The effort at learning about Thomas and Margaret is about three years old. The main issue seemed to be that not much was known in the sense of mentions, in the writings, being sketchy, at best. That is, even though Thomas led the group into Cape Ann, not much was recorded. Mention of his effort came later with an early 18th century publication by Rev. Hubbard (saved from a fire, thank God for that!). John White mostly denigrated the crew (ah, we can write a bunch about that). What we hear about is the arrival of Conant (and Lyford), the move to what became Salem, and then post-Endicott times.
This message was apparent in retrospectives by several families, such as Woodbury, Trask, and more. The site for the John Balch house was a reminder. That is, on the write-up of this house, nothing is mentioned of Sarah, Thomas' and Margaret's oldest daughter. John's son came to Cape Ann with the party. As well, Sarah was born at Cape Ann (pre-Endicott Massachusetts). Sarah married Benjamin Balch. John Sr. gave the couple the house. Hence, I'll refer to it as Sarah's house.
Actually, the Beverly oversight (wake up!) is more appalling when you consider that John's wife came with him to Cape Ann. She and Margaret represented the females. And, they went through all of the same crap (perhaps more than) as did the men.
Also, we find this: When the company was recalled to England, the Balches, Roger Conant, John Woodbury, Peter Palfry, and others stayed in Massachusetts and moved south to Naumkeg, now Salem, in 1626.
Four families are mentioned here. Trask was left out. The 'others' would have included the Gardners. That story needs to be told; it's part of our task list. The Paine sisters, Thomas descendants, wondered if the family had gone back to England for some period of time. Had that been so, Woodbury, who did go back and forth, might have mentioned this. However, the Woodbury lookback doesn't mention Gardner, at all.
Too, Thomas' kids would have said something about going back. John, the Magistrate, would have known. So, too, would have his older siblings.
We ought to try to document the fact that, after the group moved, someone would have gone back and forth between Cape Ann and Salem. What is it? 17 miles or so? Look, the house was nice enough for Endicott to want it moved.
Too, and this is a big TOO, the group was NOT unsuccessful. Did Conant report that he found starving people? On the contrary, they were bolsterous enough to want to tangle with Standish and his crew. They had their food sources, dwellings (however meager), and themselves (true independent souls of the American which was to be).
What the group did not achieve was the capitalistic dream (and John White's, to boot) that, essentially, tries to get something for nothing. Yes, folks. The success of the model requires an unending supply of hapless exploitees. So, Cape Ann's little group was not able to ship back produce or seafood. But, they fed themselves.
In fact, that Thomas and Margaret got their nine kids to adulthood is evidence enough. They were very good parents. And, each of their kids was a healthy, and effective, adult.
Another topic deals with the regime, and regimen, imposed upon the freedom-loving people. We all know the stories. But, Thomas' life, as a focus of study, will allow a re-look.
In 1637, when Thomas deigned (yes, used purposefully) to get himself drummed into the group mindset -- freeman's oath -- he did it for his kids. His boys were adults and needed the social involvement. You see. That is a long time after the 1626 move. Thomas had class, abilities, and showed self-reliance long before Emerson wrote about it.
It's telling that Thomas was made Deputy to the General Court, with Major Hawthorne, in the year when he took the oath. People wanted his involvement since he was an elder by action and more. For some reason, post 1637, his effort was local to Salem and the area. We can, and might, speculate about why this was so.
Again: Not a descendant. Objective third-party. However, married to one who has a whole slew of these folks in the ancestral tree.
02/10/2013 -- Having finished a book on the 1692 events and doing a post on the subject, I can add to this look at Thomas. I've mentioned that he didn't queue right up to join the church and that he was recognized by Endicott. As well, he married a Quaker without any repercussions that we know of. Of course, his sons left the area due to the Puritanical (hypocritical) mindset.
01/01/2013 -- David Goss' talk at the 1999 Essex Society of Genealogists gives a perspective that also motivates. See the TGS bibliography.
12/24/2012 -- Thomas, unlike Conant, was not overshadowed in the world of being. We'll spend some time characterizing this fact and what it means to reasonable folks.
12/22/2012-- We need to differentiate between Old Planters of Beverly (see The Old Planters of Beverly in Massachusetts, 1930, Alice Gertrude Lapham, The Riverside Press) and the Old Planters of Massachusetts. One could even talk, Old Planters of New England.
12/19/2012 -- Sarah married Benjamin, son of John.
11/27/2012 -- Let's itemize what we know, re-iterate some basics, and the proceed constructively.
10/28/2012 -- September issue had a theme of houses.
09/13/2012 -- About Margaret. We'll honor her as the ancestor, with Thomas, of the Gardner family.
09/01/2012 -- Vol. II, No. 4 of Gardner's Beacon deals with houses.