The Serious Side to a Funny Incident: 52 Ancestors 2026 Prompt “Changed My Thinking”

 

Anthony Nutter and the Attack on Colonial Tax Officials

Anthony Nutter: 1630-1685 (Maternal 9^th Great-Grandfather)
 

When I first saw the engraving pictured below, I was amused. The man depicted laughing uproariously at the two other men scuffling in the fireplace was my ninth-great-grandfather, Anthony Nutter. The violence depicted looked like a bar brawl to me. I assumed the men had drunk too much and had gotten into a scuffle. The description accompanying the illustration referred to Anthony as a “tall big man” who accompanied his friend Wiggin when they “visited Mason when the latter got his wig burned.” That description trivializes the incident, which was far more serious than I’d surmised. Rather than a scuffle amongst friends, the fight was political—an act of resistance by colonial settlers against British overreach. I had to drastically change my thinking about the meaning of the illustration.

Anthony Nutter was the son of Hatevil Nutter and his wife Ann Ayers Nutter. Anthony was born in England around 1630, and traveled to what is now Stratford County, New Hampshire with his parents and siblings sometime prior to 1640.  In 1662, at the age of 32, he married Sarah Langstaff. They had at least eight children, perhaps more than ten.

Anthony first lived in Dover Neck, New Hampshire, but eventually moved across the Piscataqua River to what is now Newington, New Hampshire, but was then called Welshman’s Cove on Bloody Point. He inherited the property from his father in 1674, and fortified the house into a garrison. Anthony became a freeman in 1662, and was a “corporall” in 1667, and was called a “leftenant” by 1683. These titles probably referred to militia positions—the colonists needed to protect themselves from raids by native tribes and the French. He served as a selectman in 1666 and 1667, as a Representative to the colonial General Court for six years between 1674 and 1684, and was named to the Provincial Council in 1679. He was obviously a respected citizen.

Historical Marker in the Bloody Point area of New Hampshire

So what led him to participate in a brawl with colonial bigwig Robert Mason and the Lieutenant Governor of New Hampshire Walter Barefoot?

In the 1680s, there was conflict in the colonies over the control of land in what is now New Hampshire. The area had originally been part of the Massachusetts Colony, but was eventually separated into a separate entity called a “royal province”. At that time, a man named Rober Mason asserted a claim that his family owned all the land in the province, and he arrived in the area with a warrant from the king and the expectation that all the colonists would begin paying him to lease their lands.  As might be expected, the colonists objected. They believed they had clear title to their lands and refused to pay rents, taxes or any other fees to any government entity connected to Mason.

Mason curried favor with the Provincial Governor, Edward Cranfield, so Cranfield attempted to enforce the lease arrangement. He was unsuccessful; his officers were unable to enforce his orders. Cranfield returned to England, turning over his duties to his Lietuenant Governor, Walter Barefoot.

The book Colonial Life in New Hampshire describes what led to the Nutter/Wiggin incident:

“Barefoot was not an improvement over his predecessor and used every means in his power to annoy the colonists. During his short stay an incident occurred which shows the contempt with which the government was held by the settlers. Thomas Wiggin and Anthony Nutter, who had formerly been members of the assembly, called one day at the house of Barefoot to remonstrate with him concerning the injustice of his proceedings. Mason, who was his guest at the time, was also present. During the discussion, the visitors told Mason very plainly and forcibly that his claim to the land amounted to nothing. This so enraged him that he took hold of Wiggin to force him from the house.

Wiggin, who was a powerful man, seized Mason by the collar and threw him with great violence across the room and into the fireplace, where his clothing and legs were severely burned. Barefoot upon coming to his assistance was treated even more severely. Several of his teeth were knocked out and two of his ribs were broken. Mason meantime called loudly upon his servants to bring his sword, but upon its being brought, Nutter quickly took it from him, and mocked the discomfiture of the highest officer of the state.”

Another description of the incident said that the fight was broken up by neighbors who were alerted by the screams of Barefoot’s maid.

Neither Nutter nor Wiggin faced any criminal charges for their altercation with two powerful men, even though both of those men were left with fairly serious injuries. Nutter and Wiggin had walked into the meeting with confidence, unafraid of Mason and Barefoot. While they were both big, strong men, I believe they felt more emboldened by the support of their fellow colonists. They knew that powerful titles and rank meant little so far from England and the king. The outcome proved them right. Barefoot soon lost his position and was replaced, while Mason was never able to assert his claim of ownership over the province’s land.

The fight at Barefoot’s house seems to have occurred in the early to mid 1680s when Anthony Nutter was in his early fifties. In 1685, he contracted smallpox. The journal of Rev. Pike noted:

“Feb 19. Lt. Anthony Nutter of Welch-Cove deceased of the smal-pox bef: it came out.”

I’m not sure what the reference to “before it came out” means. Before the rash appeared? Anthony Nutter died from the disease at the age of fifty-five. I have been unable to find his probate or burial records.

While I first looked at the story of Anthony Nutter and Thomas Wiggin’s fight with Mason and Barefoot as a humorous incident of drunken machismo, I changed my thinking when I read what led up to the incident. This is an example of the necessity of searching for information that can provide important context. Without context, we can misconstrue our ancestors’ actions and motivations. Where I once saw a drunken brawl, I now see political resistance by colonists against greed and an out-of-touch king.

 

Sources:

New England Historical Society. New Hampshire. “Edward Gove and this One-Man Revolution of 1683”. https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/edward-gove-and-his-one-man-revolution-of-1683/#google_vignette

Colonial Life in New Hampshire. James H. Fassett. Chapter 4. Ginn & Company, Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 1899.

Photo of Newington Historical Marker. Wikimedia Commons. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/NewingtonNH_sign.JPG

https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/LZ1W-4ND/lt.-anthony-nutter-1630-1685

 

A Young Man’s Big Decision: 52 Ancestors 2026 Prompt “A Big Decision”

 

Lawrence Buckminster Makes His Will Before Setting Sail to England

Lawrence Buckminster: 1619-1645 (Maternal 8^th Great-Granduncle)

 

Sometimes I run across records or documents that make me laugh, and other times I find something that breaks my heart a little. Lawrence Buckminster’s probate record was unique—I had both reactions. Lawrence was barely twenty-five when he made the decision to take to the sea aboard a ship bound for England. As most sailors did in those days, knowing the hazards that ships and sailors faced, he made his will before he left. Sadly, he never returned to Massachusetts, and the will he dictated—filled with humor and pathos—is all that survives of his life.

Lawrence Buckminster was the eldest son of my ninth-great-grandfather, Thomas Buckminster and Thomas’ first wife, Margaret Cossen. Lawrence was born in Sempringham, Lincolnshire, England in September of 1619. He was baptized on September 12, 1619. Lawrence’s mother died in 1629, and his father took Lawrence and his three siblings to colonial America around 1630. Lawrence would have been about eleven years old.

Sempringham church where Lawrence was baptized.

Lawrence’s father remarried, and by Lawrence’s twenty-first birthday, he had eight younger siblings.

Lawrence apparently wrote his will in September 1645, and it was probated in May of 1646. This implies he died in late 1645 or early 1646. None of the details about his cause or place of death was recorded. His body does not seem to have been returned to his family, so he may have been buried at sea.

The remarkable part of Lawrence’s story is his delightfully detailed will. It begins in a rather unusual fashion, which I read as rather wry in tone. Lawrence wrote (or dictated) as follows:

“Seene that I am now bound for the sea & so for England, them smole (small) things that I have heare live & thos desposed of, if Capt. Smith doe not recover my wages againe, then thus I have ordered it if God take me away by death or any turne of God’s providence that I am never like to enjoy it againe…”

Copy of Lawrence Buckmaster/Buckminster's will from Massachusetts Probate Records

This opening is amazingly chatty and really shows personality. I can almost hear a cocky young man describing his possessions as “them small things that I have here”. And then there’s the puzzling line about his ship’s captain, which seems to have a bit of a mocking note: “if Capt. Smith doe not recover my wages againe”. What can we gather from this line? First, Lawrence had sailed with Capt. Smith before, and apparently there was some dispute about Lawrence’s wages. I am surmising that the meaning of the word “recover” in this context is more akin to “revoke” or “confiscate.” It sounds as if Lawrence does not trust his captain to convey any wages earned before his death to his heirs.

Next follows a very detailed accounting and distribution of Lawrence’s possessions. First, he leaves “the piece of land bought of & payd excepted of the said Thomas Spaule” to his sister Elizabeth Buckminster [which he dictates as “Buckmaster”, an alternate spelling during that era]. I am a bit unclear about Thomas Spaule’s [alternate spelling Spowell] connection to the land—had Lawrence bought it from Thomas? It appears that Lawrence’s sister Elizabeth was his favorite of all his siblings, as she received the most valuable inheritance.

Lawrence then begins an itemized distribution of what he described as “smale things in my chest”:

“first a greate coate I freely give to Thomas Spaule & the six shillings due to me from Thomas Wellens with it, My black hatt I do bestow it upon Abigail Sherman, the suite of apparel to my brother Zachary Buckmaster & a shirt and band or two for my ffather, there wilbe left a paire of stockings the best to be given to Matthew Coy, the worser paire or two paire & the chest in which these lye in unto the said Thomas Spaule…”

This section of the will indicates how important and how limited clothing was during that era. Even “worser” stockings were important enough to list in a will. My ancestor Zachary Buckminster received an entire suit of clothing, which would have been a valuable possession. Their father Thomas was to receive a shirt and “band”.

But non-family members also received bequests. Someone named Matthew Cay or Coy was to inherit Lawrence’s best pair of stockings, and an unrelated young woman, Abigail Sherman, was to inherit his black hat. Was Abigail a sweetheart of Lawrence’s? Or was she an extended relative? Why was she to receive the hat? After all, what was a woman to do with a man’s hat? It seems rather bold to include an unrelated woman in a man’s will in the mid-seventeenth century.

The next passage in the will is very confusing. It reads that Thomas Spaule was to take “a smale caske of Mackrells that Thomas is to send to sea for me for to let them go to sea for his daughter Mary till they come to some thing or nothing, but if that I live to come againe, or desire an account of them by sending to you an account to be given to me.”

After a little research, I discovered that mackerels were salted and packed in casks to be used as food on ships or to be sold abroad. I think what Lawrence was proposing was that a cask of mackerel that Lawrence had intended to export be instead exported by Thomas Spaule on behalf of Spaule’s daughter Mary. In other words, any proceeds of the sale of the cask would go to Mary, unless Lawrence survived his voyage and returned to claim the proceeds or sent for an accounting from England. I did a bit of research on Thomas Spaule’s family, and it appears that Mary was just a baby when the will was written. I wonder if she ever received the proceeds of that cask of salted fish.

The will is signed as follows: “Lawrence Buckmaster in the presence of Thomas Spaule”, with a man named Robert Portons signing as the writer of the document, dated September 27, 1645. It is likely that Lawrence needed assistance to write the document and dictated it to Mr. Portons; like many men of the era, he was probably barely literate.

Thomas Spaule must have been Lawrence’s best friend, as so much of the will and the means of distributing the possessions was entrusted to Thomas. Perhaps this explains the chatty nature of the will—the two friends were sitting in a room discussing everything as the will was written.

Lawrence makes some last-minute amendments, perhaps in response to Thomas’ questions or comments. He writes:

“But the land she is not to make it away nor part fro, but she is not to have it, nor have nothing to doe with it till the yeare of our Lord 1649 & that Mayday, but if she sell it then let Thomas Spaule have the refusing of it, if she let it, then he to hyer it afore another if he please & if I dye at sea then to demand upon inquiry you may true wages for the time & to give my ffather it.

I wonder why Elizabeth was required to wait until May Day 1649 to gain full control over her inheritance? She was born in 1628, so perhaps that date was selected to ensure that she had reached her majority, the age of twenty-one. Also, once again, Lawrence’s friend Thomas received preferential treatment. While Elizabeth was to inherit the land Lawrence owned, she could not sell or rent it out without offering Thomas Spaule the right of first refusal.

It is interesting that seven years after this will was written, a man named William Spowell married Elizabeth Buckminster. I believe William Spowell must have been related to Thomas Spaule/Spowell—perhaps his brother. The two families must have lived near one another and were friendly. I wonder if Elizabeth held onto the land after inheriting it, or did she sell it or lease it to Thomas Spaule? I will have to keep researching to see if there are any land transfer records.

While Lawrence Buckminster may have approached the making of his will with a bit of irreverence, it is also obvious that it was a serious undertaking. He was well aware of the possible consequences of his decision to go to sea. While he left no descendants and few records of his existence, this will provides a window into his short life and the difficult lives of early colonial settlers.

Sources:

Suffolk County (Massachusetts) Probate Records, 1636-1899; Author: Massachusetts. Probate Court (Suffolk County) https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/9069/records/367187?tid=46986934&pid=322685714523&ssrc=pt

Photo Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

The Case of the Missing Mothers: 52 Ancestors 2026 Prompt “A Theory in Progress”

 

Thomas Buckminster’s Two Wives and Nine Children: Which Wife Gave Birth to Which Children?

Thomas Buckminster: 1593-1656 (Maternal 9^th Great-Grandfather)
Margaret Cossen: 1597-1629 (Maternal 9^th Great-Grandmother)
Joanna Robinson: 1597-1676 (Wife No. 2)
 

I’ve been making use of the new Ancestry feature, the Tree Checker program. It helps me identify errors in my tree, and equally important, which individuals in the tree lack sources and records. I discovered that when I originally added the Thomas Buckminster family (my maternal 9^th Great-Grandfather) to my family tree, I had found sources verifying basic birth, death and marriage information for my direct ancestor, Thomas’ son Zachariah Buckminster. However, I had failed to do the same for Zachariah’s eight siblings. I hadn’t even verified which of Thomas’ two wives had given birth to which child. Ancestry’s Tree Checker flagged all of Zachariah’s siblings as “people with no sources”. I decided it was time to rectify this omission.

My 9^th Great Grandfather Thomas Buckminster was born in England in 1593, and immigrated to the American Colonies around 1630 following the death of his first wife, Margaret Cossin, in 1629. He settled in the Muddy River area of Suffolk County, Massachusetts and married Joanna Robinson.

Muddy River on a 1777 map of Brookline area near Boston.

I had some theories about his nine children’s parentage. Other Ancestry trees tended to show that second wife Joanna was the mother of at least six or seven of the nine children. I believed that first wife Margaret was actually the mother of not only my 8th Great Grandfather Zachariah, but four or five of his siblings as well. I needed to see if I could verify that theory.

Thomas Buckminster’s first wife died in 1629. Obviously, any children born after that date were the children of second wife Joanna Robinson. So my first job was to find birth records or documents that verified the birth year of the eight siblings.

Muddy River today

I located a transcription of Thomas’ will, made out in 1656 shortly before his death. His heirs included the following children: Zackery (Zachariah); daughters Elizabeth Spowell, Mary Stevens, Dorcas Corben, and Sarah Buckminster, and sons Thomas, Joseph and Jabesh (Jabez). The will offered me some clues about which children were the progeny of second wife Joanna. Thomas noted that sons Thomas, Joseph and Jabesh, and daughter Sarah were all minors under the age of twenty-one. The will instructs that they receive forty shillings “each to be paid when severally ‘one & Twenty years of Age.’” That means that each of them were born after 1636, so could not have been the children of Margaret, who died in 1629. All four, therefore, were Joanna’s children.

But what about the other children? I found birth and probate records for Thomas’ son, Lawrence Buckminster. He was born in England in 1619, so his mother must have been Margaret Cossen. Lawrence was Thomas’ eldest son, six years older than my ancestor Zachariah. Lawrence died at sea in 1645, thus preceding Thomas in death.

As for daughter Elizabeth, I found a baptism record for her dated August 17, 1628. The baptism took place in Sempringham, Lincolnshire, England. This is the same parish where her brothers Lawrence and Zachary were baptized. Although I have found no actual birth record, she was obviously born before August 17, 1628. This confirms she was Margaret Cossen’s daughter. Elizabeth accompanied her father to Massachusetts and married William Spowell in 1652. I have been unable to find a death record for her.

As for daughter Dorcas, I have been unable to find any birth or baptism records for her. Her headstone states that she died January 22, 1721 at the age of 92. That would mean she was born in 1629 when Thomas Buckminster was still in England, meaning Dorcas was Margaret’s last child. Perhaps Dorcas’ birth led to her mother’s death, which occurred in 1629.

Thomas Buckminster’s ninth child was daughter Mary. I was unable to find any birth records for her. However, court records related to her father’s estate hint that she was the daughter of second wife Joanna Robinson Buckminster. Following Joanna’s remarriage, several of Thomas' children petitioned the court that administration of the estate be transferred from Thomas’ widow Joanna to them as Thomas’ children.

“On 27 July 1669, "Jabesh Buckminster, Mary Stevens, Dorcas Corbin, and Sarah Lawrence, son and daughters of Thomas Buckminster sometimes of Muddy River in Boston deceased," petitioned the court to be appointed administrators to their father's estate, referring to the marriage of their mother, Joanna Buckmaster, to Edward Garfield. Among the many depositions collected during the consideration of this petition was one from "Henry Stevens" who "affirmed in court 27 July 16[70] its four years come August next since his mo[ther]in] law Joanna Garfeild died."

Henry Steven’s reference to Joanna as his mother-in-law would suggest that his wife Mary was Joanna’s daughter. Mary’s uncomfirmed birthdate from several Ancestry trees was 1632, which followed the estimated 1630-31 date of Thomas’ marriage to Joanna. Henry and Mary also named one of their daughters “Joanna”. While these things suggest Joanna is Mary’s mother, without any actual documentary evidence, Mary’s parentage will remain theoretical.

So my original theory was only partially correct. I was able to confirm that three of my 8^th great grandfather’s siblings were his full siblings—the children of Thomas Buckminster’s first wife Margaret Cossen. However, I confirmed that four other siblings were the children of Thomas Buckminster’s second wife, Joanna, and that last sibling is probably also her child. I had theorized that at least one and possibly two of those siblings were Margaret Cossen’s children.

I need to continue to research this family to see if there are any additional records that can clarify family relationships. But at least the entire Buckminster family now has records attached to them, and will no longer appear on Tree Checker as “people with no sources.”

Sources:

Photo of Muddy River. Wikimedia Commons. John Stephen Dwyer, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olmsted-Park-Muddy-River.jpg

Henry Pelham’s 1777 Map of Boston area.

Photo of Dorcas Buckminster Corbin headstone. Gravestones of the First Corbins in America.

Israel Through Multiple Generations: 52 Ancestors 2025 Prompt “Multiple”

 

Fourth Great-Grandfather’s Unusual Name Is a Family Legacy

Israel Hodgdon: 1646-1675 (Maternal Ninth-Great-Grandfather)
Israel Hodgdon: 1671-1739 (Maternal Eighth-Great-Grandfather)
Mary Hodgdon: 1699-1755 (Maternal Seventh-Great-Grandmother)
Miles Randall: 1723-1791 (Maternal Sixth-Great-Grandfather)
Israel Randall: 1743-1829 (Maternal Fifth-Great-Grandfather)
Israel Randall: 1769-1863 (Maternal Fourth-Great-Grandfather)

When I started tracing my Randall family line, I was intrigued by my fourth-great-grandfather’s rather unusual first name: Israel. I quickly discovered that he was named for his father, my fifth-great-grandfather Israel Randall. I wondered whether the name been used earlier than 1743 when that Israel was born. My research took me back another two generations before I found more Israels in my family tree.

I believe that my ninth-great-grandfather, Israel Hodsdon or Hodgdon, is the first of my ancestors to bear the given name “Israel”. So who was Israel Hodsdon? He is described in a family history book about the families of the Allegheny Valley as follows:

“Israel, son of Nicholas Hodsdon was baptized at Hingham, Massachusetts, July 19, 1646. He moved with his father to Boston and later to Kittery, Maine. It would seem as though Israel Hodsdon and his father as well as some of their neighbors favored the Quakers, who were not popular at that time, for on November 12, 1659….Nicholas Hodsdon was ordered to appear at the second session of the general court, to be held at Boston, and answer to the charge of entertaining Quakers. Israel Hodsdon married, about 1670, Ann, daughter of Miles and Ann (Tetherly) Thompson, of Kittery…Children of Mr. and Mrs. Hodsdon: Ann; Israel, mentioned below.”

I question the accuracy of some of that information. The baptism record referred to in the book and cited by trees on Ancestry is actually the baptism record of an Israel Foulsham, who continued to live in the Hingham area.

However, Israel and his father Nicholas definitely existed. Nicholas was made a freeman in Hingham on March 9, 1636-7, and Hingham granted him a house lot and meadowland. There are baptism records for Israel’s numerous siblings in Hingham. Additionally, land records show Nicholas purchased several tracts in the Boston area in 1650.

The Hodsdon family moved to Maine at some point between 1651 and 1655, when Nicholas appears on records in Kittery. Kittery granted him land next to property owned by Miles Thompson. This land, curiously, seems to have actually been located in Berwick, Maine, fifteen miles inland from the town of Kittery. The map below of Berwick, dated 1630-1700, shows the Hodsdon and Thompson properties near the bottom along the Newichawannock River. It appears that all the early 17^th century settlements in that area may have been referred to as Kittery.

Israel married his next-door neighbor Ann Thompson, daughter of Miles Thompson, in Kittery around 1670. Sadly, the marriage was short-lived. The couple had a son, Israel, in 1671, and a daughter Ann around 1674, just before Israel’s death in 1675.

Son Israel, my eighth-great-grandfather, was only four years old at the time of his father’s death. He appears in the Allegheny Valley book as well, described as follows:

“Israel Hodsdon, was born in Kittery, Maine, 1673-74. The supposition is that he resided with an uncle, Jeremiah Hodsdon, at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. On April 7, 1696, the town of Dover, New Hampshire, gave him a grant of land, and in several deeds he gave he is called a housewright or carpenter. He married Ann Wingate, sister of John Wingate; she was born in Dover, February 18, 1667 and was living in 1740. Children: Israel,…Moses, Shadrach, Abigail, Mary.”

We can deduce a few things from this information. First, Israel and his sister Ann married siblings. Ann Hodsdon married John Wingate in 1690, and he is identified above as Ann Wingate Hodsdon’s brother. Secondly, Israel may have been raised by his uncle Jeremiah due to his own father’s early death. And finally, looking at the names Israel Hodsdon chose for his children, we can deduce he was quite religious and partial to the Old Testament.

We can also see that the given name “Israel” continued for another generation, as Israel’s oldest son was named for his father. Son Moses also named a son Israel.

However, my family line comes down through daughter Mary, born in New Hampshire in 1699. She married Nathaniel Randall around 1721, and they settled in the Oyster River area and had seven children. None of those children were named Israel. The eldest son was named Miles, probably in honor of Miles Thompson who was Mary’s grandfather.

Miles, born in 1723, was my sixth-great-grandfather. He married Abigail Runnells in the 1740s, and they lived in Strafford County, New Hampshire. 

Miles Randall Headstone

They named their first son Israel Randall. He was born in 1743 and was my fifth-great-grandfather. Israel married Sarah Chesley and they lived in New Hampshire and Vermont. His headstone appears below, and is located in the Bennett Cemetery in Danville, Vermont.

Israel Randall and Sally Chesley Randall headstone

Their first son, born April 3, 1769, was also named Israel Randall. He married Polly Daniels around 1790. Their eldest daughter, Sally Randall, was my 3^rd Great-grandmother. They also had a son born in 1806 named Israel.

Israel Randall grave in New York.

I was thrilled to learn that the first name “Israel” was passed down over seven generations of the Hodsdon/Hodgdon and Randall families. The name was an amazing legacy shared by multiple men over a span of over 150 years, from 1646 to 1806.

Sources:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hodsdon-25, citing Middlesex County Registry of Deeds Vol 1, p 24 and Kittery Town Records, pg 9, and York County Registry of Deeds.

Map of Berwick. https://www.oldberwick.org/history-articles/historic-publications/the-first-permanent-settlement-in-maine-by-everett-s-stackpole-1926.html

Genealogical and Personal History of the Allegheny Valley Pennsylvania. John W. Jordan, LL.D. Libraries of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Vol. 3, pg. 8-9. Ancestry.com. U.S., Family History Books [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2025.

Will of Israel Hodgdon. 1739. New Hampshire, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1643-1982.

Findagrave website. Source of headstone photos.

Bickford Garrison Survives Attack Through Trickery: 52 Ancestors 2025 Prompt “Earliest Ancestor”

 

Thomas Bickford Convinces Attackers that Multiple Men Inhabited His Garrison

Temperence Hull: 1625-1697 (Maternal 7^th Great-Grandaunt)
Thomas Bickford: 1660-1706 (Maternal First Cousin 8x Removed)
 

Some of my earliest ancestors to arrive in colonial America were the Hull family, including my 7^th Great-Grandaunt, Temperence Hull. She married John Bickford, and they settled in the Oyster River area of what became New Hampshire, and had several children. One of those children, Thomas Bickford, has a claim to fame as a survivor of a 1694 attack on the colonial settlement of Oyster River by members of the Abenaki tribe. The incident came to be known as the Oyster River Massacre. I have already written one post about other ancestors whose home was attacked during the raid.

Thomas Bickford was the oldest son of John and Temperence Bickford, and had taken over the family home on Durham Point in Oyster River. The building had been fortified to serve as a garrison house to protect settlers from attack. Thomas married a woman named Brigit (or Bridget) Furber in 1677. They had several children, four of whom were named in his 1705 will. Three of those children would have already been born by the time of the 1694 attack.

1600s map of Oyster River area. The Bickford Garrison was on a bluff overlooking the rivermouth.

All that is known about Thomas’ actions on July 17, 1694 come from an account written by Cotton Mather in his journal. He provided few details of the massacre other than the story about Thomas’ clever ruse that led to the survival of his house and property. Mather wrote in his Magnalia Christi Americana:

“Several persons remarkably escaped this bloody deluge, but none with more bravery than one Thomas Bickford, who had an house, a little pallisadoed, by the river side, but no man in it besides himself. He dexterously put his wife and mother and children aboard a canoe, and , seinding them down the river, he alone betook himself to the defence of his house, against Indians that made an assault upon him. They first would hav persuaded him with many fair pomises, and then terrified him with as many fierce threatenings, to yield himself; but he flouted and fired at them, daring ‘em to come if they durst. His main stratagem was to change his livery as frequently as he could; appearing sometimes in one coat, sometimes in another, sometimes in an hat and sometimes in a cap; which caused his besiegers to mistake this one for many defendants. In fine, the pitiful wretches, despairing to beat him out of his house, e’en left him in int.; whereas many that opened unto them upon their solemn engagements of giving them life and good quarter, were barbarously butchered by them.”

It is hard to believe that the attackers were taken in by Thomas’ desperate ruse. He must have been quite convincing and quite speedy. His wife, his elderly mother, and his children all successfully escaped by boat, and the Bickford garrison house survived when many of the surrounding homes were burned.

Archeology dig diagram of likely footprint of the Bickford garrison house.

Thomas only lived another decade after the Oyster River attack. He died in 1706, leaving his property to four children and his wife. His son John took over the garrison house after his father’s death. The garrison was eventually torn down, but archeological digs in 2008-2010 uncovered the building’s foundation and unearthed various artifacts including pottery and glassware fragments.

Photo of the garrison house foundation stones uncovered by the archeological dig in 2008.

A descendant of the Bickford family had also erected a historical marker along Durham Point Road at Langley Road in Durham, New Hampshire. The marker was still standing in 2016 when this photo was taken, but it is unclear if it remains.

Bickford Garrison Historic Marker on Durham Road at Langley Rd.

Cotton Mather’s record of Thomas Bickford’s actions that saved his garrison house is probably the earliest story about any of my ancestors. While Thomas was a very, very distant ancestor, I loved learning about him and his garrison house. It helps me understand the difficulties my ancestors faced in colonial America.

Sources:

New Hampshire, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1643-1982. Vol. 31, paged 297-298. Will of John Bickford with complaint by son-in-law against Thomas Bickford. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/8996/records/1020001?tid=46986934&pid=322185144223&hid=1039063673246&_phsrc=Acy28097&_phstart=default&usePUBJs=true

“The Oyster River Massacre” The History of the Town of Durham. pg_89-103.

Magnalia Christi Americana. Cotton Mather. Pg 6-7.

“’The Great Massacre of 1694’: Understanding the Destruction of Oyster River Plantation”. Brown, Craig J. Historical New Hampshire. Vol. 53, n. 3-4, pgs. 69-89. Bickford item on pgs. 83-84.

Hard By The Water's Edge: A Preliminary Report of the Darby Field - Bickford Garrison (27-ST-71) Excavations. Brown, Craig J., Greenly, Mark; Sablock, Peter. https://www.academia.edu/28173770/Hard_By_The_Waters_Edge_A_Preliminary_Report_of_the_Darby_Field_Bickford_Garrison_27_ST_71_Excavations

“Summer archaeological dig a 'huge success'”. Jason Howe. Foster’s Daily Democrat. July 21, 2008.

 

Victims of a Massacre in 1694: 52 Ancestors 2025 Prompt “Historic Event”

 

The Drew Family and the Oyster River Massacre

Lydia Bickford Drew: 1650-1694 (Maternal First Cousin 8x Removed)
Benjamin Drew: 1685-1694 (Maternal Second Cousin 7x Removed)
Thomas Drew: 1673-1766 1694 (Maternal Second Cousin 7x Removed)

 

I have several ancestors with connections to the Oyster River Plantation, a 17^th century collection of homes and garrisons that lay along the Oyster River in what is now New Hampshire but was then the  frontier of the Massachusetts colony. A series of broken treaties and land grabs by settlers had left native tribes angry and frustrated. On July 17, 1694, Oyster River was attacked by a large group of indigenous warriors egged on by a Frenchman named Villieu, who had orders from Quebec to provoke hostilities. This historic event came to be known as the Oyster River Massacre.

1670 map of Oyster River

About 250 Abenaki men, accompanied by men from the Maliseet tribe, attacked at dawn. The Abenaki overran three garrisons, burned over half the homes in the area, destroyed crops and killed livestock. Around one hundred colonists were killed, including many women and children, comprising nearly one-third of the population of Oyster River. In addition, 27 more colonists were taken prisoner. The survivors were left in serious straits, with minimal shelter, food and livestock to support themselves.

One of the garrisons attacked that July morning was the home of the Francis Drew family. Francis Drew had arrived in the colonies in 1648. He married my first cousin 8x removed, Lydia Bickford, who was the granddaughter of my tenth-great-grandfather Joseph Hull and the daughter of my ninth-great-aunt Temperence Hull. Francis and Lydia had several children, including sons Thomas, John and Benjamin, and daughters Elizabeth and Mary.

The Drew house had been built by Francis’ father, William Drew. It was fortified to serve as a garrison. Following William’s death in 1669, Francis was the head of the household. By 1694, some of Francis’ children were grown. Son Thomas had married and he and wife Tamsen were also living in the household.

New Hampshire houses built in the same period as the Drew garrison

On the date of the attack, Francis Drew apparently heard gunshots and suspected an attack, so he left the garrison house and tried to reach help. He was captured and was promised that he and his family would live if he surrendered the garrison house. He surrendered the garrison, but was killed anyway.

Lydia Bickford Drew and her youngest son Benjamin, along with son Thomas and his wife Tamsen, were all taken prisoner and carried off. Benjamin, who was only nine years old, was forced to run a gauntlet as his captors hacked at him with clubs and axes. He died of his injuries. Lydia became weak from starvation and was abandoned by her captors in the woods where she died.

According to some accounts, son John apparently escaped out of one of the windows of the garrison and survived, only to be killed about ten years later in another Abenaki attack. It is unclear from the written accounts of the massacre where daughters Mary and Elizabeth were that July day. There is no record that they were taken captive, and Mary is mentioned in her father’s probate records so perhaps she was living with her uncle. Mary and Elizabeth seem to have both survived to adulthood and married, although there is some confusion over whether they are actually separate people or one single woman. I hypothesize that they were visiting friends or relatives and escaped the massacre.

Probate records showing Francis' brother John was named administrator

Francis Drew’s brother John was made executor of Francis’ estate in November of 1694. In 1696, the probate court transferred the role of executor to son Thomas, who had been released from captivity and returned to Oyster River. He reunited with his wife Tamsen who had been held captive in a separate location. According to some sources, the Drew garrison house was burned, so Thomas and Tamsen probably had to rebuild their home along with their lives.

Son Thomas Drew named administrator, with notation he had been in captivity, and further down mention of his sister Mary Drew.

The Oyster River Massacre was an important historic event in the early history of what became the state of New Hampshire. It was the result of complicated and contentious relationships between the French and the English settlers in colonial America, and the indigenous people who were being lied to and cheated out of their lands. Sadly, the Oyster River Massacre is now controversial. The use of the word “massacre” to describe the event has become a source of contention. A historic marker that had been erected in Durham decades ago was removed last year. Native people in the region felt the marker told only part of the story, and failed to explain the position of the 17^th century Abenaki people. Despite committees working to develop alternate language for a replacement that was respectful to all parties, the marker apparently will never be re-erected.

Historical Marker that was removed in 2024.

I hope this event, which so greatly impacted my ancestors, is not forgotten as a result. We need to remember that the arrival of colonists in the Americas may be something we like to celebrate, but it was devastating for the indigenous people living here. Remembering and understanding the ugly parts of America’s past is necessary to build a better future.

 

Sources:

https://www.nhhistory.org/object/712853/the-great-massacre-of-1694-understanding-the-destruction-of-the-oyster-river-plantation---craig

Probate Records of the Province of New Hampshire, Vol. 1. New Hampshire Wills. 1694. Estate of Francis Drew. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/7089/images/7089-Volume1-0444?pId=444

History of the Town of Durham, New Hampshire : (Oyster River Plantation) with Genealogical Notes. Stackpole, Everett Schermerhorn; Thompson, Lucien; Meserve, Winthrop Smith. 1913. https://archive.org/details/historyoftownofd02stac/page/136/mode/2up

The Colonial Garrisons of New Hampshire. Published by the New Hampshire Society of Colonial Dames of America. Pg. 23. https://www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/historic_district/heritage_commission/page/17701/colonial_garrisons.pdf

https://www.northamericanforts.com/East/nh.html

Darby Field’s Peak Adventure: 52 Ancestors 2023 Prompt “The Great Outdoors”

 

Mountaineering in 1642: Darby Field and Native Americans Climb Mount Washington in New Hampshire

Darby Field: 1610-1650.  (Maternal Tenth Great-Grandfather)

 

When we think of mountain climbers, we tend to think about modern mountaineering with top-of-the line, high-tech gear, or we think about Edmund Hillary becoming the first man, along with his guide Tenzing Norgay, to scale Mount Everest in 1953. However, mountains have called to the adventurous long before the twentieth century. I discovered that my tenth-great-grandfather, Darby Field, was a seventeenth century mountaineer, scaling Mount Washington in New Hampshire in 1642! He was the first European immigrant to make the ascent, using the most primitive of equipment and with the help of at least two indigenous men.

Mount Washington in New Hampshire's White Mountains

Darby Field was likely born in 1610 in the Boston Borough, Lincolnshire, England. While some colonists claimed he was an Irishman, it appears his parents were English, tentatively identified as John Amyas Field and Elen Hutchinson Field who were married in Boston, England on August 18, 1609.

Darby Field seems to have arrived in the Massachusetts Colony at some point in the mid-1630s. He signed the Exeter Compact in 1639, although he did not remain in Exeter. He was involved in several land transactions around that time. According to Wikipedia, “he settled in Durham, New Hampshire, by 1638, where he ran a ferry from what is now called Durham Point to the town of Newington, across Little Bay. He was known as an Indian translator.” This area was then called the Oyster River Plantation.

1639 Exeter Compact with Darby Field's signature second from top in middle column

Field married a woman named Agnes Roberts before or around 1631, and they had at least five children, including my ancestor, Mary Field. The other children included sons Joseph and Zachariah Field, and daughters Elizabeth and Sarah Field.

Field’s Indian language skills served him well in his most famous adventure. In 1642, at the age of 32 or 33, he set out to climb a New Hampshire mountain now called Mount Washington. At 6,288 feet, it’s the highest peak in the northeastern United States.

With the help of two Native American men, he reached the summit. Natives had told the colonists that the mountain’s peak had glittering crystals and shiny stones. Field seemed to have hoped the stones were diamonds, so his adventure probably had a financial motive.

Massachusetts Bay Colony Governor John Winthrop wrote about Darby Field’s feat in his journal in 1642:

"One Darby Field, an Irishman, living about Piscataquack, being accompanied with two Indians, went to the top of the white hill. He made his journey in 18 days. His relation at his return was, that it was about one hundred miles from Saco, that after 40 miles travel, he did, for the most part, ascend; and within 12 miles of the top was neither tree nor grass, but low savins [shrubs], which they went upon the top of sometimes, but a continual ascent upon rocks, on a ridge between two valleys filled with snow, out of which came two branches of Saco river, which met at the foot of the hill where was an Indian town of some 200 people. Some of them accompanied him within 8 miles of the top, but durst go no further, telling him that no Indian ever dared to go higher, and that he would die if he went. So they staid there till his return, and his two Indians took courage by his example and went with him. They went divers times through the thick clouds for a good space, and within 4 miles of the top, they had no clouds but very cold. By the way among the rocks, there were two ponds, one a blackish water, and the other reddish [the Lakes of the Clouds]. The top of all was plain about 60 feet square. On the north side was such a precipice [the Great Gulf], as they could scarcely discern to the bottom. They had neither cloud nor wind on the top, and moderate heat. All the country about him seemed a level, except here and there a hill rising above the rest, and far beneath them. He saw to the north, a great water which he judged to be 100 miles broad, but could see no land beyond it."

Unfortunately, the crystals and shiny stones the natives had mentioned turned out to be quartz and sheets of mica, also called Muscovy glass, so Field’s excursion did not leave him wealthy.

Vintage Postcard of Mt. Washington taken from Darby Field, an open area named for him. 

Following his exploration of the White Mountains, Darby Field continued to live in the Oyster River area. He received a license to sell wine in 1644, presumably turning part of his dwelling house at Durham Point into a tavern. Field sold this house to John Bickford in 1645, and the house was later fortified into a garrison house, probably in the 1680s.

Map showing likely location of Darby Smith's house and tavern

Darby Field and his family were still living in the Oyster River settlement until at least 1649. Valentine Hill, another of my ancestors, sold a property in 1649, and the transaction record notes that Darby Field was dwelling on the property. Tragically, not long after that sale, Field seems to have suffered some sort of mental illness, which left him “disordered”. The community of Strawberry Bank was made responsible for his care and support by the colonial court in 1649 or 1650. He died around 1650, and his estate was probated in 1651. Field was only about forty years old at the time of his death.

Darby Field’s amazing accomplishment in the great outdoors has been recognized on a historical marker along New Hampshire Route 16. In addition, Mount Field in the Willey Range of the White Mountains is named in his honor.

Mount Field in the Willey Range, named to honor Darby Field

Several other place names in the Durham area also feature the Field name. The location of his former home along Durham Point has been excavated by a team of archeologists and volunteers. They unearthed some of the foundation stones from the house, along with a variety of seventeenth century artifacts, probably from the period when the Bickford family owned the house.

 

Sources:

The Pioneers of Maine and New Hampshire 1623-1660. Charles Henry Pope. Boston Mass. 1908. Pg. 67-68.

The Ancestry of J. G. Williams and Ursula Miller by Jim Schneider and Holly Rubin. Lulu Press. 2013. Pgs. 144-46. https://books.google.com/books?id=Hgu1BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=darby+field

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darby_Field

Vital Records from the New England Historical and Genealogical Register. John Field marriage in 1609. Online database. AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2014. (Compiled from articles originally published in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register.)

Vital Records from the New England Historical and Genealogical Register. Online database. AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2014. (Compiled from articles originally published in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register. https://www.americanancestors.org/DB522/rd/21070/38/1426611978

“Hard by the Water’s Edge: A Preliminary Report of the Darby Field Homestead-Bickford Garrison (27-ST-71 Excavations.” Brown, Craig J.; Greenly, Mark; Lunt, Richard W., and Sablock, Peter. The New Hampshire Archeologist. Vol. 54, 2014, Number 1, pages 14-38. https://www.academia.edu/28173770/Hard_By_The_Waters_Edge_A_Preliminary_Report_of_the_Darby_Field_Bickford_Garrison_27_ST_71_Excavations

Mount Field photo from Wikimedia Commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Field_%28New_Hampshire%29#/media/File:Mtfieldprofile.jpg

 

Forced Immigration in 1650: 52 Ancestors 2024 Prompt “Immigration”

 

Valentine Hill’s Indentured Scottish Prisoners of War

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

 

Most immigrants chose to come to America, seeking a better life. However, some people were forced to immigrate, and faced a miserable life once they arrived. They were forced to labor with no compensation, with no right to leave their employer, and no recourse if they were mistreated. Of course African slaves were the majority of these forced immigrants, but there were others. Just like the British prison ships that carried human cargo to Australia to serve as forced labor in the late 1780s, over a century earlier, ships carried prisoners to the American colonies. Once in America, the prisoners were forced into indentured service contracts. Essentially, they were used as slave labor. There was, of course, one major difference from the type of slavery Africans and indigenous people were subjected to: indentured slavery had an endpoint. Once their indenture contracts, usually seven years long, were complete, these people were given their freedom.

My ancestor, Valentine Hill, was a trader in indentured prisoners in the 1650s. He purchased the contracts of Scottish prisoners of war, using them as forced labor in his lumber mills. He also brokered the sale of these prisoners to other property owners in the Durham, New Hampshire area.

So who were these Scottish prisoners of war? An article on the New England Historical Society website provides an excellent summary. In 1650, Oliver Cromwell’s forces invaded Scotland. Twelve thousand Roundheads faced off against eleven thousand Scots in the Battle of Dunbar. The Roundheads won and took thousands of Scots prisoner. Many of these men were forcibly marched to Durham. Many died of disease and starvation. About 150 of these prisoners of war were forced onto the British ship Unity, which carried them to Charlestown, Massachusetts. The shipmaster paid five pounds apiece for the POWs, and sold them for twenty to thirty pounds apiece.

Battle of Dunbar

Most of the men were young and illiterate and spoke only Gaelic. They were forced to sign indenture contracts that they could neither read nor understand.

Valentine Hill bought several of these men in 1650, forcing them to labor in his lumber mills in Durham and on the Lamprey River in New Hampshire.

In 1651, Cromwell’s army defeated a large Scottish army in Worcester, England. Once again, thousands of Scots were taken prisoner and were driven to London under horrible conditions. Some of the survivors of this forced march were shipped off to the colonies. Two hundred seventy-five POWs were loaded onto the ship John and Sara, which sailed for Boston. A Charlestown merchant named John Kemble bought  the prisoners’ contracts, and sold them at a mark-up to individuals and businesses. Most of the men ended a variety of Massachusetts towns.

Partial list of John and Sara prisoners

Kemble partnered with Valentine Hill to sell the remaining men in Exeter and Durham, New Hampshire, and York, Maine. By this point in his life, Valentine Hill was struggling financially, selling off much of his land in the Boston area and consolidating his remaining businesses in the New Hampshire area. He must have been thrilled to make money from the sale of the Scots prisoners, while still profiting from the labor of his previously purchased prisoners.

I wonder how those men fared under Valentine Hill’s control. Did he provide adequate food and shelter? Did he punish them with whips or beat them if they didn’t work to his satisfaction? All we know for certain is that at least seven of his workers survived to complete their contracts, for the New England Historical Society’s article states that, “Seven of Valentine Hill’s Scottish POWs…were listed as taxpayers in Dover, N.H., after their slavery ended.”

I also found another website for the descendants of one of Hill’s indentured Scotsmen, the Micum Mcintire Clan Association. (see citation below). The site contained the names of several of the freed indentured workers, including Robert Junkins, John Carmichael, Henry Brown, Thomas Doughty, James Orr and Edwin Erwin. The article also states that Hill’s indentured men mostly worked felling trees for the sawmills, and they may have also been involved in construction of buildings in Oyster River. The article’s author, Jonathan Tucker, stated that the men worked four days per week and attended church one day, and the rest of their time could work on their own account. He discussed Hill’s purchase of a four-acre plot near his mill in 1652, stating that his indentured workers were allowed to construct cabins for themselves and garden on the land. Tucker did not provide references for his assertions, so I can’t look at his evidence myself. I hope that his information is correct, and that Valentine Hill was a decent master.

Oyster River area with Valentine Hill property location noted

Most of the indentured Scottish POWs never returned to their homeland. Most, like Valentine Hill’s seven, started new lives in the colonies. The Historical Society article states that many married Irish girls who had also been indentured and sent to the colonies to labor.

Valentine Hill lived only three years more after his indentured workers received their freedom. He died November 3, 1660 or 1661 at the Oyster River Plantation near Durham, N.H. He was only 50 years old. He died in debt to several people, including his brother John back in London, and his brother-in-law Thomas Cobbett in the colonies.

 

 

Sources:

https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/how-scottish-pows-were-sold-as-slave-labor-in-new-england/

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/37074695/valentine-hill

National Park Service: Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site: “Scottish Prisoners at the Iron Works. “https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/scottish-prisoners-at-the-iron-works.htm#:~:text=The%20Scots%20were%20soldiers%20who,indentured%20servants%20for%20seven%20years.

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/opinion/2022/10/11/york-america-history-arrival-scottish-prisoners/8235716001/

“Oyster River—Micum’s Indenture”, by Jonathan Tucker. https://micummcintireclanassociation.org/oyster-river/