*READ THIS FIRST*

YOUR ONE-STOP LIGHTER-THAN-AIR SUPERSTORE.  SHOP US FIRST AND $AVE.

      United Space Time Continuum, Inc. is now The Mobius Group, INC.   We have the same commitment to be the industry leader in airship sales, service, and parts.  Our new name reflects our determination to revive the tradition of unhurried travel  and elegant dining.  Concord 1 and Concord 2 launch November 2010—call your travel agent and be among the first to book passage on our maiden voyages to Antartica and the Borneo interior.   

TURN THAT OLD AIRSHIP INTO CASH (No hydrogen models or hot-air balloons!)

Cash paid for your pre-owned zeppelin, dirigible, or impellers.  Tour our boneyard–if we don’t have it, no one does.

Think an airship can’t take a Hemi-Cuda off the line?  Retrofit your gas-guzzler with an Acme Nuklear Blimp 4,000hp Plutonium Drivetrain and experience effortless acceleration.  We’ll even throw in some glass packs.

_______________________________________

Posts are organized into self-explanatory categories.  Clicking on the categories listed to the right of the first post will access all posts in that category.  A post may appear in more than one category.

If you want a precise search, use the Search box beneath the headline banner.  If you want to access posts by month, click on that month under Archives.

At the present time, the WordPress software only allows moving posts around by adjusting the “Published on” date, so explore the categories or sail through the posts to see everything.  “Pages” remain in the order shown.  I’ve recently transferred several POSTS into the PAGE section, where they will remain in order.  There’s no way to put a permanent list of all the material in the right-hand column.

I often revise posts (especially for a few days after first appearance) as additional material suggests itself.  Periodically check a post of interest to see if anything’s been added.

Links to websites noted in individual posts or pages also appear in the “LINKS TO FURTHER INFORMATION” widget in the sidebar.

Some of the subject matter on ACME NUKLEAR BLIMP is disturbing, but it’s important readers understand the realities of the lives of (some) antebellum southerners.  Deeds, court records, and wills are often the only place where names of slaves are given and relationships among them stated.  By following the paper trail, sometimes an African-American pedigree can be extended into the antebellum period.

An excellent program to take clips from ACME NUKLEAR BLIMP is Evernote, which can be downloaded at:

http://evernote.com/

To contact ACME NUKLEAR BLIMP see “Contact Us.”

[All material on ACME NUKLEAR BLIMP (except quotations from other authors) is the intellectual property of Jeffrey Thomas Chipman.  All rights reserved.]  

Contact Us

E-MAIL:

acmenuklearblimp@gmail.com

_________________________________

ACME NUKLEAR BLIMP represents my contribution to family history and the genealogical community.  I publish columns containing information not generally available to encourage genealogists to explore records groups and research strategies of which they may be unaware.

I can’t be a records repository and fulfill requests for documents.  I’m not a professional genealogist and I don’t solicit clients or accept research assignments.

If you read something on ACME NUKLEAR BLIMP you don’t understand, send me an email and I’ll try to respond.  But do your homework first—I can’t turn an email into a tutorial.  Reading “A CAVALIER ATTITUDE”  will answer many questions.

I was born in Iowa, the Hawkeye state (check your personal information)

It’s a good idea to periodically check government databases to make certain they have the correct information.  Last week I discovered the Social Security Administration database contained an error of which I was unaware.  The mistake was made in 1965, when my parents applied for my Social Security card.  Though they had to produce a birth certficate, I’ll never know who screwed up:  my parents, or the clerk who took the application. 

The item was off in one detail—an important detail.  The name of the town was right, but the state wasn’t:  I was born in Burlington, Des Moines County, Iowa, not Burlington, Illinois.  I grew up in Illinois.  I checked to see if there’s a Burlington in Illinois, and found one in Kane County.  I know Kane County well.  I once had a girlfriend who lived there.

So Tuesday afternoon I had to drive to the local Social Security Administration office, with birth certificate, passport, and driver’s license in hand.  Correcting the error was simple, but it brought home the necessity of protecting personal information.  In an age where privacy is virtually nonexistent, errors like this can have serious consequences.

The medical records of celebrities are routinely invaded, and if the perpetrators don’t respect the privacy of the famous, the average person has no chance.  Snoops want your personal data for a variety of purposes, like background checks and marketing.   If they break the law, prosecute them, but in many cases the affected individual will be oblivious.

Protect yourself.

Cut Outs: Sir William Blackstone & the legal position of children of a testator

I examine this issue in depth in the “ESTATE SALE” page, but it deserves a column of its own because it addresses a common misconception.

Colonial testators (e.g., those leaving a will) were under no obligation to provide for their children.  Children couldn’t sue for a share of a testator’s estate, and testators didn’t have to leave children a token legacy.  Genealogists shouldn’t assume that when a child was omitted from a will the testator had provided for them in some other way.

The Statute of Wills enacted in 1540 during the reign of Henry VIII permitted testators to leave their property to anyone they chose, without having to observe primogeniture.

The law didn’t permit a child to sue for a share of a testator’s estate.  As Blackstone p. 1393 observes:

“Hence probably [from Roman law] has arisen that groundless vulgar [common] error, of the necessity of leaving the heir a shilling or some other express legacy, in order to disinherit him effectually:  whereas the law of England makes no such constrained suppositions of forgetfulness or insanity; and therefore, though the heir or next of kin be totally omitted, it admits no querela inofficiosi [disobedient complaint], to set aside a testament.”  [material in brackets mine]

 If a testator made a child a promise, and failed to deliver on it in his will, there was nothing a child could do about it.   A will couldn’t be set aside, even if an heir contended their omission from the will was due to the testator’s  forgetting to make a bequest or mental illness. 

And on p. 644 he states:

“Our law has made no provision to prevent the disinheriting of children by will ….”

Blackstone makes it absolutely clear the law wasn’t sympathetic to a child who challenged a parent’s will, terming such behavior “disobedient,” and the law provided no remedy if a child received nothing.  In other words, it was legal under English law to disinherit a child by will.

We may view 17th century law as barbarous in some cases, but this was the code by which the colonists lived.  We can’t judge them by our standards.  The “romance” of distressed cavaliers fleeing Britain has a basis in fact, but they were hardly more admirable than the dour Roundheads who defeated them.

[Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) was the premier expert on English common law.  These quotations are from:

Blackstone, Sir William; Jones, William Carey, ed.  (1915).  Commentaries On The Laws Of England.  San Francisco:  Bancroft-Whitney Company.

which can be downloaded from Google Books.]

the once and never child: Gary Boyd Roberts, Douglas Richardson, The Royal Bastards & the sell-out of medieval genealogy

Given-Wilson, Chris; Curteis, Alice.  (1995).  The Royal Bastards Of Medieval England.  New York:  Barnes & Noble Books.  [Given-Wilson and Curteis are noted medieval scholars.]

Henry of Huntingdon; Greenway, Diana, trans.  (2002).  The History of the English People 1000–1154.  Oxford, Eng.:  Oxford World’s Classics  Oxford University Press. 

Richardson, Douglas; Everingham, Kimball G., ed.  (2004).  Plantagenet Ancestry:  A Study In Colonial And Medieval Families.  Baltimore:  Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc.

Roberts, Gary Boyd.  (2008).  The Royal Descents Of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States Who Were Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable in American History With a 2008 Addendum, Coda and Final Addition.  Baltimore:  Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc.

Weir, Alison.  (2002).  Britain’s Royal Families The Complete Genealogy.  London:  Pimlico Random House.  [A popular treatment, but contains a comprehensive list of alleged royal bastards.]

_____________________________

“… it is quite impossible for a modern historian to be completely sure of any supposed royal bastard’s paternity.” (Given-Wilson and Curteis, p. 57)

Why?  Because people in the Middle Ages lacked the technology to perform even a rudimentary paternity blood test—the sort of test routinely administered to rule out paternity, commonly perfomed years before the advent of DNA .  Acceptance of  an illegitimate child by anyone, pauper or king, was subjective, and subjective factors aren’t reliable indicators of paternity. 

If your royal line passes through a medieval illegitimate generation, you don’t have a royal line.  There’s no proof acceptable to the modern mind of the paternity of these children.  In 2009, from a genealogical perspective, medieval royal bastards are historical curiosities, and nothing more.  

Even  in the celebrated cases of Herleve of Falaise (mother of William the Conqueror) and Katherine (de Roet) Swynford (eventual 3rd wife of John of Gaunt and mother of the Beauforts), we must admit it’s possible Robert of Normandy wasn’t the father of William the Conqueror, and not all of the Beauforts attributed to John of Gaunt were his. 

The issue is whether the mother was monogamous.  Even when a mother is identified, we don’t know that.  The father may have accepted a child because it resembled himself or a family member, out of affection toward the mother, or perhaps the mother was tossed into a pond to see if she would float. 

Authentic “evidence”  may exist indicating a relationship, such as a charter or remark by a contemporary chronicler.  A child may have been raised at court.  It may have had a surname like “FitzRoy.”  This “evidence” isn’t conclusive proof of paternity.  It’s evidence that the alleged paternity of the child was generally accepted.  Acceptance by a ”father” in the Middle Ages doesn’t equal genetic paternity. 

Many Americans claim royal descent through Robert of Caen, Earl of Gloucester (d. 1147), allegedly an illegitimate son of King Henry I.  What do we really know of the circumstances of Robert of Caen’s birth?  Virtually nothing.

There are a number of sources which relate that Robert of Caen was the son of King Henry I.  The chronicler Henry of Huntingdon tells us that in 1138:

“Earl Robert, the bastard son of King Henry, held against him [King Stephen] the very strong castle which is called Bristol, and another which is called Leeds.”

This is “evidence,” but it isn’t proof of paternity.  We have different standards today for proving  paternity of an illegitimate child.

I did a study of Gary Boyd Roberts’ RD600/2008 and found:

Pages 483-510 deal with lines from Henry I through Robert of Caen, comprising 13 lines.  Of those 13, 6 have an additional illegitimate generation through which the line passes.  Nearly half of these lines pass through an illegitimate grandchild or great-grandchild of Robert of Caen, himself illegitimate.

Pages 64-87 list descents from James IV of Scotland, all through illegitimate children (although an identifiable mother is claimed), and sometimes through more than one illegitimate child of that monarch—in the same line.  There are several from Jane/Joan Beaufort, alleged illegitimate daughter of Cardinal Henry Beaufort, whom he never acknowledged as his daughter (though Roberts opines Cardinal Beaufort might be one of his own ancestors).  Even Douglas Richardson terms Jane/Joan as “alleged.”  Pages 387-415 treat the illegitimate children of King John, immediately followed by 23 pages of lines from William the Lion of Scotland’s bastards (don’t miss the addendum which has a few more King John and William  the Lion lines).  Bastards of Edward IV and James V of Scotland get some ink as well.

In all, from pp. 1–571, which comprises the main body of RD600/2008, there are about 302 lines, of which 110 lines contain one or more illegitimate generations.  That doesn’t include the Beaufort lines (unless there’s a subsequent illegitimate generation), lines noted with a caveat, and lines known to be false (such as the p. 418 assertion that Mary Waller, daughter of John Waller and Mary Pomfrett, m. Edward Herndon).

Pp. 259–371 comprise lines from Edward I.  Of those lines, only 2 contain illegitimate generations, and those are in later generations, because Edward I had no alleged illegitimate children (despite periodic attempts to link him to John Botetourte).

Thus, more than 33% of RD600/2008 is comprised of lines containing illegitimate generations.  When you add in lines that are defective otherwise, such as colonists for whom the claimed parentage is wrong, or actually merely probable or possible, one might suspect 50% of the book isn’t adequately supported. 

It’s the landfill of genealogical reference works. 

Roberts says illegitimate offspring of more recent monarchs have a “better” descent than the legitimate offspring of earlier rulers, even though illegitimate offfspring were rarely eligible for the succession.  This is an absurd notion, with no practical meaning, and points to the key to RD600/2008:  it’s a mug book for snobs. 

Douglas Richardson, who claims a “royal line” (which passes through two bastard generations),  is also a major player in concocting royal descents through bastard lines.

His Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) features a host of  illegitimate luminaries:  Hamelin Plantagenet (alleged half-brother of Henry II), William Longspee, Joan of England (alleged bastard daughter of King John), and Richard FitzRoy account for most of the lines, although some connect to legitimate lines from Plantagenet monarchs further down the pedigree.  Let’s not forget Antigone and Arthur Plantagenet, alleged illegitimate children of Humphrey of Gloucester.  The inclusion of Joan, illegitimate daughter of King John, whom he married off to a Welsh prince is interesting, because there is no agreement among scholars as to which of Llywelyn’s children were actually by her.  But many Americans claim descent from her, thanks to writers like Roberts and Richardson.  So not only is her paternity uncertain, but the maternity of Llywelyn’s children is also uncertain.

In the medieval era, when the majority of people lived in abject poverty, fobbing a handsome or clever child off on a monarch or magnate was, if successful, an escape from desperation—the motivation, one might imagine, not much different than confronting a modern celebrity with the “fruit of their loins.”  In these days, the paternity test has ruled out many such claims. 

A historian can state:  “Robert of Caen was an acknowledged illegitimate son of King Henry I.”   They’re dealing with this individual as a political figure.  That his paternity was attributed to Henry I is important in understanding his position and actions during the turbulent reign of King Stephen.

That differs significantly from saying:  “Robert of Caen was the illegitimate son of King Henry I.”  This is a leap from statement of fact to an assertion of a genealogical proposition we cannot now verify.   We don’t know why King Henry I accepted Robert of Caen as his son.

The works of Roberts and Richardson represent acts of irresponsibility unparalleled in contemporary American genelaogy.  But they’re just giving people what they want.  Ultimately, the blame rests squarely with Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. of Baltimore.  There are no standards evident in these books.  GPC can sell them, but they can’t defend them.  They’re written by people whose own royal lines are insufficiently supported.

The economics are simple:  the more lines you include in a book, the more people find their “ancestors” in them, and the more books you sell.  If you lop off all of the Joan of England lines, you also lop off some of your csutomers.

Roberts and Richardson aren’t alone.  The lineage society the Descendants of the Illegitimate Sons and Daughters of the Kings of Britain, or ”The Royal Bastards,” authenticate lineages through the alleged bastards of monarchs.  The current president is Anthony Glenn Hoskins, once a librarian at the Newberry Library in Chicago, frequent contributor to “soc.genealogy.medieval,” and a member of no certifying organizations for professional genealogists.

Here’s how they describe themselves:

“The Society’s primary means of fostering high standards in genealogy is by granting membership to individuals who meet such standards.  Admission to the “Royal Bastards” is considered an achievement of great merit by amateur and professional genealogists alike.”

“Membership is open to individuals … who prove descent from an illegitimate son or daughter of a king, an illegitimate son or daughter of the child of a king, or an illegitimate son or daughter of the grandchild of a king of England, Scotland, Wales, Great Britain or the United Kingdom”

“Validity of an applicant’s lineage is determined by the Society’s Herald, who must be convinced of its correctness before the applicant may be admitted.”

“Descent is proved by documenting each generation and each connection between generations from the king to the applicant with valid, conclusive primary or contemporary evidence.”

Conclusive?  What might that evidence specifically be in the case of Robert of Caen?  The Herald (approving genealogist) is a Harvard educated lawyer, but whatever evidence he uses to link the generation from Robert of Caen to King Henry I cannot possibly be conclusive because it doesn’t exist—unless he’s consulting the Akashic Records.  

I got a good laugh out of this:

“Please note that most lineages acceptable for admission to other hereditary organizations will not qualify for admission to this Society.  This is not a matter of accuracy, but of accuracy and substantiation: only lineages supported by evidence that meets the standards of this society can qualify an applicant for admission.”

If you think this is doublespeak, you’re right.  If you want to join any lineage society, you have to meet the standards of that society.  But most won’t accept the evidence the Royal Bastards use to attach Robert of Caen to King Henry I.  Why?  Because a charter, remark by a chronicler, or Henry patting Robert on the head isn’t conclusive evidence of paternity.  Robert of Caen was born out of wedlock, and that introduces a host of variables and questions that can’t be answered.

There were more witnesses to the Virgin Birth than to the conception of Robert of Caen, but here we have a lineage society which,  if they accept your line, claims it substantiates paternity of bastard children of a king, and all for a mere $300.00.   

The British have little use for bastard lines, as this story illustrates:

There is a decent genealogical library in Independence, MO.  One day I was leafing through whatever caught my eye without any real aim in mind.  I picked up a reputable genealogical journal published in the UK and learned that an Important Marriage was at hand.  The background of the groom had been examined, and it was found (with evident horror) that he was descended from Joan Beaufort, wife of Ralph Neville.

That would never do.

The author was quick to substitute for this tainted descent a perfectly acceptable one from (I think) Edmund of Langley, and everyone could face the future with confidence.

The basic premise of  The Royal Bastards is flawed:  it’s unethical to pretend your approval of a bastard line means anything when the father could be anyone.  The lure is exclusivity.  Who are they kidding?  YOU, if you send them $300.00.  It just stokes Tony Hoskins’ ego trip.

Since it’s no secret people of the Middle Ages lacked even simple blood typing technology, it’s unconscionable for Roberts and Richardson to mislead readers into believing the reader has ”royal” ancestry when it’s no more than a footnote.  These books can’t be corrected.  They’re so permeated with bad scholarship that to remove bastard lines would eviscerate them.

And any professional genealogist who tells clients the client has valid “royal” ancestry when it contains a bastard generation is yanking their chain.

Let GPC know how you feel.  It might have an impact.

Because this isn’t genealogy.  It’s shameless exploitation.

John Chipman of Pittsylvania Co., Va (part two)

This Indenture made this fifteenth Day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty six and in the fifth year of the Reign of our Sovereign lord King George the third Between John Chipman of the County of Halifax and Parish of antrim Planter of the one part and Roger Atkinson of the County of and Colony of Virginia Mercht of the other part Witnesseth that the said John Chipman for and in consideration of the sum of Eighty pounds Current money of Virginia to him in hand paid by the said Roger Atkinson the Receipt whereof he the said John Chipman doth hereby Acknoldge and thereof and of and from Every part and parcel thereof doth hereby acquit Exonerate and Discharge the said Roger Atkinson hath granted Bargained and sold aliened Enfeoffed and Confirmed and by these presents Doth grant Bargain and sell their Enfeoff and Confirm unto the said Roger Atkinson all that tract and parcel of land situate in the County of Halifax and Parish of antrim and on both sides of Cane Creek whereon the said John Chipman now dwells Containing by Estimation one hundred and sixty acres Being part of 383 ac granted by pat to James Hogan date the 10 day of Sep 1760 Limited Bounded Describd as follows Beginning at a Corner Birch on the said creek Thence North Eighty seven Degrees East one hundred and fifty poles Crossing Cane Creek and a branch to pointers South five Degrees East one hundred and seventy six pos to pointers Thence a new dividing line North Eighty four Degrees West two hundred and seventy six pos Crossing Cane Ck to a white oak and pointers Thence the patent line North twenty four Degrees East one hundred and fifty seven poles to the first  … and all trees woods … profits Commodities advantages hereditaments and appurtenances whatsoever to the said tract or parcel of land and premises above mentioned belonging or in any wise appertaining and also the Revertion and Revertions Remainder and Remainders Rents and Services of the said premises above mentioned and of every part and parcel thereof with the Appurtenances and also all the Estate Right Title Interest Claim and Demand whatsoever Either in Equity or in Law of him the John Chipman of in or to the said premises above mentioned or in any part thereof to have & to hold the said one hundred and ninety acres of land and premises above mentioned and every part and parcel thereof with the Appurtenances unto the said Roger Atkinson his heirs and assigns to the only proper use and Behoof of the said Roger Atkinson his heirs and assigns forever and the said John Chipman for himself & his heirs doth warrant and agree to and with the said Roger Atkinson his heirs and assigns by these present that the said John Chipman the said one hundred and ninety Acres of Land and premises above mentioned  and Every part and parcel thereof with the Appurtenances unto the said Roger Atkinson his heirs and assigns Against the said John Chipman & his heirs and all and Every Other person and persons whatsoever Shall and will Warrant and forever Defend By these presents In Witness whereof the said John Chipman hath to these presents set his hand and Affixed his seal the Day and year first above written —-

John JC Chipman his mark

Sealed & Delivered in present of

Ben Lankford

Thos Dillard

Theops Lacy

Jno. Doneleson

 

Memorandum that on the day and year first within mentioned full peaceable and quiet possession and livery of seizen of the within mentioned one hundred and ninety Acres of land sold made and delivered By the within named John Chipman unto the within named Roger Atkinson to hold to him his heirs and Assigns forever According to the proper & true intent and meaning of the within written Indenture.

Jno JC Chipman his mark

Sealed in presences of

Ben Lankford

Ths Dillard

Theops Lacy

Jno Donelson

[Halifax Co., VA Deed Book 6, pp. 18-20.  To my knowledge, this is the first time this deed has been transcribed.  I've never seen so much legalese in a deed, which may reflect a cloud on the title or the uncertainties of life on the VA frontier.

The absence of a wife relinquishing dower indicates she was deceased.  The use of a mark suggests John Chipman was illiterate.

Jno (John) Donelson, who signed as a witness, was the father of Rachel Donelson who married President Andrew Jackson.]

 

 

 

Missouri pioneer tales & Joshua Vaughan and Thomas Scott, Jr.’s California journeys

My paternal grandmother, Jewel Winifred Bailey, was the daughter of Mary Ann Cordelia (Harkey) Bailey, or just Molly as she was known.  The Harkeys were Germans who settled in North Carolina.  Daniel David Harkey married Mary Ann Bankston in Wilkes Co., GA.  They came to Dunklin County, MO about the time it was created.  They were probably the closest thing you could find to gentry in Dunklin County.

Dunklin Co. is part of the area leveled by the New Madrid earthquake of 1811/12.  It boasts some of the richest farmland in the nation, though few outside the bootheel have heard of it.  Singer/songwriter Sheryl Crow is from Kennett, the Dunklin Co. seat.

My mother’s maternal ancestors settled in mid-Missouri, in the area that eventually became Miller County.  It’s a beautiful section of the state, dominated by the Osage River.  One of my ancestors, Thomas Scott Jr., was a local politician of note.  He had married America Stillwell in Indiana.  He was elected to the Missouri State convention of 1861 from the 27th Senatorial District along with James Proctor Knott (later a governor of Kentucky) and J.W. McClurg (governor of Missouri from 1869 to 1871).  In 1862 Scott was elected to the State House of Representatives. 

In 1875 he went to California in a Wells Fargo stagecoach and settled in Placer County where he dabbled in real estate and mining.  He owned the Paymaster Mine near Auburn.   He was a member of the Rising Star Lodge no. 83 of the Free and Accepted Masons in Forest Hill.

Here’s a letter I ran across in my files:

Missouri State Teachers Association

Columbia, Missouri

Everett Keith

Executive Secretary

May 2, 1952

Dear Terressa:

I am returning the blank, and hope it will serve your purpose.  I am sorry that I do not recall your birthday.  I remember Theron’s as July 23.  He was born approximately six months after the date of the letter you sent me.  It was dated in January, 1880, and you will recall that grandfather asked about me.

You will note what I said on the blank about our moving to a new home when I was six years old.  That was the home on the river, where we all grew up.  The place we moved from, and the place of your birth, was a mile or so northwest of the Harmony Church, the place where John McMillan lived when you left Missouri.  The farm was a part of the one Grandfather Vaughan [a] acquired when he returned from California with his family about 1852.  The date may have been a little later.  Father was an infant when the family crossed the plains to California in 1850.  Uncle George was born while the family were in California.  They returned by way of the Isthmus of Panama, taking boat to the Isthmus, crossing by pack-train, and continuing by boat to New Orleans, and from there to St. Louis.  I am not sure that you knew about that trip.

Grandfather Scott [b] also went to California, but about twenty-five years later.  He apparently had some trouble with his family, especially the boys.  He deeded each of the boys a farm and left for California without telling anyone he was going.  I recall his return, about 1886. He came to our place and stayed there for a few months.  He then moved to Uncle Newt’s, where he died.  Uncle Newt then lived on what later was known as the Fogleman place, where he lived for a while once.

All this history may not interest you, but it has interested me.  I have spent about half of my time the last three or four years going over records dealing with the history of Missouri.

Emma and I are about as usual.  We are expecting Max and his family up some time soon.  He lives in Fort Smith, and has two children, a boy and a girl.

Write again when you can.  We are always glad to hear from you.

Your brother

Everit

[a] Joshua Vaughan, my 3^rd great grandfather.

[b] Thomas Scott, Jr., my 3^rd great-grandfather.

Joshua Vaughan’s son Wilson Milton Vaughan married Thomas Scott Jr.’s daughter Rachel Jane Scott.

John Chipman of Pittsylvania Co., VA (part one)

I received a letter dated 23 Mar 2001 from Elizabeth Pearson White who was beginning to work on her article (co-authored with Edwin Wagner Coles) about the Chipmans of DE.  As she put it, [I] “have been slowed down trying to untangle the unholy mess of the Chipmans in Delaware.”

White & Coles had some NY and DE Chipman material I didn’t have, and I had some VA Chipman records they didn’t have.  The information wasn’t exchanged, so the account of John Chipman of Dorchester Co., MD and John Chipman of Pittsylvania Co., VA was unresolved when their article appeared in 2003. 

I recall, though I don’t have the reference, that John Chipman of Pittsylvania Co., VA was listed on the 1770 tax list there.   However, it makes no sense for John Chipman to enter 1200 acres in Halifax Co., VA in the fall of 1766, be appointed Constable of Pittsylvania County on June 26, 1767, then purchase 50 acres in MD on May 9, 1768, return to VA to be taxed in 1770, then sell the 50 acres in MD in 1771 ( the deed lists him as being of Dorchester Co., MD, not VA), and then return to VA and sign an Oath of Allegiance in 1777.   Thus we have two John Chipmans.

It seems clear John Chipman (b. ca. 1728 based on the 1749 Lunenburg Co. tax list) of Pittsylvania Co., VA was the son of James and Mary (Minor) Chipman.  Why?  The problem is not as difficult as it might appear.  We know John Chipman of Pittsylvania Co., VA had to be (for chronological reasons) a great-grandson of John and Hope (Howland) Chipman).  He wasn’t a remote descendant, but what were his antecedents?

John and Hope had two surviving sons:  Samuel and John.  Samuel’s progeny are well known (at least to that point) and can be eliminated.   John (known as Hon. John Chipman for his government service in RI) had four sons by his first marriage.  The Pittsylvania John was b. ca. 1728, and therefore can’t be a son of Handley Chipman, b. 1717, the son by Hon. John Chipman’s second marriage (there was no issue of his third marriage).  By Mary Skiff, John had four sons who had families:  James, John, Paris, and Ebenezar.   Ebenezar was b. 1709 and didn’t have a son named John.  His older brother John remained in MA and didn’t have a son named John, either.  That leaves Paris and James as possible fathers for John Chipman of Pittsylvania Co., VA.

Paris Chipman I didn’t name any grandchildren in his will.  It’s a curious document, for he didn’t give the married names of any of his daughters, either, though it’s known Milly married — Commeans, and Mary was unmarried.

However, there’s a document which indicates his sons Paris II and (presumably) John didn’t have surviving issue:  a deed filed in Dorchester Co., MD dated 13 Aug 1813, in which Draper Chipman, Ameilia Commeans, and Mary Chipman conveyed to Arthur Wheatley their interest in land owned by Paris Chipman II in Dorchester Co., MD.  Evidently Paris Chipman II had died intestate.  In 1813 Draper Chipman was a resident of KY, so we may presume there was no difficulty in learning of an interest in the property of Paris Chipman II.  If John Chipman, son of Paris Chipman I, had surviving issue, they would have inherited their father’s interest in the tract.  There was a John Chipman (d. 1829) residing in Sussex Co., DE (as did Ameilia Commeans and Mary Chipman) who was a mill operator, and yet wasn’t a party to this deed.  I think it obvious this individual wasn’t a grandson of Paris Chipman I.

Although this evidence is persuasive, further research should be conducted on this line.  John Chipman disappears from the Pittslvania Co., VA records after 1777.  This was a volatile and active section of VA, and daughter counties should be searched for records.  Since this man isn’t listed in the comprehensive 1787 VA tax lists, he was probably deceased by then, so the period of interest is 1777-1787.

 

Records:

John Chipman

Pittsylvania Co., VA

 

Lunenburg Co., VA:  Tithes of Cornelius Cargill, 1749.  One tithe for John Chipman.

 

Halifax Co., VA was formed in 1752 from Lunenburg Co.

 

March 10, 1752.  Jno. Chipman:  survey; 197 acres on both sides of Cane Creek.

 

July 14, 1755.  John Chipman enters the vacant land not exceeding 400 acres between Hogan, Thomas, and Harris lines on Cane Creek.

 

1760.  Halifax Co tax list:  John Chipman, William Chipman.  (William Chipman is undoubtedly the same who fought in the French & Indian War from Fort Loudon, VA.)

 

1760, July court, Halifax Co.  “It appearing to the court that William Chipman son of John Chipman age 7 years next September 17 has lately and causally had apiece of the under part of of his left ear taken off by the belt of a mare.”  (recieved from Connie Taylor) 

 

February 15, 1764.  John Chipman 400 acres on branches of Cane Creek beginning at his corner, adjoining his own land and the Read and Clay lines.

 

May 21, 1764,  John Been (Bean) to John Chapman [sic], both of Halifax Co., 190 acres on both sides of Cane Creek, being part of a larger tract granted to John Been by patent dated September 10, 1760.   Rec June 21, 1764.  (Halifax Co. Deed Book 5, pp. 15-16)  This deed is interesting because John Bean wasn’t the original patentee; James Hogan was.  See Virginia State Land Office Patents no. 34, pp. 713-714. 

 

December 25, 1765.  John Chipman 400 acres both sides of Fall Creek beginning at Innes fore and aft.

 

January 27, 1766.  John Chipman 400 acres on a branch of Dan River adjoining Hogan, Terry and John Owens.

 

May 15, 1766.  John Chipman of Halifax Co. to Roger Atkinson, merchant.  190 acres on both sides of Cane Creek whereon said Chipman now dwells, part of 383 acres granted by patent to James Hogan September 10, 1760.  Signed:  John Chipman (JC).  Witnesses:  Ben Lankford, Thomas Dillard Jr., Theops. Lacy, Jno. Donolson.  Recorded:  July 17, 1766.  Deed Book 6, p. 18.  (There is no wife relinquishing dower in this tract, indicating she was deceased.  This tract is the same purchased of John Been on May 21, 1764; see above.)

 

Deeds from Entry Record Book 1737-1777 (covers Halifax, Pittsylvania, Henry, Patrick, and Franklin counties).  

 

October 26, 1766.  John Chipman 400 acres on the south fork of Smith River beginning at the mouth and up both sides.

 

October 28, 1766.  John Chipman 400 acres on Buffaloe Creek beginning at Wards upper line.

 

November 1, 1766.  John Chipman 400 acres on top of the Main Mountain adjoining his own lines on the north and northeast side.

 

Pittsylvania Co., VA was formed in 1767 from Halifax Co

 

1767.  Tithables taken for Pittsylvania Co. by John Dix:  John Chipman, Constable, one tithe.

 

June 26, 1767.  “John Chipman came into Court and took the Oath of a Constable as also the several Oaths by Law prescribed.”

 

Pittsylvania Co.  Will:  Joshua Worsham Sr.  Left to sons Robert and Joshua one half each of a tract  of land on Hat Creek on the waters of Smith River which was purchased from John Chipman.  Probated August 29, 1771.  (The Smith River area became Henry County after 1777.)

 

1777.  Pittsylvania Co.  Oaths of Allegiance:  John Chipman, Jacob Chipman.  (John Chipman’s Oath of Allegiance qualifies descendants for DAR membership.)

 

[Most of this material was compiled by Lucille Payne of the Pittsylvania Co., VA Historical Society in 1987/8.  I ran across Maud Carter Clement's volume on Pittsylvania County and found John Chipman had been constable in 1767.  I thank Lucille Payne for the time spent tracking down these records. No one (except Handley Chipman) knew there had been Chipmans in colonial VA.]

Handley Chipman’s Thanksgiving & The Chipman Family Of Virginia

“[The Mayflower pilgrims] … saw them the vessel after the boat’s return came up to the place of their intended settlement and they all landed and prepared huts for to live in, but poor distressed souls they being disappointed of other vessels coming over to them for a great while to supply them with provisions and other necessities as expected

 

“Sundry of these poor distressed people died and all was in imanent danger of perishing, if it had not been for the Clams they found on the shores and dugg up at low tide, but it was especially from the Supp & turkeys obtained in quantities [from] the native Indians … which corn they ate and paid the Indians for the spring after as soon as they had gained acquaintance with them who had been very shy of them.

 

“My said Grandfather John Chipman born 1615 Married a Daughter of the aforesaid Mr. Howland and settled at Barnstable, the next Town but one which is Sandwich, to their Said Plimouth further on the Said Cape Cod, Plimouth being being at the head of the Bay.  he my Said Grandfather was an Elder in Minister Russels Congregational Church, in said Barnstable, and if I am not mistaken removed and lived in Said Sandwich the Latter part of his Day.  He died aged 88.  He had or left 10 children of which my honored father was the Youngest.  his children generally lived to grow up and Marry and from whom proceeded a very Numerous offspring.  As my Grandfather was the only one of the name of Chipman and my Grandmother Daughter of the only one of the name of Howland in New England or any of the now States of America, so the Chipmans are all on this Continent Related as well as the Howlands, and are all of them by reason of my Grandfather and grandmothers Marriage together Related to one another, and so near that Long Since my Remembrance my dear father and the Howlands used to call Cuzzens and the Howlands was often conversant at my house and my fathers house &c.

 

“My Dear and Honored Deceased father John Chipman, married one Capt. Skiffs daughter of said Sandwich, by whom he had 9 children that all Lived to grow up to the years of Men and Women, from whom has sprang a very large offspring.  Their names were Sons, James, Perez, John, Ebenezer and Stephen.  The Daughters names were Bethia and Mary, twins, as was also the Son Said Stephen with the next daughter Lidia, the others name was Deborah.  They had all entered into the Marriage State and had generally Large families of Children, Except said Stephen, who had no Children by his wife, Dying Master of a Vessel young in Nevis in the West Indies.  They were mostly of more than middling size.  James was a clothier by Trade, Perez was a Blacksmith as was also Ebenezer, John was a farmer and Stephen a cooper by trade.  They scattered much in their Settling in families.

 

“My dear fathers first wife dying at said Sandwich, Leaving said nine children, He some time after, it may be two years, married her that was my dear Mother, at Capt. Popes at Dartmouth, her first husband was his oldest Son, her second husband was one Capt. Russel, with whom I have been told She lived about 17 months, at Rhode Island or near there about….  She had no Child or Children that Lived by Either of these husbands.  by my dear father She had my Self, her son Handley, and my dear sister Rebecca.  Soon after her birth my dear Father removed from Sandwich to Martha Vineyard, where he lived it may be 7 years.

 

“Just about a year after my dear Mothers Death, my dear Father married the Said widow Case at Newport on Said Rhode Island.  She had had two husbands, one a Griffin, the other said Capt. Case.  by said Griffin She had a daughter who lived to grow up and Married my Said dear father Son Stephen, who died in Said West Indies Leaving no Child.  My Mother in Law’s maiden name was Mary Hoockey, and after my dear father had Lived with her 19 years She died also with the Consumption.  She was a Baptist.  My dear father soon after he thus Married at Rhode Island, sold his farm at the Vineyard, to one Mr. Norton for L1200, money then at s5/pr. ounce.  he removed then to Rhode Island and Let his money to Interest, but it depreciating fast, he called it in and went to shopkeeping.

 

“He was when he lived at Sandwich, Crowner or Coroner, a Capt. Lieutenant, and a Representative to the General Assembly at Boston, as I find, by his Commission Left.  While he lived on the Vineyard he was Justice of the Peace and one of the Judges of the Inferior Court, &c.

 

“After he removed to Rhode Island Government, he was for some time the first of the Governors Council, and was also Chief Judge of the Superior Court or court of Equity, as it was then called, and continued in said office until he was about 70 years old when he of choice flung up all offices by reason of his old age, and soon after my Mother in Law dying he Left off his Shopkeeping, broke up housekeeping, and went to live with my own Sister who had married a worthy person, a Capt. Moore.

 

“My dear and Honoured Father was born March 3d day, A.D. 1670.  He departed this Life at Newport on Rhode Island, January 4 th day, 1756, in my house, where he had lived some years, after he broke up housekeeping, he went and Lived at Capt. David Moors as aforesaid who married my own only Sister, but she dying in a few years after, he then came to Live with me.

 

“I would before I conclude the Pedigree of my dear fathers family just mention that I have divers times inquired after the family of the Chipmans coat of arms but never could get Intelligence of it.  And am lately informed that Ward Chipman, Esq. Solisiter General in our Neighboring Province of Brunswick Government, when he was in England a few years past, made very thorough Search after our family coat of arms, and finds we have none at all, &c.

 

“But the Chipmans in America are very Numerous indeed.  they are, we are, Sure all related, for they are all of them descended from my said Grandfather.  we find they are Spread even from Canso * Eastward to Virginia Westward, if not farther both ways.”

 

* A fishing village on the eastern tip of mainland Nova Scotia.

 

[“A Chipman Family History,” by Handley Chipman (1717-1799) of Newport, R.I., and Cornwallis, Nova Scotia, composed ca. 1790, in:

 

Roberts, Gary Boyd; ed.  (1985).  Genealogies of Mayflower Families From The New England Historical and Genealogical Register Volume I Adams-Fuller.  Baltimore:  Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.

 

Handley Chipman's statement validates the Chipmans of Virginia as authentic descendants of John and Hope (Howland) Chipman, but supporting documentation still needs to be assembled.]

 

For Mayflower history & genealogy see:

 

Philbreck, Nathaniel.  (2006).  Mayflower A Story of Courage, Community, and War.   New York:  Viking Penguin Group.

 

Philbreck, Nathaniel; Philbreck, Thomas; eds.  (2007).  The Mayflower Papers Selected Writings of Colonial New England.  New York:  Penguin Group.

 

Roser, Susan E.  (1995).  Mayflower Increasings 2nd Edition.  Baltimore:  Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.

 

Stratton, Eugene Aubrey.  (1986).  Plymouth Colony Its History & People 1620-1691.  Salt Lake City:  Ancestry Publishing.

John Branch & The War of 1812

  State of Missouri  County of New Madrid SS

On this 30th day of January A.D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty one, personally appeared before me, a Justice of the Peace within and for the County & state aforesaid, John Branch, aged sixty years, a resident of New Madrid County in the State of Missouri, who being duly sworn according to law, declares that he is the identical John Branch, who was a common soldier in the company of mounted Horse, commanded by Captain Steel in the Regiment of — commanded by — in the war with Grait Briton declared by the United States on the 18th day of June 1812 that he joined the main army on or near Pensacola on or about the first day of October A.D. 1814 for the term of six months and continued in actual service in said war for the term of six or seven months and was honorably discharged at, or near Nashville Tenn on the — day of April A.D. 1815 as will appear by the muster rolls of said company, the said John Branch having sold his discharge to some — near Nashville as to dates he cannot say positively.  He makes this declaration for the purposes of obtaining the bounty land to which he may be entitled under the “act granting bounty land to certain officers & soldiers who have been engaged in the military service of the United States” passed September 28th 1850. 

John Branch

Sworn to and subscribed before me the day and date above written And I hereby certify that I beleive the said John Branch to be the identical — who — as aforesaid and that he is of the about age herein before stated.

Ebenezer Oldham  Justice of the Peace

State of Missouri  County of New Madrid SS

This day personally appeared before me, a Justice of the Peace in & for the County of New Madrid State aforesaid, William Kimbrow & Simon Cagle, who being duly sworn by myself declare and say that they have known John Branch, whose name is subscribed to the foregoing declaration, for the last ten years; and know him to be a — & has moral character in — and verasity, an above suspicion, and believe him to be the identical John Branch who served as a soldier as aforesaid; and that full faith and credit should and ought to be given to the foregoing declaration, signed by the said John Branch Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of January AD 1851. 

Ebenezar Oldham  Justice of the Peace

William Kimbrow        Simon Cagle (X)

[Bounty land was land granted to honorably discharged soldiers by Congress as a reward for service, usually many years after cessation of conflict.  Bounty land was often located far from the residence of the soldier, so most sold their "warrants" to speculators.

William Kimbrow was the first husband of John Branch's daughter Annie Bradford Branch.  He was killed by a horse while serving as Sheriff of Dunklin County, Missouri.

John Branch was the son of William Branch Jr. of Halifax County, North Carolina.  He died in Pemiscot County, Missouri, where he had been postmaster at Cottonwood Point.  John's sister Dorothy Myra (Branch) Benton was an ancestor of the painter Thomas Hart Benton of Neosho, Missouri.  The Branch family was prominent in Halifax Co., NC; John and Dorothy's first cousin (once removed) John  Branch was governor of NC and FL. 

William Branch Jr. married Nancy Bradford in Halifax County in 1790 (no month and day on bond).  Nancy Bradford was certainly the mother of Dorothy Myra (Branch) Benton, but because the chronology is tight, it's possible John Branch might have been a child of an earlier marriage.  As the pension affidavit states, he was 60 years of age on 30 Jan 1851.  That this Nancy Bradford was the daughter of Col. John Bradford has been questioned.]

William Rogers’ new patent for the Chetwood tract

    If you’ve read section 8 of “A Cavalier Attitude”, you know that in 1695 William Rogers received a new land grant from the Fairfax Proprietary for the property Edward Dale had gifted to the Rogers on March 12 1677/8.  The plantation had not been “seated,” necessitating a new grant confiming ownership of the tract.

I first learned of this grant on April 24, 2006 in an e-mail from Joan Burdyck.  There were some troubling elements of her e-mail.  Since others may be laboring under the same impression, they should be addressed.

Of this grant, Joan said:

“Notice also that there is an error in Edward Dale’s name.  It is written as Edward Duke.  Again we see errors in court and legal records…. I think that William and Elizabeth wanted to take possession of the land and Edward didn’t want them to, so Elizabeth was out of favor as shown in Edward’s will.”

Errors can occur in records from any period, but often the “error” is a failure on my part to make out the handwriting or understand what I’m reading.  So I decided to re-examine this land grant.

First, let’s address the evidentiary issues:

The Rogers grant is dated “ca. Apl. 1695″ by The Library Of Virginia, the custodian of old Virginia land grants.  Images of the grants are now available online.  There is no date in the Rogers grant.  Why does The Library Of Virginia date this document as “ca. Apl. 1695″?

The Rogers grant appears in Northern Neck Grants No. 2, 1694-1700, pp. 156-157 (Reel 288).  A note in the catalog indicates the grant is among those issued by the agents of the Fairfax Proprietary between 1690 to 1781.  The book in which this grant appears lists grants in continuous order; that is, when a grant ends on a page, the beginning of the next grant starts immediately on the same page.  The Rogers grant occupies portions of 2 pages.  The grant preceeding the Rogers grant is dated April 4, 1695, and the one immediately following the Rogers grant is dated April 5, 1695.  I think the date in the catalog is conservative, and we can, for chronological purposes, date this grant as ca. April 4/5, 1695–as long as people know why.  The exact day isn’t crucial.

This grant is not, of course, the document William Rogers tucked into his coat–that’s long since disappeared.  It’s a copy of the original document that has been written into the record book.  The person who wrote the original may not be the person who copied it.  Papers, including the plat, were kept by the Fairfax Proprietary.

These old records were written in pen and ink, and penmanship varies and ink bleeds and fades.  The writing in this grant is remarkably clear for such an old document.  It seemed odd that Rogers would accept a document in which the name of his father-in-law was misspelled, so I checked the name Joan interprets as “Edward Duke.”  She might be right.  The important thing here is that the facts in the grant leave no doubt that William Rogers applied for a new grant of the Chetwood tract, so if it’s ”Edward Duke” there’s still no mystery about the legal event being described.

There’s no evidence that Elizabeth Rogers was in the doghouse with her father–by the standards of her time.  If I’ve learned one lesson, it’s that you can’t apply modern standards to people living more than 300 years ago.  Their mental landscape was different.  Colonial Williamsburg is quaint, but when Edward Dale died, Jamestown was still the capital of Virginia.  And the first edition of the King James bible was only 85 years old.  

Joan’s comment that ”Again we see errors in court and legal records” might be interpreted to mean no document can confidently be used as evidence.  Some genealogists are only happy when everything means nothing, especially if some of the facts in the case are inconvenient.

The intriguing aspect of this document is that William Rogers obtained it after Edward Dale wrote his will, and before the deaths of Edward and Diana (Skipwith) Dale.

Joan sent me her transcription of the grant, but since it’s a short document, I decided to make my own transcription rather than follow hers.  She had altered some letters from the original, and while that didn’t change any facts, I used the original.  I did consult her version to help decipher a few words.  There is a character that appears three times in the original that Joan interpreted as “ye,” but it doesn’t resemble an actual ”ye” as it appears in the text.  In the grant following, this character appears some 9 times, and I think it’s probably punctuation.  Again, it doesn’t alter the meaning.

It’s interesting that neither the Rogers grant, or the one following to Randell Kerk, mention the county where the land was located.  A check of the patent catalog shows Kerk’s land was located in Westmoreland County; the Proprietary retained the mineral rights.   

(The Library of Virginia also has two land grants totalling 403 acres in Lancaster County issued on December 17, 1691 to David Fox and William Rogers as dual grantees.  On May 17, 1682, William Rogers was appointed justice of the peace and High Sheriff for Northumberland County.  On February 11, 1684/5 in Lancaster County court indentured servant John Wells sued his master, William Rogers, for his freedom, but lost.  On December 14, 1687, Rogers was appointed a member of the troop of horse of the Lancaster County militia.)  

Here’s my transcription of the land grant:

William Rogers

500 Acres

Examined.

 

Margarett Lady Culpeper Thomas Lord Fairfax To all Whereas Know ye that we for and in consideration of the composition do grant to William Rogers, bounded as followeth /Viz/ beginning at an old corner red oak stump standing on a point near the head of a Swamp formerly called Chettwood Swamp a corner Spanish Oak being marked just by, thence running by marked trees south west half degree West thirty eight poles crosing the said swamp to a corner Peck hickory standing in Col. Matthew Kemp’s line thence along the said Kemps line of marked trees two hundred and eighty two poles to a corner white oak saplin standing on the East ward side of a branch, thence down the said branch on Cross the first mentioned Swamp, north thirty five poles to a corner red oak saplin standing by the side of the said swamp on the north side thereof thence down the said swamp the several courses thereof which being upon a direct line is North West by West seventy seven poles to a marked corner red oak standing by the side of the said swamp, thence by marked trees North East half degree East one hundred and eighty six poles to a corner white Oak stake in a Valley near the head of a branch called White Marsh, thence by marked trees South East three hundred and twenty poles to the place where it first began, the said land being being formerly granted to Mr. Thomas Chettwood for five hundred acres by patent dated the ninth of July one thousand six hundred and sixty seven and by the said Chettwood sold to Major Edward Duke [sic] given to his daughter now the wife of William Rogers and for want of due seating deserted.

W.F.