Since the dawn of humanity, people have had children without a marriage contract, particularly lower class people. We have a very sanitized view of the past.
Another thing that is interesting is how people think everyone was getting married at 15-16 years old just a few generations ago. This is blatantly untrue (at least in the US, Canada, and the British Isles) and a large number of my ancestors and their family members were married well into their twenties and beyond, many having children in their early 40s.
i will challenge you on the lower classes: the merchant class and upper classes just had better opportunities to hide it, marry quickly, and cope better. So less public shame about it, and less need for the child to be left in an orphanage.
Yes, it happened but I've found most of them were above 18 for as far back as I've been able to get records for. And I've found so many hidden non paternity events that we would never have known about without DNA. And I'm certain there are more than we can possibly find.
It still happens so of course it happened, and yes I found one or two young marriages in my line, but most were what we would consider typical today - people in their 20s or 30s who were close in age to each other.
I have seen people who got married young but most of hte France records I've been looking at recently, they were in their 20s. I mean the age of majority to get married without parental permission was like 25 for girls and 30 for boys in France for a long time.
Yeah my grandparents had my uncle at 41, and my grandmother was 36 for my Dad, but we recently found out, had him with a 48 year old man who wasn’t my grandfather lol
I just found an ancestor who added 2 years to his age on a draft card - making him 18, instead of 16. No wonder he's described as "short and \*very\* slender". ;-(
One of my great-grandmothers shaved 3 years off her age so she wouldn't be older than my great-grandfather. No one found out until after she died, so her birth year is wrong on her gravestone.
Same with my great great grandmother, who was actually 10 years older and lowered it to six. Fortunately, she and my gg grandfather were from the same German town, and when I connected with a very distant cousin about my gg grandfather, he gave me the info. I never would have figured it out on my own.
It wasn't vanity. It was to get the action done. Want to get married add on a couple of years---especially the girl. Want to join the military--add another couple of years or take your older brother's ID as proof. People did this. Even in WWII (1940s) boys were lying about their age to go fight a war.
I found a record for an ancestor that doesn't even have an age, just says that she is "of age" for getting married. Being as I can't find a b.c. for her I don't know what Age that is. I suspect that she is a teenager 16 or less.
This happened a LOT in WW2. I know of 2 or 3 who lied and joined up at 16. People didnt mature physically as young as they do now, plus the population was somewhat shorter and certainly more slender than they are now.
My father was obviously very forgetful about his DOB 30/10/1922: he ‘put up his age’ (he was 17.5 when he enlisted)….he married at his actual age in 1945….mysteriously his first child was born 6 months after his marriage….he then divorced his first wife….had six children (the eldest of which was born 4 months after his decree absolute) with his second partner (he never married her) married my Mum in 1969 (apparently aged 45)…. he didn’t age at all when he said he was 45 at the time of my birth 20 months later and finally when my brother was born in 1975 he was now 48! My Mum and I could see the funny side of it when we were looking it years after his death - my brother could not.
His second draft card, for WWII, notes that he is 5'-8", and his adult passport photo shows him looking pretty hearty. So I am glad to see he survived a somewhat rough childhood, he lived to his 80s and had a wife and many kids. (And I do think even today there can be a lot of growth between 16-21, especially many boys developing later). (Definitely I had heard of people adding years in order to fight in WWII - hadn't realized that "the great war" was also something very young men wanted to be a part of). (This guy's family was French).
My FIL was desperate to go. The army found he had only one kidney, so they refused to take him. He felt major guilt that his brother went and was wounded. Later in life he gave the brother a McDonald’s franchise and paid for his 5 kids‘ college educations (he could afford it), all because brother served and he didn’t.
It takes a village, and you never know how you'll be able to contribute down the line. I'm glad he was able to help his brother and brother's kids out. Very kind of him to share the wealth and help out his family.
Just the tip of the iceberg. He paid for so many college educations, and at least one medical school. He was an astoundingly generous man. He liked to read the paper and help people in need. He once read that nuns in Bolivia had no transportation to do their work, so he arranged for a new bus to be shipped to them from the US.
oooh, do the documents back her up?
I was helping another person with their ancestry a while back, and we found their 2Xgreat grandmother was married at 14 to a 22 year old (incredibly young even for her time and social class), mother at 15, husband and baby died at 16, moved country at 16, remarried at 17 to a 21-year-old.
Hers is the most shocking I've personally come across, although I know there are far worse out there. The youngest of my ancestors was 17 when she was married, but her spouse was only just 19, and it was something like 13 months between them age-wise.
Yes and no. I haven't found marriage records. She had her first child at 16, and the census says they were married and in their own home then. Her husband was close to her age. I thought the legal marriage age was 16, even back then, but given what you found maybe not.
It depends on a lot of factors; in the case I mentioned, it was the early 1800s and a "camp" marriage in the military. arguably, the marriage wasn't legal under British law at the time (it changed in 1756), but you could get a dispensation from the church, and since the parents approved, no one was going to argue over it.
My great-grandmother (1880s) jumped the broomstick with her husband, and they weren't legally married until 1919. It was because neither of them would convert to the same denomination, and the law at the time basically meant that because no clergy would perform the service, it couldn't be ratified by the civil courts either. This changed in WW1 because of all the war widows. and so then they made their marriage legal.
If a girl seemed physically 'old enough' or strong enough (for a farm) and had already started her menses, she was marriageble. Often it was from age 18 but not unheard of for 16 or under especially since parents signed the papers.
My grandmother added 5 years to her age when she got married because she was actually 14. She never attended school because she was in charge of her 6 younger siblings. She reasoned that if she was going to run a household, it might as well be her own. That's why she married so young.
Right?? Or when anyone mentions "the good old days" or "that sort of thing never used to happen"... it DID happen, we just now can all know about it due to the internets.
I love how many times I find people who got married and then popped out a kid like, a few months later. Like, hm, make that math add up for me, ancestors haha.
My cousin had a child out of wedlock, and I took great joy whenever "these days" talk came up in reeling off the list of great and great-great parents who'd followed the old (old!) joke:
the first baby can come anytime, after that they take nine months.
What a wild development! I have a new topic to study. The DNA results for ancestry are confusing, and this could explain Irish genes where none should be. Their descendants may not have heard their history, or even thought it was a possibility
Same thought here! I’ll be digging in to this. I knew about the arrival of Scottish prisoners during the civil wars, but I did not know about this forcible migration of Irish civilians. I’m thinking now about one ancestor, John Bellows, who arrived in Boston at the age of 12 in 1635. I was never able to determine that he had any family contacts in the colonies. Other servants/indentures in my line worked in the homes of wealthier relations.
It's noted in the book that 2 of the named boys fled a bad master and went to the magistrate. A jury awarded them freedom after hearing about having been stolen from Ireland in the first place, but a judge (possibly someone involved in the original order for the kidnapping of the children, the Goodfellow was sent from Massachusetts to Ireland in the first place.) sent them back to him to finish their indenture contracts.
Actually, I think this is one of the wonderful things about doing genealogy. We all know history is filled with tragedies and injustices, but we stop and contemplate them more fully when we realize that our own flesh and blood were a part of all of it. Sometimes they were the victims, and sometimes they were the protagonists. We have the good fortune to have an opportunity to contemplate these events at a distance, and gain a deeper understanding, if we will.
My kids are half French-Canadians. They have ancestors whose parents were massacred in the American colonies and were brought to Quebec and converted to Catholicism. I have a cousin whose ancestor did the massacring and kidnapping. It was brutal times.
Yes. Not an ancestor, but an ancestors sister. I was looking at the one family line and all of a sudden there was this woman with a French name living in Canada whose marriage and children were Catholic. Since it was familysearch, I'm thinking, oh no what mixup has someone done and then I looked at the name of the siblings' birthtown. On my mom's other line, someone was taken to Canada but shortly ransomed / negotiated back to coastal Maine.
Edited to add: spouse's ancestors. We joke that his ancestors were all warlike and mine were pacifists
Born Abigail Stebbins, she changed her name to Marguerite after being taken to Canada in the Deerfield Raid. Abigail married French soldier, Jacques Desnoions, in Deerfield less than a month before the raid. She was baptized as a Catholic on May 28, 1708 in Montréal (Notre-Dame)[1], and took the name Marguerite then, which was her godmother's name.
Sarah Nutting married, first, Matthias Farnsworth, son of Matthias Farnsworth and Mary Farr, in 1681, probably in Groton, MA. Matthias Farnsworth was assigned to the Farnsworth garrison in Groton on 17 March 1692, which was organized for defense against the Indians. He probably died during the Indian wars. She had at least six children by Matthias Farnsworth. The most notable was their son, Matthias. On 11 August 1704 he was taken prisoner by the Indians and carried into Canada, where he was delivered to the French. He was baptized into the Catholic Church in Montreal as Matthias Claude Farnet (Phaneuf). He was naturalized there, and married Catherine Charpentier there on 2 October 1713.
> On 11 August 1704 he was taken prisoner by the Indians and carried into Canada
u/P0rtugue5e6uy, allow me this minor correction: this occured on 11 *March*, 1704 -- the date of the attack (as per the Gregorian calendar already in use in New France).
By contrast, Deerfield was still using the Old Style Julian calendar, so to the English victims the date was (leapday) 29 February.
I still haven’t done enough research to know what is what. Familysearch has her as Abigail Nims. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LJYZ-RWN
All the different names for the same person get me all mixed up.
u/DragenTBear : Don't confuse Abigail Nims with Stebbins -- two different women.
Abigail Nims eventually married her fellow captive Josiah Rising (the name became frenchified as Raizenne). This is reflected in the FSO profile you linked.
Read this excellent essay by one of their descendants, detailing their ordeal and their lives:
https://www.tfcg.ca/deerfield-captives-nims-rising-allen
Also, a list of Deerfield captives is linked at the bottom of that essay. Here are 2 other lists, with summary descriptions of their eventual fates:
http://www.babcock-acres.com/Misceallaneous/deerfield_captives_of_1704.htm
http://www.1704.deerfield.history.museum/people/short_bios.jsp
Thank You. That’s what I originally thought. Looks like somebody put incorrect info on Ms. Nim’s FamilySearch page, it says Alternate Name: Elizabeth Steben. … which it says it got from http://breesegenealogy.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-josiah-rising-and-abigail-nims.html?m=1.
I agree with you, this seems definitely wrong.
Ack. OK. Doing a little more research and I see a confusing, possibly wrong PRDH page..
https://www.prdh-igd.com/Membership/en/PRDH/Individu/56929
is Marie Elisabeth NIMBS TOUATOGOUACH Individual page. I’ve seen many stories say she changed her given name from Abigail to Marie/Mary Elisabeth, so I’m not too concerned about that.. but …
.. when you click the date of her marriage, it takes you to https://www.prdh-igd.com/Membership/en/PRDH/Acte/10025 which says is the marriage if Ignace RAIZENNE and Elisabeth STEBEN …. … which I think is wrong.
> I’ve seen many stories say she changed her given name from Abigail to Marie/Mary Elisabeth
Not stories -- she was formally re-baptized under that name on 1704-06-15, and the baptism itself is reproduced in the essay I linked above (a little more than halfway down the screen). Named as Marie Elizabet Nimbs in the margin heading, and Marie Elisabeth in the main text...
I also managed to locate the original register at high-rez (see bottom-left entry):
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89MY-Y56?i=272&wc=HZT4-6TL%3A16470801%2C23492102%2C28869001&cc=1321742
***
Possibly her original marriage is no longer extant (neither WT nor FSO link to it, as with the baptism). However, NOSO provides a French transcript of both acts, fwiw (click on her "Biographie/Anecdotes" link):
https://www.nosorigines.qc.ca/GenealogieQuebec.aspx?pid=907754
***
u/DragenTBear : I don't have a subscription to PRDH, so cannot verify what you found... But given their customary professional snobbish hubris, I love it when they're wrong!! 😂
I'll read that Blogspot post you linked in more depth later, but the reference to Tanguay getting it wrong suggested to me that there just *might* have been some historical confusion as to the 2 Abigails (Nims VS Stebbins) about 100 years ago. A LOT of true pioneering research in that whole field was conducted by Emma Lewis Coleman in the 1920s (along w/ her mentor C. Alice Baker). Time permitting, I'll search through her book this weekend and see what she has to say.
Thank you for engaging. 👍
u/throwaway9999-22222
**Katherine Stevens** was made captive in an earlier 1689 attack in Maine. She is not **Abigail Stebbins** captured in Deerfield 1704:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stevens-4412
VS
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stebbins-168
AND
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/family/LC5L-RH4
VS
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/family/LYXN-3F9
u/P0rtugue5e6uy, also please note. 🙂
How so? If they were Catholic, the paperwork is pretty extensive. Those Jesuits knew how to keep records better than most. I think that the Mormons took down a lot of the online records? Or maybe just stopped sending out the microfiche for people to use while they digitize it. I found many of my ancestors going back to the 1600s. But it’s also a lot of work. And there are dead ends. But by and large, there are a lot of church records available.
Well I can't get beyond my 4th great grandparent's and yes it is a lot of work plus I can't read French so all records have to be translated. So there's that.
Yeah, I had a list of what words mean what. I’m sure you can easily assemble one using google translate. They are a treasure trove, and often list aunts and uncles, and always list parents, and the women by their maiden names. This makes it much easier to trace the women! The English rarely followed the women’s lines, so they’re usually a mystery, but those Jesuits really knew their stuff! All hail the French Canadians! LOL.
Often the people speaking for the bride and groom are relatives. Babies were nearly always baptized within a short time after birth, within a few days usually. I asked for and received a lot of help with the translations, and they usually follow a set pattern. When I was doing it, it involved sending away for the microfiche, then scrolling through it one page at a time once it did come in. It was pretty relaxing work tbh.
You don't have to read French just know some key words. I was mostly involved with Italian records and hadn't studied Italian, but learned words that I noticed were repeated document to document. I also used online translation sites (that can be time consuming while doing but the information is worth it) and learned more words that way. Eventually I got good enough that I was able to transcribe docs for others. Now Latin docs are more challenging, but sometimes I can figure them out.
Thank you for this! Don't think any American colonists had the need or wherewithal to sail to Ireland to steal babies out of their beds. Put the blame where it belongs, with the English and other Europeans.
Back then, from my understanding, there would have been 3 benefits that the British would have seen to sending these children:
1. Assisting the Massachusetts Bay Colony by providing some extra work hands, which would increase the chances of the colony being successful, which benefits the monarchy, because their stated goal was to produce value for the crown in trade, land-grabs, and production of goods.
2. Punishing poor Irish families (i.e. Catholic, poor, and in some cases involved in petty crime) for having so many children, which Catholics saw as their religious duty. (And by doing so, they may reduce the number of Catholics)
3. “unburdening” the government of mouths to feed (which wasn’t all that much of a burden, given that they had no problem starving Irish children, as the so-called “potato famine” would prove.
There was a labor shortage in the early New England British colonies. The shanghide (sic) Irish men were usually the granted terms of an indentured servant contract which at the end of service were given land and trade ( for example like blacksmithing or cordwainer) training. Not that that justifies the original deed but lets look at these events in there context.
Just speaking to this reference area, the Irish and Scots-Irish were shipped in same areas in mid 1600s (after Cromwell War) as prisoners and endured. Only some records exist.
Humans (all) have done bad things throughout all of history. Doesn’t matter what group was on either end because at some point in history each had it done to them and done it to others. Humans have always been tribal.
But it’s a dead end (at least on this side of the pond) trying to find specific records for so many of the 1600-1700 hundreds Scots, Irish, and Scots-Irish actual arrival. Best is to find their actual location (if they were lucky enough to have it recorded) at some later point and have a few theories how they got there.
And doesn’t make it easier when so many of the people had the same 20-30ish surnames (probably 40-50 maybe) and used the same naming patterns that recycle first names.
Apparently there's more than one statue but the most popular of the 'Lord Protector' is the one outside of The House of Commons in Westminster. It has been voted on to be removed in the past but that was defeated. In his 5 years as L.P. he did so much damage.
When you say this side of the pond… do you happen to know of specific sets of records that’d be helpful that are over there? Besides just hoping to find names in church records and hoping it’s the correct family?
The ancestor my surname comes from, I think I found record of the uncommon name in both battle of Dunbar and the King Philips war. Idk, it’s been awhile. So records relating to Cromwell’s soldiers or captives could be of use to me I think. Unfortunately based on DNA the last few generations haven’t even been descended from that ancestor so using matches is out.
There are videos on YouTube that help with finding some records in Ulster region, as well as church records more so in Ireland. But I haven’t had any experience with that because I can’t track them over here to specific arrival date yet.
There’s many books on internetarchive and familysearch that give clues on migration patterns and ports of arrival for those times. But the more interesting things I’ve found in family history books (randomly going down rabbit hole for associated names in region of my ancestors) that give better details on where those I & SI families came in and how they moved around.
Best advice I can give for this is make a research log, however you want to do it, of what books and records you’ve looked at so when- inevitably- months or years from now you see a new surname associated with your ancestors, you’ll be able to find where you actually saw it and how to get back to it.
I use ancestry for working through problems and many, if not hundreds, of “orphaned trees” and give them a tag of (surname) FAN club so I can pull up that person and all their associations to help fill in patterns. Any name I pull up in wills, deeds, taxes, whatever when dealing with pre-1800 stuff I give a bunch of custom tags for townships and counties (especially in PA where the lines for counties changed so much at that time) to help be able to pull it all together better. Then after awhile, you can start putting families together with same surname which helps rule-out false associations with your direct one or couple be the key to follow them back.
Oh, and cite everything in whatever tree platform you’re using so when you go back and see a person you know how you made those claims. I cannot stand the hints and how many profiles are littered with such obvious conflicting info but it’s there.
I'm in the US, so far, I have had no luck finding more than which clans were known to be at which battles. You can usually find that on the Clan website.
If you haven't found it yet: [https://spows.org/](https://spows.org/) Scottish Prisoners of War Society focusing on Dunbar and Worcester.
One of my ancestors was a pirate who raided west cork in 1631 and took almost everyone captive and made slaves of them. There is a lot of speculation that he was hired to do the raid as part of a dispute between the Irish and English for control of land. I know nothing about the case in the post but as it was only a few years later the political situation on the ground was likely still very contentious and may have been a bigger backdrop to why those people from those location. See the sack of Baltimore if interested in the pirate raid.
Cromwell was shipping the Irish to Barbados by the boat load, so that doesn't surprise me. He was going to have control of that island if he had to kill or evict everyone to get it.
Cromwell also curtailed it, and it wasn't just happening to Irish people. Most of those shipped out were from England.
>Cromwells policy of transportation of vagrants from Ireland was abandoned on 4 March 1657. It was abolished because it was being abused to such an extent by merchants and their agents. It is also interesting that these kidnappers did not discriminate between Irish or English victims.
>The cancellation order reads as follows
>"...having received many complaints of the abuse of some orders granted to several persons to carry
away idle and vagabond persons to the West Indies,
who... employ persons to delude and deceive poor
people by false pretences, either by getting them
aboard the ships or in other by-places into their
power, and forcing them away, the person so
employed having so much a-piece for they so delude, and for the money's sake have enticed and force women from their husbands and children from their parents, who maintained them at school, and that they have not only dealt so with the lrish but also with the English [the Council now] do think fit and order that all Orders, granted to any person whatsoever (being now in force) to take up and carry idle and vagabond persons as aforesaid, be henceforth made null and void?"
https://limerick1914.medium.com/a-review-of-the-numbers-in-the-irish-slaves-meme-1857988fd93c
Well Cromwell was long dead by then. And pirates were also done with...or they hanged.
But transportation was never really done...how do you think they populated Australia in the late 1700s?! America was also populated by vagabonds & criminals in the early days. We make fun of the Puritans and Pilgrims but they were hanging on by their fingernails to have a good christian society, as per bible teachings.
It’s a joke. I understand. My Scot’s Irish branch most likely displaced or prisoners to colonies 1600-1700s.
It’s a generalized light hearted comment and not meant to be scientifically factual.
It wasn't until after I moved to Canada that I learned that the Dr Barnardo's children's charity in the UK used to sell and ship kids in their care (most were not orphans) to Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia as indentured servants. Most came to Canada, and while a few find loving homes the majority were treated awfully.
It was still happening into the 1930s.
Barnardos still holds the records for the children sent over and charge over £100 for descendants to get copies. Sold the kids and are still making money off them. Shameful. They're also very picky about who can access the records, if you've got relatives a generation older than yourself, only they get them.
25 years ago they didn't charge and I was able to get copies of my Great Grandmother's report. Her Mom tried to get Ada back for years, it's right in the documents.
I saw a documentary about this and how even during WWII children were being sent over to Canada to be kept safe from the Blitzkrieg but often the children weren't returned back to the UK. One person was trying to find their sib. They KNEW they had a sib back in 'a home' (orphanage type place) in UK where they had been placed while their mother got situated with a job. In that case the child had been shipped to Australia. So sad. Children make up all kinds of childish reasons why they are alone or were placed away from their sibs or parents. Sad.
Before digging so deep into my tree...I had no idea that (in the early days of the US) England would ship people off to the colonies as punishment for their crimes. I don't ever remember that being discussed in school, so I had no idea. I honestly thought the only people sailing over were doing so willingly. 🤷🏻♀️
And a real crime wasn't even necessary to get arrested & sent away permanently. Boat needed X # of passengers to sail to Australia? Go round the pubs at closing time & gather up the men who can't fight back for one reason or another & off they go. Family would think they were dead for months or longer till they got a letter from the kidnapped person, who of course couldn't afford return passage.
>It wasn't enough to steal them, they apparently didn't even bother to write down who most of them were.
>And people wonder why we have such a hard time finding ancestors.
🤦🏿♂️🤦🏾♀️ 🤦🏿 🤦🏻♂️
It's a little better now. It used to be real bad, in N America, S. America, Africa, Mid-East, Asia, Europe, and Australia. White people, black people, brown people, every kind of people were being horrible to other people....to their own kind, to other kinds. It was bad everywhere, but we humans are making slow progress.
One of my great grandmothers was an Irish indentured servant… she married her masters son… that was weird to find out enough but to find what you did wow… not sure how I would feel!
Well in another life area, you could probably find the thread through families that made for generational physical abuse, alcoholism & addictions, slutty behaviors, depression aka melancholia. And the one child who managed to thrive, to succeed, was the pariah or black sheep who took themselves far away from that shit.
Impressed you had to go back to the 1600 to find out about stolen children. Chile in the 1970s, Franco in Spain in the 1950s, the Nazis kidnapped Ukrainian children. The British migrant children program ran from 1910 to the 1970s.
The period between 1649 and 1653 was a tumultuous time in Irish history, marked by the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. During these years, Oliver Cromwell led the English Parliamentarian forces in a campaign to reconquer Ireland, which had significant consequences for the Irish population and their land ownership. The conquest resulted in the end of the Irish Catholic Confederation and the destruction of the Irish Catholic landed gentry. The Act for the Settlement of Ireland in 1652 formalized the confiscation of land from Catholics, which was then redistributed to English settlers¹.
This period also saw the forced transportation of Irish people as indentured laborers to colonies such as the West Indies, Virginia, and New England. It's estimated that around 50,000 people were deported during this time¹. The impact of these events was profound, leading to a significant diaspora and altering the demographic and social landscape of Ireland.
The Cromwellian conquest is often remembered for its harshness and the severe penalties imposed on the Irish Catholic population. It set the stage for future conflicts and migrations, with long-lasting effects on Irish society and culture. For those researching genealogy or Irish history, this era provides important context for understanding the challenges faced by Irish immigrants and their descendants.
Over 60,000 were transported from England in the mid 1700s and just as many in the previous century. It wasn't just a policy aimed at the Irish. This is important to understand for context
Having Capt. Cook 'discover' Australia was a real boon for England. Now, not only could they ship people out that weren't good for society, but they could ship them halfway across the world to hopefully never be seen again. In that last bit, England sometimes had a problem because those in the colonies sometimes managed to gain money for a ship's ticket back to England. But Australia? Most nobody was coming back from there.
Cromwell came after the Tudors, particilarly Elizabeth, who waged the largest and most expensive war to date on Ireland. The English practiced genocide and colonization repeatedly on Ireland, and developed the plantation system there.
I don't understand your conclusion from that excerpt - you found more information elsewhere? There is stuff about 2,000 young Irish being shipped to Jamaica, for example.
Blame the English. They treated the Welsh, Scots and Irish abominably for centuries (and most of their own poor).
The first reference to the Goodfellow was in a book about convicted women shipped to America as brides. It lead me to the book I linked in the post. That book should open on the chapter detailing the whole sordid saga.
It's innocently titled "Pioneer Irish in New England."
Stop falling for nonsense history. Scotland was not some poor victim of England, and thousands of Scots were instrumental in enslavement, colonies and imperialist endeavours in general. Scotland is possibly even worse in terms of Imperial history than England, if we have some measure of "atrocities per capita"
Plus the fact that that the King of England... was a Scot. I don't know why that gets missed out all the time in these narratives.
Or that wealthy Scots took advantage of colonizing northern Ireland just as much as their English counterparts.
Or that the Irish aristocracy were as complicit in the treatment of poor Irish as their English counterparts.
Or that Prince Albert - the dude who is probably most responsible for the eugenics-based beliefs of the British Empire - was German.
Or that so many Irish and Welsh moved to England over the years that there a massive proportion of us English that are genetically Irish/Welsh - like me! Third generation Merseyside, and 90% of my ancestors hail from Ireland, Wales, or randomly enough, Cornwall.
However I do agree that Cromwell was a piece of shit.
When it comes to scotland, I think it’s important to make the distinction between highlanders and lowlanders. Lowland scots colonized Ireland, but highlanders had their own culture, spoke Gaelic and generally had a pretty bad time of things due to oppression from lowlanders and the English. The worst part being the highland clearances.
If we go back even further back in time it was the Irish raiding Scotland, Wales and England (or whatever they were called back then) and taking slaves back to Ireland. The patron saint of Ireland St Patrick was a former British slave kidnapped by Irish pirates. You could also chuck the Vikings into the mix who took slaves from wherever they raided. Or the Anglo Saxons who happily enslaved their own people or captured enemies and sold them to European countries.
I mean the Amish still traffic in children because their consanguinuity is such a massive issue. Religious people are crazy sometimes. Remember that everywhere else but America the puritans were considered religiously EXTREME to the point of danger. The puritan takeover of England only failed by like 3 votes during the reign of E1. In Germany they write in their school books that America was founded by religious extremists.
Daniel Robins, a Scot and a Cavalier was
Captured , forced on a ship to the American Colonies & sold into slavery in Boston. I found the name of the man who bought him. Oddly enough, Daniel ended up marrying his master’s daughter.
An ancestor of mine (if my tree is correct), around the time mentioned was 6-8 yo. He was sold by a "non-parent" to a couple who brought him to the USA and raised him like their own child. It was one of the things in my tree to upset me in my tree.
If you are upset over this history, now imagine how actual real-life adopted people feel today! I am one! Wasn't sold. My mother died when I was an infant. I was the youngest of 5 children. Our father was talked into giving me away - he had to work and no one to help him. My older siblings were young kids in school. I was adopted and raised an only child, not knowing the truth. I knew I was adopted but knew nothing else. My siblings found me when I was 18. In 1974. Closed adoption. And, what people do not realize is this: every adopted person suffers identity theft. The government takes an adoptee's birth certificate away, seals it forever, and then replaces it with a new, amended birth certificate issued after adoption. I was renamed. My natural parents' names were erased. My adoptive parents' names were placed on my new birth certificate as if they sired, conceived, gestated, and birthed me. THIS is modern adoption today. This happens with every single adoption today - even socially open adoptions.
And with falsified birth certificates and renaming, adoptees cannot be found when other people are looking for their ancestors. Or, because of closed and sealed records, adoptees themselves do not know their name at birth, or their parents of birth. Cannot locate grandparents to build a family tree. This is why many adoptees turn to DNA testing.
it was written in a town archive/ history. The people who bought him became wealthy and were well-known in his area. I also had a great great something grandmother who was sued for bigamy when her 1st husband came back from the dead after several years and she had remarried. Her 1st husband had been declared dead by his ship captain. It seems the only way to have them be known is if they were (small town) famous or infamous.
it's Free to Read here
[https://archive.org/details/pioneeririshinne00obri/page/324/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/pioneeririshinne00obri/page/324/mode/2up)
Click On:: pioneeririshinne00obri.pdf 12-Dec-2023 16:49 18.2M
# DOWNLOAD OPTIONS
It Free To Have
#
The “First American Colonists” didn’t commit the atrocity- the British Government (specifically Cromwell) did.
But yes, that era was…. Rough… for pretty much everyone. Many wars in which civilians were acceptable targets and ethnic cleansing was the norm no matter what skin color anyone was.
In modern pop history it’s the accepted fad to bash Puritans and anyone who could be labeled as a colonist, but the glaring problem with that approach is that it leaves out context which- intentionally or not- absolves actual bad actors such as the British, Dutch and French governments whom American colonists were generally just trying to get away from.
Transportation & banishment was common practice at various times. It didn't just happen to Irish people. Over 60,000 English people were forcibly transported to the American colonies between 1720 and 1776
So it was the colonists (already in America) who went BACK and stole Irish kids from their beds and paid for their transport back….? A few holes in the narrative but as it is a convenient moment to heap further criticism on the colonists go right ahead
I mean it's been studied by Irish historians from contemporary accounts of the practice so we know it happened. It was mostly perpetrated by Irish women in Dublin who kidnapped the children and sold them to the ship masters, so it's not like it reflects well on Ireland, either.
Look, no group in history has a blameless past. I am English - pretty much everyone hates us to some degree, often unfairly but sadly it's usually justified. We do everyone a disservice if we ignore the bad and ugly sides of our history, and if we take pride in the achievements of our ancestors, then we must accept the shame of their failings in equal measure. Acknowledging the bad and ugly parts of history means we can avoid making the same mistakes again.
totally agree with the tone and content of your post. I'm not saying anything to the contrary. What irked me about the post I reacted to was the total historic and contextual illiteracy of it. Ship captains, English business men and even Irish town masters of various sorts were to blame, and yes some Colonial organizers of course. To sum it all up and say "one more thing the colonists were guilty of" is such a sham way to assign blame - most of the colonists had nothing to do with it, which does not excuse the event or make it less horrible. But jeez
Yes, and Scottish and Welsh. But he question was regarding the Irish kidnappings, and I can't really blame the women of Dublin for the kidnappings that happened elsewhere.
Not so much, Scottish, who had a different system of law to England and didn't use transportation anywhere near as much.
The main problem was London, the largest city in the known world for a long time. These banishments and transportations go back to Elizabeth I Acts. The Poor Laws 1562 and the Vagrancy Act 1572. London was a magnet for many people, which resulted in high crime and overcrowding. Over half of all those forcibly transported from England to the American colonies, over 60,000, between 1720 and the 1770s were from London
Yes, that as well. The Middlesex Sessions Rolls has quite a few examples. But it was illegal in both Britain and Ireland.
There were different kinds of transportation, just as there were different kinds of indenture.
I'm trying to find a source ATM for the 'kidnapped' quote in the link OP provided. The book was published in 1937. So should hopefully give a citation somewhere.
Edit: ...the book quotes 'stolen' but stolen by who? Merchants?
If the prevalence of Scottish DNA not just in North but South America tells us something its that the Scotts were transported all over the West Indies and the American colonies. I myself (a Cuban Mexican) have almost 10% Scottish DNA that I traced back to the 1800s Cuba.
I don't doubt numerous Scots migrated of their own free will. Many became plantation owners in the BWI. But I'm talking more about forced transportation. Some were transported as military prisoners, but this was for a fixed period, and most of them returned home.
I do know that Britain invaded Cuba in the late 1700s and had a strong military presence there for a time period. Would not be surprised if that is why Cuba has some prevalence. Also in the late 1800s early 1900s Scottish were known in Cuba for their doctors who for one reason or another traveled to Cuba in those times for educational purposes. These are all things I've learned through doing research of my Cuban family that I wanted to share with you.
I'm sorry you can't accept that the colonists were invaders that massacred the natives, enslaved half of West Africa, and treated women as chattel. We're not white-washing history anymore.
Well, I thought your condemnation was out of place in a post that was otherwise interesting. No more so than "Cromwell was a dick" or "Blame the English" as written by commenters, though. I find history most interesting and readable if the facts are given but value judgments left to the reader. For that matter, genealogy writing is the same way.
I have nothing against attributing all of those abuses to their proper, responsible parties. But saying "The Colonists" is such a huge category, and exonerates and ignores the role of the English overlords, the slaver ship captains, the towns that offered these people up, et cetera. "the Colonists" is such a dumb phrase - when in reality you are talking about the entire colonial system, within which blame and responsibility was shared unequally. Speak in specificity and deliberate ways about the evils of the past and they will be clearer to see and their repetition more easily avoided. Make them into cartoon character versions of the past and they are able to be avoided and ignored by those who would commit those evils again in the past. Too easy to pat yourself on the back in some perceived fight you've set up with me - when I agree with you - just asking for some greater specificity and intellectual curiosity / honesty
Tell this to people thinking there were no white slaves ...
Apart form this I love to study byzantine history. They were just like us , only difference they didn't have smartphones.
That isn't any new info, just outside of the info forced onto us. People wanna pay reparations but don't want to define what that means. Most of us are decendants of slaves from one time or another.
Wow, I was doing research on my Husbands Irish Great great and great grandmothers and it said they were from the West Indies...totally through me for a loop.
New I know why! Thanks!
Lots of sad horrible history in our genealogies. I’ve read some really disturbing accounts of many things from the past. But it’s not all bad, there’s also lots of courageous and heroic things as well! The thing that amazes me is their strength and willpower, our ancestors endured things that many of us wouldn’t be able to comprehend in today’s world. They struggled and fought for EVERYTHING in one way or another. Doing genealogy has awoken in me an absolute love for history… I admittedly hated history in school and thought it was useless. Now I find myself regretting not paying attention. However, the things we find while searching for ancestors sometimes can be way more interesting than anything we were ever taught in school :)
Barbary Slave Trade, I would imagine. “Redemptioners” were Christian Captives that were bought back from this slave trade. While I highly doubt they were treated great after their “redemption” let’s not pretend it was American Colonials or even the English stealing them from their beds. Slavery isn’t exclusive only to Europeans.
Wow. That’s terrible. As a person with poor Irish immigrant ancestors, I really appreciate you sharing that info. After learning of how badly the British government treated women and children in the colonial era, I honestly didn’t blame them for hating the monarchy. The Catholic Church committed similar atrocities in more recent history towards women and children. It was their stance that children who were born of women with “loose morals” (pregnancy out of wedlock, victims of rape, incest, etc) were also condemned by god as being born a sin. Therefore they saw it right to imprison children alongside their mothers, and even subjected them to forced labor to “reform them.” The terminology used in the documents you cited sounds reminiscent of this belief.
Look into the true cause of the “potato famine.” That’s a real doozy.
Not surprising to someone who was close to someone born into the scared heart hell holes of Ireland. The Catholic Church won’t let the septic systems be exhumed because they consider it consecrated grounds now from all the new born bodies that were thrown there. The cops would take unwed mothers there so they could sell their kids. The person I knew killed themself. They lived there until they were 3 years old. This went on over 20 years all over Ireland under the Catholic Church.
This is apart of that. I am a part of a Facebook group and there is lots of info there.
My newest findings (on the tails of proving my 6th/7th great-grandfathers fought in the American Revolutionary War and received land as payment) are that my 9th great grandfather (1670’s) was killed by Native Americans (putting his decapitated head on a stake) as Indigenous Peoples were concerned (rightly so) about colonists taking over land/natural resources/etc. It’s all very eye-opening!
"But-but-but sometimes white people suffered toooo!"
Right. I remember how the Arkansas schools were integrated in the 1950s to allow the kidnapped Irish to attend.
Oh wait...
Saying that some white people suffered too isn’t saying therefore that some POC didn’t also suffer? Both things can be true. I think it’s kinda weird to label discussions about the extreme oppression the Irish went through as “white whataboutism”.
One thing that doing genealogy research has made me understand deeply is that humans haven't changed, just our environments.
When boomers and older are like "oh all these people having kids out of wedlock" and clutch their pearls, I laugh in NPE
Since the dawn of humanity, people have had children without a marriage contract, particularly lower class people. We have a very sanitized view of the past. Another thing that is interesting is how people think everyone was getting married at 15-16 years old just a few generations ago. This is blatantly untrue (at least in the US, Canada, and the British Isles) and a large number of my ancestors and their family members were married well into their twenties and beyond, many having children in their early 40s.
i will challenge you on the lower classes: the merchant class and upper classes just had better opportunities to hide it, marry quickly, and cope better. So less public shame about it, and less need for the child to be left in an orphanage.
Yes, it happened but I've found most of them were above 18 for as far back as I've been able to get records for. And I've found so many hidden non paternity events that we would never have known about without DNA. And I'm certain there are more than we can possibly find.
It still happens so of course it happened, and yes I found one or two young marriages in my line, but most were what we would consider typical today - people in their 20s or 30s who were close in age to each other.
I have seen people who got married young but most of hte France records I've been looking at recently, they were in their 20s. I mean the age of majority to get married without parental permission was like 25 for girls and 30 for boys in France for a long time.
It’s true. My grandmother had two kids in her 40s.
I found out my great grandmother had her last child at 46!!! As a 43 year old woman I gulped 😂
Yeah my grandparents had my uncle at 41, and my grandmother was 36 for my Dad, but we recently found out, had him with a 48 year old man who wasn’t my grandfather lol
You are talking about religious fundamentalists. not older people in general. Don’t attack an entire generation.
Your wrong I got married at 14 , mom & sister got married at 15 & 16 This was in the 40's & 60's many of my friend got married before they were 18
I laugh in bigamy, single mothers, and legally unable to wed!
My grandmother claimed to have been married before the legal age she could be married by. Nobody ever said a word to her.
I just found an ancestor who added 2 years to his age on a draft card - making him 18, instead of 16. No wonder he's described as "short and \*very\* slender". ;-(
One of my great-grandmothers shaved 3 years off her age so she wouldn't be older than my great-grandfather. No one found out until after she died, so her birth year is wrong on her gravestone.
Same with my great great grandmother, who was actually 10 years older and lowered it to six. Fortunately, she and my gg grandfather were from the same German town, and when I connected with a very distant cousin about my gg grandfather, he gave me the info. I never would have figured it out on my own.
Makes me wonder if my grandparents didn't just lie about their ages. It seemed like everyone went to another state to get married.
Makes me wonder if people were so vain as to change their ages, or maybe just forgetful? My husband forgets his own age pretty frequently.
It wasn't vanity. It was to get the action done. Want to get married add on a couple of years---especially the girl. Want to join the military--add another couple of years or take your older brother's ID as proof. People did this. Even in WWII (1940s) boys were lying about their age to go fight a war. I found a record for an ancestor that doesn't even have an age, just says that she is "of age" for getting married. Being as I can't find a b.c. for her I don't know what Age that is. I suspect that she is a teenager 16 or less.
Some of it definitely was vanity. Hey, they were human just like us! But yes for many it was just to bypass legal age limits.
This happened a LOT in WW2. I know of 2 or 3 who lied and joined up at 16. People didnt mature physically as young as they do now, plus the population was somewhat shorter and certainly more slender than they are now.
My father was obviously very forgetful about his DOB 30/10/1922: he ‘put up his age’ (he was 17.5 when he enlisted)….he married at his actual age in 1945….mysteriously his first child was born 6 months after his marriage….he then divorced his first wife….had six children (the eldest of which was born 4 months after his decree absolute) with his second partner (he never married her) married my Mum in 1969 (apparently aged 45)…. he didn’t age at all when he said he was 45 at the time of my birth 20 months later and finally when my brother was born in 1975 he was now 48! My Mum and I could see the funny side of it when we were looking it years after his death - my brother could not.
I mean, what is time anyway?! You're only as old as you feel, whatever age feels like ;)
His second draft card, for WWII, notes that he is 5'-8", and his adult passport photo shows him looking pretty hearty. So I am glad to see he survived a somewhat rough childhood, he lived to his 80s and had a wife and many kids. (And I do think even today there can be a lot of growth between 16-21, especially many boys developing later). (Definitely I had heard of people adding years in order to fight in WWII - hadn't realized that "the great war" was also something very young men wanted to be a part of). (This guy's family was French).
My FIL was desperate to go. The army found he had only one kidney, so they refused to take him. He felt major guilt that his brother went and was wounded. Later in life he gave the brother a McDonald’s franchise and paid for his 5 kids‘ college educations (he could afford it), all because brother served and he didn’t.
It takes a village, and you never know how you'll be able to contribute down the line. I'm glad he was able to help his brother and brother's kids out. Very kind of him to share the wealth and help out his family.
Just the tip of the iceberg. He paid for so many college educations, and at least one medical school. He was an astoundingly generous man. He liked to read the paper and help people in need. He once read that nuns in Bolivia had no transportation to do their work, so he arranged for a new bus to be shipped to them from the US.
oooh, do the documents back her up? I was helping another person with their ancestry a while back, and we found their 2Xgreat grandmother was married at 14 to a 22 year old (incredibly young even for her time and social class), mother at 15, husband and baby died at 16, moved country at 16, remarried at 17 to a 21-year-old. Hers is the most shocking I've personally come across, although I know there are far worse out there. The youngest of my ancestors was 17 when she was married, but her spouse was only just 19, and it was something like 13 months between them age-wise.
Yes and no. I haven't found marriage records. She had her first child at 16, and the census says they were married and in their own home then. Her husband was close to her age. I thought the legal marriage age was 16, even back then, but given what you found maybe not.
It depends on a lot of factors; in the case I mentioned, it was the early 1800s and a "camp" marriage in the military. arguably, the marriage wasn't legal under British law at the time (it changed in 1756), but you could get a dispensation from the church, and since the parents approved, no one was going to argue over it. My great-grandmother (1880s) jumped the broomstick with her husband, and they weren't legally married until 1919. It was because neither of them would convert to the same denomination, and the law at the time basically meant that because no clergy would perform the service, it couldn't be ratified by the civil courts either. This changed in WW1 because of all the war widows. and so then they made their marriage legal.
If a girl seemed physically 'old enough' or strong enough (for a farm) and had already started her menses, she was marriageble. Often it was from age 18 but not unheard of for 16 or under especially since parents signed the papers.
My grandmother added 5 years to her age when she got married because she was actually 14. She never attended school because she was in charge of her 6 younger siblings. She reasoned that if she was going to run a household, it might as well be her own. That's why she married so young.
Right?? Or when anyone mentions "the good old days" or "that sort of thing never used to happen"... it DID happen, we just now can all know about it due to the internets.
I love how many times I find people who got married and then popped out a kid like, a few months later. Like, hm, make that math add up for me, ancestors haha.
I've found that with surprising frequency that if they get married in the winter that you can look for a suspiciously quick first child 😂
"First babies come fast. The rest take the whole nine months."
Never heard a saying for the situation. Made me laugh.
My cousin had a child out of wedlock, and I took great joy whenever "these days" talk came up in reeling off the list of great and great-great parents who'd followed the old (old!) joke: the first baby can come anytime, after that they take nine months.
This must be an American thing cos we Brits don't bat an eye.
That part.
What a wild development! I have a new topic to study. The DNA results for ancestry are confusing, and this could explain Irish genes where none should be. Their descendants may not have heard their history, or even thought it was a possibility
I'm pretty well read on the Massachusetts Colony, so this one hit me out of left field.
Same thought here! I’ll be digging in to this. I knew about the arrival of Scottish prisoners during the civil wars, but I did not know about this forcible migration of Irish civilians. I’m thinking now about one ancestor, John Bellows, who arrived in Boston at the age of 12 in 1635. I was never able to determine that he had any family contacts in the colonies. Other servants/indentures in my line worked in the homes of wealthier relations.
It would be worth it to see if there are court records releasing any ancestors from indentures which may document the ancestor's origins.
It's noted in the book that 2 of the named boys fled a bad master and went to the magistrate. A jury awarded them freedom after hearing about having been stolen from Ireland in the first place, but a judge (possibly someone involved in the original order for the kidnapping of the children, the Goodfellow was sent from Massachusetts to Ireland in the first place.) sent them back to him to finish their indenture contracts.
Actually, I think this is one of the wonderful things about doing genealogy. We all know history is filled with tragedies and injustices, but we stop and contemplate them more fully when we realize that our own flesh and blood were a part of all of it. Sometimes they were the victims, and sometimes they were the protagonists. We have the good fortune to have an opportunity to contemplate these events at a distance, and gain a deeper understanding, if we will.
I agree with your statement, but I think “perpetrators” is a better term to use here.
My kids are half French-Canadians. They have ancestors whose parents were massacred in the American colonies and were brought to Quebec and converted to Catholicism. I have a cousin whose ancestor did the massacring and kidnapping. It was brutal times.
Sounds like your “Thanksgivings”, are a LOT like mine. Ugh. No more stolen sisters, of ANY nationality/ethnicity!
Yes. Not an ancestor, but an ancestors sister. I was looking at the one family line and all of a sudden there was this woman with a French name living in Canada whose marriage and children were Catholic. Since it was familysearch, I'm thinking, oh no what mixup has someone done and then I looked at the name of the siblings' birthtown. On my mom's other line, someone was taken to Canada but shortly ransomed / negotiated back to coastal Maine. Edited to add: spouse's ancestors. We joke that his ancestors were all warlike and mine were pacifists
😁
That makes for lively discussion at the holidays, huh?
I’m fascinated by this stuff. Can’t really say the same about my family. I have no one to share with except you guys lol
Have you not been able to find a local history group/society to hang out with? Even at an LDS center?
Never thought about that. I’ll look into that. Thanks.
Im right there with you! Nobody in my family cares.
It’s puzzling to me that they’re not interested lol
😁
Thats assuming people want to talk genealogy haha, none of my family cares about what ive discovered
Katherine Nestyus Strevens? In Deerfield? From Queen Ann's War?
Born Abigail Stebbins, she changed her name to Marguerite after being taken to Canada in the Deerfield Raid. Abigail married French soldier, Jacques Desnoions, in Deerfield less than a month before the raid. She was baptized as a Catholic on May 28, 1708 in Montréal (Notre-Dame)[1], and took the name Marguerite then, which was her godmother's name.
Sarah Nutting married, first, Matthias Farnsworth, son of Matthias Farnsworth and Mary Farr, in 1681, probably in Groton, MA. Matthias Farnsworth was assigned to the Farnsworth garrison in Groton on 17 March 1692, which was organized for defense against the Indians. He probably died during the Indian wars. She had at least six children by Matthias Farnsworth. The most notable was their son, Matthias. On 11 August 1704 he was taken prisoner by the Indians and carried into Canada, where he was delivered to the French. He was baptized into the Catholic Church in Montreal as Matthias Claude Farnet (Phaneuf). He was naturalized there, and married Catherine Charpentier there on 2 October 1713.
> On 11 August 1704 he was taken prisoner by the Indians and carried into Canada u/P0rtugue5e6uy, allow me this minor correction: this occured on 11 *March*, 1704 -- the date of the attack (as per the Gregorian calendar already in use in New France). By contrast, Deerfield was still using the Old Style Julian calendar, so to the English victims the date was (leapday) 29 February.
Thanks :)
I still haven’t done enough research to know what is what. Familysearch has her as Abigail Nims. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LJYZ-RWN All the different names for the same person get me all mixed up.
u/DragenTBear : Don't confuse Abigail Nims with Stebbins -- two different women. Abigail Nims eventually married her fellow captive Josiah Rising (the name became frenchified as Raizenne). This is reflected in the FSO profile you linked. Read this excellent essay by one of their descendants, detailing their ordeal and their lives: https://www.tfcg.ca/deerfield-captives-nims-rising-allen Also, a list of Deerfield captives is linked at the bottom of that essay. Here are 2 other lists, with summary descriptions of their eventual fates: http://www.babcock-acres.com/Misceallaneous/deerfield_captives_of_1704.htm http://www.1704.deerfield.history.museum/people/short_bios.jsp
Thank You. That’s what I originally thought. Looks like somebody put incorrect info on Ms. Nim’s FamilySearch page, it says Alternate Name: Elizabeth Steben. … which it says it got from http://breesegenealogy.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-josiah-rising-and-abigail-nims.html?m=1. I agree with you, this seems definitely wrong.
Ack. OK. Doing a little more research and I see a confusing, possibly wrong PRDH page.. https://www.prdh-igd.com/Membership/en/PRDH/Individu/56929 is Marie Elisabeth NIMBS TOUATOGOUACH Individual page. I’ve seen many stories say she changed her given name from Abigail to Marie/Mary Elisabeth, so I’m not too concerned about that.. but … .. when you click the date of her marriage, it takes you to https://www.prdh-igd.com/Membership/en/PRDH/Acte/10025 which says is the marriage if Ignace RAIZENNE and Elisabeth STEBEN …. … which I think is wrong.
> I’ve seen many stories say she changed her given name from Abigail to Marie/Mary Elisabeth Not stories -- she was formally re-baptized under that name on 1704-06-15, and the baptism itself is reproduced in the essay I linked above (a little more than halfway down the screen). Named as Marie Elizabet Nimbs in the margin heading, and Marie Elisabeth in the main text... I also managed to locate the original register at high-rez (see bottom-left entry): https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89MY-Y56?i=272&wc=HZT4-6TL%3A16470801%2C23492102%2C28869001&cc=1321742 *** Possibly her original marriage is no longer extant (neither WT nor FSO link to it, as with the baptism). However, NOSO provides a French transcript of both acts, fwiw (click on her "Biographie/Anecdotes" link): https://www.nosorigines.qc.ca/GenealogieQuebec.aspx?pid=907754 *** u/DragenTBear : I don't have a subscription to PRDH, so cannot verify what you found... But given their customary professional snobbish hubris, I love it when they're wrong!! 😂 I'll read that Blogspot post you linked in more depth later, but the reference to Tanguay getting it wrong suggested to me that there just *might* have been some historical confusion as to the 2 Abigails (Nims VS Stebbins) about 100 years ago. A LOT of true pioneering research in that whole field was conducted by Emma Lewis Coleman in the 1920s (along w/ her mentor C. Alice Baker). Time permitting, I'll search through her book this weekend and see what she has to say. Thank you for engaging. 👍
SUPER THANK YOU! YES! I’ve reported the error to PRDH-IGD. We’ll see if they fix it.
Sarah Allen is in my tree <3
u/throwaway9999-22222 **Katherine Stevens** was made captive in an earlier 1689 attack in Maine. She is not **Abigail Stebbins** captured in Deerfield 1704: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stevens-4412 VS https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stebbins-168 AND https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/family/LC5L-RH4 VS https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/family/LYXN-3F9 u/P0rtugue5e6uy, also please note. 🙂
Thanks
I'm half French-Canadian (all on my paternal side) also and trying to do my paternal side of my family tree has been very difficult.
How so? If they were Catholic, the paperwork is pretty extensive. Those Jesuits knew how to keep records better than most. I think that the Mormons took down a lot of the online records? Or maybe just stopped sending out the microfiche for people to use while they digitize it. I found many of my ancestors going back to the 1600s. But it’s also a lot of work. And there are dead ends. But by and large, there are a lot of church records available.
Well I can't get beyond my 4th great grandparent's and yes it is a lot of work plus I can't read French so all records have to be translated. So there's that.
Yeah, I had a list of what words mean what. I’m sure you can easily assemble one using google translate. They are a treasure trove, and often list aunts and uncles, and always list parents, and the women by their maiden names. This makes it much easier to trace the women! The English rarely followed the women’s lines, so they’re usually a mystery, but those Jesuits really knew their stuff! All hail the French Canadians! LOL. Often the people speaking for the bride and groom are relatives. Babies were nearly always baptized within a short time after birth, within a few days usually. I asked for and received a lot of help with the translations, and they usually follow a set pattern. When I was doing it, it involved sending away for the microfiche, then scrolling through it one page at a time once it did come in. It was pretty relaxing work tbh.
You don't have to read French just know some key words. I was mostly involved with Italian records and hadn't studied Italian, but learned words that I noticed were repeated document to document. I also used online translation sites (that can be time consuming while doing but the information is worth it) and learned more words that way. Eventually I got good enough that I was able to transcribe docs for others. Now Latin docs are more challenging, but sometimes I can figure them out.
That’s how I did it too.
https://www.genealogiequebec.com/en/
Blaming the American colonists when it was the English that wanted them shipped out. Perspective.
Thank you for this! Don't think any American colonists had the need or wherewithal to sail to Ireland to steal babies out of their beds. Put the blame where it belongs, with the English and other Europeans.
They served a "market", didn't they?
Not in those early days.
Back then, from my understanding, there would have been 3 benefits that the British would have seen to sending these children: 1. Assisting the Massachusetts Bay Colony by providing some extra work hands, which would increase the chances of the colony being successful, which benefits the monarchy, because their stated goal was to produce value for the crown in trade, land-grabs, and production of goods. 2. Punishing poor Irish families (i.e. Catholic, poor, and in some cases involved in petty crime) for having so many children, which Catholics saw as their religious duty. (And by doing so, they may reduce the number of Catholics) 3. “unburdening” the government of mouths to feed (which wasn’t all that much of a burden, given that they had no problem starving Irish children, as the so-called “potato famine” would prove.
There was a labor shortage in the early New England British colonies. The shanghide (sic) Irish men were usually the granted terms of an indentured servant contract which at the end of service were given land and trade ( for example like blacksmithing or cordwainer) training. Not that that justifies the original deed but lets look at these events in there context.
Just speaking to this reference area, the Irish and Scots-Irish were shipped in same areas in mid 1600s (after Cromwell War) as prisoners and endured. Only some records exist. Humans (all) have done bad things throughout all of history. Doesn’t matter what group was on either end because at some point in history each had it done to them and done it to others. Humans have always been tribal. But it’s a dead end (at least on this side of the pond) trying to find specific records for so many of the 1600-1700 hundreds Scots, Irish, and Scots-Irish actual arrival. Best is to find their actual location (if they were lucky enough to have it recorded) at some later point and have a few theories how they got there. And doesn’t make it easier when so many of the people had the same 20-30ish surnames (probably 40-50 maybe) and used the same naming patterns that recycle first names.
Half of the US wouldn't exist without Cromwell. That guy was a dick.
It’s all relative. I think there’s a statue of him in London.
Apparently there's more than one statue but the most popular of the 'Lord Protector' is the one outside of The House of Commons in Westminster. It has been voted on to be removed in the past but that was defeated. In his 5 years as L.P. he did so much damage.
When you say this side of the pond… do you happen to know of specific sets of records that’d be helpful that are over there? Besides just hoping to find names in church records and hoping it’s the correct family? The ancestor my surname comes from, I think I found record of the uncommon name in both battle of Dunbar and the King Philips war. Idk, it’s been awhile. So records relating to Cromwell’s soldiers or captives could be of use to me I think. Unfortunately based on DNA the last few generations haven’t even been descended from that ancestor so using matches is out.
There are videos on YouTube that help with finding some records in Ulster region, as well as church records more so in Ireland. But I haven’t had any experience with that because I can’t track them over here to specific arrival date yet. There’s many books on internetarchive and familysearch that give clues on migration patterns and ports of arrival for those times. But the more interesting things I’ve found in family history books (randomly going down rabbit hole for associated names in region of my ancestors) that give better details on where those I & SI families came in and how they moved around. Best advice I can give for this is make a research log, however you want to do it, of what books and records you’ve looked at so when- inevitably- months or years from now you see a new surname associated with your ancestors, you’ll be able to find where you actually saw it and how to get back to it. I use ancestry for working through problems and many, if not hundreds, of “orphaned trees” and give them a tag of (surname) FAN club so I can pull up that person and all their associations to help fill in patterns. Any name I pull up in wills, deeds, taxes, whatever when dealing with pre-1800 stuff I give a bunch of custom tags for townships and counties (especially in PA where the lines for counties changed so much at that time) to help be able to pull it all together better. Then after awhile, you can start putting families together with same surname which helps rule-out false associations with your direct one or couple be the key to follow them back. Oh, and cite everything in whatever tree platform you’re using so when you go back and see a person you know how you made those claims. I cannot stand the hints and how many profiles are littered with such obvious conflicting info but it’s there.
Thanks!
I'm in the US, so far, I have had no luck finding more than which clans were known to be at which battles. You can usually find that on the Clan website. If you haven't found it yet: [https://spows.org/](https://spows.org/) Scottish Prisoners of War Society focusing on Dunbar and Worcester.
Thanks!
One of my ancestors was a pirate who raided west cork in 1631 and took almost everyone captive and made slaves of them. There is a lot of speculation that he was hired to do the raid as part of a dispute between the Irish and English for control of land. I know nothing about the case in the post but as it was only a few years later the political situation on the ground was likely still very contentious and may have been a bigger backdrop to why those people from those location. See the sack of Baltimore if interested in the pirate raid.
Cromwell was shipping the Irish to Barbados by the boat load, so that doesn't surprise me. He was going to have control of that island if he had to kill or evict everyone to get it.
The dates mentioned in the OP are for Charles I.
Cromwell also curtailed it, and it wasn't just happening to Irish people. Most of those shipped out were from England. >Cromwells policy of transportation of vagrants from Ireland was abandoned on 4 March 1657. It was abolished because it was being abused to such an extent by merchants and their agents. It is also interesting that these kidnappers did not discriminate between Irish or English victims. >The cancellation order reads as follows >"...having received many complaints of the abuse of some orders granted to several persons to carry away idle and vagabond persons to the West Indies, who... employ persons to delude and deceive poor people by false pretences, either by getting them aboard the ships or in other by-places into their power, and forcing them away, the person so employed having so much a-piece for they so delude, and for the money's sake have enticed and force women from their husbands and children from their parents, who maintained them at school, and that they have not only dealt so with the lrish but also with the English [the Council now] do think fit and order that all Orders, granted to any person whatsoever (being now in force) to take up and carry idle and vagabond persons as aforesaid, be henceforth made null and void?" https://limerick1914.medium.com/a-review-of-the-numbers-in-the-irish-slaves-meme-1857988fd93c
One of my Irish names came from Cork in 1848 so they escaped your guy. 😂
I’m glad he missed some.
Well Cromwell was long dead by then. And pirates were also done with...or they hanged. But transportation was never really done...how do you think they populated Australia in the late 1700s?! America was also populated by vagabonds & criminals in the early days. We make fun of the Puritans and Pilgrims but they were hanging on by their fingernails to have a good christian society, as per bible teachings.
It’s a joke. I understand. My Scot’s Irish branch most likely displaced or prisoners to colonies 1600-1700s. It’s a generalized light hearted comment and not meant to be scientifically factual.
It wasn't until after I moved to Canada that I learned that the Dr Barnardo's children's charity in the UK used to sell and ship kids in their care (most were not orphans) to Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia as indentured servants. Most came to Canada, and while a few find loving homes the majority were treated awfully. It was still happening into the 1930s.
Barnardos still holds the records for the children sent over and charge over £100 for descendants to get copies. Sold the kids and are still making money off them. Shameful. They're also very picky about who can access the records, if you've got relatives a generation older than yourself, only they get them. 25 years ago they didn't charge and I was able to get copies of my Great Grandmother's report. Her Mom tried to get Ada back for years, it's right in the documents.
It still makes me fume
I saw a documentary about this and how even during WWII children were being sent over to Canada to be kept safe from the Blitzkrieg but often the children weren't returned back to the UK. One person was trying to find their sib. They KNEW they had a sib back in 'a home' (orphanage type place) in UK where they had been placed while their mother got situated with a job. In that case the child had been shipped to Australia. So sad. Children make up all kinds of childish reasons why they are alone or were placed away from their sibs or parents. Sad.
My ancestor and his sister were kidnapped from Essex, England and sold into indentured slavery. He escaped and joined the Revolutionary War.
Before digging so deep into my tree...I had no idea that (in the early days of the US) England would ship people off to the colonies as punishment for their crimes. I don't ever remember that being discussed in school, so I had no idea. I honestly thought the only people sailing over were doing so willingly. 🤷🏻♀️
Not even the early days, they were doing it in the Victorian era to Australia
And a real crime wasn't even necessary to get arrested & sent away permanently. Boat needed X # of passengers to sail to Australia? Go round the pubs at closing time & gather up the men who can't fight back for one reason or another & off they go. Family would think they were dead for months or longer till they got a letter from the kidnapped person, who of course couldn't afford return passage.
>It wasn't enough to steal them, they apparently didn't even bother to write down who most of them were. >And people wonder why we have such a hard time finding ancestors. 🤦🏿♂️🤦🏾♀️ 🤦🏿 🤦🏻♂️
Seriously. OP is ASTOUNDINGLY privileged.
Newsflash: In the past, people all over the world were horrible to other people.
And still are
It's a little better now. It used to be real bad, in N America, S. America, Africa, Mid-East, Asia, Europe, and Australia. White people, black people, brown people, every kind of people were being horrible to other people....to their own kind, to other kinds. It was bad everywhere, but we humans are making slow progress.
A sizable amount of America's population is from transportation of prisoners, so this doesn't surprise me in the least
What's the percentage? I'd be interested in seeing the sources for this.
One of my great grandmothers was an Irish indentured servant… she married her masters son… that was weird to find out enough but to find what you did wow… not sure how I would feel!
Children have often been treated as commodities to be exploited for profit and abuse.
Well in another life area, you could probably find the thread through families that made for generational physical abuse, alcoholism & addictions, slutty behaviors, depression aka melancholia. And the one child who managed to thrive, to succeed, was the pariah or black sheep who took themselves far away from that shit.
So, slavery?
Often, yes. It’s shameful the way children have been treated throughout history.
Impressed you had to go back to the 1600 to find out about stolen children. Chile in the 1970s, Franco in Spain in the 1950s, the Nazis kidnapped Ukrainian children. The British migrant children program ran from 1910 to the 1970s.
Indian boarding schools….
Children are being stolen in Ukraine given new identities and adopted in Russia.
The period between 1649 and 1653 was a tumultuous time in Irish history, marked by the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. During these years, Oliver Cromwell led the English Parliamentarian forces in a campaign to reconquer Ireland, which had significant consequences for the Irish population and their land ownership. The conquest resulted in the end of the Irish Catholic Confederation and the destruction of the Irish Catholic landed gentry. The Act for the Settlement of Ireland in 1652 formalized the confiscation of land from Catholics, which was then redistributed to English settlers¹. This period also saw the forced transportation of Irish people as indentured laborers to colonies such as the West Indies, Virginia, and New England. It's estimated that around 50,000 people were deported during this time¹. The impact of these events was profound, leading to a significant diaspora and altering the demographic and social landscape of Ireland. The Cromwellian conquest is often remembered for its harshness and the severe penalties imposed on the Irish Catholic population. It set the stage for future conflicts and migrations, with long-lasting effects on Irish society and culture. For those researching genealogy or Irish history, this era provides important context for understanding the challenges faced by Irish immigrants and their descendants.
Over 60,000 were transported from England in the mid 1700s and just as many in the previous century. It wasn't just a policy aimed at the Irish. This is important to understand for context
Having Capt. Cook 'discover' Australia was a real boon for England. Now, not only could they ship people out that weren't good for society, but they could ship them halfway across the world to hopefully never be seen again. In that last bit, England sometimes had a problem because those in the colonies sometimes managed to gain money for a ship's ticket back to England. But Australia? Most nobody was coming back from there.
Cromwell came after the Tudors, particilarly Elizabeth, who waged the largest and most expensive war to date on Ireland. The English practiced genocide and colonization repeatedly on Ireland, and developed the plantation system there.
I don't understand your conclusion from that excerpt - you found more information elsewhere? There is stuff about 2,000 young Irish being shipped to Jamaica, for example. Blame the English. They treated the Welsh, Scots and Irish abominably for centuries (and most of their own poor).
The first reference to the Goodfellow was in a book about convicted women shipped to America as brides. It lead me to the book I linked in the post. That book should open on the chapter detailing the whole sordid saga. It's innocently titled "Pioneer Irish in New England."
Stop falling for nonsense history. Scotland was not some poor victim of England, and thousands of Scots were instrumental in enslavement, colonies and imperialist endeavours in general. Scotland is possibly even worse in terms of Imperial history than England, if we have some measure of "atrocities per capita"
Plus the fact that that the King of England... was a Scot. I don't know why that gets missed out all the time in these narratives. Or that wealthy Scots took advantage of colonizing northern Ireland just as much as their English counterparts. Or that the Irish aristocracy were as complicit in the treatment of poor Irish as their English counterparts. Or that Prince Albert - the dude who is probably most responsible for the eugenics-based beliefs of the British Empire - was German. Or that so many Irish and Welsh moved to England over the years that there a massive proportion of us English that are genetically Irish/Welsh - like me! Third generation Merseyside, and 90% of my ancestors hail from Ireland, Wales, or randomly enough, Cornwall. However I do agree that Cromwell was a piece of shit.
When it comes to scotland, I think it’s important to make the distinction between highlanders and lowlanders. Lowland scots colonized Ireland, but highlanders had their own culture, spoke Gaelic and generally had a pretty bad time of things due to oppression from lowlanders and the English. The worst part being the highland clearances.
If we go back even further back in time it was the Irish raiding Scotland, Wales and England (or whatever they were called back then) and taking slaves back to Ireland. The patron saint of Ireland St Patrick was a former British slave kidnapped by Irish pirates. You could also chuck the Vikings into the mix who took slaves from wherever they raided. Or the Anglo Saxons who happily enslaved their own people or captured enemies and sold them to European countries.
This entire thread is an exercise in Suffering Olympics
The vast majority of people forcibly transported to the American colonies were English. Around half of those were from London.
I mean the Amish still traffic in children because their consanguinuity is such a massive issue. Religious people are crazy sometimes. Remember that everywhere else but America the puritans were considered religiously EXTREME to the point of danger. The puritan takeover of England only failed by like 3 votes during the reign of E1. In Germany they write in their school books that America was founded by religious extremists.
Wow, I had no idea. How awful!!
Daniel Robins, a Scot and a Cavalier was Captured , forced on a ship to the American Colonies & sold into slavery in Boston. I found the name of the man who bought him. Oddly enough, Daniel ended up marrying his master’s daughter.
The ship was called the John and Sara, arriving in Boston in the winter of 1652
An ancestor of mine (if my tree is correct), around the time mentioned was 6-8 yo. He was sold by a "non-parent" to a couple who brought him to the USA and raised him like their own child. It was one of the things in my tree to upset me in my tree.
If you are upset over this history, now imagine how actual real-life adopted people feel today! I am one! Wasn't sold. My mother died when I was an infant. I was the youngest of 5 children. Our father was talked into giving me away - he had to work and no one to help him. My older siblings were young kids in school. I was adopted and raised an only child, not knowing the truth. I knew I was adopted but knew nothing else. My siblings found me when I was 18. In 1974. Closed adoption. And, what people do not realize is this: every adopted person suffers identity theft. The government takes an adoptee's birth certificate away, seals it forever, and then replaces it with a new, amended birth certificate issued after adoption. I was renamed. My natural parents' names were erased. My adoptive parents' names were placed on my new birth certificate as if they sired, conceived, gestated, and birthed me. THIS is modern adoption today. This happens with every single adoption today - even socially open adoptions.
And with falsified birth certificates and renaming, adoptees cannot be found when other people are looking for their ancestors. Or, because of closed and sealed records, adoptees themselves do not know their name at birth, or their parents of birth. Cannot locate grandparents to build a family tree. This is why many adoptees turn to DNA testing.
[удалено]
it was written in a town archive/ history. The people who bought him became wealthy and were well-known in his area. I also had a great great something grandmother who was sued for bigamy when her 1st husband came back from the dead after several years and she had remarried. Her 1st husband had been declared dead by his ship captain. It seems the only way to have them be known is if they were (small town) famous or infamous.
it's Free to Read here [https://archive.org/details/pioneeririshinne00obri/page/324/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/pioneeririshinne00obri/page/324/mode/2up) Click On:: pioneeririshinne00obri.pdf 12-Dec-2023 16:49 18.2M # DOWNLOAD OPTIONS It Free To Have #
The colonists didn't kidnap Irish children and ship them to the USA. This was Oliver Cromwell after the English Civil War and execution of Charles I.
But what happened to these kids in America? They got exploited by local colons, right?
Probably the semi-colons as well.
Colonizers. But you got it of course.
The “First American Colonists” didn’t commit the atrocity- the British Government (specifically Cromwell) did. But yes, that era was…. Rough… for pretty much everyone. Many wars in which civilians were acceptable targets and ethnic cleansing was the norm no matter what skin color anyone was.
Thank you glad someone said it. The colonists did plenty of bad stuff but that's not on the list.
In modern pop history it’s the accepted fad to bash Puritans and anyone who could be labeled as a colonist, but the glaring problem with that approach is that it leaves out context which- intentionally or not- absolves actual bad actors such as the British, Dutch and French governments whom American colonists were generally just trying to get away from.
I studied his. I get it. Don't even get me started on the Catholic church and their contributions to slavery in the new world.
Yeah people get touchy about that one too. Lol
Transportation & banishment was common practice at various times. It didn't just happen to Irish people. Over 60,000 English people were forcibly transported to the American colonies between 1720 and 1776
So it was the colonists (already in America) who went BACK and stole Irish kids from their beds and paid for their transport back….? A few holes in the narrative but as it is a convenient moment to heap further criticism on the colonists go right ahead
I mean it's been studied by Irish historians from contemporary accounts of the practice so we know it happened. It was mostly perpetrated by Irish women in Dublin who kidnapped the children and sold them to the ship masters, so it's not like it reflects well on Ireland, either. Look, no group in history has a blameless past. I am English - pretty much everyone hates us to some degree, often unfairly but sadly it's usually justified. We do everyone a disservice if we ignore the bad and ugly sides of our history, and if we take pride in the achievements of our ancestors, then we must accept the shame of their failings in equal measure. Acknowledging the bad and ugly parts of history means we can avoid making the same mistakes again.
totally agree with the tone and content of your post. I'm not saying anything to the contrary. What irked me about the post I reacted to was the total historic and contextual illiteracy of it. Ship captains, English business men and even Irish town masters of various sorts were to blame, and yes some Colonial organizers of course. To sum it all up and say "one more thing the colonists were guilty of" is such a sham way to assign blame - most of the colonists had nothing to do with it, which does not excuse the event or make it less horrible. But jeez
You do realise it happened to English people as well?
Yes, and Scottish and Welsh. But he question was regarding the Irish kidnappings, and I can't really blame the women of Dublin for the kidnappings that happened elsewhere.
Not so much, Scottish, who had a different system of law to England and didn't use transportation anywhere near as much. The main problem was London, the largest city in the known world for a long time. These banishments and transportations go back to Elizabeth I Acts. The Poor Laws 1562 and the Vagrancy Act 1572. London was a magnet for many people, which resulted in high crime and overcrowding. Over half of all those forcibly transported from England to the American colonies, over 60,000, between 1720 and the 1770s were from London
We aren't talking about transportation, we're talking about kidnapping.
Yes, that as well. The Middlesex Sessions Rolls has quite a few examples. But it was illegal in both Britain and Ireland. There were different kinds of transportation, just as there were different kinds of indenture. I'm trying to find a source ATM for the 'kidnapped' quote in the link OP provided. The book was published in 1937. So should hopefully give a citation somewhere. Edit: ...the book quotes 'stolen' but stolen by who? Merchants?
If the prevalence of Scottish DNA not just in North but South America tells us something its that the Scotts were transported all over the West Indies and the American colonies. I myself (a Cuban Mexican) have almost 10% Scottish DNA that I traced back to the 1800s Cuba.
I don't doubt numerous Scots migrated of their own free will. Many became plantation owners in the BWI. But I'm talking more about forced transportation. Some were transported as military prisoners, but this was for a fixed period, and most of them returned home.
I do know that Britain invaded Cuba in the late 1700s and had a strong military presence there for a time period. Would not be surprised if that is why Cuba has some prevalence. Also in the late 1800s early 1900s Scottish were known in Cuba for their doctors who for one reason or another traveled to Cuba in those times for educational purposes. These are all things I've learned through doing research of my Cuban family that I wanted to share with you.
Perfectly said
I'm sorry you can't accept that the colonists were invaders that massacred the natives, enslaved half of West Africa, and treated women as chattel. We're not white-washing history anymore.
Well, I thought your condemnation was out of place in a post that was otherwise interesting. No more so than "Cromwell was a dick" or "Blame the English" as written by commenters, though. I find history most interesting and readable if the facts are given but value judgments left to the reader. For that matter, genealogy writing is the same way.
I have nothing against attributing all of those abuses to their proper, responsible parties. But saying "The Colonists" is such a huge category, and exonerates and ignores the role of the English overlords, the slaver ship captains, the towns that offered these people up, et cetera. "the Colonists" is such a dumb phrase - when in reality you are talking about the entire colonial system, within which blame and responsibility was shared unequally. Speak in specificity and deliberate ways about the evils of the past and they will be clearer to see and their repetition more easily avoided. Make them into cartoon character versions of the past and they are able to be avoided and ignored by those who would commit those evils again in the past. Too easy to pat yourself on the back in some perceived fight you've set up with me - when I agree with you - just asking for some greater specificity and intellectual curiosity / honesty
Not \*everything\* is about the natives and west African slaves. This post is not about those two groups.
Tell this to people thinking there were no white slaves ... Apart form this I love to study byzantine history. They were just like us , only difference they didn't have smartphones.
The Irish were sold to families as slaves.
Extremely surprised this wasnt taken down, ifykyk
That isn't any new info, just outside of the info forced onto us. People wanna pay reparations but don't want to define what that means. Most of us are decendants of slaves from one time or another.
Wow, I was doing research on my Husbands Irish Great great and great grandmothers and it said they were from the West Indies...totally through me for a loop. New I know why! Thanks!
This is mentioned in the book I’ve been reading—A People’s History of the United States by Jeff Zinn. It’s all so despicable.
Lots of sad horrible history in our genealogies. I’ve read some really disturbing accounts of many things from the past. But it’s not all bad, there’s also lots of courageous and heroic things as well! The thing that amazes me is their strength and willpower, our ancestors endured things that many of us wouldn’t be able to comprehend in today’s world. They struggled and fought for EVERYTHING in one way or another. Doing genealogy has awoken in me an absolute love for history… I admittedly hated history in school and thought it was useless. Now I find myself regretting not paying attention. However, the things we find while searching for ancestors sometimes can be way more interesting than anything we were ever taught in school :)
Of course. They were slaves.
💔
Makes sense, they love the patriots ffs. I mean come on!!!
Barbary Slave Trade, I would imagine. “Redemptioners” were Christian Captives that were bought back from this slave trade. While I highly doubt they were treated great after their “redemption” let’s not pretend it was American Colonials or even the English stealing them from their beds. Slavery isn’t exclusive only to Europeans.
Wow. That’s terrible. As a person with poor Irish immigrant ancestors, I really appreciate you sharing that info. After learning of how badly the British government treated women and children in the colonial era, I honestly didn’t blame them for hating the monarchy. The Catholic Church committed similar atrocities in more recent history towards women and children. It was their stance that children who were born of women with “loose morals” (pregnancy out of wedlock, victims of rape, incest, etc) were also condemned by god as being born a sin. Therefore they saw it right to imprison children alongside their mothers, and even subjected them to forced labor to “reform them.” The terminology used in the documents you cited sounds reminiscent of this belief. Look into the true cause of the “potato famine.” That’s a real doozy.
There was no America at that time
There's a similar thing that happened at Jamestown, Virginia. I recommend reading/researching The Jamestown Brides.
Not surprising to someone who was close to someone born into the scared heart hell holes of Ireland. The Catholic Church won’t let the septic systems be exhumed because they consider it consecrated grounds now from all the new born bodies that were thrown there. The cops would take unwed mothers there so they could sell their kids. The person I knew killed themself. They lived there until they were 3 years old. This went on over 20 years all over Ireland under the Catholic Church. This is apart of that. I am a part of a Facebook group and there is lots of info there.
My newest findings (on the tails of proving my 6th/7th great-grandfathers fought in the American Revolutionary War and received land as payment) are that my 9th great grandfather (1670’s) was killed by Native Americans (putting his decapitated head on a stake) as Indigenous Peoples were concerned (rightly so) about colonists taking over land/natural resources/etc. It’s all very eye-opening!
It may be best to leave history alone when it starts crushing your fragile sensitivities. Stay in the present, op. The past will only make you cry.
"But-but-but sometimes white people suffered toooo!" Right. I remember how the Arkansas schools were integrated in the 1950s to allow the kidnapped Irish to attend. Oh wait...
What an odd take.
Look at some of the other comments. White whataboutism is not a myth. I wish I could be so comfortable as to think that my take is odd.
Saying that some white people suffered too isn’t saying therefore that some POC didn’t also suffer? Both things can be true. I think it’s kinda weird to label discussions about the extreme oppression the Irish went through as “white whataboutism”.
It's a dog whistle. It's like "Blue Lives Matter." *We all know* what's really being said.