Suffolk deed books: Suffolk county, Massachusetts

Paul Revere house

Early Suffolk Deeds by John T. Hassam

Early recorders and registers of deeds for the county of Suffolk, Massachusetts, 1639-1735 by John T. Hassam

Suffolk Deeds, Liber I, 1629-1653

Suffolk Deeds, Liber II, 1653-1656

Suffolk Deeds, Liber III, 1656-1662

Suffolk Deeds, Liber IV, 1661/2-1665

Suffolk Deeds, Liber V, 1665-1668

Suffolk Deeds, Liber VI, 1668-1672

Suffolk Deeds, Liber VII, 1669/70-1672

Suffolk Deeds, Liber VIII, 1672-1674

Suffolk Deeds, Liber IX, 1674-1676

Suffolk Deeds, Liber X, 1676/77-1678

Suffolk Deeds, Liber XI, 1678-1680

Suffolk Deeds, Liber XII, 1680-1683

Suffolk Deeds, Liber XIII, 1683-1686

Suffolk Deeds, Liber XIV, 1686-1697

Record of the Streets, Alleys, Places, etc., in the City of Boston from settlement of the town to 1910

Also see Suffolk Registry of Deeds site for atlases, assessor maps, old recorded land plans, etc.

George Burroughs’ genealogy: Burroughs-Thomas-Crocker line

Mather's book, The Wonders of the Invisible World,
shows his passionate dislike for fellow minister
and Salem witch trials victim George Burroughs

Cotton Mather’s profile in Colonial Collegians concludes by claiming a blood connection between the Puritan Boston minister and George Burroughs, the man Mather vilified in his writings on the 1692 Salem witch trials. In my previous post, however, I showed how the Colonial Collegians writer mistook a Joseph for a Josiah Crocker in Mather's line, which removed a marriage between their descendants. 

But what about the line of descent given for George Burroughs, former minister of Salem Village? It turns out the information in Colonial Collegians was almost correct. It skips one generation—the father of Isaiah Thomas, founder of the American Antiquarian Society (AAS)—but the other details check out.

Burroughs line in Colonial Collegians

George Burroughs (H.U. 1670)

[daughter Burroughs]

Isaiah Thomas, LL.D., founder of AAS

[child of Isaiah Thomas]

[granddaughter of Isaiah Thomas] m. Samuel Leonard Crocker (Brown U. 1822)

Isaiah Thomas Sr. (1749-1831),

descendant of George Burroughs,

printer and founder of AAS

Rev. George Burroughs (1650-1692), the 1670 Harvard graduate hanged as a witch in Salem, married as his first wife, Hannah Fisher (1653-1681). Their daughter Elizabeth Burroughs (1681-1719) married Peter Thomas (1683-1744). Elizabeth and Peter’s son Moses Thomas (1715-1752) married Fidelity Grant (d. 1798). Their son, Isaiah Thomas Sr. (1749-1831), married as his first wife Mary Dill (b. 1750). Isaiah was a printer and founder of the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, Massachusetts. Their son Isaiah Thomas Jr. (1773-1819) married Mary Weld (1768-1825), and they had Hannah Weld Thomas (d. 1827). So, the granddaughter of the founder of the AAS married Samuel Leonard Crocker (1804-1883) who graduated from Brown University in 1822. That makes George Burroughs the third great-grandfather of Hannah (Thomas) Crocker.

For more information on Isaiah Thomas Sr., see the AAS prototype website, Isaiah Thomas: Patriot-Printer. 

Cotton Mather and the Six Degrees of Separation

Cotton Mather (1663-1728)

“Conspicuous” on horseback, Cotton Mather (1663-1728) attended the hanging of fellow minister and Harvard graduate George Burroughs (1650-1692), found guilty at the Salem witch trials. Called the ringleader of witches, Burroughs’ parting speech followed by a perfect recitation of “The Lord’s Prayer” caused doubt to stir among the onlookers. Yet Mather, who firmly believed in the devil himself, dismissed Burroughs’ words. 

And the executions continued.

Mather held a passionate dislike for Burroughs, despite their similar backgrounds. Perhaps he truly believed the former Salem Village minister conducted devil worship with scores of witches, murdered his two wives (as their ghosts told Ann Putnam Jr.), or turned Baptist. Whatever the cause, a Harvard historian concluded the Boston minister’s biography by claiming Mather was linked to Burroughs through their descendants, no doubt causing Mather to roll over in his grave.

“The name Mather among Cotton Mather’s descendants has long been extinct. His son Samuel Mather, (Harvard University 1723), had a daughter, who married the Reverend Josiah Crocker of Taunton, H.U. 1738, among whose descendants was Samuel Leonard Crocker of Taunton, a graduate of Brown University in 1822, who married a granddaughter of Isaiah Thomas, LL.D., the founder of the American Antiquarian Society at Worcester, whose maternal grandfather was George Burroughs, at whose execution Cotton Mather acted a Conspicuous part on horseback. Thus by the marriage of Crocker to a granddaughter of Thomas, the Cotton Mather family became united with the George Burroughs family.” 

—Colonial Collegians 1642-1774, Harvard, pp. 797-798. (Online database at AmericanAncestors.org.)

So, let’s fill in the missing data to prove six degrees of separation between the two Puritan ministers. 

MATHER	BURROUGHS
Cotton Mather (H.U. 1678, 1681)	George Burroughs (H.U. 1670)
Samuel Mather (H.U. 1723)	[daughter Burroughs]
[dau.] Mather m. Rev. Josiah Crocker (H.U. 1738)	Isaiah Thomas, LL.D., founder of AAS
[among whose descendants was . . .]	[child of Isaiah Thomas]
Samuel Leonard Crocker (Brown U. 1822) m. [granddaughter of Isaiah Thomas]

The first child of Rev. Increase Mather (1639-1723) and Maria Cotton (1642-1714), Cotton Mather was married three times and had 15 children. Unfortunately, childhood diseases and early deaths wiped out most of his children, leaving only three who married. With his second wife Elizabeth Clark (1675-1713), Cotton had a son, Samuel Mather (1706-1785). Rev. Samuel married Hannah Hutchinson (1714-1752) in 1733.

Eligible Harvard Grads

Since we don’t know which Mather daughter married a Crocker, let’s return to the Colonial Collegians biographies.

Josiah Crocker (H.U. 1738) was a minister at Taunton but he married Rebecca Allen (p. 4451). The Taunton vital records show Josiah died in 1774, age 55, and he’s buried next to his wife Rebecca Allyn Crocker (1721-1759). He married his second wife, Hannah Cobb, in 1761 (Taunton VR). Born in Yarmouth in 1719, he was the only son of Capt. Josiah (d. 1721) and Desire (Thacher) Crocker (Yarmouth VR).

Josiah Crocker (H.U. 1760) was born 1740/1741 in Eastham, son of Rev. Joseph Crocker (H.U. 1734) and Reliance Allen. He died in 1764, unmarried (p. 6681).

Josiah Crocker (H.U. 1765) was born 1744 in Barnstable to Cornelius Crocker, tavernkeeper, and Lydia Jenkins. He married Deborah, daughter of Daniel Davis, and died in 1780. He lived in Barnstable and was a schoolmaster and clerk (p. 7319).

We’ve run through all the possible Josiah Crockers in Colonial Collegians, and even though Josiah and Joseph are not interchangeable names, there could be some confusion between generations. So, let’s continue.

Joseph Crocker (H.U. 1734) was a minister in Orleans. Born in 1715, he was the son of Thomas (d. 1728) and Hannah (Green) Crocker of Barnstable. He and his wife Reliance (Allen) Crocker were the parents of Josiah (H.U. 1760), above. He married, second, Mary (Pemberton) Hatch, widow of James Hatch, in 1766. He died in 1772 (p. 4053).

Joseph Crocker (H.U. 1774) was the son of Rev. Josiah Crocker (H.U. 1738) and Rebecca Allen mentioned above. He was born in Taunton in 1749 and died in Boston in 1797. He was a military man, not a minister like his father. And he was the husband of Hannah Mather (1752-1829), daughter of Rev. Samuel (p. 8627).

Finding Parents for a Match

Now that we’ve solved the Mather-Crocker marriage, we have to skip a generation or two to find out who were the parents of Samuel Leonard Crocker, Brown University 1822. For that, we go to the Massachusetts vital records.

In Worcester in 1825, Samuel L. Crocker married Hannah W. Thomas, the granddaughter of Isaiah Thomas. Born in Taunton in 1804, Samuel was the son of William Augustus Crocker and Sally Ingell. William was the son of Capt. Josiah Crocker and Abigail Leonard. Capt. Josiah was the son of Rev. Josiah Crocker and Rebecca Allen of Taunton, above. The family tree looks like this:

1. Capt. Josiah Crocker (d. 1721) m. Desire Thacher

2. Rev. Josiah Crocker (1719-1774) (H.U. 1738) m. Rebecca Allen

3. Capt. Josiah Crocker (1743-1808) m. Abigail Leonard

4. William Augustus Crocker (1774-1805) m. Sally Ingell

5. Samuel Leonard Crocker (1804-1883) m. Hannah Weld Thomas

                    3. Capt. Joseph Crocker (1749-1797) m. Hannah Mather

The Colonial Collegians biography had Cotton Mather’s granddaughter marrying Rev. Josiah Crocker (H.U. 1738), who was a generation older than her, instead of his son. Then it was the wrong son (Joseph, not Josiah). To clarify, Hannah (Mather) Crocker was the grand-aunt of Samuel Leonard Crocker who married Hannah Weld Thomas. That means Cotton Mather and George Burroughs were not related by blood through this line.

Fortunately, the Harvard Crocker biographies do not mention the false Mather/Burroughs connection. Nor does the Horace E. Mather’s Lineage of Rev. Richard Mather (1890). But you will see mention of it in other sources.

Postscript: Hannah (Mather) Crocker

Hannah became well-known for her writing and good works. She believed in the equality of women, as shown in Observations on the Real Rights of Women (1818), and supported a women’s educational “lodge” based on Masonic principles. You can learn more about her by visiting the Hannah Mather Crocker Society online, which promotes “scholarship and public understanding concerning the life, writing, and legacies of Hannah Mather Crocker (1752-1829).” 

In 1814—more than a decade before the Crocker-Thomas marriage—Hannah (Mather) Crocker donated 1,500 books from the Mather family to the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, founded in 1812 by Isaiah Thomas LL.D. (1749-1831). Her descendants also donated manuscripts, portraits, and other ephemera to the society. 


To find out if the Burroughs line in Cotton Mather's Colonial Collegians profile is correct, read George Burroughs Genealogy: Burroughs-Thomas-Crocker Line.

Remembering Salem: Symposium on the Lessons and Legacy of 1692

One of the reasons why the Salem witch trials of 1692 still resonate today is the quest to understand why it happened. Plenty of theories abound to answer that question. Yet we’re still trying to learn the lessons today.

On June 10, 2017, the 325^th anniversary of the first witch trials hanging, people gathered for a special symposium, Salem’s Trials: Lessons and Legacies of 1692, sponsored by Salem State University’s history department, the Salem Award Foundation, and the Essex National Heritage Area. Fortunately, C-SPAN recorded four sessions. If you didn't attend this great symposium, here's your chance to learn from a stellar group of speakers.

⏯ Emerson Baker, Salem Witch Trials 101 (includes symposium opening remarks)

A professor of history at SSU, Tad Baker is the author of A Storm of Witchcraft: The Salem Trials and the American Experience.

⏯ Margo Burns, The Capital Crime of Witchcraft: What the Sources Tell Us

Project manager for the Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt, Margo is a popular speaker, particularly in October.

⏯ Panel Discussion, The Making of Witch City

Emerson Baker; Donna Seger, professor of history, SSU; Bethany Jay, associate professor of history, SSU; Steve Matchak, professor of geography, SSU; and Marilynne K. Roach, author of The Salem Witch Trials: A Day-by-Day Chronicle of a Community Under Siege.

⏯ Kenneth Foote, Salem Witchcraft in American Landscape and Memory

A professor of geography at the University of Connecticut, Ken Foote is author of Shadowed Ground: America’s Landscapes of Violence and Tragedy.

Two other breakout sessions were not recorded: Teaching the Trials with Brad Austin, Amanda Prouty, and Jacqueline Robichaud; and The European Context for Salem 1692 by Donna Seger. (Amazingly enough, Donna packed a lot of information into one hour. I've got several pages of notes.)

Using restitution lists from the 1692 Salem witch trials to rebuild Dorcas Hoar’s family

After the Salem witch trials were over and the victims were released from prison, some families petitioned the government for restitution and reversal of attainder. These records are useful for rebuilding families.

A Bittersweet Homecoming

When Dorcas Hoar was accused of witchcraft in April 1692, she was a recent widow in her late 50s, no doubt struggling financially to survive in her humble abode in Beverly. After many months of imprisonment, she came home to find what little she had was confiscated, even her bed. In 1696, her husband’s estate was probated, showing William’s assets, including five acres and the remainder of an old house, were worth less than his debts, so everything went to his creditors. Without a reversal of attainder, Dorcas probably was not entitled to her widow’s third since legally she was still guilty of witchcraft, a capital crime.

Settling Debts

On 13 September 1710, John and Annis King petitioned for restitution on behalf of Dorcas Hoar. Besides providing acknowledgment of a wrongful imprisonment (and, in some cases, death), this act allowed some victims and their families to receive money for associated costs. In the case of Dorcas Hoar, her family was paid for jail costs, travel expenses, and items taken from her home, including two cows, an ox, a mare, bedding, curtains, and household stuff. We know Dorcas was dead by this date because the full amount of £21 17s was split between her heirs.

By the time the heirs received the money, there were some changes in the family, as shown in the following chart.

13 Sept. 1710 list	19 Feb. 1711/2 receipts
Wm. Hoar 3 children	William Hoar Dec’d left 3 daughters
Mary Birtt	Mary Burt widow
Eliz Reed	Elizabeth Read wife of Christopher Read
Annis Kinge	Annis King wife of John King
Joanna Green	Johanna Green wife of widow
Tabath Slue 3 children	Tabitha Slue dec’d left two children her Leonard & R[a]chel

Using the two lists gives us extra details, providing more information to create a basic genealogy.

The Family of Dorcas (Galley) Hoar

Dorcas Galley, daughter of John Galley (b. abt. 1605, d. 1683) and Florence (d. 1686), was born about 1635 in what is now Beverly, Massachusetts. She married, about 1655, fisherman William Hoar (b. abt. 1628, d. winter 1691/2). They had at least eight children, though no birth dates are recorded in the Beverly vital records:

1. Mary Hoar married in Beverly (1) on June 30 1671 Samuel Harris (probate 1682). In 1710, she was called “Birtt” and in 1712 “Mary Burt widow,” suggesting her husband may have died within those 17 months, however no death or probate records were found. It's possible she married in Marblehead (2) 4 Sept. 1684 as Mary Harris and John Bush, “both inhabitants at Basriner” [Bass River, a.k.a. Beverly]. A “___ Burt, widow,” died before May 1732 in Beverly. She had at least one child, Daniel Harris, born 31 March 1672 in Beverly.

2. Elizabeth Hoar married in Beverly (1) on 13 Nov. 1676 Jonas Johnson and (2) Christopher Read in 1682. Six Read children were recorded in Beverly. Christopher Read was the sexton in Beverly from 1715 to 1727. He may have died in 1727, since Elizabeth was his widow when she died between September 1736 and June 1737.

3. Tabitha (“Tabbie”) Hoar married Leonard Slue/Slew about 1677 as her wedding is mentioned in the 1678 court case. She was baptized as an adult a week after her sister-in-law Sarah (Ross) Hoar, on 22 Dec. 1695, in Beverly. In 1700, Leonard Slue had land in Purpooduck (Cape Elizabeth), Maine. On August 10, 1703, 26 people in Purpooduck were killed by Indians, including Leonard Slue, his wife, and three children. (However, “__ Slue” appears on a 1710/1711 list of persons still being held captive.) Three children were living in 1710, but only two in 1712. (1) Mary Slue married Joshua Beans in Salem on 23 June 1701 and died before he married, second, Mary Fuller on 7 June 1704. (2) Leonard Slue married Abigail Johnson in Beverly on 23 Nov. 1703. He was the sexton in Beverly from 1727 to 1737 and died in 1744. (3) Rachel Slue died unmarried in Beverly in 1734.

4. William Hoar Jr. was born about 1661. He married 3 June 1685 in Beverly Sarah Ross. His wife was baptized and admitted into full communion with the Beverly Church on 15 Dec. 1695 and their four daughters were baptized 2 Feb. 1695/6. William and one of his daughters died before the September 1710 list. Children: (1) Mary married in Marblehead on 18 Nov. 1708 Moses Pitman Jr. (children born 1711-1723); (2) Rebecca Hoar married in Marblehead 22 Dec. 1712 Benjamin Carder; (3) Abigail Hoar married John Grover on 8 Dec. 1715 in Beverly; leaving (4) daughter Sarah Hoar the one who died by September 1710. William's widow, Sarah (Ross) Hoar married James Taylor Sr. in Beverly on 21 June 1720.

5. Annis (“Nancy”) Hoar married in Salem on 10 Sept. 1688 John King (1661-1718) and had at least six children. She was still living in 1731.

6. Samuel Hoar was in court in July 1678 with his father for “neglecting the public ordinances.” No further record; he died before September 1710 list.

7. Simon Hoar was in court February 1678/9 with sisters Elizabeth Johnson and Annis Hoar, for “abusing Mr. Hale’s cattle,” probably in retribution for the burglary ring charges of 1678. No further record; he died before September 1710 list.

8. Joanna Hoar married in Salem (1) on 25 April 1694 Moses Parnell (b. 1670) and (2) on 27 Oct. 1699 to Benjamin Green (b. 1678). Joanna was widowed by 12 Feb. 1712. No children recorded.

See also: Dorcas Hoar really was a witch

Sources:

Bernard Rosenthal et al, Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt

Robert Charles Anderson, Great Migration: Immigrants to New England 1634-1635 (AmericanAncestors.org)

Massachusetts Vital Records to 1850 (AmericanAncestors.org)

Torrey's New England Marriages to 1700 (AmericanAncestors.org)

Essex County MA: Probate File Papers, 1638-1881 (AmericanAncestors.org)

“'Where Thieves Break Through and Steal': John Hale versus Dorcas Hoar 1672-1692” by Barbara Ritter Dailey in Essex Institute Historical Collections, Vol. 128, (1992). 

Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts

Sidney Perley, History of Salem, Massachusetts

George Walter Chamberlain, Descendants of Michael Webber of Falmouth, Maine and of Gloucester, Massachusetts 

Dorcas Hoar really was a witch

Image: Chris 73/Wikimedia Commons

It could be an omen that John and Florence Galley were fined by the Essex Quarterly Court in 1635 for fornication before marriage. Born shortly thereafter, their daughter Dorcas had several confrontations with the law and clergy throughout her married life. Growing up, however, she lived a comfortable but not overly religious life. Her father was admitted to the church in Beverly, Massachusetts, in his early 60s, so it’s likely the Galley household was not as God-fearing as their neighbors. And, at his death in 1683, John Galley, planter, left an estate worth £200.

Living in a Puritan church-state and believing in its teachings are not one and the same. After settling into married life about 1655 and having children, Dorcas and her husband, fisherman William Hoar, strayed from the gospel. In 1661 and 1662, William was brought before the court for “allowing tippling” and celebrating Christmas at his house. All along, Puritans discouraged holidays as pure popery—especially Christmas, which not only had no celebratory date in the Bible, it also usurped a pagan solstice festival. In fact, from 1659 to 1681 the Massachusetts Bay Colony outlawed Christmas.

Around the same time, Dorcas started dabbling in the dark arts.

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”

Dorcas admitted she learned witchcraft from a book of palmistry and from a practicing healer. She and her daughters married poor men, and her skills at fortunetelling and predicting illnesses (even death) supplemented a meager income, not only for her household but for her grown children’s households too. Even though Puritan theology denounced divination as trespassing on God’s all-knowing plan, people still wanted to know what the future held for them. Badgered by the local minister, Mr. John Hale, in 1670 Dorcas repented for her sins.

Unfortunately, the good reverend didn’t understand her needs.

People in Beverly started noticing small things went missing, like an apron or a pillowcase of flour. After a while, John Hale realized the criminals in their midst were specifically targeting him and his house of plenty. At first, blame was placed on his servant, Margaret Lord, but stolen items appeared throughout Dorcas Hoar’s extended family, making her the mastermind behind the burglary ring. (Margaret Lord threatened the Hales' daughter into silence by telling her Dorcas Hoar was a witch.) In 1678, Dorcas was in court listening to a catalog of the bushels of foodstuff, the yards of cloth, the items of apparel, coins, and jewelry that were stolen, most of which was bartered off to keep the Hoars fed.

The court records don’t provide a verdict. Two years later, however, William Hoar was put in charge of sweeping the Beverly meetinghouse, keeping the time (using an hourglass!), and ringing the bell at nine o’clock every night. In recompense, he received one peck of corn yearly from every family in Beverly.

Escaping the Noose

Not surprisingly, in 1692 widow Dorcas Hoar was convicted of witchcraft and condemned to hang on September 22. She confessed and received a reprieve, with supporting testimony from none other than Mr. Hale. Given a month to prepare her soul for death, she fortunately survived the witch hunt and was set free. 


* As a footnote to Dorcas Hoar’s story, Deodat Lawson claimed she had an “elf-lock,” a matted section of hair different from the rest that was four feet and seven inches long—further evidence of being a witch. 

See also: Using restitution lists from the 1692 Salem witch trials to rebuild Dorcas Hoar’s family

Sources:

“'Where Thieves Break Through and Steal': John Hale versus Dorcas Hoar 1672-1692” by Barbara Ritter Dailey in Essex Institute Historical Collections, Vol. 128, (1992). 

Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts

Deodat Lawson, A Brief and True Narrative of Some Remarkable Passages Relating to Sundry Persons Afflicted by Witchcraft, at Salem Village (1704)

Bernard Rosenthal et al, Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt

If my genealogy research is solid, how could my DNA results be wrong?

At seminar talks and on her blog, Judy G. Russell, the Legal Genealogist, suggests taking autosomal DNA tests at more than one company because each company presents data in different ways—and, more importantly, you expand your pool of potential cousins. Having tested at FamilyTreeDNA and 23andMe, I decided to follow Judy’s advice and try AncestryDNA.

And what I found shocked me.

I expected to find an autosomal DNA match with Ruby, my longtime conspirator in tracking down our Gibson ancestors. For 18+ years, we’ve been email buddies, sharing research and debating potential candidates for our family trees. Our mutual tenacity and our databases proved we were fifth cousins, so why didn't the DNA agree?

Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Find Me a Match

On AncestryDNA, I found cousins from my FamilyTreeDNA and 23andMe match lists, but no Ruby. (She didn’t test with the other two companies.) With my 5,000+ hits, you’d think one speck of spit would have declared our relationship. But it looked like we were swimming in different pools.

Luckily, AncestryDNA lets us share DNA results even with someone not on our match lists. (From the AncestryDNA home page, click on the Settings button on the right and scroll down to the green button, Invite Others to Access DNA Results.)

After opening AncestryDNA results pages for both of us, I filtered my search for any Gibson born in Massachusetts. We both had four hits, but none of the same. Figures.

This required diving deeper. I checked the family trees of all four of my cousin matches with my genealogy database. Two of them definitely were from my Gibson line, though the other two may be a new Gibson lead or unknown matches with another surname. Then I repeated the same checks with Ruby’s matches and my database. Her results showed one person shared a direct ancestor with Ruby and me; two had the granddaughter of our direct ancestors; and one matched one of Ruby’s collateral lines, but the Gibson surname was a red herring.

This case proves Judy Russell’s other important suggestion: The more relatives you test, the more matches you'll find. That’s because you won’t share the same genetic admixture with your nearest and dearest. If possible, have as many close relatives (grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, siblings, children, etc.) take autosomal DNA tests to spread your nets wider to catch more cousins.



Related Stories:

• DNA testing for genealogists 
• Combining genealogy with genetic research

Some DNA Blogs:

• The Genetic Genealogist by Blaine Bettinger
• Your Genetic Genealogist by CeCe Moore
• DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy by Roberta Estes
• The Legal Genealogist by Judy G. Russell