The Resilience of Minnie Cofer: A Virginia Family Tale

Every family has its matriarchs—women whose lives may feel like distant whispers of the past but whose legacies are woven into the fabric of who we are today. Even though I did not know her, it feels like one of those women is Miriam Baylor Cofer, or “Minnie,” as she was lovingly called. Minnie was my great-great-grandmother, the mother of Ruby Chapman Wescott, my great-grandmother. While her life ended far too soon, it was filled with resilience, music, and family—a story that spans generations and paints a vivid picture of life in Virginia during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

A Childhood Full of Family and Loss

Born in 1867, Minnie grew up in a bustling household. She was the second of eight children in the Cofer family, though tragedy struck early when her older brother passed away at the tender age of seven. Despite this loss, the Cofer family thrived in Virginia, becoming one of the most prolific families in the region.

When Minnie was just three years old, she lived at home in Norfolk, Virginia. Imagine this: a home filled to the brim with sixteen people—her parents, four siblings, grandmother, and six aunts and uncles. The house, valued at $5,400 at the time (the equivalent of nearly $95,000 today), must have been lively and chaotic, filled with the sounds of family life. By the time Minnie turned 11, the Cofer family had moved out of the Davis home and into 61 Queen Street in Norfolk (now Portsmouth) where Minnie grew up alongside her four surviving siblings. That address no longer exists, but I believe it was near where the Court Street Baptist Church is now. (See map below.)

Love, Marriage, and Music

Three days before for twentieth birthday, Minnie married Isaac Burns Chapman in 1887, beginning a new chapter in her life. Together, they had seven children, including my great-grandmother Ruby. Their home was filled with the warmth of music and family. Ruby fondly recalled that both her parents had beautiful alto voices. Isaac, a talented string player in a band during his youth, would accompany Minnie, who played the organ at Court Street Baptist Church in Portsmouth. Singing became part of their family’s nightly tradition—a legacy of harmony passed down through the generations.

A Life Cut Short

Minnie’s life, though vibrant, was tragically brief. She passed away in 1916 at the age of 49 from cancer of the uterus. She is buried at Cedar Grove Cemetery in Norfolk, Virginia, a place where so many family stories converge.

Remembering Minnie: A Look Through Photos

The photos we have of Minnie give us a glimpse into her personality and presence. One, dated around 1887, shows Minnie at about 19 years old (though, to me, she appears older than that). In another photo, taken in 1916—the year of her death—Minnie is seen in a black dress standing beside a woman identified as “Mrs. Halyburton,” another prominent Virginia name. I often noticed that name in many of Ruby’s photos. I believe Mrs. Halyburton became a mother figure in Ruby’s life, as she appears in many pictures even after Ruby was married.

These photos offer more than just a visual record; they’re windows into her world, one that was rooted in Virginia’s history and her family’s enduring bonds.

The Legacy of the Cofer Family

Minnie’s story reminds us of the power of family, music, and resilience. From her crowded childhood home in Norfolk to her years as a wife, mother, and organist, she left behind a legacy of love and creativity. The Cofer name, deeply rooted in Virginia, represents a lineage of strength that continues to echo in the lives of her descendants.

Walking in Minnie’s footsteps—through stories, addresses, and photographs—gives me a sense of connection to the past. Her life, though distant in time, feels alive in the values and traditions she passed down. Whether it’s through the music of her home, the bonds of her family, or the resilience she demonstrated, Minnie remains an inspiring figure in my family tree.

 The three pictures below are the same. See the description for each.

Based on the dress style, high collar, and the sepia photograph’s format, this picture likely dates between 1880 and 1895. The visible brooch or floral embellishment, along with earrings, adds a personal, decorative touch, indicating she was dressed for a special occasion. The chain or ribbon with a small crucifix may have symbolic significance or simply reflect the style of the period. (analysis of photo by ChatGPT.) Since this was taken about 1887, I think it was a professional photograph taken before she was married in July of 1887 at the age of 19.

Miriam Cofer age 18 according to photo
Miriam Baylor Cofer -circa 1887 (the year she was married) according to the back of the photo. Original scanned photo.
Same photo with enhancement made by MyHeritage Photo Restorer- 24 Nov 2024.
Same photo with Enhanced Color Restored feature by MyHeritage- 24 Nov 2024
Court Street Baptist Church abt. 1762-
Courtesy of the Portsmouth Public Library
1908
Norfolk & Portsmouth, Virginia 1873-Drie, C. N. Norfolk & Portsmouth, Virginia. [N.P, 1873] Map. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/75696645/. In the 1880 census they lived on Queen, the next street the census taker visited was Bute.

Minnie is the woman in the dark black dress in both photos below.  The photos say about 1916, which is the year she died.  The other woman is “Mrs. Halyburton,” another big name in Virginia.  Unfortunately, the photos do not say where these were taken.  They lived in Bond Avenue and Granville Avenue, the Brambleton area of Virginia today.  From what I can find through Google, they lived where the railroad tracks are now in the area.

Miriam and Mrs. Halyburton in 1916
Miriam Cofer and Mrs. Halyburton in 1916

Final Thoughts

As I look back on the life of Minnie Baylor Cofer, I feel a profound sense of gratitude for the stories that have been preserved and the family ties that continue to connect us. Her life may have ended over a century ago, but her legacy still sings in the voices of her descendants. To me, she will always be more than a name in a family tree—she’s a symbol of strength and love.

While the majority of the writing is my own, I used ChatGPT to help with some minor rewrites and edits.

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Hampton’s Historical Intrigue: The Story of Nathaniel Weare, Sr. and Edward Gove’s Family Connection & Stolen Turnips

Nathaniel Weare, Sr (Abt. 1625-1681)- My 11th Great Uncle through the Logan-Bean side

Edward Gove– (1630-1691)- My 9th Great Grandfather through the Logan-Bean side

Their relation to each other?  Nathaniel is the 2nd great grandfather of Edward’s granddaughter’s husband.

The following article is courtesy of the Hampton Union, April 28, 2015, and Seacoast Online.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the late fall of 1670, Hampton planter John Fuller discovered that someone had pilfered about 20 bushels of his unharvested turnip crop. John Hancock, Fuller’s partner in the patch, swore that if he could prove who did it, the “taker of them” would be prosecuted.

The taker, as it turned out, was a prominent citizen named Nathaniel Weare. To his friends John and Martha Cass he had admitted that he “did take about a bushel and a half” after “accidentally” stumbling upon Fuller’s turnip patch. And if the ground hadn’t been so darned hard, he “might have took a few more.” As he said, he took them because they were so “remote in the woods,” and with the frost and all, he thought they would be “lost.”

John Cass asked if he had been given permission to take the turnips, to which Nathaniel replied “No.” But, he said, he had talked to John Fuller and had paid for the turnips with some pork.

The turnip thief is accused.

Given Weare’s status in the community and his payment of pork, the rather minor matter of the stolen turnips should never have seen the inside of a courtroom. But it did because a man named Edward Gove had publicly accused him of being a thief.

“You fool, you loggerheadedly, boby-headed ass. Get you about your business,” Weare said when Gove confronted him.

“How came I to be your tomfool loggerhead?” Gove wondered.

His response did not sit well with Weare, who then did what any adult male Puritan in his position would do: he hit Gove with a stick. Aghast at his own act of violence, he reportedly fell upon his knees before Gove, not once, but twice, which, Gove claimed, “hath been Weare’s custom so to act to others” besides himself. Apparently Gove knew Weare as a man who had a lot to apologize for.

“Get up again like a lubber,” Gove said as he helped Weare to his feet.

The accuser becomes the accused.

Weare wished that Gove, who was known to suffer now and again from an “unsound mind,” would withdraw his accusation and leave him alone. But he did not, perhaps in part because of a grudge Gove may have been harboring, from a time when Weare had driven his hogs onto Gove’s land without permission. Whatever the reason, their present feud had caused enough of a stir that Weare had sent his friend, Nathaniel Clark of Newbury, and Henry Palmer of Hampton to talk some sense into Gove. When they met at Henry Roby’s tavern, located near the present-day Baptist Church on Winnacunnet Road, Gove agreed that Weare had not intentionally taken the turnips. Still, he had broken the 8th commandment (thou shalt not steal), which was contrary to Law.

“It will be an encouragement to others to go on in such wicked courses, contrary to Christianity and civility,” he said to explain why he could not let the matter go.

He added, “It is easy making an excuse for the theft if after the thing be like to be proved against the person.” Translation: Weare confessed only because his misdeed had been found out.

It seems that the only way to make Gove shut up was to sue him. In Norfolk County court, then, Weare brought charges of his “reproachful speeches and assaulting carriage,” and of his killing a hawk on the Lord ’s Day. The jury deliberated the evidence and brought in a verdict of guilty.

The accused appeals the verdict.

Gove appealed the verdict to the Court of Assistants in Boston, saying that “Your appellant apprehends himself much disadvantaged” because the trial jury foreman, who had also been the grand jury foreman, had vowed that if Gove came to trial he “would warrant [Gove] should suffer.” It was Gove’s contention that he would have been acquitted had this biased man not sat on the jury. The record, however, does not agree with his “facts”; it shows that two different men, Lt. Benjamin Swett and Henry Palmer, had served as jury foremen.

Rather than rest on a claim of an unfair trial, he further asserted that he was only defending himself when Weare hit him with the stick, and that he helped Weare to his feet, not pushed him down, as he had been accused of doing. And he had broken no law in calling Nathaniel Weare a thief. It had been John Fuller’s kinsman, William Fuller, who said that Weare had taken the turnips from the field. Why, then, was it Gove and not Fuller who was charged? In answering his own question he said, “Indeed [it was] better for Fuller to lose his turnips than for he that took them disorderly to lose his friend.”

Gove rather unwisely condemned the entire Massachusetts judicial system, saying that if Weare were to be tried in England, with the weight of Gove’s evidence against him, “he would appear in all his colors as he is to all the beholders.” Weare was to Gove like Haman the Evil, an Old Testament figure who had tried to destroy the Jewish people but had had the tables turned horribly upon himself.

If righteous indignation counted, Gove should have won his appeal on that aspect alone. Unfortunately, we’ll never know how things turned out – the record was lost, destroyed, or, just as likely, Gove dropped his appeal after he cooled off. As for Nathaniel Weare, there is no record that he was ever brought to court for taking the turnips.

Epilogue

From the Case of the Stolen Turnips, it would hardly be possible to peg these two highly imperfect men as stalwart heroes of Hampton’s history, our early defenders of Liberty and Freedom. But both men are venerated for their fervent opposition to New Hampshire’s royal governor Edward Cranfield, a man forever despised as a tyrant.

While it’s true that Cranfield fit the stereotype of the arrogant English nobleman, let’s not blame him entirely for the failures of his regime. He had been given the impossible task of imposing Royal rule on a people who for fifty years had managed their own affairs, under Massachusetts and English law, and had no intention of parting with the privilege.

In 1683, while under the influence of “ardent spirits,” an inherited predisposition to “lunacy,” and a lack of sleep, Edward Gove attempted to muster a rebellion against Cranfield’s government. Doing little more than riding through the towns causing a ruckus, he was soon enough arrested by the Hampton militia – on a warrant that his old nemesis Nathaniel Weare, as Justice of the Peace, had been obliged to serve.

Not even Weare would have wanted what happened next. To all those New Hampshire men whom Cranfield loathed as “unmanageable creatures,” Gove was to be made an example, even though the Governor had been presented with depositions to show that the man was subject to fits of madness. No matter, Gove was put on trial and convicted of high treason. Weare had been among the men summoned to give testimony in the trial.

The Court sentenced Gove to the standard traitor’s punishment: to be hanged by the neck and cut down alive, his entrails taken out and burnt before his face, his head cut off, his body divided into four quarters, all to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure. He was shipped off to England and imprisoned in the Tower of London to await this gruesome fate.

But Cranfield soon realized that he had made a terrible miscalculation. Instead of bringing the rebel dogs to heel, sentencing their fellow countryman to death only stiffened their resistance against him.

In 1684 Weare undertook a mission to England, bearing a petition signed by 219 citizens of Portsmouth, Dover, Exeter, and Hampton, to lay the problem of Cranfield’s misrule at the feet of the King. The petition and Weare’s testimony helped bring about the Governor’s eventual recall.

As for Edward Gove, cooler heads prevailed in the mother country and his sentence was never carried out – in large part, it’s been said, because Nathaniel Weare had a hand in securing his pardon from the King. Both men returned home to New Hampshire.

In the end, perhaps Nathaniel Weare learned a valuable lesson: if you’re going to “borrow” a bushel of turnips from a neighbor’s patch, it’s best not to do so with a witness—and certainly not with the ground so hard you can’t make a clean getaway. As for poor Edward Gove, one can only imagine that next time, he’ll steer clear of any tavern debates involving turnips, sticks, or overly apologetic neighbors. After all, in 1670s Hampton, the only thing stickier than a turnip theft was the awkward aftermath of a public apology on bended knee!

Lassiter, Cheryl. “The Case of the Stolen Turnips.” Portsmouth Herald, 27 Apr. 2015, www.seacoastonline.com/search/?q=Stolen%2BTurnips.