This letter was provide by Diane McGrath (July 1999) and is a written to my Grandfather John Davison Abrams. It discusses some research on the first recorded Abrams surname on Long Island, NY. This person is Charles Abrams. This letter was the starting point for me to find the Eardeley Notes whch are also on this site.
May 30, 1936
John D. Abrams, Esq.
Hempstead, NY.
Dear Sirs:
As you requested me to, I have borrowed the Eardley notes on the Abrams Family from Mr. Wardell, and have made a study of what little information there is, with the results as given below, which may be of some help to you, but which I am afraid is not as complete as we might desire. There is a scantiness of records about the Abrams family just the same as in my own family, and for the same reason, as they were not large landholders. For this reason it was not necessary to prove very many wills and there is little record regarding them. I will begin at the first Abrams found here and work done, giving my reasons for the conclusions I make as I go along.
The first mention of the name Charles Abrahams, who was witness to a deed at Huntington in 1670. The spelling more frequently used in the earliest records is Abrahams, but I find the name spelled both ways and frequently in the same document. Charles Abrahams, or Abrams was born probably about 1651, as we find him old enough to witness a deed in 1670 He was probably born not much earlier, as he appears to have married about 1679 Sara (2) Bedell, the daughter of Robert {1} and Blanche. The name Abrahams may possibly be derived from the Dutch, and if so would indicate morely that the father's Christian name was Abraham. The patronymic, or surname, if the Dutch theory is considered, is unfortunately unknown, or forgotten, and is almost impossible to find out.
Charles is mentioned in the Dutch census of Hempstead in 1673, and on the 1698 census appears the name of " Charles Abrams, Sarah Abrams, John Abrams, Charles Abrams and Jane Abrams thus giving the names of four children, all of which would appear to have been at this time unmarried. The order and date of birth of these is not known, but it is probable that John is the elder son. There is a no further record of the two daughters, but they probably married. It is possible that there may have been additional children. Charles (1) is known to have a sister Mary who married about 1674 Thomas Ireland(?). (Town records 1-407, 2-86, 2-87, 2-116, 2-192).
The son John Abrams (2) was born about 1683 and married about 1705-10, He was apparently identifiable as the John Abrams referred to in the Land Committee report of 1723-42 which appears in Vol.. 8 of the printed records, and he is therein referred to as the same owner of considerable land, about 54 acres, in the "South Woods" near Rockaway. Some of this is shown as his dividend in the rights of his father Charles Abrams as a Parentee, so that this seems clearly to refer to him. The son Charles apparently did not at this time of the committee report in 1742 own any land.
John Abrams (2) is mentioned five times in Vol. 4 as protesting Town votes regarding lands and other matters at dates 1749 to 1757. In Vol. 4 is also a cattle mark of John Abrams filed Aug. 14, 1759, being identical with that files by Charles (1) Abrams in 1683. I do not think that John who files in 1759 was John (2), and would seem to be quite elderly by that time, and it would more probable that it may be the son John (3). These ear marks were usually filed at the time when a man first began to keep a heard of cattle, an though not a definite evidence of relationship, are more frequently found to descend from father to son for generations. Minor changes in the mark would be used to differentiate between sons if necessary. The fact that John Abrams filed in 1759 the identical mark filed in 1683 by Charles Abrams is indicative of John probably being the grandson of Charles. It would also indicate, from the absence of other marks by the name of Abrams and the fact that there was no difference in the mark, that the other of the name did not graze cattle on the common lands, and also indicate that this John was the oldest son of Charles Abrams (1) oldest son John, as these matters descend usually in that order at this time. It si almost impossible to say definitely that this cattle mark was filed by John (3) but I believe it probably that the time of filing and earmark would usually be found to coincide reasonably with the time of his marriage, as that would be the time when he would begin to have a business and increase his property.
I find that John Abrams married Hannah Shaw at St. Georges church Sept. 19,1756, and though there is no proof that he is the same John Abrams who filed the cattle mark in 1759. I think the supposition that this was the case is reasonable, and the fact that the mark itself is identical with that filed in 1683 by Charles Abrahams seems to clearly identify him as a decedent, probably in direct line, that is, the eldest son of the eldest son. As to when this John Abrams was born we do not know. From the date of his marriage, we may reasonably assume that he was born not later than 1735. He could, therefore, have been the grandson rather than the son of John (2) Abrams, but I believe there is little doubt that he was one of the other. He died in 1801, and his will, on record at Jamaica is dated Feb. 20, 1801, proved Sept. 2, 1801. In it he mentions no wife, so Hannah is probably deceased before 1801. He mentions his sons James and Josiah, and his daughter Hannah, the wife of William Johnson. He does not mention any other but I believe that he had a son Jacob. His son James was born 1756, as he was 94 on the 1850 census. James must, therefore, have been the eldest child of his marriage to Hannah Shaw. Jacob Abrams was born March 17, 1756, the date being arrived at by computation from his gravestone in Rockville Cemetery The other children Josiah and Hannah would have come in between, and so far as date is concerned there is nothing unreasonable in placing of Jacob in this family. The fact that Jacob appears to be the father of Capt. John Abrams. Apparently his second son. It would seem probable that he might very well name his child after his own father, Jacob Abrams, born March 17 1765, does not appear on the 1790 or 1800 census. We have no record of his marriage, and these facts lead to the possibility that he may have been for a time located elsewhere, later returning to these parts, but having married somewhere else. He died Dec. 6, 1834, and in his petition for probate of his Will, the executor, Robert Davison states that his heirs were: Nancy, the wife of John Dorlon; Susan, the wife of Charles Abrams; Mary, the wife of William Rhodes and Jonathan Abrams "and some other unknown". On your own statement that Jonathan Abrams was the brother of Capt. John Abrams I believe this identifies Jacob as being the father of Capt. John. I realize that this chain of ancestry is somewhat weak and lacking in proof. That is one of the things that beset family historical research. If the proofs are not of records we cannot manufacture them. I believe, however, that further investigation might rather tend to strengthen the line I have mapped out, and I am certain that there appears to be nothing whatever to contradict it.
You have already, I believe, covered your ancestry back to Capt. John Abrams, born in 1798, married at St. Georges Dec. 31, 1812 Margaret Watts, died September 14, 1855. The 1850 census shows his occupation as Boatman, his age as 57, his wife Margaret 52, his son Treadwell 20, and his son Vincen (Wilson) 16 and his daughter Charlotte, 13. From the fact that Capt. John named two sons Treadwell, I should suspect that his mother may have born that name. We do not know for certain the name of the wife of Jacob Abrams, but with this clue it may yet turn out to be discoverable.
I intend to make a copy of such notes as Eardely had left and they will be available for further research at any time. I hope that this will be of help to you.
As you know, I have promise Wardwell $30 for the loan of these papers, and you agreed to reimburse me for it. I am in doubt as to whether this which I have written is worth the money, but if you feel satisfied with it you can send me a check. If not, then send me whatever you think I should pay Wardwell for his loan of the Eardelay's papers.
Yours,
George D. A. Combes