Today’s FTF is in addition with last Friday’s post which can be found here. As I was researching the Olmsted family line, I discovered another familiar family name: Kellogg.
On my direct Olmsted ancestry line, my 5th great grandfather, Stephen Olmsted, married a Hannah Kellogg sometime around the turn of the nineteenth century, which led me to wonder: how many times have these two families marry within?
I turned once more to the genealogical collection: Genealogy of the Olmsted family in America : embracing the descendants of James and Richard Olmsted and covering a period of nearly three centuries, 1632-1912 to find my answers. I did a search of “Kellogg” and came back with 34 different results. For fun, I also did a search of the name “Wright” in each book. Forty-four results returned from the Olmsted collection. Granted, Wright is a very common surname, but still, that’s a whole lotta potential cousin marriage going down!
So I decided to try my luck at locating a Kellogg family collection to try and trace my 5th great grandmother Hannah and her family and compare their travels to the Olmsteds. And BAM! Look what I found:
From past research using census records, I know that Hannah Kellogg was a daughter of Nathan Fairchild Kellogg and Hannah Wasson. With this collection, I can easily trace Nathan’s heritage, all the way to the beginning of the genealogical collection which begins with Phillippe, the first Kellogg to appear in England in records that date to 1583! And good gravy, the research was ridiculously confusing, and a perfect example of why I believe that children need their own names.
Nathan > Daniel > Daniel > Daniel > Daniel > Martin > Phillippe
Which then led me to wonder: is it possible that these families were familiar with each other in England? I decided to check each family against their book to see when they left England and where they settled in the New World. I began this research within the Kellogg collection and soon discovered that Daniel, son of Martin, was the first of my Kellogg line to arrive in the New World. From the collection, I learned that in England, the Kelloggs lived in Essex county, mainly in the villages of Great Leighs and Braintree. It is unknown what year he sailed from England, but it is believed that he left with his brother Joseph. Daniel was one of the earliest settlers of Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut which was charted on 11 September 1651. That is amazing. And opens up yet another question: my Wrights came from Essex county as well and at one time, were lords of Kelvedon Hall. Were these families tightly knit even in the sixteenth century?
Next, I looked at the Olmsted line to see where they originated in England and at what time they may have left for the New World. And guess what? They too lived in Essex county. In Great Leighs. Crazy awesome.
I’m still not sure if both the Olmsteds and Kelloggs left Essex at the same time, but without a doubt, these families were close, and remained close for over a hundred years when these two branches converged on my tree with the marriage of Stephen Olmsted and Hannah Kellogg.
I’ve never much been interested in the Puritan history of my ancestors. I’ve always found them to be highly hypocritical. They left England because they were facing religious persecution, only to arrive in the New World and begin persecuting the native inhabitants of this land as well as other Puritans who didn’t quite live up to their standards. However, upon this simple research I’ve done, I’m becoming increasingly fascinated with their lives. I want to know more. And I feel that these families, the Olmsteds and the Kelloggs, and, to some degree the Wrights, made up a dynasty of sorts in New England. Is it possible that these families traveled farther west with each other because their bonds were so close? Ah, more research for another day.