Family talk:Joseph Nichols and Sarah Hemenway (1)

[The below posting is exactly as contributed by jrich. It was moved here so it could be discussed and edited by RolandHenryBakerIII]

The only evidence of this marriage is a family record that says the previous wife died 1 Jan 1767^[1] while the births of subsequent children still show a mother named Sarah. The family record giving the death date appears to have no information about any remarriage or the identity of the second wife, other than listing births past when the first wife is said to have died.

No public death record of the first wife is found. If the family record's report of the first wife's death were to be incorrect, there would be no reason to think this marriage ever happened.

Clearly Joseph's first wife was Sarah Goddard, and she was alive in 1765 since they named a child Benjamin Goddard Nichols in 1765. The sequence of children born is fairly regular continuing after 1765 with 1767, 1769, 1771, late 1772, early 1775, etc. There is no obvious gap/interruption of the pattern to suggest a remarriage, though any of these two year gaps could be enough time for Joseph to marry a new wife and have a child.

Barry^[2] assigns Joseph only one wife, Sarah Hemenway, and gives her all the children. This is clearly not completely true. The question is, is it partially true or completely false? Barry does not give any evidence for this assertion, so we have no clue what evidence he based this assertion on, or if he was merely repeating some correspondent's claim. To the extent he seems to think Sarah Hemenway was the only wife, his research could not have been very thorough since the intentions with Sarah Goddard are a matter of record. Further, he clearly has no idea when they married since, as has been shown above, the date would be after 1765 and would have made it clear that even if there was convincing evidence Joseph Nichols married Sarah Hemenway at some point, she could not have been the only wife.

No marriage record to Sarah Hemenway has been found. There appears to be no probate for Sarah's father Ralph, nor any deeds linking Joseph Nichols to the Hemenway family. Sarah Hemenway acts as a witness to some deeds of Ralph Hemenway in Feb 1762 so still unmarried at this point (Middlesex Deeds Vol. 64, p. 483 and 64:484). The assertion of Source:Hemingway, Patricia S. Hemingways : Past and Present and Allied Families that Joseph Nichols m. 1756 to Sarah Hemenway is impossible and appears based on a misinterpretation of Barry's coverage, from whom she apparently copied her information. When Joseph cov'd (owned the convenant, not "converted") in 1756 it was him as an unmarried person, and it is not until 1763 that he and his wife are admitted. And clearly Joseph's wife at that point was a different Sarah, Sarah Goddard, so irrelevant to Sarah Hemenway. [It would be nice to have the actual wording of the church records. One would suspect only Joseph's wife was admitted in 1763, Joseph having already owned the covenant. Also, it could be useful vis-a-vis the confusion over the dismissal to Fitzwilliam that is discussed below.]

So even accepting the claim that Joseph's first wife died in 1767, no hard evidence has been found that the implied second wife Sarah was from the Hemenway family. There was a son named Ralph Nichols 1785-1846 according to the family record, but like the death of the first wife, no sign of Ralph is found in public records (i.e., no birth, marriage or death record). The only record found of a Ralph Nichols is the 1810-1840 census in Rodman, NY, not nearly detailed enough, nor proximate enough, to make any connection.

On a tangent, but significant in assessing the reliability of sources, Barry's assertion that Joseph went to Fitzwilliam appears to be incorrect. While he claims Joseph and wife were dismissed to Fitzwilliam in 1781, Source:Norton, John Foote. History of Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire, from 1752 to 1887, p. 647] claims that a different Joseph Nichols (originally of Needham, m. Judith Mixer, admitted to church in Framingham 24 Nov 1763 per Barry, just months after our Joseph) is the one who was received in Fitzwilliam on recommendation of Framingham. A deed dated 24 Feb 1789 where Joseph Nichols of Framingham with wife Sarah sell land (Middlesex Vol. 100, p. 42) indicates that Joseph and Sarah were still in Framingham, so Barry appears to be incorrect in identifying which Joseph and wife left.

[Below is the edited version by Roland Henry Baker III]:

In 1843 Josiah Adams in his book "The genealogy of the descendants of Richard Haven, of Lynn, Massachusetts, who emigrated from England about two hundred years ago" wrote that Sarah Hemenway married Joseph Nichols. That was mere nine years after the death of Sarah (Hemenway) Nichols who died 1834 (tombstone). The gives great authority to his claim. Also a family record that says the previous wife died 1 Jan 1767^[1] while the births of subsequent children still show a mother named Sarah. However, this death is not recorded in vital records. Nor does the second marriage to Sarah Hemenway appear in vital records. The family record giving the death date appears to have no information about any remarriage. Joseph's first wife was Sarah Goddard, and she was alive in 1765 since they named a child Benjamin Goddard Nichols in 1765. The sequence of children born is fairly regular continuing after 1765 with 1767, 1769, 1771, late 1772, early 1775, etc. There is no obvious gap/interruption of the pattern to suggest a remarriage, though any of these two year gaps could be enough time for Joseph to marry a new wife and have a child and during this period widowers were known to have remarried in as little as seven days after the death of a spouse. Barry^[2] assigns Joseph only one wife, Sarah Hemenway, and gives her all the children. This is clearly not true. He clearly based his assertion on the work of Adams published in 1843 just four years prior to his own book. To the extent he seems to think Sarah Hemenway was the only wife, his research could not have been very thorough since the intentions with Sarah Goddard are a matter of record. Further, he clearly has no idea when they married since, as has been shown above, the date would be after 1765 and would have made it clear that even if there was convincing evidence Joseph Nichols married Sarah Hemenway at some point, she could not have been the only wife.

There appears to be no probate for Sarah's father Ralph, nor any deeds linking Joseph Nichols to the Hemenway family. Sarah Hemenway acts as a witness to some deeds of Ralph Hemenway in Feb 1762 so still unmarried at this point (Middlesex Deeds Vol. 64, p. 483 and 64:484). The assertion of Source:Hemingway, Patricia S. Hemingways : Past and Present and Allied Families that Joseph Nichols m. 1756 to Sarah Hemenway is impossible and appears based on a misinterpretation of Adams's coverage. When Joseph cov'd (owned the convenant, not "converted") in 1756 it was him as an unmarried person, and it is not until 1763 that he and his wife are admitted.[It would be nice to have the actual wording of the church records. One would suspect only Joseph's wife was admitted in 1763, Joseph having already owned the covenant. Also, it could be useful vis-a-vis the confusion over the dismissal to Fitzwilliam that is discussed below.]

On a tangent, but significant in assessing the reliability of sources, Barry's assertion that Joseph went to Fitzwilliam appears to be at odds with Source:Norton, John Foote. History of Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire, from 1752 to 1887, p. 647] claims that a different Joseph Nichols (originally of Needham, m. Judith Mixer, admitted to church in Framingham 24 Nov 1763 per Barry, just months after our Joseph) is the one who was received in Fitzwilliam on recommendation of Framingham. But it would be odd for the church of Framingham to recommend a Joseph Nichols of Needham and not Joseph Nichols of Framingham to NH. Clearly as can be seen of the town history of Fitzwilliam Joseph was there but did not stay there. His stay was sort but possibly during this period he had his two last sons Ralph and Solomon Nichols [tombstone]. A deed dated 24 Feb 1789 where Joseph Nichols of Framingham with wife Sarah sell land (Middlesex Vol. 100, p. 42) indicates that Joseph and Sarah were back in Framingham before 1789.

[The following version is was added by jrich as a post so that his position was accurately stated and separate from several of the above points which he disagrees with]:

In 1843 Josiah Adams in his book "The genealogy of the descendants of Richard Haven, of Lynn, Massachusetts, who emigrated from England about two hundred years ago" wrote that Sarah Hemenway married Joseph Nichols. That was mere nine years after the death of Sarah (Hemenway) Nichols who died 1834 (alleged tombstone). His information is incomplete and he does not explain the basis for any it. It appears to be correspondence with a Hemenway relative since it has no information about the first wife. It does not include any children from the first marriage, or whose births are not listed in the Framingham VRs, though the family record given in the Newton Genealogy suggests there were some that would belong to the second wife.

The family record given by Newton says the previous wife died 1 Jan 1767^[1] while the births of subsequent children still show a mother named Sarah. However, this death is not recorded in vital records.

Nor does the second marriage to Sarah Hemenway appear in vital records. The family record giving the death date appears to have no information about any remarriage. Joseph's first wife was Sarah Goddard, and she was alive in 1765 since they named a child Benjamin Goddard Nichols in 1765. The sequence of children born is fairly regular continuing after 1765 with 1767, 1769, 1771, late 1772, early 1775, etc. There is no obvious gap/interruption of the pattern to suggest a remarriage, though any of these two year gaps could be enough time for Joseph to marry a new wife and have a child.

Barry^[2] assigns Joseph only one wife, Sarah Hemenway, and gives her all the children. This is clearly not true. He may have relied on the Haven book for the fact of the marriage, but he clearly adds his own research, since he lists additional children, references church records which Adams did not, and makes the mistake about Fitzwilliam discussed below. To the extent he seems to think Sarah Hemenway was the only wife, his research could not have been very thorough since the intentions with Sarah Goddard are a matter of record. Further, he clearly has no idea when they married since, as has been shown above, the date would be after 1765 and would have made it clear that even if there was convincing evidence Joseph Nichols married Sarah Hemenway at some point, she could not have been the only wife.

There appears to be no probate for Sarah's father Ralph, nor any deeds linking Joseph Nichols to the Hemenway family. Sarah Hemenway acts as a witness to some deeds of Ralph Hemenway in Feb 1762 so still unmarried at this point (Middlesex Deeds Vol. 64, p. 483 and 64:484). It is seems plausible that Joseph Nichols had a second wife named Sarah Hemenway but there is no primary evidence identifying her maiden name, only secondary sources that provide no basis for their assertion.

The assertion of Source:Hemingway, Patricia S. Hemingways : Past and Present and Allied Families that Joseph Nichols m. 1756 to Sarah Hemenway is impossible and appears based on a misinterpretation of Barry's discussion of church records. When Joseph cov'd (covenanted, or owned the convenant, not "converted") in 1756 (not 1757) it must have been him as an unmarried person since he was not old enough to marry yet, and it is not until 1763 that he and his wife are admitted. Since Joseph had not yet married Sarah Hemenway in 1763, however, this part is irrelevant to Sarah Hemenway. [It would be nice to have the actual wording of the church records. One would suspect only Joseph's wife was admitted in 1763, Joseph having already owned the covenant. Also, it could be useful vis-a-vis the confusion over the dismissal to Fitzwilliam that is discussed below.]

On a tangent, but significant in assessing the reliability of sources, Barry's assertion that Joseph went to Fitzwilliam appears to be at odds with Source:Norton, John Foote. History of Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire, from 1752 to 1887, p. 647] which claims that a different Joseph Nichols (originally of Needham, m. Judith Mixer, and admitted to church in Framingham 24 Nov 1763 per Barry - so becoming of Framingham from then on, just months after our Joseph was admitted) is the one who was received in Fitzwilliam on recommendation of Framingham. A deed dated 24 Feb 1789 where Joseph Nichols of Framingham with wife Sarah sell land (Middlesex Vol. 100, p. 42) indicates that Joseph and Sarah were in Framingham in 1789 showing that Barry has the wrong Joseph Nichols going to Fitzwilliam and Norton is correct. --Jrich 21:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

=

The goal here is to work together as a team to construct and assemble a shared tree as a *team.* Gathering sources and discussing conflicts or the weakness of certain evidence can be part of that process. My goal here today is to simply construct as a team one discussion on the sources that is concise and reflects what the original evidence or illusions to the original evidence most likely suggests and were the evidence might be considered weak. I intend to delete everything but the finished product that we compose as a team. That's what the werelate spirit is about.

In the original version at the top I objected to the fact that were not starting the chain of sources with the work of Adams, the. That is where it should start. We start with Adams work. We have the original church records. We have the family records of the death of a wife. And that's where it all starts. That's it. After that we have a lot of copying of Adams work by later authors. We need to point that out but that isn't the main idea. The main idea is that Adams interviewed families. And he published his book just nine years after the death of Sarah Hemenway. So we have to give a lot of weight to this. We have to assume that the church records cited are thought to be correct and true by the original author. We can state that we don't have them to verify at the moment. But I can tell you coming from a family who collects such records we've got boxes of them and I may have the church records in storage - we have a lot of them. We inherited a lot of these type of papers from Ann Goddard, daughter of Prudence Hemenway. We can also write the church and have them do a look up. The point is the content of the church records is cited. There is no reason not to believe what is cited in terms of the general meaning. It proves X but does not prove Y. It should be nice to verify the dates. At some point they should be looked up. That's about it. Then there is the family record cited of death. It has not been seen. There is very little reason to doubt it. The next thing is Adams research. His focus was only on the descendants of one family and that included the descendants of Sarah Hemenway only. His research had nothing to do with the descendants of Sarah Goddard. There is no reason for him to have even mentioned descendants of a previous wife even if he had known about it. At least not in the genera of writing done in the 1840's. Today authors would but not back then.

So what can we say based on these original three records about what most likely happened?

1) Joseph owned the convenant 2) His first wife Sarah ___ was admitted to the church 3) First wife died by a certain date 4) He has a second wife Sarah Hemenway 5) Children born after a certain date must be by the second wife 5) They went to NH 6) They soon returned.

There is no doubt that that is the most likely chain of events.

Problems:

1) We would like images of the church records 2) We'd like a marriage record to the second wife 3) Another author says a different person of the same name went to NH 4) We need the maiden name of the first wife.

Issue # 1 - at some point they should be reexamined. And that might happen soon. Not having the images at hand is unfortunate.

Issue # 2 that's never going to happen. It makes the case less verifiable.

Issue # 3 Here I didn't add my thoughts as clearly as I should. We are told that the church records dismissed this Joseph Nichols from Framingham to NH not the other Joseph Nichols. We have no reason to doubt the records cited. This Joseph Nichols was certainly back in Framingham in a few years. Not only do we have the deed you cited but his children were married there later on. But we already new this. If you do a quick search you'll find that *both* of the two Joseph Nichols were back in Massachusetts within a very few years. Neither stayed in NH. The author of Fitzwilliam's history seems to have just picked a Joseph Nichols at random to go to NH. But both were back in MA in a few years. You can verify that easily. So that fact the they were back in MA isn't a problem. The author never claimed they stayed. And in the genealogy treatment in the back of the book there is no treatment of Joseph Nichol's family. He simply shows Joseph was present there *right after* that church recorded him going there which if anything is validation that the identification is correct. We have no such citation for the other Joseph from the author of the history. But either way it doesn't effect the premise at all that Joseph was back in MA because they both were back in MA about the same time. So that is little reason to double that the church record is incorrect. It bears no relavence to the genealogy.

Issue # 4 is resolved because we have the marriage record of the first wife and she was Sarah Goddard

What's not an issue is that several authors after Adams clearly copied Adams work and did not do due diligence when looking at the entire family group and didn't even notice the marriage to the first wife. What isn't that a problem? Because we already have that resolved. We go back to the original accounts and records for this and they clearly define a consistent story. That other authors took the birth date of the first child and mistakenly estimated that was the date of the marriage to Sarah Hemenway is their own fault and not the fault of Adams or the original records. And it doesn't change what the original records or the citations of the original records that we have say about the story in any way.

I'd like to edit this down to one version. Let's keep it simple and focus on the original records and author. I'm glad you are using Adams in the new version. I think in light of the fact that Joseph Nichols never stayed in NH and that both men were back in MA shortly after they moved there needs to be toned down because it really doesn't prove or disprove anything other than the Fitzwilliam didn't know about the church record most likely so picked the wrong guy. If there is anyone who isn't citing a source over which Joseph went to NH it is the author of the Fitzwilliam history, right? Sure mention Joseph came back but clearly mention both came back so it really doesn't mean much.

So let's boil this down as best we can into one team written statement. I don't think I have any other issues and I plan on deleting all other drafts and my other comments so please don't preserve my comments here. I'll have a backup offline. If you see serious issues with these revisions leave a message here and I'll read it.

Roland Henry Baker III

We did not start with the Adams work because you never cited until the discussion was long in the tooth. It is still not a complete study of the family which weakens his authority, and it is a secondary source so his saying something proves nothing. Until we know how it was known and can verify it, it is just another book carrying no more weight than the others.

We don't have church records, we have interpretations of them embedded in secondary sources. Not the same thing at all, as is clear.

Barry may have used Adams, but he did not copy him. In fact, I am not sure anybody did, since they all list children Adams does not. Barry appears to be the sole source for descriptions of the church records. The Hemenways book adds nothing that isn't in Barry, and based on publication dates, it seems likely they copied from Barry. Newton doesn't appear to have copied from anybody, presenting an entirely original coverage of the family.

We have two sources that suggest a different Joseph Nichols went to Fitzwilliam, one a book, and one a deed (yes, a primary source) showing this Joseph was still of Framingham two years after the supposed removal. Besides the Fitzwilliam book's identification of who the Joseph Nichols there was, its historical coverage shows that a Joseph Nichols was selectman in Fitzwilliam when this Joseph was still in Framingham having a daughter, according to Framingham records. To me, it appears that Barry is the one who "just picked a Joseph Nichols at random" to be the Joseph and wife (which wife?) who went to Fitzwilliam while Norton actually had additional information from Fitzwilliam records to go on. Of course, if you disagree, you might try doing a survey of deeds in New Hampshire to try and find exactly when Joseph arrived and left, and what his wife's name was.

Addendum: it is not just one deed: also, in 1788 Joseph and wife Sarah were of Framingham, vol. 100, p. 1 referencing an earlier deed in 1784 vol. 85, p. 524 done by Joseph where he is still of Framingham, and I started looking at deeds in New Hampshire but only needed to read one: in 1783 Joseph Nicholes of Framingham with wife Judith Nicholes signing Vol. 9, p. 96. So that issue appears resolved beyond any shadow of a doubt. The other Joseph Nichols was dismissed to Fitzwilliam in 1781. That Barry erred in this even though he (not us unfortunately) had the actual church records to read is exactly why it is important to have primary and not secondary evidence, even when it is published 9 or 14 or more years after somebody's death. --Jrich 14:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

My position is that it is possible he had two wives Sarah, it is possible that his second wife was Sarah Hemenway, and I am willing to have those pages posted here, and have contributed to them, as long as there are caveats that there is no primary evidence showing this. Because there isn't.

Do not delete my comments. They are posted to explain the issue to future researchers. Hopefully one of them could find a primary document that would resolve this issue. --Jrich 07:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)