Thomas Hickock
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Thomas Hickock (1674 - 1728)

Deacon Thomas Hickock
Born in Waterbury, New Haven, Connecticutmap
Ancestors ancestors
Husband of — married 27 Mar 1700 (to Jun 1728) in Waterbury, New Haven, Connecticut, British Colonial Americamap
Descendants descendants
Died at about age 54 in Waterbury, New Haven, Connecticutmap
Profile last modified | Created 17 Oct 2015
This page has been accessed 1,202 times.

Biography

from Hickok pg 6: " THOMAS HICKOCK, b. abt. 1674; d. 28 June 1728; mar. Mary Bronson."

from Hickok pg 9: "7. DEACON THOMAS HICKOCK, son of Serg. Samuel (2); born about 1674; died at Waterbury, 28 June 1728; married at Waterbury 27 March 1700, Mary Bronson, born 15 October 1680, died 4 July 1756, dau. of Serg. Isaac and Mary (Root) Bronson. His widow married (2) 23 November 1748, Deacon Samuel Bull of Woodbury and died a widow in Waterbury.

"He was a bachelor proprietor 1699; Grand Juror; School Committee; Townsman; represented the town in Legislature 1722-1723 and appointed Deacon 1724. His property at his death was valued at £ 1,251 and his homestead at £ 140, indicating that he was one of the wealthiest men of the community.

"THE CHILDREN OF THOMAS AND MARY (BRONSON) HICKOCK:

+ 38. DEACON THOMAS HICKOCK, b. 25 Oct. 1701; d. 28 Dec. 1787; mar. Miriam Hawkins, d. 13 March 1780, age 69.

39. MARY HICKOCK, b. 28 May 1704; d. 30 April 1706.

+ 40. MARY HICKOCK, b. 9 March 1706/7; d. 1784; mar. John Warner.

+ 41. SARAH HICKOCK, b. 2 Jan. 1709/10; d. 6 May 1784; mar. Daniel Benedict.

+ 42. MERCY HICKOCK, b. abt. 1712; d. 27 May 1790; mar. Isaac Hopkins.

+ 43. AMOS HICKOCK, b. 19 Aug. 1715; d. 1 March 1805; mar. Mercy Richards.

44. JONAS HICKOCK, b. 30 Oct. 1717.

+ 45. SAMUEL HICKOCK, b. 30 Aug. 1720; d. 6 April 1811; mar. Elizabeth Welton.

+ 46 SUSANNA HICKOCK, b. 25 March 1723; mar. George Nichols.

47. JAMES HICKOCK, b. 26 June 1726; died young."


Thomas Hickock was born about 1674. Aged twenty in 1695. He died in 1728.

from Bronson: 5. Dea. THOMAS, son of Sarnuel, (1.) C!i. : I. Thomas, b. Oct. 25, 1701 ; II. Mary, b. May 28, 1704, d. April 30, 1708 ; III. Mary, b. March 9, 1706-7, m. Dea. John Warner; IV. S:\rah, b. Jan. 2, 1709- 10, m. Daniel Benedict ; V. Mercy, m. Isaac Hopkins ; VI. Amos, b . Aug. 19, 1715; VII. Jonas, b. Out. 30, 1717 ; VIII. Suniel, b. Aug. 30, 1720; IX. Susanna, b. Maruh 25, 1723, m. Gaurgj Nijh>ls, DJC. 15, 1741 ; X. James, b. June 26, 1726, d. young

Sources

  • "Connecticut Births and Christenings, 1649-1906," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/F749-XLN : accessed 21 October 2015), Thomas Hikcox in entry for Thomas Hikcox, 25 Oct 1701; citing ; FHL microfilm unknown.
  • Genealogical and Family History of the State of Connecticut, ed. by William Richard Cutter, et al, Lewis Historical Publishing Company, New York, 1911, New England Historic Genealogical Library, Boston, Mass., Page number: p. 967
  • Ullmann, Helen S. 1996 Isaac and Mary (Root) Bronson of Waterbury, Connecticut.] TAG 71:206 The American Genealogist. New Haven, CT: D. L. Jacobus, 1937-. (Online database. AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2009 - .)
  • History of Waterbury, Connecticut; The Original Township…;by Henry Bronson M.D. 1858
  • Ancestry.com, Connecticut, Wills and Probate Records, 1609-1999 (Provo, UT, USA, Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2015), Ancestry.com, Probate Files Collection, early to 1880; Author: Connecticut State Library (Hartford, Connecticut); Probate Place: Hartford, Connecticut. Record for Thomas Hickox. http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=9049&h=3083254&indiv=try.




Is Thomas your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon contact private message private message private message a profile manager, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Thomas by comparing test results with other carriers of his Y-chromosome or his mother's mitochondrial DNA. Y-chromosome DNA test-takers in his direct paternal line on WikiTree: It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Thomas:

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.



Comments: 6

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
Hickok spelling from Waterbury vol 1 pg 172:

“This name, now usually rendered Hickox, has been given in many forms, seemingly ranging at pleasure from Hitchcock to Hicks. When Samuel Hickox, brother of Joseph, signed his name to the inventory of the estate of John Bronson in Mattatuck in 1680, the recorder at Hartford made it Samuel Hitchcock. The baptismal records at Farmington give it as Hitchcock, and as Hickcock. Waterbury records usually render it Hikcox. While upon the tombstone of a member of the same family was placed the name of Hicks. There lies before me an agreement, made in 1707, between William and Benjamin Hickox, sons of Samuel the planter, to which their autographs are appended. The one is William Hickcox, the other Benjamin Hecock.” THE TOWN AND CITY OF WATERBURY, CONNECTICUT, FROM THE ABORIGINAL PERIOD TO THE YEAR EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FIVE. EDITED BY JOSEPH ANDERSON, D. D. VOLUME I. BY SARAH J. PRICHARD AND OTHERS. NEW HAVEN : THE PRICE & LEE COMPANY. 1896.

posted by Jennifer Lapham
Hickok Hickox-2 and Hickock-61 appear to represent the same person because: clear duplicate. The date of death is 1728, 1778 must be a typo.
posted by Jennifer Lapham
Hickok-307 and Hickock-61 appear to represent the same person because: There are 3 profiles that appear to be duplicates for Thomas Hickock, born 1674 and died 1728 married to Mary Bronson: Hickok_Hickox-2, Hickock-61, and Hickok-307. This merge proposes a merge the 2 highest numbered profiles, there needs to be a final merge of the last two. The LNAB for Hickok_Hickox-2 seems confusing, should it perhaps be changed to either Hickock or Hickox?
Hickox-102 and Hickock-61 appear to represent the same person because: They appear to be the same with a slight variation in spelling.
posted by Leila (Phelps) Schutz
Hickox-102 and Hickock-61 are the same person; as are Hickox-285 and Hickock-60. The family includes many spellings including Hickcox, Hickcocksand Hitchcock.
posted by Jennifer Lapham
Hickox-102 and Hickock-61 are the same person; as are Hickox-285 and Hickock-60. The family includes many spellings including Hickcox, Hickcocksand Hitchcock.
posted by Jennifer Lapham

H  >  Hickock  >  Thomas Hickock

Categories: Waterbury, Connecticut