The “First Families” genealogy on the Baltimore County webpage as well as many other sources say that William Pearce (whose tombstone they interpreted as saying 1738-1800) married Elizabeth Putnam. But I can find no evidence anywhere that her maiden name was Putnam. Perhaps the fact that she named a son John Putnam Pearce is some evidence. His middle name just seems like it may have been a family name, like perhaps his mother’s maiden name.

I do not see any evidence that any other of this couple’s children were given that middle name which leads me to the further speculation that Elizabeth’s father may behave been John Putnam. There were several men named John Putnam in Maryland in that period but I can’t find any really good candidate.

Her tombstone says she died 2 Feb 1844 and was in her 96th year, suggesting a birth in about 1748.

According to Ancestry’s DNA testing, I share DNA with 8 people who all claim to be descended from a man named Andrew (or Andreas) Putnam (aka Boudemont), a family of German descent. These 8 persons descend from 5 different of Andrew’s supposed children. So I have researched this Andrew, the theory being, of course, that I too must descend from Andrew, in my case through his supposed daughter Elizabeth (1748-1844).

It was easy to find his will which named his wife Catherine and children: John, Peter, Elizabeth, Mary, Maryann, Catherine, Susannah and Andrew.So there it is, he did have a daughter Elizabeth. Case closed?

Not by a long shot. There are many problems with the idea that my Elizabeth was the daughter of this Andrew.

1. The biggest problem is that Andrew’s daughter Elizabeth apparently married John Dull. The tombstone of Elizabeth Dull says she died in 1843 at age 91, so was born about 1752. In fact, 3 of my DNA cousins descend from this couple.

2. Another problem is geography. Andrew Putnam lived in Washington County, Maryland and some of his descendants, including John and Elizabeth Dull, settled in (nearby) Somerset County,, PA. There is a Mertz family with those two counties in common, I think the Washington to Somerset migration was a not uncommon thing.

But these places are well west of Baltimore County so how would William Pearce of Baltimore County ever met Elizabeth Putnam of Washington County?

3. It sure seems like Andrew named his children in his will in birth order. From what other people think (not always reliable), John was born in 1748, Peter 1750 and Elizabeth (who married John Dull) 1751 and the others still later. Based on that alone, I would believe the one and only Elizabeth was the one born in 1751 who married John Dull.

The only way I can imagine all of this making sense would be:

1. My Elizabeth was, for example, Mary Elizabeth and her father named her Mary in his will. I have certainly seen other German families with daughters Maria, Mary Elizabeth and Elizabeth.

2. Maybe Mary Elizabeth was especially close to her bother John and went with him to Baltimore County as a young woman where she met and married William Pearce and later named a son after her brother, John Putnam.

3. Her tombstone was wrong, She was not 96 — maybe it really says 86 years, after all it is hard to read.

So I posit that far-fetched theory but I’m not even close to believing it.

Update. Now, a month later (March 2020), Ancestry no longer suggests Andrew as my ancestor and now suggests Elizabeth was the d/o Major General Israel Thomas Putnam. But the only descendants of his that I match actually descend from William and Elizabeth (Putnam) Pearce.

The “First Families” genealogy on the Baltimore County webpage as well as many other sources say that William Pearce (whose tombstone they interpreted as saying 1738-1800) who married Elizabeth Putnam was the son of William Pearce (1712-1783) and Mary Crawford. We know that William and Mary married in 1735, so the timing seems reasonable. Becky Curry’s tree agrees. But none of these sources state the evidence for this conclusion.

A hint of this relationship is that in some deeds, William, taylor, called himself William Sr. -- meaning there must have been a William Jr. I also think that some of the documented mentions that Marvin Pearce thought applied to William Pearce, father of Philip Crawford, might in fact have referred to William Pearce, brother of Philip Crawford.

This William did not ever list tailor as his occupation but his inventory listed certain items of cloth and raw material as if he may have had those skills -- passed down from his father?

There remains however the problem of proving that William Pearce who died in 1806 in the Monkton area was the son of William Pearce of Towson. Now these areas are not that far apart, really, by car. But in the days of horse and buggy, we have to consider them two separate and distinct places. So, what connects them?

I believe I can document the presence of a William Pearce Jr. in Towson and I have no idea what happened to him if he wasn’t the William who died in Monkton and what I know about William (1806) is not inconsistent with the idea that he was the son of William Sr. of Towson.

Perhaps the strongest argument is that in the same cemetery, St. James, where William Pearce (1806) was buried, we also find Joseph Pearce -- a man who apparently named a son William Crawford Pearce. I believe Joseph and William were brothers.

1790. William Pearce lives in Mine Run Hundred, BAL. This is the only William Pearce I have found in 1790 in Maryland so my assumption is that it is this one and that his father has died. His neighbor is Thomas Pearce, possibly his brother.

Marvin Pearce has extensively searched early Maryland records for any mention of Philip Grafford Pearce and his father William.

He cites, for example, that William Sr. and Philip Grafford Pearce both signed an Oath of Fidelity to Maryland in 1778. Marvin believes William, the father of his ancestor Philip Grafford Pearce, died in 1783 and summarizes: “so far as is known, there is no record of his children, other than the one son, Philip Grafford Pearce.” It is curious that Marvin did not comment on why William who he thought was William who he thought died in about 1783 apparently signed himself William Sr.

He also missed clear evidence that there was a William Pearce Jr. of Towson, who must have been the son of William Sr., as there were no other Pearces there. In 1763, there is record of an unpatented tract called “Pearce’s Struggle” -- 19 acres in the name of William Pearce Jr. From the names of adjoining tracts, I can place it close to Molly’s Industry and I think we can conclude therefore that William Jr. was the son of William Sr. This doesn’t prove he was the same William Pearce who later showed up in the Monkton area, but it proves the existence of William Jr.

The “First Families” work says that William Pearce and Mary Crawford in fact had nine children including Philip, a son named William born in 1738 (1800 date of death minus 62 years), a son Joseph born in 1752 and also sons Thomas, Andrew, John and Walter. No church record, will, deed, nor other hard evidence is cited so all of that is unverified.

I have tried to study every mention of anyone named Pearce in the relevant period of time in Baltimore County. No one of that name remained in or near Towson, they had disappeared from there by 1810, probably well before that. But by 1810, a cluster of Pearces had established themselves in Mine Run Hundred -- an area that included Monkton.

There were seven persons named Pearce on the 1810 Census in Mine Run Hundred. Thomas, Elizabeth (who I believe was the widow of William who died in 1806) and Joseph were all over the age of 45. I believe Thomas, William and Joseph were brothers, the children of William and Mary Crawford Pearce.

The other four, all aged 26-45 were William, Thomas, Joshua and Joseph.

There are eleven persons named Pearce buried at St James in Monkton born before 1800. Six of them are wives. In addition, there are two other married women buried there, also born before 1800, who if you can believe the genealogy behind find-a-grave, were maiden name Pearce. I believe all thirteen of these persons were descendants (or their wives) of William Pearce who married Mary Crawford.

The five men buried at St. James were William (died 1806 age 62), Joseph (1752-1829), Thomas (1772-1856), Joseph (1781-1837) and Joshua (1787-1827). (Note the correspondence to the 1810 Census names.)

I may know more hard facts about the Joseph who died in 1829 than any of the others. He left a will in which he named his five sons: Luke Wiley, William Crawford, Joseph Jr. and Greenbury W Pearce. His wife was supposedly Comfort Rebecca Wiley which I think is substantially proven by the names of two of her sons: Luke Wiley named after her father and Greenbury W(iley) named after her brother.

Joseph and Rebecca clearly had a pattern of including family names when naming their children, so I consider the fact of their having a son named William Crawford to be of huge importance. It seems quite safe to assume Joseph was the son of William Pearce whose wife was Mary Crawford.

And building on that assumption, I also consider it quite safe to assume that William Pearce in the same cemetery was Joseph’s brother, otherwise the man we knew as William Jr. previously of Towson.

Finally, since the younger Pearces, both in the 1810 Census and/or buried at St James were not sons of Joseph, I conclude they were sons of William (1806). This includes the younger William Pearce of the 1810 Census who I believe was our ancestor William (1775-1835) as he was buried not far away at all -- in his case in the Sparks-Carlin family cemetery.

Now back to the work of Marvin Pearce. I’m not sure whether it was William Sr. or Jr. who Marvin found on the 1783 tax list or the 1778 oath of allegiance. Marvin concluded William, the father, died in 1783 but I think he concluded that because that was the date of what he thought was the last mention of him. My hunch is that the father may have died earlier and it was William Jr. on the 1783 tax list.

And what about the 1778 Fidelity Oath? Everyone over the age of 16 had to sign (unless they had enlisted in the militia). Shouldn’t both Williams have signed? Which one was it? Was one or the other in the military? I have seen no evidence of that. If only William (1780) signed, where was William Jr.? If only William (1835) signed, why did he sign the oath as William Sr.? Was he calling himself that because his father had already died and by then he did in fact have a son William, the one born in 1775?

Due to these ambiguities, I don’t think it can be clearly established when William of Towson died and I don’t think anyone has any source that gives the date, so I say “about 1780”.

When William died intestate, his widow Elizabeth Pearce was named Administrator with William and Thomas Pearce as her sureties. This record also made note there was the widow and nine children, a count in agreement with “First Families”.

Internet Trees give the names of eight children and some have each child’s date of birth, death and marriage and the name of their spouses. Of course, the fact that this information appears in many Internet Trees is not really significant as most people doing what they think is genealogical research are really only doing cut and paste copying of the work of others that they just assume is correct.

Nonetheless, in addition to our William, here are the other seven: Thomas (1772-1856) married Elizabeth Bacon, Joshua (1778-1827) married Sophia Wiley, Pelatiah (1780-1847) married Nathan Gorsuch Jr., Joseph (1781-1837) married Rachel Slade, John Putnam (1784-1861) married Elizabeth Gorsuch, Philip (1785-1861) and Elizabeth (1786-1854) married Daniel Lesourd.