Broersma Family Tree » Joshua Hempstead (1649-1687)

Persoonlijke gegevens Joshua Hempstead 

• Hij is geboren op 16 juni 1649 in Connecticut, USA.Bron 1
• Hij is overleden in het jaar 1687, hij was toen 37 jaar oud.Bron 2
• Een kind van Robert Hempstead en Joanna Willie
• Deze gegevens zijn voor het laatst bijgewerkt op 30 december 2012.

Gezin van Joshua Hempstead

Hij is getrouwd met Elizabeth Larrabee.

Zij zijn getrouwd rond 1668.

Kind(eren):

1. Phebe Hempstead  < 1670-????
2. Elizabeth Hempstead  1670-1670
3. Elizabeth Hempstead  1672-1733
4. Mary Hempstead  < 1675-1751
5. Phebe Hempstead  1676-1725
6. Joshua Hempstead  1678-1758
7. Hannah Hempstead  < 1680-???? 
8. Patience Hempstead  ????-1725
9. Lucy Hempstead  

Notities over Joshua Hempstead

Diary of Joshua Hempstead of New London, Connecticut
by Joshua Hempstead
pg X

As the Hempstead descendants are numerous, and this publication should have an especial attraction to them, a genealogy of the immediate families of Robert, Joshua, and Joshua Hempstead 2d is given.

Robert Hempstead, married Joanna Willie.
CHILDREN.
Mary, b. March 26, 1647, m. Robert Douglass.
Joshua, b. June 16, 1649, m. Elizabeth Larrabee.
Hannah, b. April 11, 1652, m. Abel Moore and after his death Samuel Waller.

Joshua Hempstead, married Elizabeth Larrabee. He died 1687.
CHILDREN.
Elizabeth, died an infant, two months old.
Elizabeth, b. September 2, 1672, m. John Plumb, b. 1689, died 1733. ?Mary, b. January, 1674, m. Green Plumb, May 30, 1694.
Lydia, b. June 7, 1676, m. ----Salmon (of Southold, probably).
Joshua, writer of the Diary, b. September 1, 1678, m. Abigail Bailey. ?Hannah, b. -----1680, married John Edgecomb.
Phebe, probably died unmarried. ?Patience, probably died unmarried. ?Lucy, m. John Hartshorne.

The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, Volume 51
pg 259-266

COMMENTS ON, AND CORRECTIONS OF, SOME CURIOUS ERRORS, WHICH ARE TO BE FOUND RECORDED IN THE INTRODUCTION TO HEMPSTEAD'S DIARY
Contributed By Charles D. Parkhurst,
Colonel. U. S. Army (retired) and Member of the New London County (Conn.) Historical Society.

Naturally one assumes that the Introduction to any book will be in perfect harmony and accord with the contents of the said book; and, in any statements made, the introduction is generally taken as authority, the same as the book itself, without question. Hence, in the case about to be presented, it is a little curious to find such not to be the case.

The first mistake is one that cannot be refuted by the book itself; but is of such a nature as to call for comment.

The Introduction to the Hempstead Diary, page ix, has the following:
"From facts recently brought to light it is probable that Robert Hempstead came from Hempstead, Long Island, rather than with Winthrop's men. So far as known all the Hempsteads in this country are descended from Robert Hempstead and his brother."

The writer has the following before him, sent him in 1895, by a descendant of the Hempstead Family:
"Robert Hempstead, one of the first nine settlers of New London, and in the earliest records of Hartford called Sir Robert, also so called in Barbour's History of Connecticut, had the three children Mary, Joshua, Hannah, of whom Mary was the first English child born in the new settlement of New London.

He is supposed to have come from Hempstead, Essex Co., England, with other English settlers, and to have first settled at Hempstead, LongIsland. But, finding that under Dutch control, came to New London. The tradition is that "Robert Hempstead came to New London by boat as a young unmarried man."

Now there is nothing "new" about this latter statement, which is not given as "fact," but merely as supposition; the "facts" are that it is merely the revival of an old family "tradition," probably brought about by the similarity of names, as they now appear, making asupposition only.

When examined critically, however, this supposition, harmless in itself, becomes very improbable. The Dutch town of "Heemstede" (home-stead), now called "Hempstead," away down in the western end of Long Island, would be one of the last places to attract any English emigrants, as early as 1645. Later on, there apparently was more or less of a struggle in that neighborhood between the Dutch and the English, and finally the town was given the English name of Hempstead, which name also means "home-stead."

The "Sir" Robert part of the old family tradition was exploded long ago. As Miss Caulkins says: "It originated probably from rude handwriting of the recorder, in which an unskilled reader might easily mistake the title Mr. for that of Sir." If Robert Hempstead had been a Knight, and entitled to use, or be called by, the title of "Sir," he would probably have so stated in his will, which he does not do.

Again I have before me a copy of a letter written in 1902, from which I quote the following:
"Isaac Willey of Boston, Mass., married Joanna Luttin; upon his death she married Richard Hempstead, a Justice of the Courts on Long Island. At his death she makes a claim against the estate for her children, stating that it should go to his children by his first wife [Court Record]. There is some doubts as to the relationship between Robert and Richard Hempstead; it is conjectured that Robert was the son of Richard."

The writer has searched for many years for the origin of this statement; but so far without success. It has been suggested that an error has been made in this case in reading the name of "Holmsted" or "Holmstead," the old way of writing the present name of "Olmstead," as "Hempsted," or"Hempstead." For the old way of writing "Holmsted," see Vital Records of Norwich, Vol. I, where the record reads, "John Holmsted dec'sd Aug. 2, 1686." Also see Manwaring's Digest, Vol. I, p. 343, Will of Elizabeth Holmstead, wherein she seems to spell the name both ways, "Holmstead," and "Olmstead."

So far as the writer can find, there is not the slightest trace of a Richard Hempstead to be found, either as father, or brother, of Robert Hempstead; and the name "Richard" is not found among the Hempstead family early descendants at all, as it would have been likely to have been, had there been a father, or a brother Richard, of Robert Hempstead.

We can, therefore, dismiss the statements in the Introduction, as quoted as not borne out by any "facts," "recently brought to light," or otherwise.Robert Hempstead received a grant of land in New London among the very earliest given, showing him to have been here among the very first settlersand that is all we absolutely know about it.

Now come the errors that are of some moment, part of which can be refuted by the very book for which the Introduction was written.

On page x, Introduction, appears a genealogy of the immediate families of Robert, Joshua, and Joshua Hempstead 2d.

First. "Robert Hempstead married Joanna Willie."
Now did he? There is not the slightest shred of evidence that his wife's name was Joanna Willie, or Willey. Miss Caulkins, in her account of Robert Hempstead, p. 272, History of New London, says nothing about who his wife was, merely gives the names of his three children Mary, Joshua, Hannah; it is only on page 310, in her sketch of the family of Isaac Willey, that she says "infernetial testimony leads us to enroll among the members of this family, Joanna, wife of Robert Hempstead, and afterwards of Andrew Lister."

Where the "inferential testimony" comes in does not appear. It is by no means certain that her first name was even "Joanna;" in his will, Robert Hempstead gives her the name "Joane"not necessarily a two-syllable word, but pronounced as a one-syllable word, the "oane" sounding the same as "one," in "Cone."
Savage, who got the most of his New London data from Miss Caulkin's History of New London, or from correspondence with her, fails to accept her "inferential testimony;" and there is certainly nothing about it to warrant the bald, bare-faced, positive statement as given in the Introduction, viz.: "Robert Hempstead married Joanna Willie."

We come now to the greatest and most curious of all errors in the lot.
"Joshua Holmstead married Elizabeth Larrabee. He died 1687. Children:
Elizabeth, d. an infant, two months old.
Elizabeth, b. Sept. 2, 1672; m. John Plumb, b. 1689; d. 1733.
Mary, b. Jan. , 1674; m. Green Plumb, May 30, 1694.
Lydia, b. June 7, 1676; m. Salmon (of Southold, probably).
Joshua, writer of the Diary, b. Sept. 1, 1678; m. Abigail Bailey.
Hannah, b. , 1680; m. John Edgecomb.
Phebe, ) probabiy djed unm. ?Patience, ) probabiy djed unm.
Lucy, m. John Hartshorn."

There are so many errors in this so-called "genealogy," that the only way to do is to go back to the original records and get facts, as they appear on record, both as to births and baptisms, for it is by both of these records that we get at the facts.

There is no use in taking space to quote the exact wording of the birth records; the dates are what we are after, with the names of the children involved y the exact text of the record is simply verbiage.
The birth and baptismal records, therefore, give us the following:
1. Phebe, no birth record; bap. Feb. 12, 1670; d. young.
2. Elizabeth, b. Sept. 2, 1670; no baptismal record; d. Nov., 1670.
3. Elizabeth, b. Dec. 24, 1672; bap. Dec. 29, 1672; d. Sept. 29, 1733, H.D., p. 264; m. Feb. 13, 1688-9, John Plumb.
4. Mary, no birth record; bap. Mar. 28, 1675! d. Oct. 6, 1751, H.D., p. 576; m. May 3, 1694, Green Plumb.
5. Phebe, b. June 7, 1676; bap. July 16, 1676; d. Sept. 13, 1725, single, H.D., p. 161.
6. Joshua, b. Sept. 1, 1678; no baptismal record; d. Dec. 22, 1758, H.D., p. 711; m. Abigail Bailey.
7. Hannah, b. no record; bap. Jan. 30, 1680-1; d.----- ;m. Jan. 28,
1699, John Edgecombe, Jr.
8. Patience, no birth record; no baptismal record; d. Aug. 9, 1725, H.D., p. 160; m. (1) Sept. 29, 1715, Thomas Ross, who d. July 21, 1719, H.D., p. 90; m. (2) July 6, 1721, James Hodsell.
9. Lucy, b. no record; bap. no record; d. no record; m. Sept. 8, 1709, Jonathan Hartshorn, of Norwich, who d. Feb. 17, 1746-7, H.D., p. 483.

A comparison of these two records shows some very striking and remarkable differences very difficult to account for. But we will try to give reasons for some of them at least.

It will be seen that the daughter Lydia, given as b. June 7, 1676, and as marrying" -----Salmon (of Southold probably)," has been eliminated entirely, and that a daughter Phebe takes her place, being the second of the name to have been born.

This is exactly as the records read. There is no question whatever as to the clearness of the record. The name "Phebe" is as clear and sharp, and as easily read as though it had been put in plain print yesterday, instead of having been written over two hundred years ago; and the names of the parents are also clear and sharp, identifying this Phebe as the daughter of "Joshua Hempstead and his wife Elizabeth" beyond all question.

Not only that, but we have an entirely independent record in that of her baptism, which reads, "Baptized July 16, 1676, Joshua Hempstead his child Phebe." (Blake's printed reecord, page 450, The Later History of The First Church of Christ, New London, Conn.).

Now it is inconceivable that two independent records such as those should both be in error, and have given a name "Phebe" when the name was "Lydia." We must believe that both records are correct, and that the baptismal record confirms the birth record, both being of one and the same child b. June 7, and bap. July 16, 1676.

Where the name "Lydia" ever came from is beyond all conjecture. But there was a reason for the name "Phebe," as follows:
Joshua Hempstead, the first, married Elizabeth Larrabee; she was the dau. of Greenfield Larrabee, and his wife Phebe (Brown) Lee, the widow of Thomas Lee; hence it was to perpetuate the name of her mother that Elizabeth (Larrabee) Hempstead named her first dau. Phebe, and this dau. dying soon, named another with this same name as shown.

Now to account for the supposed marriage of this fictitious "Lydia" with some unknown" Salmon, of Southold, probably."

Joshua Hempstead, 2d, in his Diary, makes frequent mention of a "Sister Salmon," of Southold, Long Island. In the want of a regularly written genealogy in the family, it is natural enough for this to have been handed down from generation to generation as having been a "sister of the full blood," as it is sometimes called; hence the supposition of a full blood sister, of some name to fill in the data.

But the facts are as follows:
Joshua Hempstead, ad's wife, Abigail Bailey, was the dau. of Stephen Bailey, and his wife Abigail Cooper. She had four married sisters, viz.: Temperance, who m. Henry Conkling; Mary, who m. Thomas Talmadge; Hannah, who m. William Salmon, and Christian, who m. (1) James Patty and (2) Josiah Smith. Hence we now have the reason not only for the"Sister Salmon" of the Diary, but also for the other "Sisters" and "Brothers," Conkling, Talmadge, Patty and Smith. They were sisters and brothers-in-law, as we now call them, but then, as now, more frequently simply called "sister" and "brother," all the contemporaries knowing full well the absolute relation.

From the records found years ago, long before the Diary was ever in print, it appears that Hannah Bailey was b. Aug. 27, 1683. This was "Sister Salmon," curiously enough not now or ever mentioned by her first name by Joshua Hempstead in his Diary.
On page 564 of the Diary, we find the following: ?"Feby 16, 1750-51 ******* the melancholy news is ?"Aug. 27, 1683 come (from Southold by Samuel Griffing) of 1750 the death of my dear Sister Salmon, my
wives youngest sister of the same mother.
0067 Aged 67 last August the the 27."
And in the margin is the sum in arithmetic old Joshua put down to get at the years 67.

From this time on all references to any "Sister Salmon" cease, showing conclusively that this sister-in-law Salmon was the only "Sister" Salmon.

Again we have that Joshua Hempstead, 1st, left a will. This will was not presented for probate until Oct. 1, 1706, when it was presented for probate by Joshua Hempstead, 2d, sixteen years after administration had been granted on the estate. In the meantime, the widow Elizabeth (Larrabee)Hempstead had m. John Edgecomb, Sr., and they together had been administering the estate during the minority of the children. Two children, Patience and Lucy, had been born after the will was written; no executor was named in the will, and for those reasons the Court of Oct. 1, 1706, refused to probate the will.

From this decision Joshua Hempstead, 2d, took an appeal, and carried the case to the Court of Assistants. This Court reversed the action of the lower Court, probated the will, and made certain rulings and orders in the case. There then followed a long litigation about the matter, all shown on record; but of no particular interest or moment here.

In the will itself, Joshua Hempstead, 1st, leaves bequests to his wife Elizabeth; son Joshua; and four daughters Elizabeth, Mary, Phebe, Hannah. No executor named. Will dated Oct. 7, 1683.

This is all given simply to show that no daughter Lydia is mentioned, and that the four daughters mentioned come in the exact order of their births. If there had been any such daughter "Lydia," doubtless she would have been named.

The Probate Court record said that two daughters had been born after the will was written. These daughters were Patience and Lucy, mentioned by name in the Court proceedings, and abundantly accounted for in the Diary, and other records.

Let us take up Patience first.
The so-called "genealogy" of the Introduction brackets the two daughters Phebe and Patience, and says, as to both, probably died unmarried. We can dismiss Phebe, for she did die unmarried as shown on page 161 of the Diary, where we find:
"Sept. 13, 1725. Sister Phebe a poor Idiot died about 1 Clock Monday and she was buried the following day."

Now as to Patience: The very Diary itself with clear Index references, shows that she married twice; as shown by the followlowing:
IndexPatience (sister of Joshua Hempstead), m. Thomas Ross.
p. 49. Sept. 29, 1715. Tho. Ross & sister Patience married,
p. 90. July 21, 1719. Brother Ross died,
p. 110. June 18, 1721. James Hodsell and Sister Patience Ross published.
p. 111. July 6, 1721. James Hodsell & Sister Patience Ross married at night by Mr. Adams at my house.
p. 160. Aug. 9, 1725. Sister Patience Hodsell died an hour after II o'clock. She hath had a Consumption near 2 year from the beginning of it. Aug. 12, 1725. I markt a pair of Gr. stones for Sister Patience Hodsell y was begun yesterday.

And standing in the Ancient Burial Place to-day is a gravestone which reads:
"Here lieth the body of Patience, the wife of James Hodsell, Died Aug. 9, 1725, aged 40 years."

Now is it not a little singular that, with all this data to be easily found, and as available in 1901, when this Introduction was written, as it is to-day, any such statement should have been made that "Patience, probably died unmarried?" Such absolute ignorance as to facts would appear to have been absolutely inexcusable.

Now as to Lucy Hempstead:
She married Jonathan, and not John Hartshorn, of Norwich, as is shown by proper record, and the Diary has plenty of evidence to corroborate this fact.
This marriage record is to be found on the Norwich Vital records: Vol. I, p. 72:
"Jonathan Hartshorn, Jr. and Luce (sic) Hempstead were married Sept. 8, 1709."
A son Joshua is recorded as b. Dec. 11, 1710. The marriage is also on record on the Town records of New London, with the name as Jonathan.

It is of no particular interest in this connection to follow up the Hartshorn family. Suffice it to say that the family moved to Maryland, and on page 483, of the Diary, we find:
"July 2, 1747. I rec'd a letter from Thos. Hartshorn my sister Lucys youngest son, dated June 8, which gives an account of the death of my Brother in law Jont Hartshorns Death, on the 17 day of February last, after about 3 days illness. Maryland, Siscill (sic) County, Susquehannah Hundred."

This finishes the dissection of the so-called "genealogy" of the family of Joshua Hempstead, the first. Years ago, long before the Diary was printed, a very similar account, in fact, two accounts, that did not agree with each other, were received by the writer, as the authentic record of this genealogy. Not then knowing anything about it, these records were accepted as possibly correct, even though the difference between the two accounts threw a cloud of doubt on both.

It is evident that the record as given in this Introduction is simply one of those hazy, indefinite, and inaccurate family records, that have grown up from insufficient and inaccurate data, until finally it is accepted and believed to be correct. But in this day and generation, it will not pass muster. Why, and how, with data right at hand from which to have made a correct record, any such fictitious account should have been put in so important a place, is beyond all understanding.

To finish up the matter, and to make complete the record of Joshua Hempstead 2d, the following is given, without going into details of proof. Everything in this record has, however, been abundantly corroborated.

Joshua3 Hempstead (Joshua,2 Robert1), b. Sept. 1, 1678, New London, Conn. Took in the Church, Nov. 4, 1726, H.D.,* p. 177; m., time and place unknown, Abigail Bailey, dau. of Stephen. She b. May 15, 1677, Southold, L. I.; d. Aug. 5, 1716, New London, Conn., H.D., p. 58. He d. Dec. 22, 1758, New London, Conn., H.D., p. 711.
Children of Joshua' and Abigail (Bailey) Hempstead:
1. Joshua,4 b. July 20, 1678; d. Aug. 10, 1716, H.D., p. 58, Single.
2. Nathaniel,4 b. Jan. 6, 1700; d. July 9, 1729; m. July 18, 1723, Mary Hallam, C.R.
3. Abigail,4 b. Jan. 14, 1701-2; d.----- ;m. Sept. 1, 1731, Cement Minor, C.R.*
4. Robert,4 b. Nov. 30, 1702; d. Feb. 13, 1779; m. (1) June 3, 1725, Mary Youngs, H.D.,f p. 158; m. (2) ,-----1768, Mehitable (Tuthill) Reese.
5. Stephen,4 b. Dec. 1, 1705; d. Feb. 11, 1774; m. Sept. 19, 1737, Sarah Holt, C.R.
6. Thomas,4 b. April 14, 1708; d. July 4, 1729, H.D., p. 210, single.
7. John,4 b. Dec. 26, 1709; d. June 2, 1779; m. Nov. 17, 1731, Hannah Salmon, H.D., p. 242.
8. Elizabeth,4 b. April 27, 1714; d. Nov. 23, 1776; m. Nov. 18, 1735, Daniel Starr, C.R.
9. Mary,4 b. July 30, 1716; d.------ ;m. June 10, 1736, Thos. Pierpont, C.R.

This completes the record. All of this data could have been given for the genealogy in the Introduction as well as not, had the time necessary been given to looking up the records.

Heeft u aanvullingen, correcties of vragen met betrekking tot Joshua Hempstead?
De auteur van deze publicatie hoort het graag van u!

Tijdbalk Joshua Hempstead

Klik op de namen voor meer informatie. Gebruikte symbolen:  grootouders    ouders    broers/zussen    kinderen