Ancestors, Slavery, and Ben Affleck

"Ben Affleck".
Licensed under Public Domain
via Wikimedia Commons 

Ben Affleck has been making news in a way he never intended. It seems he has an ancestor who owned slaves and that fact made him uncomfortable. Why is he being criticized for his initial shock and desire to focus the show in a different direction? This seems like a perfectly understandable reaction.

There are larger issues of censorship and integrity on the part of the show's production team. However, in the end, those issues are not Affleck's. He had the right to make any request he wanted and the producers must take responsibility for their actions regarding those requests. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is a man who handles the sensitive issues that arise on the show with grace and dignity. He projects a sense of integrity regarding the difficult truths of history and hopefully the investigation will show that he maintained his integrity through this incident. Ironically, in 2012 I wrote a blog post in response to a charge that Dr. Gates had an agenda to make every episode of Finding Your Roots about slavery.

Now to the core of the issue, how does one deal with finding out unpleasant information about one's ancestors? It's important to put them in context. Depending on where your ancestors lived and/or how long they have been in America, a person may have hundreds or even thousands of American ancestors. Take any group of hundreds or thousands of people, aren't you likely to find a few that are embarrassing and make you wish that they were not your relatives? After you look at the big picture, you realize that there are many stories involving the ancestors in your tree. Some will be inspiring, some will be shameful. The problem with a one-hour TV show is that the producers must pick and choose what stories to tell. The show must create an interesting narrative that will capture the attention of the audience. As genealogists, we get to set our less desirable ancestors in the larger context comprised of a mix of heroes and villains and present them as part of a diverse whole. It would be difficult to have only the most embarrassing and uncomfortable stories presented to the world.

Affleck is correct when he says that the celebrities must reveal personal information and make themselves vulnerable to whatever is revealed, good or bad. He is also correct that anything that generates conversation about how our country deals with the legacy of slavery is a good thing.

For more information on how the entire northern part of the U.S. actively re-wrote the narrative of their involvement with slavery, see this article.
"On the eve of the Revolution, the slave trade formed the very basis of economic life in New England,"

52 Ancestors #48 - The Reluctant Husband

Thomas Herrick was the oldest son of Henry & Editha (Laskin) Herrick and the older brother of my 9th great-grandfather, Zachariah Herrick. He seems to have been the black sheep of the family. He was left a legacy in his father's will but would only receive it if he met the stated conditions. He was left out of his brother Benjamin's will, although all the other Herrick siblings received a portion of the estate. 

So why was Thomas ostracized by his family? It seems his father wanted him to "not live his life as a single man." His father died in 1670 when Thomas was about 35 years old. Several of his younger brothers were already married - Zachariah at age 18, Ephraim at age 23, Henry at age 23, Joseph at age 20, and only brothers John, age 20, and Benjamin, age 14, were also unmarried when their father died. 

What did Thomas stand to lose by not marrying? The will states, "Also I give unto my soon Thomas all my wearing appaearell except my best great coat & that 20 acres of land where his house standeth, with ten pounds to be payed to my soon John wn my executor seethe need to supply his wants, And if in case he live and dye a single pson, the lands shall remain to my sons Ephraim & Joseph, equally devided & the ten pounds to my son Beanjamin if not make use of to supply him." 

At some point Thomas did marry but I have not found a record of the date. There is a description of a divorce petition in the Essex Quarter Court records dated November 26, 1673. It seems to imply that the marriage had not been a long one. 

Divorce of Thomas & Hannah (Ordway) Herrick:
Whereas Hannah, the reputed wife of Thomas Herrick, at the last Ipswich court, preferred an account against said Thomas, accusing him of impotency, after some deliberation and testimony, court adjudged said marriage between said Thomas Herrick and Hannah Ordaway null and void. She was given her liberty as if such pretended marriage had never been, and he was to return to said Hannah as much as he had received of her, or of her father or other friends in way of marriage portion; she was to make no further claim to his estate. [EQC 5:252).

I do not know if this "marriage" was enough for Thomas to gain his inheritance or not. 

My Herrick line is:
Henry Herrick & Editha Laskin
Zachariah Herrick & Mary Dodge
Sarah Herrick & Samuel Morgan
Luke Morgan & Ruth Stone
Luke Morgan & Martha Pulcifer
Samuel Morgan & Judith Dennen
Martha Morgan & William Yates
Moses Yates & Martha Whittle
Gilbert Yates & Laura Emmons
Estes Yates & Eva Hayes
Linona Alice Yates - my grandmother