Welcome to 2025! – Opportunities and New Genetic Genealogy Articles

It’s a new year with new opportunities. Lots of ancestors to find and others to confirm.

For me, the best part is actually learning about my ancestors’ lives. If you’re a subscriber, I’m sure you’ve already noticed that.

These adventures and misadventures are what inspire my blog articles. What works well, what doesn’t and how to use multiple tools to unveil more about our ancestors.

That’s what motivates me. I hope it motivates you, too.

New Articles in the Works

I’d like to share some of the articles and educational events I have planned for 2025, then ask what topics you’d like to see.

Articles on the drawing board include:

  • MyHeritage DNA File Download Instructions Update
  • Mitotree – when released
  • Mitochondrial Discover – when released
  • Genealogy Proof Series – The series continues with autosomal, Y-DNA, and mitochondrial DNA proof.
  • The Forest of the Trees – Lots of different kinds of trees for both Y and mitochondrial DNA at FamilyTreeDNA. How to use them, for what, and when. This will probably be written as a series.
  • New features and developments from vendors as they occur
  • Acadian Ancestors – I hope to complete my Acadian 52 Ancestors articles. For those who don’t know, “52 Ancestors” is a challenge to write about one ancestor each week for a year. You can sign up with Amy Johnson Crow here to learn more and receive weekly prompts. It’s fun and allows you to focus on one ancestor at a time, and the history that occurred in their lifetime.

Other Learning Opportunities

In addition to those articles, I’ll be at RootsTech in person presenting:

  • DNA Academy – the 2025 version, soup to nuts
  • DNA for Native American Genealogy
  • Reveal Your Maternal Ancestors and Their Stories Using Mitochondrial DNA
  • Guide to FamilyTreeDNA – Using Y-DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, Autosomal, X-DNA and Associated Tools

I’ll also participate in other educational events with Legacy Family Tree Webinars, WikiTree, the North Carolina Genealogy Society, and FamilyTreeDNA. I’ll provide more information about them later.

Finding Information

Remember, you can always use a keyword search on this blog to find any topic I’ve written about previously.

Also, Google’s AI has apparently trained itself using my blog articles, as have a couple of other AI tools. I know this because my blog comes up as a resource when I google questions. You can try that, too.

Your Turn – What Do You Want?

There are always new topics, new features, or different ways to explain things.

  • What would you like to see covered in 2025?
  • Are there any hot genetic genealogy topics that you’d love to learn more about?

Please make your suggestions in a comment on this article.

Here’s wishing you a wonderful 2025 with lots of ancestor discoveries.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me 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 Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Daniel Garceau (1707-1772), Cooper, Exile, Founder of a New Acadian Homeland – 52 Ancestors #436

Daniel Garceau was baptized on Friday, April 8, 1707 in Port Royal, Acadia, which means he was probably born that same day or perhaps the day before. Babies were baptized as soon as possible, just in case something went wrong.

His parents were Jean Garceau dit Tranchemontagne and Marie Levron or Leveron.

Daniel’s godmother was Dame Marie Mius, the daughter of Jacques Mius. She married a French military man, subordinate to Acadian Governor Subercase.

Daniel Subercase, beloved leader and Governor of Acadia, was Daniel Garceau’s Godfather. According to the marriage record of Jean Garsseaux dit Tranchemontagne to Marie Levron, he was a “soldier of the garrison,” which meant that Daniel’s father, Jean, was a soldier under Subercase’s command.

Just days later, from June 6-17th, the English laid Port Royal under siege, or tried, but Subercase successfully ousted the English, breaking the siege.

Of course, infant Daniel knew nothing of this.

Two months later, on August 22nd, the English tried again, meeting with no more success than the first time. On September 1st, Subercase, with the assistance of the French soldiers and Acadian men, successfully thwarted that attempt as well.

The firing of guns and cannons might well have awakened Daniel. His mother was probably frightened, and his father was assuredly at the fort.

The warfare in Acadia in 1707 and 1708 was nearly incessant. The English landed, burned the homesteads, farms and villages, departed, and then returned to do it all over again.

In 1710, the Acadians lost the battle.

On September 4th, 1710, the English once again arrived, but this time, in full force. They outnumbered the Acadians 3400 soldiers to a total of 1250 people, many of whom lived in Beaubassin, not Port Royal. About 450 residents lived in or near Port Royal, of which only about 100 were men.

A month later, by October 5th, the ships had blockaded the harbour near Goat Island.

A week later, Subercase knew the Acadians were doomed, but tried to arrange the best surrender terms possible.

The terms included a provision that the, “”inhabitants of the cannon firing range of the fort” may remain on their properties for up to two years if they wish, provided they are prepared to take the oath to the British Crown.” If nothing else, he bought them time.

On October 16th, the keys to the fort were surrendered to the British, along with the rest of Acadia. The French soldiers and Acadian men were allowed to march out with dignity, drummers drumming and flags flying.

Cannon-firing range was about 3 English miles. That meant the Acadians had two years to relocate their “moveable items” to a French territory which at that time was any of the rest of French-held Canada. 481 Acadians pledged allegiance to the Queen of England, and the French troops left Port Royal, renamed by the English to Annapolis Royal in 1713.

We don’t know where Daniel Garceau’s parents were living, but if the family was living at the Levron homeplace, across the river from the fort, they were within sight and clearly within two miles. If that was the case, Daniel’s father would have been extremely concerned, because the family was clearly in danger. While the upriver residents were in a “tolerable” position, anyone that lived closer was not.

The parish priest, Justinien Durand, tried to gather and rally Acadians upstream at Pre Ronde, or Round Hill, where they might not be required to take the dreaded oath of allegiance to the English crown. Due to his efforts, he was kidnapped by the English in January 1711 and taken to Boston, as were 35 Acadians whose names we don’t know.

Does this signal that Daniel’s father, Jean Garceau, and the other Acadians were rabble-rousers, complicit in defying the required oath? Most likely. If there were 100 adult Acadian men, about one-third were kidnapped along with the priest.

Father Durand and the unfortunate Acadians were transported to Boston in January 1711 as captives, fully expecting to be exchanged for English hostages.

There were no parish records recorded between January 17h and December 20th when Justinien Durand returned and resumed his duties by “catching up” on baptisms he had missed and had taken place provisionally while he was absent.

In December 1711, the exchange was made, and Father Durand returned.

Indeed, the good Father noted in the book of burials Acadians that had died in his absence. Some people interpret this to mean that these four people died with Father Durand in Boston:

Died in 1711: Angélique Comeau, wife of Jacques Laure, Germain Bourgeois, Joseph Garcot, Pierre Teriot died in 1711 during their captivity in Boston; Justinien Durand, Rec. Miss.

The translations on the Nova Scotia Archives site omits Joseph Garcot altogether, but for the rest, interprets this as “died during Durand’s captivity at Boston.” It does not say whether or not these people were in Boston with Durand, or died in Acadia, but we know for sure that Germain Bourgeois was not in Boston. In fact, he was involved with the June 1711 Bloody Creek Massacre and is believed to have died in the Black Hole in Fort Anne.

The archives also translates some of the names differently. Joseph Teriot instead of Pierre Teriot, and adds Marie La Perrier, wife of Pierre Le Blanc dit Jasmin.

My French is not good enough to decipher this passage definitively.

The bottom line is that we don’t know for sure whether Daniel’s father, Jean Garceau, died in Boston, on the way to or the way back from Boston, or in Port Royal during this time. What we do know is that his death occurred while the priest was in Boston, sometime between January 27th and December 20th.

Frankly, I’d bet that Jean was not in Boston, or his widow would not have remarried just six days after the priest returned, carrying news of Jean’s death.

However, given the fact that his widow had three young children, one never knows.

There was no Joseph Garceau, so this death had to be Jean Garceau. You would think if Jean Garceau was with Father Durand, the good Father would have unquestionably known his name.

Adding to this evidence, Daniel’s mother, Marie, remarried to Alexander Richard on December 26, 1711, right after the priest returned, where she is listed as the widow of Jean Garceau.

Daniel probably had no memory of his father. He would only have been about three-and-a-half when his father engaged in battle with the English. He might have had a few hazy memories, or he may have had none at all.

Regardless, Daniel’s stepfather, Alexander Richard dit Boutin raised him as his own.

Daniel’s younger brother, Joseph Garceau, born in March of 1710, was buried under the Richard surname, even though he was the child of Jean Garceau. During his lifetime, Joseph used both surnames interchangeably.

Daniel was raised with his own two full brothers and six half-siblings, 3 brothers and 3 sisters.

Life Along the River

We don’t know exactly where Daniel grew up, but we do have some clues.

Daniel was born just three and a half years after his parents were married.

His mother, Marie Levron’s parents, Francois Joseph Levron, who probably arrived as a soldier, and Catherine Savoie, lived directly across the river from Port Royal. Literally in sight of the fort, which would have been a very dangerous location during the 1707, 1708, and 1710 battles with the English. Not protected by the fort and entirely exposed to the English.

Catherine Savoie’s parents lived a few miles further east, just below the BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Centre.

Daniel Garceau would one day marry Anne Doucet, daughter of Rene Doucet and Marie Broussard.

Rene Doucet lived further west of the Levron family on the north side of the river, and the Broussard family lived further east of the Savoies for a total distance of about 9 miles between the homesteads. Of course, the Catholic church played in important role in the lives of all Acadians and is likely where the young people socialized.

Daniel Garceau’s mother remarried to Alexandre Richard the day after Christmas in 1711. Alexander’s father, Michel Richard married Madeleine Blanchard and lived at BelleIsle, possibly on or near the Savoie land. After her death, he married Jean Babin whose parents probably lived in the same area.

Alexander (Alexandre) Richard is quite confusing, because his father, Michel Richard had a son by that exact same name with both wives. Yes, seriously – and they both lived. Welcome to my rathole!

The elder Alexandre Richard, born in 1668 to Michel Richard and Anne Blanchard, married Isabelle Petitpas, and died in 1709. The younger Alexandre Richard (dit Boutin), born in 1686 to Michel Richard and Jeanne Babin, married Marie Levron in 1711 after Jean Garceau died.

So, there’s absolutely no question that there were two Alexander Richards, and no question that Marie Levron married the younger one because the older one was dead by that time.

This younger Alexandre Richard dit Boutin (born 1686) was probably raised at BelleIsle, because his mother, Jeanne Babin, a young widow with two children, married Laurent Doucet.

On this 1710 map, you can see the homestead of Laurent Doucet at BelleIsle. In other words, Alexander Richard born in 1686 dit Boutin grew up here, and likely met his future wife, Marie Levron, near here, too.

Daniel Garceau very likely spent his early years, before his father died and his mother remarried to Alexandre Richard someplace between Port Royal and BelleIsle. Then of course, after Daniel’s father died and his mother remarried, Daniel would have been living with his mother and stepfather at BelleIsle where Alexander Richard dit Boutin was raised in the home of Laurent Doucet.

Are you getting all this?

This is where it got even more confusing. Hang with me.

I found the homestead of Alexander Richard on the 1710 map, second from left, at the top. My lucky day. So I thought that Alexander Richard (born 1686) left the BelleIsle community after his marriage to widow Marie Levron to obtain land upstream.

That was before I knew there were two Alexander Richards, both sons of the same immigrant male. I mean, what the heck?? Who would ever have suspected that?

Another head-scratcher, before I realized there were two half-brothers, both named Alexandre Richard was that single, meaning unmarried, men simply didn’t have homesteads. So how did Alexander Richard have a homestead in 1710 when he didn’t marry until 1711?

I didn’t think too much about it at first, because, after all, there was an entry for Alexander Richard on the 1710 map.

The next second monkey-wrench was that the earlier Acadian censuses showed Alexander Richard living in that location, between the same neighbors, with his wife and children.

Wife and children? What wife and children?

Our Alexander Richard (born 1686) would still have been living with his mother and Laurent Doucet at BelleIsle where the 1701 and 1707 census shows them living. Except that census doesn’t show her children’s surnames by Jean Garceau – just the one name, Doucet, for the entire household.

Those censuses also confirm that the older Alexander Richard, born in 1668, is living on the land near present-day Bridgewater, not our Alexander Richard, born in 1686, dit Boutin, who was living with Laurent Doucet and his mother, Jean Babin.

I was very confused at this point, and connected enough puzzle pieces together to discover the same-name brothers, Alexander Richard (1668) and his brother, Alexander Richard (1686). There has to be a joke in there someplace! My brother Alexander and my other brother Alexander…but I digress.

After the 1710 surrender of Acadia to the British, there was only one more census, taken in 1714.

Click to enlarge image

That census shows us that our Alexander Richard (born 1686) is living with his wife and 4 sons beside Mathieu Doucet, with his wife (Anne Lord) and one son, and beside the LaMontagne family. Julien Lore dit LaMontagne lives next door along with his sons, Alexandre and Jacques. This location is very clearly between BelleIsle and the Lore land not far east of Granville Ferry.

The bottom line to all of this is that Daniel Garceau very likely grew up very close to the Lore land. This photo shows where some of those homesteads used to be on the raised knolls in the field.

A Funeral

In 1727, when Daniel was just 20, his mother, Marie Levron, died. She had given birth to her youngest of nine children just four and a half months earlier.

The family was most probably associated with the St. Laurent Church at BelleIsle, because one of Daniel’s aunts was married there in 1722 and it was much closer than Port Royal.

Daniel would have said goodbye to his mother in the little church and buried her in the churchyard outside, now lost to time. He wasn’t quite grown, wasn’t a young child, but he was an orphan just the same.

The Oath

For decades, there was a constant push and pull surrounding the issue of an oath of allegiance. The English insisted that the Acadians sign the dreaded oath, and the Acadians did everything possible to resist. Altogether, the Acadians signed three oaths, and all three times, the English wanted more. This was a hill the Acadians would, and did, die on. They felt the British would require them to fight against their countrymen, the Mi’qmaq people, with whom many had intermarried, and renounce their Catholic faith. They might even insist that they speak English! In 1710, the Acadians had initially been told that they had to vacate the Annapolis River basin and relocate to Beaubassin or another area, then by 1720, told they couldn’t leave.

Conflict, upheaval, and confusion were constant companions.

By 1720, Daniel would have been 13 – not yet a man, but an impressionable teen who was certainly paying attention to what the men discussed.

In 1725, yet another governor, Governor Armstrong, arrived. He realized he needed the Acadians to remain near Annapolis Royal to feed the English troops and convinced the Port Royal Acadians, representing about one-fourth of the Acadian population, to take the oath. He reminded them that England would not allow Catholics to serve in the military which should alleviate their concern about having to fight against their countrymen and family members. It worked! Encouraged by his success, the Governor tried the same thing in the Minas villages, but it didn’t work there.

Then Armstrong offered to allow them to take the following oath:

“I do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Second, so help me God.”

Signing this oath meant that they wouldn’t have to “take up arms” against the French or Indians, they could leave whenever they wanted, and they had the freedom to have priests and to practice the Catholic religion.

Beginning then, they were known as the “neutral French” or “French neutrals.”

However, in 1729, that oath was considered too lenient and declared null and void. Everyone was unhappy, but the Acadians were unwavering in their insistence on a conditional oath, which they took in 1730.

This is where it gets interesting.

Phillips, the wizened old commander that was sent to replace Armstrong, reported that the Acadians took this oath:

“I sincerely promise and swear, as a Christian, that I will be utterly faithful and will truly obey His Majesty King George the Second, whom I acknowledge as the sovereign Lord of Nova Scotia and Acadia. So help me God.”

That’s what Phillips reported, but the actual oath continued, as follows:

“… that the inhabitants, when they have sworn hereto, will not be obliged to take up arms against France or against the Savages, and the said Inhabitants have further promised that they will not take up arms against the King of England or against its government.”

The priest and a notary signed as witnesses, but Phillips only sent the first part back to England. The second page was “somehow omitted,” but neither party knew.

In December 1729, Daniel Garceau, then 22, along with his brother, Joseph, signed that oath of allegiance to King George II. He had little choice, but after that, at least for awhile, everyone was happy.

Anne Doucet

Sometime around 1730, when he was about 23, Daniel Garceau married Anne Doucet, daughter of Rene Doucet and Marie Broussard.

Rene Doucet lived not even a mile west of Daniel Garceau’s Levron grandparents had settled, directly across from Port Royal.

Marie Broussard’s parents lived on east of Laurent Doucet and BelleIsle. These people clearly moved fluidly along the river, probably seeing each other regularly at church.

Daniel and Anne settled in this same general area, probably near or on the Lore land. Their oldest child, Marguerite, born in September of 1731, married Charles Lord in January of 1755, the son of Jacques (Montagne) Lore, their neighbor back in 1714.

The Lore/Lord family farmed land on the north side of the river, between BelleIsle on the east and the Doucet and Levron homes further west.

Two more Garceau children would marry sons of Jacques Lore after the 1755 deportation, which means the two families even stayed together as they were forced onto the ships. I envision them all holding hands.

Acording to the 1733/1753 map, the little Lore village had half a dozen homes clustered together, so one of them assuredly could have been Daniel Garceau’s.

Bucolic Years

I like to think of the years between Daniel’s marriage to Anne around 1730 and the deportation in 1755 as the bucolic years.

When life was still good and peaceful along the river, before everything blew up.

When the birds sang to welcome the springtime apple blossoms on the trees.

When the cows mooed to be milked, and butter was churned outside on porches.

When the fall apples were harvested to make applebutter or dried for the winter.

When as many babies were born as people died, and life had the cadence of continuity from one generation to the next.

When you worried about the weather and not if everyone was going to be killed.

When you prayed in your church, not in some godforsaken miserable place with nothing.

That hellscape was still a quarter century in the future when Daniel and Anne married.

I hope they truly enjoyed those 25 years or so, because the following chapter would be living hell.

Hell Arrives

Relations between the French and English had been deteriorating again. For decades, the Acadians had refused to sign a more restrictive oath to the English monarchy swearing complete allegiance, preferring to remain the “French neutrals.” They felt it was a matter of survival as they needed to coexist with the English, the French, and the Native people.

The English were becoming much less tolerant of the Acadians, who they considered French, and wanted to settle loyal English families in Acadia.

After all, those Acadians were so stubborn, troublesome and had attitudes. One might say they were ungovernable.

Finally, on July 28, 1755, orders were given by the British to round up and deport all French and Acadians in Nova Scotia – everyone who lived on those beautiful, productive farms that had, by now, been in Acadian families for generations.

On August 11th, the Grand Dérangement began at Fort Beauséjour, also known as Fort Cumberland, at Beaubassin.

Often, there and elsewhere, the Acadian men and boys over 10 were called to and then trapped in the church where the orders were read.

Then the women were ordered to gather their children and a few things they could carry, and board the ships. Essentially, the women and children were used as leverage to control the men.

Daniel Garceau’s younger brother, Joseph made his way to Beaubassin by 1741, so he, along with his wife and seven children, were deported from there. He wasn’t with Daniel along the Annapolis River.

At PRDH

Joseph is shown in New York in 1763 with a wife and four children. Six of his seven children are later accounted for via marriage or burial records in Quebec.

Daniel’s older brother, Pierre Garceau and his wife were deported from Port Royal with their three known children. Their oldest daughter, who had married Joseph Lord, also had two children. None of this family has been accounted for. An entire family, three generations, wiped from the face of the earth.

They may have been on the ship with Daniel, or perhaps not.

Daniel Garceau wound up in New York, but we have no idea if he was in contact with Joseph, or if he ever knew what happened to Pierre and his family.

Daniel, his wife, and ten of their children are later accounted for in Quebec.

Three of Daniel’s half-siblings are also accounted for in Quebec, one died before the deportation in Annapolis Royal, and two disappeared.

So much agony.

So much heartbreak.

The expulsion at Annapolis Royal began in the late summer or early fall, but did not go as planned.

By the time December arrived, the disheartened, hungry, and freezing cold Acadians knew there was no hope of evading their fate.

There were pockets of resistance, and some escaped, often into the woods, but Daniel and his family did not.

In total, someplace between 10,000 and 18,000 Acadians were displaced. After the first wave or two, the balance were hunted down. Families were scattered to the winds.

During the haphazard deportation process, families were often split up as they were herded like livestock onto waiting ships, with people finding themselves weeks later in the 13 colonies, the Caribbean, England, France, and eventually, Louisiana and Quebec. Many family members never made contact again or knew what happened to each other.

They sailed into the void.

Those who survived the actual deportation but died before they arrived in a location where church or parish records were kept are lost to us, especially if their descendants have not connected themselves to their ancestors either via records or DNA.

In October 1755, three ships were loaded from the Queen’s Wharf in Annapolis Royal  with unwilling passengers. They arrived in Massachusetts a few weeks later.

The balance of the Acadians would have spent weeks, if not months, agonizing, trying to figure out what to do.

Daniel Garceau’s wife’s uncle, Joseph Brousard, known as Beausoleil, was the legendary Acadian resistance fighter in Chignecto and Beaubassin, but that had little effect on the decision that had to be made by the Port Royal families. Ultimately, he too was captured, imprisoned, and deported, eventually leading a group to Haiti and, ultimately, to Louisiana in 1765. Beyoncé is one of his descendants.

The Port Royal families had contact with Beaubassin and may well have known what happened there in August and at Grand Pre.

Some Port Royal Acadians escaped to the south, to the Cape Sable peninsula, but they, too, were rounded up and shipped off to New York a few weeks later.

Some attempted to escape across the mountains to the north, but many froze and starved until the Mi’kmaq people found them in the spring and shepherded the survivors across the bay and on to New Brunswick.

As winter fell in Annapolis Royal, the remaining Acadian people were marched to the Fort and forced upon ships, directly across from the Levron home,. Perhaps they still hoped they would be able to return, to find their way home, or that they would be held as hostages, but eventually released or traded. It had happened in the past. It might just happen again.

They assuredly prayed relentlessly, but all to no avail.

Various newspapers tell the tale of two ships blown off course in a very late-season hurricane.

We know that in 1763, Daniel and his family were in New York where he petitioned, along with several other Acadian families, to be sent to France. That petition was denied, but the fact that they petitioned is gold to genealogists because it tells us where he was and how many children he had with him at that time. It also helps us reconstruct his trip.

Daniel and family most likely left Acadia on the ship, Experiment, that encountered a terrible storm and was blown to either Antique or St. Kitts in the Caribbean. Not that most people wouldn’t welcome some warmth in the winter, but about 20% of the Experiment’s passengers perished, and half of the people on her sister ship, the Edward, died.

This might explain what happened to Daniel’s brother, Pierre, who also lived in Port Royal, along with his entire family.

I told the story of this ill-fated journey and their unexpected detour through the eyes of Daniel’s 13-year-old daughter, Appoline Garceau.

Daniel’s other unmarried children were 22, 20, 16, 11, 9, 7, 4, and 3 when they were forced into the hold of that ship – terminating life as they knew it.

Daniel’s oldest daughter, Marguerite, had just married Charles Lore/Lord in January 1755. She was assuredly either pregnant, or had a newborn baby. However, there is no known child for her until 1766, so not only did that baby die, so did many more over the next 11 years. The

How soul-crushing. I can’t begin to imagine.

Nearly nine months later, in August, the beleaguered ship and hostage passengers finally docked in New York, probably at the port of New York in the harbour. Everyone knew the one in five people who died on the Experiment and were sent to a watery grave. One body every day or two was sent over the railing. They were assuredly neighbors and probably relatives. Many lost children.

And everyone knew the half of the passengers on the other ship, the Edward, that died too, although that ship landed in Connecticut, across the bay from New York. Their few possessions, blankets, cushions, and such, were burned on the beach in Connecticut to prevent the spread of whatever passengers were dying of. The New York passengers could have suffered the same fate, adding even more loss and grief to their horrific situation.

Reduced to paupers with nothing, many Acadians in New York became indentured servants. They had no choice if they wanted to eat.

How they must have hated the English.

Unfortunately, we have absolutely no concrete evidence where these families were living, or what happened to them and what they endured during the 11 or 12 years they are missing. Most New York families seem to be in the area that is now New York City, Long Island, or adjacent counties. The one thing we do know is that they were in close proximity to the Lore/Lord family, because daughter Appoline married Honore Lore someplace in New England in 1766.

Novelist Monique Michaud, when researching this family, says she found information that the Garceau family lived on Staten Island, which prompted her to visit Staten Island.

Additionally, by perusing the notarial records, she discovered that Daniel’s son, Jean-Baptiste Garceau, later identified his father, Daniel as a cooper. I later found that record in Jean-Baptiste’s marriage record too. I wonder if Daniel was a cooper back in Acadia, or if he learned that trade to earn a living in the shipyards of New York, or perhaps both.

I really encourage you to read Monique’s fine writing about the Garceau family, here.

The following map is from 1839, but it shows the locations of the shipyards along Staten Island’s north and northeast coastlines inside the shelter of the harbors.

I tend to think Monique is accurate, because Daniel was later identified as a cooper and Staten Island was known for its shipyards. Ships transported goods and water in barrels, which coopers constructed. The need was endless. His hands must have had layers of calluses built up over the years from the rough wood and tens of thousands of splinters.

I wonder if the Acadian men felt like failures, unable to protect their families from deportation. Unable to provide well for them during their exile. Maybe Daniel’s cooper trade made him more fortunate than most. Maybe that’s at least part of why none of his children died in exile.

Daniel was 48 years old when they were deported, and Anne was 42. They had brought 10 children into the world, and probably buried at least three in tiny graves that would have been abandoned at Port Royal – not by their choice.

Did they look back at the cemetery and the rubble of their homes as they sailed out of the harbour that frigid December morning?

The English burned everything so that the Acadians knew nothing remained to return to.

Their heartache was immeasurable.

Quebec

Daniel Garceau and Anne Doucet had 10 children born in Acadia. Eight were reported in 1763. Oldest daughter, Marguerite had married Charles Lord and is with him in New York. All ten of Daniel’s children are eventually accounted for in Quebec which is how we know they survived. That alone is something of a miracle.

Three of Daniel’s children married someplace in New England, two to sons of Jacques Lore, brothers of Daniel’s oldest daughter’s husband.

The balance of their children married not long after the family made it to Yamachiche in 1767. They must have left almost immediately after the Massachusetts governor reached an agreement with the Governor of Quebec allowing Acadians to settle there. Not just allowing them to move, but inviting them and offering FREE LAND!!

Free land to Acadians was like food to the starving.

During negotiations, the Massachusetts governor indicated that Massachusetts had “700 souls to send,” but I’d wager that as soon as Acadians in other colonies heard the news, they hurriedly made their way to Massachusetts. In early September 1766, between 800 and 1500 Acadians departed on ships supplied by Massachusetts, the first arriving on August 31, 1766.

Other Acadians probably made their way in any way possible. Some may have walked or taken carts.

We know that the Garceau family made it to Quebec by September 29, 1767, when Appoline’s marriage to Honore Lore was validated. Their first child was born in February 1768, so I’d wager they were married in New England between February and May 1767.

Finally, they felt safe, living back upon a river.

By this time, Daniel would have been 60 – not a young man by any stretch – and probably incredibly tired.

Physical labor would have been his only choice in New England. Either that or starve. The Acadians went from thriving farmers to paupers in the blink of an eye on that fateful day in the winter of 1755. Now, they had the opportunity to farm for themselves once again – and recover some shred of dignity. Quebec needed settlers. Acadians needed a home.

The Garceau family first arrived near Becancour and probably settled in the village of Saint Gregoire, which was at that time, Sainte Marguerite.

While the original church has been replaced, the old Acadian windmill remains. The above photo was taken from Rue Garceau which runs right behind the church.

Acadians were masters at water management, including mills.

Today, Rue Garceau reminds us of the original settlers. Many of Daniel’s descendants attended this church for decades and are buried here.

The original church would have stood here, near the windmill, and the original cemetery would have been located just outside the church. The original cemetery no longer exists. There’s a newer cemetery about half a mile or so down the road. I don’t know if the graves were moved.

Shortly, the family traveled down the river, about 10 miles, to Yamachiche.

The history of Yamachiche provides insight into how the Acadians came to settle here.

In July 1767, a schooner arrived at the mouth of the Yamachiche River carrying a large contingent of Acadians who were originally deported to Massachusetts. The Lesieur family, still the owner of the Grosbois-East seigneury, was ready to welcome them on a concession still to be cleared of trees.

Up to 42 Acadian families, or 192 individuals, settled on the Lesieur family’s concession. The French-Canadian villagers of St. Anne of Yamachiche parish, founded in 1722, gave them a warm welcome.

The parish priest, Jacques-Maxime Chef from the city of La Garenne, did hasten to validate the marriages and baptisms of all Acadians who could not officially take place in Massachusetts for lack of Catholic priests.

Historian Andre-Varl Vachon discovered the actual record of the ship that he believes delivered Daniel Garceau’s family. He used the 1763 census and the number of passengers, combined with Yamachiche records to reconstruct the families on that ship. He states that Daniel and family left New York on March 26th, 1767 and were one of the 22 families that arrived on the ship Diana at the port of Quebec on June 11, 1767.

OMG!!!

Ironic that the trip from New York to Quebec meant that they had to sail around and past Nova Scotia. Thankfully, not past Annapolis Royal, but there must have been a lot of tears shed, just the same. They knew there was nothing left for them there, and the English planters from New England had been in possession of their farms for a decade. No, there was no going back, and no one would have wanted to see what used to be their homes with English families living there. Now, they were the outsiders. Strangers in what had been their own land.

They were headed for a fresh start, to establish a new Acadia. They finally had hope.

Their prayers had been answered!

This is the scene that would have greeted them as they sailed up the St. Lawrence and saw the Port of Quebec in the distance.

The port of Quebec is Quebec City, perched high on a hill – certainly a welcome sight for French-speaking Acadians. Somehow vastly ironic that the English were in charge of Quebec too – the difference being that no one wanted to settle there, on uncleared land in the frigid, snowy north among French-speakers – except, of course, the displaced Acadians. They were thrilled!

The Acadians would have taken a few days to evaluate their options. Who was welcoming? Where were resources located? Was family already there someplace? Maybe family they hadn’t seen in years? And, about that land…

Quebec City is downriver about 90 miles from the Trois Rivieres, Yamachiche, Becancour area, so it makes perfect sense that they arrived at the Yamachiche River a month later.

The mouth of the Yamachiche River is swampy, an area that would have felt very familiar to homesick Acadians. The first settlement location was not in present-day Yamachiche, but where the upper red arrow is pointing, near today’s entrance loop to Highway 40. We know this because the old cemetery was located there and the early graves were moved to present-day Yamachiche in 1795.

Appoline Garceau’s first child was baptized in Yamachiche on February 28, 1768, and her brother, Jean Joseph Garceau died there on May 8, 1770, leaving his wife and eight children. The family had clearly put down roots in this community.

Daniel’s health may have been failing. In 1772, he turned 65, “retirement age” today.

On August 28, 1772, he died and was buried in the cemetery at Ste. Anne Church at Yamachiche, but that cemetery was not where it is located today.

On the 28th of August, 1772, I, the undersigned, have buried in the cemetery the body of Daniel Garneau, aged seventy years. The witnesses present were François Lavergne, Joseph Vivard, and several others who declared they could not sign.

Daniel’s original burial location was located here, about a mile from where his remains would have been moved 23 years later.

This original Yamachiche Cemetery held burials from 1654 to 1794. In 1795, all bodies were removed to the new Sainte-Anne Cemetery within the town.

The original church is long gone now, and in 1795, all of the burials in the cemetery adjacent to the church were moved inland to the present-day village. This location was quite close to the river, and I’m willing to bet that it flooded, prompting the move inland. The original cemetery was someplace in the meadow or woods, near the yellow marker above, or perhaps both. It may also have extended beneath what is today a modern road.

All burials, both pioneer and modern are reportedly located in the Ste. Anne Cemetery behind the church in town.

We don’t know where Daniel or the older burials were reburied in Sainte Anne, or if they were buried separately or together, but FindAGrave shows a few older burials near the monument beside the road in the rear.

Daniel’s remains rest someplace here, perhaps near the locations of those older graves.

His descendants placed a marker in 1995 honoring Daniel, Anne, and their family’s long journey, although Anne is not buried here.

Photo courtesy Giselle Cornier https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Doucet-37

The inscription is engraved in a black granite stone that pays tribute to the Garceau family. I used both Google translate and ChatGPT to translate.

Garceau
Yesterday to Tomorrow…
All United Together

After being driven
from our lands of Acadia in 1755
and exiled in a foreign country
under harsh conditions,
we are now free
and choose this land
as our new homeland.

Our descendants will take root here
and remember their origins.

Daniel Garceau and Anne Doucet

Unveiled: 1995-07-09

Erected by Garceau-Auger for the ADJGT

In addition to the inscription, there is an illustration that shows the journey of the Garceau family who voyaged from France to Acadia (present-day Nova Scotia), then from Acadia to Quebec.

Not to mention that unplanned detour to the Caribbean, thanks to a storm that might well have ended the lives of all on board, followed by a decade someplace in New York.

Where Did Daniel Live?

Daniel’s family may actually have lived halfway between Sainte Marguerite, now Saint-Gregoire, and Yamachiche.

The road, Rang des Garceau, marks the location where Daniel’s children and grandchildren lived, which certainly suggests Daniel settled there, too.

It looks like quite a distance today, by road, but then, it was just a couple miles to the river from Sainte Marguerite/Saint Gregoire, then maybe 7 miles by water to Rang des Garceau, then another 5 miles to the original church in Yamachiche.

Rang des Garceau, as it exists today, is just over two miles end to end, but of course, we don’t know how the modern roads have affected the east end where it intersects with the modern highways. We also don’t know if they moved once they got there after they were assigned land.

You can see that there’s still quite a bit of forest, and a few well-manicured fields.

Let’s take a drive, west to east. The older buildings are on the west end of the road.

This barn and two adjacent homes look to be quite old.

Notice the area in front of the barn. That could be an old homestead foundation.

Look at the exposed side of this house, which is adjacent to the barn. How interesting.

Just a short distance down the road, there’s an extremely old log home. I can’t help but wonder if Daniel lived here, although the traditional Acadian homes had a rather unique slanted roof to them. However, they may well have built what they could as soon as possible.

This is how I will forever think of Daniel in Quebec, a humble home surrounded by a garden. Maybe that’s “Anne” weeding.

This barn isn’t old enough to be Daniel’s, but if his children and grandchildren owned this land, it was assuredly theirs. This would have been a prime location for livestock because there’s a very small stream that runs to the right side of the barn, crossing under the road. The fields behind the buildings would have been cleared by the Garceau family.

The older homes are on the north side of the road. These fields on the south side are quite reminiscent of the reclaimed marshes of Acadia.

Daniel Garceau must have felt vindicated, at least somewhat. After all he and his family had been through, he could finally relax.

The Acadians weren’t just tolerated here, they were welcomed. They weren’t constantly in jeopardy. They no longer had to be afraid.

Finally, the Acadians had a new homeland.

Together.

Along the path that would one day be named Rang des Garceau.

Life’s normal rhythm resumed. Births, baptisms, marriages, deaths and burials.  Ceremonies and sacred rites performed by a priest, in French, in a Catholic church.

They could once again be buried in consecrated ground where their descendants, for generations, could come to visit their graves.

Once again, they had roots.

The Acadians were home.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me 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 Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Appoline Garceau (1742-1788), Walked the Wharf in 1755 – 52 Ancestors #435

Appoline was born to Daniel Garceau and Anne Doucet on Thursday, February 8th, 1742, and baptized the next day in the Catholic church in Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia, or in one of the local “Mass Houses,” possibly St. Laurent at BelleIsle.

Her name has been interpreted as both Appoline, Appollonie, and other slight variations.

Jean Doucet was probably Appoline’s uncle.

We don’t really know where Appoline was raised along the river, other than three of four of her grandparents, Marie Leveron, Rene Doucet, and Marie Anne Broussard, lived along the north side between what is today the area just west of Granville Ferry and the far side of BelleIsle.

We don’t know where the fourth grandparent, Jeane dit Tranchemontagne Garceau, lived, but I suspect it was along this same stretch of river, probably not far from his wife, Marie Leveron, and her parents, who lived near Granville Ferry.

Appoline’s oldest sibling, Marguerite, married Charles Lore/Lord, the brother of Appoline’s eventual husband, Honore Lore/Lord – so it’s safe to say Appoline’s family probably lived along this part of the river too. Proximity is key when courting.

Appoline’s second oldest sibling also married one of the Lore boys, Jean-Baptiste, but that was in New England after the deportation – so this confirms that the families were deported together or at least had contact.

Newlyweds often lived with one family or the other, generally building another small house and sharing in the communal farm work. This field along the river once held the Lore homesteads. The remains of one are hidden in the grass to the right, where the grass looks bumpy, and the sunshine meets the shadows.

The old rock-lined well that provided life, now filled in, is also found here. Acadians always helped their neighbors, who were often also their relatives, in countless ways, so Appoline assuredly visited the Lore homestead, probably making apple butter or weaving cloth or engaging in hundreds of other activities.

The Lore family worked a significant amount of land, and on this 1733 map, a little village is shown with several homes.

What was life like in Acadia?

In 1744, when Appoline was just two, the French priest, Le Loutre, led a band of Indians in an attack on British-held Fort Anne in the town of Annapolis Royal, just a couple miles downriver.

The peninsula where the town was located is on the far left of the map, on the south side of the river.

Assuredly, Appoline’s family could hear the ruckus and could probably see at least part of the activity. It must have been terrifying for a young child.

Perhaps her parents took her and the rest of their children into hiding up in the uninhabited hills behind their home, or maybe further upriver.

Lieutenant Governor Mascarene had several buildings in the town ripped down so that they could not provide shelter for the attackers.

Neither of the three sides involved, the English, the Indians, nor the French, knew what to expect from the Acadians under the circumstances. However, the Acadians truly did not want to fight and remained neutral, a stance that had served them well for a long time. Remaining neutral and refusing to fight, regardless of how they felt, had at least kept them alive.

A 1745 report from Port Royal says the homes were “wretched wooden boxes, without conveniences, and without ornaments, and scarcely containing the most necessary furniture …”, and a visitor in the 1750s said, “the houses of the village (Annapolis Royal) … are mean, and in general built of wood.” By the 1750,s though, the houses in Annapolis Royal were English, not Acadian. Acadians had been forbidden from living along the waterfront there since 1724. Acadians preferred living upriver, where the land was more fertile anyway.

Father Le Loutre had been encouraging Acadians to leave for either Chignecto (Fort Lawrence), Isle Saint-Jean or Ile-Royal for several years because they were in French hands – not the despised English.

Many Acadians did not want to leave the fertile fields that represented generations of labor and investment in diking the tidal marshes along the Annapolis River. Diking was necessary to drain the saltwater and prevent it from returning in order to claim the land for farming.

This 1751 painting by Samuel Scott of a humble Acadian homestead is the first known depiction of an Acadian farm.

In the 1740s and early 1750s, the Acadians were aware of brewing unrest, especially in Les Mines, Beaubassin, and Grand Pre.

Of course, Appoline had no way of knowing that she wouldn’t live her entire life in the fertile Annapolis River Valley, just like generations before her had done.

Her life, and those of her parents and siblings, would come entirely undone a few years later, in 1755, when the English issued deportation orders for all Acadians.

During Appoline’s lifetime, an uneasy peace had held in Acadia. For their own protection, the French refused to take a loyalty oath to the English monarch and tried to remain neutral in the conflicts between the French and English. The English had controlled Acadia since 1710, and the Acadians certainly didn’t consider themselves English, but they really didn’t consider themselves French either. Of course, they clearly sided with the French, privately, given what the English had done to them and to their beloved Acadia.

They were Acadians, though, a new and different culture altogether, formed along this river. None of them had ever seen France and neither had their parents.

Of course, Appoline was likely further protected from discussions about politics, which were probably relegated to the men, or late-night discussions between couples after the children were fast asleep.

The routines of springtime planting and fall harvesting, punctuated by births, weddings, deaths, and, of course, church services, led from one day to the next. Winds of change turned the calendar pages.

1755

Appoline turned 13 on a freezing winter day in February of 1755.

During that summer, the Grande Derangement, or Great Expulsion, began in the northern regions of Acadia, along the Bay of Fundy.

Unease and fear among families was palpable and growing.

Acadian families along the Annapolis River all had relatives there, people who had left for a safer environment – but now look what was happening.

They must have been terrified as this tragedy unfolded, but also unable to do much of anything about their circumstances. Pockets of resistance did exist, but, ultimately, to little or no avail.

After all, the British soldiers were numerous, heavily armed, prepared with transport ships, and burned the Acadian homes after kidnapping the men to ensure compliance of the women and children.

After the horrific rounding up of most of the Acadians in Grand Pre and that region, the British arrived to evict the Acadians at Annapolis Royal, but the Acadians were anything but compliant. They had months for anger and indignation to seethe into fury, and it had.

The expulsion at Annapolis Royal didn’t go nearly as planned and took months, allowing time for some to escape.

Residents were rounded up, often without regard to families. People were herded onto ships like cattle with nothing more than what little they could carry. Sometimes, family members were separated in what turned out to be forever.

At Annapolis Royal, the ships laid anchor in the bay by the Queen’s Wharf, awaiting the captives who would soon be loaded, not as passengers, but as undignified “cargo” to be removed.

Leaves had turned their golden hues and cast themselves upon the ground. The first snow had fallen, and the winds blew bitterly cold.

The river was too shallow further upstream, so Acadians were escorted to the fort in Annapolis Royal, where they were forced to walk the wharf and then board the overcrowded ships. Those final footsteps in the snow would be the last time they touched Acadia.

That wharf still stands in silent testimony, today.

Sobs and screams were carried by the wind as smoke from their burning homes and farms wafted over the river.

Courtesy Charlie and Jennifer Thibodeau

A horrible situation was made worse by winter. On December 7th, 1755, Appoline’s feet walked this very wharf to board those ships under the guard of British soldiers, forcing the frightened Acadian families onward.

They settled in below deck, as best they could, and spent the cold night on the ship, rocking to and fro with the waves. I’d wager the men were discussing how to commandeer the ship, or at least try to.

Early in the morning, very early, hours before sunrise, the ship began to move.

The Acadians expected that they would all land someplace together – and that they would immediately set about making their way back home. The English tried to dissuade them of that idea by torching their farms and homes, flooding their fields by breaking the dikes, and killing their livestock in front of their very eyes. In other words, there was nothing awaiting them except ruin – and they knew it because they witnessed the destruction first-hand.

How horrific.

Still, I don’t think any of the Acadians had the concept of forever in mind. They had rebuilt before and were an incredibly resilient people.

Thirteen-year-old Appoline would have been frightened, or maybe terrified would be a more appropriate word. She probably clung tightly to her siblings’ hands so they would not become separated from their mother. Her oldest sister was married 11 months earlier and was probably pregnant or had a newborn baby. Her youngest brother was just three and would turn four just after the new year.

Unfortunately, no lists or rosters were kept, so we really don’t know who was on which ship. All we know, many times, is that there’s no death date in Annapolis Royal in the parish registers before deportation…and then…there’s nothing.

The ships were filled to capacity – then overfilled. Every Acadian that could be located was packed into every available inch. Some ships sank.

The ships that sailed from Annapolis Royal in October had an average of 167 people per transport, compared with 278 exiles on the December ships.

Departure

According to the journal of Captain John Knox, “Major Handfield, who was in charge of deporting those who were to be removed from Annapolis Valley, was ordered that the community was to be divided approximately as follows: 300 persons to Philadelphia, 200 persons to New York, 300 to Connecticut, 200 to Boston.”

And so it was.  Except there were far more than 1000 Acadians.

Several ships were involved, and not all records agree.

The first group sailed in October.

Capt. Shirley sailed the Mermaid, perhaps the first deportation ship to leave Annapolis Royal, out of the harbour on October 13th and was supposed to be piloting her to Connecticut. Instead, the Mermaid arrived in Massachusetts on November 17th. I don’t know if it ever made it to Connecticut.

The York sailed from Annapolis Royal on October 13, 1755, and made it to Boston on November 17. Perhaps these two ships stayed within sight of each other.

Capt. Salt (yes, that was really his name) sailed the Hornet from Annapolis Royal on October 28, 1755.  He, too, reached Boston on November 17 but continued on to Spithead, Maryland.

The expulsion proceeded slowly, giving some people a chance to leave and hide.

Finally, as winter descended upon the valley, on December 5th, 1755, the Acadians were rounded up and forced to board one of seven vessels waiting in the harbor.

As the ships were loaded, they moored by Goat Island in the river, sailing out together at 5 AM on December 8th “with a fair wind,” escorted by a man-o-war.

About three hundred Acadians are reported to have escaped deportation.

A ship named the Two Sisters was supposed to take 280 Acadians to Connecticut but was replaced by the Elizabeth, which left Annapolis Royal that miserable December day. Three Acadians died en route and the ship finally arrived at New London on January 21, 1756, with 277 unwilling passengers.

The Pembroke, bound for North Carolina, was another matter. 232 people, consisting of 32 families, took matters into their own hands and seized control of the vessel. Two months later, by February 8, 1756, the Acadians had sailed up the Saint John River as far as possible. They disembarked and burned the ship. A group of Maliseet met them and directed them upstream, where they joined an expanding Acadian community. The Garceau family was not aboard this ship.

The sloop Edward left Annapolis Royal with 278 Acadians. A terrible storm blew it off course, and she eventually docked in Antigua. En route or while there, 98 people died of smallpox. Eventually, the Edward made it to Connecticut, months later, arriving on May 22, 1756, with only 180 passengers on board. Another source reported that 260 Acadians arrived, and yet another stated that almost 100 had died of malaria as opposed to smallpox. When they arrived in Connecticut, what few belongings they had were burned so that the disease, whatever it was, wouldn’t spread.

Those Acadians had just survived more than five months of utter Hell.

The brig Experiment sailed the same day on what should have been a 28-day trip. Like the Edward, the Experiment encountered the storm and reportedly also ended up in Antigua. It apparently departed with 250 Acadians, but docked in New York on May 6, 1756 with only 200 Acadians. Some may have disembarked, and some may have died en route. They lost fewer than the Edward. “Only” 20% of the passengers perished. Of all the ships, the Experiment is the most likely candidate for our family.

Some Acadian families who lived further up the Annapolis River fled into the forest on North Mountain near Morden, Nova Scotia, about halfway between Annapolis Royal and the Minas Basin. More than 400 died, starved, and froze during the winter that followed until a Mi’kmaw band helped survivors escape in the spring across the Bay of Fundy to Refugee Cove at Cape Chignecto and from there on into the interior of New Brunswick. The Garceau family, thankfully, wasn’t among that group either, or I probably wouldn’t be here today.

About 50 or 60 Acadians who escaped the initial deportation are reported to have made their way to the Cape Sable region in southwestern Nova Scotia. From there, they participated in numerous raids on Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.

Other sources said that about half the Port Royal inhabitants headed for Cape Sable and that many were captured or migrated elsewhere. Half would seem to have been a very high number, considering that in a typical family, two people were parents, and maybe as many as 10 (or more) were children. Escaping with small children, especially on foot through dense woodlands, is exceedingly difficult and would be a very slow journey. Wagons or canoes could have been utilized – but would have been much more obvious. Not to mention treacherous in the winter weather and snow.

A schooner (probably the Mary) captained by Andrew Durning carried 94 Acadians from Cape Sable to New York, arriving on April 28, 1756. Given the New York destination, it’s possible that our family was on this ship, but less likely since the origin was Cape Sable.

The sloop Baltimore set sail from Annapolis Royal for South Carolina. It escorted three snows, two ships, and a brigantine that carried over 1600 Acadians. Some Acadians had already arrived there on earlier ships.

These unfortunate people drew the short straw and were treated horrifically. Some were restricted to the ships for weeks while officials tried to decide what to do with them.

On Nov. 27, 1755, the South Carolina Gazette notes that the local officials still had not decided what to do with the 600 “neutral French” that had arrived earlier in the fall from Chignecto.

“The General Assembly of this Province have been sitting since Thursday last; but, we don’t hear, that they have yet determined, how the 600 Neutral French lately arrived here shall be disposed of. On Saturday last came in, His Majesty’s Ship Syven, commanded by the Hon Charles Proby, Esq; and is already sitting out for a Cruze. We hear, she has some Neutral French on board.”

The health conditions were so poor that they eventually unloaded onto the beaches. About half the people died.

The South Carolina Gazette noted on May 7, 1756, that “upwards of 80 Acadians went from hence in Canows (canoes), for the Northward: The Country Scout-Boats accompany them as far as Winyab. Yesterday upwards of 50 more of those People went for Virginia, in the Sloop Jacob Capt. Noel.”

These poor people were desperate and were trying to row home.

There were also Acadians held in Nova Scotia at Fort Edward (200-300; the number fluctuated), Fort Cumberland, and Annapolis Royal (91 in 1763). Many of these headed to Louisiana a decade later, in 1765.

Given where Daniel Garceau was found, along with some family members in 1763, it’s most likely that they wound up on one of the two ships destined for New York, one from Annapolis Royal and one from Cape Sable.

New York

After the ship Experiment was loaded with her human cargo, she anchored in the bay at Goat Island, within sight of the Melanson settlement and the entrance to the Atlantic.

On December 8th, 1755, before dawn, she sailed out of the harbor and into the icy, treacherous Atlantic. The Experiment should have arrived in New York four weeks later. Some transports were taking six or seven weeks due to weather and overloading. We know the Atlantic was stormy because both the Experiment and the Edward encountered a severe storm that blew them off course, causing illness, shortage of rations, including water, and death.

Appoline “celebrated” her 14th birthday on February 9th, if the family even remembered or had a calendar, probably fearing for her life in the midst of a horrific storm. A few weeks later, she would land in a strange land, a mountainous tropical island. The Acadians were penniless refuges with no hope, except to live long enough for the ship to make it back to someplace in the colonies where they might escape.

Truth be told, the Acadians never stopped hoping to return to Acadia, and many tried. A few succeeded.

The Edward and the Experiment both ended up in Antigua. The Experiment had apparently departed Annapolis Royal with 250 Acadians and ended up docking in New York on May 6, 1756, with only 200 passengers. Some may have disembarked, and some may have died en route. They lost fewer than the Edward, where nearly half of the Acadian passengers perished. “Only” 20% of the passengers on the Experiment died. Of all the ships, this is the most likely candidate for our family, which means that Appoline got an unexpected and miserable trip to Antigua.

A different source provides slightly different information about the island.

In the New York Mercury newspaper on May 3, 1756, the headline read, “Extract of a Letter from Albany, Dated April 23, 1756,” and said, “Thursday last, a Brig with 200 Acadians arrived here from St. Kitts, being blown off our coast in the winter.”

St. Kitts is a neighboring island, about 50 miles west of Antigua, also torn between England and France.

By Martin Falbisoner – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47893166

Imagine the wonder of 14-year-old Appoline when she beheld the harbor, mountains, and palm trees, something she had never seen before.

By Fred Hsu on en.wikipedia – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47791771

It was also warm in the winter and there were beaches of sand. Where was the snow?

Acadian children wouldn’t have had any way of knowing that such a thing as the tropics existed, let alone be cast there…after being adrift…after being deported…after witnessing ship-board death.

Did the majority of the people die on board or here, on the island? Did they get to come ashore, or were they forced to remain on the beleaguered ship?

Did the Acadians pray and thank God for sparing them, or did they feel God had abandoned them? Certainly, everyone knew and was probably related to every person who died – 1 in 5 passengers.

The Experiment’s sister ship, the Edward wasn’t nearly as “fortunate.” She arrived in Connecticut more than 6 months after leaving Port Royal with roughly half of her passengers having perished.

I suspect that Daniel Garceau and his family were on the Experiment. The only other ship that discharged passengers in New York was an unnamed ship, probably the Mary, who sailed with 94 Acadians from Cape Sable.

New York

One way or another, Daniel Garceau, along with his wife and eight children wound up in New York, according to the 1763 “census” where Acadians requested transportation to France. That request was denied, but the request at least tells us where our family was living.

Piecing this family together from both directions, before deportation and after resettlement, we discover that Daniel Garceau and Anne Doucet had:

  • 11 children born in Acadia
  • 8 of whom are reported in 1763, which means at least two have married or died. Marguerite married Charles Lord in early 1755 and is with him in New York.
  • 10 children are later accounted for some 15+ years later in Quebec

At least Appoline wasn’t separated from her family. She was one of the “lucky” ones.

Daniel’s brother, Joseph Garceau, who had married Marie Philippe Lambert in Acadia was in New York as well, although he didn’t depart from Annapolis Royal.

Joseph made his way to Beaubassin by 1741, the year before Appoline was born, so he was not with Daniel living along the Annapolis River. Appoline had probably never met her uncle before their arrival in New York. Actually, we don’t know that Daniel and Joseph were actually in the same place in New York, so they might have never seen one another again, or not before their return to Quebec. Joseph Garceau’s death in 1789 was recorded across the river from St. Ours under the surname of Richard, that of his step-father.

In addition to Daniel Garceau, Charles Lord, wife, and a child were among the 1763 New York residents as well. Daniel’s oldest daughter, Marguerite, married Charles Lore/Lord in Acadia in January before they were deported. She would either have been pregnant, or perhaps cradled a newborn baby as she walked that wharf. Sadly, the fact that they only had one child in 1763 means that several children didn’t survive – including that child. They should have had at least five children, but only two, born later, are recorded later in Quebec.

There’s another possibility. Perhaps the Lord/Lore and Garceau families were separated. There’s a Charles Lord in Connecticut with 4 people, along with three additional Lord families. Jean Lord +7 people, Louis Lord +4 people, and Pierre Lord +3 people.

We know that somehow the Garceau and Lore/Lord families maintained contact, because the family members intermarried in New England.

Appoline Garceau married Honore Lore about 1767 in New England, but we don’t know where. He eventually served in Albany, New York, during the Revolutionary War, fighting for the citizens against the English. That comes as no surprise. Understandably, the Acadians hated the English.

Honore Lore is the son of Jacques Lore who was likely in this same location but is not listed in 1763, so may have already died. Appoline’s sister, Marie Joseph Garceau married Jean Baptiste Lore about 1765 or 1766, so the Daniel Garceau family had to live someplace close to the Jacques Lore/Lord family, or at least close enough to travel back and forth periodically.

Connecticut assigned Acadian families to 50 different host towns, each receiving an average of 50 refugees. This would have been four, five, or maybe six families.

New York Acadians lived in the New York City and Long Island region, along with both Orange and Suffolk. Many Acadians were treated as indentured servants, which meant they were trained and eventually could earn their freedom again.

No machine-readable author provided. Kmusser assumed (based on copyright claims).https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1270050

New York and Connecticut share a north/south land border in addition to Long Island Sound, so clearly some communication was taking place between families, if not groups of families.

Onward to Quebec

The Massachusetts Legislature sent a delegation to Quebec in March 1766. The delegation obtained a permit from the English Governor Murray for the displaced Acadians to immigrate to Quebec Province, which they began to do immediately.

That must have been a time of great jubilation, because the Acadians wanted to gather together once again in a French-speaking Catholic region and create a new homeland.

Many families settled south of Montreal around LaPrairie and L’Acadie, as did Appoline and Honore eventually, but not initially. First, the family traveled to Becancour.

Why Becancour?

The Acadie website tells us:

The lord of Bécancour, Joseph-Michel Legardeur of Croisille and Montesson, invited the first Acadian families to take refuge on his seigneury. In the summer or fall of 1759, they settled at Lake Saint-Paul. At the same time, a second group of Acadian refugees, led by Michel Bergeron, settled on the site of the village of Sainte-Marguerite (now Saint-Grégoire) in the Godefroy seigneury, of which they were probably the first inhabitants. In the spring of the previous year, these Acadians had left their wood shack on the Saint-Jean River to undertake a long and challenging journey towards the St. Lawrence River. It was in September 1766, following the arrival of Acadians deported to Massachusetts, that many of them did settle in Sainte-Marguerite on the site of the present-day Acadian Boulevard.

Based on what we know about the Garceau and Lore/Lord families, Acadians from other colonies quickly heard about Quebec’s open arms, and they arrived, too.

The village of Becancour, which is actually an amalgamation of villages today, is across the St. Lawrence River from Trois-Rivieres, but the original Acadian settlement was in Saint Gregoire, then called Sainte-Marguerite, not in Becancour itself, which was upriver about six miles to the west.

It’s interesting that the St. Gregoire street names would bring Acadians comfort, such as Boulevard Port Royal, Rue Gaudet, Rue Girouard, and more – many more. The street names read like a veritable who’s who of Acadian families.

This St. Gregoire church was built about 1802, but the original church was probably located on this same site, or very close. The original cemetery is noted as being located here, and the later one is maybe half a mile down the road. The earliest church would have been adjacent to its cemetery.

The next sighting we have of Appoline is when she was 25 years old – on September 29, 1767, when her marriage to Honore Lor was validated by the priest in Becancour.

“In the year 1767, on the 29th of September, we, undersigned missionary priest of the Parish of the Nativite of Becancour, validated the marriage between Honore Lor and Appolline Garsau, both Acadians, who had been married by Francois Landry in Angleterre (translates to England)”.

We know that Appoline and her young husband stood in this church as they renewed their vows, accompanied by at least some of their family members.

A validation occurs when a couple is legally married, but not by a Catholic priest, so, as soon as possible, a priest validates the marriage.

Brother Bernard, now deceased, translated the marriage validation of Honorius Lord and Apolline Garceau in detail.

Validation at Becancour, Quebec, Parish of the Nativity, 1767, page 47.

“In the year 1767, on the 29th of September, we, undersigned missionary priest of the Parish of the Nativity of Becancour, validated the marriage between Honoré Lor and Apolline Garsau, both Acadians, who had been married by Francois Landry in England (New England was meant), no impediment having been discovered to said marriage, we gave them the nuptial benediction according to the form prescribed by our Mother the Holy Church, and this in presence of Fracous Lagrave and of Antoine Sabourin, who declared they know not how to sign this register, (Signed) F Louis Demers, Recollet Priest”

Given that the Father was a missionary priest, it’s possible that there wasn’t a physical church at that time, and they met in someone’s home.

This does tell us who married Appoline and Honore. Another Acadian, obviously, but someone I can’t find.

Locating Francois Landry might well tell us where they were married. The only Francois of the right age in the colonies is located in Oxford, Maryland, which is far from New York and even further from Connecticut.

Given that their first known child, Honore, was born in February, just five months after Appoline’s marriage was reconstituted, I would infer that they married in early 1767 or maybe late 1766.

Appoline’s middle name is given as Hippolyte in many places and as Pauline in PRDH, even when I’m not viewing in English. I’m not sure where this comes from, as I’ve checked all of her children’s baptisms, marriages and deaths and don’t find any name in any record other than simply Appoline or derived spellings.

The only exception is this book.

Her name is given as Marie Hypolite instead of Appoline. I think the author simply made a mistake that carried over into a Quebec genealogy book as well, or vice versa.

After their marriage was rehabilitated, their children were baptized in various churches, creating a path through their lives for us.

The history of Yamachiche provides insight into how the Acadians came to settle here.

In July 1767, a schooner arrived at the mouth of the Yamachiche River carrying a large contingent of Acadians who were originally deported to Massachusetts. The Lesieur family, still the owner of the Grosbois-East seigneury, was ready to welcome them on a concession still to be cleared of trees.

Up to 42 Acadian families, or 192 individuals, settled on the Lesieur family’s concession. The French-Canadian villagers of St. Anne of Yamachiche parish, founded in 1722, gave them a warm welcome.

The parish priest, Jacques-Maxime Chef from the city of La Garenne, did hasten to validate the marriages and baptisms of all Acadians who could not officially take place in Massachusetts for lack of Catholic priests.

Perhaps Acadian families made their way to Massachusetts as the first stop on their pathway to Quebec.

  • Appoline’s first child, Honore Lore was born and baptized in Yamachiche on February 28, 1768, about 10 miles from Becancour.

Appoline’s brother, Jean Joseph died here on May 8th, 1770, just 36 years old, followed by her father just two years later.

On August 28, 1772, Appoline’s father, Daniel Garceau, died and was buried in the cemetery at Ste. Anne Church at Yamachiche.

The original church is long gone, and in 1795, all of the burials in the cemetery adjacent to it were moved inland to the present-day village. This location was quite close to the river, and I’m willing to bet that it flooded, prompting the move inland. The original cemetery was somewhere in the meadow or woods, above, or perhaps both.

It’s very unlikely that Appoline was present when her father died and was buried. They had moved 37 miles on up the river some years before. Given that Appoline had an 11-month-old child, plus a two and four-year-old, I doubt that she stood at Daniel’s grave with her mother and siblings.

  • On December 30, 1769, Appoline’s second child, Marie Anne Lore, was baptized in the church at Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu, about another 100 miles upriver. Marie Anne married Antoine Brousseau.

The next three children were born in 1771, 1773, and 1775 and baptized at St. Ours in the church of the Immaculate Conception, about 10 miles from St. Denis.

  • Francois Lore, born September 19, 1771, died December 13, 1824, in L’Acadie. He married Marie Anne Lafay in 1806.
  • Marie Claire Lore was born May 12, 1773, died on January 15, 1775, and was buried in the church cemetery. Appoline was eight months pregnant for Joseph when Marie Claire passed away.
  • Joseph Honore Lore was born March 5, 1775, and died sometime before 1787.

Appoline buried her daughter, just 20 months old, in the old St. Our Cemetery, which was closed a century later, in 1878.

That cemetery today may abut this newer cemetery, or perhaps it’s in the yard next to the church or across the street where the church’s school is located today.

No gravestones remain for this cemetery at FindaGrave, so I’m sure the cemetery has been destroyed and overbuilt. All perceptible traces are gone, but I’d wager that the locals know where it was located.

After spending several years at St. Ours, Honore and Appoline packed up and moved once again, sometime before the birth of their next child in October of 1777.

Two of Appoline’s children were baptized at Ste.-Marguerite-de-Blairfindie in L’Acadie, another 50 or 60 miles southwest.

Those children had been born in 1777 and 1779, but something strange was afoot because those children weren’t baptized until 1787. Furthermore, there’s no burial or marriage record for Joseph, who was born in 1775, so he died before the family reappeared in L’Acadie in 1787.

  • Charlotte Marguerite (also called Marie Charlotte) Lord was born October 14, 1777, and baptized on July 1, 1787, at Ste.-Marguerite-de-Blairfindie in L’Acadie, Quebec.
  • Jean-Baptiste Lore was born on February 1, 1779, and was baptized on July 1, 1787, in the same church in L’Acadie.

Those two baptisms in Ste. Marguerite on the same day were for children who had been born years earlier and had never been baptized in the Catholic church.

Why not?

What caused this family to move from Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu to someplace that wasn’t Catholic, then back to the L’Acadie area surrounding Ste.-Marguerite-de-Blairfindie?

War Interferes

Another war – this time, the US Revolutionary War.

Say what?

They were living in Canada, not the colonies, so how did that war affect Appoline?

Her husband, Honore, served, as did two other Lore men: Charles, probably Honore’s brother who was married to Appoline’s sister, and Nathaniel Lord, whose identity we don’t know.

Apparently, the family returned to someplace in the colonies, probably near Fort Albany, where we know Honore served, sometime after March 5, 1775, when Joseph Honore Lore was baptized at St. Ours, and October 14, 1777, when Charlotte Marguerite was born but not baptized.

Honore returned over the border into the colonies to aid the battle against Britain. There must be a backstory, one that we’ll never know. We can piece a few bits together, thanks to history.

Contrary to what we think about where that war was fought, the British marched straight up the Richelieu River, directly through L’Acadie. So Honore’s service might have been one of self-defense and protecting not only his family, but the Acadian community as well.

Appoline had small children at home and gave birth to her two youngest children during this time, while troops were marching through the countryside. The horrors of 1755 probably intruded into her thoughts regularly – this time as the frightened mother, not the frightened child. She, like her mother, tried to protect her children.

They stayed wherever they were until June of 1787, about a decade. That’s a long time if their only motivation was the war and protecting L’Acadie.

We know when they returned, because they baptized their two children born while they were “away” immediately, on July 1, 1787. This probably unburdened Appoline’s soul, as she knew now that they would not languish in Purgatory, or worse, when they died.

There are those unspoken children, too – the ones not baptized and who, like their son, Joseph, would not have been buried in consecrated ground. There should have been babies born in 1781, 1783, 1785, and perhaps, 1787. Maybe that final child’s burial in a cemetery filled with people not of their faith is what pushed Honore and Appoline over the edge. Maybe that day, as they cried over yet another tiny coffin lowered into the ground, with no Priest, no Catholic service, and no family in attendance, they decided to return to Quebec to rejoin the Acadian community.

Or, maybe they moved back because Appoline was sick and needed family members nearby to help. Maybe she wanted to be buried in consecrated ground herself. Maybe she wanted her children to be raised both Acadian and Catholic. Maybe she hoped that the woman who would raise her children as a stepmother, whoever she might someday be, would have some family or cultural connection to her.

They probably chose L’Acadie because so many Acadian families had settled there, and they assuredly had surviving family living there. The horrors of deportation and what they did to survive cemented an indelible bond.

Appoline Passes Away

Appoline passed away just ten months and two days after she had her youngest two children baptized.

Appoline died young, at least by today’s standards, just 46. She assuredly didn’t die of “old age.” Given her age, I can’t help but wonder if her life was taken by a late-in-life surprise pregnancy that didn’t go well.

Brother Bernard translated the burial record for Apolline Garceau.

L’Acadie, 4 May 1788

The 4th of May 1788, by I, the undersigned priest, was buried in the cemetery of this parish the body of Apoline Garceau, wife of Honore Lord, deceased yesterday, fortified by the Sacraments, at the age of about 40 years. Present Flavian Dupuis, Antoine Boudreau, and several others.  (Signed)  Lancto

I couldn’t help but notice that the priest clearly didn’t know Appoline’s age, or perhaps didn’t care. Or maybe birthdays weren’t significant then. Appoline was actually 46 years, 2 months, and 22 days old.

Appoline died on a spring day. It’s likely that even though her family was grieving terribly, the earth was erupting once again with new life. Perhaps the daffodils were blooming, and the first dandelions of the springtime were popping up their heads.

Spring rains may have shed their tears, along with the family at her graveside – her children holding hands, all in a row.

Appoline does not have a gravestone in the cemetery beside Ste.-Marguerit-de-Blairfindie church, but I’d wager that her family lovingly planted flowers in her memory.

This church was built in 1800 and1801, but the original stood in this location, right beside the cemetery.

After Appoline’s funeral, her grave would have been marked with a white wooden cross. Her family would have glanced over and acknowledged her life every time they walked into church, or attended a funeral where Appoline gained another Acadian relative in the churchyard.

Eventually, three of Appoline’s children kept her company in the cemetery.

At Appoline’s death, she left a handful of young children:

  • Honore Lore was born August 14, 1768, in Yamachiche, so he was not quite 20 when Appoline died. He died in 1834 and is buried near his mother, as are eight of his children.
  • Marie Anne Lore was born on December 30, 1769, so she was 18. Five of her children are buried here.
  • Francois Lore was born on September 19, 1771, so he was 16. He died in 1824 and is buried near his mother as are at least three of his children.
  • Marie Claire Lore was born in September of 1772 but died on January 15th of 1775, so she was waiting for her mother on the other side. Appoline was heavily pregnant at Marie’s death.
  • Joseph Honore Lore was born on March 5, 1775, less than two months after Marie Claire was buried. We don’t have any more information about him, so he probably died while Appoline and Honore were living elsewhere, probably in the states. If he was alive, which was doubtful, he was 13 when his mother died.
  • Charlotte Marguerite (also Marie Charlotte) Lore was born on October 24, 1777, someplace, and was baptized on July 1, 1787. She was 10 when Appoline perished. Her first child is buried here near her mother.
  • Jean Baptiste Lore was born on February 1, 1779, and was baptized on July 1, 1787, making him 9 when he lost his mother. He died in 1828 and is buried near his mother, as are at least three of his children.

As best I can reconstruct their families, five of Appoline’s children grew to adulthood, married,, and gave her 51 grandchildren. Of course, they would only have known of Appoline’s stamina and survival in the face of incredible odds through stories told around the fireplace and at Christmas time—stories that, with retelling, probably grew into legends.

The comparatively tranquil years along the Annapolis River, Appoline’s bravery during the deportation, the horrific storm followed by beaches and palm trees, the dozen years in exile someplace in New York, her marriage in the colonies, their triumphant return to French Quebec in 1767, the Revolutionary War years that again transported her back to the colonies, then a final return to establish permanent roots in L’Acadie.

It’s so unfair that Appoline managed to survive all of that, only to rest in the cemetery instead of enjoying peace of a different kind, rocking grandchildren on the porch in the golden summer sunshine, regaling them stories about her long-ago life in beautiful Acadia, and maybe a few palm trees.

She would have said:

C’est vrai, c’est vrai, mes petits. J’ai ouvert les yeux et il y avait des palmiers qui poussaient sur les plages de sable!

Except – Appoline’s voice was silent!

What an amazing life and incredibly strong women Appoline must have been. It’s hard to believe she packed all that into just 46 years on this earth.

Acadian Memorial Unveiling – Honoring the Acadians

Finally, the memory and sacrifices of Appoline and the rest of our Acadian forebearers are being honored in Port Royal, now Annapolis Royal, where it all began.

On December 8, 2024, in the wind and snow, at Fort Anne in Annapolis Royal, adjacent to where the Catholic Church stood before it was burned, and where the remains of the Acadian cemetery blend into frozen blades of grass, the Acadians were honored.

A monument was placed to pay tribute to the approximately 1664 Acadians deported and exiled from this location. Exactly 269 years to the day after they were forced upon those waiting ships, unwillingly walking the Queen’s Wharf – much as the plank of destiny – in the snow one final time.

Courtesy Charlie and Jennifer Thibodeau

Those nameless 251 men, 263 women, 539 boys, and 611 girls suffered horrifically.

Their lives were ruined.

All of them.

Many died.

This was cultural genocide at its worst. Those who escaped, men, women, and children alike, were hunted, literally, with scalp bounties placed upon their heads.

These brave Acadians finally received recognition, even if not individually – at least as a family, a culture, a people.

And as our ancestors.

Nothing can ever right this wrong, but at least there’s a bit of satisfaction by the acknowledgment and perhaps a modicum of contrition, knowing that the truth has been recognized, even if justice remains forever out of reach.

Charlie and Jennifer Thibodeau of the BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Centre provided wonderful photos and a video of the unveiling, here.

Jennifer said:

I kept thinking throughout the ceremony of what a terrible day it was for them and the journey they were beginning then. On Sunday, it was cold standing there and the rain. Snow mix was falling on us, and the wind blowing. I felt like crying when I thought of them and looking down at that wharf. I am glad we could attend such a special event to honor the Acadian ancestors.

It was an emotional day, for sure. Hard to explain how it makes you feel. Especially when you think of how many of them were children.

Charlie and Jennifer gave me permission to share their photography of this historical event at Fort Anne with you. Another attendee provided additional photos, here.

The heartache of our Acadian ancestors can still be felt permeating this land, 269 years and some ten generations later.

Courtesy Charlie and Jennifer Thibodeau

A small crowd gathered on this cold, blustery, grey, snowy day on the banks of the Annapolis River. In the misty distance, the Melanson Settlement across the river, and to the left, nearly obscured by fog, Goat Island, where the ships anchored after they were loaded with their human cargo, awaiting the signal to depart.

Did the Acadians, at least a few of them, stand at the railing and watch as the inky, darkened shore slipped past? Many of the men were experienced pilots and would have known when they exited the sheltered harbor into the angry Atlantic.

Courtesy Charlie and Jennifer Thibodeau

The monument, wrapped in the Acadian flag, waiting for the dignitaries, some of whom, including Jennifer and Charlie, are descendants.

Courtesy Charlie and Jennifer Thibodeau

The monument, unveiled, its writing fittingly obscured by snow, features a cross, so important to Acadians. In many ways, their religion is what they both lived and died for.

This monument stands ready to welcome descendants back home. The wharf which bore silent witness to the final footsteps of our ancestors in Acadia is seen at right, with the Acadian homesteads across the river in the distance.

They are still there. Still vigilant. Ever watching.

Thank you, Jennifer and Charlie, for continuing to remember and support our Acadian ancestors, their land, and their descendants who find their way back home!

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me 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 Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Susannah Anderson (maybe), (born c 1713), wife of John Vannoy – 52 Ancestors #434

Susannah’s surname may not be Anderson. Her first name might not even be Susannah, but since we do have that name published in family history, Susannah is what I’m calling her unless we discover otherwise.

How I wish we had firm evidence about Susannah, the wife of John Vannoy. Something. Anything. But we don’t.

Of course, we know that she existed, by some name, because John Vannoy had children whose births were recorded in a Bible and he certainly didn’t bring them into this world by himself.

If Susannah’s birth surname might not have been Anderson, or its Dutch version, Andreissen, where did this information come from? In fact, where is her name recorded at all?

Great question.

Earlier Researchers

Thank goodness for earlier researchers. While they may not have gotten everything right, they did us a HUGE favor by recording what they were told, often reaching back two or three generations. This at least gives us something to work with. If the family members who recorded that history lived a century ago, that means their information may reach back two centuries, give or take. Some did us the additional favor of researching local records or writing about letters and documents that have since been lost to time.

James H. Hook, in a book written in 1957, referring to John Vannoy, tells us:

“He married, about 1740, Susannah, who, according to his grandson, Andrew Vannoy, son of Nathaniel, was Susannah Anderson, born in New Jersey. Confirmation of the New Jersey Origin of the Vannoys in North Carolina is given in the Cleveland Genealogy, Vol. III, p. 2086.”

Professional genealogist, Yvette Hoitink, in her summary about Susanah, writes:

The book is well documented and discusses the merits of the evidence, using qualifiers where appropriate. This shows that the compiler was a competent genealogist.

This publication shows that it was grandson Andrew Vannoy, son of Nathaniel who said his grandmother was Susannah Anderson, born in New Jersey. Note that this recorded tradition does not name her parents, and they are not recorded elsewhere in the book. It is likely that later researchers tried to fit her into the known Anderson family of New Jersey by making her a daughter of Cornelius or Andrew.

According to the publication, Andrew Vannoy, son of Nathaniel son of John, was born on 4 November 1783. This means he would not have personally known Susannah’s parents. However, he may have known Susannah herself, if she indeed died in 1816 as her Find-a-Grave memorial indicates.

His identification of her as an Anderson from New Jersey may have been an amalgamation of family stories. After all, he had a great-grandmother who was an Anderson from New Jersey. Without corroboration by independent evidence, this family tradition is not reliable.

The great-grandmother that Yvette is referencing is Rebekah (Rebecca) Anderson/Andriesen (1697-1727), who married John Vannoy’s father, Francis Vannoy (1688-1774), in 1718 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey.

James Hook also wrote about John Vannoy in an earlier 1954 book about the Lt. Samuel Smith family:

“His wife was Susannah, born Susannah Anderson, according to a letter written by her grandson, Andrew Vannoy, son of Nathaniel.” and ” It was Andrew Vannoy, a grandson of John who gave his grandmother Vannoy’s name as Susannah Anderson but did not give his great grandfather Vannoy’s first name.”

It also provides more information about the family Bible:

“The Bible of John and Susannah has been preserved. The family data in it begins with this entry: ‘John Vannoy, son of Jesse, was married to Susannah Vannoy. ‘Apparently, this was a later entry and should not be accepted.”

Jesse? Where the heck did Jesse come from? I’ve worked with the Vannoy records for more than 30 years now, and I’ve never once seen a Jesse this early or attributed as John’s father. I’ve never seen this information anyplace else either.

Also, about that Bible being preserved – I’d love to see it. Where is it? Does someone even have a photocopy? Checking my emails from 25 years ago, people were talking about it then, but in the abstract.

In his later 1957 publication, Hook attributed John as the son of Francis based on Francis’s will, as discussed in the John Vannoy article.

From the book, New Jersey, Abstracts of Wills 1670-1817

August 15, 1768 Francis Vannoy of Hopewell, Hunterdon Co., yeoman, will of.  Personal and real estate to be sold and money given to my 4 children, John Vannoy, Hannah Willson, Cornelius Vannoy and Andrew Vannoy. Eldest son John to have 5 pounds more than the rest.  Exec son Andrew and son-in-law Peter Willson.  Witnesses – Francis Wilson, James Willson, Andrew Wilson, Proved July 21, 1774

On the 1722 Hopewell Township, NJ, tax list, we know that Francis Vannoy was listed with 3 sons and 3 daughters, and that his probable brother, Andrew who is listed on the tax list as Abraham, has 1 son and no daughters.

We know that John Vannoy, and his wife, whoever she was, had left New Jersey and were in Rowan County, NC, in the Jersey Settlement, at least by the fall of 1752.

What Do We Actually Know About Susannah?

We are going to have to take Susannah’s first name on faith that her grandson knew and remembered her name accurately. I think that’s fully reasonable. The grandson, Andrew, was born in 1783. It’s very likely that both John Vannoy and Susannah were deceased by that time, but his father, Nathaniel, very clearly knew his mother’s name.

What do we actually know about Susannah?

The first thing we know, or can at least infer about Susannah is that she grew up in the Presbyterian church.

Let’s look at the pieces of evidence that we have collected.

Cornelius Andreissen and Annetje Opdyke, the grandparents of John Vannoy, Susannah’s future husband, had five of their children baptized in the Presbyterian Church in Churchville, Pennsylvania, on June 6, 1710.

By 1724, when Cornelius Andreissen died, they were living in Hopewell Township, New Jersey. In fact, Cornelius Anderson owned a mill in the southwestern corner of Hopewell Township.

In the book, A History of the Old Presbyterian Congregation of “The People of Maindenhead and Hopewell,” and More Especially of the First Presbyterian Church of Hopewell, we find not only the history of the founding of the church, but also of the settlement of this region, early taxpayers and residents. The land for the original church was purchased in 1697 in what is today the village of Pennington. The village, originally called Queenstown, in honor of Queen Anne, probably began to attract settlers in about 1708. Prior to that, it was wilderness.

The original name of the congregation was “The People of Maidenhead and Hopewell,” and 100 acres of land was conveyed for the purpose of “erecting a meeting-house and for burying-ground, and school-house.” Among others, the land was conveyed to Johannes Lawrenson, Thomas Smith, Jasper Smith, Joshua Andris, Enoch Andris, Cornelius Andris, and Lawrence Updike. Updike is Opdyke, Andris is Andriessen that became Anderson, and Lawrenson is Louwrensen.

John Vannoy’s father, Francis, married the daughter of Cornelius Anderson and his wife Annetje Opdyke, whose father was Johannes Louwrensen Opdyke. Cornelius Anderson’s other daughter married John Smith, so these families were connected as early as 1697 and likely earlier when they were living across the river in New York.

In the church booklet, we note one Frances “Fonnoy” (Vannoy) listed in 1722 with 10 cattle and horses and 150 acres of land. Of course, that was before the infamous 1731 Coxe Affair where the powerful Coxe family claimed that the land purchase had never been sold – attempting to coerce the settlers into paying for their land a second time in order not to lose it entirely.

John Vannoy was probably born in Maidenhead Township, near Hopewell, sometime around 1716, give or take a few years in either direction, not long after his family moved to the frontier.

Susannah, his eventual wife, was born between 1713 and 1720.  If she was an Anderson daughter, her father was most likely on the 1722 tax list, which includes:

  • Abraham Anderson with 1 son and 10 daughters
  • Benjamin Anderson with 2 sons and no daughters (probably eliminates him)
  • Cornelius Anderson with 3 sons and 4 daughters
  • Ellakim Anderson with 1 son and no daughters (probably eliminates him)
  • John Anderson with no sons and 4 daughters
  • Isaac Anderson with 1 son and 2 daughters

It’s worth noting that these names have been Anglicized, and I can’t fit everyone into a known family structure, although Ellakim is clearly the son of Cornelius based on later documents.

Even though the community would probably have been struggling to build a church and school, I hope that the children were being educated which was clearly the intend of the deed conveyance. I believe they were, in part, because John Vannoy or Susannah recorded their children’s names and birth dates in a Bible. You can’t do that if you can’t write.

We know that Susannah was living in the same location as John Vannoy in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, in about 1740 when they married. You have to live close enough to court. Their first child was born on April 12, 1741, just three weeks before her father-in-law pledged money for the Presbyterian parsonage. Baptism records that no longer exist would have reflected the baptisms of their children. It’s interesting that their only child known to have been baptized in North Carolina is Daniel Vannoy who was born on February 22, 1752 which tells us that he was not baptized earlier.

On May 1, 1741, Francis Vannoy is listed as a donor for the parsonage of the church, so we know beyond a doubt that his son John was Presbyterian, and based on the early Andreissen involvement, so were the Anderson and Opdyke families.

While this church isn’t original, it was reconstructed in its original location. The church today looks very much like it did in 1923, above.

According to the plaque on the front of the church, it was built in 1724, rebuilt in 1783 or 1785 (I can’t see the date clearly), enlarged and then rebuilt again in 1847, burned in 1874, and rebuilt a final time then. This also explains why none of the parish records exist.

In the churchyard, or burying-ground as was stated in the deed, several Vannoy burials can be found on FindaGrave. Assuredly, there are many more unmarked graves, very probably including Susannah’s children born about 1744 and 1748. Her children’s grandparents, probably all four of them, would rest here, too – as would Susannah and John’s siblings.

On the June 26, 1753 tax list, Francis Vannoy, with 3 sons and 3 daughters, and Andrew Vannoy with one son, both appear on the list, but John Vannoy does not. That makes perfect sense, because by the third week of September that year, John registered his stock mark in Anson County, North Carolina in the Jersey Settlement – so they had already left.

I had previously surmised that the Vannoys were probably Presbyterian, based on later interactions with Presbyterian circuit riding ministers in North Carolina. Presbyterian minister Hugh McAden stayed with the Vannoy family on September 5, 1755, after having ridden 45 miles that day. He clearly knew where they lived and how to find their cabin. He also stayed with the Anderson and Smith families during that same trip, both of whom were related to John Vannoy through his mother, and to Susannah as well if she was an Anderson.

Susannah would have been about seven months pregnant when the road-weary preacher came to visit. She was looking after a whole passel of young kids and cooking in an outdoor kitchen. She was probably hot, sweaty, and tired. I’m sure she was gracious, but the last thing she really wanted was an unexpected guest. Nevertheless, practicing frontier hospitality, she would have wiped her hands on her apron, handed him a bowl of whatever was in the pot, and made him welcome.

On the other hand, Reverend McAden surely brought news of her family and friends back in New Jersey. She, of course, hadn’t seen them in more than three years, so that probably overshadowed her fatigue. Regardless, he bunked with the family, as was the custom for frontier visitors.

Combined with the 1710 Andreissen Presbyterian baptisms, the early Hopewell Township Presbyterian records including the Vannoy, Andreissen and Opdyke families, and the continued thread into North Carolina, this confirms that Susannah was Presbyterian, at least initially.

The only other choice was Baptist. A Baptist Meeting House was built in Hopewell about 1715. Baptists would clearly influence Susannah’s life and that of her children, but that was years in the future. 

Children

The majority of the information we have about Susannah is through her children, thanks to those Bible records, plus additional research.

  • Rachel Vannoy was born on April 12, 1741, and was reported to have married Neil Patton, I was unable to confirm this, although, the Rev William Hamilton Eller (1842-1922) reported their marriage, here. However, she unquestionably married John Darnell sometime around or before 1771. They had four sons, including twins, before John reportedly died at the Battle of Hanging Rock in the Revolutionary War when the twins were but three months old. In January 1782, Rachel was ordered to deliver “what orphan children she had in possession” to the court, and in April, she was granted administration of John’s Estate. In 1785, with her brother, Andrew Vannoy, she posted a bond to administer another estate, and in October of 1787, apprenticeship records show that the twins, Benjamin and Joseph, born May 6, 1780, were apprenticed to Andrew Vannoy “to learn the occupation of farmer, read, write and cipher.” In 1787, she was shown on the state census with one male child under the age of 21, and in 1795, her land was mentioned in a neighboring deed.
  • Andrew Vannoy was born on August 12, 1742, and died on October 9, 1809, in Wilkes County. His marriage license was issued on October 18, 1779, with Susannah Shepherd, daughter of John and Sarah Shepard. They had ten children.
  • Appears to be a child missing who would have been born in late 1743 or early 1744.
  • Abraham Vannoy was born on January 15, 1745. We have no further information about Abraham, so it’s possible that he died relatively young.
  • Francis Vannoy was born on August 13, 1746, and died near Barbourville, Knox Co., KY, on July 26, 1822. The first record of Francis appeared in the court claims in 1765 in Rowan County, NC. By 1779, he was a juror in Wilkes County, where he received land grants for seven parcels of land between 1779 and 1799 for a total of 710 acres. He moved to Knox County around 1815 based on lawsuits in Wilkes County. Francis had as many as 19 children, not all proven, by at least two wives.
  • Appears to be a child missing who would have been born in 1748.
  • Nathaniel Vannoy was born on February 16, 1749. He died of measles at Greenville, SC, at age 87 at the house of his daughter, Mrs. Sallie Cleveland, on July 26, 1835. “He was a soldier of the Rev. War and served with Col. Benjamin Cleveland at King’s Mountain.” His obituary further stated that he was “half English and half French in stock,” neither of which was accurate, and that he was the first white man to be born in western NC, which is doubtful. His wife was Elizabeth Ray “of Ashe Co., NC,” and they had nine children. Nathaniel was also one of the early Baptist preachers in Wilkes County.
  • Hannah Vannoy, born March 26, 1751, may have married the Reverend Andrew Baker. There’s some question about whether Andrew Baker actually married Hannah, Susannah or any of the Vannoy daughters.
  • Daniel Vannoy was born on February 22, 1752, and married Sarah Hickerson on October 2, 1779. In August of 1774, he was baptized into the Dutchman’s Creek Church that had an arm at Mulberry Fields, and in September 1776, he purchased a scythe at the estate sale of James Burks in Surry County. He died sometime after January 1795 when he sold land and is not found in the 1800 census or later records. The family didn’t leave because his children remained in the area. His son, Joel Vannoy, married Elizabeth Saint Clear in March of 1817 in Wilkes County, and Little Hickerson signed their marriage license as bondsman. Little Hickerson was also known as Samuel Stewart, as discussed in this article, and was a nephew of Daniel’s wife, Sarah Hickerson.
  • Susannah Vannoy was born July 6, 1754, and may have married John Long, Sr., although I cannot confirm that.
  • Katherine Vannoy was born on December 26, 1755.

Baby Math

Given that Susannah’s first child was born on April 12, 1741, she became pregnant in mid-July 1740, suggesting that she was married a few months earlier, probably in early 1740. Of course, this presumes that Rachel was actually her first child.

Given that Susannah’s last child was born the day after Christmas in 1755, and it’s unlikely that she conceived another child after age 42, or so, that suggests she was born about 1713-ish.

This assumes that she lived long enough to have had another child in 1757.

  • So, if she was 42 when Katherine was born, Susannah would have been born around 1713.
  • If Susannah died before 1757, then she could have been born as late as 1723 or so, although 18 was a bit young on the frontier for a marriage.

We’re also presuming that Susannah was John’s only wife. Given that there was a Bible, I would presume that a second wife would have been noted if there was one. Also, a first wife would have been listed as the mother of the earlier children.

It really makes me uneasy that I’ve used the words presume or assume four times in this section alone, but all of this adds up to evidence.

And we’re not done yet.

Cousins

I retained Yvette Hoitink to sift through the various Dutch records both in the Netherlands and the US colonies to see if we could find any hint whatsoever as to the identity of Susannah’s parents.

We do have a significant hint in the fact that Andrew stated that John and Susannah were cousins.

What is a cousin?

The closest cousin one could have would be first cousins, people who shared grandparents.

If John and Susannah were first cousins, and Susannah’s birth surname was Anderson/Andreissen, that means they would have shared grandparents – Cornelius Anderson/Andriessen and Annetje Opdyke.

If they were second cousins, they would have shared great-grandparents, one generation further back in time.

I retained Yvette to thoroughly research all of the children of Cornelius and Annetje to see if there was any hint that Susannah might be related. Yvette did find a significant amount of information, but absolutely nothing connecting anyone with the name of Susannah, which is not a typical Dutch name.

Yvette then researched a generation further back, and in doing so, revealed the parents of Annetje – but nothing to connect Susannah.

It may be worth noting that after Cornelius Anderson died in 1724, his widow, the administrator of his estate, was referenced as “Annah,” which was clearly the name by which she was called. Her son, John Anderson and son-in-law, Francis Vannoy, were co-bondsmen. I only mention this because Annah and Susannah could sound similar, but checking the estates and known children and grandchildren of Annetje Opdyke does not show another Annetje, Annah, or Susannah. Of course, some children could have been omitted, and in at least one will, Andrew Anderson, no children were mentioned at all.

But what if Susannah’s last name wasn’t Anderson? People are more likely to know their grandmother’s first name than her birth surname. I’ve seen a grandmother’s birth surname recorded incorrectly on someone’s death certificate countless times. I’ve chased so many wild geese.  

Maybe Cousins on the Vannoy Side?

What if Susannah and John were cousins on the Vannoy side, and not the Anderson side?

John’s grandparents, John Vannoy (1644-1699) and Rachel, whose surname remains stubbornly elusive (zilch evidence for either Cromwell or Cornwall), had three boys and three girls.

  • Francis (1688-1774) – our John’s father who married Rebecca Anderson, so he’s accounted for.
  • John Vannoy – born about 1686 and alive in 1699 when his father wrote his will, but nothing more is known.
  • Abraham Vannoy – born about 1690, married Susanna Clayton, started having children about 1721, and died in 1774 in Kent County, Delaware.
  • Rachel – born about 1692 and appears to have married John Wells
  • Sarah – born about 1694
  • Catherine – born about 1696

Additional research may reveal more about Rachel’s daughters. I’d love to find someone confirmed to descend through all daughters from Rachel to take a mitochondrial DNA test so that we have something to work with. If that’s you, please reach out – I have a DNA testing scholarship with your name on it!

There’s no mention of a daughter, Susannah, anyplace, but at least we find the first name of Susannah in the family. John Vannoy’s uncle, Abraham, married Susannah Clayton. I was initially excited, but I quickly came to realize when researching this family further that for John Vannoy’s wife, Susannah to have been Abraham’s and Susannah’s daughter, she would have had to have been their firstborn, AND never been mentioned anyplace. It’s not impossible, but it is unlikely.

Furthermore, we have a different problem. Little Creek, Delaware, where Abraham lived and where Susannah Clayton’s parents lived, is about 125 miles from Hopewell, New Jersey, so the children of John’s son Francis and John’s son Abraham probably never met. Francis moved to Hopewell Township at least by 1722, and possibly as early as 1714, before his son John was born.

Conversely, maybe Susannah was a daughter of Francis’s brother, John, about whom we know nothing – including if he survived to adulthood. A John Vannoy is not found in the 1722 tax list, so John likely either died or moved elsewhere.

There are too many Johns in this family! It seems that every child in every generation married and had one. I swear, I need to assign numbers.

Frontiers and Children

Based on John Vannoy’s history, we know that Susannah lived through the Coxe Affair in New Jersey in 1731 as a child, where, if settlers had purchased land, they lost it. The only other alternative was to repurchase their own land, causing many people to leave and start over elsewhere and forcing others into bankruptcy.

When John and Susannah married, owning land probably seemed like nothing more than an unrealistic dream – but crooked politicians could wrest it away from you with the stroke of a pen and a few lies. By the time they had been married more than a decade, they still didn’t own land, and they apparently weren’t taking any chances.

John and Susannah loaded up and made the long journey from New Jersey to the Jersey Settlement in NC, some 600 mountainous miles that probably took two or three months if nothing went awry. Any wagon breaking in the train meant that everyone stopped to repair it, so the journey was likely arduous.

We know they were in Rowan County by the third Tuesday of September 1753 when John registered his stock mark at court.

This journey would have been made with children ages 12, 11, 8, 7, 4, two and a half, and 19 months.

Does this mean that Susannah’s next baby arrived at some unknown place along the road, and didn’t survive?

I fear that it does.

Babies were generally born about 18 months apart, but sometimes in as few as 12 months and as many as 24.

Did Susannah give birth to a baby in a makeshift bed in the back of a wagon, with absolutely no privacy, have to bury her infant someplace alongside the trail, then have to pull away and leave the tiny grave behind?

Oh, my aching mother’s heart. God bless them both.

Susannah’s next child wouldn’t be born until July of 1754, so she would have become pregnant in October 1753, just a month or so after John registered his stock mark.

This tells me that they lost a baby someplace on the way to North Carolina, or perhaps immediately after arriving.

Their last child was born the day after Christmas in 1755, so we know that Susannah was alive at this time.

Then…nothing…radio silence.

Additionally, we don’t know what happened to some of her children:

  • Abraham born in 1745
  • Hannah born in 1751
  • Susannah born in 1754
  • Katherine born in 1755

There’s no record in Nathaniel’s Bible, or from his son Andrew’s letter, or from Nathaniel’s son, Jesse’s Bible. Their births are recorded, but nothing further.

It’s very likely that Susannah buried these children too, including her own namesake child.

We know that five survived, and probably at least that many didn’t.

Susannah’s Death

Our only option for estimating when Susannah died is to bracket those dates with what we know about the history of her family.

We know she was alive the day after Christmas in 1755.

We know, based on multiple historical sources, that it’s very likely that Susannah and John Vannoy’s home was burned in 1771, forcing a hurried evacuation to then Surry, soon to become Wilkes County, probably settling on or near Mulberry Creek. If so, and if John’s Bible “was preserved,” as was reported, then we know either it didn’t burn in the fire, or he or Susannah meticulously wrote their children’s births in a replacement Bible at a later date.

We know that John and four sons were alive in 1772.

The Surry County tax list is missing for 1773, but in 1774, the four sons are present, but John is not.

By this time, the family is living in the part of Surry County that would become Wilkes County a few years later.

We have no idea if Susannah survived this long.

Her name is never mentioned in any legal or tax record anyplace, in any county. John does not have a will or estate record, at least not one that survived. If the family’s farm was burned in Rowan County in 1771 during the Regulator War, John and Susannah may have died with literally no possessions on the very edge of the frontier, having saved only their lives.

Susannah’s death date is not recorded in the family Bible, and neither is John’s, but then again, neither are the death dates or spouses of their children.

Not 1816

What I can tell you with near certainty is that our Susannah did NOT live until 1816, as is shown in many trees and on FindaGrave, where literally not one fact about her is accurate. She would have been approximately 100 years old, possibly more – a very remarkable accomplishment – so we can rest assured that if she was anyplace near 100, that legend would have survived. The Susannah Vannoy of 1816 is misidentified as our Susannah.

Susannah’s son, Andrew Vannoy married Susannah Shepherd in 1779 in Wilkes County. Andrew died in 1809. Susannah is enumerated on the 1810 census and is remembered in her father’s will that same year.

It’s very likely that this is the Susannah who died in 1816. I recall finding something in the court records at some time, but I can’t locate that record again. (This is why you should always write everything down, along with the source, when you find it.)

The identities of these two women, Susannah, the wife of John Vannoy, and Susannah Shepherd, the wife of Andrew Vannoy, have been conflated.

Not Baker

One last item about John’s wife, Susannah “Anderson”. Her middle name is often given as Baker, as in, Susannah Baker Anderson.

For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out when or where that started. It’s not stated in any of the early biographical books or articles about the family, or by Andrew Vannoy in his letter. This could have originated in an early speculative tree that has been copy/pasted hundreds or thousands of times, to the point where everyone assumed someone, someplace has the original information.

The Baker family does live nearby in Wilkes County and a Baker was a chain-carrier for one of Nathaniel Vannoy’s land grants. Andrew Baker witnessed several deeds for Nathaniel and vice versa. The Wilkes marriage records show that Martin Baker married “S… Vannoy” where the page is torn, on August 1, with the page torn again, and the bondsman was Nathaniel Vannoy.

Aha – I think we’ve solved two things. The first being where the name Susannah Baker Anderson came from – an amalgamation. Secondly, this is where the confusion about one of the daughters of John Vannoy marrying the Reverend Andrew Baker originated.

Andrew Baker was in Wilkes County by 1782 and claimed land on the New River, a neighbor of Nathaniel Vannoy. His son, Andrew, claimed his father’s 200 acres in 1779 next to land where “Susanna Baker now lives on.” She released her dower rights on a piece of property on Grassy Bottom Creek in Rowan County, North Carolina, in 1768 when she and Andrew sold it to James Sheppard. We know unquestionably that John Vannoy was still living in 1768, so this Susannah Baker is NOT Susannah, the wife or widow of John Vannoy.

Whew!!!

When I first started assembling information about this woman, now at least 20 years ago, our Susannah was listed as Susannah Baker Anderson. This phenomenon used to occur when there was uncertainty so someone connected both surnames, “just in case”, “because one of them has to be right.”

We were all novices at one time, so I recorded it the same way.

Today, with more information available, we can now determine why that assumption might be made, and also why it was wrong.

What About Mitochondrial DNA?

Thankfully, a descendant of Susannah Anderson has taken a mitochondrial DNA test at FamilyTreeDNA.

She has 1130 matches in total, of which 363 are exact full-sequence matches. Unfortunately, only about one-third of those matches, 130, have entered either their Earliest Known Ancestor (EKA) or the geographic location of that ancestor so that Susannah’s mitochondrial matches show on the tester’s matches map.

Of course, I first checked for matches in the same part of the world – looking specifically for the Netherlands. Red pins indicate exact matches, and the majority look to be in Scandinavia and Finland. But not all of them.

Expanding the map is somewhat helpful, but shows her exact matches widely scattered, which likely reflects the fact that haplogroup H1a is a relatively old haplogroup and had the opportunity to spread widely.

Taking a look at the US matches map doesn’t show any names that I recognize in the regions I had hoped. Of course, from these locations in the 1600s and early 1700s, her descendants are scattered everywhere now, and not everyone can trace their ancestors that far back in time. Or, they can, but didn’t list an EKA or location.

I was very much hoping for matches to another Andreissen woman, or another name I recognize from the congregation or tax list in New Jersey.

One of the challenges we have is that females’ surnames change every generation, and when people don’t include their EKA information, it means that genealogists have to click to view every person who has provided a tree.

Unfortunately, usually fewer than half of the matches have uploaded or connected to a tree, and without either an EKA, or a tree, or hopefully both, complete with a location, it’s VERY difficult to establish a genealogical connection.

Anyone who connects with people in Scandinavia is fortunate because, as a group, they are very involved with genetic genealogy and far more likely than average provide EKA, tree, and geographic location information. That can also make maps skew towards that region.

The great news is that the new Mitotree and MitoDiscover, to be released in early 2025, will provide Susannah with a more refined haplogroup or branch, a Time Tree, and a Match Time Tree showing her matches on that tree, WITH their EKA ancestors. (Yes, I’ve seen it – no I can’t share it yet.)

If you descend from any of the Hunterdon County families we’ve discussed through all females, or any other Hunterdon families for that matter, please test your mitochondrial DNA. With changing surnames in each generation, sometimes it’s all we have to make that elusive connection.

The best thing you can do to help yourself and your matches is to provide a tree, enter your EKA information (which is not extracted from your tree), and provide the best location possible for your most distant direct matrilineal ancestor. I wrote about how to do that, here.

Susannah’s Legacy

There are no deeds or other records that give us even the slightest hint about John Vannoy’s wife by any name, when she was born or died, so we’ll go with Susannah Anderson, which was recorded by her grandson.

We know that Susannah grew up in Hopewell Township, New Jersey, born just a few years after the first settlers began making inroads into the wilderness. The first church she attended would have been a log cabin and probably unheated.

As a teen, she flirted with the handsome John Vannoy, whose parents also attended the same church. In about 1740, they married, either in that same humble church, or perhaps one of their parents’ homes.

In 1741, their first baby arrived, founding the next generation.

A dozen years later, seeking to own land, John and Susannah set out for the next frontier with like-minded neighbors and family members – North Carolina.

Based on gaps between children, we know it’s very likely that Susannah buried at least two babies and likely three – one probably on that journey between New Jersey and Rowan County, North Carolina, in 1753.

The Vannoy Bible recorded the birth dates of the Vannoy children, but since there were no death dates, and no spouses listed for several children, it strongly suggests that Susannah may have buried someplace between two and four additional children before they reached adulthood.

If the family oral history and history of Rowan County are to be believed, and there’s no reason to doubt their accuracy, especially since one corroborates the other, Susannah’s home was burned in 1771 during or as a result of the Regulator War. It’s very likely that her husband and sons participated, and their home and farm were torched by Governor Tryon’s militia as an act of retribution for their uprising.

The Baptist Church in Rowan County backed the Regulators, while the Presbyterian ministers backed the governor and his troops.

The Vannoy family would have converted to being Baptists at this point, if they hadn’t already. Susannah was about 50 years old or maybe slightly older in 1771 when her home was torched, if she was still living by then.

We don’t know anything about Susannah for sure beyond the day after Christmas in 1755, when the birth of her youngest child, Catherine, was recorded in the family Bible. Given that there was a family Bible, this suggests strongly that John could write. It would have been unusual if Susannah had been taught to write – women learned “useful” tasks like cooking, cleaning, and household chores. Writing and cyphering were activities men needed to do.

That said, I really, really hope it was her handwriting in that Bible – although if it were, I suspect we’d have additional information.

If Susannah lived to 1771, she would have gathered what she could, as the family hastily departed to what was then Surry County, the portion that would have become Wilkes in 1778. None of her children had yet married by this time, unless Rachel had married Niel Patton, so they would all have lived at home as they attempted to escape the fire, save their livestock, each other, and any shreds of their lives.

I hate to think of the possibility that she perished in that fire. I would think if that had happened, it would have been added to the family story, given that the fact of the arson was passed down to her grandchildren.

As horrible as this scenario is in its own right, I’d much prefer to think that the soldiers at least gave the family the opportunity to leave before torching their homes. Yes, watching your home burn would be horrific, but the terror of being trapped and trying to find everyone and escape the flames is the stuff of nightmares.

If Susannah did not live to 1771, and died between 1755 and 1771, she would have been laid to rest in the churchyard beside the Jersey Baptist Church on Jersey Church Road in Rowan County, or perhaps in a private cemetery on the land where she and John lived on Lick Creek, at the mouth of the Yadkin River.

Susannah’s grave is unmarked, and she probably rests beside some of her children in the silent spaces between gravestones.

If Susannah did make it to Surry or Wilkes County in 1771, she is probably buried with John someplace near their log home that they carved out of the wilderness where they sought shelter after escaping Governor Tryon’s marauding troops. Resting in a quaint and now overgrown cemetery where prayers were offered as family members were buried in wooden caskets made from trees in their forest home, some 250 years ago.

Susannah faced at least two, if not three, increasingly difficult unbroken frontiers, gave birth to at least nine and probably 11 children, and buried at least three or four of them, if not more.

I still try to fathom what Susannah’s life must have been like and have come to the conclusion that she must have been incredibly brave and hearty – but then again, what else could she be? She had little choice but to greet whatever challenges life rolled her way – any one of which would do us in today.

But not Susannah.

She survived long enough to shepherd in the next generation and plant the seeds of the Vannoy family in Wilkes County, North Carolina. Some family members still reside there and have flourished, while others, like seeds scattered in the wind, have established the family elsewhere.

To Susanah, every challenge was just one more obstacle to overcome, which she did handily. She just kept putting one foot in front of the other, walking down life’s rocky road.

Hand in hand with her family.

And here we are today.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me 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 Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

John Vannoy (c1716-c1774), Hornet’s Nest of Rebellion – 52 Ancestors #433

John Vannoy is often referenced as John Francis Vannoy, but I have been unable to find an actual record referencing him as such, so we will just call him John.

Once I started focusing on John, he wouldn’t leave me alone and just kept leading me (pushing me?) to more and more. What’s been uncovered is utterly amazing, including the 700-mile path of his life – from bucolic, quaint New Jersey when it was the frontier to literally the mountaintops. What an incredible life, and there’s still so much we don’t know.

Here’s what we know for a fact about John Vannoy’s lineage. The early portion is based on original documents in my possession, sourced by Yvette Hoitink, a professional genealogist based in the Netherlands. The later research on John Vannoy in New Jersey and North Carolina is primarily mine, with a lot of references to previous work of others.

  • John Vannoy was born sometime probably between 1716 and 1719 in Hopewell Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, and died sometime between 1772 and 1778 in Surry or Wilkes County, NC. The birth date of November 25, 1716, is given, as is the same date with the year of 1719, but I have never seen an actual source for this information other than other people’s trees. If anyone has a source, I’d be incredibly grateful if you’d pass it on.
  • John Vannoy was the son of Francis Vannoy, who was born in 1688 in New York. He moved to Hunterdon County, NJ, around 1714 and died there between September 1768, when his will was written, and July 1774, when it was probated. John’s mother, Francis’s wife, was Rebecca Anderson/Andriesen, the daughter of the Dutch couple Kornelis Andriesen and Annetje Opdyke.
  • Francis Vannoy was the son of John Francis Vannoy (Joannes Franciscus van Oijen), who was born in 1654 in Venlo, the Netherlands. He died between May 13, 1699, when he wrote his will, and March 17, 1700, in New York, when his wife/widow received a land grant. The surname in New York is also spelled Van Oy.
  • John Francis Vannoy was the son of Govert Vannoy (van Oij or Oeij or Oeijen) born in 1620 in the Netherlands and died in 1664, probably on the island of Texel in the Netherlands.
  • Govert was the son of Jan Hendricks van Oij born about 1575 in Buren near Zaltbommel in the Netherlands, near the small village of Oijen.

The phrase “van Oijen” would mean “of” or “from Oijen.”

This lineage is important because of what later generations said, and wrote, about John and his family.

Now that we know who John’s parents were, and where the family was from, the next logical question is the identity of his wife. That’s where we run into challenges.

John reportedly married Susanna (possibly middle name Baker) Anderson, born about 1720 in Hopewell, NJ. She reportedly died in 1816 in Wilkes County, NC. There was family oral history, provided by Andrew Vannoy, John’s grandson, that Susannah and John were cousins, although Andrew didn’t provide any names. There appears to be an assumption, or maybe family knowledge not recorded, that the “cousin” connection was from the Andreissen side

Other oral history stated that Susanna was the daughter of Andrew Anderson (Andreisen), the son of Cornelius Andriesen. Andrew is indeed the son of Cornelius, which would make Andrew the uncle of John Vannoy. Andrew’s daughter, if he had one, would be John’s first cousin. First-cousin marriages were not unusual in colonial America. Unfortunately, the extracted will of Andrew Vannoy didn’t mention any daughter, Susannah, or other children. He left everything to his wife, suggesting he may not have had children.

Rev. William Hamilton Eller (1842-1922), John’s great-grandson, copied the Vannoy family Bible records from the Bible of his grandfather, Jesse Vannoy, of Wilkes County, NC. Jesse was born in 1781 and died in 1875. Jesse was the son of Nathaniel Vannoy, the son of John Vannoy.

The information was then rewritten by Rev. Eller into one of the Eller family Bibles and eventually published in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register – Boston, Mass. In an article titled “John Vannoy Bible 1741-1904 NC, TN, OK (or OR) from Jan 1955, Vol 109 issue 1.”

Eller described the emigrants as French Huguenots who were driven to England, then to Holland, and then back to England, from where they came to America. He said one branch settled first in South Carolina and later on the Yadkin River in Davidson County, NC. Eller repeated the tradition that they were descended from the Cromwell family in England and from the Royal House of Hanover. He transcribed records, adding notes of his own.

You can read what James W. Hook (1884-1957) and Eller had to say about John Vannoy, here.

I’m sure Rev. Eller believed what he recorded to be absolutely true, and thank goodness he recorded what he did, but much of the early oral history has been disproven since that time. There is nothing to indicate that the Vannoy family was descended from French Huguenots, and the trips to England, Holland, and England seem to be somewhat fanciful. It’s not entirely impossible, but I suspect that the French connection came from the way the surname sounds, in part because that’s exactly what I thought when I first heard the name. The Dutch portion is accurate, so there was a thread of truth, which is often true with stories long passed down through generations of the family game of “telephone.” The question is, of course, which thread and in what context?

John’s children were documented from various sources, including the Bible record, as follows:

  • Rachel Vannoy was born on April 12, 1741, and was reported to have married Neil Patton, but I was unable to confirm this. However, she also married John Darnell sometime around or before 1771. They had four sons, including twins, before John reportedly died at the Battle of Hanging Rock in the Revolutionary War when the twins were but three months old. In January 1782, Rachel was ordered to deliver “what orphan children she had in possession” to the court, and in April she was granted administration of John’s Estate. In 1785, with Andrew Vannoy, she posts a bond to administer another estate, and in October of 1787, apprenticeship records show that the twins, Benjamin and Joseph, born May 6, 1780, were apprenticed to Andrew Vannoy “to learn the occupation of farmer, read, write and cipher.” In 1787, she was shown on the state census with one male child under the age of 21, and in 1795, her land was mentioned in a neighboring deed.
  • Andrew Vannoy was born on August 12, 1742, and died on October 9, 1809, in Wilkes County. His marriage license was issued on October 18, 1779, with Susannah Shepherd, daughter of John and Sarah Shepard.
  • Abraham Vannoy was born on January 15, 1745. We have no further information about Abraham, so it’s also possible that he died relatively young.
  • Francis Vannoy was born on August 13, 1746, and died near Barbourville, Knox Co., KY, on July 26, 1822. The first record of Francis appeared in the court claims in 1765 in Rowan County, NC. By 1779, he was a juror in Wilkes County, where he received land grants for seven parcels of land between 1779 and 1799 for a total of 710 acres. He moved to Knox County around 1815 based on lawsuits in Wilkes County. Francis had as many as 19 children, not all proven, by at least two wives.
  • Nathaniel Vannoy was born on February 16, 1749. He died at Greenville, SC, at age 87 of measles at the house of his daughter, Mrs. Sallie Cleveland, on July 26, 1835. “He was a soldier of the Rev. War and served with Col. Benjamin Cleveland at King’s Mountain.” His obituary further stated that he was “half English and half French in stock,” neither of which was accurate, and that he was the first white man to be born in western NC, which is doubtful. His wife was Elizabeth Ray “of Ashe Co., NC.” Nathaniel was also one of the early Baptist preachers in Wilkes County.
  • Hannah Vannoy, born March 26, 1751, married the Reverend Andrew Baker. There’s some question about whether her name was actually Susannah or Katherine, as noted below.
  • Daniel Vannoy was born on February 22, 1752, and married Sarah Hickerson on October 2, 1779. He died sometime after January 1795 and is not found in the 1800 census or later records. The family didn’t leave because his children remained in the area. His son, Joel Vannoy, married Elizabeth Saint Clear in March of 1817 in Wilkes County, and Little Hickerson signed their marriage license as bondsman. Little Hickerson was also known as Samuel Stewart, as discussed in this article, and was a nephew of Sarah Hickerson.
  • Susannah Vannoy was born July 6, 1754, and may have married John Long, Sr.
  • Katherine Vannoy was born on December 26, 1755.

Eller and others mention a man by the name of John Francis Vanay who settled in South Carolina by 1736 when he received a land grant, followed by another grant to a town lot in Purrysburgh the next year. Eller speculated that this is our John, who then moved to the Jersey Settlement at the mouth of Potts Creek in Rowan County, NC, near present-day Linwood.

I have verified the South Carolina records, and the spelling of the surname as well. I cannot make any connection between John Francis Vanay in SC and the John Vannoy known to have settled in the Jersey Settlement. I was not able to find any disposition of the John Francis Vanay land in South Carolina nor any other records. I suspect that this is where the middle name of “Francis” attributed to our John originated. The John Francis Vanay of SC could be (and probably was) a descendant of the original Long Island settler, John Vannoy, born in 1644.

The Jersey Settlement

John Vannoy married Susannah (supposedly Anderson), probably about 1740, based on the April 1741 birth of their oldest known child. They migrated to North Carolina with other NJ folks who established a community known as the Jersey Settlement on the Yadkin River in what is now Davidson Co., some 40 miles southwest of present-day Greensboro.

The Jersey Settlement of North Carolina had its roots in New Jersey.

Origins of the Jersey Settlement

From Morgan Edwards, A.M., Baptist Minister; fellow of Rhode Island College 1770-1792, “Materials Toward a History of the Baptists;” first pub. 1790, we discover:

The February 1699 Burlington County, (NJ Court) received a “Petition of some inhabitants above the falls for a new township to be called Hopewell, as also a new road and boundaries of Said town…”

The Township’s location was described c1770:

Hopewell is situated 40 miles S.W. of Philadelphia, bounded on the East by the Province line, West by the Delaware River, on the North by Amwell Twp., and on the South by Assunpink Creek, and included the Indian village of Wissamensen at the head of Stony Brook, some miles north of the falls of the Delaware.

You can see a John Van Noy on an 1875 map, here. There’s another Vannoy as well and at least one Updyke. Lots of people from this cluster of families stayed when others left for the next frontier.

In her book First Families of Jersey Settlement, published in 1996, Ethel Stroup describes the origins of the Jersey Settlement in North Carolina, which, of course, originated in New Jersey.

Its first settlers were Hopewell citizens who migrated after being swindled by Proprietors and royal Governors, especially Dr. Daniel Coxe and his son Col. Daniel Coxe, two powerful and greedily villainous Proprietors, in “The Coxe Affair.”  What these Jersey men endured in Hopewell directly affected the Yadkin’s Revolutionary generation, explaining why Jersey Settlement had reacted so violently against N.C.’s corrupt Gov. William Tryon’s sticky-fingered royal officials, John Frohock, Rowan Court Clerk, and Edmund Fanning, King’s Attorney, whose thievery and injustices caused the 1771 Regulator War (considered by historians the first true battle of the American Revolution), and caused Charles Lord Cornwallis to call central North Carolina “a hornet’s nest of rebellion.”

The earliest families of Jersey Settlement came from Hopewell Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, about 1745, where some had been members of Pennington’s Presbyterian Church, and others were Quakers and Baptists who baptized their children in St. Mary’s Episcopal church for practical, political reasons.

They were founding this settlement so that they (and groups that followed) could recoup losses suffered when New Jersey’s Supreme Court invalidated deeds to thousands of acres in Hopewell, land their fathers had purchased as wilderness.

The first NC settlers list did not include John Vannoy or his father, but did include Cornelius Anderson, nephew of John’s mother, Susannah Anderson Vannoy, through her brother, Bartholomew Anderson/Andriesen. Cornelius would also have been related to John Vannoy’s wife, assuming that the family history that they were first cousins was true.

By the time John Vannoy became an adult, the ongoing land conflict in Hopewell made it obvious that there was likely no future of land ownership there.

In 1731, calamity befell these honest and hard working settlers when “Col. Coxe and other heirs of the late Dr. Coxe” declared that most of Hopewell belonged to them, a claim without an honest basis, e.g., improper surveys or failure to pay — but the West Jersey Society lacked a court record proving Dr. Coxe’s transfer to them. His heir, Col. Coxe, had enough political clout to induce Hunterdon’s Supreme Court to order High Sheriff Bennett Bard to serve perhaps a hundred or more Hopewell residents with Writs ordering them to “Pay” for their land a second time or “Quit.” Those who failed to repurchase their own farms then received “Writs of Ejectment” which called them “Tenants” and “Tresspassers” on Coxe’s land! On April 22, 1731, in an impressive show of unity, fifty of the earliest settlers of Hopewell entered into a written agreement and solemn compact to stand by each other and test the validity of Col. Coxe’s claim. They hired an attorney, Mr. Kinsey, and filed a counter suit naming Col. Daniel Coxe as sole defendant. The Township had more people, but some were not affected, having purchased [directly] from Coxe. Others considered it useless to fight a man as powerful as Col. Coxe, so did not join in the law suit. The August 1732 term of the New Jersey Supreme Court issued Writs of Trespass & Ejectment against each settler who had not repurchased. The fifty men who sued were identified from their individual records.

Bartholomew Anderson was noted on the list, as were Francis and Daniel Gano, and one John Hendrickson, which I only note here due to the similarity to the name Hickerson and Y-DNA matches to Henderson men whose ancestor is from Hunterdon County.

Long story short, after numerous appeals in courts beset by crooked politicians, the final appeal was exhausted in 1734, and the settlers had but three choices: pay, remove, or revolt.

Historian Ralph Ege (born in Hopewell in 1837) wrote about the great dilemma:

This verdict caused the most distressing state of affairs in this township that was ever experienced in any community. Some moved away immediately, but the majority stayed, at least initially, and assumed the financial burden. Cattle and personal possessions were sold, and a great struggle began which impoverished many families for years to come. Then came the great excitement incident to ejecting the settlers from the farms which they, or their fathers had purchased, and on which they had built dwellings, barns and fences. Their lands had cost them only fifty cents per acre, it is true, but they had purchased them in good faith and spent the best years of their lives in clearing them. Many had mortgaged them to pay for the expense of improvement consequently not being able to incur the additional expense, they were compelled to leave their homes and seek new homes elsewhere, risking for the second, and for some of them the third time, the perils of the wilderness.

In 1734, John Vannoy would have been 15 and 18 years old, a very impressionable young man. He would have watched his father agonize over what to do and listened as the other men discussed their horrible dilemma.

John’s father, Francis Vannoy:

  • Was not on the list of “50 men”
  • Was not evicted or escaped the state in subsequent years “for debt,” which was charged to men who refused to repay to purchase their land and were therefore charged “rent,” which they also refused to pay
  • According to his 1768 will, Francis owned land at his death

Given this, we can presume that Francis did indeed repurchase his land from the swindling Coxe family.

About half of the families on the infamous “50 men” list left in the next few years to areas where they felt there was less corruption, available land, and honest people.

A popular destination was the upper Shenandoah Valley where the first settlement was started in 1730 when guide Morgan Bryan led a group of Quakers walking from Pennsylvania to the upper Potomac. He settled his own family on Opequon Creek, an area that in 1738 became Frederick County, Virginia.

About 1732, another guide, Jost Hite, opened the first wagon road as far as Winchester, settling his group of Pennsylvania Germans on a different stretch of Opequon Creek.

Comparison of records for early settlers in the upper Valley shows many with surnames identical to those in New Jersey’s “Coxe Affair.”

The greatest concentration of New Jersey migrants was along Back Creek (the next creek west of Opequon) in a small, mountain community where a peak was fortuitously named by its early settlers “Jersey Mountain.”

This information is important because it weaves people from these places together in unexpected ways.

However, things weren’t always peaceful on the frontier, either. Farming was difficult, Indian raids necessitated building forts and required a conscripted militia, and many of the original New Jersey settlers were now either middle-aged or elderly. Given what had happened in New Jersey, they didn’t want to be squatters, either, and they hoped for a better environment.

North Carolina beckoned.

By May 1741, Bladen County issued deeds on the Great Peedee (Yadkin). It was no accident that the Hopewell group chose its north bank to found their “Jersey Settlement,” an area described as: “Ten square miles of the best wheat land in the south, located in (modern) Davidson County, near Linwood. The exact year in which the Jersey Settlement was made on the Yadkin is not known. It is probable that this settlement left New Jersey and arrived on the Yadkin between 1747 and 1755. It was composed of many people from New Jersey who had sent an agent there to locate and enter the best land still open to settlement.” [John Preston Arthur, A History of Watauga County, N. C., (1915) p.88].

A great attraction for these victims of political corruption was that in 1745 North Carolina was exceptionally well governed. Gov. Gabriel Johnston was an honest, capable Scottish physician and professor who on arrival found the colony in pitiable condition, and tried earnestly to better its welfare. “Under (Johnston’s) prudent administration, the province increased in population, wealth and happiness.”  [C. L. Hunter, Sketches of Western North Carolina, (1877), p. 7].

About 1745, the New Jersey group (perhaps a dozen or more families) left Back Creek in a wagon train bound for the Yadkin. Based on events after arrival, their leaders were probably Jonathan Hunt and Thomas Smith, but they were almost surely guided by the famous “Waggoneer” and explorer, Morgan Bryan who guided other groups to this general area, and in 1748 brought his own family from the Opequon to form Morgan’s Settlement on the south bank of Deep Creek, four miles above the “Shallow Ford” of the Yadkin. [Robert W. Ramsey, Carolina Cradle, Settlement of the Northwest Carolina Frontier, 1747-1762; (U.N.C. Press, 1964; 4th printing 1987), p. 31].

So began the River Settlements, best reached from the north via an old Indian warpath, widened and renamed The Yading Path. About 1745/6 Thomas Smith received land on Swearing Creek, but his Bladen deed is missing (as are many others.)

At the time of the formation of Rowan County in 1753, two of the Yadkin settlers, Col. George Smith and Jonathan Hunt, were important enough that the Assembly would not approve the bill for the formation of Rowan County until the names of Col. George Smith, and Capt. Jonathan Hunt, were re-inserted. Their names had been in the original bill for formation, but had been deleted and other names substituted by his Majesty’s Council. Early Jersey Church served Episcopalians, Baptists and Presbyterians, with later sermons, marriages and baptisms performed by visiting preachers, including Moravians, and catechism lessons by Lutheran Rev. David Henkel. [George Smith (1713-c1799) s/o Andrew, Jr., brother-in-law to Jonathan Hunt; Smith Bible; Rep. James Whitaker (1779-1871) of Cherokee Co., N.C., My Memoirs, private publication].

While one might presume that the earliest settlers in the Jersey Settlement did not maintain contact with their family members either in Virginia or New Jersey, we know that’s not true based on a number of factors, including deaths that occurred in North Carolina that were recorded in Bibles in Hopewell, New Jersey.

Furthermore, Morgan and others traveled back and forth, guiding new families to various locations in Virginia and North Carolina. Morgan would have carried news and possibly letters with him, too.

The first settlers would have invited others to join them in the beautiful valley of the Yadkin River. Even if Hopewell residents didn’t have immediate family there, they often had more distant family, as did John Vannoy and Susannah Anderson. Furthermore, they knew the families from church, and they knew they had a support structure before they packed up their possessions, loaded them into a wagon, hitched up the horses or oxen, and set off on the Great Wagon Road from the Yadkin River to Philadelphia for the new frontier, as seen on this 1749 map. New settlers swelled the ranks of the North Carolina Counties.

History of the Jersey Settlement from the History of Watauga County. Chapter VIII:

First Light on the Jersey Settlement.- From a sketch of the Greene Family of Watauga, by the late Rev. G. W. Greene, Baptist missionary to China, we learn that “about the middle of the eighteenth century a colony moved from New Jersey and settled in Rowan County, North Carolina.”

Bishop Spangenberg mentioned the 400 families from the North had just arrived in 1752 and the fact that most of the land east of Rowan County had already been taken up at that time. (Id. Vol. IV, p. 1312.)

Anson County was formed from Bladen County in 1748. Rowan County was formed from the northern part of Anson County and was intended to incorporate all of the lands within the Granville District that had previously been in Anson County.

Rowan County

John Vannoy is not found in the records of Frederick County, Virginia, or elsewhere using the FamilySearch AI Search for all of Virginia. He is not found in either Bladen or Anson Counties, but he was in Rowan County by September of 1753 when he registered his stock mark.

John was in his mid-30s, had been married for 13 or 14 years, had seven children, and most certainly wanted to own his own land that he could one day bequeath to his children. He yearned to escape the constant drama and trauma associated with the “Coxe Affair.” No one wants to live in a cesspool of corruption.

One day, something served as the final straw, and they decided to go.

The Vannoy family, with children ranging in age from newborn to 11 or 12, piled into the back of their wagon. They would have been very hopeful as the wagon creaked over the dirt road and mountains, lumbering toward this new chapter of their lives, perhaps singing as they went.

Leaving the known for the unknown is every bit as much an act of faith as religious beliefs and rituals.

Rowan County Courthouse, September 3, 1753:

3rd Tues September 1753 – John Vanoy prays his mark and brand to be recorded granted his mark a swallowfork in the near ear and a half crop in the right, brand J V

A swallowfork looks like this, and a half-crop means cutting half the ear off. Yea, pretty offputting, but that was the way of life for a very long time. Livestock was corralled in barns and fed during the winter but set loose to graze in the woodlands, mingling with the animals of other settlers during the rest of the year. Stock marks were the only means of identifying your animals.

Note that Squire Boon, Daniel Boone’s father, was one of the esquires present in the court that day.

Given that John registered his stock mark at this point in time, it’s probably when he arrived in Rowan County from the Jersey settlement. Finding a place to live before winter and registering your stock mark would have been the first things he did.

The pioneer Presbyterian Reverend Hugh McAden recorded in his journal that he spent the night of September 5, 1755, at the home of John Vannoy after having ridden 45 miles that day. The fact that he was Presbyterian and stayed with John probably indicates that John was Presbyterian, too, at least at this point in his life.

McAden goes on to say:

Next morning, came to Henry Sloan’s, at the Yadkin Ford, where I was kindly entertained till Sabbath day; rode to the meeting-house and preached to a small congregation.” Here there appears to have been a congregation of some strength that had a meeting-house, but had become divided,—“Many adhere to the Baptists that were before wavering, and several that professed themselves to be Presbyterians; so that very few at present join heartily for our ministers, and will in a little time, if God prevent not, be too weak either to call or supplicate for a faithful minister. O may the good Lord, who can bring order out of confusion, and call things that are not as though they were, visit this people!” One cause of the divisions in this congregation arose from the labors of a Baptist minister among them by the name of Miller.

After preaching, he visited some sick people, and went home with James Smith, about four miles. On Tuesday, he “preached again at the meeting-house, and went home with Cornelius Anderson, about six miles – a judicious, honest man, I hope, who seems to be much concerned for the state of the church and perishing souls.”

It’s worth noting that Cornelius Anderson was John Vannoy’s relative, as was the Smith family. Rebecka Andriesen (Anderson) married John Smith. She died in North Carolina in 1785. Her brother was Bartholomew Anderson, father of Cornelius Anderson. Her sister married Francis Vannoy, father of John Vannoy.

These people were clearly Presbyterian, too. However, during the Regulator Movement, McAden and three other Presbyterian ministers supported the colonial government, calling upon their brethren who signed the Regulator oath to repent. That’s very likely when John Vannoy converted to the Baptist faith.

Rowan (County) Deed abstracts (1753-1785 by Linn) tell us who John’s neighbors were.

March 8, 1758 – McCulloh to David Jones 40 pounds 545 ac adj Robert Gamble, John Vanoy and Jeremiah Green, John, Willis Ellis, John McGuire (deed badly damaged)

David Jones and wife Hannah to Thomas Parker Esq. for 51 pounds VA money land adj Robert Gamble, John Vanoy and Jeremiah Green, no witnesses (deed badly damaged)

Next 2 pages of the deed book are missing

This “Jersey Settlement” is now a part of Davidson County, and lies near the Yadkin River, opposite Salisbury. H. E. McCullough of England had secured grants to large tracts in North Carolina, tract No. 9 containing 12,500 acres, including much of the land of the Jersey Settlement.

From a sketch of the Greene Family of Watauga by the late Rev. G. W. Greene, Baptist missionary to China, we learn that Jeremiah Greene bought a 541-acre tract described as lying “on the waters of Atkin or Pee Dee” on Pott’s Creek. This creek passes near the village of Linwood, within a mile of the Jersey church, and empties into the Yadkin, not far away. This land was bought in 1762.

Note that today part of the Yadkin and Potts Creek have been flooded by the High Rock Damn and are now High Rock Lake.

John Vannoy is found on a 1759 tax list as well.

John is listed as a juror several times over the next several years, which tells us that he owned land, even if we don’t know exactly where it was located.

  • October 21, 1757
  • October 17, 1759
  • January 23 and 24, 1761
  • April 24, 1761

Eller said that John is “said to have lived” in the Jersey Settlement until about 1772 and sympathized with the Regulators in their opposition to the unjust tax and service fee policy of the British Government under Governor William Tryon.

After their rebellion was crushed at Alamance in May of 1771, many of the settler’s homes along the Yadkin River were pillaged and destroyed and the home of John Vannoy is said to have been one of them. He, therefore, disposed of his farm and moved westward to a safer place in the mountains of Wilkes Co., NC. See chapter VI in “The Rowan Story” by James S. Brawley, 1953 and the book “Some Neglected History of NC” by William E. Fitch, for more about the “Regulator” movement which some historians say was the first battle of the Revolution.”

The Wilkes Co. Reddies River book states:

Apparently John lived in or near the Jersey settlement in Rowan Co prior to his coming to Wilkes. He was a staunch Baptist in his religious beliefs and sympathized with the “Regulators” in their opposition to the unjust and oppressive policies of the British Government under Governor Wiliam Tryon.  Consequently, his home was one of those pillaged and destroyed by the troops of Gov. Tryon in the early summer of 1771, and Mr. Vannoy and his family were forced to flee for their lives.

The remoteness of Reddies River about 75 miles upstream beckoned unto these persecuted people and it is here that they found their new homes. The 1771 tax list of Surry Co. shows John and his sons, Andrew and Francis, as being taxable.

Eller states that John and Susannah Vannoy were staunch Baptists in their religious beliefs and also says that John and Susannah “identified with the great religious revival that the Baptist church, through George McNiel and John Gano, were introducing throughout southern Virginia and the Yadkin Valley in NC.”

If John had not already become Baptist, the Regulator Movement did it. John Vannoy was reported by some to have been a minister, but I have found no evidence for that. Maybe he preached in his zeal to whomever would listen. How could one NOT have strong feelings about what was going on?

We find John appearing in the Surry County Court notes three times in 1757 and then in 1760 as John Venoy, a juror.

Also, in 1757, John Venoy and Frederick Michael were securities for Hance Licans (probably Hans Laicans/Lycans) as administrators in the estate of Daniel Halsey.

A lull in activity between 1762 and 1764 may have resulted from the Cherokee’s displeasure with the uninvited settlers. The Creeks had joined the Cherokees in warfare against the settlers, forcing many to flee and the ones remaining to huddle in their fortified homes.

The conflict began in Virginia with settlers killing Cherokee warriors returning from fighting the French, causing the Cherokee to attack white settlements in North Carolina in the spring of 1759.

A peace treaty was reached in 1761, but settlers continued to ignore British promises not to settle on Cherokee land and continued to do so after the Proclamation Act of 1763.

Settlers began to flow back to Yadkin Valley from wherever they had sought refuge and attention was refocused on the tax controversy. Baptists and other dissenters were frustrating Gov. William Tryon’s plan for the Established Church.

In 1764, John Venoy (and others, including Morgan Bryant) were ordered to lay out a road from White’s ford on Yadkin to the Shallow ford on said river:

January 10, 1765 – Ordered that a road be laid out leading from Whites ford on the Yadkin River to the Shallow ford on said rover and that the following persons lay out the same to wit Morgan Bryant, Abraham Creson, John Howard, Silis Enyard, Henry Shedmore, Francis Reynolds, Edmund Denny, John Vannoy, Thomas Barton, Luke Lee, Samuel Hays, Samuel Bryan, Henry Shedmor (Skidmore?) overseer from Millers to the Shallow ford. Edmund Denny from Christion Millers to the White’s ford

John was a juror when the following action took place in court the following day.

January 11, 1765 – John Bridges Jr., Richard Perkins Jr., and Robert Biggam Perkins have feloniously taken and lead away 2 stone horses and one gelding of the price of 5 pounds each the property of persons unknown supposed to belong the some of our Indian Allies the Cherokees and herby ordered a warrant be issued…

Attending court was akin to attending the movies, watching a thriller on TV, or social media today. Everyone retired to the tavern afterward to discuss what had happened and to eat and imbibe, of course. Men rented a room as well, sleeping multiple men to a bed so they could be present for court the following day.

Also, in 1765, John’s son, Francis, was paid for a wolf scalp.

In the Rowan Court Notes book from 1753-1772, John Vannoy was a juror in the case of Thomas Foster vs George Smith. It’s likely that he was related to George Smith, given that Rebecka Andriesen, sister of John’s mother, married John Smith. The couple and their children came to Rowan County.

John Vannoy and son were listed in 1768 on a tax list with two polls, meaning two men in the household were of age. This causes me to wonder where his other sons were, because three of them were of age too.

Rowan Court Minutes 1768-1772

February 15, 1770 – road order including Daniel Boone to lay off a road from the Shallow ford to Millers about 2 miles below said Millers the nearest and best way through the Great Gap of said Brushey Mountain the best way to George Boons at the mouth of Bever Creek to strike Mr. Montgomery’s road near the main Yadkin River.

This road order is incredibly important.

This is the first entry that connects John Vannoy with the Wilkes County area. Note that Shallow Ford is about halfway between the Jersey Settlement and Wilkesboro, noted here with Miller’s Creek. Brushey Mountain is just south of Wilkesboro.

Beaver Creek, where the Boone cabin was located, is found about 10 miles further west, and dumps into the Yadkin near present-day Ferguson.

This road would eventually be extended to Kentucky and become known as the “Daniel Boone Trail.” It was likely the same route that Francis Vannoy, who knew Boone, would follow through the Cumberland Gap some 40+ years later.

In the next entry, Page 3:172:

Henry Skidmore appointed overseer of the road from the Shallowford road to Hunting Creek and inhabitants of Deep Creek to work thereon. Edmond Dinney overseer from Hunting Creek to Fishers Creek with inhabitants from Little Elkin on both sides of the Yadkin up to Mulberry Creek to work thereon. John Vanoy from Fisher’s Creek to the upper end with the inhabitants from Mulberry Creek on both sides of the Yadkin to the head of the river to work thereon.

The head of the Yadkin is near Blowing Rock, in the mountains a few miles south of Boone, NC.

According to a note from Jason Duncan, Wilkes County historian, in 2019 on the Daniel Vannoy article, this is probably Fishing Creek which seems to be appropriate when looking at his database.

This is not a trivial distance for John to manage, and he tells us that he was a fit mountaineer at 50-55 years of age. I’ve approximated the route along the Yadkin from Fishing Creek to the head of the Yadkin, which is around 90 miles through challenging and difficult terrain.

Here’s a picture of the stunning Yadkin Valley from the Thunder Hill Overlook on the Blue Ridge Parkway. In reality, this landscape is often enveloped in fog, and the road is high and treacherous. I’ve driven it, never realizing its significance. This was the termination point of John’s road crew – the end of the line – but the beginning of the next chapter for John and his sons.

This one photo, alone, caused me to look upon John with immense respect. This rugged terrain tells us about his character and bravery – that he was tenacious. He appeared to fear nothing.

This is truly God’s country where every person succeeds or dies by their wits and survival skills. There’s no help here.

This land, these mountains, they challenge and change you.

John returned, at least briefly, but his life was never the same.

He was forever changed.

Mulberry Creek

Mulberry Creek dumps into the Yadkin at Wilkesboro, which was originally called Mulberry Fields.

We’ve now connected the dots for John Vannoy from the Jersey Settlement to not only Wilkesboro, but Mulberry Creek where his son Andrew Vannoy obtained a land grant for 50 acres in 1789 and 600 acres in 1790, adjoining the Hall family.

Today, Andrew’s land is dissected by Highway 18, just beneath McGrady.

But before we visit Wilkes County, let’s visit the Jersey Settlement and follow John’s life path.

Visit to the Jersey Settlement

In May of 2012, I visited the area of the Jersey Settlement in former Rowan, now Davidson County, NC, and, thankfully, wrote an account of my visit. You always think you’ll remember, but reading something you wrote years ago makes you realize just how much you forget.

While this is but one part of the early Vannoy family history, it is one of the most relevant chapters of John Vannoy’s life – and critically important to the lives of his children – some of whom were born in the Jersey Settlement. His eldest children probably had faint memories of New Jersey and the long wagon ride. Perhaps they shared these stories with their grandchildren half a century later – around the fireplace on crisp winter evenings as the winds howled in the mountains.

The Jersey Settlement formed who this family was and informed how they got to both North Carolina and Wilkes County. Taken as a whole, it was quite a journey, fit for a made-for-TV documentary, complete with power brokers and rife with danger, conflict, and betrayals. And just think – we only know tidbits!

John Vannoy would have been about 36 years old, give or take, if he arrived in the Jersey Settlement in 1752. He lived there for just shy of two decades, along the Yadkin River in Rowan Co, NC, near the mouth of Lick Creek at a spot long remembered as the old Vannoy Fish Dam. In 1771, when the area was terrorized by Gov. Tryon’s troops who pillaged and destroyed the Yadkin settlements after Alamance, John and his family reportedly fled to the mountains in what later became Wilkes County.

Did they? Is there evidence?

John clearly knew this land better than any other living white man, perhaps with the exception of Daniel Boone and his father.

The Jersey Settlement, Then and Now

Now that we know the settlement story, let’s try to locate the Jersey Settlement today. That was my 2012 challenge.

This 1775 map of North Carolina shows the few roads of the time, including the Trading Road into Salisbury and Potts Creek. I’ve marked the location of the Jersey Settlement.

A larger view shows the Jersey Settlement near Salisbury, along with the Mulberry Fields near the top left. This shows us the path that John Vannoy would have taken as the family migrated from his land in the Jersey Settlement to where he settled north of Mulberry Fields. Mulberry Fields is now the area where Wilkesboro is found, but at that time, “Mulberry” followed Mulberry Creek and its branches from the Yadkin River north to the ridge of the mountains.

John knew this. He laid out that road in the wilderness, and along with his road hands, made it so.

I used contemporary Google maps to trace the route John Vannoy would have taken, along with his family.

John’s son, Nathaniel, settled at or near what is now Wilkesboro. Daniel tried unsuccessfully to settle there. Andrew settled at McGrady. Daniel, Nathaniel, and Francis also obtained land grants further west in the mountains.

The road between Wilkesboro and Laurel Springs appears to be the old road North through the Valley, but not the one John laid out. That road continued west from the mouth of Mulberry Creek and the Yadkin.

At best, this is rough terrain. At worst, impenetrable. Maybe that dissuaded Governor Tryon’s troops from pursuing the fleeing families. Maybe simply chasing them away was enough.

John Vannoy would have sought shelter overnight, and possibly longer, at Fort Dobbs both when laying out the road and later. The horses could have rested and been fed, and the humans too. The fort as a soldier’s garrison was abandoned in 1761, but the structure was certainly still standing in 1770 or 1771 when John would have been traveling northwestward. It was shown on the 1775 map.

Today, from an aerial view, we can still see the outline of Fort Dobbs itself, which was a blockhouse, along with the palisade and moat.

Today, a blockhouse is being reconstructed.

John Vannoy, just past half a century, and his sons, ranging in age from about 20 to 28, would have seen something similar as they approached the abandoned Fort Dobbs on horseback.

The Jersey Settlement

In an online article, which I believe was written by Teddy Barclay Pope in 2000, subsequently posted on a Rootsweb list, and is today preserved on the North Carolina GenWeb project, we find additional information, which I’ve both quoted and summarized where appropriate.

Beginning around 1740, some people from New Jersey, and the congregation of the Baptist Church now known as Old School Baptist Church of Hopewell, New Jersey (above), began to migrate to North Carolina to an area called Jersey Settlement. Eventually, they built a church called Jersey Church.

The original church in New Jersey, now a museum, was simply called the Hopewell Meeting House and was a one-story stone structure constituted about 1747.

In North Carolina today, the Jersey Baptist Church is the largest church in the area, located on Jersey Church Road in present-day Davidson County.

The museum representative at Hopewell told the writer that their records name some people who were in a suit about land that was in North Carolina as their money had been taken in a scam. They had to pay twice. She called some of the names out over the telephone, but the writer did not hear the name of Barkley and did not write down the other names. She said that this suit was why they had any record of the names of people from Hopewell New Jersey going to North Carolina.

It’s a good thing the mention of this lawsuit still exists, because without it, there would be no direct evidence that the NJ group was the same group in the Rowan County Jersey Settlement. Obtaining those lawsuit records, if they still exist, would be very enlightening.

The Early Jersey Church and the Regulators War

The church secretary at Jersey Baptist Church read to the writer from the church history book, which is a bounded published book in its second printing and now has an index. The book tells of about 125 young people who migrated from the congregation of Old School Baptist Church in 1756 to Rowan County North Carolina and formed a settlement called Jersey Settlement. They had a grant of 100,000 acres of land, within the Granville grant, for settling. Their preacher was John Gano. John Gano was not at the time an ordained minister, because the Hopewell Church thought he was too young and too inexperienced to be ordained by them.

On Nov. 15, 1757, Gano and his family, a handful of possessions and a heart full of faith, arrived in the valley. He built a log dwelling for his family on the banks of Swearing Creek.

By the first of July, the settlers had completed their meeting house on a gentle hilltop overlooking the rich valley.

In another document, the Rev. George McNiel is noted in conjunction with the early Jersey Church and the Regulators Movement, although I have found no evidence of that. He certainly would have known Gano as a fellow backwoods preacher.

Born about 1720, McNiel was one of the earliest Baptist preachers in this region and eventually settled in Wilkes County. His descendants, as well as those of the Sheppard family, intermarried heavily with the Vannoys in Wilkes County and lived in close proximity.

It was not John Gano’s intent to stay permanently in the Jersey settlement.

He went back to Hopewell, NJ, but came to visit the Jersey Settlement several times. He also asked for a missionary to go to Jersey settlement to work with the people there.

The minutes of Jersey Baptist Church began in 1784. Earlier minutes were lost, but by then, the church had been meeting for thirty years.

The following information about the Baptists in Rowan County was found in James Ervin’s book “A Colonial History of Rowan County, North Carolina,” published by the University of North Carolina in 1917.

Information as to the Baptists in early Rowan is very meager. When the Rev. Hugh McAden passed through this section in 1755, he found a meeting house in the Jersey Settlement. There was much confusion in the congregation, many of whom were Baptists and several professing to be Presbyterians. One cause of the trouble arose from the labors of a Mr. Miller, a Baptist minister. With the aid of a Rev. Mr., Gano, Miller established a Baptist Church in the Jersey Settlement.

Benjamin Miller preached there as early as 1755, and the facts indicate that there were already Baptists on the Yadkin when Benjamin Miller visited the settlement. The Philadelphia Association has in its records of 1755 the following reference: “Appointed that one minister from the Jerseys and one from Pennsylvania visit North Carolina.” But Miller appears to have gone to the “Jersey Settlement still earlier than 1755.” (p.17).

Another preacher who visited the Jersey Settlement was John Gano. He had been converted just before this time, and was directed by Benjamin Miller, pastor of Scotch Plains Church, New Jersey, to take the New Testament as his guide on baptism. He became a Baptist, and, learning of Carolina from Miller, decided to visit the Jersey Settlement on his way to South Carolina. This he seems to have done in 1756. During his stay at the settlement, he tells us in his autobiography that “a Baptist Church was constituted and additions made to it.” He left the colony early in the year 1759, and so the church must have been organized between 1756 and 1758.

There’s more to this story, though.

The predominant church in the British Colonies was the Church of England. Its ministers, educated in England, did not appeal to the residents and “dissenting ministers” soon had the ear of the people. The Jersey Settlers, as a result, were soon swept up in the heat of political controversy.

During the next decade, the settlers in North Carolina were to engage in a struggle that would have a resounding effect across the colonies – the struggle between the “Regulators” and the imposition of taxation and the Established Church.

Upon the formation of Rowan County in 1753, a courthouse was built, and Governor Dobbs sent officers, attorneys, and tax collectors to be supported by the settlers’ taxes – the same as any other county in any other colony.

County taxes, poll taxes, and a vestry tax were imposed with the Vestry Act, providing “that the clergy may have a decent and comfortable maintenance and support.” The clergy, of course, meant Church of England ministers who were provided with a home to live in and a salary.

Baptists did not believe in paying taxes to support a minister of the Church of England, especially ones who wanted to tell them how to worship.

At the same time, the local agricultural community was suffering from a deep economic depression due to severe droughts throughout the preceding decade. Crop loss caused farmers to lose not only their direct food source, but their primary means of income as well, which led many to rely on the goods being brought in by newly arrived merchants.

Since income was greatly reduced or nonexistent, the local planters often fell into debt, which could not be paid off immediately. In turn, the merchants would rely on lawyers and the court to settle unpaid accounts. Debts were not uncommon at the time, but from 1755 to 1765, the number of cases brought to the docket increased 15-fold, from 7 annually to 111 in Orange County alone. Court cases could often lead to planters losing their homes and property, so they grew to resent the presence of the new merchants and the lawyers – in addition to the taxing authorities, politicians, and Church of England ministers.

The shift in population and politics eventually led to an imbalance within the colony’s power structure. The newly arrived and well-educated lawyers used their superior knowledge of the law to their sometimes unjust advantage. A small clique of wealthy officials formed and became an exclusive inner circle in charge of the area’s legal affairs. The group was seen as a ‘courthouse ring,’ or a small group of officials who obtained most of the political power for themselves.

John Gano was a natural leader and formed a protest group of some 700 people who met in 1758 to formulate a set of articles, one calling for an end of the vestries. This event began a long, bitter struggle between religious settlers who were not members of the Church of England, pitted against the forces of the early colonial government.

In 1759, political disputes waned slightly as an all-out effort was waged to conquer the warring Cherokees – a result of the French and Indian War.

The Creeks had joined the Cherokees in warfare against settlers, forcing many to flee and the remaining families to huddle in their fortified homes, hoping for the best.

Gano decided that his obligation to protect his family was as great as his duty to the settlement. He returned to New Jersey and later became a chaplain in Gen. George Washington’s Revolutionary War forces.

After peace was reached with the Indians in 1763, settlers began to flow back into the Yadkin Valley, and attention was refocused on the tax controversy. Baptists and other dissenters resumed attempting to frustrate Gov. William Tryon’s plan for the Established Church, which ultimately led to the Battle of Alamance in 1771.

Small acts of resistance and petty violence continued during that time, and the Regulator sympathizers increased.

The most heavily affected areas were said to be Rowan, Anson, Orange, Granville, and Cumberland counties. It was a struggle between the majority of North Carolina’s population—mostly lower-class citizens, farmers, and tradesmen—and the wealthy ruling class, which comprised about 5% of the population who maintained almost complete control of the government. Needless to say, their interests were not necessarily those of the common man.

North Carolina’s colonial court met in Hillsborough. In September 1770, the Regulators entered Hillsborough, broke up the court, and dragged those they saw as corrupt officials through the streets. The mob attempted to have the judge try the cases pending against several Regulator leaders.

The presiding judge, Richard Henderson, who became a land speculator, quickly adjourned the court until the next morning to avoid being forced to make a ruling in the presence of an angry mob of Regulators. He escaped during the night.

Infuriated and robbed of justice, the Regulators rioted the next day, destroying public and private property alike. The courthouse was systematically and symbolically vandalized, and the King’s lawyer, Edmund Fanning, was severely beaten. Human waste was placed on the judge’s seat, and the body of a long-deceased slave was placed upon the lawyer’s bar. (I’m horrified on several levels!)

The mob continued to destroy shops and property in the town, and ultimately brought their destructive band to Fanning’s personal residence. After destroying all of the furniture and drinking all of his alcohol, the entire house was picked apart. Henderson’s barn, along with his stables and home, were burned to the ground. They cracked the church bell of the Church of England, but stopped short of looting the church further due to their “religious beliefs.”

At that time, disrupting court and hanging officials in effigy was an accepted practice to draw attention to one’s cause, especially as a protest. This time, though, things clearly got out of hand, although the Regulators did not destroy the courthouse. They called for a resumption of order and just rule.

From the government perspective, this was clearly an escalation from earlier protests, could not be ignored, and set off a chain of events that led directly to the Battle of Alamance eight months later, in May of 1771.

While there were someplace beween 2000 and 6000 men involved at the Battle of Alamance, only nine men on each side were killed, and other than the seven Regulators executed, everyone else who was captured in battle was fully pardoned in exchange for pledging allegiance to the crown..

Following the battle, Tryon’s militia army traveled through Regulator territory, where he forced Regulators and Regulator sympathizers to sign loyalty oaths and destroyed the properties of the most fervent Regulators. He also raised taxes to pay for his militia’s defeat of the Regulators.

Many of the Regulator leaders remained in hiding until 1772, when they were no longer considered outlaws with the expiration of Johnson’s Riot Act, and others moved westward.

This clearly affected the parishioners of the Jersey Church, most of whom were Regulators, and was a turning point in the Jersey Settlement.

The next frontier beckoned.

Jersey Church Cemetery and Records

By 1771, the Jersey Church had been in use in some capacity for at least two decades.

But where?

The graveyard of the Jersey Baptist Church contains many very old graves and markers. Some of these stones have inscriptions that can be read, but others, not so much. The Jersey Baptist Church had a section of land they thought was for expansion of their graveyard. When they began to attempt to use it, they found that it was already full, containing even older unmarked graves. At that time, they didn’t know why the graves were unmarked. It might have been that the graves had markers earlier that had deteriorated and were removed. It might have been that the graves were not marked to conceal the number of dead from the Indians, who would have been better able to determine the number of living by knowing the number who had died. Whenever a new grave was to be dug, and it was found that it had already been used, by a bone or a button or a piece of cloth coming up, the object was replaced and left further undisturbed.

Various books have made several mentions of Jersey Settlement and the church.

Land was deeded for a church in the area, but it was for a Presbyterian Church. Researchers were cautioned not to discount this as being the Jersey Church because it could very well have been and probably was. The church was “started” more than once. Although the present Jersey Church personnel were not aware of it, other family records and other types of records make mention of three distinct groups using the same building. It is not understood if the three groups formed one congregation, or if there were three distinct congregations using the same building. I’d guess that when it was “started” depended on which religious group you were a member of.

In early Virginia, it was common for multiple congregations, particularly Baptists and Methodists, to use the same building. Both were considered dissenting religions. Prior to that, meetings were held in members’ homes.

One Barclay family paper, written by Margaret Barkley of Waco, Texas, who visited Rowan County to research, mentions a Quaker meeting from Manalapan, New Jersey, that turned their meeting in New Jersey into a Baptist congregation and migrated with their religious leader John Gano to Rowan County NC. Margaret’s report, complete with a bibliography, stated that they met with the Jersey Church congregation. The Jersey Baptist church personnel said that they knew nothing about any Quakers whatsoever in connection with their church. Margaret said that contact with the Quakers produced no information of a Quaker Meeting there. We do know that Squire Boone is mentioned in various records, and the Boone family was Quaker.

We also know that Morgan Bryan, one of the leaders who let wagon trains to the Jersey Settlement, also founded the Hopewell Friends Meeting, originally called “Opeckan,” in Frederick County, VA, on Opequon Creek. His granddaughter, whom he raised, married Daniel Boone.

Margaret writes:

Robert Barclay of Rowan was born 1-9-1717/18 in Dublin Ireland. He came to America and settled sometime before 1755, as in that year the Baptist congregation of Manalapan, New Jersey, which had formerly been members of the Quaker sect, went to North Carolina under the guidance of Rev. John Gregory, and, with two other denominations, built a church which they called the Jersey Church. The other denominations fell by the wayside and the church became, and is today, Baptist. The American Revolution, two earthquakes, and time have destroyed many of the graves there.

Deed book 23, page 14, 1-29-1814, states that Joseph Haden of Rowan County let John Darr of Rowan have 183 acres on Richard’s Creek adjoining Benjamin Todd, Thomas Adams, Caleb Campbell and George Fezor, being part of a track originally owned by the deceased Robert Barclay, which Walter and Robert Barclay let Thomas Durham have 5-18-1789. Vol. 17, Deed Book, page 327, dated 10-2-1797, shows that Robert and Walter Barclay sold by deed made in Kentucky two tracts of land in Rowan County.

In Conclusion

The Jersey Baptist Church is located on Jersey Church Road, a two-mile road just off the main NC highway. It is at one end of the road and the school is at the other end. Jersey settlement was between Salisbury and the later Lexington. Salisbury became the county seat of Old Rowan County.

Finding the Jersey Settlement

The Barclay deed gives us one landmark, Lick Creek gives us another and the Jersey Church itself gives us a third. I was not able to find Richard’s Creek or any other mention of it, but I was able to find both the Jersey Church and Lick Creek, where it empties into the Yadkin River.

On the map below, Jersey Church is location B and the place where Lick Creek Church Road crosses Lick Creek is location A.

In the bigger picture, the Jersey Settlement was located between Charlotte and the Greensboro/Winston-Salem area in NC.  It is an area of pleasant, relatively flat, very fertile farmland bordering on the Yadkin River.

It’s about 19 miles from Jersey Church to the location on Lick Creek, but today, you have to go around the area where High Rock Lake has now flooded the lowlands. You can see on the map below that this area forms a semi-circle. The railroad bridge was in place before the Yadkin was flooded to form that lake and you can see it still runs along the Yadkin, crossing Lick Creek at the mouth, the stated location of John Vannoy’s fish dam. If the old road paralleled the railroad bridge, and it probably did, then it would have been about 10 miles, not 19, from the Jersey Church to the Lick Creek location.

The landowner on the North side of Lick Creek in 2012 was Mr. Robby Cole, now deceased. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude for information, access and permission to publish.

Mr. Cole was very accommodating when I knocked on his door and provided lots of information, including the fact that a fish dam had been discovered right at the mouth of Lick Creek years earlier. I asked him which side, and he couldn’t remember outright but said it might have been on the other side of the river. Regardless, it was at the mouth of Lick Creek.

I’ve never been so excited about a fish dam.

Cole Road is the blue line on the map connecting with Lick Creek Church Road.

The railroad marks the old edge of the river, so that’s a great landmark to follow. Today, some of the creeks feeding into the Yadkin River, now High Rock Lake, are also swollen near the edge of the river/lake. However, using the railroad as a guideline gives us information as to the path of the former river.

The map below shows the elevated area of the river. Robby said the authorities had purchased about 40 acres to flood.

Mr. Cole’s family obtained the original land patent for the land on the north side of Lick Creek. Robby believes John Vannoy lived on the south side of Lick Creek.

Today, that land is owned by a timber company, but Mr. Cole said that he remembers a very old homestead on that hill in the 1950s. The only part of that property not owned by the lumber company is a small tract along the road owned by a local businessman who is also a history and genealogy buff. I stopped, but he wasn’t at home.

The older aerial map above shows a silver train on the track near the mouth of Lick Creek, and a more recent map below shows a closer view of both the fish damn area, the mouth of Lick Creek, and the hill that held the old homestead.

The map above shows the alluvial deposits in the river at the mouth of Lick Creek, while the map below shows the terrain much more clearly. The area circled in red is a hill.

This is the area where the old homestead stood, where John Vannoy lived, and where his fish dam was located. Ironically, there is no land grant or other direct evidence that he lived here other than the history stating that the Vannoy Fish Dam was on the East side of the Yadkin at the mouth of Lick Creek.

I found John associated with four land grants in 1761, but none as a grantee, only in a supportive capacity.

I have not been able to check the Rowan County deed records in person. He may have owned land that might be more specific as to location. Hopefully, the old Rowan County deeds will soon be included in the FamilySearch AI tool.

My visit to the Jersey Church area began at the church itself. It has had additions over the years, but the original part of the church built in the 1840s is shown below.

Behind the church is the large cemetery with even more unmarked graves. Older graves were marked by wooden markers or fieldstones on the frontier, not by inscribed tombstones as we know them today.

Several of these trees look old enough to have been here when church members were first being buried. Perhaps these trees were left to shelter the graves. One tree has literally grown around an early tombstone.

While our John Vannoy and his wife did not die in Rowan County, it’s unlikely that they lost no children while living there. While we don’t know where, our flesh and blood is likely buried here. It’s certain that John attended numerous funerals in this cemetery, some 270 years ago.

I wish this tree could talk.

While John isn’t buried here, it’s likely that at least some family members are.

We know nothing about his son Abraham, other than his birth date and that he didn’t show up in the records for Rowan, Surry, or Wilkes County. The fate of John’s daughters, except for Rachel, is also uncertain, as is that of his wife. We know with certainty that John and his wife both had cousins among the Jersey Church congregation members.

This photo of the Jersey Church sign shows the kind of farmland that surrounds the church. After clearing, this land would have been flat and easy to plow. Church members would have worked as a community to help one another.

In 1771, Benjamin Merrill, one of the church’s most prominent members and a leader of the Regulator movement, raised 300 men, mostly from this congregation, to rebel against the governor for what they perceived as unfair taxation and corruption. The governor was also raising troops, and the Regulators marched as a show of force, hoping to intimidate the government forces into withdrawal. They camped along Alamance Creek.

Unfortunately for the Regulators, what they had in passion, they lacked in leadership. They were sorely unprepared for what followed.

On May 9th, the Regulators intercepted General Waddell and his 100 men, causing them to fall back to the Salisbury District, where he was reinforced by Tryon and his 1100 men. They marched against the Jersey Settlement Regulators and their comrades-in-arms at Alamance, defeated them, scattering their forces, and captured 12 men, including three officers of the colonial militia – Benjamin Merrill, Capt. Robert Messer and Capt. Robert Matear. Six men were tried, convicted, and hung on June 19th, 1771, by Governor Tryon in Hillsboro.

Fortunately, it was “only” a defeat, not the bloodbath it could have easily been.

The Regulator movement and defeat at Alamance would have had a deeply chilling effect on the balance of the congregation, causing many of the 300 men to depart before retribution could be exacted on them and their families.

The Regulator uprising is the stated reason for John Vannoy’s departure to Wilkes County. The 1770 road order shows that he had clearly been there and knew the way, having literally carved that road out of the primeval forest with his own hands.

The first deed for the Jersey Church property was recorded in 1775. William Frohock sold about 3 acres “including the Meeting House & Burying Ground near Swearing Creek” to the “trustees of the United Congregation, consisting of the “Professors of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and the Baptists in the Jersey Settlement.” Clearly, the church was already in use, as was the burying ground.

The Jersey Church standing today was built in 1842, probably either replacing or built beside the original church. Regardless, the original church that John attended for at least two decades stood on this land, adjacent to the cemetery. At least two of his children would have been baptized here.

Even though a newer building exists today at Jersey Church, I knew my ancestors stood on that land, cleared the trees, built the church, baptized their babies, buried their relatives, maintained the cemetery, and then, in 1771, moved on, leaving everything behind, perhaps having been burned out.

How difficult this must have been for them just 20 years or so after having left everything behind once before, when leaving New Jersey.

Lick Creek

From the church, I drove to Lick Creek Church Road, knowing that John himself followed this path to and from church and saw this very land more than a quarter of a millennium ago. Of course, it would have looked very different then, but it was still the same land.

This photo is Lick Creek from the bridge of Lick Creek Church Road that crosses Lick Creek. Due to the flooding of the Yadkin when the dam was built, this creek may be slightly wider than it was before, but probably not much, especially away from the lake.

This field rises gently to the northeast of the bridge and creek. This may not have been John’s field, but he surely saw it every day.

An old lane borders the creek but appears to be muddy, and a “no trespassing” sign is clearly posted. The creek itself seems to be rather slow-moving and has some backwater tendencies. It’s hard to say how much of this is from the flooding or if the creek was always sluggish.

I love my Jeep when I’m traveling. I always feel safe. It will pretty much go anyplace and do anything I ask of it, and I asked a lot of her in North Carolina. Sometimes, she (ahem) gets me into trouble:)

Lick Creek standing on the bank.

Before meeting Mr. Cole, I thought this old house might have been connected to John Vannoy, but he says this is not the original house and it was a Cole property. It has a very similar feel to the old Joel Vannoy home in Claiborne County, TN, built in the mid-1800s. The fireplaces at each end were used to heat the home. I wondered at that time if John Vannoy’s house was like this or if it was a simpler log cabin type of structure, but I have a much better idea now.

John’s home would have been much smaller and a small one-story log home, especially given that the homes owned by his sons on the next frontier, Wilkes County, in 1798 were only 16×18, 17×21, 13×15 and 12×14, except for John’s son Nathaniel who was wealthier. Sometimes, the outbuildings, such as external kitchens, barns, and stables, were larger than the log cabins they lived in.

For comparison purposes, this is what was left of the Daniel Boone cabin in the late 1800s, built in 1799 in what would become Missouri. His cabin would have been very similar to those built along the Yadkin.

Here, looking back towards Lick Creek, the tree line, and the bridge.

The property to the north of Lick Creek has been owned by the Cole family since the original land grant. That makes it easy to eliminate this property, unless John Vannoy rented or leased his land. The original Cole homestead stood on the hillside of the Cole property on the Yadkin River side.

Robby was very, very generous and allowed me to photograph the countryside from the hilltop.

This series of photos forms a panorama of the mouth of Lick Creek, from the Cole hilltop, followed by a series of photos that include the hilltop where Mr. Cole says the original (Vannoy?) homestead on the property across Lick Creek was located.

I am turning slowly from the top of the hill on the Cole property, drinking in the landscape.

Lick Creek is just this side of the tree line. The Vannoy land is across the creek in the trees.

In the distance, you can see the creek pass beneath a railroad bridge, where it empties into the Yadkin.

Mr. Cole remembers the remnants of a very old homestead on the replanted portion of this hill across Lick Creek. The hill borders the mouth of Lick Creek, across from the Cole property, and would be the only reasonable location for the Vannoy fish weir at the mouth of Lick Creek.

Robby said the homestead was on the replanted portion of this hill. Are we looking at the hill where John Vannoy lived while tending his fish dam on the river?

Viewing John’s land. I can see him clearing and working the land with his sons.

Thank goodness for that fish wier and the description on the East side of the Yadkin at the mouth of Lick Creek. Otherwise, we would have never been able to discover where John Vannoy lived.

It was here that John’s sons grew to manhood. It was here that his youngest two children were born. It may be here that his eldest children lived as newlyweds. It might be here that family members are buried, too.

This is the land that John so hurriedly left behind when Governor Tryon destroyed and pillaged the farms of the Regulator families.

Did they watch their farm burn?

By 1771, John was over 50 years old and had five strapping adult sons. Andrew was 29, Abraham 26, Francis, 24, Nathaniel, 21 and Daniel, 19.

They probably felt they had far more to lose by staying than going while they could – especially since they were fresh off of the expedition to lay out the road from here to the head of the Yadkin River.

They might well have felt that God had provided, or that God had at least given them a sign.

This photo is taken on the far edge of the Cole property. It shows the view back up the hill, with Lick Creek to the right.

If John Vannoy was on his land down at the creek, working with his fish weir, this is the hill he would have seen. It may or may not have been cleared, although farmland along the river was flatter and more fertile than steeper, rockier lands, so the Cole men had likely cleared this field.

This is the closest point to the mouth of Lick Creek that you can access today without a boat. In the 1700s, the water level would have been lower before the Yadkin was flooded.

If I turn around, you’ll see that I’m at the end of the land that’s not swampy.

The mouth of the Creek is just over the railroad trestle. Because of the height from which these photos were taken, the creek shows better in these photos than in the photos where I was at eye level with it.

This next series is another panorama of Lick Creek at eye level from the furthest solid point on the Cole property, closest to the creek. I had to be careful not to get my Jeep stuck. I don’t think even Mr. Cole’s farm equipment would have been able to pull me out from there.

Unfortunately, you can’t really see the mouth of the creek because the railroad bridge obstructs the view somewhat. The Yadkin is running parallel with the railroad bridge on the other side of it.

I was standing at the red star, photographing towards the bridge.

I needed a canoe!

Walking on the Cole land, looking at John Vannoy’s land.

I must admit, right about this time, I began to wonder if they had alligators here like they do in eastern NC.

Lick Creek was probably smaller and shallower when John lived here.

Fish weirs were created to trap fish, usually by stones, baskets, sticks or fences today, or some combination thereof, and channel fish into a trap from which they can’t escape.

By MarmadukePercy – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10432768

The Martinville Fish Dam in Virginia is a historic Native American fish weir that was probably similar to the Vannoy fish weir.

I sure wish we had some, any, documentation of the remnants of the weir that was found and when. Given that the Yadkin was dammed nearly a century ago, I’m not surprised that this information was lost. When the weir was discovered, it was probably either thought to be interesting or, in the way, or both.

This last picture of the creek shows as I looked back upstream towards the road. The Cole property is on the left and in front of me, and the Vannoy land is across the creek where the trees are today.

Mr. Cole also told me that he believes there are graves – perhaps Indian (he thinks), slaves, or early settlers, supposed to be buried in the field near where the tree overhangs on the left in front of the white trailer. He has never planted there and neither did his father or grandfather.

I’ve always wondered…

Westward Ho

This land along the Yadkin in the Jersey Settlement is both incredibly beautiful as well as fertile and relatively easy to farm, especially in comparison to Wilkes County which is mountainous – the land of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

The key here is the Blue Ridge range of the Appalachian Mountains. A Wilkes County photo is shown here. It’s difficult to believe that 70 miles makes this much difference, but it does. Land in Wilkes County can only be farmed in patches. It’s not gently sloping with rolling hills, but a landscape of rugged mountains.

Surry County, which eventually became Wilkes and Ashe, was, of course, the next frontier.

John Vannoy’s son, Nathaniel, went even slightly further west and owned land on Mt. Jefferson, in today’s Ashe County, NC, at about 4,600 feet, part of the Mount Jefferson State Natural Area. He had several other land grants in this area too, most unable to be plotted today. He also had land on Lewis Fork adjoining Robert Cleveland.

John Vannoy’s son, Daniel, also obtained land near his brother Nathaniel’s land on Beaver Creek in what would become Ashe County. John Vannoy, likely with his sons assisting, laid out roads to that area in 1770, just before they needed this dense, mountainous escape.

Francis Vannoy obtained land near or adjacent his brothers, Nathaniel and Daniel, in Ashe County as well as on Reddies River, just north of Wilkesboro. His land is also not placed on a map today.

The Vannoy land all had one thing in common. It was not in the Yadkin Valley on the lower elevations by the River, and it was high enough that shelter and cover were readily available. No one who didn’t know the land would ever find you.

The Vannoy men had a leg up on everyone else, because they had laid that road out in 1770. Perhaps fate had smiled on them.

Perhaps they led the way for others. While they had been guided in 1752 from New Jersey to the Jersey Settlement, perhaps two decades later, they were the guides.

Vannoy Road in Wilkes County

Today, in Wilkes County, Vannoy Road runs from Buckwheat Road down to old NC 16, just north of Andrew Vannoy’s land grant.

I drove part, but not all of this road when visiting Wilkes County in the 1990s and early 2000s.

At that time, Vannoy Road was, at least in part, a two-track road where two cars could not pass. It snaked around the mountain, hanging precipitously on the edge, at least on a good day.

On hairpin turns, you have to honk before completing the turn, and listen for an oncoming car to honk as well to prevent a head-on collision. Geoge McNiel, my now-deceased cousin who rode with me the day I took these photos, says that, at higher elevations, Vannoy Road is nearly impassible in some places.

This is the man who drove the entire county, including its most remote places, with his wife for decades to document cemeteries.

Normally, I would view an unpaved two-track as somewhat of an invitation and a welcome challenge, but when the locals tell you no, it’s no. I decided to content myself with the photo, above.

Fortunately, in the 20+ years or so since I’ve been there, the road has been at least partially paved.

OK, let’s take a ride using Google Street View!

Here’s a lovely view from the paved portion of Vannoy Road.

The scenery is spectacular.

This land was not originally granted to anyone, which, I’m guessing, meant that everyone hunted here and used it more or less as community property.

Vannoy Road runs alongside Reddies River, probably following exactly where the old animal path and horse trail originally were.

In some places, the road had slid down the embankment and had been reconstructed and repaved.

Cabins were built along waterways. The higher, the better because the water was clean and had not been contaminated by people or animals. The Reddies River, which is more of a stream at this elevation, runs right behind this ancient cabin.

Be still my heart!! Is it possible?

Could this possibly be one of the Vannoy cabins?

Indeed, according to Jason’s land grant map, here, this cabin is on Vannoy land. Note that this land, none of it, appears to have been granted until beginning in the 1850s. However, many grants remain unplaced on the map and we do have multiple land grants to Francis Vannoy on the Reddies River. He filed for 150 acres in 1779, two grants in 1782 for 100 acres each, and another for 100 acres in 1783. All four grants, totalling 450 acres, are located someplace on Reddies River, which could clearly have been in this area – near his brother Andrew.

Some of this land was even too high, inhospitable, and remote for the early settlers. The higher and more remote the land, apparently, the later the land was granted to anyone.

That doesn’t mean people weren’t living there, though. This is maybe three miles from Andrew Vannoy’s land grants, and maybe not even that far.

Driving on down the road, there’s a one-lane bridge, even today, at the intersection of Vannoy Road and Sheets Gap Road.

Vannoy Road turns to dirt above the intersection with Buckwheat, which is where I took that photo of the Vannoy Road sign many years ago.

I’m very surprised the Google car drove on this dirt road, at all. Lots of one-lane bridges on the dirt part.

This is the area that cousin George described as dangerous, one lane and in some places, “nearly impassible, especially as you come ‘round the mountain.”

We continue to climb in elevation. Not much land has been cleared here, and the road snakes across many streams, now corralled in culverts under the road. There are also lots of S curves.

George told me it was one lane. He said it was treacherous if it was wet or, “God-forbid, snowy.” I asked him what would happen if you met another vehicle, and he said, “Well, someone gets to back up.”

I couldn’t help but cringe.

Right then and there, I decided I was not driving this road.

The terrain became more rocky and mountainous, and the road more like a two-track.

S-curves became switchbacks, and the overhanging forest is so dense that the road looks dark.

Still, the road climbed.

“Antique” cars, either abandoned or wrecked half or three-quarters of a century ago, litter the mountainside below the road. They are eternally rusting, clearly never meant to emerge again. School buses, campers, and other sorts of trash have also been dumped in the days since our Vannoy ancestors homesteaded this rugged terrain.

Eventually, Vannoy Road emerges at Sparta Road, still part of Miller’s Creek. Sparta is Highway 18, just above Andrew Vannoy’s land.

Despite the extremely remote location, there were at least two small churches that I “passed by” on my Google Drive, and I think there were at least a couple more.

There are more churches per capita in Wilkes County than anyplace else in the nation.

Eventually, even the Google car gave up in some places. It probably only drove on because there was no place to turn around.

Another Vannoy researcher who lived in Wilkesboro told me years ago that if you turn north at Deep Ford Hill and go “5 or 6 miles up that road and cross the river at least twice, then turn right, everything you see on both side of the road was Vannoy land to the top of the mountains.”

Debra was right. Deep Ford Hill sits at the bottom of Old NC 16.

The Vannoy Land

Francis Vannoy’s land is unplaced on Jason’s map, but we know it’s on Reddies River someplace, plus he also had land on Beaver Creek, so near Daniel and Nathaniel’s land in Ashe County.

Daniel tried to patent land near Wilkesboro in 1778, but that didn’t work, so he wound up with land on the other side of the Blue Ridge Parkway in Ashe County.

I placed the Vannoy lands on an aerial map of Wilkes and Ashe Counties as best I could with the limited information we have. Many of the high elevations and streams were some of those affected recently by Hurricane Helene. That’s the last thing I ever expected here.

It seems that the Vannoy men found the furthest distant, highest, most remote, and difficult-to-access locations in Wilkes County and settled there.

Years ago, I wondered what would possess a man to leave the land on Lick Creek with a steadily producing fish dam for these difficult-to-farm mountains. Hardly an even trade. Wilkesboro is about 70 miles “upriver” from the Jersey Settlement. It’s a relatively short jaunt today, but then, it was several days by wagon, mostly uphill and increasingly difficult with every mile.

Of course, now we know the answer to that question.

It’s likely that John Vannoy’s move to Wilkes County was prompted by his role in the Regulator Movement, Regulator Insurrection or Regulator War – whatever you choose to call it. In fact, he may have moved to Surry County as a fugitive. Or after being burned out of house and home. Or all of the above.

His son, Abraham, could have died in the process.

In 1772, John would have been someplace between 52 and 56 years old. We know he’s alive then, with two adult sons living at home, but he’s gone in the next tax list we have in 1774.

What do we know about where John Vannoy and his sons were in 1771? Fortunately, we have at least some tax lists.

Tax Lists

Surry County was formed on April 1, 1771 from Anson County.

The information below is extracted and condensed from “Surry and Wilkes County 1771-1800 Taxables” by William Perry Johnson.

The large areas covered by the early tax lists include all of the present-day NC counties of Allegheny, Ashe, Forsyth, Stokes, Surry, Wilkes, and Yadkin, along with parts of Caldwell and Watauga – a rectangular area about 35 miles wide and 90 miles long. Much of Wilkes County prior to the Revolution was considered to be the area that eventually became part of eastern Tennessee. Prior to 1771, present-day Wilkes was under the jurisdiction of Rowan County, with the courthouse at Salisbury, 60 miles away.

It was 60 miles in the other direction to present-day Tennessee.

From 1771 to 1777, Surry County encompassed the entire 35 by 90-mile area, including the area that would become Wilkes County in 1778.

  • 1771 and 1772 tax lists are complete
  • No list for 1773
  • 1774 is complete
  • 1775 is about two-thirds complete
  • No list for 1776
  • 1777 is about one third complete

1771 tax list:

  • John Vannoy 1
  • Francis Vannoy 1
  • Andrew Vannoy 1

The 1771 Surry County tax list is important because it shows that the Vannoy men, including John, had left the Jersey Settlement, which remained in Rowan County.

One thing is certain, John did make it to the part of Surry County that became Wilkes County.

1772 tax list

  • Andrew Vannoy 1
  • John Vannoy 3
  • Francis Vannoy 1

Charles Hickerson arrived between the tax list in 1771 and the one in 1772

This list is important because it accounts for John and all of his sons except Abraham.

The 1773 list is missing.

Benjamin Cleveland’s 1774 list:

  • Francis Vannoy with Leonard Miller, in all 2
  • Nathaniel Vannoy 1
  • Andrew Vannoy 1
  • Thomas Hall, Jesse Hall, Thomas Hall, in all 3
  • Thomas Owens, Thomas Owens, Barnet Owens
  • Charles Hickerson, David Hickerson, in all 2
  • Daniel Vannoy 1

John Vannoy is missing, although he could have been living with one of his children. Given that both Nathaniel and Daniel were still living with John in 1772, and he is missing but they are both present two years later and listed individually, even though only Nathaniel had married, suggests John may have died.

This is an important group because they applied for land grants that are near each other in Wilkes County, and Daniel Vannoy married Charles Hickerson’s daughter.

An unidentified Jacob Hickerson purchased 200 acres in 1774.

1775 John Hudspeth list of taxes:

  • John Darnold (probably Darnell), Andrew Vonoy 2
  • Charles Hickerson 1
  • Frances Vonoy 1
  • Nathaniel Vonoy 1
  • Daniel Vonoy 1
  • Thomas Owen 1
  • William Owen Sr and Barnard Owen 2
  • David Hickerson 1

John Darnell married Andrew Vannoy’s sister, Rachel, and the two families are living together.

To summarize, John Vannoy is present in 1772 with two additional adult males who would be Nathaniel and Daniel. The tax list is missing in 1773, and John is missing in 1774 and 1775, but his four sons are all listed.

The Surry County estate list shows nothing, and neither does the “Surry County Court Pleas and Quarter sessions 1763-1774” by Linn.

Where is John?

Wilkes County is Formed

Wilkes County was formed in 1778 from parts of Surry County and Washington District, which is now Washington County, Tennessee.

John Vannoy may have survived until the Revolutionary War arrived on his doorstep.

Earlier researchers reported that John gave material aid for the war, for which his estate was paid in 1778. He was subsequently recognized as a Patriot, although I was unable to find any Wilkes County entry about John. If anyone has any reference to John, being paid as a patriot, or his estate in either Surry or Wilkes County, please do share.

At least three of John’s sons served in the Revolutionary War, plus his son-in-law, John Darnell.

  • Andrew Vannoy served as a Captain in the 10th NC Regiment and was later granted land near Murfreesboro, TN. Andrew is mentioned in the NC State papers, volume 5, as a Captain in the Revolution who wrote a letter asking for coats, shoes, frocks and blankets for his men. This unit was active for a year. Formed at Kinston in April 1777, they served at the Battle of Brandywine Creek, the Battle of Germantown, and Valley Forge, where they disbanded in June of 1778.
  • Francis Vannoy served as an overseer of roads in Wilkes County in 1778 and as a juror in 1778 and 1779, which qualifies as Revolutionary War military service. Additionally, he was on an expedition to the New River with William Lenoir in November of 1780.
  • Nathaniel Vannoy was sheriff of Wilkes County during the Revolutionary War times and a private in his brother Andrew’s company in Benjamin Cleveland’s regiment. At the direction of Col. Benjamin Cleveland, Nathaniel hung three Tories from an oak tree for horse stealing, a remnant of which still stood in 1925 beside the Wilkes Co. Court House. He joined the regiment of Col. Benjamin Cleveland as Sergeant Major and served throughout the Kings Mountain Campaign.

The Wilkes County residents were probably thrilled to have formed their own county. The distance to the courthouse, especially on the frontier, was always a source of concern. Surry County’s seat is Dobson, about 50 miles away from Mulberry Fields, the village destined to become Wilkesboro, the seat of newly-formed Wilkes County.

This 1778 Wilkes court entry references the Mulberry Field meeting house and that they are going to erect a courthouse, prison, pillory, and stocks.

By 1778, Nathaniel, Andrew, Daniel, and Francis Vannoy were all serving as jurors in Wilkes County court sessions, which implies that they all owned land.

On June 4, 1778, Nathaniel, Andrew, Daniel, and Francis Vannoy, along with David Hickerson, were laying out a road from the end of the road at Roaring River, the best and most convenient way to the courthouse. I wonder if this qualifies Daniel, John’s fourth son, as a Revolutionary War Patriot too. I believe so because David Hickerson was recognized by the DAR based on this service.

Where Did John Live?

First, let me say that there’s no answer to this, but we do have hints.

I’m speculating here, but I think that maybe John originally settled on Mulberry, where Andrew’s land was located. My reason for thinking that’s a possibility is because just south of and adjoining Andrew’s patent is the land of Benjamin Ray. Nathaniel Vannoy, Andrew’s younger brother, married Elizabeth Ray.

Let’s look at the order in which John’s children married, and to whom.

In 1772, Francis and Andrew are living in their own homes, which strongly suggests that they have married, while Daniel and Nathaniel are living with John.

However, the marriage record for Andrew occurred 7 year later, in 1779. Does this suggest that Andrew had an earlier wife that we know nothing about? (I almost hate to breathe those words.)

Birth Year and Name Land Location Spouse & Marriage Year Spouse’s Parents Spouse Parent’s land
Francis Vannoy born 1746 Reddies River & Ashe County Millicent Henderson (unproven) c 1768 Thomas Henderson? unknown
Rachel Vannoy born 1741 John Darnell c 1771 Isaac Darnell Darnell family lives near Andrew Vannoy, Darnell’s Branch intersects with Mulberry above Andrew’s land
Nathaniel Vannoy born 1749 Multiple locations in Wilkes & Ashe Elizabeth Ray 1773 William Ray Benjamin Ray 1789 land is just below Andrew Vannoy on Mulberry
Daniel Vannoy born 1752 Ashe County Sarah Hickerson 1779 Charles Hickerson Mulberry Creek 1778
Andrew Vannoy Mulberry 1780, 1788 Susannah Shepherd 1779 John Shepherd

Andrew’s land is located on Mulberry Creek, and both Nathaniel and Daniel married women whose families are also found on Mulberry Creek. This may suggest that John settled there, which means that his two sons left at home, Nathaniel and Daniel, married women whose families lived nearby.

Furthermore, Andrew may have applied for a grant for the land where John originally settled, or Francis, who lived nearby, may have. They could not apply for land grants in this area until after the Revolutionary War.

The Vannoy Cemetery

This also begs the question of where John Vannoy is buried.

We know that there was a “meeting house” at Mulberry Fields in 1778 when the county was formed, but many families, if not most, had family burying grounds on their land near their homesteads.

The entry for the Elder James Vannoy Cemetery in Wilkes County is very interesting.

James Vannoy (1792-1857) was the son of Andrew Vannoy, who lived on Mulberry Creek.

The James Vannoy cemetery is located on his land.

The FindaGrave entry for Andrew Vannoy says:

Andrew died on October 9, 1809. He and Susannah are likely buried in a family cemetery on top of a ridge on the east side of Mulberry Creek, on present-day SR1766 in Wilkes County, NC. There are no tombstones for them, but there are several rocks in the section of the cemetery in which two of their children have inscribed markers.

I would love to know exactly where this cemetery is located. Perhaps the Wilkes County Historical Society would look this up in cousin George McNiel’s records to see if he has a location for the cemetery.

  • Andrew’s daughter, Sarah, married Isaiah McGrady, and they are buried on a plot on their land.
  • Andrew’s son, Enoch Vannoy, married Letitia McGrady and is buried in the Roberts Cemetery in McGrady.
  • Andrew’s daughter, Mary “Polly” Vannoy, married the Reverend John Owens and is buried in the Taylor Cemetery in McGrady.
  • Andrew’s daughter, Elizabeth Vannoy, married Presley Brown and is buried in the Taylor Cemetery in McGrady.

If I were a betting person, I’d bet that John Vannoy was one of the first burials in the Elder James Vannoy Cemetery.

When John Vannoy arrived in Surry County, he was one of the earliest settlers, and established churches didn’t yet exist. Early Baptists built the Meeting House in Mulberry Fields, but that doesn’t mean people were buried there. In 1778, the court met in the Meeting House and decided it was the perfect location for the new Courthouse. No remnant of the original Meeting House or cemetery, if there was one, remains.

The 1798 Tax List

By 1798, John Vannoy had been gone for probably 25 years. Some of his sons, however, still lived in Wilkes County when the 1798 tax list was taken.

Jason Duncan’s book, 1798 Wilkes County, NC Tax List, provides a glimpse of life in Wilkes County.

We’ve already viewed the locations where these families lived, but the tax list lets us view their farms, homes, and outbuildings, providing unparalleled detail.

Daniel Vannoy sold out in 1795 and disappeared. Unfortunately, we’d have to do deed research to find the 100 acres that Daniel Vannoy sold to Patrick Lenin Cavender on the South Beaver Creek branch of the South fork of the New River. The cabin there in 1798 was assuredly the same one that was there in 1795 when Daniel sold.

By 1798, Andrew Vannoy owned 450 acres on Mulberry Creek which is 200 acres less than his land grant, so he had sold some.

Andrew’s land was valued at $169. His cabin was 16×18 and valued at only $3, and his outside kitchen was 14×10 and was valued at $2.

Andrew raised 10 children in this home and likely buried four more in the family cemetery. His wife cooked in the outside kitchen.

The cabin on the Reddies River on Vannoy Road today is probably about the size of Andrew’s cabin.

Francis Vannoy owned a total of 310 acres valued at $100. His land is noted as being on the Reddies River, the North Fork, adjoining William Kilby. His dwelling house is 17×21, one story, with hewed logs and a shingle roof, valued at $46, much more than Andrew’s home. He also has two out houses, which do not mean outhouses as in bathrooms, valued at $4.

Francis raised 16 children here, and that’s without an outside kitchen unless one of the out buildings is a kitchen.

Nathaniel Vannoy had done quite well for himself. He had a total of 690 acres on seven tracts. Only one, on Lewis Fork, adjoining Robert Cleveland, had any homes or buildings. This tract was 125 acres of clearly prime farmland valued at $250.

The dwelling house is 16×24 with a shingle roof and is valued at $30.

He has a 14×16 outside kitchen valued at $3.

He has one cabin that’s 12×14, valued at $2, which reflects the fact that in 1800, he enslaved three people.

His property includes a 10×12 shop valued at $3, a 6×12 corn crib valued at $1, a second identical corn crib, two stables worth $2, and a 13×30 barn valued at $8, almost three times as much as Andrew’s humble cabin up on Mulberry Creek.

It appears that Nathaniel’s oldest son, John Vannoy, owns 150 acres on Lewis Fork, adjoining W. Roberts. John married Elizabeth Kilby, daughter of William Kilby, Francis Vannoy’s neighbor. They have a 13×15 cabin, a shop, and stables – not a bad start. They have already welcomed one child, beginning the next Vannoy generation.

It’s likely that one of these men still lived on the same land that John settled, probably in the same cabin.

Unfortunately, Rachel Vannoy Darnell, John Darnell’s widow, is not on the tax list. Other women are listed, so I presume she would be if she were living. This tells us that Rachel has likely died or possibly remarried, but we have no evidence for that either.

What we do have, however, is something as informative as a tax list.

Rachel Darnell submitted the results of the sale of the estate of John Darnell at the April 1786 term of court.

While the widow was entitled to one-third of the value of her husband’s estate, the goods still had to be sold – including “her” things – as the husband literally owned everything except the clothes on her back.

The value is listed in pounds, shillings, and pence. I’ve normalized spelling where I can and am sure.

Item Value
One pot 1.15.0
One plow 0.6.0
One sifter (?) 0.3.6
One box (of) iron 0.8.0
One tub 0.1.6
One ax 0.12.6
One frying pan 0.7.6
2 bells 0.7.6
3 head of sheep 2.8.0
One cotton wheel (spinning wheel) 0.6.6
17 table spoons 0.9.0
One linen wheel (linen spinning wheel) 0.8.0
2 chairs 0.4.0
One Bible and “rithmetick” 1.1.5
One table 0.2.0
One bed 0.10.0
One bed 3.3.0
One boock (book) 0.0.6
One slee (slu, ?) 0.3.6
One mare 10.5.0
One mare 8.15.0
One cow and calf 4.3.6
One cow 3.0.0
Total 40.0.6

Let’s note what’s missing here.

  • For starters, a gun. All men needed and had a gun both to hunt and for defense of their families.
  • There are no hides or things like feathers listed.
  • No chickens or fowl
  • There are also no pigs or “shoats,” young pigs, which was a food staple.
  • There are no crops.
  • No food like “bacon,” which would be a ham hung in the smokehouse, or flour.
  • There are no knives or butchering tools.
  • There is a plow but no wagon or gears.
  • There is one ax but no other tools. No saws or hoes or even a hammer. No nails.
  • There are no clothes listed, which means he had one set of clothes that he was buried in, and she likely has one set, too.
  • There’s no fabric or loom.
  • There is one pot, but no hook to hang it from, and one frying pan – that’s it. Rachel was cooking for at least four people when John died, and possibly more.
  • I’m a bit baffled at the 17 table spoons, especially given that there are no knives or forks. And 17?
  • There aren’t any kitchen hooks either for hanging pots in the fireplace to cook.
  • No butter churn.
  • No basins or pewter listed.
  • Two chairs, which meant that everyone else probably sat on wooden benches that would have been crudely fashioned from felled trees.
  • There are no plates, dishes, or earthenware, which means they would have been using hollowed-out wooden trenchers.
  • Most men had a supplementary skill other than farming, such as a miller, shoemaker, carpenter, blacksmith – but we don’t see anything like that for John.
  • There were no saddles or bridles for the horses.
  • There are no curry combs or anything that suggests a barn.
  • There are two beds but no bedsteads, bedclothes, blankets, or quilts. Since they didn’t specify featherbeds, these would have been straw beds lying on the floor.
  • There’s nothing like a chest or trunk.
  • There are no candles, candlestands, candle molds, or wax.
  • No oil lamp.
  • There are no bottles, razors, or anything personal like a watch or a looking glass.

How did John farm? How did Rachel manage before he died, let alone after?

No wonder her children were bound out as orphans.

What happened to Rachel? Her life was exceedingly difficult by any measure.

She is mentioned in 1795, when she would have been 54 years old, but not thereafter.

While this family appears “poor,” and they assuredly weren’t wealthy, we can combine this estate inventory with the 1798 tax list for the Vannoy men, and glean a much clearer picture of what life in those mountains was like for “normal people” in their 16×18 foot homes.

Welcome to normal life on Mulberry Creek, living in a very small “dwelling house” with one set of clothes to your name, a straw bed on the floor, one pot, frying pan, and tub to care for your large family, and very few creature comforts.

This was probably exactly like John Vannoy’s life, although he may have had even less when he died – especially if what little he had was burned in Rowan County. Perhaps this is why there is absolutely no record of his death – no estate sale – because he literally had no estate.

Summary

John Vannoy’s life took him to two different frontiers. He grew up in the midst of the Coxe Affair, which assuredly influenced his life. He saw what his parents and neighbors suffered through, and the gut-wrenching decisions they were forced to make. No good or fair choice – only unjust ones. Do I want to accept this bad option or that one?

John opted to leave New Jersey, and his aging father, Francis, whose will written in 1768, gave John, the eldest, 5 pounds more proclamation money than the others. Francis died in 1774, his will being probated in July. Ironically, John may have predeceased his father, but his father was probably unaware.

John had removed to the Jersey Settlement in Rowan County, NC, by 1753 when his stock mark was registered and may have arrived before that in a wagon train of settlers from Hopewell Township.

His experiences in New Jersey amid the crooked land swindlers primed him for the Regulator movement, where local farmers revolted against what they perceived as unfair taxation and crooked politicians.

Been there, done that!

PTSD before PTSD was a thing. John probably thought, “Oh, no, not again.” The situation simmered for years, but when push came to shove, the Regulators were defeated without much effort by government troops. The destruction of their farms as retribution may well have driven John Vannoy and his adult sons to the next frontier, just as Surry County was spun off from Rowan.

John and four of his adult sons settled in the highlands of Surry County in 1771, the part that would become Wilkes.

A few years later, John’s story came to an end someplace in the wilderness but heralded the beginning of the Vannoy family in Wilkes and Ashe Counties, a legacy that continues today with more than 2300 scattered descendants.

Fortunately, we can peek back in time.

The Vannoy Blackburn Farm

Today, the Vannoy Blackburn farm near Will Vannoy Road  and Dick Phillips Road in Ashe County, owned by Appalachian State University, preserves authentic Appalachian cultural structures from times gone by, including:

  • The historic Blackburn and Vannoy homes dating from the 1800s
  • Several outbuildings like the Vannoy men had on the 1798 tax list, including a spring house, corn cribs, and barns
  • The Blackburn/Vannoy cemetery

Although the two homes aren’t the original structures, the new houses would have been built on the old farm, so the Appalachian culture and farming methods employed are relevant to a century earlier as well.

Both Nathaniel Vannoy and Francis Vannoy obtained land grants in this immediate vicinity and purchased additional surrounding land. Daniel lived nearby. The Blackburn family owned adjacent land, and the Vannoy Blackburn farm includes both a Vannoy and Blackburn homestead.

This farm, 369 acres in total, was obtained from the estate of Beulah (Blackburn) and Reeves Vannoy, a descendant of Nathaniel Vannoy, and is located on two tracts on the original Francis Vannoy land, some of which is located on fertile bottomlands along a stream.

The report prepared by ASU in 2010 states:

There is an old growth forest ridge of white oaks, chestnut oaks, and red oaks; with some individual trees that are likely over 150 years old. One corner is marked by a hickory tree that is likely over 200 years old. This old growth forest, with its significant understory and hundreds of larger century old trees is an impressive sight and is valuable as a “living museum”, giving an idea of the substantial regional forests of the past.

I’m glad they are preserving this relic of the past in its stunning setting. I think Francis, Nathaniel, and Daniel would be too.

The views from Will Vannoy Road over the New River Valley are spectacular.

John Vannoy and his sons, who, in 1770, laid out the original road from the Jersey Settlement to here, chose well.

Very, very well.

John would be proud.

______________________________________________________________

Sign Up Now – It’s Free!

If you appreciate this article, subscribe to DNAeXplain for free, to automatically receive new articles by e-mail each week.

Here’s the link. Just look for the black “follow” button on the right-hand side on your computer screen below the black title bar, enter your e-mail address, and you’re good to go!

In case you were wondering, I never have nor ever will share or use your e-mail outside of the intended purpose.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me 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 Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Hickerson Family Tapestry Woven from the 1798 Wilkes County Tax List – 52 Ancestors #432

Recently, three new resources have allowed me to review the information I’ve collected about my Wilkes County, NC, families with fresh eyes. What I’ve found is amazing, as is the light it shines on life in Wilkes County right at the turn of the 18th century. I thought there wasn’t anything left to find, given that I’ve been to Wilkes County extracting records multiple times, as well as to the North Carolina State Archives. I’m very pleasantly surprised.

This information is not readily available from any set of indexed records, anyplace, but it is these resources.

  1. Jason Duncan’s book titled 1798 Wilkes County, NC Tax List, in which he has transcribed the most in-depth and detailed tax list I’ve ever seen – including the size of the house, outbuildings, and even the construction material of the house and roof. You can order his book, here.
  2. Jason Duncan’s transcribed (and free) Wilkes County, NC, Land Grants WITH MAP, here.
  3. FamilySearch’s Full Text AI Search to discover and further flesh out information not previously available, such as court documents and references in deeds where people were involved but not the primary subject. Buyer and seller, for example, are generally indexed, but others mentioned aren’t, and there’s pure gold in those nuggets.

I’m telling you what, this trifecta is simply INCREDIBLE!

Not only that, but I was able to use Jason’t land grant map to find his land today and “drive” up the road through his property using Google Maps. Not approximately his property – exactly, unquestionably his property.

In addition, I discovered an amazing nugget by rechecking my Hickerson cousin’s Y-DNA results again.

I’ll take you through these steps one by one.

Here’s the first article I wrote using these tools, which provided a great deal of additional information about the Braddock Harris “assault” case, including the identity of his intended victim, Ann Alexander.

That article is connected to this article because Braddock Harris married my ancestor Charles Hickerson’s daughter, Rachel, about that same time or shortly thereafter.

Wouldn’t you love to know the dynamics of all of that? Let’s just say the Hickerson family was “very interesting.”

What would Jason’s book reveal?

Jason’s Book

I began by finding each ancestor in Jason’s book, thinking it would be a quick extract for my families who lived in Wilkes County. However, there was so much information by combining those resources that I quickly discovered that I needed to write an additional article for each family.

Making things more complex, though, is the fact that these people didn’t exist in a vacuum up on the mountainside. I find their records intermixed in unexpected ways.

I did expect to find some family groups who lived as near neighbors, intermarried, and eventually migrated to Claiborne County, Tennessee, together, but what I didn’t expect to find was a mixture across those groups back in Wilkes County. In part because they didn’t live in the same area, and mountain travel was challenging. Well, surprise.

  1. The McDowell family intermarried with the Harrold/Harrell/Herrell family, so I expected their records to be intermixed.
  2. The Vannoy and Hickerson families intermarried, and the McNiel, Rash and Sheppard families intermarried, then those two groups intermarried too.

I suspect attending the same or different churches had a lot to do with this phenomenon.

Around 1810, members of both family groups moved another 100 miles or so across and through treacherous mountains and settled in Claiborne County, TN, near the Virginia border in what would eventually become Hancock County, TN. Their association with each other began earlier than I expected, but the two family groups didn’t actually merge (in my line) until my grandparents married.

This article focuses on the Hickerson family, so let’s do a short recap of what we know to set the stage for what we discover.

The Hickerson Family of Wilkes County, NC

Charles Hickerson was the progenitor of the Hickerson family in Wilkes County. He lived in this area before Wilkes was formed from Surry County, which was formed from Rowan County, where he was found in late 1771, witnessing a will for Lydia Stewart.

In 1775, on the tax list, Charles Hickerson was living between Francis Vannoy, who is listed with Leonard Miller, and Daniel Vannoy, Hickerson’s future son-in-law who would marry his daughter, Sarah Hickerson, a few years later. Leonard Miller married Charles Hickerson’s daughter, Jane, around 1782.

In 1776, Charles, then about 50 years old, set out on the Rutherford Expedition in which Cherokee towns were destroyed as part of the Revolutionary War.

In 1778, Charles Hickerson was serving on juries in Wilkes County as most landowners did in that time and place.

In March of 1779, Charles Hickerson had John Robins Sr., his neighbor, arrested for trespass, which typically means they are having a land dispute.

Hickerson’s original land grant for 320 acres in 1779 was located on both sides of Mulberry Creek and was witnessed by his son, David Hickerson.

Map courtesy Jason Duncan’s Wilkes land grant maps at http://webjmd.com/wilkeslandgrants/grantstable.html

Keep in mind that Charles Hickerson had clearly been living there for several years, probably more than two decades. Wilkes County was not formed until 1778, and land could not be granted until after the Revolutionary War when the State of North Carolina had land available to grant.

Prior to that, this part of Wilkes County was Surry County. Before the Revolutionary War, land in what would become Wilkes County was granted from the Granville District by John Carteret, the Second Earl of Granville, one of eight men who received large tracts of North Carolina in 1730 because they helped King Charles regain the throne. No land was granted in the Granville District after Carteret’s death in 1763 until after the culmination of the Revolutionary War, but people were still settling there nonetheless.

Land was staked out or claimed by marking trees with hatchets, known colloquially as hatchet claims, as the first step in the process. The next steps might not take place for many years, if ever.

Three years after the 1779 suit between Charles Hickerson and John Robins was filed, in August 1782, it was heard and found for Hickerson, with Robins having to pay seven pounds, 10 shillings, and costs. 

The incident with Braddock Harris occurred in 1786, which is also about the time Braddock married Charles Hickerson’s daughter, Rachel. If you’re shocked by Charles Hickerson allowing his daughter to marry a man who had been convicted of a violent assault on a young woman, then punished and humiliated publicly outside the courthouse, so was I.

By 1786, Charles Hickerson’s life was coming unraveled. He was not a young man, probably older than 60, and his family life was volatile and increasingly violent. Charles was arrested on a charge of trespass brought by his son-in-law, Daniel Vannoy, who had been married to his daughter, Sarah Hickerson, since 1779.

There’s no way to know what trespass meant in this connotation, but trespass suits over land disputes didn’t typically result in the sheriff being ordered to go and physically apprehend the person.

Something was up.

This was followed in 1787 by a suit filed by Daniel Vannoy against Charles Hickerson, “for words,” which is slander.

Whoo boy things were getting hot and spicey.

Unfortunately, the year is incomplete on another document, although this was found in the 1785-1787 court records.

The sheriff confiscated the property of Daniel Vannoy, who apparently lost one of those two suits, which clearly affected Charles Hickerson’s daughter, Sarah, Daniel’s wife.

Was Charles alright? His family seems deeply embroiled in increasingly violent feuding, including Charles granting permission for his daughter to marry a man convicted of an extremely violent act.

I actually wonder if something had happened to Charles, like maybe a stroke or accident resulting in a brain injury, as he seems to have become very combative beginning about 1779. Was his decision-making ability or judgment impaired?

In 1788, Charles Hickerson sold 150 acres of his land on Mulberry Creek to his son, David Hickerson, “being the survey that Charles Hickerson now lives on.” His wife, Mary Lytle Hickerson’s will in 1793 does not mention Charles, indicating that he was already deceased.

This means that the other 170 acres of Charles’ 320-acre land grant was likely sold to someone, but who, and when?

Many of these land grants weren’t actually filed or surveyed for years, which means that the actual grant date is much later than the family began inhabiting, improving, and farming the land. Land grants weren’t free. It cost money to file the grant and also for the survey. Often, claims were abandoned or passed hand to hand for cash, given that ownership, in the traditional sense, didn’t yet exist. Only occupation and improvements to the property, like clearing fields and building homesteads – creating farms from dense woodlands. In families, often at death, deeds were simply passed hand to hand and sometimes not registered for generations.

Charles was recorded on the census in 1790 but had died before his wife, Mary, passed away in December of 1793, with a will.

The end of Charles’s life was anything but peaceful. Not only was his daughter Rachel Hickerson Harris’s house burned in 1789, his other daughter, Jane, who married Leonard Miller, was somehow involved, and in 1793, John Roberts was found guilty of that arson.

It was just a huge, ugly, dangerous mess.

Let’s take a brief moment to recap what we know about Charles Hickerson’s children.

Charles Hickerson’s Child Spouse Comments
Jane Hickerson was born about 1760 Married Leonard Miller before 1782 and appears to have “divorced” before 1800. He moved to SC.

Jane may have remarried to John Reynolds in Wilkes in 1806.

Jane concealed goods from her sister Rachel’s home robbery and arson in 1789. Convicted in 1793 in extremely unflattering terms. Later seems to have reconciled with Rachel as she later testified on her behalf.
Sarah Hickerson was born 1752-1760 Married Daniel Vannoy in 1779. Bought land in what would become Ashe County in 1779. He sold personal property the day after the Hickerson vs Vannoy conviction in 1794, sold his land in 1795, and disappeared entirely from all records.
Rachel Hickerson was probably born before 1766 Married Braddock Harris about 1786, moved from Wilkes after 1793. In March of 1789, John Roberts robbed and burned the Harris home.
David Hickerson was born about 1750-1760 Married Sarah Ann Talifaferro circa 1781. Leaves around 1809 for Coffee Co., TN. In 1793, he sued John Roberts for slander.
Joseph Hickerson was born probably before 1760 Married Ann Green or Greer. In 1793, Joseph and Samuel Hickerson testified against Leonard Miller and Jane Hickerson Miller but Joseph apparently stayed out of the rest of the mess.
Mary Hickerson Stewart Husband was probably Samuel Stewart/Steward, son of Lydia Stewart. The Hickerson family had an association with the Stewart family in Rowan County in 1771. Son named Samuel Hickerson alias Stewart, as recorded by the court, may have been born before marriage. In 1793, Mary’s mother left Mary the contents of a chest and also named Samuel specifically. Mary may have left the state shortly thereafter.
Elizabeth Hickerson was born 1748-1768. Married a Stewart, probably a son of Lydia Stewart Wound up in Nacogdoches, TX, per 1877 letter from Elizabeth’s elderly daughter saying they left about 1794.

After both Charles Hickerson and his widow, Mary, had died, all Hell broke loose within the family. It’s hard to believe that the feuding could increase beyond what was already happening, but it did. They quarreled and fought with each other incessantly, and their dirty laundry was aired in the courtroom – fortunately for us today. I can only imagine how much we don’t know. The tidbits we have are just the tip of the iceberg, teasers about the long-forgotten truth.

Most family members eventually moved to other states, probably to escape the ugliness and violence. Some simply disappeared, which makes me wonder about what actually happened – especially to Daniel Vannoy who is never heard from again. I’m not sure I want to know.

After Mary Lytle Hickerson’s 1793 death, the lawsuits increased, with David Hickerson suing Daniel Vannoy, Samuel Stewart/Steward alias Little Dr. Hickerson suing Daniel Vannoy for slander, and Leonard Miller forfeiting his appearance in the cases after he had been subpoenaed. Translated, Leonard didn’t want to or was afraid to be involved and paid a hefty fine for that choice.

The court was insistent that Samuel, alias Little, Hickerson, alias Steward/Stewart appear in court, but he refused and did not. The multiple lawsuits weren’t resolved amicably, or at all. Instead, the situation continued to escalate. In November of 1794 the state indicted both Vannoy and Samuel Hickerson for assault and battery and fined David Hickerson.

The court must have been getting sick of this, too.

By the time the 1798 tax list was taken, Charles Hickerson had been buried someplace, probably on his own land, for between 5 and 8 years, and Mary had been gone for five years.

On the 1798 tax list, we show the two land entries for Charles Hickerson’s sons, David and Joseph.

David Hickerson owned three parcels of land totaling 368 acres, worth $501, as follows:

  • 196 acres on Mulberry valued at $95, with a 24 by 17 still house valued at $5. This makes me laugh because that stillhouse is larger than most homes. I’d wager that what was produced in the stillhouse was worth a great deal. A stillhouse might also explain a good bit of the feuding within this family.
  • 170 acres on Yadkin River at the mouth of Lewis Fork valued at $300. This is the right amount of land to be the remainder of his father’s land, but the wrong location, several miles distant across mountains.
  • 2 acres, no location given, with a 17 by 24 dwelling house that is 1 story with an 8-foot wide shed on one side, with a shingle roof valued at $90. There is also an 18 by 20 kitchen made of logs and covered with slabs valued at $11. Note that this dwelling house is the same size as the still house. That still house must have been huge, at least comparatively

David’s 1796 land grant is only for 50 acres on the banks of Mulberry Creek, crossing Piney Creek, adjacent his own line. This tells us that he has more than one piece of land in that location, even though it’s not accounted for in the land grants. The additional land is probably his father’s land from the 1788 deed conveyance.

The 150 acres he obtained from his father in 1788 does not seem to be broken out in 1798, unless it’s part of the 196 acres, but if so, where’s the house? Charles Hickerson lived on this plantation.

Joseph Hickerson has 150 acres valued at a total of $100 with the following details:

  • 150 acres on Mulberry adjoining David Hickerson valued at $61
  • 16 by 20 dwelling house, 1 story, hewed logs, shingle roof valued at $10
  • 12 by 16 kitchen, 1 story, logs, slab roof valued at $8
  • 10 by 16 barn, 1 story, logs, slab roof valued at $8
  • 12 by 16 blacksmith shop, 1 story, logs, slab roof valued at $1
  • Stable, 1 story, logs, slab roof valued at $2
  • 8 by 12 mill house, 1 story, logs, slab roof valued at $10

Joseph’s 1799 land grant shows as 100 acres on the waters of Mulberry. A second grant for the same amount, with the same file number, but a different grant number is in the same location generally, but unplaced on the map. He does not have 200 acres total, nor is the grant that is placed on Jason’s map adjacent his brother.

Given that Joseph’s grants aren’t dated until a year after this tax list, is it possible that this 150 acres adjacent David Hickerson is his father’s land? We know Charles Hickerson’s land was adjacent both Joseph and David’s land.

If this is Charles Hickerson’s original land, or at least part of it, this tells us that Charles probably had a mill and might have been a blacksmith, although perhaps Joseph built that shop. Regardless, Charles, David and Joseph would have all worked together. Their survival depended on it.

There’s one other 1798 tax entry that references a Hickerson. James Cast’s 60 acres on Hunting Creek is noted as being adjacent Samuel Hickerson, but there is no entry for Samuel Hickerson nor land grant for him. Samuel Hickerson would be aka Little Hickerson aka Samuel Stewart/Steward.

Expanding the Searches

I took this opportunity to use the new FamilySearch Full Text AI tool first in Wilkes County, then further afield. I removed all location filters and just searched for Charles Hickerson more broadly since we still don’t know where he came from before his arrival sometime before 1771 in Rowan County.

I didn’t find what I hoped for. If Charles was born around 1724, then he would have married maybe between 1745 and 1750. Did he own land before migrating to the new Carolina frontier?

FamilySearch continues to add records, so I’ll check back often.

Revisiting Hickerson Y-DNA

I also revisited the Y-DNA matches of our Hickerson cousin, who tested a few years ago, and discovered a pleasant surprise. My Hickerson cousin has a new haplogroup, I-FTC98093, which you can see here in Discover.

On his match list, we have a Hickerson male who is a Y-DNA STR match but who provided no genealogy information, so we need to reach out to him. If we are lucky, he will descend from a different line which will provide us with clues as to the ancestors of Charles Hickerson.

A second STR match whose ancestor, Everett Clyde Henderson, not Hickerson, was born in Illinois, died in Marion County, IN, and was married to Maud Johnson, who was born on Nov. 11, 1875, in Cass Co., Indiana. Fortunately, he has taken the Big Y-700 test and his haplogroup is I-FTC98093 – the same as our Hickerson cousin’s.

Things are getting mighty interesting!

Another Y-DNA match is also named Henderson, and his ancestor is Edward Henderson, born in 1735 in Hunterdon County, NJ, the same location where the Wilkes County Vannoy family originated before removing to the Jersey Settlement in NC about 1739.

Is this relevant? Maybe.

Given that our Hickerson cousin and the Henderson man match on both STR tests and the Big Y-700, and Discover tells us that their haplogroup was formed about 1400, this seems quite relevant. Haplogroup ages are refined as more men with that haplogroup test, so this date would become more concise with additional Hickerson or Henderson testers.

We need another Hickerson male and another Henderson male to upgrade to the Big Y-700 with the hope that the additional tests will allow the haplogroup date to be further refined, or additional branches defined. I don’t want to get too excited, though, because the genetic distance at 111 markers is 9, so their common ancestor could be back in the old country. Still, it would be wonderful to know we’re actually looking for Hendersons, not Hickersons. So far, our only identified Hickerson matches are to our known line through David Hickerson.

One VERY interesting aspect of Discover is the Ancient Connections, which are derived from archaeological excavations published in academic papers.

Click to enlarge image

All of the Ancient Connections haplogroup matches are of Viking origin, but one was found near St. John’s College in Oxford, England.

Our common Hickerson/Henderson ancestor with this man lived about 3900 years ago, probably in Sweden, based on the other Ancient Connections.

How cool is this???!!! Without the Big Y-700 test and Discover’s Ancient Connections, we would NEVER have been able to discern that our Hickersons were at one time Viking warriors – or at least we share ancestors with them.

Perhaps a little bit of Viking warrior influence carried over into the mountains of Wilkes County.

My Favorite Revelations

This article builds on our earlier knowledge of the Hickerson family by adding court records, land grants plotted on maps, and DNA matches, but my favorite tidbits were revealed in that 1798 tax list.

Even though Charles was already deceased, he really hadn’t been gone long. It’s very likely that one or both of his sons owned his land. We know positively that he sold part of his land to David in 1788. Wilkes County in 1798 was very much like Wilkes County a decade earlier, before Charles Hickerson, then Mary, died.

From the tax records of those men, we learned that David was by far the wealthier of the two brothers, with assets totaling five times what his brother, Joseph, had.

David’s dwelling house on the two-acre tract was 12X17, or 204 square feet, had a shingle roof, and was valued at $90. There’s no mention of an outside kitchen? Was the cooking done inside? And by whom?

The only structure on his 196-acre Mulberry property was a stillhouse of the exact same size as his house on his other property, but valued at $5.

Know what David doesn’t have? Barns or stables. No outbuildings whatsoever. That’s baffling because even if he didn’t have livestock, he had to have owned horses. Was one of his properties, perhaps the one that was his father’s, omitted? Did his brother oversee his land and stillhouse while David lived on a much smaller parcel in town?

In the 1790 census, David is shown living beside his father, Charles, with two enslaved people who were probably doing much of the work on David’s land. He owned slaves in 1800 and 1810 as well, so they had to have lived someplace. Comparing the tax list to other men such as Jonathan Hethman or Heathman, who in 1790 owned four enslaved people and two in 1800, shows that in 1798, Heathman had five cabins of 12×12, 12×14, and 12×16 feet that would clearly have been slave quarters. But David Hickerson shows no other structures. That’s odd.

I also wonder why David Hickerson’s house was worth so much more than other homes of the same size, including his brother’s.

By comparison, his brother Joseph’s dwelling house was larger than David’s at 16X20 or 320 square feet, but it was valued at only $10, similar to that of most dwelling houses. The outside kitchen was 12X16 and was valued at $8, so almost as much as the house itself.

By virtue of comparison, a 14X70 mobile home today is 980 square feet, three times the size of their homes – so quite tiny by today’s standards.

Joseph clearly farmed because he had a 10X16 barn, so about half the size of his house, which was worth $8, the same as the outside kitchen and more per square foot than the house.

Joseph’s blacksmith shop was 12X16 but was only valued at $1, even though that’s probably a primary source of income. His blacksmith shop was worth far less than David’s stillhouse. Joseph’s mill house was 8X12 and was valued at $10, the same as David’s stillhouse. Joseph also had a stable that was worth $2, twice as much as his blacksmith shop.

Taken together, this gives us a snapshot of life in Wilkes County in 1798. Both of these men had been born in the 1750s or 1760s and had spent their entire adult life in what would become Wilkes County, first working their father’s land, then their own.

They watched their father march off to war in 1776 and probably farmed his land as best they could until his return. They learned to handle horses, cows, and whatever other livestock they would have had. They would rise with the sun every morning and begin the never-ending chores that defined farm life.

The seasons determined their activities, such as plowing, planting, harvesting, hunting, butchering, and processing meats. Not to mention making moonshine, which requires dried corn.

At least David, and probably Charles before him, turned excess corn into moonshine. Or maybe the corn wasn’t excess and was grown for this specific purpose. Were the Hickerson’s the premier distillers of the region? Perhaps so.

I extracted a list of all of the other stillhouses from the 1066 individuals taxed in Wilkes County, which covered an extensive area, across the mountains to the Virginia border. There were a total of 18 stills, including David Hickerson’s, meaning that one in every 60 households included a stillhouse. But David’s was the largest at 24X17. A few had no size listed, but most were substantially smaller. Interestingly enough, though, David’s was valued at $5, but the next largest, 20X18, and one at 14X18, were valued at $12. The rest were valued between $2 and $10, with six others valued at $5. I sure wonder what the criteria were for valuing a stillhouse.

Back then, whiskey was medicine as well as recreation, and considered a gentleman’s beverage. Drinking was only frowned upon if liquor was consumed in excess. The definition of excess was determined by your neighbors and the church.

Ironically, in the years since, Wilkes County proclaimed itself the Moonshine Capital of the World, where NASCAR was born from highly skilled moonshine runners outpacing the law on those treacherous mountain roads.

It’s also worth noting that on the 1798 tax list, Joseph Herndon’s property is noted as being on the road from the Wilkes Courthouse, across from David Hickerson. Given that David had one parcel of 2 acres, which included his dwelling house, I wonder if he actually lived in the town of “Mulberry Fields” which would one day become Wilkesboro, and sold his moonshine to folks coming and going from the courthouse.

Joseph Hickerson’s mill would be another great location to imbibe and pick up some moonshine.

When farmers harvested grain, be it corn, rye, barley, or wheat, it had to be ground at the mill. Mills were very important community resources and also served as gathering places for the local farmers who discussed anything and everything that needed discussing. They might have whittled on a piece of wood, crafting it into something useful, played a friendly game of checkers on top of a barrel, and had a nip or two. I wonder if the remains of the Hickerson Mill still exist on Mulberry Creek.

Of course, every horse and the local oxen needed horseshoes, stirrups for their saddles, and bits for their halters. The farmers needed hinges, nails, wheel rims, barrel stays, chains, tools, and other hardware forged by the local blacksmith.

Almost everyone farmed in Wilkes County, or at least tried to on the rocky mountainsides. Flat land closer to the Yadkin held a much higher value because it was easier to farm and much more productive. David Hickerson’s 170 acres on the Yadkin at the mouth of Lewis Fork was valued at $300, much higher per acre than his 196 acres on Mulberry Creek at $95, or his brother Joseph’s 150 acres on Mulberry that adjoined his that was valued at $61.

Now, of course, I want to look up all of the Hickerson neighbors shown on the land grant map to see what their life was like in 1798. Each family was part of the community tapestry that was interwoven and shaped the lives of our Wilkes County ancestors.

Let’s Take a Drive

I absolutely LOVE finding my ancestors’ land on Google Maps and “driving by.”

Given the shapes of the roads and Mulberry Creek on Jason’s map, it was easy to find on Google maps too. Joseph’s land is parallel to the left with a small piece running partway beneath Charles’s land, and David’s is above Charles in the loop.

You can see Mulberry Creek meandering through this entire area, and in at least one place, there was a still, a blacksmith shop, and a mill, in addition to at least two and probably three houses.

I turned on the aerial features.

I was excited to drive up Mountain View Road, which is road 1002. The land on both sides of the road is heavily forested with small cleared areas for farming. The road, on Charles Hickerson’s land, runs along beside, then crosses Mulberry Creek.

You can see the bridge on Mountain View Road, looking back to where it crosses Mulberry Creek.

Two roads traverse the Hickerson land. Mulberry Creek Road intersects on the west, leading to Joseph’s land.

Turning onto Mulberry Creek Road, we continue to climb and can see one of the cleared areas. Charles’s land abuts Joseph’s near here.

One last look at Mulberry Creek’s path through the Hickerson land, this time looking north to south. Water was the lifeblood of farming, not only to drain the lands and water people and animals, but to power both mills and stills.

Mulberry Creek provided the lifeblood of the Hickerson family for generations.

How I wish this landscape could talk and tell us the secrets that it holds. Charles and Mary, and probably a few others are buried someplace here in the family cemetery, but where?

What’s Next

I know I went down a huge rabbit hole in this article, beginning with the 1798 Wilkes County tax list and winding up someplace in the Viking homelands with a few detours through North Carolina, possibly New Jersey, and maybe England on the way.

I’ve identified what I need to do to make progress, though.

  • Reach out to Hickerson Y-DNA matches and ask about their genealogy.
  • Encourage another Henderson and another Hickerson male to upgrade to the Big Y-700 test to refine the origin dates and haplogroups, if possible, with the hope of bringing into better focus the date of a common ancestor. This will help us determine if the common ancestor is in colonial America or in England.
  • If the common ancestor lived after immigration to the colonies, begin searching more aggressively for information about the Henderson or Hickerson line in New Jersey.
  • Check the FamilySearch AI tool often. (Yes, I already checked for Edward Henderson, and he’s in NJ and had a will. More research is needed.)
  • Edward Henderson’s WikiTree entry is here, and his father, James is here.

How are we related to the Henderson family, when did we share a common ancestor, and where did we come from after the Vikings and before North Carolina?

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me 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 Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

______________________________________________________________

Sign Up Now – It’s Free!

If you appreciate this article, subscribe to DNAeXplain for free, to automatically receive new articles by e-mail each week.

Here’s the link. Just look for the black “follow” button on the right-hand side on your computer screen below the black title bar, enter your e-mail address, and you’re good to go!

In case you were wondering, I never have nor ever will share or use your e-mail outside of the intended purpose.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me 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 Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Jacques Bonnevie (c1660-c1733) Speaks from Beyond the Grave about Port Royal and Fort Louisbourg – 52 Ancestors #431

Ahh, my daughter – you’re here! In Louisbourg. I’m overjoyed, and my heart sings!

I thought no one would ever come. That no one would ever find me. But alas, you have!

It’s been almost 290 years since I, Jacques Bonnevie, passed from my mortal body on Île-Royale at Fort Louisbourg, the place you call Cape Breton Island, right across the bay from where you’re sitting right now.

Look up, you can see the fort in the distance out your window. Gaze across the bay. I’m buried on the spit of land right there, to the left of the fort, across the water with the sun glinting and sparking.

That’s the sprite of my spirit, dancing on the waves, so joyful that you are here.

Yes, my girl, I can see you. And your mother too, who accompanies you in spirit – and her ring that you wear. She’s standing right by your side and walks with you. Did you know that? Continue reading

Wilkes County Secrets Revealed about the Braddock Harris and Ann Alexander “Assault” – 52 Ancestors #430

Recently, I received a lovely email from Jason Duncan.

Roberta,

In an article that you wrote on November 17, 2019, you mentioned Braddock Harris and his wife Rachel Hickerson.

https://dna-explained.com/2019/11/17/sarah-hickerson-1752-1760-before-1820-silent-member-of-a-feuding-family-52-ancestors-262/

You included information about Braddock’s attempted rape conviction in Wilkes County, but the document that you found didn’t specify who the victim was. On a recent trip to the NC Archives, I found a document in the Criminal Court Papers that identifies the victim as Ann Alexander, the step-daughter of Isaac Darnell.  I’m sending the front and back of that paper, dated January 9, 1786.

I’m not sure yet exactly who Isaac Darnell was, but I know the Darnell family settled in the eastern part of Wilkes in the vicinity of Bugaboo Creek and Little Elkin Creek. Darnell is still a popular name in the area.

As you noted, Braddock’s punishment was to be paraded across the court yard from Humphries to Smothers/Smithers. Within the past few months, I’ve been able to pinpoint where Spencer Humphries’ home and tavern was located.  It was about 50 feet from the (then) courthouse door. This point on Google Maps is the SW corner of Humphries’ house:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/MP8Xr4qPNzu21JPL9

This is based on William Lenoir’s map and survey notes from when he was laying out the town of Wilkesboro in 1800. I found this a few months ago. One of the points that he mentioned was the SW corner of Milley Humphries’ porch. Her husband Spencer had died a few years earlier, and she still lived there. The courthouse was on the west side of the house near the tree line. The “stocks” were 70 feet south of the Humphries house. Coincidently, when I park my car to go into work at the Wilkes Heritage Museum, I’m parking in the very spot where Braddock Harris walked carrying his sign!

Jason Duncan

Wow, just wow. This is exactly why I write these articles!

Before I go on, Jason writes about the old courthouse on his website, here, with a sketch, and the 1800 map of Wilkesboro by William Lenoir.

Braddock Harris

Jason found the original criminal charging bill.

Whereas complaint being made to me ? Herndon Justice Peace for said county by Isaac Darnel that Bradock Harris did on Thursday last violently abuse his step daughter Ann Alexander by forcing her to lie with him and did greatly hurt and bruise her the said Ann (missing) her great dammage and against the (missing) dignity of our state of N Carolina (missing) command you in the name of the (missing) to immediately take the body of the (missing) Harris and then bring before me or some Justice of the said County to answer the above (missing) humane charge and to be further dealt with as the law directs. (Can’t read) jail (or bail) not given under my hand this 9th day of January 1786.

Signed by Joseph Herndon and witnessed by Alexander Gilbreath and (illegible.)

That’s ugly. Really ugly. “Forcing her to lie with him” does not sound like “attempted” to me.

Here’s what I wrote in my original article before Jason had found this information:

I was researching Daniel Vannoy and Sarah Hickerson. In an every-name index book, Daniel Vannoy was listed as a court juror on April 26, 1786. The case heard before the one in which Daniel sat as a juror is transcribed below, simply because I found the topic and entry so unusual.

State vs Bradock Harris – indicted assault, jury called, jury find guilty. Ordered defendant fined 5 pounds and be CARTED up and down the court yard from Humphries to Smothers with this inscription wrote in large letters on paper and fixed to his forehead and read loudly by the sheriff at each place. THIS IS THE EFFECTS OF AN INTENDED RAPE and the last part of the punishment be inflicted between hours of four and five o’clock this evening.

Court was adjourned for one hour and following were present: Charles Gordon, Russell Jones and William Nall, Esquires.

The caps are in the court record – not mine.

Thanks to Jason, we now know where that punishment took place.

The red pin marks the southwest corner of Humphries house, and the museum is a block to the right of the red pin.

The old courthouse was just to the left of Humphries home and tavern – a great location for the local watering hole where everyone would have gathered on court days to imbibe and discuss the various goings-on. Court was the local entertainment and sometimes was quite juicy. Like on that fall day in 1786 when Braddock Harris was carted up and down the street, being publicly shamed with the sign affixed to his forehead and read loudly by the sheriff for those who might not be able to read for themselves.

Everyone in the entire county and probably all neighboring counties knew about that and likely talked about it for years. That might have been a deterrent for others, but it was probably horrific for Ann.

According to Jason, the stocks were about here!

Whoever thought a mundane parking lot could or would hold so much incredible, and forgotten, history. I’d love to hear those tavern conversations!

I was excited, of course, but had to wait to get home to reply.

Hi Jason,

How interesting!

These families are definitely intertwined.

In my database, I have some information about the Darnell family because John Darnell, born about 1750, married Rachel Vannoy about 1771, the daughter of John Francis Vannoy and Susannah, whose last name is said to be Anderson.

Rachel and John Darnell had four children, but the parents were both deceased before Oct 23, 1787, because 2 of the children, Benjamin and Joseph, were bound to Andrew Vannoy as orphans.

John Darnell is the son of Isaac Darnell and (presumably) Nancy, his wife, whose last name is unknown. I don’t find another Isaac Darnel in the county at or near that time.

Of course, if Ann Alexander was the step-daughter of Isaac in 1786, that means that her mother was married to an Alexander sometime before that date.

I wonder if we will ever get those early Wilkes County pioneers sorted out.

Is it alright if I post this updated information, attributed to you?

It may well help someone someday.

Thank you so much,

Roberta

Of course, I had to start digging right away.

Jason provides a wonderful mapping resource for Wilkes County genealogists where he places the land grants for early, and not so early, settlers. You can check it out, here.

According to his database:

  • Edward Harris patented 230 acres in 1778/1779 on the north fork of Fisher Creek, in map grid J10.
  • Isaac Darnell patented 240 acres in 1779/1782 on both sides of Fishers Creek, map grid section K11.

I found both of those land grants.

Thanks to Jason’s streams, I was able to measure the distance on today’s Google Maps from roughly the center of each grant. Both grants would have been about half of a square mile, and there’s no way to know where the cabins were located on that grant.

As you can see, these families lived less than two miles apart and probably attended the same church. At least, did, prior to October of 1786.

After that, all bets were off. Braddock is lucky that Isaac Darnel didn’t kill him. Or Isaac’s wife, Ann Alexander’s mother.

That area was then and is still heavily wooded.

Jason’s reply to me:

Do you have any families who were still in Wilkes County in 1798?

I recently discovered the 1798 Federal Direct Tax list for Wilkes. The National Archives says that this list only exists for one county in NC (Iredell), but I found the Wilkes list among the William Lenoir papers. The list includes details for over 1,000 landowners.

I’m attaching a sample page from the “V” section.

This page tells us that Francis Vannoy owned 310 acres on the North Fork of Reddies River and that his dwelling house was 21’ x 17’ made of hewed logs with a shingle roof. It’s an amazing amount of detail for this time period!  I’ve transcribed the whole list and compiled it into a book.

Jason Duncan

Now, I’m really excited!

Of course, I ordered the book immediately, and as soon as it arrived, I checked for both Harris and Darnell, but found nothing in the right geographic location. But even that provided useful information.

Isaac Darnell was likely deceased by 1798 as he was born around 1729, and Braddock Harris – well, that’s a whole other story.

Braddock Harris

Braddock didn’t make many friends. I’m still utterly stunned that he was married about the same time he was publicly humiliated after being convicted of assault during an attempted rape. He married Rachel Hickerson, daughter of Charles Hickerson, about 1786. I still, for the life of me, can’t understand that.

Given that Braddock was convicted in October, he and Rachel may have been newlyweds at the time. Their first child was born in either 1787 or 1788 at the latest.

In the 1790 census, they are shown with two children.

In 1790, their house was robbed and burned, and Rachel’s sister was involved by aiding and abetting and concealing the arsonist. I kid you not. You can read the rest of the story, here. The Hickerson’s were at war.

In 1791, Braddock sold his land, or what was left, to Henry Carter.

This was followed by slander and assault charges brought against Braddock. He seemed to be a trouble magnet – or perhaps an instigator.

By 1800, Braddock Harris and Rachel Hickerson had moved to Laurens County, SC. It’s no wonder. In the census, they are shown with two children, ages 10-15, plus 3 more females under age 10. Those children, ages 10-15, would have been born between 1785 and 1790, so Braddock and Rachel likely married either shortly before or right after Braddock’s attempted rape conviction.

In 1806, from South Carolina, Braddock sold the last of his Wilkes land to a Sebastian family.

I can’t help but wonder if Braddock continued to get into all sorts of trouble in South Carolina.

They continued to move. In 1810, they were still living in Laurens County, but they were listed on an 1819 tax list in Franklin County, Georgia.

In the 1830 census, they lived in Coweta County, Georgia, where Braddock died.

I was able to find numerous deeds and transactions in all of those locations, including judgments against Braddock using the new FamilySearch Full Text AI, given that his name is relatively unique.

Ann Alexander

After all of this, I still have no idea who Braddock’s victim, Ann Alexander, was. There were early Alexander families living in the area, but I was unable to determine if she belonged to one of these families, or perhaps Isaac Darnell had married her mother before settling in Wilkes County.

Poor girl may have wanted to just disappear and did so in the records. It concerns me that there is absolutely nothing. I hope she was alright and nothing “happened” to her as retribution. Braddock seems like a dangerous person, involved in violent behavior.

My heart goes out to Ann, especially in that time and place. I’ve never seen any allegation of or a rape case in all the years I’ve been doing genealogy, so this must have been remarkably violent.

Furthermore, we all know that absolutely everyone knew about it. The inherent questioning about, shaming, and suspicion of the female involved is exactly why rapes aren’t reported today – let alone almost 240 years ago. I shudder to think what she went through.

I checked the Wilkes County marriage records and didn’t find her there. I hope she simply went someplace far away to live with an aunt, married, and had a wonderful life among people who had never heard of Braddock Harris.

The 1798 Tax List

Of course, I ordered Jason’s 1798 Tax List book immediately, here.

I have several Wilkes County families and I wanted to see if they were listed in the 1798 tax list that had lain undiscovered for more than 225 years.

The legacy of many families rests in the land.

Not only did these families carve humble homesteads out of the wilderness, but the land is trackable. It was either sold, if they were setting out for the next frontier, or inherited – along with whatever buildings had been built. Improvements, as they were called.

Even if the original ancestor had died by 1798, we can use grant, deed, and acreage information, along with Jason’s tax list, to find the homestead later, often still in the same family.

One of the most interesting aspects of the 1798 tax list is the painstaking detail, including home sizes and out-buildings.

Years ago, I was shocked to discover that my ancestor’s “mansion house,” as stated in the deed, was a paltry 12 by 16 feet, the size of my living room. Another was a huge 16 by 20. This was the norm on the frontier, not an exception – and these folks considered themselves lucky.

I’ve kept a spreadsheet for years with tax and census information for each of my Wilkes County ancestral families – and thanks to Jason’s careful transcriptions, now I know even more.

Wilkes land grants, courtesy of Jason, can be found here. Clicking on the grid number shows the associated map location.

I am incredibly indebted to Jason for what is clearly decades of work – and his love for the history of Wilkes County, North Carolina. His website can be found here. Notice he’s had a website since 1995. Thank you Jason!

Join me next week when I use the 1798 tax list and Jason’s maps to put more meat on the bones of the Harrold, McDowell, Hickerson, Vannoy, McNiel, Rash, and Sheppard families of Wilkes County.

______________________________________________________________

Sign Up Now – It’s Free!

If you appreciate this article, subscribe to DNAeXplain for free, to automatically receive new articles by e-mail each week.

Here’s the link. Just look for the black “follow” button on the right-hand side on your computer screen below the black title bar, enter your e-mail address, and you’re good to go!

In case you were wondering, I never have nor ever will share or use your e-mail outside of the intended purpose.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me 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 Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Jean Gaudet (1575-after 1671), Abraham of Acadia – 52 Ancestors #429

Jean (Jehan) Gaudet (Godet) was given the nickname of the “Abraham of Acadia” by Father Archange Godbout because his descendants are so numerous. In fact, Jean has the most known descendants of any of the founding Acadian fathers. As of September 2024, known descendants on WikiTree numbered 234,478, and I’m one among them.

That’s the size of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway seating, the largest sporting venue in the world. Think about that for a minute.

Viewed another way, a straight line of all of his descendants would stretch for about 100 miles as the crow flies – almost twice the distance from present-day Annapolis Royal in Nova Scotia, or Port Royal as he would have known it, to LaHave, and back again.

I imagine Jean would find that unfathomable. I find it unfathomable.

Despite that, because he was one of the earliest settlers, we don’t have a lot of information about him.

Our first actual glimpse of Jean Gaudet in Acadia is also our last.

1671 Census

In 1671, the French took a census of Port Royal. Only 66 Acadian families lived in the town of Port Royal beside the fort as well as up and down the Riviere Dauphin between Port Royal, today’s Annapolis Royal, and Bridgetown, a dozen or so miles upriver by canoe.

In 1671, Jean or Jehan Gaudet was already setting records.

Listed second in the census, we find Jean Gaudet, age 96. listed next to Jacob Bourgeois, age 50, the surgeon, who lived on Hogg Island at Port Royal. Jean’s son, Denis Gaudet, age 46, with his wife and family are listed on Jean’s other side. It’s unclear whether Jacob Bourgeois is listed in actual enumeration order or was listed first because of his social position within the community.

I mention this because we know that many Acadian families moved upriver after the British depredations of 1654, and families associated with Jean Gaudet lived upriver, not in Port Royal.

Jean Gaudet was a stunning 96 years old, the oldest person in Acadia, and was noted as a laborer. More likely his sons did the laboring on his behalf. Jean would have been born about 1575, in France. His second wife, Nicole Colleson was 64, and their child Jean, 18, was born about 1653 and lived at home. They had 6 cattle, 3 sheep, and 6 arpents of land in 2 locations. I can’t help but wonder where those two parcels of land were located and why there were two.

Most people had a few arpents of recovered salt marsh on which to graze their cattle and sheep.

Jean’s family and who they married provide insight into the neighbors.

  • Son Denis Gaudet was 46, so born about 1625. He was married to Martine Gauthier, 62, and had 5 children including son Pierre.
  • Living two more houses away beside Michel De Forest was Jean’s daughter, Marie Gaudet, 38, born about 1633, the widow of Etienne Hebert, who had 10 children, including a baby who was just one year old, along with 4 cattle and 5 sheep. She had clearly just recently lost her husband.
  • Another house away we find Jean’s granddaughter, Marie Gaudet, 20, married to Olivier Daigre, 28, with 3 children, 6 cattle and 6 sheep.
  • Thirty-five houses away, so quite some distance, Jean’s granddaughter, Anne Gaudet, 27, lived with her husband Pierre Vincent, age 40, with their 4 children.
  • Two houses further, Jean’s daughter, Francoise Gaudet, 48, born about 1623, lived with her husband Daniel Leblanc, age 45, with their 7 children.

The De Forest, Daigre and Hebert families lived on the south side of the river, and the LeBlanc clan lived near BelleIsle, on the north side.

Jean’s son, Jean, didn’t live long, but managed to marry three times before his death – first to Marie Francoise Comeau about 1672, then to Jeanne Henry about 1680 in Pisiguit, then to Jeanne Lejeune dit Briard whom he married around 1694 before his death the same year.

Jean, the progenitor, had died by the 1678 census when Nicole Colloron, “widow of Godet,” is listed with a boy, Jean, age 3, born in 1674 and a girl, age 4, unnamed, born in 1673. These are clearly not her children given that she was age 64 seven years earlier in 1671. She appears to be living on the south side of the river, based on the neighbors.

Jean Gaudet’s First Wife

Given Nicole’s age of 64 in 1671, she was 32 years younger that Jean Gaudet. His older children were 48, 46, and 38 in 1671, meaning the oldest could have been born to a young Nicole when she was 17.

However, Stephen White states that Nicole was probably a widow who married Jean Gaudet in Acadia about 1652 and André-Carl Vachon suggests, “As she got married around 1652, she must have arrived between 1644 and 1650. Why? (…) In 1644, there were 20 families (in Acadia), and we do not believe that this family was among them. Then, the ship Le Fort arrived in Acadia on September 23, 1651, and we think it’s a bit tight in terms of time to settle in Acadia and then court the widower Jean Gaudet and marry him in 1652. However, there is a possibility.”

I actually don’t think it’s tight at all, especially if her husband died on the way over and Jean had children to raise. There weren’t a lot of wives to choose from in Acadia and they both needed a spouse.

I will add that if Nicole was Jean’s first wife, it’s very difficult to explain the 20 years between the birth of daughter Marie in 1633, and son Jean in 1653.

I have no proof either way, so I’m just providing information here, but strongly suspect that Nicole was Jean Gaudet’s second wife, and his first wife remains unknown.

Where Did These People Live?

In 1671, they lived in Gaudet Village.

We know that people collaborated with their neighbors, and they married people they saw regularly. We find the names of the people Jean Gaudet’s children and grandchildren married among the neighbors along the river.

The Gaudet Village is now known as Bridgetown. Jean isn’t specifically listed on this reconstructed map, but his grandson, Pierre, is and we know that Jean lived beside Pierre’s father, Denis, in the 1671 census.

We can see that the Hebert Village is nearby. While Etienne Hebert isn’t listed on this later map reconstructed from the 1707 census and a 1733 map, this is where the various Hebert families settled. Jean Gaudet’s daughter married Etienne Hebert.

The Forest, De Forest, Foret homestead abuts the Hebert land on either side of Bloody Creek.

Olivier Daigle, married to Jean’s granddaughter, lived directly across the river from the Gaudet Village which is now Bridgetown.

According to a 1733 map at the Nova Scotia Archives based on the 1707 census route, the Hebert and Gaudet families lived in close proximity near a bend in the Riviere Dauphin, now the Annapolis River, at the mouth of Bloody Creek.

Village des Gaudet was formed by Denis Gaudet and his two sons, who built a farm on the north bank of the Annapolis River about 1667. Given that Jean was living beside Denis in 1671, this strongly suggests that Jean’s homestead was here too, at least by this time. It wasn’t always, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

In 1733, George Mitchell’s map shows five houses at this site. Elizabeth Coward’s book about Bridgetown places the Gaudet homestead location south-east of present-day Riverside Cemetery, on land later owned by the Chipman family, on lot number 133 in Granville Township.

I’m not so sure Jean’s original homestead wasn’t actually in what is today the cemetery.

This map from MapAnnapolis shows a very slightly varied location, but only a few feet different.

Based on that map, the original Gaudet home looks to be in this general location.

Maybe the Nova Scotia GIS map will help me.

While I wasn’t able to find Lot 133 specifically, I was able to location Chipman Avenue that just happens to dead end into the Riverside Cemetery. That makes perfect sense.

We know that some members of the Chipman family were buried in the Riverside Cemetery in the late 1800s, but we don’t have a burial location for the earlier generations, although I think I might have a hint.

The English often used the same cemeteries that the Acadian families utilized prior to their removal in 1755 and subsequent reallocation of their land to British subjects in about 1760. The new settlers just moved to an unoccupied portion of the older cemetery and began burying their dead.

There are a few early cemeteries in Bridgetown, but only a couple that interest us.

The Old Pioneer Cemetery, on Riverview Drive, and the Riverside Cemetery at Riverside and Chipman fit with the location of those early homes.

There were burials in the late 1790s in Riverside, and assuredly more unmarked prior to that time.

Where Did Jean Gaudet Live?

Gaudetville, of course – on the east boundary of present-day Bridgetown! When Jean first arrived, there was no Gaudetville, only forest and swampland. Like all Acadians, they cleared a place to live and dyked the marshes to create farmland. The village grew up around his family and the name would follow later.

We know that whenever Jean first settled there, he would assuredly have dyked the land and about three years later, begun farming the reclaimed marshland. His son would have taken over as Jean could no longer do the heavy work, then his grandsons after that.

On Google maps, you can easily see the fields and today’s sewage plant. This would have been prime real estate with lots of marshland available. Dyking the river provided large fields where marshes used to be.

Back then, Jean would have lived above the marsh on a high point, ridge or hill. I was unable to location the reference of Ruffle’s Hill.

Old Town Cemetery is the red arrow at left, and Riverview at right.

Recently on a trip to Nova Scotia, I took a drive to find Jean’s land.

Come along!

Searching for Jean

In Bridgetown, I drove down Riverview Drive, attempting to see the river. Today, houses obstruct the view, but on the North side of Riverview, I stumbled across the Old Town Cemetery.

You can see that there are no marked graves in the part closest to the street where I’m standing.

There’s a lot of space with no burials, which means unmarked graves.167

I drove on down Riverview Drive to Riverview Cemetery where the road turned to dirt and also angled left, ultimately becomin Chipman after meandering through the cemetery.

There are few roads in the cemetery, and the only burials I could see are contemporary. Furthermore, the area beside the cemetery is entirely overgrown marsh and weeds, so I wasn’t about to go trekking down there.

Riverview Drive entered the cemetery from the west, and Chipman exited to the north.

Depending on which map or tidbit you reference, the Gaudet homestead(s) were either near the upper arrow, or are SSE of the cemetery, close to the lower arrow. Or perhaps both if there were 5 buildings.

One way or another, I was certainly in the neighborhood, within a few feet.

The map view without the vegetation is easier to see.

I drove up Chipman and noticed some soil displaced, having been bulldozed. That’s often what happens to the old foundations of Acadian homesteads. You can’t mow around them and all these generations later, many people have no idea about the history they are disturbing. (Sorry about the photo angle.)

However, this pile didn’t have any foundation stones, hallmarks of an Acadian homestead.

I wanted to stop and ask someone, but there were several “No Trespassing” signs and since no one knew where I was, I decided not to press my luck.

I drove on down Chipman, taking a photo through the trees to the west of the road.

On the right side of the road, if the upper arrow location is accurate, the homestead would be someplace in this natural area behind this property.

The forested area would be higher and can support trees, where the other area to the upper right would be wetter, only supporting marsh grasses and such. The perfect location for Acadian settlers.

We don’t know exactly when Jean Gaudet died, but it was sometime between 1671 and 1678. He was between 96 and 103 years of age, and he was very likely buried someplace nearby.

Parish records prior to 1702 no longer exist for the church in Port Royal.

We know there was at least one other “mass chapel,” St. Laurent, at BelleIsle and some burials occurred there. It’s possible that Jean was buried someplace near his home, here, or at BelleIsle, or less likely, in the more distant cemetery at Port Royal.

My guess would be in Gaudetville, or at St. Laurent in BelleIsle, but that’s speculation based on both location and convenience. The difference would be that the burial grounds at the Mass House would have been consecrated, and the grounds near the Gaudet home would (probably) not have been blessed by the priest. However, Acadians were practical and did what needed to be done.

Note that the “mass house” church or chapel, St. Laurent, is very close to the LeBlanc Village, meaning to Jean’s daughter. Taking a body all the way back to Port Royal by canoe, especially in the winter, seems both unnecessary and risky.

There are 17 burial records that specify St. Laurent in the Registers of Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Port-Royal, 1702-1755. This is not complete since most burial records did not include the exact burial location. Furthermore, the parish records prior to 1702 no longer exist.

The church at Port Royal was burned in 1654, rebuilt beginning in 1673, and burned again in 1690. A chapel was added to the fort in 1709, but when Fort Port-Royal was surrendered in 1710, the fort chapel was turned into a barracks for British troops.

Parishioners either worshipped in the Saint-Laurent Chapel or private homes. They buried their dead either in the St. Laurent cemetery, the fort cemetery, Cemetery of the Cross in present day Lequille, or in a now-lost cemetery near the Melanson settlement, probably near Stony Beach. There may have been and probably were other locations as well.

The Gaudet family continued to expand in the Bridgetown area. Soon, Bernard Gaudet, 1692-1747, son of Pierre Gaudet and Marie Blanchard set up housekeeping nearby.

Not long after I left, a Gaudet interpretive panel was placed in Jubilee Park in Bridgetown, marking the location of where Bernard settled and honoring all Gaudets who founded Gaudetville, now Bridgetown.

Should you be able to visit, walk along the river, clear your mind, and drink in the landscape as our ancestors would have known it.

Now that we’ve shared what we know of Jean’s later life, let’s step back a century in time to France.

France

Jean Gaudet was unquestionably born in France sometime around 1575. He would have come of age about 20 years later and would typically have married by 1600 or so.

We know almost nothing about his life in France, but a few things might be suggested, based on the history we do know.

Although Champlain visited and mapped the region in 1604, Acadia as a settlement for families really wasn’t on anyone’s radar until 1632 when Isaac de Razilly, a naval captain and knight of Malta, teamed up with Cardinal Richelieu to expand France’s reach into North America.

Photos of placards were taken at the Fort Point Museum located at the original Acadian settlement location of La Heve.

The powerful Cardinal Richelieu, who just happened to be Razilly’s cousin and the King’s Chief Minister and Spokesperson helped smooth the way and fund the endeavor.

The King signed Razilly’s patent on April 20, 1632, and Razilly arrived in present-day Nova Scotia on September 8th, 1632 to take possession of Acadia for France. He established his headquarters at La Heve with 300 soldiers and colonists, plus three monks. Unfortunately, we don’t have a list of names, but we do know that there were 40 families, which accounts for 80 adults, plus their children. If each couple had only 2 children, that’s 160 people without counting the French soldiers. It’s certainly possible that Jean Gaudet, along with his first wife and at least his first two children, born in 1623 and 1625, were among this group. His third child, Marie, was born about 1633 so she could have been born either in France or La Heve, if Jean Gaudet was in fact on this ship. I’m not convinced that he was, but I also can’t say that he wasn’t.

The King named Razilly Lieutenant General of New France, but more specifically, Governor of Acadia. No drawings or paintings of Razilly exist.

Razilly’s trusted cousin and lieutenant, Charles de Menou d’Aulnay was tasked with keeping things running smoothly which he did quite aptly. One of his responsibilities was to recruit men for the ocean crossings with trades and skills needed to establish the new colony.

Therefore, when Razilly died unexpectedly in 1635, d’Aulnay was well-positioned to take over the leadership of the fledging French colony in Acadia.

La Heve

I visited the original Acadian settlement, beautiful La Heve, now LaHave, where the Fort Point Museum is located today.

La Heve, named after “Cap de la Heve”, France, was located on the southern coast of Nova Scotia, on a peninsula of land at the mouth of the LaHave River.

The fort established there was named Fort Sainte Marie de Grace and is now the location of the Fort Pointe Museum. Nothing exists of the original fort, having been abandoned in 1636, burned in 1653, and the ruins lost to subsequent coastal erosion, but the cemetery remains.

The French, as well as other nations, often “justified” their colonization by claiming they were interested in saving savage souls.

Many of the old stones in the adjacent cemetery have been conserved, but none with French markings.

This 1744 map shows the fort and the habitation, or village where people lived.

I visited the old Fort site in August of 2024 and walked where our Acadian ancestors walked.

These cannons are not from the original fort site, but from the appropriate time period.

The river and bay meld into one here.

Coastal erosion has taken a toll, with much of the original fort site lost to the sea. The remaining fragile soil is reinforced with large rocks.

Photo of the same location today.

Based on the map, the habitations would be on the peninsula of land on the right.

A Gaudet descendant installed a seat for reflection and contemplation in this beautiful location.

I was surprised to find this here. Jean Gaudet certainly could have been among the early settlers, but we don’t know that he was.

It felt very welcoming nonetheless – a wink and a nod, perhaps.

I walked down to the shoreline.

The beach is peaceful and beautiful.

The barrier islands help shelter the mainland from the maritime winds. The Cormorants dry their wings on the rocks protruding from the water.

The tranquil stillness of this place, interrupted only by bird cries and the gentle sounds of the sea, invites reflection, offering a glimpse into what life might have been like for our ancestors.

This peaceful haven would have stood in stark contrast to Europe with constant wars, pestilence, plagues, and death. Having said that, I’m sure that these few pilgrims to the New World desperately missed their families, with no way of knowing how they were doing, or communicating with them outside of an occasional ship – if that.

The museum sits near the shoreline just above the beach.

Much of the original fort’s land has eroded away today.

Nicolas Denys who arrived within the first year described this little bit of Heaven in his journal.

The houses and village for inhabitants were located on that little peninsula, at right.

Whether Jean Gaudet was here or not, other Acadian families assuredly were, so I took a photo of Mom’s ring over the view experienced by our ancestors.

The earliest Acadian families, those who subsequently settled at Port Royal in 1636 when d’Aulnay moved the seat of Acadia away from this rocky coastline to the fertile Annapolis Valley, began their lives, here, in this new frontier.

Their humble homes would have stood where these larger houses stand today. I squint to try to ignore the modern buildings and imagine their smaller wooden structures with their outside ovens. Their children played on this beach, probably collecting “pretty rocks.”

The rocks on the beach are truly beautiful. Yes, I was one of those “rock collector” children, too.

I had begun my walk back when I noticed something familiar from the beach and climbed back up the embankment to have a better look.

Are the ghosts of Acadians still here?

Acadians are known for planting apple trees, and given that they only lived here for four years, I can’t help but wonder if these ancient apple trees were theirs. Who else would have planted them? Few others lived here, and probably not directly in this location. More likely in the habitation.

I had tarried long enough by the shoreline, although it pained me to leave. I was so drawn here, but I was already going to have to drive back down twisty curvy roads in the dark, so it was time to “get a move on,” as my mother would have said, and explore further.

Acadian Oven

Outside the museum, I found an Acadian oven.

Cooking inside was a fire hazard, so as much as possible was done outside.

Every Acadian family would have eaten this bread – everyday.

I bet they had some wonderful raspberry jam, compote, or even fresh raspberries from Raspberry Island to go with those biscuits.

My cousin, Mark, purchased Ginger Biscuits at an Acadian bakery and we shared them as treats for a week in Annapolis Royal. I love enjoying ancestral food, which connects me to them in the most primal way.

By the time I left Canada, I found myself reading in French, again, so long as it wasn’t script, and not realizing it until I reached a word I didn’t know.

I’ve always had a passion for French. And France.

I didn’t notice the embedded star in the oven until later – the pebbles assuredly from the beach..

It’s possible that Jean’s first wife and one or more children perished here, so like any good genealogist, I had to visit the cemetery.

This garden is either at or near where the small Catholic chapel stood.

I love the arbor entrance.

On the other side of the chapel garden, we find the cemetery.

Lots of space for unmarked graves. The lone marked stone in the middle commemorates Razilly. We don’t know where he is actually buried, so it’s not his tombstone.

Ironically, I met a couple and their children walking here and we discovered that the wife and I have other Acadian lines in common. They were here for his more recent family burials. Small world.

On July 2, 1636, Razilly died and was buried in the churchyard at La Heve.

The cemetery also backs up to the sea on this spit of land.

It appears that Jean Gaudet and d’Aulnay may have some history, and not just after arrival in Acadia.

This is why I’m not convinced he was at LaHave.

Let’s go back to France!

1634 in Martaize

In 1634, one Jean Godet was mentioned in a document in Martaize, below. If this is our Jean, then there are others of the same surname listed. If this is not our Jean, it’s certainly possible that it’s the same family given the d’Aulnay connection.

Archives Départementales de l’Indre et Loire, Série C, Liasse 601, signed before the notaries Messieurs Aubri and Pasquier, at Loudun on the 21st October 1634 courtesy WikiTree https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Gaudet-21

ChatGPT translated from French to English, thus:

Oath to the King, 1634, by Nicolle de Jousserand, for her fiefs located in the parish of Martaizé. (reported on p. 37), Sheet 2.

“I, in the freche of the Godets, declare twelve bushels of wheat measured by Loudun and the last three hundred in feudal rent due (owed) by Jean Gendre, Jean Godet, René Godet the younger, Francois Godet, the widow Vincent Besard, Pierre Giroire and Renée Besard his wife, Jean Besard, Simon Joubert, the heirs Pierre Bourg of Sauseau and the heirs Francois Godet by reason of a piece of land and signer being on land and signer remaining on land is of the Rondonay the whole containing together and holding two septiers six bushels…”

Fresche means land tenure, and deniers of cens in this context means feudal tax.

Nicolle de Jousserand is the Dame d’Aulnay, the mother of Charles de Menou d’Aulnay, discussed in this French article by Genevieve Massignon. Researcher, Gregory MW Kennedy discusses d’Aulnay’s rather tragic life, here, in English. He also presents a fresh perspective about the development of Acadia, along with its overshadowing by New England.

As we are often wont to say, “It’s complicated.”

It’s worth remembering that more recent researchers have the benefit of documents coming to light that were not previously known or available on this side of the Atlantic. Even today, many records still lay in archives, unindexed and unrecognized for their historical significance.

Massignon mentions the Gaudet family, including someone named Jean Gaudet, along with several other Godet family members in this document, here, too. Unfortunately, the original French document seems to be incomplete. I have taken the liberty of having her transcript translated by ChatGPT.

I have bolded either Acadian surnames or similarly spelled surnames that might represent Acadian surnames, along with relevant places. The maps and photos are my insertions in order to help both you and me understand what we are reading.

I visited Martaize with an Acadian historical tour, including the church. The Catholic church was the center of every French village, and many of the descriptions in this document reference Martaize or the church in Martaize.

The cemetery was always just outside the church, in the yard, but there is no cemetery there today.

Across from the church is the location of the original cemetery, according to the local historian, beneath this house.

Keep in mind that this village was small at that time. Everyone knew everyone else, worshipped in the same church, and had probably been related for centuries.

Note that the translated portion of the document above is translated slightly differently in this longer document, below. The handwriting is relatively poor, written in French script, and not entirely legible. I also discovered that the original French notarial document included by Massignon is not complete, but her transcription appears to be except for portions truncated when scanning. Of course, I really need that one sentence and who knows what the rest of the document holds..

Transcription and ChatGPT translation begins here:

From the King, My Sovereign Lord, I, Nicolle de Jousserand, wife and spouse of Messire René de Menou, Knight, Lord of Churnizé, having no shared property with him, authorized by Justice to pursue my rights, daughter and heiress of the late Messire René de Jousserand, who was the lord of Londigny, Angliers, Aulnay, Triou and the fief of Beaulieu otherwise known as Rallette which was at Arnaudeau in the parish of Martaizé and its surroundings, and of Lady Renée Robin, my late mother living in this town of Loudun: declare and hold to be due to your castle in the town of Loudun, as the case may arise, the things which follow, in both wheat and in money, from the inheritances declared hereafter.

And firstly the rents in wheat due each year, and each feast of St. Michael, to my said fief of Beaulieu otherwise known as Rallette. Namely, from the fresche (land tenure) of the Fourniers, the number of eighteen bushels of wheat, measured by Loudun, and three last deniers of cens (feudal tax) due by René Gueniot, son of the late Louis Gueniot, Jean and Pierre Vinattières, the widow Vallantin Brault, the widow François Breault, Françoise Havard, Philippe Guerin, Joachin Chesneau, François Boier, René Mesteau, the heirs Mathurin Pintier, Antoine(?) Halbert, René Girard, the widow Guespin, the widow and heirs Bertrand Buet, Helie Escuier, Louis Mirebeau, and the lord of Richemond, for a piece of land located in the terroir of the Turzée, behind the lordship of Saunonne: adjoining the two parts with land from said Saunonne and another to the land of Vincent Gouin, and another to the pathway leading from Saunonne to the field of Prunet by the hand of Senexrte and another to the land of Mathurin Rousseau, containing the said piece of land four septiers, one bushel, and a quarter at the lord’s oak tree on the measure of Loudun.

Photo taken inside the church in Martaize.

Also in the fresche of Coindre, the number of thirteen bushels of wheat by the measure of Loudun and six last deniers of cens and this feudal rent is due by Louis Seuirau, the widow Pasquier Bricault, Blais Cesuet, Maurice Coindre, the heirs Jeanne Bourg, Jean Potiron, Louis Rocher the elder, Louis Rocher the younger, frescheurs of the said fresche due to a lodging, houses and appurtenances, stables, courtyards, leases, and livestock: the whole held together situated in the village of Martaizé, containing five and a half boisselées and a quarter.

Bordering on one side the path leading from the cemetery of the said Martaizé to Saint-Clair, and on another side to the stream that descends from the mill of the Grange to the mill of the Mousseau, and on another side to the land of the heirs Maurice Blanchard, and another side to the land of Brilloire and the lands and oak groves of the lord of Chasteauganne. The said lodging is possessed by the aforementioned individuals.

Also, a piece of land located in the terroir of the Moys, below St. Cassien, containing two boisselées three quarters at the oak tree: adjoining the land of the heirs Jehan Poirard, locksmith, on one side, the land of the heirs Aubin Gaudet on the other, the land of René Minier, esquire, lord of Bassereau, on another, and the land of André Mauxilion on the other side.

Also, in the fresche of the Godets twelve bushels of wheat, measured by Loudun, and three last deniers of cens as feudal rent owed by Jean Gendre, Jean Godet, Jehan Moncontour, René Godet the younger, François Godet, the widow Vincent Bizard, Pierre Giroire and Renée Bizard his wife, Jean Bizard, Simon Joubert, the heirs Pierre Bourg of Sauseau and the heirs François Godet, by reason of a piece of land and vineyard located in the terroir of the Rondenay: the whole containing together and holding two septiers six bushels and a quarter. Adjoining on one side lands that belonged to the widow Jean Fouquetteau Chasseinges, married in second nuptials to Master François Brosseu, and on another side the land of the heirs of Michel Bizard and on the other side the vineyard of the heirs Jean Lasne.

Also, the number of five bushels of wheat, measured by Loudun, and three last deniers of cens and feudal rent owed by Gaspar Mauxilion and three last deniers of cens and feudal rent, for lands situated at the place and village of Martaizé called “la Pousseterie,” containing about two boisselées of land: adjoining on one side the land of the lord of Chasteauganne and on one end the house and appurtenances of Antoine Rousseau and Toussaint Mauxion, and on the other end the land of Louis Renault, who is outside the fresche with another section next to the garden of the farmhouse at the garden of the school farmhouse depending on the lordship of Lespinay and by another section next to said Renault.

Also, Antoine Halbert, laborer living in Martaizé, in the fresche of Pasquiert Bricault, owes me two bushels of wheat, measured by Loudun, and three last deniers of feudal rent for a small plot containing a half boisselée of land or about that size, situated by the main road leading to the village of Martaizé from Loudun, and adjoining the appurtenances of said Halbert and adjoining a path between the presbytery of Martaizé and the vine trellis leading out of the main road described above.

Also, Pierre Richelot, esquire, lord of Piau Ligere, son of Elie Richelot, esquire, lord of La Roche, and the late demoiselle Renée Minier, owes me four bushels of wheat, measured by Loudun, and a chicken for feudal rent, for a piece of land near the cemetery of the said Martaizé and adjoining the path leading to Baspollet in Martaizé, containing six boisselées of land or about that size, and adjoining the land of Guillaume Lepère and one end next to the land of Louis Minier, esquire, lord of Chasteauganne.

Also, René Bricault owes me, in the fresche of the Roches, one bushel of wheat, measured by Loudun, and a feudal rent for a path that passes by the house of La Grosserie and touching the land that once belonged to the late Jacques Gautefroy, who owned a mill, yard, and farm located in the village of Martaizé: adjoining on one side the presbytery and the house and lodging of Antoine Halbert.

Also, René Godet, laborer, and Aubinne Godet, widow of the late Pierre Iniatier, and Jean Potiron of St. Clair owe me three bushels of wheat, measured by Loudun, a capon, six deniers of cens as feudal rent, for a piece of land located in the terroir of the Gazilland near…(sentence missing in French transcript – need complete original document.)

Also, Louis Renault in place of Antoine Renault owes me six bushels of wheat, measured by Loudun, a capon, and a chicken for feudal rent, for a piece of land located in the village of Martaizé, containing about two boisselées of land: adjoining one hour’s distance from one end next to the field of the lordship of Saunonne, on the other to the watercourse of the Chesneau descending from the Moulins Mousseau to the mill of Gietal, and on the other to the land belonging to Jacques Girault; also, a piece of woodland located in the terroir of the Pontignou, containing about one boisselée of land: adjoining the land of Pierre de la Planche, on another side the land of the heirs of André Montillier, on another side the land of René Girard, and on another side the land of Jeanne Teteveau, widow of Simon Nivart; also, another piece of woodland located in the terroir of Le Pineau, containing about one and a half boisselées of land: adjoining the land of Louis Prudhomme…

…the land of Antoine Halbert, and another adjoining the path leading from Martaizé to Monslandrault on the right; also, another piece of land located in said terroir, containing about a quarter of a boisselée: adjoining the path on one side, and on the other side the land of Anthoin Halbert, and on the other side the land of Pierre Gouin.

Also, the widow of Isaac Bricault, Louis Seureau the younger, Jean Guet, Guy Barrault, the widow Pierre Chapeau for Marie Chapeau, his daughter, owe me one chicken and six deniers of cens as noble rent, feudal and domain, for a piece of land containing one boisselée, located in the terroir of Pontignou, adjoining on one side the field of Guillaume Lepère, on the other side the land of Guillaume Gaillard, on another the land of the lord of Richemont, and on the other side the land of Germain Ranteau.

Also, Guy Barrault, Jean Savarri on behalf of Michelle Barraut, his wife, owe me one and a half bushels of wheat, measured by Loudun, and two deniers of feudal rent, for a house, courtyard, and garden: all held together as it has been pursued and includes, situated in the village of Martaizé in the Bassereau of said place; adjoining on one side the appurtenances of Louis Guerin and the heirs Jean Godet and on the other side the widow Isaac Bricault and on the other side the land of… adjoining the land of Gaspar Montillier, one hour away, and on the other side the land of Gaspar Constance and René Fouscher and on one side the land of René Girard and on the other side the land of René Theuillieu.

Also, Louis Guespin the elder, Helie Vinatier, the widow René Beaulieu, Joachim Chesneau, Marc Pouschau, Pasquier Blanchard, Louis Pouschau, Anthoinme Montillier, and Jeanne Pouschau owe me three bushels of wheat, measured by Loudun, and four last deniers in the little fresche of the Sarazins, for a piece of land located in the terroir of the Petits Moys, containing one septier and about one boisselée: adjoining on one side the small path from the Grange that goes to Angliers, on one side the land of Pierre Malherbe, on another side the land of Grétal by one end, and on the other side to the lord of Longchamp to the heirs of Aubin Godet, and on one end to the land of Mr. Bonneau, one hour away to the land of François Blanchard.

Also, the heirs of the property tenant Morice Godet owe me six bushels of wheat and ten bushels of oats and cens for the amount of three months rent on a property located at the barn of Chasteauganne: adjoining on one side the land of the heirs of the tenant Jean Ferron to Michau Mousseau, on the other side the land of Philippon Ferron and other lands that used to belong to Pineau.

Then follow the rents of one denier owed per year and firstly: the heirs of the property tenants Moricet Tem and Berthelot Boulet owe three deniers of cens for a piece of courtyard land located in Pontignou: adjoining the courtyard of the heirs of the tenant Guillaume Arnaudeau. Also, one denier of cens owed by the heirs of the tenant to the late Messire Guy de Beaussay, for a piece of land located in Joismont which was previously held by Moricet Trion, containing one mine or about that size: adjoining the land of the heirs of the tenant Guillaume Arnaudeau. Also, the heirs of the tenant to the late Marc Saulnier owe twelve deniers of cens for the piece of land from a man to the lord, located in the courtyard lands of the heirs of the tenant Guillaume Abraham.

Also, the heirs of the property tenant Perrot Poussechant owe two deniers of cens for a piece of courtyard land located in said place, adjoining the courtyard lands of the tenant Emeri Ricot. Also, the heirs of the tenant Jean Poussechant owe fifteen sols of cens for a lodging located in Martaizé: adjoining the house of the heirs of the tenant Jean Girard and the lodging of the heirs of the tenant Jean Guerin.

Also, the heirs of the property tenants Anthonine Minier owe nine deniers of cens for a piece of meadow land located near Rinneaux: adjoining on one side the meadow of the heirs of Marc Vincent and on the other side the meadow of the heirs of Jean Vinattier. Also, six deniers of cens owed for a lodging located in Lousche Pinard: adjoining the lodging of the tenant Cheneau who goes to Grenard, which was all rented from the lord. Also, the heirs owe cens for the land of the lord of Hilleret Mousseau. The heirs of the tenant also owe and to the courtyards of the Arnaudeaux. The aforementioned things I acknowledge to hold in faith and liege homage and to the duties above mentioned, with all justice, lordship concerning and regarding low justice and everything that depends on it, according to the reason and custom of the country of Loudunois, and by reason of the aforementioned things, the said faith and homage, duty or service is due to them with honor, service, and reverence with all submission and obedience, such as a liege man owes to his lord of fief and faith. And I make a formal declaration that if I possess more than what is declared above, I will declare it and employ it in these present declarations as soon as I am made aware of it. And, to present this present acknowledgment and judgment and to request its reception, I have appointed my special procurator, the bearer of this, along with affirming before the Royal Notaries undersigned, that the said acknowledgment is true and that I had it drawn up as best as I could. In witness of this, I render the present acknowledgment and bail, signed by my hand and of the said Royal Notaries at my request, and have it sealed with the Royal Seal of Loudun today, the twenty-first day of October, the year one thousand six hundred thirty-four.

Signed:

Nicolle de Jousserant and Aubri, royal notary in Loudun at the request of the said lady Jousserant

ET Pasquier, royal notary in Loudun at the request of lady Jousserant, widow

October 21, 1634

You’re probably excited, just as I am, but please do not jump to any conclusions and add to your tree just yet.

So, let’s take a deep breath and maybe freshen our tea before moving on with our analysis.

Analysis – Are There Messages?

Note also the surnames of Bourg, Brault/Breault, Guerin, Giroire/Girard, Blanchard, Halbert (Hebert?), Vincent, and Besard/Bizard/Brousseu – all exact or similar names to known Acadians.

By the way, if you’re thinking that Antoine Halbert is assuredly Antoine Hebert of Acadia – he’s not. Antoine Halbert in this document was an adult in 1634, and our Antoine Hebert, possible brother to Etienne Hebert of Acadia, was born about 1621. I know what you’re thinking next – yes, he could be a son but we really, really need marriage records or SOMETHING concrete.

The village of La Chaussée is located near the village of Aulnay in France. I wrote about La Chaussée, here.

La Chaussée parish registers reach back to 1626. After examining those registers, Geneviève Massignon wrote that:

“More than half of the entries in the parochial registers from 1626 to 1650 involve the family names which we find among the 53 family names included in the census of 1671 in Acadia: Babin, Belliveau, Bertrand, Bour, Brault (Braude, in the feminine form), Brun, Dugast, Dupuy, Gaudet (Gaudette, in the feminine form) Giroire, Joffriau, Landry, LeBlanc, Morin, Poirier, Raimbaut, Savoite, Thibodeau. In addition, the family names of the wives of the settlers include Chevrat, Gautier, Guion (Dion), Lambert, and Mercier. The names of Blanchard, Bourg, Brault, Giroire, Godet, Guérin, Poirier, Terriot are among the names found in the censuses of the mother of Charles d’Aulnay for her Seigneurie.”

In the book, Acadia; the geography of early Nova Scotia to 1760 published in 1968, author Andrew Clark, on page 397, states:

“Of the group at Port Royal after 1635, known surnames that have survived, compiled from parish registers and other records, are, according to Antoine Bernard, Aucoin, Gaudet, Martin, Dugas, Trahan, Landry, Pitre, Melanson, Caissy, Colleson, and Pesely. Histoire de I’Acadie (1939). p. 20. These would be drawn from the fifteen or twenty married engages among Razilly’s original three hundred and from the Scots.”

Summarizing Nicole Jousserant’s document, we have several Godet/Gaudet individuals mentioned as follows:

  • Aubin Godet heirs – land below St. Cassien (towards Martaize) – it’s 2.4 miles from St. Cassien to the church in Martaize. Also mentioned a second time after the path from La Grange, then “on the other side to the lord of Longchamp to the heirs of Aubin Godet.”

Using these locations to triangulate the possible location of Aubin Godet, and thus, his heirs, we find the following.

The location of “the little fresche of the Sarazins,” which could well have been Le Doismon, was also mentioned. Given this information, I believe that today’s Le Doismont could well be where Aubin Godet lived.

Look at this stunningly beautiful medieval building at the turnoff from the main road between St. Cassien and Martaize, headed towards Le Doismont.

The tiny farming village of Le Doismont is ancient too – the houses and barns morphed into one – many still in use today. You can identify the medieval buildings from this timeframe and earlier by the reinforcement X irons on the outside walls, known as anchor plates, which reinforce the internal beams and strengthen the stone or masonry walls, preventing bowing.

In the aerial photo below, you can see the main road, the old farm at the turnoff, and Le Doismont at right.

Come take a drive in Le Doismont here, on this historic one-lane road. You can’t get lost – it’s only a block in either direction from the T intersection that doesn’t even have a stop sign. Regardless of whether this is exactly Aubin Godet’s farm or village, and even if it’s not “our” family – the farming community of wherever they lived would look almost exactly like this – so savor this unspoiled step back in time into history.

But we’re not finished yet.

Nicole continues: Also the following people in the fresche of the Godets by reason of a piece of land and vineyard located in the terroir of the Rondenay: the whole containing together and holding two septiers six bushels and a quarter:

  • Jean Godet
  • Rene Godet the younger
  • Francois Godet
  • Francois Godet heirs

This clearly tells us that these people are related to each other and Aubin – most likely all his descendants.

Nicole again: In addition to the above people, others in the fresche Godet that owed tax were Jean Gendre, Jehan Moncontour, the widow Vincent Bizard, Pierre Giroire and Renée Bizard his wife, Jean Bizard, Simon Joubert and the heirs Pierre Bourg of Sauseau.

Given all these people together, I strongly suspect it was this little farm village. They lived adjacent and farmed the surrounding fields, attending church in the closest larger village of Martaize. I can’t help but get excited about seeing all those Acadian surnames noted as neighbors.

Nicole continues:

  • Aubine Godet, widow of Pierre Iniatier
  • Rene Godet laborer

Aubine is clearly the feminine fort of Aubin, so she would be a daughter, sister, or other relative. Aubine Godet and Rene Godet are mentioned together with Jean Potiron of St. Clair who jointly owe tax in the terroir of Gazilland which appears to be within a block or two of the church in Martaize – although the original Rue de Gazillon could have extended further, to another small village which no longer exists today. Roads in France outside of villages are now given road numbers which replaced the original local names making this detective work more difficult.

The following two people appear separately.

  • Jean Gaudet’s heirs are mentioned in Martaize adjacent Louis Guerin and Michelle Barraut.
  • Morice Godet’s heirs are mentioned as owing tax, but not in a location I can place. His property is at the barn of Chasteauganne and a Lord of Chasteauganne is mentioned elsewhere. There is a Chasseignes near St. Cassien, above Le Doismon.

These people would all have been buried in the cemetery in Martaize.

We have three Godet men mentioned with heirs, plus several living people. Aubine would have inherited as a daughter.

One last thing. If you’re wondering if there are any other French records of interest for Jean Gaudet, there might be.

Another Jean Gaudet was buried at St. Velluire on January 2, 1654, at the age of 82 years, so born about 1572, just three years before our Jean Gaudet of Acadia. This might be Velluire, not far from La Rochelle, although I do not have the original burial record. There’s no way to know if this is the same family as the Godet family of Martaize, or not, or if either one of them are “our” Godet family.

One thing is for sure, the Godet family of the Martaize region was clearly well-established, given that they are found in locations throughout that region, according to Madame Jousserant. Furthermore, several men appear to be deceased and have heirs, suggesting that they were older men. This family was assuredly in the right place at the right time. In 1634, our Jean Gaudet would have been 59 years old. Whyever he would have wanted to set off for the new world baffles me. Opportunity, adventure, or perhaps family encouragement.

Unfortunately, Acadian Jean Gaudet only had two sons that lived, his namesake Jean, and Denis. I wish there had been an Aubin or Aubine, which would have been very suggestive.

All of this information, of course, is our attempt to determine if the 1634 Nicolle de Jousserant document is referencing our Jean Godet/Gaudet or even the right family. If so, he was clearly in Martaize in 1634. If not, it could still be the same Godet clan given their close association with the d’Aulnay family and other Acadian surnames.

There are two Jean Godets mentioned – one living and one deceased so Jean is clearly a family name. Unfortunately, Jean (Jehan) is equivalent to John in English and is quite common.

The 1687 Document

In attempting to determine when Jean Gaudet and his children arrived in Acadia, we must also take into consideration the 1687 document signed by several Acadians, including Jean Gaudet’s son-in-law, Daniel LeBlanc.

Given that d’Aulnay died in 1650, this means that Daniel LeBlanc would have had to have been in the colony prior to that time in order to serve as an eyewitness to the number of forts, ships, houses, and mills built by d’Aulnay.

We, Michel Boudrot, Lieutenant-General in Acadie, with the older settlers of the land, certify that the deceased mister d’Aunay Charnisay, formerly the King’s Governor of the coast of Acadie, constructed three forts along this coast; the first one at Pentagouêt, the second at the Saint-Jean River (in 1645 only), and the third at Port-Royal; these forts were well supplied with all the canons and munitions required! There are three hundred regular men to defend these forts.

We certify also that the late d’Aulnay Charnisay ordered the construction of two mills; one was powered by water, the other by wind power and he ordered that they build at Port-Royal five pinasses, several dories, and two small ships of seventy tons each. As well as two farms or manors and associated buildings; houses as well as barns and stables(…)

We certify that the above is true as we have seen this; we have signed this in good faith at Port-Royal on October 15, 1687, in the presence of Mr. de Menneval, King’s Governor of all of Acadie, and Mr. Petit, Grand Vicar for the Grand Bishop of Québec, and the vicar of this place Port-Royal.

Also having signed; Mr. Boudrot, Lieutenant-Governor ; François Gaunizzot (Gautherot) Bourgeois ; Pierre Martin ; Mathieu Martin ; Claude Tériot ; d’Entremont, King’s prosecutor.

Also marked by: Antoine Bourg, Pierre Bouet (Doucet), Denis (Daniel) LeBlanc ; Abraham Dugast.”

Jean Gaudet’s daughter, Francoise, was married to Daniel LeBlanc about 1650, after the death of her unknown Mercier husband, so this confirms that Daniel was in Port Royal prior to 1650. He was born about 1626, so he either came with parents who died before the first census and are unknown, or as a young man, given that d’Aulnay was only governor from 1636 through 1650.

Some researchers have suggested that Jean Gaudet’s three eldest children married in France, if this is true then that means that the Mercier, possibly LeBlanc, Gaudet (Godet), Gauthier and Hebert families were all living in very close proximity to each other in France, and likely attended the same or neighboring churches.

We have no evidence of that in LaChaussee where records exist back to 1626, but the translated records of d’Aulnay’s mother do include one Antoine Halbert which could possibly be Hebert. Unfortunately, the script is difficult and the spelling was not standardized at that time.

In the Poitou region of France, now Vienne, not far from Richelieu where the Cardinal lived and Martaize, Loudon, and LaChaussee, locations of known Acadian families, according to Kennedy, we find swampy regions that were dyked and drained with the same techniques that were used along the Riviere Dauphin and other Bay of Fundy locations in Acadia.

It would have made perfect sense to recruit people with this rather unique skill set for Acadia as well, and it just so happened they were within the sphere of influence of both Razilly and d’Aulnay – although this skill set was not needed at La Heve.

You can see that Aulnay is directly between Martaize and La Chaussée

Both Razilly and d’Aulnay were Seigneurs in La Chaussée, which meant they owned the land and charged rent to the peasants who farmed there.

Can we draw any conclusions from this 1634 document without further research? No. Can we dismiss it? Absolutely not, especially given the other possible Acadian surnames.

We need more information or a Y-DNA test for any male Gaudet (or similar spelling) who descends from this line or region in France – meaning not descended from Acadian Jean Gaudet. If this is you, I have a DNA testing scholarship just waiting – please reach out.

In 1635 and 1636, d’Aulnay recruited additional French families to settle in Acadia. The St. Jehan departed La Rochelle for La Heve with colonists on April 1, 1636. There is a passenger list, but Jean Gaudet or a similar name is not listed.

After Razilly’s death, d’Aulnay decided to remove the government of Acadia to Port Royal, on the opposite coast for better farmland.

I know that my ancestors knew both Razilly, and d’Aulnay. They spoke with this man. How I would love to be a fly on the wall.

While this move from one location to another sounds fairly peaceful, in actuality, it wasn’t. This era became known as the Acadian Civil War. One way or another, Jean Gaudet was involved.

Acadian Civil War

D’Aulnay moved several settler families from La Heve to Port Royal, while Charles de Saint-Etienne de la Tour, the French Commander of Acadia, built a new Fort Sainte-Marie at the mouth of the St. John River in New Brunswick. It would later be named Fort La Tour, not to be confused with the locations of those same names on the southern coast of Acadia at and near La Heve.

Those two men were sworn enemies and proceeded to go to war with each other over who would control Acadia. Lives were needlessly lost on both sides. Their personal war lasted five long years, affecting all French people living there.

In 1640 La Tour attacked Port Royal with two armed ships, but had to surrender.

In 1642, d’Aulnay established a blockade of La Tour’s Fort Sainte-Marie.

D’Aulnay arranged for La Tour to be charged with treason and disrespecting the French Crown. La Tour couldn’t go to France, on pain of being arrested on those charges, so his wife traveled to France on his behalf and advocated for him, apparently effectively. She returned with a warship so that La Tour could defend himself.

In the spring of 1643, another battle took place when La Tour attempted to capture Port Royal again, this time with the ship his wife brought from France along with four armed British ships out of Boston manned by 270 English mercenaries. The British must have enjoyed this immensely. D’Aulnay lost six men and seven more were wounded. For some reason, La Tour did not attack the fort in Port Royal, which was only defended by 20 men, but he burned the mill, killed livestock, and seized furs, gunpowder, and other supplies before departing.

D’Aulnay was furious.

This had literally turned into an ego-driven Civil War between two men, but in 1645, d’Aulnay eventually won – but it was ugly.

In 1645, La Tour went to Boston requesting aid from the British once again. That sure smells like treason to me.

While he was gone, d’Aulnay took advantage of that opportunity by seizing all of La Tour’s possessions, including Fort La Tour at St. John, along with other outposts.

The infamous siege of St. John began on Easter Sunday, April 13th, when d’Aulnay mustered 200 men, probably every French soldier and Acadian man, sailed across the Bay of Fundy and arrived at La Tour’s fort, which was under the control of his wife, Francoise-Marie Jacquelin, in La Tour’s absence. She was young, age 23, but was known as the Lionesse of LaTour for her battle savvy and brilliant defense of the fort.

After five days of fighting, d’Aulnay offered quarter to all soldiers if Francoise-Marie would surrender the fort. Knowing she was outnumbered, she agreed to his terms, but then d’Aulnay reneged and hanged every one of the men in La Tour’s garrison as Francoise-Marie was forced to watch with a noose around her own neck. Three weeks later, while still in d’Aulnay’s custody, she too died. And no, we don’t know how or why.

With his fort gone, his garrison swinging from the gallows, and his wife dead, La Tour retreated upon his return and went to live in Quebec, where he continued in the fur trade.

After La Tour’s defeat, d’Aulnay traveled to France to receive honors from the King.

By this time, Acadian families must have been totally exhausted. The 9 years between 1636 and 1645 would have been filled with almost constant conflict and angst. Without church records, we don’t know who died in the attacks, who married, or anything else for that matter.

We know that Jean Gaudet’s daughter, Francoise, married her Mercier husband and had their one child sometime about 1645. She remarried to Daniel LeBlanc around 1650, having their first child around 1651. Was her first husband a victim of the French-on-French warfare? It’s possible.

It’s also possible that Jean Gaudet and his family weren’t yet in Acadia, but it’s not probable based on that 1687 document signed by Francoise Gaudet’s second husband, Daniel LeBlanc, testifying to d’Aulnay’s accomplishments.

For those living at Port Royal, I can only imagine the fear leaping into their throats every time they saw distant sails entering the harbor, especially if there was more than one ship.

From Easter of 1645, d’Aulnay governed all of Acadia without interruption, and they would finally have five years of peace.

By 1645, Jean Gaudet would already have been 70 years old. Surely he did not arrive in Acadia in his 70s. He much more likely arrived closer to 1635 when he would have been 60. I imagine that he was a fit, spry, and healthy man. Today, he would have been looking at Social Security – yet he was striking out for a new frontier. Perhaps his children wanted to go and he didn’t want to be left behind. We will never know, but kudos to him for bravery and spunk!

Between 1640 and 1645, besides waging battle with La Tour, d’Aulnay recruited additional families who arrived on many ships, but there’s only one known passenger list – in 1641.

In Charles d’Aulnay’s “memoir” of 1644, He details a long list of responsibilities, including the establishment of 20 families and 17 missionaries, the salaries and maintenance of 200 soldiers and workers, and the construction and maintenance of mills, churches, forts, and ships.

Based on engagement contracts signed in La Rochelle, most of the people who arrived in Acadia clearly either died or returned to France. Many were single men who would have completed their work contracts and returned home to families or to find a bride. Given the warfare, I’m not surprised that few wanted to stay.

With La Tour out of the picture, d’Aulnay improved Acadia. New ships were built, mills erected, and marshes dyked.

In 1647, a commission was issued, making him governor and lieutenant-general in Acadia.

D’Aulnay’s time as governor was short-lived, though, because in 1650, he died in a canoe accident, calling the governance of Acadia into question once again.

After d’Aulnay’s unexpected and untimely death, La Tour saw an opportunity. I can’t help but wonder if he was somehow involved in making that opportunity, but that’s pure speculation on my part.

La Tour returned to France and sought to reestablish himself in Acadia. He was successful, and his title was restored, making him d’Aulnay’s successor. He returned in 1651 with Philippe Mius d’Entremont, a rather mysterious figure who, two years later, was awarded a fiefdom or seigneury, only the second in all of Canada, at which time he became the Baron of Pobomcoup, today’s Pubnico. More about Mius in a future article.

When La Tour became governor, I can only imagine the terror that gripped the hearts of the Acadians who had fought AGAINST him so many times.

Not to mention d’Aulnay’s widow, Jeanne Motin, and their eight children, ages newborn to 11, who were living in Port Royal. She must have been utterly terrified. She sent her children to France to be cared for by relatives. They never returned, and she never saw them again.

Motin’s immediate future was defined by d’Aulnay’s creditors raiding and looting Port Royal for anything of value, which meant the Acadian families suffered. All those years of settlement and warfare were expensive, and d’Aulnay’s creditors intended to collect.

You’re not going to believe what happened next.

Plot Twist

On February 24, 1653, Jeanne Motin and La Tour decided, for the good of Acadia, to bury the hatchet – and not in each other.

They married – each other. I kid you not. It wasn’t just a marriage in name only either, as they went on to have five children in the next decade. I can only imagine those dinner table conversations and the shock experienced by everyone in Acadia. It did, however, end an era of conflict, at least for a little while.

Jeanne died a decade later, shortly after having her 5th child with La Tour.

D’Aulnay left a thriving colony, but the intense French recruitment era came to an end with d’Aulnay’s 1650 death.

Four years later, in 1654, it would end altogether for another 16 years.

1654 – The British

In 1654, the British attacked again. The Acadians must have felt like they were living in an incessant war zone.

By 1654, Denys estimated that there were about 270 residents at Port Royal. If you divide that by 5 for the (estimated) size of an average family, you only have about 55 families. If you divide by 7, you get around 40 families. Probably in addition to men at the various forts scattered about in various locations, including Port Royal.

Jean Gaudet, at 77 years of age, would have witnessed the English attack upon and capture of Port Royal by the British in 1654. At that time, most people actually lived in or within sight of the town, not up the river. We know this because later, it was stated by Denys that people moved upriver after the 1654 attack.

Jean Gaudet might, even at 77, have been one of the 130 men who defended the fort. He seems rather irrepressible.

Understanding that they were both outnumbered and outmanned against 200 professional British soldiers, plus 100 New England volunteers, the Acadians negotiated terms that allowed them to retain their property and continue worshiping as Catholics. Soldiers and officials, who would have nothing left to defend or reason to stay, would be transported back to France. Most of the residents would remain and be unharmed.

That’s the best they could hope for, all things considered.

However, after their surrender, the British violated the surrender terms they had just agreed to by desecrating, looting, and destroying the Catholic church at Port Royal.

This 1686 map shows the location of the church that was later rebuilt (2), the cemetery (4), and the ruined fort (3).

The good news is that in 1654, the British didn’t burn the village. The Acadian families must have been, once again, petrified.

In 1654, all transport ships and settlers from France stopped until France reclaimed Acadia in 1670, just one year before the census that showed Jean Gaudet at 96 years of age.

This series of historic events tells us unquestionably that Jean Gaudet arrived sometime between 1632, when Razilly first began settlement in earnest, and 1654 when all French immigration ceased.

Given that Jean Gaudet’s eldest son, Denis, married about 1645 to Martine Gauthier, presumable in Port Royal, and his daughter, Francoise, married a Mercier about 1644, then remarried to Daniel LeBlanc about 1650, it’s probable that Jean Gaudet was in Acadia prior to 1644, and almost certainly before 1650.

Maybe additional documents will be found in France to provide previously undiscovered information. Is it too much to wish for baptismal and marriage records??

For a long time, things were relatively peaceful in Acadia despite the English overlords. In 1667, the ownership of Acadia was returned to France in the Treaty of Breda with nary a drop of Acadian bloodshed. The official transition was delayed until 1670, but that, too, was peaceful.

After regaining control, the French immediately took a census in 1671. Surprisingly there were 361 Acadians in the Port Royal area, up from the 270 estimate in 1654. Some people would have died, of course, but apparently, more were born, and some, especially soldiers, would have arrived after control was returned to France – although they don’t seem to have been enumerated.

By 1671, Jean Gaudet was 96 years old and had seen more of life than any other person in Acadia. He was born before Champlain even set out to explore those waters.

Imagine the stories he would tell us if he could.

Unanswered Questions

Aside from the questions we’ve already posed, there are a few other things I’ve wondered about.

Jean Gaudet’s first wife’s mitochondrial DNA was haplogroup J1b2.

Was she his first wife, or was he married previously in France? I wonder because he was born about 1675, but his eldest child found with him in Acadia was born about 1623. He would have been 48 years old at their birth. That’s certainly not impossible, but it is improbable. Normally, he would already have been fathering children for 20 or 25 years by the time he was 48 years old – not having his first child. He could easily have had 10 or 12 children prior to 1623 and already been a grandfather.

Did he have a first wife we don’t know about who died along with all of their children? Did his first wife die, and her family took their children to raise? Did his wife not die, but some children were left behind in France? Were some of his children already married and didn’t want to leave? What was going on in his life? Was he truly a bachelor until age 48? Was his J1b2 wife his first or a subsequent wife?

If he married his haplogroup J1b2 wife about 1622, and had children in 1623, 1625, and 1633, that very strongly suggests that a child was born in 1627, 1629, and 1631, and subsequently died.

Based on mitochondrial DNA results, the mother of his first and third child was the same, or at least shared the same haplogroup. Their descendants are exact matches.

That alone speaks to the fact that, assuming he didn’t marry prior to 1622, he lost half his children before the 1671 census, plus their mother. This man witnessed and endured a great deal of heartbreak.

Was he actually single for an extended period? Did his wife die before the next child would have been expected in 1635, or did they have more children, and his wife AND additional children all died later?

What happened in Jean’s life between 1633 when his youngest child from his J1b2 wife was found with him in Acadia in 1671, and 1653 when his next child, John, was born to Nicole?

His J1b2 wife that gave birth to Francoise, Denis and Marie would have had to be born no later than 1608 and could have borne children until about 1650ish, not long before he married Nicole. If she lived that long, they would have buried at least another eight children.

That’s devastating.

Moving on Up

We don’t know when Jean Gaudet moved upriver, only that he was one of the furthest away from Port Royal. I don’t know if that means he left first and had his pick of locations, or last and moved beyond the other settlers to available land. Either way, he did well for himself and his descendants, obtaining a significant marsh area.

Jean’s First Wife Was Not Native American

I can debunk one theory conclusively.

Some researchers had suggested that Jean Gaudet arrived very early, perhaps even with Champlain, and stayed, taking a Native American wife.

His two daughters both carry their mother’s mitochondrial DNA, having been passed from mother to mother to today’s descendants through all women.

In the Acadian AmerIndian DNA Project, we have four people descended from Jean Gaudet’s (presumed) first wife through both daughters. Their haplogroup, J1b2, is assuredly European, not Native American, so we can definitively put that rumor to bed.

Y-DNA

In the Gaudet Y-DNA Project, several male descendants of Jean Gaudet have tested.

Only one, kit number 129804, has taken the Big Y test, but only the earlier Big Y-500, not the more refined and robust Big Y-700 test.

The resulting haplogroup, G-YP786 is about 1300 years old, according to Discover, and has no matches to any other men. I’m not surprised, given the restrictions on DNA testing in France. Discover depends on multiple testers to produce the most relevant results. The most common recent ancestral date is identified for testers, so the more testers from a particular line, the more refined the results.

I would very much like for this gentleman and at least one other Gaudet descendant to upgrade to the Big Y-700 so that we all can learn more about our fascinating ancestor, Jean Gaudet.

For example, who is their most recent Ancient Connection, and where was that burial found? Where did our Gaudet line come from and when did they arrive in France? Ancient Connections and Discover tools provide information about a lineage prior to the adoption of surnames that isn’t available to us any other way.

Jean Gaudet – Still a Mystery Man

For all the tidbits we have about Jean Gaudet, there’s far more that we don’t know about him. So much uncertainty remains.

I have my fingers crossed that a Gaudet whose ancestral locations are known in France will take a Y-DNA test. Having an actual French match outside of the descendants of Jean’s two sons would be extremely beneficial.

While prior researchers dug relentlessly in early records for information about Jean Gaudet, cousin Mark, who is an extremely methodical and painstaking researcher is having a go at this as well. We are hoping that new records have become available or old records have been indexed. Something. Anything! Fingers crossed.

And Jean, if you’re listening, it would be immensely helpful if you could just stand up and wave so we know where you are😊. Some quarter million of your descendants would like to speak with you about our ancestor warranty!

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an e-mail whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me 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 Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Acadian Homecoming – 52 Ancestors #428

You might have noticed that I haven’t published a 52 Ancestors article recently.

You might also have noticed that I’ve been swamped with conference season this fall, and while that’s part of it, there’s more to this story.

A lot more.

I’m sure you’re aware that I’m the family storyteller and legend-keeper – yet I don’t know how to tell you this.

I’ll just warn you up front that not all of this makes sense – at least not logical sense as we know it on this side of the veil.

Grab a cup of coffee or tea as I screw my courage up to begin.

You see, my ancestors called me.

Not only that, they had been calling me for a very long time.

The Calling

I surely wish I knew how to explain this – that I possessed adequate words.

The ancestors have been calling me for a long time. A cacophony of voices, each seeking to be heard. Much like the din of voices in a noisy restaurant. You can’t hear any one person, and you surely know there are voices, but you have no idea that any of them are speaking to you.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but my draw to genealogy and family history was their voices beckoning – except too jumbled for me to hear. Yet, I heeded the call, masked as curiosity. Mother apparently heard it, too. Sometimes, she would come up with tidbits, pieces of information that she “just knew” but had no idea how she knew. And you know something, she was always right.

Every. Single. Time.

Even though many of them wouldn’t be proven or confirmed for years or even decades later.

I didn’t think too much about it back then. But trust me, I’ve thought a LOT about it recently.

Sometimes, my insistent ancestors lasso other people into this drama, too. Sometimes, as unsuspecting accomplices, encouraging me. Sometimes, as people who have access to records that the ancestors need me to have as pieces of their story. Sometimes, as a passerby with just the right scrap of information – or the right direction. People literally stopped me on the street. Or perhaps, ancestors shapeshifted and took the shape of someone who had disappeared into thin air when I turned back around to ask them for clarification. Perhaps.

So much of this journey has just been surreal.

Talk about unnerving.

At those moments, all you can do is swallow and walk forward into whatever awaits – just hoping and praying you’re in the right place, and safe.

Yes, safe. When you see where I was “shepherded to” as I share this journey over the next few months, one ancestor at a time, you’ll understand.

Ancestral Fate

Sometimes, after you’ve followed an inexplicable path, you find yourself standing exactly at the juncture of fate.

Fate that changed lives. Your ancestors’ lives. Not simply one of them, but all of them living at that time in that place. In an instant, it shifted the trajectory of the lives of countless generations of descendants. Changed the very essence of my life. Had that historic, fateful juncture not occurred, I wouldn’t be here and certainly wouldn’t have been standing there.

Through the thinness of the veil, I could hear their voices, their cries, sometimes bloodcurdling screams. Palpably feel their fear as it rose in their throats and then, standing in their footprints, rose in mine.

Yes, they called me. Summoned me.

I had absolutely no idea the journey I was about to undertake.

I have only ever been on one other journey in my life that shifted time and stirred my soul with wave after wave of overwhelming emotions. An earlier journey I have never written about and shared with few.

This time, this journey, I’m sharing. With you.

I am forever changed.

Nova Scotia

Nova Scotia wasn’t Nova Scotia when this odyssey began for my ancestors. My Mi’kmaq ancestors referred to the lands where they lived as Mi’kma’ki, pronounced something Migmawgee. They were stewards of this land for more than 10,000 years, leaving their petroglyph art and secred legends.

Vikings visited before European fishermen and explorers began to arrive offshore in the 1500s. In the early 1600s, the French were establishing mutually beneficial trade relationships with the Mi’kmaq people.

The Mi’kmaq were entirely unaware of what would befall them. Diseases against which they had no immunity would devastate their population, and eventually, hordes of colonizers would all but displace them from their ancestral lands. Like the French who became Acadians, the Mi’kmaq, too, would become victims of European wars.

However, in the early 1600s, most of that was still in the future.

By the 1630s, the southern coastline of Nova Scotia, then known as Acadia, served as a fishing grounds punctuated with a few French trading forts. The French warred and argued among themselves, as people are wont to do, but for the most part, the Mi’kmaq people were impervious to the quarreling of their trading partners.

In time, European men, mostly French, sought to take wives among the Native women, and deeper alliances were formed – those of blood.

By 1632, encouraged and financed by a minor French nobleman, a few French families had settled at La Have. I will take you there on my journey, but not today. By 1636, the center or capital of Acadia was moved to Port Royal as additional French settlers and families arrived. Port Royal consisted of just a few houses and a fort.

It’s there, in historic Port Royal, later renamed Annapolis Royal in 1710 after being taken over by the English, that Acadia as we know it unfolded.

It’s there, in historic Port Royal, and for a dozen miles upstream, that I waded through marshes, climbed dykes and fortified ramparts, and communed with my ancestors. I was escorted into the marshes by newly-made friends, some of whom turned out to be cousins. I was drawn and guided to the remains of the foundations of my ancestors’ homesteads, their orchards, fields, and the wells that sustained them.

I trekked in the company of a friend from years back who I met when he was searching for his biological parents. We wound up being cousins through several Acadian lines and had a tearful, joyful reunion in our joint homeland.

We stood where our ancestors stood. Walked where they walked, and sobbed where they sobbed. I felt both their fear and unbridled joy.

I realized that my DNA permeates every inch of this land. This is the land of my ancestors.

What I didn’t understand was that they had been calling me for decades. This wasn’t my first trip to Nova Scotia – but it was the first time that I understood.

Chester, Nova Scotia

In the late 1990s, before the days of cell phones with cameras, I accidentally spent time in Chester, Nova Scotia, attending the Embroiderers’ School of Advanced Study.

By accidentally, I mean that I traveled to Chester, Nova Scotia, a small town not far from Halifax, with a few fiber artists for the purpose of art quilting and inspiration.

The inspiration I hoped for and expected was for a quilt and to sharpen my artistic skills. What happened was something else entirely.

I had absolutely NO IDEA at that time that not only was this chapter 1, but it was the first page of the first chapter. This book is not yet complete.

I thought it was just an artist’s retreat.

I received inspiration all right, but not exactly as I expected.

I Am a River

The resulting quilt that I finished months later was titled “I Am a River.”

Yes, indeed, I am that river with all its twists, turns, and rocky protrusions. Fluid, changing, morphing.

My life had changed courses dramatically through events quite outside my control. Death and destruction of lives. Rebirth and recovery. That’s what I thought I was working through.

The instructor realized that something else was going on. Something besides quilting and fabric selection. Something besides good food and companionship.

Perhaps life is art, or art is life. Perhaps our art is influenced by forces far deeper than we know.

While the instructor lectured about color selection and other artsy things, I was increasingly fascinated by something, or some things, outside the window. My mind wandered aimlessly elsewhere.

We gathered for our classes on the second floor of a beautiful historic building, lined with rock walls and old wooden fences.

I was fascinated and enthralled.

I realized that I loved the sea. The maritime landscape beckoned to me as if it was a living thing.

Boats were moored at the docks and anchored in the harbour, bobbing up and down rhythmically on gentle waves. Beautiful leaves and foliage graced rock walls. And the water, the mesmerizing sea, drew me in.

Drew me out.

Drew me away.

The instructor did something very unusual.

She dug her sketchbook out of a bag, along with a box of watercolor crayons, offering them to me. I felt very self-conscious and somewhat embarrassed. I was “that” ill-behaved student. I explained to her that I wasn’t a painter, not a watercolorist – in fact, I had never used that medium before. I didn’t even know watercolor crayons existed.

She was encouraging and told me it didn’t matter. She said to take my camera, her sketchbook, and a box of crayons that turned to watercolor when you rubbed water over them after you colored and just go out and walk. Follow my heart. The sketchbook was my diary, and I was to simply go enjoy myself.

She didn’t have to tell me twice.

I walked and walked. For days and miles, mostly along the water. Oh, I went back and sewed a bit and ate with the group most of the time. However, my classmates seemed to be much more interested in my adventures than I was in theirs. I felt rather naughty, given that I wasn’t really doing what I was “supposed” to be doing. At least I didn’t think so back then.

Now, I realize I was doing EXACTLY what I was sent there to do.

And what an adventure I had!

I even met the local police when I got stuck wiggling under a thorny bush beside a tree that I had crawled under, before realizing it sported fine-as-frog-hair needle-sharp thorns.

I was taking pictures of the stunningly beautiful sunset and foliage over the bay, but all the officers could see was a pair of legs sticking out from under a bush. Backing out was painful, and funny. After they got me unstuck, we all had a good laugh, and they showed me an easier photo location. My fellow artists saw me in the squad car, and by the time I returned, they had already created a MUCH better story. We laughed and laughed!

Everyone was incredibly nice and had suggestions and stories about picturesque locations and what to order in the various restaurants, all waterfront. By the end of the week, everyone in town knew me.

Yes, these pictures are awful because I scanned them more than two decades later. But they are also precious in so many ways.

They foreshadowed the path my life would take. I was metaphorically as well as actually at a fork in the road, a road that would one day bring me back home. To Acadia.

I had no idea that this sun-kissed and wind-swept place was already deeply etched in my psyche and carved into my heart.

I had no idea I was following my soul and that what I “heard” out there was the collective voices of my ancestors calling. Beckoning me.

I had no idea that one day, I would return.

Yes, they were speaking to me, even back then.

I was entirely unaware that I had any connection to Nova Scotia or even Canada or New England. That brick wall wouldn’t fall for at least another 10 or 15 years, and even then, in the strangest of ways.

Acadian Connection

Mother’s grandfather, Curtis Benjamin Lore was Acadian on his father’s side. Of course, Mother didn’t know that, and neither did her mother or her aunts. No one knew that family secret.

I discovered why just a few years ago, long after Mom had joined our ancestors. Our Acadian family was filled with layers of drama.

In fact, Curtis Lore’s father, Anthony, or Antoine Lore as he was baptized in the Catholic church in Quebec, left all churches altogether. Not only that, but he also left Canada for Vermont where he married before moving on to Pennsylvania with his bride. He might or might not have been a river pirate.

Mystery swirls around Anthony’s life and the circumstances of his untimely death and no one but no one talked about that. His wife, Rachel Hill, died shortly thereafter, leaving impoverished orphans trying to make their way in the world. Curtis Lore, their son left it all behind. A chance overheard conversation led me to a cousin in Pennsylvania who helped unearth that part of the story, one boulder at a time.

It took years and a completely unrelated “chance encounter” in North Carolina that led me to Blairfindie in Quebec, and, eventually, Antoine’s 1806 baptism.

Years later, another “chance encounter” with just the right person provided confirmation that the man in Vermont was the child born to Honore Lore and Marie Lafaille.

If you’re thinking this is the strangest thing ever, with all of these “coincidences,” welcome to my world.

I eventually was able to track those ancestors in Quebec, and somehow, against all odds, connected the dots and bridged the seemingly insurmountable gap between the late 1700s in Quebec, back through New England, and then to Annapolis Royal in Nova Scotia in 1755 where the truly unfathomable and unspeakable had happened.

How did I ever manage to navigate those fraught waters? Eventually, DNA helped a lot in the bigger picture, but connecting the dots with individual people was extremely challenging, especially given the lack of records or even a location in New England.

There were so many synchronistic “coincidences.” After an uncanny number of coincidences, I came to question if they really were coincidences.

There were surprises, too.

Native Ancestors

After DNA testing began, I was completely shocked to learn that my mother and I both carried Native American DNA. How was that even remotely possible? It was surely an error. Yes, it had to be. Everyone in her family except for that one grandfather, who I didn’t yet know was Acadian, was either German or Dutch.

But, as it turned out, it wasn’t a mistake.

Then, I assumed our Native DNA came from Pennsylvania where Curtis Lore lived, once we figured that out – but, again, I was wrong. It didn’t. It came through the Acadian lines in early Nova Scotia – a word I didn’t even know yet at the time I discovered Mother’s Native American genetic heritage.

I needed to associate a person with the genetic evidence, but that seemed impossible, given that I couldn’t even figure out Curtis’s parents’ names initially.

Years later, I was able to positively identify one of Mother’s Native American ancestors by combining autosomal DNA testing and ethnicity segments with mitochondrial DNA results of matrilineal descendants of my Mi’kmaq ancestor whose name we don’t know.

We do know she married Philipp Mius and had daughter Francoise about 1684. My Mi’kmaq ancestor didn’t join Philipp in the French Acadian villages. He joined her in the Native villages, up and down the southwest coast of Nova Scotia, including the islands off Chester, Lunenburg, then known as Merliguesch, and Halifax. None of those locations had English names at that time.

Yes, my ancestors lived on and frequented the exact islands I photographed in the 1990s before a future series of coincidences revealed those ancestors and their history.

What are the chances?

Those ancestors were loudly insistent.

Metamorphosis

By the time 2023 rolled around, my life had metamorphosed and changed completely from that of the 1990s. Morphed much like caterpillar emerging as a butterfly from a cocoon and drying its wings.

Discoveries about my Acadian ancestors were flowing like a waterfall, one after the other. Many were shocking, incredibly sad, and horrifying. At the same time, they spoke of incredible courage, bravery, and fortitude.

At first, I was thrilled to break down those brick walls one after the other – but ultimately – I realized that my role was to research, reveal, and document their struggles, loves, and lives as they lived them.

One day, it dawned on me – at least a few of them survived genocide. I never realized the 1755 deportation, or Le Grand Dérangement, the great upheaval, as they called it, was cultural genocide – a crime against humanity. Many people simply disappeared into the abyss of the unknown.

You can’t tell the good without the bad. You can’t document the wins without the losses. Someone needs to tell their individual stories, and I’m doing exactly that.

This had probably been my calling all along.

Generational Trauma

I never understood what generational trauma was or what it meant before I met my Acadian ancestors.

I understand generational poverty all-too-well, and that children suffer from the unfortunate cultural circumstances of the families into which they are born. Circumstances they often cannot escape.

What I never really considered was that generational trauma can span centuries, cultures and many, many generations. Leaving your homeland isn’t enough to escape. I have to wonder how much of this cumulative trauma has been seared into our genetics – epigenetics – genetic memory – whatever.

Does it also lead us home?

Homecoming

Can you experience a homecoming to a homeland you’ve never been to before? Can it feel so incredibly familiar that it moves you to tears? Just simply “being” there? Touching the soil? Feasting your eyes?

Yes, I had been to Chester as an appetizer decades ago, but I had never been anywhere else in Acadia, which spans all of Nova Scotia.

Can generational memories somehow lead and bring you to places you aren’t even consciously aware of? Those places that were the pivot points where your ancestors’ lives were uprooted and changed forever? Is there some unseen force guiding or sometimes pushing us?

Do descendants carry the markers in some way of cultural genocide?

Is there a path back for us? Are the events and memories seared into our ancestors’ souls passed down to us in some way?

How can one possibly be so connected to a place you’ve never been before?

I don’t have answers.

Three Weeks in August

I spent three weeks in August 2024 on the ground in Nova Scotia, tracing my ancestors’ collective footsteps, beginning along the LaHave River, visiting locations I knew that my ancestors had visited and lived.

They sent messages and guided me, including through one man I had just met a few minutes earlier. He took me aside and very uncomfortably said to me, “Don’t think I’m crazy. I can’t believe I’m saying this to you – but your ancestors know you’re here. They are here with you.”

Imagine my shocked look as my mouth fell open. But he wasn’t finished.

“Also, your mother. Is your mother with you?”

What a question.

Yes, mother was with me in multiple ways. Her body had departed this realm in 2006, but this was “her trip” and was she ever with me.

I was also wearing Mom’s ring, the one given to her as a teen by her grandmother, the wife of her Acadian grandfather. She wore it every day of her life, and I wore it on this adventure, taking pictures of “her” in her ancestor’s locations.

Each successive place we visited offered additional adventures of its own. I’ll be taking you along with me as I finish processing not only the photos and research, but the incredible avalanche of emotions.

Let me share just one extremely poignant moment.

The Expulsion

In 1755, following over a century of escalating tensions between the Acadians, who had peacefully lived and farmed in Nova Scotia, and the British, who sought to control the region, the British ultimately succeeded in forcibly deporting and expelling the Acadian population.

Acadian families were rounded up and kidnapped, their farms burned in front of their eyes, their livestock shot, and their dykes that kept the sea at bay from their fields were destroyed. The British wanted absolutely no question in the minds of the Acadians that there was nothing to return for. They had no homes left. No fields. No family. Nothing.

The British fleet anchored in the harbour beside Port Royal which had been renamed Annapolis Royal when the British defeated the French in 1710. The Acadians had previously experienced sporadic attacks by the British where they burned and pillaged, but then went away again.

That’s what the Acadians expected this time, too, but it’s not what happened. The Acadians thought they were safe because the British needed the Acadian farmers to feed the British soldiers, but they were wrong.

The harbour beside Fort Anne in Port Royal was safe and protected from the Atlantic, but ships could not pull directly up to the town itself because the river was tidal and too shallow near the shores.

That was another form of protection from attack.

In 1755, the British decided to end the conflict with the Acadians once and for all by rounding them up and deporting them. Their lands would then be distributed to the much more easily controlled non-Catholic colonists from New England.

The British ships came to anchor in the bay. The Acadians prepared for soldiers to attack and force them to sign a loyalty oath to the British Monarchy.

Instead, the British came ashore and held the men at the fort while rounding up the women and children.

I knew that every one of my ancestors had stood on this hallowed ground at the fort in Port Royal during their lifetimes. Some defended the fort. Some traded there. Some died there. Everyone worshipped there, as the original church was located beside the cemetery.

The original land before the fort was extended and fortified between 1705 and 1710 had belonged to Abraham Dugas. the armorer, who married Marguerite Doucet, Simon Pelletret who married Perrine Bourg, Jacque Bonnevie, military corporal and blacksmith who married Francoise Mius, Guillaume Trahan whose wife is unknown, and possibly Martin Aucoin.

My ancestors had been born, were baptized and married, lived, and were buried on the land under my feet. This fort, cemetery, and Catholic church that had once stood here was the one location that every single Acadian ancestor has unquestionably been – not once but regularly. The hub of their lives.

Not one or some, but everyone. It represents an entire group of people who were isolated to their own community with no newcomers. Everyone was related. That’s part of the power of this place.

Tears streamed down my face.

Earlier generations, before the deportation, were buried in now-unmarked graves in the cemetery at the fort, established before the Catholic church was burned. The fort, church, and cemetery were the center of the town of Port Royal.

In 1755, many of those graves would still have been fresh – and marked.

I walked around the fort grounds several times over multiple days, understanding the central place in the lives of all Acadians.

On the last day, I noticed something off to the side, across the ramparts, extending into the water. This was actually outside the fort, kind of behind the end of the current town. The building in the photo at right is a municipal building housing the police station.

I was drawn to this…thing…whatever it was. But I couldn’t exactly get there.

The hill descending to this walkway of sorts was very steep. It overlooked the land across the river that had been the homesteads of the Doucet, Bourg and Leveron families – also my ancestors.

By the time I found this small peninsula of land, it was late in the day, nearly sunset, and I was exhausted. I had been ill the week before my trip to Nova Scotia and not fully recovered – but nothing was stopping me now.

I had to get down there somehow.

I walked part way into town and around, behind the police station, and discovered stairs descending to the river level.

When I was leaving, I saw a sign and walked over to see what it said. I’m telling you this out of order so you understand what’s coming.

Good heavens! I had stumbled onto the deportation wharf. I had absolutely no idea it still existed.

The physical location where my ancestors’ lives were ripped apart in 1755.

Where they and their unsuspecting children and family members were shoved into rowboats, rowed out into the river, and deposited onto different ships. It was chaos. No one knew what was happening.

Families, in those horrific hours and minutes, carrying only what they could, were eternally separated – never to find or see each other again.

Many searched until death.

Where did death befall them? In many cases, we simply don’t know. Some overcrowded ships sank. Others, as poverty-stricken refugees, were buried and forgotten in anonymous graves where they landed among people all too unhappy to see them.

In most cases, we have no idea where they were – as the ships were intentionally separated and sent to different colonies so that the Acadians couldn’t scheme to return home.

God rest their souls.

I walked out onto the wharf and back in time into their lives.

The fort ramparts were to my left.

The wharf in front of me, now grass-covered, was a one-way ticket to Hell. 

A death march for many. Torturous for all.

How could the British do that?

Much like Hitler’s minions in the 1930s, “just following orders”?

Torture.

Murder.

Genocide.

I reached the end of the wharf where there were only stones, preventing today’s wharf-walkers from proceeding into the endless waters.

Yellow roses for their broken hearts.

The harbour where the ships anchored, and the exit into the Bay of Fundy – the last the Acadians would ever see of their beloved Acadia.

I could see the fort behind me, just as they would have. Originally their fort, but long-since the British fort.

The ships were anchored here. Boats rowed by British soldiers from the wharf to the ships loaded unwilling and probably sobbing Acadians.

No one knew where their family members were.

Standing on the beach, the edge of the town to my right.

A panoramic from the wharf of a now-empty, deceptively tranquil, harbour, but filled with ships taking the Acadians to God-knows-where back then.

I stood here for a very, very long time, realizing that their lives and families were ripped from them. Their agony is still palpable. They did absolutely nothing, aside from simply existing, to deserve this.

We have literally no idea what became of many of these people, or their children. I’m certain that this list of my ancestors is not comprehensive.

  • Marie Charlotte Bonnevie, born about 1703, married Jacques Lore/Lord, and died after 1742. Nothing more is known.
  • Jacques dit Montagne Lord/Lore, born about 1678, married Marie Charlotte Bonnevie, was probably deported to New York and died in 1786 in Quebec.
    • Honore Lore/Lord, born 1742 to Jacques Lore/Lord and Marie Charlotte Bonnevie, fought in New York in the Revolutionary War and died in 1818 in Quebec.
  • Jean LePrince, born about 1692, married Jeanne Blanchard and died sometime after 1752, probably either in Les Mines or after deportation.
  • Jeanne Blanchard, born about 1675, married Jean LePrince, death unknown
    • Marie Joseph LePrince, born in 1715, married Jacques DeForest, and died after 1748, probably in Connecticut.
  • Francoise Dugas, born 1679, married Rene DeForest, son Jacques DeForest. She may have died about 1751 or perhaps during or after the deportation.
    • Jacques DeForest, born in 1707, married Marie Josephe LePrince and died in Connecticut sometime after 1763.
      • Marguerite DeForest, born in 1747 to Jacques DeForest and Marie Josephe LePrince, died in Quebec in 1819.
  • Rene Doucet, born about 1678, married Marie Anne Broussard, death unknown
  • Marie Anne Broussard, born in 1686, married Rene Doucet, death unknown.
    • Anne dit Jeanne Doucet, born in 1713, married Daniel Garceau, was deported to Connecticut, and died in 1791 in Quebec.
    • Daniel Garceau, born in 1707, married Anne Doucet, was deported to Connecticut, and died in 1772 in Quebec.
      • Appoline dit Hippolyte Garceau, born in 1742 to Daniel Garceau and Anne dit Jeanne Doucet, deported with her parents and died in 1788 in L’Acadie, Quebec.

Of course, it’s not “just” these people – it’s their families too. Children, grandchildren, siblings, nieces and nephews, and sometimes, elderly parents.

Cruelly separated. Gone where?

On December 8, 1755, at least 1664 men, women, and children, all of whom were related to each other, often in multiple ways, suffered this fate – launched into sure and certain Hell from this wharf.

Eventually, I turned and walked back up what’s left of the wharf, knowing that they never had that privilege. They would have given anything to do what I just did.

I walked for them – even decades and centuries later. I felt their agony as they watched this land that they loved become more distant and then disappear, a dot in the distance, as their ship sailed into oblivion. They had never known any other home or lived anyplace other than Acadia.

What were they to do?

How would they survive?

My heart is so very heavy.

The enormity of this genocidal tragedy overwhelmed me and still does. One doesn’t “recover” from something like this.

I walked a block or so into the town where they had once lived, then onto Hogg Island, formerly owned by Jacques Bourgeois, also my ancestor, watching the sun set as I walked – as I knew they had done hundreds of times in their lives.

They must have watched the sun set over their beloved Acadia from the frigid decks of those ships, slipping behind the mountains and winking goodnight – unaware that it would be the last time for all of Eternity.