by Kate Corbett Pollack
Berry Pomeroy castle is situated in Devon, England, and was the Baronial home of the Pomeroy family, which came to England during the Norman conquest of 1066. Ralf de Pomeroy assisted William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings and as a result was awarded land in Devon, where this branch of the family would move and settle, coming from La Pommeraie in Bayeux, Normandy. There they continued the genealogical line for the next five hundred years. Berry Pomeroy castle was constructed to provide security and comfort for the family, and its defensive style was a display of status. The Viking raids of 800-900 had caused European populations to remove themselves from settlements on the river systems and to move further inland, which led also to the development of a fortress style of architecture, originally called a Motte and Bailey. In the event of a Viking raid, inhabitants of a town would remove to the interior of the walled Motte and Bailey, which was complete with a moat and a defensive tower. The wealthiest person in the area, the feudal Lord, constructed the fortress and lived within its walls. He would provide protection in exchange for labor and goods, which came to be known as the feudal system. This style developed into the more elaborate and ornate walled castles complete with moats, gates and towers, that are today so synonymous with the Middle Ages. Berry Pomeroy Castle, for example, has Saint Margaret’s Tower, which was not only pretty, but could be used for defensive tactics. Devon was subject to Viking raids, and experienced them in about 900 AD. While the Pomeroy family may not have been in too much fear of invading hordes by the time of the castle’s construction in the late 1400s, being able to build a walled fortress was a show of their power and wealth. The ample grounds were abundant with deer, and having a personal deer park was also a luxury reserved for the upper classes in the Middle Ages. A stone wall was constructed on the property to contain the deer, and is still in existence. The deer park dates from the 13th century. The castle was also equipped with its own chapel, and faded images of painted religious scenes are still visible on its walls. Today, Berry Pomeroy is known as ‘the most haunted castle in England’.
The Pomeroy family lived in this area from the time of the Norman Conquest, but did not build Berry Pomeroy right away. They maintained several residences on the massive and extensive property awarded to Ralf de Pomeroy by William the Conqueror in exchange for his participation in the siege of Exeter and the battle of Hastings. William gave him 57 manors, which in this era refers to property and aristocratic title over it, including to the tenants. This tradition of granting land gained in battle or war by military leaders to their top ranking men was one also kept by General George Washington, who awarded landholdings to General Baron Von Steuben, among others. The medieval aristocratic tradition of holding large swaths of land occurred in the United States into the 1900s among settled European aristocracy or “new money” entrepreneurs like Ledyard Lincklaen and Jonathan Denise Ledyard, both of whom were a part of continuing the manor tradition in upstate New York during the 19th century. Small stone palaces were built by the Ledyard and Lincklaen families around Cazenovia, and the rent was collected from anyone who lived on the land.
The land at Berry Pomeroy was held by the Pomeroy family from the 11th century to 1547, when Thomas Pomeroy, due to financial problems, had to sell the manor to Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, and brother to Jane Seymour, third wife of King Henry VIII. Their father, Edward Seymour (senior), was one of the most powerful men in England next to the King. Edward Seymour was Uncle and appointed guardian to the future King Edward VI, who became King in 1547, the year his father, King Henry VIII, died. Edward VI was only a child when Henry VIII died, and Edward Seymour, his guardian, gained political influence as a result, as the boy could not yet make decisions. Edward Seymour held many important titles and offices including Protector of the Realm, and was known for his military prowess and success in battle. Like the Pomeroys, the Seymour family had come to the area as a result of the Norman Conquest, and their early ancestors fought in the battle of Hastings just as Ralf de Pomeroy had. Edward acquired immense wealth and property, and is also remembered for his influence over architectural styles that became popular in England at this time. Because of his great power, he had political enemies, and they were able to successfully overthrow and behead him by 1552.
Thomas Pomeroy was profligate with the family’s money and as a result had gone into debt and had mortgaged the castle. Lord Edward Seymour (Junior) and his brother John, in the years around the purchase of Berry Pomeroy, were imprisoned with their father, Edward, former Protector of the Realm, in the Tower of London, where John Seymour met his demise after a long illness. Knowing he was going to die, John petitioned from the tower for ancestral land around Berry Pomeroy known as Maiden Bradley, which had belonged to his mother, to be awarded to his younger brother Edward. Edward acquired more land and Berry Pomeroy castle in his purchase from Thomas Pomeroy once he was released from the Tower of London. Sadly, he lost his father and brother at the same time.
Thomas Pomeroy used the money he earned from the sale of the castle to purchase other land. During this time, tensions between Protestants and Catholics in England were highly charged, and Devon had seen some violent fights and destruction of Catholic Churches in the area. Thomas Pomeroy was a Catholic, and Edward Seymour was a Protestant. Two years after Edward purchased Berry Pomeroy castle and made it the seat of the Seymour family, Thomas participated in a battle between Catholic and Protestant forces known as the Prayerbook Rebellion, which would bring him into contact with the Seymours yet again. Lord Edward sent troops to fight the Catholic forces, which were made up of soldiers and ordinary men alike. Thomas Pomeroy was a drummer and trumpeter for the Catholics and sounded the alarm when the Protestant soldiers were approaching. Edward’s forces were momentarily startled and initially drew a retreat, only to strongly return, crushing the opponent. Many of the Catholics were drawn and quartered, but Thomas Pomeroy was able to escape this fate, likely due to his aristocratic family connections to the head of the Catholic army, who had been appointed by Edward. Thomas was, however, put into prison for a few years. After his release, he returned home and continued to be flagrantly wasteful with his family’s money, including his wife’s. It is because of this unfortunate relative that the Pomeroy family’s control over Devon for 600 years crumbled. They moved to another part of England.
Sir Edward Seymour’s son and namesake took over Berry Pomeroy castle in 1593, and was awarded title of Baronet by King James I. This Edward Seymour inherited vast land holdings from his father, and had already become Sherriff of Devon in 1583. He also served as a Member of Parliament for Devon under Elizabeth I. He was builder and architectural innovator of the Seymour House, which was an addition to Berry Pomeroy Castle. Like his grandfather, Edward the Protector, Edward was interested in architectural design, and the Seymour House influenced the building style in England for years to come. Edward started construction and expansion of the property in about 1600. He tore down some of the old 15th century Pomeroy Castle and built his new residence in the Elizabethan style. It may be referred to as the Seymour House, but in actuality, most would consider it a small palace. Edward added every fashionable status symbol that a palace of this era could have. Instead of using stone, as the Pomeroys did for the castle, Edward used wood and plaster to build his rooms and staircases, using a stone foundation in the walls, but covering it. When the Pomeroys built Berry Pomeroy Castle, as we have seen, it was built in the medieval stone fortress style, which in those days was the ultimate symbol of class and wealth. By Edward’s day, this was no longer the case. Edward also used elements of Classical design common in Italy and France, and in this way was innovative in bringing the style to England. He incorporated a Loggia into the design of the palace, which is an outdoor Classical walkway. Also built into the Seymour House was a new great hall which was very spacious and had one wall almost entirely made up of windows, rising two stories, which was very new and modern at the time. It overlooked the beautiful and picturesque Gatcombe Valley. In the Middle Ages, buildings were heavy and dark. By the 1600s, there was more focus in Europe on using glass and bringing light into structures.
The descendants of Edward Seymour, Protector of the Realm and guardian to King James I, continued to be successful and wealthy in much the same tradition as their relatives. Edward Seymour (who built the Seymour House) and his wife Elizabeth Champernoun of Dartington, had five sons. One of them, Richard, the youngest son, born 1595-6,left England and went to America. As the youngest son, he would not likely inherit very much, if any, of the family’s wealth. By this time in Europe, primogeniture, the tradition of giving all of the family’s land and money to the oldest son, rather than dividing it among heirs, was common. It is possible that this was a motivating factor in Richard’s leaving Berry Pomeroy for foreign shores. Once in America, Richard could establish himself separate from his family and obtain more land and property, even though it rightfully belonged to Native peoples who were already there, and there was difficulty and bloody battles that occurred as a result. Richard settled in Hartford, Connecticut in 1639, where he was allotted public land by the English settlers who had gotten there before him. Richard, in the tradition of the Seymours of Berry Pomeroy, took public office and was active in politics, associating with the highest ranking men in the area. He was not without money, coming from the wealthy background that he did, and being from a family like the Seymours led to him to be granted considerable amounts of land which would later become Norwalk, Connecticut. He possessed the bravery, financial means and skill to manage a landholding like that, which, as we have seen, he was commandeering already from Native peoples who were not happy about it. War between settlers and Indians would occur on and off until the mid- 18th century. Richard was in his forties by the time he settled in the New World, and had been married back in England to a woman named Mercy, where their first son was born. He continued the respectable tradition of the Seymours, holding office and being involved in public affairs up to his death in 1655. Mercy and Richard’s son John was born in Hartford, and in 1667 married Mary Watson of Norwalk. Their son, also named John, born 1666, married Elizabeth Webster in 1693. Their son Moses was born in 1711, marrying Rachael Goodman. Their son Moses Jr., born 1742, married Sally Marsh in Hartford in 1771. He became a Major and fought in the Revolutionary War. Major Moses Seymour and Sally Marsh were the parents of Honorable Henry Seymour, born 1780, who brings the story full circle to Pompey, New York, in 1810.
It is here that the Seymour family branched from their Connecticut roots after the Revolutionary War and headed to upstate New York where land, always the lure, had been made available now that it was no longer under British control. Henry Seymour and his wife Mary Ledyard Foreman traveled to Pompey as part of the Connecticut migration. During this era, many people left New England for New York to take advantage of the new land availability and followed the same trail, using covered wagons to haul their belongings. Henry and Mary would find themselves neighbors to Spencer Pomeroy and his wife, Mary Ann Coe. Once again, the Pomeroys and the Seymours, in the New World, were living side by side. Henry Seymour no doubt was very aware of his prestigious lineage, and one can only imagine if he ever mentioned Berry Pomeroy to Spencer or Mary Ann, who also might have known of the connection. Just as war had brought both the Pomeroy and Seymour families to Devon to settle, war had again opened up property and opportunity for the two families to establish themselves on land in upstate New York. Spencer Pomeroy had also come from a long line of prestigious and accomplished people, with forebears who had fought in the American Revolution and were founders and first settlers of Massachusetts, just as Richard de Seymour was in Connecticut. In their own way, both families made an indelible mark on British and American history for over 800 years. Readers may also recognize Henry Seymour because he was the father of Honorable Horatio Seymour, born Pompey 1810. In 1811, the family moved to Utica, settling on Whitesboro Street, where they lived in an American Federal style mansion that was, ironically, similar in style to the Seymour House of Berry Pomeroy. Horatio became governor of New York in 1852. He was an Abolitionist, Labor Activist and in 1868 was nominated for president by the Democratic Party, but was defeated by General Grant.
Mary Ann Coe Pomeroy, wife of Spencer and neighbor to Henry Seymour in Pompey, is the subject of much research by the APHGA, as readers may know. The fascinating stories of these subjects, the Pomeroys and the Seymours, so inextricably linked in history, continue to be revealed through research.
Sources:
"Berry Pomeroy and Sir Thomas 1547- - Pomeroy Twig." Berry Pomeroy and Sir Thomas 1547- - Pomeroy Twig. Google.com, n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2012.
Brown, Stewart. Berry Pomeroy Castle. London: English Heritage, 1997. Print.
Felch, William Farrand. The Connecticut Magazine.Vol. 10. Hartford and New Haven: Connecticut Magazine, 1906. Print.156-9.
Locke, A. Audrey. The Seymour Family. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914. Print.193-8.
Morris, Tyler Seymour. The Seymour Family. Chicago: [s.n.], 1900. Print. 180-1.
Links to images of Berry Pomeroy and the Serymour House:
This is a reconstruction drawing of the Seymour House, now in ruins, as it would have looked when it was first built:
http://www.englishheritageprints.com/low.php?xp=media&xm=5012200
Image of Berry Pomeroy Castle with part of the Seymour House in the background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berry_Pomeroy_Castle_-_geograph.org.uk_-_411651.jpg
View of part of the ruins of the Seymour House as it looks today:
http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/reference.aspx?uid=85655&index=300&form=advanced&county=DEVON
Engraving showing the grounds and valley around Berry Pomeroy:
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Joseph-Mallord-William-Turner/Berry-Pomeroy-Castle,-From-The-Liber-Studiorum,-Engraved-By-The-Artist,-1816.html
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Friday, November 16, 2012
Maternity, Gender and Class: A Comparison of the Spauldings of Buckland and the family of Hart Lester Pomeroy of Pittsfield, Mass.
by Kate Corbett Pollack
For the past year, I
have been transcribing and writing about the letters in our archives written by
the Spaulding family of Buckland, Massachusetts. The APHGA also has in its
archives a letters collection written by members of the Pomeroy family of
Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Dottie H., an APHGA member, and descendant of Hart
and Lester Pomeroy graciously lent us the collection which we scanned and
photographed and returned to her.
 |
| Portrait of Lemuel Pomeroy. |
 |
| Portrait of Hart Lester Pomeroy. |
With Pleasure my dear Harty I received your
letter…it is very nice, I am very glad to find you are at Plainfield under the
tuition of A gentleman whose abilities I think capable of rendering you great
advantage, I hope you will pay strict attention my dear girl & not think
more of the tutor than you do of your studies, I only give you A little warning
Harty as I hear he is A fine young Man, I think he has A fine chance to fix his
choice among so many fine girls unless his heart is steel’d, but enough of him…
At first I thought that
Hart was being privately tutored by a professor or teacher in the Plainfield
area, because women did not usually attend this type of school in the late
1700s. Academies were for men. However, the History
of Windham County, Connecticut: Vol. 1-2 in its chapter on Plainfield Academy
reports that “the school was organized for both sexes”, and mentions Hart
Lester directly:
“It
may not be irrelevant to notice among the young ladies, Miss Catherine Putnam,
granddaughter of General Putnam of the Revolution, who married Francis Brinely,
Esq. of Boston; the Misses Lester of Preston - one of whom married Hon. Lemuel
Pomeroy of Pittsfield, Mass.; …with many others who have adorned society by
their example and their influence.[i]”
Plainfield Academy
was founded in 1770. It endured through the Revolutionary War, and gained
prominence as a superior academic institution, attracting students from all
over the region and abroad. Plainfield through the late 1700s became a lively
place full of bright young people from families respectable enough to send
their children to the prestigious academy, which charged tuition. There young
men were prepared for college, specifically Yale, or business. Young women
received enough education, separate from the male population, to be considered
eligible marriage material. From History
of Windham County:
“Society
in Plainfield was quickened and elevated by Academic influence. The brilliant
young graduates who served as teachers found in this rural town a select circle
of accomplished and attractive young women and usually carried away a wife, or
left their hearts behind them.”
Teachers in this era
of New England history were young, unmarried men (as I wrote about in last
month’s blog post). Hart could not expect to have her own career, and her
education served only to make her into a respectable lady who could marry well.
The “advantage” Hart’s aunt was speaking of in the above letter was the
opportunity for a prestigious marriage, which she did achieve with her
betrothal to Lemuel Pomeroy in 1800, only two years after the letter was
written. Hart was 19 at the time of her marriage. By 1801, she had given birth
to the first of her eleven surviving children. Hart was either pregnant or
nursing for the next twenty years of her life. Despite Hart’s wealth, education
and social class, her role was ultimately to bear children, as many as
possible. Hart’s Congregationalist background taught that this was women’s life
purpose. Plainfield Academy was also a Congregationalist (Puritan-Calvinist)
school, founded by members of the church. At that time, it was the only
religion in the area. There were no other churches, and religion was not kept
separate from education, nor was it separate from the state and town
governments at this time.[ii]
Most areas of Hart’s life would have been affected by her religion, although
the letters in the Lester-Pomeroy collection do not mention religion as much as
the Spaulding sisters’ do. It is possible that this family did not have the
need to cling to it quite as much due to their wealth providing a less grim
life for them.
Wealth and status
aside, the lines between the Spaulding sisters and the Lesters start to blur in
other areas. The Lester-Pomeroy women may have been wealthy, well-educated
socialites who did not worry about having enough to eat or toiling over a
burning hearth all day, as the Spaulding women did, but the hardships of
childrearing and their limited ability to participate in the public sphere of
life isolated them in much the same ways. The reality of childrearing is key to
understanding the experience of women from this or any era. Dr. Judith Walzer
Leavitt’s essay “Under the Shadow of Maternity”, mentions Mary Vial Holyoke:
“Take,
for example, the life of Mary Vial Holyoke, who married into a prominent New
England family in 1759. In 1760, after ten months of marriage, she gave birth
to her first baby. Two years later, her second was born. In 1765 she was again
“brought to bed” of a child. Pregnant immediately again, she bore another child
in 1766… during the next twelve years she bore five more children. The first
twenty-three years of Mary Vial Holyoke’s married life, the years of her youth
and vigor, were spent pregnant or recovering from childbirth. Because only
three of her twelve children lived to adulthood, she withstood, also, frequent
tragedies… Mary Holyoke had little choice in her frequent pregnancies: her life
reveals how the biological capacity of women to bear children historically has
translated into life’s destiny for individual women.[iii]”
Mary Holyoke and
Hart Lester both belonged to upper class New England families. In my
genealogical research of New England, what first struck me was the enormous
size of families common in the 1600s through the early 1800s. Family sizes were
sometimes upwards of twelve children. A second wife in some circumstances would
be brought in shortly after the death of the first and continue the pattern of
constant childrearing, picking up where the first wife left off. This created
gaps in sibling ages of up to thirty years. By the early 1800s, average family
size was about seven surviving children.[iv]
Throughout the 1600s this was also the average:
“In
the early-17th century, women usually married between ages 20 and 23. (The aged
[sic] dropped somewhat in succeeding generations and was younger in some
locales than others.) They probably spent up to 20 years bearing children and
most of their adult life raising them. There were some large families of 10 to
15 children, but the average family had six or seven. Many children died from
disease in infancy or early childhood (only about half of Colonial infants
reached adulthood). Most couples lost one or more children.[v]”
The above
information does not factor in the instance of the second wife, however. It is
referring to the childrearing of individual women. The addition of a second
wife would also mean that she would be responsible for the deceased first
wife’s children, of which the average was seven, as well as her own. It is also
possible that a second wife would be bringing children from a previous marriage
to the new family, and statistics don’t always factor this in. A genealogist
will notice these patterns. Family size dropped as developments in women’s
equality, public health and access to family planning, among other factors,
progressed into the twentieth century. As we have seen in last month’s blog
post on Mary Howes, the opportunity for college and career offered some women
the choice of a different life, one where they had more control over their own
destinies. Hart Lester attended a prestigious secondary school academy, but
that was the end of her educational options. The expectation was that it would make
her more eligible for marriage to a socially and financially prominent man, and
as soon as she graduated, marriage and childrearing commenced. Her role as a
woman of wife and bearer of children was not very different from the role of
the women of the Spaulding family.
What is also similar
in the letters of the Lester and Spaulding women is their bond. Like Mary
Spaulding’s sister-in-law Deborah Pomeroy Trowbridge, Hart’s sister-in-law
Damaris Lord Lester fills the role of an actual blood sister, and there is no
differentiation in how she is addressed, or what her role is: she is a sister
to Hart, called one, and treated as one. Deborah Pomeroy Trowbridge was not
only a sister to Mary Spaulding Pomeroy; she was considered part of the family
by Nancy, Lydia and Deborah Spaulding, as well. What struck me during the
course of transcribing the 144 letters of the Spaulding family was this
incredible closeness and bond between the women (written about in my December
14th, 2011 post The Spaulding
Sisters). No important anniversary was left unremembered by the women, and
they wrote to each other through the hardest of times, speaking candidly of
death and offering mutual support. Damaris and Hart’s relationship was similar.
From a September 21, 1800 letter from Damaris Lord Lester to Hart Lester
Pomeroy referencing the death of a friend:
“I received yours [letter] My Dear Sister by
Mr. Belcher for which I return you many hearty thanks… I hope you will ever
feel inclined to pour balm in the bosom of the afflicted the wisest of all the
sons of Adam said it is better to go to the house of Mourning than to the house
of feasting, and I think I can truly say for one when I have attended those
trying scenes have felt and inward satisfaction very different from the
sensations of Mirth & jollity lest us, My Dear Sister bear a part in the
joys and sorrows of all our friends…”
Damaris was telling
Hart about her personal experience with the mourning process in this letter.
Another aspect of the Spaulding and Lester-Pomeroy letters is the scarce
mention of the men in their lives. The APHGA has many more letters written by
the Spauldings, and it is in their letters where I have noticed this more,
mostly because of the sheer amount of material. Evidently, it was not unusual
for the time period, as written about by Dr. Carol Smith-Rosenberg in her
seminal work “The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in Nineteenth-Century
America”:
“Several
factors in American society between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth
centuries may well have permitted women to form a variety of close emotional
relationships with other women. American society was characterized in large
part by rigid gender-role differentiation within the family and within society
as a whole, leading to the emotional segregation of women and men. The roles of
daughter and mother shaded imperceptibly and ineluctably into each other, while
the biological realities of frequent pregnancies, childbirth, nursing, and
menopause bound women together in physical and emotional intimacy.[vi]”
We are
very fortunate to have letters written by these families in our archives at the
APHGA, and their examination can contribute exponentially to the study of
American History; specifically providing insight into the private world of
America’s women in the 18th and 19th centuries. We cannot
look up Hart Lester or Mary Spaulding in a history book; we cannot learn about
their lives in the same way we can learn about their husbands’. The experience
of genders, however, is critical in aiding our understanding of America’s past.
[i] Larned,
Ellen D. History of Windham County, Connecticut. Vol. 1-2. Worcester, MA:
Author, 1874. Excerpt from Ancestry.com http://tinyurl.com/bj9dqq5
[ii] "Town
History."Plainfield History.Plainfield Historical Society, 2011.Web. 16
Nov. 2012. .
[iii] Leavitt,
Judith Walzer, and Jane SherronDeHart. "Under the Shadow of Maternity:
American Women's Responses to Death and Debility Fears in Nineteenth Century
Childbirth." Feminist Studies 12
(1986): 129-54. Rpt. in Women's America:
Refocusing the Past. By Linda K. Kerber. New York: Oxford UP, 2000. 184-91.
Print. 185.
[iv] "Achievements
in Public Health, 1900-1999: Family Planning." Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 Dec. 1999. Web.
16 Nov. 2012. .
[v] Gormley,
Myra Vanderpool, CG. "Colonial Love and Marriage."Colonial Love and Marriage.Genealogymagazine.com,
2004.Web. 16 Nov. 2012. .
[vi] Smith-Rosenberg,
Carol. "The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in
Nineteenth-Century America." Signs
1.1 (1975): 1-29. JSTOR.Web. 16 Nov. 2012. 9
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
A Tale of Love and Loss at the Onondaga County Poorhouse
by Nancy Maliwesky
On January 3, 1832 Patty Kingman, 41, Huldah Kingman, 14,
Jason Kingman, 13, Henry Kingman, 11, Sally Kingman, 7, Lafayette Kingman, 4,
and Joseph Kingman, 2, entered the Onondaga County Poorhouse. The cost of their stay was charged to the
town of Pompey[i].
On January 17, 1832, 14 year old Huldah received 6 yards
of calico, 1/3 yard of lining and thread valued at $1.06, and a pair of shoes
valued at $1.50. She was bound out on
trial on January 30, 1832 to William A. Cook.
Her length of stay at the Poorhouse was four weeks. On January 18, 1832, 13 year old Jason
(spelled Jasin in the Poorhouse ledger), received 2 ½ yards of shirting at the
cost of 31¢. He was released March 13,
1832, after ten weeks stay. On February
2, 1832, 11 year old Henry Kingman received one pair of hose valued at $1.13
and was bound out on trial to R.L. Hess of Syracuse. His length of stay at the Poorhouse was four
weeks and one day.
On February 8, 1832, 2 year old Joseph Kingman received 2
yards of factory gingham and thread valued at 35¢. On February 20, 1832, Patty Kingman (presumed
the mother of this family) received 2 yards of factory gingham and thread
valued at 35¢. She was discharged from
the Poorhouse on April 21, 1832 after fifteen weeks and four days stay. Prior to her leaving the Poorhouse, though,
Patty and her family suffered great loss.
On March 27, 1832, Joseph Kingman, 2 years old, died. On March 30, 1832, Lafayette Kingman, 4 years
old, died. On April 19, 1832, Sally
Kingman, 7 years old, died. The
Poorhouse records suggest that the three young Kingman children were buried on the
Poorhouse property. The Kingman family
was not alone in their grief, as eleven souls passed at the Poorhouse during
the months of March and April 1832. Ten
of the eleven who died were children.
As the Director of the American Pomeroy Historic
Genealogical Association, I am familiar with the early history of the Onondaga
County Poorhouse, as Spencer Pomeroy died there on May 2, 1833. Spencer immediately came to mind when I read
in an article in the Syracuse Post Standard on Monday, December 6, 2010 that
told the story of an archaeological dig taking place on the grounds of the old
Poorhouse when construction on that site unearthed the remains of twenty four
people who had been buried behind the hospital in the 19th
century. There have been several hospitals on this site. The 1928 hospital is the only building still
standing at the site.
I contacted Daniel Seib, the chief archaeologist at the
site (which was being run by the Public Archaeology Facility at SUNY Binghamton)
and expressed my interest in their work at the Poorhouse, and asked what I
could do to help. Knowing of the ledger
books at the Town of Onondaga Historical Society, I offered to photograph and
transcribe the early ledgers to help identify those inmates who had died during
this timeframe. Ledger books 1 and 2
contain information regarding inmates and expenses at the Poorhouse from 1827
through 1836. The next ledger book in the collection begins with expenses for
the year 1856, and then lists inmates starting in 1861, so it is obvious that
one or more books have gone missing.
Because of this my research was not complete, and a full inventory of
those buried at the Poorhouse site was not available. If anyone knows where there ledgers are,
please contact the Town of Onondaga Historical Society or Jane Tracey, the Town
Historian. While these ledgers have no
monetary value, the information contained in the books is important to those
researching the area and especially to those people who had family members who
were in the Poorhouse.
Daniel contacted
me on Monday, September 24th to let me know that he would be giving
a talk at Onondaga Community College about the Poorhouse dig and their
findings. The lecture was held on
Monday, October 1st at 11:20am in Mulroy Hall, room 410. Appropriately, Mulroy Hall is the H-1
building (the 1928 hospital built at the Poorhouse site). He also told me that the reburial of the
remains found at the site would take place on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 at
the Loomis Hill Cemetery in the Town of Onondaga.
Perhaps the most thrilling news for me was that of the eighty
sets of remains discovered at the site, Daniel and his team were able to
positively identify three persons based on the research that I had provided
them with. These were the Kingman
siblings, Joseph, Lafayette and Sally. I
decided to see if I could find out more information about the Kingman
family. It would be wonderful if we
could connect with living kin and share their story.
As the Kingman family’s stay at the Poorhouse was charged
to the town of Pompey, I decided to start with the 1830 U.S. Federal Census for
Pompey, Onondaga County, New York. There
I found the household of Justus Kingman.
In the household were two free white males under five, one free white
male between five and nine years of age, one free white male between ten and
fourteen years of age, two free white males between fifteen and nineteen years
of age, one free white male between forty and forty nine years of age, one free
white female between five and nine years of age, one free white female between
ten and fourteen years of age, and one free white female between forty and
forty nine years of age. Using the ages
listed in the Poorhouse ledger I was able to match all the children, the
presumed mother Patty, and the presumed father, Justus. Two additional people in the household (both males
aged between fifteen and nineteen years) appeared not to have entered the
Poorhouse with the younger of Justus and Patty’s children.
Where was Justus Kingman in January 1832; and why did his
wife and younger children end up in the Poorhouse? Did he die, or was he out of town and some of
the family members took sick, so the mother took them to the Poorhouse for
treatment? It is interesting that Jason,
who was old enough to have been bound out, was released from the Poorhouse a
full month before his mother was. Where
did Jason go? Were there other family
members who took him in?
I was able to find a marriage record for a Jason Kingman,
born about 1819 in New York in the “Michigan Marriages, 1868-1925” database on
FamilySearch.org. The marriage place was
Perrinton, Gratiot County, Michigan and Jason’s parents were listed at J.
Kingman and Pattie Chapman. Further
research identified a short biography of this Jason Kingman on pages 483-484 of
the book Portrait and Biographical Album
of Gratiot County, Michigan available on GoogleBooks, as follows:
“Jason
Kingman, farmer, on section 20, Fulton Township, is the son of Justus and Patty
(Chatman) Kingman, natives of
Vermont. They first settled in Madison
County, N.Y., and afterward removed
to Tioga Co., Pa., where he died, in 1830.
She died four years later, in Onondaga
Co., N.Y.
“The
subject of this biography, Jason Kingman, was born in Cortland Co., N.Y., June
11, 1819, and was 11 years old when
his parents removed to Pennsylvania.
When he was 16 years old, having
lost both his parents, he was obliged to make a start for himself, and for two
years he was employed in
farming for others. He then went to sea
as a common sailor, and followed that life
until 1853, when he came to Lenawee Co., Mich.
For two years he was engaged in making pearlash. In 1855 he bought a farm in Lenawee Co.,
Mich., which he worked for a short time. Selling this place, he purchased
in Fulton Co., Ohio, where he lived eight years. In the spring of 1864 he came to Gratiot County and bought 80 acres of land on
section 20, Fulton. He has since disposed of 30 acres and has 40 acres
improved. In the summer of 1883 he built
a finely-planned residence.
“In
Adrian, Lenawee Co., Mich., in December, 1855, he married Miss Mary J. Cooley,
who was born in Orleans Co., N.Y., Jan. 13,
1834. Her parents, Justus and Clarissa
(Baker) Cooley, were natives
of the State of New York, and came to Michigan in an early day, settling in
Medina, Lenawee County, where they yet
reside.
“Mr.
and Mrs. Kingman are active members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. He is a member of the Masonic Order.
Politically, he has always supported the Republican party, but being
very pronounced in his
temperance views, he casts all his influence with the Prohibitionists.[ii]”
A check of U.S. Federal Census records for Jason Kingman,
born about 1819 in New York, and living in Michigan by 1853, did not provide
any clear evidence that Jason had any offspring. Jason died July 10, 1901 in Fulton, Gratiot
County, Michigan[iii]. He was buried in the Fulton Center Cemetery
in Perrinton, according to FindAGrave.com.
I also checked the U.S. Federal Census records for Henry
Kingman, born about 1820 in New York.
Only one record was found.
According to the 1850 U.S. Federal Census for Perry, Shiawassee County,
Michigan, a Henry C. Kingman, 29 years old, born in New York, was living with
presumed wife Amy Kingman, 21 years of age, born in New York, and presumed
children Daniel Kingman, 1 year old, born in Michigan, and Frances E. Kingman,
3 years old, born in Michigan. Also in
the household was Elizabeth Brant, 10 years old, born in Michigan. Henry was identified as a farmer with real
estate valued at $400. Subsequent
searches of later census records failed to identify this family, although a
genealogist researching the wife of Henry C. Kingman stated that his wife had
remarried about 1852, so Henry may have died soon after the census was
enumerated.
Huldah Kingman was bound out to William A. Cook in
1832. I have not been able to find any
trace of her after that date. She may
have married and thus changed her name, or she may have died. I am hoping that the former is the case and
that someone connected to Huldah will read this blog article and contact me!
It was in researching Daniel, the son of Henry C.
Kingman, that I had a real breakthrough, and by which I developed a better
understanding of this family. I found a
burial record for a Daniel Kingman on FindAGrave.com. According to this record, Daniel was born in
1847 and died in 1895 and was buried in the Oak Grove Cemetery in Morenci,
Lenawee County, Michigan.[iv] I checked for other Kingmans buried in the
cemetery and found, amongst others, William P. Kingman born 1816, who died in
1902. Attached to this record was an
image of William’s death certificate, and his parents were identified as
Justice Kingman, born in New York, and Katarah Lotimer, born in New York.[v] Could this be one of the older brothers who
did not enter the Poorhouse? If so, why
was his mother’s name different than Jason Kingman’s? A quick check of a Kingman Genealogy[vi] on
GoogleBooks helped to answer this question.
Keturah Latimer was the wife of Mitchell Kingman, and the mother of
Justus Kingman. Perhaps the informant on
William’s death certificate was confused about William’s mother’s name.
It seemed interesting to me that Daniel Kingman, son of
Henry C. Kingman, would be buried in the same cemetery with his uncle
William. As I delved more into this
family, I realized that the Daniel Kingman who was buried in the Oak Grove
Cemetery was actually the son of William.
This family, as many other families of that time, had distinct naming
traditions and the same names keep popping up.
This makes sorting the families a bit of a challenge!
So far I have been able to identify and trace three
children of Justus and Patty Chapman (all sons), 11 grandchildren, 9 great
grandchildren and 3 great, great grandchildren.
William P. Kingman settled first in Shiawassee County and later resided
in Lenawee County. Jason Kingman resided
in Lenawee, Fulton and Gratiot Counties and Henry was found in Shiawassee
County. If you are descended from
Kingmans born in New York State and if any of the names and places in this
article match your ancestors, please contact me. I
would love to share the story of this family with living descendants.
 |
| Kingman children re-interment |
Joseph, Lafayette and Sally Kingman were re-interred, with 87 other souls, in the Loomis Hill Cemetery in the Town of Onondaga, New York, on Wednesday, September 26, 2012. The remains were buried next to the remains they were originally found with, so, like the first time these children were buried, they are once again "shoulder to shoulder", or perhaps more accurately, they are now "box to box". In a sad state of affairs, a decision was made by the agency funding the archaeological research to bury the bodies in the banker's boxes they were being stored in while at the research facility. All we can do now is remember and honor these people, known and unknown, and hope that their descendants are able to find their new resting place. I wish we could have identified all of the people buried in the Poorhouse Cemetery, and now re-interred at the Loomis Hill Cemetery. Perhaps someday we can.
[i]
Onondaga County Poorhouse Ledger 1, pp 45-46, Town of Onondaga Historian’s
Office, Onondaga, New York
[ii]
Portrait and Biographical Album of
Gratiot County, Michigan (Chicago: Chapman Brothers, 1884)
[iii]
“Michigan Deaths and Burials, 1800-1995,” index, FamilySearch https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FHNV-5Z5:
accessed 25 Sep 2012), Jason Kingman, 1819.
[iv]
Find A Grave online {www.findagrave.com], record created by
With_Respect,_Always, Record added Jun 8, 2009, Find A Grave Memorial #
38071573
[v]
Find A Grave online [www.findagrave.com], record created by
With_Respect,_Always, Record added Jun 8, 2009, Find A Grave Memorial #
38071607
[vi]
Kingman, LeRoy Wilson, Isbell and Kingman
Families; some records of Robert Isbell and Henry Kingman and their
descendants, (Gazette Printers: Oswego, 1840)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)