***-----Original Message----- ***From: Dianna Saario [mailto:dsaario@attbi.com] ***Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:27 PM ***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com ***Subject: [MFLR] Job Randall married, 1679, Elizabeth Doty *** *** ***I am trying to find out whether or not this an accurate source. *** ***Job Randall married, 1679, Elizabeth Doty, daughter of James and ***Lydia (Turner) Doty and a granddaughter of Edward Doty of the ***"Mayflower". ***"Randall and Allied Families"; by Frank Alfred Randall; pp. 4 ***and 95; Reveret Publishing Company; Chicago, Illinois; 1943 ***(929.2R188-4 LAPL) *** ***Another Source states Elizabeth Doughty is her name. Does ***anyone know which is true. *** ***Dianna Saario ***Digging up Roots Hi Dianna, Dale gave the information that James Doughty was not a child of Edward. There was a James Doughty/Lydia Turner marriage, but I cannot find anything that indicates that James Doughty's origins are known. >From "Early marriages and births in Scituate" NEHG Register 19:219 "James Doughty m. Lydia, dau. of Humph Turner, 15 Aug., 1649." Same article, 19:221 "James Doughty had Mary, 23 June, 1650; James, 21 Feb, 1651-2; Elizabeth, 25 Nov., 1654; Lydia, 14 Feb., 1656; Sarah, 2 April, 1662; Samuel, 29 Sept., 1664; Robert, 14 Feb., 1666-7; Susanna, 15 Feb., 1670." There's a bio. sketch of Humphrey Turner, father of Lydia, in GMB which cites TAG 19:231 giving bp. of Lydia as 17 Feb. 1629/30 at Little Baddow, Essex, Eng.

In October, I came across the organization Sons and Daughters of America's First Families or AFF. They were encouraging membership during an "open enrollment" for 30 days, otherwise one would need to have a sponsor. By email, I contacted with ease, the Director. After the usual untold hours completing the application form, it was submitted and I waited 2 wks while the "genealogist" reviewed the application, and then received a letter of acceptance. A small fee was requested for lifetime membership. A certificate would be sent to me. I was given the opportunity to purchase additional certificates for my children at a nominal fee, which I did order. Since that time, I get no response from them. I have emailed 3 times regarding the membership with no answer. I am now wondering if this is some sort of sham. Has anyone else heard of this organization or had experience with them? Joan in NC

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:27:21 -0800 "Dianna Saario" <dsaario@attbi.com> writes: > I am trying to find out whether or not this an accurate source. > > Job Randall married, 1679, Elizabeth Doty, daughter of James and > Lydia (Turner) Doty and a granddaughter of Edward Doty of the > "Mayflower". Dianna - According to MFIP Doty, 2nd. Edition, Pilgrim Edward did not have a son named James. There were four Elizabeth DOTYs in the third generation. Their husbands were Tobias OAKMAN, Joshua MORSE, David MARTIN and John LEWIS. The first RANDALL shown is in the fourth generation. Benjamin RANDALL m. 17-May-1722, Marshfield, Sarah^4 OAKMAN (Elizabeth^3 DOTY, Edward^2-1). Dale H. Cook USGenWeb Plymouth County MA Towns http://www.rootsweb.com/~macbrock/sites.html

I am trying to find out whether or not this an accurate source. Job Randall married, 1679, Elizabeth Doty, daughter of James and Lydia (Turner) Doty and a granddaughter of Edward Doty of the "Mayflower". "Randall and Allied Families"; by Frank Alfred Randall; pp. 4 and 95; Reveret Publishing Company; Chicago, Illinois; 1943 (929.2R188-4 LAPL) Another Source states Elizabeth Doughty is her name. Does anyone know which is true. Dianna Saario Digging up Roots --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

Charlie - I've done a bit of digging on the web. I don't know whether you've seen this in a 1999 post from John Maltby: "Ralph V. Wood, Jr., in "Francis Cooke of the Mayflower, The First Five Generations," agrees with you on your identification of Timothy. His birth record is in the Vital Records of Bridgewater, Massachusetts, To the Year 1850, Vol. 1, p. 336: Timothy Washburn, child of Timothy and Hannah Washburn, born 26 Oct. 1721. " "Sometime before 1734 Timothy and Hannah Washburn moved from Bridgewater to Bolton, CT. On 29 Sept. 1734 Hannah, wife of Timothy Washburn, and 5 of her children were baptized into the Bolton Congregational Church, namely sons Timothy and Thomas, and daughter Hannah, Mary, and Martha Washburn. On 17 Nov. 1734 another child was baptized, Betty Washburn, and finally a son Ephraim Washburn was baptized there on 22 Apr. 1739." "Timothy Washburn (Jr.) apparently married a wife named Kezia, about 1746, and births of their children were recorded in the records of Hebron, Coventry, and Lebanon, CT." If you haven't seen this thread you might also want to see John's web site, where Timothy Sr. is No. 120 at: http://www.maltbyfamily.net/washburn_plymouth_4.html I don't have easy access to MF5G v. 12 (Cooke) - that would show Wood's identification of Timothy Sr. and Jr., and give more information about this family. Dale H. Cook USGenWeb Plymouth County MA Towns http://www.rootsweb.com/~macbrock/sites.html

Any one interested in or know of the following MOORE'S - I have posted this on the MOORE-L list and no one answered, forgive me for posting this on the MAYFLOWER list, but there is so much knowledge out there, I am hoping one of you will know of him - 10th gr gp Thomas 1) MOORE b c1588 England d 30 Apr 1645 Windsor, Hartford, CT Don't know who he married, only know of one child for him- 9th gr gp deacon John 2) MOORE b 1615 England d 18 Sep 1677 Windsor, Hartford, CT md TO: Abigail ..... 8th gr gp Abigail 3) MOORE b 14 Feb 1639 Windsor, Hartford, CT d 31 July 1688/89 Windsor, Hartford, CT md 11 Oct 1655 at Windsor, Hartford, CT TO Thomas 2)BISSELL. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My source/notes for Thomas 1) MOORE Torrey's New Eng Marr prior 1700 p517; Genealogical Notes On the Founding of New England by Ernest Flagg p279 H-27; Searching for the passengers of the Mary and John v7 p15; Thomas 1) MOORE came in the "Mary and John" in 1630; He was first of Dorchester MA. He and his son John were both made freemen of Windsor the same day on 18 May 1631. He was of Windsor as early as 1639 where he had a lot granted to him eleven rods wide. His name appears on the Colonial records in a suit for trespass as plaintiff on 11 Apr 1639. Perhaps he moved to Long Island, for there is a Thomas MOORE found there. ~~~~~~~~ My source/notes for John 2) MOORE New Eng marriages prior to 1700 p516; Sav v3 p228; Immigrant ancestors p49; The Great Migration Begins by Robert Charles Anderson v2 p1276-1278; Searching for the passengers of the Mary and John v7 p15; Savage says, "Dorchester 1630, came in the "Mary and John" Probably for he was freeman 18 May 1631, a deacon went with WARHAM in 1635/1636 to Windsor was there a chief man, rep not as history of Warham 705 tells, in 1643 but 1665 and 7, and oft after, died 18 Sep 1677. He married Abigail ---Their children were: 1. Elizabeth b 23 July 1638 md 24 Nov 1645 TO Nathaniel LOOMIS 2. Abigail b 14 Feb 1639 md 11 Oct 1655 TO Thomas BISSELL 3. Thomas 1640 4. Mindwell 10 July 1643 md 25 Sep 1662 TO Nathaniel BISSELL [Thomas' bro] 5. Hannah 29 Dec 1644 md 30 Nov 1648 TO John Drake 6. John 5 Dec 1645 d 21 June 1718 at Windsor, md there 21 Sep 1664 Hannah d/o Edward GOFFE of Cambridge, they were par of 7 ch - His wife Hannah died 4 Apr 1697 & he md2) 17 Dec 1701 TO Martha FLAMSWORTH [could be miss- spelled] had 1 ch. Thank you very much- Wilma Fleming Haynes gencon@harborside.com

I have read with interest the post on this subject during the last several days. I think this is a multi faceted answer and comments... I don't think anyone is on the Mayflower list unless he/she has great interest and pride in the fact you are related to this early pioneers and people who lived and died trying to create a better life for themselves. They ( for the most part) people of very strong convictions and profound religious beliefs. We have come to understand that the Indians too had these same qualities. It is easier to look back and see these things ...as we have done with other periods of time in our history. I believe Muriel gave part of the answer AND Mark explanation let us ponder another aspect of this history...I for one appreciate and understand both perspectives. Our ancestors honestly thought they had been sent by God and I have read many accounts where they tried to be fair and just in their dealing with the Indians. Like all groups of people some were more sensitive and others more authoritarian. No matter how many books and accounts we read I don't honestly think we will ever understand the whole situation and to state otherwise is still an assumption. I hope we allow "room" for diverse trains of thought and respect each for time has allowed us the luxury of gathering more information . This can be a great forum for appreciating ALL truths.

In a recent Mallard Fillmore comic: "Mallard's Thanksgiving Prediction #14: By 2008 most schools will require the Thanksgiving Story to be taught .... from the Cranberries' Perspective: (Teacher reading to class): 'and the evil, patriarchal, western religious fanatics LAUGHED as they picked us, screaming from our happy bushes.'"

On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 02:42:16 -0500 "Charlie" <fourthestate@fcgnetworks.net> writes: > 5. Timothy Washburn m. Hannah ---- > 6. Hannah Washburn m. John Finney > snip < > There is only problem in the 15 Generations, namely: > Was No. 6 the daughter of No. 5????????? Charlie - I found Hannah's birth with no problem: WASHBURN, Hannah, ch. Timothy and Hannah, Feb. 28, 1723-4. (Bridgewater VRs 1:329) The problem is the marriage of John FINNEY / PHINNEY to Hannah WASHBURN. I cannot find it in the VRs of any of the four Bridgewaters. What is your source for the marriage? Dale H. Cook USGenWeb Plymouth County MA Towns http://www.rootsweb.com/~macbrock/sites.html

Amen. =================================================== In a message dated 12/1/2002 7:35:36 AM Central Standard Time, chandler@firstva.com writes: > Subj:RE: [MFLR] Getting along with the Indians, etc. > Date:12/1/2002 7:35:36 AM Central Standard Time > From:<A HREF="mailto:chandler@firstva.com">chandler@firstva.com</A> > To:<A HREF="mailto:MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com">MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com</A> > Sent from the Internet > > > > Mark sent this directly to me as well as to the list. That may have been an > accident of whose address happened to be on one of the posts that went > through yesterday, but whatever his intent, my recent posts could certainly > be read, or actually misread, as ancestor worship. While I obviously find > a > great deal to admire in the Plymouth settlers, for the record, I agree one > hundred per cent with what he has said in this message and admire the grace > and economy with which he has expressed several complex ideas. > > When I posted a reply to the question of whether the settlers had stolen > corn my intent was to show that while in our time we would see this as > theft, they understood what they were doing as accepting a gift from God, > and just as we do not hold people accountable for breaking a law which was > not in effect at the time the act was committed we should judge the > behavior > of people by the prevailing standards of their time. The other side of this > is that we do write new laws when we determine that what was allowable in > the past was wrong, and this is the aspect which Mark very rightly accents. > My mention of Squanto was meant to be largely in this vien. Squanto was > able to let go of the past and act with justice and charity in his own > present. I don't believe we can change what our ancestors did, but we can > try to act justly in the present. I don't mean to try to speak for Mark > and > Muriel, but it seemed to me they are both saying that knowing the truth of > past events as best we can will reduce the bitterness and recriminations > which impede our acting justly today, and if that is what they are saying I > would like to follow their lead. > > >

Mark sent this directly to me as well as to the list. That may have been an accident of whose address happened to be on one of the posts that went through yesterday, but whatever his intent, my recent posts could certainly be read, or actually misread, as ancestor worship. While I obviously find a great deal to admire in the Plymouth settlers, for the record, I agree one hundred per cent with what he has said in this message and admire the grace and economy with which he has expressed several complex ideas. When I posted a reply to the question of whether the settlers had stolen corn my intent was to show that while in our time we would see this as theft, they understood what they were doing as accepting a gift from God, and just as we do not hold people accountable for breaking a law which was not in effect at the time the act was committed we should judge the behavior of people by the prevailing standards of their time. The other side of this is that we do write new laws when we determine that what was allowable in the past was wrong, and this is the aspect which Mark very rightly accents. My mention of Squanto was meant to be largely in this vien. Squanto was able to let go of the past and act with justice and charity in his own present. I don't believe we can change what our ancestors did, but we can try to act justly in the present. I don't mean to try to speak for Mark and Muriel, but it seemed to me they are both saying that knowing the truth of past events as best we can will reduce the bitterness and recriminations which impede our acting justly today, and if that is what they are saying I would like to follow their lead. ***-----Original Message----- ***From: MDixon1918@aol.com [mailto:MDixon1918@aol.com] ***Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:42 PM ***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com ***Subject: [MFLR] Getting along with the Indians, etc. *** *** ***In a message dated 11/30/02 4:42:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, ***chandler@firstva.com writes: ***Being a Mayflower descendant (Alden and Soule for me) is ***interesting.  But it ***seems to me that genealogists ought to be wary of the sin of ***ancestor worship ***which slants understanding of people and events and is ***invariably the death of scholarship.

Francis Cooke of the Mayflower - 15 Generations 1. Francis Cooke m. Hester Mahieu 2. Jane Cooke m. Experience Mitchell 3. Elizabeth Mitchell m. John Washburn, Jr. 4. Thomas Washburn m. Deliverance Packard 5. Timothy Washburn m. Hannah ---- 6. Hannah Washburn m. John Finney 7. Hannah Finney m. Rufus Finney (her cousin) 8. to 15. No problem. There is only problem in the 15 Generations, namely: Was No. 6 the daughter of No. 5?????????

In a message dated 11/30/02 4:42:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, chandler@firstva.com writes: > Muriel's comment about the Pilgrims and Indians living in > ***harmony for so long > Being a Mayflower descendant (Alden and Soule for me) is interesting.  But it seems to me that genealogists ought to be wary of the sin of ancestor worship which slants understanding of people and events and is invariably the death of scholarship. I think it is a stretch, for instance, to say that the Pilgrims and the Indians lived "in harmony" for an extended period.  Certainly, they got along with Squanto although, as recorded in Willison's "Saints and Strangers," the Pilgrims were nearly ready to hand him over to Massasoit for almost-certain execution when events got in the way. More to the point, however, are the numerous examples of how Miles Standish intimated the Indian tribes.  One example was the Massachusetts tribe whose leaders were threatening or, depending on your viewpoint, insufficiently deferential (pick one) to the Plymouth colony.  Here's how Willison describes the fates of Massachusetts leaders Pecksuot and Wituwamat: "These two and another brave, together with Wituwamat's brother, a boy of eighteen, were lured one day into Pilgrim headquarters -- by invitation to a feast, an enemy asserted.  Whatever the lure, the Pilgrims were quite shockingly frank about what happened there.  At a signal, the door was made fast and Standish leaped at the huge Pecksuot who had belittled him.  Snatching the latter's knife from the string about his neck, he plunged it into his breast.  Wituwamat and the other braves were done to death by the blades of Standish's men after a fierce hand-to-hand struggle, and even Standish remarked his admiration for the courage and strength of the trapped Indians as they hopelessly fought for their lives, saying that it was "incredible how many wounds they received before they died, not making any fearful noise, but catching at their weapons and striving to the last."  Only one of the Indians escaped being cut to pieces, the Indian boy, "whom the Captain caused to have hanged." Undoubtedly, Standish and company had their reasons for the behavior described above.  But, then, justification is common throughout history. Elsewhere in this thread, someone criticized author Francis Jennings who " > views all colonists as deceitful, evil, debased criminals who robbed the > Indians of their land and covered it all up with false documentation > intended to fool posterity. " I haven't read Jennings' "Invasion of America and the Cant of Conquest" so I can neither criticize nor defend it.  However, I have read his "Empire of Fortune" which examines how Pennsylvania was wrested from the control of the Quakers and brought into line with the rest of English America during the French & Indian War.  In "Empire," Jennings was such a strong defender of the Quakers -- whose insistence on treating the Indians fairly made them troublesome to the Penn family -- that he felt it necessary in his preface to deny that he was himself a Quaker. So, it is simply not accurate to say that Jennings considers "all" colonists as deceitful, evil, etc.  I think it is more accurate to say that he is knowledgeable about colonial America AND that he approves of some more than others. Mark E. Dixon Wayne, PA P.S.  BTW, the Indians who demonstrated in Plymouth on Thanksgiving could accurately be accused of grandstanding.  But their central claim that the arrival of Europeans also meant the end of Indian autonomy is also undeniably true.  It may not be the interpretation that many prefer, but it is accurate.

Nicely articulated. I especially enjoyed the caveat against "ancestor worship" and its potentially detrimental effect on scholarship. Soem of the earlier messages could be, IMHO, be interpreted as having an "ancestor worshipping" tone. While the pilgrims serve as an inspiration for me, and I am truly grateful for what they did, I am not nearly as enamored as some who've posted here. I have only read a few books (and countless other items) concerning the pilgrims and their beliefs and actions. It seems to me that they viewed the Native Americans as inferior beings. Savages who deserved much of what they received. As has been mentioned here at length, it is impossible to accurately judge 1620 action with 2002 eyes. I'm not judging Standish and his tactics. Or any of the others. I'm happy they succeeded. Absolutely ecstatic! But let's be real. The nonsense concerning "they didn't REALLY steal the corn" was a bit much. All of the complaining about revisionism seems to have no effect on its being engaged in by those who complain. Please excuse the late night musings of only one in 35 million. --- MDixon1918@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/30/02 4:42:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > chandler@firstva.com writes: > > > Muriel's comment about the Pilgrims and Indians living in > > ***harmony for so long > > > > Being a Mayflower descendant (Alden and Soule for me) is > interesting.� But it > seems to me that genealogists ought to be wary of the sin of ancestor > worship > which slants understanding of people and events and is invariably the > death > of scholarship. > > I think it is a stretch, for instance, to say that the Pilgrims and > the > Indians lived "in harmony" for an extended period.� Certainly, they > got along > with Squanto although, as recorded in Willison's "Saints and > Strangers," the > Pilgrims were nearly ready to hand him over to Massasoit for > almost-certain > execution when events got in the way. > > More to the point, however, are the numerous examples of how Miles > Standish > intimated the Indian tribes.� One example was the Massachusetts tribe > whose > leaders were threatening or, depending on your viewpoint, > insufficiently > deferential (pick one) to the Plymouth colony.� Here's how Willison > describes > the fates of Massachusetts leaders Pecksuot and Wituwamat: > > "These two and another brave, together with Wituwamat's brother, a > boy of > eighteen, were lured one day into Pilgrim headquarters -- by > invitation to a > feast, an enemy asserted.� Whatever the lure, the Pilgrims were quite > > shockingly frank about what happened there.� At a signal, the door > was made > fast and Standish leaped at the huge Pecksuot who had belittled him.� > > Snatching the latter's knife from the string about his neck, he > plunged it > into his breast.� Wituwamat and the other braves were done to death > by the > blades of Standish's men after a fierce hand-to-hand struggle, and > even > Standish remarked his admiration for the courage and strength of the > trapped > Indians as they hopelessly fought for their lives, saying that it was > > "incredible how many wounds they received before they died, not > making any > fearful noise, but catching at their weapons and striving to the > last."� Only > one of the Indians escaped being cut to pieces, the Indian boy, "whom > the > Captain caused to have hanged." > > Undoubtedly, Standish and company had their reasons for the behavior > described above.� But, then, justification is common throughout > history. > > Elsewhere in this thread, someone criticized author Francis Jennings > who " > > views all colonists as deceitful, evil, debased criminals who > robbed the > > Indians of their land and covered it all up with false > documentation > > intended to fool posterity. > " > > I haven't read Jennings' "Invasion of America and the Cant of > Conquest" so I > can neither criticize nor defend it.� However, I have read his > "Empire of > Fortune" which examines how Pennsylvania was wrested from the control > of the > Quakers and brought into line with the rest of English America during > the > French & Indian War.� In "Empire," Jennings was such a strong > defender of the > Quakers -- whose insistence on treating the Indians fairly made them > troublesome to the Penn family -- that he felt it necessary in his > preface to > deny that he was himself a Quaker. > > So, it is simply not accurate to say that Jennings considers "all" > colonists > as deceitful, evil, etc.� I think it is more accurate to say that he > is > knowledgeable about colonial America AND that he approves of some > more than > others. > > Mark E. Dixon > Wayne, PA > > P.S.� BTW, the Indians who demonstrated in Plymouth on Thanksgiving > could > accurately be accused of grandstanding.� But their central claim that > the > arrival of Europeans also meant the end of Indian autonomy is also > undeniably > true.� It may not be the interpretation that many prefer, but it is > accurate. > > > ==== MAYFLOWER Mailing List ==== > Check out the web page of the General Society of Mayflower > Descendants at http://www.mayflower.org/ > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

----- Original Message ----- From: <Bangsflynn@cs.com> To: <flash1620@comcast.net> Sent: November 30, 2002 05:58 PM Subject: Antw: Re: (geen onderwerp) > Hi, again. i see I mis-wrote the title of Francis Jennings' book: The > Invasion of America and the Cant of Conquest (not Cult of Conquest). Odd > mistake. Oh well. > - Jeremy

I thought everyone would be interested in message below from Jeremy Bangs. In regard to the question if any Pilgrims married with the Indians?? I don't know if any of the Pilgrims did (haven't heard of any) but early settlers such as the Nickerson family who settled on Cape Cod in 1656 are known to have married Indians. I also have several Nickerson lines with a few believed to be Indian ancestors. Relatively, Muriel > Dear Muriel, > Stacy Wood forwarded your message together with the article from the Old > Colony Memorial about the observances in Plymouth. In it, Andres Araica is > quoted as saying that as "a teacher, he said he hoped people would > re-investigate history on their own, rather than believing what they learned > from history books." > Well, that's a nice sentiment, obviously. But I think I may be the first > person to examine in detail what is learned by so many people from Francis > Jennings' history book, The Invasion of America and the Cult of Conquest. > Since 1975 the attitudes in that book have been accepted by all but a few > historians. Jennings views all colonists as deceitful, evil, debased > criminals who robbed the Indians of their land and covered it all up with > false documentation intended to fool posterity. It is Jennings who gave the > appearance of legitimacy to the bizarre claims that have dominated the > commentary that recurs every Thanksgiving in celebrations such as that > reported in the O.C.M. > My new book demonstrates three things of interest to people who believe > that the Pilgrims do not fit that characterization: (1) Plymouth's court > established laws that followed the advice formulated by Roger Williams, > whereby the colonists bought land from the natives and Indian land owners > were treated equally and fairly under English law; (2) in the geographical > area of Plymouth Colony, there was no communally owned tribal land - all land > was held in defined tracts in hereditary ownership by individual sachems > (although their immediate family members had some sort of participation in > decisions about sales); (3) when one official, Josiah Winslow, devised ways > to get around the laws restricting sales by Indians to the court under fair > conditions (through his misuse of mortgage practices), the court worked with > some sachems to establish inalienable reservations intended to remain in > Indian possession forever. Two still exist. They are not tribal land but > instead should belong by law to the genealogical descendants of the owners > recognized by the court. > So the people who talk about genocide etc. and ignore the treaties of > friendship with the Indians (which Jennings dismissed as a sham) will not > like the book. But the people you wrote to might find it interesting. > Indian Deeds: Land Transactions in Plymouth Colony, 1620-1691 (NEHGS, > 2002). ca. 650 pp. It has a 225-page intro, followed by the complete texts of > all the deeds, so no one can imagine that parts of importance have been > suppressed. > Cheers, > > Jeremy Bangs >

***-----Original Message----- ***From: STFKPBF@aol.com [mailto:STFKPBF@aol.com] ***Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 9:43 AM ***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com ***Subject: Re: [MFLR] Fw: *** *** ***Muriel's comment about the Pilgrims and Indians living in ***harmony for so long ***reminds me of something about which I've always wondered. Does ***anyone know ***if this harmony and friendliness ever extended to the Pilgrims ***and Indians ***intermarrying? Interesting question Kathy--especially the "ever." I'm not aware of any intermarriages between the English and native population in the first decades of the colony, although there were instances of fornication recorded in the court records, but other people on the list know a lot more about this than I do. Going by what one finds on the web, any marriages to Indian women were marriages to "princesses." I would think they might have, especially ***considering the ***fact that the Pilgrims seemed to be somewhat short of women in ***their early ***years. This is something else I wonder about. Were they "short of women"? A recent US President, much interested in semantics, might have said it depends on what the definition of "short of women" is. In my household the consensus is that the appropriate ratio is one to one, but this may not be everyone's ideal. I looked in the sources I have on hand for some sort of population breakdown and couldn't find anything specific. I looked at the 1627 cattle division and there seem to be very nearly equal numbers of males and females there. In Stratton's _Plymouth Colony_ there's a list of "1627-1634 Arrivals" compiled by Stratton and Robert Wakefield. In this list there are about twice as many males as females. In the early years, when the financial backers of the colony would have wanted to send over a labor supply, one might have expected a surplus of males such as there was in such more wholly commercial colonies as Virginia. But just leafing through some of the Mayflower Society family publications it looks as though virtually all of the males who survived to early adulthood found wives. But is this a special population? Would these have been the "establishment" and thus the men most likely to be in a position to marry? None of the histories of the colony that I have address this question. Does anyone know where to find some statistics on this? I know that unmarried men were discouraged from living together--that is they were supposed to live in the households of married couples until they married. Cases came before the court now and then, so there were a few around. But were there many? I have no idea.

Well Harlow, That is one of my favorite stories and the fact that Squanto lived with Myles Standish until his death is indeed indicative of the comradeship between the two groups. It also brings me to another subject. I am a descendant of Thomas Hunt (m. 1707 Honor Stetson) from Duxbury , poss. son of Edmund Hunt of Boston. I have often wondered if there is a relationship between Thomas Hunt (Squanto) and the Hunt family who settled in Duxbury. The oldest remaining house in Duxbury is the Hunt house built 1641. I have never pursued this but it has always been on the "to do" list. I would appreciate any information anyone may have. Relatively, Muriel

***-----Original Message----- ***From: muriel cushing [mailto:flash1620@comcast.net] ***Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 9:28 AM ***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com ***Subject: [MFLR] Fw: *** *** ***Good morning, *** ***I thought others on this list would be interested in the article ***which appeared in the Plymouth, MA "Old colony" newspaper this morning. *** ***Many of us on this list search for the truth and facts in our ***history. We provide documentation to suppport our findings. ***How can we let articles like this go unchallenged? It is a ***well known fact that the Pilgrims and Indians lived in harmony ***for over 50 years, Hi Muriel, Yes, this seems an unfortunate misuse of an attractive public stage. It's unfortunate because the truth could be so much more productive. When this perennial question comes up I like to remember one historical fact. Squanto, the man who may more than any other have saved the settlers, was able to communicate with them and was familiar with their ways because he, along with a couple of dozen others, had been captured by the Englishman Thomas Hunt to be sold as slaves in Spain. Squanto did a lot of traveling among the English in the next half dozen or so years before he reappeared in what had been his home and somehow became perhaps our Pilgrim ancestors' best friend on earth. Is that not amazing? He was kidnapped to be sold as a slave and yet some years later, when he could be said to have had the power to destroy these English at Plymouth he instead taught them how to survive. Squanto taught the Pilgrims how to sow the seeds that grew and nourished them, and it seems as though his example could be a sort of seed as well if only we would all let it be so.

Father, Muriel and dearest friends and cousins: The Indians have a point. From their perspective, they have a point. Ed Sherman or Brewster, Cooke and Warren Past Governor, Soc. of Mayflower Descendants in SC <A HREF="http://www.mayflower.org/">General Mayflower Society</A> <A HREF="http://www.mayflower.org/">SC Mayflower</A>