uh oh

https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/680#ch12

In the Suffolk County records, July 29, 1673:

Hudson Leverett sent'd:
"Hudson Leverett bound over to the Court to Answer for his rash indiscreete & dangerous speeches of which hee was convict in Court: the Court Sentenced him to pay one hundred pounds in mony fine to the County & to bee imprisoned for one month & to pay Fees of Court & charge of prosecucion."

Hmm said the bear. A month in the slammer, in July of 1673. I wonder what he said?

Hudson's travails

When one encyclopedia called Hudson Leverett "disreputable," I actually got kind of mad. I knew that he had fallen out with the Puritan church, had refused to join, had moved way off into the city where he was hard to find, with his second wife, step-daughter, and his own son and daughter, one by his new wife. There were things about him that people didn't like: that he wasn't an upstanding member of the church or the downtown community. But "disreputable?" I hadn't found anything that would cause that.

I've been wading through the legal records of County Court in Boston, and he appears in there a lot. He actually was a practicing lawyer, although it's been said by many that law was not a legitimate trade in this era and that one could hardly make a living practicing it. OK, so I understand that he had a rough time bringing up his three children (not counting John, who was in Harvard by the 1670s, almost fully grown) while practicing law, and at the same time being completely overshadowed by his father's rising star; his father was elected Vice Governor in 1672 and then Governor in 1674.

But around that time, Hudson's own life began to fall apart. His wife gave birth in 1674, but the child wasn't recorded until later, and even then, without a name, and the note: Here begins to fayle the record. Somebody was no longer keeping track, as if his wife was sick now, and he refused to deal with the church (the best record-keeper) and even tell them who the child was. I suspect this was Mary, not Thomas; by 1679, his first wife Sarah was dead, he'd remarried Elizabeth and taken on her daughter, and soon he was out in Roxbury with Elizabeth, her daughter, Mary, and Thomas. Thomas could have been born before he married (which would explain why it wasn't recorded), and Sarah could have died before 1679; both possibilities have come up.

But here's the clue I found. In 1674 (the year his father became governor), he was sued by Henry Bull for "non-payment of 2,101 pound of Virginia Tobacco remaining due on a bill or specialty under the hand of saide Hudson Leverett bearing the date of 14th December 1669...." It appears that, back when John was seven, Hudson had bought this tobacco and never paid for it. It appears from the above that the 2,101 pounds is money, not pounds of tobacco, but I can't be sure of that. It appears that the 2,101 pounds is what's left of the bill, still unpaid, that this Henry Bull has to sue him for, because it appears he never will pay it if he's not forced to by the court.

Wow, take a few deep breaths.

You have a guy who refused to join the church in a small, righteous puritan town. I know how these small towns work. If you're on the wrong side, you stay on the wrong side, and it gets worse, until you're involved in pretty much every anti-establishement activity known to the town. In other words, trouble finds you. Now I have no idea about the nature of tobacco dealing in Boston in 1669, but Hudson was apparently right in the center of it. He couldn't have bought all this tobacco for personal consumption (could he?)...but must rather have been dealing it much as one would deal other smokable things in the modern world.

And yet, he fell behind on his bills, and five years later he still hadn't paid this one.

My new working theories are the following: his money problems started well before 1674. In 1674 his father was being elected governor, but his wife was having a baby, not recording it, and falling into a sickness from which she would not recover. His salary as a lawyer was not covering his bills and his tobacco-dealing side-hustle didn't prove to be lucrative, as either he'd traded a lot of tobacco for alcohol, or he'd simply lost the money, and it was beginning to catch up to him. There is general evidence of an alcohol problem (he would later be sued by an old friend, a barkeeper, presumably for unpaid tab. I have to finish going through these records and put them in time order; I'm not sure what else I'll find.

I'm beginning to get a sense of "disreputable;" not paying a two-thousand pound bill for tobacco begins to qualify.

Colonial Society of Massachusetts. (2017). Vol. 29, Records of the Suffolk County Court 1671-1680, Part 1. https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/694#ch16.

John Leverett, President of Harvard

I'm deep into a biography of John Leverett (1662-1724), first secular President of Harvard, a person who changed the nature of education in the colonies for good.

He may have descendants, but they are not Leveretts; he only had two daughters who lived, and one only lived until her twenties. One who died at the age of thirteen was especially painful for them, but such things were common in the early 1700's. It was a difficult time - bad financially, a lot of disease around, and the colony was not sure whether it would be attacked at any minute.

John Leverett emerged as a strong opposite of Cotton Mather - after the witch trials, the Harvard Corporation wanted anyone except Cotton Mather to run the place, and John, though he wasn't a minister, was at least capable of doing it. He was especially good at taking care of the books and ensuring that people got paid. The enrollment increased dramatically while he was there, and this forced him to look into making new buildings for them to occupy. Harvard became the larger college that it is today by surviving the first two decades of the century.

All the while, Cotton Mather was sniping at him. He wrote about the flagrant antics of Harvard students and how something should be done about it. He tried to get the Hollis grant switched over to Yale, just to spite John.

But in the end, the Corporation and the Overseers did John in by themselves, just putting a financial squeeze on him so that he went further in debt with every passing year. He was unable to leave, because he was so busy fighting forces bent on his destruction.

John had friends, a group of people who put him in power, and who championed his cause. Cotton Mather, on the other hand, had alienated virtually everyone and they were painfully aware that he had used his influence in the pointless deaths of 19 people during the Salem witch trials. There was no doubt that he was considered a kind of loose cannon who could do just about anything if he was mad enough at someone.

Upon John's death, in 1724, Cotton thought he had his last big chance to have the Presidency. But no, the Corporation tried three people and finally settled on one who accepted, and this concluded the chapter: they would pick anyone but Cotton. Cotton died frustrated in that regard.

John's biggest legacy was that Harvard survived: a new building was being built, where his old house had stood; students were filling up the place; it now had traditions that had survived many perilous years. John had participated in those traditions, in some cases preserved them or brought them back, and put his own mark on the place that is still noticed today.

Puritan Leveretts

Kindle Special
FRI-SUN Apr. 7-9
https://www.amazon.com/Puritan-Leveretts-preliminary-investigation-World-ebook/dp/B07SZS9P87

1700's revisited

The 1700's are an interesting time with lots of things undocumented. It may be that more becomes documented as time goes along; it has seemed that way. I am working through some new theories so bear with me. All of this is pure speculation.

My latest theory is that Mary (1674?), Hudson's daughter, spent significant time growing up with Hudson in Roxbury. He wrote a will in 1692 that included her, but when he died she would have been left with her stepmother (or possibly mother), Elizabeth, who was to live many more years and die in Roxbury in ~1718.

If William (~1692) was her son, then his arrival in Boston to marry Mary Whitridge (1715) could imply simply moving back in with his grandmother, or step-grandmother as the case may be, or moving back to occupy one of several houses in a sprawling Roxbury family estate. There were signs of Leveretts around that place for many years and, though we tend to be looking at Chelsea where later things happen, he could have started out in Roxbury. It was a time when you wouldn't just arrive in Boston and try to make it, without knowing anyone, of course, that's still true now. It's also a matter of looking where things would make most sense. Mary was not with him; she married in Wenham in 1713, and would die there in 1728. Does he feel a responsibility to her? Or, did she, to her stepmother, who still lived back in Roxbury? When Elizabeth died, nobody was around to pay the bill, except for her daughter-in-law's family. That sounds kind of bleak and alone to me.

Later in the 1700's, things start happening. Knight marries and has two boys, John (1728) and Thomas (1730). Both of these guys marry and have families, and also attend the church again, which one does if one wants to get ahead in business. By the late 1750's they are both up and running. John appears to be living downtown in the house that Hudson occupied before he fled to Roxbury, right around the corner from the church. The house had been in the family forever, if it's the one I suspect. Thomas somehow had an estate out in Medford or possibly Chelsea, and seemed to be making piles of money printing. In Thomas's family they spoke of an older half-brother, John W. This half-brother had still not come of age when the Revolution broke out, Thomas died, and someone had to be responsible for him. But if that boy was born in 1759 or so, would he be a half brother of John's kids? Thomas's kids? A half brother by whom or how?

Let's assume we go through the John's, as that's what both Joseph and Washington would have us believe. John, John, William (~1727) and William (1773). Since Col. John (1726) and John Esq. (1758) already put us too late to have grandfather (~1727) third in line, something has to give. What if John W. (~1759) was grandfather, and was both the John and William that would tie this together? Could he still have a William (1773)? No, because that William has to marry in Chelsea in 1759. That William would have to be at least sixteen in 1759 to pull that off, so for that we'd have to look for a John/William/John William born about 1742 or so.

But let's say Col. John is impressed at the age of 16, in 1742 (he wouldn't be the only one), finds himself in England, and looks up family friends the Grays and Hannah becomes pregnant. She comes to the USA with a John W. who is now a half-brother; she doesn't marry Col. John but instead marries Thomas. We don't know their marriage date but know that Thomas and Hannah don't start having their own kids until 1758. If this John W. is an older half-brother, he seems to be hanging around Thomas's family so it seems like he would be an older half-brother to them. But if, born in 1742, he is ready to appear in Chelsea and marry Rachel (1759), then what we have to explain is who it is that is not of age during the revolution, when Martha has to assign the older son Thomas the duty of raising the younger kids, Benjamin and whoever else is hanging around. During the revolution this William who married Rachel already has a few of his own, including one William (1770), who died. Is that him? People confuse names a lot in this era.

Just trying to work out what could have happened. Will find evidence later.