The above chart proposes a scheme for linking contributed genealogies of the USA Lousadas, via the earliest USA Lousadas (see note 1), to that of the other Baruch Lousadas. Echoing our linking of the Surinam and Curacao Baruch Lousadas to those of Barbados, London and Amsterdam - we again look back to Portugal and the 1590 and 1658 trials by the Coimbra Inquisition of Amador de Lousada and members of his family. Amador's grandson Henrique had 7 children - 5 boys and 2 girls - and it is in his family that we look to locate Abraham #435 and Jacob #740. Our working hypothesis (for the reasons we give in note 2 below) is that they were the oldest and youngest sons of Henrique.

An essential element in transitions of New Christians from small-town Portugal into the Jewish Atlantic trading theatre was an international link. Around 1640 the Baruch Lousadas first exited Iberia and accordingly reached London in 1660. The presence of the Almeida name in the chart above possibly means that their international link (see note 5 below) survived, and that Abraham #435 and Jacob #740 used it in the 1690s to make their escape to London (but see note 6 below). The close family connections (see note 1) of Daniel Baruch Lousada #1420 mean that he was part of the 1640-5 exodus. By the time Jacob #740 left London for New York around 1708, Daniel had probably left Boston, for the Jewish presence there was not permanent, with his descendants (if any!) departed for Newport, New York or New Jersey. It is likely that Jacob #740 learnt of the New England family presence from London community leader Moses #46, as Daniel was probably a brother of Moses, and Moses did not die until 1699 - after the arrival in London of Abraham #435 and Jacob #740.

In examining the USA data, we found that there were a number of widely-propagated errors and difficulties, particularly concerning Aaron #1226 and David #1994 (see note 4 below). We conclude that the 2 sons of Jacob #740 cannot have accounted for all the local Lousadas (see also note 8 below). Thus the chart above proposes a novel descent of certain USA Lousadas from Daniel Baruch Lousada of Boston via inferred but currently unknown ancestors (shown in red). The data does allow other inferences to be drawn (see notes 3 and 9 below), and thus we are now encouraged to suggest specific linkages to the Leuzarders and Luzarders as shown above. We have of course resorted to DNA technology to reduce the uncertainties (see here and also note 10 below); our chart reflects the link thus discerned between the Luzarders and the Leuzarders.


1. The first USA Lousadas discovered in our work elsewhere were Jacob the NY chocolate merchant (on this see ref 329), shown above as Jacob #740 plus his sons Aaron #53 and Moses #54 (see Stern's Lousada chart in ref 324 which notes both sons as born in London - but though we can point out that the evidence of his mother's London marriage and death supports the idea that Moses #54 was born in London, this does not apply to Aaron who could well have been born before Jacob #740 and Abraham #436 reached London since the earliest date we have for them there is 1698). Then we encountered Daniel of Boston in ref 175 #4 which reveals his partners in a trade deal recorded in Amsterdam and these partners include Jacob and David Baruch Lousada. We suggest Daniel was a son of Isaac #42 and that the partners were Jacob #1388 of London and then d1681 Amsterdam, and David #44 1640-99 of Barbados and Amsterdam, who also sons of Isaac #42 though half-brothers. 

2. Their birthdates were separated by 6 years. Abraham #435 and Jacob #740 died 7 years apart, and were probably of the same generation. We suggest that Abraham and Jacob were brothers, and since marriage to a niece was not prohibited under Jewish law, we think Rachel was Jacob's niece. This is not the only fine point of Jewish marriage law manifested in the simultaneous 9 Nov 1698 marriages at Bevis Marks of Abraham and Jacob (BMR2 #64 & 65 respectively). Abraham had been circumcised and admitted as a member of the London community on 10 Sep 1698 (BMR4 #250). On 9 Nov 1698 Abraham's marriage had the effect of ratifying an earlier non-Jewish marriage, and making Abraham's daughter a member of the community. Completing a delicate manoeuvre, Jacob was circumcised (BMR4 #253) on the day of the marriages, but his marriage was probably normal. Our reasoning is that while the earlier birthdate of his first son Aaron #53 shows that Jacob #740 had previously been married, we deduce (in note 3) that Aaron's mother was Sarah not Rachel, that is Rachel was Aaron's stepmother. The name of his mother caused us to consider whether Aaron was a son of Sarah de Almeida and hence a stepson and nephew of Jacob #740, but we dismissed this possibility as Aaron's birthdate is around a decade later than that of Rachel. See ref 226 for an account of the regulations around circumcision in Amsterdam, London and other places. A 2 month period of grace was allowed for circumcision, and it seems Jacob #740 used this period fully. Abraham's death is ref 98 #642, his wife Sarah's is ref 98 #350 and his daughter Rachel's is ref 98 #300.

3. Though the sons of Moses #54 were at least 4 years younger than Sarah the first daughter of Aaron #53, and David #542 was even younger than his cousin Abigail #1228 who was perhaps born around 1750 when her father died, a cousin-cousin marriage is suggested (by her name and the poverty of her widowed mother) in the latter case. It is possible that Sarah also married a younger cousin Benjamin #2609 though there is no evidence of the identity of Benjamin's spouse or whether Sarah ever married. As Catherine is the name of the maternal grandmother, the daughter in Stern's Louzada chart in ref 324 named Catherine was the 2nd daughter. She became Catherine Loxley (see ref 324) and was born late in the marriage of Aaron and Blume but before David #542 born in 1760. Sarah was born in 1739 and was therefore the first daughter so we can deduce Aaron's mother was named Sarah (making him and Moses #54 half-brothers). But Blume must have had 2 earlier sons (named Jacob and Moses named after the grandfathers) and thus Jacob #2570 1737-44 appears in ref 345 and was thus born even earlier than Sarah (Moses may have been lost young as no record of him has been found). Blume's very large gestational span shows that she was very young - perhaps around 12 or 13 - when she married Aaron and thus there is no doubt that this marriage was her first. The name Elkaley appears in the name of Esther #2439 and also among the children of Samuel Myers who married Blume's sister Rachel (his 2nd marriage). This suggests a Myers family connection and hence that Moses #54 married a Myers (but see note 11 below). As Moses was quite young when Esther Elkaley was born, this suggests that she was a step-child, for otherwise Rachel would have been born before her when Moses was even younger, making Rachel implausibly old at marriage in 1751 and perhaps at death in 1790. Instead, she was perhaps was born in the late 1730s, and thus quite young when she married the impecunious Haim Myers! Of this 1751 marriage, a collector's item has survived! Jacob #2497 who died young in 1738 (see ref 345) may have been a twin of Rachel and thus we suggest her birthdate was 1738. After some years came the birth of Jacob #683 who had 2 marriages, and the second was Christian, but perhaps in his first marriage there was a first son named Moses who was lost young. He had to overcome an attempt by his step-sister to alter his inheritance; this attempt is recorded in ref 324 where the assertion that Jacob #683 'was a lunatic' may be found. However, as pointed out by ref 333, Jacob's later life denied this suggestion. We point out in note 11 below the possibility that the absence of a ketubot covering the marriage of Moses #54 and Hannah may have triggered this struggle over Jacob's inheritance.

4. Thus for example Aaron #1226 who was born in 1731 could not have been the product of the 2nd marriage of Aaron #53, for his long-term Jewish marriage was current in 1740 as shown by the will of the father-in-law Moses Michael of Curacao in ref 326; and Blume Michael was alive when Aaron died in 1764. However it is commonly but erroneously stated that Aaron #1226 is the son of the second marriage of Aaron #53. But even if Aaron #1226 was the product of an earlier marriage of Aaron #53, then he was a boy of less than 10 when Aaron #53 married Blume Michael. Though Aaron's Jewish marriage may have been motivated in part for social or financial reasons, it was unlikely to have led to the neglect of a son, who would probably have had at least partial status in the Jewish community even if the 1st marriage was non-Jewish which it was not likely to have been - but Stern does not include him as a child of Aaron #53 (see Stern's chart in ref 324). We suggest that the only way out of this dilemma is that Daniel of Boston was the grandfather of Aaron #1226. Jewish naming customs probably survived, and because Aaron's 1st son was named Abraham an obvious inference is shown in the chart - that his father was named Abraham, and that Aaron #1226 was raised as his (suggested) uncle Aaron's stepson. In this there may also have been a son David, and we suggest that he gave rise to David #1994 who is impossible to place as a son of Jacob #683, Benjamin #2609 or David #542.

5. The (second) wife of Fernando Montezinos was an Almeida (ref 145 p10). He was a prominent merchant with whom the Baruch Lousadas, because of their Madrid 1638 link by marriage to the Rodrigues Pereiras, found themselves in the same social group of ex-Villaflor Portuguese New Christians. Fernando Montezinos needed help from the Rodrigues Pereiras, by then in Amsterdam to escape from Spain in 1659, and also had business links with the Lamegos of Rouen. They became close to the Baruch Lousadas around 1710 in Jamaica. In Jamaica, Rachel Baruch Lousada #131 married Moses Almeida around 1730. Completing a somewhat sketchy circle, the first wife of David #44, a probable close relative of Daniel #1420 (see note 1), was a Montezinos.

6. The Baruch Lousadas of the 1640 exodus probably left Madrid, but Abraham #435 and Jacob #740 probably left (hastily) from Portugal. The Coimbra Inquisitional evidence does not show any evidence of international relatives, perhaps because questions were not asked. In any case it should not be assumed that the 1690 departures did not proceed independently.

7. See ref 332 for a link to some of the available information on the Midwestern Lousadas.

8. We cannot place Aaron and Edward Luzader - whose militia service in 1777 is cited by ref 325 - as descendants of the sons of Jacob #740. Other material in ref 325 also implies that there were early originators of the USA Baruch Lousadas other than Jacob #740 and his sons, but its account is somewhat unreliable for as will be noted here (go to #325) we have identified at least 3 errors in this reference. Many online sources also imply that there were other early originators but the underlying evidence is rarely if ever cited!

9. There are 7 Lousadas in the '2nd generation' in ref 324, and these we show in the chart as Samuel #2434, Mary #400, Isaac #415, Jacob #416, Rachel #1526, Abigail #1525 and Benjamin #1177. Adherence to Jewish customs was waning in the family with marriages outside the faith. Of the 4 sons, we can place Jacob #416 with high certainty, and then Samuel #2434 and also Isaac #415. The latter 2 sons and Mary #400 were born close together. Benjamin #1177 appears to be in a different category and we suggest he was an illegitimate son of the teenaged Mary, and to facilitate her 1787 marriage was perhaps was sent to the household of Benjamin #2609 in New York for raising. Mary #400 must have been born before the date of the 28 Jan 1770 marriage between Jacob #683 and Mary Griffin #1292 (see note 10 on this timing), given that her son Benjamin #1177 was born in 1785, Samuel was born in 1772, and there may have been a son Moses before him. Mary seems likely to have been present with Jacob his wife and 2 brothers (the one less than 10 being Isaac) in a Digby (Nova Scotia) militia muster in 1784 and soon thereafter in 1787 married in Trinity Church NY to Michael Grant. Abigail and Rachel married local NY businessmen and appear to have been daughters of Benjamin #2609. Rachel remained Jewish but was baptized late in life. The Census data of 1790 suggests that Benjamin had 1 son and 3 daughters - but the 'son' was likely to have been Benjamin #1177. Where Jacob and his new wife were in 1790 is unclear, but the William Grant entry shows an extra man and woman (perhaps Jacob and Tryphosey before Jacob #416 was born). The Michael Grant entry shows a woman and 2 daughters presumably Mary #400 and 2 new children (produced in the marriage!). Once Jacob #683 died in 1791, there seems to have been a further influx of his dependants, and Isaac according to ref 331 gained employment with Rachel's husband. But Samuel #2434 appeared also for his son was baptized in NY in 1799, but he may have been present in William Grant's house in 1790 (but see note 12 below). Data from the 1800 USA Census for Philadelphia then shows Samuel, his wife and two young children - but also a male between 10 and 16 and 2 females between 16 and 25. If the male was Samuel's half-brother Jacob #416, we suggest that the 2 extra females were Jacob's widowed mother and Mary #2453. Samuel then died in Boston in 1802. Jacob #683 was buried in the NY Jewish cemetery, while Benjamin does not appear in the 1800 Census. The last record of Benjamin #2609 is the NY City Directory, but the labourer of 1794 seems not to fit very well with the 9 years old Benjamin #1177 or the 39 year old Benjamin #2609, but perhaps the former was a fast learner - at any rate one of them was a silversmith in 1996. Benjamin #2609 lived near the Synagogue which is shown in the map at the end of ref 324.

10. Adam Brown advised on 23 Aug 2020 that Bob Leuzarder's Y-DNA does not match male-line Lousada Y-DNA thus providing confirmation of our suggested origin of Benjamin #1177. However our examination of autosomal DNA connections links the Leuzarders and Luzarders to the Lousadas as much as to each other. Thus it seems likely that Jacob #683 was the father of Mary #400 - even though his 1770 marriage to Mary Griffin was a few years late for complete respectability! The fact that Jacob was a ship's captain (see ref 324), presumably prone to long periods away, may have had something to do with this! The extra consanguinity represented by the cousin marriage of children of Benjamin #1177 and Mary #2453 rectifies the effective generation count between the Luzarders and the Leuzarders from the DNA perspective.

11. Ref 333 concludes that Hannah spent her early years in Iberia, so she may have been a Myers only by marriage. Ref 333 also suggests that Hannah was born in the late 1690s, making her a few years older than her husband. Hannah and Moses must have married between the birth of the step-child Esther Elkaley (see note 3) in 1722 and the late 1730s when Rachel - their 1st daughter - was born. This suggests the marriage was in the mid 1730s. The dowry arrangements are unknown, but the tussle unleashed when Moses died intestate in 1750 may have something to do with it - for Esther may have felt entitled to her mother's assets in the dowry yet these assets were destined for her much younger half-brother Jacob #683. There is no evidence of a ketubot, and this may have provided some protection for the wife's family's assets in the event of various untoward events.

12. The 1790 NY Census shows Samuel plus 2 in William Grant's house. If this was Samuel #2434 he seems to have had a wife and child. But in 1796 he married in Boston, so he seems to have lost his NY wife and perhaps the child in the 1790-6 period. Of course, if we read the 1790 Census entry for William Grant as referring to Samuel #2434 plus 2, then perhaps we need to explain the additional presence of Mary plus 1 in the household! This is more difficult than devising an explanation for Samuel plus 2, for Mary #400 is already accounted for as the wife of Michael Grant whose household also appears in the 1790 Census. However there is the possibility that Mary was the estranged 1st wife of Jacob #683 ie Mary Griffin #1292 - but her presence in the same house as Jacob and his new wife would be astonishing. Nevertheless if this is what actually happened it presumably means she had a strong independent connection with William Grant - possibly not a daughter, for this would mean Mary #400 married her uncle (allowable in Jewish marriage law but doubtful after conversion), but perhaps a step-daughter or niece. She appears to have a child in the 1790 census, and thus may have had a further separation. Whether this was from her 3rd husband, we cannot say, for though she was named Mary Griffin when she married Jacob #683 in 1770, the Griffin surname may have arisen other than from a 1st husband if she was a step-daughter or niece of William Grant rather than a daughter.