About Roberta Estes

Scientist, author, genetic genealogist. Documenting Native Heritage through contemporaneous records and DNA.

DNA Data Organization, Tools and Who’s on First?

organization

Someone wrote to me with the following question/commentary about autosomal DNA and data organization on my blog. Her request is below:

“My overwhelming need is organization and I suspect others are in the same boat. I have only a rudimentary knowledge of spreadsheets which makes directions on setting them up for triangulation intimidating. What I am asking of you is that you do a blog about third party utilities which could be useful, perhaps doing a comparison of those available, i.e. ADSA, Genome Mate etc. I was also wondering if you could set up a hierarchy of which should come first and so on.”

I took this question to the ISOGG Facebook list, as I don’t use GenomeMate and was looking for input from people who do.  I also have known how to use Excel virtually “forever” so I have never looked at newbie resources for Excel either.

My Comment on FB:  I am hoping that someone has already done this, or at least compiled a list with some commentary, as I don’t use all of the tools extensively. For example, I use spreadsheets, not GenomeMate – although that implies nothing negative about GenomeMate.  Anyway, does anyone have any pointers for this gal? Does anyone know if there has been an “intro to excel for genetic genealogy” done? Thanks.

First, I’d like to thank everyone who contributed to the conversation on the ISOGG Facebook list.  I have distilled the commentary to what I perceived to be the most relevant responses, below:

Genome Mate

I would highly recommend that she skip the spreadsheet phase and go straight to Genome Mate, since she’s not really experienced with either. (Nothing against spreadsheets – I love ’em – but GM will give her more bang for the learning curve buck. Also, those using spreadsheets all do them differently, so it’s harder to draw on a community for help.) The GM user group here on FB is extremely friendly, and IIRC the quick-start guide for the new and improved GM is either now out or imminent.

GenomeMate vs GenomeMate Pro, the new version.  There was very positive commentary about the Pro version.

There is a GenomeMate Pro FB group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/816785941743656/

There is a GenomeMate User Group FB group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/1487955884768702/

Blog article about using GenomeMate

https://iowadnaproject.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/must-have-tools-for-ftdna-users-genome-mate/

Some reports of problems with GenomeMate on the Apple platform, others say it works fine, especially the new Pro version.  Commentary says that if you’re just starting on GenomeMate now, begin with the newer Pro version.

There will be a quick-start guide for Mac users of Genome Mate Pro soon. There is currently one for the PC.

Dan Stone writes a blog that has featured using Genome Mate; and Jim Sipe has written a how-to-guide for it. I’m helping to beta test Genome Mate Pro; and I love it! It organizes your matches by each position on your chromosomes; points out overlapping segments and possible triangulations; allows you to segment map your most recent common ancestors, etc. I gave up spreadsheets for Genome Mate and am thrilled–it essentially “automates” what I used to do in organizing matches across the Big 3 and Gedmatch.

Tools

http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_tools

This is a list and most people are probably already aware of these tools, but take a look just in case.

Roberta’s comment:  I use many of the available tools, but am particularly fond of the tools at http://www.dnagedcom.com, http://www.gedmatch.com and the tools on Kitty Cooper’s blog.  These are for the most part created for all levels of genetic genealogy users.  Some of the other tools are for more advanced users.  Most all of these tools are designed to be used in addition to a spreadsheet or some form of organization – which is where this conversation has focused. None of them, with the possible exception of ADSA (Autosomal DNA Segment Analyzer available at http://www.dnagedcom.com), could replace an organizational spreadsheet or GenomeMate, although ADSA does not work with 23andMe data.

Excel

A couple of people referred to some training videos for Excel including “Twenty with Tessa, Tips and Suggestions for Spreadsheets” which is focused on using spreadsheets with one name studies and genetic genealogy, but the principles are the same.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll_cfhOZTl0&feature=youtu.be

In addition, one person mentioned that they joined www.lynda.com and took the basic Excel class which she found very useful.

Kitty Cooper has instructions on her blog for how to make a matches spreadsheet.  The good news is that you can download your matches into a spreadsheet format from either 23andMe or Family Tree DNA, but you do need to understand something about the basics of sorting and how to stay out of spreadsheet trouble.

www.DNAadoption.com has some good courses their DNA for beginners covers using spreadsheets, not just for adoptees!

Roberta’s Summary

I heartily agree that the www.dnaadoption.com tools and classes are not just for adoptees.

DNAAdoption reportedly does not utilize GenomeMate for their purposes because GenomeMate focuses on the direct line trees, while in order to put families together for adoptees, who don’t know their direct line tree, they must use the combination of other people’s trees to determine where they fit in which line.  So GenomeMate does not work well for adoptees who are searching.

This discussion about GenomeMate Pro has almost convinced me to give it a shot.  I must admit, much of what is done manually in a spreadsheet could certainly be automated.  The issue holding me back before, aside from the fact that I already have so much done in my spreadsheet, was that the original version of GenomeMate required Silverlite be installed.  The new version does not.

Here’s a link to the GenomeMate page if you want to take a look.  I may take a test spin.  I think reading the user guide would go a long way in helping me decide if this tool might be for me.

Let me know if you install this product and how you like it.

http://genomemate.org/

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

James Crumley (c1711–1764), Slave-Owning Quaker Moonshiner, 52 Ancestors #88

In the Beginning…

We don’t know where James Crumley was born, but he was born in or before 1711.  Some early accounts tell us that James was born in County Monaghan, Ireland and some say Yorkshire, England, but to date, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence of either. There isn’t even a preponderance of evidence.  There is only speculation and a few hints that may or may not be red herrings.

Part of me thinks the Yorkshire information might be correct due to James association with the Quaker families who immigrated from England.  Another part of me thinks the Irish origins are more likely correct, given DNA matching and other information.

In “Pioneer Ancestors”, the author suggests that James Crumley could have been among the Quaker families who first emigrated from Yorkshire County to Ulster province in Ireland in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and then came to America.  The migration wave from Ulster began about 1717 and a second wave occurred from 1725-1729.  This second wave of immigrants arrived just before James Crumley’s name first appeared in the Chester County, PA tax rolls, so maybe James was actually from both places.

English records indicate that during the 1650s, the Quaker movement swept across England with thousands of farmers and tradespeople becoming Quaker.  Most market towns had Quaker meetings.

In the late 1600s, Ulster, in Ireland became quite prosperous and the north of England had become economically depressed.  That along with the lack of control of a state church in Ireland encouraged migration from England to Ireland, especially from Yorkshire and Durham.

Upon arrive in America, Quaker immigrants distributed themselves according to their places of origin in Britain.  Country Quakers from Cheshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire settled mainly in Chester and Bucks Counties.

The oldest reference found asserting that James Crumley “was born in Yorkshire, England” was the 1957 volume of “Colonial and Revolutionary Lineages of America” in which no supporting documentation was presented.

Much to my chagrin, no Crumley or similar surname male from overseas has Y DNA tested and matches our Crumley DNA. However, we do have a DNA clue.  One of the autosomal DNA matches to our Crumley line in the 1800s in Ohio was born in Ireland, according to the census.  A physician, also named James Crumley, he was reported to have studied in Edinburgh, but that is in Scotland.  I’m hopeful that his descendants will find additional information about this man.

There are other hints that at least some Crumley families were from Ireland.  In the Boston Pilot in 1867 there was an ad under “missing friends” for one Thomas Crumley, a tailor by trade, a native of county Monaghan, Ireland who came to this country over 20 years ago.  Any information will be thankfully received by his brother, Joseph Crumley, Holyoke, Mass.”  Of course, we don’t know if this was “our” Crumley paternal line or not.

A letter is found in the Handley Library Archives, Winchester, Virginia dated  February 27, 1930 written by Father Thomas Crumley said that his father came to the United States from Guard Hill, a small settlement outside of Newbliss, County Monaghan, Ireland. If or how this man is connected is uncertain.

Looking in immigration and naturalization records, we don’t find our James, but we do find a number of Crumleys who did immigrate from Ireland, so Crumley is definitely a name found there.

We also know, from James’ will in 1757, that he has a brother Thomas and a sister, Joan, but he doesn’t say if they live in the US or they are still in the old country, wherever that was.  If they are in this country, in particular, Thomas Crumley who carries the same surname, where is he???  Or was he perhaps disabled and that’s why James was leaving him money?

A cursory search in the early Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania records, so far, has turned up nothing about Thomas.

Chester County, Pennsylvania

Chester County PA map

James is first found in the US in 1732 on a tax list in East Nottingham, Chester County, Pennsylvania with a tax amount of 1 shilling.  Only 6 other people had a tax this low, so he, in essence, was one of the 6 poorest people in the township.  The only people poorer were those with nothing at all.  By 1735, James was taxed at 2 pence, 6 shillings, which was about average, so he was moving up in the world.

We know that James was a member of the Quaker church after he moved to Frederick County, VA and East Nottingham in Chester County supported the largest Quaker Meeting House south of Philadelphia, the East Nottingham Friends Meetinghouse, shown below. The brick section was originally built in 1724.

East Nottingham Meeting House

Many of the families in this area were Quaker, seeking refuge from persecution in England.  Not escaping problems, the region of Chester County where James Crumley lived was involved in a border dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania.

This part of Pennsylvania and Maryland represented the frontier at this time, according to Dr. Robert Warwick Day in his paper, “The Nottingham Lots and the Early Quaker Families.”

Historically, the Nottingham Lots were “ground zero” for a multi-generational land dispute between the several Lords Baltimore and William Penn, his sons and grandsons over border rights. Unlike other English colonies in America, both Maryland and Pennsylvania were originally grants or gifts to Lord Baltimore and William Penn, respectively. Each had autonomy in governing his colony without the direct control of the English government.

It is apparent from the records that Maryland had its toehold in this area before Pennsylvania. The Maryland Charter of 1632 placed that colony’s northern boundary near 40 degrees latitude, closer to Philadelphia. However, this border was never firmly established.

Fifty (50) years later, in 1682, William Penn received a grant of land from James 11 of England on the west side of the Delaware River and Delaware Bay. Penn appointed his cousin, William Markham, governor of Pennsylvania and appointed three commissioners to lay out the city of Philadelphia. Penn continued to amass great land holdings in the new colony, as he had in England.

The primary dispute was over Lord Baltimore’s claim to the northern border of Maryland and William Penn’s claim to the southern border of Pennsylvania. This land dispute continued for another fifty years after Penn’s death in 1718. It was not until the late 1760’s that the boundary was drawn through the work of two eminent English mathematicians and astronomers, Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon.

Pa Md Mason Dixon Line

The Nottingham Lots grew out of William Penn’s tenacity in establishing his border rights. The second Lord Baltimore, Cecil Calvert, became more preoccupied with settling his border rights with the colony of Virginia to the south. At the same time, Penn was successful in attracting Quaker families primarily from the Philadelphia area and West Jersey as a means of fortifying his title to it.

In 1701, William Penn granted a warrant for 18,000 acres for the Nottingham Lots as one tract. In 1701, all 18,000 acres lay in Chester County, PA. However, after the settlement of the Mason-Dixon Line in the late 1,760’s, only 1,300 acres of the original Nottingham Lots remained in Chester County and the other 16,700 acres became part of Cecil County, Maryland.

Penn’s original tract was divided into lots running north and south, resulting in 37 lots. Each lot averaged approximately 500 acres and each was numbered between 1 and 37. It is generally believed that prospective owners made selections by the drawing of lots – hence, the use of the term “Lots.”

The name “Nottingham” most likely came from William Penn’s home in Nottinghamshire, England. The local township became known as East Nottingham and the meetinghouse became East Nottingham. Quakers and Scots-Irish Presbyterians settled the area to the west, known as West Nottingham.

Nottingham was a frontier village for its first 30 years, while settlers cleared the land and built roads, shops, dwellings, and the Meetinghouse. The Lots were populated by “simple, frugal, and industrious people” who combined farming with one or more of the occupations of that time including milling, blacksmithing, carpentry, clock making, tanning. They raised extensive crops of wheat, corn, and vegetables. Tobacco was not grown here since the soil would not support it.

The community became highly self-sufficient by the sharing of services, such as home-building, relying very little on outside resources other than perhaps support from the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends.

The religious and cultural heart of the Nottingham Lots was clearly the East Nottingham Monthly Meeting (or Brick Meetinghouse. In either 1707 or 1709, a log cabin was built to serve as the first Nottingham Meetinghouse.

In 1724, the 2 1/2 story structure was built and in 1730, the East Nottingham Monthly Meeting (or Brick Meetinghouse) was organized as a separate Monthly Meeting. There were two separate sides, one of brick and one of stone, one side for the men and the other side for the women. It is thought to have been the largest Quaker meetinghouse south of Philadelphia, within the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, for the next few decades.

The social traditions of the early Nottingham founders were closely aligned to their conservative religious beliefs. The Friends addressed themselves as “thee” and “thou.” They dressed very conservatively and were simple in their daily lives. Their household possessions were few, but land ownership appeared to be a high priority.

They were also very human, according to meeting records. Some Friends were “disowned” from Quaker meetings for a variety of reasons, including marrying out of unity, excessive drinking, fornication, taking an oath, assaulting another person, and others. The Quaker faith and moral conscience in this small community was apparently strong, conservative, and rigid.

The first homes in the village, called “bee hives,” were very small, stone houses built on two levels.

Bee Hive houses

As wealth amassed in the community by the 1730’s, somewhat larger, but modest, four-room houses of brick and/or stone were built. They often had a “keeping room” with a cooking fireplace and had very simple, narrow staircases to the second floor. They were occasionally built with the help of neighboring Friends. To this day, several homes built in the 1700’s, such as the Messer Brown home, have the names of the builders inscribed in the exterior brick.

The Nottingham Quakers were very traditional about their rites of burial. The graveyard partially surrounded the Meetinghouse. Initially, there were no grave markers or stones to identify the deceased. Later, there were small stones used with no markings, and then subsequently, small stones with inscriptions were added. The larger headstones were a later addition and seemed to be out of form with Quaker simplicity.

A review of genealogical records reveals that most of these first purchasers were middle-class yeomen born in England during the middle 1600’s and died in the Nottingham area in the early 1700’s. Their roots were mostly in the northern England counties of Cheshire, Durham, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, although some other English counties were represented.

Nearly all of the original Nottingham families came from within a 50-mile radius of Philadelphia before settling here. All were Quakers, and most of them transferred their certificate of membership from other Quaker meetings to the Brick Meetinghouse after its establishment. It can be surmised that William Penn or his agents knew at least some of the families in England or Pennsylvania and encouraged them to relocate to Nottingham.

Many of the families transferred their membership from the Chester Monthly Meeting to the Nottingham Meeting about 1705.

After about 1710, there were other Quakers who came to the Nottingham Lots in search of land and a new life. Most of this second wave of settlers had their early roots throughout England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

After 1730, some of the Nottingham descendants began to move to other regions. Cheaper land prices, better economic opportunities, plus overcrowding caused by the influx of settlers who had purchased land near Nottingham, were factors that caused some of the descendant families to migrate south and west.

Some of these families moved to Northern Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley, central and southside Virginia. They were among the first generation of pioneer families of the uplands region of the South. Hopewell Monthly Meeting near Winchester, VA, for example, had a good representation of Nottingham Friends who followed Alexander Ross to the Shenandoah Valley to settle 100,000 acres in the 1730’s.

However, for many of the Friends, who were accustomed to religious freedom in Pennsylvania, the issues of religious persecution and slavery arose in these new lands and were foreign to their beliefs. Some affluent Quakers in both Pennsylvania and the South were slave owners themselves but were often admonished by their own members.

It was from this Quaker environment that James emerged.  It’s doubtful that he was born here, as there is no record of his parents.  Did he immigrate as an adult?  Were his parents Quakers in the Philadelphia region?

Some of the Nottingham records still exist, including births, deaths and marriages.  I ordered the book, and not once is any Crumley surname mentioned.  If James was a member of this church, he was certainly silent.  There were other Quaker meetings in the general vicinity, however, and the meetings seemed to be rather closely connected.

James clearly was not part of the first wave of migration into this area.  He followed in the 1730s and remained on the Chester County tax list until 1740, after which he disappeared.

James’ Wife, Catherine

Before we move on, let’s talk about James’ wife, because while she is widely reported to be Catherine Gilkey, there really isn’t any proof.  In Paul Morton’s book, “The Crumley Family,” he reports that James married a Scottish lass named Catherine Gilkey in 1732 in Chester County.  He also reports that James arrived in Chester County in 1731 from Yorkshire, England, but he provides no documentation for either piece of information.  That’s really unfortunate, because both are really critically important to understanding James’ life.

If James had married a Presbyterian, he would have been dismissed from the Quaker Church, so either she became Quaker or he did not marry a Presbyterian – or he wasn’t yet a Quaker.

Furthermore, we first find James in association with the Gilkey name in Frederick County, not in Chester County.  The Gilkey name does not appear in the Nottingham book, but of course it would not if they were Presbyterians.  I have not researched the Chester County records to see if the Gilkey surname appears in those records, but that task needs to be added to the ‘to do’ list.

Paul Nichols reports in his document, The Crumley Family, that “very old family records from Richard Griffith, a prominent Frederick County genealogist, indicate that the Gilkeys may have been the parents of his wife Catherine, but no marriage documentation has ever been found.”

At the Handley Library and Archives in Winchester, VA, among the papers of Richard Griffin, a local genealogist from the 1930’s is the following dating from 1872:

“NOTES ON MY FAMILY”

Written by Aaron H. Griffith, 1872

“My grandfather John Griffith 2nd married Mary Faulkner daughter of Jesse Faulkner and Mary his wife. Mary Faulkner was the daughter of James Cromley and his wife Catherine. James Cromley lived on Apple Pie Ridge on land he bought from his father-in-law Davie Gilkie. This land was originally granted by the King to our kinsmen James Wright and John Litler in 1734 who sold it to John Cheadle the eminent Friend who lived in eastern Virginia. John Cheadle sold it to David Gilkie who as I have said sold it to his son-in-law James Cromley, who in turn, willed it to his son John Cromley. John Cromley sold it to his brother-in-law Jesse Faulkner who sold it in 1778 to his son-in-law John Griffith. There my father was born, and there I was born on the 11th of the 3rd Mo. 1802.”

Of all the evidence, this seems to be the most reliable, because he was born only 40 years after James Crumley died, and only a couple years after his wife Catherine died.  His parents and family would have known this family first hand.  However, some researchers offer notes of caution about Richard Griffin’s work, stating that it contains known errors.  However, Aaron’s letter is original.

Often a family tiff suffices to prove a relationship, but sometimes, they just add to the mystery.  After David Gilkey’s death, his widow, Barbara, married James Hagen.

In 1758, it seems that James Crumley had a bit of a meltdown in court and it may have had to do with Barbara Gilkey Hagen.  In the court records, the first record, before a proceeding with Barbara Hagen having to do with her bond (probably in conjunction with an estate), states that it was ordered “that the sheriff take James Crumley into custody for behaving indecently before the court.”  In a 1936 letter, J. W. Baker, another Frederick County genealogist interpreted this behavior as evidence of some kind of family row.

However, James could have been in court to testify for Barbara, or it may have been circumstantial.  I do have to wonder what would provoke a Quaker into doing something indecent before the court.  Do you think maybe he swore?

If Catherine was the daughter of David and Barbara Gilkey, why are there no children named David or Barbara, although there are also no children names James or Catherine.

Another rumor having to do with James wife, Catherine, is that she was a Bowen, the daughter of Henry Bowen.  James Crumley and Henry Bowen were neighbors in Frederick County, VA, but James’s marriage took place years before in Pennsylvania.

However, “A.C. Nash, David Williams Cassat and Lillian May Berryhill: their descendants and ancestors,” (1986) has a chapter on the Crumleys. And indicates Catherine may have been a Bowen and not a Gilkey.

Dorothy T. Hennen, “Hennen’s Choice: a compilation of the descendants of Matthew” … (1972)  Page 390 also suggests Catherine was a Bowen.

There is other circumstantial evidence that also hints at this possibility.  In Virginia, at that time, when a man died, three men were assigned to appraise his estate.  Typically, one was the dead man’s largest creditor, one was someone in the wife’s family, and one was a disinterested party.  The three individuals had to agree on the value of the man’s estate, with the exception of his real estate.

The three men who appraised James Crumley’s estate after his death in 1764 included Henry Bowen.  If Catherine was a Bowen, then this Henry was her brother.  Of course, the Bowens were neighbors, so it’s impossible to surmise whether this interaction was a result of living in the same neighborhood or being related to Catherine.

There is a Bowen family in the Nottingham Quakers book referencing the church in Cecil County Maryland, adjoining Chester County, PA, but there is no Henry or Catherine mentioned.

On to Frederick County, Virginia

James apparently followed or moved with the Nottingham Quakers when they moved to Frederick County which was at that time an unsettled frontier.

This undated Quaker map from “Hopewell Friends History” shows the Hopewell Meeting House and its proximity to other meetings as well.

Hopewell Meeting Map

The earliest Hopewell Meeting records burned in 1759 when the clerk’s house burned, but the church itself still stands and is active today.

Hopewell Meeting House

Many of the Nottingham families were establishing families of the Hopewell Friend’s Meeting House, shown above.  James Crumley was among the members.

Hopewell Meeting Sign

On June 3, 1744, James Crumley purchased land in Frederick County, 250 acres at the head of Yorkshireman’s Branch where he was described as a cordwainer, a French derived English term for a man who makes shoes from new leather.  He bought this property from Giles and Sarah Chapman who were among the 70 original Quaker families that settled in the Shenandoah Valley and organized the Hopewell Friends Meeting.

This must have been great cause for celebration.  James would have been about 35 years old, or older, and finally saved enough for his own land.  Perhaps the move to Frederick County had been for this exact opportunity – where land was more affordable – and of course – required a lot more work to make it farmable as well.

In 1748, James purchased land from David and Barbara Gilkey.

Also in 1748, James was appointed an overseer of road maintenance from the court house to Morgan Morgan’s property.  That’s a significant distance, from the center of Winchester to north of the line that is today Virginia and West Virginia on Apple Pie Ridge Road.  Morgan Morgan’s cabin is reconstructed on his land today.

In 1752, according to the Hopewell Friends History, James Crumley, one of three Quakers, was elected to the Vestry of Frederick parish.  This seems odd, because the vestry was the Anglican Church, and local researchers indicate that it was not unusual for Quakers to be members in order to perform political functions.  This is actually quite interesting, because the previous vestry has been dissolved amid charges of persecution of Quakers and failure to build a church with money provided.  By including three Quakers, they assured that the Quakers at least had a voice.  James was a church warden again in 1755 and 1756.

We find the following passage in the Virginia Hopewell Friends History:

“When the new county of Frederick was erected in 1743 Isaac Parkins became very prominent in the conduct of its affairs. He served [p.19] many years as a justice, a captain of militia, and a vestryman. He was elected to the House of Burgesses, representing Frederick County in the sessions of 1754 and 1755. He used his influence to ameliorate the sufferings of Friends caused by the laws governing those dissenting in religious opinions from the Established Church, and the court orders of Frederick County show that he repeatedly secured the release of persons “imprisoned for conscience sake,” and was active in their defence. In 1751 he presented to the Frederick County Court a petition asking that the vestry for Frederick Parish be dissolved, charging misappropriation of funds. In the following February, 1752, the General Assembly passed an act charging the vestry for Frederick Parish with oppressive and corrupt practices, and ordering its dissolution and the election of a new vestry. Along with two other Friends, James Cromley and Lewis Neill, Isaac Parkins was elected to this new vestry, and served for many years.”

On March 20, 1753, James Crumley received a grant for 39 acres from Lord Fairfax.  This land was on Back Creek and abutted Rodary? Rubits and William Dillon.

James VA land grant#3

Also in 1753 James sued one Joseph Beeler, but the suit was dismissed when the summons was not executed.  In other words, the guy may have skipped town.

On February 1, 1754, James received a large land grant for 752 acres on Mill Creek, land which now spans the border of Frederick County, Virginia and Berkeley County, West Virginia.  This land was originally surveyed for James Anderson in 1753 and was sold to James Crumley in 1754.  The final land grant was made to James.

James Crumley land spanning border

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 grant.

James Crumley land survey

James 1754 grant abutted Thomas Martin, John Bozioth, Col. Morgan Morgan and Nicholas Hanoshaos or Hanshaw.  It was on Mill Creek, a branch of Obeckon.

James VA land grant#2

In February 1754, Henry Bowen Sr. gave to his son, Henry Jr, a tract of land adjoining Thomas Rees, Nicholas Henshaw and James Crumley.  In April of 1755, Henry Bowen sold James Crumley 53 of 103 acres.

On February 28, 1757, James Cromley (sic) sold to his son John the 219 acres that he purchased from David and Barbara Gilkey.

In February 1757, James Cromley (sic) sold to his son, William, 270 acres at the southern end of the Lord Fairfax tract, in what is now Berkeley County, West Virginia.  This tract was known as the James Wright and John Littler tract on the drafts of Opeckon and the upper end includes the plantation of David Gilkey as conveyed to James Crumley by David Gilkey and his wife, Barbara.  Boo 4, page 220 and 230.

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 possessions)…tract or parcel containing 270 acres.

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

On June 27, 1757, James wrote his will, but he did not pass away until 1764, 7 years later.  Making a will well before you were going to need it was contrary to the typical colonial behavior – so it makes me wonder if he had a lingering illness, or if he simply had a scare in 1757 from which he recovered.  His will states that he is in good health, and he continued to transact business.

On September 14, 1758, James received 5 shillings, 4.5 pence for furnishing provisions to the colonial militia and for “the defense and protection of the colonies along the frontier” in addition to the provisions.

This record is found in Henings Statutes, Volume 7, page 214, and is for Culpeper County.  Interestingly enough, James Crumley’s record is just after a record for Henry Bowen, his neighbor in Frederick County.  One of the candidates to be James Crumley’s wife father is Henry Bowen.

This would have been the beginning of the French and Indian War.  It difficult to reconcile James militia duty with his Quaker religion.  Some Quakers were staunch pacifists and others were not.  There was significant pressure on the frontier and protection was vital.  It was likely defend yourself, and your neighborhood, or die.

Cousin Jerry Crumly in his book, “Pioneer Ancestors: Crumley, Copeland et al” states the following:

At a Court Martial convened in Frederick County, Virginia on October 13, 1760, Captain Lewis Moore returned his muster roll and ordered that John Crumley, of the company commanded by Captain Moore, be fined 40 shillings for absenting from three private and one general muster.i Again, it seems unusual for a Quaker to be a member of a military unit, but here is evidence that John was in the militia during the French and Indian War. Hopewell Friends History, 1734 to 1934, Frederick Co., VA records that “in the years 1754-1755 a determined effort was made by the colonial government to force Friends to bear arms against the French and Indians, and upon their steady refusal some of them were beaten and imprisoned.”ii Perhaps John Crumley and his father, James, both found it preferable to serve in the militia rather than to be beaten and imprisioned. John’s Court Martial would indicate that his heart really wasn’t in it.

On January 19, 1761, James Crumley received another 53 acres from Lord Fairfax which abutted James’ own land and that of Benjamin Barret and Mathias Elmore.  It says it is at the foot of N. Mountain, which I presume means North.

James VA land grant

In August, 1761, John Lindsey sold to James Crumley for 13 pounds several animals and some furniture.

The last living entry we have is from Henings’s Statutes of Virginia and it says “7/1756/1763 James Crumley to Henry Bowen for provisions, 5 pounds, 5.5 pence.”

Historic Homes

Several historic homes exist today on the land once owned by James Crumley, in particular, the 742 acre tract.

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 is still available for purchase through the Historical Society.

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

James Crumley land map

Apple Pie Ridge Road lies right on top of the ridge running north and south between the Crumley and original Morgan Morgan King’s patent.

James Crumley did not live on this 742 acre tract, but he later divided it and his son, William Crumley did live there.  We know that because not only did William Crumley own the land, his will is probated in Berkeley County, West Virginia, not in Frederick County, Virginia, although apparently this land spanned the division between counties and states.

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

James Crumley land divided

James land grant was divided into three parts.  The left most part, which is the most southern tract, was sold to son William before James’s death.  William lived there during his lifetime, and after his wife, 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.  Silver built a large, by the standards of those days, brick house between 1820 and 1821, according to tax records, which was still standing when the journal article was written and is shown below.

James Crumley Francis Silver Houe

According to the journal, today William Crumley’s land is located on Greenspring Road near the Frederick County line on the most southern section of the James Crumley land grant.

On the rightmost portion of James land, which is the northern 200 acres, two cabins were found, including the John Springer cabin built before 1750.  Springer was living on this land when it was surveyed for James Anderson, before it was granted to James Crumley in 1754.  The Springer cabin is shown below.

James Crumley Faulkner cabin

Issue Eight of the Berkeley Journal, published in 1979 includes an article titled “Houses and Historic Sites Located on the James Crumley land Grant,” pages 79-100 and tells us that Thomas Faulkner built a log cabin there in 1775 with a wing added about 1785 that is still standing today.  After James Crumley’s death, his heirs sold this land to Thomas Faulkner who sold it to James Newland who sold part of it to James Hodgson.

This land and cabins were sold twice by 1810 when most of the Quaker families sold out, moved and transferred their church memberships to Short creek Meeting in Jefferson County, Ohio.James Crumley Hodgson cabin

Movers and Shakers

In 1758, James Crumley’s name is found in an unusual place – George Washington’s journal.  George was running for office as a Frederick County delegate to the House of Burgesses.  Although he did not live there, he did buy liquor for the voters.  Sort of gives new meaning to “buying votes.”  At that time, one had to publicly state whom you were voting for, and only white landowners over the age of 21 were allowed to vote.  Even though James was allowed two votes, he only voted for one man, Hugh West, which means he simply threw his second vote away.  Was this a matter or principle and a statement, or was it simply an oversight.  Regardless, George Washington took note of that – and I’m sure James was not on the favored guest list at Mount Vernon.

In a 1932 letter, Richard Griffith wrote that “James Crumley was a man of considerable wealth for his day and time, and his position an important one.  He was a friend of Lord Fairfax, and there is evidence to show that he was a visitor at Greenway Court and was entertained there at least twice, probably oftener.”

Greenway Court, Lord Fairfax’s estate, below, near Winchester, Virginia, was the center of government of the Northern Neck Part of Virginia.  James Crumley lived 7 or 8 miles from Greenway Court.

Greenway Court

Today, the original estate office remains.  If James visited Lord Fairfield, he may well have walked in this very building.

Greenway Court office

James’ Will and Estate

James wrote his will on June 27, 1757 but it wasn’t probated until August 9, 1764 where it is recorded in Frederick County Will Book 3, 1761-1770, page 68.

In the name of God, Amen.  I James Crumley of the County of Frederick and the colony of Virginia cordwainer being at present in perfect health of body and sound and perfect mind and memory praise be therefore given to Almighty God, do make, constitute and ordain this my last will and testament in manner and form following.  First and principally I recommend my soul into the hands of Almighty God who gave it, hopeing through the merits death and passion of Jesus Christ my savior to obtain remission of all my sins and to inherit everlasting life, and my body I commit to the earth whence it came to be decently buried at the discretion of my executors hereafter named and as touching the desposition of all such men such worldly estate as it hath pleased Almighty God to bestow upon me. I leave and bequeath as followeth:

First I will that all my just debts and funeral charges be fully paid and discharged.

Item, I leave until my son John Crumley 219 acres with an addition of a piece more to be divided betwixt Benjamin Barret and me to him his heirs and assigns forever.

Item, I leave unto my two sons William and Henry Crumley 644 acres of land equally to be divided betwixt them in quantity and quality to them their heirs and assigns forever.

Item, I leave unto my granddaughter Ruth Doster 100 acres of land joining the tracts of my sons William and Henry and joining upon John Boisers to her her heirs and assigns forever.

Item, I leave unto my loving wife Catherine Crumley all that present plantation where I now live during her natural life of whilst she continues under the name of Catherine Crumley and upon her decease or upon altering her said name I leave and bequeath the said plantation to my youngest son Samuel Crumley and to his heirs and assigns forever.

Item, I leave and it is my will that all the rest and remainder of my estate both real and personal be equally divided betwixt my five children, Mary, John, William Henry and Samuel upon the decease of my wife of upon altering her present name and not before.  And moreover my will is that if my wife shall see cause to alter her condition that she shall have a like equal divident of my moveable estate with my children.  As also my will is that my wife shall keep the children with her till of age or until they settle their places and my desire and will is that the quit rents yearly and other publick demands be paid out of the product of the plantation, not to diminish any part of the childrens divident in the estate thereby.

Item, I leave unto each of my 4 sons aforesaid out of moveable estate to the value 15 pounds in whatever they shall stand in need of upon their setting by themselves.

Item, I leave unto my brother Thomas Crumley 15 pounds current money and to my sister Joan 5 pounds current money.

Lastly, I leave, constitute ordain and appoint my well beloved friends Robert Cunningham and George Ross together with my well beloved wife Catherine Crumley executors of this my last will and testament hereby revoking disallowing and making void all former wills testaments legacies or executors heretofore by me made ordained or appointed ratifying and confirming this and this only to be my last will and testament in presence of these witnesses this 27th day of June in the year of our Lord 1757.

James Crumley signs and Catherine Crumley signs also with a mark of R

Witnesses:
William Dillon
M. Kean
William Frost

We don’t know where James is buried, but it’s likely at the Hopewell Friends Meeting House Cemetery.  As I look at this stone wall, I wonder if James helped construct or maintain it.

Hopewell Cemetery

James will was probated on August 9th, 1764, so he likely died during the summer of 1764.  Both William Frost and Matthew Keen swear as witnesses and prove the will.  Catherine Crumley, his widow and administratrix of the will, enters into bond with John Neavill, John McMachen and Francis Lilburne as her securities in the penalty of 1000 pounds for her “due and faithful administration of the said estate.”  This tells us that James has a significant estate, as this is a very high bond for that time period.  James had gone from being one of the 6 poorest men in the township in 1732 to a substantial estate thirty two years later in 1764.

James would have been in his 50s, not an old man by any stretch, and he likely had children still at home when he died.  Son Samuel, referenced in the will never appears in any records, so he obviously died before coming of age, and perhaps even before James himself died.  If Catherine was the same age as James, when James wrote his will in 1757, he could have had children at home as young as 2 or 3 years of age.

Frederick Co. Court, Winchester, Va.
Will Book 3, pp. 231-232
Appr. Sept. 1st, 1764

Appraisment Bill of the Estate of James Crumley Deceased to wit

Cash, silver, gold, and paper                                      26-6-3

Washing (wearing?) apparel                                       20-6-6

One negro man                                                         65-0-0

One negro woman and child                                      55-0-0

One negro girl                                                           25-0-0

Beds and furniture                                                     74-4-0

Wheat, rye, and corn                                                 28-12-0

Cows and calves, 13 heads                                       18-10-0

28 hogs and six sheep                                               9-12-0

Six head of horse kind                                               35-10-0

A waggon and gear                                                   9-15-0

Three plows, a harrow and gears, axes & edge tools   8-12-0

One still and utensils cyder mill and cask                    19-17-0

Hides tanned leather and shoe maker tools                10-10-0

Pewter and stove and kitchen iron ware                      13-15-0

Brass scales, stillyards, and money scales                  8-8-6

Home spun cloth linen and woolen                             7-2-7 1/2

Chests, cooper ware and lumber                                7-14-6

Debts due the Estate by bonds and notes                   115-17-4

One note in the Office of Isaac Wright                        4-18-0

Two saddles and 15 gallons of liquor; hives and bees  4-2-6

Total                                                                      508-13-2 1/2

Henry Bowen, William Barret and Azariah Pugh appraisers – returned and ordered recorded Nov. 7, 1764.

James estate inventory, given that he as a Quaker, is quite interesting, and unexpected.  He had 4 slaves who could have been a family, and he had 15 gallons of liquor and a still.  Given the Quaker stance on slavery – and that many Quakers bought slaves with the sole intention of freeing them – he may have been in conflict with the Quaker church over this.  I have seen commentaries that he was reprimanded by the church for this practice, but there are no records supporting this in the Hopewell records.

We know that James’ slaves were not freed, during or after his life, because in 1768, James’ son John Crumley releases his future right in James’ estate after his mother, Katherine, dies, including “all rights to the negroes.”  It makes me very sad to know that my Quaker ancestor owned slaves and didn’t free them. It bothers me that the slaves were not even humanized enough to be referred to by their names – not that it would improve their condition any.  I hope that the slaves were in fact a family and that they were allowed to remain together.  Emancipation wouldn’t occur for another 100 years, probably freeing those slaves great-great-grandchildren.

Given the amount of liquor James had, it’s unlikely that this was only for personal use.  Fifteen gallons, along with the still, is suggestive that he was distilling alcohol for sale – or he had some hellatious parties.  A Quaker slave-owning moonshiner.  Who knew???  Who would ever have guessed?

It has been suggested that perhaps James was distilling alcohol as a medicine.  It has also been postulated that perhaps distillation was an economic necessity because it was much cheaper to transport whiskey than corn or rye to distant markets.  Let’s take a look at that possibility.

According to “Ancestors on the Frontier” by Justin Replogle, a horse could carry 4 bushel of grain, but could carry the equivalent of 24 bushels after it was made into whiskey.  Checking contemporary sources, it’s stated that a bushel of corn makes about 2.75 gallon of whiskey, so James 15 gallons probably took about five and a half bushel of corn.  Most stills of that time made less than 100 gallons.

It was much cheaper to ship grain as whiskey.  In 1790, there were over 500 stills in Washington County, PA, a heavily religious Brethren and Mennonite area also bordering the Allegheny Mountains.

Clearly, given James’ alliance with the church as a vestry member as late as 1756, these apparent “flaws” in his Quakerness didn’t interfere with his church membership.  He was never dismissed.  All of this considered, I wonder if he was buried in the church cemetery after all.  Although, if his fellow Friends didn’t let it bother them during his life, I doubt they suddenly let it bother them in death.  I wonder if his slaves had to dig his grave.  Were they sad or glad?

Judging from the amount of debts due the estate, it looks like he might have been selling liquor on credit.

Shoemaker’s Tools

These shoemaker’s tools might have been those of James Crumley.  Cousin Jerry says the following:

“I have an iron shoe repair tool, pictured here, that was passed to me supposedly from back to my gggranddad, Robert 1800-1883. I’ve often wondered just how far back this thing goes. Robert, of course, was a pioneer, so he could make/repair anything. I have a spinning wheel he made for a new daughter-in-law. This may have originated with him or from his grandfather James.

Jerry shoemaker tool

It’s made of heavy iron, and the end parts are different sizes: one for repairing men’s shoes and one for women’s or children’s shoes.

Jerry shoemaker tool2

I have hand tools that belonged to my great granddad, then my granddad, then my own dad. I still use them in my shop. When I pick one up I feel like I’m shaking hands with those old men.”

Quakers and Slaves

When I think of Quaker, I think of peace loving and abolition.  I think of plain, gentle people and plain dress, but not quite as “plain” as the Amish and Mennonite.

However, the history of the Quakers and slavery is not as cut and dried as it seems, and it appears that James Crumley may have been caught up in the early Quaker and slavery conflict.

According to the website, “Quakers and Slavery,” the first slaves arrived in Philadelphia in 1684 and were sold to Quakers.  Between 1682 and 1705, one of 15 families in Philadelphia owned slaves, and many of them were Quakers.  Some Quakers were involved in the slave trade.

In 1688, the first protest was made against slavery in the Germantown Quaker monthly meeting and went without action.  However, conflict continued to build, and in 1693, a Quaker named George Keith published a papers cautioning Quakers not to buy or own slaves.

In 1712, a Quaker petitioned the Pennsylvania Assembly to outlaw slavery and was refused.

In 1713, the Chester monthly meeting called for the banning of slavery and censure of those who did not comply.

In 1731, 20% of Philadelphia Quakers owned slaves and accounted for 30% of all the slaves in the city of Philadelphia.

We don’t know if James Crumley owned slaves in Pennsylvania or not.  It’s probably unlikely since he didn’t own land, but it’s certainly possible.  The first we know positively that James owned slaves was when he died in 1764 and 4 slaves were included in his estate inventory.

What we do know is that while some Quakers were solidly opposed to slavery, many were not and owned slaves.  This did not, at this time, appear to interfere with their church membership, with the possible exception of the Chester Meeting.  Of course, this could have been the meeting that James Crumley attended when he lived in Chester County, Pennsylvania if he was a practicing Quaker there.  Given that he migrated with the Nottingham Meeting House group to Frederick County, he was certainly affiliated with the Quakers in some fashion.

Apple Pie Ridge

James home plantation in Frederick County was located on Apple Pie Ridge, said to have been named for the delicious apple pies baked by the Quakers.  It is still a land of many apple orchards.  I guess now would not be the time for me to fess up that I don’t care for apple pie.  Maybe the problem is that I haven’t had an Apple Pie Ridge apple pie.

Incredibly, the James Crumley home still remains and is today on the register of historic buildings.

James Crumley home

From the application for the Register of Historic Places:

The acreage where the Crumley-Lynn-Lodge house stands encompassed two parcels–one of 250 acres and one of 1,250 acres–granted by patent from Colonial governor William Gooch in 1735 to Giles Chapman. Chapman sold the acreage to James Crumley who is listed in the Rent Rolls of Frederick County in 1759. Crumley appears to have come to Virginia from Chester, Pennsylvania, where at least five of his children had been born.

James Crumley in his will devised to his wife, Catherine, “All that present plantation whereon I now live during her natural life or while she continues under the name of Catherine Crumley and upon her decease or upon altering her said name I bequeath the said plantation to my youngest son Samuel Crumley.” He directs that Catherine “keep the children with her until of age,” indicating that at least one or two of his children were not yet 21 years old (at least in 1757 when he wrote the will.) He expressed concern for her altering her name, which presumably would have implied her remarriage.

Virginia tax records indicate that Catherine lived for at least another 18 years as she is listed as a white female head of household in 1782 and in 1783 with two slaves, two horses, and seven head of cattle. Her name continues to appear in the records until 1787, with an additional 3 slaves.

This data, when coupled with the Crumley will of 1764, indicates that there was a dwelling on the property that likely dates from as early as 1759 when James Crumley moved his large family to Virginia from Pennsylvania. It was not unusual for families to relocate from Pennsylvania to Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley in the eighteenth century.

The property was ultimately sold in 1793 by John Crumley to Robert Bull of Berkeley County, Virginia, now West Virginia. Samuel Crumley, who had been the original devisee for the plantation parcel, appears to have died by this date, and John Crumley, probably son to James, was the grantor to Bull. The acreage is given as 150 acres in the deed, and buildings are specifically mentioned. The parcel is described as part of the patent sold to Giles Chapman and sold to James Crumley. The selling price of 293 pounds is substantial enough to reflect a dwelling on the property.

By 1885, the Crumley-Lynn-Lodge House is recorded on a map of Frederick County published by D. J. Lake, and Co. as the “Wm. Lodge Res[idence],” located on what has been known as Apple Pie Ridge as early as 1816. The dwelling house is shown as standing on the west side of the main road running north from White Hall Post Office to the West Virginia line.

James Crumley land layout

There have been virtually no changes to the essential core elements of this house since 1851, although several rear additions have been made.

James Crumley topographic map

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.

James Crumley Apple Pie Ridge

The earliest section of James Crumley’s home was built about 1759, and was a 1 1/2-story, log section raised to a full two stories about 1850. About 1830, a two-story, Federal style brick section was added. A two-story frame section was added to the original log section in 1987–1994. The front facade features a folk Victorian-style front porch with square columns, sawn brackets and pendants, and plain handrail and balusters. Also on the property are the contributing mid-1800s brick granary, and log meat house, as well as a late-1800s century corn crib, and the stone foundation of a barn.

James Crumley home interior

The oldest portion of this building is to the left in the photo above, submitted with the Application for the Register of Historic Places.

The application for the Register of Historic Places states the following:

Historical and architectural evidence suggests that the earliest 1 ½-story log section was constructed ca. 1759 for James Crumley. The two-story brick section to the north was added in 1830 by William Lynn, who had acquired the property in the early nineteenth century. The last historic addition to the house, which included raising the original 1 ½-story log section to two full stories, was made around 1850, shortly after the property was acquired by the Lodge family. In addition to the main house, the property includes a rare example of a mid-nineteenth-century brick granary, and log meat house, as well as a late-nineteenth-century corn crib, and the stone foundation of a barn. The buildings and the setting retain much of their mid-nineteenth-century appearance and integrity.

The earliest section of the Crumley-Lynn-Lodge House is the three-bay log portion to the south. Originally 1 ½ stories in height, it was raised to two stories ca. 1850, and is clad in weatherboard siding and features a gable roof of standing-seam metal, a random-rubble stone foundation, and six-over-six-sash double-hung wooden windows. The exterior-end limestone chimney located on the south gable end was made taller to accommodate the second story using a brick stack. Also on the south end is a bulkhead entry to the basement, which is excavated about seven feet deep.

The earliest log portion of the house features a two-room plan divided by a wooden paneled partition. The room to the south has a front door leading from the porch and a rear door that originally led to the exterior, and later to a rear lean-to. The room also contains a large fireplace along the south wall with a small window to its left. The plain wooden mantelshelf with brackets is modern, but the oak lintel and at least some of the horizontal wood paneling along that wall appear original. The fireplace surround has been plastered and the hearth is brick.

Although the floors in this room have been covered with more modern pine flooring, the painted architrave door and window trim, plaster walls, exposed unpainted ceiling joists, and batten doors with early hardware and hand-wrought strap and H & L hinges are all intact. The boxed staircase in the southwest corner of this room is enclosed with wide planks and contains a small closet beneath it. This stair would have originally led to the ½-story loft which was enlarged to a full story ca. 1850. Just to the right of this staircase is a three-over-six-sash window that, along with the window to the left of the fireplace, is smaller in size than the ones on the front (east) wall and probably indicates the original size of the windows in this section of the house. A doorway with a batten door, also along this rear wall, lines up with the front door.

James Crumley home door

Also part of the earliest log section of the house is a smaller room north of the larger room (or parlor) that was originally unheated. The two rooms are separated by a wooden paneled partition of vertical yellow pine boards, some of which are tongue and grooved.

This is a wonderful document to have about James Crumley’s home.  I do have a couple of comments to make.  The historian is referencing the fact that James Crumley was on the tax list by 1759, and perhaps they are looking at a jump in value on the tax list that would indicate a home was built on this property, albeit a 2 room log cabin.  However, given that James Crumley purchased this land in 1748 from the Gilkeys, this home could have been another decade (or more) older than originally thought.

A cousin who visited provided me with the photo above of the door and the photo below as well.

James Crumley home fireplace

James and Catherine’s Children

As evidenced by James will, James and Catherine had 5 children who were living in 1757, but apparently only 4 who survived to adulthood.  Samuel is not mentioned in any records after his father’s will in 1757.

  • John Crumley was probably the eldest child. He was probably born about 1733 or 1734 in Chester County, PA.  He was of age by 1757 when James sold him land. John married Hannah Faulkner about 1761 in Frederick County, VA and moved to Newberry County, SC before 1790 where he is found in the 96 District. He died according in 1794 with a will, having 9 children.
  • William Crumley was probably the second eldest son, born around 1735 or 1736, also in Chester County, PA.  He too was of age by 1757 when James sold him land. William married Hannah Mercer about 1761 in Frederick County, VA. William lived his life on the land originally owned by James and died in 1793 in Berkeley County, West Virginia where that land was located after Virginia and West Virginia divided. He married a second time to Sarah Dunn in 1774, having a total of 15 children by his two wives.
  • Mary Crumley was also born early to the marriage, as she was already married to Thomas Doster and had daughter Ruth in 1757 when James wrote his will. It’s unclear, but Mary may have been married a second time to a Jesse Faulkner.
  • Henry Crumley married Sarah whose last name is unknown. Very little is known about Henry.  Henry signed deeds in 1766 and 1768 and in 1770 appointed William Crumley his power of attorney.  He apparently moved from the area and died about 1792.  There are no known children but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

James and Catherine likely had additional children…probably 5 or 6, who died as children.  Note that there are no children named James or Catherine.

DNA

Over the years, many Crumley descendants have been interested in genealogy.  With the advent of genetic genealogy, almost 15 years ago now, several Crumley males reached out and tested through the Crumley Y DNA project with the hope of confirming their common ancestry.  And indeed, they did.

As time moved on, autosomal DNA testing became available to supplement the Y DNA results.  Autosomal DNA is the DNA received from both parents which is contributed by ancestors in various amounts.  In each generation, more ancestral DNA is lost and the pieces that remain are often passed in smaller and smaller segments.  However, often, enough DNA remains intact to match to other descendants who also carry that same DNA segment from the same ancestor.

Today, there are almost 50 Crumley descendants who have joined the Crumley DNA project or tested outside of Family Tree DNA at either 23andMe or Ancestry and who have downloaded their results to GedMatch.

I utilized the tools at both Family Tree DNA and at GedMatch to see just how much of James Crumley’s DNA is found in his descendants.  More specifically, if several of James descendants match on a particular segment of DNA, that DNA is very likely descended from James.  To prove this, each segment would need to be triangulated between any 3 descendants.  This is a manual process and with almost 50 individuals involved, would take me from now to next year.  So, I did not triangulate or prove these segments.  These are match groups between 49 of James descendants today who descend through two different sons, John and William.  To eliminate picking up downstream DNA of the son’s wives, the descendants of son John are only matched to the descendants of son William.  I took that resulting match spreadsheet and utilized Kitty Cooper’s overlapping segment mapping tool to see how many of the matched pairs exist on various chromosomes.

Note that in the legend, when you see Carl V, for example, that really means that Carl matches to one of the other participants, so what you see mapped on the chromosome are not single matches, but paired matches.

If there are more than 4 match pairs on any segment, they are “behind” or overlapping each other on the chromosome and you can’t see them.  What I’m saying  is not to pay attention to the names, just the colored segments on the chromosomes.

This wonderful tool gives you a good idea of the segments where James descendants match each other above 3 cM and 300 SNPs.  As more descendants test, more matching segments will appear.

Does this mean that all of these segments come from James or Catherine?  Probably not.  Some of the smallest segments are probably identical by chance, especially segments not found in large groups or clusters.  When you have a large cluster of the same matching segment, it increases the chances significantly that these are not matches by chance and are identical by descent – in other words, they do come directly from James and Catherine..

James Crumley overlapping segments

Kitty also provides a tool where you can look at any single chromosome and how the matches stack up.  Below is James (and Catherine) Crumley’s chromosome 8.  For me,  the fact that I and so many of my Crumley kin still carry part of James and Catherine is absolutely amazing.  I look at the colorful representation of their ancestors on this chromosome map, rebuilt by their descendants and I see the beauty of Nature and the everlasting legacy of the ancestors, in this case, my very own moonshining Quaker, James Crumley.

James Crumley chromosome 8

Looking at these graphics makes me feel like a happy confetti explosion has occurred, except in reverse, and the pieces of confetti are being fit back together again, at least on paper, to recreate at least a small part of our common ancestor, James Crumley and his wife, Catherine.  While part of this DNA is James, Catherine would have contributed an equal amount of DNA to all of their children, so part of this, today, is hers as well.  As more people test and technology improves, maybe one day we’ll knows which pieces of DNA were contributed by James and which by Catherine.  Who knows, it may even be their cumulative DNA found in their descendants that one day that will lead us to their parents.

Acknowledgements:  This article is a combination of the research of several Crumley descendants, both living and dead.  I want to thank each and every one who contributed (and continues to contribute) and all of those who DNA tested as well.  What we can accomplish together is amazing!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Crumley Kinfolk

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?

crumley kin

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 5th cousins.

John and Jerry are 5th cousins once removed.

Their pedigree chart is shown below.

Crumley kin pedigree

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.

Jerry John Ken
Jerry Self Yes No
John Yes Self No
Ken No No Self

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 5th cousins once removed.

Crumley kin gedmatch

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.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

William Crumley the First (c1735 – 1793), Originally a Quaker, 52 Ancestors #87

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.

Chester County PA map

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.

James Crumley land spanning border

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.

James Crumley land survey

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.

James Crumley land divided

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

James Crumley land map

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 1st, 1757.

James Crumley home

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.

James Crumley Apple Pie Ridge

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.

James Crumley Hopewell

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

James Crumley road along Mill Creek

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.

Henings Statutes shows that in November of 1769, William was indeed a vestryman.  He and his fellow vestrymen were authorized to levy taxes on the residents to pay for the outcome of a suit wherein a former minister sued for back pay. Chapter LV, page 416:

WHEREAS William Meldrum, clerk, late minister of the parish of Frederick, in the county of Frederick, by judgment of the honourable the general court, hath recovered against John Hite, John Greenfield, John Bowman, Thomas Speake, John Lindsay, William Cocks, Robert Lemen, William Crumley, Cornelius Riddell, Isaac Hite, Thomas Swearingen, and John Funk, gentlemen, late vestrymen of the said parish, the sum of one hundred and forty-nine pounds twelve shillings and one penny, for the balance of his salary as their minister; and also three pounds and nine pence, and four thousand six hundred and fifty-five pounds of tobacco, for costs; and whereas the said vestry were also at some charges in their defence; and it appearing to this present general assembly, that it is reasonable that the said vestry, or such of them as have actually paid the said judgment, costs, and charges, should be reimbursed the same, and such commissions as they, or any of them, may have paid for having the same levied on them: Be it enacted, by the Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That the present vestry of the said parish shall and may, and they are hereby authorized and required to levy and assess, upon the tithable persons within their parish, the amount of such judgment, costs, charges, and commissions…

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.  William (the first), we know, was also a Vestrymen of the Anglican 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 June 1782 Publick Service Claim, recorded in the Berkeley County court order book, 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.  If 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.

James Crumley Francis Silver Houe

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.

James Crumley Faulkner cabin

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.

James Crumley Hodgson cabin

William Crumley Homestead

I was able to find William Crumley’s land on an 1890 map by following the ownership of the Silver land, as stated below.

Francis Silver acquired the Crumley land in two tracts. The first tract of 62 acres before 1820. He built the beautiful brick house in 1821. The 1820 land book lists no house. The 1822 lists $1,000.00 added for improvements added last year. He purchased the larger tract from Abraham Waidman in 1829 (DB lost). In 1836 Francis Silver sold the brick house with 275¾ acres to his son Zephaniah Silver who had married Martha Jane Henshaw April 17, 1834. They kept the plantation until after the Civil War and sold in 1868 for $12,000.00 to John Hershey. John Hershey sold the house with 197 acres for $5,000.00 to Andrew B. Houck and Samuel Garver. May 1, 1876 (DB 73, p. 275). Samuel Garver and A. B. Houck sold in 1880 to J. R. Brown and Robert M. Brown (DB 77, p. 119, page 259). Joseph R. Brown sold his half interest to Robert M. Brown in 1885, who sold the same year to Charles G. Boyles and James K. Boyles for $8,100.00. Charles G. Boyles sold his half interest to James K. Boyles in 1919. James K. Boyles died in 1932 leaving all his estate to be divide equally between his children (WB 27, p. 386). Daughter Maggie R. Busey died in 1951. The heirs of James K. Boyles sold to James A. Lockard in 1959 who gave a Deed of Trust to Darrell K. Koonce. In 1962 . . .

On the following map, you can see the location of J. Boyles land at what looks like the headwaters of Mill Creek, just north of the border of Berkeley County and Frederick County, on the road that today leads to Gerrardsville.  You can also see North Mountain to the left.

Berkeley county 1890

On these satellite views, you can see the same road today.  The house on the map above is about half way between the dog leg in the road north of the house and the state line ot the south, between the creek and the road.

On the map view of the area, you can see the same dog leg in the road and today, there is  Mt. Pleasant Cemetery, shown in green, across from this area.

William Crumley land map

Moving to the satellite map, you can see the farms in that location today.

William Crumley land satellite

Moving a little closer.

William Crumley land satellite 2

Moving even closer you can see that there is a working farm in this location.

William Crumley land satellite 3

Unfortunately, there is no street view of this area.  The address of this property today is 3647 Dominion Road.

William Crumley farm today

This looks like the original structure.

William Crumley farm home

So, mapping the way from William Crumley’s house to his father’s house on Apple Pie Ridge looks like this.

William Crumley to James Crumley

Visiting William Crumley’s Property (added October 2015)

A speaking engagement in Richmond in the fall of 2015 provided me with the opportunity to visit Apple Pie Ridge in Frederick County, Virginia and the area of Berkeley County, West Virginia that adjoins Frederick County.  William’s father, James Crumley lived on Apple Pie Ridge Road and left sons John and William land a few miles north of his home location.

William Crumley 1c

This path from Apple Pie Ridge Road up the valley to Gerrardstown is the natural path that was once an Indian trail, then a wagon road.  Today, it’s lined with apple trees and orchards, heavy with ripe apples.

William Crumley 2

From Apple Pie Ridge Road, going north, you turn on Winding Hill, then north on Frog Hollow Road which becomes Dominion Road when you cross the state line.  Winding Hill does just that, winds down the hill.

William Crumley 3

The ridge of mountains is forever to the west, standing as a marker that was once the barrier to westward expansion.  This path was the path that the French and Indians took in 1754 to raid the valley and attack the settlers from Gerrardstown to Winchester, and south.  The Europeans weren’t the first to discover that this was the natural pathway along the mountain ridge.

William Crumley’s property spans the state line, with most, including the house being on the West Virginia side.

William Crumley 4

Today, much of the land is cleared, but when James and William Crumley first saw this land, taking the original patent, it was entirely forested and probably looked a lot like this, minus the fence.  They cleared the land one tree at a time – a formidable job.

William Crumley 5

You can see the original house before you cross the state line, although at one time, this was William’s property too.

William Crumley 6

Today, the land in Virginia is newer homes with nicely manicured lawns.

William Crumley 7

William’s land included the headwaters of Mill Creek which meanders north from William’s property through the valley into Gerrardstown.  James Crumley originally owned 752 acres here, more than a mile by a mile if it were square.

William Crumley 8

The headwaters of the creek are on the right side of the road, between the state line and the barns.  You can see the tree, above, growing in about that location in what is today just a field.

William Crumley 9

This would have been a prime location for a house, because the water is guaranteed to be clean and fresh with no one upstream.

William Crumley 10

I wonder if the original cabin was actually near where the spring emerged from the ground in this meadow or if it was where the house is today.

William Crumley 11

Not wanting to disturb the homeowner, we took photos from the church and cemetery across the road.

William Crumley 12

Families who owned this property after William are buried in the cemetery, which causes me to ask the question of whether or not the cemetery is the original Crumley family cemetery.  It would make a lot of sense and it’s directly across the road from the house.

William Crumley 13

The oldest part of the cemetery is directly behind the church.

We know that William Crumley was not Quaker when he died, because his second wife was dismissed from the Quaker church for marrying outside her faith.  Therefore, William and at least his second wife would have been buried in a family cemetery, likely on his land.  His first wife, Hannah, may be buried here as well.

William’s first wife, Hannah Mercer, died relatively young and her family was Quaker, as was William’s father, James Crumley.  Hannah’s father, Edward Mercer was dismissed from the church in 1759, so we don’t know if Hannah continued to follow the Quaker faith or not.  We also don’t know when William “converted” but we do know that he was raised Quaker, but by the time that he married Sarah Dunn in 1774, he was no longer Quaker.

William Crumley 14

William’s land looking west behind the church.

William Crumley 15

It’s difficult to see the actual house with the trees in front.  The rear is clearly an addition.  The front part may well be original.

William Crumley 16

The house actually sits up on a little hill which would assure that the house and barn remained dry, so I’m thinking that this was likely the original location of the house.

William Crumley 17

William’s land extended on north.  This was the southernmost part of his land, then his brother John’s land began.

William Crumley 18

William and John owned the land on both sides of the road.

William Crumley 19

We were able to pull into a driveway and actually see Mill Creek at one point, a bit north of the house.

William Crumley 20

In the curves about half way to Gerrardstown, we saw this historic stone structure beside Mill Creek and wondered how it was used.

Gerrardstown is north of the Crumley land, but not very distant.  This was the closest crossroads village and William would have traversed this road often – certainly any time he had to go to “town” which was the county seat, Martinsburg.

On the corner, we found this old log structure still standing.  It reminded me a lot of the James Crumley property with two independent and unconnected buildings sharing a wall.

William Crumley 21

The man who runs the little local general store told us that this building used to be the tavern and was a very important building where lots of business was conducted.  I’m guessing it was THE most important building in Gerrardstown at one time and may have been here when William rode his horse or drove his wagon on this very road.

We ended our driving tour of William’s land by having lunch in the one and only little corner store in Gerrardstown.  It had one table, the food was homemade and there were three local history books on the table.  If you don’t want to sit inside at the table, then you can sit in one of the two chairs out front and use the top of a barrel for a table.  You’ll be visiting with the local guys sitting out there – much like William probably did some 250+ years ago.

William Crumley 22

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.

Item Appraised Amount in Pounds
One bay mare and colt 22.0.0
One yearling colt 12.0.0
One grey horse 10.0.0
One gray mare 3.0.0
One black mare 9.0.0
One brown cow 3.10
One brindle cow 3.10
One spotted cow 2.17.6
One white cow 3.5
One red cow 3.0.0
One brindled heifer 2.5
One white backed cow 3.6
One white steer 3.0
One red steer 1.16
One pied heifer 2.0
One white cow 3.4
Four calves 2.8
A steer sold to pay for the coffin 1.17.2
Beef sold 2.15.10
19 sheep 5.14
One wagon (sic) 3.0
17 gears at 28 1.8.4
Two plows and one lathing 2.3
650 doz wheat 30.0.0
16 tun hay 24.0.0
123 doz rye 7.10
Vetting? Box 0.7.6
Lock chair and 4 pair gears 3.3.0
27 hogs 9.18
One plow 0.15
Field of corn 3.15
Three hoes and a grubbing hoe 0.6.6
A spade, two dung forks and 3 axes 1.5
A shovel, a sythe and 3 sickles 0.12.0
Pair steelyards 0.3.6
Shoemakers tools 0.4
Iron wedge, old iron and wool sheers 0.4.9
Heel tools or steel tools and 2 bee hives 2.5
A saddle and cloth, a table and 2 bridles 2.3
4 pair stockings 0.12
Pair shoes 0.4.6
Stock buckle knee buckles and brouch 0.12
One pair leggings 0.4
Great coat 1.10
A coat 0.10
Jacket and breeches 0.8
White (probably breechees) 0.3
A Bible 0.16
Sundry other books 0.2.6
Tea kettle 0.12
Warming pan 0.18
Shovel and tongs and irons 0.13
Frying pan 0.4
Flat iron 0.6
Three pots and a kettle 1.0
Two pot racks 0.6
Handsaw gauge and auger 0.4
5 pewter dishes 1.5
Two dozen plates 0.13
Four basons (sic) 0.6
Pails and buckets 0.6
Tea equipage bottles 0.6
A chest 1.8
A case of crawers 3.10
A dough trough 0.12
A table 1.4
Two doz old casts and two casks and malt 1.3
A bed bedstead and furniture 1.10
Three pair cards (for spinning wheel) 0.3
Spinning wheel 0.14
Reel with 4 big wheel and two riddles 0.11.6
Saddle 6.6
Negro wench 55.0.0
An arm chair 6.0.0
Five chairs 1.0.0
Four chairs 0.6
A cradle 0.6
A trundle bedstead and bedding 1.4
A feather bed and furniture 2.5
A bedstead feather bed and furniture 8.0
44 pounds wool 3.6
Small tub 0.1.6
A turee? and 2 cyder barrels 0.10.0
A neel tub and two kegs 0.4.6
Old bags 0.6
A hatchet 0.0.6
A grid iron 0.4.6

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.

colonial shoesShoes 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.

colonial shoes stockings and breeches

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.colonial outfit

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 breeches

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.

colonial coat

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

colonial great coat

colonial shirt and stockingsInterestingly, 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 1787, he was living with his brother-in-law, Thomas Rees in Berkeley County, Virginia (now West Virginia). 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.

Mary Crumley 1782-1864

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:

Crumley matches 67 markers

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.

Crumley matches 37 markers

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!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Tom Bergeron, Who Do You Think You Are, “A Killing Field”

Tom Bergeron courtesy TLC.

Tom Bergeron courtesy TLC.

This Sunday, August 30 at 9/8c TLC will air TV host’s Tom Bergeron’s episode of Who Do You Think You Are?  However, TLC was very late getting their episode info out, so I haven’t had the opportunity to preview.  I’ll be enjoying the episode right along with you.

In the episode, Tom Bergeron sets out to unravel the murky history of his paternal roots. Tracing back over 400 years, he uncovers the dramatic story of his 10x great-grandparents, who endured brutal warfare and starvation in France. Then Tom follows their daughter, who was orphaned as a teenager and bravely set off across the Atlantic, playing a significant role in establishing the New World.

“Someone dead for over 300 years, if you’re willing to listen, can teach you things about what you are doing now.”

I have French ancestors too, and I can’t wait to find out what Tom is talking about….

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Ancestry Shared Matches Combined With New Ancestor Discoveries

Ancestry added a greatly anticipated feature this week that promises to help genealogists – shared matches.  This is similar to the “In Common With” feature at Family Tree DNA – at least in concept.

Shared Matches

Previous to this announcement, when you match someone at Ancestry, the only way you can see who else they happen to match in common with you is if you are placed in an ancestor DNA Circle with them – and then you can only see the other people in that Circle.

For example, here is my Henry Bolton DNA Circle.

circle henry bolton matches2

The people I match are shown with an orange line.  Each of those people match me, and they may also match other people in the Circle that I don’t match.

circle henry match matches2

Regardless of whether I match the individuals directly, or they match someone else that I match, the common factor is that we all share Henry Bolton identified as an ancestor in our tree.

What Ancestry introduced today is the ability to click on any of these people who match me, OR, the people in the circle who do NOT match me but who do share Henry Bolton in their tree and match others in the circle – and see who they match in common with me.  This should allow people to group their matches, at least tentatively and is especially promising for those frustrating people with whom you match closely but have private trees and won’t reply to messages.

While this is interesting for circles, it’s not terribly useful in terms of breaking down walls, because I already know Henry Bolton is my ancestor.  In other words, I wouldn’t be in the circle if I didn’t already know the identity of that ancestor.

What I’m particularly interested in, is applying this tool to my NADs, or New Ancestor Discoveries, because if I can figure out how these people truly are related to me, then I may be able to make a discovery of a new ancestor in my tree.  Now THIS holds a lot of promise and intrigues me greatly.  So, let’s take a look at my NADs and see how this new tool works and if it’s useful.  I can hardly wait!!!

State of the NADs

If you’ve been following my blog, you’ll know that Ancestry and I have been having a bit of a friendly Bad NAD duel.  Ancestry keeps giving me new ancestor discoveries (NADs) but in several cases, I have unquestionably proven that those NADs are not my ancestors – hence the term – Bad NADs.  In one case, the new ancestor assigned to me is the husband of my ancestors sister.  However, I currently have three NADS that are related to each other than may benefit greatly by this new shared matches tool.

Since my last NAD update, where Diedamia Lyon and John David Curnutte were given to me a second time, another NAD has been added – John David Curnutte’s mother, Deresa Chaffin.

shared matches nads

Here’s the tree version of this relationship

shared matches nad tee

NAD Circles and Matches

In the NAD Circle for Diedamia Lyon, John David Curnutte and Deresa Chaffin, we find both Don and Michael, whom I match.

First, keep in mind that I may match both Don and Michael on other lines – so the fact that I match both of them and they both descend from a common ancestor does NOT mean that is how I connect genetically to both of them.  But for purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that it is and proceed.

The fact that we find these two individuals whose DNA I match in all three circles suggests that the relationship is through the Curnutte line, and not through Diedamia Lyon at all, except for the fact that these men also descend from her.  Given that John David’s Curnutte’s mother is also a NAD suggests that the connection to Diedamia Lyon and John David Curnutte is through the Curnutte line.  Although Deresa Chaffin’s husband is not listed, he is John Tolliver Curnutte and clearly, the connection might be through him as opposed to Deresa – just like the connection to the couple Diedamia Lyon and John David Curnutte was through the Curnutte husband.

The NAD Circle for Diedamia Lyon and John David Curnutte are identical, with two matches and 5 non-matching individuals.

shared nad diedemia lyon

For each one of these individuals in the Circle, if you click on their name on the right, you’ll be able to see a variety of information, including their pedigree and matching surnames, maps and locations, and the new shared matches tab.

shared matches shared surnames

The new shared matches tab is a great tool, and it’s particularly important, when unraveling NADs to use it in conjunction with the shared surnames, shown at left.  These are the surnames found in both your tree and the person whose tree you’re comparing against.

Let’s take a look at one of these – Moore, as an example.

shared matches surname compare

As you can see, these are either not the same line or at least can’t be identified as such.  However, in some cases, you may recognize your matches’ end of line person as connecting with your tree further upstream.  It’s times like this that having a robust tree where you’ve tracked downstream lineages of your ancestor’s siblings can be very beneficial.

By clicking on the shared matches option, you’ll see the following people who you match in common with the individual – in this case, Don, my DNA match.  I could also compare to one of the people in the Circle whom I don’t DNA match.

shared matches shared with

What I’m particularly looking for are matches with that lovely shakey leaf by the View Match button on the far right.  Ahem…there aren’t any, which means none of these matches match me with a known common ancestor.  Rats!!!

While Diedamia Lyon and John David Curnutte have the same members as each other in their NAD circles, John’s mother, Deresa Chaffin, has more members in her NAD circle – which means more opportunities for me to find common line hints..

shared matches nad circle

The DNA matches are to the same 2 people, but now there are additional people in the circle who also match Michael and Don.

The great news is that in addition to clicking on your matches to see who else they match, you can also click on any other circle member.  I’m very, very hopeful that a distinct trend emerges so I can tell at least what line these NADs might be associated with.

I needed a mechanism to keep track of who all my matches match, that I match, and what lines they descend from – so I created a spreadsheet.

NAD Matches Spreadsheet

shared matches spreadsheet

Column 1 – NAD – The ancestor’s name of the NAD Circle where these individuals are found as members.

Column 2 – Person in Circle – The “person in circle” is the individual whose name shows either as a DNA match or as a circle member who does not match my DNA, but does match the DNA of at least some of the other circle members.

Column 3 – DNA Match – Tells me if this person is a DNA match to me or not.

Column 4 – Common Family Line to Person in Circle – The common ancestral line (or lines) if I can determine whether or not we share a specific ancestral line.  By the way, just because we share that line does NOT mean that is how we are DNA related – and no – there is no way to tell without a chromosome browser.

Column 5 – Common Surnames to Person in Circle – Common surnames between my tree and the person in the Circle, as identified by Ancestry.

Column 6 – Shared Matches with Person in Circle – Names of Shared Matches between me and the person in the Circle.

Column 7 – Common Line with Shared Match – Common ancestral lines with shared matches (column 6).

I combined the information from Diedamia Lyon, John David Curnutte and John’s mother, Deresa Chaffin.  I sorted column 6, Shared Matches with Person in Circle, alphabetically, hoping that some of these matches would be the same, and they are, and would be identifiable to specific family lines.

So….Drum Roll….Who is the Common Ancestor???

I compared each person identified as a person in the NAD Circle (column 2), or any person that matches me and a person in the NAD Circle (column 6) with my other spreadsheet that I maintain listing all of my Ancestry matches and our common ancestors.

The group that includes the initials EVH are a family of siblings and their children, so they really only count once.  The person by the name Mars has a private tree, but told me that our common ancestor was Joel Vannoy and Phebe Crumley, the same individuals as my cousin group through EVH.

It’s certainly possible that the common DNA that connects me with Michael and Don and possibly with John David Curnutte’s parents are through the Vannoy/Crumley line.

If indeed, our common ancestor is upstream of Joel Vannoy and Phebe Crumley, which is a VERY BIG if, but it’s the only lead I have – then they must fill a known pedigree void.

Deresa Chaffin, according to the Ancestry overview (which is all I have to go on at this moment and is compiled from 705 trees which makes me exceedingly nervous) was born in 1775 in Virginia to Simon Chaffin and Agatha Curnutte.  She married John Tolliver Curnutte, so we have an intermarriage already (or incorrect surname information), which can mean a larger dose of the Curnutte DNA.  Trying to follow these individuals up their trees at Ancestry was an exercise in frustration and futility with many of the wives surnames being the same as the husband and no sources or documentation of any kind.  Suffice it to say, I can’t connect the dots through surnames or location, other than the state of Virginia.

However, looking at my tree, my vacancies for ancestors in that timeframe, in the Vannoy/Crumley branch of the tree are limited.

shared matches pedigree

Phebe, Jotham Brown’s wife’s surname is unknown, but they were married about 1760.

William Crumley’s wife’s name is unknown, but they were married by about 1788.  Clearly, Deresa being born in 1775 cannot be William Crumley’s wife (or Jotham Brown’s), and Deresa married a Curnutte, so she cannot be the ancestor in question for either vacancy.

John Tolliver Carunutte, Deresa’s husband was born about 1774, so clearly, he isn’t my ancestor either.  One generation upstream, I have vacancies for six unknown parents, one of which would have been surnamed Brown.  These people would have been born between 1720 and 1740, at the latest, and possibly earlier, so probably not John Tolliver or Deresa Chaffin’s parents either.

Unfortunately, we’re now back into the ether – and it’s very tenuous ether at that.  Without a chromosome browser, I can’t confirm that the DNA of any of these matches triangulate with the Vannoy/Crumley DNA line – or any line for that matter.

However, in the spirit of running every lead down, right into the ground, and in this case, into the rathole – I view these new shared matches as my only hope of ever unraveling the mystery of the 3 related NADs.  So far, I’ve proven they can’t be my ancestors, at least not in that line, but I still have absolutely no idea of how or if they are related to me – despite due diligence on my part- at least all the due diligence I can think of.

Suffice it to say I’m disappointed.  It’s not my lucky day.  No happy dance for me.  I guess I probably don’t have to mention that if Ancestry provided a chromosome browser, I wouldn’t even have to be slogging around in the mud trying to piece these puzzle pieces together that might not even be from the same puzzle.

However, your mileage may vary and it may be your lucky day, so please give this new shared matches tool a try.  If nothing else, it will help you group your matches by ancestral group and will give you clues as to the family groups of those people with private (or no) trees.  And who knows, maybe you’ll unravel your NAD and actually discover a new ancestor!!!  It could happen, especially if your matches are willing to download to GedMatch for verification!

Here’s Ancestry’s blog posting about the new shared match tool which includes a nice “how to” video.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Phasing Yourself

Do you ever have one of those “lightbulb” moments?

I do.

I was wishing there was a way at GedMatch to compare everyone against me and my mother at the same time – to see who we both match.  And then I realized….there is….but not in the way I had been thinking.

Both of my parents are deceased now, but my mother swabbed before she passed over…a gift I thank her for daily.

GedMatch provides a Phasing program, under Analyze Your Data.

GedMatch phasing

I used the Phasing program to recreate my father whose DNA hasn’t been available from him since 1963.  I had my DNA and my mother’s autosomal DNA results, so the phasing program compared those two files and split my DNA in half and created a “half” file that is my mother and the remainder “half” file that is my father – or at least the half of him that I received.

I looked at the Mom half file and thought to myself that I should delete it to make space since I have the whole Mom file.

I’m glad I didn’t, although I could certainly have recreated the file, because it’s that phased half Mom file that is the equivalent of running my matches against me and Mom together to see which of my matches match us both.

And the clear benefit, of course, is that I know immediately which side of the family my matches are from.  Plus, if anyone doesn’t match me and a parent, then the results are not IBD, identical by descent.  Phasing against a parent is the gold standard in determining IBD vs IBC or identical by chance.

Let’s take a look at the match results.  Please note that 1500 is the GedMatch display limit, so when you see 1500, it means more than 1500, but you have no idea how many more than 1500.  By running your two (maternal and paternal) half phased kits, you can obtain up to 3000 instead of being constrained by the 1500 limit.  In order to see more than 1500, you can sort several columns in highest to lowest and lowest to highest order, and often you can obtain the entire list by sorting the columns and copy/pasting to Excel, so long as the entire list isn’t over 3000.

10 cM 7 cM 5 cM
Full Kit 825 1500 1500
Mother Half 145 495 1500
Father Half 583 1143 1500
Total 2 Halves 728 1638 3000
Not IBD 97 >138 unknown

Truthfully, I was surprised to lose 97 matches at 10cM by having them match neither parent.  That’s about 12%.

The other tidbit you may find interesting is that I have so many more matches on my father’s side than on my mothers.  My mother’s four grandparents were Dutch (the immigrant off the boat), Brethren (endogamous, German), German (immigrant off the boat) and Acadian/English (here since very early 1600s, endogamous).  My father’s ancestors have been in this country for hundreds of years – all of them.  The German, Dutch and French aren’t nearly as well represented in the DNA data bases as are the traditional colonial Americans who had lots of children and moved west, into Appalachia leaving lots of descendants today trying to sort through their ancestry.

So, if you have one or both of your parents’ DNA, phase yourself at GedMatch.

For those of you who don’t have parents available, but do have other relatives, try the Lazarus tool to reconstruct part of an ancestor’s genome.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Elizabeth “Probably Not Webb” Estes (1715/1720-1772/1782 ), Wife of Moses, 52 Ancestors #86

Moses Estes Sr. did us a huge favor.  Both of his wives were named Elizabeth, so when he was an old man, he didn’t have any “jealous wife” memory type issues when he mistakenly used his first wife’s name in a fit of pique (or a fit of whatever) when talking to his second wife.  That’s a good thing, because indeed, he was an older gentleman when he married the second Elizabeth, Elizabeth Talbot, a widow, and he had a lot of years experience having said “Elizabeth.”  The favor he did was to tell us when, exactly, he married the second Elizabeth.  In 1782, they had a prenuptial agreement which was filed with the court.  How’s that for ahead of your time!

However, it’s the first Elizabeth I’m interested in, the mother of Moses’s children and specifically, my ancestor, Moses Estes Jr.

Was Elizabeth a Webb?

We’re actually fortunate that we know the first Elizabeth’s first name.  It’s her last name that is in question.  However, if you take a quick look at the Ancestry trees for Moses Estes, born in 1711 and who died in 1787, you’ll find that the majority of those trees list Webb as her last name, or mistakenly list Elizabeth Jones Talbot, Moses’s second wife.

Those same trees will list another tree as a source…and so it goes.  Around and around.  For the record – we don’t know the first Elizabeth’s last name.  It’s a myth – but a myth that might have a source.  You see, there was a reference to a record…someplace.

I have to confess here, I’ve never seen the original record, BUT, someplace, I have seen a researcher’s notes referring to a land record that included Moses Estes and a male Webb.  That researcher had made the “connection” that because Moses Estes bought or leased land from the Webb male, that the Webb male was Moses’s wife’s father.

A leap of faith you say?  Yes, a leap of something, that’s for sure.  But, it could be true and it’s a place to begin further research…if I could only find that doggone reference.

But the problem is that I’ve lost the reference and I don’t remember where I saw it…other than it was in someone’s handwritten notes years ago.  I remember thinking to myself “that’s it??!!!”  That’s how someone connected some extremely tenuous dots that Elizabeth’s surname was Webb?  I remember being incredulous and thinking that there was surely more.  Then, in the 1980s, a historical novel was released that included the Estes family, and Elizabeth’s name in that novel was Webb too.  The deck was stacked at that point, and in the annals of mythology, and online trees, Elizabeth’s surname became Webb and took on a life of its own.

I’ve pulled every record I have in this house, and didn’t find that reference.  Now I’m doubting myself.  Did I even see it?  Did I dream it?  Does it exist at all – even the researcher’s note?  And if that researcher’s note exists, does the real record exist?  As many Virginia records as I’ve extracted, I’ve never come across an Estes/Webb transaction and neither has my cousin, the retired lawyer who extracted half of Virginia for Estes names.  OK, that’s an exaggeration, probably not half, just the early counties, but still, she doesn’t have it in her records either.  Of course, not everyone extracts EVERY record by that surname.  Some people are sane humans and only extract their own line’s records.  So, if that happened, maybe Moses’s record was overlooked by other researchers.

So, if you happen to come across any Virginia land record of a Webb and an Estes – or any other record, for that matter, of a Webb and an Estes between about 1730 and 1770 or so, please, PLEASE send it to me complete with the reference and source.  I promise, I will never, ever, lose it again.

Because, you know, Elizabeth’s surname actually might be Webb, but I can’t research it any further until I find that doggone slippery reference that I know I saw at one time or another.

So, if we don’t know Elizabeth’s last name, what do we know about her?

Life in Virginia

We first find Moses Estes as an adult in Hanover County in 1734.  He would have been age 23 at that time, and he was purchasing land jointly with his brother Robert and his other brother John served as a witness.

In 1736, Moses patented land adjoining his brother’s land.

In general, men did not purchase land before they married, so it’s quite likely that Moses was married about 1734 to a local gal from Hanover County, the area that would become Louisa and then Amelia as new counties were formed.

Elizabeth’s son, William was born sometime between 1735 and 1740, so Elizabeth was probably born in 1715-1720 or maybe even slightly earlier.

In 1742 Louisa County was formed and the Estes lands fall into this county.  That’s a very fortunate turn of events, because Louisa County records exist where most of Hanover’s have been destroyed.  Unfortunately, the Hanover records that might include a marriage document, or estate documents for Elizabeth’s parents, are gone.

We know, due to later deeds, that Moses lived in an area between Contrary and Northeast Creeks in Louisa, later Amelia County, between the red arrows.  It was here that Elizabeth had her children and raised her three young boys.

Louisa Northeast Contrary Creeks

1742 is also about the time that Elizabeth’s son John was born.  Son Moses Jr. was born about that time as well. Elizabeth and Moses were probably just like all other pioneer couples and had a child every 18-24 months for as long as the female was fertile, which would have been until about 1755-1760 for Elizabeth.  However, we only know of three sons.

The transaction that tells us Elizabeth’s first name is a land sale in Amelia County in 1751 in which Elizabeth, wife of Moses, relinquished her dower right in the land.  Dower right in Virginia meant that if a man died, his wife was entitled to one third of his estate by right of dower.  The husband could not relinquish his wife’s dower rights, so she had to sign to relinquish those.  Typically, the wife was “examined separately” from her husband, so the husband could not influence her answer.  Of course, she had to go home with her husband, so I’m not sure how effective asking the wife privately if she relinquished her dower actually was.  Can’t you just imagine that ride home, had the wife said, “no” that it wasn’t by her own will that she was signing away her dower rights?  How many ways can you spell ugly??

A great many deeds don’t have this additional signature, and I know of one case where the man sold his land and died a couple years later.  The wife then sued the purchaser for her one third of his land and won.  Not only that, but she got the third with the house in which she was living at the time.  One gets the idea that maybe she didn’t know her husband sold the land they were living on, especially since it was a mortgage that defaulted, which is how the sale came about – through the default to the mortgage holder.  In that place and time, the mortgagee signed a deed that the mortgage holder redeemed if they defaulted.  That kind of situation, is, of course, exactly the reason that the wife had to sign, and woe be unto the buyer that doesn’t see to that detail.

In 1758, Elizabeth and Moses are living in Amelia County and the French and Indian War is in full swing.  The House of Burgesses passed an act for the defense of the frontier and we find Moses, John and William Estes of Amelia County on the roster.  These young men are probably still living at home, as they were late teenagers or in their early 20s and not yet married.

This list suggests that perhaps Moses Jr. was the youngest of the three sons and not quite old enough to serve with his father and older brothers.  He probably felt very left out and I’m sure he did not want to be left at home with his mother as his father and brothers got to ride off to war and do all of those “exciting” grown-up manly things – at lease from Moses Jr.’s perspective.

I’m sure Elizabeth was glad to have a son remain at home.  He may have been too young to ride with the men, but he was certainly old enough to provide some protection, farm labor and partnership to his mother.

Moses Sr. is mentioned in the court minutes and deed books from time to time, but another decade would pass before we hear from Elizabeth again.  In 1768, Moses Jr. sells the land he had purchased from his father-in-law, John Combs’, estate and that sale is witnessed by his father and mother, Moses Estes Sr. and Elizabeth.

By 1768, Elizabeth had attended the weddings of all three of her sons, had gained three daughter-in-laws and had at least half a dozen grandchildren to enjoy.

An Uncomfortable Juncture

In 1769, Moses Sr. filed suit in Amelia County against his brother, Elisha, surrounding his father, Abraham’s, estate distribution – never mind that Moses’s father died more than 48 years earlier.  This may be the worst case of procrastination I’ve ever seen.  Or maybe, a long-festering boil erupted between the brothers.

I suspect that when one person in a household does something that dramatic, it is reflected via the domino effect to the rest of the family members too.  This was probably a highly emotional time, with depositions, threats and high drama.  It’s hurtful to think or know that your sibling betrayed and cheated you.  Whether it was true or not, it surely appears that Moses believed it to be true.  Elisha, in essence, in court documents, called Moses a liar, another upsetting turn of events.  Moses surely paced and swore and cried, if he let Elizabeth see his tears.  It’s hard to be the one betrayed.  And either he was the one betrayed, or he was the betrayer.  Either way – a family ripped apart.  You know Elizabeth’s household was in a state of upheaval as these unpleasant events unfolded like layers of an onion.

Elizabeth’s three sons were married and had families of their own by this time.  They may have been living with Moses and Elizabeth, or on their property, or nearby.  If Elizabeth and Moses had other children, they would still have been at home.  Elizabeth probably tried to function normally, attending church and other normal social functions of the day.  But, assuredly, Elisha’s wife and children were there too.  Not only would this suit have divided the family, it likely divided the community as well.

Maybe this court suit and the level of discomfort it caused had something to do with why Elizabeth and Moses moved to Halifax County, taking all three of their grown sons and their families along.  Maybe they were trying to put the lingering past behind them with a new beginning.

On to Halifax County, VA

By 1771, the family was moving to Halifax County and Moses Sr. bought land just west of South Boston on the Pole Bridge Branch of Miry Creek.

Moses Estes land aerial

In 1771, Moses sells his land in Amelia County and once again, Elizabeth relinquished her dower rights and signs with an X, which tells us that she could not write – and probably could not read since the two tend to go together.

However, they may not have moved right away, because in January of 1772, Moses (of Amelia County) sells to William Estes (of Amelia County) 100 acres of his land in Halifax County.  Elizabeth signs this document as well.

We know that Moses was living in Halifax County by this time or very shortly thereafter, because in March of 1772, the court authorized paying him as a road hand for building a bridge across Burches Creek, near his land.

Later in October of 1772, Moses sells the balance his land in Halifax County to his 3 sons and Elizabeth does not sign, so her death may have occurred between January and October of 1772. Given that we know that Moses owned the land on Pole Branch, and he is buried there himself, it’s very likely that Elizabeth is buried in the Estes Cemetery on that land as well.

Estes cem box elders

Or, did Elizabeth not sign because the deed was to her sons and she (and they) saw no need for her to go to the courthouse to sign?

Given that Elizabeth’s death seems to have occurred after Moses sells his Amelia land, it’s most likely that Elizabeth did make it to Halifax County, but possibly, just barely.  Did she ever get to live in this house that Moses built?

Estes Osborne home

We don’t know for sure that Elizabeth died in 1772, but we do know for sure she had died by 1782.  Elizabeth was not an old woman.  If she was born in 1715, she would have been 57-67 and if she was born in 1720, age 52-62.  She may still have had older children at home.  If there were no other living children, then she had likely buried 6 or 7 of her children, or maybe more – and then left their graves behind when she moved to Halifax County.  I can’t even begin to imagine that heartache.

Elizabeth may have lived long enough to see the Revolutionary War which began in 1775.  In 1778, the focus of the fighting shifted to the south, including Virginia.  She certainly lived through the ramping up process that led to that war which was focused on resistance to taxes imposed by England on the colonies which the colonists felt were unjust.  All men paid taxes and I’m sure it was the hot topic of conversation for months and maybe years before the war actually began.  Halifax County was involved in the fighting by 1780 and 1781, and it’s quite likely that Elizabeth’s son Moses’s land was used as an encampment by soldiers.  Elizabeth’s grandson, George fought in that war.  Did he come to tell his grandmother goodbye before he left, if she was still living at that time, or did he visit her grave one last time?

If Elizabeth didn’t die before 1780, she would have buried her adult son, William, in the family cemetery on Grubby Road in Halifax County.  About that same time in 1780, son John left with his family for the Holston River in what is now Tennessee.  At that time, Tennessee was not yet a state and that area was unsettled and wild frontier, with settlers still skirmishing with the Indians.  Once a family left, it was forever.  No one came back.

I hope that Elizabeth did not have to bury her son.  1780 would have been a year of terrible loss for her.  When a grown child left for parts unknown, not only did they leave, but they took with them the grandchildren and the only form of communication was an occasional letter – if that – assuming people could read and write.

Men, in that timeframe, did not remain single for long – so it’s possible that Elizabeth did live to see 1780 – and it may have broken her heart.  She was assuredly resting in the cemetery, beside son William, by 1782.

In 1782, Moses remarried (with that prenuptial agreement) and 5 years later, Moses was dead, probably buried beside his first wife Elizabeth and his son, William, in the cemetery on his property.  In fact, it appears that Moses second wife predeceased him, so it’s entirely possible that Moses lies between the two Elizabeths. If a man ever had to behave, he does!

I found Moses’ land in the early 2000s when I visited Halifax County several times, working on the various genealogy records in the courthouse.  Based on the land records and following them forward in time, I was able to locate Moses’s original land, with the help of a couple of wonderful cousins, an incredibly patient and generous landowner and some unimaginable good luck.  I think Moses and Elizabeth were helping me!

Moses Estes cemetery

I wonder how long Elizabeth lived on this land.  Did they live in the house Moses built, or did she die while they would have been living in a cabin.  Was the cabin they lived in first the cabin that sat back on the hill where John, Moses and Elizabeth’s son, eventually lived before he headed out for the frontier in 1780?

Estes clearing

There are so many questions and so few answers.

Elizabeth’s Children

Elizabeth had the following known children.  I’ve always suspected that she also had some daughters, but to date, none are known.

Elizabeth’s sons are as follows:

1. The oldest son born to Moses and Elizabeth was probably John, born between their marriage and 1742, or so. We don’t know the year for sure, but what we do know is that John’s eldest son, Abraham, born in 1764, gave the following testimony when applying for a Revolutionary War pension.

“I, Abraham was born in Amelia County, Virginia.  My father moved from there to Halifax, Va. where he lived until the fall of 1779, where he moved to the Holston River until 1780.”  After that they removed to Warren Co., KY.

John Estes married Elizabeth Chism, daughter of John Chism and Elizabeth Gillington.  She was remembered in her grandfather, Nicholas Gillington’s will in Halifax County in 1772.  John Estes died in 1824 in Warren Co., KY.

2. Another son, Moses Jr., was born about 1742 or maybe slightly earlier, married Luremia Combs about 1762, whose father, John Combs also lived in Amelia County. Moses Jr. bought land in Lunenburg County from his brother-in-law after John Combs death, but moved with his father, Moses Sr. to Halifax County about 1770 where they both spent the rest of their lives.  He died in 1813 with a will.

Moses had a son, Moses (the third), who was born between 1775 and 1780 in Halifax County and died in 1875 in Smith County, TN, per the probating of his will in 1875.  And no, those dates are not typos.  He married Selah Palmer.  To the best of my knowledge, this is the only grandchild of Elizabeth whose photo we have.  Most of her grandchildren died before the camera was in wide use, after the Civil War.  Moses (the third) lived to be over 100, as did his brother George Estes as well as George’s son, John R. Estes.  Longevity runs in this family.  I look at this man and wonder if he looks anything like Elizabeth and Moses Sr.

Moses Estes 1779-1875 m Selah Palmer

John R. Estes, my ancestor, below, would have been this man’s nephew.  John R. and his father, George, both also lived to be around 100, as have several of their descendants.

John R. Estes restored

3. The third son of Moses Sr. and Elizabeth, William Estes, was also born in the same 1735-1740 timeframe. William married Mary Harris.  He died in 1780 and his estate was probated in Halifax County, VA.  Family legend says that he was a drover of horses and drove them to the East coast being gone for long periods of time.  He apparently had what was probably an appendicitis attack and became very ill.  His wife was sent for, but she was days away and did arrive, but William had already died.  Mary brought his body home and buried him in the family cemetery.

DNA

Unfortunately, DNA won’t help us with Elizabeth in this circumstance, at least not directly or immediately.

It’s ironic that the one trait that has a huge potential to affect my life, that of longevity, is most likely genetic, yet, we can’t identify that gene (or genes), nor do I know if I carry it.  We do know that several people downstream of Moses and Elizabeth lived to the age of 100, and a few slightly older.  Two of my aunts and my grandfather are in that group – so I potentially could carry the Estes longevity gene.  We also don’t know where it came from – meaning from Moses’s or Elizabeth’s family.  All I do know is that Moses’s father’s line does not seem to be responsible for the longevity gene – but we know nothing about Moses’s mother nor Elizabeth’s family.

Elizabeth’s mitochondrial DNA is dead to us unless she had daughters that we don’t know about – and they turn up “proven” in some fashion.  I do find it hard to believe that only three sons survived from a marriage that would have produced children for more than 20 years – so at least 10 children and quite possibly more.

Of course, another avenue to find Elizabeth’s mitochondrial DNA would be through her sisters, or her mother’s sisters, if they have any descendants through all females – but of course – I’d have to know who her parents were to identify her siblings, or her mother’s siblings.

I have looked at my autosomal DNA results for Webb, but without knowing the name of the man I’m looking for, I can’t pinpoint anything obvious.  Perhaps I should create a “Webb” tree out of my matches trees and see what turns up the most “close” to me since I carry less of the ancestor’s DNA than the generations that are further upstream than I am.

Although since I’m not even sure I have Webb ancestry, those people with Webb in their tree could be solely circumstantial.  Webb is not an uncommon surname and it is a Virginia family in close proximity with all of the other early colonial Virginia families – so possibly and probably intermarried.

Right now, my only hope against hope is for an Ancestry NAD – New Ancestor Discovery.  As upset as I was that Ancestry gave me an ancestor that wasn’t mine who hung around for months before disappearing, and has now reappeared, I’d be very interested in a Webb NAD – because that might be possible and I could then at least attempt to convince my relevant NAD matches to download their result to GedMatch where I can view the matching DNA segments to see if they triangulate.

Having said that, it would be my luck that I’d get a NAD that really looked to be “real” but wasn’t.  However, it I had a NAD, I could at least then attempt to work with the results.

However, regardless of how much I wish for a Webb NAD, it’s probably too far back time.  Initially Ancestry was planning to reach back 10 generations in time.  Elizabeth’s parents would be 9.  However, when the NADs and Circles were released, Ancestry was only reaching back 6 or 7 generations.  In some cases, for DNA Circles, I believe this has been expanded by maybe one generation or two, but not to 9 or 10 – at least not yet.  But I’m still hoping that Ancestry reaches back more generations as they become more confident and refine their new features.  I’m also hoping for a Webb NAD and praying for Ancestry to add a chromosome browser so I don’t have to try to convince my matches (it’s so unbecoming to beg) at Ancestry to transfer to Family Tree DNA and/or download to GedMatch.

While I’m wishing, I’d like for Family Tree DNA to add tree matching as well.  They already have the chromosome browser feature and trees, so tree matching would be a very logical follow-on step.  And from there, maybe ancestor predictions???

We are truly DNA and genealogy junkies aren’t we!  Anything to find those elusive ancestors.  I just want to know if Elizabeth is a Webb, and if not, who is she???

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Native American Haplogroup C Update – Progress!!

native border

Haplogroup C-P39 is the Native American branch of Y DNA paternal haplogroup C.  It’s rare as chicken’s teeth.  Most Native American males fall into haplogroup Q, making our haplogroup C-P39 project participants quite unusual and unique.  So are the tools needed to identify branches on the Native American haplogroup C tree.

Last week, Family Tree DNA added a group of 9 SNPs found in haplogroup C to their product offering.  This was done without an announcement and without any fanfare – but it’s really important.  Without the ongoing support of Family Tree DNA, we wouldn’t have the Big Y test, nor the refining SNP tests that can be added to the Big Y in areas where the results are ambiguous.  Individuals who don’t want to purchase the Big Y can purchase these haplogroup defining SNPs individually as well.

The Native defining SNP for haplogroup C is P39.  People who test positive for C-P39 will then want to test Z30750 and Z30764.

  • Z30503
  • Z30601
  • FGC21495
  • Z30750
  • Z30764
  • PF3239
  • Z30729
  • FGC263
  • FGC31712

However, because haplogroup C-P39 is so rare – and to date – we have found several new SNPs in every man who has taken the Big Y test – and because those new, never before discovered SNPs are the bread crumbs that we need to follow to discover how our ancestors settled and dispersed across the Americas – we strong recommend the Big Y test at Family Tree DNA for all C-P39 men.  The Big Y test doesn’t just look at known SNP locations, it scans the entire Y chromosome for mutations.  Therefore, it’s both a genealogy and a research tool.

To that end, we very much want to fund this testing from the project coffers where necessary to advance our understanding.  Just to whet your appetite, we have participants now across Canada and also in the American Southwest.  We desperately want these men to take the Big Y test so we can get a much clearer picture of how they are related, and how many mutations they have individually – but don’t share – because that is how we estimate when they last shared a common ancestor.  In other words, the mutations build the branches of the tree.

This week, we’ve ordered another new C-P39 Big Y test.  If you are C-P39 – Native American haplogroup C – and have not yet taken the Big Y – please consider doing so.

If you are Native American and haplogroup C – please join the C-P39 and the American Indian projects.  You can do so from your home page at Family Tree DNA by clicking on the “Projects” tab at the upper left of your personal page, then on “join projects.”  You can search for the word “Indian” in the project list to find the American Indian project and scrolling down to the Y haplogroup projects and clicking on C will take you to the C-P39 link.

project join

If you can contribute to funding these Big Y tests, please do – even small amounts help.  The link to donate directly to the C-P39 project is: https://www.familytreedna.com/group-general-fund-contribution.aspx?g=Y-DNAC-P39

Each individual who takes the Big Y test is also encouraged to upgrade to 111 markers.  We need as much information as we can get.

Marie Rundquist and I are co-administrators of the C-P39 project, and she wrote the following verbiage in honor of the 5 year anniversary of the first discovery of what is now C-P39 in the Native Community.  We, as a community, have come a very long way in just 5 years!

It was in 2010, five years ago, when Keith Doucet first tested for the C P39 Y DNA (formerly C3b) Native American DNA type in the Amerindian Ancestry out of Acadia Family Tree DNA study — with numbers of Doucets (and Doucettes!) having the same, Native American, C P39 Y DNA result.  It’s amazing when you think of our journey and how much this research has benefitted our knowledge of our history in North America!

Who can ever forget Keith Doucet’s discovery? http://www.familyheritageresearchcommunity.org/doucet_dna.html

Or Emile Broome’s Y DNA discovery, also from 2010? http://www.familyheritageresearchcommunity.org/broome_dna.html

…and the subsequent discoveries of related Doucets and Doucettes and other project members from all regions of the US and Canada who tested in our project and whose results showed the same Native American C P39 Y DNA haplogroup type?

There is great similarity among the DNA test results for our C P39 Y DNA candidates despite differences in geographic locations and surnames, with testers from across the United States, including the American Southwest, the North East, the South, and Canada compared.  Initial Big Y DNA test results for project members have shown remarkable similarity as well.  Additional Big Y test results for tests underway and the availability of 9 new SNPs for our project members help us discover whether this trend is amplified by the additional tests or if we (the C P39 Y DNA project) can distinguish downstream uniqueness among our participants. The C P39 Y DNA test has received the generous support of its members, Family Tree DNA leadership and scientists, product managers, and volunteer administrators in establishing our superior C P39 Y DNA baseline and we are grateful for your support.

Visit the C P39 Y DNA project site to learn more. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ydna_C-P39/

Thank you to our project members for your continued participation!  And thank you to Family Tree DNA for their ongoing dedication, research and support.  Collectively, we discover more of our history every day!

native border

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Naughty Bad NADs Sneak Home Under Cover of Darkness

Welcome back to the soap opera!

5 bad nads

Those Bad NADs…they’ve done it AGAIN.  Yep, they’re back.  You remember…it was right after April’s Fool’s Day and Ancestry gifted me with two New Ancestor Discoveries that weren’t – Diedamia Lyon and John David Curnutte.  Then, a couple months later, ungrateful houseguests that they were, they disappeared one night, never to be seen again…well…until now.

But because Ancestry must have thought I was lonely, they assigned me three additional bad NADs to take their place.  Now, the good news was that while these three were indeed Bad NADS and not actual new ancestor discoveries – there was a silver lining to this cloud.  Even though these NADs aren’t my ancestors – at least I was able to document some ways to figure out why and how bad NADs are assigned – so hopefully you can work through your NADS too.

But apparently, John and Diedamia weren’t at all happy with the accommodations where they were residing after disappearing in June, so they snuck back sometime overnight.  Yep, they’re back.  I woke up, and there they were, staring at me, just like they had never been gone.  When I was a kid, on the farm, anything that showed up like this was always pregnant.  Diedamia, do you have something to tell me???

The guest room is getting quite full now…with 5 Bad NADs in residence – all impostors – claiming to be related to me.  Why, you’d think I had won the lottery or something…

I took a look, again, at Diedamia and John, utilizing the same tools that I used to determine that John Larimer and Jean Larimer weren’t my ancestors – nor was Robert Shiflet.  But given that I have only two actual DNA matches with descendants of Diedamia and John, and we don’t show any other common family links that I can discern – I was unable to figure out why I have a DNA link to two of John and Diedamia’s descendants.  Perhaps there is a common ancestor upstream someplace that will become evident one day.  Or, maybe it’s like Robert Shiflet and I’m descended through the wife’s siblings, or like the Larimers where my McKee matches also match the Larimer line.  One thing is for sure, Diedamia Lyons and John Curnutte are not my ancestors.  How I’m related to them, if I’m related to them, is yet to be determined.  Maybe that will be a future episode of the soap opera.  What shall we call this mini-series?  As the NADs Return???

It will be interesting to see how long John and Diedamia, and for that matter, my other bad NADs, hang around this time.  Seems like I have a bit of a NAD revolving door.  One thing is for sure….it’s interesting to see who is waiting for me every day.

So, let’s update the NAD Scoreboard:

  • Ancestry – 0
  • Bad NADs – 7

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research