Jemima Culver – who is she??

Posted on July 5, 2020 by archivecookie

Just a note to my Sadler family relatives (yes, this includes some Ray’s, including Maccini’s) – I’ve been working on an old brick wall on this part of the tree, and think I may have busted through it. I’m waiting to hear back from an historian. But in the meantime, here’s the blockage…

You all know that Almerin Sadler’s wife was Esther L. Bixby, and that Esther’s maternal grandmother was Jemima Culver. Well, Jemima is the brick wall. I’ve been able to find NO documentation of her parentage.

So, I thought I’d take another look – sometimes records get added onto the internet that weren’t available online before – you never know. So, this is what I had: She was married to Cyrrel Carpenter and lived in Guilford, Windham county, Vermont. She died there on 21 Jan 1803 at the age of 39 years (Jemima Carpenter, wife of Cyrryl Carpenter). She died the day after her 7th child, a son named Nathan, was born. Her first child, Eunice Carpenter, born 30 Apr 1786, was Esther’s mother. The man she married – Cyrrel Carpenter – was born in Guilford and lived there until after his second marriage to Lydia in 1804, after Jemima had died.

That was where I started. I felt they must have at least met in Vermont, probably in or near Guilford. But I could find no marriage record or birth record for Jemmie, as she was evidently known. Cyrrel’s name was unusually mangled in almost every record I found for him – it became almost a game for me to figure out the various misspellings.

I found a late birth index record for Jemima, wife of Cyrryl Carpenter, listed as 27 Jun 1764, but no place of birth or parents’ names given, and no maiden name listed for her. Just that it was filed in Guilford and that she was female. The reverse side of the record stated only that it was from Book C, page 184 in the town records. These index cards are usually very complete, so it appears that for whatever reason, her birth was only listed due to her marriage to Cyrrel. Perhaps it was needed to prove her age at the time of her marriage – she was 21.

I did find a marriage record for a Jemima Carpenter to a John Potter in 1776, but of course that’s not the same Jemima. For one thing, our Jemima was born in 1764, which would have made her 12 at the time. For another thing, she wasn’t Jemima Carpenter until AFTER she married Cyrrel. Her maiden name was Culver. And I know this BECAUSE…

I turned to Cyrrel. I knew he was born in Guilford on 25 Jul 1758 to Edward and his wife Mary (name was spelled Cyrryl). So I figured, given the area where he grew up there was a better than average chance he’d fought in the American Revolution. So, being a member of the DAR, I turned to their website. And found that ONE person had used him on their DAR application. And that approved record, stated that Jemima’s maiden name was Culver. And that Cyril (sp.) and Jemima were married on 25 Jul 1785. But her parents weren’t listed, and neither were her places of birth OR marriage. But now I had her dates, at least, and knew they were likely married somewhere near Guilford.  But that lack of a marriage record in the town records still bugged me.

So, now that I was sure she WAS a Culver, I started searching for other Culvers in the area.  There were an AWFUL lot of Culvers in Vermont back then!  But not many in Guilford.  Could they have met someplace else?  After all, he WAS in the Revolution – maybe (the romantic in me said) she nursed him back to health is some out-of-the-way wooded outpost??  But, no – not if they only married in 1785 – he’d have married her before 1780 if it had been a war-time romance, my head said.  So, who WAS she?  And where was she FROM???

I noticed in my Culver research that almost all of the older generation of Culvers in Vermont – those of Jemima’s parents’ generation – were born in Connecticut, so I started there.  I tried to locate EVERY Culver couple in Connecticut who might possibly have been her parents and trace then forward to see if there was a Guilford connection, or at least a Vermont connection.  It was a long and laborious task, which also involved the possibility of having a daughter born in mid-1764 who could have been Jemima (names get mangled, middle names become first names, etc.).

And then I found it.  One – and ONLY one possibility.  I knew who Jemima Culver’s parents were!  But I had no proof – it was all completely circumstantial, at least so far.  But it was the only possibility.  I’d searched through every possible record I could find.  I knew I was right.  In my heart I knew it.  I knew it.  I knew I was right.  I knew.  Without a shadow of doubt, for all I had no proof.  Sometimes, when you’ve done as much research as I have, you just know.  I knew.

But, could any proof be found?  Well, that sent me into further research, but now I had a focus for it.  Could I prove that Jemima’s parents were Nathan[iel] Culver and his wife Ruth Kilbourn[e] of Litchfield, Connecticut??  Nathan and Ruth were both born in Litchfield.  They married in Litchfield on 23 Nov 1752.  They had 3 children who were born in Litchfield – Susanna was born 16 Apr 1754, Elizabeth was born 15 Jan 1758 (although one record states the year as 1755 – exactly 9 months after Susanna’s birth, which can’t be right), and Philomena (misspelled Philomelee) was born 11 Mar 1760.  Then nothing in Litchfield.

So I went to one of my favorite websites – archive.org – to look for any records on Litchfield history or the Culver family in America.  And found a book called Colver-Culver Genealogy – Descendants of Edward Colver of Boston, Dedham, and Roxbury Massachusetts, and New London and Mystic Connecticut by Frederic Lathrop Colver.  I tell you now – I LOVE THIS BOOK!!!  I discovered that Nathaniel’s father Samuel had been born in Norwich, New London county, Connecticut, and that about 1722 he and his wife Hannah Hibbard and their first 6 children (the youngest two of whom were twins) moved to the newly opened settlement of Litchfield, where his last 3 children were born, the last of whom was Nathaniel.  Samuel was one of the original proprietors in Litchfield and a very prominent landowner in that area.  This book also told what happened to Nathaniel.  He also became a prominent man of wealth and influence in the town, holding several public offices in the years he lived there.  And in 1757 he became one of the proprietors of a territory known as Spencertown, near Albany, New York.  It seems he moved the family to that locale – likely his wife and children joined him after the birth of Philomena.  The book records the births of further children to them, though there is no mention of a daughter born in 1764.  In 1767, Nathaniel was sent to England to settle a land dispute with the Crown, in 1770 he was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the local Militia.  In 1775 he was named as a Deputy to the Provincial Congress from Albany.  In 1776 he enlisted in the Continental Army.  It was noted that in 1788, he was living in Hubbardton, Vermont and that after the Revolutionary War was over he became a Baptist preacher.

So much for that VERY interesting book!  Well, that got me into Vermont in the 1780’s, but Jemima married in 1785, before 1788 – and Hubbardton was as far north of Guilford as Albany was west of Guilford.  Not exactly a direct hit.  And there was no record of a daughter born to Nathaniel and his wife in 1764.  So I didn’t have that I KNOW IT feeling yet – this was just another Culver family I was tracking down for a possible Vermont connection in the mid-1780’s.  But I kept digging.  Maybe because Cyrrel named his and Jemima’s last child – a son born the day before her death – Nathan.  And he named his first child with his second wife (Lydia – who he married in 1804) – a daughter – Jemima, after his first wife.  There was no Nathan in Cyrrel’s line before this.  Something just nagged at me about it, making me think Nathan was named for Jemima’s father – did Cyrrel promise her as she lay dying?  She was 39 and this was her 7th child.  Her daughters were Eunice, Elizabeth, and Mary – her sons were Cephas, Cyril, Joel, and Nathan.  Why Nathan?  So I kept on digging into Nathaniel Culver…

And that’s when I found it.  An Early Vermont Settler’s index card for a Nathan Culver for the year 1780, when he settled in Guilford, Vermont at the age of 52.  The card stated he was born in Jun 1728 (he was born 29 Jun 1728) in Litchfield, Ct., that he was married to Ruth Kilbourn, that he was a farmer, that he had a son Joseph – who BTW was not listed as a child in the above-named book!!! It also stated his political affiliation – he was Pro-NY in 1783, something that mattered in the context of the times and whether Vermont belonged to NY or was its own state – and that he owned 73 A+ of land.  That’s when I got chills down my spine and KNEW IT!  That’s when I KNEW that Nathan and Ruth were Jemima’s parents.  They were the ONLY Culvers in Guilford, Vt. in 1785 when Jemima and Cyrrel married (he moved to Hubbardton in 1787 to be a Baptist preacher for the town, buying land there in 1788).  And it explained the lack of a marriage record – he was a Baptist preacher/farmer, and it was likely only recorded in his personal records, especially if he performed the marriage.  It also explained her lack of birth record – she was likely born in Spencertown, NY – a wilderness town at the time with no courthouse or formal church – and that’s why she’d have needed a late birth record at the time of her marriage.  And her name not being in the book as a child of Nathan and Ruth?  Well, Joseph wasn’t in that book, either, yet he was listed as a son on the Settler’s Record.

So, I started looking into the children who WERE listed in the above book, just to try to dot the i’s and cross the t’s by seeing if the dates of birth of those listed precluded the birth of a daughter to them on 27 Jun 1764.  And that’s when I found David.  David, it appears, was born to them in 1764.  Well, crap.  But, wait…  his birth is listed as being in Jun 1764.  Oh, REALLY????  Some documents listed his birth as 29 Jun, some as 25 Jun and some as 26 Jun 1764.  So, it seems that he was born the same time as Jemima was born!!!  And then I remembered.  Nathaniel had twin brothers, born just prior to his parents’ move to Litchfield, according to THE BOOK.  Twins might just run in his family.  David and Jemima could be twins!!!

It had to be true.  It’s just not possible to have this many coincidences unless it’s true.  Nathan and Ruth were in Guilford when Jemima married Cyrrel.  Jemima had a late birth record listing her birth as 27 Jun 1764.  Nathan and Ruth had a known son born between 25-29 Jun 1764.  Nathan had twin brothers.  Nathan became a Baptist preacher while living in Vermont.  There is no marriage record in the Guilford records for Jemima and Cyrrel.  Nathan was pro-NY (now is the time to note that Cyrrel and his father kidnapped Cyrrel’s father’s brother Col. Benjamin Carpenter, a very prominent pro-Vt politician (he was Lieutenant-Governor at the time), in 1783 – and that Nathaniel Culver was probably part of this, as his settler’s card specifies his affiliation as Pro-NY with the year 1783, when he was in Guilford!!!) – and that this explains how Cyrrel and Jemima would have met.  Yes.  I KNOW.  I KNOW IT!!!  Jemima’s parents are Nathaniel and Ruth, and she had a twin brother David.

I have no proof.  But I know it’s true.  So, I’ve contacted an historian, who will hopefully be able to search though the local records to see if there is ANYTHING linking Jemima to Nathaniel and Ruth, or a twin to David, but I don’t expect he’ll find anything.  Still, it never hurts to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s…  What do you think?  🙂

© Deborah Ray and archivecookie.com, 2020.

Posted in Bixby, Carpenter, Culver, Genealogy, Sadler | Leave a comment

One more example of why you should do your own research…

Posted on July 20, 2019 by archivecookie

I’ve been working on this HUGE research project since this past March, researching a friend’s Scottish roots (among other things). And not too far back on that line, I hit a brick wall. Now, that’s not uncommon, as any researcher can tell you. But it’s usually pretty frustrating.

So, there I was – 4 generations back and stuck. Now, Scotland records are usually pretty good, and their online records are quite extensive, so it was all the more frustrating to me. I searched everywhere for how to go back further. His marriage record listed his parents’ names, but for all I tried I couldn’t come up with a birth record for him. I tried from every angle I could think of. Looked in census records. Tried to find the parents’ marriage record. Looked for possible siblings. Hunted, and dug, then dug again and HUNTED again. Let me tell you, I was getting a bit discouraged. What to do?

So, I decided to look and see if he was in anyone else’s published tree to see if anyone had referenced an actual birth record for him. Well, well – yes, someone (several someone’s, in fact) had. BUT they all listed a different surname for his mother than what he listed in his own marriage record. BUT father’s name was the same (and yes, it was a very common name – the equivalent of John Smith in England), and the mother’s first name was the same. The place of birth was in the right general area, and the date of birth was plausible and more or less agreed with census records for him after his marriage.

But I was bothered by that surname being different – after all, most sons know their own mother’s maiden name! So, I thought – maybe she was married before and the surname he gave was from a previous husband. Or maybe she married again and that was her current husband’s surname. So, with a new tack to take, I started digging again. And dug, and hunted, and hunted and dug AGAIN. And that didn’t prove out. So now I was right back to where I started, only now my choice was to either admit to a brick wall or accept someone else’s information with no way to prove it with facts and documents.

Well, as Arya once said – That’s not me. So, I kept going back to it, every time I had a few spare minutes during my other research on my friend’s other lines.  And kept getting nowhere.  Man, it was frustrating!  But it takes more than a few brick walls to get ME to quit!  So I kept going over it in my mind.  And decided to check probate records, on the off chance he was mentioned in his father’s will.  And there it was.  And in finding his father I discovered an entire family story that would otherwise have been lost to time.

His father died at the age of 42, having never married.  His son had, in fact, been born to the woman listed on the son’s marriage record, but was illegitimate.  Where the mother seemed to have dropped off the face of the earth, as I couldn’t find her on any records after the son’s birth, I discovered she had in fact married – but to someone else.  She had not raised her own firstborn – that had been accomplished by her mother, which is why I hadn’t found him in census records prior to his marriage (he had such a common name I was looking for him with a mother named Elizabeth – and he was instead with his grandmother).  The father’s probate record was administered by the deceased brother, who reminded the court that the deceased had issue that he recognized as his own.  So, even though the birth record (that I eventually found) for the son listed NO father’s name, he had in fact later acknowledged him and given him his own surname (which was why he used that name on his marriage record, even though it wasn’t the one on his birth record – on THAT record the father’s surname was listed as the son’s MIDDLE name(!!) and he was given his MOTHER’S surname.  When the son was born, the father was under the legal age to marry, and perhaps his family objected and wouldn’t give permission.  After the son’s birth, the grandmother took him to raise and the mother went on – quite quickly – to marry someone else, probably feeling she could do better than marrying into THAT family (lol…).  Her marriage was successful, by all accounts, and they had 10 children together, but she never brought her firstborn into that family which is why I never found him on a census record prior to his marriage living with a mother named Elizabeth.  AFTER, of course, he was much easier to find!  And finding him revealed a couple of other family secrets having to do with his Aunt Mary, but that’s another story!

So, I went from a brick wall to the possibility of using undocumented research to the reality of finding the truth about him.  And that enabled me to go back 3 more generations!  All with the correct documentation to back it all up.  It’s VERY satisfying – and that feeling (an odd mixture of happiness, relief, and satisfaction) is why I hate to give up on brick walls.  And it’s only possible by doing YOUR OWN research WITH proper documentation instead of the suppositions (well, it COULD be right – let’s just assume it is!) of those who either don’t want to put in the work, don’t know how to do it and decide to take the easiest path, or mistakenly think that others MUST be right, since they put it in their tree (even though there are unresolved discrepancies in the documents – if any – they cite).

So: Always, always, ALWAYS do your own research!  If you can’t do it, ask a professional researcher either to do it for you (usually at a cost, so be prepared), or to help you learn how properly (which usually involves classes).  And NEVER give up – the truth is out there somewhere, and with time and patience, and sometimes a bit of luck, you might just find it!

© Deborah Ray and archivecookie.com, 2019.

Posted in Genealogy | Leave a comment