Today’s post is CONJECTURE. HYPOTHESIS. NOT PROVEN.

Do NOT copy and paste this into your tree because it is ONLY a THEORY that I am sharing.

I don’t think I could have made the subject of today’s post any more clear. I have been looking at Babcock clues pertaining to Daniel S. Babcock and his wife, Eliza Muns plus John J. Babcock, both shoemakers who lived in the same household in Westchester County, New York and who I tend to believe are brothers.

So, how did I get to a couple named Samuel and Jane (Snyder) Babcock?

This post is all about methodology and creating a plausible theory, which, at the moment, has no negatives to it. All the puzzle pieces fit.

HOWEVER – and this is a big however – it is possible that there is no positive evidence – aka primary records – connecting Daniel S. and John J. Babcock to their parents.

This does work well, though, as a starting point, to answer the research question:

Who are the parents of Daniel S. and John J. Babcock?

I’ve recently shared family sketches of Daniel S. Babcock and his wife, Eliza Muns and that of John J. Babcock and his wives, Emeline Wiley and Margaret Gainer.

Both men are from humble backgrounds, shoemakers by trade, and 18 year old John was living with Daniel and Eliza’s family in Cortlandt, Westchester, New York in 1850. It is reasonable to believe that teenaged John was learning his craft from 35 year old Daniel. It is also reasonable to theorize that John was a younger brother of Daniel and, so far, no evidence has been found to the contrary.

First, there are a handful of similarities between the two men:

1. Daniel and John lived in the same household in 1850.
2. Both have middle initials, which is significant for this time period (born c1815 and c1832) as middle names were just coming into style and most people didn’t have middle names. On the down side, I have no proof as to what their middle names were!
3. Parents didn’t seem to name children after themselves.
4. This branch of the Babcock family flowed back and forth between the Rockland county area and early Morris County and then Passaic and Bergen Counties, New Jersey.
5. This branch of the family never seemed to own real estate and moved from place to place, renting property.

Unfortunately, not only is New Jersey severely lacking in many early vital records, to add to the disaster, but the federal censuses for 1790, 1800, 1810 and 1820 are all lost. That is a real problem when looking for families moving back and forth over the New York-New Jersey border.

First, I looked at the 1820, 1830 and 1840 census records of New York. The 1820 census wasn’t much help, possibly because my target couple – Samuel and Jane Babcock might have been living in New Jersey.

However, the 1830 and 1840 censuses of Rockland County, New York were of particular interest since both Daniel S. and John J. indicated they were born there when enumerated in the New York state censuses.

Also, the birth years of both men stayed quite stable in the records in which they appear – Daniel S., born c1815, and John J., born c1832.

There was one family appearing in both the 1830 and 1840 censuses who had males of the right age – Daniel, about 15 years old in 1830 and John J., about 8 years old in 1840.

That was the family of Samuel Babcock and he lived in Ramapo, the same town where Daniel S. lived in 1855:

In 1840, we find Samuel still in Ramapo, Rockland County, New York:

Samuel has not one, but two, males aged 5-9 in 1840, so John J., born c1832, fits in this family as well. No male of Daniel’s age is in the house, but he married c1839 or early 1840 and seems to have been missed in both the New York and New Jersey censuses.

I continued to dig and found a marriage record for one Samuel Babcock and Jane Snyder, 17 January 1813, Bergen County, New Jersey.

Samuel’s marriage entry is on the right side. Here is an enlarged view:

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of January 1813 I married Mr. Samuel Babcock Junr. to Mrs. Jane Snyder of Ringwood [????] Today, Ringwood is in Passaic County. It’s important to note that Jane was denoted as “Mrs.” indicating she was a widow.

That’s important as we examine the census records and try to build a family unit.

I was overjoyed to find Samuel and Jane both still living in 1850, when they lived in Clarkstown, Rockland, New York, the same town where John J. Babcock lived in 1860.

Furthermore, both Samuel and Jane were living for the 1860 census, although they haven’t been found. There is a memorial for them on Find-a-Grave with a photo that looks like their gravestone is original to the day.

Samuel died on 12 July 1861 and Jane passed away a few months later on 24 November 1861. They are buried at Brick Church Cemetery, Spring Valley, Rockland, New York.

Samuel’s ages is stated as 69 years, 4 months, 27 days, which places his birth on 15 February 1792. Ages at death are always suspect without further corroboration, but his age is reasonable for a first marriage in 1813, as he would have been almost 21 years old.

Jane’s birth year is given as 1795, based on the 1850 census, but she may have been a couple of years older, too, because she was apparently a very young widow and called “Mrs.” in her marriage record. I have to add that Jane is the only bride in any of the marriages recorded on the page who is referred to as “Mrs.”

It’s also important to note that Samuel was called “Junior,” but, in that time period, it only meant that there were two Samuel Babcocks in the area and he was the younger of the two. Neither of these Samuels owned land and with the missing New Jersey federal censuses, there is no way to find the second Samuel.

Jane being called “Mrs.” is important for another reason. Let’s look at the 1830 census.

We have the following people at home:

Samuel, aged 40-49, born 1791-1800
Jane, aged 30-39, born 1801-1810
Male, aged 15-19, born 1810-1815 (Daniel S?)
Female, aged 15-19, born 1810-1815 (Snyder orphan?)
Female, aged 10-14, born 1816-1820
Male, aged 5-9, born 1821-1825
Male, aged 5-9, born 1821-1825
Female, under 5, born 1826-1830
Male, under 5, born 1826-1830

Jane seems to have under-reported her age more than once. In 1850, she said she was born in 1795, but even that would make her a very, very young 17 year old widow (she probably hadn’t had a birthday yet by January 17) when she married Samuel in 1813.

If this couple married in January 1813 and Daniel S. is their son and was born c1815, there isn’t much time for a daughter to be in the same range of birth years of 1810-1815. What is Mrs. Jane Snyder, young widow, was the mother of one child, a daughter, born during her very short marriage to Mr. Snyder? Given her birth year around 1795 or slightly earlier, this daughter was probably born in the 1810-1812 time period.

Now, let’s add the data found in the 1840 census:

Samuel, aged 40-49, born 1791-1800
Jane, aged 40-99, born 1791-1800
Male, aged 15-19, born 1821-1825
Male, aged 10-14, born 1826-1830
Female, aged 10-14, born 1826-1830
Male, aged 5-9, born 1831-1835
Male, aged 5-9, born 1831-1835
Female, under 5, born 1836-1840

Jane’s age has been increased, likely to the correct age range. Daniel and the possible Snyder daughter are out of the home. The female born 1816-1820 is also out of the home. If the two girls lived to adulthood, they likely married before 1840.

One male, born 1821-1825 is still in the home, but the other male, born 1821-1825 is gone. He might have been as old as 19 and could be living and working elsewhere in the town.

There are also three more children born in the 1830s.

We now have a family unit that looks like this:

Samuel, aged 40-49, born 1791-1800
Jane, aged 40-49, born 1791-1800
Female, aged 15-19, born 1810-1815 [Snyder orphan?, born c1812]
Male, aged 15-19, born 1810-1815 [Daniel S., born c1815]
Female, aged 10-14, born 1816-1820
Male, aged 5-9, born 1821-1825
Male, aged 5-9, born 1821-1825
Female, under 5, born 1826-1830 [Caziah aka Keziah, born c1825]
Male, under 5, born 1826-1830
Male, aged 5-9, born 1831-1835 [John J., born c1832]
Male, aged 5-9, born 1831-1835 [Angus, born c1834]
Female, under 5, born 1836-1840 [Catherine, born c1836]

The 1850 census can help identify a few more family members, which I’ve added above in brackets.

To clean up the potential list, we have:

Samuel Babcock, born c1792; died 12 July 1861
Jane (MNU) (Snyder), born c1794; died 24 November 1861

Children:

1. Daughter Snyder, born c1812
2. Daniel S., born c1815; died c1871, probably Paterson, Passaic, NJ
3. Daughter, born c1818
4. Son, born c1822
5. Son, born c1824
6. Keziah, born c1825
7. Son, born c1828
8. John J., born c1832; died 3 October 1887
9. Angus Robert, born 1835; died 25 July 1914
10. Catherine Frances, born c1836, Sloatsburg, NY

Catherine was baptized at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church when she was 18 years old. The entry above hers, for Angus Robert Babcock, isn’t her brother, but the son of James W. and Elizabeth Babcock. Who are they and both were baptized at James W. Babcock’s house.

A search Find-a-Grave shows James W. and Elizabeth Babcock also buried in Brick Church Cemetery!

I think we might be able to add another child to the family of Samuel and Jane Babock.

This family sketch just expanded to Part 2!