Susanna Agnes Berchtol was born on May 3, 1688, probably in Krottelbach, Germany, shown below, to Hans Berchtol and his wife Anna Christina, whose last name is unknown.

I say probably, because the church that the family attended and where her birth was recorded was in Konken, but since her father’s residence at the time of his death is stated in the Konken Church records as being Krottelback, just a few miles away, that’s likely where the family resided when Susanna was born as well. There was no church in Krottelbach at that time.

Another researcher shows that Susanna was born in a neighboring small town, Ohmbach, but since I don’t have the original church records of either, I’ll withhold final judgement until the records are retranslated by a professional genealogist in Germany.

The name was written as both Berchtol, Bechtol and Bechtel at various times and locations, but was primarily Berchtol in Germany and Bechtol in the US with it morphing to Bechtel in the later 1800s.

The Berchtols were one of several Swiss pietist refugee families who settled in this part of Germany. Other Swiss families included the Johann Michael Mueller family.  This Johann Michael Mueller would be “the first” or at least the first that we know of.  His son, Johann Michael Mueller (the second) would be born in 1692. Ironically, Susanna’s parents, Hans Berchtol and his wife Christina were the godparents at the baptism of Johann Michael Mueller (the second) in 1692, in Steinwenden, about 15 miles distant.  Susanna Agnes Berchtol was four years and five months old when Michael was born.

These two families were previously acquainted, because in 1686, Hans Berchtol was also the Godfather to another child of Johann Michael Mueller (the first) and his wife. That child died.  Many times, the families tried to spread the godparent responsibility out among several adults and relatives in their village.  Along with being the godparent at birth, and carrying the responsibility for the child’s religious education (which was often their only education), the godparents also were the acknowledged “foster parents” should something happen to the child’s biological parents.  All too often, that unfortunate eventuality did happen before the child was of age – and having foster parents already designated removed any doubt about intention or who was raising the children.

In the case of Johann Michael Mueller (the second), that’s exactly what happened. His parents were both dead by the time he was three years of age, which may have played a very large role in his future marriage to Susanna Agnes Berchtol.  Since Michael’s parents lived several miles distant from the Berchtols, had he been raised in Steinwenden where he was born, he would have had very limited exposure to the Berchtol family.

Susanna Agnes Berchtol’s father died on June 15, 1711, according to the Reformed church records.

We don’t know if, Anna Christina, Susanna’s mother was still living in 1711 when Han’s Berchtol died, but in either case, the family would have needed help to survive. Susanna’s youngest sibling that we know of was born in 1698, so there would have been young children still at home.

Susanna was the oldest daughter and the second oldest child, according to the church records. Of course, there could have been other children born to Susanna’s parents before they arrived in Germany in the mid-1680s.

Johann Michael Mueller, age 19 in 1711, would have been a strapping youth with a debt to repay. Not an official debt, but a debt of gratitude to his godparents who could well have raised him after his parents’ death.  Hence, Johann Michael Mueller’s presence in Krottelbach and in the Berchtol household.  Michael likely knew Susanna his entire life and may have been raised in the same household, at least for part of that time.

After her birth, the first record we find of Susanna is her marriage to Johann Michael Mueller on January 4, 1714 in Krottelbach.

Their first child was baptized in that same church a year and 15 days later on January 19, 1715.  That must have been a radiant year for Susanna – her marriage and her first child.

After that, the official records that include Susanna go silent, but we can infer a lot based on what we know about Michael.

There is a possibility that Susanna and Michael moved to Lambshein in 1721. There is a record of a Michael Mueller becoming a resident there, but we have no further records.  It would be interesting to see if the Reformed Church records exist for Lambshein, and if Johann Michael Mueller with wife Susanna Agnes are present.  Those two names, in combination, are fairly unique.

Typically, German children were called by their middle names. We know that Johann Michael was called Michael.  Most male children’s first name was Johann, a saint’s name.  Using this same tradition, Susanna Agnes would have been called Agnes, not Susanna, but for some reason I’ve always thought of her as Susanna – which of course makes absolutely no logical sense.

Regardless of how she was called, either name, Susanna or Agnes was fairly rare and that in combination with Johann Michael Mueller or just Michael Mueller would certainly identify this couple.

We believe that son Lodowich was born about 1724 and son Philip Jacob Mueller was born about 1726, someplace in Germany. We have the naturalization record for Philip Jacob, so there is no question about where he was born.  We have an undated naturalization record for Lodowich as well as one for a John Miller.  Lodowich is fairly unique, especially living in Frederick County, Maryland and being naturalized in Pennsylvania.  John is a much more common name, although he too lived in Frederick County, Maryland and was naturalized in Pennsylvania, so I’m betting it’s the same family.

Michael and Susanna and however many children they had at the time sailed for the American colonies in the summer of 1727, arriving in Philadelphia on October 2, 1727 on the ship Adventure from Rotterdam, last from Plymouth, England.

We don’t know how long the Miller family was in Holland before departing.  Some Brethren lived with the Mennonites in Holland for years before departing.

The records don’t say how the immigrants arrived in Rotterdam, but since the Rhine River was the primary “road” in Medieval times, it’s most likely they arrived by boat to Rotterdam and at Rotterdam camped outside the city, then transferred to a sea-worthy vessel. Rotterdam was “the” embarkation point for both the British Isles and the land that would one day become America.

This map shows the path of the Rhine in Europe.

“Rhein-Karte2” by Ulamm (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) – File:Rhein-Karte.png by Daniel Ullrich (Threedots). Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons

Steinwenden is about equidistant between Mannheim and Bingen on the Rhine River in the yellow section. Konken is probably slightly closer to Bingen.  In either case, Susanna Berchtol and Michael Miller needed to connect with a ship on the Rhine River so they could reach their destination of Rotterdam.

The trip from Krottelbach to Rotterdam is not an easy trip. It’s more than 450 miles overland.  They surely would have taken river boats if they could.  Today a canal covers most of this distance, but then, the Meuse river winds its way towards Rotterdam as does the Rhine River which they could have connected with in several nearby cities.

I visited Rotterdam in 2014 via the Rhine River. That’s Rotterdam on the horizon, below.  Susanna and her family likely traversed this same path.

The old part of the city as seen from the water.

Except for modern buildings and ships, the approach to Rotterdam probably hasn’t changed much from when Susanna would have seen it in the 1720s and now.

This etching shows Rotterdam in 1665.  That looks a lot like the same church above and below.

Rotterdam was very much a canal city, shown below in this 1652 map.

The pietists of the 1720s didn’t follow far behind the heels of the 1709 Palatinates who swamped the city of Rotterdam and camped, by the tens of thousands, in makeshift shacks on dikes outside the city walls waiting for transportation to England and the colonies. Did the Brethren find themselves in the same location, or did they stay with people who lived inside the city?  How did Rotterdam cope with being the last stop on the European continent for Germans trying to leave for better opportunities across the sea?  How did these people eat?  Where did they obtain food?  What about bathroom facilities and hygiene?  They surely only had the barest necessities with them, anticipating a long and crowded journey in a ship.

After leaving Rotterdam, their vessel would have stopped in Plymouth, in Devon England, a regular stopping point, a port city and the last possible location to take on food, clean water, beer (for drinking as the water was often very foul), cargo and sometimes passengers if there was any space left.

Sometimes passengers got to disembark one more time in Plymouth, and sometimes not. This map was from the siege of 1643, but Plymouth probably hadn’t grown a great deal in the following 75 years and the old part of the city would remain the same.

This house, now the oldest house in Plymouth built in 1498, stood at the time that Susanna would have stopped in Plymouth on the way to America. In fact, by that time, this house would have been more than 200 years old, still young by European standards.  If Susanna got a few minutes to stroll along the quay in Plymouth, she surely would have seen this house that we still can see today.

What did she think as she looked at these houses, knowing she would not set foot on terra firma or see houses for several weeks, if ever, again? Or was Susanna simply too busy with small children to take a walk?

How did Susanna feel on these boats as she left everything and everyone she had ever known behind, with the exception of her husband, his step-brother and their children?  Did she know anyone else on the boat?  Was she frightened, excited or maybe some of each?  What were her thoughts as land disappeared from sight?  Was she looking forward or backward?  Did she know anyone at all in the new land, or were they simply following rumors of a better life and opportunity?

Transatlantic crossings were not without risk, and most ships buried at least someone at sea. Some ships buried many.  Children were especially vulnerable.  Not only was the ship itself in danger of sinking or passengers washing overboard in bad weather, but the passengers were always in danger due to poor health and illness, often induced by rotten food and bad water.  And then, of course, there was the ever-present issue of sea-sickness.  While it won’t kill you, at least not directly, it will make you incredibly and unrelentingly miserable.

How many children did Susanna have along with her? Did the journey end with as many children as it began, or were they “up” or “down” a child or two.  Was Susanna pregnant on the boat, or God forbid, giving birth?  Those trips typically took from 4 weeks to 3 months, depending on the winds, weather and luck.  The average was about 6 weeks.

Given that their first child was born in 1715, Susanna could have had about 8 children, if all babies born survived. We do know that at least three sons had been born who did survive, and possibly four.

Were Michael and Susanna joining people already established in the colonies, which would certainly lessen the fear, or were they simply arriving in Philadelphia and would figure it out from there? Was someone meeting them at the docks?  Did they have instructions about where to go and who to ask for?  They spoke German in a country that spoke English.

Did they stay in Philadelphia or did they leave immediately for Chester County, where they were first found in 1732?  Where were they from 1727 to 1732?  If they couldn’t pay for their own passage, they would have been indentured to someone for up to 7 years, which would have been 1734, unless their indenture was for a shorter amount of time.  If they weren’t indentured, how did they pay for their passage for a family of at least five, if not more?

Their arrival in Philadelphia in 1727 probably looked something like this. I would bet that when Susanna set foot on dry ground, she never wanted to see another ship again.  If she had survived the voyages and lost no children, she was truly fortunate.  Susanna would have turned 39 years old in May as they were preparing for this trip.

This oil painting by Matthew Birth in 1820 shows the Philadelphia waterfront with a shipyard in the foreground. This harbour view probably looked something like what greeted Susanna and Michael when they arrived nearly 100 years earlier.

Only the adult males were listed on the passenger list, so we don’t know positively that Susanna was with Michael, but it’s the most likely scenario. The pietists brought their families and did not tend to leave them behind with the idea they would join them later.  There was no way for families left behind to survive.  In many cases, these families had little or nothing when they left.

At that time, Germans were vassals and did not personally own land. Generally, they owned some livestock, which could be quickly sold, and some farm implements, and that’s it.  Not difficult to pick up and leave.

We know that Samuel Bechtol arrived, at some point, and given the joint land ownership between Johann Michael Mueller and Samuel Bechtol, it’s very likely that Susanna was related to him. Some people indicate they were siblings, but I haven’t seen any documentation stating such.  Susanna did have a brother, Hans Jacob Berchtol, born in 1686 who married Anna Marie Glosselos, but I found no record of a Samuel as Susanna’s sibling.  Of course, it’s entirely possible that we don’t have all of the birth records.  Some children could have been born in Switzerland before the family came to Germany.

There is a Hans Simon Berchtol family in Steinwenden where the Mueller family lived who did have a son named Hans Samuel born in 1685 with a Hans Michael (surname illegible) as godfather. Clearly these families were interconnected in some fashion, both in Germany and in Pennsylvania.  There is one immigration record from September 1743 for Samuel Bechtol, but that might be somewhat late.  There is a 1737 record for Jacob (IB) Bechtel.  Estimates are that only about one third of the immigration records from this time frame have been preserved, and none before 1727 when the oath of allegiance began to be required.

We don’t know where Susanna was living from 1727 to 1732 but they were assuredly in or nearby Philadelphia in one of the German communities. It’s unclear when this family became Brethren as opposed to either Mennonite or Reformed.

There were congregations of both in Chester County.

I asked Merle Rummel, a long-time Brethren minister who is also a historian about the differences between Mennonites and Brethren in that timeframe. He was kind enough to send me some information, including his publication, “The Pietists,” which I’m trying to distill here.  I wanted to understand the differences between the Brethren and Mennonites, which, to me, an outsider and from a perspective of nearly 300 years later, look an awful lot alike.

I can see that the differences in the ways the two religious groups approached both baptism and communion would be enough to cause them to become or remain two different groups.  Those beliefs are fundamental to the Brethren and they would not be willing to compromise on those tenets.

By 1738, three of the families that Susanna Bechtol and Michael Miller are found with throughout their lives are founding the Little Conewago Church, 80 miles west of Philadelphia in Hanover Township, York County. These are the Ulrichs, Cripes and Jacob Stutzman, Michael Miller’s step-brother who arrived on the boat with Michael and Susanna and their children.  Jacob Stutzman was born in 1706, so was significantly younger than Michael and Susan and they may have felt very parental towards him.  He was not quite young enough to be their eldest child, but he was close.

The lack of Michael Miller’s name as a founding member of Little Conewago could mean that the records are lacking or that he was Mennonite at this time. However, by 1744, Alexander Mack’s letters mention Michael, so it’s likely he was Brethren by this time.  By 1754, Michael had married a Brethren widow, so he was assuredly Brethren by that time.

On the map below, the path from Chester County to the Black Rock Church, the main Brethren church in the area where Little Conewago was located is shown, a distance of about 75 miles.

We know Susanna and Michael were living in York County in 1744 when on February 7^th, Michael bought 400 acres of land northeast of Hanover with Nicholas Garber and Samuel Bechtol.  These families had also lived in Chester County.

The Bechtol family never left York County, PA. Johann Michael Mueller sold his portion of that land to Samuel Bechtol in 1752.  As administrator of the estate of Nicholas Garber, Michael likely sold Nicholas’s portion to Samuel Bechtol as well.  By 1754, Michael Miller had married Elizabeth, the widow of Nicholas Garber.

The Johann Michael Mueller family was likely Brethren by this time, because their resistance to filing documents with the county had manifested itself. Not all deeds were filed, and neither was the marriage between Johann Michael Miller and Nicholas Garber’s widow.  We only know of this because it says in a 1754 court record that Johann Michael Mueller is now married to Elizabeth, the widow of Nicholas Garber and administering his estate.

So, this also tells us that Susanna had assuredly died by 1754. Some researchers feel she had died by 1752 when Johann Michael Mueller sold his land to Samuel Bechtol.  Michael Mueller had purchased land in Frederick County, MD in 1745 and was preparing to move to that area.  Susanna did not sign off on her dower rights on the 1752 deed, but then again, if the deed was to her brother or other family member, maybe they didn’t feel the need.  Some researchers feel that the lack of her signature indicate that she had died by this time.

In 1752, Susanna would have been 64 years of age. She probably had her last child at least 20 years prior, so there would have been no small children left at home.

It’s believed that Michael Miller actually moved to Frederick County, MD after the 1752 sale of his land in York County, PA. He wouldn’t have had any place to live otherwise.

The trip from Hanover to Maugansville was only about 60 miles, right down the new Monocacy Road.

So, Michael sold his land to a man who was possibly his deceased wife’s brother, almost certainly a relative, remarried to the widow of the other one-third property owner, sold that land as well, and removed to Maryland. It certainly appears that Susanna Agnes had died by 1752 and assuredly had by 1754..

In that time and place, widows and widowers did not remain single for long – mostly as a matter of survival, not a social or cultural preference. Life on the frontier was safer and easier with two people, you had a helpmate and a partner.  Pure and simple.

So, it’s likely that Susanna died something between 1748 when Nicholas Garber died and 1752 when Michael sold his land to Samuel Bechtol.

Since we don’t know when Susanna died, we don’t know where she is buried, but we do have a hint – such that it is.

In 1748, a land dispute that had been unfolding in York County, PA became much worse. In a letter to the governor asking for assistance it says that many of the Germans have “gone already and the rest say they will.”  This dispute turned into a war, and indeed, most of the Germans, at least the pietist ones, did leave for Maryland just over the border with Pennsylvania.  This dispute turned violent and several people were killed.  We don’t know if Susanna was perhaps an undocumented victim of these activities.  The date of Nicholas Garber’s death calls this into question for him as well.

We do know the location of the land in York County, thanks to Gene Miller’s work. The Miller/Bechtol/Garber land was dead center in the middle of the disputed land area.  These pacifist people must have wondered if God had a perverse sense of humor – all things considered.  What we do know is that Susanna’s husband was on a list of wanted men (if it was her Michael Miller) and another member of the Brethren family group, an Ullery, told the sheriff to “go to the devil” – something VERY un-pietist like and so unusual that it was recorded.  These people had been pushed to the breaking point.

The land owned by the three men, Johann Michael Mueller, Samuel Berchtol/Bechtol and Nicholas Garber is shown above overlayed with dotted lines onto an 1886 map created by Gene Miller.  In the lower corner with the red arrow, you can see the notation Mennonite Church Cemetery on the land owned by these joint landowners.  You can also see that Bechtols by the surname spelling of Bechtel still live on this very land in 1886, 130+ years later.  Today that cemetery is known as the York Road Cemetery and also as Bair’s Mennonite Church Cemetery.

This cemetery is where Samuel Bechtol who died in 1785 is buried. The Berchtol/Bechtol family was known to be Mennonite.  It’s certainly possible that Susanna Agnes Berchtol was Mennonite as well before shifting slightly to the Brethren faith, which is very similar.  It’s also possible that both Susanna and Michael were Mennonite until after Susanna’s passing when Michael could have become Brethren to marry Elizabeth Garber.  One thing is evident – these three families were of somewhat different faiths, Brethren and Mennonite, and it didn’t seem to cause any problems between them.  The Brethren and Mennonite faiths were very similar except for their forms of baptism and communion.

Regardless, Susanna had to be buried someplace. The fact that Berchtols were buried here some time later might suggest that earlier burials occurred here as well.  Perhaps Susanna isn’t buried far from Samuel.  The church itself was not established until 1774 but a family or community cemetery certainly could have pre-dated the church in this location.

If Susanna did make it to Frederick County, Maryland, she may have been one of the first Brethren to be buried there.

Children

Beginning in the 1760s, Michael began to distribute his remaining land to his children and his step-children. By the time of his death, he owned no land and had no estate probate – unfortunately.  Therefore, the only way we have to connect the dots with his children is via land transactions.

Because Michael did not have a will, we only know of three or four children positively, and a possible fifth. The rest of the individuals attributed to Michael and Susanna are speculation, and there is a lot of speculation online.  If someone does have other children and documentation for such, I would love to add that child.  I have not included any speculative children below.

• Hans (probably Johann) Peter Mueller, baptized on January 19, 1715, at Konken. We don’t know if this child lived to adulthood. If so, he would probably have married when the family was living in Chester Co, PA. He may be John Miller below.
• Lodowich Miller probably born 1724 or earlier in Germany. Migrated with his parents and lived in or near Hanover, PA and Hagerstown, MD before marrying Barbara, surname unknown, and migrating to Rockingham Co., VA about 1782 where he likely died in 1792. We have an undated naturalization record for Lodowich.
• Philip Jacob Miller born about 1726 in Germany. Migrated with his parents and lived near Hanover, York Co., PA. Inherited land from his father in formerly Frederick, present day Washington County, MD near Maugensville. Married Magdalena, probably in York County, who was reported to be a Rochette, although I have never found any documentation or that surname. Philip Jacob remained in Frederick County until 1796 when he, along with his children, migrated to Campbell County, KY where he died in 1799.
• John Miller inherits part of Ash Swamp from Michael in 1765 and lived there until he died in 1795, likely being buried on his own land on a 50 by 50 foot cemetery plot, now lost to time. He may be Hans Peter Mueller born in 1715. There is an undated naturalization record in Pennsylvania for a John Miller in Maryland, although we can’t tell if this is the same man for sure.
• Hans Michael Miller is given money to purchase land.
• Michael Miller Junior is given land.

Sadly, we know of no daughters, although they almost certainly existed. There are numerous people who have suggested individuals in the community as Michael’s daughters, but so far, none have produced any evidence whatsoever.

Susanna lived in several places during her childbearing years and the rest of her marriage years. In other words, if she had other children who died, they could have been baptized and buried in a number of places.  If this happened, it must have been exceedingly difficult for Susanna to move on, leaving her children’s graves behind, and alone.  As a mother, I can tell you that there is always a part of you that remains with those children.

• 1714-1715 – Krottelback
• 1716-1721 – Unknown location in Germany
• 1721 – Possibly Lambshein
• 1721-1727 – Unknown location in Germany
• 1727 – Rotterdam, then ship to America
• 1727-1732 – Unknown location in Pennsylvania
• 1732-1740 – Coventry Township, Chester County, PA
• 1740-1744 – Unknown location in Pennsylvania
• 1744-1752 – Near Hanover, York County, PA
• 1752+ – Frederick County, MD

If Susanna did not pass away before 1752 when Michael sold his York County land, she could have moved with him to Frederick County, Maryland in 1752, but she was assuredly departed by 1754.

Most women of this timeframe in history never ventured more than ten miles distant from their European home. Susanna Agnes Berchtol was no stereotypical woman and saw a great deal of adventure in her life.  I wonder if she chose this path or if it was chosen for her.  Did she even get to vote on the matter?  Did she look ahead in anticipation, or did she cry every time she left her familiar home?  She did a lot of leaving in her lifetime.  A lot of climbing onto boats, into wagons and probably walking.

Daughters?

Unfortunately, because we don’t have the mitochondrial DNA line of Susanna, we can’t use the unbroken female line mitochondrial DNA to prove a daughter relationship. To do that, we would need to have two individuals who both believe they descend from Susanna through all females – and their mtDNA would need to match at the full sequence level.  Then, we could probably be fairly sure they both do indeed descend from Susanna (or at least a common matrilineal ancestor) – but not Susanna positively without proven genealogical descent.  Of course, finding someone who descends through all females from any of Susanna’s sisters would provide Susanna’s mtDNA as well, since mitochondrial DNA is passed from females to both genders of their children, but only females pass it on.  If you have proven descent from Susanna’s sisters, Barbel (Barbara) born about 1693 or Ursula born about 1696, through all females to the current generation, which can be male, I have a DNA testing scholarship for you.

There’s another kind of test for anyone who descends from Johann Michael Mueller and Susanna Agnes Berchtol through any children, male or female, and through any combination of male and female children down that line. It’s an autosomal test called Family Finder at Family Tree DNA. Several people known to descend from this couple through male children have already tested.  If people who believe they descend through female children also test, and match, that’s evidence to suggest that Michael and Susanna Agnes did have female children – and to identify who they are.

If anyone believes they descend from Susanna Agnes Bechtol and Johann Michael Mueller through a female child, they can take the autosomal Family Finder test at Family Tree DNA and join the Miller Brethren project. In this project, we have gathered together many of the descendants of Johann Michael Mueller and Susanna Agnes Berchtol and we can compare autosomal DNA against these descendants as well.  Yes, that connection would be several generations back in time.  One could not expect to match all of their descendants, but they could certainly match some of their descendants.  In this situation, the most difficult caveat would be that none of those individuals being compared share any other surname lines.  Of course, in the Brethren community, that’s a difficult goal to achieve.

Still, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility and I encourage everyone who descends from this line to test autosomally and join the Miller Brethren project. I also encourage participants to upload their results to GedMatch where we can adjust match thresholds individually.  In the cases of people matching distantly, this can make quite a difference in terms of whom matches whom.

I have to wonder what Susanna Agnes Berchtol would think of us discussing her DNA. Of course, Susanna would have had no idea what DNA was, although she certainly didn’t seem to be dissuaded by new frontiers.  These small pieces of her DNA are the ties that bind her descendants to her in an unbroken chain of life.

______________________________________________________________

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

• Family Tree DNA
• MyHeritage DNA only
• MyHeritage DNA plus Health
• MyHeritage FREE DNA file upload
• AncestryDNA
• 23andMe Ancestry
• 23andMe Ancestry Plus Health
• LivingDNA

Genealogy Services

• MyHeritage FREE Tree Builder
• MyHeritage Subscription with Free Trial

Genealogy Research

• Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

The first actual documentation of Ann’s name is found in a 1760 lease where Ann and her husband, Edward Mercer, are leasing land in Frederick County, Virginia to their son, Moses Mercer.  This land was located “under the mountain on the easternmost part of Back Creek.”  Both Edward and Ann sign, so Ann was able to at least sign her name.

This is a picture of that land today.

This branch of the Mercer family was found in Back Creek Valley during the 18th and 19th centuries very near and adjacent to Babb’s Mountain.

Edward Mercer died in 1763, and he named his wife Ann in his will, in addition to his children.

Edward stipulates:

I give and bequeath unto my son Edward Mercer the plantation whereon I now Live containing two hundred and nine Acres and also a survey adjoining thereto containing Ninety six Acres of Land to him his Heirs and assigns forever.

I also Will that my wife shall have the best Rooms in the new House now part built until my son Edward shall build her a compleat house on some part of the plantation at his proper cost which House shall be sixteen foot wide and Twenty foot Long. I also give to my wife Ann Mercer one third part of my parsonal Estate that may remain after the debts and Legacies mentioned are paid.

Lastly I constitute and ordain my well beloved wife Ann Mercer and my son Edward Mercer and Joseph Foset my sole Executors of this my Last Will and Testament revoking and declaring void all former wills and Testaments by me made and done in witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal.

It’s interesting that Edward stipulated that Ann received a new house.  At that time, a house the size of 16X20, especially for only one person, was indeed a luxury.  This also tells us that there were two houses involved, an older home and a new house, partly built.  If Edward Jr. built the new house for his mother, there would be a third house too.

Of course, without more completely identifying the land and doing deed work, we would never be able to tell exactly which land was his and if any of the houses are still standing today.  It’s certainly possible that at least one of them remains.  There are a number of historic houses in the area.

Who was Edward Mercer’s wife, Ann?

A letter written by one Harrington to Wilmer Kerns on Oct. 27, 1993 states that Edward Mercer married Ann Croat, Croats (or Coats) in 1726, and he married second to Mary Gamble. However, we know that Edward was married to Ann when he died, based on his will, so this makes no sense.  Another rumor bites the dust – at least the Mary Gamble portion.

Unfortunately, the Croat portion may be incorrect as well.  We have no direct evidence and only scanty indirect evidence that isn’t particularly positive.

The indirect evidence consists of none of the descendants of Ann Mercer matching anyone with a Croat family  line – except for people who have entered Ann Croat in their family tree.  Even if Ann’s surname was Croat, we might still not have an autosomal DNA match for several reasons.

People from that line might not have tested or the line could have died out, at least the American part of the line.  Europeans aren’t nearly as likely to DNA test as Americans. Or, maybe Croat descendants have tested, but we just just not have inherited any of the same DNA from our common ancestors, or not in sufficient quantity, nine generations later.  So while DNA could potentially prove the Croat surname, it can never truly disprove it unless we discover a different surname to prove – and do.

Edward Mercer was born about 1704 or maybe slightly earlier.  Edward and Ann were having children by about 1724, or shortly thereafter, so Ann was probably born about this same time or maybe just a couple years later.  Aaron Mercer was her youngest child and was not of age in 1762 when Edward wrote his will, so Aaron was born after 1741.  Aaron obtained his own land grant in 1774.  This puts Aaron’s birth between 1741 and 1753, which puts Ann’s birth, if she was age 42 when she had her last child, at between 1699 and 1712.  We know she was born before 1712, because she was having children by 1724, so Ann was likely born between 1699 and 1705.

Edward Mercer Jr. began selling land in 1786 when he sold land near Thomas Babb’s fence and in 1790 when he sold the land left to him my his father, which abutted Thomas Babb’s corner.  This would be the land that his mother was supposed to have the house built upon, so this likely tells us that Ann was deceased by this time, although there is an Ann Mercer on the Southampton County tax list in 1791.  Doubtful that this is her, at the other end of the state and at about 90 years of age, but then again, you never know – and the age fits.  Ann, were she living, would have been about 90 in 1790, give or take a couple years.

Ann and Edward first appear in Frederick County in 1744.  Most of their children would already have been born wherever they came from before Frederick County.  Unfortunately, we don’t know where that was, although from the work done for the Edward Mercer article, it appears that this family was in Chester County, PA at least for a while, and before that possibly in New Castle or Marcus Hook, Delaware.

Rumor states that Edward Mercer immigrated in 1737, but this is very unlikely, unless Ann and children came with him.

Another rumor says that youngest child Aaron’s Revolutionary War pension papers state that he was born in Ireland.  This would mean that his parents were still in Ireland between 1741 and 1753 which we know are the bracketing years of Aaron’s birth.  We know that Edward was already in the court records in Frederick County in 1744, so this gives a brief window of 1741-1742 IF Aaron was actually born in Ireland.

I doubt this evidence seriously, especially in light of the fact that Aaron died in 1800, a full 18 years before the first Revolutionary War pensions were given for those veterans who were destitute.

Regular pensions weren’t awarded until 1832.  The only way Aaron could have a Revolutionary War pension application is if his widow lived long enough to collect, and never remarried.  Just to be safe, I checked www.fold3.com and found no Revolutionary War pension application for Aaron.  If this actually does exist someplace, please send it in my direction.  I’d be very grateful.

Aaron did receive a bounty land warrant for his Revolutionary War service , however, which may be how and why he migrated to Hamilton County, Ohio in the 1790s, building Mercer Station with his sons and sons-in-law at what became Cincinnati.  I did not find bounty land application for Aaron at Fold3 either, but if it exists, his birth information might be included in that document.

Life in Frederick County

What was Ann’s life like in Frederick County, Virginia?  She lived there for at least 20 years and probably 30 or 40.  Ann lived here while the French and Indian War was escalating.  Her husband, Edward, marched off in 1754 to Fort Necessity with General George Washington to participate in the Washington’s first defeat.  What did Edward do?  He did what every self-preserving Virginian would do under the circumstances.  He turned tail and ran, with the rest of the Virginians, back to the fort, leaving the professional soldiers standing alone in an unprotected field to face the French and Indians.  Then, the Virginia men broke into the liquor and got drunk.  Probably not Edward’s proudest moment.  But maybe Ann never knew.  Maybe what happens in Fort Necessity stays in Fort Necessity.  And it would have too, were it not for George Washington’s report describing the event.  But the people of Frederick County would never have seen that report.

What was Ann doing while Edward was off chasing French and Indians?  She was home defending the homestead if need be.  She would have had 2 children who were adults, possibly two more who were of age, and several at home.  She needed to do everything that had to be done with her husband present, except without her husband.  If the family was lucky, they had two guns.  One for Edward to take with him, and one for Ann to use at home.  Edward’s estate showed “2 old guns” so perhaps this is exactly what happened.  I’m betting Ann could shoot with the best of the men.  Frontier women had to be able to take care of themselves – and their family.  It was that or perish – and we know that Ann’s family did not perish.

Edward and Ann also owned land abutting the Indian trader, John VanMeter and his sons.  It’s certainly possible that the friendly relations garnered by the VanMeter family, and the Tuscarora living on the land of neighbor James Crumley paved the way for these families to be left alone – although many of their neighbors up and down the valley were killed or kidnapped.

The brutality was unrelenting.  George Washington reported that many families had abandoned their land and returned back east.  He further said that there were no settlers beyond Winchester, that Winchester was now the edge of the frontier.  That means that they could no longer defend anything further west, and the line of mountains that we see in these photos was indeed the edge of the frontier, where raids occurred daily and one’s property was very likely to be burned.  Only the brave or crazy stayed, and maybe those who remained were some of each.  Needless to say, the Mercer’s remained, but they may have had friends among the traders and Native people that helped pave the way.

Someone else writing about this timeframe also said that anyone who lived in this region has surely lost at least one family member.  Unfortunately, there are no records, but I have to wonder what life was like for Ann, especially when Edward was gone to war.

The year 1763 brought another terror in the form of Pontiac’s War where Chief Pontiac tried and very nearly successfully eradicated European settlers to the seacoast.  Once again, farms were abandoned and life was quite tentative.  Most of Maryland along the eastern side of the mountains was abandoned.  The Virginians weren’t quite as likely to leave – they didn’t in 1754.  But as Quakers, they weren’t very likely to fight either.  These attacks abated in 1765 when Pontiac was killed and the Indians realized their French cohorts were truly defeated.

If Ann lived long enough, she would also have lived to see the Revolutionary War which began another decade later, in 1776.  In many ways, the Revolutionary War was the second or third act of the French and Indian War which culminated with a treaty relative to European settlement that was almost immediately broken, before the ink was even dry.  The Proclamation Line of 1763 might as well not have existed, for all the good it did.  This line was the boundary of which settlers were not to encroach.  That lasted about half a day, if that long.  It’s no wonder that the Native people were constantly furious with the Europeans and their broken promises.  In this case, it appeared that this promise was never meant to be kept and only made to appease the Indians immediately.  If that was the case, it was very short-sighted and caused an immense amount of grief on the frontier.

Apple Pie Ridge

The area of Frederick County where Ann and Edward Mercer settled was bountiful, a good farming area without too many rocks and with plentiful game and clean water.

The area received its name from the numerous apple trees in the area which still exist in abundance today.

Everyplace you look you find apple trees weighted heavily with fruit.  Today, the area is a major exporter for apple juice, but it has always been an apple harvest area.

The ridge, ever-present and always in the distance marked the border and boundary for a long time.  For the Native people, it marked the north/south path across this part of the continent, which became the Wagon Road and then contemporary interstate 81.

We’re fortunate that we are able to generally locate Ann and Edward Mercer’s land based on the proximity to both the Babb Family and James Crumley.  Hannah Mercer, Ann’s daughter married William Crumley, the son of James Crumley, who also lived on Apple Pie Ridge Road.  The photo above is taken on the land between Edward Mercer’s land and William Crumley’s land, near the border of Virginia and West Virginia, in northern Frederick County.  The ridge however, runs the entire distance of the county, and much further.  Winchester, Virginia is not called the gateway to the Shenandoah Valley for nothing.

I was recently able to take a driving tour of the area that would have encompassed Ann and Edward Mercer’s land in Frederick County.

On this map of Frederick County, the forested area to the right of and above Cedar Grove is Babb’s Mountain.  To the right of Babb’s Mountain would have been Babb’s Great Meadow.  Cattail Run is the eastern most portion of Back Creek.  The road labeled 677 is known as “Old Baltimore Road” and it is the old way, literally, from the east coast.  You can always tell which are the truly old roads by the age of the homes on the road.

Just slightly on north, we find White Hall and then just north, at the top of this screen shot, the James Crumley home on Apple Pie Ridge Road (just above the 739 sign) – about 3 miles today between the Mercer area and the James Crumley area.

Let’s take a driving tour and see what the area is like.

Babb’s Mountain and the Old Baltimore Road

Starting at Old Baltimore Road and Babb’s Mountain Road, the area looking towards Apple Pie Ridge is quite pleasant.  People graze cattle, as Edward Mercer did.  The could well have been the area called “Babb’s Great Meadow.”

Looking back toward Babb’s Mountain, which can be seen from anyplace within several miles proximity, we can clearly see the mountain and the lands at the base or “under the mountain” as the early deeds said.

This is the land of beautiful barns.  Stunningly beautiful barns.  The Mercer’s barn was surely much larger than their house.  They were then and still are today.

And of course, this is the land of never-ending apple trees with the ever-present ridge in the background.

When a man died in Virginia in the 1700s, his estate inventory included everything in the household.  The wife had to “buy back” whatever she wanted, AFTER his debts were settled, if anything was left, so the estate inventory was comprehensive.

Edward Mercer’s estate inventory would reflect Ann’s possessions too, although legally, she didn’t have any possessions except her dower right which was one third of the value of the land.  Edward left Ann one third of his personal possessions, which would have included furniture, pots and pans and such.  I’ve always wondered how the man though his wife would “make do” without two thirds of her things – meaning all of the tools she had been using before his death to take care of the family.  Two thirds of the need didn’t disappear because he did.  Some men just split everything between the children and omitted the wife entirely.  Of course, I’m sure the wife wasn’t absolved of the work, just relieved of most of her tools to do that work.

Edward’s estate included apple cyder, of course, which tells us they had apple trees.  Apple presses, similar to the one shown below, were used to extract the juice from the apples before it became cyder, or hard cyder.

Apples not made into cyder were boiled in large cauldrons and turned into apple butter which was used in place of butter.

Interestingly enough, a newly found cousin who grew up in Frederick County sent me this tidbit about local apple tradition:

“When I was a kid, the neighbors annually gathered and snitzed apples for cider on Friday, then all day Saturday would be cooking down apple butter.  A high school classmate of mine lives near where you were in Virginia and they continue the ritual every year.”

Of course, I had to ask what snitzing apples was.

“Scnitz or Snitz is Pennsylvania “Dutch” for dried apple slices. We used it as a verb (to make snitz’s) as we sat around peeling, coring and slicing the apples. We didn’t dry them.. they went for apple butter.  As a kid, my favorite part was the apple peeling machine. I was pretty happy over there cranking away watching the apple whirl around while the blade took the peeling off.”

Thank you so much cousin Tom for sharing a bit of our apple culture heritage.

Another item in Edward’s estate that certainly wasn’t his was a loom.  The loom would have been paired with the unbroken flax (flax that had not yet been shelled) which would have eventually been spun and woven.  Interestingly enough, there is no spinning wheel, which makes me wonder why.  Was Ann only a weaver and someone else did the spinning.  A loom is no small item, which maybe is why Edward stipulated the size of Ann’s house to be built.  Colonial Williamsburg includes a wonderful page on Weaving, Spinning and Dyeing practices of this timeframe.

This, along with casks of flax seeds tells us that one of the plants grown on the Mercer plantation was flax, used to spin linen threads which was then woven into cloth, then made into clothing.  It’s no wonder that clothes were listed in estate inventories and most people only had one outfit – and that’s what they were buried in.

Cloth itself was quite valuable, not just within the home, but as a commodity.  Thread and linen fabric was quite difficult to make and required several discrete steps after harvest including shelling, bleaching, drying, crimping, cleaning, combing or hackling and spinning.  It was easier to spin linen if you added a bit of wool, hence linsey-woolsey.  In spite of this, the average frontier home would produce about 62 yards of cloth per year.  Of course this had to clothe everyone.  A good piece of clothing would buy 20 acres or more.

Ironically, those women who wove that valuable cloth went barefoot in the summer – hence the saying, “barefoot and pregnant.”

Religion

Religion, in some cases, is guilt by association.  That’s the way Quakers are.  We know that Ann was a Quaker because Edward was a Quaker.  We know Edward was a Quaker because he got thrown out of the Quaker church in 1759 for drinking to excess.

Ironic isn’t it that his estate had absolutely no liquor, nor still.  Perhaps Edward was too friendly with his Quaker neighbor, James Crumley, who did indeed own a still.  Edward’s daughter Hannah married James Crumley’s son, William.  James and Edward would have been contemporaries.  James died in 1764, about the same time that Edward died.  They lived down the road from each other for the entire time they lived in Frederick County, and they attended the same church – well – up until Edward got the boot.  There is a good possibility that they came to Frederick County together, because both men are first found there in 1744.  During this time, there was a significant migration of Quakers from the Chester County, PA region – and Ann and Edward Mercer may have been among them.

If Ann was not a Quaker, Edward would have been thrown out of the church much sooner, for marrying outside the church.  Therefore we know Ann was Quaker.

The Hopewell Friends Meeting House was established in Frederick County in 1734 and this is the church that both the Crumleys and Mercers would have attended.

Ann would certainly have attended this church from 1744 up until 1759 when Edward got himself removed from the church.  How Ann reacted to this is unknown.  She still had young children at home.  Was Ann too embarrassed to attend church after Edward got into trouble?  Was she painted with the same brush?  Was she ostracized or unwelcome because of his behavior?  Or did Ann just lift up her chin and attend, deciding that she could not control Edward but she was going to go to church with him or without him?  Was that allowed once he had gotten himself in trouble?  How did Edward’s actions affect Ann’s relationship within the church, officially and unofficially?

How did this episode affect Ann’s relationship with others in the community?  How did if affect Edward’s relationship with Ann?  Was she supportive of Edward or disgusted with him?  Was she simply tolerant of his activities, or actively opposed?  Did Edward truly have a drinking problem, or did he have a wild Saturday night?  From the church statement, it appears that he is “drinking to excess” not just having an isolated binge or having too much fun at an apple snitzing.  This is also the same church that overlooked the fact that James Crumley was distilling liquor and made him a vestryman in the Anglican church representing the Quaker interests.

Did Edward have a drinking problem by “Quaker standards” or did Edward truly have a drinking problem?  I hope he was not mean to Ann or the children.  Alcoholism seems to be such a continuing theme in my family.

How this affected the family has a direct impact on where Ann was buried.  Was she still a Quaker at her death?  Was she a practicing Quaker?  Did her children bury her in the Quaker Cemetery or did they bury her beside Edward, who was surely NOT buried in the Quaker Cemetery?

This also makes me wonder where Ann’s son, John Mercer, was buried in 1748 when he died.  Is he buried in the Hopewell Cemetery?  This was before Edward Mercer got himself into trouble, so it’s likely that Ann and Edward’s son, John, is buried here.  I surely wonder what caused the death of a young man.  And I wonder if Ann is buried by John or by Edward.  Ann outlived Edward by at least 23 years and possibly more.  A lot can change in that time.  Had she initially been very angry with him, that could have mellowed, especially after his death.

One of my friends whose husband had been exceedingly difficult for her to deal with for many years was grieving her husband after his death.  Talking to her before his death, I would have expected her to be the merry widow.  I knew her well enough to ask her about the discrepancy, and she blessed me with these words of wisdom, “Honey, some of them are a lot easier to love after they are dead.”  Touche!!!

Furthermore, Ann didn’t have to decide where she was going to be buried.  That fell to her children.

Perhaps the earliest burials at Hopewell are found here, in the center, under this ancient tree who stands silent sentry.  Perhaps Ann rests here.  If trees could only talk.

Children and Descendants

Ann and Edward Mercer had seven children that lived to adulthood.  Son John died before both Edward and Ann in 1748, in Frederick County, already an adult.

• Richard Mercer could have been the Richard who married a woman named Mary and lived in Berkeley County. John Mercer mentioned a brother Richard in his 1748 will that was filed in Winchester.  It’s difficult to tell when Richard first appears in the records because there is an earlier Richard that is found with Edward Mercer as well.
• Elizabeth Mercer was born about (or after) 1724 and married by 1748 to William Heath who was born on Sept. 18, 1724. William was mentioned in the 1748 will of his brother-in-­law, John Mercer.
• John Mercer was born circa 1727 and died in 1748, apparently unmarried. John lived in Frederick County, where his will is on file in the courthouse. His father, Edward Mercer, was named administrator for his estate.
• Moses Mercer was of age and leasing land from his father by 1760. Moses was born in 1732 and died in 1805, in Frederick County. Appraisers of Moses’ estate were Jacob Rinker, Richard Barrett, and Thomas Babb. Moses married Dinah Morrison, who was called Dianna in his will. She was born Dec. 24, 1729, and died in April 1810. After Moses’ death in 1804, Dinah received all moveable property during her natural life, plus one-third of profits from real estate. She wrote her will on April 10, 1810 and it was probated June 7, 1810. Witnesses were Aaron and John Mercer, and John Barnard. Her close friend, Abraham Lewis was named the executor. Moses and Dinah signed their names with an X “His mark” and “Her mark,” respectively.
• Hannah Mercer married William Crumley about 1763 and had died by 1774. Hannah was mentioned in the will of her brother John in 1748, and in the will of Elizabeth Morris in 1760. This begs the question of the identity of Elizabeth Morris? Might this be a clue to the identity of Hannah’s mother, Ann?
• Edward Mercer (Jr.) was given “the plantation where I now live – 209 acres plus adjoining 96 acre survey” by his father. Edward was born about 1744. His age was proven from a deposition given in the Augusta County Circuit Court. The name of his spouse is not known.
• Aaron Mercer, the youngest son, not of age in 1752 – served in Revolutionary War. On October 28, 1799 he obtained a Virginia Revolutionary War land grant in Ohio and moved to Ohio. Reportedly in his pension application (which is not at www.fold3.com as of 9-15-2015) he says he was born in Ireland. Aaron died on December 17, 1800 in Hamilton County, Ohio and is buried in the Old (Columbia) Baptist Graveyard. Given that there were no Revolutionary War pensions before 1818, there would have been no pension application by him, although if his wife, Elizabeth Carr, was still living, she could have applied in either 1818 as destitute or 1832/33 as a surviving veteran’s wife. She is reported to have died in 1820, so I’m quite suspicious of the claim that his Revolutionary War pension paperwork stated that he was born in Ireland.

Of these children, only two are females.  Both Ruth and Hannah had daughters.  These daughters would propagate the mitochondrial DNA of Ann Mercer.  Woman give their mitochondrial DNA to both genders of their children, but it is only passed on by the females.  Today, to see what Ann’s mitochondrial DNA looks like, we need to find someone who descends from Ann through all females to the current generation.  The current generation can be male.  From Ann’s mitochondrial DNA, we can look through a periscope back in time to see where her ancestors were from in the world – and we might be lucky enough to match a Croat female line.  Could we be that lucky?

• Hannah Mercer married William Crumley and had daughter Ann who married Thomas Reese and had four daughters, Hannah, Nancy, Rachel and Sarah.
• Hannah Mercer Crumley also had daughter Catherine who married James Mooney and then John Eyre. She had daughters Catherine, Mary (Polly), Eliza, Hannah and Nancy. This family migrated to Fayette County, Ohio.
• Ann’s daughter Elizabeth Mercer married William Heath. Nothing further is known about this couple.

If you descend from these women, I’d love to hear from you and if you descend through all females to the current generation (you can be a male), there is a DNA scholarship waiting for you!

______________________________________________________________

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

• Family Tree DNA
• MyHeritage DNA only
• MyHeritage DNA plus Health
• MyHeritage FREE DNA file upload
• AncestryDNA
• 23andMe Ancestry
• 23andMe Ancestry Plus Health
• LivingDNA

Genealogy Services

• MyHeritage FREE Tree Builder
• MyHeritage Subscription with Free Trial

Genealogy Research

• Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

I had been planning to make my way to Apple Pie Ridge for some time now, when an opportunity presented itself by way of a speaking engagement in Richmond, VA in the fall of 2015.  I checked the map, and sure enough, Apple Pie Ridge, where my Quaker ancestors, James Crumley and his wife, Catherine, lived, was right on the way home.

When driving in Frederick County close to Apple Pie Ridge, how the Ridge obtained its name becomes immediately obvious.

There are indeed apple orchards everyplace.  This time of year, the apples are being harvested and there are semis taking the apples to be processed into yummy goodies that will provide people from all over the US with apple products until next year’s harvest.

However, this is not how James and Catherine would have harvested apples or what they would have done with them.  The Museum of the Shenandoah, in Winchester, VA, provides a wonderful exhibit of farm implements of yesteryear, including an apple picker, right under the “What is it?” question, below.

I had no idea what this was, being so long, but when they provided the answer – it seemed obvious.

Since we’re on the subject, the item on the bottom is a mash stirrer.  Mash, for those who don’t know, is part of the whiskey making process.  James Crumley was a Quaker, but a still was listed in his estate inventory, so he would likely have used one of these as well.

Directly under the basket of the apple picker is a weighing system.  James had a brass scales, stillyards and money scales in his estate inventory too, so it probably looked something like this.

Apples, however, were not made into whiskey, but into “cyder’ and sometimes hard cyder and things like applesauce and applebutter.  Not to mention items like pies, but pies didn’t keep.  Apples were also dried.

Below, an apple butter pot probably similar to one Catherine would have used.

When I was a child, we made a lot of applesauce and applebutter, but we did not cook it in a pot outdoors, although some of the “less progressive” families did – in the same outside facility they used for maple sugar in the winter time.

And of course, there was apple juice which preceded hard cyder.

The first step to juicing apples were to press them in an apple press similar to the one above.

Apples were a staple in Frederick County and were raised with little effort to provide for the family for the upcoming winter and until next fall.  Today, they are an important cash crop for the families of the region.  The orchards are beautiful, but it’s surprising that there are few farm markets.  We did find one, but it was a bit north, towards Martinsville in Berkeley Co., West Virginia.

Orr’s Farm Market sells lots of different varieties of apples.  They also allow tasting and the apples were so good.  I was surprised at how different the differing varieties tasted.

The Ridge

Sometimes when you visit a location, things become obvious which were not obvious previously.  For example, that there was a ridge of mountains that “began” the Blue Ridge just to the west of James and Catherine Crumley’s land.  Apple Pie Ridge Road runs along that ridge, parallel, in the valley, north to south.

The “good land” for faming lies in that valley to the east of those mountains which run the length of the county and of course into two adjacent counties, one to the south in Virginia, the beginning of the Shenandoah Valley and then extending north into Berkeley County, West Virginia.  In fact, James and Catherine also owned land in Berkeley County, just a hop, skip and a jump up the road.

Who Was Catherine?

Catherine has been rumored to be a Gilkey, but I doubt seriously if she is.  Or better stated, other than family stories, there is nothing at all to substantiate this claim, and several reasons to introduce questions.

In Paul Morton’s book, “The Crumley Family,” he reports that James married a Scottish lass named Catherine Gilkey in 1732 in Chester County, PA, but he provided no documentation.  A Scottish lass would have been Presbyterian.  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.

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 credible, because Aaron Griffith was born only 40 years after James Crumley died, and only a couple years after James’ wife Catherine died.  His parents and family would have known this family first hand.

In 1758, it seems that James Crumley had a bit of a meltdown in court, potentially having to do with Barbara Gilkey Hagen, the remarried wife of David Gilkey.  If Catherine Crumley is a Gilkey, Barbara is her mother.  In the court records, the first record immediately before a proceeding with Barbara Hagen having to do with her bond (probably in conjunction with an estate, probably David Gilkey’s 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.

If Catherine was the daughter of David and Barbara Gilkey, why are there no children named David or Barbara?

Sometimes family stories are true, but sometimes, they aren’t.  In this case, we have two stories to choose from.

There is also another family story that Catherine in a Bowen which has exactly as much credibility as the Gilkey story, and for exactly the same reason.

The Bowen rumor says that Catherine was the daughter of Henry Bowen.  James Crumley and Henry Bowen were neighbors in Frederick County, VA, but James Crumley’s marriage to Catherine 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. This book indicates Catherine may have been a Bowen and not a Gilkey.

Dorothy T. Hennen in “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 land, and submit their report to the court to be filed.

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 and no David or Barbara Gilkey, nor a Catherine Gilkey or Bowen mentioned.

I do, however, know why both stories exist.  James Crumley bought land from both David Gilkey and Henry Bowen, both men reputed to have been the father of Catherine.

On October 1, 1745, James purchased 219 acres of a 438 acre tract, part of a November 12, 1735 patent from the Colony issued to James Wright and John Littler who later sold the land to David and Barbara Gilkey his wife. (Tract 71A, Map 5.) James Crumley paid 37 pounds to the Gilkeys, who had lived on the land. James then sold the Gilkey land to his son John on February 28, 1757 for 25 shillings. Later, the same 219 acres was willed to John in his father’s will.  Perhaps James wanted to assure that John did actually receive this land.

On April 1, 1755, Henry Bowen sells to James Crumley for 5 shillings a tract of land containing 53 acres being part of a larger tract containing 103 acres.  It’s signed by Henry Bowen and witnessed by Charles Parkins and Evan Thomas and recorded in Deed Book 3, page 447.

Granted, 5 shillings is an artificially low price for 53 acres, but then again, we don’t know what kind of land constituted that 53 acres.  It could have been prime, cleared farmland or swamp – and that would make a huge difference in how much the land was worth.

Henry Bowen’s land abutted James land – so they were neighbors as well.

However, Henry Bowen left a will and named his children; Henry, John, Jacob, Mary, Hannah, Margaret, Jean, Ann and Persilla.  He lists both Isaac Eaton and Peter Babb as sons-in-law, but neither a daughter Catherine nor a son-in-law James Crumley are mentioned.  Henry did, before his death, deed land to daughter Presilla and her husband, William Gaddis, but Presilla is still mentioned in Henry’s will. In the deeds where Henry Bowen sells to his children, the price is “for love and affection.”  Of course, none of this resolves the 5 shilling question relative to James Crumley.

James Crumley married his wife, Catherine, before they came to Frederick County.  In fact, he married her several years before, back when they were living in Chester County, PA, and I have yet to find any record of either David Gilkey or Henry Bowen in Chester County, PA. Now of course, one can’t prove a negative, but autosomal DNA testing and matching has also failed to connect to either of these families.  Again, that’s not proof that Catherine is not a Gilkey or a Bowen, but together the evidence is suggestive that she is not.  Said another way, the DNA evidence is not suggestive that Catherine was a Gilkey or a Bowen, but new people test daily and we don’t know what the future will hold.

Unfortunately, we have no idea, besides those two stories, what Catherine’s surname might be.

However, what we do know is that James and Catherine did not live on the Gilkey land.  How do we know this?  Because James was considerate enough to die with a will.  In his will, he left ”the plantation” to his youngest son Samuel, and when John sold that land in 1793, the deed very specifically said that this was the land James purchased of Giles Chapman.  In James Crumley’s will, John inherited the Gilkey land.  We know this because John states such when he sells that tract as well.

Virginia tax records indicate that Catherine lived for at least another 18 years after James Crumley’s death, as she is listed as a white female head of household in 1782 with one white male and three blacks, 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.  The white male was probably John, because Samuel appears to be dead by 1768 or Samuel.

There is no 1790 census, and John sells the land in 1793, so Catherine is assuredly gone by this time.  By 1782, Catherine would have been about 70 years old, or perhaps slightly younger.  She lived to be at least 75.

The 1793 deed from John Crumly and wife Hannah, then of Newberry in the 96 District of SC, tells us that the tract contains 150 acres and is part of a larger tract granted to Giles Chapman by grant and that he conveyed that land to James Crumley and then a second tract granted by James Crumley and devised in his will to Samuel Crumley and said John Crumly was his heir.  This tells us that Samuel probably was underage when he died and John was likely James’ eldest son.  Another possibility is that Samuel was not underage when he died, and moved away, leaving a will elsewhere that names his brother as his heir.  There is no Samuel Crumley will in Frederick County.

There is also a very interesting deed from William Crumley, Henry Crumley and Thomas Doster, all of Frederick County, on January 30, 1768 where they are bound to their brother John Crumly for the sum of 1000 pounds to secure their obligation that after the death of their mother Katherine Crumly they convey all their rights to the plantation on which she now resides and to allow said John Crumly the quiet possession of said property, signed by the same.  Witnesses were Henry Ross, M. Morgan, John Lindsey Jr. and Josiah Pickett, recorded in Deed Book 12, page 351.

Thomas Doster marries Mary, the daughter of Catherine and James, so he is the brother-in-law of Henry, William and John.

This indicates that Samuel had died by 1768, but sometime after the 1757 will.  That would explain why Katherine was living on the estate that John owned and he would eventually retain possession. If Samuel were living, Katherine would have been living with him on the home plantation that Samuel would have owned.

This means that Catherine, probably after burying her husband, also buried her son.

The Crumley Home

Sometimes luck smiles on a genealogist, and it smiled on me.  When researching James Crumley, cousins discovered that the home he and Catherine once owned was now a historic property and had been lovingly restored.

When visiting Frederick County, I had only planned to drive by, pull into the driveway by the road, and take some photos.  I was accompanied by my Crumley cousin, Pam.  However, when we arrived, the property is fairly heavily treed, and while you can see the house, you can’t see all of the house.

Pam and I decided to muster our combined courage and go to the door to ask permission to take closer photos of the house.  The dog was chained, so we felt relatively safe.  The owner came to the door, was a bit surprised to say the least, but was extremely gracious and provided a great deal of information.  She went inside to call her husband who had information in his office, and when she came back outside, she offered to give us an impromptu tour of the old section of the house.

Pam and I thought we had died and gone to heaven.  This is the house that Catherine would have lived in – all two rooms of it – from the time she was about 30 years old until her death.  She clearly had children within these walls, because in 1757, when James made his will, at least one of her children, Samuel, was underage, indicating he was born sometime after 1736.  Catherine would have had children until she was in her early-mid 40s, 42 or 43, so about 1754 or 1755. When Catherine was the woman of the house, she would have been managing at least 5 children, if not more, plus her husband, herself and at least 4 slaves in these two rooms.  Not exactly a wealthy plantation owner.

The second half of the house was added in the 1800s as a separate building that shared a wall, but at that time, there was no connection inside between the two halves of the house.  You had to go outside to go into the “other half” from whichever half you were in.  You can clearly see the divide, looking at the front of the house.  Cousin Pam and a friendly cat are posing, below.  The old half is on the left.

In the photo below, the original log cabin is the part with the fireplace, and the entire section beginning with the door that extends to the rear (left) was added as a third section much later.

Eventually, the owners, sometime in the late 1800s cut an inside doorway between the two halves of the house.  A rear addition was also put on, doubling the size of the house.  However, the piece that Catherine would recognize was the left part, looking straight on to the house from the road, which is the right section in the photo above, taken from the side.  Furthermore, the upper level was at one time raised to make a full story.  In Catherine’s day, it was about half-height – perfect for children.

This picture is of the original chimney.  You can see that it was extended with bricks when the roof was raised.  The chimney must extend above the roof to prevent the roof from catching on fire, so the original roof was likely below the second story window that was added when the second floor was raised.

When Catherine lived here, it was a half story and probably where the children slept.

This floor, upstairs, is most likely original.

My ancestor, Catherine’s son William Crumley, born in 1735 or 1736, climbed these stairs and played on this floor, perhaps, and slept in this very room, but probably not in a bed by himself.  Children shared beds – those children lucky enough to sleep in a bed and not on straw on the floor.

The upstairs was accessible through an unusual stairway beside the fireplace.  In the photo below, you can see the yellow door to the far right.

It’s extremely narrow and is accessible today.  Here is what it looks like from the upstairs.

Here is cousin Pam emerging from the stairway on the bottom floor.  You can tell from her smile what a wonderful day we are having!

There are two original windows that remain.

One original windows is shown in the photo above to the right of the fireplace on the lower floor  An exact duplicate looks into the second half of the house.  Of course, at one time, that second window looked outside.

The house is dark (without lights) as it would have been when Catherine lived there.  The only other source of light would have been a front and back door.  The front door is original.  That in itself is absolutely incredible, almost 300 years later.

This “old” door is far more substantial than any door manufactured today.

The logs of the house itself can still be seen in the rear of the original part where the new addition was added.  The owners exposed that portion and it’s beautiful.  It’s now part of a hallway.

You can see the square headed forged nails.

It’s unusual, but there were rows of rock between the logs.

Here, you can see the logs chinked together at what was the original corner of the house.

Looking down, there is a metal something sticking out of the log.  We don’t know what this is.

You can see another view of this metal piece in a photo provided by Pam.

If anyone knows what it is, please let me know.

Pam and I both had to touch the logs – knowing that James and Catherine both touched them.

The current owner has marked “age lines” with each of her children’s birthdays on the door jam.  I remember my mother doing the same thing, and it makes me wonder if Catherine did something similar, oh so long ago.

Looking at James Crumley’s estate inventory, we can get some idea of how much furniture they had and where it might have fit in the two room cabin.

James had “beds and furniture” but unfortunately, they don’t tell us how many beds – although we know there was more than one.  About the only other things inside the house were brass scales, stillyards and money scales for conducting business, chests, pewter, stove and kitchen iron ware.  It says nothing about plates and such, and often those things are listed individually.  It also does not list any books or a Bible.  Nor a mirror.  Nor pewter plates, so they likely ate out of wooden trenchers.  While James did have a nontrivial amount of “cash, silver, gold and paper” to the tune of 26 pounds, and he was owed notes for 119 pounds, they didn’t seem to have much in terms of physical property.

Catherine probably cooked over the fire in the fireplace.  There could possibly have been an outside kitchen as well, but so far, nothing like that has come to light.  There would be evidence of a cooking area, and none has been found.

Furthermore, there have been no slave quarters found either, and we know that James had at least four slaves and Catherine continued to have slaves through the 1787 tax list.  Did they sleep with the family or perhaps upstairs with the children?

And then there was the matter of the still…

The Still

A still was not a common estate inventory item in Frederick County.  This means that not everyone had one, and I’m guessing that most of the Quaker men did not have a still.  But James assuredly did, and used it liberally according to his estate inventory where he had 15 gallons of liquor, a cyder mill and casks.

This still likely caused Catherine no small amount of heartburn.  This family was Quaker, but they apparently weren’t fanatically Quaker.  How much trouble did this still cause Catherine at church or within the community?  For that matter, did it cause trouble at home?

Or is the fact that there was so much debt owed to James indicative of the fact that he was a successful “businessman” within the community?  Yes, he appeared to be a shoemaker, but he also appeared to be what we would term a moonshiner today.

However, there may be more to this story than we already know.

The road that intersects Apple Pie Ridge Road in front of James and Catherine’s home is called Tuscarora Road.  The current owner told us that the Tuscarora migrated through the area.  This makes perfect sense given that they left North Caroline beginning in 1713 after the Tuscarora War, and groups migrated back and forth from then until the last group left North Carolina for New York in the early 1800s.  There are many place names along the Blue Ridge mountains, roughly paralleling I81, that include the word Tuscarora. In fact, Tuscarora Creek runs through the center of Martinsville, West Virginia, the next county north of Frederick County.

The local people tell us that the Tuscarora camped and lived in these locations for some time.  It’s unlikely that they all left.  Some would have worked and traded within the community.

We visited the historic village of Gerrardstown, about 10 miles north of James Crumley’s land where the “History of Gerrardstown” also told us the same story – that the Tuscarora were found throughout this area and along the ridge as they migrated to the north – except this book also says that the Tuscarora lived here.  There are many local areas and landmarks there with Tuscarora in their name.

Did the fact that James Crumley had a still have something to do with why the Tuscarora continued to stay and perhaps live on his land?  Was he simply an opportunist after discovering that the Tuscarora, whose chiefs had asked the whites not to provide drink to their Indian men, were camping and perhaps living on his land?  Is that part of why he carried so very much debt owed to him?

How did Catherine feel about this?  It makes me wonder if their “slaves” were African or if they were perhaps Indian – although if they were Indian it begs the question of why they simply did not just leave.  If they were Indian, they would not have been Tuscarora, but captives of other tribes that the Tuscarora held or sold or maybe used to pay their debts.  The men captives were often killed, but the women and children, being much easier to control and less likely to cause trouble, were generally sold into bondage.

There may be yet more to this story to be unraveled.

The French and Indian War

This part of the country was incessantly raided, up and down this valley, during the French and Indian War which began in 1754.  The old Indian Path became the Wagon Road which has now become I81.  During the French and Indian War, this area became the ingress and egress for both the French and hostile Indians conducting raids, hoping to drive the settlers out of their area and back from whence they came.

Areas from Martinsburg into Gerrardstown and down the valley through Winchester and further south were raided by the French and Indians.  This is exactly where James and Catherine lived – on the old main road.

Prisoners were taken, settler families were killed and life during this time period was in a state of upheaval.  In some areas, entire counties were abandoned, to be resettled later.  But that didn’t happen in Frederick County.  These settlers stayed put right where they were.  They had put down roots and they weren’t going anyplace, not even upon threat of death.

The Tuscarora Indians sided with the Americans.  Perhaps the proximity of the Tuscarora to James Crumley provided him with some modicum of protection – or at least forewarning.  Neither James nor any of his sons show any record of having served in this conflict, with the exception of one entry regarding being absent from militia service.  James would have been in his early 40s and his eldest sons between 18 and 20, so any of these men could have served.  Maybe their Quaker religion precluded it in their case, but their Quaker religion did not seem to preclude the still.  Perhaps they were selectively Quaker.

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.

I have to wonder if Catherine ever hid in the cellar.  This is one of the very few log cabins I’ve ever seen with a cellar.  Would the cellar have been considered an area of safety or a sure trap with no exit?  Did the men have guns to protect the homeplace?  No guns are listed in James Crumley’s estate inventory in 1764, just a few years later.

Catherine was raising her children on a frontier that was also a war zone – a situation that never entirely resolved until after the Revolutionary War ended.  Catherine lived to see that as well.  Of her three sons, we know nothing of the children of Henry, but William and John had 8 sons between them.  We know that son William, then living just north of Catherine on land once owned by James and Catherine spanning the border with Berkeley County, now West Virginia, provided supplies for the use of the Revolutionary army.  He was allowed 5 pounds for 8 days of service as a “receiver” in collecting clothing and provisions.  He also contributed 11 bushels and a peck of wheat along with his wife’s brother-in-law and his wife’s step-father.

Perhaps those supplies were stored in William’s barn, shown above, on land left to William by his father, once granted to James and Catherine by Lord Fairfax.

Fortunately for Catherine, and the other settlers, there were no actual battles in Frederick County in the Revolutionary War.  However, when living there, with war and raids raging all around, following the French and Indian War which was not really resolved until 1763 – it must have felt like there was always some kind of unrest and conflict that threatened not only your possessions and home, but your very life and that of your children and grandchildren. This must have somehow become “normal” to Catherine, because life went on.  She raised her children and did all the things that needed to be done – somehow.  Both before and after James’ death.

Let’s take a look at how Catherine would have lived on the farm, outside of her 2 room cabin.  One thing is for sure, with very little space, most activities other than some cooking, sleeping and keeping warm in the winter likely took place outside.

Out Buildings

There were some outbuildings on the property.  The one I find the most interesting is nestled behind the house.  It’s quite close today, but before the additions, it was a bit further away.  The owner thinks it may have been a smokehouse just for hanging meat, since no evidence of fire has been found there either.  She does not think it’s original to the property, but it does look quite old and I wonder if it is.  It’s log, not sawed planks, so it likely predates a sawmill.

This little building is just fascinating.

I wondered about this house being for the still, but a still would have required a fire as well, and there is no evidence of a fire being built inside this building.  The owner told us that the construction was said to have been of Irish origin by on one of the individuals who came to look at the property when it was being listed on the Historic Register.  of course, since we don’t know when it was constructed, we don’t know if this is a hint as to James and Catherine Crumley’s origins or not.  We don’t even know who said it was Irish, why, and if that was accurate or not.

There are two other outbuilding, but both of them date to after the Crumley’s owned this land.

This building was rebuilt with many of the original materials.

This corn crib has never been rebuilt, but doesn’t date to when Catherine lived here.

The original well still exists too, just a few feet in front of the house.  Behind the house, down a hill, is a creek.  I’m sure the well was a welcome addition, but I doubt it was here when Catherine was alive.  She, I’m sure, walked to the creek, or sent her children or slaves.

Another outbuilding that is “gone” would be the outhouse, of course.

One final building was the all-important barn.  The barn on this property was substantial.  The owner indicated that the barn was in very poor condition when they bought the property some 40+ years ago.  They felt it was a second barn built on an original foundation.  The foundation remains, and we could see differences in construction styles in different sections.

Ironically, the barn was substantially larger than the original log cabin house.

Last on the tour was the cellar.  While many people would not find this exciting, we did.  We don’t know if James built this cabin or not, but it was rather “deluxe” for its time with two rooms and a cellar – albeit a dirt floor cellar.  It would have provided storage for root vegetables through the winter and probably storage for perishables like milk in the summer as well.

These steps would have been original of course, although the doors have been just recently replaced..

These stones are huge and very heavy.  I wonder how they found or quarried them, transported them and placed them.

The chestnut beams supporting the house are in amazing condition considering their age and moist conditions under the house.

Based on modifications made to the walls for ductwork, we could see the significant depth of the walls.  This looks more like a fort than a house.  Maybe this is part of the answer as to the defense of the family.  It could also explain why there are rocks between the logs.  Rocks deflect gunfire better than wood.

These walls appear to be more than 2 feet thick in some areas.

The Cemetery?

Where is Catherine buried?  That’s a good question.  Most likely, where James and her son Samuel are buried.  So, where is James buried?

He would have been buried in one of two places.  Either on his own land or at the Hopewell church.

James and Catherine were Quakers.  Some of their children and their descendants continued that Quaker tradition for generations.  Some may still be Quaker today.

However, James didn’t seem, from his estate inventory, considering his liquor and still, to be a fundamentalist Quaker, although we have no evidence he was ever in any trouble within the church.  Whether he was discreet, meaning perhaps the church elders were among those who owed him money, or the elders were simply turning a blind eye – we’ll likely never know.  He was also a vestry member of the Anglican church which was likely political in nature but shows that he was a respected citizen.  For the rest of that story, see the James Crumley article.

The property owner told us that when they bought the property, there was one single gravestone propped up in the barn.  They wanted that stone, but the previous owners took it when they left.  We don’t know where on the property that stone would have been located, or why it was in the barn.  It was from a later date when the Lodge family owned the land.  But it does tell us one thing.  There was a cemetery at one time.  Was it the Crumley cemetery repurposed for new owners?  Or was it truly the Lodge cemetery with only one burial?  Are James and Catherine along with their son Samuel buried at their home or at Hopewell Friends Church?

The Hopewell Friends Church

Churches and religion were extremely important to these pioneer families.  Many had sacrificed greatly in order to be able to participate in their religion of choice – and not just in the present generation – but often for many preceding generations.  Most of these people demonstrated a willingness to lay their lives down and risk everything for their religion.  This leads me to believe that, if possible, James Crumley would have wanted to be buried at Hopewell, according to his Quaker beliefs.

The Hopewell Church was the first Quaker Church or Meeting House in this area and was established in 1734, before James and Catherine arrived, but not terribly long before they arrived.  They would have worshipped in this church, part of which has been expanded.

If James and Catherine Crumley are buried here, it is likely in the center part under this very old tree where the earliest burials likely took place.  There are many unmarked graves.

This church, except for modernization somewhat, likely has not changed much since Catherine attended.

Did Catherine pick flowers and sit them in the windows of the house or the church to cheer the family or to lift her own spirits when warfare, strife and sorrow invaded her life?

Gazing across the fields from the back of the church, we see the ever-present mountains in the distance.  These mountains at once defined boundaries and opportunity.  Did Catherine look at them and think about the lands she came from?  Did she think about her parents and perhaps children buried in hallowed ground left behind?  What did Catherine think about when she gazed at these mountains?  Did she have any idea that her descendants would spread across and settle the rest of the country within just a few generations?

Those mountains would be both a barrier and a highway. It would be down those mountains and through the valleys that at least one of Catherine’s sons and many of her grandchildren would venture.  It would be across those mountains that the husbands and sons of settlers would march to fight the French and Indians in 1754 and to settle distant places, founding Quaker churches wherever they went.  The mountains were somewhat of a barrier for settlers, at least for a little while, but they provided no barrier at all to Indians who raided the settlements, hoping to stem the ever-growing tide of intruding settlers.  That didn’t work, and the settlers pressed on, through the mountains, into the heartland and eventually, from sea to sea.

Catherine’s Children

Catherine and James had a total of five known children, four that lived to adulthood.

• John Crumley, probably the oldest, born about 1733 or 1734 in Chester County, PA. He married Hannah Faulkner and moved to Newberry County, SC before 1790.
• William Crumley, born about 1735 or 1736, also in Chester County. William lived his life on land bordering Frederick County, VA and Berkeley County, West VA left to him in his father’s will. William married Hannah Mercer.
• Mary Crumley married Thomas Doster and possibly secondly to Jesse Faulkner.
• Henry Crumley married Sarah whose last name is unknown. All we know about Henry is that he left the area and apparently died about 1792.
• Samuel Crumley is mentioned in his father’s will as underage, but he did not live to claim his inheritance.

In that day and time, there would likely have been at least twice and maybe three times that many children born to a pioneer couple, so at least some of those children are buried someplace in Frederick County – likely the same place James, Catherine and Samuel are buried.

Catherine’s Mitochondrial DNA

Of the four surviving children, only one was female, which limits our ability to find someone who carries Catherine’s mitochondrial DNA.  Fortunately, daughter Mary Crumley who married Thomas Doster and had three daughters, Ruth, Sarah and Mary.

Mother’s pass their mitochondrial DNA to both genders of their children, but only females pass it on.  Mitochondrial DNA can tell us a great deal about the ancestry of Catherine – information we will likely never know unless we find someone who carries her mitochondrial DNA and who is willing to test.

If you descend from Catherine’s daughter, Mary Crumley, who married Thomas Doster and possibly Jesse Faulkner, through all females to the current generation, in which you can be male or female, and you’re willing to DNA test – I have a DNA testing scholarship for you!!!!

______________________________________________________________

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

• Family Tree DNA
• MyHeritage DNA only
• MyHeritage DNA plus Health
• MyHeritage FREE DNA file upload
• AncestryDNA
• 23andMe Ancestry
• 23andMe Ancestry Plus Health
• LivingDNA

Genealogy Services

• MyHeritage FREE Tree Builder
• MyHeritage Subscription with Free Trial

Genealogy Research

• Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research