The Wilson Association Newsletter
Vol I, No 1, Jan 2015
Welcome
Naming this Newsletter
Letter from the President, Harley
Letter from the Secretary/Treasurer, Mary
Letter from the Historian, Kathy
Births and Deaths
Upcoming Events
Historical Perspectives in General
Historical Perspective on Alexander Wilson
Some Things to Think About
Welcome to the Inaugural Issue of The Wilson Association Newsletter
As a means of keeping in better touch with the family, the Wilson Association officers are proposing
to put together a newsletter at least quarterly. The newsletter will be emailed to those members of the Wilson Association for whom we have an email address, and will be posted on the family website at www.wilsonassociation.net/newsletters. If you find anything of interest or value in the newsletter, please share it with others in your more immediate family, and encourage them to send us their email address so that we can send a copy directly to them.
The first few issues may be a bit sparse while we are getting our feet wet in being "reporters." We hope eventually to include both information on family members, such as births, deaths, marriages, graduations, and other family news, and at least one historical perspective on a Wilson Association or collateral family member. Although information on living family members may be included in the newsletter sent to family members, until we have a "members only" section on the website, any identifying references to living people will be edited or omitted in the newsletter posted to the website, in order to protect everyone's privacy.
Please feel free to send us information for inclusion in this newsletter and comments. Also, please let us know what you think about the newsletter itself – format, content, the concept itself. The intent is to provide something of interest to family members. If we're not accomplishing that, we would really like to know. And, as always, negative constructive criticism is most helpful in helping us to improve.
Back to Top
The First Order of Business – We Need a Name for this Newsletter!
Although "The Wilson Association Newsletter" is quite descriptive, it's pretty bland. We're looking for a name that is a bit more interesting. Please submit your suggestions by email. All names suggested will be taken to the 112th Wilson Family Reunion on 12 July 2015, where the members present will vote for the new name.
Back to Top
Letter from Harley, President, The Wilson Association
Dear Members,
I am pleased that our Historian, Kathy has prompted our organization to begin publishing a newsletter and as your president I will be writing to you with each published newsletter. For our first newsletter I would like to share three thoughts with you.
1. Olcott, NY - The location of our annual reunion: As many of you know we have moved our reunion to a very suitable location in Olcott, NY. The pavilion we now use is a welcome change in that it offers bench tables for all to sit at and these are all under a covered roof. The benefit of this pavilion was most appreciated at our 2014 reunion when a sudden downpour occurred and we were not hindered in the least from enjoying a great time together. The nearby restrooms are modern and well suited for a gathering of our size. Parking of our vehicles is also a benefit as this is located right next to the pavilion and carrying our food baskets from our vehicles is so much easier. All in all, the decision to move our reunion to Olcott was a good one and we can look forward to another wonderful reunion in a little over five months.
Keeping the little ones entertained at Krull Park, Olcott, New York |
How to stay cool on a hot mid-summer's day. |
Pavilion 13 – A very lucky number for us! |
Clean and modern restroom facilities – not an outhouse! |
2. Kathy’s write-up titled, An Historical Perspective on Alexander Wilson: I read this document that Kathy labored to write and found it fascinating to revisit the history of religion in Europe and specifically Scotland where our Wilson ancestry is traced to. More interesting to me is Kathy’s reflection of life in the colonies at the time Alexander and Jane Armour Wilson were alive.
I trust you will read this as well and I think you will agree with me that very few families in our nation can trace their roots to the founding of our nation and even fewer families have a historian as gifted and dedicated to family recordkeeping as our own Kathy!
3. The Wisdom of Family Reunions: I don’t know the actual numbers, but families in America are for the most part not gathering for reunions any more. When I tell my co-workers about our annual Wilson Reunion they are all amazed that we still do this. Most of my friends tell me that when they were children they had reunions but that stopped years and years ago. When I share how many generations back we have traced our family to, they are even more amazed. And when I ask, most can only trace their family to the grandparents they knew when they were little children. How sad, how very sad.
Wisdom, we all need more wisdom. Interestingly, there actually is wisdom to be gained when a family meets each year for a reunion. I was reminded of this when Joan and I sat in our Bible study at church last Sunday. Our class is studying the first of the "Wisdom Books" in the Bible. There are four wisdom books; Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament and James in the New Testament. All are meant to help us deal with the broad realm of human experience. In the book of Job (which was our study last Sunday) this book teaches about human suffering and loss inflicted on good people and how different people view the cause for such suffering and what they believe a suffering person should do. The man Job suffered the loss of possessions, his family and terrible physical pain. He had three friends who tried to explain from their view what caused his problems and what he should do. One of Job’s friends Bildad did offer some very insightful advice which I believe we would all be wise to follow. Bildad told Job in Chapter 8: 8-10: 8 "Ask the former generation and find out what their ancestors learned, 9 for we were born only yesterday and know nothing, and our days on earth are but a shadow. 10 Will they not instruct you and tell you? Will they not bring forth words from their understanding?"
This begs the question, how can we apply this wisdom in our life? I would suggest that Kathy’s recommendation that our newsletter include a section titled "Historical Perspective" and your submitting a column is just what is needed. We all can think of stories that our "elders" shared with us concerning their "elders'" teaching and now is the time to share these with each other. So sharpen your pencil and begin writing!!
Back to Top
Letter from Mary, Secretary/Treasurer
I love this poem . . . It speaks to me . . . My thoughts exactly when I visit the resting places of my ancestors.
Dear Ancestor
Your tombstone stands among the rest
Neglected and alone.
The name and date are chiseled out
On polished marble stone.
It reaches out to all who care
It is too late to mourn.
You did not know that I exist
You died and I was born.
Yet each of us are cells of you
In flesh and blood and bone.
Our blood contracts and beats a pulse
Entirely not our own.
Dear Ancestor, the place you filled
One hundred years ago,
Spreads out among the ones you left
Who would have loved you so.
I wonder how you lived and loved.
I wonder if you knew,
That someday I would find this spot
And come to visit you.
Walter Butler Palmer (1868-1932), family historian, breeder of trotting and show horses, and poet, wrote this poem in 1906 while visiting the grave of his great grandfather, Ephraim Palmer.
Back to Top
Letter from Kathy, Historian
Hello, Wilson Family Members!
As I put into genealogy software all of the family history information that had been collected and researched over the years by many family members, and started doing additional research, one thought kept recurring to me: A genealogy really can be just a lot of rather boring names and dates and places. It occurred to me, however, that if you have stories and pictures to go with that genealogy, they bring our ancestors back to life.
My initial thought reminded me of history class, which had always seemed to me to be filled with rather boring names and dates and places – most of which seemed to have very little to do with me or the events in my life and in society around me. I never could understand why I needed to know that William the Conqueror conquered England in 1066. However, our family genealogy, traced by Bill, showed me why – because all of the descendants of Alexander Wilson Jr can trace their ancestry back through his wife, Eunice Charlotte (Seeley) Wilson, to William the Conqueror! Suddenly, history and genealogy seemed to merge together.
Then, as I researched Alexander and Jane (Armour) Wilson's descendants, and the families of the people who married those descendants, I found what I considered to be fascinating stories. Sometimes I remembered hearing in school a vague mention of some of those historical episodes, but in many cases, they were completely new. I soon found myself learning a lot of history that had previously been either totally or partially unrevealed – exactly like the family members who had been a part of that history.
I'd like to share with you some of the stories I've found about your family – not because I think it makes us "better" or "special," but because I think it helps us to understand the circumstances under which our ancestors lived and died, and their sacrifices and their accomplishments, which have brought us to where we are today. I hope I am able to do that in a way that isn't boring. I know some of these stories may be more familiar than others, and that some of you will know much more about particular stories than I do. Please feel free to jump in with comments, constructive criticism, and additions or corrections.
And, above all else, please feel free to join in this endeavor by contributing your own work. We would love to have your input, whether it be an account of the life and times of an ancestor, or your personal reminiscences about a particular family member. If you're interested in doing this, please let us know so we can provide you with the information we have as a starting point. We will also work with you so you don't feel as if you're out there on the end of that limb on the family tree all by yourself!
All of our ancestors have something to say to us, and we need to give them back their voices. We also need to give them back their faces – so, please include any photos you might have of folks you would like to have remembered.
Back to Top
Births and Deaths
Since the 111th Annual Wilson Family Reunion on 13 Jul 2015, the family has received the following
birth and death information:
Births - Baby Boy, born on 4 Sep 2014 * * * .
Deaths - LeRoy William Taylor, born on 18 Apr 1914, died at the age of 100 years, 5 months, 4 days,
on 22 Sep 2014. LeRoy's Wilson line is Lester Howard Taylor, Mary Ida (Mead) Taylor, William Henry Mead, Ruth (Wilson) Mead, Alexander Wilson Jr, Alexander and Jane (Armour) Wilson.
If you know of other births or deaths, please let us know.
Back to Top
Upcoming Events
22 Feb 2015 - 3rd Annual Phoenix Area Mini-Reunion, Sunbird Golf Resort Clubhouse, Chandler, AZ
12 Jul 2015 - 112th Annual Wilson Family Reunion, Krull Park, Olcott, NY
Back to Top
Historical Perspectives in General
Our intent in providing historical perspectives is to learn from the past while being entertained. These historical perspectives will center on the life and times of a Wilson Association or a collateral family member. While these historical accounts will be as accurate as possible, we might get something wrong. If we do, please let us know, so that we can correct it.
Some of these articles may be a lot longer than others. In fact, this perspective of Alexander Wilson is quite lengthy. Our apologies for not breaking you in more gently! In the longer ones, there was just simply more to say or more that needed to be presented in order to provide the background necessary for an understanding of the times. Some may be shorter because we have less information, or because the story is more compact.
Although we probably will not include a detailed bibliography of every source we consulted for every historical perspective, we will definitely follow rules against plagarism, and will provide citations for any information that we quote directly. We may also include "thought-provoking questions" following some or all of the articles. Don't worry, though – there won't be any test! However, ideas from them might appear in Wilson Family Trivia Games.
Back to Top
An Historical Perspective on
Alexander Wilson
Introduction
The Ancestors of Alexander Wilson's Mother, Sarah Ainsley
Alexander's Father, Robert Wilson
Early Christianity in the British Isles
King Henry VIII and The Formation of the Church of England
England under the Children of Henry VIII
The Scottish Reformation
King Charles I, the Scottish National Covenant, and King Charles II
The Wigtown Martyrs of 1685
Back to Robert Wilson
Alexander and Jane (Armour) Wilson in America
The French and Indian War
Great Britain and Her American Colonies
Alexander Wilson's Death
Alexander Wilson's Burial Place
Our first Wilson forefather in America was Alexander Wilson. We had been working with a genealogist in Edinburgh, Scotland, to try to find more information about Alexander's ancestors. Our work is still very incomplete, but the genealogist who was working with us has become the full-time caregiver for her father, and does not have time to devote to research right now. We are looking for another genealogist to continue this research.
We have, however, learned some things. Alexander Wilson was born on 20 Apr 1740 in the city of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland. He was the son of Robert Wilson and Sarah, or Sara, Ainsley.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
The Ancestors of Alexander Wilson's Mother, Sarah Ainsley
Sarah Ainsley was the daughter of Alexander Ainslay and Elizabeth Mercer, who were married on 15 Dec 1716 in Canongate Parish within the city of Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland. Sarah and her twin sister, Elizabeth, were born on 8 Nov 1719, and were christened on 10 Nov 1719, by Mr. John Williamson. The witnesses to the christenings were John Campbell and James Ainslay. We do not yet know if Sarah and Elizabeth had other siblings. Sarah died at the age of 54 years on 12 Oct 1774 in Alva Parish, Stirlingshire, Scotland, which is located about 40 miles northwest of Edinburgh, and was buried there on 14 Oct 1774. We do not presently know when or why Robert and Sarah Wilson moved to Alva Parish.
Sarah's father, Alexander Ainslie, was the son of Alexander Ainsly and Elizabeth Gray, and was born on 29 Jul 1695 "betwixt 7 and 8 in the afternoon" and was christened on 4 Aug 1695 in North Leith, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland. The witnesses to his christening were William Wing and Rot. Glasgow (perhaps, Rodachan, in which the "d" is pronounced as a "t"). Alexander Ainslie and Elizabeth Gray were married in St Cuthberts, city of Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland, on 17 Mar 1693. Their marriage record indicates that Alexander was a merchant.
At this time, we have no further information on the Ainsley line, or on the ladies who married into that line.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
Alexander's Father, Robert Wilson
According to his death record, Robert Wilson died on 9 Sep 1796, at the age of 94 years. Based on this information, it appears that he was born about 1702. His death record also indicates that he was born in "the Shire of Galloway," which, our genealogist says, at that time referred to the county of Wigtownshire in Galloway, Scotland.
Galloway (today Dumfries and Galloway) is located in the southwestern lowlands of Scotland and includes the southernmost point in Scotland. Wigtown is a little over 100 miles southwest of Edinburgh, located near the Bladnoch River, which empties into Wigtown Bay. Today, Wigtown Bay is a Local Nature Reserve especially attractive to birds. The North Atlantic Drift passes near this part of Scotland. The Drift is part of the Gulf Stream, a warm ocean current originating south of Florida and moving across the Atlantic Ocean. The moderating influence of the warm water of the Drift makes the climate of this area in Scotland more temperate, and allows the growing of crops for which the climate in other places at the same latitude is too harsh. The area was, and still is, agricultural. The population of Wigtown has remained quite stable over the centuries, being about 1,350 in 1739, and about 1,000 today.
The southern border of Galloway is the Solway Firth, a very large estuary with mud flats that are exposed at low tide and covered to a considerable depth at high tide. According to recent information put out by the Scottish government, the usual tidal range in the Solway Firth is about 4 to 5 meters, or about 13 to
16 feet, while the mean spring tidal range can be 7 to 8 meters, or about 23 to 26 feet. (For comparison purposes, the world's highest tidal variations are generally held to be in the Bay of Fundy, between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada, where the usual change is about 15 meters, or about 53 feet. In contrast, the average tidal variation of the Hudson River estuary, at New York City, is about 1.4 meters, or about 4.6 feet.) The name Solway derives from "mud ford," which is taken from the fact that there was a muddy ford at the mouth of the Esk River, one of the rivers flowing into the Solway Firth. The Solway Firth is connected to the Irish Sea.
One interesting historical note about Wigtown, that may shed some light on our ancestors, is the story of the Wigtown Martyrs of 1685. However, a bit of English and Scottish history is necessary in order to truly appreciate this story. As will be apparent, this history is at least as much related to religion as it is to politics.
From our 2015 American vantage point, starting from the fundamental premise of the separation of church and state, surrounded by a multitude of Christian denominations and many other religions, and witnessing an almost constant questioning of religion, it may be hard to grasp how important religion was in all aspects of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps this account will make that importance a bit clearer.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
Early Christianity in the British Isles
The Christian faith arrived in the British Isles during the first century AD, in the form of the Catholic Church, which, at that time, was the only form of Christianity. The Church leaders firmly believed that Catholicism was the only true religion, and that all other forms of worship were ineffectual. This belief lead to the conclusion that, if you were not a practicing and devout Catholic, you had no hope after death. Because of this belief, the Church endeavored to convert to Catholicism the followers of religions indigenous to the places into which it spread. It established churches and monasteries throughout the British Isles. It also introduced its religious structure, called an "episcopal" structure, consisting of a hierarchy of priests, bishops, and archbishops, with the head of the Church being the Pope in Rome. The introduction of the Catholic Church to the British Isles was not without incident, set-backs, and bloodshed, but, ultimately the Church became well-accepted and well-established there. It was not only the official state religion, but the center of life for most people. The Church itself also became a wealthy and strong secular power.
However, as the centuries passed, not everyone remained completely happy with the way the Catholic Church was organized, with all of its doctrines, or with its secular power. As early as the 14th century, John Wycliffe was urging reform of the Catholic Church in England because of what he saw as problems and excesses within the Church, on both the religious and secular levels.
The direct result of these early questionings of the Catholic Church throughout the areas into which it had spread, and of the Church's failure adequately to address these questionings and the issues which gave rise to them, was the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation is generally held to have begun in 1517, when the cleric Martin Luther sent a letter entitled "Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" to his bishop in Germany. This document, which 
consisted of 95 numbered sentences setting out Luther's view on indulgences, or the sale of pardons by the Pope through his subordinates, came to be known as the Ninety-Five Theses. The ensuing religious dispute and schism, coupled with the political responses of countries that became either Catholic or Protestant, rocked the very foundation of European civilization for over 150 bloody and contentious years, and changed the course of history.
However, for our present purposes, we are concerned only with the Reformation and its impacts in England and Scotland.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
King Henry VIII and The Formation of the Church of England
Building upon the reform ideas of John Wycliffe and other early questioners, Christianity in England might have developed into a kind of reformed Catholicism, but for King Henry VIII's quest for a male heir to his throne. Henry, the second monarch from the House of Tudor, had ascended to the English throne in April 1509 upon
the death of his father, King Henry VII. At least in part, Henry wanted a male heir because he believed that his family's claim to the throne was too young to continue with a female monarch. Henry's first wife, Catherine of Aragon, failed to bear a son who lived beyond infancy, although her daughter, Mary, lived to adulthood. Because of his lack of a male heir, in 1527 Henry petitioned Pope Clement VII for an annulment of his 18-year marriage to Catherine. At this time, all aspects of marriage in Christian 
countries were controlled by the Catholic Church, which did not recognize or allow divorce. An annulment of Henry's marriage to Catherine would have resulted in a Church declaration that it was as if the marriage had never been. Pope Clement denied Henry's request.
Aside from whatever religious concerns Pope Clement took into consideration in making his decision, he also had at least one major secular concern. Catherine's nephew was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Clement had recently joined with King Francois I of France in an attempt to drive Charles out of Italy. Charles responded by sacking Rome and imprisoning Clement in May 1527. He remained firmly entrenched in Italy. Catherine used her relationship with Charles to her advantage in fighting against an annulment of her marriage to Henry.
When Henry got nowhere with Pope Clement, he turned his attention to the Church in England. After much maneuvering on Henry's part, as well as because of their own concerns about the Church, on 11 Feb 1531, the leaders of the Catholic Church in England recognized King Henry VIII as the supreme head of the new Church of England (also to be known as the Anglican Church). In May 1532, the Church of England surrendered to the authority of the monarch. A few more details were worked out before, on 23 May 1533, the Archbishop of Canterbury, of the newly created Church of England, granted King Henry's request for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine.
A not insignificant secular result of the creation of the Church of England was that the English crown gained the wealth and property that had been accumulated over the centuries by the Catholic Church in England. Ecclesiastically, the reigning English monarch has ever since carried the title "Supreme 
Governor of the Church of England." The structure of the Church of England closely paralleled that of the Catholic Church, except for the fact that a monarch, rather than a Pope, was at its head.
Following the annulment of his marriage to Catherine, King Henry promptly married Anne Boleyn, who, although she had refused for years to be Henry's mistress, had finally given in and was pregnant. Pope Clement excommunicated King Henry.
Catherine lived in exile, but peacefully, until her death in January 1536. Anne Boleyn's only child who lived was a daughter, Elizabeth. Because of her failure to have a son who lived, Anne's days were numbered. She was arrested, tried, found guilty of adultery, and sentenced to death. She was beheaded in May 1536, a short three years after her marriage to Henry. Ironically, a few days before her execution, her marriage to Henry was declared invalid. (How can you commit adultery if you were never married?) Henry suffered no earthly problems that could be directly attributed to his excommunication.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
England under the Children of Henry VIII
With the death of his father in 1547, Edward became King Edward VI at the age of 9 years. Edward had been raised within the Church of England and, with his advisors, continued reforms in that Church which took it even further away from the Catholic Church, including such changes as developing the Book of Common Prayer and allowing the clergy to marry. However, Edward had never had a strong constitution, and died from tuberculosis in 1553, not quite 16 years old.
Political maneuverings, in which Edward had been a player, resulted in the coronation of his 15-year-old cousin, Lady Jane Grey, a Protestant, over the stronger claim to the throne of his older half-sister, Mary, who was Catholic. However, Lady Jane was Queen for only nine days before she was deposed by Mary and her supporters. Lady Jane was beheaded in 1554 at the age of 16 years. (Some historians contend that Lady Jane was never actually Queen.)
As expected, Queen Mary I reinstated Catholicism as the official religion of England. During her five-year reign, which ended with her death in 1558, over 280 religious dissenters – i.e., Protestants – were burned at the stake, earning Mary the nickname of "Bloody Mary."
Mary, who was married but childless, was succeeded by her half-sister, Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth I was also known as "The Virgin Queen" and "Good Queen Bess." Her "45-year reign is generally considered one of the most glorious in English history. During it a secure Church of England was established. Its doctrines were laid down in the 39 Articles of 1563, a compromise between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism." http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/kingsandqueensofengland/thetudors/elizabethi.aspx. Her reign saw voyages to the "New World," including those of Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, and Humphrey Gilbert. These voyages prepared the way for the colonization of America. The arts flourished.
Initially, Elizabeth pursued a course of tolerance toward her Catholic subjects. However, England faced "threats of invasion from Spain through Ireland, and from France through Scotland. Much of northern England was in rebellion in 1569-70." Ibid. Pope Pius V believed Elizabeth was illegitimate and therefore not entitled to be Queen. (Remember, Pope Clement VII had refused to grant Henry an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, his first wife. To the Catholic Church, all of Henry's subsequent marriages were adulteries, and both Edward and Elizabeth were illegitimate.) In 1570, Pope Pius issued a papal bull, or formal proclamation, excommunicating Elizabeth and anyone who remained loyal to her, and absolving her subjects of their allegiance to her. This placed English Catholics in a precarious situation, and made it impossible for Elizabeth to continue her policy of tolerance. When continuing Catholic plots against her life were discovered, Elizabeth passed harsh laws against Roman Catholics.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
In Scotland, the Protestant Reformation was known as the Scottish Reformation. Like other places in the British Isles, at the time of the Reformation, Scotland was a Catholic country, and the Church was a very important part of the daily lives of most of its citizens.
James IV became King of Scotland in 1488. In 1503, he married Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's older sister. James IV died in 1513, and was succeeded by his son, King James V, who reigned from 1513 
until 1542. James V was succeeded by his daughter, Mary I, Queen of Scots, who was then six days old. Her mother, Mary of Guise, served as Regent from 1544 until her death in 1560. Mary of Guise was French, Catholic, highly intelligent, and from a powerful family. She was intent on reinstating Scotland's "auld alliance" with Catholic France, in order to maintain Scotland's independence from Protestant England.
By the time Mary became Queen of Scots, the Church of England was celebrating its tenth birthday. Mary's claim to the English throne was at least as good as that of the children of King Henry VIII – there was no question about Mary's legitimacy. Protestant Scottish nobles decided to betroth their infant Queen to Henry's son, Edward. However, it was well known that Henry was raising Edward as a Protestant, while Mary of Guise would raise her daughter as a Catholic. Scottish Catholics opposed to the marriage essentially took Queen Mary into "protective custody" at Stirling Castle and broke the engagement. Henry responded with a series of savage raids into Scotland that became known as "the rough wooing." France sent military forces to aid the Scottish Catholics. In carrying out his campaign against Scotland, Henry not only alienated many powerful Scotsmen, but also is reputed to have expended all of the funds he gained when he dismantled the Catholic Church in England.
In 1548, after Henry's death, Mary was betrothed to Francois, the heir to the French throne, and sent to France. In April 1558, when both of them were about 16 years old, Mary married Francois. In 1559, Mary became Queen Consort of France, as well as Queen of Scots, when her husband became King Francois II, after the death of his father, King Henri II, son of King Francois I. Francois II did not rule for very long, however, dying from an ear infection in 1560.
That same year, Mary of Guise died. Queen Elizabeth II sent English troops to counter Mary of Guise's French Catholic forces in Scotland. Scottish Protestants, led by John Knox, pushed the Protestant cause. Knox had been trained in Scotland as a Catholic priest; became a Protestant; participated in a Protestant rebellion in Scotland in 1546 and was held as a galley slave by the French for 19 months; served in the Church of England as a Royal Chaplain to King Edward VI, but was forced to leave the country after Queen Mary I re-established Catholicism as the official religion in England; spent time in Europe, preaching to exiled English congregations; and was one of the Protestant reformers fighting against Mary of Guise. After Mary of Guise's death, in August 1560, the Scottish Parliament renounced the Pope's authority, declared the mass illegal, and established the Church of Scotland, or Kirk. The Kirk was based on a "presbyterian" structure in which most authority was with the local churches. Although a hierarchy existed within the church, it had very limited powers, such as ordinations and determining where to locate churches. A fundamental tenet of the Scottish church was that no man had the right to be the head of the church, Jesus Christ alone could stand in that place, and Christ was the only intermediary between each man or woman and God.
In 1561, Mary, Queen of Scots, decided to return to Scotland, after being assured by her Protestant half-brother that she would be allowed to be a practicing Catholic. For a time, all went well. However, Mary's marriage in 1565 to her Protestant first cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, was the beginning of her downfall. Following her marriage, Mary was physically threatened by her husband, apparently, for practicing her religion; gave birth to a son, James; was widowed when her husband was murdered; married the man who was generally believed to be responsible for her husband's death; was defeated in battle and imprisoned in Scotland; and was forced to abdicate her throne in favor of her infant son. Escaping from her imprisonment in Scotland, she was again defeated in battle, and fled to England. There she was imprisoned again, for 19 years. Finally, after one of the Catholic plots against England's Queen Elizabeth I was linked to Mary, Mary was executed at the age of 44 years.
Mary's abdication in favor of her son, brought 13-month old James VI to the throne of Scotland. James grew up surrounded by factions vying for control over him, Scotland, and religion in Scotland. He was a highly intelligent man, but one with many flaws of character. He was described by King Henri IV of France as "the wisest fool in Christendom." He was a firm believer in the "Divine right of Kings," and found the presbyterian structure of the Scottish Kirk to be antithetical to that divine right. It is probably safe to assume that he saw the structure of the Church of England, with the monarch as its head, much more to his liking. His main goal was to be King of England – a goal within his reach because Queen Elizabeth I was unmarried and childless, and, as a descendant of the House of Tudor through his great-grandmother, he was next in the line of succession to the English throne. Because of this goal, he made only a token protest when Queen Elizabeth ordered the execution of his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots.
James achieved his life's goal in 1603 when Queen Elizabeth died, and he succeeded to the throne of England, becoming the first monarch from the House of Stuart. He was then King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England. He moved to England, and returned to Scotland only once before his death in 1625. Although James referred to his two kingdoms as Great Britain, Scotland and England retained their separate Parliaments, and had only the monarch in common. Notably, James was responsible for the King James translation of the Bible.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
King Charles I, the Scottish National Covenant, and King Charles II
James was succeeded by his son, King Charles I. Charles appears to have been, in every way, his father's son. His secular policies, grounded in a belief in the absolute right of the monarch, resulted in disastrous wars against France and Spain, his refusal for eleven years to call a parliament, civil war within the British Isles, his own execution for treason, and the dissolution of the monarchy by Parliament and supporters of Oliver Cromwell. His religious policies, grounded in the same belief, were equally problematic. As described at http://bcw-project.org/biography/charles-the-first:
"In religion, Charles favoured the elaborate and ritualistic High Anglican form of worship. He appointed William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633. Laud insisted upon strict compliance to the established tenets of the Church and vigorously supported the King's claim to divine right. Laud also made extensive use of Star Chamber [private trials in which the accused was not allowed counsel or to confront his or her accusers] and the ecclesiastical court of High Commisson to suppress opposition from Puritans who regarded his high church liturgy as dangerously close to Roman Catholicism. [Much more about the Puritans in a later newsletter.]
"The King's marriage to the French Catholic princess Henrietta Maria [in May 1625] also caused consternation amongst English Protestants, particularly as she was allowed to practise her religion openly and freely. In some quarters, Henrietta Maria's influence over the King and the royal children was regarded as part of an international Papist conspiracy against the Protestant faith.
"Although Charles himself was high-minded and devout, his religious policies were deeply divisive. In collaboration with Archbishop Laud, he insisted upon religious conformity across the Three Kingdoms. [Charles was by this time King of England, Scotland, and Ireland.] This went disastrously wrong when the Anglican liturgy and Laudian Prayer Book were forced upon the Scottish Kirk in 1637, resulting in the creation of the Scottish National Covenant against interference in religion, and the Bishops' Wars between the two nations."
To elaborate a bit, on Sunday 23 Jul 1637, the Dean of Edinburgh, Scotland, used the Anglican liturgy at Saint Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh. According to tradition, a woman named Jenny Geddes yelled at the Dean, perhaps urging the devil to bring him rather colorful, but unpleasant, internal problems, and threw her prayer stool at him. A general free-for-all ensued. This same scenario played out in other parts of Scotland.
Scotland responded with the Scottish National Covenant. This document set out the basic tenets of the Kirk – pledging loyalty to the King, but denouncing any attempt to introduce "new" doctrines or practices into the religious acts already passed by the Scottish Parliament. The Covenant clearly opposed any changes that would take the Kirk closer to Catholicism, and reaffirmed the presbyterian nature of the Kirk. By the end of May 1638, the Covenant had been signed by the vast majority of Scottish noblemen, gentry, and clergy, with the exception of parts of the Highlands. The Covenanters became the dominant religious and political force in Scotland.
The two Bishops' Wars of 1639 and 1640 were fought between Scotland and England over the question of the right of the monarch to dictate the organization of the Scottish Kirk. Scotland soundly defeated England in both wars, forcing King Charles I to make concessions to Scotland and the English Parliament.
In 1643, the Covenanters joined with the English Parliament in the civil wars that grew out of King Charles I's religious and secular policies. The presbyterian Covenanters and the anti-monarchial Parliamentarians won the wars, bringing about both King Charles' execution and the eleven-year "Interregnum," a period when there was no English monarch, and the country was governed by Oliver Cromwell and his son, Richard Cromwell, as "Lord Protectors of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland."
Probably because of the Covenanters' strength and opposition to the religious aspects of the Divine right theory, the Covenanters came under attack by the leaders of the episcopalian Church of England. As stated at http://www.covenanter.org.uk/WhoWere/:
"The Stuart kings harboured the belief of the Divine Right of the Monarch. Not only did they believe that God wished them to be the infallible rulers of their kingdom – they also believed that they were the spiritual heads of the Church of Scotland. This latter belief could not be accepted by the Scots. No man, not even a king, could be spiritual head of their church. Only Jesus Christ could be spiritual head of a Christian church.
"This was the nub of the entire Covenanting struggle. The Scots were, and would have been, loyal to the Stuart dynasty but for that one sticking point, and from 1638, when the Covenant was signed, until the Glorious Revolution – when Prince William of Orange made a bloodless invasion of Great Britain in 1688 – a great deal of suffering, torture, imprisonment, transportation and executions would ensue. King Charles I had introduced the Book of Common Prayer to Scotland in 1637 to the fury and resentment of the populace. He declared that opposition to the new liturgy would be treason, and thus came about the Covenant.
"There followed a period of very severe repression. Ministers with Covenanting sympathies were 'outed' from their churches by the authorities, and had to leave their parishes. Many continued to preach at 'conventicles' in the open air or in barns and houses. This became an offence punishable by death. Citizens who did not attend their local churches (which were now in the charge of Episcopalian 'curates') could be heavily fined, and such offenders were regarded as rebels, who could be questioned, even under torture. They could be asked to take various oaths, which not only declared loyalty to the king, but also to accept him as head of the church. Failure to take such an oath could result in summary execution by the muskets of the dragoons, who were scouring the districts looking for rebels.
"The persecutions became more frequent and cruel on the Restoration [to the throne of England after the Interregnum] of Charles II in 1660. [This despite the fact that it had been the Covenanters who, in 1651, had invited Charles to return to Scotland from his exile in France, and had crowned him King of Scotland. He was, however, defeated when he tried to enter England, and was forced into another nine years of exile. Upon the restoration of the monarchy in England after the Interregnum, Charles II, like his father, forced the episcopalian church structure on Scotland.] As time went on, more and more ordinary folk became involved, and skirmishes and battles took place against Government troops. In 1678 the Government raised an army of 6,000 Highlanders, who had no love for the Presbyterian lowlanders. This army swept through the west and south of Scotland, looting and plundering. They remained for many years, quartering themselves on the already impoverished Covenanters."
As related at http://www.sorbie.net/covenanters.htm,
"The period from 1680 until 1685 was one of the fiercest in terms of persecution and a few months between 1684-5 became forever known as the 'Killing Times'. [King Charles I's] brother James II had [just] come to the throne, he was a believer in the Divine Right of Kings and a supporter of the Roman Catholic faith. It became his sworn intent to totally eradicate the [Scottish] Presbyterians.
“Parish Lists were drawn up in accordance with instructions to the Episcopalian Curates to furnish Nominal Rolls of all persons, male and female, over the age of 12 within their Parishes. The Ministers were ordered to give '. . . a full and complete Roll of all within the Parish' and 'that to their Knowledge they give Account of all Disorders and Rebellions, and who are guilty of them, Heritors or others . . ..' Their instructions concluded, '. . . No remarks need be made upon these Demands made upon every Curate in every Parish; they are plain enough, as also their Design . . ..' The 'design' of this census was obviously to assist in the control and persecution of the Covenanters. The list drawn up for Wigtownshire in 1684, featured a total of 9,276 individuals in the 19 Parishes." (Omissions and emphasis in original.)
The article continues: "These were the most horrific and atrocious times ever inflicted on the people of Scotland. The Covenanters were now flushed out and hunted down as never before and the common soldier was empowered to take life at will of any suspect without trial of law. Usually it was done without any evidence and often as the result of the suspicions of an over-zealous town official or Minister. Brutality in these days defied the imagination and the persecution had no mercy on man, woman or child, irrespective of circumstances. Any class of Covenanter once caught by the King's troops was shot or murdered on the spot."
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
In Wigtown, the Killing Times culminated in the episode of the Wigtown Martyrs of 11 May 1685. The story as told at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Wilson_(Scottish_martyr) is:
“Margaret Wilson was born at Glenvernoch, a farm near Newton Stewart in Wigtownshire [about 1667]. Her parents were dutiful Episcopalians, but her older brothers were Covenanters. By 1684 Covenanters were hiding from the [English] authorities in the hills, and increasingly draconian action had ended the large conventicles. There were still small gatherings held indoors, but now failure to take a test of allegiance to the king, which required renouncing the Covenant, met with the death penalty, as did even attending a conventicle or harbouring Covenanters. Despite the risks, Margaret began attending conventicles with her younger brother Thomas, possibly beginning when there was an opportunity at a local conventicle to see the charismatic James Renwick who had newly become leader of the more extreme Covenanters known as the Cameronians [and who was to become the last of the Covenanter martyrs]. On occasion they also took along their young sister Agnes.
"In February 1685 the sixteen-year-old Thomas Wilson left to join other Covenanters in the hills. The girls went on a secret visit to Wigtown to visit friends, including an elderly widow Margaret McLachlan * * *. The young sisters Margaret and Agnes were taken prisoner, possibly after declining to drink the King's health, and put into the 'thieves' hole' [in the local jail]. They refused to take the Abjuration Oath renouncing the Covenant. On the following Sunday Margaret McLachlan was arrested, and also put into the 'thieves' hole' with the Wilson girls, along with a servant woman. They were taken before the 'local assizes' [county criminal courts held four times per year] of the Government Commissioners for Wigtownshire.
"On 13 April 1685 they were indicted as being guilty of the Rebellion of Bothwell Bridge, Aird's Moss, 20 Field Conventicles and 20 House Conventicles. The Assizes session took place and a guilty verdict was brought. The three main protagonists [Margaret and Agnes Wilson and Margaret McLachlan] were found guilty on all charges, and sentenced to be 'tied to palisades fixed in the sand [of Solway Firth], within the floodmark of the sea, and there to stand till the flood o'erflowed them'. * * *
"The father of the girls, Gilbert Wilson, went to Edinburgh and made a plea to the Privy Council of Scotland for clemency for all three, presenting a petition which claimed that Margaret McLachlan had recanted. Agnes was granted freedom on a bond of 100 Pounds Scots, and 'reprieves were written out for the two Margarets with a date of 30 April 1685'. * * *"
The story continues that, "[o]n 11 May 1685, 11 days after the signing of the reprieve, Margaret Wilson and Margaret McLachlan were chained to stakes on the Solway Firth. At the last moment, choking on the salt water, Margaret Wilson was allowed to offer a prayer for the King, which she did, but she continued to refuse to abjure the covenant. This was not good enough for her accusers, and she was forcibly thrust beneath the waves. It is said that, as the tide rose, she defiantly quoted from the psalms and the epistles and sang until she drowned.
Although some later historians have questioned whether the executions actually took place in light of the reprieve granted to both women, there does not appear to be any question that, after the tide went out that night, someone was buried in the church cemetery. Given the temper of the times, it is also not too difficult to believe that a reprieve was not something that could stand in the way.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
Whether Margaret, her father Gilbert, her sister Agnes, and her brother Thomas are related in any way to Robert Wilson, father of Alexander, is unknown at this time. However, from what we have learned to date, Robert was born into this part of Scotland less than 20 years later. Before jumping to conclusions, we must remember that Wilson is one of the most common surnames in the English language.
We do not know why or when Robert moved from the south of Scotland to Edinburgh. Edinburgh is located on the Firth of Forth, or the estuary of the Forth River, which flows easterly into the North Sea. According to the record of Alexander's birth, Robert was a vintner, which is a person who makes and/or sells wine. Although our genealogist in Scotland found information about several Wilsons who she believes may be related to Robert, these people have not yet been sorted out, so we do not know the identity of his parents or other Wilson ancestors. After his death in 1796, Robert was buried in Alva Parish, Stirlingshire, Scotland, presumably with his wife Sarah.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
Alexander and Jane (Armour) Wilson in America
A tradition preserved by the descendants of Alexander Wilson and his wife, Jane Armour, says that Alexander came to America to claim the possessions of a deceased brother. We do not know if this tradition is correct. We have found that Alexander had a younger sister, Henrietta, born in North Leith, Edinburgh, Scotland, on 9 Dec 1741, and christened there on 15 Dec 1741. However, we do not presently have information about what happened to Henrietta, or whether she and Alexander had any other siblings.
We also do not presently know exactly when and where Alexander Wilson and Jane Armour were married, or when they came to America. Although we believe that they were married in Scotland, it is equally possible that they were married in Scotland and came to America together, or that they came to America independently and met and married here.
We do know that Alexander was a shopkeeper and that he and Jane were married and living in New York City before 25 Nov 1764, when their first child, Alexander Jr, was born. Their second child, Jane, was also born in New York City on 12 Aug 1767.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
Alexander Jr and Jane were born in unsettled times, and the family lived in a city close to the action. As should be evident from the earlier discussion, at this time, France and what had in 1707 become the Kingdom of Great Britain (hereinafter, Great Britain, even though that term is not completely correct) were the world's super-powers and had been engaged for decades in a struggle for supremacy. By this time, each country controlled vast colonial lands, large parts of which were in North America. Control over these colonies meant wealth and prosperity at home, at least for the ruling classes. The wars between these two super-powers were long, costly, and ultimately counter-productive.
The decisive "battle" for supremacy between Great Britain and France began in 1754. In Europe it was called the Seven Years War, while in America it was called the French and Indian War. Before the war, France held the Ohio Valley, which included most of the interior of America west of the Appalachian Mountains, stretching from Canada down the Mississippi River to New Orleans. This region was strategically important because it controlled access to the central part of the North American continent and, among other things, the extremely lucrative fur trade. Whatever the war was called, it began on American soil when a 22-year-old Colonel in the British Army named George Washington was ordered to take action against Fort Duquesne, a French stronghold which was located at the present site of the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At the end of the ensuing battle, Colonel Washington was forced to surrender his troops to the French, but this was just the first skirmish in a new war between France and Great Britain.
Although initially it appeared that the French would win this war, at least in America, the British finally gained the ascendancy when they captured Louisbourg in Nova Scotia, Canada, and were able to close down the Saint Lawrence seaway, which was the only water access to the Great Lakes and the interior of the North American continent. By closing the seaway, Great Britain effectively severed the main artery between France and its American colonies. Great Britain followed this victory by capturing the city of Quebec in 1759. The war was officially ended by the Treaty of Paris of 1763. Under the terms of this treaty, France lost all of its vast land holdings on the North American continent: Great Britain gained Quebec and the Ohio Valley; and Spain, who was an ally of Great Britain during the war, received New Orleans and all of the former French lands west of the Mississippi River.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
Great Britain and Her American Colonies
One of the major questions following the Treaty of Paris of 1763 was what Great Britain was going to do with the lands in the interior of the North American continent that she had wrested from France. 
For several reasons, not the least of which was the difficulty the British monarch and Parliament were having controlling the American colonies from afar, Great Britain was not particularly interested in having the colonies expand to the west. However, the colonists were very interested in doing just that. In his Proclamation of 1763, King George III declared that the colonies were not to expand beyond the Appalachian Mountains. This Proclamation did not sit well with the colonists, many of whom had already moved into the new territory.
One round of tensions between Great Britian and America started in New York City. Great Britain maintained that the colonies should be responsible for providing food and accommodations for British troops in America. The colonies did this during the French and Indian War. Before that war, Great Britain had not maintained a standing army in America. The war defeated and ousted Great Britain's only rival in America, yet Great Britain decided that this was the time to station an army in America, and ordered the colonies to provide and pay for housing and food for this army. The British Parliament passed the Quartering Act of 1765, which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartering_Acts provided that Great Britain "would house its soldiers in American barracks and public houses, * * *, but if its soldiers outnumbered the housing available, would quarter them 'in inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualing houses, and the houses of sellers of wine and houses of persons selling rum, brandy, strong water, cider or methegin,' and if numbers required in 'uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings.'" What the colonies had done during the War, they openly resisted doing during the peacetime which followed.
The article continues: "When 1,500 British troops arrived at New York City in 1766 the New York Provincial Assembly refused to comply with the Quartering Act and did not supply billeting for the troops. The troops had to remain on their ships." [Italics and links omitted.] A skirmish ensued between British troops and citizens of New York City, with one colonist being wounded. The Provincial Assembly ultimately promised to comply with the Quartering Act, but did not actually allocate any funding. In 1767 and again in 1769, the Assembly was suspended, at least on paper, for its continued failure to comply with the Quartering Act. Funding was allocted in 1771.
But the British Parliament was not done. In 1765, it also passed the Stamp Act which "was the first direct tax on the American colonies. Every legal document had to be written on specially stamped paper, showing proof of payment [of the tax]. Deeds, wills, marriage licenses – contracts of any sort – were not recognized as legal in a court of law unless they were prepared on this paper. In addition, newspaper, dice, and playing cards also had to bear proof of tax payment." http://www.ushistory.org/us/9b.asp.
The Stamp Act effectively brought commerce in the colonies to a standstill. "There was such stagnation of business in New York during the summer of 1765 as the city had never known before. Trade in this part of the world, a citizen wrote, is come to so wretched a pass that you would imagine the plague had been here, the grass growing in most trading streets." From Colony to Nation: With Washington and His Army in the War for Independence, by Olga Hall-Quest, E. P. Dutton & Company, Inc, New York, NY, 1966. The colonists were especially hostile to the Stamp Act because they believed that, as British subjects, they had the same right as all other British subjects to have a voice in what taxes they were required to pay. They did not dispute the right of Parliament and the King to pass legislation affecting them, but they balked when it came to paying taxes about which they had no say. The Stamp Act Congress, a convocation of nine of the thirteen colonies, met in New York City in October 1765. The rallying cry, which was about the only thing that united the colonies at this time, was "No taxation without representation." Citizens organized boycotts of British goods, and colonial ship captains and their crews became smugglers, bringing in Spanish and French goods to replace the boycotted British goods. Ultimately, Parliament backed down, largely for economic reasons, and repealed the act in 1766. However, Great Britain was seeing a pattern of problems with its American colonies.
Alexander Wilson, as a merchant and shopkeeper in New York City, was undoubtedly caught up in these events, and may well have been among those objecting to these British edicts.
After the repeal of the Stamp Act, Parliament felt it necessary to reassert its control over the colonies. To do this, it passed the Declaratory Act which proclaimed its power "to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever." The colonists read "all cases whatsoever" to include taxation, and believed that the Declaratory Act again violated their rights as British subjects. It was not long after the passage of the Declaratory Act that Parliament tested taxation again, this time by imposing a tax on the import into the colonies of such items as glass, paper, lead, and tea. In addition, a Board of Customs Commissioners was appointed to enforce the tax policy in the colonies. Customs officials were given bonuses for every convicted smuggler. Because many colonial ships' captains fell under that title, they placed themselves at risk when they continued to bring in the goods that the colonies needed from France and Spain.
Charles Townshend, the force behind these new acts, which were called the Townshend Acts, had ulterior motives for pushing for import taxes: He intended to use the revenues raised by the taxes to pay the salaries of the colonial governors. Although the governors were appointed by the British Crown, historically, their salaries had been paid by the colonies. The colonial legislatures could, and did, withhold those salaries when they were displeased by actions taken by the governors. In this way, the legislatures could, essentially, blackmail the governors. However, if the governors' salaries were paid directly by Great Britain (even though with money raised in the colonies), the colonial legislatures would lose a great deal of power.
Despite warnings from Parliament, the colonies continued to press for what they believed to be their inherent rights, especially the right not 
to be taxed without representation, and again boycotted British goods. The colonies' refusal to import British goods had the desired economic impact, and, by 1769, British merchants were suffering. In Boston, Massachusetts, ever a hot-bed of resistance, tensions ran so high that British troops were ordered in to protect British officials. Although it at first appeared that the citizens of Boston would not offer active resistance, the tensions were so high that this state of affairs could not be maintained indefinitely. On 5 Mar 1770, a group of Boston citizens marched on the British customs house. Tempers flared and rocks flew from colonial hands. The British troops fired on the crowd without orders, killing five people. The Boston Massacre was quickly concluded, but never forgotten or forgiven, even when the colonies received word that Parliament had repealed all of the Townshead Acts except the tax on tea.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
This was the uneasy state within the colonies when Alexander Wilson died in 1771 at the very young age of 30 years. Following his death, events escalated with, among other things, the Boston Tea 
Party, the Intolerable Acts, the First Continental Congress, the Second Continental Congress, and Thomas Paine's Common Sense. The stage was set for the American Revolutionary War, which would be led militarily by a former Colonel in the British army named George Washington.
However, Alexander Wilson would not be a part of that war. Instead, he wrote his will in Jan 1771, and was dead before 12 Feb 1771, when that will was probated. His will and the probate results can be found at page 536 of Wills of New York, 1766-1771. The cousin who found Alexander's will had it converted into a more readable format by a present-day lawyer friend. (Thank you, Bob!) As converted, Alexander's will and probate stated:
"In the Name of the Lord Amen. I, Alexander Wilson of the City of New York, Shopkeeper, being at present declining in health yet of sound and disposing mind, memory, and understanding, and considering the uncertainty of this frail and transitory life and that it is appointed for all men once to die, do therefore make and publish this my last Will and Testament in manner and form following: That is to say first and fundamentally [maybe foremost?], I commend my Soul to The Hands of Almighty God who gave it me and my body to the Earth from whence it came in sure and certain Hopes of a joyful Resurrection through the Merits of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And as to Such worldly Estate wherewith God hath been pleased to bless me with, I give devise and dispose of as follows. I do hereby order that all my just Debts and funeral Expenses be fully paid and satisfied within some convenient Time after my decease Amen. I do hereby give devise and bequeath unto My dearly beloved Wife Jane one third part of my whole Estate as well as personal. And as to the other two thirds part of my whole Estate I hereby give devise and bequeath to my two Children Alexander and Jane Share and Share alike. And lastly I do hereby nominate constitute \\\ my loving Wife Jane Executrix and my good Friends Samuel Sowdon and Johnathan Blake of the City of New York to be Executors of this my Last Will and Testament hereby revoking and disannulling all former and other Wills or Will Testament or Testament heretofore by me made and declared either in Word or in writing, allowing this and none other to be my last Will and Testament. In witness whereof The Said Alexander Wilson have hereto - set my hand and Seal this Day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy one. /
"Alexander Wilson (As / Sighnce) Sealed published and declared by the said Alexander Wilson as and for his last Will and Testament in the presence of John Wilson, Alexander Robertson, James Gourlay City of New York xs. Be it remembered that on the twelfth day of February one thousand Seven hundred and Seventy-one personally came and appeared before John Bowles thereunto duly authorized Alexander Robertson of the City of New York Shopkeeper and being duly Sworn on his Oath declared that he did See Alexander Wilson Sign and Seal The annexed written Instrument purporting to be the Will of said Alexander Wilson bearing Date xx Day of January last And hearing him publish and declare the Same to be and contain his last Will and Testament. That at the Time thereof He the said Alexander Wilson was of Sound disposing mind and Memory to the best of The knowledge and belief Of him the Deponent. And that his Name subscribed to the said Will of his own proper hand writing which he subscribed as a witness to the valid Will in the presence of the testator. And that he the despondent likewise saw John Wilson and James Gourlay, the other witnesses to the said Will, subscribe their names as Witnesses thereto in the Testator's Presence.
"The Right Hon (vle) John, Earl of Dunmore, Captain General and Governor Chief in and over The Province of New York and the Territories defending [depending?] thereon in America, Chancellor and Vice Admiral of the Same, To all to whom these Present to Shall come or may concern, Greeting. Know Ye That at the City of New York on the Day of the Date hereof before John Bowles---___- thereunto delegated and appointed the last Will and Testament of Alexander Wilson deceased a Copy whereof is herewith -___- annexed was proved and is approved and allowed by me. The Said deceased having whilst he lived and at the Time of his Death Goods, Chattels, and Credits within this Province by means whereof. The proving and registering The Said Will and the granting Administration of all and singular The Said _----_ Goods Chattels and Credits and also The auditing, allowing, and final discharging the Account thereof doth belong unto me. And that Administration of all and Singular the Goods, Chattels, and Credits of the Said deceased and any way concerning His Will is granted unto Jane Wilson one of the Executors in the Said Will and being first duly sworn well and faithfully to administer the Same and to make and exhibit a true and perfect Inventory of all and Singular the Said Goods, Chattels, and Credits and also to render a just and true account thereof when thereunto required. In Testimony whereof I have caused affixed at the City of New York the twelfth day of February one Thousand Seven hundred and Seventy one.//"
(If this is the converted will, I'd hate to have to read the original! Thank you, once again, Bob.)
In this will, Alexander named his two children, thus leaving no room for doubt as to whether Alexander Jr and Jane were his children or whether he had any other children. He also named his wife, Jane, although not giving her maiden name. The John Wilson mentioned as a witness to his will has not been identified, and it is not presently known whether there might be any relationship between the two men.
As the probate information shows, it was one of the duties of the Provincial Governor at least to sign off on all probates. "John Earl of Dunmore" was John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore in Scotland, who was appointed Governor of the Province of New York in 1770 by King George III. In 1771, he was appointed Governor of the Colony of Virginia, when that colony's governor died. John Murray had, as a youth of 15, followed his father in the campaign of Charles Edward Stuart, Bonnie Prince Charlie, against the then-reigning monarchs of England, William and Mary. (Look for more on Bonnie Prince Charlie in a later historical perspective on Jane Armour.)
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
Alexander Wilson's Burial Place
Again, by preserved family tradition, Alexander Wilson was buried in 1771 in the churchyard at Trinity Church. There is no record of his burial, however, and no stone has been found marking his final resting place. In 1776, at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, British forces occupied New York City. Perhaps by chance, perhaps by plan, a fire started in a tavern on the waterfront. There were no firefighters in the city to fight the blaze, which eventually consumed a large portion of the city, including Trinity Church. All of the church records were burned.
In the absence of both the church records and of a stone, it is unlikely that there will ever be a way to prove without a doubt whether or not our first father in America, Alexander Wilson, is buried in Trinity Churchyard. However, there are two other preserved family traditions, one of which supports Trinity Churchyard as being his burial place, the other of which casts doubt on it.
The supporting tradition states that Alexander Wilson was buried in the same cemetery as his cousin, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States under President George Washington and the ill-fated partner in a duel with political rival Aaron Burr. Alexander Hamilton is prominently buried in Trinity Churchyard.
To date, there is no information either confirming or disproving any relationship between Alexander Wilson and Alexander Hamilton. However, whether or not the two men were, in fact, cousins, the more immediate question is whether they are buried in the same cemetery.
The preserved tradition which casts doubt on Trinity Churchyard as being Alexander Wilson's burial place recounts that Alexander's son, Alexander Wilson Jr, studied in New York City for the Presbyterian ministry, the faith of his father. Trinity Church began in 1696, when then Colonial Governor Benjamin Fletcher approved a land purchase by the Church of England for a new church in Lower Manhattan. It was chartered on 6 May 1697 by King William III. The original modest church was constructed in 1698. With some additions, this is the church building which burned in 1776. Today, Trinity Church belongs to the Episcopal Diocese of New York and is part of the Episcopal Church (USA), which is a member of the Anglican Communion, still headed by the Church of England. If the family tradition is correct that Alexander was a Presbyterian (and this tradition may be reinforced by the fact that Robert Wilson, Alexander Wilson's father, was born in a strongly Presbyterian region of Scotland), there is certainly a question as to whether he would have been buried in the churchyard of an Episcopal Church.
Even if Alexander Wilson was not buried in Trinity Churchyard, he probably was buried in New York City. There is an open question as to whether any evidence of his place of burial remained after the British occupation of the City. Certainly, no other burial place has yet been found.
Back to Top
Back to Historical Perspective Beginning
Some Things to Think About
A. Is there a difference in the theory of the "Divine Right of Kings" from the perspective of the
monarch and ruling classes and from the perspective of the ordinary citizen? What would be the
mindset or world view of a citizen of a country where leadership was firmly based on this theory?
Does this concept, or similar ones, still exist? Does it ever arise in contexts other than monarchies
and dictatorships?
B. Do you have any beliefs for which you would be a martyr? In other words, do you have any beliefs
that are so important to you that you would die rather than give them up or deny them? If so, what
makes those beliefs that important to you?
C. The first ten amendments to the US Constitution, called the Bill of Rights, include several
limitations on the authority of the federal government to take certain actions against the people. It is questionable whether the Constitution would have been ratified without those amendments. It would seem logical that the writers of the Bill of Rights, and the people arguing for the amendments, had specific reasons why they believed each of those limitations was not just important, but vital, within the legal structure of the new United States of America.
Does this story give any clues as to why some of those limitations were deemed so important?
Some people have suggested that at least some of the limitations on the authority of the federal
government set out in the Bill of Rights were so specific to the time in which they were written that
they are no longer meaningful in the present day. Are they? If those limitations were to be removed,
what might be the consequences? Does the adage "He who does not remember history is doomed to
repeat it" have any relevance?