Comments on Samuel Smith - The Register article

Question

On 20 Mar 2020 Kitty (Cooper) Smith wrote on Smith-1852:

"The Register" #174 from the New England Historical and Genealogical Society (NEHGS) that just came out apparently has an article about the "the English ancestry of Samuel Smith of Hadley, Massachusetts". This should be a very interesting article because I didn't think there was any way to know if he was "1) born possibly Elmsett (north of Hadleigh) Suffolk Co. ENG bap. Sep 1601 in Burstall, Suffolk Co. ENG, s/o- John Smith; OR 2) bap. Feb 1602 St. Nicholas Ipswich, Suffolk Co. ENG, s/o- Samuel Smith." Or possibly some other birthplace. Does anyone get the Register? Can you add a comment or two about the article? Thank you!

Comments

(G2G moderator edited font for legibility; sorry Kitty; some of us can't read the "cursive" font.)

---

Pm me your email address, Kitty, and I'll send you a gift.

---

Thanks, Jillaine!

Answer 1

Since I don't want to spoil Jillaine's gift, I will just write that NEHGR 174:43 includes, "The following evidence supports the identification of Samuel Smith, the 1634 immigrant, as the son of John and Mary (Gardiner) Smith." The article contains much additional information and the usual citations.

Comments

Thanks, T.  No mention of "bap. Feb 1602 St. Nicholas Ipswich, Suffolk Co. ENG, s/o- Samuel Smith" or other possibilities.  I think the only way to be certain is to get yDNA tests from those Suffolk lines.  The author may be right, but without yDNA, we can never be certain.  We have yDNA tested several men that descend from Lt. Sam.

---

on p. 42 of Vol. 174, Winter 2020 of NEHGR it says "Samuel Smith, bp. 6 Sept 1601; m. Whatfield, Suffolk, 6 Oct 1624 Elizabeth Smith, and they immigrated to New England in 1634."

He was the 2nd son of John and Mary (Gardiner) Smith, all of whom were "baptized in Burstall."

---

Thank you, Cheryl.  But how do you know he wasn't the son of Samuel or some other Smith?  We know he married Elizabeth Smith, but we can't be certain if he was the son of Samuel, John and Mary, or some other Smith man without a yDNA match.  In my opinion, the author may be correct, but we can't know for sure without yDNA because there is at least one other possible father.

---

The author appears to be careful in her choice of words, "the following evidence supports the identification" which stops short of declaring the relationship proven. I'm not a DNA expert but going this far back it would seem you would need a rather large collection of infallibly paper documented people with the correct type of DNA testing to try to establish an absolute relationship using DNA.

---

As far as the yDNA is concerned, all you need is one living man that descends from John or his other sons.  We already have the yDNA proof for Lt. Sam and his descendants.  We just need to match him to another descendant of John.

Of course, finding a living descendant of any colonial era man is a challenge.

Answer 2

Since I have access of Vol. 174 of NEHGR, and since son Samuel Smith-1850 in a PGM Beyond New England migrant, I am willing to work on updating these profiles.

Comments

I don't think you should add John and Mary as his parents until we look at the baptism record for Sam, son of Samuel. Certainly, the article should be added as a source, and if you feel you must attach John and Mary as his parents, I ask that you mark them both as uncertain.

---

Just briefly looking into this, I would go with the identification in the article without marking uncertain.  The key points being the Samuel Smith (s/o John Smith) bp. Burstall was married and had his children all born within 3 miles of his own birth place.  While Ipswich is admittedly also close to Hadleigh, proximity absolutely favors Samuel son of John as the correct identification.  

The second key is onomastics. John Smith of Burstall (in addition to son Samuel) had sons Philip and Nathaniel.  Samuel Smith named a son Philip and had four grandchildren all named Nathaniel.

The article summarizes the evidence as: "The following evidence supports the identification of Samuel Smith, the 1634 immigrant, as the son of John and Mary (Gardiner) Smith:

• The 1634 passenger list shows Samuel as aged 32, which agrees with his baptismal date.

• He was baptized in Burstall, Suffolk, near Whatfield (where he married in 1624) and where his older children were baptized (Whatfield and Hadleigh).

• He was named in the wills of his grandmother Gardiner in 1615 and his father in 1618. Because he had immigrated to New England in 1634, he was not named with his brothers in the 1635 will of their aunt Elizabeth (Gardiner) Hayward.

• Samuel and Elizabeth named a son Philip, presumably either for his brother or her father (or both).

• Four of Samuel and Elizabeth’s six grown children named a child Nathaniel, perhaps for his brother Nathaniel.

1

---

I don’t know, but I did create profiles for John and Mary based on the article.  They are near the top of Sam’s bio section.

Answer 3

Since I am unable to access internet for a length of time and since Kitty, you are unsure of accuracy to #174 NEHGR, I will let these profiles go at this point in time.

Cheryl