Samuel Bradford's origins - Lower Delmarva Bradfords

The attached piece provides a good summary of where the research on Samuel Bradford’s origins stood at the time I became 

aware of genealogy. It was written by my grandfather, Vance Bradford, and appeared in the summer 1990 installment of the 

Bradford Descendants newsletter. [Note: in the first paragraph the date should read 1970, not 1870.] 

Page 1 of 26 

+

When I first took an active interest in genealogy, one of my primary goals was to carry on my grandfather’s work and do 

everything I could to discover the origins of our earliest known Bradford ancestor, Samuel Bradford of Worcester County, 

Maryland. I opted for a systematic approach, centering first on a search for every record from Worcester County that related 

to Samuel. Although this brought to light several previously unknown records, early on it became obvious that there was 

probably no smoking gun evidence in Worcester County records that would conclusively identify his parents. At the same 

time it seemed possible, maybe even likely, that they were hiding in plain sight, in other words, that they might appear in 

records of the period even if those records didn’t tie them directly to Samuel. Given that likelihood, a case might need to be 

built based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence backed up by a comprehensive understanding of all the Bradford 

families in the area. With that in mind, I expanded the scope of my research and made it my goal to gather every bit of 

evidence I could find relating to any and all Bradfords of the colonial era in the lower Delmarva peninsula, including 

Northampton and Accomack Counties in Virginia, Somerset and Worcester Counties in Maryland, and Sussex County in 

Delaware. With as full a picture as possible of all the Bradfords in the region, I might be able to narrow down the possibilities 

of who could or could not have been the parents of ‘Snow Hill Sam’. 

* * * 

The great majority of male Bradfords who appear in 

Lower Delmarva records in the colonial period may be 

identified as descendants of Nathaniel Bradford of 

Accomack County. Nathaniel died in 1690 in Accomack 

and was survived by two sons. His eldest, William, 

remained in Accomack and gave rise to most, if not all, of 

the Bradfords of Accomack and Northampton Counties 

during the colonial period. Nathaniel’s younger son, John, 

moved north to Worcester County (actually, that part of 

Somerset County that would later become Worcester 

County) around 1710. All the male Bradfords of 

Worcester County in the 18 th century whose origins have 

been successfully traced are known to have been 

descendants of this John. Given the saturation of the area 

with Nathaniel’s descendants, it seemed plausible to me as 

I began my research that Samuel Bradford might be 

among them, though the evidence of his descent might be 

lacking. After a few years of exhaustive research, there 

was still no compelling indication of a genealogical 

connection. However, I was at least able to conclude that 

if Samuel was a descendant of Nathaniel, it was most 

likely through his grandson William, son of his son John. 

Y chromosome DNA offered a means of testing the 

theory. If we ever got Y chromosome DNA from a 

descendant of Nathaniel, and if it came back a match with 

my own DNA, then we would have Samuel’s most 

probable line of descent from Nathaniel. In the end, two 

confirmed descendants of Nathaniel did have their DNA 

tested and a full analysis of the results reveals that Samuel 

was not Nathaniel’s descendant. 

DNA Evidence 

It’s fair to say that DNA has revolutionized the search for Samuel Bradford’s origins. It has swept away old theories and has 

opened up avenues of research that could scarcely have been conceived in earlier years. The conclusions and clues drawn 

from the DNA evidence tend to cast all the traditional evidence in a new light, and for that reason it’s worth taking DNA as 

the starting point in any discussion of Samuel Bradford’s origins. 

Page 2 of 26

The Rationale Behind DNA Testing 

DNA testing for surname-based genealogy primarily involves short tandem repeats (STRs) on the Y chromosome. Unlike the 

other chromosomes, which undergo recombination and are mixed up every generation, the Y chromosome is passed down 

essentially intact from fathers to sons. However, occasionally random mutations occur; as these accumulate, they result in a 

diversity of Y chromosome STR haplotypes. One can roughly gauge how closely two people are related by comparing their 

haplotypes. The more differences there are between the haplotypes, the more mutations have happened and the farther back 

their ancestor probably lived. The more similar the haplotypes, the more recent their ancestor. As an example, here is a 

comparison of the 12-marker haplotypes of me and a descendant of Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack: 

3 3 1 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 

9 9 9 9 8 8 2 8 3 8 9 8 

3 0 1 5 5 6 8 9 9 2 9 

a b | | 

1 2 

Bradford 20874 13 24 14 12 11 14 12 12 12 12 13 16 

Bradford 18264 14 24 15 10 14 15 11 13 11 13 12 17 

Genetic Distance 1 0 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

The total genetic distance between us is 14 on 12 markers. This represents an accumulation of mutations in both our lineages 

since our common ancestor, in this case a period of many thousands of years. The time estimate is calculated by taking into 

account the observed rate of mutation of the different STRs. This varies, depending on the marker, from about a 0.4% to 

0.75% chance of a mutation on each marker each time the chromosome is passed on. The two above haplotypes are my own 

and that of a descendant of Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County. Now compare the 12-marker haplotypes of me and my 

father: 

3 3 1 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 

9 9 9 9 8 8 2 8 3 8 9 8 

3 0 1 5 5 6 8 9 9 2 9 

a b | | 

1 2 

Bradford 20874 13 24 14 12 11 14 12 12 12 12 13 16 

Bradford 25639 13 24 14 12 11 14 12 12 12 12 13 16 

Genetic Distance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unsurprisingly, we are an exact match. Between those who share what we think of as a common genealogical descent, a 

genetic distance of 0 or 1 is typical on 12 markers, though occasionally genetic distances of 2, and in rare cases 3 or 4, have 

been observed on 12 markers between men who share an ancestor within the last 700 years or so. 

By counting genetic distance and using observed mutation rates for the different markers, it is possible to come up with a 

broad estimate of when a common ancestor probably lived. If individuals have the same surname, and if their match on 37 or 

67 markers is close enough to indicate a probable common ancestor within a genealogical time frame (say, the last 700 years 

or so), then the most plausible explanation is often that they descend from a man who had the same surname or some variant 

of it. That is the basic theory behind the use of Y chromosome DNA in genealogy. 

The lineage of Samuel Bradford of Worcester is represented in the Bradford DNA Project by my own DNA, which is a 

relatively close match (a genetic distance of 2 or 3 on 37 markers) with two other men named Bradford. My DNA is also a 

relatively close match (from 2 to 6 on 67 markers) with five men of the surname Braidwood. These Bradfords and 

Braidwoods also share rare values on certain markers: 

Page 3 of 26

Modal Value Frequency 

449=28 11% of R1b 

YCAII=22 9% of R1b 

CDYb=36 7% of R1b 

481=22 6% of R1b 

389-1=12 5% of R1b 

413b=24 5% of R1b 

464d=19 2% of R1b 

492=14 2% of R1b 

442=15 Less than 0.5% of R1b. (14, also present in some of the Bradfords/Braidwoods, is 1% of R1b) 

391=11/12/13 On 391 there is no strong modal value. The value 11 is present only among the Braidwoods. The 

values 12 and 13, shared by both Bradfords and Braidwoods, are present in 4% and less than 0.5% 

of R1b, respectively. 

The overall conclusion derived from the DNA evidence is that all of the following lineages (the earliest known ancestor of 

each lineage is listed) share a relatively recent common ancestor, whence all our surnames are likely derived. 

94943 John Braidwood (b.c.1660, Scotland) 


120651 William Braidwood (b.c.1750, Lanark) 


126694 Williame Braidwood (b.c.1634, Scotland) 

20874 Samuel Bradford (b.bef.1744 - d.c.1812, Worcester Co., MD) 

70953 David Bradford (b.bef.1744 - d.c.1779, Mecklenberg Co, NC) 

23640 Giles Bradford (b.c.1812-1815, SC) 

Estimating when the Common Ancestor Lived 

FTDNATiP 

There are a variety of tools available for estimating the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of two or more 

haplotypes. One of these, FTDNATiP, is provided by FTDNA, the primary testing company used for the Bradford DNA 

Project. According to FTDNATiP, there is a 64.03% chance that I and fellow Bradford 23640 share an ancestor who lived in 

the last 8 to 12 generations (about 200 to 300 years using a generation length of 25 years, and 240 to 360 years using a 

generation length of 30 years) and a 96.88% chance our common ancestor lived within the last 20 generations (about 500-600 

years). In a comparison between myself and 97306 (a Braidwood), FTDNATiP gives a 51.45% chance that our common 

ancestor lived within the last 16 generations (about 400-480 years) and a 94.72% chance that our common ancestor lived 

within the last 28 generations (about 700-840 years). The FTDNATiP estimate between myself and 126694 (another 

Braidwood) is also close, with a 78.37% chance that we share a common ancestor in the last 8 to 12 generations (200 to 360 

years) and a 99.9% chance of a common ancestor in the last 24 generations (about 600 to 720 years). 

McGee’s Utility 

Another tool for estimating TMRCA, developed by Dean McGee, allows one to choose from among three different sets of 

mutation rates and to generate different percentage estimates of the TMRCA. The following two charts represent the 50% 

and the 95% estimates for the Bradford-Braidwood group using the FTDNA mutation rates. For the first chart, the 

probability is 50% that the TMRCA is no longer than indicated. For the second chart, the probability is 95% that the TMRCA 

is no longer than indicated. A generation length of 25 years is assumed in both charts. 

Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor (Years) – 50% Estimate, FTDNA’s rates 

94943 96524 97306 126694 20874 

94943 - John Braidwood (b.c.1660, Scotland) 67 150 450 330 390 



126694 - Williame Braidwood (b.c.1634, Scotland) 330 330 330 67 150 

20874 - Samuel Bradford (bef.1744-d.c.1811, MD) 390 390 330 150 67 

Page 4 of 26

Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor (Years) – 95% Estimate, FTDNA’s rates 

94943 96524 97306 126694 20874 




126694 - Williame Braidwood (b.c.1634, Scotland) 600 600 600 67 360 

20874 - Samuel Bradford (bef.1744-d.c.1811, MD) 690 690 600 360 67 

From the above charts we might conclude that the common ancestor of this group was likely to have lived between 330 to 

606 years ago (i.e., 1400 to 1700 AD), which are, respectively, the 50% and 95% average age estimates obtained using 

FTDNA’s rates on the 67 marker haplotypes. When assuming a generation length of 30 years, the range is 396 to 727 years, 

or 1300-1600 AD. 

ASD/Variance Method 

Tim Janzen has created a spreadsheet that automatically generates several TMRCA estimates for a given set of haplotypes. 

These estimates are based on a variety of different assumed mutation rates and utilize the most sophisticated methods of 

calculating age. Age estimates for this Bradford-Braidwood group when compared on 37 and 67 markers range from 7.8 

generations to 21.5 generations. When converted to years, the ages range from 195 to 538 years, based on a generation length 

of 25 years, or between 1450 and 1800 AD. The average age is 15 generations, or roughly 375 years (about 1600 AD). With 

a generation length of 30 years, the range is 234 to 635 (1370 to 1770 AD) and the average is 450 years (about 1550 AD). 

Given the basic congruence between all of the above estimates, we can probably feel pretty comfortable stating that the 

ancestor of this Bradford-Braidwood group most likely lived some time in the period from 1200 to 1600 AD. This is a time 

frame within which variants of the Braidwood and Bradford surnames are known to have been in use, so it is plausible that 

these Bradfords and Braidwoods all descend from some man who had a variant of their surnames. 

* * * 

Shared Mutations in the DNA 

The frequency at which mutations accumulate on a Y chromosome allows us to roughly estimate the time to the most recent 

common ancestor, as above. The mutations themselves, if they can be identified, have the potential to provide more 

information, sometimes revealing a branching structure among a mass of related individuals. These mutations are identified 

by looking for individuals in a related group who share alternate marker values. 

The idea behind shared mutations is best illustrated by a hypothetical example. Suppose a man has the value 20 at a certain 

marker. Most of his descendants will also have the value 20, because the overwhelming tendency of markers is to not mutate. 

Now suppose one of his grandsons has a mutation on that marker so that it becomes 21. That grandson will then pass on the 

21 to his descendants. Assuming an even number of descendants in each branch line, among the modern day descendants of 

the original man, most will probably have 20, but some will have 21 due to that mutation in the grandson. If we didn’t know 

anything about how the present-day men were descended from their common ancestor, we could nevertheless look at those 

who held the value 21 and take that as a clue that they might share an ancestor more recent than the ancestor of the whole 

group. This hypothetical example is depicted in the following descendant chart (the descendants with the value 21 are shaded 

yellow): 

Page 5 of 26

This simple example illustrates how valuable shared mutations can be if you can spot them. They can provide clues as to how 

people are related to each other. However, one should always take into account the possibility that there may have been two 

separate mutations (called parallel mutations) to the same alternate value, a situation illustrated in the following chart: 

To spot shared mutations, we must look for markers on which there is some difference between the individuals being 

compared. Everyone in this Bradford-Braidwood group is identical on 56 out of 67 markers. The simplest explanation for the 

values being identical on those 56 markers is that they have not mutated at all since the common ancestor in any of these 

lineages; we can deduce that they are the values actually held by our common ancestor. They represent the ancestral 

haplotype. On the remaining 11 markers, there is some diversity within the group: 

391 439 447 449 464b 464d 456 576 570 CDYa 442 

94943 John Braidwood (b.c.1660, Scotland) 11 11 24 28 16 18 18 17 18 36 15 


120651 William Braidwood (b.c.1750, Lanark) 11 12 24 28 16 19 18 17 17 36 15 


126694 Williame Braidwood (b.c.1634, Scotland) 13 12 24 28 16 19 18 17 17 36 14 

20874 Samuel Bradford (d.C.1812, Worcester Co., MD) 12 12 24 28 16 19 17 17 17 36 14 

70953 David Bradford (b.c.1720 - d.aft.1790, NC) 13 12 24 28 16 19 17 17 17 35 15 

23640 Giles Bradford (b.c.1812-1815, SC) 12 12 25 28 16 19 17 17 17 35 14 

On markers 447, 449, 464b, 576, and 570, all but one of the men in the group have the same value. In these cases, we can 

safely assume that the more prevalent value (called the modal value) is probably also the ancestral value. On these markers, 

the alternate values appear to be isolated mutations peculiar to individual lineages. At any rate, since they don’t contain 

shared alternate values, these markers aren’t really useful and can be dispensed with. That leaves the following 6 markers, on 

which there are alternate values shared by two or more of the men in the group: 

Page 6 of 26

391 439 464d 456 CDYa 442 

94943 John Braidwood (b.c.1660, Scotland) 11 11 18 18 36 15 


120651 William Braidwood (b.c.1750, Lanark) 11 12 19 18 36 15 


126694 Williame Braidwood (b.c.1634, Scotland) 13 12 19 18 36 14 

20874 Samuel Bradford (d.C.1812, Worcester Co., MD) 12 12 19 17 36 14 

70953 David Bradford (b.c.1720 - d.aft.1790, NC) 13 12 19 17 35 15 

23640 Giles Bradford (b.c.1812-1815, SC) 12 12 19 17 35 14 

On markers 439, 464d, and CDYa, the modal values are very strong and it is a fair presumption that they represent the 

ancestral values. The alternate values 439=11 and 464d=18, both shared between 94943 and 96524, may be shared mutations 

indicating that these two men belong on their own distinct branch of the Bradford-Braidwood tree. On CDYa, the alternate 

value of 35, shared between 70953 and 23640, may indicate that these two are on their own branch of the Bradford- 

Braidwood tree; however, it should be noted that CDY is a volatile marker and an increased number of parallel mutations 

might be expected. 

DYS456 

The results on this marker mirror the surname split within the group. All the Braidwoods are 456=18 and all the Bradfords 

are 456=17. One of these two values must be the ancestral value, and the other may be a shared mutation that was passed on 

to a group of descendants. Unless there have been independent, parallel mutations to the same value, the results for marker 

456 hint at a single genetic split between the Bradfords and the Braidwoods. 

DYS391 

On marker 391, there is high variability within the group, with the values 11, 12, and 13 all present in more than one 

individual. This is unusual, because 391 is normally a relatively stable marker. Also unusual is the presence of the value 13 

on this marker. In Leo Little’s study of marker value frequencies, this value was observed in less than 0.5% of the entire R1b 

population. 

Results on this marker seem to contradict the results on 456, with its 18/17 Braidwood/Bradford split. If that split is real, 

then there must have been parallel mutations on 391, because the values 12 and 13 are both held on either side of the 

Braidwood/Bradford divide. This confusion is compounded by the fact that there is no clear modal value on 391. If the 

ancestral value was 12, then it looks like there were separate mutations to 13 in the lineages of 126694 and 70953. If the 

ancestral value was 13, then there were multiple mutations to 12, plus one or more two-step mutations to 11. The first case 

would be extremely rare, since the value 13 is present in such a miniscule portion of the population. The second case is also 

unusual, since, again, 391 is not a very fast mutating marker. 

An alternate interpretation would be that the 18/17 Braidwood/Bradford split on 456 is not real, and that 456 is the marker 

with parallel mutations. Even if that were the case, it doesn’t cut down on the confusion, because results on 391 still 

contradict results on marker 442, another slow-mutating marker. 

DYS442 

On this marker the modal value of the whole group is 15. It is the clear modal among the Braidwoods and is present on both 

sides of the Braidwood/Bradford divide. Like the 13 at 391, it is a very rare value, found in less than 0.5% of the entire R1b 

population. If the alternate value 14 is a shared mutation, it would mean that 126694 shares a branch with 20874 and 23640, 

but not with 70953 – exactly the opposite of the scenario suggested by DYS391. It also contradicts results on marker 456, 

since if the Bradfords and Braidwoods are on distinct branches, we might expect any mutation shared by 126694 and one 

Bradford to apply to all the Bradfords in the group. 

Which Marker to Trust? 

Given the contradictory evidence from 456, 391 and 442, it’s worth turning to the traditional evidence to see what it suggests 

as the most likely way the Braidwoods and Bradfords are related. One theory (scenario 1) is that the Bradfords are descended 

from the Braidfutes of Lanarkshire, Scotland. Under this theory, the Braidwoods and Braidfutes/Bradfords would be on 

distinct branches, a scenario depicted in ideal form on the following chart: 

Page 7 of 26

Under scenario 2, the Bradfords are just a younger branch of Braidwoods, as depicted on this chart: 

Both of these scenarios fit well with the idea of marker 456 having a shared mutation. In either case, the Bradfords share a 

common ancestor between them who is more recent than whatever ancestor they share with any of the Braidwoods. But 

under either of these scenarios, markers 391 and 442 create confusion. Regardless of which interpretation you choose to 

focus on (whether the ancestral value on 442 was 14 or 15, or whether the ancestral value on 391 was 11, 12, or 13), it is 

inescapable that on each of these markers there have been parallel mutations that contradict the apparent mutations on the 

other marker and both of which contradict the mutations on 456. It is thus very difficult to gain any useful information from 

391 and 442 or to gauge which of the many interpretations of them makes the most sense. 

Marker Volatility 

It is notable that the extremely rare 391=13 and 442=15 are each held on both sides of the Braidwood/Bradford divide. In Leo 

Little’s study of marker value frequencies, 391=13 and 442-15 were each observed in less than 0.5% of the entire R1b 

population. If the common ancestor of the group held these extremely high rare values, it would actually go a long way 

towards explaining the high variability and numerous parallel mutations seen on what are otherwise very stable markers. That 

is due to a phenomenon that has been observed in several surname projects and reported in several studies in the scientific 

literature: 

Page 8 of 26

Dieringer and Schlotterer, 2003: “. . . the DNA replication slippage rate seems to be dependent on the length of the 

microsatellite. Alleles with a high repeat number are less stable than those with a small repeat number.” 

Lai and Sun: “When slippage mutations happen . . . contractions occur more frequently if the number of repeat units 

is large. When mutations happen, long microsatellites are likely to mutate to shorter ones; short microsatellites are 

likely to mutate to longer ones. The scarcity of large number of repeat units in a microsatellite locus can be 

explained by the high mutation rate and downward mutation bias when the number of repeat units is large.” 

391=13 and 442-15 aren’t just high values, they are the highest values that have been observed on those markers. If they 

were the ancestral values of this group, based on the conclusions arrived at in these studies we should expect to see an 

increased number of downward mutations. This ought to manifest itself as a multiplicity of parallel mutations and a higherthan-normal 

variability on the markers. This is just what we see on 391 and 442 in this Bradford/Braidwood group. Thus 

there is good reason to think that the rare values were also the ancestral values for this group. The overall effect of this 

phenomenon in the DNA analysis is to marginalize both 391 and 442 when it comes to identifying shared mutations, since 

the expectation of multiple parallel mutations makes any instances of shared alternate values suspect. Marginalizing 391 and 

442 tends to favor the idea that a shared mutation occurred on marker 456, with its 18/17 Braidwood/Bradford split. 

* * * 

The Braidwood Surname 

My DNA match with the Braidwoods has revealed that Scotland is the probable origin of our Bradford lineage. This 

revelation is almost entirely due to the rarity of the Braidwood surname. In fact, the Braidwood surname is not just rare, it 

appears to be unique. The name seems to be almost wholly confined to Lanarkshire in Scottish will, marriage, and birth 

records after 1550. A single origin for the Braidwood surname is also supported by the results of the Braidwood DNA 

Project to date, in which 5 out of 6 men tested belong to the same genetic lineage. 

To gain a better understanding of the Braidwood surname and of how the surname Bradford might be related to it, I 

conducted a search of will, marriage, and birth records at www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk, “the official government source of 

genealogical data for Scotland,” for individuals with the surname Braidwood, Bradford, or any variants thereof. 

Unfortunately, the government’s data only goes back to the mid-16 th century. This only just overlaps with the later end of the 

1200-1600 AD period during which the ancestor of the Braidwood-Bradford group probably lived. No Bradfords are listed at 

all prior to the mid-18 th century, yet by that time at least two of the three Bradford families in this group were already in 

America and going by the surname Bradford. This suggests that, among this particular group of Bradfords, the surname may 

have arisen as a variant outside of Scotland, most likely either in Ireland or America. The possibility that the Bradfords and 

Braidwoods may have split off from one another in England rather than Scotland is discounted by traditional genealogical 

evidence that suggests an Irish origin for Samuel Bradford’s lineage and a Scottish or Scots-Irish origin for David Bradford’s 

lineage. 

Braidwood/Bradfute 

From the mid-1500s through 1700, the following Bradford and Braidwood-like surnames appear in Scottish will, marriage, 

and birth records as transcribed and indexed at www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk: 

Bradfute 

Braidfoot 

Braidfoote 

Braidfoott 

Braidfote 

Braidfuit 

Braidfute 

Braidfutt 

Broadfoot 

Broadfut 

Braidwod 

Braidwode 

Braidwood 

Breadwood 

These all appear to be variants of two primary surnames: Braidwood and Braidfoot/Braidfute. Moreover, there is a clear 

geographical division between the Braidwoods and Braidfoots. This is apparent from the map on the following page, on 

which are plotted the locations mentioned in descriptions of will records in the period from 1564 to 1700. The Braidwood 

Page 9 of 26

locations are flagged on this map with a red “W”, the Braidfoots with a red “F”. Coincidentally or not, the villages of 

Braidwood and Braidfute (a mere 5 miles apart from each other in the center) provide a convenient dividing point between 

the two surnames, with Braidwoods found to the north and Braidfutes found to the south of these villages. (The one exception 

is the Braidwood in Covington, to the southeast.) 

By the mid-16 th century the surnames were distinct and they seem to have remained that way thereafter. However, it is 

possible that they were identical at some point before, and that they are descendants of a single family that separated into two 

distinct branches in two different areas, where subtle variations in the pronunciation of the name set in. It’s worth noting 

that, in spite of the geographical divide between them, only about 40 miles separate Auchinloch and Crawfordjohn, the 

farthest two location points on this map. Of the two surnames, Braidfute appears to be the elder. Both surnames are recorded 

in England as early as or earlier than they are recorded in Scotland. 

Braidwood 

The roll of Edinburgh Burgesses and Guild-Brethren notes that John de Bradwod was recorded on a jury of inquest in St. 

Katherine’s Chapel, Bavelay, Scotland in 1280. This is the earliest mention of the name that I have seen. An R. de Bradwod 

is recorded circa 1300 as vicar of St. Michael’s, Appleby, in Cumbria, England. In 1498, John Braidwod and Patrick 

Braidwot were recorded as inhabitants of Uddingston, which is in Lanarkshire about 15 miles north of the village of 

Braidwood. Uddingston remained a primary location of Braidwoods thereafter. 

Page 10 of 26

Bradfute 

The most famous ancient instance of the Braidfute surname is probably Marian Braidfute, daughter of Hugh Braidfute of 

Lamington, said to have been the wife of William Wallace (1272-1305), aka, ‘Braveheart’. Marian Braidfute’s existence is 

highly suspect, since it is only attested in the work of the 16 th century Scottish poet ‘Blind Harry.’ Ed Archer, a Lanarkshire 

historian, has suggested that she was completely fictional. The following is excerpted from an article that appeared on the 

Times Online, dated May 9, 2005: 

It is only in a revised edition of the poem dating from 1570 that Braidfute first makes an appearance. This version 

was sponsored by the Baillies of Lamington, a wealthy family who, according to Mr Archer, wanted to ingratiate 

themselves with Mary, Queen of Scots by claiming to be Wallace’s descendants. In this version Braidfute, from 

Lamington, Lanarkshire, is described as Wallace’s lover and the mother of his daughter — from whom the Baillies 

of Lamington claimed to be descended. 

But despite an exhaustive trawl of records Mr. Archer has found no mention of any Braidfutes living in the area at 

the end of the 13th century. 

The most detailed information about the Bradfute surname that I could find comes from a post on genforum, from W. Brobst 

(curator of the Broadfoot Family Historical Registry, 6072 Currituck Road, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949; 252-261-3068; Brobst- 

Hager@embarqmail.com). Mr. Brobst seems to be quoting or paraphrasing from a book “prepared by Rev. James R. 

Broadfoot for the 1984 Broadfoot Clan Reunion in Seaforth, Ontario.” [Note: Broadfoot is a later derivation of the Braidfute 

surname.] I have yet to corroborate any of Mr. Brobst’s account. He notes that the Doomsday Book revealed five Bradfoot 

families holding land in Yorkshire. He also notes that the name “Turgis Bradfot” appears in 1157 in the Scottish Pipe Rolls 

of Cumberland, and that a Roger Bradfot appeared in 1247 in the Assizes Rolls of Bedfordshire. He writes that, by 1296, 

“the name appears as Bradfute”, and by 1379, the names “Bradfotte”, “Brodefotte” and “Braydfot” were found in northern 

England. He goes on to note that a Robert Braidfute was vicar of Dunnyn in 1491 and that a William Bredfut was minister of 

Falkland in 1593 (these are both locations in Perthshire, Scotland). After that we enter the period for which I have been able 

to access solid evidence in the form of wills, marriage records, and birth records. 

* * * 

Scenarios for Braidwood-Bradford Origin 

The traditional evidence suggests that David Bradford and Samuel Bradford were of Scottish or Scots-Irish origin; it follows 

that their ancestors were most likely present in Scotland prior to the Scottish plantation of Ulster in the 17 th century. Yet the 

surname Bradford is not recorded in any Scottish will, birth, or marriage records from 1550 to 1750. This suggests that the 

name evolved later from some other surname that was present in Scotland during that period. The only two surnames that 

really seem to be capable of evolving into Bradford are Braidwood and Braidfute, and it has already been determined by 

DNA evidence that these Bradfords are related somehow to the Braidwoods. Given the above information about the 

Braidwood surname and given a probable common ancestor for the Braidwood-Bradford group in the period from 1200 to 

1600, two scenarios seem likely. These were referenced in the overview of the DNA results given above. 

Scenario 1 

Under this scenario, the Bradfords descend from the Braidfutes of Lanarkshire. The theory is that the Braidwoods 

and Braidfutes share a common ancestor and that after the families separated, one became known as Braidfute and 

the other as Braidwood. The two families remained distinct after they diverged. At least one lineage, though 

perhaps several, of the Braidfutes, upon emigrating from Scotland, became known by the surname Bradford, among 

them the lineage leading to Snow Hill Sam. This scenario is appealing primarily because Bradford seems 

phonologically closer to Braidfute than Braidwood. 

Page 11 of 26

Scenario 2 

Under this scenario, the Bradfords are basically a younger branch of Braidwoods. Some Braidwood lineage, upon 

emigrating from Scotland, became known as Bradford, and all the Bradford lineages in this group (including that of 

Snow Hill Sam) are descended from that younger branch. 

On Surname Morphology 

If the proposed surname morphology (Braidwood-Bradford-Braidfute) seems far fetched, consider that “braid” is the Scots 

version of the English “broad” and that the word “broad” evolved from the Old English “brad”. Braid is thus basically 

interchangeable with broad and brad. That leaves only the latter half of the compound - wood, fute, ford – to reckon with. 

First, consider that “d” and “t” sound basically similar when pronounced at the end of a word; so much so, that they are 

basically interchangeable, phonetically. Likewise, the vowel sound in wood and foot are basically the same, though ford is 

slightly different with its ‘r'. It is more difficult to imagine “w” and “f” as interchangeable, though it is conceivable. If the 

“w” in Braidwood was pronounced more like a “v”, then its interchangeability with “f” is plausible. Apparently in Ulster 

Scots “the pronouncation of /f/ may be a bilabial /ф/ and /v/ as /B/ like the in Spanish habana.” Thus, in the specific 

dialect of Scots that arose in Ulster, f and v may be interchangeable. Furthermore, once removed from its localized context 

and transplanted into an area where another dialect was spoken, it is conceivable that the surname Braidwood or Braidfute 

would undergo some pressure to conform to a name that was more familiar. Though hypothetical, this is a very plausible 

scenario. 

It is prudent to be open-minded when it comes to surname variations for the period prior to 1800. Before the codification and 

standardization of the English language, spelling was in flux. It was dependent upon pronunciation and the only rule seems to 

have been to spell words like they sounded. Thus, in Scotland from 1550 to 1700 we get the following spellings for a single 

surname: Bradfute, Braidfoot, Braidfoote, Braidfoott, Braidfote, Braidfuit, Braidfute, Braidfutt, Broadfoot, and Broadfut. 

These different spellings all likely represent subtle differences in pronunciations of the same surname. Pronunciations and 

spellings would tend to differ from place to place and over time, as accents changed. Even more important for the subject at 

hand, if someone took a surname into foreign territory, where the surname was unfamiliar and where the accent was 

Page 12 of 26

dramatically different, then the pronunciation of the name itself could change abruptly and drastically. If the surname 

happened to sound similar to a more familiar surname, then it’s not hard to imagine the surname simply becoming 

transformed into the more common name. Something like this is probably what happened to derive Bradford from Braidwood 

or Braidfute. Again, since the surname Bradford does not appear to be found in Scotland prior to around 1750 or so, the 

spelling probably took hold either in Ireland or in America, as an Anglicization to the more familiar English surname. 

For the record, below are the Braidwood lineages in this group: 

1.Williame Braidwood (b.c.1634) m.Rachell Lindsay 1666 

2.John Braidwood (b.c.1675) m.Janet Robison/Mary Paterson 1688 Lanark, Scotland 

3.Mark Braidwood (b.c.1711, Lanark) m.Margaret Callan/Janet Tweedie 

4.Mark Braidwood (b.c.1736, Lanark) m.Helen Fisher 

5.George Braidwood (b.1769, Lanark - d.1838, Scotland) m.Margaret Smith 

6.Rev. John Braidwood (b.c.1810, Ayrshire, Scotland - d.1875, Edinburgh) m.Isabella Murray 

7.PRIVATE 

8.PRIVATE 

9.126694 

1.John Braidwood (b.c.1680, Scotland) (possibly the John Braidwood, b.c.1675 above) 

2.Alexander Braidwood (b.1707) 

3.John Braidwood (b.1738, Lanarkshire, Scotland - d.1822, Lanarkshire, Scotland) 

4.John Braidwood (b.1772 - d.1860) 

5.John Braidwood (b.1808 - d.1888, Lanarkshire, Scotland) 

6.Alexander Braidwood (b.1838, Lanarkshire, Scotland - d.1917, Midlothian, Scotland) 

7.PRIVATE 

8.PRIVATE 

9.97306 

1.William Braidwood (b.c.1750, Lanark, Scotland) m.Ann Campbell 

2.James Braidwood (b.c.1776) m.Janet Hodgart 1801, Renfrew, Scotland 

3.James Braidwood (b.1805, Renfrew - d.bef.1835, Scotland) m.Helen Hercules 

4.James "Jimmie" Braidwood (b.1832, Renfrew - d.1879, Braidwood, IL) m.Helen Ralston 

5.PRIVATE 

6.PRIVATE 

7.120651 

1.John Braidwood (b.c.1660) m.Jeane Telfeir 

2.Thomas Braidwood (b.c.1680) m.Agnes Meek, Lanarkshire, Scotland 1705 

3.John Braidwood (b.1707, Lanarkshire) m.Christian Lindsay, Lanarkshire 1734 

4.John Braidwood (b.1736, Lanarkshire) m.Catherine Noble, Lanarkshire 1753 

5.John Thomas Braidwood (b.c.1757, Lanarkshire) m.Agnes Law 

6.John Braidwood (b.c.1789, Stirlingshire, Scotland - d.1871) m.Jane Drew 

7.James Braidwood (b.1828, Stirlingshire - d.1909, Perth, Australia) m.Julia McInnes 

8.PRIVATE 

9.PRIVATE 

10.94943 

Page 13 of 26

1.John Braidwood (b.c.1756) 

2.John Braidwood (b.1781, Lanark, Scotland - d.1855, Glasgow) m.Catherine Alexander 

3.John Braidwood (b.1808, Wilsontown, Lanark - d.1878, Glasgow) 

4.John Braidwood (b.1830, Glasgow - d.1896, Paisley, Renfrew, Scotland) 

5.Douglas Braidwood (b.1859, Renfrew - d.1913, Renfrew) m.Ann Murray 

6.PRIVATE 

7.PRIVATE 

8.96524 

As noted above, results on 439 and 464d suggest that 94943 and 96524 may be more closely related to each other than to the 

other Braidwoods. 

* * * 

Bradford Lineages Related to Samuel’s 

Regardless of whether or not the Bradford lineages in this group arose from the Bradfutes of Lanarkshire or as a variation of 

Braidwood, the evidence tends to indicate that the Bradfords share a common ancestor who is more recent than their common 

ancestor with any of the Braidwood lineages. Therefore, tracing any one of the three Bradford lineages offers the possibility 

of uncovering evidence that is more immediately relevant to the other two than any of the Braidwood lineages would be. The 

DNA evidence has thus opened up two fresh lines of inquiry into Samuel Bradford’s immediate origins. 

David Bradford (d.1779, Mecklenberg Co, NC) 

One of my Bradford DNA matches is with a descendant of David Bradford of Mecklenberg Co, NC. David’s earliest 

confirmed location was York County, PA. A letter has survived, dated 9 February 1769, from the minister of Chanceford 

Presbyterian Church in York County, PA, recommending David and his family as good Christians to whatever new 

congregation they might join: 

That the Bearer David Bradford and his wife Mary who left these parts between two and three years ago had lived a 

considerable number of years in the bounds of this united congregation, had enjoyed the enlightening priviledges of 

the church and in respect of their behavior while here they may be received by any Christian society where God in 

his providence has ordered or hereafter may order their lot is certified with confidence of members of session by 

Chanceford Congregation 

The letter suggests that David and Mary left York County around 1766 or 1767. This is confirmed by David’s 1767 purchase 

of a 63-acre tract of land in Baltimore County, Md., which was just south of York County, PA. Three years later, he sold this 

land. It was around this time that he moved to Poplar Tent, North Carolina, in the present-day county of Cabarrus (then 

Mecklenberg County). His will was probated in Mecklenberg County in 1779. 

Further evidence of David Bradford’s York County origins are found in his son James’ Revolutionary War pension 

application, where James states, “I was born in the State of Pennsylvania, York County, in the year 1762.” A manuscript on 

the family that is in the possession of David’s descendants notes the existence of a deed in York County that was recorded in 

1760, stating that David purchased 50 acres from James McCanless. Thus, 1760 in York County, PA, seems to be about as 

far back as David has been reliably traced. 

Some have equated him with the David Bradford who witnessed the will of Gayen Miller in Chester County, PA, in 1742: 

Gayen Miller of Kennett, yeoman. 3/31/1742. August 31, 1742. B. 114. To son William £5. To 4 sons, viz Robert, 

Patrick, Samuel and Benjamin £5 each. To my 2 daughters, viz Sarah wife of Joshua Johnson and Elizabeth wife of 

Joseph Dickinson £5 each. To son James 4 children, viz Sarah, Deborah, James and Jesse 10 shillings each. To 

daughter Mary's 3 children, viz, Saml., James and Mary 10 shillings each. To son Benjamin part of a tract of land by 

Pequea Creek in Lancaster Co now in his possession. To son John the remainder of said tract, estimated to be 250 

acres. To son Josephs widow Jane Miller and her 2 children, Samuel and Rebecca £6. To son George 1/2 of 

plantation where I dwell and the other 1/2 at wifes decease. To wife Margaret all remainder of estate real and 

Page 14 of 26

personal. Executors: wife Margaret, son William and cousin Jas. Miller. Witnesses: Rachel Miller, George Miller, 

David Bradford. 

I am not convinced this attribution is accurate. After all, David is not an uncommon name, so it is possible this was a 

different David Bradford. If David witnessed a will in 1742, that would put his birth sometime before 1721, since he must 

have been at least 21 to witness a legal instrument. Yet David’s oldest known son, James, was born in 1762 in York County. 

This would mean that David didn’t start a family until he was in his 40s. While that is possible, it would be better to have 

some corroborating evidence to place him in Chester County in the 1740s. 

David and Mary had four sons: James, David, Samuel, and Michael. Participant 70953 in the Bradford DNA Project is 

descended from the eldest, James, as follows: 

1.David Bradford (d.1779, Cabarrus Co., NC) 

2.James Bradford (b.1762, PA - d.1844, Cabarrus Co., NC) m.Rachel Hare 

3.John Bradford (b.1812 - d.1878) m.Elizabeth Atwell 

4.Charles Wilson Bradford (b.1854 - d.1894, Mecklenberg Co., NC) m.Harriet Caldwell 

5.PRIVATE 

6.PRIVATE 

7.70953 

* * * 

Giles Bradford (b.1810-1815, GA or SC - d.1898, Putnam Co, TN) 

My other Bradford DNA match is with a descendant of Giles Bradford, who may be traced back through the census to 1850 

Gilmer County, GA. He is likely related (probably as a brother) to a Joseph Bradford and James Bradford who both lived in 

or around Gilmer County. All three men had sons named Giles, which is a relatively rare name. Each of them also had a 

daughter named Lucy, another relatively rare name. It is likely that a certain Lucy Bradford who is listed on the 1860 census 

adjacent to Joseph Bradford, was their mother. She appears to be the same Lucy Bradford who married William Aaron, per a 

marriage record from Forsyth County, GA, dated 9 October 1837. On the 1850 census, William and Lucinda Aaron are found 

next door to Giles Bradford in Gilmer County and later in life she lived in the household of Kessiah Jenkins, her daughter. 

Lucy Bradford appeared on the 1834 list of heads of household in Cherokee County, GA, with 8 whites in her household. 

She was listed as a widow, indicating that Bradford was her married name. 

Most of the above is based on census records relating to this family: 

1880 Census 

Putnam Co., TN Gilmer Co., GA Bartow Co., GA 

Giles Bradford, 68, SC SC SC 

Loucindy Aaron, 90, mother of James Bradford, 66, SC SC SC 

Nancy Bradford, 49, TN NC NC Kessiah Jenkins 

Marinda Bradford, 63 GA GA GA 

Georgianna Bradford, 19, TN SC TN [1 page before] 

(next door) 

Giles Bradford, 18, TN SC TN 

Allen T. Bradford, 24, GA SC GA Mitchell Bradford, 25, GA SC GA 

John Bradford, 6, TN SC TN 

Abby Bradford, 28, GA SC SC 

Kesteram Bradford, 20, GA GA GA 

Sarah A. Bradford, 3, GA GA GA (next door) 

Nancy J. Bradford, 1, GA GA GA Lucy Bradford, 40, GA SC GA 

Lucy L. Bradford, 6/12, GA GA GA 

[next door to] 

Joseph Bradford, 74, SC SC SC 

Mary Bradford, 60, GA GA GA 

Nancy M. Bradford, 28, GA SC GA 

Enoch Bradford, 16, GA SC GA 

Joseph N? Bradford, 14, GA SC GA 

Pharnah[?] Bradford, 12, GA SC GA 

Samuel Bradford, 15, GA GA GA (her son) 

Page 15 of 26

1870 Census 

Putnam Co., TN Gilmer Co., GA Pickens Co., GA 

Giles Bradford, 57, SC 

Jos. Bradford, 53?, SC 

James Bradford, 60, SC 

Caroline Bradford, 58, NC 

Polly Bradford, 46, GA 

Marinda Bradford, 55, SC 

Joseph M. Bradford, 19, GA 

Sarah E. Bradford, 20, GA 

Lucy Bradford, 32, GA 

Florida M. Bradford, 12, GA 

Nancy M. Bradford, 18, GA 

James M. Bradford, 20, GA 

Cansas Bradford, 11, GA 

Rizzy C. Bradford, 17, GA 

Martha Bradford, 18, GA 

George A. Bradford, 10, GA 

Thomas A. Bradford, 15, GA 

Amanda Bradford, 15, GA 

Giles Bradford, 3, TN 

Enoch Bradford, 6, GA 

Mary Bradford, 10, GA 

James Bradford 7/12, TN 

Joseph A. Bradford, 4, GA 

Samuel Bradford, 7, GA 

Farrow Bradford, 5/12, GA 


William C? Bradford, 2, GA 

James Bradford, 21, GA 

[on another page] 

Anne Bradford, 30, GA 

Elmira Bradford, 34, NC 

William Bradford, 1, GA 

Arty Bradford, 6/12, GA 

Mary Odom, 7, GA 

Jeptha M. Bradford, 11, GA 

Lucy Aaron, 75, with 

Kessiah Jenkins 

1860 Census 

Gilmer Co., GA Gilmer Co., GA Pickens Co., GA (just south of Gilmer) 

Giles Bradford, 45, GA 

[adjacent household to Giles] 


Nancy Bradford, 27, NC 

Joseph Bradford, 45, GA 

Marinda Bradford, 46, GA 

Joseph M. Bradford, 9, GA 


Lucinda Bradford, 20, GA 

Florida M. Bradford, 3, GA 


Sarah A. Bradford, 16, GA 

Kansas Bradford, 1, GA 


Giles E. Bradford, 14, GA 


Ransom J? Bradford, 12, GA 

James P. Bradford, 12, GA 

James M. Bradford, 10, GA 

Nancy M. Bradford, 9, GA 


Catharine R. Bradford, 8, GA 

Martha J. Bradford, 6, GA 

Thomas A. Bradford, 5, GA 

William Bradford, 2, GA 


Thomas Bradford, 26, GA 

Lucy Bradford, 60, SC 

John N? Bradford, 4, GA 

1850 Census 

Gilmer Co., GA Walker Co., GA (W of Gilmer) Cherokee Co., (south of Gilmer) 

William Aaron 60 VA 

Joseph Bradford, 38, SC 

James Bradford, 40, SC 

Lucinda Aaron 57 SC 

Polly Bradford, 24, GA 

Marinda Bradford, 36, GA 

Thomas Aaron 18 GA 


Nancy Bradford, 14, GA 

Frances M Aaron 16 GA 

Lucinda R. Bradford, 4, GA 


[adjacent to] 


Anna Bradford, 10, GA 



Joseph Bradford, 8, GA 

Nancy Bradford, 25, GA 

Sarah Bradford, 6, GA 


Rosanna Bradford, 3, GA 

The above information accords with evidence relating to Habersham County, GA. First, a Lucy Bradford is listed on the 

1830 census in Habersham County, GA, with 1 boy under 5, 2 boys 5-10, 1 male 15-20, 1 girl 5-10, and 1 woman 

(presumably Lucy herself) 30-40. On the 1820 census there was no Lucy Bradford listed anywhere in the country, but in 

Habersham County there was a Joseph Bradford with 4 boys under 10, 1 male 16-26, and 1 female 16-26. The general make- 

Page 16 of 26

up of Joseph’s household is what we’d expect to see from Lucy’s, with the addition of the adult male. Furthermore, in the 

1838 Cherokee County land lottery there is a record of 40 acres surveyed for “Joseph Bradford’s Orphans of Field’s District, 

Habersham County:” 

Gilmer and the other counties where Giles and his probable brothers lived were all adjacent to Cherokee County, as depicted 

on the map below. In fact, the eldest of Giles’ probable brothers, James, was living in Cherokee County at the time of the 

1850 census. 

Page 17 of 26

All of the above information points to the following plausible theory of Giles Bradford’s origins: 

Joseph Bradford of Habersham County, GA, died sometime between 1820 and 1830, leaving his widow Lucy and several 

orphaned children, including probably Giles, Joseph, and James Bradford. The other son (Lucy had four on the 1830 census) 

has not yet been identified. Per the 1830 census, Joseph and Lucy seem to have had a daughter, who is most likely the 

Kessiah Jenkins listed on the 1870 and 1880 Gilmer County censuses with Loucindy Aaron in her household. Sometime 

between 1830 and 1834 Lucy resettled in Cherokee County, and Joseph’s orphans later received land in the Cherokee County 

lottery. In 1837, Lucy remarried to William Aaron in Forsyth County. 

In census records, Giles, Joseph, and James all gave either Georgia or South Carolina as their birthplaces. On the 1880 

census, they were all consistent in listing their father’s birthplace as South Carolina. James Bradford appears to be the eldest, 

and census records indicate a birth year between 1810 to 1812. It seems likely that his father would have been born before 

1794, if he was at least 18 when he fathered James. On the 1820 census, Joseph Bradford of Habersham’s age is listed as 

between 16 and 26, which would indicate a birth between 1794 and 1804, so his age fits. 

Given a birth year around 1794 or before, it is theoretically possible that Joseph Bradford of Habersham was a descendant of 

either David Bradford of Mecklenberg or Samuel Bradford of Worcester. Joseph would have been in the generation of their 

grandchildren, since David’s oldest child was born in 1762 and Samuel’s oldest was probably born around the same time. 

Since Joseph Bradford appears to have been born in South Carolina, and since none of Samuel’s children settled anywhere 

near there, it seems a stretch to theorize that Joseph of Habersham is a descendant of Samuel. The same may not necessarily 

be the case with David Bradford, who settled in Poplar Tent, North Carolina, not far (about 40 to 50 miles) from the South 

Carolina border, which is depicted as a yellow line on the following map: 

Page 18 of 26

Of David’s sons (James, David, Samuel, and Michael), James remained in Cabarrus County, NC, and his children all appear 

to be accounted for. David Jr. remained in Cabarrus and did not marry until 1803, after the likely birth of Joseph of 

Habersham. Samuel and his wife Mary died before 1823; their children seem to be accounted for and there is no Joseph 

among them. Michael seems not to have had any children. Thus, Joseph of Habersham can not easily be fitted into the family 

of David of Mecklenberg. However, DNA evidence does suggest that the lineages of Giles and David may be more closely 

related to each other than they are to that of Samuel. This interpretation is dependent on marker CDYb, on which descendants 

of Giles and David share the alternate value 35. However, CDYb is a volatile marker and the possibility that there were 

separate mutations to 35 in their lineages must also be seriously considered. Even if the 35 is a shared mutation, it could very 

well be a mutation that happened prior to David Bradford. 

Participant 23640 in the Bradford DNA Project is a descendant of Giles, as follows: 

?Joseph Bradford (b.c.1794, SC - d.1820-1830, Habersham County, GA) m.Lucy 

1.Giles Bradford (d.c.1815, GA or SC - d.1898, Putnam Co, TN) m.Nancy Caroline Underwood 

2.Joseph Marion Bradford (b.1851, Gilmer Co, GA - d.1944, Putnam Co, TN) 

3.PRIVATE 

4.PRIVATE 

5.23640 

It would be worthwhile to test the Y DNA of descendants of Giles’ probable brothers, James Bradford and Joseph Bradford, 

to see if the theory of their relatedness holds up. 

* * * 

Creating a Profile for Samuel Bradford’s Origins 

Location and Time 

Given David Bradford’s earliest known locations in York County, PA, and Baltimore County, MD, and Samuel Bradford’s 

earliest location in Worcester County, MD, it may be that their common ancestor lived in the general area, as depicted on the 

following map. Thus, an origin in the region of Maryland, Delware, southeastern PA, and southern NJ might be favored. 

Since Samuel was in Worcester County by the age of 

15, in the 1750s, and since David was in York County 

by 1760, the focus should probably be on the period 

prior to 1750/1760. 

Nationality/Religion/Ethnicity 

The Braidwood DNA match indicates that these 

Bradfords probably had an ultimate origin in 

Scotland. Therefore, it is probably best to pay 

particular attention to Bradfords with known Scottish 

or Scots-Irish origins. Similarly, if a particular 

Bradford family can be shown to be of English origin, 

they may probably either be ruled out or given less 

priority. 

Possibility for Surname Variation 

Alternate versions of the Bradford surname should 

not be overlooked. Since it is likely that Samuel’s 

ancestors were either Braidfutes or Braidwoods, it is 

possible that there was a period during which 

pronunciation and spelling of the surname may have 

been in flux. Other members of the same family may 

have ended up with slightly different surnames as a 

result. 

Page 19 of 26

More on Samuel Bradford’s Scottish or Scots-Irish Origins 

Before the Braidwood DNA match, I hadn’t given much thought to the idea of a Scottish or Scots-Irish origin for Samuel. 

The probable Scottish origin as revealed by the Braidwood match suddenly cast a great deal of old evidence in a new light. 

In the late 1800s, Horace Standish Bradford of New York struck up a correspondence with several grandchildren of Samuel’s 

son Adam; he was searching for descendants of Governor William Bradford of Plymouth. One of Adam’s grandsons, Josiah 

Bradford, told Horace, “I hardly think that I am of Puritan origin I think my great-grandfather came from England and was of 

Irish descent.” 

He seemed clearly aware that there might be Irish heritage in his Bradford line. There is also evidence from Samuel’s own 

life that hints at a possible Scottish or Scots-Irish connection. In Samuel’s youth, probably sometime in the 1750s, he may 

have been a tenant or a servant of the Spence family, one of the more prominent Presbyterian families in the county. [See my 

work on Samuel Bradford’s life for discussion of the evidence that suggests this.] The founder of this Spence family, Adam 

Spence, was a Presbyterian of Scottish ancestry and served as a commissioner in 1711 to the Philadelphia presbytery. There 

is also evidence to suggest that Samuel’s son William may be identified as that William Bradford who died around 1810 in 

Worcester County. This William’s wife and children had close ties to the Spence family after William’s death. Going on the 

theory that people of the same nationality and religion tended to stick together, this hints at a possible Scottish or Scots-Irish 

ancestry for Samuel. 

Were Samuel Bradford’s Parents in Worcester County? 

When it comes to the origins of Snow Hill Sam, no question is more immediate than the identity of his parents. One of the 

most basic questions that can be asked is whether or not they appeared in any of the records of Worcester County. Were they 

hiding in plain sight? 

Here’s what we know. According to a deposition he gave in 1799, Samuel was residing in the county at the age of 15. Since 

he was born no later than 1744, that means he was living in the county by about 1759, and possibly before. Identifying all the 

Bradfords who are mentioned in any county records prior to this date is fairly straightforward, because there are not many 

records to speak of. There are probate records associated with John Bradford (son of Nathaniel of Accomack) in 1753 and 

John’s son Nathaniel in 1759, and there are a handful of land records relating to St Martins Desert, the tract owned by John 

Bradford and bequeathed to his sons. In addition to these records, there are records from Buckingham church, which was an 

Episcopalian church, that contain a few references to John’s family. Finally, there are the Somerset County tax lists, which 

provide the earliest evidence relating to any Bradfords in the county. 

The Somerset County tax lists exist from 1723 up until 1740 for the period prior to the creation of Worcester County in 1743. 

During this time, there were only 4 males definitely named Bradford listed in the county: namely, John Bradford (son of 

Nathaniel of Accomack) and his 3 sons, Nathaniel, William, and John. Yet DNA evidence indicates that Samuel is not 

descended from any of these men. Since the tax lists are assumed to be comprehensive of all taxable adult males, it follows 

that Samuel either came into the county after 1740 or his family was in the county before 1740 and going by a different 

surname. 

Page 20 of 26

Adam Brawford of Somerset County 

In addition to the Bradfords descended from Nathaniel of Accomack, there was a man living in Worcester County whose 

surname appears to have been Brawford, which is a name that was sometimes Anglicized to Bradford. This was Adam 

Brawford, the inventory of whose estate was recorded on 16 August 1742. In the inventory, it was noted that none of his kin 

were to be found in the county. Adam appears to have died young, but since he was married (his widow Comfort Brawford is 

mentioned) it is possible he left some children behind. This Adam Brawford appeared on the Somerset County tax lists from 

1730 to 1740; his name is consistently spelled Adam Bradford on the transcriptions of the tax lists that are available at the 

MD Hall of Records website. However, this is a standardized spelling adopted by the current-day transcribers. It appears to 

be based on a variety of original spellings that have been transcribed as follows: Bredfoott, Brawfoot, Bradford, Braford. 

These are themselves transcriptions from original manuscripts that are extremely difficult to read, so we might be most 

comfortable sticking with the spelling used in the inventory of his estate, Brawford. Still, it may be noteworthy that the first 

spelling of the name as transcribed, Bredfoott, is quite close to Braidfute/Braidwood and that the name Bradford specifically 

turned up as a variant of his surname in the transcriptions. The variety of spellings evidenced from the transcriptions may be 

evidence of a surname pronounced with an unfamiliar regional accent. 

Adam Brawford appears to be the only man in Somerset or Worcester County records who could possibly have been Samuel 

Bradford’s father. He died between 1740 and 1742, so it is clear that he was old enough to have fathered Samuel, who was 

born before 1744. It is also clear that he was not related to the Bradfords of Accomack, since in the inventory of his estate it 

was noted that none of his kin were to be found in the county. If Samuel was Adam’s son, then Samuel would have been a 

young orphan when Adam died, so it would not be surprising to find him as a servant of the Spences or Robertsons at the age 

of 15, as suggested by the evidence. In light of that, it is interesting that on the 1739 tax list Adam Braford is listed just two 

households away from Wm. Robinson and three households away from Adam Spence. The Brawford spelling also happens 

to resonate with evidence relating to Samuel’s own life. Samuel’s name is spelled Braford, not Bradford, on the oath of 

fidelity in 1778, one of the earliest records in which he appears. It may also be noteworthy that Samuel Bradford named one 

of his sons Adam, which was a fairly rare given name. [For example, the 1740 Somerset County tax list reveals only 8 men 

named Adam living in the county at that time.] There is also evidence to suggest that Adam Brawford may have had a 

Scottish or Scots-Irish background. From 1730 to 1735, he was a dependent in the households of Samuel Hopkins and 

Edward Round, both from prominent Presbyterian families of Somerset County. 

There is certainly a compelling case to be made that Adam Brawford may have been the father of Snow Hill Sam. At the very 

least, it warrants including Brawford among the variant spellings under consideration. I could find no instances of the 

Brawford surname among the pre-1800 records contained at scotlandspeople.gov.uk. However, I found record of at least two 

Brawford families of Scots-Irish origin that immigrated to America. This probably indicates that Brawford was a specifically 

Irish variant of a Scottish surname. This is precisely the sort of origin predicted for our Bradford surname – that it arose in 

Ireland as a variant of the Scottish Braidwood or Braidfute. 

Other Irish Brawfords: Samuel Brawford of Augusta Co, VA 

One of the earliest Scots-Irish Brawford families in America was that of Samuel Brawford of Augusta County, VA, who 

appears throughout Chalkley’s Scotch-Irish Settlement in Virginia. This man’s family, whose surname is variously 

transcribed in Chalkley as Brafford, Bradford, Brawford, and Braford, was in Augusta County, Virginia, as early as 1748. 

Samuel Brawford married Ann Spottswood and left a will in Augusta dated 1787 and proved in 1789, naming daughters 

Mary, Ann, Rachel, and Elizabeth, and sons John, James, Hugh, and Samuel. 

The presence of this Scots-Irish family in the Virginia backcountry is interesting in light of Snow Hill Sam’s possible 

relationship with Adam Brawford. In his account of the origins of Samuel Bradford, Vance Bradford wrote: 

“Older members of our family had said that Peter and Adam, sons of our Samuel, left Snow Hill before the death of 

their father, to join relatives in old Orange Co, VA.” 

My grandfather never specified exactly whom he meant by “older members of our family,” and it is unclear what these older 

members might have based their knowledge on. Much of the information on Adam Bradford (Samuel’s son) came from Lucy 

Routt (Bradford) Duncan, who was Adam’s granddaughter, so perhaps she was the one who passed down this information. 

The objective evidence certainly suggests that Peter and Adam had left Worcester County by 1790, since they do not appear 

to be listed with their father on the census of that year. At one point Orange County, VA, encompassed the entire Virginian 

Appalachian backcountry, from which Augusta was created in 1738. It may be that the “old Orange County” in the family 

Page 21 of 26

tradition is simply a stand-in for “the Appalachian backcountry.” I hesitate to suggest that Peter and Adam were joining this 

particular Brawford family in the Virginia backcountry. For one thing, there is no evidence of Peter or Adam in Augusta 

County. Adam appears in Washington County, VA, in 1796, when he married Nancy Cole; but this was in the southwestern 

corner of the state, not near Augusta. Then again, during the 1790s people were constantly on the move all over the 

backcountry, so it is impossible to say where he was between 1790 and 1796. Adam himself would eventually move from 

southwestern Virginia into Kentucky, and then farther west into Missouri before he died. Peter moved to Kentucky with his 

brother, and then went back east to Somerset County, PA. If anyone ever manages to track Adam’s and Peter’s movements in 

the 1790s, it could prove valuable to the search for Samuel’s parents. 

It may be notable that in 1751 a man named Peter Bradford received a grant of land in present day Berkeley County, WV, 

very close to the MD/VA border. This Peter Bradford was also in the area as a witness with Nicholas Mercer and John 

Lemon to the 1748 will of Anna Lilburn. Other than the given name, there is nothing to suggest a relationship to Samuel 

Bradford of Worcester. 

Regarding the “old Orange County” story - if it is true, it has to be noted that it’s just as likely that Peter and Adam were 

joining relatives on their mother’s side – i.e., not Bradfords. 

Irish Brawfords: Samuel Brawford of South Carolina 

I found evidence of another Irish Brawford named Samuel who migrated to America in the mid-18 th century. This was 

Samuel Brawford who migrated from Ireland to South Carolina on the ship Betty Gregg in 1768. With him were Jane, 

William, Margaret, Thomas, Elizabeth, and Samuel Brawford, presumably his wife and children. The South Carolina 

location is interesting in light of the fact that Joseph Bradford of Habersham (probable father of Giles Bradford) was born in 

South Carolina around 1794. 

Both of the above Brawford families arrived to late for Adam Brawford to have been their direct descendant. However, 

given the persistence of the given name Samuel in both families, they are probably worth a closer look and it would be 

valuable to test the DNA of men from their lines. 

* * * 

Other Scots-Irish Bradfords: Whiskey Rebellion Bradfords 

In the 1898 volume of Egle’s Notes and Queries, there is a section on David Bradford of the Whiskey Rebellion: 

FAMILY OF DAVID BRADFORD 

The Leader of the So-Called Whisky Insurrection 

I. David Bradford, son of James, of David, of Samuel, an emigrant who settled on the headwaters of the 

Elk, Cecil county, Maryland (this descent to David is not positive, but reported only), m.Elizabeth 

Porter. His father, James Bradford, removed to Washington county, Pennsylvania, in 1773, with his 

wife, Ann Hamilton, where were b.James, David, Mary m.James Allison, and another daughter who 

married John McDowell. David Bradford d. in Louisiana. His wife, Elizabeth d. September 9, 1831. 

According to Boyd Crumrine’s History of Washington County, Pennsylvania, James Bradford (father of David Bradford of 

Whiskey Rebellion fame) was a native of Ireland. Here are some excerpts from the book, as they appear at 

http://www.chartiers.com/crumrine/twp-nstrabane.html#source: 

John McDowell was a native of Ireland, born a few miles from Belfast on the 23d of September, 1736. When a 

young man he emigrated to this country, and settled near Elizabethtown, N. J., where he married Agnes Bradford, 

daughter of James Bradford, and sister of David Bradford, whose history is so well known in connection with the 

Whiskey Insurrection of 1794. In company with the Scotts, Allisons, and other families, they emigrated west of the 

mountains in 1773, and settled on the waters of Chartiers Creek, in what is now Washington County. 

James Bradford was a native of Ireland, who came to Washington [County, PA] in 1784, and obtained a warrant for 

a tract of land which was surveyed as " Montgomery," and contained three hundred and six acres, adjoining land of 

Robert Hamilton and Samuel Stewart. Several of his children had married and settled in the county prior to his 

coming. He lived on this farm till his death. On the 26th of December, 1788, he sold one hundred and ninety-one 

Page 22 of 26

acres of the tract to his son James, who was afterwards one of the elders of Chartiers Presbyterian Church. His son, 

the Hon. John Bradford, of Bell Brook, Greene Co., Ohio, is still living at ninety years of age. 

The family of Jane Bradford’s husband James Allison was settled near Elkton, MD, in Cecil County, where it is also 

supposed that their marriage took place. Tom Hart, who is working on a book about David Bradford’s life and his role in the 

Whiskey Rebellion, was kind enough to share some information he had gathered on his family. He stated that James 

Bradford (father of Whiskey Dave) and his wife Janet moved in 1758 to the northeastern part of Cecil County, Md., near 

Peach Bottom (apparently at Charlestown) on the Susquehanna. I have also seen accounts of this family posted online that 

include other children in James and Janet’s family (in addition to David, Agnes, and Jane), namely Thomas, Margaret, and 

James. Other than Crimrine’s History of Washington County, I have yet to see the source for any of this other information 

related to James Bradford’s family. 

In any case, the Cecil County location is interesting in light of the following . . . 

Samuel Bradford of Cecil County, MD 

In his summary of the “Ongoing Quest for our Elusive ‘Snow Hill’ Sam”, Vance Bradford noted: 

On our prior search in Boston we had found some records of a Samuel Bradford, said to have come to America from 

England by way of Ireland, to first settle in Elkton, MD, at the head of the Chesapeake Bay. He then moved from 

Elkton to Connellsville, Pa. where his wife, Sarah, died. The account gives no dates at all. 

This accords with information given to me by Tom Hart about an article copied from the Washington, PA, library stating that 

Samuel Bradford of Cecil County was born in Ireland and married Sarah Bradford (no relation). The article apparently notes 

that they emigrated to America about the middle of the eighteenth century and settled in Cecil County, Md, “near the head of 

the Elk” (i.e., near Elkton), and then removed to Westmoreland Co, Pa, now Fayette Co, and that both Samuel and Sarah are 

buried at Broad Ford in Fayette County. Broad Ford is near Connesllville, PA, a location mentioned in the account given 

above by Vance Bradford, so this article mentioned by Tom Hart from the Washington PA library is likely the same article 

Vance Bradford saw in Massachusetts, or at least contains the same information. I have yet to locate these articles. 

I have seen some online sources that claim this Samuel Bradford of Cecil County was brother of James Bradford (father of 

Whiskey Dave) and that Samuel’s son William had a hand in the Whiskey Rebellion, holding up a mail coach. I have not yet 

verified this information. To confuse matters, some claim that Sarah, the wife of Samuel Bradford of Elkton, was the 

daughter of an unrelated Bradford, Samuel Bradford of New Castle Co, DE (see below), which is adjacent to Cecil County. 

Some sources claim Samuel of Cecil had three children other than William, namely Rebecca, David, and Jane. The Jefferson 

College Historical Society in Canonsburg, PA, is given as a source for some of the information about Samuel Bradford of 

Cecil County. 

Robert Bradford of Greene County, PA 

Tom Hart also passed along to me information about the family of a Robert Bradford who died in 1802 in Greene County, 

PA. Greene County was carved out of Washington Co, PA, where the families of James Bradford and Whiskey Dave settled. 

Tom lists Robert’s children as Thomas, Elizabeth, John, William, Dianah, and James, all with birth dates in the 1750s and 

1760s. 

Almost all of the above information is unconfirmed, and there is clearly a lot of work to be done sorting out all the threads 

among these Whiskey Rebellion Bradfords and finding solid evidence in favor of the relationships involved. It seems worth 

the effort, because their Scots-Irish background, the repeated use of the names James, David, and Samuel, and their locations 

in Pennsylvania and Maryland make them good candidates for being kin to Snow Hill Sam and David of Mecklenberg. It 

would be ideal if descendants of these Bradfords could also be found for DNA testing, since if they turn out to not be a match 

it could spare us a great deal of unnecessary research. 

* * * 

Page 23 of 26

Bradfords of New Castle County, DE 

At first glance, the Bradfords of New Castle County, DE, seem to be a very plausible source for Samuel’s origins. They have 

several things going for them, including the presence of the given name Samuel in the family and the fact that New Castle 

County is on the Delmarva peninsula not far from both Worcester County, MD, and York County, PA. 

The family can be reconstructed based on the will records of New Castle County. The first of the family was a Samuel 

Bradford whose first appearance of record that has been identified so far was his purchase of land in New Castle County in 

1740 from William Carpenter. Subsequently, Samuel left a will in New Castle dated 31 December 1763 and proved 20 April 

1767, naming a wife Margaret, daughters Sarah and Martha, a son William, and a grandson Samuel whom he further 

identifies as “son of Wm Bradford.” The grandson appears to be the Samuel Bradford who died in 1774 in New Castle 

County, so he cannot be equated with Samuel Bradford of Worcester County. 

Interestingly, there appears to be a familial connection between this family and Samuel Bradford of Cecil County, MD, 

discussed above. After his father Samuel’s death, William Bradford of New Castle was forced to sell off some of his father’s 

land in order pay the debts of the estate. He sold the land to a certain Samuel Bradford of Cecil County. In a deed dated 18 

March 1768, it is mentioned that the land was sold on 15 March 1768 in a public sale to “Samuel Bradford then of the said 

County [i.e., New Castle] but now of Cecil County and province of Maryland.” It is known that this Samuel Bradford had a 

wife named Sarah, because in a deed dated 22 March 1768, Samuel and Sarah sold back to William the land he had sold to 

them to pay of his father’s debts. In both deeds the price was the same, meaning that William Bradford effectively purchased 

the land from himself, selling it first to Samuel and three days later purchasing it back. This may have been done to break an 

entail on the land. This Samuel Bradford might be the same Samuel Bradford with wife Sarah who was mentioned earlier as 

perhaps being connected to the Whiskey Rebellion Bradfords. It is not established that he was related to the Bradfords of 

New Castle County, DE, although it’s otherwise hard to imagine any other reason for the above land transaction to have 

taken place between him and William. Several sources (as mentioned above) claim that Sarah, wife of Samuel Bradford of 

Cecil County, was the daughter of Samuel Bradford of New Castle, but I have yet to see the evidence that would merit this 

assertion. If seems frankly more plausible to me that Samuel of Cecil was really kin to the Bradfords of New Castle County. 

The Samuel Bradford who was grandson of the original Samuel Bradford of New Castle is known to have belonged to the 

Immanuel Church, which was Episcopalian. For this reason, we might want to discount this family as being related to Samuel 

Bradford of Worcester County. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that he had the same religion as his grandfather. 

There appears to have been another Bradford family in New Castle, though they do not show up in land or probate records. 

The Old Swedes Church in Wilmington has marriage records for David Bradford and Rosannah Shepard in 1744 and Elia 

(possibly Elias) Bradford and Susanna Peters in 1745. Though founded as a Lutheran church by the original Swedish 

colonists, it became Episcopalian after the English took over the colony. I have found no other trace of David or Elia 

Bradford, although the marriage date for David Bradford and Rosannah Shepard would be consistent with the David 

Bradford who witnessed the will of Gaven Miller in Chester County, PA, in 1740. 

* * * 

Brevard/Bravard 

A family named Brevard or Bravard was found in Worcester County, Md, during the period when Samuel Bradford was 

resident there. The first of the family to appear is Adam Brevard, who was on the Somerset County tax lists in 

Bogerternorton Hundred from 1735 to 1740. In Old Somerset on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, Clayton Torrence identifies 

the Brevard family as among the Presbyterians in the area prior to 1700, although I have not seen the evidence for the family 

in the area prior to 1735. 

The family certainly appears to be Presbyterian judging from the will of Adam Bravard, who bequeathed 15 pounds to the 

Buckingham Congregation of the Presbyterian Church. In his will (dated 9 November 1782 and proved 15 February 1783), 

he did not name his wife, but named a son John Bravard and a daughter Esther Hudson. His wife may have been Mary 

Bravard (8 July 1786 – 17 April 1789), who named daughters Rachel and Esther Hudson in her will. 

I had previously not paid much attention to this family, because their name was fairly consistently spelled Brevard or Bravard 

and there were no apparent ties between them and any of the Bradfords of Worcester County, including Samuel. However, 

the Cecil County connections discussed above (between the Whiskey Rebellion Bradfords and the New Castle County, DE, 

Page 24 of 26

Bradfords), as well as David Bradford of Mecklenberg’s earlier location in York County, PA, right across the border from 

Cecil, prompted a renewed interest. Having searched Cecil County land record indices for some hint of Samuel Bradford of 

Cecil, I came across numerous references to a Benjamin Brevard whose name was sometimes also spelled Benjamin 

Bradford in the land record indices. This Benjamin Brevard was prominent in the county. He was a representative of Cecil 

County to the Maryland Constitutional Convention of 1776 and his family is discussed at some length in Henry C. Peden’s 

Marylanders to Carolina: 

The first one of the name of whom anything is known was a Huguenot who fled from France on the revocation of 

the Edict of Nantes in 1685, and settled among the Scotch-Irish in the northern part of Ireland. He there formed the 

acquaintance of a family of McNitts, and with them set sail for the American shores. One of the Brevards married a 

McKnitt (no names given) and settled on the Elk River in [Cecil County] Maryland. The issue of their marriage 

were: John Brevard, Robert Brevard, Zebulon Brevard, Benjamin Brevard, Adam Brevard, and Elizabeth Brevard.” 

The three elder brothers, with their sister and her husband, went to North Carolina between 1740 and 1750. 

Peden lists the sources for this information as C. L. Hunter’s Sketches of North Carolina and Rev. Jethro Rumple’s A History 

of Rowan County, North Carolina. 

Some sources have claimed that the Adam Brevard mentioned in Peden’s account may be identified as Adam Brevard of 

Worcester County, however I have never seen any evidence adduced for the assertion. There are numerous accounts of this 

family published on the internet, with many conflicting dates associated. 

* * * 

Cecil County Sources 

By the time of the tax assessment of 1783, the only men with Bradford-like surnames in Cecil County were Benjamin 

Bravard and Thomas Bravard. Benjamin Bravard (under the spelling Bradford) is mentioned as a witness to three wills in the 

Maryland Calendar of Wills, from 1737 to 1741: 

McManus (Macmanus), John,Cecil Co.,30th Jan., 1737; 16th Feb., 1737. To John Campbell and Joshua. George and 

their hrs., real estate, on condition they pay creditors certain personalty. Exs.: Wife —– and John Campbell. Test: 

John Baldwin, Benjamin Bradford, John Winterbery (Winterberry). N. B. Probate taken in presence of Brian 

Egleson, nephew of dec'd. 21. 853. 

Copson, John, major,Cecil Co.,15th Apr., 1740; 20th Apr., 1740. Rachel Smith, Margaret Eaton, William Klinouth 

took oath that on Tuesday, 15th of Apr. 1740, they did hear Maj. John Copson of Cecil Co., ask Thomas Hughes to 

be his ex. with Col. Colvill and Capt. Paca. Benjamin Bradford takes oath that on the 14th of Apr. he saw Major 

Copson with Col. Colvill and Robert Story, Jethro Brown and at this time Maj. Copson had made no will but sd. that 

he depended on Col. Colvill to be his ex. 22. 192. 

Irwin, James,Cecil Co.,—– —– —–; 31st Dec., 1741. To child —— of test. and Peggy Patterson, £40. To Peggy 

Patterson, £11. To grandson James Mayberry, residue of estate, the interest of this to go to dau. Rose Mayberry 

during minority of sd. James. Should he die without hrs. this estate to pass to child. —— of Rose, afsd. Ex.: Francis 

Mayberry. Test: Benjamin Bradford. 22. 432. 

A James Bradford is mentioned in a few Cecil County records; he is presumably the man earlier identified as the father of 

David Bradford of the Whiskey Rebellion. He was a witness to the will of Sarah Bass, widow of John Bass of Cecil County: 

Bass, Sarah, relict of John Bass,Cecil Co.,22nd Jan., 1737-8; 6th Feb., 1737. 

To dau. Elizabeth, ls. To son Joseph, ex., residue of estate. Test: Stephen Darbyshire, Samuell Davis, Joseph Clift, 

James Bradford. 21. 849. 

He was also witness to a bill of sale in 1743 from David Payne to Joseph Court. Two years later, in 1745, he sold what looks 

like it could be a substantial portion of his worldly possessions to Henry Baker. 

Page 25 of 26

Talbot County 

In Talbot County, Maryland, there is record of a marriage between James Bradford and Martha Cornish on 26 September 

1728 and a child, James Bradford, born to them on 24 October 1729. 

* * * 

The following map depicts some of the locations discussed above in context with those areas where the families of Samuel 

Bradford of Worcester (depicted with a red S) and David Bradford of Mecklenberg (depicted with a red D) were known to 

have lived. Locations having to do with the Whiskey Rebellion Bradfords are depicted with a green star. 

* * * 

Various Discounted Leads 

Since it is likely that Samuel Bradford came from a family of Scottish or Scots-Irish descent, we can probably rule out his 

descent from several families who might otherwise be seen as candidates due to location. 

Bradfords of Harford County, MD 

There was a fairly prominent Bradford family living in Harford County, MD, during the 18 th century. They appear to be 

descended from John Bradford, a merchant of London. John’s grandson William Bradford (1739-1794) was a member of the 

Committee of Safety for Harford County during the Revolution. William’s grandson, Augustus W. Bradford, was governor 

of Maryland during the Civil War. Since this family was from England, they may probably be ruled out as relatives of 

Samuel Bradford. 

William Bradford, printer of Philadelphia 

A biography of this distinguished early American may be found in Henry Simpson’s Lives of Eminent Philadelphians, Now 

Deceased. William Bradford was born a Quaker in 1658 in Leicester, England. He emigrated to Pennsylvania in 1682, and 

lived in both New York City and in Philadelphia for a time. His English birth tends to rule him out as an ancestor of Snow 

Hill Sam. 

Page 26 of 26

Samuel Bradford's origins - Lower Delmarva Bradfords

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?