Ann Ludington Eastwood

Ann Eastwood was also sometimes said to be Avah Eastwood. I believe the name “Avah” comes from the 1850 census which is a very difficult to read document. The entry in this census could be Avah or Anah or it could possibly be a terribly written, “Ann.”

For many years we have seen Ann Eastwood (1788-1860) buried in Maple Ave Cemetery in Patterson, NY. We have also seen a different person whose name was Ann Ludington (1781 -). She was the daughter of the Minuteman Comfort Ludington and Elizabeth “Nellie” Nickerson Ludington. There is very little known about her. She has no burial record. We sometimes see her as Ann Smith but there are no records of a husband whose last name is Smith either.

We believe that in the year 2024 we have discovered that this Ann Eastwood and this Ann Ludington are the same person. She is actually Ann Ludington Eastwood (1781 – 1860). She is buried in Maple Ave Cemetery in Patterson, Putnam County, New York. This cemetery was formerly known as Presbyterian-Episcopalian Cemetery, Patterson, Putnam, New York. In 1909 it was described simply as the cemetery in the village of Patterson, New York.

It is in the will of Ann Ludington’s father, Comfort Ludington, which was read in 1805, that we see his daughter mentioned as Ann Smith. This is the only indication Ann might have had a husband whose last name was Smith.

It is possible Ann was married before she married John Eastwood. This could be true because it appears her first child was born around 1808 – 1810. Ann would have been 27 – 29 years old at this time. Though there is absolutely no information on a potential husband named “Smith,” Ann’s grandmother’s name was Mary Smith Nickerson. So, Ann’s middle name could have been Smith because she was named in honor of her grandmother. Therefore, Ann’s maiden name could possibly have been Ann Smith Ludington. Or Ann possibly was married to a man named Smith but he passed away after 1805 but before Ann started her family with John Eastwood around 1807 – 1808.

We believe Ann Ludington was the wife of John Eastwood (1786 – 1851) and their children were Olive Eastwood Fraser (1809 – 1904), Rachel Eastwood (1823 -) and William H Eastwood. (1826 -1911). She had more children, probably 2 more but as of yet, we don’t know their names. In John Eastwood’s 1830 census there were 2 males under 5 years old, 1 female 5 – 9 years old and 2 females 10 – 14. If this census was accurate, though many of them are not, perhaps one of these 2, 10 – 14-year-old females was Olive Eastwood, the eldest child at that time living in the household. However, since the 1810 census shows 2 daughter less than 10 years old, one of them could have been Olive and, as we will see soon, she could have been born in 1809. Obviously, the 2 young males don’t show up in John’s 1820 census because they are not yet born. In 1820, the 3 young females are 2, under 10 years and 1, 10 – 14. This makes it look like the family gained 2 daughters and lost one between 1810 and 1820.

It is more likely though they gained one daughter and one of the older daughters was a brand-new baby in 1810 and 10 years old in 1820. In any event, the oldest is likely Olive and she could be 11 in the year 1820.

The bottom line is the censuses from 1790 to 1840 are impossible to gain a lot of information from. This is especially true when a brother or sister of the head of household moves into and out of the home bringing other children with them.

In Maple Ave Cemetery, Patterson, NY, Ann and John Eastwood are buried in the close proximity to the following:

Henry Ludington – This is Col Henry Ludington of Revolutionary War fame, and we believe he is Ann’s uncle.
Sibell Ludington wife of Edmond Ogden – She is better known as Sybil Ludington and we believe she is first cousin to Ann Ludington Eastwood.
Abigail Ludington (1776 – 1816) – Daughter of Henry Ludington. We believe she is fist cousin to Ann Ludington.
Sophia Caverly (1784 – 1860) – We believe she is the daughter of Henry Ludington and first cousin to Ann Ludington Eastwood.
Derrick Ludington – We believe is a son of Henry Ludington and first cousin of Ann Ludington Eastwood.

There are many more relatives of Ann Ludington Eastwood buried in Maple Ave Cemetery including George Eastwood who was John’s father, members of Olive Eastwood Fraser’s family and grandchildren of Seth and Mary Nickerson. We believe Ann is a granddaughter of Seth and Mary Nickerson as well.

In the 1810 Fishkill, NY census, both Zalmon and De Lafayette Ludington who are sons of Comfort and Elizabeth Nickerson Ludington and therefore brothers of Ann Ludington Eastwood, live close by the John Eastwood family.

In the 1850 census, it says Ann Eastwood is 68 years old. This is the same age as Ann Ludington, born in 1781, daughter of Comfort and Elizabeth Nickerson Ludington.

Comfort Ludington was born in Connecticut but by the time the Revolutionary War started in 1776, he was living in Fishkill, NY. This is the town where Ann Ludington was born and we see the John Eastwood family living in this town in the 1810.

We also have Ann Eastwood’s daughter Olive’s death record:

It could be Olive Eastwood Fraser’s birth date on her death record is not accurate. In the 1860 census she said she was 44 and in the 1830 census the oldest daughter living in this Eastwood household was 14 years old. It does make sense Olive was born in 1816 instead of 1809 due to the fact the 2 girls less than 10 years old in the 1810 census could have been no longer living in the household in 1830. Also, in the 1850 census Olive says she was 35 and in the next decade she mothered 4 children. If she was born in 1809, she would have turned 41 in December of 1850. In spite of this, my best guess is her true birth year was 1809. For sure, this is a guess but Olive’s death record seems to be particularly accurate! Olive’s son or daughter or whomever filled it out seemed to have known exactly how many years, months and days Olive lived and he or she has provided us with the only paper trail we have that tells us Ann Eastwood’s maiden name was actually Ludington.

Also, in the death record of her daughter, Olive Eastwood Fraser in 1904, it has the “name of mother” recorded as Ann. Ludington. The dot after Ann either means Ann is an abbreviation of some longer name or the dot after “Ann” was simply errant spot. Such spots were quite common occurrences that happened with the fountain or dip pens used in this time period. I believe Ann Eastwood’s real name was nothing fancier than just “Ann.”

In any event, we know Ann Ludington Eastwood’s Daughter is Olive Eastwood Fraser and we also know Ann Ludington’s mother was Elizabeth Nickerson Ludington. However, probably our biggest clue that Ann Ludington and Ann Eastwood is the same person is that there is shared DNA between descendants of Olive Eastwood Fraser and Elizabeth Nickerson’s family tree. There is no way possible for these two families to share DNA unless Olive Eastwood Fraser is a part of this Nickerson family and the only way for this to be possible is for her mother, Ann Ludington Eastwood to be the daughter of Elizabeth Nellie Nickerson.

In total, we feel we have very solidly proven that Ann Ludington, daughter of Comfort and Elizabeth Nickerson Ludington is Ann Eastwood, wife of John Eastwood who is buried in Maple Ave Cemetery in Patterson, NY.

Edward J Lathrop

Lathrop Genealogy

Dr. Ebenezer Warner 1677 – 1755

Date Entered 3-20-2015

Dr. Ebenezer Warner 1677 – 1755

(Martha Galpin 1685-1745)

Ebenezer Warner was born in Farmington, Hartford County, Connecticut in or around 1677. He was the fourth of six children of John and Margaret Howard Warner

Ebenezer met and married Martha Galpin in Woodbury, CT on Dec 19, 1704. Ebenezer was 27 years of age and Martha was 20. Martha was born on April 19, 1685 in Woodbury and was the daughter of Benjamin Galpin and Rebecca Brown

In the “History of Ancient Woodbury” Ebenezer is listed as a physician. Most records reflect this as a given. However there is some evidence that Dr Ebenezer was a man of that stamp who is said to “Take up their profession in their own head”, which means that they were not regularly bred physicians. They used, principally, combinations of roots, herbs and other domestic medicines in their practice, and several of them did become distinguished for their success in treating disease. They are also said to have used freely the “gall of rattlesnakes.”

How much of this applies to Dr Ebenezer is unknown but he was respected by the people; and died carrying with him the commendations of all who knew him.

Ebenezer often went abroad to practice medicine in the neighboring plantations. To prevent this, and secure his valuable services, the town granted him 60 acres of land in the original town plot, “for his Incurigement to practice phissick in ye town and attend the sick in ye town rather than strangers.”

Doctor Warner joined the First Congregational Church in Woodbury, CT 17 July, 1720, Martha Warner joined 25 Feb 1722.

In 1724, during an Indian attack, Lt. Ebenezer Warner was appointed to raise a scout for the defense of the frontiers of the town. This service he accomplished, as appears by a memorial from him, preferred at the May session of the General Assembly in 1725.He paid the men he enlisted for service on Sundays as well as on week days, which was not allowed by the accounting officers.

Martha and Ebenezer had either eleven or twelve children. Son Samual shows up on some records but is missing from others, Further research is required to determine correct number and their identities. Twelve children are listed below. 

Son, Ebenezer 2nd was born in Woodbury CT on Mar 18, 1705. He married Elizabeth Hurlbut and they had two children, Ebenezer 3rd in 1732, Elizabeth in 1736 and Martha in 1746. Ebenezer passed away on Aug 23, 1769

Daughter Martha, born in Woodbury CT on Jul 23, 1707. She married Solomon Squire and they had one child James, born in 1730. Martha passed away on Dec 19, 1791.

Son Samuel, born in Woodbury on Oct 8, 1708. He first married Mary Gilleg and they had three children, Hannah, Nathaniel in 1743 and Phanuel in 1746. Mary died on Jun 6, 1754. Samuel second marriage to Hannah Marcy in 1760. Samuel died on Sept 10, 1783.

Son, Dr. Benjamin, born in Woodbury on May 6, 1709. He married Silence Hurd on Dec 16, 1736 and they had 10 children. Hannah in 1737, Dr Benjamin in 1739, Daniel H in 1741, Seth in 1743, John in 1745, Dr Reuben in about 1749, Elijah in about 1754, Asahel passed away in 1785, (Seth, also had a son Asahel (1764 – 1812) and David. Benjamin passed away in Nov of 1806.

Baby Daughter unnamed born on Apr 14, 1711 and lived three days.

Daughter Margaret was born in Dec of 1712, Married David Squire. No other information is known at this time

Daughter Rebecca, born on Dec 12, 1715. She married Moses Hurlburt and they had six children, Adam in 1736, Mabel in 1738, Ann in 1742, Rebecca in 1745 and Deborah in 1747. Rebecca passed away on Dec 23, 1767.

Daughter Tamar Born on Feb 26, 1718, married Remember Baker Sr and had remember Baker Jr. Tamar passed away about Jun 1737

Daughter Lydia born in 1719 or 1720. She married Stephen Judd on Mar 13, 1751 and they had six children, Daniel abt 1751, Hannah abt 1753, Freeman abt 1755, Stephen abt 1757, Margaret abt 1759 and Ebenezer abt 1761. Lydia died in Waterbury Ct. on Jun 2, 1768.

Son Thomas was born in Nov of 1722. He married Abigail Prentice and they had 5ife children, Deborah in 1751, Martha in 1753, Esther in 1755, Samuel in 1756, Saul in 1758, Sarah in 1759, Thomas in 1761, Lydia in 1762, Dorcas in 1765, Enos in 1787 and Abigail in about 1770. Thomas passed away on Dec 17, 1778.

Daughter  Francis born about Feb 1, 1726 in Woodbury Ct. She married Benjamin Oviatt in Apr 1744, The had a daughter Elisha on 8-3-1752, a son Ebenezer and a son Benjamin. Francis  died on Apr 3 1831.

Daughter Rachel born on Mar 23, 1726 or 1729, No other information is known at this time

An interesting relationship of the grandchildren of Ebenezer Warner: His son Benjamin was the father of Col. Seth Warner of Revolutionary War fame. His daughter Tamar and husband Remember Baker Sr were the parents of Capt. Remember Baker Jr. Remember Baker Sr’s sister Mary married Joseph Allen and they were the parents of Ethan Allen of Rev. War fame.

Martha Galpin Warner Passed away on April 17, 1745 in Woodbury, Ct.

Dr. Ebenezer Warner passed away on 23 April 1755 in Woodbury, Litchfield Co, CT.

Joseph Lathrop Sr – A Very Important Lathrop Family Ancestor

Joseph Lathrop Sr – A Very Important Lathrop Family Ancestor

Though Joseph Lathrop Sr. is in my family tree 9 generations before me, he is one of our most significant ancestors. When I say “our,” I am referring to those of us whom are his offspring. To my sisters, my Lathrop cousins and I, he is our 7th Great-grandfather. Of course, 7th Great-grandfather doesn’t seem very significant, but this 7th Great-grandfather is quite significant and it has nothing to do with wealth or fame. I’m talking strictly significant from a genealogical standpoint.

First, let’s get a little technical housekeeping done: When I refer to a great-grandmother or great-grandfather, I will just say great-grandmother or great-grandfather. When I refer to a great-great-grandmother or great-great-grandfather, I will just say great-great-grandmother or great-great-grandfather. However, if there are more than 2 greats, I will say 3rd great-grandfather or 5th great-grandmother, etc. This isn’t a hard-set rule across the world of genealogy, it’s just something I do.

Lathrop Lothrop Lathrope

Also, it is noteworthy that the name Lathrop and Lothrop are the same exact name. Somehow, the name I use, which is “Lathrop” has metamorphosized into a name that is pronounced lay-thrup. It’s my belief that some generations ago, both the names L-a-t-h-r-o-p and L-o-t-h-r-o-p were pronounced exactly the same and that pronunciation was “La”-“throp,” where the “La” sounded like the “la” in do-re-mi-fa-sol-la, and Lothrop was pronounced the same way. If you think about the way you pronounce “lot” or “log” or “lock” or “lob”, you have to conclude you would pronounce “loth” in the same manner. So, you can easily understand the confusion with the spelling, especially in a time where a lot of people didn’t read or write. We have several instances in the family tree where one person was Mr. Lathrop and his brother was Mr. Lothrop. Still, I believe, when Mr. Lathrop said his name, he pronounced it “La” “throp” and when Mr. Lothrop said his name, he pronounced it “Loth” “rop,” which is exactly the same.

Lathrope, on the other hand seems to be an entirely different family. It is tempting to see the name “Lathrope” without the “e” on the end and assume the person wearing the name tag with “Lathrope” on it is a relative of the person wearing the nametag with Lathrop or Lothrop on it. However, as far as I can see, this is not the case.

I’ve seen thousands of names in the family tree started by Rev. John Lathrop (1584-1653) of Barnstable, MA and none of them has an “e” at the end of the name. It is true the Reverend John had ancestor several generations back whose name was Lowthroppe, but in the American family tree starting in 1634, all of his offspring are either Lathrop or Lothrop.

I have done some genealogy of a few families with the name Lathrope and found one the families had immigrated from Germany in 1801. I found another of these families had immigrated from Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands in 1907 and a third family I traced back to 1857 when they sailed to Ellis Island from Southampton, UK. In all three cases, it looks like the name is English in its origin, but from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t appear there is a Lathrope who is a descendant of Rev. John Lathrop.

Lineage to Joseph Lathrop Sr.

Now for technical housekeeping project number 3, here is the genealogy from us to Joseph Lathrop Sr. using only the Lathrop side of our family. This is a small part of our family tree, I realize but right now, we’re only interested in get back to Joseph Lathrop Sr.

For my sisters and cousins and I, our grandfather is Edward Starr Lathrop. Our great-grandfather is Charles Ozias Lathrop. Our great-great-grandfather is Frederick Lathrop. Our 3rd great-grandfather is Daniel Lathrop Jr. Our 4th great-grandfather is Daniel Lathrop Sr. Our 5th great-grandfather is Barnabas Lathrop. Our 6th great-grandfather is Joseph Lathrop Jr., and our 7th great-grandfather is Joseph Lathrop Sr. Now, that the house is clean, we will continue:

Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s Marriages

The details of Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s marriages are out of the norm for 21st century, the 20th century and even 19th century marriages, but in the 1600’s, people marrying who were already related was very normal. However, I can promise that in the Lathrop family tree, there were no sister/brother marriages. With this out of the way, here is the story of Joseph Lathrop Sr. and his wives.

Joseph Lathrop Sr, was born in 1661 in Norwich, Connecticut and died in 1740, in the same town. His first wife was Mercy Scudder. Her name is sometimes seen as “Mary” but it has been “Mercy” for many years in the family tree. I believe “Mercy” is actually her correct name. The following is taken from the book “New England Marriages before 1700.” I have included some names other than Joseph and Mercy Scudder Lathrop Sr. just to show how people living in same towns and are certainly related to one another spell the name “Lathrop” different.

Mercy was Joseph’s mother’s niece. So, she was his wife and 1st cousin. They had 11 children together. This cousin/wife was our 7th Great-grandmother and 1st cousin 8 times removed. After she died, Joseph married Elizabeth Waterhouse. They had 6 children together. Only 5 survived past the age of 2 years old.

Elizabeth Waterhouse Lathrop died before Joseph, and so he then married Martha Perkins. She was the Mother-in-Law of one of his sons, Solomon Lathrop (1706 – 1733). As you can see, Solomon died very young. He had his will made out and since he died at 26 years of age, it would seem he had some sort of illness as opposed to having died by way of accident. With that aside, it seems fortunate that by the time Joseph Lathrop Sr. married his son’s mother-in-law, his fathering days were behind him. If this had not been the case, I would guess the genealogy of this part of the tree would have been kind of messy.

The following article that talks about “Lathrop Bridge,” which was suspended across the Shetucket River, makes me think Solomon Lathrop might not have an illness of some kind after all. By the way, I haven’t found a Lathrop Bridge still standing in Norwich but there is a Lathrop Lane.

Still, despite “hair-breadth escapes” by his family members and all the anomalies of the husband-wife relationships of Joseph Lathrop Sr., he had and therefore, we have an absolute powerhouse of famous relatives!

President Ulysses S Grant

Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s sister, Abigail Lathrop (1665-1745) married John Huntington (1665-1696). Their daughter Martha Huntington married Noah Grant I. Noah Grant I and Martha Huntington were the great-great grandparents of General and President Ulysses S Grant. To put this another way, Joseph’s sister Abigail was President Grant’s 3rd great-grandmother.

The following is taken from as book titled “Lathrop Family Memoirs”

It is interesting that “Lathrop Family Memoir” was written in the mid to late 1800s and since Ulysses S Grant was President from 1869 to 1877, he may actually had been “President Ulysses S Grant” when it was written.

President Rutherford Birchard Hayes

Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s son, Joseph Lathrop Jr., married Mary Hartshorn (1701-1757), daughter of Johnathon Hartshorn and Mary Birchard. Mary Birchard’s parents were John Birchard and Elizabeth Robinson. They were the 4th great grandparents of President Rutherford Birchard Hayes. In other words, Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s grandchildren, since they were the children of Joseph Lathrop Jr. and Mary Hartshorn, were the great grandchildren of John Birchard and Elizabeth Robinson who were the 4th great grandparents of President Rutherford Birchard Hayes. One of Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s grandchildren was Barnabas Lathrop late of New Milford, CT and he is our 5th great-grandfather, This means President Hayes’s 4th great grandparents are our 8th great grandparents since Barnabas is our 5th great-grandfather and John Birchard and Elizabeth Robinson are in his direct lineage 3 generations before him.

President James A Garfield

One of the daughters of Joseph Lathrop Sr. and Elizabeth Waterhouse was Elizabeth Lathrop. She married Dr. Daniel Davis. Their daughter was Sarah Davis who married Barnabas Lathrop. Barnabas Lathrop was the son of Joseph Lathrop Jr. and Mary Hartshorn and the grandson of Joseph Lathrop Sr. and Mercy Scudder. So, Sarah and Barnabas were cousins. Actually, since first cousins have one set of grandparents in common, Sarah and Barnabas were actually half-first cousins since they only shared a grandfather, Joseph Lathrop Sr. in common. Another way to look at this is Mercy Scudder is our 7th great-grandmother because she is the grandmother of our 5th great-grandfather, Barnabas Lathrop, and Elizabeth Waterhouse is our 7th great-grandmother because she is the grandmother of our 5th great-grandmother, Sarah Davis, and this means Joseph Lathrop Sr. is our 7th great-grandfather twice. Therefore, I see him as a very significant ancestor. The bigger issue here though is that Dr. Daniel Davis’s great-grandfather was William Allen (1611-1686) and he was the 6th great-grandfather of President James A Garfield. It is noteworthy that William Allen is also the 6th great-grandfather of Frederick Lathrop who is our great-great-grandfather.

Franklin D Roosevelt

Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s father was Samuel Lathrop (1623-1700). Samuel Lathrop is the 7th great-grandfather of Franklin Deleno Roosevelt. Like President Franklin Roosevelt, our great-grandfather, Charles O. Lathrop was the 7th great grandson of Samuel Lathrop (1623-1700).

Oliver Wendell Holmes

One of Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s daughters, Temperance Lathrop, married Rev. John Bishop. One of Temperance and John’s sons was Abiel Bishop who married Sara Wendell. One of Sara and Abiel’s sons was Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. (1809-1894). Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. was a physician. He was also a poet of great renown. He was one of the fireside poets. He was thought to be one of the best writers of his time! In spite of all of this, he is probably more famous for being the father of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841-1935). Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, is the 3rd great grandson of Joseph Lathrop Sr.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Joseph Lathrop Sr. is the grandson of the Rev. John Lathrop, who, himself, was a famous person. One of the many famous people the Rev. Lathrop is an ancestor of is Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. He is the 4th great grandson of the Rev. John Lathrop. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow is the great grandson of Elizabeth Lathrop, who is daughter of Thomas Lathrop, who is the son of Rev. Joseph Lathrop (1624-1702) who was the uncle of our 7th great-grandfather Joseph Lathrop Sr. So, even though ancestry dot com shows Henry Wadsworth Longfellow to be only our 5th cousin 4 times removed, he did have a lot of Lathrop genes in him. A couple of Longfellow’s greatest works are “The Village Blacksmith” and “Paul Rev.eres’ Ride.” Another is a poem tittle “Evangeline.” Without any knowledge at the time that they were related to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, my daughter and son-in-law named their daughter “Evangeline.” This, it would seem, was very much a coincidence! Or was it???

Rev. Joseph Lathrop DD

Another Joseph Lathrop in the family tree is Rev. Joseph Lathrop DD (1731-1820). His sermons are still being preached today. There are books written about him and books filled with his sermons. Many are available in bookstores and even on Amazon. The Rev.erend Doctor Lathrop had degrees from both Harvard and Yale. If you google him, you will find him.

Dr. Lathrop was born in Norwich, CT on 10-20-1731 and died in West Springfield, MA on 12-31-1820. The following is an excerpt from “Lathrop Memoirs.”

The Rev. Joseph Lathrop DD was the grandson of Joseph Lathrop Sr.

William Bradford

One of the daughters of Joseph Lathrop Sr. and Elizabeth Waterhouse was Zeruiah Lathrop. Like many in our family tree, she is also said to be Zeruiah Lothrop, or Lothropp (1718-1740). Her first name is often said to be Zerviah. Though this seems like a beautiful name I believe it is a misprint because Zeruiah is truly a Biblical name whereas Zerviah is not. The name Zeruiah is pronounced Ze-ru-ya. Zeruiah Lathrop married William Bradford (1718-1799) who was the great-great grandson of William Bradford (1590-1657), who came over on the Mayflower and was the 2nd Governor of Plymouth Colony. William and Zeruiah’s daughter, Zeruiah Bradford, never had any children and died at the age of 30.

The marriage of Zeruiah Lathrop to Gov. William Bradford in no way makes us decedents of a Mayflower passenger, however, the fact Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s daughter was married to one, shows us one more genealogical celebrity who was member of his extended family.

The following is from “Mayflower Descendants.”

Samuel Fuller

Jane Lathrop was an aunt of Joseph Lathrop Sr. To put this another way, Jane Lathrop was the sister of Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s father, Samuel Lathrop. Jane married Samuel Fuller who at the age of 8 years old came to the new world with his father Edward Fuller on the Mayflower. Again, this doesn’t make us the descendants of a Mayflower passenger but it does point out that there were Pilgrims in the Lathrop family tree. Jane Lathrop Fuller was our 8th great-grandaunt. All of the children of Samuel and Jane Lathrop Fuller were first cousins of Joseph Lathrop Sr. and they are our 1st cousins 8 times removed.

The following is from “Mayflower Descendants.”

Benedict Arnold

This relative comes in the interest of full disclosure.

Benedict Arnold was actually Benedict Arnold V. He was born in Norwich, CT in 1741. Oddly enough, he was the son of Benedict Arnold III. This is so because he had an older brother who was named Benedict Arnold IV. He died at the age of 1 year old and so, his parents simply named their next son, Benedict Arnold V.

During the earlier stages of the American Rev.olution, Benedict Arnold was a hero. He was a superb strategist and because of this he was promoted to Major General. His role in defeating the British in the battle of Saratoga earned praise from George Washington. He was said to be the Colonists’ greatest tactician! It is widely believed if he died in this battle, he would have been one of the most decorated war heroes of all time!

Instead, as the war went on, he felt he was being overlooked as generals were being assigned to lead battles. A complicating factor was that as his frustration grew, his wife, Peggy Shippen, a well-connected loyalist, was able to put him in touch with the British command. Since he was the commander of West Point at that time, they made a deal with him to turn it over to them. If this plot had been successful, it certainly would have greatly hurt the Colonists’ chances of gaining their independence. Whether or not he didn’t have the stomach to do this or he was just unable to, West Point never became the property of Great Britian.

Still, Benedict Arnold had switched sides and even though this is the case, he was never very highly celebrated by his new countrymen. He died on the streets of England in 1801, at the age of 60 without any fanfare whatsoever. In America, his name has become synonymous with the word “traitor.”

Genealogically speaking, Benedict Arnold V’s mother was Hannah Waterman. Her parents were John Waterman and Elizabeth Lathrop (1679 – 1708). Though this is a familiar name, this Elizabeth Lathrop was the daughter of Samuel Lathrop Jr, (1650 – 1738) who was the brother of Joseph Lathrop Sr. Joseph Lathrop Sr. was the great granduncle of Benedict Arnold V and Joseph’s father Samuel Lathrop Sr. was benedict Arnold’s great-great-grandfather. One more way to look at it is that our 4th great-grandfather, Damiel Lathrop Sr. of New Milford, CT, who also fought in the American Rev.olution was the 3rd cousin of Benedict Arnold.

Shirley Temple

Shirley Temple (1928-2014) was the daughter of George Fransis Temple Sr. and Gertrude Amelia Krieger. George’s parents were Fransis M Temple and Cynthia Fell. Fransis’ parents were Reuben Smith Brown Temple and Jane Durham. Reuben was the son of Robert Temple and Eliza Allen. Eliza was the daughter of Hezikiah Allen and Elizabeth “Polly” Lathrop. Elizabeth was the daughter of Zacheriah Lathrop and Mehetable Cleveland. Zacheriah was the son of Wiliam Lathrop and William Lathrop was the son of Israel Lathrop (1659-1733) who was the brother of Joseph Lathrop Sr. So, Shirley Temple was the 6th great-granddaughter of Joseph Lathrop Sr.’s brother and therefore, the 7th great-granddaughter of Joseph’s father, Samuel Lathrop Sr., who is also our 8th great-grandfather. This means Shirley Temple and my father were 8th cousins and my sisters and cousins and I are Shiley Temple’s 8th cousin 1 time removed.

Tuesday Weld

We start off Tuesday Weld’s genealogy by recapping Shiley Temple’s genealogy. Shirley Temple’s 7th great-grandfather was or 8th great-grandfather, Samiel Lathrop Sr. Her 6th great-grandfather was Israel Lathrop, her 5th great-grandfather was William Lathrop and her 4th great-grandfather was Zachariah Lathrop.

Tuesday Weld’s genealogy from our perspective, starts with Zachariah Lathrop’s brother, whose name was, believe it or not, Rev. John Lothrop (1740-1816). This is not a Rev. John Lothrop we are familiar with, but another Rev. John. Also, he is a Lothrop, who has a brother who is a Lathrop. Rev. John Lothrop has a daughter, Anna Lothrop who married Thomas Motley and had a daughter Anna L Motley who married Alfred Rodman. A daughter of theirs was Eloise Rodman who married Stephen Weld. They had a son Edward Motley Weld who married Sarah King. They had a son who was Lothrop Motley Weld. With his wife, Yosene Ker, they gave birth to Susan Ker Weld. We all know her better as Tuesday Weld.

Like Shirley Temple, our 8th great-grandfather, Samuel Lathrop Sr. is her 7th great-grandfather. So, she is our 8th cousin 1 time removed and she is my father’s 8th cousin.

What’s interesting is, since Zachariah Lathrop and Rev. John Lothrop are brothers, their father, William Lathrop (1688 – 1778) is the 5th great-grandfather of both Tuesday Weld and Shirley Temple. This makes them each other’s 6th cousin.

Tuesday Weld was born August 27, 1943. Her father, Lothrop Weld, died when she was 4 years old.

The Rev. John Lathrop

Joseph Lathrop Sr. is in the direct lineage of Rev. John Lathrop (1584-1653). Of course, sometimes you’ll see The Rev. John Lathrop as Rev. John Lothrop.

The Rev. Lathrop was born in Elton, Yorkshire, England. Instead of preaching what was dictated by the church of England, his calling was to read the Bible and preach the Gospel. For this, he was thrown in prison on more than one occasion. These prisons weren’t beneath using cruel and unusual punishment. His first wife died while he was in prison. Many of Rev. Lathrop’s followers were jailed just for listening to him. For many years he was harassed for preaching from the Bible. One of his jail terms lasted for more than 2 years. Then, one day he was given the chance to leave the country for a world unknown on a prison ship. He took the opportunity and landed in New England in 1634. While there, he built a massive following! His church was in Barnstable, Massachusetts. History writes that the Rev. John Lathrop was part of the reason America was founded on the principle of “freedom of Religion” and we must thank him for as long as we have it.

Many books, and even children’s books have been written about the Rev. John Lathrop of Barnstable. One such book is “Exiled: The Story of John Lathrop 1584-1653.” It is available on Amazon and all bookstores, though bookstores are dwindling away. Interestingly, the description of the book on Amazon mentions John Lathrop as a direct ancestor of George W. Bush. Indeed, he is. The Rev. John is an ancestor of hundreds of famous people. However, in this short story, we cover some of the more closely related famous people in our branch of the Lathrop Family Tree.

The Rev. John Lathrop was the grandfather of Joseph Lathrop Sr. and he is our 9th great-grandfather.

5th Cousin President Rutherford B Hayes

Rutherford Birchard Hayes was the
Son of Rutherford Hayes and Sophia Birchard
Sophia Birchard was the daughter of Roger Birchard and Drusilla Austin
Roger Birchard was the son of Elias Birchard and Sarah Jacobs
Elias Birchard was the son of John Birchard and Mary Baldwin
John Birchard was the son of Samuel Birchard and Ann Calkins
Samuel Birchard was the son of John Birchard and Christyan Andrews
A sister of Samuel Birchard, Mary Birchard, married Jonathan Hartshorn
Their Daughter, Mary Hartshorn, marries Joseph Lathrop (1688 – 1757)
this Joseph Lathrop, actually Joseph Lathrop Jr was born and died in Norwich, Connecticut. Joseph Lathrop and Mary Hartshorn, were the parents of Barnabas Lathrop (1738 – 1796). Barnabas Lathrop was my 5th Great Grandfather and therefore the 5th great Grandfather of my sisters and all my Lathrop cousins. Barnabas was also the Great Grandson of John and Christyan Andrews Birchard who were the Great-Great-Great-Great Grandparents of President Rutherford Birchard Hayes.

Barnabas Lathrop was the Great Grandson of John Birchard and Christyan Andrews
Barnabas’s son Daniel was their Great-Great Grandson
Daniel Lathrop Jr was their Great-Great-Great Grandson and
Frederick Lathrop, husband of Laurinda Palmer, who lived most of their lives in West Cornwall, Connecticut was their Great-Great-Great-Great Grandson
Therefore, Frederick Lathrop of West Cornwall and President Rutherford Birchard Hayes were 5th cousins.

President Hayes was a great man and a brilliant man. He graduated with a law degree from Harvard. He was wounded 5 times in the Civil War. He was the right man to implement reconstruction but he never got the chance.

Rutherford Birchard Hayes

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES Hayes, Rutherford B., brigadier-general, was born in Delaware, Ohio, Oct. 4, 1822. He prepared for college at an academy at Norwalk, Ohio, and at Isaac Webb’s preparatory school in Middletown, Conn., and was graduated at Kenyon college, in 1842, valedictorian of his class, receiving his A.M. degree in 1843. He was graduated at Harvard LL.B. in 1845, practiced law in Lower Sandusky, and in 1849 removed to Cincinnati, where he was city solicitor, I858-6I. At a mass-meeting held at Cincinnati upon receiving the news that Fort Sumter had been fired upon, he was made chairman of a committee on resolutions to give vent to the feelings of the people, and upon the president’s call for volunteers he organized a company from the literary club of Cincinnati, and was elected its captain. On June 7, I86I, he was appointed by Gov. Dennison major of the 23d Ohio volunteers, and in July he accompanied the regiment to the seat of war in West Virginia. He was judge advocate of the Department of Ohio, Sept.-Oct., I86I, was promoted lieutenant- colonel Oct. 24, receiving promotion to colonel a year later. Col. Hayes saw active service in the field in I86I-62 distinguishing himself first in the battle of South mountain, Sept. I4, 1862, when, although severely wounded in the arm, he led a gallant charge and held his position at the head of his men until carried from the field. Upon recovering he took command of his regiment in the field, and in the operations against Morgan at the time of the latter’s raid into Ohio, commanded two regiments and a section of artillery, and aided in preventing the escape of the Confederate general across the river, thus compelling Morgan to surrender. He commanded a brigade in Gen. Crook’s expedition to cut the principal lines of communication between Richmond and the southwest, in the spring of 1864, and distinguished himself at Cloyd’s mountain, May 9, 1864, by storming at the head of his brigade a strongly fortified Confederate position. He was conspicuous also in the first battle of Winchester and in the battle of Berryville, and in the second battle of Winchester, Sept. I9, 1864 showed great and unusual gallantry in leading an assault upon a battery across a morass over 50 yards wide. His horse becoming mired in the morass, Col. Hayes dismounted, waded across on foot under fire of the enemy, and then, finding himself alone in front of the battery, signaled to his men to follow. When but about 40 had crossed, the little band charged the battery and after a hard hand-to-hand fight, drove away the gunners. He again distinguished himself at Fisher’s hill, routing the enemy by a skillful flank movement, and his action on the battlefield at Cedar creek, Oct. I9, 1864, secured his commission as brigadier- general at the request of Gen. Crook. He was brevetted major- general of volunteers March I3, 1865, for “gallant and distinguished services in the campaign of 1864 in West Virginia, and especially at the battles of Fisher’s hill and Cedar creek, Va.” Gen. Hayes was elected representative of the 2nd district of Ohio in the 39th Congress, took his seat Dec. 4, 1865, was re-elected to the 40th Congress, and was then for two terms governor of Ohio. He was nominated for Congress in 1872, declined at first, but, afterward accepting, was defeated by 1,500 votes. In 1873 he declined to permit the use of his name for United States senator, and announced his intention of retiring to private life. He was, however, called upon in 1875, much against his will, to take the Republican nomination for governor and was elected by over 5,000 votes, and as an advocate of sound currency and opposed to an unlimited issue of paper money, he became a prominent figure in national politics. When the Republican national convention met in Cincinnati, June I4, 1876, his name was presented as a candidate for president, as were those of James G. Blaine, Oliver P. Morton, Benjamin F. Bristow, Roscoe Conkling and John F. Hartranft, and on the seventh ballot, owing to opposition to Mr. Blaine, Gen. Hayes was nominated. Samuel J. Tilden of New York was nominated by the Democrats, and the election was unusually close, Hayes being, however, finally declared president after a long and bitter dispute. During his administration he favored a sound currency policy and advocated extension of the civil service system. After his term of office had expired he assisted in the inauguration of James A. Garfield as president and then retired to his home in Fremont, Ohio, where he devoted much of his time to benevolent enterprises. He died in Fremont, Ohio, Jan. I3, 1893. Source: The Union Army, vol. 8

The compromise that ended up in Hayes becoming President of the Untied was one where his own party sold him out to the opposing party. In return, their party had the Presidency but his power had become severely limited. Because of this compromise he was unable to use Federal troops to keep The Ku Klux Klan wing of Democrat Party from fighting any progress toward reconstruction from being made. In many ways, this made conditions worse for the newly emancipated population then they were prior to The Civil War.

President Hayes believed in complete equality for all human beings and he had the will and resolve to complete reconstruction during his term if he wasn’t left powerless by those in his party who didn’t care about the recently freed people and those in the opposing party who would take any steps necessary to keep an entire race in servitude.

Rutherford B. Hayes’s Inaugural Address

March 5, 1877


We have assembled to repeat the public ceremonial, begun by Washington, observed by all my predecessors, and now a time- honored custom, which marks the commencement of a new term of the Presidential office. Called to the duties of this great trust, I proceed, in compliance with usage, to announce some of the leading principles, on the subjects that now chiefly engage the public attention, by which it is my desire to be guided in the discharge of those duties. I shall not undertake to lay down irrevocably principles or measures of administration, but rather to speak of the motives which should animate us, and to suggest certain important ends to be attained in accordance with our institutions and essential to the welfare of our country.

At the outset of the discussions which preceded the recent Presidential election it seemed to me fitting that I should fully make known my sentiments in regard to several of the important questions which then appeared to demand the consideration of the country. Following the example, and in part adopting the language, of one of my predecessors, I wish now, when every motive for misrepresentation has passed away, to repeat what was said before the election, trusting that my countrymen will candidly weigh and understand it, and that they will feel assured that the sentiments declared in accepting the nomination for the Presidency will be the standard of my conduct in the path before me, charged, as I now am, with the grave and difficult task of carrying them out in the practical administration of the Government so far as depends, under the Constitution and laws on the Chief Executive of the nation.

The permanent pacification of the country upon such principles and by such measures as will secure the complete protection of all its citizens in the free enjoyment of all their constitutional rights is now the one subject in our public affairs which all thoughtful and patriotic citizens regard as of supreme importance.

Many of the calamitous efforts of the tremendous revolution which has passed over the Southern States still remain. The immeasurable benefits which will surely follow, sooner or later, the hearty and generous acceptance of the legitimate results of that revolution have not yet been realized. Difficult and embarrassing questions meet us at the threshold of this subject. The people of those States are still impoverished, and the inestimable blessing of wise, honest, and peaceful local self-government is not fully enjoyed. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the cause of this condition of things, the fact is clear that in the progress of events the time has come when such government is the imperative necessity required by all the varied interests, public and private, of those States. But it must not be forgotten that only a local government which recognizes and maintains inviolate the rights of all is a true self-government.

With respect to the two distinct races whose peculiar relations to each other have brought upon us the deplorable complications and perplexities which exist in those States, it must be a government which guards the interests of both races carefully and equally. It must be a government which submits loyally and heartily to the Constitution and the laws–the laws of the nation and the laws of the States themselves–accepting and obeying faithfully the whole Constitution as it is.

Resting upon this sure and substantial foundation, the superstructure of beneficent local governments can be built up, and not otherwise. In furtherance of such obedience to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, and in behalf of all that its attainment implies, all so-called party interests lose their apparent importance, and party lines may well be permitted to fade into insignificance. The question we have to consider for the immediate welfare of those States of the Union is the question of government or no government; of social order and all the peaceful industries and the happiness that belongs to it, or a return to barbarism. It is a question in which every citizen of the nation is deeply interested, and with respect to which we ought not to be, in a partisan sense, either Republicans or Democrats, but fellow-citizens and fellowmen, to whom the interests of a common country and a common humanity are dear.

The sweeping revolution of the entire labor system of a large portion of our country and the advance of 4,000,000 people from a condition of servitude to that of citizenship, upon an equal footing with their former masters, could not occur without presenting problems of the gravest moment, to be dealt with by the emancipated race, by their former masters, and by the General Government, the author of the act of emancipation. That it was a wise, just, and providential act, fraught with good for all concerned, is not generally conceded throughout the country. That a moral obligation rests upon the National Government to employ its constitutional power and influence to establish the rights of the people it has emancipated, and to protect them in the enjoyment of those rights when they are infringed or assailed, is also generally admitted.

The evils which afflict the Southern States can only be removed or remedied by the united and harmonious efforts of both races, actuated by motives of mutual sympathy and regard; and while in duty bound and fully determined to protect the rights of all by every constitutional means at the disposal of my Administration, I am sincerely anxious to use every legitimate influence in favor of honest and efficient local self-government as the true resource of those States for the promotion of the contentment and prosperity of their citizens. In the effort I shall make to accomplish this purpose I ask the cordial cooperation of all who cherish an interest in the welfare of the country, trusting that party ties and the prejudice of race will be freely surrendered in behalf of the great purpose to be accomplished. In the important work of restoring the South it is not the political situation alone that merits attention. The material development of that section of the country has been arrested by the social and political revolution through which it has passed, and now needs and deserves the considerate care of the National Government within the just limits prescribed by the Constitution and wise public economy.

But at the basis of all prosperity, for that as well as for every other part of the country, lies the improvement of the intellectual and moral condition of the people. Universal suffrage should rest upon universal education. To this end, liberal and permanent provision should be made for the support of free schools by the State governments, and, if need be, supplemented by legitimate aid from national authority.

Let me assure my countrymen of the Southern States that it is my earnest desire to regard and promote their truest interest–the interests of the white and of the colored people both and equally–and to put forth my best efforts in behalf of a civil policy which will forever wipe out in our political affairs the color line and the distinction between North and South, to the end that we may have not merely a united North or a united South, but a united country.

I ask the attention of the public to the paramount necessity of reform in our civil service–a reform not merely as to certain abuses and practices of so-called official patronage which have come to have the sanction of usage in the several Departments of our Government, but a change in the system of appointment itself; a reform that shall be thorough, radical, and complete; a return to the principles and practices of the founders of the Government. They neither expected nor desired from public officers any partisan service. They meant that public officers should owe their whole service to the Government and to the people. They meant that the officer should be secure in his tenure as long as his personal character remained untarnished and the performance of his duties satisfactory. They held that appointments to office were not to be made nor expected merely as rewards for partisan services, nor merely on the nomination of members of Congress, as being entitled in any respect to the control of such appointments.

The fact that both the great political parties of the country, in declaring their principles prior to the election, gave a prominent place to the subject of reform of our civil service, recognizing and strongly urging its necessity, in terms almost identical in their specific import with those I have here employed, must be accepted as a conclusive argument in behalf of these measures. It must be regarded as the expression of the united voice and will of the whole country upon this subject, and both political parties are virtually pledged to give it their unreserved support.

The President of the United States of necessity owes his election to office to the suffrage and zealous labors of a political party, the members of which cherish with ardor and regard as of essential importance the principles of their party organization; but he should strive to be always mindful of the fact that he serves his party best who serves the country best.

In furtherance of the reform we seek, and in other important respects a change of great importance, I recommend an amendment to the Constitution prescribing a term of six years for the Presidential office and forbidding a reelection.

With respect to the financial condition of the country, I shall not attempt an extended history of the embarrassment and prostration which we have suffered during the past three years. The depression in all our varied commercial and manufacturing interests throughout the country, which began in September, 1873, still continues. It is very gratifying, however, to be able to say that there are indications all around us of a coming change to prosperous times.

Upon the currency question, intimately connected, as it is, with this topic, I may be permitted to repeat here the statement made in my letter of acceptance, that in my judgment the feeling of uncertainty inseparable from an irredeemable paper currency, with its fluctuation of values, is one of the greatest obstacles to a return to prosperous times. The only safe paper currency is one which rests upon a coin basis and is at all times and promptly convertible into coin.

I adhere to the views heretofore expressed by me in favor of Congressional legislation in behalf of an early resumption of specie payments, and I am satisfied not only that this is wise, but that the interests, as well as the public sentiment, of the country imperatively demand it.

Passing from these remarks upon the condition of our own country to consider our relations with other lands, we are reminded by the international complications abroad, threatening the peace of Europe, that our traditional rule of noninterference in the affairs of foreign nations has proved of great value in past times and ought to be strictly observed.

The policy inaugurated by my honored predecessor, President Grant, of submitting to arbitration grave questions in dispute between ourselves and foreign powers points to a new, and incomparably the best, instrumentality for the preservation of peace, and will, as I believe, become a beneficent example of the course to be pursued in similar emergencies by other nations.

If, unhappily, questions of difference should at any time during the period of my Administration arise between the United States and any foreign government, it will certainly be my disposition and my hope to aid in their settlement in the same peaceful and honorable way, thus securing to our country the great blessings of peace and mutual good offices with all the nations of the world.

Fellow-citizens, we have reached the close of a political contest marked by the excitement which usually attends the contests between great political parties whose members espouse and advocate with earnest faith their respective creeds. The circumstances were, perhaps, in no respect extraordinary save in the closeness and the consequent uncertainty of the result.

For the first time in the history of the country it has been deemed best, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, that the objections and questions in dispute with reference to the counting of the electoral votes should be referred to the decision of a tribunal appointed for this purpose.

That tribunal–established by law for this sole purpose; its members, all of them, men of long-established reputation for integrity and intelligence, and, with the exception of those who are also members of the supreme judiciary, chosen equally from both political parties; its deliberations enlightened by the research and the arguments of able counsel–was entitled to the fullest confidence of the American people. Its decisions have been patiently waited for, and accepted as legally conclusive by the general judgment of the public. For the present, opinion will widely vary as to the wisdom of the several conclusions announced by that tribunal. This is to be anticipated in every instance where matters of dispute are made the subject of arbitration under the forms of law. Human judgment is never unerring, and is rarely regarded as otherwise than wrong by the unsuccessful party in the contest.

The fact that two great political parties have in this way settled a dispute in regard to which good men differ as to the facts and the law no less than as to the proper course to be pursued in solving the question in controversy is an occasion for general rejoicing.

Upon one point there is entire unanimity in public sentiment–that conflicting claims to the Presidency must be amicably and peaceably adjusted, and that when so adjusted the general acquiescence of the nation ought surely to follow.

It has been reserved for a government of the people, where the right of suffrage is universal, to give to the world the first example in history of a great nation, in the midst of the struggle of opposing parties for power, hushing its party tumults to yield the issue of the contest to adjustment according to the forms of law.

Looking for the guidance of that Divine Hand by which the destinies of nations and individuals are shaped, I call upon you, Senators, Representatives, judges, fellow-citizens, here and everywhere, to unite with me in an earnest effort to secure to our country the blessings, not only of material prosperity, but of justice, peace, and union–a union depending not upon the constraint of force, but upon the loving devotion of a free people; “and that all things may be so ordered and settled upon the best and surest foundations that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations.”


Ulysses S Grant A Lathrop Family Member

Ulysses S Grant A Lathrop Family Member

The more generations a family extends, the more likely it becomes that the family tree will include noteworthy people. My family tree, which is identical for my sisters and all my Lathrop cousins, surely does include some well-known people when the Lathrop lineage is extended back 10 generations.

At the top of these 10 generations is Samuel Lathrop, also known as Samuel Lothrop. (1623 – 1700) He was born in Edgerton, Kent, England and died in Norwich, Connecticut. He has left us a lineage of too many celebrated people to mention. However, in this short article, we will try to highlight the most celebrated amongst them.

One man I would like to talk about is another Samuel Lathrop (1756 – 1821). This Samuel Lathrop was born in Norwich, Connecticut and died in Lebanon, Grafton County, New Hampshire. Though he could have a list of achievements I don’t know about, the highlight I would like to bring forth is the one written about in the family Bible below.

Samuel Lathrop (1756 – 1821) was the son of Major Elijah Lathrop and Hannah Hough.
Major Elijah Lathrop was the son of Samuel Lathrop (1692 – 1753) and Elizabeth Waterman.
Samuel Lathrop (1692 – 1753) was the son of Israel Lathrop and Rebecca Unknown Lathrop.
Israel Lathrop was the son of Samuel Lathrop (1623 – 1700) and Elizabeth Scudder.

So, the relationship between Samuel Lathrop (1623 – 1700) and Samuel Lathrop, veteran of Bunker Hill, is that of Great-Great Grandfather and Great-Great Grandson.

Another offspring of the elder Samuel Lathrop is a man who has about as magnificent a resume as anyone could have. I am referring to President Ulysses S Grant!

Ulysses S. Grant (born Hiram Ulysses Grant; April 27, 1822 – July 23, 1885) was the 18th President of the United States (1869–1877) as well as military commander during the Civil War and post-war Reconstruction periods. Under Grant’s command, the Union Army defeated the Confederate military and ended the Confederate States of America. Grant began his lifelong career as a soldier after graduating from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1843. Fighting in the Mexican–American War, he was a close observer of the techniques of Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. He resigned from the Army in 1854, then struggled to make a living in St. Louis and Galena, Illinois.

After the American Civil War began in April 1861, he joined the Union war effort, taking charge of training new regiments and then engaging the Confederacy near Cairo, Illinois. In 1862, he fought a series of major battles and captured a Confederate army, earning a reputation as an aggressive general who seized control of most of Kentucky and Tennessee at the Battle of Shiloh. In July 1863, after a long, complex campaign, he defeated five Confederate armies (capturing one of them) and seized Vicksburg. This famous victory gave the Union control of the Mississippi River, split the Confederacy, and opened the way for more Union victories and conquests. After another victory at the Battle of Chattanooga in late 1863, President Abraham Lincoln promoted him to the rank of lieutenant general and gave him charge of all of the Union Armies. As Commanding General of the United States Army from 1864 to 1865, Grant confronted Robert E. Lee in a series of very high casualty battles known as the Overland Campaign that ended in a stalemate siege at Petersburg. During the siege, Grant coordinated a series of devastating campaigns launched by William Tecumseh Sherman, Philip Sheridan, and George Thomas. Finally breaking through Lee’s trenches at Petersburg, the Union Army captured Richmond, the Confederate capital, in April 1865. Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. Soon after, the Confederacy collapsed and the Civil War ended.

During Reconstruction, Grant remained in command of the Army and implemented the Congressional plans to reoccupy the South and hold new elections in 1867 with black voters. This gave Republicans control of the Southern states. Enormously popular in the North after the Union’s victory, he was elected to the presidency in 1868. Reelected in 1872, he became the first president to serve two full terms since Andrew Jackson did so forty years earlier. As president, he led Reconstruction by signing and enforcing civil rights laws and fighting Ku Klux Klan violence. He helped rebuild the Republican Party in the South, an effort that resulted in the election of African Americans to Congress and state governments for the first time.

President Ulysses S Grant is the son of
Jesses Root Grant and Hannah Simpson
Jesse Root Grant is the son of
PVT Noah Grant III and Rachael Kelley
PVT Noah Grant III is the son of
Captain Noah Grant II and Susan Delano
Captain Noah Grant II is the son of
Noah Grant I and Martha Huntington
Martha Huntington is the daughter of
John Huntington and Abigail Lathrop
Abigail Lathrop is the daughter of
Samuel Lathrop or Lothrop (1623 – 1700) and Elizabeth Scudder (1625 – 1690)

Therefore Samuel Lathrop (1623 – 1700) is the great-great-great-great Grandfather of President Ulysses S Grant (1822 – 1885)

Both Samuel Lathrop (1756 – 1821) and Ulysses S Grant are in the Lathrop Family tree on Ancestry dot com

Though the following are not (yet, at least) in The Lathrop family tree, according to, both Clint Eastwood and Tuesday Weld are 8th Great Grandchildren of Samuel Lathrop (1623 – 1700). I, and my sisters and Lathrop 1st cousins are also 8th Great Grandchildren of him as well. This makes Clint and Tuesday our 9thy cousins.

At some point, I will add Tuesday Weld and Clint Eastwood into the tree. I am sure “Famouskin” has the facts correct as they have a great accuracy record. Even though this is true, they have also determined that we are direct descendants Charlamagne. Seeing as he goes back 27 generations, I might not find the time to trace out lineage back to him. So, we’ll have to take FamousKin’s word on that one.

This story would not be complete if I did not mention Samuel Lathrop (1623 – 1700) was the brother of Jane Lathrop (1614 – 1683). Her husband, Samuel Fuller (1612 – 1683) came over with his father, Edward Fuller, in 1620 on The Mayflower. Because of her marriage, Jane was 100 percent Pilgrim. Jane and Samuel’s son, Samuel Fuller Jr. is my 1st cousin 9 times removed.