Johann Georg Dorfler (1732-1790), Suicide, 52 Ancestors #98

Posted on November 15, 2015 by Roberta Estes

If you’re cringing already, suicide is an ugly word.

It makes us uncomfortable.

And it’s shocking when you find a record that says your ancestor died by suicide – and describes how.

And of course, the next question is “why.”

I spent a great deal of time several years ago working with a professional translator, Elke, a woman skilled in both high German, German script and Latin. The earliest German records utilized all three of these show-stopping methodologies and languages – at least show-stopping if you’re not familiar with all three. People who are familiar with all three are rare as hen’s teeth, let me tell you.

So when I received this translated church record about Johann George Dorfler, I was utterly dumbstruck.

“He has cut his throat all the way through and died, age 58, and was buried quietly.”

I didn’t understand what all of this meant – other than the “cut his throat” part. I was pretty clear on that.

But, “all the way through”? How did he even manage that?

And what does “buried quietly” mean?

Elke says this means that he was likely buried without a church service, or with a minimal church service as suicide was looked upon as a sin that could keep you out of Heaven and was highly frowned up on in German society.

So his family never really got closure on his death in the normal way. Not only was he deprived, but so were they.

What happened?

Johann Georg was born on October 31, 1732 in Wirbenz, Germany to Johannes Dorfler and Anna Gerlin. He died January 25, 1790 in Speichersdorf. Both of his parents predeceased him – so neither of them had to suffer from his suicide.

Johann Georg was married on January 23, 1755 in Wirbenz (shown below) to Anna Magdalena Buntzman, the daughter of Johannes Buntzman.

This view of the church across the farmlands surrounding the village would have been quite familiar to Johann Georg Dorfler.

His death record says that Johann Georg was a weaver and quartermaster in Speichersdorf. Elsewhere he is noted as a farmer.

A quartermaster is typically a non-commissioned officer in charge of supplies. Johann Georg seems to have been a farmer that did well for himself in the local community.

Given the records in both Wirbenz (at right, below) and Speichersdorf (at left below), his farm may have been one of these well-groomed fields between the two locations.

When possible, I reconstruct families, but I was unable to do that with his children. I’m hopeful that someday perhaps the records will be available, translated, online.

My ancestor, their daughter, Anna Barbara Dorfler was born in Wirbenz in 1762.

Photo by Milchi

Wirbenz is a village beside Speichersdorf, less than a mile distant, so the family didn’t move far, likely just attended a different church. What a beautiful area.

Photo by Steini83

This may be the church in Speichersdorf where Johann Georg’s service, such as it was, was held.

Is he buried in the cemetery here? If not, where did they bury him?

In the Catholic faith, one who dies by suicide cannot be buried in consecrated church ground, but the Protestants weren’t so strict.

The Protestant faith sprung from the Catholic faith, and even though they are different, some cultural biases and superstitions don’t die easily – and suicide along with its stigma seems to be one of those.

I have to wonder what caused a 58 year old man to kill himself and in such a gruesome manner.

How did he even have the strength to carry through with this act? He must have been incredibly resolved.

Based on his occupation as Quartermaster, I first checked German history to see if anything striking happened in Bavaria in 1790. The only thing I found was this:

“1790 brought a fundamental reform of the Bavarian army. All field troops received an identically-cut uniform, including a leather helmet with a horsehair plume.”

Nothing about losses or sieges or anything that might upset someone to the point of suicide. Johann Georg didn’t seem to have all of his eggs in one basket either with multiple sources of income – a failure in any one would not devastate the family.

His daughter, my ancestor was then 28 years old and had an 18 month old baby when her father died.

Johann Georg’s wife outlived him by 8 years, dying of “weakness,” so his death had nothing to do with her death.

Most suicides today are related to one of, or a combination of, several things:

Depression
Alcohol or Drug Addiction
Terminal Diagnosis
Accidental
Extremely Traumatic Event

We can rule out two or three of those.

It clearly wasn’t accidental. You don’t cut your throat “all the way through” by accident.

In 1790, there were not cancer diagnoses, so it was likely not something of that nature.

To the best of my knowledge, recreational drugs weren’t an issue in 1790 in Germany, although alcohol consumption has been an issue ever since alcohol has existed.

So we’re left with depression, a traumatic event or perhaps alcohol addiction – or some combination thereof perhaps.

Another possibility is that he did something terrible and couldn’t live with it – but my experience has been that people who do terrible things generally don’t have enough conscience to feel remorse at that level, or even at all – so that is probably ruled out too. Generally, when kidnappers or mass murderers, for example, take their own lives, it’s in an attempt to evade the justice coming their way – not because of remorse.

One last possibility is that something so terrible happened to him, or his family, that he couldn’t stand it. That something would have to be pretty profound – like maybe the accidental deaths of several of his children. I know of an instance like this in another family line.

We will never know. It’s not like there are court notes or old newspapers we can peruse. Nothing more in the church notes. No hints of any kind. Just that one shocking sentence.

My own close encounters with suicidal family members indicate that often, those with depression don’t actively want to kill themselves – they simply want the pain to stop and that is the only avenue they see as possible. In other words, the only way out. Today, we have medications, counseling and support groups to help people. Then, they didn’t.

It saddens me terribly to know the depths of despair this man must have felt to do something so incredibly drastic. Worse yet, to remove yourself from your family in that time and place also meant that they would have no way to make a living. He had to know that, yet he took his life anyway. I simply cannot comprehend this even though I understand it logically.

And sometimes, sometimes the results were even worse. In Europe during this timeframe, suicide was thought of as the result of sin. In order to discourage people contemplating sin, the body of the person who took their own life was desecrated in various ways and their entire estate was confiscated. So not only was the family traumatized by the death, but again by the physical desecration of their family member and the assured financial ruin that followed. This was no trivial matter and resounded and rippled downstream generationally.

We know, in his case, that his body was buried two days later which tells us it was not desecrated. A review of the book, “From Sin to Insanity: A History of Suicide in Early Modern Europe” states that by the end of the 1700s, suicide was looked upon socially more like a medical or lunacy issue. In other words, you weren’t responsible for sinning if you were crazy. Still, the laws about estate confiscation weren’t rescinded until significantly later. Did they actually confiscate his estate? We’ll never know that either.

Another downstream aspect of suicide was financial. Not only did it ruin the immediate family, it stigmatized the family and cast them into the lower social classes. In the servant class, if you could not afford to marry, you often wound up as an unmarried servant with illegitimate children who were also stigmatized. This situation was very difficult, if not impossible, to work yourself out of, and this is the situation the granddaughter of Johann Georg Dorfler found herself cast into.

I wonder if the genesis of this situation began with the financial and social ramifications of the suicide of Johann Georg. Some 60 years and a generation later, that illegitimate child would immigrate to America with his “wife to be” and their illegitimate children and would marry immediately upon arrival – leaving that stigma behind forever. No one knew here – at least not until I dug it up 150 years later.

Today, there is no judgement, of either Johann Georg or his illegitimate descendants. Only profound sorrow for Johann Georg and his family, and respect for the descendants who had the courage to risk everything and leave for unknown but more promising lands.

So what happened to the family home, Anna Magdalena and their children?

Johann Georg’s wife, Anna Magdalena, was born in 1732, so she likely had children until she was 42 or 43, so until about 1775. In 1790, when Johann Georg died, she was only 58 years old. They would have had a child or two left at home, plus Anna Magdalena herself who needed to be provided for. If his estate was confiscated, there would have been no opportunity for Anna Magdalena and the children to eek out a living on the same land.

Suicide affects so many people, far more than just the person who dies. I don’t think families ever really recover from suicides – in a different way than a regular death. Partly from the violence and terrible nature of the death, partly from the stigma, partly from unresolved and undeserved survivor guilt and partly from the trauma. In 1790 in Germany, add to that the financial aspect of estate confiscation.

Someone has to find the body, someone has to tell the rest of the family, someone has to clean up the mess, someone has to offer what meager comfort they can, someone has to prepare the body for burial. It’s a horrible and in this case, gruesome, event for all concerned. And assuredly, it made everyone uncomfortable, at best. Everyone probably crossed the street when they saw family members approaching for lack of knowing what to say.

I mean, in 1790s Germany – what would you say? “Gosh, I’m sorry your husband killed himself and your family is starving now? By the way, how are you doing? Will we see you Sunday in church? Oh, you have no clothes to wear???” Not a conversation anyone wants to have, so I’m sure avoidance became the order of the day.

And sadly, it’s his suicide that defines him. And if he felt he had a good reason, that reason is lost to us in the shock and magnitude of the suicide itself. The church record doesn’t provide that information – only the dry facts – and some small comfort – to me at least – that his body was buried without making a spectacle or example of him. Thank Heavens the family was spared that. I’m not going to discuss what was done previously to the bodies of suicide victims, but “From Sin to Insanity” tells you.

I surely hope the religions are wrong that believe those who take their own life are condemned to eternal hell. He obviously was miserable in his lifetime, for whatever reason, so I hope and pray he can at least rest in peace in death. And I pray his family didn’t suffer additionally believing that he was roasting in Hell on top of everything else.

And I hope, I really hope, that he did not pass this trait to his offspring. Let’s just say this is not the only brush with suicide in my family – this is just the oldest that I’ve found. We know that the propensity for depression is from 40-50% heritable, and possibly higher for severe depression. I’d say depression fueled suicide falls into that category.

On the DNA side of things, I have not been able to find anyone who descends from this Dorfler family via Y DNA – meaning patrilineally. The Y chromosome follows the surname in males, so male Dorflers who descend from Johann Georg will carry his Y chromosome.

At Ysearch, there is one Dorfler, but their information indicates that particular male Dorfler’s ancestor’s mother never married and he carries her surname and unknown Y DNA. If you are a Dorfler male who descends from Johann Georg Dorfler’s family line and you carry the surname, I have a Y DNA testing scholarship for you. Johann George’s Y chromosome will tell us where his paternal line originated.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Johann Michael Mueller the First (1655-1695), Pietist Refugee, 52 Ancestors #97

Posted on November 8, 2015 by Roberta Estes

The Johann Michael Mueller, now Miller, family began in the Germanic area of Europe long before the advent of written records.

European Beginnings

With the decline of the Roman Empire in the 5^th century, the Elbe Germani moved south into Southern Germany and Austria. The Alemannians lived in what are now Bavaria and the Baden areas, but was then called Swabia. Around 500 AD, or 2500 years ago, the Burgundians (French speaking) moved into western Switzerland. The Allemannians (German speaking) moved into what is the Middleland area of Switzerland. The Alemannians were an agricultural people, but pagan and barbarian. The Franks who lived in central Germany and who also moved into Switzerland conquered the Alemanni tribe and after a struggle, “Christianized” the people and set the moral code for the next generations. They also introduced feudalism to the area.

Thus a roaming Germanic tribe was given a moral and religious structure as they resided in and farmed the area later known as the Canton of Berne, where our German speaking Miller family is first found.

These ancestors lived in small villages and small inter-related family groups called clans. This organization was similar to that which was seen later on the American frontier. Many family surnames associated early in this part of Switzerland are seen later in Pennsylvania and Ohio among the Pietist religions. Hence the family associations that are seen in relationship to the Millers on the American frontier were linkages that go back many, many generations into Europe.

For many generations these people farmed the land in Switzerland and most likely were faithful Catholics.

When the Protestant Reformation came to the Canton of Berne, Switzerland, some of these rural families followed the teachings of Zwingli and became part of the Reformed Church. Others followed the teachings of Conrad Grebel and became part of the Anabaptist movement in Switzerland. These became known as the Swiss Brethren. The map below shows Berne as a fortified city in 1638. Perhaps our ancestors walked those very ramparts, entered through the city gate, conducted business and sold their wares.

Here’s an aerial view of the old part of the city today.

In the later part of the 17^th century, the Swiss Pietists split into two groups; the Swiss Mennonites under the leadership of Hans Reist and the Amish who derived their name from Jacob Ammann of Erlenbach.

Thus the small clans and inter-related family groups who were farmers in the valleys of Switzerland now become members of three separate religious movements, namely the Reformed, Mennonite and the Amish. This is why years later on the frontier in America, the Reformed (now transformed into German Baptists known as Brethren or Dunkards), the Mennonites and the Amish have similar and seemingly related surnames and practices.

Switzerland to Germany

Our Miller family line begins in Switzerland with Johann Michael Mueller, born in 1655 in Zollikofen, Switzerland.

Zollikofen is just outside of Bern.

During the first half of the seventeenth century, Switzerland was relatively untouched by the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War, (1618-1648), a Catholic-Protestant conflict, fought principally on German soil. Switzerland enjoyed peace and prosperity and had a good market for its excess products. During the second half of the same century a social reaction set in, which was made acute by political and religious confusion. In 1653, the peasants of the Cantons of Bern, Lucerne, Solothurn and Basel revolted against the authorities, chiefly for social reasons. Since there were good opportunities for new settlers in depopulated Germany, many people left the Canton of Bern during this period and journeyed northward into foreign parts, specifically Germany.

The Rhine River was the way out of Switzerland and these families settled wherever it led. Beyond Germany, emigration into the “lowlands” (Netherlands) as the destination of the emigrants used to be called, lasted into the eighteenth century and was much more numerous than emigration to America – although many did eventually emigrate. The Millers, (then spelled Mueller), came from a village about 10 miles north of Bern Switzerland, called Zollikofen and were a part of the Reformed church there.

The earliest ancestor that has been documented is Johann Michael Mueller, who is believed to have been born in 1655, in the City of Zollikofen, Canton of Bern, Switzerland.

The Zollikofen church, above, shown inside today, built in 1306, still stands. Our cousin, the Reverend Richard Miller is, appropriately, standing in the pulpit.

Above, a view of the beautiful church from a distance and below, a street view thanks to Google maps street view.

It is likely that in the late 1680’s the Miller family along with perhaps other friends and relatives moved north along the Rhine River and settled in the Rhineland-Pfaltz area of southern Germany. They became part of the Steinwenden and Konken (Germany) Reformed parish churches and records of their respective families are recorded in the church records. The Steinwenden records began in 1684 and Konken in 1653, but the churches reach further back in time. There are other churches in the area whose records to not exist and those may have held other family records as well.

The Konken records include those of the Berchtoll family, including Hans Berchtol, whose daughter would marry the son of Johann Michael Miller (the first.)

Johann Michael Mueller married Irene Charitas, whose last name is unknown. That’s right, Charitas is NOT her last name, as is reflected universally on internet trees, but her middle name as recorded in church records, as was the custom of the time.

Cousin Reverend Richard Miller visited Zollikofen and provided the following information.

“On Friday, 04 October 1996, I was in Steinwenden and was entertained by the Burgermeister of Steinwenden. A television crew from Mainz came and interviewed me for a personal interest story of me coming back to the home of my ancestors, i.e., Johan Michael Mueller. Also present was genealogist Roland Paul of the Institue für Pfälzische Geschichte und Volkskünde located in Kaiserlautern. The Burgermeister of Steinwenden and the television station had asked Roland to research Johan Michael Müller, born 1692 in Steinwenden. The attached are two records which Roland gave me. He asserted that Michael’s mother’s maiden name is unknown, and that Irene Charitas is her first and middle name rather than first and maiden name.”

Irene may have been related to the Schlosser family, as there was a 1689 confirmation of Irene Charitas Schloser, daughter of Conrad Schlosser, of Steinwenden, if I’m reading this correctly.

At this time however, Irene Charitas was already married to Michael Mueller as they had their first child’s birth recorded in the church records in June of 1685, or earlier. They likely married in 1684. Their children were baptized in the Reformed church in Steinwenden, Germany, near Mannheim.

The bell tower of the original Steinwenden church is all that is left standing (1996) and is shown here.

Johann Michael Mueller and Irene Charitas Mueller had 6 children. Sadly, all of their children died other than Johann Michael Mueller who was the youngest, born October 5^th, 1692. I can’t imagine the depth Irene’s grief at the deaths of her first 5 children – and her joy at the one that lived.

We don’t know where those children are buried, but my best guess would be the churchyard.

Steinwenden, Germany

The village of Steinwenden is shown below, photography courtesy of Richard Miller during his visit to the Miller homeland.

Irene may have been joyful about her son that lived, but her husband, Johann Michael, their father, died three years later on January 31, 1695, still a young man, at age 40.

Some genealogical records show that Irene died and Michael remarried to Anna Loysa Regina, but the church records indicate that all of Johann Michael Mueller’s children were born to Irene Charitas. The summary record, below, provided to Richard Miller when he visited Steinwenden in 1996 lists Irene Charitas (with no last name listed) as the mother for all 6 children born between 1685 and 1692.

Many times the people who were designated as Godparents were relatives of the father or mother of the children. Godparents at that time were extremely important, and the children were generally named after the Godparents. In the case of the death of the parents, which happened all too often, it was the Godparents who would raise the children. The Godparents of these children were Hans George Shoemaker and his wife, Mich. Stahl – I can’t tell if this is two people or three. The second is Abraham, Hans Berchtol, Hoffman. Third was Samuel Hoffman. Fourth is Maria Catherine. Fifth is Eva ?, Catherine, Samuel Shoemaker. Finally, the sixth child’s Godparents standing up with Johann Michael Mueller born on October 5, 1692 were Johann Michael Shoemaker, Hans Berchtol and wife.

Little did they know that Hans Berchtol’s daughter, then 4 years old, would one day marry this baby boy.

After Johann Michael’s death, his widow reportedly married Jacob Stutzman whose wife had died. However, there exists a great deal of confusion about who Jacob Stutzman married. In the Gene Miller book, he attributes Jacob Stutzman’s wife, Anna Loysa Regina as the widow of Johann Michael Mueller – but as we’ve seen – based on the church records, Johann Michael Miller’s wife was one Irene Charitas, not Anna Loysa Regina, at least as late as 1692. Perhaps Irene died and Johann Michael Miller remarried to Anna Loysa Regina before his death in 1695. This conflicting information may never be entirely resolved, at least not until the entire set of church records is transcribed and translated, in full, such that the various families can be reassembled. However, there were many little villages in this area and people didn’t always stay in one place.

Johann Michael Mueller, born in Switzerland in 1655, died in the Steinwenden German Reformed congregation on January 31, 1695, at the age of 40 years. His reported widow, Anna Loysa Regina Mueller remarried a Hans Jacob Stutsman of the Konken German Reformed Congregation on September 29, 1695. If this is accurate, and Anna Loysa Regina was the widow of Johann Michael Mueller, that would indicate that Irene Charitas died between January 1692 when her only child to survive was born and 1695 when her husband died – and with enough time for him to remarry. That could explain why they didn’t have another child in 1694 – perhaps she was dead or perhaps she and the child both died during childbirth. If this is the case, the only mother Johann Michael Mueller would have known was Anna Regina and the only father, her second husband Jacob Stutzman. No children are attributed to Johann Michael Mueller and Anna Loysa Regina in church records, although she did have children with Johann Jacob Stutzman..

The Pietist Movement

The Stutzman family was originally from the Lake Thun area in Switzerland, according to the book, “Jacob Stutzman, His Children and Grandchildren” by John Hale Stutesman, Jr. who reports that they fled from religious persecution to the welcoming Palatinate in Germany before 1700. Of course, this is also the area where the Mueller family originated as well.

Ironically, this is less than an hour away from where I lived in the summer of 1970 – one of the most stunningly beautiful areas I’ve ever had the privilege of seeing.

This drawing of Thun isn’t far from Zollikofen where the Miller family is first found. So it appears that the Mueller and Stutzman families were located in the same area of Switzerland. One might surmise that they were part of a group that migrated together to Germany.

“Thunersee” by Roland Zumbühl, Arlesheim

A beautiful view of Lake Thun today.

In Germany, later, the combined Miller/Stutzman family is found near Bad Dürkheim where Johann Jacob Stutzmann was born on January 1, 1706, on the Weilacher Hof, near Hardenburg, son of the tenant farmer on the Weilacher Hof, Johann Jacob Stutzmann and his wife Regina Elisabetha.

Given that Johann Jacob Stutzman married Regina Elisabetha Mueller after the death of Johann Michael Mueller (the first), and in 1706 Jacob Stutzman’s wife’s name was recorded as Regina Elisabetha – it’s likely that Irene Charitas had died before 1695 when Johann Jacob Mueller died given that Johann Jacob Stutzman apparently married his widow. This makes Johann Jacob Stutzman (the second) born in 1706 a “step-brother” to Johann Michael Mueller (the second.) Said differently, Johann Michael Mueller’s step mother remarried after his father’s death and his step-mother and her new husband had a son, Johann Jacob Stutzman (the second.) This son and his “step-brother” Johann Michael Mueller were lifelong friends and companions – eventually immigrating to America together and moving in tandem across the frontier.

Many of the Swiss families had Pietist leanings. Some were Mennonite and eventually became Brethren, as did Johann Jacob Mueller (the second) and Johann Jacob Stutzman (the second.)

The Brethren sect itself began in 1708 in the village of Schwarzenau, in Wittgenstein, Germany with the rebaptism of eight people. The Brethren faith spread rapidly and it was only 11 years later that the first group of Brethren landed in Philadelphia.

It’s certainly possible that an entire group of Anabaptist leaning families relocated from Switzerland to the Bad Dürkheim area in Germany. In 1714, the Miller family was in Krottelback, not far from Hardenburg.

The next step for these families, of course, was to safety in Holland, then on the ship Adventure in 1727 to America. Justin Replogle states that the Brethren in Holland had been in exile since 1720. It’s unlikely that Michael was among this group, because his son Philip Jacob was born in Germany in about 1726.

I surely would like to know the individual stories of the families involved and what prompted these decisions. What kinds of factors were involved? Did they know they would be kindly received when they relocated from Switzerland to Germany, then from Germany to Rotterdam and then from Rotterdam to Philadelphia, or was the future entirely unknown? Were they joining families who had already departed and were doing well in the new lands? What prompted the entire group of Brethren to depart – in fact causing the sect to die out in Europe? Were these families Brethren before they left, or did they convert after arriving in the US? We know the Bechtol family was Mennonite.

The 30 Years War may have had a lot to do with the decision to leave Switzerland. Germany was depopulated after the 30 Years War which ended in 1648, with some areas being entirely devastated. Overall, the population loss was from 25-40% with the Palatinate being particularly hard hit, losing 75 to 80% of the population. After the war, settlers from other part of Germany and Switzerland were invited to repopulate the area which included both Catholic and Lutheran (Protestant) churches.

According to the book, “Becoming German: The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York,” (pages 12-14), misery in this area wasn’t over yet. From 1688-1697, the War of the Palatine Succession brought French armies overrunning the German southwest, laying waste to vineyards, farmland and the regions cities and smaller towns. Mannheim was destroyed and Speyer stood uninhabited for 10 years. Farmland stood abandoned and German rulers sought to attract new settlers by offering tax concessions and religious toleration which specifically included Catholics, Lutherans, Mennonites and Jews.

This may have been part of the reason these Protestant families selected this area.

Colonies of religious dissidents moved to Germany from neighboring counties, in particular, Switzerland. In 1656 and 1657, more than 1000 Swiss moved to the Palatinate. In 1671, over 1600 Mennonites arrived from Bern. Portuguese Jews attracted by the elector’s concessions settled in Mannheim. Huguenot refugees followed as well.

Migration became a fact of life in this part of Germany. In one study, it was found that between 1593 and 1780, about half of one town’s citizens were not born there.

This area of Germany became extremely religiously diverse. In 1705, an edict called the Religionsdeklaration clarified the religious situation, unquestionably giving religious freedom to all individuals. Lutherans fell under the Reformed, as did other Protestant sects, which may be why we find both the Miller and Stutzman children baptized in Reformed or Lutheran churches. By this time, the pietists, an offshoot of the Lutherans, were calling for a more inward-looking and emotional faith than the established churches but were meeting privately, not able to establish open churches.

In 1675, Philipp Jacob Spener, a Lutheran pastor in Frankfurt encouraged his followers to create small, private groups to read and discuss the Bible. He didn’t intend for those groups to leave the established churches, but they formed what they called conventicles which further split the already fractured religious communities in Germany. Pietists become very closely bound within their own group, and the pietist groups throughout Germany tended to bind together tightly as well, between villages which weren’t spaced very far apart, forming a network.

What were these early Brethren people like?

To begin with, they didn’t care much about official clergy and buildings. They preferred to hear their neighbor farmer preach who farmed the other 6 days a week, gathered in his barn. The word congregation did not necessarily mean a stand-alone church building, it may have meant only a gathering of like-minded people.

Pietists did not stress the intellectual side of Christianity. They emphasized the literal text of the Bible and didn’t worry about theory. The community stressed humility, work and service to others. The Brethren were plain people, pacifists, remaining aloof during the worldliness of political office, military service, oaths, litigation and filing anything in court or at the courthouse, unfortunately including deeds and marriages.

The Brethren practiced shunning of church members and even their children who did things they did not approve of. Alexander Mack Jr., the son of the founder of the Brethren church shunned both of his daughters. One for marrying outside the faith and because the marriage “was performed with a license.” The second, who was shunned to the point where the family would not even eat with her, was shunned for doing something we’ll have to surmise, but it was said that the “sin was not so great because they had been engaged never to leave each other.” An entire Brethren congregation shunned another young woman because she sat in the lap of a man who was trying to force her into immorality, for an hour, pretending to be asleep.” Her father argued that she had not actually committed fornication, and left the congregation, taking several members with him.

Church historian Morgan Edwards summarized Brethren like this in 1770: “They use great plainness of language and dress, like the Quakers; and like them will neither swear nor fight. The will not go to law; nor take interest for the money they lend. They commonly wear their beards…They have the Lord’s supper…love feasts, washing of feet, kiss of charity…use the trine immersion…as the party kneels down to be baptized…” (Replogle)

We see this same culture in the Brethren, Mennonite and Amish, then as now.

The area where I grew up in Indiana had a well-established Amish, Mennonite and Brethren community. They tended to live in the same area, but they did not intermix, or at least not much. As much as they looked “alike” to those of us who were not members of those religions, their differences, to them, were chasms, especially the adoption of modern technology and conveniences like electricity, farm equipment and automobiles.

The Amish, typically called the “Old Order” were the most restrictive, not embracing any modern technology at all. These were and are the horse and buggy families.

The Mennonites were in the middle. They would ride in or drive cars, but they had to be very plain – always black, nothing shiny, no hubcaps or radios. The local car dealership always had to special order a group of Mennonite cars.

The Brethren were the least restrictive. Their men dressed almost normally, although some still had beards. Their women often still wore prayer bonnets, but their clothes weren’t always black. Their homes were plain, but did include modern conveniences. However, in our family, one will includes instructions for the man’s gravestone not to be highly polished. They were known as highly conservative “plain people.”

This photo is of my mother’s Brethren grandparents, Hiram Bauke Ferverda and Evaline Louise Miller, and their family taken about 1918. Other than their relatively “plain” dress, you would never know they were Brethren. Their son, third from right in the front row is also wearing a uniform, having served in WWI – something VERY un-Brethren. In this photo, the women are not wearing prayer bonnets, but mother said that she distinctly remembers this woman, her grandmother, wearing a prayer cap. My mother’s father, John Whitney Ferverda (b1882) is the second from right, back row.

This photo taken about 18 years earlier, around 1900, of Evaline Louise Miller, middle, and her parents, Margaret Lentz Whitehead and John David Miller looks much more typically Brethren. The men have beards and the women are wearing darker colors and prayer bonnets, covering their hair.

My mother’s family was Brethren until my grandfather, gasp, married a Lutheran woman and because there was no Brethren or Lutheran church in the small town where they lived, they chose to become Methodist! Oh, the scandal! With that religiously “mixed” marriage ended at least a 7 generations long line of Pietists who became Brethren, reaching back hundreds of years into Germany and Switzerland – back into the mists of time so far that we no longer have records, only the knowledge of how strongly those people must have felt about their religion to willingly suffer the persecution and displacement that they withstood.

I’m suspecting they literally rolled over in their graves to know that one of their descendants married outside the faith and became something un-Pietist.

The Miller DNA

One of our Miller participants has tested to 111 markers and taken the Big Y test. Although our haplogroup is a subgroup of typically European R1b, we have only Miller matches at 12 through 111 markers, except at 25 and 37 markers where we have a match to a Morgan man whose ancestor, Morgan Morgan, hails from Wales and was born in 1688.

The Big Y DNA results, a test which not only checks for all known SNPs, but scans for new and unknown mutations as well, shows that our Miller participant most closely matches a man from Bulgaria. In this case, the word close does not mean in a genealogical timeframe. This match reaches back before the advent of surnames, as there are 3 known SNP differences and only 58 of 100 novel variants or previously unknown SNPs. This means that our common ancestor with this man is probably someplace around 3,000 or 4,000 years ago. Our next closest match is from Austria and from about as long ago. These are followed closely by three English surnames and a Spanish surname.

The Miller terminal SNP, which defines our haplogroup, is called R-Z2106.

The Y haplotree looks like a branching tree or a pedigree chart on steroids. Our twig, R-Z2106 is a part of a larger stick which is a part of a larger branch, etc.

Each of these branches becomes increasingly smaller and more granular. The 100 or so novel variants found in the Miller DNA will also become branches someday, so there may be several more. As DNA mutates, new novel variants, which are unnamed SNPs because they have just been discovered, continue to occur every few generations in each line. This means that our own personal branch of the tree may have several SNPs or mutations that no one else has. Whatever valley our ancestors may have been isolated in hundreds or thousands of years ago, perhaps during the last glacial maximum, may hold many men with the same mutations that today will become a small subgroup of a haplogroup – like Z2106. We don’t know the history, but by looking at groups of men with these same mutations, and estimating when the mutation happened, and pairing that with what we know historically and geologically was happening in the world at that time, we can piece some semblance of our own deep personal history together.

This is a map of the distribution of haplogroup L23. It’s estimated that L23 occurred in the first male about 7000 years ago.

Generally, the darker or most saturated regions are the origins of the haplogroup. L23 is interesting because it is typically not found in high frequencies in Europe, typically less than 5% or haplogroup R, except in Switzerland’s Upper Rhone Valley where it is found at 27%. That could be a clue for us.

This same paper, “Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe” by Haak et al, 2015, states that there is virtually no haplogroup R1b found in Europe before the period beginning about 4500 years ago in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Ages, and that this R1b found in these Russian burials appears to be mixed with Near East (Anatolian) DNA as well. This implies, of course, that one of the migration routes to Europe was north through Russia, and one was crossing at present day Istanbul and going through the Baltic.

Subgroup Z2103 is referred to as the Balkan and Asian branch of the L23 tree. Z2103 is found in a high percentage of Armenian men today.

Armenia is, of course, dead center in the middle of the migration path from the Near East to the Russian steppes, shown on the map above with a red balloon.

Referencing the Armenian DNA project, two men within that project carry the R-Z2106 SNP – the same one the Miller men carry. SNP Z2106 is exceedingly rare. I’ve been able to locate less than a dozen samples.

However, there are 21 men who carry the Z2103 SNP and 14 men who carry the Z2109 SNP in the Armenian project. Another 2109 SNP is found in Iraq and one in Germany.

This map shows what was occurring in the Balkan region about 4500 years ago.

In 2015, six graves were excavated near Samara, Russia, shown on the map below, that represent the Yamna culture and of those, four carried the mutation Z2103 which is estimated to have been born about 6000 years ago, as are SNPs Z2109 and Z2106.

SNPs Z2106 and Z2109 were not reported in the ancient burials, but we don’t know if they were tested for or not.

These men of the Yamna culture lived between 2700 and 3300 years ago (BCE). We share a common ancestor with these men. Where and when is the question that remains.

It is in the history of these maps, these peoples and our DNA that the story of our ancestry is told. We’re still trying to put the pieces together, but looking at these maps, and our SNPs and novel variants, we know that our ancestors were first found in Switzerland in contemporary records, but their history extends back into Eastern Europe and back to Anatolia before that. They may have moved into Europe with the waves of farmers from that region, or they may have arrived from the Russian steppes. Given where our other SNPS, Z2103 and Z2109 are (and aren’t) found, I’m betting that they migrated from Anatolia across the Balkan region into eastern Europe as part of the migration of the European Neolithic farmer culture.

None of this is cast exactly in concrete – more like in jello molds. We continue to make discoveries and learn every day in this emerging field. However, what we do know is exciting and tantalizing and every puzzle piece we find adds to the story of our Mueller family.

Wouldn’t Johann Michael Mueller be surprised to know the secrets his DNA shared with his irreverent Methodist descendants! But Johann Michael, take heart, because there are still many Miller Brethren families. In fact, we even have a Miller-Brethren DNA project to help sort and reconstruct those families!

If you descend from a Brethren Miller family, you are most welcome to join.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Thinking Outside the Box

Posted on October 27, 2015 by Roberta Estes

Some of you may know that I’m speaking again at the Family Tree DNA Conference for project administrators being held in November in Houston. This is the 11^th conference, and I’ve attended them all.

I want to first and foremost thank Bennett Greenspan and Max Blankfeld for hosting this legendary conference, for the 11^th time, and for the opportunity and honor to speak to the attendees.

As I’ve been getting my thoughts and my presentation together for this conference, a couple of things have come to mind that I’d like to share.

My conference topic is “Y DNA to Autosomal Case Study – Kicking it Up a Notch.”

I know, the title doesn’t sound terribly interesting, but believe me, after beginning innocently enough, it turned out to be the project from Hell. Followed by very interesting discoveries whereby it redeemed itself from Hell.

The session description is:

The Crumley surname project was relatively small and had already answered the burning question for which it was created. Had it served its only purpose? What else could be done? The project administrators transitioned this Y DNA project to a Y-plus-autosomal DNA project quite successfully – and made some surprising discoveries along the way. How did they go from a base of 5 to more than 50 participants in a few weeks? What did they discover? How do the descendants of two men born in the 1730s compare autosomally? (Yes, we have autosomal comparative data to 9th cousins.) What can you learn and how can existing Y projects become the foundation of a hugely successful autosomal project?

But I have to tell you the truth….I made myself insane with this project. I have over 50 people that had to be hand compared to each other – one by one. If you’re counting, that’s 1250+ individual comparisons. The results had to be compiled – which resulted in a spreadsheet of almost 9000 rows. The relationships of the participants had to be defined, their genealogy collected and assembled and the results analyzed. Which is what, of course, led to the discoveries I’ll be discussing at the conference.

During the time when I was doing all of those comparisons, I asked myself over and over, “why the dickens am I doing this?”

I realized sometime in the middle of the night last night – the answer to “why I’m doing this,” is really the answer to all of the questions about genetic genealogy research.

In fact, it’s exactly like this quilt.

Ok, so what is a quilt doing in the middle of this genetic genealogy article?

Is it even a quilt?

It’s not square like a quilt…but it has blocks – well triangle blocks, three layers and a binding…and it was made by a quilter. Me. So it must be a quilt – but it’s unlike any other quilt in many ways.

Its name?

Thinking Outside the Box

That’s at once the disease and the cure! And it’s the answer.

And it all started with Bennett Greenspan.

In the middle of the night, I realized that the fundamental questions in all of genetic genealogy research begin with the words, “Why can’t we…..”

Had Bennett Greenspan not asked that question, and not once, but repeatedly, until he received a satisfactory answer, the field of genetic genealogy would never have existed.

For those not familiar with this legendary story, Bennett, a genealogist (just like the rest of us) back in the prehistoric days of 1999, wanted to know why he couldn’t compare the Y chromosome of one man with a particular surname to another man with the same surname to see if they shared a common ancestor. He took that question to scientists who worked with the Y chromosome. Let’s just say the scientists weren’t terribly receptive.

Bennett was politely refused, then more firmly refused, but Bennett persisted until Michael Hammer gave up resisting and just ran the test to get rid of Bennett. But that didn’t work either, because Bennett had more questions. Couldn’t someone form a company to do this? Couldn’t Michael Hammer’s lab at the University of Arizona run those tests for that company, which would come to be known as Family Tree DNA. Questions begat questions. History was, unknowingly, being made. The answers and results of course, we all know about…but had it not been for Bennett’s bravery to ask that initial question – and to persist in the face of rejection and adversity – none of this would have happened.

Bennett didn’t have a crystal ball. He couldn’t have known that an entire industry would evolve from his simple act of genealogical frustration. But Bennett is who he is and he continued to ask that question and pursue the answer.

As I spent days and days working through the 50 participants’ data in the Crumley project, I often wanted to quit, but I’m either too anal or too OCD or too persistent to do that. (No, we’re not voting on that topic:) I had to finish. And thank goodness I did, because the discoveries were there waiting for me – but I couldn’t have known that until AFTER I did the work that revealed them. Had I stopped or never begun, I would never have known. Same with Bennett – thank goodness he persisted.

So first, I had to first ask the question, “Why can’t we….?” Or more appropriate, “What can we…?” and proceed to find out.

In the field of genetic genealogy, and much more broadly applicable as well, if you never ask that question, you’ll never be wrong or make mistakes. You’ll never be made fun of. Your work will never be criticized. You’ll never be rejected. You’ll be entirely safe.

But you know what else????

You’ll never be right either.

You’ll never push the frontier.

You’ll never inspire other people to ask that same question.

You’ll never make that discovery.

Because you never took the risk of thinking, and acting, outside the box.

Thanks Bennett.

For being brave enough to persist in the face of adversity…

For allowing that question to burn you to action…

For the revolution you started…

For being a leader, an inspiration and our champion…

For providing a supportive and encouraging environment to conduct our own personal and broader genetic genealogy research…

For facilitating our insanity as citizen scientists…

For thinking outside of the box…

THANK YOU!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Family Societies – Converting a Doubter

Posted on October 9, 2015 by Roberta Estes

For those of you who don’t know me well, I’m not a joiner. I’m not a member of the DAR, although I qualify on several lines and all I’d really have to do is connect to another cousin who has already done the work. I’m a member of a small quilt group, but no large guilds. I’m not an alumni society member from the universities where I graduated either. I’m just not likely to become involved with organizations of any type. Yes, I know there are benefits, but I’ve just never been a joiner.

So, having said that, I’m going to tell you why family groups or societies are really incredibly important. Sound a bit odd? It took a huge, and I mean a HUGELY inspirational motivation for me to join….but I did and I couldn’t be happier. However, it took me more than 20 years to get to that point. Let’s hope it doesn’t take you that long.

I’ve been involved with research on several family lines with different researchers for many years, but there are collaborative benefits an organization can offer that just can’t be matched by individuals.

More than 30 years ago, back in the days of pen and ink letters that were mailed in envelopes with stamps affixed, I was introduced to my cousin, Dolores. She and I wrote back and forth sporadically for years. She suggested at some point that I join the Speak(e)(s) Family Association (SFA). I was hesitant, extremely hesitant, but she indicated that they had done rather extensive research on my, our, line and that it would be beneficial for me to receive the newsletters. I joined, albeit very reluctantly.

Sometime, and I really don’t know when, Dolores introduced me to Lola-Margaret, another cousin from the same line. I really don’t remember knowing Dolores and not knowing Lola-Margaret. These two cousins have been a part of my life now for more than half of my life. Although I’ve known them for a long time, I’ve only become quite close to them in the past few years. This is the story of how that happened.

Our common ancestor was the Reverend Nicholas Speak and his wife Sarah Faires who died in Lee County, Virginia in 1852 and 1865, respectively. However, during and after the Civil War, their descendants were scattered far and wide, and we didn’t know each other through family. We found each other through genealogy.

Over the past many years, we’ve shared the deaths of our parents. Not just one of our parents, all of our parents. We’ve suffered through the deaths of siblings and our own health issues. We’ve celebrated the births of grandchildren, marriages and more.

In the mid-80s, while I was raising young children, the Speaks Association had their yearly “convention” in Nashville. Part of the activities took place at the Grand Ole Opry. In the newsletter, there were a few photos and the group talked about how much fun they had, and the presentations…and for the first time ever, I actually wanted to attend one of those types of functions. I felt like I was missing out.

You see, my family was so small that we never had reunions. Three of my grandparents and my father were all dead before I was 8. I never knew my fourth grandparent. My mother only had one sibling who lived hundreds of miles away, so I never had close relations with extended family. I had no concept of what that was like. A reunion in my family was anytime there were more than two of us in the same room at the same time.

I wouldn’t be able to attend a Speaks Family Association “convention” until 2004 when the event was held just 100 miles from my home and I had absolutely no excuse NOT to attend. Plus, I had a new reason.

DNA.

Yep, DNA is what got me there. We had established the Speak DNA project and we needed people to test. Cousins are much more likely to become DNA participants if they hear a presentation personally and have the opportunity to ask questions – and if they feel they can actually make a positive contribution.

That year, I asked for a small amount of money from the SFA organization to fund DNA testing for those who would be beneficial participants but might not be able to fund the testing themselves. We refer to these as scholarships, and the SFA has generously funded several for more than a decade now.

Seven years…it took 7 whole years – but our investment eventually paid off. In 2011, we discovered where our ancestors originated in England when a Y DNA participant from New Zealand matched our US immigrant Y DNA line. Our New Zealand cousin knew where his ancestors were from, exactly…as in had the church christening records. Two years later, in 2013, twenty of us, including that gentleman, would be standing on that very land. The photo below shows the group at St. Mary’s Church in Whalley.

The funding for the DNA testing and the trip planning and organization were all accomplished by the SFA – along with arranging for testing of three more Speak males from that part of England.

In 2014, the SFA funded another round of testing including 4 Big Y tests to help establish when and how certain lines dating back to the 1600s are related. We’ve made incredible discoveries with our genealogy that would never and could never have been made prior to DNA testing.

Without the funding power of the organization, none of this would have happened.
Without the organizational power of the group, none of this would have happened.
Without the conventions that brought people together physically, none of this would have happened.
Without the volunteers, none of this would have happened.

While genealogy was my driving force for originally joining the organization, and DNA my driving force for originally attending conventions, those things are no longer my motivation. You see, I’ve come to love my cousins, not just as research partners, but as family that is near and dear to my heart – my “sisters and brothers of another mother,” so to speak. My own siblings and family are all gone now. My husband, children, grandchildren, family of heart and my cousins are all that I have. I envy people with large families and siblings.

These next few photos explain this in a way I can’t even begin to. I can’t imagine life without my cousins and I can’t wait to see them again. Each time is richer and more meaningful and we’ve built something far more valuable than I could ever, ever have imagined. Our time together is utterly joyful, filled with laughter and love. I’m just sorry it took me so long to arrive.

We three cousins. This is not a “proper” society hug, but a full fledged “I am so glad to see you and I love you with all my heart” hug.

One of our cousins, Lola-Margaret, left, could not go on our trip to England. She is a missionary in India and was busy performing minor miracles like building an orphanage and a widow’s home. So, I bought fabrics and made her a quilt. (Ok, I made myself a quilt too, as well as one for Susan, our president, as a thank you for planning the English trip.) So Lola-Margaret was with us and now we and our trip are with her. This is her “English Flower Garden” quilt and each fabric has a story. We love Lola-Margaret and are so glad she is back with us this year at the convention! Thank goodness we can all stay in touch and “see” each other via Facebook! Above and below, the cousins at this year’s convention in Richmond, VA who were on the England trip gather around Lola-Margaret’s quilt.

Lola-Margaret, me, Dolores and another cousin, Susan, above. I’m telling the story of something. Just look at the smiles. We’re all so happy.

Me, Susan and Lola-Margaret. Discovering and walking on our ancestors land. Sharing our lives, our ancestors, and our DNA. Metaphorically walking through life together, united in the shadow or our common ancestor in so many ways.

Life just doesn’t get better!!! I just wish I hadn’t waited so long. Amazing what DNA begat and the discoveries we’ve made by all pulling together as a group!

The moral of the story – join, participate, test – and don’t wait! You could be the one person to make that huge difference!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Genetic Genealogy Has Come of Age

Posted on September 23, 2015 by Roberta Estes

And we didn’t even have a party…no Sweet 16 party…no turning 21 inaugural trip to the bar. It happened when we weren’t looking. Sometime pretty recently.

In the Beginning…

When I first heard about DNA testing for genealogy, back in 1999, it didn’t even have a name. Today it’s known as genetic genealogy, but before that, Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak, one of the early pioneers in this field, about the year 2000, termed it genetealogy. This was shortly after DNA testing first entered the consumer market space. That name didn’t catch on.

I had already entered the world of genetic genealogy through mitochondrial DNA testing. This was about the time I heard about Y DNA testing and suspected it might be a scam – like those bogus pedigree charts sold back in the 1970s and 1980s. I did some research and called Family Tree DNA. Bennett Greenspan, the President of the company, called me back, at 9:30 at night and we talked for an hour. As our discussion progressed and I understood more about Y DNA testing and how it really was applicable to genealogy, I told him I was interested in setting up a surname project for the Estes line, but I was concerned that I didn’t have enough knowledge of how genetic genealogy and the Family Tree DNA website worked to do it justice. Bennett told me that with my background, I’d be fine and that he would help me if I needed it. My, how far we’ve come. And talk about famous last words!

No one knew about DNA testing for genealogy at that time. And I do mean no one. Every person I approached to test was skeptical and most of the initial testers tested because they knew and trusted me. Sadly, many of those folks are gone now. Thank Heavens they tested when they did, because now would be too late and several were end-of-line people.

Within a couple of years, there were 2 or 3 of us doing DNA for genealogy presentations. Even as little at 5 or 6 years ago, one had to beg for a spot on a conference schedule for DNA testing. Today, there are entire DNA tracks at almost every conference and even entire events focused on genetic genealogy, with many speakers to choose from.

Genetic Genealogy Grows Up

Fast forward to 2015. John Reid at his blog, Canada’s Anglo-Celtic Connections, has been doing the Rockstar Genealogist voting now since 2012. Is it a popularity contest of sorts? Sure. But, to me it’s much more important than that, and it’s not about who wins individually. It’s about the fact that we’re all winning.

Last year, in 2014, I really, really wanted to see a genetic genealogist in the winners circle. Until recently, few traditional well-known genealogists had incorporated genetic genealogy as a standard tool, with Megan being a notable exception.

On the other hand, there were several folks who defined themselves as primarily genetic genealogists, myself included. It was time for genetic genealogy to become an adult – to join the rest and sit at the big table. I think we arrived.

In order to help things along a bit, I offered a donation to the War of 1812 Pension fund if any genetic genealogist was in the finals. Indeed, genetic genealogy was quite well represented in the finalists, and not just in the genetic genealogy category either.

However, the evidence that genetic genealogy has finally matured and come of age is that it has become the norm, and not the exception. Today, very few genealogists don’t know about genetic genealogy now – and even if they are living under a rock and haven’t yet participated, they at least know it exists. Most genealogists have participated at some level.

When I spoke years ago and asked how many people had tested in a room full of people, a few hands would be raised. Now it’s more like 50% and in many locations, more.

But the real evidence is held in this year’s 2015 Rockstar results. Yes, there are genetic genealogists well represented again in the winners circle – several of us. I’m extremely grateful for the level of recognition for DNA testing – because media coverage of any form lends a level of legitimacy and encourages new people to test. Positive exposure of any sort is wonderful, as is individual recognition. Genetic genealogy, more than traditional genealogy, is a group, collaborative effort – so we need more testers. The more people who test, the more walls will fall.

The Devil in the Details

But to me, the real message is buried in the details. I was thrilled, overjoyed, to see the details. What details, you ask?

There were a total of 2026 people who voted in John’s poll this year, and of those people, 57% of them listed themselves as genetic genealogists.

FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT!!!!!

That’s not 57% of the people who have heard about genetic genealogy – that’s 57% of the genealogists who also consider themselves genetic genealogists. They are actively using genetic genealogy in some capacity as a tool for their genealogy. These are genealogists incorporating genetic genealogy, not a separate group of “DNA people” running around with missionary zeal carrying DNA swab kits and asking everyone their name and where their grandparents were from!

I still remember getting stopped by the Texas State Trooper after one of the Family Tree DNA conferences in Houston and after looking at his badge, quizzing him as to where his family was from. He decided I was either harmless or crazy and sent me on my way. He declined to swab but I gave him my card just in case he changed his mind one day! Imagine the story he told back at the station about the “crazy DNA lady!” Now the crazy DNA lady is part and parcel of every genealogist – at least 57% anyway. Hopefully that percentage will grow to 100% shortly.

Red Letter Day

Genetic genealogy is no longer separate or different or “odd.” Not an outlier anymore, but part of the norm. A mandatory piece of the puzzle. In fact, as Judy Russell said, in her article, “DNA, coming on strong,” “it’s part and parcel of what every genealogist should be doing.”

Judy also tells us in her article that Thomas W. Jones, co-editor of the National Geographic Society Quarterly, stated that Y, mitochondrial and autosomal DNA testing should be part of what every genealogist does to capture their family story. Every genealogist. Not some and not just 57%. Indeed, this is a red letter day!

Indeed, DNA testing is due for the Sweet 16 party. It has survived and emerged a lovely flower, blossoming and coming entirely into its own – with the entire genealogy world realizing what kind of a unique gift every one of us has – directly from our ancestors. And hopefully, with each individual realizing that the way to harness this energy is to test and to share those results along with the rest of our genealogy.

Every genealogist should test their Y (if a male) or find a male to represent their paternal line, test their mitochondrial DNA for their matrilineal line, and test their autosomal DNA.

Document DNA as an Integral Part of Family History

After you are done testing yourself, look around for who in your family carries Y or mtDNA that represents ancestors that your own DNA doesn’t reveal. For example, your father’s mitochondrial DNA is not your mitochondrial DNA (because males don’t contribute mitochondrial DNA to their offspring) but his mitochondrial DNA provides the story of his mother’s matrilineal line. Dad already gone? Did he have siblings? Test them, and while you’re testing their mitochondrial DNA, test their autosomal DNA as well.

What you are doing, in essence, is creating a DNA pedigree chart. WikiTree provides tools that combine pedigree charts and DNA testing so that this information is available to descendants. So, while you are providing information, you stand to harvest a lot more than you’ll ever provide. Think about it. You can contribute but one Y (if a male) and one mtDNA line, but you have many ancestors whose information you can gather as their direct linear descendants test. Here’s an example of my chart with the haplogroups of my oldest ancestors noted if I have that information. And if I don’t have it, guaranteed I’m looking for it! All of this ancestral information except that of my red circle great-great-grandmother came from other people because I don’t carry their Y or mtDNA.

Lastly, I would strongly encourage every genealogist to test the oldest family members autosomally, even if their Y and mtDNA lines are already tested and represented. Not one of them, all of them. They have each inherited different DNA from their, and your, ancestors. Once they are gone, there is no further opportunity – a part of the history of your ancestors will depart with them and there will never be any way for you to recover what is lost.

So test.

Test everyone!

Test now!

While you can.

Build and preserve the genetic part of your family history that you can obtain no other way!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Edward Mercer (c1704-1763), Hard-Drinking Quaker, 52 Ancestors #90

Posted on September 22, 2015 by Roberta Estes

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

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

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

On page 71, Cartmell tells us:

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

And so began the French and Indian War.

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

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

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

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

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

The Many Mercers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indian Traders

And yet another twist to this story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicholas Mercer must have been connected to our Edward in some way. In the December 1744 Frederick County Court session, we find the Jesse Pugh sued both Nicholas Mercer and Edward Mercer for trespass, in two adjacent transactions. At that time, trespass typically didn’t mean walking on someone’s land, like today, but planting crops there. Later, both Nicholas and Edward served on juries. Unfortunately, there is no Frederick County will for Nicholas, so we have no idea what happened to him.

Some people have drawn links between the various Mercer families that may not have existed in reality – drawing scattered references from multiple sources, including online trees, and weaving them together.

However, there are some very tantalizing clues that indeed, do need additional research.

George Washington and the Battle of Fort Necessity

We think of George Washington and his involvement in the Revolutionary War, but Washington’s involvement in the defense of Virginia began long before the Revolutionary War. George was extremely involved in the French and Indian War as well.

The roster of men serving in the Fort Necessity Campaign of 1754 under George Washington is compiled from two rosters.

Edward Mercer appears.

Roster of Virginia Militia serving under George Washington during the Fort Necessity Campaign Officers – George Mercer, Captain (Lieut.); John Mercer, Lieutenant (Ensign); Wise Johnston, Corporal; Enlisted Men; Edward Mercer;

We know that Captain George Mercer is connected to the Irish/English John Francis Mercer family with no (known) relation to Edward.

Let’s look at what happened at Fort Necessity. Edward Mercer was clearly there, so this is his story too.

The Battle of Fort Necessity (also called the Battle of the Great Meadows) took place on July 3, 1754, in what is now the mountaintop hamlet of Farmington in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The engagement was one of the first battles of the French and Indian War and George Washington’s only military surrender.

In March 1754, Governor Dinwiddie sent Washington back to the frontier with orders to “act on the [defensive], but in Case any Attempts are made to obstruct the Works or interrupt our [settlements] by any Persons whatsoever, You are to restrain all such Offenders, & in Case of resistance to make Prisoners of or kill & destroy them”. Historian Fred Anderson describes Dinwiddie’s instructions, which were issued without the knowledge or direction of the British government in London, as “an invitation to start a war”. Washington was ordered to gather as many supplies and paid volunteers as he could along the way. By the time he left for the frontier on April 2, he had gathered 1,867 men. During the march to Pennsylvania, Washington picked up a few more men from a regiment they met at Winchester. This would have been where Edward Mercer joined.

Washington along with about 150 Virginians built Fort Necessity on an alpine meadow west of the summit of a pass through the Allegheny Mountains on June 3rd. Another pass nearby leads to Confluence, Pennsylvania; to the west, Nemacolin’s Trail begins its descent to Uniontown, Pennsylvania, and other parts of Fayette County along the relatively low altitudes of the Allegheny Plateau.

The fort was small, a circular stockade made of 7-foot-high (2.1 m) upright logs covered with bark and skins built around a little hut which contained ammunition and provisions such as rum and flour. The palisade was built more to defend the supplies against Washington’s own men whom he described as “loose and idle,” than as a planned defense against a hostile enemy.

By June 9^th, the rest of the Virginians had arrived. Originally, the Delaware, Shawnee and Seneca supported the Virginians, but after a Native Council on June 18^th, the Indians withdrew their support after the Battle of Jumonville Glen on May 28^th in which Native leader Tanacharison killed French Joseph Jumonville personally. Why the Native people withdrew their supposed is unclear.

Expecting to be attacked, and with word of the impending arrival of the French and Indians, Washington fell back, abandoning most of their provisions and supplies, and reached Fort Necessity by July 1^st.

At Fort Necessity, the provision hut was depleted, and there was little shelter from the heavy rain that started to fall on the 2nd. With the rain, the trenches that Washington had ordered to be dug had turned into streams. Washington realized that he would have to defend against a frontal assault and also realized that it would be difficult because the woods were less than 100 yards away, within musket range, making it possible for a besieging attacker to pick off the defenders. To improve the defense, Washington ordered his men to cut trees down and to make them into makeshift breastworks. The Virginians were clearly in trouble and they knew it.

As the British worked, the French led by Coulon, Jumonville’s half brother, approached Fort Necessity using the road the Virginians had built. Coulon arrived at Jumonville’s Glen early on the morning of July 3. Horrified to find several scalped French bodies, he immediately ordered them to be buried.

By 11:00 am on the 3rd of July 1754, Louis Coulon de Villiers came within sight of Fort Necessity. At this time, the Virginians were digging a trench in the mud. The pickets fired their muskets and fell back to the fort, whereupon three columns of Canadian soldiers and Indians advanced downhill towards the fort. However, Coulon had miscalculated the location of the fort and had advanced with the fort at his right. As Coulon halted and then redeployed his troops, Washington began to prepare for an attack.

Coulon moved his troops into the woods, within easy musket range of the fort. Washington knew he had to dislodge the Canadians and Indians from that position, so he ordered an assault with his entire force across the open field. Seeing the assault coming, Coulon ordered his soldiers, led by Indians, to charge directly at Washington’s line. Washington ordered the men to hold their ground and fire a volley. Mackay’s regulars obeyed Washington’s command, and supported by two swivel cannons, they inflicted several casualties on the oncoming Indians. The Virginians, however, fled back to the fort, leaving Washington and the British regulars greatly outnumbered. Washington ordered a retreat back to the fort. Washington must have been furious with the Virginia men who disobeyed his orders.

Coulon reformed his troops in the woods. The Canadians spread out around the clearing and kept up heavy fire on Fort Necessity. Washington ordered his troops to return fire, but they aimed too high, inflicting few casualties, and the swivel cannon fared no better. To add to the garrison’s troubles, heavy rain began to fall that afternoon, and Washington’s troops were unable to continue the firefight because their gunpowder was wet.

Louis Coulon de Villiers, who did not know when British reinforcements might arrive, sent an officer under a white flag to negotiate. Washington did not allow the Canadian officer into or near the fort, but sent two of his own men, including his translator Jacob Van Braam, to negotiate. As negotiations began, the Virginians, against Washington’s orders, broke into the fort’s liquor supply and got drunk. Gotta love those Virginia men. They had their priorities. If they were going to die, they didn’t want to leave the liquor behind! Given what we discover about Edward Mercer later, there is little doubt that he was involved with this drunken escapade.

Coulon told Van Braam that all he wanted was the surrender of the garrison, and the Virginians could go back to Virginia. He warned, however, that if they did not surrender now, the Indians might storm the fort and scalp the entire garrison.

Van Braam brought this message to Washington, who agreed to these basic terms.

On July 4, Washington and his troops abandoned Fort Necessity. The garrison marched away with drums beating and flags flying, but the Indians and the French began to loot the garrison’s baggage on their way out, subsequently burning the fort.

Washington, who feared a bloodbath, did not try to stop the looting. The Indians continued to steal from the soldiers until July 5. Washington and his troops arrived back in eastern Virginia in mid-July. On the 17th, Washington delivered his report of the battles to Governor Dinwiddie, expecting a rebuke, but Washington instead received a vote of thanks from the House of Burgesses and Dinwiddie blamed the defeat not on Washington but on poor supply and the refusal of aid by the other colonies.

The battlefield is preserved at Fort Necessity National Battlefield, and includes a reconstruction of Fort Necessity.

“FortNecessityWithCannon” by Ikcerog – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FortNecessityWithCannon.jpg#/media/File:FortNecessityWithCannon.jpg

Voting in Frederick County

From Clark, Murtie June, Colonial Soldiers of the South, 1732-1774, Baltimore, MD: 1983: Pp. 328-332, in 1755, we know that both Richard Mercer and Edward Mercer Jr. are of age, because they both vote, as they do in 1758. In 1761, both James and John Mercer vote for George Washington. This puts the birth of both men before 1734, and possibly significantly before 1734. At that time, and until 1762, according to Cartmell, voting for the House of Burgesses was reserved for men who owned land and significant assets, specifically, the gentry class. In 1762, the voting rules were relaxed and allowed free men, of age, with only 50 acres of land or 25 acres with a house, or a lot in town with a house, to vote.

But the 1761 voting is interesting for yet another reason. Colonel George Mercer is on the ballot for the election of Burgesses to represent Frederick County and Mercer Babb votes for him, as do both Edward Mercer Jr, Edward Sr., James, John, Moses, and Richard Mercer. Col. George Mercer wins and represents the county in the House of Burgesses from 1761-1765. George Mercer was born in Frederick County in 1733 to John Mercer, reportedly born in Dublin, Ireland, and Catherine Mason. George was the brother to John Francis Mercer.

This tells us that Mercer Babb, whoever he was, was of age in 1761, so born in 1740 or earlier. It also introduces the question – who is Mercer Babb?

To answer that question, we have to look at the Babb Family.

The Babbs

Thomas Babb was born in 1697 in Brandywine Hundred, New Castle, Delaware. In 1730, he lived and was taxed in Bethel Township, Chester County, PA, according to the Hopewell Friend’s History. He died on October 4, 1760 in Frederick County, Virginia. Not long after his marriage there was a movement of Quakers from Pennsylvania to Frederick County, Virginia. Thomas went with these Quakers and was one of the founding fathers of the Hopewell Monthly Meeting north of Winchester in Frederick County in 1734.

His father had a land grant of 600 acres on Apple Pie Ridge, near Babb’s Run, northwest of Winchester. Thomas settled there and was joined by his brother, Phillip. At his father’s death the two sons inherited his land.

Thomas Babb’s will was proved November 4, 1760. He left the home place to his son, Sampson, and other bequest to his other children. His wife, not being mentioned, is believed to have already died.

The first lovely old home belonging to Thomas was called “The Great Marsh Plantation“, now known as The Babb-Purcell-Janney House. It dates to 1735. Great Marsh is located on the north side of route 673 (Gold Hills Road) between route 522 and the Apple Pie Ridge Road in Frederick, Virginia. On the map below, Babb’s Run is marked on Gold Hills Road with a small balloon just above the white box at the bottom of the map.

The red balloon is James Crumley’s land, also on Apple Pie Ridge Road, about 6 miles distant from the Great Marsh Plantation.

The second home named “The Brick House” is a lovely old brick mansion and dates also to 1735. It is located west of the Apple Pie Ridge Road and south of route 672 on Babb’s Run. This is also in Frederick, Virginia.

The Lupton family obtained the Babb land after Thomas’s death. The Lupton homestead was located just below Cedar Grove, about where the small gray balloon is located on the map below, according to a map from 1885.

The Lupton homestead is located just south of Cedar Grove between Babb’s Run and the east side of North Mountain today, marked by the small balloon on the map above. North Mountain is to the left of the balloon, with Cedar Grove Road on the other side of the mountain.

You can see and purchase these old maps at this link.

Referencing Jean Sargent’s Book “Babb Families of America” 3rd edition pg.113.

Philip Babb born in 1699 in Brandywine Hundred, New Castle, Delaware and died in Newark, New Castle Delaware on March 6, 1762, father of Thomas Babb who settled in Frederick County, Virginia, married Margaret Mercer.

This marriage would have had to have occurred after 1720, giving Mercer Babb plenty of time to be born between then and 1740. This tells us that there were Mercers in this part of the world, likely related to Edward Mercer, and probably in New Castle, Delaware before 1740.

In the book, “The Babb Families of New England and Beyond, “ Jean Sargent on page 20 and 21 tells us the following about Thomas Babb:

In the Newark Monthly Meeting Records there is an entry dated 3 Oct 1713 which reads as follows: “Thomas Babb appearing at this meeting and gives ye meeting to understand yt ye death of his wife and for want of some person to whom he might leave ye care of his young children hath hitherto been ye lett of his not coming more frequent to ye meetings of business.” While there are early entries concerning Bathsheba, none of them mention the birth of her children or the date of her marriage. (7) Thomas prospered in DE and had sizeable land holdings as shown in the early land records. (4) In 1735 he received a Patent to 600 acres of land in Frederick Co., VA. By this time his three sons had moved to Chester Co., PA, just across the state line from their former home. Thomas sent the two younger sons Thomas, Jr., and Philip to occupy the 600 acres in VA and to carry out the other provisions of the Patent. (7) In his will, dated 17 Aug 1748 and proved 13 Aug 1751, Thomas bequeathed the home place in DE to his oldest son Peter, and left the VA lands to sons Thomas, Jr., and Philip. He made other bequests to his daughters Mary, Rebecca, and Lydia, as well as to three children of his deceased daughter Hulda — John, Rebecca and Lydia Gregory. (6)

In a 1758 election in Frederick Co., VA, among those voting for George Washington for the VA House of Burgesses were: Philip Babb, Thomas Babb (son of Phil.), Thos. Babb, Peter Babb, Joseph Babb, and Thos. Babb, Jr. (8)

Sources:

(1) “History of Town of Hampton, NH” by Dow; (2) Geneo. Diet, of Maine and New Hampshire by Noyes/Libby/ Davis; (3) “History of Salem, MA” by Perley; (4) DE Land Records; (5) VA Land Records; (6) New Castle Co., Probate Records; (7) Records of Robert E. Babb, Jr.; (8) Virginia Historical Magazine, 1899 p. 163.

So, once again, we circle back to Chester County, PA. about 1735-1740.

Margaret Mercer Babb was very probably Edward Mercer’s sister and named her son, Mercer Babb.

Backslidden Quaker

In Cartmell’s history book, he states that the area in Frederick County where Edward Mercer lived was known as the Quaker settlement, but several families lived there that were not Quakers. He indicates that list includes the Mercers and Babbs who “had nothing to do with the Quakers.” Cartmell was wrong.

Edward Mercer was a Quaker, but apparently a backslidden one. So Edward may not have been a Quaker his whole life, and he may not have acted much like one when he was.

Edward was mentioned in the Quaker meeting records in March 1759 at the Baltimore meeting, but not in a very positive light.

It looks like Philip Babb got to be the bearer of bad news. Edward may well have been his brother-in-law, as this is the Philip Babb married to Margaret Mercer.

It seems like maybe Edward was systematically drinking too much. In an economy driven by distilled liquors, as a form of money and a way to preserve corn, drinking “too much” must have meant truly drinking a lot by the standards of today.

Finally, Edward Mercer was removed.

Was Edward Mercer being thrown out of the Quaker Church a family scandal? Was his drinking a scandal? What did his wife, Ann, do when this happened. Did she and the children continue to attend the Hopewell Friend’s Meeting, or were they too embarrassed? Or outraged?

Road Orders

Edward may have been in trouble at church, but he was still quite functional as a road overseer – well – most of the time.

In 1759, the Frederick County road orders from August 7^th order that a road be cleared between the plantations of William Reynolds and Thomas Babb Jr. and into Sr. John’s road in the same manner as heretofore and that the spring be left open to the said road and it is further ordered that Edward Mercer be overseer thereof and that the tithables a mile on each side of the road clear and keep the same in repair according to law.

On September 4^th, the court ordered that Edward Mercer be overseer of Sr. John’s road from Winchester to the Plantation where Isaac Thomas did live and that the tithables three miles on each side of the said road keep the same in repair according to law.

By 1760, however, Edward was in a bit of trouble it seems. On November 7^th, the grand jury presents Edward Mercer for not opening the road from Capt. Pearis’s to Sir John’s Road at the Quaker Meeting by the knowledge of two of us at this present time.

On December 5^th, the court notes that the summons had not been executed and refers it to the next court.

The next time we see Edward working on the roads in on May 4^th, 1763, the same year he died. Jacob Vanmetre, Morgan Morgan and Thomas Thornberry having been appointed to view the ground from the Town of Micklinbugh to the most convenient ford on Opeckon Creek made their report whereupon it is ordered that a road be opened as by them laid off and that the tithables three miles on each side thereof work under Edward Mercer who is appointed overseer of the same.

On November 2^nd 1763, Thomas Babb is appointed as overseer of the road called Sir John Sinclaire’s road in room of Edward Mercer from the forks to James McGills.

Land

Edward Mercer received his first land grant in 1751 for 275 acres adjoining Jacob Van Meter as recorded in the Virginia Northern Neck Land Grants, 1742-1775, Vol. II. Not a terribly descriptive land grant.

Note that the entry shows that the adjacent entry was for Nicholas Mercer.

In 1759, Edward Mercer is shown on the rent roll for Frederick County as is Nicholas Mercer.

In 1760, Edward obtained a second grant, but this one is much more descriptive and is for 409 acres “near the head of Babbs Great Meadow and joyning Babbs Mountain”

Fortunately, I was able to find Babb’s Mountain today, just above Cedar Grove.

Philip Babb purchased property and the land deed was filed in Frederick County, VA. on 8 April 1760. The description of the property includes 117 acres adjoining Edward Mercer and on the side of Babbs Mountain. Source: Northern Neck Grants K, 1757-1762, p. 99. The original survey reportedly exists. Obtaining the original surveys of these lands would be most helpful in terms of exactly locating Edward Mercer’s land.

The Babb family has done extensive research on the land grants and has drawn the following map.

Based on the Babb map, the location of the Lupton home, and this survey from 1812, we know the location of Edward Mercer Jr.’s land, taken from the Virginia Northern Neck Land Grants, 1800-1862, Vol IV.

Next, we find Edward Mercer Sr. leasing land to his son Moses, Bk 6 pg. 74 14 Oct. 1760: [Lease] between Edward Mercer & Ann his wife of County of Frederick [to] Moses Mercer of County aforesaid …… one tract of land lying and being under the mountain on the easternmost part of Back Creek and being part of a tract of land granted to said Edward Mercer by the Right Honorable Thomas Lord Fairfax by Patent the 18 April 1760… containing 200 acres and a half… Wit: 2 Wit. signed in German John Colson Recorded: 4 Nov. 1760 Signed by Edward Mercer & Ann Mercer

The easternmost part of Back Creek would be current Cattail Creek above Babb’s Mountain, or Babb’s Run, below Babb’s Mountain.

Richard Pearis purchased property and the land deed was filed in Frederick County, VA. on 18 May 1762. The description of the property includes 224 acres adjoining Jacob Vanmeter, and Edward Mercer. Source: Northern Neck Grants K, 1757-1762, p. 430 (Reel 294).

In 1764, the year after Edward died, his estate is still on the rent rolls, which is not unusual, especially if his wife is living there. In addition to Edward Mercer, we find Edward Mercer Jr, Nicholas Mercer, Moses Mercer and Richard Mercer.

All of these men are sons of Edward, except Nicholas who appears consistently with Edward since 1746, before Edward actually appears in the County. Was Nicholas Mercer Edward’s brother?

Edward’s Will

In 1762, Edward Mercer wrote his will, which was not probated in Frederick County until November 1, 1763, so he apparently lived another 14 months after making his will. He was obviously ill, because in the will, he states that he is weak of body.

IN THE NAME OF GOD AMEN. The twentyth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and Sixty Two, Edward Mercer of the County of Frederick in the colony of Virginia, being sick aged and weak of Body but of perfect and sound mind memory and understanding thanks be given unto God, therefore calling to mind ye mortality of my Body and knowing it is apointed for all men once to dye do make and ordain this my last Will and Testament that is to say principally and first of all I recommend my Soul into my saviour’s hands, and my body to the Earth to be buried in a Christianlike and Decent manner at the Discretion of my Executors hereafter named and as Touching what Temporal Estate it hath pleased God to Bless me with in this Life. I give devise and Dispose of the same in the following Manner and form Imprimis: it is my Will and I do order that in the first place all my just Debts by paid and satisfied.

Item I give and bequeath unto my son Richard Mercer one cow and calf and five shillings sterling. I give and Bequeath unto my Daughter Elizabeth Heath the sum of five shillings sterling.

I also give to my son Moses Mercer the sum of Five Shillings sterling.

I give and bequeath to my daughter Hannah Mercer five pounds and five shillings worth of Puter the same being now in her possession. And also one bed and furniture thereto belonging likewise I give to my said Daughter Hannah Six head of young cattle the same being now in her possession which said cattle shall be kept on the plantation until they be three years old. I also give her a side sadle and the Keeping of her mare on the plantation whilst she continues unmarried.

I give and bequeath unto my son Edward Mercer the plantation whereon I now Live containing two hundred and nine Acres and also a survey adjoining thereto containing Ninety six Acres of Land to him his Heirs and assigns forever. I also give to my said son Edward one bay mare and one bay colt plow and Tacklin thereto belonging. I also Will that if my above named son Edward Mercer should dye without issue that my youngest son Aaron Mercer shall then become sole heir of my Land and plantation whereon I now live and if both my said sons Edward and Aaron should die without issue, I will that my Daughter Hannah Mercer, become the sole owner of my above said Land and plantation, to her heirs and assigns forever.

I also will that my son Edward Mercer should pay as a Legacy to my youngest son Aaron Mercer the sum of Forty pounds and that within the space of four years after the said Aaron comes of age.

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

I will bequeath unto my son Aaron the two thirds of my parsonal Estate with the benefit and profit thereof Immediately after my decease which part of the said Aaron’s stock shall be maintained on the plantation until Aaron comes of age.

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

Signed Sealed and acknowledged by the said Edward Mercer to be his last will and testament in the presence us.

Jesse Pugh. Thos. Babb. Mercer Babb.

Edward Mercer. (LS.)

We know Edward could write, because he signed his name.

Edward’s will was probated in Frederick County, Virginia on either November 1, 1763.

Mercer Babb

Mercer Babb was clearly of age in 1762 when he witnessed Edward Mercer’s will, so was born in 1741 or before. Generally, when someone witnesses a will, unless it’s a nuncupative will made in an emergency with death imminent, this indicates that the witness is not an heir, or they would not be witnessing the will. Normally, those who witness wills have no direct interest in the outcome. If Mercer Babb was born in 1741 or before, that means that either the Babbs and Mercers were together before they lived in Frederick County, they were both living in Frederick County by 1740 or there is a Mercer in the Babb family tree, because the name of Mercer Babb, especially witnessing the will of a Mercer male, is just not a coincidence. Mercer Babb appears to be the son of Philip Babb and Margaret Mercer. We know that Philip Babb was in Chester County by about 1735. I do believe there is more to this story than we know and it all begins back in either Chester County, PA or before that in New Castle or Marcus Hook, Delaware. These families appear to have come as a group from the Chester County area to Frederick County, VA.

Edward Mercer’s Estate Inventory (added 10-12-2015)

Recently, I spent an entire day in Richmond at the Library of Virginia, also known as the State Archives. Like always, I prepared a research list. While most of my research procured nothing, which isn’t unusual after you’re already plucked all the fruit you can readily see – I did come up with one big winner.

The estate inventory of Edward Mercer who died sometime between May 4^th 1763 when he last appears in the Frederick County, Virginia court minutes in a road order, and November 1, 1763 when his estate was probated. At that same court session, he was replaced as overseer or the road, so he apparently was still “working” up to a few months before he died, even though he prepared his will “being sick, aged and weak of body” in September of 1762. Edward was probably just shy of 60, certainly not an old man – so his estate should reflect an active life, not a “retirement,” if there was such a thing then.

The first bingo I found in the library was a book of transcribed wills and estate inventories. I was quite relieved because that meant I might not have to ask them to pull the microfilm and read that. Old books on microfilm are not always legible nor is the indexing ever complete. The only individuals indexed are the primary individual – not witnesses or wives or anyone else. Many times the “rest of the story” is told in who surrounds individuals during their lifetime – so we need all of that additional information.

So, when I found Edward Mercer’s estate inventory listed in the transcribed book, I was ecstatic. I read the estate inventory, and it was short and general. It listed things like, “agricultural produce and farm animals.” Well, I have to tell you, I’ve seen a lot of colonial wills and I have never seen one list something like that. They list the produce and they list the animals, individually, or at least by breed. In other words, you in far more danger of receiving far more information that you wanted than not enough, if an estate inventory was taken and filed.

It appeared that I was going to have to get the microfilm after all.

Estate inventories are a vastly overlooked source of information not available elsewhere. The wills tell who your ancestors left his or her worldly goods to, but the estate inventory tells you what those goods were and those goods tell a huge story about your ancestor’s life. In addition to what IS in the estate inventory, what ISN’T in the inventory tells a story too – especially in the context of the time and place in which they lived.

Many men did have a will. Most wills were not written much in advance. Sometimes wills were made verbally as the individual was on death’s doorstep to whomever was nearby. These are called noncupative wills. Sometimes, death was unexpected and there no opportunity for a will.

Most women did not have wills because most women did not own items outright, meaning outside of a marriage where the man was assumed to be the owner of the land (except for her dower rights.) Often women retained what is known as a “life estate” where the woman holds either property or other items for the term of her life, at which point their ownership reverts to others, generally one or several children as specified in her husband’s will when he died.

If the woman dies before the man, the husband automatically owns everything so no will for the wife is necessary. I’m talking about historical US wills, not current law. I’m not a lawyer…I don’t play one on TV or anyplace else:)

Understanding how wills and ownership of both property and personal items worked helps in unraveling what estate inventories tell us.

When the man died, an inventory of everything was taken, even if the wife was to retain “household items.” While that seems vastly unfair, especially since she often had to bid to buy her own cooking utensils back at a sale, it’s a huge boon for genealogists.

Sometimes individuals are mentioned in inventories – and in some cases, an item is left to a daughter in a will, but by the time she collects that item, she is married and a married name is listed. In other cases, if something is left specifically to an individual, it is not included in the appraisal. It doesn’t seem standardized, you say? It’s not – and often it helps to look at other wills and estates from that county and time to observe what was customary. Any deviation from custom must have been caused by something…and that something could be interesting to a genealogist.

Even the individuals who appraise your ancestor’s estate are important. In Virginia, if your ancestor’s spouse was still living, one person who was from the “wife’s family” was chosen, keeping her interests in mind, the largest debtor of the person who died was selected, keeping their interests in mind, and one person completely disinterested in the outcome of the estate appraisal was selected.

With that information, you can sometimes add to your knowledge of the family, especially if you know the wife’s family is likely in the area. How would you know that? If your ancestor lived in that area when he married, his wife’s family would have been from that area too. Young people often met at church or social functions – and with limited transportation – that social group wasn’t from any great distance.

People often married their neighbors or individuals from just a mile or two away. Courting was likely done on foot, or maybe on horseback. You can’t marry someone you can’t court!

So, let’s take a look at Edward Mercer’s will and see what is actually in the estate inventory.

The subscribers by virtue of an order of Frederick County Court being first sworn has met and appraised such of the estate of Edward Mercer, deceased, as was brought to our view by Ann Mercer and Joseph Fanset the executors – viz –

The values would be given in pounds, shillings and pence.

One old loom 0-15-0
Red Cow 0-15-0
1 Cow and bell 3-0-0
1 brindle cow 2-10-0
A brindle cow 2-0-0
A white cow 2-10-0
White back heifer 2-0-0
White bull 2-0-0
White heifer 1-15-0
Speckled heifer 2-0-0
Red yearling steer 1-0-0
White steer 1-7-0
White faced heifer 1-10-0
Brindle calfe 0-15-0
A pide yearling 1-0-0
A brindle yearling 1-0-0
Six calves 3-6-0
2 pide steers 3-15-0
2 heifers 2-10-0
One stear 2-10-0
A roan horse 6-0-0
An old mare 2-10-0
A mare and colt 3-10-0
A bay mare and colt 5-0-0
Old wagon and gears 9-0-0
A pen and gears 1-3-0

Eight swine 0-?-0
2 sows and pigs 0-16-0
Harrow pens 0-10-0
Cart wheels 1-0-0
A rick of hay 3-0-0
2 ricks of hay 6-10-0
Hay in the barn 2-0-0
Grain in the barn 12-0-0
Unbreak flax 0-5-0
2 caskes and flax seed 0-9-0
Corn foder 0-10-0
Hay in the stable 0-15-0
A mall and wedges 0-5-0
2 old axes 0-5-0
Indian corn 2-0-0
2 old hoes 0-7-0
Small grind stone 0-3-0
An old gun 0-15-0
Another old gun 0-10-0
2 bells and collar 0-5-0
Some old carpenters tools 0-14-0
Old iron 0-2-6
A pair of small hilliards 0-5-0
Few nails 0-2-0
Some more carpenters tools 0-10-0
An old saddle 1-5-0
Suit of cloathes 5-10-0
Side saddle 1-5-0
Old lumber 0-6-0
8 old chairs 1-0-0
Old dough trough 0-3-0
A chaf (?) bed and cloaths 1-15-0
One bed and furniture 4-0-0
Seven old bags 0-7-0
Old casks and reel 0-5-0
Old chest 0-10-0
A morter 0-2-6
A warming pan 1-0-0
Old reeds and wifts (or mosts or wefts) 0-4-0

Some salt 0-6-6
Smoothing box and candlestick 0-3-0
Hand and gridirons 0-8-0
Iron poths (pots?) hangers and frying pan 1-3-0
Old books 0-6-0
Puter (pewter) 2-6-0
Some old tins 0-2-0
Sythes and hangings 0-14-0
Old copper 0-1-3
3 old casks 0-5-6
1 cask of cyder 1-4-1
2 old whelbs(?) and branding iron and old tea kettle 0-11-0
Warping barrs and boxes 0-5-0
Hannah Mercers puter 5-0-0
Her bed and furniture 8-0-0

Jesse Pugh, Joseph Babb, Peter Babb

At court held for Frederick County the first day of May 1764. This appraisement was returned and ordered to be recorded by the court.

The first thing this inventory tells us is that Edward Mercer was very involved in animal husbandry and likely only farmed enough to feed his animals. He did not have plows and other typical farming implements and had many more animals than the typical farmer.

The entry for salt is interesting. Salt was valuable because about 800 gallons of spring water had to be boiled away to yield a bushel of salt. Today, we take salt very much for granted, but our pioneer forefathers certainly didn’t.

Edward’s family had chairs, not just a bench to sit on. And almost enough chairs for each person to sit at the same time. He had 7 children, so the estate is one chair short for the entire family to sit together. Perhaps one chair broke. They are described as “old.” However, there is no table listed. That’s rather odd.

Edward was a good-hearted person. He did not kill his old mare who was probably no longer useful.

Edward was likely a carpenter. Every man on the frontier had a specialty skill, and his appears to be carpentry based on his tools. This means that when you find homes built in that timeframe in that area, Edward may have worked on those.

Edward owned no slaves, but he clearly could have afforded slaves had he so chosen. His lack of slaves then must have been either a personal moral judgment or a religious conviction. However, other Quakers did own slaves including the family his daughter, Hannah, married into.

The flax and loom suggest that his wife and daughter spun and wove, although interestingly enough, a spinning wheel is not listed. However, you can’t get from flax to weaving without spinning it into thread first.

There is cyder, but no alcohol. There is no still. This is highly ironic, since Edward Mercer was kicked out of the Quaker church in 1759 for…you guessed it….drinking. In fact, “too frequently drinking strong drink to excess.”

Edward Mercer signed his will and owned books, so obviously this man could read and write. How I’d love to know what those books were.

There is no Bible, although Edward was a Quaker up until he was kicked out of the church in 1759, ironically, for drinking, not attending meetings and not being penitent about either.

Other than Hannah’s furniture, which did include a bed, there were two other beds mentioned. Was there a bed for the parents, then a boys bed and a girl’s bed? There were two girls and five boys.

And speaking of Hannah, she is mentioned in the estate inventory, but it’s very likely that she was married by this time. However, the fact that she is mentioned by her maiden name does not prove that Hannah was not married. They may simply have referred to her as she was listed in the will. I have often wondered if she was already married when the will was written, even though Edward does not refer to Hannah by a married name. The reason I question this is because Edward says that the “puter” (pewter) is already “in her possession.” That would likely mean that she is not living at home, but unless she were married, where else would she be living? Edward said the same thing about Hannah’s 6 heard of cattle as well, that they are already in her possession. But then he goes on to say she can leave her mare on his plantation as long as she remains unmarried, so obviously she is not married at that time. There must be something here that I’m missing. Perhaps she was living with another family member before she married.

Edward does have two old guns, and he fought in the French and Indian War, so this makes sense. These are likely the guns he carried with General George Washington at Fort Necessity. What I wouldn’t give to see those guns.

And speaking of things I’d love to see…that old chest is one. I want to open that chest and see what is inside. I’m guessing that might be where Edward kept any spare clothes he had or anything of value – like maybe letters!!!

We also know that Edward’s wife, Ann, was living because she was one of the individuals who administered his will and “presented” his estate to the court.

We know that the family had candles. The poorest families didn’t and worked only by the light of the sun. Sundown meant bedtime.

In Edward’s case, either his estate was not sold at public auction, or there is no court record of the sale. Many times, the sale is recorded, item by item, and who was present at the sale can tell you a huge amount. In some cases, you can track valuable family heirlooms this way.

The moral of this story? Don’t think you’ve found everything when you find your ancestors will, or even if you don’t find a will. There is likely to be an estate appraisement with or without a will, and sometimes the information in the estate inventory tells you far more about your ancestors life and how they actually lived than the will itself. Wills tell you who is supposed to get what, but estates tell you the story of your ancestors life through what they left behind.

If you look around your own house, you’ll realize that your sewing machine and quilting tools, for example, at my house, are far more personal and representative of what you do with your daily life than the land you own.

In terms of getting to know your ancestor, their stuff is far more important than their land.

Edward Mercer’s Children

Richard Mercer could have been the Richard who married a woman named Mary and lived in Berkeley County. John Mercer mentioned a brother Richard in his 1748 will that was filed in Winchester. It’s difficult to tell when Richard first appears in the records because there is an earlier Richard that is found with Edward Mercer as well.
Elizabeth Mercer was born about (or after) 1724 and married by 1748 to William Heath who was born on Sept. 18, 1724. William was mentioned in the 1748 will of his brother-in-law, John Mercer.
John Mercer was born circa 1727 and died in 1749, apparently unmarried. John lived in Frederick County, where his will is on file in the courthouse. His father, Edward Mercer, was named administrator for his estate.
Moses Mercer was of age and leasing land from his father by 1760. Moses was born in 1732 and died in 1805, in Frederick County. Appraisers of Moses’ estate were Jacob Rinker, Richard Barrett, and Thomas Babb. Moses married Dinah Morrison, who was called Dianna in his will. She was born Dec. 24, 1729, and died in April 1810. After Moses’ death in 1804, Dinah received all moveable property during her natural life, plus one-third of profits from real estate. She wrote her will on April 10, 1810 and it was probated June 7, 1810. Witnesses were Aaron and John Mercer, and John Barnard. Her close friend, Abraham Lewis was named the executor. Moses and Dianah signed their names with an X “His mark” and “Her mark,” respectively.
Hannah Mercer married William Crumley about 1763 and had died by 1774. Hannah was mentioned in the will of her brother John in 1748, and in the will of Elizabeth Morris in 1760. Who is Elizabeth Morris?
Edward Mercer was given “the plantation where I now live – 209 acres plus adjoining 96 acre survey” by his father. Edward was born about 1744. His age was proven from a deposition given in the Augusta County Circuit Court. The name of his spouse is not known.
Aaron Mercer, the youngest son, not of age in 1752 – served in Revolutionary War. On October 28, 1799 he obtained a Virginia Revolutionary War land grant in Ohio and moved to Ohio. Reportedly in his pension application (which is not at www.fold3.com as of 9-15-2015) he says he was born in Ireland. Aaron died on December 17, 1800 in Hamilton County, Ohio and is buried in the Old (Columbia) Baptist Graveyard. Given that there were no Revolutionary War pensions before 1818, there would have been no pension application by him, although if his wife, Elizabeth Carr, was still living, she could have applied in either 1818 as destitute or 1832/33 as a surviving veteran’s wife. She is reported to have died in 1820, so I’m quite suspicious of the claim that his Revolutionary War pension paperwork stated that he was born in Ireland.

Speculative Family

Based on all of the pieces of evidence, it looks like a speculative family might include our Edward, born about 1700, a brother Richard found with Edward early in the records, a brother Nicholas found in 1746, and a sister Margaret who married Phillip Babb sometime between 1720 and 1740.

The identity of the Edward Mercer born in 1729 who lived in Berkeley County is unclear, but given the names of Edward, Richard and Nicholas, and the locations of Chester County, PA and Delaware, these lines do seem very connected.

Edward in Berkeley County could be the son of either Edward Sr.’s brother Richard or Nicholas – although this does beg the question of what happened to either Richard or Nicholas. Richard could also have been Edward Mercer Sr.’s eldest son, not a brother. If that is the case, then Edward born in 1829 cannot be the son of Richard Mercer.

The tidbits we do have also support the suggestion that this family may have immigrated from Ireland before 1740.

However, this is speculative and needs additional research before any conclusions can be drawn. I suspect the answer is either in Chester County, PA, Marcus Hook, PA or in what is now New Castle, Delaware, if the answer exists anyplace.

DNA

The DNA results having to do with this line are every bit as frustrating and elusive as the genealogy has proven to be.

I checked the Mercer DNA project and was extremely happy to discover a Y DNA project member that indicated that they descended from Edward Mercer born in 1704, the birth year typically attributed to our Edward.

Home run!

Except…

Doggone it, there’s another tester who gives his ancestor as Edward born in 1705. That’s just too close. Worse yet, their DNA doesn’t match. Clearly two independent lines.

So, I checked at YSearch. No account for Mr. 1705 and the 1704 account had no marker values entered but it did include the death year of 1763, which pretty well cinches the identity as our Edward. I tried to contact the individual through YSearch, with no luck. This is a low kit number, indicating an early tester so the tester’s e-mail may be stale of they may not be able to reply anymore.

Next, I wrote to the project administrators of the Mercer project and asked them if they have the oldest ancestor information for either or both testers, or if they would please facilitate contact with those men. Nothing, nada, silence from the admins.

Doggone!

There is just nothing worse than a desperate genealogist.

(Click on image to see larger version.)

I copy pasted the relevant Mercer project entries into a spreadsheet. They weren’t grouped on the Mercer DNA site, so I grouped them compared to the entry for kit number 94427 which I believe is our Edward Mercer (c1704-1763). The yellow cells are mismatches to kit 94427.

There is only one other Mercer that even matches remotely, kit number 99939 just above the lower pink 94427 with the green row.

There is an entire group of blue Mercers that fall together nicely. However, in this blue group we find kit number 84471 also pink), the other Edward Mercer born in 1705. This entire line reportedly tracks back to guess where… Chester County, PA with Robert born in 1741 and Elizabeth Brown Mercer.

I checked Chester County tax records, and there are several Mercer men living there in this timeframe. They may or may not have been related to each other. And none were named Edward, Richard or Nicholas. Pulling hair out now….

Finding this large blue group associated with Chester County, and my lonely Edward Mercer with only one distant DNA match is beginning to make me very nervous.

This makes me ask questions like:

Was Edward Mercer who died in 1763 “supposed” to be paternally related to the Chester County group, but wasn’t?
Is there a NPE (nonpaternal event or undocumented adoption) in the lines of one of Edward Mercer’s sons, but not the other one, causing one descendant to match the Chester County group, and one descendant to not match the group?
Is someone’s genealogy wrong? And if so, which one? I’d just be happy at this point to actually see the genealogy of either tester, and preferably both.
Why aren’t the project administrators answering inquiries about the project? Are they gone too?

It’s small consolation, I know, but at least the two “Edward” kits are both haplogroup R-M269. So, assuming (I hate that word, BTW) either of these men descend from my Edward Mercer, I at least know that much. But at the 50% frequency rate in Europe of M269, that would have been a safe bet with no DNA testing at all.

Needless to say, if you are a male Mercer who descends from Edward Mercer who died in Frederick County in 1763, I have a DNA testing scholarship for you!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Crumley Kinfolk

Posted on September 3, 2015 by Roberta Estes

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

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

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

So, let’s have some fun with this.

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

So, how do you think they are related?

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

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

Cousins maybe?

Well, yes.

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

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

Not first cousins.

Not second.

Not third.

Not fourth.

Not kidding!

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

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

John and Ken are 4th cousins once removed.

Ken and Jerry are 5^th cousins.

John and Jerry are 5^th cousins once removed.

Their pedigree chart is shown below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

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

Posted on August 30, 2015 by Roberta Estes

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

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

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

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

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

Frederick County, Virginia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion and Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William’s Father Dies

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

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

Deed Book 2, page 149.

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

Signed
William Crumley
Hannah Crumley
Henry Crumley
Thomas Noland
Ruth Noland

Witnesses
William Boyd
Joseph Kile
John Ridgeway
John Tryall?

William’s Wife Dies

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

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

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

The Revolutionary War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William’s Death

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

In William’s will he wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Houses on the Crumley Land

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

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

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

William Crumley Homestead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving a little closer.

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

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

This looks like the original structure.

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

Visiting William Crumley’s Property (added October 2015)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William’s land looking west behind the church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William’s Estate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distributing William’s Estate to His Children

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

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

Children of William Crumley and Hannah Mercer:

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

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

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

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

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

Children of William and Sarah Crumley:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNA and Origins

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

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

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

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

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

At 67 markers, the matches map looks like this:

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

African DNA in the British Isles

Posted on August 4, 2015 by Roberta Estes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

William McNiel (c1760-c1817), Battle of Brandywine Survivor, 52 Ancestors #83

Posted on August 2, 2015 by Roberta Estes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Revolutionary War

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

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

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

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

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

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

William fought for his life in this field.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving to Wilkes County, NC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossroads

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

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

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

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

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

On To Claiborne County, Tennessee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously Neal had accumulated quite a bit of land.

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

Touring the Neighborhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This location would have been on Niel McNiel’s land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William’s Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope springs eternal.

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

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

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers