Who Was John Albro?
by Phil Albro

John Albro, who came to America in 1634 on the ship Francis out of Ipswich, England, was the progenitor of all the Albros in America unless they emigrated much later. He lived to be over 90, and is the subject of much historical documentation. But who was he? What kind of man? We know what he did, but how did he think? We can only speculate.

This document differs from most of the other articles on this web site in that it is declared to be speculation. The reasoning and basis for the speculation will be given, but it remains speculation nonetheless. If the reader happens to agree with the opinions presented here, fine. If not, that’s fine too. But no one should cite this article as evidence for anything, because it isn’t. In almost every point made, there are only gray areas; plausibilities perhaps, but no certainty. Arguments are based on those deductions that seem most logical or least far-fetched, and hopefully the principle of Occam’s Razor will be followed (that hypothesis should be accepted that requires the fewest untestable assumptions.)

The approach will be as follows: I will express an opinion about John Albro, and follow it with my reasons for believing it. Then on to the next. I should warn the reader that I do not accept a principle of illogic I see widely used in writing today - the illogical notion that what has not been proven has thereby been disproven. The truth does not depend on anyone’s opinion or ability to find proof, and does not result from a poll or a vote. The truth is what it is, whether anyone believes it or not. The truth about John Albro can not be damaged by the mistakes I make here, nor by the mistakes of those who have written about him before me. Yet we must believe something about everything we encounter. I have seen too much speculation not labeled as such in the past become authoritative by virtue of having been published. So I write this. Thank you for your patience with this overblown introduction.

1. The circumstances of John’s coming to America
1. Speculation #1: John Albro was born about 1618.

John Albro immigrated to America in the Spring of 1634 "under the care of" ¹ , "in charge of" ² , "ward of" ¹²¹ , or "traveling with" ³ William Freeborn and his wife Mary, who also had along their two children Mary and Sarah. John was stated to be 14 years of age in the passenger list of the Ship Francis ⁴ .

Several early records exist from which John Albro's date of birth can be estimated, A source of confusion arises, however, from the fact that England and the colonies did not change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar until September of 1752. From the 12th century to 1751 the year officially began on March 25th. In 1752 the start of a new year became, legally, January 1st. In addition, Wednesday the 2nd of September, 1752 was followed by Thursday the 14th. Dates in between do not exist. Historians/genealogists writing after 1752 often expressed dates between 1 January and 24 March with two year specifications, for example 24 February 1701/1702. The 1701 is for "Old Style" or Julian calendar, the 1702 for "New Style" or Gregorian. Unfortunately, when a single year is specified, we can not easily tell which calendar is being used.

To avoid confusion on the dates used in our calculations, we will stick with dates as officially recorded during John's lifetime (i.e. Julian dates.) Translations to the Gregorian calendar can be accomplished later, if desired.

The earliest record is the passenger log of the Francis, written about 30 April, 1634 (the approximate sailing date.) This states¹²¹ that John was age 14, which would put his date of birth before April 30, 1620, but after April 30, 1619. The next reference point is the date of the Portsmouth Compact, March 7, 1638. He was present with William Freeborn when William signed the Portsmouth Compact in 1638, yet John did not sign ¹ . He lived by it, but didn’t sign it. Because he couldn’t write, perhaps? No, because several of the signers including Henry Bull¹⁵⁹, Nathaniel, Robert and George Potter ⁷ , signed only with marks. Austin ¹ supposed it was because he was not old enough. If John couldn't sign it because he was under 21, his birth date would seem to be after March 7, 1617. Next, the early records of Portsmouth¹⁵⁸ state that john was reimbursed for a trip to Boston in 1697, when he was claimed to be in his 80th year. This would put his date of birth roughly 1617.

John's own statement of age¹⁵⁶, indicating that he had passed his 88th birthday, was made in his declaration of February 27, 1705. If accurate, that would place his birth date as prior to February 27, 1617. Finally, Quaker records⁵ indicate that he was 95 or 96 when he died. His date of death is recorded in the early records of Portsmouth¹⁵⁸ as either December 1, 1712 or December 17, 1712, although the date most commonly reported is December 14th, 1712. These records would imply a date of birth before December of either 1617 or 1616 depending on whether you accept the 95 or 96 transcription. These dates are not all mutually compatible.

The Quaker record must be taken with a grain of salt for two reasons - first, some researchers read it as "95", e.g. Savage⁵ and others as "96", e.g. Benns⁶; this suggests a handwriting issue. Second, it was written some 95+ years after the occurrence, which good genealogical practices automatically mistrust. The age given in the Francis' log was probably provided by the Freeborns, who not only may have had to guess at John's age, but who had a vested interested in getting a "child" half-fare on the ship.

The Portsmouth Compact has an official date of March 7, 1638, but does that mean all the participants gathered together to sign it the same day? Or is it more likely that it was circulated like a petition and came to the Freeborns' some time in early February? Since the participants were anticipating an act that would get them in serious trouble with the authorities in Massachusetts, their not gathering for a joint signing seems quite possible. Failing that, the testimony as to when John reached 21 would have had to be the Freeborn's testimony, and they may have been unsure of the exact date.

In conclusion, the date of birth for John Albro that is 'least inconsistent' with historical records is some time in early February, 1617 by the Julian calendar. This would correspond to February 1618 by the Gregorian calendar we use today.



2. Speculation #2: John Albro was William Freeborn’s Apprentice.

Austin’s Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island ⁸ and Hotten’s The Original Lists of Persons of Quality ³ have been cited as claiming that John was an indentured servant to the Freeborns (see New England and English Families with Royal Ancestry ⁹ p.17.) Yet the claim is not made in either source. Darrel Conder, in his Albro Family History ¹⁰ strongly opposes the view that John was an indentured servant, and speculates that he may have been Mary Freeborn’s brother. No evidence for that family relationship is given, merely the comment that John’s attitude toward and treatment by the Freeborns is inconsistent with a master/servant relationship.

I think the case for John having been William Freeborn’s apprentice in the surveying trade is quite clear. The Statute of Apprentices passed in 1563 and in effect until 1814 made it illegal in England or its colonies for anyone to enter a trade who had not served an apprenticeship ¹¹ . Unfortunately, the Apprenticeship Books at the Public Record Office only go back to 1710. That John was a respected surveyor after his moving to Rhode Island is not in question ¹ . He, with William Hall and John Briggs, was assigned to "take the area of all highways and driftways not set off" in 1666. In 1679 John Albro and "one other surveyor" were assigned to "run the westerly line of the colony." A surveyor in the 17 ^th century was much more than a measurer of land, knowledgeable in geometry, trigonometry and map reading. He was also expected to be familiar with manoral law ¹² . This would have prepared John for his roles as member of the Portsmouth Town Council, Commissioner, Governor’s Assistant, Town Clerk, and what would today be called Justice of the Peace ¹ .

The relationship between a master and his apprentice was often closer than that between father and son. The typical period of apprenticeship in the surveyor’s trade was seven years ¹³ . Where the master went, so went the apprentice. There is no specific age at which apprenticeship began; it could commonly be as young as three or as old as 16, depending on the nature of the trade. Although apprenticeship was indeed a form of indenture (a contract) the purpose of it and therefore the attitude toward it was quite different from that toward an indentured servant. Because of the Statute, we can not even deduce the degree of affluence or lack thereof on the part of John Albro’s English family.

3. Speculation #3: Religious Liberty was not John’s Main Motivation

Darrel Conder speculated ¹⁰ that the reason John Albro came to America was the religious persecution and proscription for all denominations other than Anglican in England at the time. Since he came without the rest of his family, and, I think, few 14-year-olds have become personally committed to a particular religious denomination or question seriously the one of their parents, I do not find this conclusion obvious. While the Freeborns were supposedly ¹⁴ baptized into a non-Anglican denomination just before embarking on the Francis, there is no report of John Albro being baptized at that time.

John eventually became associated in some way with the Quakers, based on the presence of his name in their records, but his way of life (military, other positions requiring the taking of oaths that Quakers couldn’t take) was not according to the Quaker rules during the period of which we have reports. He is also reported to have become, with his wife, a Presbyterian ⁸ . While Christian values played an obvious role in his life, I do not see a commitment to a particular line of religious belief that would have made him willing to leave his home and country to be allowed to practice it.

I think he came to America for a very simple reason - the master surveyor to whom he was apprenticed was coming. I think he went with the Freeborns to Rhode Island for the same reason, and also because it was a golden opportunity for a surveyor.

Principles, Values, Virtues, Personality

4. Speculation #4: John Albro was a very stubborn man.

I see John Albro as a man who had to finish anything he started, unable to quit. This is a trait I see in most of the Albros I know. A side effect of this would be that he could be counted on to fulfill any promises or commitments he made, no matter what. He would have been considered highly dependable and a good choice when there was a responsibility needing to be assigned to someone. He accepted the ground rules of a situation and acted accordingly. In fact, living by the rules would have been something he would have taken for granted. In support of this, the records ¹ show John being made a governor’s assistant, representative from Rhode Island to the colonial Assembly, leader of town meetings, clerk of weights and measures, and similar roles requiring the confidence of those who appointed him that he would both fulfill the duties of the positions and function in their best interests. The appointments would only be made to someone with a reputation for integrity and dependability.

John was a Corporal in the colonial militia ¹⁵ in 1644, when he was about 25 years old. He progressed steadily to Lieutenant (by 1660), Captain (by 1665), and Major (by 1680). Although the members of the militia were not full time soldiers, progression through the ranks still implies someone who thrives in an environment where there are strict rules of behavior. I suspect that he responded more favorably to the kinds of rules of behavior derived from the military, than to those that religious rule makers (such as the Puritans) passed down. One universal rule of the military is, you never quit.

5. Speculation #5: John Albro formed intense loyalties and had a compelling sense of responsibility.

John’s loyalty to the Freeborns has often been noted. The following statements are based on information in reference 1. He came to a noplace in 1638 and helped make it into Portsmouth. He was a representative of (not just from) Portsmouth to the Rhode Island legislature, one of its noted defenders during the King Philip’s War (appointed Commissioner with two others to order watch and ward of the island), and recorded as having, along with others, "prohibited Gov. Cranfield of N.H. from exercising his authority in Narragansett." I believe John experienced a very strong sense of responsibility toward this town he had helped found, and consciously intended throughout his long life to work for its benefit and improvement. He owned land in other parts of the state, but never lived elsewhere than Portsmouth. He (and three others) even loaned the colony seven pounds sterling on behalf of Portsmouth! He was still active at age 80, being recompensed 20 shillings by the Town Council for traveling to Boston with John Borden.

6. Speculation #6: John Albro had a dominating personality with very strong convictions.

I see John Albro as a man with a great deal of self confidence, a strong sense of how he and his family should live, and a tendency to impose his rules of life on the members of his family as long as they were part of his household. While his second son, John Jr., stayed home and eventually inherited the family farm, the older son Samuel found it necessary to move away as soon as he was old enough, and establish what looks to me like a deliberately divergent life style from his father’s in order to feel like an individual. Samuel switched to the Anglican (Episcopal) Church, was more active in business and less in civic matters than his father, and in general led a life that looked on the surface very different from his father’s. Yet there is no sign of animosity and instead an indication of lifelong mutual respect. Samuel shows most of the same values as his father, but implements them in a conspicuously different way. John Albro’s will ¹⁶ leaves the most to those of his children who had the most care of him in his old age; but it actually leaves more freedom of choice to Samuel than to John Jr. John Jr. inherits both the homestead and the responsibilities associated with it, while Samuel mainly inherits "rights" in property elsewhere that he can choose to implement or not as he pleases. Although some of the choices Samuel made in his life, such as to join the Episcopal Church, would not have been things John Albro would have chosen, he seems to have respected his son’s right to make his own choices. That suggests that John’s commitment was not to particular religious or political philosophies, but rather to freedom of choice itself. This would have made the Official State Religion in England as well as the Rule All Aspects of Life From the Pulpit philosophy of the Puritans in Massachusetts equally unacceptable to John. While John Jr.’s descendants tended to stay in Portsmouth or nearby until the need for land forced some of them to leave Rhode Island, besides holding that value of self determination as strongly as John Sr. himself (so they all tended to support the American side in the eventual Revolutionary War), a fair number of Samuel’s descendants (not all) stayed with the Episcopal Church and some supported England in the Revolutionary War, winding up having to move to Canada as a result ¹⁷ .

A person with a strong commitment to freedom of choice tends to accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices. This contributes to their overall sense of responsibility and reputation for dependability. John’s lifelong acceptance of responsibility for the welfare of Portsmouth was therefore a natural outgrowth of his having made the free choice to go there and help create it in the first place.

7. Speculation #7: John Albro was intelligent, educated, persuasive in argument, and had a reputation for good common sense.

Among John’s many assignments documented in the early records ¹ were (1) a committee "with seven others to draw up a letter to His Majesty the King, giving true account of the territory of Mount Hope and of the late war with the Indians.", (2) Sir Edmund Andros’ council in Boston as a representative from Rhode Island, at which council "the members were sworn not only to allegiance, but for due administration of justice.", and (3) on "a committee with the Deputy Governor and five Assistants in the matter of injurious and illegal acts of Connecticut." Perhaps most significantly, one of the resolutions of the Rhode Island Assembly stated "in these troublesome times and straits in this Colony, the Assembly desiringe to have the advice and concurrence of the most juditious inhabitants, if it may be had for the good of the whole, doe desire at their sittynge, the company and counsel of Mr. Benedict Arnold, Mr. John Clarke, Mr. James Barker, Capt. John Albro, Wm. Carpenter, Capt. Randall Holden, Obadiah Holmes, Wm Vaughan, Wm Hiscox, Christopher Holder, Philip Shearman, Wm Wodel, George Lawton, Robert Hodgson, Capt. John Greene, Gregory Dexter; and the General Sergeant to inform the several persons the Assembly’s desire therein."

8. Speculation #8: Dorothy, widow of Nathaniel Potter, was John Albro’s only wife.

This is a speculation upon speculation, because it is based on the picture of John Albro drawn from all of the speculations above. It was concluded by Savage ⁵ that since Dorothy Potter was a widow (previously married to Nathaniel Potter), she must therefore have been John Albro’s second wife. This was based solely on the social custom of the times that one’s first wife should not have been previously married, whether widowed or divorced. There is no evidence from the documentary records of John having married twice. He was, as far as we can tell, still single in 1639 when he was granted land on the condition that he build a house on it within a year. One would, therefore, not expect him to have married before 1640. His son Samuel was born in 1644 ¹⁸ , while Nathaniel Potter died in 1643, so there was little opportunity for him to have had an (unknown?) wife in between. He is recorded as having sold land that was originally granted to Nathaniel Potter and not recorded as having been sold by him. John must have come into possession of that land through his marriage to Nathaniel Potter’s widow. In contrast, John, Jr. bought land from Nathaniel Potter, Jr. (who would have been his half-brother), as recorded in John. Sr.’s will.

The man depicted in the speculations above would not have cared a fig for the social restrictions of his former country of birth and of the Massachusetts Bay Colony with which Savage was familiar. I believe John was very much aware that he was part of a new social order in Rhode Island, and that he was founding a new family line. I think there only had to be one set of circumstances applying: he wanted to marry her, she wanted to marry him, he could, and she could. But why did he want to? Well, the fact that she was "of good family antecedents" might have been relevant, but there had to be more to it than that. Perhaps someone else will pick up where I leave off, and speculate about the characteristics of Dorothy (Wilbur?) Potter Albro.