Azariah Cooley

Azariah married Rebecca Dicks about 1729. Rebecca was born about 1704; died after 1750. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

1. Azariah Cooley was born in 1730; died in 1778.

Azariah married about 1724. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Benjamin married Margaret Bliss on 30 Jan 1701 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts. Margaret (daughter of Samuel Bliss and Sarah Stebbins) was born on 23 Nov 1683 in Longmeadow, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; died after 1721. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Daniel was the 4th child and 3rd son of Benjamin and Sarah Cooley. He was one of those in Longmeadow to sign the petition of 1702/03 for permission to remove to higher ground following the flooding of the Longmeadow lowlands along the Connecticut River.His occupation was that of husbandman. He took an active part in public affairs of Springfield and was a man of considerable means for this time. He is known to have taken the Oath of Allegiance in 1678
(findagrave)

Daniel married Elizabeth Wolcott on 8 Dec 1680. Elizabeth was born about 1651; died after 1682. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Married:
Name: Daniel Cooley
Gender: Male
Birth Year: 1651
Marriage Date: 8 Dec 1680
Death Year: 1727
Marriage Place: New England, United States
Spouse's Name: Elizabeth Wolcott

Notes:

The following account is reported in 1636 - 1675, Early History of
Springfield, an address delivered 1875, 200 year anniversary of the buring of Springfield by Indians.

1671. On a Sunday, Aquossowump, and Indian, entered the home of Sam Bliss. Although the Bliss attempted to stop him, the Indian took 20 fathum of wampum from Mrs. Bliss' wooden chest. The Indian was arrested, identified by the children, and confessed. He was fined his "spare coate & ye wampum found with him" which was delivered to Sam Bliss, and was given 20 lashes. For story of burning of Springfield, see Deacon Samuel Chapin.


19 JUN 1749 in Springfield, Massachusetts
Reference Number: 2278
Note: Died at the age of 102. He left 168 descendants: 6 children, 38 grandchildren, 114 great-grandchildren and 10 great-great-grandchildren.

Samuel married Sarah Stebbins on 2 Jan 1672 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts. Sarah (daughter of Lt. Thomas* Stebbins and Hannah* Wright, (daughter?)) was born on 8 Aug 1654 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; died on 6 Nov 1721 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

"Life and Times of Henry Burt of Springfield," Henry M. Burt and Silas W. Burt, 1893, pg 236 states "His daughter Sarah, by his first wife, married January 2, 1672, Samuel Bliss, son of John and Patience Burt Bliss." This is in error because the first of John and Patience Bliss children was born in 1668.

Other Events and Attributes:

• Emigration: Bef 1648, England
• Immigration: Bef 1648, Massachusetts (probably)
• Property: 2 Feb 1657, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts
• Possessions: 1684, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts

Notes:

He probably immigrated with at least his wife and perhaps some of his children sometime before 1663.

In 1635, from his initial base in Roxbury, Massachusetts, Pynchon and two others conducted an exploratory expedition up the Connecticut River looking for a good place to establish a beaver trade. They found it at Agawam, and his two colleagues remained there for the winter to get things started. Both Burt (1898) and Swift (1969) provide abundant documentation of Pynchon?s dealings with the Native Americans as they established their beaver operations.

In the following spring (1636) Pynchon led a larger expedition to create a settlement on the banks of the Connecticut River. In 1640 that settlement was named Springfield, after the town in Essex where Pynchon was from. Burt (1898, pg. 20) reports that several of the new settlers in 1640 were married prior to their arrival in Springfield, among them he lists Benjamin Cooley. This explains why there is no record of Benjamin and Sarah?s wedding in Springfield. Unfortunately their names have not been found on any ship passenger list, but many ships arrived in New England at that time without a surviving record of passenger names. The first official record of Benjamin?s Springfield presence was the birth of their daughter Bethia on September 16,1643.


Benjamin Cooley was baptized in the nearby town of Tring in 1617. As a young lad he must have been trained as a weaver, for soon after his arrival in Springfield, MA he took on an apprentice weaver named Samuel Terry. We also know from Benjamin?s will that tools of the weaver craft was a big part of his estate.

As Mortimer Cooley (1941, pg. 72) reports, ?there is ample evidence that Benjamin Cooley was a skilled worker in both flax and wool.? So it is very probable that Pynchon?s agents in Essex and Hertfordshire (Swift, 1969, pg. 16) convinced a young weaver named Benjamin Cooley to move to the new world. That recruitment may have been fairly easy for a number of reasons.


References
Burt, Henry (1898) The First Century of the History of Springfield: 1636 to 1736 Michigan Historical Reprint Series.
Bremer, Francis (1995) The Puritan Experiment University Press of New England.

Cooley, Mortimer (1941) The Cooley Genealogy Tuttle Publishing Company.

--------
He settled in Longmeadow, MA. The library in Longmeadow has a great resource of all the Cooleys descendeds,from Benjamin and Sarah. In the Longmeadow, MA there is a Cooley Street and markers on the historical homes, many of which were Cooleys. It's amazing that many of the families had 6 or more children. Benjamin was active in the town's government and lived a long life with his wife Sarah.
Sources:
1. Torrey, C.A. "New England Marriages before 1700" pp.179.

---------

The Cooley Genealogy, page 137

Few dividends slipped away from Benjamin Cooley,
except as he made exchanges for property more useful and
convenient to him. In 1647 he was taxed for 40 1/2 acres,
while the inventory of his estate in 1684 included 527 acres
exclusive of the "land that Obadiah Cooley occupieth." This
latter tract, at Main and York streets in Springfield,
comprised perhaps ten acres, giving as a total, 537 acres
acquired during Benjamin Cooley's forty years as an
inhabitant of Springfield.

Source: found at Genforum, for Benj. & Sarah Cooley of Springfield, MA

Posted by: Jo Ann Sherwood Date: August 30, 1999.
In Reply to: Benj. & Sarah Cooley of Springfield, MA by Skip Cooley of 720

Dear Skip:

I enjoyed your articles on the dress codes. In return I thought you might like a copy of the Indian deed "selling" Springfield.

February 4, 1678. The indians above named viz Wawapana and Wawaba and Wecombo the true and proper owners of all the lands above mentioned did set and by sale forever pass away all the land above mentioned to Mr. Elizaber Holyoke, George Colton, Benjamin Cooley, Samuel Marshfield and Anthony Dorchester for the use and behoofe of the town of Springfield the bargain being meade in my presence and as I remember it was in the year 1674 or thereabout I was offered in treaty about it which at last came to a conclusion to be as above mentioned the payment also for the land as above expressed passing through my hands to the indians which they gladly accepted and did willingly own the sale to me after this deed was they comeing particulary one at a tyme to me to subscribe it when I told them they must came altogether the want of which was the onely obstruction for they often severally acknowledged the sale and the writing to be according to their minde and meaning also testifying their readiness to come all together and subscribe which as they promised no doubt they would have done but that the indian wars happening in the year 1675 they with other indians we drove away before which time they made the above said purchase and sale and I declare they did come personally and owne and acknowledge the conveyhance and sale of the land above mentioned as above expressed. This then done and by ye Indians Wequanquan and Wawapaw and Wecomobo owned and acknowledged. John Pynchon, Attestant. This entred these records for the county of Hampshire July 12 1679 as attested.

John Holyoke (Source: Hampshire County Massachusetts Deeds, Book AB, page 24, Film 844486.
SOURCE: Files of Jackie Drybread in Rootsweb

____________

From: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ma/county/hampden/hist/hist2.html
EARLY SPRINGFIELD AND LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS
Page 2 (Continued)

George Colton is said to have married Deborah Gardner at Hartford about the time of his settling at Springfield. He named his second daughter Sarah. Is it possible that Benjamin Cooley's wife Sarah was a sister of George Colton? The relations between Cooley and Colton would seem to have been far more binding than a mere Damon and Pythias attachment. If the origins of George Colton could be determined they might shed an important light on the early life of Benjamin Cooley.

There seems to have been nothing precipitate in the nature of Benjamin Cooley, who appears to have always made haste slowly. One of such a nature would not have been apt to accept the first home site offered. A mere four acre strip of arable land from the street to the river must have seemed a pitiful provision for a family, especially if part of the tract was to be occupied by a house and its appurtenances. Along almost its entire length the town street followed the line of the marsh and the artificial ditch which became the town brook, and there seems to have been an official prejudice against the locating of buildings on the marsh side of the street. However, at the south end of the town, the brook turned off to the east for the breadth of six or seven lots, sufficiently to provide a sizeable plot of hard ground east of the street.

Cooley was a desirable prospect; one to be encouraged. Therefore on February 23, 1643/44 it, was "ordered and voted that there shall be no barns nor any other housing set up betwixt the street fence and the brook except they have four rod for the highway."

1 Thus Cooley's objections were met and he chose the third lot from the south, where the brook course provided the minimum of marsh. East of the street he built his house. At the rear of it was the clear running natural brook. Across the street was his barn. Three lots to the north was a site offering similar advantages and this was chosen by George Colton who also established himself on the east side of the town street.
After his permanent removal to Longmeadow,

Cooley sold this property in the town plot to his next-door neighbor, Richard Sikes, on January 12, 1667/68.2 Both the house and the barn were burned by the Indians in the sack of the town on October 5, 1675, so that nothing definite is known of them, but consideration of other buildings of the time provides a knowledge of their nature and construction.

It can be most positively affirmed that the Cooley house was not one of those log cabins, so beloved by poets and painters, that actually were unknown in pioneer New England. An Englishman, coming to America in the early 17th century, would have had about as much knowledge of a log house as he would have had of an Esquimau igloo--and no more. He simply would never have heard of such a thing. In any event, lack of material would have prohibited such wasteful construction for, contrary to general thought, southern New England was then not one huge forest but was an expanse almost entirely of great open spaces, due to the annual burnings of the Indians. There is today, in Massachusetts and Connecticut, far more wooded area than there was when the Pilgrims landed. So scarce was timber about Springfield that the very earliest plantation order prohibited the cutting of a single tree on the town plot. As the Indians were exterminated this unnatural condition corrected itself, but as late as 1699, Northampton was forced to consider ways and means for overcoming their great lack of firewood.

Springfield carpenters and builders planned and built in the English tradition the type of houses they had known in the old country. The home of Anne Hathaway at Shottery which has been made so familiar by modern photography well illustrates the type.

Rather complete details of the house built for the first minister in 1639 are of record. It is shown to have been a two and a half-story building with an entrance porch, the second story of the latter being designed for a study. The roof was thatched and the walls were "wattled," that framework being covered with clay with a result not unlike a stucco house in appearance. The rods of the wattling were known as "wales" and the process of covering them with clay was called "daubing the wales."

Such construction was well adapted to the mild winters and damp summers of Old England but here the settlers found that this clay-stucco siding succumbed to the rigors of ice and snow, and for protection they were forced to overlay it with an outside covering of boarding. Continuous winter fires and hot, dry summers constituted a fire hazard that led to the early abandonment of thatched roofs.

Until the coming, about 1645, of Hugh Parsons, the brick maker and chimney specialist, chimneys were built after the English manner, in cob-house fashion of round sticks, daubed with clay.
The church of 1645 was of similar construction to the parsonage except that the roof was covered with hand riven shingles, eighteen inches in length. Seven years later the outside was clapboarded.

Apparently the "daubed" house persisted for a considerable period for at the hearing in the witchcraft charges against Hugh Parsons, on March 17, 1650/51, John Lombard testified "that one day last summer he set a trowel and a stick which he used to hold to his clay when he daubed, on the ground just without his door; after which two Indians came in and presently went away again. When he also went out to look for his trowel, there was the stick, but the trowel was gone." Thus the tools of the trade seem to have been in common use at least as late as 1650.
Diagonally across the street from the Cooley house was the home of widow Margaret Bliss. Across the street to the south was that of Hugh Parsons. Both of these were built about 1643-1645 and both were garrisoned during King Philip's was and so were preserved until the camera could make a permanent record of them, and thus is had a knowledge of the house of the period.

One can surmise that the first Cooley home in America was a substantial and commodious two and a half-story structure of half-timbered, clay-daubed walls. The materials undoubtedly came from his own hillside wood-lot east of the brook. There, with frow and beetle he probably rived his own shingles. Presumably the windows had casement sashes, with tiny diamond panes set in lead.

Benjamin Cooley came into the community at a busy time. In 1645 the first church was built and every inhabitant was obligated to give twenty days work to its furtherance (not twenty-three days as appears in Burt's transcript, Vol. I, page 176). Here is meat for the statistician and the economist. Exclusive of William Pynchon and Pastor Moxon, there must have been forty townsmen who contributed their labor; a total of eight hundred days, or the equivalent of between two and three years of working days for one man. The maximum day for carpenters and similar workers had previous been set at ten hours. Thus, eight thousand hours of labor went into the fashioning of the church. It would seem that either tools were inadequate or labor was inefficient, or that the structure was far more pretentious than the recorded specifications indicate.

Within five years an attic floor was laid in the church, providing a chamber which was used by various individuals for the storage of corn, and the records show that on "December 28, 1653, it is granted to Benjamin Cooley to have the use of the meeting house chamber from the innermost side of the pillars to the end of the house and to enjoy it the first Tuesday in November next, in consideration whereof he is to pay seven shillings in good wheat or wampum by the first of November next."

The earliest of Benjamin Cooley in the Springfield records is dated September 16, 1643, when his daughter, Bethia, was born. The next is February 8, 1643/44 when he was called for jury duty. On September 23, 1645, a reference to fences indicates that he was then established on his property and that he was then the most southerly lot occupant, his later neighbors on the south not then having arrived. From then on the records are replete with references to his public services, some of which must have been quite arduous. On February 8, 1643/44, when he served as a juryman in a petty case involving a pig, the group reported that "the jury having been held till near midnight hearing the plea and the proofs, desires liberty not to bring in their verdict until the next day, an hour before sun set." Here is perhaps something significant and illuminating. Benjamin Cooley was then almost a stranger in town and it was his first experience with a local jury. It was a jury of six, the others being Thomas Cooper, John Dober, Richard Sikes, William Branch and John Harmon. Was it a Cooley insistence on justice that protracted the session until all arguments were heard, despite personal sacrifices? Was here first demonstrated a sense of justice that brought later honors?

In 1667, with Deacon Samuel Chapin and George Colton, he was in charge of the first local "Community Chest" for the distribution of "four or five pounds to help a little against the want of some families." He not only had the confidence of the community but he seems to have endeared himself to all classes. The testimony in the Hugh Parsons hearing relates that at the Pynchon store he was "one that was liked." And it was to his neighbor Cooley that the bedeviled and harassed Hugh Parsons went for help when distracted with anxiety over his sick child.
On March 4, 1650/51, there died at Springfield, Joshua Parsons, infant son of Hugh Parsons and his wife, Mary Lewis. The available evidence indicates that the child succumbed to croup or some similar ailment, but the father was accused of witchcraft in connection with the death. He was examined before magistrate Pynchon and the testimony then given sheds such light on the homely affairs of the day that it is here rehearsed, in so far as it relates to Benjamin Cooley.

Hugh Parsons desired that Goodman Cooley would testify whether he was not affected with the death of his child when he came to speak to him to go to the burial of it. He said he could not speak to him for weeping.

Benjamin Cooley said that when he spoke to him to go to the burial of his child, he cannot remember any sorrow that he showed, for he came to him taking a pipe of tobacco.

Hugh Parsons said that when his child was sick and like to die, he ran barefoot and barelegged and with tears to desire Goody Cooley to come to his wife, because his child was so ill.

One can picture the poor, bewildered maniac, rushing across the street in the middle of the night, barefooted and night-shirted, pounding on Sarah Cooley's door and pleading for help, desperate because his child was choking with croup, while its mother was not a fit person to give it care. Perhaps in his saner moments he recalled the Goodwife's success with her own children.

Goody Cooley testified that this was at the first time the child was taken. There was some speeches used that it might be bewitched, for those that are now bewitched have often times something rise up into their throats that doth stop their breath and it seems by George Colton's testimony that the child was strangely taken.

Benjamin Cooley said upon oath that Mary Parsons told him about a year since that she feared her husband was a witch and that she so far suspected him that she had searched him when he had been asleep in his bed but could not find anything about him unless it be in his secret parts.

Benjamin Cooley and Anthony Dorchester said upon oath that being charged by the constable to watch Mary Parsons this last night, she told them that if her husband had fallen out with anybody, he would say that he would be even with them and then she found that he did bewitch his own child that she might be at liberty to help him in his Indian corn harvest; for he expected help from her and because her time was taken up about her child, he being eager after the world, seemed to be troubled at it and she suspected that he was a means to make an end of his child quickly, that she might be at liberty to help him. Another thing said she made her to suspect her husband to be a witch was that most things he sold to others did not prosper. Another ground of suspicion was because he was so backward to go to the ordinances, either to the lecture or to any other meeting and she had been feign to threaten him that she would complain to the magistrate or else she thought he would not let her go once in the year. Another thing that made her suspect him to be a witch was because of the great noise that she could hear in the house when he was abroad. And she said that last Tuesday, at night, when he was abroad, she heard a noise in the house as if forty horses had been there and after he was come to bed he kept a noise and a calling in his sleep, but she could not understand one word and so he hath done many times formerly and when she asked him what he ailed he would say he had strange dreams and one time he said that the devil and he were fighting and once he had almost overcome him but at last he overcame the devil.

Jonathan Taylor said upon oath, March 21, 1650/51, that when he was at the house of Hugh Parsons this winter he told me that he had been at Mr. Pynchon's to get as much whitleather as to make a cap for a flail, and he was willing, but Simon Beamon would not let him have any. It had been as good, said he, he had. He shall get nothing by it; I will be even with him. Mary Parsons said; husband, why do you threaten the fellow so; it is like he was busy. He answered, if Goodman Cooley or any one else that he had liked had come, he should have had it. But I'll remember him.

Jonathan Taylor on oath said that sometime this winter on a night, a pair of Goodman Matthews pales fell down with a noise and going out presently to see the occasion thereof, could not perceive anything. But going into his house again, it being very dark, Hugh Parsons was at his back, his hand on his door as soon as his was, he bidding him sit down, which he did, Parsons saying, Goodman Cooley's boy nothing but beat my calf. His master will take no order with him, but I will. Anon after, Goody Cooley came and inquired after her boy, whether this deponent had seen him, he telling her no. She replied, I sent him to Goodman Matthews a good while since and cannot tell what is become of him, and desired this deponent to help her look for him, which he did, in all the hay mows and out houses with whooping and hallooing for him but could not find him nor hear of him. At last she gave over looking for him and this deponent enquired of the said Goody Cooley whether Hugh Parsons had not met him and took orders with him and he threatened him for beating his calf. And after they were parted a while, the boy came home, and his dame asked him where he had been. He said, in a great cellar and was carried headlong into it, Hugh Parsons going before him, and fell down with me there, and afterwards he will me into it.

This "boy" was of course not Sarah Cooley's son, but Samuel Terry whom Cooley had taken as an apprentice.

Benjamin married * Sarah Savage on 1642 in Springfield, Hampden Co., Massachusetts. Sarah was born about 1620 in England.


The Great Puritan Migration to New England
Between 1630 and 1642, over 20,000 Englishmen migrated to New England. William Pynchon, the Puritan founder of Springfield, Massachusetts was one of them. So was Benjamin Cooley, the founder of the Cooley family in America, of which I am a member. Mortimer Cooley, in his remarkable two volume work, The Cooley Genealogy (1941), clearly documents Benjamin Cooley's early days in Massachusetts and how we all descended from Benjamin and his wife Sarah.

SOURCE: Cooley - The Great Puritan Migration to New England
carolaug Posted: 19 Jan 2009 11:52PM GMT






http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=pusch&id=I001589





--------

1648: Samuel Chapin became a member of the Board of Selectmen on which Benjamin Cooley first served.


Property:
2 Feb 1657/8: Benjamin Cooley was granted ten acreas of land bounded by John Lumbard on ye North of its Breadth (Springfield Book of Possessions asquoted in The Cooley Genealogy, p. 140)


Possessions:
Only three men other than the magistrate held estates valued in excess of L800. Ensign Benjamin Cooley owned holdings worth L1,241 when he died in 1684. Pynchon's brother-in-law, Elizur Holyoke, died eight years later leaving his heirs property worth L1,187. At his death in 1690, quartermaster George Colton owned assets valued at L847.
The Pynchons and The People of Early Springfield
http://www.americancenturies.mass.edu/classroom/curriculum_12th/unit1/lesson4/innes.html

Benjamin* married Sarah* Savage about 1642 in England (probably). Sarah* was born about 1620 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts, or England (probably); died on 23 Aug 1684 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Emigration: Bef 1663, England
• Immigration: Bef 1663, Massachusetts (probably)

Notes:

www.ancestry.com
THE PIONEERS OF MASSACHUSETTS,

Nathaniel, Springfield, propr. 1646. He m. 20 (9) 1646, Katharine Chapin; ch. Samuel b. 7 (9) 1647, Margaret b. 12 (9) 1649, Mary b. 23 (7) 1651, Nathaniel b. 27 (1) 1653. He was bur. 18 (9) 1654. His widow m. 31 (4) 1655, Thomas Gilbert; he d. 5 June, 1662, and she m. Samuel Marshfield. Mary, (m. 26 (9) 1646, Joseph Parsons,) Sarah, m. 20 (5) 1659, John Scott,) and Hester, (m. Dec. 26, 1661, Edward Foster,) may be ch. of Nathaniel.

Nathaniel married Catherine Chapin on 20 Nov 1646 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts. Catherine (daughter of Deacon Samuel* Chapin, (immigrant) (J-FFDNA-5r) and Cicely* Penney, (immigrant)) was born in 1626 in Paignton, Devonshire, England; died on 04 Feb 1713 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts; was buried in Springfield Cem, Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

From A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England from the Chapin family:

"Catharine m. 20 Nov. 1646, Nathaniel Bliss; next, 3 or 31 July 1655, Thomas Gilbert; and third, 28, Dec. 1664, Samuel Marshfield, and to ea. bore four ch."

and from the Bliss:

"[Nathaniel's] wid. m. 31 July foll. Thomas Gilbert, by him had four ch. and m. 28 Dec. 1664 Samuel Marshfield, and had four more, so as to count one doz. ch.

Other Events and Attributes:

• Emigration: Apr 1634, "The FRANCES", Ipswitch, Suffolk, England

Notes:

He was a tailor.

Thomas was born in Bocking, Essex, England, about 1619, the son of Rowland Stebbins and Sarah Whitting. When he was 14 years old he immigrated to Massachusetts with his parents and several other brothers and sisters. He met and married Hannah in Massachusetts. She was the daughter of Samuel Wright and Margaret Stratton. (Hannah's parentage disputed)

Thomas probably lived most of his life in Springfield MA. He was, however, one of the original proprietors of Brimfield, Massachusetts.  (Brimfield is about 20 miles east of Springfield and 6 miles west of Sturbridge. His brother, Deacon John Stebbins, and nephew, John Jr., were also proprietors.) 

Thomas was a Sargeant in the militia during the King Phillip?s war with the Indians and was a participant at the Turner Fall?s fight with the Indians. The fight was named after Colonel Turner who was the commander at the time and was killed there. Thomas later made the rank of Lieutenant.

Thomas shows up in the court?s records of Springfield a number of times. For example:

1. (not included in list)

2. Town Office; 2 Nov 1647; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3. "Thomas Stebinges was Sworne Constable according to the oath of the Generall Court: under Mr. Nowells hand."

3. Employment; 25 Jul 1653; Springfield, Hampden Co. MA 4. [torn]n accot of what I haue laid out [torn] Mill dam 25 July 1653 pd Goodm Stebbins for 7 d

(inserted from another site http://www.genealogy.theroyfamily.com/p3387.htm)
He witnessed the deed purchasing Northampton, Massachusetts on 24 September 1653.1

4. Oath of Freemanship/Allegiance; 24 Apr 1654; Springfield, on & Elizur Holyoke) Sworne to be freemen of this Jurisdiction.": Thomas Stebbins "made free in the Bay"

5. Provided Bond; 24 Mar 1654/55; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3. Joined with Deacon Samuel Wright in providing bond that Samuel's son, Samuel Wright Jr., would abide by the order to support the illegitimate child that he fathered upon Mary Burt.

6. Jury Duty; 27 Sep 1659; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3.

7. Jury Duty; 7 Apr 1660; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3. Served on the jury investigating the death by drowning of Ebenezer Herman, youngest child of John Herman who was found dead in the brook in Nathaneell Pritchard's yard. The death was ruled accidental.

8. Jury Duty; 26 Mar 1661; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3.

9. Jury Duty; 30 Sep 1662; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA.

10. Lawsuit; 30 Sep 1662; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3. Thomas Stebbin Plantiffe contra Widow Sacket defendant in action of debt with damages to the vallue of Three pounds: In this last action the July fynd for the Plantiffe vizt Thomas Stebbin the summe of forty shillings and the coust of the Corte vizt 10s for the entry of the action.

11. Military Service; 30 Sep 1662; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA . Chosen to be the "Eldest Serjeant" of the Springfield Train Band.

12. Served as Attorney; 17 Mar 1662/63; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA "Serjant Stebbins of Sprinfeild Atturney for Mr. Goodwin of Hadley complaynes against Widdow Sackett late of Sprinfeild Admistratrix and William Blomfeild Administrator to the estate of Symon Sackett deceased in an action of debt due upon account together with damage to the value of Six and Thirty shiflings."

14. Signed Petition; 2 Feb 1668/69; Springfield Hampden Co., MA 12. Signed a petition protesting the imposition by England of customs upon goods being exported into and from Massachusetts Colony.

15. Employment; 10 Mar 1671/72; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 13. From John Pynchon's Account books: Accounts Paid out for John Artsell [n.d. but before 25 May 1671] To Tho Stebbings Jun 01 Volume V, Part 1, 1672 - 1693 . Page 156 [p 421] Accounts Paid out for ?My Son John Pynchon DR? March 10 1671/72 To paymt for you to Tho Stebbing

16. VR - Marriage; 19 Sep 1672; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 14. Thomas Stebbings Jun. & Abigall Munn Joined in Mariage Sept. 19 1672 There is also a record for Lt. Thomas Stebbins & Abigail Mun widow for 15 Dec 1676

17. Military Service; 19 May 1676; Upper Falls of the Connecticut River, MA 15. Listed in 1736 as being among those who fought under Capt. Wm. Turner against the Indians in the Falls Fight.

18. Oath of Freemanship/Allegiance; 1 Jan 1678/79; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 16.

19. Lawsuit; 23 Sep 1680; Springfield, Hampden Co., MA 3. John Pope plantiff against Leiutenant Thomas Stebbins for Taking him off from a peice of Joinery worke and promising him sattisfaction which he now refuses: to the Damadge of said Pope 39s. Leiutenant Stebbins not owning it and noe profe being made either of Damage nor yet of any promise made by Leiutenant Stebbins to make him sattisfaction: I find of the defendant costs.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lcowen/HUDSON/thomas_stebbins.htm

Thomas* married Hannah* Wright, (daughter?) on 16 Nov 1645 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts. Hannah* (daughter of Deacon Samuel* Wright, Sr. and Margaret* (Stratton?)) was born between 1626 and 1628 in Wrightsbridge, Essex, England (maybe); died on 16 Oct 1660 in Springfield, Hampden Co, Massachusetts. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Research Notes: 2 Jul 2012; familial relationships
• Research Notes: 3 Jul 2012; parentage

Notes:

"Life and Times of Henry Burt of Springfield," Henry M. Burt and Silas W. Burt, 1893, pg 236

It is no longer believed that she is daughter of Deacon Samuel because there was no mention of her or her children in either Samuel or Margaret's wills, nothing in her records indicating her parentage.
With no records, it's anybody's guess, but here's the logic both for and against:


http://www.family2remember.com/famtree/b565.htm
(snip)
In these wills (of Samuel and Margaret), the Deacon makes mention of each of his children, Samuel, Margaret, Hester, Lydia, Mary, James and Judah. Margaret, his wife, does much the same in her will mentioning also Hester's husband, Samuel Marshfield, and son James' daughter, Helped, to whom she bequeathed her bed.

What is notable about these two wills is that neither the Deacon nor Margaret mention anything about Benjamin Wright or Hannah (Wright) Stebbins of Springfield who have been often assigned by previous researchers as his eldest children. What I think is most important is that there is no mention made of any of the children of Benjamin or Hannah
(Wright) Stebbins, either. It is true that Hannah had died in 1661, prior to the Deacon (1665), and might not have been mentioned in his will (prepared 1663) for that reason. But Hannah's children were alive and husband, Thomas Stebbins, did not remarry until 7 years after the Deacon's death. So, if the Deacon was so diligent in bequeathing to each of his
other children, and since he would have known at the time of making his will in 1663 that Hannah was dead, he would have known he had to make provisions for Hannah's portion to go to her children. Therefore, I think it is certain he would have named them in his will if they were his grandchildren. On the basis that neither he nor Margaret mention these
potential grandchildren in their wills, I believe Benjamin and Hannah were not his children.

Nevertheless, Benjamin and Hannah have often been assigned as the eldest children of the Deacon, and thought I do not believe this is the case, I do believe they may have been niece and nephew to the Deacon or some other relation. Certainly I believe they were some member of the large Wright clan to which the Deacon belonged (originating from Sir John Wright of Kelvedon Hatch, Co. Essex, England).
(apparently DNA has challenged this)

To belabor this a little further, a second line of evidence focuses on Hannah in particular. The Deacon and Hannah's husband, Lt. Thomas Stebbins, were involved with each other as trusted friends (see again, Pynchon Court Records in "Families of the Pioneer Valley," Regional Publications, West Springfield, MA 2000). For instance, on 24 March
1654/55 Thomas Stebbins joined with the Deacon in providing a most personal and embarrassing bond to the Pynchon court in Springfield (in the matter of the illegitimate child the Deacon's son, Samuel Wright Jr., fathered upon his own sister-in-law, Mary Burt). This would have been a matter only very close friends would have joined together on. It has been used to indicate that Thomas was actually so close he was the son-in-law of the Deacon. So if the Deacon held the Stebbins family so close in his heart, why does he not bequeath something to these supposed grandchildren?

There does not appear to have been any falling out between the Wrights and Stebbins. As late as 1659 the Deacon (or his son, we can't tell which) are arm in arm with Thomas' brother, John Stebbins, in a lawsuit against the town of Northampton. So there is not doubt the Wrights and Stebbins were close for a very long time. The question is, with this sort of close ties between the Deacon's family and the Stebbins family, had Hannah been the Deacon's daughter, her children would have almost certainly been mentioned in the Deacon's will, as being the recipients of her portion of his estate. Yet, they are not mentioned.

______________________

note by ss:
Because Thomas Stebbins co-bonded with Samuel Sr. that Samuel Jr would care for his illegitimate child indicates some close connection. Also, Hannah named her firstborn Samuel Wright Stebbins. It seems to me to be a bit hasty to exclude her as a potential daughter because of lack of mention in the wills.
My consideration in this is that in looking closely at Margaret's will, it seems to be mostly a carry-through of Samuel's more so than her own. However, Judah was mentioned in Samuel's and not in Margaret's, and he was still living. Samuel Jr. predeceased his mother, but his children were not provided for by her. So, not inconsistent that IF Hannah had been a deceased daughter, that she or her children would be mentioned in Margaret's will.

On the other hand, Samuel's will, since he was so close to Thomas Stebbins, assuming for just a moment Hannah was indeed his daughter, is it possible that when Hannah died, 3 yrs before Samuel even wrote his will, he chose to settle with his widowered son-in-law to provide for his grandchildren at that time, thus their absence of mention in his will. It appears she died from complication of the birth of twins. That, along with leaving other small children with no mother, was a very sad situation and emotions would have been running high. Not knowing Thomas' financial situation, perhaps he could have used the help of receiving her share from Samuel's inheritance early to provide for these motherless children. Also, Thomas did get them raised before he married again, which was unusual as the men usually found another mother pretty soon. Which makes me wonder if maybe Samuel helped out all along rather than in one lump sum and considered it a tradeoff for Hannah's share. That makes even more sense.
But unfortunately, unless there were some record of transfer of funds or property to Thomas Stebbins around that time period, this could never be anything but sheer speculation.
But, nevertheless, Hannah is undoubtedly from the same family line, whether she be a cousin or a niece or a sister or a child -- her lineage would be the same, at least on her paternal side.
ss

Birth:
If she is a daughter, her age has to fit in the family:
If Mary born 1628 and 1630 then Hannah would be 1626 to 1628.
Samuel in school 1624 - so plenty of time for Samuel to have his school and then marry. This age would have Hannah marrying at 17 or 19.

Research Notes:
----- Original Message -----
From: hardmba@aol.com
To: erbaker35@gmail.com ; lumoto@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: thoughts on Hampden Wrights


Hi, Sherry and Ellen,

The DNA evidence that Able Wright and Deacon Samuel Wright were not of the same family line comes from the Y-DNA analysis of proven descendants of Abel Wright of Springfield, MA, of Dea. Samuel Wright of Springfield and Northampton, MA and of Thomas Wright of Wethersfield, CT. What we find by Y-DNA analysis is that the male line of Abel Wright descendants are all in the haploid group R1b1, whereas those of both Deacon Samuel Wright and Thomas Wright of Wethersfield are all haploid E1b1b1a2. These two haploids are known to have separated over 45,000 years ago in northeastern Africa so there is no way, outside of a NPE in the Abel Wright line between about 43 C.E. and 1639, that these two Wright families were related in even an anthropological sense.

Abel Wright's male line R1b1 haploid comes from a very ancient Celtic line that first arrived 10,000 years ago in England & Ireland following the end of the last ice age. They came from the Basque country of Spain at that time, following the receding ice sheets northward along the Western coastline of Europe. They crossing to the main British Isles over the land bridges that existed for centuries between the Continent and England as the ice sheets continued slowly to melt and move northward toward the present day Arctic circle. Eventually enough ice melted that the sea levels rose to submerge these land bridges and the ancient settlements that were built on them to give us the English Channel that we see today. Only recently have undersea archeologists been able to explore these submerged lands and excavate some of these long lost stone age settlements. In any case, the R1b1 haploid has been in the British Isles for so long that it is found today with equally high frequency in every part of England, Ireland, Scotland and the outlying islands of all three. This is the most ancient haploid in England that has spread out evenly all over the British Isles.

By contrast,the haploid of Dea. Samuel Wright and Thomas Wright, E1b1b1a2, is a relatively recent arrival in England. The original men who came to England with this haploid arrived in large numbers with the Roman Army in the first century C.E. They were men who had been recruited/conscripted into the Roman Army between 50 B.C and 49 C.E. from the Dardanian 'barbarian' tribes of the Balkans (specifically from an area lying north of a line between Pec and Pristinia, Kosovo). The Dardanians were a tribe of mixed Illyrian and Thracian ancestry who are first recorded by the Roman historian Justin in the second century C.E. as having been an Illyrian-Thracian tribe who recognized the supreme authority of Macedonia's King Phillip II in 357 B.C. Mercenary soldiers, like the Dardanians, served the Roman army as members of the 'auxilia' calvary cohorts attached to specific Roman Legions. Because they were not Roman citizens they could not serve in the Legions, but they could serve in the auxilia of any legion Rome felt needed extra man power or special combat skills. The Dardanians were respected by the Romans for their skill on horseback fighting over rough terrain with lance and sword. Dardanians were also experienced in establishing mining operations for lead, gold and silver ore, so were able to perform double duty for the Roman Army both in its conquests and its occupations. Our anthropological research suggests strongly that the original immigrant father to England was in the auxilia of Legio XX and had retired near Londinium from the Roman Army prior to 68 C.E., was called back up to help put down the Incenian revolt of Boadicea in 68 C.E., and then retired from military service a second time with full Roman citizenship and a small estate in or near the 'colonia' re-established near Colchester, England after the revolt was put down. Here he is most likely to have lived out the rest of his life with his sons inheriting his estate according to Roman tradition. Thus began the long climb to the status of wealthy landed gentry for this line of men.

Because the E1b1b1a2 haploid is such a recent arrival in England, it has not had time to spread evenly throughout the population of England to achieve the kind of uniformity in geographical distribution we see with haploid R1b1. It is that unique fact that makes the anthropological study of this haploid infinitely easier than trying to figure out from where in England the male line of a man with R1b1 haploid might have started. As a result of this fortunate circumstance, when we plot the location of haploid E1b1b1a2 in England among the general population of men sampled in a number of different genetic sampling studies in England (see Steven Byrd, Journal of Genetic Genealogy. 3(2):26-46, 2007), we find the highest concentration of men with present day E1b1b1a2 haploid occur around the geographical locations where the Romans built their forts and stationed their troops. Specifically the highest concentration of E1b1b1a2 haploid in England is found around Chester, England. This is not surprising because between 50 C.E. and 410 C.E. Chester was the principle base of the Roman Army's Legio XX. But before being stationed at Chester, Legio XX was stationed between 43 C.E. and 49 C.E. in Colchester and Londinium. Legio XX cadre also figured prominently in the building of Hadrian's wall. That men from the E1b1b1a2 Illyrian-Thracian ancestry of the Balkans were involved in the garrisons of each checkpoint built along Hadrian's wall is attested to by the small increase in the frequency of occurrence of their haploid among the local population of men living today near these ancient fortifications. Likewise we find small increases in the frequency of occurrence of E1b1b1a2 haploids around the four most northern so called 'Saxon shore forts' built by the Romans in the mid 4th century. This too, makes good sense because we know from Roman records these first few forts were built with troops that were re-deployed from Hadrian Wall garrisons. This is in contrast to the southern Saxon shore forts where there is hardly a trace of E1b1b1a2 haploid in their vicinity today and we know that they were built by Roman Army legions whose auxilia were not of Balkan origins. There is also almost no trace of E1b1b1a2 haploid in Ireland, where the Romans never set foot.

We know from DNA evidence that Thomas Wright and Dea. Samuel Wright were of the same English family because the Y-DNA profiles of their respective descendants are almost identical. We know from documentation that Thomas Wright was a direct male descendant of Robert Wright of Kelvedon Hatch (1522-1563) and Mary Green Manor on Bridgestreet in Brentwood (the Moat House). Even though we do not have the best documentation of the parentage and marriage of Deacon Samuel Wright in England, the Y-DNA evidence supports the proposal that he is also a Kelvedon Hatch Wright. Our research of the English records has not improved the documentation trail substantially over what has been done before on the question of the Deacon's parents, other than to firmly rule out Nathaniel and Lydia (nee James) Wright as possible parents and reconfirm John Wright and Martha Castell as his most likely parents. If we accept the current best proposal that Dea. Samuel Wright was the son of John Wright, Esq. (1569 - 1640) and Martha Castell (dau. Robert Castell, Esq. 1571 - 1610) of South Weald parish, Co. Essex, England, then, we can show from existing documents that John Wright, Esq. (1569-1640) was the grandson of Myddle John Wright (1524- 1558) who inherited the estate of Wrightsbridge, among other prosperities, from his father, John Wright of Kelvedon Hatch. By this connection we understand that Thomas Wright of Wethersfield was Deacon Samuel Wright's third cousin.

So, there is now no doubt they are of the same English family no matter how much we might want to quibble over which member of the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family was the Deacon's father. The evidence that does exist; The fact that John and Martha Castell were of the Wrightsbridge branch of the family, the fact that there is a clear baptismal record that we find in the South Weald parish register of St. Peters listing a Samuel Wright, son of "Mr Wright of the Bridge" (meaning Wrightsbridge) baptized 29 (or 30) June 1606, the fact that a substantial gentleman and Barrister would typically be referred to in public records as "Mr.", and the Emmanuel college matriculation record of 1624, a college whose focus was the training of Puritan ministers, the fact that in the MSS of Charles I there is an oath of allegiance record of one Nathaniel Wright giving oath in behalf of his brother, Samuel, who has gone to New England, and lastly, the leading role we find Dea. Samuel Wright playing in the churches of Springfield and Northampton, giving evidence by the New England records of his advanced theological training and recognized abilities to preach the sermon in the absence of the church minister in those places. All these are most consistent with Deacon Samuel Wright being the son of John Wright, Esq., of Wrightsbridge. All we lack for a traditional genealogical connection proof is a second vital statistic record by which we could verify the one we have.

If only we had just one more document: a ship passenger record, or a marriage record for Samuel and Margaret, or birth records in England or New England for their first five children. But these have not been turned up in over 150 years of research effort by a dozen genealogist of different ages . There are also no English probate records for John Wright, Esq. nor for Dea. Samuel & Margaret Wright. Although there are wills for both Dea. Samuel and Margaret Wright, they do not leave us any clues regarding their English origins nor kinships with their supposed eldest children, Hanna Wright and Benjamin Wright. (who I remain firmly convinced were not their children, though Hanna may have been the Deacon's ward for a short time before she married. We believe, now that the Y-DNA evidence we have for Thomas Wright and Dea. Samuel Wright descendants are sufficiently supportive of the currently proposed parental connection for Dea. Samuel Wright that it is no longer a matter of speculation despite the lack of that key second vital statistic record.

One thing about the Y-DNA data that gives us the courage to say we have proven his parentage is that, so far, we have only one other male participant in the Wright-DNA project who falls into the E1b1b1 haploid which is not likely to be a Kelvedon Hatch Wright descendant. Therefore, we have been persuaded that any American Wright who is positive for E1b1ba2 haploid is almost certainly a descendant of either Thomas Wright of Wetherfield, CT or Deacon Samuel Wright of Springfield & Northampton, MA. That narrows the field considerably in where and whose descendant family you can belong to and where those who do not have the documentation they would like can concentrate their research efforts to the best benefit. They are also most certainly related to well known people such as Ethan Allen, NY. Gov. Silas Wright, Wilbur and Orville Wright and Nancy Reagan, to name just a few and that always spices up the quest for the documentation to show those relationships.

In concluding this section on the Wright DNA project results for Kelvedon Hatch Wrights, I think the large number of participants (20) has helped us confirm our English origins as well as delineated some differences between various branches within the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family that can help those whose documentation is missing or sketchy focus their efforts better on certain branches of the family where they appear to belong, genetically. To view those results go to www.wright-dna.org and click on "all other haploids" under the RESULTS tab in the upper left hand corner of the home page. Scroll down the results table to the E1b1b1a2 haploid, which is also labeled "Kelvedon Hatch Wrights...."
Examine the marker values for the various and click on the top "Samuel (1665)" oldest ancestor selection. This will take you to a pdf chart of the descendant line of John Wright (d. 1551) so far as we have Y-DNA participants/representatives now. The only disagreement I have with the chart is that I do not believe Henry Wright (1424 - before 1468) was the first ancestor. I believe this is a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the entry in Morant's "History and Antiquities of the County of Essex..." (1768). The Henry Wright Morant refers to in his discussion of this family lived in the 1590s and married Anna Whitebread in White Notely (marriage record found there) and was of the Elder John Wright line, which is how the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family came into possession of White Notely Hall later in the 17th century. A number of other researchers have tried to conclude from Morant's rather vague remarks, that this Henry Wright and Anna Whitebread (dau. of Thomas) both lived nearly 100 years before they actually did. It is hard to argue with a marriage record that is clearly dated in the next century as well as birth records for them and their children. It simply was not so that Anna Whitebread married Henry Wright in 'ca. 1446. As a result, I believe the first solid record we have for the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family is that of John Wright, 1488-1551 of South Weald and Kelvedon Hatch. I would wipe Henry Wright and John Wright (1450 - 1509) off that chart and replace them with question marks. I have seen no evidence that there are any records anywhere in England for these two men as progenitors of this Wright family.

As for the Wrights of Kelvedon Hatch being Catholic, it needs to be understood that almost all Englishmen were Catholics until Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church and established the Anglican church. After that, Catholics were essentially outlawed, so one had to make choices; toe the Royal line, or go underground. The original John Wright of Kelvedon Hatch (1488 - 1551) was firmly attached to Henry VIII and so it is no doubt that, despite being raised a Catholic, he had no problems becoming an 'Anglican' Catholic when Henry VIII required it. Likewise his sons all appear to have had no problem becoming Anglicans in their own generation and appeared NOT to have taken the Catholic side during Mary's brief reign. This unity behind the Anglican Church did not last indefinitely, however. It was the next generation where all the religious and political fracturing of the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family group occurred. Out of that fracturing there emerged members of the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family who were everything from staunch Catholics (Papists) to staunch Puritan Calvinists. The period between 1550 and 1644 saw tremendous upheaval in almost every facet of English life & religion led the way. So, to study what happened to the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family in this period of time is to see an excellent reflection of what was happening all over the England of this period.

As with many of the emerging gentry families in the years of the reign of Elizabeth I, men of the Wright family were privileged enough to go to University at a time when the Universities were coming into their own as institutions of intellectual freedom and radical thinking. As a result many of them came home from their school days with even more radical ideas of what religion should be that went beyond the simplifications of the Catholic faith that Henry VIII's and Elizabeth I's Common Book of Prayer represent. These 'enlightened' Englishmen and their European counterparts (such as Luther and Calvin) brought a wave of intellectualization to religion that had not previously held much sway as a political force within either the Catholic or Anglican church. By the mid 1580' their 'Puritan' ideas had gained enough of a following among the high and mighty of England, that the influential followers of this intellectualized Protestant faith, such as Sir Walter Mildmay, Exchequer to the Queen and Sir Robert Rich, Lord of the Ongar Hundred, dared to establish colleges for the training of 'Anglican' ministers in the 'Puritan' style. One such college was Emmanuel College at Cambridge University, established in 1584 by Sir Mildmay. Dea. Samuel Wright's father, John Wright, Esq., Clerk of the House of Commons (1613 - 1639), matriculated Emmanuel College in 1585 in its second class, presumably as a prelude to entering the ministry. However, it is apparent that he was of a less ideological nature and more of a practical man. He entered the study of the law at Gray's Inn rather than continue studies to become a minister and became a quite influential London barrister, becoming the King's man in the House of commons by assuming the role of Clerk of the House of Commons in 1613 and holding that post continuously until just before his death. The Clerk was paid from the King's Exchequer and owed the King his primary allegiance, but in 1621 John Wright was arrested by the King and his papers confiscated because he was involved in a matter King James considered contrary to the interests of the Crown. John Wright was, to some degree, his own man and a man of the Commons rather than its overseer as the King intended. Later, John Wright's eldest son, John, also attended Emmanuel and went on into the law via Grays Inn. Dea. Samuel Wright also matriculated Emmanuel in 1624 and seems to have found no living to his liking in ministry in England and went to New England seeking religious freedom and adventure. Even Nathaniel and Lydia (nee James) Wright's eldest son, Samuel, attended Emmanuel College. This Samuel Wright matriculated Emmanuel as a 29 year old man in 1644 and later received a DD degree from Oxford. That is how we know he was not the Deacon Samuel Wright who was in Agawam (Springfield) in 1639.

While two branches of the Kelvedon Hatch family (from Robert Wright of Brookstreet & from Myddle John Wright of Wrightsbridge) were moving in the direction of embracing a more Puritan view of religion, the elder line of John Wright the Elder, of Kelvedon Hall whose line held the manor estate of Kelvedon Hall in Kelvedon Hatch were being wooed by noted Catholic Papists, William Byrd and Gabriel Colford. In 1605 it appears that these twp were successful in converting both John Wright, Lord of Kelvedon Hall and his sister Ann to the Catholic faith. Their Elder line of Wrights remained Catholic from 1605 onward for as long as they held the estate and manor of Kelvedon Hall (to 1922).

Not much is known about the religious inclinations of the youngest of John Wright's (1488-1551) sons, Young John Wright. We suspect that we do not know much about that branch of the family because they were devout in their attendance to the Anglican church, and thus avoided being recorded in the ecclesiastical and quarter session court records as recusants or papists as was true for those in the other three male branches of the family.

I hope this rather tedious discourse was of assistance to you in sorting out the many rumors and falsehoods that have sprung up over the last 150 years concerning the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family and Deacon Samuel Wright. They were an ambitious, industrious and prosperous bunch from the earliest of times but they have certainly left a spotty trail of evidence for their activities at many key turns in their lives. I was as stuck on Dea. Samuel Wright's parentage as all of the previous genealogist who tried to pin down an English origins for him, until we were able to put the Y-DNA evidence together. I hesitate to say such scientific evidence as Y-DNA is even better than traditional documentation, but only because it feels so incredibly good to finally unearth a key document that lays out a connection that appears nowhere else in the written record.

Our current research in England involves locating living descendants of John Wright the Elder and Young John Wright as well as more of those from Myddle John Wright and Robert Wright and persuading them to participate in the Y-DNA testing & research. We continue to look for records in England as part of that effort, and continue to hope we run across records related more directly to Dea. Samuel Wright in the process. I'll probably still be looking for Dea. Samuel Wright documents the day I die.

Always good to hear from you, Ellen. Hope you are feeling well and keeping busy. Thanks for copying me on Sherry's e-mail and I hope I was able to help some.

Best Regards,
Mike Wright


============================================

Forwarded to me by Mary Jo on Jul 2, 2012

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Abel Wright English Ancestry
From: hardmba@aol.com
Date: Thu, March 08, 2012 10:05 pm
To: maryjo@mjgen.com


Dear MaryJo,

I ran across your web page for Abel Wright (d. 1725, m. Martha Kitcheral) and noticed that you has speculated that he was a Kelvedon Hatch Wright http://mjgen.com/wright/1wright.html. I wondered if you were aware of the FTDNA Y-DNA genetic data that shows that Abel's patrilineal descendant lines are not related to the Kelvedon Hatch Wrights. Abel appears, from genetic data, to have descended from an entirely different Wright line in England as compared to the known Kelvedon Hatch Wright immigrant fathers, Deacon Samuel Wright of Springfield and Northampton, MA (1606 - 1665) and his third cousin, Thomas Wright of Wethersfield, CT (1610 - 1670). I would refer you to the web page for the Wright DNA Project at www.wright-dna.org. You will find participants who have listed Abel Wright as their proven immigrant father under the results section for "All other Haplogrps" (upper left hand corner of home page). Abel Wright (1725) is listed under participants with the I1 haplogroup genetic profile. There are six different participants who share the Y-DNA profile of the one participant who has a document trail to Lt. Abel Wright of Springfield, MA. I have worked with one of them on the Deacon Samuel Wright line. He helped us persuade a cousin of Wilbur and Orville Wright that he knew personally to have his DNA tested so that we could show that Wilbur and Orville Wright were descendants of Deacon Samuel Wright, just as their father's genealogical work in the 1890's had suggested.

At one time he, too, thought that Abel Wright was possibly related to the Kelvedon Hatch Wrights in Springfield (Dea. Samuel Wright). However, given the genetic evidence that Abel was a completely unrelated Wright of Norse lineage (Haploid I1), he has concluded that although Deacon Samuel Wright and Lt. Abel Wright undoubtedly knew each other, they were not related in any genealogical way.

The Kelvedon Hatch Wrights are of Roman era origins in England and were in England long before Norsemen, Vikings, Danes or Saxons began coming to English shores. Abel Wright's Y-DNA profile is of Norse origins so his ancestors probably came to England as "the Vikings" three or four centuries after the Kelvedon Hatch Wright Roman ancestors were already well established in England. This Roman era arrival actually started out life, not as a Roman, but as a Dardanian tribesman recruited/conscripted by the Roman Army from a "barbarian" area of the Empire's Moesia Superior Principate in the Balkans. The Dardanian homeland was situated in an area that now lies between Pec and Pristinia, Kosovo. He served his time in the Roman Army probably between 25 and 75 C.E. as a mercenary soldier fighting with the calvary auxillary cohort of Roman Legion XX. He probably served first in Gaul and then accompanied Emperor Claudius for the invasion of England in 43 C.E. He retired from the Roman Army to Londinium (Roman London) and was later called up to help put down Queen Bodiccia's rebelion in 61-62 C.E. He appears to have been among those recalled veterans from the Londinium area who survived the battles of that rebellion and afterwards were re-retired as part of the veterans contingent chared with resettlement of the Roman Colonia at Colechester. Like the rest of the veterans of the Roman Army, he was granted full Roman citizenship and an estate sufficient to support himself and his native family. nearly 1400 years later one of his descendants, named John Wright, emerges into recorded history 30 miles from the old Roman colonia at Colchester; as a church divine from Dagenham, co. Essex. This ancestor's son is the John Wright (1488 - 1551) who purchased the tenancy of the principal Kelvedon Hatch estate from the Crown in 1538 for 493 pounds and change, and there founded the Kelvedon Hatch dynasty of Wrights who held Kelvedon Hall and its associated estate until the last male heir, Edward Carrington Wright, died in 1920.

Unfortunately, we do not know as much about the pre-surname Viking ancestors of Lt. Abel Wright, but that is only because no one has taken up the chore of looking at the Viking settlement pattern on the east coast of England in order to find probable home towns from which Lt. Abel might have come, then gone there to research their local 5th century records and on to see if they can find him. We have 19 participants in our Kelvedon Hatch Wright DNA group and in addition, many outside resources, that have been brought to bear on the ancestry of Deacon Samuel Wright and his English family. I am sorry to say that Lt. Abel Wright's ancestor group has not enjoyed such extensive investigative effort. However, I would bet that if someone were to take up the chore, a very interesting history could be pieced together, if the town where he came from could ever be found. In a search for that town, I would start by studying the geographical pattern of modern day distribution of the I1 haploid in England and look at each town lying within those regions showing the highest concentrations of I1 haploid. I would then examine the records of each of those towns for any evidence of Wright families in the 1525-1625 timeframe. Those that had Wright families present would then get special attention to a detailed, on-site investigation of local records as well as anything housed in the National Archives and regional libraries, etc.

That is how we built the entire English history of the Kelvedon Hatch Wright family to where it is today.....all the way back to 43 C.E. and beyond. It is amazing to know where your male line came from at the time of Christ's crusifixion!

So, I have written to you to be sure you are advised of the interpretations of the Y-DNA data for these two family groups. I do not expect you to do anything in particular, but you might want to add a note or two to your web page about all this.

Best Regards,
Mike Wright

Research Notes:

note by ss:
Because Thomas Stebbins co-bonded with Samuel Sr. that Samuel Jr would care for his illegitimate child indicates some close connection. Also, Hannah named her firstborn Samuel Wright Stebbins. It seems to me to be a bit hasty to exclude her as a potential daughter because of lack of mention in the wills.
My consideration in this is that in looking closely at Margaret's will, it seems to be mostly a carry-through of Samuel's more so than her own. However, Judah was mentioned in Samuel's and not in Margaret's, and he was still living. Samuel Jr. predeceased his mother, but his children were not provided for by her. So, not inconsistent that IF Hannah had been a deceased daughter, that she or her children would be mentioned in Margaret's will.

On the other hand, Samuel's will, since he was so close to Thomas Stebbins, assuming for just a moment Hannah was indeed his daughter, is it possible that when Hannah died, 3 yrs before Samuel even wrote his will, he chose to settle with his widowered son-in-law to provide for his grandchildren at that time, thus their absence of mention in his will. It appears she died from complication of the birth of twins. That, along with leaving other small children with no mother, was a very sad situation and emotions would have been running high. Not knowing Thomas' financial situation, perhaps he could have used the help of receiving her share from Samuel's inheritance early to provide for these motherless children. Also, Thomas did get them raised before he married again, which was unusual as the men usually found another mother pretty soon. Which makes me wonder if maybe Samuel helped out all along rather than in one lump sum and considered it a tradeoff for Hannah's share. That makes even more sense.
But unfortunately, unless there were some record of transfer of funds or property to Thomas Stebbins around that time period, this could never be anything but sheer speculation.
But, nevertheless, Hannah is undoubtedly from the same family line, whether she be a cousin or a niece or a sister or a child -- her lineage would be basically the same, at least on her paternal side. So, for now we'll leave her as a child of Samuel, but ancestry from this point going back will not be designated by the direct ancestor symbol of an aserisk.

ss