Search billions of records on Ancestry.com

(This Page Was Last Modified Wednesday, 06-Apr-2011 15:39:21 MDT.)


Search John's Notes, or This Entire Web Site.


This is the FORTY-SECOND page of John BLANKENBAKER's series of Short Notes on GERMANNA History, which were originally posted to the GERMANNA_COLONIES Discussion List.  Each page contains 25 Notes.


(See bottom of this page for Links to all Notes pages.)
This Page Contains Notes 1026 through 1050.

GERMANNA History Notes
Page 42

(If the text on this and other pages on this website isn't large enough, click here to see how to increase the size.)
(If you wish to print only part of this page, and not the entire page, click here for instructions.)


Nr. 1026:

The unnamed author in the last note, who wrote the history of a Germanna family, wrote:

"These colonists [First Germanna Colony] were induced to leave their homes in Germany by the Baron de Graffenried, acting for Governor Spotswood, who was making preparations to develop his iron mines in the vicinity of Germanna and this business enterprise was the sole cause of their coming to America and Virginia."

The source cited for this is W. W. Scott, in "History of Orange County, Virginia".  W. W. Scott literally copied this statement from Willis Kemper, in the history of the Kemper family.  Scott failed to give credit to Kemper as the source, and later people have assumed that Scott was the original source of the statement, which he was not.  Kemper was also the original source for the statement that Spotswood found iron near Germanna.  It is important to note when Willis Kemper is the source, because he is not a reliable historian.

The Germans were recruited by an agent of George Ritter and Company.  Graffenried was a principal in this company, but he had not been to Siegen himself.  It is not clear who specifically invited them to leave Germany in 1713.  Graffenried denied that he had issued an invitation.  The agent for Graffenried was Johann Justus Albrecht.  The purpose was silver mining, apparently, in the upper reaches of the Potomac River, possibly into the Shenandoah Valley.  So, on nearly all points, Scott and Kemper are in error.

The Germanna Foundation makes almost the same claim on their web page as Scott and Kemper did, and, so, they repeat the error once again.  [They fail to say that Scott and Kemper are being quoted.]  In the Summer issue of "Germanna", for 1997, published by the Germanna Foundation, the claim is made that Graffenried recruited the Second Germanna Colony, and this is also false.

The author of the family history says that the First Germanna Colony sailed up the Rappahannock River to Spotswood's plantation at Massaponnox.  The source for this is "Germanna" loc cit.  The error is that Spotswood did not have property at Massaponnox until about 1722.

Another claim is that Spotswood, about 1716, established an iron furnace thirteen miles southeast of Germanna on the Rappahannock River.  This is false, as Spotswood's own writings show that a search for iron ore was not undertaken until well past this time.  His iron mine patent for the land was not until 1720 (new style calendar).  It is 1723 before Gov. Drysdale reports the iron furnace of Spotswood in terms which make it clear that it was a novelty.  Documents from the House of the Lords show that the first pig iron (15 tons) was shipped to England in 1723.  Germanna Foundation Record Number 7 is cited as the source for the 1716 date.  It might be noted that since the furnace was not built until 1722 and 1723, the First Germanna Colony had left Spotswood's employment and gone to Germantown before it was built.
(11 Nov 00)


Nr. 1027:

Most of the published lists for the Germans who came with the First Germanna Colony fail to list Johann Justus Albrecht, who arrived with the people from Nassau-Siegen.  The origin in Germany for Albrecht is unknown, but there can be little doubt that he was German.  Graffenried called him "chief miner", and says that he was present in London with the Nassau-Siegen people when Graffenried returned to London in 1713.  There are two pieces of evidence that Albrecht was later in Virginia.  First, a document, that he wrote in London, is in the Spotsylvania courthouse in Virginia.  Second, a statement signed by him is on file in the Essex County, Virginia courthouse.  This later document shows that he was working along side the Nassau-Siegen people when they were at Fort Germanna.  His presence in London with the people from Nassau-Siegen, plus the Virginia evidence, leads only to the conclusion that he came with the First Colony, and lived at Germanna.  Most published lists err in failing to include his name as coming in 1713.  For example, he is not included on the names in the Germanna Foundation’s web page as coming in 1713.

Several writers have claimed the mention of "silver" by Spotswood was a cover up for "iron"; however, when one reads all of Spotswood’s letters, and Graffenried’s memoirs, which specifically name the objective as silver, and one reads the petitions to Queen Anne herself, one can only conclude that the word silver meant "silver".

The origins of the Second Germanna Colony are said to be the Alsace, the Palatinate, and Hesse, by the writer of the family history that I have referred to recently.  The error as to their origins originates with Rev. Stöver, who should have known better.  But it is now known that a much better statement would be Württemberg, Baden, and the Palatinate.  The same family writer also says that the Second Colony traveled UP the Rhine River, which is just the opposite of the correct statement.  The writer also says that the First Colony traveled EAST to the Rhine River, which again is the opposite to the correct direction.  Both errors originated in "Germanna", a publication of the Germanna Foundation, which was issued in the summer of 1997.

The writer also refers to Capt. Scott, who brought the Second Colony.  According to the colonial records there is no appropriate Capt. Scott, but there is a ship named the Scott.  The record in Virginia which refers to Scott says "in Capt. Scott", which is a very questionable statement.  The error of the Germanna Foundation has been in publishing the statement as reading "with Capt. Scott".  When combined with the colonial records, the more appropriate statement is that the ship was the Scott whose captain was Andrew Tarbett.  The cause of their landing in Virginia, and not in Pennsylvania (which is where they wanted to go), can very reasonably be stated as a case of highjacking or kidnaping by Tarbett.
(13 Nov 00)


Nr. 1028:

The writer of the family history mentioned here recently quoted the Summer 1997 issue of "Germanna" (published by the Germanna Foundation) as saying that the pending departure of the First Colony from Germanna was causing Spotswood's mining and furnace operation to slow down.  This would have been about 1717.  The "Germanna" article goes on to say that Spotswood had an agent in London named Von Graffenried.  It is claimed that Spotswood sent urgent messages to this Graffenried to recruit more help.  It is furthermore claimed that Graffenried talked a boatload of Germans into going to Virginia.

Even the author of the family history found this hard to swallow and expressed some doubt about it.  Of course, he was correct to do so.  According to Spotswood, he did not start the mining operation until about the time of arrival of the Second Colony.  The furnace was even later, after the First Colony had moved to Germantown.  Spotswood did not have an agent in London named Graffenried.  The Graffenried, who had initiated the action leading to the First Colony coming to Virginia, had gone to Switzerland in the fall of 1713, and he never left Switzerland again.

The author of the family history quotes, erroneously, the statement that some of the Germans came "with Capt. Scott", but this is because he quoted the Germanna Foundation and not the original document.

It is furthermore stated that Spotswood employed these Germans (the Second Colony) in his iron mines near Germanna, and they did a little farming.  In fact, though, they never were engaged in the iron mines, or at the furnace.  There was a brief episode in which they produced charcoal, but they were too far away from the furnace for the charcoal to travel without damage.  They were engaged in a naval stores project primarily, and in securing the 40,000 acre Spotsylvania tract for the investors (eventually only Spotswood).

Our family history writer concluded there was no Third Colony, and even cited a printed publication of the Germanna Foundation, which had arrived at this conclusion; however the web page for the Germanna Foundation says, "Another group arrived at Germanna in 1719 of approximately forty families."

Among the reasons cited by the family author for the First Colony moving from Germanna was the statement from the printed publications of the Germanna Foundation that they could obtain free land elsewhere.  This is simply not true, as they purchased their land from the Northern Neck Proprietor.  It is not noted that the four years they had agreed to work for Spotswood were up and they were under no obligation to stay longer.  They could not buy land from Spotswood so they went to the Northern Neck (they could also have patented land from the colony of Virginia).
(14 Nov 00)


Nr. 1029:

The question was asked: Has anyone found a list of the passengers on the Capt. Scott that the Second Colony came in to America?

Forty-eight names that appear to have been on the ship Scott are known.  This is only a fraction of the seventy-odd Germans that Spotswood referred to, or the about eighty that the Germans themselves sometimes referred to.  That we have such a list is due to the use of the names of these people by Spotswood as headrights in paying for a tract of land.

The names were published in the book series "Cavaliers and Pioneers" but the report there contains some inaccuracies.  Reading the actual patent itself yields a more correct reading.

These names have been given here, I believe.

Why were only forty-eight of the names given?  Spotswood had partners in the land acquisition project.  He specifically mentioned Robert Beverley (the historian), and implied there were others (probably minor).  There is good evidence that George Moyer was one of the people for whom Robert Beverley had paid the way.  Unfortunately, though, the other names that would make up the difference between the forty-eight and the "seventy-odd" are not known.
(15 Nov 00)


Nr. 1030:

The forty-eight names used by Alexander Spotswood in the repatenting of a 28,000 acre tract read as follows (taken from the original of the patent).  There are minor differences from volume III of "Cavaliers and Patents".

The names, in the order in which they are given, are (with one of the modern spellings):


Headright Patent Names:
Pale Blankenbuchner
Margaret Blankenbuchner
Mathias Blankenbuchner
Anna Maria Blankenbuchner
Hans Jerich Blankenbuchner
Wolf Michel Kefer
Hendrich Schuchter
Hans Jerich Chively
Maria Clora Chively
Anna Martha Chively
Anna Elizabeth Chively
Anna Maria Chively
Michel Cook
Mary Cook
Henry Snyder
Dorathy Snyder
Hans Jerich Otes
Parvara Otes
Ferdinandis
Sylvania Otes
Anna Louise Otes
Modern Spelling:
Balthasar Blankenbaker
Margaret Blankenbaker
Matthew Blankenbaker
Anne Mary Blankenbaker
(John) George Pickler
(Wolf) Michael Käfer
Henry Schuchter
(John) George Scheible
Mary Clara Scheible
Anne Martha Scheible
Anne Elizabeth Scheible
Anne Mary Scheible
Michael Cook
Mary Cook
Henry Snider
Dorothy Snider
(John) George Utz
Barbara Utz
Ferdinand
Sabina Volck (Folg)
Louisa Elizabeth Volck?


There are many blood relationships in the list here of 21 names.  (The rest of the names will be given later and they have even more.)  The Blankenbuchner name became many names including Blankenbaker, Blankenbeker, Blankenbeckler, Blankenbecler, and still others.  The individual who became the ancestor of the Picklers is given as that.

I am betting that the Scheibles came from Gresten, Austria, in the decades before emigration to America.  The Blankenbakers lived on the Plankenbühl farm at Gresten, while less than a quarter mile away is the Scheiblau farm.  Both families lived in Neuenbürg just prior to emigration, and both families show up as almost consecutive names in the list above.  Furthermore, Margaret James Squires told me more than a decade ago that, based on the church records for Neuenbürg, she thought the Blankenbakers and the Scheibles were related, but she could not prove it.  The totality of the evidence suggests they were.

The name Ferdinand which does not have a surname is the result of an original omission of his name.  When it was inserted, between the lines, his surname of Otes or Utz was omitted.
(16 Nov 00)


Nr. 1031:

Continuing with the list of names used by Alexander Spotswood as headrights:


Headright Patent Names:
Joseph Wever
Susanna Wever
Hans Fredich Wever
Maria Sophia Wever
Wabburie Wever
Hans Michel Cloar
Anna Maria Parva Cloar
Andrew Claus Cloar
Agnes Margaret Cloar
Hans Jerich Cloar
Hans Michel Smiedt
Anna Creda Smiedt
Hans Michel Smiedt
Hans Jerich Wegman
Anna Maria Wegman
Maria Margaret Wegman
Maria Gotlieve Wegman
Hans Nicholas Blankenbuchner
Applona Blankenbuchner
Zachariahs Blankenbuchner
Coz Jacob Floschman
Anna Parva Floschman
John Peter Floschman
Maria Catharina Floschman
Hans Michel Milcher
Sophia Catharina Milcher
Maria Parvara Milcher
Modern Spelling:
Joseph Weaver
Susanna Weaver
(John) Peter Weaver
Maria Sophia Weaver
Walburga (Burga) Weaver
(John) Michael Clore
(Anne Mary) Barbara Clore
Andrew Klaus Clore
Agnes Margaret Clore
(John) George Clore
(John) Michael Smith, Sr.
Anne Margaret Smith
(John) Michael Smith, Jr.
John George Wegman
Anne Mary Wegman
Mary Margaret Wegman
Mary Gotliebe Wegman
John Nicholas Blankenbaker
Apollonia Blankenbaker
Zacharias Blankenbaker
Cyriacus Fleshman
Anna Barbara Fleshman
(John) Peter Fleshman (Mary) Catherine Fleshman
John Michael Milcker
Sophia Catherine Milcker
Mary Barbara Milcker


Remember that the names on the left are as the author of the Headright List choose to spell them.  The names on the right are a modern spelling, with some exceptions.

First, some hidden relationships may not be apparent.  Susanna Wever was a sister to Michael Clore.  Her husband died quite early and Susanna married, in Virginia, her second husband, Jacob Crigler.

The Clores, Weavers, the two Smith families (brothers), and the Milckers, all came from the same village, Gemmingen (some photos from Gemmingen are on the photo page).  After the arrival of these families in Virginia, there were no further records for the Wegman or Milcker families.

The Blankenbakers and the Fleshmans were related in as much as Anna Barbara Schöne was the mother/stepmother/grandmother of the Blankenbakers, Henry Schuchter, and the Fleshmans.  Cyriacus Fleshman was her husband.
(17 Nov 00)


Nr. 1032:

In the last two notes, names from the headrights used by Alexander Spotswood have been given.  I believe that this is a partial list of the Second Colony.  That we have these names is an accident of history.  In no way, are the names which appear as headrights to be considered as ships' lists, or passenger lists.  Of all of the thousands of names which are recorded as headrights, there are only a few instances where the names can also be considered as a passenger list, or even a partial list of names.  In this particular case, there are only forty-eight names, of what Spotswood said were seventy-odd Germans, and of what the Germans themselves said were eighty Germans.

The difference between the forty-eight names and the larger number were cases where the partners of Spotswood paid the transportation.  One of these families is known, and that is Moyer family.  Apparently their transportation was paid by Robert Beverley, the historian, who died.  His son sold the interest in the partnership to Spotswood, and, when Spotswood sued the Germans, George Moyer was sued with Beverly’s son giving testimony at the trial.

There were several other Germans whom Spotswood sued, who were not on the headright list.  These people were either later comers, or people whose transportation was paid by partners of Spotswood who sold out to Spotswood.  A detailed search of the Spotsylvania County Court records might disclose other names that can be compared to the case of George Moyer.

Looking at the list of forty-eight names, a surprising percentage of them came from two villages in Germany.  The Scheible, Blankenbaker, Schlucter, Fleshman, and Kaifer complex comes to nineteen names.  These people were related by blood or marriage, but mostly by blood, with a center of activity at Neuenbürg.  Then, from Gemmingen, there are twenty names.  This leaves only nine names, from three other localities.  Even here the Utz complex appears (but not proven) to be related to the Blankenbaker complex.

Apparently, the propensity to travel as relatives, and as neighbors, extended to having their contracts picked up by one individual.  But, this makes one wonder at the absence of one family from the Neuenbürg complex.  Anna Maria Blankenbühler had married Johann Thoma and they had two children.  They are not on the list with her relatives.

The most plausible reason is that they did not come in 1717.  Anna Maria and Johann may have had good reasons for remaining in Germany, at least temporarily.  Perhaps they came within two years, and Spotswood may not have been taking on more servants when they came.

There is one reason for considering this last alternative as a real possibility.  We have more candidates for inclusion in the Second Colony than the seventy to eighty people which are commonly considered to be the number of Second Colony people.  But all the trimming that I do of the candidates is with some hesitancy.
(20 Nov 00)


Nr. 1033:

Though we have no evidence that John and Anna Maria Thomas, with their children, came in the year 1717, they were very early to Virginia.  Before John died, he and Anna Maria had two more children, Michael and Margaret.  Michael was not naturalized, so he was presumably born in Virginia.  After John died, Anna Maria married Michael Käfer (Kaifer).  Their five children seem to have been born in the approximate period from 1720 to 1730.

Only in very recent years has the husband of Margaret Thomas been found.  The will of Michael Käfer distorted the name so that it was not easy to make the identification, but Nancy Dodge led the way in showing that he was Henry Aylor, through which all of the Germanna Aylors descend.

There is a bit of a puzzlement between the Holtzclaw and Thomas families.  John Holtzclaw, the eldest son of the 1714 immigrant Jacob, married a widow Catherine (Russell) Thomas, who had one Thomas son, Jacob.  John Holtzclaw’s two youngest brothers, Jacob and Joseph, married Susanna Thomas and Mary Thomas, respectively, who were daughters of John Thomas, the eldest son of John Thoma and Anna Maria Blankenbaker.

Perhaps you might be inclined to think this is a coincidence but I do wonder whether it was or not.  John Holtzclaw lived at Germantown as did his younger brothers.  The Thomas girls lived in the Robinson River Valley.  (On the present day maps, these localities are not even in the adjacent counties.)  When one goes this far to find a wife, there is often a story, or an explanation, which tells why he went this far.  With John Holtzclaw having a stepson, Jacob Thomas, and having two younger brothers, who went some distance to find wives, who happen to have the surname Thomas, I start to believe that one Thomas family was in some way a unifying link.

Outside of some fiction, which I will not report here, I do not have an answer to this puzzle.  When B. C. Holtzclaw wrote his genealogies of the Holtzclaw family, he failed to comment on this strange coincidence.  And, this has bothered me.  Surely, when three children of Jacob Holtzclaw are involved with Thomas family members, it must give one a pause, and merit a comment.

The 1714 immigrant Jacob Holtzclaw was married twice, and the surname of the second wife is not known.  It could be that she was from the Robinson River community, and therefore she was the link which brought two of her sons to the Robinson River community to find their wives.  John Thomas, the father of Susanna and Mary, does not have an identifiable wife.  She too might have been a link.

I have raised some of these questions before without any response.  Maybe this time someone can add information which might be helpful.
(21 Nov 00)


Nr. 1034:

Researcher Cynthia Crigler wrote an article for Beyond Germanna (v10, n1, Jan 1998), in which she expressed doubt that the wife of Henry Aylor was Margaret Crigler, a daughter of Susanna Clore Weaver Crigler Yager.  First, there was no evidence that Susanna, the mother, had a daughter, Margaret.  [Susanna was the Susanna Wever on the headright list that I have been discussing recently.]

Apparently, the late B. C. Holtzclaw was the first to claim that Margaret Aylor, wife of Henry Aylor, had been Margaret Crigler.  In turn, he was followed by the late Sarah Aylor Lewis, who repeated the claim.  Perhaps Arthur D. Crigler made the same claim before Sarah, did but, in any case, he agreed.  Though three people have repeated the statement in their published genealogies, this is simply the result of copying and not of research.

Holtzclaw said that a deed from Nicholas and Margaret Crigler showed that Margaret Aylor was receiving her share of the Crigler estate.  Cynthia Crigler put an end to this copying process and obtained a copy of the deed, so that she could see what it said.  The conclusion of Holtzclaw, she found, went beyond any reasonable bounds, and was probably not valid.  She started first with a deed of 20 Sep 1759, whereby Christopher Loyal sold to Henry Aylor, for sixteen pounds, 100 acres of land that was part of a 1726 patent to Michael Cook and Jacob Criglar, for four hundred acres.  The second deed, of 18 Oct 1759, from Nicholas and Margaret Crigler, was to Henry Aylor, and conveyed 200 acres that had been a part of the Michael Cook and Jacob Criglar patent mentioned earlier.  Nicholas obtained his full interest in this land by a conveyance from his brother, Christopher.  Henry Aylor paid two payments of thirty and fifty pounds for this two hundred acres.

At no point in this deed are there any terms of endearment such as "beloved daughter", or "beloved sister", which might have been expected in an estate or family settlement.  Furthermore, the price that Henry paid for these two hundred acres, eighty pounds, hardly sounds as though it were an estate settlement.  Finally, there is no mention of any wife of Henry Aylor.  On three points, therefore, it does not sound as though it were settlement of a Crigler estate.  The amount of money sounds as if it were a commercial transaction.  No reason other than money is given in the deed.  No reason is given as to why Henry Aylor would be entitled to the property.

More likely, just a month before, Henry Aylor purchased one hundred acres, which was adjacent to the two hundred acre parcel.  It sounds as if he wanted more land adjacent to what he owned, and made an offer to Nicholas Crigler, who accepted, and sold him the land.

Susannah Clore Weaver Crigler Yager did make a property distribution of slaves to her two sons, but she made no distribution to any daughters.

The Christopher Loyal, who sold his one hundred acres to Henry Aylor, was Christopher Leyrle.  The outline of his history is known, and it is consistent with the story above.  (He moved to North Carolina.) There are good reasons to doubt that Henry Aylor's wife was a Margaret Crigler, and we will give her true identity in the next note.
(22 Nov 00)


Nr. 1035:

Cynthia Crigler laid the problem on our doorstep by asserting that the wife of Henry Aylor was not Margaret Crigler.  While several people contributed to finding a solution, the lead sleuth in the chase was Nancy Dodge, a researcher with many stars on her helmet.  She is a specialist in finding the missing women.

Henry Aylor was the son of Hans Jacob Öhler, and his wife, Anna Magdalena Schneider.  The parents had only two children, Henry and Elizabeth Catherine, who married Christopher Tanner.  So all Germanna Aylors descend from Henry Aylor and his unknown wife, Margaret.

The first observation was that, on 6 Jul 1774, Henry Aylor sold a tract of land with about two hundred acres, which "was a part of my wife’s fortune per a deed from John Thomas." Of the two John Thomases, the father died almost immediately after coming to Virginia, so the seller to Henry Aylor must have been the son.  This deed alone tells us that our best chance of finding Margaret’s family is to look at the family of John Thomas.

When Henry Aylor sold the land, and mentioned the deed from John Thomas, he failed to provide the specifics such as the date of the deed.  Using the estimated marriage date for Henry of 1743 to 1750, a deed in 1747 was found.  This read as a lease from John Thomas to Henry Aylett.  We have to assume, in view of the other facts, that Aylett is meant to be read as Aylor.

Our best description of the Thomas family is the will of Michael Käfer who married the Thomas widow, Anna Maria Blankenbühler.  Michael, after naming, in his will, his five children by Anna Maria, adds ". . between my deceased wife’s children, that is to say John Thomas, Michael Thomas, Magflana (married to Mick Smith), and Margrat (married to Hannry Coller)." The writer of the will had spelling problems and could not get the common names of Henry, Margaret, and Magdalena right.  With this warning, let’s look at the Margaret who was married to Henry Coller.  It does not require much imagination to believe that Coller, otherwise unknown in the community, was meant to be Aylor.

Peggy Shomo Joiner suggests, in an index to one of her books, that one should consult Iler, Ilor, Eiler, Eyler, Isler, Oiler, Oyler, and Aylor.  The point in common of these and the name Coller is the sound of the last syllable.  Given the poor spelling in the will, and the variations that are encountered in spelling Aylor, it would appear that Aylor would be appropriate reading of Coller.

In 1747, Henry Eiler was granted 34 acres of land in the fork of the Rappahannock, next to Robert Tanner’s patent.  The chain carriers for Henry were Christopher Tanner and Michael Thomas.  Both of these men were his brothers-in-law, one through his wife, and one through his sister.  The most favorite persons for carrying the chains were one's brothers-in-law.
(23 Nov 00)


Nr. 1036:

Georg Heinrich Öhler was born 3 Oct 1718, in Germany.  As we have commented, Margaret Thomas and Michael Thomas must have been born about 1718 and 1720, or vice versa.  In either case, the age of Margaret Thomas matches very well.

On Easter Sunday in 1776, Henry Aylor and wife, Anna Margaret, are seated with George Utz, Sr., and his wife, Mary Käfer.  Typically, relatives sat next to each other in church.  In this case, Margaret is seated next to her half-sister, Mary Käfer Utz.

When Henry Aylor went down to Williamsburg to be naturalized, he went with three other men, Zachariah Blankenbecker, John Thomas, and John Zimmerman.  John Thomas was his brother-in-law.  John Thomas was a first cousin of Zachariah Blankenbecker.  John Zimmerman was a brother-in-law of Zacharias Blankenbecker.  Altogether it was a close little group.

We might note the role that John Thomas played in these events.  When the 1726 patents in the Robinson River Valley were issued to the Germanna people, John and his brother, Michael, had a patent for 156 acres on both sides of the Robinson River.  At this time, John Thomas was 14 years old, and his brother Michael was about 7 years of age.  Within two years, John Thomas obtained another tract in his own name.  Later, John Thomas deeded his half of the first property to Michael Thomas.  Still later, he sold land to Henry Aylor, which Henry referred to as his "wife’s fortune".

Apparently, John Thomas was helping his brothers and sisters get started by selling or giving them land.  The picture would be complete if there were a transfer of land to Michael Smith, who married John Thomas’ other sister, Anna Magdalena, but I am not aware of such a transfer.  In short, John Thomas assumed a role as the leader of his family in lieu of his father, who had died about 1720.

From the church record, we learn that Margaret Thomas’ full given name was Anna Margaret.  She is given as Anna Margaret until Easter of 1778, when she is given as Anna Maria.  This may indicate that Anna Margaret had died in the period from 1776 to 1778 and Henry had remarried.  Then again, the church record may be an error.

Generally at church, Henry Aylor is distinguished from his son Henry by the added designation of Sr.  In 1782, the son Henry is at church without the designation Jr.  This may mean that Henry, Sr., had died.

Notice that the Thomas sons had a land patent when the oldest of them was 14.  This patent does not name any trustee or guardian.  Though the intent of the authorities in the colony of Virginia may have been not to issue patents to minors, the Germans probably adopted the attitude that the authorities really did not want to be bothered by the details.  The Germans, in general, often simplified their testimony, omitting some of the details.  Of course, it may be that they not did know the English words to express the details.
(24 Nov 00)


Nr. 1037:

How good is the evidence that the forty-eight names that appear in a headright list of Alexander Spotswood were actually members of the Second Germanna Colony?  For five of the families, there is the additional evidence that the pastor at Gemmingen listed the people as leaving there in 1717.  We must always consider the case that they did not make the trip in one year, but perhaps stayed over the winter in some place along the way; however, I have no evidence of this, so the two Smith families, the Weaver family, the Clore family, and the Milcher family have excellent credentials as members of the Second Germanna Colony.

Excepting for the mention in the Gemmingen death register, all of the other people on the headright list seem to have nearly identical histories to the five families named above.  It is generally assumed that all forty-eight of the names are members of the Second Colony.

There was one other family who is recorded as leaving Gemmingen in 1717.  This family does not show up in the Virginia records.  The father was Lawrence Bekh (Beck?), his wife Anna Martha, their son Lawrence (Lorentz), Maria Margaretha, Hans Georg, and Anna Catharina.  Many things could have happened to this family, but two events, including death or abandonment of the trip, might be the reason they do not show up in Virginia.

Interestingly, there are two families on the headright list who have no further mention in Virginia after their arrival.  One family was the Milcher family, where the father, Hans Michael, the mother, Sophia Catharina, children, Anna Margaretha and Anna Catharina, and the mother's sister, are recorded as leaving Gemmingen.  The father and mother are on the headright list, but the two children are not; however, apparently a new daughter, Maria Barbara, is added.  The mother's sister is not present.  If the father died soon after arrival in Virginia, it might be that the mother remarried.  Another possibility is discussed later.  In Germany, the name seems to have been spelled as Mihlekher, but this spelling may be a regional dialect.  On the headright list, the name is Milcher.

There is one other family on the headright list for which there is no further information, and that is the Wegman family of Hans Jerich, Anna Maria, Maria Margaret, and Maria Gotlieve.  As with the Milcher family, the death of the father might be the reason that the name disappears.

I have often wondered, in the cases of these two families, if there might not be another reason.  Going to Virginia was not the intention of these people.  They had planned on going to Pennsylvania, but Andrew Tarbett, of the ship Scott highjacked them from their intention and took them to Virginia instead.  It would not surprise me if, on a dark night, the families set out on foot for Pennsylvania.  Nor could I find them guilty of any crime in a court of law.
(25 Nov 00)


Nr. 1038:

Before too long, but it may be a few days, photos of a Hauberg should be shown on the German Photo Page on the web.  I thought that I might discuss what will be seen there.

(Note from Webmaster:  I have posted the Fellinghausen/Hauberg photos.  You can view them by clicking here.  GWD)

Several centuries ago, around the present town of Siegen, for a distance of many miles, a shortage developed in oak bark, for the tanneries, and in wood, for heating, cooking, and making charcoal for the metallurgical industry.  A solution evolved which was maintained until about a century ago.

Land was set aside, in what we might call a cooperative.  Apparently, ownership of a share went with ownership of a house.  The two seem inseparable.  One could not sell one's house without the share in the Hauberg going with the house.  A Hauberg, in total, was a defined piece of property, often on a hill top.  This property was divided into a fixed number of equal parts, perhaps about twenty parts, but sometimes varying from this.  These parts were used on the fixed cycle of twenty years.  At this time, the oak trees were big enough that their bark could be stripped and the tree cut down.  The bark went to the tannery.  The larger pieces of wood were used to make charcoal.  The small pieces of wood were used for heating and cooking.

The stumps were not grubbed out.  They were allowed to sucker up and start trees for the next cycle.  While waiting for the trees to grow, the ground was scratched over and grain was planted.  Until the trees were bigger, this agricultural use was another by-product.

In any one year, as a shareholder in a Hauberg, you might be cultivating grain on a number of the parts of the twenty-year cycle.  Every year there would be "wood and bark" harvesting time, on one of the parts in the twenty-year cycle.  As a shareholder, you would have your fractional part of this annual part.

You had to harvest your own part.  Starting in late winter, a "cooperative shareholder" would mark the area that he was entitled to by "claim stakes", which were driven into the ground to mark the boundaries of his plot.  Each of these stakes had a series of notches, which were one's unique code, in much the way that we marked hogs and cattle in times past.  Looking at the stakes, one could tell who was claiming an area.

One cleaned up the fallen branches and twigs, and these were saved as fuel.  Smaller branches were cut from the trees for a distance upward of perhaps twelve feet.  These were added to the wood pile for saving.  In the spring, while the trees are still standing, the bark is stripped from the trunk but it is not removed or cut loose at the top end.  Again, this was for a distance of perhaps twelve feet from the ground.  The use of a ladder was necessary.

I have capitalized the word Hauberg because we do not have an equivalent word.  So I am using the German word, which, as a noun, is always capitalized.
(27 Nov 00)


Nr. 1039:

When we (Eleanor and I) visited the Fellinghausen Hauberg in May, the tree harvest was well underway.  Most of the trees had their bark stripped in the section being harvested for its wood and bark.  In some cases, the bark was loose but still attached to the standing tree about twelve feet up.  In this position it is able to dry out.  Even if it rained, the effect of the water would be trivial.  Some of the trees had been cut down and the average diameter at the base of the trunk was four to six inches.

Of course, prior to cutting the tree, the bark was removed that was hanging on the tree and then bundled.  If it would be a while until the bark were to be picked up, they would usually stand the bundles of bark against an uncut tree.  After a tree was felled, the upper branches and trunk would be trimmed.  On the larger pieces, the bark would be removed.  The small twigs would go into the wood pile and they would be bundled up also for portability.

We did not actually see any of the labor performed; we saw only the end result.  This, plus my reading, is my education on the subject.  According to photographs in the hotel taken in the twentieth century, when the Hauberg culture still seemed to be active, most of the labor seemed to be performed by women and children.  In the photos, men were a minority.  Some of the photos showed charcoal being made in very small piles which were probably very inefficient.

Today, of course, there is no need for Haubergs.  Man-made chemicals replace the tannic acid that had been obtained from the bark for tanning.  Coke, made from coal, had replaced the charcoal.  The net result is that there are more trees in Germany than there had been in several centuries.  It is hard to imagine that at one time woods and trees were scarce.  The land today is used for either farming (without working around the stumps) or for trees which are allowed to grow up to a decent size.

When the First Germanna Colony came to Virginia, they were surely impressed by the vast forests which seemed to go on and on.  And clearing land by just burning up the trees was a near sacrilege to them.  In England, during the eighteenth century, the forests were nearly wiped out by the use of the wood to make charcoal for the metallurgical industry.

In Germany, most of our ancestors had no right to cut wood.  They were limited to what they could pick up on the forest floor.  The village of Oberholzklau (Upper Holtzclaw in English), announces itself with an image of a man who has been picking up wood in the forest.  The word "Holz" means "wood" and the word "klau" can be understood as "claw".  Hence Holzklau was a man who gathered up wood in his hands (claws or talons).

In the tax list for 1566 for Trupbach, of the seventeen households, thirteen of them were taxed on an interest in a Hauberg.
(28 Nov 00)


Nr. 1040:

A question was asked recently concerning the descendants of Anna Barbara Schöne, particularly along the lines of her daughter Anna Maria Blankenbühler, who was born on 5 May 1687.  She married Johann Thomas in 1711, and two surviving children were born in Germany, Hans Wendel Thoma (John Thomas) and Anna Magdalena.  Two more children were born in Virginia, Michael and Anne Margaret.  The dates and sequence of the last two births are unknown.

It is not clear that John and Anna Maria Thoma came with the rest of her family to Virginia in 1717.  However, they must have come at an early date because it appears that Michael and Ann Margaret were born in Virginia.  The father died and Anna Maria married Michael Käfer, who was the brother of her sister-in-law, Apollonia Blankenbühler, who had married John Nicholas Blankenbühler.  Michael was a bachelor without any children when he came.  After he married Anna Maria, they had five daughters.  If we assume that 43 years would be about the last year that Anna Maria had a child, this would be the year 1730.  With five children by Michael Kaifer, and with births every two years, she probably married Michael about 1720, when her youngest children (Michael and Anne Margaret) were still just toddlers.

We are very fortunate in that Michael Käfer left us a detailed will, albeit with some atrocious spelling in it, which gives their children (5) and her children (4) and, in the case of the girls (total of 7), their husbands.  We had some difficulty in identifying the husband of Margaret until a couple of years ago when it was shown that she had married Henry Aylor.

The children of John and Anna Maria (Blankenbühler) Thoma were:

John Thomas
Anna Magdalena, m. Michael Smith (Jr.)
Michael Thomas
(Anne) Margaret, m. Henry Aylor
The children of Michael and Anna Maria (Blankenbühler Thoma) Käfer were:
Elizabeth, m. Adam Garr
Dorothy, m. John Clore
Barbara, m. John Weaver
Mary, m. George Utz
Margaret, m. Nicholas Crigler

There were two Margarets in the family, but, from the church records, the wife of Henry Aylor was known there as Anne Margaret.  Perhaps the "Anne" was useful to tell them apart.

B. C. Holtzclaw, writing in Germanna Record 6, thought that Michael Käfer came with a family from Germany.  This has led to confusion, as some people have then concluded that he was married twice.  The headright list of Spotswood shows clearly that he was alone without any family.
(29 Nov 00)


Nr. 1041:

Headrights and tithables are two troublesome concepts for our modern minds.  Tithables were, usually, all males, white or black, sixteen or over, and all female blacks, sixteen and over.  A tax had to be paid on each tithable by the head of the household.  Actually, two taxes had to be paid, one to the county and one to the church.  The body that represented the county was the court, and the body that represented the church was the Vestry.

The Vestry was composed of twelve men who were elected at large when a parish was formed, and thereafter they filled any vacancies by appointment.  The vestry met a few times a year, actually very few times.  Their biggest task was to draw up a budget for next year's expenditures.  Expenses were computed in pounds of tobacco, the currency of Virginia.

The Court did a similar job, and they drew up a budget for their activities.  The justices of the Court also supervised the preparation of a list of names, showing the head of the household, and the number of tithables in the household (as defined above).

The Court and the Vestry each divided their budget by the number of tithables, and this was the tax they wanted collected for their purposes.  The Vestry paid a percentage to the civil authorities to collect the tax for them.

Normally, capital expenditures are financed by borrowing money, which is paid off over a period of time.  The Virginia Colonial Church financed their capital needs, for purposes such as the building a church or a house for a minister, by dividing the estimating cost by three, and adding this amount to the operating budget in each of three years.  Thus, there could be wide swings in the year-to-year tax.

Most tax lists that exist show the name of the household and the number of tithables, without any distinction as to the sex or color of the tithables.  Thus, if William Carpenter (Zimmerman) had three tithables, we do not know if the two besides himself were slaves, or sons, or hired (live-in) labor.

One could obtain exemptions from paying the tithe on a person who was elderly or unable to work.  To obtain this exemption, one went to court and explained the reason, and, if one's story was convincing, one could be exempted.

Determining the age of slaves was a problem because of the lack of paper work.  Generally, one had to bring a young slave into the court and the court would estimate the age.

Lists of tithes are interesting because they are a partial census of the inhabitants.  Basically, everyone was included, but only the head of households are named.  Some of the extant lists are especially interesting because the person making up the list roamed the countryside looking for residences.  He may have gone about it in an orderly way, so that today we can see who was living next to whom.

There was one other tax to be paid, the quit rent.  This was a fee fixed at so much per acre.  This went to the Colony of Virginia to pay the costs of government, and any surplus, theoretically, belonged to the crown.
(30 Nov 00)


Nr. 1042:

Some of the Orange County, Virginia, tithe lists have been preserved for 1738 and other years.  In that year, Orange County was geographically very large, as it included the present Orange Co., the present Culpeper, Madison, Greene, and Rappahannock Cos., and much of the Shenandoah Valley.  After the taxes should have been paid, it was found that there were several people who had not paid.  A list (partial or complete) of these people has been kept also.

Such lists are interesting to me for their social commentary, even though the story is incomplete.  Let's look at a list of Orange Co. delinquents for the year 1738:

Jacob Stover (3 tithables) had been added by the order of the Court and assigned to Mr. Russel's list, but he was still delinquent; John Tilly had been a constable, but was now delinquent; Jacob Cassel had been added to Mr. Russels list; David Finley, David Evan, and Jas. Hamilton had all "ran away"; Jas. Keatton was "no effects" (which I presume means that while he could be found, he had nothing with which he could pay); Buckner Allison could not be found; Robert Adams is given as "no distress", and I am not sure what that means.
This is just a start on the list.  Without going through everyone on the list in detail, here are the reasons cited for the delinquency, or the failure to collect the tithe.  "A mistake," "Not found," "No distress," "Not found," "A mistake," "Not found," "A mistake," "Ran away" appears several times; "I know not the man," and "Dead no effects."

The reason of "Ran away" is given several times and to this might even be added "Not found." I have wondered what was really meant by "Ran away." Did it simply mean that the person had moved to another place?  Or did it mean that the person had left, perhaps leaving debts and family behind?  How did the tax collector verify this information?  Did he take the opinion of a neighbor, or did he do a more exhaustive search?  How did the tax collector know that he was even in the right neighborhood?

The names are given, and some of the surnames are familiar to me, but one encounters many names by the time one has plotted land in three present day counties.  Thus, it is no surprise to see the names Finley, Evans, Bledsoe, Berry, Clark, Hawkins, Lewis, Rush, Thornton, or Crow.  I do not think any of the names on the delinquent list had a Germanic origin but such points are hard to prove.  For example, who is to say that the original spelling of Crow was not Kroh.

In short, the delinquent list is a series of busted dreams, of things that have gone wrong.  We talk and write so much about the success stories that we forget that life is not always a success.  Virginia had many people in it who committed some crime in England, perhaps a minor crime, and who were assigned "transportation", meaning that they were sent to Virginia and not to jail.  Many of these people became success stories.  In the same way, let's hope that our delinquents became success stories.  It would be fun to know more of their histories.
(01 Dec 00)


Nr. 1043:

The Orange County tithables list in 1739, for a major part of the Robinson River Valley, still exists.  It consists of several precincts, with a man assigned to prepare each one.  The question arises as to the accuracy of the lists.  Were they carefully prepared?  I am inclined, initially, at least, to accept the written statement at its face value.

Let's start with James Pickett's precinct, which is south of the Robinson River, where, after several names (English), we have Michael Holt.  Since his land is known, we have a fixed point.  In present day Madison County, this would be on the south side of it.  Other names in the general vicinity are William Offill, Isaac Smith, Ruckers, and Garths, all names from the south side.  After Michael Holt, there are several more English names before we encounter a steady stream of Germans, whose locations are known.  These include Cortney Browel (Broyles), George Lung, John Hoffman, Jon Carpenter, Mathias Castler, Michael Cook, Henry Snider, Robert Tenner, George Tenner, Lodowick Fisher, Geo. Teter.  Then follow Phillip Roote's Quarter, Henry Moccoy, Anthony Strother's Quarter, and John Killy.  In some places the last name is given as Kelly.

Then follows Adam Carr (Garr), Wm. Carpenter, Nicholas Yager, and a few more English names, Thomas Watts, Edward Watts, Thomas Edmonson, George Thompson, John Phillips, Wm. Henderson, Thomas Coker, and John Edins.  The list returns to the Germans names with Daywall Cristler, Adam Yager, Mathew Smith, Henry Crowder, Christley Browel (Broyles), John Hansborgow (Harnsberger), Michael Smith, Daywat Cristler, Michael Keiffer, Geo. Moyers, John Rowse (Rouse), Thomas Weyland, and then 26 more English names, though one of them is Mark Finks.

Already, we have uncovered several problems.  An obvious one is that there are two Daywall or Daywat Cristlers.  Remember that this list of names was the result of one man's work.  I would think that if he put down two Theobald Christlers, then there were two.  But this is one more than we were expecting.  The name of Christley Broyles is a puzzle.  We were expecting two Broyles, Conrad and Jacob, and we have those men in the lists.  The presence of Christley is a problem.  Most likely there was another Broyles who has been omitted from the histories.

Who was George Tanner?  Who was Henry Crowder?  This last name may very well be Krauter, a more Germanic spelling.  Either way, he is an unknown.  When we get to other of the lists, we will see more problems.

Returning to Christley Broyles, he was probably a son of John and Ursula Broyles.  Apparently, the parents were of a child bearing age when they came to America, and Christley (Christian?) Broyles was probably born in Virginia.  If he were born in 1718, then he would have been 21 in 1739, old enough to be on the tithables list.  Some writers have confused Christley and Conrad and said these were variations of the same name.  More likely, there were two distinct individuals.  Whether Christley left heirs is unknown, but right now nothing would say that he did not.
(02 Dec 00)


Nr. 1044:

In the last note, we recognized that the tithe list for Orange County in 1739 had two Theobald Crislers/Christlers.  The name was not exactly spelled that way; the two variations were spelled as Daywall Cristler and Daywat Cristler.  Both variations are acceptable variations by an Englishman of the German name Theobald Christler.

The history of the Christler family is thought to be known, and a birth of Theobald Christler was found by Gary Zimmerman and Johni Cerny.  The family came to Pennsylvania about 1718, where they lived for a while.  In the 1730's, Theobald Christler moved to the Robinson River Valley.

What are we to think of the double appearance of the two names, separated only by seven names, on a list prepared by one man?  Were there two people of this name or not?  It is hard to believe that an individual could make up the list with the duplicated name unless there were two people.  The known German history does not show two Theobald Cristlers; however, it could be a possibility that there were two sons of the same name and only one had been found.  Since the family came in 1718 to Pennsylvania, a son born there at about this time of the same name could have been old enough to have been entered on the tithable list in 1739.

I can't resolve the question from where I am sitting.  There may be other evidence which has a bearing on the question.  The point that I would make now is that many people have been entering the birth date for Johann Theobald Christele as 18 August 1709.  I think they must ask themselves if they have the right man.

We have to ask if a man, in particular the maker of the tithe list, could make an error like this, then how good was the rest of the list?  In the last note, we had an extra Broyles but that is not hard to believe as there is nothing unreasonable involved.

When we move to "John Mickell's" precinct, we are on the north side of the Robinson River.  We encounter many German names here.  The first sixteen names are "English", and they probably lived in the eastern part of modern Madison County.  The list seems to be made up by moving from the east to the west.  The first German names are Tobias Wilhite and John Stolts, who lived near the present Brightwood.  Coming more to the west, there is Frederick Bumgarner, Christopher Moyers, Peter Weaver, Michaell Wilhite, George Woods (Utz), and Balthasar Blankenbaker.

Since the Blankenbaker brothers had land on both sides of the Robinson River, it had not been clear on which side of the river that they lived.  Since the names are composed in a logical way and can be identified in general as the northern side of the Robinson River, we can say that the Blankenbakers had their homes on the north side of the river.

I am using the list as printed by Peggy Shomo Joyner, and she says that she transcribed the information from negative copies in the Virginia State Library in the Archives Branch.
(04 Dec 00)


Nr. 1045:

In the last note we had reached Balthasar Blankenbaker's farm.  The name immediately following is Ludwick Fisher (Lewis Fisher), and the name is no surprise, as Lewis married Anna Barbara Blankenbaker, one of the two daughters of Balthasar.  So, it appears that Lewis was living on his father-in-law's place.  Lewis had reasonable expectations of inheriting some of Balthasar's property, for Balthasar had only the two daughters and no sons.

The only surprise is seeing the name of Lewis here is that he appeared also earlier in James Pickett's list as Lodowick Fisher, right after George Tenner and Robert Tenner, and just before George Teter.  Again, we have a duplicated name as, we did for Theobald Crisler.  And again, I am not positive what interpretation to place on the two Lewis Fisher names.

My guess or hunch, but definitely not a fact, is that there were two Lewis Fishers, father and son.  I am also betting that the wives of the two Lewis Fishers were both Anna Barbaras.  In a situation such as that it becomes hard to distinguish people.

I believe that an examination of the baptismal sponsors for the Christopher Zimmerman family in Sulzfeld will show that, on one occasion, the sponsors were Lewis and Anna Barbara Fisher.  This would have been much too early to be the Anna Barbara who was the daughter of Balthasar.  My guess is that this family is the parents of the Lewis Fisher who married Anna Barbara Blankenbaker.

Let me use the designations, Sr. and Jr., for the two Ludwigs.  I believe that Ludwig, Sr., was the father of at least two sons in Virginia, one of whom was Ludwig, Jr.  The family of Ludwig, Jr., can be determined accurately, but there are some Fishers who are left over, who do not appear to be members of Ludwig, Jr.'s immediate family.  One of these was Elizabeth, and the other is Nicholas.

Some people believe I am not realistic in this proposal, and I must admit that they may be right.  But I do think that there is a possible avenue for research.  Since Lewis Fisher's origins in Germany have never been found, in spite of the hype which surrounds him, I sure would start with the Sulzfeld church records and start looking in that immediate area.

(Photos of Sulzfeld, and the surrounding countryside, are on the Sulzfeld Photo Page.)

The suggestion was made that the two Theobald Crislers might have been twins.  It certainly is a possibility, and I regret not having thought of that myself.  In any case, we have to contend with two men, each of whom appears to have been on the tithe list twice.  I do doubt that the Lewis Fishers were twins.
(05 Dec 00)


Nr. 1046:

After Balthasar Blankenbaker and Lewis Fisher, in John Michell’s precinct, came the two brothers of Balthasar, Matthais and Nicholas.  Next was George Scheible, and I believe the Scheible and Blankenbaker families had been traveling together, since they had been on adjoining farms in Gresten, Austria.  They were still together after a series of moves.

The next tract should have been the Thomas tract, but John Thomas has his own land by this time.  His brother Michael might have been about 19 years old, but apparently he was not an independent head of household yet.  It appears that a Conrad Pater was living on the Thomas land, probably as a renter, because John Thomas sold his half of the land to his brother Michael a little later.  The identity of Conrad Pater is unknown.  Any ideas as to his true identity would be welcome.

After the Thomas tract, came the stepfather of the Blankenbakers, Cyriacus Fleshman.  Apparently he had a son-in-law living on his tract, Jacob Broyle (Hans Jacob Broyles).  Also, Peter Fleshman was on the tract.  Then came Richard Burdyne, who had married Catherine Tanner.  Robert Tanner sold his original 216 acre patent to Richard Burdyne, so the location of Burdyne is where Tanner was originally located.  John Willheit was next on the list, and he was followed by Michael Clore.  Then follow a series of names, Martin Dattuck, Michael O’Neal, George Taylor, William Martin, Zachary Martin, Fenly (?) McTolefter (?), Nicholas Coplin, and Nicholas Copin.  (No, I did not stutter, the last name is duplicated, once with three tithes, and once with one tithe.)

Then comes David Yowell, John Kynes, Christopher Yowell, John Thomas, and Henry Sluter.  The last name is probably Henry Schlucter who was the (half) uncle of John Thomas.  Henry was the son of Anna Barbara Schöne by her second husband.  Then came John Zimmerman, who married a cousin of John Thomas.

We have looked at two of the precincts (there would have been many more than this to account for all of Orange County).  In these lists we have the following items to ponder:  Two Lewis Fishers, two Theobald Crislers, Christley Broyles, Conrad Pater, George Tanner, and Henry Crowder.  I invite comments from one and all concerning these questions.

One can see why I like the tithe lists.  They serve to humble us, even if the problem was in the original list, and not in our knowledge.  In addition to the extra names, there are some missing names.

Several names, John Dotson, John Sutton, Robert Hutchison, Joseph Bloodworth, and Thomas Canely follow in the list.  I am inclined to believe that, except for Joseph Bloodworth, these were English names.  Any information about them would be appreciated.  Then follow three Germans, John Full (Vogt), Christian Clemon (Kleman), and Jacob Manspoil.  That is the apparent end of John Mickell’s precinct.

If anyone can comment about the reasons that an individual was living at a particular location, please tell us.  Note that geography and being related by blood or marriage were often coupled.
(06 Dec 00)


Nr. 1047:

In 1736, there is an Orange County tithe list in the precinct of David Phillips, Constable, which can be identified as the southern part of modern Madison County.  It is a mixture of English and German names, some of which are hard to read because of the atrocious spelling.  Starting in the middle of the list, there is John Hufmon, Cotley Broyle, Heny Haws, . . . , William Offill, Thomas Stanton, Mark Fink, John hanchbirque [Harnsberger?], John Garth, William Pirce, John Stone, Philip Ruts(?), Anthony Strader, William Banks, Nicholas Yeagoe, Adam Yeagoe, Larance Christ, Richard Halcom, George Long, William Caphinder [Carpenter?], George Myers, William jeliff, Thomas Downer, Charles Rone, John Brensford, John Phillips, Andrew Garr, Christopher Parter [Parlur or Barlow], John Scott, Denel Chrisler, Micale Smith, Michale Copher [Käfer], Thomas Weland, Andrew Kerkar, John Rouse, Mathias Kaseler, Nathan fill (?), Alender Conway, Jonah _____, John Wisdom, Guy Meeks, David Phillips, Constable.

There is enough order in the German names that I can believe there was some attempt to make the list systematically but there many names that occur in unexpected places.

In the next year, David Phillips has another tithe list, and the names are very similar to the previous list for 1736.  Giving some of the German names, there is Lerance Chrise [Crees or Greys], John Hufmon, Cortley Broyle, Andrew Careker [Kerker], Andrew Carr [Garr], William Carpinter, Michael Cook, George Myers, Michael Capher [Käfer], Abraham Bledsoe, Thomas Bledsoe, Michale Smith, Nichles Yeage, Adham Yeago, John Breneeford, Mathias Caselear, George Long, Mark fink, Mathias Smith, Christopher Taner, Michale Holt, and the English names, William Rice, David bruce, Gye Meeks, Michale pireeon.

These two lists cover the ground where we found one of the Lewis Fishers but he is not present in these lists.  This suggests that one of the two Lewis Fishers was an error in the 1739 lists, unless one of the them came between 1737 and 1739.  Note that in 1738 Michael Smith is listed.  At this time he was on the fund-raising trip to Europe.  The one who is listed is probably the son, who was old enough to be a tithe.

In one undated list by Isaac Hadon, at least two German names appear, Fredrack Cobbler and Christophar Zimmerman, each with one tithe.  A suspicious name is Lenard Hoofnol which follows immediately after Zimmerman.  The locations of the homes of Fredrick Kabler and Christopher Zimmerman are known.  They are southeast of Mt. Pony and south of present-day Stevensburg.  While some other Germans lived for a while in this same area, they apparently had moved away.
(08 Dec 00)


Nr. 1048:

We have been discussing the Tithe Lists giving the names of the people who were on the lists, especially on a portion of the 1739 Orange County list.  What is useful and fun to do is to compare this list with the maps of the original patents.  One soon detects that the Tithe List was not made up at random, but appears to be the result of a man actually going in the field and proceeding from house to house.

D. R. Carpenter created a map of original patents in 1940.  The Germanna Foundation published this, and it was published also in Beyond Germanna in the Volume 2, Number 4, issue for July 1990.  I used Carpenter's work as the starting point for redrawing the map, which was shown in Beyond Germanna in Volume 8, Number 4.  Essentially this map is being shown on the following web page:  Germanna Land Patent Maps

I extended the map to the north in Beyond Germanna in Volume 8, Number 5 (September 1996), and to the south in the following issue for November 1996.  This last map is also shown on the web page above.  I worked out some more of the details along the modern Culpeper and Madison County line in Volume 9, Number 2.  An extension to the east appeared in Volume 9, Number 5.  Also, John Huffman's land in "Madison" was worked out in Volume 10, Number 3.

Finally, more than 110 original land patents were plotted in Beyond Germanna in Volume 10, Number 6, in which all of the previous were included.  Never have I published a plot without feeling that there were errors in it.  Of course, if I knew where the errors were, I would have corrected them.  Usually, after publicationN and after doing some more work on any plotting, I find that it can be improved.  In short, it is a very humbling experience.  It is also a lot of fun.

When the 1739 tithe list is compared to the map, one feels that he is walking along in the footsteps of the creator of the tithable list.  In doing so, one finds where some people were living, whose previous location had not been known.  I first located the approximate area for John Harnsberger in this way.

One could wish that more Tithe Lists had been saved because they are so useful in locating people; however, given a list of this type, the first thing one must do is to verify that the list was prepared in some way corresponding to the geography.  Sometimes this takes a preliminary map.  Then one can extend the range and fill in the gaps.

I suspect that the Culpeper Classes were prepared using geography as a guide in specifying the names.  When you pick a class in a neighborhood about which you know something, you can usually identify it by some of the people, and the additional names tell who else was living in that neighborhood.
(09 Dec 00)


Nr. 1049:

On September 8, 1721, the Lord Commissioners for Trade and Plantations in London sent a Representation to the King upon the State of His Majesties Colonies & Plantations on the Continent of North America.  General comments from this, plus the parts pertaining specifically to Virginia are the subject here.

To quote the opening of the Representation,

"In obedience to your Majesty's commands, we have prepared the following state of your Majesty's Plantations on the Continent of North America, wherein we have distinguished their respective situations, Governments, strengths and Trade, and have observed of what importance their commerce is to Great Britain, whereunto having added an account of the french settlements, and of the encroachments they have made in your Majesty's colonies in those parts; we have humbly proposed such methods, as may best prevent the increase of an evil, which, if not timely prevented, may prove destructive to your Majesty's interest; and have likewise offered such considerations, as, in our opinion, may contribute to the improving and enlarging your Majesty's dominions in America.

"Your Majesty's plantations on the Continent of America, beginning from the North, are Nova Scotia, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pensylvania, Maryland Virginia, & Carolina.

"And although Newfoundland, and Hudson's Bay are both of them parts of your Majesty's Territories in North America, yet neither of them being a Colony under civil Government, or lying contiguous to your Majesty's other Plantations on the continent, we have made no mention of them in this representation.

"Virginia The Government of this Colony was at first under the direction of a Company, but they being dissolved upon their mal-adminstration, in the year 1626, His Majesty King Charles the First took the Government into his own hands, & settled such laws & constitutions in that province, as were agreeable to those of this Kingdom.

"Accordingly the nomination & appointment of the Governors, as well as the Council (which consists of twelve persons) is in your Majesty, & the General Assembly (consisting of fifty two Burgesses) has been always chosen by the freeholders.

"The strength & security of this Colony, in a great measure, depend upon their Militia, their plantations being usually at too great a distance from one another to be covered by forts or towns."

This particular material is being quoted from J. R. Brodhead, "Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York", edited by E. B. O'Callaghan, vol. V, p.591, Albany, 1855.
(11 Dec 00)


Nr. 1050:

[Continuing with the "State of Virginia in 1721"]

"James Town and Williamsburg are the only Towns in the whole Country, & there is no Fort of any consequence for the security of their great navigation & trade, but at James Town.

"However, for their protection against the Indians, who inhabit amongst them, & that live to the Westward they have erected Christianna, & some other Forts; & the Council & Assembly have lately proposed to your Majesty a scheme for securing the passes over the great ridge of Mountains which lie on the back of this Province, dividing them from the french, & Indian Nations in the french interest, whereupon we have sometimes since reported our humble opinion to your Majesty, & beg leave upon this occasion to repeat, that we conceive their proposal to be deserving of all reasonable encouragement.

"The militia in the year 1690, consisted of 6,570 horse & foot.

"In the year 1703, there were mustered 1403 Officers, 2161 Horse, 1794 Dragoons, 5198 foot for a total of 10,556.  [Apparently the "horse" came with a rider.] In the year 1715, they were increased to about 14,000 in all [about 25% growth in twelve years] from whence we compute, supposing the Militia to be a sixth part of the whole, that the total number of inhabitants, (exclusive of negroes) amounts to about 84,000 souls.

"The province is divided into 25 Counties, & the proprietors of all the lands that have been taken up in 20 of the said Counties, pay an annual quit-rent to your Majesty, of two shillings in money, or 24 pounds weight of tobacco for every hundred acres.

"But the proriety of the northern neck (containing the other five Counties) was granted by King Charles the Second, & King James the Second, to the late Thomas Lord Culpeper, upon a quit rent of £ 6.13s.4d per Annum.

"The Lands in the aforesaid twenty Counties, on which the said Quit rent to your Majesty is paid, contained, in 1704, 2,238,143 acres and, in 1714, 2,619,773 acres.

"However, the produce of this revenue is very much governed by the price of tobacco in the country: for example,

"On a medium [average] of ten years, ending in 1713, (during which time the tobacco was low) the proceed amounted to £ 1411.7s.7d per Annum and in a medium of the four following years (when the price of Tobacco was high) £ 2270.11s.8d per Annum."

(12 Dec 00)

 


(To see John & Eleanor Blankenbaker's May, 2000, and May, 2002, Germany and Austria photos, click here.)

(To see maps of villages in Germany and Austria from which our Germanna ancestors immigrated, click here.)


(This page contains the FORTY-SECOND set of Notes, Nr. 1026 through Nr. 1050.)


John and George would like very much to hear from readers of these Germanna History pages.  We welcome your criticisms, compliments, corrections, or other comments.  When you click on "click here" below, both of us will receive your message.  We would like to hear what you have to say about the content of the Notes, and about spelling, punctuation, format, etc.  Just click here to send us your message.  Thank You!


There is a Mailing List (also known as a Discussion List or Discussion Group), called GERMANNA_COLONIES, at RootsWeb.  This List is open to all subscribers for the broadcast of their messages.  John urges more of you to make it a research tool for answering your questions, or for summarizing your findings, on any subject concerning the Germanna Colonies of Virginia.  On this List, you may make inquiries of specific Germanna SURNAMES.  At present, there are about 1200 subscribers and there are bound to be users here who can help you.

If you are interested in subscribing to this List, click here.  You don't need to type anything, just click on "Send".  You will shortly receive a Welcome Message explaining the List.


(GERMANNA History Notes, Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 John BLANKENBAKER.)

(GERMANNA History Web Pages, Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 George W. DURMAN.)

This material has been compiled and placed on this web site by George W. Durman, with the permission of John BLANKENBAKER.  It is intended for personal use by genealogists and researchers, and is not to be disseminated further.


Index Links to All Pages of John's GERMANNA NOTES and Genealogy Comments

INDEX Links to All Pages of John's GERMANNA NOTES
Pg.001-Notes 0001-0025
Pg.002-Notes 0026-0050
Pg.003-Notes 0051-0075
Pg.004-Notes 0076-0100
Pg.005-Notes 0101-0125
Pg.006-Notes 0126-0150
Pg.007-Notes 0151-0175
Pg.008-Notes 0176-0200
Pg.009-Notes 0201-0225
Pg.010-Notes 0226-0250
Pg.011-Notes 0251-0275
Pg.012-Notes 0276-0300
Pg.013-Notes 0301-0325
Pg.014-Notes 0326-0350
Pg.015-Notes 0351-0375
Pg.016-Notes 0376-0400
Pg.017-Notes 0401-0425
Pg.018-Notes 0426-0450
Pg.019-Notes 0451-0475
Pg.020-Notes 0476-0500
Pg.021-Notes 0501-0525
Pg.022-Notes 0526-0550
Pg.023-Notes 0551-0575
Pg.024-Notes 0575-0600
Pg.025-Notes 0601-0625
Pg.026-Notes 0626-0650
Pg.027-Notes 0651-0675
Pg.028-Notes 0676-0700
Pg.029-Notes 0701-0725
Pg.030-Notes 0726-0750
Pg.031-Notes 0751-0775
Pg.032-Notes 0776-0800
Pg.033-Notes 0801-0825
Pg.034-Notes 0826-0850
Pg.035-Notes 0851-0875
Pg.036-Notes 0876-0900
Pg.037-Notes 0901-0925
Pg.038-Notes 0926-0950
Pg.039-Notes 0951-0975
Pg.040-Notes 0976-1000
Pg.041-Notes 1001-1025
Pg.042-Notes 1026-1050
Pg.043-Notes 1051-1075
Pg.044-Notes 1076-1100
Pg.045-Notes 1101-1125
Pg.046-Notes 1126-1150
Pg.047-Notes 1151-1175
Pg.048-Notes 1176-1200
Pg.049-Notes 1201-1225
Pg.050-Notes 1226-1250
Pg.051-Notes 1251-1275
Pg.052-Notes 1276-1300
Pg.053-Notes 1301-1325
Pg.054-Notes 1326-1350
Pg.055-Notes 1351-1375
Pg.056-Notes 1376-1400
Pg.057-Notes 1401-1425
Pg.058-Notes 1426-1450
Pg.059-Notes 1451-1475
Pg.060-Notes 1476-1500
Pg.061-Notes 1501-1525
Pg.062-Notes 1526-1550
Pg.063-Notes 1551-1575
Pg.064-Notes 1576-1600
Pg.065-Notes 1601-1625
Pg.066-Notes 1626-1650
Pg.067-Notes 1651-1675
Pg.068-Notes 1676-1700
Pg.069-Notes 1701-1725
Pg.070-Notes 1726-1750
Pg.071-Notes 1751-1775
Pg.072-Notes 1776-1800
Pg.073-Notes 1801-1825
Pg.074-Notes 1826-1850
Pg.075-Notes 1851-1875
Pg.076-Notes 1876-1900
Pg.077-Notes 1901-1925
Pg.078-Notes 1926-1950
Pg.079-Notes 1951-1975
Pg.080-Notes 1976-2000
Pg.081-Notes 2001-2025
Pg.082-Notes 2026-2050
Pg.083-Notes 2051-2075
Pg.084-Notes 2076-2100
Pg.085-Notes 2101-2125
Pg.086-Notes 2126-2150
Pg.087-Notes 2150-2175
Pg.088-Notes 2176-2200
Pg.089-Notes 2201-2225
Pg.090-Notes 2226-2250
Pg.091-Notes 2251-2275
Pg.092-Notes 2276-2300
Pg.093-Notes 2301-2325
Pg.094-Notes 2326-2350
Pg.095-Notes 2351-2375
Pg.096-Notes 2376-2400
Pg.097-Notes 2401-2425
Pg.098-Notes 2426-2450
Pg.099-Notes 2451-2475
Pg.100-Notes 2476-2500
Pg.101-Comments 0001-0025


INDEX Links to All Pages of John's GENEALOGY COMMENTS

(As of 12 April 2007, John published the last of his "Germanna Notes"; however, he is going to periodically post to the GERMANNA_COLONIES Mailing List in the form of "Genealogy Comments" on various subjects, not necessarily dealing with Germanna.  I'm starting the numbering system anew, starting with Comment Nr. 0001.)

Pg.101-Comments 0001-0025

This Page Contains Notes 1026 through 1050.


Go To
Top.

  [Back to John's Notes Index Page]

  [Germanna Colonies Home Page]

  [GERMANNA Home Page]