Wild William Bucknam: 52 Ancestors 2020 Prompt “Unforgettable"

Impurest of Puritans, or Old Goat Sows Wild Oats

William Bucknam: 1601-1679

Sarah Knower: 1622-1679?

We tend to assume the Puritans were stuffy, prim figures, obsessed with the Bible and the dictates of their faith. Books like The Scarlet Letter prompted us to believe that adultery was rare, and swiftly and cruelly punished when it did occur. So I was surprised to discover my ninth-great-grandfather, Puritan immigrant William Bucknam, was prominently featured in a book called Sex in Middlesex, a historic study of sexuality in Puritan Middlesex County Massachusetts. It turns out that William and his second wife Sarah Knower Bucknam were far from pure and faithful Puritans. They appear to have been wildly flirtatious at best, and promiscuous at worst.

William was already forty years old when he married his second wife, Sarah Knower, in 1641. He may have been motivated in part by his wife’s dowry as he was in debt after his first wife’s death. He may also have been motivated by her youth—she was only nineteen or twenty years old. While the marriage may have begun as a business-like arrangement, the couple obviously got along well enough to have at least eight children over the course of the next eighteen years.

William amassed a considerable amount of land in Malden, Massachusetts, proudly noting that he purchased all of it himself rather than receiving land grants like more highly born and well-connected colonists. He was a carpenter, and had additional business interests that led him to travel frequently from Malden to the Charlestown area.

Image of Plimouth Plantation, modern re-imagining of what the original colony looked like

Sarah apparently got a bit lonely when he was away from home. She may have also longed for the attentions of a younger, more vigorous man. William and Sarah had a lodger living in their home for some months in 1652, a man named Robert Burden. Sarah apparently took a shine to the man. He eventually set up his own home, and took in his own lodgers, the unpleasantly inquisitive Jonathan and Elizabeth Webb, who spent about a year living in his home.

According to Sex in Middlesex, Robert Burden and Sarah Bucknam were prosecuted in court for adultery in 1653. The Webbs were two of the primary witnesses against them, testifying that “they observed that Sarah came often to Burden’s ‘by day & by night’ and Robert often went out of the house with her.” He would go to visit her with the excuse that Sarah could wash his clothes and cook the occasional meal, even though Mrs. Webb offered to handle those chores. Mrs. Webb claimed that Sarah had her carry notes to Burden asking him to spend the night because William was out of town.

Sarah’s own sister testified that she wondered at Sarah and Robert’s familiarity with each other when she visited overnight at the Bucknam house and found him there as well.  Sarah’s neighbor Alice Larkin recounted Sarah holding up a garlic bulb and saying “looke here is a short neckt gerle is she not like Robert Burden,” bawdily implying the bulb resembled his sex organs and that she was familiar with their appearance. Referring to them as “short neckt” doesn’t sound very flattering, however!

Other witnesses came forward. Five women expressed suspicions about what the pair were up to in a haystack, two others claim to have seen “familiarities among some sumac trees” and another woman alleged they traveled together by boat from Boston, apparently up to no good. There seemed to be no end of townspeople willing to assume the worst about the pair.

Sarah had her defenders, including her husband William, who apparently retaliated in part by filing charges of defamation against some of the accusers.

One witness for the defense was assistant deacon and elder of the church, Joseph Hills, who proclaimed that the “suspected encounters “ were innocent and that Sarah had a good character. That got Mr. Hills in trouble with other church leaders, one sarcastically noting that “Mr. Hills is one day in the Deacones chair and the next day pleading baudy business (sic) in the court; will you say he is an honest man? Is he fit to sit in the place of a ruling elder that will plead the cause of rogues?” Hills sued his critic for slander.  

The whole incident seems to have been fueled by a village feud amongst the women concerning a previous minister, who had been replaced, to the dismay of many of his female congregants. The women actually wrote a letter in protest of his dismissal. Sarah and several of her accusers signed the letter, but Sarah fell out with them later, and they turned on her. A new minister even attempted to mediate between them, begging one not to “defame” Sarah, which implies that some of the charges may have been exaggerated.

The case against Sarah Bucknam and Robert Burden was eventually settled on March 5, 1653. They were not convicted of adultery, but Burden and Sarah were required to post bonds to the court to ensure they would “abstain from all private meetings.”

A Puritan gathering, from “New England, old and new; a brief review of some historical and industrial incidents in the Puritan “New English Canaan,” still the Land of promise.” via Wikimedia; public domain

Nine years later, it was William Bucknam’s turn to be in the hot seat.  He was tried and convicted of “shamefull lasciviousness in his words and actions towards [fourteen] married women” over a period of over a decade. Once again, there were multiple witnesses and multiple stories. For example:

--He told Elizabeth Webb (yes, the woman who accused his wife) that she was a “pretty roague and made his hart leap in his britches.”

--he lured Rebecca Green to the local mill and offered her two bushels of wheat—which didn’t even belong to him—if “he could have his will there”, assuring her that such adultery wasn’t evil.

--He promised Elizabeth Lareby that half an hour with him would cure her infertility. She said he “did proffer to put his hands under my cotes and lay hold of me.”

--Elizabeth Payne reported that he “puld me into his lapp and there held me and would not let me goe but kist me severall tymes.”

--He caught Hannah Stowers partially undressed, and assured her that “he had seen women undrest before.”

--Hannah Hills said he told her he “had come to see how rich your husband is.” Presumably he wasn’t referring to money.

The women all professed to be horrified by him and his unwelcome attentions. Considering the incidents occurred over a period of several years, they don’t seem to have seen him as a real threat or a serious criminal as they didn’t report him earlier. As author Thompson says, “Bucknam seems to have been more of a nuisance than a menace, snatching kisses, feeling legs, grabbing on to laps or round waists…his tastes proved catholic: newlyweds, grandmothers, gentlewomen, church sisters, or goodwives were all fair game.” (page 133)

The women seem to have been able to fend him off quite easily by yelling at him. Rebecca Greene chided, “Will such an ould man as you be so foolish and so wicked. Are you not ashamed to doe soe.” Mary Tufts said, “I bid him goe to his owne wife.”

Just as William came to his wife Sarah’s defense years earlier, Sarah came to his defense. She attacked one of his accusers, saying the woman hit him in the head with pots, tore meat out of his hands as he tried to eat, and yanked a chair out from under him, and mocked him as an “ould blackbeard”. “It was an unseemlie thing for her to behave herself to such a ancient man that was ould enough to be her father.” Sarah argued.

Puritan punishment for adultery 

She saw the charges as part of a larger plot against her family. “This hath been a thinge searched out,” she told the court. She felt his bawdy talk and roaming hands were being made into something far more sinister.

Her efforts to defend her husband were in vain. He was fined twenty-five pounds, which was a large sum of money in those days.  However, the punishment could have been far worse. A Sarah Buckman, misidentified by Thompson as being William Bucknam’s daughter-in-law (her husband John was a Buckman, not Bucknam) of Boston was convicted of “unlawfull and uncivill accompanying” with a man named Peter Cole. The pair were caught in bed together, but apparently still clothed, so had not committed adultery. However, just for being caught in a compromising situation, they were placed in the stocks and given 39 lashes apiece. I would say “ould blackbeard” William got off lightly in comparison!

Puritan punishment: whipping and stocks

Sarah and William stayed married until his death on March 28, 1679. He provided for her in his will, referring to her as his “beloved wife.” The date of her death is unknown.

One reviewer of the Thompson book noted her relief that William, described as “one of the most notorious village Lotharios”, wasn’t one of her ancestors. In contrast, I’m delighted he’s one of my ancestors. He sounds like he was a real personality—yes, he was bawdy and rude, but he seems to have had a real zest for life. While he made advances to 14 women in his tiny community, at least he was never accused of anything more than unwelcome flirtation, kisses and a little groping. I see him as a bit of a pervert, but not a true predator. And as for poor Sarah, it sounds like she had a little mid-life romance to brighten up what must have been a tough and exhausting life. 

Sarah and William may not have been the purest of the Puritans, but they were certainly interesting and were probably a source of great amusement for their neighbors in Malden, Massachusetts! They are an unforgettable branch in my family tree.

Sources:

Sex in Middlesex: Popular Mores in a Massachusetts County, 1649-1699. Roger Thompson. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 1986; reprint 2012).

https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2017/03/sex-in-middlesex/

The History of Malden Massachusetts, 1633-1785, Deloraine P Corey, 1836-1910

Thomas Blanchard House: Still Standing in Andover After 320 years

When I was researching my ninth-great-grandfather Samuel Blanchard, I discovered that he owned over 200 acres of land in the Andover, Massachusetts area. Following his death in 1704, that land was divided amongst his several sons. One of those sons, Thomas Blanchard, my eighth-great-uncle, built a house on his parcel in 1699, a house that still stands today. Fascinated, I set out to learn about the building, known as the Blanchard-Upton House.

Blanchard Upton House in the 1960s

Samuel Blanchard held a huge tract of land called Blanchard’s Plain just south and west of a large body of water once known as Blanchard’s Pond, both areas visible on this 1690s map of Andover, with Samuel’s house notated. 

The “pond”, now called Haggett’s Pond, now serves as a reservoir for Andover.

Thomas built his home south of the pond. The current address of the property is 7 Hearthstone, and is noted on the present-day map below. The approximate boundaries of some of Samuel Blanchard’s property is outlined in yellow.

Thomas Blanchard was a cordwainer by trade, which is a leather shoemaker. He may have also built a grist mill along the stream on his property, so he wasn’t dependent on farming income.

According to the historic site description of the Blanchard house (see Source 2),

“The house likely began as two rooms, one downstairs to left of entrance and chimney and one above. The west side and oldest section contains "Indian Walls", a brick barrier between the inner and outer sheathing used as defense in early Colonial days.”

The house is one of only two buildings in Andover that has a room “completely sheathed in pine on all four sides.”

Thomas married Rose Holmes on March 22, 1698. The couple had nine chidren. Rose died in 1714 at age 40. A year later, Thomas remarried. His new wife, a widow named Hannah White Cowens, had three more children. Hannah died in 1724. Thomas married one more time in 1725, choosing another widow with two children, Mrs. Judith Buckman Hill.

With all these children, the original two-room dwelling needed expansion.

“As [the] family grew, the house was extended eastward, upstairs and down. The salt-box section was likely added at the time of the east wing, but others believe it to be the third part built. The old kitchen room now serves as a dining room, has a 12' mantle which marks the site of the original fireplace. The massive 10' wide fireplace remains, one of the largest in Massachusetts. The east fireplace is slightly smaller at 8’. An old stairway [was] built against the wall of the chimney without props in a spiral construction.” (From Source 2)

Children playing in the fireplace in the 1940s

The house passed down to Thomas’ son Josiah in 1741. Josiah paid 120 pounds for the house and 37 acres. He raised nine children there, turning the farm over to his son Josiah Jr. in 1765. Josiah Jr. was a cordwainer like his grandfather, and probably built the cobbler’s shop on the property that stood for two centuries.

Workshop behind the Blanchard Upton House 1937

Josiah Jr. married Lydia Jenkins and they raised six children in the home. Josiah Jr. died in 1790, and the farm was sold to relatives of Lydia Jenkins, Abiel Upton and his wife Molly. Several generations of Uptons—also cobblers-- lived there, followed by the Bakers and the Grants.

The house was eventually sold to Richard and Joann Michalik in 1989. The Michaliks spent 28 years restoring the house and barn, and added a two-story addition to the home. The house was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1990. The Register notes that “it is a First Period 2.5 story saltbox, which is distinctive for having an integral lean-to section rather than one that was added after other parts of the house.”

It is amazing to see the house where my ancestors lived over 300 years ago. I am so glad the building survived and was restored by people who value its history.

The house today with the two-story addition

Sources:

http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/maps/andovermap50.jpg

https://preservation.mhl.org/7-hearthstone-pl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard-Upton_House

Samuel Blanchard’s Grave: 52 Ancestors 2020 Prompt “Oldest”

Oldest Grave in the Cemetery

Samuel Blanchard: 1629-1707

My ninth-great-grandfather has the distinction of having the oldest grave in the West Parish Garden Cemetery in Andover, Massachusetts. The grave has a small sign next to the headstone that reads:

Samuel Blanchard: April 22, 1707

First Burial in West Parish Cemetery and Oldest Stone in Andover

Not only is Samuel’s headstone the oldest in the city (which is quite impressive, as Andover was founded early in the 17^th century), but it is elaborately carved with incredible iconography. It is a true work of art.

Samuel was born in England on August 6, 1629. He came to America with his father and siblings on the ship Jonathan, arriving in New England on June 23, 1639. He settled in Charlestown and began farming with his father Thomas. Samuel married Mary Sweetser on January 3, 1654; his father died a few months later. Samuel inherited some of his father’s land, although less than his older brothers did. He managed to leverage what he had, acquiring more acreage over the years, eventually moving to Andover on June 10, 1686, where he amassed nearly 200 additional acres, a large amount for the time period.

Samuel and Mary had six children before Mary died February 20, 1669. Four years later, Samuel married Hannah Doggett on June 24, 1673. They had four more children together.

List of Samuel's significant life events and his children's birthdates from family Bible.

By the time Samuel died on April 22, 1707, he was quite wealthy. One researcher noted that Andover tax rolls show he paid more taxes than nearly all the other residents in the city, evidence that he was one of the most prosperous citizens. He seems to have been respected, holding the occasional small office such as selectman and tax collector, but didn’t become entangled in community conflict. None of his extended family was swept up in the witch trials like many of his Andover neighbors, and he was rarely mentioned in court records from the period.  He left all of his surviving children with considerable inheritances of land and money.

His funeral sounds like it was quite the production. Abbott’s book, the History of Andover, includes the list of Samuel’s funeral expenses, along with explanations of their purpose. Bereaved families provided gloves to pall bearers, the minister and other figures of importance. Twenty pair of gloves were ordered for Samuel’s funeral at a cost of one pound and 10 shillings, and “mourning scarfs”, whatever purpose they may have had, cost even more, one pound and 17 shillings. The coffin itself, along with the costs of digging the grave, only totaled 17 shillings. Obviously this was an extravagant affair if so much was spent on decorative items (There were twenty shillings in a pound). Refreshments post-ceremony included six gallons of wine, a half barrel of cider, and a rum punch of rum, sugar and allspice.

Given his wealth, it is not surprising that Samuel merited an elaborate headstone. According to some sources, the white granite stone was imported from England and is believed to have been carved by Joseph Lamson of Charleston, with the help of his young son Nathaniel Lamson, whose initials can be seen next to the carved hourglass.

The top of the stone features a toothy Death’s Head skull framed by elaborate, feathered wings, inset below a complicated pattern that may signify a tasseled drape. The winged skull symbolizes the flight of the soul from the body.

Just below the skull is a thin, platform-like section depicting two small figures—one expert on Lamson’s work describes them as imps--pulling draperies away from an hourglass with draining sand, signaling the passage of time. 

To further remind the viewer of their mortality, the words “Memento Mori” which means “remember you will die” are on the left of the figures, and the words “Hora fugit”, meaning “the hour flees or flies” are on the right.

Hourglass with stone carver's initials "N" and "L"

Imp with Memento Mori

The inscription was carefully carved, and reads:

"Here Lyes Ye Body of Samuel Blanchard

Who Departed The Life on Ye 22d of April 1707

 in Ye 78^th Year of His Age”

Below the main inscription, in smaller lettering, is the following: “Ye Memory of Ye Just is Blessed.”

At the very bottom, nearly covered by the grass, are some rosette-type decorations. I wish they could be seen more clearly.

Flanking the main section of the stone are two “shoulders” to the stone, each topped with a beautiful face framed with curling hair. The eyes are deeply set, and the lips are pursed as if the two figures are singing. Deep, pointed collars extend below the faces. One source states that these are meant to be clerical collars, symbolizing the church.

Below the faces are amazing three sets of paired globes separated by scored leaf-like shapes. The globes reminded me of breasts, and when I researched Lamson’s work, I discovered that breasts were a symbol that appeared on many Puritan graves, apparently symbolizing the church and the nourishment of the soul! The globes may also have been intended to be gourds, which have the same meaning.

Sadly, this extraordinary stone has not been treated with the care and respect it deserves. A large portion on the right has been broken off and replaced, splitting one of the amazing faces in half. I hope to visit this 320 year old stone in person someday.

Interestingly, Samuel is the only Blanchard in this cemetery. His second wife and extended family can be found in the South Parish Burying Ground. Since his stone is so much older than other graves around him, it is likely he was buried on his own property first, and reburied when the West Parish cemetery opened.

Sources:

https://blanchardfamilyhistory.org/content.php?id=3

History of Andover: From Its Settlement to 1829, by Abiel Abbott, Flagg and Gould, Andover Massachusetts, 1829.

https://www.mhl.org/sites/default/files/files/Abbott/Blanchard%20Family.pdf

https://www.anamericanfamilyhistory.com/Daggett%20Family/DaggettHannahBlanchard.html

http://lifefromtheroots.blogspot.com/2015/11/2-blanchard-brothers-tiffany-first.html

https://serchomeschool.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/early-american-gravestones.pdf

https://anarmchairacademic.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/new-england-graves-the-busy-imps-of-death/

Joses Bucknam: 52 Ancestors 2020 Prompt “Multiple”

Multiple Generations Repeating an Unusual Name

Joses Bucknam: 1641-1694

My eighth-great-grandfather Joses Bucknam had a rather unusual first name. It was so unusual that many transcriptions of 17^th century records “correct” it to the far more common “Joseph”. Despite, or perhaps because, of its distinctiveness, it was passed down through multiple generations of Bucknam descendants.

Joses Bucknam was the first son of his father William Bucknam’s second marriage. Joses’ mother, Sarah Knower, may have chosen the name, which appears in certain translations of the Bible. Sarah Knower arrived as part of the “Great Migration”, a fleet of eleven ships under the leadership of Gov. Winthrop that brought hundreds of colonists to Massachusetts in 1630. Sarah was aboard the same ship as the Rev. Jose or Joses Glover, who died on the voyage. According to one family historian, “it is probable that it was through this companionship, or possible relationship, that her son should bear the singular name of Joses, which has been carried down through seven or more generations.”

As soon as I read that passage, I had to see if I could find those seven generations. I made it to the sixth generation, and consider that a victory—each man I found carried both the Joses first name and the surname Bucknam. There may be additional descendants who have the first name Joses but have different surnames, being children of female descendants, but I chose not to investigate this possibility. I simply followed the lineage down from the original Joses Bucknam. Here’s what I found:

Generation 1: Joses Bucknam 1641-1694. Eighth-Great-Grandfather

Joses Bucknam was born July 3, 1641 in Charlestown, Massachusetts. His father, a carpenter and farmer, bought several parcels of land and built up a successful farm business. Joses inherited part of this property at his father’s death in 1679.

By that time, Joses had married two women. His first wife was his cousin Hannah Knower. They had four children, including Joses Bucknam Junior, born in 1666. Following Hannah’s death around 1672, Joses married Judith Worth, who was twelve years his junior. They had an additional six children.

Joses was known as Lt. Bucknam due to his service in King Philip’s War in 1676. He was also a successful farmer who was able to leave his numerous children healthy inheritances upon his death in August 1694. He was only 53 years old at the time of his death.

Generation 2: Joses Bucknam 1666-1741 Eighth-Great Uncle.

The first Joses' eldest son Joses Bucknam married Hannah Peabody of Boxford, Massachusetts. In addition to farming, this second Joses became a weaver and built a mill to weave cloth. The Malden mill was operated by three generations of the family. He and Hannah had at least twelve children.

Generation 3: Joses Bucknam 1692-1757. First Cousin 8x Removed

The eldest of those twelve children, a boy also named Joses Bucknam, was born April 17, 1692. According to family records, he lived on an “estate” inherited from his great-grandfather Knower, and was a deacon of the church and a weaver like his father. He married Phebe Tuttle in 1713. They had ten children, the eldest was a son named, of course, Joses. One of their daughters, Sarah, also had a son she named Joses.

Generation 4: Joses Bucknam 1714-1762. Second Cousin 7x Removed

Joses Bucknam the fourth was born in 1714. He apparently married a Mary Sprague in 1743 in Malden. His death date is recorded as 1762, but there is no further information. I can find no evidence that he had a son named Joses.

Fifth Generation: Joses Bucknam 1761-1835. 3^rd Cousin 6x removed.

Fortunately, the son-less Joses had a brother named James Bucknam, born 1725, who carried on the family tradition. James married Mary Goddard. Their third son, born March 6, 1761, was named Joses Bucknam.

This Joses went on to serve in the American Revolution. After serving as a soldier for four years, he had the misfortune to re-enlist as a sailor. In 1781, he was aboard a 26-gun ship that was captured by the British. He was hauled back to Britain and locked up in the Old Mill Prison, where he spent the next year. He was released in a prisoner swap arranged by Ben Franklin. Quite the exciting life. Thanks to the author of the Empty Branches blog for her extensive research on this Joses’ fascinating war record.

Joses returned to his family, and a few years later he married his distant cousin Abigail “Nabby” Hay (see family tree chart below, also from Empty Branches blog) , and their first son, born February 16, 1793, was named Joses Bucknam.

Sixth Generation: Joses Bucknam 1793-approx. 1850. 4^th Cousin 5x Removed

I found few records attached to the final Joses Bucknam. He married Eliza Low on August 22, 1816 in Boston, Massachusetts. They apparently had at least one daughter, Sarah, who married in Norfolk, Virginia. There is no death record for Joses, although it appears he died prior to the year 1850, and may have been living in Virginia. I found no evidence that he had a son and was able to pass down his unique name to yet another generation.

Sources:

http://emptybranchesonthefamilytree.com/2015/11/52-ancestors-44/

Genealogy and History of the Representative Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by George Lambert Gould. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/21584/images/dvm

Peabody Genealogy, North American Family Histories 1500-2000, Ancestry.com

John Bucknam: 52 Ancestors 2020 Prompt “Solo”

Odd Man Out in Malden, Massachusetts

John Bucknam: 1635-1705

John Bucknam was the eldest son of my ninth-great-grandfather William Bucknam. However, John’s father gave him up at an early age, and he was essentially cut off from his father, stepmother and eight half-siblings although he lived near them in the same general community. Even in death, William left his son without support. Late in life, John was essentially homeless and had to be cared for by the community. In a Puritan environment that emphasized family ties, John was the odd man out in several respects.

William Bucknam arrived in Massachusetts in 1630 as part of the Great Migration of Puritan colonists into New England. He married a young woman who arrived in the same group of ships. Sarah Prudence Wilkinson, daughter of John and Prudence Wilkinson, had been left fatherless when John Wilkinson died on the voyage to the colony. William quickly married her and they lived in the Rumney Marsh area. Around 1635 Sarah gave birth to a son they named John after her father.

Sarah grew sick while little John was very young, and eventually died. I have found no record of the date of death. William was still trying to establish himself in the new colony at this point, and Sarah’s illness and the costs of the funeral left him in debt and struggling to care for a young child. Sarah’s widowed mother Prudence Wilkinson offered to take young John and raise him. William gratefully accepted her offer.

By 1640 or 1641, William had remarried. His new bride, Sarah Knower, gave birth to their first son Joser on July 3, 1641. They went on to have at least seven more children. William worked as a carpenter and bought land to farm in what is now Malden. The family seems to have become quite financially comfortable.

Mystic Side of Charlestown Mass. which became Malden

Despite the improvement in their circumstances, young John remained with his grandmother Wilkinson against William’s wishes. In June 1641, William filed suit asking for his son to be returned. The court petition states:

“...whereas his mother-in-law the widow Wilkinson keeps away from him his son John Bucknum against the good will of the petitioner which is like to be a breach of peace between us, your petitioner humbly prayeth the widow Wilkinson may be ordered to redeliver to this petitioner his said child.”

William’s suit was apparently unsuccessful, for John remained with his grandmother. It is unclear how much contact father and son had after 1641. Probate records state that John had been apprenticed to his grandmother at her request until his 21^st birthday, so he was bound to stay with her until he was an adult. The widow’s only source of income seems to have been a farm, so John wasn’t taught any real trade as her apprentice.

Puritan meeting house in Malden 

When William wrote his will in 1667, he added a special codicil to explain why he felt no obligation to leave an inheritance for John. It’s a rather disturbing little paragraph (note that misspellings and odd capitalization are reproduced as written in the original text of the will):

“Least I shold be supposed by Any, to be unnatural or injurious unto my Son John as being my firstborne; I hereby declare the true ground and just Reasons of the Several gifts and legacies, disposed unto my wife and Children as hereafter stated, And why no more, is settled, or otherwise Stated, on my Son John though my firstborne.

First because the Estate, whereby I purchased All my lands (And for that Allso by the improvement thereof through the blessing of God on my Labours, I have built my housing and brought up my children hereunto, And have in my measure been helpful in Church, Town And Cuntry Affayres) Came unto mee by my wife Sara, that now is, And from her Kindred, who in a Special Manner, intended it, for the benefit of her Children.

2dly. By means of much weaknes of his mother my first wife, and Expences for him in his infancie, I was much run in debt, to sundry persons: the which were Allso payed out of this woomans portion.

3dly this my Sone John was After by his Grandmother taken from mee before he came to Abilitie, to doe Any thing for mee, And on her desire bound As Apprentice to her till he shold be 21 years old, So that I had no Service or help of his; to the raysing of my Estate.

4thly he Allso with my Consent, Enjoyeth A portion, from his Grandmother, in stead of the portion due to mee, in the right of his Mother, to About twentie pounds value.”

So, to summarize, William said he ran into debt following John’s mother’s death, and his new wife Sarah helped to pay off those debts. He added that her family also helped him to purchase his farm land, with the intent that their assistance would benefit Sarah and her children, not William’s child of his first marriage. William rather bitterly said that John was living with his grandmother for all the years that William was building up his wealth, and that as a result John had provided him no assistance, and therefore was due none of the proceeds of that work. William also argued that as Prudence’s widower, he was due twenty pounds from his wife’s estate, but that he had consented that John should have that portion, and he also noted that John had inherited his grandmother’s Prudence Wilkinson’s estate, implying John was financially secure and was therefore owed nothing by his father.

William was being disingenuous at best. At her death in 1655, most of the Widow Wilkinson’s estate went to her surviving son and daughter. John’s inheritance from his grandmother was two steers and a five acre field that was valued at a minimal twenty pounds, hardly a fortune and probably not enough land to support him, much less support a family. Perhaps this is why John never married.

John served in the early French and Indian Wars, the part known as King Philip’s War, a bloody rebellion by native tribes against the colonists, with atrocities committed on both sides. The records of Malden area men who served show that John was a soldier in 1675 when he was about 40 years old, serving first under Captain Henchman and then under Captain Mosely. His half-brother Joses served the following year under Captains Wheeler and Henchman. Captain Mosely’s men were involved in the Battle of Bloody Brook, the worst disaster for the colonists in the war. Mosely’s men had to bury some 75 soldiers from another unit who had been killed by the natives. It must have been an emotionally damaging experience.

Etching of King Philip's War

Following his war service, John had some sort of breakdown. According to Corey’s History of Malden Massachusetts, “Soon after [the war], he lost the use of speech and apparently became of unsound mind. About this time he probably became dependent upon the town or the bounty of his brothers and sisters.”

Battle in King Philip's War

It is possible John suffered PTSD from his war experiences, or he may have had some sort of mental illness that became worse as he grew older. His illness may have been another reason that his father disinherited him; William died in 1679, just four years after John returned from war. John’s problem persisted for many years. When his half-brother William died in 1694, John was unable to participate in the settlement of probate “by reason of present distraction.”

Miraculously, John regained his senses in 1696, as reported by the local minister, a Mr. Wigglesworth, to his superior Samuel Sewall, that “John Bucknam of Malden, above 50 years old, has been perfectly dumb near 18 years, and now within about 3 weeks has his understanding and speech restored. He is much affected with the Goodness of God to him herein.”

Alas, whatever sanity and speech he regained did not enable him to provide for himself. His half-brothers Joses, William and Edward had already died by 1696, leaving only his youngest half brother, Samuel Bucknam. The town of Malden sent two representatives “to agree with Samuell Bucknam or any other consarning John Bucknam.” The representatives were also directed to attempt to “recover aney Estate: in behalf of ye town” that would have been John’s share.

Shortly thereafter, a suit was brought, not against Samuell, but against Joses Bucknam’s widow Jude and her new husband John Linde or Lynde “to make a final agreement in all contrenarcies in refranc to John Bucknam for time past.” I believe this means they sought the share that should have gone to John as firstborn, but was given to second-born Joses instead. This is a rather Biblical, Jacob-and-Esau type of conflict. I can imagine Jude’s new husband was reluctant to become responsible for someone he was completely unrelated to.

The case doesn’t seem to have settled the issue, for in 1700, the town brought suit against a different Samuel Bucknam, the son of Joses Bucknam. They reached an agreement for “said Samuel Bucknam to keep entertain and maintain his unckle John Bucknam from ye first of March last past to ye last of March next aftar this date: and for his so doing the select men of this town shall alow him out of ye town-Treasury: 2-15-0 in money."

Something must have gone wrong with this arrangement. Perhaps John was more trouble than the two pounds payment was worth to Samuel. By 1703, the town appointed men to “agree with Captain William Green consarning ye trouble he was at consarning John Bucknam beeing sick at his hous last winter.”

Nephew Samuel was indirectly forced to provide for his uncle later that year. Samuel was taken to court on account of some sort of trouble caused by his slave named Peeter. He ended up paying the town two pounds and twelve shillings in compensation. The town used part of the money to buy clothes for his uncle John.

John died June 14, 1705 at the approximate age of 70 years old.  I am guessing that few in the town of Malden mourned his passing. While most of his siblings have elaborately carved headstones at Bell Rock Cemetery, he does not, so even in death his family cut him out and left him to be forgotten. I have to pity the poor man, basically abandoned by his father, treated as a charity case by his half-siblings and neighbors, and left to struggle with mental illness in a society that neither understood nor could treat such afflictions. John Bucknam truly was a man alone.

Sources:

https://archive.org/details/historymaldenma00coregoog/page/n236/mode/2up

The History of Malden Massachusetts, 1633-1785, Deloraine P Corey, 1836-1910

King Philip's War: Colonial Expansion, Native Resistance, and the End of Indian Sovereignty By Daniel R. Mandell, JHU Press, Sep 1, 2010.

Soldiers in King Philip's War, by George Madison Bodge, Connecticutt 1896

An Early History of Malden, Frank Russell, Arcadia Publishing, 2018