This is Chapter Three of nine. Edward Doty was a farmer, but he is sometimes also written of as being a yeoman (which is the same as a farmer), or sometimes as a plantor. (With the ‘or’ suffix spelling, plantor is likely an antique mis-spelling).
He was never a ‘Capital P’ Planter — which is something different, being a more elevated class of (usually tropical) plantation owners.
“What is the difference between a colonial farmer & a Planter? The difference between a colonial farmer and a Planter is a farmer worked in small, family-run farms. Farmers also cleared land, dug ditches, built fences and farm buildings, plowed, and did other heavy labor. Planters were wealthy, educated men who oversaw the operations on their large farms, or plantations.” (IPL, Learneo Services) (1)
Mr. Hot Under The Collar?
You Prigger! No I’m not , you’re a Prancer!! You’re a Doxie! Is that so?! Gilt! Rum Dubber!! You’re a Palliard and always will be! Your family are Clapperdogeons! [Faux Gasp] You Filching Cove! You should talk, you’re a Filching Mort! You’re a Lubber and so are all your Lollpooping friends! Rook! Rook! Rook!
…And so it goes, on and on in every era… These are just a few of the Colonial Era insults that used to be bandied about by some of our forebears. The Offended might have occasionally whispered under their breath that The Offender was A Gentlleman of Three Outs. (See footnotes).
We mentioned in the last chapter that Edward Doty had a history of being in court frequently in the Plymouth Colony being on both sides of things. As an example of a typical case, here is an excerpt from The Plymouth Colony Archive Project, from the Records of the General Court 1 April 1633, Records of Plymouth Colony 1:12 — “William Bennet accuses Dowty ‘of New Plymouth’ of slander by calling him a rogue. 😡The foreman of the jury, Josuah Pratt found Dowty guilty and fined him 50 shillings, plus 20 for ‘the King’ and gave him eight month to make payment”.
An intriguing entry from 1643, (about Wolf Traps, yikes!) notes the following, “At a Townes meeting holden the xth ffebruary 1643 It is agreed That wolfe traps be made according to the order of the Court in manner following, That one be made at Playne Dealing — by Mr Combe, Mr Lee ffrancis Billington Georg Clark John Shawe and Edward Dotey”.
Near Watson Hill “…in 1624, Edward received his share of land allotment [for a home lot] and in 1627, in an allotment given to “heads of families and young men of prudence…” Edward was, also, given a share, even though he was unmarried, which shows him to have gained the confidence of the governor.” (Mayflower Ancestors)
This is a foldout map from the 1835 book, History of the Town of Plymouth, by James Thacher, which clearly shows where Edward Doty began his real estate holding in Plymouth, with land near Watson’s Hill.
Watson Hill is uniquely remembered because it is the vantage point from which the Native Person Samoset first observed the Pilgrims. “Stephen Hopkins, who had previously lived at Jamestown and, through interaction with the Powhatan tribe of Virginia, knew a little of the Algonquian language Samoset spoke”.(World History Encyclopedia) This resulted in Samoset staying in Hopkins’s home that evening, which is the same home that Edward Doty was also living. We speculate, that through his association with first Samoset, and then Squanto, that perhaps Doty favored Watson Hill as his home site. We cover much about the relationship between the Pilgrims and Native Peoples in the [same-named] chapter The Pilgrims — The Native Peoples. (2)
Whatever Happened to Edwards’s First Wife?
Plymouth Archives have Edward Doty records for everything from court cases, to land-dealing records, to the birth of his children… it’s actually a bit exhausting to wade through all of it. That may be, but as we wrote, there are many straightforward records of his real estate transactions in the Plymouth documents. He left much property to his children upon his death, which we will review in the later chapter, The Doty Line, A Narrative — Four.
Edward Doty had two wives, but there are no credible surviving records about who wife #1 actually was. There has been speculation that his first wife was in England, but if that were true, historians should be able to locate something? However, the fact that Edward Doty’s origins in England are also quite obscure, doesn’t help matters much, does it? He could have married someone who arrived on a later ship?
The issue with that is the timing —Edward Doty received land in 1623, but both he and Edward Leister are listed under Stephen Hopkins’s name. This leads us to believe that neither man was yet married, probably because their indentures to Hopkins were coming to an end. In the 1627 Division of Cattle, as with our other Pilgrim ancestor George Soule, if Doty had been married then, his wife would have been entitled to an additional share. Yet, no spouse is listed for him. (Could have had a very short marriage between 1623 and 1627? Perhaps.) About seven more years would pass before he would meet his wife #2. During this interval, many, many ships came to the New England Colonies during the Great Migration. They brought immigrants to the far north of Maine, all the way south to and beyond Jamestown, Virginia. Some of these ships did come through Plymouth.
If indeed Doty had a wife in the Plymouth Colony before he married wife #2 in 1635, then certainly Governor William Bradford would have recorded this in his manuscript, Of Plimoth Plantation. It is highly unlikely that under the meticulous and watchful eyes of Bradford, that Doty’s first marriage would have been unobserved, much less disregarded, but it could have happened. (3)
From the original document Of Plimoth Plantation, by William Bradford. Edward Doty is listed as having had a second wife. Note that it indicates 7 children — after this was initially written, they had 2 more children, for a total of 9 children in the family. (Image courtesy of the State Library of Massachusetts, Digital Collections).
Comment: The following section below is adapted from a post made at Fine Artist Made, (see footnotes).
Edward Doty Wasn’t The Only Person Who Could Get Upset — The Incident At Ipswich, England
Back in England, by 1630, Britain had already been entrenched, for a number of years, in a period of political turmoil, social unrest and economic uncertainty. On top of that, the Church of England, in consort with the Crown, had launched a campaign of religious persecution against a growing Puritan reform movement, whose mission was to revitalize a church grown stale, tyrannical and corrupt. The Great Migration of Puritans to British North America had begun, and would continue fitfully until the pending English Civil War.
The situation worsened for the Puritans in 1633, with the appointment of William Laud, a fierce opponent to their cause, as the Archbishop of Canterbury. They would need to take their chances in the untested wilderness of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
A romantic painting by Bernard Gribble (1872–1962), showing The Pilgrim Fathers Boarding the Mayflower for Their Voyage to America. Although the Mayflower was certainly not this grand and imposing, this painting does show what it was like for emigrants going to British North America to travel on merchant ships in that era. (Image courtesy of the Times Literary Supplement).
The process, technicalities and red tape involved with preparations for a voyage of this magnitude were likely frustrating and expensive. Passengers (Puritans and Others) had to acquire licenses and documents to pass the port — then locate a ship. Finding an appropriate vessel would have involved an intensive search followed by serious negotiations. They had to procure provisions for their passage, as well as for their first year in New England. All this by necessity must have been accomplished surreptitiously.
Early in February 1634, two vessels were moored in Ipswich Harbor on the estuary of the Orwell River. Their passenger lists consisted largely of single men, married couples, and families — as many children as adults; some as young as one year old. They were middle class artisans and farmers. The first ship, called the Francis* was commanded by Master John Cutter and carried 84 passengers. The other was the Elizabeth with 101 passengers and Master William Andrewes at her helm. These two captains were planning to make their passage in tandem for their mutual benefit and safety. Their ships, rigged for a lengthy uncertain voyage, suddenly had their passages blocked. (*Please see the last paragraph at the end of this chapter).
What happened was this: there was immediate opposition to this “progressive” contingent by the conservative officials in the Church of England, (who felt no sympathy for the Puritan’s case). On February 4, the Archdeacon of Suffolk’s agent, Henry Dade, the Commissary of Suffolk, wrote a letter from his office in Ipswich, to the Church of England’s principal leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud. Dade reported that two ships were about to sail from Ipswich Port with men and provisions for their abiding in New England, and that in each ship “are appointed to go about six score men.” He supposed they were debtors or persons discontented with the government of the Church of England.
In this 1874 engraving, English Puritans Escaping to America, was captioned “strength of faith and character mark the faces of those setting forth to the New World”. (Image courtesy of British Heritage Travel).
[Our observation: It seems Dade had worked himself up into quite a frothy state.] He told the Archbishop that his intelligence had informed him, that some 600 more were planning to shortly follow and described the “ill effects of suffering such swarms going out of England could cause; that trade would be overthrown and persons indebted would flee to New England to avoid bankruptcy and be treated as religious men for leaving the kingdom because they could not endure the ceremonies of the church.”
He blamed the Puritan minister, Samuel Ward, for inciting desire among his flock to relocate to Massachusetts. Ward was stationed in the ancient church of St. Mary-le-Tower, the civic church of the Corporation of Ipswich. The records of the Privy Council show that a warrant for tying up the two Ipswich vessels was issued within the week. A few days later, on February 14, similar steps were taken for the detention of ten other ships lying in the Thames near London — all under similar charters for Massachusetts Bay Colony.
(Here is where we invoke long story short…) After much drama, these conditions were imposed on everyone for the voyages:
If anyone blasphemes or profanes the holy name of God, they shall be severely punished.
On the ship, everyone must attend when the “Booke of Common Prayer” (established in the Church of England) were said at both Morning and Evening Prayers.
All persons must have the ‘Certificate from the officers of the port’ where they departed, have taken both the oath of allegiance and supremacie (the belief that a particular group is superior to others, and should dominate them).
That upon their return to this Kingdom they certify to the Board, the names of all persons transported, together with their proceedings in the execution of the aforesaid articles.
Finally, in mid to late April 1634, once the powers that be had sufficiently flexed their muscles, the Francis and Elizabeth set sail. Plying the vast Atlantic without further incident or loss of life, they entered the clear unfettered waters of the Massachusetts Bay some five to ten weeks later.
From left to right: William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Center: A painting, Ipswich England harbor, Boat on Beach, Sunset, by John Moore of Ipswich, and Right: Samuel Ward, of the ancient church of St. Mary-le-Tower
Then by November, Samuel Ward (thanks to Dade’s efforts), was banned from preaching for life for encouraging immigration to New England. There were riots in the streets of Ipswich. The Corporation of Ipswich refused to replace Ward, paid his stipend for life and after his death in 1640, supported his widow and eldest son who could not work himself. In 1637, Ward’s compatriot, Timothy Dalton, after his own suspension, immigrated to New Hampshire.
In the end, the Henry Dade as the Commissary of Suffolk’s unyielding persecutor of the Puritans of Ipswich — this would prove to be undoing. Amidst charges of corruption, oppression and extortion brought by a friend of Ward’s, a humble Puritan cobbler, he was compelled to resign his posts. (The cobbler himself was faced with excommunication and sought asylum in New England).
As for Dade’s accomplice, William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury — in 1645, in the midst of the English Civil War, in part, for his crimes against the Puritans — he was beheaded.
The importance of relating this saga about strife and bureaucracy in England, with the ship Francis, is that this ship brought our 9x Great Grandmother Faith Clarke (along with her father Thurston Clarke), to the Plymouth Colony. The good news is, that very soon, we will meet the new Mrs. Doty. (4)
Following are the footnotes for the Primary Source Materials, Notes, and Observations
State Library of Massachusetts Digital Collections Of Plimoth Plantation: manuscript, 1630-1650 https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/items/db0e9f79-477c-4a4c-979b-359c2be1d4ad Note 1: The notation for Edward Doty having a wife from a second marriage is located very close to the end of the book. Note 2: There are no page numbers, but the page is possibly — Digital page:534/546, left column. Note 3: The document is digitized and available as a .pdf download at the above link, file name: ocn137336369-Of-Plimoth-Plantation.pdf
Edward Doty Wasn’t The Only Person Who Could Get Upset — The Incident At Ipswich, England
This is Chapter Two of nine. This chapter covers the early dramatic events of the 162os: a foolish knife fight, how land was distributed, how cattle and other livestock were shared, and how The Colony started to find itself.
In the last chapter, we wrote about picturing our ancestors in our mind’s eye. One of the drawbacks about that way of pondering the Pilgrims is this — it is normal to picture them in a bucolic environment, with ordered streets, clean clothes, rosy cheeks. Hollywood has never really been very good at looking at how rough and tough things initially were for them.
When the Mayflower finally disappeared over the horizon, they were truly alone in the New World.
The Departure of the Mayflower for England in 1621 by N.C. Wyeth. This was part of a series of murals the artist created for the MetLife building in New York City in 1941. (Image courtesy of the Brandywine Museum of Art).
Only 53 Passengers Remained
Consider the fact that the Mayflower was the home of the Pilgrims for a long time and that it was a very old merchant ship.
“During the winter, the passengers [had] remained on board Mayflower, suffering an outbreak of a contagious disease described as a mixture of scurvy, pneumonia, and tuberculosis. After it was over, only 53 passengers remained—just over half; half of the crew died as well. In the spring, they built huts ashore, and the passengers disembarked from Mayflower on March 31, 1621.”
Captain Christopher “Jones had originally planned to return to England as soon as the Pilgrims found a settlement site. But his crew members began to be ravaged by the same diseases that were felling the Pilgrims, and he realized that he had to remain in Plymouth Harbor ‘till he saw his men began to recover.’ Mayflower lay in New Plymouth harbor through the winter of 1620–21, then set sail for England on April 15, 1621. As with the Pilgrims, her sailors had been decimated by disease. Jones had lost his boatswain, his gunner, three quartermasters, the cook, and more than a dozen sailors. Mayflower made excellent time on her voyage back to England. The westerly winds that had buffeted her on the initial voyage pushed her along on the return trip home. She arrived in London on May 16, 1621, less than half the time that it had taken her to sail to America.” (Wikipedia)
Historian Caleb Johnson writes that, “Christopher Jones took the ship out on a trading voyage to Rochelle, France, in October 1621, returning with a cargo of Bay salt. [As the] master and quarter-owner of the Mayflower, [he] died and was buried at Rotherhithe, County. Surrey, England, on 5 March 1621/2. No further record of the Mayflower is found until May 1624, when it was appraised for the purposes of probate and was described as being in ‘ruinis’. The ship was almost certainly sold off as scrap.” (Mayflower History.com)
With all of the many demands put upon the new shore-bound Plymouth community, our ancestor Edward Doty was about to steal the spotlight through a bit of infamy. (1)
Seeing Red + Flying Off The Handle = (We’re) Fit to Be Tied
Well, the two Edwards seemed to have had quite enough of each other and entered into a duel. It is reportedly the first duel fought in New England, which may be true, but how can you prove something like that? Who would want to?
Edward Doty and Edward Leister were both young men who were indentured servants in the home of the Stephen Hopkins family. Admittedly, the initial voyage of the Mayflower had been harrowing… they were both living as servants in a tiny, rather rough looking house, in far away new world colony… Mr. Hopkins ran a tavern (out of his home?) and just about everyone drank beer in those days because water could be contaminated… Was a young lady involved? Who knows? — but their rather intense dust-up has been featured by historians for over 400 years, which is a rather long time for a local fight to echo through history.
From the standpoint of their community, this fight took place slightly less than eight weeks after the Mayflower had departed for England. Everyone was probably exhausted after leaving the ship, continuing to care for the sick and dying, building huts to live in, and trying to source food in a new land. Who had the free time or energy to get caught up in a duel? Apparently, these two did.
Copy of Le Duel a l’Épée et au Poignard (The Duel with the Sword and Dagger), from “Les Caprices” (Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
William Bradford, the Governor of the Plymouth Colony at the time, recorded the details in his journal, but that original document was eventually lost. Transcriptions of what was recorded have survived and we found an account published in a Boston newspaper called The Liberator, on June 12, 1840. In an intriguing way, we noticed this newspaper account falls (more-or-less) at the halfway point between the 1620s and our present era.
Excerpted newspaper account from The Liberator newspaper, June 12, 1840, page 4. (Image courtesy of Newspapers.com).
If history has a way a not-forgetting, then perhaps we all need to mind our manners in today’s world? It seems that Edward Doty had a history of being in court frequently in the Plymouth Colony being on both sides of things. Maybe he was a bit of a hot head? As elaborated upon by our quite far distant cousin Anna Kasper in her blog post, Anna’s Musings & Writings, 52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks, Week 7: “…Edward Doty did not always make good on that promise of ‘a better carriage.’ He did not like to pay his servants, he just let his cattle kind of wander around, he got into fights, and is found in the Plymouth Court records numerous times! To say that Edward was notably a contentious man would be correct.”
We are reminded of our ancestor David Du Four from a separate family line who we chronicled in The DeVoe Line, A Narrative — Two. (David did not seem to be a contentious man). We wrote this in the section subtitled: For. Every. Little. Kerfuffle. With. Your. Neighbors. “It seems that David Du Four had several showings in court because the records have survived. Here’s a little background on the times. In 1670s he was a “frequent flyer” at court, with several cases. In New Amsterdam, people from all walks of life could bring a case to court. They could defend the case themselves, or ask someone to speak for them. It was not necessary for them to have a lawyer for every case. This is because…” there wasn’t a true court system existent. “To a degree, it seems like going to court was similar to being sent to the Principal’s Office. You had to go and plead your case.”
Then, whatever happened to Edward Leister? We don’t know very much. Governor William Bradford later recorded, “Lester, after he was at liberty, went to Virginia and there died”. American Ancestors has discerned a bit more, by evaluating some of the surviving colonial documents: “…in the 1623 division of land are two men with [the] first name [of] Edward but without surnames; these must be his two servants, Edward Doty and Edward Leister. But Leister is not in the 1627 division of cattle, so he must have left for Virginia between those two dates. He does not appear in the February 1623/4 list of those in Virginia living and dead, or in the February 1624/5 Virginia muster of inhabitants.”
Panoramic View of London in the early 1600s, by Matthäus Merian der Ältere (Matthew Merian), 1638.
For Edward Doty, we do not know exactly when, nor where, he was born. He was recorded as being of London, but we don’t know if he had been born in another part of England and then had perhaps migrated to London. When he was a signer of the Mayflower Compact, there is speculation that he may have been slightly underage, but the Mayflower Society believe that he was probably at least 18 years of age. (It appears that there are a couple of other signers who were in similar circumstances). We do know however, that as an indentured servant to Stephen Hopkins, he was contracted to that obligation until the age of 25 years.
With that fact in mind, we can parse that he was likely born circa 1598. (2)
The Common Cause of Labor
“Working communally — also known as the “common course of labor” — was a key part of the business model planned for Plymouth Colony. In the original terms and conditions for funding and planting the colony, all the colonists agreed to work together for seven years at commercial fishing, trading, and farming “making such commodities as shall be most useful for the colony.” At the end of the seven years, the terms and conditions dictated that the colonists would receive a share of the common stock including land and livestock.
After three years, Plymouth Colony’s governor William Bradford ended communal work as related to farming, because it caused too much internal conflict and resulted in poor corn harvests. Without a good corn harvest to feed the colony and without regular supplies from England, the colony would not survive. It is interesting to note, however, that this injunction affected only grain and other field production. All other group work — hunting, fishing, trading and defense – continued as before and seemingly without tension.” (Plimoth Patuxet)
Edward continued to do his work for the Hopkins family as part of his commitment to the greater good. However, as one of the original settlers (the old-comers) within the Plymouth Colony, he was entitled a certain privileges which this status afforded him. One of these was the right to have land tenure.
The 1623 Division of Land in which Edward Doty received one acre. As described above, “These lye on the South side of the brook to the woodward opposite to the former”
It is likely that Edward was about 25 years old at this time. “In 1623 a parcel of land was allotted to each man to till for his family and to maintain those who were exempt from agricultural employment because of other duties. Each family was given one acre per family member. In abandoning the ‘common course and condition’ everyone worked harder and more willingly. The food problem was ended, and after the first abundant harvest under individual cultivation, the Pilgrims did not have to endure the meager rations of the first years. The plots assigned them permanently in 1624 became privately owned in 1627.” (Images of Old Hawaii)
“The people mentioned in the Division of Land came on the Mayflower (1620), the Fortune (1621), and the Anne (1623). A couple may have arrived on the Swan(1622) or the Little James (1623), but these were small ships carrying mostly cargo. The Division of Land is recorded in Volume XII of the ‘Records of the Colony of New Plymouth’ ”(TPCAP – The Plymouth Colony Archive Project)
At this time, one acre of land was distributed to each family member. As he was a single man, Edward Doty received one acre of land described communally as, “These lye on the South side of the brook to the woodward opposite to the former”. (Family Search) (3)
Animals Resting in a Pasture, by Paulus Potter, circa 1650. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).
About The Division of Cattle
Like the distribution of land in 1623, in 1627, the Pilgrims divided their livestock (cattle, goats, etc.) into separate lots.
“The Pilgrims did not bring any large livestock animals with them on the Mayflower. In fact, the only animals known with certainty to have come on the Mayflower were two dogs, an English mastiff and an English spaniel, who are mentioned on a couple of occasions in the Pilgrims’ journals.
In 1624, [Governor William] Bradford reports that ‘Mr. Winslow came over, and brought a prety good supply, and the ship came on fishing, a thing fatall to this plantation. He brought 3. Heifers & a bull, the first begining of any catle of that kind in ye land’. Other cattle came, some nicknamed the Great Black Cow, the Lesser Black Cow, and the Great White-Backed Cow. By 1627, both the Lesser Black Cow and the Great White-backed Cow had calves.
The 1627 Division of Cattle. Edward Doty is listed as #11, as Edward Dolton. “The fourth lot fell to John Howland & his company Joyned to him his wife. To this lot fell one of the 4 heyfers Came in the Jacob Called ”
Onboard the Jacob in 1624 were four black heifers (a heifer is a young female cow that has not yet had a calf.) The four black heifers were nicknamed Least, Raghorn, Blind, and Smooth-Horned. There was also a Red Cow that belonged to the poor of the colony, which had a red female calf around 1625, and a male calf in 1627.By May 1627, there were 16 head of cattle and at least 22 goats living in Plymouth.” (Images of Old Hawaii)
It appears that Edward Doty, as part of the group of colonists (listed above as part of ‘John Howland & his company’), communally shared the ‘4 heyfers’ which had arrived on the ship Jacob in 1624. (4)
The Council for New England
We understand that Edward Doty was a man who didn’t die a poor man by the standards of his era. He was an early investor in the development of the Plymouth Colony and a land owner. The three passages excerpted below describe the business aspects he was involved with in those early decades.
“The Council for New England was a 17th-century English joint stock company to which James I of England awarded a royal charter, with the purpose of expanding his realm over parts of North America by establishing colonial settlements.The Council was established in November of 1620, and was disbanded (although with no apparent changes in land titles) in 1635. It provided for the establishment of the Plymouth Colony, the Province of New Hampshire, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the New Haven Colony, and the Province of Maine”.
Left image: The Stuarts, King James I (reigned 1603 – 1625). Painting of James VI and I Wearing the Jewel Called the Three Brothers in His Hat, circa 1605, (after) John de Critz. Upper right: The Seal of The Council For New England, and Lower right: (Shown at a small scale, the actual Peirce Patent from 1621.. It is cited as one of the most important documents in Anglo-American history.)
“In 1621, King James I authorized the Council for New England to plant and govern land in this area. This Council granted the Peirce Patent, confirming the Pilgrims’ settlement and governance of Plymouth. Peirce and his associates, the merchant adventurers, were allotted 100 acres for each settler the Company transported. The Pilgrims had a contract with the Company stating all land and profits would accrue to the Company for 7 years at which time the assets would be divided among the shareholders. Most of the Pilgrims held some stock. The Pilgrims negotiated a more favorable contract with the Company in 1626. In 1627, 53 Plymouth freemen, known as “The Purchasers,” agreed to buy out the Company over a period of years. In turn, 12 “Undertakers” (8 from Plymouth and 4 from London) agreed to pay off Plymouth’s debts in return for trade benefits”. (Pilgrim Hall Museum)
“In 1626, Edward Doty was one of twenty-seven Purchasers involved with the colony joint-stock company which afterwards was turned over to the control of senior colony members. That group [of investors] was called the “Undertakers”, and was made up initially of William Bradford, Myles Standish and Isaac Allerton, who were later joined by Edward Winslow, William Brewster, John Howland, John Alden, Thomas Prence, and four former Merchant Adventurers back in London. On the agreement, dated October 26, 1626, his surname appears as ‘Dotey’.” (Wikipedia) (5)
We continue our narrative about the Edward Doty in the next chapter, with his initial focus on acquiring stability through land ownership. (After all, a farmer who works the land, might want to own it too.) Then we look back a bit at the immigration unrest in Ipswich, England — which was certainly not a merry place at this time.
Following are the footnotes for the Primary Source Materials, Notes, and Observations
Seeing Red + Flying Off The Handle = (We’re) Fit to Be Tied
(2) — seven records
The Met [The Metropolitan Museum of Art] Copy of Le Duel a l’Épée et au Poignard (The Duel with the Sword and Dagger), from Les Caprices by Anonymous, (After Jacques Callot French, 17th century) https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/417395 Note: For the illustration.
Edward Doty and Edward Leister duel 1621 https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-liberator-edward-doty-and-edward-lei/5952148/ Note: From Newspapers.com “The Liberator was a radical [their words] abolitionist newspaper published from 1831-65 in Boston, Massachusetts. A weekly four-page paper, it was the most influential abolitionist publication in the United States during the nineteenth century. At its peak, the Liberator was circulating 3,000 copies a week, primarily across the free North. It was funded and read largely by the free Black population in the North”.
HOW THE PILGRIM FATHERS SERVED DUELISTS. The following account of the first duel fought in New England, and the second political offence committed in the Plymouth Colony, we take from a work entitled The New-England Chronology.’ The date of the event is June 8th, 1621.
The second offence is the first duel fought in New-England, upon a challenge to single combat, with sword and dagger, between Edward Doty and Edward Leister, servants of Mr. Hopkins. Both being wounded, the one in the hand, the other in the thigh, they are adjudged by the whole company to have their head and feet tied together, and so to lie for twenty-four hours, without meat or drink; which is begun to be inflicted. But within an hour, because of their great pains, at their own and their master’s humble request, upon promise of better carriage, they are released by the Governor.’ — Pa. Observer.
(TPCAP) The Plymouth Colony Archive Project Plymouth Colony Division of Land, 1623 http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/landdiv.html Note: For the text. Additional context, “In 1623, the Pilgrims divided up their land. The people mentioned in the Division of Land came on the Mayflower (1620), the Fortune (1621), and the Anne (1623). A couple may have arrived on the Swan(1622) or the Little James (1623), but these were small ships carrying mostly cargo. The Division of Land is recorded in Volume XII of the ‘Records of the Colony of New Plymouth’, and reprinted in the ‘Mayflower Descendant’, 1:227-230. Each family was given one acre per family member”.
The Plymouth Colony Archive Project Plymouth Colony Division of Cattle, 1627 http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/cattlediv.html Note: Additional context, “1627. At a publique court held the 22th of May it was concluded by the whole Companie, that the cattle wch were the Companies, to wit, the Cowes & the Goates should be equal devided to all the posts of the same company & she kept until the expiration of ten years after the date above written & that every one should well and sufficiently paid for there own pt under penalty of forfeiting the same.That the old stock with half th increase should remain for common use to be divided at then of the said terms or otherwise as location fallers out, & the other half to be their own for ever. Upon wch agreement they were equally divided by Lotts she as the burthen of keeping the males then being should be borne for common use by those to whose lot the best Cowes should fall & so the Lotts fell as followers. thirteenepsonts being portioned to one lot.”
This is Chapter One of nine. We hope that you have taken the time to read the opening chapters we wrote based on the lives of The Pilgrims. It will help to make these The Doty Line chapters more accessible.
As the authors of this family history genealogy blog, we are in the 12th generation of Doty descendants in America. Pilgrim Edward Doty and his wife Faith (Clarke) Doty Phillips are our 9x Great Grandparents. He was one of our two Mayflower ancestors, with the other being Pilgrim George Soule whose family line is profiled in The Soule Line’s seven chapters.
A map of London during the Tudor Period and prior to 1561, by Georg Braun and Frans Hogenberg in Civitates Orbis Terrarum. (Image courtesy of Wikipedia).
A Man “of London”
Unfortunately, no one has been able to discern specifically the early origins for our 9x Great Grandfather Pilgrim Edward Doty. We wished to uncover more, but for now, until more credible evidence turns up, we must settle for the 20,000 foot view as to where he came from. One of these fine days, someone, somewhere, perhaps an observant researcher — will discover a clue that will reveal his true origins. For us, his name first comes up first in connection with the voyage of the Mayflower.
It’s 1620. He is sailing westward to the new colonies in North America, and for a few years, he is an indentured servant to the Stephen Hopkins family. This means that he was responsible for contributing to the success of the Hopkins family for a period of time, and until he had achieved the age of 25 years, he could not be released from this condition. Edward Leister, his fellow indentured traveler with the Hopkins family, was of the same status.
The original document Of Plimoth Plantation, by William Bradford, page 530. Edward Doty is listed as traveling with the Steven (Stephen) Hopkins family. (Image courtesy of the State Library of Massachusetts, Digital Collections).
He is then briefly mentioned in a pamphlet titled Mourt’s Relation, written by Thomas Winslow of the New Plymouth Colony, with contributions from William Bradford. This booklet eventually gained great fame.
From the website Voyaging Through History —
The manuscript was carried out of New Plymouth by Robert Cushman, Chief Agent in London for the settlers, on board the Fortune in 1621. When Mourt’s Relation was sold in John Bellamy’s London bookshop in the 1620s its readers could have scarcely imagined this would become one of the most well-known texts in American history… Perhaps the most significant feature of Mourt’s Relation is its inclusion of ‘The Mayflower Compact’: the first governing document of Plymouth Colony. Signed on November 21, 1620 (prior to landing), the text gave a legal framework of government to the eventual settlement… Over time the Mayflower Compact has become revered as an antecedent to the American Constitution.
Something else we were able to see within Mourt’s Relation, is this text below. This is the only reference yet where we have found any indication for his origin before the Mayflower sailed.
In this pamphlet, Edward’s name is mentioned as being of London next to the name of the man he was indentured to, “Steeuen Hopkins”, (Stephen Hopkins). For more about what Indentured Servitude was, please see our chapters on The Pilgrims — specifically the chapter: The Pilgrims — A Mayflower Voyage.
A note about name spellings: Historical sources vary much in how these names are spelled. Stephen Hopkins’s first name is written as Steven, Stephen, or Steeuen in original documents. [We are using Stephen for our text]. Edward Doty’s surname has several spellings in original documents, including: Doty, Dotte, Doten, Dotten, Dotey, Dowty, and Dolton. [Whew! We are using Doty for our text].
Most importantly, we know that Edward Doty was one the people who ‘signed’ The Mayflower Compact. However, the names of the signatories to the document were not published for many years out of the fear of reprisals from the British Monarchy. In any case, we know that Edward could not write his name:
“One is that no copy of the original [Mayflower Compact] document survives. Therefore, unfortunately we can’t see his signature. But considering he signed other legal documents, including his Will, with ‘his mark,’ he appears not to have learned how to write and we wouldn’t see much in the way of a signature anyway. Nevertheless, all accounts of the document give him credit for being among the 41 men who signed the pact.” (AFHB – A Family History Blog, see footnotes). (1)
As with many of our ancestors, their ability to read, write, and sign their name was not as important then as it is today. Clearly, someone drafted the text to Edward’s 1655 Will and wrote his name. He then endorsed this with ‘his marke’, a double flourish which we have circled.
Being thus arrived in a good harbor…
Only one primary source account exists which describes the events while the Mayflower was at sea. It was written by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford in his History of Plymouth Plantation. It concludes with this dramatic passage:
Being thus arrived in a good harbor and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven, who had brought them over the vast and furious ocean, and delivered them from all the perils and miseries thereof, again to set their feet on the firm and stable earth, their proper element. And no marvel if they were thus joyful, seeing wise Seneca was so affected with sailing a few miles on the coast of his own Italy; as he affirmed, that he had rather remain twenty years on his way by land, then pass by sea to any place in a short time; so tedious and dreadful was the same unto him.
When Edward Doty and Edward Leister arrived with the Hopkins family in Plymouth Harbor, there were no truly accurate maps of the area, but that was soon to change. The 1623 map below shows the location of the Plymouth Colony, along with other (new) local names. The nearby Native People populations are also indicated. (2)
This map from the book Three Visitors to Early Plymouth, captures the geography of early New England, including most of the settlements that began in 1623. (Image courtesy of the Internet Archive).
So, Who Was Stephen Hopkins?
He was a man of many accomplishments. Wikipedia sums it up best when they describe him: “Steven Hopkins (fl. 1579 – d. 1644) was an English adventurer to the Virginia Colony and Plymouth Colony. Most notably, he was a passenger on the Mayflower in 1620, one of 41 signatories of the Mayflower Compact, and an assistant to the governor of Plymouth Colony through 1636. He worked as a tanner and merchant and was recruited by the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London to provide the governance for the colony and to assist with the colony’s ventures.
He was also the only Mayflower passenger with prior New World experience, having been shipwrecked [from the ship Sea Venture] in Bermuda in 1609 en route to Jamestown, Virginia. Hopkins left Jamestown in 1614 and returned to England. Hopkins traveled to New England in 1620 and died there in 1644.” (Wikipedia)
It is interesting to note that that he spent five years in Jamestown, Virginia after being shipwrecked. He was there for so long that his first wife Mary (who was living in England with their three children) died, leaving the children without a parent present. This could be one reason why he returned to England, where he married his second wife Elizabeth, who came with him on the Mayflower. For more information on the disastrous Jamestown Colony, please see our chapter, The Pilgrims — Colonial Pursuits.
The first page of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, printed in the First Folio of 1623. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).
During his tenure in Bermuda (long story short), he was accused of treason and nearly beheaded. It is thought by scholars that the character of ‘Stephano’ in William Shakespeare’s The Tempest is based upon Stephen Hopkins’s experiences in Bermuda. (The play was first performed in November 1611). (3)
Living With The Hopkins Family in the Plimoth Plantation
The entire Hopkins family and their two indentured servants survived the first terrible winter, which is rather remarkable since so many other of their fellow travelers had passed away. What was it like for the indentured servants Edward Doty and Edward Leister to be living in the Stephen Hopkins home? Likely very crowded.
The image at the left shows the reproduction home of the Stephen Hopkins family located at the Plimoth Patuxet Museum historical site. The “elaborated” 1879 map at right show the location of that home within the context of William Bradford’s original sketch for New Plymouth. (See footnotes).
“The Mayflower Quarterly of December 2011, in an article on Plymouth-area taverns, has a paragraph on Stephen Hopkins, who kept an ‘ordinary’ (tavern) in Plymouth on the north side of Leyden Street from the earliest days of the colony.
The article defines a 17th-century ‘ordinary’ as a term for a tavern where set mealtimes and prices were offered. Terms such as ‘inn, alehouse and tavern’ were used interchangeably with ‘ordinary’ in early Plymouth records. Hopkins kept this tavern from the early colony days until his death in 1644. In the early 1600s he had also had an alehouse in Hampshire with his wife Mary and his mother-in-law Joan, which they maintained after he left for America in 1609.
Hopkins apparently had problems with the Court over his tavern. Plymouth records indicate that Hopkins let ‘men drink in his house upon the Lords day’, ‘for suffering servants and others to sit drinking in his house’ (contrary to Court orders), also to play games ‘& such like misdemeanors, is therefore fined fourty shillings.’ In addition, the Court had several charges against him ‘for selling wine, beere, strong waters, and nutmeggs at excessiue rates, is fined.’” (Wikipedia) (4)
Now that we have arrived in the new Plymouth Colony, the next chapters will narrate how the Doty Family grew, how they developed and changed, and what Life brought them during the subsequent generations.
Following are the footnotes for the Primary Source Materials, Notes, and Observations
Mourt’s Relation or Journal of The Plantation at Plymouth by William Bradford, 1590-1657; Edward Winslow, 1595-1655; (and Henry Martyn Dexter, 1821-1890) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028815079/mode/2up Digital pages: 100-102/242, Book pages: 43-45/176 Note: This edition is circa 1865.
(AFHB) A Family History Blog Signer of the Mayflower Compact by Jamie https://genealogy.thundermoon.us/blog/2020/09/26/signer-of-the-mayflower-compact/ Note 1: For the text, and the double flourish signature of Edward Doty. Note 2: Jamie, the author of A Family History Blog, is another cousin. He is a descendant of Edward Doty’s son Isaac and his wife Elizabeth (England), as we are also. Hi cousin!
The Pilgrim Republic : an historical review of the colony of New Plymouth, with sketches of the rise of other New England settlements, the history of Congregationalism, and the creeds of the period by John Abbot Goodwin, 1824-1884 https://archive.org/details/pilgrimrepublic01goodgoog/page/106/mode/2up Book page: 106, Digital page: 159/722 Note: For the plan image of early Plymouth.
Stephen Hopkins (pilgrim) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hopkins_(pilgrim) Note: As cited in the article (footnote 17) — Suitably Provided and Accommodated: Plymouth Area Taverns by Stephen C. O’Neill The Mayflower Quarterly (Plymouth, MA: The General Society of Mayflower Descendants), December 2011, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 335, 336
This is Chapter Six of seven. The Drinkwater surname continues in this Generation Four in America, with the marriage to both the Benedict, and Washburn families.
We have been in the area of the Province of Massachusetts ever since George Soule set foot on Plymouth Rock. In this chapter we finally get out of town and make our way to some new places. Unlike the previous generation of the Drinkwater family, where it was difficult to understand why they moved around so much, this generation stayed anchored in one area of the Connecticut Colony. They also left many interesting records.
Carte De La Nouvelle Angleterre Nouvelle Yorck et Pensilvanie, by Jacques Nicholas Bellin, circa 1757. (Image courtesy of Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps, Inc).
Most of the life of our 5x Great Grandfather William Drinkwater had been lived in the half century previous to when this elegant looking map was made. The westward migration of this branch of the family, from the communities near Plymouth County, Massachusetts — all the way across to the western edge of Connecticut Colony — had them moving toward areas which were still thought of as the frontier.
With Rods Belaboured…
“New-York, December 27th 1733 — We hear from Ridgefield, near the County of Westchester, that one William Drinkwater, late an inhabitant there, proving quarrelsome with his Neighbours and abusive to his Wife, the good Women of the Place took the Matter into Consideration and laid hold of an Opportunity to get him tied to a Cart, and there with Rods belaboured him on his Back, till, in striving to get away, he pulled one of his Arms out of joint, and then they unti’d him.
Mr. Drinkwater complained to sundrie Magistrates of this useage, but all he got by it was to be Laughed at. Whereupon he moved to New-Milford where we hear he proves a good Neighbour and a loveing Husband. A remarkable reformation arising from the Justice of the good Women!
—John Peter Zenger, The New-York Weekly Journal, Dec. 31, 1733”
Comment: Word must have travelled fast! As we all know, gossip can move like a whirlwind. — Ridgefield was a small town in the western side of Fairfield County, Connecticut. It is currently across the state line from Westchester County, New York. Everybody knows that marriages have ups and downs, but obviously they must have had a way of working things out —they had 12 children. (In those days it took time for stories to reach and get published in a newspaper. Please see the footnotes). (1)
Colonial Grist Mill, photograph by Paul Ward.
Having Been Put Through The Mill
From the book, Two Centuries Of New Milford, Connecticut: “William settled in New Milford about 1730 [likely circa 1732] where some of his family became Quakers… [and] on Apr 20, 1730, William bought land from Zachariah Ferris where he built a Gristmill. The mill was located on the East Aspetuck, near or at the site of the present paper mill. He sold the mill to Nathan Terrill in March 1735. William was a prominent, active citizen, but died in 1758, leaving a large family.”
Having a grist mill allows William to be in the know about goings on in the community. “Aside of the ingenuity, the grist mill was also a social hub, of such importance that it turns out our language still reflects its impact. For example, if a number of people were looking to have their grains milled, a line would form. Unlike today’s supermarkets, where you just quietly stand in line and perhaps spy on the shopping cart of the stranger in front of you, this would have been a situation in which people knew each other. Those lines would result in ‘milling about’ while they gossiped, which is still referred to as a ‘rumor mill.’
Meanwhile, inside the grist mill, the floor would have been covered with a hay like material, referred to as thresh. A piece of wood at the doorway would help keep the thresh in place, which you’d stand on when you crossed the ‘threshold’.” (Hidden New England)
William’s younger brother John was also living in the area in the mid-1730s. “John Drinkwater, came from Rhode Island, and bought of Wm. Drinkwater, 10 acres of ‘near Little Mount Tom, with a dwelling-house on it,’ March 30, 1735, and sold the same to John Sherwood, July 5, 1736, and removed from the town so far as known.” (History of the Towns of New Milford and Bridgewater, Connecticut, 1703-1882) (2)
Plan of the Colony of Connecticut in North America, by Moses Park, 1766. (Image courtesy of the Boston Public Library).
There’s Many Trees In That Orchard!
Some of our ancestors stepped right up and took the Genesis 1:28 Biblical commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” quite seriously.
William Drinkwater, born about 1701 in Touisset (an area of) Swansea, Bristol, PMB — died circa 1758 in New Milford, Litchfield, Connecticut Colony, age 57. He married first Elizabeth Benedict, December 18, 1728 in New Milford, Connecticut Colony; they had 12 children. She was born January 17, 1704 in Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut Colony — died July 2, 1749, in New Milford, Litchfield, Connecticut Colony, age 45.
Excerpted from History of the Towns of New Milford and Bridgewater, Connecticut, 1703-1882 by Samuel Orcutt, circa 1882. Note: Despite all of these children, the list is still missing daughter Sarah, born February 18, 1737. There were 16 children in total.
Also please note: We have corrected mistakes, updated spelling, birthdates, etc. from records of both Ridgefield, and New Milford, Connecticut — which varies from what is shown in the book image above. See footnotes).
On May 10, 1666 Fairfield County was established by an act of the Connecticut General Court along with Hartford County, New Haven County, and New London County; which were the first four Connecticut counties. On October 9, 1751 Litchfield County was created by an act of the Connecticut General Court from land belonging to Fairfield, New Haven, and Hartford counties.
William and Elizabeth’s children were born in both counties. Births for the first two, Thomas and John Drinkwater, are recorded in the town of Ridgefield, Fairfield County:
Thomas Drinkwater*, born November 3, 1729 —died November 3, 1755
John Drinkwater*, born July 3, 1731 —died September 8, 1755
Births for Elizabeth (3) through Mercy (12) are recorded in the town of New Milford, Litchfield County:
Elizabeth Drinkwater, born April 2, 1733 — married John Beeman, May 1755
Hanah Drinkwater, born August 11, 1734
Mary Drinkwater, born February 5, 1735/6
Abigail Drinkwater, born March 15, 1736
Sarah Drinkwater, born February 18, 1738 — married Stephen Ferriss, August 27, 1771
Jerusha Drinkwater, born June 16, 1740 — married Gamaliel Hurlbut, February 19, 1758
William Drinkwater, Jr., born May 3, 1742
Samuel Drinkwater, born June 27, 1744 — married Olive Gray, July 27, 1769
Ann Drinkwater, born June 11, 1746
Mercy Drinkwater, born March 25, 1748 — died October 22, 1813 in Sandgate, Bennington, Vermont. She married Eliphaz Warner, in 1769. (We are descended from Mercy and Eliphaz).
*Both died in the French and Indian War; see subtitle The French and Indian War below for more information
A New England Dame school in old colonial times, 1713 by Artist unknown. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).
After the death of William Drinkwater’s wife Elizabeth (Benedict) Drinkwater, He married second Susanna Washburn, March 14, 1751; they had 4 children. The youngest four children were born in the town of New Milford, in Litchfield, County.
Ebenezer Drinkwater, born December 25, 1751
Joannah Drinkwater, July 26, 1753
Thomas Drinkwater, born January 13, 1756
Ann Drinkwater, born May 17 or 19, 1758.
William’s second wife Susanna died at a young age in in 1758. We don’t know what happened, but in that era it could have been something from a long list of troubles. For example, just a couple of years earlier in 1755-56, “Epidemics of smallpox and measles strike in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania. The population, both of settlers and Native peoples, is already weakened by the measles epidemic when the smallpox outbreak occurs.” (3)
The beginnings of the town of New Milford and the church are so intermingled that they are inseparable. What occurred to the church occurred to the town . . . Towns were considered the basic structure for protection of individuals and the central part of that structure came from a church and the teachings of its minister.
Ross Detwiler, The Whole Story History Of The First Congregational Church
The Separatists’ Church of New Milford
We noted several times in our research of New Milford town records, that William Drinkwater was quite involved in both the civic affairs and goings-on with the local church. Considering that he had acquired a reputation for disreputable behavior when he was a younger man, this was quite a change of character. Here’s an example entry: “On Apr 11, 1731, the Separatist Church voted to take out part of the women’s seats in the Meetinghouse. Nathaniel Bostwick, Ebenezer Fisk and William Drinkwater were selected to do the work. William was among 35 members of the Separatist’s Church who became influential leaders.” (History of the Towns of New Milford and Bridgewater…)
We wanted to understand more about his transformation, which led us to a larger understanding of what church life meant to our ancestors in colonial New England. No matter where you lived, it always began with the Meeting House. From an 1891 issue of The Atlantic magazine, writer Alice Morse Earle, wrote:
“When the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth, they at once assigned a Lord’s Day meeting-place for the Separatist church, — “a timber fort both strong and comely, with flat roof and battlements; ” and to this fort, every Sunday, the men and women walked reverently, three in a row, and in it they worshiped until they built for themselves a meeting-house in 1648.
As soon as each successive outlying settlement was located and established, the new community built a house for the purpose of assembling therein for the public worship of God; this house was called a meeting-house. Cotton Mather saith distinctly that he “found no just ground in Scripture to apply such a trope as church to a house for public assembly.” The church, in the Puritan’s way of thinking, worshiped in the meeting-house, and he was as bitterly opposed to calling this edifice a church as he was to calling the Sabbath Sunday. His favorite term for that day was the Lord’s Day.
The settlers were eager and glad to build their meeting-houses; for these houses of God were to them the visible sign of the establishment of that theocracy which they had left their fair homes and had come to New England to create and perpetuate. But lest some future settlements should be slow or indifferent about doing their duty promptly, it was enacted in 1675 that a meeting-house should be erected in every town in the colony; and if the people failed to do so at once, the magistrates were empowered to build it, and to charge the cost of its erection to the town. The number of members necessary to establish a separate church was very distinctly given in the Platform of Church Discipline : “ A church ought not to be of greater number than can ordinarilie meet convenientlie in one place, nor ordinarilie fewer than may conveniently carry on church-work.” Each church was quite independent in its work and government, and had absolute power to admit, expel, control, and censure its members.”
The First New Haven Meeting House, New Haven Colony, c. 1690, by Artist unknown, (1892). (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).
So we were a bit confused to read this: “The beginning of the influences which were largely the cause of the formation and existence of the Separatists’ Church, in New Milford, were started and propagated by the idea of compelling people to obey the regulations of a legal church, while still pretending that the gospel taught the spirit of freedom and kindness. This occurred in a town vote in 1745, upon the question of settling a minister, the Rev. Noah Wells. The proceedings were such on that occasion as to lead thirty-five influential men to pledge themselves against that action, and to induce two of the leaders to pledge themselves to prosecute the matter in the county court if the decision of the meeting should be carried out in the settlement of Mr. Wells. These leaders, Joseph Ruggles and William Drinkwater, afterwards became strong men in starting, sustaining, and upholding the Separate Church. They were men of decided ability, means, and public influence, although they did not long remain in the town.” (History of the Towns of New Milford and Bridgewater…)
There again. It had been stated two times: Separatists’ Church and the Separate Church — but what were they separating from? We knew that the Quakers had built their own Meeting House in town in 1741, so was this related to that, or was there some other schism going on?
What was going on requires some explanation about the Connecticut Colony in that era. “Other religions may have made inroads in 18th-century Connecticut, but Puritanism, now known as Congregationalism, remained the faith of the ruling elite, and the Congregational Church remained the established church of the colony. The majority of the population remained Congregationalist. Like their Puritan forebears, Congregationalists believed that governments existed for the benefit of the people, and that governors needed to rule according the will of God.” (Connecticut History.org)
Furthermore, “The original colonies along the Connecticut River and in New Haven were established by separatist Puritans who were connected with the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies. They held Calvinist religious beliefs similar to the English Puritans, but they maintained that their congregations needed to be separated from the English state church. They had immigrated to New England during the Great Migration. In the middle of the 18th century, the government restricted voting rights with a property qualification and a church membership requirement. (Wikipedia, Connecticut Colony)
Colonial Church Design, Early American Church Spires Vintage Print Meeting Houses. (Image courtesy of Pinterest, via Etsy).
So after learning all about the Congregationalist viewpoint of that era, this passage suddenly made sense: “KINDNESS, used as an element of power, instead of law, would have saved the Church and the world millions of men, treasure, and great honor, and would have elevated the human race far beyond anything as yet attained. While law is not tobe discarded, yet it is proper to recognize the fact that it has been used, in avast majority of cases, in the Church and out of it, as a matter of will, togratify the anger and dictatorial feelings of men.” (History of the Towns of New Milford and Bridgewater…)
Summary: The gist of it is this — the State had made a law that crossed a line and determined who could be a member of a church. In other words, the beliefs that had brought the earlier generations of Puritans to America were being eroded, by the State sticking its nose into church matters. Connecting the ideas of voting rights and property ownership, to the right of personal religious worship as one saw fit — People did not like this development at all.
It was as if the State was dictating who had appropriate, approved spirituality, and who did not. (Just like back in the English State Church which they had all left behind). In the same manner that the Pilgrims had once been called Separatists — the Separatists’ Church in New Milford was then conceived. (4)
Four Sons, and the French and Indian War
The William Drinkwater family had four sons who served in The French and Indian War, even though much of the action for that conflict took place far away from where they lived in Connecticut. The two oldest sons, Thomas and John, both died in battles in 1755. The two younger sons, William Jr. and Samuel, served from 1759 until 1762 in various capacities.
Sons John and Thomas— Both of these sons were serving at Fort Edward, located on a bend in the Hudson River, at Lake George in the Province of New York. (In the present day, this is Washington County, New York).
At 24 years old, John died at the Battle of Lake George, serving under Captain Banjamin Hinman. It was “fought on 8 September 1755, in the north of the Province of New York, as part of a campaign by the British to expel the French from North America…The battle consisted of three separate phases and ended in victory for the British and their allies”.
Thomas, aged 25, is recorded as dying on November 3, 1755, also at Fort Edward under Captain Samuel Demmik. Based upon our research it seems he died either from wounds incurred in the earlier Battle of Lake George, or in skirmishes which occurred after that confrontation.
A Prospective Plan of the Battle Fought near Lake George on the 8th of September 1755, by Thomas Johnston. (Image courtesy of the Smithsonian American Art Museum).
Sons Willam Jr. and Samuel — We observed in the Rolls of the Connecticut Men in The French and Indian War, that son William, who was born in 1742, was involved in the 1759 Campaign of Connecticut Forces, and served from April 1 through December 1, 1759 (for 6 months). “In the Tenth Company of the Second Regiment (Colonel Nathaniel Whiting’s) commanded by Captain Gideon Stoddard, the name of William Drinkwater appears. There are some [family] tales of Bill Drinkwater, of Stephen Terrell, and Thomas Drinkwater, but they are so indefinite that all which can be gleaned from them is that these men went as far as Quebec, and were in the battle on the Heights of Abraham, and, possibly, in some of the others.” (Two Centuries Of New Milford, Connecticut — 2 Centuries…)
“A View of the Taking of Quebec”, September 13, 1759. Published by Laurie and Whittle, 1759. This engraving shows the three stages of the battle: the British disembarking, scaling the cliff and the battle. (Image courtesy of the Library and Archives Canada).
“The Battle of the Plains of Abraham, also known as the Battle of Quebec(French: Bataille des Plaines d’Abraham, Première bataille de Québec), was a pivotal battle in the Seven Years’ War (referred to as the French and Indian War to describe the North American theatre). The battle, which began on 13 September 1759, was fought on a plateau by the British Army and Royal Navy against the French Army, just outside the walls of Quebec City… The battle involved fewer than 10,000 troops in total, but proved to be a deciding moment in the conflict between France and Britain over the fate of New France, influencing the later creation of Canada.” (Wikipedia)
From the same Connecticut Rolls book, we saw records that William and his younger brother Samuel (born 1744) were listed in the muster roll for the Connecticut Forces for the Campaign of 1761. They were in Captain Archibald McNeill’s Eleventh Company, recorded in June 1761.
Then, this book lists them again the next year as part of the muster roll of Captain Archibald McNeill’s Ninth Company, recorded June 1762. William was enlisted from: March 27 until December 3, for slightly over eight months; Samuel,for a few days more, from: March 22 until December 3. (5)
The Death of General Montgomery in the Attack on Quebec, December 31, 1775, by John Trumbull, circa 1786. (Image courtesy of Yale University Art Gallery).
Two Sons, and the Revolutionary War
Wiliam Drinkwater Jr. was apparently quite the Patriot. Not only did he serve in the French and Indian War, but he “was a private in the Continental Army. He was in Captain Starr’s Company when he was captured near Montreal Sept 25.” (2 Centuries…) This had to be in the months leading up to what is now called the Battle of Quebec. “Shortly after the American Revolutionary War broke out in April 1775, a small enterprising force led by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnoldcaptured the key [strategically important] Fort Ticonderoga on May 10. Arnold followed up the capture with a raid on Fort Saint-Jean not far from Montreal, alarming the British leadership there.
The Battle of Quebec (French: Bataille de Québec) was fought on December 31, 1775, between American Continental Army forces and the British defenders of Quebec City early in the American Revolutionary War. The battle was the first major defeat of the war for the Americans, and it came with heavy losses. General Richard Montgomery was killed, Benedict Arnold was wounded, and Daniel Morgan and more than 400 men were taken prisoner.” (Wikipedia)
Two Centuries Of New Milford, Connecticut continues, “William was captured and after being confined for a number of weeks in the Sugar House, prisoners were taken to the prison ship Dutton. Two hundred were transported to Milford and put ashore. Twenty were dead before the ship arrived and 20 more died soon after. All 40 are buried in a graveyard there.
Of the 12 men of New Milford, only four returned – Roger Blaisdell, David Buell, William Drinkwater and Lyman Noble. Through friends in Milford, they were able to secure a horse, and thus worked their way back to New Milford, reaching there about March 1777.” (6)
Burning of Fairfield, 1779, by Artist unknown. (Image courtesy of the Connecticut Museum of History and Culture).
“Many of the residents who lost their homes were offered the choice of money or an equivalent value of land from the half-million acres owned by Connecticut in what is now part of Ohio. Many took the property in what came to be called ‘the Fire Lands’ and never returned.”
The Burning of the Towns of Danbury, and Fairfield
Yet, he continued to serve even after his ordeal. “Capt. Bostwick appeared as a leader in the Danbury alarm. [The burning of Danbury, Connecticut Continental Army military supply depots by the British forces]. With him were John Terrell and David Buell and Bill Drinkwater. The group from Capt. Bostwick’s company was camped four days in the Danbury alarm.
The following story regarding this little band is extant: The British had commenced their retreat from Danbury by way of Ridgefield and our men were following them up very earnestly, pressing close to a grenadier regiment which was the rear guard of the head force. John Terrell, William Noble, Bill Drinkwater and David Buell rushed together up one side of the famous Ridgefield Hill, while the grenadiers [a soldier armed with grenades] were still on the other side. Men who crossed the Delaware with Capt Bostwick of New Milford, Dec. 25, 1776, and were in the battles of Trenton and Princeton, included William.” (2 Centuries…)
Where was Samuel Drinkwater? We were wondering why there was no apparent military records for Samuel Drinkwater during the Revolutionary War in Connecticut. The answer was unexpected, and it turns out that the records were in New York, not Connecticut. From WikiTree we learned, “Samuel Drinkwater, the 3rd generation of this surname found in early America and a descendant of Thomas Drinkwater, changed the family name to DeWaters after the Revolutionary War. He, and his wife’s family, were Loyalists. Loyalists were punished by the Patriots and some fled to England or Canada. Loyalists were not allowed to own land and some had their lands confiscated, and some were jailed.” (WikiTree)
We were able to confirm his Loyalist behavior based on the “Minutes of the Committee and of the First Commission for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies in the State of New York” which documents every detail. (See the footnotes). When we thought about it, the French and Indian War he had served in earlier, was a war fought to protect British interests in America. Samuel eventually ended up in Michigan where his son Amos purchased land for him to live on.
Samuel’s behavior was in contrast to that of his brother William. Despite that, William Jr. still got into much trouble by being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people. The same “Minutes of the Committee…” book explains — it seems that he was with a group of people one evening, and a couple of them were disaffected people which means Loyalist. This was reported, and he got in trouble for it, but he went through the interrogation process, and voluntarily took the “Oath of Allegiance to this State” and was then released. That was in April 1777.
His has many records in the system, quite a few indicating that he was sick, excused, or on furlough. We suspect that he may have gotten ill while he was on the prison ship Dutton. One record notes him as deserting (with an evident question mark ?), in April of 1779, after a little more than two years of service. Other records indicate that he was discharged from service on January 1, 1780. We are not exactly sure what happened there — perhaps he had had quite enough, thank you. He may have ended up raising a family in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, but again, we just don’t know. (7)
William Drinkwater, Late of New Milford
When William Drinkwater Sr. died, as was customary at the time, his estate needed to be inventoried and his debts settled. William and both of his wives are buried in the Northville Cemetery, New Milford, Litchfield County, Connecticut.
Inventory documents from the Probate of William Drinkwater’s estate.
The next chapter is our final chapter in the Soule line. We begin in the Connecticut Colony with William Drainkwater’s daughter Mercy, who is the matriarch of Generation Five in America, with a new family line. (8)
Following are the footnotes for the Primary Source Materials, Notes, and Observations
However, the original newspaper story was excerpted two more times in the next two centuries, once in Lippincott’s Magazine, circa 1876 and once more in the The Hudson Valley Review, circa 2016 (see footnotes below). The newspaper publisher, John Peter Zenger became an important historical figure in the cause for freedom of the press in the United States: The New York Weekly Journal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Weekly_Journal Note: For the reference.
Lippincott’s Magazine of Popular Literature And Science February, 1876., Vol. XVII. Our Monthly Gossip > Our Early Newspapers https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13154/13154-h/13154-h.htm Note: This publication does not have page numbers; proceed to [pg 261].
The Hudson Valley Review, Spring 2016 Charivari on the Hudson: Misrule, Disorder, and Festive Play, 1750-1900 by Thomas S. Wermuth https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/hrvr-2016/64294627#15 Book page: 46, Digital page: 57/137 Note: This version starts to stray from the original details.
Two Centuries Of New Milford, Connecticut An Account Of The Bi-Centennial Celebration Of The Founding Of The Town Held June 15, 16, 17 And 18, 1907, With A Number Of Historical Articles And Reminiscences https://www.gutenberg.org/files/49048/49048-h/49048-h.htm Notes: For the text.
Boston Public Library Norman B. Levanthal Map & Education Center Collection Plan of the Colony of Connecticut in North America by Moses Park, 1766 https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:z603vt46p Note: For the map image. “Moses Park, a surveyor from Preston, Connecticut, executed this map in 1766 with the assistance of Asa Spaulding of Norwalk and Samuel Mott of Preston.”
William Drinkwater in the Connecticut, U.S., Town Marriage Records, pre-1870 (Barbour Collection) New Milford Vital Records 1712-1860 https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1062/records/191143 Book page: 76, Digital page: 74/232 Note: For marriage 1.
History of the Towns of New Milford and Bridgewater, Connecticut, 1703-1882 Genealogies (chapter) by Samuel Orcutt, circa 1882 https://archive.org/details/ldpd_11727486_000/page/16/mode/2up Book page: 692-693, Digital page: 724-725/943 Note: For the text.
To account for the births, deaths and marriages of the Drinkwater children from these two families, we created a chart based upon Family Search files, explaining below how to link to the actual files.
Family Search, Birth — Connecticut, Births and Christenings, 1649-1906, Film # 007833261
Enter file link number in upper left corner box: ___ of 7181. Here is an example: The oldest son Thomas Drinkwater, born in 1758. Type in file number 2795 (of 7181) and you will see his actual birth record. This numerical entry leads to this —
A blue bus the appears around your file. Click on this blue box and the file pops up.
Church History — The Whole Story History Of The First Congregational Church New Milford, Connecticut by Ross Detwiler, originally published November, 1983 revised 2001 and 2016 https://nmchurch.org/long-history/ Note: For the text.
History of the Towns of New Milford and Bridgewater, Connecticut, 1703-1882 Chapter XII, Church Of The Separates, 1753—1812 by Samuel Orcutt, circa 1882 https://archive.org/details/ldpd_11727486_000/page/16/mode/2up Book page: 191 >, Digital page: 222 > (222/1014) Note: For the text.
Bird’s-eye-view of New Milford, Connecticut, 1906, by Hughes & Bailey, circa 1906. (Image courtesy of the Library of Congress).
(2 Centuries…) Two Centuries Of New Milford, Connecticut An Account Of The Bi-Centennial Celebration Of The Founding Of The Town Held June 15, 16, 17 And 18, 1907, With A Number Of Historical Articles And Reminiscences https://www.gutenberg.org/files/49048/49048-h/49048-h.htm Note 1: For the text. Note 2: This book does not have page numbers. Refer to footnote number on the right-hand side of the page {33} and {34}.
(2 Centuries…) Two Centuries Of New Milford, Connecticut An Account Of The Bi-Centennial Celebration Of The Founding Of The Town Held June 15, 16, 17 And 18, 1907, With A Number Of Historical Articles And Reminiscences https://www.gutenberg.org/files/49048/49048-h/49048-h.htm Note 1: For the text. Note 2: This book does not have page numbers. Refer to footnote number on the right-hand side of the page {39} and {40}.
British Merchant east indiaman ‘Dutton’ (1763) https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=29454 Note 1: The ship nationality is Great Britain, and it was operated by the East India Company until is was utilized to hold prisoners of war. Note 2: Found in the comments — “Posted by Tom Hogan on Monday 14th of June 2021 12:45, This ship apparently held American prisoners at New York in 1776. In their pension applications, Pvt. Roswell Becket and Pvt. Enoch Greenwood, both taken at Fort Washington, reported being held for a time aboard the Dutton. The ship may have been in the Transport Service and was used as a prison after the large influx of captives from Fort Washington arrived in November 1776.” Note: For the data about timeframe and country origin.
The Burning of the Towns of Danbury, and Fairfield
Connecticut History.org British Burn Fairfield – Today in History: July 7 Burning of Fairfield, 1779 by Artist unknown https://connecticuthistory.org/british-burn-fairfield/ Note: For text and the woodcut illustration.
WikiTree Drinkwater Name Study Drinkwater Name Changed, Drinkwater > Dewalter DeWaters https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Drinkwater_Name_Study Note 1: “Samuel (Drinkwater, the 3rd generation of this surname found in early America and a descendant of Thomas Drinkwater, changed the family name to DeWaters after the Revolutionary War. He, and his wife’s family, were Loyalists. Loyalists were punished by the Patriots and some fled to England or Canada. Loyalists were not allowed to own land and some had their lands confiscated, and some were jailed.”
Minutes of the Committee and of the First Commission for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies in the State of New York, December 11, 1776-September 23, 1778, with collateral documents : to which is added Minutes of the Council of appointment, state of New York, April 2, 1778-May 3, 1779 by New York (State). Commissioners for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies https://archive.org/details/minutesofcommitt571newy/page/288/mode/2up
This is Chapter Five of seven, where we continue the historical development of the Soule line, as it enigmatically weaves its way slowly westward across the Province of Masssachsetts Bay.
Preface
Family surnames have evolved over time as generations change. Some of these changes happen through clerical records when family surnames were influenced by both profession, and whoever did the record keeping. Even understanding that, family surnames can also change through marriage. Let’s take a moment to review how our primary family surnames have shifted in just a few generations.
The Last Generation, in Europe — We began in chapter one with many name variations being encountered: Sol/Sols/Solis/Soltz/Soule, which connected through marriage with Lapis/Labis/Labus/Lapres/Laber.
Generation One, in America — In chapters two and three, Soule combined with: Becket/Buckett, to standardize the Soule surname.
Generation Two, in America — (chapter four) The Haskell/Frowd family married with the Soule family, and the Soule name ended for our family. (The Stone and Hardy families also played important roles.)
Generation Three, in America — (Here: chapter five) The Haskell name ends for our family, and this generation is known by the name of Drinkwater.
This vintage crazy quilt, circa 1882, is captioned “The crazy quilt given to Mia in 2016 by Carolyn Crandall Bremner and family in honor of their grandparents…” (Image courtesy of the Minneapolis Institute of Art).
Every Stone, Every Leaf, Every Clue
A crazy quilt is made from irregular patches of cloth embroidered and gathered together with little or no regard to pattern, but — each piece of cloth has a story, and when they combine, they create a new unique tale. This is how it was with this generation of Drinkwater ancestors: just a crazy quilt of names, locations, dates, and hints of missing history.
We have created a narrative that tells much of their story, and when we see a point where we are not sure exactly what happened, we qualify that part and tell you what we think happened and why.
We have diligently turned over every stone, every leaf, every clue, by pouring through many different resources all trying in vain to locate some concrete information about the early life and parentage of our 6x Great Grandfather, Thomas Drinkwater. Short of holding a séance, we don’t think that his life before he and Elizabeth Haskell met will truly be known, unless new information is discovered and released. (We would welcome that event). (1)
Genealogy research can be quite serious work.
The New England Colonies in the 1670s
This chapter begins with the world of Colonial New England being in a state of continual flux. The part of Massachusetts where they lived for much of their lives, is an area we are already familiar with — the Plymouth Colony going back to the 1620 arrival of the Mayflower. A little more than fifty years after George Soule arrived there, the entire region was engulfed in what is considered to be one of the deadliest conflicts in colonial history, King Phillip’s War. Many, many lives were lost and untold records were destroyed.
We don’t know exactly how, or when, Thomas Drinkwater and Elizabeth Haskell met, nor when they married. The lifetimes of Thomas Drinkwater and Elizabeth Haskell (in total), cover the 50 years from circa 1670 through 1715-20. We believe that they were married before 1699. The lives of their children cover almost the full breadth of the 18th century, from 1700 through 1790.
In the section below, Navigating Their Lives, we created a reconciled list of their children’s birthdates, marriage dates with spouses, and death dates. We needed to consult about 50-60 sources to verify details, so not all of them have footnotes. In doing that, we saw a great lack of conformity in record reporting, even with other modern researchers. We have tried to account for this by noting some important dates that affect interpretation of the surviving records. These items are noted just below this map.
New England Colonies in 1677. (Map courtesy of the National Geographic Society).
1643 — The official establishment and charter of the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Note: We are using Rhode Island Colony for brevity.
1661 — Middleborough / Middleboro / Middlebury is the name of the place formerly called Nemasket. The official town spelling is Middleborough. Middleboro is a shortened form cited in many historical documents for many years, even after 1661. Middlebury is now an archaic form. (Middleborough is just east of Plymouth on the map above. See the John Seeler 1675 map in The Soule Line, A Narrative — Four, for more clarity).
In 1677, Massachusetts was made up of Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony plus the areas of New Hampshire, the Province of Maine, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket. The Connecticut Colony and the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, were originally settled by people from Massachusetts. Maine was not officially a state until 1820.
1685 — Plymouth County is established, in anticipation of the merger with the Massachusetts Bay Colony. (Prior to this date, it was simply Plymouth Colony). and 1685 — Bristol County is also established due to this intended merger.
1691 — PMB explained — is an acronym for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, a royal colony. (The Plymouth Colony merged with the Massachusetts Bay Colony and other territories to form the Province of Massachusetts Bay, which included the counties of Barnstable, Bristol, and Plymouth). Note: We are using PMB (in bold) for this designation for brevity.
1788 — On February 6, 1788, Massachusetts officially becomes a State. (2)
Navigating Their Lives
We have no actual birth and death records for Thomas Drinkwater, so the dates for his lifetime are inferred. We believe he was could have been born circa 1670, possibly in Plymouth, Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts, or possibly in Newport, Rhode Island Colony. (Even though we lack concrete evidence for either location). He died between the dates of September 10, 1711, and certainly before June 21, 1715. (See footnotes).
A New and Accurate Map of the Colony of Massachusets Bay, In North America from a Late Survey, circa 1780. (Image courtesy of the Boston Public Library).
We have used colors to indicate on this map the different locations where the family lived and where the children were born.
Gray — Plymouth and Duxbury are the origin places for the previous generation, and Plymouth is a possible origin place for the father Thomas Drinkwater.
Yellow — The mother Elizabeth Haskell, was born in Middleborough, July 2, 1672, as were three of her children (see below).
Red — The location of Freetown turns up in records as a place they lived, but no children are recorded as having been born there.
The eight children of Elizabeth Haskell and Thomas Drinkwater are:
Blue — Warren (aka Walter) Drinkwater, born August 8, 1700 in Newport, Newport*, Rhode Island Colony — died May 5, 1734 in Falmouth, Cumberland**, Maine. Note:Did he change his name from Warren to Walter? No. (See our extensive footnotes).
Green —William Drinkwater, born about 1701 in Touisset (an area of) Swansea, Bristol, PMB — died 1758 in New Milford, Litchfield, Connecticut Colony. He married first Elizabeth Benedict, December 18, 1728 in New Milford, Connecticut Colony; they had 12 children. (We are descended from William and his wife Elizabeth.) He married second Susanna Washburn, March 14, 1751. They had 4 more children.
Yellow — George Drinkwater, born about 1702 in Middleborough, Plymouth, PMB — died November 21, 1737 in Yarmouth, Cumberland**, District of Maine. He married Elizabeth Parker.
Yellow — John Drinkwater, born March 19, 1703 in Middleborough, PMB — died after 1772 in New Milford, Litchfield, Connecticut Colony, United States. He married Elizabeth Staple, September 23, 1742 in Portsmouth, Newport, Rhode Island Colony.
Yellow — Elizabeth Drinkwater, born June 18, 1708 in Middleborough, Plymouth, PMB— died after June 18, 1729. She married John Dudly, May 2, 1717 in Dighton, Bristol, PMB.
Orange — Joseph Drinkwater, born November 10, 1709 in Taunton, Bristol, PMB — died April 18, 1784 in North Yarmouth, Cumberland, District of Maine. He married Jane Latham May 18, 1732 in the same location.
Yellow or Orange — Samuel Drinkwater, born April 25, 1711 in either Middleborough or Taunton, PMB — died between 1771 to March 6, 1789 in Dighton, Bristol, PMB. He married Dorrity Joselin, April 25, 1734 in same location where he died.
Teal — Patience Drinkwater, born December 10, 1713 in Swansea, Bristol, PMB — died 1790 in Dartmouth, Bristol, Massachusetts State.
*became Newport County (in 1703), **became Cumberland County (in 1760)
Roger Williams Sheltered by the Narragansetts, by A. H. Wray, circa 1856. (Image courtesy of the New York Public Library).
Roger Williams (c. 1603 – March 1683) was an English-born New England Puritan minister, theologian, and author who founded Providence Plantations, which became the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and later the State of Rhode Island. He was a staunch advocate for religious freedom, separation of church and state, and fair dealings with the Native Americans. (Wikipedia).
Our Analysis: All of the births and deaths of these Great Aunts and Uncles seem pretty straightforward, except for these facts: What this map shows is that their first child (Warren), was born in Newport, Rhode Island Colony, followed by the birth of (William) in Swansea, PMB. Both locations are far away from the towns of Plymouth, Duxbury, and Middleborough, Massachusetts.
The next three children who followed, were born in Middleborough, which is near Elizabeth’s parents who were still living (for a few more years). Other family members were presumably in the area — their availability would have been helpful to this young and growing family.
Next, for child number six (Joseph), we move away again from Middleborough, to Tauton/Dighton.
For child seven (Samuel), born in Middleborough or Taunton, (but likely in Taunton).
Lastly, there is child eight (Patience), born as her older brother William was, in Swansea, PMB. For much of this period, there seems to be much relocation up and down the Taunton Great River.
What does all this mean in the absence of records? We can infer that there were a few years where they seem stable and living in Middleborough. Why were they there? Her parents John and Patience Haskell were near the ends of their lives and it’s plausible that Elizabeth wanted to be near them. Most of the other locations look like they could possibly be maritime related, or at least related to owning property near water that could then transport crops to market. (3)
Newport Rhode Island in 1730, by J.P. Newell. (Image courtesy of Posterazzi).
The Newport Mystery
Warren being born in Newport, Rhode Island Colony seemed especially odd because it just didn’t fit into any patterns we had seen before. The question became, why Newport? There are no records of the Drinkwater family name in the Plymouth area, until we encounter Thomas. Even though these locations don’t look that far apart on a map, in the 1670s, people just didn’t just pick up and move across land that was still considered to be a dangerous wilderness. When necessary, they probably traveled by water.
Had Thomas Drinkwater been a mariner? A captain of trading ships? More importantly, was there a family connection to that area? This is what we found:
Excerpted from pages 72-73 of the Rhode Island Court Records, Vol. II. Records of the Court of Trials of the Colony of Providence Plantation, 1662-1670. (Image courtesy of Ancestry.com).
A Thomas Drinkwatter (Note the two t’s in the surname spelling) was in Providence, Rhode Island Colony court in November 1668, for a case about illegally burning a fence. He was found not guilty. This event took place in November 1668 which was about two years before Thomas Drinkwater of Plymouth was born. That far back in time (over 350 years ago), there were very few Drinkwaters yet in New England.
We find it quite plausible that this person could be a relative — possibly a father, or an uncle? The fact that the case was in a Providence court was probably due to the fact that Providence was a more secure location inside of Narragansett Bay. That same Bay would have been the local superhighway for travel.
Summary: Our 6x Great Grandfather Thomas Drinkwater may have been from England, but it is more likely that his father, also named Thomas, was an immigrant from England. Our great grandfather was either born at the Rhode Island Providence Plantations, or he immigrated, as a very young child, with his family to America. He married our 6X Great Grandmother Elizabeth Haskell, probably in Middleborough, Massachusetts. They then set out for a life that took them from Newport, Rhode Island, to Plymouth County, Massachusetts, up and down the Great Taunton River. This crazy quilt of a life eventually fostered our 5x Great Grandfather William Drinkwater. (4)
To Finally Slip Away
We learned that Thomas Drinkwater died Intestate (without a Will). On the fifth line in the Drinkwater document below it indicates “Lately dyed Intestate.” This document, dated June 25, 1715, appoints his wife, Elizabeth Drinkwater, as the administrator of his inventory, listed as goods, chattels and credits*. The list of inventory is also shown below. The document lists September 20 and December 20, 1715 as dates by which the inventory needs to be completed.
We often see June 25, 1715 as the death date for Thomas Drinkwater. This document tells us that he died sometime before that date.
*Goods and chattels generally refer to property that is not real estate… In common law , the term broadly included any moveable property or property rights that did not involve land and real estate, including rights such as leases.” (Cornell Law School)
From the Massachusetts, Plymouth County, Probate Records, 1633-1967. The document date is June 25, 1715.The inventory and administration papers of Thomas Drinkwater’s estate.
Notice on the above court document the signatures of Thomas Drinkwater’s sons William Hascall and Josiah Hascall. At first it appears as their signatures, but looking closely you can see the mark X indicating they could not write their names.
We have not located (nor has anyone else) an actual death record for Elizabeth (Haskell) Drinkwater, but nonetheless, we do not understand the 1715 date attached to her ‘findagrave.com’ website file. We believe that it is unlikely she actually died in 1715, because she is signing documents involved with the administration of her husband Thomas Drinkwater’s estate during that time. She had probably passed on by the early 1720s because several of her children are recorded as being involved in property transactions during that period.
We started this chapter by describing crazy quilts. Our Grandmother Lulu Gore used to sit in the church basement with her lady friends, everyone engaged in a group sewing activity. Working together, they carefully crafted quilts which were stretched tightly across wooden frames. It was always a shared experience — the quilting, the sewing, and the sharing of stories about the lives of their children. (5)
Following are the footnotes for the Primary Source Materials, Notes, and Observations
The Arms of Drinkwater of Salford County, Lancashire. Note: We have not been able to prove this familial connection, but we wanted to address this matter since it is out there causing mischief.
Thomas DrinkwaterDeath in the U.S., Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/60525/records/73615725 and Thomas Drinkwater https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/124601468/thomas-drinkwater Notes: For both entries, the June 25, 1715 date given for his death is not correct. He died sometime between the dates December 10, 1713— when his last child was born and before June 25, 1715 when his wife was in court being named his administrator because he died Intestate. It is most likely he died near the June 1715 date because the court would not have waited too long after his death to have his inventory completed and his debts paid.
On September 11, 1715 he quitclaimed a deed to John Hascall (brother-in-law) for land his wife inherited from her father, who had passed away.
Thomas Drinkwater in the Massachusetts, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991 https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/9069/records/6848912 Plymouth > Probate Estate Files, No 6744-6790, Drew, William-Dunbar Jesse, Ca. 1686-1881 Digital pages: 104-108/1009 (5 pages Total) Notes: Document file number is 6747. Probate date is January 21, 1715. It says that he lived in Midbury [Middleborough], Plymouth County.
Boston Public Library Norman B. Levanthal Map & Education Center Collection A New and Accurate Map of the Colony of Massachusets Bay, In North America from a Late Survey https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:wd3765665 Note: Published in London in 1780.
Sources to create a compilation of the Thomas Drinkwater / Elizabeth Haskell children, were derived from these files—
“Although Mayflower records state Warren was born at Middleboro, MA, Rhode Island vital records claim he was born at Newport. Mayflower records have omitted Walter from their list of Thomas’s children, saying ‘although the Drinkwater Family names the eldest son Walter, a diligent search has failed to find any reference to such a person.’ The 1991 addendum to this volume further explains that “Walter changed his name from Walter to Warren” which simply adds to the confusion. (He’s called Warren at birth).
Files however, show there was such a person with two references to Walter and one to Warren taken from Plymouth County deeds. Aug. 1, 1721, Walter Drinkwater of Freetown, (sold) two-ninths to James Rayment; Mar. 15, 1722, Walter Drinkwater of Freetown, to Stephen Easton and Sep 17, 1723, Warren Drinkwater of Freetown to Thomas Croade. The files contain references to all eight of Thomas Drinkwater’s children who deeded one-ninth of the share of their father’s estate, with the eldest deeding two-ninths. The eldest appears to be Walter with no mention of Warren. So, from the records cited, there is a Warren born in 1700, a Walter in 1721, a Walter in 1722 and a Warren in 1723. The only explanation appears to be that Warren changed his name to Walter, it was recorded incorrectly in the records, or they were two separate men. William Coddington, Town Clerk recorded Warren’s birth as May 29, 1723. There is no known marriage or children.
Comments: His father was not alive in 1723, and it is not likely that his mother was either — so the town clerk William Coddington must have been writing about some other Drinkwater family. In addition, May 23, 1723 is after the other property transactions were already concluded.
To support the Ruth Wilder Sherman viewpoint, we provide the following: Rhode Island, U.S., Vital Extracts, 1636-1899 for Warren Drinkwater Vol. 04: Newport County: Births, Marriages, Deaths https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/3897/records/51157 Book page: 94, Digital page: 218/691, Note 1: The only Drinkwater reference on the page, it is found at the center, as entry 57 Note 2: It is a reference for a birth. The text reads, “57 DRINKWATER Warren, of Thomas and Elizabeth, Aug. 8, 1700.” and Mayflower Births and Deaths, Vol. 1 and 2 forWarren Drinkwater Volume 2 https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/3718/records/12189 Book page: 298, Digital page: 301/551 Note: File is just below.
We also discovered several references to Warren Drinkwater connected with three of his brothers and their life in North Yarmouth, Province of Maine.
Conclusion: This ancestor was born named Warren Drinkwater. Walter is either his middle name (if he had one), a nick-name (if he had one), or it is a clerical error on past paperwork. OR WAS HE A TWIN?
Comment: Even though we are not descendants of the brother Joseph Drinkwater, we wanted to share this 1901 newspaper clipping we came across here: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/249845059/joseph-drinkwater . Please note that there are several documents at this location, but some of them could be unverified, apocryphal information.
Thomas Drinkwater in the Massachusetts, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991 https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/9069/records/6848912 Plymouth > Probate Estate Files, No 6744-6790, Drew, William-Dunbar Jesse, Ca. 1686-1881 Digital pages: 104-108/1009 (5 pages Total) Note 1: 2 documents presented within document file number is 6747. Note 2: The probate date is January 21, 1715, and it says that he lived in Midbury [Middleborough], Plymouth County
This is Chapter Four ofseven. In this Generation Two in America we learn a bit about the Stone, Haskell, and Hardy families who were early English immigrants to the Massachusetts Colony. Our 7x Great Grandparents John and Patience Haskell continue the history.
The Haskell Family Were Originally From Somerset, England
The Haskell family can be reliably traced back to William Haskell and Elinor Frowd of Charlton Parish, northern Wiltshire, England. This small Parish is near the Shire borders of Dorset, Somerset, and Wiltshire. Elinor and William had seven children, all baptized at this parish, including the oldest son Roger, who was Christened March 6, 1613/14. William Haskell died and is buried there, circa 1630.
From the Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials, 1531-1812, this reads “Roger Haskall the son of William Haskall was baptized the 6th day of March — 1613. (Image courtesy of Ancestry.com).
The widow Elinor Haskell, then married John Stone “a fellow also with a son, whose wife had died. John Stone had a Certificate from the Minister at Hawkhurst, that stated, they were conformable to the Church of England”, so they immigrated to America [sailing on] the “Elizabeth of London” and tradition is that they sailed from Bristol, England to Salem, [Massachusetts Colony] and anchored in the North River off Massey’s Cove.
Observations: If they were comformable with the Church of England, they may have been Puritans. “On March 19, 1628, the King [Charles I] granted a royal charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company, promoting the settlement of the territory ‘from sea to sea’ that had been granted to the Puritans, and to govern its colonies. The charter was the first foundation of government for the Massachusetts Bay Colony.” (See footnotes). Therefore, we wonder if those people who were allowed to immigrate to the Massachusetts Bay Colony were encouraged to be Puritans. The Plymouth Colony never received this same status from any King of England. This is one of the contributing factors as to why the Plymouth Colony was eventually absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691.
“It was common in those early days of the settlement of the new world, that you would gain a deed to the property after having lived there one year. It was an incentive to have people come from England and etc. to move to the new world or the frontier. Often they would apply for additional lands as the years went by.
“The Hardships + Sacrifice Masseys Cove Salem 1626 The First Winter. A mighty nation was born God leading these noble men and women.” by John Orne Johnson Frost, circa 1920-28. (Image courtesy of Historic New England).
Salem and Beverly was separated by a river, and from the increased traffic, it became necessary to provide the means to cross the river and a ferry was provided. John Stone owned and operated the ferry from Massey’s Cove in Salem, later selling it to William Dixie. In a grant of 1637, John Stone and family received 10 acres and on January 1, 1638 an additional 30 acres with him being recorded as having seven in the household…
Roger worked as a farmer and also with John Hardy as a fisherman. The first few years of the Salem Colony, they followed the sea and made fishing their livelihood. It was while he was thus employed, that he became interested in the daughter of John Hardy and undoubtedly had many occasions to come into contact with her during those great fishing years. Roger Haskell and Elizabeth Hardy marry before 1644, when the father-in-law [John Hardy] interceded [with] 6 acres of Meadow Land for Roger. They lived with the Hardys for several years before moving to a house of their own. They had nine children; John, William, Mark, Elizabeth, Hannah, Roger, Josiah, Sarah, and Samuel — 6 boys and 3 girls.
John Hardy became a well-to-do landowner, and in his Will which “was proved on January 30, 1652… he bequeathed all his land lying near the Basse River to Roger Haskell — my son-in-law (being all the land given him by the town of Salem). He gave Roger a steer and a cow which Roger was then taking care of, also an Ox which John’s wife Elizabeth was to pick from three in the William Flint herd.
Scene of colonial agriculture, Providence 1650, by Jean Blackburn. (Image courtesy of Ag Learning Hub).
Roger served on a Jury 1655, 1662, and 1664, also was the Constable of the Basse River side for Salem for two years 1657 and 58. He was in the Court Record several times in connection with his job. Due to the land descriptions being somewhat clouded, Roger was in the courts many times clarifying descriptions. Old deeds and documents are most interesting and would often present a problem, as an instance, take this strange and unusual boundary, ‘running to a white oak with a birds nest in it’. Roger acquired considerable land holdings and was in court many times about boundaries.” (FamilySearch Library, 400 Years With Haskells — FSL400) (1)
Enter John Haskell
“John Haskell, [born about 1640, the husband of Patience Soule], was the first son of Roger Haskell, an emigrant from England, and Elizabeth Hardy whose father was in the fishing business. An interesting item was that John was sued for Breach of Promise in an Ipswitch, term of Court by John Proctor, in March of 1665 on behalf of his daughter Martha, which he won.
It must have not deterred John though, because he married Patience Soule in January 1666.” (FSL400) Their marriage is recorded in the records for Middleborough, Plymouth, Massachusetts Colony.
Patience Sole in the Massachusetts, U.S., Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988. (Image courtesy of Ancestry.com).
The map below has three arrows on it, for indications as to where these ancestors were born and raised. John Haskell is from Salem [Essex County], indicated by the uppermost white arrow. We already know that Patience Soule is from Duxbury, as shown by the lower white arrow. The bright green arrow indicates where the town of Middleborough, just east of Plymouth, is located. This is where they lived and raised their own family.
A mapp [sic] of New England, by John Seller, circa 1675. A foundation in the early history of the mapping of New England, this map is the first printed version of William Read’s original survey of 1665. (Image courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center Collection, of the Boston Public Library).
1661 — Middleborough / Middleboro / Middlebury is the name of the place formerly called Nemasket. The official town spelling is Middleborough. Middleboro is a shortened form cited in many historical documents for many years, even after 1661. Middlebury is now an archaic form.
“As the town records were destroyed in the [King Phillip’s] war, it is impossible to give an exact list of men living in Middleborough… John [and Patience] lived in Middleborough before the year 1670, as the town records show birth of children between that time and the year 1684… [Nonetheless] it is hardly probable that the court at Plymouth would have incorporated a town unless there had been a larger number of inhabitants. We give below a list of forty-one who are known to have lived here, as the names are to be found in Plymouth records, in deeds, as office-holders and freemen, from records of births and deaths, as well as from reliable family note-books, and seven who were here according to generally accepted tradition.” – listed is John Haskall. (History of The Town of Middleboro, Massachusetts – HTM) (2)
The Haskell children in the Massachusetts, U.S., Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988. (Image courtesy of Ancestry.com).
The Haskell Family Children
John and Patience had eight children over a period of about 16 years. All of the children were likely born in Middleborough, Plymouth County [as such in 1685]. All deaths were in the Province of Massachusetts Bay [as such in 1691], unless otherwise noted.
In 1685, Plymouth County and Bristol County were established, in anticipation of pending merger with the Massachusetts Bay Colony. (Prior to this date, it was simply Plymouth Colony).
In 1691, The Plymouth Colony merged with the Massachusetts Bay Colony and other territories to form the Province of Massachusetts Bay, a royal colony. The included counties of Barnstable, Bristol, and Plymouth continued to exist). We use PMB for this designation for brevity.
John Haskell, Jr., born June 11, 1670 — died February 17, 1728 in Killingly, Connecticut. He married Mary Squire, March 2, 1700 in Middleborough; they had 12 children.
Elizabeth Haskell, born July 2, 1672 — died 1715 in Middleborough, Plymouth County. She married Thomas Drinkwater, circa 1695-99 in Middleborough; they had 8 children. We are descended from Elizabeth and Thomas.
William Haskell, born June 11, 1674 — died date unknown.
Patience Haskell, born February 1, 1679 — died February 14, 1706 in Middleborough, Plymouth County.
Bethiah Haskell, born January 15, 1681 — died after March 1739 in Rochester, Plymouth County. She married first Richard Westcott, May 10, 1715 in Dighton, Bristol County. She married second Thomas Childs, August 29, 1727 in Rochester, Plymouth County; she married third, William Sherman; one child.
Mary Haskell, born July 4, 1684 — died date unknown. She married Scotto Clarke, April 17, 1706 in Rochester, Plymouth County; they had 10 children.
Josiah Haskell, born June 18, 1686 — died in Freetown, Bristol County, before March 1775. He married first Sarah Kenedy/Canady, March 26, 1718 in Middleborough, Plymouth County; they had 6 children. He married second Sarah Brayley, March 27, 1729 in the same location; they had four more children.
Susannah Haskell, born January 15, 1691 — died in Freetown, Bristol County, between 1723 and 1731. She married Thomas Paine, February 21, 1712 in Taunton; they had 5 children. (3)
Also Known As Middleboro John
He was one of twelve who were freemen before the year 1689, and was a large owner of real estate in the Twentysix Men’s Purchase, [and the Sixteen Shillings Purchase], with other purchases. [These purchased properties can be inferred from the map shown below on the left]. At one time he owned, with his brother-in-law, Francis Walker, a tract of land bounded by Raven Brook and the Indian Path, which included the pasture land and swamp later owned by Joshua Eddy, Esq. (HTM)
Two maps from the book, the History of The Town of Middleboro, Massachusetts by Thomas Weston. The map on the left is a foldout map, that was not completely digitally archived. The map on the right is from 1853, and shows the same area with the town of Middleboro indicated. (See footnotes).
Some records refer to John Haskell as Middleboro John because he owned so much property there. “He not only was a farmer, but also [did] work in wood. He traded 30 wooden oars to Erasmus/Eramus James for one black horse, to be delivered January 15, 1676 at Bass River Ferry. [About the oars], 12 of them to be 26 feet long, 12 to be 24 feet long, and 6 to be 22 feet long.
Even though he lived in Middleboro there was a great many dealings in the public record, several Beverly business transactions where his father lived, and also with his Uncle William. The family may have thought John wasn’t given a fair share in his father, Roger Haskell’s, Will, for they had him sue his mother and her [second] husband William Berry. Also a forty acre adjustment of land with Richard Dodge which necessitated an original deed of his father’s.” (FSL400)
It would seem that life was pretty good, but fate sometimes intrudes… “they had none of the luxuries, or what we consider to-day comforts, of life; there was also the extreme danger from hostile Indians before King Philip’s War, and the constant annoyance and depredations from wolves and bears, which attacked not only their crops, but sometimes the settlers themselves.’’ (HTM) (4)
The Middleborough Fort and King Phillip’s War
For those of us living today, it’s somewhat difficult to appreciate the utter wilderness that New England was in this period, despite the fact that many native Peoples had lived in the area for many years. This was a region that was in transition and accordingly, it would never be the same. Our ancestors, the Haskell / Soule family were living in a frontier community during this period.
“The proximity to Plymouth [to the East] had for some time kept the early settlers here informed of the danger feared by the authorities. In accordance with the requirements of the laws of the colony, Middleboro men had built a fort for their protection on the western bank of the Nemasket River, not far from the old Indian wading-place, on the land owned in later years by Colonel Peter H. Peirce. No description of this has come down to us. It was evidently something more than a garrison house, and was large enough to accommodate, for more than six weeks, the inhabitants of the town, who, with the men, women, and children, probably numbered seventy-five or more. It was enclosed with a wall strong enough to have deterred the many roving bands of hostile Indians from attempting to attack or to surround it.
During King Phillip’s War, Nipmuc Indians Attack the Settlement of Brookfield, Massachusetts in August 1675, attributed to the English School. (Image courtesy of Meisterdrucke, UK).
The war began on the 24th day of June, 1675, [near] the then frontier town of Swansea. The Sunday previous, the Indians had killed many of the cattle belonging to the settlers. Nine men were killed on the highway, and shortly after eight more. Gershom Cobb, a resident of Middleboro, was among the number… Encouraged by the success of their first encounter, they extended their operations to other parts of the colony, stealthily hiding in woods and swamps, behind fences and bushes, killing the whites as they came upon them, and burning their houses.
Shortly before this, many occurrences had served to confirm the fears of the Middleboro settlers. Some of the Indians were sullen and morose, manifesting unusual boldness and eagerness in procuring firearms and powder at almost any cost. This, in addition to ofificiousness [in a domineering manner] in many acts of friendliness with the evident design of covering some plot, did not deceive the settlers, who found their cows milked, and occasionally some animal missing. Most of the inhabitants, especially those living far from the center, thought it unsafe to remain about their farms and came to the garrison, some taking their provision and household furniture, others in such haste that they left everything, on hearing of the attack on Swansea. They were unable to gather any of their crops, and no aid could be sent from Plymouth, as all of the available forces in the colony had been despatched [sic] to towns where the danger was even greater than at Middleboro.
Illustration from “Firearms Of The Frontier Partisans — The Guns Of King Philip’s War.” (See footnotes).
After the [Middleboro] mill was burned, many of the houses were destroyed by fire; among them the houses of John Tomson, William Nelson, Obadiah Eddy, John Morton, Henry Wood, George Dawson, Francis Coombs, and William Clark.
The inhabitants who had found refuge in the fort remained about six weeks; then it was deemed wise to go to Plymouth. With the small amount of provisions, arms, and ammunition, they would have been wholly unable to resist a siege or an attack from as large a band of warriors as had destroyed Swansea and other towns in the colony. After the abandonment of the fort, it was burned by the Indians. The inhabitants remained in Plymouth till after the close of the war, as did also the inhabitants of Dartmouth and Swansea.
In King Philip’s War, so far as [it] relates to Plymouth Colony, the decisive battle was the engagement at Scituate. If the Indians had not been defeated at that battle, it was their intention to go down along the coast, burn all of the houses, and destroy the inhabitants. Plymouth was not sufficiently fortified to have escaped the general massacre. The able-bodied men in the western part of the colony had joined the forces of Captain Church to meet the Indians, and their families had gone to Plymouth… The little fort at Middleboro was the only one on the west, and there was nothing to have prevented the Indians, had they passed Scituate, from continuing their march of destruction to Plymouth.” (History of The Town of Middleboro, Massachusetts – HTM) (5)
We wonder what Patient (Soule) Haskell really looked like, what her personality was like, what her thoughts were like? Artwork which portrays Pilgrim and Puritan women almost always features pious, demure, serious, even dour poses . These moods are choices for ‘ideas about personality’ made by later artists, who are mostly men. As a consequence, these artworks never cover the full range of emotions these women felt from their lived experiences. (For images, see footnotes).
An Outcry
None of us really have any true control on how history records us. The only story we have found about Patience Haskell is a civic matter that involves ‘an out cry’ and a meeting house. From Middleboro History (HTM) —
May 20, 1700. “Being a town meeting it was voted by the inhabitants that 40 shillings shall be raised on the town to be expended on the raising of the meeting house for the refreshment of such as shall be at the raising. It is likewise agreed on and carried by the vote of the inhabitants of the town that the meeting house shall be raised on that piece of land that lies between the two roads, that is to say, on the Northerly side of the County Road that leads to Plymouth and on the Southeast side of the road that leads to Bridgewater.”
Much more than a year later… August 5, 1701. At a town meeting of the inhabitants of Midleberry Aug. 5, 1701, the meeting house was exposed to seale at an outcry and Patiance Hascall, the wife of John Hascall, bid five pounds, 2 shillings money to be paid to the selectmen within 3 months and the meeting house to be removed some time between this and winter.” Was this an auction to raise money to build a new meeting house, or tear down the old one? It’s confusing. (HTM)
Or maybe Patience was confused because she was just getting on in years? Our take on this: If you believe that she was a little bit antsy to get things going on building the new meeting house, you could say she was being Mrs. imPatience Haskall — or —perhaps she got caught up in the moment, becauseshe just wanted to win (!) That was a lot of money to spend back then, even for a meeting house. (6)
Exactly Nine Months Between Them
Patience died March 15, 1705, aged about 58 years and John died exactly none months later on May 15, 1706, aged about sixty-six years. They are buried in the Miles Standish Burial Ground, Duxbury, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Neither one left a Will; both dying intestate.
Patience (Soule) Haskell’s 1705/06 death record, and John Haskell’s 1706 death record, in the Massachusetts, U.S., Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988. (Image courtesy of Ancestry.com).
The next generation of this family line continues with the marriage and children of daughter Elizabeth Haskell to a new family line, that of Thomas Drinkwater. Due to the King Phillip’s War, many records from their time period were utterly destroyed, yet, we have been able to weave together a story about their life together. The next three generations are about the Drinkwater Family. (7)
Following are the footnotes for the Primary Source Materials, Notes, and Observations
The Haskell Family Were Originally From Somerset, England
Historic New England “The Hardships + Sacrifice Masseys Cove Salem 1626 The First Winter. A mighty nation was born God leading these noble men and women. JOJ Frost Marblehead.” by John Orne Johnson Frost, circa 1920-28 https://www.historicnewengland.org/explore/collections-access/gusn/179828 Note: For the landscape image.
Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center Collection, of the Boston Public Library A mapp [sic] of New England, by John Seller, circa 1675. https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:3f462s90h Note: “A foundation in the early history of the mapping of New England, this map is the first printed version of William Reed’s original survey of 1665. The survey was commissioned by Massachusetts authorities to support the colonial boundaries as described in the first Massachusetts Charter of 1628”.
John Haskall in the Massachusetts, U.S., Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988 Middleborough > Births, Marriages and Death https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2495/records/11903022 Book page: 143, Digital page: 67/2504. Right page, bottom entries. Note: This document lists — John, Elizabeth, William, Patience, Bethiah, Mary, Josiah, (skip a space) and Susannah.
Patience (Soule) Haskell (abt. 1648 – 1706) https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Soule-82 Note: Although this file is quite good, we needed to research each individual child.
Also Known As Middleboro John
(4) — four records
(HTM) Library of Congress History of The Town of Middleboro, Massachusetts by Thomas Weston, 1834-1920 https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcmassbookdig.historyoftownofm00wes/?c=160&sp=5&st=pdf Note 1: For the text. Digital page for the maps vary, see specific notes below — Note 2: For the partial foldout Map of Original Purchases From The Indians, Digital pages: 627-628/779. Note 3: For the Map of Middleboro in 1853, Digital page: 17/779.
This is Chapter Three of seven. It’s important to understand that this era was filled with much conflict. The new British America in which the Soule family lived, was exceedingly different from their European experience.
In this chapter, we are starting to explore the life experiences of the Second Generation in America. Like all generations, the one that follows sometimes does things a bit differently than their parents did…
“In my extreme old age and weakness been tender…”
Mary (Becket/Buckett) Soule died circa December 1676. She is buried in the Miles Standish Burial Ground, Duxbury, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. We know her death date because — her son John Soule indicated this in his account of “the inventory of the goods of George Soule, circa 1679, that ‘since my mother died which was three yeer the Last December except some smale time my sister Patience Dressed his victualls’.” (Pilgrim Hall Museum)
George Soule died shortly before 22 January 1679, when inventory was taken of his estate. He is also buried at Myles Standish Burial Ground in Duxbury, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.
“George Soule [had] made his will on 11 August 1677 and mentions his eldest son John ‘my eldest son John Soule and his family hath in my extreme old age and weakness been tender and careful of me and very helpful to me’. John was his executor and to whom was given nearly all of Soule’s estate.
But after he wrote his will, on 12 September 1677 George seemed to have second thoughts and made a codicil to the will to the effect that if John or any family member were to trouble his daughter Patience or her heirs, the Will would be void. And if such happened, Patience would then become the executor of his last Will and Testament with virtually all that he owned becoming hers. To put his youngest daughter to inherit his estate ahead of his eldest son would have been a major humiliation for John Soule. But John must have done well in his father’s eyes since after his father’s death, he did inherit the Duxbury estate. Twenty years later Patience and her husband sold the Middleboro estate they had received from her father.” (Wikipedia)
We observed that in the inventory list of his estate, there was this notation —“Item bookes” — which reinforces the observation that George Soule was a literate, educated man who read. Most people in the Plymouth Colony did not own books, unless it was a Bible. We wish we knew what the titles of these books were, but we will never know and can only dream of what their pages revealed to this 8x Great-Grandfather.
George Soule, with his long life, had outlived all of his associates who were involved in William Brewster’s Subterfuge, even King James I.
Upper image: George Soule Will which he drafted on August 11, 1677. Lower image: Codicil that he added on September 20, 1677.
Here is the codicil of September 12, 1677 —
If my son John Soule above-named or his heirs or assigns or any of them shall at any time disturb my daughter Patience or her heirs or assigns or any of them in peaceable possession or enjoyment of the lands I have given her at Nemasket alias Middleboro and recover the same from her or her heirs or assigns or any of them; that then my gift to my son John Soule shall be void; and that then my will is my daughter Patience shall have all my lands at Duxbury and she shall be my sole executrix of this my last will and testament and enter into my housing lands and meadows at Duxbury. (1)
Kids These Days!
We speculate that there isn’t a parent alive today (and also in the past for that matter), who hasn’t rolled their eyes and thought to themselves with a touch of exasperation, kids these days! George and Mary Soule were likely no exception.
Nathaniel “Nathaniel may have caused the most colony trouble of any of his siblings. On 5 March 1667/8, he made an appearance in Plymouth court to ‘answer for his abusing of Mr. John Holmes, teacher of the church of Christ at Duxbury, by many false, scandalous and opprobrious speeches’. He was sentenced to make a public apology for his actions, find sureties* for future good behavior and to sit in the stocks, with the stock sentence remitted [because the man he offended asked for mercy to be shown]. His father George and brother John had to pay surety for Nathaniel’s good behavior with he being bound for monies and to pay a fine. *The Cambridge Dictionary defines surety as “a person who accepts legal responsibility for another person’s debt or behaviour.”
Three years later, on 5 June 1671, he was fined for “telling several lies which tended greatly to the hurt of the Colony in reference to some particulars about the Indians.” And then on 1 March 1674/5 he was sentenced to be whipped for “lying with an Indian woman,” and had to pay a fine in the form of bushels of corn to the Indian woman towards the keeping of her child.”(Wikipedia)
“His crime would have been punished (by the lesser punishment of a fine) if he had committed it with an English woman, but there is other evidence to suggest that sex with Native Americans caused particular anxiety (hence the whipping), as it breached the racial boundaries of the Bible commonwealth itself.) (Whittock)
We wonder is perhaps maybe Nathaniel and Elizabeth could have coordinated their schedules and just done their time together? Perhaps it would have been easier on George and Mary. (Image courtesy of the New York Public Library).
Elizabeth “Elizabeth, like her brother Nathaniel, also had her share of problems with the Plymouth Court. On 3 March 1662/3, the Court fined Elizabeth and Nathaniel Church for committing fornication. Elizabeth then in turn sued Nathaniel Church “for committing an act of fornication with her… and then denying to marry her.” The jury awarded her damages plus court costs.
On 2 July 1667 Elizabeth was sentenced to be whipped at the post “for committing fornication the second time.” And although the man with whom she committed the act was not named, Elizabeth did marry Francis Walker within the following year.” Whittock writes, “These activities do not imply promiscuity on Elizabeth’s part, since many in her society considered intention to marry as allowing licit intercourse. Consequently, about 20 percent of English brides at the time were pregnant at marriage.” (Two sources, see footnotes).
Observations: OK, it’s 400 years later and we’re a bit late to the party. Although we don’t excuse his behavior, perhaps Nathaniel Soule was just both a mouthy cad and a foolish, horny young man? It seems to us however, that Elizabeth was judged a bit unfairly, and likely because she was a woman. Nathaniel Church probably led her on… that seems quite plausible since the court awarded her a judgement. Can you imagine the utter audacity it took for her to sue him in court? And as far as the second case goes, it was likely that her partner was her future husband Francis. But, who knows? Why was this man not named, and why was Elizabeth the only one who was publicly punished?
Around the time when Nathaniel Soule was born, the New England area was engaged in a war with some of the native tribes, namely The Pequots. The various wars with the Native Peoples came and went as the populations within the region shifted. Many of these conflicts played out during the lifetimes of George and Mary Soule’s children—we are going to write about the two major conflicts which directly affected this family. (2)
The Pequot War
“The Pequot War was fought in 1636–37 by the Pequot people against a coalition of English settlers from the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and Saybrook colonies and their Native American allies (including the Narragansett and Mohegan) that eliminated the Pequot as an impediment to English colonization of southern New England. It was an especially brutal war and the first sustained conflict between Native Americans and Europeans in northeastern North America.
Even though our ancestors were Pilgrims and not Puritans, an event like this would have had the same consequences — Puritans Barricading Their House Against Indians, by Albert Bobbett. (Image courtesy of Media Storehouse).
To best understand the Pequot War, one needs to consider the economic, political, and cultural changes brought about by the arrival of the Dutch on Long Island and in the Connecticut River valley at the beginning of the 17th century and of English traders and settlers in the early 1630s. The world into which they entered was dominated by the Pequot, who had subjugated dozens of other tribes throughout the area during the 1620s and early ’30s in an attempt to control the region’s fur and wampum trade. Through the use of diplomacy, coercion, intermarriage, and warfare, by 1635 the Pequot had exerted their economic, political, and military control over the whole of modern-day Connecticut and eastern Long Island and, in the process, established a confederacy of dozens of tribes in the region.
The struggle for control of the fur and wampum trade [decorative strings of beads] in the Connecticut River valley was at the root of the Pequot War. Before the arrival of the English in the early 1630s, the Dutch and Pequot controlled all the region’s trade, but the situation was precarious because of the resentment held by the subservient Native American tribes for their Pequot overlords.
Map of Colonial New England, 1620-40, by Ed Thomasten. (Image courtesy of Deviantart.com).
The war lasted 11 months and involved thousands of combatants who fought several battles over an area encompassing thousands of square miles. In the first six months of the war, the Pequot, with no firearms, won every engagement against the English. Both sides showed a high degree of sophistication, planning, and ingenuity in adjusting to conditions and enemy countermeasures.
The turning point in the conflict came when the Connecticut colony declared war on the Pequot on May 1, 1637, following a Pequot attack on the English settlement at Wethersfield—the first time women and children were killed during the war. Capt. John Mason of Windsor was ordered to conduct an offensive war against the Pequot in retaliation for the Wethersfield raid.
The most-significant battles of the war then followed, including the Mistick Campaign of May 10–26, 1637 (Battle of Mistick Fort, present day Mystic), during which an expeditionary force of 77 Connecticut soldiers and as many as 250 Native American allies attacked and burned the fortified Pequot village at Mistick. Some 400 Pequot (including an estimated 175 women and children) were killed in less than an hour, half of whom burned to death.
Engraving depicting The Attack on The Pequot Fort at Mystic, from John Underhill Newes from America, London, 1638. (Image courtesy of Wikipedia).
The Battles of Mistick Fort and the English Withdrawal were significant victories for the English, and they led to their complete victory over the Pequot six weeks later at the Swamp Fight in Fairfield, Connecticut—the last battle of the war.” (Encyclopædia Britannica) (3)
King Philip’s War
Our Soule ancestors were used to thinking about kings and queens of the European sort, but now they were going to meet a local king, who was new to their understanding. The following is excerpted from the Native Heritage Project article, King Philip’s War:
“King Philip’s War was sometimes called the First Indian War, Metacom’s War, or Metacom’s Rebellion and was an armed conflict between Native American inhabitants of present-day southern New England, English colonists and their Native American allies in 1675–76. The war is named after the main leader of the Native American side, Metacomet, known to the English as ‘King Philip’s War.”
“Throughout the Northeast, the Native Americans had suffered severe population losses due to pandemics of smallpox, spotted fever, typhoid and measles, infectious diseases carried by European fishermen, starting in about 1618, two years before the first colony at Plymouth had been settled. Plymouth, Massachusetts, [which] was established in 1620 with significant early help from Native Americans, particularly… Metacomet’s father and chief of the Wampanoag tribe.”
“Prior to King Philip’s War, tensions fluctuated between different groups of Native Americans and the colonists, but relations were generally peaceful. As the colonists’ small population of a few thousand grew larger over time and the number of their towns increased, the Wampanoag, Nipmuck, Narragansett, Mohegan, Pequot, and other small tribes were each treated individually (many were traditional enemies of each other) by the English colonial officials of Rhode Island, Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and the New Haven colony.”
The New England Colonies in 1677. (Image courtesy of the National Geographic Society).
Over time, “…the building of [Colonial] towns… progressively encroached on traditional Native American territories. As their population increased, the New Englanders continued to expand their settlements along the region’s coastal plain and up the Connecticut River valley. By 1675 they had even established a few small towns in the interior between Boston and the Connecticut River settlements. Tensions escalated and the war itself actually started almost accidentally, certainly not intentionally, but before long, it has spiraled into a full scale war between the 80,000 English settlers and the 10,000 or so Indians.”
Drawing depicting the capture of Mrs. Rolandson during the King Philip’s War between colonists and New England tribes, 1857, Harper’s Monthly. (Image courtesy Library of Congress).
From Wikipedia: “The war was the greatest calamity in seventeenth-century New England and is considered by many to be the deadliest war in Colonial American history. In the space of little more than a year, 12 of the region’s towns were destroyed and many more were damaged, the economy of Plymouth and Rhode Island Colonies was all but ruined and their population was decimated, losing one-tenth of all men available for military service. More than half of New England’s towns were attacked by Natives.”
King Philip’s War began the development of an independent American identity. The New England colonists faced their enemies without support from any European government or military, and this began to give them a group identity separate and distinct from Britain.
The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity by Jill Lepore
Nine Men’s Misery
Benjamin Soule, the youngest son of George and Mary Soule, “fell with Captain Pierce 26 March 1676 during King Philip’s War.” (The Great Migration) We observed this notation about and researched a bit further, learning that —
“On March 26, 1676, during King Philip’s War, Captain Michael Pierce led approximately 60 Plymouth Colony militia and 20 Wampanoag warriors in pursuit of the Narragansett tribe, who had burned down several Rhode Island settlements and attacked Plymouth Colony. Pierce’s troops caught up with the Narragansett, Wampanoag, Nashaway, Nipmuck, and Podunk fighters, but were ambushed in what is now Central Falls, Rhode Island.
The Narragansett War is another term used to describe King Philip’s War.
Pierce’s troops fought the Narragansett warriors for several hours but were surrounded by the larger force. The battle was one of the biggest defeats of colonial troops during King Philip’s War; nearly all of the colonial militia were killed, including Captain Pierce and their Wampanoag allies (exact numbers vary by account). The Narragansett tribe lost only a handful of warriors.
Ten of the colonists were taken prisoner. Nine of these men were tortured to death by the Narragansett warriors at a site in Cumberland, Rhode Island, currently on the Cumberland Monastery and Library property, along with a tenth man who survived. The nine men were buried by English colonists who found the corpses and created a pile of stones [a cairn] to memorialize the men. This pile is believed to be the oldest war memorial in the United States, and a cairn of stones has continuously marked the site since 1676.” (Wikipedia)
The plaque on the memorial pictured at left reads: NINE MEN’S MISERY, On this spot where they were slain by the Indians were buried the nine soldiers captured in Pierce’s fight, March 26, 1676. (Images courtesy of Atlas Obscura and History Net).
To this day, it is unclear if Benjamin Soule is buried near the battle site, which is now known as the Pierce Park and Riverwalk, Central Falls, Providence County, Rhode Island. Or, if perhaps he was one of the soldiers who were tortured and are buried near the cairn mentioned above.
“In terms of population, King Philip’s War was the bloodiest conflict in American history. Fifty-two English towns were attacked, a dozen were destroyed, and more than 2,500 colonists died — perhaps 30% of the English population of New England.” (Westfield)
In the next chapter, we move continue with the specific history of Generation Two in America of the Soule descendants. We will be focusing on George and Mary’s daughter Patience (Soule) Haskell, our 7x Great Grandmother and her husband John. (5)
Following are the footnotes for the Primary Source Materials, Notes, and Observations
A group of Indians armed with bow-and-arrow, along with a fire in a carriage ablaze, burn a log-cabin in the woods during King Philip’s War, 1675-1676, hand-colored woodcut from the 19th century. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KingPhilipsWarAttack.webp Note: For the illustration.
America’s Best History, Pre-Revolution Timeline – The 1600s 1675 Detail https://americasbesthistory.com/abhtimeline1675m.html Note: For the illustration depicting the capture of Mrs. Rolandson during the King Philip’s War between colonists and New England tribes, 1857, Harper’s Monthly.
The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity by Jill Lepore Vintage Books, 1999 Book pages: 5-7 Note: For the text.
This is Chapter Two of seven. During his lifetime in America, George Soule was known as both a farmer, and for animal husbandry (animals raised for products such as meat, milk, fibers for cloth, etc.). This was a typical profession of the time, if one was to survive in a far off colony, and pay off your debts to the English underwriters. (1)
For a Time, An Indentured Servant
As we learned in previous chapters, George was an indentured servant to the Edward Winslow family. This means that he responsible for contributing to the success of the Winslow family for a period of several years, and until he had achieved the age of 25 years, he could not be released from this condition. Elias Story his fellow travelers with the Winslow family on the Mayflower, was of the same status.
The original document Of Plimoth Plantation, by William Bradford, page 530. George Soule is listed as traveling with the Edward Winslow family. (Image courtesy of the State Library of Massachusetts, Digital Collections).
They arrived in Plymouth at the onset of a terrible winter and were woefully unprepared for their new environment. Within three months half of the people who had sailed, had died. Of the Winslow traveling group, Elias Story and Ellen More died first, and then Edward Winslow’s wife Elizabeth died. She was the last person to pass away in what colony Governor William Bradford called The Great Mortality.
The colony went through many struggles in the first year, but they received much help from the Native Peoples. This was especially true of the Wampanoag Confederacy who helped the settlers adapt and thrive in this new place. (2)
This map from the book Three Visitors to Early Plymouth, captures the geography of early New England, including most of the settlements that began in 1623. (Image courtesy of the Internet Archive).
The Common Cause of Labor
“Working communally — also known as the “common course of labor” — was a key part of the business model planned for Plymouth Colony. In the original terms and conditions for funding and planting the colony, all the colonists agreed to work together for seven years at commercial fishing, trading, and farming “making such commodities as shall be most useful for the colony.” At the end of the seven years, the terms and conditions dictated that the colonists would receive a share of the common stock including land and livestock.
After three years, Plymouth Colony’s governor William Bradford ended communal work as related to farming, because it caused too much internal conflict and resulted in poor corn harvests. Without a good corn harvest to feed the colony and without regular supplies from England, the colony would not survive. It is interesting to note, however, that this injunction affected only grain and other field production. All other group work — hunting, fishing, trading and defense – continued as before and seemingly without tension.” (Plimoth Patuxet)
George continued to do his work for the Winslow family as part of his commitment to the greater good. However, as one of the original settlers (the old-comers) within the Plymouth Colony, he was entitled a certain privileges which this status afforded him. One of these was the right to have land tenure.
The 1623 Division of Land in which George Soule received one acre. As described above, “these lye on the South side of the brooke to the baywards.”
“In 1623 a parcel of land was allotted to each man to till for his family and to maintain those who were exempt from agricultural employment because of other duties. Each family was given one acre per family member. In abandoning the “common course and condition” everyone worked harder and more willingly. The food problem was ended, and after the first abundant harvest under individual cultivation, the Pilgrims did not have to endure the meager rations of the first years. The plots assigned them permanently in 1624 became privately owned in 1627.” (Images of Old Hawaii)
“The people mentioned in the Division of Land came on the Mayflower (1620), the Fortune (1621), and the Anne (1623). A couple may have arrived on the Swan (1622) or the Little James (1623), but these were small ships carrying mostly cargo. The Division of Land is recorded in Volume XII of the ‘Records of the Colony of New Plymouth’ ” (The Plymouth Colony Archive Project – TPCAP)
At this time, one acre of land was distributed to each family member. George Soule received one acre of land “between the property of ‘Frances’ Cooke and ‘Mr. Isaak’ Allerton”, as he was a single man. (Wikipedia) (3)
Animals Resting in a Pasture, by Paulus Potter, circa 1650. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).
About The Division of Cattle
Th next thing we learn about George is gained from what is known as The 1627 Division of Cattle. “In the 1627 Plymouth division of cattle George Sowle, Mary Sowle, and Zakariah Sowle were the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth persons in the ninth company.” (American Ancestors) From this we learn that George has married a woman named Mary and that they have a son whom they have named Zachariah. In total, as a family they received 3 cows and 2 goats.
So, who is Mary and where did she come from? (4)
The 1627 Division of Cattle. Note in the lower left corner that George, his wife Mary, and their son Zachariah all received animals.
The Arrival of The Anne and The Little James
It turns out Mary had been in Plymouth since 1623. George’s wife Mary presumably landed at Plymouth on the ship The Anne, on July 10, 1623. She leaves very few historical records. “Mary has been identified by many writers as Mary Buckett of the 1623 land division on that basis that no other Mary was available in the limited Plymouth population of the earliest years).”
The 1623 Division of Land in which Mary Buckett received one acre. “These following lye on the other side of the towne towards the eele-river. Marie Buckett [sic] adioyning to Joseph Rogers.”
The “Anne and Little James [with about 90 new settlers] were the third and fourth ships financed by the London-based Company of Merchant Adventurers to travel together to North America in support of the Plymouth Colony, following Mayflower in 1620 and Fortune in 1621. Anne carried mostly passengers, while the much smaller Little James carried primarily cargo, albeit with a few passengers as well. Soon after arrival, the crew of Anne went to work loading whatever timber and beaver skins could be provided as cargo and sailed straight back across the Atlantic to home on September 10, 1623, carrying Edward Winslow on the first of several voyages back to England.” (Wikipedia, and the Mayflower Quarterly Magazine, Fall 2022)
It is interesting to note that Edward Winslow chose to return to England in 1623, after having left there fearing the wrath of King James I. It seems like Edward probably figured that he was no longer threatened. By this point in time King James “was often seriously ill during the last year of his life. He suffered increasingly from arthritis, gout, and kidney stones. He also lost his teeth and drank heavily. He died in Hertfordshire on March 27, 1625…” (Wikipedia)
Research has determined that Mary Buckett, was likely born “Mary Beckett of Watford, Hertfordshire, was baptized on 24 February 1605, the daughter of John and Ann (Alden) Beckett. It was hypothesized that Mary came on the ship Anne in the care of the Warrens, and that explains George and Mary Soule’s apparent association with the Warren family in the 1627 Division of Cattle. The Warren family was also from Hertfordshire.
Mary Beckett 1605 birth record from the Watford, Hertfordshire, England Parish register. (See footnotes).
Her father John Becket died in 1619, and no further record “of this Mary Beckett was located in Watford or any of the surrounding parishes; combined with the death of her father in 1619 and non-remarriage of her mother (still a widow in 1622), this further suggests custody of her was transferred to another family and she left the area.” (Caleb Johnson, Soule Kindred in America)
If you know Mayflower Pilgrim names and were wondering… Researchers have not been able to yet connect her mother’s family surname of Alden, to the John Alden family of Plymouth.
Observation: With grandparents from this far back in time, we are grateful to know what we do know. Their birth records are highly probable, but not specific. We do know when they arrived at the Plymouth Colony, and we do know when they likely passed on. For now, we shall focus next on their family. (5)
Since These Beginnings…
George and Mary had at least nine children over a period of about 24 years. The first three children were born at Plymouth:
Zachariah Soule, born by 1627 — died before December 11, 1663. He was married before 1663 to Margaret Ford, who was possibly the daughter of William Ford. “He died during the 1663 Canadian Expedition [fighting Mohawk Indians] and his estate went to his brother John.” There were no children.
John Soule, born March 8, 1631/32 — died before November 14, 1707 at Duxbury. Married first circa 1656 to Rebecca Simmons; they had nine children. Married circa 1678 second to Esther Delano Samson; they had three children.
Nathaniel Soule, born circa 1637 — died at Dartmouth before October 12, 1699. Married circa 1680 to Rosamund Thorn.
The following six children were born at Duxbury:
George Soule, born about circa 1639 — died before June 22, 1704. He married circa 1664 Deborah _____, who was possibly surnamed Thomas; they had eight children.
Susanna Soule, born circa 1642 — died date unknown. She married circa 1661 to Francis West.
Mary Soule, born circa 1643 — died at Plymouth after 1720. She married John Peterson by 1665; they had nine children.
Elizabeth Soule, born circa 1644 — died at Middleboro, date unknown. She married Francis Walker by 1668.
Patience Soule, born circa 1648 — died at Middleboro, March 11, 1705/06. Married circa 1666 John Haskell in Middleboro; they had eight children. (We are descended from Patience).
Benjamin Soule, born circa 1651 — died at Rhode Island, March 26, 1676, during King Phillip’s War. (6)
Duxbury / Ducksburrow / Duxbarrow
From Wikipedia, “Historic records indicate Soule became a freeman prior to 1632/33 (Johnson) or was on the 1633 list of freemen, [and that in 1633/34, he] “was taxed at the lowest rate which indicates that his estate was without much significance.” We read this to mean that he and Mary were doing fine, but that comfort and prosperity was still not yet achieved. At this point, they had a couple of children, a small amount of acreage for farming, some animals, and certainly, a vegetable garden. George and Mary Soule took their family and moved slightly north of the Plymouth Colony because this new area offered a chance at more prosperity. Nevertheless, George remained involved in the civic life of Plymouth.
These are sample records that record Plymouth Colony deeds for George Soule in 1637 and 1639. In his lifetime there, he was involved in 22 property transactions.
If you recall from The Common Cause of Labor above, the “financial backers in London, [had] required [for the settlers] live together in a tight community for seven years. At the end of that term in 1627, land along the coast was allotted to settlers for farming. Thus, the coastline from Plymouth to Marshfield, including Duxbury, likely named after Myles Standish’s ancestral home of Duxbury Hall in Chorley, was parceled out, and many settlers began moving away from Plymouth.
This map indicates the location of Soule property in the northernmost part of Duxbury at Powder Point. (Image graphics adapted from a contemporary Alden Kindred of America map).
From the mid-1630s forward, a series of small pieces of property were (mostly) granted to him, but there was also a sale completed by 1639. “The 1638 land records note that ‘one acre of land is granted to George Soule at the watering place…and also a parcel of Stony Marsh at Powder Point, containing two acres.’ The land at the ‘watering place’ in south Plymouth was sold the next year, possibly as he was living in Duxbury at that time and did not need his property in south Plymouth. In 1640 he was granted a meadow at Green’s Harbor—now Marshfield.” (Several sources, see footnotes).
Old Dartmouth purchase deed from November 29, 1652.
“The General Court voted 5 March 1639/40 to pay these ‘Purchasers or Old Comers’ for the surrender of their [original land] patent. George’s interests in Old Dartmouth originated in 1652/3, when Plymouth Colony assigned ‘over one hundred thousand acres’ along Buzzards Bay to significant old-comers (i.e., persons ‘who arrived at Plymouth before 1627’), among them George.
This large coastal area, organized as Old Dartmouth in 1664, comprises today the towns of ‘Dartmouth, New Bedford, Westport, Fairhaven, and Acushnet, Massachusetts, and a strip of Tiverton and Little Compton, Rhode Island.’ Assignments were made shortly after 29 Nov 1652, the date on which the indigenous leader Wesamequen and his son Wamsutta ‘sold’ the land to William Bradford, Myles Standish, Thomas Southworth, John Winslow, John Cooke ‘and their associates, the purchasers or old-comers.’
Interests were then assigned to thirty-six old-comers, 7 Mar 1652/3, including George, who received an undivided one thirty-fourth share of the lands.‘As [the assignees] all had their residences in other parts of the colony, it was not expected that they would remove to this territory. It was merely a dividend in land, which cost them nothing to buy and [for a time] nothing in taxes to hold.’ George never settled in Old Dartmouth, but his sons George and Nathaniel did.” (WikiTree)
Gosnold on Cuttyhunk, 1602 by Albert Bierstadt. From Wikipedia, “The first European settlement in the Old Dartmouth area was at present-day Cuttyhunk Island by the explorer Bartholomew Gosnold in 1602.”
By the end of his life, his land holdings included property in several towns, those being Bridgewater, Dartmouth, Duxbury, Marshfield, Nemaskett, (i.e. Middleborough), and Plymouth. He distributed much of this land among his children during the last twenty years of his life. (7)
Excerpted from the book, Sketches of Early Middleborough. (See footnotes).
George’s Role In The Civic Life of The Plymouth Colony
“On 27 September 27, 1642 he appeared before the General Court as one of two ‘Deputies’ or representatives from Duxbury, Plymouth Colony having established representative government in 1639 after finding it no longer practicable to have all the colonists participate as individuals. The representatives were limited to terms of one year and denied the right of succession so we find George Soule serving each alternate year for many years, concluding in June 1654.”
“First in 1642 and last in 1662, he was assigned to at least five grand and petty juries.” George also served on important committees: one for granting land, in 1640 and 1645, a committee on magistrates and deputies in 1650, and another on boundaries in 1658.
We thought that this was curious. “On 20 October 1646 Soule, with Anthony Thatcher, was chosen to be on a ‘committee to draw up an order concerning disorderly drinking (smoking) of tobacco.’ The law, as drawn up, provided strict limitations on where tobacco could be smoked and what fines could be levied against lawbreakers.” (George was ahead of his time!)
Raleigh’s First Pipe in England, an illustration included in the 1859 book, Tobacco, its History and Associations, by Frederick William Fairholt.
As a defender of the colony — In the 1630s, southeastern New England was rocked by the conflict of the Pequot War. We will be writing about this in the next chapter, but we note it here because George volunteered for Pequot War on June 7, 1637 as one of 42 men under Lieutenant William Holmes and Reverend Thomas Prence as chaplain. Despite this, “when they were ready to march . . . they had word to stay; for the enemy was as good as vanquished and there would be no need.” His name appears on “the 1643 Able to Bear Arms List, with George and his son Zachariah (listed as ‘Georg’ and ‘Zachary’). They appear with those bearing arms from Duxbury (written as ‘Duxbarrow’).” When his estate was evaluated, a gun was listed in the inventory valued at 15 shillings. (Several sources, see footnotes).
In the next chapter, we will take a look at George’s estate, his Will, and the behavior of some of his and Mary’s children. New England was changing with many more people pouring into the area whose aims were different from those of the Pilgrims. The character of some of these new immigrants contributed to tense circumstances, which then lead to ongoing wars with the Native Peoples. (8)
Following are the footnotes for the Primary Source Materials, Notes, and Observations
The Plymouth Colony Archive Project Plymouth Colony Division of Land, 1623 http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/landdiv.html Note: For the text. Additionally, “In 1623, the Pilgrims divided up their land. The people mentioned in the Division of Land came on the Mayflower (1620), the Fortune (1621), and the Anne (1623). A couple may have arrived on the Swan(1622) or the Little James (1623), but these were small ships carrying mostly cargo. The Division of Land is recorded in Volume XII of the ‘Records of the Colony of New Plymouth’, and reprinted in the ‘Mayflower Descendant’, 1:227-230. Each family was given one acre per family member.”
Notes for the next two entries below: There are strong arguments based upon the evidence, that Patience Soule’s likely birth year is actually 1648. (See WikiTree and the FamilySearch Library footnotes).
WikiTree George Soule Sr (abt. 1601 – bef. 1680) https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Soule-33 Note: For the text about Patience Soule’s probable birth year. “Birth — Arriving at an estimated birth year, is not an exact science. At some times in the past Patience, the daughter of George Soule and Mary Bucket, has been placed earlier in the birth order of George’s children, hence 1630 in Plymouth. An article on John Haskell her husband in the American Genealogist also says born 1639-1640, but if you take the statement that she died in 1706 after 40 years of marriage, that makes her married about 1666. If she were married at 18, she would have been born in 1648. The newer Mayflower Society publications have Patience listed as the next to last child, and born about 1648. Her last child was born 1691, making her aged 43 at this birth [a usual age for birth of last child–after a long series of children].”
Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England by New Plymouth Colony; Nathaniel Bradstreet Shurtleff, David Pulsifer https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo0102newp/page/n5/mode/2up Book page: 3-4, Digital pages: 24-26/432 Note: ‘George Sowle’ listed as being a Freeman
WikiTree George Soule Sr (abt. 1601 – bef. 1680) https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Soule-33 Note: For the text about the Old Dartmouth property and the deed image.
The New England Historical and Genealogical Register Sketches of the Early History of Middleborough (Specific chapter) by Waters, Henry Fitz-Gilbert Watres), and the New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1848 https://archive.org/details/newenglandhistor001wate/page/334/mode/2up Book page: 335, Digital page: 334/456 Note: For the excerpted book text.
Excerpt from Mayflower Deeds and Probates, 1600-1850.
This is Chapter One of seven. We hope that you have taken the time to read the opening chapters we wrote based on the lives of The Pilgrims. It will help to make these The Soule Line chapters more accessible.
As the authors of this family history genealogy blog, we are in the 11th generation of Soule descendants in America. George and his wife Mary are our 8x Great Grandparents.
Introduction
The enigmatic Pilgrim George Soule was one of our two Mayflower ancestors. We use the word enigmatic to describe him because we didn’t know very much about him before he appears as a servant traveling with the family of Edward Winslow on that ship. His name appears on the Mayflower Compact as one of the signers. We also learned that he needed to be hidden for a time. Enigmatic and hidden… who doesn’t love to solve a mystery?
So, who was he and what were his origins? Much research has been done in the last decade to work toward a very plausible solution. First though, we should look at what he was not.
George Soule Was Probably Not an Englishman
Researchers at the Mayflower Society would be thrilled to find a birth record for this ancestor in England, but after decades of research, nothing credible has turned up. Additionally, cutting edge genetic research based on his possible Y-DNA chromosome male descendants in England — has also revealed nothing. As such, researchers decided to broaden their horizons and look at the life of the Pilgrims in Leiden, Holland during their years living there before they departed on the Mayflower.
It seems that this avenue of exploration may have yielded the clues his descendants have been looking for. Before we delve into that, we need to circle back for a concise review of the history from that era.
The Pilgrims were Separatists who chose to remove themselves from the Church of England and this act of defiance angered King James I, who was the head of the Church of England. He chose to persecute the Separatists, so in response, the Pilgrims escaped to Leiden, Holland. There they found a more compassionate environment for their point-of-view about religious matters.
View of Leiden From the Northeast, by Jan van Goyen, circa 1650. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).
We must note however, that a very important aspect of their Leiden history, is the fact that William Brewster — as a member of the Pilgrim congregation and the future Governor of the Pilgrim Colony — was also a printer. King James I of England viewed Brewster’s printing work as criminal and subversive because it was critical of him and the Church of England. (For a more thorough explanation of this period, please see the chapter, The Pilgrims — Life in Leyden).
Our ancestor was very likely one of Brewster’s printing associates. Therefore, George Soule needed to be hidden for a time. Below is an excellent explanation of those events by the insightful researcher Louise Walsh Throop. We have gathered a very simple synopsis from three research papers she has published in the Mayflower Descendant and the Soule Kindred newsletter. Our synopsis is very basic, so we suggest that you consult her original work to appreciate the richness and clarity of her analysis. (See footnotes).
William Brewster’s Subterfuge
“Almost four hundred years after the event, the arrival of the Mayflower off the shore of Cape Cod is still associated with a romantic notion that its passengers were poor English farm folk, eager to take the word of God to North America. Apparently the leaders were also united in protecting William Brewster and his associates from the wrath of King James I, and the romantic notion was part of a successful deception.
…after May 1619 William Brewster was a fugitive who, if caught, would have been imprisoned or hanged. The printed work that incurred the wrath of King James I was published early in 1619. Entitled Perth Assembly, it was printed in Holland by Brewster and smuggled into Scotland in a wine vat.” That this publication did not have the name of the printer, nor the location stated, made the printing press illegal under Dutch law.
Leiden Museum de Lakenhal Perth Assembly, 1619 (Image courtesy of David Calderwood, Leiden University Libraries). “A year before their departure for America, the Pilgrims published this pamphlet in Leiden. It was immediately banned in England since it criticised royal decisions that had been made during an assembly in Perth, Scotland in 1618. In this pamphlet, the Pilgrims express their dislike of the celebration of Christmas and Easter, the episcopal hierarchy and the practice of kneeling during Holy Communion.”
“Furthermore, when Brewster fled Holland, he brought with him several of his associates in his printing venture in Leiden— probably to protect them and prevent the King’s agents from eliciting information about Brewster from them. To protect Brewster, names were changed and documents altered—all part of a subterfuge.
The illegal printing of books critical of King James I and the English Church was carefully planned. Two non-controversial books were published in Latin in 1617 as a ‘front’ operation and perhaps to gather the set type and gain income. William Brewster then faded from view: he appeared in the Spring 1617 book trade catalog but went underground and did not appear in the Autumn 1618 catalog.
Some of Brewster’s associates in this printing operation are known—notably John Reynolds and Edward Winslow. [It was also with Winslow’s family that George Soule traveled as a servant on the Mayflower.] Brewster’s supporters and associates were also neighbors in Leiden—the city was teeming with printing associates ready to help.”
Illustration of Johannes Gutenberg’s First Printing Press, from 7 Ways the Printing Press Changed the World. (Image courtesy of History.com).
The Background History of Book Printing in Holland
When printing presses were becoming established, the interruptions which they caused in societies were problematic. The closest analogy we would have today, is when the internet came about and there was much fretting about the changes that were happening in society. In 16th century Holland, these interruptions were managed by regulation.
“Printing was regulated by local and/or regional authorities. Itinerant printers of the late 1500s traveled from town to town peddling pamphlets and broadsides produced on small hand-held presses. In 1608 Leiden banned foreigners from selling such printed matter by ‘calling out’ their wares. The basic printing laws in Holland were put forth in the edict of 1581, renewed and updated at various times from 1608 through 1651.
The salient point of these regulations was to require a printer to include information in his productions about his name, place, year, author, and translators. Anonymity and libel were illegal and fines for such behavior were heavy. Thus, by the printing regulations of the time, many of the books printed for Puritan and Separatist uses in Leiden and Amsterdam were illegal by reason of the omission of printer, author, or other essential data.
Illustration of a 15th century print shop, from 7 Ways the Printing Press Changed the World. (Image courtesy of History.com).
Around 1620 in Leiden, the book trade was in the middle of a transformation from a craft-based occupation peopled with printers, binders, type-founders and compositors to a commercially oriented industry peopled by booksellers, paper sellers, binders, typemakers, and printing firms.
The early printers in Leiden were actually small in number and appear to have known and worked or cooperated with each other. In any one year, there were probably no more than 20 printers working. The industry was growing, and after 1611 grew by 15 or more active workers in an average year. Leiden, with an estimated population in 1622 of 44,745, was home to a total of about 62 printers/booksellers in the period 1601-1625.”
A Friendly Neighbor, Johannes Sol
“A print shop in that period needed a minimum of three persons. William Brewster’s first assistant in this period was John Reynolds, who left after one year left when he married. [His second assistant was] Edward Winslow, who joined Brewster in Leiden late in 1617 after a four-year apprenticeship to stationer John Beal in London. Winslow, like Reynolds, married after assisting Brewster for about a year. Brewster also appears to have had assistance from the print shop of a friendly neighbor, Johannes Sol.
At Johannes Sol’s printshop, Johannes’s teenaged brother George Soule was available (no apprenticeship paperwork was needed). [Since we know George could read and sign his name, he probably also did proofreading.] The change of “Sol” to “Sowle” might have been part of Brewster’s subterfuge — to identify all Mayflower passengers as English.”
“On the recipe for a varnish used by El Greco” by Michel Faver-Félix. (Image courtesy of Conservar Património, no. 26, 2017, Associação Profissional de Conservadores Restauradores de Portugal).
It is likely that “Johannes Sol died suddenly during the winter of 1618/19. A Dutch printer… suffered an accidental, fiery death while boiling printing varnish in country house outside Leiden on a Sabbath day… the printer’s house was burned and he and his only daughter died in the fire.” His death left his younger brother George Sol, without a livelihood” and exposed him as an associate of William Brewster, who was a hunted man.”
Everyone in the Pilgrim community was worried about the long arm of King James I, and we wonder if perhaps the horrid death of Johannes Sol was something instigated by King James I? We will likely never know, but certainly, people were nervous. (1)
A Walloon Refugee Family
We have encountered many spelling alternatives when it comes to the surname for the Soule family. It seems that much of this variation is dependent upon who was doing the record-keeping and what culture they were from. Moreover, much spelling then could sometimes be phonetic. In addition, William Brewster seems to have altered the Sol spelling to Sowle/Soule as part of his great deception to make the name seem more English.
Several researchers have found records for this family that all seem to agree on the point that they were likely a Walloon refugee family. (For an understanding of what was occurring with the Walloons in Europe during this period, please see the chapter of another family line who was experiencing the same difficulties: The DeVoe Line, A Narrative — One, Holland & Huguenots. It is interesting to note that the Soule line connects through marriage to the DeVoe line in 6 generations).
A Brief History of the Netherlands map, circa 1555, by Brian A. Smith, D.C. The orange circles indicate areas where our Jan Solis and Maecken Labus may have lived in the Walloon Provinces, before going to London, England for a few years.
From researcher Louise Walsh Throop, the “Father Jan Sols experienced in his lifetime the revolt of the Spanish Netherlands, led by William of Orange. In 1568 the 80 Years War between the Netherlands and Spain began. In the 1570s, Protestant refugees fled north to cities like Brussels and Antwerp or across the Channel to England. The assassination of William of Orange in 1584 was followed by the fall of Ghent, Bruges, Brussels, and Antwerp. Refugees fled north [about 1585] to the newly independent Dutch provinces of Holland and Zeeland, or across the Channel to England. In the province of Holland are located the towns of Haarlem, Amsterdam and Leiden.” (2)
1820 illustration of the Dutch Reformed Church of Austin Friars, based upon illustration in A Topographical and Historical Description of London and Middlesex, by Edward Wedlake Brayley. (Image courtesy of Wikipedia).
The Dutch Reformed Church of Austin Friars
The “origins of George Soule this last variation of Sols/Soltz, i.e., ‘Solis,’ is a clerical variation on the Latinized version: Solius …the marriage record of Jan Solis of Brussels, to Maecken Labus, at the Dutch Reformed Church in Austin Friars, London, dated 30 August 1586,” and “…that “John Sols and his wife” were admitted into the congregation in 1585. Seven other children were born after they returned to Haarlem about 1590” (Soule Kindred newsletter, Summer 2019)
Entry for the marriage record of Jan Solis and Maecken Labus — August 30, 1586, as published in The Marriage, Baptismal and Burial Registers, 1571-1874, and Monumental Inscriptions of the Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars, London. (Image courtesy of The Internet Archive).
“Jan and Mayken were Protestant refugees who were married at Austin Friars, London, England, 30 August 1586. They were the parents of seven known children baptized in Haarlem, Holland, between 1590 and 1599. The marriage record of Jan Sol in London, England, in 1586 gives his origin, misread in English as ‘Brussels’ whereas it was more likely referring to what is now Lille, France. ” (Wikitree)
Jan (or John in English) married Mayken/Maecken (Mary in English) in London in 1586 and may have lingered a year or two in or near London. Possibly a proposed tax on refugees provided the impetus for leaving London. The baptisms of seven children in Haarlem 1590-9 means that George Soule would have been born about 1601.” (Throop, 2011)
See the middle entry — August 30, 1586 marriage record for Jan Solis of Brussels, to Maecken Labus at the Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars, London, England. (Image courtesy of the Soule Kindred Newsletter, Summer 2019).
Indeed, they could have been from Brussels, or they could have been from Lille, France, or they could have been from both places. Due to the conflicts between Kingdoms at that time, the borders were always in flux and people were moving around much. (This same experience happened to our DeVoe family ancestors). What is most important is that they eventually ended up in Haarlem, Holland where they started their family.
Wikitree explains, “The Dutch Reformed Church records in Haarlem give the baptismal records for seven children of Jan Sols/Soltz, of Brussells, and his wife Mayken Labis/Labus/Lapres/Laber, including:
Geertrude, baptized February 25, 1590
Johannes, baptized October 6, 1591*
Sara, baptized September 5, 1593
Maria, baptized 28 March 28, 1596
Johanna, baptized March 19, 1597
Pieter, apparently twin with Susanna, baptized January 17, 1599
Susanna, apparently twin with Pieter, baptized January 17, 1599
*This oldest son is the printer Johannes Sol from Leiden.” So where is George Soule in this family group? He was presumably the youngest of the family. (3)
View of Haarlem with Bleaching Grounds, by Jacob van Ruisdael, circa 1665. (Image courtesy of Wikipedia).
George Soule — Born About 1601
“It is not outside the realm of possibility for Johannes Sol to have a younger brother George, whose Dutch name would have been Joris (also Goris/Jurgem/Jurian/Jurn/Jury/Janz) Sol.” This places George’s birthdate somewhere in the range of November 1599 to November 1602. Therefore, researchers use the date of 1601 for his birthdate, and cite points of evidence for the familial relationship:
“Four of the 14 male servants on the Mayflower signed the Compact: John Howland, George Soule, Edward Doty, and Edward Leister. With regard to these men, we have help in calculating birth years: servants were not eligible to marry until their contract was up, which normally was when a man reached the age if 25 years. Thus, using George Soule’s projected marriage about 1626, his birth year was 1601 or earlier.”
“The naming of his children. “George married about 1626 in Plymouth Colony, and named two children for his presumed parents: Jan/John and Mayken/Mary (Labus/Labis) Sol. George [named a son after himself, and] also named a daughter Susannah, presumably for his sister Susanna, bap. in 1599.” Hence the names: John, Mary, George, Susannah. Mary could have been named for his mother, and/or his wife. (Both sections are Throop, 2009)
“A series of matching Y-DNA test results in 2017 supports the kinship of George Soule to Johannes Sol.” (Throop, 2009 and Wikipedia)
The Sails Fill As The Mayflower Leaves Plymouth, 1620, by Peter Goodhall. (Image courtesy of American Art Collector).
In Summary, Before We Sail to America —
“The available evidence points to a Dutch birthplace for George Soule with his possible father Jan Sol(s) moving from Brussels in Brabant to Haarlem in the Dutch province of Holland at least 10 years before George’s birth. Being born about 1601, and literate, George was probably handy when presumed brother Johannes Sol needed a printer’s devil or general helper about 1616-1617 in Leiden. About the middle of 1618, George apparently became involved in the efforts of the so-called Pilgrim Press, which was suppressed in September 1619. His association with Brewster and Winslow appears to have led to his inclusion on the passenger list of the Mayflower, and, like Brewster and possibly also Winslow, or he may have been hiding from the Dutch and English authorities.”
Our ancestor, the young George Soule, was likely born in 1601 in Haarlem, Haarlem, Netherlands. “It very well could have been the chance of a lifetime for young George Soule to be part of a group leaving Leiden in the middle of 1620 for the relative freedom of North America.” (Soule, Terry, and Throop, 2000, and Throop 2009) (4)
Following are the footnotes for the Primary Source Materials, Notes, and Observations
Note, that these four sections all use the same Louise Walsh Throop references: George Soule Was Probably Not an Englishman William Brewster’s Subterfuge The Background History of Book Printing in Holland A Friendly Neighbor, Johannes Sol
“…in which I describe how William Brewster got out of Leiden before being picked up by the authorities, who were being pressured by the English ambassador. Brewster seems to have taken some of his print crew with him, including George Sowle, an English spelling [as his original name was Dutch and probably Joris Sol]. The modern proof is in y-DNA matching with a Forrest family from southern Scotland, as it appears an orphaned nephew of George Soule was adopted into a Forrest family, probably by remarriage of a widowed mother. The orphaned son was the only surviving child of a printer in Leiden named Johannes Sol; Johannes left an estate so the widow would have been quickly remarried so the new husband could have control of the estate, and baby boy. Johannes’ apprentice left in 1619 for Scotland, apparently taking tell-tale type from Brewster’s presswork, and probably also the (missing) Brewster press. His name was Edward Rabin and he is celebrated for being the first printer in Aberdeen, Scotland [see wikipedia]. In one of his diatribes against Sabbath-breaking and drinking, etc., he mentions without any names his former master who died in a fire [while working on a Sabbath], and whose estate was then (in 1623) under the control of unrelated person(s). The Forrest/Soule y-DNA matches are found on the Soule project housed with FamilyTreeDNA. This whole scenario is described in the article already mentioned in Mayflower Descendant. Now if you know someone who can research in the Netherlands, please let me know! The Soule Kindred in America has been focusing on English research in the past 10 years, probably because they received a bequest for research in England! They have found nothing.”
Leiden Museum de Lakenhal Pilgrims to America — And The Limits of Freedom (Exhibition) via Heritage Leiden, Stadsarchief 1574 – 1816 Perth Assembly, 1619 (Image courtesy of David Calderwood, Leiden University Libraries). https://www.lakenhal.nl/en/story/images-and-credit-lines-pilgrims Notes:“A year before their departure for America, the Pilgrims published this pamphlet in Leiden. It was immediately banned in England since it criticised royal decisions that had been made during an assembly in Perth, Scotland in 1618. In this pamphlet, the Pilgrims express their dislike of the celebration of Christmas and Easter, the episcopal hierarchy and the practice of kneeling during Holy Communion.”
History.com 7 Ways the Printing Press Changed the World by Dave Roos https://www.history.com/news/printing-press-renaissance Notes: For two illustrations, Johannes Gutenberg’s First Printing Press, and a 15th century print shop.
Conservar Património, no. 26, 2017 Associação Profissional de Conservadores Restauradores de Portugal “On the recipe for a varnish used by El Greco” by Michel Faver-Félix https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/5136/513654156004/html/index.html Note: For the botanical images.
Soule Kindred Newsletter Fall 2011, Vol. XXXXV, No. 4 Continuing the Search for theOrigins of George Soule and Some Incidental Findings in the Search for His Descendants by Louise Walsh Throop, M.B.A. https://soulekindred.org/George-Soule-Research Note: For the text.
The Dutch Reformed Church of Austin Friars
(3) — five records
London Remembers First Dutch Church, Austin Friars https://www.londonremembers.com/subjects/first-dutch-church-austin-friars Note 1: For the 1820 illustration of the church, based upon A Topographical and Historical Description of London and Middlesex, by Edward Wedlake Brayley. Note 2: From Wikipedia, “In the night of 15–16 October 1940, just a decade before the Dutch Church celebrated its 400th anniversary, the medieval building was completely destroyed by German bombs. The church’s collection of rare books including Dutch Bibles, atlases and encyclopedias had been moved out of London for safe-keeping one day before the bombing raid that destroyed the building.” Via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Church,_Austin_Friars
Soule Kindred Newsletter Fall 2011, Vol. XXXXV, No. 4 Continuing the Search for theOrigins of George Soule and Some Incidental Findings in the Search for His Descendants by Louise Walsh Throop, M.B.A. https://soulekindred.org/George-Soule-Research Note: For the text.
Soule Kindred Newsletter Summer 2019, Vol. LIII, No. 2 Soule Sleuths Make Headway in theSearch for George by Marcy Kelly https://soulekindred.org/Newsletters-2010s Note: For the text, and the (personal photograph) image of the marriage record for Jan Solis and Maecken Labus, found in parish registers of Austin Friars.
The Marriage, Baptismal and Burial Registers, 1571-1874, and Monumental Inscriptions of the Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars, London; with a short account of the strangers and their churches by London. Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars; William John Charles Moens, 1833-1904 editor https://archive.org/details/marriagebaptisma00lond/page/134/mode/2up Book page: 135, Digital page: 190/295 Note: For the text.
George Soule Family Search family tree that indicates a 1601 birth in Haarlem, Haarlem, Netherlands https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:QDJH-P1T Note 1: This circa 2000 reference is cited for this family tree. Mayflower Families In Progress – George Soule of the Mayflower and his descendants in the Fifth and Sixth Generations (Families 1-229) ([Plymouth, Massachusetts]: G by John E. Soule, Col. USA, Ret., M.C.E., Milton E. Terry, Ph.D., and Louise Walsh Throop, M.B.A., Note 2: This publication is also available here — George Soule of the Mayflower and his descendants in the Fifth and Sixth Generations, at: https://archive.org/details/georgesouleofmay2000soul/page/2/mode/2up Note: For the data.
Our Ancestors, Our Narratives 
