James (Badcock) Babcock
Privacy Level: Open (White)

James (Badcock) Babcock (abt. 1612 - 1679)

James "Jeames, Jams" Babcock formerly Badcock aka Badcocke, Badcoke, Badcok
Born about in Englandmap
Son of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]
[sibling(s) unknown]
Husband of — married 1638 [location unknown]
Husband of — married 1669 (to 1679) in Westerly, Rhode Islandmap
Descendants descendants
Died at about age 67 in Westerly, Rhode Islandmap
Profile last modified | Created 3 Nov 2013
This page has been accessed 5,887 times.
flag
James (Badcock) Babcock is a part of Rhode Island history.
Join: Rhode Island Project
Discuss: Rhode Island

Contents

Caution

Albert Welles was a prolific author whose genealogy work has been proven to be flagrantly fraudulent. Welles' fabrications were repeated and republished by the influential R.R. Hinman in a manner that impacts various family genealogies into modern times. Because of this, special efforts can be found on Wikitree to contain the misinformation which resurfaces on a regular basis particularly with regard to the Babcock family. Such efforts can be reviewed at these links: Albert Welles, R.R. Hinman.

Biography

This profile is part of the Babcock Name Study.
Flag of England
James (Badcock) Babcock migrated from England to New England ~1640.
Flag of New England ~1640

Ancestry and Birth

James Babcock was born in England. His parents and his specific place of origin are unknown. Fabricated genealogies have claimed that his father was an Englishman named James Badcock who almost certainly did not exist. We can be reasonably sure that this man was born about 1612, as on 18 Jan 1670, he was summoned before the Commissioners of Connecticut, and on that day gave a testimony "calling his age 58 years, his son James 29 and his son John 26 years."[1][2][3]

Name: In the early Colonial Records of Portsmouth and Rhode Island, James' name was spelled in various ways, "probably according to the fancy of the clerk of the town meeting, namely, Badcock, Badeooke, Badcocke, and Badcook." It appear that during the first forty years of their existence in Rhode Island, the family's preferred spelling was '"'Badcock". Then, in the probate records for John Badcock's estate, his name is written as "Babcock", a change that appears to have been permanently adopted by the family. [2]

Marriages and Children

James Babcock's first marriage was to Sarah, who he married in 1641 at Portsmouth. Her family name is unknown.[4]

The children of James Babcock and Sarah were:

1. James who was born about 1641 and married Jane Broun
2. John who was born about 1644 and married Mary Lawton
3. Job who was born about 1646 and married Jane Crandall
4. Mary who was born about 1648 and married William Champlin

Following Sarah's death in 1665, James Babcock married Elizabeth, who family name is also unknown. Elizabeth would later marry William Johnson.[4]

The children of James Babcock and Elizabeth were:

5. Joseph who was born about 1670 and first married Dorothy Key, then next married Mrs. Hannah Coates
6. Nathaniel, whose date of birth unknown (J. O. Austin says Nathaniel died on January 2nd 1710)
7. Elizabeth, whose date of birth unknown. In the History of First Church of Stonington, Connecticut, by R. A. Wheeler; the following is noted - "Sept. 14. 1692, Elizabeth Babcock, daughter-in-law (stepdaughter) of William Johnson, baptized by Rev. Janice Noyes, Pastor of First Stonington Church."

Portsmouth, Rhode Island

James Babcock first appears in the records of New England on 25 Feb 1642, when he was admitted as an inhabitant of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, along with William Chatbourne.[1][5]

James was a blacksmith and gunsmith by trade, who likely smelted iron ore from local rivers, bogs and swamps, into all manner of nails and other farm implements. It was in this capacity that, on 15 Oct 1643, he was one of those appointed to take account of all the arms held by the residents of Portsmouth.[6]

Also on 15 Oct 1643, the town of Portsmouth granted James 10 acres "at the first bro[oke] foot path eastward lying ten rod next for a hie way." Based on this description, James' farm would have been on what is today Sprague street, east of Dana Street running up Butt Hill. Beside this property on which he built his home, garden, and farm buildings, James also negotiated for several other parcels of land for pasture.[6][1]

10 Jul 1648, James appears as "Jeames Badcock," among the 17 freemen of Portsmouth who were chosen for the Trial of the General Officers.[7]

8 Dec 1648, the town granted James an additional 4 acres of land, cut out from that of his neighbor, Thomas Fish.[8]

21 Nov 1649 James was selected as a juryman.[9]

16 Jul 1650, James participated in the slander trial of Capt. Richard Morris, who had accused John Sanford of having been a thief. Babcock appears to have been a witness for Sanford, having been an eye witness to event.[10]

February 1650/51, James was deputized, along with Richard Bulgar, to inventory the cattle of Portsmouth and to collect the imposed taxes on behalf of the town Treasury.[11]

23 May 1651, James was appointed with five others to mend and mark all arms presented to them by any one in the town. (Source needed)

16 Jun 1651, the Town of Portsmouth accepted a bill from James Babcock in the amount of 10s 4d. The purpose of this bill was not recorded.[12]

June 1653, James was again appointed as a Juryman at Portsmouth.[13]

May 1655 James Babcock appears as one of those appointed by the Portsmouth town council to appraise the estate of John Wood, who had died without leaving a will. [14]

8 Apr 1656, difficulties with local Indians resulted in James and seven others being "Chosen to goe over to the mayne to treate with the Indian Sachems to informe them of the mynd of the towne, that they Come not upon the Iland but accordinge to order given."[15]

4 Oct 1656, James was one of five men chosen to meet with he commissioners of the other towns at the General Court of Trials to be held in Portsmouth. He was also one of three men chosen to serve as a juryman at the Court of Trials.[16]

30 Nov 1657, James was appointed to a committee of five men "authorized to dispose of the 200 acres of land to those of the town that want land.[17]

6 Jan 1657, "James Badcock, John Briggs, John Porter, and John Sanford are again authorized to meet with Newport men according to former order."[18]

2 Mar 1657/58, James was again one of five men chosen to meet with he commissioners of the other towns, and was also one of three men chosen to serve as a juryman at the General Court of Trials to be held at Portsmouth.[19]

10 Dec 1657, James was granted an additional 8 acres of land at Portsmouth. (source needed)

7 Jun 1658, "Mr. Richard Bulgar chosen Town Sargent, James Badcocke next."[20]

8 Aug 1659, James was again selected a commissioner to attend the Court at Portsmouth. That same day he was awarded 9 shillings and 6 pence to be paid by the Town Treasury "for charges in the case of Nicholas Browne".[21]

4 Jun 1660, John Babcock, Richard Session and Henry Pearcy were chosen Constables of Portsmouth.[22]

27 Dec 1660, James was one of five men appointed to "order all the highways and to see them recorded." [23]

11 May 1661, James was one of three men appointed to settle a boundary dispute between Thomas Brownell and John Porter.[24]

3 Jun 1661, John Babcock, Richard Session and Henry Pearcy were all re-chosen Constables of Portsmouth.[25]

Aug 1661, James severed on a coroners inquest into the drowning death of Richard Ellis, who was found washed up on the shore of "Prudence Island", 8 Aug 1661. The death was ruled an accident.[26]

1 Oct 1661 James was one of three men chosen to serve on the Petit jury at Portsmouth.[27]

19 Dec 1662, reference is made to a committee which was previously appointed to lay out certain lands, and this committee, or the larger part of them, were ordered to restore to William Wilber three quarters of an acre of land which the committee had previously taken from him in their official work. James Badcock was one of this committee, and is referred to as James Badcock, Sr., suggesting that James, Jr., who had reached his majority that year, was then living in Portsmouth. This is the last entry for James Babcocok in the Portsmouth records.[28]

Westerly, Rhode Island

On 29 Jun 1660, a 300 square mile tract of land located on Rhode Island's western frontier, between the Pawcatuck River and Narragansett Bay, and then known as Misquamicut, was purchased from the Indian Chief Sosoa by a company organized at Newport County, Rhode Island. It was Rhode Island's intention to settle Misquamicut as a means of anchoring their claim to the territory, which they were well aware had been declared by the Massachusetts Bay Colony to part of Southertown under the jurisdiction of its own Suffolk County, as far back as 1658. (C. R. of R. I.). Then, in 1662, the Connecticut Colony also laid claim to the tract (a claim it did not fully relinquish until 1728). These disputes between the three colonies would lead to a string of fines, arrests, imprisonments, evictions, expulsions between the two colonies.

Before starting from Newport the company commissioned James Badcock and four others "to act for us as to the managing of our affairs at Misquamucock who are to discourse and answer to any that shall come to debate matters with them. They or any two of them, to forewarn any whatsoever either to build or sow, mow or fall timber upon that tract of land." (End of quotation from Col. of R. I. Hist. Soc.)

In September, 1661, the purchasers visited Misquamicut and a certain part of the tract was appointed by lot. James Babcock's lot was 52.

In about 1662, James Babcock moved permanently to Westerly where he took a prominent part in a number of disputes caused by problems with Indian territorial claims and those by Connecticut's claim to territory in and about Westerly.[2]

On one occasion, twenty or more men from Southertowne crossed the Pawcatuck River, broke into James Babcock’s house, and abducted him across the river as a prisoner.[29]

10 Feb 1664, James Babcock and "the rest of the people on Rhode Island on the east side of the Powtuck river" received a stern and detailed warning from the Council of the Colony Connecticut, instructing them to cease their provocation of the Indians.[30]

18 Mar 1664, James Badcock petitioned the General Court (Assembly), sitting at Newport, for protection "against such riotous actings as are done and committed by the men of Southertown against him." (Southertown being in Connecticut.) The court requested the Governor and Deputy Governor to send a letter to the government of Connecticut "to see what they will say by way of answer to such riotous acting as are done and committed by the men of Southertown against the said Badcock." (C. R. of R. I., vol. ii, pp. 32-34.)

In 1665 James sold to Thomas Fish for £50 all of his Portsmouth property, including his land, dwelling house, barn, orchard, etc. "His wife Sarah giving her consent.[1]

18 May 1667, Harmon Garret (alias Wequascooke, chief of the Pequots) petitioned the General Court of Connecticut, praying "that such men as wear hats and clothes like Englishmen, but have dealt with us like wolves and hears, may he called to account." It appears that a short time previously, James Badcock, with a company of men, had driven the Pequot Indians from their planting ground, located on the Misquamicut purchase east of the Pawcatuck River. babcock was formally charged with the offense on 21 Jun 1670, at a Connecticut General Court meeting held at Wickford (now in R. I.). [31]

May 1669, The settlement at Misquamicut was formally incorporated as the town of Westerly, Rhode Island, at which time there were twenty-four freeman in the town, four of whom included James and his three sons, James, John, and Job. (Westerly in those days encompassed the present-day towns of Westerly, Charlestown, Hopkinton and Richmond.) [32]

17 Jun 1670, James Badcock, Sr., by virtue of a warrant issued by Tobias Sanders, arrested three Connecticut men: John Frink, Benjamin Palmer, and Thomas Bell, who had crossed into Rhode Island for the purpose of summoning the Westerly men to appear before a certain court to be held in Connecticut. Frink was sent to the Rhode Island jail. The next day Mr. Badcock was arrested by officers from Connecticut and placed under a bond of £100 to "personally appear and surrender himself to Nehemiah Palmer, Constable of Stonington, pro tempore. Wednesday morning next by six of the clock." Tobias Sanders and Thomas Stanton became his bondsmen, each putting up £50.The details of these arrests, counter-arrests, bonds, and trials are repeated substantially as here stated in Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut. 1665-78, p. 553. (C. R. of R. I., vol. ii, pp. 319, 320.)

Col. A. J. Babcock, of Springfield, Ill., says: "We take it for granted that bright and early 'six of the clock,' on the morning of June 23, 1670, Badcock was there ready to answer all charges of the adverse faction; but it appears they were not ready to prove these charges. The case was continued until June of the next year, Badcock giving a bond in the sum of £20 to appear at the County Court in New London. Conn."

23 Jun 1670, is supposed to have been the date that James. Sr., made affidavit to the ages of himself and his two sons. (See Preface in this volume.)

18 May 1671, James Badcock and John Badcock are recorded as renewing their allegiance to Rhode Island and the king; most of the inhabitants, including James, Jr., and Job Badcock. having renewed their allegiance the previous day. (C. R. of R. I., vol. ii. pp. 388, 389.)

2 Mar 1678, James, now age 59, was baptized by Elder William Hiscox and was united with the Seventh Day Baptist church of Newport and Westerly.[33]

17 Apr 1691, "Joseph Babcock of Stonington relinquished to his brother James Babcock, of Westerly, for a consideration, his claim to land belonging to their father, the late James Babcock of Westerly, and lying on the east side of the Pawcatuck River." James owned land in Westerly is proved by Westerly Town Records, book i. p. 66.

Death and Legacy

James Babcock died on 12 Jun 1679.

On 17 Sep 1679 his sons, John and Job Babcock, appeared before the Governor of Rhode Island at a court held at Westerly, and "being solemnly engaged" testified to the truth of their father's will as he verbally gave it to them. The will is recorded in Vol. I, Land Evidence, in the office of the Secretary of State at Providence. Among " the several legacies named in the will, he "bequeathed unto his son Joseph all his housing and lands for him, the said Joseph Badcock to take unto his possession when he shall attain to the age of twenty-one years." Also in his will, James "did give unto his wife, Elizabeth Badcock, for the maintenance and bringing up of the three children he had by his second wife."[34]

Stephen Babcock concludes his biography of James Babcock with the observation that "These glimpses of an interesting- life show that James Badcock (Babcock), .Sr., was a man of sterling integrity and of strong convictions. He was respected by his neighbors, honored and trusted as a citizen, and ready to serve the community in whatever capacity he was appointed.."[35]

Research Notes

From Col. of R. I. Hist. Soc, published 1835, vol. iii. pp. 257-261, the following is taken: "Aug. 31, 1661, all purchasers were ordered by the trustees to meet at Cabel (Caleb) Carrs, at Newport, to go to Squamucuck." Two weeks later. Sept. 15, the company was at "Misquamicut," and a certain part of the tract was apportioned by lot. The number of James Badcock's lot was 52. At the time of this visit arrangements were made for a temporary occupancy of the land. The company was divided into small parties, each party to stay upon the land for a certain number of weeks. Anyone who refused to serve had to provide a substitute or pay a fine. Nov. 1. 1661, Tobias Sanders. Robert Runlet (Burdick), and Joseph Clark were arrested upon the land by the authority of Massachusetts. Sanders and Burdick were taken to Boston, where they were fined forty pounds each and imprisoned "until their fines should be paid, and until each should give security in £100 for his future good conduct." Nov. 12, 166l, the number of trustees for the "Squamicuck" purchase was increased from eight to eighteen. Two of the names added were James Badcock and John Badcock.

From History of Pittsburgh and Environs:

James Badcock, the immigrant ancestor of the family of that name in Pennsylvania, was born in England, in 1612, in County Essex, and died June 12, 1679;
He married (first) Sarah, whose death occurred in 1665. They were the parents of four children, as follows : James, born in 1641, married Jane Brown; John, born in 1644, married Mary Lawton ; Job, born in 1646, married Jane Crandall; Mary, born in 1648, married William Champlin. He married (second) Elizabeth, and they became the parents of three children, as follows: Joseph, Nathaniel, and Elizabeth

There is various information and sources about Elizabeth, daughter of James, who may or may not have married Benjamin Sumner. The different sources indicate that there were multiple Elizabeth Babcock / Badcock, born abt the same time:

Specific birth date, unsourced 12 Jun 1612

Sources

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Austin, John Osborne. The Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island (Joel Munsells Sons: Albany, 1887). page:8
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Babcock, Stephen. Babcock Genealogy (Eaton & Mains, New York, 1903) Pages 1-6
  3. Bicknell, Thomas. The History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (The American Historical Society, Inc., New York, 1920) Vol 4 pg 113-114 John Edward Babcock
  4. 4.0 4.1 Torrey, Clarence Almon. New England Marriages Prior to 1700. pg 29
  5. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 19: The 25th ffebrary 1642 At a towne meetinge William Chatbourn admitted inhabitant of the towne of p and James Badcocke is admitted inhabi
  6. 6.0 6.1 The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 21
  7. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 37
  8. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 39
  9. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 43
  10. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 47
  11. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 48
  12. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 52.
  13. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 60.
  14. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 352: May the 7th 1655 The Councell of the towne of Portsmouth being mett according to the law of the Collonie for the legall disposing of the estate of John Wood deceast to those to whom it belongs, the deseast not haueing left a will or testament, haue chosen m' .... Jeames Badcock etc. ...
  15. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 70.
  16. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 73.
  17. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 80.
  18. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 82.
  19. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 83-84.
  20. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 85.
  21. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 90.
  22. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 93.
  23. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 97.
  24. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 104.
  25. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 105.
  26. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 107.
  27. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 108.
  28. The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth, page 167.
  29. Gialanella, James Vincent. Rhode Island: Tradition of Independence 1636-1776. page 53.
  30. Connecticut Council's Warning to James Babcock, February 10, 1664, (1664.02.10.00), Grant-Costa, Paul, et. al., eds., Yale Indian Papers Project, Yale University, Accessed at http://hdl.handle.net/10079/digcoll/2564368
  31. Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, book 1665-78, pp. 529-546.
  32. Wikipedia. List of Early Settlers of Rhode Island
  33. Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society, Vol: 3, 1835, p. 117.
  34. Babcock, Stephen. Babcock Genealogy (Eaton & Mains, New York, 1903), page 541
  35. 35.0 35.1 Babcock, Stephen. Babcock Genealogy (Eaton & Mains, New York, 1903), page 6
  36. Wheeler, Richard Anson. History of the First Congregational Church, Stonington, Connecticut, 1674-1874 (T.H. Davis, Norwich, Conn., 1875) Page 198 Sep 24 1692 'the same day' Elizabeth Babcock, daughter in law to William Johnson
  37. Wheeler, Richard Anson. History of the Town of Stonington, County of New London, Connecticut (Day Publishing, Co., New London, Conn., 1900) Page 211
  38. Appleton, William. The Family of Badcock of Massachusetts (David Clapp & Son, Boston, 1881) Page 3-4 #8 III Samuel, son of #3 II Robert Badcock, m Hannah Emes, had daughter #v Elizabeth, who married Benjamin Sumner of Milton 2 May 1706




Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with James 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:

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



Comments: 47

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
Looks like Elizabeth the final child of James Babcock has not yet been reconnected to her father. I hope y'all on the project can help expedite a resolution to this situation in which there is some long standing conflation between Elizabeth daughter of James Babcock of Westerly (third child of his with second wife as mentioned in his 1679 will)  and Elizabeth (b. 1686) daughter of Samual Badcock of Milton, Massachusettts.  I think the hitch confusing things is that Wheeler in "The History of Stonington" conflated the two by tentatively adding the Milton Mass. Elizabeth's marriage date and Husband's name to the Westerly RI Elizabeth's line as he was describing James Babcock of Westerly's family. If you compare the Appleton and Wheeler sources it seems that this is what must have happened, and Wheeler knew it was an iffy proposal. I hope you will review the improvements and get Elizabeth of Westerly reconnected.

I just reworked her profile to clarify any lingering uncertainty and Marc has recreated the Milton Mass Elizabeth to her accurtate LNAB as "Badcock." 

See baptism account: https://archive.org/details/historyoffirstco00whee/page/198/mode/2up)

See Wheeler's tentative marriage conflation   https://archive.org/details/historytownston00wheegoog/page/210/mode/2up

See same husband and marriage date presented in Appleton work   https://archive.org/details/familyofbadcocko00appl/page/4/mode/2upWesterly

Westerly Elizabeth's reworked profile: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Babcock-8593

Milton Elizabeth's profile now recreated at: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Badcock-1004

The easy and accurate  solution is in sight, can you help with any of these steps? : reconnect Elizabeth Babcock as project protected James's daughter, put notes warning about the conflation on profiles for both Elizabeths (I just did this), dejunk anything confusing currently on the Elizabeths (looks fine to me, but never hurts to have extra eyes to improve them). 

posted by R Adams
edited by R Adams
I have connected Elizabeth to James. Thank you for your work on these profiles.
posted by Jim Angelo Jr
I removed the specific birthdate (allegedly 12 Jun 1612) which is unsourced. I suspect it's a hangover from a while ago that never got removed.
posted by Anne B
edited by Anne B
Greetings everyone. My name is Kent Babcock. I am brand new to joining and posting to WikiTree (so apologies up front). I am the administrator for the Babcock-Badcock Project on Family Tree. Recent Y-DNA findings have revealed the following — descendants of John Babcock b 1644 (son of James Badcock b 1612) have been assigned terminal SNP of E-FT216565. A descendant of a male sibling of John b 1644 (i.e., James, Job, Joseph) has not been found to test as of to date. Therefore no claim can be made that James Badcock b 1612 is of the same clade (group) as his son John b 1644 (though it is likely he is). That acknowledged, we have also had a descendant of Robert Badcock and a descendant of George Badcock, both ancestors born circa 1620s, Big Y 700 test. The two descendants are a Big Y and Y-111 match to one another and have been assigned I-FTC83788 as their terminal SNP. Therefore we have the Rhode Island settlement belonging to the ' E ' haplogroup and the Massachusetts settlement belonging to the ' I ' haplogroup. These two haplogroups that are totally disparate from one another (branching 66,000 BCE). Though it is always possible that a non-paternal event (NPE) may be the explanation for what we are observing with the Y-DNA results, the NPE had to occur before/with John's b 1644 birth. More likely the NPE would have occurred in England. Perhaps even more likely is that we have two genetically distinct families who have both adopted the Badcock surname (or one of its spelling variants) with the advent of surnames around 1100 CE.

I would be more than glad to share all the supporting data to support these findings. However, since I have been unable to edit my own profile to have WikiTree acknowledge me as male (which apparently is a prerequisite to adding my Y-DNA results), I likely will need some direction from those of you more adapt at navigating this website.

Addendum since the initial post —

Please visit https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Y-DNA_Babcock-Badcock_Project to view some of the supporting documentation.

posted by Kent Babcock
edited by Kent Babcock
Welcome Kent! This is an amazing break through, the early Milton Group as "I" coded and the Westerly Group as "E" coded and then each associated with very specific branches of "I" and 'E" as I can see from the Babcock-Badcock family study charts at the FTDNA https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Babcock?iframe=ycolorized

To me those two early colonial groups always felt so geographically and culturally distinct from the primary records, especially with the Westerly group's generations long preoccupation with the Seventh Day Adventist Church and their quirky early adoption of the "Babcock" spelling and the plantation farming, all while the Milton group stuck with "Badcock" until after the Revolution and seemed to be in more traditional Churches and more city dwelling. That spelling in primary records suggests group identity, while the DNA is rock solid proof that the groups really are distinct from way back in time! It's just so cool to see that DNA confirming the genetic distinction.

So what's next? It sounds like it would be especially helpful to get more Y-DNA results on specific line where the testers also have good charts leading back to.....uh.... who? Could you say which lines are most useful and describe with name and ideally birth and death date if possible? The name repetition in this family is dizzying. Or is it useful to have any Y-DNA result from anyone? Are big-Y test results the very best for what you are doing? How useful are other Babcock/Badcock surname Y tests from the project?

posted by R Adams
Thank you R Adams on many counts! It was your encouragement for members of the Babcock-Badcock Project to join and participate on WikiTree that was responsible for me doing so. Thank you as well for sharing your knowledge regarding the Badcock/Babcock lineage in general and your acumen in the interpretation of the genealogical findings related to the Massachusetts and Rhode Island settlements in your post above. And I wholeheartedly agree that it is a fabulous thing when DNA can corroborate the distinctions that have been drawn between two groups of a common surname.

On the ' I ' haplogroup Massachusetts settlement front — having more testers (a larger N) would be beneficial from a confirming standpoint and well might provide further insights similar to those provided when more individuals of the ' E ' haplogroup tested (currently 9 individuals). Whether all lines lead to and through Robert (1610-1694) or George (1622-1670) to David I do not know. In other words, is David possibly not in a direct line to one or the other, or both, Robert and George?

On the ' E ' haplogroup Rhode Island settlement front — having someone who descends from James (1641-1698), Job (1646-1718), or Joseph (1670-?) would provide a second parallel lineage to John (1644-1685) for which we have descendants who have tested. If a candidate was found from any of the three other sons of James Badcock (1612-1679) and their terminal SNP was also determined to be the same as descendants from John (1644-1685) (E-FT216584) then we can conclude that father James (1612-1679) was the first to have had the mutation that he passed on to both his sons or that the mutation occurred before James (1612-1679). SNP E-FT216584 would now define not only from John (1644-1685) as the MRCA but from James (1612-1679) as the MRCA (i.e., one generation more distant in the past and the first Badcock to have arrived in Rhode Island).

A Badcock/Babcock from England (or even a Badcock/Badcock who did not arrive to, say, New Zealand or Australia via North America (i.e., did not emigrate to Canada or the US first)) who traces their lineage to England would also be of tremendous benefit to shedding light on the matter.

And what is needed is Big Y 700 (Y-DNA) testing from Family Tree where the haplogroup is confirmed, instead of just predicted from STR (short tandem repeat) testing, and where a terminal SNP is assigned to the descendant.

posted by Kent Babcock
Hi managers,

FYI: Marc just rebuilt James Badcocke's child Elizabeth at this brand new profile and she is connected to her mother. (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Babcock-8593)

So, I am modifying my request to could you simply reconnect her to her father?

posted by R Adams
I added sources that are on this profile about Elizabeth to the new Elizabeth profile, including Research Notes about the 'other' Elizabeth and the related source, since that is in conflict with the Stonington sources.
Project managers, could you please rebuild James Badcocke's child Elizabeth Badcock based on page 6 of "The Babcock Genealogy." She accidentally disappeared recently, and as the profile is Project Protected, I cannot add a child myself. The mother is James Badcocke's second wife, Elizabeth, and her daughter, Elizabeth, is the youngest of her three children. Thank you.
posted by Marc Cohen
Marc, you are the PM of her 'mother', so you can create the profile for her as a child of Elizabeth. Then when you are ready, you can ask for her to be connected to her father.

I looked at the Changes log for 'your' Elizabeth mother and I didn't see that there had been a child named Elizabeth connected to Elizabeth, the mother, but maybe the Changes Log wasn't showing that at the time.

Hi Linda. I tried to do this on her mother's page, of which I'm the PM, but WT would not let me complete it. Perhaps I did something wrong, but I was unsuccessful.
posted by Marc Cohen
You should be able to add her as a child of Elizabeth. Do NOT try to connect her to her father yet, just her mother and the system should let you do that. You probably tried to select her father, which you can't do.
I think the child Elizabeth was real. Documentation of the child Elizabeth of James Badcocke is on page 6 of "The Babcock Genealogy" (https://archive.org/details/babcockgenealogy00babc/page/n41/mode/1up?view=theater&q=elizabeth) where children of James's second marriage are described in a list based on James's Will which refers to three children of the second marriage, and a baptism record for this Elizabeth child the author mentions from Wheeler's "History of the First Church of Stonington." Online we can go see the baptism notation on page 198 of Wheeler's "The History of the First Church of Stonington. (https://archive.org/details/historyoffirstco00whee/page/198/mode/2up?q=babcock)

But I just noticed a tricky thing ..... on page 211 of Wheeler's other book "The History of Stonington" where he refers to James's child Elizabeth as marrying Sumner on a certain date, almost the same date that Appleton (page 4) has the other Elizabeth marrying Benjamin Sumner of Milton. Maybe Wheeler was mistakenly conflating the two Elizabeth Badcocks??? I don't know what to think about this, but I can see why this has led to complications in their profiles. (https://archive.org/details/historytownston00wheegoog/page/210/mode/2up?q=baptisms) (https://archive.org/details/familyofbadcocko00appl/page/4/mode/2up?q=sumner)

One last tricky thing is that the wikitree computer system will only let you review the previous profile of this child Elizabeth previously known as Badcock-147 from the changes tab of Babcock-2671. Her presence is 100% erased from her parents profiles change logs! I hope the project managers of James Badcocke can add her back as his child since there are such strict restrictive aspects to connecting to James.

posted by R Adams
edited by R Adams
When a merge is done, you can see the Changes Log for the 'merged away' profile from the 'merged into' profile Changes Log. The Changes log did not always show when relationship changes were made on 'both' profiles that were affected. To show them now, you have to select 'Show paired items' in Changes Log, but that only works for those relationship changes that were made after the change was made, I think.
  • Changes Log for Elizabeth Badcock-147 shows that James Babcock-1153, b 1612 England, was added as father of Elizabeth Apr 29 2017. That profile has now been merged into James Badcock-477.
  • Wife Elizabeth Unknown-561720 was created in Jun 2021 from Elizabeth March-67 when LNAB was changed. Changes Log for March-67 on Apr 28 2017 show that Marriage data was changed with spouse Babcock-1153 and Johnson-23559, also the Current Last Name was changed from Badcock to Babcock. So, when Babcock was added as father Apr 29 2017, Elizabeth would have been added as mother 'probably' but changes log would not have shown that 2nd entry.

I have added some more Babcock / Badcock sources to James Badcock-477 profile. I added some info to the end of Research Notes about Elizabeth, including links to 2 Stonington Sources and the Babcock Genealogy that mention Elizabeth, son of James and Elizabeth, one of which is the marriage to Benjamin Sumner. I also included the link from a different source that states the wife of Benjamin was the daughter of Samuel and Hannah.

It looks like there is a simple accidental transcription in the Death date of this wikiprofile for James Badcock/Babcock/Badcocke. Death year should read 1679, not 1697. 1679 matches the official dates and matches with the wording of the Will regarding how the oldest child with his second wife was just nine years old when he recited his will to his sons. Since this is project protected, I hope the project will review and amend.

I can find no evidence of him being alive after 1679. This is what I was reading:

Here is the abstract of James Badcocke's will from "Rhode Island land evidences vol. I 1648-1696 : Abstracts" (page 137) https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/432455/?offset=0#page=137&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=Badcock

Here is a copy of the Will from the appendix area (page 541) of "The Babcock Genealogy" https://archive.org/details/babcockgenealogy00babc/page/540/mode/2up

posted by R Adams
I revised the death date at the top and in bio. I added the link to Babcock Geneology page 541 which is citation 34, where will was noted.

Thank you for catching it

posted by Linda (Carruth) Peterson
edited by Linda (Carruth) Peterson
Babcock-8372 and Badcock-477 appear to represent the same person because: realized the same person, but i had the wrong date. Please merge, and I'll remove myself as profile manager
posted by Anonymous Nagel
On 3/5/2021, the profile of James Babcock received a significant cosmetic overhaul. Duplicate information was merged, life events were placed in chronological order, headings were added, grammar was simplified, etc. No factual information was intentionally deleted and no new information was added. No attempt was made to check the presented information for accuracy and no sources were checked.
posted by David Randall
When a 'rewrite' is done of a profile, it should be put into a Space page and allow others to review it to see if anything has been left out and to make sure that everyone agrees with it. This profile is Project Protected which means that a rewrite should not be done without agreement from the project and what was being done. There are quite a few things that have been removed, based on going through the Changes Log.
oh dear. I'm a repeat offender - although I don't believe all projects practice space-page rewrites. I do try to remember to post a comment if I'm going to do extensive editing of any profile, but when I'm down a rabbit hole and start making minor edits that then become major ones, I forget.

I promise to try to do better on the posting a notice of intent, especially on project-managed profiles. But I think that in most cases, and especially on the projects I co-lead (Magna Carta Project and US Southern Colonies Project), posting such notices prior to editng is what's recommended. Using a space page for a re-write is the exception not the rule. For Magna Carta Project, we most frequently do space-page editing of a profile's biography when the profile requires a pre-1500 badge and the project member interested in doing the editing is not pre-1500 certified. Otherwise, and for both projects, space-page editing is rare and generally used only on profiles that will be subject to extreme editing (e.g., when a profile is massively conflated) or the profile is highly contentious with serious discrepancies among sources and descendants.

Thanks for pointing out that for United States Project profiles, the practice is to do space-page rewrites. I'll keep that in mind!

Cheers, Liz

posted by Liz (Noland) Shifflett
That is not a rule that I have ever followed, much less been aware of. Most of the projects I am involved with (including the Untied States Project) are managers of profiles -- and have project-protected profiles -- that are in need of intensive care, often including major rewrites. Discussion of genealogical issues and sourcing challenges often occurs in G2G, and Research Notes may be needed to discuss disputed information, but rewrites typically are done within the profile, not on separate free-space pages.

These Badcock and Babcock profiles can be a daunting challenge, as the family has been burdened with some bad published genealogy (more accurately, it is mythology) that continued to be propagated by later authors and online family trees. Therefore, there has been a need for careful scrutiny of the sources as well as for improved writing.

posted by Ellen Smith
edited by Ellen Smith
Thank you. This is one of the first ancestors I started on in the late 1990s. In 2000, I visited relatives in Wisconsin and met with two Babcock 8th cousins; numerous Babcocks resided in Rock County and Walworth County. My 2nd great grandfather, James Babcock, 1818-1865, migrated to Wisconsin from Alburgh, Vermont. His father and grandfather, both Ichabod Babcocks, moved there from Rhode Island after the Revolutionary War. I now have become fully engrossed in Rhode Island's early history since I now realize I am descended from so many RI founders. I also have become a fond user of WikiTree since I have found better sourced information than on Ancestry, My Heritage, and Family Search and always read the discussions carefully and of course examine the sources. Again, thanks to all those that do this work.
posted by Susan Fisher
My intent was not that they should always be done in space pages. I have seen profiles with extensive biographies, as this one has, be put into a space page or somewhere, so that comparison can be easily made to make sure that everything that is important is not lost with a rewrite. I think Projects should be made aware when someone wants to take it on, but we shouldn't be removing mention of some of the Fraudulent sources and information, which is why the Project Protection is put on profiles.
Few of us ever use free space pages for rewrites, and it is definitely not WikiTree guidance that we should. As Ellen Smith says, there can be consultation in G2G. And it may well be appropriate to post a comment on a profile before changing relationships etc, following the general WT guidance on prior consultation.

Of course if someone wants to use a free space page, that is up to them, and perfectly ok. But it is a personal choice.

The best place for any mention of fraudulent sources etc is often Research Notes.

It is best practice, especially for Project-managed profiles, to post a comment before starting a major rewrite, though I would not worry much about this for profiles which are orphaned or have no active manager, or for profiles where a Project I lead is sole manager and I am working on behalf of the Project. Nor would I worry too much about this for profiles which are unsourced or have no, or scarcely any, information in them, and have been neglected by their managers.

posted by Michael Cayley
FYI: A very very soft lead regarding the distant origin of the Babcock/Badcock family was just posted by wikitreer James Gunn on the profile of David Badcock. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Badcock-560

Maybe someone with skill in early English records could see if there is any more to be learned about the extended family of the woman named Christian Badcock of Devon who married to Thomas Gunn, those two being possible parents of the younger Thomas Gunn who was an early Dorchester, Massachusetts immigrant at the same time that David Badcock also settled in Dorchester. Of course this iffy set of relations also assumes, as Stephen Babcock does, that James Badcocke of this profile was related to the Dorchester/Milton family branch before he ventured off to Westerly.

I know this is really not much to work with, and I am not all that hopeful that we will ever get passed this roadblock, though if anyone can post accurate Y-DNA signatures for our early colonial Babcock/Badcock's lines that might really help in finding where in England this family came from. With all the Babcocks in North America and all the proven pedigree charts, there must be some Y-DNA evidence out there!

posted by R Adams
Sourcing on that other profile is using a different Badcock Family Genealogy book. I have posted a response on that profile because the statement 'there is documented evidence' and listed 2 family search 'tree' entries is very questionable. There is no source attached to those family tree pages.
Thank you for asking Mr. Dunn if he has some solid evidence. 

In case anyone wants to try to hunt for James Badcocke's origins, I am going to lay out very explicitly why the Gunn post might matter.    It is true that the links are not to actual documented sources at all, rather they are to names and vital dates which potentially could lead (or not lead) to actual sources if someone fluent in earlier English research explored those names and dates. I appreciate the poster's use of the comments area as the fitting place for potential soft leads, and it was nice for Mr. Gunn to share the note, especially since there has been no hint of where the American Badcock/Babcocks might have come from for well over 100 years.     About David Badcock's profile being sourced by a different Genealogy, yes that is right too, it is sourced by a related book that Stephen Babcock made reference to when he published his "The Babcock Family" in 1903. William S. Appleton's short genealogy called the "Family of Badcocks of Milton Massachusetts" was published in 1865 and is referenced twice in the introductory sections of Stephen Babcock's work, once by Stephen Babcock himself and once by his associate Col. A. J. Babcock in his essay disproving the Welles/Hinman Fraud. In the 1865 book Appleton speculates on page one that David Badcock may be the father of James Badcock of Westerly fame. In the 1903 book Col. Babcock echoes a similar (unproven) idea that as he writes there is no doubt that James Badcock of Westerly is brother to George and Robert Badcock of Dorchester (those men are David's sons). 

The relation of these two genealogies (1865 and 1903) is important also in that it was William S. Appleton who examined the records of Wivenhoe England to prove that Albert Welles had fabricated many supposed English Babcock records in the Welles work disseminated by RR Hinman. What I mean is Appleton was the first to lay bare the Welles Fraud that still haunts us, and that later it was Stephen Babcock and his associate Col. A. J. Babcock who followed up to fully disprove the fraud which by then was widely disseminated. In 1889 those two had travelled to do extensive research with Massachusetts records and ship logs. They later included proof of the fraud in Col. A.J. Babcock's brilliant introductory section to the 1903 book, though they were unsure whether Welles or HInman had started it. (Welles, a Westerly Babcock descendant, did).  

Due to the 1865 and 1903 works we know the family did not hail from Wivenhoe, did not arrive at Plymouth on the Ship Anne, and that the Westerly and Milton/Dorchester branches are very likely closely related, but here's the hitch..... Devon to my knowledge has never ever been explored as a point of origin and the idea of an allied association with the Gunn family has never ever come up anywhere until today thanks to Mr. Gunn. 

https://archive.org/details/babcockgenealogy00babc/page/n25/mode/2up?q=appleton https://archive.org/details/familyofbadcocko00appl/page/n9/mode/2up?q=james+Badcock

posted by R Adams
There's a bogus marriage date of 1638 in RI. the date certainly doesn't exist and I'm going to remove it.
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Anne B
I've removed PGM since he arrived post 1640 and because Rhode Island thru US history is protecting/co-managing? (Is there no google group for RI?)
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Jillaine Smith
The United States Project will manage this profile on behalf of Rhode Island.

There is no Google Group for Rhode Island. The only states for which WikiTree has set up Google Groups are Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Not all of these are in active use.

posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Ellen Smith
We also have Maryland Project, and even more listed in the category.
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by William Foster Jr
edited by William Foster Jr
All of the states have Project pages like that one, but only a few states have their own Google Groups (and associated project accounts).
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Ellen Smith
I just expanded the Albert Welles profile and the RR Hinman profile to include clear information regarding the still spreading Albert Welles Fraud and added links on Albert to the wikitree efforts to contain the fraudulent info. . Believe it or not , neither profile mentioned the fraud!

  Your warning about the fraud in the early paragraph of this James's profile is really good, since that Hinman/Welles junk is really all over the place, i.e. on his Family Search Profile and  his Find a Grave, mixed up with perfectly good data and accompanied by that lovely portrait which looks like a REAL Rembrandt and is surely NOT our James Babcock at all. 

Managers, please consider hyperlinking to both Hinman and Welles names in the early paragraph of this profile so that with a click someone who wants to understand the fraud can learn more. 

Here's the code if you like the hyperlinking idea : R.R. Hinman and Albert Welles, but it's a great profile as is and please do what you want.

p.s.  Albert Welles's own writing implies his mom was Mary Babcock daughter of Ichabod Babcock of Gales Ferry, Connecticut. Ichabod 1758-1848, maybe? Buried in Gales Ferry Cemetery..... Could be that's were our bad luck started???? 

posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by R Adams
I would like to add
This profile is part of the Babcock Name Study.
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Judy (Flamer) Bramlage
I removed the coat of arms from this profile. it was a fabrication by Albert Welles. It is now displayed on the page American Family Antiquity, about the Welles publication where it appeared.
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Ellen Smith
Removed parents; https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Badcock-78 -

please keep this profile free of connection with known fraudulent genealogies.

posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Valerie Willis
Babcock-1153 and Badcock-105 appear to represent the same person because: came name, dates & places etc. LNAB "Babcock"

Some documents used the original English spelling "Badcock" for these children but the family quickly adopted "Babcock" which would be correct LNAB here

posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Valerie Willis
Babcock-1153 and Badcock-105 appear to be the same person. I propose a merge using the spelling Badcock as this seems to be the spelling used during James III's lifetime.
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Jill (Smith) Bogner
Would like to suggest this profile be considered for project protection.
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Lydia Vierson
Do you have a source for the father?
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Michelle (Gerard) Hartley
I own an original copy of the Babcock Genealogy book compiled by Cyrus Brown (1909) that starts with this James Babcock. If anyone else has a copy please contact me - my binding is bad and some of the illustrations are loose. I need to know where they need to be in the book before I have it rebound.
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Lydia Vierson
I see several library's have a copy of this genealogy. Concordia College Library, Moorhead, MN, Minnesota; Historical Society Library, St. Paul, MN; Morningside University, Sioux City, IA; Wisconsin Historical Society

Madison, WI; Newberry Library, Chicago, IL; University of Chicago Library, Chicago, IL. I got the information from WorldCat.

posted by Richard Babcock
The free and fast Internet Archives version of Stephen babcock's "The Babcock Genealogy" is really useful in that the search function is so easy to use. Here's a link coded to search on the word "tankard" . Works like lightning via a google search on my ancient computer. P.S. Anyone know where the Babcock tankard ended up? I hope in a Museum where it won't get dented.

https://archive.org/details/babcockgenealogy00babc/page/440/mode/2up?q=tankard

posted by R Adams
edited by R Adams
I own an original copy of the Babcock Genealogy book compiled by Cyrus Brown (1909) that starts with this James Babcock.
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Lydia Vierson
Babcock-1613 and Badcock-32 appear to represent the same person because: same dates, same wife, same family lineage
posted on Babcock-1153 (merged) by Robin Lee