Sunset at Gowanus Bay

Sunset at Gowanus Bay
Sunset at Gowanus Bay, Henry Gritten, 1851

Friday, November 16, 2012

John Rose of Ohio: A Genetic Descendant of Jan Brouwer of Flatlands, L. I.

John Rose died in December, 1830 at Madison Twp., Pickaway Co., Ohio. His wife is known simply as Dorothy, and the couple had eight known children and numerous descendants. The identity of John Rose's parents, and of his ancestry is presently not known. A number of descendants of John Rose have had Y-DNA testing completed through Family Tree DNA. The results of their Y-DNA tests resulted in a surprise in that they all matched tested descendants of Jan Brouwer of Flatlands, L. I. to a high enough standard that we can only conclude that the participants whose surname is ROSE, are most probably genetic descendants of Jan Brouwer. The earliest known ancestor for each of the participants is John Rose who died in December 1830. The descendants of John Rose who signed up for Y-DNA testing with Family Tree DNA are now included in the Brewer DNA Project. There is also a seperate Rose DNA Project, and the John Rose descendants are members of that project as well.

The Y-DNA test results for the seven participants, all descendants of John Rose, are included on the Jan Brouwer Group DNA Results Page at the Brouwer Genealogy Database website. A chart for the descendants is also provided. In addition, on the Unplaced page, is a link for a chart of some descendants of John Rose, with links to individual profiles. Marg Bond is responsible for much of the information gathered on the descendants of John Rose and his wife Dorothy, as well as for discovering records that do, or may, pertain to John Rose himself. Marg continues to be interested in hearing from others who may descend from John Rose, and her e-mail address is provided under "John Rose" on the Unplaced page.

What is known about John Rose is limited. It is known that he died in December 1830 at Madison, Pickaway Co., Ohio. He appeared on the 1830 U.S. census there with a household of 1 male aged 5-10, 1 male 10-15, 1 male 15-20, 1 male 60-70, 2 females 5-10, 1 female 20-30, 1 female 30-40 and 1 female 50-60. Assuming that John Rose is the male aged 60-70, we would place his birth as between 1760 and 1770. The 1880 U.S. census record of John's son Solomon Rose, at Pleasant Hill, Saline Co., Nebraska, records the birthplace of Solomon's father as Virginia. It is certainly possible that John Rose was born in Virginia, but it is not certain and census records can be inaccurate when it comes to the stated birthplace of parents. The first U.S. census in which the birthplace of parents was asked as a question was the 1880 census. No other child of John Rose is known to have lived that long, depriving us of the opportunity for comparison with Solomon's census record. It is possible that John Rose was born in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or perhaps on Long Island.

In 1820 it is believed that John Rose is the John Rose found on the U.S. census at Hocking, Fairfield Co., Ohio. In 1810 it is believed that he was the John Rose found at Harrisonburg, Rockingham Co., Virginia. In the years 1801 through 1805, a John Rose was taxed at Rockingham Co., Virginia, and in 1806 a Jacob Shaver was taxed there on property formerly belonging to John Rose. The 1850 census records for sons John, Abraham, Isaac and Solomon, all record their birthplaces as Virginia. The birthplace of the eldest son, Anthony (b. 1792) is stated as Pennsylvania on the 1850 census.

The 1790 and 1800 U.S. census records have a John Rose enumerated at Lehigh, Northampton Co., Pennsylvania. John Rose's eldest son, Anthony Rose, married Mary Woodring in Fairfield Co., Ohio. Mary Woodring was born in Northampton Co., Pennsylvania in 1790 and her father, Peter Wotring/Woodring moved the family to Fairfield Co., Ohio, after previous stops at Hagerstown, Maryland and Hempfield, Westmoreland Co., Pennsylvania. Also found in Northampton Co., Pennsylvania, on the 1790 census (at Forks) is another man named Anthony Rose (household of 1 male over 16 and 1 female). The just mentioned records provides us with some circumstantial evidence to consider the possibility that our John Rose may have his origins at Lehigh in Northampton Co., Pennsylvania. But, as of this writing, it can only be described as a "lead." More conclusive evidence is needed.

The Y-DNA testing of descendants tells us that despite the fact that John Rose has the surname, ROSE, either he, or one of his direct male ancestors was a son of a man named BROUWER, BROWER or BREWER, who himself was a descendant of Jan Brouwer of Flatlands, L. I. The Y-DNA tests do not tell us with certainty which generation experienced the transition from BROUWER to ROSE. We have to suspect that either a BROUWER family had a child that was then adopted into a ROSE family and assumed that family's name, or that a ROSE woman had an illegitimate child by a BROUWER man, and that child was brought up with his mother's surname. It is also possible that a woman married to a man named ROSE, had a son by a man named BROUWER, and the son was raised in the ROSE household as a ROSE. In this last case, the woman's family name is not known. There certainly are other, probably more complicated possibilities, but the above three, seem to me, to be the most likely to have taken place. If John Rose was born in the decade of 1760 to 1770 (as implied by the 1830 census), then he is most likely a member of the fifth generation of descendants of Jan Brouwer. Therefore, if John Rose is the son of a man named BROUWER, then we must look among the fourth generation descendants of Jan Brouwer for his father. These fourth generation BROUWER men would be the sons of the third generation men who were featured in the various posts on this website between October 14, 2012 and October 24, 2012. It of course is also possible that John Rose was born to a man named ROSE, and that this man was the son of a man named BROUWER. If this scenario is correct, then the BROUWER man who fathered a ROSE son is one of those found in the third generation of descendants of Jan Brouwer. It is also possible that the BROUWER (father) to ROSE (son) relationship was established in either the second or first generations. This possibility would leave us with only five men to consider: Jan Brouwer himself, or one of his four sons, Johannes and Hendrick (neither of who had known children) or Pieter and Derck (both of who's children constitute the third generation). So there are a lot of possibilities, and really no way, with the amount of information known presently, to narrow down the search. But as all of the families found in the first four generations of descendants of Jan Brouwer are found either in Kings or Queens Counties, Long Island, or in Monmouth, Middlesex, Somerset or Hunterdon Counties, New Jersey, then it is most likely that our ROSE son, born to a BROUWER father, was born in one of these locations.

Of course, a large part of locating John Rose's parents would involve identifying the ROSE family that he was associated with. Over a year ago we found an woman named Elizabeth Rose, who was brought before the court in Hunterdon County in 1772 on charges of fornication. Although her illegitimate child was not named it was initially suspected that this one lead might provide us with an answer to the identity of our John Rose's parents (the time of birth was about right). However, this was not to be the case. In August of 2011, Marg Bond was able to view the entire case file for the action against Elizabeth Rose. Although the documents do not give the illegitimate child's name, they did reveal the father as Jacob Quick, and not some man named Brouwer. So, unless Jacob Quick is himself a genetic descendant of Jan Brouwer (also by an illegitimate birth), then it appears that this lead was a dead end.

There are a number of families by the name of ROSE found in the areas of New Jersey that we are interested in. Among them are Rose families of English ancestry with origins at eastern (Suffolk Co.) Long Island and settled in Hunterdon Co., New Jersey. It also has to be considered that some families found in the later part of the 1700s and into the 1800s, named ROSE, were descendants of early Dutch families named ROOSA or ROOS. It also is apparent that there are other families named ROSE, other then the three just mentioned, that have to be considered. I have not, and likely will not have the opportunity to research all the various ROSE family possibilities. However, the following links provide some information on what I do have, much of which is not complete, but does offer a start:

Rose: Long Island to Hunterdon Co., New Jersey

Roosa-Roos-Rose Notes

Family Group Sheet: Aldert Heymansz Roosa

Family Group Sheet: Arie Roosa

Family Group Sheet: Gerrit Jansen Roos

Family Group Sheet: Heyman Roosa

Family Group Sheet: Jan Roosa

Family Group Sheet: Johannes Gerritsz Roos

In addition, descendant charts for Aldert Heymansz Roosa and Gerrit Jansen Roos have been added to the BGD website. They are not complete but do cover most of the descedants who might be considered as possible families to which our John Rose might belong.

And finally, Descendants of John Peter Vautrin. Mary (or Polly) Woodring, #115, was the wife of Anthony Rose, a son of John Rose. Perhaps the origins and movements of the family of Mary's parents, Peter and Margaret Wotring/Woodring can provide clues to the locations where John Rose himself may have lived.

 Once again, thanks to Marg Bond for sharing her research. She can be contacted at the e-mail address found on the Unplaced page at the BGD website.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Because of spamming issues, all submitted comments are moderated. Your comment is appreciated, but it will not appear online until it has first been reviewed. All relative comments will be sent through. Comments of a commercial nature will be blocked. It may take as little as a few hours or as long as a few days for submitted comments to appear online. Please do not resend the same comment. Thank you.