FORUM ARTICLES SEARCH
Home > Forum > Surnames > Rogers

DNA shows Adam Rogers' heritage

By Jim Rogers October 07, 2005 at 06:31:48

The field of genetic research is enhancing traditional research methods and allowing new solutions to old mysteries.

Here are the results of recent DNA testing regarding one line of descendants from James Rogers of New London.This deals with the ancestry of Adam Rogers, a mulatto slave in the shared household of James Rogers and his son John Rogers of New London, CT.This line was not covered in James Swift Rogers' 1902 genealogy of the descendants of James, who has been considered a regional patriarch.

I have documented my surname line back to Adam.(How many can say THAT??? ) The puzzle for 300 years has been who his father might have been.Not a lot of records are available for early slave ancestry.

DNA testing was done through "Family Tree DNA," at their group rate due to the presence of an associated Rogers surname study.

On 22 Sept 2005 I was notified of both a 12 point and a 25 point Y-marker match between my DNA sample and that of Dwight Rogers, a known direct male descendant of James Rogers of New London. He is part of the "Nova Scotia" branch descended via Stephen, listed in the 4th Generation in James Swift Rogers' 1902 genealogy of "James Rogers of New London and his Descendants."

The DNA results indicate a 99.9% probability of us sharing a common Rogers ancestor.For the descendants of Adam Rogers of New London, CT, we now have a combination of genetic and documentary evidence that a member of the family of James Rogers of New London,was the father of Adam the mulatto.

I was provided Dwight's documented lineage as follows:
Dwight Leroy Rogers10, Joseph 'Jay' Albert Rogers9, Joseph Henry Rogers8, James Moore Rogers7, James Rogers6, Lemuel Rogers5, Stephen Rogers4, Jonathan Rogers3, Joseph Rogers2, James Rogers1 of New London, CT.

My lineage has been documented as follows:
James Allen Rogers, b 1949, at Denver, CO
Will Alden Rogers, b 1918, Davenport, IA
Clarence Alden Rogers, b 1888, Burlington, IA
Roswell Noyes Rogers, b 1848, Geauga County, OH
Joseph Noyes L. Rogers, b 1811, East Haddam, CT
Roswell Rogers, b 1764, of East Haddam CT
John Rogers, b 1734, of East Haddam CT
John Rogers, the cooper, b 1704 at New London, CT, and of Middletown, CT
Adam Rogers, the mulatto, b ca 1670, of New London, CT

Adam was initially a slave (later freed) in the household of James Rogers of New London and his son John Rogers, the Rogerene.John was born 1648.

Dr. Benjamin Trumbull, in his 1898 "Complete History of Connecticut, Civil and Ecclesiastical ...," disparaged John Rogers the Rogerene for having in his early days (before John's religious conversion) bedded with at least one ofthe family's slaves."When he had occasion, he took to his bed a maid whom he had purchased, and after she had borne him two children, he put her away."(Page 20)

This possibility regarding Adam's parentage was echoed in George Waller's monograph, "Connecticut Genealogies; 1: Adam and Katherine Rogers of New London, Ct...," available in the RootsWeb Archives for New London, CT.

So, for more than 300 years suspicions and allegations have been that John Rogers the Rogerene fathered Adam Rogers the mulatto.John was divorced in 1676 by his wife for an unspecified act that John did BEFORE his marriage.Adam is believed to have been born ca 1670, and it has been rumored that John Rogers was the father.The DNA resultslend strong circumstantial evidence to substantiate those rumors.

The other possible fathers of Adam would be the patriarch James himself or James' sons Samuel (b ca 1640), Joseph (b 1646), James (b 1652), or Jonathan (b 1655).Children of these brothers would have been too young to have fathered Adam around 1670.Additionally, Jonathan(2) would have only been about 15 at the estimated date of Adam's birth.He may be the weakest alternative for parentage among the four brothers of John.

Although they narrow the field of possibilities tremendously, these test results do not mean with 100% certainty that John Rogers the Rogerene was Adam's father.Dwight and I definitely descend from a common Rogers ancestor, and from traditional methods of genealogical research we know that James Rogers of New London is the common point of connection on our two lines.The DNA test alone does not determine exactly WHICH Rogers was Adam's father.

This conclusion blends the DNA results with our documentary research.As more researchers submit DNA to be tested, and as the technology improves, it is possible that we may at a later date be able to pinpoint Adam's father with scientific certainty.

More Replies:

  • Re: DNA shows Adam Rogers' heritage
    Virgil Huntley 9/20/06
    • Re: DNA shows Adam Rogers' heritage
      Jim Rogers 6/05/11
      • Re: DNA shows Adam Rogers' heritage
        Jim Rogers 2/04/14
    • Re: DNA shows Adam Rogers' heritage
      Jim Rogers 9/21/06
Sitemap Terms Privacy FAQ
© 2021 Genealogy.com