User:Sarnold17/sandbox5

29 July 2018

That’s because low-probability events occur increasingly often where Russia is concerned: the illegitimate arrest and murder, in prison, of Sergei Magnitsky; the annexation of Crimea; the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a civilian jet flying over Ukraine, that killed nearly 300 people; the intervention in Syria to prop up a murderous dictator; the assassination of a former first deputy prime minister, Boris Nemtsov, just steps away from the Kremlin; the audacious Russian attack on American sovereignty during the 2016 presidential election; the poisoning of the Skripals with a Soviet chemical weapon on British territory; and the spinning of a conspiratorial tale at a major summit about how a British businessman colluded with U.S. intelligence officers, congressional staffers and former State Department officials (from both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations) to steal Russian cash and help the Clinton campaign.

Thomas Arnold

Thomas Arnold, b. c. 1605, d. Sep 1674, was an early settler of Watertown, Mass. and Providence, Rhode Island and was likely a son of William Arnold of Hollesley, Suffolk, England, who named Thomas Arnold, his underaged son, in his will dated 22 Nov 1616 (and proved 24 Feb following). This puts Thomas's birth year anywhere in the window from 1595 to 1616, making 1605 a reasonable rough estimate. This is NOT the Thomas Arnold of Ilchester, Somerset, who was a half-brother of William Arnold, another early Providence settler. William's half-brother Thomas never left England. Also, there is no evidence that this is the Thomas Arnold, aged 30, who sailed to Virginia aboard the ship Plain Joan in 1635.

Thomas m. (1) in England c. 1628 a wife whose name has not been learned. He m. (2) probably in Watertown, Mass. c. 1639 Phebe (PARKHURST) Cane, the daughter of George Parkhurst, and presumed widow of Daniel Cane who she married in Woolverstone, Suffolk, England on 23 March 1635. Phebe was living on 1 Sep 1687 when she was taxed in Providence, but presumed dead in 1688 when she does not appear on the tax list.

Thomas is first of record in Watertown, Mass., when on 25 July 1636 he was granted 30 acres of land by the town and he became a freeman in Watertown on 13 May 1640. On 20 Dec 1648 he bought 30 acres of land there from his brother-in-law, George Parkhurst. From 1651 to 1655 he was fined on multiple occasions for not attending public worship in Watertown. Apparently getting fed up with this, he left the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and on 6 April 1655 he was called of Providence, in the Rhode Island Colony, buying land from William Burrows of Providence. Between 1666 and 1672 he served as a Providence Deputy for three years, and in 1672 served on the Town Council. He died in Sep 1674, but it wasn't until 29 June 1685 that an agreement of his heirs was registered. The agreement names his widow Phebe and his daughter and four surviving sons from his second marriage. His daughter from his first marriage, Susanna, is not named. A Find-a-grave memorial has been created for Phebe, without a cemetery. Children of Thomas: [1] [2]

With unknown first wife:

• Susanna, b. Sep 1629, d. Boston, Mass. 26 April 1717, aged 87y 7m, m. Boston 7 April 1654 John FARNUM, b. 2 Feb 1631/2, d. Boston 20 Jan 1701/2, aged 69y 11m 18d, son of John and Elizabeth Farnum. Susanna is known to be a daughter of Thomas Arnold from her Boston marriage record which specifically calls her the daughter of Thomas Arnold of Watertown. John's father was a joiner, and became a freeman in Dorchester on 13 May 1640. This is about the time that he bought a shop and land in Boston. Administration of the estate of John, Jr. was granted to widow Susan on 11 March 1701/2 in Boston. They had five known children born from 1655 to 1670. Susanna and John have extant gravestones in the Copp's Hill Burying Ground in Boston, but John's is not in FAG. [3]

With second wife, Phebe, all but last born in Watertown, Mass.:

• Ichabod, b. 1:1m:1640 (1 March 1639/40), likely died young as he has been found in no subsequent record.

• Richard, b. 22:1m:1642 (22 March 1641/2), d. 22 April 1710, m. (1) say 1665 Mary ANGELL, b. c. 1644, living on 23 May 1685 when named in her father's will, but likely dead by 21 Oct 1694 when not named in her mother's will, daughter of Thomas Angell and Alice Ashton; m. (2) Sarah _______, who d. 1712. Richard had four children with his first wife, born c. 1668 to 1675, but none with the second.

• Thomas, b. c. 1645, living in 1693. Because his birth was not recorded in Watertown with four of his siblings, it is possible he was born of his father's first wife, and therefore born, say, 1631. The difficulty with this is that there are no records for him until he became a Providence freeman in 1672, and 40 is an unusually late age to be granted freemanship, when it is usually bestowed upon men in their mid-to-late 20s. More information would be welcomed. Thomas stayed in Providence "and went not away" during King Phillips War (1675-1676) and for that was entitled to a share of the Indian captives. He served on the Providence Town Council for several years from 1676 to 1685, and was a Providence Deputy for several years from 1678 to 1691. On 5 Jan 1693 he sold five acres of land and mansion house to William Turpin for 61 pounds. No wife or children are known.

• John, b. 19:12m:1647 (19 Feb 1647/8), d. 5 Jan 1722/3, in his 75th year, m. Hannah ________ who survived him. John has an extant gravestone in the North Burial Ground, Providence. [4]

• Eleazer, b. 17:4m:1651 (17 June 1651), d. 29 Aug 1722, m. c. 1672 Eleanor SMITH, the daughter of John and Elizabeth Smith. Find-a-grave memorials have been created for Eleazer and Eleanor, without a cemetery. [5]

• Elizabeth, b. perhaps Providence c. 1656, d. 20 Oct 1747, m. 22 Nov 1678 Samuel COMSTOCK, b. 1654, d. 27 May 1727, son of Samuel and Ann Comstock. They had eight known children born 1679 to 1699. Memorials have been created for Elizabeth and Samuel: hers in the North Burial Ground, Providence though there is no record of her burial there, and his without cemetery. [6]

22 Dec 2016

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

"All 16 government intelligence agencies and at least three private security firms have independently investigated the security breaches and concluded that the Russian government — in the words of the U.S. Intelligence Community — “directed” the hacking “to interfere with the US election process.” "

So, 19 different intelligence organizations say that the Russian government interfered with the US election. Later revelations indicate that this tampering was for the purpose of electing Trump--the person who former NSA and CIA director Gen. Michael Heyden calls "Moscow's useful idiot." So what more proof do we need? Perhaps not one vote was altered in the actual election. But, knowing the vulnerability of those jurisdictions that still use electronic tallies, we'll never know. And because Trump's thugs have done all in their power to thwart a legitimate recount, again, we'll never know. So this leaves us with the PERCEPTION that the election was tampered with--a valid reading under the circumstances of such razor thin margins in a group of swing states. But even if there was not a single altered ballot, election day is just the final event in a series of opportunities for interference. It appears the Russians had a lot to do with the timing of Julian Assange's wikileaks revelations, and this likely had a far greater impact on the outcome than any election-day tampering may have. So, did the Russians sway the election? We'll likely never know, but the perception will linger, and with that lingering perception will hang doubt about the legitimacy of Trump's win. Though not what my original statement was about, the much bigger issue is the Russian's influence over a U.S. president, and their resulting freedom to engage in further adventurism. They've already stolen territory from a sovereign country, and support a regime in Syria that is murdering its own people. If the Russians are hoping to make some more territorial acquisitions, or support other rogue regimes, there will be little to stop them.

Krebs letter

Dear Tonya and Eric,

I've waited to send this, hoping that it might fill a bit of a void, following the tremendous outpouring of love from the church and community in celebrating Sydney's life. I hated to not be there, but it was Elaine's birthday, and we were celebrating in upstate New York. I can't tell you how much I miss Syd the Kid. All she had to do to bring me joy was to walk into my Sunday School room. She was so special to me. Sometimes she was my only student. I was never anything less than delighted when she attended. We talked. I miss her so much. On our first day of Sunday School this year, we held our own memorial service for Syd. She was remembered by all the kids, and it was nice that Mason was there, since he knew her better than the other kids. I still think of her every time we have class. I have the many "registration" sheets she filled out each year. I see her name every time we have class, and I think about her. I'm glad that she was a part of my class and a part of my life for a few years. I look forward to seeing her again when my days have passed. I just wanted you to know that you have a special child who has touched others, and who has touched me. God bless you both, and may God continue to embrace Syd with His blanket of love.

Seibert award

While the occupation of teaching is not a path to financial wealth, it seems to provide endless gifts of other forms. Today I was extremely blessed to attend a luncheon that honored my former student, Jon Seibert. Jon mastered two years of calculus with me before heading off to the University of Maryland, where he is now a senior with double majors in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, and in Computer Science. Jon was one of 19 seniors (in a school with 30,000 undergrads) to earn the Phillip Merrill Scholarship, and today he was recognized for his accomplishment. Well, sort of. That's because instead of these 19 students being recognized, each student picked two mentors, one from secondary school and one from college, who had the greatest impact on their academic success, and each student stood up before the luncheon gathering and gave a one-minute talk about their mentors and how they were inspired by them. I was totally humbled to be chosen by Jon as his high school mentor to be recognized. I had a great conversation with Jon's college mentor, and he told me flat out that the University of Maryland has one of the best Atmospheric programs in the country, and without hesitation stated that Jon and one other were the most exceptional students in the program. Whew! Now THAT is what makes a teacher burst with pride. Jon is now applying to a variety of grad programs in Atmospheric Science, and hopes to eventually work on hurricane dynamics. This was the first time I've seen Jon since he graduated from Hammond High School three and a half years ago, and what a thrill to learn of his academic success (he also earned another prestigious scholarship, but I forgot its name). So great to see you again, Jon, and best wishes for your grad studies next year!

late Nov 2016

Let's welcome our new President. I am ready! I am ready to offer him the same degree of civility that he offered the American people during his campaign for the presidency! I am ready to offer him the same courtesy that he offered to the marginalized citizens of this country during 15 months of campaigning! I am ready to offer him the same respect that he tendered to women, minorities, the disabled, and our fallen heroes during the run-up to today. Yes, I am ready! I am SO ready! Let's do this!

Nov 2016

Might want to stock up on some weed to relieve your mental state. The issue is how corrupt the other candidate appears to be. No one in endangering society or the world by voting for Trump. That is the hyperbole from your side of the aisle. But it is specifically because many people of this country see how corrupt is the existing establishment that they aren't looking to follow endorsements from the members of the establishment, but looking for someone who will tell the establishment to take a flying "F" and get out of the way. They believe that a revolution in government is needed- and an unfortunately large number of them are so fed up that I wouldn't be surprised to see an armed revolt if major changes are not made.

OK, David, I will agree with you that corruption is a major issue--in fact, it is the #1 issue on which I am currently voting. And I will agree with you that Hillary's affinity towards big money is the biggest problem with her candidacy. This is why I will not support her financially, and will not endorse her outright. However, she is the ONLY candidate on the ballot who is qualified to be our president. She is the only candidate who is qualified to sit at a table with other world leaders, and discuss solutions to the world's biggest problems. And when it comes to being in bed with the billionaires, Hillary is little different from her adversaries. For decades, Republicans have been taking money from a myriad of special interests, and then voting in a manner favorable to the special interests, rather than the constituents who put them in power. The Clintons have just been taking their plays out of the Republican handbook. So, if all these Trump supporters were truly concerned about how corrupt the establishment was, then why do they turn a blind eye to the billions of dollars in private funds that are being funneled into down-ballot races in support of Republican candidates? I don't buy the corruption argument. There are only two politicians who have come out vocally against corruption in this country, but they are both liberals, and that certainly disqualifies them among the lion's share of Trump supporters. No, the REAL issue is not corruption; the real issue is loss of white male dominance. The real issue is that we've had a brown president for eight years, and the prospect of a female president to follow is utterly unconscionable to so many Trump supporters. The KKK and all of the white nationalists in this country are just drooling at the prospect of a Trump presidency. I think most of us have seen Nate Silver's electoral map, if only white males voted in this country. It would be a Trump landslide. But that's not what our country looks like anymore. Our country is getting browner, and our females are becoming more independent. Trump could win the presidency, but the Republicans are losing the demographic war. The backlash against this change has reared its head in a most ugly way during this election cycle. But Trump would be a horrible president. Prior to G. W. Bush, I felt that the worst president in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. Though he was, and is, a highly moral man, he was a political outsider in Washington, and he was not able to get support in handling many of the country's greatest problems. It was a very troubling time. A Trump presidency would be ten times worse. Trump not only has virtually zero support among democrats, but he has very little support from Republicans. Trump has not built political bridges; he has burned them. Trump will have little with which to govern domestically, and his reputation is already well known among world leaders. It will be a very dark time for the United States of America under Trump leadership. Though Clinton's ties to big money are alarming, at least there are those in her own party who can keep her in check. She did not, by any stretch, win a mandate among democratic voters. In fact, she only won 28 states, and wouldn't have won nearly that many had the democratic primaries been open to all. Donald Trump, on the other hand, owes no allegiance to any other politicians, nor to the voters, for that matter, once he's in power. He is a loose cannon, and will continue to operate as he has on the campaign trail. Bottom line, recognized by MOST world leaders and US leaders: Hillary is qualified to be the president of this country; Trump is not.

Sep 2016

Move America ahead to where? If it is where Obama was headed, more regulation, less quality of life,less freedom, more expense. Nope, I don't want to go there.

Hi Peg; let me take a stab at answering your questions: move ahead to where? Well, that was a conservative newspaper that made the statement that Hillary is the only one that can move us ahead. However, places I think she can move us ahead are in the area of (1) sustainability--making the US completely independent of any foreign energy AND into a world where people's back yards, water supplies, and sacred lands are not destroyed by the extraction of fossil fuels; and (2) democracy--moving our country back to where every person's vote counts; where voter suppression using gerrymandering and inappropriate voter ID laws, are mitigated so that millions of voters are no longer disenfranchised.

What about where Obama was headed? (1) more regulation. Hooray! Of the 20 wealthiest nations in the world, what does the US excel in? Gun violence and incarcerations. Doesn't that make you proud to be an American? It makes me want to vomit. I would love to see MUCH more regulation to help contain these horrible blights on our national image. (2) less quality of life. Are you kidding? Are you telling me that the millions of people who are now employed, but were not after the Bush-induced crash of the economy have less quality of life? Are you telling me that stock market investors who have watched their portfolios double, triple, and more in the past eight years have less quality of life? Are you telling me that the millions of people who have health insurance, who didn't have it before 2009, have less quality of life? Under what rocks are you finding people who have less quality of life? Yes, there are people who never recovered from the crash of 2008, and their lives probably suck, but that has nothing to do with the lack of effort on the part of our president. That has much more to do with American corporations shipping our jobs overseas without consequence. (3) Less freedom? Now that's pretty nebulous, but I don't know a single person living in this country today that has less freedom than they had eight years ago, except for the millions who are incarcerated for minor crimes, like drug possession, or would-be immigrants who are locked up in detention centers. Gun owners sure don't have less freedom; gun sales have probably been the greatest in the past eight years than in any comparable period in our country's history. (4) More expense. Really? Seems to me that gas prices were easily $3.50 per gallon when Bush was president, but have been down in the $2.00 plus small change range during the past several years. Inflation has continued at near record lows during the past 8 years. I have never in my life enjoyed a greater "freedom from expense" than I have in the past few years.

So, you don't want to go there? I have seen nothing but progress for the bulk of Americans during the past eight years. SO much better than the calamitous loss of jobs and investments that SO many people suffered during the Bush years. I would so hate to see this upward progress shattered by an incompetent buffoon who is not only less capable of running the country than a chunk of granite, but who possesses absolutely no compassion for others, and worships only himself. America is on the edge of making the gravest mistake in its history, and as someone who has had no jobs other than to serve his country and its communities, I will do my utmost to keep this eventuality from happening.

June 2016

As someone who has lived in three foreign countries, and travelled to about 50 of them, I am sensitive to what the world thinks about the United States. It really matters to me what opinions are held about this country. And today, and for several years now, people outside this country are saying "What the fuck?" , "What has happened to the United States?", "What has become of the last great hope of the world?" It boggles my mind to contemplate the depths to which this once great country has descended, at the mercy of special interests and greed.

FB response

Even if Bernie were elected (and he won't be, we all know that) the U.S. Congress would NEVER fund ANY of the flakey economy slaughtering, prosperity killing ideas coming out of his mind (and he is... out of his mind!). So... we'd have 4 yrs. (at the most) of gridlocked nothingness (WORSE, even, than the last eight!!). There ARE no free rides, kids. You want your college tuition paid for (along with lots of other cool, free stuff, right? ( Dang straight! Far out, man! Dude!! ) But do you really want to spend the entirety of the rest of YOUR career paying for all who come behind you; (i.e. Say good-bye to YOUR American Dream: no big family, no bass boat or monster sailboat, no week long family ski trips, no summer cabin, no traveling abroad (even though you worked hard to earn it, and, therefore DESERVE it... because you WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT AFTER TAXES!!! ). Bernie wants to take it all away from you and pass it around like a plate of cookies! The harder you'd work and the more you'd earn, the more he'd take away. He wants to decide for everyone what a "reasonable" American Dream is!! And THAT is a perfect oxymoron affront AGAINST the very INTENT of the American Dream!! So... eventually, all the over achievers figure, "Why work so darn hard? Why get a college degree, or graduate degree, why go to Med. School, Law School, grow my own big plumbing business or become a CPA? I won't get to keep what I earned. I'll be working for the man (sound familiar?). I think I'll just chill out, coast with the masses and get on the "free ride" wagon." The world has seen this scenario played out over and over and over, with a 100% failure rate. And the worst of it would be how horrifically unsecured and unsafe ole Bern would let the US become. Far worse, even, than NOW! Terrifying!! No... Bernie will never be elected. Even the mainstream libbers won't allow it. But elections should never be rigged. Bernie will lose in a fair and square election on his own merits (or lack of). They just need to play it out on the up and up.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views. It says something when you are willing to engage in a conversation of such great importance. You are obviously feeling some anger, and are adamantly opposed to Bernie Sanders. I am passionately in favor of Bernie Sanders. Please allow me to present my views. Bernie may be out of his mind to you, but not to millions of Americans, like myself, who are fueling his campaign. There is not one thing that he has proposed that would hurt the economy, and almost everything he proposes would help the economy. Why? Because he wants to INVEST in the people of the United States. He wants to INVEST in education; he wants to INVEST in health care; he wants to INVEST in infrastructure which will create large numbers of jobs. Funny, I remember so well John Boehner telling the American people: "if the Republicans take control of the Senate, you are going to see jobs like never before." The reality: not one new job was created when the Republicans took the Senate. Corporations used to pride themselves on "people being their most important resource." Corporations INVESTED heavily in their employees in order to gain maximum productivity. I have (at least) three former students who work for Google out on the west coast. Do you know the Google campus at Mountain View, Cal. has 20 or more restaurants, and all food is free for employees? What? What's with all this free stuff? Well, that's their business model. They are INVESTING in the productivity of their employees. HOW GREAT it would be to have a country that INVESTS in its entire population. Pipe dream? No. There are many countries in Europe that do that, primarily in Scandinavia. Do you know that Denmark, with its health care available to ALL citizens, was rated by Forbes magazine as the country with the BEST BUSINESS CLIMATE in the world? Imagine that. A country that takes care of its people, and takes care of business, simultaneously. Nice combination. Coincidence? No, the one is related to the other. Denmark INVESTS in its people. So, is Bernie coming for all of my money? I am hardly concerned. All right, then, from whence will investment funds come to invest in our people and infrastructure? From those who can most afford it. From the 1% who move money around in hedge funds, but who offer little to our economy. It's folks at the low end of the "food chain" who pump money right back into the economy where it circulates, and circulates, and circulates again, generating a multiplier effect. However, if I did have to pay a bit more in taxes, I can do it. It means I might donate a little less, but I can handle it just fine. I am happy to pay my fair share. Bernie's revolution wouldn't be so viable if there weren't so many people in America getting screwed. It is unconscionably immoral for the wealthiest country in the history of human civilization to have a 20% poverty rate among its children. Why is this happening? Greed. Pure, unadulterated greed. We've never had anything like it in my lifetime. The United States had unprecedented growth in the 1950s and 1960s, when corporations and the wealthy paid their fair share, and workers got to partake in salary increases as their productivity increased. The United States had wealth, productivity and education second to none. So how does the United States stack up today among wealthy nations? We are number one in gun-related deaths and we are number one in incarcerations. Makes one proud, doesn't it? What about education and health care for our citizens? We are back in the noise somewhere. Bernie may not make it past the Democratic convention. When he began his campaign, he was just letting us know what is terribly broken about this country--why this country sucks for so many people. Unlike Hillary's campaign, which is all about Hillary, and Trump's campaign, which is all about Trump, Bernie's campaign is NOT about Bernie. It could have just as easily been Elizabeth Warren in his shoes. Bernie is just a gruff old Jew from Brooklyn; it's not about him. HOWEVER, his message is resounding with many of us who are wondering what happened to a country that was once the great hope of the world. I have lived nine years of my life outside the U.S., and am very attuned to what other people think about the United States. Right now Europeans, Asians, Africans, Australians and Latin Americans are scratching their heads wondering "WTF"? What has happened to a once respectable country? Look at the discussion topics during the debates of a major political party. Where has respectability gone? What about human dignity? What about all the blacks, Latinos, gays, disabled and every other non-white, non-straight human--what are they thinking as they look at the United States. Personally, I'm ashamed at the depths to which this country has descended. It's time for a revolution. COUNT ME IN!

FB Response #2

I don't know if your response is still available anywhere on Facebook, but I found it on my cell phone the other day, so please let me continue this conversation.

I was using Google as an example of a company investing in its people. Yes, Google has a lot of money, and may be more at liberty to experiment with different business models. Well, the United States, as the wealthiest nation in the history of human civilization, certainly has a lot of money as well. The United States can likewise invest in its citizens and infrastructure.

I agree with you that someone always pays. If you are going to do something worthwhile, then it will cost. But you pay for what you get. If you want a world class company, then you pay for (invest in) your workers. If you want a world class country, then you pay for (invest in) your citizens. We as a country decided long ago that it was important enough to have an educated citizenry, that we (in this case local governments) would pay for K-12 education for all citizens. That was great 50 years ago, but now education is more important than ever for an informed and able citizenry. It's time to invest more in our young people, to better prepare them for today's world. We should be spending at least the same percentage of our GDP on education as we did 50 years ago, not less.

I don't understand this bit about throwing money into a big pot, like a hippy commune. What's wrong with putting money into specific programs, like education and health care? We sure put a lot of money into the military. But the military is only one aspect of the strength of a country. An educated population, an economy that provides ample employment, and health care are also indicators of national strength. A country that allows its wealth to be in the hands of a few individuals is far from stable.

So, why, Karen, should your long-planned goals and dreams be diminished, just because someone else's are realized? If you work up to 60 hours per week to reach your goals, then you will achieve your goals. Who will take that away from you? When in your six decades on earth did any change of administration ever cause you to lose income? It isn't going to happen. You might, however, lose income if the economy tanks, like it did in 2008. Yeah, millions of people not only lost income, but many of them lost their livelihoods. Bernie's economic plan is not going to hit you and me. He wants to build the middle class, after its decimation over the past several decades, not destroy it.

So, are corporations leaving America in droves. Well then, let them. However, as they leave the United States, let them also say good bye to American markets. Then let's see what kind of a tune they sing. I've heard Republican politicians banter around the word "patriot" for decades and decades. Patriots are people who take pride in their country. Patriots are people who want to see their country succeed. Patriots are NOT companies who move their employment opportunities overseas to pad their bottom lines, and who stash their assets in havens around the globe to avoid paying taxes.

Are you serious when you say the President is responsible for a "no jobs" situation? Where do you get your news? From Fox? Are you aware of the unemployment numbers of 2016 compared to those of 2009 when Obama took office? These numbers are readily available with a rudimentary web search. This president stopped the hemorrhaging left behind by his predecessor. He did exactly what he set out to do, amid the greatest congressional obstruction ever faced by any US president. The problem isn't so much unemployment today as it is the income of the typical worker. We, once upon a time, lived in a GREAT country, where the productivity of the American worker translated into ever increasing salaries for workers along with increased profits for corporations. Under progressive administrations (of both parties) from 1932 to 1968, our country grew like no other in the history of the world. Americans did GREAT things--overcame the worst economic depression since the industrial revolution; defeated the axis powers in war; and thwarted the rise of communism via the Marshall Plan. A miracle economy ensued, and the US reached its pinnacle in world influence, with social supports and education second no other country at the time. So what happened? Well, about 1980 the influence of, and protection of monied interests began to take hold. Trickle Down economics was pushed on the American economy. After 35 years of this stuff, our economy is a disgrace. Our poverty rate is probably the highest among the 20 wealthiest nations, while our education system is about the worst.

Taxation may not be corporate friendly, but it is a small price to pay for getting wealthy, and it should be a fact of life. It is abominable that many wealthy corporations pay no taxes, while people on the edge of poverty do. If we want to live in a thriving economy, then we ALL need to pay our fair share--you, me, and the corporations. And I agree, capitalism is the best system there is. However, capitalism has to work for EVERYONE, and not just the wealthy FEW. There are many examples of capitalism working for everyone. I've already mentioned Denmark, with the highest business rating in the world according to Forbes. But the BEST example is closer to home; it is the Unites States of the 1950s and 1960s. THAT'S the model we should emulate--an economy next to NONE...And an economy in which ALL Americans can participate, and realize their individual aspirations from the fruits of their labor.

So, should we let supply and demand run things, and get the government out of the way? After all, what could possibly go wrong? Well, how about 1929? How about 2008? No, no, no, no! I am the government. I have a stake in this government. I vote, and that gives me a tiny sliver of the pie. I don't have even the tiniest voice in the corporate boardroom, but I do have a voice in the national, state, and local government. The government is me. I want it to respond to the needs of its citizens, and not to the needs of some entity that slips it all kinds of money.

So, will raising the minimum wage put people out of work? No, no, a thousand times no! If you watch Fox News, you will believe this is the case, but that is far from the truth. Seattle is undergoing an economic upswing following it's adoption of a $15 minimum wage. Why is that? Because, the more people have, the more they spend. People at the bottom of the economic ladder spend almost everything they have, unlike those at the top who spend a very small percentage. The more people spend, the more businesses grow. This is no myth. It was clearly demonstrated during the miracle years of the US economy in the 1950s and 1960s, when the minimum wage then was the equivalent of about $15 per hour today. We have outstanding examples of rising wages producing robust economies. We have NO examples of rising wages hurting job growth--not in the long run, anyway. That increased wages kill jobs is a Republican myth, designed to protect the greed of the wealthiest Americans.

This epistle has thus far been about economic content. The bigger issue, however, is the MORAL framing of what is happening in the US today. After the resurrection,

Post #1

This is a good, well-written, and convincing article. While I don't find the criticism of Bernie to be that potent, the article does give me comfort that I can happily vote for Hillary if she does become the Democratic nominee, which has always been my intention anyway. Nevertheless, I would like to see a countering article that addresses the many points here by someone who likes both candidates, such as former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, who has now come out in support of Bernie. The article is a good sell for Hillary, but the fact that it is written by a lawyer for big money interests raises some red flags right there. Fourteen months ago I thought Hillary was going to be my candidate, but then Elizabeth Warren started hitting the social media with warnings and concerns about the crap that was going on in the U S of A. Soon, Bernie hit the social media with the same message, but Elizabeth, in my book, had the much greater following. This went on for a couple months, but where was Hillary???? She hadn't even declared her candidacy yet. Was she running? In the ensuing year, Elizabeth rejected any notion of her candidacy (I suspect in deference to Hillary), but Bernie kept up the heat. By the time Hillary finally jumped into the race, she had almost no message, while Bernie was peppering social media with several a day. I have never known what Hillary stands for, except in a round about way. I have always known what Bernie stands for. Disingenuous, devious, or not, I have ALWAYS known what his candidacy is about, and I like most of it. I am a veteran with 20 years of service in the Armed Forces. I HATED every thing about the Iraq War. I'll forgive Hillary, but I strongly endorse the positions taken by Obama and Sanders. Veterans issues are VERY high on my list of issues on which I will cast my vote. Also, I have lived nine years of my life outside of the USA. How other countries perceive the US is of tremendous importance to me. Another major issue on which I will vote is the utter corruption of our government, at all levels. I am nauseated by the degree to which special interests have taken over the government, and have destroyed the concept of democratic government. I have seen this going on for years, but for the first time, I'm hearing a candidate stand up and shout, literally, enough is enough. Hillary isn't doing that, and my perception is because she is part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. Sanders may or may not be able to go after big pharma, big oil, big ag, and big whatever. But, I know where his heart is. I don't see someone, like Hillary, who is in cahoots with these groups as being nearly as effective in diminishing their influence. And I'll wrap up with my own experience. I like Hillary. A lot of people don't. She is very divisive. She has a lot of support from democrats. I don't see much support from elsewhere. Bernie, on the other hand, has a lot of support from democrats, independents like myself, and even some Republicans. Though I disagree with the following sentiment, I've heard it said by too many people: " I would vote for Trump before I voted for Hillary; however, I would vote for Bernie, before I voted for Trump." Sadly, Hillary is detested by a lot of people. In my heart, I feel strongly that Bernie will fare better in the general election than Hillary against any Republican, and polls strongly suggest that. And a Republican in the White House in 2017 is the most frightening horror I can currently envision.

John Cotton

Image of Rev. John Cotton

There is debate about whether or not the image of Cotton used in the info box of this article is actually of him, or possibly of a grandson or great grandson of his. The image shown here may be a more accurate representation of his appearance.

Articles with me

Posted: Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:00 am

By KANIKA J. G. GEORGES Staff Writer (Capitol Gazette)

To Ferndale ornithologist Stan Arnold, watching a bird set up a nesting place and bear tiny orbs of life is akin to hearing the coos of a newborn baby. "When we put up bird boxes and get eggs in them, we feel like proud parents," the 51-year-old said while peering into a box containing two pale-aquamarine bluebird eggs at the Windsor and Murphy Stables at Andover in Linthicum.|He said bird boxes put up by him and other area bird lovers have benefitted a bluebird population that was in decline three decades ago, he said.|For two years, Mr. Arnold has used bird watching - his hobby since high school - for a practical purpose by volunteering to monitor breeding bird sites in north county as part of the Maryland/D.C. Breeding Bird Atlas Project 2002 through 2006. MAPS is a five- year project by the Maryland Ornithological Society to determine the distribution of bird nesting throughout the state.|When the project started in January 2002, Mr. Arnold, a math teacher at Hammond High School in Columbia, volunteered to count birds in one of the approximately 1,250 10-square-mile atlas blocks throughout the state and Washington, D.C. This year his area covers 10 blocks, five in the Elkridge/Linthicum/Glen Burnie parcel, two near St. Michaels, two near Smithsburg and one near Frostburg, he said.|In his coverage areas, Mr. Arnold has built more than 35 bird boxes to try and bolster nesting bird populations. He said helping keep track of birds, providing them with comfortable nesting sites and volunteering for the project stem from his "deep desire for a healthy planet, and an interest in preserving our natural heritage.|"The population of birds is a good measuring tool for ecological wellbeing," he said.|Results from Mr. Arnold and about 300 other volunteers will be used to update results of the previous atlas project conducted from 1983 to 1987, said Sue Ricciardi, atlas coordinator for Anne Arundel County.|Mrs. Ricciardi said the atlas database, when published, could help guide developers and environmental planners.|"It will help them know where the rich bird life is," Mrs. Ricciardi said. "They would be able to use that data to protect environmental resources."|And make no mistake about it, Mr. Arnold is serious about his endeavor.|"Currently, the atlas project is my passion in life," he said. "If I am not at work or asleep, I am likely out in the field looking for birds and recording my observations."|So far, he said he has found good and bad news among bird populations in his coverage area.|While once common bobwhites and "our beautiful little wood warblers" are in serious decline, there has been significant growth in the distribution of other species like the house finch, Canada goose and Cooper's hawk, Mr. Arnold said.|"Similar results are being found in northern Anne Arundel County that are being found statewide," he said. The bobwhite has almost disappeared from the north part of the county, and birds such as ovenbirds, Kentucky warblers and hooded warblers have diminished seriously over the past 20 years."|The broad-winged hawk, usually a local nesting bird, hasn't been sighted since the start of the MAPS project, he added.|On the other hand, "in 1970, the house finch and Canada goose were very scarce locally, if present at all, and today they are found throughout the northern part of the county. Both species nested at the equestrian center last summer," Mr. Arnold said.|Mr. Arnold said that local residents can assist the MAPS project by reporting sightings of hummingbirds, owls, purple martins, rails, vultures, whip-poor-wills, woodcocks and other uncommon birds to dy.dx@earthlink.net, or by leaving a message at 410-768-0155.

Early Records of Providence

• Providence sources
• links to volumes 1-21

• volume 1
• volume 2
• volume 3
• volume 5
• volume 6
• volume 10
• volume 13
• volume 15
• volume 17
• volume 18
• volume 19
• volume 21

People

Aboriginals

• Canonicus
• Mianonomi
• Ninigret

Founders

• Roger Williams
• William Coddington
• John Coggeshall
• Samuel Gorton
• John Clarke

Political leaders

• William Coddington
• Benedict Arnold
• Samuel Cranston
• William Greene
• Samuel Ward
• Stephen Hopkins

Events

• Banishment of Roger Williams (1635)
• Williams leaves Salem (Jan 1636)
• Providence founded (c. June 1636)
• Antinomian Controversy (1636-1638)
• Unrest in Portsmouth; Newport founded (1639)
• Pawtuxet separates from Providence (1642)
• Gortonists apprehended (1643)
• Williams obtains patent (1644)
• Warwick named (1645?)
• Colony unites (1647)
• Colony divides (Coddington commission) (1651)
• Baptists fined and whipped (1651)
• Coddington commission revoked (1652)
• Colony reunites (1654)
• Williams/Harris antagonism (1657)
• Arrival of the Quakers
• Royal Charter arrives (1663)
• King Phillip's War (1675-1677)
• Threat of charter loss (early 1700s)
• Slave trade
• Gaspee Affair (1772)
• Revolutionary War

Documents

• Roger Williams Deed from Canonicus
• Portsmouth Compact
• Patent of 1644
• Coddington Commission
• Royal Charter of 1663

Geography

• Narraganset Bay
• Aquidneck Island
• Providence
• Newport
• Block Island

Providence civil compact, 1637

Before the Providence settlement was a year old, several young men who had been admitted as inhabitants were nevertheless discontent with their position, and wanted to be able to vote and otherwise have equality with the older settlers. The following resolution was adopted in a town meeting on 20 August 1637, and is sometimes called the "civil compact." The 1637 date was on the original town records, but when they were transcribed in 1800, the page containing that date was missing. The text of the resolution is as follows

We, whose names are hereunder, desirous to inhabit in the town of Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public good of our body, in an orderly way, by the major assent of the present inhabitants, master of families, incorporated together into a town fellowship, and others whom they shall admit unto them only in civil things.

• Richard Scott
• William Reynolds X his mark
• John Field X his mark
• Chad Browne
• John Warner
• George Richard
• Edward Cope
• Thomas Angell X his mark (now an adult)
• Thomas Harris
• Francis Wickes X his mark (now an adult)
• Benedict Arnold (now an adult)
• Joshua Winsor
• William Wickenden

Mary M. Favre tombstone

Grave marker of Simon Favre's daughter-in-law, Mary, Pearlington, Mississippi

Material on Hutchinson's royal ancestry removed--why?

The following discussion has been transferred from the talk page of Agricolae

Hello; I'm curious about your removal of the royal ancestry of Anne Hutchinson and the wife of Edward Hutchinson in those respective articles. Your comment in the edit summary was that the material is non-noteworthy, but I'm not sure why that is the case. This seems to have been done unilaterally, without any discussion on the talk pages. It concerns me most with the Anne Hutchinson article, since this article has come under the scrutiny of many editors since last October. Though I've done the lion's share of recent editing on this article, I've tried to maintain or enhance the work of other editors, and this little section represents such an undertaking. So, I'd like to get your reasoning on this. Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There are millions of people, hundreds of thousands with Wikipedia pages, who descend from Alfred the Great and Charlemagne. It is not a distinction that merits mention on every page of everyone with such a descent. In the case of, say, Elizabeth II, the descent from Alfred the Great perhaps merits mention as it is directly relevant to her context as queen of the state that represents the political descendant of the one he played an important role in founding. Likewise the descent of Matilda of Flanders from Alfred the Great is relevant because this descent was one of the motivations for William's choice of her as marriage partner. However, we gain no greater understanding of Anne Hutchinson as a person or an actor in history by knowing the name of one of the 16 million ancestors she had 24 generations before, whoever it happens to be. She didn't know she had such a descent, her contemporaries didn't know she had such a descent, her major biographers didn't know she had such a descent (or didn't feel it was worth mentioning). It is genealogy for genealogy sake alone - indiscriminate information that provides no insight into her as a person, her actions, interactions, social status or context. Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I agree with you that there are a vast number of people who descend from Charlemagne and other royal persons. I've read that most modern people of European ancestry are likely descended from Charlemagne. However, of these possibly billions of people, how many know they are descended from Charlemagne? How many have seen a generation by generation presentation of their descent? I would imagine it's an extremely small percentage. Of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to America before 1800 only a small percentage have traceable ancestries back to European royalty. The immigrants with known royal connections are known as "gateway ancestors," and there aren't a large number of them. Gary Boyd Roberts has published a book on the royal ancestry of American immigrants, and there are only a few hundred such immigrants that have thus far been identified; Anne Hutchinson is one of them, and the first wife of Edward Hutchinson is another. When George H. W. Bush was elected U.S. President in 1988, it was a big deal genealogically, because Bush was found to descend from Anne Hutchinson, and Hutchinson became his connection to English royalty.

I too used to think that Hutchinson likely did not know she was of royal descent, and I used this same argument when another editor first inserted ancestral material into her article. Now I'm not so sure that Hutchinson wasn't aware of a royal connection. Her family was middle gentry, and her mother was born in Canons Ashby House in Northamptonshire. Her mother's maternal grandfather was knighted, and there was likely an awareness among the Marburys and Drydens that their ancestors were of some importance, even if a royal link wasn't known. Just because people became Puritans doesn't mean they weren't well connected. There were many members of the gentry who became Puritans; a couple that come to mind are Sir William Masham, 1st Baronet in whose household Roger Williams was the family minister, the Countess of Leicester for whom John Wilson ministered, and Theophilus Clinton, 4th Earl of Lincoln, who hosted all the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Company prior to their voyage to New England. Just because New Englanders didn't exercise their royal connections doesn't mean they weren't aware of them.

Even if Hutchinson's royal ancestry wasn't known or important to her does not mean that this article should exclude mention of the fact. This article is not written for Hutchinson, who died 370 years ago, or her contemporaries; it is written for a 21st-century audience. There very well may be people reading this article today who are quite interested in her royal connection. Take the young person who just learns from her grandmother that she has a famous ancestor named Anne Hutchinson. Being curious, the youngster googles Hutchinson, and of course what pops up first?--the wikepedia article. She then discovers that she is not only descended from Anne Hutchinson, but descends from some early European kings as well! This could be a life changer. I remember as a 15-year old seeing for the first time a lineage that went from little me all the way back 12 generations to a person born in England in the 1500s! It was a life-changer for this teenager, and led me to decades of genealogical and historical study, and then to becoming a wikipedian.

The Hutchinson article doesn't even hint at her royal connections until the very end of the article, and in a very unobtrusive way. There is nothing in the lead about it, and there is no mention anywhere in the body of the article. There are just a few lines at the very end that say, hey, in case you wanted to know, someone (someone notable at that) has published her royal connections. You have the option of ignoring this section, as most people probably do; but it's there for those who are curious.

In summary I feel strongly that the deleted material should be reinstated in the article for these reasons: (1) a royal ancestry for an immigrant to America is not common; probably fewer than 1% (likely much fewer) of immigrants to America have documented royal connections; it is noteworthy!; (2) while her royal ancestry has no bearing on Hutchinson's impact on the modern world, it is an aspect of her life that some people of note decided was important enough to publish; (3) there are some people who may find the material of great interest and importance; the Hutchinson article garners about 1000 views a day, and among those viewers are likely some descendants who might likely be very interested in royal connections; and (4) the inclusion of a few royal ancestors, to my understanding, violates no rules of wikipedia, violates no rules of copyright, and is presented in an unobtrusive and thoroughly documented way. I think it is wrong to remove this material based on a personal opinion. I may be wrong, but have strong feelings about this, so am posting this discussion on the Hutchinson talk page to invite others to comment.Sarnold17 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I found the following paragraph in the article Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (the italics are mine):

"Follow the normal protocol

When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help."

Yes, seriously. I've been greatly impressed by the fact that in all of the discussion above you have a strong point of view, but you seem oblivious to the fact that someone else might also possess a point of view, and that their point of view might be contrary to yours. I see no acknowledgement of other points of view in anything you have written either on this talk page, your talk page, or other talk pages. You are very adamant about your opinions, and you may even be correct. But wikipedia is not about being correct; it is about being collaborative. It is not about shoving your point of view down the throats of other editors, but rather about finding common ground with other editors. I have now seen three cases where you have intimidated other editors and/or denigrated their work. This is SO counterproductive. You obviously know a lot about European royalty, and certainly have insights that no other editors possess. Why not turn your high powered perception toward creating new content? Why not encourage other editors to join you along the way? Deleting the material that other editors have been refining over a period of time can be very offensive. Getting into arguments with other editors over what should or should not appear in an article wastes your time and theirs. I've already spent several hours of my precious editing time thinking about and engaging in a dialogue with you. I would have much preferred those hours going into my own editing, or my full-time job, or my family, or my other obligations. All this quibbling is not doing you, me, or the wikipedia project any good. As to this specific article, you are certain of the correctness of your opinions, yet I have seen neither a single wikipedia guideline, nor a single other editor that has supported your point of view. On the other hand, the article has received edits from hundreds of contributors, has been through an extensive peer review, and has been perused by an undetermined number of experienced editors during the FAC process. No one seemed to find fault with including Hutchinson's connection to royalty. Instead of denigrating the work of other editors, it would be wonderful if you could focus on creating good content for the project; it would be good to get some other editors working with you; it would be good to leave the quibbles behind and focus where there's agreement. There's a lot yet to do with this project; I see years of editing ahead for me. Again, to answer the question--"seriously?"-- Yes, seriously.--Sarnold17 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

I have taken a look at WP:Weight and WP:Indiscriminate, and cannot find a single hint in either that royal ancestries should be excluded from a wikipedia article. The former deals with point-of-view issues and fringe theories. Nowhere therein does the section suggest the exclusion of legitimate genealogical material. Considering the mention of a royal lineage in the Hutchinson article as being unduly weighty is without foundation. Virtually no weight in the article is given to the fact; it is merely mentioned in the final few lines of the article, almost parenthetically. The second reference (indiscriminate) deals with fiction, databases and lists. Nowhere therein is anything written that would exclude the mention of a royal ancestry in an article. It has become more apparent to me that removing genealogical information from articles is based on personal opinion and on a personal vendetta against the value of genealogical material; the basis for such reasoning is "I don't like it."

The material that had been removed from this article is legitimate, well-documented material from notable authors. The removal of this material borders on censorship. This is material that is useful and desirable to some readers. We live in an age where DNA studies are making genealogical relationships more and more significant. We don't need to be doing less of this stuff; we need to be doing more of it. Here is a quote from the WikiProject for Genealogy (the italics are mine):

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy: The WikiProject for Genealogy is a place for standardizing genealogical tables within Wikipedia and for enhancing genealogical knowledge within articles. While Wikipedia is not and never was intended as a genealogical tool, that does not mean that it cannot be. Nearly all royalty pages list a brief ancestry as well as a list of spouses and issue. This practice should be more widespread, outside the bounds of simple aristocracy and into the bounds of everyday people.

A royal ancestry is not meaningless, unduly weighted, or indiscriminate material. It is material that has been incorporated into articles and books by notable authors; we would be showing bias by omitting it.

Other items

-->

• ... that Mississippi's Spanish Fort earthwork was built long before the Spanish reached the region?
• ALT1
• ... that Mississippi's Spanish Fort earthwork was not built by the Spanish?
• ALT2
• ... that Mississippi's Spanish Fort is neither Spanish nor a fort?
• Comment Trying for a hook that shows the disconnect between the site and its name in as little space as possible but making as much sense as possible. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ontario Highway 22

• Just realised that I forgot to add anything about the nature of the site; I've added that and revised the proposed hook accordingly. There's no cited sentence that expresses both facts in the hook (it's in the intro), as the citations are on separate sentences: the Spanish part is the sentence ending with "Spanish presence in the region", and the fort part is the sentence ending with "rather than fortifications". Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Nyttend (talk). Self nom at 03:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at this in a bit.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, almost everything looks good:

• Article is new enough; new article on same day as DYK
• Article is long enough
• Article is neutral and cites sources throughout; I cannot assess copyvio since I can't see source, so will AGF
• Hook is neutral, short enough, interesting, and found in article with proper citations (again, AGF)

• The hook is great--its brevity is its beauty--but it is misleading for some of us familiar with Mississippi. There is another Spanish Fort, called the Old Spanish Fort, located in Pascagoula, in the far southeastern part of the state. You can google "Old Spanish Fort Mississippi" for details. In fact, when I first read the hook, I thought that this was the referenced Spanish Fort. Might I suggest:

Alt3 ...that the Mississippi Delta's Spanish Fort is neither Spanish nor a fort?

I've made a couple of minor wording changes in the article. Here are some other issues I need clarified:

• the following sentence needs explanation (Location and excavations, sentence 3): "In 1988, the site was classified as being built by the Anderson Landing phase..." From the perspective of a non-archaeologist, I thought sites were built by people, so to say that a site is built by some entity called a "phase" makes no sense, and there is no link to aid with the understanding.

• the almost exclusive reference used, an article by Edwin Jackson, is about the Little Spanish Fort, which is not an NRHP property. Since I can't see the article, is it safe for me to assume that Jackson makes liberal reference to the subject site (which is NRHP), as well as, perhaps, other nearby sites? Was this site chosen for the article because it is NRHP, as opposed to writing about the better-referenced Little Spanish Fort, which is not NHRP? A quick web search did not include any hits on the subject site, but I did find a book that mentions the Little Spanish Fort here. Anyway, since I can't read the article, I'd like a little comfort as to its content.

}}

Other stuff

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		blah blah blah blahSarnold17 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you very kindly for your patience and gentleness in dealing with my difficulties and gruffness over the WPUS banner issue. Your are truly a kind person.

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This is for the phenomenal peer review you did on the Anne Hutchinson article, and follow-up during the FAC process, helping it reach FA status Sarnold17 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Useable links

• Reggie Dabbs book

• Vaughan and Wightman family blog

DISPROVEN

Pitkin line: disproven

Ancestors of Sarnold17/sandbox5

24. WILLIAM PITKIN (1608-1645) 12. WILLIAM PITKIN (1635-1694) 25. ELIZABETH __________ (1612-1641) 6. WILLIAM PITKIN (1664-1723) 26. OZIAS GOODWIN (1596-1683) 13. HANNAH GOODWIN (1639-1724) 27. MARY WOODWARD (1598-1683) 3. ELIZABETH PITKIN (1689-1768)[7] 28. TIMOTHY STANLEY (1604-1648) 14. CALEB STANLEY (1642-1718) 29. ELIZABETH [MORRIS?] (c.1602-1679) 7. ELIZABETH HANNAH STANLEY (1669-1751) 30. JOHN COWLES 15. HANNAH COWLES (1645-1690)

SARAH ADAMS (1691-1761)

Ancestors of Sarnold17/sandbox5
16. JOHN ADAMS (1555-1604) 8. HENRY ADAMS (1583-1646)[8] 17. AGNES STONE (1556-1615) 4. THOMAS ADAMS (1612-1688) 18. HENRY SQUIRE 9. EDITH SQUIRE (1587-1672) 2. PELATIAH ADAMS (1646-1725) 10. TRUEBULL BLACKMORE 5. MARY BLACKMORE (1612-1694) 1. SARAH ADAMS (1691-1761)[9] 6. JACOB PARKER (1616-1669) 3. RUTH PARKER (1655-1719) 7. SARAH [HARTWELL?]

SARAH AYER (1711-1751)

Ancestors of Sarnold17/sandbox5

8. JOHN AYER (1596(?)-1657) 4. PETER AYER (c.1634-1699) [10] 9. HANNAH _______ (c.1602-1688) 2. SAMUEL AYER (1669-1744) 20. WILLIAM ALLEN (died 1679) 10. WILLIAM ALLEN (died 1686) 21. ALICE (?) _______ (c1602-1632) 5. HANNAH ALLEN (1642-1729) 22. RICHARD GOODALE (1594-1682) 11. ANNE GOODALE (1623-1678) 23. DOROTHY WHITERENT (born c.1595) 1. SARAH AYER (1711-1751) [11] 24. SYMON TOOTILL (c.1560-1630) 12. JOHN TUTTLE (c.1596-1656) 25. ISABEL WELLS (c.1565-c.1635) 6. SIMON TUTTLE (1630-1692) 26. WALTER ANTROBUS (c.1555-1614) 13. JOANNA ANTROBUS (by 1592-after 1660) 27. JOAN ARNOLD (c.1558-after 1635) 3. ELIZABETH TUTTLE (1670-1752) 28. EDWARD COGSWELL (born c.1554) 14. JOHN COGSWELL (1592-1669) 29. ALICE _______ (1570-1616) 7. SARAH COGSWELL (1632-1732) 30. WILLIAM THOMPSON, Rev. (c.1540-1623) 15. ELIZABETH THOMPSON (c1594-1676) 31. PHILLIS _______ (died 1608)

MARY GODFREY (born 1703)

Ancestors of Sarnold17/sandbox5

4. PETER GODFREY (1635-1697) 2. JAMES GODFREY (born 1673) 10. THOMAS BROWN (c.1606-1687) 5. MARY BROWN (c.1636-1716) 11. MARY HEALY (say 1611-1654) 1. MARY GODFREY (born 1703) 24. RICHARD KIMBALL (c.1595-1675)[12] 12. HENRY KIMBALL (1615-1676) 25. URSULA SCOTT (1597-by 1661) 6. HENRY KIMBALL (1656-1698) 26. EDWARD RIDDLESDALE (c.1594-1631) 13. MARY RIDDLESDALE (1622-1672) 27. MARY _______ (c.1598-1683) 3. HANNAH KIMBALL (1678-1697) 28. GEORGE MARSH (c.1596-1647) 14. ONESIPHOROUS MARSH (1630-1713) 29. ELIZABETH _______ (died 1675) 7. HANNAH MARSH (1656-1699) 30. JOHN CUTLER (c.1599-1638) 15. HANNAH CUTLER (1634-1686) 31. MARY

JOHN CHENEY (1666-1750) DISPROVEN

Ancestors of Sarnold17/sandbox5
4. JOHN CHENEY (by 1600-1666) 2. PETER CHENEY (1639-1695) 5. MARTHA __________(say 1605-after 1684) 1. JOHN CHENEY (1666-1750) 24. ROBERT NOYES (c.1518-after 1599) 12. WILLIAM NOYES, Rev. (1568-1622) 6. NICHOLAS NOYES (c.1616-1701) 13. ANNE PARKER (1575-1657) 3. HANNAH NOYES (1643-1705) 14. JOHN CUTTING (Capt), from London 7. MARY CUTTING (died 1689) 15. MARY _________