⍉ Hannah's son , Amos of Attleboro

Our Amos is not at all likely to come from Attleborough since Amos stayed there, and had his family there.

Attleborough Births Abstracts

Source:  Massachusetts, Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988  image 250 etc of 744
SWEET:

 Amos (Elias)  (1734-1801)  and Hannah Richardson (1744-1804) 
    Hannah - daughter, b. 22 Jan 1764    [d. 1803 m. 1788 to Capron via David Waterman]
    Amos - son, b. 30 Jun 1766
    Elias - son, b. 31 Dec 1768 [d. 1812 via David Waterman]
    Elizabeth - daughter, b. 5 Sep 1771 [ d. 1848 mar Read via Waterman]
    Asel - son, b. 2 May 1774  [Waterman may have one of these Asahel, via Blackman, 178]
    Asel - son, b. 11 Oct 1776
    John Coy - son, b. 29 Nov 1778
    Stephen - son, b. 6 Mar 1781
    Only - son, b. 14 Mar 1783 [Waterman shows Oney]
    Nancy - daughter, b. 22 Aug 1785
    Polly - daughter, b. 4 Dec 1788













Amos and Sally Sweet


 

    Sally - daughter, b. 3 Oct 1796
    Clarrissa - daughter, b. 9 Jun 1798
    Summer - daughter, b. 27, May 1800
    Margareet - daughter, b. 14 Feb 1802
    Amos - son, b.  3 Dec 1804 
    Hannah - daughter, b. 19 Feb 1810
    Hannah - daughter b. 25 Aug 1814
    Joabert - son, b. 3 Jan 1812
    Joabert - son, b. 1 Oct 1818



















1790:  3.4.2.0.0.  Attleboro
Enumberated near:  Michael (right next door), Gideon, Henry, Henry Jr., Zebediah.

    Sally - daughter, b. 3 Oct 1796  
    Clarrissa - daughter, b. 9 Jun 1798
    Summer - daughter, b. 27, May 1800
    Margareet - daughter, b. 14 Feb 1802
    Amos - son, b.  3 Dec 1804
    Hannah - daughter, b. 19 Feb 1810 d. Jan 18 1814
    Joabert - son, b. 3 Jan 1812  d. Jan 14, 1814
    Hannah - daughter b. 25 Aug 1814
    Joabert - son, b. 1 Oct 1818
     


John and Sarah Maclaflen
    Amos - son, b. 9 Mar 1734-5
    Benjamin - son, b. 3 Sep 1738
    Ebenezer - son, b. 18 Jan 1743-4
    Hannah - daughter b. 2 Apr 1732
    Nathaniel - son, b. 16 Mar 1745-6
    Nehemiah - son, b. 26 Apr 1741
    Sarah - daughter, b. 4 Sep 1733
    Sarah - daughter, b. 3 Jan 1736-7

1810 Census
4.  Amos Sweet in Attleboro, Bristol, Massachusetts.   (Ruled out because of birth records of children)
..............1 male, aged 0-9       (Amos, age 5)
..............1 male, aged 10-15   (Sumner, age 9-10)
..............1 male, aged 16-25
..............1 male, aged 26-44      (Amos, age 44)

..............2 female, aged 0-9       (Margaret, age 8;  Hannah, age 0)
..............2 female, aged 10-15  (Sally, age 13/14; Clarisa age 11/12)
..............1 female, aged 26-44  (wife, Sally Sweet,  age 33)

Amos Sweet, was born 30 Jan 1766 to Amos Sweet and Sally Sweet in Attleboro, Bristol, Massachusetts. (10)  This would make him about 44 years old in this census.  Amos married Sally Sweet on 16 Jun 1796, also in Attleboro.  She was born 19 Aug 1777. (11, 12)  Sally would have been 33 at the time of this census. 

Amos and Sally Sweet had the follow children in 1810, all born in Attleboro, Bristol, Massachusetts.
  1.   Sally Sweet, born 3 October 1796  (aged 13-14 in 1810)   (13)
  2.   Clarisa Sweet, born 9 Jun 1798 (aged 11-12 in 1810)     (14) 
  3.   Sumner Sweet,  born 27 May 1800  (age 9-10 in 1810)  (15)
  4.   Margaret Sweet, born 14 Feb 1802 (age 8 in 1810)        (16)
  5.   Amos Sweet, born 3 Dec 1804 (age 5 in 1810)               (17)
  6.   Hannah Sweet, born 19 Feb 1810  (age 0 in 1810)         (18) 
Although Sarah Grace has never been attached to Attleboro, that I know of, the birth date of Amos has been used at times.  The Amos Sweet from Attleboro, born 30 Jan 1766, is a distant relative to Sarah Grace, but is most definitely proven to not be her father.
(9).


Massachusetts: Grand Lodge of Masons Membership Cards, 1733-1990
Source:  https://www.americanancestors.org/databases/massachusetts-grand-lodge-of-masons-membership-cards-1733-1990/image?volumeId=12628&pageName=7982&rId=143573263

*********************************************************************
2019 Research.
"Scruffy" believes this man to be the Amos from Attleboro.  His name is not public on blog.

Interesting book "Who Was This Amos Sweet?" self published by author.  Book in my possession.
Well researched, admittedly creative book suggests nine partners left Attleboro at the end of April, 1790 wanting to find land in Albany they could purchase.  Amos was in Attleboro in 1790, and married there to Sally Sweet in 1796.  Author states they are in Dryden in 1797.  About 1801 it is suggested that Sweet returns to Attleboro.

If this Amos is of Attleboro he is not "our Amos", and the author of the above book seems to have researched his book well; well enough I will not do my own research to see if this is our Amos.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research before 2018

Previously ruled out as our Amos line, I am willing to relook at Amos of Ulysses to see if I can find any information about him that would lead me to think he may be our ancestor.  The information is completely separate research with the information that follows in mind.

From comments on this page:

scruffyJanuary 21, 2017 at 12:54 PM  (edited, check comments for full comments)
Amos Sweet of the Ulysses census data because he is the first settler of my town. 
Source:  DeZeeuw, Carl, past chairperson of the Central New York Genealogical Society. Transcription of Cayuga County Federal Census Abstract 1800. Tree Talks (1984)

It disagrees with your version of the Amos Sweet Ulysses entry, and when I looked at your scan, it was convincing and disconcerting. I believe the transcription was done very professionally. Now, in reviewing my source, I have found that the discrepancy can be explained, in my favor. There appears to be a tear in the scanned document you display, and the paper is misaligned in your scan, and to the right of the tear, you are seeing the entries of the household above Amos. The transcription looks like below:

Dean double checked this, from the bottom, and Scruffy is correct!  Counting up shows the page behind.  Also, there is an extra 3 in the 3rd column of women just below Amos.  Do not count the first female column.


| Male | Female | 
| 0 10 16 26 45 | 0 10 16 26 45 | 
| Firstname Lastname | 10 16 26 45 + | 10 16 26 45 + | Slave
Cooper Richard | 2 3 . 1 | 1 1 . 1 . | . |
Amos Sweet | 4 2 . 1 . | 1 1 . 1 . | . |   
Nathaniel Shelden | . . . 1 . | . . . 1 . | . |

See my comments under the Amos of Attleboro tab. I have a theory that the two are one in the same. The census data for Ulysses shown here is mistaken and Amos is actually under 45 in 1800. It looks like he stayed in Attleboro because his children were born there, but evidence is he lived in Dryden between 1797 and 1801, during which time they returned to Attleboro twice for birthing Clarissa and Sumner. It was customary for Sweet frontier women of the Attleboro family to return to Attleboro for birthing. Examples are Elias' wife, Abigail, and also their younger sister Elizabeth (Sweet) Read. Both of them returned for birthing to Attleboro from Nine Partners (Harford PA) whenever they could.
Children of Amos and Dorcas: (Aunt Betty Wood's records)
Amos Sweet b. abt 1791
Elias Sweet b. 1784 d. 1832 
Sarah Grace Sweet b. 1799 d. 1863
Lydia Sweet b. about 1802 d. 1885

10 comments:

  1. I'm sorry I am commenting as a stupid looking empty blog. I was just looking at the software years ago and not really trying to do it.
    Anyway, I have been researching Amos Sweet of the Ulysses census data because he is the first settler of my town. That is how I ran across your blog. My source of census information is:
    DeZeeuw, Carl, past chairperson of the Central New York Genealogical Society. Transcription of Cayuga County Federal Census Abstract 1800. Tree Talks (1984)

    It disagrees with your version of the Amos Sweet Ulysses entry, and when I looked at your scan, it was convincing and disconcerting. I believe the transcription was done very professionally. Now, in reviewing my source, I have found that the discrepancy can be explained, in my favor. There appears to be a tear in the scanned document you display, and the paper is misaligned in your scan, and to the right of the tear, you are seeing the entries of the household above Amos. The transcription looks like below:

    | Male | Female |
    | 0 10 16 26 45 | 0 10 16 26 45 |
    | Firstname Lastname | 10 16 26 45 + | 10 16 26 45 + | Slave
    Cooper Richard | 2 3 . 1 | 1 1 . 1 . | . |
    Amos Sweet | 4 2 . 1 . | 1 1 . 1 . | . |
    Nathaniel Shelden | . . . 1 . | . . . 1 . | . |

    I think this may make you rethink some of your conclusions about who he can not be.

    I don't do the blog. My e-mail is dwaterman@frontiernet.net

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The blog is not pretty by any means. It is my research log, meant for others to glean from my notes as I search. I will make it pretty as I find my Amos, however, pages will always be left as notes. I appreciate your comments, suggestions and your book. It gives a new slant, that is not proven - nor disproven and helps us stretch our imaginations. That is what it will take to sort these Amos' out. I appreciate your input.

      Delete
  2. From my memory, Hannah's Amos stayed in Attleboro. This comment referrs to Amos of Ulysses, whom I did not research because I ruled him out because of ages as to be our line. I have viewed the image on FamilySearch, counted 12 down on both pages and it will appears to me that
    Amos Sweet / 4 2 0 0 1/ 1 1 0 1 0 / 0 0.
    I may need to look at another source for varification.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I checked ancestry, which shows an image very similar. However, the indexer pulled it as you said. The image, counting down 12, appears to be my way.
    Let me know if you find a better answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look again. There are 26 names on the left page and 27 entries on the right. The top entry appears to be showing through where the top of page 579 is cut off. So look ahead to page 581 and there is the same fancy 2 and matching data at the top of the page. Line up the 26 remaining datas to the names and the results match the professional interpretation of Amos and the people above and below him. The guy below Amos, Nathaniel Shelden, was Dryden's first physician, built the first plank house in town, and had no children.

      Why does this matter to me? I have just written a booklet about Amos Sweet, first settler of Dryden. I Theorize they are Amos and Sally of Attleboro, aided by his brother Elias. Your blog has helped my research but it blows the whole theory if your census data proved correct.

      I would be happy to send you a complimentary copy of the booklet, which we are just starting to sell at the Dryden Town Historical Society. There is not much demographic other than Dryden local history nerds who would read it, but you might also find it interesting.

      Delete
    2. It does indeed. Thank you for your assistance in letting me know. I'm all about finding the truth.

      Delete
  4. If you send me your mailing address, I will send you a complementary copy of my booklet, "Who Was This Amos Sweet", about my research into Amos Sweet, the first settler of Dryden, NY, who is theorized to be Amos Jr. of Attleboro.

    Also, have you seen Nancy Ferguson's internet booklet, which includes a chapter on the Sweets of Attleboro? She is a descendant of Amos Jr. through Margaret.
    https://issuu.com/ccferguson/docs/the_slocums_9.4.14/13

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your booklet was very good reading. It takes more liberties that I have allowed myself, but I am a bit jealous that I cannot. After years of working on Amos Sweet, I have not found anything. Guess it's time for me to figure out how to be creative and then test my theories. I must confess, I cannot shoot any holes in yours.

      Delete
  5. 1800 Dryden census data is filed under Ulysses because Dryden had no government of its own until 1803. My e-mail is dwaterman@frontiernet.net

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you so much for your help. I look forward to reading and comparing your booklet. I will check her like out now and tomorrow. Thank you so much!!

    ReplyDelete