Contact us
.............................................................................................................................................................Are you ready?

Jonathan HAYNES and Sarah Moulton

[F3744]. Jonathan HAYNES.
Jonathan was born about 1646 in Salem, Massachusetts (Vital Records of Salem, Massachusetts, (Baptism 4-11-1648); the son of William HAYNES [F7488] and Sarah INGERSOLL [F7489]. He was not born in 1616 in Bedfordshire, England; as has been often stated. His age is given in two court depositions in 1682, giving his correct age. (see below). He was christened at the First Church of Salem on 11 June 1648. {S4}.

Some references name Jonathan as the son of James Hindes/Haines, who was also an early resident of Salem, Massachusetts but who removed to Southold, Long Island about 1651-1652, where his will was probated in 1653. A very persistent effort, but weak argument, was also made by the Hind Family (The History and Genealogy of the Hinds Family, Albert Henry Hinds,1899) to make William Hinde/Hine of Marblehead a son of William and Sarah Haynes. His claim was based primarily on the similarity of the names and the locality of the persons.{S4}.

After his father's death, about 1650, his mother married Joseph Houlton. From that point on, Jonathan lived with them in Newbury, Massachusetts. {S4}. Sarah eventually moved back to Salem Village, but it appears that Jonathan remained in Newbury until around the year 1686, and then removed to Haverhill, Massachusetts.

Jonathan first appears in the Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County as a witness to a deed on 10 April 1668. {S4}.

Jonathan was a brick maker and farmer. (S10).

In 1669, he apparently contemplated moving to Woodbridge, East New Jersey along with several other Newbury men at the invitation of the New Jersey Governor Philip Carteret. The township of Woodbridge was named in honor of Rev. John Woodbridge of Newbury. This was mentioned in The History of Newbury written by Joshua Coffin. It is not known if Jonathan actually lived in New Jersey but his name appears on a Woodbridge patent dated 1673 holding 97 acres along with several other Newbury men. Some of these Newbury men settled there, but apparently Jonathan did not. {S4}.

He married Sarah MOULTON [F3745] on 1 January 1674. At that time Jonathan was said to be "of Newbury." His marriage sometimes said to have been in October, and even December (S4). It is probable that this date was made with the old calendar style of dating, said to be in the tenth month of 1674-1675. This would make it correctly in January 1675.

Their marriage is said to have been in:
Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts. (S4).
Hampton, New Hampshire. (S6).
Newbury, Massachusetts. (S7,S8).

The mystery is solved by Patrick McDonald (S10):
Essex County Court record gives the "marriage of Jonathan Haines of Newburie to Sarah Moulton, 30 of 10th month (Dec old calendar) 1674". Some reference documents conflict on the marriage location and have shown both Salem and Hampton, Massachusetts. This may stem from boundary changes and both are within a few miles of the present New Hampshire border. Hampton was in the Massachusetts Bay Colony until 1679, at such time it was joined to the Royal Colony of New Hampshire (now Rockingham county) which is just north of the current Massachusetts border. Haverhill, Essex county, Massachusetts remained within the Massachusetts Bay Colony just a few miles south of the present New Hampshire border. Jonathan and Sarah's marriage is also recorded in Haverhill Vital Records. (S10).

He was said by Savage, and in many subsequent histories and genealogies, to have first married Mary MOULTON, a sister to his wife Sarah, but this has not been proved correct, and has led to much confusion and error. Mary Moulton is listed as a daughter in her father's will dated 8 Mar 1663-1664, and is recorded in the Moulton Annals Family Genealogy as having died on 24 July 1664. This alone rules out a marriage in 1674-1675.

Again, Patrick McDonald (S10) solves the mystery:
The Genealogy Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire, under Moulton, states that Mary Moulton died 27 July 1664; and that Sarah, born 17 December 1656, " m. 30 December 1674 (Mary- by Newbury records) Jonathan Haines." Mary Moulton died unmarried, as there is a record to prove. We can only conclude that Jonathan had his marriage entered in Newbury and that a careless clerk miscalled Sarah as Mary." (The American Genealogist, Donald Lines Jacobus, M.A., of New Haven, Connecticut). (S10).

Jonathan was sued in March 1676 and in Sept 1676 he counter-sued Peter Tappan but withdrew the suit. (S4).

He served on a jury of inquest in October 1680. {S4}.

In a March 1682 court record Jonathan, age about thirty-five, testified and was sworn into court. Jonathan, age thirty-five,and Sarah his wife were sworn into court and sued for slander in March 1682, for saying John Woolcott stole a sow and pigs from them and Woolcott's wife stole two saucers from them. {S4}.

On 25 Sep 1682, Jonathan Haynes, "aged about thirty-six, and Sarah, his wife, aged about twenty-six years" testified in court. Thus, by his own depositions on two occasions, Jonathan was actually born in 1646 and not in 1616 as his contemporary Haverhill tombstone states. {S4}.

Sometime between 1684 and 1687, Jonathan and Sarah moved to Haverhill, Massachusetts. (S4,S7).

Jonathan was captured by Indians twice:

Jonathan and four of his children were captured by Indians on 15 August 1696. Reverend John Pike recorded the events of the capture of Jonathan Haynes in his Journal: {S4}.
"Aug: 15, 96: Jonath Hains of Haver: & his 4 children carried away by Indians."

According to the story provided by Guy C. Haynes, on 15 August 1796, Jonathan Haynes was captured by the Indians while reaping in his field within sight of his house. Four children, who were picking beans in the field, were also captured. The children were Mary, age nineteen, Thomas, age sixteen, Jonathan, age twelve and Joseph age seven. The Indians took them to Penacook, New Hampshire, where they divided. One group took Jonathan and Thomas to Maine, where they escaped. Mary, Jonathan and Joseph were taken to Canada and sold to the French. Mary was redeemed for one hundred pounds of tobacco carried up on a hand sled, but her two brothers, remained in Canada, married there and became wealthy farmers. {S4}.

Two days afterward (15th August) Jonathan Haynes of this town, and his four children, Mary, Thomas, Jonathan and Joseph were captured. (*footnote: Mirick, History of Haverhill is incorrect in giving the names of the children. The children of Jonathan and Sarah Haynes were Mary, born November 14, 1677; Thomas, born May 14, 1680; Jonathan, born September 3, 1684; Margaret born March 3, 1687; Joseph, born August 4, 1689; Ruth, born February 10, 1692; Elizabeth born May 22, 1697) The children were in a field near Bradley's mills, picking beans, and the father was reaping near by. The Indians immediately started with their captives for Pennacook, (Concord, N.H.). When they arrived, they divided their prisoners, and separated, - one party taking the father and Joseph, and the other the remaining children. The first party started for their homes, in Maine, where they soon arrived. Their prisoners had remained with them but a short time, when they improved an opportunity to escape. After travelling two or three days, with scarce anything to satisfy their craving appetites, the old man sunk down exhausted. Finding his efforts to encourage his father were vain, the son started onward, and soon after coming to the top of a hill, he climbed a tall tree, to see if he could discover any signs of civilization. But no such joyful sight was his. After the first bitter gush of grief had passed, and while he yet hesitated which course to take, his quick ear caught the sound of a sawmill! He listened. There was no mistaking that familiar sound, and, with a glad heart and bounding step, he followed it, and soon found himself at the settlement of Saco! {S4}.

(Researcher's Note: This says Jonathan and Joseph were separated from the others but it should be Jonathan and Thomas. Chase stated the earlier history of Haverhill had the birthdates and names of the children wrong, but it appears he had them wrong too.){S4}.

His story was soon told, and with ample assistance, and a bottle of milk, he hastened back to his father, whom he found as he had left him, - laid down to die, without the hope or expectation of ever again looking upon the face of a friend. The milk, and the good news, revived him, and, with considerable difficulty, he reached Saco. Here they remained until their strength was sufficiently recruited, when they started for Haverhill, where they soon arrived without further difficulty.{S4}.

The party which took the other children, went to Canada, where they were sold to the French.{S4}.

As the tradition is, that Mary was carried to Canada on a hand-sled, we presume the Indians tarried at Pennacook until winter. Mary was redeemed the following winter, with one hundred pounds of tobacco. She afterward married John Preston, of Andover, and moved to Connecticut. She was living in Windham, ("Conn) October5 12, 1730, as appears by her signature to a deed of that date.

The boys never returned. A deed of 1731 speaks of them as still in Canada. In one of the companies in the Canada expedition of 1757, were three brothers named Haynes, from this town. While in Canada, they had leave granted to make search for the captive brothers, and they found them. They had lost their mother language completely, and could only converse with their English relatives through an interpreter. One of them enquired about his sister, who had one of her fingers accidently cut off by a young lad, the son of a neighbor, a short time before her capture. He recollected the circumstance, and asked if she was still living. Neither of them could be persuaded to return with their relative. {S4}.

Thus Jonathan and his son Thomas escaped and returned to Haverhill. {S4}.

In the year 1698, the Indians commenced their incursions unusually early. On 22 February 1698, a party fell upon Andover, killed five of the inhabitants and captured as many more. On their return, the same party killed Jonathan Haynes and Samuel Ladd, and captured a son of each. {S4}.

Guy Carleton Haynes, of East Boston, a native of Haverhill, wrote the story of Jonathan Haynes in 1855 (New England Genealogy and Historical Register, Vol. 9, p. 349) and a portion appears in Savage's Genealogical Dictionary of The First Settlers of New England. Unfortunately, even though Guy Carleton Haynes was a great-grandson of Jonathan, some the information given by him has been proven incorrect; in particular, that Jonathan was born in 1616 and was a brother of Governor John Haynes of Connecticut and Deacon Samuel Haines of Greenland, New Hampshire. {S4}.

Reverend John Pike again recorded the events so:
"Feb 22, 97/98: About 30 Indians came to Andover, took Col. Bradstreets house and two more, killed Capt Pasco Chubb and his wife, Maj: Wades son of Mystick, and two others. Carried Col: B family a little way, & upon Cond: Released them. As yy returned by Haverhill they met with Jonath: Hains, and Sam: Ladd, with yy elder sons. The two fathers were slain, & the sons Carried away, but young Hains soon after Returned, which was his second escape from the enemy in less than two years time." {S4}.

Jonathan Haynes and Samuel Ladd, who lived in the western part of the town, had started that morning, with their teams, consisting of a yoke of oxen and a horse, each, and accompanied with their eldest sons, Joseph and Daniel, to bring home some of their hay, which had been cut and stacked the preceding sumner, in their meadow, in the extreme western part of the town. When they were returning, little dreaming of present danger, they suddenly found themselves between two files of Indians, who had concealed themselves in the bushes on each side of their path. There were seven of them on a side. With guns presented and cocked, and the fathers, seeing it was impossible to escape, begged for "quarter." To this, the Indians twice replied, "boon quarter! boon quarter! (good quarter.) Young Ladd, who did not relish the idea of being quietly taken prisoner, told his father that he would mount the horse, and endeavor to escape. But the old man forbid him to make the attempt, telling him it was better to risk remaining a prisoner. He cut his father's horse loose, however, and giving him the lash, he started off at full speed, and though repeatedly fired at by the Indians, succeeded in reaching home, and was the means of giving an immediate and general alarm. {S4}.

One version of the tradition is, that the horse rushed against the door of his master's house, bursting it open and fell dead upon the threshold, upon seeing which, Mrs. Ladd exclaimed, in agony, "Oh! the Indians have killed Ladd." {S4}.

Two of the Indians then stepped behind the fathers, and dealt them a heavy blow upon the head. Jonathan Haynes who was quite aged, instantly fell, but Ladd did not. Another of the savages then stepped before the latter, and raised his hatchet as if to strike. Ladd closed his eyes, expecting the blow would fall - but it came not - and when he again opened them, he saw the Indian laughing and mocking at his fears. Another immediately stepped behind him and felled him at a blow. {S4}.

"The Indians, on being asked why they killed the old men, said that they killed Haynes because he was 'so old he no go with us;' - meaning that he was too aged and infirm to travel; and that they killed Ladd, who was a fierce, stern looking man, because 'he so sour'. They then started for Penacook, where they arrived, with the two boys. Young Ladd soon grew weary of his situation, and one night after his Indian master and family had fell asleep, he made his escape. He had proceeded but a short distance, when he thought that he should want a hatchet to fell trees to assist him in crossing the streams. {S4}.

He accordingly returned, entered a wigwam near his master's, where an old squaw lay sick , and took a hatchet. The squaw watched his movements, and probably thinking that he intended to kill her, vociferated with all her strength. This awakened the Indians in the wigwam, who instantly arose, re-captured him, and delivered him again to his master, who bound his hands, laid him upon his back, fastened one of his feet to a tree, and in that manner kept him fourteen nights. They then gashed his face with their knives, filled the wounds with powder, and kept him on his back, until it was so indented in the flesh, that it was impossible to extract it. He carried the scars to his grave, and is now frequently spoken of his descendants as the 'marked man.' Some years after, he found means to return, and his scarred and powdered countenance produced many witticisms at his expense. He was one day walking the streets of Boston, and a parrot observing his "marked' features, vociferated, 'a rogue! a rogue!" Haynes remained a prisoner with the Indians some years, and was at last redeemed by his relatives. {S4}.

When Jonathan Haynes and Samuel Ladd were killed by the Indians in 1698, Thomas, remained in captivity for a year and upon his redemption was given an ornamental cane by the Indian chief as a token of respect for good conduct as a prisoner. The upper half is neatly ornamented with diamond-shaped figures, cut with a knife. {S4}.

Note from S4: "I was told in the summer of 2002, by a descendant of Thomas Haynes, that this cane, which is about four feet long and now broken into three pieces, is archived at the New England Historical Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. The bottom two feet are round & have no ornamentation but the top 2 feet has eight sides and each side is carved into diamond and triangle patterns. The top has a metal band and metal stud in the center. Also in the same location are four journals which had been written by Guy Carleton Haynes which contain a complete history of East Boston from 1833 to 1877. Jackson Haynes, Margaret Haynes Webster and Ann Swan had given both the cane and the journals to the New England Historical Genealogical Society after the death of Guy C. Haynes in 1877. {S4}.

Upon the death of Jonathan in 1698, administration on the estate of Jonathan Haynes was granted to Sarah Haines "relict and widow of Jonathan Haines of Haverhill." This occurred on 5 July 1698. {S4}.

Sarah Haines, widow, Onesipherus Marsh and Stephen Dow, and Abraham Whitticer of Haverhill signed a petition on 17 April 1701, asking that measures be taken to secure the return of six children taken by the Indians from Haverhill. Two of the children who were taken and "yet wanting" were "Jonathan and Joseph hains taken August 15, 1696, Jonathan agged twelve and Joseph seven years". Her two sons were never returned to Massachusetts, and as records and stories later reveal, remained in Canada, married into French Canadian families and had forgotten their native language. {S4}.

Jonathan Haynes is a proven child of William Haynes by documents executed by the descendants of Richard Ingersoll to sell a parcel of land in Salem Village which was conditionally bequeathed to William Haynes, John Ingersoll and Richard Pettingal in the Richard Ingersoll will dated 21 Jul 1644. The initial legatee and youngest son, Nathaniel Ingersoll died in 1719 and since he died leaving no issue, releases from his heirs-at law needed to be secured. By this time, John Ingersoll and Richard Pettingal were deceased, leaving fifteen descendants. Of William and Sarah (Ingersoll) Haynes' children, Jonathan Haynes had been killed by Indians in 1698, leaving many descendants. Sarah (Haynes) Eborne had died in 1676 and Thomas Haynes died 1709 in Salem County, New Jersey. {S4}.

Jonathan Haynes is buried in West Parish (Haynes) Cemetery on Carleton Street, Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts. (S10).

[F3745]. Sarah MOULTON.
Born on 17 December 1656, of Hampton, Rockingham County, New Hampshire; daughter of William MOULTON [F7490] and Margaret PAGE [F7491]. She married Jonathan HAYNES [F3744] of Newbury, Massachusetts, on 1 January 1675.

Upon the death of Jonathan in 1698, administration on the estate of Jonathan Haynes was granted to Sarah Haines "relict and widow of Jonathan Haines of Haverhill." This occurred on 5 July 1698. {S4}.

Sarah Haines, widow, Onesipherus Marsh and Stephen Dow, and Abraham Whitticer of Haverhill signed a petition on 17 April 1701, asking that measures be taken to secure the return of six children taken by the Indians from Haverhill. Two of the children who were taken and "yet wanting" were "Jonathan and Joseph hains taken August 15, 1696, Jonathan agged twelve and Joseph seven years". Her two sons were never returned to Massachusetts, and as records and stories later reveal, remained in Canada, married into French Canadian families and had forgotten their native language. {S4}.

It is believed Sarah died in 1731, and probably at Hampton, Massachusetts. {S4}. Another version says she died 13 Jul 1699, but that cannot be correct since she signed the petition above in 1701.

CHILDREN of Jonathan HAYNES [F3744] and Sarah MOULTON [F3745]:
  1. Mary HAYNES. Born on 14 November 1675.
  2. Mary HAYNES. Born on 2 October 1677 at Newbury, Essex County, Massachusetts. She married John Preston, son of Samuel Preston and Susannah Gutterson, on 10 January 1705-1706 in Andover, Massachusetts. She died on 21 November 1746 in Andover, Essex County, Massachusetts.
  3. Hannah HAYNES. Born about 1678-1679 at Newbury, Essex County, Massachusetts. She married John HEATH, son of Josiah Heath and Mary Davis, on 16 December 1697 at Norwich, Connecticut. She died at Norwich, New London County, Connecticut.
  4. [F1872]. Thomas HAYNES. Born on 14 MAY 1680 at Newbury, Essex County, Massachusetts. He married Hannah HARRIMAN [F1873] on 22 December 1703 at Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts. He died on 6 December 1771 at Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts.
  5. Jonathan HAYNES. Born on 3 September 1684 in Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts. Captured by the Indians at age twelve and taken to Canada. He remained there, married and raised a family. married Marie POSÉ / PAUZÉ (not POUZE), daughter of Jacques and Marie JOBIDON, in 1712. The name of his parents was transmogrified by translation as was often the case, and so was the name of their town of residence shown as "Heuret near Boston" in the mariage record of 1712.
  6. [F1875]. Margaret HAYNES. Born on 3 March 1686-1687 at Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts. She married Thomas KINGSBURY [F1874] on 25 November 1706 in Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts. She died on 10 February 1753 at Hampton, Windham County, Connecticut.
  7. Mary HAYNES. Born ON 3 MarCH 1686-87 at Haverhill, Massachusetts. She married John Preston, son of Samuel and Susanna (Gutterson) Preston, on 10 Jan 1707 at Andover, Massachusetts. John Preston was born 1 May 1685. They settled at Killingly, Connecticut and later removed to Ashford, Connecticut. They had twelve children. Mary was captured by the Indians when she was a child but was recovered about a year later. She was either nine years old or nineteen years old as reported by Guy C. Haynes (probably nine). The tradition is she had a finger cut off by a neighborhood boy shortly before she was captured. There is some confusion regarding the two Marys and their sister Margaret. Is it possible Mary and Margaret were twins because both lines claim the same birthdate.
  8. Sarah HAYNES. Born ?. She married (1) Thomas Kingsbury, son of Henry Kingsbury, on 19 January 1702-1703 at Haverhill, Massachusetts. She was his second wife. He had been an Indian captive for several years, and when a distribution of town lands ofPlainfield was being made if was decided, "where as through the Goodness of God Thomas Kingsbury is returned from a Long Captivity and is now Providentially Cast amongst us," there would be deeded to him a tract of twenty acres lying on the north side of the River Moosup. The deed was dated 7 October 1708 and was approved in the Town meeting of 2 December 1708. His children by his first wife had been killed in an Indian raid in Haverhill in March 1697. Thomas and Sarah had no children. Thomas Kingsbury died on 11 June 1720 in Plainfield, Connecticut. Sarah married (2) William Corbet of Lebanon, Connecticut. Sarah died on 21 May 1745 at Lebanon, Windham County, Connecticut.
  9. Joseph HAYNES. (HAINS, HEINS, HENS). Born on 4 (July-S5)(August-S4) 1689 at Haverhill, Essex County, Massachusetts. Joseph was captured by the Indians at age seven and taken to Canada. He remained in Canada and married four times. Joseph married (1) Marguerite MAROIST on 12 Feb 1710 in L'Ange Gardian, Montmorency, Que, Canada. He married (2) Marie Françoise PINEL dit LAFRANCE on 1 Jul 1726, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, CANADA. He married (3) Catherine Josephe MIGNERON on 16 January 1731 at Sainte-Foy, Quebec, CANADA. He died on 3 May 1756 in Quebec, Canada; and was buried on 4 May 1756 in Quebec, Canada.
  10. Ruth HAYNES. Born on 10 February 1691-1692 in Essex County, Massachusetts. She married John Corliss in 1711 at Haverhill, Massachusetts. She died in 1787.
  11. Abigail HAYNES. Christened on 10 March 1694-1695 at Haverhill, Massachusetts. She married Jacob Warner on 11 January 1714-1715. She died on 5 July 1722 at Plainfield, Windham County, Connecticut.
  12. Elizabeth HAYNES. Born on 22 March 1696-1697 at Haverhill, Massachusetts. She married Isaac Spaulding, son of Edward Spaulding and Mary Brackett, on 2 February 1712-1713 at Plainfield, Connecticut. They lived in Plainfield, Windham County, Connecticut. Elizabeth died in 1756.