John Becraft 1770 Dilemma
Existing ancestry indicates the generation covered by John Becraft who married Mary Ann Cugle is settled but it has some challenges to further investigate. Facts: John, the son of George Jr is b. 1770 and is believed to have died after the birth of his daughter Margaret who was born 1847 and before the 1850 census where Mary Ann shows up with the children and is head. Mary Ann is born 1805, and dies after 1880. Census records 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1880 all show her as head or alone. There is a marriage record in Frederick, Maryland, that shows John Becraft married Mary Ann Cugle on 15 Nov 1822. The other John that may have play in this dilemma is John, b. 1740, son of George Sr. Along with the marriage of John and Mary, we have two marriages of Becraft girls to Nimrod and William Harrison. Nimrod married Mary Ann Becraft 1823 and William married Catherine Becraft 1822. Census Records between 1790 and 1840 have all been attributed to John showing his family with Mary Ann. These records are attached in Family Search’s ancestry tree to this John. Should they be? The Theory I am going to propose that we have two families that have been combined into one. John SR Becraft, b. 1770 is the father. John JR Becraft, b. somewhere around 1790 is the actual husband of Mary Ann Cugle and adds a generation here. John SR is possibly the father of John JR, Mary Ann, and Catherine. John, son of George Sr is missing Census records and not mixed with the added John JR in the line. Analysis To analyze, we’ve added a John II, or John JR and a second wife for John SR with a contemporary birth date. We have the following Census records: Census Record Details Analysis Diagram 1790 4 people, 1 male born before 1774 1 male after 17742 females John Sr is OKJohn Jr is OKWife X is OKSister ? Maybe 1790 Attachment #1 1810, Delaware Lower Hundred, Baltimore, Maryland, United States 8 people,2 males under 101 male over 453 females under 101 female 10 – 151 female 26 – 44 John Sr is OKJohn Jr is missingWife X is OKMary Ann is OKCatherine is OKSister under 10 Sister ? (from 1790) maybe2 brothers under 10 missing 1810 Attachment #2 1810, Anne Arundel, Maryland, United States 5 people,1 male under 101 male 25 – 442 females under 101 female 16 – 25 John Sr is missingWife X is missingJohn Jr is OKMary Ann is OKCatherine is OKBrother under 10 missingWife of John JR possible? 1810 Attachment #3 1820, Anne Arundel, Maryland, United States 9 people,1 male 10-151 male over 454 females under 101 female 10-151 female 16-251 female 26-44 John Sr is OKWife X is missingJohn Jr is missingMary Ann is OKCatherine is OKSister ? is OK4 sisters under 10 are missing 1820 Attachment #4 1830, Anne Arundel, Maryland, United States 11 people,1 male under 51 male 20-291 male 50-591 male 60-691 female under 53 females 5-92 females 20-291 female 70-79 John Sr is OKWife X is missingJohn Jr is OKMary Ann Cugle is OKJane is OKGeorge is OK2 females 5-9 missing1 female 70-79 missing Exclude Mary Ann and Catherine as they are married. 1830 Attachment #5 1840 9 people,2 males under 51 males 10 – 141 male 60 – 692 females 5 – 91 female 10 – 141 female 20 – 291 female 30 – 39 John Sr is missingWife X is missingJohn Jr is OKMary Ann Cugle is OKJane is closeGeorge is OKJames is OKJohn L is OK Exclude Mary Ann and Catherine as they are married. 1840 Attachment #6 The 1810 census from the Delaware Lower Hundred is a strong fit for John Sr, with either his Wife X or Sister ?, both Mary Ann and Catherine, and John Jr is missing, but is accounted for in the second census from 1810 and him being married to an earlier wife (before Mary Ann Cugle). We have 2 males under 10 and 1 female under 10 that are not accounted for in John Sr or John Jr. Sister ? would be 20 or older and not likely to be the female 10-15. The 1820 census shows 4 females under 10 that are not accounted for in either a John Sr or John Jr scenario. We do have a possible solid family with the Sister ?, Mary Ann and Catherine along with John Sr. No other census exists for 1820 to explain where John Jr and his possible family with an earlier wife. The 1830 census shows 3 females 5 – 9 that one is possibly Jane, daughter of John and Mary Ann, with 2 unaccounted and no reasonable gap for them to insert into. The 1840 census shows 2 females 5 – 9 that have no known girls in either John Sr or John Jr.’s family groups. There is however, an interesting gap between George R, b. 1830 and James C, b. 1836 that fits for possible girls that died young. The 1840 census also has a female 20 – 29 that has no match on either family group. Elimination of John Becraft, son of George Sr. This John appears to have avoided any census for the period. Only 1810 has 2 John’s and might be one for this John, especially since he is associated with Anne Arundel, Maryland. Census Record Details Analysis Diagram 1790 4 people, 1 male born before 1774 1 male after 17742 females John is OKNancy is OKextra femaleRest of the children are all born after 1800. 1790 Attachment #7 1810, Delaware Lower Hundred, Baltimore, Maryland, United States 8 people,2 males under 101 male over 453 females under 101 female 10 – 151 female 26 – 44 John is OKNancy is missingPeter is missingElizabeth is OKSusan is OKRachel is OKJames is OKHester is OKBenjamin is maybe 1810 Attachment #8 1810, Anne Arundel, Maryland, United States 5 people,1 male under 101 male 25 –
Jacob Henry Becraft Dilemma
Jacob Henry Becraft Dilemma Jacob Henry Becraft (1821-1856/58) vs. Jacob Henry Becraft (1823-1902) These two individuals have become blurred over time into one individual. Below is my case for them being two separate individuals. Jacob I, the first is from Morehouse, Hamilton, NY, and died right around 1856-1858 (the birth and naming of Jacob H Becraft (b 1857) may be a tribute to his father). Jacob II, the second was born in New York, but is central to the Tioga, PA area and is the one who moves to Wisconsin, marries Hannah Alford and dies in Wisconsin. The FindAGrave marker combines the data from these two Jacob’s with the birth date from Jacob I and the death that of Jacob II. Jacob I is born 10 Oct 1821, in Schoharie, NY, the son of Peter and Elizabeth (Miller) Becraft.Jacob II is born 3 Jun 1823, in NY (possibly Morehouse), but soon after is in Tioga, PA, the son of Jonathan and Catherine Elizabeth (Cornwell) Becraft. Schoharie to TIoga is 131 miles. Schoharie to Morehouse is 74 miles. Morehouse to TIoga is 212 miles. Morehouse to Green Lake, WI is 938 miles. Tioga to Green Lake, WI is 828 miles. There is a census record for Jacob and Serena in Hamilton, NY for 1850.There is a census record for Jacob, unmarried, in Tioga, PA for 1850.By 1860 and after, only one Jacob, has census records in Wisconsin.There are no Jacob census records in Tioga, PA or nearby to indicate Jacob II had remained here or where he might have gone. The sale of the property by Jacob I and Serena in 1857 to Frederick Jacob’s brother is curious and could be construed as a separation agreement and disposal of that property so that Jacob I could go elsewhere, or it could be an indicator of his pending demise. Jacob II fought in the civil war in a Wisconsin unit. In his pension papers, he is explicitly asked if he had any other marriages and children. By the time of this application, he only has one of the 3 children by Hannah Alford. Jacob II’s answer is consistent with him being independent of Jacob I. NONE of the children of Jacob I are found in Wisconsin, all remain in the same geographical area their entire lives. Right after the birth of Jacob H Becraft ( b. 1857), Serena remarries and quickly has two more children, eventually 4 plus the 8 she had with Jacob I. The response on one of the censuses is curious, as the answer to how many children and how many of those are living, the answer is 1 and 1. The genealogy that made this combination (https://www.hamilton.nygenweb.net/bios/Becraft1.html), also says that Jacob I travelled to Wisconsin before the war, working for J.P.W. Severson, enlisting, he then returned NY. We know he had to return to Tioga, PA where he married Hannah before returning to Wisconsin again to stay. There is no indication he returned to NY and the area where Jacob I’s children and other family were. This is also the critical connector event that is crucial in determining the fate of Jacob I and Jacob II. If anyone has evidence of these events, they should be made available to sort this out. Evidence of the summer work on the J.P.W. Severson farm. Evidence of the travel to Wisconsin. Evidence of the travel back to NY. Evidence of a divorce/separation from Serena that allowed her to remarry. A death record in NY for Jacob I. Or in PA a death record for Jacob II. In general, the overall evidence leans to there being two Jacob Henry’s. Accounting for the census and testimony in the pension records, would lean strongly to Jacob II being the civil war veteran and husband of one wife, with three children. The remarriage of Serena after the birth of Jacob Henry would indicate a wife with 8 kids ensuring their support with a solid provider. Small side note, it appears the death date for Hannah is not 1897, but the FindaGrave date of 1890. Wisconsin State Census for 1895 shows Jake and one son, indicating both his other sons and Hannah passed away before 1895.
Appletrewick
Appletrewickby Robert J Becraft (castlewrks@aol.com) In 1993, I was in England and took one of the days I was in London to go and do research instead of site-seeing. It was well worth my time and resulted in some of the earliest records I’ve ever personally found of Becraft’s. What was interesting was that the references originate in and around Bolton Abbey in a small village named Appletrewick. While inconsequential on their own, additional research based on another reference I ran across that attempts to identify sources for surnames, lead me to perform a similar analysis on the Becraft surname. Utilizing IGI records of Becraft/Beecroft/etc from England, I divided them up into 25 year segments and then using maps of England, highlighted the various locations listed in those references. What I discovered was a coalescing of names around the East Riding area of Yorkshire. Appletrewick is one of those locations that is in this area of consolidation. This theory is based on the assumption that Appletrewick earned its name from possibly apple trees and that as a result of having apple trees, bees were kept as part of the industry, hence the origin of “Beecroft” as a surname. © Copyright, 2001. Robert J Becraft, All Rights Reserved.
Becraft Traits
Becraft Traits, (from an email discussion) Traits that people find typical of their Becraft ancestry. I’ve taken the obvious ones and grouped them below with some interpretation of the original collection based on my own bias. Feel free to add to or debate the choices. Green Thumb most Becrafts were farmers. If they aren’t farmers today, their father or grandfather probably was. There aren’t too many Becrafts who don’t get itchy around February to get their hands in the dirt. Introverted “hermit-like”, Becrafts like to be left alone. They mind their own business and expect others to let them do just that. Stubborn “hard-headed”, most Becrafts are pretty particular about their opinions and once decided, stick to their guns. Hot tempered probably what got ol’ George in trouble, seems we’ve all got a bit of the boil to us. Red Hair or red highlights in their hair color, my moustache has these and two of my 3 kids are red-haired. Craftsmen whether it is tinkering, building or constructing. Focused to the point of distraction or forgetfulness. With a tendency to forget other things we should have kept our eyes on. Other Traits One branch claims long noses with hooked ends. © Copyright, 2001. Robert J Becraft, All Rights Reserved. 2025 Update – I’ve not found anyone who disagrees with this. Of note, in every line, in every country where I’ve captured Genealogical evidence, Becrafts, Beecrofts, etc. are all farmers. There are occasional specialists that exceed expectations, but they are few and far between. Tell me “Becraft”, how does your garden grow?
Beecroft or, What’s in a Name?
Beecroft or, What’s in a Name? Lynn H. Nelson (lhnelson@UKANAIX.CC.UKANS.EDU)Tue, 5 Sep 1995 03:38:08 -0500A “croft” is only very rarely a storage place; in those instances when it is, it is derived from the Latin “cryptum,” and denotes a cave or cellar. In the overwhelming majority of instances, a croft is an enclosed piece of land. Often enough, it is a fenced plot next to a village dwelling used as a garden. In such cases, it is roughly, but only roughly, equivalent to “messuage.” When searching for the etymology of a word, one must go with the earliest form one can find and then see whether that form could reasonably have developed into the later forms one encounters. The earliest form we are given for this name is “bigcraft.” Although pronunciation differed widely from place to place in medieval England, the word was probably pronounced “beek’-krawft,” and the merging of the “g” and “c” together with the orthographic substitution of “o” for “a” is only to be expected. Thus “bee-croft” was almost surely “big croft,” and was probably the name of a house in the village distinguished by the size of its croft. I would suggest that it is unlikely that the name “Becroft” has anything to do with bees. IMHOLynnUniversity of Kansas