Search billions of records on Ancestry.com

(This Page Was Last Modified Wednesday, 06-Apr-2011 15:49:23 MDT.)


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


This is the FIFTY-FIRST 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 1251 through 1275.

GERMANNA History Notes
Page 51

(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. 1251:

We are at the half century mark again, which calls for a survey of what the notes are all about.  Of course, they are about Germanna.  Recently we had some discussion of whether some names are Germanna names.  Not all German names are Germanna names.  Nor are all Germanna names German.

Schäfer is a probably a German name but to the best of my knowledge it is not a Germanna name.  The Burdyne family members are Germanna descendants, even though the name Burdyne name is probably not German.  But I believe it is probable that all of the Burdyne family have an ancestor with a full claim to Germanna membership, namely Catherine Tanner.  (Some researchers do not accept this as a proven fact.)  And, of course, the name Tanner demonstrates that not all Germanna members spell their name in the German fashion.

A Germanna descendant should have at least one ancestor from Germany who lived in the Germanna area.  This area is, for all practical purposes, the modern Virginia counties of Culpeper, Fauquier, Madison, and Culpeper.  Some bonifide Germanna people lived in the area that is now encompassed by the four preceding counties, but these present-day counties had other names at the time.  For example, John Gerhard lived in Orange County, but not in the counties above, as he moved away before they were formed.  Some of them may have lived in Essex County, or in Spotsylvania County, but never in the later counties.

This is the narrow definition; however, it is not profitable to confine our attention that strictly.  We know that several of our Germanna members lived in other areas before they were qualified to be called Germanna members.  And certainly some of our people moved to other areas, say East Tennessee.  Some of the material discussed here may be of interest to other people.  If it is, they are welcome to participate.

I wish that I could write more about the individual families.  But, essentially, I have to leave that task to the other subscribers of the Germanna Colonies Mailing List at Rootsweb.  And such contributions are welcomed.  It does not have to be a statement; it can be a question.  The List is meant to be the means of exchanging information.  Unless you take the lead and let people know what you are interested in, how will they know?

Sometimes I do touch on families, but mostly I must confine myself to general statements that apply to many families.  Please do not let that cause you to think that family information is not welcome.  Or if you like to express yourself in broader statements, beyond individual families, please do not think that I claim any preemption rights.

And if your area of interest is in the counties above, do not feel that you must have a Germanna family to participate.  We are studying the community.  Certainly for the present we do not know all of the interactions.
(05 Sep 01)



Nr. 1252:

In Austria, in and around the time of 1652, probably more than one hundred thousand Austrians decided to leave, mostly for Germany.  Northern Bavarian was the destination of many, as it was Protestant in its outlook, and it had vacant land.  Within the "Blankenbaker" or Planckenbühler family, five men left.  None of these men had land in Austria.  From the time of their departure, shortly after the edict of Ferdinand III, it would seem that religion played a role in the decision making.  But it would be hard to discount economics as a motivation.

In fact, one of the individuals moved far beyond where it was necessary to find a farm, and even settled in an area under the jurisdiction of the (Catholic) Bishops of Speyer.  This is the ancestor of the American Blankenbakers; however, all of the records for him seem to be found in the Protestant church books.

At the time of this exodus from Austria, there were other migrations.  One of the major ones was from Switzerland to the lands on both sides of the Rhine River.  Many of these people were Anabaptists, a Protestant group which gave rise to the Mennonites and the Amish.  Again, the German rulers with the vacant land urged emigration into their principalities.  And in Switzerland, the Swiss Reformed Church, along with the city fathers, wanted to get the Anabaptists out of Switzerland.  Again, there was a push-pull situation.  [One aspect of this gave rise to the Germanna Colonies, even though the Germanna Colony members were not Anabaptists.]

There was an exodus from southwestern Germany about seventy-five years later.  This exodus was almost entirely economic in its roots, with the exception of the Anabaptists, who, in Germany, were severely restricted in their religious practices.  Even then, there were economic factors, since in Germany they were not allowed to own land.

From 1618 to 1718, there was turmoil in Europe, with a vast destruction in Germany.  People were on the move within Europe to escape from some condition where they lived.  Toward the end of the seventeenth century, populations were being rebuilt and competition for the resources was keen.  Many of the people who had moved had not established themselves.  All together these were the people who were willing to listen to the recruiters from the east and from across the Atlantic Ocean.  Initially the most success was enjoyed by the recruiters from the east.  The thought of an ocean voyage was discouraging.

Klaus Wust spoke on these migration patterns in Europe at a Germanna seminar.  I tried to identify Germanna people who had migrated within Europe and found several.  It now appears that I undercounted.

Of course, our German origins were always a myth because there was no Germany.  In the territory it occupies now, there was a collection of principalities, some very small and some very large.  But even more than this, we collectively have roots in Austria and Switzerland.
(06 Sep 01)



Nr. 1253:

Following this note, there will be short break to allow attendance at the East Tennessee Reunion.  Certainly East Tennessee received its share of Germanna people but many other areas did also.  Boone County, Kentucky, seems as if must be populated with Germanna citizens.  They even got the minister from the Hebron Church.  A little to the north, Preble County, Ohio, had many Germanna settlers.  North Carolina got its share; at least Rowan County did, but then Rowan County seems to have covered half the state.

Mary Doyle Johnson used to sponsor a Saturday luncheon in central Kentucky for Germanna descendants.  She had to do this without any support or help from the Germanna Foundation (even though it was requested).  When I was active in the Germanna Foundation, I argued that the Foundation should think of itself as a national organization and not as a local group.  That could mean the Foundation would sponsor meetings in different locations around the country.  It might, for instance, sponsor one meeting outside Virginia each year.  This meeting might rotate among different areas.  The ways in which the Foundation might help include supplying names and addresses of people in the area.  It might maintain a speakers bureau of people who would be willing to travel.  It could help with the organization of such events.

I understand that Thom Faircloth, the new president of the Foundation, will be at the East Tennessee meeting.  This is good and I look forward to hearing what he will say.  It will be fresh air to hear his comments.  Incidentally, I think you can expect that Thom will listen to what you have to say.  You may contact him at any time at the email address office@germanna.org. (Be careful to use .org not .com, or else you will get me).  If you wish, you can mail communications to:

MEMORIAL FOUNDATION OF THE
GERMANNA COLONIES IN VIRGINIA
P.O. Box 693
Culpeper, VA 22701-0693.
This latter postal mailing address might change to the official address at the Visitor's Center, but the Culpeper address will, no doubt, be maintained for a long time.

I think that we can say the Foundation is going to need volunteers.  Some of the work will be dependent upon access to the home area and its repositories.  But much work can be done from a remote location.  For an example of how people can work together, look at the Germanna Colonies list and web pages.  Perhaps the Foundation should put its printed records into an electronic format.  At the same time, the Foundation must ask the question of what percentage of its members do not have access to the Internet.

The Germanna Colonists are a rare breed of people we like to think.  There is hardly any similar group which has more history than we do.  This is both before their emigration from Europe and after their immigration to America.  There is so much history that not all of the facts and fictions have been sorted out.  And, unfortunately, there are still some fictions floating around.  Maybe someday the Foundation can get active members near some of the depositories in Europe.
(07 Sep 01)



Nr. 1254:

One of the points that I made at the East Tennessee Reunion was that I was not a genealogist, and I was hardly a historian.  I do not own a genealogy program of any type.  [Please do not send me anything of this nature; I do not feel deprived.] Remembering that this is an open forum, and that all individuals may have their say, I will make some comments with regard to the Germanna Foundation maintaining a data base of Germanna descendants.  Please remember that I am not an expert at this, and I am not a spokesperson for the Foundation, nor am I trying to persuade the Foundation to do anything.

Should the Foundation keep its own data base and not be dependent on anyone else?  My first inclination is to say yes, but there are significant expenses for this.  This is a business type decision.  Should access should be free to all members of the Foundation?  Should access be free to the general public?  There is an opportunity to give Foundation members something for their money, and to encourage others to join the Foundation.

It is important that there be a means for alternative opinions to be expressed.  I would want to avoid any appearance that what was being expressed was the "official view".  The present printed publications of the Foundation bear the words "Official Publication" on the front cover.  People turn this into, "It must be true; It is official."

How far down should a genealogy go?  Should it stop just short of the living people, or should it go only to 1800 or 1850?  I tend to be in favor of the Foundation stopping at one of the earlier dates.

Is it possible to have a standardized presentation so that all of the information looks alike?

Does every individual get a unique identifier across the whole data base?

Is there cross referencing?

Should there be an extension beyond people so that the data base including wills, deeds, marriage licenses?  Images?  Land patents, maps?

With all of the variations of spelling, how do we equate Blankenbaker and Pickler, while maintaining the unique identity?

OK, I have displayed my ignorance, but I make these comments only to promote some discussion.  Some of you have more knowledge than I do.  Send in your comments.
(11 Sep 01)



Nr. 1255:

In memory of the people who lost, or will lose, their lives as a result of the actions on September 11, 2001, there will be no note today.

John
(12 Sep 01)



Nr. 1256:

For a lighter note, I thought we might look at the Hebron Communion Lists.  First, let’s look at some of the less common names, for example, Elisabeth Alstap (once), Maria Baccon (once), Margretha Baedl (once), Dorothea Barde (once), or Anna Battern (once).  [Please remember that all names may have been read incorrectly.]

Still in the B’s, Christina Bauer came twice.  On a name such as this, one wonders if the name might have been Farmer, but at the church she was entered as Bauer.  They did do things like this.  For example, we have both David Braun and Rosina Brown (each once).  Same family?

Anna Brett (twice) and Anna Prat (thrice) are probably the same person.  Elisabeth Clerke, or Clarck, came four times.  Dorothea Darr was obviously Dorothea Garr.  In the same vein, Tanner is sometimes Danner, and even Dan.  Tanner itself is abbreviated on many occasions as Tan.

Rosina Dikins came once.  A few Doser/Dossers came, namely Daniel, Elisabeth, Friederich, and Heinrich, but never more than once for each of them.

Nancy Dodge and I had debated a name that we read with some difficulty as Isem or Isom.  Andreas Mielke convinced us that it was meant for the name Eastham, which does occur five times.  The name Flaid is probably Floyd.

Elisabeth Gut came once.  A very strange name was Rheuhema Hernton.  The surname was probably Herndon, but the given name is unusual.  I suspect it was a woman who may have been born a Schmidt.

Some of the names were very hard to read, and I had to add a question mark after Peter Hösrig.  I also had to add a question mark after Gorg and Margretha Kirster.  Among the people I did not immediately recognize was Johannes Küster (twice).  There were more reading difficulties with Elisabeth Mehuse and Margretha Neust.  Maria Niehbäncks was Maria Millbanks, I believe.

Georg Printz came once.  One of the best attendance records was set by Christian Rungo who hardly missed a communion service from 1790 to 1812.

If anyone can shed light on the individuals here, I would appreciate hearing what is known.  Thirty-six times I transcribed the name Christian Rungo and every time I would ask myself, "Who is he?"  It got so I would start greeting him as Christian, Chris, or Christopher.  Perhaps he left no descendants, since no other Rungo name appears, which would be shame, since he left so many records.
(13 Sep 01)



Nr. 1257:

George Flohr was a communicant at Hebron Church from 1791 to 1798.  Apparently he was a bachelor.  He had two quite different careers, and the time he spent in the Robinson River Valley was a separation between the two.  He was born on 27 August 1756 in the duchy of Pfalz-Zweibrücken.  His father had been born in northern Bavaria in 1695.  Because his father died when he was young he was raised by his mother, along with five children from his father’s first marriage.  His mother’s father worked in the local paper mill, and his father had been a butcher and small farmer.  The family was German Reformed and George Flohr attended their schools.

Before he was twenty, he volunteered for eight years of service in Regiment Royal Deux-Ponts, which consisted of Germans in the service of the French army.  In 1780, the regiment was sent to America to help the rebellious Colonies.  Unlike most of his fellow soldiers, Flohr, at 24 years of age, went very joyfully.  He was also set off from his fellows by his keen mind and his interest in the world around him.  He wrote an extensive journal of his four-year experience in America, which was a rare thing for an enlisted man to do.

After landing in Rhode Island, the regiment took the better part of a year to proceed south to Virginia.  In the summer of 1782, the regiment marched back to New England.  In the spring of 1783 the regiment sailed for Europe.  By 1784, his enlistment was up and he moved to Strasbourg, where he worked on his journal, which was completed in June of 1788, when he was 32 years old.

He went to Paris to study medicine and found that he could not stand the sight of blood.  He decided to return to the United States, where he went to the Robinson River Valley and studied theology under Rev. William Carpenter.  Rev. Carpenter had only recently been ordained, though he had been studying theology for a few years.  The teacher was younger than the pupil.  Though the circumstances seem strange, Flohr spent at least seven years studying theology, and taught school in Culpeper County.  It is a mystery why he chose this locality.  (Perhaps he was acquainted with it since he did march through Virginia twice.)

Flohr was licensed in 1799 by the Lutherans to preach and perform religious services.  His first church was among the German settlers of New River Valley, in southwestern Virginia around Wytheville.  Both Lutheran and German Reformed church goers lived there.  A few letters and documents show the problems and reveal the man himself in his efforts, which lasted until his death in 1826.
(This subject will be continued.)

(The information on Georg Daniel Flohr comes from Robert Selig, who wrote an article in Beyond Germanna in November 1998.  Dr. Selig has made an extensive study of the Royal Deux-Ponts Regiment of German soldiers, being paid by the French, and fighting for the Americans.)

(Just for information's sake, "Zweibrücken" [German] and "Deux-Ponts" [French] both translate into English as "Two Bridges".  At this time in history, Pfalz-Zweibrücken, located in present-day Germany, was under French control.  Zweibrücken is located in the extreme western area of present-day Germany, a little over 5 miles from the German-French border.  You can see a map of its location at MapBlast!.  GWD, Web Site Manager)
(14 Sep 01)



Nr. 1258:

In 1799, Georg Daniel Flohr accepted a call to minister to the Lutheran and Reformed Germans in the New River Valley of Virginia.  Raised as a Reformed German, he was ordained by the Lutherans.  Flohr wrote letters to Paul Henkel, in Winchester, and to others, and told of his life in his new job.

Immediately Flohr encountered some problems with parishioners.  Martin Kimmerling was pouting because nobody had voted for him during the recent elections of church elders and deacons.  John Koppenhoffer had gotten two women pregnant, but did not want to marry either of them.  Flohr's reports also showed there was a dire need for pastors on the frontier.  In his first year, Flohr baptized 89 children and confirmed 54 more.  These baptisms and confirmations are even more surprising in light of the fact he had only 189 communicants along Reed Creek.

Typically, Lutheran ministers of that day were first licensed, and then ordained, after a few years had gone by.  Flohr was not ordained until 1803, and by this time he was serving six churches in three counties.  It must have been very wearing on a man, who in his fifties and sixties who went through the snow of winter and the heat of summer.  Though in his youth Flohr had been a strict adherent of the Reformed faith, he grew lenient about religious dogma.  A part of this conversion had taken place in New England, where he saw many religions living together peacefully, which had not always been the case in the Palatinate.  In fact, he came to believe that all of the Protestant churches ought to lay aside their differences and unite.  He did not hesitate to express his feelings in letters and in sermons.

Not everyone accepted Flohr's outlook.  In 1819, Julia Tevis, a young schoolteacher and fiery Methodist, described Wytheville as a town noted for its total indifference to religion.  She seems to have described Flohr as, "An example of the worst kind, carousing, drinking, cockfighting, and playing cards during the week, and delivering an occasional sermon on Sunday."

On 30 April 1826, four months before his 70th birthday, George Daniel Flohr died, genuinely mourned by the congregations he had served faithfully for a quarter of a century.  James A. Brown later recalled the funeral.  Though Flohr lived more than a mile from the church where he was buried, his friends carried him on their shoulders to his last resting place.  Lawrence Krone, a stone carver and member of the Reformed Church, provided the head stone at his own expense.  Apparently he was truly missed in the community.

It appears, that during his career as a pastor, he never told anyone of his first career as a soldier.  Because of the contrast in the two periods, it might be wondered whether he was the same person.  But samples of his handwriting show that he was, in fact, one man, with two careers, and a very interesting life.
(15 Sep 01)



Nr. 1259:

While we were on the subject of Georg Daniel Flohr, who came to the Robinson River Valley about 1799 and stayed several years while studying theology under Rev. Carpenter, I thought we might take a peek at his diary of American experiences.  He was a part of the French forces sent to America to help the Colonies.  Altogether there were about five thousand men sent by the French.  The officers of the Royal Deux-Ponts (i.e., Zweibrücken, or Two Bridges) were mostly French, but include many nationalities.  The soldiers were 95% German.

The regiment landed at Newport, Rhode Island, on 11 July 1780.  The officers complained of the coldness and reserve of the American citizens.  One even said that the Americans seemed like they would have welcomed the English more.  Flohr, in contrast, wrote that he "got along very well with the inhabitants." He mentioned, in particular, the beautiful Hanne and Malle, two ladies who lived in a windmill; however, his feelings and observations went deeper than the casual mention of their names might suggest.

It is true that the New Englanders viewed the French and the Germans differently.  There were natural reasons for this, going back to the wars with France, and to the Catholic religion of the French.  Flohr wrote, "The Americans hold the German nation in high esteem." The Americans even assumed the Germans had the same opinion of the French as they did, and they offered to hide the Germans until the French left.  Flohr made an attempt to become acquainted with the Americans.

The general observation, based on the march from New England to Virginia, was that the inhabitants were wealthy and well.  Differences between the rich and the poor were hard to find.  They dressed the same on Sunday as they did on weekdays.  Flohr thought the women were especially well dressed.  He wondered at some length about where their wealth came from, since they did not seem to work at all.  His answer was the abundance of land, and institution of slavery.  The availability of land for a low price impressed the landless German soldiers, and many of them deserted.

Flohr saw the low-priced land as creating a society where nearly all people were equals.  There were no distinctions based on birthright and noble privilege.  "Everyone talks to everyone else, whether he is rich or poor." Helping to create a favorable impression was the fact that a third of the regiment found friends and relatives as they went along, especially in Pennsylvania.  The people gave a good impression of America which was an encouragement to the German soldiers to live there.  Flohr recorded, "When you closed your eyes and listened, you could think you were in the Palatinate."
(17 Sep 01)



Nr. 1260:

[First, I’ll add an additional note of George Flohr’s observations on America.]

The German soldiers in the French regiment fighting for the Americans against the English could not understand why the Americans were revolting.  It seemed to the Germans that the Americans were leading the good life.  Back in Zweibrücken, the Duke kept one thousand horses in his stables and thousands of hounds in the kennels to hunt deer, bears, pheasants, and rabbits in the royal forests.  He spent 14 million guilders on his castle at Karlsberg in the year 1790.  This was all paid for by the subjects.  On the contrary, taxes were low in America, and there were great freedoms.
==================================================

Returning to the Hebron Communion Lists, which was where we first found Georg Flohr, we can find another family who was present about the same time.  Again, the name of this family does not have wide recognition in the Germanna community.  The family name is Schad, and the members were Friedrich and Catharina, the parents, and the son Philip and the daughter Catharina.  That the children were given indicates they were confirmed, and hence of a certain age, perhaps in the neighborhood of sixteen or more, when they first appeared.  Their first appearance was in 1804, and the last was in 1806.  During this time, they were present at six communion services.

The date 1804 is a clue to the reason they were there.  The church bought an organ in 1802, and Friedrich was the kapellemeister, or the person in charge of the music.  As such, he would also have been the organist.  On weekdays, he was the schoolteacher, according to W.P. Huddle, who wrote a history of the Hebron Church; however, he did not stay long, probably because the church could not afford to pay his salary.

I have heard, and perhaps others can confirm or correct me, that Friedrich Schad was a British auxiliary who chose to stay in America.  I know very little about him before or after his short stay in the Robinson River Valley.  I would welcome contributions here.

In the 1800’s, Hebron Church was faced with difficulties.  The services were still conducted in German, but the community was less and less German.  The audience to which services in German would appeal was dying.  The old timers who had been raised on the German language were becoming nonexistent.  A few new people were coming into the community who spoke German, but the losses were outnumbering the gains.

Rev. Carpenter started about 1787 and attendance was very good at first.  On the average, each year saw fewer people attending church.  It must have been discouraging to him.  It is said that he was willing to preach and administer communion in English, but the elders of the church were opposed; however, after he left, English started coming into use on the typical pattern of one Sunday a month in English, then two Sundays a month, then three Sundays a month, until only English was used.
(18 Sep 01)



Nr. 1261:

[There was no note yesterday so please do not blame anybody for the omission.  Too many things piled up for me and some of them had a high priority.  You did have notes from Andreas Mielke and George Durman to read.]

I had wondered why there was a German Reformed Chapel in the Robinson River Valley, as it was only a short distance from the German Lutheran Church.  Then, as I have been studying the communion lists at the Lutheran church (Hebron), I could not find any individual who I could say was a Reformed member.  We do know there were marriages between the Reformed and the Lutheran, and that they had children baptized at Hebron.  On some occasions in the records, it is written that "so and so" is Reformed.  It had struck me as unusual that the individual was specified as Reformed.  Why say anything?  People are people.

The Reformed community in the Robinson River Valley was significant, but still it was not large enough to support a minister.  Why have a chapel if the members couldn’t support a pastor?  As I was studying the Hebron communion lists, it struck me that the absence of the Reformed people might be due to the practices of the Lutheran Church.  Just recently I was in a Catholic church for a funeral mass, and it was made very clear that only practicing Catholics in good standing were invited to Communion.

I wrote to Pastor James Larsen at the Hebron Church and asked him about Lutheran practices.  He said that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, at Hebron, the Communion was probably restricted to Lutherans.  This is sometimes called "closed Communion".  Today, though, at Hebron, they have an "open Communion", in which all Christians are invited.  Not all Lutheran Synods follow this practice, as some Synods in the U.S. still have closed Communion.

This has caused me to change my view toward the Reformed people in the Robinson River Valley.  Out of a need to have a place to hold a Communion service, they perhaps did build the chapel.  Ministers probably came by invitation to hold a Communion service.

There is another rite that you might wonder about, and that is baptism.  Anyone can perform a baptism.  A midwife or a parent can do this.  If the baby is not expected to live, it can be baptized immediately by anyone who knows the formula, which is relatively simple.  Because baptism could be likened to joining the Kingdom of Heaven, you could, in theory, only be baptized once.  So, most churches recognize baptisms by other churches or by private individuals.

John Hofmann, Reformed church member, had twelve children baptized in the Robinson River Valley.  I have always wondered who did this.  Some of these baptisms were done before there was a Lutheran minister in the community, and after Pastor Häger had died.  Did John Hoffmann do it himself?  Possibly.
(20 Sep 01)



Nr. 1262:

Arthur Leslie Keith wrote a series of articles in 1917 on "The German Colony of 1717", which appeared in the WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY.  That he chose to write in this year is understandable; it was the two-hundredth anniversary of their arrival (maybe).  In re-reading some of his opening remarks, I was struck by several items which I thought I would comment on.

"Twenty German Lutheran families from the Alsace, the Palatinate, Hesse, and vicinity, seeking to escape the persecutions of the French, secured passage on a boat bound for America."

I do not know of any authority for the number twenty.  Lt. Gov. Spotswood referred to twenty-odd tenements, I believe, and he referred to the number of people as seventy-odd.  The Germans themselves, in later writings, put the number at eighty.  The points of origin in Germany are simply not correct, but Keith did not make these names up.  He was quoting from Rev. Stöver, and the mystery is why Rev. Stöver gave these geographical origins.  The Palatinate was the source of a few families, but none came from the Alsace or Hesse regions.  Probably, their motivation to come to America was economic.

"Their boat was detained in England for some considerable time for the reason that its captain (Captain Scott?) had been thrown into prison for debt."

Notice that Keith did not wholeheartedly accept the Capt. Scott thesis, as he questions it.  I do not believe that we have any evidence as to the length of time that the Capt. was in debtors’ prison.

". . . . [Spotswood] established them at or near Germanna where the 1714 colony was already located.  Here until 1724 they worked for Spotswood as indentured servants."

Keith was correct on the settlement location.  Note that he did not say they were at the mines [which did not exist then].  Technically, the Germans were working for a partnership, of which Spotswood was only one partner, albeit, the largest one.

"In 1724 they seem to have attempted to escape his bondage, but Col. Spotswood sued them and compelled most of them to serve another year."

The language in the courthouse (Spotsylvania) does not support Keith.  The first lawsuit was brought by Spotswood in 1723, and he sued only on the question of money and not on the period of service.  The period of service probably did extend to 1725, but only because the seven years of servitude were not up until then.  It is doubtful that they had arrived before December 31 of 1717, and it is very unlikely that they were in their new homes before 1718.
(21 Sep 01)



Nr. 1263:

[Continuing with Keith's comments on the Second Colony]

"In 1725 the entire colony, now released, moved to the Robinson River near the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains, in present day Madison County."

Most of the colony moved to the Robinson River Valley, but not all did.  A few families moved to the area southeast of Mt. Pony.  The largest land owner of the Germanna people in this area was Christopher Zimmerman on the branches of Potato Run.  Some of his land appears to have abutted the land where the Rev. Thompson built "Salubria".

"They had chosen for their home a place that stood on the very border of civilization.  Surrounded thus by the dangers and difficulties of the frontier life they made their homes and reached a certain degree of prosperity."

Apparently this was true.

"During the early years they were without regular religious ministrations.  In 1719, they joined with the members of the 1714 colony in a petition to the Bishop of London, praying for support in the maintenance of a minister, and to have the Liturgy of the Church of England translated into High Dutch.  In 1724 or 1725 they sent two of their number, Michael Cook and Ziriakus Fleshman, to Germany 'to bring a minister for us High Germans who are here.'"

Probably the date of 1724 or 1725 is a little bit too early, for they were still along the Rapidan River, and expecting to move to the Robinson River.  They would probably have made sure they were moved before they went to Europe.  We do not know for sure that it was Cook and Fleshman who went, though we are fairly sure that two men did go.

"The relation to the colony of 1714 was purely accidental."

I disagree with Keith here, at least in part.  Spotswood had liked the work that the colony of 1714 had done on the frontier, and he wanted more Germans badly, so he could advance his land acquisition plans.  He let the captains of ships know that he wanted a shipload of Germans.  One of them obliged him and highjacked the colony of 1717 from their intended destination of Pennsylvania.  It was the presence of the colony of 1714 that led Spotswood to seek out more Germans.
(22 Sep 01)



Nr. 1264:

[Still with Dr. Keith]

"Both colonies [1714 and 1717] left Germanna before the close of 1725 and their former division was kept fairly distinct in this change of homes, though parts of Wayman, Fishback, and Hoffman families (of the 1714 colony) seem to have accompanied the 1717 colony to the Robinson River."

Members of these Reformed families, and of other Reformed families, did move to the Robinson River Valley, but not at the same time that the 1717 colony went to the Robinson River Valley.  John Hoffman was among the first to go, and this was a few years after the 1717 colony had moved.  The Waymans and the Fishbacks were still later.  Other Reformed people came, in part because they had friends and relatives there.  For example, Henry Huffman, brother to the 1714 John Huffman, moved directly to the Robinson River in 1743.  Then, a little later, John Steinseifer came.  Henry Huffman and John Steinseifer both has married women of the surname Schuster, though they were not sisters.

"There is no evidence that any of the 1717 colony failed to go to the Robinson River."

As I have commented, Christopher Zimmerman had land southeast of Mt. Pony.  He did not go to the Robinson River; however, his son, John, did.  Probably the reason was that John was the son of Christopher's first wife, whereas the other children were by the second wife.  It sounds as if there was stepmother trouble.

"Now as regards to the so-called third colony I find no substantial evidence of its existence."

Amen.  The sooner the "third colony" is forgotten, the better our history will be.  Germans did arrive after the 2nd Colony, but they were spread out over several years, and it took several decades before forty more families came after the 1714 and 1717 colonies.  There is just a small grain of truth here in that more people did come, but it is a misuse of the word 'colony' to apply it to the situation.  (In other words, the 1st Colony families all came together; the 2nd Colony families all came together; the so-called (erroneously) "3rd Colony" families came in dribs and drabs, not together!  A family here, a couple of familes there, from the end of the second decade of the century, up to the late 1740's, and even up to the early 1750's.)

"The constituency of the 1714 and 1717 colonies can be fairly well determined . . ."

This is especially true for the 1714 colony.  For the 1717 colony, there are about 120 candidates for the 80 slots.  Or, stated slightly differently, there is an embarrassment of riches.  Some of these will have to be assigned to the 'slightly later comers'.  Cerny and Zimmerman wanted to increase the size of the 1717 colony to include more people, but this seems to contradict what Spotswood and the Germans themselves said.
(24 Sep 01)



Nr. 1265:

[Still with Arthur Leslie Keith]

"The pamphlet published by Stöver in 1737 relates to the 1717 colony of twenty families, without any reference to a subsequent colony. . . .  If a third colony of forty families had been associated with the second colony, Stöver’s failure to mention it is certainly remarkable.  The petition of the German Lutheran Congregation of Orange County, dated 11 Feb 1734, to His Majesty’s Council, states that the congregation consists of 62 families and 274 persons; that they came to Virginia in 1717 and settled on lands belonging to Col. Spotswood, but in 1725 moved to their present abode. . . .  The 62 families of 1734 represent these families with their natural increase, plus the occasional arrivals of later years."

"On 23 April 1724, the Virginia Council received a petition from Ziriakus Fleischman and George Utz, representing themselves and 14 other high Germans being sued by Col. Spotswood on account of transportation charges to Virginia.  [Two more men were added after this date, making a total of 18 defendants.]  Three of these defendants in their importation papers state they came to this country in 1717.  I think that these 18 persons can safely be ascribed to the 1717 colony."

James Brown, researching and writing for Beyond Germanna, found one more name than Keith gives.  This was Jacob Crigler, who was the first person sued (for 34 pounds).  This case was dismissed 3 Mar 1724(NS), with Crigler paying the cost of the suit.  This is apparently why Crigler was not counted, since he had settled the lawsuit already when Fleshman and Utz petitioned the council.

The people named in the lawsuits, plus their families, constitute about 55 people.  Spotswood had paid the transportation of 48 people, which we know from his head right list.  His partners paid for the remaining people.  When Spotswood purchased the partnership interests of his partners, he seemed, in some cases, to have acquired the rights to some of their head rights.  The evidence points to George Moyer being, first, a servant of Robert Beverley, the historian.  So there were about 20 more people beyond those sued by Spotswood.

There were people on the head right list who were not sued.  This includes Joseph Weaver, with a family of five, and Henry Schlucter, who was a bachelor (but Cyriacus Fleshman was his stepfather).  Matthew Smith is recorded as leaving Germany, but he is not on Spotswood’s importation list, nor was he sued (he had a family of two).  These eight people bring us to about 63 people.
(25 Sep 01)



Nr. 1266:

[Trying to extend the work of A. L. Keith]

We were counting candidates for inclusion in the 1717 colony, and we were up to about 63.  We had arrived at this number by counting the men, and their families, who were sued by Spotswood, and by adding eight people who had excellent credentials, such as appearing in the Gemmingen emigrant list.  There is another group with good documentation, namely those who said they came in 1717 in their proofs of importation.  This would add Christopher Barlow (2), John Harnsberger (3), Andrew Kerker (3), perhaps George Lang (2), and Christopher Zimmerman (4).  It should be noted that Matthew Smith appears in this group also, but we had already counted him.  All of these names, without George Lang, add twelve names, bringing us to 75 names.

The John Thomas family has been omitted with its four names.  This would bring the total to 79, which is in the range of Spotswood's seventy-odd and the German's eighty.  The Mihlcher family of five was on Spotswood's list, and on the Gemmingen list, but in no other way.  It was omitted in my count.  There is another family of four on the head right list, the Wegmans, but they do not appear in any other way.  It too was omitted.  The net result is that the count stands very close to 80.

Johni Cerny and Gary Zimmerman give a few more probable 1717 immigrants.  These include the Willheits, two Uhl families, the Stoltz family, the Castler family, and the Beyerbach family.

Keith remarks that John Broyle, Jacob Broyle, and Nicholas Yager proved their importations on 2 May 1727, stating they had come to this country about nine years since with Capt. Scott.  As we have seen, these importation records do not say "with Capt. Scott", but say "in Capt. Scott".  Whether Keith is the source of this erroneous report is unknown.  Certainly he was a very early writer and perhaps those that came after him were simply copying him.

If we went back about nine years from 2 May 1727, we would be near to the end of 1717.  Remember, that by the calendar then in use, the new year started on March 25, so 1727 was less than two months old.  If we were thinking of the end of 1717, it would be reasonable to say about nine years.

As I have said here before, I am not convinced that the colony of 1717 actually arrived in Virginia before 31 December 1717.  If we were to give dates in terms of the modern calendar, it might be more truthful to say 1718.  But as Klaus Wust has said, "There are too many stones carved with 1717.  It would be too much work to redo them."
(26 Sep 01)



Nr. 1267:

A. L. Keith referred to a series of documents which may be found in the Public Record Office in London.  These have been published before, in Huddle's History of the Hebron Lutheran Church (which is where Keith probably found them), but many readers here may not have seen these.  It will take a few notes here to get through them but they are worth the effort.

(From the Public Record Office, Board of Trade (Virginia), Vol. 20., S. 33-34)

To the Kings most Excellent Majesty in Council The humble Petition of the Minister Elders and Members of a German Lutheran Congregation Settled in the Prince Orange County (formerly called Spotsilvania County) in Virginia.

Sheweth That the said Congregation consists of Sixty-two familys making in number 274 Persons [a little more than four persons per family].

That they came to Virginia in the year 1717 and were then Settled on some Lands belong to Colonell Spotswood but in the year 1725 they removed forty miles further and were then seated upon Lands belong to the Crown at the very borders of the Country under the Great Ridge of Mountains where they have served as a Defence against the Indians and in which dangerous Scituation they have continued ever since.

That in 1720 an Act of the Assembly was past in Virginia for Erecting two new Countys called Spotsilvania and Brunswick and for granting certain Exemptions and Benefits to the Inhabitants thereof.  In which Act it was enacted "That if any number of Foreign Protestants shall at any time within the space of Ten Years from the first of May 1721 come to Dwell and Inhabit the said Countys of Spotsilvania and Brunswick respectively and shall keep and maintain a Minister of their Own all and every such Foreign Protestants with their and every of their Tytheable persons in their Familys shall be Exempt and Free from all Parochial dues and Charges towards the Parishes of St. George or St. Andrew for the Space of Ten Years next after their arrival or so much thereof as they shall keep and maintain such Minister of their own as aforesaid."

That your Petitioners being Inhabitants of the Parish of St. George they did in consequence of the above Act use their utmost Endeavours to obtain a Minister of their own Religion but could not find one that would accept of so small a living till very lately that Providence hath directed them to hear of a Divine regularly educated in one of the Accademys in Germany whose heart is inclined to accept of their calling him to be their Minister.

(28 Sep 01)



Nr. 1268:

[Continuing the petition of the previous note.]

That for want of meeting with such a Minister during the said term of ten Years they had no benefit of the Exemptions intended them by the said Act but have been obliged to pay all the Parish Levies from their first Settling to this time.  And which they must even still continue to pay notwithstanding that they are now provided with a Minister in regard the said Act is now Elapsed.

That as it will be impossible for this Congregation to Maintain their Minister and at the same time to pay the Parish Levies their distance from a Navigable River depriving them of all benefit of Trade And they have always been good and faithful subjects of to the Crown of Great Britain and regularly paid all their Quit Rents and Taxes.

The Petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to give your Royal Instructions to the Governor of Your Majesty’s Province of Virginia to recommend to the Council and Assembly to renew such part of the Act as is aforementioned to exempt them from the paying of all Parish Levies during such time as to Your Majesty shall seem meet which will prove a great inducement to many other German Familys to come and settle in those parts.

And your Petitioners shall ever pray &c.
Johannes Casparus Stoeverus
dictae Congregationis Pastor.
Michael Smith one of the Elders of the L. Congregation
Michael Hollt one of the Members of the said Congregation.

(Endorsed: Petition of the Minister Elders and Members of a German Lutheran Congregation settled in Virginia praying that they Governor of that Province may be instructed to pass a Law to exempt them from Parish Levys. R 11 Febry 1734)

Note that the authors of this petition did not specify where they were located when they wrote it.  The location must be London, when Stöver, Smith, and Holt were en route to Germany on their fund-raising trip.  The date by the modern calendar should be 11 Feb 1735.  The action is rather unusual in that the petition is directed to the King (George II) and not to the Governor, Council, and Assembly of Virginia.  In other words, the petitioners went over the heads of these people and made their appeal directly to the King.  It would not be the first time that appeals were made directly to the King.

[The grammar is not what we would write or say today, but it is presented as given in the petition.]
(29 Sep 01)



Nr. 1269:

The petition of Stöver, Smith, and Holt to the King seems to have gone first to a Committee, not otherwise immediately specified, who, in turn, referred it to the Board of Trade and Plantations.  This was received at the Board on February 18 and read on February 21, in the year 1734/5.  Then, on the 7th of March, in the Council Chamber at Whitehall, the Right Honorable Lords of the Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs considered the petition.

The Lords of the Committee this day took into Consideration a Report made by the Lord Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, upon the Petition of the Minister Elders and Members of a German Lutheran Congregation Settled in the Prince of Oranges County, formerly called Spotsilvania County in Virginia, praying for the Reasons therein contained, that His Majesty would be graciously pleas’d to Direct His Governor of Virginia to recommend to the Council and Assembly of that Province to renew such part of an Act passed in Virginia in the year 1720 "for erecting two Counties called Spotsilvania and Brunswick and for granting certain Exemptions and Benefits to the Inhabitants thereof" whereby the Petitioners were exempted from the payment of Parochial Dues and charges toward the Parishes of St. George and St. Andrew for the space of ten years, or so much of that term as they should keep and maintain a Minister of their own:  And the Lords of the Committee agreeing in opinion with the said Lords Commissioners, that His Majesty may be graciously pleased to Order His Governor of Virginia to move the Council and Assembly of that Province to renew the said exemptions granted to the Petitioners by the above mentioned Act of 1720 for the Term of ten Years longer, Do therefore hereby Order, that the said Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations do prepare a Draught of an Additional Instruction proper to be sent hereupon to the Governor of Virginia, and the same before this Committee.

Ja: Vernon
=====================================================

At the Court at St. James’s the 3rd day of April 1735
Present
The Kings Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Upon reading at the Board a Report from the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of Council dated the 18th of last month humbly offering to His Majesty for his Royal Approbation, a Draught of an Additional Instruction prepared by the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, for George Earl of Orkney His Majesty’s Lieutenant and Governor General of the Colony and Dominion of Virginia in America, And in his Absence to the Lieutenant-Governor or Commander in Chief of the said Colony and Dominion for the time being, to recommend to the Council and Assembly there, to renew for the space of ten Years, that part of an Act passed in the year 1720, For Erecting two new Countys called Spotsilvania and Brunswick and for granting certain Exemptions and benefits to the Inhabitants thereof - . . . . .

[The sentence goes on a while longer, but that’s all for this note.]
(01 Oct 01)



Nr. 1270:

[The petition of Stöver, Holt, and Smith has made it to the King and we were in the midst of getting a report on what happened to it there.]

. . . . . - whereby the Minister Elders and Members of a German Lutheran Congregation settled in the Prince of Oranges County formerly called Spotsilvania County in the said Colony, were exempted from the payment of all Parochiall Dues and Charges towards the Parishes of St. George and St. Andrew for the space of ten Years, or so much of that Term as they should keep and maintain a Minister of their own. His Majesty this day took the said Report and Draught of Additional Instruction into his Royal Consideration, and was pleased with the advice of his Privy Council to approve of the Draught of Additional Instruction, which is hereunto annexed, and to Order, as it is hereby Ordered, that his Grace the Duke of Newcastle one of His Majestys Principal Secretarys of State do cause the same to be prepared for His Majestys Royal Signature -

A true copy

Temple Stanyan

[In reviewing the last few notes, I see that I omitted one, which, from its date and content, would indicate that the original petition was sent directly to the King with the following result.]

At the Council Chamber Whitehall the 13th day of February 1734 By the Right Honorable The Lords of the Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs.

His Majesty having been pleas’d, by His Order in Council of the12th this instant, to referr unto this Committee the humble Petition of the Minister Elders and Members of a German Lutheran Congregation Settled in the Prince of Oranges County (formerly called Spotsilvania County in Virginia) humbly praying, for the reasons therein contained, that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to give his Royal Instructions to the Governor of the said Province of Virginia, to recommend to the Council and Assembly to renew part of an Act past is that Province in 1720, to Exempt the Petitioners from the paying of all Parish Levys, during such time, as to His Majesty should seem meet: ­ The Lords of the Committee this day took the same into their Consideration, and are hereby pleased to referr the said Petition to the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations to Examine into the Allegation thereof, and Report their Opinion thereupon to this Committee.

W. Sharpe

(02 Oct 01)



Nr. 1271:

Stöver, Smith, and Holt were in London in February of 1735 (NS).  They wrote (perhaps assisted by others) a petition directly to the King.  This petition seems to have found its way to the King without any accompanying report or recommendation.  Most of the Kings and Queens of England in this time frame never took any action without a recommendation from one or more executive bodies.  This time was no different.  The King referred the matter to the Council Chamber Whitehall within two days of receiving it.  In asking them for their opinion, King George II tipped his hand and said that he was very much inclined to allow the action specified in the petition.

The Council Chamber felt that the matter deserved the attention of the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, so they asked the Commissioners for their opinion.  This request was read at the Board of Trade, and the Commissioners of the Board made a report back to the Council Chamber, which, in turn, ordered the Board of Trade to prepare instructions for the Gov. of Virginia.  The King was pleased with the result, and ordered the Duke of Newcastle to prepare a copy for his Majesty’s Royal Signature.

What amuses me is that the whole chain of events was triggered by three humble individuals, Stöver, Smith, and Holt.  They were so brash as to appeal directly to the King, whereas the appeal should have been made in Virginia to the Gov., Council, and Assembly.  And, their request went sailing through the committees of red tape with the King’s hearty approval.  This was a rather unusual set of events.

Interestingly, note that the King sent instructions to Virginia requesting that they pass the necessary laws to put this into effect.  In previous studies here, we have noted that no law passed in Virginia was really valid until it had been approved in London.  Virginia had a degree of autonomy, but it was not an independent government.  Whether this particular act was ever passed in Virginia is unknown to me.  We know what the King’s desire was.

Some questions to be asked include:  Why did Stöver, Smith, and Holt think they could succeed?  Was this their idea?  Or did someone else put them up to it?  George II seemed very favorably inclined to the idea.  Why?
(03 Oct 01)



Nr. 1272:

Before we got over to London and the petition to the King there, we were looking at A. L. Keith's article in the William and Mary Quarterly entitled the "German Colony of 1717".  He was writing in 1917, two hundred years after the 1717 Colony came.  The editors of the William and Mary Quarterly were very broad minded to publish an article in 1917 with the word German in the title.  In this year, most people were denying their German heritage.  Over in London, the royal family had changed their name to mask their German origins.

In his three part article, Keith tried to trace some of the history of the Second Colony members.  His sources were The Garr Genealogy and the original records such, as deeds, wills, etc.  The articles became quite famous and were a starting point for many other researchers.  I remember that in the summer of 1947, when I was in the US Navy at Washington, DC, I went to the Library of Congress and consulted their card index on a certain name.  The resultant article by Keith was a gold mine of information that I had not known.  (I had thought that my father, brothers, and an uncle were the only Blankenbakers in the world.)

Keith made a few errors which continue to show up in genealogies, even 84 years later.  One error was to say that Jacob Blankenbaker, son of the immigrant John Nicholas B., married Barbara Utz.  This was based on a misreading of the will of George Utz.  Jacob was married only twice, once to Mary Barbara Thomas (daughter of John Thomas, Jr.), and once to Hannah Weaver.

Keith also made the statement that a second John Broil came in 1719 as a naturalization certificate was said to have had this information.  James E. Brown in recent times reexamined these records and could not find this John Broil.  What he did find was a John Bell.

Keith also said that Peter Broil, or Broyles, married Elizabeth Blankenbaker, the daughter of Zacharias B., the son of John Nicholas B.  He was close, but no cigar, as Elizabeth was the stepdaughter of Zacharias.  Her mother was Els, nee unknown, and Els' husband is also unknown (he may have been a Finks if one book of family history is correct).  All of Zacharias' children are given in the birth register at the Hebron Church.

Another statement that Keith makes is that Adam Yager married Susan Kobler, in October 1727.  There is no known written record for this and it may be an oral tradition.  More research on the Kobler family in Germany may shed some light on this.  Certainly this statement is widely repeated, but the truth or falsity of it remains to be determined.

On the whole, Keith, with the help of The Garr Genealogy, advanced the Second Colony family history to a new plateau, which stood for several decades.
(04 Oct 01)



Nr. 1273:

When the Second Colony members were sued by Col. Alexander Spotswood, they attempted first to obtain a copy of the contract which had, in theory, been made with them when they came.  There, of course, was none, except in Spotswood's mind.  [This is the way that he worked.]  Apparently, after the lawsuits had been instigated for some time, the Germans sought relief from Williamsburg.  From the Virginia State archives, there is this document:

1. In pursuance of the advise of the honorable Major Holloway have wee desired Colonell Spotswood to give us the Copy of the Covenant which we at our arrival made with him, but he will not give it.

We have desired the Justices of Spotsylvania Court to assist us and to be our witnesses that the Colonell will not deliver above mentioned covenant, but they refuse to have anything to do with it, therefore wee humbly ask further advice.

2. Colonell Spotswood hath arrested above 25 of us, wee not knowing wherefore we are arrested, therefore humbly ask your honour's advice if it is proper to give in a petition to the Gentlemen of the house of burgess' to assist us and order one who might plead for us in forma pauperis.

3. Wee design to go to England and from thence to germany to bring in a Minister for us high germans who are here, to humbly ask if it is proper to desire the governour to give us an attestation & passport to witness that we are inhabitants here, the Burgesses from Spotsylvania County know that we are by the rest of our Countrymen sent in that behalf.

We who desire to go out our names are Michael Coock, Zerachus Flishman.

There are several points of interest.

Note the number who were arrested is above 25.  Is there a distinction to be made between arrested and sued?  Did the Germans understand the word "arrested", and did it have the same meaning as today?

Who was Major Holloway?

There was a better reception in Williamsburg, than in Germanna where the Justices of the Spotsylvania court sat.  In Germanna, the justices held their position by appointment from Spotswood, the most important man in the county.  In Williamsburg, the new administration was anti-Spotswood.

Who wrote this?  The shortness of it and the reversed subject and verb in the first sentence suggest that the Germans may have written it themselves.  It would be fun to obtain a photocopy of the original document to see the actual formation of the letters.  The Germans did know the Latin letters for writing, which is surely the style of the writing used, but there might be a few clues in the writing.  My source for the document, The Virginia Historical Magazine, did not say where the document was to be found in the archives, but it would probably be in the 1724 time frame.  Can anyone cite where the original is to be found?

(05 Oct 01)



Nr. 1274:

Very recently, we were discussing the petition of the Rev. Stöver, Michael Smith, and Michael Holt, which was made directly to the English king, George II.  This would seem to be a most unnatural thing at a first glance.

A little ago we were discussing the idea that the English were, at the heart, Germanic.  Starting with George I, who came to the English throne after Queen Anne died, there was a series of kings and queens in England who had a distinctive German background.  At the same time, they were descendants of people who had a claim to the English throne.  Even before these German kings, Queen Anne in England was married to Prince George of Denmark in 1683.  After William III died in 1702, Anne ascending to the throne, with a husband who followed the Lutheran religion.  From this marriage there were many implications for European and American history.  Anne was very favorably inclined to the Protestant religion and to Germans.  The result was that the large scale emigration of Germans to America started during her reign.

Though Anne had six children, none of them survived her, and when she died the Stuart line died out.  To find a Protestant successor, before she died, the English government offered the job to her cousin, George, who was Elector of Hanover.  George accepted, even though he did not speak English.  He brought his Lutheran religion with him, including court preachers.  Lutherans were already established in London to serve Prince George and, even though he died before Anne did, the Lutherans maintained a presence in London which King George augmented.

Some of these Lutheran ministers had the ear of King George II.  When Stöver, Smith, and Holt came to London, they would have sought out the Lutheran ministers.  Most likely they were in contact with the Rev. Frederick Michael Ziegenhagen, a native of Pomerania.  It is certainly the case that Ziegenhagen mentions the Palatines from Virginia in his letters, and especially Stöver.  Probably, Ziegenhagen suggested the petition to the King and perhaps he even carried the petition directly to the King.  [There is nothing like working from the top down.]

In Virginia, where the civil authorities worked against all churches other than the established Anglican church, they did not hinder the Lutherans.  In fact the Anglican and the Lutheran churches worked together.  The Assembly of Virginia even voted a one-time stipend to Rev. Klug for his work on behalf of the Anglicans.  When your king is a Lutheran, it does not pay to oppress the Lutherans.

The “German” kings did have a problem in that they were the head of the Anglican church.  There was a serious question as to whether one could be a Lutheran and be the head of the Anglican church, but clerics were found who approved the arrangement.  Eventually the German kings did become Anglicans.

The petition of Stöver, Smith, and Holt sailed through because of the influential Lutheran presence in London which had the ear of the king.
(06 Oct 01)



Nr. 1275:

One of the things that I keep reading is that John Willheit, the son of Johann Michael Willheit, married Margaret (Peggy) Weaver.  It was pointed out some time ago that his wife was named Burga at the church, which was surely a nickname for Walburga or Waldburga.  This was very consistent with the head right list of Alexander Spotswood, where there was a Wabburie Wever.

Since the Weber family started from Gemmingen without Wabburie, she must have born en route, probably at sea, which is the longest segment of the journey.  The year was probably 1717.  John Willheit was born in 1715 so the ages are a good match.

We know of no other member of the Robinson River community who was named Walburga.  Burga was surely derived from that name.  So, the circumstantial evidence, taken all together, says that John Willheit married Walburga Weaver.  Though the evidence is circumstantial, it does seem conclusive.  At the same time, there is no evidence that Margaret, or Peggy, was any part of her name.  So those names should not be included as a part of her name.  It is not clear where the names originated, but there is no known justification for them.

There were three Weaver children, Peter, Burga, and Maria Sophia.  Peter's wife is unknown, except that her given name seems to be Elizabeth.  Burga married John Willheit.  Maria Sophia married Peter Fleshman.  The evidence for the latter statement is a powerful set of circumstantial evidence in the communion lists.

I have tried to use the communion lists to find Peter Weaver's wife but I have concluded nothing.

As I use the communion lists, I have come to the conclusion that our knowledge today does not give us the full extent of the early families.  I believe there were more members than we currently know.  There were probably marriages, followed by deaths of one of the spouses.  No history remains of these deceased spouses.  If the spouse left children, they perhaps could have been absorbed into second families, without any further distinction being made.  Returning to the Weaver family with its three known children, there might have been more children, especially a daughter who married and lost her own surname.  She might have died and even left children who became part of another family.  It is very difficult for us to reconstruct any early family with certainty.

I am convinced that Peter Fleshman married Mary Sophia Weaver, and I think that the information from the communion lists points to this quite clearly.
(08 Oct 01)


(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 FOURTY-NINTH set of Notes, Nr. 1251 through Nr. 1275.)


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 1251 through 1275.

Go To
Top.

  [Back to John's Notes Index Page]

  [Germanna Colonies Home Page]

  [GERMANNA Home Page]