no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

John Whitmore (abt. 1589 - 1648)

John Whitmore
Born about in Englandmap
Son of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]
[sibling(s) unknown]
Husband of — married before 1611 (to before 1639) in Englandmap
Husband of — married about 1639 in Weathersfield, Connecticutmap
Descendants descendants
Died at about age 59 in Stamford, Fairfield, Connecticutmap
Profile last modified | Created 13 Sep 2010
This page has been accessed 8,651 times.
The Puritan Great Migration.
John Whitmore migrated to New England during the Puritan Great Migration (1621-1640). (See The Directory, by R. C. Anderson, p. 371)
Join: Puritan Great Migration Project
Discuss: pgm

Contents

Biography

Immigration 1639

John Whitmore (aka Wetmore) came to New England in 1639,[1] with his children (port of origin and birth place unknown) . He resided temporarily in Watertown, Massachusetts before taking a lot in Wethersfield, Connecticut in 1639. The lot was located east of the River Landing, later called Rocky Hill.

Among Original Settlers of Stamford, Connecticut 1641

John Whitmore sold his Wethersfield land in 1640. He joined the company led by Pastor Richard Denton that settled Stamford, Connecticut, a town situated on Long Island Sound. [2] The town of New Haven had purchased the land encompassing Rippowam, (later named Stamford) and they offered it to the men of Wethersfield for a price equal to 100 bushels of corn.[2] John Whitfield is listed on the register of men who contributed to the price of the town, as giving 3.1 bushels.[2] In the 1641 land distribution, John Whitmore is listed receiving ten acres of marsh and upland.[2] Like the bushels of corn list, his name is near but not in the top of the list - others gave more corn, received more land, but many more gave less corn, received less land. John Whitmore was number nine on the 1641 list of the first twenty-eight settlers of Stamford.[2] In November of 1641, John Whitmore was one of seven men elected to be "Townsmen" of Stamford.[2] Their work was to "order town occasions".

He was a freeman in 1642, elected to the Assembly in 1647. He was murdered by Mohegan Indians in 1648.[3]

Marriages

There is a widespread but mistaken internet rumor that Joanna Jessup was the mother of John Whitmore's children who accompanied him from England to Massachusetts. However, it is well-established that Joanna Kerrich (widow Jessup) was John Wetmore's second wife, whom he married after moving to Connecticut in the 1630s.[4][5]

Children

With his first, unknown wife:

  • John b say 1625
  • (possibly) Thomas, b say 1615. Thomas owned land adjoining to John in Stamford, and later moved to New Haven as did John (b c 1625). This only suggests a possible relationship, and is certainly not enough to determine that they were father and son.

See Research Notes for Disputed Children.

Death

The story of John Whitmore's murder and the resulting trial of an Indian named Taphance can be found at History of Stamford, Connecticut, pp 108. [3]

John Whitmore disappeared in October,[3] and inventory of his estate was taken 8 Dec 1648, by "Robert Hustes and Jefery Ferreye", from page 59 of the town records for Stamford.[6]

Research Notes

Disputed Children

Early genealogies claimed several additional children:

Ann and Mary, probable sisters married in Ipswich, Massachusetts in 1640s. There is no known record connecting them to John Whitmore, or to Stamford and Wethersfield. For a discussion of the claim of parentage see Mary Whitmore.

Francis Whitmore, of Cambridge, also has no known connection to John, or his locations in Connecticut. His son Francis did reside in Middletown, but that is not sufficient to even suggest a relationship. Y-DNA has shown that Francis Whitmore and Thomas Whitmore, a possible relative of John, were not paternally related.


Anderson's Great Migration Directory

John Whitmore (aka Wetmore) is listed on page 317 of Robert Charles Anderson's 2015 book, The Great Migration Directory, as follows:
Unknown; 1639; Wethersfield, Stamford [CCCR 1:44, 197; WetLR 1:74, 137; SmTR 4; FOOF 1:336; Moore Anc 619].
Key to Abbreviations:
CCCR: The Public Records of the colony of Connecticut 1636-1776
WetLR: Wethersfield Connecticut Land Records
SmTR: Stamford Town Records, Volume 1:1641-1723, by Paul R. Finch, ed.
FOOF: History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, by Donald Lines Jacobus
Moore Anc: Moore and Allied Familes: The Ancestry of William Henry Moore, by Effingham deForest and Anne Lawrence deForest (1938) - not the 1934 version

Disputed Parents

  • One merged profile listed Thomas Whitmore and Mary Meade
  • One merged profile listed Roger Whitmore and ]]Meade-44|Mary Meade]]
  • One of these four has a source, but the listed source does not support a son John b about 1589 or any other John in the right time frame.
  • In addition Anderson's Great Migration Directory states his origins as Unknown. All alleged parents have been disconnected.

Sources

  1. The Great Migration Directory, by Robert Charles Anderson, (2015), page 371
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Huntington, Elijah Baldwin. History of Stamford, Connecticut, From its Settlement in 1641, to the Present Time (Stamford, 1868), pages 15-20, 25, 46 archive.org
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Huntington's History of Stamford, Connecticut, pp. 108-110[https://archive.org/stream/historyofstamfor00hunt#page/108/ archive.org], murder of John Whitmore
  4. Families of Old Fairfield, by Donald Lines Jacobus, Vol 1, page 336, bio for John Jessup, Note: his widow Joanna m. John Whitmore 1639
  5. Find A Grave: Memorial #71592896 John Whitmore's memorial page.
  6. Stamford, Connecticut Town Records

See also:

  • Whitmore, William Henry. Record of the Descendants of Francis Whitmore of Cambridge, Mass. (J. Wilson, Boston, 1855) p. 21. Link to page at archive.org.
  • Purdy, Jessie Whitmore Patten. The Whitmore Genealogy. A Record of the Descendants of Francis Whitmore of Cambridge, Massachusetts (1625-1685). 1907. pp. viii-ix. Link to pages at hathitrust.org. (Lists Thomas, Anne, Mary, Francis and John as children of this profile's John Whitmore, but provides no support and states that there is no positive proof that Francis of Cambridge was his son.)
  • Whitmore, WIlliam H. Whitmore Tracts. A Collection of Essays on Matters of Interest to Persons Bearing the Name. 1875. Link to book at archive.org. (Author believed that Francis Whitmore of Cambridge was the son of Francis Whitmore of Laxton, Nottinghamshire and makes no parent-child connection between this profile's John Whitmore and Ann and Mary Whitmore of Ipswich.)
  • Savage, James. A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Showing Three Generations of Those Who Came Before May, 1692, on the Basis of Farmer's Register. Vol. IV. Little, Brown and Company, 1862. p. 526. Link to page at hathitrust.org. (In John's entry he states that he had children Thomas, Francis, John, Ann and Mary, but in Francis' entry states that he was just probably the son of John of Wethersfield.)
  • Wetmore, James Carnahan. The Wetmore Family of America, and Its Collateral Branches: with Genealogical, Biographical, and Historical Notices. 1861. Link to book at archive.org. (Does not claims any parent-child relationship between this profile's John and alleged children Francis, Ann and Mary.)
  • Anderson, Robert Charles, F.A.S.G., The Great Migration Directory, (Boston, Massachusetts, NEHGS, 2015), "Concise entries for all immigrant families for the entirety of the Great Migration, from 1620 to 1640." Entry for Whitmore, John, page 371
  • Huntington, Elijah Baldwin. History of Stamford, Connecticut, From its Settlement in 1641, to the Present Time (Stamford, 1868), at archive.org, [includes transcriptions of Stamford's earliest documents] pp. 15-20, 25,32, 46, 63, 108-110, 463, 470
  • Fairfield, CT: Families of Old Fairfield. (Online database. AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2008.) Originally published as History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield. Compiled and edited by Donald Lines Jacobus. 2 vols. New Haven: The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Company, 1930-1932. Families of Old Fairfield, Vol 1, page 336, bio for John Jessup, Note: his widow Joanna m. John Whitmore 1639
  • Stamford, Connecticut, Stamford, Connecticut Town Records, The American Genealogist. New Haven, CT: D. L. Jacobus, 1937-. (Online database. AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2009 - .), TAG Vol 10 (1933), page 111 [inventory taken for John Whitmore]
  • Find A Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 02 May 2018), memorial page for John Whitmore (1589–Oct 1648), Find A Grave: Memorial #71592896, ; Maintained by history4sure (contributor 46997739) Non-Cemetery Burial, who reports a Family record: Buried on his farm in Stamford
  • New England Historical Genealogical Society "Reference #35
  • "Wetmore History and Some Maternal Lines" by Kathryn Lee (Wetmore) Stadel; Edwards Brother; Ann Arbor, Michigan; 1970
  • Whitmore FGS based on Stadel, Katherine Wetmore, Wetmore History, Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1970.
  • De Forest, Louis & De Forest, Anne. Moore and Allied Families, The Ancestry of William Henry Moore (De Forest Publishing Co., New York, 1938) P. 618 archive.org




Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA
No known carriers of John's DNA have taken a DNA test.

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



Comments: 30

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
I noticed that this profile says Thomas was a possible son. I actually have a dna connection from my dads 5th ggf to a person with the last name of Treat that married Jabez Wetmore's (b. 1740) daughter Clarissa (b.1768). She married a man named Samuel Treat (b.1760). John Whitmore would have been Clarissa's 3rd ggf. How does the last name Treat come into this? well, I found that John Wetmore supposedly sold property to this Richard Treat sometime between 1638 and 1640. long story short, there is too much of a coincidence for it not to be true that Thomas is in fact John's son. If anyone want's screenshots of what I'm talking about feel free to ask
posted by Raymond Murphy
edited by Raymond Murphy
Hi Raymond. Here's the profile of the Clarissa Wetmore that you're referring to. I don't mean to be discouraging, but be aware the match may simply be a piece of DNA that's quite common among people of English descent. After so many generations the chances of having a meaningful match are considered to be quite low. If you would like to read a technical explanation, I recommend the "Best Answer" posted by Edison Williams on this g2g post.

As far as "too much of a coincidence" you'd be surprised how often coincidences happen, especially in early New England when there just weren't that many people around.

posted by M Cole
Yes that's the profile. There isn't any document confirming Ruel Wetmore (my ancestor and Jabez's grandson) being son of Nicolas Howell Wetmore however it's highly likely due to Ruel having a son called Howell on a census and also the fact that Ruel was married in Albany NY (documented very well by his civil war pension file) and settled in Toledo OH and that there is a document of a Nicolas Howell Wetmore dying in Toledo (1836 - 1894) and being from Albany. We can conclude that if he named his son Nicolas Howell Wetmore then his father is indeed Nicolas Howell Wetmore born about 1775. That being said, there is evidence of Nicolas Howell (1775) being son of Jabez and Clarissa being daughter to Jabez. Marion daughter of Ruel, married William Glenn, my dad's 2nd ggf and my dad's grandma was a Glenn. So when I say I'm dna connected, this isn't some random thing, as I do thorough research.
posted by Raymond Murphy
I looked at this profile again, and I'm not sure I understand how DNA could prove a connection to John Whitmore. In order to do that, you need to have at least one line that has a proven paper trail, then the DNA matches to that line can make a case for descendency. But his only certain child is John who has no known descendants beyond a daughter Sarah, with nothing further known.
posted by M Cole
edited by M Cole
okay, by no means am I saying that it 100% positive, all I'm saying is that there is evidence to prove that John Whitmore and Richard Treat did business with Whitmore selling property to Treat. Along comes Clarissa Wetmore over a hundred years later and marries a descendant of Richard Treat.... is this a coincidence that John Whitmore did business with Richard Treat over 100 years prior and that a Wetmore/Whitmore married a Treat a hundred years later? probably not! that's all I'm saying... and therefore you can connect the dots and say that it's likely that John Whitmore had a child named Thomas because Clarissa is a descendant of Thomas.
posted by Raymond Murphy
edited by Raymond Murphy
I'd be happy to add a citation for the land transaction to the profile. I don't know that it advances what we know about the relationship between Thomas and John. The best evidence we have is that John and Thomas owned land next to each other, and given the shared last name suggests that they might be related, but it doesn't tell us how they are related (cousin, nephew, etc). Father and son is only one possibility. I'm not sure that the fact that he had a land transaction with the ancestor of the spouse of a descendant of Thomas tells us much more. We already knew that they were in the same location at the same time.
posted by M Cole
A very long list of his farms in Wethersfield is given in the Appendix of "Register of Families Settled at the Town of Medford, Mass." See https://books.google.com/books?id=CMsUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA93
posted by Rick Pierpont
A correction to the Research Notes which say: "Not found in source, The reference to "Moore Anc 619" (Moore and Allied Familes: The Ancestry of William Henry Moore, by Effingham deForest and Anne Lawrence deForest) is a copy error, and the book has only 571 pages; these is no mention of Whitmore, Witmore, Wetmore, Jessop, or Jessup in the book."

There are two editions of the source, and the Directory (and Torrey) refer to the 1938 version which can be found here: https://archive.org/details/moorealliedfamil00defo/page/618/mode/2up

posted by M Cole
It appears that theory that John Whitmore of Stamford was the father of all of Thomas, Ann, Mary, Francis and John, and their widely adopted estimated dates of birth, were first proposed in W.H. Whitman's 1855 book. Savage then adopted those claims in his 1860-1862 tome. But by 1875, W.H. Whitman had renounced that position. Purdy for some reason, reverted to the older claim and stated that Whitman in his later years had adopted it, but it seems like she got the order reversed.
posted by Chase Ashley
Majdalany is in my possesion, and as I mentioned she didn't cite sources in the genealogy. I did check the index to see if she mentions the other children anywhere else. I highly suspect after looking at Savage that she copied his list. And Savage's comments (probably and perhaps etc.) about the children don't leave a lot of confidence in his correctness. So I would agree to disconnecting the illogical children.
posted by Anne B
Is Majdalany available online? "they must have moved away because there is no further record." That wording suggests there was some record prior to their supposedly moving away. However, I'm willing to bet that she doesn't actually cite any such record, because there isn't one.

It seems to me that, in order to keep Ann, Mary, Francis and Thomas attached as children, we need at least a reasonable argument based on circumstantial evidence that they are John's children. Names, dates and geography can be enough, but the name evidence is not compelling and, in the case of Ann, Mary and Francis, the geography evidence actual weighs against their being John's children - eg if John is in CT in 1639-1648, why do Anne and Mary first appear getting married in Ipswich in 1644 and 1647?

In the case of Anne and Mary, I think it is probably more likely that either (1) they were daughters of Robert Whitman of Ipswich and that their last name was misrecorded or mistranscribed or (2) they were the step-daughters of a man living in Ipswich.

posted by Chase Ashley
Hi, about the argument about Thomas. I have some evidence that Thomas was a child. I am willing to email you some screenshots that make it hard to doubt that he is in fact a child
posted by Raymond Murphy
What are the screenshots of? Do you have a cite/source? If so, perhaps I can find them online.
posted by Chase Ashley
Well, I guess it's not 100% but I can show you where my ancestor Jabez Wetmore had a daughter named Clariasa and she married a man with the last name of Treat. That line on family search goes back to a Richard Treat in which John Whitmore sold land to. Richard Treat and John Whitmore are at least 3 or 4 generations after Clarissa. Is it a coincidence? It's possible but it definitely makes you think.
posted by Raymond Murphy
Jeanne Majdalany "Early Settlement of Stamford Conn 1641-1700 lists the children that are listed here in the bio with the same aprox. birth dates. She comments they must have moved away because there is no further record.

The genealogies in the book don't list sources, but neither does she embellish what isn't there.

I just looked at Savage, who uses the same list, so perhaps that's where the list originated. Savage also says: Francis of Cambrigde is prob. s/o John of Wethersfield; John of Hartford is perhaps s/o John of W; Thomas of Middletown was son of John of Wethersfield

Elsewhere he says the w/o George Farrow was Ann Whitmore perhaps d/o John; and John Brewer "perhaps after m. 23 Oct. 1647, Mary, d. of the first John Whitmore, prob."

posted by Anne B
As far as I can tell, the most current research on the relationship among John and his supposed children is a Fall 2009 article in New England Ancestors, which (1) reviewed the prior literature, which had a lot of speculation about relationships, but no solid evidence, and (2) reported the results of YDNA tests which prove that Thomas Wetmore of Middletown and Francis Whitmore of Cambridge were not related, meaning that one or both were not sons of this profile's John Whitmore. See https://www.americanancestors.org/DB201/i/12153/47/23908160

I think all of John's "children" currently attached are speculative except for son John, and at least one of them (Thomas or Francis) is definitely incorrect.

posted by Chase Ashley
Thanks, Bobbie. "John Whitmore/Wetmore of Hartford & Middletown" doesn't seem very available, and given it's subtitle: "My own record of descendants of John Whitmore/Wetmore of Hartford & Middletown, Conn.", I don't have high hopes that it would be very reliable or useful.
posted by Chase Ashley
Following the link to the "Reference #35" seems to eventually lead to this: John (1) Whitmore/Wetmore of Hartford & Middleton, Conn at FamilySearch.org
posted by Bobbie (Madison) Hall
Chase, he's also not mentioned in Bond's Watertown, at least not that I can find. I suspect there may have been some confusion with the family of Thomas Whittemore, some of whom were in and around Watertown.
posted by Bobbie (Madison) Hall
What is "New England Historical Genealogical Society "Reference #35"? I don't think it is actually an NEHGR source. The link to it is to an unsourced family webpage.
posted by Chase Ashley
What is the evidence that Ann Whitmore and Mary Whitmore of Ipswich and Francis Whitmore of Cambridge were his children?
posted by Chase Ashley

Rejected matches › John Whitmore (abt.1415-abt.1460)

W  >  Whitmore  >  John Whitmore

Categories: Puritan Great Migration