Yes, Janice, as you say, there is no confirmation for the suggested connection between Adam, I and Adam, II, but it's pretty difficult not to sense a link somewhere. Of course, what you sense may depend on how long you have been researching, and how much you don't know yet.

If you have more than one reference to the Waterford name as Waterfoot, please let us know. I have seen it once, and wondered if it was an interpretation of the census taker (the way he heard it, perhaps).

I think any of us who have done this for many years, have it pretty well documented from 1830 on. It's a fascinating family.

How far back does your research go?