Puritan Explanation

So ... While dealing with the Richard Platt and more so Mary Wood conspiracy to drive me clinically insane....   I was looking at a bio and say that for both of them, there was a spot for religion and it read like this .

Religion: Puritan

Simple and straight to the point of course...  but I was like..... eh, it was actually a religion!?   Maybe I'm just naive ... or stupid, but I thought Puritan was more so in reference to early settlers ... maybe I knew that it was a religion as it was a reference to them wanting to break away from the ways of the English Church... but I really thought it was more of a reference to early settlers breaking away ...

Do you know what I mean?

I just thought "Puritan English" as in my label of such, was in reference to early American settlers...

So I thought, huh ...... I want to learn more about this.....

So I found this HERE .....

Puritanism in New England

For a much more extensive description than appears on this brief page, see the works listed in the  Selected Bibliography on Puritanism.

Definitions	The term "Puritan" first began as a taunt or insult applied by traditional Anglicans to those who criticized or wished to "purify" the Church of England. Although the word is often applied loosely, "Puritan" refers to two distinct groups: "separating" Puritans, such as the Plymouth colonists, who believed that the Church of England was corrupt and that true Christians must separate themselves from it; and non-separating Puritans, such as the colonists who settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who believed in reform but not separation. Most Massachusetts colonists were nonseparating Puritans who wished to reform the established church, largely Congregationalists who believed in forming churches through voluntary compacts.  The idea of compacts or covenants was central to the Puritans' conception of social, political, and religious organizations.
Beliefs	Several beliefs differentiated Puritans from other Christians. The first was their belief in predestination. Puritans believed that belief in Jesus and participation in the sacraments could not alone effect one's salvation; one cannot choose salvation, for that is the privilege of God alone. All features of salvation are determined by God's sovereignty, including choosing those who will be saved and those who will receive God's irresistible grace. The Puritans distinguished between "justification," or the gift of God's grace given to the elect, and "sanctification," the holy behavior that supposedly resulted when an individual had been saved; according to The English Literatures of America, "Sanctification is evidence of salvation, but does not cause it" (434). When William Laud, an avowedArminian, became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, the Church of England began to embrace beliefs abhorrent to Puritans: a focus on the individual's acceptance or rejection of grace; a toleration of diverse religious beliefs; and an acceptance of "high church" rituals and symbols.According to Samuel Eliot Morison's Oxford History of the American People, the Puritans "were deeply impressed by a story that their favorite church father, St. Augustine, told in his Confessions. He heard a voice saying, tolle et lege, 'Pick up and read.' Opening the Bible, his eyes lit on Romans xiii:12-14: 'The night is far spent, the day is at hand; not in carousing and drunkenness, not in debauchery and lust, not in strife and jealousy. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts therof'" (62).
Covenant   or  Federal  Theology  and the New  England Way	The concept of a covenant or contract between God and his elect pervaded Puritan theology and social relationships. In religious terms, several types of covenants were central to Puritan thought.The Covenant of Works held that God promised Adam and his progeny eternal life if they obeyed moral law. After Adam broke this covenant, God made a new Covenant of Grace with Abraham (Genesis 18-19). Covenant of Grace. This covenant requires an active faith, and, as such, it softens the doctrine of predestination. Although God still chooses the elect, the relationship becomes one of contract in which punishment for sins is a judicially proper response to disobedience. During the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards later repudiated Covenant Theology to get back to orthodox Calvinism. Those bound by the covenant considered themselves to be charged with a mission from God. Covenant of Redemption. The Covenant of Redemption was assumed to be preexistent to the Covenant of Grace. It held that Christ, who freely chose to sacrifice himself for fallen man, bound God to accept him as man's representative. Having accepted this pact, God is then committed to carrying out the Covenant of Grace. According to Perry Miller, as one contemporary source put it, "God covenanted with Christ that if he would pay the full price for the redemption of beleevers, they should be discharged. Christ hath paid the price, God must be unjust, or else hee must set thee free from all iniquitie" (New England Mind 406). For more information, see also the following works suggested by EARAM-L members: Perry Miller's "The Marrow of Puritan Divinity" in Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge:  Harvard UP, 1956): 48-98. Emory Elliott, Power and the Pulpit in Puritan New England Charles Lloyd Cohen, "Covenant Psychology" in God's Caress: The Psychology of Puritan Religious Experience (Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 1986) John von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought (Atlanta, GA:  Scholars Press, 1986) Darrett Rutman, American Puritanism David Hall, The Faithful Shepherd David Hall, The Antinomian Controversy Sargent Bush, The Writings of Thomas Hooker Michael McGiffert, "Grace and Works:  The Rise and Division of Covenant Divinity in Elizabethan Puritanism,"Harvard Theological Review 75.4 (1982): 463-502. Amy Schrager Lang, Prophetic Woman Janice Knight, Orthodoxies in Massachusetts
The New  England Way	The concept of the covenant also provided a practical means of organizing churches.  Since the state did not control the church, the Puritans reasoned, there must be an alternate method of of establishing authority. According to Harry S. Stout, "For God's Word to function freely, and for each member to feel an integral part of the church's operations, each congregation must be self-sufficient, containing within itself all the offices and powers necessary for self-regulation.  New England's official apologist, John Cotton, termed this form of church government 'Congregational,' meaning that all authority would be located within particular congregations" (The New England Soul  17). Cotton's sermon at Salem in 1636 described the basic elements of this system in which people covenanting themselves to each other and pledging to obey the word of God might become a self-governing church.  Checks and balances in this self-governing model included the requirement that members testify to their experience of grace (to ensure the purity of the church and its members) and the election of church officials to ensure the appropriate distribution of power, with a pastor to preach, a teacher to "attend to doctrine," elders to oversee the "acts ofspiritual Rule," and a deacon to manage the everyday tasks of church organization and caring for the poor (Stout 19).  The system of interlocking covenants that bound households to each other and to their ministers in an autonomous, self-ruling congregation was mirrored in the organization of towns.  In each town, male church members could vote to elect "selectmen" to run the town's day-to-day affairs, although town meetings were held to vote on legislation. Thus the ultimate authority in both political and religious spheres was God's word, but the commitments made to congregation and community through voluntary obedience to covenants ensured order and a functional system of religious and political governance.  This system came to be called the Congregational or  "New England Way." According to Stout, "By locating power in the particular towns and defining institutions in terms of local covenants and mutual commitments, the dangers of mobility and atomism--the chief threats to stability in the New World--were minimized. . . . As churches came into being only by means of a local covenant, so individual members could be released from their sacred oath only with the concurrence of the local body. . . . Persons leaving without the consent of the body sacrificed not only church membership but also property title, which was contingent on local residence.  Through measures like these, which combined economic and spiritual restraints, New England towns achieved extraordinarily high levels of persistence and social cohesion" (23).
Church  Membership	Unlike Anglican and Catholic churches of the time, Puritan churches did not hold that all parish residents should be full church members. A true church, they believed, consisted not of everyone but of the elect. As a test of election, many New England churches began to require applicants for church membership to testify to their personal experience of God in the form of autobiographical conversion narratives. Since citizenship was tied to church membership, the motivation for experiencing conversion was secular and civil as well as religious in nature. God's covenant that bound church members to him had to be renewed and accepted by each individual believer, although this could be seen as a dilution of the covenant binding God and his chosen people.
The  Half-Way  Covenant	The children of first-generation believers were admitted to limited membership in the Congregational church, on the grounds that as children of the elect, they would undoubtedly experience conversion and become full members of the church. Not all underwent a conversion experience, however, thus leaving in doubt the future of their children, the grandchildren of the original church members. Drafted by Richard Mather and approved in 1662, the Half-way Covenant proposed that second-generation members be granted the same privilege of baptism (but not communion) as had been granted to the first generation. According to Norman Grabo, "This encouraged individual congregations to baptize the infant children of church members but not to admit them to full membership until they were at least 14 years old" and could profess conversion. "The partaking of the Lord's Supper became a lure to struggling half-way members to discover their right to full membership and a public sign of the purest in the congregation." Richard, and, later, Increase Mather supported it, as did Edward Taylor; but Solomon Stoddard from Northampton argued that, according to the Half-Way Covenant, no man was permitted to partake of the Lord's Supper until he had certain knowledge and assurance of salvation; without this knowledge, attendance at the sacrament was damning.  Stoddard said that no man could know he was saved with absolute certainty; thus all well-behaved Christians should be admitted to the sacrament in hopes that they might secure saving grace or be converted by it. (Grabo 32)
The  Plain Style	The plain style is the simplest of the three classical forms of style. In choosing the plain style, Puritan writers eschewed features common to the rhetoric of the day; they declined to stuff their sermons with the rhetorical flourishes and learned quotations of the metaphysical style of sermon, believing that to be the province of Archbishop Laud and his followers. The Puritan sermon traditionally comprised three parts: doctrine, reasons, and uses. According to Perry Miller in The New England Mind, "The Anglican sermon is constructed on a symphonic scheme of progressively widening vision; it moves from point to point by verbal analysis, weaving larger and larger embroideries about the words of the text. The Puritan sermon quotes the text and "opens" it as briefly as possible, expounding circumstances and context, explaining its grammatical meanings, reducing its tropes and schemata to prose, and setting forth its logical implications; the sermon then proclaims in a flat, indicative sentence the "doctrine" contained in the text or logically deduced from it, and proceeds to the first reason or proof. Reason follows reason, with no other transition than a period and a number; after the last proof is stated there follow the uses or applications, also in numbered sequence, and the sermon ends when there is nothing more to be said. The Anglican sermon opens with a pianissimo exordium, gathers momentum through a rising and quickening tempo, comes generally to a rolling, organ-toned peroration; the Puritan begins with a reading of the text, states the reason in an order determined by logic, and the uses in an enumeration determined by the kinds of person in the throng who need to be exhorted or reproved, and it stops without flourish or resounding climax" (332-3). In a similar manner, Puritans preferred the plainness of the Geneva Bible to the rich language of the King James version.

Notes on Richard Platt

Okay ...... so  ......  here are some various notes for RICHARD PLATT and their lines that I wanted to make sure I can go back and look at.

Taken From: HERE:  Source: Lineage Papers of Robert Forsyth Little, Jr. for the Society of the Colonial Wars.

The first ancestor of the name in the United States, was Richard Platt.

"Richard Piatt, son of Joseph Piatt, was baptized Sept. 28, 1603." This is claimed as an extract from the parish records of Bovingdon, a village near Hertford, England.

The Platt progenitor, Richard Platt left England in 1638, and landed at New Haven

Richard Piatt had eighty-four acres of land in and around New Haven. His name is on the list of free-planters made out in 1646 ; he was chosen a deacon in the first church in Milford in 1669.

It is recorded that his wife, Mary, died in January, 1676. He made his will in 1683.

From HERE

Descendants of Richard Platt

Generation No. 1
1. RICHARD³ PLATT (GEORGE², SIMON¹)^{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1} was born September 28, 1603 in Ware, Hertfordshire¹, and died Abt. February 13, 1684/85 in Milford, Connecticut¹. He married MARY WOOD^1,1,1,1,1,1 January 26, 1628/29 in Roydon, Essex¹, daughter of JOHN WOOD and JANE (WOOD). She was born November 10, 1605 in Roydon, Essex, and died March 1675/76 in Milford, Connecticut¹.

Notes for RICHARD PLATT:
Recent research has confirmed that he was born in Ware, Hertfordshire, the son of George Platt.

Milford -

Ware was a market town which was a hotbed of Puritanism in the early 17th century. The famous Rev. Charles Chauncey, who would later be president of Harvard College, was vicar of Ware from 1627-33, emmigrating to England in 1638. Richard Platt
was no doubt influenced by his preaching. In his will he left a Bible for each of his 24 living grandchildren. He was no doubt educated at the Grammar School at Ware, and probably became a tailor like his father and grandfather, as he was
apprenticed in 1629.

In 1639 he was a freeplanter in Milford and his home lot was #38, consisting of 4 acres and 1 rod, near the corner of the present West Main and Cherry streets.

Quaker Genealogy on the Internet -

Many from the Bay Colony chose to leave for New Haven with Eaton and Davenport, among them a company headed by Peter Prudden. Perhaps the son of Thomas Prudden of King's Walden, Hertfordshire and a kinsman of William Thomas of Caerleon,
Monmouthshire, Prudden was the minister of the Providence Island Company. In 1637 with fifteen Hertfordshire families - among them Edmund Tapp of Bennington, Hertfordshire, James Prudden, William Fowler, Thomas and Hannah Buckingham, Thomas
Welsh, Richard Platt, Henry Stonehill and William East - he left England for Massachusetts and went with Davenport's group to Connecticut in March of 1638.

From "Platt Lineage" -

He landed at New Haven in 1638, with his wife and four children.

After his arrival, he acquired possession, among others, of several acres of land in what is now (1891) the best part of the Elm City (it was on the south side of Chapel Street, near College Street, adjoining the ground of Peter Prudden) in
what was called "the Hertfordshire quarter."

Among the first settlers of Milford, November 20, 1639, arriving with four in his family. He and his sons John and Josiah are among the original purchasers and proprietors of New Milford. His name is on the list of free-planters of Milford in
1646. He was chosen deacon in the first church in Milford in 1669. His daughters Mary and Sarah probably died before he made his will in 1683, for in it he makes bequests to their children instead of to them.

He left to one of his heirs a legacy "towards bringing up his son to be a scholar."

He appears on the records as one of the witnesses to the will of Peter Prudden.

His estate was estimated at about £600.

His burial place is unknown, no stone has been found to mark his grave. It was probably in his orchard.

His name is on the coping stones of the Wapawang memorial bridge in Milford, commemorating the early settlers.

Topographical Dictionary-

Parish of Aldenham, Hertfordshire

Parish of New Haven, Conn.

IGI-

Marriage to Mary Wood is registered at Ware and at Roydon, on the same date. He is called "Deacon".

Huntington Historical Society -

"Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven 1638-49", by Charles Hoadley, states: "Rich Platt - an estate worthe £200 - twenty acres in the First Division - four acres in the Second Division". Part of his property consisted of a plot on
the south side of Chapel Street near College Street, adjoining lands of Peter Prudden in the so-called "Hertfordshire Quarter".

This fact undoubtedly influenced his early participation in the beginnings of the settlement of Milford within the limits of the New Haven Colony and located 10 miles west of New Haven itself, on the shores of Long Island Sound. The colony was
under the leadership of Peter Prudden, a former Anglican priest, and a group of faithful adherents from Hertfordshire who had emmigrated in 1637. It was only natural that the Platts, coming a year thereafter, would gravitate to this settlement
of their old neighbors.

The Prudden movement from New Haven was not one of dissatisfaction but stemmed from a desire to organize their own church body and town structure. Prudden, who was only 37 at the time, patterned the town after New Haven but was somewhat more
tolerant concerning church membership. In 1639 the group acquired the Indian title and on November 20, 1639, some 44 church members were franchised as "free planters". Among them was Richard Platt, with his wife Mary and their four oldest
children, Mary, John, Isaac and Sarah.

At Milford Richard owned House Lot #38 in the northeast sector of the settlement, somewhat south of the north line of the palisades and consisting of a 4-acre, 1-rod plot. Even after moving to Milford he retained some of his New Haven property.

In 1646 the Indians were on the war-path and for protection the Milford settlement was fully palisaded. Each household was required to provide one watch for sentry duty every fifth day.

Richard was chosen deacon of the first church in 1669. His will, dated 1683, has not been located among the early probate records of Connecticut, but is said to have mentioned his five sons and the children of his daughters Sarah and Mary,
leaving some presumption of their earlier deaths.

Some of his sons relocated. John and Josiah were among the original proprietors of New Milford, north of Danbury; John later moved to Norwalk. Isaac and Epenetus moved to Huntington, while Joseph remained at Milford. Although in 1962 Platt
descendants are scattered among 32 states [and Mexico!], there still remains a core of the family maintaining possession of parts of their original Milford holdings, descendants of Richard's sons Josiah and Joseph.

TAG -

He was less than five years old when his father died, and in George's will his house was devised to his wife Mary and at her death was to go to Richard.

He was doubtless educated at the Grammar School at Ware and may have been a tailor like his father and grandfather. In 1629 he had an apprentice, indicating he was in some trade at the time.

Richard's profound Puritan beliefs were probably influenced by Rev. Charles Chauncy, Vicar of Ware from 1627 to 1633, who emmigrated to New England in 1638, was a teacher at Plymouth and President of Harvard College from 1654 to his death on 19
February 1672.

On 13 July 1629 there was an "Order that Richard Platt of Ware and his apprentice be brought before certain justices, that some order might be taken to end the differences between them."

Richard and his wife disposed of their lands and houses at Ware by a final concord signed at Westminster on 25 April 1638, receiving £42 for the premises. They may have had to stay in or near London while awaiting passage, and sailed to New
England either in the latter half of 1638 or the first half of 1639.

His property in New Haven consisted of an estate worth £200; 20 acres in the first division of lands; 4 acres in the "Neck"; 12 acres of meadow; 48 acres in the second division, and paying a yearly rate of £1. He evidently had a comfortable
estate and lived in the "Hertfordshire" quarter of the town, with William Fowler, Mr. Peter Prudden, James Prudden, Edmund Tapp, the Widow Baldwin, Zachariah Whitman and Thomas Osborne. He gradually sold his property after moving to Milford.

He joined the church at Milford on 29 January 1640, and his wife on 15 August 1641.

He was often asked to act as witness to wills; on 26 July 1656 he witnessed the will of Rev. Peter Prudden. As Mrs. Selleck points out (Miner Family, p. 147), "he was a man of high character and deeply religious, and was chosen deacon of the
Milford Church in 1669. When his daughter Sarah was widowed, and prior to her second marriage, he cared for her and her children, and the court records refer to his extreme care and liberality in conserving the estate of his... grandchildren".

The inventory of his estate was taken on 13 February 1685.

The will of Deacon Richard Platt of Milford is an important document. It was dated 4 August 1683, and after the usual religious preamble, contains the following clauses:

More About RICHARD PLATT:
Burial: February 13, 1684/85, Milford, Connecticut
Christening: May 06, 1604, Ware, Hertfordshire¹
Education: Emmigrated 1638
Occupation: Deacon, Landowner
Religion: Puritan

Notes for MARY WOOD:
TAG -

Joined the church at Milford on 15 August 1641.

More About MARY WOOD:
Burial: March 24, 1675/76, Milford, Connecticut¹
Christening: November 10, 1605, Roydon, Essex¹
Religion: Puritan
     
Children of RICHARD PLATT and MARY WOOD are: 

2.	i.		MARY4 PLATT, b. 1629, Roydon, Essex; d. June 17, 1669, Middletown, Connecticut.
3.	ii.		JOHN PLATT, b. 1631, Ware, Hertfordshire; d. November 06, 1705, Norwalk, Connecticut.
4.	iii.		ISAAC PLATT, b. April 10, 1633, Ware, Hertfordshire; d. July 31, 1691, Huntington, Suffolk Co. (Long Island), New York.
5.	iv.		SARAH PLATT, b. 1636, Ware, Hertfordshire; d. May 15, 1670, New Milford, Connecticut.
6.	v.		I EPENETUS PLATT, b. 1640, Milford, Connecticut; d. Aft. September 01, 1693, Huntington, Suffolk Co. (Long Island), New York.
	vi.		HANNAH PLATT1, b. 1643, Milford, Connecticut; d. Aft. December 28, 1702, Norwalk, Connecticut?; m. CHRISTOPHERCOMSTOCK1; b. Abt. 1644; d. December 28, 1702, Norwalk, Connecticut..

More About HANNAH PLATT: Christening: October 01, 1643, Milford, Connecticut

7.	vii.		JOSIAH PLATT, b. 1645, Milford, Connecticut; d. January 01, 1724/25, Milford, Connecticut.
8.	viii.		JOSEPH PLATT, b. 1649, Milford, Connecticut; d. Bef. March 21, 1703/04, Milford, Connecticut.

The following document can be read HERE ......

A SPECIAL COMPILATION OF THE 

HISTORY AND GENEALOGY OF 

RICHARD PLATT 

BORN IN WARE, COUNTY HERTFORD, ENGLAND 

& 

ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF BOTH 

NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 

AND 

MILFORD CONNECTICUT 

From HERE

ID: I4609 Name: Richard PLATT Prefix: Deacon Sex: M Christening: 6 MAY 1604 Ware, Hertfordshire, England 1 Death: BEF 13 FEB 1684/1685 in Milford, New Haven County, CT Reference Number: 440 _UID: 6CA949A9D003DC44B1948DA241F952A09A56 Note: Roydon, where Richard and Mary married, is four miles southeast of Ware. On 16 April 1609 was mentioned as son in the will of George Platte of Ware. On 13 July 1629 there was an "Order that Richard Platt of Ware and his apprentice be brought before certain justices, that some order might be taken to end the differences between them." On 25 April 1638 Westminster, England, Richard and Mary Platt signed a final concord to dispose of their lands and houses at Ware, receiving L42 for the premises. Then they prepared to sail for New England, but may have had to stay in or near London for some months while awaiting passage. They appear to have crossed the Atlantic either in the latter half of 1638 or the first half of 1639. It has been stated that the Platt family arrived at New Haven in August 1639, and this may be true, but Richard Platt is not among those who signed the covenant of 22 August 1639, and "Richard Plot" did not join the Church of Milford at New Haven until 29 January 1639/1640. He was a free planter, according to Abbott in Milford, New Haven County, CT, in 1639. His home lot was #38, consisting of 4 acres and one rod, near the corner of the present West Main and Cherry Streets. In 1669 he was chosen deacon of the church at Milford. He appeared on the list of freemen at Milford in October 1669: "A List of the Freemen of Milford [October 1669] ... Richard Platt." In her will dated 9 November 1669, proved 20 November 1669, Sarah (Bryan?) (Baldwin) Astwood of Milford appointed "my beloved brothers Richard Platt and Thomas Wheeler" overseers. Richard Platt and Thomas Wheeler were also witnesses to the will. Since Sarah's maiden name has not been proven, this statement has led to much genealogical speculation as to how she was related to these men -- or were they merely highly esteemed "brethren in the church"? If you look to their descendants rather than their antecedants, another possible explanation suggests itself -- Sarah's grandson Zachariah3 Baldwin (Richard2, Sylvester1) was married to Richard Platt's granddaughter Mary3 Atkinson (Mary2, Richard1). The will of "Richard Platt of Milford in Ye colony of conecticutt" was dated 4 August 1683: It makes the following bequests: I give unto my son John Platt beside what I have formerly given him L26 & foure bibles for his children. I give unto my son Isaac Platt L20 besides what I have formerly given him & for his children three bibles. I give unto my son Epenetus Platt besides what I have formerly given him L20 & for his children three bibles. I give my son in law Christopher Comstocke & his wife beside what I have formerly given him L22 & for his children 3 bibles. I give Samuel Bech [Beach] beside what I have formerly given him L6. I give Hannah & Deborah Merwin two bibles. I give Elder [Daniel] Buckingham L5 toward bringing up his son to be a schollar. I give my son Epenetus L5 toward bringing up his son to be a schollar. I give my son Josia Platt beside what I have formerly given him the meadow on ye far side the creeke by stubby playne, & halfe the pasture or land by ye necke gate, & the land not yet taken in of my division, & halfe the pasture land below the two orchards, & five bibles for his children. I give Josia Whitmore & his sister two bibles. I give my son Joseph Platt's children two bibles. I give my son Joseph Platt all the remainder of my estate, housing, barnes, lands, meadows, corne, cattle, horses, mares, sheep, hogs, movables, he paying the legacyes above named & debts. I make my son Joseph Platt my executor of this my last Will. I desire Elder Buckingham & my son Josia Platt to see this my Will fulfilled, & I give Elder Buckingham & my son Josia twenty shillings apiece for their paynes. [Signed] Richard Platt Daniel Buckingham and Josia Platt, witnesses The Inventory of the estate was taken 13 February 1684 by Samuell Ells, John Streame, and Sylvanus Baldwin. It totaled L547:05:07. (New Haven probate records vol 1, part 2, p. 138). The Platt stone in the Milford Memorial Bridge reads: "DEACON RICHARD PLATT Obit 1684 MARY His Wife."

Father: George PLATT c: 13 MAY 1582 in Ware, Hertfordshire, England 
Mother: Mary SELL b: ABT 1572 in England

Marriage 1 Mary WOOD c: 10 NOV 1605 in Roydon, Essex, England

• Married: 26 JAN 1628/1629 in Roydon, Essex, England ^12 13 14

Children

1.  Mary PLATT c: 11 NOV 1629 in Roydon, Essex, England
2.  John PLATT c: 11 JAN 1631/1632 in Ware, Hertfordshire, England
3.  Isaac PLATT c: 10 APR 1633 in Ware, Hertfordshire, England
4.  Samuel PLATT c: 9 DEC 1634 in Ware, Hertfordshire, England
5.  Sarah PLATT c: 11 SEP 1636 in Ware, Hertfordshire, England
6.  Epenetus PLATT b: 2 JUL 1640 in Milford, New Haven County, CT c: 2 JUL 1640 in Milford, New Haven County, CT
7.  Hannah PLATT c: 1 OCT 1643 in First Church, Milford, New Haven County, CT
8.  Josiah PLATT c: NOV 1645 in First Church, Milford, New Haven County, CT
9.  Joseph PLATT c: 1 APR 1649 in First Church, Milford, New Haven County, CT

Sources:

1. Title: Richard Platt of Ware, Co. Hertford, England, and Milford, Connecticut
   Author: John Insley Coddington
   Abbrev: Coddington
   Publication: New Haven: The American Genealogist
   Abbrev: Richard Platt
   Page: 30:236. Parish Registers of Ware, co. Hertford, 1558-1650.
   Text: Baptisms. 1604 Richard Platte, 6 May
2. Title: Families of Ancient New Haven
   Author: Donald Lines Jacobus
   Abbrev: Jacobus
   Publication: Salem MA: Higginson Book Co., 1994
   Abbrev: Families of Ancient New Haven
   Page: p. 144-161
3. Title: Richard Platt of Ware, Co. Hertford, England, and Milford, Connecticut
   Author: John Insley Coddington
   Abbrev: Coddington
   Publication: New Haven: The American Genealogist
   Abbrev: Richard Platt
   Page: 30:233-238
4. Title: English Ancestry of Richard Platt (1604-1685) and Mary Wood (1605-1676)
   Author: Douglas Richardson
   Abbrev: Richardson
   Publication: Synopsis of article pre-published to Platt list, rootsweb.com, 1998
   Abbrev: Platt & Wood Ancestry
5. Title: Richard Platt of Ware, Co. Hertford, England, and Milford, Connecticut
   Author: John Insley Coddington
   Abbrev: Coddington
   Publication: New Haven: The American Genealogist
   Abbrev: Richard Platt
   Page: 31:155-170
6. Title: Families of Early Milford Connecticut
   Author: Susan Woodruff Abbott
   Abbrev: Abbott
   Publication: Baltimore MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1979
   Abbrev: Families of Early Milford
   Page: p. 547-551
7. Title: Platt Genealogy in America from the Arrival of Richard Platt in New Haven Connecticut in 1638
   Author: Charles Platt Jr.
   Abbrev: Charles Platt
   Publication: New Hope, PA: 1963
   Abbrev: Platt Genealogy
   Page: pp. 17-26
8. Title: History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, for the Eunice Dennie Burr Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution
   Author: Donald Lines Jacobus
   Abbrev: Donald Lines Jacobus
   Publication: New Haven CT: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Co., 1930-1932
   Abbrev: Families of Old Fairfield
   Page: p. 483-487
9. Title: Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1665-1678
   Author: J. Hammond Trumbull
   Abbrev: Trumbull
   Publication: Hartford CT: 1852
   Abbrev: Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut
   Page: p. 523-526
10. Title: The Story of the Memorial in Honor of the Founders of the Town of Milford
    Author: Morris W. Abbott
    Abbrev: Morris Abbott
    Publication: Milford CT: 1971
    Abbrev: Milford Memorial
    Page: p. 12
11. Title: Milford Church Records. Admissions, First Church, 1639-1687
    Author: Donald Lines Jacobus
    Abbrev: Jacobus
    Publication: New Haven: The American Genealogist, 1939, Vol. 16
    Abbrev: Milford Church Records 1639-1687
    Page: pp. 28-29
12. Title: New England Marriages Prior to 1700
    Author: Clarence Almon Torrey
    Abbrev: Torrey
    Publication: Baltimore MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1985 & 1992
    Abbrev: New England Marriages
    Page: p. 590
    Text: Richard Platt (1604-1684, 1685) & Mary Wood (1605-), in Eng; b 1633, 26 Jan 1682/9; New Haven/Milford CT.
13. Title: Richard Platt of Ware, Co. Hertford, England, and Milford, Connecticut
    Author: John Insley Coddington
    Abbrev: Coddington
    Publication: New Haven: The American Genealogist
    Abbrev: Richard Platt
    Page: 30:237. Parish Registers of Roydon
    Text: 1628 Richard Platt and Mary Woode ware maried the 26th of January [1628/9]
14. Title: The Merwin Family in North America
    Publication: Miles Merwin Association, Milford, CT 1978
    Abbrev: Merwin Family
    Page: p. 1

Mary Wood Conspiracy

Mary Wood is my 10 x Great Grandmother  ...

Fact: She was married to Richard Platt .......

This is where things are iffy.

On one hand ... many trees show that Mary's parents were John Wood and Jane (unknown) ... and that is where things end.  There is documentation naming John and Jane as her parents.

However ..... on other trees, it's Henry Wood and Isabell Goodspeed.

Both Mary Woods from these two sets of parents married Richard Platt.   Both have the same back story.  Both ...... well, they are the same person.  Period.

So which set is her parents?

Let's back up a little bit.  Even if Mary Wood has always given me a bit of a difficult time, it's another one of those "dead ends" that felt like it shouldn't have been.

One of my best friends and I did the whole "Famous" relative thing a long time ago.  We both found out that one of the connections we had was Louisa Alcott.  Ya know, the writer of one of my favorite books of all times, Little Women.

So .... the point where it switched directions was Mary Wood.  According to the links, Mary's Mom's name was Isabell Goodspeed..... but I had it as Jane.

So I was all - what the heck.

Well Ancestry has taken down the "Famous Relatives" thing because of inaccuracy issues.  So at first I'm like... well, there you go.  Inaccuracy.

But then I got to thinking ....  what if .... I'm wrong, and it's right?    Mary Wood and Richard Platt are in my family tree, twice, on the same line.  Yeah - I know ........ INBREEDING.

Um...... HELLO .... if you have English relatives, you probably have inbreeding.  ESPECIALLY if you have English Royalty.  Just sayin ...

So ...... this is how it goes ....

Enoch and Anna Comstock had many children, two of which were Ruth and Cephas ....  Cephas married Nancy, and Ruth married Oliver ....  then Cephas' daughter Caroline married her cousin Samuel who was Ruth's son.  Yep.  Was it acceptable to marry your cousin (not even removed) in the 1800s?

I actually was curious - so I googled it.  I found a few interesting answers ....  here and here.

This depends on the location. Since the discussion seems to be heading in the direction of "cousin marriage" that is what I will talk about. In the West in 1870 it was growing more and more taboo. But cousin marriage is still very widespread among areas in the Middle East and Africa even today and is socially acceptable and is often set up within the family through complicated systems. For instance have you ever heard of cross/parallel cousins and double first cousins? It's super complicated so instead of retyping it all I linked the Wikipedia article. They're short but very interesting. The likeliness that we all have some sort of incest in our family history is very strong. Icky, but true. haha

EDIT:
To address your additions to the question, marrying a direct cousin would not be accepted well in France, however first cousin marriage was and still is legal. Most people have heard of Edgar Allen Poe's marriage to his first cousin Virginia Clemm, this was in the mid 1800's in the U.S., it was tolerated (notice the use of tolerated but not accepted) but thought of as strange to put it lightly. By the mid to late 1800's science was suggesting the effects of incest were higher rates of birth defects, so western society was turning away from the practice of marrying your first cousin. This is true, but by about 2% (Charles Darwin was also married to his first cousin). So, would having direct cousins for parents make you an outcast in the time period? Possibly, but based on cultural norms. Further, it depended on the society you lived in and which class you belonged to. If you were a peasant it might not have mattered due to lack of education/knowledge of genealogy. Or it could be the exact opposite, being a peasant could strengthen ties of genealogy and lineage, since one would rely on those bonds for food, shelter etc. my point, each case is individualistic. Thus cannot be answered in a simple way unfortunately (at least from an anthropological standpoint). :) it's so complicatedddd.

Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marr…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_firs…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_an…
Anthropology Student

And this one too

Back then science and technology was not advanced and marrying a cousin keeps the family riches in the family.

Now, we realized interbreeding closely can result in disabilities in the child, you know what I mean, like mentally retarded and whatnot. Not many royals and rich people are stingy enough to marry relatives to keep royal and rich blood only.

You can still marry your cousin in all countries, but depends on how close. Most don't allow you to marry first cousins or second cousins. While all allow 3rd, 4th, and so on. Because the blood isn't as close so your child won't have any risks due to relation. Also it's a bit taboo now because of it, and cousins are seen like siblings if you are raised close to each other. It'll be hard for your parents and peers to accept it.

And this one...

It was IN the 1800's that genetics was "discovered" and how it worked regarding biological inheritance of traits from parents to offspring, and it became illegal, based purely on genetic inheritance considerations. Close inbreeding damages the gene pool. Just ask ANY breeder of dogs or horses. The closer the blood relationship between parents, the more likely birth defects in the offspring. It was PRIOR to the 1800's that cousins were acceptable. Back in the days of the Pharaohs in Egypt, it was even OK to marry your sister... Just ask the royal houses in England about the results of inbreeding with cousins...

Now back in the days of English Royalty, you do find some inbreeding -but mostly- it was that they brought in other Royals, from France, Italy, Ireland, etc for marriages.   But - like one of the people stated above, if Royal lines wanted things to stay with in the blood line, it wasn't unheard of.

With all that said, lets move on.

Enoch was the child of Deborah and Abijah Comstock,  Abijah was the son of Abigail and Moses Comstock, Moses the child of Christopher Comstock and Hannah Platt.... and Hannah was the daughter of Deacon Richard Platt and Mary Wood.

This is where the problem rises, going back from Mary Wood.

Birth: 1605 Harwich, England

Death: 1675 Milford New Haven County, Connecticut, USA

The daughter of John & Jane Wood of Roydon, Co. Essex, England. She was baptized on November 10th or 11th in Roydon, Co. Essex, England. Richard Platt and Mary Wood were married on 26 January 1628/1629 in Roydon. On 25 April 1638, Richard & Mary sold their property in Ware (which is four miles southeast of Roydon) in England, and prepared to sail to New England.
The family was first at New Haven and by 1640 were in Milford (lot #38 West Main and Cherry Street). Mary joined the Milford church on 29 January 1639/40 the same year as her husband.

Mary precedeased her husband, and the exact date of her death is unknown, but Milford Church records show that she was buried on March 24, 1675/1676. She isNOT buried a the Founders Memorial Site. Most all of the early settlers were buried in Rev. Peter Prudden's garden until around 1675, and after that they were buried in an extension of his garden which is presently the oldest part of the Milford Cemetery.
The picture of the memorial stone placed on the Founder's Bridge over the Wepawaug River in Milford, CT shows Mary's name along with that of her husband. 

You can see there - that they clearly say that Mary was the daughter of John and Jane Wood.  I have run  into a lot of documentation like that.  But so I wonder....... since John Wood is a dead end ....  because if you look above, John Wood is NOT the son of that John Wood listed as his father, because John Wood with the English Flag would have been UNBORN at the birth of his son John Wood with the tree ...  Yeah, that doesn't work......

And Jane (Unknown) - even with the one surname I found listed for her, is a dead end......

I wonder, what if Henry and Isabell ARE her parents....

So I put it in my tree.....  and this is what happens....  and then it's John and Joan are Henry's parents.. but then I start looking closer....... and

That's not right.  John - Henry's Father - was born - AFTER HENRY????   Um... no, that's not right....  So I go back again ....  

And now ......... I'm just stuck.  Who the hell-o are her parents?  It's so freaking frustrating!  

So I pop a name and date in the trusty Google Search and I get directed to Geni.com and www.myheritage.com

This is what I found there...... 

Mary Wood's Parents 

John Wood's Parents

So ..... with all that confusion .....  I will share this note.  I have seen other posts by Dennis and I do tend to know he has some information backing up what he says.... 

Elizabeth Rose Wood married John Potter in England. Elizabeth was born in Chesham, Buckinghamshire, England. William was born in Manchester, England. They were married April 14, 1630 in Chesham, Buckingshire, England. Elizabeth was born February 26, 1605/06 and John born March 24,1605/06. They had four children; Hannah (b. 1631), Elizabeth (b. February 16, 1631/32), John (b. October 17, 1635), and Samuel(b. October 07, 1641).John Potter died August 10, 1643 in New Haven where he had operated a small farm and made and repaired winches. Elizabeth was a midwife. He and Elizabeth lived in New Haven since it was established in 1639. A number of Massachusetts settlers joined the Davenport Group when they set out to settle New Haven and it is likely they were a part of this group. Elizabeth's sister Mary Wood (b. November 10, 1605) was a member of Reverend Peter Prudens' congregation as they sailed on the Hector with the Davenport Company. Prudens' congregation traveled to New Haven to settle there with Davenports' congregation. Mary married Richard Platt and they lived in Milford, New Haven Colony. I don't know when John Potter and Elizabeth arrived in America or what ship they took. I believe they arrived before 1638 when the Hector arrived in Boston Harbor. John Potter's parents were John Potter, Sr. and Hannah Mead. They were likely from Kent, England. I have John Sr. born March 28, 1580 and Hannah born about 1584. John Potter Jr. had a brother named William, born in 1608, who also came to America and lived in New Haven. William was hanged for beastiality June 06, 1662. Beastiality was relatively common in Colonial America despite the drastic sentence it brought. William fully admitted his offense to the court and stated he hated this "affliction". Elizabeth lived after John's death marrying first my ancestor, Edward John Parker who died soon after William on June 27, 1662. I don't know the cause of Edward's death. Their children were; Joseph (b. February 1647/48), Mary (b. April 1648) , John (b. October 08, 1648), Hope (b. April 26, 1650), and Lydia (b. April 14, 1652). We trace our Parker line from John who first married Hannah Bassett (M. November 08, 1670).Elizabeth married a third time to Pequot War hero, Colonel Robert Rose, himself a widower. The marriage lasted a brief three years with Elizabeth also out living him. There were no children of this marriage. I am presently trying to sort out who might be Edwards' father. There was a William Parker who also died in New Haven in 1662 who it is thought might be related. There was also an Abraham Parker who came to Hartford with Reverend Thomas Hooker. This was the beginning of Connecticut Colony. Abraham had William, Ralph, and Edward John as sons. The William Parker who is the son of this Abraham Parker was an original settler of Saybrooke, a satelite colony of Connecticut Colony The Ralph Parker lived in early Wallingford and married into the Ives family who Charles and Burl trace their ancestry.

note: written by Dennis Wright 

It's Elizabeth (Mary's sister) that links back to Lousia M. Alcott  ..... so I know, regardless, I have that connection - REGARDLESS of who Mary and Elizabeth's parents are.  Right?  

Christopher Martin

So …  I’m addicted to genealogy … ancestry (dot) com baby …  but one thing that I have to say is that the false leads are so effin frustrating….

So last night, I’m tracing back some of the people I haven’t looked at yet.  So …  I’m looking at my husband’s line .. Susannah North Martin was one of the “witches” hung during the Salem Witch Trials.

Course, I am a witch … So I tease DB saying that my ancestors hung his ancestors (because my family was in Salem too but no one was even involved in the trials) …  to keep the heat off the real witches in the area.

Muahahahaha ….

One of my Kings hung one of his Nobility too…  Ha ha ha …

My family likes to hang his family … ha ha …

Anyway - back to my point.  Susannah was married to a man named George Martin.  He died prior to the Salem Witch Trials - HOWEVER - Susannah was accused TWICE of being a Witch.  The first time, her husband George fought tooth and nail for her. .

Anyway - first thing I do is go through the “Family Trees” on Ancestry to get ideas … then I back up and research … well people on Ancestry had George Martin connected to a Christopher Martin - as George’s father - and Christopher’s wife (who’s name currently escapes me) …  So I’m getting all these hints that Christopher came over on the Mayflower and I’m all excited, this is crazy this is awesome…. OMG ….. historically it’s gold.

And I’m reading and researching and then…. I read this……

Christopher Martin, his wife, and his son (not named George) all perished in the horrible first winter they where around for.  Wiping out his ENTIRE line.

And I thought ……. now wait a minute….

That means………

That’s right folks, Christopher Martin is NOT George Martin’s father.

So I dig deeper into George - trying to find some link to his family line.

Turns out - he came to America as another man’s servant.  There still may be a connection, but it’s not a direct connection.

So I had to delete all this fun and interesting and exciting research I did… because it wasn’t connected.

Blows…….

Salem vs. the Witches .. (part 6) Pardons

SUSANNAH NORTH MARTIN CONCLUSION 

Burying Point Cemetery, Salem

Items reportedly belonging to Susannah (North) Martin on Display at the Macy Colby House

Items reportedly belonging to Susannah (North) Martin on Display at the Macy Colby House

SUSANNA MARTIN AND GOVERNMENT

~~Author Unknown~~

In 1692, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was the site of a major historical event. This infamous event, the Salem Witch Trials, was a major injustice in America’s history. Once the accusations started, all Hell broke lose. By the time the trials were over, nineteen people and two dogs were hanged, and one man was pressed. Of the 150 people imprisoned, fifty-five of them had confessed to witchcraft.

To begin to understand how civilized people could act in such barbaric ways, one needs to know some background information about the village and its citizens. The people who lived in Salem Village were Puritans. They followed and interpreted the Bible literally, and without question. As many people know, the Bible states, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22.18). To the Puritans, this meant that if there was a witch, they had an obligation to kill him/her. Also, the people of Salem, like the people of Europe, believed that witches existed and that many of them were evil.

People believed in witchcraft, even when it contradicted scientific evidence proving that it did not exist. It is important to note that the magic that was "evil" was black magic, or magic that was used maliciously against another. Black magic witches were

The girls all had the same symptoms (which ranged from becoming mute and blind to having "fits"). On top of that, it was so long ago that their mistakes seem so foreign to us; we can’t really relate to what happened back then. In 1697, the General court proclaimed a fast day, and many of the jurors and judges that convicted "witches" publicly apologized. Many of the accused were easy targets of blame. During Bridget Bishop’s trial, Mercy Lewis screamed, "Oh goody Bishop did you not come to our house the last night?". Lewis was obviously referring to Bishop’s specter, for Bishop was in jail the whole time. As far as the trials having an impact on our lives today, I don’t think it really has one. The adults that led the witch hunts, namely the Putnams, wanted to regain control of Salem Village, and many of the people that were accused were ones standing in the Putnams’ way. If it didn’t happen, we’d still have the McCarthy era, so we didn’t really learn anything from it.

Before that though, in May 1692, the governor appointed the Special Court of Oyer and Terminer, which was comprised of seven judges. By the end of October, he disassembled the court of Oyer and Terminer. After Bridget Bishop was convicted, on June 2, Nathaniel Saltonstall resigned his seat as judge. This is what is believed the girls were doing. Another woman accused, though she admitted to being a witch, was Tituba, who was an easy target. One family, the Porters, who were against the Putnams from the beginning, were staunch objectors to witch trials.

Plaque Reads: "Here stood the house of Susanna Martin. An honest, hardworking, Christian woman. Accused as a witch, tried and executed at Salem, July 19, 1692. A martyr of superstition".

 

 Susanna North Martin – Name Cleared 288 years after being Hung

 It appears to be a copy / paste from a website but unfortunately doesn’t include the original source information or the authors name.  If you know the source, please let me know so proper attribution can be included.

We can interpolate the probable publication date to be 1999 given the number of years mentioned in the first sentence:

“When the chance came 288 years ago to clear Susannah Martin’s name after she had been hanged as a witch, none of the Amesbury woman’s children or grandchildren stepped forward in her defense.
Nine generations later, however, dozens who proudly draw their family roots to her are using the Internet to do what her children did not — convince the Massachusetts Legislature to give Mrs. Martin some long-awaited justice.

One of those descendants is Bonnie Johnson of Columbia, Md., Mrs. Martin’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter.

”There’s a lot of people who say, ‘What difference does it make? She’ll never know,”’ said Mrs. Johnson. ”But if you believe in an afterlife, you have to believe that she would know, and that she would care.”

Yesterday, Beacon Hill lawmakers held a hearing on a bill that would officially exonerate Mrs. Martin and four other accused witches of the charges of which they were convicted and executed for in 1692.

Mrs. Martin and the other women were overlooked in 1711, when a backlash against the witchcraft hysteria caused the colonial Legislature to drop the charges against accused witches and pay damages to the survivors of those who were executed.

But the Legislature ignored six women because none of their family members appeared in court.
Another attempt to finally absolve the women was made in 1957, but the law was badly written and only cleared one of them. Paula Gauthier Keene, a Salem, Mass., resident, discovered the error last year and filed a bill to correct it.

After stories about the bill appeared in The Eagle-Tribune and other newspapers and were posted on the Internet, word spread.

Through Internet chat rooms, postings on genealogy Web sites and e-mails, Mrs. Johnson contacted descendants across the nation, informing them an effort was afoot to clear her distant relative’s name.
”I posted information on (two Web sites) where I knew a bunch of folks were descendants of Susannah Martin,” said Mrs. Johnson. ”I also personally contacted 20 to 25 other people, and asked them to spread the word.”

As was the case in 1711, none of Mrs. Martin’s relatives came to the hearing yesterday to ask that her name be cleared. But several had already made their thoughts known through e-mail and letters to the Legislature.

”Some of the people I contacted sent me copies of the letters and e-mails they sent,” said Mrs. Johnson, who also submitted a letter. ”I would have given anything to be there today, but it’s a pretty long way.”

Craig D. Martin of Stow, a direct descendent, also sent a letter urging lawmakers to clear Mrs. Martin’s name.

”It’s hard to imagine the extreme pain and suffering that these women and their families experienced, knowing in their hearts of their innocence, not to mention the descendants who were tied to the stigma of witchcraft for years after the trials,” he wrote.

The Judiciary Committee, which held the hearing, waded through more than 130 bills yesterday and spent little time on the witchcraft bill. The bill is actually a ”resolution,” which the Legislature routinely passes.

Mrs. Martin was one of 20 people executed during the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692.

Like several other women who were accused of witchcraft, she was a strong-willed, outspoken, elderly widow who owned a sizeable amount of land. She had also run afoul of her neighbors in the past.

In 1669, she was accused of witchcraft, but the charges were dropped and her husband successfully sued for slander.

But when the witchcraft hysteria broke in 1692, some of her old enemies resurfaced and provided damaging testimony against her.

Mrs. Martin ridiculed much of the evidence against her, and laughed out loud when the ”afflicted girls” writhed on the floor and screamed — a sight that the judges deemed credible evidence of witchcraft.

Asked why she was laughing, she replied, ”Well, I may at such folly.”

Her vigorous defense and constant denials of witchcraft were ignored by the court, and she was sentenced to death June 26. Less than a month later, she and four other women were taken from their cells, put in a rickety cart, and driven to the gallows.

They were buried in a shallow grave there, and their bodies may still be there.

If the resolution passes, Mrs. Keene plans to hold a memorial service for Mrs. Martin.

Once again, the descendants plan to use the Internet to rally for Mrs. Martin and spread the word, said Mrs. Johnson.

”If the memorial service is held, I definitely plan to attend that,” she said.”

 Salem Memorial for those who died during the Salem Witch Trials

PARDON

31 Oct 2001 | Boston, Massachusetts

On October 31, 2001, acting governor of Massachusetts, Jane Swift, signed a law that formally pardoned Susanna Martin, Bridget Bishop, Alice Parker, Margaret Scott, and Wilmot Redd.

This is the memorial park in Salem, Massachusetts dedicated to those who lost their lives during the persecutions in the early 1690's. Each stone protruding from the walls on the left and right bears the name and date of execution of one of the condemned.

Susannah North Martin Was Not A Witch

By

lineagekeeper

– 8 May 2011

While reviewing death certificates in my filing cabinets recently, I found notes about the murder of my ancestor, Susannah North Martin, in Salem during the witch trials of 1692.

I assume that they were accidentally inserted there by one of our granddaughters when I was teaching them how to record and store documents associated with our lineage.

The notes referred to and at least partially quoted a newspaper article that I’d read years before that talked about the exoneration of Susannah and four others who were similarly murdered in Salem as witches in 1692.
The Massachusetts State Legislature in 1999 passed the “Massachusetts House Bill No. 4457 – The witchcraft trial of 1692” that was signed into law by the Governor of Massachusetts to eliminate the stigma associated with the deaths of the final five thus killed.

The text below is obviously a newspaper article but the scrap of paper containing the words does not accredit the author or publisher. We’ll say “Thanks” to them now hoping their words may continue to shed light on this tragic series of events and offer solace to the descendants of these women.

AMESBURY — The wheels of justice sometimes take a long time to grind out the truth. For Susannah Martin, the wait will be more than three centuries. 

The Amesbury woman was hanged as a witch 307 years ago, and her bones long ago moldered into dust. But lawmakers on Beacon Hill are only now preparing to clear her name and right the wrong done during the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692. 

The hysteria claimed 20 lives in all. 

Fifteen of the condemned later had their names cleared when family members petitioned the Legislature. But Mrs. Martin and four others who had no surviving relatives to speak up for them remained branded as witches. 

Paula Gauthier Keene, of Salem, hopes lawmakers will correct that within the next few months. 

”These five women . . . are the last five alleged witches whose souls I believe are still crying out for justice and vindication,” wrote Mrs. Keene in a letter to state Rep. Michael Ruane, D-Salem, who is sponsoring a bill to clear the women. 

Mrs. Keene, who described herself as a reformed witch who is now a Roman Catholic, said she hopes to organize a memorial Mass for the women in Salem once they are cleared. 

Mrs. Martin was a smart woman with a sharp tongue, living when Puritan society expected women to be meek and obedient, and in a world that believed the supernatural lingered behind every good and evil event. Her demeanor was viewed by her enemies as a sure sign that the devil was working inside her. 

According to local history, she was accused of witchcraft in 1660, and again in 1669.
The charges were dropped, in part, because her husband successfully sued for slander.
By 1692, however, her husband was dead and the 67-year-old woman lived alone in a house on Martin Street. 

Today, Interstate 495 passes over the site of the old Martin house, which stood a few hundred yards northeast of the Amesbury Sports Park. A stone memorial marks a spot near where her house stood.
As the witchcraft hysteria mushroomed beyond Salem, Mrs. Martin’s enemies again seized their chance to press charges against her. 

On April 30, 1692, an arrest warrant was issued. The trial continued through June, during which a steady parade of witnesses testified against her. 

One witness claimed that Mrs. Martin walked to Newbury on a muddy day in the 1670s but arrived with her dress unsoiled. 

The court decided Mrs. Martin must have flown there. 

After a spirited self-defense, and showing utter contempt for the charges, Mrs. Martin was found guilty and sentenced to death on June 30. She was hanged July 19. 

Due to throat surgery, Rep. Ruane was unable to comment on his bill to clear Mrs. Martin and the others, but he provided detailed information on why they were mot cleared along with the others. 

In 1711, the colonial General Court, the predecessor of today’s Legislature, set aside the convictions of all but six of the victims who had no family members petitioning to overturn the verdicts. 

Martha Carrier, of Andover, was one of the accused witches whose verdict was overturned. 

Over the next several years, efforts to overturn the remaining six convictions failed, in part because officials feared having to pay damages to descendants. 

In 1948, a Louisiana man who was related to one of the six renewed the effort. Nine years later, lawmakers passed a resolution exonerating the Louisiana man’s relative, Anne Pudeator, and ”others” who were never named. 

”Based on this technicality of omission, the last five alleged witches have never been legally cleared,” said Mrs. Keene. 

Rep. Ruane’s bill will clearly state the names of the other five women, officially ending this final chapter in the witchcraft trials. Besides Mrs. Martin, the women to be cleared are Wilmot Redd of Marblehead, Alice Parker and Bridget Bishop, both of Salem, and Margaret Scott of Rowley.