Genetic genealogists often hear the term population bottleneck referenced in various academic papers – but just what is that?  And why do we care?

A population bottleneck occurs when there is a dramatic reduction in the population of a particular group of people.  Think about the eruption of a volcano – Mt. Toba for example.

Human history is full of population reducing examples, some we know about, like the plague, but most we don’t.  And obviously, if the bottleneck was so severe that no one survived – then there are no descendants of those people today – and that’s an extinction event, not a bottleneck.  The only way we would ever know those people existed is if we found their remains and sequenced them today – like the Neanderthal and Denisovan skeletons.

As a point of clarity – the Neanderthal and Denisovan did survive – not as pure Neanderthals or Denisovans – but admixed into the homo sapiens population – and they are indeed, us.  If you have either European or Asian ancestry, then you have Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry too.

How could that be – all of Europe and Asia descended from these Archaic people?  Probably the after-effects of a population bottleneck where a small group of people went on to become a large group of people.

Let’s look at an example.

The best example I can think of is the migration of the Asian people into the Americas.  These first people would populate all of North and South America and would become the indigenous people of these continents – by whatever name is applied today.  First People, Native Americans, American Indians – they are all of the same stock and the result of at least one population bottleneck.

That first bottleneck occurred when some people crossed over the land bridge, Beringia, between Asia and what is now Alaska.

Erika Tamm et al – Tamm E, Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu M, Smith DG, et al. (2007) Beringian Standstill and Spread of Native American Founders. PLoS ONE 2(9): e829. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000829. Also available from PubMed Central.

The bottleneck event that occurred there was that there weren’t very many people. It was probably a small group.  Possibly very small.  What do we know about them?

There were obviously males and females.

Assuming for purposes of discussion that all of the people who founded the Native American population came at once, or in what is referred to as one wave, we know that there were at least two men and 5 women.

How do we know that?  Because today we have Y haplogroups Q and C in the Native population and mitochondrial haplogroups A, B, C, D and X in that population as well.  Since the Y chromosome is passed from father to son unadmixed with any DNA from the mother, the haplogroups we see today are directly descended from those original founders.  Mitochondrial DNA is passed from the mother to all of her children, but only the females pass it on, so we get a direct pipeline view back to the founding mothers.

There may have been more individuals and haplogroups that arrived.  Some may have died out in Beringia or afterwards in subsequent bottleneck events.

Let’s say the group stayed together for a while.  Then, it got too big to support itself comfortably on the resources available.  In other words, the population began depleting the available resources.  So, the group separated by a few miles so that they could draw off of a different landscape where food was more abundant.

One group went 20 miles east and one group went 20 miles south.  It wasn’t meant to be permanent, but eventually, the split became permanent as that scenario repeated itself over time.

Eventually, one of the groups moved further south and small groups broke off from time to time and moved east across what would be the US and Canada.  Part of the group continued south along the Pacific and would populate Mexico, Central and South America.

Let’s say that one of those small bands of people that headed east wound up living in Montana, 12,500 years ago.  A child died, and they buried that child.

The group they separated from continued south and their descendants are found throughout Mexico, Central and South American today.

That child’s name is Anzick.  His skeleton was found in 1968 and his full genome was sequenced before he was reburied in 2013.  When his DNA was sequenced, we discovered, much to our amazement, that Anzick indeed matched people, primarily people from south of the US, at a level that could be interpreted to be contemporary.  How could that possibly be?

Think about a bottleneck in this fashion.

There are 4 people, 2 couples.  Each person’s DNA is represented by a color.  The two males are blue and green and the 2 females are pink and yellow, like on the left side of the pedigree chart shown below.

In the first generation, they pass their DNA to their children and the children are blue/yellow and green/pink.  In the second generation, the children intermarry with the other couple’s children – because there are no choices.  All of the grandchildren of the original couple have DNA that is blue, yellow, green and pink.  The children and grandchildren don’t all carry the same segments of blue, yellow, green and pink – but all of them carry some part of the original 4 founders.  There is no orange or turquoise or red DNA to be found, so forever, until new people enter the landscape, they will pass the same segments of blue, green, yellow and pink DNA to their descendants.  In an isolated environment, they might not meet new humans for thousands of years – lets’ say 10,000 years.

So, if the Anzick child had blue, yellow, green and pink DNA and the contemporary Native people living in South America have blue, yellow, green and pink Native DNA from those same four founding ancestors, it stands to reason that they are going to match – because it’s the exact same DNA that has been passed around and around for thousands of years.

This matching is the effect of a population bottleneck.

We can think of other bottleneck events too.  For example, the Acadians were a bottleneck event.  A few shiploads of French Catholic people on an Island in the early 1600s – they didn’t have a lot of choice in terms of spouses. The genealogy saying is that if you’re related to one Acadian, you’re related to all Acadians, and it’s pretty much true.  Same with the Pilgrims and the individuals who came over on the Mayflower.

Some bottlenecks are religiously induced – Amish, Mennonite and Jewish, for example.  These people marry only within their religion.  Today, that’s called endogamy – but it’s a form of a bottleneck event.

We see the results of bottleneck events today in three ways in our DNA.  In both Y and mitochondrial DNA, we often see specific haplogroups or subgroups associated with specific populations – like Q and C in Native American Y DNA and subsets of A, B, C, D, X and possibly M in Native American mitochondrial DNA.

We also see the effects of bottleneck events in autosomal DNA.  We talk about segments that are IBD, identical by descent, and IBS, identical by state.  Identical by descent typically means we can attribute the DNA segment to a specific ancestor via triangulation.  Often, everything we can’t identify gets tossed into the IBS box, but it really shouldn’t.

When you hear people talk about IBS, or autosomal DNA segments that are identical by state, there are really two possibilities.  One is that the DNA is identical by chance.

The other option is that the DNA is identical by population.  This means that the DNA does indeed match because it came from a common ancestor – but that ancestor is beyond the genealogical timeframe.  That doesn’t mean the information isn’t useful.  Indeed, I think it’s very useful.  I want to know if a segment of my DNA is Native, even if I share that segment with lots of other Native people.  In fact, that’s exactly HOW we determine a specific autosomal segment is affiliated with Native or any other population group of people.  Certain segments are found in a higher percentage across the entire population group.  So, to throw these out in personal genetic genealogy by phasing which removes population based matches is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  I have several matches on my spreadsheet where I have the notation “Mennonite” or “Acadian” for example, because while I can’t sort out which specific ancestor the DNA came from, it assuredly came from the Acadian population based on the matches – and that’s very useful information.

Population bottlenecks may seem like a scientific term referencing something that happened long ago, but the effects of bottlenecks can be found in every one of us, beginning with Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA and probably including ancestors who survived, or willingly embraced beliefs which in essence created historical bottlenecks.

Did I mention about the Crumley Curse when I wrote about William Crumley (the third’s) father, William Crumley (the second)?  It’s started out being kind of cute and was originally called “The Crumley Conundrum.”  Then it devolved into “The Crumley Curse,” and that’s one of the nicer names.  And believe me, it’s not cute at all anymore.

I’m beginning to wonder if we’ll ever get these William Crumleys and their wives sorted out.  And just when you think you’re making headway, boom, it all blows up, making one, as the quilters say “lose their religion.”  If you don’t know what that means, well, then – let’s just say it has to do with swearing.  Yep, the same thing that got more than one of my ancestors kicked out of church – so let’s just say I come by it honestly!

I just know the ancestors are practical jokers and they’re someplace saying to each other, “Hey, watch this….” as we discover once more that what we thought we knew isn’t really what we thought at all.

Some ancestors are worked on in three stages.

Discovery

The first stage is the euphoria that comes with initial discovery.  There’s just nothing like that feeling of seeing your ancestor’s name for the first time and knowing that they are YOUR ancestor, YOUR flesh and blood, and their history is YOUR history.  Which brings me to stage two.

Information Gathering

The second stage is information gathering.  You go through the census, through the deeds in the county where they lived, through the court records, through everything you can find including what others before you have written.  I extract every record for that surname….well…I do now.  I wasn’t always that wise which meant many times that I had to go through the same records multiple times.  Families, do, indeed, fit together and it’s the total picture that tells the story.  Which leads me to the third stage.

Unweaving

Unraveling what I’ve woven together.  Yep, picking it back apart strand by strand.  This is the stage where I realize what I think I know is not at all what it seems.  Maybe it’s that you discover what previous researchers stated or surmised is incorrect.  Maybe you find another puzzle piece they didn’t have.  Maybe something just seems wrong to you, causing a re-evaluation.  Regardless of what it is, it’s more like ripping out a seam with a seam ripper, and the joining seams too, than building.  In my quilt group – we call it reverse sewing.  It is indeed, reverse genealogy, but sometimes you have to unbuild in order to rebuild.  Sigh.  At least you can salvage the pieces and reassemble them in a different way.

The Crumley family has been like that – and I’m still not positive I have it right.  Welcome to genealogy where at least 4 men, 4 generations in a row, have the same name, with additional men carrying the same name in brothers’ and uncles’ lines….and no wills…and wives names either unknown or unproven. Oh yes, and owning land on two forks of the same creek, with the same name that spans two states.  In fact, it appears that the land may actually span the state line.  I guess that makes it easy to avoid the revenuer, the tax collector, the sheriff, etc.  Hide and seek.  Welcome to the Crumley family.

William Crumley, the third, was born sometime around 1789 in Frederick County, Virginia to William Crumley, the second, and his unknown wife.

William (the third) moved as a child to the Territory South of the River Ohio sometime after his father’s name appears on a 1789 tax list in Frederick County, Virginia and before 1796 when his father’s name is found on a document in the Territory South of the Ohio, soon to be Tennessee.  In 1797, when William (the third) was about 8 years old, his father, William (the second) was a founder of the Wesley’s Chapel Methodist Church in Greene County, TN, so we know positively that William (the third) was raised in Greene County from that time forward.

Traveling to what was then the frontier was probably a great adventure for a 7 or 8 year old boy.  To give you an idea of what the area was like, Tennessee was nicknamed “The Squabble State.”  Still, the brave and the squabblers flocked to this region, then the westernmost edge of the frontier, for land and opportunity.

Unfortunately, the 1790, 1800, 1810 and 1820 censuses are missing for Greene County, Tennessee.  This confirms that God does have a sense of humor.

We know that his father, William the second, reportedly a miller by trade, purchased land in 1797 and 1805 on Lick Creek in Greene County, TN and reportedly proceeded to build a mill, near or at Carter’s Station.  I say reportedly, because I can find no actual documentation that he was a miller, nor can I prove that he wasn’t.  There is oral history from a number of different sources, some within and some outside of the family.  Furthermore, I can’t confirm his land at Carter’s Station either.  For all the world, the evidence looks like his land was several miles to the east – but I haven’t been able to do a deed “puzzle type” reconstruction of the area.

For purposes of comparison, here is a map showing the Wesley’s Chapel Church and the location of Carter’s Station. At the opposite end of the blue route.  In-between we find both Hardin Chapel Methodist Church and Mt. Pleasant Church, the location of Cross Anchor Cemetery.  All of these locations play a part in the life of William Crumley, the third.

Assuming that William Crumley (the second) was a miller, it’s very likely that William (the third) learned this trade as well – if for no other reason than to be able to help his father and it was the most readily available trade to learn.  However, the only documentation we have of what William (the third) did for a living is from the 1850 Hancock Co., TN census where he says he is a carpenter.  He does live 2 houses from a miller though, so there may be some significance to that.  But, back to Greene County.

We know as a child, at least from 1797 on, William Crumley (the third) attended the Wesley’s Chapel United Methodist Church.  The original building burned in 1880, but the newer church dating from that timeframe stands beside the church cemetery.

There are Crumley’s buried here yet today as well as Browns.  Lydia Brown was the wife of William Crumley (the third) and the daughter of Jotham Brown and his wife, Phebe, whose maiden name has remained elusive, but is speculated to be Johnson.

One Brown burial is William, a fourth generation descendant of Jotham and Phebe Brown, the parents of Lydia Brown, who would marry William Crumley, the third, in 1807.  Roots here run deep and there are no family trees, only entwined and knotted up family vines – with the leaves all having the same names…over and over.  Naming your child “after” someone is an absolutely lovely way to honor your ancestors and your siblings, parents and grandparents – unless you’re the genealogist 100 years or so later trying to unravel all of those people with the same name!

The next peek we have of William Crumley (the third) is on October 1, 1807 when he marries Lydia Brown in Greene County, TN.  The Brown family had arrived in Greene County beginning in 1803 with more members arriving in  1805.  The Browns lived about half way between Hardin Chapel and the Mount Pleasant Church, at the intersection of Spider Stines Road and Baileyton Road.

The Browns, Johnsons, Babbs and Crumleys were all living in Frederick County, Virginia and all migrated to this part of Greene County, although the Brown family took a detour to Montgomery County, VA first.  They were probably already related.  We don’t know who the mother of William Crumley, the third, was.

In 1808. William Crumley Jr. (the third) was listed as a witness, but beyond that, he doesn’t appear in the court records.

The Crumley Land

Truthfully, the Crumley land is a mess.  Let me give you an example.

William (the third, we think) purchased 126 acres of land on a branch of Lick Creek on June 12, 1811 from John Campbell.  This land lay between John McCurry and Mary Gass and the transaction was witnessed by Benjamin McNutt and Joseph Lackey.  Lick Creek runs the entire distance from Northeast of Wesley’s Chapel Church to Southwest of Carter Station, transecting the entire county.  However, one hint is that Crumley Road, Northeast of Wesley’s Chapel, is on Lick Creek.

In 1811, William Jr. (the third) is listed on the tax list for the first time, signifying that he is age 21.  If this is accurate, he was born about 1790, which would be about right.  He is listed with no land and one poll, but the list could have been taken before be bought land in June.  In 1812, William Jr. is specifically listed with 126 acres, which is why we think he is the William who bought the land.

Yet, in 1813, William Crumley, with no Sr. or Jr. designation, is taxed with 326 acres, which would be the 200 acres owned by William Sr. (the second) and the 126 owned by William Jr. (the third.)  Confused yet?  Me too.  Remember – the Crumley Curse…

The tax lists, shown in the William (the second) story contradict each other.  In order to try to straighten this out, I entered all of the land transactions into a spreadsheet.  This includes all land transactions in Greene County, TN and later Lee and Hawkins Counties on the Virginia/Tennessee border.  (Click once to see spreadsheet in a separate window and click a second time to enlarge.)

The best I can tell, it looks like William Crumley Sr. owned the 126 acres, because that land is sold in 1819 for $230 and seven months later, William Sr., specifically stated as Sr., purchases land in Lee County for $230.  So who knows which William actually purchased that 126 acres. It’s possible that the two Williams transacted a sale between themselves that was never recorded.

In 1820, William (Sr. – meaning the second) sells part of his land in Greene County to son Abraham, 54 of his 200 acres and six months later, sells 134 acres to Joshua Royston, which equals 188 acres.  Where is the other 12 of the 200 acres owned by William Crumley and the 50 acres purchased in 1797, not to mention the 10 and 20 acre grants he obtained in 1820?

No place does either the buying or the selling deed tell us how many acres William Crumley Sr. bought in Lee County, but if Isaac sold all of his father’s land in 1837, then it was 100 acres. However, he sells it for $50 after purchasing it for $230 – so this doesn’t make sense.  I would say the acreage is probably more like 460 acres if 100 of those acres sold for $50.

However, the purchaser, Polly (Brown) Stapleton, was his mother’s sister, so who knows if this is what would be considered an “arms length transaction” or if he sold the entire tract.  However, in 1852, Isaac did sell what appears to be all of his land before packing up and leaving with his father for Iowa.  Part of that is probably the balance of his father’s land.  I have not read those actual deeds.

The War of 1812

Much of the rest of what we know about William Crumley (the third) is by inference – because he had no will and none of his children are specified as children in any document.  Thankfully, he moved away from Greene County, TN where the Crumley group settled, or we would have had no prayer of figuring out which children were his.

By the time William (the third) enlisted to serve in the War of 1812, he and Lydia had 2  children.  John Crumley was born about 1808 or 1809 and William (the fourth), if William was his son, was born in 1811.

William (the third) served in the War of 1812 in Capt. Jacob Hoyal’s Company of Col. Ewin Allsion’s Regiment of East Tennessee Militia.  William enlisted January 10, 1814 to serve until May 23 but was discharged “on account of sickness and arrived at home March 28, 1814.”

However, this affidavit of power of attorney filed in Greene County in August of 1814 tells us something slightly different.  In this, he says he joined on January 6^th to March 15^th, 1814.  So, according to this document, he was discharged, ill or not.  I initially thought this would not be his signature, because of the “seal” and because the clerk signed most of these types of documents, but if you look at the signature, it’s significantly different than that of the clerk’s handwriting.  For example, look at the capital C in the signature and in the text.

Did William Crumley (the third) march to Alabama?  Here’s a brief regimental history of Colonel Ewen Allison’s unit provided by the Tennessee State Library.

This regiment was also designated as the First Regiment of East Tennessee Drafted Militia. The unit was part of General George Doherty’s brigade, along with Colonel Samuel Bunch’s Second Regiment. Doherty’s brigade participated in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend (27 March 1814) where they were part of the right line of attack on the Creek fortifications. There were casualties in many of the companies, especially in those of Captains Everett, King, Loughmiller, and Winsell. The Nashville Clarion of 10 May 1814 has a complete listing of the dead and wounded from this climactic battle of the Creek War.

The principal rendezvous point for this regiment was Knoxville. From there they traveled to Ross’ Landing (present-day Chattanooga), to Fort Armstrong, Fort Deposit, Fort Strother, Fort Williams, to Horseshoe Bend, and back by the reverse route. Captain Hampton’s company was ordered to man Fort Armstrong in mid-March 1814. Arms were scarce in this unit and rifles often had to be impressed from the civilian population along the line of march.

William’s brothers Samuel and Aaron also served in the same militia Company.  It might be useful to check their service records as well, although they have not yet been digitized at www.fold3.com.  Hmmm, order from NARA for $75 each, or wait???

William’s illness may well have saved his life.  This unit participated in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend on March 27^th, and many casualties were sustained.  William didn’t know it when he left, but Lydia was pregnant with their third child, Jotham, who would be born in October of 1814.

Signatures

In 1814, Aaron Crumley, brother of William (the third), marries a different Lydia Brown, a cousin of his brother’s wife.  Now are you confused?  I told you this family was a vine!

William (the third), styled as William Crumley Jr. in Aaron’s marriage document, signs for him as his bond.  This should be the signature of William Crumley Jr. (the third) and not Sr. (the second.)

Note that this signature looks different than the one on both the 1807 and the following 1817 marriage document.  However it looks identical to the 1814 power of attorney document.

Also in 1816, William Crumley Jr. (the third) signs for the bond of his brother, Isaac Crumley who married Rachel Brown.  Note that this marriage record was not returned for almost a year, the bond being taken in September 1816 and the document not returned until August 1, 1817 by Christopher Kirby, likely the minister who married the couple.  This signature looks different, but there are no other known William Crumleys in Greene County.  The Crumley Conundrum strikes again!

Who Got Married in 1817?

Things get even more confusing in 1817.

Because there is a marriage record for a William Crumley in 1817 in Greene County, it has been assumed (you know about that word) that Lydia, wife of William (the third,) died in 1817 following the birth of Clarissa, and that William (the third) was the William Crumley who married Elizabeth “Betsy” Johnson, believed to be the daughter of Zopher Johnson, Sr., and his unidentified wife, and a cousin to William (the third’s) first wife, Lydia Brown.  By now, I’m positive you’re confused.

However, there is evidence to suggest that William Crumley (the third) was not the William who married Betsey Johnson.

For example, William (the third) and Lydia are reported to have had a daughter, Clarissa, born in April of 1817.  My ancestor, Phebe Crumley was born to William (the third) and his wife, whoever she was, on March 24, 1818, in Lee County, VA as reportedly by later census records, eleven months after Clarissa’s birth, according to Phebe’s tombstone.  Needless to say, if William (the third) married Betsey Johnson in October of 1817, he had a newborn child from Lydia (who would have been being nursed by someone) and had gotten Betsey pregnant about 3 months before their marriage and no more than 3 months after Lydia’s death (if she died).  Yes, that is certainly possible.  But did it happen?

The 1817 marriage bond clearly says that William Crumley Sr., married Betsey Johnson, and William Crumley Sr. was William (the second), the father of William  (the third) who would have been styled as William Jr. at that time in Greene County and clearly was styled as such on other documents from the same time period.

It’s no help at all that Jotham Brown signed for both bonds.  Jotham was the father of Lydia Brown, the first wife of William Crumley (the third).  Lydia’s father died in 1799, so the Jotham who signed with an X was Lydia’s brother.

Keep in mind that Betsey Johnson was said to be the cousin of Lydia Brown.  If they were cousins, meaning first cousins, they would have shared grandparents.  Unfortunately, we don’t know who Lydia’s grandparents were, on either side.

If they are cousins, and if Jotham Brown’s wife is Phebe Johnson, daughter of Zopher Johnson, as theorized, but not proven, then indeed Betsey Johnson could have been a cousin of Lydia Brown, but, and this is a really important but – they could not have shared the same mitochondrial DNA.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from a mother to both genders of her children, but only the female children pass it on.  Everyone carries their mother’s mitochondrial DNA and it is not mixed with any DNA of the father.

If Zopher Johnson had daughter Phebe that married Jotham Brown, Zopher’s unknown wife would have given her mitochondrial DNA to Phebe and then to Lydia Brown, Jotham and Phebe’s daughter.

Betsey Johnson would have been born to a male child of Zopher Johnson by his unknown wife.  Betsey would have inherited the DNA of that male child’s unknown wife, NOT of Zopher Johnson’s wife.  So, unless Zopher Johnson’s wife and his son’s wife shared a common matrilineal ancestor, the DNA of Lydia Brown could not match that of Betsey Johnson.  This is important because the DNA of both Clarissa, born in 1817, before William’s marriage to Betsey Johnson, and Phebe born in 1818 after William’s marriage to Betsey, is a match.  Furthermore, both women also match to another descendant of Phebe, Jotham Brown’s wife.

So, it’s very unlikely that Betsey Johnson is the mother of Phebe Crumley, which eliminates William Crumley (the third) as the William who married Betsey Johnson in October, 1817 in Greene County, TN.

Because I simply could not let this go, I asked Stevie Hughes, a Brown/Johnson researcher, to review the possibilities for Betsy Johnson’s identity and here is what she said, in probability order.

#1 Betsey is the daughter of Zopher Johnson, Revolutionary War Soldier.  I believe this is probable, given he is the ONLY one in Greene County by 1809.

#2 Betsey is the daughter of Moses Johnson, BROTHER to Zopher, the Rev War Soldier.  I THINK….but cannot prove Moses went to adjacent Hawkins Co BEFORE 1809.  I KNOW Moses was gone from Greene Co as of 1809.  He never appears in ANY Greene Co tax list or court record after 1809.  It is POSSIBLE he left Greene County as early as 1800 since there are no tax lists for the north part of the county between 1800 thru 1804 and 1806 thru 1808.  He is NOT in the 1805 list, however, neither is Zopher; so obviously the 1805 list is incomplete or for some reason Zopher (and Moses??) were “missed.”  NOTE the half brother, Harrison Johnson (son of Zopher “the elder” and a much younger, 2nd wife) IS in the 1805 list.  And, in 1809, there is a one-line entry in a Court record stating Harrison is executor of Zopher Johnson “deceased.”  I believe 1809 is the “magic” year where after the death of Zopher “the Elder,” the brothers wanted to go “seperate ways” and the family farm was split among the heirs, with Harrison and his mother going to western TN, Moses goes into Hawkins Co, and Zopher the Revolutionary War soldier is the only one who stayed in Greene Co.

#3 It is POSSIBLE, but very unlikely Betsey was a WIDOW of one of the Johnsons.  Reason being is I have “accounted for” all of our Johnsons in the tax lists from 1790 (arrival) thru 1798 (last complete tax list) until the tax lists resume in 1809 thru 1817.  Also, I have studied ALL Johnson marriages (brides and grooms) from inception of the marriage records up through 1868 (Burgner’s book).  I have an extensive “chart” of all these Johnson marriages, both male and female; and to a large degree, I have cross-indexed those acting for bondsmen (marriages, wills, deeds, etc.)  There are no other Johnsons –male or female– of our family who are in the northern part of the county during these years.  Also, there is no Orphan Court Record (if she was a widow and had children); nor does she appear in a tax list (if she was a widow and her husband’s land went to her).  There is no remarriage for her where one of our greatly intermarried “kin”….or neighbor….acted as the bondsman.  EXTREMELY unusual for our group….. and in my mind it would not have happened for an “outsider” to have been the bondsman for a 2nd marriage.

However, there is one possible fly in this ointment.  Zopher Johnson, the Elder, was born in the early 1700s. It’s very unlikely that he was still having children in 1770-1780 which is when Elizabeth “Betsy” Johnson would have been born, by a first wife.  However, if by some fluke Elizabeth is the daughter of the same mother who had Phebe born about 1745 who married Jotham Brown, then their mtDNA would have been the same.  Jotham the Elder has children from about 1745 to about 1780, so Elizabeth could have been his daughter, but not likely by the same woman as Phebe born in 1745.  Plus, family history says they are cousins, not sisters.

I have to tell you, all of this uncertainly and what-iffing makes my head hurt.  I’m reminded of this cartoon, found on the internet from Pardon My Planet.

http://comicskingdom.com/pardon-my-plane

Signature Composites

Stevie, sent me this signature composite from various documents in an effort to sort through the various William Crumleys.

The signature of William in 1817 is showing signs of being unsteady.  The loop on the W wobbles.  William (the third) would have been about 28 and his father, William (the second) would have been roughly 50 at that time.  That’s really not terribly old.  Maybe someone bumped his arm.

To add to the signature confusion, we also have this 1825 receipt from the court in Hawkins County.  We don’t know which William Crumly this is, the second or the third, but it is his signature.

Do you think you have this figured out?  If you’re like me, you think that the 1807 and 1817 signatures are the same, the two 1814 signatures are the same, and the others are different – although how to account for that difference without any more William Crumleys mystifies me.  But just as you get your mind all comfortable with that, I want to share one more signature with you.

Which signature do you think this looks like?  If you said either the 1807 or the 1817 signatures, you would be wrong.  Below is the full document.

This document is from the Civil War from the National Archives in a document series titled “Confederate Papers Relating to Citizens or Business Firms, 1861-1865,” after BOTH William Crumley (the second) and (the third) were long dead.

This William Crumley could be William (the fourth) son of William (the third,) as he was born in about 1811. Signatures can be both confusing and deceiving.  I jumped like I had been shot when I saw that curly W signature signature (pardon the pun.)

The most reasonable explanation I can find, with the least amount of stretch, is that if William Jr. – meaning the third, was born in 1788 or 1789 as the 1850 and 1852 censuses indicate, he would have been underage when he married in 1807, only 18 or possibly 19 years of age.  His father, William (the second) would have had to have signed for him, which is why the 1807 and the 1817 signatures look alike.  The 1807 William Crumley signature itself doesn’t say Jr. or Sr.  The document only says that William Jr. is getting married.  In 1811, the first year William Jr. (the third) is shown on the Greene County tax list, he would have been age 22,, born in 1789 – so this is very likely the answer.  Otherwise, where was he on earlier tax lists?

Someone Died

Regardless of whether William Crumley (the second) or William (the third) remarried in 1817, someone died.  William (the third) likely lost his mother.  If it wasn’t his mother, then he lost his wife, leaving him with a newborn infant.  I believe it was William (the third’s) mother that died, in part because of the matching mitochondrial DNA evidence between descendants of Clarissa Crumley, Phebe Crumley and Phebe Brown, their grandmother.

If the family was still attending Wesley’s Chapel, William’s wife might have been buried there, although the cemetery appears to date from the “new” church built after the church burned in 1880.  William’s wife might also have been buried at the Cross Anchor Cemetery although at that time it was likely still the Gass Family Cemetery.  Another possibility is that William’s wife is buried in the Kidwell Cemetery which was begun about 1800 when the Kidwell Meeting House stood on that land.  She could also be buried at Carter Station.  A great-grandson, Thomas Crumley, born in 1852, in a letter said that the early generations of Crumley’s were buried at Carter Station.  William (the second) was the first generation to settle in Greene County, so his wife would have been the first of the founding generation to pass over.  The other information provided by Thomas in his letter has proven to be accurate.

The Move to Lee County

Then, in 1819, for some reason, nearly the entire family decided to up and move to Lee County, VA.

William Crumley (the second) along with two of his sons, William (the third) and Isaac set about in 1819 making preparations for moving to Lee County, VA on the border with Hawkins County, TN.

On April 5, 1819, just before moving to Lee Co., VA., William sold his 126 acres if Lick Creek land to Humphrey Malone.

“The Early Settlers of Lee Co., VA” says that a William Crumley Sr. from Greene Co. bought 250 acres of land from William Sparks on November 11, 1819 for $250.  It was witnessed by William Crumley Jr.  The William Sr. in this case must be William (the second) and Jr. must be his son William (the third.)  Therefore, we now know that William the second did in fact move to Lee Co. along with William (the third.)  However, he is entirely missing from the 1820 census.  Where the heck was he???

TRANSCRIPTION OF CONVEYANCE – SPARKS (to) CRUMLEY

11 NOVEMBER 1819 – 100 acres – DBK 9, p 6, Lee County, Virginia]

This Indenture made this 11^th November 1819, between William Sparks of Lee County and state of Virginia of the one part, and William Crumley of the County of Green and state of Tennessee of the other part; Witnesseth that for and in consideration of the sum of two hundred and 30 dollars lawful money of the state aforesaid to him in hand paid by  The sd  Crumley at or before the sealing and delivery of these present the recipt whereof is hereby acknowledged and ……therewith fully satisfied and paid ….bargained sold and deliveres with the said Crumly a certain parsel or tract of land, lying and being in the County of Lee situated on the west fork of black water creek and bounded as followeth to wit:  Beginning at a Poplar and two Beeche’s thence North 35 degrees West 50 poles to a Poplar and Burch on the side of Powell Mountain  Thence with the lines of the original patent so as to include one hundred acres by running straight along 1^st survey having the last and to sd William Crumly senior together with its appertenances.  To Have and To Hold The sd delivered parsal of land with all and singular the appertenances belonging as in any anywise to sd premises free from the claim or claims him the sd Sparks or his heirs or assigns forever In Witness whereof  I have herewith set my hand and seal

Sealed, signed, dated and delivered in the presents of}          William x Sparks    {Seal}

Joseph Baker,  mark
William Crumly Junr
Thomas Anderson

Note that the Anderson Cemetery is just a mile or so north of the Lee County line on Blackwater Road and this deed is witnessed by Thomas Anderson.

By 1820, William Crumley (the third) was living in Lee County, Virginia with one male under age 10 (Jotham), 1 male age 10-16 (William or John), one male 26-46 (himself), 3 females under 10 (Clarissa, Phebe and Sarah), one female 16-26 (unknown) and one female 26-45 (presumably his wife.) It’s problematic that one male is missing and one female, Belinda, supposed to have been born in April 1820 is missing as well.

This census raises troubling questions.  Who is the unidentified female?  Only two sons are listed, one son believed to be William (the fourth) is missing.  He is not found in any public record until his 1840 marriage to Rebecca Malone in Greene Co. whereas son John married in 1828 and is found in Hawkins Co. in 1836 and in the 1840 Claiborne Co. census beside William (the third).  Jotham married in 1834 and is found in the 1840 Lee Co. census.  Is William (the fourth) really the son of William (the third) and if so, who raised him and why is he never found in Lee, Hawkins or Claiborne County?

The youngest daughter, Belinda, may actually not have been born until after the census.  Her absence is easier to explain, at least hypothetically.

William Crumley Sr. (the second) who bought the Lee County land is back in Greene County finishing up a lawsuit in October of 1821 and selling his land, preparing to remove entirely from Greene County.  Actually, we don’t know positively that the lawsuit is William Crumley (the second) and not (the third,) as the document never says.  William (whichever) petitions the court to transfer the venue for an appeal of the lawsuit to Hawkins County stating that he doesn’t feel he can get a fair trial in Green County, and that some people, obviously meant to imply the defendant, Johnson Frazier, were “fomenting” hard feelings towards William. He was obviously very troubled by this turn of events.

We’ll never know the details, but it’s certainly possible that William (the second) never meant to remove when he bought the Lee County land in 1819.  He could have been purchasing that for his son, William (the third,) whose wife’s sisters already lived there, but then decided to sell out and move on during the 1821 trial.  Regardless of why, that is exactly what he did.

In 1824, William Crumley obtained a 50 acre land grant on Blackwater Creek in Hawkins County.  This part would become Hancock County in 1845.  We are not sure which of the Williams owned this land, but I suspect it was William (the second.)

In 1834, in Lee County VA Deed Book 15 page 162, a deed from William Crumly  to Peter Louisey (sic) is registered on December 22, 1834 but dated October 31, 1831. William Crumley of Lee County. VA and Peter Livesay of Hawkins County TN, for $300, land in Hawkins County on Blackwater bounded by the Reis (probably Rice or Rheas) line, 47 acres signed W M Crumley.

We believe this 1834 land sale was by William Crumley (the second) since William (the third) had moved to Pulaski County by 1830.  But, we’re not positive since we don’t actually know which William applied for the land grant for this tract of land.

Blackwater Creek

Blackwater Creek is extremely remote, so remote that just getting there requires one to navigate a quagmire of maze like back roads, any one of which could lead to an unexpected problem.  It’s still dirt and one lane and feels more like someone’s long driveway than a road.  Cell phones nor satellite navigation systems work there due to the tall, steep mountains.

Today, bootleggers or under-the-radar farmers who don’t know you and certainly don’t want their crop discovered can be lurking on these desolate back roads.  The locals warn you about this and I was more than a little nervous.  In earlier times, Indian attacks and buffalo stampedes were the worry of the day.  Yes, there were buffalo on Blackwater Creek at one time.  And Indians too.

In fact, Blackwater Creek, it turns out, was very desirable property and a very busy place at one time.  Believe it or not.  You’d never know today.

Reading the actual deeds is just so critically important.  In this deed, Isaac Crumley, son of William Crumley (the second) sells land to Polly Stapleton, the sister of Lydia Brown Crumley, the wife of his brother, William Crumley (the third.)

Lee County, VA, Deed Book 7, page 241 – January 15, 1837

Isaac Crumley to Polly Stapleton, 100 acres lying on the west fork of Blackwater, just above Blackwater Salt Works, for $50, adjoining land of John Williams.

Notice the comment about the Blackwater Salt Works.  In this next deed, the salt works aren’t mentioned, but the land granted to John Neill and William Roberts is.

Lee County, VA, Deed Book 12, page 77 – April 25, 1852

Isaac Crumley and his wife Mary of Lee County to William Chandler, Jeff Chandler and William Howe, all of Lee Co, 3 tracts of land on Blackwater Creek, 150 acres, 50 acres granted to James Fletcher, 837 acres, balance of 937 acre tract survey granted to John B. Neill and William Roberts by the commonwealth of Virginia, for $1000.  Signed by both Isaac and Mary B. Crumley

This 1832 Matthew Rhea Map, the first Tennessee map taken from surveys clearly shows the salt works.  In 1832, this is one of the few features noted, so it was obviously well known and important.  And guess who owned this land…

The Sullivan County, TN Department of Archives and Tourism tells us the following:

Blackwater is located at the crossroads of the old trading route from the Cumberland River to the Cherokee nation in East Tennessee and the old hunters trace from the New River to Kentucky. Today, Blackwater is an isolated community as to commerce and transportation, but it was not so isolated in the mid eighteenth century due to the large buffalo lick. Over the eons of time, herds of buffalo had carved out trails radiating out from the lick to the grazing meadows in Powell Valley, Rye Cove, and south to the Clinch River valley. Herd animals would travel great distances to a salt lick to replenish their need for salt, an essential mineral in their diet. A salt lick is a site where the soil and rocks contain a natural deposit of salt and was called a lick because the animals would lick the soil or rocks to a depth of several feet to satisfy their need for this essential element.

A salt lick was the favorite hunting site of the Indians and long hunters. The hunters would position themselves at strategic points along the trails the animals traveled to the lick and make their kill. Numerous historical records of the frontier give accounts of the well-known licks such as the Bledsoe lick in Sumner County Tennessee, the Blue lick in central Kentucky and the French lick in southern Indiana, but little is known about the large lick at Blackwater. Perhaps this is because the Blackwater lick was discovered at least a quarter of a century before the licks in Sumner County in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Indiana and by the time of their discovery the pressure of hunting at the Blackwater lick had depleted the size of the herd animals to near extinction; however, the trails carved out by buffalo remained and were used by the hunters as the choice route leading from the frontier to Kentucky. The long hunters knew about the lick as early as 1761, and it was a landmark on the old hunters path from the New River to Powell Valley.

Land records tell us much about the route the hunters took to seek game around the large salt lick and the grazing grounds in Lee County. The Hunters path is well defined until it reaches the little salt lick, Duffield, but from this point little is known about the route to Powell Valley; however, the land surveyors made notations on their surveys that give clues as to the route of the path. A land grant to Arthur Campbell [LO 45-325] describes the location of the grant as being at the Hunters Gap in Lee County and on both sides of the Hunters path. This tells us that the Hunters path ran along the south side of Powell Mountain from Duffield to Blackwater and crossed the mountain at Hunters Gap. The path ran down Wallen creek to near its mouth on Powell river where again the land surveys pick up the route of the Hunters path.

Another grant to Arthur Campbell [LO Q-318] is described as being on the south side of the Powell River and on both sides of the Hunters path. This grant is located about one mile west southwest of where Wallen Creek flows into Powell river. The Campbell grant [LO Q-318] is adjoined on the west side by a land grant to Robert Preston [LO 27-57]. The Preston grant is described as lying on both sides of the Hunters path. From this information, we know that the Hunters path ran from near the mouth of Wallen Creek across the area known as the Rob bottoms and crossed the Powell River at White shoals. Again, the surveys tell us that the path ran in a north or northwest direction from White shoals as a grant to Robert Preston [LO 27-41]is described as lying on the west side of trading creek and one of the survey points is described as “white oak south side of the old Kentucky trace on John Ewing line with same”. From this point, the path or trace ran to Martins station but the exact route cannot be proven by land records.

Records show that Elisha Wallin and William Newman hunted around the Blackwater buffalo lick as early as 1761. Wallins Ridge and Newman Ridge were named after them.  (Note that Wallin’s Ridge and Newman’s Ridge border Blackwater Creek on either side.) Other long hunters surely knew about the lick. Evidence of the buffalo trails remains on modern maps by the names of geographic features such as Hunters Ford, Hunters Valley, Hunters Gap and Hunters Branch. No doubt the long hunters in quest of game followed the herd animal paths from their favorite grazing grounds to the salt licks. There were many small licks in the area used by deer and other small game, but needs of the herd animals would require the mineral deposits of a much larger lick such as the Buffalo Lick at Blackwater.

The importance of the Blackwater lick is clearly pointed out by the claims of the land speculators. As early as 1775, Thomas Osburn had settled on land adjoining the Buffalo lick and obtained a land grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia by virtue of Right of Settlement.

“Washington County Survey Book 1,Page 389 Commissioners Certificate – on the forks of black water a north branch of Clynch River – beginning at the foot of Powells Mountain on the west side of the Buffalow Lick – at the foot of Newman’s ridge on both sides black water joining Powells Mountain, includes improvements, actual settlement made in 1775 – August 22, 1781”.

The name Blackwater appears in land claims as early as 1775, and the name was known far and wide. Claims were filed in the Virginia Land Office and the North Carolina Land Office for land at Blackwater so hunters from North Carolina and Virginia had spread the word about the large buffalo lick at the Blackwater.

From the North Carolina Archives, we find that Walter and Robert King filed an entry with the North Carolina Land Office for 250 acres that was to include an old buffalo lick.

“Recorded in North Carolina Land Office File No 28 Hawkins County records. Walter King & Robert King make entry No 1947 entered 12 Oct 1779,250 acres near the foot of Powell mountain by the name of Black Water: Beginning near the creek at a poplar, white oak, poplar s;150 poles to a stake, then W;280 poles to a stake, then n;150 poles to a   stake, to include an old Buffalo Lick, surveyed 16 Sep 1793. Thomas Church assigned his interest in the Wilkins land to William Hord and Hord assigned it to Walter King & Robert King 1 Nov 1792”.

In the meantime, Walter Preston was issued a land grant from Virginia that bordered the Thomas Osborne grant and included the buffalo lick. To further complicate the issue Arthur Campbell also obtained a grant from Virginia that included the buffalo lick, all of the Thomas Osborne grant and much of the Preston grant. Apparently Preston ended up as the legitimate owner as he sold his grant to James White. The heirs of Campbell made an effort to reclaim their Blackwater grant, but I find no record that they were successful.

Osborn and Preston land grants at Blackwater, Virginia. Copyright 2009, W. Dale Carter.

The Thomas Osborn grant ended up under the ownership of James and Stephen Osborn. A deed recorded in Lee County Deed Book 3, page 189:

“Stephen Osborn & Comfort & James Osborn & Mary to William Roberts, 31 Jul 1810, DB 3-189. 400A by survey only the 1/2 of the Buffalo lick excepted for James Osborn the same being the west side of the said lick running through the middle thereof with the conditional line made by John Osborn & Roberts from thence marked around the lick on or near the bank of the same $650”.

This deed shows that James Osborn reserved for himself ½ interest in the salt lick when the Thomas Osborn grant was sold to William Roberts. Apparently the lick site was developed as a salt works as a deed made 29 December 1817 and recorded in Lee County Deed Book 3, page 399, shows that William Roberts and his wife, Catherine sold ¼ part of a tract known as the Blackwater tract, to Jessee G. Rainey.

“Being a part of tract said Roberts purchased of James & Stephen Osburn. Including the lick premises and well, now occupied by said parties together and including 100 acres”.

The deed shows that by the year 1817 a well had been dug at the salt lick site. On 5 June 1818 William Roberts and wife sold 1/8  part including the lick premises and well recorded in Lee County Deed Book 3, page 405, and on 12 May 1818 William Roberts and wife sold ½ interest of the lick tract to Joseph and James McReynolds of Bledsoe County, Tennessee for $3,000. Recorded in Lee County Deed Book 3, page 406. The McReynolds deed shows that something of great potential lay within the boundary of the tract. At that point in time, land in and around Blackwater was selling for $1 to $2.50 per acre. The McReynolds paid $60 per acre.

From this time forward, the land records do not show what happened as to the ownership of the salt lick tract; however, on 19 January 1835, by order of the Lee County court, Jacob V Fulkerson, commissioner of the court, sold one moity of the Blackwater salt lick to Dale Carter of Russell County, Virginia. Carter was a large land owner and land speculator who owned large tracts in the Elk Garden and in present-day Wise County, Virginia.

Why all the interest in the buffalo lick? Most likely these early land speculators had visions of developing the site as a salt works much like the one at Saltville. In fact, a salt works was operated at Blackwater for a period of time.

There are two further pieces of information that have a bearing on the land and the road where William Crumley (the second) and probably (the third) lived.

Lee County Order Book 2, page 364 27 Jan 1818; David Burk proposes an alteration in the road leading from the Blackwater salt works up Blackwater to the state line.

The above statement shows that “up” does not mean north, because the state line is south of the salt lick.  Therefore, the land description that says that the Crumley land was “above” the Salt Lick probably means between the lick and the state line.

Lee County Order Book 2, page 374, 29 Apr 1818: John B Neil, Elisha Rogers; Thomas Roberts; William Wallin and David Lawson view a road from the forks below the Blackwater salt works to John B Neils.

This would be the road where William Crumley lived.  His land abutted that of John Neils and William Roberts .

Today, the Roberts Cemetery is near the head of Blackwater Creek in VA, very near the salt lick, located on SR 70, 10 miles south of Jonesville, VA at the foot of Powell Mountain near a group of houses across the road from the Collingsworth Cemetery.  The Roberts Cemetery is where Polly Stapleton, aka, Mary Brown Stapleton, sister of Lydia Brown, wife of William Crumley (the third) is buried.  In fact, it may also be where Lydia Brown Crumley is buried as well.

Note also that William Crumley (the third’s) grandson, John Crumley’s son, James H. Crumley born in 1839 in what became Hancock Co, married on May 10, 1865 to Martha Anderson.

On this map above, the Anderson Cemetery (left red arrow) is about a mile north of the Virginia/Tennessee border, and the salt lick is another 2-3 miles north of that.  The Roberts Cemetery (right red arrow) is near the salt lick.

You could say that all of Blackwater Road was the Crumley stomping ground.  They knew every nook, cranny and mountain ridge.  William Crumley the second lived his life from 1820 or so until his death after 1837 but before 1840 and his son, William Crumley (the third) lived here from 1820 or so until he packed up his wagon and left for Pulaski County before 1830.  In 1840 William Crumley (the third) had moved back and lived nearby, one ridge over, but by 1850, he was once again living on Blackwater, on the Tennessee side of the line.  For thirty years William Crumley (the third) trod and plowed this land and the land in this area…more or less…except when he moved to Kentucky.  William (the third) buried his wife, (step)mother and father here, not to mention his son Jotham…and those are only the family members we know about.  There were surely more.

I have to believe he would have been pleased to see me on Blackwater Road, looking for his land.  Seems that the Crumleys return here much as the buffalo returned to the salt lick.

Which William Lived Where?

The 1830 census becomes even more confusing, because William (the second) has apparently moved to Pulaski Co., KY., 80-100 miles west of Lee Co., Va. where he appears on the 1830 census age 40-50, one female 20-30 (unknown), one son 5-10 (Aaron), one son 15-20 (Jotham), one daughter 5-10 (Belinda), one daughter 10-15 (Phebe), one daughter 15-20 (Sarah or Clarissa) and one female 40-50, presumably his wife.

Again, son William (the fourth) and a daughter are missing, although Belinda, or at least a female that age, is present in this census.  There is also an extra female, age 20-30.

Pulaski County records have never been searched for William although many of their records were destroyed by fire in 1871.  William could have lived there for only a short time, around 1830, or he could have lived there nearly 20 years, from not long after 1820 to not long before 1840.  Pulaski County records could potentially also hold records of his wife’s name, which would help immensely.

Yes, this is on my list of things to do, perhaps even shortly.  It’s my last hope for discovering, positively, William (the third’s) wife’s name after the 1817 marriage.

However, in 1830, there is a William Crumley living in Lee County.  Lo and behold, it appears to be William Crumley (the second).  He is shown, aged 60-70, which would be accurate.  He was shown with 2 females in the household, his wife age 50-60 (presumably Betsey) and a girl age 5-10, possibly a grandchild, or maybe he and Betsy Johnson had one child after their marriage.

Sometime during the next decade William (the third) returned from Kentucky.  I think he returned before 1838 because his daughter Melinda (Malinda, Belinda) was married to James Hervey Davis in Claiborne County in 1838 – and you have to see each other to court.  He may have returned before August 1834 when his son Jotham was married in Lee County.

William (the third) appears on the 1840 Claiborne Co., TN census, age 50-60, possibly no wife, one son 15-20 (Aaron,) two daughters 20-30, (Sarah and Phebe) and one female 60-70 who is unknown.  The female age 60-70 could Lydia and the census date column information could be wrong.  Or Lydia could have died and the female could be Betsy Johnson Crumley, since it appears that William (the second) had died.

Wouldn’t it be a great twist of irony if William Crumley (the third) actually did wind up living in the same household with Betsey Johnson Crumley after his father’s death, even though he was not her husband, but her step-son, as well as her cousin by marriage.  Sometimes, the truth is stranger than fiction.  Especially in this family line.

Finding William (the Third)

The Claiborne County residence in the 1840 census also suggests that William Crumley is living further west than his father who lived on the border of VA and TN on Blackwater Road, which was part of Hawkins County before Hancock was formed about 1845.  Blackwater Creek and Powell Mountain were originally the eastern boundaries of Claiborne County, where it intersected with Hawkins before the formation of Hancock.

Interestingly enough, I accidently discovered where William was living in 1840 – and it makes a great deal of sense.  This comes in the “truth is stranger than fiction category,” as I wasn’t looking for William Crumley at all when I made this discovery.

I had noticed that in 1840, William Crumley (the third) was listed on the census, along with his son John Crumley, living between Eli Davis and Littleton Brooks.

I was looking for where Elizabeth Shepherd McNiel lived in 1830, and she lived beside her son Niel McNiel.  I noticed in some documents that Niel’s land abutted that of Josiah Ramsey.  One of my very experienced genealogy cousins descends from the Ramsey family and I knew she had done a lot of research, so I contacted her to see if she knew the location of Josiah Ramsey’s land.

Cousin Dolores sent a map with land locations overlaid, which was of primary importance.

On the 1830 census, Elizabeth McNiel and her son Niel McNiel live between Josiah Ramsey and Eli Davis in the upper right hand corner of this map.

In 1840, William Crumley is living between Eli Davis and Littleton Brooks and near the Hopkins, all shown on this map as neighbors.

In the lower left, Daniel Rice’s land is shown where it would abut Elijah and Joel Vannoy’s lands.  Why is this important?  Because in 1845, William Crumley (the third’s) daughter, Phebe, would marry Joel Vannoy, son of Elijah Vannoy.

So, not only do we now know how Phebe and Joel met, as near neighbors, we also know where William Crumley was living in 1840 after he returned from Pulaski County, KY.  Additionally, in 1848, William’s daughter Sarah would marry Edward Walker, who lived a mile or so beyond Elijah Vannoy’s land on Mulberry Gap Road.

Now, where is this land today?  On the map below, William Crumley likely lived just below the Turner Hollow label.

I mapped the location where Niel McNiel would have been living next to Elizabeth McNiel and Eli Davis on present day Turner Hollow Road (on the right) and then where Joel and Elijah Vannoy owned land on Mulberry Gap Road at the red balloon on the left.  Keep in mind that they would likely have taken the “back way” since Rebel Hollow and Turner Hollow intersect and it looks like Joel and Elijah Vannoy probably owned the land between Mulberry Gap Road and the back side of Rebel Hollow Road.  Of course, at the time, it wasn’t called Rebel Hollow Road – a name it acquired during the Civil War.  The history of the Mulberry Gap church tells us that the name arose because a group of southern sympathizers lived there.  Hmmm….

William (the Second) Dies

In January 1837, William (the second) sold his land in Lee County to his son Isaac.  In 1841, Isaac had to prove the deed in court by the testimony of James Weston, Thomas Stapleton and Thomas Weston (husband of Hannah Crumley), the same men who witnessed the 1837 sale, and the deed was recorded October 18, 1841.  This, along with the fact that William (the second) is missing in the 1840 census, suggests that he died between 1837 and 1840.

Thomas Stapleton is the son of the sister of Lydia Brown, Mary “Polly” Stapleton.  In fact in an every larger twist of fate, Isaac, just a decade later, sells at least part of the William Crumley land on Blackwater to Polly Stapleton.

William (the third) lost his father about 1840.  This could have had something to do with why William (the third) returned to the area from Pulaski County.  His father may have been ill in the 1830s and needed help.

William Goes A-Courtin’

William (the third’s) children began marrying in 1828, when John, the eldest son, married a woman named Mahala, last name unknown.  In 1834, Jotham married Anne Robinette in Lee County.  Clarissa married John Graham in 1834 in Greene County and Melinda (or Belinda) married James Hurvey Davis in Claiborne County in 1838.  Aaron wouldn’t marry Anne Scofield until 1844 and Phebe married Joel Vannoy in 1845.  In 1848, Sarah, called Sallie, would marry Edward Walker, a widower who lived in Mulberry Gap Road just down from where Phebe and Joel Vannoy lived.  By 1848, William’s cabin would have been empty and quiet, so it appears that William went a-courtin’.

William (the third) married Pequa (Pya, Pqa, Paa) some time in 1849 or early 1850.  They are listed in the 1850 census of Hancock Co. as ages 61 and 53 and it’s noted that they were married within the past year.  Unfortunately, the Hancock County courthouse burned, twice, so there is no further information available.

It’s unlikely that Pequa had never been married before, given her age.  However, there are no children showing that would have been hers, so if she had children, they were already married and gone, although that is unlikely given that women generally have their last child in their early 40s.

Pequa’s name is extremely interesting.  In 1850, William Crumley (the third) lives in the middle of the Melungeon neighborhood.  John Crumley, his son, lived adjacent and very likely married into the population, as his wife’s name is Mahala, a name traditionally found in the Melungeon families, made particularly famous by legendary Melungeon Mahala Mullins, a very rotund and colorful bootlegger.

The Crumley land, on Blackwater, is also in the Melungeon neighborhood.  The name, Pequa, however, is not found in any other instance in this region to the best of my knowledge, and I’ve researched here for over 30 years now.  Pequa, is, however, a Shawnee word for Phoenix, or risen from the ashes.  There have been family rumors for years of this line being “Native,” but if this is true, and it’s through Pequa, then it’s not a direct line to any of the Crumley children, because by the time Pequa married William Crumley, she would have been too old to have children.

One More Move

Something nudged William to move on, even though he had already seen his 60^th birthday.  Why William would want to pack up everything he owned, leave much of his family behind and rattle around in a wagon with no shocks, creaking and bouncing over dirt roads full of wagon ruts, or mudholes, depending on the season, is beyond me.  Appanoose County, Iowa is about 800 miles, on today’s roads, from the area where William lived in Hancock County.  At ten miles a day, the journey would have taken 80 days, or nearly an entire miserable summer.  What was this man’s motivation?

Furthermore, Appanoose County is significantly further north than Hancock County, Tennessee.  I’m betting that William had no idea what was in store for him in terms of winter weather.  Genweb has a delightful page with frightening snow pictures of Iowa weather.  I doubt, if William had seen these, he would have been nearly so willing to depart.  It’s dramatically different than the South.

William and Pequa moved to Appanoose Co., Iowa in 1851.  William was shown as age 64 on the 1852 Iowa State census, so born about 1788, but did not appear on the 1860 Appanoose Co. census that listed Pequa as age 64.  William (the third) apparently died after the census in 1852 but before the census in 1860.  He did not die within a year of the census, because he is not listed in the 1860 mortality schedule.  Pequa’s death date is unknown but both are buried someplace in Appanoose Co., Iowa.  After William’s death, Pequa lived with a family in Unionville, a very small town of about 2 blocks in length.  Perhaps William is buried near here.

Iowa was a very different place than William (the third) had ever lived.  It was flat with a horizon that went on forever.  No hills, no mountains.  I wonder if he was happy.  I guess, in part, that answer might have something to do with why he left in the first place.  Perhaps he missed owning land and he apparently had none after returning from Pulaski County, KY.  Maybe he had never really owned land.  Or maybe he just had a case of wanderlust.

In the “Iowa History up to the 20th Century – History of Iowa from the Earliest Time to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century” Vol 3, in the “Early History of Iowa” section, page 349, Greene Co., it mentions William Crumley coming to Greene County in 1850-51.  This is the same time that the other Crumleys migrated to Iowa.  On the same page in the book, it mentions S.G. Crumley as county clerk and Isaac D. Crumley as sheriff.  The Crumley men apparently succeeded there.

“The History of Appanoose County, Iowa, Containing A History of the County, its Cities, Towns” tells us that land opened for survey in 1850, was initially delayed a bit due to a boundary issue, but by 1860, nearly all of the land was claimed.  The availability of land may have been why William left for Iowa.  Maybe William found something he had chased his entire life.  A review of the Iowa records has never been done.

William’s Children

Children of William (the third) assembled from family information, census and land information are as follows:

• John Crumley born 1808 in Green Co, TN married Mahala born in 1812 and lived in Hancock County. He named a daughter Lydia. The 1870 census shows a John Crumley in Lee County VA, age 62 (born 1808) with Mahalia, 58, several children, with John stating he was born in Green Co., TN.
• William Crumley (the fourth) who married Rebecca Malone in 1840 in Greene County was attributed to William (the third,) but I have my doubts, especially since William (the third) was “missing” a child in both census where William (the fourth) should have been listed. However, this William did name a child Jotham.  It also appears that Clarissa was raised by someone in Greene County as well.
• Jotham (also noted as Sotha) Crumley born October 23, 1813 Greene Co., TN, died August 22, 1841, Lee County, VA, married Ann Robinette on August 14, 1834 in Lee Co., VA.
• Sarah “Sallie” Crumley born 1814/1815 in Greene County, TN, married Edward Walker in 1848 in Hancock Co., TN. The Walker homestead, a log cabin, still stands.  The Vannoy and Walker households in Hancock County were on the same road and only a mile or so apart.

• Clarissa Marinda Crumley April 10, 1817 married George Graham in Greene Co January 16, 1834, buried in the Cross Anchor Cemetery, Greene County, TN. There are no children named Lydia or Jotham, but the mitochondrial DNA of Clarissa’s descendants matches that of Phebe, indicating they share a common maternal ancestor.
• Phebe Crumley born March 4, 1818 died January 17, 1900 married Joel Vannoy and in the late 1860s, moved down the road to Claiborne County where they lived in the Little Sycamore community in Vannoy Holler and had a large family.
• Belinda Crumley born April 1, 1820 married James Hervey Davis in 1838 in Claiborne County. She died in 1905 and is buried in the Mulberry Gap Baptist Church Cemetery.  Of note, she also named a daughter Lydia.  I would very much like to have a DNA test from someone who descends through all females through one of her 4 daughters, Martha, Lydia, Nancy and Louisa.  This would confirm or refute the tests of Clarissa and Phoebe as being the children of Lydia Brown.
• Aaron Crumley born in 1821 in Lee County, married Mary Ann Scofield on November 21, 1844 in Claiborne County, TN. Named a son Jotham.  Aaron moved to Iowa with William and Pequa.

Of these children, the ones I most question as belonging to William Crumley (the third) and his wife, Lydia, are William and Clarissa, both because they married in Greene County, TN.  Either they were raised there, or the family traversed back and forth quite a bit.

Crumley DNA

When I first began the Crumley DNA project, there was one burning question we wanted to answer.

In addition to this Crumley family, who at that time we presumed was connected to the Greene County group, there was one George Crumley in Sullivan County, TN.

For decades, the two families searched for a common ancestor or a link to prove they were related – or that they weren’t.  That link remained elusive, although both families did have children named William,  Unfortunately, William is such a common name that one really can’t draw any inferences from that alone.

The most difficult part of this comparison was finding the first Crumley males from each group to test.  DNA testing was in its infancy.  I formed the Crumley DNA Project and began to see who I could find to test to represent the two lines.

I’ll never forget the cousin, nicknamed Wildman, who made and sold possum skin bikinis for larger women on the internet, and would give a discount if the lady would send him a picture of herself in the bikini.  Wildman wanted to know if I wanted to clone him.

I told him no, and the possums don’t want more than one of him either:)

At that time, more than a decade ago, there was little understanding of any genealogical DNA testing, so the folks who tested did so simply out of trust and good grace.  Wildman represented the Sullivan County line and my cousin Jerry represented the Greene County line.  We just knew we were all from the same ancestral line.

Except… we weren’t.

Thank Heavens, the answer is definitive.  No maybe or ambiguity about it.  Not only are we not related, we’re not even in the same haplogroup.  We were disappointed, but so glad we could stop chasing that elusive connection document that didn’t exist.

The George Crumley line is haplogroup G-M201 and the Greene County line is haplogroup I-M223.

But, are we sure?  Was there an NPE or undocumented adoption in one line or the other.  We needed a second male descended from a second son of each ancestral line to test, just in case.

We found another Crumley male for the Greene County group three months later, but it would be another year before we found another male for the Sullivan County group.  Even today, that group hasn’t grown beyond the original two.

We did in fact confirm that yes, the two groups are entirely separate.  Now the confusion is only genealogical when their descendants move into counties where their records are co-mingled – like, oh, say, multiple William Crumleys.

Yep, the Crumley Curse lives on!

Acknowledgements:

Other contributing researchers to the Crumley family are Truett Crumley (deceased), Paul L. Nichols (deceased), Stevie Hughes, Larry Crumley, Irmal Crumley Haunschild (deceased), Jerry Crumley, and Nella Myers (deceased.)

If you have Irish Catholic ancestors, you’re in luck.  Well, at least you might be.  Are you feeling lucky?  Is the luck of the Irish with you today?

One of the wonderful things that can happen with Y DNA testing at Family Tree DNA is that you match someone who does have a direct ancestor connection overseas to a place and time.  In my case, my McDowell line matches a McDowell line in King’s Moss, Northern Ireland.  Of course, that doesn’t mean my Murtough McDowell who died in 1752 was born in the same place in Ireland, but it’s more information that I had before and it gives me a place overseas to search.  Where to begin that search?  Well, the church records make the most sense, if they exist, and now many are newly available.

Irish Catholic record images are now online back through 1740 where the records are available.  Catholics, in general, keep fastidious records and they are often full of great genealogical information.  Plus, you have more than one opportunity.  It’s not just births/baptisms, marriages and deaths that are recorded.  Often confirmations are included as well.

Furthermore, these are indexed, just not in the same online location.  The bad news…unless I’ve missed something, which is certainly possible as I only did a quick look-see, you have to check each parish individually.  I hope that sometime in the future they can provide a single index since many of us don’t know where our ancestors were from in Ireland or exactly when they were born.

Also, I noticed in the Irish Ancestors search that they note “all known copies excluding originals in local custody.”  Hmmm.  So maybe this isn’t quite everything.

You can read more about the project here and access the registers here.  You can inquire by surname here and here.

Dare we hope for Protestant records to be indexed and brought online as well?  That would help a lot with those Scotch-Irish families.

I love it when I tie into a line that has been well researched.  It doesn’t happen very often, but when it does, it’s definitely time for that happy dance.

I also love it when my ancestor has a really unique name.  Enough already with these Johns and Williams. I love the name Jotham.  I had never heard it before, outside of the Bible, before I found Jotham Brown, or better put, before I found Stevie Hughes who helped me find Jotham Brown.

We believe Jotham was born about 1740, but we don’t find any records until Jotham is in his late 30s, in 1778.  He could have been born somewhat earlier, probably in either Pennsylvania or Virginia, given the migration history of the other families where he is first located.

When Jotham was a child, the French and Indian War, also known as the Seven Years War, took place from 1754-1763 and involved both Pennsylvania and Virginia.  Not only was the land involved where Jotham most likely lived, but the conflict was protracted and often involved raids and attacks on settlers.  In many places, it was a time of fear and uncertainty.

“French and indian war map” by Hoodinski – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:French_and_indian_war_map.svg#/media/File:French_and_indian_war_map.svg

Of course, without knowing exactly where Jotham lived during that time, we can’t tell what he might have seen or how involved his family might have been.  Most healthy men in that timeframe served in the local militia, at least, which was then drafted for more active service during times of conflict or war.  Depending on his age, he could have served and his father most assuredly would have in some capacity.

Hampshire County, Virginia (now West Virginia)

The very first record we find of Jotham is in the Virginia Northern Neck Land Grants.

“Jotham Brown researchers may be interested in several deeds in Hampshire County Virginia, all of which can be found on line at the Library of Virginia. Jotham was very busy on Oct. 8, 1778.  He helped survey three tracts of land.  One can be found by looking up Frederick Royce 1789, (land surveyed earlier) and another is on surveys no. 21788-1794 page 87, and a third was on page 87 same survey no. 2.  Jotham Brown is named in a deed and survey done for John Berkeley grants R, 1778-1780 P. 170-171.  In the John Berkeley survey Jotham bought his land from John Royce. They lived on Spring Gap Mt.  John Royce was from Frederick county.  A John Brown from Frederick and a John Brown from Philadelphia are around the same community.  Hampshire records are not intact but an order book that starts around 1762 is at Library of Virginia.”

Thank you Mark Sampson for posting that information.  It’s very useful and helps us locate Jotham’s land.

A 1788 Hampshire County deed mentioned Frederick Royce (Rice’s) land on Great Capechon which is close to Spring Gap Road, as we’ll see in a minute.

Little Capecon (left arrow below) and Great Capecon (both right arrows) are both tributaries of the Potomac River.

Although they are maybe 4 miles as the crow flies, the crow has to fly over a mountain range between the two, so while they are close, they aren’t direct.

It’s pretty rough country.  Jotham Brown was obviously not intimidated by challenges.

You can see above and below that this area is also very close to Maryland, so it’s possible that Jotham’s family originated in Maryland.

In 1779, Jotham is mentioned as owning land adjacent to John Berkelery’s grant on Spring Gap Run in Hampshire County.  This also tells us that Jotham owns land.  I checked all of the Northern Neck land grants but I was unable to find the deeds mentioned online at the library of Virginia.  So if Jotham wasn’t granted land, he bought it from someone who was, like John Royce.  Clearly, Hampshire County deeds need to be checked, but they are not in existence.  Bummer!.

This land is close to the current Virginia/West Virginia border, bordering Berkeley County.  Spring Gap Mountain Road extends along Spring Gap Mountain running parallel to Little Cacapon.  The map below shows Spring Gap Road, end to end.

I cannot find a present day Spring Gap Run, but often a “run” was a creek that ran alongside the road.  Roads of course followed the easiest access, often carved by creeks through the landscape.  This land description mentions a fork, and on the northern end, there is indeed an unlabeled creek that includes a fork and runs along Spring Gap Mountain Road and dumps into Little  Cacapon.  This road is dirt today, so no Google street view available.  The top end of the blue line is at the fork in the creek branch near Little Cacapon.

The Revolutionary War

Try as I might, I could find nothing at all about Jotham Brown during the Revolutionary War which lasted from 1775-1783.  Perhaps if the court records for Hampshire County were perused, there might be a mention of a contribution or a public claim.  It’s hard to believe he neither served nor contributed.  Many of the men from this area served in Augusta County units.  He did move during this time, so he could have potentially served out of Frederick or Botetourt County, but I’m sure that the Frederick County records have been thoroughly perused by earlier researchers.  Hmmm…I think I need to put this on my ever-growing “to do” list.

Most of the existing Hampshire County records begin in 1788.  Both fire and war have destroyed most Hampshire records.  Many of those not burned were carried away during the Civil War.  To make matters even worse, the remaining pre-1866 records from Hampshire are illegible.  Well, sadly, that part came off of the to-do list in record time.  There is nothing at Fold3 or at the Library of Virginia about Jotham Brown and military service, so this will likely fall in the “forever unknown” category.  During that timeframe in Virginia, all able-bodied men were minimally expected to participate in their local militia.  That was the only form of local protection.

Frederick County, VA

Jotham apparently moved from Hampshire County between 1779 and 1782 when he is found on a Frederick County tax list.  If he lived near the Johnson and Crumley families in Frederick County, VA, then he lived near White Hall, shown on the map below.  This is no hop, skip and a jump.  It’s 50 miles more or less from Spring Gap and not on flat land.

Stevie first finds Jotham in Frederick County, Virginia in the 1782 tax list in Col. Holmes district with 10 whites and no slaves, with the following neighbors:

Johnson, Topper Sr. – 8 whites
Johnson, Topper Jr. – 2 whites
Johnson, Moses – 6 whites
Brown, Jotham – 10 whites

On the same list and in the same district, but not a neighbor, we also find Catherine Crumbley with 1 white male and 3 blacks.  Catherine is the great grandmother of William Crumley (the third) who marries Lydia Brown in 1807 in Greene County, TN, the daughter of Jotham and Phebe Brown.

The 1782 tax list implies that Jotham and Phebe, assuming she is his only wife, have been married at least 15 years, given that they have 8 living children.  It’s unlikely that all of their children lived, so their marriage date is estimated as 1760 although it could have been as late as 1767.  Jotham’s eldest daughter Jane Brown Cooper was born in 1768 in Virginia according to the 1850 census.

Jotham is in Frederick County in 1782 along with Zopher (spelled Topper) Johnson “the elder,” who Stevie believes may be the father of Jotham’s wife, Phebe.

If Phebe, Jotham’s wife, is Zopher Johnson’s daughter, as has been theorized, then the Brown and Johnson families had to meet about 20 years before the 1782 Frederick County tax list for Jotham and Phebe to have married between 1760 and 1767.  In fact, in 1761 and 1762, Zopher Johnson, according to Stevie’s work, was living at the “Forks of Delaware’ in Northampton Co., PA.  Zopher was first found in Frederick County in 1771 on a tax list, so he apparently lived in Northampton County, PA for a significant time.  If Jotham Brown wasn’t in that vicinity in 1760/1765, then Phebe, his wife, can’t be Zopher Johnson’s daughter.  We need to look for Brown families near Zopher in Northampton County, PA.

If Jotham lived near the Crumley family in Frederick County, VA, who would, along with the Johnson family, migrate to Greene County, Tennessee about 5 years before the Brown family would do the same thing, then Jotham may have lived about 9 miles north of Winchester, near where the Crumley home remains today as the Crumley-Lynn-Lodge House, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, near White Hall, shown on the map above.  We know, according to Zopher Johnson (Sr.,) Revolutionary War veteran, son of Zopher the Elder, that he was living “near Winchester, Virginia” in 1781, per his Revolutionary War pension papers.  Since Jotham Brown was neighbors with Zopher, he too lived “near Winchester, VA” in 1782.

Botetourt County, Virginia

Apparently, Jotham Brown didn’t stay long in Frederick County, because in 1783, Jotham and Phebe purchased 233 acres of land in Botetourt County, Virginia on Brush Creek, a branch of Little River.  Jotham would have been about 43 by this time, having been born about 1740.  We don’t know where he was before 1778, but from 1779 to 1783 he moved at least twice – and not just the next ridge over – substantial moves.

Botetourt County was not close to Frederick County, but it was right down the wagon trail that eventually became US11, then later paralleled by the construction of I81.  I shudder to think how rough this journey was, and how long it took them to travel the 215 miles.  I just hope Phebe wasn’t pregnant during this chapter in their lives – but she likely was, because their son Jotham was born October 2, 1783.

Brush Creek runs for about eight to ten miles, as the crow flies, (certainly much longer as the stream zig-zags), about 4 miles southeast of but parallel with I81 in present day Montgomery County, Virginia.

Brush Creek Road, also labeled 617, runs alongside the creek for most of the distance until it intersects with 612 near Pilot.  Brush Creek itself continues along 612 to near Huffville where Brush Creek turns south, again crossing 612, and then ends, or more accurately, begins, before running its length and dumping it’s water into the Little River, at far left.

These two arrows show the headwaters, at right, of Brush Creek and at left, where it joins with Little River.  I would show you on Google maps, but not only is Brush Creek Road unpaved, so are all the roads for miles in any direction.  Google maps does “street view,” not “dirt road view.”  This is rough, mountainous, country.  Brush Creek is the area at Pilot, right of Riner Road, left of Check and above Tindall.

As I looked at the larger map, I realized, I’ve been here – or at least close.  In March of 1993, a devastating blizzard hit Appalachia, known as “The Superstorm” and “The Storm of the Century.”  It truly was an inland cyclone and this part of Appalachia received about 45 inches of hurricane force driven snow.  I was snowed in for days in a truck stop motel north of Mt. Airy, NC, having gotten the last room available, and believe me, I was grateful to be there, no matter how smokey and roach-eaten, because most people were sheltered in the high school gymnasium eating sea rations as one big “happy” family.  By the end of that very long week, people had probably become engaged and gotten married, or at least begat children.  I had just read several books and done some genealogy.  Much less drama in the hotel room, not to mention hot showers!  And I found a little grocery with food.  With that and a microwave, I was all set.  I bought enough supplies to last a couple weeks if necessary.  Campbell’s soup can taste VERY good!

This area represents some of the roughest terrain in all of Appalachia.

Why did Jotham select this area?  It makes you wonder if this is where his wagon broke down, so it’s where he stayed.  One thing about I81 – it actually runs along the crests of the mountains, which was part of the problem when they had that terrible blizzard.  They couldn’t get heavy equipment up to the interstate to clear it.  Originally, all of the paths and the wagon roads, such as they were, would have been twisty turny pathways through valleys and along streams and rivers.

Let’s take a tour along Brush Creek Road, thanks to the Brush Creek Facebook group.

You can still follow those old roads today, like Brush Creek Road, above, if you get off of the main road and follow US11 as is slithers back and forth across and under I81, like a drunken snake seeking shelter in the mountain hollows.  Venture a mile away and you’d never know a modern road exists.  It’s a quick ticket back in time.  In the photo above, you can see Brush Creek to the left of the road.

This photo is looking at the mountains from Brush Creek.  The Brush Creek area is still very remote today.  This contemporary bridge is still wood.

This is Brush Creek where is drains into the New River.

One thing you have to concede is that no matter how rough the terrain, and how difficult to eke a living out of this mountainous land, it is breathtakingly beautiful.

Fall would be a stunning time of year in this heavily treed and mountainous terrain.

I love old roads, because I know that my ancestors, Jotham, Phebe and their daughter, Lydia, traveled up and down these very same roads, more than 200 years ago.

Jotham and Phebe lived on Brush Creek and Terry Creek in Botetourt, which became Montgomery County, for just under 20 years, near the Christopher Cooper family.

This old homeplace on Brush Creek was known to be home to many families over the decades and probably across centuries.  Jotham’s early homestead probably looked much like this.

Farming on Brush Creek was done with horses and plows, before tractors. Jotham might have used oxen rather than horses.

In Botetourt Co., VA in 1783, Jothem Brown Sr. bought land, located near William, Moses, James, Hezekiah and George Brown, Moses Johnston, Robert Foster and Christopher Cooper.

In 1785, Jotham is listed in Capt. Eason’s District on the tax list in Botetourt County, VA with one white poll.

Jotham’s oldest daughter, and probably his oldest child, Jane would marry Christopher Cooper Sr., a Revolutionary War veteran, on October 20, 1786, in Montgomery County.

In 1788, in James Reynold’s 100 acre Botetourt County land grant, Jotham is mentioned as an adjoining neighbor on “Brush Creek, a branch of Little River.”

It was also about that time, in 1785, that two of Jotham’s sons-in-law, Christopher Cooper and William Stapleton, both Revolutionary War veterans, signed petitions to establish a “Reformed Church of Scotland” in Botetourt County.  This leads Stevie to suggest that if Jotham’s sons-in-law were Presbyterian, Jotham probably was too.  She is likely right. The Presbyterian church was the hallmark of the Scots-Irish and the Scots-Irish were the guardians of the frontier.

The Fincastle Church may have been the result of this petition.  The history of Fincastle Church tells us the following:

“After the Act of Religious Freedom was passed in 1785, the Established Church building in Fincastle came to be used by dissenters rather than by its former Anglican members. Since the tithe was no longer collected by the state, the church was destitute. Fincastle was largely populated by dissenters, chiefly Presbyterians, many of whom were member of the Sinking Springs congregation. This congregation was formed in 1754 when Robert Montgomery and Patrick Shirkey granted a tract of land about two miles east of Fincastle on Sinking Springs Creek for the use of the Presbyterian congregation. The community was interested in its own form of worship and was willing to provide for it. This was the meeting place for the inhabitants of the whole region and the beginning of the flourishing Presbyterian congregation that succeeded the Established Church in the present building.”

This tidbit may actually be part of the answer as to why Jotham Brown would choose to set forth on the Great Wagon Road and move his family to the frontier.  The official church of colonial America was the Anglican Church.  In Virginia, prior to the Revolutionary War, dissenters were jailed and worse, although, having said that, the Crumley family in Frederick County was originally Quaker.

Eventually, dissenting ministers were licensed, but still often mistreated.  The separation of church and state as we know it did not exist.  For example, tithes, meaning taxes, were levied and collected by the church.  Both Anglican church membership and attendance were required – and you were fined if you skipped church without a good reason.  What was and was not a good reason was determined by the church after you were summoned to explain yourself.

However, people were needed on the frontier to settle and to act as a buffer between the newly established settlements and the Indians, in essence, for protection.  If anyone was going to do that, well, then who better than a bunch of dispensable “dissenters” who weren’t terribly compliant anyway.  Troublemakers!  Best to ship them out where they could be useful.  As long as they paid their taxes, who cared?  So, the established church turned a blind eye, allowing the Scots-Irish or Scotch-Irish to establish Presbyterian churches on the frontier.  In fact, the colonial government offered a “bounty of lands” to the Scotch-Irish who would settle on the frontier.  And Winchester, in Frederick County, Virginia, was the gateway to the “Great Wagon Road,” ticket to the next step in freedom for those with a taste for adventure or for those unruly and unrulable dissenters. The flow westward began after the French and Indian War, which ended in 1763 and in essence opened the lands east of the Proclamation Line of 1763.

After the French and Indian War ended, the Great Wagon Road was the most heavily traveled road in America.  Oh, and in case you were wondering, the settlers treated the Proclamation line as if it didn’t exist, and settled where they wanted.  Needless to say, the Native people who lived on those lands were very unhappy with this turn of events – and with the settlers who were squatting without permission.  Conflict was inevitable.

This 1751 Fry-Jefferson map depicts “The Great Wagon Road to Philadelphia.”  For Jotham Brown, and thousands of others like him, it was the Great Wagon Road to the frontier, land and opportunity, with no guarantees.  In fact, the trip was risky, the new locations were risky, and frontier life was risky – which is one reason why families and neighbors traveled in groups.  It’s always good to have some assured help. It’s also why some people left – who wants to be the only one left behind.  By the time Jotham set forth on the Wagon Road, he knew that there were already pioneers established there – he wouldn’t be the first – and it was certainly safer than it had been during the French and Indian War or during the Revolutionary War when the Indians were fighting in alliance with the British to retain their lands and prevent further encroachment of settlers.  But settlers poured in, by the wagonloads, running like an endless stream into the backcountry.  The great tide of settlers was unstoppable.

Church on the Frontier

According to “The Tinkling Spring, Headwater of Freedom, A Study of the Church and her People 1732-1952” written by Howard McKnight Wilson, ThD, the Tinkling Spring minutes indicated that the Sinking Spring Church had been established, on the Catawba and James River, located across Sinking Creek from Fincastle, and continues today as the Fincastle Church.  In 1785, the Abington Presbytery was formed and these churches fell under its jurisdiction

It’s interesting to peek a bit into the time and place and workings of the frontier churches of this time.  While from an outside perspective, and looking back, they seem to be united in their desire to establish new churches and carry on the traditions of their church from the old country, that wasn’t necessarily the entire story if you looked from inside.

In 1936, Goodridge Wilson, Jr, delivered an address before the Abington Presbytery in connection with the Diamond Jubilee Celebration, and in it he said the following about controversy within the early church.

From the earliest days of its history Presbyterianism in America has been characterized by convulsive internal struggles over questions of doctrine and polity, and those struggles from the beginning were enacted in Abingdon Presbytery.

The infant Presbytery in the wilderness was hardly out of its swaddling clothes before figurative fists began to fly over the issues involved in Dr. Hopkins’s theological teachings. Even before the Presbytery was born some of its churches were rent asunder over the matter of psalmody. Revivalism had its advocates and its outspoken opponents. The complicated issues that brought on the great split of the eighteen thirties divided the Presbytery, and the bitter feelings involved in the issues of slavery and sectionalism profoundly affected its churches. All of these ancient controversies, and others of a more local character, made their impress upon the character of Presbyterianism within the Presbytery’s area, arid many of their effects are still with us, although the causes may he long forgotten.

The spirit in which these controversies were fought out is well illustrated in the dispute other whether Watts’s hymns should be used in worship or Rouse’s version of the Psalms be given exclusive recognition. In 1780 this issue came to a head in the congregations of Sinking Spring and Ebbing Spring, and probably in others. In these two it was brought before Hanover Presbytery and on complaint of Rev. Charles Cummings almost half of his members were dismissed from the membership of these two churches because they refused to use Watts’s hymns, insisting that only the inspired psalms should he sung in the worship of God.

The dismissed members proceeded to organize themselves into separate congregations, which accounts for the origin of Rock Spring Church and probably of Green Spring Church, the former certainly and the latter probably having been psalm singing congregations in their beginnings. As another sequel to this affair Rev. Charles Cummings asked to be released from the pastoral charge of his churches, and his request was granted by the Presbytery. Attention is thus particularly called to these intense and continuous internal conflicts because, while the bitterness and strife they engendered is to be deplored and the waste of energy that might better have been used for the saving of souls and ministering to human needs in the name of Christ is to be mourned, there are lessons of value in them that may well be pondered now.

These forefathers of present day Presbyterianism in Southwest Virginia were men of intelligence, men of courage, men of conviction. They believed what they believed, and counted their religious convictions worth fighting for, be the consequences what they would. They have thereby left us in sacred trust a hard bought heritage of truth to be maintained and passed on as new wine in new bottles. Viewing their record from the distance of many years they may seem to have been lacking in tolerance, and to have displayed more of zeal for non-essentials than of Christian charity, more of eagerness to vindicate their own opinions than of earnestness in reaching and saving men. But with our vision dimmed by the lapse of years we need to be very careful lest in our judgment of them we sin against Christian charity, and, even if these grave charges be sustained against them, their imperfection stands as a warning to us against falling into similar pitfalls, while their stubborn standing for the truth as they saw it demands that this generation be faithful to its trust, their essential faith, won by travail and held by struggle and passed from their hands to ours. This generation must not fail in that trust. If we were to put the wine of our day into bottles of theirs the result would be disastrous, hut it will he even more disastrous if we put milk and water, or even vinegar, in our bottles instead of wine

Men of courage, men of conviction, …a sacred trust, a hard-bought heritage…won by travail, held by struggle…counted their convictions worth fighting for – religious and otherwise.  He said it so well.

Jotham’s Death

As the sun sets over Brush Creek, below, the sun set on Jotham Brown’s life on Brush Creek as well.

In 1803, the Christopher Cooper family would move on to Greene County, another 170+ miles in a wagon.  Several more of Jotham’s children would either accompany them, or follow, including daughter Lydia, my ancestor, who would have been about 12 or 13 at the time.   In 1807, in Greene County, she would marry William Crumley (the third) who also came with his family from Frederick County, Virginia.

But Jotham wouldn’t be with them.  In 1797, Jotham began to sell his land.  He was either preparing to move, or die…I guess we’ll never know which it was that he anticipated.  He would have been about 57 at that time, give or take a few years.  Certainly not old by our standards, but perhaps his body was just worn out.  The pioneer men worked exceedingly hard and had no health care, as we know it.

On March 6, 1797 in Montgomery Co., VA Jothem and Phoebe Brown sold a plot of their land to Joseph Moore.

I was able to find Terry’s Creek and Moore Road, adjacent, in what is now Floyd County, VA.

Moore Road (686) runs left of but parallel to Terry’s Creek.  Dobbins Farm Road runs to the right of Terry’s Creek.  Since Jotham sold his land to a Moore, Moore’s Road is likely where Jotham’s land lay.  However, his homeplace was likely not on this piece of land, or he wouldn’t have sold it first, in 1797.

On the map above, Moore’s Road is at the left arrow and Terry’s Creek is indicated by the right arrow.

Moore Road only runs a short distance, maybe 4 miles, from Christianburg Pike to 679, although Terry’s Creek continues along 679 and then 673 for another couple miles.

Looking at the satellite view, this land looks a little more farmable, judging by the fact that more has been cleared.

This picture was taken in Floyd County, VA which was taken from Montgomery County in 1831.  Floyd joins with Montgomery in the area of Brush Creek – between Terry’s Creek and Brush Creek.  Jotham’s land probably looked something like this beautiful rolling-hilled farm with the mountains in the background.

Sometime between when Jotham sold land in 1797 and when Phebe and his heirs sold the remainder of his land on Terry’s Creek, another branch of the Little River, on May 16, 1800, Jotham died.  Stevie indicates that the deed in Montgomery County deed book C, page 326 provides a complete roster of his children.  Jotham left his widow, Phebe and eleven children, six of whom were underage, although several were nearing adulthood.

May 16, 1800, Montgomery Co., VA, Deed book C, page 326. Heirs of Jotham Brown, deceased convey 104 acres lying in that county on Terry Creek, a branch of Little River to Benjamin Craig. Heirs listed as: Wife Phoebe Brown, Christopher Cooper (husband of Jane Brown), Salvanes (Sylvanus) Brown, John Willes (John Willis, husband of Esther Brown), David Brown, John Brown, Mary Brown, Lydia Brown, Elizabeth Brown, Jothem Brown, Mirey Brown, and William Brown.

We don’t know where Jotham was buried, but it is probably someplace on his land.

Some years ago, a descendant set this stone after researching in the area.  Unfortunately, that researcher isn’t sharing their information, so, we’re left to hope that indeed, they correctly located Jotham’s land and set this stone on the land he owned.  Tracy, a FindAGrave contributor, photographed the stone and was kind enough to send me the location.  A big thank you to Tracy.

This stone is located on Laurel Church Road in Floyd County, which used to be Montgomery, which used to be Botetourt County.

The exact location of the stone is shown on the map above with the red arrow.  This is further north than Moore’s Road, but also on the upper reaches of Terry’s Creek – so this certainly could be Jotham’s last piece of land, the homeplace.  Would they have buried him here if they knew they were moving?  Might he be buried at the Fincastle church instead?  It’s possibly, but it’s more likely that in the 20 or so years that they lived in Botetourt County that there were other deaths and burials as well – so Jotham isn’t alone in the cemetery, wherever it lies.

On the map below, you can see the Laurel Church, the 608 marker which is where the stone is located, and the upper end of Terry’s Creek at the bottom of the view.

I know this is the “hard way” to locate land, but sometimes, it’s the only option we have.  It’s rather amazing, if you think about it, that we can do it at all.

On this map, you can see the entire Terry’s Creek area, with Moore’s Road on the left, Terry’s Creek on the right and the location of Jotham’s stone at the top.

If this is the location of Jotham’s actual land, you’ll note that it’s equidistant between the headwaters of Brush Creek, at the top, and Terry’s Creek, at the bottom (red arrows).

We don’t know for sure if Phebe went with her daughter, Jane, and Christopher Cooper to Greene County, but most of her children did.  If Phebe did not move with them, then she too rests beside Jotham in the lost Brown cemetery, possibly located on their land between Brush Creek and Terry’s Creek in Montgomery, now Floyd, County, Virginia.

The DNA Message

When DNA testing first began, Stevie stepped up to coordinate DNA testing for the various male lines of Jotham Brown’s sons.  Not only do they match, which is always a good thing, but they established what the DNA of Jotham himself looked like.  You can see the Jotham clan in Group 34, from the Brown DNA Project page at Family Tree DNA.

Furthermore, DNA testing provides us with the Jotham Brown haplogroup.  In old style notation is was R1a1 and new style, it’s R-M512.

In Greene County, it just so happens that another Brown family also settled early, although in a bit of a different area, near Carter’s Station, about 5 to 7 miles west of the Cross Anchor area where the Jotham Brown children are found.  However, Y DNA testing of the two groups proved unquestionably that they are not connected, at least not by sharing a common Brown direct line paternal ancestor.

Let’s see if we can use DNA matching to answer the question of whether or not the Brown family is Scots-Irish.  Looking at the matches map for one of the Brown descendant men, at 25 markers, we see that there is a proclivity of matches in England at one and two mutations difference.  His two exact non-Brown surname matches are brickwalled in the US.

This is not at all what I expected to see.  Hmmmm…..doesn’t look very Scots-Irish to me.  I do believe we have more yet to learn about this family.

At 37 markers, the only Brown matches are to Brown descendants.  The Brown men have a very specific haplotype, or DNA signature, which does them the very big favor of acting as a personal DNA filter, eliminating non-relevant DNA matches at 37 markers and above.  Unfortunately, there are no Brown men with known ancestral locations in the UK.

Taking a look at Haplogroup Origins, there are no matches at 37 markers, so looking at 25, we see the various haplogroup subgroups into which the Brown matches fall, and their locations – mostly England.

Another tool, Ancestral Origins, which shows us the location where the Brown matches indicate that their most distant ancestors were from shows us that we have an overwhelming number of English, 61 compared to 8 in Ireland and Scotland, combined, at 25 markers.

I got excited for a minute, when I saw several 37 marker matches with Ireland and Scotland, until I realized, that’s the Brown men AND they aren’t united about where they think they are from.  The truth of the matter is, of course, that no one knows.

What we need is to find one of two things, or preferably, both.  One, a solid Brown match overseas and/or Jotham’s parents.  You know with a name like Jotham, he probably was not the first to carry that name.  He certainly wasn’t the last.

For now, but hopefully not forever, Jotham’s origins still remain a mytery.

Summary

We think Jotham was born about 1740 and we know he died between 1797 and 1800, but in between, it’s pretty foggy.

Unfortunately, we only have snippets of Jotham’s life, beginning when he was probably in his late 30s.  Before that, he saw first hand and up close both the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War.  Both of those events had to make a profound impression on Jotham, but since we don’t know where he lived during that time, we can’t even made an educated guess as to how they affected his family.

By the 1770s, he is in Hampshire County, VA, now West Virginia, and by 1782, he had moved to neighboring Frederick County where he is found as a neighbor to the Zopher Johnson family.  Stevie suspects Jotham’s wife might be Zopher Johnson’s daughter.  I’m looking for evidence of that, but have found none so far.  We’ll visit that question more specifically in Phebe’s article, yet to be written.  DNA may be able to help answer that question.

By 1783, Jotham was off again to Botetourt County, which was more than 200 hundred miles distant – in a rough wagon with no shocks.  He settled there and lived the balance of his life.

The only clues we have about Jotham’s possible religious leanings come from Botetourt where his two sons-in-law signed petitions supporting the formation of a Presbyterian church, which was at that time, a dissenting religion.

Jotham was apparently preparing to move again in 1797 by selling land.  Instead, he died.  His family sold the balance of his land and moved on to Greene County, Tennessee.

Jotham’s DNA suggests that his family was English, although what we really need for location proof is a very close Brown Y match who can document their ancestral location in England.  That indeed will be a red letter day.

Acknowledgements:  I would like to thank Stevie Hughes for her years of research and taking the lead on the Green County Brown DNA initiative, because without her, I would have a big blank spot on my pedigree chart where Jotham Brown’s name now resides.  If you would like a downloadable “everything you ever wanted to know about Jotham Brown’s family, and more” document, written by Stevie Hughes, click here.

My earliest identified Harrell ancestor is John Harrold (also spelled Harrald, Harald, Harold, Harrell, Herrell, Herald, Herrald, Herrold and any other way they could think of to confuse me) who died in Wilkes County, NC in about 1825. His wife, Mary died in 1826. His known children were born beginning in 1782 or 1783, so he had to be born before 1760 or even earlier.  The 1800 census shows John to be over the age of 45, so that tells us he was born before 1755.  Given the information I found in his Revolutionary War service records, I’m betting be was born around 1750.

It’s a good thing we have John’s death year and the census information, because much of the other information about his life is quite murky.  It has been quite a journey with more than one very unexpected crook in the road.  Come on along for the ride!

Visiting Wilkes County, NC

I visited Wilkes County in 2004 and asked my cousin, George McNiel, a local historian and avid genealogy researcher, to take me on a tour of all of my family lands.  There is a mountain named Harrold Mountain today.  I would never have put Herrall or Herrell, the surname in Hancock County, Tennessee and Harrold Mountain in Wilkes County together were it not for George and his knowledge of the area and families.

Cousin George took me to the grave of old John Harrold only to discover the single grave is gone and a chicken house stands in its place.  I don’t mean a cute little chicken house like grandma had, but a huge factory chicken house that stinks to high heaven.  How sad.  For both my ancestor and the poor chickens.  My cousin said this isn’t unusual because the only flat place large enough for a chicken house (40×100 feet) is often old graveyards, so off go the stones and in goes the chicken house. I wonder what old John Harrold thinks about that.

According to cousin George, this is the location where old John Herrell’s (Harrold, Herrald) grave used to be.  The chicken house is on the left, just out of sight.  This is on the top of Harrold Mountain.  John lived here during his lifetime and was probably buried in his own backyard.

This is either the same place or very near where his son John is also buried, known as the Brown Family Cemetery, shown on the map below.

FindAGrave has photos of the cemetery, before and after a cleanup effort.

Above, the Brown/Harrold cemetery before, which makes me wonder if the cemetery really did still exist but we missed it.  Although having said that, if anyone would know, it would be George.  He and his late wife spent more than 20 years surveying, inventorying and documenting every grave and graveyard in Wilkes County.

There is a family legend that says that John Harrold died in 1783 and was buried up on Harrold Mountain with all of his money and someone dug him up and robbed the grave. Of course, the speculation was that the culprits were his kids.  I guess that’s one way to take it with you – but I’ve always had these comical visions of several adult children sneaking up the mountain and running into each other at the grave in the dark. After the fight that would surely have ensued – who knows how many are actually buried in that grave:)

The story is interesting, but the 1783 death date is incorrect (because John wasn’t yet in Wilkes County in 1783 and he didn’t die until 1825) and would lead us to believe that maybe it was John’s son, John Harrald (Jr.) who was born in 1783.  We know he was buried on Harrold Mountain.  Regardless of the specifics, which we will never unravel now, the story is charming and there is surely some nugget of truth in there someplace, or the story wouldn’t exist at all.

So, John’s grave may have been twice insulted – once by grave robbers and once by a chicken farmer.  I don’t think John is resting in peace.

The fact of the matter is that the original John Harral (the name in Wilkes County is typically spelled Harrold and Harrald) didn’t die in 1783 and appears on the 1800 census with a male and female over 45, one male under ten which is probably son William, one male 10-16 and one daughter 10-16.  In addition, his presumed son, John Harrold Jr. is also enumerated with one male age 16-26, a female the same age and one female under the age of 10.  John (the elder) also appears in the 1810 census with his wife and only one child, the son who was 10-16 in 1800 in 1810 is listed as age 16-26.

The Church

Zion Baptist Church is a very old “primitive Baptist” church on Harrold Mountain and guess what the names are on probably 80% of the graves – yep – you guessed it – Harrold/Harrald.

A local cousin is a member of the Primitive Baptist Association, of which Zion Baptist is a member as well.

According to the cousin, this church was established in 1861. The white church above is the second building and the remnants of the original log cabin are found in the woods.  I suspect there was a church here long before 1861 given the remoteness of the area – simply that the church wasn’t a separate building and probably met at someone’s home before the log cabin.  It’s the only church on Harrold Mountain, so it’s a good bet that old John Harrold was a Baptist.  At least one of his children was married by a Baptist preacher.  John’s descendants were and are members of this church, that’s for sure.

The articles of faith upon which this church operates are posted on the wall.

1)       We believe in one only true God, Father Son and Holdy Ghost, and these three are One.  1st Timothy 2:5, Eph 4:6, 1st John 5:7

2)       We believe that the scriptures of the old and new testament are the word of God, and the only rule of Faith and practice. St. John 1:14, 2nd Timothy 3:16, 1st Peter 1:21

3)       We believe in the doctrine of election by Grace.  St. John 1:14, 2nd Timothy 3:16, 1st Peter 1:21

4)       We believe in the doctrine of original sin and in mans importency (sic) to recover himself from the fallen state he is in by nature, by his own free will and ability.  St. John 6:44, Romans 5:12-18

5)       We believe that sinners are called, converted, regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and that all who are thus regenerated and are born again by the Spirit of God shall never fall away.  St. John 6:63, 10:28, 2nd Peter 1:10, 2nd Timothy 1:9, 1st John 3:9, Revelation 22:17

6)       We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.  Romans 5:1, 10:4, Ph. 3:9

7)       We believe that Baptism, the Lord’s Supper and feet washing are the ordinances of Jesus Christ and that true believers are the only subject of these ordinances, and we believe that the only true mode of Baptism is by immersion. Mark 1:9, 16:16, John 13:8-17, I Cor. 11:23-26

8)       We believe in the Resurrection of the dead and in general judgment, and that the joys of the righteous and the punishing of the wicked will be eternal.   Mat. 25:31:32, John 5:28-29, 1st Timothy 4:16.

9)       We believe that no minister has a right to administer the ordinances of the gospel except such as the regularly called and come under the imposition of hands by the presbytery.  Mark 3:14, 2nd Cor. 3:6, 4:1, 5:18, 1st Timothy 1:12, 4:14.

You can see the location of the church in proximity to the Harrold lands.  In order to help judge distance, it’s about 500 feet from the church to Yellow Banks Road, so less than a mile to John Harrold’s land above Harold Mountain Road.

My cousin George, quite a history buff, said this was the last one of the old local churches to flatten the top of the graves for mowing. Apparently this particular denomination believed in rounding the tops of the graves – and keeping them mounded up. I don’t know why. They also had an outside eating area because they don’t believe in having food inside the church. These are still common practices of this particular sect of Baptists apparently, but most of the churches have modernized a bit.

You can see in the photos below, there were still mounds on a few graves.

The photo below is standing at the church looking across the road and at the beautiful view of Harrold Mountain.  This is the exact view John Harrald would have seen, well, minus the silo.

John Harrold’s wife was named Mary. She is credited with saying that when she died, she wanted to but put up on the bluff on top of Harrold Mountain and to let her fly back to sweet old Ireland. I guess we know where she was from, if the story is true, but we have no idea who she was. Given that my cousin only said something about one stone where old John was buried, I couldn’t help but wonder if they had in fact put her on the bluff. I don’t know how they could find the bluff though, as it is very overgrown.

Above is the bluff of Harrold mountain, pieced from two photos, visible behind the tree and fence rows.

Tracking John Harrold

I will be spelling John’s name in the way it was spelled in the various documents that I’ve found.  Clearly, with a name like Harrold, it was quite likely to be spelled however the clerk decided it was to be spelled at that moment.  There was little consistency.

We first find John Herold in Deed Book C-1 in Wilkes County, on page 334, on July 6, 1794 a transaction between Robert Powers of Rowan County, NC and  John Herold…negro winch and mulatto child called Pink and Rose…property lately purchased in Camden…but if Robert Powers returned 75 pounds of indigo (sample whereof is in Herolds house) to Herald the above obligation to be null and void.  Signed by Robert Powers, witnessed by David Baxter.  Proven in open court February 1802 by comparison of hands writing by oath of Betsy Herald and William Young. Proven in open court July term 1804 hand writing of David Baxter by William Young, Esq.  The fact that this took place in 1794 but wasn’t registered until 1802/1804 suggests that indeed, the indigo was not returned and that Robert Powers either wasn’t cooperating or had died.

This of course begs the question of who was Betsy Herald.  John Herald (born in1782/1783) married a Betsy McKinney and that is likely the Betsy who gave her oath.

I have to wonder what caused John to be in possession of 75 pounds of indigo dye in the first place.

John Harrold appears in the Wilkes County court records on November 3, 1796 with an order from the court for the sheriff to sell 100 acres of property of Thomas Adams taken by execution to satisfy a judgment recovered against him by John Harrold, which judgment obtained by plaintiff in Iredell County execution issued by George Brown, Esq.

This is the first hint we have as to where John was “from” before we find him in Wilkes County.  Am I very grateful for this tie.

Iredell was formed from in 1788, so I checked the Rowan County records which begin in 1753 and found no John, with the exception of tax lists.  There is an early Hugh Herrill there as well, but his Y DNA line is not the same as John’s.  John Harrell is found on a 1785 tax list in James Crawford’s Company with one white poll and no land.

Extracting Iredell County records, specifically the minutes of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions from 1789-1800 transcribed by Shirley Coulter we find a little more information about John.

On page 46, on August 24, 1792, a list of men is given who took the oath of allegiance and Jno Herril is included.  Of course, this might not be our John.  I wonder why he had to take the oath if he was a veteran and why this late.  The Revolutionary War had been over for years.

On February 17, 1796, a jury was ordered to lay open a road on part of Brush Mountain Road to go around a field of Robert Bogles, agreeable to his petition.  John Harrold was one of the men to lay out this road.  The Brushy Mountains are found in the northwest part of Iredell County.

The Deed Book from 1797-1802 shows a sale on October 5, 1798 from John Meadows to George Roberts on the waters of S. Yadkin on which John Harreld and David Roberts are listed at witnesses.  This deed was recorded on January 21, 1802.

An 1802 record from Rowan County Will Abstracts on page 113 shows the probate of the will of Stephen Roberts on January 9, 1802.  His wife is listed as Phebe and he lists children Warren, Joshua, Thomas, William, daughter Polly Harold, daughter Molly Noreton, daughter Judith Egmond, daughter Phebe Richmond, daughter Nancy Roberts and Betsy Roberts daughter of son William.  Polly is a nickname for Mary, but none of the sibling names look familiar, nor did John and Mary Harrold name a child Stephen, so this is likely not our John Herrald’s wife.

The 1800 census of Wilkes County shows Michael McDowell, Jacob McGrady (the minister who married William Herrell and Mary McDowell), and both John Herrell Jr. and Sr. (spelled Harrall) on adjoining pages.  Based on this evidence, pending further investigation, it is presumed that Michael McDowell is the father of both Mary and John McDowell and John Herrell Sr. is likely the father of William Herrell.

John Herral appears on the Wilkes County tax list in Captain Carltons District in 1800 with 1 white poll and no land.

In 1805, J? (smeared) Herrell had 550 acres and no polls, and James Herrell had 180 acres and 1 poll.  It’s interesting that John had no polls in 1805.  This could be because he was elderly, because he was an official, like a sheriff, although there is no evidence of that, a minister, but again, no evidence, or because he was disabled.  We know that by 1790, John had 6 children, so had been married a minimum of 13 years.  If he was 25 when he married, that means he was born about 1752.  He could have been born earlier.  If he was born in 1752, he would have been 53 or older in 1805, so possibly “elderly.”  The age where one didn’t have to pay polls varied by state and time and I’ve seen it range from age 45 to age 70.

In 1802, on page 345 of Deed Book F-1, John is mentioned in a land grant to Reuben A. Carter for 100 acres on Chathis Quemin Branch, the waters of Haymeadow and on John Herold’s line.  This is probably Chinquepin Branch.

This is followed on page 353 of the same book by a transaction on July 31, 180(blank) from Richard Allen, late sheriff and John Fletcher, Sr., land lost by Reuben A. Carter, court action brought by James Fletcher, 100 acres part of 200 acre tract on the waters of Cathinquemin Branch of Haymeadow on John Herold’s line.  Witnessed by John Saintclair and Hugh Brown.

John’s daughter, Elizabeth, married Reuben Carter in February of 1803.  This had to be a very upsetting time for the family, possibly in multiple ways.  Why did Reuben lose his land?  Was he irresponsible or unlucky?  Did he lose his land before or after he married Elizabeth?  Did they move in with her parents whose land abutted Reuben’s?

In 1803, in Deed Book F-1, on page 87, Charlotte Harrold witnesses a deed between Reuben Carter and William Sabastian for $10, 100 acres on Rock Creek, on Henry Carter’s corner and the road.  Also witnessed by William and Nancy Carter.  Charlotte was John Harrold’s daughter and married Coonrod (Koonrod) Dick in 1806.

John’s Land

Land grant entry number 1246, file number 2421 for 200 acres was filed for John Herrold on November 16, 1801 and states that the land is on the Chinquepin Branch of the Hay Meadow Creek on the waters of Mulberry beginning near the head of the said branch and that it is against Michael McDowell’s line.  The survey was entered November 16, 1801 and was actually recorded in February 1802.   Chainers were John Roads and Michael McDowall.  There is a drawing of the survey but it just looks like a square and there are no watercourses noted.  The fact that the land was at the head of the branch tells us it was high up on the mountain.

Note that John Harrold’s son, William, would marry Mary, the daughter of Michael McDowell, in 1809.

The grant of land was not actually made until December 5, 1811 and it is grant 2817.  It’s odd that John would not own land until this late in his life.  He was approximate age 50 in 1800.

The name is spelled variously Herrild, Herrald, Herrold.  John paid “4 pounds” for this survey in 1804.  I find it interesting that they are still using the old English money measures and not dollars.

In 1811, in Wilkes County Deed Book G-H we fine a David Harrill of Surry County, NC selling land to Jesse Allen for 200 pounds, 550 acres on Joshua Mizes line, the waters of Hunting Creek, witnessed by Richard Alley and Hugh Riley.  Hunting Creek is not near John Harrold’s land, more than 5 miles distant as the crow flies, southeast of Wilkesboro.

There is no known connection between David and John Harrell, but just because a connection isn’t known doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  Furthermore, we don’t know how David obtained this land, because he isn’t listed in the deeds or grants.

John’s land is located on Haymeadow Creek.  You can see Mulberry to the lower left on the map above.

Haymeadow Creek runs right up beside the Zion Church and on up paralleling Harrold Mountain Road until you reach the beginning.  As we know  from the land grant, the beginning or headwaters of Haymeadow is where John’s land was located.

John’s land is very likely where his son, John’s land was located, where the cemetery is, or rather, was located, which is between the Harrrold Mountain Extension and Waddell Drive, above and below.

John’s land was about as far up as you could go on Harrold Mountain, which of course, wasn’t yet named Harrold Mountain at that time.  200 acres would have been just about all of the land above the Harold road U on the map above, including the central extension.  The original homestead was likely on the left near the cemetery.  Michael McDowell’s land abutted John’s at the southwest corner where they shared a stake and eventually, Reuben Carter’s would abut John’s land too.

If you look at this picture, all of that treed land above John’s land is too mountainous to do anything with.  Very steep and wild.  That one little road you see is a two-track that leads to nothing.

A Willliam Herrell was witness to a will of Benjamin Sebastian in 1818 in Wilkes County.  John Harrold was a witness also.  This is likely not William, John Senior’s son, because John’s son, William, went to Claiborne County, Tennessee about 1810.

By the time John Harrold Sr. died in 1825, his son William had been gone for 15 years.  I wonder if John ever saw William again.  Did he know when William was pulling away in the wagon that it was their final goodbye?

William wasn’t the only one of John’s children to leave.  In fact, the only child we know of that stayed in Wilkes County was son John, who likely lived on John Sr.’s old place.

These two photos were taken on Harrold Mountain on a beautiful spring day with the goats frolicking to celebrate the fresh spring grass.  It probably looks about the same today as it did when John Harrold lived there.

John died sometime in 1825, because in October of that year, in Will Book 3-4, on page 78 is recorded the account of sale of the estate of John Harrold.

In January 1826, an allowance was made to Mary Harrold, widow and in October of 1826, the estate sale of Mary Harrold was held.

John Herrell was born in roughly 1750 or before and died in 1825 in Wilkes County NC.  He is buried someplace on Harrold Mountain, probably on his own land.  Today this mountain remains very rugged and remote.  His grave is either marked with a chicken house or he is buried in the same cemetery as his son John.

John’s Children

What we know about John’s family is somewhat limited, but at least some of his children have been identified.

Of John’s known sons, one, John, stayed in Wilkes County and is the progenitor of the family there today.  William went to Claiborne County, Tennessee and the family surname is generally spelled Herrell or Harrell,  Alexander went to Breathit Co., KY where the name is Harrold and Herald.

• William Harrell, born 1790 in NC married Mary McDowell, daughter of John’s neighbor Michael McDowell, in 1809 in Wilkes Co.  They were married by the Baptist Preacher, Jacob McGrady. They moved to Claiborne Co. shortly thereafter. They lived for a short time in Lee Co. Va. before purchasing land in Claiborne Co. in 1812. This is my ancestor.
• John, born 1783, died in 1879 in Wilkes Co.  He married Elizabeth, “Betsy” McKinney about 1797.  Most of the Wilkes Co. Harrold’s seem to be descended from this man. John also lived on Harrold Mountain, probably on his father’s land, and is buried in the Harrold/Brown Cemetery.

You can see it closup here, the trees in the middle of the field to the right side of the photo.

John’s gravestone says he was born in 1782 and died in 1879.

• Elizabeth, born in 1785 married Reuben A. Carter in 1803 in Wilkes Co. No more is documented about this couple, but they may have gone to Maury County, TN. by 1815 and then on to Crawford County, Missouri.
• Alexander Herrell born about 1785 in North Carolina, died about 1860 in Breathit Co, KY, married Elizabeth Turner before 1812 and moved to Breathit County shortly thereafter. The 1850 census where the name is spelled Herrald shows that he was born in North Carolina.
• Charlotte, born about 1790 married Koonrod Dick in 1806 in Wilkes County. She and Koonrod or Conrad moved to Simpson Co. KY before 1825.
• James, possibly a son of John, listed here because of his residence in Wilkes in 1805. This is speculative and may be inaccurate. There is no further information about this man.

We are left with a couple of burning questions about John Harrold or however the surname was spelled.

Where was John from?

We know John (the eldest or first’s) son John (Jr., the second) was born in or about 1782 or 1783, that he stayed in Wilkes County.  Because John Jr. (the second) lived past the 1850 census, we can tell something about where John Sr. was living in 1782 when John Jr. was born.

The 1850 Wilkes County census tells us that John Herald was a 67 year old farmer born in Virginia.  His wife was apparently deceased and he had 5 children living at home. This would be John Jr. (the second).

The 1860 census shows us that John Harold Sr. (the second,) who lived beside John Jr. (the third) was a 78 year old farmer born in Virginia. He still had 4 daughters living at home with him, ranging in age from 22 to 31.  The Jr. and Sr. have transitioned.  The John Jr. (the second) became John Sr. when his son John (the third) reached adulthood.  John Sr. (the first) had already died by this time.  John (the second’s) son, John, became John Jr. at that time.  Jr. and Sr. can be very deceptive because of this type of transition, and also because they may not indicate a direct relationship.  Sr. and Jr. can mean “older” and “younger” in two men with the same name who are not related or not father and son, but live in the same location.

John (Jr., the second) is not shown in the 1870 census, although according to his grave marker, he was still living.

In 1880, John Jr. (the third) is still living, age 75 and he shows that both he and his parents were born in North Carolina.  His wife shows that her parents are born in Virginia, so it’s not a matter of unthinking ditto marks.  This would indicate that his father, John (Jr. the second) born in 1782, was born in North Carolina, although we have three census records where John (born in 1782) presumably gave the information himself and said he was born in Virginia – in all 3 records.

According to the census, in 1800 we find John (the eldest) with his children in Wilkes County.  In 1790, we find only a couple of candidates in North Carolina or for that matter, anyplace in the eastern half of the US.  The Virginia 1890 census does not exist and has been replaced by tax lists which I have thoroughly scoured from 1782-1787.

One candidate is John Harrald in Iredell Co NC.  He is not listed in Iredell in 1800, so this could be our John, especially with the 1794 court record referencing Iredell County where John obtained the judgment.  In 1790, this John had enough children to be our John, which is one of the qualifiers to be a candidate.  He had 1 male age 16+ (himself), 3 males under the age of 16 and 4 females.

The second burning question is related to the first, and the question of where John came from is at least somewhat unraveled as we peel the onion of the mystery of the multiple John Harrold’s who served in the Revolutionary War.

Which John Served in the Revolutionary War?

A fellow Harrell researcher sent me the following two scanned pages a couple of years ago.  They found these years ago in a Virginia library.  We don’t know what books they are from, aside from the information at the top of the page, but it does tell us that there are two Johns who served.

One John Harrell applied for a pension from Nansemond County, VA where he was born in 1761.

We know that this is NOT our John because that John applied for a pension in 1833 in Nansemond County, VA and our John lived in Wilkes County and was dead by this time.

The second page, below, shows a John Harrill from NC, a private, who received or applied for a land grant on July 29, 1820, for 228 acres that went to his heirs.  Unfortunately, this entry raises far more questions than it answers.  Does this mean he served out of North Carolina or only that he lived in NC in 1820 when he applied for land?

I found this book at the Allen County public library, and it was Revolutionary War Records of Virginia Vol 1.  by Marcus Brumbaugh.  The book explains that these records are of bounty land warrants for the military district of Ohio from the federal and state archives.  This record for John is for a private and for 228 acres.

From the article “Military Bounty Land” by Sandra Hargreaves Luebking, we find the following.

North Carolina was the most generous, giving 640 acres (a square mile) to a private in the Continental line. The tract was in Tennessee; no bounty land warrants were located within the present-day boundaries of North Carolina.

An extraordinary flood of Revolutionary War bounty-land warrants poured from Richmond, partly because Virginia had the largest state population and partly because it granted warrants not only to its Continental line but to its state line as well. The distinction rests on who paid the soldiers—Congress or Virginia.

The first military reserve was created south of Green River in Kentucky and subsequently expanded west of the Tennessee. There were no bounty lands within present-day Virginia or West Virginia. In 1784, Virginia ceded its claim to the area north of the Ohio River, reserving the 4 million acres between the Scioto and Little Miami Rivers for redemption of its bounty-land warrants. This Virginia Military District in Ohio was federal land for which first-title land grants were reserved solely for the Virginia warrants of veterans of the Continental line. A series of ever more liberal acts broadened where warrants could be used and by whom until, in 1852, Congress agreed that all Virginia Revolutionary War warrants could be exchanged for scrip accepted at any GLO land office. Large numbers of these assignable warrants were sold; an estimated one-quarter of the Virginia Military District was acquired by twenty-five men.

The paperwork flow was: (1) warrant application to Richmond; (2) warrant issued to warrantee; (3) selection of desired land in Kentucky or Ohio reserves and survey by official surveyor; (4) paperwork for Kentucky lands to the Virginia Land Office or, from 1792, the Kentucky Land Office, or the federal capital for Ohio lands; and (5) patent for Kentucky land sent to patentee or federal patent sent to Richmond for relay to Ohio patentee.

Fold3.com Records

Next, I checked http://www.fold3.com, finding several service records.

Service Records – Company pay rolls

John Harrold’s (Herrald, Harreld) Revolutionary War pay records.

Served in the late Capt. Williams Company of the 8th Virginia Regiment commanded by Col. James Wood:

• Pay roll of Capt. John Nevils Company of the ? Virginia commanded by James Wood for the month of June 1777 – John’s pay is noted, along with a note “Deserted July 7^th”.  Others who deserted the same day were Travis Chambers, William Hutcherson and John Waters.
• Deserted July 1778, joined April 17, 1779
• April 1779 Camp Middlebrook
• Virginia 8^th Regiment – Late Captain Wallace’s Company of the 8^th Va Regiment, commanded by Col. James Wood – private June 1779 Camp Smith’s Clove to July 1
• Same as above but dates June 1, 1779 commence pay at 6 2/3 dollars per month – for one month amount of pay 2 pounds
• July 1779 Camp Rampo – private – enlisted May 1, 1777 for 3 years – Each one of the pay records shows this he enlisted at this date which is how you can be sure it’s the same man.
• Aug 1779 – Camp Smith
• Oct 1779 Camp Ramapough
• April 1779 – 3 days pay – not drawn for since June 78
• March 1779 – Capt Smith’s Clove’
• June 1779 – private, Capt Smith’s Clove, Capt. Wallace’s Company commanded by Col. James Woods
• John Herrold, Capt Wallaces Company, appears on a list of the absentees of the 12^th Virginia Regiment with the sum due each: not dated, 11 48/72 dollars, absen
• Roll of Captain Wallaces Company of the 8^th Virginia for the month of August 1779 – paid for one month as a private.

Smith’s Clove is in Suffern, NY, State Route 17.  Camp Rampo was in Ramapo, New York as well, and both of these locations were headquarters of George Washington during the Revolutionary War.

This is an entirely separate record at Fold3 as follows:

John Harald – private, Capt. Abraham Kirkpatrick’s Co in a detachment of the 2^nd Virginia Brigade commanded by Col. Febiger – Dec, Jan, Feb and March 1780, pay is 6 2/3 per month, subsistence is 10 per month, amount of pay and subsistence 50 dollars.

John Harold – Soldier Infantry – appears in a book under the following heading:

“A list of soldiers of the Virginia Line on Continental Establishment who have received certificates for the balance of their full pay agreeable to an act of assembly passed November session 1781.”

Signed by Mr. Hancock, June 4, 1782 for 36 pounds

Pensions

John Harrold – 1 NC Regiment – Capt. John Summer’s Company of the 1^st NC Batallion commanded by Colonel Thomas Clark – roll dated Sept. 8, 1778, enlisted April 4, 1776 for 2 and one half years.

There is also a service record for John Harrold who served in the 1 NC Regiment.

John Harrolds of Frederick Co., VA and Botetourt Co. VA

VA State Library, Archives Division, Military and Land Warrants Records for John Harrold show he served 3 yrs as a sergeant in VA Continental Line, 8th VA Regiment from Botetourt Co. He was discharged June 1777 near Valley Forge then served a 2nd time for 18 months in the 8th VA Regiment and was discharged near Salisbury, Feb 1782. In 1819 he lived in Wilkes Co., NC and in 1828 was still there when he received bounty land warrant #6718 for 200 acres.

The above record drove me nuts, because while someone was kind enough to send me the info, and I was very grateful, there is no source or context, so I couldn’t reproduce it nor did I know where to go from here.

Another contributed record tells us the following.

One John Harrold was born circa 1761 in Frederick County, Virginia.  The first record of him is from a Register of Description of Noncommissioned Officers and Privates enrolled at Albermarle Court House dated 23 December 1781 in which he is described as:  “John HARRELL, age 20, born in Frederick Co., VA, 5 ft. 10 in. tall, brown hair, grey eyes, fair complexion, occupation planter, residing in Montgomery Co. VA, engaged as a substitute from Montgomery Co.”

The John Harold of Frederick County born in 1761, so only 20 when he enlisted in 1781, cannot be the John Harrold who was a sergeant when discharged in June of 1777.  That just doesn’t work.  A 16 year old is not going to be a sergeant.  He also cannot be the man whose pay records were found from 1777-1779 at Fold3.com.

Now we know we have at least three John Harrold’s serving out of Virginia, and possibly more:

• John of Frederick County, age 20 when enlisted in December of 1781, so born 1761
• John of Nansemond County who served from there and requested a pension from there in 1833
• John of Botetourt County, reported to be a sergeant who eventually lived in Wilkes County, NC.  Served twice, once discharged near Valley Forge in either 1777 or 1779 and discharged the second time in 1782 from Salisbury NC.  Received a bounty land grant.
• John who enlisted on May 1, 1777 for 3 years who is probably the same man who deserted in 1778 and rejoined in 1779.  This could be John of Nansemond but the dates seem to eliminate John of Botetourt and does eliminate John of Frederick.  After reading John of Nansemond’s pension application, he is also eliminated.
• Possibly another John who served under Capt. Abraham Kirkpatrick in the Virginia 2nd from Dec 1779-March 1780 according to pay records – although this could be  John of Nansemond.

I requested the records for John Harrold from Botetourt County from NARA, and they replied that they had no records for him.  How could that possibly be when Fold3 digitized NARA’s records?

I think the genealogy gremlins are out to get me.

Library of Virginia to the Rescue

It pays to recheck earlier sources.  The Library of Virginia continues to digitize their records and to them, a huge, HUGE, THANK YOU!!!  I had written to the National Archives and received nothing, so this information documents three years of John’s life for me.  These records prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Botetourt County John is the John Harrold of Wilkes County.

Downloading the images, I found the entire packet including John’s discharges and affidavits regarding his service.  A literal goldmine.  The motherlode.

This is to certify that the bearer herof John Harreld (or Harrold) formerly a sargent in the 8 Virginia Regiment has duly and faithfully served the term of three years for which he was enlisted for and in and at his own request is her by discharged from any further service in the Army of the Younited Stats and is permitted to pas to his home in Botod County fre and un milisted give under my hand at Camp near the Valley Forge this 12 Day of June in the year 1779.  Signed Charles Scott B G (Brigadier General)

The bearer John Hareld Sergeant is here by entitled to ? akers of land for his three years service in the Army by the Younited Stats to ?? on the ?? waters by a nek ? assembly their troups.  Given under my hand at camp near the Valley Forge these 12 June in the year 1777.  Signed Charles Scot B.G. (Brigadier General)

I originally believed the year would be 1777, not 1779.  This discharge was probably written in the commander’s tent on the battlefield, so it’s amazing that the penmanship is as good as it is

However, based on the last paragraph, for John to have been enlisted for 3 years, the discharge date would have had to have been in 1779, because that dates John’s enlistment to June of 1776.  The war had not yet begun two years earlier, in June of 1774.

Valley Forge in Pennsylvania was the site of the military camp of the American Continental Army over the winter of 1777–1778 during the American Revolutionary War. It is approximately 20 miles northwest of Philadelphia. Starvation, disease, malnutrition, and exposure killed nearly 2,500 American soldiers by the end of February 1778.

John Harrold apparently served through this time and survived

Forgery???

Interestingly enough, Will Graves, a revolutionary war historian, transcribed this document as well, and questions whether it is a forgery based on General Scott’s signature.  Although Scott is described elsewhere as somewhat illiterate.  That’s certainly an interesting conjecture and raises unpleasant questions that need to be answered.  I must admit that the service record dates we have don’t mesh entirely with the discharge papers, nor is there ever a pay record for a John who is a sergeant.  We might shed some light on this if we knew where General Scott was, exactly, on these two different dates in 1777 and 1779, but I have been unable to do so.

Will’s transcription suggests that he believes 1779 date is accurate.

Some Fold3 pay records for John Harrold state that he enlisted on May 1, 1777.  If these are all the pay records for the same John Harrold, the enlistment date of May 1777 and the discharge date of June 1779, given that he was AWOL for part of the time might make sense, although it certainly doesn’t total 3 years.  I hate it in these types of situations when I start using the words might and could, because I know I’ve crossed that speculative line.

If John enlisted for 3 years, in June of 1776, then the May 1, 1777 enlistment date doesn’t work either.

Now, I’m left with even more questions.  If one discharge was a forgery, was the second one too?  If one or both were forged, was it simply because the original was lost, or was there something more sinister and unethical afoot?  Many men stated that their discharges were lost, but then they had to produce witnesses to vouch for their service record.  Was John ever a sergeant?  Did he even serve?

Or maybe those documents aren’t forgeries at all and I’m doubting a 3 year patriot’s service record.

The 8^th Virginia

The 8th Virginia Regiment, in which John Harrold reportedly served for 18 months, was raised beginning on January 11, 1776 for service with the Virginia State Troops.

If John was discharged in June of 1779 after serving three years, then it couldn’t have been our John who joined in May of 1777.  Unfortunately, these records don’t fit together perfectly.  Furthermore, the John who joined in May 1777 was a private, not a sergeant.

The Virginia 8th’s first commanding officer was patriot leader and German Lutheran pastor Peter Muhlenberg, who became a militia colonel in 1775 at the request of General Washington. In his last sermon from the pulpit, Muhlenberg read from Ecclesiastes 3:1, “There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray; but there is also a time to fight, and that time has now come.” He removed his clerical robes to show that he was wearing his uniform as a militia colonel. He quickly enlisted 300 men from his congregation in the unit that became the 8th Virginia.

Muhlenberg was appointed colonel on March 1, 1776. The 8th Virginia organized at Suffolk County Court House between 9 February and 4 April 1776. The unit’s 10 companies came from Augusta, Berkeley, Culpeper, Dunmore, Fincastle, Frederick, and Hampshire Counties, plus the District of West Augusta. On May 25, 1776 the regiment officially became part of the Continental Army.

In 1776, Virginia regiments were typically organized into 10 companies, of which seven carried muskets and three carried rifles. The regiment’s 792-man roster had three field officers, and a staff that included an adjutant, quartermaster, surgeon, surgeon’s mate, chaplain, sergeant major, quartermaster sergeant, and drum major. Each company consisted of one captain, two lieutenants, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one drummer, one fifer, and 64 privates.  John Harrold was one of the sergeants if his discharge is accurate, but he is not listed as a sergeant in this unit or in any unit.

The 8th Virginia marched south to Charleston, South Carolina and was there in time for the Battle of Sullivan’s Island on 28 June 1776, but it was not in action. On 21 January 1777, the regiment received orders to join George Washington’s main army at Valley Forge.

On 11 May 1777, the unit was assigned to the 4th Virginia Brigade, together with the 4th and 12th Virginia Regiments, Grayson’s Additional Continental Regiment, and Patton’s Additional Continental Regiment. Charles Scott, who signed John Harrold’s discharge, above, was appointed to lead the brigade.

It was a long way home for John from Valley Forge regardless of when he was discharged – about 350 miles.

John may have returned home in June of 1779, but he wasn’t finished with the Revolutionary War.  He enlisted again by August of 1780.

I do here by sertify that the bearer here of John Harrald formerly a seargeon (or sergeant?) in 8 Virginia reagiment has faithfully served the term of 18 months for which he was in listed and is permitted to pass to his home in Bottatot County in Virginia he behaving as a good citizen I fother certify that he has received no pay for his eighteen months service in the Southern states given under my hand at Camp ner Salisbuary this 16^th day of February 1782.  Signed Samuel Sned (Snead) MC

If John was discharged on February 16, 1782, by subtraction, this tells us he re-enlisted no later than August of 1780.  The pay records for John Harrold in 1779 are obviously not for this John Harrold.

The 8^th Virginia was absorbed into the third Virginia brigade in May of 1779, then became part of the 4^th and 12^th.  The discharge says he was formerly a sergeant in the Virginia 8^th, but it says nothing about the unit he was serving with that was discharging him.

Assuming this service record is legitimate, this may be how John Harrold came to be acquainted with the Wilkes County area.

The Salisbury District of North Carolina, was originally one of several colonial judicial districts established in 1766. Immediately preceding the onset of the American War of Independence, these six regions, in 1775, were broadened into “de facto” militia districts.

The Salisbury District was based in the village of Salisbury, North Carolina, in Rowan County, about 60 miles from present day Wilkesboro.

The Salisbury District originally included Anson, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Surry, and Tryon counties. A later addition was the Washington District (also known as the original Washington County, North Carolina) which covered most of the present day State of Tennessee. Eventually, as new settlements were carved out of the wilderness, the Salisbury District encompassed the counties of Lincoln, Montgomery, Richmond, Rutherford, Wilkes (all in present day NC), and Sullivan (in present day TN) as well.

It was almost 200 miles from Salisbury, NC to Botetourt County, VA.  I hope John wasn’t on foot, but I bet he was.  Horses were at a premium.

Bounty Land

John appoints a power of attorney to collect his land grant based up on his service record..

Know all men by these presents that I John Harrald of the County of Wilkes and State of N. Carolina have constituted and appointed Alex. ? McKenzie of the county of Wilkes and State aforesaid my true and lawful attorney for me and in my name and stead to procure and receive from such officer person or persons or shall be legally authorized to grant this same a land warrant to which I am entitled for my services rendered the United States during its revolutionary war as my original discharge certified and I hereby further empower my said attorney to give such receipts as shall be required in obtaining said lands. Patent in my name in as full and ample a manner as I myself could do were I personally present and I hereby certify and confirm whatever my said attorney shall lawfully do in the premises given under my hand and seal this 30^th day of January 1819.

Signed, John Harrald

Witnessed by George W. Smith and Joshua Shumate (his mark

I believe this is John’s actual signature.  Whether or not the discharges themselves are forgeries is irrelevant to these signatures being authentic.  Note that this affidavit states that this is his original discharge.

John acknowledges the power of attorney in open Court on Febnruary 5^th, 1819.

Next, John sells his claim.

Know all men by these presents that I John Harrald Sr. of the county of Wilkes and the State of N. Carolina have bargained and sold unto Alexander McKenzie my claim for 330 acres of land to which I am entitled for services rendered by me in the Revolutionary army and I have bargained and sold unto said McKenzie my claim of 18 months pay for services rendered by me during the revolutionary war in the southern states and I bind myself my heirs assignees executors and administrator to have no recourse on said McKenzie  on the claim? of said claims by ? one hundred and fifty dollars the amount in full for my said claims.  Signed under my hand and seal this the 3^rd day of January 1819.

Signed John Harrald

Witnessed

Joshua X Shumate
George (W his mark) Smoot

In this document, John swears that he has not drawn the warrant for his land and that he authorizes Alexander McKenzie to do so.

This is the third example of John’s signature.

At this point, John would have been about 70 years old

Botetourt County, Virginia

Now we know that John was from Botetourt County, Virginia and that is where he considered home.  He was returning there when he was released from Valley Forge.  He also returned there in 1782 when he was released, which just happens to be the same year (or just before) that John Harrold Jr. was born.  Even if both of these discharge records were forged by (or for) John, it gives his home location as the same place in both.  That much would be accurate.

Now, we have a new problem.  There are other Harrold men in Botetourt County, leading one to the presumption that they are the same family line…but they aren’t.  There is a James Harrold there as early as 1770 living on Harolls Creek but the Y DNA of James’ line (that went to Warren Co., KY) does not match the DNA of our John’s line.

However, there is another very interesting record found in the Botetourt County records.

Botetourt County Virginia USGenWeb Archives – Court held for Botetourt County the 11th day of March, 1779.

This court doth allow Mary O’harrell, wife of John O’harrell, a soldier in the Continental Army, thirty pounds for the support of herself & two small children.

This would imply that Mary and John have been married at least 5 years.

If this is our John, then the June 1779 discharge date would be the correct one, not 1777.

Is this our John and is O’Harrell misspelled?  Are there any other instances of O’Harrell?  There are no John O’Harrell Revolutionary War service records at Fold3.com – yet this court entry clearly says he was serving and we know the records for the Virginia 8th, the unit in which he would be serving out of Botetrout County, are intact.

And then, there is this Augusta County record…

Augusta County, Virginia

Another Harrell researcher sends the following:

John Harrold (? Harrell) became an indentured servant in Augusta County, Virginia April 15, 1773. His master was Edward Cather, as the record indicates: April 15th.1773 John Harrold (? Harrell), servant to Edward Cather of Augusta Co. Virginia. Edward Cather’s parents were from Ireland and Scotland. He was born about 1740 when his parents were listed just married in Ireland. Though they say Edward was born in Virginia, his parents are listed as coming to America about 1777. Thus it is only a guess but I would believe this John Harrold also came from Ireland/Scotland and perhaps his way over were paid by the Cather’s. He was only assigned to work for two years for Edward Cather, which I would assume would reimburse his transport to America. Edward Cather quickly left Virginia for Kentucky about the time of at least the mid 1780s. Not sure if John Harrold followed.

If this is our John, this would explain why his DNA does not match with the other Botetourt or Frederick County, Virginia Herrell lines.

What Next?

It has been a long journey finding John.  The most difficult part was actually getting my hands on his Revolutionary War records.  Once I did, so many questions were answered.  We have added another chapter in the puzzle of “where was John?” and have pushed the brick wall back a little further.  We know that he was living in Botetourt County, VA in either 1779 when he was discharged after a 3 year service commitment, so he was likely living there in June of 1776 when he would have enlisted.

And of course, now we have the added mystery of whether or not John’s discharge papers are forgeries, which begs a whole new set of questions.  That was a sucker punch – and it doesn’t help that the pay records we have do nothing to corroborate John’s discharge papers.  Of course, they don’t disprove them either.  So frustrating with no clear way to obtain answers.

In all the years I’ve been doing genealogy, I have never, not once, actually seen a discharge letter of one of my ancestors, let alone two.  Maybe I still haven’t.

We are left to wonder if the Botetourt County John and Mary O’Harrell is the same as our John, in 1782.  No John Harrold, O’harrell or any similar surname appearing on the Botetourt tax lists in 1782 or as late as 1787.

We know that by 1779, John in Botetourt, based on the court record, assuming it’s our John, already had 2 children, if they survived.  The depth of their destitution is demonstrated by the fact that Mary had to ask for money to simply survive.  This is actually a very unusual occurrence and may indicate that her own family is either dead or not living locally.  John’s 1782 discharge record indicates that he had not been paid, and even had he been paid, he had no way to get the funds to Mary.

I am still very anxious to discover more about John Harrold, although short of a DNA match to another Harrell or Harrold or Harrald overseas or from earlier colonial times, I don’t quite know how I’ll ever connect the dots.  Of course, I can always pray for that Bible on e-Bay.

The good news about the Harrald Y DNA is that at 25 markers, the three descendants of John Harrold who have tested match only one other man, a Todd from Ireland with 1 mutation difference.  The three John Harrold descendants are group 7 in the Harrell DNA project.

Thank goodness for Y DNA, because I know that we don’t descend from any of those other Herrell groups – so no need to bark up those trees.

I checked one last possibility.  There are several known descendants of John who have tested autosomally.  I checked each of them for matches to other Harrold/Harrell/Herrell lines in case we’re dealing with an undocumented adoption or illegitimate birth to a Harrold female.  So far, only one match and that person of course could match that individual on a completely unrelated line.  That match goes back to a George Troup Harrell who is attributed to a line descending from Josiah Harrell (1733-1773) and Mary Ann Gardner out of Bertie County.  Since it’s a male Harrell that we match, I’m hopeful that I can talk him into Y DNA testing.  I’m sure he’ll likely match the large Harrell Group 1 which is the eastern Virginia, eastern North Carolina group…but I’d still like to know for sure.   Y DNA doesn’t lie and it’s not ambiguous.  No forgeries or questions about forgeries.

I think today, we’ve done all with the records we can do for now.  So, now we wait, because someday, another Harrold or man with a similar surname will test and will match, and we’ll continue to chip away at that brick wall.

Thomas Thistlewood arrived in Jamaica in 1750 from England, having failed at farming, at age 29.  He met with a plantation owner for dinner shortly after his arrival, and 2 months later became an overseer on that plantation.

Thomas kept an extensive journal of his entire life in Jamaica beginning with the day he arrived – including the horrific brutality that he inflicted on enslaved people, along with the other overseers in the same position he held.  Thomas’s behavior does not appear to be unique.

As genetic genealogists, we sometimes wonder at the extent of sexual interaction between plantation owners, their overseers and enslaved women.

Thomas’s diary details his sexual encounters – over 4000 in total, mostly with enslaved women, over a period of 37 years.  If you’re doing the math, that means that he had 108 encounters with women every year, on average, which is one approximately every 3.38 days.

If one can assume that he did not choose to engage in sexual activity with women who were menstruating, and that he probably did not select for women who were pregnant, that means that the women he was having sex with were fertile women who could have potentially conceived as a result of the encounter.

If we eliminate the one quarter of the month a woman is menstruating – that leaves 3 weeks.  Of that, a woman is fertile for about 6 days per month, or about one third of the time she was not menstruating.  Therefore, Thistlewood perhaps impregnated one women every three encounters, or about one female impregnated every 10 days, or 3 per month.  If this is anyplace near accurate, Thomas Thistlewood could have had approximately 1333 children, roughly half of which would have been male, and all of whom would have been enslaved.

Not all of the children would have survived birth or infancy.  In fact, the harsh and fatal discipline methods Thistelwood so routinely describes may have killed some of his own offspring on the plantation where he was overseer.  The mortality rate of slaves at every point in life was exceedingly high.  But some of those male children would likely have survived and reproduced, having direct line males living today.  When they DNA test, they will match Thistlewood males from England.  And they will wonder why.

Now, they need wonder no more.  The answers are in the British Archive records listing slave owners and the records in the Caribbean.  And not just for Thistlewood, but for other British surnames as well.  Many, many other British and Scottish surnames.  You can search at this link to find those records and they are also available on Ancestry.com.  For once, I was very relieved to not find my family surnames included in a set of records.

In 1834, the British government recorded payments to British slave owners when Great Britain abolished slavery and owning slaves entirely.  This effectively freed the slaves after they served another 6 years working for their former masters for free.

These records include more than 40,000 British who owned slaves, most of whom had never seen a Caribbean plantation where their slaves were located.  These slaves were managed by overseers, like Thistlewood.  There were more than 800,000 individual slaves named in 1834, which means the average number of slaves owned per British slave owner was about 20.  Of course, the real numbers ranged from 1 slave owned to thousands for the most wealthy.

Before I watched this documentary, I never realized the massive extent of either British involvement in slavery into the 1800s, nor the level of abuse of power of slave-owners and overseers exploiting slave women.  Seeing these almost unbelievable numbers and realizing that this sexual behavior lasted, for one man, for 37 years – and multiplying that behavior by thousands of other men – the level of chronic, systemic nonconsensual sexual exploitation is almost beyond comprehension.  Of course, today we can expect to see the results in Y DNA testing.

You can watch the BBC documentary at this link.  Part 2 is available at this link.

Professor Catherine Hall lectures on “Britain and the Legacies of Slavery” and the project that produced the results upon which the documentaries above were based.

All three of these videos are eye-opening and well worth watching.

If you want to read more about the history of slavery in the British Isles, click here and here.

Before we talk about William McNiel, let’s talk about the name McNiel, McNeil or however it’s actually spelled.  The family story says that it was originally McNeil in Scotland, but that there were three brothers (yes, the three brothers story) and they argued on the way over to the colonies about religion.  Our Reverend George McNiel changed his name from McNeil to McNiel so that his name would not be the same as his brothers.  This sounds doubtful, because one Thomas McNiel is found in Spotsylvania County and is believed to be George’s brother.  Had the three brothers gone their own way after a dispute serious enough to merit name changing upon landing on the colonial shore of Virginia, you wouldn’t think they would both choose to settle in the same county.

There are other versions of the name story in other lines of the family.

The family story goes on to say that Rev. George McNiel was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in Scotland but here in the US, converted to the Baptist faith and was ordained in that church in 1776.  We have not one shred of evidence confirming any of this, and it’s not for lack of trying.  The Reverend George is not mentioned in any of the Virginia Baptist or Presbyterian Church records that I’ve been able to find, and they do exist.  I first find George mentioned as having preached at a Baptist church in Grayson County, VA, and then in Wilkes and surrounding counties.  Note that Grayson was not formed until 1793 from Wythe which was formed in 1790 from Montgomery which was formed in 1777 from Fincastle which was formed in 1772 from Botetourt which was formed in 1770 from Augusta which was formed in 1738 from Orange County.

One story says that Rev. George met his wife, Miss Coates and married her in Grayson County, VA, but if that is accurate, given that they married pre-1760, then how did George’s son William get back to Spotsylvania County to serve in the Revolutionary war in 1777?  Migration was east to west, not west to east.  And Grayson County wasn’t formed until 30 years after they married, although someone could have been referring to a location that was located in Grayson County at the time they were speaking.

So, if the rumor about Miss Coates and Grayson County is true, and they married before William was born, then it would have had to have been in Augusta County prior to 1760, and there is absolutely no record of George McNiel, by any spelling, in Augusta County.

George may have converted to the Baptist faith about this time, and Miss Coates may not have been George’s first wife…  We know George was eventually a Baptist preacher…of that we are sure.  His name appears as helping form the Beaver Creek Church in 1779 and in various church and association records until his death.  His grandson tells of him fighting the regulators in 1771 at Alamance Creek, after which he fled into Grayson County for safety for a short time, before returning to Wilkes County.  However, much of the rest of the story doesn’t add up with the records we do have available.

William McNiel was born about 1760/61 or possibly earlier in Virginia, probably Spotsylvania Co. but we don’t really know for sure.  One researcher gives his birth as Oct. 28, 1757 which could be true, but he doesn’t provide any source. It is about the right time.

We do know that William’s father, the Reverend George McNiel was in Spotsylvania County as early as 1754, according to court records where an apprentice was bound to him, so it’s likely that William was born in Spotsylvania County, especially since he served from there in the Revolutionary War some two decades later.

The Revolutionary War

The first hint we had the William McNiel served in the Revolutionary War was contained in a letter written in 1898 by George W. McNiel, Sr., son of Thomas McNiel who was a brother to our William McNiel.  In the letter, which was about the Reverend George McNiel, he states, “His son, William McNeil, volunteered in the war of Revolution, and his son, Joseph McNeil said he would volunteer and go with William, but he was not old enough.”  He goes on to say, about William, that he “moved to the State of Tennessee, Clayborn County.”

That confirms unquestionably that we are talking about the same William.

William McNiel’s records from the National Archives tell us the following:

William McNiel/McNeal/McNeil, born in 1760 in Spotsylvania County, served with Captain Thomas Posey’s Company, 7th Virginia Regiment (Company Pay Roll and Company Muster Rolls are dated 1777 and spell his last name McNiel, McNeal, and McNeil), commanded by Col. Alexander McClennahan. His papers say that he is being paid from June 77 through Nov. 1777 and that he is in a rifle regiment. He is paid 6 and 2/3 dollars for one month’s pay. On his November 1777 pay voucher, it says on the bottom that he enlisted in the Light Horse service the last of November, so he may have actually served longer in a different unit.  This does tell us one thing…he had a horse.

On September 11, 1777, William McNiel participated in his first battle of the Revolutionary war at the Battle of Brandywine, PA. Brandywine would become the largest Revolutionary war battle fought in the Northern Campaign. The battlefield is shown below.

“BrandywineFieldToday” by AlbertHerring at en.wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

William fought for his life in this field.

The Virginia line was located on the right flank with 2 brigades from the Pennsylvania militia line. The Virginia line was to prevent a possible British flanking maneuver from both the North and South. The Virginians were unable to prevent the British from performing the flanking maneuver and were soon forced to retreat to a church on the battlefield named Birmingham Meeting House, shown below, in 1974.

At the Birmingham Meeting House, the Virginians put up their greatest stance against the British on a hill nicknamed Battle Hill. The British assaulted the Virginians at Battle Hill five times before the Virginians were forced to retreat.

“Brandywine Osborne’s Hill View” by Djmaschek – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

These Virginians had refused to give up an inch without a fight. After the battle the wounded were taken to Bennetts farm located 10 miles from Brandywine.  William McNeil helped escort some of the wounded to Bennetts farm after the battle.

“Germantown” by Christian Schussele – Public Domain. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

William’s next battle was at the Battle of Germantown, depicted above, on October 4, 1777, less than a month after the Battle of Brandywine.  At Germantown, the Continental army forced the British to barricade themselves into a mansion called Chew House, shown below.

“Cliveden-Chew-Front1″ by Djmaschek – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Americans began firing their cannons. The Cannon fire was so loud that blood began to pour from the cannoners’ ears. The Continental soldiers were winning the battle until General Adam Stephens showed up in a drunken stupor and accidently began firing on the Continental line.

This was William McNeil’s last battle.  He was probably very glad to go home.  Any romantic veneer that warfare holds for an inexperienced young man was assuredly gone by now.

Moving to Wilkes County, NC

The Reverend George McNiel had moved to Wilkes Co. NC by 1778 and William likely accompanied George, given that William was as yet unmarried.  George may have been traveling back and forth between Spotsylvania County and Wilkes County because there is a deed witnessed in Spotsylvania County in 1786 by George McNiel for John Shepherd.  George’s son, William McNiel had married John Shepherd’s niece, Elizabeth Shepherd in 1781/1782 in Wilkes Co. NC.  I’d wager that the Reverend George McNiel was the marrying minister.

The Robert Shepherd Bible states that the Shepherd family moved from Spotsylvania County to Wilkes County in December of 1777. It’s likely that William and the Reverend George McNiel both moved about this same time, perhaps with several families forming a wagon train for help and protection along the way.  Maybe it was during this move that William McNiel and Elizabeth Shepherd began to court.

In 1783, William’s father, The Reverend George McNiel, was one of several families that established the church at Deep Ford Hill in Wilkes County on land owned by John Shepherd, adjoining the land of his brother Robert Shepherd, father of Elizabeth Shepherd, by then the wife of William McNiel.

William McNiel and his wife Elizabeth Shepherd were assuredly a part of this church as well as whatever organization unofficially preceded the official church formation.  Neither the church, about where the gas stations sits today, nor the cemetery, where the trailer sits today in the photo below, still exist.

In Wilkes County Deed Book A1, Page 186 – In April of 1785, William McNiel witnessed a deed with Francis Kerby and Stephen Shepherd for a land sale between Owen Hall and John Shepherd Sr.

William McNiel first appears in Wilkes County tax records in 1786, he is living three houses away from his father, George McNiel.  William owns no land until 1792, according to tax lists, by which time William has been married for about a decade.

In 1792-1793 he owns 60 acres, but then we don’t find William again on the Wilkes County tax list until 1797 when he owns 530 acres and he and his family are living beside Nathaniel Vannoy. William McNiel’s daughter, Lois, would marry Elijah Vannoy, Nathaniel’s nephew, around 1807.

It looks like William begins to accrue land about 1778, but he pays no taxes on land until 1792, so what happened to this land is a mystery.  Perhaps he bought and sold it on speculation.

Land Entry Book, Wilkes County, NC 1778-1781, Page 337 – Sept 7, 1778 – Alexander Gilreath enters 100 acres on the north side of New River including Walls improvement.  Alexander Gilreath marked out: Wm. Macniel written in.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol II, January 1785-November 1786 – October 24, 1787 – William NcNall serves on a jury.  This entry is quite interesting, because at that time, one had to own land to serve on a jury, but the land and tax records don’t reflect that.  Maybe William McNall is not the same person as William McNiel.

Wilkes County Deed Book D, Page 115 – on February 16, 1790, William McNiel witnesses a deed with Nathaniel Judd and William McQueary from James Sartain and Robert Shepherd for 70 acres on both sides of the south fork of Reddies River.  Robert Shepherd is William McNiel’s father-in-law.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol III, April 23, 1792 – Ordered John Robins, Jr, Robert Sheppard, William McNiel, John Sheppart Sr, Rowland Judd Esq, Rowland Judd, Nathaniel Judd, Asel Cross, Stephen Sheppard, John McQuary Sr, John McQuary, James McNiel, David Owen Sr, John Judd, John Trye appointed a jury to view road from Deep Ford on Redes River to Elijah Denneys over said River.

In 1792, William McNiel serves on a jury and is assigned with Francis Vannoy, James McNeil, Robert Sheppard and others to view the road round Samuel Carter’s Mill pond where water overflows on Redies River.

Wilkes County Will Book 1, February 4, 1793 – William McNiel along with John Sheppard Jr. and Stephen Shepherd witnessed a power of attorney from James Brown from the state of Georgia to Robert Shepherd to convey unto John Forester 200 acres of land and 100 ac whereon Fielding Forester and Benjamin Bruce now live.

Wilkes County, Deed Book D, Page 360 – February 17, 1794 William McNiel along with William Colvard and Samuel Robinett witnessed the sale of land between Rowland Judd and James Shepherd, 150 acres above the mouth of Mill Creek.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol IV – In November, 1795, William McNeil, Esq., swears an oath relative to a deed from Thomas Robins to John Forester.  Note that now William is referred to as Esquire, a title of rank, respect or office.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol IV – On February 4, 1796, William McNiel along with James McNiel, Robert Sheppard, Francis Vannoy, John Sheppard and others is assigned to view the road from oldfields on New River to the Puncheon Camp on the ridge.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol IV – On August 2, 1796, William McNeil overseer on the road from Punchen Camp Creek to Oldfields on New River.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol IV – On January 31 ,1797, William McNiel serves on a jury.

Wilkes County Court Minutes, January 25, 1797 – Ordered that William McNeil be appointed Collector Capt. Judd’s District instead Samuel Burdine.  That William would be appointed tax collector indicates he is well-respected and trusted.

In 1799 Ashe Co. NC was formed from part of Wilkes and we find William living in that area.

In 1799, William McNeil obtains land grant, and this grant suggests that he has other grants or has purchased other land and his new grant abuts that land.  The New River runs on the north side of the mountains in what is now Ashe County.

Page 734 – June 17, 1799 – NC Grant No 1877 to William McNeil for 73 acres on the South fork of the New River with his other lines.

Abstracts of Wilkes County Land Grant Files – File 1586.5 William McNiel received grant #1877 dated June 7, 1799 for 73 acres of land on the north side of the south fork of New River at his other line. This is based on warrant/entry number 506 dated Sept 2, 1794.  The grant itself is recorded in book #104, page 21.  Chain carriers were James McNiel and Thomas Caloway.

Page 754 – June 7, 1799 – NC Grant # 1878 to William McNeil 100 acres on the north side of the South Fork of New River, conditional line between James Calloway and McNeil.  Notice this grant is consecutively numbered after his first grant.

Abstracts of Wilkes County Land Grant Files – File 1587.5 – William McNiel received grant no #1878 dated June 7, 1799 for 100 acres of land on the north side of the south fork of New River adjoining James Calloway.  Based on warrant/entry number 505 dated Sept. 3, 1794.  Grant is recorded in book 104, page 21.  James McNiel and Thomas Calloway chain carriers.

I don’t know exactly where this land was, but I do have a suspicion.

The New River is in what is now Ashe County, which was formed in 1799.  The Shepherd family lived all along what is the north fork of Lewis Creek which reaches almost the entire way to the top of the mountains where the Blue Ridge Parkway is today.  Calloway Gap is the way through the mountains to descend into the South Fork of the New River on the other side.  The map below shows present day Ashe County with Wilkes directly below.  The Purlear area on 16 is the area where the Shepherd’s lived and where the Deep Ford Hill and Church was located.

The map below shows the South Fork of the New River at the top arrow, Calloway Gap at the middle arrow, and the uppermost part of the North Fork of Lewis Creek at the bottom arrow.  These locations really aren’t terribly far apart – well – if you’re a crow.

Ironically, I have driven this section of the Blue Ridge Parkway, but it was years before I realized the connections I had here.  At that time, the connection that drew me back year after year was purely in my heart.

Wilkes County Deed Book F1 – Page 189 – October 13, 1803 – From George Lawreance to William McNiel of Ashe County, NC for $400, 320 acres on the south fork of Lewis Fork…top ridge…Beech Hill.  Signed by George Lawrence and witnessed by Joseph McNiel, Thomas McNiel and George McNiel.

Page 131 – October 8, 1804 – From William McNiel to Isaiah Case for $400, 320 acres on the south fork of Lewis Fork, signed by William and witnessed by Andrew Vannoy and Joel Vannoy.

In 1805, William McNiel lost his father.  Reverend George died on June 7, 1805.  He was likely buried the next day in what is known as the McNiel Burying Ground in Parsonville, NC – on his land on Lewis Creek.  William would have been about 45 years old.  William was lucky to have his father as long as he did, but that doesn’t make the pain of his death any less.

William McNiel serves as the administrator of his father’s estate, as shown in the Wilkes County Will Book 2 Abstracts, entry 245.  At the August court term in 1808, William submits the inventory of the estate of George McNiel and wife, 1 negro man at 35 pounds VA money and 1 negro girl at 40 pounds VA money – signed William NcNiel administrator.  I’m unclear as to the meaning of “and wife” and have asked a historian at the archives in Raleigh to check this original record.

In February 1810, William moved back to Wilkes County from neighboring Ashe County and purchased 150 acres on the North Fork of Lewis Creek, probably not far from where the Reverend George McNiel had lived.

Wilkes Deed book G and H, Page 178 – February 3, 1810 – From James Steward and William McNiel of Ashe County NC for $200, 150 acres on the waters of the North Fork of Lewis Fork, it being the place where William Yates now lives.  Signed by James Steward and witnessed by Alexander Brown and Thomas Brown.

The last record in Wilkes County of William is the land record where he sells the land “where he lives” to his daughter Lois, and son-in-law, Elijah Vannoy.  There is a persistent rumor that Elijah and Lois had eloped.  If that is true, then apparently things had been smoothed over by 1810 – or William was resigned to their marriage since it was a done deal and they had children by then.

Wilkes Deed book G and H, Page 175 – December 31, 1810 between William McNeel and Elijah Vannoy for $250, 150 acres on Boller Creek, a fork of Lewis Fork, place where William McNeel now lives.  Witness John Forrester and John Forrester Jr.  Signed by William McNeel.

Taking a look at a current map today, there is a Boiling Springs Road that runs along a branch that dumps into Lewis Fork – so I’m betting this is where William’s land was located.

Crossroads

William is facing a crossroads.  His father has died.  We believe his mother died in the late 1780s, so there is nothing to hold him in Wilkes County now.  Furthermore, his own children are marrying as well.  Sarah has probably married Joel Fairchild, Lois has married Elijah Vannoy, George has married Nancy Baker.

If William is ever going to move west and settle elsewhere, he has to be doing that pretty soon, or forever lose the opportunity.  I have to ask myself, what would possibly cause a man who is comfortably established at about age 50, a landowner, to up and sell everything to move to the undeveloped frontier to find himself chopping original growth trees down on rough mountainsides – 30 years after he did it the first time.

Was this the pioneer equivalent of a mid-life crisis?  Instead of a new girlfriend and a corvette, you strike out to homestead new land and chop trees to prove your strength and youthful vigor???

Or was it because his children could not afford land in Wilkes County, so the entire family went where land was more affordable?  Was leading the way William’s way of preventing his family from being split as his children would assuredly leave for parts unknown, one by one, being scattered to the wind?  Did he hear his three married children discussing moving westward to settle and decide that he could either lead or get left behind?

One thing is for sure, a large group of Wilkes County families wound up in the same five or 6 mile radius (area of about 6 (NS) x 16 (EW) miles) of northern Claiborne County on both Little Mulberry Creek and Blackwater between Wallen Mountain and Newman’s Ridge about this same timeframe – so it must have been a much discussed destination location.

On To Claiborne County, Tennessee

By about 1811 or so, William McNiel and Elizabeth Shepherd McNiel would leave Wilkes and Ashe County forever, moving to Claiborne County, Tennessee.  Elizabeth, now age 44 or 45 would have her last child about the time they set out on their journey.  The McNeil book by Hayes says that William’s children were all born in Wilkes with the possible exception of William, their 10th child.

All of their married children and spouses accompanied them as well.  No child left behind.

There is a very interesting story about how this caravan of settlers got to Tennessee.  Elijah Vannoy’s daughter said they traveled by flatboat and the journey took two years.  This story is told in detail in the Elijah and Joel Vannoy stories, as Joel Vannoy, Elizabeth and William’s grandson, was reportedly born during this journey to Lois McNiel and Elijah Vannoy.

By 1816, the family was definitely living in the Claiborne/Lee Co. area of Tennessee, purchasing land on the North side of Powell Mountain near Mulberry Gap and then later, in the Pleasant View area. In his only transaction in the new neighborhood, William witnesses a land sale to his son George.

In 1816 Levi Carner sells to George McNiel a tract of land lying on the N side of Powell Mountain near Mulberry Gap containing 69 acres for $525.  Signed in the presence of William McNiel, James Anderson and Burrell G. Sullivant.

In 1817, Levi Keanus sells land to Neal McNeal on Mulberry Creek adjacent Josiah Ramsey.  Joel Fiarchild, William McNiel and John NcNeal all sign as witnesses.  However, in 1823 when this deed was registered, the sale was proven by the oath of Joel Fairchild.

In 1819 George McNiell to John Stokely part of land where McNiel now lives lying in Claiborne on Mulberry which was sold to John McKean, 5 acres to include storehouse.

There is no 1820 Claiborne census and William is not shown in the 1830 census. Elizabeth is shown in 1830 but not in 1840.  Were William or Elizabeth, his widow, alive, they would have surly filed for a Revolutionary War pension based on William’s service when pensions became available by an act of Congress on June 7, 1832.

I’m fairly certain William was gone by May of 1823 when William Inglebarger sells land to Neal McNeal and the transaction is signed by his mother, Elizabeth, his uncle, John McNeil and Joel Fairchild.  None of the witnesses can write and all signed with an X.

By 1834, the McNiel family, William’s children, were selling their land on Mulberry Creek and was buying land on Little Sycamore Creek, about 17 miles away.

Elijah Vannoy and Lois McNiel’s son, Joel Vannoy would follow to Little Sycamore some years later, in the 1860s.  Eventually, the Vannoy and McNiel families would comprise a big part of the Little Sycamore population.

In 1834, Nancy Hill, widow and her children sold the lands of James Hill decd to Neal McNiel, land lying on the waters of Little Sycamore Creek of the Clinch River.

In 1830 John Carmack conveyed the lands on the waters of Little Sycamore to John McNeil.

In 1848 Neal S. McNiel sells to John McNiel Sr. the land in Claiborne County District 8 containing by estimation 820 acres – William Houston’s corner of one of his Joab Hill tracts and near Peter Peck’s corner to the old James Hill line to a stake in John Bartlett’s line.  Witness RC McNiel.

Obviously Neal had accumulated quite a bit of land.

Since we don’t know when William died, we also can’t pinpoint where he was buried.  William is very likely buried on his son Neil’s land or the Elijah Vannoy land in Hancock County.  The Vannoy and McNiel families lived adjacent in what is how Hancock County and in the 1830 census, Elizabeth, William’s widow is living on her son Neil McNiel’s land.

Touring the Neighborhood

In the article about Elizabeth Shepherd, we found the land in Hancock County (formerly Claiborne) where Neal McNiel was living in the 1830s when his mother, Elizabeth, William McNiel’s widow, was living adjacent to him, according to the census.  We know that William was gone by then.  Our last whisper of William McNiel in Claiborne County was in September of 1817 when he witnessed a deed for his sons.  If William died then, he left Elizabeth with son William Jr., probably just a toddler, and children from that age to adulthood.  Her survival at that time probably depended heavily on her adult children and

There are so many questions that remain.  For a man who was quite involved in real estate and owned land in Wilkes County, why did he purchase none in Claiborne?  His sons did.  Did he give his sons or his children money and decide simply to live on their land until his death?  Was he ill or injured?

This location in Turner Hollow is where Niel McNiel’s land was located, and William’s son-in-law, Elijah Vannoy owned land located at the red balloon.  It’s a good bet that William lived with one or the other, or someplace in-between.

Recently, my cousin Dolores was kind enough to take pictures of the land in this area when she visited on a genealogy adventure.  Thank you so much cousin Dolores.

To help understand what you are looking at the next few photos, let’s first look at the map of the landowners in the area.  The dot on the map above in Turner Hollow is the land shown on the map below.

Cousin Dolores took the following photo from Eli Davis’s land looking toward Wallen’s ridge, meaning that she was most likely looking right at and across Niel McNiel’s land.

This next photo is Back Valley Road near Fortner, which is shown on the following map.

This location would have been on Niel McNiel’s land

So if William didn’t live on this land, he certainly saw it regularly and it probably looked much the same then as it does now.

I wonder if old William can see us today viewing the same vistas that he looked at as he looked over these fields.

Did he look at these mountains and think about Wilkes County?

I want to drink in what he saw and I’d so like for him to tell me about these fields and lands himself.

The hills in this area are more rolling than the land in Wilkes County.  This could have been part of the allure of moving.

Nothing more American than barns – although William’s barn, if he had one, would have been much smaller.

William is assuredly buried here someplace, but where?  There is a Davis family cemetery on the Eli Davis land.

What a beautiful place to spend your life, not to mention resting eternally.  He is assuredly buried someplace on these lands.

I don’t know, but I suspect that William died about 1817.  He stopped witnessing things and being involved in any way.  He had a long history of public service in Wilkes County and there is no reason to think that would change unless his health changed.  Secondly, his daughter Lois named a son born about 1816 William Vannoy.  William may not have gotten to spend much time living in Claiborne, now Hancock, County at all.

William’s Children

Many of William’s children carried on the tradition of local involvement and public service.

• Sarah or Sallie McNiel, named after Elizabeth’s mother and possibly William’s mother as well, was born about 1784 and married Joel Fairchild in Wilkes County. They moved to Claiborne County where Sallie died on January 2, 1861 and is buried in the Fairchild Cemetery in Hancock County. She had 5 children.
• George McNiel, named after William’s father, was born on September 21, 1786 in Wilkes County and died in 1870 in Claiborne County, TN and is buried in the McNiel Cemetery, probably on his own land. He married Nancy Baker in Wilkes County in 1809, having 11 children, and married Matilda Yeary in 1845, having two more children. Where he lived when he died is unknown but the land he purchased in 1816 was near Mulberry Gap on Powell Mountain.
• Lois McNiel born about 1786 and married Elijah Vannoy about 1807 in Wilkes County. Lois died in the 1830s in Claiborne, now Hancock, County, TN. She had 10 children.
• Neil McNiel was born about 1792 in Wilkes County and died in 1839 in Claiborne County, TN. He is likely buried on his own land, but whether he is buried in Hancock County or in Claiborne in the Little Sycamore Community is uncertain.   Neil married Elly Ramsey, daughter of Josiah Ramsey, pioneer settler of the Ramsey family and neighbor. They had only three known children, although there were likely more.  Elly is likely buried in the old Josiah Ramsey cemetery, and Niel could be buried there beside her.
• Mary was born about 1792 in Wilkes County. She married Robert Campbell in 1817 in Claiborne County and died in 1881 in Bradley County, TN. I show only one child for her, Anderson, but I have a very difficult time believing she didn’t have additional children.
• Nancy McNiel born in 1794 in Wilkes County married Alexander Campbell in 1815 in Claiborne County and is shown with only 3 male children. She died in 1839 in Hancock County.
• John McNiel was born July 1, 1803 in Ashe County, NC and died in 1882/1883 in Claiborne County. In 1824 he married Elizabeth Campbell, sister to the spouses of two of his siblings. They had 8 children.

• Elizabeth McNiel, named after her mother, born between 1800 and 1810 married Andrew McClary. The 1840 census shows them with 2 daughters, but I can’t find the family in 1850.
• Jesse McNiel born about 1806 in Ashe County, died in 1890 in Claiborne County and married Bettie Campbell in June 1837. I have no information about their children. In the 1850 census, Jesse is living with his brother. I don’t find him in the 1860 census.
• William McNiel, named after his father, was born about 1812, although where is uncertain. He could have been born in Claiborne County. In 1839 he married Nancy Gilbert and in 1849, he married Nancy Carter. I have no record of children for William and I do not find him in the 1850 census, although in 1860 we do find him in Hancock County with 3 children and he lists his birth location as Tennessee.

Some of William’s children were merchants in the small town of Sneedville, as told in various local history books.

At Greasy Rock, later known as Sneedville, Hancock Co., a store was opened in front the of the dwelling of Mrs. Elizabeth Campbell facing Main St. by Robert and Alexander Campbell and William and John McNeil with William McNeil as manager.  John McNeil eventually settled on Little Sycamore in Claiborne County where he was engaged in farming.

Little Sycamore Baptist Church in Claiborne County was built on land donated by John McNiel in 1840.  John NcNiel was trustee and the leading man in the organization and in the affairs of the church until his death in 1882.  The original church was built of logs and the plaster on the walls was mixed with cow hair to hold it together.  The hair came from John McNiel’s tannery nearby.  Members would come to church in the daylight, but would return home in the dark by the light of pine torches.

The church was used during the Civil War as a hospital for wounded Confederate soldiers.  Local people came to help tend the wounded.  Those who died were buried in the cemetery above the church, but some were removed and taken to their homes after the war.  I would not be the least bit surprised if John weren’t buried in that same cemetery

William’s son, John, seemed to have taken after his father in a number of ways – not the least of which was in the establishment of a Baptist church.

DNA

I was very fortunate that a McNiel cousin was willing to DNA test several years ago.  To date, there is still only one known cousin who has tested.  Ironic given that the Reverend George McNiel had many children and descendants.

However, that known cousin has several matches that are quite interesting and prove that other McNiel families, by other spellings, in other places are indeed from the same original family line.

• Thomas McNeil married in 1750 Rombout, NY
• Hugh Neel b 1750 Ireland
• William McNeill b 1851 Blackbraes, Stirlingshire (a mining location in the central lowlands of Scotland)
• Shamus O’Neal b 1775 County Mayo
• Aystin McGreal b 1780 County Mayo
• Maurice McNeely from County Antrim, Northern Ireland
• Roger McNally from County Monaghan, Ireland (border between Northern Ireland and Ireland)

There are really two things I’d like to solve utilizing DNA.

First, was Thomas McNiel in Spotsylvania County the brother of Reverend George McNiel?  Maybe better stated, do they share a common paternal ancestor?  Clearly Y DNA testing cannot prove that Thomas was George’s brother, but it can certainly prove that he wasn’t.  Thomas is believed to have migrated to Caswell County, NC where he died before December of 1781.  He had sons, John, Thomas and Benjamin.  Several years ago, I was corresponding with a lady who descended from this line and there were males at that time.

I would very much like to confirm Thomas as a probable brother to George, or put that speculation to rest forever.

Looking at my cousin’s Y matches, I don’t see any evidence that Thomas’s line has tested nor do I see any matches to that line on his Family Finder results.

I then checked the Family Finder results of other McNiel descendants – and found no matches to the Thomas of NC either.  However, there’s nothing to indicate his line has ever tested.

I checked Y search, and no McNiel’s are found by any surname spelling who descend from Thomas.

I checked the MacNeil Y DNA project to see if someone listed Thomas, and so far, nothing, although there are several who list no “most distant ancestor” information, and Thomas could be one of those lines.

I decided to do a search at Family Tree DNA, utilizing their new search function, on Thomas McNiel who married Ann Tolbert to see if anyone has a tree uploaded on Family Tree DNA who descends from this man – and there are at least two – although we can’t tell is this is a Y, mitochondrial or autosomal test.  I sure wish there was a way to contact these people, but as of today, there isn’t, nor is there a way to determine if you match these people aside from going through each and every tree that has a McNiel listed in the matches list under ancestral surnames.

Secondly, I very much want to match a McNiel who knows where their family was from in the British Isles – and I don’t mean a large city.  What I’m looking for is the ancestral village.

When I look at my cousins matches, he has Y DNA matches with several O’neals, some Neils and Neills, a couple McNeills, one McNellis, one McNece, one McNally, one McNeely and a McGreal from County Mayo – but no specific location in County Mayo is listed.

County Mayo is in the western part of Ireland and is not in the English plantation area which is today, Northern Ireland.

Then, we also find County Antrim in Northern Ireland, County Monaghan in Ireland, bordering Northern Ireland and then Stirlingshire in Scotland.  Certainly nothing definitive.

If you look at my McNiel cousin’s 67 marker European matches, you’ll see the following map.

This northern Ireland location is very suggestive of an ancestral location for our McNiel line, but the Mc part of McNiel suggest perhaps Scots-Irish, as does the northern Ireland grouping of matches.  Northern Ireland was the Ulster Plantation region.

We’ve made progress over the years, but we’re just not quite there yet.

Hope springs eternal.

I guess one might say that the paternal McNiel ancestors “got around,” leaving their DNA scattered across Ireland and Scotland and the name spelled just closely enough to be confusing – and intriguing!  Nothing like a good family mystery to peak your curiosity!

Of course, with this line being descended from Niall of the 9 Hostages, it’s possible that some of these various lines simply adopted the surname based on their ancestral heritage and are not actually descended from a common ancestor since the advent of surnames.  Generally, when people of the same surname match, the assumption is that the common ancestor is since the adoption of surnames…otherwise the surnames wouldn’t match.  In this case, with the widespread fame of Niall of the 9 Hostages, I don’t think the common surname can be assumed to mean that the common ancestor occurred after the adoption of surnames.  Leave it up to my family to cast doubt where others find certainty!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interesting_Narrative_of_the_Life_of_Olaudah_Equiano, a slave, written and published in England in 1789

While the Slave Owner registers from 1834 in England and the recent project to index and study their contents has raised consciousness about slavery and how intertwined slavery was through Caribbean sugar production to all of the British Isles – DNA is telling a story too.  While the slave owner registers speak to the ownership of slaves in the Caribbean by Britains, those weren’t the only slaves.

I have done several DNA Reports in past decade for people who received unexpected results.  By unexpected results, I’m referring to clearly African haplogroups in Europe, primarily the British Isles, found in people who are just as clearly “white” today – and whose ancestors have been considered as such for generations.  Furthermore,  their autosomal DNA generally shows no trace or occasionally shows minute amounts of their African heritage, yet it is clearly there as proven by Y and mitochondrial DNA.

When these people are found in the US and their ancestors have been here for generations, especially in a slave-owning area, my first thought is always that perhaps the genealogy is in error – or that there was an undocumented adoption that would never show in genealogical records.  But when the people are not in the US and their ancestors have never lived outside of Europe and are well-documented, the results are impossible to explain away or rationalize in that fashion.

I’m also not referring to haplogroup E-M215, old E1b1b or E-M35, old E1b1b1, which is known to be North African, or Berber, found in the Mediterranean basin.  This haplogroup is found sparsely in England, likely due to the Roman legions who arrived and stayed or at least left some of their Y DNA behind.  Steven Bird wrote the paper about this titled “Haplogroup E3b1a2 as a Possible Indicator of Settlement of Roman Britain by Soldiers of Balkan Origin.”

I’m talking about haplogroups that are unquestionably sub-Saharan African in origin, such as Y DNA E-M2, old E1b1a now E-V38, and often, mitochondrial haplogroups such as L1, L2 and L3  – meaning that they originated with women, not men.

This begs the question of how those haplogroups came to be embedded in the British population long enough ago that there is no record that the people who carried them were not white.  In other words, the person who brought that haplogroup to the British Isles arrived long ago, many generations.

I have always found this a bit confounding, because while England was indeed heavily intertwined in the slave trade, England never had the space or need to employ slaves in the way that they were engaged on large plantations in the Caribbean or in the Southern US.  Furthermore, England had its own surplus of people they were trying to send elsewhere, which was one of the benefits of colonization.  You could send your undesirables to populate your colonies.  For example, those pesky recusant Catholics who refused to convert settled in Maryland.  Many people convicted of small crimes, such as my Joseph Rash for stealing 2 bags of malt, were transported to the colonies, in his case, Virginia.

We know that there were some Africans in Elizabethan England, although those records are almost incidental, few and far between.  Africans have been in England since the 12^th century, but it wasn’t until slaving began in earnest that their numbers increased.  At this point, blacks in England were mostly novelties and were often owned by captains of slave ships and occasionally sold on the quay of coastal cities like Bristol.

Although not widespread, slavery was practiced in England until 1772, when the Somerset case effectively determined that chattel slavery was not supported by English law.  This legally freed all slaves in England, if not in actual practice.  Slaves in England at that time were mostly domestic servants and flocked to be baptized in the hope it would ensure their freedom.  The good news is that those baptisms created records.

Buried in the details of the Somerset case and arguments are an important tidbits.

James Somerset, a slave, was purchased in Massachusetts and brought to England by his master, Charles Stewart.  James escaped, was captured and was going to be shipped to the Caribbean by Stewart and sold as a plantation slave.  However, while in England, James had been converted to Christianity and his three god-parents upon his baptism filed suit claiming that while he may have been a slave when brought to England, that English law did not support slavery and he was therefore not a slave in England and could not be shipped against his will to the Caribbean to be sold.  This was not a humanitarian case, per se, but a case about law and legal details.

Somerset’s advocates argued that while colonial laws might permit slavery, neither the common law of England nor any law made by Parliament recognized the existence of slavery and slavery was therefore unlawful. The advocates also argued that English contract law did not allow for any person to enslave himself, nor could any contract be binding without the person’s consent. When the two lawyers for Charles Stewart, the owner, put forth their case, they argued that property was paramount and that it would be dangerous to free all the black people in England, who numbered at the time approximately 15,000.

That’s the information I was looking for.  There were 15,000 African or African descended slaves in England in 1772.  Given that most were domestic servants, the females would have been subject to whatever their owner wanted to impose upon them, including sexual advances.  Let’s face it, there were a lot more English men available in England than African men, so it’s very likely that the children of enslaved women would have been fathered by white men whether by consensual or nonconsensual means.

Their half white children would also have been enslaved, at least until 1772, and if they also bore children from an English male, their offspring would have been 25% African and 75% English.  Within another generation, they would have looked “white” and their African heritage would have been forgotten – at least until their descendants eight or ten generations later took a mitochondrial or Y DNA test and turned up with confusing African results.

The Crumley Conundrum…that’s what this line of genealogy has been called for years by researchers.  The current generation of researchers named it, but I’m sure all past Crumley researchers would confirm that name with a hearty “hear, hear” or maybe a different line would just say “Amen.”

The Crumley family, due to common first names, large families, wives with no names at all, or no surnames, and often common first names, intermarrying into the same families generation after generation….is a mess.  This has been one of the most difficult unraveling challenges I’ve ever seen…and I don’t pretend to tell you that I have this exactly right.  What I am doing is sharing what I do have documented with the hope that someday, other researchers will be able to add to this research.

I’m fortunate that I do have the benefit of a few pathblazing researchers who came before me…and those are the ones who did share their information before they died or dropped off of the face of the earth.  I swear on everything that is Holy that I will NOT let that happen to my genealogy and my ancestors.

William Crumley, the first, was born in 1735 or 1736 in East Nottingham Township, Chester County, PA to James Crumley and Catharine Gilkey.

East Nottingham is in the southwest corner of Chester County which borders Cecil County, Maryland.  They is a very interesting history to this region, but you’ll have to wait for the James Crumley article to read about that!

Frederick County, Virginia

When William was a teenager, his family moved to Frederick County, Virginia, in present day Berkeley Co., West Virginia on the border, literally, between those two states.  Of course, West Virginia didn’t yet exist at that time.

This drive from Gerrardstown in Berkeley County, West Virginia to Apple Pie Ridge in Frederick County, Virginia runs along Mill Creek and cuts right through the middle of James Crumley’s land.

James Crumley, William’s father, bought the survey rights to a tract of land totaling 742 acres on Sept. 6, 1753 from James Anderson and on February 1, 1754, the land was granted to James Crumley.  William would have been about 17 or 18 at this time, and certainly of an age to be a big help on the farm.  At this time, that probably meant felling trees, so William was likely to be a very muscular lad.

We are fortunate that the Berkeley County Historical Society published a wonderful article in Issue 8 of the Berkeley Journal titled “Houses and Historic Sites Locates on the James Crumley Land Grant.”  This journal, published in 1979, is still available for purchase through the Historical Society.  All of the plat and survey information is from that article.

In February 1757, William acquired from his father 270 acres at the southern end of the Lord Fairfax tract, in what is now Berkeley County, West Virginia.

One of the Crumley cousins who has visited the site was kind enough to send this map as well.

It was also in 1757 that William’s father, James, wrote his will.  Perhaps James was getting his affairs in order.

Frederick County Deed Book 4, page 229, recorded on March 1, 1757:

On February 28, 1757, this indenture between James Crumley (spelled Cromley throughout) and William Crumley (spelled Cromley throughout) both of Frederick County, for 2 shillings current money of Virginia, Frederick County tract of 270 acres…Thomas Martin corner…foot of a ridge…along Martin’s line…crossing Mill Creek…part of 742 acres granted to James Crumley by deed from the proprietors office bearing the date of first of February MDCCLIV (1754).  William Crumley to pay the rent of one ear of Indian corn on Lady Day next.  Signed by James Crumley his mark and witnessed by Thomas Wood, Edmond Cullen and William Dillon

This deed is registered with the court and followed by a similar deed which seems to release William from a one year indenture.

March 1, 1757 James Crumley to William Crumley for 22 shillings…release and confirm unto the said William Crumley (in his actual possession now being by virtue of a bargain and sale to him hereof made for one year indenture bearing date the day next before the date of these presents and force of the statute for transferring uses into posessions)…tract or parcel containing 270 acres.

Today that land is located on Greenspring Road near the Frederick County line on the most southern section of the James Crumley land grant.

The description is exactly as the first document as are the witnesses and it is filed on the same day, March 1^st, 1757.

Today, this map shows the location of the original James Crumley home at 3641 Apple Pie Ridge Road.  It was placed on the National Register of Historic places in 2006 as the Crumley-Lynn-Lodge House in Frederick County, VA.

The Hopewell Meeting house (shown below) lay southeast of James property, and William’s land lay north, just over or straddling the border between Virginia and West Virginia today.

You can see Mill Creek, shown on James’s original grant, running parallel with 51.2 in West Virginia today, south of Gerrardstown.

Religion and Politics

William Crumley, along with his father and siblings were residents of Frederick County when George Washington won his first elective office as a Frederick County delegate to the Virginia House of Burgesses in July, 1758, so it possible that the two may have had some contact. Washington, however, did not actually live in Frederick County and did very little campaigning there, other than to buy plenty of liquor for the voters.  Voting was a bit different then.

Quaker men were supposed to abstain from drinking alcohol, but that did not seem to apply to our Crumley men, judging from the contents of their estates.

George Washington kept a diary.  It seems he endorsed that old saying about holding your friends close, but holding your enemies closer.  At least, he wanted to know who was on his side, and who was not.

At that time, voting was not private like it is today.  One had to declare publicly who you were voting for.  Voters were allowed to vote for two candidates.

After Washington received the Frederick County polling results, he made an alphabetic list of all the voters and their publicly proclaimed choices. James Crumley and his sons John and William voted for Hugh West. John and William also voted for Colonel Washington, but James, their father, cast only the one vote.   In addition to his voting preference, this also confirms that William was at least 21 years of age by this time.

Like his father, William was a member of the Parish vestry, serving in 1759. Although the Vestry was actually under the jurisdiction of the official Episcopal Church, it had political functions as well, and it was not unusual for Quakers to be members.

William Crumley was married in about 1761 to Hannah Mercer, daughter of Edward Mercer and his wife Ann.

The Hopewell Church (VA) history book (671 pages) mentions James Crumley, father of William (the first), but William is never mentioned in the book.  James and William (the first), we know, were both Vestrymen of the Quaker church, but this is known only from the Laws of Virginia.  It seems strange that no mention is made of William’s “disownment by reason of marriage outside the Quaker faith”, a very common practice in those early years, if in fact he married outside the faith.  If he married within the faith, then his son, William (the second) split with the church at some point, because by 1797, William (the second) was a founder of a Methodist Church in Greene County, TN.

William’s Father Dies

In 1764, William’s father, James died and his will was probated.  William was one of several children mentioned.

In 1773, William, his brother Henry, and their niece Ruth (Doster) Noland through husband Thomas Noland sold 200 acres at the southern end of the Lord Fairfax tract in 1773 to Thomas Faulkner, who had married Jane Dunn, William’s mother-in-law.

Deed Book 2, page 149.

“Two hundred acres being part of a large tract containing 744 acres granted to James Crumwell (sic) decd from the proprietor of the Northern Neck…the said William Crumley, Henry Crumley and Thomas Nolan to Thomas Faulkner.  Hannah William’s wife, Ruth Thomas Nolan’s wife and Sarah Henry’s wife…William Crumley is attorney in fact for Henry Crumley.  One hundred sixty pounds and 8 shillings.  Dated Aug 18, 1773 (I can’t tell if is the date of the deed or of the poa following.  I believe it is the deed.)

Signed
William Crumley
Hannah Crumley
Henry Crumley
Thomas Noland
Ruth Noland

Witnesses
William Boyd
Joseph Kile
John Ridgeway
John Tryall?

William’s Wife Dies

In about 1773, William’s wife, Hannah, died.  William and Hannah had 5 children that lived to adulthood.  If they were married in 1761, they likely had at least 6 children, and possibly 7.  It appears that they lost at least one child.

After Hannah’s death around 1773, William married Sarah Dunn, daughter of James and Jane Dunn and step-daughter of Thomas Faulkner, whom, we know is a neighbor because William sold part of James land to Thomas Faulkner.  So William married the neighbor’s daughter.

We know by this time that William was not active in the Quaker church, because in 1774 after his marriage to Sarah, the Hopewell Friends disowned her for marrying “contrary to discipline.”  Obviously, Sarah had to know that would happen before she married William, and didn’t care.

The Revolutionary War

When William was about 45 years old, the Revolutionary War became a reality in Virginia.

In 1781, William was among the Berkeley County citizens who provided supplies for the use of the Revolutionary armies. One certificate (receipt) dated September 30, 1781 indicated that he and three others, including his wife’s brother William Dunn and her stepfather Thomas Faulkner were generously entitled to 225 pounds for just eleven bushels and a peck of wheat.

The only record of William actually receiving reimbursement was a 1782 Publick Service Claim, in which he was “allowed 5 pounds for eight days in actual service as a receiver in Collecting the cloathing and provisions for the use of the state.  This “patriotic service” has qualified at least two of his descendants for membership in the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Oral history of wars and service therein, especially if you are on the “right” side tends to be one of the tidbits passed along within families.

Portrait and Biography Album, Jefferson Co., IA, (1890), 188, Sketch of Isaaac H. Crumly, Sec. 9, Penn Township:

Born in East Tennessee Dec 24, 1820 and traces his ancestry back to early Colonial days when his great-grandfather, William Crumly, resided in Virginia. Large slave-holder and served in the Revolution. His son William was a farmer and removed to Tennessee when that country was first settled.  His son Abraham was born in Greene Co., Tenn. in 1787…Abraham Crumly, father of Isaac H. married Elizabeth Marshall, born 25 June 1796, dau. of Abram and Martha (Doane) Marshall; she died 29 Mar 1827. Abraham married, 2nd, Jane McNees, who died 8-18-1845.

William (the first) had at least 15 children in total, who are listed in his will as recorded in Berkeley County, then Virginia, now West Virginia, Will Book 2 page 185-187.

William’s Death

William died in Berkeley County between September of 1792 and September of 1793, most likely in the summer of 1793 or his will would have been probated earlier in the year.  He had gotten his crops planted before he died, because his inventory includes a field of corn.

In William’s will he wrote:

“…My plantation I purchased from my brother John to be sold by my executors to my best advantage, payments to be made but the land not given up to the purchaser until March 26, 1795 which is the expiration of John Antraus lease.  When my executors receive the whole of the purchase money they are to give each of my children that is come of age the sum of 10 pounds.  I leave to my loving wife Sarah Crumley all the rest and the remainder of my estate both real and personal for life or whist she remains my widow.  My widdow Sarah Crumly shall Rays my children together to give them learning out of the profits that arises from my Estate the boys to read write and cifer The Girls to read and write.”

If Sarah remarries, the entire estate is to be sold and after deducting for “raising and schooling my young children” the estate is to be equally divided among my 15 children after adding? to each what they have already received namely James, Ann, William, Catherine, Aaron, Jane, Thomas, Sarah, Henry, Mary, Stephen, Elizabeth, John, Martha and Rebecca.  If any of the children die, the balance to be divided among the remaining children.  Is Sarah remains a widow until her death, the estate to be divided the same way.  Good friend David Faulkner and wife Sarah Crumley executors.  Dated Sept. 30, 1792

Witnesses:
William Wilson
Tom Doster
John Watson Sr.
Jesse Rubell (Ruble)

William Crumley died between the date his will was filed in Berkeley County, Virginia, 30 September 1792, and the date it was proved, 17 September 1793, age about 58.  He was not an old man, at least not by today’s standards.  Given that he made his will almost a year before he died, he clearly had advance warning that something was amiss.

I find it interesting that the boys were to be taught to “read, write and cipher,” but the girls only to read and write.  I guess they didn’t need to know how to cipher back then, or at least William didn’t think they did.

The fact that William’s will was probated in Berkeley County tells us that he was living on the land from the James Crumley land grants, not the land his father owned in Frederick County on Apple Pie Ridge.

Houses on the Crumley Land

The journal article tell us that after Sarah’s death in 1809, David Faulker, William’s executor, then living in Greene Co., Ohio, sold William’s plantation of 270 acres for $6000 to Aaron M. Crumley and Thomas Crumley (Superior Court Deed book 20, page 47).  A year later, the brothers sold the land for $4468.33 to Abraham Waidman of Berk’s County, PA (DB 27, p 241).  It sure makes me wonder why they were willing to take a significant hit of about 1/3 of the land’s value in just a year.  Frances Silver then acquired the land, some before 1820 and some after.  Between 1820 and 1821, according to tax records, he build a large, by the standards of those days, brick house which was still standing when the journal article was written.

The home that William would have lived in likely looked much more like a log cabin, and probably was a log cabin.  This cabin, below, was built on the middle section of James land.  William was assuredly in and out of this cabin regularly, as Thomas Faulkner was his second wife’s step-father.

The journal article tells us that Thomas Faulkner built a log cabin on this land in 1775 with a wing added about 1785 that was still standing in 1979 when the article was written.

William’s Estate

David Faulkner and Sarah Crumley accepted executorship of William’s estate, and Thomas Faulkner and John Watson entered a bond of 1000 pounds for their true and faithful administration of said estate.

On page 219 of Will Book 2, William’s estate was appraised on October 15, 1793 by John Gray, Matthew Rippey and David Baldwin.

I must say, my heart sank when I saw the entry, “negro wench.”  Her name wasn’t even given.  Yet she was the most valuable single item in William’s appraisal which totaled 292.14.1.

However, William is far from being a “large slave holder” as reported in Isaac Crumley’s biographical article.

William’s father, James, also owned one slave at his death, and he was an active member of the Quaker church – a surprising and conflicting set of facts.  I wonder how he justified that.  William had clearly stepped away from the Quaker Church.  Maybe his beliefs about slavery had something to do with that decision.

Looking at William’s inventory, it appears that he was a shoemaker.  Everyone was a farmer in that time and place, but generally, each farmer had some sort of specialized skill which is a secret divulged by the items in their estate inventory.

William had 4 beds, one of which, assuredly a feather bed, was his.  Children typically all slept together in colonial America.  No separate rooms and no luxury of sleeping alone either.

William didn’t have a lot of clothing, even for a man of that time.  Clothing was not changed daily or washed often, as we do today.  Generally, clothing was washed seasonally, and may have been boiled as a form of washing, depending on the material at hand.  In essence, William had one outfit with a few spare pieces.  Let’s take a look at what he had.

Stockings, at that time, were generally white and hand knit of wool or linen and came up over the knee.  There was no elastic, so stockings were held up by garters made of ribbon, leather strips or knitted.  William had 4 pair of stockings, but he only had one pair of shoes.

Shoes during that time were handmade, and William probably made his own.  There was no left or right.  In fact, people were encouraged to change their shoes back and forth so their shoes didn’t become left and right.  Shoes were fastened with buckles and soles were fitted with hobnails and iron heel protectors which kept the soles from wearing out. It looks like these “heel tools” were part of William’s inventory as well, as were a variety of buckles.

Leggings were generally leather and went over breeches to protect them when out in the brush.  They were the sign of an outdoorsman and not a gentleman.  Leggings came from Native American influence.

A jacket and breeches probably referred to a waistcoat and breeches, shown here from this University of Massachusetts website about colonial clothing.

William’s breeches could have been only knee length.  It was later in the 1700s when they became ankle length.

Colonial Williamsburg also has a wonderful page showing men’s clothing of this timeframe.  They show a coat, which was a daily piece of clothing that went on top of (or in place of) a waistcoat and breeches.  Sometimes the coats matched the breeches.  Buttons were both expensive and stylish.

William had a great coat, which was similar to our winter coats today.  They were heavy, thick and generally knee length.

Interestingly, William’s inventory does not include any shirts.  A shirt, shown at left, would have been the foundation garment that went underneath the coat.  Underwear did not yet exist at this time.  Shirts were long and the bottom of the shirt was tucked strategically in place to function as a protective layer to keep breeches clean – in other words, pseudo-underwear.  Maybe William’s shirt or shirts were too old and worn out to be considered of any value.

I also notice that William did not have a wig.  This further confirms that he did not move in gentlemanly circles, but was more the frontiersman.  So while William was on George Washington’s list, he certainly was not his peer and likely didn’t come calling.

Clothing was considered quite valuable and not treated disposably as it is today.  Many pieces of colonial clothing, including stockings, were repeatedly patched.  Sometimes people willed their clothing to a particular family member.  It would have been a wonderful gift to receive.

The estate inventory also mention’s William’s coffin.  Interesting that the price of a coffin is equal to a steer.

This begs the question – where was William buried?  We can pretty safely say he was not buried in the Hopewell Friend’s Cemetery since they had kicked his wife out for marrying William.  He was very likely buried on his own land.  The question would then be whether or not that cemetery was continued by the next owners, or if it was lost in time to Nature, or worse.  Is there a lost cemetery someplace near the Francis Silver House today?

Distributing William’s Estate to His Children

After William’s widow, Sarah, died in 1809, sons Thomas and Aaron sold the 270-acre tract as set forth in William’s will.

Two years later, each of the children received $479.09.

Children of William Crumley and Hannah Mercer:

a) James Crumley, oldest son of William Crumley, was born around 1764 in Berkeley County, Virginia (now West Virginia). In 1787, he was living with his brother-in-law, Thomas Rees. He married Mary (Polly) Stonebridge, daughter of John and Mary (Hancher) Stonebridge, and lived on land in Frederick County that his wife inherited from her father. His wife Mary died 9 May 1813 and is buried in the Back Creek Meeting House cemetery in Gainsboro, Virginia. James married Elizabeth Downey, a widow, on Christmas Eve, 1815.  They probably struggled financially; two 1821 Deeds of Trust indicate they had borrowed money, using their property as collateral. He was living in Frederick County with his wife in 1830. James Crumley was at least 65 years of age when died without a will.

b) Ann Crumley, born about 1764, married about 1781 to Thomas Rees, son of Thomas and Hannah (Rees) Rees moved to Washington County, Pennsylvania. d. before 1811. Children: Hannah Reese, Jesse Reese, Nancy Reese, William Reese, Rachel Reese, Sarah Reese, James Reese [ca. 1800], Soloman Reese [1802], Thomas Reese, Jr. [ca. 1804].

c) William Crumley (the second), born around 1767, married an unknown wife and moved to Greene County, TN around 1795.

d) Catharine Crumley, born about 1769, married (1) John Eyre, moved to Ross County, Ohio; (2) 1804 James Mooney; moved to Fayette County, Ohio. Died 28 December 1857, buried Walnut Creek Cemetery, Perry Township, Fayette County, Ohio. Children: Robert Eyre, Hannah Eyre, Samuel Eyre, Nancy Eyre, William Eyre; Eliza Mooney [1805], James Mooney, Jr. [1812], Catharine Mooney, Mary (Polly) Mooney.

e) Aaron Mercer Crumley, born 22 October 1771, married 3 February 1796 to Jane Atherton and moved to Greene County, Ohio. Aaron died 18 August 1835, buried Mt. Holly Cemetery near Xenia, Ohio. Children: William Crumley [1798], Hannah Crumley [ca. 1799], Mary (Polly) Crumley [1800], a son [ca. 1802], Sidney Amelia Crumley [ca. 1804], Edward Mercer Crumley [ca. 1806], Maria Crumley [1807], Aaron Crumley [1809], Jane Crumley [1812], Clarissa Matilda Crumley [1814].

Children of William and Sarah Crumley:

f) Jane Crumley, born about 1774, married (1) Jonah Bull, son of Robert and Sarah (Littler) Bull, moved to Butler County, Ohio; (2) 18 October 1825 John S. Patton. Children: not yet identified; the 1820 Butler County census shows 1 boy under 10, 1 between 10 and 16, and 1 between 16 and 26; 1 girl between 10 and 16, and a woman 26 to 45. Jane and Jonah were 45+.

g) Thomas Crumley, born 31 December 1776, married 22 January 1801 Elizabeth Gardner moved to Harrison County, Ohio. d. 3 July 1861, buried in Dickerson Graveyard, Harrison County, Ohio. Children: Samuel Crumley [1801], Sarah Crumley [1802], Mary Crumley [1805], William Crumley [ca. 1807], Thomas Crumley, Jr. [ca. 1808], Ira Crumley [1809], Elizabeth Crumley [1811], John Crumley [1813], Hannah Crumley [ca. 1816], James [1817, the 1840 Harrison County census taker], Aaron W. Crumley [1820], Emily Crumley [1822], Joseph Crumley [1824], David M. Crumley [1827].

h) Sarah Crumley, born about 1778, married 10 February 1800 Jesse Wright, son of Benjamin and Jane (Faulkner) Wright. Children: not yet identified; the 1810 Berkeley County census indicated that there were 3 boys and 1 girl under 10 years of age.

i) Henry Crumley, born 10 April 1780, married (1) 30 August 1801 Mary Rees, daughter of Thomas and Margaret (Rees) Rees; (2) 11 April 1814 Elizabeth Flowers, moved to Greene County, Ohio, and to Fountain County, Indiana (3) 6 February 1840 Jane Black, d. 24 September 1864, buried Union Church Cemetery, Aylesworth, Indiana. Children: Matilda Crumley, Julean Crumley, Harriet Crumley, John Crumley, Rees Crumley [ca. 1818].

j) Mary Crumley, born 2 June 1782, married 22 October 1806 John Heberling, son of Andrew Heberling, moved to Harrison County, Ohio, died 13 April 1864, buried Short Creek Township, Harrison County, Ohio. Children: Henry Heberling, Eliza Heberling, Hiram Heberling [ca. 1811], John Heberling [ca. 1812], William Heberling, George H. Heberling [1814], James Heberling, Andrew Heberling, Rebecca Heberling, Mary Heberling.

Mary Crumley Heberling’s tintype photo below is the oldest Crumley photo known. It appears that she is wearing a Quaker bonnet – part of the “plain dress” doctrine of the Quaker faith.

k) Stephen Crumley, born 3 April 1784, moved to Green County, Ohio. married 30 May 1813 to Jane Stanfield, daughter of William and Charity (Mendenhall) Stanfield, moved to Fountain County, Indiana; d. 6 February 1837, buried Union Church Cemetery, Aylesworth, Indiana. Children: William Crumley [1815], James C. Crumley [1817], Nancy Crumley [1819], Mary Crumley [1820], Charity Crumley [1823], Stephen Crumley, Jr. [1824], Euphemia Crumley [1826], John Crumley [1828], Sarah Crumley [1829].

l) Elizabeth Crumley, born about 1786, married 24 April 1809 to Isaac Booth, son of Thomas Booth; moved to Washington County, Pennsylvania, and Harrison County, Ohio. Died before 1824. Children: Thomas Booth, Jeremiah Booth, William Booth.

m) John Crumley, born about 1788, married 20 January 1812 to Elizabeth Hancher. Died 12 September 1814. Children: Sarah Crumley. His widow married 7 December 1819 to Richard Beeson.

n) Martha Crumley, born about 1791, married to Thomas Wright, son of Benjamin and Jane (Faulkner) Wright; moved to Columbiana County, Ohio. Children: William C. Wright [1815].

o) Rebecca Crumley, born about 1792, married 4 November 1813 to William Stewart. Moved to Harrison County, Ohio. Children: not yet identified; the 1820 Berkeley County census shows 3 boys under 10.

DNA and Origins

One of the mysteries about the Crumley family is where they originated.  The Quaker faith seems to suggest England, strongly, but does the DNA tell us the same thing?

Looking at the matches and matches map for our Crumley men who took the Y DNA test, we find the following Ancestral Locations at 111 markers:

• Scotland – 3 (Graham, McCreight and McWhorter)
• Ireland – 1 from Kilkenny, Ireland

At lower marker levels, Scotland and Ireland are still very prevalent, with English lagging significantly behind.

An Ancestral Location is a balloon that shows where someone you match finds their most distant ancestors.  Of course, this is subject to the accuracy of their genealogy, but we’re looking for patterns, not individual occurrances, unless we happen to find another Crumley male.  Unfortuantely, there are no Crumley’s from the British Isles that have tested, at least, none that match our line.

At 67 markers, the matches map looks like this:

Not everyone enters the geographic information for their most distant ancestor, but generally, as long as there are several matches, you can still get a good idea of the distribution.

At 37 markers, we see the following distribution on the Matches Map.

This pattern is far more suggestive of Ireland than England, although clearly, it doesn’t rule England out.  We may also be seeing deep ancestry, not more recent ancestry, since the advent of surnames.

Hopefully, one day, we’ll match a Crumley male from England who knows exactly where his ancestral family was from.  Our Crumley line may be linked to the history of the Quakers in England.

Acknowledgements: Irmal Crumley Haunschild and Nella Myers, researchers who contributed greatly to Crumley research here, and who have gone on to meet the ancestors.  Thanks also to Paul Nichols, Larry Crumley and Jerry Crumly who are all very much alive!

Just for fun, let’s look at some Crumley folks who are related.  When you work in the genetic genealogy field, people are forever sending photos of someone and saying “doesn’t this person look like that person?  Do you think they are related?”  Or, the most common, “this is my great grandmother – do you think she looks Native American.”

I am forever telling people that phenotypical resemblances are really not good indicators of relatedness, but it’s so difficult to believe when you’re looking for that needle in the haystack and it’s the only tidbit you have.

I did it myself when I found Lee Devine and discovered that not only was he deceased, but he had no children, so my chances of ever finding out definitively if he was my half brother are forever gone.  I reverted to picture comparisons, because it’s the only tool I had at my disposal.

So, let’s have some fun with this.

Take a look at this photo.  These men are unquestionably related.  The question is, how closely?

So, how do you think they are related?

If you said brothers, you’re in good company.  They look like brothers, but they aren’t.

If you said uncle and nephews, you too would be in good company, but nada.

Cousins maybe?

Well, yes.

These are all Crumley men, left to right, John, Ken, Jerry… and Donna, the daughter of one the men whose job it was to keep them in line that day.  Fortunately for Donna, she doesn’t have the signature family beard!

Years ago, the Y DNA tests through the Crumley DNA project confirmed that these men share a common Crumley ancestor, but despite appearances, they are much more distantly related than you might think.

Not first cousins.

Not second.

Not third.

Not fourth.

Not kidding!

The common ancestor of these men is John Crumley, born about 1737.

Yes, I know how much alike they look, but looks can be deceiving – or encouraging – and looks are not an accurate predictor of relatedness.

John and Ken are 4th cousins once removed.

Ken and Jerry are 5^th cousins.

John and Jerry are 5^th cousins once removed.

Their pedigree chart is shown below.

Not quite what you would expect by looking at the picture.  As someone once said to me, “If you look at a picture long enough and hard enough, you can see anything that you want to see.”  Touche!

The Crumley DNA project at Family Tree DNA has embraced autosomal DNA testing, so all three of these gentlemen have taken the Family Finder test.  Knowing that their Y DNA matches (with a mutation or two), and having identified their common ancestor, let’s see if their autosomal DNA matches as well.

At Family Tree DNA, one must meet a 20 cM total DNA matching threshold, and an individual matching segment threshold of 7cM in order to be listed as a match.  Here’s how they matched, or didn’t.

Needless to say, if we didn’t already have the Crumley Y DNA results, this might have given Ken a bit of heartburn – but no need.  It’s not uncommon for distant cousins to not be shown as matches.

Fortunately, all three gentlemen also downloaded their results to GedMatch, where we can adjust the matching threshold.  In some cases, the 20cM total precludes a match, and in some cases, the 7cM segment precludes a match, so let’s see if these gentlemen match at GedMatch using a lower threshold.

At GedMatch, I ran all 3 gentlemen against each other using the threshold of 300 SNPs and 3 cM and then put their results into a common spreadsheet.  I also deleted the duplicate entries, because for every Ken to John match, there is also an identical John to Ken match.

You can see on the spreadsheet below that John and Jerry match each other, just as Family Tree DNA said.  They share not one, but two large matching segments of over 16 cM.  Not bad for 5^th cousins once removed.

You can also see that Ken matches both Jerry and John, but not on any segment over 4.9 cM, which precludes matching at Family Tree DNA.  However, Ken exceeded the 20 cM total match threshold with both Jerry, at 51 cM and John at 35.8 cM – but a match has to exceed both thresholds to be counted as such.

Especially within known family groupings, a non-match doesn’t necessarily mean the individuals don’t share any DNA, it may just mean that there isn’t enough cumulatively (>20 cM) or the segments are too small to put them over the threshold (7 cM).  That’s the great thing about GedMatch, you can adjust your own thresholds.

Are all of these segments valid, meaning are they identical by descent?  Most likely not.  Are some valid?  Very probably, especially given that we know that these men unquestionably do share a common ancestor – thanks to their Y DNA.  Could we find out more?  Yes, we can, if we have more cousins to compare against.

And, as luck would have it, we do, another 40 or so….but that story will have to wait until the Crumley DNA Study is ready for publication!

Thanks to Ken, Larry and John, my Crumley kin, for DNA testing and allowing us to tell their story and share their picture.  You can see by the smiles on their faces that they are truly enjoying their kinship – and that is really what matters.  Genealogy and genetic genealogy has the ability to reunite families separated by more than 200 years and 6 or 7 generations – and that’s exactly what has happened with our Crumley kin.

Trying to track Edward Mercer has been like trying to follow one hair in a braid.

While a surname like Mercer seems fairly unique, it isn’t, or wasn’t in Frederick County, Virginia in the 1700s.  Who would have guessed there would be so many in this new land of opportunity, the frontier, where the settlers lived among the Indians.

Edward Mercer was in Frederick County, Virginia by 1751, based upon his land grant.  While settlers were settling this region, all was not as peaceful at it seemed.  Remember that the settlers were encroaching on the Indian’s territory, territory the Indians did not “sell” and that by treaty, the settlers were not supposed to settle upon.  But they were, and they did, and the Indians were NOT happy.  The court notes in Shenandoah Valley Pioneers and Their Descendants (1738-1908) by T.K. Cartmell, Clerk of Court, reflect that the Indian chiefs were meeting in Winchester in 1753 to negotiate yet another treaty, and the ordinaries were not to sell them liquor.

On page 71, Cartmell tells us:

Sept. 4, 1753 – “A treaty between the Indians in in progress; It is ordered by the Court, for preventing disturbance during the Treaty with the Indians at the town of Winchester that no Ordinary keeper or other person presume to sell or give to the Indians strong liquors of any sort.”  Five great chiefs with a small following spent many weeks near the town trying to work a scheme to have the white settlers vacate their territory west of the Great Mountains.  This was refused, but a treaty was made to allow the Indians to remain in their villages on the Ohio River undisturbed, and that they should have the right to sell land on their reservation to peaceable white settlers.  This treaty was basely violated by unscrupulous adventurers and a bloody war was the result.

And so began the French and Indian War.

The settlers built their homes as stockades and for most of the 1750s, they lived in constant fear, but no one went back from whence they came.  Expeditions were sent to protect outlying settlements.

From 1754 through 1758, this area of Frederick County and what is now Berkeley County, West Virginia, then part of Frederick County, a swath from Gerardstown, West Virginia to south of Winchester, Virginia was raided successively by Indians, sometimes with the French helping the Indians.  This is exactly where Edward Mercer lived, but perhaps Edward was safe, or safer, because he lived adjacent to Jacob Van Meter, the son of long-time Indian trader John Van Meter.

Some settlers were killed outright, some were taken hostage, and some returned to the community later.  Others, especially those taken as children, joined the tribes and never returned to the white settlements.  Both the settlers and the Indians viewed the warfare as invasive depredations.  Cartmell provides details on page 74 of his history book.  Suffice it to say it was a time of high tension and daily fear for those who lived on the frontier.

In 1757, the court justices ordered the court books be taken to Fort Loudon for safekeeping.  They too feared for their scalps and the preservation of anything on the frontier.  It was not a short war.  A peace treaty, such as it was, was not signed until 1763, just before Edward Mercer’s death.

For most of the time Edward lived in Frederick County, the colonists were actively at war with the Indians and French.  The frontier was not a peaceful or safe place to live.

The Many Mercers

Wilmer L. Kerns, Ph.D. wrote about Frederick County families in his book, “Frederick Count, Virginia, Settlement and Some First Families of Back Creek Valley.”  Back Creek Valley was the area north of Winchester where the Mercers, Crumleys and the Quaker families settled in the vicinity of the Hopewell Meeting House, shown on the map below.

Tracking the Mercer Families The Mercer surname was frequently mentioned in Frederick County records during colonial days. Apparently, there were several different Mercer family roots in Northern Virginia. This brief sketch of the Mercer surname is tentative, and is merely intended to acknowledge that several branches of the family were among the early settlers in this region. Further research is needed to compile a more accurate account of this surname.

One Mercer family, some members of which did wind up in Frederick County were known as the John Francis Mercer line.  They were from Dublin, Ireland and before that, from Chester, England.  Their family is detailed in this document.  There is no known connection, nor any hint of a connection between this family and the other two Mercer families – but that does not mean a connection doesn’t exist.  Y DNA testing on Mercer males from both lines would tell us quickly enough.

The second and third Mercer families are quite confusing, beginning with the fact that there are two Edward Mercers who lived at the same time in the same county, but who may or may not be related to each other.

The younger Edward Mercer (1729-1783) settled in a part of Frederick County, Virginia that later became Berkeley County in 1772, so we can tell these men apart to some extent.

The Berkeley County family appears to have come from Ireland, based on a 1783 deposition recorded in Deed Book X, Vol 22, Page 335, Chester County, PA which records a statement by Mary Mercer, Berkeley County, VA, widow of Edward Mercer about sixty years old and a statement by Johathan Mercer, aged 50 regarding their acquaintance with a William Chapman. About two years after they left Ireland, the deponent (Mary Mercer) with others of her family, since dead, also left Ireland and came to America and found the George Chapman and William Chapman living on Delaware River near New Castle and Marcus Hook; they then lived together.

Below is a current map showing Marcus Hook, New Castle and Chester County, PA.

If Mary was 60 in 1783, and was a child when immigrated, this would put her birth in 1723 and her immigration location sometime before marrying Edward (born in 1729) in New Castle and Marcus Hook.  So, this puts that Edward Mercer in the same vicinity or he would not have met and married Mary.  On the map, above, you can see that New Castle on the Delaware River is very close to Philadelphia, maybe 12 or 14 miles distant.

My ancestor Edward Mercer (1704-1763), the elder, settled in Frederick County, Va, north on Winchester, by October 1744 when he first appears in the court minutes, serving on a jury.

A tradition says that he emigrated from Scotland in 1737 although that certainly has not been proven. Nothing is known about his early life, although after he arrived in Frederick County, by this time probably in his 40s or 50s, there are several references in court records.

Beginning in December 1754, Edward Mercer is sued by John Littler who owns land nearby.  In the same book, spanning 1754-1745, both Nicholas and Edward Mercer are sued by Jesse Pugh and both Nicholas and Edward serve on juries.  In the 1745-1748 Court Order book, we find Mercer versus Lemon and in Order Book 4, 1751-1753 we find Edward Mercer suing both James Dunn and Dugal Campbell, both dismissed by the parties.  In 1753-1754 we find Richard Mercer versus Poor and in 1754-1755, Edward Mercer vs Nathaniel Hare where Edward is awarded a judgment after Nathaniel fails to appear.  In 1755-158, we have Edward Mercer vs Hurman and in 1758-1760, Edward sues both Campbell and Lemon.  In 1760-1762, Richard Mercer sues Shibley and Simpson.  This looks like a lot, but is fairly typical for the timeframe.  Most suits were agreed upon and settled.

This branch of the Mercer family was found in Back Creek Valley during the 18th and 19th centuries. Edward Mercer died in 1763, and he named his wife Ann in his will, in addition to his children. A letter written by one Harrington in a letter to Wilmer Kerns on Oct. 27, 1993 states that Edward Mercer married Ann Croat (or Coats) in 1726, and he married second to Mary Gamble. However, we know that Edward was married to Ann when he died, based on his will, so this makes no sense.  Another rumor bites the dust.

Indian Traders

And yet another twist to this story.

In the “History of Scots/Irish,” Chapter 5, The Explorations and Early Settlers of West Virginia states that John Van Meter, a representative of an old Knickerbocker family early seated on the Hudson was an Indian trader. He made his headquarters with the Delawares and made journeys far to the south to trade with the Cherokees. In about 1725 he first told of the fertility of the Lower Shenandoah. In the section regarding the first white settlers of West Virginia in the area it goes on to say – “Among those that came about 1734 and settled along the Upper Potomac in what is now the northern part of the West Virginia counties of Berkeley and Jefferson included: Robert Harper (Harper’s Ferry), James Lemon, Richard Mercer, Edward Mercer, Jacob Van Meter.”

John Van Meter seems to have been headquartered in Kingston, Somerset County, New Jersey.   In an article relating to the last of the Southern Indians, which appeared in the Virginia Historical Magazine [Vol. III., p. 191, footnote], it states that “Mr. John Van Meter of New York gives an account of his accompanying the New York Delaware Indians in 1732 (?) on their raid against the Catawbas. They passed up the South Branch of the Potomac and he afterward settled his boys there.”

Robert Harper was born in Oxford Township near Philadelphia, Pa., in 1718. A builder and millwright, Harper was engaged by a group of Quakers in 1747 to erect a meeting house in the Shenandoah Valley near the present site of Winchester, Va.

In 1762, John Lemon obtains a land grant adjacent to both Nickolas and Edward Mercer.  From a transcription of the Virginia Northern Neck Land Grants, 1742-1775, Vol II:

In 1751, Edward Mercer obtained a land grant in Frederick County, Virginia for 275 acres adjoining Jacob Vanmeter. Does this suggest that our Edward Mercer arrived with that group of men?  And perhaps he was related to Richard Mercer?  Our Edward did name a son Richard.  The Edward Mercer of Berkeley County would only have been 12 years old in 1751, so this land grant has to be our Edward.

Richard Mercer’s wife name was Rebecca.  They sold land in 1764 on the Potomac that they had obtained from Josh Hite and Isaac and John VanMeter, the Indian trader family.

While it’s tempting to suggest that Edward Mercer in Berkeley County is the son of the older Edward Mercer (Sr.) of Frederick County, we show Edward Sr.’s son Edward Jr. in 1763 patenting land beside his father in Frederick County.

Furthermore, Edward Mercer Jr. continued to live in Frederick County, years after the Edward in Berkeley County died.  We find in the Virginia Northern Neck Land Grants, 1775-1800, Vol. III:

Edward Mercer from Berkeley County, Virginia (now West Virginia) who died in 1783 shows the following people in the will index abstracts of West Virginia Wills and Probate records 1724-1978.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of bleed through, but page 16 is the relevant page for Edward’s will.

Jonathan Mercer is clearly not Edward’s son, so perhaps he is Edward’s brother.  We know from the deposition that Jonathan was born in about 1733.

On November 13, 1752, we find that John Lemmon purchased property and the land deed was filed in Frederick County, VA. The description of the property includes 356 acres adjoining Edward Mercer, Nickolas Mercer, and Francis Lilborn.  A suit, Mercer vs Lemon, is found in the 1745-1748 court notes, but was impossible to find in the actual microfilm of the court minutes.  A Will for Nicholas Lemen is witnessed in 1761 by a Richard Mercer and his wife Mary.  This could be Edward Mercer Sr.’s son, Richard (who could have been in his 30s by this time), but who was Nickolas Mercer?

Nicholas Mercer is found in the road orders in 1746 and in 1748 he is replaced by Abraham Vanmetre, so he was clearly living in the same proximity as the VanMeter family which means he is connected to the Edward Mercer of Frederick County.  To be of age in 1746, he had to have been born in or before 1725, about the time our Edward Mercer would have been about 21 years old, IF he actually was born about 1704.

The Nicholas Mercer who was the son of Edward in Berkeley County could not have been of age in 1746 if Edward himself was only born in 1729.

Nicholas Mercer must have been connected to our Edward in some way.  In the December 1744 Frederick County Court session, we find the Jesse Pugh sued both Nicholas Mercer and Edward Mercer for trespass, in two adjacent transactions.  At that time, trespass typically didn’t mean walking on someone’s land, like today, but planting crops there.  Later, both Nicholas and Edward served on juries. Unfortunately, there is no Frederick County will for Nicholas, so we have no idea what happened to him.

Some people have drawn links between the various Mercer families that may not have existed in reality – drawing scattered references from multiple sources, including online trees, and weaving them together.

However, there are some very tantalizing clues that indeed, do need additional research.

George Washington and the Battle of Fort Necessity

We think of George Washington and his involvement in the Revolutionary War, but Washington’s involvement in the defense of Virginia began long before the Revolutionary War.  George was extremely involved in the French and Indian War as well.

The roster of men serving in the Fort Necessity Campaign of 1754 under George Washington is compiled from two rosters.

Edward Mercer appears.

Roster of Virginia Militia serving under George Washington during the Fort Necessity Campaign Officers – George Mercer, Captain (Lieut.); John Mercer, Lieutenant (Ensign); Wise Johnston, Corporal; Enlisted Men; Edward Mercer;

We know that Captain George Mercer is connected to the Irish/English John Francis Mercer family with no (known) relation to Edward.

Let’s look at what happened at Fort Necessity.  Edward Mercer was clearly there, so this is his story too.

The Battle of Fort Necessity (also called the Battle of the Great Meadows) took place on July 3, 1754, in what is now the mountaintop hamlet of Farmington in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The engagement was one of the first battles of the French and Indian War and George Washington’s only military surrender.

In March 1754, Governor Dinwiddie sent Washington back to the frontier with orders to “act on the [defensive], but in Case any Attempts are made to obstruct the Works or interrupt our [settlements] by any Persons whatsoever, You are to restrain all such Offenders, & in Case of resistance to make Prisoners of or kill & destroy them”. Historian Fred Anderson describes Dinwiddie’s instructions, which were issued without the knowledge or direction of the British government in London, as “an invitation to start a war”. Washington was ordered to gather as many supplies and paid volunteers as he could along the way. By the time he left for the frontier on April 2, he had gathered 1,867 men.  During the march to Pennsylvania, Washington picked up a few more men from a regiment they met at Winchester.  This would have been where Edward Mercer joined.

Washington along with about 150 Virginians built Fort Necessity on an alpine meadow west of the summit of a pass through the Allegheny Mountains on June 3rd.  Another pass nearby leads to Confluence, Pennsylvania; to the west, Nemacolin’s Trail begins its descent to Uniontown, Pennsylvania, and other parts of Fayette County along the relatively low altitudes of the Allegheny Plateau.

The fort was small, a circular stockade made of 7-foot-high (2.1 m) upright logs covered with bark and skins built around a little hut which contained ammunition and provisions such as rum and flour.  The palisade was built more to defend the supplies against Washington’s own men whom he described as “loose and idle,” than as a planned defense against a hostile enemy.

By June 9^th, the rest of the Virginians had arrived.  Originally, the Delaware, Shawnee and Seneca supported the Virginians, but after a Native Council on June 18^th, the Indians withdrew their support after the Battle of Jumonville Glen on May 28^th in which Native leader Tanacharison killed French Joseph Jumonville personally.   Why the Native people withdrew their supposed is unclear.

Expecting to be attacked, and with word of the impending arrival of the French and Indians, Washington fell back, abandoning most of their provisions and supplies, and reached Fort Necessity by July 1^st.

At Fort Necessity, the provision hut was depleted, and there was little shelter from the heavy rain that started to fall on the 2nd. With the rain, the trenches that Washington had ordered to be dug had turned into streams. Washington realized that he would have to defend against a frontal assault and also realized that it would be difficult because the woods were less than 100 yards away, within musket range, making it possible for a besieging attacker to pick off the defenders. To improve the defense, Washington ordered his men to cut trees down and to make them into makeshift breastworks.  The Virginians were clearly in trouble and they knew it.

As the British worked, the French led by Coulon, Jumonville’s half brother, approached Fort Necessity using the road the Virginians had built.  Coulon arrived at Jumonville’s Glen early on the morning of July 3. Horrified to find several scalped French bodies, he immediately ordered them to be buried.

By 11:00 am on the 3rd of July 1754, Louis Coulon de Villiers came within sight of Fort Necessity. At this time, the Virginians were digging a trench in the mud. The pickets fired their muskets and fell back to the fort, whereupon three columns of Canadian soldiers and Indians advanced downhill towards the fort. However, Coulon had miscalculated the location of the fort and had advanced with the fort at his right. As Coulon halted and then redeployed his troops, Washington began to prepare for an attack.

Coulon moved his troops into the woods, within easy musket range of the fort. Washington knew he had to dislodge the Canadians and Indians from that position, so he ordered an assault with his entire force across the open field. Seeing the assault coming, Coulon ordered his soldiers, led by Indians, to charge directly at Washington’s line. Washington ordered the men to hold their ground and fire a volley. Mackay’s regulars obeyed Washington’s command, and supported by two swivel cannons, they inflicted several casualties on the oncoming Indians. The Virginians, however, fled back to the fort, leaving Washington and the British regulars greatly outnumbered. Washington ordered a retreat back to the fort.  Washington must have been furious with the Virginia men who disobeyed his orders.

Coulon reformed his troops in the woods. The Canadians spread out around the clearing and kept up heavy fire on Fort Necessity. Washington ordered his troops to return fire, but they aimed too high, inflicting few casualties, and the swivel cannon fared no better. To add to the garrison’s troubles, heavy rain began to fall that afternoon, and Washington’s troops were unable to continue the firefight because their gunpowder was wet.

Louis Coulon de Villiers, who did not know when British reinforcements might arrive, sent an officer under a white flag to negotiate. Washington did not allow the Canadian officer into or near the fort, but sent two of his own men, including his translator Jacob Van Braam, to negotiate. As negotiations began, the Virginians, against Washington’s orders, broke into the fort’s liquor supply and got drunk. Gotta love those Virginia men.  They had their priorities.  If they were going to die, they didn’t want to leave the liquor behind!  Given what we discover about Edward Mercer later, there is little doubt that he was involved with this drunken escapade.

Coulon told Van Braam that all he wanted was the surrender of the garrison, and the Virginians could go back to Virginia. He warned, however, that if they did not surrender now, the Indians might storm the fort and scalp the entire garrison.

Van Braam brought this message to Washington, who agreed to these basic terms.

On July 4, Washington and his troops abandoned Fort Necessity. The garrison marched away with drums beating and flags flying, but the Indians and the French began to loot the garrison’s baggage on their way out, subsequently burning the fort.

Washington, who feared a bloodbath, did not try to stop the looting. The Indians continued to steal from the soldiers until July 5. Washington and his troops arrived back in eastern Virginia in mid-July. On the 17th, Washington delivered his report of the battles to Governor Dinwiddie, expecting a rebuke, but Washington instead received a vote of thanks from the House of Burgesses and Dinwiddie blamed the defeat not on Washington but on poor supply and the refusal of aid by the other colonies.

The battlefield is preserved at Fort Necessity National Battlefield, and includes a reconstruction of Fort Necessity.

“FortNecessityWithCannon” by Ikcerog – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FortNecessityWithCannon.jpg#/media/File:FortNecessityWithCannon.jpg

Voting in Frederick County

From Clark, Murtie June, Colonial Soldiers of the South, 1732-1774, Baltimore, MD: 1983: Pp. 328-332, in 1755, we know that both Richard Mercer and Edward Mercer Jr. are of age, because they both vote, as they do in 1758.  In 1761, both James and John Mercer vote for George Washington.  This puts the birth of both men before 1734, and possibly significantly before 1734.  At that time, and until 1762, according to Cartmell, voting for the House of Burgesses was reserved for men who owned land and significant assets, specifically, the gentry class.  In 1762, the voting rules were relaxed and allowed free men, of age, with only 50 acres of land or 25 acres with a house, or a lot in town with a house, to vote.

But the 1761 voting is interesting for yet another reason.  Colonel George Mercer is on the ballot for the election of Burgesses to represent Frederick County and Mercer Babb votes for him, as do both Edward Mercer Jr, Edward Sr., James, John, Moses, and Richard Mercer.  Col. George Mercer wins and represents the county in the House of Burgesses from 1761-1765.  George Mercer was born in Frederick County in 1733 to John Mercer, reportedly born in Dublin, Ireland, and Catherine Mason.  George was the brother to John Francis Mercer.

This tells us that Mercer Babb, whoever he was, was of age in 1761, so born in 1740 or earlier.  It also introduces the question – who is Mercer Babb?

To answer that question, we have to look at the Babb Family.

The Babbs

Thomas Babb was born in 1697 in Brandywine Hundred, New Castle, Delaware.  In 1730, he lived and was taxed in Bethel Township, Chester County, PA, according to the Hopewell Friend’s History.  He died on October 4, 1760 in Frederick County, Virginia. Not long after his marriage there was a movement of Quakers from Pennsylvania to Frederick County, Virginia. Thomas went with these Quakers and was one of the founding fathers of the Hopewell Monthly Meeting north of Winchester in Frederick County in 1734.

His father had a land grant of 600 acres on Apple Pie Ridge, near Babb’s Run, northwest of Winchester. Thomas settled there and was joined by his brother, Phillip. At his father’s death the two sons inherited his land.

Thomas Babb’s will was proved November 4, 1760. He left the home place to his son, Sampson, and other bequest to his other children. His wife, not being mentioned, is believed to have already died.

The first lovely old home belonging to Thomas was called “The Great Marsh Plantation“, now known as The Babb-Purcell-Janney House. It dates to 1735. Great Marsh is located on the north side of route 673 (Gold Hills Road) between route 522 and the Apple Pie Ridge Road in Frederick, Virginia.  On the map below, Babb’s Run is marked on Gold Hills Road with a small balloon just above the white box at the bottom of the map.

The red balloon is James Crumley’s land, also on Apple Pie Ridge Road, about 6 miles distant from the Great Marsh Plantation.

The second home named “The Brick House” is a lovely old brick mansion and dates also to 1735. It is located west of the Apple Pie Ridge Road and south of route 672 on Babb’s Run. This is also in Frederick, Virginia.

The Lupton family obtained the Babb land after Thomas’s death. The Lupton homestead was located just below Cedar Grove, about where the small gray balloon is located on the map below, according to a map from 1885.

The Lupton homestead is located just south of Cedar Grove between Babb’s Run and the east side of North Mountain today, marked by the small balloon on the map above.  North Mountain is to the left of the balloon, with Cedar Grove Road on the other side of the mountain.

You can see and purchase these old maps at this link.

Referencing Jean Sargent’s Book “Babb Families of America” 3rd edition pg.113.

Philip Babb born in 1699 in Brandywine Hundred, New Castle, Delaware and died in Newark, New Castle Delaware on March 6, 1762, father of Thomas Babb who settled in Frederick County, Virginia, married Margaret Mercer.

This marriage would have had to have occurred after 1720, giving Mercer Babb plenty of time to be born between then and 1740.  This tells us that there were Mercers in this part of the world, likely related to Edward Mercer, and probably in New Castle, Delaware before 1740.

In the book, “The Babb Families of New England and Beyond, “ Jean Sargent on page 20 and 21 tells us the following about Thomas Babb:

In the Newark Monthly Meeting Records there is an entry dated 3 Oct 1713 which reads as follows: “Thomas Babb appearing at this meeting and gives ye meeting to understand yt ye death of his wife and for want of some person to whom he might leave ye care of his young children hath hitherto been ye lett of his not coming more frequent to ye meetings of business.” While there are early entries concerning Bathsheba, none of them mention the birth of her children or the date of her marriage. (7) Thomas prospered in DE and had sizeable land holdings as shown in the early land records. (4) In 1735 he received a Patent to 600 acres of land in Frederick Co., VA. By this time his three sons had moved to Chester Co., PA, just across the state line from their former home. Thomas sent the two younger sons Thomas, Jr., and Philip to occupy the 600 acres in VA and to carry out the other provisions of the Patent. (7) In his will, dated 17 Aug 1748 and proved 13 Aug 1751, Thomas bequeathed the home place in DE to his oldest son Peter, and left the VA lands to sons Thomas, Jr., and Philip. He made other bequests to his daughters Mary, Rebecca, and Lydia, as well as to three children of his deceased daughter Hulda — John, Rebecca and Lydia Gregory. (6)

In a 1758 election in Frederick Co., VA, among those voting for George Washington for the VA House of Burgesses were: Philip Babb, Thomas Babb (son of Phil.), Thos. Babb, Peter Babb, Joseph Babb, and Thos. Babb, Jr. (8)

Sources:

(1) “History of Town of Hampton, NH” by Dow; (2) Geneo. Diet, of Maine and New Hampshire by Noyes/Libby/ Davis; (3) “History of Salem, MA” by Perley; (4) DE Land Records; (5) VA Land Records; (6) New Castle Co., Probate Records; (7) Records of Robert E. Babb, Jr.; (8) Virginia Historical Magazine, 1899 p. 163.

So, once again, we circle back to Chester County, PA. about 1735-1740.

Margaret Mercer Babb was very probably Edward Mercer’s sister and named her son, Mercer Babb.

Backslidden Quaker

In Cartmell’s history book, he states that the area in Frederick County where Edward Mercer lived was known as the Quaker settlement, but several families lived there that were not Quakers.  He indicates that list includes the Mercers and Babbs who “had nothing to do with the Quakers.”  Cartmell was wrong.

Edward Mercer was a Quaker, but apparently a backslidden one.  So Edward may not have been a Quaker his whole life, and he may not have acted much like one when he was.

Edward was mentioned in the Quaker meeting records in March 1759 at the Baltimore meeting, but not in a very positive light.

It looks like Philip Babb got to be the bearer of bad news.  Edward may well have been his brother-in-law, as this is the Philip Babb married to Margaret Mercer.

It seems like maybe Edward was systematically drinking too much.  In an economy driven by distilled liquors, as a form of money and a way to preserve corn, drinking “too much” must have meant truly drinking a lot by the standards of today.

Finally, Edward Mercer was removed.

Was Edward Mercer being thrown out of the Quaker Church a family scandal?  Was his drinking a scandal?  What did his wife, Ann, do when this happened.  Did she and the children continue to attend the Hopewell Friend’s Meeting, or were they too embarrassed?  Or outraged?

Road Orders

Edward may have been in trouble at church, but he was still quite functional as a road overseer – well – most of the time.

In 1759, the Frederick County road orders from August 7^th order that a road be cleared between the plantations of William Reynolds and Thomas Babb Jr. and into Sr. John’s road in the same manner as heretofore and that the spring be left open to the said road and it is further ordered that Edward Mercer be overseer thereof and that the tithables a mile on each side of the road clear and keep the same in repair according to law.

On September 4^th, the court ordered that Edward Mercer be overseer of Sr. John’s road from Winchester to the Plantation where Isaac Thomas did live and that the tithables three miles on each side of the said road keep the same in repair according to law.

By 1760, however, Edward was in a bit of trouble it seems.  On November 7^th, the grand jury presents Edward Mercer for not opening the road from Capt. Pearis’s to Sir John’s Road at the Quaker Meeting by the knowledge of two of us at this present time.

On December 5^th, the court notes that the summons had not been executed and refers it to the next court.

The next time we see Edward working on the roads in on May 4^th, 1763, the same year he died.  Jacob Vanmetre, Morgan Morgan and Thomas Thornberry having been appointed to view the ground from the Town of Micklinbugh to the most convenient ford on Opeckon Creek made their report whereupon it is ordered that a road be opened as by them laid off and that the tithables three miles on each side thereof work under Edward Mercer who is appointed overseer of the same.

On November 2^nd 1763, Thomas Babb is appointed as overseer of the road called Sir John Sinclaire’s road in room of Edward Mercer from the forks to James McGills.

Land

Edward Mercer received his first land grant in 1751 for 275 acres adjoining Jacob Van Meter as recorded in the Virginia Northern Neck Land Grants, 1742-1775, Vol. II.  Not a terribly descriptive land grant.

Note that the entry shows that the adjacent entry was for Nicholas Mercer.

In 1759, Edward Mercer is shown on the rent roll for Frederick County as is Nicholas Mercer.

In 1760, Edward obtained a second grant, but this one is much more descriptive and is for 409 acres “near the head of Babbs Great Meadow and joyning Babbs Mountain”

Fortunately, I was able to find Babb’s Mountain today, just above Cedar Grove.

Philip Babb purchased property and the land deed was filed in Frederick County, VA. on 8 April 1760. The description of the property includes 117 acres adjoining Edward Mercer and on the side of Babbs Mountain. Source: Northern Neck Grants K, 1757-1762, p. 99.  The original survey reportedly exists.  Obtaining the original surveys of these lands would be most helpful in terms of exactly locating Edward Mercer’s land.

The Babb family has done extensive research on the land grants and has drawn the following map.

Based on the Babb map, the location of the Lupton home, and this survey from 1812, we know the location of Edward Mercer Jr.’s land, taken from the Virginia Northern Neck Land Grants, 1800-1862, Vol IV.

Next, we find Edward Mercer Sr. leasing land to his son Moses, Bk 6 pg. 74 14 Oct. 1760: [Lease] between Edward Mercer & Ann his wife of County of Frederick [to] Moses Mercer of County aforesaid …… one tract of land lying and being under the mountain on the easternmost part of Back Creek and being part of a tract of land granted to said Edward Mercer by the Right Honorable Thomas Lord Fairfax by Patent the 18 April 1760… containing 200 acres and a half… Wit: 2 Wit. signed in German John Colson Recorded: 4 Nov. 1760 Signed by Edward Mercer & Ann Mercer

The easternmost part of Back Creek would be current Cattail Creek above Babb’s Mountain, or Babb’s Run, below Babb’s Mountain.

Richard Pearis purchased property and the land deed was filed in Frederick County, VA. on 18 May 1762. The description of the property includes 224 acres adjoining Jacob Vanmeter, and Edward Mercer. Source: Northern Neck Grants K, 1757-1762, p. 430 (Reel 294).

In 1764, the year after Edward died, his estate is still on the rent rolls, which is not unusual, especially if his wife is living there.  In addition to Edward Mercer, we find Edward Mercer Jr, Nicholas Mercer, Moses Mercer and Richard Mercer.

All of these men are sons of Edward, except Nicholas who appears consistently with Edward since 1746, before Edward actually appears in the County.  Was Nicholas Mercer Edward’s brother?

Edward’s Will

In 1762, Edward Mercer wrote his will, which was not probated in Frederick County until November 1, 1763, so he apparently lived another 14 months after making his will.  He was obviously ill, because in the will, he states that he is weak of body.

IN THE NAME OF GOD AMEN. The twentyth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and Sixty Two, Edward Mercer of the County of Frederick in the colony of Virginia, being sick aged and weak of Body but of perfect and sound mind memory and understanding thanks be given unto God, therefore calling to mind ye mortality of my Body and knowing it is apointed for all men once to dye do make and ordain this my last Will and Testament that is to say principally and first of all I recommend my Soul into my saviour’s hands, and my body to the Earth to be buried in a Christianlike and Decent manner at the Discretion of my Executors hereafter named and as Touching what Temporal Estate it hath pleased God to Bless me with in this Life. I give devise and Dispose of the same in the following Manner and form Imprimis: it is my Will and I do order that in the first place all my just Debts by paid and satisfied.

Item I give and bequeath unto my son Richard Mercer one cow and calf and five shillings sterling. I give and Bequeath unto my Daughter Elizabeth Heath the sum of five shillings sterling.

I also give to my son Moses Mercer the sum of Five Shillings sterling.

I give and bequeath to my daughter Hannah Mercer five pounds and five shillings worth of Puter the same being now in her possession. And also one bed and furniture thereto belonging likewise I give to my said Daughter Hannah Six head of young cattle the same being now in her possession which said cattle shall be kept on the plantation until they be three years old. I also give her a side sadle and the Keeping of her mare on the plantation whilst she continues unmarried.

I give and bequeath unto my son Edward Mercer the plantation whereon I now Live containing two hundred and nine Acres and also a survey adjoining thereto containing Ninety six Acres of Land to him his Heirs and assigns forever. I also give to my said son Edward one bay mare and one bay colt plow and Tacklin thereto belonging. I also Will that if my above named son Edward Mercer should dye without issue that my youngest son Aaron Mercer shall then become sole heir of my Land and plantation whereon I now live and if both my said sons Edward and Aaron should die without issue, I will that my Daughter Hannah Mercer, become the sole owner of my above said Land and plantation, to her heirs and assigns forever.

I also will that my son Edward Mercer should pay as a Legacy to my youngest son Aaron Mercer the sum of Forty pounds and that within the space of four years after the said Aaron comes of age.

I also Will that my wife shall have the best Rooms in the new House now part built until my son Edward shall build her a compleat house on some part of the plantation at his proper cost which House shall be sixteen foot wide and Twenty foot Long. I also give to my wife Ann Mercer one third part of my parsonal Estate that may remain after the debts and Legacies mentioned are paid.

I will bequeath unto my son Aaron the two thirds of my parsonal Estate with the benefit and profit thereof Immediately after my decease which part of the said Aaron’s stock shall be maintained on the plantation until Aaron comes of age.

Lastly I constitute and ordain my well beloved wife Ann Mercer and my son Edward Mercer and Joseph Foset my sole Executors of this my Last Will and Testament revoking and declaring void all former wills and Testaments by me made and done in witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal.

Signed Sealed and acknowledged by the said Edward Mercer to be his last will and testament in the presence us.

Jesse Pugh. Thos. Babb. Mercer Babb.

Edward Mercer. (LS.)

We know Edward could write, because he signed his name.

Edward’s will was probated in Frederick County, Virginia on either November 1, 1763.

Mercer Babb

Mercer Babb was clearly of age in 1762 when he witnessed Edward Mercer’s will, so was born in 1741 or before.  Generally, when someone witnesses a will, unless it’s a nuncupative will made in an emergency with death imminent, this indicates that the witness is not an heir, or they would not be witnessing the will.  Normally, those who witness wills have no direct interest in the outcome.  If Mercer Babb was born in 1741 or before, that means that either the Babbs and Mercers were together before they lived in Frederick County, they were both living in Frederick County by 1740 or there is a Mercer in the Babb family tree, because the name of Mercer Babb, especially witnessing the will of a Mercer male, is just not a coincidence.  Mercer Babb appears to be the son of Philip Babb and Margaret Mercer.  We know that Philip Babb was in Chester County by about 1735.  I do believe there is more to this story than we know and it all begins back in either Chester County, PA or before that in New Castle or Marcus Hook, Delaware.  These families appear to have come as a group from the Chester County area to Frederick County, VA.

Edward Mercer’s Estate Inventory (added 10-12-2015)

Recently, I spent an entire day in Richmond at the Library of Virginia, also known as the State Archives.  Like always, I prepared a research list.  While most of my research procured nothing, which isn’t unusual after you’re already plucked all the fruit you can readily see – I did come up with one big winner.

The estate inventory of Edward Mercer who died sometime between May 4^th 1763 when he last appears in the Frederick County, Virginia court minutes in a road order, and November 1, 1763 when his estate was probated.  At that same court session, he was replaced as overseer or the road, so he apparently was still “working” up to a few months before he died, even though he prepared his will “being sick, aged and weak of body” in September of 1762.  Edward was probably just shy of 60, certainly not an old man – so his estate should reflect an active life, not a “retirement,” if there was such a thing then.

The first bingo I found in the library was a book of transcribed wills and estate inventories.  I was quite relieved because that meant I might not have to ask them to pull the microfilm and read that.  Old books on microfilm are not always legible nor is the indexing ever complete.  The only individuals indexed are the primary individual – not witnesses or wives or anyone else.  Many times the “rest of the story” is told in who surrounds individuals during their lifetime – so we need all of that additional information.

So, when I found Edward Mercer’s estate inventory listed in the transcribed book, I was ecstatic.  I read the estate inventory, and it was short and general.  It listed things like, “agricultural produce and farm animals.”  Well, I have to tell you, I’ve seen a lot of colonial wills and I have never seen one list something like that.  They list the produce and they list the animals, individually, or at least by breed.  In other words, you in far more danger of receiving far more information that you wanted than not enough, if an estate inventory was taken and filed.

It appeared that I was going to have to get the microfilm after all.

Estate inventories are a vastly overlooked source of information not available elsewhere.  The wills tell who your ancestors left his or her worldly goods to, but the estate inventory tells you what those goods were and those goods tell a huge story about your ancestor’s life.  In addition to what IS in the estate inventory, what ISN’T in the inventory tells a story too – especially in the context of the time and place in which they lived.

Many men did have a will.  Most wills were not written much in advance.  Sometimes wills were made verbally as the individual was on death’s doorstep to whomever was nearby.  These are called noncupative wills.  Sometimes, death was unexpected and there no opportunity for a will.

Most women did not have wills because most women did not own items outright, meaning outside of a marriage where the man was assumed to be the owner of the land (except for her dower rights.)  Often women retained what is known as a “life estate” where the woman holds either property or other items for the term of her life, at which point their ownership reverts to others, generally one or several children as specified in her husband’s will when he died.

If the woman dies before the man, the husband automatically owns everything so no will for the wife is necessary.  I’m talking about historical US wills, not current law.  I’m not a lawyer…I don’t play one on TV or anyplace else:)

Understanding how wills and ownership of both property and personal items worked helps in unraveling what estate inventories tell us.

When the man died, an inventory of everything was taken, even if the wife was to retain “household items.”  While that seems vastly unfair, especially since she often had to bid to buy her own cooking utensils back at a sale, it’s a huge boon for genealogists.

Sometimes individuals are mentioned in inventories – and in some cases, an item is left to a daughter in a will, but by the time she collects that item, she is married and a married name is listed.  In other cases, if something is left specifically to an individual, it is not included in the appraisal.  It doesn’t seem standardized, you say?  It’s not – and often it helps to look at other wills and estates from that county and time to observe what was customary.  Any deviation from custom must have been caused by something…and that something could be interesting to a genealogist.

Even the individuals who appraise your ancestor’s estate are important.  In Virginia, if your ancestor’s spouse was still living, one person who was from the “wife’s family” was chosen, keeping her interests in mind, the largest debtor of the person who died was selected, keeping their interests in mind, and one person completely disinterested in the outcome of the estate appraisal was selected.

With that information, you can sometimes add to your knowledge of the family, especially if you know the wife’s family is likely in the area.  How would you know that?  If your ancestor lived in that area when he married, his wife’s family would have been from that area too.  Young people often met at church or social functions – and with limited transportation – that social group wasn’t from any great distance.

People often married their neighbors or individuals from just a mile or two away.  Courting was likely done on foot, or maybe on horseback.  You can’t marry someone you can’t court!

So, let’s take a look at Edward Mercer’s will and see what is actually in the estate inventory.

The subscribers by virtue of an order of Frederick County Court being first sworn has met and appraised such of the estate of Edward Mercer, deceased, as was brought to our view by Ann Mercer and Joseph Fanset the executors – viz –

The values would be given in pounds, shillings and pence.

• One old loom 0-15-0
• Red Cow 0-15-0
• 1 Cow and bell 3-0-0
• 1 brindle cow 2-10-0
• A brindle cow 2-0-0
• A white cow 2-10-0
• White back heifer 2-0-0
• White bull 2-0-0
• White heifer 1-15-0
• Speckled heifer 2-0-0
• Red yearling steer 1-0-0
• White steer 1-7-0
• White faced heifer 1-10-0
• Brindle calfe 0-15-0
• A pide yearling 1-0-0
• A brindle yearling 1-0-0
• Six calves 3-6-0
• 2 pide steers 3-15-0
• 2 heifers 2-10-0
• One stear 2-10-0
• A roan horse 6-0-0
• An old mare 2-10-0
• A mare and colt 3-10-0
• A bay mare and colt 5-0-0
• Old wagon and gears 9-0-0
• A pen and gears 1-3-0

• Eight swine 0-?-0
• 2 sows and pigs 0-16-0
• Harrow pens 0-10-0
• Cart wheels 1-0-0
• A rick of hay 3-0-0
• 2 ricks of hay 6-10-0
• Hay in the barn 2-0-0
• Grain in the barn 12-0-0
• Unbreak flax 0-5-0
• 2 caskes and flax seed 0-9-0
• Corn foder 0-10-0
• Hay in the stable 0-15-0
• A mall and wedges 0-5-0
• 2 old axes 0-5-0
• Indian corn 2-0-0
• 2 old hoes 0-7-0
• Small grind stone 0-3-0
• An old gun 0-15-0
• Another old gun 0-10-0
• 2 bells and collar 0-5-0
• Some old carpenters tools 0-14-0
• Old iron 0-2-6
• A pair of small hilliards 0-5-0
• Few nails 0-2-0
• Some more carpenters tools 0-10-0
• An old saddle 1-5-0
• Suit of cloathes 5-10-0
• Side saddle 1-5-0
• Old lumber 0-6-0
• 8 old chairs 1-0-0
• Old dough trough 0-3-0
• A chaf (?) bed and cloaths 1-15-0
• One bed and furniture 4-0-0
• Seven old bags 0-7-0
• Old casks and reel 0-5-0
• Old chest 0-10-0
• A morter 0-2-6
• A warming pan 1-0-0
• Old reeds and wifts (or mosts or wefts) 0-4-0

• Some salt 0-6-6
• Smoothing box and candlestick 0-3-0
• Hand and gridirons 0-8-0
• Iron poths (pots?) hangers and frying pan 1-3-0
• Old books 0-6-0
• Puter (pewter) 2-6-0
• Some old tins 0-2-0
• Sythes and hangings 0-14-0
• Old copper 0-1-3
• 3 old casks 0-5-6
• 1 cask of cyder 1-4-1
• 2 old whelbs(?) and branding iron and old tea kettle 0-11-0
• Warping barrs and boxes 0-5-0
• Hannah Mercers puter 5-0-0
• Her bed and furniture 8-0-0

Jesse Pugh, Joseph Babb, Peter Babb

At court held for Frederick County the first day of May 1764.  This appraisement was returned and ordered to be recorded by the court.

The first thing this inventory tells us is that Edward Mercer was very involved in animal husbandry and likely only farmed enough to feed his animals.  He did not have plows and other typical farming implements and had many more animals than the typical farmer.

Edward’s family had chairs, not just a bench to sit on. And almost enough chairs for each person to sit at the same time.  He had 7 children, so the estate is one chair short for the entire family to sit together.  Perhaps one chair broke.  They are described as “old.”  However, there is no table listed.  That’s rather odd.

Edward was a good-hearted person.  He did not kill his old mare who was probably no longer useful.

Edward was likely a carpenter.  Every man on the frontier had a specialty skill, and his appears to be carpentry based on his tools.  This means that when you find homes built in that timeframe in that area, Edward may have worked on those.

Edward owned no slaves, but he clearly could have afforded slaves had he so chosen.  His lack of slaves then must have been either a personal moral judgment or a religious conviction.  However, other Quakers did own slaves including the family his daughter, Hannah, married into.

The flax and loom suggest that his wife and daughter spun and wove, although interestingly enough, a spinning wheel is not listed.  However, you can’t get from flax to weaving without spinning it into thread first.

There is cyder, but no alcohol.  There is no still.  This is highly ironic, since Edward Mercer was kicked out of the Quaker church in 1759 for…you guessed it….drinking.  In fact, “too frequently drinking strong drink to excess.”

Edward Mercer signed his will and owned books, so obviously this man could read and write.  How I’d love to know what those books were.

There is no Bible, although Edward was a Quaker up until he was kicked out of the church in 1759, ironically, for drinking, not attending meetings and not being penitent about either.

Other than Hannah’s furniture, which did include a bed, there were two other beds mentioned.  Was there a bed for the parents, then a boys bed and a girl’s bed?  There were two girls and five boys.

And speaking of Hannah, she is mentioned in the estate inventory, but it’s very likely that she was married by this time.  However, the fact that she is mentioned by her maiden name does not prove that Hannah was not married.  They may simply have referred to her as she was listed in the will. I have often wondered if she was already married when the will was written, even though Edward does not refer to Hannah by a married name.  The reason I question this is because Edward says that the “puter” (pewter) is already “in her possession.”  That would likely mean that she is not living at home, but unless she were married, where else would she be living?  Edward said the same thing about Hannah’s 6 heard of cattle as well, that they are already in her possession.  But then he goes on to say she can leave her mare on his plantation as long as she remains unmarried, so obviously she is not married at that time.  There must be something here that I’m missing.  Perhaps she was living with another family member before she married.

Edward does have two old guns, and he fought in the French and Indian War, so this makes sense.  These are likely the guns he carried with General George Washington at Fort Necessity.  What I wouldn’t give to see those guns.

And speaking of things I’d love to see…that old chest is one.  I want to open that chest and see what is inside.  I’m guessing that might be where Edward kept any spare clothes he had or anything of value – like maybe letters!!!

We also know that Edward’s wife, Ann, was living because she was one of the individuals who administered his will and “presented” his estate to the court.

We know that the family had candles.  The poorest families didn’t and worked only by the light of the sun.  Sundown meant bedtime.

In Edward’s case, either his estate was not sold at public auction, or there is no court record of the sale.  Many times, the sale is recorded, item by item, and who was present at the sale can tell you a huge amount.  In some cases, you can track valuable family heirlooms this way.

The moral of this story?  Don’t think you’ve found everything when you find your ancestors will, or even if you don’t find a will.  There is likely to be an estate appraisement with or without a will, and sometimes the information in the estate inventory tells you far more about your ancestors life and how they actually lived than the will itself.  Wills tell you who is supposed to get what, but estates tell you the story of your ancestors life through what they left behind.

If you look around your own house, you’ll realize that your sewing machine and quilting tools, for example, at my house, are far more personal and representative of what you do with your daily life than the land you own.

In terms of getting to know your ancestor, their stuff is far more important than their land.

Edward Mercer’s Children

• Richard Mercer could have been the Richard who married a woman named Mary and lived in Berkeley County. John Mercer mentioned a brother Richard in his 1748 will that was filed in Winchester.  It’s difficult to tell when Richard first appears in the records because there is an earlier Richard that is found with Edward Mercer as well.
• Elizabeth Mercer was born about (or after) 1724 and married by 1748 to William Heath who was born on Sept. 18, 1724. William was mentioned in the 1748 will of his brother-in-­law, John Mercer.
• John Mercer was born circa 1727 and died in 1749, apparently unmarried. John lived in Frederick County, where his will is on file in the courthouse. His father, Edward Mercer, was named administrator for his estate.
• Moses Mercer was of age and leasing land from his father by 1760. Moses was born in 1732 and died in 1805, in Frederick County. Appraisers of Moses’ estate were Jacob Rinker, Richard Barrett, and Thomas Babb. Moses married Dinah Morrison, who was called Dianna in his will. She was born Dec. 24, 1729, and died in April 1810. After Moses’ death in 1804, Dinah received all moveable property during her natural life, plus one-third of profits from real estate. She wrote her will on April 10, 1810 and it was probated June 7, 1810. Witnesses were Aaron and John Mercer, and John Barnard. Her close friend, Abraham Lewis was named the executor. Moses and Dianah signed their names with an X “His mark” and “Her mark,” respectively.
• Hannah Mercer married William Crumley about 1763 and had died by 1774. Hannah was mentioned in the will of her brother John in 1748, and in the will of Elizabeth Morris in 1760. Who is Elizabeth Morris?
• Edward Mercer was given “the plantation where I now live – 209 acres plus adjoining 96 acre survey” by his father. Edward was born about 1744. His age was proven from a deposition given in the Augusta County Circuit Court. The name of his spouse is not known.
• Aaron Mercer, the youngest son, not of age in 1752 – served in Revolutionary War. On October 28, 1799 he obtained a Virginia Revolutionary War land grant in Ohio and moved to Ohio. Reportedly in his pension application (which is not at www.fold3.com as of 9-15-2015) he says he was born in Ireland. Aaron died on December 17, 1800 in Hamilton County, Ohio and is buried in the Old (Columbia) Baptist Graveyard. Given that there were no Revolutionary War pensions before 1818, there would have been no pension application by him, although if his wife, Elizabeth Carr, was still living, she could have applied in either 1818 as destitute or 1832/33 as a surviving veteran’s wife. She is reported to have died in 1820, so I’m quite suspicious of the claim that his Revolutionary War pension paperwork stated that he was born in Ireland.

Speculative Family

Based on all of the pieces of evidence, it looks like a speculative family might include our Edward, born about 1700, a brother Richard found with Edward early in the records, a brother Nicholas found in 1746, and a sister Margaret who married Phillip Babb sometime between 1720 and 1740.

The identity of the Edward Mercer born in 1729 who lived in Berkeley County is unclear, but given the names of Edward, Richard and Nicholas, and the locations of Chester County, PA and Delaware, these lines do seem very connected.

Edward in Berkeley County could be the son of either Edward Sr.’s brother Richard or Nicholas – although this does beg the question of what happened to either Richard or Nicholas.  Richard could also have been Edward Mercer Sr.’s eldest son, not a brother.  If that is the case, then Edward born in 1829 cannot be the son of Richard Mercer.

The tidbits we do have also support the suggestion that this family may have immigrated from Ireland before 1740.

However, this is speculative and needs additional research before any conclusions can be drawn.  I suspect the answer is either in Chester County, PA, Marcus Hook, PA or in what is now New Castle, Delaware, if the answer exists anyplace.

DNA

The DNA results having to do with this line are every bit as frustrating and elusive as the genealogy has proven to be.

I checked the Mercer DNA project and was extremely happy to discover a Y DNA project member that indicated that they descended from Edward Mercer born in 1704, the birth year typically attributed to our Edward.

Home run!

Except…

Doggone it, there’s another tester who gives his ancestor as Edward born in 1705.  That’s just too close.  Worse yet, their DNA doesn’t match.  Clearly two independent lines.

So, I checked at YSearch.  No account for Mr. 1705 and the 1704 account had no marker values entered but it did include the death year of 1763, which pretty well cinches the identity as our Edward.  I tried to contact the individual through YSearch, with no luck.  This is a low kit number, indicating an early tester so the tester’s e-mail may be stale of they may not be able to reply anymore.

Next, I wrote to the project administrators of the Mercer project and asked them if they have the oldest ancestor information for either or both testers, or if they would please facilitate contact with those men.  Nothing, nada, silence from the admins.

Doggone!

There is just nothing worse than a desperate genealogist.

(Click on image to see larger version.)

I copy pasted the relevant Mercer project entries into a spreadsheet.  They weren’t grouped on the Mercer DNA site, so I grouped them compared to the entry for kit number 94427 which I believe is our Edward Mercer (c1704-1763).  The yellow cells are mismatches to kit 94427.

There is only one other Mercer that even matches remotely, kit number 99939 just above the lower pink 94427 with the green row.

There is an entire group of blue Mercers that fall together nicely.  However, in this blue group we find kit number 84471 also pink), the other Edward Mercer born in 1705.  This entire line reportedly tracks back to guess where… Chester County, PA with Robert born in 1741 and Elizabeth Brown Mercer.

I checked Chester County tax records, and there are several Mercer men living there in this timeframe.  They may or may not have been related to each other.  And none were named Edward, Richard or Nicholas.  Pulling hair out now….

Finding this large blue group associated with Chester County, and my lonely Edward Mercer with only one distant DNA match is beginning to make me very nervous.

This makes me ask questions like:

• Was Edward Mercer who died in 1763 “supposed” to be paternally related to the Chester County group, but wasn’t?
• Is there a NPE (nonpaternal event or undocumented adoption) in the lines of one of Edward Mercer’s sons, but not the other one, causing one descendant to match the Chester County group, and one descendant to not match the group?
• Is someone’s genealogy wrong?  And if so, which one?  I’d just be happy at this point to actually see the genealogy of either tester, and preferably both.
• Why aren’t the project administrators answering inquiries about the project?  Are they gone too?

It’s small consolation, I know, but at least the two “Edward” kits are both haplogroup R-M269.  So, assuming (I hate that word, BTW) either of these men descend from my Edward Mercer, I at least know that much.  But at the 50% frequency rate in Europe of M269, that would have been a safe bet with no DNA testing at all.

Needless to say, if you are a male Mercer who descends from Edward Mercer who died in Frederick County in 1763, I have a DNA testing scholarship for you!

And we didn’t even have a party…no Sweet 16 party…no turning 21 inaugural trip to the bar. It happened when we weren’t looking.  Sometime pretty recently.

In the Beginning…

When I first heard about DNA testing for genealogy, back in 1999, it didn’t even have a name.  Today it’s known as genetic genealogy, but before that, Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak, one of the early pioneers in this field, about the year 2000, termed it genetealogy.  This was shortly after DNA testing first entered the consumer market space.  That name didn’t catch on.

I had already entered the world of genetic genealogy through mitochondrial DNA testing.  This was about the time I heard about Y DNA testing and suspected it might be a scam – like those bogus pedigree charts sold back in the 1970s and 1980s.  I did some research and called Family Tree DNA.  Bennett Greenspan, the President of the company, called me back, at 9:30 at night and we talked for an hour.  As our discussion progressed and I understood more about Y DNA testing and how it really was applicable to genealogy, I told him I was interested in setting up a surname project for the Estes line, but I was concerned that I didn’t have enough knowledge of how genetic genealogy and the Family Tree DNA website worked to do it justice.  Bennett told me that with my background, I’d be fine and that he would help me if I needed it.  My, how far we’ve come.  And talk about famous last words!

No one knew about DNA testing for genealogy at that time.  And I do mean no one.  Every person I approached to test was skeptical and most of the initial testers tested because they knew and trusted me.  Sadly, many of those folks are gone now.  Thank Heavens they tested when they did, because now would be too late and several were end-of-line people.

Within a couple of years, there were 2 or 3 of us doing DNA for genealogy presentations.  Even as little at 5 or 6 years ago, one had to beg for a spot on a conference schedule for DNA testing.  Today, there are entire DNA tracks at almost every conference and even entire events focused on genetic genealogy, with many speakers to choose from.

Genetic Genealogy Grows Up

Fast forward to 2015.  John Reid at his blog, Canada’s Anglo-Celtic Connections, has been doing the Rockstar Genealogist voting now since 2012.  Is it a popularity contest of sorts?  Sure.  But, to me it’s much more important than that, and it’s not about who wins individually.  It’s about the fact that we’re all winning.

Last year, in 2014, I really, really wanted to see a genetic genealogist in the winners circle.  Until recently, few traditional well-known genealogists had incorporated genetic genealogy as a standard tool, with Megan being a notable exception.

On the other hand, there were several folks who defined themselves as primarily genetic genealogists, myself included.  It was time for genetic genealogy to become an adult – to join the rest and sit at the big table. I think we arrived.

In order to help things along a bit, I offered a donation to the War of 1812 Pension fund if any genetic genealogist was in the finals.  Indeed, genetic genealogy was quite well represented in the finalists, and not just in the genetic genealogy category either.

However, the evidence that genetic genealogy has finally matured and come of age is that it has become the norm, and not the exception.  Today, very few genealogists don’t know about genetic genealogy now – and even if they are living under a rock and haven’t yet participated, they at least know it exists.  Most genealogists have participated at some level.

When I spoke years ago and asked how many people had tested in a room full of people, a few hands would be raised. Now it’s more like 50% and in many locations, more.

But the real evidence is held in this year’s 2015 Rockstar results.  Yes, there are genetic genealogists well represented again in the winners circle – several of us.  I’m extremely grateful for the level of recognition for DNA testing – because media coverage of any form lends a level of legitimacy and encourages new people to test.  Positive exposure of any sort is wonderful, as is individual recognition.  Genetic genealogy, more than traditional genealogy, is a group, collaborative effort – so we need more testers.  The more people who test, the more walls will fall.

The Devil in the Details

But to me, the real message is buried in the details.  I was thrilled, overjoyed, to see the details.  What details, you ask?

There were a total of 2026 people who voted in John’s poll this year, and of those people, 57% of them listed themselves as genetic genealogists.

FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT!!!!!

That’s not 57% of the people who have heard about genetic genealogy – that’s 57% of the genealogists who also consider themselves genetic genealogists.  They are actively using genetic genealogy in some capacity as a tool for their genealogy.  These are genealogists incorporating genetic genealogy, not a separate group of “DNA people” running around with missionary zeal carrying DNA swab kits and asking everyone their name and where their grandparents were from!

I still remember getting stopped by the Texas State Trooper after one of the Family Tree DNA conferences in Houston and after looking at his badge, quizzing him as to where his family was from.  He decided I was either harmless or crazy and sent me on my way.  He declined to swab but I gave him my card just in case he changed his mind one day!  Imagine the story he told back at the station about the “crazy DNA lady!”  Now the crazy DNA lady is part and parcel of every genealogist – at least 57% anyway.  Hopefully that percentage will grow to 100% shortly.

Red Letter Day

Genetic genealogy is no longer separate or different or “odd.”  Not an outlier anymore, but part of the norm.  A mandatory piece of the puzzle.  In fact, as Judy Russell said, in her article, “DNA, coming on strong,” “it’s part and parcel of what every genealogist should be doing.”

Judy also tells us in her article that Thomas W. Jones, co-editor of the National Geographic Society Quarterly, stated that Y, mitochondrial and autosomal DNA testing should be part of what every genealogist does to capture their family story.  Every genealogist.  Not some and not just 57%.  Indeed, this is a red letter day!

Indeed, DNA testing is due for the Sweet 16 party.  It has survived and emerged a lovely flower, blossoming and coming entirely into its own – with the entire genealogy world realizing what kind of a unique gift every one of us has – directly from our ancestors.  And hopefully, with each individual realizing that the way to harness this energy is to test and to share those results along with the rest of our genealogy.

Every genealogist should test their Y (if a male) or find a male to represent their paternal line, test their mitochondrial DNA for their matrilineal line, and test their autosomal DNA.

Document DNA as an Integral Part of Family History

After you are done testing yourself, look around for who in your family carries Y or mtDNA that represents ancestors that your own DNA doesn’t reveal.  For example, your father’s mitochondrial DNA is not your mitochondrial DNA (because males don’t contribute mitochondrial DNA to their offspring) but his mitochondrial DNA provides the story of his mother’s matrilineal line.  Dad already gone?  Did he have siblings?  Test them, and while you’re testing their mitochondrial DNA, test their autosomal DNA as well.

What you are doing, in essence, is creating a DNA pedigree chart.  WikiTree provides tools that combine pedigree charts and DNA testing so that this information is available to descendants.  So, while you are providing information, you stand to harvest a lot more than you’ll ever provide.  Think about it.  You can contribute but one Y (if a male) and one mtDNA line, but you have many ancestors whose information you can gather as their direct linear descendants test.  Here’s an example of my chart with the haplogroups of my oldest ancestors noted if I have that information.  And if I don’t have it, guaranteed I’m looking for it!  All of this ancestral information except that of my red circle great-great-grandmother came from other people because I don’t carry their Y or mtDNA.

Lastly, I would strongly encourage every genealogist to test the oldest family members autosomally, even if their Y and mtDNA lines are already tested and represented.  Not one of them, all of them.  They have each inherited different DNA from their, and your, ancestors.  Once they are gone, there is no further opportunity – a part of the history of your ancestors will depart with them and there will never be any way for you to recover what is lost.

So test.

Test everyone!

Test now!

While you can.

Build and preserve the genetic part of your family history that you can obtain no other way!

For those of you who don’t know me well, I’m not a joiner. I’m not a member of the DAR, although I qualify on several lines and all I’d really have to do is connect to another cousin who has already done the work. I’m a member of a small quilt group, but no large guilds. I’m not an alumni society member from the universities where I graduated either. I’m just not likely to become involved with organizations of any type. Yes, I know there are benefits, but I’ve just never been a joiner.

So, having said that, I’m going to tell you why family groups or societies are really incredibly important. Sound a bit odd? It took a huge, and I mean a HUGELY inspirational motivation for me to join….but I did and I couldn’t be happier. However, it took me more than 20 years to get to that point. Let’s hope it doesn’t take you that long.

I’ve been involved with research on several family lines with different researchers for many years, but there are collaborative benefits an organization can offer that just can’t be matched by individuals.

More than 30 years ago, back in the days of pen and ink letters that were mailed in envelopes with stamps affixed, I was introduced to my cousin, Dolores. She and I wrote back and forth sporadically for years. She suggested at some point that I join the Speak(e)(s) Family Association (SFA). I was hesitant, extremely hesitant, but she indicated that they had done rather extensive research on my, our, line and that it would be beneficial for me to receive the newsletters. I joined, albeit very reluctantly.

Sometime, and I really don’t know when, Dolores introduced me to Lola-Margaret, another cousin from the same line. I really don’t remember knowing Dolores and not knowing Lola-Margaret. These two cousins have been a part of my life now for more than half of my life.  Although I’ve known them for a long time, I’ve only become quite close to them in the past few years.  This is the story of how that happened.

Our common ancestor was the Reverend Nicholas Speak and his wife Sarah Faires who died in Lee County, Virginia in 1852 and 1865, respectively. However, during and after the Civil War, their descendants were scattered far and wide, and we didn’t know each other through family. We found each other through genealogy.

Over the past many years, we’ve shared the deaths of our parents. Not just one of our parents, all of our parents. We’ve suffered through the deaths of siblings and our own health issues. We’ve celebrated the births of grandchildren, marriages and more.

In the mid-80s, while I was raising young children, the Speaks Association had their yearly “convention” in Nashville. Part of the activities took place at the Grand Ole Opry. In the newsletter, there were a few photos and the group talked about how much fun they had, and the presentations…and for the first time ever, I actually wanted to attend one of those types of functions. I felt like I was missing out.

You see, my family was so small that we never had reunions. Three of my grandparents and my father were all dead before I was 8. I never knew my fourth grandparent. My mother only had one sibling who lived hundreds of miles away, so I never had close relations with extended family. I had no concept of what that was like. A reunion in my family was anytime there were more than two of us in the same room at the same time.

I wouldn’t be able to attend a Speaks Family Association “convention” until 2004 when the event was held just 100 miles from my home and I had absolutely no excuse NOT to attend. Plus, I had a new reason.

DNA.

Yep, DNA is what got me there. We had established the Speak DNA project and we needed people to test. Cousins are much more likely to become DNA participants if they hear a presentation personally and have the opportunity to ask questions – and if they feel they can actually make a positive contribution.

That year, I asked for a small amount of money from the SFA organization to fund DNA testing for those who would be beneficial participants but might not be able to fund the testing themselves. We refer to these as scholarships, and the SFA has generously funded several for more than a decade now.

Seven years…it took 7 whole years – but our investment eventually paid off. In 2011, we discovered where our ancestors originated in England when a Y DNA participant from New Zealand matched our US immigrant Y DNA line. Our New Zealand cousin knew where his ancestors were from, exactly…as in had the church christening records. Two years later, in 2013, twenty of us, including that gentleman, would be standing on that very land. The photo below shows the group at St. Mary’s Church in Whalley.

The funding for the DNA testing and the trip planning and organization were all accomplished by the SFA – along with arranging for testing of three more Speak males from that part of England.

In 2014, the SFA funded another round of testing including 4 Big Y tests to help establish when and how certain lines dating back to the 1600s are related. We’ve made incredible discoveries with our genealogy that would never and could never have been made prior to DNA testing.

• Without the funding power of the organization, none of this would have happened.
• Without the organizational power of the group, none of this would have happened.
• Without the conventions that brought people together physically, none of this would have happened.
• Without the volunteers, none of this would have happened.

While genealogy was my driving force for originally joining the organization, and DNA my driving force for originally attending conventions, those things are no longer my motivation. You see, I’ve come to love my cousins, not just as research partners, but as family that is near and dear to my heart – my “sisters and brothers of another mother,” so to speak. My own siblings and family are all gone now. My husband, children, grandchildren, family of heart and my cousins are all that I have. I envy people with large families and siblings.

These next few photos explain this in a way I can’t even begin to. I can’t imagine life without my cousins and I can’t wait to see them again. Each time is richer and more meaningful and we’ve built something far more valuable than I could ever, ever have imagined. Our time together is utterly joyful, filled with laughter and love. I’m just sorry it took me so long to arrive.

We three cousins. This is not a “proper” society hug, but a full fledged “I am so glad to see you and I love you with all my heart” hug.

One of our cousins, Lola-Margaret, left, could not go on our trip to England. She is a missionary in India and was busy performing minor miracles like building an orphanage and a widow’s home. So, I bought fabrics and made her a quilt. (Ok, I made myself a quilt too, as well as one for Susan, our president, as a thank you for planning the English trip.) So Lola-Margaret was with us and now we and our trip are with her. This is her “English Flower Garden” quilt and each fabric has a story. We love Lola-Margaret and are so glad she is back with us this year at the convention!  Thank goodness we can all stay in touch and “see” each other via Facebook!  Above and below, the cousins at this year’s convention in Richmond, VA who were on the England trip gather around Lola-Margaret’s quilt.

Lola-Margaret, me, Dolores and another cousin, Susan, above.  I’m telling the story of something.  Just look at the smiles.  We’re all so happy.

Me, Susan and Lola-Margaret. Discovering and walking on our ancestors land. Sharing our lives, our ancestors, and our DNA. Metaphorically walking through life together, united in the shadow or our common ancestor in so many ways.

Life just doesn’t get better!!!  I just wish I hadn’t waited so long.  Amazing what DNA begat and the discoveries we’ve made by all pulling together as a group!

The moral of the story – join, participate, test – and don’t wait!  You could be the one person to make that huge difference!

Some of you may know that I’m speaking again at the Family Tree DNA Conference for project administrators being held in November in Houston.  This is the 11^th conference, and I’ve attended them all.

I want to first and foremost thank Bennett Greenspan and Max Blankfeld for hosting this legendary conference, for the 11^th time, and for the opportunity and honor to speak to the attendees.

As I’ve been getting my thoughts and my presentation together for this conference, a couple of things have come to mind that I’d like to share.

My conference topic is “Y DNA to Autosomal Case Study – Kicking it Up a Notch.”

I know, the title doesn’t sound terribly interesting, but believe me, after beginning innocently enough, it turned out to be the project from Hell.  Followed by very interesting discoveries whereby it redeemed itself from Hell.

The session description is:

The Crumley surname project was relatively small and had already answered the burning question for which it was created.  Had it served its only purpose?  What else could be done?  The project administrators transitioned this Y DNA project to a Y-plus-autosomal DNA project quite successfully – and made some surprising discoveries along the way.  How did they go from a base of 5 to more than 50 participants in a few weeks?  What did they discover?  How do the descendants of two men born in the 1730s compare autosomally? (Yes, we have autosomal comparative date to 9th cousins.)  What can you learn and how can existing Y projects become the foundation of a hugely successful autosomal project?

But I have to tell you the truth….I made myself insane with this project.  I have over 50 people that had to be hand compared to each other – one by one.  If you’re counting, that’s 1250+ individual comparisons.  The results had to be compiled – which resulted in a spreadsheet of almost 9000 rows.  The relationships of the participants had to be defined, their genealogy collected and assembled and the results analyzed.  Which is what, of course, led to the discoveries I’ll be discussing at the conference.

During the time when I was doing all of those comparisons, I asked myself over and over, “why the dickens am I doing this?”

I realized sometime in the middle of the night last night – the answer to “why I’m doing this,” is really the answer to all of the questions about genetic genealogy research.

In fact, it’s exactly like this quilt.

Ok, so what is a quilt doing in the middle of this genetic genealogy article?

Is it even a quilt?

It’s not square like a quilt…but it has blocks – well triangle blocks, three layers and a binding…and it was made by a quilter.  Me.  So it must be a quilt – but it’s unlike any other quilt in many ways.

Its name?

Thinking Outside the Box

That’s at once the disease and the cure!  And it’s the answer.

And it all started with Bennett Greenspan.

In the middle of the night, I realized that the fundamental questions in all of genetic genealogy research begin with the words, “Why can’t we…..”

Had Bennett Greenspan not asked that question, and not once, but repeatedly, until he received a satisfactory answer, the field of genetic genealogy would never have existed.

For those not familiar with this legendary story, Bennett, a genealogist (just like the rest of us) back in the prehistoric days of 1999, wanted to know why he couldn’t compare the Y chromosome of one man with a particular surname to another man with the same surname to see if they shared a common ancestor.  He took that question to scientists who worked with the Y chromosome.  Let’s just say the scientists weren’t terribly receptive.

Bennett was politely refused, then more firmly refused, but Bennett persisted until Michael Hammer gave up resisting and just ran the test to get rid of Bennett.  But that didn’t work either, because Bennett had more questions.  Couldn’t someone form a company to do this?  Couldn’t Michael Hammer’s lab at the University of Arizona run those tests for that company, which would come to be known as Family Tree DNA.  Questions begat questions.  History was, unknowingly, being made.  The answers and results of course, we all know about…but had it not been for Bennett’s bravery to ask that initial question – and to persist in the face of rejection and adversity – none of this would have happened.

Bennett didn’t have a crystal ball.  He couldn’t have known that an entire industry would evolve from his simple act of genealogical frustration.  But Bennett is who he is and he continued to ask that question and pursue the answer.

As I spent days and days working through the 50 participants’ data in the Crumley project, I often wanted to quit, but I’m either too anal or too OCD or too persistent to do that.  (No, we’re not voting on that topic:)  I had to finish.  And thank goodness I did, because the discoveries were there waiting for me – but I couldn’t have known that until AFTER I did the work that revealed them.  Had I stopped or never begun, I would never have known.  Same with Bennett – thank goodness he persisted.

So first, I had to first ask the question, “Why can’t we….?” Or more appropriate, “What can we…?” and proceed to find out.

In the field of genetic genealogy, and much more broadly applicable as well, if you never ask that question, you’ll never be wrong or make mistakes.  You’ll never be made fun of.  Your work will never be criticized.  You’ll never be rejected.  You’ll be entirely safe.

But you know what else????

You’ll never be right either.

You’ll never push the frontier.

You’ll never inspire other people to ask that same question.

You’ll never make that discovery.

Because you never took the risk of thinking, and acting, outside the box.

Thanks Bennett.

For being brave enough to persist in the face of adversity…

For allowing that question to burn you to action…

For the revolution you started…

For being a leader, an inspiration and our champion…

For providing a supportive and encouraging environment to conduct our own personal and broader genetic genealogy research…

For facilitating our insanity as citizen scientists…

For thinking outside of the box…

THANK YOU!

The Johann Michael Mueller, now Miller, family began in the Germanic area of Europe long before the advent of written records.

European Beginnings

With the decline of the Roman Empire in the 5^th century, the Elbe Germani moved south into Southern Germany and Austria.  The Alemannians lived in what are now Bavaria and the Baden areas, but was then called Swabia.  Around 500 AD, or 2500 years ago, the Burgundians (French speaking) moved into western Switzerland.  The Allemannians (German speaking) moved into what is the Middleland area of Switzerland. The Alemannians were an agricultural people, but pagan and barbarian.  The Franks who lived in central Germany and who also moved into Switzerland conquered the Alemanni tribe and after a struggle, “Christianized” the people and set the moral code for the next generations.  They also introduced feudalism to the area.

Thus a roaming Germanic tribe was given a moral and religious structure as they resided in and farmed the area later known as the Canton of Berne, where our German speaking Miller family is first found.

These ancestors lived in small villages and small inter-related family groups called clans.  This organization was similar to that which was seen later on the American frontier.  Many family surnames associated early in this part of Switzerland are seen later in Pennsylvania and Ohio among the Pietist religions. Hence the family associations that are seen in relationship to the Millers on the American frontier were linkages that go back many, many generations into Europe.

For many generations these people farmed the land in Switzerland and most likely were faithful Catholics.

When the Protestant Reformation came to the Canton of Berne, Switzerland, some of these rural families followed the teachings of Zwingli and became part of the Reformed Church.  Others followed the teachings of Conrad Grebel and became part of the Anabaptist movement in Switzerland. These became known as the Swiss Brethren.  The map below shows Berne as a fortified city in 1638.  Perhaps our ancestors walked those very ramparts, entered through the city gate, conducted business and sold their wares.

Here’s an aerial view of the old part of the city today.

In the later part of the 17^th century, the Swiss Pietists split into two groups; the Swiss Mennonites under the leadership of Hans Reist and the Amish who derived their name from Jacob Ammann of Erlenbach.

Thus the small clans and inter-related family groups who were farmers in the valleys of Switzerland now become members of three separate religious movements, namely the Reformed, Mennonite and the Amish.  This is why years later on the frontier in America, the Reformed (now transformed into German Baptists known as Brethren or Dunkards), the Mennonites and the Amish have similar and seemingly related surnames and practices.

Switzerland to Germany

Our Miller family line begins in Switzerland with Johann Michael Mueller, born in 1655 in Zollikofen, Switzerland.

Zollikofen is just outside of Bern.

During the first half of the seventeenth century, Switzerland was relatively untouched by the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War, (1618-1648), a Catholic-Protestant conflict, fought principally on German soil. Switzerland enjoyed peace and prosperity and had a good market for its excess products. During the second half of the same century a social reaction set in, which was made acute by political and religious confusion. In 1653, the peasants of the Cantons of Bern, Lucerne, Solothurn and Basel revolted against the authorities, chiefly for social reasons. Since there were good opportunities for new settlers in depopulated Germany, many people left the Canton of Bern during this period and journeyed northward into foreign parts, specifically Germany.

The Rhine River was the way out of Switzerland and these families settled wherever it led.  Beyond Germany, emigration into the “lowlands” (Netherlands) as the destination of the emigrants used to be called, lasted into the eighteenth century and was much more numerous than emigration to America – although many did eventually emigrate. The Millers, (then spelled Mueller), came from a village about 10 miles north of Bern Switzerland, called Zollikofen and were a part of the Reformed church there.

The earliest ancestor that has been documented is Johann Michael Mueller, who is believed to have been born in 1655, in the City of Zollikofen, Canton of Bern, Switzerland.

The Zollikofen church, above, shown inside today, built in 1306, still stands.  Our cousin, the Reverend Richard Miller is, appropriately, standing in the pulpit.

Above, a view of the beautiful church from a distance and below, a street view thanks to Google maps street view.

It is likely that in the late 1680’s the Miller family along with perhaps other friends and relatives moved north along the Rhine River and settled in the Rhineland-Pfaltz area of southern Germany. They became part of the Steinwenden and Konken (Germany) Reformed parish churches and records of their respective families are recorded in the church records. The Steinwenden records began in 1684 and Konken in 1653, but the churches reach further back in time.  There are other churches in the area whose records to not exist and those may have held other family records as well.

The Konken records include those of the Berchtoll family, including Hans Berchtol, whose daughter would marry the son of Johann Michael Miller (the first.)

Johann Michael Mueller married Irene Charitas, whose last name is unknown.  That’s right, Charitas is NOT her last name, as is reflected universally on internet trees, but her middle name as recorded in church records, as was the custom of the time.

Cousin Reverend Richard Miller visited Zollikofen and provided the following information.

“On Friday, 04 October 1996, I was in Steinwenden and was entertained by the Burgermeister of Steinwenden. A television crew from Mainz came and interviewed me for a personal interest story of me coming back to the home of my ancestors, i.e., Johan Michael Mueller. Also present was genealogist Roland Paul of the Institue für Pfälzische Geschichte und Volkskünde located in Kaiserlautern. The Burgermeister of Steinwenden and the television station had asked Roland to research Johan Michael Müller, born 1692 in Steinwenden. The attached are two records which Roland gave me. He asserted that Michael’s mother’s maiden name is unknown, and that Irene Charitas is her first and middle name rather than first and maiden name.”

Irene may have been related to the Schlosser family, as there was a 1689 confirmation of Irene Charitas Schloser, daughter of Conrad Schlosser, of Steinwenden, if I’m reading this correctly.

At this time however, Irene Charitas was already married to Michael Mueller as they had their first child’s birth recorded in the church records in June of 1685, or earlier.  They likely married in 1684.  Their children were baptized in the Reformed church in Steinwenden, Germany, near Mannheim.

The bell tower of the original Steinwenden church is all that is left standing (1996) and is shown here.

Johann Michael Mueller and Irene Charitas Mueller had 6 children.  Sadly, all of their children died other than Johann Michael Mueller who was the youngest, born October 5^th, 1692.  I can’t imagine the depth Irene’s grief at the deaths of her first 5 children – and her joy at the one that lived.

We don’t know where those children are buried, but my best guess would be the churchyard.

Steinwenden, Germany

The village of Steinwenden is shown below, photography courtesy of Richard Miller during his visit to the Miller homeland.

Irene may have been joyful about her son that lived, but her husband, Johann Michael, their father, died three years later on January 31, 1695, still a young man, at age 40.

Some genealogical records show that Irene died and Michael remarried to Anna Loysa Regina, but the church records indicate that all of Johann Michael Mueller’s children were born to Irene Charitas.  The summary record, below, provided to Richard Miller when he visited Steinwenden in 1996 lists Irene Charitas (with no last name listed) as the mother for all 6 children born between 1685 and 1692.

Many times the people who were designated as Godparents were relatives of the father or mother of the children.  Godparents at that time were extremely important, and the children were generally named after the Godparents.  In the case of the death of the parents, which happened all too often, it was the Godparents who would raise the children.  The Godparents of these children were Hans George Shoemaker and his wife, Mich. Stahl – I can’t tell if this is two people or three.  The second is Abraham, Hans Berchtol, Hoffman.  Third was Samuel Hoffman.  Fourth is Maria Catherine.  Fifth is Eva ?, Catherine, Samuel Shoemaker.  Finally, the sixth child’s Godparents standing up with Johann Michael Mueller born on October 5, 1692 were Johann Michael Shoemaker, Hans Berchtol and wife.

Little did they know that Hans Berchtol’s daughter, then 4 years old, would one day marry this baby boy.

After Johann Michael’s death, his widow reportedly married Jacob Stutzman whose wife had died.  However, there exists a great deal of confusion about who Jacob Stutzman married.  In the Gene Miller book, he attributes Jacob Stutzman’s wife, Anna Loysa Regina as the widow of Johann Michael Mueller – but as we’ve seen – based on the church records, Johann Michael Miller’s wife was one Irene Charitas, not Anna Loysa Regina, at least as late as 1692.  Perhaps Irene died and Johann Michael Miller remarried to Anna Loysa Regina before his death in 1695.  This conflicting information may never be entirely resolved, at least not until the entire set of church records is transcribed and translated, in full, such that the various families can be reassembled.  However, there were many little villages in this area and people didn’t always stay in one place.

Johann Michael Mueller, born in Switzerland in 1655, died in the Steinwenden German Reformed congregation on January 31, 1695, at the age of 40 years.  His reported widow, Anna Loysa Regina Mueller remarried a Hans Jacob Stutsman of the Konken German Reformed Congregation on September 29, 1695.  If this is accurate, and Anna Loysa Regina was the widow of Johann Michael Mueller, that would indicate that Irene Charitas died between January 1692 when her only child to survive was born and 1695 when her husband died – and with enough time for him to remarry.   That could explain why they didn’t have another child in 1694 – perhaps she was dead or perhaps she and the child both died during childbirth.  If this is the case, the only mother Johann Michael Mueller would have known was Anna Regina and the only father, her second husband Jacob Stutzman.  No children are attributed to Johann Michael Mueller and Anna Loysa Regina in church records, although she did have children with Johann Jacob Stutzman..

The Pietist Movement

The Stutzman family was originally from the Lake Thun area in Switzerland, according to the book, “Jacob Stutzman, His Children and Grandchildren” by John Hale Stutesman, Jr. who reports that they fled from religious persecution to the welcoming Palatinate in Germany before 1700.  Of course, this is also the area where the Mueller family originated as well.

Ironically, this is less than an hour away from where I lived in the summer of 1970 – one of the most stunningly beautiful areas I’ve ever had the privilege of seeing.

This drawing of Thun isn’t far from Zollikofen where the Miller family is first found.  So it appears that the Mueller and Stutzman families were located in the same area of Switzerland.  One might surmise that they were part of a group that migrated together to Germany.

“Thunersee” by Roland Zumbühl, Arlesheim

A beautiful view of Lake Thun today.

In Germany, later, the combined Miller/Stutzman family is found near Bad Durkheim where Johann Jacob Stutzmann was born on January 1, 1706, on the Weilacher Hof, near Hardenburg, son of the tenant farmer on the Weilacher Hof, Johann Jacob Stutzmann and his wife Regina Elisabetha.

Given that Johann Jacob Stutzman married Regina Elisabetha Mueller after the death of Johann Michael Mueller (the first), and in 1706 Jacob Stutzman’s wife’s name was recorded as Regina Elisabetha – it’s likely that Irene Charitas had died before 1695 when Johann Jacob Mueller died given that Johann Jacob Stutzman apparently married his widow.  This makes Johann Jacob Stutzman (the second) born in 1706 a “step-brother” to Johann Michael Mueller (the second.)  Said differently, Johann Michael Mueller’s step mother remarried after his father’s death and his step-mother and her new husband had a son, Johann Jacob Stutzman (the second.)  This son and his “step-brother” Johann Michael Mueller were lifelong friends and companions – eventually immigrating to America together and moving in tandem across the frontier.

Many of the Swiss families had Pietist leanings.  Some were Mennonite and eventually became Brethren, as did Johann Jacob Mueller (the second) and Johann Jacob Stutzman (the second.)

The Brethren sect itself began in 1708 in the village of Schwarzenau, in Wittgenstein, Germany with the rebaptism of eight people.  The Brethren faith spread rapidly and it was only 11 years later that the first group of Brethren landed in Philadelphia.

It’s certainly possible that an entire group of Anabaptist leaning families relocated from Switzerland to the Bad Durkheim area in Germany.  In 1714, the Miller family was in Krottelback, not far from Hardenburg.

The next step for these families, of course, was to safety in Holland, then on the ship Adventure in 1727 to America.  Justin Replogle states that the Brethren in Holland had been in exile since 1720.  It’s unlikely that Michael was among this group, because his son Philip Jacob was born in Germany in about 1726.

I surely would like to know the individual stories of the families involved and what prompted these decisions.  What kinds of factors were involved?  Did they know they would be kindly received when they relocated from Switzerland to Germany, then from Germany to Rotterdam and then from Rotterdam to Philadelphia, or was the future entirely unknown?  Were they joining families who had already departed and were doing well in the new lands?  What prompted the entire group of Brethren to depart – in fact causing the sect to die out in Europe?  Were these families Brethren before they left, or did they convert after arriving in the US?  We know the Bechtol family was Mennonite.

The 30 Years War may have had a lot to do with the decision to leave Switzerland.  Germany was depopulated after the 30 Years War which ended in 1648, with some areas being entirely devastated.  Overall, the population loss was from 25-40% with the Palatinate being particularly hard hit, losing 75 to 80% of the population.  After the war, settlers from other part of Germany and Switzerland were invited to repopulate the area which included both Catholic and Lutheran (Protestant) churches.

According to the book, “Becoming German: The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York,” (pages 12-14), misery in this area wasn’t over yet.  From 1688-1697, the War of the Palatine Succession brought French armies overrunning the German southwest, laying waste to vineyards, farmland and the regions cities and smaller towns.  Mannheim was destroyed and Speyer stood uninhabited for 10 years.  Farmland stood abandoned and German rulers sought to attract new settlers by offering tax concessions and religious toleration which specifically included Catholics, Lutherans, Mennonites and Jews.

This may have been part of the reason these Protestant families selected this area.

Colonies of religious dissidents moved to Germany from neighboring counties, in particular, Switzerland.  In 1656 and 1657, more than 1000 Swiss moved to the Palatinate.  In 1671, over 1600 Mennonites arrived from Bern.  Portuguese Jews attracted by the elector’s concessions settled in Mannheim.  Huguenot refugees followed as well.

Migration became a fact of life in this part of Germany.  In one study, it was found that between 1593 and 1780, about half of one town’s citizens were not born there.

This area of Germany became extremely religiously diverse.  In 1705, an edict called the Religionsdeklaration clarified the religious situation, unquestionably giving religious freedom to all individuals.  Lutherans fell under the Reformed, as did other Protestant sects, which may be why we find both the Miller and Stutzman children baptized in Reformed or Lutheran churches.  By this time, the pietists, an offshoot of the Lutherans, were calling for a more inward-looking and emotional faith than the established churches but were meeting privately, not able to establish open churches.

In 1675, Philipp Jacob Spener, a Lutheran pastor in Frankfurt encouraged his followers to create small, private groups to read and discuss the Bible.  He didn’t intend for those groups to leave the established churches, but they formed what they called conventicles which further split the already fractured religious communities in Germany.  Pietists become very closely bound within their own group, and the pietist groups throughout Germany tended to bind together tightly as well, between villages which weren’t spaced very far apart, forming a network.

What were these early Brethren people like?

To begin with, they didn’t care much about official clergy and buildings.  They preferred to hear their neighbor farmer preach who farmed the other 6 days a week, gathered in his barn.  The word congregation did not necessarily mean a stand-alone church building, it may have meant only a gathering of like-minded people.

Pietists did not stress the intellectual side of Christianity.  They emphasized the literal text of the Bible and didn’t worry about theory.  The community stressed humility, work and service to others.  The Brethren were plain people, pacifists, remaining aloof during the worldliness of political office, military service, oaths, litigation and filing anything in court or at the courthouse, unfortunately including deeds and marriages.

The Brethren practiced shunning of church members and even their children who did things they did not approve of.  Alexander Mack Jr., the son of the founder of the Brethren church shunned both of his daughters.  One for marrying outside the faith and because the marriage “was performed with a license.”  The second, who was shunned to the point where the family would not even eat with her, was shunned for doing something we’ll have to surmise, but it was said that the “sin was not so great because they had been engaged never to leave each other.”  An entire Brethren congregation shunned another young woman because she sat in the lap of a man who was trying to force her into immorality, for an hour, pretending to be asleep.”  Her father argued that she had not actually committed fornication, and left the congregation, taking several members with him.

Church historian Morgan Edwards summarized Brethren like this in 1770: “They use great plainness of language and dress, like the Quakers; and like them will neither swear nor fight.  The will not go to law; nor take interest for the money they lend.  They commonly wear their beards…They have the Lord’s supper…love feasts, washing of feet, kiss of charity…use the trine immersion…as the party kneels down to be baptized…”  (Replogle)

We see this same culture in the Brethren, Mennonite and Amish, then as now.

The area where I grew up in Indiana had a well-established Amish, Mennonite and Brethren community.  They tended to live in the same area, but they did not intermix, or at least not much.  As much as they looked “alike” to those of us who were not members of those religions, their differences, to them, were chasms, especially the adoption of modern technology and conveniences like electricity, farm equipment and automobiles.

The Amish, typically called the “Old Order” were the most restrictive, not embracing any modern technology at all.  These were and are the horse and buggy families.

The Mennonites were in the middle.  They would ride in or drive cars, but they had to be very plain – always black, nothing shiny, no hubcaps or radios.  The local car dealership always had to special order a group of Mennonite cars.

The Brethren were the least restrictive.  Their men dressed almost normally, although some still had beards.  Their women often still wore prayer bonnets, but their clothes weren’t always black.  Their homes were plain, but did include modern conveniences.  However, in our family, one will includes instructions for the man’s gravestone not to be highly polished.  They were known as highly conservative “plain people.”

This photo is of my mother’s Brethren grandparents, Hiram Bauke Ferverda and Evaline Louise Miller, and their family taken about 1918.  Other than their relatively “plain” dress, you would never know they were Brethren.  Their son, third from right in the front row is also wearing a uniform, having served in WWI – something VERY un-Brethren.  In this photo, the women are not wearing prayer bonnets, but mother said that she distinctly remembers this woman, her grandmother, wearing a prayer cap.  My mother’s father, John Whitney Ferverda (b1882) is the second from right, back row.

This photo taken about 18 years earlier, around 1900, of Evaline Louise Miller, middle, and her parents, Margaret Lentz Whitehead and John David Miller looks much more typically Brethren.  The men have beards and the women are wearing darker colors and prayer bonnets, covering their hair.

My mother’s family was Brethren until my grandfather, gasp, married a Lutheran woman and because there was no Brethren or Lutheran church in the small town where they lived, they chose to become Methodist!  Oh, the scandal!  With that religiously “mixed” marriage ended at least a 7 generations long line of Pietists who became Brethren, reaching back hundreds of years into Germany and Switzerland – back into the mists of time so far that we no longer have records, only the knowledge of how strongly those people must have felt about their religion to willingly suffer the persecution and displacement that they withstood.

I’m suspecting they literally rolled over in their graves to know that one of their descendants married outside the faith and became something un-Pietist.

The Miller DNA

One of our Miller participants has tested to 111 markers and taken the Big Y test.  Although our haplogroup is a subgroup of typically European R1b, we have only Miller matches at 12 through 111 markers, except at 25 and 37 markers where we have a match to a Morgan man whose ancestor, Morgan Morgan, hails from Wales and was born in 1688.

The Big Y DNA results, a test which not only checks for all known SNPs, but scans for new and unknown mutations as well, shows that our Miller participant most closely matches a man from Bulgaria.  In this case, the word close does not mean in a genealogical timeframe.  This match reaches back before the advent of surnames, as there are 3 known SNP differences and only 58 of 100 novel variants or previously unknown SNPs.  This means that our common ancestor with this man is probably someplace around  3,000 or 4,000 years ago.  Our next closest match is from Austria and from about as long ago.  These are followed closely by three English surnames and a Spanish surname.

The Miller terminal SNP, which defines our haplogroup, is called R-Z2106.

The Y haplotree looks like a branching tree or a pedigree chart on steroids.  Our twig, R-Z2106 is a part of a larger stick which is a part of a larger branch, etc.

Each of these branches becomes increasingly smaller and more granular.  The 100 or so novel variants found in the Miller DNA will also become branches someday, so there may be several more.  As DNA mutates, new novel variants, which are unnamed SNPs because they have just been discovered, continue to occur every few generations in each line.  This means that our own personal branch of the tree may have several SNPs or mutations that no one else has.  Whatever valley our ancestors may have been isolated in hundreds or thousands of years ago, perhaps during the last glacial maximum, may hold many men with the same mutations that today will become a small subgroup of a haplogroup – like Z2106.  We don’t know the history, but by looking at groups of men with these same mutations, and estimating when the mutation happened, and pairing that with what we know historically and geologically was happening in the world at that time, we can piece some semblance of our own deep personal history together.

This is a map of the distribution of haplogroup L23.  It’s estimated that L23 occurred in the first male about 7000 years ago.

Generally, the darker or most saturated regions are the origins of the haplogroup.  L23 is interesting because it is typically not found in high frequencies in Europe, typically less than 5% or haplogroup R, except in Switzerland’s Upper Rhone Valley where it is found at 27%.  That could be a clue for us.

This same paper, “Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe” by Haak et al, 2015, states that there is virtually no haplogroup R1b found in Europe before the period beginning about 4500 years ago in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Ages, and that this R1b found in these Russian burials appears to be mixed with Near East (Anatolian) DNA as well.  This implies, of course, that one of the migration routes to Europe was north through Russia, and one was crossing at present day Istanbul and going through the Baltic.

Subgroup Z2103 is referred to as the Balkan and Asian branch of the L23 tree.  Z2103 is found in a high percentage of Armenian men today.

Armenia is, of course, dead center in the middle of the migration path from the Near East to the Russian steppes, shown on the map above with a red balloon.

Referencing the Armenian DNA project, two men within that project carry the R-Z2106 SNP – the same one the Miller men carry.  SNP Z2106 is exceedingly rare.  I’ve been able to locate less than a dozen samples.

However, there are 21 men who carry the Z2103 SNP and 14 men who carry the Z2109 SNP in the Armenian project.  Another 2109 SNP is found in Iraq and one in Germany.

This map shows what was occurring in the Balkan region about 4500 years ago.

In 2015, six graves were excavated near Samara, Russia, shown on the map below, that represent the Yamna culture and of those, four carried the mutation Z2103 which is estimated to have been born about 6000 years ago, as are SNPs Z2109 and Z2106.

SNPs Z2106 and Z2109 were not reported in the ancient burials, but we don’t know if they were tested for or not.

These men of the Yamna culture lived between 2700 and 3300 years ago (BCE).  We share a common ancestor with these men. Where and when is the question that remains.

It is in the history of these maps, these peoples and our DNA that the story of our ancestry is told.  We’re still trying to put the pieces together, but looking at these maps, and our SNPs and novel variants, we know that our ancestors were first found in Switzerland in contemporary records, but their history extends back into Eastern Europe and back to Anatolia before that.  They may have moved into Europe with the waves of farmers from that region, or they may have arrived from the Russian steppes.  Given where our other SNPS, Z2103 and Z2109 are (and aren’t) found, I’m betting that they migrated from Anatolia across the Balkan region into eastern Europe as part of the migration of the European Neolithic farmer culture.

None of this is cast exactly in concrete – more like in jello molds.  We continue to make discoveries and learn every day in this emerging field.  However, what we do know is exciting and tantalizing and every puzzle piece we find adds to the story of our Mueller family.

Wouldn’t Johann Michael Mueller be surprised to know the secrets his DNA shared with his irreverent Methodist descendants!  But Johann Michael, take heart, because there are still many Miller Brethren families.  In fact, we even have a Miller-Brethren DNA project to help sort and reconstruct those families!

If you descend from a Brethren Miller family, you are most welcome to join.

If you’re cringing already, suicide is an ugly word.

It makes us uncomfortable.

And it’s shocking when you find a record that says your ancestor died by suicide – and describes how.

And of course, the next question is “why.”

I spent a great deal of time several years ago working with a professional translator, Elke, a woman skilled in both high German, German script and Latin.  The earliest German records utilized all three of these show-stopping methodologies and languages – at least show-stopping if you’re not familiar with all three.  People who are familiar with all three are rare as hen’s teeth, let me tell you.

So when I received this translated church record about Johann George Dorfler, I was utterly dumbstruck.

“He has cut his throat all the way through and died, age 58, and was buried quietly.”

I didn’t understand what all of this meant – other than the “cut his throat” part.  I was pretty clear on that.

But, “all the way through”?  How did he even manage that?

And what does “buried quietly” mean?

Elke says this means that he was likely buried without a church service, or with a minimal church service as suicide was looked upon as a sin that could keep you out of Heaven and was highly frowned up on in German society.

So his family never really got closure on his death in the normal way.  Not only was he deprived, but so were they.

What happened?

Johann Georg was born on October 31, 1732 in Wirbenz, Germany to Johannes Dorfler and Anna Gerlin.  He died January 25, 1790 in Speichersdorf.  Both of his parents predeceased him – so neither of them had to suffer from his suicide.

Johann Georg was married on January 23, 1755 in Wirbenz (shown below) to Anna Magdalena Buntzman, the daughter of Johannes Buntzman.

This view of the church across the farmlands surrounding the village would have been quite familiar to Johann Georg Dorfler.

His death record says that Johann Georg was a weaver and quartermaster in Speichersdorf.  Elsewhere he is noted as a farmer.

A quartermaster is typically a non-commissioned officer in charge of supplies.  Johann Georg seems to have been a farmer that did well for himself in the local community.

Given the records in both Wirbenz (at right, below) and Speichersdorf (at left below), his farm may have been one of these well-groomed fields between the two locations.

When possible, I reconstruct families, but I was unable to do that with his children.  I’m hopeful that someday perhaps the records will be available, translated, online.

My ancestor, their daughter, Anna Barbara Dorfler was born in Wirbenz in 1762.

Photo by Milchi

Wirbenz is a village beside Speichersdorf, less than a mile distant, so the family didn’t move far, likely just attended a different church.  What a beautiful area.

Photo by Steini83

This may be the church in Speichersdorf where Johann Georg’s service, such as it was, was held.

Is he buried in the cemetery here?  If not, where did they bury him?

In the Catholic faith, one who dies by suicide cannot be buried in consecrated church ground, but the Protestants weren’t so strict.

The Protestant faith sprung from the Catholic faith, and even though they are different, some cultural biases and superstitions don’t die easily – and suicide along with its stigma seems to be one of those.

I have to wonder what caused a 58 year old man to kill himself and in such a gruesome manner.

How did he even have the strength to carry through with this act?  He must have been incredibly resolved.

Based on his occupation as Quartermaster, I first checked German history to see if anything striking happened in Bavaria in 1790.  The only thing I found was this:

“1790 brought a fundamental reform of the Bavarian army. All field troops received an identically-cut uniform, including a leather helmet with a horsehair plume.”

Nothing about losses or sieges or anything that might upset someone to the point of suicide.  Johann Georg didn’t seem to have all of his eggs in one basket either with multiple sources of income – a failure in any one would not devastate the family.

His daughter, my ancestor was then 28 years old and had an 18 month old baby when her father died.

Johann Georg’s wife outlived him by 8 years, dying of “weakness,” so his death had nothing to do with her death.

Most suicides today are related to one of, or a combination of, several things:

• Depression
• Alcohol or Drug Addiction
• Terminal Diagnosis
• Accidental
• Extremely Traumatic Event

We can rule out two or three of those.

It clearly wasn’t accidental.  You don’t cut your throat “all the way through” by accident.

In 1790, there were not cancer diagnoses, so it was likely not something of that nature.

To the best of my knowledge, recreational drugs weren’t an issue in 1790 in Germany, although alcohol consumption has been an issue ever since alcohol has existed.

So we’re left with depression, a traumatic event or perhaps alcohol addiction – or some combination thereof perhaps.

Another possibility is that he did something terrible and couldn’t live with it – but my experience has been that people who do terrible things generally don’t have enough conscience to feel remorse at that level, or even at all – so that is probably ruled out too.  Generally, when kidnappers or mass murderers, for example, take their own lives, it’s in an attempt to evade the justice coming their way – not because of remorse.

One last possibility is that something so terrible happened to him, or his family, that he couldn’t stand it.  That something would have to be pretty profound – like maybe the accidental deaths of several of his children.  I know of an instance like this in another family line.

We will never know.  It’s not like there are court notes or old newspapers we can peruse.  Nothing more in the church notes.  No hints of any kind.  Just that one shocking sentence.

My own close encounters with suicidal family members indicate that often, those with depression don’t actively want to kill themselves – they simply want the pain to stop and that is the only avenue they see as possible.  In other words, the only way out.  Today, we have medications, counseling and support groups to help people.  Then, they didn’t.

It saddens me terribly to know the depths of despair this man must have felt to do something so incredibly drastic.  Worse yet, to remove yourself from your family in that time and place also meant that they would have no way to make a living.  He had to know that, yet he took his life anyway.  I simply cannot comprehend this even though I understand it logically.

And sometimes, sometimes the results were even worse.  In Europe during this timeframe, suicide was thought of as the result of sin.  In order to discourage people contemplating sin, the body of the person who took their own life was desecrated in various ways and their entire estate was confiscated.  So not only was the family traumatized by the death, but again by the physical desecration of their family member and the assured financial ruin that followed.  This was no trivial matter and resounded and rippled downstream generationally.

We know, in his case, that his body was buried two days later which tells us it was not desecrated.  A review of the book, “From Sin to Insanity: A History of Suicide in Early Modern Europe” states that by the end of the 1700s, suicide was looked upon socially more like a medical or lunacy issue.  In other words, you weren’t responsible for sinning if you were crazy.  Still, the laws about estate confiscation weren’t rescinded until significantly later.  Did they actually confiscate his estate?  We’ll never know that either.

Another downstream aspect of suicide was financial.  Not only did it ruin the immediate family, it stigmatized the family and cast them into the lower social classes.  In the servant class, if you could not afford to marry, you often wound up as an unmarried servant with illegitimate children who were also stigmatized.  This situation was very difficult, if not impossible, to work yourself out of, and this is the situation the granddaughter of Johann Georg Dorfler found herself cast into.

I wonder if the genesis of this situation began with the financial and social ramifications of the suicide of Johann Georg. Some 60 years and a generation later, that illegitimate child would immigrate to America with his “wife to be” and their illegitimate children and would marry immediately upon arrival – leaving that stigma behind forever.  No one knew here – at least not until I dug it up 150 years later.

Today, there is no judgement, of either Johann Georg or his illegitimate descendants.  Only profound sorrow for Johann Georg and his family, and respect for the descendants who had the courage to risk everything and leave for unknown but more promising lands.

So what happened to the family home, Anna Magdalena and their children?

Johann Georg’s wife, Anna Magdalena, was born in 1732, so she likely had children until she was 42 or 43, so until about 1775.  In 1790, when Johann Georg died, she was only 58 years old.  They would have had a child or two left at home, plus Anna Magdalena herself who needed to be provided for.  If his estate was confiscated, there would have been no opportunity for Anna Magdalena and the children to eek out a living on the same land.

Suicide affects so many people, far more than just the person who dies.  I don’t think families ever really recover from suicides – in a different way than a regular death.  Partly from the violence and terribly nature of the death, partly from the stigma, partly from unresolved and undeserved survivor guilt and partly from the trauma. In 1790 in Germany, add to that the financial aspect of estate confiscation.

Someone has to find the body, someone has to tell the rest of the family, someone has to clean up the mess, someone has to offer what meager comfort they can, someone has to prepare the body for burial.  It’s a horrible and in this case, gruesome, event for all concerned.  And assuredly, it made everyone uncomfortable, at best.  Everyone probably crossed the street when they saw family members approaching for lack of knowing what to say.

I mean, in 1790s Germany – what would you say?  “Gosh, I’m sorry your husband killed himself and your family is starving now?  By the way, how are you doing?  Will we see you Sunday in church?  Oh, you have no clothes to wear???”  Not a conversation anyone wants to have, so I’m sure avoidance became the order of the day.

And sadly, it’s his suicide that defines him.  And if he felt he had a good reason, that reason is lost to us in the shock and magnitude of the suicide itself.  The church record doesn’t provide that information – only the dry facts – and some small comfort – to me at least – that his body was buried without making a spectacle or example of him.  Thank Heavens the family was spared that.  I’m not going to discuss what was done previously to the bodies of suicide victims, but “From Sin to Insanity” tells you.

I surely hope the religions are wrong that believe those who take their own life are condemned to eternal hell.  He obviously was miserable in his lifetime, for whatever reason, so I hope and pray he can at least rest in peace in death.  And I pray his family didn’t suffer additionally believing that he was roasting in Hell on top of everything else.

And I hope, I really hope, that he did not pass this trait to his offspring.  Let’s just say this is not the only brush with suicide in my family – this is just the oldest that I’ve found.  We know that the propensity for depression is from 40-50% heritable, and possibly higher for severe depression.  I’d say depression fueled suicide falls into that category.

On the DNA side of things, I have not been able to find anyone who descends from this Dorfler family via Y DNA – meaning patrilineally.  The Y chromosome follows the surname in males, so male Dorflers who descend from Johann Georg will carry his Y chromosome.

At Ysearch, there is one Dorfler, but their information indicates that particular male Dorfler’s ancestor’s mother never married and he carries her surname and unknown Y DNA.  If you are a Dorfler male who descends from Johann Georg Dorfler’s family line and you carry the surname, I have a Y DNA testing scholarship for you.  Johann George’s Y chromosome will tell us where his paternal line originated.

Thanksgiving is hard for some folks.  Life didn’t turn out exactly as they hoped or planned.

It’s easy for me to sometimes get tied up in the melancholy.  Thanksgiving when I was younger was a festive time on the farm.  The kitchen was overflowing onto tables in the living room. Aunts, uncles, siblings, lots of kids, sometimes foster children, boyfriends, girlfriends…the house was full. Mom and I were cooking and everyone brought a dish to pass.  It never occurred to me that one day those times would only be a memory.

It’s not like that now.  All of those people are gone, including my siblings.  In fact there are only a handful of people alive now who experienced those days and most of them are scattered to the winds.

So, I have to actively think of things to be thankful for at Thanksgiving.  Obviously, I’m thankful for my family, my children, their spouses, grandchildren and grandpuppies who do live close by.  And I’m really thankful that my husband likes to cook – and so are my kids!!!

Then, last night, on Facebook, I saw this inspirational saying by http://www.ibelieve.com.

That is just spot on.  I have never thought about things quite like this before.

And of course, my thoughts immediately turned to genetic genealogy.

Twenty years ago, DNA testing didn’t exist nor did we have any clue that it might.

Fifteen years ago, Bennett Greenspan and Max Blankfeld were just starting Family Tree DNA.  They are today the only one of the early testing companies still in business and the only one to offer a full complement of DNA tests for genealogy.  Am I ever thankful for them and their success.

Ten years ago, we thought we had come a long way because we could test males Y chromosomes to 25 or 37 markers and the female line mitochondrial DNA.  I don’t recall whether we were doing full sequence testing yet a decade ago.

Five years ago, autosomal DNA testing had just been introduced and we were ecstatic.  Little did we know it would open the floodgates.

And today, the genetic genealogy world is one I couldn’t even have dreamed of.  I wonder what the next 5 years holds.

Indeed, times have changed dramatically, and for all we’ve lost through the natural processes of life, we’ve gained incredibly.  Not only have we gained new relatives and immediate family through birth and marriage and birth…but we’ve gained the tools to get to know our distant relatives.

By distant, I mean both in terms of miles and ancient.  The new relatives who live distantly we now get to know through social media like Facebook.  One of the ways we find those new relatives is through genealogy and sometimes, DNA testing.  I’ve become very close to some of the people I’ve met through genealogy.

But I also mean distant as in distant or ancient ancestors, my great-great-great-great-great grandfather Estes.  My most distant Estes ancestor was Nicholas Ewstas born in 1495 in Deal, Kent, England.  Today, through the magic of DNA testing, I know what his entire Y chromosome looked like, through his descendants.  I know that many of us today probably share small portions of his autosomal DNA.  I know how to identify his descendants by matching them to his Y chromosome results.  I know where in the world he came from, before Kent.  I know how his ancestors got from Africa to Europe and then to England, at least roughly.

Furthermore, the more people who test, the more direct Y and mtDNA relatives I can find to complete my DNA pedigree chart.  The more I can learn about these distant ancestors, by meeting more of my distant relatives in this lifetime.  The more people who test, the more ancestors available for all of us to find!!!

My biggest regret is that I didn’t know about DNA testing back in the day – that I can’t go back and swab those aunts and uncles.  I wouldn’t make that mistake today.  I now carry swab kits in my purse.  And yes, those of you who know me know I’m dead serious.  I would test all of them for autosomal DNA, Y and mtDNA if those lines had not already been tested and posted publicly for other descendants to find.

Indeed, I am extremely fortunate to find myself living in a time of miracles I didn’t even know enough to hope for.  I am very thankful.

We know that Hans Berchtol’s death was recorded in the church in Konken, Germany, the beautiful hamlet shown below, on June 15, 1711.  His death record in the church records tells us that he resided in Krottelbach, just a few miles away.

Hans Berchtoll and his wife, Anna Christina reportedly had the following children:

• Hans Jacob born in 1686 who married Anna Marie Glosselos
• Susanna Agnes born on May 3, 1688 and married Michael Mueller (1692-1771) (One source reports her birth in Ohmbach, a nearby village.)
• Hans Peter born on May 1, 1690 and married Maria Elizabeth Zimmer
• Hans Heinrich born on May 1, 1690
• Barbel (Barbara) born about 1693
• Ursula born about 1696

In 1686, in Steinwenden (shown below,) not terribly far from Konken, we find mention of Hans Berchtol in the baptismal record of Johann Abraham Mueller, the son of Johann Michael Mueller and his wife, Irene Charitas whose last name is unknown.

Hans Berchtol’s wife was not with him in the baptismal records of this child, likely because she was herself quite pregnant or had recently given birth.  The first child born to Hans Berchtol and his wife, Anna Christina was born in 1686 as well.

The infant, Johann Abraham Mueller, would die shortly after his birth, but again, in 1692, Hans Berchtol would be called upon to attend another baptism of a child of Johann Michael Mueller and his wife.  These two couples were obviously close, even though they didn’t live nearby.  Why?  Were they in some way related?  What was their common bond – a bond strong enough to survive a 15 mile distance in the mountains over several years.

The child born in 1692, Johann Michael Mueller (Jr.) would one day marry the daughter of Hans Berchtol and Anna Christina.  How strange is that?  Michael’s in-laws-to-be were his godparents.  That doesn’t happen often.  Hans Berchtol’s daughter, Susanna Agnes Berchtol was born on May 3, 1688 in Konken (or Ohmbach).  Whether this family was previously related in some fashion or not, their descendants were destined to be.  I wonder if Johann Michael Mueller grew up playing with Susanna Berchtol, his future wife.  Did they sit beside each other in Sunday School from time to time? She was more than 4 years his senior, so maybe she wasn’t terribly interested in him until they were teenagers or young adults. And they did live 15 miles apart.

Then another thought struck me.  Konken and Steinwenden are really too distant for easy accessibility.  Since Hans Berchtol and his wife had stood up with Johann Michael Mueller at his baptism, they would have been his godparents.  Godparents were technically responsible for the religious education of the child, and were the people who would have taken the child to raise if their parents died.  It has always been assumed because of the close relationship of Johann Michael Mueller (the second) and Johann Jacob Stutzman (born 1706), son of Michael’s father’s second wife, that Michael’s step- mother, Anna Loysa Regina, and her second husband, Jacob Stutzman raised Michael.  I know this is confusing, so I’ve created a little chart representing the relationships.

But maybe that wasn’t true, and Anna Loysa Regina and Jacob Stutzman didn’t raise Johann Michael Mueller (the second), or maybe not for the entire time.  Maybe Michael was raised by Hans Berchtol and his wife, his godparents.  That would explain how the 15 mile difference between Steinwenden and Konken was overcome for courting purposes.

I don’t have the Konken church records or their direct translations, but it would be very interesting to see if Johann Michael Mueller (the first) and his wife, Irene Charitas Mueller, witnessed the baptisms of any of Hans Berchtol’s children.  It would also be interesting to check the neighboring church records to see if we can find any additional children for Hans baptized in neighboring churches.  I don’t know if the family moved, or if they simply went to the closest church for baptisms, or they changed churches occasionally.  Why didn’t they attend the church in Krottelbach where they lived?

As it turns out, Krottelbach historically formed the boundary between the parishes of Ohmbach and Konken, so Krottelbach didn’t have its own church.

This caused some difficulty in ascertaining what the village’s population was in the so-called Konker Protokollen of 1609 in which the 12 hearths (“households”) with 65 inhabitants listed for Krottelbach were actually only the ones on the north side of the brook, in the parish of Konken. Corresponding statistics for the part of the village on the south bank are not available. All in all, though, the village as a whole may have been rather large for the circumstances of that time.  However, that wasn’t to last.

Like all villages in the region around Kusel, Krottelbach suffered heavily under the twin blows of the Plague and the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648).  After that war, there were only four people living in the village.  The populace was devastated.  This area of Germany was barren and desperate for settlers who were willing to work and farm, and actively sought people from Switzerland and other regions.

The newcomers welcomed the opportunity and settled, but more lives were lost towards the end of the 1600s in French King Louis XIV’s wars of conquest.  It seemed that there was no end to wars and violence.

Krottelbach belonged to the village church in Ohmbach, which Count Gerlach V of Veldenz had bequeathed to the Werschweiler Monastery after 1258. During the Reformation, the monastery was dissolved, whereafter some of the then Lutheran villagers still belonged to the parish of Ohmbach, while others belonged to the parish of Konken.  Until 1817, the village of Krottelbach remained solidly Reformed, a faith that in 1817 united with the Lutherans.  At that point, the whole village once again belonged to the parish of Ohmbach.

What this history of Krottelback, along with the Konken church records, tells us is that Hans Berchtol lived on the north side of the brook in Krottelbach.

Perhaps Hans farmed one of these beautiful fields or maybe he lived on Krottelback Creek, meaning “Toadbrook.”  At this time, farmers did not live on farms in the countryside, but they actually lived in the villages clustered together and then went to farm their fields that surrounded the village.

A second Berchtol male was having children in Steinwenden where Johann Michael Mueller lived.  Hans Simon Berchtol and his wife Catherine had the following children according to Steinwenden church records:

• Hans Samuel born 1685, godparent Hans Michael ?
• Maria Magdalena born 1686, godparents Hans Michael Muller of Steinwenden and Anna Catherine
• Maria Elizabeth born 1691
• Anna Catherine born 1696, godparents Anna Catharine, Johannes Lampon, frau, Jacob ??
• Johannes Theobold born 1697, godparent Maria Elizabeth
• Johannes born 1698, godparents Johannes Berchtol and Anna Maria

Hans Samuel Berchtol, born in 1685 above is believed to be an immigrant and possibly the Samuel Berchtol found in records in Pennsylvania with Johann Michael Mueller born in 1696.  One Samuel Becktel arrived on the ship Robert and Alice on September 30, 1743.

Were Hans Berchtol of Krottelbach and Hans Samuel Berchtol of Steinwenden brothers?  These families were surely related, but how?

These villages, Krottelbach and Steinwenden were nearly as far apart as Konken and Steinwenden, being a distance of about 18 km.

The fact that both families were of Pietist leanings and settled in this part of Germany, traveling a non-trivial distance between locations, suggests that perhaps they had a pre-existing connection before settling here, other than their obvious religious leanings and refugee status.  Remember, we don’t know the maiden name of either man’s wife, Hans Berchtol’s Anna Christina or Johann Michael Mueller’s Irene Charitas.

We know that the Mueller family was originally found in the Canton of Berne, Switzerland where Johann Michael Mueller, the elder, was born in 1655 in Zollikofen.  Many Pietist families from this region removed to this same part of Germany in the 1680s.  So it’s not unlikely that the Berchtol family did the same thing, which would explain why Hans Berchtoll was willing to travel 18km, each way, twice to stand up with the Mueller family for the baptism of babies.

The record from Konken Reformed Church shows that Michael Muller, son of Johann Michael Muller from Steinweiler in Churpfalz, married Susanna Agnes Berchtel, a Swiss, at Crottelbach (sic) on January 4, 1714.  “A Swiss,” in fact confirms that indeed, the Berchtel family too immigrated from Switzerland.

The Steinwenden records begin in 1684, but the Konken records begin in 1654, so perhaps more information awaits in those records, once they are translated and indexed in some location so that you can find entries without reading the entire church book – or more accurately stated – paying someone else to read the entire church book.

Just three years after Hens Berchtol’s death in 1711, his daughter would marry Johann Michael Mueller Jr., that baby born in 1692.  Maybe when Hans died, Johann Michael Mueller stepped in to help the family.

Krottelbach, shown above, is about 5 miles from Konken.

So, by piecing scant records together, we know that Hans Bechtol, Bechtel or Berchtol was “Swiss,” lived in Konken or more likely Krottelbach by 1686, but traveled that same year to Steinwenden, without his wife, for the baptism of the child of Johann Michael Mueller and his wife, Irene Charitas, whose last name is unknown.

During this same time period, a Hans Simon Berchtol was living in Steinwenden and having children there.  Johann Michael Mueller was a godparent to one of Hans Simon’s children as well.  These three families were likely related in some fashion.

Hans Berchtol and his wife continued to have children in Konken until about 1696.  We don’t know if this was when his wife died, or whether she had reached the age where children were no longer forthcoming.  If that was the case, it would put their birth year at about 1653 or so. It would be worth checking Hans actual death record to see if his wife is mentioned as either living or dead.

Hans died in 1711 where the Konken church records reflect that he lived in Krottelbach.  He was born probably before 1653, which means he would have been at least 57 when he died.  Another source states that he was born on June 15, 1641 in Germany, but they do not provide the source of this information.  Regardless, Hans was not a young man when he died.

We know that two of Hans sons lived to marry, although I have no information about their children, or if they immigrated.

I noticed that in the Biddle/Bechtel project at Family Tree DNA, there are several Bechtel and Bechtol males who have Y DNA tested.  Unfortunately, there are eight different groupings, and none of them reach back to Hans Bechtol in Germany.  Several are found in Germantown, Delaware Co., Huntington Co., York and Berks Counties in PA.  These would, of course, be the exact locations where these German families would have settled.  Bechtel immigrants are documented here and none of these seem to be candidates for sons of our Hans.

Many of the Bechtol/Bechtel families were Mennonites and one group arrived in 1729.  These men don’t look to be Hans sons, but we don’t really know, apart from the fact that we are looking for a Jacob, a Peter or a Heinrich.

However, we know positively that there were Bechtol men with the Brethren families in Chester, Hanover and York Counties in PA.

On February 7, 1744, Michael Miller, Nicholas Garber, Samuel Bechtol and Hans Jacob Bechtol, who all lived in Chester Co, PA, purchased a tract of land consisting of 400 acres northeast of Hanover, PA in Hanover County.

Today this land is near Bair’s Mennonite Church, probably lying south from the church, shown below.

Today, that land has a cemetery on both sides of the road.  It’s possible that the church is on the original land owned by these 4 men.

Let’s see if we have a participant from this line in the Bechtel DNA project.

The last group of Bechtel men in the DNA project track back to one Samuel Bechtel, reportedly born in 1700, died in 1785, and is buried in the York Road Cemetery in Hanover County, PA.  A little bit of digging shows us that indeed, the church shown in Samuel’s Find-A-Grave picture is Bair’s Mennonite Church, shown below from Google maps, street view.

Is this the same family line of Samuel Bechtol who purchased land there in 1744? Assuredly.  Additional deed work would likely confirm the land history.  Is the Samuel Bechtol of Chester County, PA the same Bechtol family as was found in Konken and Steinwenden, Germany.  Most likely, but we don’t know for certain.  The dates don’t align exactly.  Hans Simon Berchtol of Steinwenden had son Hans Samuel in 1685.  It’s hard to imagine the continued connection with the Mueller/Miller family if it is not the same Berchtol family line, but we need more than circumstantial evidence.

If any Bechtol, Bechtel or Berchtol male, meaning any of Hans Bechtol’s or Hans Simon Berchtol’s descendants who are males and still carry the surname, by any spelling, are discovered, I have a DNA testing scholarship for the first individual.  Let’s find out more about our ancestors.  I’m betting that Samuel Berchtol and Hans Berchtol from Germany are related, one way or another, and so is the Samuel buried in the Mennonite cemetery at Bair’s Mennonite Church.

Various kinds of DNA testing could help unravel this puzzle.

It’s possible that autosomal DNA testing can solve this puzzle as well, even though there are several generations between Hans and descendants today.  If we don’t look, we’ll never find that connection.  If you descend from these lines, let me know.

It’s amazing that DNA has the potential to answer these questions that have been burning for decades – and questions that our ancestors knew the answers to and thought nothing of.  They are probably chuckling at our inquisitiveness today, given that they still know those answers, and we still don’t.

Johann Michael Mueller, written Miller here in the US, has so much myth and mystery surrounding him. It has been difficult to sort out which is which and what is truth.  In part, this is due to the fact that several books have been published with varying levels of accuracy, and once in print, each one is treated as gospel.  It also has to do with the fact that Michael Miller was not exactly an uncommon name, and scrutiny has proven that there were often two or three in the same location.  Lastly, he lived on several frontiers, left no will and like many Brethren, eschewed anything to do with government, including registering marriages and deeds.  Yep, a genealogist’s nightmare.

In order to sort through all of the pieces, I made a timeline that encompasses all of the events and alleged events of Michael Miller’s life. I also included the people around him, like his wife’s family and anything else I could find that seemed relevant.  For example, the Miller family is consistently found with the Cripe/Greib, Ullery/Ullrich, Stutzman and Berchtol/Bechtol families.  Sometimes tracking those and other known Brethren families is the only way to track Michael.

Michael’s timeline reached 64 pages and it’s really not complete.  However, at some point, one must put the stake in the ground and decide that it’s either now or never.  And, it’s now.  So here we go!

Johann Michael Mueller (the second,) the son of Johann Michael Mueller (the first) and Irene Charitas whose surname is unknown, was born October 5, 1692 in Steinwenden, Germany.  In 1996, our cousin, the Reverend Richard Miller visited Steinwenden where he took the photo of the old house and door, above, surely a familiar sight to Johann Michael during his lifetime.  Buildings that we consider quite old here are still in their prime in the old country.  Richard was given several documents, including a copy of Johann Michael Mueller’s birth entry in the Reformed church book, second from bottom, below.

I had this original document retranslated recently by a professional German genealogist to be sure there wasn’t some wonderful tidbit that had been omitted. Johann Michael’s parents were Michael and Irene from Steinwend.  The godparents were Johann Michael Schuhmacher, Balthasar Jolage, Christina, Hans Berchtold’s (?) wife from Schrodback or berg.  The translator noted that she could not find a village by that name.  As you can see, this translation was difficult at best.  The word is likely Crottelback or Krottelback, where the Berchtol’s were known to live.

On January 4, 1714 in Krottelbach, Germany, Johann Michael Mueller (the second) married Susanna Agnes Berchtol, “a Swiss,” who was born May 3, 1688, the daughter of Hans Berchtol who died in 1711 and Anna Christina whose last name is unknown. Their first child was baptized in 1715 in the same church where they were married.

The Steinwenden Reformed records begin in 1684, but the Konken records begin in 1654, so perhaps more information awaits in those records, once they are translated and indexed in some location so that you can find entries without reading the entire church book – or better stated – paying someone else to read the entire church book.

Were these families already interrelated before they moved from Switzerland to Germany in the 1680s? The families were living in relatively close proximity by 1686 when Hans Bechtol witnessed the baptism of Johnann Michael Mueller’s child in Steinwenden.  In 1711, Hans Berchtol’s death is recorded in Konken, but indicates that he lives in Krottelbach.  Krottelbach, shown below, isn’t terribly distant from Konken and Steinwenden.

The next record we find for Michael indicates a much more substantial move, if this record is for our Michael Mueller.

Michael Muller born in Steinweiler, Oberamt Lautern became a citizen at Lambsheim on June 4, 1721, according to Heinrich Rembe, a well-known German genealogist.

If this is our Michael, then clearly Susanna would have been with him. They would have been married 7 years by this time and probably had about 3 children.

I do question if this Michael is ours, because Steinwenden, Konken and Krottelbach are in close proximity, but Lambsheim is not and is about 131 km from Krottelbach where they married a few years earlier.

In any event, by 1727, Johann Michael Miller and his wife and children were indeed moving again, boarding a ship in Rotterdam. They arrived in Philadelphia on the ship Adventure on October 2 where Michael, along with the rest of the men from the Palatine had to sign an oath of allegiance.

The Brethren

The beginnings of the Brethren faith as we know it today began with 8 people who formed prayer groups in 1708. Led by Alexander Mack, they adopted the doctrine that infant baptism does not save your soul, and that adults must be re-baptized when they are old enough to accept Christianity.  This stood in opposition to the established religions of Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed, and caused the Brethren to become persecuted as their teachings became more in conflict with the established churches.  Furthermore, they adopted the “peace at all costs” doctrine that prevented the men from fighting, even to protect themselves or their families.

Eventually they fled both Switzerland and Germany and joined the Mennonites in Holland, but the Mennonites wanted the Brethren to adopt their beliefs, and instead, the fledgling Brethren immigrated to America beginning in 1719 with more arriving in 1727. Having been exiled in Friesland for 9 years, 59 more families, 126 people total, arrived in 1729.  After that, the sect died out in Europe.

It is unclear whether Johann Michael Miller was Brethren at this time, as his first child born in 1715 was baptized Reformed in Konken. However, he was indeed involved in some capacity, as he was among the Brethren immigrants who arrived in Philadelphia on October 2, 1727 on the ship Adventure from Rotterdam (shown above), last from Plymouth, England. Several books claim that Johann Michael Mueller was accompanied by Jacob Berchtol, his wife’s brother, Jacob Stutzman, his step-brother, and Hans Jacob Stutzman, his step-mother’s second husband.  However, Ralph Beaver Strassburger, in 1892, transcribed the lists of Pennsylvania German Pioneers who arrived and took the oath of allegiance between 1727 and 1775.  These books were later edited and republished by William John Hinke.  Taking the oath of allegiance wasn’t an option.  If you wanted to live in Pennsylvania and you were a German male 16 or over, you took the oath.  Period.

I checked in Volume I of their book, Pennsylvania German Pioneers and on page 10, the only name given is Mich’ Miller.

Neither is there any Stutzman or similarly spelled surname listed in the index. However, Johann Jacob Stutzman surely did immigrate, because we do find him here.  He could have immigrated before 1727 when the oaths were required.

However, referencing this same book on Ancestry.com shows us a different list.

As you can see, the list above does not include Johann Jacob Stutzman, but the list below, on the following page, does. What this does tell us is that there appear to be multiple Michael Mueller/Miller immigrants.  But then, that’s consistent with finding multiple Michael Millers in Pennsylvania and Maryland.

This book has clearly been changed in its multiple printings. Furthermore, the original Volume II had original signatures, but the current Volume II has only the lists from 1785-1808.  Today, a third volume exists titled “Pennsylvania German Pioneers, Facsimile Signatures, 1727-1775 that complements volumes I and II.

The older references still refer to page numbers in Volume II as holding the actual signatures, resulting in me ordering the wrong book and having a devil of a time trying to figure out what I really needed to order. Extremely frustrating, to say the least, not to mention wasted money as well.  I could have bought a DNA test for what this actual scan of Michael’s signature cost me.  However, this is the only copy of Michael’s signature known to exist, with one possible exception I have not been able to track down.

Michael’s name is first on the list, but there is also another Miller, two Ullerich or Ulrick’s and Johann Jacob Stutzman, near the bottom of the list. This list is noted as List 4B where the earlier list without Jacob Stutzman is noted as 4A.  Why there were two lists for the same ship is unexplained.  Michael’s signature is shown below.

Miller, of course, is a very common name, but Ullerich and Stutzman, much less so.

Some descendants report that Johann Michael Miller and his wife, Susanna Berchtol brought either 7 or 10 children with them. Again, there is no direct evidence of this.  We know based on indirect birth years that they brought at least three, and there certainly could have been more,  but it would be unusual for all of a couple’s children to survive infancy.  I would like to see whatever documentation exists for these claims.

Jacob Stutzman turns out to be an important milestone when tracking Michael Miller. While there are multiple Michael Millers, Jacob Stutzman is rather a unique name.  Jacob was younger than Michael by 14 years, being born in 1706.  Jacob Stutzman was the son of Johann Michael Mueller’s step-mother and her second husband whom she married after the death of Johann Michael Mueller’s father.  Despite their difference in age, these two men were obviously close.

Jacob Stutzman was a charter member of the Little Conewago Church along with Jacob Cripe and Stephen Ulrich. Michael Miller, as he was called in Pennsylvania, is not among the founding members listed, but his association with these families and the fact that he lived in the area is what has prompted speculation that Michael was indeed a member at Little Conewago.

Jacob Stutzman died in 1773, two years after Michael Miller’s death, and Jacob’s widow married Stephen Ulrich (the second.) Michael Miller’s grandson would marry Elizabeth Ulrich, daughter of Stephen Ulrich (the second) and his first wife, Elizabeth Cripe.  These families formed a bond that lasts into the current generations.

Ironically, sailing on the same ship with Johann Michael Mueller was one Johannas Ulrich and a Christo Ulrick. The Ullrich/Ullery family was also Brethren and settled first in York Co, PA and then in Frederick Co., MD.

It’s unclear when Johann Michael Mueller and his wife “converted,” to the Brethren faith per se. The only thing we know for sure is that in 1715, their first child was baptized Reformed.  The next we know, Johann Michael Mueller is found among the Brethren in Pennsylvania.  In 1744 he is mentioned in letters written by Brethren leaders.  It’s likely that he had at least developed some Anabaptist sympathies prior to arrival, given the families origins in Switzerland.

In the Pennsylvania Archives Second Series, Vol II reprinted under the directionof Charles Warren Stone and edited by John B. Linn and William H. Egle, MD, we find an undated record wherein “the persons hereafter named, called Quakers and other Protestants who conscientiously scruple to take an oath….took the affirmation and made and repeated the Declaration…..an act for naturalizing such foreign Protestants and others”….that includes the names of both Michael Miller and Philip Jacob Miller along with Jacob Stutzman and Stephen Ulrick as a bonus.  Obviously a group of men from Frederick County went to Philadelphia together.

This would have been after 1747 when Philip Jacob would have turned 21.  Obviously there were clearly Pietist by this time, either Brethren or Mennonite.  Michael Miller’s wife’s family, the Berchtols were Mennonites in the US and Michael co-owned land with Samuel Bechtol in York County.

We may find a further hint as to how or why Michael Miller became Brethren in a letter written by Johann Philip Boehn, the founder of the Reformed faith in Pennsylvania. In a letter dated March 27, 1744 he says “since the founding of our churches here, there have been many people who though they were of Reformed antecedents, kept aloof, because there were no Reformed church services here, and they joined no religion or sect, because they were of the opinion that our cause could not be maintained in this country, principally because of our inability to support ministers.  They are now, within the last few years, scattered here and there, mostly among Mennonites, Tumplers (Dunkers), 7^th Day as well as 8^th Day (German Baptists) and such like.”

As one minister phrased religion on the frontier, “They joined the church of opportunity.” Perhaps it wasn’t exactly what they wanted, but they preferred worshipping to not worshipping.

The Brethren at this time were an open, inviting faith, so it would not be unusual for non-Brethren families to convert.

York County, Pennsylvania

The family settled, at least temporarily, in Chester County, PA, possibly the portion that became Lancaster in 1729.  Michael moved to near Hanover in York Co, PA in 1744, then to Frederick Co., MD about 1752.  York County was taken from Lancaster in 1749, so in reality, Michael may not have moved as much as it appears.  The borders may have, to some extent, moved over him, although the land he inhabited in York County was not settled in the early 1730s, so he would have clearly had to have moved to settle there.  We can’t tell for sure where he moved from, or how far, because we don’t know where he lived in Chester County which was originally a very large founding county.

It would be in York County, PA that Johann Michael Mueller and Susanna Bechtol would raise their family, at least for a while. The battles of boundaries in that part of the country drove the entire group of Brethren south into Maryland.  It appears that Susanna most likely died before the group moved to Maryland.  Michael moved on alone and married a Brethren widow, Elizabeth Garber.  But first, in York County, Michael would find himself smack dab in the middle of a war – something very uncomfortable for a Brethren.

The Pennsylvania-Maryland Border War

“Cresapwarmap” by Kmusser – self-made, based primarily on the description at http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate/psu.ph/1129771136/body/pdf. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Commons

The earliest records of what is now Adams County, PA are found in what was then Chester Co., PA. which successively changed to Lancaster Co. (14 Oct. 1728), to York Co. (on 14 Oct.1748) and to Adams Co., PA in 1800.

And it wasn’t just counties that changed, but the state line itself was in dispute between Pennsylvania and Maryland, as was the actual land ownership – meaning that the Indians still felt they owned at least the frontier and borderlands, exactly where the Brethren families were living.

Ironically, the Brethren and Mennonite pietists who eschewed all forms of conflict wound up in the center of a heated battle.

Both Maryland and Pennsylvania claimed the land where Hanover in York County lay. Initially the Pennsylvania government complained when Marylanders settled this area, but since no one else except the Indians were complaining, nothing was done until 1728 when Pennsylvania ran the settlers off and burned their homes.  By 1732, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia were all three competing for settlers on the frontier to stabilize the region and provide a buffer between the settled portions and the “savages.”

In 1732, Pennsylvania began giving out “licenses” to settle west of the Susquehanna with the idea that the licenses could later be turned into warrants when the colony actually bought the land from the Indians. In essence, they were encouraging people to become squatters.  No wonder the Indians were unhappy.

Between 1733 and 1736, 52 licenses were issued, mostly to German families. Presumably some went to the group who settled in the Conewego area in York County where the Ulrich and Cripe families were living at that time.

Maryland still claimed this land and by 1730, things were getting ugly. Maryland granted the same land, much of it to Thomas Cresap, a very early pioneer and Indian trader. Some paint him as an aggressive villain who terrorized the region, some as a hero who saved the day.  One thing is for sure, he became the spokesperson for the German community, joined the Brethren Church, and ultimately bought the land Michael Miller would purchase from him called Miller’s Choice on Antietam Creek near Hagerstown, MD.  This is probably a good indication about how Michael felt about Cresap.

However in the 1730s, local warfare ensued with both Maryland and Pennsylvania jailing people. At one point, Cresap got thrown off of his own ferry mid-river, but survived.  In 1734, Cresap shot a Pennsylvania sheriff’s ranger who came to arrest him.  Some settlers returned back east at this point, having had enough – but turning back never seemed to be an option for the Brethren who also wouldn’t fight.  I struggle to understand these choices and their logic.  Maybe it was a very simple faith in God.

As militias on both sides became involved, the frustrated Brethren and German settlers must have become quite desperate because in 1736 they sent a resolution to the Governors of both states pledging their loyalty. However, when the duplicate loyalty was discovered, Governor Oglethorpe of Maryland offered rewards for the apprehension and arrest of nearly 40 men.  John Wright was apparently the ringleader, because the bounty on his head was 40 pounds.  However, Michael Miller was included but his bounty, and that of most of the other men, was only 2 pounds.  We don’t know if this was the Michael Miller of the Ulrich, Cripe group, but it could have been.  Cripe and Ulrich were certainly there by 1738, but Michael may have still been living in Chester Co., PA.  His tax records don’t begin in the York County area until 1744.  However, he could have had an adult son, Michael (the third,) by this time.

Pennsylvania did purchase the land from the Indians in 1736, land warrants were issued in 1738 – but given the uncertainty about who owned what and which state the land would actually fall into, it was no wonder nothing much was done.

Eventually, we find our Brethren families in the records, but things really didn’t improve. In fact, this battle wasn’t settled for another 30 years with the running of the Mason-Dixon line, which, ironically cut right through Brethren land – even after they had finally had enough and left York County in Pennsylvania for Frederick County across the border in Maryland.

On February 16, 1742, Lancaster County, PA issued land warrants 7-U and 8-U for Stephen Ulrick, Junr. to take up lands west of the Susquehanna. He staked out adjoining tracts in what was then a dense wilderness on Little Conewago Creek on land adjoining that of his father. We know that Stephen lived there as early as 1738 when he is listed as a founder of Little Conewago Church.  This land later became York County which later became Adams County.

These families had been embroiled in this entire mess the whole time.

The outlines of tracts A and B are based on an official survey, patent and deed records. Stephen’s land was described as adjoining his father’s tract.

Stephen Ulrich (the second) was a German Baptist minister, and believed to be the son of the immigrant Stephan Ulrich (the first.) About 1740, Stephen the second married Elizabeth Cripe.

It is believed that during the time Stephen Ulrich lived in what was Lancaster, then York County, he and his friend Jacob Stutzman organized the Conewago Congregation of the German Baptist in Conewago Twp. near Hanover PA, now in Adams County, probably on or near his land.

Stephen Ulrich sold the above-mentioned land to his friend Jacob Stutzman. This transaction is described in John Hale Stutzman’s book, “Jacob Stutzman, His Children and Grandchildren”. Unhappily for us, these two devout Dunkers, under the strictures of their church doctrine, avoided engagement with government authorities and did not record the deed of sale. Heaven perhaps for the Dunkers but Hell for the genealogist.

We only know about this sale because of the subsequent sale by Jacob Stutzman to George Wine.

Yes, Stephen Ulrich the first and Stephen Ulrich the second both had warrants for land near Digges Choice in Lancaster, then York, now Adams County. Hanover, York County, PA was at the center of Digges Choice, which was laid out about 1739 the first time. John Digges owned the land that eventually became Hanover, PA.

See Lancaster Co, PA Land Warrant #7, February 16, 1742 for 100 acres for Stephen Ulrick Junior; also Lancaster Warrant # 10, November 21, 1743, to Stephen Ulrich Senior, land adjacent to George Wagoner. There is also a Lancaster Co. Warrant to Ansted Ulrick on November 4, 1743 for 200 acres in Lebanon Twp, Lancaster County.

In 1743, another battle broke out and Stephen Ulrich was certainly in the middle of it, although his name is not specifically recorded. We know he was, though, because of John Digges and an unnamed Mathias Ulrich, possibly his brother.

In 1743, the Germans send one Martin Updegraf to Annapolis to check on John Digges grant. It was found that Digges had sold some land he didn’t own, so he got a new grant from Maryland which included farms of 14 Germans whose land had been granted under warrant from Pennsylvania.  Both sides tried to intimidate the farmers.  The Pennsylvania surveyor warned them against violating royal orders.  Mathias Ulrich apparently told the sheriff “to go to the devil,” an action very out of character for a Brethren and remarkable enough that it was recorded.  Eventually, the situation escalated further and Digges son was killed but Pennsylvania would not surrender the killers to Maryland to be tried.  It was clearly one hot mess on the frontier, and petitions and requests for help went unheard and unanswered by those back east who cared little if a bunch of Germans killed each other.

The Brethren tried to stick it out for a few more years, but in 1745, Michael Miller began buying land in Frederick County, MD, near present day Hagerstown and not long thereafter, the entire group would sell out and remove themselves to what they hoped would be a more peaceful and secure, undisputed area.

The final straw, perhaps, came in 1748 when the sheriffs from both states insisted on collecting quit rent, which in this case, was in essence extortion money for being left alone. A 1748 deposition complaining to the governor said that “a great number of the Germans and some others were so much alarmed by the sheriffs’ proceedings that several of them have already left the province and others have declaired they would go.”  The German families held land authorized by Pennsylvania, but they would leave and go to Maryland.

“Stephen Ullery” appears in the official records of York Co. in 1749 in the Little Conewago area. But in the early 1750’s after selling their land to Jacob Stutzman, Stephen and his wife migrated southwest to the Conococheaque Valley and by 1754 had acquired a large tract of land in the present Washington Co. Maryland, where they spent the rest of their lives.

However all was not tranquil on Conococheaque. Within three years of their assuming this new property, the French and Indians smashed General Braddock’s column a few miles to the west and set the frontier aflame. In 1756 Gov. Sharpe of Maryland wrote “The fine settlement of Conococheaque is quite deserted.”

I have to wonder. Did they long for the days back in Germany?

Moving On

Lancaster and York County seemed perfect, but these families could not live with constant warfare. As much as they loved their new home, they began to cast their eyes elsewhere.

A typical farm in York County, below, looks much like Lancaster County. Soft, rolling, beautiful and fertile.

“York County PA” by I, Skabat169. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Common

Today, many Amish and Mennonite families are found in this area, still using horse-drawn implements, much as their ancestors did.

“Lancaster County Field and Farm Implement 3264px” by Photo by and (c)2006 Derek Ramsey (Ram-Man) – Self-photographed. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Commons

To put things in perspective, the first road in Pennsylvania, from Philadelphia to Lancaster, was authorized in 1731 in answer to a petition from settlers, and it took ten years to complete. It’s very likely that Michael Miller traversed this road, or at least parts of it.  In 1739, a second road, to Monocacy in what is now Frederick Co., Maryland was begun.  It’s certain that Michael Miller would have used this road in 1745 and access to the frontier via the road may be part of the reason the Brethren wound up in Frederick County.  In 1745, the road didn’t extend to what would one day be Hagerstown, so Michael Miller would have made his way by Indian trails to the remote homestead of John Hager, an Indian trader who patented 100 acres in 1729, and then Michael would have gone a bit further, perhaps with John as his guide, to find land.

John Hager’s home, built about 1740, is a museum in Hagerstown today. Michael Miller was assuredly in this homestead.  It’s actually incredible that it still exists.

Frederick County, Maryland

It appears that the entire Brethren congregation from Hanover moved in 1752 to Frederick County, MD, en masse. Michael Miller had apparently been doing reconnaissance work, because he began buying land there in 1745.  It was also in 1752 that he gave two of his sons a significant piece of land in Frederick County, and it was likely then that everyone moved, together.  There would have been a convoy of Conestoga wagons, if the road was finished and wide enough for a wagon to pass, with livestock and people walking.  Wagons of that timeframe did not have brakes and the wheels were chained going down slopes.  Rivers and creeks had to be forded or ferries taken.  These pioneers were pressing the frontier, forging a new way – not taking the road well-traveled.

The part of Frederick County, MD that became Washington County, near present day Hagerstown, is a beautiful land of rolling, fertile farmland, punctuated by curving roads and distant hills.

After the wanderings of this sect in Europe, this land must have seemed like Heaven. They Brethren believed they were in Maryland, safely away from the border warfare.  This idyllic land is where Michael finally settled and amassed quite a bit of property.

Unfortunately, Johann Michael Mueller did not leave a will, and we have to deduce the names of his children from other transactions in his life. Specifically, he deeded land to 3 men believed to be his sons.  There are at least 4 other Miller males in the right place at the right time to be his sons, plus several females as well who may be daughters.  With the advent of DNA testing for genealogy, we may one day resolve the question of sons, but we may never know which women, if any, were his daughters.

The Maugans family lived nearby in the cabin (above) from the same time period. They would intermarry with the Millers in the following generations.  The original Miller cabin was from the same place and time and was probably very similar.  Both the Maugan’s cabin and John Hager’s cabin were built directly over springs, probably as a security precaution relative to fetching water and not having to leave the house if it was under attack.

Johann Michael Mueller suffered through the French and Indian war, likely vacating his land at least once if not twice. He died not long before the Revolutionary War began, which also introduced a dark period for the Brethren who were torn between their love for their new county and their religious beliefs.

Michael’s son, Philip Jacob Miller would eventually leave the beautiful valley in Frederick County and join the westward movement.  Michael’s son Lodowick would join the flow of settlers into Appalachia and settle in Rockingham County, Virginia.  Son Michael Jr., we lose entirely, and son John stayed in Maryland and died on his father’s original land.  This is such a typical story of the American immigrant’s children.  Some stayed, some left in different directions, and some are lost to time.

References

Let’s take a look at the timeline of events in Johann Michael Mueller’s life and see what tidbits we can recover. Before we start, there were several sources for this information and I have listed each one with the surname of the source.  Other sources are noted individually.

Replogle – “Ancestors on the Frontier: Miller, Cripe, Ulrich, Replogle, Shively, Metzger” by Justin Replogle, self-published in 1998

Mason – “The Michael Miller and Susanna Bechtol Family Record” compiled in 1993 by Floyd R. and Catherine Mason, now deceased

Miller – “A History and Genealogy of David Y. Miller 1809-1898” by Gene Edwin Miller, self-published

Stutesman – “Jacob Stutzman (?-1775); His Children and Grandchildren” by John Hale Stutesman, Jr.

These 4 books plus two websites, Troy Goss’s Miller home page and Tom and Kathleen Miller’s pages are the primary resources for Johann Michael Mueller.

Suffice it to say that they don’t all agree – and in fact some contradict each other. So I’ve gone through each and compiled the information I found credible by evaluating the sources, where possible.  Where doubt remains or work needs to be done, I have said so.

Timeline

Michael arrived in Philadelphia in 1727 and the first actual record we find of him after that is in 1732 in Chester County, PA where he is paying taxes. Other Brethren are there as well.

Note that a second record shows another Michael Mueller arriving on a ship in 1732, and we really have nothing at all to determine whether our Michael was the Michael arriving in 1727 or 1732. Based on the information that his step-brother was along on the 1727 ship, the assumption has always been that the 1727 Michael is ours, but we don’t positively know.  I compared the 1727 and 1732 signatures, and they are not the same, so it’s not a matter of Michael going back to Germany and returning in 1732.  Regardless, Michael was here, in Chester County, by 1732. It’s unlikely that the Michael who arrived in Philadelphia on a ship on September 23, 1732 managed to travel to Chester County, settle and pay taxes before the end of the year. It looks like there were at least two Michael Mueller’s who immigrated.  Given Jacob Stutzman’s presence and the 1732 tax list, I would say that our Michael is the 1727 immigrant.

However, the ambiguity between multiple Michael Millers in the colonies begins almost immediately.

In the 1730s, Maryland and Pennsylvania fight over the Hanover area of Lancaster County, current York County, with both volleying for position, the confrontation escalating and becoming increasingly violent. In 1736 the governor of Maryland offered a reward for the apprehension of about 40 people.  On that list, with the reward at the low end at 2 pounds, was one Michael Miller.  Other Brethren were in York County by 1734, but there is the matter of the tax records in Chester County, PA from 1732 to 1740 where Michael is listed.  Michael could have been an absentee taxpayer in Chester Co., although it’s more likely that we have two Michael Millers involved.  One of the Michael’s could be the son of the immigrant.  It’s unlikely that a Brethren would be involved in a political dispute.  They were more inclined to avoid trouble if possible, at all costs, than to participate.

Pennsylvania did not purchase the disputed land from the Indians until 1736 and did not issue any land grants until 1738. This dispute and boundary was not settled until the Mason-Dixon line of 1767.

1732-1740 – Michael Miller pays taxes in Coventry Township, Chester Co, PA. There were German Baptist Brethren (ChB) churches in Coventry Township, Chester Co., PA and in Manheim Twp., York Co, PA. Miller p 12

1737 – In Coventry Twp. in Chester Co, PA, Feb 15, 1737, warrant #50, vacated in 1748, Michael Miller obtains the warrant next to Thomas Miller and Thomas Perry for 200 acres. In 1748 the warrant was vacated in favor of Adam Harkman and John Wyatt.  Miller P 23

1737 – Michael Miller on the Coventry Twp tax list, Chester Co PA. Miller p 13

1737 – Nicholas Carver (Garber) on the Coventry Twp tax list, Chester Co, Pa. Miller p 14

1737 – If the following is “our” Michael Miller, he was having this Chester Co. land surveyed in 1737 according to this 1758 document.

Land Transaction Caveats (1748-61): Chester County, PA

Feb 17, 1758

John Wells enters a caveat against Thomas Miller, or any person claiming under him, obtaining any survey or confirmation of land adjoining northward by land of said Miller, eastward by land of s’d Wells & southward by land of Christian Perry, in Coventry Township, Chester County, which Thomas Miller pretends to claim under an old warrant of 500 as. granted to him about the year 1717 which has been executed and the land regularly return’d into the Survey’r General’s Office, the above-mentioned land has been since surveyed to Mich’l Miller by warr’t of the 15th Feb’y, 1737, which is now vested in s’d J. Wells.  Page 222.

It would be very interesting if Miller descendants of this Thomas Miller took the Y DNA test to see if Thomas Miller was related to Michael Miller. Based on these land transactions, these men seem to be somehow connected – although this may not be our Michael Miller.  The name Thomas never appears in our Michael’s line.

1738 – Jacob Stutzman, Jacob Cripe and Stephen Ulrich listed as charter members of the Little Conewago Church in York Co, PA, indicating they were Brethren by this time. Replogle p 19 and 31

Some think that Michael Miller and some of his sons were members at Little Conewago and the Antietam congregations. Elder Nicholas Martin, the elder of the churches in the area where they lived, reports on the health of Michael Miller and Jacob Stutsman in his letters to Alexander Mack, Jr.  We understand when Nicholas Martin was naturalized in 1762 that Michael Miller and Jacob Miller were witnesses.  It was this Nicholas Martin who gave the year of death for Michael Miller as 1771.  Mason p 10

If Michael Miller and Jacob Stutzman were not Brethren, Alexander Mack would not be discussing them in such familiar terms.

1739 – Michael Miller on the Coventry Twp. tax list, Chester Co, Pa. Miller p 14

1740 – Michael Miller on the Coventry Twp. tax list, Chester Co., Pa.   There is no record of him on the tax lists there after 1740.  It is believed that Michael Miller moved west from Chester Co, PA in the early 1740s.

1743 – Travel west would have been on a route called the Monocacy Road which was established in 1733. The road was the major route passing through Lancaster County, York County and crossing the Susquehanna River at Wright’s Ferry or Wrightsville, traveling along what is now US Hwy 30.  After leaving Wright’s Ferry, it headed southwest through what is now York County, through Hanover and down into Maryland to the Hagerstown area. Miller P 14

Before the road, the other side of the Susquehanna River was only Indian trails. Replogle page 82

1744 – Nicholas Martin comments on Michael Miller’s health in a letter to Alexander Mack Jr. Replogle p 31

This probably establishes Michael Miller as a Brethren by this point in time.

1744 – On Feb 7^th Michael Miller, Nicholas Garber and Samuel Bechtol, Hans Jacob and Elizabeth Bechtol, who also lived in Chester Co, PA purchased a tract of land consisting of 400 aces northeast of Hanover, PA in York Co.  See circle #12 on the PA map, below, in the upper right hand corner.  Today this land is near Bair’s Mennonite Church, perhaps lying south from the church.  Mason p 14 and 20

This land, shown in circle 12, above, was near Little Conewago Chuch.

Floyd Mason included this legend to his maps with circles.

Gene Miller overlaid the York County land on an 1876 map.

Today, the York Road Cemetery also known as the Bair’s Meeting House Cemetery is located on the York County land owned by these three men. Bair’s Meeting House wasn’t established until in 1774, but burials could have been taking place on this land earlier.  I have noted the location of the cemetery and meeting house on the map above with the red arrow.

Note that both the Bechtel and Miller names are found in this region on the 1876 Heidelberg Township map, more than 140 years later. However, the Miller surname is extremely common and there may be no connection with the earlier Michael Miller family.

Samuel Bechtol and Michael Miller obtained 150 acres, leaving 100 acres for Nicholas Garber. Michael sold his 150 acres to Samuel Bechtol in 1752 and we cannot identify what happened to the 100 acres of Nicholas Garber.  It was after Nicholas Garbers’ death in 1748 that Michael Miller sold his land to Samuel Bechtol.  Michael Miller married Nicholas Garber’s widow.  We suspect that he also sold Nicholas Garber’s 100 acres of land to Samuel Bechtol.  Samuel Bechtol was one of the administrators of the will of Nicholas Garber and Susanna Bechtol was (reportedly) Samuel’s aunt.  Mason p 12, Replogle 91

Miller only shows three people bought the land, Michael Miller, Nicholas Carver and Samuel Backall, omitting Hans Jacob and Elizabeth Bechtol.  Batchelors Choice consisted of 400 acres which had been owned by John Stinchcomb. The property was rectangular and was located about 2 miles east of Hanover and was bounded on the west by Gitts Run, on the south by portions of route 116 and on the north by the Pigeon Hills.  The land was located on the outside of the east edge of Digges Tract.  This could have been some of the disputed land in question.

Here’s is a satellite view of this same area today, with the red balloon marking Jacob’s Mills, shown on the map above.

It is believed that these three families were related in some way. Nicholas Garber/Carver has been theorized to be a son-in-law of Michael Miller.  Others have suggested that some of Michael’s daughters married some of Nicholas’s sons.  Obviously, both of these scenarios can’t be true, or Michael’s younger children would have been marrying the children of their older sibling.

Other settlers associated with these three families also lived in the area. Jacob Stutsman and Stephen Ulrich lived to the southwest of Hanover.  Peter and John Welty, Michael Bigler, lived to the south of Hanover: Catharine the daughter of Michael Bigler became the second wife of the Dunker leader Daniel Leatherman. To the north of Hanover near East Berlin was the immigrant Jacob Cripe (1743), Hans Ulrich Wagner (1743) and George Adam Martin (1749).  Miller p 14

This map shows the proximity of the Cripe family to the Miller, Bechtol and Garber families.

1745 – On May 14, 1745, Michael Miller buys a land warrant for either 150 or 200 acres (reported as both in two different sources) acres called Ash Swamp in Frederick Co MD for 200 pounds from John George Arnold. Replogle p 31, Miller page 20

It was then in Prince George County and now is Washington Co., PA. Liber BB 362-363.  Miller P 20

This is the land that in 1752 Michael has resurveyed and deeds it to 3 his sons John, Philip Jacob and Lodowick. See circle 3, below, drawn by Floyd Mason, P 14 and 32.

The map below shows the migration pattern beginning in Chester County, PA, through York County, PA and then to Frederick Co., MD.

1748 – The land dispute in York County, PA got much worse. In a letter to the governor asking for assistance it says that “many of the Germans have gone already and the rest say they will.”  Replogle 92

1748 – Frederick Co. Maryland comes into existence.

1748 – Nicholas Garber dies and his will is probated in Lancaster Co, PA, Book Y, Vol 2, p 123. This part of Lancaster becomes York the following year.  By 1754 Michael Miller has married his widow.  Mason P 12

1749 – Michael Miller buys 36 acres in Frederick Co, MD called “Miller’s Fancy.”  Both pieces of his land are very close to present day Hagerstown, which wasn’t there at the time.  Replogle p 31

Replogle suggests that perhaps Michael didn’t actually move, but stayed back in Hanover and eventually gave the land to his sons John and Philip Jacob.

Michael had Miller’s Fancy resurveyed. He lived there until his death in 1771.  In 1765 it was deeded to John Riffe, husband of Michael’s step-daughter.  See Circle 4 – Mason P 14

I’m not at all certain Mason’s circle 4 is in the correct location. I believe Miller’s Fancy is located south of Hagerstown on the convergence of Antietam and Little Antietam Creeks.  Other researchers believe that Miller’s Fancy, Skipton on Craven and Well Taught are near Leitersburg, 5 or 6 miles due east of Maugansville.  Following the deeds forward (or backward from current) in time would resolve this question.

1749 – Land surveyed in 1749 and granted in 1754 located between Skipton on Craven and Resurvey of Well Taught, containing 36 acres called Miller’s Fancy. Mason P 20

Skipton on Craven is 280 acres, purchased in June 1749 for 220 pounds. Wash Co., MD. Miller p 23

1749 – York Co, PA is formed from Lancaster. Hanover is located in York County.  Part of the Hanover area was split off in 1800 to Adams Co.  There are two Michael Millers and no Rochette family. Michael’s son, Philip Jacob Miller supposedly married a Magdalena Rochette about 1751, but you can’t marry someone if their family isn’t present in the community.

There are two Michael Miller wills in York County in both 1784 and in 1796, so this means that there were at least 3 Michael Millers in York County, if all three were there at the same time. Headache!!!

1749 – Most land at this time was not improved, but Stephen Ulrich’s may be the exception. The 235 acre piece he bought from Hans Waggoner in Frederick County may have been improved.  The other 200 went to Walter Fonderbag.   One of these men received “One dwelling house 20 feet by 16 made of hew’d logs and covered with lap shingles, a stone chimney, one dwelling house 27 feet by 22 of hwe’d logs and covered with lapp shingles, planked above and below, a stone chimney, a new barn of hew’d logs covered with lapp shingles, 49 feet by 27, 69 apple trees, 72 peach trees and 6 acres of cultivated land well fenced.”  Replogle p 100 from the Stutesman book p 10-11

Replogle contrasts this land to Hager’s “2 sorry houses” and then mentions that by 1756, the Indians had probably burned these wooden structures.

True to form, in the faming community where I grew up, the barn was twice as big as the house.

1750 – Several Brethren families felt it necessary to move further west where it was safer, including the Shively, Ulrich and Cripe families. Replogle p 19

1750s – Around this time in the development of Maryland, tobacco had been the crop of importance followed by Indian corn. This usually was cultivated by the plantation’s negroes. However, in the newly developing western Maryland, the German settlers profited from the rich deep soil to raise large quantities of flax and other grains, disdaining the tobacco culture as well as slavery.  The flax was hackled and the women would spin and weave it at home into very stout linen, making also threads of different colors that found a ready market.  The seed was packed in the huge country wagons of the day and sent to Baltimore and Philadelphia.

Trade for the settlers of this day was in Baltimore. The western Maryland settlers produced goods that were needed in the eastern part of the province.  The Germans learned to make linen goods, tow (rope), thread; they knitted long yarn stockings; they tanned their leather and made horse-collars and harness; they prepared honey, firkined butter, dried apples and applebutter.  These were marketed in Baltimore which depended on the interior for their supplies.  In return, the settler purchased materials essential to survival on the frontier, namely salt, lead and gunpowder.

The early settlers typically lived for a number of years in a “log cabin.” It had large garret roots (attic) and generally a deep cellar.  The bedrooms were simply furnished.  The painted bedsteads were supplied with straw beds and ‘feather decks” for covering.  There were the barrels of sauerkraut and salt lead and apple butter in the cellar.  Each farm usually had an abundant apple orchard and rows of cherry trees, and there were plenty of home-brewed drinks in the cellar besides cider.  The frontier settlers had a diet that included pone and milk (cornbread usually made without milk or eggs), mush and milk, in wooden dishes, hominy and “cider-pap” (small hominy boiled in cider) with fat bacon fried, and “calcified” with molasses. Miller p 21

When I grew up, 200+ years later, many of those items were still being eaten by the descendants of these same German families, in particular, fried mush with molasses or maple syrup.

1751 – On October 26, 1751, Michael’s son Philip Jacob had taken over the warrant and enlarged the tract Ash Swamp to 290 acres. It was surveyed on April 25, 1752 and a patent issued on November 17, 1753.  His brother John also farmed a portion of the property or about 140 acres.

This land is very near Maugansville. These resurveys were key to finding these properties today.  Gene Miller went to a great deal of trouble to fit the pieces of the Miller and neighboring surveys together.

1751 – Michael’s son, Philip Jacob Miller marries Magdalena whose last name is said to be Rochette, but is unproven. The marriage year is based on the year of first child’s birth.  If this is the case, then Philip may have married her in Hanover, York Co., PA, not Frederick Co., MD.  This marriage could be why Michael gave Philip Jacob land when he did.

Replogle states from two sources that the early Brethren were very strict about not marrying outside of the faith. If this is true, then surely someplace there is a Rochette as a Brethren or Magdalena is not a Rochette.  She is more likely from within the Brethren church.  What I wouldn’t give for a membership list of Little Conewago Church in 1750.

1751 – Michael’s son, Lodowich Miller buys Tom’s Chance and sells it in 1755 to Peter Tysher, located today in what is Washington Co., MD, located adjacent to Ash Swamp, including the Salem Reformed Church on Salem Church road.  Land books B p 429 and E p 945

1752 – Road from Wrightsville to Monocacy, near Frederick, MD today. Likely the road Michael Miller took when he moved from PA to MD.  This road went right through Conewago country.  In 1752, the entire Brethren community went down this road to Frederick Co., MD.  Conestoga wagons were used on this road.  The road from Frederick to Antietam Creek was very rudimentary, later becoming the National Road.  Replogle 56-57

1752 – It is believed that Michael Miller moved to the Hagerstown area about 1752 because on March 7, 1752 he sold his portion of Batchelor’s Choice in York County, purchased in 1744, 150 acres, to Samuel Becktel for 220 pounds (York Co. Deed Bk C 445-446). Samuel Becktel probably continued to live on his farm until his death, sometime prior to March 31, 1767.  Miller p 4, 20 and 23

In 1876, on the Heidelberg Township map, there are still two listings of S. Bechtel living on this land.

1752 – About this time Michael Miller moved to Frederick Co., living on Miller’s Fancy at the junction of Antietam Creek and Little Antietam Creek and lived there the rest of his life.  His wife Susan Bechtol had recently died and he sold his Hanover land to his late wife’s relative John Bechtol.  Replogle p 31

We have no evidence to suggest that when Susan actually died, other than it was prior to 1754 when Michael has remarried.

1752 – Michael Miller deeds Philip Jacob and John Miller half of Ash Swamp each. Philip Jacob lives there most of his life. Replogle p 33

This is believed to be the first record of Philip Jacob Miller – although there was an undated records that could have been earlier. By 1752 he would have been 26 years old.

Michael Miller bought the plantation Ash Swamp from John George Arnold in 1745, had it resurveyed to his 3 sons, John, Philip Jacob and Lodowich in 1752. They conveyed it to each other so that soon thereafter John owned the portion to the north and Philip Jacob the part to the south.  Lodowich bought an adjoining farm to the southwest, “Tom’s Chance.”  Miller P 15

1752 – Tired of the Maryland/Pennsylvania border feud that had lasted for 15 years, the entire Brethren community sold their land in Hanover Co., PA (today current Adams Co.) and moved to Frederick Co., MD. Where they established 4 new churches. Replogle 97

This area is still heavily Brethren and Mennonite today.

1753 – Michael Miller bought 409 acres. Replogle

1753 or 1754 – Johann Michael Miller marries Elizabeth Garber, the widow of his neighbor Nicholas Garber. Replogle p 31

1754 – We have no death date for Susanna Bechtol, the first wife of Michael Miller, but an administrative record in the orphan’s court of York Co., PA states that in 1754 Elizabeth Garber, the widow of Nicholas is now the wife of Michael Miller and that he is administrating the accounts for the will. (Book A – 1749-1762, page 47, York Co, Pa Dec. 10, 1754)

We believe Susanna died about 1752 at the time that Michael had land “Ash Swamp” in Maryland resurveyed for the 3 sons, John, Philip Jacob and Lodowich. This explains why there was no wife’s signature and perhaps why the land was divided at that time. Mason p 12

1755 – 676-677 – Michael Miller recorded a deed March 20, 1755 made March 17, 1755 between George Pow of Frederick Co. and Michael Miller for 36 pounds current money, confirms unto him, 2 tracts called part of the “Resurvey on Well Taught, in Frederick County; 1^st parcel containing 292 acres and the other tract, containing 117 acres.  Signed George Pow, before William Webb and Thomas Prather.  Catherine wife of the said George Pow, released dower right.

Frederick County Maryland Land Records Liber B Abstracts 1748-1752 by Patricia Abelard Andersen, p 59.

1755 – Michael Miller obtains a grant for Miller’s Fancy in March, 36 ac. Washington Co. MD,  Miller P 23

For the next ten years, Michael filed no deeds. It’s likely the area was abandoned for part of this time given the Indian uprisings.

1754 – All of the Indians disappear from Frederick County. French negotiators have been wooing them.  This is the beginning of the French and Indian War.

1755 – General Braddock’s expedition leaves Cumberland County, MD on May 29^th.  Braddock met with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin in Frederick County, Maryland.  Braddock had recently arrived from England and had just begun his march toward Fort Duquesne.

At the end of their conference, half of Braddock’s army moved west on the north side of the Potomac and somewhere crossed Antietam Creek. It’s not known just where, but it could not have been far from “Miller’s Fancy” and may been right across it.  Replogle 32

Johann Michael Miller lived near the Upper Antietam bridge, which would have been a ford at that point.

Justin Replogle, on page 104 and 105 gives significant detail, but in summary, the troops pass, if you draw a straight line between Frederick and Conococheague, no more than a mile or so from Michael Miller’s farm. Miller’s Fancy is only about 2 miles north of the Potomac and the troops had to pass between the river and the farm.  With 2000-3000 men or more, you know that the Miller family was not unaffected by this.  Watching a British Army in red coats in June march through the woods and on Indian trails must have been quite a spectacle.

I wonder if Michael realized he was watching history unfold.

Braddock’s men may have camped in this area as well because they took a day to build a bridge over Antietam Creek. The photo below shows a portion of Braddock’s road still visible today near Fort Necessity.  Braddock’s troops often opened or expanded the road as they went to a width that allowed wagons to pass.

Imagine seeing all of those red coats in the woods on or near your land, and wondering what the future would bring.

Michael had to wonder how this was any different than what happened in the 30 Years War in Europe that devastated the countryside. Did he ever question his decision to leave Germany?

Michael Miller wasn’t the only person to see the redcoats. Braddock’s troops also crossed the Potomac at Conochocheague, so Stephen Ulrich and Jacob Stutzman probably saw them as well.  These men watched history unfold, having absolutely no idea of the dire consequences that would follow.

Braddock had been warned about the Indian’s ambush style of warfare Benjamin Franklin called “ambuscade,” but Braddock poopooed that information, stating that they would make no impression upon his finely trained troops. He was wrong, in fact, he was dead wrong.

Braddock was defeated, badly, as the Indians on further up the trail ambushed the brigade. Braddock himself was killed.  Raids on settlements and settlers began immediately and within days reports say that upwards of 100 settlers had fled their homes, 50 had been killed or captured and 27 houses had been burned.  On the Maryland-Pennsylvania border in the “two coves”, just west of Hagerstown, 47 people had been killed or captured.  Now the entire western frontier lay unprotected.  Replogle 105-106

Braddock’s disastrous defeat in November set off Indian attacks along the whole frontier and Stephen Ulrich almost certainly abandoned his farm and fled east, along with the entire community. He apparently came back. Replogle p 17

From 1755 to 1757, Alfred James writes, “Raid after raid from Fort Duquesne hit pioneer settlements along the Susquehanna and the Potomac.” It was unending and relentless.  Another reports that “Frederick, Winchester and Carlisle became the new frontiers of the colony” and “Many even fled to Baltimore,” and “some to Virginia.”  Arthur Quinn writes that families went as far east as Bethlehem “where there was no more room in the inns, or the shops or even the cellars.”  Nead writes, “Terror and desolation reigned everywhere.” Repogle 106

Where was Johann Michael Miller and his family during this time? His children would likely all have been adults, with families of their own.  Given Susanna Bechtol’s birth in 1688, their last child was probably born no later than 1733, so clearly an adult by 1754 or 1755.  Susanna had died by this time, so Michael had his new wife and both sets of their children to worry about.  Did they all escape or remove to locations further east?  Together?  Separately?  In an orderly fashion?  In a panic?  What happened?

In April of 1756, Elisha Shaltor wrote, “I found the people in the greatest confusion, the troops abandoning the forts and the country people in the greatest consternation.”

The year 1756 seems to have been the worst for the Conococheague community.

On April 25, 1756, “Forty-one persons deserted their cabins and clearing near Conococheague and came to Baltimore. Their houses were destroyed and their cattle killed.”  Two days earlier, Thomas Cresap, Jr. had been killed and fighting had occurred between Hanover and Bedford.  No place was safe.  Not where they moved from.  Not where they moved to.  Apparently no place except the eastern seaboard cities.  Worse yet, in those cities, no one seemed to care.

Maryland and Pennsylvania legislatures were reluctant to do anything. The frontier was far from the cities and the Quakers hesitated to advocate violence.

Finally, in 1756, Maryland authorized a fort in the Conocheague area which would become Fort Frederick, about 15 miles away. That was far too little and way too late.  If anything it incensed the Indians.  The Indians easily captured this small isolated fort and killed all the settlers they encountered along the way, for good measure.

On October 25 Indians arrived with 20 scalps from the town of Conococheague. The list of the dead hints at the constant terror.

October 25 – John Loomis, wife and 3 small children
October 28 – Jacob Miller wife and 6 children
October 30 – George Falke, house, mill, barn, 20 cattle, 4 horses, wife, 9 children cut into pieces and fed to the pigs. A trader scalped, roasted alive, eaten.

The Conococheague residents tried to protect themselves at first, but then, they gave up and fled back east. The only Brethren name on the militia lists was George Butterbaugh, and Replogle suggests that he may not have been Brethren yet at that time.  All of this was taking place in the area where the Ulrichs, Cripes and Millers lived.

Those who were willing to fight must have been terribly frustrated and felt endangered by the Brethren who were not. They were surely looked upon as a burden to the rest of the community.  Did the Brethren truly watch their families slaughtered and do nothing?  It’s difficult to believe that basic human instincts didn’t kick in.

Most settlers fled east from Monocacy. George Washington received a report in the summer of 1756 that “350 wagons had passed that place to avoid the enemy within the space of 3 days” and by August the report was that “The whole settlement of Conococheague in Maryland is fled, and there now remain only two families from thence to Fredericktown…..”

Surely that included Michael Miller and the rest of the Brethren families. The Indians were reported within 30 miles of Baltimore.  Frederick is 47 miles from Baltimore.

Furthermore Washington said, “That the Maryland settlements are all abandoned…is a certain fact.”

Where did the Brethren families go? Who did they stay with?  What did they do?  And for how long?

In July 1756, the commander at Fort Duquesne said that he had “succeeded in ruining the three adjacent provinces, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, driving off the inhabitants and totally destroying the settlements over a tract of country over 30 leagues wide…the Indian villages are full of prisoners of every age and sex.”

In 1757, “the frontier settlements were abandoned over a wide area.”

And so life continued, land abandoned, the residents living who knows where, but assuredly with Brethren families or congregations back east, throughout 1756, 1757 and into 1758.

1758 – General Harris extends a road from Harrisburg, PA to Fort Duquesne on the Ohio River (Pittsburg.) Highway 30 follows this road most of the way today. Replogle 55

Forbes went from Cumberland to Bedford and had hundreds of men working on the road. By August 1758, 1400 men had extended the road to Bedford, just wide enough to get a wagon through.  A contemporary writer said it took 8 days to travel from Bedford to Ligonier, a distance of about 45 miles.  This tactic succeeded.  General John Forbes took Fort Duquesne, now Pittsburg, the French abandoned it, and ended the French and Indian War on November 25, 1758.  Indian attacks diminished and by 1762, the French had given up Canada.  Replogle 107-108, 110

The area was never really in jeopardy of Indians regaining control, but it was in real jeopardy of French control. The French, like the English, were using the Indians by making promises.  Were it not for Forbes, we might all be speaking French today.

When did the settlers return to this area? They likely had to rebuild from scratch.  As difficult as this must have been, they obviously did and we have absolutely nothing in our family history reflecting this extremely difficult time.  You would think there would be stories…something…but there is nothing.

We don’t know where our Brethren families lived during this time, what happened, who died, when they returned, how, or what they faced. Were their homes all burned?  Was anything left?  Did they start over again?  What happened?

There is no hint.  Brethren were never whiners.  There are no tales of woe.  The only hint is when transactions resume.  For Michael Miller, that was in 1761 when he again began purchasing land, if that Michael was our Michael, or in 1762 when taxes were again being paid in Frederick County.

Michael, by this time, was an old man, 69 years old, and assuredly tired. In particular, tired of conflict and warfare.  I’m sure he simply wanted to sit on the porch of his children’s home and look over a peaceful vista – one with no Indians, soldiers or war-like sheriffs.

One small item of significance – during the war, a small fort was built at Raystown, which would eventually become Bedford, a location that would, in 1770, become quite important to the Brethren. It was indeed the next frontier and two of Michael Miller’s grandsons through his son Philip Jacob would find themselves in Bedford County, PA.

1760 – One Michael Miller was Constable of Upper Antietam Hundred. This causes me to wonder how a Brethren can be a constable if they won’t take an oath.

The Brethren shunned anything legal. They did not marry by obtaining a license.  I don’t think they would have registered their deeds if there was any way they could have avoided it.  Many times, they simply didn’t.

For instance, on February 14, 1776, Alexander Mack Jr., the son of the founder of the Brethren faith writes in a letter that he is shunning his daughter, Sarah, because “she married outside of the brotherhood” and secondly “because the marriage was performed with a license and third because her husband had not quite completed his apprenticeship.” Shunning in the Brethren world was ostrification and the results of that could be far more severe then than now.  Protection and assistance, for example, came from the group, generally a family group, that you were a member of.  Sarah must have been one very brave young lady or blindly in love.

1761 – Michael Miller purchases Deceit in May, 108 ac for 50 lbs. Washington Co. MD  Miller p 23

1761 – Michael Miller recorded a mortgage on May 6, 1761 made March 26, 1761 between Joseph Perry of Frederick Co. for 50 pcm (Pennyslvania Current Money) mortgaging a tract called “Deceit” on a branch of Antietam near the place that George Fairbush formerly lived on, containing 108 acres. Signed Jos Perry before Mos Chapline, Peter Bainbridge.  Receipt ack, AF and duty pd.  Frederick Co. Maryland Land Records, Liber F Abstracts, 1756-1761 p 124 by Patricia Abelard Anderson (Note – I did not extract all Miller records, just first names in which we are interested.)

Given that none of the other names are Brethren, I wonder if this is a different Michael Miller, perhaps the one that was a constable.

1762 – When Nicholas Martin was naturalized in Pennsylvania in 1762,  Michael Miller and Jacob Miller were witnesses. It was this Nicholas Martin who gave the year of death for Michael Miller as 1771.  Mason p 10 (Note that Michael’s signature would be on this document if the original still exists.)

This might suggest to us that Michael spent his time in exile in Pennsylvania and not in Maryland. Of course, he might simply have traveled to Maryland to testify for Nicholas Martin.

1762-1763 – In Frederick Co., MD, Michael Miller paid taxes on more than 700 acres, Michael Miller Jr. on 80 acres and Hans Michael Miller on more than 2000 acres. Replogle 117 quoting from Mason

1762-1763

To separate the three Michael Millers, Michael Miller Sr., Michael Miller Jr. and Hans Michael Miller, we use the information that is recorded in the Land Tax records at Annapolis MD in the archives. This is what was found:

Michael Miller Sr. 1762 and 1763
Skipton of Craven – 100 ac
Miller’s Fancy – 36 ac
Skipton of Craven – 180 ac
Resurvey of Well Taught – 409 ac

Michael Miller Jr. 1762 and 1763
Miller’s Chance – 50 ac – 1762 the same land
Blindman’s Choice – 50 ac – 1763 to 1772
(Most years Miller’s Choice was called Blindman’s Choice)

Hans Michael Miller – 1772
In addition to land in Antrim Twp, Franklin Co, Pa and New Creek, now Mineral Co, WV as given in his will, he paid taxes in 1772 in Frederick Co., MD on the following:
Resurvey of Nicholas Mistake – 1025 ac
Garden’s delight – 146 ac
Add Garden’s delight – 28 ac
Plunket’s Doubt – 133 ac
Maiden’s Walk – 35 ac
Tonas Lott – 16 ac
Small Hope – 20 ac
Small Hope – 43 ac
Rocky Creek – 150 ac

For anyone tracking Hans Michael Miller, Franklin County, PA and Mineral County, WV would be good places to start.

Gene Miller found that Hans Michael Miller was given 1000 pounds by his father Michael Miller Sr. (died 1771) to purchase Pleasant Gardens. What he purchased may have been an earlier name for what he called Gardens Delight and Add Gardens Delight.  If it was this land, it was land that his 2 sons sold to Jacob Good and was located near the land, “Huckleberry Hall”, that Jacob Good bought from John Schnebly in 1787.  It was located near Maugansville, MD.  This land would go to the son-in-law and grandchildren of Elizabeth Garber, the step-mother of Hans Michael Miller, assuming he is the son of Michael Miller who died in 1771.  Jacob Good had remarried.  This is a connection between the 1^st set of Michael Millers Sr.’s children and his step-children.  Mason P 13

We did not follow the land records of Hans Michael Miller, but did follow the land records of Michael Miller Sr. (died 1771) and Jr., his presumed son.

We found that Michael Miller Sr. (the second, died 1771) paid taxes on his land and in his name for 1762 and 1763. He deeded all the land to his step-children in 1765.  After that he continued to pay taxes on 36 acres of Miller’s Fancy and 8 acres of Resurvey on Well Taught.  It’s this fact that causes researchers to believe this is where Michael actually lived.

1762 – John Hager began to lay out what would one day become Hagerstown, Maryland.

1763 – The surveyors started laying out the Mason-Dixon line and they got as far as Dunkard’s Creek where Indians stopped them. Replogle 114

A historical marker is located at Dunkard’s Creek in the Mason Dixon Historical Park where the creek crosses the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border about 150 miles west of Hagerstown.

1763 – In reference to Pontiac’s War (the Pontiac Conspiracy – which lasted until 1765) and the attacks on Fort Pitt, its inhabitants, and the destruction of Ligonier – David McClure says “the greater part of the Indian traders keep a squaw and some of them a white woman as a temporary wife. The people of Virginia…are different from those of the Presbyterians and the Germans.  They are much addicted to drinking parties, gambling, horse racing and fighting.”  These people were all residents of Fort Pitt, a total of 322 people.  Most people fled east once again and the Indians attacked as far west as Carlisle.

The Maryland Gazette, written at Frederick on July 19, 1763 said, “The melancholy scene of poor distressed families driving downwards through this town with their effects…enemies…now daily seen in the woods….panic of the back inhabitants, whose terrors at this time exceed what followed on the defeat of General Braddock.” Ironically it also reported that the season had been remarkably fine and the harvest the best for many years.  Once again, Frederick County put together two companies of militia and once again, no Brethren names appeared on the list.  Replogle 113 – 114

By 1763, Michael Miller was an old man, almost 72 years of age. Again, relations with the Indians deteriorated and they attacked in waves.  “The Cumberland Valley and frontier regions are deserted,” came the reports.  “Bands of raiding Indians spread over western Maryland” Nead says and on August 13, 1763 George Washington writes that once again, “no families remain above the Conococheague road, and many are gone from below it.  The harvests are, in a manner lost, and the distresses of the settlements are evident and manifold.”  Replogle 113/114

Two Brethren, Nicholas Martin and Stephen Ulrich are found attending the Great Council of the Brethren in Conestoga in 1763. Would they have left their family in Frederick County among the massacres, or does this imply that the group had once again moved back east, and this where in the east they had moved?

Looking at the map, this seems to be an important clue. It would appear that they had been evacuating in reverse settlement order.  Perhaps they first went to join the congregants of the church in Hanover, and finding that location unsafe, went on further back to their home church, Conewago, further east.

Conewago, in the book, “A History of the Church of the Brethren in Southern District Pennsylvania” is noted as being near current Ephrata, PA and also as being the current congregation of White Oak in Lancaster, County.

1765 – The 4 children of Nicholas and Elizabeth Garber were living in Frederick Co. MD before 1765. Nicholas’s will gives the names of two of them, Elizabeth and Samuel, and researchers have determined that the other two were Anna and Martin.

In 1765, Michael Miller is selling land, just like nothing happened, or perhaps the recent unrest is part of why he transferred the land when he did. In essence, he went on a huge deeding spree, deeding all of the land he owned, mostly to his step-children and their spouses.

1765 – Jacob Good recorded a deed on Oct. 28, 1765, made Oct. 25, 1765, between Michael Miller of Frederick Co. for 100 pounds current money, a parcel called Hamburgh, part of a Resurvey on Well Taught, metes and bounds given, containing 81 acres. Signed Michael Miller by mark M before Joseph Smith, James Smith, Elizabeth Miller wife of Michael released dower.  P 140-142  Frederick Co. MD Land Records Liber K Abstracts, 1765-1768 abstracted by Patricia Abelard Andersen p 15-16

Please note that this means that Elizabeth Garber, Michael’s second wife is still alive in 1765. There is significant confusion about Michael Miller administering the estate of her former husband, Nicholas Garber, and some researchers have construed that administration in 1754 to be the estate of Elizabeth, which it clearly is not.

1765 – Michael Miller sold the 409 acres of Well Taught to Jacob Good and John Riffe. He paid taxes on 8 acres of this 409 acres along with the 36 acres called Miller’s Fancy which has what has led some researchers to surmise that is where Michael actually lived.  Mason p 14

1765 – John Rife recorded a deed on Oct. 28, 1765, made Oct. 25, 1765 between Michael Miller of Frederick County for 200 pounds current money, a tract of land called Quarry, part of a resurvey on Well Taught patented to George Jacob Pow, metes & bounds given, 179 acres signed Michael Miller by mark M. Witnesses Joseph Smith, James Smith, receipt ack.  Elizabeth Miller released Dower.  P 166-167

1765 – Michael Miller sold in October 1765, 36 acres of Miller’s Fancy and 5 acres of Resurvey of Well Taught for 50 pounds. Wash Co., MD. Miller p 23.

This appears to be the 5 acres he paid tax on until he died, but he had already transferred the entire 36 acres to John Riffe, so this is somewhat confusing.

1765 – John Rife recorded a deed on Oct. 28, 1765, made Oct. 25, 1765 between Michael Miller for 50 pounds, a tract called Miller’s Fancy, metes and bounds given, 5 acres, signed Michael Miller by mark M. Witness Joseph Smith, James Smith.  Receipt ack.  Elizabeth wife of Michael released dower. P 175-176

1765 – Jacob Good recorded a deed on Oct. 28, 1765 made on Oct. 25, 1765 between Michael Miller of Frederick County for 300 pounds, a tract called Good’s Choice, part of Skipton and Craven, land whereon the said Jacob Good now lives, metes and bounds given, 163 acres, signed Michael Miller by mark M.  Wit Joseph Smith and James Smith, receipt acknowledged and dower released by Elizabeth Miller wife of Michael Miller. P 177-178 Wash Co Md.  Miller p 23

1765 – Jacob Good recorded a deed on Oct. 28, 1765 made on Oct. 25, 1765 between Michael Miller for 60 pounds tract called Luck, part of resurvey on Well Taught entered to George Pie. Metes and bounds given, 100 acres.  Signed Michael Miller by mark M.  Witnesses Joseph Smith, James Smith and Elizabeth Miller releases dower. P 179-180 Wash Co MD  Miller p 23

1765 – John Rife recorded a deed on Oct. 28, 1765 made on Oct. 25, 1765 between Michael Miller for 200 pounds, a tract called Rife’s Lot, part of Skipton and Craven whereon John Rife now lives, metes and bounds given, 117 acres. Witnesses Joseph Smith, James Smith and Elizabeth Miller release dower. P 185-186

Jacob Good and John Riffe were Michael Miller’s step-daughter’s husbands. Mason P 14

1765 – Michael Miller sold Michael Tanner 50 acres of “Miller’s Choice”.

1765 – Michael Miller had “Range” surveyed – 50 acres – grant. We believe that this is the 50 acres on Piney Creek that he sold in 1765 to Michael and Eve Tanner who deeded it to a son-in-law, John Storm. See circle 9.  Was Eve one of Michael Miller and Susanna Bechtol’s daughters that we have not discovered?  Mason P 14

Frederick Co. MD Land Records Liber K Abstracts, 1765-1768 abstracted by Patricia Abelard Andersen, p 18-19

1768 – The defeat of Pontiac triggers mass migration westward over the mountains. Replogle 20

1768 – November – the British government bought large tracts of land from the Iroquois and Pennsylvania now owns all the land west of the Alleghenies to the Ohio River except for the northernmost part of the colony, opening the doors for a huge migration. However, the Delaware and Shawnee were left out and the raids continued.  Replogle 115

1768-1769 – List of persons who stand charged with land on Frederick County rent rolls which are under such circumstances as renders it out of the power of George Scott Farmer to collect the rents and there claims allowance under his articles for the same from March 1768 to March 1769: (Note there are several pages of these, so much so that it looks like a tax list, not a roll of uncollectibles.)

No Cripe, Greib, Ullrich, Ullery or Stutzman
Conrad Miller
Isaac Miller
Jacob Miller Jr
John Miller
Lodwick Miller
Michael Miller heirs
Oliver Miller, Balt Co.
Oliver Miller, Balt Co additional
Thomas Miller

Inhabitants of Frederick Co. MD, Vol 1, 1750-1790 by Stefanie R. Shaffer, p 45

1770 – Michael Miller recorded on June 21, 1770 a deed made on the same date between he and Peter Apple/Apel for 50 pounds, a 20 acre tract of Small Hope. Signed in German script, Peter Apel before Charles Beatty, William Richey Receipt ack.  Alienation fine paid.  Please note that in 1772 Hans Michael Miller is paying tax on this land. P 154-155

Also note that in 1765 Johann Michael Miller was signing with an M, and this Michael Miller signs five years later in German script.

As best I can tell, the alienation fine was connected with selling the land privately away from the proprietor of Maryland. This is discussed on pages 33-35 of “The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Centuries, Volume 2” by Herbert Levi Osgood.

Frederick County Maryland Land Records Liber N Abstracts 1770-1772 Abstracted by Patricia Ableard Andersen p 24

1770 – Richard Richardson recorded June 25, 1770 made June 22 between Michael Miller for 40 pounds, sells 10 acres of tract called Small Hopes. Signed Michael Miller receipt acknowledged Pages 171-173

Frederick County Maryland Land Records Liber N Abstracts 1770-1772 Abstracted by Patricia Ableard Andersen, p 25

1771 – Michael Miller’s death is recorded by Nicholas Martin in a letter to Alexander Mack Jr. wherein he references the death of Michael Miller as a “year ago” which would be approximately May of 1771.

On May 24, 1772, when Nicholas Martin was presiding at Conecocheague, he wrote a lengthy letter to Alexander Mack, Jr., of which one paragraph reads:

“You will perhaps know that the dear Brother Michael Miller died a year ago. Brother Jacob Stutzman is again quite improved; he was very feeble this past winter.”

Michael Miller is references as “Brother” so there is absolutely no question that he died Brethren.

Elder Nicholas Martin was the ruling Church of the Brethren elder for this section of MD and PA and a friend of Alexander Mack Jr.  Alexander Mack Sr. was the founder of the Brethren Church and his son the leader after his father’s death.  In other letters he comments about the health of Michael Miller and Jacob Stutzman.  When Nicholas was naturalized in 1762, Michael Miller Sr. and his son Philip Jacob Miller were witnesses for him.  Nicholas’s farm called “Swamp of Experience” was adjoining Tom’s Chance and Ash Swamp.  Mason P 19

These men were clearly very close neighbors and friends. Nicholas Martin probably preached the funeral of his friend Michael Miller, in German of course.

1771 – Justin Replogle believes that Michael is probably buried on Miller’s Fancy. Replogle p 32

Floyd Mason believes Michael is buried on Ash Swamp.

We believe that Michael Miller was buried on his plantation where he lived or in the family cemetery on John Miller’s section of Ash Swamp. We believe he remained Lutheran or Reformed.  However he may have attended or joined the German Baptist Brethren.  Some records say that they lived and were buried at Conococheaque, Washington Co., MD near Hagerstown, MD.    Mason P 20

Gene Miller believes he is buried in the now-lost cemetery on John Miller’s part of Ash Swamp.

It is believed that Michael Miller is most likely buried in the private cemetery that was located on the John Miller portion of the Ash Swamp property. The 50 by 50 foot cemetery plot is apparently lost to history today as there is no record of it.  Miller 31

I don’t have a clue where he is buried, but if I had to guess, and I do, I would suggest it is more likely to be on his son’s property than elsewhere simply because that land is more likely to ‘remain in the family’ where the land of step-children is already outside of the blood-line family. It’s also likely that a cemetery on John Miller’s land had already been established as the “Miller cemetery” for this family.  It’s unlikely that there were no deaths between 1752 when Michael deeded this land to his sons and 1771 when Michael died.

1771 – Michael Miller dies and Ash Swamp is divided between Philip Jacob, John and Lodowich. 1000 pounds is given to Hans Michael to purchase Pleasant Gardens, Michael Jr. is given Blindman’s Choice.  Miller p 24

Note: I don’t find a deed giving Blindman’s Choice to Michael Jr.

From 1769 thru 1772 the tax on Michael’s land was paid by the heirs as seen on this tax books. There are some records that show that the tax was owed for several years and we believe that they did not get around to paying the tax until after Michael’s death in 1771.  Michael Miller Sr. (the second died in 1771) lived for years at the mouth of Little Antietam where it flows into the Antietam Creek.  Mason p 13

We found that after the death of Michael Miller Sr. (the second), in 1771, both Michael Miller Jr. (the third) and Hans Michael Miller were paying the tax in 1772 and succeeding years. Philip Jacob Miller was paying taxes on “Ash Swamp,” 290 acres and Lodowich Miller was paying taxes on land that he had bought near Taneyown, Md.  See Circle #7.  Mason P 14

The names of Michael Miller Jr. (the third) and Hans Michael Miller are confusing. Given that Michael Miller Sr.’s (d 1771) actual name was Johann Michael Mueller (Miller), and Hans is short for Johann, you would think that Michael Miller Jr. would be Hans Michael Miller Jr.  Both of these men cannot be sons of the Michael Miller who died in 1771.  However, one could be a son and one his grandson.  Further research into both Michael Miller Jr. (the third) and Hans Michael Miller would hopefully reveal additional information and in particular, about their age.  We know, for example, that Johann Michael Miller (the second’s) first child, a son, Johann Peter, was born in 1715.  If Johann Peter married when he was 20 and had a son when he was 21, whom he named after his father, that birth would have occurred about 1736.  That child, Johann Michael Miller, would have come of age about 1757.  Given that several grandchildren of Michael Miller could have been coming of age anytime after 1757, Hans Michael Miller could have belonged to any of the living or perhaps deceased male children of Johann Michael Miller the second who died in 1771.

I assembled the various land transactions of Michael Miller as shown below.

*Troy Goss refers to the John who was involved with the Ash Swamp land as John Peter. This is the only source I have seen referring to this John as John Peter Miller.  It would be very unusual for Johann Peter to be called John instead of Peter, since Johann was the first given name of most German male children.  The only person called Johann or John would be someone whose full name was Johannes Mueller.

In 1783, these men conveyed land back and forth. Troy shows deeds on Dec. 9, 1783 for 220 acres from Lodowich to Philip Jacob Miller for 5 shillings (Washington Co., Land records, Book C, pages 563-47).  On December 26, 1783, Philip Jacob Miller conveys 144 acres to John Peter Miller for 5 shillings “and brotherly affection.” Book C, pages 260-262.

To finish the story of Michael’s land in Frederick County, when John died in 1794, Frederick County had become Washington County. The family sold all of Michael’s land that both John and Philip Jacob had inherited to one John Schnebley.

Philips Jacob’s land, sold on September 25, 1795, included Keller’s Discovery for 11 acres, Prickley Ash Bottom for 11 acres and his part of the Resurvey of Ash Swamp for 143.5 acres, for 2,175 pounds. Liber I, page 360.

John’s land included his 143.5 acres of the Resurvey of Ash Swamp for 2,044 pounds. Liber I FF page 584.

It’s interesting to note that Michael paid 243 pounds for this land in 1745 that sold for a total of 4219 pounds in 1795, about 50 years later, for a profit of 576%. He was indeed an astute investor.

Philip Jacob Miller left and went to Kentucky in about 1796, a couple of years after his brother John died. Philip had witnessed his brother John’s will.  He likely sorely missed his brother who had been his neighbor and farming companion his entire life.  While we don’t have a will in Maryland for Philip Jacob, we do have John’s will which gives us a peek into their life on Ash Swamp.

The land was referenced as both meadow and swamp. It seems there was about 100 acres of woodland and the rest was swamp, meadow and cultivated land.  The woods are entirely gone today.

In John Miller’s estate inventory, we find

• A Bible – I have to wonder if this was his father’s Bible. If he was Johann Peter born in 1715, he was the eldest son, and this could well have been his father’s Bible if it survived all of the moves, warfare and indian raids.  I wonder what happened to this Bible.
• Hand tools such as saws, hammers, trowels, branding irons, knives, pinchers, shovels, chains, broad axes, a grubbing hoe, a rifle, a scythe, an anvil and a corn hoe. Obviously, the rifle was for hunting, not defense.
• Farm implements such as a tar bucket, a bushel basket, a wagon whip, a dutch oven, old flour barrels, a chisel, a compass, a dung fork, an auger, a barking iron, a shot gun, a wool wheel, tanners knives, stelyards, a harrow, a hay fork, plows, draw knives, mall rings, wedges, a windmill and sausage horn.
• Produce such as flower, a barrel of vinegar, stacks of hay, wheat, oats, rye, corn, flax, potatoes. Some produce was still in the field such as 8 acres of barley and wheat that was seeded.
• Farm animals including geese, turkeys, ducks, horses, cows, calves, bulls, sheep and hogs along with cured pork.
• Household items such as chairs, a tub, a bedstead, a table, dressers, chests, a dough tray, lamps, baskets, a kettle, a stove, weaving loom and spooling wheel, wool cards, knives and forks, pewter spoons, a kitchen cabinet and shelves. It’s interesting that there is only one bedstead.

Philip Jacob’s farm would probably have been quite similar, as would Michael’s before them at his death in 1771, although Michael may have had significantly less because he had to start over so many times when war drove him out and the Indians likely burned his homes. I wonder how many homes he lost in that manner.  I’m betting at least two.

Michael and his son’s lives were filled with uncertainty in a way we find difficult to relate to today.

“For the first fifty years the Brethren suffered many privations on account of the French war in 1755, the Revolution 20 years later, and subsequent Indian wars together with many inconveniences incident to a newly settled country, as our part of the state was at that time. The dread of the Indian’s tomahawk and scalping knife, was everywhere felt. In the morning before going to the fields to work, the farmer and his sons often bid good-bye to the balance of the family, fearing they might not return, or if permitted to do so, would find their loved ones murdered by the Indians.” (From The Brethren Almanac 1879.)

That simple paragraph probably pretty much sums up the daily life of Johann Michael Miller’s life. Always wary, always on the frontier, always in some amount of jeopardy.  However, his faith sustained him and he managed to survive, as did many of his children, either because of or in spite of his Brethren faith and non-violent ways.

The Brethren Almanac goes on to report, “Under the guiding hand of their first resident Elder, Wm. Stover, the congregation worshipped in houses. Brother Jacob Miller was elected to the ministry, and in 1765 moved to Virginia.”

This is the genesis of the legend that Jacob Miller is the son of Michael Miller – a legend we will disprove.

Visiting Michael’s Land in Frederick (now Washington) County, MD

In October of 2015, I was able to visit Hagerstown, Maryland, located in Washington, County, the part formerly Frederick County. More specifically, I was able to locate Johann Michael Miller’s land, Ash Swamp, that he may have lived on and that he left to his sons, in particular, John and Philip Jacob, my ancestor.

Johann Michael Miller owned land just outside of and now partly within Maugansville, Maryland.

Gene Miller, in his book, assembled the surveys into a conglomerate. If Gene is right about where the cemetery was located, it may well be under the subdivision today, and if not, perhaps our ancestors are sleeping peacefully under some corn.

On this map, Michael’s land encompasses most of the land between Cearfoss Pike (58), Gardenville Road and Maugansville Road including Rush Run.

Here is the satellite view of that area.

The grey balloon is the old working farm that remains.

Arriving in the area from Cearfoss, approaching Michael’s farm, you notice the lovely clean farms. As I’ve been working my way north this week from Richmond, VA, I’ve noticed how much these farms resemble the Pennsylvania, Lancaster County, type of farms and buildings.  That makes sense, since the people who settled here were a group of Germans that had previously lived in that area.

The land to the south of Cearfoss Pike was also Michaels. His son, Lodowick also bought a significant amount of land here.

There is a more contemporary home very near to the road. This structure is not old enough to have been here when Michael owned this land.

However, this farm that sits back could have been the original farm and house, or at least the location of the original buildings. This would have been John’s portion of the farm.

The house sits quite a ways back from the road, and I did not want to disturb the current day owners, so I took photos from a distance.

Based on the maps of this region from the 1850s through about 1900, this farm does not appear to have existed at that time, so it’s not the original farm house, as I had hoped.

Fortunately, Grace Academy purchased Michael’s land and built in the middle of the field, behind the homes on 58 and also behind the homes in the development off of Garden View and Maugansville Road.

The map above shows the original farm to the upper left, Grace Academy to the lower left, the property today owned by the car collector is to the far right and the arrow just slightly left of that is Ashton Hall. Johann Michael Mueller owned most of this land.

You can see the land overlayed on this scan from page 30 of the Miller book.

This 1859 Taggert plat map of Washington County shows homestead locations.

It appears that the old farmhouse on Cearfoss Pike is on the Daniel Zeter land but it’s not showing as a homestead. Daniel Zeter’s actual homestead is north of Michael Miller’s property, although it looks like there was a road leading to his house over Michael’s property.  It could also have changed in the years since the 1770s or even the 1790s.  It appears that the M. Horst and John Horst properties are the car collector perhaps and Ashton Hall.

The 1877 atlas, above clearly shows the Zeller residence. If that is where John’s farm was located, it’s likely under the subdivision today.  Philip Jacob’s land is likely where the Horst farms were located.

The 1879 map is very similar.

The Ashton Hall history confirms we have the correct land with the following:

In 1838, the farm was sold to John Horst, of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, to settle the estate of John Schnebly. In 1865, Horst sold part of the farm to his son Samuel, …reserving that part of the dwelling house on the north side of the passage from the cellar to the garrett with privilege of using the entries and stairs for passing and repassing with free access to any of the springs and one third part of the garden… according to the deed. Samuel and his bride resided in the upstairs ballroom area, and an enclosed stairway was added just inside the kitchen door for access. In 1885, Lesher Horst, son of Samuel and Lydia Horst, built his own brick home on their portion of Ashton Hall. This property was later to become known as the Miller Asparagus Farm. Fanny Horst married Michael Martin and in 1899, the Martin family purchased the farm and continued their lineage at Ashton Hall. These were Mennonite families who continued to farm the land until 1989, 183 years. Orville Martin was the last steward of Schnebley’s fertile lands.

Ashton Hall has evolved into a community. John Schnebley’s estate has been subdivided with single-family dwellings converging over half the designated meadow, at this time. A church, a private school (kindergarten through twelfth grade), two smaller farms, and a soccer complex are on the perimeter acreage. In the midst of this, sits a quiet reminder of another way of life altogether.

The Grace Academy location, the private school mentioned above, provided wonderful access to photograph Michael’s land and the farm to the west. Most of this land was Michael’s.  You can see what wonderful farming land it would have been, especially given the reminder of the mountains within sight to the west.  These are the Blue Ridge and are maybe 8 or 10 miles distant.

My husband and I had a picnic lunch of bagels with cream cheese and left over pizza in the Grace Academy parking lot. It was fun to break bread on Michael’s land, some 244 years after he passed from this earth.  He probably took food from his knapsack and did the same thing in 1745 when he scouted this land.  I’m sure it looks dramatically different, 275 years later, but still, I returned and ate where Michael assuredly did as well.  None of this land would have been cleared at that time, so Michael would not have been able to see the mountains in the distance.  We’re looking at the results of Michael’s work and that of his sons John and Philip Jacob Miller.

Michael’s land to the left of the photo above.

Michael’s land to the right of the farm before the subdivision.  The subdivision was his land too.

A closer look at the farm.

And the mountains.  Did Michael ever dream of crossing these mountains?  Or was Michael done with dreaming of new frontiers?  His son, Philip Jacob not only dreamed of crossing these mountains, he did, at age 70 or so.

The farm from Garden View Road, from the back side, across the north part of Michael’s land. This sky is stunning.

Thankfully Michael had his land resurveyed, because this is the only record we actually have of who received the land and where it lay.

There are however, two other properties of significant interest. On the map, below the grey balloon marks the location of 13318 Maugansville Road.

Just below this location we find 13220 Maugansville Road, which is Ashton Hall. These two locations are quite historic.

Here is a closer view of the two together.

Michael’s son, Philip Jacob would have built a house on this land. These two properties are candidates for that home.  Ashton Hall is actually on Rush Run, which would have been the water source for both.  However, we know that the current building at this location was built in 1801 because the history of Ashton Hall has been researched.  We don’t know if Ashton Hall was built on the location where Philip Jacob’s house had been.

In 1795, John Schnebly purchased 146 and 1/2 acres of land, parts of land grants Keller’s Discovery, Prickly Ash Bottom and Resurvey on Ash Swamp for the sum of …two thousand one hundred and seventy-five pounds five shillings current money. John Schnebly named his property Ashton Hall and, in 1801, built the stone house near Maugansville.

This does, however, confirm that part of this land was indeed Resurvey on Ash Swamp, Michael’s land.

This property, below, just north of Ashton Hall was visited in the 1970s by other Miller researchers when it was Miller Farm Market. The owners at that time believed that while the house was probably not old enough to be from that timeframe, some of the other buildings were.

There didn’t seem to be anyone home, so I pulled into the driveway, snapped a few quick shots and left.

An automobile collector lives here today. This could have been the location of the original Philip Jacob Miller homestead.

This begs the question of where Michael and his first wife, Susan Berchtol, are buried. The answer is that we don’t know.

Susan could have died near Hanover, PA before Michael migrated to Maryland, but it is uncertain.

However, it’s a safe bet is that Michael is buried either here or on his land on the Antietam, Miller’s Fancy. We know that someplace here on his own property is a 50 foot by 50 foot cemetery, found on John Miller’s portion, lost to time and probably being plowed or under houses.  Michael’s son John owned this land when he died as well, so he is probably buried here too.  If one of the houses in the subdivision is haunted, well, I guess we know why!

In the Mason book, Floyd mentions that they visited the Hagerstown area in 1990. He includes a photograph of a property he believes may be one of the old Miller locations.  I originally thought it was the car collector’s property above, but after looking again, I don’t think it is.

I “drove” this area again using Google maps street view, and I saw nothing at all similar, so I’m presuming that this property is gone today, in October 2015, or it really is the same property I visited owned by the car collector. It has been 25 years since Floyd Mason took these photos, and it was an old property at that time.  If it was as old as Mason thought, it would be very difficult to maintain.  There are several new structures in the area and the couple that owns Ashton Halls has reported a lot of development.

The balance of Michael’s Resurvey of Ash Swamp is either a contemporary subdivision, or farmland surrounding Ashton Hall, which you can’t see from the road. Rush Creek crosses this property and by driving into the entrance of the soccer club, beside the Academy, you can see somewhat of the land east of the Academy, west of Maugansville Road and north of Cearfoss Pike.  This is on the western part of Philip Jacob Miller’s portion of Ash Swamp.

The picture above is looking north. The one below looking east.  Ashton Hall would be behind those trees about half a mile as the crow flies.  The car collector’s property may be slightly visible in the distance just beyond the row of trees.

I find it very vexing, after all of the real estate transactions Michael Miller was involved with that we still don’t really know where he lived when he died. We know that he deeded all of his land before his death, so he was clearly living with one of his children (or step-children) or at least on land owned by them.

When visiting, I didn’t make the side trip to Antietam and Little Antietam Creek because with all of Michael Miller’s activities on or near Cearfoss Pike, I really didn’t think that he would be living south of Hagerstown. I was probably wrong, and of course, now I wish I had taken that side trip.

Michael did own that land and he could have been living on Miller’s Fancy. In the deed where he conveys the Skipton on Craven land to his step children’s spouses, Jacob Good and John Rife, the deeds say “the land where they now live” indicating that it’s where they live, not where Michael lives.  But Michael continues to pay the taxes on part of the land he sold to his step-children’s spouses.  He had to live someplace.  Is that tax money his “rent” for the rest of his life?

Mason believes that Michael lived on 36 acres of Miller’s Fancy and 8 acres of Well Taught. That doesn’t seem like enough land to support a family, but then again, maybe Michael didn’t need to support a family anymore.

In general terms, the area where Michael Miller’s land lay on the Antietam Creeks was near Sharpsburg, Maryland.

One of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War was fought here. This iconic image of the Battle of Antietam where the Confederate and Union dead lie together in front of the Brethren Church has become symbolic of the war itself. This battle was found on the land of the descendants of Michael Miller.

The intersection of Antietam and Little Antietam Creek is on Keedysville Road.

A closer look at the intersection of Antietam and Little Antietam

This is the bridge over Little Antietam Creek.

Looking at Little Antietam from the bridge.

If the description of where Michael Miller lived is accurate, he lived on the curve where Antietam Creek intersects with Little Antietam, below.

This is the curve where Little Antietam intersects with Antietam. Antietam is on the left.

This barn is actually on the curve with the river slightly visible behind the barn. Was this where Michael’s barn stood?  Was this Michael’s barn?  It’s certainly in the right location.

This is the bridge over Antietam Creek.

Of course, Floyd Miller believes that Michael’s land was northeast of Hagerstown and Maugansville, as shown on his map with circle #4. Perhaps one day a future generation of Miller researchers will run the deeds backwards and forward in time and resolve this mystery once and for all.  If we’re extremely lucky, an old cemetery will be discovered on one of these parcels.

Michael’s Children

Because Michael did not have a will, we only know of three or four children positively, and a possible fifth. The rest of the individuals attributed to Michael elsewhere are speculation.  If someone does have other children and documentation for such, I would love to add that child.  I have not included any speculative children below.

• Hans (probably Johann) Peter Mueller, baptized on January 19, 1715, at Konken, Germany. We don’t know if this child lived to adulthood. If so, he would probably have married when the family was living in Chester Co, PA. He may be John Miller below.
• Lodowich Miller born 1724 or earlier in Germany. Migrated with his parents and lived in or near Hanover, PA and Hagerstown, MD before marrying Barbara, surname unknown, and migrating to Rockingham Co., VA about 1782 where he likely died in 1792.
• Philip Jacob Miller born about 1726 in Germany. Migrated with his parents and lived near Hanover, York Co., PA. Inherited land from his father in present day Washington County, MD near Maugensville. Married Magdalena, probably in York County, who was reported to be a Rochette. He remained in Frederick County until 1796 when he, along with his children, migrated to Campbell County, KY where he died in 1799.
• John Miller inherits part of Ash Swamp from Michael in 1765 and lived there until he died in 1795, likely being buried on his own land on a 50 by 50 foot cemetery plot, now lost to time. He may be Hans Peter Mueller born in 1715.
• Hans Michael Miller is given money to purchase land.
• Michael Miller Junior is given land.

There exists some confusion between John Miller and Johann Peter Miller. In some cases, John, who inherited part of Ash Swamp is referenced as Johann Peter.  If this is the case, then we know that Johann Peter did live and what happened to him.  However, it also means that it reduces the number of children we know about.

Various researchers attribute Michael and Susanna with anyplace from 7 to 12 children. Given that they were married for 17 childbearing years, they would probably have had between 9 and 12 children.  It’s unlikely that their children all lived.

It seems that any male with the surname Miller living in the region gets attached as a son. Miller is an extremely common occupation name in Germany.  After all, every village had at least one miller, so there are lots of German Millers.

It’s certainly possible that the Jacob Miller and family who were massacred were Michael’s son and grandchildren, but we don’t know and we have no real evidence to suspect – other than the surname in the same place and time.

There is a Barbara who marries a Garber who is often credited with being Johann Michael Mueller’s daughter – and while she might be – there is no evidence that she is – not even land transactions. It would be interesting to see if any of Barbara’s descendants match any of Michael’s descendants utilizing autosomal DNA – assuming they share no other lines.  Given the level of endogamy in the Brethren community, that’s a tough criteria to meet – assuming you do know the surnames of all of the females.  Since the Brethren didn’t register their marriages in the counties where they lived, females surnames are particularly troublesome and elusive.

It’s almost assured that Johann Michael Miller and Susanna Agnes Bechtol had additional children. Whether those children lived to adulthood is uncertain.  It’s even uncertain that Hans Michael Miller, above is Michael’s child, especially given the fact that we also have a Michael Miller Jr. involved.  One of these men is probably a grandchild.

It’s ironic that we know more about Michael’s step-children through land transactions where he sells them land than we know about his own children, aside from Philip Jacob, Lodowich and John.

But there is one thing we do know, and it solves a very long and somewhat contentious mystery.

Jacob is Not Michael’s Child

Jacob Miller has been quite a conundrum. Jacob was born about 1735 in Pennsylvania, was a Brethren minister, lived in Frederick County and then moved to Virginia in about 1765.  He eventually moved on to Kentucky.  Eventually, Jacob is found in Montgomery County, Ohio, outside Dayton, when the county was first forming, again with our Miller family.  In fact, Daniel, Michael Miller’s grandson through Philip Jacob Miller buys land from Jacob Miller when Daniel first arrives in Montgomery County.  It has been assumed or postulated for a very long time that Jacob Miller is a son of Michael Miller, but he isn’t. Y DNA testing has shown that these Miller families do not share a common male ancestor.

One of the goals of establishing the Miller-Brethren project in 2009 was to sort through the various Miller individuals associated with the Brethren church as it expanded across America.

It took quite some time to establish the Y DNA signature of Johann Michael Miller. The first two men who believed they were descended from him did not match each other, so we needed to proceed with individuals with well documented genealogy.  Fortunately, we managed to recruit several Miller men and today, we have a total of 6 Miller males who descend from Michael.

In the screen shot above, the Jacob Miller line is lavender.  You can see that it differs significantly from the Johann Michael Miller line, in yellow, below. You can click to enlarge both graphics.

You may also have noticed that one the men who descends from the Elder Jacob Miller line thought that he descended from the Johann Michael Miller line. This certainly is not an uncommon occurrence and sorting through situations like this was indeed part of the project goals.  It’s very difficult to tell the difference between people of the same name in the same county at the same time subscribing to the same religion.  Thank goodness for the tool of Y DNA.

One of the surprising aspects of this project is that there were so many different Miller lines associated with the Brethren or found in the counties where the Brethren Millers were known to be living – including a second and third Johann Michael Miller. We have 15 groups in total, plus a few people who remain in the “non-Brethren” or ungrouped groups for various reasons.

We invite all male Millers who have Brethren heritage in their Miller line or who think they might descend from Johann Michael Mueller to test at Family Tree DNA.  Please purchase the Y DNA 37 or 67 marker test and the Family Finder autosomal test as well, if the budget will allow both tests.

As more people test, hopefully Miller males who descend from “possible sons” of Johann Michael Miller, we should be able to either confirm more of his sons or put those rumors to rest once and for all.

For the past three years I’ve written a year-in-review article. You can see just how much the landscape has changed in the 2012, 2013 and 2014 versions.

This year, I’ve added a few specific “award” categories for people or firms that I feel need to be specially recognized as outstanding in one direction or the other.

In past years, some news items, announcements and innovations turned out to be very important like the Genographic Project and GedMatch, and others, well, not so much. Who among us has tested their full genome today, for example, or even their exome?  And would you do with that information if you did?

And then there are the deaths, like the Sorenson database and Ancestry’s own Y and mitochondrial data base. I still shudder to think how much we’ve lost at the corporate hands of Ancestry.

In past years, there have often been big new announcements facilitated by new technology. In many ways, the big fish have been caught in a technology sense.  Those big fish are autosomal DNA and the Big Y types of tests.  Both of these have created an avalanche of data and we, personally and as a community, are still trying to sort through what all of this means genealogically and how to best utilize the information.  Now we need tools.

This is probably illustrated most aptly by the expansion of the Y tree.

The SNP Tsunami Growing Pains Continue

Going from 800+ SNPs in 2012 to more than 35,000 SNPs today has introduced its own set of problems. First, there are multiple trees in existence, completely or partially maintained by different organizations for different purposes.  Needless to say, these trees are not in sync with each other.  The criteria for adding a SNP to the tree is decided by the owner or steward of that tree, and there is no agreement as to the definition of a valid SNP or how many instances of that SNP need to be in existence to be added to the tree.

This angst has been taking place for the most part outside of the public view, but it exists just the same.

For example, 23andMe still uses the old haplogroup names like R1b which have not been used in years elsewhere. Family Tree DNA is catching up with updating their tree, working with haplogroup administrators to be sure only high quality, proven SNPs are added to branches.  ISOGG maintains another tree (one branch shown above) that’s publicly available, utilizing volunteers per haplogroup and sometimes per subgroup.  Other individuals and organizations maintain other trees, or branches of trees, some very accurate and some adding a new “branch” with as little as one result.

The good news is that this will shake itself out. Personally, I’m voting for the more conservative approach for public reference trees to avoid “pollution” and a lot of shifting and changing downstream when it’s discovered that the single instance of a SNP is either invalid or in a different branch location.  However, you have to start with an experimental or speculative tree before you can prove that a SNP is where it belongs or needs to be moved, so each of the trees has its own purpose.

The full trees I utilize are the Family Tree DNA tree, available for customers, the ISOGG tree and Ray Banks’ tree which includes locations where the SNPs are found when the geographic location is localized. Within haplogroup projects, I tend to use a speculative tree assembled by the administrators, if one is available.  The haplogroup admins generally know more about their haplogroup or branch than anyone else.

The bad news is that this situation hasn’t shaken itself out yet, and due to the magnitude of the elephant at hand, I don’t think it will anytime soon. As this shuffling and shaking occurs, we learn more about where the SNPs are found today in the world, where they aren’t found, which SNPs are “family” or “clan” SNPs and the timeframes in which they were born.

In other words, this is a learning process for all involved – albeit a slow and frustrating one. However, we are making progress and the tree becomes more robust and accurate every year.

We may be having growing pains, but growing pains aren’t necessarily a bad thing and are necessary for growth.

Thank you to the hundreds of volunteers who work on these trees, and in particular, to Alice Fairhurst who has spearheaded the ISOGG tree for the past nine years. Alice retired from that volunteer position this year and is shown below after receiving two much-deserved awards for her service at the Family Tree DNA Conference in November.

Best Innovative Use of Integrated Data

Dr. Maurice Gleeson receives an award this year for the best genealogical use of integrated types of data. He has utilized just about every tool he can find to wring as much information as possible out of Y DNA results.  Not only that, but he has taken great pains to share that information with us in presentations in the US and overseas, and by creating a video, noted in the article below.  Thanks so much Maurice.

Making Sense of Y Data

The advent of massive amounts of Y DNA data has been both wonderful and perplexing. We as genetic genealogists want to know as much about our family as possible, including what the combination of STR and SNP markers means to us.  In other words, we don’t want two separate “test results” but a genealogical marriage of the two.

I took a look at this from the perspective of the Estes DNA project. Of course, everyone else will view those results through the lens of their own surname or haplogroup project.

Estes Big Y DNA Results
http://dna-explained.com/2015/03/26/estes-big-y-dna-results/

At the Family Tree DNA Conference in November, James Irvine and Maurice Gleeson both presented sessions on utilizing a combination of STR and SNP data and various tools in analyzing their individual projects.

Maurice’s presentation was titled “Combining SNPs, STRs and Genealogy to build a Surname Origins Tree.”
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/building-a-mutation-history-tree

Maurice created a wonderful video that includes a lot of information about working with Y DNA results. I would consider this one of the very best Y DNA presentations I’ve ever seen, and thanks to Maurice, it’s available as a video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvyHY4R6DwE&feature=youtu.be

You can view more of Maurice’s work at:
http://gleesondna.blogspot.com/2015/08/genetic-distance-genetic-families.html

James Irvine’s presentation was titled “Surname Projects – Some Fresh Ideas.” http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/y-dna-surname-projects-some-fresh-ideas

Another excellent presentation discussing Y DNA results was “YDNA maps Scandinavian Family Trees from Medieval Times and the Viking Age” by Peter Sjolund.
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/ydna-maps-scandinavian-family-trees-from-medieval-times-and-the-viking-age

Peter’s session at the genealogy conference in Sweden this year was packed. This photo, compliments of Katherine Borges, shows the room and the level of interest in Y-DNA and the messages it holds for genetic genealogists.

This type of work is the wave of the future, although hopefully it won’t be so manually intensive. However, the process of discovery is by definition laborious.  From this early work will one day emerge reproducible methodologies, the fruits of which we will all enjoy.

Haplogroup Definitions and Discoveries Continue

Often, haplogroup work flies under the radar today and gets dwarfed by some of the larger citizen science projects, but this work is fundamentally important. In 2015, we made discoveries about haplogroups A4 and C, for example.

Haplogroup A4 Unpeeled – European, Jewish, Asian and Native American
http://dna-explained.com/2015/03/05/haplogroup-a4-unpeeled-european-jewish-asian-and-native-american/

New Haplogroup C Native American Subgroups
http://dna-explained.com/2015/03/11/new-haplogroup-c-native-american-subgroups/

Native American Haplogroup C Update – Progress
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/25/native-american-haplogroup-c-update-progress/

These aren’t the only discoveries, by any stretch of the imagination. For example, Mike Wadna, administrator for the Haplogroup R1b Project reports that there are now over 1500 SNPs on the R1b tree at Family Tree DNA – which is just about twice as many as were known in total for the entire Y tree in 2012 before the Genographic project was introduced.

The new Y DNA SNP Packs being introduced by Family Tree DNA which test more than 100 SNPs for about $100 will go a very long way in helping participants obtain haplogroup assignments further down the tree without doing the significantly more expensive Big Y test. For example, the R1b-DF49XM222 SNP Pack tests 157 SNPs for $109.  Of course, if you want to discover your own private line of SNPs, you’ll have to take the Big Y.  SNP Packs can only test what is already known and the Big Y is a test of discovery.

                       Best Blog

Jim Bartlett, hands down, receives this award for his new and wonderful blog, Segmentology.

                             Making Sense of Autosomal DNA

Our autosomal DNA results provide us with matches at each of the vendors and at GedMatch, but what do we DO with all those matches and how to we utilize the genetic match information? How to we translate those matches into ancestral information.  And once we’ve assigned a common ancestor to a match with an individual, how does that match affect other matches on that same segment?

2015 has been the year of sorting through the pieces and defining terms like IBS (identical by state, which covers both identical by population and identical by chance) and IBD (identical by descent). There has been a lot written this year.

Jim Bartlett, a long-time autosomal researcher has introduced his new blog, Segmentology, to discuss his journey through mapping ancestors to his DNA segments. To the best of my knowledge, Jim has mapped more of his chromosomes than any other researcher, more than 80% to specific ancestors – and all of us can leverage Jim’s lessons learned.

Segmentology.org by Jim Bartlett
http://dna-explained.com/2015/05/12/segmentology-org-by-jim-bartlett/

When you visit Jim’s site, please take a look at all of his articles. He and I and others may differ slightly in the details our approach, but the basics are the same and his examples are wonderful.

Autosomal DNA Testing – What Now?
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/07/autosomal-dna-testing-101-what-now/

Autosomal DNA Testing 101 – Tips and Tricks for Contact Success
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/11/autosomal-dna-testing-101-tips-and-tricks-for-contact-success/

How Phasing Works and Determining IBS vs IBD Matches
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/02/how-phasing-works-and-determining-ibd-versus-ibs-matches/

Just One Cousin
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/11/just-one-cousin/

Demystifying Autosomal DNA Matching
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/17/demystifying-autosomal-dna-matching/

A Study Using Small Segment Matching
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/21/a-study-utilizing-small-segment-matching/

Finally, A How-To Class for Working with Autosomal Results
http://dna-explained.com/2015/02/10/finally-a-how-to-class-for-working-with-autosomal-dna-results/

Parent-Child Non-Matching Autosomal DNA Segments
http://dna-explained.com/2015/05/14/parent-child-non-matching-autosomal-dna-segments/

A Match List Does Not an Ancestor Make
http://dna-explained.com/2015/05/19/a-match-list-does-not-an-ancestor-make/

4 Generation Inheritance Study
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/23/4-generation-inheritance-study/

Phasing Yourself
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/27/phasing-yourself/

Autosomal DNA Matching Confidence Spectrum
http://dna-explained.com/2015/09/25/autosomal-dna-matching-confidence-spectrum/

Earlier in the year, there was a lot of discussion and dissention about the definition of and use of small segments. I utilize them, carefully, generally in conjunction with larger segments.  Others don’t.  Here’s my advice.  Don’t get yourself hung up on this.  You probably won’t need or use small segments until you get done with the larger segments, meaning low-hanging fruit, or unless you are doing a very specific research project.  By the time you get to that point, you’ll understand this topic and you’ll realize that the various researchers agree about far more than they disagree, and you can make your own decision based on your individual circumstances. If you’re entirely endogamous, small segments may just make you crazy.  However, if you’re chasing a colonial American ancestor, then you may need those small segments to identify or confirm that ancestor.

It is unfortunate, however, that all of the relevant articles are not represented in the ISOGG wiki, allowing people to fully educate themselves. Hopefully this can be updated shortly with the additional articles, listed above and from Jim Bartlett’s blog, published during this past year.

Recreating the Dead

James and Catherne Crumley segments above, compliments of Kitty Cooper’s tools

As we learn more about how to use autosomal DNA, we have begun to reconstruct our ancestors from the DNA of their descendants. Not as in cloning, but as in attributing DNA found in multiple descendants that originate from a common ancestor, or ancestral couple.  The first foray into this arena was GedMatch with their Lazarus tool.

Lazarus – Putting Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again
http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/14/lazarus-putting-humpty-dumpty-back-together-again/

I have taken a bit of a different proof approach wherein I recreated an ancestor, James Crumley, born in 1712 from the matching DNA of roughly 30 of his descendants.
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/roberta-estes-crumley-y-dna

I did the same thing, on an experimental smaller scale about a year ago with my ancestor, Henry Bolton.
http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/10/henry-bolton-c1759-1846-kidnapped-revolutionary-war-veteran-52-ancestors-45/

This is the way of the future in genetic genealogy, and I’ll be writing more about the Crumley project and the reconstruction of James Crumley in 2016.

                         Lump Of Coal Award(s)

This category is a “special category” that is exactly what you think it is. Yep, this is the award no one wants.  We have a tie for the Lump of Coal Award this year between Ancestry and 23andMe.

               Ancestry Becomes the J.R. Ewing of the Genealogy World

Attribution : © Glenn Francis, http://www.PacificProDigital.com

Some of you may remember J.R. Ewing on the television show called Dallas that ran from 1978 through 1991. J.R. Ewing, a greedy and unethical oil tycoon was one of the main characters.  The series was utterly mesmerizing, and literally everyone tuned in.  We all, and I mean universally, hated J.R. Ewing for what he unfeelingly and selfishly did to his family and others.  Finally, in a cliffhanger end of the season episode, someone shot J.R. Ewing.  OMG!!!  We didn’t know who.  We didn’t know if J.R. lived or died.  Speculation was rampant.  “Who shot JR?” was the theme on t-shirts everyplace that summer.  J.R. Ewing, over time, became the man all of America loved to hate.

Ancestry has become the J.R. Ewing of the genealogy world for the same reasons.

In essence, in the genetic genealogy world, Ancestry introduced a substandard DNA product, which remains substandard years later with no chromosome browser or comparison tools that we need….and they have the unmitigated audacity to try to convince us we really don’t need those tools anyway. Kind of like trying to convince someone with a car that they don’t need tires.

Worse, yet, they’ve introduced “better” tools (New Ancestor Discoveries), as in tools that were going to be better than a chromosome browser.  New Ancestor Discoveries “gives us” ancestors that aren’t ours. Sadly, there are many genealogists being led down the wrong path with no compass available.

Ancestry’s history of corporate stewardship is abysmal and continues with the obsolescence of various products and services including the Sorenson DNA database, their own Y and mtDNA database, MyFamily and most recently, Family Tree Maker. While the Family Tree Maker announcement has been met with great gnashing of teeth and angst among their customers, there are other software programs available.  Ancestry’s choices to obsolete the DNA data bases is irrecoverable and a huge loss to the genetic genealogy community.  That information is lost forever and not available elsewhere – a priceless, irreplaceable international treasure intentionally trashed.

If Ancestry had not bought up nearly all of the competing resources, people would be cancelling their subscriptions in droves to use another company – any other company. But there really is no one else anymore.  Ancestry knows this, so they have become the J.R. Ewing of the genealogy world – uncaring about the effects of their decisions on their customers or the community as a whole.  It’s hard for me to believe they have knowingly created such wholesale animosity within their own customer base.  I think having a job as a customer service rep at Ancestry would be an extremely undesirable job right now.  Many customers are furious and Ancestry has managed to upset pretty much everyone one way or another in 2015.

AncestryDNA Has Now Thoroughly Lost Its Mind
https://digginupgraves.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/ancestrydna-has-now-thoroughly-lost-its-mind/

Kenny, Kenny, Kenny
https://digginupgraves.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/kenny-kenny-kenny/

Dear Kenny – Any Suggestions for our New Ancestor Discoveries?
https://digginupgraves.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/dear-kenny-any-suggestions-for-our-new-ancestor-discoveries/

RIP Sorenson – A Crushing Loss
http://dna-explained.com/2015/05/15/rip-sorenson-a-crushing-loss/

Of Babies and Bathwater
http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/17/of-babies-and-bathwater/

Facts Matter
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/03/facts-matter/

Getting the Most Out of AncestryDNA
http://dna-explained.com/2015/02/02/getting-the-most-out-of-ancestrydna/

Ancestry Gave Me a New DNA Ancestor and It’s Wrong
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/03/ancestry-gave-me-a-new-dna-ancestor-and-its-wrong/

Testing Ancestry’s Amazing New Ancestor DNA Claim
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/07/testing-ancestrys-amazing-new-ancestor-dna-claim/

Dissecting AncestryDNA Circles and New Ancestors
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/09/dissecting-ancestrydna-circles-and-new-ancestors/

Squaring the Circle
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/03/29/squaring-the-circle/

Still Waiting for the Holy Grail
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/04/05/still-waiting-for-the-holy-grail/

A Dozen Ancestors That Aren’t aka Bad NADs
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/14/a-dozen-ancestors-that-arent-aka-bad-nads/

The Logic and Birth of a Bad NAD (New Ancestor Discovery)
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/12/the-logic-and-birth-of-a-bad-nad-new-ancestor-discovery/

Circling the Shews
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/24/circling-the-shews/

Naughty Bad NADs Sneak Home Under Cover of Darkness
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/24/naughty-bad-nads-sneak-home-under-cover-of-darkness/

Ancestry Shared Matches Combined with New Ancestor Discoveries
http://dna-explained.com/2015/08/28/ancestry-shared-matches-combined-with-new-ancestor-discoveries/

Ancestry Shakey Leaf Disappearing Matches: Now You See Them – Now You Don’t
http://dna-explained.com/2015/09/24/ancestry-shakey-leaf-disappearing-matches-now-you-see-them-now-you-dont/

Ancestry’s New Amount of Shared DNA – What Does It Really Mean?
http://dna-explained.com/2015/11/06/ancestrys-new-amount-of-shared-dna-what-does-it-really-mean/

The Winds of Change
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/11/08/the-winds-of-change/

Confusion – Family Tree Maker, Family Tree DNA and Ancestry.com
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/13/confusion-family-tree-maker-family-tree-dna-and-ancestry-com/

DNA: good news, bad news
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/01/11/dna-good-news-bad-news/

Check out the Alternatives
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/12/09/check-out-the-alternatives/

GeneAwards 2015
http://www.tamurajones.net/GeneAwards2015.xhtml

23andMe Betrays Genealogists

In October, 23andMe announced that it has reached an agreement with the FDA about reporting some health information such as carrier status and traits to their clients. As a part of or perhaps as a result of that agreement, 23andMe is dramatically changing the user experience.

In some aspects, the process will be simplified for genealogists with a universal opt-in. However, other functions are being removed and the price has doubled.  New advertising says little or nothing about genealogy and is entirely medically focused.  That combined with the move of the trees offsite to MyHeritage seems to signal that 23andMe has lost any commitment they had to the genetic genealogy community, effectively abandoning the group entirely that pulled their collective bacon out of the fire. This is somehow greatly ironic in light of the fact that it was the genetic genealogy community through their testing recommendations that kept 23andMe in business for the two years, from November of 2013 through October of 2015 when the FDA had the health portion of their testing shut down.  This is a mighty fine thank you.

As a result of the changes at 23andMe relative to genealogy, the genetic genealogy community has largely withdrawn their support and recommendations to test at 23andMe in favor of Ancestry and Family Tree DNA.

Kelly Wheaton, writing on the Facebook ISOGG group along with other places has very succinctly summed up the situation:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/isogg/permalink/10153873250057922/

You can also view Kelly’s related posts from earlier in December and their comments at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/isogg/permalink/10153830929022922/
and…
https://www.facebook.com/groups/isogg/permalink/10153828722587922/

My account at 23andMe has not yet been converted to the new format, so I cannot personally comment on the format changes yet, but I will write about the experience in 2016 after my account is converted.

Furthermore, I will also be writing a new autosomal vendor testing comparison article after their new platform is released.

I Hate 23andMe
https://digginupgraves.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/i-hate-23andme/

23andMe to Get Makeover After Agreement With FDA
http://dna-explained.com/2015/10/21/23andme-to-get-a-makeover-after-agreement-with-fda/

23andMe Metamorphosis
http://throughthetreesblog.tumblr.com/post/131724191762/the-23andme-metamorphosis

The Changes at 23andMe
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/10/25/the-changes-at-23andme/

The 23and Me Transition – The First Step
http://dna-explained.com/2015/11/05/the-23andme-transition-first-step-november-11th/

The Winds of Change
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/11/08/the-winds-of-change/

Why Autosomal Response Rate Really Does Matter
http://dna-explained.com/2015/02/24/why-autosomal-response-rate-really-does-matter/

Heads Up About the 23andMe Meltdown
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/04/heads-up-about-the-23andme-meltdown/

Now…and not now
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/12/06/now-and-not-now/

                             Cone of Shame Award

Another award this year is the Cone of Shame award which is also awarded to both Ancestry and 23andMe for their methodology of obtaining “consent” to sell their customers’, meaning our, DNA and associated information.

Genetic Genealogy Data Gets Sold

Unfortunately, 2015 has been the year that the goals of both 23andMe and Ancestry have become clear in terms of our DNA data. While 23andMe has always been at least somewhat focused on health, Ancestry never was previously, but has now hired a health officer and teamed with Calico for medical genetics research.

Now, both Ancestry and 23andMe have made research arrangements and state in their release and privacy verbiage that all customers must electronically sign (or click through) when purchasing their DNA tests that they can sell, at minimum, your anonymized DNA data, without any further consent.  And there is no opt-out at that level.

They can also use our DNA and data internally, meaning that 23andMe’s dream of creating and patenting new drugs can come true based on your DNA that you submitted for genealogical purposes, even if they never sell it to anyone else.

In an interview in November, 23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki said the following:

23andMe is now looking at expanding beyond the development of DNA testing and exploring the possibility of developing its own medications. In July, the company raised $79 million to partly fund that effort. Additionally, the funding will likely help the company continue with the development of its new therapeutics division. In March, 23andMe began to delve into the therapeutics market, to create a third pillar behind the company’s personal genetics tests and sales of genetic data to pharmaceutical companies.

Given that the future of genetic genealogy at these two companies seems to be tied to the sale of their customer’s genetic and other information, which, based on the above, is very clearly worth big bucks, I feel that the fact that these companies are selling and utilizing their customer’s information in this manner should be fully disclosed. Even more appropriate, the DNA information should not be sold or utilized for research without an informed consent that would traditionally be used for research subjects.

Within the past few days, I wrote an article, providing specifics and calling on both companies to do the following.

1. To minimally create transparent, understandable verbiage that informs their customers before the end of the purchase process that their DNA will be sold or utilized for unspecified research with the intention of financial gain and that there is no opt-out. However, a preferred plan of action would be a combination of 2 and 3, below.
2. Implement a plan where customer DNA can never be utilized for anything other than to deliver the services to the consumers that they purchased unless a separate, fully informed consent authorization is signed for each research project, without coercion, meaning that the client does not have to sign the consent to obtain any of the DNA testing or services.
3. To immediately stop utilizing the DNA information and results from customers who have already tested until they have signed an appropriate informed consent form for each research project in which their DNA or other information will be utilized.

And Now Ancestry Health
http://dna-explained.com/2015/06/06/and-now-ancestry-health/

Opting Out
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/07/26/opting-out/

Ancestry Terms of Use Updated
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/07/07/ancestry-terms-of-use-updated/

AncestryDNA Doings
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/07/05/ancestrydna-doings/

Heads Up About the 23andMe Meltdown
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/04/heads-up-about-the-23andme-meltdown/

23andMe and Ancestry and Selling Your DNA Information
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/30/23andme-ancestry-and-selling-your-dna-information/

                      Citizen Science Leadership Award  

The Citizen Science Leadership Award this year goes to Blaine Bettinger for initiating the Shared cM Project, a crowdsourced project which benefits everyone.

Citizen Scientists Continue to Push the Edges of the Envelope with the Shared cM Project

Citizen scientists, in the words of Dr. Doron Behar, “are not amateurs.” In fact, citizen scientists have been contributing mightily and pushing the edge of the genetic genealogy frontier consistently now for 15 years.  This trend continues, with new discoveries and new ways of viewing and utilizing information we already have.

For example, Blaine Bettinger’s Shared cM Project was begun in March and continues today. This important project has provided real life information as to the real matching amounts and ranges between people of different relationships, such as first cousins, for example, as compared to theoretical match amounts.  This wonderful project produced results such as this:

I don’t think Blaine initially expected this project to continue, but it has and you can read about it, see the rest of the results, and contribute your own data here. Blaine has written several other articles on this topic as well, available at the same link.

Am I Weird or What?
http://dna-explained.com/2015/03/07/am-i-weird-or-what/

Jim Owston analyzed fourth cousins and other near distant relationships in his Owston one-name study:
https://owston.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/an-analysis-of-fourth-cousins-and-other-near-distant-relatives/

I provided distant cousin information in the Crumley surname study:
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/roberta-estes-crumley-y-dna

I hope more genetic genealogists will compile and contribute this type of real world data as we move forward. If you have compiled something like this, the Surname DNA Journal is peer reviewed and always looking for quality articles for publication.

Privacy, Law Enforcement and DNA

Unfortunately, in May, a situation by which Y DNA was utilized in a murder investigation was reported in a sensationalist “scare” type fashion.  This action provided cause, ammunition or an excuse for Ancestry to remove the Sorenson data base from public view.

I find this exceedingly, exceedingly unfortunate. Given Ancestry’s history with obsoleting older data bases instead of updating them, I’m suspecting this was an opportune moment for Ancestry to be able to withdraw this database, removing a support or upgrade problem from their plate and blame the problem on either law enforcement or the associated reporting.

I haven’t said much about this situation, in part because I’m not a lawyer and in part because the topic is so controversial and there is no possible benefit since the damage has already been done. Unfortunately, nothing anyone can say or has said will bring back the Sorenson (or Ancestry) data bases and arguments would be for naught.  We already beat this dead horse a year ago when Ancestry obsoleted their own data base.  On this topic, be sure to read Judy Russell’s articles and her sources as well for the “rest of the story.”

Privacy, the Police and DNA
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/02/08/privacy-the-police-and-dna/

Big Easy DNA Not So Easy
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/03/15/big-easy-dna-not-so-easy/

Of Babies and Bathwater
http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/17/of-babies-and-bathwater/

Facts Matter
http://legalgenealogist.com/blog/2015/05/03/facts-matter/

Genetic genealogy standards from within the community were already in the works prior to the Idaho case, referenced above, and were subsequently published as guidelines.

Announcing Genetic Genealogy Standards
http://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2015/01/10/announcing-genetic-genealogy-standards/

The standards themselves:
http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Genetic-Genealogy-Standards.pdf

Ancient DNA Results Continue to Amass

“Moorleiche3-Schloss-Gottorf” by Commander-pirx at de.wikipedia – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons

Ancient DNA is difficult to recover and even more difficult to sequence, reassembling tiny little blocks of broken apart DNA into an ancient human genome.

However, each year we see a few more samples and we are beginning to repaint the picture of human population movement, which is different than we thought it would be.

One of the best summaries of the ancient ancestry field was Michael Hammer’s presentation at the Family Tree DNA Conference in November titled “R1B and the Peopling of Europe: an Ancient DNA Update.” His slides are available here:
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA/r1b-and-the-people-of-europe-an-ancient-dna-update

One of the best ongoing sources for this information is Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog. He covered most of the new articles and there have been several.  That’s the good news and the bad news, all rolled into one. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

I have covered several that were of particular interest to the evolution of Europeans and Native Americans.

Yamnaya, Light Skinned Brown Eyed….Ancestors?
http://dna-explained.com/2015/06/15/yamnaya-light-skinned-brown-eyed-ancestors/

Kennewick Man is Native American
http://dna-explained.com/2015/06/18/kennewick-man-is-native-american/

Botocudo – Ancient Remains from Brazil
http://dna-explained.com/2015/07/02/botocudo-ancient-remains-from-brazil/

Some Native had Oceanic Ancestors
http://dna-explained.com/2015/07/22/some-native-americans-had-oceanic-ancestors/

Homo Naledi – A New Species Discovered
http://dna-explained.com/2015/09/11/homo-naledi-a-new-species-discovered/

Massive Pre-Contact Grave in California Yields Disappointing Results
http://dna-explained.com/2015/10/20/mass-pre-contact-native-grave-in-california-yields-disappointing-results/

I know of several projects involving ancient DNA that are in process now, so 2016 promises to be a wonderful ancient DNA year!

Education

Many, many new people discover genetic genealogy every day and education continues to be an ongoing and increasing need. It’s a wonderful sign that all major conferences now include genetic genealogy, many with a specific track.

The European conferences have done a great deal to bring genetic genealogy testing to Europeans. European testing benefits those of us whose ancestors were European before immigrating to North America.  This year, ISOGG volunteers staffed booths and gave presentations at genealogy conferences in Birmingham, England, Dublin, Ireland and in Nyköping, Sweden, shown below, photo compliments of Catherine Borges.

Several great new online educational opportunities arose this year, outside of conferences, for which I’m very grateful.

DNA Lectures YouTube Channel
http://dna-explained.com/2015/04/26/dna-lectures-youtube-channel/

Allen County Public Library Online Resources
http://dna-explained.com/2015/06/03/allen-county-public-library-online-resources/

DNA Data Organization Tools and Who’s on First
http://dna-explained.com/2015/09/08/dna-data-organization-tools-and-whos-on-first/

Genetic Genealogy Educational Resource List
http://dna-explained.com/2015/12/03/genetic-genealogy-educational-resource-list/

Genetic Genealogy Ireland Videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnW2NAfPIA2KUipZ_PlUlw

DNA Lectures – Who Do You Think You Are
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7HQSiSkiy7ujlkgQER1FYw

Ongoing and Online Classes in how to utilize both Y and autosomal DNA
http://www.dnaadoption.com/index.php?page=online-classes

Education Award

Family Tree DNA receives the Education Award this year along with a huge vote of gratitude for their 11 years of genetic genealogy conferences. They are the only testing or genealogy company to hold a conference of this type and they do a fantastic job.  Furthermore, they sponsor additional educational events by providing the “theater” for DNA presentations at international events such as the Who Do You Think You Are conference in England.  Thank you Family Tree DNA.

Family Tree DNA Conference

The Family Tree DNA Conference, held in November, was a hit once again. I’m not a typical genealogy conference person.  My focus is on genetic genealogy, so I want to attend a conference where I can learn something new, something leading edge about the science of genetic genealogy – and that conference is definitely the Family Tree DNA conference.

Furthermore, Family Tree DNA offers tours of their lab on the Monday following the conference for attendees, and actively solicits input on their products and features from conference attendees and project administrators.

Family Tree DNA 11^th International Conference – The Best Yet
http://dna-explained.com/2015/11/18/2015-family-tree-dna-11th-international-conference-the-best-yet/

All of the conference presentations that were provided by the presenters have been made available by Family Tree DNA at:
http://www.slideshare.net/FamilyTreeDNA?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email

2016 Genetic Genealogy Wish List

In 2014, I presented a wish list for 2015 and it didn’t do very well.  Will my 2015 list for 2016 fare any better?

• Ancestry restores Sorenson and their own Y and mtDNA data bases in some format or contributes to an independent organization like ISOGG.
• Ancestry provides chromosome browser.
• Ancestry removes or revamps Timber in order to restore legitimate matches removed by Timber algorithm.
• Fully informed consent (per research project) implemented by 23andMe and Ancestry, and any other vendor who might aspire to sell consumer DNA or related information, without coercion, and not as a prerequisite for purchasing a DNA testing product. DNA and information will not be shared or utilized internally or externally without informed consent and current DNA information will cease being used in this fashion until informed consent is granted by customers who have already tested.
• Improved ethnicity reporting at all vendors including ancient samples and additional reference samples for Native Americans.
• Autosomal Triangulation tools at all vendors.
• Big Y and STR integration and analysis enhancement at Family Tree DNA.
• Ancestor Reconstruction
• Mitochondrial and Y DNA search tools by ancestor and ancestral line at Family Tree DNA.
• Improved tree at Family Tree DNA – along with new search capabilities.
• 23andMe restores lost capabilities, drops price, makes changes and adds features previously submitted as suggestions by community ambassadors.
• More tools (This is equivalent to “bring me some surprises” on my Santa list as a kid.)

My own goals haven’t changed much over the years. I still just want to be able to confirm my genealogy, to learn as much as I can about each ancestor, and to break down brick walls and fill in gaps.

I’m very hopeful each year as more tools and methodologies emerge.  More people test, each one providing a unique opportunity to match and to understand our past, individually and collectively.  Every year genetic genealogy gets better!  I can’t wait to see what 2016 has in store.

Here’s wishing you a very Happy and Ancestrally Prosperous New Year!