Family talk:Michael Pierce and Persis Eames (1)

Order of children [4 April 2011]

The order of children, and the dates of their births, appear to be all out of whack. Reality is probably closer to the order given in their father's will, namely

• boys: Benjamin, John, Ephraim
• girls: Abigail, Elizabeth, Sarah, Anna, Mary, Abiah, Ruth, Persis

For example: Persis is shown on this page as the oldest girl, bp. 1646, but didn't marry until 1695 (age 49) and had a child in 1706 (age 60)? Abigail is shown as the youngest, b. 1662, although she is already married when her father's will was written in 1675 (age 13)? Mary is shown with the precise date of 6 May 1654 in Scituate, but no such record is to be found in the Scituate vital records?

I have found no records in either Hingham nor Scituate for any of the children. So naturally, given the absence of sources, one has to suspect that this is the result of cherry-picking AFN data. And given the apparent inconsistencies, it seems a lot of rotten ones were picked. --Jrich 00:32, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

I quite agree that the Family Group does not make a lot of sense, that's why I began by placing Michael's will on his page. I'm using the Captain Michael Pierce Vol IV authored by Frederick Pierce off the Archives, which is not always clear. I'm printing and interpreting about 5 pages at a time in an effort to sort out fact from fiction; he tends to depend on other's research and not quote a lot of original sources. I'm just getting to the sections which discuss each of his children. If anyone has other sources, please "jump in". I kept someone's previous dates unless I could disprove them, hence things are still a bit messy. --Neal Gardner 16:21, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Even Pierce only gives two dates, Persis bp. 1646, and Benjamin b. 1645. I agree it is too bad he doesn't say how he knows what he presents. I believe that for Persis he is referring to a line in the Hobart Journal (NEHGR 121:18) which says "Persis Perse bapt" in Jan 1645/46, and I wonder if this is the mother, not the daughter? Otherwise, I would have to guess that the first daughter Persis died young and a second one was the one who married 1695. The rest of the children have no birth dates, so I don't know where the other dates shown on this page come from. And even though Pierce has the will, he gives a daughter Deborah who is not in the will and yet has not dates for her, and he doesn't include Sarah who is mentioned in the will? Great example why the primary sources needed to be found and cited. --Jrich 17:17, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

The issue of Michael Pierce's daughters has bothered me for years and I'm happy to have found others who question the history. My theory is similar to what's written here, with a slight difference. I believe that daughter Persis b 1646 died young--definitely before 1662. The Hobart Journal for 1662-1663 shows:

"1662 . . . 1663

December

26 Michaell perces Daughter borne

31 Michaell Perces wife dyed"

I believe that this youngest daughter was not Abigail, as shown on the Family page here, but another daughter named Persis. And I further believe that it was this younger Persis who married Richard Garrett in 1695 and had their three children. She would have been 33 when married, which makes much more sense against his age 36 than the usual version of a Persis b 1646 and marrying, at age 49, a man 13 years her junior and going on to have three children. This switch would bring the daughters into closer alignment with the sequence in the will.

I also suspect that daughters Sarah and Deborah are the same person. Samuel Deane's 1831 version of the will names Deborah but not Sarah; James Savage does the same. Pierce lists a daughter Sarah (but no Deborah) in the transcript on pages 34-37, and a daughter Deborah (but no Sarah) on page 18.

Thoughts?--Kirsten 22:26, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

Obviously we are largely in agreement. There seems to be real problems with the data here, but there also doesn't seem to be enough evidence to say what is true. I didn't want to replace one set of assumptions with another set of assumptions, unless I could add more evidence. As far as the will, that problem can probably be resolved by ordering the appropriate film through FHL and seeing whether it says Deborah or Sarah. This family is very peripheral to my tree, and I have lots of other areas needing this kind of "exhaustive survey" that are closer to home, so it is not an effort I am likely to undertake personally. --Jrich 23:38, 3 April 2011 (EDT)

I certainly agree with the principle of not replacing one assumption with another. In this case, though, at least part of what I'm suggesting amounts to supplementing a flawed and conflicted source (_Pierce Genealogy_ by Frederick Clifton Pierce, 1889) with two earlier sources that agree with each other (_History of Scituate, Massachusetts_ by Samuel Deane, 1831, and _A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England_ by James Savage, 1860-1862, and possibly even _New England Families_ by William Richard Cutter, 1915) all of which list a daughter Deborah but no Sarah. Citing these additional sources, quoting the text exactly, and altering the pages to match, seems an improvement over what's there now. Perhaps adding a note about the conflict in Pierce's book would be helpful, too.

Finding the will on microfilm would be good, but it would only resolve the question of whether the one daughter's name is written "Sarah" or "Deborah" since none of the transcriptions claim that both are listed. I suspect that the name might be partly illegible, hence the error.

Baptismal records for the children would also be a nice find, but my notes from research several years ago say this: Since a substantial controversy was raging between Persis (Eames) Pierce's father and Rev. Peter Hobart beginning about 1646, it is not surprising that the Pierce children were not recorded as baptized by Hobart. They were probably taken to a neighboring town for baptism. By 1662, when the youngest Pierce child was born and the mother died, Hobart was roughly 73, and the controversy had probably blown over, so the birth and death are recorded in his journal.

I also concur with the discussion about the place of death. Pierce Park and Riverwalk, with the memorial, is in Central Falls, and this is supposed to be (near?) the location of the ambush so it seems that Central Falls would be a more logical death location to list.

Other smaller things I'd like to see changed are all those references to events in the 1600s with locations "United States," which seems silly.

I'm not nearly experienced enough with the WeRelate way of doing things to charge in and begin editing another's work. Perhaps someone else will pick up on these notes and make some of the changes. Meanwhile I'll practice on my own material and hopefully learn the system well enough to do some editing here--unless there are arguments to the contrary, of course.

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion; it's good to know that others see these conflicts too.--Kirsten 02:49, 4 April 2011 (EDT)