| James (Badcock) Babcock is a part of Rhode Island history. Join: Rhode Island Project Discuss: Rhode Island |
Contents |
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.
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]
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:
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:
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]
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.
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]
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
Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
James is 20 degrees from Zendaya Coleman, 26 degrees from Sting Sumner, 14 degrees from Josh Brolin, 18 degrees from Timothée Chalamet, 15 degrees from José Ferrer, 16 degrees from Frank Herbert, 13 degrees from Richard Jordan, 14 degrees from David Lynch, 15 degrees from Virginia Madsen, 19 degrees from Charlotte Rampling, 26 degrees from Patrick Stewart and 19 degrees from Denis Villeneuve on our single family tree. Login to find your connection.
B > Badcock | B > Babcock > James (Badcock) Babcock
Categories: English Immigrants to America | Rhode Island Project-Managed | Westerly, Rhode Island | Portsmouth, Rhode Island | Albert Welles Fraud | Founders and Settlers of Rhode Island | Seventh Day Baptists | England, Babcock Name Study
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).
edited by R Adams
edited by Anne B
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.
edited by Kent Babcock
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
edited by R Adams
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.
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
Thank you for catching it
edited by Linda (Carruth) Peterson
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
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.
edited by Ellen Smith
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.
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!
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
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.
edited by William Foster Jr
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????
please keep this profile free of connection with known fraudulent genealogies.
Some documents used the original English spelling "Badcock" for these children but the family quickly adopted "Babcock" which would be correct LNAB here
Madison, WI; Newberry Library, Chicago, IL; University of Chicago Library, Chicago, IL. I got the information from WorldCat.
https://archive.org/details/babcockgenealogy00babc/page/440/mode/2up?q=tankard
edited by R Adams