The Contested Ancestry Of CALEB
BEACH3
Of Winchester, Connecticut
By Eugene H. Beach, Jr.
Reprinted from the Beach Family Journal, Vol. III, No. 3 (Fall, 1995)
It is now generally accepted that Caleb Beach3 of Winchester and Goshen, Connecticut, was the son of Thomas2, John1 of Wallingford. His ancestry was not always so clearly established, however, and different lineages have been given for him by some authorities which are still cited and quoted to this day. It therefore seems appropriate to present a brief survey of the published literature and offer our own observations on the question.
Charles Davis, in his 1870 History of Wallingford, Connecticut, p. 639, lists among the children of Thomas Beach2 John1 a son, "Caleb, m. Eunice -----". Davis is also clear that Thomas2 of Wallingford was himself the son of John Beach1 of Stratford - not the son of Thomas Beach1 of Milford as is sometimes claimed, See: the editor's note below. This is, to our knowledge, the earliest published reference to Caleb3 and his ancestry.
In 1873, however, John Boyd published his Annals and Family Records of Winchester, Conn., which presents a lengthy account of Caleb Beach and his family at pages 32-35. After discussing Caleb's settlement at Winchester and quoting from his will, Boyd writes:
Mr. Beach was grandson of Thomas Beach, an early planter of Milford, son and youngest child of Deacon John, of Wallingford [i.e., John2, Thomas1 - Editor], and brother of Deacon John, of Goshen, from whom Beach street took its name. He was born at Wallingford in 1699, where he married the first of his three wives. Thence he first moved to Goshen, and afterward to Winchester.
Boyd, Annals and Family Records of Winchester, Conn., p. 33.
As far as we can tell, this is the first published claim that Caleb3 descends from Thomas1 rather than John1. Note, in particular, the suggestion Caleb was "the youngest child of Deacon John, of Wallingford", i.e., John2, Thomas1, and thus "brother of Deacon John, of Goshen." Just what lead Boyd to this conclusion is unclear, since he cites no authority. Other entries, however, show Boyd was familiar with the manuscript notes of Deacon Lewis Norton, of Goshen [See: e.g., pp. 120-121, where Boyd quotes Norton on the life and character of Rev. James Beach.] Since Norton himself attributed Caleb3 to John2, Thomas1, it seems reasonable to assume Boyd relied on Norton's notes in this instance as well.
Why Deacon Norton himself believed Caleb3 was the son of John2, Thomas1 is a mystery. As discussed below there is nothing in the Wallingford records to suggest such an ancestry - quite the contrary. Instead, it would seem the claim is based on little more than the fact Caleb3 moved to Goshen around the same time as John3, John2, Thomas1, leading Norton to conclude they were brothers. Recall, however, that Norton's genealogical research began in earnest around 1842 - well after the deaths of Caleb and his children. Moreover, Norton's research was not confined to the public records, but included a fair amount of "oral history" with its inherent potential for error. As A. G. Hibbard observed: "... he [Norton] was accustomed to carry pencil and paper wherever he went, and he recognized in every man and woman he met a possible source of wished for information, for which he was not slow to ask, nor negligent to record", Hibbard, History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, p. 7. While such oral histories can often serve as a starting point for genealogical research, they often err in established the identity of ancestors more than two or three generations back.
Whatever, its origin, however, the claim that Caleb was a son of John2, Thomas1 did not find immediate acceptance. Thirteen years after Boyd's work, Samuel Orcutt, in his 1886 History of the Old Town of Stratford, Connecticut, Vol. II, p. 1123, agreed with Davis by assigning "Caleb, b. 1699" to Thomas2, John1.
In 1897 A.G. Hibbard's History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, made its appearance, with an extensive Beach genealogy presented at pp. 418-433. Like Boyd before him, Hibbard relied greatly on Deacon Norton's notes, as he repeatedly acknowledges. In an account of John Beach1 at page 421 he includes son "Thomas, b. 1659; m.; had thirteen children; four d. young." In a footnote, however, Hibbard writes "Such discrepancies in different records that his [i.e., John1] descendants cannot be traced further with the means at command." Hence, the children of Thomas2, John1 himself are not given. One wonders whether such "discrepancies" likewise confounded Deacon Norton 50 years earlier.
Turning to the descendants of Thomas Beach1 of Milford, Hibbard correctly gives his children as Sarah, John, Mary, Samuel and Zophar. Like Davis and Orcutt there is no suggestion that Thomas2 of Wallingford was a son of Thomas1 of Milford. In presenting the children of John2, Thomas1, however, Hibbard includes "Caleb, b. 1699; m. (1) Eunice Tyler; (2) Margaret Thompson; (3) Hannah -----. Resided Winchester, Conn." History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, p. 421. In this Hibbard is clearly following Boyd and, presumably, Deacon Norton as well.
Notice, however, that Hibbard is inconsistent on this point. Thus, in the account of Caleb3 himself at p. 422, the entry begins "III. CALEB BEACH (s. Thomas, John), ...", or as we would write today, Caleb3, Thomas2, John1. This lineage is in accord with Davis and Orcutt above, while contradicting the Caleb3, John2, Thomas1 lineage Hibbard himself suggests on the previous page. Whether this was the result of confusion on the part of Hibbard, his sources or simply the book's typesetter is unknown. Suffice it to say such confusion is entirely understandable. Even with generational superscript numbers it takes a fair amount of concentration to distinguish Caleb3, Thomas2, John1 from Caleb3, John2, Thomas1. We ourselves only noticed this inconsistency in Hibbard's account while studying the entries closely in the course of preparing this article.
One year following Hibbard's work, Rebecca Donaldson Beach published The Reverand John Beach and His Descendants; the earliest known book on the family's history per se. At p. 133 she presents the children of John Beach1, including "THOMAS, b. May, 1659; m. 1st, Ruth Peck; 2nd, Phebe Wilcoxson." Thereafter, at p. 134, the children of Thomas2, John1 are given, including "Caleb, b. -----, 1699, m. Eunice." Perhaps equally significant, however, is the short abstract of the "Will of Thomas of Wallingford, 1741, Jan." presented at p. 144, which names his children as "sons Timothy, Nathan, Gershom(d), Moses, and Caleb; grandson Thomas (son of Timothy); daughter Ruth Fairchild(d), Thankful Baldwin, Joanna Royce, Phebe Tyler." [NB: the (d) signifying a predeceased child]. While Rebecca Donaldson Beach apparently accepted the claim that Thomas1 of Milford likewise had a son Thomas2, See: The Reverand John Beach and His Descendants, p. 145, she nowhere suggests Caleb3 to be descended from Thomas1 of Milford, whether via this supposed Thomas2, Thomas1 or otherwise.
While not a published work as such, the notes of Joseph Perkins Beach are deserving of mention on this question. A former editor of the New York "Sun" [owned by his father Moses Yale Beach], and himself a descendant of John1, Joseph Perkins Beach devoted much of his life to collecting data on early Beach history, personally visiting various Connecticut towns to copy vital records and interview members of the family. In a typescript entitled "A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of the Beach Family" (undated, but apparently post 1880) he writes "Pilgrim John died in 1678 or 9. The records show that he located in Wallingford and Stratford. His grandchildren scattered. One Caleb went, 1739/40 to Goshen about the time his (Caleb's) cousin Deacon John went there." See: Beach Family Journal, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 24-31, where this typescript is reprinted in full.
In 1912 Misses Mary Beach and Helen Beach published their small booklet entitled The Descendants of Thomas Beach of Milford, Connecticut. As the introduction acknowledges, they relied almost exclusively on previously "printed sources" for the data presented. Chief among these was undoubtedly the History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, as a comparison of the two works will show, with some of Hibbard's commentary repeated almost verbatim. Unlike Hibbard, however, the Misses Beach do give Thomas1 of Milford a son Thomas2. Moreover, they claim this supposed Thomas2, Thomas1 to be the father of Caleb3. Whether this was done in an effort to reconcile the inconsistency in Hibbard's own presentation or for other reasons is unclear. But in all events, Miss Helen Beach later recanted this claim, as discussed below.
Finally, in 1926, the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 37, devoted nearly a half page to the discussion of this question. While giving Caleb's ancestry as Caleb3, Thomas2, John1, the editors acknowledged that "Early Genealogists claimed that this Caleb was a son of John(2) Thomas(1) and the Misses Helen and Mary E. Beach so place him in their 'Descendants of Thomas Beach,' but Miss Helen Beach has many times assured the author that she was wrong in that surmise..." Quoting from a manuscript of Helen Beach, the entry continues:
The History of Goshen gave to John Beach, eldest son of Thomas, a fourth son Caleb, b. 1699. An early memorandum of Deacon Lewis Norton says Caleb (by tradition) b. 1699. All accounts put a Caleb born 1699 among the sons of Thomas Beach, son of the pilgrim John... The will of John Beach of Wallingford [i.e., John2, Thomas1 - Editor], whose children were all born in that place I have not seen, but a copy of the inventory 1709 does not mention any son Caleb, though all the other children are mentioned. Thomas Beach of Wallingford [i.e., Thomas2, John1 - Editor] mentions a son Caleb in his will, placing him among his other sons. In the lack of evidence it seems probable that Caleb was the son of Thomas [i.e., Thomas2, John1 - Editor] and not of John [i.e., John2, Thomas1 - Editor].
The foregoing is a fair summary of our own views on the matter. First, there is no real evidence for the suggestion that John2, Thomas1 had a son Caleb [or any other children for that matter] after Samuel3, born in 1696. Had Caleb3 been a son of John2 Thomas1 he would have been a minor, only 10 years old, at the time of his supposed father's death in 1709 and thus in need of a guardian. Mary (Royce) Beach, the widow of John2, Thomas1, was in fact named guardian for her minor sons John3 and Samuel3, but no mention is made of any such appointment for a minor son Caleb. Note too that the estate papers expressly refer to "Thomas Beach eldest sonn and... each other the four children of the deceased..." Another entry refers to the legatees as "Thomas, John, Samuell, Lettes [and] Hannah", See: Beach Family Magazine, Vol. II, No. 4, p. 206 and Vol. III, No. 1, p. 236, for short abstracts of the probate file. In this regard John Beach2, Thomas1 is generally credited with six children, i.e., Lettice, Mary, Hannah, Thomas, John and Samuel. Since Mary died before her father, however, this leaves only five surviving him - a total which agrees with the estate papers in both number and names. Under the circumstances there is simply no room in the family of John2 Thomas1 for Caleb as a sixth surviving child.
On the other hand the will of Thomas Beach2, John1 does name a Caleb among his children, See: Beach Family Magazine, Vol. II, No. 4, p. 207, where the will is quoted from at length. This seems to us most persuasive. Since there is no other man by this name in any other Beach family of the period, the identification of the Caleb named in the will with the Caleb of Winchester and Goshen seems as certain as anything ever can be in a genealogy. For such reasons we agree with the majority of previously published authorities that Caleb Beach3 descends from Pilgrim John Beach2 via Thomas Beach2 of Wallingford. Naturally, we would invite anyone with other views to share their informations and arguments.
EDITOR'S NOTE: As mentioned above, the confusion over the proper ancestry of Caleb Beach3 is bound up with the claim sometimes made in older genealogies that Thomas Beach1, of Milford, Connecticut, himself had a son named Thomas2. This supposed Thomas2, Thomas1 is further frequently identified with Thomas Beach2, John1, the true father of Caleb3.
This notion that Thomas1 had a son Thomas2 appears to result from a misreading of the will of Miles Merwin, who married Sarah (Platt) Beach, widow of Thomas Beach1, as his second wife. The will indeed mentions a Thomas, along with a John and Samuel, but these appear to be Miles Merwin's own sons by his first wife, Elizabeth ____, viz, John Merwin, b.c. 1650; Thomas Merwin, b.c. 1654; and Samuel Merwin, b. Aug 21, 1656, See: Jacobus. History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, Vol. I, pp. 406-407. Had the reference been to his step-sons, John Beach2 and Samuel Beach2, mention should also have been made of Zophar Beach2, Thomas1, of which there is none. Note too that the inventory of the estate of Thomas Beach1, dated June 13, 1666, makes explicit reference to "the three sons of the said Beach", i.e., John2, Samuel2 and Zophar2, whereas the supposed Thomas2 Thomas1 would bring the total to four.