Person talk:Samuel Hale (4)

Where did the baptism go? [25 February 2012]

Anderson says the baptism may be Samuel's, which is the same as probably in anybody's else's language. The parents were wrong on this page, but the baptism was not, as given in the source Anderson cites, TAG 38:237: "1615. Julie 1 Samuell Hale the sonne of John and Martha his wife baptized". One could argue it is not "proven", but the circumstantial evidence seems overwhelming, and much is accepted on less: three children Thomas, Samuel and Martha of Connecticut known to be siblings, and a family in England with three baptisms of Thomas, Samuel and Martha matching estimated ages excellently. (Nor is the evidence likely to get better: no will of the father found and the mother died in 1628 so probably all assets distributed prior to emigration.) --Jrich 11:30, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Anderson says that Peck says the baptism may be Samuel's. Jacobus (1952) did not have Peck's baptismal data (1962) when working on Hale, House, so he estimated births for Samuel (1615) and Martha (1622). In Martha's case, the estimate was based on Winthrop's medical journal but differs by four years from the Watton-at-Stone baptism; in Samuel's case, it's not apparent where Jacobus (or Waterman) got the 1615 date. In Anderson's sketch of the elder brother Thomas Hale [GMB 2:838-840], he estimates Thomas' birth as "By 1613 based on date of freemanship," and mentions Peck's TAG article in the "Associations" section. It seems to me that the identification of the Watton-at-Stone Thomas, Samuel and Martha Hale as the Hales of the Connecticut Valley is more than "perhaps," but less than "probably." That was my logic for deleting the baptism but quoting Anderson's summary of Peck's article as reference (2). If you put the three baptisms back in, I'm not going to challenge it but I will still have reservations based on the above.--jaques1724 14:04, 12 February 2012 (EST)

Peck himself agrees there is no strict proof. There probably never can be before the parents died before they emigrated. The only problem I see in your response seems to be Martha's age in Winthrop's Journal, which states her to be 45 on 23 Mar 1666. If this is 23 Mar 1665/66 (don't have enough context to tell for sure but that would be my suspicion since the entry for 28 Mar appears to follow without reflecting a new year), that gives an estimated birth in 1620 or early 1621. Her baptism is Dec 1618, which is a discrepancy of as little as 16 months or at most 28. Given that the one record is contemporary, the other second-hand 45 years later, I have no problem with that discrepancy. Jacobus had admitted problems with her husband's age, which may have been part of what influenced his estimates, too, perhaps to match better the later end of the range of her husband's birth which is given as 1606-1623. 1610 for Thomas is consistent with Jacobus' estimate of bef. 1613. Samuel's estimate on 1615 is based on a deposition, age 65 on 8 Mar 1679/80, TAG 10:12, which is a very good match. Samuel also named first daughter Martha and his second son John (first son named Samuel), which in light of the above, is very suggestive. Martha named her second son John (first son Paul after the husband). Thomas named his second son John (first son Thomas). I believe this is probable enough to put on the page. There are six ways to disprove this, by showing conclusively that one of the Hales came from elsewhere, or that one of the three baptisms can be conclusively attached to someone else. That none of them seem to have happened is something of an argument in itself. --Jrich 15:19, 12 February 2012 (EST)

I am putting the baptisms back. I believe their removal is unnecessary. Lack of proof does not constitute disproof. Further, when combined with nearly overwhelming circumstantial evidence, it is definitely worth documenting (until it may happen that a conclusive answer comes along). Naturally, I would add that sources and perhaps comments should be given - as always! - so that reliability may be assessed by the reader. Provability in genealogy is simply not achievable for all facts and all we can do is document the current state of thinking with the best evidence available. A criteria of strict proof is, I believe, unworkable in the WeRelate environment, because it will not be universally accepted and it leaves us no way to communicate working hypotheses when the answer is unknown. It is worth considering the Thomas Fitch and Elizabeth Lane case, where Elizabeth Lane is accepted as the wife of Thomas Fitch even though it rests on the statement that Jacobus knows of no other Thomas Fitch it could be. It seems to me that we have nearly as good a basis here. --Jrich 10:13, 25 February 2012 (EST)

The Fitch /Lane case is a little different. With the Hale sibs, they could have come from anywhere in England encompassing a rather large universe of Hale families. Robert Lane, and his daughter, were in coastal Connecticut, she was married to a Thomas Fitch and the universe of available men named Thomas Fitch, of an appropriate age and availability is quite small. As far as the Hales are concerned, I think we've agreed to disagree and we can move on from this point.--jaques1724 11:55, 25 February 2012 (EST)

I guess we can disagree how unsuitable the analogy is, too. First the will doesn't say how old Thomas Fitch, son in law, was, so there actually was an assumption of his age, and with the Hales we are matching estimates made by Jacobus. Jacobus matched Fitch based on the correspondence of one name of likely age, where Peck matched the Hales based on the correspondence of three names of likely age having specific relationships to each other (Peck's could be considered more reliable?) The location was hardly by chance, as previous educated guesses were that they had a connection to Thomas Hale of Newbury who came from Watton-on-Stone, not just anywhere in England. Then like Fitch having a daughter Elizabeth, there are all the children of the Hales named John and Martha. So just as our currently known universe of men named Thomas Fitch allows us to say this is probably the man who married Elizabeth Lane, so our currently known universe of siblings Thomas, Samuel and Martha Hale allows us to say that these are probably the baptisms of the Connecticut Hales.

Both are in the end circumstantial matching of names, and both are only as good as the extent of our current knowledge. Find another Thomas Fitch, and the family tradition that the Thomas Fitch in question had a wife Sarah is quite viable again. Find another trio of Thomas, Samuel and Martha Hale, and sure, it would make the baptisms less certain. Yes, there is no record directly saying the Connecticut Hales are the Hales of Watton-on-Stone but then there is no record that directly says Gov. Fitch's mother was Elizabeth to confirm this is the right Thomas Fitch, nor did the will identify Thomas Fitch beyond name and marriage to Elizabeth which would apply equally well to any Thomas Fitch that happened to marry her, nor are Gov. Thomas Fitch or any children named in his apparent grandfather's will, nor is there a marriage record of his father to Elizabeth Lane that could be used to identify the husband, nor do we know when they got married so that we can rule out the possibility of a fourth wife as mother, etc. --Jrich 13:17, 25 February 2012 (EST)