EARLIEST ANCESTORS OF RECORD DNA
Following are the earliest Baldwin ancestors of record for each family represented by a sample:

BAL 1: Eli Baldwin, born Pennsylvania ca 1790, resided Lima, Middletown Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 1850-1870.

BAL 2: Francis1 Baldwin, born Oxfordshire, resided Chester County, Pennsylvania, and New Castle County, Delaware [but differences in DNA haplogroups rule out biological relationships to BAL 8, 

BAL 15, BAL 16, BAL 54, and BAL 61, all with record ancestry to Francis].

BAL 3: Baldwin, born Philadelphia , Pennsylvania, ca 1900.

BAL 4: Thomas Baldwin, born about 1780 (Massachusetts, in son’s1850 census entry), living Indiana ca 1812 when son Ezekiel Clark Baldwin was born.

BAL 5: James Baldwin, born ca 1775 New Jersey, married in Kentucky ca 1799.

BAL 6: Joseph Baldwin, born ca 1770 Pennsylvania, resided Butler County, Ohio, in association with his brothers William, BAL 11, Thomas, BAL 12, and Elias, BAL 22, then in Fayette County, Indiana, where he died in 1845, nut t.heir parents have not been identified..

BAL 7: Richard Baldwin, living Leeds, Yorkshire, 1778. Sample not yet returned.

BAL 8, 16: William Baldwin, b. 1716 near Philadelphia, resided Frederick County, Virginia, now Berkeley County, West Virginia. By early family tradition, descended from the immigrant Baldwin brother who lived in Delaware (so probably of the third generation, through Thomas2, son of the miller Francis1, who was baptized Oxfordshire 1667, resided Chester County, Pa., and New Castle County, Delaware, where he died 1702). See also related families BAL 15, 54, & 61, below.

BAL 9: William Baldwin, resided Ashtabula County, Ohio after 1810, believed to have been from Milford, Connecticut area.

BAL 10: Amos Baldwin, born Virginia ca 1794, resided Mercer, Green and Taylor Counties, Kentucky, 1820-1850.

BAL 11: William A. Baldwin, born 1781 Pennsylvania, resided Ross Township, Butler County, Ohio, 1820; died Montgomery County, Indiana, 1832, through his son William Crooks Baldwin, born 1809. The son described Indiana Baldwin, daughter of Thomas (BAL 12), as his cousin in an affidavit, strongly suggesting that William and Thomas were brothers. They remained closely associated through moves from Ohio to Indiana, as were two other Baldwin men whose relationships to them have not been documented—Joseph Baldwin (ca 1770-1845, BAL 6), and Elias (1772-1856, BAL 22). See BAL 25, same ancestor.

BAL 12: Thomas Baldwin, born 1783 Pennsylvania, resided Ross Township, Butler County, Ohio, 1810; Clermont County, Ohio, 1820,  Montgomery County, Indiana after 1839, then in Cass (later Carroll) County, Indiana, where he died in 1854, through son William Alonzo and grandson Alonzo Delray. See BAL 11, above.

BAL 13: Sylvester Baldwin of Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire, who died on the 1638 voyage to Massachusetts, through his son John Baldwin of Stonington, Connecticut, baptized Aston Clinton 1635. Sylvester’s older son Richard settled in Milford, Connecticut (see BAL 30, below).

BAL 14: Nathaniel Baldwin, free planter of Milford, Connecticut, 1639. He and immigrant brothers Timothy, also of Milford, and Joseph, of Hadley, Massachusetts, were sons of Richard Baldwin, weaver, of Cholesbury, Buckinghamshire, who died 1631. The 37-marker haplotype of this sample represents the most frequently occurring marker values (the modal values) for the Cluster 1 Buckinghamshire Baldwin family. 

BAL 15: Francis1 Baldwin, baptized 1667 Swerford, Oxfordshire, son of William living 1657 at Hook Norton, through John2 and  Francis3, resided 1682-1690 Chester County, Pennsylvania, and 1691-1702 New Castle County, Delaware, where he died. See related families BAL 54, and BAL 8 & 16

BAL 16: Same documented line as BAL 8, above.

BAL 17: Joseph Baldwin, taxed 1749-1771 Chester (now Delaware) County, Pennsylvania; resided 1773-1794 Loudon County, Virginia, then in Shenandoah (later Warren) County, Virginia. Probably a son of Joseph, a Philadelphia cooper, and grandson of John, carpenter and ferryman of Neshaminy, Bucks County, who came with early Quaker settlers from Buckinghamshire.

BAL 18: Armstead Baldwin, born about 1796 in North Carolina, married 1819 in Lincoln County, North Carolina.

BAL 19: Joseph Baldwin, born 1785 in Georgia, died 1830 Madison County, Alabama.

BAL 20. Elisha Baldwin, born about 1742 in Wilkes County, Morgan District, North Carolina.

BAL 21: John Baldwin “the Quaker,” claimed headright 1649 Northampton County, Virginia; received patent 1650 in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

BAL 22: Elias Baldwin, born 1772 in Pennsylvania, resided 1808 Butler County, Ohio, died 1856 Montgomery County, Indiana. He was associated throughout his life with Joseph, BAL 6; William, 

BAL 11; and Thomas, BAL 12, and their relationship as broters established, but their parents have not been identified.

BAL 23: Awaiting ancestral data

BAL 24: John Baldwin “the Quaker,” see BAL 21.

BAL 25: William A. Baldwin, born 1781 Pennsylvania, resided 1820 Ross Township, Butler County, Ohio, died 1832 Montgomery County, Indiana, through his son Thomas Baldwin, born 1807. See 

BAL 11, same ancestor.

BAL 26: Thomas William Baldwin, born about 1875 Atlanta, Georgia. Predicted Haplogroup Q3 is distinctively native American.

BAL 27: Henry Baldwin “the Mariner,” born about 1700, of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, through his grandson Henry, born 1753. The sample is included in Cluster 3 only tentatively; with a 14-step genetic distance at nine markers, it is not closely related to the others..

BAL 28: Awaiting ancestral data

BAL 29: Isaac Baldwin, born 1780-84 Pennsylvania, resided 1819 Clarington, Monroe County, Ohio, died 1848.

BAL 30: Sylvester Baldwin of Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire, who died on the 1638 voyage to Massachusetts, through his older son Richard, baptized 1622 Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire, settled in Milford, Connecticut. Sylvester’s younger son John (BAL 13) settled in Stonington, Connecticut.

BAL 31: Ezekiel Baldwin, born about 1749, resided Essex County, New Jersey, through his son Lucas, who married 1795 in present West Virginia and died in Ohio before 15 June 1845.

BAL 32: Samuel T. Boldon, born 1796 Maryland or Pennsylvania, died 1885 Vernon County, Wisconsin.

BAL 33: Samuel Baldwin, born 1756, through son Samuel, born about 1789, and the latter’s son Levi, born 1805 and married 1827 Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

BAL 34: Gilbert Baldwin, born Vermont or possibly Dutchess County, New York 1795, to Ohio by 1830, died Laporte County, Indiana 1836.

BAL 35: Awaiting ancestral data

BAL 36: William J. Baldwin, born Ashtabula County, Ohio, about 1825, died Kaufman County, Texas, 1899.

BAL 37: Ezekiel Clark Baldwin, born Indiana 1810. Same ancestry as BAL 4.

BAL 38:  Solomon Baldwin, born Scott or Lee County, Virginia, 1810, through son Jarvis (1843-1911). This line and BAL 39, following, both match several lines in the Maness Family project at 36 of 37 markers, much more closely than they match other Baldwin lines.

BAL 39:  Solomon Baldwin, born Scott or Lee County, Virginia, 1810, through son Alexander (1834-1895). See BAL 38.

BAL 40: Half-sibling, not Baldwin-related. Results not shown

BAL 41:  Henry Baldwin “the Mariner,” born about 1700, of Anne Arundel County Maryland, through grandson James. Sample not yet returned.

BAL 42:  John Baldwin, born before 1725, died Ashe County, North Carolina, 1794, through son Elisha.

BAL 43:  Awaiting ancestral data

BAL 44:  Thomas Baldwin of Montgomery County, Maryland, married Margaret Sparrow, to Kentucky 1800, through son John, born 1797.

BAL 45:  Thomas1 Baldwin, born 1657 Hook Norton, Oxfordshire, son of William and Mary, to Chester County, Pennsylvania, with brothers John and Francis, 1682, through his son Anthony.   

BAL 46:  Charles Baldwin, born Delaware 1839, awarded Medal of Honor December 1864 for Civil War valor.

BAL 47:  John T. Baldwin, born 1889 Chattanooga, Tennessee.  Awaiting lab results

BAL 48:  George W. Pitman, born Gwinett County, Georgia, about 1837, believed to have been born a Baldwin but connection unknown.

BAL 49:  Thomas Baldwin, born Virginia about 1804, farming Roanoke County, Virginia, 1850, through son James Polk Baldwin, born 1847.

BAL 50:  Baldwin male-line ancestry unknown.

BAL 51:  Daniel Baldwin, in Ashtabula County, Ohio, by 1840.

BAL 52:  John Baldwin, born Kentucky about 1803, in Lafayette County, Mississippi, 1841, when son Henry was born, died Texas after 1870.

BAL 53:  Awaiting ancestral data.

BAL 54:  Same record line as BAL 8, above; Richard R. Baldwin, 1930-2000, adopted by Ondras stepfather.

BAL 55:  Jefferson Baldwin/Baulding, born Paulding County, Georgia, about 1856.

BAL 56:  Nathaniel Baldwin, bom Cholesbury, Buckinghamshire, 1610, to Connecticut 1639 {see BAL 14).

BAL 57: Awaiting sample return. Awaiting ancestral data.

BAL 58: Jonathan Baldwin, born 1769, died Ashford, Massachusetts, after 1800.

BAL 59:  Charles E. Baldwin, born 1878, New Jersey.

BAL 60: Awaiting ancestral data.

BAL 61: Same lineage as BAL 54, above.

BAL 62: Awaiting ancestral data.

BAL 63: Thomas Baldwin, born Pennsylvania 1783, through son William Alonzo and grandson Orvis Judson. See BAL 11 & 12, above

BAL 64: James, born 1838, lived London area, England, married Sarah Baker, died 1927.

BAL 65: Awaiting ancestral data.

BAL 66: Isaac Baldwin, born 1780, to Ohio by 1817 birth of son Eli

BAL 67: Thomas1 Baldwin, born 1657 Hook Norton, Oxfordshire, son of William and Mary, to Chester County, Pennsylvania, with brothers John and Francis, 1682, attributed to his son Joseph and grandson John, who moved to Rowan County, North Carolina, by the 1750s. Thomas Baldwin 30, of Greenville County, South Carolina, a farmer born in South Carolina, is of record in 1850 Census.

BAL 68: Baldwin ancestry unknown.  Surname Harrison, in Tennessee by 1842, Arkansas by 1869, Oklahoma by 1916.

BAL 69: Thomas1 Baldwin, born 1657 Hook Norton, Oxfordshire, through son Joseph 2; same lineage as BAL 67 through the fourth generation.

BAL 77: Thomas1 Baldwin, born 1657, through his son Anthony2 and grandson Robert3 Baldwin Sr., whose son Robert4 relocated to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

BAL 85: William Baldwin, born 1770, probably in Pennsylvania, married 1793 to Susannah Crozer in Wilmington, Delaware, where he died in 1845.                    

CHART ARRANGEMENT

Seven distinct clusters of probably related Baldwin families have been identified, divided between two major haplogroups. Haplogroup designations shown in green have been tested for the specific marker that defines the group, while those shown in red are inferred; see explanation below.

SIGNIFICANT PATTERNS

The closer the match, the more closely the sampled families are related, and the fewer number of generations between them and a common surname-line  male ancestor.

Samples in Clusters 1 and 4 are closely matched, and in each cluster represent descendants from a common ancestor who was living about 1600.

Within Cluster 1, which includes early immigrants to Connecticut from Buckinghamshire, a difference at marker DYS 570 (#33 as reported by Family Tree DNA) appears to distinguish descendants of the Sylvester Baldwin family of Aston Clinton in that county from those of the closely related Richard Baldwin family of nearby Cholesbury, but additional examples are needed for confirmation. Samples known to represent the Aston Clinton family show a characteristic value 18 at this marker (BAL 13 and 30, from descendants of Sylvester’s sons John and Richard, respectively, and BAL 5, from a collateral line that moved to New Jersey by 1666), while the single sample identified with the Cholesbury family shows a 19 at this marker (BAL 14, descended from Nathaniel of Milford, Connecticut). Other samples that also show 19 at the same DYS 570 marker are from lines first of record later, but with traditions of Connecticut or Buckinghamshire origins, and undoubtedly are from the Cholesbury family. Among them are three families who descend from an early 19th century William Baldwin in Ohio’s northeastern Ashtabula County. BAL36 and BAL 51, differing by one mutation each (at DYS 456 and CDYb) from a common ancestor, are closely related, with a probability that their common ancestor was within the most recent four generations.. There is less likelihood they are descended from the same William as BAL 9, because their common ancestor had two additional mutations, at DYS 454 and DYS 460, that are not found in BAL 9 or in the unchanged ancestral pattern of the Cholesbury family that he inherited. Two mutations within the four generations or less from their William of Ashtabula County to their common ancestor is unlikely, making it improbable that their William Baldwin was also BAL 9’s William Baldwin ancestor. However, the two Williams were clearly related, and may have been cousins or uncle and nephew.

In Cluster 4, with origins in Oxfordshire, the value 19 is found at marker YCA-IIa (#29 in FTDNA order) in four lines known to descend from Francis Baldwin, one of three immigrant Baldwin brothers in colonial Chester County, Pennsylvania, and in two other lines that probably descend from him. It also occurs in two lines attributed to the immigrant brother Thomas, through his son Joseph. The value 17 is found in the other Cluster 4 lines, including one from another known descendant of Thomas, this one through his son Anthony. The value 17 is quite rare in Haplogroup I, occurring in less than 0.5% of samples, so it probably represents a recent mutation that distinguishes descendants of Thomas’s son Anthony from those of his other sons or of his brothers. However, a final determination will require (1) a sample from a known descendant of the third immigrant brother, John, to show conclusively that 19 is the ancestral value of the marker in question, and (2) a sample from another known descendant of Thomas through his son Joseph, to eliminate the possibility the lineage may be inaccurate. If another sample from that line shows a 17, it would mean that the mutation first appeared in Thomas and was passed on by all his sons, and that the line with a 19 was attributed to Thomas and his son in error.  If another sample from Joseph’s line again showed the ancestral 19, it would confirm that the mutation to 17 first appeared in Thomas’s son Anthony, and is a marker that distinctively identifies Anthony’s descendants.

As in Clusters 1 and 4, samples within Clusters 3, 5 and 7 are similarly closely matched, and each cluster probably has a common ancestor within the time surnames have been in use—the last five centuries or so.

Cluster 5 variances from the modal values—no more than two steps at 37 markers—are fully consistent with descent of all the lines from John Baldwin, “the Quaker,” who had moved from Northampton County on Virginia’s Eastern Shore to Anne Arundel County, Maryland, across the Chesapeake Bay, by 1650.

Cluster 6 modal values are too distant from those of Cluster 5 for them to have shared a common ancestor within the American colonial period. However, the individuals within Cluster 6 are close enough to the cluster modal values that there is a possibility, if not a probability, that they had a common colonial Baldwin ancestor. Locations of their earliest known ancestors point to the Chesapeake Bay area as the place where records of such an ancestor might be found.

Cluster 2 is first of record in various locations, and its common origin is not yet known. Further progress in establishing any relationships among members will depend upon higher resolution testing and additional samples with record lineages that can be compared. BAL 27 is attributed to a line from Henry Baldwin, “the Mariner,” an Anne Arundel County, Maryland, line distinct from the one in Cluster 5. It is assigned to this cluster only tentatively, being too distant genetically to b closely related, and its identification with Henry needs confirmation through a sample from another known descendant. As noted in the ancestral line descriptions, BAL 38 and BAL 39 match lines in the Maness Family project at 36 of 37 markers, more closely than they match any other Baldwin lines, indicating that their progenitor Solomon Baldwin probably had a Maness ancestor, rather than a Baldwin, not many generations earlier. The other samples differ from each other, and from their modal value, sufficiently that their common paternal-line ancestor lived further in the past than those for the other clusters, and may even have adopted the Baldwin surname independently when hereditary use was just beginning, rather than inheriting it from a common Baldwin ancestor.

.   



INTERPRETING THE NUMBERS



Comparisons of thousands of samples have shown that some markers change or mutate at faster rates than others. A study of the actual rates for each marker, based on samples from people with known relationships to each other, has been completed by researchers at the University of Arizona, and is awaiting publication. Meanwhile those that are known to mutate at a faster rate than the average are shown in red in the column headings. An online calculator incorporating the different rates for each marker is available on the Family Tree DNA website to participants in the study. It will calculate the probabilities of times to the most recent common ancestor between their own and closely matching other samples, applying the specific mutation rates found for each differing marker.



Using the average mutation rates accepted earlier instead of specific ones now available, the probable number of generations to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of two sampled males can also be found in the tables here. If two samples share the same surname, exact matches at 37 or 25 markers indicate the common ancestor was most probably within the last two or three generations respectively, while one step mismatches at 37 or 67 markers would move the 50% probability for a common ancestor back to four or seven generations respectively. See the summary chart here.



Where the haplogroup designation is shown in red, the sample was not tested for the specific defining mutation of the haplogroup—a unique mutation that took place many centuries or millennia ago, in a different type of marker from those tested here—but the haplogroup was inferred if the sample was within four one-step mutations of a sample in the testing company’s database that had been tested for the haplogroup mutation, and no tested sample from another haplogroup was within the same four-step range. However, samples can be more than four steps apart and still belong to the same haplogroup. Note that the BAL 1 and BAL 10, both tested definitively as belonging to haplogroup I, are eight steps apart.



The faster-changing markers are particularly helpful for distinguishing more recent branches within a family tree. When samples match at all but a few of the faster-changing markers, it suggests that their common ancestor may have lived more recently than indicated by probabilities based on an average mutation rate, which has been estimated at one mutation per marker for each 250 generations. When 25 markers are tested, there would be an average of one mutation at some marker for every 10 generational events or mutation opportunities that separate two individuals—but that mutation could occur in any point in either line of descent from a common ancestor, between a particular father and his son, and then passed on to their direct male descendants..