable Council of the State of New Hampshire” to appoint Ebenezer Smith to the vacant office of Register of Probate. Smith was, the petitioners wrote, “a person well qualified for the office and whom we desire to be appointed…” A year before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the citizens of a small county in New Hampshire already had enough confidence in their state officials that they believed petitioning them regarding appointments would have effect.

Another petition from 1787 speaks to some conflict within the community.

“The subscriber inhabitants of the County of Stafford being informed that some persons have petitioned your Honors to remove the Hon.ble George Frost Esq from his seat a Judge of the Inferior Court of Commonplace for said County which we conceive to be owing to prejudice---therefore we beg leave to suggest to your honors…from our knowledge and observation the sd [said]Frost has acted in his office afor’d [aforementioned] impartially and to general satisfaction and that his removal therefrom will not in our opinion be for the interest of said County. Wherefore we pray your honors he may be continued in office and we as in Duty Bound will pray so.”

Benjamin Chesley's signature is top center

Benjamin was the topmost signator, with his relative George Chesley signing directly beneath him. I recognize numerous other names among the signators who were either relatives by marriage or neighbors of the Chesleys, including Winthrop and John Bickford, Robert Burnham, Valentine and Benjamin Mathes and Christopher Nutter. This was obviously a situation they all felt strongly about. Someone in the area was trying to cause trouble for this judge out of “prejudice”. Perhaps the judge had ruled against the “persons” in question and they were seeking revenge, or they anticipated he would rule unfavorably against them in a future case. The community obviously did not approve of the tactics these “persons” were employing, and decided to make an end run around them.

The 1792 petition, the first one I had discovered on Ancestry, reveals some conflict between communities and regions. The petition objects to proposed road construction plans, suggesting that the portion through their community of Durham was ill-advised and poorly planned and will not benefit them. It reads as follows:

“The subscribers, being inhabitants of the Town of Durham in said State—will that every necessary alteration should be made in our Public highways—and anxious that the intended communication between Concord & this Town should take place—Yet, must beg leave, humbly to remonstrate against the alterations proposed by your Honor’s Committee in running through said Town—

The nature of our ground is such, that very little of it can be improved for Roads, without great expense—And we think it almost impracticable ever to make a good road on the land they have run upon—but are certain, that it will require many years, with large sums of money, to make it possible with safety—

Besides, we cannot conceive the advantages that will accrue to the Public from the amendments, will be adequate to the injury the Ton must sustain—as we shall be obliged to purchase the land for the new road at an extravagant price, and likewise forced, not only to support that, but also the old one for the benefits of individuals long since settled upon it, as greater parts of whose interests must fall a sacrifice to the proposed exchange—When the saving in distance will never exceed one hundred rods. If that’s soon to be lost by the Travelor in passing over hills and through mires, which abundantly be found. The way now occupied is free from hills, and with much labour for a hundred years, is now a very good Road—vastly better, we presume, than the new one will be the same number of years hence.

For those reasons we humbly pray that much of the Report of your Honour’s Committee as respects the alteration of highways in said Durham may not be received or accepted by your Hounours and we as in duty will ever pray---

Durham 21st May 1792”

1792 peitition signature page

As we can see, the problems of 1892 are much like those of 2026, with taxpayers objecting to how the government intends to spend tax dollars, demanding that the money be spent wisely and without extravagance or waste, and that the projects benefit everyone.

The final petition that caught my eye was one of the last ones Benjamin signed. Apparently, much like today, people were being nominated to hold office in 1813 merely on the basis of their political allegiances, without questioning whether they possess any skill or experience for the job. The residents who would suffer as a result of the political appointment, objected, writing in part:

“…your petitioners humbly share that there is a petition about to be presented to your Excellency and the honorable counsel recommending a man by the name of John Jenkins Jr of Barnstead in said county of Strafford as a suitable person for a justice of the peace--- and as your Excellency and the honorable council are unacquainted with both petitioners and candidate we have thought it our duty to lay before you the true character of the said John Jenkens as he is surley [surely] a partey man and instead of being a peacemaker he often meddles with matters that he ought not and (as Solomon saith) “is like one who taketh a dog by the ears” and if he finds at any time that any two persons are at variance he will generally be meddling either as a pettafoger [pettifogger] or like a busybody in other mens matters in order to enhance the dispute and blow up the flame of discord and keep the fire burning therefore we do think that it would be derogatory to the character of your Excellency and the character of the honourable council that we are not induced to make this remonstrance by any prepossession of prejudice against the said John Jenkins Jr or influenced by political divisions but we think we are influenced by the love of peace & harmony and for the benefit of society and we most earnestly hope that the name of your Excellency and the name of the honorable Secretary will not be so debased as to be placed on a commission with the name of the aforesaid John Jenkins Jr .”

These petitions show how, in the very early history of our nation, the citizens felt confidence in the country’s institutions and the rule of law to bring their concerns before their government and ask for redress. They did not fear reprisal—they confidently signed their names. These petitions were probably passed from person to person in a community, which is why the signatures of family members and neighbors were clustered together.

I wish I shared my ancestor’s confidence that our government cares about our concerns. While I send emails to my senators, my Congressional representative, and my President and Vice President, I doubt that they care. They all seem far more concerned with lining their own pockets and those of the extremely wealthy than in serving the interests of their constituents. I hope that someday I will once again believe, like my fifth great-granduncle Benjamin Chesley did, that my government truly is of the people, by the people and for the people.

Benjamin Chesley died in 1835 at the age of eighty-eight. He is buried in Durham, New Hampshire.

 

 

Sources:

New Hampshire, U.S., Government Petitions, 1700-1826.

Box 46: 1819. May 1819; Box 23: Dec 30, 1786-Aug 1787, March 1787. Accessed on Ancestry.com.

Multiple Susannahs, Multiple Mistakes: 52 Ancestors 2026 Prompt “Multiples”

 

Two Susannah Chesleys Married Two John Smiths in Two Different Colonies, Causing Two Times the Confusion

Susannah Chesley: 1677-1746 (Maternal 7^th Great-Grandaunt)
Captain John Smith: 1669-1744 (Husband of Maternal 7^th Great-Grandaunt)

 

I have been using Ancestry’s Tree Checker tool to identify and correct errors in my tree. The program recently suggested that Sarah Chesley, a 7^th great-grandaunt, was a possible duplicate. The program suggested Sarah was the same person as her sister Susannah. While I rejected that possibility, as I glanced at Susannah’s Fact page in my tree, I noticed some peculiarities. It turns out that I did have duplicates in my tree, but it wasn’t Sarah being the same as Susannah—it appeared I had combined two different Susannah Chesleys. They were both born in the 1670s and both married men named John Smith. But they were born in different colonial towns to different parents. I had made a rookie mistake: accepting Ancestry hints without verifying them, blindly following other people who had combined the two women.

My Susannah Chesley was born in 1677 in Durham, New Hampshire, to parents Thomas Chesley and Elizabeth Thomas Chesley. Susannah married John Smith on June 17, 1694. He was born January 9, 1669 to parents Joseph Smith and Elizabeth Bickford Smith of Oyster River.

Map of Oyster River area in late 1600s.

The other Susannah Chesley was born in 1668 in Stonington, Connecticut. Her parentage is unclear. She married John Smith in 1691. That John Smith was born July 13, 1672 in Watertown, Massachusetts, also supposedly to a Joseph Smith and Elizabeth Bickford. Obviously that was incorrect, as Joseph Smith and Elizabeth Bickford lived in New Hampshire. I found another researcher,  Brad Stauf, who had compiled information on the Connecticut family and listed John Smith’s parents as Daniel Smith and Mary Grant of Massachusetts. I find his evidence, posted on Findagrave, persuasive.

So I had determined that the two John and Susannah Smiths lived in two different colonies. Each couple had given birth to multiple children, and I had erroneously added both sets of children to my tree. To my horror, I realized I had poor Susannah giving birth to fifteen children over the space of twenty years. It was a hideous mess. My tree even had three children—Jerusha, John and Joshua-- born in the same year in different states, and had several similar sounding children’s names (John Joseph, Josiah. Joshua)—how was I going to untangle this? How had I failed to notice that some children were born in Stonington, Connecticut and others in Oyster River, New Hampshire, 170 miles away? People simply didn’t travel back and forth over such distances in the 17^th century.

Map of New Hampshire, 1700s

I found one source, an old family genealogy book titled “The Smiths of Oyster River” which had a list of children the editors attributed to the Oyster River Smith family. This was a wonderful starting point, and it was reinforced by another book entitled Colonial Families of the United States of America, which listed the same eight children.

I began clearing up my mistakes by removing any of Susannah’s children that were born in Stonington. The names piled up: Hannah, Jerusha, Joshua, Margaret, Daniel, Esther, Ephraim, Josiah, Silas, and Lucy. I removed ten children that were from the Connecticut family.

That left me with only five children that had likely been born in Oyster Rive to the correct Susannah Chesley and John Smith. All five—John, Elizabeth, Joseph, Samuel and Benjamin—were on the lists of children from the two genealogy books. But the books listed an additional three children who needed to be added to the tree: Hannah, Ebenezer and Winthrop.

I then set out to find primary sources for the eight Oyster River Smith children. I was able to find birth records for all eight children. Additional records, including their deaths, marriages and children, were more spotty. But at least I was able to verify that John and Susannah Chesley Smith gave birth to those eight children in the Durham/Oyster River area of New Hampshire.

I also found some interesting information about John Smith in a genealogy book by Ballard Smith, Jr. (see citation below) that gives a small glimpse into the Smith family’s lives.

Ballard Smith wrote: “It was [John Smith] who ‘defended so successfully’ the garrison at the mouth of Oyster River, then commanded by his father, the attack upon it being made when he was but just finishing his honeymoon, his marriage to Susanna Chesley having been consummated but a few weeks before. It is to be presumed, however, that there was neither much opportunity nor leisure for overmuch sentiment in those days, with the new and untrodden lands to be brought into the service of civilization and the constant incursions of hostile savages to be prepared for at all seasons, and to be resisted vigorously when made.”

What a way for poor Susannah to start her married life—under attack by native tribes. I hope that there was a bit more “sentiment” involved despite the danger. At least they and the house survived the attack. The garrison stood until the late 1880s.

Painting of the Smith Garrison House, Unknown artist, 1890s

Ballard Smith noted that John Smith was “unusually active and industrious” and that despite “the small patrimony that his father left him, he had amassed a very considerable fortune” over his lifetime. He wrote:

“Capt. John commenced his business life as a land surveyor, in which connection his name is frequently met with in the town records, and, with the farm at Lubberland as the homestead, gradually added to his property, until he became one of the largest real estate owners and wealthiest men in his section. He owned almost the entire shore of Great Bay from Lamprey River to Crommet's Creek, nearly four miles in extent…”

Illustration of early 1700s surveying equipment similar to what John Smith used

In addition to real estate, John Smith operated two profitable sawmills along the Lamprey River. He also served as Selectman of the town of Dover repeatedly during the period between 1711 and 1727. Ballard Smith also approvingly noted his ancestor’s generosity, writing:

“He seems to have kept "open house" at the garrison, and tradition glows with its accounts of the liberality and hospitality displayed by the father and sons at the old homestead. They seem to have made an excellent use of their large wealth.”

Crommet's Creek, New Hampshire. Land possibly owned by John Smith

John Smith died May 14, 1744. Susannah Chesley Smith died two years later on March 24, 1746. He was 75 years old and she was 69 years old. I have found no record to indicate where they were buried, which is not surprising as there were few formal cemeteries at that time.

I am so glad that Ancestry’s Tree Checker sent me on this journey. Not only did I correct multiple errors in my tree, but I also found interesting information about a colonial family and life in 17^th century New Hampshire.

Sources:

Colonial Families of the United States of America, 1607-1775. Mackenzie, George Norbury, and Nelson Osgood Rhoades, editors. Volume III. “John Smith”. Page 516. 1912. Reprinted, Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1966, 1995. Ancestry.com.

Findagrave notes by Brad Stauf on Connecticut and New Hampshire John Smiths. https://www.ancestry.com/mediaui-viewer/collection/1030/tree/46986934/person/322298746932/media/8e62f29e-d62c-45e7-bafa-3f916b8cfde0?galleryindex=1&sort=-created

A genealogical record of the Smiths of Oyster River from the first settler in 1630 to 1874: with some account of the immediate ancestors of Hon. Valentine Smith and his descendants / Ballard Smith, Jr.. Durham, NH : Courier-Journal Print, 1874. Ancestry.com.

Painting of Smith Garrison House, Unknown Artist. Circa 1890.

The Practical Surveyor or the Art of Land Measuring Made Easy. Wyld, Samuel. London. J. Hooke and J. Sisson. 1725. Illustration.

Map of Oyster River, 1600s. https://www.durhamnh.gov/

 

A Moment in Crime: 52 Ancestors 2026 Prompt “A Hard Choice”

 

Runaway to Robber to Regular Guy: Making a Better Choice

Ellison Laird: 1914-1993 (Maternal First Cousin 1x Removed)

 

Everyone has made mistakes as a teenager—it’s how we all grow and learn. But some mistakes are worse than others. It can be a question of scale—how big was the mistake? Did it hurt other people? Did it have long term consequences? My grandfather’s nephew Ellison Laird made a whopper of a poor decision as a young teen that could have completely derailed his life. But he made the hard choice to change course and build a solid future.

Ellison James Laird was born October 20, 1914, in Mankato, Minnesota, to parents James Laird and Gertrude Macbeth Laird. He was the second of their eleven children. James was a teamster employed by the city as of 1920, but by the census in 1930 he was taking odd jobs. Obviously something happened that changed the family’s situation for the worse between 1920 and 1930. The Great Depression began around that time period, and probably led the city to lay off employees. So in 1929, the Laird family was probably under stress, and as the second oldest child who would be expected to assume more adult responsibilities, Ellison probably shared that stress. Family life must have been rough, because he chose to run away from home at age fourteen, heading west to Fargo, North Dakota in the spring of 1929.

On April 24, 1929, Ellison was arrested in Anoka, Minnesota, along with a fifty-year-old man named Frank Williams. They were charged with the burglary and attempted burglary of multiple stores in various Minnesota towns. The initial news reports listed Ellison’s age as seventeen. He finally confessed his true age to police the following day, admitting he was a runaway.

St. Cloud Times Headline, April 24, 1929

After reading the various news articles on the pair’s crime spree, it appears that Ellison met Williams in Fargo. Ellison told police that Williams “had offered him a job at $3 as a salesman’s assistant.” Obviously the much older Williams took advantage of Ellison’s youth and naivete. Police determined Williams was a career criminal from Chicago.

According to Ellison Laird, he and Williams stole a car in Fargo, and used it while committing burglaries there before driving into Minnesota to continue the burglary spree. They robbed four stores in Clear Lake, Minnesota. The St. Cloud Times reported as follows:

“After being in St. Cloud Monday night, and failing successfully to rob any stores here, Williams and Laird went to Clear Lake. Shortly after midnight, they broke into the Dingmann Hardware store there…and took a quantity of merchandise, in addition to a number of loose keys. With these keys in their possession they also are charged with having robbed the Weis barber shop and restaurant, the McDonald meat market and the LeBlanc grocery store. They attempted to enter the office of the Central Lumber company…but were unsuccessful.

Tuesday evening, police brought young Laird back to Clear Lake where…he showed them how the stores were robbed and how entry was made.”

In addition to Clear Lake, they also burgled several stores in Rothsay, Minnesota.

The pair were captured in Anoka due to a humiliating reason. The St. Cloud Times noted:

“Imbibing too freely of the contents of a bottle of hair tonic stolen at Clear Lake resulted in the arrest of the pair at Anoka Tuesday afternoon. The two suspects, when they pulled into an oil filling station at Anoka, were noticeably intoxicated and slightly sick. The attendant at the oil station notified the police of two drunk drivers and the police made the arrest, later finding in the car a large quantity of merchandise alleged to have been stolen…”

I wondered why they hadn’t stolen liquor or bought some with money they had stolen—drinking hair tonic seemed a bit desperate. But I quickly realized that in 1929, Prohibition was still in force, so there was no liquor to steal or buy. People resorted to all sorts of liquor substitutes, in this case hair tonic. No wonder Ellison and Williams were slightly sick.

Ellison made the hard choice to confess everything to the police. Williams denied Ellison’s account, but the evidence the police recovered, both in the vehicle they were driving and in a hiding place Ellison led them to in Sauk Center, proved Williams’ guilt.

Ellison’s confession led to the police taking pity on him. The newspaper noted, “Because of the youth’s age, and the fact that apparently he had been duped into a life of crime, Sherburne county officials were inclined to be lenient with him and he may be returned home without charge placed against him.”

I hypothesize that he did avoid facing charges, because a year later Ellison appears on the 1930 census at age fifteen, living at home in Mankato with his parents and siblings. James and Gertrude obviously took him back, and he seems to have left criminal activity behind. The census showed he was back at school, while his older brother had, at age seventeen, already left school and was working as a laborer in an effort to help support the family since father James no longer had steady work.

Ellison probably followed his brother’s example the following year and left school to try to find paying work. The 1940 census showed him still living with his parents, and it listed his last year of schooling as “HS1” which means he only completed his first year of high school before dropping out. 

Albert Lea Tribune article Jan 1942

Ellison registered for the World War II draft the same year, stating that he worked for his father in Garden City, Minnesota. He was 5’10, 150 pounds, with blue eyes and brown hair and a dark complexion.

Apparently, Ellison was eager to serve his country. A news article in the Albert Lea Tribune in January of 1942, reported that Ellison had finally been inducted into the Army after being rejected twice for bad eyesight. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, he had returned to the draft board a third time, stating that he “would keep on trying until the army ‘let him in’”, and telling the draft board he could “see well enough to hit a Jap.”

He was inducted on January 17, 1942, and was discharged from Camp McCoy in Wisconsin at the end of December 1945, holding the rank of T/5 (or Tec 5). T/5 stood for Technician Fifth Grade, a rank used from 1942 to 1948 that equaled the pay of a corporal but carried no command authority. It appears he was called “corporal” anyway. He married Mary Jane Pollock in March of 1944 in Pine River, Minnesota, and the marriage notice referred to him as Corporal Ellison J. Laird. Ellison was 29 years old, while Mary Jane was 20 on their wedding day.

Following the war, Ellison farmed in Cass County, Minnesota near Pine River. He and Mary Jane had one daughter, Trudy, who was born September 7, 1948. At some point after 1950, they moved to St. Paul. I was able to find Mary Jane’s obituary, which stated she worked at the General Electric plant in St. Paul, and in Chicago, before the family moved to Seattle where she was employed for many years at the Boeing plant as an aerospace worker. I don’t know if Ellison also worked for those companies. I need to find an obituary, which may require a trip to Minnesota.

Ellison seems to have been a vintage car buff. I found an article from the Longview Daily News in Washington about a classic car competition. Ellison and Mary Jane were there in his 1928 Chevrolet sedan. He came in second place in a balloon-breaking event.  

1928 Chevrolet Sedan. Lars-Göran Lindgren Sweden, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons

Ellison died in Seattle on July 17, 1993. He was 78 years old. Sadly, his daughter preceded him in death on June 7, 1987.

Beautiful headstone marking graves of Ellison, wife Mary Jane and daughter Trudy Laird. 

Ellison Laird made some bad decisions as a desperate fourteen year old boy. But he then made the hard choice to take responsibility for his crimes, which led authorities to treat him with leniency and give him a second chance. He took that chance, served his country, and built a solid life. It is encouraging to see that mistakes don’t define a life.

Sources:

Cemetery photo courtesy of lavoiesr1 on Ancestry.

“Oldtime Cars in Competition.” Longview Daily News, Longview, Washington. Aug. 3, 1972. Newspapers.com.

Photo of 1928 Chevrolet sedan. Lars-Göran Lindgren Sweden, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons

“Tried to Rob St. Cloud Stores Monday, Younger Suspect Asserts Today”. St. Cloud Times. St. Cloud, MN. Apr. 24, 1929. Newspapers.com.

“Suspects Held to Answer for Many Robberies”. St. Cloud Times. St. Cloud, MN. Apr. 25, 1929. Newspapers.com.

“Two Suspects Held in Anoka”. Austin Daily Herald. Austin, MN Apr. 24, 1929. Newspapers.com.

“Rejected Twice, Finally Ok’d”. Albert Lea Tribune. Albert Lea, MN. Jan 21, 1942. Newspapers.com

Deserving of Survival: 52 Ancestors 2026 Prompt “A Place that Matters”

 

If the Walls Could Talk: Historic Valentine Hill House Still Standing After 375 Years

Valentine Hill: 1611-1660 (Maternal Ninth Great-Grandfather)

Nathaniel Hill: 1659-1741 (Maternal Eight-Great-Grandfather)

 

In 1649, my ancestor, Valentine Hill, built one of the first homes in the Oyster River area of New Hampshire, an area that is now part of the city of Durham. Although radically remodelled and added onto over the centuries, the house still remains. It now serves as a boutique inn, offering 23 rooms, two dining rooms serving chef-prepared meals, and a tavern. The very age of the building gives the Hill house significance, but the building also played a part in the history of New Hampshire and the United States. It truly is a place that matters.

Placque on the Three Chimneys Inn, Durham NH

Valentine Hill was born in England between 1602 and 1611. He arrived in the colonies around 1635. He established himself as a merchant in Boston, and according to his entry in The Great Migration, “he was engaged in the transatlantic trade in fish and timber. He also traded to the south to Virginia and elsewhere, the commodities being horses, tobacco and Indian corn. Hill owned fractional shares in vessels, and was a principal partner in the larges dock and warehouse operation in Boston in the 1640s.”

Map of Boston in 1600s with Valentine Hill dock property and house highlighted

Valentine Hill was admitted to the Boston Puritan church in 1636, and was chosen as a deacon in 1640. He also became a freeman in 1640. He had two wives. He married Frances Freestone around 1638. They had five children, but only one survived past infancy, daughter Hannah. Wife Frances died in 1645. He then married Mary Eaton in 1648. They had six children, only two of whom survived to adulthood, daughter Elizabeth and son Nathaniel.

Valentine Hill had extensive landholdings, which he bought, sold and mortgaged frequently. In addition to large holdings in the Boston area, he had sixty acres in the Pullen Point area where he dealt in the fur trade. In 1643, he received a grant of land at the falls on the Oyster River, and by 1649, he built a sawmill there. He received additional grants in Oyster River for 500 more acres, water rights at the falls on the river, and a gristmill.

Oyster River area in 1600s with Valentine Hill property marked

Along with the mills, he built a house in Oyster River. According to the Three Chimneys Inn website, “This 1649 Homestead, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is the oldest house in Durham and one of the oldest buildings in New Hampshire.”

The inn’s website goes on to state, “In 1649 Valentine Hill built the original homestead, much of which was ferried up the Oyster River by gundalo. The house was single story with a basement and an upstairs living area-kitchen combined. The outdoor summer kitchen fireplace can be seen in our Tavern…” The property stands on a rise still known as Valentine Hill, overlooking the river and the falls that powered the Hill sawmill and gristmill.

A drawing of a gundalo similar to the vessels that brought construction materials to Oyster River in 1649.

Grokipedia noted that the house was “constructed using local timber milled on-site to support colonial shipbuilding and settlement needs… It employed simple post-and-beam framing techniques typical of early English colonial architecture in New England, reflecting First Period vernacular design with functional elements suited to frontier life.”

Following Valentine Hill’s death in late 1660, his son Nathaniel, my eight-great-grandfather, eventually inherited the Oyster River property. The estate was complicated and involved considerable debt that needed to be settled. Nathaniel’s mother was, for a time, so destitute that the town paid for her and Nathaniel’s care. Nathaniel was only one year old at the time of Valentine’s death.

Probate was still not completely settled by 1699, when a now middle-aged Nathaniel filed paperwork as the estate’s administrator. The Great Migration (citation below) included the following record:

“On 4 July 1699, ‘Nathaniell Hill administrator to…Valentine Hill’ presented an inventory, taken 30 June 1699, of ‘a parcel of land formerly granted unto Mr. Valentine Hill deceased by the town of Dover…which land is lying & being at the head of Oyster River…containing about 500 acres as also a parcel of meadow at Wheelwright’s Pond both…worth forty-five pounds’ [NHPPR 7:390]. On 7 June 1721, an additional inventory was taken totalling 75 pounds: ‘one hundred acres of land at Whelrit’s Pond’, 50 pounds, and ‘twenty acres of land at Jonson’s Cross’ 25 pounds [NHPPR 7:392].”

Despite the endless probate issues, it appears that Nathaniel was living in the house. The Oyster River area suffered an attack from Native Americans during King Philip’s War in 1694. While many buildings in the community were burned in the attack, the Hill house survived, and was referred to in records as the Hill Garrison where other settlers took shelter. In 1699 Nathaniel fitted the house “with ‘Indian Shutters’ for protection.” (Three Chimneys website)

View of the rear ell of the house--the original section built by Valentine Hill in 1649. Wikimedia Commons, Photo by AcrossTheAtlantic.

Grokipedia states, “Around 1699, Nathaniel Hill, son of the original builder Valentine Hill, expanded the structure by adding a two-story front section to the existing 1649 rear ell, transforming it from a modest garrison-style home into a more substantial residence to accommodate growing family needs. This addition created the central hall plan and front entrance that define the house's Georgian appearance today, including features like corner pilasters and 12/12 sash windows.” Three Chimneys Inn notes that this addition “now forms the front entrance to the "Maples" and "Coppers" dining rooms.”

The Three Chimneys Inn several years ago--this two-story front addition was added by Nathaniel Hill.  Photo by AcrossTheAtlantic, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Nathaniel Hill died in 1741, and the house passed to his son Valentine Hill, who died in 1765. At some point the property was transferred to the Woodman family, who were apparently connected to the Hills through marriage. I have not yet traced the connection. The Woodmans were probably the owners during the Revolutionary War, when local history claims the house was “a storage place for munitions that were taken from the British Blockhouses in Portsmouth and hidden for use by Revolutionary troops.” (Three Chimneys website).

Around 1795, The Woodmans built a large barn on the property, along with a brick water cistern. The family also deeded land for a cemetery to the town of Durham. The cemetery property is adjacent to the Hill house property.

The Woodmans eventually sold the house and land to George Ffrost. The Ffrosts renovated the house, adding Federal-style trim and changing the slope of the roof. They eventually turned the property into an estate with formal gardens and stone perimeter walls.

The house while owned by the Ffrosts

The Ffrosts began renting the house out in the 20^th century. One of the tenants was the University of New Hampshire, which used the property as student housing for a brief period. The property became very run down, and might have been razed without the intervention of preservationists.

Property's condition when the Inn's owners acquired it.

The Hill-Woodman-Ffrost House was restored, repaired and converted into an inn in 1997. The house is also part of the Durham Historical District.

Durham Historic District with Hill house/Inn property highlighted, which surrounds cemetery land donated by Woodmans.

I am so glad this special home still survives, thanks to the hard work and financial investment of the Inn’s owners. I hope to someday visit the Inn and stay in one of the rooms that Nathaniel Hill added to the house over 325 years ago. I would love to walk in the footsteps of my eighth and ninth great-grandfathers.

Sources:

“Valentine Hill.” The Great Migration and the Great Migration Begins, 1620-1635. Vol. 3, G-H. Anderson, Robert Charles. Boston: New England Historical and Genealogical Society, 1996-2011.

Buildings of New England. “Valentine Hill House. C. 1649.” https://buildingsofnewengland.com/2021/09/07/valentine-hill-house-c-1649/

“Steeped in New Hampshire History.” Three Chimneys Inn website, History page. https://www.threechimneysinn.com/history

https://winthropmemorials.org/great-allotment/pages/valentine-hill.html

AcrossTheAtlantic, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

By AcrossTheAtlantic - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=63031226

https://www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/historic_district_commission/page/17701/national_register_nomination_for_district.pdf

Hill-Woodman-Ffrost House. https://grokipedia.com/page/hill_woodman_ffrost_house

New Hampshire, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1643-1932. Will of Nathaniel Hill. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/8996/images/007636323_00541?_gl=1*s94pvf*_up*MQ..*_gs*MQ..&gclid=CjwKCAjwvsvTBhBaEiwAmf-3ngqoQibXX0ck4iVzu2PGov9Xp65ZyG1hYkBtvKomoXUGKLSE6_JY_RoCWw8QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&gbraid=0AAAAADtC4Oejd84GGFLEPSklEYDUF4bax&pId=119209