Author: battebe

Thomas Mitchell of Charles County

A Thomas Mitchell was first recorded in Bedford County VA in a road order dated Nov1766.  This Thomas Mitchell is purported by Richard Kozney and Sherrie Mitchell Boone to have originated from Charles County MD, son of Ignatius Mitchell.  The prospect of this purported identity being correct is supported by the fact that this Thomas Mitchell named his only known son “Ignatius”.  The given name of Ignatius is so unique within the Mitchell family of Maryland, it seems a virtual certainty that Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County VA did hold a kinship connection to the Charles County MD Mitchells, but the questions remains open as to the nature of that kinship.

Richard Kozney is identified as the owner of several profile pages on Wikitree, including the profile page of Ignatius Mitchell (b. ~1690, d. aft 1732).   This Ignatius Mitchell is purported by Kozney to have been the father of Thomas Mitchell (b. ~1719, d. ~1775) of Bedford County.  In fact, Kozney identifies this Ignatius Mitchell as having married Margaret Wheeler, and having had issue as follows:

1.         Ignatius Mitchell, 

2.         Catherine Mitchell,

3.         Thomas Mitchell,

4.         Elizabeth Mitchell,

5.         Watley Mitchell,

6.         William Mitchell and

7.         Leonard Francis Mitchell

Kozney offers absolutely no documentation supporting the persons named in this profile page for Ignatius Mitchell, but does offer the following gift deed from Thomas Wheeler to his grandsons: Ignatius and Thomas Mitchell, abstracted as follows:

1.         29Jul1734:  Thomas Wheeler, of Charles County, to my grandsons, Ignatius and Thomas Mitchell, Jr., sons of Thomas Mitchell, of this county, all that part or parcel of land which I am possessed of with all appurtenances and tenements thereunto belonging.  Witness: Joshua Alford, Joseph Mitchell and Martha Wheeler.  (D.B. O, No. 2, Folio 48)  NOTE:  This deed may have been a conveyance to

From the foregoing gift deed it seems probable that a daughter of Thomas Wheeler had married a Thomas Mitchell.  Further, it might be inferred that Thomas Mitchell and his Wheeler wife had sons named Ignatius and Thomas Mitchell.  Our challenge is to sort out the identity of this Thomas Mitchell [Sr.] and his sons: Thomas [Jr.] and Ignatius Mitchell, as contrasted to Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County.  It may be that the witnesses: Joseph Mitchell and Martha Wheeler may provide clues for sorting out this mystery.  Since it was Thomas Wheeler, who first introduces us to Thomas Mitchell of Charles County, we may be well served in learning more about Thomas Wheeler and his family origins.  The history of the Wheeler family of Maryland will be explored later in this work.  However, the launch point of our search for the origins of Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County will commence with the earliest known Thomas Mitchell in Maryland.  The records and analysis of this earlier Thomas Mitchell are presented as follows:

1.         2Jan1646/7:  Sworn to the Oath of ffealty the following persons: Mr Lewger, Mr Gerrard, Mr Green, Francis Gray, John Hampton, John Hatch, Francis Pope, Wm Tompson, Mr Bretton, Nath: Pope, Thomas Sturman, John Hollis, Walter Beane, John Nevill, Wm Wright, John Norman, Rowland Maze, John Thompson, Robert Edwards, Walter Broadhurst, James Walker, John Hilliard, Henry Spink, Wm Perfaite, ffrancis Sherwood, John Gore, Nath Jones, Wm Rrough, Thomas Thomas, Walter Pakes, John Jarbo, Mr Wm Eltonhead, John Mansell, ffra: Posey, Jno Wheatley, Wm Hungerford, Stephen Salmon, Thomas Petite, Tho Mitchell.  [Liber B., p. 205]  This was the first record found in Maryland for anyone named Thomas Mitchell.  There is good reason to believe that this Thomas Mitchell was the same person named in the following records associated with the Wicomino River region of Charles County.  Although he did not claim any land rights until Oct1650, it is apparent from this record that he had arrived in the Province sometime before Jan1646/7

2.         25Aug1649:  1642-1753 Rent Rolls Charles County, Maryland Hundred – Wicomico: Rent Roll page/Sequence: 286-22: SLINGSBY: 100 acres; Possession of – 100 Acres – Newman, George: Surveyed 25 Aug 1649 for Thomas Mitchell lying near Neale’s Creek: Other Tracts Mentioned: PARTNERS PURCHASE; other notes – Resurveyed into PARTNERS PURCHASE,

3.         29 Sept. 1649:  A true and pfect Inventory of the Estate of John Tompson deceased taken and appraised by James Hare and Thomas Mitchell vppon theire oathes in that behalf taken about the middle of June last before Mr Wifim Bretton  Comissioner authorized for that purpose… 

4.         1Oct1650:  Thomas Mitchell demandeth 300 acres of land for transporting himself, his wife, and two children into the Province in the year 1648.  Warrant issued to lay out 300 acres of land upon Potomeck River or some branch or creek thereof not formerly taken up or reserved by the Governor for any others. (Liber A,B & H, Folio 48)  From this record it would appear that Thomas Mitchell had paid for the transport of himself, his wife, and two children into the Province, and that that transport may have occurred sometime in 1648, even though it would appear from the previous record that Thomas Mitchell, himself had been in the Province at least two years earlier.  Based on headrights, Thomas Mitchell claimed 300 acres situated at some location along the Potomac River drainage.

5.         In 1651 he [John Neville] demanded 400 acres of land which had been assigned to him by George Ackrick, and one hundred acres for transporting Johanna Porter, his now wife, and on August 1, 1651, “A warrant was issued to lay out for John Neville Five Hundred acres upon Wiccokomico river (now Wicomico) in Charles county, joining the lands of Thomas Mitchell then to the southward of the Patuxent river not formerly taken up & etc.” (See Liber A, B and H, folio 241, land office, of Maryland).  It should be noted that John Neville was among those persons swearing an oath of fealty in Jan1646/7, along with Thomas Mitchell etal.  John Neville claimed 400 acres based on assignment from George Ackrick, and for the transport of his then wife, Johanna Porter.  A warrant was issued to John Neville for 500 acres situated on the Wicomico River, adjoining the land of Thomas Mitchell.  So, from this record it would appear that Thomas Mitchell had been granted land (probably 300 acres) based on his claim dated 1Oct1650, and that Neville’s grant abutted Mitchell’s grant along the drains of the Wicomico River in Charles County.

6.         August 1, 1651, “A warrant was issued to lay out for John Neville Five Hundred acres upon Wiccokomico river (now Wicomico) in Charles county, joining the lands of Thomas Mitchell then to the southward of the Paturent river not formerly taken up & etc.” (See Liber A, B and H, folio 241, land office, of Maryland)  Ditto.

7.         30Apr1656:  This Indenture made the thirtieth day of Aprill   Betweene James Walker of Wicocomoco & Christopher Carnall of Wicocomoco aforesd in ye Prouince of Maryland Plantrs. Wittnesseth That the sayd James Walker hath for a ualuable Consideraön bargayned & sold, & by these prsents doth bargaine & sell unto ye sd Christopher Carnall One parcell of Land scituate, lying & being on ye Prouince of Maryland. Bounded att a marked Oake att ye side of a Runne, & soe uppon a streight line to ye Land of Thomas Mitchell up ye Hills to another marked Tree opposite to ye first. Cont. by Estimãon Two hund Acres bee it more or lesse…  This record gives further credence to the belief that Thomas Mitchell had been granted a tract of land on the Wicomico River.

8.         22Sep1657:  Whereas it appeareth to this Court that John Lewger Standeth indebted unto Thomas Mitchell  the Sume of two hundred pounds of Tobacco as by Bill  appeareth, And Walter Hall Attorney of the Said Lewger  Confessing a Judgment upon the Said Debt, The Court doth  order that the Said Lewger Shall Satisfie the Said debt with  Cost of Suit or Else Execution.  John Lewger was a near neighbor of John Neville and Thomas Mitchell on the Wicomico River.  Lewger at some point in his early years in the Province served as the Secretary of the Province.  John Lewger was among those persons swearing fealty in Jan1646/7.

•           17 Aug 1658; John Lugar [aka Lewger], late sec’y to the Province, for transporting several persons, due land which was granted to James Walker, assignee of John Lugar, son of John Lugar; a parcel of land on the west side of Wicomico; called WALKER’S RUNN; containing 200 acres; /s/ Josias Fendall; recorded, Philip Calvert, Sec’y.  This record would seem to substantiate the near proximity between the lands of John Lewger and Thomas Mitchell.  Note Item No. 7, above, in which a James Walker sold a tract to Christopher Carnall, which abutted the land of Thomas Mitchell.  It is probable that James Walker’a land had been situated on Walker’s Run, hence the naming of the stream.

•           Archives of Maryland, Volume 41, Provincial Court Proceedings, 1658. Page 84; John Lewger gentl aged 30 yeares or thereabouts 28 April 1658, Deposed, Sayth That about ffebruary in the yeare 1656, hee this Depont heard Henry ffox demand of Capt Willm Mitchell, the White Howse standing att St Maries, & the sd Mitchell replyed tht the sd ffox had noe Tytle or interest therto: & therf ore bad him beg one out of it, And tht att the same time, hee did see the sd Capt Mitchell, take the sd ffox by the shoulders, & turne him forth of doores, & further sayth not. Jurat, Corae Ed. Scott.  This is a curious record that would seemingly provide an indirect linkage between Thomas Mitchell and Capt. William Mitchell.  It was clearly a very small world during the early colonial period along the Chesapeake.  It would appear from this record that John Lewger was actually present at the White House (Capt. William Mitchell’s primary abode near St. Mary’s Town) when a dispute arose between Capt. William Mitchell and Henry Fox over the rightful ownership of the White House.

9.         19Aug1658:  1642-1753 Rent Rolls Charles County, Maryland Hundred – Wicomico: Rent Roll page/Sequence: 287-34: MITCHELLS PLATT: 300 acres; Possession of – 300 Acres – Maddox, William: Surveyed 19 Aug 1658 for Thomas Mitchell on the West side of Wicomico River: Other notes – 108 Acres – John Gwinn from William Cage, 5 Dec 1719, 170 Acres – Edward Ford from William Cage, 22 Aug 1726, 58 Acres – John Gwinn from William Cage, 28 April 1727, 40 Acres – Edward Ford from William Cage, 14 Feb 1729.  This rent roll record appears to provide a chain of title for a 300 acre tract originally surveyed for Thomas Mitchell on 19Aug1658 called Mitchell’s Platt.  Following its original patent to Thomas Mitchell, there are an apparent four separate conveyances from William Cage to John Gwinn, Edward Ford, John Gwinn, and Edward Ford which total 376 acres.  From this information it might be inferred that Thomas Mitchell conveyed his tract to William Cage, and that at some point it may have been resurveyed and found to contain 76 more acres that the original survey.

10.       23Apr1659:  Thomas Mitchell Mariner aged 38 yeares [born ~1621] or thereabouts sworne & examined sayth That about the 29th of March [1659], hee went up Patowmeck Riuer in the Vessell commonly knowne by the name of the May fflowre, (Danil Hutt Master) unto an Indian Towne, where they tooke in Corne, but the quantity he knoweth not, ffurther he p. 251 sayth tht the sd Corne was purchased wth wampompeck, or Roanoke. And tht Mr Dodman, & a stranger was wth them, whose name this Depont knoweth not, & further sayth not. Thomas P. Mitchell Jurat Coran Josias ffendall. his marke.  There appears to have been only one person named Thomas Mitchell in the Charles County area of Maryland in the middle of the 17th century.  Ergo, it seems highly probable that this deposition was sworn by that Thomas Mitchell.  From this deposition we learn several “facts” about Mr. Mitchell: (1) he was about 38 years old in 1659, therefore born about 1620-1, (2) he described himself as a Mariner, suggesting that his primary occupation was involved with shipping, probably along the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, and (3) that he appears to have hired out his services to Daniel Hutt, who resided at Nominy, Westmoreland County VA.

11.       25Apr1659:  The aforesd Case & State thereof being signifyed to the Court, a Jury was forthwth Impanelled, Viz. fforeman:  Willm Marshall,, Tho: Baker, Tho: Mitchell, Hen: Moore, Rich: Stanford, George Symonds,, Peter Carre, James Johnson, John Piper, Edm: Lindsey, Robt Robins, Stanop Roberts.  Thomas Mitchell was appointed to serve as a juryman.

12.       3May1959:  Know all men by these presents that I, Thomas Mitchell of the Province of Maryland do hereby make over from me, my heirs or assigns all my right, title and interest of this within mentioned patent unto Humphrey Attwickes [son-in-law of William Smoot] of the said Province, his heirs…  Wit.: Henry More and Thomas Lomax.  Thomas Mitchell disposed of a moiety of land he had acquired from Richard Smoot (herein below).  This land had been in possession of William Smoot, and is believed to have been part of a 400 acre tract patented to William Smoot near the mouth of Charleston Creek [aka Poseys Creek] as shown on Figure 19-21.

And, 8Jan1656: Know all me by these presents that I, Richard Smoote do assign my whole right, title and interest of this patent unto Thomas Mitchell…  Wit.: Humphrey Attwickes and Thomas Lomax.  Thomas Mitchell acquired a moiety of land (probably 200 acres) from Richard Smoot, which had been conveyed to Richard from his father, William Smoot, shipbuilder.

And, 17Mar1662/3:  Court acknowledged by the Joane Michell, the relic of the said Thomas Mitchell. [Liber B, Folio 100]  From this record it can be established that Thomas Mitchell likely had died sometime prior to Mar1662/3.

13.       12May1659:  Thomas Mitchell, mariner, plaintiff, against Daniell Hutt; maketh demand as followeth:  “To the worshipful Commissioners of Charles County, the humble showeth that, whereas your petitioner was hired by Mr. Daniel Hutt to sail and perform the office of seaman in his bark, your petitioner having accordingly served between seven and eight months intil said Mr. Daniel Hutt, by his misdemeanor lost his said bark and now your petitioner demanding wages according to agreement…  Daniel Hutt denied debt, but admitted to court that was contracted by William Brenton of Newport Rhode Island, merchant… [Liber A, Folio 105]  There is no evidence of any other person named Thomas Mitchell living in the vicinity of Charles County during this time period, so it is reasonable to assume that this was in reference to Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen.  If correct, it would appear that Thomas Mitchell supplemented his income as a mariner, probably operating on the waters of the Potomac and Chesapeake.

14.       20Sep1659:   The humble Petn of Robt Cole, Attorney of Teague Corwin Sheweth, That whereas Thomas Mitchell & Willm Smoote stand indebted unto Teage Corwin in the sume of nineteene hundd pownds [1900 lbt] of Tob & Cask, yor Petr in the behalfe of the aforesd Teage Corwin hath demanded paymt of the aforesd Mitchell, but receiued not any, Wch is much to the dammage of the aforesd Teage, by reason of his goeing forth of this Country, & want of the aforesd Tob. The premises Considered yor Petr desyreth tht the aforesd Mitchell & Smoote may be compelled to make pent paymt wth forbearance, & Costs of suite, & yor Petr shall eur pray &c : Vppon the demand & Petn of the plf, for 1900l Tob. & Cask, The deft Thomas Mitchell (to whom tht Debt principally belongeth) in answere sayth, That hee hath allready ouer payd that Debt, as hee can make appeare by Receipts under the plfs owne hand, & other testimonies, & by his owne accompt, And thereuppon produceth One Receipt dat, 29th Decembr (in part of paymt of a Bill of 1900l Tob) Ano 1658 for nine hund. & Twenty pownds of Tob & cask Allso one other Receipt dat 1o June 1658, for Two hundd & Twenty pownds Tob, receiued of Arthure Turner for the defts use. Both wch Re- ceipts are signed wth the pifs marke. And Capt Nicholas Gwyther euidenceth in Court That hee payd one hogshead of Tob. weighing 336l to Thomas Mitchell, & the sd Mitchell payd the same to the plf Teage Corwin, And the defts acct comes to 450l Tob. It being, for his dyett washing & lodging, for three weeks att the defts howse hee being then lycenced to keepe an Ordinary, Soe tht the deft hath ouer payd tht Bill by Twenty six pownds of Tob. The defts Craue a nonsuite wth Charges & Costs of suite. Wch was graunted & soe.  From this record it is suggested that Thomas Mitchell was licensed to operate an Ordinary from his house in 1658/9.

15.       6Oct1659:  The [humble] Petn of Thomas Mitchell Sheweth, That wher[eas there] is a former Order of this worll Board, for the Attatchmt of 1000l Tob, yor Pctr is indebted to the Estate of Capt Willm Mitchell, Deceased, Wch was to be payd uppon the deliuery of an Indenture of yor Pet™ sonne (wch the sd Capt Mitchell had for his security) as by a noate yor Petr hath from under his owne hand, appeares, Now Capt Cornewaleys hauing procured an Order for the attatching this Tob, Yor Petr humbly therefore beseecheth yor worps to Order That hee may haue the sd Indenture (according to Couenl) deliuered, & the Tob shall be ready, Or ells tht yor worps will please to reuerse the former Order for Attatching the Tob. & yor Petr shall as in duty bownd pray &c : Ordered uppon the foresd Petn, That Capt Thomas Cornewalleys Vid. fol. 204 ut Supra or his Attorney, uppon the paymt of One Thowsand pownds of Tob (for wch formerly hee obteyned Judgmt) giue the Petr security for deliuering him an Indenture of the sonne of the sd Petr, wch was bownd ouer to Capt Willm Mitchel for the sd Mitchels security of paying one thowsand pownds of Tob, as the Petr hath declared in his foresd Petn.  This is the only record found by the author which appears to directly connect Thomas Mitchell and Capt. William Mitchell.  From this record we learn that at some point in the past Thomas Mitchell became indebted to Capt. William Mitchell in the sum of 1,000 lbt, for which Thomas Mitchell signed an indenture using his son as collateral.  At the death of Capt. William Mitchell sometime in early 1659, Thomas Mitchell’s debt was still outstanding.  Capt. Cornwallis, also having claims against the estate of Capt. William Mitchell, applied to the Court for assignment of Thomas Mitchell’s note of 1,000 lbt, as partial settlement of his claim on Capt. William Mitchell’s estate.  Thomas Mitchell acknowledged owing the debt, but wanted assurance from Capt. Cornwallis that his son’s indenture would be released upon his (Thomas Mitchell’s) payment to Capt. Cornwallis.  Nothing in the records associated with the indenture between Thomas Mitchell and Capt. William Mitchell identifies any kinship connection between the parties, nor the identity of the indentured son of Thomas Mitchell.  The above abstracted Court record suggests that Thomas Mitchell’s son was actual “bound” by indenture to Capt. William Mitchell.  This suggests that Thomas Mitchell’s son became an indentured servant to Capt. William Mitchell.  Since this indenture was still in force at the time of Capt. William Mitchell’s death, it seems to suggest that Thomas Mitchell’s son may have been in Capt. Mitchell’s custody at that time (Spring 1659).  The following land petition may offer some identity for Thomas Mitchell’s son:

•           20Dec1658 – Northampton County VA: “Certificate granted to Capt. William Mitchell for five hundred acres of land due him for the transportation of ten persons into the County whose names are as followeth:  William Mitchell, Joane his wife, George Mitchell, Margritt Mitchell, Elizabeth Mitchell, Edward Davis, Nicholas Berkeley, Thomas Fowkes, Robert Hill, Joane his wife.”   Capt. William Mitchell was under investigation challenging his right to practice law in Maryland, when in the latter part of 1658 he relocated from St. Mary’s County MD to Northampton County VA.  Upon his arrival in Northampton he filed a petition for land, and was granted the above cited certificate for 500 acres.  This grant was based on his claim for having transported 10 persons, listed as above cited.  It is the author’s interpretation that the persons being claimed as headrights included Capt. William Mitchell (himself), his wife (Joane Toast), George Mitchell, Margritt Mitchell, Elizabeth Mitchell, and five others.  Various Mitchell family researchers, including Moody Miles and Sherrie Mitchell Boone, have interpreted this certificate to suggest that the named William Mitchell as a headright was actually a son of Capt. William Mitchell.  Moreover, they contend that this William Mitchell (purported son of Capt. William Mitchell) was the same person as William Mitchell of South River.  Moreover, they also claim that George, Margritt and Elizabeth Mitchell were also children of Capt. William Mitchell.  The author does not dispute the identification of Margritt and Elizabeth Mitchell as daughters of Capt. William Mitchell.  However, given the foregoing discussion regarding the indentured son of Thomas Mitchell, who was bound to Capt. William Mitchell, it should not be discounted that this George Mitchell may have been the son of Thomas Mitchell.  From the preceding Court record regarding the debt owed by Thopmas Mitchell to the estate of Capt. William Mitchell, deceased, it seems reasonable to assume that Thomas Mitchell’s son was still in the custody of Capt. William Mitchell at the time he relocated to Northampton County.  Regardless, nothing els has been found in the records of Maryland that would identify the children of Thomas Mitchell, although he was allowed headrights for the transport of two children, and it seems reasonable that other children may have been born in Maryland.

16.       1Nov1659:  Teage Corwin dds wart agst Willm Smoote & Thomas Mitchell accoñ Debt.  Some researchers claim that Thomas Mitchell was married to Joan Smoot, daughter of William Smoot.  This identity of Thomas Mitchell’s wife is undocumented.  Ditto.

17.       14Jan1659/0:  Thomas Mitchell demands a warrant against Richard Trew in an action of debt.  Warrant to the Sheriff to arrest, and return… 754 lbt, dicision for plaintiff… [Liber A, Folio 153]  John Lambert sold a tract of land called “Nonesuch” containing 150 acres on Poynton Creek [near Portobacco] to Richard True [aka Trew] on 12Nov1666.  Thomas Mitchell of Portobacco was named co-Executor on the LWT of John Lambert [Jr.] in Jan1693/4.  Richard Bennett Mitchell purchased a tract called “Nonsuch” from Richard Tubman in Mar1770.  These are connections that may have relevance in identifying person(s) named Thomas Mitchell later in this work.

18.       4Sep1660:  Thomas Mitchell Sr. having given unto Elizabeth Atwickes Jr. one cow calf, desires her mark to be recorded, being… [Liber A, Folio 106]

19.       13Jan1660/1:  An execution issued directed to the Sherriffe of Saint Maryes County at the suite of Captaine Thomas Cornwaleys for one Thowsand pounds of Tob of the goods of Captaine William Mitchell at- tached in the hands of Thomas Mitchell as by Judgmt of Court bearing date the first March 1659 apreth.  Ditto.

20.       21Sep1661:  The interesting case of Joan Mitchell (Michael) involving insinuations of witchcraft and a counter suit for defamation, came up in the Charles County Court on November 14. 1659. Thomas Mitchell complained to the court that “Mis Hatche “, unquestionably the wife of John Hatch, one of Governor Fen dali’s Council, had brought abuseful reproaches upon Joan, his wife, in having declared that Goodie Mitchell had bewitched her face so that “ shee endureth abundance of Misery by the soarness of her mouth “, and two depositions were filed attesting to the fact that Mrs. Hatch had spread such evil reports. The matter seems to have been dropped, however, until nearly two years later when at the September 24, 1661, court Joan Mitchell, now a widow, brought suits for defamation against four prominent residents of Charles County, including Francis. Doughtie, the minister, for having “raysed schandalous reports of mee . . . that I salluted a woman at church and her teeth fell a Acking as if shee had been mad “. It was also testified that Mrs. Long, one of the others sued for defamation, had said that “the hene and Chickens that she had of Goodie Mitchell . . . did die in such a strang manner that she thaught sum old witch or other had bewitched them “ (pp. 54-55, 139, 142, 144-145, 155, 156)  These court cases involving Joan Mitchell almost certainly were for the wife of Thomas Mitchell, who arrived in Maryland in 1648 with wife and two children.  From the filing on 24Sep1661 it seems quite certain that Thomas Mitchell had died sometime within the two preceding years.  The fact that the defendant in the case was presumably the wife of John Hatch clearly suggests that Thomas and Joan Mitchell were still residing in the vicinity of Wicomico River.  The story of Thomas Mitchell, as juxtaposed to Capt. William Mitchell is further clouded and confused by the fact that they both appear to have been married to women named “Joane”.

21.       1Oct1662:  Charles County Circuit Court, Liber A; 1 Oct 1662, Page 243.  William Barton, Jr. delivers patent and assigns rights to his brother-in- law Thomas Smoote for the use of William Hungarford, Jr., son to William Hungarford, dec’d: Patent granted to William Smoot by assignment from John Lugar, Jr.; 240 acres lying on the west side of Wicokomeco River at the head of Forked Creek of the Manor of St. Mary’s bounded by Humphery Atwicks and Thomas Mitchell.  As Thomas Mitchell Sr. had been deceased for over a year, this record would appear to imply that his land may have devolved to a son named Thomas Mitchell.

22.       10Apr1662:  Joan Mitchell, Plainiff, vs. Edward Philpot, Defendant:  Mitchell shewth the Court that by arbitration of Mr. William Marshall and Mr. Humphrey Haggate, they to pay 100 lbt plus cost and charges.  Ordered that defendant pay 554 lbt.  The wife of Thomas Mitchell was allowed to collect debt owed her by Edward Philpot.  Nothing was mentioned in this record to suggest the nature of the debt.

23.       28 Jul 1663:  Charles County Circuit Court, Liber B, Page 138.  Joan Michell, Plt.; John Cage, by his atty. Mr.Thomas Notley, Def.; Joane Michell, relict of Thomas Michell demands satisfaction for 1/3 of land sold by her husband without her consent to John Cage where he now lives; defendant alleges there can be no claim of dower; abatement granted defendant.  Apparently Thomas Mitchell, before his decease, had conveyed part of his lands to John Cage, purportedly without his wife’s authorization (relinquishment).

o          17Jul1730:  Charles County Land Records, Liber M#2 Page 228.  At the request of Edward Ford of CC, the following deed was recorded this Jul 17, 1730.  Feb 11, 1729 from William Cage of CC, planter, to Edward Ford of CC, cordwainer, for 1800 lbs of tobacco and for divers other good causes, part of that tract of land formerly laid out for Thomas Mitchell and now in possession of William Cage, lying in CC on the west side of Petemaek Wicccomoco [Wicomico] River, bounded by’the land of sd Edward Ford that he bought of sd Cage, containing about 40 acres. Signed – W Cage. Wit – Barton Warren, Geo: (SC his mark) Scroggen, Jno Briscoe*, Robt Yates*. This deed was acknowledged by William Cage and Margaret, his wife.  This deed filing appears to reference a 40 acre tract, part of the land formerly in possession of Thomas Mitchell.  This land almost certainly was part of the tract patented by Thomas Mitchell known as “Mitchell’s Platt” and situated between Neale’s Back Creek and Charleston Creek at the extreme southern tip of Pickawaxen Hundred.

24.       30 Jul 1663:  Charles County Circuit Court, Liber B, Page 169.  Joane Michell desires this deposition be recorded: The evidence of James Hay testifies that Richard Dod did ask of goodie Michell for his maid servant because his servant had longer to serve than goodie Michels whereupon she said she would not..upon which they agreed and in a firm bargain; the evidence of Elisabeth Dager testifies that goodie Michell about the middle of April sent a man to Richard Dod to ask him to change a maid servant with her whereupon the said Michell came along with Francis Ferenla whereupon the said Richard when he came to goodie Michels went into the field to look on the maid servant and he came in again and said he liked her very well and asked the woman whether she would give him any boot because his maid had longer to serve and the woman told him no if he would change at even hand she would whereupon they made a firm bargain.

25.       13Oct1663:  Widow Mitchell petitioned Court to accept witness testimony concerning a suit involving a maid servant. [Liber B, Folio 85]  Apparently the widow, Joan Mitchell, had sufficient means to own a servant.

26.       10Nov1663:  William Marshall obligeth himself, his heirs or assigns to pay unto the Widow Mitchell, or her heirs or assigns the full and ___ sum of 400 lbt, and hereby confesseth a judgment for the same. [Liber B, Folio 51]  Continuation of Item 14, above.

27.       29Nov1664:  Thomas Mitchell sworn and examined in open court sayeth that he hath lost one sow and one barrow of two years old, apiece…  “Edward Philpot [servant to Capt. William Mitchell and Robert Brooke] swore that Thomas Michell searched Thomas Standbridge’s house and in the loft he found meat cut in pieces among the corn; jury impaneled of Mr. Humphery Warren, foreman; John Cage, Francis Wine, Edward Swan, Richard Dod, John Douglas, Ignatius Causeene, Alexander Smith, John Lambert, Thomas Allonson, Nicholaus Emerson, Robert Robins.”  Since this record occurred almost three years after the presumed death of Thomas Mitchell Sr., it seems probable that this record pertained to his son [let’s say Thomas Mitchell Jr.] 

NOTE:  Jury included Humphrey Warren (foreman), John Cage, Ignatius Causine, etal.  John Cage was the person to whom Thomas Mitchell Sr. had sold his land on Wicomico River, which his relic, Joan Mitchell, later sued for her dower right, contending that her late husband had sold the land without her relinquishment.  Given these jury members, it seems clear that this Thomas Mitchell was living in the vicinity of lower Pickawaxen Hundred, and that he most likely was the son of Thomas Mitchell Sr.  It may also be relevant to this investigation that John Lambert appeared as a juror.  Later in this work it will be shown that Thomas Mitchell of upper Charles County [Portobacco] was named a co-executor along with William Dent in the LWT of a John Lambert in Jan1693/4.  This John Lambert is believed to have been the father of the John Lambert on which Thomas Mitchell and William Dent were named co-Executors.  The John Lambert recorded as a juror in this record is believed to have married Eleanor Neville, daughter of John Neville.  It should be remembered that John Neville received a grant of 500 acres on the waters of Wicomico River abutting the lands of Thomas Mitchell in Aug1651.  Further note that John Lambert was granted two tracts on 29Jul1664 called “Hogg’s Quarter” and “Nonesuch” abutting Poynton Manor on west side of Portobacco Creek in Lambert’s Valley.  A tract called “Nonsuch” was purchased by Richard Bennett Mitchell from Richard Tubman on 17Mar1770.  Ignatius Causine [aka Causeene] is believed to have been the brother-in-law of Maj. John Wheeler.  Robert Robins’ son, Richard Robins, married Lydia Shuttleworth, and Lydia Shuttleworth married 2nd to John Posey Jr.  Charles Allanson, son of Thomas Allanson, is believed to have married a daughter of John Posey Sr. (either Mary Posey or Elizabeth Posey).  Edward Philpot married another daughter of John Posey Sr., Susannah Posey.  And, to confuse matters even further, Jane Posey, another daughter of John Posey, married a gentleman named Edward Cornish.  Now, we have already waxed lyrically about a Jane Cornish, who married Edward Robins as her 1st husband, so we need not belabor the possible kinship connections between these Robins and Cornish spouses of John Posey’s children.  We will leave that to the imagination of the reader.  Connections of allied parties should be weighed in drawing conclusions regarding an individual’s identity.

28.       16Jan1665/6:  This Indenture made the 22th day of Septembr 1665 Betweene Capt Nicholas Gwyther of St Marys County Gent, in the Prouince of Maryland of the One party And George Newman of Charles County in the same Prouince Plantr of the other party Wittnesseth that the said Nycolas Gwyther for & in Consideracon of the quan tity of three thowsand two hundred pnds of Tobacco and Caske in hand paid before the Ensealing and deliuery hereof by the said George Newman whereof & wherewth the said Nic° Gwyther doth acknowl edge himself e sattisfyed Contented & paid and thereof and euery part and parcell thereof, doe acquitt & discharge the said George Newman his heires Executors and Administrators & euery of them by these prsents as allsoe for diuers other good Causes and Consideracons him hereunto mouing, Haue granted bargained & sould Assigned & sett Ouer and Confirmed & by these prsents doe fully Clearely and Ab solutely Grant Bargaine Sell Assigne Sett Ouer and Confirme, unto the said George Newman his heires Executors Administrs and As signes all that parcell of land scituate lying & being in Charles County aforemenconed lying on the north side of Potomacke riuer neer Mr Neales back Creeke and bounding on the south the said riuer and Creeke, on the west a line drawne from a Marsh in the said riuer Called white oke marsh north into the woods for the length of one hundred & twenty perches On the north wth a line drawne East from [p. 120] the end of the former line into the woods for the length of ninety perches on the west with a line drawne south and by west from the end of the former line untill it falls into a branch Called Simkins branch Contayning and now laid out for One hundred acres more or less, Adjoyning One Hungerfords [William Hungerford, William Smoot’s son-in-law] land formerly in the possessionof John Ward and now in the possession of John Morrice, More laid out One hundred acres more or lesse for John Slingsbey adjoyning upon the abouesaid Simkinsess land formerly in the posson of the abouesaid Nic° Gwyther and now in the possession of the aboue sd George Newman, More laid out for Humphery Howell a parcell of land lying on the north side of Potomack Riuer and bounding on the north wth the land of Thomas Petite on the north with the land of Thomas Mitchell on the west wth the said riuer on the East wth a line drawne south from the head of Conneys branch untill it inter sect a parralell drawne from the land of the abouesaid Petite Con tayning and now laid out for One hundred acres more or less and adjoyning to the abouesaid Petites land formerly in the possession of Jn° Gwy and now in the possession of Peter Carr, And being in all Three hundred acres more or lesse being taken up by Simkins, Slingsbey & Howell, Contã: by Estimacon and now laid out for three hun dred acres more or less now in the tenure or Occupaicon of him the said George Newman,…  Thomas Mitchell of Wicomico is believed to have died sometime around 1662.  The location of the tract of land cited in this indenture is believed to have been in Pickawaxen Hundred, which is illustrated in the map contained in Figure 19-20.  Figure 19-21 contains an inset of the Pickawaxen Hundred map depicting the southern-most tip of Wicomico-Potomac peninsula.  The tract being conveyed from Capt. Nicholas Gwyther to George Newman is believed to have been at the location illustrated in Figure 19-21 and identified as “George Newman”.  From the description contained in this indenture, it would appear that lands owned by Thomas Petite and Thomas Mitchell were situated to the northward of the tract acquired by George Newman, and probaably positioned within the red circle shown on Figure 19-21.

29.       Sep1667:  One of the witnesses in the case said that he had seen the assault when he was working at “goodie Michels”; this is doubtless Joan Mitchell (Michael), widow of Thomas Mitchell, about whom insinuations of witchcraft had been made a few years before…  Ditto.

30.       10Aug1669:  Elizabeth Bridgen, being now 9 years old is judged to serve mother Mitchell till she be 18 years old or that the old woman die, whichever first shall happen.  This may have been a record of Joan Mitchell, the widow of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen.  If so, then it seems probable that she was still living in the vicinity of Wicomico River.  The reference to “mother”, seemingly as a title or form of address is unfamiliar to the author, and therefore, cannot draw any specific meaning from its usage.

31.       26 Mar 1676:  Charles County Circuit Court Liber F, Page 184.  Deed of Gift from Thomas Hyatt to Joan Mitchell; 23 head of hogs and working tools; to the oldest son of Blanch Lomax, wife of Cliborne Lomax, 50 acres of land; I was assigned by Francis Femeley, dec’d, to look after his estate for the good of his son jointly with Thomas Breckeridge, do empower Joan Mitchell to look after said John Ferenley’s estate; /s/ Thom Thomas Buskeridge, Thomas Wells.  This Joan Mitchell is believed to have been the widow of Thomas Mitchell Sr. (of Pickawaxen).  Thomas Hyatt could be found in but a very few records, one in which he filed a patent for a 50 acre tract called “Mirbioth”, which abutted land owned by Edward Philpott.  The only patent found for Edward Philpot prior to this date was a tract called “Philpott” for 100 acres situated on the west side of the Wicomico River, formerly laid out for James Walker.  From Item No. 7, above, it was shown that James Walker sold a tract of land containing 200 acres to Christopher Carnall, situated in Wicomico, and abutting the land of Thomas Mitchell [Sr.].  It seems probable that the 50 acre tract being gift deeded from Thomas Hyatt to the eldest son of Blanch Lomax may have abutted the tract previously owned by James Walker which abutted Thomas Mitchell.  Consequently, it would appear that Joan Mitchell, widow of Thomas Mitchell was still residing at the southern tip of Pickawaxen Hundred near Charleston Creek.  Remember that Edward Philpot was married to a daughter of John Posey Sr.  There must have been a very close association between Thomas Hyatt and Joan Mitchell, that he would grant her the gift of 23 hogs and many items of personal property, including his tools.

32.       28 Mar 1676:  Charles County Circuit Court Liber F, Page 184.  Deed of Gift from Joan Mitchell, widow, to Thomas Wells all that belongs to me after my decease; excepting a cow to Johannah Philpott; /s/ Joan Mitchell (mark); wit. Bridgett Inglesby (mark), Elizabeth Morgan (mark).  It would appear that Joan Mitchell may have felt that she was nearing the end of her days, given that she appeared to be disposing of her property.  The author was unable to discover anything about her main benefactor, Thomas Wells.  Johanna Philpott is believed to have been a daughter of Edward and Bridget Philpott, born about 1664 and would have been only 12 years old in 1676.  Johanna would have become a sister-in-law of Susannah Posey.  If we are to believe Sherrie Boone Mitchell and Richard Kozney, Joan Mitchell would have had a son named Thomas, still living in Charles County in 1676.  This record leaves us to ponder why Joan Mitchell, the widow of Thomas Mitchell Sr., would have left all of her worldly goods to Thomas Wells and Johanna Philpott.  If she had a child still living in 1676, why would they not have been the benefactors of her meager estate?

33.       22May1743:  An Inquisition Indented att the house of Mrs. Bridge [Bridgett] Legatt Widdow in Charles County this Two & Twentyeth day of May in the Yeare of Our Lord One Thousand six hundred Seaventy five & in the forty third yeare of the Dominion of Cæcilius &c before Us John Douglas & Robert Doyne by Vertue of A Comission in the nature of A writt of Mandamus to Us directed & to the Said Inquisition Annexed to Enquire what Lands John Legatt late of Charles County aforesaid Dyed seized of at the time of his Death as of Fee in the said County & of what Manno.r & under what Rents or services & how much those lands & Tenements are of Value by the Yeare in all Issues & att what time the said John Legatt Dyed & who is his next heyre & of what Age the heyre is & who those lands & Tenements from the time of the death of the said John Legatt have or doth Occupy & the Issues or profitts hath & doth Receive & by what Title & how & in what manner & who hath payd the Rent for the same & to whom as in the Mandamus By the Oathes of Thomas Lomax Richard Ambrose Samuell Clarke Robert Roelants Walter Davies William Hinsey James Tyre Thomas Wakefeild John Newton John Fearson Thomas Chipsham & John Brookes The Jury Impannelled by the Sheriffe of Charles County doe upon theire oathes Say as followeth:  That William Smoote being Seized in his Demeasne as of Fee of & in A parcell of Land lying on the West side of Wiccocomico River Beginning at A Marked Oath the bound Tree of John Hatches Land & bounding on the East with A line drawne North & by West from the said Oake for the length of Two hundred Perches to an Oake standing neare the land of John Courts on the North with A line drawne west & by south from the End of the former line for the Length of Three hundred & Twenty Perches to A Marked Redd oake standing upon the head of the Branch Called Smooth [Smoot] branch till it intersect A Parralell line drawne from the said Hatches Oake on the South with the said Paralell Conteyning & now laid Out for Four hundred Acres be it more or lesse By Vertue of A Grant under the Great seale of this Province to him thereof Granted bearing date the Twenty Sixth day of Jan.ry in the Yeare of Our Lord One Thousand Six hundred fifty Two [26Jan1652] To be holden of his Lordpp the Lord Propry as of his Manno.r of West S.t Maryes under the yearly Rent of Eight shillings Sterling p Annu he the said William Smoote due upon the Twentyeth day of May One Thousand Six hundred Fifty Six [20May56] Assigne all his Right in the Premisses unto Humfrey Atwicks & Richard Smoote which Assignement was in Open Court in Charles County aforesaid Acknowledged by the said William Smoote & Grace his wife & the said Richard Smoote did upon the Eighth day of Jan.ry One Thousand Six hundred Fifty Six [8Jan1656/7] his Right & Title of the within Mentioned Patten unto Thomas Mitchell & his Assignes  And the said Thomas Mitchell upon the Third day of May One Thousand Six hundred fifty Nine [3May1659] did make over from him & his assignes all his Right & Title & interest of the said Patten unto the said Humfrey Atwicks his heyres or Assignes And the said Humfrey Atwicks being Seized & Possessed of the…  From the foregoing inquisition record we have the chain of title on a 400 acre tract of land originally patented to William Smoot on 26Jan1652.  This tract was conveyed on 20May1656 from William Smoot and his wife, Grace, unto Richard Smoot and Humphrey Atwicks.  On 8Jan1656/7 Richard Smoot conveyed his interest in the subject tract to Thomas Mitchell.  On 3May1659 Thomas Mitchell conveyed his interest in the subject tract to Humphrey Atwicks.  As of 3May1659 the entire 400 acre tract was in possession of Humphrey Atwicks, at which time the land became known as “Atwicke’s Purchase”.  The land ultimately was conveyed to John Legatt, whose estate was the subject of the cited inquisition.  From the chain of title for the 400 acre tract, it was originally patented by William Smoot and known by the name of “Smoothly”.  It is believed that this tract was situated at the location identified in Figure 19-21 as “William Smoot”, and that it was from this location that William Smoot operated his ship building business.  Albeit but briefly, Thomas Mitchell was in possession of part interest in Smoothly, jointly with Humphrey Atwicks, between 6Jan1656/7 and 3May1659.  Given that this tract abutted the land of John Hatch, and the fact that Thomas Mitchell filed a defamation complaint against John Hatch’s wife in Charles County on 14Nov1659, it seems highly probable that Thomas Mitchell, and his wife, Joan, resided in the lower part of Pickawaxen Hundred, nearby to George Newman, John Hatch, William Smoot, etal.  Since Thomas Mitchell filed a petition on 1Oct1650 for a tract of land totaling 300 acres, it seems highly probable that he was issued a warrant for that land which was situated along the south side of Charleston Creek as shown on current maps.

This concludes the presentation of evidence related to the original Thomas Mitchell immigrant to Maryland.  A brief recap of that data suggests that he first entered the Maryland Province sometime prior to his taking an oath of Fealty in 1646/7.  He appears to have had a tract containing 100 acres surveyed in his name on 25Aug1649 and situated on Neale’s Creek, which later appeared in the Rent Rolls of Charles County identified as Slingsby in the possession of George Newman (Item No. 2, above).  It seems probable that that tract was approved on the weight of Thomas Mitchell’s self-transport and ensuing headright.  He apparently was sufficiently affluent that he paid for his own transport and the transport of his wife and two children in 1648.  Based on the headrights earned for his family’s transport, Thomas Mitchell filed a claim for 300 acres on 10Oct1650, probably located on Charleston Creek at the southern tip of Pickawaxen Hundred, nearby to neighbors: George Newman, John Hatch, Thomas Petite, William Smoot and Humphrey Atwicks.  This is believed to have been the tract identified in the Rent Rolls of Charles County as Mitchell’s Platt, reportedly surveyed for Thomas Mitchell on 19Aug1658 (Item No. 8, above)  He was identified in records as a “planter”, but also appears to have been granted a license to operate an ordinary from his home.  He was also identified in one record as having been a mariner, wherein he appears to have been employed to work aboard ships making ports-of-call along the upper Potomac River.  At some point he became indebted to Capt. William Mitchell of the White House, St. Mary’s City in the amount of 1,000 lbt.  As security for that debt Thomas Mitchell bound a son to Capt. Mitchell.  When Capt. William Mitchell died in about Apr1659 at Northampton, VA, the debt of Thomas Mitchell was still outstanding and presumably Thomas Mitchell’s son was still indentured to Capt. William Mitchell’s estate.

Aside from the identification of Thomas Mitchell’s widow, Joan Mitchell, nothing more was discovered about his family, except that a son named Thomas may have been residing in Pickawaxen Hundred in Nov1664 when he filed a complaint in Court for lost or stolen hogs.  Nothing was discovered that would allow identification of his point of origin, or his family connections prior to his immigration to the colonies.  It cannot be discounted that Thomas Mitchell may have originated from one of the other colonies prior to entering Maryland.  The fact that he appears to have been in Maryland as early as 1646/7, but did not report the transport of his family until 1648 might suggest that he may have originated from Virginia, and was exploring the prospect of relocating to Maryland.  It is clear from the records that he was married with two children in 1648, and that he had a son sufficiently old to be placed in service (probably 5 years or older) with Capt. William Mitchell about 1655/6.  Based on the Court record abstracted in Item No. 27, above, it appears that he may have had a son named Thomas, who survived to adulthood, and who would have been born before 1643.

The author conducted a fairly thorough investigation into the early immigration records of Virginia, including a search of Pioneers and Cavaliers, Vol. 1.  If Thomas Mitchell had migrated into Maryland from Virginia, it seems possible that he might have been claimed as a head right in the Virginia patent records sometime prior to about 1645.  Following is a listing of all persons named Thomas Mitchell or near facsimile claimed as headrights in Virginia prior to about 1650:

1.         18Jun1636 – John Neale of Accomack County, 500 acres on Smith’s Island for transport of 10 persons, including Thomas Michell, etal. (p. 43).  This Thomas Michell was certainly transported at a sufficiently early date to have been the Thomas Mitchell, who later took the oath of fealty in Maryland around 1646/7.  If so, one might expect to find some record of this Thomas Michell in the records of Northampton County VA, yet no such records can be found.

2.         12Feb1637/8 – Capt. Adam Thorogood of Lower New Norfolk 600 acres on Lynnhaven River for transport of 12 persons, including Thomas Mitchell, etal. (p. 80).  The transport of this Thomas Mitchell claimed as a headright by Adam Thorogood in Feb1637/8 certainly fits with Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen Hundred.  The transport date of Feb1637/8 would certainly be early enough for this Thomas Mitchell to have completed an indentureship (usually upwards of seven years), and to have taken a wife and fathered two children before 1648.  The location of Lower New Norfolk also fits well with the established migration pattern from this period.  In fact, it was around 1650 that the Virginia General Assembly enacted a law calling for the expulsion of anyone refusing to attend the Anglican Church.  There were a fairly large number of religious dissenters, who had chosen Norfolk and Isle of Wight as a safe harbor for early settlement.  The timing and geographic location of this transported Thomas Mitchell would seem to be a good fit for Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen Hundred.

3.         18May1638 – John Cookney of Henrico County 150 acres upon land of Joseph Chadd and Richard Taylor for transport of three persons, including Thomas Mitchell, etal. (p. 88).  Although the date of the transport of this Thomas Mitchell would seem to fit well with Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen Hundred, its location in Henrico County does not fit with the predominant migration pattern out of Virginia and into Maryland in the middle of the 17th Century. 

If Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen Hundred did emigrate from Virginia, the most likely candidate would appear to have been the person claimed by Adam Thorogood in Feb1637/8.  Otherwise, we are left with the possibility that Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen emigrated from some other colony, i.e., Massechusettes or Pennsylvania, or that he was sufficiently affluent to pay the transport for himself and his wife and two children all the way from England.  The latter option seems improbable, given his apparent relatively small prospects in Maryland.  All things considered, it seems most probable to the author that Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen was first transported into Virginia, where he likely served an indentureship, married, and started a family, before following the emerging migration wave out of Norfolk VA to the upper Chesapeake.  Specifically, it seems possible that he was the person transported by Capt. Adam Thorogood in Feb1637/8.  Given the probability of a son born arounf 1643, the headright of Adam Thorogood is a very good fit.

One final anomaly pertaining to Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen was the appearance of a near neighbor named Warren Humphrey, shown on the Wicomico River, north of William Smoot (Figure 19-21) near Hatton Creek.  It may be mere coincidence, but Susan Warren, daughter of William Smith, who accompanied and possibly bankrolled the expedition of Capt William Mitchell to Maryland in 1650/1 was reputedly the “widow” of Humphrey Warren.  The biography of Humphrey Warren of Hatton’s Point, Wicomico River, is amply setforth by Harry Wright Newman in his book entitled Charles County Gentry, pp. 275 __.  There are several “facts” stated about the life of Humphrey Warren of Hatton’s Point, which correspond with the limited information known of Susan Smith-Warren.  Coincidentally, it appears highly likely that Humphrey Warren of Hatton’s Point married Ellenor Smoot, presumed daughter of Thomas Smoot, son of William Smoot.  Some researchers suggest that Joan Mitchell, wife of Thomas Mitchell may have been born Joan Smoot, daughter of William Smoot.  This identify of Joan (Smoot) Mitchell is unproven.  These connections between a close associate and confidant of Capt. William Mitchell (Susan Warren) and the near neighbor of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen (Humphrey Warren) may simply be coincidence, but worthy of consideration in the effort to establish possible kinship connection between Capt. William Mitchell and Thomas Mitchell.

We will close this investigation into Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen with the reminder that Mitchell family researchers, Sherrie Mitchell Boone and Richard Kozney would have us believe that this Thomas Mitchell and Capt. William Mitchell were brothers.  Further, that these same two researchers assert that Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen had a son named Thomas Mitchell [Jr.], who settled in Charles County and had a string of descendants that connected directly to Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County VA in 1766 and later.  These researchers further assert that Capt. William Mitchell had a son named William Mitchell [Jr.], who settled at South River, Anne Ardundel County MD and had a string of descendants that directly connected to John Isaac Mitchell of Bedford County in 1766 and later.  Suffice it to say that the author has found nothing in the records of Maryland or elsewhere that could be considered as “proof” of the purported connections between Thomas Mitchell [Jr.] or William Mitchell [Jr.] with Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen or Capt. William Mitchell.  Also, we have the Court record from Sep1674 in which Joan Mitchell, presumed widow of Thomas Mitchell, appears to be disposing of all her worldly goods to a person named Thomas Wells and a cow to Johanna Philpott.  If Joan Mitchell still had children living in 1674, it seems probable that they would heve been her benefactors.

That being said, we will now present the evidence associated with a second person named Thomas Mitchell, who was recorded in Charles County MD, in 1666.

1.         21Apr1666: Thomas Mitchell demandeth land for his transportation into the Province; warrant issued for 50 acres dated ut supra, returnable 21Oct1666.  [Liber EE, Folio 321]  At the time that this was recorded, Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen had been dead for almost seven years.  At this juncture there is insufficient information to suggest anything about the origins of this Thomas Mitchell except to state that he was an adult male, was present in Maryland in Apr1666, and that he appears to have paid for his own transport into the Province, which entitled him to a grant of 50 acres.  Also, the fact that he claimed only the single headright would suggest that he had not transported anyone besides himself, not a wife, children, other kinspersons or servants.  It is conceivable that this person may have been the son of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen.

2.         30Jun1666:  Be it known unto all men by these presents that I, William Gaskins of St. Maries County in the Province of Maryland, planter, for and in consideration of the sum of 100 lbt well and truly paid unto me by Thomas Mitchell of the same place, planter, have assigned and made over unto the said Thomas Mitchell all my right, title, interest, claim and demand of in and unto my own right of land due unto for serving my time in the said province with Thomas Taylor of Patuxent in the Province aforesaid which is and become due unto me for or by reason of the Conditions of Plantation of the Honorable Cecilius Baltimore, Lord Proprietor of the Province of Maryland and do hereby for the consideration aforesaid assign and make over all my right, title, interest, claim and demand of, in and to all every the premises to the said Thomas Mitchell, his heirs and assigns forever, witness my hand and seal this 30Jun1666.  Wit.: Thomas Courtney and Edward Savage.  [Liber EE (transcribed 9), Folio 451].  Also: Thomas Mitchell demands for transportating himself and 50 acres more by assignment from William Gaskin, his transportation into this Province.  Warrant was issued for 100 acres dat ut supra, return last of Dec1666.  [Liber EE, Folio 452]  Given the matching name and the close timing with the record presented in Item No. 1, above, it is a virtual certainty that these Thomas Mitchells were the same person.  From this filing it would appear that Thomas Mitchell purchased the landrights of William Gaskin.  Further, it is stated in the indenture that both William Gaskin and Thomas Mitchell were of St. Marys County at the time of the indenture filing, and that they were both identified as “planters”, suggesting the possibly that they already had land holdings.  Curiously, a William Gaskin, planter of Talbot County, on 25Mar1666 filed a petition with the Court for 100 acres of land based on his headright, and that of his wife, Margaret [Liber EE, Folio 431].  Given the matching names and dates, it seems probable that that was the same William Gaskins, who sold his rights to 50 acres to Thomas Mitchell by the foregoing indenture on 30Jun1666.  It is conceivable that this person may have been the son of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen.

No further records were found for anyone named Thomas Mitchell in the vicinity of Charles County for the next 13 years.  There are a few Court, estate and probate records of a Thomas Mitchell recorded in St. Mary’s County which may have pertained to a descendant of the foregoing Thomas Mitchell which are iterated as follows:

1.         May 25, 1682:  Thomas Mitchell is on the List of Debts in the Charles Co., Md. Inventory of Col. Benjamin Rozer.  Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Inventories & Accounts, Liber 7C, pp. 98-127.

2.         Oct-Nov1682:  Meeting of the General Assembly at St. Mary’s enacted numerous measures, including one in which 516,927 pounds of tobacco was appropriated for “the good people of this Province for the Public good of the same and to the intent the same may be satisfied and paid to whom the same is due…”.  Attached to this appropriation was a list containing payments to hundreds of individuals, among which are a smattering who identified by militia ranks, including sergeants, coporals, colonel, captain.  This list included the names of Thomas Mitchell, George Mitchell, John Wheeler, etal.  Nothing accompanying this appropriation or its disbursements identified its purpose.  It might be concluded that the greater purpose of this appropriation was to reimburse for militia service, but that is simply a guess.  From the author’s limited knowledge of the geographic location of persons named in this appropriation, it appears to range widely throughout the Province.  Consequently, it is virtually impossible to render an identity of the person named Thomas Mitchell, who was paid 40 lbt.  George Mitchell can be identified with some degree of certainty as having been from Somerset County MD, and John Wheeler almost certainly was from Charles County.  This Thomas Mitchell may have been the target of our investigation, namely from Charles County and married to a woman named Mary, but that is not an absolute certainty, as there are records of a Thomas Mitchell living in Dorchester County in the 1670’s.

3.         Feb1684/5 and Nov1687:  The St. Mary’s Co., Md. inventory and administration account of Dr. James Bourne/Bowren shows Thomas Mitchell on Bourne’s list of debts and that Bourne’s estate made a payment to Thomas Mitchell.  Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Inventories & Accounts, Liber 8, Page 310, and Liber 9, Page 440.  The author was unable to access the original of this abstract of an estate inventory filed in St. Mary’s County in 1684/5, and could not associate this Thomas Mitchell with the Thomas Mitchell recorded in Charles County commencing in about 1679.  It seems possible that this Thomas Mitchell was a different from the Thomas Mitchell of Charles County.

4.         June 1687 – The St. Mary’s Co., Md. inventory of John Baker shows Thomas Mitchell on Baker’s list of debts.  Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Inventories & Accounts, Liber 10, pp. 115-124.  Ditto, Item No. 2, above.

5.         1688 [undated; filed with 1688] – The St. Mary’s Co., Md. inventory of Thomas Gerard shows Thomas Mitchell on Gerard’s list of debts.  Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Inventories & Accounts, Liber 10, Page 177.  Ditto, Item No. 2, above.

Since Item Nos. 2 thru 4 were clearly identified as being estate records from St. Mary’s County, there is no reason to believe that they were associated with Thomas Mitchell of Charles County.  The identity of this Thomas Mitchell is not known with certainty, but it seems probable that he was a different person from the Thomas Mitchell, who began appearing in records in Charles County in the vicinity of Nanjemoy in 1679.  We will temporarily set aside these Thomas Mitchell records connected to St. Mary’s County, and direct our attention to those of a Thomas Mitchell specifically associated with the upper part of Charles County.  But, before introducing those upper Charles County records, we cannot avoid drawing the reader’s attention to one record from Anne Arundel County abstracted as follows:

1.         25Sep1674:  Came Capt. William Burgess of Anne Arundel County and proved his right to 550 acres of land for transporting Thomas Mitchell, Richard Dovington, John Whitley, John Asser, Elizabeth Warfield, Mary Tallington, Michael Person, William White, Susanna Saven, Nicholas Lamb and John Green into this province to inhabit.  Warrant then granted unto the said William Burgess for 550 acres of land being due to him for transporting the eleven above mentioned servants into this province to inhabit.  Certificate return the 25Dec1674. 

The timing of this record falls about midway between the last record that could clearly be associated with Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen (“mother Mitchell” circa 1669), and the earliest record that could clearly be associated with Thomas Mitchell of upper Charles County (Portobacco, Nanjemoy, Piscataway, beginning circa 1679).  Given that we are attempting to find a connection between William Mitchell of South River and Thomas Mitchell of Charles County, it would be very difficult to ignore this record of a Thomas Mitchell transported into the Province by Capt. William Burgess of South River, just five years before the earliest record of Thomas Mitchell in upper Charles County.  Sherrie Mitchell Boone and Richard Kozney would have us believe that there was a continuos sequence of persons descended from Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen residing in Charles County all the way into the mid-18th Century and beyond.  If that were so, it is difficult to explain the 13-year gap in the record trail.  It seems equally possible to the author that the Thomas Mitchell, who was transported by Capt. William Burgess in 1674 could have completed his ogligation to Capt. Burgess, and for unknown reasons may have been attracted to the Nanjemoy area sometime before 1679.  At a minimum, this would seem to be a line of inquiry worthy of further consideration.

Before we cast aside this transport record of Thomas Mitchell to the South River region, let’s explore a few more interesting connections.  At the same time that William Mitchell of South River, and this Thomas Mitchell were presumably concurrently in residence at that location, there was another person residing in that same area with an eerily familiar name.  A person named John Wheeler was transported into the Province in 1661 by James Southward:

2.         4Feb1661/2:  James Southward enters rights for transporting John Wheeler and eight other, all transported in 1661. [Liber AA, Folio 165]

The foregoing transport record made no mention of the geographic locale to which these persons were transported by James Southward, however, the following Court record summary suggests that James Southward was residing at South River around 1663 when he became embroiled in an affair involving falsification of the LWT of Jeremiah Haslin:

“Philip Holleger on behalf of his wife, Mary, the only surviving child of Jeremiah Hasling of South River, Anne Arundel County, deceased, petitioned the court to set aside a reputed will of Hasling made in favor of a certain James Southward, which Holleger denied was signed by Hasling. Evidence was pro duced which showed that Hasling was very ill at the time that the will was sup posed to have been made by him, and that there was something very dubious about the circumstances surrounding the making and the signing of the will; and that furthermore the only witness to the will itself was a certain Anthony Dimondidier, a beneficiary under it. The court at its October, 1665, session declared the will to be invalid, put Mrs. Holleger in possession of the land, and ordered Southward to file an account promptly of his acts as administrator. Holleger, who appears to have settled in Maryland in 1663, was a resident of that part of Baltimore County which is now Cecil County (pages 441-443, 493- 494, 564)”.

Consequently, it seems probable that James Southward was in residence at South River when he filed the foregoing petition claiming headrights, including a person name John Wheeler.  This John Wheeler was transported into the Maryland Province almost one decade after the transport of another John Wheeler by Capt. William Mitchell of the White House, St. Mary’s County.  This John Wheeler ultimately settled at South River.  On 26May1664 he and Richard Huggins had surveyed a tract called Timber Neck situated on the south side of South River, which from later deeds was found to have been situated on the north side of Beard’s Creek at Jacobs Cove.  On 23Jan1681 he also had a tract surveyed on the Magothy River called Wheeler’s Lot.  While the concurrent existence of a person named John Wheeler, residing along the south side of South River, probably within a mile or two of William Mitchell at Poplar Neck, is in itself an intruiging fact, there may have been an even more interesting connection soon to be revealed.  John Wheeler of South River is purported to have been married to Christian Robins, elder daughter of Edward Robins and Jane (Cornish) Puddington.  If true, this marriage would seemingly connect this John Wheeler as a brother-in-law to both Capt. William Burgess and Richard Beard Sr., who purportedly were married to Elizabeth Robins and Rachael Robins, respectively.  The author cannot vouch for the wife of this John Wheeler, but thinks it doubtful that she could have been a sister of Elizabeth and Rachael Robins. 

The identity of this John Wheeler and that of his wife is uncertain.  Clearly, his existence was noted by Walter V. Ball when he compiled “John Wheeler 1630-1693 of Charles County, Maryland” in 1966.  On page 16 of this publication is written the following brief biographical sketch of John Wheeler Jr.:

“JOHN WHEELER, Jr., son of John and Mary Wheeler:  The Archives of Maryland, Vol. 60, page 404 shows that John Wheeler, Jr. witnessed a deed in Charles County in Oct. 1671 when he was only 17 years of age.  No record was found of service on a jury or in military service.  On 13Jun1688 William Bateman and Christine, his wife, and John Gray signed as bondsmen for settlement of the estate of John Wheeler Jr.  On 15Jun1688 an inventory of the estate of John Wheeler Jr., was filed by Walter Phelps and James Gray for 46-08-00 (Invenyory and Accounts: Liber 10, Folio 87).  No children of John Wheeler Jr. could be identified and none mentioned in the Will of John Wheeler, Sr.”

This biographical sketch produces more questions than it provides answers.  At a minimum, it appears to the author that this compiler (Walter Ball) has inter-mixed a record from Charles County from 1671 and those related to the John Wheeler of Anne Arundel County (South River) in 1688.  The author’s initial inclination was to identify the John Wheeler of South River as the son of John Wheeler Sr. of Charles County.  However, on closer scrutiny, such identification appears doubtful.  Let’s drill down into the few facts presented by Ball in the foregoing biographical sketch for John Wheeler Jr. in order to put these “facts” into clearer perspective. 

First we have the only “fact” that can truly be associated with the family of John Wheeler Sr. of Charles County, that being the following abstract:

“The Archives of Maryland, Vol. 60, page 404 shows that John Wheeler, Jr. witnessed a deed in Charles County in Oct. 1671 when he was only 17 years of age.”

If accurate, this record would seemingly establish that John and Mary Wheeler did in fact have a child called John Wheeler [Jr.] and that he was born about 1654.  This fact is further supported by the following Maryland Court record entered on 14Jan1667 in which the children of John Wheeler of Charles County were listed by name and age [Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674; Liber 60, Folio 117]:

1.         John Wheeler the Sonne of John Wheeler was Borne in the yeare 1654.

2.         James Wheeler Sonne of the said John Wheeler was borne 9 Dayes before Christmas 1656.

3.         Marie Wheeler was Borne on the 22th of March 1658.

4.         Thomas Wheeler Sonne of the said John Wheeler was borne on the 18th of March in the yeare 1660

5.         Winifrett Wheeler Sonne of the said John was borne in March 1663.

6.         Ignatius Wheeler Sonne of the said John was Borne in May 1665.

So, clearly the John Wheeler of South River could not have been the son of John Wheeler of Charles County.  John Wheeler of South River patented a tract of land in partnership with Richard Huggins on 26May1664 called Timber Neck.  John Wheeler Jr. of Charles County would have been only 10 years old. 

Next, we have the abstracted record from Ball’s John Wheeler compilation reiterated as follows:

“On 13Jun1688 William Bateman and Christine, his wife, and John Gray signed as bondsmen for settlement of the estate of John Wheeler Jr.”

Presumably, Ball believed that this record had some reference to the son of John Wheeler of Charles County, when in fact this record pertained to the son of John Wheeler of South River.  The reader may recall that we earlier stated an assertion by others that John Wheeler of South River was married to Christian [aka Christine?] Robins, daughter of Edward Robins and Jane Cornish.  That assertion may or may not be correct (probably not).  What we do know is that the “Christine” cited in the foregoing abstract was the widow of John Wheeler of South River, who had married William Bateman after John Wheeler’s decease in 1684.  Moreover, we also know that John Gray had been a partner of William Roper in the acquisition of land in Anne Arundel County.  So, it is quite clear that the foregoing record cited by Ball was actually connected to the son of John Wheeler of South River.  For a bit more information pertaining to John Wheeler of South River, the reader is referred to “First Families of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 1649-1658; Volume 2: The Headrights”, Donna Valley Russell, 2002, pp. 158-9.

Perhaps the most revealing history connected to John Wheeler of South River can be learned through the chain of title connected with the tract called Timber Neck.  Although initially patented by John Wheeler and Richard Huggins as co-partners on 26May1664, Richard Huggins soon after sold his half interest (believed to have been 100 acres) to Richard Beard Sr., husband of Rachel Robins.  This transaction set up a cloud over the rightful title of Timber Neck, which would continue for over 30 years.  Following is a Court record which provides a glimpse into the twisted trail of occupancies and perceived ownerships:

“An Act to Supply Certain Defects in the Conveying of Lands from Matthew Beard to Stephen Wright and from Stephen Wright to Samuel Chambers of Ann Arundell County Gent. Whereas Matthew Beard late of Ann arundell County in the province of Maryland Carpenter by his Deed of bargain & Sale bear- ing date the Twelfth day of November Anno Dom one thousand and seven hundred and eight for the Consideration of twenty five pounds Sterling granted and sold unto Stephen Wright of the same County and province Planter and to his heirs and Assignes forever the moyety or half parte of a Tract or parcell of land Called Timber neck Lying in Ann arundell County on the South Side of South River on the West side of a Creek Called Jaccobs Creek Beginning at a marked red oake standing upon a point and running for breadth West South west up the Creek one hundred and Sixty perches to a marked Oak by a Marish side being a bounded tree of Richard Beards on the west by Beards line drawn west and by north two hundred perches to a marked pock hiccory and by a line drawn north and by East from the said Pock hiccory fifty perches to a marked red oake in the line of Richard Chenys land and by Chenys line East south East twenty five perches to a marked white oake bounded on the North by a line drawn North north East from the said Oak one hundred perches to a marked Pock hiccory and from the said Pock hiccory north East and by North to a marked Oake by a Branch in the line of the land laid out for Murreen Duvall and William Young on the East by the said Land on the south by Jacobs Creek Containing and laid out for two hundred acres more or less being formerly granted to Richard Uggins [Huggins] and John Wheeler that is to say that moyety or halfe parte of the said Tract of land Called Timber neck formerly Occupied by the said John Wheeler and late in the Tenure or Occupation of William Bateman of Ann arundell County late deced as by the same Deed duly Executed and acknowledged and now remaining upon the land Records of Ann Arundell County in the Book marked P L page four hundred and Eighty two reference being thereto had may more at Large appear And whereas the said Stephen Wright by his Deed of Bargaine and Sale bearing date the Sixteenth day of May Anno Domini Seventeen hundred and Eleven for the Consideration of Thirty five pounds Sterling granted and sold the said moyety or halfe part of the Tract of land aforesaid unto Samuell Chambers of the same County and Province Gentleman and to his heirs and Assignes forever as by the Deed thereof duly Execu- ted and acknowledged and now remaining upon the same land records and in the same Book aforementioned page four hundred and Eighty five reference being thereto Likewise had may more fully appeare. But forasmuch as the said Stephen Wright Omitted to get his aforemen- tioned Deed from Matthew Beard Recorded in time so that by the Act of Assembly of this province for Quieting possessions Enrolling Con- veyances and secureing the Estates of purchasers no Estate in the said land was past thereby and for that the said Matthew Beard and Stephen Wright are Both since deceased And for that the said Samuel Chambers on finding the said first mentioned Deed not recorded Omitted Recording the said Deed from Wright to himself well knowing the Recording the said Deed would avail him nothing unless he Could procure a Confirmation of the aforementioned first Deed so that Neither of the said Deeds were recorded within the Express time Limitted by the act afd Whereupon the said Samuel Chambers being otherwise Remediless has petitioned this present Generall Assembly for relief in this Behalfe and for that the Truth of the premises is Sufficiently made appeare and that the Considera- tions of the said respective Sales have been duly paid and that the Petitioners case most properly requires an Equitable reliefe by an Act to be past in his favour. It is therefore humbly praid that it may be Enacted.”

The foregoing court case only addresses one half of the tract called Timber Neck.  In order to understand the full import of the chain of title connected with this tract of land, we must also understand the history associated with the other half, which was purchased by Richard Beard Sr.  Suffice it to say that the “cloud” over the title arose from the fact that the original patent was granted for 200 acres and to be equally held by Richard Huggins and John Wheeler.  At the time that Richard Huggins sold his interest in Timber Neck to Richard Beard, the land was yet undidived.  All that Richard Huggins was legally capable of conveying was his half-interest [undivided] in the tract.  In the meantime, John Wheeler [Sr.] continued to reside upon part of the tract, presumably on his share or half-interest in the tract.

Nearing his death, John Wheeler Sr. wrote his Will, dated 21Nov1684, in which he devised to his only son, John Wheeler [Jr.] 100 acres of Timber Neck and all that tract called Wheeler’s Lot on Cattail Creek (near Magothy River), with Richard Beard, elder son of Richard Beard [Jr.], as reversionary heir.  If Beard [Richard III] failed, then to his brother, Matthew Beard, and if Matthew failed, then the land was to go toward the building and repairing the church in the town or port appointed to be on the land of William Burgess near South River, for the Christian Protestants [i.e., London Town]…  It is unclear from the records the reason that John Wheeler would have wished that Timber Neck should revert to Richard and/or Mathew Beard, sons of Richard Beard Jr.  It is conceivable that that wish may have arisen from the fact that Richard Beard Sr. had purchased the other half interest in Timber Neck.  Some researchers would have it that John Wheeler and Richard Beard Sr. were brothers-in-law, in which case Wheeler’s wish may have been driven by interests of kinship. 

Presumably, when John Wheeler Jr. died in Jun1688, his interest in 100 acres of Timber Neck would have reverted to Richard Beard [III], he failing, then to his brother, Matthew Beard.  From the foregoing Court record we learn that Matthew Beard disposed of his interest in Timber Neck by conveyance to Stephen Wright on 12Nov1708. 

An even more interesting aspect of the chain of title associated with Timber Neck arises from the half interest sold by Richard Huggins to Richard Beard.  In his Will dated 24Jul1674, Richard Beard [Sr.] devised “part of Timber Neck” to his daughter, Ruth Beard [wife of John Gaither].  Ruth Beard in turn sold her interest in Timber Neck to Dr. William Jones.  At the death of Dr. William Jones, he devised Timber Neck (100 acres) and West Puddington (50 acres) to his daughter, Susannah Jones [Rawlings] wife of Aaron Rawlings.  Dr. Jones is particularly important to this investigation into the origins of William Mitchell of South River, as they were both named as overseers of the estate of Thomas Roper.  For their work as overseers Dr. William Jones was granted a horse, and William Mitchell was granted a long gun.  The reader may recall that it was Thomas Roper, who claimed a headright in 1661 for the transport of William Mitchell.  The reader may also remember that Thomas Roper and Nicholas Gassaway were claimed as headrights be Richard Ewen [Owen or Owings] in Anne Arundel County, and also by Thomas Green in New Lower Norfolk County VA around 1650. 

Following is a list of clients named in the estate settlement for Dr. William Jones, who died intestate in 1678:

1) George COAPE

2) Ninian Bell/Beale

3) Capt. Thomas BEASON: (daughter Hester, wife of Nicholas GASSAWAY)

4) John Beale

5) Edward Dorsey

6) Cornelius Howard

7) Col. William Burgess

8) John Foster and Edward Foster

9) John GATHER/Gaither [husband of Ruth Beard]

10) Anthony De Montidier [wit. In suit against James Southward]

11) Edward Parish

12) Peter Barnard

13) Richard Beard Sr and JR. and John Beard

14) Benjamin Lawrence

15) Thomas Plumer

16) Andrew Norwood

17) William Ridgely

18) John Powell

19) John Durden

20) Robert Proctor

21) Walter Phelps

22) William Roper

23) James Fressell

24) John Wheler

25) Samuel Garland

26) Francis Crisman

27) John Dring

28) James Saunders [2nd husband of

29) Nathaniel Heathcott

30) Henry Kidd

31) William Fergasson

32) Robert Conant

33) Hugh Reiley [Riley]

34) John Stimpson

35) John Thomas

36) Edmon Purdow

37) John Gray

38) John Jones

39) Joane Tailor

40) Robert Sidebottom

41) Anthony Rawlins [son-in-law of Dr. William Jones]

42) William Parker

43) Robert Harvey

44) John Gressam

45) Raichard Everyway

46) William Ramsey

47) Tobias Sumers

48) William Boman

49) John Building

50) John Bannister

51) John Carpenter

52) Thomas Seaborne

53) Thomas Lunn

54) Thomas Madox

55) John Armstrong

56) John Jacobs

57) Francis Collier

58) Edward Brock

59) Leonard Hayman

60) Estate of Edwad Roe

The foregoing list of Dr. William Jones’ clients includes the names of some of the most illustrious settlers in Colonial Anne Arundel County, and particularly includes the names of several persons directly connected with this current investigation into John Wheeler of South River, i.e., John Wheler [sic], John Gray, William Roper, Anthony Rawlings, Richard Beard Sr. and Jr., John Gaither, Col. William Burgess and Thomas Beeson [father-in-law of Nicholas Gassaway]. 

Now, someone reading the foregoing history of Timber Neck plantation and John Wheeler of South River may say “that’s all well and good, but is it really relevant to the history of Thomas Mitchell of Charles County MD”?  If genealogical research were only that simple, we could have accepted the purported connection between Thomas Mitchell of Charles County and Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen.  But in reality, genealogical research oftentimes is lacking in specific documentation that allows the researcher to directly connect the dots.  More often than not, because of the sparsity of records in Colonial times and earlier, we are given only a patchwork of records.  Because of this reality, the researcher is often left to exercise logic, reason, and good judgment in formulating conclusions regarding kinship connections.  The author cannot state with certainty that there was a connection between the Thomas Mitchell, who was transported into the South River area of Anne Ardundel County MD by Capt. William Burgess in 1674, and the Thomas Mitchell, who started appearing in records of Charles County in 1679, but given all of the “facts” presented herein before, it does seem possible.  Whether John Wheeler of South River may have held any kinship connection to John Wheeler of Charles County cannot be absolutely determined from the data that has been discovered at this juncture, but it seems possible.  What can be stated with some certainty is that John Wheeler Jr. of South River was not the son of John Wheeler of Charles County, in spite of the inferences by Walter Ball.  Whether there was a kinship connection between John Wheeler of South River and John Wheeler of Charles County, the reader will be left to ponder just what that connection may have been.  Given their relative ages, it seems possible that they may have been 1st cousins. 

Before leaving this investigation into these John Wheelers, the author cannot resist introducing one final record:

1642:  “oath to present ffugitives, John hollis John mansell:  who presented william hoo, walter broadhurst robt nicolls, kins, william Edwin, John, John hamton, henry bishop, Robinson barbr miles, richd, James Cauther, thomas bushel, francis Stoure, thomas Allen, francis posie & John wheeler, ffugitives for debt.” [Judicial and Testamentary Business of the Provincial Court, 1637-1650, Volume 4, pp. 187-8]

This record predates the earliest known record of John Wheeler of Charles County, who appears to have been transported by Capt. William Mitchell in 1651 and by deposition was aged about 21 years (born about 1630).  The age of this John Wheeler is supported by later Court depositions, wherein he reported ages that generally comport with a birth year of about 1630.  Given that set of facts, it seems questionable whether he would have been the John Wheeler cited as a fugitive debtor in 1642.  Even though John Wheeler would have been only about 14 or 15 years old on 1642, it is conceivable that these could have been the same persons.  It is possible that John Wheeler may have been transported as an indentured servant, aged in his early-teens around 1642, and that he ran away from his master, hence “a fugitive from debt”.  He could have gotten passage back to England, possibly working as a “seaman”, where he then was hired by Capt. William Mitchell at Deptford for the return voyage in 1651.  It should also be noted that Francis Posey was among those listed with Thomas Mitchell as taking the oath of fealty in 1646.  Possibly pure coincidence, the Francis Posey, who was listed as a co-fugitive with John Wheeler in this Court filing, is believed to have been the immigrant ancestor of various John Poseys, who would appear in records with various Thomas Mitchells in Charles County between about 1680 and 1780.  (more to follow)  The following record abstracts would suggest that Francis Posey was a near neighbor of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen:

15 Jan’y 1648 – FRANCIS POSEY demands 100 acres for transplanting himself into the Province in 1640, and 300 acres more by assignment &c.  Warrant for 400 acres in Wiccocomico River on north side of Mr. Neale’s Creek. (Land Office, Lib. ABH, fol. 10).  This tract being on Mr. Neale’s Creek would place it within a couple of miles of Thomas Mitchell’s tract known as “Mitchell’s Platt”.  A thorough search of the Internet failed to identify the stream identified as “Mr. Neale’s Creek”.  However, several land records presented in this ananysis have been associated with either Neales Creek of Neales Back Creek.  Given the location of those tracts at the southern tip of Pickawaxen, it seems possible that references to “Neale’s Creek” may have been references to Neal Sound Channel and its minor tributaries.

Also,

1Mar1737/8 – The deposition of Mr. John Shaw Sr, age about 75, who says that about 50 years ago, this deponent heard several persons say that this place where the deponent now stands, was formerly called the Hole, it being now within the corn field of Mr. John Lancaster and near the Main Road that goes to the Ship Landing where Mr. Henry Neale now lives, but that he knows nothing of the bounds of any lands that the sd Hole relates to, and this deponent further says that when Mr. John Sanders received the quitrents for his Lordship, he told this deponent that the creek now called Charles Town [Charleston] Cr was formerly known by the name of Poseys Cr.  Charleston Creek is the name of the tributary on the west side of Wicomico River at the extreme southern tip of Pickawaxen, and the same estuary on which Smoot’s Shipyard was situated.  The fact that Charleston Creek may formerly have been known as Posey Creek suggests that Francis Posey’s land was situated within the red circle shown on Figure 19-21 denoting the probable location of Thomas Mitchell’s land.

It is now time for us to return our attention to Charles County, and our search for the identity of Thomas Mitchell, the purported ancestor of Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County.  To facilitate our analysis of Thomas Mitchells of Charles County, Figure 19-22 is offered for the reader’s reference.  Although this is not a precise boundary map, it does provide a generally accurate location of the Hundreds erected in Charles County during the colonial period.  Pickawaxen Hundred would have been a predecessor of the area delineated as “Lower William and Mary Hundred”.  This map illustrates several key geographic points that the reader should keep in mind.  First, it should be noted that the Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen resided at the extreme southern end of Charls County, immediately across the Wicomico River estuary from St. Mary’s County, and in relatively close proximity to St. Mary’s City, the seat of government during the 1st half century after the Province was founded.  Next, it should be noted that commencing in about 1679 another Thomas Mitchell began to establish himself in the County, initially at Nanmejoy, then further north along the south side of the Piscataway, and ultimately along the west side of Portobacco.  Although not an inordinate distance, the lower tip of Pickawaxen Hundred is noticeably separated geographically from Nanjemoy, Portobacco and Mattawoman.  Since the Potomac River would have been used as one of the primary transport routes in this region, it is not too difficult to invision that Thomas Jr., son of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen, may have migrated up the Potomac from Wicomico, and have settled initially at Nanmejoy.

Following is a presentation of the records containing references to Thomas Mitchell of upper Charles County:

1.         25Nov1679:  An Inquisition Indented taken the Twenty fifth day of November in the fourth year of the Dominion of the R.t Hon.ble Charles absolute Lord & Prop.ry of the Provinces of Maryland & Avalon Lord Baron of Baltemore &c and in the year of our Lord one thousand Six hundred Seventy nine [25Nov1679] at the house of Rob.t Doyne Gent at Nanjemy in Charles County before John Stone & William Barton Gent by Virtue of a Commission to them directed in the nature of a writt of mandamus and to this Inquisition annexed by the Oaths of Cleborne Lomax George Godfrey Thomas Mitchell John Clement James Wheeler, Richard Hall Nicholas Cooper mathew ifarman, John Boise, John Lambert, William Theobalds Phillip Hoskins to go along with Richard Edelen or Cap.t Rand.o Bn[r]andt or either of them that they Begin his or their Survey of a (fol. 309) parcell of Land Called Rotterdam Lying in Nanjemy in Charles Co.ty aforesd.  This was the first record found for a person named Thomas Mitchell in Charles County, since the report of missing hogs by Thomas Mitchell [Jr.] in Pickawaxen in 1664.  This record followed the patent filing by Capt. William Burgess by just four years.  It seems highly possible that that Thomas Mitchell had earned his freedom from Capt. Burgess, and had chosen to settle in the Nanjemoy area.  It is of particular note that this record combines James Wheeler and Thomas Mitchell as co-commissioners.  This James Wheeler is believed to have been the second eldest son of John Wheeler of Charles County (hereinafter Maj. John Wheeler), born six days after Christmas in 1656.  Given that the subject inquisition was held at the home of Robert Doyne at Nanjemy, it would be reasonable to believe that this Thomas Mitchell and James Wheeler were freemen, and possibly landowners in that region of Charles County.  The subject tract called “Rotterdam” contained 550 acres and was situated near another tract called “Indian Town”.  Rotterdam was originally surveyed for a Dutchman named Simon Oversea, but he died intestate before having completed the patent, at which time Rotterdam became escheat.  Ultimately, Robert Doyne, Gentleman, filed the patent, and later devised the tract to his heirs. 

This might be a good opportunity to introduce members of the Adam Thorogood family, who had close ties to the Nanjemoy area of Charles County during the middle of the 17th Century.  The children of Adam Thorogood and Sarah Offley were as follows:

1.         Anne Thoroughgood: b. 30Oct1630, Lower Norfolk County, Virginia; d. Aft Mar1702/03, Westmoreland County, Virginia (Age > 73 years); married (1) Job CHANDLER, son of Unknown CHANDLER and Sarah Yeardley. He was born BET 1580 AND 1630 in Norfolk, Virginia, and died 24 AUG 1659 in Portobacco, St. Mary’s City, MD.  He served as Receiver-General of Maryland, and Member of the Council, June 9, 1651; and was a Member of the Council, 1651-1654 and 1656-1659 (2) Gerard FOWKE 12 JAN 1660/61 in Charles County, Maryland, son of Roger FOWLKE and Mary BAYLEY. He was born 1634 in Gunston Hall, Staffordshire, England, and died 1669 in VA.  NOTE:  Gerrard Folke is believed by some researchers to have been the brother of Thomas Folke, very possibly one of the headrights claimed by Capt. William Mitchell on his land certificate filed in Oct1658 in Northampton County.

2.         Sarah Thoroughgood: b. 1631, Lower Norfolk County, Virginia; d. 9Oct1658, Charles County, Maryland (Age 27 years); married Symon OVERZEE, a native of Rotterdam, South Holland. He died FEB 1658/59.  So, a daughter of Adam Thorogood was the wife of the original filer, Simon Overzee, on the tract caller Rotterdam. 

3.         Elizabeth Thoroughgood: b. Abt 1633, Lower Norfolk County, Virginia; d. Abt 1670, Northampton County, Virginia (Age ~ 37 years); married John MICHAEL. He was born ABT 1625 in Graft, Noor Holland, died 28Jan1678/79, Northampton County, Virginia.  The author has performed extensive research on John Michael of Northampton County VA, which research is thoroughly documented in a manuscript entitled “Chapter 8 – The John Mitchell Family of Maryland”.

4.         Adam Thoroughgood: b. Aft 1638, Lower Norfolk County, Virginia; d. 1 Feb 1685/86, Lower Norfolk County, Virginia (Age < 46 years); married Frances YEARDLEY, daughter of Argoll YEARDLEY and Anne CUSTIS. She was born ABT 1638 in London, England [more likely at Rotterdam, Holland], and died 1 FEB 1685/86 in Norfolk, Virginia.

2.         8Jun1680:  Thomas Mitchell presents a woman servant to the Court to be adjudged of her age named Amy Norton.  She is adjudged to be 17 years of age.  [Liber H, Folio 99].  Given the matching name and temporal proximity to the preceding record, it is highly probable that these were the same Thomas Mitchell.  From this record it can be surmised that Thomas Mitchell had resided in the vicinity of Nanjemy for several years, and that he was sufficiently wealthy as to own servants.

3.         8Nov1681:  Thomas Mitchell, etal., sworn onto jury.  At same session Thomas Mitchell, John Posey, etal., sworn to office of Constable.  [Liber I, Folio 175-6].  Ditto.  To be appointed to the office of Constable, Thomas Mitchell would likely have been a land owner in his community for several years, and was an upstanding and respected member of that community.  This was the first of several instances of Thomas Mitchell and John Posey interacting in records.  This John Posey is believed to have been the son of Francis Posey, who lived in Pickawaxen Hundren, nearby to Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen.

4.         10Jan1681/2:  Thomas Mitchell presents two men servants: one named Benjamin Bucklow, who is adjudged 9 years of age, and the other named David Wheeler, who is adjudged 18 years of age.  [Liber I, Folio 225].  Ditto.  When taken into context with Item No. 3, above, it would appear that Thomas Mitchell was sufficiently wealthy to have owned three servants.  The identity of the servant named David Wheeler is uncertain, but may have been a kinsman of Maj. John Wheeler. 

5.         May 25, 1682 – Thomas Mitchell is on the List of Debts in the Charles Co., Md. Inventory of Col. Benjamin Rozer.  Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Inventories & Accounts, Liber 7C, pp. 98-127.  In itself, there was nothing particularly remarkable about Thomas Mitchell having been reported as a debtor on the estate settlement of Col. Benjamin Rozier, who was a merchant of Portobacco with literally hundreds of creditors (including Maj. John Wheeler).  However, the history of Col. Rozer does have connections important to our investigation of Thomas Mitchell.  For example, Col. Rozer married Anne Sewell, daughter of Dr. Francis Sewell, as his 2nd wife.  Anne Sewell was a sister-in-law of Susannah Burgess, eldest daughter of Capt. William Burgess of South River, she having married Nicholas Sewell.  A younger sister of Susannah Burgess, also named Susannah Burgess, would marry John Mitchell, son of William Mitchell of South River, as his 2nd wife in 1700.  Dr. Henry Sewll is believed to have married Jane Lowe, daughter of Vincent Lowe.  Although not yet proven, a descendant of Vincent Lowe’s family named Elizabeth Lowe, is believed to have married John Isaac Mitchell in Baltimore County MD in 1734.  Equally interesting is the fact that Col. Benjamin Rozer was the tranporter of Robert Middleton, who married Mary Wheeler, daughter of Maj. John Wheeler.  A daughter of Thomas Wheeler, brother of Mary Wheeler, is believed to have married a Thomas Mitchell of Portobacco, in the early part of 1700’s.  To muddy the water even further, Col. Benjamin Rozer purchased a tract of land from Edmund Lynsy on 18Mar1666/7, said tract being a moiety of land originally containing 1000 acres, and sold by William Lewis to Job Chandler and Simon Overzee.  Does this name sound familiar?  Didn’t we just discuss at tract called “Rotterdam” in Item No. 1, above, which had devolved from Simon Overzee?  Well, it would appear that Col. Benjamin Rozer had purchased Simon Overzee’s old tract in Jan1666/7, which had develoved to Edmund Lynsy through a rather circuitous chain of title.  Apparently, Simon Overzee had married Elizabeth Willoughby after the death of his 1st wife, Sarah Thorogood, in about 1658-9.  The tract appears to have devolved to Elizabeth Willoughby-Overzee after Simon’s death in 1660.  Elizabeth Willoughby-Overzee then married George Colclough in 1662, and then Isaak Allerton in 1663 (descended from a Mayflower immigrant of Plymouth MA), who then sold the tract to Edmund Lynsy in 1663.  One final peculiarity is that Elizabeth Willoughby’s sister, Alice Willoughby, married a Francis Sewell in Lower New Norfolk VA in about 1631.  [You really can’t make this stuff up.  Truth is truly stranger than fiction.]

6.         13Mar1682/3:  Richard Wakelin and wife, Mary, do in open Court acknowledge this ensuing indenture of conveyance to be their act, deed, vitz., all their right, title, interest to the land within ____ to the form and effect of the within written indenture unto Thomas Mitchell.  THIS INDENTURE made the 13Mar1682/3 between Richard Wakelin and Mary, his wife, of Charles County in the Province of Maryland, planter, of the one part, and Thomas Mitchell of same, planter, of the other part, for 2,500 lbt, tract of land lying in Charles County called Green Chase lying and being at Nanjemony, beginning at a marked white oak standing on a deep branch, near the plantation of Edward Knight, binding on the south with the said Knight’s land… laid out for 200 acres.  Wit.: John Fanning, Henry Hardy and Robert Thompson.  [Liber K, Folio 130].  This was the first record found in which Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy was shown to possess land.  However, given the preceding records in which he was recorded as owning three servants, and was appointed constable, it seems probable that he was previously in possession of land.  The tract is said to have abutted Edward Knight’s land.  From “Early Landowners of Maryland, Volume 4: Charles County 1640-1710”, by Robert W. Hall, Edward Knight is reported to have patented only one tract called Find One which was “on the path from Chingomuxen”.  A study of the grants of abutting patents called Árdington Hall”, “Hopewell” and “Horne Faire”, this tract was likely located on the west side of Great Beaver Dam Creek in the area denoted on Figure 19-23.  FYW, all three of these abutting tracts (Hopewell, Ardington Hall and Horne Faire) were in possession of John Posey Jr. in the 1750’s.  On 6Sep1760 John Posey III purchased Green Chase from Thomas Mitchell.  Following are several records relating to this tract, called Green Chase:

a.         Apr. 18, 1680 – “Green Chase,” containing 200 acres in Charles Co., Md., is patented to Richard Wakelyn.  Source: Coldham, Peter W., “Settlers of Maryland, 1679-1700,” Page 178.

“To the Right Honorable Lord Proprietor:  In obedience of his Lord Proprietor’s warrant bearing date 6Apr1680 for 200 acres of land granted to Richard Wakelyne of Charles County, planter, ___ that I, Randall Brandt, Deputy Surveyor, under the honorable Vincent Lowe, Surveyor General of this Province, have laid out for the said Wakelyne a certain tract of land called Green Chase to be held of Lachiah Manor and beginning at a bounded white oak standing by a deep branch near the plantation of Edward Knight, and bounds on the south with the said land, with a line drawn WSW 100 perches to a bounded red oak, thence NNW 320 perches to a bounded red oak, thence ENE 100 perches to a bounded oak standing by a branch, thence  to the first bounded tree, containing and laid out for 200 acres.  Certified 18Apr1681.” [DB WC 3, Folio 483 (p. 258)] (Transcribed by author from microfilm)  This would appear to have been the record of the original patent filing on Green Chase by Richard Wakelyne.

b.         Nov. 14, 1682-Dec. 5, 1682 – Richard Wakelin vs. Thomas Mitchell. Sheriff’s return: I have taken Thomas Mitchell [into custody?]. (Charles Co., Md. Circuit Court, Liber K, Page 36.)  From this record it would appear that Thomas Mitchell had become indebted to Richard Wakelin.  It seems strange that Richard Wakelin would entertain the arrest of Thomas Mitchell just four months before entering into the sale of Green Chase in Mar1682/3.

c.         Mar. 16, 1687/8 – “Green Chance,” containing 200 acres in Charles Co., Md., is patented to Richard Wakelyn.  Location: Charles County in the woods beginning at a bound white oak standing by a deep branch next adjoining Edward Knight’s tract of land called “Final One.”  Note: No land rights involved. This was a “good-guy” grant usually given by the Lord Proprietor out of personal affection to persons are “beloved” by him to enable them to continue to render satisfactory services to himself and to his heirs.  Source: Hall, Robert W., “Early Landowners of Maryland, Volume 4: Charles County, 1640-1710,” Page 205.  This record would make it appear that Richard Wakelin may have been granted another tract of 200 acres called Green Chance.  However, the description of this tract appears to be identical to that of the original patent filing on the tract called Green Chase.  It is unclear to the author whether there were in fact two tracts: one called Green Chase, and another called Green Chance, or whether they were one and the same tract. (probably only one tract)

d.         8 Apr 1719:  Charles County Land Records, Liber H#2, Page 227.  Recorded at request of Elizabeth Noble:  28 Mar 1719; William White and Mary his wife of Stafford County, Virginia, appoint Henry Brett, planter, as atty. to make over unto Elizabeth Noble, spinster, part of a tract called Green Chance; being 100 acres that Richard Wakelin left his dau. Mary Waklin; /s/ William White, Mary White (mark); wit. John Posey (mark), Francis Dunnington (mark); proved by witnesses.  Although the tract identified in this deed is called Green Chance, it seems possible that it may actually have been the tract called Green Chase, patented by Richard Wakelin on 18Apr1680, and sold by Richard and Mary Wakelyne to Thomas Mitchell on 13Mar1682/3.  This possibility is supported by the deed abstracted in Item 6-f, below.  On 5Sep1760 a person named Thomas Mitchell conveyed one-half or moiety of a tract called Green Chase containing 100 acres to John Posey.  The description of that tract appears to match that of the original patent filing for Green Chase.  From this current record it would appear that Richard Wakelyne had devised one half or 100 acres to his daughter, Mary Wakelyne.  It seems probable that Mary, the wife of William White, was that daughter of Richard Wakelyne, and that she and her husband, William White, were conveying that 100 acres moiety of Green Chance [aka Chase] to Mary’s daughter from an earlier marriage, Elizabeth Noble.  Having sold the entire 200 acre tract to Thomas Mitchell in Mar1682/3, it is difficult to understand how it may have been in Richard Wakelyne’s power to convey half of that tract to his daughter, Mary.  The most logical explanation is that Thomas Mitchell ay have either defaulted on his purchase, or may have conveyed the tract back to Richard Wakelyne.  Since the deed books are missing in Charles County from about 1700 to about 1730, it is conceivable that Thomas Mitchell did convey this tract (or at least 100 acres) back to Richard Wakelyne before Richard’s death around 1711 and that the record of that conveyance is missing.

e.         1642-1753 Rent Rolls Charles County, Maryland Hundred – Nanjemoy or Durham Parish: Rent Roll page/Sequence: 339-37: GREEN CHANCE: 200 acres; Possession of – 100 Acres – Mitchell, Mary: 100 Acres – Wakelin, Richard: Surveyed 18 April 1680 for Richard Wakelin at a bound White Oak by a deep branch near the plantation of Edward Knight ; Conveyance notes – 100 Acres – Elizabeth Noble from William White & Mary; 28 March 1719, 50 Acres – Richard Wainwright from Absalom Thosne (?); 10 March 1729.  This tax record would seem to reinforce the notion that Green Chance [aka Chase] had been reconveyed from Thomas Mitchell to Richard Wakelyne.  The confusing part of this tax record is the suggestion that someone named Mary Mitchell was then in possession of 100 acres (moiety) of that tract sometime before 1753.  Given these tidbits, it seems more likely that Thomas Mitchell retained 100 acres, which devolved to his widow.

f.          5Sep1760:  At the request of John Posey the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 11Jun1760 between Thomas Mitchell of Charles County in the Province of Maryland, planter, of the one part, and John Posey of the same, planter, of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Thomas Mitchell, for and in consideration of the sum of 5,000 lbt to him in hand paid, sold all that moiety or half of that parcel or tract of land lying in Charles County called Green Chase, situate, lying and being at Nanjemoy, abutting Edward Knight… containing 200 acres… No dower relinquished.  [DB Liber G 3, Folio 453-5]  This record would seem to support the notion that Thomas Mitchell retained ownership of one half or moiety of Green Chase [aka Chance] and that title to that tract remained in the Mitchell family until this conveyance in Sep1760 to John Posey.  This fact reinforces the likelihood that the Mary Mitchell shown in the tax rolls was the widow of Thomas Mitchell [Sr.].  The identity of the Thomas Mitchell shown conveying this tract to John Posey is uncertain at this point, but almost certainly directly descended from the original Thomas Mitchell (henceforth Thomas Mitchell Sr.) of Charles County.

There are several issues setforth by the foregoing court records pertaining to Thomas Mitchell Sr. and Richard Wakelin, which warrant our attention.  First, we have a request to the Sheriff in Nov-Dec1682 by Richard Wakelin demanding the “arrest” of Thomas Mitchell.  There is nothing in the record abstract to suggest the reason for the Sheriff taking Thomas Mitchell into custody.  Usually such action was the result of failure to pay a debt or for trespass.  Just three months later we have the recordation of the indenture between Richard Wakelin and his wife, Mary, conveying to Thomas Mitchell [Sr.] the tract of land called Green Chase containing 200 acres, located at Nanjemoy.  Then on 16Mar1687/8 we have a patent filing by Richard Wakelin for a 200 acre tract called Green Chance.  And, finally, we have a rent roll which records a tract of land called Green Chance containing 200 acres: 100 acres in possession of Mary Mitchell, and 100 acres in possession of Richard Wakelin.  This sequence of records seem to raise doubt as to whether Richard Wakelin had patents for two separate tracts of land: one called Green Chase, and another called Green Chance, or whether they were the same tract.  The fact that Mary Mitchell (presumed widow of Thomas Mitchell Sr.) was in possession of 100 acres of Green Chance would seem to suggest that there was only one tract of 200, which variously was called Green Chase and Green Chance, and that Thomas Mitchell Sr. retained possession of a moiety of that tract.

7.         4Jul1683:  Thomas Mitchell registered cattle and hog marks.  [Liber l, Folio 109].  This cattle mark filing was almost certainly for the same person reported in the preceding records, i.e., Thomas Mitchell Sr.

8.         21Feb1684/5:  In a certain action between Thomas Mitchell vs. Edward Abbott and Thomas Craxoy… [Liber L, Folio 146].  Ditto.

9.         9Mar1684:  Edward Abbott 9.194 I CH £11.15.9 Mar 4 1684 cites items in the possession of Thomas Mitchell. Appraisers: Michaell Minok, John Boswell (who died before the inventory was probated).

10.       Dec1685:  Thomas Mitchell, administrator of Edward Abbott, exhibited his account of the goods and chattels of the said Edward.  Ordered that whereas the said account was appraised in money, the said administrator be allowed in tobacco…  [Liber M, Folio 88].  Ditto.

11.       6Apr1687:  Charles County Circuit Court Liber N, Page 206; 6 Apr 1687; Deeds of Gifts of household goods and cattle from George Pouncy to the children of his wife Mary Pouncy to be rec’d immediately after her death: to Mathew Boswell, John Boswell, Mary Boswell, Martha Boswell, Michell Boswell, William Boswell; /s/ George Pouncy (mark); wit. Thomas Mitchell, William Hall.  Marie Pouncey is believed to have been the widow of John Bozwell.

12.       10Mar1690:  This Indenture between George Austry of Stafford County VA of the one part, and Thomas Mitchell of Charles County MD, planter, of the other part, for 5,000 lbt, sold a tract of land Abberdeen, being taken up by one Alexander Gallant, late of Charles County, and by him conveyed to George Austry, such conveyance of record in Charles County, lying in Charles County, and beginning  at a bounded white oak on the west side of a small branch near John Wheelers land called Exeter… near the main fresh of Piscataway, containing 100 acres… also, all that tract called Maidstone, lying in Charles County, beginning at a bounded hickory tree, abutting a tract called Abberdeen… containing 100 acres… Wit.: George Godfrey and William Frost. [Liber R, Folio 338-9].  From this indenture we learn that Thomas Mitchell Sr. acquired two additional tracts of land called “Abberdeen” and “Maidstone”, each containing 100 acres, and abutting Exeter, owned by Maj. John Wheeler.  These tracts are believed to have been situated along the south side of Piscataway Creek in an area that would later fall within Prince Georges County on its formation in Apr1696.  Following are abstracts of the original patents:

a.         1Aug1672:  Patent Liber 17, Folio 257:  Aberdeen (100 acres): Charles County beginning at a bounded Oak on the west side of John Wheeler’s tract of land called Exeter.  Also ajoins George Austrey’s tract called Maidstone and Ignatius Wheeler’s tract called The Indian Field.

b.         18Aug1674:  Patent Liber 15, Folio 295:  Maidstone (100 acres):  Charles County beginning at a bounded Hickory of Alexander Gallant’s tract called Aberdeene.  Other persons mentioned: Lands rights assigned by Alexander Gallant due him for transporting himself and Richard Parker into the Province hereto inhabit as appears in the record.

13.       10Nov1691:  A jury of our sovereign… on the information of John Allwood, who was appointed one of said overseers for the … highway within the proximity of Portobacco Hundred, within said County, upon their oath do present Thomas Mitchell, late of Portobacco Hundred, aforesaid, planter, for refusing to send help or assist…  [Liber R, Folio 273].  This court filing suggests that Thomas Mitchell owned land in 1691 or previously in the vicinity of Portobacco (possibly Green Chase), and that he had failed to comply with a request to commit hands to work on a “highway” in that area.  He is recorded as “late of Portobacco Hundred”.  This suggests that he may have removed himself from that area.  Given that he was recorded as acquiring two tracts of land in Mar1690 at Piscataway, it is entirely possible that he may have moved from Nanjemoy area to Piscataway within the recent past.

14.       12Jan1691/2:  Whereas it was commanded the sheriff that he cause to come here this day, that is to say, the 12 day of January before their majority of Justices for Charles County, Thomas Mitchell, late of this County, planter, for refusing to send help to assist … with highway… the said Thomas Mitchell appearing now this day and his reasons and allegations by said Court here being heard and understood, which by said Court being thought sufficient.  It is ordered that the said presentment be dismissed and that the said Thomas Mitchell be thereof acquitted.  [Liber R, Folio 337].  Apparently, Thomas Mitchell appeared in court on 12Jan1691/2 in response to the earlier filing re: his failure to respond to the request from an overseer of roads, and that his explanation for his non-compliance was found acceptable by the court.

15.       8Mar1691/2:  Anne Thomas petitioning the Court for the freedom of her daughter, Elizabeth Thomas, Thomas Mitchell, her master produced here in Court this ensuing writing to testify how long she was to serve him.  “Know all men by these presents that Anne Thomas of Charles County, widow, for diverse good causes and considerations ____ not mentioned have granted consent that my child, Elizabeth Thomas shall live with and serve Thomas Mitchell and Mary, his wife, until she doth come of age, she being at this present 8 years old, the said Thomas and Mary, his wife …dated 10Feb1684.  Wit.: John Guyott and Anne Thompson.  [Liber R, Folio 372].  This court record refers to an indenture between Anne Thomas and Thomas Mitchell, and his wife, Mary, dated 10Feb1684, for the service of Anne’s daughter, Elizabeth Thomas, who was eight years old at the outset.  This was the earliest record found in which the name of Thomas Mitchell’s wife was given.  Some researchers claim that Mary Mitchell was born Mary Wheeler, daughter of Thomas Wheeler.  That seems a biological impossibility, as Thomas Wheeler was not born until 1660.  There were intermarriages between Mitchells and Wheelers which will be documented later in this chapter.

16.       1692:  Thomas Mitchell sued Richard Marshall, both of Charles County, for debt amounting to 340 lbt… William Dent, Mitchell’s attorney… [Liber R, Folio 405].  Thomas Mitchell sued for minor debt.

17.       1692:  Thomas Mitchell sued Stephen Mankin, both of Charles County, for debt owed at Portobacco amounting to 450 lbt. [Liber R, Folio 448].  If Thomas Mitchell had moved to the Piscataway area, this may have been a lingering debt incurred while he lived at Portobacco.  Stephen Mankind is on record as having received a patent of 65 acres called “Mankind’s Adventure” on 12Jun1688.  Mankind’s Adventure abutted a tract originally patented to Nicholas Causine for 1000 acres called Causine Manor, which was situated on the north side of the Potomac River near the mouth of Portobacco Creek.  FWIW: Maj. John Wheeler is believed by the author to have married Mary Causine, daughter of Nicholas Causine.  (More to follow).

18.       Liber R, Folio 405, 451, 497 and 530: various suits involving Thomas Mitchell Sr. and debts.  Ditto.

19.       Jan. 25, 1693/4 – The Charles Co., Md. will of John Lambert, probated Feb. 7, 1693/4, leaves personalty to Elizabeth, dau. of John Gourley, Prudence, dau. of Nicholas Cooper, and John Smoot [Janey Smoot]. Thomas Witchell [sic; Mitchell] of Port Tobacco and William Dent of Nanjemy are named joint executors and residuary legatees of Lambert’s real and personal estate.  Source: Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol. 2, Page 53.  Comment: Newman’s “The Flowering of the Maryland Palatinate” at Page 315 states that: Elizabeth and Prudence were John’s god-daughters; –the third bequest of personalty was to “Janey” Smoot; –Thomas Mitchell and William Dent were Lambert’s two friends.

Also,

1695 – James [sic; John] Lambeth [sic; Lambert] 13B.57 A CH (1695)  Payments to: Hugh Perry, George Delehay, John Barker, John Banister, Owen Dehortee, John Banks, Philip Lynes, Jos. Harrisson, Humphry Warren.  List of debts: Francis Harrisson, Daniell Yates, Hugh Perry, James Ashbrock, Nehemiah Cooper, Col. Warren, Dr. Hall.  Executors: Thomas Mickell [sic; Mitchell], William Dent.

This may be a particularly important record for affixing the presumed locale of Thomas Mitchell Sr.’s area of operation and perhaps the identity of his wife.  For starters it should be noted that Thomas Mitchell was identified as being of Portobacco.  Heretofore we had identified Thomas Mitchell as having been in possession of only three tracts of land: Green Chase at Nanjemoy, and Aberdeen and Maidstone on south side of Piscataway.  This record would seem to imply that he was perceived in 1695 as having been in residence in the vicinity of Portobacco.  Such locale is supported by the fact that John Lambert had been in possession of two patents called Hoggs Quarter and Nonesuch abutting Thomas Stone’s Pointon Manor.  Pointon Manor was originally granted to William Stone (former Governor of Maryland) for 5000 acres situated on the north side of Nanjemoy Creek.  Later we will discover that Thomas Mitchell appears to have swapped his two tracts near Piscataway for a tract called Lampton’s Resurvey.  It may have been that land swap (with is presumed father-in-law, Mark Lampton), which caused Thomas Mitchell to have been affiliated with Portobacco Hundred in 1693/4 as contrasted to Nanjemoy.

20.       1695 – The St. Mary’s Co., Md. inventory of William Rosewell shows Thomas Mitchell on Rosewell’s list of debts.  Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Inventories & Accounts, Liber 13B, pp. 126-132.  This estate record which shows Thomas Mitchell as a debtor was filed in St. Marys County.  William Roswell must have been one of the most active merchants in the region as his list of debtors contains more than 750 persons, including Thomas Mitchell, Edward Mitchell (probable son of William Mitchell of South River), Thomas Wheeler and Ignatius Wheeler (sons of Maj. James Wheeler).  Even though this estate record is from St. Mary’s County, there is virtually no doubt that this was Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy.

21.       July 1695 – The St. Mary’s Co., Md. inventory of Nehemiah Blakiston shows Thomas Mitchell on Blakiston’s list of debts.  Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Inventories & Accounts, Liber 10, Page 403.  Ditto.

22.       Sep 28 1697:  Col. Edward Pye 15.240 I £16.17.0.  The amount of the inventory also included #30082.  Appraisers: Henry Wharton, Edward Digges.  List of debts: Thomas Davis, John Clements, Samuell Luckett, Richard Edelen, Thomas Mitchell, Cornelius Maddox, Thomas Jenkins, Col. Diggs, Robert Thompson, Capt. Philip Hoskins, Robert Merrifield, John Wincole, Thomas Smoote, Jeremia Suell, William Burley, Mr. Henry Hawkins, Walter Poore, Christopher Wickmore, David Pue [Pew], Dr. Hall, Mrs. Causon [probably widow of Ignatius Causine], John Smith, Moses Jones, John Anderson Richard Hubert, Patrick Maggatee, Dr, Burch, Mr. Roger Brookes, Mr. Benjamin Hall, Mr. William Boarman, Jr., Mr. John Hanson, Maj. Smallwood.  Thomas Mitchell was listed as a debtor on the estate inventory of Colonel Edward Pye.  FWIW:  Col. Edward Pye married the widow of Colonel Benjamin Rozer, Anne Sewell.

23.       Oct. 1697 – The Charles Co., Md. inventory of Col. William Diggs was approved at Pangaja by Francis Green and Thomas Mitchell.  Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Inventories & Accounts, Liber 15, Page 318.  Colonel William Diggs, son of the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Edward Diggs, was married to Elizabeth Sewell, daughter of Dr. Henry Sewell, as her 2nd husband.  Francis Green is believed to have been a son of Thomas Green, former Governor of the Province of Maryland.  So, within this single estate record we appear to have the interaction of Thomas Mitchell of Portobacco with the sons of two former colonial governors.  Col. William Diggs had extensive land holdings at his death, including tracts in both Maryland and Virginia, his place of birth having been at Bellfield in York County VA.  The cited estate inventory was separated into several segments, with Francis Green and Thomas Mitchell being responsible for property within the vicinity of old Pangiah Manor, which spanned between Mattawoman (St. Thomas) and Portobacco.  By the author’s reconning, Thomas Mitchell may have been about 50 years old in 1697.

24.       June 1698 – The Charles Co., Md. administration account of William Hall shows that Hall’s estate made a payment to Thomas Mitchell.  Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Inventories & Accounts, Liber 16, Page 93.  The earliest record found of a William Hall in Maryland was when Thomas Westin claimed a headright for having transported William Hall in 1640, and an additional 50 acres for rights assigned by George Pye.  No further records were found for William Hall in Maryland until the following abstracts starting around 1660:

a.         Feb1660/1:  Let it be Enquired for the Lord Proprietary whether John Jenkins Hugh Neile William Heard Henry Peere Richard Morris William Smoote John Courts James Walker William Hall, William Crayford Thomas Jaruis Thomas Lomax and John Morris contrary to the fidellity to his Lops due not hauing the feare of God before their Eyes, and by Instigacon of the deuell, mutinously and seditiously Contrary to the Acte of Assembly in that case provided within this Province at the howse of Josias Fendall in Charles County vpon the Eighth and nynth dayes of February 1660 agt the pson of his Lops Gouernor his gouernmt & guards provided for the safety thereof did wth force attempt tht is to say vpon the 8th day of Feb. aforesaid at the howse of Josias Fendall aforesaid, in the County aforesaid in Armes did appeare, and upon the ninth day of February to rescue the psons of Josias Fendall and John Hatch then Prisoners for mutiny and Sedicon and under a guard did march in greate derroga- con from the just power of his Lop and the Subversion of the Government of this Province and Contrary to the peace of his said Lop. his rule and dominion.  In Feb1660/1 it would appear that a William Hall along with William Smoot and James Walker, etal. were arraigned on charges of having attempted the release from custody of Josias Fendall and John Hatch.  From earlier records we learned that Josias Fendall, John Hatch, William Smoot and James Walker were all near neighbors of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen.  Josias Fendall, former Governor, had been arrested and imprisoned after his failed attempt to put down a perceived Puritan rebellion along the Severn [aka Fendall’s Rebellion].  Josias Fendall was the son-in-law of John Hatch, having married Mary Hatch.

b.         Apr1661:  Know all men by thees Presents that I Andrew Watson of Charleses County in the Prouince of Mariland Planter doe engage mee my heirs Executors Administrators that Richard trew of the same County boatright shall acknowledg in open Court a firme bill of sayle for one hundered and fifty acres of land lung in Nangemy and ioyning to the sayd Richard Trews Plantation which hee is now.  The Plantiues Charge Vizt to his going with the witneses to haue them sworne, to Mr Bouls sworne be for too Commissioners, to Daniell Wind John Neuill William hall each 90, to Zara bouls alias duglas Elenor Morris each 90, to Richard Watson & William Price each 90, to the Sheriff seruing nine subpenes, to Edmond Lendsey sworne at the Prouinciall Court, to Robert Robins Comming to ditto Court and atten…Apparently William Hall was exonerated from the charges associated with the attempted freeing of Josias Fendall, as he was just three months later a witness at Court for which time he was paid 90 lbt.

c.         Jun1663:  Whearupon the Court put it to a Jury whose name are as followeth Daniell Johnson Robert Taylor William heard William Hall James Mackey Francis Batchelor Richard Dod John Wheeler Thomas hus sey Gils Tomkins John Tomkinson John Neuill   Daniell Johnson beeing Chosen thear forman hee and the Rest of the Jury beeing sworne had the precedent oaths deliuered unto them with thees instructions from the board.  William Hall, John Wheeler, John Neville, etal. served as jurors in Jun 1663,

d.         6Apr1664:  Willm Hall aged 29 yeares or thereabouts Sworne & Examined in a difference depending betweene Robert Robins and Richard Dod in an accon of the Case of trouer and Conuersion sayth, about 3 yeares agoe this last Summer about Cyder time which hee thinkes was about the last of July or the beginning of August being att John Neuills howse hee the said deponant going homewards did see a Mare by the fence of Thomas Bakers which was Called Robert Robins Mare and afterwards hee the said deponant did see the same Mare by Capt Jenkinses plantaton wth other Mares of W Prescotts about 2 or 3 monthes after the time which hee did first see her and uide folio  further sayth not—  Apr1664 William Hall (aged 29) was deposed in a case involving property theft by Robert Robins.

e.         1665:  William Hall immigrated 1665 as shown at 7:605 of the Patent Records. We know this is the same William Hall who made his will Mar. 28, 1666 because his will leaves Ann Cage the same servant he is shown as having transported at 7:605. If William Hall was only in Md. 1665-6 then Ann Cage who was a married adult in 1666 was not his dau.  This record is obviously incorrect as it pertains to the date by which William Hall was transported into the Province.  From the earlier reported records, William Hall was clearly in Maryland as early as 1660, when he would have been aged about 24 years old.  The most significant element of this record is the fact that William Hall was credited with transporting Ann Cage.

f.          May 31, 1666 – Will (of William Hall) proved. John Cage (Charles Co.) was granted administration. Surety: Walter Beane. Appraisers: John Courts, Richard Morrice. Walter Beane to administer oath. Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Testamentary Proceedings, Liber 1F, pp. 95-97.  June 9, 1666 – Inventory of William Hall (planter, St. Mary’s Co.) at house of John Cager [sic]. Appraisers: John Courts, Robert Morris. Mr. Walter Beane administered the oath. Servant: John Rowse. List of debts: John Smith, Humprey Warren, Thomas Simpson, Samuel Clarke, John Dowglas, Thomas Smoote, Robert Henley, John Pitts. Date filed: Sep. 1, 1666. Additional inventory. Source: Maryland Prerogative Court, Testamentary Proceedings, Liber 2, pp. 44-5  It appears that this William Hall had died prior to May1666.  His estate was administered by John Cage, believed to have been the same person to whom Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen sold land.  It seems probable that Ann Cage was the wife of John Cage, and very possibly a sister of William Hall.

g.         28Jan1696/7:  In the name of God, amen, I, William Hall, Chirgeon, born in the City of Chichester, County of Sussex in the Kingdom of England, second son of William Hall of the said City and Kingdon, but now of Charles County in the Province of Maryland, being very sick and weak of body but of good sense and memory, thanks be to Almighty God for his great mercy, I do by this present writing make my last will and testament in manner and form as followeth:  In first place I bequeath my soul to Almighty God that gave it me and mybody to be  decently buried at the discretion of my loving wife and the rest of my loving friends, hoping in God to have everlasting rest in my dear Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ;  I give unto my dear and loving wife, Mary Hall one house and garden situated and being in the City of Chichester, situated and being bounded on the north with a Malt House, on the east with the North Street, on the south with a house of Alderman Berry, and on the West with part of the gardens of the said Alderman Berry’s, with all the appurtenances and edifices thereunto belonging unto my said wife, Mary Hall during her natural life, and after her decease I give the said house and garden with all their rights and properties thereunto belonging unto my two sons: John Hall and William Hall, to them and their heirs forever.  I do by this present writing make void and of none effect all former wills and this to be my last will and testament and to remain in full force, strength and virtue.  I do constitute and appoint my loving wife, Mary Hall to be my whole and sole Executrix of all my personal and real estate which God hath been graciously disposed to bestow upon me.  In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 28Jan1696/7.  Signed William Hall.  Wit.: Richard Sowter, John Bayne and Hugh Bars?  Richard Boughton, Deputy Commissary.  The foregoing LWT of William Hall was transcribed by the author from Wills, Vol 4-10, 1670, 1676-1679, 1682-1700 at Ancestry.com.   This is believed to have been the same person whose estate administration reported a payment to Thomas Mitchell in Jun1698.  No other records could be identified directly associated with this William Hall.  From his Will, he appears to have fairly recently arrived in Charles County from Chichester, Sussex, England.  Whether there may have been any connection between this William Hall and the William Hall recorded in the Pickawaxen area in the 1660’s is unknown.  FWIW:  Capt. William Mitchell purportedly was from Chichester.

25.       Mr. Thomas Mitchell 19-1/2B.139 I £18.14.0 May 4 1700.  Appraisers: Francis Green, Andrew Simpson.  This is believed to have been the estate appraisal record for Thomas Mitchell of Portobacco, who apparently died intestate sometime between Jun1698 and May1700, say 1699/00. 

26.       Thomas Mitchell 11B.53 A CH £18.14.0 Jun 14 1700.  Received from: Edward Marlow.  Payments to: Mark Lampton, William Hutchinson.  Administratrix: Mary Mitchell (relict).  It is assumed that Mary Mitchell was the widow of Thomas Mitchell, and the same person referenced in Item No. 13, above.  Some researchers have interpreted the wording of the indenture between Thomas Mitchell and Ann Thomas to imply that Mary and Thomas had been married since the effective date of that indenture, i.e., 10Feb1684.  That seems highly unlikely, as Thomas Mitchell’s wife is of good foundation identified as Mary Lampton, daughter of Mark Lampton, born on 24Jan1678 as noted below.  At best, we can reasonably assume that Thomas and Mary were married on or before 8Mar1691/2, by which date Mary Lampton would have been only 13 years old.  This would have been a rather young age for Mary Lampton to be marrying, but not impossible.  One other possibility seems to be that Thomas Mitchell may have been married to two different women, both of whom were named “Mary”.

a.         County Circuit Court, Birth, Deaths & Marriage Records, Liber Q Lampton, Mary, d/o Marke and Elizabeth Lampton of the head of Portobacco Creek, b. 24 Jan 1678/9

We have now completed presentation of the records believed to have been associated with Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy.  This would be a good point in our investigation to recap this information and to place this Thomas Mitchell into perspective with the Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen.  The earliest record that could be located for Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy was when he appeared as a co-commissioner along with James Wheeler, etal. on 25Nov1679 (Item No. 1, above).  Prior to that record, there had been a gap of almost 15 years from the previous known record associated with Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen, when his apparent son, Thomas Mitchell Jr. reported missing hogs in 1664.  There was a warrant filing by a Thomas Mitchell for 150 acres in 1666, but that person could not be identified with any certainty, nor could any patent be associated with that filing.  The only other record that could be located for a Thomas Mitchell during this 15-year record gap was in a claim filed by Capt. William Burgess on 25Sep1674 for a 550 acre grant based on the transport of eleven persons, including someone named Thomas Mitchell.  Given the known associations between Capt. William Burgess and the family of William Mitchell of South River, it seems entirely possible that the Thomas Mitchell transported by Capt. William Burgess could have been the person currently being analyzed as Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy.

Sherrie Mitchell Boone and Richard Kozeny would have us believe that Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy was descended from Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen, possibly a son.  That connection may be possible, but we are left to ponder the almost 15-year gap in the records.  Given the relatively high frequency of records pertaining to Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy, it is difficult to comprehend how he could have been present in Maryland between 1664 and 1679 and not have been captured in some record.  If we are to accept the purported linkage between these two Thomas Mitchells as father and son, we almost inevitably must accept that Thomas Mitchell Jr. must have left the Province of Maryland for an extended period, and then returned almost 15 years later.  Is that a reasonable conclusion?

Then we have the peculiar absence of any reference in the records of Joan Mitchell, relic of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen, to a son named Thomas.  In a gift deed dated 23Mar1676 Joan Mitchell (widow) conveyed her entire personal estate to someone named Thomas Wells, excepting a cow given to Johanna Philpott.  If Joan Mitchell had a living son in 1676, it seems only reasonable to assume that she might have shared part of her meager estate with that son.  Absent any reference to a son of Joan Mitchell in the disposal of her property, the author is inclined to believe that her son, Thomas Mitchell Jr. probably had died sometime before 1676.  It cannot be discounted that Thomas Mitchell Jr. could have had a son named Thomas Mitchell [III], who could have been reared by either his grandmother (Joan Mitchell), or by his unknown mother’ family, but there is absolutely no record evidence to support that possibility.  All things considered, the author is inclined to believe that Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy was the person named as a transportee of Capt. William Burgess in Sep1674.  If we accept that conclusion, then we are still lacking any evidence of his ancestry, excpt the probability that he was a close kinsman of William Mitchell of South River, possibly 1st cousin.

This Thomas Mitchell was found to have acquired only three tracts of land during his lifetime:  Green Chase at Nanjemoy, and Maidstone and Abberdeen situated on the south side of Piscataway Creek adjoining Exeter owned by Maj. John Wheeler.  Per the LWT of Mark Lampton abstracted below, Thomas Mitchell appears to have swapped land containing 200 acres for an unidentified tract owned by Lampton. 

1.        Nov. 3, 1701 – The Anne Arundel Co., Md. [but all estate records are in Charles Co., Md.] will of Mary [sic; Mark] Lampton, probated Jan. 1, 1701/2, leaves: –to sons William and John jointly, 200 acres (unnamed) near Piscataway, obtained from Thomas Mitchell by exchange for certain land (unnamed.)  Said sons to ratify the exchange. –to daughters Victory, Ann, Elizabeth, Isabell and Sarah, personalty; the first named at 16 years of age to have certain personalty which belonged to her mother, deceased. –son Mark, executor and residuary legatee, and to have charge of children aforesaid during minority.  Witnesses: Mary Mitchell, Isabell Breeding, Richard Harrison.  Source: Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol. 2, pp. 234-5.  Comment: The oldest child of Mark Lampton was dau. Mary Lampton, b. Jan. 24, 1678/9 at the head of Port Tobacco Creek in Charles Co. Source: Charles Co., Md. Circuit Court, Liber P, Page 206 and Liber Q, Page 6. 

Since Mary Mitchell and her descendants appear to have retained possession of Green Chase as late as the 1760’s, it seems probable that the land swapped by Thomas Mitchell was the two tracts (Abberdeen and Maidstone) at Piscataway.  Also, since the trailing records for Thomas Mitchell appear to have been mainly associated with the Nanjemoy-Portobacco area, it seems probable that the tract swapped by Mark Lampton would have been located in that same area, possibly Lampton Resurvey abstracted as follows:

2.         5Oct1685:  NS2i/34 SR7371:  Resurveyed for Mark Lampton, 150 acres called Lampton Resurvey located in Charles County on the west side of Portobacco (aka St. Thomas) Creek beginning at a bound Oak of Benjamin Rozer’s tract of land called St. Patrick’s Hill. Note: The tract was originally surveyed for Garrett Sinnott and sold by him to Matthew Sanders.  Lampton purchased the tract from Sanders and requested resurvey to correct an error in the earlier survey.

Thomas Mitchell clearly was an upstanding and respected member of his community, having been appointed Constable, juror, estate appraiser, and both creditor and debtor.  He was referenced in several records as having been a “planter”.  In his waning years he is found in association with some of the most illustrious residents of his neighborhood, including Fancis Green (son of former Governor, Thomas Green), Col. William Diggs (son of Edward Diggs, former Governor of Virginia), Col. Benjamin Rozer and Col. Edward Pye.  Following the death of Thomas Mitchell [henceforth Sr.] in about 1699/0, there are trailing records for his presumed widow, Mary Lampton-Mitchell and their presumed son, Thomas Mitchell Jr. listed as follows:

1.         2 Feb 1702:  Charles County Maryland Land Records, Liber Z, Page 42.  Recorded at request of Notley Rozer:; Indenture from Notley Rozer, Gent., to Edward Diggs and Anthony Neale, Gent., trustees for Jane Diggs, d/o Elizabeth, now wife of Notley Rozer; according to premarital bond between Notley and Elizabeth Digges on 16 Apr last past; land formerly called Duddington Manor on the east side of Anacostia River in St. Thomas Bay; containing 1,000 acres; patent granted Thomas Notley, Gent., 1 Mar 1671 (WT-473); 500 acres of afsd. land now called Troy, bounded by Duddington Manor; also 300 acres formerly called Duddington Pasture on the east side of Anacostia River in St. Thomas Bay; total 1,800 acres called Cerne Abby Manor with all advantages to manors in England; /s/ Notley Rozer; wit. Charles Pye, Mary Diggs, Mary Mitchell; ack. 11 Aug 1703 by Notley Rozer.  The fact that Mary Mitchell (relic of Thomas Mitchell Sr.) would have been called on to witness this indenture between Notley Rozer (son of Benjamin Rozer, and husband of Jane Diggs, daughter of William Diggs and Elizabeth Sewell) and Edward Diggs (son of William Diggs and Elizabeth Sewell), and Anthony Neale (son of James Neale and husband of Elizabeth Roswell), indicates that Mary still resided in the vicinity of Poynton Manor, probably on Green Chase or Lampton Resurvey.

2.         14 Jan 1708/9; William Dolton registers cattle mark Recorded at request of Samuell Hanson: 19 Nov 1708; Quit Claim from John Warren, Gent., to Samll. Hanson and his wife, extx. of Benjamin Warren, Gent., dec’d; land late in the possession of Benjamin Warren, dec’d, bro. of John Warren; 190 acres part of a tract called The Hills containing a total of 240 acres; bounded by Humphrey Attwicks, Thomas Mitchell, Wicomico Field now possessed by Thomas Read; /s/ John Warren; wit. Wm. Herbert, Robert Yates, Thomas Coart; 19 Nov 1708 John Warren ack. deed for 190 acres to Samuel Hanson and his wife Elizabeth for the life of sd. Elizabeth.  This record has been included at this juncture, more because of its chronological relevance than any specific connection to Mary Mitchell or her descendants.  Clearly, this quit claim pertained to land situated in the old Pickawaxen Hundred and was still referring to lands owned by Humphrey Attwicks and Thomas Mitchell, almost 50 years after the presumed death of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen.  Does the fact that the land previously owned by Thomas Mitchell at the southern tip of Pickawaxen was still being reported in 1708 imply that that land may still have been in possession of a descendant in 1708?  No further references to Thomas Mitchell’s Pickawaxen holdings were found (no deed of conveyance, no estate record, nothing).  Joan Mitchell, who probably would have been the heir at law following the death of her husband, presumably would have been found by the Court to be legally possessed of his estate, but no estate records have been found.  So, we cannot state with any certainty, exactly who may have held title to Thomas Mitchell’s old land at Pickawaxen in 1708.

3.         Sep 1 1715:  Col. William Diggs 36C.44 A CH E722.11.7 £798.8.7.  Received from: Gilbert Clarke, Richard Keen, Joshua Holdsworth, William Dixon, Nicholas Low, Thomas Tench, Esq.  Payments to: Francis Swales, Ann Duckworth, Gerard Sly on account of Elisabeth Baker, Michaell Curtis, Dr. M. Moore, [probably Dr. Mordecai Moore, husband of Ursula [Painter?], widow of Capt. William Burgess]  William Twisden, James Cox, Mr. Charles Carroll, William Dent, Thomas Bowling, William Guither, James Browner, Col. William Whittington, Thomas Mitchell, Thomas Nation. Richard Iles, Robert Yakes [Yates], William Dent, William Herbert, John Freeman, Mr. William Bladen, Lady Bawdon, Maj. William Dent, Col. Henry Low, Charles Carroll.  Executors: Mrs. Elisabeth Diggs, Mr. Edward Diggs. Accounts filed by Mr. William Diggs (brother & executor of Edward Diggs (surviving executor)) of Prince George’s County.  Although this record is dated1Sep1715, it almost certainly pertained to the estate settlement for Col. William Diggs, who died sometime around 1697.  Consequently, this listing probably was in reference to Thomas Mitchell Sr., and not his presumed son.

4.         19May1718:  Coleman, Richard, planter, Charles County, 19th May, 1718; 27th June, 1718, To Elizabeth Osborne (wife of Thomas Osborne, smith), personalty. To Thomas Mitchell and Archibald Johnstone, joint exs., residue of estate, equally, Test: Joseph Clemment, Rhafele Clement. 14. 666.  This almost certainly was a reference to Thomas Mitchell Jr., son of Thomas Mitchell Sr. (of Nanjemoy).  Refer to the following abstracted affidavit sworn in Court on 1Jan1754:

a)         1Jan1754:  MITCHELL, Thos, age 66, 1 Jan. 1754 [born 1688 by calculation]; CHLR D#3 48:236

From the foregoing affidavit we can estimate Thomas Mitchell Jr.’s birth year at about 1688.  That being the case, we can stipulate with some certainty that he was not the son of Mary Lampton, but rather of an earlier unknown wife of Thomas Mitchell Sr.  That being the case, then we can also state with some certainty that this was the earliest known recorded instance of a son of Thomas Mitchell Sr., whom we will henceforth refer to as Thomas Mitchell Jr.  Given the following land record abstract, we can also state that Thomas Mitchell Jr.’s co-Executor, Archibald Johnston, probably resided in very close proximity to the west side of upper Portobacco Creek:

b)         25Mar1724:  Charles County, Maryland Liber L#2, Page 139.  At the request of Archibald Johnson, the following deed was recorded May 8, 1724.  Mar 25, 1724 from Basil Warring of Prince Georges County, gent, to Archibald Johnson of CC, planter, for 600 lbs of tobacco and for divers other good causes, all that tract of land called Litchfield, lying in CC upon the south side of Wheelers Branch & joining with a piece of land called Planters Delight. Signed – Basil Waring. Wit – James Stoddert*, Thos Brooke Jr.

After completion of our presentation of records pertaining to Thomas Mitchell Jr. and his immediate family, we will make a thorough presentation of the family of Maj. John Wheeler.  Suffice it to say at this juncture that Thomas Mitchell Jr. is believed to have married Ann Wheeler, daughter of Thomas Wheeler, and granddaughter of Maj. John Wheeler.  During his lifetime Maj. John Wheeler acquired more than a dozen tracts of land in upper Charles County, much of which was along Piscataway Creek and would later fall within Prince Georges County on its formation in 1696.  From the foregoing deed abstract it is shown that Archibald Johnson acquired Litchfield, which adjoined Planters Delight, a 600 acre grant patented by John Wheeler in 1663.  The location of Planters Delight is expressed in the following Rent Roll record abstract:

c)         1642-1753 Rent Rolls Charles County MD Hundred – Nanjemoy or Durham Parish: Rent Roll page/Sequence: 335-11: PLANTERS DELIGHT: 600 acres; Possession of – 600 Acres – Mills, Peter: Surveyed 22 Aug 1654 for George Thompson up the West side of the fresh run of the Easternmost branch of Nanjemoy Creek.: Conveyance notes – possessed by Peter Mills who married the relict of Ignatius Wheeler.  From this rent roll abstract is it shown that Planters Delight was situated on easternmost branch of Nanjemoy Creek, which would place it nearby to Poynton Manor.

5.         1May1734:  Wheeler, Richard, Charles County, 1st Apr., 1734; 1st May, 1734. To Kindrick Bayne, dwelling plantation and 17 A. adjoining for her use until son Richard comes to age of 18. To son Thomas, 20 A. and the mill on sd. land; Kindrick Bane to have 500 lbs. tob. yearly until afsd. Thomas arrives at age of 18. Thomas Mitchell to be paid 500 lbs. tob. yearly for education of sons Richard and Thomas till they arrive at age of 18. To dau. Elizabeth Brawner, dau. Martha, dau. Mary Madox, dau. Anne Ellder, personalty.  To sons Richard and Thomas and dau. Annastasia Kean, 1/2 of personal estate, other 1/2 to Kindrick Bane and her child. Should Ebsworth Bayne come to molest or take any part or parcel thereof, Patrick Connelly is empowered to secure the afsd. estate to sd, Kindrick and her children.  Ex.: Thomas Mitchell.  Test: William Nelson, Charity Smallwood, Ignatius Mitchell. MCW 21.57.  Richard Wheeler (1683-1734) was a son of Thomas Wheeler, and brother-in-law of Thomas Mitchell Jr., who was named the Executor of Richard Wheeler’s estate.  By this LWT, Thomas Mitchell was made guardian of Richard Wheeler and Thomas Wheeler, the minor sons of Richard Wheeler, testator.  It is important to note that Ingatius Mtichell, presumed son of Thomas Mitchell Jr., witnessed this Will.  Also, note that Charity Smallwood (future wife of Thomas Mitchell III) also was a witness to the Will.   More on Richard Wheeler in the Wheeler Family section to follow.

6.         6Jul1734:  At the request of Ignatius Mitchell and Thomas Mitchell Jr. of Charles County the following deed was recorded:  “Know all men by the presents that I Thomas Wheeler of Charles County, planter, for and in consideration of the sincere love and affection that I bear unto my two grandsons: Ignatius Mitchell and Thomas Mitchell Jr., sons of Thomas Mitchell of this County, planter, and for several other weighty reasons, me thereunto moving hath given, granted, aliened… and set over unto the said Ignatius Mitchell and Thomas Mitchell Jr. all that tract or tracts, parcel or parcels of land lying and being in Charles County… one moiety thereof to Ignatius Mitchell and one moiety to Thomas Mitchell Jr…  Wit.: Joshua Allford, Joseph Mitchell, and Martha Wheeler.” [DB Liber O-2, Folio 48]  This deed of conveyance (as a gift) from Thomas Wheeler to Ignatius Wheeler and Thomas Wheeler Jr. clearly states that Ignatius and Thomas Jr. were grandsons of Thomas Wheeler, and sons of Thomas Mitchell, planter, of Charles County.  It is interesting to note that this indenture does not identity the property being transferred, but simply makes reference to other documents and titles.  These tracts are identified in later deeds of conveyance fillings.  Also, note that a Joseph Mitchell witnessed this document.  Joseph Mitchell is believed to have been a brother of Thomas Mitchell Jr. and Ignatius Mitchell (per LWT of Thomas Mitchell Sr.).  It is also important to notice that the grandson, Thomas Mitchell is given the distinction on “Jr.”, a clear indication that his father was still living.

7.         21Aug1734:  Richard Wheeler 18.509 CH £109.16.1 Aug 21 1734 Appraisers: William Nelson, Edward Brawner. Creditors: Peter Wood, John Parnham. Next of kin: Thomas Wheeler, Elisabeth Browne. Executor: Thomas Mitchell.  Ditto.

8.         21Aug1734:  Laughlane McClaine/McClain 18.508 CH £24.7.0 Aug 21 1734 Appraisers: Thomas Mitchell, Joseph Clement. Creditors: John Allen, Thomas Mitchell. Next of kin: Francis Dunnington, Sr, Francis Dunnington Jr. Administratrix: Elisabeth [Dunnington] McClane.  Thomas Mitchell Jr. was both an appraiser and creditor on the estate of Laughlin McClain, who is believed to have been the husband of Elizabeth Dunnington.  Some researchers would have it that Elizabeth Dunnington had married an unknown Mr. Nobel, before having married Laughlin McClain.  The basis for that claim is unclear, but the following deed records associated with a tract called “Green Chance” are offered as ividence.  We have already presented these records previously as documentation related to Thomas Mitchell Sr.  Although William White and Mary (Wakelin) White, his wife, made over title to 100 acres of Green Chance to Elizabeth Noble, “spinster”, the inference is that Elizabeth Noble and Elizabeth Dunnington was the same person.  In fact, it seems more probable that Elizabeth Noble was a 1st cousin of Elizabeth Dunnington, namely a daughter of Susannah Brett and Mr. [Joseph?] Noble.  Elizabeth Dunnington’s parents were Margaret Brett and Francis Dunnington.  The appointed attorney, Henry Brett may have been either an uncle or 1st cousin of Elizabeth Noble.  Francis Dunnington almost certainly was an  uncle of Elizabeth Noble, and father of Elizabeth Dunnington.

a)         8Apr1719:  Charles County Land Records, Liber H#2, Page 227 8 Apr 1719; Recorded at request of Elizabeth Noble: 28 Mar 1719; William White and Mary his wife of Stafford County, Virginia, appoint Henry Brett, planter, as atty. to make over unto Elizabeth Noble, spinster, part of a tract called Green Chance; being 100 acres that Richard Wakelin left his dau. Mary Waklin; /s/ William White, Mary White (mark); wit. John Posey (mark), Francis Dunnington (mark); proved by witnesses

b)         8Apr1719:  Charles County Land Records, Liber H#2, Page 228 8 Apr 1719; Recorded at request of Elizabeth Noble: 28 Mar 1719; Indenture from William White of Stafford County, Virginia, and Mary his wife, to Elizabeth Noble; for 7 head of cattle and 8,000# tobacco; 100 acres of land, part of a tract called Green Chance, being the plantation where Richard Wakelin lived and left in his will to his dau. Mary Wakelin; /s/ William White, Mary White (mark); wit. John Posey (mark), Francis Dunnington (mark); 7 Apr Henry Brett ack. Deed.

The fact that Thomas Mitchell appears to have been so closely associated with the parties akin to Laughlin McClain almost certainly stems from the fact that they were near neighbors, and that a Dunnington-Brett kinsperson (Elizabeth Noble) owned one-half of the Green Chase tract on which Thomas Mitchell Jr. may have been living in 1734.

9.         Nov1735:  Charles County Court Records, November Court 1735 Court, Liber T#2, Page 94.  The Justices, pursuant to an Act of Assembly, do describe the following Main Roads: From Stones Mill to Geo: Elgins Run, and the Road that strikes out of that Road to Nanjemoy Church, Annapolis Road from Nanjemy Road to Thos: Mitchell’s, from Nanjemy Church to Francis Gray’s, Daniel McDaniel, Overseer. From Elgins Run the usual Road to the riverside by Simon Smith’s, from Burd’ts Creek to the riverside by Mr. John King’s, the old path that strikes out of Burdict Creek Road by Edward Shakelett’s to Saml Hanson Jr’s plantation at the riverside, John Posey, Overseer.  This road order provides a geographic reference for Thomas Mitchell’s plantation having been on the Annalpolis Road from Nanjemoy.  Such location probably would comport with being on the east side of the northeastern branch of Nanjemoy Creek.

10.       10Sep1736:  Thomas Wheeler 22.72 CH £55.0.7 Sep 10 1736 Oct 6 1736 Appraisers: William McPherson, Sr. (also William Mackpherson ), Henry Brawner. Creditors: Robert Hanson (executor of John Eburnethy). Next of kin: Ann Mitchell, Elisabeth Green. Administrator: John Wheeler.  This was the only record found for the assumed wife of Thomas Mitchell Jr., Ann Wheeler-Mitchell, daughter of Thomas Wheeler.  It would appear that Thomaw Wheeler died sometime between 10Sep and 6Oct1736.

11.       9Nov1736:  Charles County Court Records, 9 November 1736 Court, Liber T#2, Page 264 The Justices here do describe the following Main Roads, and do appoint the several persons hereafter named, overseers of sd Roads for the ensuing year: From the head of Portobacco Creek to Stones Mill, and the Road which strikes out of sd Road and leads through Cedar Point Neck to Passiman Point, and the Road from Stones Mill into the Neck Road afd by John Craxon’s, and the Road that strikes out of Nanjemy Road near the plantation of Rodham Rogers and leads by Thos: Mitchell’s to Huckleberry Branch, Mathew Barnes Jr, Overseer.  No stream by the name of Huckleberry could be located anywhere within Charls County, but this very likely was the same tract of Thomas Mitchell as listed in Item No. 9, above.

12.       20Sep1738:  Charles County Court Records, March 1738/9 Court, Liber T#2, Page 543. Sep 20, 1738. Thomas Mitchell, Ex:r of Rich’d Wheeler – D’r. To the decd’s estate then accounted for – 89.6.6. By disbursements allowed – £28.15.10. To be secured & disposed according to the decd’s Will – 60.10.8. 89.6.6. Joseph Clements & Henry Brawner, both of CC, Sureties. Signed per order Wm: Rogers Regr.  Further accounts record for the estate of Richard Wheeler.

13.       Nov1738:  Charles County Court Records, November 1738 Court, Liber T#2, Page 508. From the head of Portobacco Cr to Stones Mill, and the Road which strikes out of sd Road and leads through Caedar Point Neck to Pissimon Point, and the Road from Stones Mill into the Neck Road by John Craxson’s, and the Road that strikes out of Nanjemy Road near the plantation of Rodham Rogers and leads by Thomas Mitchell’s to Huckleberry Branch. George Godfrey, Overseer.  Same location as Item No. 11, above.

14.       Nov1738:  Charles County Court Records, November 1738 Court, Liber T#2, Page 508 From Stones Mill to George Elgins Run, and the Road that strikes out of that Road to Nanjemy Church, Annapolis Road from Nanjemy Road to Thos: Mitchell’s, from Nanjemy Church to Francis Gray’s. Benja. Davies, Overseer.  Item No’s. 13 and 14 appear to have been parts of the same road order, entered into the record during the November 1738 session.  It is difficult to interpret whether these records pertain to two separate tracts of Thomas Mitchell, or only one.  It seems possible that these may have reference two separate tracts, as it is known that Thomas Mitchell Sr. acquired Green Chase, and swapped lands at Piscataway for a tract called Lampton’s Resurvey, which is believed to have been in the vicinity of Portobacco.

15.       Nov1741:  Charles County Court Records, November 1741 Court, Liber T#2, Page 292 The Justices here do describe the following main Roads, and do appoint the several persons hereafter named overseers of sd Roads for the ensuing year according to the several precincts and divisions following, viz – From the head of Portobacco Cr to Stones Mill, and the road which strikes out of the sd road and leads through Ceder point Neck to Pissimon Point, and the road from Stones Mill into the Neck Road afd by John Craxon’s and the road that strikes out of Nanjemy Road near the plantation of Rodham Rogers and leads by Thomas Mitchell’s to the Huckleberry branch, and also the road from the Nanjemy Road afd to the Worshipful Mr. Walter Hanson’s. William Sanders, Oversee.  Dittos, Items 13 and 14, above.

16.       Nov1741:  Charles County Court Records, November 1741 Court, Liber T#2, Page 292 The Justices here do describe the following main Roads, and do appoint the several persons hereafter named overseers of sd Roads for the ensuing year according to the several precincts and divisions following, viz – From Stones Mill to George Elgins Run and the road that strikes out of that road to Nanjemy Church, Annapolis Road from Nanjemy Road to Thomas Mitchell’s from Nanjemy Church to Francis Grey’s. Joseph Doyne, overseer.  Dittos, Items 13 and 14, above.

17.       3Mar1741/2:  Wheeler, Luke, St. Mary’s Go., 30th Nov., 1741; 3rd March, 1741/2. To son Ignatius, dwell. plan., 250 A. “Maiden’s Bower”. To son William, “Planter’s Delight”, Charles County, where Thomas Mitchell now lives. To son Clement, “Planter’s Delight” where Joshua Alford lives. To son Raphell, “Planter’s Delight” where John Delozour lives. To son Bennet, any of afsd. estates if the owner should die without hrs. To wife Protheser, extx., and daus. [unnamed] personalty. Test: Richard Cooper, Mary Cooper, Ignatius Wheeler (Cooper), Elizabeth Cooper, James Thompson. 22.437.  Luke Wheeler was a son of Ignatius Wheeler, and grandson of Maj. John Wheeler.  This Will implies that Thomas Mitchell was living on a part of Planters Delight.  It is unclear whether this reference pertained to Thomas Mitchell Jr. or his son, Thomas Mitchell III.  Three different persons were cited as residing on parts of Planters Delight.  That tract was originally patented by Maj. John Wheeler for 600 acres.  On 29Jul1717 Luke Wheeler of St. Mary’s County sold 300 acres in Charles County called Indian Field, it being part of a tract called Planters Delight, formerly the place where Ignatius Wheeler had lived. DB H 2, Folio 270.  Taking that deed of conveyance in combination with the LWT of Luke Wheeler, it would appear that Luke Wheeler may have inherited the entire 600 acres of Planters Delight from his father, Ignatius Wheeler, and that he retained ownership of one-half (300 acres) of Planters Delight, part of which was occupied by Thomas Mitchell and eevised to William Wheeler (Luke’s son), probably containing 100 acres.

18.       19Jan1743:  Indenture between John Payne of Charles County in the Province of Maryland, planter, of the one part, and Ignatius Mitchell of the said County and Province, joiner, of the other part, witnesseth that the said John Payne for and in consideration of the use and labor of five slaves to him, the said John Payne and Elinor, his wife, during their or either of their natural lives, two of the aforesaid slaves now delivered to the said John Payne, and two more to be delivered into the said John Payne’s possession Christmas next, and one more to be delivered as aforesaid on 5Nov1744… and for diverse other good causes and considerations him thereunto moving, him the said John Payne, hath bargained… part of that tract of land called Raley, containing 100 acres, and part of that tract of land called Payne’s Addition containing 140 acres, together with part of that tract of land called Payne’s 2nd Addition containing 216 acres…  Wit.: Robert Hanson and William Eilbeck.  [DB Liber X 2, Folio 61]  This Ignatius Mitchell is believed to have been the son of Thomas Mitchell Jr. and Ann Wheeler. 

19.       27Jan1747:  At the request of Ignatius Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  “This Indenture made and agreed upon 6Jan1747 between Thomas Mitchell Jr. of Charles County, planter, of the one part, and Ignatius Mitchell, his brother, joiner of Charles County of the other part, consideration of 9,000 lbt, and £16, current money, sells all the land or land I myself am possessed of or that in anyways may become my right or due lying in Charles County, namely, part ot Wheeler’s Rest, part of Wheeler’s Addition, and part of Wheeler’s Delight, which my grandfather, Thomas Wheeler gave me (to wit), being half or one moiety of the land, the said Wheeler gave by deed of gift to me and my brother, Ignatius, be it more or less, and likewise one more part of land called Mitchell’s Delight containing 50 acres, and also all the right, possession, due and claim which the said Thomas Mitchell Jr. now hath…  Wit.:  William Eilbeck and Samuel Hawkins.  Charity, his wife, relinquished dower.  [Liber Z 2, Folio 205-6]  This deed of conveyance is particularly import in that it identifies the lands conveyed to Thomas Mitchell Jr. and Ignatius Mitchell by their grandfather, Thomas Wheeler on 6Jul1734 (Item No. 6, above).  From this deed we learn that Thomas Mitchell was married to a woman named Charity, and that his father (Thomas Mitchell Jr.) very likely was still living, since this Thomas Mitchell (III) was referenced as “Jr.”.

20.       20Mar1753:  At the request of Thomas Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 15Mar1753 between Leonard Mitchell and Prudence, his wife, of Charles County Province of Maryland of the one part, and Thomas Mitchell of the same County and Province, planter, of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Leonard Mitchell and Prudence, as well for and in consideration of the sum of £60 sterling current money of Great Britain to them in hand paid by the said Thomas Mitchell… sold all that part of a tract of land lying on the west side of Portobacco Creek in Charles County aforesaid, being that part of Caines Purchase which John Sanders devised to his son John Sanders and afterward descended unto Francis Ignatius Sanders, son of John Sanders, the latter, by whose death the same became the right of his sister, Prudence, now the wife of Leonard Mitchell, containing an estimation of 100 acres…  Wit.: Thomas Stone and Robert Yates.  [DB Liber A 1, Folio 90-1]  The identity of this Thomas Mitchell is uncertain at this juncture.  He would have been either Thomas Mitchell Jr. or Thomas Mitchell III.  Perhaps the chain of title on this tract called Caines Purchase will permits us to clarify the identity of this Thomas Mitchell.  Note that Leonard Mitchell was a son of Thomas Mitchell Jr., as identified by his father’s LWT below, and the husband of Prudence Sanders, daughter of John Sanders.

21.       13Jun1753:  At the request of Leonard Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 2Apr1753 between Thomas Mitchell of Charles County of the Province of Maryland, planter, of the one part, and Leonard Mitchell of the same County and Province, planter, of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Thomas Mitchell as well for and in consideration of the sum of £60 sterling, money of Great Britain to him in hand paid by the said Thomas Mitchell… sold all that part of a tract of land lying on the west side of Portobacco Creek in Charles County, aforesaid, being part of Caines Purchase which John Sanders devised to his son John Sanders and afterward descended unto Thomas Ignatius Sanders, son of John Sanders, the latter, by whose death the same became the right of his sister, Prudence, now the wife of Leonard Mitchell, and by them the said Leonard and Prudence Mitchell conveyed to the said Thomas Mitchell, containing an estimation of 100 acres…  No dower.  [DB Liber A 1, Folio 117-9]  It would appear that Thomas Mitchell sold the tract called “Caine’s Purchase” to Leonard Mitchell less than four months after having purchased it from Leonard and Prudence.  The sum paid in each transaction was £60, suggesting that this may simply have been a loan, with the property being the security.  The fact that no wife relinquished dower, and that Thomas Mitchell lacked the title of “Jr.”, suggested that this probably was Thomas Mitchell Jr., father of Leonard Mitchell, and probably widower of Ann Wheeler-Mitchell.

22.       1Jan1754:  MITCHELL, Thos, age 66, 1 Jan. 1754 [born 1688]; CHLR D#3 48:236.  This clearly was a record of Thomas Mitchell Jr., and indicates that he probably was born about 1688.  Such age would clearly support the fact that his mother was not Mary Lampton, but rather an earlier, unknown wife of Thomas Mitchell Sr. (of Nanjemoy).

23.       14Aug1754:  Charles County Land Record Book A#2, 1752-1756; Page (216). Lease. Aug 14, 1754 from John Pye of CC, to William Jenkins of CC, for and in consideration of the rents, covenants, & services herein after mentioned, the lease of a tract of land called Mattenleys Folly, bounded by the tenement of land now in possession of Thomas Mitchell, Mattawoman Cr, the tenement of land in possession of Basill Smith, containing 100 acres. The term of this lease is the natural lives of William Jenkins, and his wife, Elizabeth Jenkins. The rent for the 1st year is 800 lbs of good,sound, merchantable tobacco, and thereafter, 1000 lbs per year of good, sound, merchantable, picked and culled crop tobacco clear of cask and in 2 hogsheads, to be paid each May 1, and 2 bushels of good wheat to be paid each Sep 1, and 1 fat turkey at Christmas and 6 fat chickens at mid summer. If the rent is unpaid for 30 days, Pye may evict Jenkins. Jenkins shall plant 200 apple trees within the next 4 years. Jenkins shall, not cut down or sell any timber or wood or cut down timber or wood in a wasteful manner further than to clear the land for the plantation’s use If at any time there is more cut down for clearing the ground than is necessary for the plantation, Pye or his agents or servants may enter the premises and convert the same to such use as he or they shall think fit. Pye or his agents may cut down white oak timber in order to make plank or to convert into heading of pipe hogshead or barrel staves, or any black walnut or cherry tree or crooked ship timber which shall at any time grow on sd premises & to carry away the same, leaving sufficient timber for the use of sd plantation. It is agreed that 5 acres of the premises will be left uncut. Jenkins will assist in preserving and keeping up the Neck fence as to keep other people’s creatures out of the enclosures, Jenkins having liberty for his creatures to run therein. The premises may not be assigned to any other tenants or under tenants unless leave is first asked of Pye. Signed – John Pye. Wit – Walter Hanson, James Nevison (Nivison). Recorded Aug 18, 1754.  This Thomas Mitchell probably was Thomas Mitchell Jr., husband of Ann Wheeler.

24.       14Aug1754:  Charles County Land Record Book A#2, 1752-1756; Page (219), Lease. Aug 14, 1754 from John Pye of CC, to Thomas Mitchell of CC, for and in consideration of the rents, covenants, & services herein after mentioned, the lease of a tract of land called Sandy Leavell, bounded by the town Gutt, Pyes Addition, Mattawoman Cr, the tenement of land in possession of Basil]. Smith, containing and laid out for 100 acres. The term of this lease is the natural lives of Thomas Mitchell, and his daughter, Mary Mitchell. The rent for the 1st year is 400 lbs of good, sound, merchantable tobacco, and thereafter, 1000 lbs per year of good, sound, merchantable, picked and culled crop tobacco clear of cask and in 2 hogsheads, to be paid each May 1, and 2 bushels of good wheat to be paid each Sep 1, and 1 fat turkey at Christmas and 6 fat chickens at mid-summer. If the rent is unpaid for 30 days, Pye may evict Mitchell. Mitchell shall plant 200 apple trees within the next 4 years. Mitchell shall not cut down or sell any timber or wood or cut down timber or wood in a wasteful manner further than to clear the land for the plantation’s use. If at any time there is more cut down for clearing the ground than is necessary for the plantation, Pye or his agents or servants may enter the premises and convert the same to such use as he or they shall think fit. Pye or his agents may cut down white oak timber in order to make plank or to convert into heading of pipe hogshead or barrel staves, or any black walnut or cherry tree or crooked ship timber which shall at any time grow on sd premises & to carry away the same, leaving sufficient timber for the use of sd plantation. It is agreed that 5 acres of the premises will be left uncut. Mitchell will assist in preserving and keeping up the Neck fence as to keep other people’s creatures out of the enclosures, Mitchell having liberty for his creatures to run therein. The premises may not be assigned to any other tenants or under tenants unless leave is first asked of Pye. Signed – John Pye. Wit – Walter Hanson, James Nivison (Nivison). Recorded Aug 18, 1754.  This was almost certainly Thomas Mitchell Jr., husband of Ann Wheeler.  His daughter, Mary Mitchell, appears to have remained a spinster her entire life, and was named the sole Executrix in the LWT of Thomas Mitchell [Jr.], abstracted herein below.

25.       17Mar1759:  MITCHELL, THOMAS, Charles Co. 17 Mar, 1759; 17 Jan, 1770:  To children: Ignatius, Joseph, Notley, Leonard, Anne and Elizabeth, 1 so sterl. To son Notley Mitchell, land lying In Prince George’s Co.; tract in Charles County called “Greenchase,” To dau. Mary, all personals; also plantation whereon I live, called “Sandy Level.” Extx: Dau, Mary, Wit: Benj, Craycraft, Barnaby Cahill, John Brion [O’Bryan], 37, 589.  This is believed to have been the LWT of Thomas Mitchell Jr., husband of Ann Wheeler.  It is particularly important to note that he still retained possession of “Green Chase” (probably only 100 acres), which he conveyed to his son, Notley Mitchell.  Also, the conveyance of “Sandy Level” to his daughter, Mary Mitchell, which he had acquired from John Pye just five years ealier.  Mary Mitchell was made sole Executrix, and received the balance of her father’s estate.  It is important to note that there was no reference to the son, Thomas Mitchell III, who was married to Charity.  The whereabouts of Thomas Mitchell III may be crucial to our search for Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County, as he is reported by some researchers to either have been that same Thomas Mitchell, or a descendant of Thomas Mitchell III.  It is also important to note that this Will was note recorded until 17Jan1770, which suggests that Thomas Mitchell Jr. may not have died until shortly before that date, at which time he would have been about 80 years old.  He is fortunate that he had a daughter who would look after his needs in his dotage.

26.       5Sep1760:  At the request of John Posey the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 11Jun1760 between Thomas Mitchell of Charles County in the Province of Maryland, planter, of the one part, and John Posey of the same, planter, of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Thomas Mitchell, for and in consideration of the sum of 5,000 lbt to him in hand paid, sold all that moiety or half of that parcel or tract of land lying in Charles County called Green Chase, situate, lying and being at Nanjemoy, abutting Edward Knight… containing 200 acres… No dower relinquished.  [DB Liber G 3, Folio 453-5].  This is the same tract of land that was to be devised to Notley Mitchell, per his father’s LWT.  Apparently, Thomas Mitchell JR. changed his mind regarding the disposition of this land to his son. 

27.       6Ap1771:  Mary Mitchel 6.24 D CH £141.19.0; Apr 6 1771 Sureties: Benjamin Craycroft, Leonard Clements Distribution to siblings [equally]: Ignatius, Thomas, Benjamin Notley Mitchel, Ann Jenkins, Leonard, Elisabeth Jenkins Administrator: Benjamin Notley Mitchel.  This is a particularly important document relative to our search for the identity of Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County.  This appears to have been the estate settlement of Mary Mitchell, spinster daughter of Thomas Mitchell Jr.  In this settlement were named six of her siblings, including Thomas Mitchell.  This would seem to provide proof that Thomas Mitchell III was believed to still be living in Apr1771.  Mary Mitchell appears to have died within the year following the recording of her father’s Will.  It seems probable that Thomas Mitchell Jr. could have died anytime between Sep1760 (when he disposed of Green Chase to John Posey) and Jan1770, when his Will was recorded.  The author is inclined to believe that Thomas Mitchell Jr. probably died sometime in 1769.  The fact that Thomas Mitchell Jr. made no provision for his son, Thomas Mitchell III, may be an indication that that son had already removed himself from the Charles County area.  The last record this writer was able to locate for Thomas Mitchell III in Charles County was in the LWT of Charity Smallwood Mitchell’s father, Leadstone Smallwood, abstracted as follows:

a)         20Jan1755:  SMALLWOOD, LEADSTONE, Charles Co. 20 Jan, 1755 22 Feb 1755 To son Leadstone Smallwood., tract whereon I now dwell called “May Day, ” 200a., also part of tract called “Addition to May Day.” 11a.; also 2 Negroes, Charles and John. To son John Smallwood, tract called “Welcome,” 200 a. also 3 Negroes, Elizabeth, Peter and Negro man called monnicay, and 2 draft horses and a mare. To dau Susannah Smallwood, Negro boy Tom, cow, bed. To son William, 1 sh. To dau Charity Mitchell, 1 sh. To dau mary Godfrey, 1 sh. To dau Henniretur Nowland, 1 sh. To grand dau Elizabeth Nowland, 1 sh. All my tobacco and corn to son John Smallwood and two daus, Susannah and Elizabeth. Sons, Leadstone and John, exs. Wit: Edward Goodrick, William Smallwood, Edward Boswell. 29.306.

The fact that Thomas Mitchell III’s wife was named as a legatee in her father’s LWT in Charles County in Jan1755 may suggest that she and Thomas were still in residence in Charles County in that year, but not necessarily.  The last record that could absolutely be associated with Thomas Mitchell III in Charles County was when he conveyed his inherited property to his brother, Ignatius Mitchell, on 27Jan1747.  Having disposed of all the lands known to be in his possession in Jan1747, it is entirely possible that Thomas Mitchell III and Charity could have moved away from Charles County shortly thereafter.

Another loose end in this analysis of Thomas Mitchell Jr. is anything further pertaining to his purported son, Joseph Mitchell.  The earliest record found for this Joseph Mitchell was as a witness to the deed of conveyance from Thomas Wheeler to his grandsons: Thomas Mitchell [III] and Ignatius Mitchell on 29Jul1734.  That Joseph Mitchell is presumed to have been a younger brother of Thomas [III] and Ignatius.  Some researchers claim that this Joseph Mitchell married Elizabeth Davison [aka Davidson] in about 1745, and was purportedly born in Charles County in about 1724.  If that date of birth were correct, it seems unlikely that he would have been permitted to witness the deed of conveyance in 1734 (age 10 years).  More likely, he would have been born in about 1718 or earlier.  Joseph Mitchell’s LWT was recorded in Prince Georges County MD in 1790, abstracted as follows:

a)         13Apr1790:  PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND WILLS; Liber T No. #1; 1790-1796; Folio 291 JOSEPH MITCHELL 12/22/1789 04/13/1790 -being week & sick .. Bequeaths to; I. Lucy Ann Mitchell –daughter -to have Negro girl “Jenny” 2. Mary Wheeler Mitchell –daughter -to have Negro girl “Anna” 3. Elizabeth Mitchell –wife -to have all the rest and remainder of the estate for her natural life and at her decease to be divided among testator’s children. -named executrix of the will Witnesses: James Bonifant, Presby Sanford ‘then came: the two above named subscribers to the will Note: the testator signed the will with his mark.

Curiously, there are two records from Hampshire County VA purportedly connected to this Joseph Mitchell, abstracted as follows:

b)         Northern Neck Warrants and Surveys Vol IV, Hampshire Co. Va {Peggy Joyner}.  JOSEPH MITCHELL of Hager’s Town in Frederick Co., Maryland, assignee of William Bills; 18 July 1765- 30 June 1767; 400 a. on drs of Lt Cacapehon ca. 2 miles from George Andrews, the Town Hill. CC-Wm Chapman & Wm Bills. Surv. Richard Rigg.

c)         Northern Neck Warrants and Surveys Vol IV, Hampshire Co. Va {Peggy Joyner}.  JOSEPH MITCHELL of Berkeley Co; 26 Nov. 1772- 8 Dec. 1772; 463 a. on drs of Gt Cacapehon; house shown on plat; adj. Henry Enoch, Senr, Jeremiah York (now Jeremiah Relfe’s). CC-Henry Enoch & Daniel Palmer. Surv. Richard Rigg.

If these land records are correctly identified with Joseph Mitchell, a presumed son of Thomas Mitchell Jr and Ann Wheeler, then they would appear to provide a tangential connection to a descendant of William Mitchell of South River.  That connection is hypothesized by the author, who has postulated that David Mitchell, great grandson of William Mitchell (William:John:John), married a woman named Mary Davidson.  The author has further postulated that Mary Davidson was descended from John Davidson and Elizabeth Marbury.  If that identification for Mary Davidson were correct, then she would have been a sister of Elizabeth Davidson, presumed wife of Joseph Mitchell.  Interestingly, the author’s research into David Mitchell and Mary Davidson traced that family to Hampshire County VA in 1778.   Keep in mind that the author had developed the Mary Davidson genealogical history totally independent from and almost two years prior to this current investigation.  Now, having found that Joseph Mitchell, a presumed son of Thomas Mitchell and Ann Wheeler had married Elizabeth Davidson, possible sister of Mary Davidson, we would seemingly have two Mitchell cousins having married sisters (daughters of John Davidson and Elizabeth Marbury), and having settled concurrently in Hampshire County VA in the 1770’s.  Whether it was the Davidson connection or the Mitchell connection that drew these two families to relocate from Prince Georges County MD to the remote area of Hampshire County VA cannot be known.  But, all things considered, it does seem probable that it was kinship that motivated that relocation.

Moreover, it is worth considering whether there may have been communications between these Mitchell cousins: David Mitchell and Joseph Mitchell; that could have led them to intermarry with two sisters.  Were they aware of their Mitchell blood ties?  At the time of these marriages, David Mitchell and Joseph Mitchell were both residing in Prince Georges County.  While the author’s connection of Mary Davidson as a daughter of John Davidson and Elizabeth Marbury is based substantially on circumstantial evidence and speculation, the kinship of Elizabeth Davidson is more definitievely established by the LWT of her brother, John Davidson, abstracted as follows:

d)         20Jan1785:  1784-1789 Prince George’s County MD Will Book Folio 206 JOHN DAVISON 01/20/1785; 03/01/1785 “being …tho weak in body, Bequeaths to. 1. Elizabeth Mitchell-sister -to take testator’s three youngest sons John, Basil, and George” and to bring them up as her own.” 2. John Davison – son { Basil Davison – son { three youngest sons George Davison – son { -testator’s horses., cattle. sheep and hogs to be sold and the money applied to, their support and testator’s household furniture to be taken care of and given to testator’s children “as they want it.” 3. Pliney Davison -son 4. Henry Davison —son -to have Negro boy Andrew -Henry Humphrey owes testator 11 pounds 5 shillings, Col. Leonard Marbury owes testator 3 pounds 12 shillings 6 pence, Robert Wade owes testator $6.00, John Smith, schoolmaster, owes testator 6 pounds —the money to be divided among testator’s sons Plney and Henry when they arrive at age. 5. Lanty Davison – son -testator’s Negroes to be kept together Until he and testator’s three youngest sons come of age and then to be divided among them 6. Joseph Mitchell Sr. -named executor of the will Witnesses Richard Edelen, Jr. Walter Edelen.  Then came: the two above named subscribers to the will Note: the testator signed the will in his own hand.

Following are a few more records of the family of Thomas Mitchell Jr.:

28.       21Mar1761:  At the request of Hugh Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 1Oct1760 between Leonard Mitchell of Charles County in the Province of Maryland, planter, of the one part, and Hugh Mitchell of the same County  and Province, Merchant, of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Leonard Mitchell for as well and in consideration of the sum of £100 sterling money to him in hand paid by the said Hugh Mitchell… sold all that part of a tract of land lying on the west side of Portobacco Creek in Charles County, aforesaid being that part of Caines Purchase which John Sanders devised to his son, John Sanders, and afterwards descended to Francis Ignatius Sanders (son of John Sanders, the latter) by whose death the same became the right of his sister, Prudence, now the wife of the said Leonard Mitchell, and by them, the said Leonard and Prudence Mitchell sold and conveyed to Thomas Mitchell, and by the said Thomas Mitchell conveyed and sold to the said Leonard Mitchell, containing an estimation of 100 acres…  No dower.  [DB Liber G 3, Folio 525-7]  Leonard Mitchell is believed to have been the son named Leonard recorded in Thomas Mitchell Jr.’s LWT.  Hugh Mitchell is believed to have been a Scottish emigrant, who entered the the Province of Maryland sometime around 1740.  He may have come to Maryland-Virginia in the employee of Glasgow merchants to act as their agents in the transport of goods from Scotland, and the export of tobacco from the colonies.  He appears in records in Spottsylvania County VA as early as 1741/2, and in a record from that County in 1747 he appears to be cited along with his brother, John Mitchell.  By the 1750’s Hugh Mitchell acquired land in the near vicinity of Portobacco, and from that date until his death in 1761 he was frequently reported as a Merchant from Portobacco, seemingly actively engaged in the slave trade.  There was nothing found in the records to suggest any kind of kinship connection between these Scottish Mitchells of the Portobacco region and the family of our target, Thomas Mitchell.

29.       12Jul1766:  At the request of Richard Bennett Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 14Jun1766 between Richard Wheeler of Charles County, planter, of the one part, and Richard Bennett Mitchell of the County aforesaid, planter, of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Richard Wheeler for and in consideration of the sum of £160 current money of Maryland in hand paid by the said Richard Bennett Mitchell… sold all that part of two tracts of land called Wheelers Rest and Wheelers Addition lying in Charles County… containing 110 acres and 17 acres, respectively, Eleanor Wheeler relinquished dower…  [DB Liber o 3, Folio 71-3]  The identity of this Richard Bennett Mitchell is a bit muddled.  The earliest known Richard Mitchell was a son of Ignatius Mitchell.  Following is an abstract of Ignatius Mitchell’s Will:

a)         21Oct1762:  MITCHELL, IGNATIUS, Charles Co. Joyner. 21 Oct. 1762 15 Jun, 1763 To son [Richard?] Bennett, lands I bought. of Jno. Payne, 304 A. To son Samuel, tract called Mitchell’s Lott. To son Ignatius, dwelling plantation. To wife Rachel, some slaves, now in possession of Benedict Wheeler. To son Richard, and daus. Winifrid, Anne [-Marie] and Henrietta, residue of estate, after wife’s thirds taken. Extx; Wife. Wit: Elizabeth Jenkins, Prudence Mitchell, William Eilbeck. 31.981. 

These children appear to have been named in order of their respective ages with Bennett having been the eldest son, whereas Richard and his three sisters appear to have been the youngest.  It appears probable that the Richard Bennett Mitchell named in the foregoing deed was the eldest son of Ignatius Mitchell, who appears to have gone by the name of Richard Bennett Mitchell.  The confusion is introduced by the fact that Richard Bennett Mitchell had a younger brother simply named Richard Mitchell.

30.       16Jun1769:  At the request of Richard Bennett Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made between Samuel Mitchell of Charles County in the Province of Maryland of the one part, and Richard Bennett Mitchell of the County and Province aforesaid of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Samuel Mitchell, as well for and in consideration for the sum of £280 current money in hand paid by the said Richard Bennett Mitchell unto the said Samuel Mitchell… sold all that tract or parcel of land called Mitchells Lott lying in the County aforesaid between Mattawoman ___ and Wheelers Addition… containing 280 acres…  [DB Liber O 3, Folio 570-2].  This again would appear to have been a record of Richard Bennett Mitchell, the eldest son of Ignatius Mitchell.

31.       16Jun1769:  At the request of Samuel Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made between Richard Bennett Mitchell of Charles County in the Province of Maryland of the one part, and Samuel Mitchell of the County and Province aforesaid of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Richard Bennett Mitchell, as well for and in consideration of the sum of £300 current money in hand paid  by the said Samuel Mitchell unto the said Richard Bennett Mitchell… sold part of them three tracts or parcels of land called Ryley, Paynes 1st and 2nd Addition lying in the County and Province aforesaid containing 304 acres… also, Elizabeth, wife of Richard Bennett Mitchell, relinquished…  [DB Liber O 3, Folio 572-5].  Ditto, Item Nos. 29 and 30, above.  This identification of Richard Bennett Mitchell is supported by the fact that he appears to be conveying the land he was bequeathed in his father’s Will.

32.       17Mar1770:  At the requested of Richard Bennett Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 14Mar1770 between Richard Tubman of Charles County, Province of Maryland of the one part, and Richard Bennett Mitchell of the County and Province aforesaid of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Richard Tubman for and in consideration of the sum of £80 current money in hand paid by the said Richard Bennett Mitchell unto the said Richard Tubman… sold all that tract or parcel of land called Nonsuch lying in the County aforesaid… Adam’s land… containing 87 acres… Ann, wife of Richard Tubman relinquished dower… [DB O 3, Folio 683-4].  This was a curious acquisition.  The reader may recall that John Lambert received two patents on 29Jul1664: one named “Hogg’s Quarter” and another named “Nonesuch”, which abutted Poynton Manor on the west side of Portobacco Creek.  Also, that Thomas Mitchell Sr. and William Dent were named co-Executors on the estate of John Lambert Jr. in Jan1693/4.  It seems possible that this tract purchased by Richard Bennett Mitchell from Richard Tubman was the same tract called “Nonesuch” granted to John Lambert.  Does the fact that Richard Bennett Mitchell purchased this tract suggest that this tract may have held some personal meaning for Richard Bennett Mitchell?  We are not certain of the identity of Thomas Mitchell Sr.’s 1st wife, the mother of Thomas Mitchell Jr.  Is it possible that she may have been a Lambert?

33.       7Oct1772:  At the request of Richard Bennett Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 22Aug1772 between William Jackson of Charles County, planter, of the one part, and Richard Bennett Mitchell of the County aforesaid, planter, of the other part, Witnesseth that the said William Jackson, for and in consideration of the sum of £90 current money in hand paid by the said Richard Bennett Mitchell … sold unto the said Richard Bennett Mitchell all them four tracts or parcels of land called Johnsons Quarry, Jacksons Trifle, part of Wheelers Delight and Wheelers Rest, all adjoining and lying in Charles County, containing 50 acres, 80 acres, and 40 acres, respectively… Ann, wife of William Jackson, relinquished dower… [DB Liber S 3, Folio 299-0].  Son of Ignatius Mitchell.

34.       12Dec1774:  At the request of Richard Bennett Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 14Nov1774 between William Jackson of Charles County, planter, of the one part, and Richard Bennett Mitchell of the County aforesaid, planter, of the other part, for and in consideration of the sun of £200 current money in hand paid by the said Richard Bennett Mitchell…sold all them three tracts or parcels of land called Lisbon, part of Wheelers Rest, and part of Wheelers Delight, lying in Charles County, adjoining the said Mitchell’s land… containing 50 acres and 50 acres, respectively… [DB Liber S 3, Folio 662-3].  Ditto.

35.       31Jul1779:  At the request of Ignatius Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  This Indenture made 25May1779 between Ignatius Wheeler of Harford County in the Province of Maryland of the one part, and Ignatius Mitchell of Charles County in the Province of Maryland of the other part, witnesseth that the said Ignatius Wheeler as well for and in consideration of the sum of £500 common passing money in hand paid by the said Ignatius Mitchell unto the said Ignatius Wheeler… all them four tracts or parcels of land called Phillips Town (100 acres), part of Wheeler’s Rest, Wheelers Addition and Wheelers Delight (200 acres), all adjoining and lying in Charles County…  Wit.” John Love and Ignatius Wheeler, Justices of Peace.  Henrietta Wheeler, wife, relinquished dower.  [DB Liber V 3, Folio 380].  The Ignatius Wheeler of Harford County was the son of Ignatius Wheeler, son of Benjamin Wheeler, son of Thomas Wheeler.  Ignatius Mitchell is believed to have been a son of Ignatius Mitchell Sr., son of Thomas Mitchell and Ann Wheeler.

36.       17Sep1781:  At the request of Richard Bennett Mitchell for following deed was recorded 23Sep1791:  THIS INDENTURE made between Ignatius Mitchell of Fayette County and State of Kentucky of the one part, and Richard Bennett Mitchell of Charles County and State of Maryland of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Ignatius Mitchell, for and in consideration of £100 of current money of Maryland to him in hand paid… all that part of four tracts or parcels of land called Wheelers Addition, Wheelers Rest, Wheelers Delight and Phillips Town, lying and being in Charles County, adjoining each other…  [DB Liber K 4, Folio 322-3]  The wording of the conveyance in this deed abstract appears to be in error.  These appear to have been the same tracts purchased by Ignatius Mitchell from Ignatius Wheeler in Item No, 35, above.  If so, then its seems more likely that Ignatius Mitchell would have been the grantor, and his brother, Richard Bennett, the grantee.  It would also appear from this record that Ignatius Mitchell Jr. had relocated to Fayette County KY.

37.       23Sep1791:  At the request of Ignatius Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE between Richard Bennett Mitchell of Charles County and State of Maryland of the one part, and Ignatius Mitchell of Fayette County and state of Kentucky of the other part, witnesseth that the said Richard Bennett Mitchell for and in consideration of the sum of £100 current money of Maryland to him in hand paid… sold unto the said Ignatius Mitchell all that piece of seven tracts or part of land called Mitchells Lott, Nonsuch, Wheelers Addition, Wheelers Rest, Wheelers Delight, Trifles Enlargement and Johnsons Quory, all lying and being in Charles County adjoining (or nearly adjoining) each other… [DB Liber K 4, Folio 321-2]  Ditto.

38.       26Sep1791:  At the request of Richard Bennett Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made between Ignatius Mitchell of the County of Fayette State of Kentucky of the one part, and Richard Bennett Mitchell of Charles County State of Maryland of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Ignatius Mitchell as well for and in consideration of the sum of £750 current money of Maryland in hand paid by the said Richard Bennett Mitchell…  sold all those nine tracts or parcels of land, to wit: Wheelers Rest, Wheelers Delight, Wheelers Addition, Nonsuch, Phillips Town, Mitchells Lott, Johnsons Quarry, Trifles Amendment and Mitchells Correction… all lying and adjoining each other within Charles County, believed to contain about 350 acres…  [DB K 4, Folio 326-7]  Ditto.

Since our principal purpose in this exercise has been to trace the ancestry of the Thomas Mitchell, who first appeared in Bedford County VA in a Road Order, along with several other important associates it might be useful to reintroduce that road order abstract at this point in our exploration: 

•          1766/11/25, Peter Finney, Thomas Low, William Mitchell, Jno Mitchell, Jno Greer Jur, William Low, William Board, Isaac Low, Thomas Elliot, Nathan Board, Gilbert Mason, James Humphries, Gabriel Choat, Moses Poor, Thomas Mitchell, James Mitchell & Thomas Elledge work on road. Bedford Co VA OB 3, 295.

The Thomas Mitchell named in this road order is believed to have originated from the Charles County Thomas Mitchell lineage.  The linkage of this Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County to the Mitchells of Charles County was in part based on the fact that this Thomas Mitchell named his only known son “Ignatius” Mitchell.  That fact alone is quite compelling, given that there are no other known instances of the given name of “Ignatius” within the Mitchells of America during colonial times, aside from the Charles County MD family.  If that were the case, then we probably should be able to pick up the trail of the Bedford County Thomas Mitchell from within the collection of data thus far compiled on the Charles County Mitchells.  Since the Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County was first recorded in 1766, and since the records thus far presented on the Mitchells of Charles County extend all the way to the death of Thomas Mitchell Jr. in about 1770 and his daughter, Mary Mitchell, in 1771, we should find buried somewhere within that material some trace evidence of the origins of Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County.  If we assume that Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County was an adult when recorded in the road order in 1766, then he would have had a birth year of sometime earlier than 1745. 

From a combination of the estate records for Thomas Mitchell Jr. and his daughter, Mary, we have compiled the following list of children presumed to have survived to adulthood in the 1754 to 1771 timeframe:

1.         Thomas Mitchell [m. Charity Smallwood], b. 1710, d. unk. after 1745

2.         John Mitchell [m. Ester or Hester lnu], b. 1713, d. 3May1733

3.         Ignatius Mitchell, [m. Rachel Lanham], b. 1718, d. 15Jun1763

4.         Joseph Mitchell [m. Elizabeth Davidson], b. 1724, d. 13 Apr 1790

5.         Benjamin Notley Mitchell [m. Tabitha Blanford], b. 1720, d. 23 Oct 1784

6.         Leonard Mitchell [Prudence Sanders], b. 1730, d. 20 Apr 1799

7.         Anne [Jenkins] Mitchell

8.         Elizabeth [Jenkins] Mitchell

9.         Mary Mitchell [died a spinster in 1771]

For what is worth, Thomas Mitchell Jr. did not name his sons, John Mitchell or Thomas Mitchell III in his estate record, whereas Mary Mitchell mentioned a brother, Thomas Mitchell, but did not mention John Mitchell or Joseph Mitchell.  The reason for the omission of John Mitchell is that he had died young (1733).  The reasons for the omission of Thomas Mitchell and Joseph Mitchell is unknown to the author, but all things considered, the foregoing is believed to have been a reliable listing of the children of Thomas Mitchell and Anne Wheeler, who survived to adulthood, and who were still living as late as 1771.  If we assume that the Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County descended from this group of male Mitchells, then we should be looking for a descendant named Thomas Mitchell, son of Thomas, Ignatius, Joseph, Benjamin Notley, or Leonard Mitchell, born before 1745.  Another possibility is that the Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County could have been Thomas Mitchell III, who married Charity Smallwood, but that Thomas Mitchell would have been almost 56 years old when recorded in the road order.  Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County is on record having been married to a woman named Eleanor Relander, with whom he had a son named Ignatius Mitchell in about 1772, at which time Thomas Mitchell III would have been almost 62 years old.  Does this possibility seem reasonable?

The author is more inclined to believe that the Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County was a descendant of one of the sons of Thomas Mitchell and Anne Wheeler.  That being the case, then we can probably eliminate Joseph and Leonard Mitchell from our search, as they would have been too young to have had children born before 1745.  This leaves us to ponder the possible offspring of Ignatius, Thomas and Benjamin Notley.  We can also probably eliminate Ignatius Mitchell from consideration since he died testate in about 1762/3.  There was no Thomas Mitchell named as a legatee in Inatius Mitchell’s LWT.  Although this is not absolute proof that Ignatius did not name a son Thomas Mitchell, it is certainly fairly strong evidence.  However, there appears to have been an estate record filing for a Thomas Mitchell in Prince Georges County, who may have been a son of Ignatius Mitchell.  If we eliminate Ignatius Mitchell from consideration, we are left with only Thomas Mitchell [III] or Benjamin Notley Mitchell.  Benjamin Notley Mitchell died testate in Prince Georges County in about Oct1784.  He did not name a Thomas Mitchell as a legatee in his Will.  Given that Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County had died in about 1777, had he been a son of Benjamin Notley Mitchell, he would not have been named a legatee in 1784.  We cannot absolutely eliminate Benjamin Notley Mitchell from our consideration, but must declare that he would have a very low probability of having been the father of Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County.

All things considered, if the Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County did descend from the Charles County Thomas Mitchell lineage, it seems highly probable that he descended from Thomas Mitchell III and Charity Smallwood.  Unfortunately, the record trail for this Thomas Mitchell is rather thin.  The records pertaining (or that could pertain) to this Thomas Mitchell that could be found are abstracted as follows:

1.         1May1734:  Wheeler, Richard, Charles County, 1st Apr., 1734; 1st May, 1734. To Kindrick Bayne, dwelling plantation and 17 A. adjoining for her use until son Richard comes to age of 18. To son Thomas, 20 A. and the mill on sd. land; Kindrick Bane to have 500 lbs. tob. yearly until afsd. Thomas arrives at age of 18. Thomas Mitchell to be paid 500 lbs. tob. yearly for education of sons Richard and Thomas till they arrive at age of 18. To dau. Elizabeth Brawner, dau. Martha, dau. Mary Madox, dau. Anne Ellder, personalty.  To sons Richard and Thomas and dau. Annastasia Kean, 1/2 of personal estate, other 1/2 to Kindrick Bane and her child. Should Ebsworth Bayne come to molest or take any part or parcel thereof, Patrick Connelly is empowered to secure the afsd. estate to sd, Kindrick and her children.  Ex.: Thomas Mitchell.  Test: William Nelson, Charity Smallwood, Ignatius Mitchell. MCW 21.57.  The Thomas Mitchell, who was named as the executor on the estate of Richard Wheeler almost certainly pertained to Thomas Mitchell Jr., husband of Anne Wheeler, and brother-in-law of Richard Wheeler.  This determination is reinforced by the fact that Richard Wheeler entrusted the guardianship of his two young sons: Richard and Thomas to his Executor, Thomas Mitchell.  Thomas Mitchell III would have been about 24 years old, and apparently unmarried.  It hardly seems reasonable that Richard Wheeler would entrust guardianship to an unmarried nephew.  It is important to note that one of the witnesses was Charity Smallwood, who is believed to have been the unmarried daughter of Leadstone Smallwood, and future wife of Thomas Mitchell III.

2.         6Jul1734:  At the request of Ignatius Mitchell and Thomas Mitchell Jr. of Charles County the following deed was recorded:  “Know all men by the presents that I Thomas Wheeler of Charles County, planter, for and in consideration of the sincere love and affection that I bear unto my two grandsons: Ignatius Mitchell and Thomas Mitchell Jr., sons of Thomas Mitchell of this County, planter, and for several other weighty reasons, me thereunto moving hath given, granted, aliened… and set over unto the said Ignatius Mitchell and Thomas Mitchell Jr. all that tract or tracts, parcel or parcels of land lying and being in Charles County… one moiety thereof to Ignatius Mitchell and one moiety to Thomas Mitchell Jr…  Wit.: Joshua Allford, Joseph Mitchell, and Martha Wheeler.” [DB Liber O-2, Folio 48]  This record has already been presented earlier in this work, but it is crucial to establishing the existence and identity of Thomas Mitchell III as a brother of Ignatius Mitchell, and as son of Thomas Mitchell Jr. and Anne Wheeler.  By referencing this Thomas Mitchell and Ignatius Mitchell as grandchildren, Thomas Wheeler has unquestionably identified the kinships of these Mitchells.  We also have Joseph Mitchell as a witness, he presumably having been a younger brother of Thomas [III] and Ignatius.

3.         1740:  “Apparently Thomas Mitchell Sr. died in 1740 as an account was filed in Prince Georges County by William Wheeler on the estate of Thomas Mitchell with value of 145-12-9, and no wife mentioned.  (Accts 19, Folio 317)…”   This is a very curious entry.  This reporting by Walter V. Ball is truly confusing.  It appears, given its context with the biography of Thomas Wheeler, suggests that Ball thought this was a record on the estate of Thomas Mitchell, who had married Ann Mitchell.  As already fairly thoroughly documented and analyzed, it seems quite certain that Thomas Mitchell, husband of Ann Wheeler, lived to a ripe old age, writing his LWT in 1759, and being recorded in 1770.  So, the question remains unanswered, who was this mysterious Thomas Mitchell of Prince Georges County MD, who presumably died around 1740.  He almost certainly was not Thomas Mitchell Jr., who married Ann Mitchell, nor was he that Thomas Mitchell’s son, who presumably married Charity Smallwood.  Was there possibly another Thomas Mitchell lurking in the background in Charles County and/or Prince Georges County during this time period, which has otherwise gone undetected?  It seems possible to the author that this Thomas Mitchell could have been a son of Ignatius Mitchell.  The author has been troubled by the fact that Ignatius Mitchell is not recorded with a son named Thomas.  This would be entirely out of the norm for these families and this period in time.  Almost without exception, the 1st or 2nd born son is named after the parternal grandfather.  All things considered, it seems possible [or probable] that this Thomas Mitchell was a son of Ignatius Mitchell.

4.         3Mar1741/2:  Wheeler, Luke, St. Mary’s Go., 30th Nov., 1741; 3rd March, 1741/2. To son Ignatius, dwell. plan., 250 A. “Maiden’s Bower”. To son William, “Planter’s Delight”, Charles County, where Thomas Mitchell now lives. To son Clement, “Planter’s Delight” where Joshua Alford lives. To son Raphell, “Planter’s Delight” where John Delozour lives. To son Bennet, any of afsd. estates if the owner should die without hrs. To wife Protheser, extx., and daus. [unnamed] personalty. Test: Richard Cooper, Mary Cooper, Ignatius Wheeler (Cooper), Elizabeth Cooper, James Thompson. 22.437.  Luke Wheeler was a son of Ignatius Wheeler, and grandson of Maj. John Wheeler.  This Will implies that Thomas Mitchell was living on a part of Planters Delight.  It is unclear whether this reference pertained to Thomas Mitchell Jr. or his son, Thomas Mitchell III.  Three different persons were cited as residing on parts of Planters Delight.  That tract was originally patented by Maj. John Wheeler for 600 acres.  On 29Jul1717 Luke Wheeler of St. Mary’s County sold 300 acres in Charles County called Indian Field, it being part of a tract called Planters Delight, formerly the place where Ignatius Wheeler had lived. DB H 2, Folio 270.  Taking that deed of conveyance in combination with the LWT of Luke Wheeler, it would appear that Luke Wheeler may have inherited the entire 600 acres of Planters Delight from his father, Ignatius Wheeler, and that he retained ownership of one-half (300 acres) of Planters Delight, part of which was occupied by Thomas Mitchell and devised to William Wheeler (Luke’s son), probably containing 100 acres.  When we investigate the Wheeler family later in this work, we will endeavor to sort out the chain of title of the lands owned by Maj. John Wheeler, and, hopefully in so doing sort out the identity of this Thomas Mitchell.  Given the date of this deed, this would have been a reference to either Thomas Mitchell Jr. or Thomas Mitchell III.

5.         27Jan1747:  At the request of Ignatius Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  “This Indenture made and agreed upon 6Jan1747 between Thomas Mitchell Jr. of Charles County, planter, of the one part, and Ignatius Mitchell, his brother, joiner of Charles County of the other part, consideration of 9,000 lbt, and £16, current money, sells all the land or land I myself am possessed of or that in anyways may become my right or due lying in Charles County, namely, part ot Wheeler’s Rest, part of Wheeler’s Addition, and part of Wheeler’s Delight, which my grandfather, Thomas Wheeler gave me (to wit), being half or one moiety of the land, the said Wheeler gave by deed of gift to me and my brother, Ignatius, be it more or less, and likewise one more part of land called Mitchell’s Delight containing 50 acres, and also all the right, possession, due and claim which the said Thomas Mitchell Jr. now hath…  Wit.:  William Eilbeck and Samuel Hawkins.  Charity, his wife, relinquished dower.  [Liber Z 2, Folio 205-6]  This deed of conveyance is particularly import in that it identifies the lands conveyed to Thomas Mitchell Jr. and Ignatius Mitchell by their grandfather, Thomas Wheeler on 6Jul1734 (Item No. 2, above).  From this deed we learn that Thomas Mitchell was married to a woman named Charity [Smallwood], and that his father (Thomas Mitchell Jr.) very likely was still living, since this Thomas Mitchell (III) was referenced as “Jr.”.  The tracts being conveyed from Thomas Mitchell Jr. to his brother, Ignatius Mitchell consisted of parts of three separate tracts called Wheeler’s Rest, Wheeler’s Addition and Wheeler’s Delight.  None of these lands were named or associated with a tract called Planters Delight, described in Item No. 4, above, wherein a Thomas Mitchell was reported to have been residing.  The identity of the Thomas Mitchell, who was residing on part of Planters Delight in Mar1741/2 is still uncertain.

6.         20Mar1753:  At the request of Thomas Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 15Mar1753 between Leonard Mitchell and Prudence, his wife, of Charles County Province of Maryland of the one part, and Thomas Mitchell of the same County and Province, planter, of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Leonard Mitchell and Prudence, as well for and in consideration of the sum of £60 sterling current money of Great Britain to them in hand paid by the said Thomas Mitchell… sold all that part of a tract of land lying on the west side of Portobacco Creek in Charles County aforesaid, being that part of Caines Purchase which John Sanders devised to his son John Sanders and afterward descended unto Francis Ignatius Sanders, son of John Sanders, the latter, by whose death the same became the right of his sister, Prudence, now the wife of Leonard Mitchell, containing an estimation of 100 acres…  Wit.: Thomas Stone and Robert Yates.  [DB Liber A 1, Folio 90-1]  The identity of this Thomas Mitchell is uncertain at this juncture.  He would have been either Thomas Mitchell Jr. or Thomas Mitchell III.  Perhaps the chain of title on this tract called Caines Purchase will permit us to clarify the identity of this Thomas Mitchell.  Note that Leonard Mitchell was a son of Thomas Mitchell Jr., as identified by his father’s LWT below, and the husband of Prudence Sanders, daughter of John Sanders.

7.         13Jun1753:  At the request of Leonard Mitchell the following deed was recorded:  THIS INDENTURE made 2Apr1753 between Thomas Mitchell of Charles County of the Province of Maryland, planter, of the one part, and Leonard Mitchell of the same County and Province, planter, of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Thomas Mitchell as well for and in consideration of the sum of £60 sterling, money of Great Britain to him in hand paid by the said Thomas Mitchell… sold all that part of a tract of land lying on the west side of Portobacco Creek in Charles County, aforesaid, being part of Caines Purchase which John Sanders devised to his son John Sanders and afterward descended unto Thomas Ignatius Sanders, son of John Sanders, the latter, by whose death the same became the right of his sister, Prudence, now the wife of Leonard Mitchell, and by them the said Leonard and Prudence Mitchell conveyed to the said Thomas Mitchell, containing an estimation of 100 acres…  No dower.  [DB Liber A 1, Folio 117-9]  It would appear that Thomas Mitchell sold the tract called “Caine’s Purchase” to Leonard Mitchell less than four months after having purchased it from Leonard and Prudence.  The sum paid in each transaction was £60, suggesting that this may simply have been a loan, with the property being the security.  The fact that no wife relinquished dower, and that Thomas Mitchell lacked the title of “Jr.”, suggests that this probably was Thomas Mitchell Jr., father of Leonard Mitchell, and probably widower of Ann Wheeler-Mitchell.

8.         14Aug1754:  Charles County Land Record Book A#2, 1752-1756; Page (216). Lease. Aug 14, 1754 from John Pye of CC, to William Jenkins of CC, for and in consideration of the rents, covenants, & services herein after mentioned, the lease of a tract of land called Mattenleys Folly, bounded by the tenement of land now in possession of Thomas Mitchell, Mattawoman Cr, the tenement of land in possession of Basill Smith, containing 100 acres. The term of this lease is the natural lives of William Jenkins, and his wife, Elizabeth Jenkins. The rent for the 1st year is 800 lbs of good, sound, merchantable tobacco, and thereafter, 1000 lbs per year of good, sound, merchantable, picked and culled crop tobacco clear of cask and in 2 hogsheads, to be paid each May 1, and 2 bushels of good wheat to be paid each Sep 1, and 1 fat turkey at Christmas and 6 fat chickens at mid summer. If the rent is unpaid for 30 days, Pye may evict Jenkins. Jenkins shall plant 200 apple trees within the next 4 years. Jenkins shall, not cut down or sell any timber or wood or cut down timber or wood in a wasteful manner further than to clear the land for the plantation’s use If at any time there is more cut down for clearing the ground than is necessary for the plantation, Pye or his agents or servants may enter the premises and convert the same to such use as he or they shall think fit. Pye or his agents may cut down white oak timber in order to make plank or to convert into heading of pipe hogshead or barrel staves, or any black walnut or cherry tree or crooked ship timber which shall at any time grow on sd premises & to carry away the same, leaving sufficient timber for the use of sd plantation. It is agreed that 5 acres of the premises will be left uncut. Jenkins will assist in preserving and keeping up the Neck fence as to keep other people’s creatures out of the enclosures, Jenkins having liberty for his creatures to run therein. The premises may not be assigned to any other tenants or under tenants unless leave is first asked of Pye. Signed – John Pye. Wit – Walter Hanson, James Nevison (Nivison). Recorded Aug 18, 1754.  This Thomas Mitchell probably was Thomas Mitchell Jr., widower of Ann Wheeler.  This probable identity is supported by the following Item No. 9, in which a deed of conveyance was recorded by Thomas Mitchell with reference to his daughter, Mary Mitchell, on a tract called Sandy Levell.  That tract was conveyed to Mary Mitchell by her father, Thomas Mitchell, in his LWT (Item No. 11, below).

9.         14Aug1754:  Charles County Land Record Book A#2, 1752-1756; Page (219), Lease. Aug 14, 1754 from John Pye of CC, to Thomas Mitchell of CC, for and in consideration of the rents, covenants, & services herein after mentioned, the lease of a tract of land called Sandy Leavell, bounded by the town Gutt, Pyes Addition, Mattawoman Cr, the tenement of land in possession of Basil]. Smith, containing and laid out for 100 acres. The term of this lease is the natural lives of Thomas Mitchell, and his daughter, Mary Mitchell. The rent for the 1st year is 400 lbs of good, sound, merchantable tobacco, and thereafter, 1000 lbs per year of good, sound, merchantable, picked and culled crop tobacco clear of cask and in 2 hogsheads, to be paid each May 1, and 2 bushels of good wheat to be paid each Sep 1, and 1 fat turkey at Christmas and 6 fat chickens at mid-summer. If the rent is unpaid for 30 days, Pye may evict Mitchell. Mitchell shall plant 200 apple trees within the next 4 years. Mitchell shall not cut down or sell any timber or wood or cut down timber or wood in a wasteful manner further than to clear the land for the plantation’s use. If at any time there is more cut down for clearing the ground than is necessary for the plantation, Pye or his agents or servants may enter the premises and convert the same to such use as he or they shall think fit. Pye or his agents may cut down white oak timber in order to make plank or to convert into heading of pipe hogshead or barrel staves, or any black walnut or cherry tree or crooked ship timber which shall at any time grow on sd premises & to carry away the same, leaving sufficient timber for the use of sd plantation. It is agreed that 5 acres of the premises will be left uncut. Mitchell will assist in preserving and keeping up the Neck fence as to keep other people’s creatures out of the enclosures, Mitchell having liberty for his creatures to run therein. The premises may not be assigned to any other tenants or under tenants unless leave is first asked of Pye. Signed – John Pye. Wit – Walter Hanson, James Nivison (Nivison). Recorded Aug 18, 1754.  This was almost certainly Thomas Mitchell Jr., husband of Ann Wheeler.  His daughter, Mary Mitchell, appears to have remained a spinster her entire life, and was named the sole Executrix in the LWT of Thomas Mitchell [Jr.], abstracted herein below.

10.       SMALLWOOD, LEADSTONE, Charles Co. 20 Jan, 1755; 22 Feb 1755 To son Leadstone Smallwood., tract whereon I now dwell called “May Day, ” 200a., also part of tract called “Addition to May Day.” 11a.; also 2 Negroes, Charles and John. To son John Smallwood, tract called “Welcome,” 200 a. also 3 Negroes, Elizabeth, Peter and Negro man called monnicay, and 2 draft horses and a mare. To dau Susannah Smallwood, Negro boy Tom, cow, bed. To son William, 1 sh. To dau Charity Mitchell, 1 sh. To dau mary Godfrey, 1 sh. To dau Henniretur Nowland, 1 sh. To grand dau Elizabeth Nowland, 1 sh. All my tobacco and corn to son John Smallwood and two daus, Susannah and Elizabeth. Sons, Leadstone and John, exs. Wit: Edward Goodrick, William Smallwood, Edward Boswell. 29.306.  This was an abstract of the LWT of Leadstone Smallwood, father of Charity Smallwood-Mitchell, presumed wife of Thomas Mitchell III.  The fact that Charity Mitchell was named as a legatee in Feb1755 is a clear indication that she was still living, but does not provide any hint of her whereabouts.  This would have been the last record found having any connection to Thomas Mitchell III since his conveyance of his inherited lands to his brother Ignatius in Jan1747.  Since that was the last record found with any absolute connection to Thomas Mitchell III in Charles County, it seems entirely possible that Thomas and Charity Mitchell may have removed from that area, possibly relocating to elsewhere in Maryland, or possibly, even to Virginia.

11.       17Mar1759:  MITCHELL, THOMAS, Charles Co. 17 Mar, 1759; 17 Jan, 1770:  To children: Ignatius, Joseph, Notley, Leonard, Anne and Elizabeth, 1 so sterl. To son Notley Mitchell, land lying In Prince George’s Co.; tract in Charles County called “Greenchase,” To dau. Mary, all personals; also plantation whereon I live, called “Sandy Level.” Extx: Dau, Mary, Wit: Benj, Craycraft, Barnaby Cahill, John Brion [O’Bryan], 37, 589.  The fact that Thomas Mitchell Jr. made no bequest to his son, Thomas Mitchell [III], might be an indication that Thomas Mitchell III had relocated outside of Charles County by Mar1759.

12.       6Ap1771:  Mary Mitchel 6.24 D CH £141.19.0; Apr 6 1771 Sureties: Benjamin Craycroft, Leonard Clements Distribution to siblings [equally]: Ignatius, Thomas, Benjamin Notley Mitchel, Ann Jenkins, Leonard, Elisabeth Jenkins Administrator: Benjamin Notley Mitchel.  The fact that Mary Mitchell made a bequest to her brother, Thomas Mitchell in Apr1771 suggests that he probably was still alive.  This fact leaves open the prospect that Thomas Mitchell III or a son named Thomas Mitchell III may have been the same person as the Thomas Mitchell on the road order in Bedford County in 1766.

From the foregoing record trail of Thomas Mitchell III, it appears that he may have sold all of his known lands in Charles County to his brother, Ignatius Mitchell, after which he fades from the records.  The last record found that does have a direct reference to this Thomas Mitchell was in the estate record of his father-in-law, Leadstone Smallwood, in which there was a bequest to Charity Mitchell, Thomas’s presumed wife in 1755.  If Thomas Mitchell III was the source of the Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County, we might expect to find some record evidence of him prior to the 1766 road order.  The most viable source for such record trail might be in the Virginia land patent records.  Following are three patent records which very likely had a connection to Thomas Mitchell III:

1.         16Aug1756:  Thomas Mitchell – 400 acres for £2; Lunenburgh Co. on both sides of Gills Creek of Meherrin River, down Bear Branch, adjacent Walton and Talbot.  Patent Book No. 34, Page 103.  Given the name, date and location of this patent when compared to our target Thomas Mitchell and the ultimate destination of Bedford County, this would appear to be a very good match.  It seems probable to the author that this patent filing in Lunenburgh County on the south side of the Meherrin [aka Roanoake River] was made by Thomas Mitchell III, son of Thomas Mitchell Jr. and Ann Wheeler.  This connection is made even stronger by the following filing by a person named Samuel Wheeler.

2.         12May1759:  Samuel Wheeler – 254 acres for£1.85; Lunenburgh County on the south side of Roanoake River, adjacent Mitchell.  Patent Book 34, Page 262.  The author could not establish the identity of this patentee, Samuel Wheeler, but given this tracts proximity to the filing by Thomas Mitchell, it seems probable that he was a close kinsman of Thomas Mitchell, very possibly a 1st cousin.

3.         23May1763:  Francis Bracey – 1000 acres for £5, Lunenburgh County on the south side of Roanoake River, down Island Creek and down the main branch, adjacent Thomas Mitchell, Bracey, Wheeler and Jefferson.  Patent Book 35, Page 142.  This filing was just three years before the road order record from Bedford County.  This record would seem to clearly establish the fact that the Thomas Mitchell tract and the Samuel Wheeler tract were in close proximity to each other along Gills Creek.

The foregoing patent records from Lunenburgh County in the middle of the 18th century place a Thomas Mitchell on the drains of Gills Creek, which is situated on the south side of the Roanoake River, immediately opposite future Bedford County.  Given this location and date, there would seem to be a very high probability that this was the same person or a descendant of the Thomas Mitchell in the road order in Bedford County in 1766.  Given the yDNA testing that appears to provide a direct linkage between Ignatius Mitchell and John Isaac Mitchell of Bedford County, it seems highly probable that Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County was directly descended from Thomas Mitchell and Ann Wheeler of Charles County MD.  Having traced the descendant records of Thomas Mitchell and Ann Wheeler, there seems to be a very high probability that Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County was either Thomas Mitchell III, or a son of Thomas Mitchell III.

Some researchers have opined that the James Mitchell, who was recorded in the same road order with Thomas Mitchell, was a son of that Thomas Mitchell.  For the reasons already presented, the author is somewhat skeptical about the Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County having been Thomas Mitchell III.  Since Thomas Mitchell III and Charity Smallwood appear to have been married sometime shortly after 1734, when Charity Smallwood witnessed the estate settlement of Richard Wheeler, it seems probable that they would have had several children before relocating out of Charles County to the Lunenburgh County VA area around 1750-5.  Very likely they would have christened there 1st born son after the father and grandfather, Thomas Mitchell.  Similarly, they may have christened their 2nd born son, James Mitchell, after Charity Smallwood’s grandfather, James Smallwood.  Consequently, there seems to be a high probility that the Thomas and James Mitchells of the 1766 road order were brothers, and the sons of Thomas Mitchell and Charity Smallwood. 

This identification of Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County having been a brother of James Mitchell, and son of Thomas Mitchell and Charity Smallwood, may never be proven, but in the author’s opinion has a higher probability than their having been father and son.  If the Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County were the son of Thomas Mitchell and Charity Smallwood, his age would be a much more reasonable fit for the marriage with Eleanor Relander, and the birth of their son, Ignatius, in about 1772.

Having completed the loop from Bedford County to Charles County and back again to Bedford County, our research seems to have fairly credibly linked Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County to Thomas Mitchell III or IV, to Thomas Mitchell Jr. and Ann Wheeler, and to Thomas Mitchell Sr. of Nanjemoy.  As for the purported connection between Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy and Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen, that would appear to still be an open question.  As for any planned or coordinated effort between this Thomas Mitchell’s move to Bedford County and that of his distant cousin, John Isaac Mitchell, that would appear to have been pure happenstance.  As will be seen through the analysis of the William Mitchell family of South River, the paths of these two blood-rated, but geographically disparate families do not appear to have much in the way of contemporaneous intersections.  So, the assertion by Sherrie Mitchell Boone or Richard Kozney that these “cousins” planned their relocations in collaboration probably is incorrect.

Having fairly thoroughly explored the ancestry of Thomas Mitchell of Bedford County, we will now turn our attention to the family of Maj. John Wheeler.  Since so much of the early history of Thomas Mitchell of Pickawaxen, and the later generations of Thomas Mitchell of Nanjemoy overlays and interconnects with the Wheeler family, a better understanding of the Wheelers will be very useful to a fuller understanding of the Mitchells.  We will begin this Wheeler family excursis with John Wheeler, the immigrant, and work forward through his descendants.

Wheeler Family of Charles County Maryland

There were several persons surnamed Mitchell living in the immediate vicinity and interacting with various members of the Atterbury family in Chester County SC in the latter part of the 18th century, leaving us to ponder whether these Mitchells may have been kinsmen of these Atterburys.  Keeping in mind that the mother of these Atterbury men was Sarah Mitchell, daughter of John Mitchell II of Prince George’s County, MD, it is not too difficult to imagine a kinship connection between the Atterburys and Mitchells of Chester County.  Several Atterbury and Mitchell family genealogists have pondered this question, but the author has yet to discover anyone that has actually made a direct connection.  For example, Henry C. Peden, Jr. offered the following thought:

“From the foregoing information [having cited several Chester County land records involving both Mitchells and Atterburys] it becomes evident that there was an Atterbury-Mitchell connection in early Maryland prior to the migration to Loudoun County, Virginia, and subsequently to Chester County, South Carolina.”[1]

Although Mr. Peden does not venture an opinion on the exact genealogical connection between these Chester County Atterburys and Mitchells, he was at least sufficiently knowledgeable of the Maryland history of these families to recognize the possibility of an extension of that connection from Maryland into South Carolina.  Let’s see whether we can unravel this mystery. 

For starters Tables 13-1 and 13-2 contain the listing of Mitchells found in Chester County in the 1790 and 1800 census records, respectively.  In the 1790 census there were four Mitchell households, but because of the limited breakdown of the age range for household members, it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusions about their possible kinships, with the exception of David Mitchell Jr., who presumably would have been a son of David Mitchell Sr.  Similarly, the presence of only one male and one female in David Mitchell Jr.’s household and no males under the age of 16 years suggests a husband and wife, perhaps too recently married to have had any children.  Further, given the presence of males under age 16 in the Isaiah Mitchell and James Mitchell households in 1790, it might be concluded that David Mitchell Jr. was younger than Isaiah and James.  Lastly, the presence of what appears to have been six children in James Mitchell’s household suggests a person much older than both David Jr. and Isaiah, perhaps a peer of David Mitchell [Sr.]. 

One further test of the probable kinship connections between these four Mitchells in the 1790 census may be derived from the fact that David [Sr.], David Jr. and Isaiah were all listed in succession in the census register, suggesting that David Jr. and Isaiah were sons of David [Sr.].  The fact that James Mitchell was also listed on the same register page with David [Sr.], David Jr. and Isaiah (but separated by four households) suggests a close kinship with James.  It should further be pointed out that none of these Mitchells were listed in this census record in close proximity to any of the Atterburys or their known associates.  Spatial proximity in the census lists is generally indicative of geographic proximity on the ground, but not always.  Census records were typically gathered by traveling from household to household sequentially and longitudinally along the main corridors of transportation within a community, resulting in lists reflective of geographic proximity.

In the 1800 census the David Mitchell Sr. household is no longer shown, suggesting perhaps that he may have died between 1790 and 1800.  There was still a listing of a David Mitchell household.  The age range for the head of this household and his presumed wife of 16 thru 25 almost comports with the 1790 age range of >16, but were David Mitchell Jr. and this David Mitchell the same persons?  There were also a young male under age 10, and three young females under age 10, presumably the children of this David Mitchell and his wife.  Additionally, there were also two young females aged 10 thru 15 and one older female over age 45.  It seems probable that the older female was David Mitchell’s mother, Mary [Molly] Mitchell.  It also seems probable that the two young females aged 10 to 15 were the same two females reported in David Mitchell Sr.’s household in 1790 (probably younger sisters of this David Mitchell).  We will present later in this chapter a court record from 1789 for a person identified as David Mitchell Jr., which clearly would not fit with the age of the David Mitchell in this 1800 census record.  From that record, it would appear that we had two separate David Mitchells in Chester County in addition to David Mitchell Sr.  One of those David Mitchells was twice referred to as David Mitchell Jr.  The younger David Mitchell from the 1800 census record was only identified in the records as David Mitchell, without any title of Jr. or otherwise.

Also reported in the 1800 census was a household headed by John Mitchell and an apparent wife, both aged 10 to 15.  This would have been a very young age for marriage, but possible.  It seems possible that this John Mitchell may have been one of the two young males reported in David Mitchell Sr.’s household in 1790, possibly a younger brother of David Mitchell [The Younger].  But, John Mitchell may also have been a son of either Elias or James Mitchell.

When the author first looked at these Chester County Mitchells, he initially concluded that David Mitchell Sr. was the father of David Mitchell Jr., James Mitchell, Isaiah Mitchell, Thomas Mitchell, John Mitchell and Elias Mitchell, and that David Mitchell Sr. was the son of John and Elizabeth Mitchell, born in Prince Georges County MD on 14Feb1722.  Now, having taken a closer look at the household compositions for David Mitchell Sr., David Mitchell Jr. and David Mitchell [sans title, aka The Younger], the author is more inclined to believe that David Mitchell [Sr.] may have been a brother or cousin of James and Elias.  We have now excluded Isaiah, Thomas and John Mitchell as brothers of David Mitchell Sr., James Mitchell and Elias Mitchell for reasons that will be documented later in this section  This change in opinion was substantially based on the fact that David Mitchell [sans title], aged 16 thru 25 in 1800 (born about 1774-5) does not comport with a father born in 1722, certainly not of the same mother as John Mitchell, who was born in 1741 to David and Mary Mitchell in Prince Georges County MD, or even of David Mitchell, who was born in 1752 to John and Elizabeth [Riley] Mitchell.

Then we have the rather confusing grave memorial record for David Mitchell Sr. taken from Find-A-Grave, abstracted as follows:

“Name:   David Mitchell Sr

Birth Date:             1741

Death Date:           Feb 1803??

Cemetery:              Old Shaw Baptist Church Cemetery

Burial or Cremation Place:   Chester County, South Carolina, United States of America”[2]

Dora Brown is reported as the source for this grave record, which was posted on 2Aug2013.  The author has made several attempts to contact Ms. Brown to ascertain her source and the level of confidence she places in this record, but has yet to receive a reply.  Since it is listed as a “memorial” record, it seems probable that no actual grave marker has been located.  In fact, no actual record can be found for the location of the Old Shaw Baptist Church Cemetery.  On the Find-A-Grave site this cemetery is described as follows:

“Situated on a knoll near Broad River in the Sandy River area. This church burned and the congregation moved to the present site, Brushy Fork; April 28, 1957..”

and, from Interment.net:

“Located in west Chester County, South Carolina, on the Broad River, near the Woods Ferry area of the Sumpter National Forest.”

Consequently, the author must place a very low reliability value on this memorial record.  On the surface, it would appear that someone has cobbled together a grave memorial based on bits of information extracted from a variety of sources, i.e., census records, church registry records, land records, estate records, etc.  That being said, it may be noteworthy that David Mitchell Sr.’s purported year of birth is given as 1741.  That date just happens to coincide with the year of birth for John Mitchell, eldest son of David and Mary Mitchell, born 3Jun1741.  However, if we assume that this memorial was for John [David?] Mitchell, then the date of death does not compute with other records in evidence.  Assuming that this grave memorial record was for David Mitchell [Sr.?], who appeared in the 1790 census, it is more likely that he died sometime between 1790 and 1800 (probably around 1794-5).  This date of death is based on the following deed record:

1. Deed Book E, pp 203-4 – 19Mar1796 – David Hopkins of Chester County to David Mitchell, son of Mary Mitchell, for ₤20 sterling, part of larger tract on the drains of Wilsons Creek, including the plantation whereon the said David Mitchell and his mother now lives, 124-1/4 acres.  Wit.: Mashack Willis and William Clark.[3]

The foregoing deed indicates that David Mitchell [sans title] was living on a tract of land with his mother, Mary Mitchell, described as being situated on Wilsons Creek, tributary to Broad River, part of a larger tract purchased from David Hopkins in 1796.  The fact that Mary Mitchell was living with her presumed son, David Mitchell, is a clear indication David Mitchell Sr. had died earlier.  One further factor which lends to confusion over the identity of David Mitchell Sr. is his wife’s name, Mary Mitchell.  At first blush, it was very tempting to identify David Mitchell Sr. and Mary as the same persons whose children were recorded born in Prince Georges County MD in the mid-18^th century.  After more sober consideration, it seems simply a coincidence that these two David Mitchell’s just happened to marry women named Mary.

From the 1800 census we find listings of two Mitchell men aged over 45 years (born before 1765): namely James Mitchell and Elias Mitchell.  Although there appears to have been persons over age 45 in Isaiah Mitchell’s household, he and his wife would appear to have been aged 25 thru 44.  Additionally, there is a listing of a Thomas Mitchell’s household, aged 25 to 44, with an apparent son aged 16 to 25.  Given this apparent son’s age (over 16 years old) it may be reasonable to conclude that Thomas Mitchell very likely was born around 1766-7 or earlier.  This more precise age for Thomas Mitchell would appear to place him as a peer of Isaiah Mitchell.  The close placement of these Mitchell men within the census records aside, we will soon learn that they each acquired land along the drains of Brushy Fork Creek in relatively close proximity to one another.  Consequently, it seems highly suggestive that these five Mitchell men may have been very close kinsmen. 

That being said, is there anything else in the records that might allow us to connect these presumed Mitchell kinsmen to the Prince George’s County MD Mitchells?  Matter of fact there might just be such a record.  Following is a birth record abstracted from the The Maryland, U.S., Births and Christenings Index, 1662-1911 on Ancestry.com:

Name:     Elias Mitchell

Gender:  Male

Birth Date:             12 Mar 1761

Birth Place:            Frederick, Maryland

Father’s Name:      David Mitchell

Mother’s Name:    Mary

FHL Film Number:                14081

Given the parent’s names, date, and location in Frederick County Maryland, there is very strong reason for believing that this was the birth of another son to David and Mary Mitchell, formerly of Prince George’s County, and the same Elias Mitchell listed in the 1800 census of Chester County SC.  Assuming that to be the case, we present all of the Mitchell family birth records from St. Barnabas Church, Prince Georges County during the 18^th Century in the table below for further scrutiny.  The families of two of Sarah Mitchell Yacksley Atterberry’s brothers have been included for analysis: John Mitchell (highlighted in yellow), and David Mitchell (highlighted in blue).  We have added Elias Mitchell to this table for a more comprehensive comparison.  In this table David and Mary Mitchell are shown to have had three sons born prior to 1861: John, James and Elias.  From the cluster of assumed male Mitchell kinsmen in the 1800 Chester County census, we identified potential brothers named James and Elias, who match the names of two sons born to David and Mary.  While this fact alone is not absolutely compelling evidence that the Mitchell brothers of Chester County were all sons of David and Mary, it must be recognized as strong circumstantial evidence, nonetheless.

When we add the grave memorial record of David Mitchell Sr. to the mix, this circumstantial evidence becomes even stronger.  How, might you ask, is David Mitchell Sr.’s grave memorial even relevant to this analysis?  Although totally undocumented, this grave memorial does contain one vital piece of information, David’s purported birth year of 1741.  From the birth records accorded to David and Mary Mitchell we have a listing for a son named John Mitchell born in 1741.  David Mitchell’s father and grandfather were named John Mitchell, so we might reasonably expect that David would name his firstborn son for the father or grandfather, John Mitchell.  Might it not be equally reasonable to expect David and Mary to christen their firstborn son “John David” Mitchell in honor of both his father and grandfather?  Might it not also be possible that that firstborn son would later in life opt in favor of his father’s name of “David” in deference to a grandfather of whom he would have very little recollection?

All things considered, the author believes it highly probable that David Mitchell Sr. would have been the eldest of his assumed brothers, and the same person as the son, John Mitchell, born to David and Mary Mitchell in Prince Georges County on 12Apr1741.  An older age for David Mitchell Sr. will be further supported by land and military records from Chester County presented later in this chapter.  Assuming the author’s analysis and conclusions regarding the identity of David Mitchell Sr. to be correct, then this would seemingly have greatly increased the probability James and Elias Mitchell of Chester County were also descended from David and Mary Mitchell of Prince George’s County MD.

But, we are not ready to rest our case, there is even more evidence to be found in Maryland records to support this argument.  While in this realm of speculation, let’s add on further variable to the equation.  Many Atterberry and Mitchell genealogical researchers have posited the notion that two of the Atterberry brothers intermarried with two of their Mitchell 1^st cousins: Edward Atterberry and Keziah Mitchell, and Charles Atterberry and Sarah Mitchell.  Little or no documentary evidence has been offered by these “researchers” to support their claims of these intermarriages.  The author would at this point in time posit yet one more such intermarriage with a 1^st cousin: Michael Atterberry and Elizabeth Mitchell.  Again, the author can offer no direct evidence to support an intermarriage of Michael Atterberry with his 1^st cousin, but there is a myriad of circumstantial evidence to consider.  At this juncture, we will present only one piece of “evidence”, if evidence it be.  Michael, Edward and Charles were the first of the Atterberry brothers to migrate to South Carolina, first appearing on patent applications starting in 1771.  From those records it would appear that Michael Atterberry was already married with a wife and three children on arrival, whereas Edward and Charles appear to have been unmarried (based on an analysis of their patent filings).  If Michael Atterberry was already married to his 1^st cousin, Elizabeth Mitchell, when they traveled from Loudoun County VA to Camden District SC, how might they have had the opportunity to meet one another?  We also have the records for a Michael Mitchell Atterberry in Hardin County KY in the 19^th Century, a strong suggestion of a Michael Atterberry and a Mitchell union.

In the author’s earlier research into the life of William Atterberry in America, no evidence was found to suggest that any of William Atterberry’s Mitchell kinsmen ever lived in Loudoun County.  In fact, the last records he had found for his Mitchell family members were still back in Prince George’s County.  But what of the birth record for Elias Mitchell in Frederick County?  Might not that record suggest that at least David and Mary Mitchell may have moved away from Prince George’s County by 1761?  The author is always cognizant of applying a Time and Place Convergence test as a primary means of verifying family connections.  If any of these Atterberry brothers had married a Mitchell 1^st cousin, there would need to have been a point in time at which these two respective families would have been in relatively close geographic proximity for an attachment to have occurred.  The Atterberrys lived in the western part of Loudoun County, nearby to West’s Ordinary.  Frederick County from its formation in 1748 covered a vast area of northwest Maryland, and remained so until 1776.  The David and Mary Mitchell family could have resided virtually anywhere within Frederick County, conceivably 100 miles or more apart from West’s Ordinary. 

It might be helpful to our investigation to be better informed as to the whereabouts of the David Mitchell family within Maryland.  To establish the location of David Mitchell’s family we offer the following land/property records:

1. 1Jul1723 – Patent issued to James Ford, Prince Georges County, 53 acres, called Friends Good Will, situated on east side of Northeast Branch of Eastern Branch of Potomac, abutting 2^nd line of tract called Friendship.  This would appear to have been the same tract of land which was conveyed from David Mitchell to James Lee of Albemarle County VA on 23Apr1747 (see Item No. 4, below).  Note that this tract of land was reported to have been situated on Northeast Branch of Eastern Branch of the Potomac River.  The Eastern Branch of the Potomac is a well known waterway, and is called by the name of Anacostia River at present.  Its confluence with the Potomac is just downstream from Washington D.C.  This stream extends roughly 8.5 miles inland from the Potomac where it separates into two main branches near Bladensburg: Northwest Branch and Northeast Branch.  The Northeast Branch extends roughly another 3 miles upstream, where it separates into two branches: Paint Branch and Indian Creek.  This appears to have been the same waterway (drainage) as Prince Spring plantation patented by William Atterberry (surveyed on 25Apr1747).  Every effort was exhausted to ascertain how this tract transferred from James Ford to David Mitchell, but no transfer records could be located.  Also, efforts to locate the abutting tract called Friendship met with failure.  There were several tracts of that name patented during this time period, but none appear to have been associated with the Eastern Branch.  Since this patent is described as having been on a Northeast Branch of Eastern Branch, it seems reasonable to assume that it was situated somewhere upstream from Bladensburg to the northeast, possibly within the drainage of Indian Creek.
2. 25Nov1741 – Lib. Y, p. 412:  John Mitchell Sr. gift deeded to son, John Mitchell Jr. part of Mitchell’s Addition containing 122 acres.  John Mitchell Jr. was the eldest son of John and Elizabeth (mnu) Mitchell, born 28Feb1717.  It is curious that John Mitchell Sr. would have chosen this date to grant this gift deed to his eldest son.  John Mitchell Jr. may have been married by this date (Elizabeth Riley), but did not record his first child until 12Apr1746.  So it may not have been in anticipation of his eldest son’s new family, but possibly.  It is also noteworthy that John Mitchell Jr. sold this tract of land to William Waters, brother-in-law of Lewis Duvall, the same person to whom David and Mary Mitchell sold David’s inheritance, parts of Mitchell’s Addition and Tyler’s Pasture.
3. 23Apr1747 – Lib. EE, p. 461:  Deed of conveyance (Gift Deed) John Mitchell Sr. to his son, David Mitchell, 70 acres in Prince George’s County, being part of two tracts: Tylers Pasture and Mitchells Addition.  John Mitchell Sr. conveyed by gift deed parts of these two tracts (Tylers Pasture and Mitchell‘s Addition) to his son, David Mitchell.  He penned his LWT about 14 months later on 4Jun1748.  He may have been sickly, and thought it the appropriate time to begin settling his estate.  It may be significant that David Mitchell divested his interest in Friends Good Will on this same date, and that William Atterberry recorded his survey on Prince Spring just two days later.  John Mitchell Sr. had already conveyed by gift 122 acres of Mitchell’s Addition to his eldest son, John Jr. on 25Nov1741.  These further transactions would seemingly settle lands on three more of John Mitchell Sr.’s children: Sarah Mitchell (wife of William Atterberry), David Mitchell, and Mary Mitchell (presumed wife of James Lee).
4. 23Apr1747 – Lib. BB, p. 477:  Deed of conveyance David Mitchell, planter of Prince Georges County MD to James Lee of Albemarle County VA for £15, 53 acre tract called Friends Good Will, situated on east side of the Northeast Branch of Eastern Branch of Potomac in Prince George’s County.  Mary Mitchell relinquished her dower right.  David Mitchell transferred Friends Good Will to James Lee of Albemarle VA.  Note that Mary Mitchell relinquished her dower right, virtually assuring the identity of this David Mitchell as a son of John Mitchell Sr.  James Lee is believed by many researchers to have been the husband of Mary Mitchell (sister of David Mitchell, not his wife), and brother-in-law of David Mitchell.  It seems possible to the author that the combination of the transactions involved in Items 3, 4 and 5 may have been orchestrated by John Mitchell Sr. in an effort to insure that each of his children owned there own parcels of land, including the filing by William Atterberry (husband of Sarah Mitchell).
5. 25Apr1747 – Tract surveyed for William Atterberry of Prince Georges County, 50 acres, called Prince Spring, situated on the north side of White Marsh, being a draught of the Eastern Branch of Potomac River.  Search as he might, the author has been unable to identify the location of White Marsh as a draught of the Eastern Branch of the Potomac.  Regardless, from their associated land records, it would seem that Friends Good Will and Prince Spring were both situated on the same drainage.  The actual location of these tracts has not been established with any degree of certainty, but it seems possible that they were within relatively close geographic proximity of each other.  That being the case, then it would appear that the families of David Mitchell, Mary Mitchell-Lee and William Atterberry would have been near neighbors (within a few miles) for almost ten years between about 1745 and 1755.
6. 18Sep1852 – Lib. NN, p. 69: Bill of sale of various livestock from John Mitchell [Jr.] to Samuel Busey in amount of £6.  Apparently John Mitchell Jr. was encountering financial difficulties, and was mortgaging his livestock for ready monies.
7. 1Nov1752 – “At the request of William Arterberry the following marks of a stray (horse) was recorded in Prince George’s County.  Then William Atterberry brought before me… a large bay horse as a trespasser and stray, seems to be a natural pacer, branded on the near buttock and shoulder, not plain, he says the horse hath been about his plantation about two months.”  This record would seem to suggest that William Atterberry’s family was still residing on Prince Spring Plantation in Nov1752.
8. 15Dec1753 – “At the request of William Atterberrie the following certificate of a stray was recorded in Prince Georges County… a trespasser and stray sorrel bay mare branded on the near buttock w/ “C”, her hind feet white, one walleye, a star in the forehead, and a snip on her nose, and a small bell on…”  Ditto, above, Item No. 7.
9. 23Jul1754 – Lib. NN, p. 294: David Mitchell of Prince Georges County reported stray horse in Prince Georges County.  This record would seem to confirm that David Mitchell’s family was still residing in Prince Georges County, probably on the land inherited from his father.
10. 16Aug1754 – Lib. NN, p. 274:  Deed of conveyance from William Atterberry of Frederick County, planter to John Riddle Jr. for 3,000 pounds tobacco, sold Prince Spring Plantation, then in the occupation of John Riddle Sr., situated on White Marsh on the north side of the Eastern Branch of Potomac River, containing 50 acres.  Sarah (Mitchell) Atterberry, wife of William, relinquished her dower right.  From this deed of conveyance, it would appear that William Atterberry had moved his family northward into Frederick County (probably after 12Dec1753), and that the John Riddle Sr. family was already in residence on Prince Spring plantation at the time of this transaction.  It is the author’s belief that John Riddle Jr. may have married William Atterberry’s step-daughter, Elizabeth Yacksley.  Just where within Frederick County William Atterberry may have resided is unknown.  After this record, no further recording of William Atterberry was found until he appeared in the tax rolls of Loudoun County VA in about 1758.
11. 15Mar1759 – Lib. PP, p. 285: Deed of Conveyance from David Mitchell of Frederick County MD, planter to Lewis Duvall for £50, parts of tracts called Tylers Pasture and Mitchell’s Addition, situated in Prince Georges County.  Mary Mitchell relinquished dower rights.  David Mitchell sold his inherited tracts in Prince Georges County on 15Dec1759 to Lewis Duvall, the brother-in-law of the person who purchased part of Mitchell’s Addition from John Mitchell Jr. in 1779.
12. 12Mar1759 – BC & GS No. 12, folio 96:  David Mitchell received patent for a 19 acre tract of land in Frederick County on Seneca Creek called Mitchell’s Garden, abutting 2^nd line of Promise Fullfilled, held of Conococheague Manor.  Just three days before David and Mary Mitchell sold their interest in Tylers Pasture and Mitchells Addition to Lewis Duvall, David Mitchell filed patents on two tracts of land in Frederick County situated on a small branch near its confluence with Seneca Creek, one called Mitchells Garden containing 19 acres and another called Mitchells Range containing 81 acres  In the warrant issued 15Nov1758 David Mitchell was described as being of Prince Georges County, so David Mitchell apparently moved his family from Prince Georges County into Frederick County sometime between Nov1758 and Mar1759.  From its description, this tract probably was situated on the upper reaches of Seneca Creek in the vicinity of present day Gaithersburg.
13. 12Mar1759 – BC & GS No. 10, folio 292:  David Mitchell of Prince Georges County received a patent for 50 acres of land in Frederick County on 31Oct1758, and for 31 acres, part of a warrant issued for 50 acres on 15Nov1758, for a tract called Mitchells Range beginning in the 1^st line of Promise Fulfilled, containing 81 acres, held of Concocheague Manor.  Ditto, Item No. 12, above.
14. Birth Record:

Name:     Elias Mitchell

Gender:  Male

Birth Date:             12 Mar 1761

Birth Place:            Frederick, Maryland

Father’s Name:      David Mitchell

Mother’s Name:    Mary

Given the names of the parents, and the date of this birth recording juxtaposed with the forgoing patent records presented in Items 12 and 13, above, there seems little doubt but that this was the birth of a son to David Mitchell Sr., son of John Mitchell Sr.  This Elias Mitchell almost certainly was the Rev. Elias Mitchell, recorded several years later in Chester County SC.

15. Birth Record:

Name:     Thomas Mitchell

Gender:  Male

Birth Date:             6 Aug 1762

Birth Place:            Frederick, Maryland

Father’s Name:      James Mitchell

Mother’s Name:    Charity

The timing and location of this birth record strongly suggests that this James Mitchell may have been the son of David Mitchell Sr.  However, the reported birth year for James Mitchell from the Ancestry database: “All Maryland, U.S., Births and Christenings Index, 1662-1911”, is transcribed as 28Feb1753.  Clearly, if that birth date for James Mitchell were correct, he could not have been the father listed in this birth record of Thomas Mitchell.  Yet, in that same database is reported a birth record for James’ assumed sister, Keziah, of Mar1753.  The conflicting birthdates reported for James and Keziah casts doubt on the accuracy of one or the other’s birthdate.  All things considered, the author is inclined to believe that the birthdate for James Mitchell has been transcribed in error, and that it more likely should have been 1743, not 1753.  Assuming the foregoing conclusion to be correct, then it is entirely possible that the foregoing birth record of Thomas Mitchell was for a son of James Mitchell, son of David Mitchell Sr.  (more analysis to follow, later in this chapter)

16. 19Jun1764 – Lib. J, p. 558:  Deed of conveyance from David Mitchell, planter of Frederick County MD, to Edward Gaither, son of Benjamin, Planter of same, for £50 sterling, two tracts of land: (1) tract called Mitchells Range, bearing patent date of 12Mar1759 and beginning on 1^st line of Promise Fulfilled, containing 81 acres, and (2) tract called Mitchells Garden, bearing patent date of 12Mar1759 and beginning on a small branch of Seneca Creek, as small distance from Promise Fulfilled, containing 19 acres.  Mary Mitchell relinquished her right of dower.  From the fact that David Mitchell’s wife was named Mary, it seems a virtual certainty that this was David Mitchell, son of John and Elizabeth Mitchell of Prince Georges County MD.  Just five years after having taken out patents on these two tracts, David and Mary Mitchell sold the land to Edward Gaither.  The Gaither family originated from Ann Arundel County MD, and one branch of that family (Edward’s brother, Henry Gaither) is credited with the founding of Gaithersburg Maryland.

KINSHIPS: Whenever we study a land sale, we should automatically consider the possibility of a kinship connection between the parties,  In the instance of this sale from David Mitchell to Edward Gaither there is a strong possibility of these parties having a shared kinship connection, albeit somewhat tenuous.  Edward Gaither is believed by the author to have been a son of Benjamin Gaither and Sarah Burgess.  Sarah Burgess was a daughter of Edward Burgess, who was a brother of Susannah Burgess.  Susannah Burgess is believed to have been the 2^nd wife of John Mitchell I, David Mitchell’s grandfather.  So, there may have been a kinship connection between David Mitchell and Edward Gaither, but that connection was not by blood (only by marriage), and two generations removed.  Edward Gaither was a grand-nephew of David Mitchell’s Great-grand step-mother.  However, it should not be discounted that there may have been a closer kinship connection than Susannah and Edward Burgess.  The identity of David Mitchell’s mother is not known.  Benjamin Gaither inherited a tract of land from his brother, John Gaither on 29Mar1703, called Pole Catt Hill, which was situated in Ann Arundel County on the south side of the northern fork of Patuxent River, in relatively close proximity to the Mitchell family in Prince George’s County.  Did John Mitchell Sr. marry a daughter of Benjamin Gaither?

Whether Edward Gaither’s purchase of these tracts from David Mitchell was in any manner the result of a kinship connection, aside from the already described connection through intermarriages with members of the Burgess family, cannot be proven from the limited information available.  It seems more likely that Edward Gaither chose this property because of its relatively close proximity to his brother, Henry Gaither, who had been in this part of Frederick County since about 1750.

17. 20Mar1770 – Lib. N, p. 30 (Frederick County):  James Mitchell from Joseph Perry, both of Frederick County, rents part of a tract called Resurvey on James and Mary, containing 198 acres, excepting 21 acres, for the term of 19 years or the arrival at age 21 years of Joseph’s son, James Wilson Perry, for rents of 1900 pounds of crop tobacco annually.  Mitchell to build one Tobacco House, 40’x22’.  It is conceivable that this James Mitchell could have been the son of David Mitchell Sr.  The tract, James and Mary, was originally patented by James Beall.
18. 1Feb1771 – Lib. O, p. 33:  David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither recorded deed of conveyance from Jonathan Hagar [namesake of Hagerstown], for consideration of one shilling, purchased Lot No. 111, measuring 88’ x 240’, situated in Elizabeth Town [future Hagerstown], dated 9Jan1771.  There was a seven year gap between this record and the deed of conveyance (Item 14, above) from David and Mary Mitchell to Edward Gaither of the two tracts called Mitchells Range and Mitchells Garden.  From the fact that the partners named in this deed of conveyance of Lot No. 111 were a David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither, there is good reason to believe that this David Mitchell may have been David Mitchell Sr., son of John Mitchell Sr.  David Mitchell Sr. would have been about 49 years old in 1771.  David’s eldest son, John [David] Mitchell, would have been almost 30 years old, James Mitchell about 28, and Elias Mitchell about 10 years old.  David Mitchell’s daughters: Sarah, Elizabeth and Keziah may have married their 1^st cousins, Charles, Michael and Edward Atterberry, respectively.  Michael, Charles and Edward began appearing on patent records in Chester County SC in 1772.  So, if these Atterberry brothers did marry their Mitchell 1^st cousins, it seems probable that those marriages would have occurred before the migration to South Carolina.  Ergo, these marriages would probably have occurred at around the same time as this deed conveyance in 1771.  The Atterberrys were living across the Potomac River from the Gaithersburg MD area, only about 35 miles distant.  There could have been frequent and close communications between these families, which could have led to these supposed intermarriages.

Efforts to identify this Joseph Gaither were only marginally successful.  Given the connections with a person(s) named David Mitchell, it is reasonable to assume that Joseph Gaither was a close kinsman of Edward Gaither.  Search as he might, the author was unable to find anyone who claims this Joseph Gaither.  It is the author’s belief that Joseph Gaither may have been a son of Edward Gaither and Eleanor [Davis?], who died sometime before 1777 when Edward penned his LWT.  Most Gaither genealogists rely on Edward’s LWT for the identification of his children.  If Joseph had died before his father wrote his Will, then there is a good chance that there would be no reference to Joseph in that Will.  All things considered, the author is inclined to believe that Joseph Gaither was a son of Edward Gaither, and that David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither had entered a partnership as fellow merchants.  The identity of this David Mitchell is not certain, but possibly could have been David Mitchell Sr., son of John Mitchell Sr.

19. 19Mar1773 – Lib. P, p. 689: corrected deed of conveyance on Lot No. 111 was recorded to rectify an error in the original deed.  All parties, terms, etc. the same.  David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither identified as “Merchants”.  Ditto, Item 18, above.
20. 29Mar1773 – Lib. P. p. 292:  Levy Cohen and Samuel Beall, and David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither, recorded a Bill of Sale from Peter Consola (all of Frederick County) for sum of £100, secured by various livestock.  In this record David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither have joined with another partnership consisting of Levy Cohen and Samuel Beall in lending money to Peter Consola, secured by livestock.  Efforts to identify Levy Cohen met with failure.  However, there are several possibilities for the identity of Cohen’s partner, Samuel Beall.  The most likely is Colonel Samuel Beall or his son.  Col. Samuel Beall was born about 1713 in Prince Georges County, and died in 1778 in Washington County MD.  He was the Sheriff of Frederick County for over a decade in the 1750’s and 60’s.
21. 17Apr1773 – Lib. S, p. 53 (Frederick County):  Deed of conveyance from David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither both of Frederick County, and John Swan of Hagerstown, Merchant, for £45, sold one moiety, or half of Lot No. 111 in Elizabethtown, including the house where Joseph Gaither lives.  From the description provided in this deed of conveyance it would appear that Joseph Gaither had established a house on one half of Lot No. 111 in Elizabeth Town prior to 1773.  This deed conveyed ownership of that half-lot to John Swan, including Joseph Gaither’s home.  David Mitchell was still being recorded as a resident of Frederick County at this time.  Both Mitchell and Gaither conveyed this property, as if they shared equally in its title.  FWIW: A John Swan married Elizabeth Vanmeter, daughter of Jacob Vanmeter [aka Valley Jake].
22. 23Nov1773 – Lib. U, p. 335 (Frederick County):  Bill of Sale was recorded at request of Mitchell and Gaither; whereas Nathan Barnes of Frederick County, farmer, was indebted to Mitchell and Gaither, Merchants of Baltimore and Frederick Counties for the sum of £11, 15s and 2p, secured by various livestock.  In this Bill of Sale David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither were described as of Frederick County, but also as Merchants in both Baltimore and Frederick Counties.  From the previous deed it would appear that Joseph Gaither may have been living in Elizabeth Town, but there is no indication of where David Mitchell was residing, other than in Frederick County.
23. 24Aug1778 – Lib. A, p. 291 (Washington County): Deed of conveyance from David Mitchell of Hampshire County VA to Samuel Hughes of Washington County, in consideration of £750 common currency, sold one half of Lot No, 111 situated in Elizabeth Town.  In this deed of conveyance David Mitchell was now described as being a resident of Hampshire County [West] Virginia.  It seems possible that David Mitchell may have relocated to Hampshire County (WV) to be further removed from the impacts of the Revolutionary War.  In this transaction David Mitchell conveyed the remaining half of Lot No. 111, with no reference to Joseph Gaither.  In the earlier conveyance of the 1^st half, both David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither appear to have been equal partners.  The fact that Joseph Gaither was not mentioned in this transaction as having any involvement in its sale suggests that Joseph Gaither may have been deceased, and that David Mitchell was the surviving partner.  This possibility would coincide with the author’s earlier speculation regarding Joseph Gaither having been a son of Edward Gaither.  In 1778 David Mitchell Sr. would have been about 56 years old, and his son, Elias Mitchell, would have been only 17 years old and probably still living at home with his father. 
24. 4Sep1784 – Lib. D, p. 43 (Washington County):  Deed of conveyance from Henry Shryock of Washington County to David Mitchell of Hampshire County VA for and in consideration of £75 sold Lot No. 5 and half of Lot No. 6, situated in the town of Chipton?? in Washington County.  Although living in Hampshire County VA, David Mitchell was still growing his business interests in Washington County MD.  The location of the town lots purchased from Henry Shryock is unclear, as the name of the town is blurred in the record.  It appears to read as “Chipton”, but no such town can be found in the records of Washington County.
25. 18Jul1786 – Lib. D, p. 800 (Washington County):  Deed of conveyance was recorded from Elie Williams of Washington County to David Mitchell of Hampshire County VA, for and in consideration of £400, sold the northernmost half of Lot No. 109 in Elizabeth Town, Washington County.  Ditto, Item No. 24, above.
26. 7Apr1787 – Lib. E, p. 358 [368] (Washington County):  Mortgage/Deed from Yost Engleman, butcher of Elizabeth Town to David Mitchell of Hampshire County VA and Rezin Davis of Washington County, for and in consideration of £63, 4s, 6p, sold westernmost half of Lot No. 113 in Elizabeth Town.  In margin was following note:  “I, Rezin Davis (surviving partner of the copartnership of David Mitchell and Rezin Davis) doth acknowledge full satisfaction for the money for which this mortgage was given, and doth release the house and half lot therein mentioned… signed 26Mar1804”.  In this record David Mitchell was recorded still living in Hampshire County, but appears to have formed a partnership with Rezin Davis of Washington County.  So, David Mitchell still had strong business ties to Washington County MD, although living across the Potomac in Hampshire County VA.  This lot would have been only about 160 feet down the street from Lot No. 111.  The identity of Rezin Davis is uncertain to the author, but very possibly could have been a son of Col. Richard Davis.  For what it’s worth, Edward Gaither is believed to have been married to Eleanor Davis-Whittle.  It seems possible that there may have been a kinship connection between Rezin Davis and Edward and Eleanor Gaither.  Also note that an Elijah Gaither witnessed the LWT of Col. Richard Davis.  Also, the marginal note by Rezin Davis clearly indicates that his partner, David Mitchell, was deceased by26Mar1804.
27. 1782 – Hampshire County Tax List:  From a compilation of the taxable property owners for Virginia in the years 1782-5 is a listing tabulated by David Mitchell, Gentleman, for his neighborhood, an excerpt of which is displayed in Figure 13-1.[4]  In this list David Mitchell was described as a “Gentleman”, with only one white soul in his household, owner of a single dwelling house and four outbuildings.  If this were a listing of David Mitchell Sr., son of John Mitchell Sr., then he would have been about 56 years old.  It seems possible that he may have been widowed, and all of his presumed children would have been adults, likely living outside his household.
28. 10Oct1779 – Lib. CC, p. 676 (Prince Georges County):  Deed of conveyance from John Mitchell Sr. of Prince Georges County, farmer, to William Waters of same, carpenter, for and in consideration of £775, sold a tract of land called Mitchells Addition, beginning at the end of the 2^nd line of a tract formerly sold by David Mitchell to Lewis Duvall, whereof a certain Joseph Boyd is now seized, running various courses, and containing 118 acres.  Elizabeth [Riley] Mitchell did not relinquish dower, suggesting that she may have been deceased.  Although a bit out of chronological order, we present this deed of conveyance for the transfer of a part of Mitchell’s Addition from John Mitchell Sr. to William Waters (kinsman of Lewis Duvall) in Oct 1779.  This John Mitchell Sr. was the older brother of David Mitchell Sr.  This record was inserted into this list of records to illustrate that John Mitchell Sr. was still residing in Princes Georges County MD in 1779.  Per the birth records listed in the Ancestry Database of compiled Maryland Births and Christenings, John and Elizabeth [Riley] Mitchell had only two sons: Hugh and David.  Later records provide evidence that Hugh Mitchell survived to adulthood and appeared in the 1800 census of Anne Arundel County MD.  Also, there is a census record in 1800 in Prince George’s County MD of a John Mitchell, over age 45 (probably John Mitchell Sr., widowed husband of Elizabeth Riley).  No trailing records were found in or around Prince George’s County for David Mitchell, son of John Mitchell, reportedly born 9Fep1752.  Some Mitchell genealogists report this David Mitchell as the David Mitchell Sr., recorded in Chester County SC in 1790.  The author cannot yet verify or concur/dispute this identification of the Chester County SC David Mitchell Sr., but thinks it improbable.

This concludes our presentation of Mitchell family records in Maryland and it is time to summarize our findings and conclusions at this juncture in our analysis:

1. David Mitchell Sr. was married to a woman named Mary, and they are on record as having had at least seven children: John [David?], Sarah, James, Elizabeth, Mary, Keziah, and Elias.
2. John Mitchell Sr. appears to have had a guiding hand in assuring that four of his children owned land of their own: Mary (wife of James Lee), John, David, and Sarah (wife of William Atterberry).
3. David Mitchell, Mary Mitchell-Lee and William Atterberry lived in close geographic proximity to one another along the drains of the Eastern Branch of the Potomac for almost five years in the 1740’s and 50’s.
4. William Atterberry sold his Prince Spring tract and relocated to somewhere within Frederick County in 1754.  By 1760 William had moved his family across the Potomac into Loudoun County.
5. In Mar1759 David Mitchell was identified as being of Frederick County, when he sold his inherited tracts in Prince George’s County to Lewis Duvall.  In that same month/year David Mitchell filed two patents totaling 100 acres situated on Seneca Creek nearby to future Gaithersburg.
6. Mar1761 David and Mary Mitchell recorded the birth of their presumed son, Elias Mitchell in Frederick County.
7. Aug1762 a James and Charity Mitchell recorded the birth of a son named Thomas in Frederick County.  The author believes it possible that this James Mitchell was the son of David and Mary Mitchell, and that he likely was born in about 1743, not 1753.  Also, that Thomas Mitchell may have been the person appearing in the 1800 census records of Chester County SC, and reportedly having married a daughter of William Hill, named Hepsabeth.
8. Jun1764 David and Mary Mitchell sold their Seneca Creek tracts to Edward Gaither.  David Mitchell and Edward Gaither are believed to have been kinsmen, each related to members of the Burgess family.  So, David and Mary Mitchell would appear to have lived in Frederick County on Seneca Creek for almost five years, during which the William Atterberry family was living across the Potomac River in Loudoun County, only about 35 miles apart.
9. Mar1770 James Mitchell leased a 198 acre tract (excepting 21 acres) from Joseph Perry in Frederick County for the purpose of tobacco farming.  This may have been the son of David and Mary Mitchell.  If so, it would appear that he had continued to live in Frederick County after the birth of his presumed son, Thomas in Aug1762.
10. Feb1771 David Mitchell and Joseph Gaither purchased Lot No. 111 in Elizabeth Town, Frederick County.  The author believes that this may have been David Mitchell Sr., and that he had formed a partnership with a son of Edward Gaither, conducting business as merchants in Frederick and Baltimore Counties, a partnership which appears to have endured for about five years.
11. By Aug1778 David Mitchell appears to have been in sole possession of the remaining half Lot. No. 111, and had relocated from Frederick County MD to Hampshire County VA, where he likely continued to live until his death, sometime between 1787 and 1804.
12. Oct1779 John Mitchell (son of John Mitchell Sr. and brother of David Mitchell) sold his part of Mitchell’s Addition, the tract gift deeded from his father.  So, John Mitchell (III) appears to have never resided outside of Prince George’s County.

David Mitchell Sr. appears to have lived in relatively close geographic proximity to the William Atterberry family for at least 15 years between about 1740 and 1755 in Prince George’s County, and may have continued to live in relatively close geographic proximity in Frederick County between 1759 and about 1773-5.  Such close living proximity would have given ample opportunity for attachments to develop between David and Mary’s children and their Atterberry 1^st cousins, including the possibility of intermarriages.  Although not absolutely certain, it would appear that David Mitchell may have transitioned from a tobacco farmer in his early years into a relatively successful merchant in his later life, even to being referred to as a “gentleman” in his Hampshire County VA neighborhood.  It seems possible that David and Mary Mitchell may have both died and were buried in Hampshire County VA, never having set foot in South Carolina.  However, it seems probable that it was the strong bonds between David’s children and their Atterberry 1^st cousins that drew many of them to migrate to Camden District SC in the 1770’s and 80’s.

There was record evidence found which suggests that David’s son, James Mitchell, may have been almost 10 years older than previously thought.  That same evidence suggests that James Mitchell’s first wife may have been named Charity, and that his eldest child may have been named Thomas, possibly the same Thomas Mitchell who was recorded in the 1800 census in Chester County SC.

The earliest record that could be found by the author for any of these Mitchells in South Carolina was that of a Revolutionary War record for a David Mitchell, which is summarized as follows:

Indent No. 148T, by order of Capt. Lewis Duvall:

According to Bobby Gilmer Moss, David Mitchell enlisted in the 5^th Regiment on 9Mar1776, and that he served on active duty following the reduction of Charleston in 1800[5]  This indent authorized payment to Private David Mitchell for militia service amounting to £41, plus £5,17s,11p, interest, based on the written request of David Mitchell, Pvt. As follows:

“Gentlemen:  Please to deliver money out to Capt. Lewis Duvall, and receipt shall be good for same from as it be sent to [unreadable] treasure of this state.  Signed David Mitchell, 21Aug1785, appeared before William Melcherson, J.P.”

Capt. Duvall signed for monies as follows:

“Received … full satisfaction for this account in an indent No. 148T by order.  Signed: Lewis Duvall.”

The author has good reason to believe that the David Mitchell named in the above indent was a kinsperson of the Chester County SC Mitchell family, but just which member may be difficult to deduce.  There are several reasons for making this connection:

1. There were no other David Mitchells listed in the 1790 census of South Carolina other than the two from Chester County.
2. Capt. Lewis Duvall resided in Old Ninety-Six District near Greenville, not too distant from Chester County.
3. The families of David Mitchell Sr. and Capt. Lewis Duvall are believed to have originated from Prince George’s County/Anne Arundel County MD.
4. David Mitchell Sr. sold his inherited lands in Prince George’s County to Lewis Duvall, almost certainly an ancestor of Capt. Lewis Duvall, possibly his father.
5. The fact that David Mitchell authorized Capt. Lewis Duvall to collect his militia service payout suggests a very close association between these two men, perhaps suggesting that David Mitchell served under Capt. Duvall.

If Bobby Gilmer Moss’s account of Private David Mitchell’s service record is correct, this could be confirmation that this David Mitchell was in South Carolina much earlier than suggested by the other known records for the Chester County Mitchells, i.e. “enlisted in the 5^th Regiment on 9Mar1776”.  Michael, Edward and Charles Atterberry first appeared in Camden District SC in 1772-3, when they filed for patents on Little River.  It is conceivable that, if any of these Atterberry brothers were married to a Mitchell 1^st cousin, it was their migration that attracted other members of the Mitchell family to also migrate to the Camden District region.

In addition to the military service record for Private David Mitchell, there is another War indent on record as follows:

Indent No. 581W, certified by Capt. John McCool:

David Mitchaell requested reimbursement for the cost of a bay horse, impressed for militia use as follows:

“Broad River, 20Jun1785:  Gentlemen: please to pay Mr. Thomas Lehre such indent or indents as may appear to be due to me from the State of South Carolina or from the United States and this shall be your sufficient receipt for the same.  Signed: David Mitchell, Witnessed by David Hopkins, J.P.”

There would appear to be little doubt about the identity of this David Mitchell as David Mitchell Sr., who appeared in the 1790 census records of Chester County SC.  There are several factors that would support this identification and connection:

1. The location of Broad River would coincide with David Mitchell Sr. as a land owner along the drains of Brushy Fork, tributary of Sandy River of Broad River.
2. The witness, David Hopkins, J.P. was a justice of peace from Chester County, and a near neighbor of David Mitchell Sr. on Brushy Fork, and the same person who sold the 125.25 acres tract to David Mitchell (The Younger) in 1796.
3. John McCool was a land owner along Little Turkey Creek, and near neighbor of both Elias Mitchell and Thomas Mitchell Sr. in later years.

The foregoing Revolutionary War indents are bundled together in the same packet on file at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, implying that they were for the same individual.  If Bobby Gilmer Moss’s reported enlistment date for Private David Mitchell of 9Mar1776 is correct, then it would seem possible that the service record and the reimbursement for the impressment of a bay horse may have been filed by the same individual.  However, there are other factors to be considered before arriving at that conclusion.  First, it should be recognized that there is record evidence which supports the probable existence of three different persons named David Mitchell, who resided in Chester County in the latter part of the 18^th century.  For sake of distinction and clarity, we will refer to these men as David Mitchell Sr., David Davidson Mitchell [aka Jr.], and David Mitchell [The Younger] 

Let’s cut right to the chase.  It is the author’s belief that David Mitchell Sr. (whoever he may have been) was the father of both David Davidson Mitchell [aka Jr.] and David Mitchell [The Younger].  It is further the author’s belief that the David Mitchell Jun. listed in the 1790 census of Chester County was a son of the elder David Mitchell [Sr.] recorded on that same census page.  Further yet, we only know of the existence of David Davidson Mitchell by those given names in Chester County through various land records, which we will be presenting and discussing momentarily.  In fact, we will introduce each of these David Mitchells as they appeared in land records through the following chronological listing (see Figure 13-2, plat compilation map):

1. 21Jan1785 – Grant Book 1, p. 457, District of Camden:  David Mitchell, for £3, s10 received a State grant for 150 acres situated on the waters of Brushy Fork of Sandy River.  Plat certified 13Sep1784.[6]  This was the earliest land record found for any of the Mitchells of Chester County.  This David Mitchell was almost certainly the person we are calling David Mitchell Sr.  This tract was situated on both sides of Brushy Fork generally as shown in Figure 13-2.  This figure contains a plat compilation map compiled by the author of the lands situated along Brushy Fork and its tributaries, and including the Wilson Creek and Little Turkey Creek areas to the west and north.  Most of the lands owned by members of the Atterberrys, Mitchells, Mayfields, Rodens, Hills and other allied families will appear on this map, and be referenced throughout this document.  There is a reference on the plat map to an abutting property identified as “Big Survey Line” along its eastern boundary, which possibly had reference to the 641 acre tract filed by James Atterberry.  It may also have had reference to an even larger tract filed by David Hopkins several years earlier for more than 3,000.
2. Deed book D, pp. 237-41 – 7 & 8Jul1786, David Mitchell of Chester County, farmer, to David Davidson Mitchell of same, for 20 schillings, part of 150 acres granted to said David Mitchell 21Jan1785 lying on east side of the Brushy Fork of Sandy River.  Signed David Mitchell and Mary Mitchell.  Wit.: John White, Isaiah Mitchell.  Proved by oath of both witnesses 23Feb1789.[7]  Roughly eighteen months after filing a patent for 150 acres on Brushy Fork, David Mitchell and his wife, Mary, transferred the part of said tract lying east of Brushy Fork to David Davidson Mitchell [aka Jr,] on 8Jul1786, in consideration of the sum of 20 shillings.  This part of this tract included Mitchell’s Spring Branch, which was likely a valuable asset to the property.  The precise amount of land conveyed in this deed is not specified, but is believed to have been roughly one-half of the 150 acre tract, viz. about 75 acres.  It is important to note that this deed of conveyance was witnessed by Isaiah Mitchell, since Isaiah Mitchell was conveyed the remaining part of this same tract, which lay to the west of the creek for the sum of 10 shillings (see Item No. 3, below).

Although not stated in these deeds of conveyance, the token amount of consideration in each case suggests that these were the equivalent of gift deeds.  Given the fact that this David Mitchell’s wife was named Mary, it is a virtual certainty that this David Mitchell was David Mitchell Sr.

Why, might you reasonably ask, would David and Mary Mitchell convey their only known tract of land in Chester County to David Davidson Mitchell and Isaiah Mitchell for such an insignificant sum of money?  Well, the author has a theory that could supply an answer to that question.  It seems probable that David Mitchell Sr. would only perform such an act for members of his own blood, namely his sons.  Yes, the author believes it highly probable that David Davidson Mitchell [aka Jr.] and Isaiah Mitchell were elder sons of David Mitchell Sr., probably born of an earlier wife, before David married Mary.  It also seems probable that David Mitchell [The Younger] was the son of David Mitchell Sr. and Mary, his presumed 2^nd wife, and half-brother of David Davidson Mitchell [aka Jr.] and Isaiah Mitchell.  It also seems probable that David Mitchell Sr. and Mary were allowed to continue living on this land until David Sr.’s death in about 1794-5.

If the author’s interpretation of these deed records and the implied familial connections is correct, then David Davidson Mitchell and Isaiah Mitchell very likely had reached their majority before Jul1786, which would imply that David Mitchell Sr. was, himself, above 40 years old (born before 1746).  If David Mitchell Sr. was descended from the Prince George’s County MD Mitchells, then there would appear to be only one possible candidate for this David Mitchell Sr.  He would have to be the son named John Mitchell, born to David and Mary Mitchell on 3Jun1741.  The David Mitchell born to John Mitchell and Elizabeth Riley on 9Feb1752 probably would have been too young to have been David Mitchell Sr. of Chester County.  It seems probable to the author that David Mitchell Sr. was christened “John David [poss. Davidson]” as a tribute to both his father and grandfather, and his mother.  This theory is further supported by the fact that Elias Mitchell appears to have christened a son with the “David Davidson” appellation (more to follow).  James Mitchell also christened a son David C.  If David Davidson Mitchell was at least 21 years old in 1786 (born before 1761), then he could have been the Private David Mitchell claimed by Bobby Gilmer Moss to have enlisted by 1776, but he would have been only 15 years old, whereas his father would have been about 35 years old.  Either scenario seems possible.

3. Deed Book J, pp. 269-73, 22Jul1786:  David and Mary Mitchell of Chester County to Isaiah Mitchell of same, that part of 150 acre tract granted to said David Mitchell on 21Jan1785, lying and situated on west side of Brushy Fork.  Recorded 18Jan1804.  Wit, John White and David Davidson Mitchell.  Ditto, Item No. 2, above.  It is curious that Isaiah did not record this deed until 18 years after its writing.  It is also important to note that Isaiah’s presumed brother was identified as David Davidson Mitchell in both of these records, yet in the 1790 census he is believed to have been recorded as David Mitchell Jun.
4. Deed Book B, pp. 102-3, 5Oct1789:  William Clark to James Mitchell, both of Chester County, for ₤100 sterling, 300 acres on a branch of Broad River called William Wilsons Creek, granted to Jeremiah McDaniel in 1772 and conveyed by the said Mcdaniel to said Clark 29dec1772.  Wit.: Alexander Stevenson and Samuel Lacey.  (holcomb, p. 40)  This was the first land record found for this James Mitchell in South Carolina.  This tract is believed to have been situated on Wilson’s Creek [aka Clark’s Creek on current maps], about midway between Broad River and Brushy Fork as illustrated in Figure 13-2.  This James Mitchell is believed by the author to have been a younger brother of John David Mitchell, born about 1743 in Prince George’s County MD.
5. Deed Book C, p. 364, 18May1793:  David Hopkins to Elias Mitchell, both of Chester County SC, for and in consideration of £100, sold a tract of land situated on the north side of Broad River, being part of a larger tract granted to Hopkins 16Jul1784, beginning at mouth of Little Turkey Creek, various courses up Little Turkey Creek, thence north and west of Creek to rejoin Broad River at McCool’s corner, thence down River to beginning, containing 447 acres.  Witnessed: Thomas Mitchell, Ferdinand Hopkins and H, Anderson.  This was the earliest land record found for Elias Mitchell in South Carolina.  Elias Mitchell is believed to have been a brother of John David Mitchell and James Mitchell, the same Elias Mitchell recorded born to David and Mary Mitchell in Frederick County MD on 12Mar1761.  Elias is believed to have married Permelia Hill, daughter of William Hill, who lived on a 100 acre tract along the west side of Brushy Fork abutted by James Mitchell’s lands to the west and north, and Isaiah’s land to the east.  Elias Mitchell would become a Baptist Minister and frequent preacher to the Brushy Fork congregation.  This tract was located on the north bank of Little Turkey Creek at Broad River.  The witness, Thomas Mitchell, is believed to have also married a daughter of William Hill, named Hepsabeth.  Consequently, through their marriages, Elias and Thomas Mitchell would have been brothers-in-law, as well as uncle and nephew.
6. Deed Book C, p. 366, 16May1793: Ferdinand Hopkins to Thomas Mitchell, both of Chester County SC, for and in consideration of £100, sold a tract of land containing 202 acres, being part of a tract granted to James O’Neal, 26Aug1774, situated on the north bank of Broad River, on an unnamed branch thereof, abutting Thomas Hughey’s line and a place called Wilcoxes Boat Landing.  Witnessed: Elias Mitchell and Isaiah Mitchell.  This was the first land record found for Thomas Mitchell in South Carolina.  The identity of Thomas Mitchell is uncertain, but possibly an eldest son of James Mitchell, per the birth record from Frederick County MD dated 6Aug1762.  If that identification is correct, then it is probable that Thomas Mitchell had arrived in South Carolina with his father sometime before Oct1789.  In the 1800 census Thomas Mitchell was reported as being aged 26 thru 44 years, which would comport with a birth year of 1762 (aged 38 in 1800).  If Thomas were a son of James Mitchell, it is curious that James was not a witness to this deed.  But, Elias and Thomas are believed to have been brothers-in-law.
7. Deed Book C, p. 336, 10Aug1793:  Thomas Mitchell and his wife, Hepsabeth [Hill], to Elizabeth Moore, for and in consideration of £100, sold a tract of land containing 190 acres, it being a tract of land granted to Edward Atterberry on 7Aug1786, as shown on original plat (situated on ridge between Brushy Fork and Wilson’s Creek).  Witnessed: Elias Mitchell, Isaiah Mitchell and David Mitchell. (see Figure 13-2)  Try as he might, the author was unable to locate the deed of conveyance of this tract from Edward Atterberry to Thomas Mitchell.  So it could not be established just when and how Thomas Mitchell acquired this tract.  From its original plat map the location of this tract was approximated as shown on Figure 13-2, on the ridge line between Brushy Fork and Broad River.  It is particularly noteworthy that David Mitchell [Sr.] witnessed this deed.  This record would seem to establish that David Sr. was still alive in Aug1793, but appears to be dead by Mar1796, when his son, David The Younger and his widow [Mary] recorded a deed for a tract on Wilson’s Creek.
8. Deed Book D, p. 233, 25Mar1794: James Atterberry and his wife, Darcus, to David Davidson Mitchell, all of Chester County, for and in consideration of £100 sterling, sold a tract containing 150 acres, being part of a larger tract granted to James Atterberry on 4Sep1786, situated in the northwest corner of said larger tract (see Figure 13-2).  Witnessed: William Norwood and James Wilkinson, testimony of William Atterberry.  David Davidson Mitchell purchased 150 acres from James and Darcus Atterberry.  This tract was part of a larger 641 acre tract patented by James Atterberry.  This tract was located in the northwest corner of James Atterberry’s tract, and abutted the tract deeded by David Mitchell Sr. to David Davidson Mitchell on 8Jul1786.  Note that the grantee is identified as David Davidson, yet in the 1790 census he was identified as David Mitchell Jr.
9. Deed Book D, p. 235, 17Jul1794:  John White and his wife, Sarah, to David Davidson Mitchell, all of Chester County, for and in consideration of £100 sterling, sold a tract of land whereon said White lives, containing 103 acres, situated and lying on both sides of Brushy Fork, originally granted to said White on 4Jan1790, beginning at a corner on David Mitchell’s line, running various courses, abutting David Hopkins line.  Witnessed: William Norwood and Isaiah Mitchell.  (see Figure 13-2).  The description of this tract is a bit confusing.  First, it is described as being on both sides of Brushy Fork, yet the author was unable to place this tract on a topo base that would overlap Brushy Fork.  Secondly, the tract was described as abutting a corner of a tract owned by David Mitchell.  It seems possible that the reference to a corner of David Mitchell’s tract may have been to the 125.25 acre tract purchased by David Mitchell [The Younger] from David Hopkins on 19Mar1796.  The author has approximated the location of this tract based on other known tracts in its vicinity as shown in Figure 13-2.  Again, note that Isaiah Mitchell witnessed this deed as he did several other deeds in this time period.
10. Deed Book E, p. 73, 11Jan1796: David Hopkins to James Mitchell, both of Chester County, for and in consideration of £40, sterling, sold a tract of land containing 117 acres, situated on Wilson’s Creek of Broad River.  Witnessed: Ferdinand Hopkins and William Davenport.  (see Figure 13-2).  This tract is believed to have been situated on the upper reaches of Wilson’s Creek, upstream from the 300 acre tract James Mitchell purchased from William Clark.  (see Figure 13-2)
11. Deed Book E, p. 69, 17Jan1796:  James Mitchell and his wife, Nancy, to David Stephens, all of Chester County SC, for and in consideration of £20 sterling, sold a tract of land, situated on a bank of Wilson’s Creek and running various courses, containing 60 acres, it being part of a larger tract.  Witnessed: Abner Stephens and Mary Stephens.  This is the first record found in which James Mitchell’s wife’s name was given [Nancy].  Many researchers report James’ wife to have been Nancy Colclough, whose marriage was recorded in Bute County NC on 20Nov1778.  It is the author’s belief that those researchers have associated the wrong James Mitchell with this James Mitchell of Chester County.  The reason for this belief is based on the fact that there was a household of a James Mitchell recorded in the 1790 census in Warren County NC, the composition of which would very closely match someone having married in about 1778.  There are also land records of a James Mitchell in Warren County between 1783 and 1788, one of which was witnessed by a John Colclough.  It seems a virtual certainty that those land records were for the James Mitchell, who was recorded marrying Nancy Colclough in Bute County in 1778.  James Mitchell is recorded in the Minute Books of Chester County in 1786 and in the census record in 1790.  From these facts it would seems fairly certain that the James Mitchell of Bute-Warren County NC was not the same person as the James Mitchell of Chester County.

It is not clear from this deed description just which of James Mitchell’s tracts this was a part (it could have been from either the 117 acre tract or the 300 acre tract, both of which were on Wilson’s Creek).  It should be noted that this deed was witnessed by Abner Stephens.  Abner Stephens was a near neighbor of Molly Mitchell [aka Mary Mitchell, widow of David Mitchell Sr.] in the 1810 census, plus he acted as the appraiser/administrator for Mary [Molly] Mitchell’s estate.  It seems possible that Abner Stephens was a kinsperson of the Mitchells, possibly having married a daughter of David and Mary Mitchell, or Mary Mitchell may have been born a Stephens.

12. Deed Book E, p. 203, 19Mar1796:  David Hopkins and wife, Mary, to David Mitchell, son of Mary Mitchell, all of Chester County for and in consideration of £20 sterling, sold a tract of land containing 125 acres, situated on the drains of Wilson’s Creek, whereon the said David Mitchell and his mother Mary were living.  Witnessed: Mishack Willis and William Clark.  This David Mitchell is believed to have been David Mitchell, The Younger, son of David Mitchell Sr. and Mary (mnu, possibly Stephens).  This tract is believed to have abutted James Mitchell’s 117 acre tract to the northeast as illustrated in Figure 13-2.  Given the fact that there was no mention of David Mitchell Sr. in the deed, it is reasonable to assume that he had died sometime in the recent past.  David Mitchell, the Younger was reported as being under the age of 25 years in the 1800 census, so he probably had just reached his majority when this deed was written.  This was the only tract found to have been acquired by David Mitchell, The Younger in South Carolina, so it seems probable that he and his mother lived on this tract of land until her death in 1812-3.
13. Deed Book F, p. 205, 3Aug1795:  Thomas Mitchell to John White, both of Chester County SC, for and in consideration of £100, sold a tract of land situated on the north side of Broad River, on a branch thereof, north corner on River at a place called Wilcoxes Boat Landing, various courses up branch and up River, abutting line of William Boyd, Deputy Surveyor, containing 199 acres.  Hepsabeth Mitchell relinquished dower.  Witnessed: Ferdinand Hopkins and George Washington Hopkins.  Thomas Mitchell was the presumed son of James Mitchell and Charity (mnu), born in Frederick County MD in 1762.  In this conveyance Thomas and Hepsabeth sold the same tract of land purchased from Ferdinand Hopkins on 16May1793.  Original tract contained 202 acres, this sale conveyed only 199 acres.  John White was involved with several land transactions with Mitchells, leaving us to ponder whether there may have been a kinship connection through marriage.
14. Deed Book J, p. 274, 19Oct1803:  David Davidson Mitchell and his wife, Dicey, to Isaiah Mitchell, all of Chester County, in and for the consideration of £100 sterling, sold a tract of land containing 125 acres, originally granted to James Atterberry 4Sep1786, running various courses, abutting Edward Atterberry’s line.  Witnessed: Jesse Scaife and Edward Atterberry.  This was the first instance of David Davison Mitchell’s wife being named (Dicey).  Keep this record firmly in mind, as Dicey Mitchell will be vital to our tracing the migration path of the David Davidson Mitchell family out of South Carolina and into Kentucky and Tennessee.  This deed conveyed 125 acres of an original tract containing 150 acres, situated in the northwest corner of James Atterberry’s large grant of 641 acres.  Again, we have a transaction involving David Davidson Mitchell and Isaiah Mitchell further reinforcing the author’s speculation that they were brothers.  Edward Atterberry may have been an uncle of these Mitchells, his possibly having married his 1^st cousin, Keziah Mitchell.  Jesse Scaife purchased a 75 acre tract from Priscilla (Mayfield) Atterberry, widow of Nathan Atterberry, son of Michael and Elizabeth Atterberry.
15. Deed Book L, p. 56, 12Jul1800:  David D. [Davidson] Mitchell of Chester County to Abraham Myers of same, for and in consideration of £20, sold a tract of land containing 100 acres, situated on Brushy Fork and David Mitchell’s Spring Branch, various courses, abutting Thomas Mitchell, John Cowsert, James Atterberry, formerly laid out by said Mitchell to Edward Atterberry, it being part of two tracts formerly granted to David Mitchell Sr. and James Atterberry.  This conveyance appears to have consisted of two tracts: (1) 25 acre remainder of 150 acres purchased of James Atterberry, and (2) 75 acres on east side of Brushy Fork conveyed from David Mitchell Sr. to David Davidson Mitchell on 8Jul1786.  It should be noted that the grantor in this deed is simply identified as “David Mitchell”, and was signed “David Mitchell”, yet in the land description it makes reference to a tract laid out by David D. Mitchell to Edward Atterberry.  Further, note that Dicey Mitchell did not relinquish her dower.  Yet, clearly from the land descriptions, these tracts had been previously conveyed to David Davidson Mitchell by David Mitchell Sr. and James Atterberry.  Abraham Myers was a near neighbor of the Mitchells, Atterberrys, Mayfields and Rodins in the vicinity of Brushy Fork, and is believed to have married Patty Atterberry, widow of Nathan Atterberry, in Hardin County KY.
16. Deed Book L, p. 58, 10Jan1801:  Abraham Myers to Jesse Scaife, both of Chester County, for and in consideration of £20, sold same tract as Item 15, above.  Sarah Myers relinquished dower.  Ditto, above descriptions.
17. Deed Book M, p. 88, 21Dec1805:  Jesse Scaife to Isaac Mitchell, both of Chester County, for and in consideration of $150, sold a tract of land lying on waters of Brushy Fork, abutting land of Thomas Mitchell, John Cowserts and James Mitchell, containing 100 acres, and including the land formerly laid out by David Mitchell to Edward Atterberry, it being part of a tract formerly granted to David Mitchell Sr. and James Atterberry.  This was the first and only instance found by the author of a land record involving Isaac Mitchell in South Carolina.  His identity is uncertain, but clearly a kinsmen of the other Mitchells from the Brushy Fork area.  Isaac Mitchell purchased the same tract that was originally in possession of David Davidson Mitchell, which he sold to Abraham Myers, who in turn sold to Jesse Scaife.  Given that Isaiah Mitchell had purchased the 125 acre part of the 150 acres purchased by David Davidson Mitchell from James Atterberry, it seems possible that the grantee in this record possibly was also Isaiah, not Isaac.
18. Deed Book M, p. 150, 3Feb1806:  Dorothea Moore of Chester County did grant for love and affection to her grandchildren of same, viz: James Mitchell one feather bed and furniture, and Dorothea F. Mitchell one black walnut chest iron pot rack, and smoothing iron.  Witnessed: Moses Gresham and Elijah Atterberry.  The identity of the Mitchell grandchildren of Dorothea Moore is unknown to the author.  But, because of the names, dates and location, they were almost certainly descended from the Brushy Fork Mitchells.
19. Deed Book N, p. 71, 27Dec1806:  Samuel Wilmoth to Isaiah Mitchell, both of Chester County, for and in consideration of $55, sold that tract of land purchased of Edward Atterberry, lying on Brushy Fork.  Witnessed Henry Hill and Sarah Hill.  This Isaiah Mitchell is believed to have been the same person previously mentioned as a son of David Mitchell Sr.  The tract of land involved in this conveyance was subdivided from a 200 acre tract granted to Edward Atterberry, and which abutted David Mitchell Sr.’s tract to the south as shown in Figure 13-2.  The Hills, who witnessed this deed, probably were kinsmen of Elias Mitchell, who married Permelia Hill, and Thomas Mitchell, who married Hepsabeth Hill.
20. Deed Book N, p. 361, 19Mar1808:  James [Sr.] and Nancy Mitchell of Chester County to James Handcock, late of Fairfield County, for and in consideration of $750, sold two tracts of land: (1) containing 253-1/2 acres, situated on Wilson’s Creek, purchased from William Clark, and (2) an abutting tract containing 117-1/4 acres, also situated on Wilson’s Creek, part of a larger tract, purchased from David Hopkins.  Nancy Mitchell relinquished dower.  These were the only two tracts known to have been owned by James Mitchell in Chester County.  He and Nancy had sold 60 acres to David Stephens on 17Jun1796, presumably part of the 300 acres purchased from William Clark.  James Mitchell and several of his children are believed to have been recorded in Christian County KY in 1810, so presumably they moved to Kentucky not long after selling their property in Chester County.
21. Deed Book P, p. 221, 4May1812:  Ferdinand Hopkins to John Mitchell, both of Chester County, for and in consideration of $147, sold a tract of land containing 84 acres, on which said John Mitchell formerly had plantation, situated on McCool’s Road, of Broad River, now under occupancy of Mr. McCane, various courses, abutting William Love and Ferdinand Hopkins.  The identity of John Mitchell is uncertain, but surely a kinsman of the Prince George’s County Mitchells.  This tract is believed to have been nearby to the 247 acre tract purchased by Elias Mitchell from David Hopkins along the north side of Little Turkey Creek.  
22. Deed Book P, p. 220, May1812: John Mitchell and his wife, Jannet [Jane?], to James McCain, all of Chester County, for and in consideration of £.. sold 84 acres described in Item 20, above)  Ditto, Item No. 21, above.
23. Deed Book Q, p. 132, 12Feb1813:  David Mitchell of Franklin County GA to Elias Mitchell of Chester County SC, for and in consideration of £300, sold a tract of land containing 124.25 acres, on which David Mitchell formerly lived, situated on Wilson’s Creek and abutting William Clark and James Mitchell.  Witnessed: Moses Alverson and David D. Mitchell.  This David Mitchell was David Mitchel, The Younger.  His mother, Mary Mitchell, had died sometime before 22Jan1813, when her estate was administered in Chester County.  It seems unlikely that David, The Younger would have left his aging mother on her own, so it seems probable that she had died sometime in late-1812, before David, the Younger moved to Franklin County GA.  The land involved in this conveyance was the tract purchased by David, The Younger from David Hopkins on 19Mar1796, and was situated on Wilson’s Creek upstream of James Mitchell’s tracts.  He appears to have sold this old plantation to his uncle, Rev. Elias Mitchell.  It may be particularly noteworthy that David D [Davidson?] Mitchell witnessed this transaction.  It seems probable that this David D. Mitchell was not the David Davidson Mitchell [aka Jr.], who appeared in many earlier land records, rather likely was a son of Elias Mitchell, who enlisted for a five-year stint with the Army in 1813. 
24. Probate Court Book E, pp. 222-4, 22Jan1813:  Abner Stephens, Joseph Brown Jr. and William Prat were issued letters of administration on the estate of Mary Mitchell in Chester County on bond of $2,000.
25. Probate Book E, pp. 243-4, 2Jul1813:  Inventory of the estate of Mary Mitchell was entered in Record:

Appraisal:  Various and sundry items, including: Corn and sack, Spinning Wheel, Flat irons, bottles, pewter, crockery, bedstead, chairs, rack, wash tub, chest, clothes, meal grain tray and sifter, farming tools, gears, cow hide, bay horse, mare, barrow, sow, pigs, cattle, geese, Nancy Clark bed…  Value: $171.12.5

List of Sales from Estate: various items to: David Mitchell, John Beasley, John Foote, Elias Mitchell, Abner Stephens, John Mitchell, M. Worthey, Lewis Morris, Joel Triplett, Stephen Kirk, Nancy Shearhain.

NOTE:  David Mitchell appears to have made the most purchases, including furniture, livestock, tools, etc.  Value of Sales: $109.81.  This was the estate account record for Mary [aka Molly] Mitchell [mnu, possibly Stephens], widow of David Mitchell Sr.  The David Mitchell, who purchased items from her estate may have been her son, even though he reportedly was already a resident of Franklin County GA.  He may also have been David Davidson Mitchell, the son of Elias Mitchell.  Elias Mitchell would have been the Rev. Elias Mitchell, brother-in-law of Mary Mitchell.  This John Mitchell almost certainly was the same person, who purchased and sold tracts in Item No.s 21 and 22, above, and may also have been a son of Elias Mitchell.

There are a myriad of other land and court records from Chester County for the various members of the Mitchell family between about 1785 and 1815, which we will not present for this analysis.  Others may wish to dig them out in order to fill-in the full record of this family.  The author believes that a sufficiency of those records have been presented in order to achieve our principal purpose, that being to establish the place of origin and kinship connections between these Mitchells and the Atterberry brothers of Chester County.  Also, it is hoped that these records and their attendant analysis will be useful in establishing possible migration paths out of South Carolina for these Mitchells.  That being said, we will sprinkle a bit more color and texture on the character and nature of these Mitchells by presenting excerpts from the records of the Chester County Court of Ordinary Minute Books, which commenced in Apr1785:

1. 17Jan1786 – Chester County Minute Book, p. 8-9:  “John Adair, being sworn as a garnishee in an attachment brought by James Michell against William Ward Burton, declares he hath in his possession a negro, the property the said Burton…  This was the first record found in the Minute Books for anyone named Mitchell.  It would appear that James Mitchell was already an established resident of Chester County in early 1786, probably for two or more years.  This fact would seem to distinguish this James Mitchell from the James Mitchell of Warren County NC, who is recorded having married a woman named Nancy Colclough in Bute County NC in 1778.  That James Mitchell was recorded selling a 265 acre tract in Warren County in 1788, and also appears in the census record of Warren County in 1790.  Almost certainly a different person from this James Mitchell of Chester County.
2. 21Jan1786 – Minute Book, p 14:  Various road orders, including John Mills to Sandy River, Motts Old Place, Hugh Stewart from thence to where it intersects the road at Mitchell’s…  Roads to be cut to 30-feet wide…   Edward Lacey appointed to build a jail and stocks…  temporary jail to be built a home of John Walker.  This road order record suggests that there was a Mitchell long enough established to be recognized as a geographic landmark.  This could have been in reference to David Mitchell Sr., who is believed to have been in the Chester County area as early as 1775.
3. 4Jul1786, p. 22:  Patrick McGriff vs. John Walker (Miller) and John Cusey for slander: by consent of the parties and assent of Court, all matters of controversy is referred to Joseph Brown, Esq., James Johnston, James Mitchell and James Moore, with their umpire, George Gill…  James Mitchell had already established himself of sufficient reputation to serve as an officer of the Court.
4. Same Court, p. 23: Stewart Brown vs. Thomas Mitchell, continued…  This is a very important record in that Thomas Mitchell [Sr.] did not appear in the census records until 1800, but apparently was already present as an adult in Chester County in 1786-7.  He may still have been residing in James Mitchell’s household in 1790, but there was no indication of any males over age 16, other than the head of household.  He did not appear in any land records until May1793.
5. 1Jan1787 – Petit Jury: James Mitchell, Nathan Jaggers, David Jaggers, etal…  James Mitchell was the first member of the Mitchell family to be selected for Jury Duty in Chester County.
6. 4Apr1787 – Petit Jury commissioned for July term including Elias Mitchell, David Mitchell, Edward Arterbury, , etal…  In the next session of Court we have Elias and David Mitchell being selected as Petit Jurors in Apr1787.  From our earlier analysis of land records we had deduced (rightly or wrongly) that David Mitchell Sr., James Mitchell and Elias Mitchell were brothers, the sons of David Mitchell and Mary [Davidson?].  Edward Atterberry is believed by the author to have been an uncle of these Mitchell brothers.  This was the earliest record found for Elias Mitchell in Chester County.  He did not appear in the 1790 census for Chester County, but clearly he was present in that county for several years prior to 1790.
7. 2Jul1787 – Petit Jury was called, all appeared except following delinquents: James Strong, James McChesney, William Worthy, David Weir, David Grissom, Hugh McCown, John Grissom, James Young, Elias Mitchell, Thomas Gater [Gaither?], Edward Arterbury, George Head, Hugh Murdock and David Mitchell, who were ordered to be dealt with according to what the law in that case requires…  Ditto.  David and Elias Mitchell and Edward Atterberry were near neighbors along the drains of Brushy Fork/Wilsons Creek, and did not show for jury duty.
8. 10Apr1788 – Power of Attorney from James Mitchell to Thomas Raney…  Was James Mitchell preparing to absent himself from Chester County, hence the need for a POA?
9. 7Jul1788 – Grand Jury drawn: including Elias Mitchell… Petit Jury drawn: including James Mitchell, etal.  Elias Mitchell was selected for Grand Jury, James Mitchell for Petit Jury.
10. 5Oct1788 – Petit Jury drawn to be impaneled in Jan1789 Term: including Thomas Arterbury, James Arterbury, David Mitchell Jr., Moses Grissom, etal.  This is a particularly significant record, in that it specifically identifies David Mitchell Jr. as a member of a Petit Jury.  From the 1800 census we have an indication that David Mitchell was under the age of 25, suggesting that he was born around 1775.  Such age is further supported by the 1850 census record of David Mitchell in Franklin County GA.  That being the case, then he would have been only 13 years old in 1788, far too young to serve on a petit jury.  It seems probable to the author that this record was actually for David Davidson Mitchell, who is believed to already have reached his majority in 1786 when David Mitchell Sr. granted land to David Davidson Mitchell.
11. 7Oct1788 – Petit Jury was impaneled, including James Mitchell, etal.  If James Mitchell was planning on being absent from the County, he either had not yet departed, or his absence was of short duration.
12. 6Jan1789 – Petit Jury impaneled, including Thomas Arterbury, James Arterbury, David Mitchell, Moses Grissom, etal.  This David Mitchell very likely was David Mitchell Sr.
13. 6Oct1789 – Deed of conveyance recorded from William Clark to James Mitchell.  Also, Bill of Sale from Clark to Mitchell…  This deed recording was for the 300 acre tract purchased by James Mitchell on Wilson’s Creek.
14. 5Jul1890 – A Bill of Sale from William Clark to James Mitchell, that was ordered to be recorded, said parties retracting from the same order that the former order for the same be excused, and the same ordered to be committed to record.  Ditto.
15. 4Oct1790 – Petit Jury drawn for Jan1791 Court, including Edmund Mayfield, David Mitchell, etal…  Ditto, Item No. 12, above.
16. 5Jan1791 – Petit Jurors drawn for Apr1791 term, including James Mitchell, Thomas Rodin,, etal.
17. 24Jun1791 – Grand and Petit Juries drawn to serve Jan1792:  Grand Jury included Nathan Jaggers…  Petit Jurors included Elias Mitchell, Charles Arterbury, etal…
18. 24Jun1791 – Petit Jury impaneled, including Thomas Rodin, James Mitchell, etal…
19. 27Jan1794 – All matters of controversy subsisting between the parties is referred to the determination of Joseph Brown, Esq. and James Mitchell, with their umpire, if they do not agree whose award returnable to next Court shall be the judgment of the Court…  James Mitchell appears to have been an officer of the Court, but in what capacity is unclear.
20. 29Jan1794 – …will be exonerated from the above sum upon his paying the said sum, or by producing horseflesh that is ordered to be sold should he have enough in his hands that will amount to the same, and according to this record the horses are to be appraised by James Mitchell…  James Mitchell acting as a court-appointed appraiser.
21. 24Jan1795 – Petit Jurors drawn for Jun1795 Term, including Edward Arterbury, Thomas Mitchell, John Cowsert, etal…  Thomas Mitchell, Edward Atterberry and John Cowsert were all near neighbors on the upper Brushy Fork.
22. 25Jun1795 – Petit Jury called, those appearing included Edward Arterbury, Thomas Mitchell, John Cowsert, etal…  Those impaneled included Thomas Mitchell, Edward Arterbury, John Cosert, etal…  Apparently Mitchell and Atterberry appeared for jury duty.
23. 25Jan1796 – Capt. James Mitchell vs. Peter Robinson and Daniel Cook, petitioner, in debt judgment confessed for the contents of this note with interest and costs, and stay of execution until next July Court…  From this record it would appear that James Mitchell had been appointed Captain of a militia company in his district along Wilson’s Creek. (or was there another James Mitchell?)
24. 25Jul1796 – Petit Jury drawn for Jan1797 Term, including George Blessed [Blissett], James Mitchell, etal..
25. 26Jan1798 – State vs. David Mitchell, assault and battery, true bill John McCreary…  It seems possible that this was a record for David Davidson Mitchell [aka Jr.].  David Mitchell Sr. is believed to have died sometime between 1793 and 1796.  If the 1800 census record is accurate, David Mitchell The Younger may have been only about 23 years old.  David Davidson Mitchell was not found by name in the 1800 census, but he and his wife may have been living in the household of his brother, Isaiah Mitchell.  This was the first of several court filings against various members of the Mitchell family for assault.  None of these records indicate the nature or impetus for those assaults.  Were they just getting drunk and rowdy, or was there something else going on in their community that led to physical altercations?
26. 24Jul1798 – Petit Jury was drawn for Jan1799 term, including James Atterberry, John Peoples [Peebles], John Cowsart, Moses Grisham, etal…
27. 25Jul1798 – State vs. David Mitchell, assault and battery committed on his wife, Ann Mitchell, came a Petit Jury to wit, David Neely, foreman, etal., who returned their verdict as follows, viz., “We find him guilty.” Whereupon the Court ordered that the defendant make his fine by paying the sum of £5 sterling with costs and that the sheriff commit him to prison there to remain without bail or main price until the said fine and cost are paid.  26Jul1798 – On reconsideration of the above, the Court having considered the above David Mitchell is a dangerous person who ought to be bound to his good behaviour, therefore orders that he be confined in prison til he find sufficient security for his good behaviour for one year…  This record is a bit more specific about the nature of David Mitchell’s assault.  Apparently he was charged and convicted of having committed battery upon his wife, Ann.  For that offense, he was determined to be a threat to the community and was required to post a bond for his good behavior for one year.  Again, for the reasons already stated, the author believes this David Mitchell to have been David Davidson Mitchell [aka Jr.], rather than David Mitchell [The Younger].  In the LWT in Franklin County GA of David Mitchell [The Younger] his wife was named Sarah. 

As will be discussed later in this chapter, David Davidson Mitchell’s wife may have been named Dicy Anna.  So, it may have been David Davidson Mitchell, who beat his wife, and not David Mitchell The Younger.  (More on David Davidson Mitchell later in this chapter)

• 25Jul1798 – State vs. James Mitchell, John Mitchell and David Mitchell, assault and battery whereon the Grand Jury returned true bill…  The date of this court record was on the same calendar as the assault by David Mitchell on his wife, Ann.  Whether there was any connection between that assault and this case involving James, John and David is unknown, but possible.  This was the first recorded instance of John Mitchell.  His identity is uncertain, but possibly a son of James or Elias Mitchell.
• 1Feb1799 – State vs. David Mitchell, John Mitchell and James Mitchell, assault and battery, nolle prosique [no contest] entered by leave of the court on payment of cost…  The defendants pled no contest, and were released on payment of costs.
• 24Jul1799 – Petit Jury was drawn for Jan1800 Term, including David Mitchell, George Obryant, William Hill, etal…  This may have been a record of David Davidson Mitchell.  Apparently his conviction for assaulting his wife did not preclude him from serving as a juror.
• 15Apr1800 – State vs. Abraham Myres and John Myres, indicted for assault and battery; witnesses: James Murphey, Janet Young, Jonathan Mayfield, Thomas Mitchell and James Morris, no bill…  Abraham Myres and his son, John, were indicted for assault, to which Jonathan Mayfield, Thomas Mitchell, etal. were witnesses.
• 16Apr1800 – State vs. John Michel [Mitchell?]. breach of peace ordered that his recognizance be discharged…  The identity of John Mitchell is uncertain to the author.  He may have been a younger son of David Mitchell Sr. and Mary, who appeared in David Mitchell Sr.’s household in 1790 as one of two males under age 16.  Both Elias and James Mitchell are believed to have had sons named John Mitchell, but born after 1780.  They may have been too young to have been charged with assault in 1798.  There is a household headed by a John Mitchell in the 1800 census of Chester County, who was identified as aged 16 thru 25, living next door to Abner Stephens. 
• 13Apr1801 – State vs. John Mitchell, indictment for horse stealing, ordered that a scaire fascia do issue, vs. James Mitchell who was bound in recognizance to give evidence in behalf of State in this case, and did not appear.  It seems probable that this John Mitchell was the same person charged with assault and battery and breach of the peace in the preceding records.  The fact that James Mitchell was bound to give evidence suggests that John could have been his son, rather than a son of David Mitchell Sr.
• 14Apr1801 – The following bills were given out to the Grand Jury:  State vs. John Mitchell, indictment for assault and battery…  Ditto, Item Nos. 28, 32 and 33, above.
• 14Apr1801 – Grand Jury returned no bill against John Mitchell on indictment for horse stealing, Also State vs. John Mitchell indictment for larceny, a true bill…, Also State vs. John Mitchell indictment for larceny, on motion of Mr. Solicitor, prisoner was brought to the Bar, and upon his arraignment pleaded not guilty, and put himself on his Country and upon the jury being called, he objected to the six following persons: William Gaston, John McAllulley?, John Moore, William Neeley, John Dye and James Stone, the prisoner at the Bar having objected to six persons in the former jury.  Whereupon the Court ordered the aforesaid jurors to be drawn and he objected to the five persons following: viz., Andrew Graham, Josiah Porter, Stephen Hermon, Thomas White and John Graham.  The following jury were impaneled and sworn and charged with the trial, viz., (jurors named), and they returned the following verdict: guilty of petit larceny…  Petit larceny?  Was that really the penalty for stealing a horse in Chester County in 1801?  There are cases recorded prior to the War in which the perpetrators were hung.
• 14Apr1801 – State vs. John Mitchell, indictment for assault and battery, I appear in my own and proper person, and plead guilty to this indictment, Signed: John (his mark) Mitchell.  Ordered that the defendant pay fine of $1…  Ditto.
• 15Apr1801 – State vs. John Mitchell, petit larceny, Court ordered prisoner be brought to the Bar and being asked by the Clerk if he had anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced against him, nothing was offered, whereupon the Court pronounced the following sentence: “I sentence you, John Mitchell, to receive 20 lashes on the bare back and to be executed in course of an hour…”  It would appear that all six of the preceding court entries were involving the same person, viz. John Mitchell.  A conviction for horse-stealing could have been a very serious offense, but somehow John Mitchell managed to get his conviction reduced to petit larceny, sentence being administration of 20 lashes to the bare back.  Because of James Mitchell’s involvement in this case as a witness, it may be that John was accused of stealing a horse from his father.  That relationship, and James’ apparent reluctance to give testimony may have resulted in a lighter sentence.
• 18Nov1801 – State vs. James Mitchell, the defendant in this case was excused on affidavit…  Possibly a continuation of the horse-stealing case against John Mitchell.
• 12Apr1802 – Grand Jurors were drawn for Nov1802 term, including Richard Arterberry, etal…  Also, Petit Jurors were drawn, including Zadock Roden, Isaiah Mitchell, etal…  Although Isaiah Mitchell had been an adult resident of Chester County from before 1786, this was the first recorded instance of his having been selected for jury duty.  Isaiah Mitchell is believed by the author to have been an elder son of David Mitchell Sr., and brother of David Davidson Mitchell.
• 18Nov1802 – Thomas Mitchell was committed for swearing and exclaiming with a loud voice near the front of the courthouse to the disturbance of the Court…  Possibly the elder son of James Mitchell.
• 14Nov1803 – Petit Jurors were drawn for Apr1804 term, including Moses Arterberry, Daniel Jaggers, Thomas Mitchell, etal…  Ditto.
• 16Nov1803 – A great riot having taken place last night in this village (Chester) and the Court being informed that one Mitchell, a Murphy, a Mr. Boyd, and a Mr. Wallace were concerned in it, it is therefore ordered that Elijah Nunn Esq. do cause the said persons to be brought before him…  Identity of this Mitchell was not given, but almost certainly a member of our Chester County Mitchells.
• 12Nov1804 – On recommendation of James Anderson, John Mitchell was appointed constable…  Apparently all was forgiven for his youthful transgressions (disturbance of peace, horse-stealing and assault and battery), as it would appear that John Mitchell had mended his ways and was appointed constable.
• 4Nov1805 – Petit Jurors drawn for Apr1806 term, including Edward Arterberry, Nathan Jaggers, David Mitchell, etal…  This very likely was David Mitchell The Younger.
• 4Nov1805 – State vs. James Mitchell, assault and battery, witness Robert Kelsey…  There was only one James Mitchell recorded in the 1800 census in Chester County, so it seems possible that this person was the elder James Mitchell.  However, the elder James Mitchell would have been between 58 and 68 years old in 1806.  Moreover, there is record evidence of a James Mitchell filing for a land grant on Dry Fork of Muddy Fork in Christian County KY on 29Dec1798, which many researchers have concluded was the senior James Mitchell.  That being the case, then it seems more probable that this James Mitchell was of the next generation of Mitchells.
• 5Nov1805 – State vs. James Mitchell, assault and battery, true bill, Zachariah A. Thompson, Foreman…  Ditto.
• 8Nov1805 – Upon the affidavit of Joshua Palmer and Mark Jackson, it appearing to the Court that David Mitchell, blacksmith, had on the night of the 5th instant made an assault on the said Mark Jackson and behaved himself otherwise in a riotous and disorderly manner on motion of the Mr. Solicitor ordered that a bench warrant do issue against the said Mitchell…  In this record David Mitchell was identified as a Blacksmith, raising uncertainty as to his identity.  There was only one David Mitchell known to have been at large in Chester County during this time period.  It seems probable that this was David Mitchell The Younger.
• 8Nov1805 – State vs. James Mitchell, indictment for assault and battery.  The Grand Jury having returned in this case a true bill and the defendant not having appeared to take his trial or to traverse the indictment the said defendant not being bound in recognizance to appear on motion of Mr. Solicitor ordered a bench warrant do issue…  Ditto.
• 31Mar1806 – State vs. James Mitchell, assault and battery, Jury No. 2 found him guilty, Nathan Jaggers, Foreman…  Ditto.
• 1Apr1806 – State vs. John Mitchell, larceny, witnesses: John Madyon, John Love, Polly Read, James Sample, Philip Noland, John Cowsart, and James Anderson…  In spite of having been appointed a constable, it would appear that John Mitchell was still running afoul of the law.  Or, were there two John Mitchells?
• 1Apr1806 – State vs. James Mitchell, assault and battery.  The defendant in the case was called and appeared and on motion of Mr. Solicitor that sentence should be passed against him, he was asked if he had any reason to offer why sentence should not be passed against him and he could offer none; whereupon the Court passed the following sentence, to wit.: that he, the said James Mitchell, be confined to the common jail of this District without bail or main prize for the term of two months and that he pay the fine of $1 and give security for his good behaviour for the next year, and that he stand committed til the costs are paid…    Ditto.
• 1Apr1806 – State vs. John Mitchell, larceny, GJ returned no bill…  Ditto.
• 3Nov1806 – State vs. John Mitchell, petit larceny, and State vs. John Mitchell, hog stealing given to GJ…  Returned true bill indictments in both cases…  Ditto.  Somehow, hog stealing does not seem to fit with an appointed constable.  Perhaps there were two John Mitchells.
• 7Nov1806 – State vs. John Mitchell, hog stealing, PJ No. 1 heard case, including Elisha Mayfield, returned verdict of not guilty…  He escapes prosecution again.
• 7Nov1806 – State vs. John Mitchell, petit larceny, PJ No. 2 heard case, including Abraham Mayfield, returned verdict of guilty…  Ditto.
• 8Nov1806 – State vs. John Mitchell, found guilty of petit larceny, sentenced to receive 10 lashes on his bare back at public whipping post in village of Chester…  John Mitchell is sentenced to a public lashing for a 2^nd time.
• 30Mar1807 – Petit Jurors were drawn to serve at next term, including Josiah Mitchell, William Rainey, , etal…  The identity of Josiah Mitchell is unknown to the author.  He may not have been related to the David and Mary [Davidson] Mitchell family.
• 31Mar1807 – State vs. Elias Mitchell, Thomas Mitchell Sr., James Mitchell, Thomas Mitchell Jr., John Mitchell, James Shaw and John Shaw, indictment for forcible entry, witnesses: A. DeGraffenreid and H. Foote…  GJ returned finding of true bill…  This is a rather curious case involving numerous members of the Mitchell family.  Forcible entry into what?  Would the Reverend Elias Mitchell knowingly commit an illegal act?
• 31Mar1807 – State vs. John Mitchell, dealing with a negro, witnesses: J. S. Rice and Mary Pendergrass…  GJ returned finding of no bill…  Was this case somehow connected to the preceding record?  Did this case somehow involve an attempt by the Mitchells and Shaws to intercede in a case involving abuse of a negro slave?
• 3Nov1807 – Constables appointed to serve current term, including John Mitchell…  John Mitchell was once again appointed constable, in spite of several brushes with the law.  Are we dealing with two different John Mitchells?
• 3Nov1807 – Cases referred to GJ for indictments: State vs. David Mitchell, returned true bill, assault and battery, State vs. Edward Atteberry (returned true bill), assault, State vs. James Mitchell, assault (returned no bill)…  This very likely was a record involving David Mitchell Jr.  Who was he assaulting this time?  Edward Atterberry would have been almost 65 years old, and James Mitchell almost 55 (possibly 65) in 1807.  You would think that they would be too long in the tooth to be assaulting someone.  Perhaps this was Edward Atterberry Jr.?
• 3Nov1807 – State vs. Elias Mitchell, etal., forcible entry, referred to PJ No. 1, returned verdict of not guilty, William Lewis, Foreman…  At least the record of the Reverend was kept inviolate.
• 31Oct1808 – State vs. Thomas Mitchell, indicted for assault and battery, found guilty.
• 2Nov1808 – State vs. Thomas Mitchell, assault and battery, sentenced to serve 15 days and pay costs…
• 29Oct1810 – Constables were appointed for current term, including John Mitchell, etal…  John Mitchell still serving as constable, in spite of his convictions for assault and larceny and his public lashings??

The foregoing Minute Book records were extracted by the author from the original record microfilms.  This was a rather tedious and lengthy process, since the original records are handwritten and mostly not indexed.  It required skimming every page for the names of likely suspects.  Consequently, it may not be a complete record, but probably captures the bulk of Mitchell, Atterberry, Mayfield, Rodin, Blissett, etal, entries spanning roughly a 25 year period.

These records are quite revealing regarding the dates at which many of these Mitchells first appeared in Chester County.  This information is important to establishing or supporting inferred or implied kinships.  For example, the author has hypothesized that Thomas Mitchell Sr. of Chester County was the son recorded born to James Mitchell and his wife, Charity, in Frederick County MD on 6Aug1762.  Yet, from the land records, the earliest that Thomas Mitchell appeared was when he purchased 202 acres near Wilcoxes Boat Landing on the Broad River on 16May1793.  Whereas, from the Minute Book records we find the suit of Stewart Brown vs. Thomas Mitchell dated 4Jul1786.  From that court record it can be established that Thomas Mitchell was in Chester County sometime before probably 1783-4.  Similarly, the earliest land record of James Mitchell was dated 5Oct1789 when he purchased 300 acres from William Clark on Wilson’s Creek.  Yet, from the court records we find James Mitchell serving as an officer of the court on 4Jul1786.  So, from the court records it can be established that both James and Thomas Mitchell were in Chester County well before 1786, possibly arriving at the same time.  Also, from those same court records we find that Elias Mitchell served as a petit juror on 4Apr1787, six years before his earliest appearance in a land record.  Since these court records only commence in 1785, they cannot tell us whether these Mitchells were in Chester County before that date.

We do know from other records that David Mitchell Sr. possibly was in Chester County as early as 1775-6.  That arrival date can be deduced from the 1850 census record of his presumed son, David Mitchell (The Younger) of Franklin County GA, indexed as follows:

Name:     David Mitchell

Gender:  Male

Age:       70

Birth Year:             abt 1780

Birthplace:             South Carolina

Home in 1850:       District 32, Franklin, Georgia, USA

Occupation:          Farmer

If this census record is accurate as to place of birth, then it can be established that David Mitchell (The Younger) was likely born in Chester County sometime around 1775.  We also have the Revolutionary War militia record wherein Bobby Gilmer Moss states that David Mitchell enlisted as a private in South Carolina on 9Mar1776.  There may be some uncertainty as to whether Private David Mitchell was David Mitchell Sr., or perhaps David Davidson Mitchell.  But, regardless of which David Mitchell, this would appear to be further evidence that David Mitchell Sr. was in South Carolina around the outset of the War.  The whereabouts of David Mitchell Sr., James Mitchell and Elias Mitchell in the decade prior to the Revolutionary War appears to be a total blank.  Even worse than the Atterberry brothers, these Mitchells appear to have left no record trace of their migration path outside of Frederick County MD after about 1765.  Did they continue to reside in Frederick County until about 1771-5?  That is a possibility.  It also seems possible that they may have migrated to Camden District SC with their Atterberry kinsmen in the early 1770’s.

Some researchers would have us believe that James Mitchell migrated through Pittsylvania VA into Bute County NC, before finally moving into Chester County SC.  However, a closer look at the records of those James Mitchells suggests a different James Mitchell(s).  For example, the marriage of a James Mitchell to a Nancy Colclough in Bute County in 1778 looks promising on the surface, given that James Mitchell’s wife in Chester County is on record having been named Nancy.  However, the 1790 census contains records for a James Mitchell household in both Warren County NC (formerly Bute County) and in Chester County.  The composition of those households clearly indicates two distinctly different James Mitchells.  Also, the James Mitchell of Warren County purchased a tract of 300 acres in 1783, and is on record disposing of a part of that tract as late as 1788.  Our James Mitchell appears in the court records of Chester County as early as 1786.  These dates are clearly indicative of two different James Mitchells.

In addition to the record data already presented, there is one other telling detail which would seem to unequivocally connect David Mitchell Sr., James Mitchell and Elias Mitchell as brothers and the sons of David Mitchell and Mary Davidson of Prince George’s County MD.  In a word, that detail is the given name of “Davidson”.  Clearly this middle name that appears among these Chester County SC Mitchells was unique to that generation of the Mitchell families in America.  Davidson was an uncommon christened name among all Colonial American families.  In the 1790 census there were recorded only three instances of Davidson as a christened name.  Davidson is most commonly recognized as a surname, of which there were 191 instances recorded in the 1790 census of the United States.  Virtually all of the instances of Davidson as a christened name were the result of a practice the author refers to as Maternal Surname Perpetuation.  During colonial times and even in present day America there is an affinity toward perpetuating the mother’s maiden name by conferring it upon a child as either their first name or as a middle name.  Consequently, it seems highly probable that the usage of the middle name of Davidson within this Mitchell family group can be traced to the maiden name of a maternal branch of this family, almost certainly to the mother of David, James and Elias: Mary [Davidson?].

We have already established to a fairly high degree of certainty that David Mitchell Sr. had an older son named David Davidson Mitchell.  This probability was established by the apparent “gift” deed of the eastern part of David Mitchell Sr.’s 150 acre grant situated astraddle Brushy Fork.  The consideration paid for the conveyance of that tract of land by David Davidson Mitchell was 20 shillings.  Similarly, Isaiah Mitchell was conveyed the western portion of that same tract for the sum of 10 shillings.  These conveyances were performed at a time when the average 100 acre tract in that area was selling for around £70 to £100.  The only logical explanation for these transactions is that David Mitchell Sr. wanted to convey the most valuable part of his estate to his two eldest sons.  It also appears from the land records that David Davidson and Isaiah Mitchell were very likely David Mitchell Sr.’s sons from an earlier marriage. 

The purchase of the 125.25 acre tract by David Mitchell [The Younger] from David Hopkins in 1796 describes that being the land on which David and his mother, Mary, were already living.  This record, when coupled with the records of households in the 1790 and 1800 census of David Mitchell Jr. and David Mitchell, respectively, make it fairly certain that David Mitchell Sr. had another younger son, who he also named David Mitchell.  The reason why David Mitchell Sr. may have named two sons by the name of “David” cannot be known, but it seems quite clear from the record that that is exactly what he did do.  David Davidson Mitchell and David Mitchell (The Younger) are quite distinguishable in the land records as two separate individuals.  In the 1790 census David Mitchell Sr. appears to still have had two sons under age 16 and two daughters living in his household.  Assuming that Mary [mnu, possibly Stephens] Mitchell was the mother of David Mitchell (The Younger), then it seems probable that she would also have been the mother of the other three apparent children still living at home in 1790.  In fact, the two apparent daughters might have been the two young females over age 15, reported in David Mitchell’s [The Younger] household in 1800, along with David’s presumed mother, Mary/Molly Mitchell.

So, we have identified with a fairly high level of certainty that David Mitchell Sr. had an older son named David Davidson Mitchell, probably born of a 1^st wife (unknown identity).  Then we have evidence suggesting that David Sr.’s presumed younger brother, Elias, also named a son David Davidson.  Although the proof of the full name of Elias’s son is not absolutely proven, there is clear record evidence of a son named Davidson Mitchell, who appeared in census records in 1830 thru 1860 under the name of Davidson Mitchell in Union County SC.  Likewise, the LWT of Davidson Mitchell is recorded in Union County SC, dated 2Jun1860.  Added to these records is the military service record of one, David D. Mitchell, excerpted in Figure 13-3 below.

This service record was for a person named David D. Mitchell, aged 18 years, who enlisted as a Private in the U.S. Rifles at Chester County on 9Sep1814 for a tour of 5 years.  Having completed his required tour of duty, he was discharged at St. Louis MO on 20Sep1819.  Davidson Mitchell was reported in census records as having been born sometime between 1794 and 1796.  Such birth year would closely comport with the David D. Mitchell described in Figure 13-3, above.  It is the author’s belief that the foregoing military service record was for Davidson Mitchell, the son of Reverend Elias Mitchell.  Assuming that to be correct, then it would appear that Davidson Mitchell, son of Elias Mitchell, was christened David Davidson Mitchell.  So, from the foregoing analysis we have reliably established that Elias Mitchell named one of his sons David Davidson Mitchell, and that that son opted in his later life to adopt his middle name of Davidson as his legal name.

Then we have the case of James Mitchell, presumed brother of David Mitchell Sr. and Elias Mitchell, who apparently also named one of his sons David C. Mitchell.  The proof of that fact is somewhat less conclusive.  Living in the same small community of Hopkinsville KY nearby to the James Mitchell household in the 1810 census was a household headed by a David D. [Davison?] Mitchell.  For evidence, we offer the 1810 census of Hopkinsville District, Christian County KY summarized in Table 13- 5, below.

For what its worth, all five of these households were clustered in relatively close succession on Page 45 of 65.  Such close grouping of these households suggests very close geographic proximity, and a high probability of kinship.  Many Mtichell family researchers have identified the James Mitchell household in this record to have been that of James Mitchell Sr., son of David Mitchell and Mary [Davidson], born in Prince George’s County MD.  The author cannot absolutely verify the accuracy of these claims, but based on the records already presented from Chester County SC, it does seem highly possible.  For better evaluation of these households, the index of each is presented in the following series of extracts:

Name:     James Michals

[James Mitchell]

Home in 1810 (City, County, State): 

Hopkinsville, Christian, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          1

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 15:         3

Free White Persons – Males – 45 and over:      1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       1

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 45 and over:  1

Name:     David Michals

Home in 1810 (City, County, State): 

Hopkinsville, Christian, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          3

Free White Persons – Males – 45 and over:      1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       2

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

Name:     Elizabeth Michels

Home in 1810 (City, County, State): 

Hopkinsville, Christian, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          2

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

Name:     David D Michals

Home in 1810 (City, County, State): 

Hopkinsville, Christian, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          2 [including David D. Jr.]

Free White Persons – Males – 45 and over:      1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       2

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

Name:     Benjamine Michaels

[Benjamin Mitchell]

Home in 1810 (City, County, State): 

Hopkinsville, Christian, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          3

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      1

For purposes of our current discussions and analysis, the reader’s attention is drawn specifically to the household headed by David D. Mitchell.  This person is shown to have been over the age of 45, yet the presumed spouse is aged 26 thru 44, and the only apparent children in the household are under the age of 10, suggesting a relatively young family.  On the other hand, the household of James Mitchell is headed by a male over age 45 and a female over age 45, with apparently young children (males and females) aged ranged 10 thru 25.  The age range of the young apparent children in this household suggests a family with much older parents than the household of David D. Mitchell.  In fact, the age of the James Mitchell household head suggests a couple old enough to have been the parents of the heads of the other four Mitchell households, the only possible exception being that of David D. Mitchell.

For basis of comparison, we present a summary of the household of James Mitchell of Chester County from the 1800 census as follows:

Name:     James Mitchel

Home in 1800 (City, County, State): 

Chester, South Carolina

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          5

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         3

Free White Persons – Males – 45 and over:      1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       5

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 15:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

In 1800 James Mitchell of Chester County reported a total of 17 other young persons in his household in addition to himself and his presumed wife, 10 of whom were under age 10 and five who were aged 16 thru 25.  If we assume that the female, aged 26 thru 44 was James’ wife, Nancy, many of the 10 younger children under age 10 could have been James’ children.  However, it seems possible that at least two of the males aged 16 thru 25 and two of the females aged 16 thru 25 represented married couples, and that several of the young children under age 10 were James’ grandchildren.  Given the assumption of married children plus grandchildren in James’ household in 1800, then his household composition in 1810 in Hopkinsville would seem to fit, with the exception of the two young persons under age 10 in the 1810 household.  Again, those younger children in 1810 probably would have been grandchildren.  James Mitchell would have been aged somewhere between 57 and 67 years in 1810, and his presumed wife, Nancy, would likely have been over the age of 50.

Foregoing a more detailed analysis at this juncture, the author is inclined to accept that the James Mitchell of Christian County in 1810 was the James Mitchell, formerly of Chester County SC.  This acceptance is in part predicated on the household headed by David D. Mitchell.  It seems highly probable to the author that David D. Mitchell was the same person as David Davidson Mitchell of Chester County, whom the author has posited as an elder son of David Mitchell Sr. and nephew of James Mitchell.  Further, that the households headed by David Mitchell and Benjamin Mitchell were sons of James Mitchell.  The household headed by Elizabeth Mitchell probably was a widow of yet another, deceased, son of James Mitchell.  More analysis of the James Mitchell family lineage will be necessary before it can be proven that these neighboring households were headed by children of James Mitchell. 

We believe that it has been reliably shown that both David Mitchell Sr., and Elias Mitchell christened sons named David Davidson Mitchell, and that James Mitchell christened a son named David Mitchell (possibly David C. Mitchell).  We have also posited the hypothesis that the David D. Mitchell, residing nearby to James Mitchell in Hopkinsville KY in 1810, was James’ nephew, David Davidson Mitchell.  Consequently, we believe that we have established to a fairly high level of certainty that the Mitchells of Brushy Fork Chester County SC were descended from David Mitchell and Mary Davidson of Prince George’s County, MD.

The possibility that James Mitchell and several of his children may have settled their affairs in Chester County and packed up their belongings and hit the trail for newly opening Indian Territory in Christian County Kentucky is a reasonable prospect.  After all, many other Chester County families did the very same thing in the first decade of the 19th Century.  Most of the Atterberry brothers and their closest associates moved to Hardin County KY in that same time period.  But how did David Davidson Mitchell and his family wind up in Hopkinsville living nearby to Uncle James?  This story is not quite so straight forward.  In fact, David Davidson Mitchell, himself, is somewhat of an enigma.  For the most part, we only know of David Davidson Mitchell, presumed son of David Mitchell Sr., through a few land records in Chester County, which we have reiterated hereinafter:

1. Deed book D, pp. 237-41 – 7 & 8Jul1786, David Mitchell of Chester County, farmer, to David Davidson Mitchell of same, for 20 schillings, part of 150 acres granted to said David Mitchell 21Jan1785 lying on east side of the Brushy Fork of Sandy River.  Signed David Mitchell and Mary Mitchell.  Wit.: John White, Isaiah Mitchell.  Proved by oath of both witnesses 23Feb1789.[8] 
2. Deed Book D, p. 233, 25Mar1794: James Atterberry and his wife, Darcus, to David Davidson Mitchell, all of Chester County, for and in consideration of £100 sterling, sold a tract containing 150 acres, being part of a larger tract granted to James Atterberry on 4Sep1786, situated in the northwest corner of said larger tract (see Figure 13-2).  Witnessed: William Norwood and James Wilkinson, testimony of William Atterberry. 
3. Deed Book D, p. 235, 17Jul1794:  John White and his wife, Sarah, to David Davidson Mitchell, all of Chester County, for and in consideration of £100 sterling, sold a tract of land whereon said White lives, containing 103 acres, situated and lying on both sides of Brushy Fork, originally granted to said White on 4Jan1790, beginning at a corner on David Mitchell’s line, running various courses, abutting David Hopkins line.  Witnessed: William Norwood and Isaiah Mitchell.  (see Figure 13-2). 
4. Deed Book L, p. 56, 12Jul1800:  David D. [Davidson] Mitchell of Chester County to Abraham Myers of same, for and in consideration of £20, sold a tract of land containing 100 acres, situated on Brushy Fork and David Mitchell’s Spring Branch, various courses, abutting Thomas Mitchell, John Cowsert, James Atterberry, formerly laid out by said Mitchell to Edward Atterberry, it being part of two tracts formerly granted to David Mitchell Sr. and James Atterberry.  It is important to note that David Davidson’s wife, Dicey, did not relinquish dower rights associated with this land sale.  This suggests that David Davidson and Dicey may have married sometime between 12Jul1800 and 19Oct1803.
5. Deed Book J, p. 274, 19Oct1803:  David Davidson Mitchell and his wife, Dicey, to Isaiah Mitchell, all of Chester County, in and for the consideration of £100 sterling, sold a tract of land containing 125 acres, originally granted to James Atterberry 4Sep1786, running various courses, abutting Edward Atterberry’s line.  Witnessed: Jesse Scaife and Edward Atterberry. 

From the foregoing records it appears that David Davidson Mitchell acquired three separate tracts of land between 8Jul1786 and 17Jul1794.  He is on record having sold two of those tracts: (1) 125 acres, part of 150 acres purchased from James Atterberry to his presumed brother, Isaiah Mitchell on 10Oct1803, and (2) 25 acres, the remainder of the 150 acres purchased from James Atterberry, and 75 acres, the land he was gifted by his presumed father, David Mitchell Sr.  No conveyance record could be found whereby David Davidson Mitchell disposed of the 103 acres acquired from John White.  All three of these tracts are believed to have abutted each other along the upper Brushy Fork.  It may be that David Davidson Mitchell died before having had the opportunity to dispose of his remaining property in Chester County.

Nobody named David Davidson Mitchell was recorded as a head of household anywhere in the 1790 or 1800 census, nor did anyone appear by that name in the court records of Chester County.  However, on closer scrutiny there do appear to have been records of David Davidson Mitchell under the name of David Mitchell Jr. or simply David Mitchell.  In order to identify those records it is necessary to pay close attention to dates in order to distinguish David Davidson Mitchell from David Mitchell Sr. and his half-brother, David Mitchell, The Younger.  The author believes that the person recorded in the 1790 census in Chester County as David Mitchell Jun. was actually David Davidson Mitchell, not David Mitchell, The Younger, as had been initially supposed.  If that interpretation in correct, David Mitchell Jun. [aka David Davidson Mitchell] would have been over the age of 25 and married without children.  That age is deduced from the “gift deed” from David Mitchell Sr. to David Davidson Mitchell in 1786.  David Davidson Mitchell likely would have to have been an adult in order to receive land.  David Mitchell,

The Younger, probably would have been only about 15 years old in 1790, if we accept his recorded age of 16 thru 25 in the 1800 census.  So, by process of elimination, David Mitchell Jun. in the 1790 census must have been David Davidson Mitchell.

There are also a few court records for a David Mitchell, which the author believes may have been for David Davidson Mitchell.  These court records are abstracted as follows:

• 5Oct1788 – Petit Jury drawn to be impaneled in Jan1789 Term: including Thomas Arterbury, James Arterbury, David Mitchell Jr., Moses Grissom, etal.  For the same reasons already discussed herein above, this David Mitchell Jr. almost certainly was the same person as David Davidson Mitchell. 
• 26Jan1798 – State vs. David Mitchell, assault and battery, true bill John McCreary…  It seems probable that this was a record for David Davidson Mitchell.  David Mitchell, the Younger, would have been about 23 years old in 1798, so this could have been him.  But, the identity of the wife as “Ann Mitchell” in the following record would seem to suggest otherwise.
• 25Jul1798 – State vs. David Mitchell, assault and battery committed on his wife, Ann Mitchell, came a Petit Jury to wit, David Neely, foreman, etal., who returned their verdict as follows, viz., “We find him guilty.” Whereupon the Court ordered that the defendant make his fine by paying the sum of £5 sterling with costs and that the sheriff commit him to prison there to remain without bail or main price until the said fine and cost are paid.  26Jul1798 – On reconsideration of the above, the Court having considered the above David Mitchell is a dangerous person who ought to be bound to his good behaviour, therefore orders that he be confined in prison til he find sufficient security for his good behaviour for one year…  This record is a bit more specific about the nature of David Mitchell’s assault.  Apparently he was charged and convicted of having committed battery upon his wife, Ann.  For that offense, he was determined to be a threat to the community and was required to post a bond for his good behavior for one year.  We have already established in the deed record in which David Davidson Mitchell conveyed 125 acres to his brother Isaiah Mitchell on 19Oct1803 (see Item No. 5, above), that David Davidson’s wife was named Dicey.  But, we also have the record of David Davidson Mitchell disposing of the 100 acre tract to Abraham Myres on 12Jul1800, in which there was no record of a wife relinquishing her dower interest.  Now we have this court record is Jul1798 in which this David Mitchell’s wife appears to have been named “Ann”.  Are these the same persons, and was David Davidson Mitchell’s wife possibly named Dicey Ann?  From the compilation of the 1790 census, the Jul1798 court record, the Jul1800 land record, and the 1803 land record, it seems possible that these were all records of David Davidson Mitchell.  If we assume that these were all records for the same person, how might we reconcile the apparent inconsistencies?  The 1790 census seems to clearly suggest that David Davidson Mitchell was married, but without children.  The 1798 Court record suggests that David Davidson was still married, but to a woman named “Ann”.  The Jul1800 deed of conveyance suggests that David Davidson was without a wife.  The 1803 deed conveyance clearly shows David Davidson Mitchell with a wife named Dicey.  The author offers the following scenario for David Davidson and his wife(s):  David Davidson was married to his 1^st wife named Ann sometime shortly before 1790, but she was deceased sometime between 1798 and 1800, and, by 1803 David Davidson had taken a 2^nd wife named Dicey.  The relevance of the possible wives of David Davidson Mitchell will become more apparent when we attempt to trace David Davidson Mitchell’s migration outside of Chester County SC after 1803.

We will begin our search for David Davidson Mitchell after 1803 by studying the records of Kentucky and Tennessee in later years.  In the 1850 census record from Trigg County KY we have the following listing of a David D. Mitchell household.

Name:     David D Mitchell

Gender:  Male

Age:       43

Birth Year:             abt 1807

Birthplace:             Tennessee

Home in 1850:      

District 1, Trigg, Kentucky, USA

Occupation:          Farmer

Industry:                Agriculture

Real Estate:           455

Line Number:        41

Dwelling Number:                523

Family Number:    524

Household Members           Age

David D Mitchell                  43

Celia Mitchell                        35

David D H Mitchell              16

James M Mitchell 15

Blake B Mitchell                   13

Sally A Mitchell                   12

Fruy Mitchell                        10

Josiah H Mitchell                 8

Nathan B Mitchell                6

George W Mitchell              3

Mary A Mitchell                  1

Eliza Wadlington                  22

Also, we have the death record for David D. [Davidson?] Mitchell from Trigg County shown in the following extract contained in Figure 13-4.  The two preceding records are believed to have been for the same person named David D. Mitchell.  The census record indicates that this David D. Mitchell was born in Tennessee in about 1807.  The death record indicates that his parents were named David D. Mitchell and Anna, and that he died in Trigg County, a widower, on 4Jul1853 at the age of 50 years.  Given the matching names, the author believes it highly probable that this David D. Mitchell was a son of the David D. Mitchell, who appeared in Hopkinsville as head of a household living nearby to James Mitchell in 1810.  If that were the case, then this family of David D. Mitchell would have lived in Tennessee sometime prior to 1810 (between about 1803 and 1807, based on David D. Mitchell Jr.’s census and death records).  Since there is only fragmentary and very limited census data for Tennessee prior to 1820, it is not likely that any trace of David D. Mitchell or any near family members could be located in the 1810 census records of Tennessee.  However, there are fairly comprehensive census records from 1820 and later.  Interestingly, there is a census record for the household of a Dicy Mitchell and an Isaiah Mitchell in Jackson County TN in 1820, summarized as follows:

Name:     Dicy Mitchel

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): 

Jackson, Tennessee

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 15:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         1

Free White Persons – Females – over 45:`       1[9]

Number of Persons – Engaged in Agriculture:                3

Name:     Isaiah Mitchel

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): 

Jackson, Tennessee

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       4

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

First, let it be understood that the author did not just randomly chance upon these records.  These records were discovered as the direct result of a targeted search for records in Jackson County and Overton County TN for persons associated with the Chester County Atterberry family.  That search was initiated in an effort to determine the means whereby Priscilla [Mayfield] Atterberry, a widow with two young daughters, managed to migrate from Chester County SC to the wilderness of Jackson County TN around 1805-7.  Clearly, a widow and her young daughters would not have made that perilous journey alone.  They almost certainly would have been part of a much larger group, consisting of several families of close kinsmen.  Naturally, that effort led to searches for Mitchells, Mayfields, Rodins, Atterberrys, etc. in the Jackson-Overton County area during the first couple of decades into the 19^th Century.  This targeted search led to the discovery of the Dicy Mitchell and Isaiah Mitchell households in Jackson County TN in 1820.  Unfortunately, because the 1820 census is ordered alphabetically, it is not possible to assign any particular geographic proximity between listed parties, but the given name of Isaiah Mitchell has already been shown to have an important relationship to the Chester County Mitchell families.

Of course, the name of Dicy Mitchell as the head of a household was particularly familiar.  We had already discovered from a deed record in Chester County in 1803 that David Davidson Mitchell appeared to have married a woman named Dicey, possibly sometime between 1800 and 1803.  Is it just coincidence that we should find a household headed by a person named Dicey Mitchell in Jackson County TN in 1820?  We think not!  The odds are strongly in favor of this Dicy Mitchell having been the widow of David Davidson Mitchell.  Dicy’s name match aside, the two young males in her household match with the two young males in David D. Mitchell’s household in Christian County KY in 1810.  It also seems possible that Isaiah Mitchell may have been a son of David Davidson Mitchell by his first wife, Ann, whoever she may have been.

A bit of statistical analysis will tell us just how great the odds were for this Dicy Mitchell to have been someone other than the widow of David Davidson Mitchell.  First, it should be recognized that the given name of Dicy is almost exclusively a feminine appellation, and rather rare, at that.  Of the approximately 9,775,678 females listed in the 1850 US census, only 2522 were named either Dicy or Dicey.  This means that only one in every 3,876 females was named Dicy.  Likewise, there were only about 16,421 females with the surname of Mitchell.  Given these facts, the probability of a woman being named Dicy Mitchell was only about one in 2.3 million females.  Given the relatively short timeframe of about 17 years and close geographic proximity of Chester County SC to Jackson County TN, the chance of two Dicy Mitchells existing simultaneously within this limited sphere is a virtual impossibility.  The author is quite satisfied that the Dicy Mitchell of Jackson County TN was the widow of David Davidson Mitchell.

Dicy Mitchell could not be located in the 1830 census records, but there is a record of a Dicy Mitchell in Jackson County TN in 1840 summarized as follows:

Name:     Dicy Mitchel

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): 

District 6, Jackson, Tennessee

Free White Persons – Females – 60 thru 69:      1

Given the name, age and location, there seems no doubt but that this was the same Dicy Mitchell recorded in the 1820 census of Jackson County.  Given her reported age range, Dicy would have been born between 1770 and 1780, the correct age for David Davidson Mitchell’s widow.  Since the 1820 census was reported in alphabetical order, there was no opportunity to infer geographic location or proximity of the households reported in that year, other than being somewhere within Jackson County.  However, the 1840 census was not reported in alphabetical order, so location and proximity can be inferred.  Both location and proximity are often strong indicators of kinship connections.  There are two very important factors found in this 1840 census which might be useful to determining location and proximity.  First, as to proximity, the names of Dicy’s immediate neighbors are listed as follows:

William Foster                      District 6                Jackson  Tennessee

Thompson Atterbury          District 6                Jackson  Tennessee

Moses Atterberry                                District 6                Jackson  Tennessee

Dicy Mitchel                         District 6                Jackson  Tennessee

Wm Griscom                         District 6                Jackson  Tennessee

Filding Rogers                      District 6                Jackson  Tennessee

Moses Atterberry was the son of Nathan Atterberry and Patty [mnu].  Patty Atterberry, widow of Nathan Atterberry, married Abraham Myres in Hardin County KY on 2Aug1805.  It was this same Abraham Myres, who purchased the 100 acre tract from David Davidson Mitchell on 12Jul1800, including the 75 acres gifted to David Davidson Mitchell from his father, David Mitchell Sr. in 1786.  Thompson Atterberry was the eldest son of Moses Atterberry.  William Grissom was the husband of Dicy Atterberry, daughter of Moses Atterberry.  Didn’t we just perform a statistical analysis which showed that the given name of Dicy was very rare in 1850, occurring in only about 0.026% of the female population?  Why would Moses Atterberry have bestowed such a rare appellation on his daughter?  Does this suggest some sort of kinship connection between Dicy Mitchell and Moses Atterberry?  More on this in a moment.

Then we have the location of Civil District No. 6.  By an act of the Tennessee General Assembly on 3Dec1835, Jackson County was divided into 15 separate civil districts, the boundaries of which were generally as shown in Figure 13-5.  As seen in this figure, District 6 was located in the extreme northeastern corner of the County, abutting the Kentucky-Tennessee state line to the north and Overton County to the east.  By delineating their district of residence, we have pinpointed the households of Dicy Mitchell and her near neighbors as having been situated in the northeast corner of Jackson County.  In order to place the location of District 6 into its proper geographic setting, the author has overlaid a portion of District 6 onto a copy of the 1968 Celina Quad USGS Topographic Map as shown in Figure 13-6.

The reader will note that two waterways have been emphasized in Figure 13-6: McFarland Creek and Knob Creek.  These streams have been given extra emphasis because it was on these two streams that we will locate the lands of David D. [Davidson] Mitchell and Moses Atterberry in the early part of the 19^th Century and later.  We will begin with the Knob Creek area.  Just by chance, the author stumbled upon a patent for a tract issued to a John Smith, abstracted as follows:

1. 16Jun1808: By virtue of a duplicate Military land Warrant No. 5142 for 640 acres, enters 101 acres of land, part of said warrant, in Jackson County on Nob Creek, north waters of Cumberland River, beginning 46 poles east of Thomas Lee’s improvement on a black walnut, running west 64 poles to a sugar tree, thence down the meanders of the bluff, 328 poles to a sycamore on David D. Mitchell’s north boundary line, then east 60 poles to a hackberry and sugar tree, thence to the beginning.  Issued to John Smith.[10]

This was a truly serendipitous discovery.  These patents are indexed mainly by the patentee’s name, and no record could be located for a tract patented to David Mitchell in this area around 1808.  In fact, no record was found for a patent taken out by a David Mitchell in Jackson County at any time.  It seems probable that David D. Mitchell purchased his tract from someone, who had patented the land originally in their name.  The Jackson County courthouse was burned in 1875, so no deed records are extant prior to that date.  Regardless, the author stumbled upon this tract on Nob Creek patented to John Smith while searching for an entirely unrelated property.  What good fortune!  It was only after the fact that the author found a book entitled Building Neighborhoods: JacksonCounty, Tennessee Prior to 1820, compiled by Betty Huff Bryant.  In Ms. Bryant’s book, she has assembled abstracts of patent records for Jackson County prior to 1820 in which she has indexed the names of virtually every proper noun appearing in the records.  Through Ms. Bryant’s book the reader can locate David D. Mitchell’s citation for Book 24, Page12, No. 1906, Bryant, p. 42.  This record would seem to clearly establish the presence of a person named David D. Mitchell in possession of a tract of land on Knob Creek sometime around Jun1808.  The only stream bearing the name of Knob Creek or near facsimile in Jackson County is that waterway emphasized in Figure 13-6.  It is the author’s belief that David D. Mitchell’s tract was situated within the drainage of this stream.

Then we have the patents issued to Moses Atterberry abstracted as follows:

2. 6Apr1819: Moses Attleberry [sic] assignee of ___ by virtue of Certificate No. 3413 for 20 acres, enters the same in Jackson County on the north side of Cumberland River, beginning near a bluff on a Beech, runs west 15 poles, thence south to James McColgin’s line for complement.
3. 7Nov1827: Grant No. 7230, Jackson County:  Moses Atterberry received grant of 50 acres situated on the north side of Cumberland River, on both sides of the road leading from Bennetts Ferry to Glasgow, beginning at a Chestnut, the northeast corner of a 25 acre survey granted to John Baker by the State of Tennessee, running thence north 64 poles, west 125 poles, south (crossing road) 64 poles, east to the northwest corner and with the north boundary thereof (crossing road) 125 poles to beginning, including part of said Atterberry’s improvement.
4. 7Nov1827: Grant No. 7231, Jackson County:  Moses Atterberry received grant of 50 acres situated on the north side of Cumberland River on both sides of the road leading from Bennett’s Ferry to Glasgow and bounded as follows: beginning at a Beech on the top of a ridge on the east side of said road, running west 68 poles, ro a stake in a field, south (crossing road and a branch [Knob Creek?] At 28 poles) 117.6 poles to a stake in the north boundary of James McColgan’s 640 acre tract, east with said line 68 poles (crossing road and branch) to a Beech in said line, north 117.6 poles to the beginning, including part of said Atterberry’s improvement.

These patents do not specify their location any more precisely than having been situated on the north side of the Cumberland River and astraddle the road from Bennett’s Ferry to Glasgow [Kentucky, County seat of Barren County].  However, the following patent issued to James McColgin does provide a better geographic location:

5. 30Nov1812:  James McColgan, assigned originally of the heirs of William Blacklaw… by virtue of a Certificate Warrant No. 577 issued by the Commission of West Tennessee for 640 acres, enters one acre of land in Jackson County on the west fork of Knob Creek, beginning and running agreeable to Law so as to include a saltpeter cave in the center of a square, formerly worked at by James Anderson.

This was the only patent located for a James McColgin in Jackson County around this time period.  Given the name, location and date match, the author is inclined to believe that this was the same tract that abutted the patents filed by Moses Atterberry.  Based on that correlation, it would appear that Moses Atterberry’s tract was situated on the drainage of the west fork of Knob Creek, the same stream on which David Davidson Mitchell is believed to have possessed a tract.  So, by extrapolation David Davidson Mitchell and Moses Atterberry both had tracts situated on the waters of Knob Creek during the same time period, probably in very close proximity.  The reference to the road from Bennett’s Ferry would appear to place Moses Atterberry’s lands astraddle the Moss-Arcot Road.  This location is predicated on the fact that Bennett’s Ferry was situated on the Cumberland River at the location where the Moss-Arcot Road joins the Cumberland River.  The nearest settlement to this area is the small community of Richville near the intersection of Moss-Arcot Road and Midway Road, just west of the headwaters of Knob Creek.  The reader is also referred to Figure 13-6 on which it is noted that the “Road to Bennett’s Ferry” was along the boundary between Civil Districts 6 and 7.

We also have tax records from Jackson County that would seem to place Moses Atterberry, Isaiah Mitchell, and other possible Chester County SC emigrants in Jackson County at a much earlier date:

Name:     Moses Arterberry

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     Isaiah Mitchet [sic]

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     David Mitchel

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Also,

Name:     Ezikiel Roden

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     Jeremiah Roden

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     Nathanial Rodin

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     Stephen Mayfield

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     Luke Mayfield

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     Stephen Mayfield

Year:       1802

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     Notley Goar

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     Thomas Goar

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

Name:     John McDaniel

Year:       1803

Residence:             Jackson, Tennessee

It is the author’s belief that most, if not all of the foregoing listed taxpayers in Jackson County TN were originally from Chester County SC, and possibly migrated in unison as a group.  It is curious that these parties should appear on an 1803 tax list, as several of them were still being recorded in land and court records in Chester County as late as 1806/7.  It is possible that some of these people made more than one trip from Chester County to Jackson County.  They may have made exploratory trips, before returning to Chester County to settle their business affairs.  Not contained in this record is a listing for Priscilla Mayfield-Atterberry, who is also believed to have migrated from Chester County as a member of this Chester County migratory movement to the backwoods of Jackson County TN.  The Isaiah Mitchell listed in these tax records is believed to have married Permelia Atterberry, eldest daughter of Nathan Atterberry and Priscilla Mayfield.  Isaiah Mitchell could have been a son of David Davidson Mitchell and his 1^st wife, Ann, although in order to have been recorded on the 1803 tax list, this Isaiah Mitchell would likely have been born before 1782.  It is possible that there were two different Isaiah Mitchells in Jackson County.

Before continuing with our analysis of these Chester County transplants to Jackson County, we will briefly introduce a unique mineralogical phenomenon that may have been part of the attraction for early settlers along the tributaries of the upper Cumberland River, aside from its obvious abundance of game and other wildlife, its fertile soils and open lands.  The following patent records suggest the presence of a fairly extensive salt peter mining activity in this area:

6. 30Nov1812:  James McColgan, assigned originally of the heirs of William Blacklaw… by virtue of a Certificate Warrant No. 577 issued by the Commission of West Tennessee for 640 acres, enters one acre of land in Jackson County on the west fork of Knob Creek, beginning and running agreeable to Law so as to include a saltpeter cave in the center of a square, formerly worked at by James Anderson.
7. 30Nov1812:  Thomas McColgan and John Rowland, assignees originally of the heirs of William Blacklaw, by virtue of a Certificate Warrant No. 577 issued by the Commission of West Tennessee for 640 acres, enters two acres of land in Jackson County on the waters of Knob Creek, beginning at a Beech, marked “FF”, thence running north, thence east for the complement so as to include a saltpeter cave, formerly worked at by a man by the name of Murray, on the north side of said creek.
8. 30Nov1812:  Thomas McColgan and John Rowland, assignees originally of the heirs of William Blacklaw, by virtue of a Certificate Warrant No. 577 issued by the Commission of West Tennessee for 640 acres, enters two acres of land in Jackson County on the waters of Knob Creek, beginning at a White Oak, marked “GH”, thence running south, thence west for the complement so as to include a saltpeter cave, on the south side of said creek, lately found by said Rowland.
9. 30Nov1812:  Thomas McColgan and John Rowland, assignees originally of the heirs of William Blacklaw, by virtue of a Certificate Warrant No. 577 issued by the Commission of West Tennessee for 640 acres, enters two acres of land in Jackson County on the waters of Dry Creek, beginning at a Sugar Tree, marked “MRF”, thence running north, thence west for the complement so as to include a saltpeter cave, lately found by the said Rowland.
10. 21Oct1814:  Luke Mayfield by virtue of Entry No. 11458 dated 20Sep1813 founded on a Certificate Warrant No. 1591 issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 500 acres, I have surveyed for Luke Mayfield, assignee of Robert Searcy, two acres of land in Jackson County on Lick Creek of Roaring River, beginning at a Sugar Tree marked “LM”… including a saltpeter cave about ¼ mile above where Daniel Shipman formerly lived.  Witnessed: Thomas Goar [aka Gore], and Notly Warnall.
11. 23Mar1814:  Luke Mayfield and William Gray assignees originally of the heirs of William T. Lewis, by virtue of a Certificate Warrant No. 1728 issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 250 acres, enters two acres of land in Jackson County on a branch known by the name of The Crib Branch, waters of Roaring River, beginning on a Sugar Tree marked “LM”, running south then east for complement so as to include a saltpeter cave found by the said Mayfield, between the forks of said branch.
12. 26Sep1812: Thomas Gore, assignee of John C. McLemore and James Vaulx, by virtue of a warrant No. 1191 issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 800 acres, enters one acre of land in Jackson County on the forks between Blackberry Fork and Roaring River, beginning at a Poplar running E, then N, etc., including a saltpeter cave, lately worked at by said Gore and James McDaniel.  Thomas Gore: Locator.
13. 2Mar1814: Ezra Bushnell, John Murray, Notley Wornall, and John C. McLemore, assignees of John C. McLemore, by virtue of a certificate Warrant No. 1713 issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 500 acres, enters four acres of land in Jackson County on the Crib Hollow, waters of Roaring River, beginning and running agreeable to law so as to include the mouth of a saltpeter cave, lately found by said Wornall about a half mile nearly north from a cave worked by John Payton Sr. in the center of a square.  Ezra Bushnell, Locator.

In the foregoing patent records we find clear evidence of saltpeter cave mining along the waters of Knob Creek and Dry Creek on the north side of the Cumberland River, and along Lick Creek and The Crib Branch of Roaring River, south of the Cumberland River within Jackson County.  These eight patents were only discovered by the author because of their close association with members of the suspected Chester County migration party to Jackson County.  This is suggestive of a rather widespread mining activity in the Jackson County region in the early part of the 19^th Century.  Saltpeter was a primary ingredient of gunpowder, along with sulfur and charcoal.  It may have been the outbreak of the War of 1812 and the increased demand for gunpowder that triggered the birth of this saltpeter mining industry in middle Tennessee.  There was a gunpowder manufactory established on Lynn Camp Creek in Hart County KY around 1810, so presumably there were similar manufacturing operations established near Jackson County TN at around this same time period.  The following excerpt provides a general description of saltpeter cave mining operations during the early part of the 19^th Century:

“Before the 1870s, caves were the primary source of nitrate used in the manufacture of gunpowder. Saltpeter mining was one of the first major industries of the new frontier, and one of the principle objectives of exploring new territory was to find saltpeter caves. Caves were mined by individuals and also commercially for national defense purposes during the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. Cave dirt was tested for its nitrate potential by the following procedure: A footprint or mark was made in the dirt and left for twenty-four hours. If the print was scarcely visible by the next day, then the dirt was deemed high in niter.”[11]

There is no evidence to suggest that either Moses Atterberry or David Davidson Mitchell were engaged in saltpeter mining, but clearly it was actively occurring in their immediate neighborhood.  On the other hand, we have shown evidence which suggests that Luke Mayfield and his near kinsmen: Thomas Gore, Notley Gore and Notley Gore Wornall may have been engaged in saltpeter mining in their youth, before moving on to the more settled industry of farming.  We will hear more about Luke Mayfield and his kinsmen later in this chapter.

Douglas Plenoms has compiled an extensive listing of saltpeter caves across the United States[12].  This listing includes 344 known saltpeter caves in Tennessee, by far the most of any other state.  Jackson, Clay and Overton Counties are reported to collectively contain 39 such caves.  None of the listed caves in those counties appear to match with any of the patent filings listed above.  It seems probable that the Knob Creek saltpeter caves were relatively small deposits, which probably were fairly quickly mined out.  The cave saltpeter or nitrate probably was extracted from the bat guano deposited in layers over centuries.

We will now return to Dicy Mitchell and her presumed associates.  It seems possible that Dicy Mitchell may have lived out her life on the tract acquired by her husband, David Davidson Mitchell, on Knob Creek and that she lived in very close proximity to the Moses Atterberry family.  While there is very strong evidence to suggest that David Davidson Mitchell and Moses Atterberry both originated from the Brushy Fork area of Chester County, nothing heretofore has been discovered to suggest that they had anything further in common.  At least not until we begin to scrutinize the family of Moses Atterberry in greater detail.  We kind of off-handedly made a reference earlier in this work to a marriage between William Grissom and Dicy Atterberry, the eldest daughter of Moses Atterberry.  We also presented the statistical calculations to demonstrate the rarity of the feminine appellation of “Dicy”.  Now we have evidence to suggest that Moses Atterberry named his first-born daughter “Dicy”.  If Dicy was such a rare given name, why would Mose Atterberry have conferred that name upon his eldest daughter?  Drilling down deeper into the Moses Atterberry family, we also find that his son, George Washington Atterberry, named his eldest son Allen Mayfield, and two of his daughters Priscilla and Permelia.  Were these names coincidental, or do they suggest kinship connections to the Chester County Mayfields?  Equally curious, we find that William Franklin Tinsley and Jane Mitchell, daughter of Isaiah Mitchell and Priscilla Mayfield-Atterberry named a daughter Dicy Rose Tinsley.  And, lastly, we have the instance of William Grissom and Dicy Atterberry’s son, Moses, having named a daughter Dicy Grissom.

The daughter of Moses Grissom and Mary Hestand being named Dicy is not that unusual or unexpected.  After all, Moses Grissom’s mother was named Dicy.  But how do we explain the daughter of Moses Atterberry, and the daughter of William Franklin Tinsley and Jane Mitchell?  Neither of these parties had any known recent kinship connection to David Davidson Mitchell, or did they?  The most extraordinary and aberrant occurrence seems to have been Dicy Atterberry, the daughter of Moses Atterberry.  We do know that these Mitchells and Atterberrys had a blood connection, but that connection traces back three generations to the intermarriage between William Arterberry (The Immigrant) and Sarah Mitchell around 1738.  Was that a sufficiently strong connection for Moses Atterberry to have named a daughter in honor of the wife of David Davidson Mitchell?  That hardly seems likely.

Let’s stop dancing around the issue, and get straight to the point.  It is the author’s opinion that the only logical explanation for the “Dicy” phenomenon in the case of the daughter of Moses Atterberry is that the wives of Moses Atterberry and David Davidson Mitchell were close kinspersons, probably sisters.  Absolutely nothing has been discovered by the author that would allow us to establish the ancestry of Dicy Mitchell.  As for the wife of Moses Atterberry, we have several researchers who claim her to have been Mary Alexander, daughter of James Alexander and Mary Lawson, both originally of Spartanburg SC.  There are a total of 172 public trees on Ancestry which show Moses’ wife to have been Mary Alexander, of which less than 15 purport her father and mother to have been James Alexander and/or Mary Lawson.  None of those trees offer one scintilla of proof regarding the name of Moses’ wife, or her parentage.  The author cannot confirm or dispute the accuracy of these claims, but will state that there is substantial circumstantial evidence which runs contrary to these “facts”.

The information regarding the name of Moses Atterberry’s wife probably originated from a book entitled The History of Monroe County, Kentucky, 1820-1988, compiled by Dayton Birdwell (copyright 1992, by William B. Harlan), Library of Tompkinsville, KY, published by Monroe County Press, Inc., Tompkinsville, KY (currently out of print).  Excerpts from this book regarding Moses Atterberry and his descendants were cited by Nova A. Lemons in a post on RootsWeb.[13]  Nova asserted that these biographies came from The History of Monroe County and appeared on pages 164-5 of that publication.  Nova further stated that she believed the source of that information to have been an article (or articles) submitted by Wanda W. Walters.  The relevant part of that citation is as follows:

“Moses Arterberry came to the McFarland Creek [actually Knob Creek] area of Ky by 1811, as listed in local census [tax records?]. He had sold land in Chester co S.C. which had been left to him by his father, Nathan. He moved after the 1800 census of that county. Moses, wife, Mary Alexander, assumed to have been born in S.C…”

It would appear to the author that this article from Wanda W. Walter, whoever she may have been, was the source for the repeated assertions for Moses Atterberry’s wife having been named Mary Alexander.  Not being able to access the original source (History of Monroe County), the author cannot further comment on the origins or the reliability of the information ostensibly submitted by Wanda W. Walter.  Given the paucity of records regarding the family of Moses Atterberry, it seems highly unlikely that Wanda Walter would have had access to any primary sources that might affirm the name of Moses’ wife.  It seems probable to the author that Wanda Walter, or her source(s) extrapolated the name of Moses’ wife from other given names appearing in this family in subsequent generations, in much the same manner that is currently being attempted by the author regarding Dicy Atterberry.  Certainly, no record has surfaced to-date which would allow us to even give a first name to Moses’ wife, let alone a maiden name.

What can be stated regarding Moses and his wife is that at least two of their children believed their mother to have been born in South Carolina.  Both James Atterberry and Wiley C. Atterberry (purported sons of Moses Atterberry) reported in the 1880 census that both their parents were born in South Carolina.  So, from these census records we would seemingly have established the birth place of Moses’ wife having been South Carolina.  We also have James Atterberry and his presumed brother, Thompson Atterberry’s assertion that they, too, were born in South Carolina.  In the 1880 census James reported himself born about 1802, whereas Thompson variously reported himself born about 1805-7.  This suggests that Moses’ wife probably was born about 1780-3, and that she and Moses married in South Carolina around 1800/1.  Such age would place Moses’ wife being born within a few years of Dicy Mitchell.

While exploring the family of Moses Atterberry the author encountered a very peculiar occurrence of the Mayfield name in several descendant generations.  George Washington Atterberry, the 3^rd born son of Moses Atterberry, appears to have named his eldest son Allen Mayfield Atterberry.  This Allen M. Atterberry died at the age of 23, and left no known children.  Truthfully, the author could not find a single document in which the middle name of this Allen M. Atterberry was recorded.  However, by tracing the descendants of George Washington Atterberry we find that his son, James Oliver Atterberry, also named a son Allen M. Atterberry.  This Allen M. Atterberry named a son John M. Atterberry.  This John M. Atterberry reported his full name on his WWI draft card as John Mayfield Atterberry.  Sherrie Atteberry, a descendant of John Mayfield Atterberry, posted the photograph on Ancestry.com as shown in Figure 13-7, and stated this to have been a photo of Allen Mayfield Atteberry, and his son, John “May” [Mayfield] Atteberry, taken around 1929 in Missouri.  Another family photo posted on Ancestry.com by Melaney Shaum and presented in Figure 13-8, purports to depict James Oliver Atteberry, Allen Mayfield Atteberry (son), etal.

There was no hint in the ancestry of any of the spouses of George Washington Atterberry, James Oliver Atterberry, his son Allen M. Atterberry, or John Mayfield Atterberry to suggest any connection to the Mayfield family.  Although the author has been unable to find any documentation to directly support the name of George Washington Atterberry’s first born son as anything other than Allen M. Atterberry, he is inclined to believe that Allen very likely was christened Allen Mayfield Atterberry.  Clearly, the name Allen Mayfield held a position of esteem within the descendant generations of George Washington Atterberry.  It seems probable to the author that the given name of Allen Mayfield could only have been introduced into this family from a maternal branch.  George Washington Atterberry is reported to have fathered thirteen children, all of whom are believed to have survived to adulthood, married, and have had children of their own, with the exception of the eldest son, Allen Mayfield Atterberry.  Although Allen M. Atterberry’s mortality record from Dallas County MO indicates that he was married, there is no record of his wife, or of any children having resulted from that union.  Allen M. Atterberry is reported to have been buried in the Atteberry-Shed Cemetery at Charity, Dallas County, the same cemetery in which his father is interred. 

Allen Mayfield Atterberry is reported to have had a twin sister named Nancy, reportedly born in Jackson County TN in 1827.  The next eldest child of George Washington Atterberry is reportedly William Kanada [aka Kennedy] Atterberry, born 15Jan1829 in Jackson County TN (according to William’s death record).  On William K. Atterberry’s death record he reported his parents as George W. Atterberry and Joanna Olive [Oliver?].  Several other younger children of George Washington Atterberry also reported their mother to have been Joanna Olive/Oliver.  It is the author’s belief that Allen Mayfield and Nancy Atterbery (twins) were born of an earlier wife of George Washington Atterberry, very likely a daughter of Allen Mayfield. 

At this juncture the reader may be saying to themselves, “even if this is true, why is it even relevant to this investigation”?  Well, it probably does not have any direct relevance to the Mitchell family, but does appear to have a connection to the Mayfield family, which we have already spent a considerable amount of time exploring in conjunction with the Chester County Mitchells.  So, if George Washington Atterberry was married to a Miss Mayfield before marrying Joanna Olive or Oliver, then who might she be?  From the Nauvoo proxy baptism records of Elizabeth Atterberry-Edwards, and from the estate settlement of Jonathan Mayfield, we can establish that Jonathan Mayfield had a son named Allen Mayfield.  Also, from the Nauvoo temple records we have Allen Mayfield’s wife as Fanny Mayfield.  From the Minute Book records of Chester County SC we have the following entries for Allen Mayfield:

1. 6Oct1789 – Fanney Mayfield, late widow of Isom [Isham?] Bond, deceased, setting forth the situation of some orphan children, ordered that the children be dealt with according to law, and so much of estate will, and as necessary to support the children, the infant orphans of the deceased.
2. 28Jan1791 – Allen Mayfield is allowed money (18?) for maintaining Moses Bond, Sugar Bond and Isom Bond, the orphans of Ison Bond, deceased, for two years past out of the estate of said decedent, which the said Mayfield is to call on the Executors.

From the foregoing court records we find evidence that Allen Mayfield had married Fanny Bond, the widow of Isom Bond sometime before Oct1789, and that in Jan1791 Allen Mayfield was allowed compensation by the court from the estate of Ison Bond for the maintenance for two years of the orphaned sons of Isom Bond.  Also, from the 1790 and 1810 census we have records of the households of Allen Mayfield in Chester County SC.  In the 1790 census it would appear that Allen’s stepsons: Moses Bond, Sugar Bond and Isom Bond were the only children in his home.  No census record could be located in 1800 for Allen Mayfield, but he did appear several times in the court records of Chester County between 1790 and 1805, including appointment as constable in 1797, witnessing the LWT of his brother-in-law, William Rodin in 1799, and charges of assault and battery in 1805.  So, presumably, the Allen Mayfield family continuously resided in Chester County until his death sometime between 1810 and 1820.

Allen Mayfield was deceased by Nov1824 when distributions were made from his father’s (Jonathan) Estate to the heirs of Allen Mayfield: Elisha, Ferdinand, Sarah, Priscilla, Elizabeth, Francis, Anne and Allen.  Very little appears to be known about the wife or children of Allen Mayfield.  Many Mayfield family researchers report Allen’s wife to have been a woman named Sarah Castles, however, a review of the records would clearly suggest that Sarah Castles was the wife of Allen Mayfield Jr., son of Allen and Fanny Mayfield.  Aside from Fanny’s [Frances] given name, and the fact that she was the widow of Isom Bond, virtually nothing further is known of her.  Given that they christened a son with the name of Ferdinand, it seems possible that she may have been a daughter or kinsperson of Ferdinand Hopkins.  As for a daughter of Allen and Fanny Mayfield having married George Washington Atterberry as his 1^st wife, the author believes that to be a probability.  Just which daughter would be very difficult to prove, but possibly either Sarah or Priscilla.

In fact, there is evidence of the existence of two Mayfield families in Jackson County in 1820: Luke Mayfield and Nelly Mayfield.  The index of each of these households is presented as follows:

Name:     Luke Mayfield

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): 

Jackson, Tennessee

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          1

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 15:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         2

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       4

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 15:      3

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

Name:     Nelly Mayfield

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): 

Jackson, Tennessee

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          3

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       1

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 15:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

Given the age ranges of the presumed heads of these households, it would appear that Luke Mayfield and Nelly Mayfield were peers.  They were each reportedly aged 26 thru 44, and they each had apparent children aged 10 thru 15.  It seems probable that Nelly Mayfield was the widowed spouse of an unknown Mr. Mayfield.  Perhaps Nelly was a sister-in-law of Luke Mayfield?

In the 1830 census there is only one Mayfield household recorded, indexed as follows:

Name:     Alexander Mayfield

Home in 1830 (City, County, State): 

Jackson, Tennessee

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

The age range of Alexander Mayfield, aged 20 thru 29, would comport with one of the presumed sons of Luke Mayfield, who may have married and decided to remain behind in Jackson County.  Luke Mayfield had relocated his family to Morgan County IL as abstracted in the following:

Name:     Luke Mayfield

[Luke Maxfield]

Home in 1830 (City, County, State):  Morgan, Illinois

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             3

Free White Persons – Males – 15 thru 19:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 50 thru 59:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 15 thru 19:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 50 thru 59:      1

And, in 1840 there was only one Mayfield household in Jackson County TN, indexed as follows:

Name:     Zadock Mayfield

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): 

District 6, Jackson, Tennessee

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            1

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             1

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         2

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

The identity of Zadock Mayfield is not certain, but may have been a son of William Mayfield, son of Abraham Mayfield, son of Robert Mayfield.  If these kinship connections are correct, then Zadock Mayfield would have been descended from the Chester County Mayfields.  Prior to this census record, Zadock’s family had been residing in Blount County AL.

So, from the 1820 census we have clear indication of the presence of the household of Luke Mayfield, and an apparent Mayfield widow named Nelly Mayfield.  It seems possible that Luke Mayfield and Nelly’s deceased husband may have been kinsmen, possibly brothers.  The next obvious question would be, who was Luke Mayfield, and might he have been related to the wives of David Davidson Mitchell and Moses Atterberry?  Before launching an investigation into the identity of Luke Mayfield, the reader might recall earlier land and tax records already presented heretofore for a Luke Mayfield, who appeared to have had interests in saltpeter mining on the waters of Roaring River.  Those records dated from 1814, so it would appear that Luke Mayfield had been in Jackson County from sometime before that year.  We also had the list of taxpayers in Jackson County from the year 1803 in which we had a listing for Luke Mayfield and a Steven Mayfield.  Given the unique character of the name of Luke Mayfield, it seems highly probable that the Luke Mayfield in the 1803 tax list, the 1814 patent records, and the 1820 census were all the same individual.  Ergo, we can conclude that Luke Mayfield had an established presence in Jackson County TN as early as 1803, and contemporaneous with a person named Stephen Mayfield.

Now to the question, who was Luke Mayfield?  An excerpt from a book entitled History of MacoupinCountyIllinois, Volume II might provide us with a clue:

Re. Alfred Smith Mayfield Biography:  “The father, Manning Mayfield, was reared in the south, where, after the completion of his education, he followed the vocation of teaching…  His demise [Manning’s] occurred in the vicinity of Carbondale, when he was out riding, having been killed, supposedly, for his money.  He was about 60 years old at the time of his death.  He was a son of Luke and a grandson of Stephen Mayfield.  The family was of English descent and its members have always been well educated…”[14]

Let it be said that biographies of this sort, published as part of a local history, are oftentimes compiled from “articles” submitted by either family members or close associates, and oftentimes are written many years after the fact.  They are almost never vetted for accuracy.  Given that this History of Macoupin County was published in 1911, it seems probable that the biographies contained therein were written by persons several generations removed from the principal parties.  That being said, we should take this biographical history of Alfred Smith Mayfield, son of Manning Mayfield, son of Luke Mayfield, son of Stephen Mayfield with a mild degree of skepticism.  Yet, there does appear to be a ring of authenticity too, when we consider the data we have already presented relative to Luke Mayfield of Jackson County TN.

Before digging any deeper into Luke Mayfield’s past we feel compelled to alert the reader that there has already been extensive research and data compiled for a person eerily similar to this Luke Mayfield.  Much of that information has been published on various sites on the Internet in connection with a person identified as “Stephen Mayfield, The Tory”.  The reader is welcome to explore those sites at their leisure and according to their visceral tolerance for genealogical fiction.  We will not pollute these pages with a detailed discussion of those ramblings, but will point out some of the important contradictions that occur to the author which might otherwise mislead the less assiduous investigator.  Anyone attempting to seek out the ancestry of Luke Mayfield among the roughly 743 Public Trees posted on Ancestry.com will soon discover that almost all of those trees identify Delilah Gore as his wife, and Stephen Mayfield [The Tory] as his father, and many identify Luke’s mother as Bridget Gilmore.  In the author’s opinion, there probably are only two potential facts included in these purported “genealogies” of Luke Mayfield: (1) he may well have been married to a woman named Delila Gore, and (2) his father probably was named Stephen Mayfield.  Beyond those basic points, nothing further in those genealogies should be trusted.

The central character in the saga of Stephen Mayfield, The Tory, is a person who owned land on Brown’s Creek, a western tributary of Broad River, abstracted as follows:

1. 17May1775 – Pursuant to a Precept from under the hand and seal of John Bremar, Esq., Deputy Surveyor General dated 18Oct1774, I have admeasured and laid out unto David George a tract of 2,200 acres on Brown’s Creek, joining eastwardly by Joseph Robinson, westwardly by Elias Palmer, William Williams and Thomas Jones, northwestwardly by Stephen Mayfield and Job Harmons, and southwardly by John Mayfield, and hath such shape…  This record contains the first recorded instance of this Stephen Mayfield.  From this record it can be deduced that Stephen Mayfield was in possession of a tract of land situated on Brown’s Creek sometime before Oct1774, and that that tract was in relatively close proximity to the land(s) of John Mayfield.  At this juncture the identity of this Stephen Mayfield is uncertain.  Given his contemporaneous and close proximity to John Mayfield, it would be reasonable to think that they were kinsmen.  If we were to accept the information provided by CK433, it might seem possible that this Stephen Mayfield was an elder son of John Mayfield, however, the date of birth for John’s alleged son, Stephen Andrew, of 1766 clearly would not comport with someone acquiring land as early as 1773.  So, the kinship between John Mayfield and this Stephen Mayfield of Brown’s Creek will remain uncertain. 
2. 25Jul1778 – Deed Book A, p. 19, Union County:  David George of Ninety-Six District, SC to William Williams of same for £75, SC money, 600 acres on waters of Browns Creek, adjacent Stephen Mayfield’s corner.  Signed David George.  Wit.: Jno Nuckols, James Hardwick, and William A. George.  Three years later, Stephen Mayfield’s tract is still referenced as abutting the David George patent on Brown’s Creek.

These were the only land records found by the author for this Stephen Mayfield of Brown’s Creek.  However, there are several documents of record from the archives of South Carolina and East Florida during and immediately following the Revolutionary War, which are believed to have pertained to the Stephen Mayfield of Brown’s Creek.  Those records clearly establish that that Stephen Mayfield was a member of the Royalist militia from the Saluda River region.  On one occasion he was captured by revolutionary forces, but then released.  He ultimately fled to Georgia where he enlisted in the South Carolina Royalist Regiment, then stationed at Savannah, Georgia.  After the close of the War, this Stephen Mayfield is believed to have taken refuge in East Florida, where he lived under Spanish rule for a few years.  He was recorded in East Florida, abstracted as follows:

1. 1784 Census of East Florida (See Table below).

In this census Stephen Mayfield was identified as a farmer, born in Virginia, and having a wife and one son.

2. 25Jan1785 the residents of the St. John’s Parish, East Florida petitioned Governor Zespedes as follows:

“We the Underwritten, Inhabitants of the River St John and Part adjacent, under the Protection of His Catholic Majesty, in His Province of East Florida Take this Earliest opportunity to Testify to Your Excellency our Most Sincere Thanks and Hearty Acknowledgements for your Excellency’s Providential Care of our Lives and Property, in Having Secured the Persons of Daniel McGirth, William Cunningham, Stephen Mayfield and Others. Who in Defiance of all Law have for these many years past, Disturbed this Province, Plundered many of its Inhabitants and Had our Lives and Property instantly at their mercy, which Rendered our Abode unsafe and Precarious. [Emphasis added]

By having arrested the Leaders of those Robbers and Murderers, we apprehend Ourselves at present perfectly secure under Your Excellency’s Government, and we make Bold to assure Your Excellency, that we will exert ourselves in Every Occasion to Procure the Peace and Tranquility to Remain Undisturbed amongst Us, in this Province Offering to Your Excellency all the assistance that may be required at any time to Pursue and Arrest any Person or

Persons that should dare to Act contrary to Your Excellency’s Orders and Proclamations—And we Promise to Behave in every Respect Becoming the Duty we owe to His Catholic Majesty for His Royal Protection, while He may be pleased to Permit us to Remain in His Dominions…”[15]

3. “… The story of the banditti is long and circumstantial. Enough of it has been recounted to serve as an illustration of the difficulties which Zéspedes confronted in his dealings with them and with the former governor as well. Neither his nor Tonyn’s plan was given a fair trial. United support for either might have resulted in the achievement of the desired end. That Zéspedes did not at once adopt Tonyn’s plan was due perhaps as much to his lack of a suitable force as to his desire to begin his administration with acts of clemency. Moreover, if he had made use of British arms in Spanish territory he might have subjected himself to the censure of his government. Tonyn, on the other hand, had the force, but doubtful authority to use it. That he acted in disregard of that limitation was probably due as much to his mounting exasperation against the banditti as to his genuine concern for the safety of British lives and property. Whatever the explanation, the chief troublemakers managed to prolong their stay in the province, though by the beginning of 1785 many had gone—some with passports to West Florida and Louisiana, others to British dominions, and still others to the United States, where some of them, declared Zespedes, had “already paid with their lives the just price of their crimes.  Convinced, early in 1785, that he could at last safely proceed to chastise the ringleaders, Zéspedes had Daniel McGirtt, William Cunningham, and Stephen Mayfield with three others arrested and thrown into the fort at St. Augustine….”[16]
4. 9Feb1785 – Governor Zespedes to Bernado de Galvez [the Viceroy of Mexico], viz: 

“The greatest number of rogues, including those openly and secretly such, who infested the outlying areas of this densely wooded and swampy country, particularly the banks of the St. Johns and Nassau rivers and as far as St. Mary’s River, when I took over this government caused me to decide that it would be best to temporize with them.  … If I had attempted to suppress and punish a few excesses with armed force greater harm and scandal would have resulted in this country which, as the result of the civil war between England and America, is overrun with desperate men capable of all kinds of wickedness.  Major General Patrick Tonyn said in one of his letters that this province contained sixteen thousand British subjects, but of this number at least twelve thousand were exiled Americans. …

… I judged that it was for the highest good of the royal service … to give this large number of desperate and abandoned people time to quit the country … by the beginning of this year some of the principal known and secret malefactors had left the province.  Some had gone with my passport to Pensacola and Louisiana, others to the British dominions, and still others to the United States, where some have already paid with their lives the just price of their crimes.  Consequently it seemed to me that the time had arrived when I could safely proceed to the chastisement of these rogues, and I had the following taken into custody on the 20th of last month:  Daniel McGirtt, one of the outlaws under the English government and the ostensible chief of the highwayman of this country; William Cunningham, a worse man than the preceding; and Stephen Mayfield — who always harbored in his inn every thief who presented himself there — with three of his accomplices. [Emphasis Added]  I shall institute proceedings against all of them as soon as I dispatch the ship now here to Havana.  When the trial is concluded I shall send the criminals and the papers to Your Excellency, so that being informed of the charges against them Your Excellency may pronounce the corresponding sentence.  I consider it to be my duty to say to Your Excellency that even if the evidence is not conclusive, it would be in the interest of the royal service and the public tranquility to banish forever from this province and those of Louisiana and Pensacola these incorrigibles who have several times previously been guilty of capital offenses, especially McGirtt and Cunningham.”[17]

5. “The prisoners were dispatched to Havana late in April, 1785. By that time Gálvez had departed for Mexico to assume his duties as viceroy. The papers—Tonyn’s recommendations and the petitions, together with the proceedings of the preliminary hearings in St. Augustine—followed him and his decision was promptly rendered. He approved the exile, but ordered that the prisoners be given their liberty with permission to emigrate to any part of America not Spanish and to remove their families and property from East Florida. A few weeks later these troublesome individuals left Havana with passports for Providence, where Mayfield arrived; but McGirtt and Cunningham contrived to change their course and land secretly on the coast of Florida. They were again appre­hended, and finally both were transported to Providence—Cunningham late in 1785, and McGirtt early in 1786.”[18]
6. “07 January 1786 – Letter from Governor Zespedes to Bernardo Troncoso:  In January 1786, Governor Zespedes wrote to Troncoso informing him that Stephen Mayfield had made his way to the island of Providence, in the Bahamas, without returning to Florida.  Cunningham and McGirtt did return to Florida but were captured.  As of the date of the letter (7 January 1786) Cunningham had been shipped off to Providence and McGirtt was about to be sent there also.”[19]

No further record has been found that can reliably be linked to Stephen Mayfield, The Tory.  It seems highly probable to the author that Stephen Mayfield, The Tory lived out his remaining days in the Bahama Islands, never to return to his native land.  However, many researchers are not content to allow the story of this Stephen Mayfield to end here.  They purport that he returned to American soil after a brief exile at Providence, took refuge among the Cherokee, took an Indian wife named Jack or Jock, sired several children by his Indian wife, then sometime around 1805 returned to his 1^st wife, Bridget Gilmore, and settled and died in Overton County Tennessee.  Intermixed with this saga is an occasional suggestion that Stephen Mayfield, The Tory, lived briefly in Chester County, or that his 1^st wife and children lived in Chester County.  Also, intermixed with this saga is a suggestion that Stephen, Mayfield, The Tory, even lived for a time with his Indian wife in the Pendleton County area of South Carolina.

It is the author’s belief that the creators of the Stephen Mayfield, Tory, saga have conflated three different individuals into one person.  Admittedly, there is record evidence of Stephen Mayfields in Union County, Chester County and Pendleton County between about 1775 and 1805.  It is the author’s opinion that these Stephen Mayfields were actually three separate individuals.  We have already presented almost all of the record evidence found by the author relative to the Stephen Mayfield of Union County.  It is the author’s opinion that that Stephen Mayfield was a member of the royalist forces in South Carolina during the War, and that he settled for a while in East Florida after the War, and ultimately was exiled by the Spanish government to the Bahama Islands where he very likely died. 

We will now focus our primary attention on the Stephen Mayfield of Chester County, as he very likely was the father of Luke Mayfield.  The earliest record we could find of the Stephen Mayfield of Chester County was in the 1790 census, abstracted as follows:

Name:     Stephen Mayfield

Home in 1790 (City, County, State): 

Chester, South Carolina

Free White Persons – Males – Under 16:          1 (possibly husband of Nelly)

Free White Persons – Males – 16 and over:      2 (prob. Stephen and Luke)

Free White Persons – Females:          2 [actually 3 in original record] (prob. 1^st wife, and possibly daughters who married David Davidson Mitchell and Moses Atterberry)

Stephen Mayfield’s household was listed in the 4^th column of Page 3 of 9, immediately abutting the household of Robert Mayfield, and in the near vicinity of Abraham Mayfield, Obediah Mayfield, Elisha Mayfield, Jonathan Mayfield, Allen Mayfield, and Edmund Mayfield.  Also listed on this same page and column were six of the Atterberry brothers, as well as William Rodin, husband of Mary Mayfield.  It is the author’s belief that this Stephen Mayfield very likely was a son of Robert Mayfield, and brother of Abraham Mayfield, Obediah Mayfield, Elisha Mayfield, Jonathan Mayfield and Edmund Mayfield.  Just when Stephen Mayfield may have arrived in Chester County is unknown, but a search of Bute County NC records may offer clues.  This was the only census record in South Carolina in which the author was able to locate this Stephen Mayfield with certainty.  Some researchers suggest that this Stephen Mayfield was the same person who was later recorded in Pendleton County.  We would merely point out that there was also a Stephen Mayfield recorded in Pendleton County in 1790.  By the 1800 census neither of those Stephen Mayfields was recorded in South Carolina.  It seems quite clear to the author that there were two additional Stephen Mayfields in South Carolina besides Stephen Mayfield, The Tory.  One of those Stephen Mayfields lived briefly in Chester County, and the other lived briefly in Pendleton County.

In addition to the census record, we also have land records for Stephen Mayfield abstracted as follows:

1. 12Nov1794 – Deed Book D, pp. 347-8, Chester County SC:  “This Indenture made this 12Nov1794 between William Tidwell of the County of Elbert, GA of the one part and Stephen Mayfield of the County of Chester SC of the other part, Witnesseth that the said William Tidwell for and in consideration of the sum of £100 sterling  to him in hand paid by the said Stephen Mayfield at and before the sealing of these presents , the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, I the said William Tidwell hath granted, bargained and sold and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, alien and confirm unto the said Stephen Mayfield his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, all that tract or parcel of land containing 100 acres, more or less, it being part of a tract of land originally granted to Michael Arterberry by patent bearing date of 1Aug1785 under the hand of his Excellency , William Moutre, then Governor and Commander in Chief in and over the State of South Carolina, and transferred by said Arterberry to William Tidwell, and the said land lying on the Brushy Fork, the waters of Sandy River… Witnessed: James McBee and Absalom Tidwell.”  This is believed to have been the same Stephen Mayfield, who was recorded in the 1790 census in Chester County.  The 100 acre tract purchased by Stephen Mayfield from William Tidwell was part of a larger tract containing 189 acres, patented by Michael Atterberry on 1Aug1785.  From this deed it would appear that Michael Atterberry had sold the entire tract to William Tidwell.  However, no record could be located for the transfer from Michael Atterberry to Tidwell, or for Tidwell’s disposal of the remainder of the tract (89 acres).  William Tidwell’s family was from Westmoreland County VA.  In the 1790 census the households of William Tidwell, Job Tidwell and John Tidwell were enumerated on Page 2, immediately abutting the households of John Cowsert and James Mitchell.  John Cowsert’s land abutted the lands of Michael Atterberry along the upper Brushy Fork Creek.  James Mitchell is believed to have been a 1^st cousin of Michael Atterberry.  So, Stephen Mayfield purchased a tract of land from Priscilla Mayfield’s father-in-law and would have resided within about one mile of the 75 acre tract that Priscilla Mayfield-Atterberry purchased from her brother-in-law, William Roden.
2. 4Feb1795 – Deed Book E, pp. 151-2, Chester County:  William Moore of Chester County to Jeremiah Roden of same, for £50 sterling, 100 acres, part of a tract granted to Thomas Moore, deceased, on 2May1785 on Starns Branch, waters of Brushy Fork… wit.: Major Edge, R. Nunn, and Stephen Mayfield.

A person named Jeremiah Rodin appeared on records in Jackson County TN in the early part of the 19^th Century along with a Stephen Mayfield and Luke Mayfield, etal.  It seems possible to the author that those Jackson County TN records were of the same persons named in this deed record.

3. 30Nov1797 – Deed Book H, p. 376:  Stephen Mayfield of Chester County to William Clark of same, for and in consideration of $500 sold a 100 acre tract situated on waters of Brushy Fork, it being part of a larger tract granted by patent to Michael Atterberry on 1Aug1785, and transferred to William Tidwell, thence from Tidwell to said Stephen Mayfield.  No wife to relinquish dower.  This was the disposal of the 100 acre tract purchased by Stephen Mayfield in Item No. 2, above.  It is important to note that Stephen appears to have been widowed, as no wife relinquished dower.  Also, note that this tract was originally patented to Michael Atterberry, the father-in-law of Priscilla Mayfield Atterberry.  Further, note that it was a William Clark, who sold the 300 acre tract to James Mitchell on Wilson’s Creek in 1789, and who witnessed the purchase of the 124.25 acre tract by David Mitchell, The Younger, from David Hopkins in 1796.

We have on more than one occasion suggested that Luke Mayfield was a son of the Stephen Mayfield, recorded in the 1790 census records residing in Chester County SC.  This connection has been made by the author, in spite of numerous other researchers who claim Luke Mayfield to have been a son of Stephen Mayfield and Bridget Gilmore of Overton County TN.  The author’s dissociation of Luke Mayfield from Stephen Mayfield and Bridget Gilmore was not without foundation.  A detailed analysis of Stephen Mayfield, husband of Bridget Gilmore, suggests that he migrated fairly directly to Jackson [later Overton] County TN around 1800 from Amherst County VA.  Nothing was found in the records associated with that Stephen Mayfield to suggest that he ever lived in Chester County SC.  He may have been the Stephen Mayfield of Pendleton County, but even that association is unproven.  Virtually all of the records associated with Stephen and Bridgett Mayfield in Tennessee are located in Overton County, along the eastern waters of Roaring River, near the present day town of Livingston.  None of those records even hint of any association with parties living in Jackson County.  Stephen Mayfield of Overton County TN wrote his LWT in 1834.  Although no record has been found of that Will in Tennessee, a copy of it has survived in the archives of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  There is no mention in Stephen Mayfield’s Will of a son named Luke.  In fact, the only children mentioned are a son named Stephen and a daughter named Maryann or Marian [see Appendix 13-D]

So, if Luke Mayfield was a son of the Stephen Mayfield, who briefly appeared in Chester County in the 1790’s, then what became of that Stephen Mayfield.  Phil Norfleet believes that he may have the answer:

“60.Stephen5 Mayfield (Robert4, Abraham3, Robert2, Robert1) was born Abt. 1758 in Mecklenberg County NC, and died 1846 in Bolinger County MO. He married (1) Name Unknown. She died Bef. 1797. He married (2) Margaret Koch 20 May 1797 in Mecklenberg County NC, daughter of George Koch and Anna Froschauer. She was born Abt. 1782 in North Carolina.

Notes for Stephen Mayfield:

The vital information for Stephen Mayfield is from an application submitted to the Sons of the American Revolution by his son, George Washington Mayfield (see the notes for his son George presented below).

This Stephen was probably married twice, his second wife being Margaret Koch. In the 1790 Census for Chester County SC, Stephen is shown as living in a household with one male child under the age of 16, one male child over the age of 16 and three females; presumably one of the females was Stephen’s first wife, name unknown. Stephen’s name appears directly adjacent to that of Robert Mayfield (d. 1816); this Robert was probably Stephen’s father.

The land records of Chester County SC indicate that Stephen Mayfield sold his land and left South Carolina in about 1794. He presumably went first to the Mecklenburg County NC area where he took a second wife, Margaret Koch in 1797. Several years later he and his family removed, first to Tennessee and later, in about 1814, they removed to the Cape Girardeau area of Missouri where Stephen lived until his death in about 1846.”[20]

The last record I can find re Mary Mayfield, widow of John the Tory, is when she participated in the 1807 Georgia land lottery. She drew a lot (202 & 1/2 acres) for land in Wilkinson County GA. Mary was then a resident of Jackson County GA. Interestingly, a certain Luke Mayfield, also of Jackson County GA, also drew a lot of land in that year. Luke (1777-1853) was probably a son of Stephen Mayfield (1758-1846) and a grandson of Robert Mayfield (d. 1816) of Chester County SC. Robert Mayfield was probably an uncle of John the Tory.

Phil Norfleet’s description of the Stephen Mayfield of Chester County SC seems to fit with the author’s hypothesis regarding a son named Luke Mayfield, a 2^nd unknown son, who married a woman named Nelly, and two daughters, who could have married David Davidson Mitchell and Moses Atterberry.  Per Mr. Norfleet’s account, this Stephen Mayfield reared a family of four children with a 1^st wife (identity unknown), the 1^st wife presumably died sometime between 1790 and May1797, when Stephen is believed to have married a 2^nd wife named Margaret Koch in Mecklenburg NC.  By the time Stephen took his 2^nd wife, his children by his 1^st wife probably were all grown and very likely married or soon to be married.  These children appeared in Stephen Mayfield’s household in 1790 in Chester County.  Stephen was last recorded in Chester County in 1797, when he sold his 100 acre tract on Brushy Fork to William Clark.  It seems very possible that Stephen Mayfield’s children by his 1^st wife had already left his household and probably married while the family lived in Chester County on Brushy Fork.  It seems probable that those marriages would have been with persons living in the immediate neighborhood of the Brushy Fork community. 

Norfleet’s statement that Stephen Mayfield migrated to Cape Girardeau Missouri via Tennessee cannot be corroborated by the author.  Appendix 13-D contains all of the land records located in Jackson/Overton County TN for Stephen Mayfield, and all of those records appear to have been for the husband of Bridgett Gilmore.  So, if Stephen Mayfield, the father of Luke Mayfield, ever resided in Tennessee, the author has not been able to locate any documentary proof of that residency.  No tax records or patents were located anywhere in Tennessee during this time period for anyone named Stephen Mayfield, other than those located in Jackson/Overton County.

However, there were several records in Jackson County involving Luke Mayfield and his close allies iterated as follows:

14. 21Oct1814:  Luke Mayfield by virtue of Entry No. 11458 dated 20Sep1813 founded on a Certificate Warrant No. 1591 issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 500 acres, I have surveyed for Luke Mayfield, assignee of Robert Searcy, two acres of land in Jackson County on Lick Creek of Roaring River, beginning at a Sugar Tree marked “LM”… including a saltpeter cave about ¼ mile above where Daniel Shipman formerly lived.  Sworn Chain Carriers: Thomas Goar [aka Gore], and Notly Warnall.  This filing by Luke Mayfield on Lick Creek a branch of the Roaring River was situated in Jackson County, not Overton County, which had been formed from the eastern part of Jackson County in Sep1806.  The boundary between Jackson and Overton Counties crosses Roaring River about four miles east of the mouth of Blackburn [aka Blackberry?] Fork.  So, this filing by Luke Mayfield on Lick Creek, tributary of Roaring River, was situated somewhere along the waters of Roaring River between its mouth near Gainesboro and the mouth of Blackburn Creek, a span of about six miles.  Search as he might, the author was unable to locate a branch on any recent maps known as Lick Creek, tributary of Roaring River in Jackson County.  Based on the location of patents listed below on Morrison’s Creek and Blackberry [aka Blackburn] Fork, it seems possible that this tract may have been along the south side of Roaring River in the near vicinity of Morrison’s Creek and Blackberry Fork.  Particular attention should be given to the chain carriers: Thomas Gore and Notley Wornall, as they are believed to have been kinsmen of Luke Mayfield through his marriage to Dalila Gore.  Luke Mayfield and Thomas Gore were both listed in the 1803 tax lists of Jackson County.  By virtue of Thomas Gore and Notley Wornall having acted as chain carriers for this patent survey, they probably would have been near neighbors of Luke Mayfield.
15. 23Mar1814:  Luke Mayfield and William Gray assignees originally of the heirs of William T. Lewis, by virtue of a Certificate Warrant No. 1728 issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 250 acres, enters two acres of land in Jackson County on a branch known by the name of The Crib Branch, waters of Roaring River, beginning on a Sugar Tree marked “LM”, running south then east for complement so as to include a saltpeter cave found by the said Mayfield, between the forks of said branch.  The author was unable to locate any tributary of Roaring River within Jackson County by the name of Crib Branch or near facsimile.  The fact that William Gray was joined with Luke Mayfield in the filing of this patent is of little significance.  William Gray appeared on numerous patent filings in Jackson County during this time period, oftentimes in partnership with various parties.  William Gray was also frequently recorded as a Deputy Surveyor.  This patent filing in combination with the preceding patent makes it quite clear that Luke Mayfield was actively engaged in the mining of salt peter along the drains of the lower Roaring River watershed.
16. 21Oct1814:  Jackson County TN:  By virtue of Entry No. 2481 dated 29Sep1808, founded on a Military Warrant No. 57, I have surveyed for James McKnight, assignee of William Stafford, assignee of Abner Henley, 10 acres of land in Jackson County on Leatons? Creek, beginning on a Beech marked “NL” running south 40 poles, E, N, and W, including the improvement formerly occupied by Thomas Edwards’ upper improvement.  Deputy Surveyor: John Murray.  Chain-carriers: Luke Mayfield and Notley Wornal.  This is a particularly noteworthy patent record, partly because of the association of Luke Mayfield and Notley Wornall as chain carriers, but also because to the referenced abutting tract formerly occupied by a Thomas Edwards.  While the author is unaware of the identity of this particular Thomas Edwards, it should be pointed out that Elizabeth Atterberry, daughter of Priscilla Mayfield-Atterberry, married a person named Thomas Striplin Edwards in Overton County about 1816-8.  Whether there was any connection between this referenced Thomas Edwards and the husband of Elizabeth Atterberry is uncertain, but possible.  No other land records were found for Thomas Edwards in Jackson or Overton Counties during this time period.  Thomas Edward’s household was recorded in the 1820 census in Overton County.
17. 26Sep1812: Thomas Gore, assignee of John C. McLemore and James Vaulx, by virtue of a warrant No. 1191 issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 800 acres, enters one acre of land in Jackson County on the forks between Blackberry Fork and Roaring River, beginning at a Poplar running E, then N, etc., including a saltpeter cave, lately worked at by said Gore and James [John?] McDaniel.  Thomas Gore: Locator.  It seems probable that this Thomas Gore was the same person, who appeared on the tax rolls of Jackson County in 1803.  It also seems probable that the reference to Blackberry Fork was the same stream appearing on present day maps under the name of Blackburn’s Fork, a southwesterly tributary of Roaring River.  The identity of this Thomas Gore is not known to the author with any certainty, but almost certainly was a kinsperson of Luke Mayfield’s wife, Dalila Gore.  In view of the several patent records found for a John McDaniels in the near vicinity of Roaring River during this time period, it seems probable that the referenced James McDaniels may have been a transcription error for John McDaniels.  Priscilla Mayfield-Atterberry had a sister named Elizabeth, who was married to a John McDaniels.  It seems possible to the author that this John McDaniels may have been a brother-in-law of Priscilla Mayfield-Atterberry.
18. 2Mar1814: Ezra Bushnell, John Murray, Notley Wornall, and John C. McLemore, assignees of John C. McLemore, by virtue of a certificate Warrant No. 1713 issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 500 acres, enters four acres of land in Jackson County on the Crib Hollow, waters of Roaring River, beginning and running agreeable to law so as to include the mouth of a saltpeter cave, lately found by said Wornall about a half mile nearly north from a cave worked by John Payton Sr. in the center of a square.  Ezra Bushnell, Locator.  Notley Wornall is believed by the author to have been a kinsman of Luke Mayfield by virtue of Luke’s marriage to Dalila Gore.  Dalila Gore is believed to have been a daughter of Eleazer Gore and Elizabeth Murray.  Dalila had a brother named Notley Gore, who also appears in patent records in Jackson County TN around this time period.  The only adult person named Notley Wornall known to the author during this time period was a son of Richard Wornall and Mary Jane Gore, born about 1786 in Chester County SC, and died after 1850, probably in Cass County TX.  That Notley (Gore) Wornall is reported to have married Margaret Dills on 29Sep1817 in Harrison County IN.  If that marriage was of the same person appearing in this patent record, then he did not stay in Tennessee for very long.

It is not the objective of this current research to track down and resolve the genealogical connections of every allied party encountered by this investigation, so we will leave the unraveling of the identity of this Notley Wornall, Notley Gore and Thomas Gore to others.  We simply introduce them for their obvious close association with Luke Mayfeild, and suggest that they probably were kinsmen of Luke Mayfield through marriage.  Also, that they would appear to have originated from Chester County SC.  Through the identity of Luke Mayfield’s wife, and these near associates, Notley Wornall, Notley Gore and Thomas Gore having originated from Chester County SC, it seems highly probable that Luke and Delila met and married while Luke was in residence in Chester County.  These connections to Chester County provide strong evidence that Luke Mayfeild very likely was a son of the Stephen Mayfield, who briefly appeared in Chester County between 1790 and 1800.

Also:

19. 16Apr1808: John McDaniel, assignee of Isaac Taylor Jr., originally to James Taylor, by virtue of a military Warrant No. 3230 for 640 acres, enters two acres of land in Jackson County, on Blackberry Fork of Roaring River, beginning on the west side of said Fork at a Beech, running W, thence N, etc., for the complement, to include the improvements whereon William Rutledge lives.  Deputy Surveyor: William Gray.
20. 10Dec1808: John McDaniel, assignee of Isaac Taylor Jr., originally of James Taylor, by virtue of a military Warrant No. 3230 for 640 acres, enters 30 acre of land lying in Jackson County on waters of Roaring River, beginning 5 poles south of Jacob Miller’s Spring, running N, thence E, etc., for complement, to include improvements of Jacob Miller and Notley Gore.  D.S.: William Gray.  The identity of this John McDaniel is uncertain, but he too may have been a kinsman of Luke Mayfield.  From the Nauvoo Temple records of proxy baptisms performed by Elizabeth Atterberry-Hudspeth-Edwards, daughter of Priscilla Mayfield-Atterberry, and from the LWT of Jonathan Mayfield we have evidence that Priscilla Mayfield had a sister named Elizabeth, who was married to a John McDaniel.  There were two different John McDaniels/McDonalds living in Chester County around 1790-1800, who could have been the spouse of Elizabeth Mayfield.  These two John McDaniels were kinsmen, one having been a son of John McDaniel who was killed by Indians in Craven County in 1761, the other having been a nephew of the first, grandson of Hugh McDaniel, brother of the John McDaniel killed by Indians.  In the 1790 census the former John McDaniel is believed to have been recorded living in Fairfield County, listed on the same page with Samuel Mayfield, brother of Jonathan Mayfield.  This John McDaniel does not appear in either Fairfield or Chester County in 1800 or beyond.  It seems possible that he may have been the husband of Elizabeth Mayfield, and may have migrated to the Roaring River area of Jackson County TN where he was recorded on the tax lists in 1803.

The Notley Gore, whose improvements were included in the patent filing by John McDaniel may have been the brother-in-law of Luke Mayfield.  The author is unable to verify the identity of this John McDaniel or of this Notley Gore, but due to fact that all of these parties were recorded in the 1803 tax lists of Jackson County, it seems possible that the suggested connections of kinship could have existed, and that all of these parties, i.e., Notley Wornal, Notley Gore, Thomas Gore, Luke Mayfield and John McDaniel could have originated from Chester County SC.

There are other factors which also would tend to connect Luke Mayfield to Chester County SC.  From a biography of Alfred Smith Mayfield (purported grandson of Luke Mayfield) taken from History of Macoupin County Illinois we have an assertion that his father was named Manning Mayfield, his grandfather was named Luke Mayfield, and his great grandfather was named Stephen Mayfield.  This biographical information may or may not be correct, but if true, would establish Luke’s father as Stephen Mayfield.  Now, as for Luke Mayfield’s purported connection to Chester County SC, we need look no further than his wife, Dalilah.  Dalilah was reputedly born a Gore, daughter of Eleazer Gore of Chester County SC.  Proof of the identity of Dalilah as a daughter of Eleazer Gore may be somewhat lacking.  Her given name of Dalilah [aka Delila, etc] is taken from her grave marker, which is pictured in Figure 13-9.  This grave marker, which was photographed at Franklin City Cemetery, Franklin, Morgan County IL, indicates that Delila was the wife of Luke Mayfield, died 18Feb1835, aged 57/8.  Such age would suggest a birth year of about 1777/8.  This age would comport with the age [50 thru 59] of the presumed wife of Luke Mayfield, taken from the 1830 census record of Luke Mayfield’s household in Morgan County IL. 

There are at least two anecdotal “facts” offered in support of Dalilah having been born a Gore: (1) a son named Manning Mayfield, and (2) a son named Stephen Gore Mayfield.  The given name of Manning or Mannin had an established history within the Gore family of Chester County SC.  In fact, Eleazar Gore is believed to have had a brother named Manning Gore, who was recorded in the 1790 census living in Chester County.  Also, Eleazar’s father and brother were reputedly named James Manning Gore.  So, we have strong family tradition of the given name of Manning within the Chester County Gore family.  Then there is the middle name of Stephen “Gore” given to the 2^nd eldest son of Luke and Delilah.  It is the author’s opinion that these anecdotal “facts” offer strong support for Delilah, wife of Luke Mayfield, having been born of the Chester County SC Gore family.  Whether Delilah was a daughter of Eleazar, or of one of his brothers is irrelevant to this investigation.  The principal point is that Delilah Gore, wife of Luke Mayfield, almost certainly originated from Chester County SC.

The Gore family almost without exception lived on the south side of the Sandy River, near its branch called Little Sandy River.  This would have placed Eleazer Gore and his brothers in the near vicinity of Nathan Atterberry and Charles Atterberry, who lived on the drains of Welches Fork.  In the 1790 census James Gore [probable brother of Eleazer] was recorded immediately abutting Nathan Atterberry, and three households removed from Charles Atterberry.  The Mayfields lived on the north side of the Sandy River on the drains of Brushy Fork.  Stephen Mayfield purchased a 100 acre tract from William Tidwell, land which he had acquired from Michael Atterberry.  So, even though separated by almost 13 miles, the Mayfields and the Gores had close geographic associations with various members of the Atterberry family.  It seems possible that the family of Stephen Mayfield and Eleazar Gore may have attended the Sandy River Baptist Church, which association could have easily led to an attachment between Luke Mayfield and Delilah Gore.

So, after a rather long and circuitous path down the Mayfield-Gore rabbit hole, we have been presented with substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that Luke Mayfield was a son of the Stephen Mayfield, who appeared briefly in Chester County during the 1790’s, before moving westward, ultimately settling in Bollinger County MO.  Having fairly reliably established that connection of Luke Mayfield and Stephen Mayfield with the Robert Mayfield family of Chester County, we have indirectly linked Luke Mayfield and his associates to other allies of the Mayfield family, who also migrated from Chester County to Jackson County TN around the start of the 19^th Century.  While totally lacking any direct evidence, but loaded with substantial circumstantial evidence, the author has hypothesized that two of Luke Mayfield’s sisters may have intermarried with Moses Atterberry and David Davidson Mitchell.  Unfortunately, this is where pursuit of Mitchell’s migrating out of Chester County must end, with the exception of Isaiah Mitchell, who married Permelia Atterberry.  We do have a bit more to offer regarding that Isaiah Mitchell.

As regards the identity of the Isaiah Mitchell recorded in Jackson County TN in 1820, we respectfully suggest that he may have been descended from the Chester County Mitchell family, which is the subject of this current study.  Most genealogical researchers have identified this Isaiah Mitchell as a son of Robert Linn Mitchell of North Carolina, but a review of the complete record associated with this Isaiah Mitchell suggests otherwise.  For example, Isaiah and Permelia’s presumed daughter, Jane Mitchell-Tinsley, reported her parents’ place of birth in the 1880 census as having been South Carolina.  Isaiah appears from the census record to have been over 26 years old in 1820 with four young daughters under 10 years of age.  This suggests that this Isaiah Mitchell was aged about 26 to 30 years old in 1820.  This approximate age is further supported by other census records for an Isaiah Mitchell in Jackson County TN in 1830 and 1840, summarized as follows:

Name:     Ezra Mitchel

[Isaiah Mitchel]

Home in 1830 (City, County, State): 

Jackson, Tennessee

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         2

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 15 thru 19:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1

Name:     Isaiah Mitchel

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): 

District 6, Jackson, Tennessee

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             1

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 14:         2

Free White Persons – Males – 15 thru 19:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 40 thru 49:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 15 thru 19:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

To better facilitate evaluation of these households headed by Isaiah Mitchell, the author has compiled a link diagram illustrating these households through all three census cycles as shown in Figure 13-10.  Also appended to this diagram are the names of Isaiah’s presumed wives, and the daughters of his 1^st wife, Permelia Atterberry.  To better enable the reader’s study of this link diagram, a larger image has been appended hereto in Appendix 13-2.  From this link diagram, it would appear that one of the daughters was absent from Isaiah’s household in 1830.  It is the author’s belief that that missing daughter was named Permelia, and that she was the eldest daughter of Permelia and Isaiah.  No record could be located for this Permelia Mitchell, daughter of Permelia Atterberry and Isaiah Mitchell, and her existence is pure speculation.  Regardless, it would appear that one of Isaiah and Permelia’s daughters was absent from his household in 1830, possibly having died sometime between 1820 and 1830.  There is fairly strong evidence to support the existence of the other three daughters, who are all believed to have married and to have had children. 

After Permelia Atterberry-Mitchell’s death around 1823, Isaiah is believed to have married Martha [Ann] Williamson.  Isaiah and Martha are believed to have had at least seven children, as listed in the 1850 census of the Martha Mitchell household in 1850 in Jackson County TN.  Many of the children lived to adulthood, married and had children of their own.  One in particular, John Baldrich Mitchell, died at Nashville on 25Sep1925, and on his death record his parents were identified as Isaiah Mitchell and Martha Williamson.  John Baldrich Mitchell had several sons, who lived to adulthood, and who probably sired sons of their own, so there is a very good chance of finding living descendants of this Isaiah Mitchell line for y-DNA testing.

So, who might Isaiah Mitchell have been?  Given his birth at around 1793-5 in South Carolina, and his living in Jackson County TN contemporaneously with Dicey Mitchell, it seems entirely possible that he may have been a son of David Davidson Mitchell.  In 1837 Isaiah Mitchell was granted a patent for 10 acres situated on the south side of the Cumberland River on the drains of Mill Creek.  This patent abutted land already in possession of Isaiah Mitchell.  The mouth of Mill Creek is located about one mile downstream from Bennett’s Ferry, and directly across the Cumberland River from the lands of Moses Atterberry and David Davidson Mitchell on Knob Creek.  This close geographic and contemporaneous living proximity between Isaiah Mitchell and Moses Atterberry and, presumably, Dicey Mitchell, lends strong credence to the possibility of Isaiah Mitchell having been a son of David Davidson Mitchell.

Whether Dicey Mitchell may have been the mother of Isaiah Mitchell is less certain.  From the 24Jul1798 court record of the assault and battery case against David Mitchell in Chester County, we found that David’s wife was named Ann.  Yet, from a deed record made in Chester County SC on 12Jul1800 we have David Davidson Mitchell selling 100 acres on Brushy Fork to Abraham Myers, but no record of a wife relinquishing her dower.  Yet, from the deed record dated 19Oct1803 from Chester County, wherein David Davidson Mitchell sold 125 acres on Brushy Fork to his brother, Isaiah Mitchell, we have David Davidson Mitchell’s wife named Dicey.  And, finally, we have the death record for David D. Mitchell [Jr.?] in Trigg County KY on 4Jul1853, wherein his parents were identified as David D. Mitchell and Anna.  If these records were all for one person named David Davidson Mitchell, how are we to reconcile the apparent discrepancies for his wife’s name?  Let us analyze these four, seemingly incongruous records. 

1. David Mitchell Conviction for Assault and Battery – Since the person convicted of assaulting his wife was only recorded as David Mitchell, we cannot be absolutely certain that this person was David Davidson Mitchell, or whether he may have been David Mitchell, The Younger.  We do know from later records that David Davidson Mitchell had a wife named Dicey, and that David Mitchell, The Younger, had a wife named Sally.  There seem to be two possible interpretations for the identification of this David Mitchell, he could have been either David Davidson Mitchell, or he could have been David Mitchell, The Younger, in which cases either man would have been married to a woman named Ann in 1798.  We can also assume that both men were married by 1798.  David Davidson Mitchell [Jr.] was reported in the 1790 census as head of household with an apparent wife, but no children, suggesting that he may only recently have been married.  David Mitchell, The Younger, was reported in the 1800 census as head of household with an apparent wife and four apparent children.  The author cannot state with certainty which of the two David Mitchell’s may have beaten his wife, but almost certainly one or the other.
2. David Davidson Mitchell sold land to Abraham Myres – There seems no doubt about the identity of this David Davidson Mitchell.  The significant fact about this record is that no spouse was recorded relinquishing her dower right.  This is a very strong inference that David Davidson Mitchell was very likely widowed between 1790 and 1800, and that he had not yet remarried.  Unfortunately, no record could be found for David Davidson Mitchell in the 1800 census, so it is not possible to verify whether he was married, or whether he had any children.  Initially, the author thought it possible that David Davidson Mitchell’s family may have been combined into the household of his brother, Isaiah, in 1800.  However, upon closer inspection that possibility just does not fit with the listed occupants of Isaiah’s household.  There does appear to have been older adults in Isaiah’s household, but they do not fit with the expected age ranges for David Davidson or his presumed wife, Dicey.  Refer to the link diagram contained in Figure 13-11 for this comparison.  If Isaiah Mitchell was a son of David Davidson Mitchell, and if the David D. MMitchell recorded in Hopkinsville KY in 1810, then the whereabouts of Isaiah Mitchell in 1810 must be pondered.  Having been born around 1795, we would expect to find him in David D. Mitchell’s household in 1810.  No one fitting Isaiah’s demographics appears in that 1810 household.  So, are we mistaken about Isaiah Mitchell having been a son of David Davidson Mitchell and Dicey, or might we be wrong about the identity of the David D. Mitchell in Trigg County?
3. David Davidson Mitchell sold land to Isaiah Mitchell – Again, there seems to be no doubt about the identity of the David Davidson Mitchell, who sold 125 acres to his brother, Isaiah Mitchell, on 19Oct1803.  Notably, David Davidson Mitchell’s wife, Dicey, relinquished her dower right in that land.  Had David Davidson Mitchell and Dicey been married in Jul1800 when he sold the 100 acre tract, Dicey would have been required by law to relinquish her dower interest.  She did not.  That being the case, then it is reasonable to conclude that David Davidson Mitchell and Dicey must have married sometime between Jul1800 and Oct1803. 
4. David D. Mitchell’s parents: David D. and Anna – Given that we have found record evidence of a woman named Dicey Mitchell living in Jackson County TN in 1820 and 1840, and that David D. Mitchell reported in the 1850 census of Trigg County having been born in Tennessee in about 1807, it seems possible that Dicey Mitchell may have been the mother of the David D. Mitchell, who lived and died in Trigg County in the 1840’s and 50’s.  This possibility is made even stronger when we consider the discovery of the tract of land in possession of a David D. Mitchell in Jackson County on Knob Creek.  So, if Dicey Mitchell was the mother of David D. Mitchell of Trigg County, then how do we reconcile the difference in his mother’s name of Anna, as reported in his death record?  It seems probable to the author that David Davidson Mitchell’s wife may have been christened Dicey Anna.  But we would be remiss if we neglected to disclose that others have identified the wife of the David D. Mitchell of Hopkinsville KY circa 1810, to have been a woman named Rosannah Patter, Potter or Porter.  This connection appears to have been based on a marriage record from Bourbon County KY on 2Apr1795 of a David Mitchell and Rosanna Patter.  Presumably, these researchers have taken the name of Anna, reported as the mother of David D. Mitchell on his death record in 1853 in Trigg County, and somehow extrapolated that into the Rosanna Patter, who married a David Mitchell in Bourbon County in 1795.

This seems a bit of a reach too far to the author.  First, we need to reconcile the distance between Bourbon County KY and Chester County SC.  If we accept that the marriage of the David Mitchell in Bourbon County was of the same person identified as David D. Mitchell in Trigg County in 1810, then he almost certainly could not have been David Davidson Mitchell of Chester County SC.  Then we have the timing difference.  The David Davidson Mitchell household in Trigg County in 1810 appears to contain four children: two boys and two girls, all under the age of 10, i.e., born after 1800.  Is it reasonable to believe that a young couple married in 1795 would not have had children born before 1800?  Not likely!  Then we have David Davidson Mitchell [Jr.] reportedly born in Tennessee about 1807.  Bourbon County to Tennessee, and back to Christian County??  Possible, but not likely.  All things considered, the author is inclined to believe that the David Mitchell, who married Rosanna Patter was not the same person as David D. Mitchell of Hopkinsville circa 1810.  Moreover, the author is inclined to believe that David D. Mitchell of Hopkinsville circa 1810 was the same person as David Davidson Mitchell of Chester County, and that his wife was named Dicey Anna.

There is one other discovery requiring our attention.  In the 1810 census of the David D. Mitchell household, and the 1820 census of the Dicey Mitchell household there appear to have been two sons in each household.  In the 1820 census those sons were aged 10 thru 15, and 16 thru 25.  The author has assumed that David D. Mitchell [Jr.] of Trigg County KY was one of those sons.  It might be helpful to our analysis, if we were able to identify the other son.  As it so happens, there appears to be one very likely candidate for this missing son living in Trigg County.  In the 1850 census we find a record for a person named Elias Mitchell, summarized as follows:

Name:     Elias Mitchell

Gender:  Male

Age:       41

Birth Year:             abt 1809

Birthplace:             Tennessee

Home in 1850:       District 2, Trigg, Kentucky, USA

Occupation:          Farmer

Industry:                Agriculture

Household Members           Age

Elias Mitchell                        41

Sention Mitchell                   42

Andrew J Mitchell               19

Cornelius Mitchell               17

Nancy Mitchell     15

Jane Mitchell                        13

Ann Mitchell                        12

Malinda Mitchell  7

George E [Ennis] Mitchell   5

Elizabeth Mitchell                4

Joseph Mitchell    1

There are several facts about this family which would tend to connect Elias Mitchell as the missing son of David Davidson Mitchell and Dicey [Mayfield? Or Gore?].  First, there is his given name, Elias.  Thus far, we have hypothesized that David Davidson Mitchell may have had three sons:  Isaiah, David Davidson, and now Elias.  These are all given names that would have been very well known and have held special family meaning to David Davidson Mitchell.  His eldest son, Isaiah, would appear to have been named in honor of David Davidson’s revered brother, Isaiah, with whom he shared their father’s 150 acre patent on Brushy Fork.  Next, we have the 2^nd born son named David D. [Davidson], obviously named in honor of himself, and also possibly in honor of his own father.  And, lastly, we have the 3^rd born son, probably named in honor of David Davidson Mitchell’s uncle, the Reverend Elias Mitchell.

The next vital fact is Elias’ date and place of birth, about 1809 in Tennessee.  If Elias Mitchell was a son of David Davidson Mitchell and Dicey, then it would appear from this birth data that the family may still have been residing in Jackson County TN as late as sometime in 1808/9, but were recorded living in Hopkinsville in 1810.

And, lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we have the son named George Ennis Mitchell.  This given name is particularly revealing.  First, it should be recognized that the given name of Ennis was even rarer than Dicey.  Searching the U.S. census records from 1790 thru 1840, the occurrences of the name Ennis steadily increases from two in 1800 to about 47 in 1840.  In the 1850 census, when all members of households were reported for the first time, there were approximately 180 instances of the given name of Ennis, about .00175% of the total male population of America.  So, clearly, the occurrence of the given name of Ennis within any family would have been extremely rare during this time period.  Yet, in addition to Elias and Ascension having named one of their sons George Ennis Mitchell, we also have the instance of Luke Mayfield and Dalila Gore having named their 1^st born son Ennis Mayfield.  What are the chances of two branches of unrelated families having chosen the name of Ennis to confer upon one of their male offspring during this time period?  The odds for such random occurrence would be almost impossible.  It is the author’s belief that the occurrence of the given name of Ennis within essentially the same generation of these two families was not random, but indicative of a familial kinship connection.  If this conclusion is correct, then we would seemingly have incontrovertible evidence of a kinship between the families of Luke Mayfield and Elias Mitchell.  The author has already hypothesized that Luke Mayfield and the wives of Moses Atterberry and David Davidson Mitchell may have been kinspersons, perhaps siblings.  Now we have very strong circumstantial evidence to support that hypothesis, beyond that which has already been offered.

If there were such a kinship connection, what might that connection have been?  When we search family histories of the Gore and Mayfield families, we find that the given name of Ennis occurs with some frequency from about 1800 and beyond in both the Gores and Mayfields, but the Gore family records about double the number of instances compared to the Mayfield family.  Just where and when the name of Ennis may have found its way into these two families is difficult to discern from a simple comparison of the respective family histories in America.  All trails appear to lead back to Chester County SC around 1780.  The author is not prepared to invest the time and energy into resolving the mysterious origins of the given name of Ennis within the Gores and Mayfields, and is content to accept that it likely originated from one or the other of these families in and around Chester County during the latter part of the 18^th Century.  For all of the reasons already presented, the author is also inclined to accept that Dicey Anna probably was a sister of the wife of Moses Atterberry, and possibly a close kinsperson of Dalila Gore-Mayfield, either sister or 1^st cousin.

Then we have the curious marriage of Elizabeth Mitchell and Michael Gore in Trigg County on 8Aug1824.  Some researchers claim that this Elizabeth Mitchell was a daughter of David Davidson Mitchell and that the father of Michael Gore was Eleazer Gore.  Aside from the marriage record, the author has found that a purported daughter of Michael Gore and Elizabeth Mitchell, named Elizabeth Gore, born about 1820-2 in Kentucky, reported in the 1880 census that her mother was born in Tennessee, summarized as follows:

Name: Elizabeth Russell

Age: 64

Birth Date: Abt 1816

Birthplace: Kentucky

Home in 1880: Precinct 1, Lamar, Texas, USA

Relation to Head of House: Wife

Marital Status: Married

Spouse’s Name: Wm. Russell

Father’s Birthplace: Virginia

Mother’s Birthplace: Tennessee

Occupation: Keeping House

Name

Wm. Russell: Age                69

Elizabeth Russell; Age        64

Following is a summary of their marriage record:

Name:     William Russell

Gender:  Male

Marriage Date:      5 Mar 1835

Marriage Place:     Greene County, Illinois, USA

Spouse: 

Elizabeth Gore

Film Number:         001310037

Heretofore, we have been hypothesizing about the possibility of intermarriages of Moses Atterberry and David Davidson Mitchell with sisters from either the Gore or Mayfield family.  Now, we have ostensibly discovered that a daughter of David Davidson Mitchell may have intermarried with a younger son of Eleazer Gore.  If that marriage did occur, it would seemingly suggest that Dalila Gore, who married Luke Mayfield, had a brother, Michael Gore, married to a daughter of David Davidson Mitchell.  As a word of caution, the author would point out that the profile of Elizabeth Gore-Russell on Find-A-Grave shows her father having been Isaac Gore, not Michael Gore.  However, virtually all of the Public Trees on Ancestry for Isaac Gore do not claim a daughter named Elizabeth, whereas, virtually all of the Public Trees claim that the father of Elizabeth Mitchell, who married Michael Gore, was David Davidson Mitchell.  While the author typically does not accept information posted on either Find-A-Grave or on Ancestry Public Trees without extensive vetting, we are inclined to believe that Elizabeth Gore-Russell was a daughter of Michael Gore and Elizabeth Mitchell, and that Elizabeth Mitchell as a daughter of David Davidson Mitchell.

We did not arrive at these conclusions without first having made an attempt to vet these findings.  First, we should remember that in the David D. Mitchell household in Hopkinsville in 1810 there were reported two apparent daughters under 10 years of age.  One of those daughters could have been Elizabeth Mitchell, who is recorded marrying Michael Gore in Christian County in 1819 summarized as follows:

Name:     Betsy Mitchell

Gender:  Female

Marriage Date:      24 Feb 1819

Marriage Place:     Christian, Kentucky, USA

Spouse: 

Maurice Michael Gore

Film Number:         001942963

Curiously, we also have the following marriage record summary:

Name:     Elizabeth Mitchell

Marriage Date:      8 Apr 1824

Marriage Place:     Trigg, Kentucky, USA

Spouse:  Michael Gore

On the surface these marriages would appear to have been for the same couple.  Trigg County was formed in 1820 from portions of Christian County and Caldwell County.  In 1810 there were a total of nine Gore households recorded in the census of Christian County.  By 1820 there were no Gore households listed in Christian County, and only five Gore households in the newly formed Trigg County.  Included in the 1820 census of Trigg County there are households headed by Eleazer Gore and Michael Gore, summarized as follows:

Name:     Eleazar Gore

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): 

Trigg, Trigg, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 45 and over:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 45 and over:  1

Name:     Michael Gore

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): 

Trigg, Trigg, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       1

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      1

The Eleazer Gore household is headed by Dalila and Michael Gore’s father, who had migrated from Chester County to Trigg County sometime between 1810 and 1820.  The Michael Gore in this household in Trigg County in 1820 is believed to have been the younger son of Eleazer Gore, and the same person identified in the foregoing marriage record from Christian County as Maurice Michael Gore.  This connection is made in part by the fact that the composition of this household appears to have been of a young couple with only one child, a daughter under age 10, almost certainly Zerelda Gore.  Such marriage in Feb1819 would fit with a young couple with only one child in 1820.  If the Michael Gore recorded in Trigg County in 1820 was the same person as Maurice Michael Gore, then who was the Michael Gore, who married in Apr1824 in Trigg County?  The author believes that these marriage records were for the same couple.

If these marriage records were for the same couple, then why would they have had their marriage recorded on two separate occasions, almost five years apart?  The author has a theory that might explain this mystery.  It seems probable that Elizabeth’s father was deceased when she married Michael (Maurice) Gore in Feb1819.  Also, it seems probable that Elizabeth had not yet reached the age of consent (over age 18), and may not have had a parent available to give consent for a legal marriage.  The couple may have lied about Elizabeth’s age at the time of their marriage in Feb1819, and may have discovered years later that they needed to solemnize the marriage a 2^nd time.  If this hypothesis is correct, it would seem to imply that David Davidson Mitchell had died sometime before Feb1819, and that Dicy Mitchell probably had already relocated back to Jackson County TN with her two sons.  There were no daughters reported in Dicy Mitchell’s household in 1820 in Jackson County TN, which would comport with the earlier marriage of at least one of her presumed daughters.

The icing on the cake would appear to be Elizabeth Gore-Russell’s report of her mother having been born in Tennessee.  If this information is correct, then that would fit with a daughter of David Davidson Mitchell, as two of his sons (David Davidson Jr. and Elias) were also reportedly born in Tennessee.  It should be pointed out that two of Elizabeth Gore’s younger brothers: David Gore and Michael Gore Jr. reported in later census records that their parents had been born in Kentucky.  This clearly conflicts with Elizabeth Gore-Russell’s assertion of her mother born in Tennessee, but David and Michael were only in their early teens when their father married Rosannah Crowell-Davis, so their memory of there biological mother may not have been as reliable as that of their older sister, Elizabeth.  Since they, themselves, had been born in Kentucky, they may have assumed that their parents were also born in Kentucky.

In the interest of full disclosure, we will introduce one final piece of information regarding the probable parents of Elizabeth Gore-Russell.  In a legal notice published in Alton, Madison County IL on 13Apr1844, we offer the following transcript:

“Macoupin Circuit Court – May Term, 1844:  To David Gore, Michael Gore Jr., Parthena Gore, Sarilda [Zerelda] Clanton, Kesy [Kessiah] Jane Gore, children and heirs of Michael Gore, deceased, and to others interested.

You will take notice…”

In this legal notice regarding the estate of Michael Gore, deceased, are named only five children, none of whom are Elizabeth Gore-Russell.  This could be taken as evidence that Elizabeth Gore-Russell was not a child of Michael Gore.  However, it should be recognized that the five children named in this legal notice were all still resident in Macoupin County at the time of that notice, whereas Elizabeth Gore-Russell had been living out of state in Lamar County Texas since before 1842.  It seems probable that Elizabeth Gore-Russell would not have been included in the legal notice because the Executors would have been aware that she lived out of state.

When we study the household composition for Elizabeth and Michael Gore in 1830, there may be evidence to support the existence of a daughter named Elizabeth:

Name:     Michael Gore

Home in 1830 (City, County, State): 

Madison, Illinois

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1  (prob. Michael Gore)

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Name:     Elizabeth Gore

Home in 1830 (City, County, State): 

Trigg, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         2

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          2

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

As suggested by the Macoupin County History of the Michael Gore family, it would appear that Michael and Elizabeth were living apart in 1830.  The history states as follows:

From “Biographical sketches of leading citizens of Macoupin County, Illinois” Published 1904 – Forrest D. Gore – grandson of Michael

“Michael Gore was born in South Carolina, but early in life moved to Kentucky. He was a farmer, race horse breeder and cattle dealer. He removed to Madison County, Illinois, in 1830, and entered land which he improved and farmed until his death in 1843. He married Elizabeth Mitchell, a native of Kentucky, and five children were born to bless their union, namely: Zerilla ; Eliza; David; Michael and Jane. In religious belief, he was a Methodist, and his wife a Baptist. She died in 1851.

Michael’s children were born in Trigg County, Kentucky. The family stayed in Kentucky while Michael moved to Madison County, Illinois. In 1833, he  brought the family to their new home in Illinois.

Note: It would appear that Michael and Elizabeth divorced. Michael remarried in 1842 to Rosanna Crowell. Elizabeth was still living in 1842.”

There are a couple of elements of these 1830 census records which require explanation.  The household composition for Michael Gore in Madison County in 1830 would appear to contain a young married couple and two young daughters, in addition to Michael, who is presumed to have been the older male aged 30 thru 39.  The identity of this younger family in this household is unknown to the author, but may have been a kinsperson of Michael’s who may have traveled to Madison County with him to establish a homestead.  No other Gore’s were found in Madison County in 1840 other than Michael.  The other factor requiring explanation are the children reported in Elizabeth’s household.  It appears that she and Michael may have had four daughters, even though we are aware of only three: Zerelda, Elizabeth and Kissey Jane.  Since there were no young males in either Michael’s or Elizabeth’s household, it seems probable that their presumed sons, Michael Jr. and David were born after 1830 census taking.

Following are the presumed census records of Michael Gore and Elizabeth Gore from the 1840 census:

Name:     M Gore

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): 

Upper Alton, Madison, Illinois

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             1 [prob. Michael Jr.]

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 14:         1 [prob. David]

Free White Persons – Males – 40 thru 49:         1 Michael Sr.

Name:     Elizabeth Gace

[Elizabeth Gore]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): 

Trigg, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      1 [prob. Kissey Jane]

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1 Elizabeth Mitchell-Gore

In Michael Gore’s household in Madison County appear to be two sons: probably David and Michaels Jr.  Neither of these apparent sons born before 1830 appeared in Michael nor Elizabeth’s households in 1830.  Their whereabouts in that census record is uncertain.  It does seem possible that the 1830 census record for Elizabeth may have been enumerated incorrectly, and should have shown one son and three daughters, rather than four daughters.  The youngest son, Michael Jr., probably was not born until after 1830, even though he consistently reported his birth year as about 1827 to 1829 in four separate census records.

From the analysis of the foregoing census records for the households of Michael Gore and Elizabeth Gore it would appear that they probably had at least three daughters, possibly even four.  These numbers would allow for daughters named Zerelda, Elizabeth and Kissey Jane.

As for Isaac Gore having been the father of Elizabeth Mitchell, we can only report that both of Isaac’s wives are believed to have been born in Virginia, not in Tennessee or in Kentucky, and that no one on Ancestry claims Isaac Gore to have had a daughter named Elizabeth.  Other evidence would suggest that the Find-A-Grave record for Elizabeth Gore-Russell is in error, as regards her father.

Now, having fairly reliably established that David Davidson and Dicy Mitchell had a daughter named Elizabeth, what is the significance, if any, that she may have married Michael Gore, son of Eleazer Gore?  For starters, this fact would establish yet another linkage between allied parties in Chester County SC, Jackson County TN, and Trigg County KY.  That linkage or thread connects in part through Luke Mayfield, who is believed to have married Dalila Gore, presumed daughter of Eleazer Gore, in Chester County around 1795.  Luke Mayfield appeared in records of Jackson County TN beginning with the tax records of 1803, and continuing in land records through the 1810’s, and in the 1820 census record.  By 1830 Luke Mayfield had moved his family to Morgan County IL.  As far as we know, Luke Mayfield never lived anywhere near Trigg County KY.  

However, Dalila’s presumed older brother, Ashford D. Gore, was recorded living in Hopkinsville in 1810.  Ashford D. Gore was later recorded living in Trigg County in 1820 thru 1840.  Presumably, he died in Trigg County sometime between 1840 and 1850.  Eleazer Gore moved his family from Chester County to Trigg County sometime between 1810 and 1820.  Just exactly when Eleazer Gore may have moved to Trigg County is uncertain.  Eleazer’s younger son, Michael Gore is believed to have moved to the Trigg County area with his father, where he met and married Elizabeth Mitchell, elder daughter of David Davidson and Dicy Mitchell in Feb1819.  

David Davidson and Dicy are believed to have moved from Chester County SC to Jackson County TN around 1802-3, where their daughter, Elizabeth, is believed to have been born.  They are believed to have continued living in Jackson County (probably on Knob Creek) until about 1809 during which time David Davidson Mitchell Jr. and Elias Mitchell were born.  By 1810 David Davidson Mitchell had moved his family to Hopkinsville, Christian County, where his family was recorded living nearby to his uncle, James Mitchell and 1^st cousins: David and Benjamin.  Apparently the David Davidson Mitchell family continued to reside in Christian County [Trigg County] until about 1819, where their daughter, Elizabeth Mitchell appears to have met and married Michael Gore in Feb1819.  By 1820 David Davidson Mitchell appears to have died (probably before Feb1819 in Trigg County) and Dicy Mitchell had moved with her two sons back to Jackson County.  Neither Dicy nor her sons could be located in the 1830 census, but by 1840 Dicy was recorded still living in Jackson County TN nearby to Moses Atterberry and his children, and Elizabeth Gore, David Davidson Mitchell Jr. and Elias Mitchell were recorded living in Trigg County.

All things considered, the author is inclined to believe that David Davidson and Dicey Mitchell had two sons named David Davidson Jr. and Elias, and a daughter named Elizabeth.  Further, it is the author’s opinion that the intermarriage of Michael Gore, son of Eleazer Gore, with Elizabeth Mitchell, daughter of David Davidson and Dicey Mitchell provides even more support for the possibility of Dicey Mitchell having been born with the surname of Gore, just which Gore is anyone’s guess.  Given the recurrence of the given name of Dicy as a daughter of Moses Atterberry, the author believes it possible that Moses’ wife may have been a sister or 1^st cousin of Dicy Mitchell.  And, lastly, given the recurrence of the given name of Ennis within the Elias Mitchell and Luke Mayfield families, it is the author’s belief that the wives of Luke Mayfield, David Davidson Mitchell and Moses Atterberry were possibly sisters or 1^st cousins.  Most Gore family genealogists report Dalila Gore to have been a daughter of Eleazer Gore.  It should be recognized that there is virtually no documentary proof of the children of Eleazer Gore.  It is the author’s opinion that Dalila Gore may just as easily have been a daughter of John Ashford Gore, Eleazer Gore’s co-Executor of their mother’s estate.

This concludes our foray into the Mitchell family of Chester County SC.

Appendix 13-A

Mary Davidson Genealogical Analysis

• Mary Davidson [Davison]

If David Mitchell, son of John Mitchell II and Elizabeth [lnu] was married to a woman named Mary Davidson, then the obvious question is, who was Mary Davidson?  The author has uncovered “evidence” which suggests that Mary was an older daughter of John Davison and Elizabeth Marbury.  This “evidence” is listed chronologically as follows:

1. folio 91 – 9Jan1721, enrolled 6May1721 – Indenture transfer from William Spradose, planter of Prince Georges County, to John Prather, planter of Prince Georges County, for ₤13 already paid, a tract of land called Spradose Forrest… wit.: John Davison, Richard Jones.[21]
2. folio 142 – 14Jul1720, enrolled 5Aug1721 – Indenture transfer from John Mobberly of Prince Georges County, formerly of Anne Arundel, planter, to Henry Hall of St. James Parish, Anne Arundel, cleric, a parcel of land called Ample Grange in Prince Georges County on Patuxent River… wit.: John Davidson  and Thomas Holland.
3. Liber M, p. 333 – Indenture enrolled 22Oct1728 between John Middleton and Ralph Marlow and Christopher Edelin for a bond from William Diggs for ₤207, secured by negroes, cattle, servants, wife and horses… wit.: John Davidson William Marlow.
4. Liber Q, p. 431 – 1Apr1732 John Davison registered cattle mark.
5. Liber Q, p. 682 – 28Aug1733, enrolled 30Aug1733 – Indenture between John Davidson, planter, and William Black of London, merchant, for ₤86.18.1; parcel called Appledoor being now dwelling  plantation of said John containing 97 acres… wit.: Samuel White and George Wells.[22]
6. Last Will and Testament of Francis Marbury made 1Jan1734, probated 5Jan1734: … “to daughter, Elizabeth Davison, that dwelling plantation whereon she lives, part of Appledore, 99 acres…”

Also, in codicil to his LWT dated 6Jan1734 Francis Marybury added the following stipulation: “And further my will and intent is that I do hereby authorize and empower my son-in-law, John Davison, as an overseer or guardian to see every thing and matter contained in this Will justly executed therein…[23]

From the LWT of Francis Marbury it is established that he had a daughter named Elizabeth, who was in Jan1734 married to a man named John Davidson, and to whom her father bequeathed a tract of land known as Appledore of about 99 acres situated in Prince Georges County, MD.  From the 28Aug1733 indenture we have a John Davison mortgaging his land and property to William Black, a gentleman merchant of London, said land consisting of a tract called Appledoor containing about 97 acres situated in Princes Georges County, the dwelling place of the said John Davison.  From the other records we have evidence of a John Davison residing and witnessing legal transactions in Prince Georges County dating back to 1720, including the registering of his own cattle mark in 1732.  One of the records involved a tract called Ample Grange which was situated on the Patxent River within a couple of miles of the John Mitchell II holdings.  Given that this John Davidson [aka Davison] was recorded in possession of and residing upon land called Appledoor, the same tract bequeathed to Francis Marbury’s daughter, Elizabeth [nee Marbury] Davison, leaves little doubt that John Davison and Elizabeth Marbury were husband and wife.  Elizabeth Marbury was an older daughter of Francis Marbury and Mary Green, granddaughter of former Maryland Governor, Thomas Green, by his 2nd son, Leonard Green. 

Now for the speculation.  Although no birth or marriage records were found for Elizabeth Marbury and John Davison or their children, it seems highly likely that they were married in Prince Georges County around 1725, or earlier.  Such date of marriage would seem to fit with Elizabeth’s presumed birth year of about 1705-10.  This birth year was approximated by the author based on the known date of Francis Marbury’s marriage to his 2nd wife, Frances Heard on 14Sep1714.  Since it is well established that Francis Marbury and Mary Green had a total of seven children (including Elizabeth), it seems reasonable that Elizabeth would have been born sometime before 1710.  It also seems reasonable to the author that Elizabeth Marbury and John Davison would have named their 1st born daughter after Elizabeth’s mother, Mary Green.  It also seems reasonable to conclude that that first born daughter, Mary Davidson, would have been born about 1726, probably on the family plantation called Appledoor, and may have named her 1st son after her father, John Davidson.  The original Appledore tract was granted to John Middleton, situated in Piscataway Parish near present day Clinton MD, 227 acres of which Middleton conveyed by partnership to Francis Marbury on 9Jan1711.  Francis Marbury, by his LWT assigned a 99 [97?] acre portion of Appledore to his daughter Elizabeth Davidson.

“Prince George’s Land Records 1710-1717 – Liber F -folio 215 o Indenture, 9 Jan 1711

From: John Middleton of Prince George’s County

To: Francis Marbery of Prince George’s County

For 14£/1s/9p part of a tract of land called Apple Dore; a 227 acre tract called Mistake bounded by Brother’s Delight; the letter being a partnership between Middleton and Marbery Signed: Jno. Middleton (seal)

Witnessed: James Burgess, James Middleton

Memo: 28 Nov 1712 John Middleton acknowledged deed

Alienation: Francis Marbery paid 3s/10p and a half penny 27 Nov 1714″

It should also be recognized that there were virtually no other records of a Davidson or Davison family residing in Prince Georges County at the approximate date of birth of Mary Mitchell.  Given the timing and the relatively close proximity between Appledore plantation and the Mitchell family in upper Prince Georges County, and the lack of any other viable candidates, the connection of David Mitchell’s wife, Mary, as a daughter of John Davidson and Elizabeth Marbury, seems highly probable.  We may never find documentation which directly establishes the identity of Mary Mitchell, presumed mother of John David Davidson Mitchell, but the author is inclined to accept the circumstantial evidence and connection to an undocumented daughter of John Davidson and Elizabeth Marbury. 

Appendix 13-B

Brushy Fork – Wilson’s Creek Plat Reconstruction Map

Appendix 13-C

Isaiah Mitchel Link Diagram – Jackson County TN

Appendix 13-D

Stephen Mayfield – Overton County TN

He left a will on 8 August 1834 at Overton County, Tennessee, USA; GWM; THIS IS THE WILL OF STEPHEN MAYFIELD SR.

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT I, STEPHEN MAYFIELD, SR. OF THE COUNTY OF OVERTON AND STATE OF TENNESSEE BEING LOW IN HEALTH BUT OF SOUND MIND AND DISPOSING MEMORY DO MAKE AND PUBLISH THIS MY LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT:

1ST- I WILL THAT MY BODY BE BURIED IN A DECENT AND CHRISTIAN LIKE MANNER.

2ND-THAT ALL MY JUST DEBTS BE PAID.

3RD-I WILL AND BEQUEATH UNTO MY SON STEPHEN MAYFIELD, ALL THE BENEFIT OF TWO CLAIMS WHICH I HAVE TO LAND OR MONEY WHICH WAS COMING TO MY TWO BROTHERS, TO WIT: ISHAM AND LEWIS Mayfield FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM IN THE OLD REVOLUTIONARY WAR, TO DISPOSE OF AS HE MAY THINK PROPER.

4TH-I WILL AND BEQUEATH ALL MY TURNING TOOLS, TOGETHER WITH A HAND SAW AND FORE AND DRAWING KNIFE TO MY GR.SON WILLIAM, SON OF STEPHEN AND MARY ANN MAYFIELD.

5TH- I WILL AND BEQUEATH UNTO MY GR.DAUGHTER MAHOLA MAYFIELD, DAUGHTER OF MARIAN MAYFIELD, MY FEATHER BED AND FURNITURE TO HAVE AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF MY WIFE OR AT ANY TIME SOONER IF MY WIFE SHOULD MARRY AGAIN OR REMOVE FROM THIS COUNTY.

6TH- I WILL AND BEQUEATH UNTO MY WIFE BRIGITY MAYFIELD ALL MY HOUSE HOLD FURNITURE EXCEPT AS ABOVE BEQUEATHED. ALL THE RENT CORN FOR THE PRESENT YEAR AND ALL OF MY STOCK OF HOGS; ALL MY LAND HAVING BEEN HERETOFORE CONVEYED TO MY SON STEPHEN MAYFIELD.

IT IS MY WILL AND WISH THAT MY SON STEPHEN MAYFIELD SHOULD TAKE REASONABLE CARE OF MY WIFE DURING HER WIDOWHOOD OR RESIDENCE IN THIS COUNTY AND I HEREBY APPOINT MY SAID SON STEPHEN MAYFIELD AS MY EXECUTOR TO EXECUTE THIS MY LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THIS 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 1834

(SIGNED) STEPHEN Mayfield

(SEAL)

SIGNED AND SEALED IN PRESENTS OF US.

B. GABBERT

G. McMORMACK

STATE OF TENNESSEE

OVERTON COUNTY.

THE ORDER OF PROBATE AND APPOINTMENT IS SIGNED BY WM. GORE, CLK. His data record was Updated on 7 March 2004 by Glenn W Mayfield.

1. Sep1803 – From Series 2, Book 54, Entry Book for Middle Tennessee, 1802-1806, p. 60:  “Jackson County, State of Tennessee, Stephen Mayfield enters 200 acres of land on the waters of Roaring River, beginning a black oak running north and south, so as to include the big pond, cove and said Mayfield’s spring, and improvements on two warrants: (1) No. 51, and (2) No. 48, both assigned from Elijah Chisum.“
2. 24Aug1807:  Stephen Mayfield was assigned warrant from Elijah Chisum for 100 acres.
3. 5Sep1811: Overton County; Stephen Mayfield by virtues of part of a duplicate warrant No. 51 for 100 acres assignee of Elijah Chisum enters 100 acres of land in the 3^rd District of said County on the head of the eastern branches of Roaring River, beginning on two black oaks near the foot of a ridge, being the beginning corner of said Mayfield’s preference, right of 200 acres running thence various courses.[24]
4. 23Mar1814: Jackson County TN, Luke Mayfield and William Gray, assignees originally of the heirs of William J. Lewis, by virtue of a certificate No. 1728 issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 250 acres, enters two acres of land in Jackson County on a  branch known by the name of the Crib Branch, waters of Roaring River, beginning on a sugar tree, marked “LM” running southeast for compliment so as to include a Salt Petre cave found by said Mayfield between the three forks of said branch and Notley Wornell’s cave.
5. 21Oct1814: Jackson County TN:  By virtue of Entry No. 11458 dated 20Sep1813. founded on a certificate warrant No. 1591, issued by the Register of West Tennessee for 500 acres, I have surveyed for Luke Mayfield assignee of Robert Searcy, two acres of land in Jackson County on Lick Creek of Roaring River beginning at a sugar tree marked “LM” various course, including a salt petre cave about one-quarter mile above where Daniel Shipman formerly lived.  Chain-Carriers: Thomas Gore and Notley Wornal.  Filed 3Feb1815.
6. 10Sep1816: Overton County TN, Stephen Mayfield, assignee of John R. Nelson, by virtue of Warrant No. 42, enters 27-1/2 acres of land in Overton County on the waters of Roaring River, beginning on the northeast corner of a 50 acre tract that included the improvement where Stephen Mayfield now lives, entered in the name of Nathaniel Taylor.[25]
7. 9Aug1822: Overton County: I, David M. Garock, Register of West Tennessee… pursuant to an act entitled “an act to authorize the division of warrants and certificates issued for land”, do hereby certify that Stephen Mayfield is entitled to enter and obtain a grant for 27-1/2 acres of land within this State, in lieu of so much of a certificate issued by the Board of Commissioners for West Tennessee to James Mabain, No. 42 and dated 17Jul1807 for 10,380 acres, given under my hand the above date…[26]

4. 16Sep1803:  Jackson County TN:  200 acres of land on the waters of Roaring River running north and south so as to include the big pond cove and said Mayfield’s spring and improvement on two warrants (No. 51 and 48) assigned William Maclin: (1) No. 51 and the other (2) No. 48.  No. 48 is assigned to William Richardson and then transferred back to Elijah Chisum, and thence assigned from Chisum to Stephen Mayfield, the other is assigned (directly) from Chisum to Mayfield.  Stephen Mayfield, Locator.  This was the only record found for Stephen Mayfield in Jackson County TN.  It is worth noting that this land record was filed on 16Sep1803, just six years after Stephen Mayfield sold his 100 acre tract on Brushy Fork.  This timing fits well with the Chester County Stephen Mayfield having relocated to Jackson County TN.  The fact that he had already established improvements on this land suggests that he had already been in residence for at least a couple of years.  Trailing records from Overton County will show that this tract fell within future Overton County.

The location of this tract cannot be more precisely determined from the information provided in this patent record, other than that is consisted of two separate, but abutting tracts located in Jackson County on the waters of Roaring River.  There are other, later recordings for patents involving Stephen Mayfield(s) located in Overton County, which may provide more precise information.  It should be noted that Overton County was erected in 1806 from the eastern part of Jackson County as illustrated in Figure 13-9.  Following are a series of patent records from Overton County involving persons named Stephen Mayfield and John Mayfield, which may aid us in determining whether there was one or two Stephen Mayfields in the Roaring River area in the early 1800’s:

5. 12May1808:  Overton County TN: In pursuance to an Act of the General Assembly passed in Knoxville on 3Dec1807, I have surveyed for Stephen Mayfield two hundred acres of land his preference right, including his improvement situate in the County of Overton on one of the heads of the eastern branches of Roaring River in the Pond Cove, beginning on two black oaks… (running four equal courses of 178.5 perches in a square, including Mayfield’s Spring).  Deputy Surveyor: William Fleming.  Sworn chain-carriers: Samuel Walker and John Mayfield.  The identity of this Stephen Mayfield is uncertain, but almost certainly was the same person recorded in Items 6 thru 8, below.  Given the two entries wherein Stephen Mayfield was identified as an assignee of Elijah Chisum, he would almost certainly have been the same Stephen Mayfield, who appeared in the Jackson County tax lists in 1802 and 1803.  This 200 acre tract was granted on the basis of “preference rights”, a term unfamiliar to the author, possibly meaning that Stephen Mayfield had filed a patent request in his own name, as contrasted to having been assigned a right from a previous patentee.  Similarly, the identity of the John Mayfield, who acted as a chain-carrier in the survey of this tract was likely a close kinsman of Stephen Mayfield.  Some writer’s suggest that John Mayfield was a son of Stephen Mayfield.  The location of this tract, being situated at the head of an eastern branch of the Roaring River probably would place it in the vicinity of Town Creek and Livingston, TN.
6. 5Sep1811:  Overton County TN:  Location No. 1500, Stephen Mayfield, by virtue of part of a duplicate warrant No. 51 for 100 acres assignee of Elijah Chisum, enters 100 acres of land in the 3^rd District and County of Overton on the heads of the eastern branches of Roaring River, beginning at two black oaks, being the beginning corner of said Mayfield’s preference right of 200 acres…  This 100 acre tract would appear to abut the 200 acre tract recorded in Item 5, above, or to have been part of that tract.
7. 3Jun1811:  William Fleming surveyed 119 acres in Overton County on waters of Roaring River, in the name of William Fleming, said tract abutting lands of Nancy Gilmore’s 50 acre tract, and Stephen Mayfield’s plantation. 5Aug1814.  William Fleming’s tract appears to have abutted Stephen Mayfield’s plantation, presumably the 200 acre preferment tract.  The identity of Nancy Gilmore is unknown, but may have been a kinsperson of Stephen Mayfield’s wife, who is purported to have been named Bridget Gilmore.
8. State of Tennessee, 3^rd District: surveyed on 20Oct1810 for Henry Gilmore, for 40 acres of land by virtue of a duplicate Warrant No. 270, located on 29Aug1809, Location No. 893, situated in the County of Overton in a cove known by the name of the Pond Cove, beginning at a Hickory Black Gum and Dogwood, it being the NW corner of a 55 acre entry for said Gilmore, turning thence N 80 poles to a Black Oak, thence E 80 poles to a Black Oak, thence S 80 poles to a Post Oak, thence W 80 poles to the beginning.  Deputy Surveyor: William Fleming.  Sworn Chain-Carriers: Andrew Carson and Henry Gilmore.  Henry Gilmore received two grants situated on Pond Cove: one for 55 acres, the other for 40 acres.  Henry sold both of these tracts to Benjamin Hinshaw on 22Jul1816 (Deed Book E, p. 528.)  These tracts were situated on the same cove as tract filings by Stephen Mayfield.  In one patent filing by William Fleming for 119 acres, that tract was described as abutting the lands of Nancy Gilmore (50 acres) and Stephen Mayfield’s plantation.  Stephen Mayfield Sr. is reported by numerous researchers as having married a woman named Bridget Gilmore.  It seems possible that Henry Gilmore and Nancy Gilmore were kinspersons of Stephen Mayfield’s wife, Brudget [aka Gilmore].

8. 12May1814:  Stephen Mayfield, assignee of Elijah Chisum [Sr.?], assignee of John McIver, by virtue of part of a Warrant No. 955, enters 100 acres of land in 3^rd District, Overton County, situate on head waters of Roaring River, beginning on said Mayfield’s NE corner of his entry for 100 acres, running W with said line 178-1/4 poles, thence N, E and S for complement.  This tract would appear to have commenced at the NE corner of the tract described in Item No. 6, above.  It is not clear to the author whether Stephen Mayfield had three separate tracts, totaling 400 acres, or only one tract of 200 acres, which was recorded in two separate parcels of 100 acres, each.  Regardless, this land would appear to have been within the 3^rd Civil District (boundary of which could not be ascertained by the author), probably situated on Pond Cove, at head of eastern branch of Roaring River.
9. 10Sep1816:  Stephen Mayfield, assignee of John R. Nelson, by virtue of a Warrant No. 42, enters 27-1/2 acres of land in Overton County on the waters of Roaring River, beginning on the NE corner of 50 acre tract that included the improvement where Stephen Mayfield now lives, entered in the name of Nathan Taylor, turns N, W, S and E for complement.  Based on the following patent surveyed for Nathaniel Taylor for 50 acres on 8Oct1815, situated on the waters of Roaring River, there would seem to be little doubt but that this 27-1/2 was issued to Stephen Mayfield Sr., the father of Stephen Mayfield Jr.  Stephen Mayfield Sr. is purported by many researchers to have married a woman name Bridget Gilmore. 
   • State of Tennessee, 3^rd District surveyed on 8Oct1815 for Nathaniel Taylor 50 acres of land by virtue of part of Warrant No. 1659 issued from Carter’s Office for 640 acres dated 2Nov1779 in favor of James Limmons, and assigned to Nathaniel Taylor by an attorney for said Limmons entered 12Dec1808, No. 644, situated in Overton County on the waters of Roaring River, beginning at a Black Oak on the east side of a large spring branch, thence running N 100 poles to to a stake in an old field, thence W 80 poles to two Hickories, thence S 100 poles to two Hickories, thence E crossing the waters of spring branch 80 poles to the beginning.  Deputy Surveyor: William Fleming.  Sworn Chain-Carriers: Stephen Mayfield Jun. and Stephen Mayfield Sen.  According to the 1850 census record of Stephen Mayfield [Jr.] in

10. 22Feb1817:  John Mayfield, assignee of Moses Fisk by virtue of a Warrant No. 3960 enters 17-1/2 acres of land in Overton County on the waters of Roaring River, beginning 20 poles N from his SE corner and runs N with his line and E, S, and W for complement.
11. 20Feb1822:  John Mayfield, assignee of Jesse Cormack by virtue of Warrant No. 4323, enters 20 acres of land in 3^rd District, Overton County, situate on the waters of Roaring River, beginning on a stake near the N corner of Paul ______, thence turning N, W, S and E for complement.
12. 11Oct1821:  Deed Book E, p. 226, Overton County TN:  John Mayfield sold to Henderson Bates, for $300, sold 40 acre tract situated on waters of Roaring River, abutting David Whitman’s corner.
13. 4Dec1839:  Book I, p. 126, Overton County TN:  Joseph Gore sold to John and Stephen Mayfield of same, for $1,200, two tract containing 167-1/2m situate on Roaring River in outskirts of Livingston.
14. 21Oct1814:  Jackson County TN:  By virtue of Entry No. 2481 dated 29Sep1808, founded on a Military Warrant No. 57, I have surveyed for James McKnight, assignee of William Stafford, assignee of Abner Henley, 10 acres of land in Jackson County on Leatons? Creek, beginning on a Beech marked “NL” running south 40 poles, E, N, and W, including the improvement formerly occupied by Thomas Edwards’ upper improvement.  Deputy Surveyor: John Murray.  Chain-carriers: Luke Mayfield and Notley Wornal.
15. 11Oct1817:  Deed Book D, p. 157, Monroe County TN:  James Mayfield of Overton County to Wil Whitesides of Madison County IL, for and in consideration of $200, sold 400 acres, his ½ interest in 800 acres situated in Madison County at 5N, 8W, NW ¼ Section 9 and SW ¼ Section 4, claimed by James Mayfield as head of family in 1788. 
16. 13May1828: Deed Book F, p. 188, Overton County TN:  Ambrose Gore to Nancy Mayfield, both of Overton County, for and in consideration of $10 sold a tract of land containing 80 acres, situated and bounded as follows: beginning at a marked Post Oak, standing near the road leading from Sparta to Monroe, running south with Taylors old line 66 poles, thence west, crossing Mayfield’s Spring Branch 31 poles, thence south 61 poles, thence east crossing said branch 117 poles, thence north 127 poles, thence west 86 poles to beginning.  Witnessed: Benjamin Gabbert and S. Chilton.
17. 13Oct1834: Deed Book G, p. 34, Overton County TN:  Jonathan Mayfield to Frances Mayfield, both of Overton County, for and in consideration of $50, sold a tract of land containing 80 acres, situated and bounding as follows: lying on waters of Roaring River beginning at a marked Post Oak… (same description as Item, above.).  Witnessed: Leonard Davis and Ambrose Gore.
18. 3Jul1835: Deed Book G, p. 95, Overton County TN:  Stephen Mayfield to Champlain and Poteete, Traders, Bill of Sale of livestock and household goods for acknowledgement of debt amounting to $184.87.5, property to be sold at auction near Livingston.
19. 2Feb1835: Deed Book G, p. 132, Overton County TN:  Stephen Mayfield to Thomas Stogdon [aka Stockton] for and in consideration of $100, sold a tract of land containing 50 acres, situated and bounded as follows: lying on head waters of Spring Creek, including the plantation whereon said Stogdon lives, beginning at a Chestnut marked “C”, running from thence NW35, 100 poles, … it being a tract of land granted unto Rhody Collier by Grant No. 2827, dated 10Nov1825.  Witnessed: Jefferson Stewart and Jesse Eldridge.
20. 10Oct1835:  Deed Book G, p. 194, Overton County TN:  Frankey [aka Francis] Mayfield [aka Walker], to Willie B. Miller, both of Overton County, for and in consideration of $125, sold a tract of land containing 80 acres, lying on Roaring River, originally granted to Ambrose Gore, sold to Nancy Mayfield, and by Jonathan Mayfield (heir at law) sold to Frankey Mayfield.  Witnessed: Josiah S. Copeland and William Fluty.
21. 26Jan1836:  Deed Book G, p. 202, Overton County TN:  Stephen Mayfield, bill of sale to Champlain and Poteete, Traders, continuation of debt settlement.  Further secured debt with bay horse.
22. 14Mar1834:  Deed Book G, p. 238 Overton County TN:  Commissioners of town of Livingston sold to Stephen Mayfield, in consideration of $31.62  (highest bidder), two town lots: No.s 109 and 122.
23. 16Jul1836:  Deed Book G, p. 276, Overton County TN:  Stephen Mayfield to Champlain and Poteete, Traders, all of Overton County, sold Lot No. 122 for and in consideration of $42.
24. 3Jan1837:  Deed Book G, p. 396, Overton County TN:  Stephen Mayfield to William Fluty, both of Overton County, fir and in consideration of $50, sold a tract of land containing 50 acres, situated and bounding as follows:  lying on waters of Roaring River, beginning on a bench of the mountain at a Black Oak, running south 342 poles… to a White Oak, standing at the side of a road… including the improvements where the said Fluty now lives, held by Grant No. 4814.  Witnessed: Gamblin Weeks and Thomas Pritchett.
25. 10Apr1837:  Deed Book H, p. 202, Overton County TN:  Stephen Mayfield to Abner Cullom, both of Overton County, for and in consideration of $300, sold Lot. No. 109, situated in town of Livingston.
26. 6Oct1840: Deed Book I. p. 245, Overton County:  John and Joseph Gore grant deed of trust to Stephen Mayfield for horse, named “Black Hawk” as security for debt, until 1Mar1841, at which time horse may be sold at public auction in Livingston.
27. 27Apr1827: Deed Book G, p. 395, Overton County TN: by virtue of a Warrant No. 783, Entry No. 4814 was entered for Stephen Mayfield a survey dated 8Nov1835 for 50 acres lying on waters of Roaring River. Beginning on a bench of a mountain at a Black Walnut running various courses, including Mayfield’s improvement, abutting a road and a branch…  Fee: $.01 per acre.
28. 25Sep1834: Deed Book G, p. 434, Overton County TN:  Elizabeth [nee Atterberry] Edwards, Nancy [Hudspeth] Green, Lydia [Hudspeth] Edwards, and Sally Hudspeth, all of Sangamon County IL, to James Hudspeth of Overton County, Power of Attorney to act on all matters re: estate of William Hudspeth, deceased.

Appendix 13-E

Bute County NC Mayfield Records

1. 22Aug1764: Deed Book A, p. 17 (Bute County):  Philemon Hawkins of Bute County to Abraham Mayfield of same, for the sum of £4, sold a tract of land containing 540 acres situated on Beckhams Branch.  Witnessed: William Sims and Nathaniel Henderson.
2. 3Apr1765: Deed BookA, p. 165 (Bute County): Robert Mayfield of Bute County NC to John Austin Fennic of Surrey County VA for the sum of £8 current money of Virginia sold a tract of land situated on Linn Branch of Shocco Creek, abutting Macons corner, containing 200 acres.  Witnessed: William Moore.
3. 6Nov1766: Deed Book H, p. 215 (Granville County): Thomas and Elizabeth Craft of Granville County to David Mitchell of same, for sum of £180 sold tract of land containing 200 acres, situated on south side of Flat Creek, abutting Reuben Moss, Thomas Asher and said Mitchell.  Witnessed: Reuben Searcey.
4. 16Jul1767: Deed Book H, p. 318 (Granville County):  John Trevellian of Roawn County NC to James Mitchell of Granville County form sum of £7 sold a tract of land, beginning a corner of said Mitchell, various course, abutting Trevellian’s land, Bullock’s line, containing 60 acres.  Witnessed: Richard Henderson and Richard Trevillion.
5. 17Jun1767:  Deed Book H, p. 333 (Granville County):  James Trevillion of Granville County to James Mitchell of same, for sum of £8, 15s., sold a tract of land containing 37 acres, beginning at Mitchell’s and Trevillion’s corner, various courses, to points in Trevillion and Bullock’s lines.  Witnessed: Michael Satterwhite and William Taylor.
6. 27Nov1767:  Deed Book H, p. 448 (Granville County):  Thomas Ray of Granville County to David Mitchell of same for sum of £100 sold a tract of land containing 100 acres lying on waters of Nictluck? At head of Long Branch, also lying on Main Road, and abutting William’s line.  Witnessed: John Carter and John Satterwhite.
7. 15Jan1768: Deed Book H, p. 376 (Granville County):  John Trevillion of Mecklinburg County NC to James Mitchell of Granville County for sum of £5, 4s., sold a tract of land situated on head of Matthews Branch, containing 50 acres, abutting Taylor’s Road, various courses.  Witnessed: Zacharias Bullock and Richard Henderson.
8. 12Dec1783: Deed Book 8, p. 103 (Warren County):  John Mosely Jr. of Warren County to James Mitchell of same, for and in consideration of £300 current money, sold all that tract of land whereon the said James Mitchell lived, containing 340 acres, abutting John Coleman, Francis Thornton, William Balthorp, and Philemon Hawkins, Esq., witnessed: John Mosely and John Colclough.  Registered 20Jan1786.
9. 27Feb1787, Deed Book 9, p. 103 (Warren County NC):  James Mitchell of Warren County to William Balthorp of same, for and in consideration of the sum of £25 current money, sold a tract of land lying in Warren County, containing 75 acres, abutting Hawkins line, running three courses, witnessed by: Isaac Arsia? And Thomas Hall.  No dower relinquish.
10. 29Aug1787:  Deed Book 10, p. 67 (Warren County):  James Mitchell of Warren County NC to John Tanner of same, for and in consideration of the sum of £130 current money, sold the land whereon the said James Mitchell lived, containing265 acres, bounded by Philemon Hawkins, William Bathorpe, Edward Coleman and John Tanner, witnessed: William Campbell, Isaac ___, and Adam Milam.  No dower release.
11. 3Mar1769: Deed Book 2, p. 235 (Bute County NC):  Abraham Mayfield and his wife, Elizabeth, of Bute County to James Harrison of same, for and in consideration of £80, sold a tract of land lying in Bute County, containing 549 acres, situated on Beckham’s Branch.  Witnessed: Abraham Mayfield, Valenine Mayfield and James Howze.

---

[1] More Marylanders to Carolina, Henry C. Peden, Jr., 2006, p. 5.

[2] Record added to Find-a-Grave by Dora Brown, 2Aug2013.

[3] Holcomb, pp 177-8.

[4] Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States…1790, 1782 to 1785, Virginia, Washington Government Printing Office, 1908, p. 72.

[5] Roster of South Carolina Patriots in the American Revolution, Bobby Gilmer Moss, 1983, p. 687.

[6] South Carolina’s State Grants, Vol. 1: Grant Books 1 Thru 6, 1784-1790, Brent H. Holcomb, 2013, p. 158.

[7] Holcomb., p. 132.

[8] Holcomb., p. 132.

[9] This record appears to have been indexed in error.  Closer scrutiny of the original census shows that the 5^th column for females over age 45 was separated from the rest of the tabulation sheet by the center fold of the record book.  Closer inspection indicates that there was one female, over age 45 in this household.

[10] Tennessee, U.S., Early Land Registers, 1778-1927 – Ancestry.com, accessed 26Jun2021.

[11] How to make gunpowder in the wild (all it takes is charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate) – Wilderness Arena Survival, accessed 26Jun2021.

[12] Reprinted with permission from the Journal of Spelean History, Vol. 41, No. 2, Issue 132 (July-December, 2007), Microsoft Word – Plemons Survey2.doc (caves.org), accessed 26Jun2021.

[13] Arterberry Biographies (rootsweb.com), accessed 27Jun2021.

[14] “History of Macoupin County Illinois, Biographical and Pictorial, Volune II”, Honorable Charles A. Walker, Supervising Editor, 1911, pp. 16-7.

[15] Stephen Mayfield (tripod.com), accessed 17May2021.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Phil-Norfleet – User Trees – Genealogy.com, accessed 16Jul2021.

[21] Land Records of Prince George’s County Maryland, 1717-1728, Elise Greenup Jourdan, 2008, p. 39.

[22] Land Records of Prince George’s County Maryland, 1726-1733, Elise Greenup Jourdan, 2008, p. 200.

[23] Maryland, Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1777, p. 309.

[24] Ancestry.com – Tennessee, U.S., Early Land Registers, 1778-1927, accessed 23Jun2021.

[25] Ancestry.com – Tennessee, U.S., Early Land Registers, 1778-1927, accessed 23Jun2021.

[26] Ancestry.com – Tennessee, U.S., Early Land Registers, 1778-1927, accessed 23Jun2021.

In 1840 there were census records showing a cluster of six Arterbury households in Luce Township, Spencer County Indiana, which appear to have totally escaped the attention of Atterbury family researchers.  This chapter will endeavor to give some modicum of identity to these families, and the neighborhood within which they so briefly lived.  These Arterbury households are summarized in the sequential order in which they appeared in the census as follows:

Page 36:

Name:     Sariah Arterbury

[Sariah Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         2

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1 [Sariah Arterbury?]

Free White Persons – Females – 50 thru 59:      1 [Sariah Arterbury?]

Name:     Sol Asterberry

[Sol Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             1

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 14:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39 (prob 40 thru 49):           1 [Sol Asterberry]

Free White Persons – Females – 15 thru 19:      1

Page 38:

E D Arberberry

[E D Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 15 thru 19:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [E D Arberberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          2

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1

Name:     Eigah Arteebury

[Elijah Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             2

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [Eigah Arteebury]

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 40 thru 49:      1

Page 42:

Name:     Stephen Asheberry

[Stephen Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         2 [Stephen Asheberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Page 44:

Name:     Adam Arterberry

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         1 [Adam Arterberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Initial Impressions

It should be noted that all six of these households appeared on five consecutive pages (slave inventory pages excepted), suggesting that they were living in relatively close geographic proximity to one another, and in two instances two households were recorded on the same page; Sariah and Sol on page 36 separated by five households, and Eigah and E. D. Arterbury on page 38 separated by ten households.  An analysis of the composition of each of these households suggests that the household headed by Sariah Arterbury (aged either 50 thru 59 or 30 thru 39) possibly was a widowed matriarch, and that the other five households headed by males aged 20 thru 39 possibly were headed by sons of Sariah and her unknown deceased husband.  Stephen and Adam appear to have been the youngest (aged 20 thru 29), whereas Sol [Solomon?], E. D. [Elijah Davidson?], and Eigah were the oldest (aged 30 thru 39).  Of the two youngest male householders, Stephen appears to have been the youngest, and Adam the next youngest based on the relative ages of their presumed children.  Stephen’s household also contained a 2nd male aged 20 thru 29, possibly a kinsman of either himself or his wife.  Of the three older Arterburys, E.D. and Sol would appear to have been the eldest, as they each appear to have had a child aged 15 thru 19.  Sol appears to have been widowed, as his household does not appear to include a spouse (unless perhaps the female aged 15 thru 19 was his wife).  Sariah’s household also contained two males aged 20 thru 29, and one female aged 30 thru 39.  These young adults may have been Sariah’s children, who had not yet begun living on their own, or may have included a young married couple.  It cannot be stated with certainty that the eldest female was actually the head of the household, as the female, aged 30 thru 39 could also have been the head of this household.

Before attempting to identify the ancestry of this seemingly related Arterbury family grouping, it may be helpful to provide a brief geographic history of the early settlement of Luce Township.  First, it is important to recognize that Spencer County is situated on the north bank of the Ohio River, immediately opposite Daviess County KY as illustrated in Figure 16-1.  Daviess County was organized in 1815 by partitioning from the northern part of Ohio County.  Richard Arterbury II was the only Arterbury recorded living in Ohio County in 1810 (prior to the organization of Daviess County).  Richard was married to Martha Moore on 19Apr1807 in Ohio County, so presumably Richard may have been resident in Ohio County as early as 1806.  Richard continued to be recorded as a resident of Ohio County KY in 1820 and 1830, so presumably, he was in that part of the county remaining after the formation of Daviess County in 1815.  In 1810 Abraham Myres and his sons: Elijah, Levi, and Michael were recorded in Ohio County on pages 6, 7, 12 and 18, whereas Richard was recorded on page 17.  These Myres were kinsmen of Richard Arterbury by virtue of Abraham’s marriage to Patty Arterbury, widow of Richard’s brother, Nathan Arterbury, in Hardin County on 2Aug1805.  Abraham Myres’ family had formerly lived on Brushy Fork in Chester County SC as near neighbors of Richard and his brothers.  In 1820 these Myres appear to have been recorded living in Daviess County KY, in that part of Ohio County that had been partitioned to create Daviess County. 

Several members of this Myres family were recorded in Daviess County in 1820 on page 11 nearby to four Arterbury households.  It is difficult to identify these Myres and Arterbury households with certainty, because the left-hand margin of the page is missing, thus partially obscuring many of the given names.  It is the author’s belief that these Arterbury households are identified as follows:

Name:     ??Ward Arterberry

[Edward Arterberry]

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Daviess, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – 45 and over:                      1

Free White Persons – Females – 45 and over : 1

This almost certainly was the household of Edward Arterbury.  His wife, Keziah, is believed to have died a few years earlier, as Edward is believed to have married Mary Handley Little (widow of George Little) in nearby Muhlenberg County in 1816-8.  Mary almost certainly was the adult female in this household.  All of Edward and Keziah’s children appear to have left home, and were living on their own.

Name:     ??El [prob. Hasel, as shown in 1830 census] Arterberry

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Daviess, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          2

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      1

Note:  Hasel Atterbury has been deduced by the author to have been a son of Edward Atterbury and Keziah, based on his appearance in this census record living nearby to Edward, combined with the fact that the two young males reported in Edward’s household in 1810 were no longer living at home in 1820. 

Might there be a hint to the ancestry of Edward’s wife, Keziah, found in the given name of Hasel?  It is worth noting that the given name of Hasel rarely occurred in America in the 18th and 19th century.  Moreover, there was only one instance of Hasel as a given name in Chester County between 1790 and 1830, and that was in Hasel Hardwick and his son, Hasel Hardwick Jr.  Hasel Hardwick Sr. first appeared in South Carolina records in 1765 when he received a grant of 500 acres on the Sandy River drainage.  He continued to acquire and sell lands in Chester County along the Sandy River drainage for the next 30 years.  Genealogists report that Hasel Hardwick was named in honor of his mother’s maiden name, who is reputed to have been Mary Hazel.  “Maternal surname perpetuation” was a common practice among colonialists in America as a way of carrying on the tradition of the mother’s surname, which would otherwise fall into obscurity.

Although neither Hasel Hardwick nor any of his known kinsmen appear to have had any significant direct involvement with any of the Atterbury’s or their known allies, there is a record of one instance when Hassel Hardwick went as a co-surety on the administration bond for the estate of Nathan Atterbury in 1796, along with Moses Atterbury, Patty Atterbury and Thomas B. Franklin.  So, it is clear that Hasel Hardwick was a near neighbor of the Atterburys in Chester County, but not necessarily a kinsman.  Given the extremely unique nature of the given name of Hasel in America, and limited to Hasel Hardwick in particular in Chester County, it seems possible that Edward and Keziah Atterbury may have named their son Hasel in tribute to Keziah’s father, Hasel Hardwick.  There seems to be few other reasonable explanations for the selection of such a unique and rare name for their son.

Name:     ??An Arterberry

[Nathan Arterberry]

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Daviess, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          1

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      1

This Nathan Arterbury very likely was a younger son of Edward and Keziah Arterbury.  Some genealogical researchers claim this Nathan as a son of William Atterbury Jr. and Bridget.  A few other researchers claim Nathan to have been a son of Charles Arterbury and Sarah [Mitchell?].  This Nathan appeared in four consecutive census years as head of household, all within Daviess County: 1820 thru 1850.  In the 1850 census he was reported aged 55 years old, born in Illinois (clearly a transcription error for South Carolina), with a wife named Levisa, aged 49, born in Illinois [sic], and two sons: William H. aged 21, and Henry J. aged 14, both born in Kentucky.  An analysis of the apparent children born to Edward Arterbury suggests that he had a total of three sons.  The eldest son, probably named Elijah, had moved out of his father’s household after 1800, and is believed to have been living next door to his father in Elizabethtown, Hardin County in 1810.  The two remaining sons had also moved out of their father’s household by 1820, and are believed by this writer to have been Hasel Arterbury and Nathan Arterbury, who were living nearby to Edward Arterbury in Daviess County in 1820.  It should be noted that there was an additional, unknown adult male living in Nathan’s household in 1820.

Name:     Salley Arteberry

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Daviess, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         2

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 15:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

The identity of this Sally Arterbury, presumably the widow of a deceased Arterbury male, is not known with absolute certainty; but it does seem possible that she may have been the widow of Israel Arterbury.  The prospect of this connection between Salley Arterbury and Israel Arterbury is strengthened by the fact that the children reported in Israel’s household in Grayson County in 1810 exactly match with the presumed children reported in Salley Artebury’s household in 1820.  Refer to Figure 16-2 for a link-diagram, which illustrates this correlation between these two households.

Prior to its achieving statehood in 1816, Indiana was part of the Northwest Territory.  In 1800 the U. S. Congress entertained subdivision of the Northwest Territory, at which time it established the Indiana Territory.  In the 16-year interim between the creation of the Indiana Territory and the State of Indiana, white settlers began to move onto and settle the lands north of the Ohio River formerly considered the possession of the native Americans.  To facilitate some semblance of governmental control and orderly development, counties were erected, at a rate of almost one per year, across the southern part of the territory.  Warrick County was erected along the north side of the Ohio River in 1813, and then in 1818 Spencer County was partitioned from the eastern part of Warrick County.  Luce Township, situated in the southwest corner of Spencer County, was originally part of Warrick County, and later became subsumed within Spencer County.  The western border of Luce Township (highlighted in red) forms part of the boundary between Warrick and Spencer Counties as illustrated in Figure 16-3.

Atha Meeks was among one of the earliest white settlers in Luce Township.  Dr. Priddy Meeks, the Thomasonian herbalist and son of Atha Meeks, wrote a fairly detailed autobiography which captures the major events of his lifetime spanning from his birth in Greenville SC in 1795-7, through his early childhood in Grayson County KY and Spencer County IN, to his arrival at adulthood in western Illinois, his conversion to Mormonism, his migration with the 2nd Mormon Pioneer Expedition to Salt Lake in 1847, and on forward through his adult life in Utah until his death at Orderville UT in 1886.  In his memoirs Dr. Priddy Meeks describes his family’s trials and tribulations as early pioneer settlers in the wilderness of Luce Township, including the murder of his father by renegade Indians in the doorway of the family’s cabin at the mouth of Lake Drain, tributary of Little Pigeon Creek on 20Apr1812.[1] 

For almost anyone familiar with the Richard Arterbury line, they will have already recognized the surname of Meeks, and may even be familiar with some of the close kinship connections between the Atterberrys and the Meeks.  The earliest Arterbury-Meeks connection the author has discovered was in conjunction with the LWT of Richard Arterbury I, which was witnessed by John Wright, Priddy Meeks, Richard Atterberry [Jr.], and Robert W. Dorsey.  Richard I’s LWT was dated 4Oct1806, and was proven in Court on 13Jul1813 in Hardin County by the oath of Priddy Meeks.  Also, in connection with the estate settlement, a summons was issued by the Court on 10May1813 ordering that Thomas Arterbury, Rezin Blissett, Benjamin Meeks, and William Watkins do appear the following month to show cause, if any they can, why administration should not be taken from them.

The Priddy Meeks, who witnessed the LWT of Richard Arterbury I, is believed to have been an uncle of Dr. Priddy Meeks, and a younger brother of Atha Meeks, who was murdered by Indians at his cabin in Luce Township.  Benjamin Meeks, who was summoned by the Court, is believed to have been Richard I’s son-in-law and son of the Priddy Meeks, who witnessed Richard’s LWT.  The marriage record between Benjamin Meeks and Rebecca Arterbury, dated 3Feb1806 in Hardin County, is somewhat muddled.  It names the bride as Rebecca Meeks, but Richard Arterbury posted the surety bond.  If there was ever any doubt about Rebecca Meek’s having been a daughter of Richard Arterbury, we need only consider the names of the persons summoned by the Court regarding administration of Richard I’s estate.  Two of those parties: Rezin Blissett and William Watkins, were unmistakably sons-in-law of Richard Arterbury, as their respective marriage records leave no doubt about their having married Arterbury women.  By extrapolation, it is reasonable to conclude that Benjamin Meeks had also married an Arterbury woman, namely, Rebecca Arterbury, daughter of Richard Atterbury I, and that the husbands of Richard’s elder daughters, along with his eldest son, Thomas Arterbury, had initially filed for administration of their father’s [father -in-law’s] estate.

Benjamin Meeks’ household was recorded on page 8 in the 1810 census of Hardin County.  His household abutted that of Stephen Mahurin, whose daughter, Sarah Mahurin, married Dr. Priddy Meeks as his 2nd wife after the death of Mary Polly Bartlett.  Stephen Mahurin is believed to have married Sarah [aka Sally] Meeks, daughter of Priddy Meeks and sister of Benjamin Meeks.  So, Dr. Priddy Meeks would appear to have married his 1st cousin, Sarah Mahurin, daughter of Stephen Mahurin and Sarah Meeks.  This 1810 household is summarized as follows:

Name:     Ben Neske V

[Ben Meeks]

Home in 1810 (City, County, State):  Elizabethtown, Hardin, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          2

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         1 [Benjamin Meeks]

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 15:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1 [Rebecca Atteberry]

Sometime between 1810 and 1820 Benjamin Meeks moved his family across the Ohio River into Warrick County, where they were recorded with the following composition:

Name:     Benjn Meeks

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Warrick, Indiana

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          1

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 15:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1 [Benjamin Meeks]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       4

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 15:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1 [Rebecca Atteberry]

For this analysis it is worth noting that Richard Arterbury II, Atha Meeks Sr., John Meeks and Benjamin Meeks are reported to have filed plat maps in Luce Township in the 1810’s as illustrated on Figure 16-4.  The dates and Section locations of these filings were excerpted from SpencerCountyIndiana, Township History, LuceTownship.[2]  From this land information it would appear that Richard Arterbury II and his brother-in-law, Benjamin Meeks, each filed land patents in Luce Township on abutting Sections along the north bank of the Ohio River within one year of each other.  Also, it should be noted that Benjamin’s uncle, Atha Meeks Sr., had filed a plat in Section 29 in May1811, just one year before Atha was murdered by Indians.  Further note that Benjamin Meeks bequeathed several tracts of land in Luce Township in his LWT dated 9Dec1847, including the two tracts identified in Figure 16-4 belonging to Benjamin Thomas Meeks and James Stevenson, son and son-in-law, respectively.

So, from the foregoing information it is shown that two members of the family of Richard Arterbury I had interests in Spencer County dating from 1816-7.  Whether Richard Arterbury II ever improved his land in Section 33 is unknown, but it is certain that his sister and brother-in-law did settle on their Spencer County land, and that Rebecca Arterbury Meeks likely died on that land sometime around 1824.  After Rebecca’s death, Benjamin is on record as having twice married: Jane Young on 7Apr1825 in Warrick County, and Nancy Ray on 20Mar1841 in Spencer County.  Benjamin Meeks’ household was recorded in Spencer County IN in 1830 and 1840, summarized as follows:

Name:     Benjamin Meeks

Home in 1830 (City, County, State): Luce, Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            1

Free White Persons – Males – 15 thru 19:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 40 thru 49:         1 [Benjamin Meeks]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 15 thru 19:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1 [Jane Young Meeks]

Free White Persons – Under 20:         6

Free White Persons – 20 thru 49:       2

Name:     Benjn Meeks

[Benj Meeks]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2

Free White Persons – Males – 50 thru 59:         1 [Benjamin Meeks]

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1 [Jane Young Meeks]

In 1840 Benjamin’s household was listed on the same page, and within a couple of households of John Meeks, Atha Meeks and Green Meeks.  Further down the same page are listings for William Goatley, Sariah Arterbury, Sol Arterbury and William Meeks.

Richard Arterbury II on the other hand was recorded in two different locations in 1820 summarized as follows:

Name:     Richard Arterbury

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Waconteby, White, Illinois

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          3

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 15:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

Name:     Richard Artenbury

[Richard Arterbury]

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Ohio, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          3

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 15:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

As can be observed in these 1820 census records, these households for Richard Arterbury contain identical composition, thus it is only reasonable to assume that these were both the households of Richard Arterbury II, and that he was maintaining or alternating residence between two different jurisdictions in 1820.  From other records it is known that two of Richard’s brothers: Charles and James had migrated through White County IL in the mid-1820’s, and that two other sisters: Anna Blissett and Mary Watkins had relocated to Wayne County IL in the late-1810’s.  It is also believed that three of Richard’s younger brothers relocated to Wayne County IL around 1818.  Nathan Arterbury remained in Wayne County, where he lived a very long and fruitful life; but the other two brothers (possibly Stout and John) initially accompanied him to Wayne County, but returned to Kentucky after a relatively short stay in Illinois.  It seems likely that during this same time period Richard II was reaching out in search of new lands when he filed a plat in Luce Township, and was contemporaneously recorded in Waconteby Township, White County IL, and Ohio County KY.

In addition to Benjamin Meeks, there were several of his kinsmen who had also settled in Warrick/Spencer County by 1820: Atha Meeks [Jr.], Charles Meeks, John Meeks, Purdy [Dr. Priddy] Meeks, and William Meeks.  Most, if not all of these other Meeks were 1st cousins of Benjamin Meeks, their being sons of his uncle, Atha Meeks Sr.  Aside from Benjamin Meeks’ wife, Rebecca Arterbury, there was no evidence found of any other Arterbury/Atterbury living in either Warrick or Spencer County until 1840, when the cluster of six Arterbury households appeared.  In fact, other than the Daniel Arterbury household in nearby Harrison County IN in 1820, no other Arterburys are found in Indiana until 1840.  Daniel Arterbury of Harrison County, although relatively close, geographically, to Spencer County, could not possibly have been the source of the 1840 Arterbury enclave in Spencer County, as he matriculated to Sangamon County IL by 1830 and then to Menard County IL by 1840, where he remained until his death around 1879.  There are no census records of any Arterburys in Indiana in 1850.  In the 1860 census there are four or five Arterbury/Atterbury families listed in Indiana, with only one family known to originate from William Arterbury I, the immigrant.  The others were either newly arrived English immigrants, or originated from the eastern seaboard, possibly descended from Job Arterbury.

The one family in Indiana in 1860 that appears to have descended from William I [the Immigrant] was the household of William Henry Arterbury, summarized as follows:

Name:     William H Arterberry

Age:       33

Birth Year:             abt 1827

Gender:  Male

Birth Place:            Kentucky

Home in 1860:       Grass, Spencer, Indiana

Post Office:           Rockport

Household Members:         

Name      Age

William H Arterberry           33

Francis J Arterberry             32

Henry Arterberry                 6

Palmyra Arterberry              3

Stephen R Arterberry          5/12

It is the author’s belief that this Arterbury family, which was recorded living in Grass Township, abutting Luce Township to the east, was headed by William Henry Arterbury, son of Nathan Arterbury and Levica Arterbury.  This William Henry Arterbury is believed to be shown in his father’s household in 1850, summarized as follows:

Name:     Nathan Arterberry

Age:       55

Birth Year:             abt 1795

Birthplace:             Illinois

Home in 1850:       District 1, Daviess, Kentucky, USA

Household Members:         

Name      Age

Nathan Arterberry               55

Levisa Arterberry                 49

Wm H Arterberry                 21

Henry J Arterberry               14

As previously discussed, Nathan Arterberry is believed to have been a younger son of Edward Arterbury and Keziah [possibly Hardwick or Mitchell].  Nathan’s wife, Levisa [aka Levica] is reported by some Atterbury family genealogists as having been, herself, surnamed Arterbury/Atterbury.  In fact, some researchers claim Levica to have been a daughter of Edward and Keziah.  Having fairly reliably established her husband, Nathan, as a son of Edward and Keziah, it remains to identify the parentage of Levica.  The source for the marriage between Nathan Arterbury and Levica Arterbury is Kentucky, Compiled Marriages, 1802-1850, a database published online by Ancestry.com., which recorded the marriage of Nathan and Levica Arterbury on 30May1818 in Daviess County.  Ancestry.com attributes the source of the data contained in this database to research and compilations performed by Jordan R. Dodd and his staff at Liahona Research.  They further assert that Dodd’s research was sourced from publications and microfilm archived at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City.  This writer cannot attest to the accuracy of this marriage record, but is inclined to believe that it is of reliable provenance.  The true identity of Levica Arterbury is uncertain, but the author believes that she likely was a daughter of Israel and Salley Arterbury.  The basis for this connection for Levisa is predicated on the fact that Israel’s family was the only other Arterbury family believed to have been living in Daviess County at the time of Nathan and Levica’s marriage, besides that of Edward Arterbury and his descendants.

In summary, thus far we have been able to identify only three known Arterbury families, who were directly connected to Spencer County Indiana.  Two were descendants of Richard Arterbury I: Rebecca Arterbury Meeks and her brother, Richard Arterbury II, who had only a brief connection to Spencer County between about 1817 and 1825.  However, it is true that Rebecca Arterbury Meeks’ children continued to reside in Spencer County into early adulthood.  In fact, one of those children, Mary Meeks, is believed to have married James Myres, son of Abraham Myres and Sarah Wilkinson, and was residing in Spencer County at the time of Benjamin Meeks’ death in 1847.  From earlier writings, the reader may remember that Abraham Myres married Patty Atterbury, widow of Nathan Atterbury.  The third known Arterbury with a connection to Spencer County was William Henry Arterbury, presumed son of Nathan and Levica Arterbury, and presumed grandson of Edward Arterbury and Keziah [Mitchell? or Hardwick?].  Before leaving our discussion of the Meeks family, it should also be pointed out that two nephews of Benjamin Meeks (sons of his brother, Reverend William Meeks): John Goatley Meeks and Priddy Shirley Meeks, married two daughters of Rezin Blissett and Anna Arterbury: Sarah Jane Blissett and Margaret Ann Blissett, respectively.  These Meeks brothers both settled in Wayne County IL after their marriages to their Blissett wives.  It should also be noted that Richard Arterbury II’s younger brother, Rueben Arterbury, married Catherine [aka Kitty] Meeks, a sister of John Goatley Meeks and Priddy Shirley Meeks, and also settled in Wayne County IL.

So, prior to and following the recording of the six Arterbury households in Spencer County IN in 1840, there were no other census records found for any Arterburys living anywhere in Indiana between 1830 and 1850.  Given that Sariah Arterbury was reported to have been aged 50 to 59 (assuming that she was the older female in the household) in 1840 (born between 1780 and 1790), and given that she reported three other young adults aged 20 to 39, it seems a reasonable conclusion that Sariah was the widow of an unknown Mr. Arterbury.  Efforts to locate Sariah’s household in either 1830 or 1850 were only marginally successful.  Similarly, since Sol Arterbury and E. [Elijah?] D. [Davidson?] Arterbury each reported young persons in their household over the age of 10 years, it is reasonable to assume that they would appear as the heads of their own households in 1830.  A thorough search of the 1830 census records failed to locate any heads of households fitting their demographics.  Likewise, a thorough search of 1850 census records failed to identify any head of household, whose demographics even remotely matched any of the six Arterburys recorded in Spencer County in 1840.

“Sol” Solomon Arterberry Analysis

We will begin our investigation and analysis of the 1840 Spencer County Arterbury/Atterury households by first directing our attention to the Sol Arterbury family.  The reason for focusing on Sol Arterbury is that Solomon was a very unique given name within the Arterbury/Atterbury family in this region during the early part of the 19^th century.  In fact, there was only one known Solomon Arterbury living in America at that time, that being a son of Richard Arterbury I and Rebecca [aka Bennett].  Given the singularity of that given name within the America Arterbury clan, it occurred to the author that there possibly was a kinship connection between Sol Arterbury of Spencer County and Solomon Arterbury, son of Richard I.

Very few records have heretofore been associated with Solomon Arterbury, summarized in chronological order as follows:

1. Name:             Solomon Atterbury

Gender:          Male

Marriage Date:              15 Oct 1812

Marriage Place:             Hardin, Kentucky, USA

Spouse:          Anny Green

Film Number: 000390788

• Name:             Solomon Atterberry

Home in 1820 (City, County, State)           Grayson, Kentucky

Enumeration Date        August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10                   2 (two new sons)

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44                  1 (Solomon)

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10                2 (two new daughers)

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25               1 (Anny)

• Name              Soloman Atterberry

Home in 1830 (City, County, State)           Ohio, Kentucky, Hartford

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5                     2 (two new sons)

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 14                  2 (two sons continued from 1820)

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39                  1 (Solomon)

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5                  2 (two new daughters)

Free White Persons – Females – 15 thru 19               2 (two daughters continued from 1820)

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39               1 (Anny)

• Name:             Soloman Atterberry

[Soloman Atteberry]

Gender:          Male

Race:              White

Death Age:    68

Birth Date:     abt 1791

Residence Place:          Grayson, Kentucky, USA

Death Date:   10 Feb 1859

Death Place:  Grayson, Kentucky, USA

Father:            Richard Atterberry

From the foregoing records we have Solomon Arterbury marrying Anny Green in Hardin County in Oct1812, followed by the addition of two sons and two daughters by 1820 in Grayson County, and two more sons and two more daughters by 1830 in Ohio County.  Lastly, we have the death record of Solomon Arterbury from Grayson County in which he was reportedly a son of Richard Arterbury, born about 1791 in South Carolina, and dying on 10Feb1859 at the age of 68 years.  Solomon was reportedly still married at the time of his death.  If Solomon Arterbury lived until 1859, it is reasonable to think that there should be census records for Solomon’s household in 1840 and 1850, yet no one has yet to identify Solomon with any census records other than in 1820 and 1830.  Logic suggests that he should have been recorded in 1840 and 1850, but where are those records?

What if the census record for the Sol Arterbury household in Spencer County in 1840 was actually of Solomon Arterbury, son of Richard and Rebecca Arterbury?  First, there is the issue of the age range reported for Sol Arterbury of 30 thru 39 years in 1840.  Based on Solomon’s death record he appears to have been born about 1791, which date of birth would have him aged 40 thru 49 years in 1840.  Is it possible that that Spencer County census record was in error?  Absolutely!  Assuming that the 1840 census record was in error and was actually the record of Solomon Arterbury, son of Richard and Rebecca, we next performed a link analysis of his reported household composition in 1840 as compared to his household in 1830 as illustrated in Figure 16-5.  As can be seen from this link diagram, the two sons and two daughters born before 1820 were no longer in his household, presumably living on their own or dead.  Also, one of the males and one of the females born between 1820 and 1830 were also absent from the household in 1840, presumably dead or living in a different household.  There was also the apparent addition of a new son to the household aged 5 thru 9.  And, lastly, Solomon Arterbury appears to have been widowed, as there was no adult female in the household in 1840.  If it is assumed that the new son added between 1830 and 1840 was born of Anny Green, then it might be assumed that Anny had died sometime between about 1831 and 1840.

Proceeding along this same line of reasoning, if Sol Arterbury of Spencer County was Solomon Arterbury, might we not reasonably expect to find some evidence of the existence of the two older sons and two older daughters absent from his household in 1840, but living somewhere in the near vicinity of Spencer County?  This seemed to be a reasonable expectation, so we then went in search of those missing children.  In 1830 the two missing sons were reported being aged 10 thru 14 years, i.e., born between 1816 and 1820.  We may not have to search too far afield for the two missing sons, as their ages are a near match for the households headed by Adam Arterbury and Stephen Arterbury in Spencer County in 1840.  Likewise, a search of Indiana marriage records disclosed the marriage of two Arterbury women summarized as follows:

• Name:             Latecia Arterberry

Gender:          Female

Marriage Date:              24 Mar 1833

Marriage Place:             Spencer, Indiana

Spouse:          John Goodwin

FHL Film Number:        549442

• Name:             Dalila Arterbery

Gender:          Female

Marriage Date:              27 Mar 1833

Marriage Place:             Spencer, Indiana

Spouse:          Atha Tucker

FHL Film Number:        549442

While we were searching the marriage records, we also found the following:

• Name:             Stephen Arterberry

Gender:          Male

Marriage Date:              29 Jun 1836

Marriage Place:             Spencer, Indiana

Spouse:          Elizabeth Gray

FHL Film Number:        549442

Given the rarity of the Arterbury surname in Spencer County during this time period, it seems highly probable to the author that Dalila Arterbury and Lucretia [aka Leticia] Arterbury were the missing daughters of Solomon Arterbury, and that Stephen Arterbury was also one of the missing adult sons.  However, there was an age discrepancy associated with Adam Arterberry, which needs our attention.  In the 1830 census, Adam would have been aged 10 thru 14 years, yet in the 1840 census record he was reported having an apparent daughter in his household who would have been born between 1831 and 1835.  This would suggest that Adam’s oldest child would have been born when he was about 18 years or younger.  This is not impossible, but rather unusual for that time period.  Given this discrepancy, the author is inclined to question whether Adam Arterberry was in fact a son of Solomon Arterberry.  If Adam Arterberry was not Solomon’s son, then we might expect to find the other missing son elsewhere.

In order to find that other missing son, we may need to leap forward to the 1850 census.  In 1850 there is a census record for the household of a Solomon Arterberry in Grayson County KY summarized in Figure 16-6.  Even though this record has transcribed Solomon’s age as being 36 years, a review of the record suggests it should have been 56 years, which closely comports with the expected age of our Solomon Arterberry.  It is the author’s opinion that this was the household of Solomon Arterberry, son of Richard and Rebecca.  This conclusion is further strengthened by Solomon’s reported place of birth having been South Carolina.  Its location in Grayson County KY also comports with the reported place of Solomon’s death in 1859 in Grayson County.  Assuming that this was the record of our subject Solomon Arterberry, it would appear that all of his children have left his household, and that he has taken on a new wife named Celia.  We had already surmised that Solomon’s first wife, Anny Green had died sometime before 1840, probably in Spencer County IN.

So, having reliably tracked Solomon Arterberry from Spencer County IN back into Grayson County KY in 1850, we should reasonably ask whether this information brings us any closer to identifying the presumed missing son.  Well, the answer to that question seemingly is embodied in yet another, later census record for a Samuel Arterberry in Grayson County in 1860, summarized in Figure 16-7.  In this census record we have a household headed by Samuel Arterberry, born about 1818 in Kentucky, with an apparent wife named Arrena, and a daughter named Amy A.  Also in this household was an older woman named Selia, aged 55, also born in Kentucky.  Although Selia’s age does not exactly align with Solomon Arterberry’s presumed 2^nd wife, Celia, in 1850, it is reasonable to conclude that Selia Arterberry was the widow of Solomon Arterberry, and the step-mother of Samuel Arterberry.  This is supported by the fact that Solomon was reported still married at the time of his death in Feb1859  Assuming this analysis to be correct, we would seem to have established the identity of the other missing son of Solomon and Anny Arterberry to have been Samuel Arterberry.

Before leaving Solomon Arterberry and his presumed off-spring, further evidence of his progeny may be found in later records associated with his presumed children.  For example, it should be noted that the household of John Goodwin and Lucrecia [aka Luticia] Arterbury in 1850 contained their eight presumed children, plus a young adult female named Elizabeth A. Arterberry, aged 27 and born in Kentucky as illustrated in Figure 16-8.  Was this Elizabeth A. Arterberry yet another daughter of Solomon Arterbury and a sister of Lucretia Arterberry?  This Elizabeth A. Arterberry would have been born about 1823, which age and place of birth would comport with the female aged 15 thru 19 in Sol Arterberry’s household in Spencer County IN in 1840.  Based on these matching demographics, the author is inclined to accept Elizabeth A. Arterberry as another daughter of Solomon and Anny Arterberry.

In yet another census record of the John Goodwin household in 1870 we find further evidence of Arterbury offspring as summarized in Figure 16-9.  In this 1870 household we find two of John and Lucretia’s daughters: Sarah P. and Nancy J. Goodwin, and possibly a couple of grandchildren named William B. and Isaphena A. Goodwin.  But most telling, we find a Letitia E. Arterberry, aged 17, Elizabeth F. [Frances?] Arterberry, aged 16, and Elizabeth J. Arterberry, aged 13.  All three Arterberry females were reported having been born in Illinois.  It is worth noting that the John Goodwin household in 1850 was recorded in Moultre Township, Illinois, whereas in the 1870 census the household was recorded in Luce Township, Spencer County, Indiana.

Given that these three young women in John Goodwin’s household in 1870 were surnamed “Arterberry”, it seems reasonable to conclude that they were born of a father surnamed Arterberry, and that they probably were kinspersons of Lucretia Arterberry.  Given their respective ages and place of birth, and their residency within the John Goodwin household in Spencer County IN in 1870, it seems highly probable that these young women were nieces of John and Lucretia Goodwin, and the children of yet another unknown son or sons of Solomon Arterberry. 

Thus far in our analysis of the family of Solomon Arterberry, we believe that we have reliably established the identity of two sons named Stephen and Samuel.  However, from the link diagram presented in Figure 16-5 we identified the possibility of at least one other son having reached adulthood, that being the young male aged 10 thru 14 years in Sol Arterberry’s household in Spencer County in 1840.  It is also possible that the youngest male, aged 5 thru 9 years in that same household in 1840 could also have been the father of one or more of the three young Arterberry females.  Assuming that our analysis is correct, and that Sol Arterberry was the same person as Solomon Arterberry, son of Richard and Rebecca, we might expect to find the existence of possibly two more sons of Solomon, who survived to adulthood, married, and sired at least three daughters.  Also, given that these presumed daughters of the(se) unknown son(s) of Solomon Arterberry were in the guardianship of their presumed uncle, John Goodwin, in 1870, it seems probable that their parents were deceased by 1870.

Unfortunately, a comprehensive search of the 1860 census records failed to locate the household of either the John Goodwin family or the family of our unknown son(s) of Solomon and Anny Arterbury.  Occasionally, it is helpful to search the Public Trees on Ancestry or WikiTree to find clues of family connections.  After performing such a search, the author was able to discover one possible link, that being via the child named Elizabeth F. Arterberry.  Several different sources suggest that this young woman actually went by her middle name of Frances, and that she married a gentleman named John Mahlon Brock around 1886.  There are numerous records associated with this couple, some of which do tend to support a possible connection to Elizabeth F. Arterberry.  These records are presented and analyzed as follows:

• Marriage No. 1 – In the marriage record summarized in Figure 16-10 Frances E. Arterberry married a James Smith in Warrick County, Indiana on 3Mar1877.  Given the rarity of the Arterberry surname in the Spencer County area at this time, and the exact match for Frances’ given name, it seems highly probable that this was the first marriage of Elizabeth Francis Arterberry.  No further record could be located for this couple, so it is unknown whether they had any children from this union, but unlikely.

Marriage No. 2. – In the marriage record summarized in Figure 16-11 Frances Arterbury married a Mr. Brock in Luce Township, Spencer County, Indiana on 25Oct1886.  In other records this Mr. Brock is identified as John M. Brock, including his death record.

1. Marriage Record of Frances Elizabeth’s son, Henry Harrison Brock – Figure 16-12 contains a summary of the marriage record of Elizabeth Frances’s son, Henry Harrison Brock.  The striking element of this record is that Henry Harrison identified his mother as Frances Goodwin.  Nowhere else in the records of Elizabeth Frances Arterberry was her surname reported as “Goodwin”, except in her death certificate.
2. Elizabeth Frances Arterberry’s Death Certificate – Figure 16-13 contains an image of Elizabeth Frances Arterberry’s death certificate.  This record has been transcribed as being for a person named Sonnie Brock, however, the various facts contained in this record leave little doubt but that this was for Elizabeth Frances Arterberry [aka Fannie].  The most relevant facts contained in this record are the names reported for her parents.  Her father was reported to have been John Goodwin, and her mother was reported as Annie Arterberry.  The biographical information contained in this record was provided by France’s son-in-law, Taylor Hawkins, husband of Ida Florence Brock.  Furthermore, it is stated that these parents were each born in Illinois.

We can equivocate over the accuracy of the information provided by Taylor Hawkins, but the author must admit that, if accurate, this information would seem to provide some clarity as to the true parents of the three young women reported in John Goodwin’s household in 1870.  Namely, that they were the children of John Goodwin and Annie Arterberry.  We can further stipulate that Annie Arterberry very likely was the same person as Elizabeth A. Arterberry, who appeared in John Goodwin’s household in 1850.  And, lastly, we can state with a fairly high degree of certainty that Elizabeth Ann Arterberry and Lucretia Arterberry were sisters, and the daughters of Solomon Arterberry and Annie Green.

Just what the legal status of the union between John Goodwin and Elizabeth Ann Arterberry may have been cannot be stated with certainty, but given the use of the Arterberry surname for the three children in the 1870 census, and the fact that Frances Elizabeth appears to have only used the Arterberry surname in her marriage and census records, it seems probable that John Goodwin and Elizabeth Ann Arterberry were never legally bound in marriage. 

It occurs to the author that there may be an alternate explanation for this mixed family.  Mormonism was rapidly spreading throughout Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana during this time period.  Although polygamous marriage may not have been a widespread phenomenon among Mormons at this point in time, it was occurring.  Given that Dr. Priddy Meeks hailed from Luce Township, Spencer County, and was converted to Mormonism in the 1840’s, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that John Goodwin may also have been a convert, and that his union with the two Arterberry sisters could have been of a polygamous nature.  Also, the Mormon migration to Utah occurred in the 1840’s, which occurrence might explain the disappearance of the John Goodwin household from the census records in 1860.  This is entirely speculation on the author’s part, but does offer a plausible explanation for the seeming absence of a marriage between John Goodwin and Elizabeth Ann Arterberry.

It is now time for us to delve a bit deeper into Solomon Arterberry, and his allied family connections.  It has been reliably established that Solomon was twice married, first to Annie Green, who is believed to have died between about 1831 and 1840 in Spencer County IN, and second to Celia [possibly Cecilia Decker], marriage time and place uncertain.  By 1850 Solomon Arterberry had returned to Kentucky, where he is found living in Grayson County with his new wife, Celia, adjacent to William H. [Harmon] Mahurin. 

Were there familial affiliations in Solomon Arterberry’s background which may have led to his initial migration to Spencer County IN and his later return to Grayson County in his waning years?  The answer to that question can probably be found in the identity of his first wife, Annie Green.  Although not thoroughly documented, numerous Meeks and Mahurin family researchers claim that Annie Green was the only child of a mysterious Thomas Green and Sarah Meeks.  Further, that Sarah Meeks was a daughter of Priddy Meeks Sr. and Elizabeth Denny, born about 1773 probably near Greenville, South Carolina.  Following the death of Thomas Green, probably in Hardin County Kentucky in about 1798, his widow married Stephen Mahurin, son of Silas Mahurin and Sarah [Susannah] (mnu).  Sarah Meeks and Stephen Mahurin settled in the northwestern corner of Grayson County near the community of Tousey, where they lived out their relatively long lives and sired numerous children as expressed in the following biography taken from Stephen Mahurin’s profile on Find-A-Grave:

“Stephen Mahurin was the son of Silas Mahurin and Sarah Susannah (nee Unknown) Mahurin. He was born May 21, 1774 somewhere in Virginia. He was the brother of three known sisters: Mary, Phebe and Patience. The family was in Hardin County, Kentucky by 1800 and in the newly created Grayson County, Kentucky by 1810. Stephen married Sarah (Meeks) Green on October 28, 1799 in Shelby County, Kentucky. She was the daughter of Priddy Meeks[3] and Elizabeth Denny, the widow of Thomas Green and the mother of Annie Green (presumed wife of Solomon Arterberry).

Stephen and Sarah were the parents of:

Elizabeth – b. 23 Nov 1800

Sarah – b. 12 Dec 1801

– m/1. Anthony Smith ca 1818

– m/2. Priddy Meeks[4] 24 Dec 1826

Phebe – b. 15 Jul 1804

– m. James A. B. Fraim

Silas – b. 31 Dec 1805

– m. Delaney “Laney” Edwards

Frederick Priddy – b. 19 Mar 1808

– m. Eliza Atterberry 18 Sep 1828

Candance – b. 25 Dec 1809

Susannah – b. ca 1811

Stephen – b. 28 Aug 1813

– m. Rachel Dewees 2 Apr 1840

William Harmon – b. 28 Jan 1815

– m. Ann Dewees

Abigail Mahurin – b. 29 Dec 1817

– m. Isaac Harrell Dewees, Sr.

Stephan Mahurin died at the age of 74 years, 8 months and 18 days on February 8, 1849 and Sarah died six months later at the age of 76 years, 2 months and 26 days on August 10, 1849. They were among the first burials in the Mahurin Cemetery near Tousey, Grayson County, Kentucky.:[5]

So, from the foregoing biographical sketch of Stephen Mahurin we have disclosed several very close family connections between Solomon Arterberry and the Meeks and Mahurin families, albeit tangentially through Solomon’s 1^st wife, Annie Green.  To illustrate these connections more precisely, we will place them into more specific kinship and geographic terms.  First, Solomon’s wife, and the presumed mother of all his known and/or presumed children, was a daughter of Sarah Meeks, daughter of Priddy Meeks Sr., and wife of Stephen Mahurin through a 2^nd marriage.  Sarah Meeks (Solomon Arterberry’s mother-in-law) also was the sister of Solomon Arterberry’s brother-in-law, by way of her younger brother, Benjamin Meeks, having married Solomon’s older sister, Rebecca Arterberry.  Benjamin Meeks and Rebecca Arterberry were settled in Luce Township, Spencer County, Indiana by 1820.  Benjamin Meeks had filed a patent for land in Spencer County in Section 29 in Dec1816, and Richard Arterberry II filed for land in Section 33 in Nov1817.  Solomon Arterberry’s presumed son, Stephen Arterberry, filed a patent for a 40 acre tract of land in Luce Township on 5Sep1838, located at Township 7S, Range 7W, Section 21, N1/2, W1/2, SW1/4.  The tract filing by Stephen Arterberry would have been located in the Section immediately northeast of the original tract filing by Benjamin Meeks, and two Sections directly north of the tract filing by Richard Arterberry II.

In the 1840 census records from Spencer County IN the Solomon Arterberry household was listed on the same page [Page 36] as the households of Benjamin Meeks, John Meeks, Athy Meeks, Green [aka Greenberry] Meeks, William Goatley, William Meeks, and immediately adjacent to Athy Tucker [Solomon’s presumed son-in-law].  The Stephen Arterberry household was listed four pages after the Sol Arterberry household [Page 42], immediately abutting the households of William Meeks [Rev. William Meeks, son of Priddy Meeks and Elizabeth Denney] and M. J. [James Mason Meeks, son of Rev. William Meeks and Nancy Goatley] Meeks.  In the 1840 census Spencer County was reported as a whole, with the exception of the Rockport Township.  The census records of Spencer County spanned a total of 36 pages (excluding the slave pages), encompassing a total of 1006 households.  The six Arterberry households were grouped in a fairly small geographic region spanning five consecutive pages (again, excluding the slave pages).  There were a total of 14 households headed by persons surnamed Meeks.  Of those 14 households, 11 were clustered within the same five pages containing persons named Arterberry, the other three are found on pages 14 and 64.  So, the Arterberrys in Spencer County were clustered in very close geographic proximity to the large majority of members of the Meeks family.  Rev. William Meeks and his son, James Mason Meeks were immediate neighbors of Stephen Arterberry.  Rev. William Meeks was a brother of Sarah Meeks Green Mahurin, and Benjamin Meeks, who married Rebecca Arterberry, sister of Solomon Arterberry.  Rev. Meeks was also a brother of Catherine Goatley Meeks, who married Solomon Arterberry’s younger brother, Rueben Arterberry, and the father of John Goatley Meeks and Priddy Shirley Meeks, who married daughters of Resin Blissett and Mary Arterberry [Solomon’s older sister].

Solomon Arterberry’s presumed daughter, Dalila Arterberry married Athy [aka Atha] Tucker.  Atha Tucker was an immediately adjacent neighbor of Solomon Arterberry’s household in 1840.  Atha Tucker is believed to have been a son of Peter Tucker and Susannah Meeks.  Susannah Meeks is believed to have been a daughter of Priddy Meeks Sr. and Margaret Snead, and sister of Sarah Meeks Green Mahurin, Solomon Arterberry’s mother-in-law.

According to Wayne Atteberry, Solomon Arterberry and his 2^nd wife, Celia Decker, are both buried in the Solomon [Wilson] Cemetery near Yeaman, Grayson County KY.  The author has been unable to find any documentary proof of Wayne Atteberry’s claim.  In fact, aside from a record found on Find-A-Grave, no other reference to Solomon’s place of burial could be found, but his death was recorded in Grayson County.  Even the precise location of the Solomon Wilson Cemetery appears to be a closely held secret.  Aside from burial entries found on Find-A-Grave, no other references to this Cemetery could be located.  If Solomon Arterberry and his 2^nd wife are buried in this cemetery, it is a bit strange that the namesake of that cemetery, Solomon Wilson, was not buried until 18Aug1887, and he was the earliest recorded interment after that of Solomon Arterberry, almost 30 years later.

Solomon Arterberry’s son, Samuel Arterberry and his wife, Arrena [Irene?] Payton are buried in the Mahurin Cemetery near Tousey, Grayson County, KY.  The earliest recorded interment in the Mahurin Cemetery is that of Sarah Elizabeth Mahurin, daughter of Stephen Mahurin Jr. and Rachel Dewees, who died on 17Jul1842 at the tender age of 15 months.  Stephen Mahurin Sr. was the next recorded burial, when he died on 8Feb1849.  Stephen’s wife, Sarah Meeks Green Mahurin [Solomon Arterberry’s mother-in-law] was the next recorded burial, when she died on 10Aug1849.  There are a total of 130 interments on record in the Mahurin Cemetery, most of which are for members of the Mahurin family.

The communities of Yeaman and Tousey are located roughly two miles apart in the extreme northwest corner of Grayson County, as illustrated in Figure 16-14.  Yeaman and Tousey are located roughly 4.5 miles south of Falls of Rough, the post office location where Samuel Arterberry’s household was recorded in 1860.

Given all of the close kinship and geographic location connections cited in the foregoing analysis of Solomon Arterberry, there is little doubt in the mind of the author that Solomon Arterberry, son of Richard Arterberry I and Rebecca was the same person as Sol Arterberry, whose household was recorded in Spencer County IN in 1840.  Further, it is the author’s opinion that Solomon Arterberry and Anny Green were the parents of Lucretia Arterberry, Dalila Arterberry, Samuel Arterberry, Stephen Arterberry and Elizabeth Ann Arterberry, and possibly of Adam Arterberry.  From the 1830 and 1840 census records of Solomon Arterberry’s households it would appear that he and Anny Green had perhaps three additional sons and one additional daughter, who may have survived to adulthood and whose identity has not been established from the foregoing research and analysis.  The fact that those presumed additional children were absent from Solomon’s household in 1850 suggests that they had either died, or were living outside of his household.  The fact that there were no apparent children living in Solomon’s household in 1850 suggests that there were no surviving children from his union with Celia [Decker?].

Adam Arterberry Analsis

We will next analyze the possible identity of Adam Arterberry, whose household was recorded in Spencer County in 1840 and is reiterated as follows:

Name:     Adam Arterberry

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         1 [Adam Arterberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Adam Arterberry’s demographics would fit with one of the sons reported in the household of Solomon Arterberry in 1830, but missing from his household in 1840.  The author had initially dismissed Adam Arterberry as a son of Solomon Arterberry, because of the presumed sons named Stephen and Samuel.  Both Stephen and Samuel also fit the demographics of the two sons missing from Solomon Arterberry’s household in 1840.  Based on demographics, we would appear to have one too many sons for Solomon Arterberry.  Yet, one troubling factor is the inability to find Samuel Arterberry anywhere in the 1840 census records.  If Samuel Arterberry were truly one of the two missing sons in the 1840 census, we would logically expect to find him recorded somewhere in the 1840 census, possibly as the head of his own household, yet he was nowhere to be found. 

Let’s assume for a minute that Stephen and Adam Arterberry were the two sons reportedly aged 10 thru 19 years in 1830 and missing from Solomon’s household in 1840, then how might we rationalize the existence and whereabouts of Samuel Arterbury in 1840.  The answer to that puzzle may just lie in the household composition of Stephen Arterberry in 1840, reiterated as follows:

Name:     Stephen Asheberry

[Stephen Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         2 [Stephen Asheberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Note that Stephen Arterberry’s household actually reported two males aged 20 thru 29 years.  Clearly, one of those males would have been Stephen Arterberry, as the head of the household.  Might the other male have been Stephen’s brother, Samuel Arterberry?  That seems to be a distinct possibility.  If the second male in Stephen Arterberry’s household was his younger brother, Samuel, then how might that fact square up with the males reported in Solomon’s household in 1830 and 1840?  It should be remembered that there were actually three males reported in Solomon’s household in 1830, which were missing from his household in 1840.  The author had initially assumed that one of the sons reported as under age 5 in 1830 may have died by 1840.  Now, it seems possible that the age of one of the sons under age five in Solomon’s household in 1830 may have been in error, and that one of those sons (Samuel), was actually over the age of 5, probably about 11 years old. 

Given the presence of the additional male aged 20 thru 29 in Stephen Arterberry’s household in 1840, the author is inclined to believe that that additional male was actually Stephen’s brother, Samuel Arterberry.  Assuming that to have been the case, then the author is also inclined to believe that Adam Arterberry may have been yet another son of Solomon Arterberry.  The proof of Adam Arterberry as a son of Solomon Arterberry is tenuous, but possible.  The reader will ultimately need to determine the identity of Adam Arterberry for themselves. 

One final observation may lend even further strength to the foregoing analysis of the Solomon Arterberry family.  It seems highly probable to the author that Stephen Arterberry was the namesake of his mother’s step-father, Stephen Mahurin.  Anny Green probably was only a few years old when her widowed mother married Stephen Mahurin.  Anny very likely was reared most of her young life in Stephen Mahurin’s household.  In fact, Stephen Mahurin may have been the only real father she would remember.  Consequently, it is reasonable to think that she would want to name her eldest son in honor of that father.

Eigah Arterberry

Having exhausted virtually every direct search methodology and resource available to the author, a secondary, or indirect research methodology was devised.  This indirect routine was predicated on the assumption that the existence of five households, each with young males at their head, would almost certainly have resulted in the birth of young children during their stay in Indiana.  Further, that the existence of such children should be detectable through a focused search of the 1850 census records.  Consequently, a complete search of the 1850 census records was performed for anyone bearing the surname of A*t*b*ry (where “*” functions as a wild card) using the birth date range of 1840 +/- 10 years, and birthplace of Indiana.  Strangely, this search returned only two hits: (1) Robert A. Arterbury, aged 6, born in Indiana, living in the household of Robert A. Saxon in Clay and Richland County IL; and (2) Amanda Atterbury, aged 13 and born about 1837 in Indiana, living in her father’s household (Nathaniel J Atterbury, presumed son of Charles and Sarah Atteberry) in Hunt County TX.  Amanda Atterbury’s family was living in Big Creek, Van Buren County, Missouri in 1840, so they could be excluded from having been one of the Spencer County families in 1840.  However, a review of Amanda’s siblings’ demographics indicate that she had a sister, Elizabeth, born in 1836 in Kentucky, and another sister, Barbara, born in 1841 in Missouri.  From this information it can be deduced that Amanda’s family lived only briefly (between 1836/7 and 1839) in Indiana, before moving on to Missouri.  Since all of the known Arterburys/Atterberrys living in Indiana around this time period were located in Spencer County, it is reasonable to assume that Nathaniel J. Atterbury also lived in Spencer County, and possibly was a kinsman of one or more of the Arterburys living in Spencer County in 1840.

Now, as regards the other person discovered using the indirect search methodology, namely, Robert A. Arterbury, his ultimate identification facilitated a highly probable connection to Eijah W. or Eigah Arterbury.  This probable connection to Eigah [aka Eijah] Arterbury was established through an analysis of the probable family unit surrounding Robert A. Arterbury.  First, is it important to look at the Robert A. Saxton household in Clay and Richland County IL in 1850, summarized as follows:

Name:     Robert A Arterberry

Age:       6

Birth Year:             abt 1844

Birthplace:             Indiana

Home in 1850:       Clay and Richland, Richland, Illinois, USA

Gender:  Male

Family Number:    1104

Household Members:         

Name      Age

Robert A Saxton                   30

Nancy Saxton                       23

Mary E Saxton                      2

Isaac Arterberry                   14

Wm Arterberry                     12

Robert A Arterberry            6

From a review of the composition of this household it was concluded that the three male Arterburys very likely were brothers.  In reviewing the demographics for Isaac and William Arterbury, it was determined that they were born in Kentucky, whereas Robert A. was born in Indiana.  This suggests that their family had moved from Kentucky into Indiana sometime between 1838 and 1844.  Further searching discovered the following marriage record:

Name:     Nancy Jane Atteberry

Gender:  Female

Event Type:          Marriage Registration (Marriage)

Marriage Licence Date:       4 Oct 1844

Marriage Licence Place:      Indiana, United States

Spouse:  Robert A Saxton

This record provides a strong inference that Nancy Saxton was born an Atteberry, and very likely a sister of Isaac, William and Robert A.  The date of this marriage having been in Oct 1844 also provides a strong suggestion that Nancy’s younger brother, Robert A. Arterbury, may have been named in honor of her new husband, Robert A. Saxton.  The fact that her three younger brothers were living with Nancy and her husband, Robert A. Saxton, in 1850, suggests that their parents may both have been deceased sometime between 1844 and 1850, thus necessitating Nancy’s apparent assumed guardianship of her younger brothers.  Further searching for possible Arterbury/Atterbury kinfolk in Clay and Richland County IL resulted in discovery of the following records:

Name:     Charles C Arterberry

Age:       18

Birth Year:             abt 1832

Birthplace:             Kentucky

Home in 1850:       Clay and Richland, Richland, Illinois, USA

Gender:  Male

Name      Age

John Jeffrey [Jeffords]        45

Margaret Jeffrey [Evans]    58

Name:     James W Arterberry

Age:       20

Birth Year:             abt 1830

Birthplace:             Kentucky

Home in 1850:       Clay and Richland, Richland, Illinois, USA

Gender:  Male

Family Number:    1103

Household Members:         

Name      Age

James W Arterberry            20

Elizabeth Arterberry            19

In the case of James W. Arterberry, his household was recorded immediately adjacent to the Robert A. Saxton household.  Given James W. Arterberry’s close geographic proximity, age and place of birth (Kentucky), it is logical to conclude that he very likely was another sibling of Nancy, Isaac, William and Robert A. Arterbury.  In the instance of Charles C. Arterbury, he was living in the household of John Jeffords and Margaret Evans Jeffords, an apparently unrelated family many households removed from James W. Arterberry and Robert A. Saxton.  But, given his age and place of birth (Kentucky) and presence in the same County, it seems possible that he was yet another sibling.  Having pieced together the remnants of what appears to have been six siblings from the same family, it is now time to search for their probable family household in 1840.  Given that William was born in about 1838 in Kentucky, and Robert A. was born in about 1844 in Indiana, it seems possible that their family could have been one of the five male Arterbury households recorded living in Spencer County in 1840.  On reviewing the reported composition of each of those five households in Spencer County in 1840, only the household of Eigah Arterbury appears to provide a match.  For purposes of this comparative analysis, the 1840 household of Eigah Arterberry is reiterated as follows:

Name:     Eigah Arteebury

[Elijah Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2 [Isaac and William]

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             2 [James W. and Charles C.]

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [Eigah Arteebury]

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1 [Nancy Jane]

Free White Persons – Females – 40 thru 49:      1 [unknown wife]

The bracketed names of the assumed children have been supplied by the author, based on the reconstructed family unit from Clay and Richland County IL.  Based on the virtually identical match between the assumed children reported in Eigah Arterbury’s 1840 household in Spencer County to the reconstructed family unit of assumed siblings in Clay and Richland County in 1850, it seems a virtual certainty that Nancy Jane, James W., Charles C., Isaac, William and Robert A. Arterbury were all the children of Eigah Arterbury and his unknown wife recorded in Spencer County in 1840.  Assuming this to have been the case, and given the place of birth of five of his presumed children in Kentucky, it is now time to search for Eigah Arterbury’s household in Kentucky in 1830.  As it happens, just such a household does appear in the 1830 census in Daviess County, immediately across the Ohio River from Spencer County summarized as follows:

Name:     Eijah W Atterbury

Home in 1830 (City, County, State):  Daviess, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            1 [James W.]

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [Eijah W.]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1 [Nancy]

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1 [unknown wife]

The family of Eijah W. Atterbury is a very close match to the family of Eigah Arterbury in Spencer County IN in 1840.  One significant variance is the age ranges of the head of household and his presumed wife, which appear to have been reversed in the 1840 census (or vice versa).  That variance aside, the author is inclined to believe that these households were headed by the same person.  The virtual match of the children’s demographics, coupled with the unique spelling of the given name of Eijah vs. Eigah is almost conclusive.  The names of Eijah and Eigah probably would have been phonetically identical.  Just which spelling of this name was the intended original variant is uncertain, as there were a similar number each spelling existing in the 1850 census.  If this interpretation is correct regarding Eijah W. and Eigah having been the same persons, then the question arises regarding Eijah’s ancestry.  To answer that question we must return to the earlier census records of Daviess County in 1820.  In that year there were only two households in Daviess County headed by an Arterbury of sufficiently advanced age to have been Eijah’s parent: (1) Edward Arterbury, and (2) Salley Arterbury. 

Earlier in this chapter we have already analyzed and identified the three probable sons of Edward Arterbury, namely, Elijah, Nathan and Hasel.  We also spoke briefly of the household of Salley Arterbury, and presented the case for her having been the widow of Israel Arterbury, son of Michael and Elizabeth Arterbury.  However, we did not analyze or evaluate the young male members of Israel and Salley’s household.  Let us do that analysis at this time.  In Figure 16-3 we presented a link-diagram of their respective households between 1800 and 1820.  In those households were recorded the existence of two young males reported aged under 10 in 1800, 10 thru 15 in 1810, and 16 thru 25 in 1820.  Consequently, it is possible to surmise that those two presumed sons were born sometime between 1795 and 1800, and that they were still living in their mother’s household in Daviess County in 1820.  Assuming that they eventually married and established their own households, independent of their mother, we might expect to find them living in Daviess County in 1830.  As fortune would have it, there were in fact two new households appearing for the first time in Daviess County in 1830 headed by young male Arterburys, summarized as follows:

Name:     Eijah W Atterbury

[Elijah W Atterbury]

[Ejah W Atterbury]

Home in 1830 (City, County, State):  Daviess, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Name:     Manos Atterbury

[Maner? Atterbury]

Home in 1830 (City, County, State):  Daviess, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 14:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1

By process of elimination, it seems probable that Eijah W. and Manos Atterbury were brothers, and sons of Israel and Salley Arterbury.  One factor that might auger against this conclusion is that two young persons in Manos Atterbury’s household were aged 10 thru 14 years.  If Manos Atterbury had not left his mother’s household and married until sometime after 1820, then he probably could not have had two children born before 1820.  One possible explanation for this seeming discrepancy might be that Manos could have married a widow, who already had two young children from an earlier marriage.  Manos could not be found in any census records in either 1820 or 1840, so we have no further information on which to base a conclusion regarding his probable ancestry.  All things considered, the author is inclined to accept Manos and Eijah W. Atterbury as brothers, and sons of Israel and Salley Arterbury.

Through a considerable effort we have fairly reliably established the identity of yet another of the six Arterburys in Spencer County in 1840.  As a result of having established Eijah W. [aka Eigah] Artebury as the probable son of Israel and Salley Arterbury, we have seemingly eliminated Eigah Arterbury from having had any immediate and direct kinship connection to any of the other five Arterburys living contemporaneously with him in Spencer County in 1840. 

Sariah Arterberry

We will now analyze the household headed by a person named Sariah (probably Sarah) Arterberry, reiterated as follows:

Name:     Sariah Arterbury

[Sariah Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         2

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1 [Sariah Arterbury?]

Free White Persons – Females – 50 thru 59:      1 [Sariah Arterbury?]

Since there were two adult females listed in this household, it is not possible to state with any certainty just which of those females might have been considered to be the head of the household.  If we assume that the oldest female, aged 50 thru 59 was Sariah Arterberry, then is might be concluded that the other younger persons in the household were her children or children’s spouse(s), and that she was the widow of a deceased Mr. Arterberry.  If the younger female, aged 30 thru 39 was Sariah Arterberry, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the two young males may have been her siblings, and that the older woman may have been the mother of one or more of the other members of the household.  Either one of these scenarios seems plausible.

Case 1 Sariah Arterberry (aged 50 thru 59):  If we assume that Sariah Arterberry was the oldest female in the household, then we are accepting that she was born sometime between 1781 and 1790, and that she had been married to a deceased Mr. Arterberry.  We are also accepting that she probably had at least one surviving son in his 20’s still living at home, and possibly a daughter in her 30’s still living at home.  When we plumbed the depths of the Arterberry/Atterberry family genealogies from this time period in search of a widowed Sariah (or Sarah) Arterberry still alive in 1840, very few candidates could be found.  The most obvious candidate, given the geographic location of Spencer County and the kinships of those Arterberrys already identified from this cluster of six households, would be the widow of Israel Arterberry, son of Michael and Elizabeth Arterberry.  Earlier in this chapter the author hypothesized that Israel’s widow was the Salley Arterberry recorded across the Ohio River in Daviess County KY in 1820.  The name “Salley” is a recognized nickname for Sarah, and that Salley Arterberry would have been of the appropriate age to have been reported as aged 50 thru 59 years in 1840.  However, Salley [aka Sarah or Sariah] Arterberry could not be located in the 1830 census, so we have no basis for assuming that she may still have been alive in 1840.  Yet, people do go missing from the census records, as we have already observed in this manuscript of the John Goodwin household in 1860.  It should also be recognized that Salley Arterberry, presumed widow of Israel Arterberry is not known to have had any children who would match the demographics of the apparent children in Sariah’s household in 1840.  All things considered, the author is not inclined to lend much credence to Sariah Arterberry having been the widow of Israel Arterberry.  Absent any other viable candidates, it seems unlikely that Sariah Arterberry was the older woman in this household.

Case 2 Sariah Arterberry (aged 30 thru 39):  In this case it is assumed that Sariah [aka Sarah] Arterberry was actually the younger female of the household.  Again, plumbing the depths of the Arterberry/Atterberry genealogy during this time period, we find evidence of one possible candidate, Sarah Arterberry, who appeared as the head of a household in Jackson County TN in 1830, summarized as follows:

The age of Sarah Arterberry from Jackson County TN would be a perfect fit for the Sariah Arterberry in Case 2.  Also, the two younger males in Sarah Arterberry’s household in 1830 would be a perfect fit for the two young males in Sariah’s household in 1840.  The author is not absolutely certain of the identity of the Sarah Arterberry of Jackson County TN, but does have a theory.  Sarah Arterberry appeared as the head of household in Jackson County in only one census year, 1830.  Also in Jackson County TN in 1830 were four other households headed by male Arterberrys named: Moses, Thomas, George and James.  Moses Arterberry is generally accepted as the son of Nathan and Patty Arterberry.  Thomas, George and James are believed to have been sons of Moses.  The author has been unable to find anyone claiming to know the identity of this Sarah Arterberry.

The author’s hypothesis regarding the identity of this Sarah Arterberry is predicated on a review of the 1820 census for Jackson County.  In that year there were a total of three households headed by persons named Arterberry: Moses Arterberry, Elizah [Elijah] Arterberry and Priscilla Arterberry.  We have already established the identity of Moses Arterberry as a son of Nathan and Patty Arterberry.  Priscilla Arterberry is reliably known to have been Priscilla Mayfield, widow of Nathan Arterberry, son of Michael and Elizabeth Arterberry.  Many genealogists have identified Elijah Arterberry as a son of Nathan and Patty, and brother of Moses Arterberry.  The author is not persuaded of that connection.  It seems more likely that Elijah Arterberry was the son of Edward Arterberry and Keziah [possibly Mitchell].  The author believes that Elijah was the same person recorded living adjacent to Edward Arterberry’s household near Elizabethtown, Hardin County KY in 1810.

As a basis of comparison, the author has compiled a link diagram between the households of Elijah Arterberry in 1810, Elijah Arterberry in 1820, Sarah Arterberry in 1830 and Sariah Arterberry in 1840 as illustrated in Figure 16-15.  For an added dimension, the author has added the household of E. D. Arterberry to this link diagram.

In the 1810 household of Elijah Arterberry he appears to have had a wife, and a son and daughter, both under the age of 10 years.  In the 1820 household of Elijah Arterberry his wife seems to be missing, presumably deceased.  The two children from 1810 were continued in his household in 1820, aged 10 thru 15 years.  Three new sons appear to have been added to the family between 1810 and 1820.  Continuing forward to Sarah Arterberry’s household in 1830, her elder male sibling (aged 20 thru 29) appears to still be in the household, as well at two of the younger brothers: one aged 10 thru 14 and the other aged 15 thru 19.  Elijah was no longer in the household, presumably deceased.  Moving forward to 1840 to the household headed by the younger female, Sariah Arterberry, there appears to be a continuation of the two younger brothers, now reportedly aged 20 thru 29.  Missing from this household is the eldest brother, which the author believes possibly could have been E. D. Arterberry, whose household was reported in Spencer County in 1840.  The reported age of E. D. Arterberry tracts very closely with the presumed elder brother of Sarah/Sariah Arterberry, but he was reported with three seemingly older children: a son aged 15 thru 19 and two daughters aged 10 thru 14.  If E. D. Arterberry was the elder brother of Sarah Arterberry, and a son of Elijah Arterberry, then we are left with the mystery of how he acquired three children born before 1830.  Perhaps those older children were step-children, acquired at the time of his marriage.

Leaving E. D. Arterberry aside for the moment, let’s focus our attention on Elijah Arterberry and his presumed daughter, Sarah.  If the author’s interpretation of the kinship connection between Elijah and Sarah as father and daughter is correct, then how might we explain Sarah’s having been designated as the head of household after the apparent death of her father.  To answer that question, let’s first look at the composition of Elijah’s household in 1820.  In that household Sarah and her elder brother were identified as being aged 10 thru 15.  Also, in the 1830 household the youngest children was reported age 10 thru 14.  This suggests that both Elijah and his wife could have died virtually anytime between 1820 and 1830.  Assuming that Elijah died intestate (which was a common occurrence in that time period), and that Sarah had reached her majority before her father’s death, and that her siblings were still minors, the Court could very well have granted guardianship of her younger brother’s to Sarah.  In fact, Sarah may have been granted administration over her father’s estate.  The existence of a more mature Sarah Arterberry in Jackson County TN in the 1830’s is supported by the fact that she was listed on the tax rolls in 1836.

It is also conceivable that Elijah could have married a much younger woman after his 1^st wife’s death, who happened to be named Sarah.  Elijah’s 2^nd wife would probably also been granted guardianship of her step-children, even though the eldest son would have been almost as old as his step-mother.

Given the closely corresponding household compositions for Elijah Arterberry and Sarah and Sariah Arterberry, it is the author’s opinion that there is a high level of probability of Sariah Arterberry having been either the eldest daughter or widow of Elijah Arterberry.  If Sariah Arterberry were the widow of Elijah Arterberry, then is it possible that the elder woman in the household in 1840 may have been Sariah’s mother.

E. D. Arterberry

E. D. Arterberry’s household appeared near the top of Page 38 in the 1840 Spencer County census record, summarized as follows:

Name:     E D Arberberry

[E D Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State):

Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 15 thru 19:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [E D Arterberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          2

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1

E. D. Arterberry’s household was on the same page as the household of Eigah Arterberry, and on the page following the household of Sariah Arterberry and Solomon Arterberry.  E. D.’s household was only twelve households removed from Sariah Arterberry’s household.  As discussed in the preceding section, the demographics for E. D. Arterberry are a match for the eldest male reported in Sarah Arterberry’s household in 1830 in Jackson County TN.  Based on the close geographic proximity of E. D.’s household in 1840 to that of Sariah Arterberry, and the matching age range of Sariah’s presumed elder brother in the 1830 census, it seems possible to the author that E. D. Arterberry may have been Sariah Arterberry’s brother or step-son.

Assuming the posited kinship connection between Sariah Arterberry and E. D. Arterberry to be correct, might we be able to offer any more concrete evidence of such a connection?  Let’s for a moment contemplate the likely given name for the eldest son of Elijah Arterberry.  Following the naming conventions in vogue during the colonial and post-colonial era in America, it would be normal for Elijah to have named his first-born son after himself, namely, Elijah.  Might not the first name of E. D. Arterberry have been Elijah, named in honor of his own father?  Possibly!  What of the middle initial “D”?  What might the middle name of E. D. Arterberry have been?  Anyone familiar with the author’s monograph entitled “The Mitchell family of ChesterCounty” may be able to make an educated guess as to the answer of that question.  Based on our accepted (assumed) kinship for E. D. Arterberry as a son of Elijah Arterberry, his grandparents would have been Edward Arterberry and Keziah (mnu, possibly Mitchell).  In the aforementioned Mitchell monograph the author establishes a very strong case for Keziah, 1^st wife of Edward Arterberry, having been his 1^st cousin, Keziah Mitchell.  Also, in that same monograph the author built a very strong case for Keziah’s parents having been David Mitchell and Mary Davidson.  It seems entirely possible to the author that E. D. Arterberry’s middle name may well have been Davidson, in honor of the surname of his presumed great-grandmother, Mary Davidson.

Summary/Conclusions

We started this investigation for the primary purpose of establishing the kinship/ancestry of the heads of six households clustered in relatively close geographic proximity and headed by persons having the surnames of Arterberry/Atterberry in Spencer County Indiana in 1840.  It is the author’s opinion that we have been highly successful in establishing the identity Sol Arterberry as Solomon Arterberry, son of Richard Arterberry and Rebecca [mnu, possibly Bennett].  Also, to the same level of certainty, this analysis established Stephen Arterberry as the eldest son of Solomon Arterberry.  As an adjunct to this investigation and analysis of Solomon Arterberry, the author believes that we have also identified three heretofore unknown daughters of Solomon Arterberry and Anny Green: Lucretia, Dalila and Elizabeth Ann [aka Anny], as well as confirming Samuel Arterberry as yet another son.  To a lesser degree of certainty, we have posited the possibility (but inconclusively) that Adam Arterberry may also have been a younger son of Solomon Arterberry, and brother of Stephen and Samuel Arterberry.

To a slightly lesser degree of certainty this analysis has identified Eigah [aka Eijah W.] Arterberry as a son of Israel and Salley [Sarah] Arterberry, son of Michael and Elizabeth Arterberry.  To a fairly high level of certainty, this analysis identified six children of Eigah Arterberry as: James W., Nancy, Charles C., Nancy, Isaac, William and Robert A. Arterberry.

To almost the same level of certainty as Eigah, the author believes sufficient evidence has been offered to establish Sariah Arterberry either as the daughter, or 2^nd wife of Elijah Arterberry, presumed son of Edward Arterberry and Keziah [mnu, possibly Mitchell].

And, lastly, the author has posited the possibility that E. D. Arterberry may have been Elijah Davison Arterberry, eldest son of Elijah Arterberry, presumed son of Edward Arterberry and Keziah.

Assuming for a moment that the kinships and ancestries posited by the author regarding these six heads of households in Spencer County are correct, we are left to ponder the motivation for their having settled in that area, and the cause of their seeming disappearance (excepting Solomon Arterberry) just 10 years later.  In the case of Solomon Arterberry, it seems probable that he was drawn to Spencer County in the early part of 1830’s by the pre-existing presence of his Meek family kinsmen.  Suffice it to say that Solomon’s decision to move from Grayson County KY to Spencer County IN would also account for the presence of his sons Stephen and Samuel (and possibly Adam Arterberry), as well as his daughter, Dalila and her husband, Atha Tucker.

As for the attraction that drew Eigah, Sariah, and possibly Elijah Davidson Arterberry, we may have to dig a little deeper.  Keep in mind that Edward Arterberry and his presumed sons, Nathan and Hasel, as well as the presumed widow of Israel Arterberry, were living in Daviess County in 1820 and 1830, immediately across the Ohio River from Spencer County.  So, Eigah’s move from Daviess County to Spencer County would have been a very short relocation, one accomplished with relative ease.  Of course, the same cannot be said for Sarah Arterberry and her immediate family, who would have traveled all the way from Jackson County TN, a distance of almost 170 miles overland.  Unlike Eigah, Sariah’s move would have been a major undertaking, an endeavor probably requiring a very strong familial attraction.

Edward Arterberry had already died, probably sometime around 1825, so it wouldn’t have been a attraction of grandparents.  If the author’s identification of the Elijah Arterberry of Jackson County TN having been the son of Edward and Keziah, then his family would have felt quite isolated from the other members of their immediate family.  The nearest living kin of Sarah Arterberry in the 1830’s would have been Elijah’s brother, Nathan Arterberry, how continued to reside in Daviess County KY until his death in about 1852.  It seems likely that it was in part Nathan’s location in Daviess County that may have drawn his brother’s (Elijah’s) family away from Jackson County TN in the mid-1830’s, but why to Spencer County instead of Daviess County?

There is one further kinship connection we need to consider, before attempting to answer that question.  There very likely was a more direct kinship connection between the families of Edward Arterberry and Israel Arterberry, than we have yet to disclose.  Nathan Arterberry, son of Edward Arterberry in on record having married a woman named Levica Arterberry.  As we stated earlier in this chapter, many researchers have posited Levica Arterberry as a daughter of Edward and Keziah.  Wait a minute!  Hasn’t the author posited Nathan Arterberry as a son of Edward and Keziah?  We can’t possibly have brothers marrying sisters.  So, if the author is correct about Nathan’s parents, then we are left to puzzle over the identity of Levica Arterberry.  It is the author’s belief that Levica Arterberry, with a fairly high level of certainty, was the daughter of Israel and Salley Arterberry.  Also, assuming the author is correct about Eigah Arterberry having been a son of Israel and Salley Arterberry, then Nathan Arterberry and Eigah Arterberry would have been brothers-in-law, Nathan having married Eigah’s sister.

If the foregoing kinship connection between Eigah Arterberry and Nathan Arterberry is correct, then Sarah Arterberry would have been a near kinsman of Eigah Arterberry, with Elijah and Nathan having been brothers.  Assuming that E. D. [Elijah Davidson?] Arterberry was a son of Elijah Arterberry, then he and Eigah would have been 1^st cousins (through marriage). 

Although somewhat tenuous and totally lacking in primary documentation, the author has built a fairly strong circumstantial case for the otherwise inexplicable and arduous relocation of the Elijah Arterberry family from Jackson County TN to Spencer County IN in the mid-1830’s.

One final point connecting the Edward and Israel Arterberry families is the fact that William Henry Arterberry, son of Nathan and Levica Arterberry, was recorded living in Spencer County in 1860.  Although no records could be found of Sariah, E. D., Adam, Stephen or Eigah Arterberry after the 1840 census, it seems possible that descendants of those families may have continued to reside in Spencer County.  It may have been the presence of those kinfolk that drew William Henry Arterberry to relocate to that area sometime after 1850.

Things that other future researchers might consider in their search for any descendants of these children of Solomon and Anny Arterberry, Edward and Keziah Arterbury, and Israel and Sally Arterbury are the myriad of events that transpired in the decade following 1840.  These events are briefly summarized as follows:

1. Rise of Mormonism: for a period of almost 20 years the early foundations of Mormonism took root in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois and Missouri where thousands of adherents were cultivated and converted from the pioneering families of the region.  Dr. Priddy Meeks traveled among his kinsmen in Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri, proselytizing to win over believers to his newly found faith.  After being driven out of Missouri, the Mormons attempted to establish a new settlement at Nauvoo Illinois.  After the murder of their prophet, Joseph Smith, and his brother, Hyrum Smith, the Mormons looked westward to the wilderness west of the Rocky Mountains for safe refuge.  Consecutive expeditions were launched in the latter half of the 1840’s, and by 1850 the new Mormon republic was established between the Wasatch Range and Great Salt Lake.  By living among Dr. Priddy Meek’s kinsmen in Spencer County, it is possible that some of these Arterburys may have become Mormon converts, and elected to join the migration westward.
2. California Gold Rush: news of the discovery of gold in the foothills of central California in January 1848 triggered one of the most rapid and massive migrations in the history of the fledgling nation.  By the middle of the 1850’s over 300,000 people had been drawn to that region.  It is possible that some of the Spencer County Arterburys may have become swept up in this mania for quick riches, and disappeared among the mining camps of the Sierra Nevada.
3. Mexican-American War:  annexation and creation of the Republic of Texas by the United States Government in 1845 triggered armed conflict with Mexico, which became known as the Mexican-American War.  This battle raged for two years between 1846 and 1848, drawing many American combatants from all over middle-America.  Many American soldiers, after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in February 1848, were offered payment for their transportation back home, or land grants for settlement in Texas.  Many opted to accept land grants and undertook the relocation of their families to Texas.  Might some of the Spencer County Arterburys been involved in the Mexican War and either killed or elected resettlement?
4. Midwestern Cholera:  Cholera is mainly a waterborne disease, and occurred in 19th century North America mainly in mid-America and principally along major waterways.  Its origins and treatment were virtually unknown until the early part of the 20th century.  There were generally three major pandemic periods ascribed to Cholera outbreaks in America: 1832, 1849 and 1866, but in reality, cholera was almost continuously present, and often misdiagnosed.  The main cause of cholera during that time period was from ingesting contaminated water.  In most rural and small town communities water was consumed from shallow wells or streams, which had become contaminated with effluent from human sewage.

“In the 1849–51 outbreak, St. Louis lost 4,557, Cincinnati 5,969, and Detroit 700. In each outbreak, deaths totaled 5–10% of the population.”[6]

Cholera was considered “bad for business” and frequently went unreported or under-reported.  The true extent and scope of mortality attributable to cholera during this era cannot be known, as much of the “evidence” is anecdotal at best.  Suffice it to say that entire families were wiped out by this disease, much like the Plague in Britain and Europe in earlier centuries.  Given the agrarian nature of the pioneer’s existence along the banks of the Ohio River in Spencer and Daviess Counties, we can assume that the Arterburys lived within this vulnerable zone on each side of the river.  Can the sudden and almost simultaneous disappearance of the families of Hasel, Manos, Eigah, Sol, E.D., Sarah, Adam and Stephen be explained by the presence and inevitably lethal impact of this or similar disease?

Regardless of the actual cause of their seeming disappearance, the author was unable to trace the families of any of these presumed descendants of Edward and Keziah, and of Israel and Sally beyond 1840, with the exception of the presumed children of Eigah W. Arterbury and William Henry Arterbury.

To facilitate the reader’s better understanding of the genealogical connections developed by the author throughout this rather wide-ranging and rambling excursus into the Arterburys of Spencer County Indiana in the 19th century, the following Descendant Charts are offered:

Add Descendant Charts.

Keziah Arterbury

During the course of developing the foregoing analysis of the Spencer County Arterburys there was considerable attention applied to the family of Edward and Keziah Arterbury.  The basis for that attention was principally due to the fact that possible connections to three of the 1840 Spencer County Arterbury households kept looping back to descendants of Edward and Keziah.  We even briefly explored the possible ancestry of Keziah, herself.  One strand of that analysis focused on a possible connection to Hasel Hardwick utilizing the author’s research tool which is dubbed maternal surname perpetuation.  While this analytical technique has been proven useful and reliable in some instances, we must admit to a certain degree of skepticism in its application to the possible ancestry of Keziah Arterbury.

During the course of the author’s research into another strand of the South Carolina Arterburys, namely Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury, the author unexpectedly stumbled upon a reservoir of genealogical data contained in the temple records of the Mormon church at Nauvoo, IL.  This reservoir of data interestingly enough includes references to Edward and Keziah, which may contain unexplored genealogical links to the ancestry of Keziah.  We will now reintroduce these Nauvoo Temple records at this juncture in a renewed attempt to establish the possible identity of Keziah Arterbury.

Before delving into the details of these temple records, it may be helpful to provide some background.  The referenced temple records were the result of the “temple work” performed by a woman named Elizabeth Edwards between 1841 and 1844.  The main body of the work performed by Elizabeth Edwards consisted of rituals, which the early Mormons referred to as proxy baptism or baptism of the dead.  Without delving into the historical and biblical foundation of this ritual, or the many stages through which the practice has evolved over the centuries, suffice it to say that, in its infancy in the 1840’s, the ritual consisted of a living member of the church undertaking the rite of baptism in the name of a deceased ancestor.  Following are excerpts taken from the History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which specifically reference events connected to these baptisms:

“November 8, a temporary baptismal font was dedicated in the Lord’s house at Nauvoo, a description of which was published in Millennial Star.”

“This font was built for the baptisms for the dead until the temple shall be finished, when a more durable one will supply its place.-Millennial Star, vol. 18, pp. 743, 744.”

“Monday, 8th. At five o’clock p. m., I attended the dedication of the baptismal font in the Lord’s house. President Brigham Young was spokesman.”

“The baptismal font is situated in the center of the basement room, under the main hall of the temple. It is constructed of pine timber, and put together of staves tongued and grooved, oval shaped, sixteen feet long east and west, and twelve feet wide, seven feet high from the foundation the basin four feet deep. The molding of the cap and base are formed of beautiful carved work in antique style; the sides are finished with panel work; a flight of stairs in the north and south sides leading up and down into the basin, guarded by side railing.”

“Sunday, November 21, the first baptisms for the dead in the font were administered by Elders B. Young, H. C. Kimball, and John Taylor.”[7]

“Baptisms for the dead, and for the healing of the body, must be in the font; those coming into the church and those rebaptized may be done in the river.  A box should be prepared for the use of the font, that the clerk may be paid, and a book procured by the moneys to be put therein by those baptized, the remainder to go to the use of the temple  The Times and Seasons for May 2, 1842”

“Article 5. And again, I give unto you a word in relation to the baptism for your dead. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead: When any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder; and let him be eyewitness of your baptisms; let him hear with his ears, that he may testify of a truth, saith the Lord; that in all your recordings, it may be recorded in heaven, that whatsoever you bind on earth, may be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth may be loosed in heaven; for I am about to restore many things to the earth pertaining to the priesthood, saith the Lord of hosts.”  NAUVOO, September 1 1842, Epistle from Joseph Smith Jr. to all Saints [of the Church of LDS].  In a follow-up letter from Joseph Smith Jr. to the Saints dated 6Sep1842, he set forth in much greater detail the biblical foundation for the practice of baptizing the dead.  However, that expanded dissertation on the practice did not set forth any specifics regarding which living beings were authorized to undertake such baptisms, nor was there any delineation offered regarding the “proxy’s” relationship to the dead.

“I knew of the work being done on the temple at that place from the time it began until the building was burned in 1848. It was not finished. The basement was fitted for occupation, and the baptismal font was ready for use. The auditorium on the first floor was completed sufficiently to be seated and occupied for assembly purposes. The stairway on the south side was completed for use. The auditorium on second floor, the stairway on north side, nor any other portion of the building except those above-named were completed; though the small rooms above the second floor auditorium were used by President Young and the resident church authorities for various purposes.”  JOSEPH SMITH [III], Lamoni Iowa, June 26, 1897

“10Jun1844 – F. M. Higbee was granted a writ by the Carthage Court for the arrest of Joseph Smith and numerous other Nauvoo LDS leaders, including William Edwards, on the charge of Riot.  [Destruction of the “Expositor” press.]  Although subsequently released from custody following wits of habeas corpus, this same group were rearrested on 14Jun1844.”  NOTE: the referenced William Edward is believed to have been William Holliday Edwards, the eldest son of Thomas Striplin Edwards and Elizabeth Arterbury Hudspeth Edwards.

“William Holliday Edwards: 13 June 18211–13 May 1846.2 Policeman.3 Born in Overton Co., Tennessee.4 Son of Thomas Edwards and Elizabeth.5 Baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints, before Oct. 1839.6 Ordained an elder, Oct. 1839, in Commerce (later Nauvoo), Hancock Co., Illinois.7 Appointed Nauvoo policeman, Dec. 1843.8 Married Eliza Allred, 1 Jan. 1844, in Nauvoo.9 Among those arrested for destruction of Nauvoo Expositor press, 1844.10 Accompanied James Emmett’s expedition to explore western U.S., 1844; left expedition and returned to Nauvoo, 1845.11 Died in Garden Grove, Decatur Co., Iowa Territory.12”

A fundamental principal of the proxy baptism ritual was that a deceased person, who when living, had not been afforded the blessing of baptism (a recognized prerequisite for admission into the Kingdom of Heaven), could be baptized after death.  The caveat being that the deceased person had the option of accepting or rejecting such baptism by proxy at the Day of Judgment.

Early manifestations of proxy baptism seem to have allowed a female to undertake baptisms for both deceased males and females.  Similarly, living males could undertake baptisms for both deceased males and females.  Further, from a quick glance at the list of persons for whom Elizabeth Edwards is reported to have undertaken proxy baptisms, it would appear that she may have been limited to deceased ancestors only, i.e., someone of direct kinship.  The author cannot state that this ancestral connection was practiced absolutely, but it would certainly appear so.  As we scrutinize the probable ancestral connections of each of the recipients of Elizabeth Edwards’ proxy baptisms, the reader may ultimately have to judge for themselves the actual process and the implied kinships.

Who was Elizabeth Edwards, and how might she have been connected to the Arterbury family?  In the main, we only “know” of Elizabeth’s ancestral identity through our analysis of the Nauvoo temple records.[8]  But, her ancestral identity, as suggested by the proxy baptisms, is also supported by a death record for Elizabeth Pettigrew in Salt Lake UT summarized as follows:

Name: Elizabeth Pettegrew

Age: 67

Birth: Date: 1790 [30Aug1790, Chester County SC, daughter of Nathan and Priscilla]

Death: Date16 Jul 1858

Death City: Salt Lake City

Death County: Salt Lake

Spouse: David[9]

There is also the Nauvoo Temple blessing record for Elizabeth Edwards, abstracted in the index card displayed in Figure 16-16, below:

The death record does not give the maiden name for this Elizabeth, widow of David Pettigrew, but it does identify Elizabeth’s parents as having been named Nathan and Priscilla and gives her birth information as 30Aug1790 in Chester County SC.  When that data is compared to the ancestral data given in Elizabeth Edwards’ patriarchal blessing record, it seems evident that Elizabeth Edwards and Elizabeth Pettigrew were one and the same person.  Thusly, from the patriarchal blessing record, we now know that Elizabeth’s parents were Nathan and Priscilla Arterbury.  The author is indebted to one specific researcher for virtually all of the Mormon records referenced in this work.  That researcher is known to the author only by her first name, Kathy, and her e-mail address of kgsearcher@aol.com.  On 15Oct2018 Kathy offered the following data:

kgsearcher@aol.com

To: battebe@yahoo.com

Oct 15, 2018 at 6:52 PM

Robert,

From the Nauvoo Temple records for Elizabeth she did temple work for the following people and how she was related to them. I hope this helps, I just wonder if the Nathan and Patty that people have listed as coming from Michael may be in error. Just a thought, as the evidence seems to show that Elizabeth is his granddaughter. Here is the list:

Michael Artebury  gd. dau

Elizabeth Artebury  gd. dau

John McDaniel  niece

Elizabeth McDaniel niece

John Mayfield  niece

Permeli Mitchell  sister

Allen Mayfield  niece

Fanny Mayfield  niece

Jonathan Mayfield  gd. dau.

Jimy Mayfield  gd.dau

William Roden  niece

Molly Roden  niece

The record for this couple is a little confusing.

Aunt     Neddy Arteberry  written very faintly next to aunt is the word uncle. Since this was a marriage record I would guess uncle is the correct word.

Aunt     Cissy Arteberry

Uncle John McDaniel

Aunt Elizabeth McDaniel

The list is a abstract of the original rolls. The next time I get to SLC I will have to see if I can see the original records to see if the abstract was done correctly.

Let me know what you think.

Kathy

From the foregoing abstract data from the Nauvoo Temple records we have the list of deceased ancestors of Elizabeth Edwards for whom she undertook proxy baptisms.  The author has located the abstracted records cited by Kathy, and attached those abstracted index cards in Figure 16-17, shown herein below.  Those baptism abstracts are contained in three consecutive index cards, and display the names of the recipients.  On Card Nos. 147 and 148 Elizabeth’s kinship is given relative to each party, and presumably the original roll record is identified in the right-hand column.  However, Index Card No. 149 appears to reverse the kinship focus to the recipient, rather than to Elizabeth.  Also, Card No. 149 has repeat entries for John and Elizabeth McDaniel.  Kathy seems to imply that the entries on Card No. 149 may have been in reference to marriages, even though the card heading states that they were baptismal records.  It does appear from the variance in the card formatting, that there was something distinctly different between the data on Card Nos. 147 and 148, versus the data on Card No. 149.  Pending a review of the  original roll records, the author cannot explain this variance in formatting. 

Each of the parties listed in Figure 16-17 are analyzed by the author as follows:

1. Michael Artebury – gd. dau

Elizabeth Edwards apparently reported herself to have been the granddaughter of Michael Arterbury.  From the burial record abstract for Elizabeth Pettigrew and the patriarchal blessing record of Elizabeth Edwards, we have her parent’s names as Nathan and Priscilla Arterbury.  From the deed records of Chester County SC we have Priscilla Arterbury purchasing a 75 acre tract of land from her brother-in-law, William Roden, on Brushy Fork on 19May1790.[10]  It seems highly probable that this Priscilla Arterbury was the mother of Elizabeth Edwards Pettigrew.  It also seems unlikely that Priscilla Arterbury would have been purchasing land, if her husband were still alive, so it might be presumed that Nathan Arterbury had died within the year before May1790.  We also have Elizabeth‘s date of birth from her burial and blessing records as having been 30Aug1790.  From that fact, we might assume Nathan’s date of death having been sometime between about Dec1789 (when Elizabeth would have been conceived) and May1790 (when presumably widow Priscilla Arterbury purchased land).  It seems peculiar to the author that Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards Pettigrew did not undertake a proxy baptism for her parents, Nathan Arterbury and Priscilla Mayfield.  Perhaps there are provisions within the LDS Church ordinances which cover baptism of the parents of church members by some other means outside the rite of proxy baptism.

• Elizabeth Artebury – gd. dau

Ditto.  Elizabeth Arterbury was the wife of Michael Arterbury, and presumed mother of Nathan Arterbury, and grandmother of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards Pettigrew.

• John McDaniel – niece

John McDaniel was the uncle of Elizabeth Edwards, by virtue of his having married a sister of Elizabeth Edwards’ mother, namely, Elizabeth Mayfield.  The estate settlement of Jonathan Mayfield on 25May1818 in Chester County named Jonathan’s six surviving children, including married daughters: Priscilla Arterbury, Elizabeth McDaniel and Mary Roden.

• Elizabeth McDaniel – niece

Ditto, above.  Elizabeth Mayfield McDaniel was Elizabeth Edwards’ aunt.

• John Mayfield  niece

John Mayfield was a brother of Elizabeth Edwards’ mother, Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury.

• Permeli Mitchell – sister

The identity of Permeli Mitchell is perhaps one of the least certain of all of the persons known to receive a proxy baptism by Elizabeth Edwards.  She appears to have been identified as a “sister” to Elizabeth Edwards.  Since all of the females contained in this list appear to have been recorded by their husband’s surnames rather than their maiden names, it might safely be assumed that Permeli had married someone named Mitchell.  If we take this abstracted record at face value, it seems reasonable to assume that Permeli Mitchell probably was born Permeli Arterbury, daughter of Nathan and Priscilla Arterbury, and that she must have married an unknown Mitchell.  Unfortunately, there is a 30 year gap in the census records between 1790 in Chester County SC and 1820 when Tennessee census came into being.  While there were numerous male Mitchell candidates available in Chester County (most of whom were kinsmen of the Arterburys), there is virtually no way to determine from the records which Mitchell may have been the husband of Permeli.  The fact that Elizabeth did not perform a baptism for Permeli’s husband may suggest that he was still living in 1841.  The best we may be able to glean from this record is that Elizabeth may have had an older sister named Permeli, who had married a man surnamed Mitchell, and who had died before 1841.

• Allen Mayfield  niece

Allen Mayfield was a brother of Elizabeth Edwards’ mother, Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury.

• Fanny Mayfield – niece

Since the only female Mayfield siblings of Priscilla Mayfield known to have been living at the time of their father’s estate settlement in 1818 did not include a woman named Frances, or Fanny, then it seems very likely that Fanny was the wife of one of the Mayfield brother, possibly the wife of Allen Mayfield, since Fanny’s name followed immediately after Allen in this list.

• Jonathan Mayfield – gd. dau.

Jonathan Mayfield was the father of Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury, and maternal grandfather of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards.

1. Jimy Mayfield – gd.dau

Jimy [aka Jemima?] Mayfield was the presumed mother of Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury, and grandmother of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards.  She may have predeceased her husband, as there was no mention of a wife in the estate settlement of Jonathan Mayfield.

1. William Roden  niece

William Roden was the husband of Mary Mayfield, daughter of Jonathan and Jimy Mayfield, and uncle of Elizabeth Edwards.

1. Molly Roden – niece

Molly [aka Mary] Mayfiled Roden was the wife of William Roden, and aunt of Elizabeth Edwards.

1. Neddy Arteberry – aunt: [written very faintly next to “aunt” is the word “uncle”. Since this was a marriage record I would guess uncle is the correct word.] [Foregoing note added by Kathy]  This person was almost certainly Edward Arterbury, the brother of Michael Arterbury.  That being the case, then Edward Arterbury would actually have been Elizabeth Edwards’ grand-uncle.
2. Cissy Arteberry – aunt:  This person very likely was Keziah Arterbury, wife of Edward Arterbury, in which case, she would have been Elizabeth Edwards’ grand-aunt.
3. John McDaniel – uncle:  John and Elizabeth Mayfield McDaniel have already been presented in this section, herein above.  Uncle would have been the correct kinship relationship to Elizabeth Edwards.  It is unclear why John and Elizabeth McDaniel would have appeared in the Nauvoo Temple registry for a second time.  Perhaps, as suggested by Kathy, Items 13 thru 16 may have been associated with a marriage record, as opposed to a baptismal record.  If so, it raises the question, whose marriage?
4. Elizabeth McDaniel – aunt:  Ditto, Item 15, above.

This concludes our presentation of the Nauvoo Temple records related to Elizabeth Arterbury Hudspeth Edwards Pettigrew, except to state that several baptismal records were also found in conjunction with her husband, Thomas Striplin Edwards, who received his patriarchal blessing at the hand of Hyrum Smith at Nauvoo on 22Nov1842.  A review of those records suggests that Thomas Edwards only undertook proxy baptisms for his direct ancestors, not including any relations through his marriage to Elizabeth Arterbury.  Those records also indicate that Thomas Edwards undertook proxy baptisms for both male and female ancestors.

In addition to the baptisms that were performed in the Temple font at Nauvoo commencing in Nov1841, it should be noted that baptisms for both the living and the dead were performed at Nauvoo prior to Nov1841 in the waters of the Mississippi River.  Like the Temple baptisms, those performed in the Mississippi River were recorded.  A partial record of those baptisms performed in the river prior to Nov1841 have been microfilmed and digitized in a document entitled Nauvoo baptisms for the dead in the Mississippi River which can be accessed online.[11]  An excerpt from that document, which encapsulates baptisms undertaken by Thomas Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards (page 13) is exhibited in Figure 16-18.  From this records it can be seen that Elizabeth Edwards undertook baptisms for both her father (Artibury) and her sister (Permeli Mitchell) on 4Jun1841.  Also found later in these records were the entries displayed on page 102 (Figure 16-19) in which Elizabeth undertook baptisms for Allen and Fanny Mayfield (uncle and aunt), and William and Molly Roden (uncle and aunt).

Now, having presented the principal ancestral records found in the Nauvoo registries relating to Elizabeth Edwards, we will attempt to infer the possible connections between Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards and Edward and Keziah Arterbury, aside from the obvious Arterbury blood ties.  First, it struck the writer as peculiar that Elizabeth Edwards would single out Edward and Keziah, to the exclusion of all her other Arterbury kinfolk who had predeceased her.  For example, why would she not have undertaken a proxy baptism for her other great-uncles, i.e., John Arterbury, William Arterbury Jr., Nathan Arterbury, or Charles Arterbury, and their respective spouses, all of whom were deceased before 1841?  She performed a proxy baptism for each of her Mayfield kinsfolk, including her maternal grandparents, aunts and uncles, excepting Abraham Mayfield, who was still living in 1840.  What, if anything, was special or unique about Edward and Keziah Arterbury?

The answer to this question may lie in a more precise and structured analysis of the kinship connections between Elizabeth Edwards and the various kinfolk for whom she undertook proxy baptisms.  The author has performed a fairly thorough study of the early history of the LDS church, particularly as it pertains to the practice of proxy baptisms, excerpts of which study and research have been iterated earlier in this section.  Nothing in that study lent any more definitive articulation of the proxy baptism ritual than has already been expressed.  In fact, nothing was found which expressly articulated anything relative to the proxy baptismal process other than the general reference to “the baptism of your dead”.  From this expression it might be inferred that such baptisms were limited to direct kinfolk [blood relations?], hence the reference to “your dead”.  Nothing was found to provide any instruction which might limit the gender of the dead vis a vis the gender of the living member.

However, upon scrutinizing the persons for whom Elizabeth Edwards undertook proxy baptisms, they appear to have been predominantly Mayfield kinfolk of Elizabeth Edwards’ mother [maternal kinfolk].  Exceptions include Elizabeth’s sister, Permeli Mitchell, her paternal grandparents, Michael and Elizabeth Arterbury, and her great-uncle and aunt, Neddy [Edward] and Kissy[ [Keziah] Arterbury.  Notably missing from this group was Elizabeth’s mother: Priscilla Mayfield.  Also missing were the husband of Elizabeth’s sister, Permeli, and her uncle, Abraham Mayfield, who presumably were still living in 1841.  The fact that Elizabeth Edwards undertook baptism for her father and not for her mother is striking.  Perhaps she had undertaken baptism for her mother, and that record is simply missing, or perhaps her mother had already been baptized, or it is entirely possible that her mother may still have been living in 1842.

Kathy (kgsearcher@aol.com) suggested in a recent e-mail that she was unaware of any church-ordered restrictions on proxy baptisms in the 1840’s, which would have guided Elizabeth Edwards in her selection of baptismal candidates.  In fact, Kathy suggests that it may simply have been a matter of the strength and depth of Elizabeth’s personal knowledge of her kinfolk.  This suggests that Elizabeth may have had a better knowledge of her Mayfield kinfolk, vis a vis her Arterbury kinfolk.  That possibility seems plausible, given that Elizabeth’s father may actually have died before her birth.  Kathy further suggests that Elizabeth may have been guided by a sense or awareness that those family members for which she performed her work “needed it more than the others.”  Following is an extract from Kathy’s most recent communication:

“In the research I’ve done on this it does appear that in the early days of doing proxy baptisms family members did the work for family members regardless of sex. Today only females do the work for females and males for males. In either case it is not limited to the paternal or maternal lines.

Why Elizabeth only did people mainly from her mother’s side of family would only be a guess at this point. It could be they were the family she had the best memories of. The short time the LDS were able to perform the Nauvoo Temple work was very limited and short. With the persecutions, mobs and other pressures on the Saints at that time, those may have contributed to the reasons…

There was no special reason for just a maternal line being done. All family members were and are important. It could be that with the limited time Elizabeth had she felt or was impressed that those she did have the work done for needed it more then the others.”[12]

While Kathy does not purport to be an authority on the ritual of proxy baptism as performed within the early LDS church, she clearly has spent a considerable amount of time researching and analyzing the history of her immediate ancestors, which include Thomas Striplin Edwards.  The author is inclined to accept Kathy’s assertion that Elizabeth Edwards would have been free to perform her work on any or all of her known ancestors, regardless of gender and regardless of whether connected to the maternal or paternal lineages.  That being said, we are still left with the mystery surrounding the inclusion of Neddy and Kissy Arterbury to the exclusion of all of the other Arterbury ancestors from Neddy’s generation, who were also deceased by 1840.

If the determining factor were simply a matter of Elizabeth Edwards’ knowledge of her ancestral background, might there have been factors in Elizabeth’s past which could have afforded her a greater knowledge of her Mayfield ancestors vis a vis her Arterbury ancestors.  First, it should be recognized that Elizabeth’s father very likely had died a few months before her birth.  Consequently, Elizabeth would have had no first-hand knowledge of her father, and possibly not even of her father’s immediate family. 

It can’t have been something as simple as living proximity, as Elizabeth wasn’t brought by her mother from Chester County SC to Jackson County TN until her early teens.  As a teenager living along the drains of Brushy Fork she surely would have become acquainted with most of her Arterbury, Mitchell and Mayfield kinfolk.  True, Edward and Keziah probably were Elizabeth’s nearest Arterbury neighbors along with the Mayfields, Rodens and Mitchells on Brushy Fork, but the other Arterbury brothers were not that far removed, some living on Burshy Fork, most living south of the Sandy River along Welches Fork.  It is also probable that these families all attended the Sandy River Baptist church, where such close social exposure should have left lasting memories on this young woman.  Furthermore, in Jackson County TN Elizabeth may have finished her teenage years in the near vicinity of her cousin, once removed, Moses Arterbury, presumed sole surviving son of Nathan and Patty Arterbury.  After Elizabeth’s marriage to William Hudspeth in about 1807, possibly in Jackson County TN, she and William are believed to have continued in residence in Jackson County for six or seven years.  They are believed to have continued living in the near vicinity of Overton County TN until about 1814, when they moved to Madison County AL where their final child, James William Hudspeth was born.  After William Hudspeth died in Madison County AL in about 1816, Elizabeth moved her family back to Overton County TN. 

In Overton County TN Elizabeth met and married Thomas Striplin Edwards, a basket maker from Rutherford County NC in about 1818.  Thomas and Elizabeth’s first child, Francis Marion Edwards, was born in Overton TN in Mar1820.  The family was recorded in the 1820 census living in Overton TN.  By Jun1821 Thomas and Elizabeth had moved to Illinois, where their 2nd son, William Holliday Edwards was born.  By Jul1820 they had moved to Mount Vernon, Jefferson County IL, where their 3rd son, Thomas Striplin Jr. was born.  In Nov1825 the family was still living in Illinois (possibly Jefferson County) when their final child, Ellen Shepard Edwards was born.

In the 1830 census the family was recorded living in Sangamon County IL with a total of seven children in the household: five males and two females, presumably a mixture of Hudspeth and Edwards children.  It appears that Elizabeth’s two oldest daughters from her marriage with William Hudspeth were no longer living at home.  In 1832 Thomas S. Edwards filed a plat map for 40 acres in Menard County IL.  In 1836 Thomas S. Edwards filed ten separate plat maps of approximately 40 acres each in Pike County IL.  Presumably he had relocated his family from Menard County to Pike County, where he settled into farming multiple tracts of land all situated in Section 16, Township 4S, Range 4W.  Figure 16-20 illustrates the approximate locations of the various plat map filings by Thomas S. Edwards in Menard County and Pike County between 1832 and 1836.  This figure also illustrates the location of the plat filed by Dr. Priddy Meeks in Brown County in 1839.  A more precise location of the tracts purchased by Thomas S. Edwards in Pike County in 1836 is illustrated in Figure 16-21.

In the Winter and Spring of 1838/9 Mormons began flooding into Quincy IL on their exodus from Missouri, following the issuance of the eviction and/or extermination order from Gov. Lilburn Boggs.  The “gentiles” of southern Illinois were very generous and humane in their reception of this group of “strangers” who suddenly, and unexpectedly appeared in their midst.  They opened their homes and their hearts to this beleaguered group of exiles.  Following is an excerpt from the “History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, which describes the resettlement of several Mormon families in the near vicinity of Pike and Brown Counties:

“This place [Quincy] is nearly full of our people, yet they are scattering off nearly all the while. I expect to start to-morrow for Pittsfield, Pike County, Illinois, about forty-five miles southeast from this place. Brother George W. Robinson told me this morning that he expected that his father-in-law, Judge Higbee, and himself, would go on a farm about twenty miles northeast from this place. Some of the leading men have given us (that is our people) an invitation to settle in and about this place. Many no doubt will stay here.”

In the 1840 census the household of Thomas S. Edwards was located in Pike County IL, between the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.  The household appears to contain Thomas S. Striplin Sr., aged 40 to 50, and four children: three males and one female, aged 15 to 30.  These children match the age ranges of the children born to Thomas and Elizabeth.  But, it would appear that Elizabeth was absent from the household, as well as all of her children by William Hudspeth.

By 1841 both Elizabeth and Thomas Edwards began appearing in the records of the Nauvoo Temple.  However, none of those records mention any direct connection between Elizabeth and Thomas.  They both appear to have undertaken proxy baptisms for various ancestors in the Nauvoo Temple, beginning in 1841.  Both Edward and Elizabeth received their patriarchal blessings from Hyrum Smith on 22Nov1842.  They both continued to appear in temple records until the year 1844.  On 1Feb1844 Thomas S. Edwards appeared in the Nauvoo Temple records marrying Sarah S. Smith.  Kathy reports that a schism arose within the Mormon church at Nauvoo, and that Thomas Striplin Edwards sided with a break-away sect, which eschewed Joseph Smith’s ordinance favoring polygamous marriage, whereas Elizabeth reportedly remained faithful to the followers of Joseph Smith.  This schism and adherence to separate branches of the Mormon church may explain the events in their respective lives after about 1843, but probably does not account for their apparent estrangement in the 1840 census.

On 11May1850 Thomas S. Edwards was recorded marrying Rosetta Brott in Knox County IL.  In the 1850 census the Thomas S. Edwards household was recorded in Fulton County, which is due easterly of Nauvoo IL.  Thomas’ wife was reported as Rosetta, and there were four young children aged 7 thru 20, all listed with the surname of Edwards.  Given the date of Thomas and Rosetta’s marriage, these children almost certainly were not of Thomas’ blood, but likely from an earlier marriage of Rosetta.

Also, in 1850 there is a census record in Salt Lake UT for the household of David Pettigrew, aged 59.  In David’s household were recorded two young women named Betsy and Elizabeth, aged 26 and 28, respectively, both born in South Carolina.  Given the death record of Elizabeth Pettigrew dated 16Jul1858 (presented herein above) it seems highly probable that one of these young women would have been Elizabeth Arterbury Hudspeth Edward Pettigrew.  Just which one is anyone’s guess.

Thus ends our saga of Elizabeth Arterbury Hudspeth Edwards Pettigrew.  The reader can make of the various marital gyrations of Elizabeth and Thomas Edwards, what they will.  The main point of presenting this rather elaborate history of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards, is to provide sufficient information as to allow us to evaluate whether there may have been something special in the connection between Elizabeth Edwards and Edward and Keziah Arterbury, to have warranted her singling them out from all of her Arterbury kinfolk for the ritual of proxy baptism.  Two possible affiliations occur to he author which will be presented hereinafter.  There may be more, but those will be left to the imagination of the reader:

1. Mitchell Connection:  Several Mitchell-Arterbury researchers have opined that Keziah, wife of Edward Arterbury, may have been Edward’s 1st cousin, the daughter of David and Mary Mitchell, born Mar1753 in Prince Georges County MD.  First, it should be stated that this writer is totally unaware of any documentary proof of such a union.  But, it must be admitted that Keziah Mitchell would have been of the appropriate age to have been Edward’s wife (being about five years his junior), and there is strong evidence to suggest that Keziah’s family had relocated to Chester County SC sometime around 1769.  Edward is on record as having been in Chester County by about 1772.  So, we certainly can pass the time and place convergence test.  Other factors auguring in favor of Edward’s wife having been Keziah Mitchell is the fact that they lived their entire period in South Carolina along Brushy Fork and Wilson’s Creek, the same tributaries on which the Mitchell’s resided.  Also, the transactions involving Edward and Keziah frequently included members of the Mitchell family.  Let’s hypothesize that Edward’s wife was his 1st cousin, daughter of David and Mary Mitchell.  Let’s also hypothesize that Elizabeth Edwards’ sister, Permeli, had married a descendant of David and Mary Mitchell.  This hypothesis has a higher probability of actually happening, as Priscilla and Nathan were living among Nathan’s Mitchell kinsmen on Brushy Fork for a decade or more, before Priscilla upped stakes and moved to Tennessee.  So, her eldest daughter would have had more than ample opportunity to meet and marry a Mitchell kinsman.  Again, we appear to have passed the time and place convergence test.  So, assuming these two hypothetical events actually happened, we then must ponder whether that connection alone may have been sufficiently strong for Elizabeth Edwards to sponsor her grand-aunt and grand-uncle for the ritual of proxy baptism?  Being totally unfamiliar with Mormon doctrines and ordinances, it is difficult for the author to place any value on the probability of this being Elizabeth’s primary motivation.  Perhaps other persons more knowledgeable in these matters can offer better insights.

ADDENDUM:  On rereading this manuscript during the Corona Virus outbreak in Winter 2019 the author had an epiphany (hopefully not a delusion).  A year earlier, when the author was initially performing the research for this piece, it was suggested by his Mormon source (Kathy) that these proxy baptisms may have been guided by a gender-driven relationship.  Initially, because both Elizabeth Arterbury-Edwards and Thomas Edwards appeared to have sponsored baptisms for both male and female ancestors, the author dismissed gender as a factor in his analysis.  On rereading this manuscript one year on, it occurs to the author that there may, in fact, have been a gender-driven connection underlying these baptisms.

If we exclude Elizabeth’s paternal grandparents [Michael and Elizabeth Arterbury], and her paternal uncle and aunt, [Edward and Keziah Arterbury], the other ten family members were all related to Elizabeth’s maternal [Mayfield] ancestors except for her presumed sister, Permeli Mitchell.  From this “fact”, it might be construed that Elizabeth was guided by some biblically-based stricture that limited her authority to undertake proxy baptisms only for ancestors connected by either blood or marriage to her maternal family branch.  If that were the case, then we could have the basis for the baptisms of Jemima [mnu] Mayfield, her husband [Jonathan Mayfield] [maternal grandparents], and their children [Elizabeth Mayfield-McDaniel, John Mayfield, Allen Mayfield, and Mary Mayfield-Roden], and those children’s spouses.

Such rationale could establish the basis for the baptisms of all fourteen parties except for Elizabeth Edwards’ paternal grandparents, a paternal aunt and uncle, and a sister.  It may well have been the fact that the paternal grandparents [Michael and Elizabeth Arterbury] were connected to Elizabeth Edwards by the marriage of her mother [Priscilla Mayfield] to their son [Nathan Arterbury], that she would have found the authority to sponsor their baptism.  Similarly, Permelli Arterbury-Mitchell, may have been eligible to receive proxy baptism because of her having descended from Elizabeth’s mother [again, a maternal branch connection].

If all of the foregoing arguments are held to provide the authority for the underlying proxy baptisms, then how is the baptism of Edward and Keziah Arterbury to be explained?  It is the author’s belief that the authority for Edward and Keziah’s baptism derived from Keziah’s kinship to Elizabeth, and that Edward’s baptism drew its authority from his marriage to Keziah.  Such kinship association and baptism authority could explain the reason that Elizabeth had not sponsored proxy baptisms for any other of her Arterbury [paternal] ancestors. 

If the authority for the proxy baptism of Edward and Keziah Arterbury flowed from the kinship connection between Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards and Keziah Arterbury, then what might that kinship connection have been?  It occurs to the author that that kinship very likely flowed through Mitchell blood.  We have already hypothesized that Elizabeth’s sister, Permelli, had married an unknown Mitchell, and speculated that that unknown Mitchell was very likely descended from David and Mary Mitchell, the brother and sister-in-law of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards’ paternal great grandmother, Elizabeth Mitchell Yaxley Arterbury.  We have also hypothesized that Edward Arterbury’s wife may have been Keziah Mitchell, a younger daughter of David and Mary [Davidson] Mitchell.  If these presumed kinship connections are correct, then Edward and Keziah would have been 1st cousins.  Edward Arterbury had 1/4 Mitchell blood through his mother, Elizabeth Mitchell Yaxley Arterbury.  If we accept the ancestry of Keziah as a daughter of David and Mary Mitchell, then she could have also held 1/2 Mitchell blood, a more recent and stronger blood relationship to Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards’ brother-in-law, the unknown Mitchell husband of Permelli Arterbury Mitchell.

The author is of the opinion that the foregoing expanded analysis of the proxy baptisms sponsored by Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards provides a relatively strong argument that Keziah, wife of Edward Arterbury, was a daughter of David and Mary [Davidson] Mitchell, and that Edward Arterbury and Keziah Mitchell were 1st cousins.

2. Elijah Arterbury Connection:  For some inextricable reason it appears that Edward and Keziah’s eldest son, Elijah, moved his family from Hardin County KY to Jackson County TN sometime between 1810 and 1820.  Elizabeth Edwards’ mother, Priscilla, also appears to have moved to Jackson County TN sometime before 1820.  Since the census records for Jackson County TN did not commence until 1820, we have not been able to establish just how long Elijah Arterbury and Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury may have live contemporaneously in Jackson County.  Further complicating this analysis is the fact that Jackson County census is recorded in alphabetical order in 1820, so we have no means of assessing the living proximity between the Arterbury households in Jackson County.  They could have been immediate neighbors, or they may have lived at opposite ends of the County.  That being said, the author has subsequently in this chapter defined the probable migration path of Elijah Arterbury’s children from Jackson County in 1830 to Spencer County IN in 1840.  From our recent discussions of Elizabeth Edwards, we have also learned that she had lived in Overton County TN between about 1808 and 1818, before moving to Illinois with her family.  Overton County immediately abuts Jackson County to the northeast, so it is possible that Elizabeth may have been able to establish a close connection with her cousins in Jackson County, particularly since her mother was in residence in that county for perhaps 20 years or more.  Is it possible that that relatively close geographic proximity between the families of Elizabeth Arterberry Edwards and Elijah Arterbury formed a lasting bond, which may have been a motivating factor in her selection of Edward and Keziah as candidates for proxy baptisms?  One other question to ponder is whether Elizabeth Edwards may not have been the older female, aged 50 thru 59, in Sariah Arterbury’s household in Spencer County in 1840?  The author has not been able to establish the whereabouts of Elizabeth Edwards in 1840.  It seems entirely possible that she could have elected to live with her kinsmen in Spencer County, as she was likely the only survivor of her immediate blood line.  Keep in mind that Spencer County was the home place of Dr. Priddy Meeks, and that he was converted to Mormonism at about the same time as Elizabeth and Thomas Edwards.  Further, Dr. Priddy Meeks was living in the vicinity of Pike County IL when he was first introduced to Mormonism.  And, lastly, Dr. Priddy Meeks went on a mission to Kentucky and Indiana to spread to work among his brethren.  Might Dr. Priddy Meeks have been instrumental in the conversion of Thomas and Elizabeth Edwards?  Certainly, if Elizabeth Edwards did actually reside with Sariah Arterbury’s family in Spencer County for a period of time, that may have been sufficient contact to trigger her election of Edward and Keziah for proxy baptism.

We have given the reader two fairly strong arguments for Elizabeth Edwards having sponsored Edward and Keziah Arterbury.  It is also a possibility that Elizabeth was motivated by a combination of these two factors.  It is also possible that Elizabeth was motivated by something totally outside our comprehension.  It is the author’s hope that in raising these question, it may motivate some other intrepid researcher to dig deeper, and may add flesh to these meager bones.

APPENDIX 16-A

Genealogical Research Tools

The following research and analytical tools were devised by Robert Atteberry in about 2006 to facilitate his analysis of genealogical records within a qualitative and quantitative framework and to establish a rational basis for evaluating hypotheses or conclusions reached regarding kinship connections or affiliations.  Application and use of these tools has been proven to elevate the probability of otherwise purely hypothetical events having occurred.  The reliability of outcomes decided from the application of these tools is not absolute, but can be used to establish connections that might not otherwise be recognized to exist.

Tool No. 1:  Time and Place Convergence – this is one of the most fundamental and important tools available to a genealogical researcher.  This tool is so simplistic in its concept, that its value may not occur to the average researcher.  If we have an hypothesis about a particular event, i.e. a marriage, a child’s birth, or a land transaction, a time and place convergence test may enable us to either include or exclude that event from having occurred.  Given the limited mobility of persons living in colonial America, it is reasonable to expect that they would need to have been in the near vicinity of one another around the same time that the event took place.  In the case of a marriage, we must establish the presence of each of the individuals, and/or their possible family members, at the same place at the same time.  Absent the ability to establish time and place convergence of the involved parties, the probability of the event having occurred must be considered less likely if not impossible.  If we can establish to a fair degree of certainty that the parties could not have been in the same place at the same time, we may be able to debunk the hypothesis to a level of improbability.

Tool No. 2:  Close Geographic Proximity – census, tithing, processioning, road orders, voter rolls and other like records frequently can be used as a means of establishing close geographic proximity.  For example, logic suggests that census records were compiled by the chronicler actually traveling to the homes of the householder’s.  Further, logic suggests that these census records were collected over a period of several weeks, as the chronicler systematically traveled along the byways of the precinct, in a longitudinal sequence.  Consequently, the persons abutting an individual entry in the record were very likely that individual’s nearest neighbors, getting more distant as we radiate out in either direction within the census record.  When families migrated and settled, they frequently undertook their relocation in the company of other, near relations or closely allied families.  So, when we find a cluster of households of apparent kinsmen in a census list in close geographic proximity, we can ascribe a higher level of kinship, the nearer that proximity.  If parties are immediately abutting in a list, and bear the same surname, there is a high probability that they shared a full-blood kinship, i.e., father and son, or brothers.  Moreover, if it can be established with certainty that they lived in the same household, they almost certainly shared a full-blood kinship. 

Examples of close geographic proximity interpretation:

1. Edward and Elijah Arterbury in 1810:  In the 1810 census of Elizabethtown, Hardin County KY the households of Edward Arterbury and Elijah Arterbury were listed immediately abutting one another.  Having studied the composition of the households of Edward Arterbury in the 1790 and 1800 census, it seemed clear that he had an older son born before 1790.  Further study of Edward’s household in 1810 indicates that that older son was no longer living in Edward’s household.  Evaluating the household of Elijah Arterbury in the 1810 census, it is clear that he was a relatively young adult.  Since he could not be found in any of the earlier census records, it was reasonable to assume that Elijah had recently become a head of his own household sometime between 1800 and 1810.  Aggregating all of these factors about the households of Edward and Elijah Arterbury, and given their extremely close geographic proximity in 1810, it is logical to conclude that Elijah Arterbury was the older son of Edward Arterbury.
2. Melchizedek, Israel and Michael Arterbury in 1810:  In the 1810 census record from Grayson County KY the households of Melchizedek, Israel and Michael Artebury were listed abutting one another, excepting Michael, who was separated only by the household of James Watkins.  Also, abutting Michael Arterbury were the households of Abraham and John Peebles.  Following the author’s interpretation of close geographic proximity, it seems reasonable to assume that these three Arterbury men shared a very close kinship, possibly a full-blood relationship.  We know with some certainty that this Michael Arterbury was the eldest of the Arterbury brothers, descended from William Arterbury, the immigrant.  We further know, with a fairly high level of certainty, that Israel Arterbury was a son of Michael Arterbury, given his appearance in the Barnwell District census records of South Carolina in 1800, and Michael’s appearance in the Orangeburg District census in 1790.  We further know, from the marriage record of Mary Peebles and Melchizedek Arterbury on 11Jan1808 in Hardin County, that Melchizedek was the son-in-law of John Peebles.  Many Atterbury genealogical researchers, including James E. Branch, claim that Melchizedek was a son of Charles and Sarah Arterbury.  In the 1810 census record Charles Arterbury was recorded on page 6 of 8 in Grayson County, whereas Melchizedek, Israel and Michael Arterbury were recorded in a tight cluster on page 5 of 8, separated from Charles Arterbury by 61 households.  Charles Arterbury was recorded abutting the household of Isaiah Arterbury, the presumed eldest son of Charles Arterbury (close geographic proximity).  If Melchizedek were a son of Charles Arterbury as claimed by numerous researchers, why was Melchizedek living next door to Michael and Israel Arterbury, and his father-in-law, John Peebles, and not next door to Charles Arterbury?  This may be an example in which the theory of close geographic proximity does not work, or it may be an example of it actually working.  It seems more likely to the author that Melchizedek was actually a son of Michael Arterbury, and not of Charles Arterbury.
3. Edward, Nathan and Hasel Arterbury in 1820:  In the 1820 census of Daviess County KY were recorded households headed by Edward Arterbury, Nathan Arterbury and Hasel Arterbury, all in relatively close geographic proximity on the same census page (11 of 17).  From an analysis of the household composition for Edward Arterbury in 1790 thru 1820, it is evident that he had two younger sons born after 1790, who were no longer in his household in 1820.  Since Edward’s was the only mature adult male household in Daviess County in 1820, it seems reasonable to assume that Nathan and Hasel were the young sons, previously recorded living in Edward’s household in 1800 and 1810.  Again, not all genealogical researchers concur with this kinship attribution between Nathan, Hasel and Edward, but given the aggregation of factors, and their relatively close geographic proximity in 1820, it is the author’s belief that Nathan and Hasel were Edward and Keziah’s  younger sons.
4. Zachariah and James Arterbury in 1840:  In the 1840 census from Bonne Femme, Howard, Missouri we have the record of the household of J. Atterbury.  Closer scrutiny of this record indicates the persons first name initial to actually have been “Z.”.  Review of the Howard County census in 1830 reveals the existence of the household of Zachariah Atterbury, which composition closely aligns with the 1840 record for Z. Atterbury.  Most genealogical researchers, including James E. Branch, report Zachariah as a son of Charles and Sarah Arterbury.  Yet, living in Z[achariah] Atterbury’s household in 1840 was an elderly male aged 80 thru 89.  It seems probable that this elderly male was the father of Zachariah Atterbury.  Assuming that to be the case, the only octogenarian male Atterbury known to be living in Missouri in 1840 was James Arterbury, widowed husband of Dorcas Wilkerson.  James Arterbury is believed to have had three sons living in Missouri in 1840: James Jr., Ashford and John.  If James Atterbury was the elder male in Zachariah’s household in 1840, and if he had three sons still living in Missouri in 1840, why would he be living in the household of a purported nephew, rather than in the home of a son?  Probably because Zachariah was James Arterbury’s son, and not the son of Charles and Sarah as claimed by so many other researchers.  Again, we have a fundamental geographic proximity test (two parties living in the same household) which almost certainly establishes a full-blood kinship connection between James Atterbury and Zachariah Atterbury as father and son.

Tool No. 3: Maternal Surname Perpetuation – throughout the colonial records we encounter given names (either first or middle) which of their very nature are recognizable as having been surnames.  When the histories of those families are studied in greater detail, that obscure given name can almost always be traced to the surname of a maternal ancestor.  The author has dubbed this practice of using maternal surnames as a given name “Maternal Surname Perpetuation“.  It is an understandable, almost innate, desire, given the practice within western civilization of married woman adopting the surname of their husband.  Without the practice of maternal surname perpetuation, the female surname heritage abruptly ends with a daughter’s marriage.  Awareness of this practice can be used by a genealogical researcher as an additional tool in our research arsenal to unravel the mystery of a female’s ancestry.  Once invoked, the practice can then be passed on to future generations.  So, we must be careful in our interpretation of the genealogical record, to insure ourselves that we are dealing with the very first instance of that maternal surname occurrence within that family branch.  We should also be aware of the fact that the repetitive usage of a maternal surname as a given name can actually jump across family lines. 

Examples of Maternal Surname Perpetuation interpretation:

1. David Davidson Mitchell:  In Chester County records can be found the name of David Davidson Mitchell in connection with land records involving various members of the Mitchell and Atterbury families.  Clearly, the middle name of Davidson was not a conventional given name, but does occur with some frequency as a surname, primarily emanating from Britain.  Researching the ancestry of David Davidson Mitchell it became clear that he was a son of David and Mary Mitchell, who first began appearing in records in Chester County SC around 1769.  Further analysis of David Mitchell’s family established, with a fairly high level of certainty, that he was an uncle of the Atterbury brothers, descended from William Atterbury (immigrant) and Sarah Mitchell, sister of David Mitchell.  Further research into David Mitchells wife, Mary, suggests that she may have been born Mary Davidson, probable daughter of John Davidson and Elizabeth Marbury of Prince Georges County MD.  It was only through the recognition that Davidson was probably a maternal surname passed down through the David Mitchell line from his wife, that the author was able to locate and document Mary Davidson’s probable parentage.
2. Greenberry Atterbury:  It should be obvious to the more experienced researcher that Greenberry was not a common given name, and that it probably emanated from a surname.  A search of London vital records spanning the 16th thru the 19th centuries revealed a total of 85 instances of the surname of Greenberry, and zero instances of the given name of Greenberry.  A similar test of the U.S. census records for 1810 revealed a total of 59 instances of the given name of Greenberry and exactly zero instances of the surname of Greenberry.  Of the 59 instance of the given name of Greenberry, 2 were reported in South Carolina, 14 in Kentucky and 21 in Maryland.  A similar test was performed on the 1790 census in which there were a total of 35 instances, with 27 having been in Maryland.  Clearly, from this data it can be inferred that the surname of Greenberry was not very common in Britain, and virtually non-existent in America.  Also, use of Greenberry as a given was strictly a colonial America phenomenon, which initiated mainly in Maryland during the 18th century, and then migrated westward into Virginia and the Carolinas, and ultimately to Kentucky by 1810.  In searching for a match that most closely fit geographically with the Atterburys, we discover the existence of Greenberry Roden in Chester County as early as 1790.  Greenberry Roden is believed to have been a son of John Roden and Elizabeth Potts.  Research into the ancestry of Elizabeth Potts suggests her mother was Elizabeth Greenberry, wife of John Potts.  Given the frequent interactions between various members of the Roden and Atterbury families in Chester County, including membership in the same church, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Greenberry Atterbury’s given name had some connection with the Roden family.  Through a rather extensive investigation, with which we will not burden the reader at this juncture, it was established that Greenberry Atterberry’s mother very likely was Sarah Roden, daughter of John and Elizabeth Roden, sister of Greenberry Roden, and wife of James Atterbury, son of William Atterbury Jr. and his wife, Bridget.  If the author’s analysis is correct, then we have an instance where the maternal surname perpetuation first occurred within the Roden family, and then was passed on within the Atterbury family through a Roden-Atterbury intermarriage.  Without knowledge of the practice of maternal surname perpetuation, the author very likely would never have been able to make the connection to the Roden family.
3. Hasel Arterbury: Much like the cases of Davidson and Greenberry, the given name of Hasel does not seem to fit with our 20th century notion of traditional given names.  Yet, in London during the 16th thru the 19th centuries there were a total of almost 100 instances of Hassell in its multitude of corruptions appearing as given names.  A similar search of London records revealed a total of 1331 instances of Hassell, etal., as a surname.  So, unlike Greenberry, Hassell was a much more common surname, and not all that uncommon of a given name in England.   In the American census of 1790 there are a total of four instances of a given name of Hassell, and 44 instances of the surname of Hassell.  The seemingly unrelated surname of Haskell appears to have been much more common as a  given name and a surname in both Britain and America than Hassell.  In spite of its apparent popularity as a given name in Britain, it was quite rare in America.  Only four instances of the given name of Hasel are found in the 1790 census in America.  However, there were records of interest found in Chester County SC in 1790 thru 1810 involving a Hazle or Hazel Hardwick, who lived along the Sandy River in relatively close proximity to the Arterburys and their known kin.  In fact, Hasel Hardwick was one of three people who supplied the security bond for administration of the estate of James Atterbury, son of William Atterbury Jr.  In tracing the genealogy of Hasel [aka Hazle] Hardwick it is suggested that he was a son of Joseph Hardwick and Ann Hasel, born about 1727 in Stafford County VA.  He presumably received his given name from his mother’s maiden name (maternal surname perpetuation), although documentation of these facts is lacking.  He in turn, passed his given name along to his son, Hasel Hardwick Jr., who appeared in Chester County records along with his father, including the 1800 census.  A daughter of Hasel Sr., Susannah Hardwick, married Peter Petrie in Chester County, and they are believed to have named their first born son Hasel Petrie.  So, clearly the given name of Hasel or Hazle was a very rare name in the Atterbury neighborhood around Chester County.  The fact that Edward and Keziah appear to have given the name of Hasel to their son would seem to suggest a connection to Hasel Hardwick.  It seems entirely possible that Keziah may have been another daughter of Hazel Hardwick, which kinship connection could account for Edward and Keziah naming a son Hasel Artebury.

Tool No. 4: Allied Parties Analysis – we should never ignore the allied parties encountered in association with our ancestors, as they frequently prove to be related kinsmen.  The most common instances of allied parties are found in marriage records, guardian records, estate records, land records, court records, church records, and yes, census records.  Each category of record is briefly dissected as follows:

• Marriage Records: petitioners, bond agent, minister, witness(es), affiants.
• Guardian Records: minor children, parents, guardians, witness(es), bond agent, affiants.
• Estate Records: testator/deceased, kinsmen, heirs/legatees, bond agents, debtors/creditors, appraisers, administrators, trustees, grantors/grantees, bidders/buyers, assigners/assignees, guardians, litigants.
• Land Records: grantors/grantees, former owners (chain of title), spouses or other kinspersons, adjacent owners, bond agents, affiants, litigants/claimants, witnesses.
• Court Records: This category covers a multitude of record types, usually involving some form of debt or tort: claimants, defendants, witnesses, bond agents, injured parties, appraisers, obligees, commissioners.
• Church Records: organizers, members, lay leaders, ministers, officers, disenfranchised, petitioners/supplicants, witnesses, accusers/recusants.
•  Census Records: targeted surnames, heads of households, household members, nearest neighbors (usually within one page proximity).

Each allied party should be thoroughly evaluated within the limits of available resources, as to their ancestral backgrounds, places of origin, occupations, religious affiliations, length of residence, migratory path, and age and gender relative to our target.  This is not intended as an exhaustive sampling of allied party sources or vetting methods, but should give the researcher a solid basis for recognizing the presence of a prospective allied party, and the methodology to be applied in vetting each party.  This may seem a bit extreme, but the author has found from experience that allied parties more often than not have a meaningful affiliation with the targeted ancestor, and frequently lead to other lines of inquiry that can further fill in the voids in our knowledge, thus providing a broader and more detailed understanding of our target ancestor.  Who knows, we may even find other, heretofore unknown, kinsmen hidden among the forest of mysterious bystanders. 

APPENDIX 16-B

1830 Arterbury Household List

---

[1] https://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/PMeeks.html, accessed 15Oct2018.

[2] http://genealogytrails.com/ind/spencer/twp-histories.html, accessed 20Oct2018.

[3] This Priddy Meeks is believed to have been a brother of Atha Meeks, who was murdered by Indians at his cabin in Spencer County IN in 1812.  Atha Meeks was the father of Dr. Priddy Meeks, who converted to Mormonism, married Sarah Mahurin (daughter of Stephen Mahurin and Sarah Meeks) and migratied to Orderville Utah.  This Priddy Meeks is believed to have been the same person, who witnessed the LWT of Richard Arterberry I, and went the surety bond on Richard’s estate administration.

[4] This Priddy Meeks is believed to have been the Thomasonian Herbalist Doctor, who married Sarah Mahurin and migrated to Salt Lake Utah as part of the 2^nd Mormon migration.

[5] Stephen Mahurin (1774-1849) – Find A Grave Memorial, accessed on 16Apr2021.

[6] The Black Cholera Comes to the Central Valley of America in the 19th Century – 1832, 1849, and Later, Walter J. Daly, M.D.,  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2394684/

[7]

[8] The author is indebted to Kathy (E-mail Address: kgsearcher@aol.com) for the discovery of the Nauvoo Temple records re: Elizabeth Edwards and her husband, Thomas Striplin Edwards.

[9] https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/6967/30846_00027917-00045/243000?backurl=https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/51881209/person/412014423478/facts/citation/1122018727263/edit/record, accessed 1Jan2019.

[10] Chester County, South Carolina Deed Abstracts, Volume I: Deed Books A-F, Brent H. Holcomb, 2005, p. 84.

[11] https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE2114299, accessed 5Feb2019.

[12] Extract from an e-mail from Kathy at kgsearcher@aol.com to the author dated 4Feb2019.

Richard Arterbury II was a son of Richard Arterbury I and Rebecca [possibly Bennett], born 24Feb1786 (see grave marker in Figure 11-1[1]), probably in Chester County, South Carolina.  His family was reported in the 1790 census records of Chester County showing four males under 16, one male over 16 and two females.  Presumably one of the males under age 16 was Richard II, who would have been about 4 years old.  His father owned at least two tracts of land in Chester County, one of which was situated on the waters of Brushy Fork Creek.  In Mar1794 Richard II’s father purchased a 100 acre tract of land situated on Welches Fork from William Rainey.  In the deed Richard I was described as already living on the tract on Welches Fork.  The Welches Fork location would place Richard’s family in close proximity to several other members of the Attebury family.  The family was not found in any census record in 1800, but may have been included in the household of Charles Atterbury, which appears to exhibit members composed of multiple families.  Richard II probably was about 19 years old when his father moved the family to Hardin County Kentucky around 1805.  The date of that migration can be generally inferred from the reported date and place of birth of Nathan Atterberry, brother of Richard II, who, according to Nathan’s obituary, was born in South Carolina on 10Aug1803.  Also suggestive of the 1805 date of the migration to Kentucky is the Chester County land record dated 7Dec1804 in which Richard Atterberry [I] filed a plat map for 142 acres on Brushy Fork.

However, it seems quite clear that the family was in Hardin County KY by 1Oct1805 when Mary [Bennett?] Atterberry was recorded marrying William Watkins.  Another indicator of Richard Atterberry I’s presence in Kentucky is the LWT which he wrote in Hardin County dated 4Oct1806.  Further evidence of the family’s migration may be found in two further marriages: Richard Arterbury II and Patsy Moore in Ohio County on 19Apr1807 and David Arterbury and Sally Moore in Ohio County on 8Apr1809.  This Richard and David Arterbury are believed to have been brothers, and to have married sisters, daughters of Edmund Walker Moore

Richard I’s LWT named his wife, Rebecca, whose maiden name has been presumed by many researchers to have been Bennett, based on the given middle name of female descendants.  Also named in the LWT were “his trusty friend” Charles Arterbury (presumably his brother), and Richard Arterbury II as executors, and was witnessed by Pridy Meeks, John Wright and Robert W. Dorsey.  No other children, other than Richard II, were named in the Will.  The Will was proven at Court on 13Jul1813 by the testimony of Pridy Meeks.  On 10May1813 summons were issued to Thomas Arterbury [Richard II’s older brother] of Grayson County, and Rezin Blissit [Richard II’s brother-in-law, husband of Anna Atterberry], Benjamin Meeks [son of Priddy Meeks, and husband of Richard II’s sister, Rebecca Atterberry], and William Watkins [presumed husband of Richard II’s sister, Mary Atterberry] all three of Hardin County to appear July, next, to show cause why administration of Richard’s estate should not be taken from them.  This suggests that these four men had previously filed a petition with the Court for issuance of Letter of Administration.  12Jun1813 further probate action was laid over, pending summons for Robert Dorsey and John Wright to appear.  9Aug1813 Robert W. Dorsey appeared, and on his oath, as a subscribing witness, the LWT of Richard Arterbury was proven and entered into record.  That same date appeared Richard Arterbury Jr. and Charles Arterbury, the named executors, along with Reason Blissett and filed their security bond. 

It is not known exactly when Richard I died, but almost certainly before 1810, as he was not found in the census in that year.  At the time of Richard I’s death, he had fourteen living children, at least four of whom were already married.  Included among these children were nine sons under the age of 21 years.  In the 1810 census no record could be found for Richard I’s widow, Rebecca Atteberry.  However, a review of households of the married children, suggests that Rebecca Atteberry may have been living with her eldest son, Thomas Atteberry at Elizabethtown, Hardin County KY, as there was one female over age 45 in that household.  The six eldest children: Anna [Blissett], Thomas, Rebecca [Meeks], Mary [Watkins], Richard II and David can all be found heading their own households in Kentucky in the 1810 census.  Assuming that Rebecca Atteberry was living with her eldest son, Thomas, the question then arises regarding the whereabouts of her eight youngest sons, who would have been aged 5 to 19 years.  Presumably, they would have been living with other next-of-kin households, probably in Hardin County.  However, a review of the households of the six married children does not disclose the presence of anywhere near this number of unaccounted males.  It seems possible that these eight male children may have been divided among the households of several different families, possibly including a few of their elder married siblings.  Some of these male children may also have been placed into apprenticeships, much like Nathan Atteberry, who was apprenticed to John Turney.

Charles Atteberry, the presumed brother of Richard Atteberry I, was reported to have had 14 members in his household in 1810 in Hardin County.  It has already been reported that the Charles Atteberry household contained 22 persons in the 1800 census in Chester County SC.  The author even speculated that the family of Richard Atterberry I may have been living with Charles Atterberry in 1800, as he was not recorded elsewhere.  Further, Richard I named Charles Atterberry as a co-executor to his LWT.  This fact suggests a particularly close relationship between Richard Atteberry I and his presumed uncle, Charles Atterberry.  Consequently, it is entirely possible that Charles Atteberry may have assumed guardianship of some of Richard’s children after his death.

Richard Atteberry II appeared in the 1810 census record living in Ohio Township, Ohio County KY with a son, under age 10 [probably Walker Atterberry], Richard, aged 26 to 44, and Martha [aka Patsy] aged 16 to 25.  In 1810 Ohio County was abutted to the east by Breckenridge and Grayson Counties, and to the north by the Ohio River and Illinois Territory.  In 1815 Ohio County was divided roughly in half, with the northern part constituting the newly formed Daviess County.  In 1810 there were no other persons with the surname of Atterberry living in Ohio County.  The nearest known Atterberrys were all living in nearby Grayson or Hardin Counties.  However, there were the families of Abraham Myres and his sons, Michael, Levi and Elijah, all living in Ohio County.  Abraham Myres had married Patty Arterbury, widow of Nathan Arterbury, on 2Aug1805 in Hardin County.  If the author’s genealogical analysis regarding the ancestry of Nathan Arterbury is correct [i.e., brother of Richard I, and son of Michael], then Abraham Myres would appear to have married Richard Arterbury I’s sister-in-law.  Such kinship would make Patty Arterbury-Myres the aunt of Richard Atterbury II, which might explain the reason Abraham Myres may have settled so close to the family of Richard Atterbury II in Ohio County KY.

In 1820 the Richard Atterberry II family was recorded in two different locations.  One record was in Ohio County KY on 7Aug1820 and reported three sons under 10 [Christopher James, John Warren and Unknown], one son 10 to 15 [Walker], head of household aged 26 to 44, one female under age 10 [Jane], and one female 26 thru 44 [Patsey Moore].  The other record was from Waconteby Township, White County, Illinois, and reflects an identical household composition to the Ohio County household.  It is difficult to explain the reason that Richard’s household would be reported in two different jurisdictions, except that he may have been attempting to establish himself in White County IL at the same time that he retained his residence in Ohio County.  Another person by the name of David Atterberry was also recorded living in Ohio County in 1820 in relatively close proximity to Richard Atterberry II.  This David Atterberry household was reported to contain one male under 10 years, head of household aged 26 thru 44, three females under age 10 and one female aged 16 thru 25.  This David Atterberry very likely was the same person recorded as head of household in 1810 in Hardin County, and the same person who married Sarah Moore on 9Apr1809 in Ohio County.  It seems probable that David Atterberry was a younger brother of Richard Atterberry II.  Further, some genealogical researchers claim that Patsey Moore [wife of Richard II] and Sarah Moore were sisters, the daughters of Edmund Walker Moore and Martha Wilson.

It should also be noted that there were marriages recorded in White County around this same time period abstracted as follows:

• Charles Atterberry, 1822, White County IL, married Sally Collard.  This Charles Atterberry very likely was a younger brother of Richard Atterberry II.  It seems probable that Charles Atterberry, James Atterberry (next record) and Richard Atterberry II had all planned to establish residency in White County IL sometime around 1818, about the same time that Rezin Blissett and Anna Atterberry Blissett, and William Watkins and Mary Bennett Atteberry Watkins relocated from Kentucky to Wayne County, which abuts White County to the northwest.
• James Atterberry, 1824, White County, married Jane Boone [aka Bain].  James Atterberry is believed to have been another younger brother of Richard Atterberry II.  James very likely moved to White County at about the same time as Richard II and Charles Atterberry.  By 1830 James Arterberry had relocated to Greene County IL where he was recorded in the census record, and in neighboring Jeresy County in 1840.  By 1850 James had moved back to the eastern part of the state where he was recorded living in Franklin County in 1850.  James acquired several tracts of land in Franklin and Hamilton Counties in the early 1850’s.  His LWT was recorded in Franklin County in Aug1854.
• Sally Atterberry, 1825, White County, married Peter O’Neil.  The identity of Sally Atterberry is not known with certainty, but she very well may have been Sally Collard, widow of Charles Atterberry.  If that were the case, then it would appear that Charles Atterberry likely died in White County around 1824/5.  There is a census record of a Peter O’Neal living in White County in 1820 with a young female of about his same age (16 thru 25), suggesting that he may have been previously married, and that his first wife had died shortly before he married Sally Atterberry.

In 1830 Richard Atterberry II was again reported living in Ohio County KY with the following household composition: two males under 5, two males 5 to 9, two males 10 to 14, one male 15 to 19, one male 40 to 49, one female 15 to 19, and one female 40 to 49.  The eldest son, Walker Atteberry was already living as head of his own household in Wayne County in 1830.  Also, four of Richard II’s younger brothers: Asa Atteberry, John Atteberry, Nathan Atteberry and Reuben Atteberry, were also recorded living in Wayne County in 1830 (see Table 11-1).  Five households removed from Richard Atterberry II was listed the household of another presumed brother, David Atterberry.  Also, next to David Atterberry was the household of E. W. [Edmund Walker] Moore, the presumed father-in-law of Richard II and David Atterberry.  On the succeeding page was the household of another brother, Stout Atteberry (more on Stout later).

It is believed that Richard Atterberry II moved his family to Wayne County IL within the year after the 1830 census, as land records commenced for Richard Atteberry in Wayne County in 1831.  There were a total of nine land records recorded in Wayne County for Richard Atteberrys between 1831 and 1853 as listed in Table 11-2.  Most of these records are believed to have been filed by Richard Atteberry II, but at least one was by his son, Richard Atteberry III [shown as Richard Jr. in the record]. 

The approximate location (within 100 feet) can be computed from the rather precise Township, Range and Section descriptions which accompanied each filing.  The location of each tract has been plotted on a section grid layout of each of the three abutting townships in which these tracts were contained, such layout is presented in Figure 11-2 below.  The first filing on 10Dec1831 was for a 1/4 section tract of 160 acres about 1.5 miles northeast of present day Barnhill, situated in the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 3S, Range 8E.  The next filing was on 12Aug1836 for a 40 acre tract in the extreme southeast corner of the same section as the first filing.  The third filing was on 18Aug1836 for another 40 acre tract in the same section, which abutted the first tract to the northwest.  So, within the first five years of moving into Wayne County Richard Atteberry II had acquired three tracts of farmland totaling 240 acres situated in close proximity to each other immediately northeast of the community of Barnhill.

Illinois received statehood in 1820.  Prior to that date it had been only sparsely settled by Europeans, and still had a relatively large population of Native Americans.  The first white settlers in the area that ultimately became Wayne County were a family headed by Isaac Harris, who over-wintered in 1812-3 in an encampment on the bluffs of the Little Wabash River about six miles southeast of Fairfield.  The following year he moved his livestock from Big Prairie township in nearby White County, and build the first known dwelling within Wayne County.  Isaac Harris’ land was located in Section 29, Township 2S, Range 8E, about one mile northwest of Richard Atterberry II’s tracts, and in the same Section in which Nathan Atteberry lived (Nathan’s tracts shown in blue).

Much of what is known of the Atterberry settlers in Wayne County can be traced to the recollections of Nathan Atteberry, who was interviewed and his memories set forth in a book entitled History of Wayne & Clay Counties Illinois, published by the State Historical Society of Wisconsin in 1884.  At that time Nathan was in his 80th year of life, and the oldest surviving Atteberry still living in Wayne County.  Nathan was born in Chester County SC on 10Aug1803, the 2nd youngest of fourteen children born to Richard Arterbury I and Rebecca Bennett.  Sometime around 1816/7 two of Nathan’s sisters: Anna Atteberry Blissett and Mary [Polly] Atteberry Watkins migrated to Wayne County with their husbands and children.  It appears that Nathan and two of his brothers may have followed their sister’s families within the next year per the following narrative from History:

“Nathan Atteberry came to Wayne County and settled in Turney’s Prairie in the fall of 1819 (probably 1818).  In the party were the two brothers of Atteberry and their families.  Their nearest neighbors were Reason Blissett [Nathan’s brother-in-law] and his family of four children, George Close [William Watkins’ brother-in-law], William Watkins [Nathan’s brother-in-law], Green Lee, Henry Coonrod, Michael Turney, Isaiah Turney, Thomas Turney and John Turney [Nathan’s master].  They were all here when the Atteberrys came, and had been on the grounds the most of them long enough to have gone to keeping house in their rude cabins.”[2]

There are several inaccuracies in the foregoing account, but it may be taken as a general guide to the timing and circumstances of the community into which Nathan Atteberry migrated with his brothers.  First, it must be admitted that the identity of the two brothers, with whose “families” Nathan purportedly migrated, is unknown to the author.  The reference to these brothers having “families” suggests that they were already married and had children by 1818.  If that were in fact the case, then this would be suggestive of Nathan’s oldest brothers: Thomas and Richard.  The other known brothers, except for Solomon, were not old enough to have been married with children, and Solomon Atteberry is not known to have moved outside of Kentucky.  We do know from the 1820 census that Richard Atteberry was reported living in both White County IL and Ohio County KY, so he conceivably could have been one of the referenced brothers.  From History we also have a reference to Stout Atteberry suggesting the he may have been one of those brothers:

“The father [Stout Atteberry] came to this county in 1818, with his brother, Nathan F. Atteberry, and settled in Barnhill Township.  He, however, only remained in the county for a short time, and then returned to Kentucky.”[3]

Another hint of the identity of the other brother may be found in the following extract from History:

“During the year 1818, there was added to those first comers: Andrew Kuykendall…George Close, John Atteberry, Samuel Bain, etal.”[4]

If this account of Stout having been one of the brothers, who migrated to Wayne County with Nathan Atteberry in 1818 is correct, then it should be recognized that Stout would have been only 18 years old, and unmarried.  It does make sense that Stout and Nathan may have traveled to Wayne County in 1818 with an older brother.  However, whether that other brother was John Atteberry seems doubtful.  John Attberry would have been only 19 years old in 1818, and was also not yet married at that time.  So John Atteberry could hardly be described as having had his own “family” in 1818.  It is possible that John Atteberry could have come to Wayne County in 1818 with his brothers: Nathan and Stout, but the records do not support this possibility, one way or the other.  Although an adult male of age 21 years in 1820, John Atteberry was not recorded as a head of a household in the 1820 census records.  Further, he was not recorded anywhere in records until the 1830 census, when he was reported a head of household in Wayne County, married and with several children.  His eldest son, Charles W. Arterberry, is recorded in later census records having been born in 1824 in Kentucky.  Consequently, it seems doubtful that John Atteberry was one of the brothers, who accompanied Nathan Atteberry to Wayne County in 1818, unless perhaps, he too had returned to Kentucky similar to the report about Stout Atteberry.

It does seems possible that the third brother, who accompanied Nathan Atteberry to Wayne County in 1818 may have been his older brother, Richard II, who possibly was attracted to that region by the earlier migration of his older sisters.  The account of Stout’s return to Kentucky seems to fit with the apparent return of Richard Atteberry II to Ohio County KY, after only a brief stay in Illinois.  In fact, both Richard and Stout were still living in Hartford Township, Ohio County KY in 1830, within relatively close proximity of each other.

Another discrepancy in the History description of Nathan’s migration to Wayne County may be found in the reference to the household of Reason Blissett containing “his family of four children”.  Reason Blissett and Anna Atterberry are believed to have been married in Chester County SC in about 1802/3.  The actual date and place of their marriage is undocumented, but the purported place and date does comport with the probable location of Anna Atterberry’s family at that time.  The 1810 census of Rezin Blissett’s household in Elizabethtown, Hardin County KY showed the following composition:

• Head of household = one male 26 thru 44, two males under 10, one male 10 thru 15, one female under 10, two females 16 thru 25, and one female 26 thur 44.

The 1810 census indicates that there were perhaps as many as six children in the family.  However, if these younger persons were in fact all children of the head of household, and if the marriage date of 1802/3 is correct, then at least three of these children (over age 10) could not have been born of Anna Blissett, but perhaps of an earlier, unknown wife.  It is also possible that these older children may not have been Reason and Anna’s children, but may have been other relatives.  It is known that Richard Atterberry I had died by 1808.  His widow, Rebecca Atterberry did not appear in the 1810 census in her own name.  Consequently, it is not known with any certainty where her younger children (siblings of Anna Blissett) may have been living in that year.  At the time of Richard I’s death, he is believed to have had nine sons below the age of consent.  It is possible that some of those younger siblings may have been living with their eldest sister, Anna Blissett.  Reason Blissett is believed to have died in Wayne County IL in about 1818/9, and his widow’s household was reported in the 1820 census as follows:

• Head of Household = one female 26 thru 44, two males under 10, one male 10 thru 15, two males 16 thru 25, two females under 10, and one female 10 thru 15.

First, it would appear that the two females aged 16 thru 25 shown in the household in 1810 were no longer in the household in 1820.  Next, the female aged under 10 in 1810 appears to be still in the household in 1820, aged 10 thru 15.  Next, there appears to have been two new males and two new females under age 10 added to the household after 1810.  Lastly, there appears to be one male aged 16 thru 25 in the household in 1820, who does not appear to have been in the household in 1810.  Unless there was an error in the ages reported for the young males in the 1810 census vs. the 1820 census, it seems possible that the apparent added male in the 1820 census may have been Anna’s younger brother, Nathan Atterberry, who is believed to have been in Wayne County as early as 1818.  Nathan is reported to have been apprenticed to John Turney in about 1818 at the age of 15 years.  Nathan would have been only 17 years old in 1820.  He does not appear to have been in the John Turney household in 1820, so it seems reasonable that he may have been living with his older sister, Anna Blissett.

On 9Dec1818 Rezin Blissett filed for an 80 acre tract in West Half, Southwest Quarter, Section 5, Township 3S, Range 8E (shown in green in Figure 11-2).  By 23Jul1819 Rezin Blissett was dead, and his widow, Anna Atterberry Blissett, filed for an additional 80 acre tract situated in the East Half of the same Quarter Section (also shown in green in Figure 11-2).  Thirteen years later, Anna’s brother, Richard II filed his first tract for the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 3S, Range 8E, abutting westerly on the tract of his sister, Anna Blissett.

By 1820 the Atterberry sisters were quickly integrating into the sparse society of their region.  Pioneering life on this southern Illinois frontier is recalled by Betsey Harris Goodwin and Nathan Atteberry in History as follows:

“The first cabin had a dirt floor and its size is shown by Mrs. Goodwin’s statement as to the carpet used.  Four bear skins, cut square, filled the cabin and made a luxurious carpet.  The daily food of the pioneers was corn meal, hominy, bear meat, venison, honey and sassafras tea…  she remembered many times of seeing a hundred gallons of honeyed sweetness in a rude wooden trough…  The pioneer’s luscious bill of fare was served on pewter plates, sometimes accompanied by milk poured from a gourd…  Bears were so bold they have been known to come within twenty steps of the house and carry off pigs.  Mrs. Goodwin said she would enjoy wearing a pair (bear skin moccasins) even in 1880…  The young ladies of the pioneer period wore deer skin dresses…  “Daddy loaded a lot of deer skins and venison hams on a sled and took ’em to Carmi and bought us gals each a calico dress.”…  The Indians seem not to have had any permanent village in our county, but were frequently camped here in large numbers.  Mrs. Goodwin remembered seeing about 300 camped near Nathan Atteberry’s present home…  Fairfield then consisted of two cabins, and the patriotic observers of the day (4th of July) we celebrate numbered about thirty persons, prominent among whom were the Barnhills, Slocumbs, Leeches and Jo Campbell…  The dishes and spoons used were almost wholly pewter and were sold by peddlers.  There were no stores in the county, and men and women wore buckskin clothing…  The first school which Mrs. Goodwin attended was taught by Uncle George Merritt.  There was not an arithmetic or slate in the school room, the studies being confined to the Testament (Bible) and spelling-book…  Archy Roberts was one of the first preachers in this part of the State.  He was a Methodist, as were most of the early ministers…  It was very difficult to raise wheat in the early days.  It looked well enough, but failed to mature and make perfect heads.  Corn was the sole reliance for bread…  The first mill in the county was built by Jo Martin, who hauled the stones from Barren County KY…  the creek which crosses the Liberty road just beyond Nathan Atteberry’s farm, four miles south of Fairfield.  It is now perfectly dry nine months of the year.  It will be astonishing information to many of the present generation that on this creek was built the first water mill ever in the County.  Mr. Atteberry said the dam across the creek furnished water power enough to run a small pair of corn stones two feet in diameter…  It was universally recognized as one of the most valued public enterprises of the day…  During the year 1818, there was added to those first commers: Andrew Kuykendall…George Close, John Atteberry, Samuel Bain [kinsman of Charles Atteberry?], etal.”

The Baptist Church was one of the first to be organized in Wayne County.  Its first organization is summarized as follows:

“The earliest organization of the Baptist Church in this county which we have been able to gather, was at what was then and still is known as Hopewell, in the southern part of Barnwell Township.  This church was organized 5Aug1820, by Elders William Hanks and Benjamin Keith.  The persons entering into this organization at that time were James Bird, Susan Bird, William Wadkins, Polly Wadkins, Stephen Coonrod, Anna Blissett and Naomi Close [wife of George Close], all of whom most likely have long since passed away.  The church records from which we gather these facts, after giving the organization, articles of faith, and rules of decorum, makes a skip of 20 years, that is from 1820 to 1840, and this interval we are unable to supply, except from what few stray items we have been able to gather from persons who were living here at that time.  We presume this congregation had no house of worship at the date of their organization, as we find in their record at the time of their organization this entry: “Done at the place of George Close’s, Wayne County, State of Illinois.””[5]

So the first Baptist Church in Wayne County was organized on 5Aug1820 at the home of George Close which was located in Section 9, Township 3S, Range 8E.  Founding members included William Wadkins [aka Watkins] and his wife, Mary [Polly] Atteberry, Anna Atteberry Blissett, widow of Reason Blissett, and Naomi Watkins Close, wife of George Close.  As shown in Figure 11-2 the homesteads of George Close, William Watkins and Reason Blissett were clustered within Township 3S, Range 8E, all within a 1/2-mile radius of each other.  Ten years later, Richard Atteberry II would purchase several tracts in Section 4 of that same township, within less than 1/2-mile of his sister’s homesteads.  William Watkins was one of the first preachers of the Hopewell church, and would continue as one of their leading ministers until his death in 1850.  A more detailed description of the Hopewell Church is as follows:

“Hopewell Church was organized August 5, 1820, at the home of George Close, with nine members, viz., James Bird, Susan Bird, Anna Blissitt, Stephen Coonrod, John Coonrod, Naomi Close, James Taylor, William Watkins, and Polly Watkins. Elders Benjamin Keith and William Hanks composed the presbytery which organized Hopewell Church.

The messengers, chosen in 1821, to petition for membership in the Muddy River Association, were James Taylor and William Watkins. This church was a member of the Muddy River (1821), Little Wabash (1825) and Skillet Fork (1840) Associations during its existence.

Elder William Watkins was serving as pastor in about 1840. The only records of the church which have been discovered begin in 1845, with an account of trouble resulting in a division in the church caused by Elder John Kimmel. In July 1846, Elder Isaiah Walker was ordained, and served the church as pastor or moderator. He was followed by Elders Felix Potter, William Thomas, John Hunsinger, Nathaniel Williams, Lewis Hunsinger, James D. Jones, Isham Caudle, and Jeremiah Wooten, up to the year 1874.

In 1845, the church was meeting in a schoolhouse near William McCullough’s. In March 1850 the church agreed to build a meeting house after the model of Mt. Pleasant’s, and appointed members to select a site. Jacob Baird and wife gave two acres of land, in 1855, on which the church erected a building. It was located about a mile east of Barnhill, in Barnhill township.

A three-day centennial service was held in August 1920, with Elder M. L. Gwaltney (the pastor), and Elders A. J. Coale, Charles Jones, A. D. Hancock, and others in attendance. The church was shown as a member of the Skillet Fork Association as late as 1934.

Surnames that appeared in the Hopewell Church records included:  Atterberry, Baird, Bird, Blissit, Buckels, Butler, Carter, Caudle, Churchwell, Clark, Close, Coonrod, Copeland, Corley, Day, Doris, Eskridge, Felix, Friend, Gray, Hall, Harl, Hodge, Hodges, Howard, Jerrels, Kennedy, Kimmell, King, Lock, Martin, McCullough, Meeks, Murphey, Murphy, Musgraves, Nunn, Odell, Palmer, Pendleton, Potter, Reed, Rentfro, Reynold, Rhodes, Simpson, Smith, Taylor, Tombs, Upchurch, Wade, Walker, Watkins, Wheeler, Wilson, Wood (very incomplete list due to loss of most of the records).”[6]

In the first half of the 19th century several Atteberry kinsman filed plat maps within Wayne County, most within less than five miles distance from Richard II, including four of his brothers: John, Asa, Reuben, and Nathan, as well as Richard II’s sons: Richard III, Walker, John Warren, and Allen.  A list of all tract filings by Atteberrys and some near kinsmen in Wayne County from 1817 thru 1853 is presented in Table 11-3.  Although the census record presented in Table 11-1 indicates that Asa, Nathan, Reuben, John and Walker Atteberry were all in Wayne County by 1830, Table 11-3 shows that they were a bit slow in their acquisition of land: Reuben acquired 80 acres on 30Dec1830, Nathan acquired 40 acres on 4Jan1833, John acquired 44 acres on 24Nov1836, Walker acquired 40 acres on 26May1836, and Asa acquired 40 acres on 12Jan1837.  Further, that Richard I acquired 160 acres on 10Dec1831, Richard III acquired 40 acres on 3Jan1838, Stout acquired 80 acres on 5Jun1840, Solomon [son of Nathan] acquired 40 acres on 16Mar1848, Allen [son of Richard II] acquired 80 acres on 26Dec1850, Henry [son of Nathan] acquired 80 acres on 1Jul1851, Jacob S. [son of Reuben] acquired 40 acres on 26Jul1851, Eli [son of Asa] acquired 40 acres on 2Mar1853, and William A. [possibly son of Asa] acquired 40 acres on 26Mar1853.

Table 11-4 contains a list of all of the households in Wayne County in 1840 headed by a person surnamed Atteberry, or near facsimile.  The persons are identified as follows: Asa Atteberry [brother of Richard II], Kitty Atteberry [Catherine Meeks, widow of Reuben Atteberry], House [sic] [Stout] Atteberry [brother of Richard II], John Atteberry [brother of Richard II], John W. [Warren] [son of Richard II], Nathan Atteberry [brother of Richard II], Richard Atteberry [Richard II], Richard Atteberry [Richard III], and Walker Atteberry [son of Richard II].

It is of interest to this analysis of the Richard Atteberry lineage to note that on 3Jan1838 there were two tracts acquired, one by Richard Atteberry Sr., and the other by Richard Atteberry Jr.  Based on the grave marker shown in Figure 11-3 Richard Atteberry III was born on 24Nov1820, and would have been only 18 years old when he acquired his first tract.  That tract was located in Section 32, Township 2S, Range 8E, and is identified as Tract No. 4 in Figure 11-2.  This tract was situated within about one-half mile of the first tracts acquired by his father.  The fact that Richard Atteberry III was only 18 years old when he acquired this tract of land suggests that he probably was contemplating marriage.  The 1840 census record indicates that Richard III was in fact married at the time that that census was taken, as he was reported as the head of his own household, aged 15 thru 19, with one female, aged 15 thru 19.  Richard III is reported to have married Eliza Close, daughter of George Close and Naomi Watkins in about 1839 in Wayne County.

It is interesting to note that of the fourteen known children of Richard Atteberry I and Rebecca Bennett, eight settled and lived out their adult lives in Wayne County IL; these included: Richard II, Nathan, John, Asa, Stout, Anna, Mary, and Reuben.  Two others initially migrated from Kentucky to White County IL; these included Charles (who is believed to have died in White County around 1824/5), and James (who initially settled in White County, moved to Greene County, then to Jersey County, and finally to Franklin County).  Two others appear to have migrated directly from Kentucky to Macon County; these included David and Thomas (Jockey).  Of the final two: Rebecca settled in Spencer County IL, and Solomon remained in Kentucky, where he died in Grayson County in 1859.

Richard Atterberry II and Patsey Moore are believed to have had…

Law and Courts

“On 26Aug1837 the nuncupatice Will of Reuben Atteberry was probated.  It was attested by Nathan Atteberry and John G. Meeks.”

Other early settlers of Barnhill were William Watkins, Asa Hayes, Walker Atteberry, Nathan Atteberry, Renfro brothers, Archibald Roberts, William Simpson Jr., Daniel, etal…  William Watkins settled in the southeast part of Section 9, on the place now owned by Gideon Gifford.  He came from Kentucky, and was a zealous preacher in the Baptist Church, as well as an enterprising farmer…  Walker Atteberry settled in Section 8, and Nathan Atteberry settled on Section 29, on the west border of the township.

County Supervisors – J. W. Atteberry, 1856-66.

Commissioner of Highways: [J. W.] Atteberry, Holtzhouser and Shelton 1868-9.

Collectors: R. F. Atteberry 1872-3.

Post Offices: Although the town was never laid out, the neighborhood in the vicinity of Mr. Keen’s residence still bears the name of Keenville.  In 1881, the post office was, however, moved a mile south of the old location, where Mr. A. F. Atteberry is now running a store.

Schools: The first schoolhouse was built as early as 1845, in Section 29.  It was of hewn logs, with puncheon floors, and was erected by the people of the neighborhood on land donated by Harvey Braddy.  School was held in this building every season until 1879, when the building finally burned.  Among persons who taught there were Asa F. Atteberry, A. K. Atteberry and T. M. Atteberry.  A short time before the building burned it was decided to divide the district, as the school was becoming large.  In consequence, after the fire it was decided to erect two buildings.  Accordingly, one building was erected in Section 28, on land donated by Stout Atteberry.

“Nathan Atteberry was born in South Carolina 10Aug1803, and in childhood was removed from there by his parents to Kentucky, where he remained until 1820, when he came to Wayne County, where he has remained ever since.  He is a hale and cheery old man, whose mind and body are strong, virgorous and active.  His biography may be found in another part of this work.  At the house of Mr. Atteberry, on the 10th day of August, was gathered some of the friends and old settlers to celebrate his 80th birthday.  Among the guests: Richard L. Boggs, Pardi S. Meeks, Margaret Ann Blissett, wife of Mr. Meeks, was born in Wayne County 14Jun1819, Sarah Renfro, widow of Asa Atteberry, who died many years ago, born in Georgia 12Sep1812, came to Wayne County in 1829…  Nathan Atteberry came to Wayne County and settled in Turney’s Prairie in the fall of 1819.  In the party were the two brothers of Atteberry and their families.  Their nearest neighbors were Reason Blissett and his family, and George Close, William Watkins, etal…  These were all here when Atteberrys came, and had been on the grounds the most of them long enough to have gone to keeping house in their rude cabins.  Isaiah Turney taught a school in this prairie in 1820…  Mr. [Nathan] Atteberry remembers attending a general muster and election in 1820, where the militia officers for the county were elected…  Mr. Atteberry afterward became a Captain and then a Major in the militia, where he served two years.  Nathan Atteberry was a bound boy to old John Turney, and by the terms of the indenture was sent to school three months, and this was the total of his facilities in this line.  His recollection is that George Close raised the first wheat ever grown in the county.”[7]

Early Baptists

“The earliest organization of the Baptist Church in this county which we have been able to gather, was at what was then and still is known as Hopewell, in the southern part of Barnwell Township.  This church was organized 5Aug1820, by Elders William Hanks and Benjamin Keith.  The persons entering into this organization at that time were James Bird, Susan Bird, William Wadkins, Polly Wadkins, Stephen Coonrod, Anna Blissett and Naomi Close [wife of George Close], all of whom most likely have long since passed away.  The church records from which we gather these facts, after giving the organization, articles of faith, and rules of decorum, makes a skip of 20 years, that is from 1820 to 1840, and this interval we are unable to supply, except from what few stray items we have been able to gather from persons who were living here at that time.  We presume this congregation had no house of worship at the date of their organization, as we find in their record at the time of their organization thise entry: “Done at the place of Geroge Close’s, Wayne County, State of Illinois.”  As to who their early preachers were we are not informed.  We find in 1840 that William Wadkins was their pastor, and Asa Atteberry, clerk.  This parent church flourished and prospered for some years, and the membership lived in harmony until probably from 1830 to 1835, when one Daniel Parker, from somewhere in Illinois, came amongst them and began to preach doctrines which some of the members could not relish.  Just what those doctrines were we were not advised, but one thing we find they were induced by Parker and his adherents to take upon themselves the name of “Regular Baptists.”  Carter J. Kelly: “The churches were then known universally as United Baptist, the original having emigrated from Kentucky and Tennessee, where they were uiversally known as United Baptist.”…  We find, however, that the breach already made continued to widen, until March 1845, it culminated in a division of the church, one party taking the name of United or Missionary Baptist, the other taking to themselves the name of Regular Predestinarian Baptists.  Both factions claim to be the genuine original Baptist Church, and to have descended in a regular line from the Waldenses, and the contest has been long and bitterly contested, and is still unsettled (1884)…”

“After the organiztion of the Hopewell Church, we have no record of the organization of any other church of this denomination until Jul1846; at this time there was organized by Elders Richard Gardner, Jeremiah Doty and C. S. Madding, a church in Mt. Erie Township, then and still known as Providence Church…  The next church organized was in Dec1848, in Hicory Hill Township, and known as Little Flock Church.  This church was organized by Joseph Hartley, John Martin, Barnes Reeves, Solomon Blissett, and Brady Meeks.  The persons entering this organization were Sarah M. Crask, Stout Atteberry, Fanny L. Atteberry, Alfred Wilson, Joseph Crask, Nancy Crask, Abraham P. Witter, Sarah M. Wilson, Enos K. Wilson, Wilkins Dewees and Eleanor Dewees; of this number only three are now living, to wit: Fanny L. Atteberry, Joseph Crask and Abraham P. Witter.”

“As a people the “Old Baptists,” as they style themselves, are honest and sincere; and whatever the world may think of their doctrines, manners and customs as a church, still all must admit that they are honest in their views… One of the main reasons for the split in the Baptist Church, not only in this county, but elsewhere, was on the missionary question.  The “Regulars” claim to be the true missionary church as organized by Christ and his apostles.  They maintain that when God calles a man to preach, that the man so called feels that a necessity is laid upon him, and that he feels as did the Apostle Paul, “Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel,” and that feeling thus, they are compelled to go wherever the Lord directs, and that without “stave the script.”  So taking their own version of the matter, they are not opposed to missions, but to the manner of sending them out; or, in other words, they believe a preacher should go and preach, and not be sent out by a board.”

United Baptists – Pleasant Grove Church, organized 25Sep1853, with 12 members, might properly be called the mother of the Baptist Churchesin the southern part of Wayne County and the northern part of White County.  The following deacons were ordained: B. S. Meeks, J. R. Carter, D. W. Atteberry and D. K. Felix.  Clerks included: D. C. Walker, D. K. Felix, J. R. Carter and D. W. Atteberry.

---

[1] https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/22126013/richard-atteberry, accessed 1Oct2018.

[2] History of Wayne & Clay Counties Illinois, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1884, p. 56.

[3] Ibid., p. 141.

[4] Ibid., p. 47.

[5] Ibid., p.

[6] http://www.pblib.org/FamHist-Wayne.html, accessed 3Oct2018.

[7] Ibid., pp. 55-6.

Chapter 8 – William Henry Miller Story:

William Henry Miller was the author’s maternal 2^nd great-grandfather.  Prior to this investigation, the only biographical information available were the sketchy “facts” offered by Mildred Bedinger Rhea in her work entitled Henry and Betty, The War Years[1].  There are also Ancestry Public Trees owned by my cousins: (1) Denise Fischer, daughter of Marlene Fischer, (2) Brandie Vanorder, granddaughter of Lillian Bedinger Lewis, and (3) Albert Lewis, son of Lillian Bedinger Lewis.  The information provided with these various sources regarding William Henry Miller is either very sketchy or erroneous.  This work will endeavor to identify with more certainty the ancestry of William Henry Miller to the greatest extend possible. 

We will commence this analysis with the information offered by Aunt Mildred in The War Years.  First, we have the photos of Dr. William Henry and Elizabeth Miller (Figure 1) and their daughter (Figure 2).  Aunt Mildred did not identify which daughter is depicted in this photo, but it seems probable that this was the youngest daughter, Elizabeth Jane.  This probability is predicated on the fact that Elizabeth Jane was the only daughter still living at home in the 1871 and 1881 censuses.  The oldest presumed daughter, Olivia Ann, is believed to have died in 1864, so she would not have been the daughter in this photo.  The only other daughter, Sarah Ann, was married and living apart from her father’s household until after 1881, by which time she would have been in her 40’s.  This photo seems to depict a young woman, probably in her 20’s.  The most likely candidate is Elizabeth Jane Miller, probably taken about 1875

Aunt Mildred offered the following anecdotes about William Henry:

“The doctor did visit his son [William Emmett] and family in Weatherford [TX] when Bettie [his granddaughter] was a child [about 1880-2].  She remembered him as “a cross, crabby old man.  He was not a bit like Grandpa Bedinger [Henry Clay III],” she said…  Dr. Miller, however, came bearing gifts, beautiful English china and a full-length, white fir coat for Minnie.  When he found he could not persuade his son to go home to England with him, he tried to bribe his daughter-in-law to take the family and go.  He promised her that if she would go home with him and live in England, he would send every one of her boys to college__ no doubt the idea was that he might have more than one doctor among his five grandsons.  Therefore, he told Minnie that he was a man of considerable wealth, and that if she would only come home with him, she would not want for comforts__ and furthermore, William [Emmett] would soon follow…

These are the only facts we have for Betty Miller’s ancestors.  No more was gleaned of the Millers, and no trace was found in the genealogical records of Liverpool, although Marlene Fischer and her mother [Mildred] made two trips to the city and scanned much microfilm while there.  There were just too many Millers, and too many Dr. Millers, to locate William’s birth certificate and family with the scant number of facts that were already known.”[2]

A search of the U.S. immigration records returned only one hit for anyone even remotely matching William Henry Miller’s demographics arriving in Texas from Liverpool during the time period suggested by Aunt Miller’s anecdote, summarized as follows:

• Name: William H. Miller; Arrival year: 1882; Arrival Place: Texas; Primary Immigrant: Miller, William H; Source Publication Code: 6015.23; Annotation: Date and place of naturalization, place of origin, date of birth.  Source Bibliography: NATURALIZATION RECORDS. In Trails West (Parker County Genealogical Society), vol. 25:3 (April 1995), pp. 85-89.[3]

According to census records William Henry Miller was born about 1819 near Oldham Parish, Lancashire, England, and died sometime after 1891, probably at Poulton cum Seacombe, Cheshire, England, but possibly at Flixton, Lancashire.  He was recorded in six consecutive census records between 1841 and 1891, each summarized as follows:

1841 England Census

Name: William Mellor; Age: 20; Estimated Birth Year: 1821; Gender: Male; Where born: Foreign Parts; Civil parish: Prestwich Cum Oldham; Hundred: Salford; County/Island: Lancashire; Country: England; Registration district: Ashton and Oldham; Sub-registration district: Oldham below Town; Household Members: Name: William Mellor, Age 20; Name: Elizabeth Mellor, Age 20

This is believed to have been the household of William Henry Miller and his wife, Elizabeth.  Figure 3 contains an image of the full census record, which includes a couple of important elements not contained in the summary.

Perhaps the most important element which allows us to link this census record with a high level of certainty to William Henry Miller is his reported occupation of “hatter”.  This was the same occupation reported in the baptismal records of William Henry’s older children: Sarah Ann and William Emmett.  It is also important to note that William was reported to have been born in “foreign parts”.  This is perhaps the most important piece of information which could lead us to the identity of William’s parents.  Also note that the family was living at Oldham, Below Town, which defined a rather large area extending roughly from the town center southward to the Oldham Parish boundary with Ashton Under Lyne.

1851 England Census[4]

Name: William H Miller

Age: 32

Estimated Birth Year: abt 1819

Relation: Head

Spouse’s Name: Elizabeth Miller

Gender: Male

Where born: Oldham, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: Failsworth

Ecclesiastical parish: St John

County/Island: Lancashire

Country:                England

Occupation: Warehouseman

Registration District: Manchester and Prestwich

Sub-registration District: Failsworth

Household Members:         

Name                                                      Age       

William H Miller                                   32

Elizabeth Miller                                     32

Olivia A Miller                                      12

William E [Emmett] Miller   9

Sarah A Miller                                      6

Elizabeth J Miller                                  9/12

It is important to note that five census records (1851 thru 1881) recorded William as “William H. Miller”, born in 1819 (or 1820, once) at Oldham, Lancashire.  Similarly, his wife, Elizabeth, was also recorded in 1851, 1861, and 1881 as born in 1819 at Oldham, Lancashire.  For some inexplicable reason Elizabeth was not reported in William’s household in 1871, nor was she reported in the grandson’s (Arthur E. Greene) household in 1891, even though William Henry was reported in that household in that year as still married.  The consistency of the reporting of William’s birth-year and place of birth might lend fairly high credence to those facts being accurate, yet in the 1841 census he was reported to have been born in foreign parts.  Similarly, in the 1891 census he was reportedly born in Ireland.  Such inconsistency is not that uncommon when tracking census records from year to year.  This fact may be particularly important to the task of identifying William Henry Miller’s possible parents and origins.  William’s middle name was reported only with the initial “H”, except in the baptismal record for his youngest child, Elizabeth Jane, wherein he was identified as William Henry Miller.  Additionally, his only known son, William Emmett Miller, named his first born son William Henry Miller.  William’s household was reported within the town of Failsworth, located on the Oldham to Manchester old road.  He was recorded with the occupation of warehouseman, suggesting a person of nominal education and training, basically a laborer.  William and Elizabeth reported having four children: Olivia A, aged 12, William Emmett, aged 9, Sarah A., aged 6, and Elizabeth J., aged 9 months.

We should take particular note of the child named Olivia A., as she did not appear in the families household in 1841, even though she would have been about two years old in that year.  This begs the question as to Olivia’s whereabouts in 1841.  A thorough search of the census records for 1841 returned only one person matching Olivia’s demographics as shown in Figure 4.  This household was located in St. Georges District, on Barlow Street, which was situated to the northeast of Manchester town center off St. Georges Road.  It was headed by a person named Olivia Mellor, aged 60, born in Ireland.  There appears to have been three separate families living in this household, one headed by Olivia Mellor, one headed by James and Ann Nugent, and another headed by Thomas and Jane Sparrow.  Presumably part of the Olivia Mellor family was a young child, one year old, named Olivia Miller.  There was also a young woman named Ester Miller, aged 20.  Most of the adult persons in this household were reported with an occupation connected in some fashion with the hat-making industry.  Everyone in this household, except for the child, Olivia Miller, was reported to have been born in Ireland.  Given that this was the only record found in all of England which matched the name and demographics of Olivia A. Miller, and that she was born in England, it seems highly likely that this was the same person, who appeared in William Henry’s household in 1851, identified as Olivia A. Miller, aged 11.  We will return later for further discussion of this Olivia Miller and her possible kinship connection to William Henry Miller.

1861 England Census

Name: William H Miller

Age: 41

Estimated Birth Year: 1820

Relation: Head

Spouse’s Name: Elizabeth Miller

Gender: Male

Where born: Oldham, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: Dudley

Town: Dudley

County/Island: Worcestershire (actually Staffordshire)

Country:                England

Occupation: Herbalist

Registration District: Dudley

Sub-registration District: Dudley

Household Members:         

Name                                                      Age       

William H Miller                                   41

Elizabeth Miller                                     41

William Emmie [Emmett] Miller          17

Sarah Ann Miller                                  16

Elizabeth Jane Miller                            9

In the intervening 10 years following the 1851 census William had moved his family to Dudley, Worcestershire (Staffordshire?), about 90 miles southeast of Failsworth.  William’s occupation was reported as an “Herbalist”, suggesting a person engaged in the application of herbs in the practice of medicine.  Such change in occupation probably required some formal training.  The elder daughter, Olivia, was no longer living in William’s household.  She was in fact working as a servant in the household of Dr. Charles Rothwell (Surgeon Practitioner) at Little Bolton, Lancashire, near Manchester.  William Emmett was 17 years old, and working as a watchmaker.  The two youngest daughters were reported being at school.  It may well be that William Henry received his training in herbal medicine at Little Bolton in connection with the Salford Royal Hospital, which was founded in 1827 described briefly as follows:

“The Royal Salford Hospital opened in 1827 as the Salford and Pendleton Dispensary. In 1829 permission was granted from King George IV to rename the Dispensary the Royal Salford and Pendleton Dispensary.

New premises were built, and were occupied by March 1831. The first in-patients were admitted on 29 March 1845. By this time the dispensary was called a hospital.”[5]

In the early 19^th Century herbal medicine, much as it is today, was considered a non-traditional alternative to the practice of science-based medicine.  Herbal medicine had a long history in the civilized world dating all the way back to Mesopotamia and Egypt, millennia before the Christian era.

1871 England Census

Name: William H Miller

Age: 51

Estimated Birth Year: 1820

Relation: Head

Gender: Male

Where born: Oldham Lancashire England

Civil Parish: Tranmere

Ecclesiastical parish: St Catherine

County/Island: Cheshire

Country:                England

Registration District: Birkenhead

Sub-registration District: Tranmere

Occupation: General Medical Practitioner

Household Members:         

Name                                      Age       

William H Miller                   51

Jane Miller                             19

Henry E Christopher            3

Richard C Sumner                7

By 1871 William Henry Miller had once again moved his household, this time almost 100 miles from Dudley to Tranmere, Birkenhead, Cheshire.  Tranmere is situated on the south side of the River Mersey, on the opposite bank from Liverpool.  His occupation had advanced to the profession of General Medical Practitioner.  Presumably, he must have received medical training somewhere along the way.  His wife, Elizabeth, was not reported living in his household, nor were his two children: William Emmett and Sarah Ann.  In fact, William Emmett had immigrated to the United State in 1865, and was recorded in the 1870 census living in Grand Haven, Ottawa County, Michigan, working as a jeweler.  Sarah Ann had married James Henry Christopher at Old Swinford, Worcestershire on 16Jun1867.  Their son, Henry Emmett Christopher was living in his grandfather’s (William Henry Miller) household at Tranmere in 1871.  Henry Emmett died the following year.  Also in William Henry’s household was his youngest daughter, Elizabeth Jane, and Richard C. Sumner, aged 7, described as born at New Brighton, and adopted.  Efforts to identify Richard C. Sumner led to naught.

William Henry’s wife, Elizabeth, appears to have been living nearby, identified as a “visitor” and “annuitant” in a household headed by Robert Oliver on Wellington Terrace, Liscard, summarized as follows:

Name: Elizebeth Miller; Age: 52; Estimated Birth Year: 1819; Relation: Visitor; Gender: Female; Where born: Oldham Lancashire England; Civil Parish: Liscard; Town: Egremont; Registration District: Birkenhead; Household Members:

Name                                      Age

Robert Oliver                        35

Mary Oliver                           34

John Oliver                            7

Thomas R Oliver                  5

Richard D Oliver                   3

Elizebeth Miller                     52

The head of this household, Robert Oliver, was described as being a bookkeeper for a cotton merchant, and born in Liverpool.  The author was unable to establish any particular connection between Elizabeth Miller and this Robert Oliver family.  It is possible that Robert Oliver’s wife, Mary, may have been a kinsperson of Elizabeth, perhaps a niece, but, if that were the case, then why wasn’t that kinship reflected in the census?  The demographics associated with this Elizabeth Miller are virtually unmistakable for the wife of Dr. William Henry Miller.  That being the case, then we must ponder the reason for her living apart from her husband and daughter.  It would suggest some sort of estrangement and separation.

1881 England Census

Name: William H. Miller

Age: 62

Estimated Birth Year: abt 1819

Relationship to Head: Head

Spouse: Elizabeth Miller

Where born: Oldham, Lancashire, England

Civil Parish: Poulton cum Seacombe

County/Island: Cheshire

Street Address: 4 Achais Terrace St Pauls Rd

Marital status: Married

Occupation: Doctor Of Medicine

Registration District: Birkenhead

Household Members:         

Name                                      Age

William H. Miller  62

Elizabeth Miller                     62

Elizabeth J. Miller 11

John Griffiths                        32

Elizabeth J. Griffiths             30

Ada M. Griffiths                   4

William H. Griffiths              2

By 1881 Dr. William Henry Miller had moved his family about 2 miles downstream from Tranmere to the town of Poulton cum Seacombe.  He was identified with the occupation of Doctor of Medicine.  William’s wife, Elizabeth, was once again reported living in his household.  She was reported born 1819 at Oldham, leaving little doubt that she was William Henry’s 1^st and only wife.  Her separation from William Henry in 1871 is a mystery.  Might it have had something to do with Richard C. Sumner?  Also in the household were William and Elizabeth’s youngest daughter, Elizabeth Jane, and her new husband, John Griffiths, and their two children: Ada M., aged 4 and William H., aged 2.  There was also a granddaughter named Elizabeth J. Miller, aged 11.  This granddaughter reportedly was born at Sedgley in Staffordshire, about 3 miles northwest of Dudley. 

The identity of the granddaughter, Elizabeth Jane Miller, is not known with certainty.  William Henry’s only known son, William Emmett, had immigrated to America in 1865, so he almost certainly was not Elizabeth Jane’s father.  However, it seems highly probable that this Elizabeth Jane Miller was actually Elizabeth Jane Christopher, daughter of Sarah Ann Miller and James Henry Christopher, who were married at Old Swinford, Worchester, on 23Jun1867.  In 1871 Henry and Sarah Ann were living at Swansea, Wales, as shown in Figure 5.  Elizabeth was reported being 22 months old, born at Deepfields, Staffordshire, a small hamlet near Coseley, just easterly of Dudley.  The reporting of Elizabeth Jane’s surname as “Miller” rather than Christopher probably was an error by the census taker.

1891 England Census

Name: William H Willer [Miller]

[William H Miller]

Gender: Male

Age: 72

Relationship: Grand Father-in-law

Birth Year: 1819

Spouse [Daughter]: Sarah A Christopher

[Grand] Child [of Sarah Ann]: Elizabeth A Greene

Birth Place: Ireland

Civil Parish: Poulton with Seacombe

Registration District: Birkenhead

Sub registration district: Wallasey

Household Members:         

Name                                      Age

Arthur E Greene   26

Elizabeth A Greene              21

Emily H Greene     1

Edward C Greene  4/12

Sarah A Christopher            45

William H Willer   72

In 1891 William Henry Miller was living in the household headed by his Grand Son-in-Law, Arthur E. Greene, who had married Elizabeth A. Christopher, daughter of Sarah Ann (Miller) Christopher.  Given the matching age, and place of birth (Deepfield vs. Sedgley) it seems probable that this daughter of Sarah Ann Miller Christopher was the same person as the granddaughter, Elizabeth J. Miller, living in William Henry’s household in 1881.  Why she may have been shown with the surname of Miller rather than Christopher in 1881 is peculiar.  Probably this discrepancy was just a recording error made by the census taker. 

William Henry was described as being 72 years old, married, retired Surgeon, born in Ireland.  The family was living at 15 Rappart Road in Poulton cum Seacombe.  Figure 6 contains an image of the house located at that address.  It is particularly noteworthy that William Henry was reported born in Ireland, whereas in all the earlier records reported his place of birth as Oldham, Lancashire, except the 1841 census which had him born in “foreign parts”.  This piece of information will be especially important in our quest to establish William Henry’s ancestry.

Also living in this household was William’s daughter, Sarah Ann, who had married James Henry Christopher in 1867, and was apparently widowed.  We have included a copy of the actual census record image in Figure 7 for a complete display of all the relevant data elements related to this family.  The household of Arthur E. and Elizabeth Ann Greene was located in the 1901 census, situated at Flixton, Lancashire, on the south side of the River Mersey, about five miles downstream from Manchester as displayed in Figure 8.

Now, having fairly thoroughly documented the life of William Henry Miller, it is time to establish the possible identity of his parents.  At this juncture in our search for the roots of William Henry Miller, the earliest known record is the 1841 census when he and Elizabeth were recorded living at Oldham, Below Town.  Other records that might be used to trace the origins of William Henry Miller are the baptismal records of his children.  From those records we should be able to establish the approximate location of the family at the time of birth of each child.  We will begin this analysis by examining the birth records for each child, in order from youngest to eldest.

Elizabeth Jane Miller – 1750/1

Following is a summary of the baptismal record for Elizabeth Jane Miller:

Name: Elizabeth Jane Millers

Age: 1

Birth Date: 10 Aug 1850

Baptism Date: 25 Apr 1852

Baptism Place: England, Newton Heath, All Saints, Manchester

Father: William Henry Millers

Mother: Elizabeth Millers

An image of this record is presented in Figure 9.  The community of Newton Heath is situated about ¼ mile south of Failsworth, where the family was recorded living in 1851. The parish church, Newton Heath All Saints, has existed on its current site since 1556.  The current structure is shown in Figure 10.  A brief history of the area around Newton Heath is offered as follows:

“French Huguenots settled in the area in the 16th century to avoid continental persecution, and brought cotton and linen weaving and bleaching skills with them. The arrival of textile mills saw Newton Heath’s cottage industry change forever into a fully mechanised mass production system – in 1825 Newton Silk Mill (which exists to this day) was built and the Monsall Silk Dye Works followed soon afterwards.

The Rochdale Canal made movement of raw materials and finished products a practical reality. Later came other industries, including a soap works, Elijah Dixon’s match manufacturing factory, and rope works as well as engineering and glass making works. Many small back-to-back low cost houses were built to house the new migrant work force. Thus was Newton changed irrevocably from a farming area into an industrial one.

The 18th century saw Oldham Road (A62) turnpiked and a toll bar installed at Lambs Lane; this road still forms the main artery through the district. With the Industrial Revolution, by the beginning of the 19th century the Rochdale Canal had been constructed and this brought industry and creeping urbanisation to the district. During the 19th century the local population increased nearly 20 fold.”[6]

Sarah Ann Miller

Following is a summary of the baptismal record for Sarah Ann Miller:

Name: Sarah Ann Miller

Baptism Date: 19 Oct 1845

Baptism Place: England, Oldham, St Mary, Lancashire

Parish as it Appears: Oldham

Father: William Miller

Mother: Elizabeth Miller

An image of this baptismal record is presented in Figure 11.  The location of the baptism was at St. Mary Church, Oldham, which church is situated in the town of Oldham, about 3.5 miles northeast of Failsworth.  It should be noted that William Henry’s occupation was reported as “Hatter”, the same occupation recorded in the 1841 census record.  This is a very important fact to keep in mind, as we attempt to identify William’s parents.  It should also be noted that the place of residence was reported as Northmoor, which is believed to have been situated on the north edge of Oldham, at the intersection of Oldham Road and Chadderton Way.  The location of the baptism, St. Mary, Oldham, is described as follows:

“The Church of St. Mary with St. Peter, mostly known as Oldham Parish Church, is the Church of England parish church for Oldham in Greater Manchester, England. It forms part of the Diocese of Manchester,[1] and is one of several Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester.

A church building had existed on the site since 1280.[1] During this time, a small chapel stood on the site to serve the local townships of Oldham, Chadderton, Royton and Crompton. This was later replaced by an Early English Gothic Church in the 15th century.[1] With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, the population of Oldham increased at a rapid rate (from under 2,000 in 1714, to over 32,000 by 1831).[1] The rapid growth of the local population warranted that the building be rebuilt into the current structure. Though the budget was originally agreed at £5,000, the final cost of building was £30,000, one third of which was spent on the crypt structure.[1] Alternative designs by Sir Charles Barry, the designer of the Palace of Westminster, although now regarded by some as superior, were rejected.[1] In 1805 the churchyard was enlarged and nearby Church Lane, Oldham became a cul-de-sac severing an ancient route through the town. The previous continuance of the road (Church Street) was lowered by 6 feet and became an extension of the recently created Church Terrace.[2]

The church [in] its present form, dates from 1830 and was designed in the Gothic Revival Style by Richard Lane, a Manchester-based Architect.[1] It has been designated by English Heritage as a Grade II* listed building.[3] It was linked with St Mary’s Church in Prestwich and together the sites were principal churches of the ancient ecclesiastical parish of Prestwich-cum-Oldham.[1]”[7]

St. Mary Church, Oldham, as it appears today, was erected in 1830 and would have been the same church in which Sarah Ann Miller was baptized.  Its image in a rendering, circa 1880, is presented in Figure 12.  It is located just off the north side of Oldham town center, between Rock Street and Church Street.

William Emmett Miller

Name: William Emmett Miller

Baptism Date: 22 Oct 1843

Baptism Place: England, Oldham, St Mary, Lancashire

Parish as it Appears: Oldham

Father: William Miller

Mother: Elizabeth Miller

Figure 13 contains an image of the baptismal record for William Emmett Miller.  It should be noted that this baptism occurred in St Mary Oldham Church, the same location as the baptism of Sarah Ann, but the family’s residential location was at Coldhurst, a small community just to the north of Northmoor about one mile distance.  It is also important to note that William Henry’s occupation was still reported as “Hatter”.

Olivia Ann Miller

No baptismal record was located by the author for Olivia Ann Miller.  However, there is a Lancashire County civil record index entry for an Olivia Miller summarized as follows:

Name: Olivia Miller

Registration Year: 1840

Registration Quarter: Jan-Feb-Mar

Registration district: Ashton Under Lyne

Inferred County: Lancashire

Volume: 20

Page: 158

A copy of this civil register birth record was acquired by the author, the image of which is presented in Figure 14.

From this record we find that Olivia was born on 28Dec1839 at Lees Hall, Oldham, and was registered on 4Feb1840.  Her father was identified as William Miller, hatter, and the mother as Elizabeth Miller, formerly Holt.  This birth registration record would seem to confirm that Olivia was the child of William Henry Miller and Elizabeth nee Holt.

England enacted a national registration program in 1837 wherein births, marriages and deaths were all registered within the county in which the event occurred.  Churches also continued to maintain registers for similar civil records, so there may be duplicate records both in the church registry system as well as in the civil registry system.  The author placed an order for a copy of Olivia’s birth record from Lancashire County on 8Oct2020, and received a copy of that record on 23Oct2020.

The place of Olivia’s birth, Lees Hall, was the site of one of the earliest cotton spinning factories constructed in England at the onset of the Industrial Revolution.  Oldham’s prominence and growth into this burgeoning industry is described as follows:

“Oldham rose to prominence during the 19th century as an international centre of textile manufacture. It was a boomtown of the Industrial Revolution, and amongst the first ever industrialised towns, rapidly becoming “one of the most important centres of cotton and textile industries in England”,[5] spinning Oldham counts, the coarser counts of cotton. Oldham’s soils were too thin and poor to sustain crop growing, and so for decades prior to industrialisation the area was used for grazing sheep, which provided the raw material for a local woollen weaving trade.[6] It was not until the last quarter of the 18th century that Oldham changed from being a cottage industry township producing woollen garments via domestic manual labour, to a sprawling industrial metropolis of textile factories.[6] The first mill, Lees Hall, was built by William Clegg in about 1778. Within a year, 11 other mills had been constructed,[7] but by 1818 there were only 19 of these privately owned mills.[8]”[8]

We will now resume our investigation of the household of Olivia Mellor previously introduced from the 1841 census, reiterated as follows:

1841 All England

Name:     Olivia Meller

Age:       60

Estimated Birth Year:           abt 1781

Gender:  Female

Where born:          Ireland

Civil Parish:           Manchester

Hundred:               Salford

County/Island:     Lancashire

Registration District:           Manchester

Sub-registration District:    St George

Neighbors:            View others on page

Household Members:         

Name      Age

Olivia Meller         60

Ester Miller            20

James Nugent       30

Ann Nugent          22

Lawrance Cullar    28

Thos Sparrow       48

Jane Sparrow        48

George Sparrow    13

Hy Sparrow           12

Frances Sparrow  20

Mary Sparrow       11

Olivia Miller          1

Mary Ann Nugent               9

This household, headed by an Olivia Meller, aged 60, was located in the St. George civil parish of Manchester.  The household was recorded as being on Barlow Street, which was situated just off the west side of Rochdale [St. George] Road in St, Michael’s Parish as illustrated in Figure 15.  Olivia’s house was the 5^th house in sequence along Barlow Street, so it very likely was either House A or House B a shown in Figure 15.  Everyone in this household, with the exception of the child, Olivia Miller (aged 1), were recorded as being from Ireland.  Given the name match, the age, and the geographic proximity, it seems a virtual certainty that this child, Olivia Miller, was the same child whose birth was recorded in the civil register, Figure 14, above.  If this record was in fact of Olivia Ann Miller, who appeared in the household of William Henry Miller in 1851, then we may be able to draw several inferences from this “fact”.

A child of one year almost certainly had to have been a kinsperson of someone within this household, headed by Olivia Meller, aged 60, of Ireland.  Given the name match and age differences, it seems possible that the older Olivia Mellor was the grandmother or great-grandmother, and namesake of the younger Olivia Miller.  It also seems possible that the Ester Miller, aged 20, in this household may have been Olivia Miller’s aunt, and possibly a daughter or granddaughter of Olivia Meller.  There appears to have been elements of multiple families residing in this household: (1), James, Ann, and Mary Ann Nugent, (2) Thomas, Jane, Frances, George, Hy, and Mary Sparrow; all of Ireland, and (3) Olivia Meller, Ester Miller and Olivia Miller.  Most of the older members of this household were reported working in some capacity in the hat-making industry, the same occupation reported for William Henry Miller in his youth.

The location of Olivia Mellor’s household in the 1841 census fell within Salford Hundred, Manchester Parish, Manchester Township, St. George Registrar’s District, Enumeration District 36.  District 36 was described on the census record as:

“All that part of No. 2 Police District in the Town of Manchester comprising south side of St. Georges Road, from Barlow Street to Preston Street, east side of Preston Street to Pleasant Row, north side of Pleasant Row to Barlow Street, west side of Barlow Street to St. Georges Road.”  NOTE:  The compass points included with this district boundary description seem to be rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise from the map orientation in Figure 15.

There were only six households reported on Barlow Street, Olivia Mellor’s being the only family not born in England.  Olivia’s household was also the fifth house in sequence along Barlow Street.  The occupations reported on this street included: bootmaker, hostler, silk winder, miller, bricksetter, charwoman, glazer, hat bender, hat finisher, hat picker and collier worker.  The entire enumeration district consisted of only 12 pages, and included residents on Barlow Street, Preston Street, Back Preston Street, Pleasant Row, St. George Road, Blackburn Street, Jones Street and Beaver Street.  Virtually none of these streets still exist today, except for St. George Road [aka Rochdale Road].  The area occupied by Barlow Street is substantially vacant today, and appears as shown in Figure 16.

Given that we have already discovered that William Henry Miller probably was born in Ireland (1841 and 1891 census records), and given that there was an apparent daughter named Olivia Ann Miller living in the household of William Henry and Elizabeth Miller in 1851 at Failsworth, and given that no other baptismal record could be found for Olivia Miller anywhere in England during this time period, and given that Olivia Miller, aged 1 year, was the only member of the Olivia Meller household in 1841 to be born in England, and given that all other members of that household were born in Ireland; it seems irrefutable that William Henry Miller was a close kinsperson of Olivia Mellor and Ester Mellor, and probably the father of Olivia Miller, aged 1 year.  Just what the kinship connection between Olivia Mellor and William Henry Miller may have been cannot be known at this juncture, but, given their respective ages, it is conceivable that William Henry Miller and Ester Miller may have been siblings, and children or grandchildren of Olivia Mellor.

Given the presence of an apparently newly married couple living at Oldham Below Town in 1841, who registered the birth of their daughter, Olivia, on 4Feb1840 at Lees hall, we might expect to locate a marriage record for a William Miller and a bride named Elizabeth in the near vicinity of Oldham in about 1838-9.  From Olivia’s birth registration we discovered that Elizabeth’s maiden name was Holt.  The next logical line of inquiry would be a search for a marriage record of William Miller and Elizabeth Holt sometime before 1841.  Such a search was performed resulting in a hit on only one record shown in Figure 17 and summarized as follows:

• Name: William Miller; Gender: Male; Marriage Age: Of Full Age; Event Type: Marriage; Marriage Date: 2 Jun 1839; Marriage Place: Prestwich, St Mary, Lancashire, England; Parish as it Appears: Prestwich; Father: Jacob Miller; Spouse: Elizabeth Holt

There are several elements of this marriage record worthy of our note:

1. The marriage occurred on 1Jun1739, about seven months before the birth of Olivia Ann Miller.
2. The groom and bride’s names were William Miller and Elizabeth Holt.
3. The marriage was recorded in Prestwich, St. Mary, which we believe to have been the same church already discussed herein as St. Mary Oldham.
4. William Miller was described with the occupation of “hatter”, which comports with the occupation of William Henry Miller as reported at the time of the birth of Olivia, William Emmett and Sarah Ann Miller, and in the 1841 census.
5. William has reported as being a resident of Coldhurst.
6. Elizabeth was reported as being a resident of Northmoor.
7. William’s father was reported to have been Jacob Miller, laborer.
8. Elizabeth’s father was reported to have been James Holt, carder.
9. Witnesses were reported to have been James Nugent and Joseph Taylor.

There are several facts contained in this marriage record, which make it a virtual certainty that this was the marriage of William Henry Miller, and his wife, Elizabeth, and the same couple recorded in the 1841 census residing at “Oldham, Below Town”.  We have the exact match with the occupation of hatter, the exact match of geographic locations of Coldhurst and Northmoor with the place of residence at the birth of two children (Sarah Ann and William Emmett), and a date which predates the birth year of Olivia Ann Miller.  Another compelling fact is that one of the witnesses was named James Nugent.  It may be remembered that a James Nugent was listed as a member of the household of Olivia Mellor in the 1841 census.  Given these connections, the author is prepared to assert this as the marriage of William Henry Miller and his wife, Elizabeth.

One element of the 1841 census record appears to be incongruous with other “facts” on record regarding William Henry Miller, that being the suggestion that he was “foreign born”.  How could that be?  William Henry Miller consistently reported his place of birth as Oldham Parish, Lancashire in 1851 thru 1881.  We also have the marriage record for William Miller and Elizabeth Holt in which William was reported as a resident of Coldhurst, with no suggestion that he was foreign born.  Yet, we also have a record of the household of Olivia Mellor in 1841 in which everyone in that household were also reported being “foreign born”, except for the child, Olivia Miller, who we believe to have been the same person as Olivia Ann Miller living in William Henry Miller’s household at Failsworth in the 1851 census.  Clearly, it would appear that there was some sort of connection between William Henry Miller and these other persons born in Ireland.  Remember, a James Nugent witnessed the marriage of William Miller and Elizabeth Holt, yet we also had a James Nugent living in the same household with Olivia Miller in 1841.  We also have the assertion that William Miller was “of age” when he married Elizabeth Holt, yet it would appear that William Henry Miller would have been only about 20 years old.  Did he misrepresent his age?  How might these anomalies be explained? 

As we work our way through the search for the possible ancestry of William Henry Miller, we may discover facts which might explain this “foreign born” element.  That issue aside, it would appear that we have successfully established the identity of the father’s of both William Henry Miller and Elizabeth Holt.  This is a vital discovery, in that that information could make it possible for us to further identify the ancestry of William Henry Miller and Elizabeth Holt. 

James Holt

Elizabeth Holt is believed by the author to have been a daughter of James Holt and Mally Duckworth of Cowhill, Oldham.  The identity of Elizabeth’s parents was established from a search for a daughter of James Holt named Elizabeth, born about 1820 (+/- three years) in the near vicinity of Oldham.  This search returned only two hits summarized as follows

• Elizabeth Holt; Baptized 6 Jun 1819; St. Peter, Oldham, Lancashire, England; Parents: James, Mally
• Elizabeth Holt; Baptized 25 Dec 1821; St. Peter, Oldham, Lancashire, England; Parents: James, Mary

The daughter, Elizabeth, born to James and Mary Holt died, and was buried at St. Mary, Oldham on 7Sep1823.  So, by process of elimination, it was deduced that the Elizabeth Holt, who married William Henry Miller, was the child of James Holt and Mally, who, themselves, were married at Oldham on 31Aug1803.  The witnesses were John Holt and James Clegg.  John Holt undoubtedly was a kinsman, and may be instrumental in identifying James Holt’s family.  James Clegg probably was a kinsman of William Clegg, the founder of the Lees Hall cotton spinning factory, where William Henry and Elizabeth Miller were living at the birth of their first-born child, Olivia.  James and Mally’s marriage record is shown in Figure 18[9].  James Holt was a weaver (wool carder), by tradecraft.  He and Mally bore a total of eight children, all born in the small community of Cowhill-Alder Root, just south of Chadderton.  Their children are summarized as follows:

1. Anna Holt; 7 Apr 1805; St. Peter’s, Oldham, Lancashire, England; James, Mally
2. Sally Holt; 4 Jan 1807; St. Peter’s, Oldham, Lancashire, England; James, Mally
3. Adam Holt; 12 Feb 1809; St. Peter’s, Oldham, Lancashire, England; James, Mally
4. Andrew Holt; 3 Feb 1811; St. Peter’s, Oldham, Lancashire, England; James, Mally
5. Sally Holt; 10 Jan 1813; St. Peter’s, Oldham, Lancashire, England; James, Mally
6. Francis Holt; 8 Jan 1815; St. Peter’s, Oldham, Lancashire, England;James, Mally
7. Elizabeth Holt; 6 Jun 1819; St. Peter, Oldham, Lancashire, England; James, Mally
8. John Holt; 31 Aug 1820; St. Peter, Oldham, Lancashire, England; James, Mally

William Henry’s Ancestry

At this point in our research we have successfully traced William Henry to the Oldham area where he was married to Elizabeth Holt on 2Jun1839 in the St. Mary parish church at Oldham, following the publishing of banns.  In the marriage record William was reported as a resident of Coldhurst working as a hatter, whereas Elizabeth was a resident of Northmoor.  William’s father was identified in that record as Jacob Miller, a labourer.  Elizabeth’s father was identified as James Holt, a carder.  It is worth noting that William Miller signed his own name in the register as shown in Figure 17.  The marriage was witnessed by James Nugent and Joseph Taylor, both of who also signed their own names in the register.  Elizabeth Holt signed the register with her mark, same as she did on the birth record for her daughter, Olivia Ann..  The fact that William Miller signed his name suggests that he had received at least an elementary school education, in spite of having been the son of a labourer.  A review of the ten pages preceding and following this marriage record showed that the large majority of persons witnessing marriages were unique to each marriage, suggesting that they held a special connection to the married couple.  This suggests that James Nugent and Joseph Taylor were likely personal acquaintances of either William Miller or Elizabeth Holt, or both.

A review of the seven adult James Nugents recorded in Lancashire in the 1841 census showed that six were from the Greater Manchester area and two were recorded as born in Ireland.  Given this limited number of records of James Nugents, none of which appeared in the immediate vicinity of Oldham, it seems highly probable that the James Nugent, who witnessed the marriage of William Miller and Elizabeth Holt, was the same person living in the household headed by Olivia Mellor.  Assuming that to be the case, and given the two instances in which William Henry Miller was reported born in Ireland, it seems highly probable that William Henry Miller was a kinsperson of Olivia Mellor and Ester Miller, both of who were reported born in Ireland.  Consequently, it seems highly probable that William’s father, Jacob Miller, would have been from Ireland.  No evidence was found anywhere to confirm that William’s father ever resided in England.

Assuming that Olivia Mellor, Ester Miller and William Henry Miller were kinsmen, then the obvious question becomes, what might their kinship have been?  Since it appears that William Henry and Elizabeth’s newborn child was living in Olivia Mellor’s household in 1841, it is reasonable to conclude that Olivia Mellor possibly was Olivia Ann Miller’s grandmother, and William Henry’s mother.  It further seems reasonable to conclude that Ester Miller may have been William Henry’s sister.  Assuming this to have been the case, we then went in search of a marriage record for Esther Miller, which search returned the following hit:

• Name: Esther Miller; Marriage Date: 18 Dec 1843; Parish: Manchester, St Mary, St Denys and St George; Father’s Name: Jacob Miller; Spouse’s Name: Hugh McCurry; Spouse’s Father’s Name: Hugh McCurry

Given the date, name and location of this marriage record, it seems highly probable that this was the marriage record for the Ester Miller, who was residing in the household of Olivia Mellor in 1841.  This probability is made even more certain by the additional information provided in the record image shown in Figure 19.

In this record Esther identified her father as Jacob Miller, a needle maker.  Jacob Miller was the same name given by William Henry for his father in his marriage record.  Also, we have the witnesses named James Nugent and Ann Nugent.  The reader probably recalls that James Nugent also witnessed the marriage of William Henry Miller and Elizabeth Holt.  Further, that James and Ann Nugent were occupants of the household headed by Olivia Mellor.  Given that William Henry Miller and Esther Miller both identified their fathers as Jacob Miller, it seems highly probable that they were siblings, a probability that we had already deduced based on earlier facts in evidence. 

Esther and Hugh McCurry were married at St Mary, St Denys and St George [aka Cathedral and Collegiate Church], which is located on Victoria Street in the Collegiate Parish and appears as shown in Figure 20.  Collegiate Church marriages were performed under rather peculiar circumstances described as follows:

“Until 1850, the Collegiate Church remained the parish church for whole of Manchester (this is the ancient parish, including almost the whole area of the modern City of Manchester excepting Wythenshawe), an area which in 1821 had a population of 187,031.[12] Within this vast parish there were considerable numbers of chapels of ease and proprietary chapels for parochial worship – as well as other chapels for dissenters and Roman Catholics. Nevertheless, the Wardens and fellows of the Collegiate church maintained their legal right to a fee of 3s. 6d. for all marriages conducted within their parish; so, unless a couple were able and willing to pay two sets of marriage fees, the only place in Manchester where a marriage might legally be contracted was the Collegiate Church. In 1821 a total of 1,924 marriages were solemnized in the Collegiate Church; commonly in batches of a score or more. The couples to be married were most often desperately poor but Brookes was no respecter of status, so all were subjected to his ‘production line’ methods. Commonly, the groom and friends would decamp to a nearby ale-house while the bride kept place in the queue; but if there was one groom too few when a group of couples were lined up in front of the altar, Brookes notoriously would countenance no delay, but would continue the marriage with any passer-by (or even one of the other grooms) as a proxy stand-in. Brookes is commonly reckoned to have conducted more marriages, funerals and christenings than any English clergyman before or since.[12]”[10]

Now that we have the marriages of both William Henry and Esther having been witnessed by James Nugent, it leaves us to ponder whether there may also have been some sort of kinship connection between these Miller siblings and James Nugent.  The most likely probability of a kinship connection is that James Nugent was married to another Miller sibling, and that he was William Henry and Esther’s brother-in-law.  Such eventuality could explain his presence in Olivia Mellor’s household, and his witnessing the Miller sibling’s marriages.  Assuming this to have been the case, we seemingly have now identified three Miller siblings: William Henry, Esther, and Ann.  Since Ann appears to have been almost 10 years younger than James, and only about 20 years old in 1941, it seems likely that they were only recently married.  Assuming that James and Ann may have been married in England, we made a search for their marriage record.  This search resulted in the following hit:

• Name: Ann Miller; Marriage Date: 1 Apr 1839; Parish: Manchester, St Mary, St Denys and St George; Father’s Name: Jacob Miller; Spouse’s Name: James Nugent; Spouse’s Father’s Name: George Nugent

Figure 21 contains an image of this marriage record.  Given that the bride is named Ann Miller, and that her father was identified as Jacob Miller, needle-maker, there seems no doubt but that Ann was a sister of Ester Miller, ergo, she was also a sister of William Henry (If A=B, and B=C, then A=C).  From this record we also find that James Nugent was a widower, hence the Mary Ann Nugent, aged 9 years in the household of Olivia Mellor in 1841, very likely was James’ daughter from his earlier marriage.  Another important detail from this record was that a William Miller was a witness, almost certainly William Henry Miller.  A comparison of William’s signatures between this record and his own marriage record shows a clear match of handwriting.

Now that we have reliably established William Henry Miller, Esther Miller and Anne Miller as siblings, it is time to infer a probable kinship connection to Olivia Mellor.  If we only consider the ages reported for Ann Nugent, Esther Miller and William Miller (22 , 20 and 20, respectively) in the 1841 census, it is conceivable that Olivia Mellor could have been their grandmother.  However, in looking beyond the 1841 census records to 1851, 1861 and 1871, we will learn that both Anne and Esther very likely were almost 10 years older than suggested by the 1841 census.  Well might the reader wonder how such a significant difference in ages could be possible?  The author has a theory.  Is it possible that Esther and Anne may have lied about their ages when they married?  Marrying off spinster daughters in their early thirties would have been tricky.  But, if the grooms thought their prospective spouses to have been 10 years younger, marriage may have been an easier proposition.  Assuming that to have been the case, then they naturally would need to lie about their ages for the 1841 census, when they were all residing in the same household

The author cannot absolutely state the cause of this discrepancy, but the record seems to be quite clear that Esther and Anne were born around 1810-2, not 1819-21.  This fact is very important to establishing the probable kinship between these three Miller siblings and Olivia Mellor.  Given the more reliable ages of Anne and Esther Miller, it is a virtual certainty that Olivia Mellor was not their grandmother.  In fact, it seems highly probable that Olivia Mellor was their mother.  By extrapolation, Olivia Mellor’s husband very likely was Jacob Miller, needle-maker, who almost certainly was deceased at the time of the 1841 census taking.

Given that prospect, we went in search of a death record for a Jacob Miller somewhere in the vicinity of Manchester sometime between 1822 and 1839.  This search resulted in only one hit, summarized as follows:

• Name: Jacob Mellor; Gender: Male; Burial Date: 19 Oct 1825; Burial Place: Royton, Lancashire, England: FHL Film Number: 1545720; Reference ID: 129

The name “Jacob Miller” was extremely rare in the vicinity of Manchester in the first half of the 19^th Century.  In fact, the author found only one other instance, that being a Jacob Miller, born about 1772 at Ashton Under Lyne, died about 1830 at Hurst, Ashton Under Lyne.  Given such rarity, it seemed highly possible that this death record may have been of the father of William Henry Miller.  Royton is a town located about 2.5 miles north of Oldham, and about one mile north of Coldhurst, the place of residence reported for William Henry Miller in his marriage record.  However, on reviewing the film record, this Jacob Mellor was found to have been only 15 months old.  Given the name match, and the relatively close geographic proximity, it should not be discounted that this could have been a younger brother of William Henry.  Regrettably, the record does not provide any information on the child’s family.  If this Jacob Mellor had been a brother of William Henry, then it would establish the date of the Miller family’s migration to Lancashire at between 1819 and 1825.

Having reliably established that William Henry Miller had two sisters living in the vicinity of Manchester, we next went in search of other records associated with their families in an effort to determine whether there might be clues as to this Miller family’s origins.  This search led to one very important census record shown in Figure 22.

This was the household headed by James Nugent, located on Dean’s Court, which was situated about one mile west-southwest from the household of Olivia Mellor on Barlow Street in 1841  Barlow Street was situated off the west side of Rochdale Road in St. Michael’s Parish.  Dean’s Court was on the south side of the River Irwell, near the intersection of New Bridge Street and Greengate.  This census record identified James Nugent’s place of birth as Dublin, Ireland.  Anne (Miller) Nugent, his wife, aged 39, was identified as having been born at Swords, near Dublin, Ireland.  Also, in this household was Anne’s older sister, Esther McCurry, aged 41, born at Dublin, Ireland.  So, from this record we have traced the birth place of these Miller siblings to Dublin and/or the nearby town of Swords.  It is reasonable to believe that William Henry Miller was also born in Dublin County, near Swords.  Note that the ages of Esther and Anne have increased almost 20 years since the 1841 census.

It is important to note that the three oldest children of James and Ann Nugent were reportedly born at Manchester (probably on Barlow Street at Collyhurst), whereas the youngest child was born at Salford (probably on Deans Court).  These facts allow us to establish the date range at which the family relocated from Barlow Street to Deans Court at around 1846 to 1849.  Another “fact” that might be drawn from this information is that Olivia Mellor probably died sometime within that date range, which death probably prompted the Nugent Family’s relocation.

The Nugent family was living on Dean’s Court in 1851.  Dean’s Court is shown in the inset contained in Figure 23.  It was a small, enclosed court with an outlet onto Greengate Street to the south, or through Langworthy Court on the north onto Sandywell Street.  It was situated within a couple of blocks of the Greengate Cotton Mills complex, four breweries, an Iron Foundary and a Hat Manufactory along the south bank of the River Irwell as shown in Figure 24.  The area in which the Nugent family lived is briefly described as follows:

“Greengate was noted for textiles and dyeing long before the Industrial Revolution, but from the early 19th century it developed a reputation for poverty and slum housing alongside sections of manufacturing. By the mid-19th century, almost two thirds of the population of Salford were crowded into the small area of Greengate.[1]”[11]

James Nugent died later in 1851, and sometime over the next decade, Anne (Miller) Nugent moved her household about ¼ of a mile to the southeast across the River Irwell to Marks Lane.  Her household appeared inthe Market Street Registrar’s Sub-District, Enumeration District 14 described as follows:

“All that part of the Township of Manchester commencing with Halliwell Street, Long-Mile Gate, thence along the left-hand side of Long-Mile Gate of Todd Street to Withy Grove to Garden Street, thence by the back of the houses on the south side of Balloon Street and of Halliwell Street to Long-Mile Gate, aforesaid, including the said left-hand side of Long-Mill Gate, of Todd Street, and of Withy Grove together with all other streets, courts, yards and places, whatever, within the described boundary.”

Following is a list of the streets named within this census enumeration district: Long Mill Gate, Todd Street, Carpenter Street, Hydes Cross, Huntsmans Court, Holgate Street, Back Clock Alley, Clock Alley, Arkwright Court, Mark Lane, Cock Inn – Mark Lane, [Three] Crown Yard, Pump Yard – Mark Lane, Oldham Tavern – Mark Lane, and Lamb Yard.  Figure 25 contains an inset of a map of Blackfriars Ward, surveyed in 1849 and engraved in 1850 at the Ordinance Map Office, Southampton.  Although Marks Lane does not appear on this map, it is clear that Marks Lane and Cock Gates were the same street, based on street and landmark references from the 1861 census of Enumeration District 14.  In that census Cock Inn, [Three] Crown Yard and Pump Yard were all identified as being off Marks Lane.  In Figure 25 these landmarks are shown to be off Cock Gates.  It would appear that sometime after this ordinance survey in 1849 and before the 1861 census taking Cock Gates had been renamed to Marks Lane.  Figure 26 contains a map of Manchester, circa 1844, which shows the locations of the James and Ann Nugent households in 1841, 1851 and 1861.

In the 1861 census record Anne (Miller) Nugent and her eldest daughter, Esther, were identified as engaged in the occupation of Furrier.  The only other Furrier appearing in this Enumeration District was Anne Nugent’s immediate neighbors: Hugh Combs and his wife, Ann.  In fact, Anne Nugent’s neighbors on Marks Lane were from an eclectic mixture of trades as follows: Carter (Corn Trade), Hand Servant, Porter, Inn Keeper, Book Keeper, Labourer, General Dealer, Cheese Factor, Tobacco Stripper, Domestic, Fish Hawker, Fruit Hawker, Cotton Factory Operator, School Mistress, Hand Maid, Labourer (Oil Manufactory), Currier, Market Porter, Striker at Foundary, Traveling Confectioner, Carriage Maker, Fustian Shearer, Confectioner, Baker, Tallow Chandler, Cotton Draper, Cask (Barrel) Maker, Shoe Maker, Cotton Sorter, Coach Lace Weaver, Butler, Fancy Box Maker, Nurse Girl, Cordwainer, Poulterer, and Mangle Woman.  Within the various occupations listed for Anne Nugent’s neighbors, there is no suggestion of any dominant industry or trade.  They represent a wide cross-section of businesses, mostly at the lower end of the economic scale.

In modern parlance, furrier describes someone engaged in the sale of garments manufactured from furs (usually exotic furs, i.e., mink, sable, ermine).  This modern definition probably bears little resemblance to a furrier in 19^th Century England.  Although a fairly old “profession”, it is difficult to find any published literature on the subject.  The author first encountered the occupation of furrier in England as early as the 17^th Century in his study of John Murton, co-founder of the Baptist Church in Britain, who was a furrier from Gainsborough.  From that earlier study it was learned that the trade of “furrier” might be considered synonymous with “pelter” or “skinner”.  The Worshipful Company of Skinners was originally an association of persons engaged in the trade of skins or furs, established by Royal Charter granted in 1327.

Just how Anne Nugent and her daughter, Esther, came to be engaged in the furrier business is not clear.  It seems possible that it may have emanated from Anne’s husband’s occupation as a Journeyman Hatter.  Like furriers, hatters had no official standing as a chartered livery company.  Hatters were most commonly allied with the Worshipful Company of Feltmakers.  In fact, feltmakers were generally considered synonymous with hatmakers.  Hat manufacturing in the 18^th and 19^th centuries utilized a variety of materials in the manufacture of their finished products, including felted “fabric”, linen, silk and furs.  During the 19^th century hats made from furs were in high demand, and even recognized as status symbols of social distinction.  The most common fur in use in England during this time period was obtained from beaver pelts, but rabbit, sheep and other animal skins were also utilized as a means to lowering the cost.  Furriers would have been a vital source of material for the hat making trade.

We pick up the trail of Anne Nugent in the 1871 census at Liverpool, summarized as follows:

Name: Ann Nugent

Age: 65

Estimated Birth Year: 1806

Relation: Head

Gender: Female

Where born: Dublin Ireland

Civil Parish: Liverpool; Ecclesiastical parish: St Luke

Household Members:         

Name                                      Age

Ann Nugent                          65

Esther Porter                         27

Ann Porter (dau.)                 2

Albert Porter (son)               18/12

Kate Heslin                           25

Richard Porter                       26

Elizabeth Sherwin 57

William Evans (nephew)     10

An image of this census record is shown in Figure 27.  Anne Nugent was identified as the head of household, no occupation, born in Dublin, aged 65 years.  Her true age in 1871 probably was about 59-60 years, based on the age shown in the 1851 and 1861 censuses.  Also living in Anne’s household was her daughter, Esther Miller Nugent (who had married Richard Porter on 1Apr1868 at Liverpool), Richard Porter and their two children: Anne, aged two years, and Albert, aged 18 months.  Another kinsperson in this household was William Evans, aged 10, identified as a niece, but likely a nephew of Anne Miller Nugent.  Since Anne is known to have had only one sister, namely, Esther Miller McCorry, it seems possible that Albert Evans may have been a son of Esther Miller.  However, it is also possible that he may have been related to Anne through her husband’s (James Nugent) family.

It is worth noting that Esther Miller Nugent Porter was identified in this census record with the occupation of furrier, as were two other members of the household: Kate Heslin, aged 25 of Dublin, and Elizabeth Sherwin, a 54 old widow of Dublin.  Both Kate Heslin and Elizabeth Sherwin were reportedly boarders (aka lodgers) in Anne’s household.  The household was identified as being on Wolstenholme Square.  When first developed in about 1770, Wolstenholme Square was considered a very stylish little tree-lined park dubbed “Ladies Walk” near the center of this ancient city about five blocks from quayside.  See Figure 28 for an illustration of Wolstenholme Square as it may have appeared in the late-1780’s.  Its exclusive and tranquil appearance gave way to urban development over the next century and may have appeared as illustrated in Figure 29, when Anne Nugent, and Esther and Richard Porter were in residence.  It was situated directly across the River Mersey from Birkenhead and Seacombe, the residential location of Dr. William Henry Miller in 1871 and 1881.  Whether William Henry Miller would have been aware of his sister and niece living across the River is not known, but probable.  In fact, he may have purchased the white fur coat he delivered to has daughter-in-law, Minnie Penoyer Miller, from his sister’s store.

No further trace was found of Anne Nugent, but her daughter, Esther Miller Nugent was found in later records.  Following is a summary of Esther Miller Nugent’s marriage record:

• Name: Esther Nugent; Gender: Female; Marriage Age: Full Age; Event Type: Marriage; Marriage Date: 1 Apr 1868; Marriage Place: Liverpool, St Peter, Lancashire, England; Parish as it Appears: Liverpool; Father: James Nugent; Spouse: Richard Porter.

An image of this marriage record is shown in Figure 30. 

Esther Miller Nugent would have been about 28 years old at the time of her marriage to Richard Porter.  The bride and groom reportedly were living at Wolstenholme Square at the time of their marriage, probably the same address as the family in 1871.  Richard Porter was identified in the marriage record and in later census records with the occupation of “French Polisher”.  French polishing was a highly specialized skill described as follows:

“French polish is not a product. Rather, French polishing is a method of applying shellac to wood furniture, musical instruments, or decorative accents in many thin layers—typically well over 100—that results in a highly glossy, glass-smooth surface with a rich depth that beautifully highlights the grain of the wood.”[12]

The author was able to trace Richard Porter’s family to the household of his parent’s Richard and Ann Porter in 1851 and 1861, situated about ½ mile east-northeast of Wolstenholme Square in the Mount Pleasant District.  Esther’s husband, Richard Porter, was consistently identified in four consecutive censuses as having been born at Bombay, East India, in about 1845.  This is quite curious, as his parents: Richard Porter [Sr.] and Ann were reported born at County Down, Ireland, and Liverpool, respectively.  Richard was reported with only one sibling, Elizabeth A. Porter, born in Liverpool in about 1852. 

Richard Porter’s household in the 1861 census is summarized as follows:

Name: Richard Porter; Age: 56; Estimated Birth Year:1805; Relation: Head; Occupation: Shoemaker; Spouse’s Name: Ann Porter; Gender: Male; Where born: Ireland; Civil Parish: Liverpool; Ecclesiastical parish: St David; Town: Liverpool; County/Island: Lancashire; Sub-registration District: Mount Pleasant

Household Members:         

Name                                      Age

Richard Porter                       56

Ann Porter                            43

Richard Porter                       16

Elizabeth A Porter                9

The household in the 1851 census is summarized as follows:

Name: Richard Porter; Age: 45; Estimated Birth Year: abt 1806; Relation: Head; Occupation: Shoemaker; Spouse’s Name: Ann Porter; Gender: Male; Where born: Ireland; Civil Parish: Liverpool; County/Island: Lancashire; Country: England; Sub-registration District: Mount Pleasant

Household Members:         

Name                                      Age

Richard Porter                       45

Ann Porter                            32

Richard Porter                       6

James Mellos [Mellor]         13

John Porter                            47

There were two additional persons in this household in 1851 worthy of note.  John Porter was identified as Richard Porter’s brother, born at Hastings, Sussex.  James Mellor was identified as Richard Porter’s step-son, born in East Indies.  An attempt was made to locate Richard Porter Sr. in the 1841 census with only marginal success.  The closest match was of a Richard Porter, born in 1806, an inmate in the Pestworth, Sussex, House of Corrections.  His birth place was not cited, but he was indicated as not born in Sussex.  No other matches even remotely fit with the demographics of our Richard Porter.  Further effort was made to locate Richard’s brother, John Porter in the 1841 census without success.

Since John Porter was the only known kinsperson of Richard Porter, an effort was made to locate a birth record for John Porter.  Only one record was located, which appears to match, except for the year of birth.  A summary of that record is as follows:

Name: John Joshua Porter; Gender: Male; Baptism Date: [3Jun]1808; Baptism Place: St. Clement’s, Hastings, Sussex, England; Father: John Porter; Mother: Mary Ann

This was the only birth record found for anyone named John Porter at Hastings, Sussex in the approximate time period of 1804.  It seems possible to the author that this may have been the birth record of Richard Porter’s brother.  Even though the date of birth is four years after the date suggested by the 1851 census record, there are other factors in favor of this having been the birth of Richard Porter’s brother.  Since Richard Porter, himself, was reportedly born in Ireland, it seems possible that his parents were from Ireland.  It would be very unusual for a working-class English family to have migrated from England to Ireland during this time period.  If Richard was born before his brother, John, then that would fit with Richard being born in Ireland, and the family migrating to Hastings, where John Joshua would have been born.  In spite of significant effort, no further records could be located for the parents of John Joshua, neither in baptism, marriage, census, nor death records.  All things considered, it is the author’s opinion that John and Mary Ann Porter were the parents of Richard and John Porter, and that they emigrated from Ireland to Sussex in about 1806.

As regards the James Mellor living in Richard Porter’s household in 1851, it seems probable that he was a son of Richard’s wife, Ann, by an earlier connection.  This would seem to be the only explanation for the reported kinship of “step-son”.  While the term of “step-son” may have had a different meaning in the 18^th century and earlier, by the 19^th century its meaning was essentially the same as in present day.  Assuming that to be the case, and given that both Richard Porter Jr. and James Mellor were reportedly born in the East Indies, it seems probable that Richard Porter Sr. and his wife, Ann, met and married in India sometime between 1838 and 1845.  It further seems probable that Ann was widowed at the time she married Richard Porter. 

Given the connection of Richard Porter Sr. with the East Indies, it occurred to the author that he may have been in military service in India.  With that possibility in mind, a search was made for military service records for Richard Porter, which search resulted in the discharge paper illustrated in Figure 31.  This discharge paper provides a fairly thorough record of the service performed by Private Richard Porter, No. 1059.  At the time of his discharge on 27Jun1848 at Liverpool, he was a member of the 14^th Kings Regiment of Light Dragoons.  The record states that he was born in St. Peters Parish, Drogheda, Louth, Ireland.  He enlisted in the 4^th Regiment, Light Dragoons, at Dublin, Ireland on 23May1827 at the age of 21 years.  He was a shoemaker, by trade.  At the time of his discharge on good terms, he was entitled to credit for 20 years, 152 days of service, of which 19-1/3 years were in the East Indies.

From his service record it can be deduced that he met and married his wife, Ann Mellor, while on duty in India, probably around 1843.  Further, that Ann probably was widowed and had a son named James Mellor, born about 1838 in India.  It is possible that Ann Mellor’s first husband was also on military service in India.

Jacob Mellor Family – Irish Migration to England

From the marriage records of William Henry Miller, Esther Miller and Anne Miller, we have discovered that their father was named Jacob Miller, that he was a needle-maker by trade, and that he very likely originated from Dublin, or its immediate environs, possibly Swords.  Whether Jacob Miller, himself, ever migrated to England cannot be established from the records thus far discovered.  We can deduce with some degree of certainty that he was the husband of Olivia Mellor [nee Emmett?].  This is established with a fairly high level of certainty based on the occupants of the household headed by Olivia Mellor in 1841.  The two Miller sisters: Esther and Anne were born around 1810-2.  It is a virtual certainty that Olivia Mellor and Esther and Anne Miller were kinsmen.  The most likely kinship is that Esther and Anne were daughters of Olivia Mellor.  Olivia’s age was reportedly 60 years in 1841.  That age would comport with her having had two daughters when she would have been about 30 years old, and having had a son (William Henry) when she was about 39 years old.  If we accept that Olivia Mellor was the mother of Esther, Anne and William Henry Miller, then it follows that Olivia’s husband was Jacob Miller, needle-maker.

Just when this Miller family may have migrated from Ireland to England is also not known with certainty.  Perhaps the best dates that can be established with any degree of certainty would be between about 1822/3, when William Henry would have been old enough to safely make the crossing, to about 1828, when these two Miller sisters (Esther and Anne) would have been old enough to receive their training in hat manufacture.  This is a rather broad range, but the best the author can offer given the limited information available.  It seems possible to the author that Jacob Miller may have made earlier crossings as a seasonal worker, but possible that he had died in Ireland and did not make the voyage with his family.  We probably will never know for certain when the family migrated to England, beyond the broad 5-year range already suggested.  Whether they migrated directly to the Manchester area is also uncertain.  Possibly they first stopped in Liverpool, and then later migrated up-river to the emerging industrial center of Manchester.

We can get a glimpse into this family’s economic status and living conditions in Ireland by expanding our knowledge of the trade-craft of needle-making.  Needle-making in the British Isles can be traced to as early as the 16^th century.  For the first couple of centuries it was a cottage industry, often times with the entire household engaged in one or more steps of the needle production process.  An excellent description of needle-making in 19^th Century England can be found online at http://www.coulthart.com/avery/history-pages/needle-history.html. 

“Early needle making was a “cottage industry,” the term used to describe production that occurred in a person’s home as opposed to in a factory or mill…  Men, woman, and children, often entire families, would be engaged in some form of needle making, including the production of fish hooks and fishing tackle.  After all, what is a fish hook other than a needle with an extra barb bent into the shape of the letter “J”!”[13]

By the turn of the 19^th Century the process of needle making had achieved a certain level of standardization, even as the Industrial Revolution was introducing mechanization and innovation in virtually all aspects of industry.  Needle makers relied on a steady supply of high-quality tempered wire, which could be purchased in bulk quantity.  The wire came rolled on spools.  The first step in needle-making would involve drawing down the wire to the appropriate size, by pulling it through a succession of gradually decreasing gauges.  When drawn to the required gauge, the wire would be cut into segments roughly double the length of the finished needle.  Having come from spooled wire stock, the blank wire segments would require straightening, through a process of heating, rolling and annealing.  The straightened blanks were then pointed on each end by grinding on a grinding wheel.  The pointed blanks were then run through a stamping tool, which flattened the middle of the blank to form the needle head, and to impart an indentation for the eye.  Following stamping of the needle head, the blank would be cut in half for the final processing, which involved drilling or punching the eye, grinding and smoothing the head and eyelet, and burnishing/polishing.

“Technology advances led to the ‘industrial revolution’, and manufacture of the humble needle became a toxic and risky occupation, taken over by the introduction of machinery in 1828. In 1824 around 5 million needles were handmade per week in the Redditch district, and by 1847, after the introduction of machinery; 50 million were churned out per week.  A ‘pointer’ was able to grind up to 100 needles a time on the grindstone, completing around 10,000 needles an hour. Pneumoconiosis, known as Pointer’s Rot was the result of inhaling a mix of fine metal particulates and grindstone dust into the lung. Another risk was the grindstone fatally shattering or a shard of metal ending up in the pointer’s eye causing blindness. Furthermore, to impede rust, needles were rolled in asbestos powder – prior to learning lung disease was a product of exposure to asbestos. Life expectancy for a pointer was 35yrs of age, or otherwise five to six years of working in this field till health issues commonly surfaced.”[14]

Needle making was a labor intensive craft, aspects of which were extremely hazardous to the health.  For example, needle pointers were constantly exposed to inhalation of fine metal particles and stone dust.  Life expectancy of a needle pointer was around 35 years, who usually died from tuberculosis, which was at the time dubbed “pointer’s rot”.  Given the prospect of early death, it seems likely that Jacob Miller probably died shortly after William Henry’s birth, around 1820 in Ireland.  The family of a needle-maker would have fallen into the lower middle-class, or upper lower-class.  Undoubtedly, following the death of her husband, Olivia would have been facing poverty and that prospect of poverty likely drove her to migrate to England. 

Once in England and responsible for three orphaned children, Olivia was probably forced to establish her own “cottage industry” to avoid becoming a victim of the workhouse.  From The Irish in the Victorian City we get a brief glimpse at the realities facing the Irish emigrant on their arrival, and the obstacles they faced in finding their niche in a foreign land.  M.A.G. O Tauthaigh describes the Irish emigrant thusly:

“The Irish in Britain constituted a somewhat peculiar minority indeed.  E. P. Thompson asserts with some force that the Irish were never pressed back into ghettoes.  It would have been difficult to have made a people who spoke the same language and were British citizens under the Act of Union into a subject minority.  A subject minority they may not have been, but, in their perception of themselves and in the way the natives of the host society perceived them, the immigrant Irish were undoubtedly a minority of some kind…  The first kind (into which the Irish probably fell) is that minority, usually immigrant, which seeks the maximum degree of assimilation and integration, but which regards itself as the object of collective discrimination by the majority.  In short, a minority whose urge to integrate is resisted.”[15]

Even though they shared a common language and possessed many cultural similarities with the inhabitants of their host country, the Irish were generally viewed by the English as illiterate, unskilled, slothful, unreliable, drunken and threatening to the labor force.  Because of the labor guild structure in Britain, foreigners found it difficult to find work within the more established trades.  They were frequently forced into unskilled or semi-skilled labor, often times taking only the lowest forms of employment: 

“…the immigrant Irish were disproportionately concentrated in the ranks of the semi-skilled casual labor force – in construction, transportation, dockside labour, in food distribution, and in railway construction.  Again, in certain industries such as sugar refining, textiles (especially where the Irish acted as sweated labour in declining trades), in gasworks and paper-making, as sawyers, coal-heavers, and porters – in all of these categories the Irish were disproportionately numerous…  The occupations most frequent among female Irish immigrants were in the textile factories, laundry work, and domestic service…  Many Irish women survived and contributed to the family income, through earnings from piece-work (such as needle-work, sewing and rag-picking) in their own homes.  Both male and female Irish immigrants were heavily involved in hawking and street-trading in the large centres of population, while the keeping of lodgers was an important source of income for the enterprising immigrant family, both because of the rent and the laundry service offered by the women of the house.”[16]

Also, because of these class distinctions, the Irish were forced to live in the poorest and most desperate conditions:

“Their living conditions were generally the very worst which the Victorian industrial slum could offer.  Some of these inner-city Irish settlements became bywords for industrial slum living.  The “Little Ireland” ghetto in Manchester… displayed the full spectrum of social evils. – appalling over-crowding, little or no sanitation, open sewers and cesspools, unhealthy diet, inadequate clothing, vagrancy, disease, alcoholism,  and general squalor; a high quota of unemployed paupers, or of underemployed casual labourers; and a high incidence of casual violence (very often provoked by drink).”[17]

Given the composition of her household in 1841, it would appear that Olivia Mellor had established a “hatting” industry, possibly in her own home.  In that year we found her heading a household situated on the north side of Barlow Street in Collyhurst, a northeastern suburb of Manchester.  Her household was described as containing six persons working in the finishing stage of hat-making, including her two presumed daughters.  There was only one other hatter listed within Olivia’s enumeration district, that being Thomas Taylor, a hat finisher residing on Blackburn Street.  These facts hardly seem coincidental, when we consider the state of the hat-making industry around Manchester at that time:

“Southwark in south London was the major early (felted hat) production centre, supported by an experienced workforce and the largest single market in England.  However, the need for imported beaver pelts meant that a number of early manufacturing centres also sprang up around the ports of Bristol, Chester, and Liverpool.  In these towns the guild system controlled the manufacture of felt hats.  In Chester, where felt hat making was recorded as early as 1550, the trade was dominated by the hat-maker-cum-retailer and was overseen by The Skinners and Felt-makers Company from the early seventeenth century (Giles 1959, 106; Phillips & Smith 1994, 54).  During the seventeenth century felt-makers of fur and wool hats could be found in many of the larger English towns such as Coventry, Exeter, and Ripon, as well as in smaller centres such Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Preston, and Warrington (Giles 1959, 106-7).  These scattered production centres meant that during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries felted hat manufacture of these cheaper types of hat could and did become a common domestic-based [cottage] industry in a number of areas, supplementing on a seasonal basis the tenant farmer’s income (Smith 1981 , 104).  In the North West these included Denton, Kendal, Manchester, Nantwich, Oldham, Sandbach, and Stockport where the farmer-hat-maker-cum-retailer was common (Phillips & Smith 1994, 54).”[18]

In the mid- to late-18^th Century hat-making in Britain was transformed and distributed by a series of Acts initiated by the London Feltmakers Guild, described as follows:

“…finally through the imposition of a heavy tariff on the re-export of beaver skins to foreign craftsmen, thus securing the supply of the best quality skins (1764; Giles 1959, 107-11). This last act was also supported by felt-makers in Bristol, Chester, Liverpool, Manchester, and Newcastle-under-Lyme…  The restrictions of the guild system encouraged the development of regional production centres, where wage costs were lower and margins higher…”  “… the lifting of the ban on finishing London hats in the regions in 1758, marked not only the beginning of the decline of the guild system in London but also allowed many London-based firms to expand into production areas beyond the capital (Giles 1959, 108) through what were in effect cheaper sub-contractors.  These regionally-based master hatters might have no more than a warehouse and packing-room, hat production in their areas being commissioned on an out-work system…  Writing in 1771 in his book ‘A Six Months Tour Through the North of England’, Arthur Young thought that hat manufacture was one of the four chief industries of Manchester, the others being fustian, check, and worsted small ware manufacture…  During the 1770s and 1780s the Felt-makers’ Company was active in Manchester and Stockport, by then the most important hatting manufacturing centres in the country, leading Smith to suggest that the whole hatting process was probably being carried out in these towns…  By the late eighteenth century the production process in the North West had begun to fragment as more London master hatters shifted work to the region.  This can be seen in both Manchester and Stockport where the hatting trade was divided between firms using out-workers, who specialised in particular parts of the process, and master hatters with a small journeymen workforce working on their own premises.”[19]

From the foregoing citations we have the evolution of hat-making in the North West, particularly around Manchester, into “the most important hatting manufacturing centre in the country.”  We also have the description of how the industry evolved from manufactories controlling the entire production process, to a distributed and bifurcated industry, in which the work was subdivided into specialized stages of production.  Given the composition of Olivia Mellor’s household work-force, it would appear that she probably had established her own small-scale “cottage industry” which specialized in the finishing, or end-phase of hat manufacturing.  Just how she may have acquired the means and skills to establish her cottage business can only be guessed at, but, that seems to be the only logical explanation for the concentration of these skilled hat-making tenants in her household.  It is known that hat-manufactories were established in the Manchester area as early as the 1750’s, the closest being the Miles Bower and Son on Deansgate Street. 

It seems probable that Olivia would have purchased her hat cones from a local sub-contractor, and would have performed the blocking, brimming, and trimming in her own workshop.  The finished shaped hats would then go to another subcontractor, who would dye and cure the hats, before attaching a lining and any adornments, readying the hats for the retailer.  To better inform the reader of the multi-stage process of hat-making, we offer the following:

One excellent resource for a more comprehensive understanding of the somewhat complex and mysterious process of hat-making is a book entitled The Book of English Trades and Library of the Useful Art, printed for C & J Rivington, 1827.[20]  The descriptions contained in this publication for the “Hatters” trade focuses mainly on the manufacture of hats made from felted material.  There appears to have been as many as eight distinct stages in the hat-making process, beginning with the removal of the “stuff” or “fluff” from the animal hide described as follows:

“The materials in general use for hat-making, are lambs’-wool, rabbits’ and hares’ fur, beaver, seal-wool, monkey-stuff, or neuter-wool, camels’-hair, goats’-hair, or estridge silk, and cotton. The best fur is from the backs of the different animals; it decreases in value as it approaches the belly.  As the process is nearly the same in all, it will be sufficient if we describe the method made use of in the manufacture of beaver hats. The skin of the beaver is covered with two kinds of hair; the one long, stiff, and glossy; the other is short, thick-set, and soft, and is used alone for hats. To tear off these kinds of hair and cut the other, women are employed, who make use of two knives: a large one, something like a shoe-maker’s knife, for the long hair, and a smaller one, nearly in the form of a pruning-knife, with which they shave or scrape off the shorter hair.”[21]

The next stage in this process is almost magical and mystic, a process called bowing, felting and rolling depicted in Figure 32 and described as follows:

“The bowing commences by shovelling the material towards the right-hand partition with the basket, upon which the workman holding the bow horizontally in his left hand, and the bow-pin in his right, lightly places the bow-string, and gives it a pluck with the pin. The string, in its return, strikes upon the fur, and causes it to spring up in the air, and fly partly across the hurdle in a light open form.  By repeated strokes the whole is thus subjected to the bow; and this beating is repeated till all the original clots, or filaments, are perfectly opened and dilated, and having thus fallen together in all possible directions, form a thin mass or substance for the felt (batt)…  When the batt is sufficiently bowed, it is ready for hardening; which term denotes the first commencement of felting. The prepared material being evenly disposed on the hurdle, is first pressed down by the convex side of the basket, then covered with a cloth and pressed backwards and forwards successively in its various parts by the hand of the workman.  By this process the hairs are twisted together, and the lamellae of each hair, by fixing themselves to other hairs, which happen to be directed the contrary way, keep the whole in a compact state.  When the felt is thus managed the cloth is taken off; and a sheet of paper with its corners doubled in, so as to give it a triangular outline, is laid upon the batt, which last is folded over the paper as it lies, and its edges meeting one over the other, form a conical cap.  The joining is soon made good by pressure with the hands on the cloth.  Another batt, ready hardened, is in the next place laid on the hurdle, and the cap, here mentioned, placed upon it with the joining downwards.  This last batt being also folded up, will, consequently, have its place of junction diametrically opposite to that of the inner felt, which it must therefore greatly tend to strengthen. 

The foregoing description of the forming of the hat “cone” is less than instructive.  As the author interprets this cone-forming process, we start by folding a square sheet of paper diagonally along a central axis to form a triangle.  Then that triangular sheet of paper is laid on top of the roughly square batt.  Then the edge of the batt is folded across to form a joining seam along the opposite edge, thus supposedly forming a cone.  This process is repeated by laying the cone on top of a second batt with the seam facing down and centered on the second batt.  Then the edges of the second batt are folded over and around the first cone to form a new seam, opposite the original seam.

Clearly there must be other steps/instructions omitted from this description.  First, the best and truest method to form a cone is to fold a semicircular sheet of paper or a batt to join the edges.  A square sheet of paper, folded into a triangle and then shaped into a cone produces an “oblique cone”, not a “right cone”.  Moreover, if the batt was still square, when wrapped around the paper cone, there would be almost half of the material wasted.  It seems more likely that the batt would have been cut into a circle, and then cut in half.  The paper conical mold probably should also be formed from a semicircular sheet in order to create a “right cone” shape rather than an “oblique” cone shape.  This method would result in less than 25% waste material, which possibly could be salvaged and repurposed.

An intermediate step in the hat-making involved a process known as basoning, working and soaking as depicted in the background of Figure 33, and described as follows:

“The basoning is followed by a still more effectual continuation of the felting, called working. This is done at an apparatus called the batter consisting of a kettle containing water slightly accidulated with sulphuric acid, to which, for beaver-hats, a quantity of winelees, or the grounds of beer are added, or else plain water for rinsing out, and eight planks of wood joined together in the form of a frustrum of a cone, and meeting in the kettle at the middle. The outer or upper edge of each plank is about two feet broad, and rises a little more than two feet and a half above the ground ; the slope towards the kettle is considerably rapid, so that the whole battery is little more, than six feet in diameter. The quantity of sulphuric acid added to the liquor is not sufficient to give a sour taste, but only renders it rough to the tongue. In this liquor, heated rather higher than unpractised hands could bear, the felt is dipped from time to time, and worked on the planks ; before which it is plunged gently into the boiling kettle till fully saturated with the liquor, which is called soaking.”

Also depicted in the foreground of Figure 33 was the near-final stage of bending and trimming the brim to a uniform width utilizing a notched jig and trimming knife described as follows: 

“When the legs of this angle are applied to the outside of the crown, and the board lies flat on the brim of the hat, the notched edge will lie nearly in the direction of the radius, or line pointing to the centre of the hat. A knife being therefore inserted in one of the notches, it is easy to draw it round by leaning the tool against the crown, and it will cut the brim very regular and true. This cut is made before the hat is quite finished, and is carried entirely through; so that one of the last operations consists in tearing off the redundant part, which by that means leaves an edging of beaver round the external face.”

Esther Miller was identified as a “hat bender”, which would have entailed one of the stages following the working and soaking stages.  Esther’s skill would have entailed the bending of the felted hat cone to form the brim of the hat.  James and Anne Nugent were identified as “hat finishers”, which probably, as the name implies, was a near final stage in the hat manufacturing process and probably entailed blocking and crowning, trimming the brim to the desired size and shape, and possibly sealing the underside to make the hat waterproof.  William Henry Miller in his early days was simply identified as a “hatter”.  This descriptor suggests someone trained and skilled in all aspects of hat-making, but in fact he may have been more specialized and worked at a specific stage in the process.

Appendix A contains a rather rudimentary diagram of the primary stages in the hat manufacturing process.  Although somewhat simplified, this graphic may be useful to better illustrate certain stages, particularly the initial cone forming stage.

Mechanized hat-making was yet to be introduced.  Most hat-making was still performed by manual labor, in small shops connected with residences or farms.  Much of this work was segregated by specializations.  In Olivia’ case, it would appear that she and her resident hatters were engaged in the final stage, or finishing of hats.  This suggests that she probably received the hat cones, ready for blocking, bending, trimming and sealing.  It seems probable that Olivia’s son, William Henry had received his own training as a “hatter” from his mother’s workshop.

A thorough search of all known databases for a death record of Jacob Miller in both England and Ireland failed to produce a viable hit.  Similarly, searches were made for a death record for his presumed spouse, Olivia Mellor, which also failed to produce any hits.  These searches included the Catholic Church records around Manchester.  St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church, which is located just across St. Georges Road from Barlow Street, has a large cemetery with burial records dating from before 1830.  If Olivia or her husband had been affiliated with the Catholic Church (which over 75% of Irish were), we might expect to find a burial record for Olivia at St. Patrick Church on Livesey Street.  Absent any further records for either Jacob Miller or his presumed spouse, Olivia Mellor, we are only left with educated guessing as to their family connections.

We can deduce to some degree of certainty the names of Jacob’s parents.  For example, given that Jacob appears to have named his eldest daughter, Esther, it seems probable that his mother was also named Esther.  This prospect is given weight by the fact that his youngest daughter, Anne, named her oldest daughter Esther.  Clearly, this female appellation held some significance within this family.  Similar inclinations can be observed in William Henry having named his oldest daughter, Olivia Ann, presumably in honor of his mother. 

We might also speculate about the name of Jacob’s father.  Given that he named his only known son, William Henry, it seems highly possible that Jacob’s father also may have been named William Henry.  It also seems possible that Olivia’s surname may have been Emmett, since Jacob and Olivia’s only known son named his only known son, William Emmett.  Emmett was not a typical given name, and very possibly originates from a maternal surname.  As a test of this hypothesis, the author searched all English baptismal records spanning a 20-year period between 1830 and 1850 and found only 10 instances of first names of Emmett, whereas there were roughly 70 instances of the middle name of Emmett, and nearly 800 instances of surnames of Emmett.  Middle names were frequently reserved for the practice of “maternal surname perpetuation”.  Hence the high percentage of Emmett middle names as compared to Emmett first names.  All things considered, the author is inclined to believe that Jacob’s wife probably was named Olivia Emmett.

The Miller Family in Ireland

We will end our excurses into the William Henry Miller family with a discussion of Swords and the Dublin area before the early part of the 19^th Century.  Since Anne Miller, youngest of Jacob Miller’s two daughters was specifically identified as having been born near Swords, we will focus most of our attention on the Swords township.  It seems probable that, if Anne was born nears Swords around 1811/2, Esther very likely would also have been born in the same area in 1810.  We cannot state with any certainty just where William Henry may have been born, as he was identified only as having been born in Ireland.  However, it is reasonable to think that the family of a needle-maker would not have been changing their place of residence with any great frequency, as Jacob’s occupation probably was a “cottage industry”, wherein he would have need for a working forge and workshop, replete with grinding wheels and myriad tools.  Such accoutrements would not be easily replicable, suggesting that the family’s location would likely have been stable and constant.

Refer to Figure 34 for a Dublin vicinity map showing its proximity with Swords (about 8 miles north of Dublin).  Based on the 1851 census of the James Nugent household, we found that both Anne Miller and Esther Miller were born in the Dublin area, with Anne specifically identified as being born in the town of Swords near Dublin.  Given that most of the 18^th and 19^th Century church and civil records of Ireland are lost, it seems very unlikely that we will be able to trace the family of Jacob Miller or his spouse, Olivia [Emmett?] Mellor, any further than to suggest that they originated from the Dublin area.  Nevertheless, the author has performed a thorough search of all Ireland databases available online at Ancestry.com, which search found absolutely no trace of this Miller family nor that of James Nugent or Richard Porter.  Perhaps the most comprehensive records surviving in Ireland are those of the Catholic Church.  Since no matching records could be found in those Catholic Church records, it seems probable that the Millers were protestant.  This prospect is supported by the fact that Jacob’s children recorded their marriages, births and deaths with the Anglican Church.

From an address delivered at Swords, in the Borough Schoolhouse on Wednesday evening of 12Sep1860 by the Right Reverend William Reeves, D.D., L.L.D., M.R.I.A, Bishop of Down, formerly Vicar of Lusk, we have the following history of the ancient origins of the name and founding of Swords:

“Conspicious among the evangelical labourers in Ireland was St. Columba, or Columbkille, whose genius and devotion have won for him a high place in the annals of the Church of Christ. This man was born in Gartan, in the county of Donegal, in 521. About the year 553 he founded the church of Durrow, and previously to 563, when he departed from Ireland to Iona, it is recorded that he founded your church of Swords.

The early Irish Life of him, to which I have already alluded, thus relates the origin of your church and of its name “Columbkille founded a church at Rechra (that is, the island of Lambay), in the cast of Bregia, and left Colman, the Deacon, in it. Also he founded a church in the place where Sord is at this day. He left a learned man of his people there, namely, Finan Lobhar, and he left a gospel, which his own hand wrote, there.

There also he dedicated a well named Sord, i.e., ‘pure,’ and he consecrated a cross. One day that Columbkille and Cainnech were on the brink of the tide, a great tempest raged over the sea, and Cainnech asked, ‘What saith the wave?’ Columbkille answered, ‘Thy people are in danger yonder on the sea, and one of them has died, and the Lord will bring him in unto us to-morrow to this bank on which we stand.”

“As Bridget was one time walking through the Currach of Life (i.e., the Curragh of Kildare), she viewed the beautiful shamrock-flowering plain before her, whereupon she said in her mind, that if to her belonged the power of the plain, she would offer it to the Lord of creation. This was communicated to Columbkille in his monastery at Sord, whereupon he said with a loud voice, ‘Well has it happened to the holy virgin; for it is the same to her in the sight of God as if the land she offered were in her own right.”‘ Hence St. Columba has always been regarded as the founder and principal patron of the church of Swords. He died in 597, on the 9th of June, and that day has been regarded as his festival in Scotland as well as in Ireland.”

In a work entitled Monasticon hibernicum: or, A history of the abbeys, priories, and other religious houses in Ireland; interspersed with memoirs of their several founders and benefactors, and of their abbots and other superiors, to the time of their final suppression (1873) Archdall, Mervyn, 1723-1791; Moran, Patrick Francis, 1830-1911, editor, pp. 139-141 we find an abbreviated history of the town of Swords in the 8^th thru the 9^th centuries in which the town was repeatedly pillaged and burned to the ground by various marauding factions, including the Danes.  From this history we learn that by 1166 Swords was a parish in the Diocese of Dublin.

From an inquisition held at Dublin in 1326 we have the follows accounting of improvements at Swords:

“”In 1326, Alexander de Bicknor, the Archbishop, having displeased the king, and further, being greatly in arrear in his accounts as Lord Treasurer, the king seized into his hands the profits of the see, in satisfaction for the deficiency; and, in order to ascertain the available amount, Inquisitions by jurors were held before the Sheriff in the various manors.

That on Swords was sped at Dublin, on the 14th March, 1326, and twenty jurors were empanelled. The result of their finding, as regards the palace of Swords, was as follows:-

 “Who being sworn, say on their oath, that there is in this place a hall, and the chamber adjoining said hall, the walls of which are of stone, crenelated after the manner of a castle, and covered with shingles.

 “Further, there is a kitchen, together with a larder, the walls of which are of stone, roofted with shingles. And there is in the same place a chapel, the walls of which are of stone, roofed with shingles. Also there was in the same place a chamber for friars, with a cloister, which are now prostrate. Also, there are in the same place a chamber, or apartment, for the constables by the gate, and four chambers for soldiers and wardens, roofed with shingles, under which are a stable and bake-house.

“Also, there was here a house for a dairy, and a workshop, which are now prostrate. Also, there is on the premises in the haggard a shed made of planks, and thatched with straw. Also, a granary, built with timber, and roofed with boards. Also, a byre, for the housing of farm horses and bullocks.

“The profits of all the above-recited premises, they return as of no value, because nothing is to be derived from them, either in the letting of the houses, or in any other way. And they need thorough repair, inasmuch as they are badly roofed.”

Thus we perceive that so early as 1326, these buildings were beginning to suffer from the effects of time.”[22]

Although there are numerous ancient ruins still to be found at Swords, clearly the above accounting shows that this manorial in the early 14^th century was in advanced decay and ruin.  Rev. Reeves, in his 12Sep1860 address gave the following account of the archaic ruins still existing at Swords in that year:

“The only remains of the early ecclesiastical structures that adorned this place, is the belfry tower of the old church, a square building of the 14th or 15th century ; one of the ancient round towers, 73 feet high, and 52 foot in circumference (see Figure 35); and the archbishop’s palace [the Castle]. The latter was an extensive structure in the centre of a court, encompassed by embattled walls, flanked by towers, the inner portion of which is now a garden. There was also a Nunnery here, as appears on record by a pension being granted by Parliament in 1474, to the Lady Prioress and her successors.”[23]

In the 16^th Century we have the following description of a revitalization of Swords [Castle], when the Archbishop of Dublin had chosen it as his baronial seat (see Figure 36):

“The castles of Baldungan and Swords were built for ecclesiastics. They must have been the two strongest castles in the district. The Archbishop of Dublin was a great feudal baron as well as a great ecclesiastic. About the year 1200 he fixed on Swords for his country residence, and built the castle whose ruins still remain. Swords had become, within two centuries of the conquest, an immensely wealthy parish. Archbishop Allen (1532) says it ” was called the golden, as if it were virtually a bed full of gold.” The Archbishop had a large share of this wealth, and here he lived as a prince bishop, dispensing profuse hospitality, and rigorously enforcing English law.”[24]

So, from the foregoing citations we have seen the ebbing and flowing of the fortunes of Swords through more than half a millennia.  In the 8^th and 9^th Centuries the site was repeatedly pillaged and burned by outside marauders.  By 1200 Swords had been selected by the Archbishop of Dublin for his summer home, and he built the castle “whose ruins still remain (see Figure 36).  In the early 14^th Century the baronial seat was appraised and found to have fallen into great decay and ruin, and “of no value”.  Then in 1583 Sir Henry Sydney, the Queen’s Deputy, planted a group of Dutch Reformed refugees in the castle at Swords, described as follows:

“The Romish persecutions on the continent helped the Reformation in Fingal. In 1583, Sir Henry Sydney, the Queen’s Lord Deputy, planted forty families of Protestant refugees from the Low Countries in the old Castle of Swords. It is significantly related of them: “Truly it would have done any man good to see how diligently they worked and how they re-edified the quiet spoiled castle of the town, and repaired almost all the same and how godly and cleanly their lives and children lived.” “[25]

Sir Henry Sydney, writing in 1583 to Sir Francis Walsingham (Elizabeth I’s spy-master) states:

“I caused to plant and inhabit there about 40 families of the reformed churches of the Low Countries flying there for their religion’s sake in one ruinous town called Surds (Swords).  And truly Sir, it would have done any man good to have seen how diligently they wrought, how they reedified the quite spoiled old Castle of the same town and repaired almost all the same and how godly and cleanly, they, their wives and children lived.  They made diaper and ticks for beds and other good stuff for man’s use and excellent good leather of deer skins, goat and sheep fells (felts), as is made in Southwark.[26]

This truly was an unexpected and important discovery.  Forty families from the Low Countries were settled at Swords in 1583, refugees from Catholic persecution on the Continent, seemingly at a time when Swords was substantially depopulated, and fallen into ruin.  Is it mere coincidence that a fairly large (probably 300 or more) group of Dutch reformed protestant refugees should be planted at Swords in 1583, and that two centuries later we have a family named Miller [possibly Mueller] residing in that very same locale?  Who were these refugees from the Low Countries, and how might they have been connected to Jacob Miller?  In order to answer that question, we should first look at another important historical event involving the citizens of Swords which emanated from the Irish Rebellion of 1641:

“1641 – About the beginning of November, five poor men (whereof two were Protestants) coming from the market of Dublin, and lying that night at Santry, three miles from thence, were murdered in their beds by one Captain Smith and a part of the garrison of Dublin, and their heads brought next day in triumph into the city; which occasioned Luke Netterville and George King, and others of the neighbours, to write to the Lords Justices to know the cause of the said murder: whereupon their lordships issued forth a proclamation that within five days the gentry [George King and his associates] should come to Dublin to receive satisfaction, and in the mean while (before the five days were expired) old Sir Charles Coote came out with a party, plundered and burned the town of Clontarf, distant two miles from Dublin, belonging to the said George King, nominated in the proclamation; and killed 16 of the townsmen and women, and three sucking infants. Which unexpected breach of the proclamation (having deterred the gentlemen from waiting on the Lords Justices) forced many of them to betake themselves to their defence, and abandon their houses.”

“In the same week (1^st week of Nov1641), 56 men, women, and children, of the village of Bulloge, (being frightened at what was done at Clontarf,) took boats and went to sea, to shun the fury of a party of soldiers come out of Dublin under the command of Colonel Crafford; but being pursued by soldiers in other boats, were overtaken, and thrown over board. One Russell, a baker in Dublin, coming out of the country in company with Mr. Archbold of Clogram (who went to take hold of the proclamation of the Lords Justices,) were both hanged and quartered. In March, a party of horse, of the garrison of Donshaghlin, murdered seven or eight poor people in protection, tenants of Mr. Dillon of Huntstowne, having quartered in their houses the night before, and receiving such entertainment as the poor people could afford. About the same time, a party of the English quartered at Malahyde, hanged a servant of Mr. Robert Boyne’s at the plough, and forced a poor labourer to hang his own brother: and soon after they hanged 15 of the inhabitants of Swords who never bore arms, in the orchard of Malahyde; they likewise hanged a woman bemoaning her husband hanged among them.”[27]

“Clontarf Castle was burned in 1641 by the Governor of Dublin, Sir Charles Coote, apparently in revenge for the disloyalty of the then owner, George King.”

“Hard was the case of the country people at this time, when not being able to hinder parties of robbers and rebels breaking into their homes and taking refreshments there, this should be deemed a treasonable act, AND SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE A MASSACRE. This following so soon after the executions, which Sir Charles Coote… had ordered in the county of Wicklow, among which, when A SOLDIER WAS CARRYING ABOUT A POOR BABE ON THE END OF HIS PIKE, he” [namely, Coote] “was charged with saying THAT HE LIKED SUCH FROLICS, made it presently be imagined that it was determined to proceed against all suspected persons in the same undistinguishing way of cruelty; and it served either for an occasion or pretence to some Roman Catholic gentlemen of the county of Dublin (among which were Luke Netterville, George Blackney, and George King) to assemble together at Swords, six miles from Dublin, and put themselves with their followers in a posture of defence.”

The foregoing murderous events took place during the so-called Irish Rebellion of 1641 in which the Catholics in Ireland revolted against the English Crown.  Sir Charles Coote (the Elder) was commissioned by the Lord Justices of Ireland to enforce martial law in an effort to put down the rebellion.  Coote was relentless and ruthless in carrying out this commission.  He became a “law unto himself”, and his actions resulted in the murder of numerous innocents, including 15 “pacifistic”(?) protestant residents of Swords.  Why do we say “pacifistic”?  Well, we do have the account of the 15 inhabitants of Swords who were hanged, in which they were described as persons “who never bore arms”.  This hardly seems to be a casual reference.  Nowhere else in the accounts of the persons murdered around Dublin at this time, were the victims described in this manner.  Such a description would seem to suggest a pacifistic tendency.  Further suggestion of a pacifistic inclination may be observed in the fact that George King, a catholic, and his fellow “rebels” were permitted by the inhabitants of Swords to set up a defensive position within their town.

Even though the Irish Rebellion occurred 58 years after the planting of 40 reformed protestant Dutch families at Swords, the events described above regarding the fate of the 15 inhabitants of Swords suggests that there was still a strong influence of those reformed Dutch within that community.  How do we arrive at that conclusion?  We should first look at the words of Sir Henry Sydney in his letter to Lord Walsingham: “families of the reformed churches of the Low Countries flying there for their religion’s sake”.  Sir Henry did not refer to the people as being members of the Dutch Reformed church, an association which would connote a specific religious affiliation.  Rather he referred to them as being affiliated with the “reformed churches”, flying for their “religion’s sake”.  In this context, these Low Country refugees in fact could have been affiliated with a variety of different protestant sects extant in Holland at that time.  These sects could have included Mennonites, Dunkers (or Brethren), Separatists, Calvinists, and Anabaptists, to name a few.  Having been from the “low countries” it seems highly possible that they may have been Mennonites or Dunkers, both of which practiced and preached pacifism.

There was nothing found in our research into the history of Swords during the 17^th or 18^th centuries to suggest the existence of an independent or non-conformist protestant sect, but that does not mean that it did not exist.  In fact, if these early low country refugees were Mennonite or Dunker, they may have felt it acceptable and more prudent to simply integrate with the prevailing protestant churches in their community, but practice their unique rituals separately.

One other significant element of Sir Henry Sydney’s accounting of these refugees was the select skill sets which he attributed to them.  For example, he made reference to their ability to make “diapers and ticks for beds”, which was a specific reference to a style or method of weaving cotton fabrics unique to Holland at that time.  During the 15^th thru the 17^th centuries the Dutch were recognized across Europe to be superior masters of various crafts and trades, particularly in the various forms of fabric weaving.  He also made reference to “excellent good leather of deer skins”, and “goat and sheep fells (felts?), as is made in Southwark.”  Clearly, Sir Sydney believed these foreigners to be possessed of unique and valuable skills that would enhance various Irish industries and trades.  We specifically draw the reader’s attention to the reference to “goat and sheep fells”.  Given the further reference to Southwark, it is the author’s belief that this was a reference to their ability to make felt, a predominant industry already well-established at Southwark at that time.  In an earlier study performed by the author for his monograph on his 6^th great grandfather, Edward Arterbury, he compiled a statistical tabulation of the top 25 occupations recorded in St. Olave’s Parish, Southwark between 1706 and 1715, presented in Figure 37.  From this tabulation it can be seen that feltmaking was the 2^nd most common occupation after watermen.  Clearly, feltmaking would have been an important industry in Southwark in the latter part of the 16^th Century, and that fact would have been known to Sir Sydney.

So, what inferences or conclusions might we draw from our study of the history of Swords, and how might it enable us to draw inferences about the origins of the Jacob Miller family?  What we are about to suggest is pure speculation on the author’s part, but supported by strong circumstantial evidence.  First, we have the connection between a reference to feltmaking being a specialized skill known to the low country refugees, and the prevalent practice of feltmaking among the descendants of Jacob Miller.  Next we have the inference that these low country refugees continued to have a significant presence in Swords 58 years after their first installation in the castle ruins at Swords, when 15 of their numbers were hanged for a show of benevolence to a catholic.  What irony, that these same people who were driven from their homeland by Romish overlords in Europe, should then lose their lives for providing shelter to a catholic in Ireland.  We have the surname of Miller, which very possibly originated in Holland, Germany or Switzerland as Mueller.  We have the given name of Jacob, not exactly your typical English or Irish given name, but fairly common on the continent.  And, lastly, we have the strong suggestion that this family originated from Swords, prior to its migration to England.  All things considered, the author believes there is a strong possibility that Jacob Miller was descended from one of those 40 families of low country refugees that were planted at Swords in 1583.

We will close this excurses with one final speculation, that being the source of the education evidenced by William Henry Miller and Esther Miller being able to write their names.  It seems entirely possible that Anne, Esther and William Henry may have attended the Old Borough National School in Swords, which currently operates as the Old Boro public house shown in Figure 38.  A brief history of the Old Borough National School is as follows:

“The Old Borough was designed by Francis Johnston who also designed the General Post Office in O’Connell Street Dublin. In December 1804 the Government purchased the land for £200. The building opened as The Old Borough National School on the 18th of February 1808 at a cost of £1,800. The first schoolmasters were Joseph Carmichael and Anne Carmichael. They were paid £100 a year as a salary. The Old Borough National School occupied the premises for 191 years, becoming one of the best known buildings and most significant constructions in the town during the 19th Century, funding mandatory schooling as well as apprenticeships. The School closed down in the year 2000 and a new school was built at Church Road.”[28]

---

[1] Henry and Betty, The War Years, Mildred Bedinger Rhea, 1992, pp. vii-xi.

[2] Ibid., pp. xxvii-xxviii.

[3] https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=pili354&indiv=try&h=4281854, accessed 23Oct2020.

[4] https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=8860&h=11700285&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=7572, accessed 6Oct2020.

[5] https://www.manchester.gov.uk/directory_record/212459/salford_royal_hospital, accessed 22Oct2020.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_Heath, accessed 7Oct2020.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_Parish_Church, accessed 7Oct2020.

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royd_Mill,_Oldham, accessed 23Oct2020.

[9] https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2962/images/40365_294054-00140?treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&usePUBJs=true&_ga=2.154795312.909227514.1601727074-1772867590.1594732064&pId=4403896, accessed 12Oct2020

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Cathedral, accessed 29Oct2020.

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greengate,_Salford, accessed 27Oct2020.

[12] https://www.bobvila.com/articles/french-polishing/, accessed 3Nov2020.

[13] http://www.coulthart.com/avery/history-pages/needle-history.html#steps, accessed 26Oct2020

[14] https://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/the-sewing-needle-a-history-through-16-19th-centuries/, accessed 5Nov2020.

[15] The Irish and the Victorian City, edited by Roger Swift and Sheridan Gilley, 1985, pp. 15-16.

[16] Ibid., pp. 16-7.

[17] Ibid., p. 16.

[18] The Rise and Fall of the Felt Hatting Industry, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275656136_Denton_and_the_Archaeology_of_the_Felt_Hatting_Industry, accessed 7Nov2020.

[19] Ibid.

[20] The Book of English Trades and Library of the Useful Art, printed for C & J Rivington, 1827, pp. 162-73.

[21] Ibid, p. 165.

[22] http://www.gaelart.net/swordshistory.html#.X6ftURKSmUk, accessed 8Nov2020.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Fingal and Its Churches: A Historical Sketch of the Foundation and Struggles of the Church of …, Robert Walsh, 1888, pp. 123-4.

[26] The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Vol. 105 (1975), pp. 47-82, An Irish Medieval Tile Pavement: Recent Excavations at Swords Castle, County Dublin, Thomas Fanning, p. 57.

[27] Ibid.

[28] https://www.swords-dublin.com/the-old-boro-pub.html, accessed 9Nov2020.

The Miller – Blissett Story

NOTE TO READER:

This chapter is a work-in-progress, but, because it has unexpectedly become such a lengthy investigation, it was decided to separate it into installments.  Part 1 substantally completes the investigation of the Miller family being addressed by this investigation, but is still lacking that part that extends beyond Berkeley County WV into Maryland, and the work being performed on the Blissett side of this family.  That remaining work will be incorporated into a future post identified as Chapter 16 – The Miller-Blissett Story (Part 2).  Sorry for any inconvenience, but bear with me. When loading these manuscripts, the graphic images are stripped, and item numbering is destroyed. By downloading and reading from the .pdf file, the reader will be treated to the full array of graphic and documentary support.

DEDICATION: This work is dedicated to the loving memory of Marion Roy Miller (1946-2020) and his dear friend and companion, Mary Turek. The author had the good fortune of sharing this research with Marion and Mary and incorporating their memories, thoughts and insights into its development. The life of Marion is paid tribute in the following obituary:

Marion Roy Miller, 73, of New London, passed away at 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 15, 2020, at his home.Private graveside services will be in Calvary Cemetery in Quincy, Ill., with Father Mike Quinn officiating.James O’Donnell Funeral Home in Hannibal, Mo., is handling arrangements. Marion Roy was born May 2, 1946, near Frankford, Mo., to Henry Miller and Esther Raney Miller.He married Barbara Frese on April 19, 1969, at St. John’s Church in Quincy. She preceded him in death on Sept. 30, 1990.Survivors include his longtime companion, Mary Turek of New London; a son, Jared P. Miller (fiancee Wanda Smith) of Eolia; a brother, Melvin Miller of Troy; a brother-in-law, Lawrence Rodhouse; three sisters-in-law, Elsie Miller of Monroe City, Shirley Miller of Redondo Beach, Calif., and Frances Miller of Southgate, Mich.; and numerous nieces and nephews.Marion was preceded in death by his parents; seven brothers, Edgar, Lloyd, Ralph, Virgil, John, Raymond “Junior” and Darrel Wayne; and 2 sisters, Esther Sue and Mary Lee.Marion proudly served his country in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. He proudly belonged to the Adams County Vietnam Veterans Memorial Committee, where he helped raise funds and construct Quincy’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial.Marion began working at Stark Brothers Nursery in Louisiana out of high school. He later worked at Motorola in Quincy, where he met his wife, Barbara. Marion then worked at Gardner Denver before taking a position with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, where he worked until his retirement in 2006.Living in the country suited Marion. He loved to hunt and fish and enjoyed taking his four-wheeler around town to check in with friends and neighbors. Barbecuing on his grill, talking baseball with his brother, Melvin, or enjoying a cold beer with friends were a few of Marion’s favorites. Most of all, he simply loved the moments he shared with family and friends.Marion was Catholic by faith and was a longtime member of St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Quincy and later, Holy Family of Hannibal.Pallbearers include Jared Miller, Harold Caldwell, Chris Raney, Dave Lounsberry, Alex Dunker and Dave Houchins.Honorary pallbearers include Joe McGlasson, Ronnie Kelly, Tara Bergheger, Eric Bergheger, Roger Jennings and Rob Jennings.

The author received an e-mail on June 5, 2019 from a distant cousin, a descendant of George J. Miller, b. 1815 in Kentucky, d. 1873 in Illinois, contents of inquiry below:

“Hello, I am trying to determine how I’m related to Christopher J. Miller. I have an old photo album with tin type pictures of his wife Mary Ann Cain (Kane) and children William, Amos, Adolphus, Nancy and Alva Perry. The pictures are in the album with known Miller relatives. The pictures also have been posted to Christopher Miller’s family tree on this site. I know about Chistopher’s father and mother, but nothing else. I’ve been trying to link him to my GGGrandfather George J. Miller, born 1815 KY and died 1873 Greene or Jersey County, IL. Thanks for reading this….”

This rather benign call for assistance has launched a fairly complex and protracted research into one strand of the Arterbury/Atterbury family not previously given much attention.  The reason for the past “neglect” and indifference for these Millers was due to their rather tenuous connection to the author’s Arterbury/Atterbury family lineage.  After all, Christopher J. Miller was merely the father-in-law of the author’s 2nd great aunt, Rosella White, who had married Amos Leroy Miller, son of Christopher J. Miller (almost certainly the “Amos” mentioned in the above cited e-mail as a child of Mary Ann Cain-Miller).  Rosella White was the baby sister of the author’s great grandmother, Martha Emeline White, pictured at right.  Unlike Bettie Tennant Miller, the author’s maternal grandmother, this Christopher J. Miller family seemed too far removed to be of any further interest.  At least that was the author’s belief until being contacted by his Miller cousin.

Thinking only to perform a quick study of the facts surrounding the Miller family photos and to render an opinion as to the possible kinship connection between our respective Miller ancestors, the author quickly became seduced by the genealogical mysteries they embodied.  How had photos of the family of Christopher J. Miller come to be in the possession of the family of George J. Miller?  Was there a connection to Jacob Miller, the purported founder of Millerstown Kentucky?  Were Jacob Miller’s brothers held captive by Indians?  These were mysteries indeed. 

Being addicted to the challenge of solving genealogical entanglements, the author quickly became hooked.  Particularly when it emerged that there had been contemporaneous intermarriages between these Millers and members of the Blissett family.  Now, the Blissetts were a much more familiar group, as Reason Blissett had married the author’s 4th great-aunt, Anna Arterbury, daughter of Richard Arterbury, son of the American Arterbury immigrant, William Arterbury.  The Blissett family had resided contemporaneously with the Atterburys along the drains of the Sandy River in Chester County South Carolina during the latter part of the 18th century, long before both families relocated to Hardin County Kentucky.  Reason Blissett, along with Priddy Meeks and William Watkins [all three were sons-in-law of Richard Arterbury] initially filed for administration of Richard Arterbury’s estate in 1806.  Reason Blissett ultimately went the security bond for Charles Arterbury and Richard Arterbury Jr. for the administration of Richard Sr’s. estate.  Reason and Anna Blissett were among the first members of the Atterbury family to move to Wayne County Illinois around 1812, where Reason died sometime before 1820.

From the author’s earlier research it had been established that James Miller was the father of Christopher J. Miller, the father of Amos Leroy Miller.  However, due to lack of curiosity, nothing further had been discovered by the author relative to James Miller until being contacted by his Miller cousin.  What follows hereinafter will be the evolving story of these Millers and Blissetts as discovered and compiled by the author.  James Miller is believed to have married Nancy Blissett, daughter of George Blissett, as evidenced by the following abstract from KentuckyCounty Marriages: 1783-1965[1]:

Name:     James Miller

Gender:  Male

Marriage Date:      30 Dec 1815

Marriage Place:     Hardin, Kentucky, USA

Spouse:  Nancy Blissit

A thorough search of census and other civil records during this time period disclosed the presence of only one family named Blissett or near facsimile in the entire nation during the 18th and 19th centuries, that being the households of George Blissett and his antecedents.  Given the rarity of the Blissett surname in this country during this time period, it seems highly probable that Nancy Blissett and Reason Blissett were siblings, and children of George Blissett, thus making Anna Atterbury Blissett and James Miller brother and sister in-law.  Marriages during this time period typically involved parties from the same neighborhood, unless there had been some prior association through kinship or close living proximity elsewhere.  So, from this basic “fact” it is reasonable to assume that the George Blissett family and the Miller family most likely were near neighbors somewhere within Hardin County in the early part of the 19th century.

Unlike Blissett, the Miller surname was anything but rare, as there were a total of 15 separate Miller households recorded in Hardin County in 1810, five years before the intermarriage of James Miller and Nancy Blissett.  Since Grayson County was erected in 1810 by partitioning from Hardin County, it is possible that James Miller’s family may also have been from the Grayson County area, which contained 9 separate Miller households in 1810.  With so many Miller households existing in the Hardin and Grayson County area in 1815, how might it be possible to isolate and identify James Miller’s family?  There may have been clues recorded in Illinois which could assist in refining the search for James Miller’s family in Kentucky.  Let’s first look at the census records in Illinois which are believed to have been associated with James Miller.  The 1840 census of Greene County Illinois records the household of a James Miller residing in Taylors Township.  A review of the demographic composition of that household provides a strong inference that it was of our James Miller.  Recorded immediately adjacent to the James Miller household in 1840 was a household headed by a Henry B. Miller.  Because of the age range of the head of that household (20-30) and the apparent close living proximity, it seemed probable to the author that Henry B. Miller was a son of James Miller. 

The 1850 census record believed to have contained our James Miller’s household is summarized in Figure 2.  James Miller was identified in this record as having been about 59 years old, and born in Pennsylvania.  Also in this household was Ailcey Miller, 59 years old, born in South Carolina, believed by the author to have been James’ wife, Nancy Blissett.  Christopher J. Miller is believed to have been James and Nancy Miller’s son.  Christopher was reported born about 1824 in Kentucky.

Another record was found in the 1860 census which the author believes to have contained our James Miller, summarized in Figure 3.  This household was headed by a person named Jacob Miller, born about 1818 in Kentucky.  Also in this household was an elderly male named James Miller, born about 1790 in Kentucky.  Apart from the variance in the place of birth (Pennsylvania vs Kentucky) the demographics of this James Miller are a match for our James Miller.  It is the author’s belief that the James Miller in Figure 3 was the same person as the James Miller in Figure 2, and that he was the father of Henry B., Christopher J. and Jacob Miller.  This belief is supported by the fact that Jacob Miller, aged 61 years in the 1880 census living at Greenfield, Green County Illinois, reported his father born in Kentucky and his mother born in South Carolina.  We also have the 1880 census record for Christopher J. Miller living in English, Jersey County Illinois in which he reported his father born in Maryland and his mother born in South Carolina.  While these facts are not absolute proof of Jacob Miller having been a son of James and Nancy Miller, the circumstantial connections are very compelling. 

Ironically, from the census records in which James Miller’s birth place ostensibly was reported, we have a variance between Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Maryland.  Had these records consistently reported the same place of birth, that fact might have been helpful in tracing James Miller’s origins.  Given the variances in his reported birth place, that piece of information is rendered less than helpful (inconclusive).

Now we come back to the question at hand, was there anything else found in the records of Illinois that might help us focus or refine our search for the ancestry of James Miller?  As a matter of fact, there is just such evidence to be found in the obituary of Christopher J. Miller, which was transcribed by the author from a newspaper clipping provided by his Miller cousin:

“The Patriot”, Carrollton, IL

Christopher J. Miller Obit, September 23, 1898:

Was a Pioneer of Greene

Christopher J, Miller, who died on the 12th instant in Jersey County, was a pioneer of, and lived for some years in, this county.  He was born in Hart County Kentucky, June 14, 1824.  In 1839 his parents came to this state and settled near Greenfield.  In his early life he worked on farms and ran a wood boat from Hardin to St. Louis.  He was a member of the company raised at Greenfield to go and fight the Mormons at Nauvoo.  He was married to Mary Ann Cain of Grayson County Kentucky, June 21, 1849, and they settled on a farm five miles southeast of Carrollton, near Mount Hope school house.  In 1851 Mr. Miller sold his farm to his brother and moved to Jersey County.  Of eight children, six are still living, as follows: William P., of Carrollton, Mrs. Elizabeth Downey, and Amos L. near Kane, Adolphus of Godfrey, Mrs. Nancy E. Vanbuskirk of Kincaid Kansas, and Alva P. of Cripple Creek Colorado…

The reference to Christopher J. Miller’s birth place having been Hart County could be very useful in our efforts to identify his father’s ancestry.  First, it should be noted that Hart County was erected in 1819 from the southern part of Hardin County and the northern part of Barren County.  By knowing that Christopher Miller was born in Hart County in 1824, and that his father was married in Hardin County in 1815, it seems reasonable to conclude that James Miller’s family probably resided in that part of Hardin County that was partitioned into Hart County in 1819.  This “fact” would seem to substantially narrow the geographic territory within which our search for James Miller’s ancestors should be centered.  Since the Green River delineated the boundary between Hardin County and Barren County before 1819, we might expect to locate James Miller and his family in that part of Hart County situated to the north of the Green River.

To begin this search we will first present the 1820 and 1830 census records from Hart County, which are believed to have contained our James Miller.  Figure 4 contains the census record of the James Miller household in 1820.  Unfortunately, the 1820 and 1830 census records from Hart County are ordered alphabetically, so it is not possible to infer any geographic location or proximity to other households, aside from the fact that James Miller was located within the Munfordville township in 1820, which probably places him to the north of the Green River, a placement which we had already deduced from his marriage record.  The Munfordville township recorded a total of 376 households, as contrasted to 130 in the Woodsonville township (south of the Green River?).  It should also be noted that James and Nancy appear to have had two sons prior to 1820, presumably George J. and Henry B. Miller.

The 1830 census record of the James Miller household is presented in Figure 5.  In this census year the county was recorded as one entity, except for the area immediately surrounding the town of Munfordville, which area reported only 53 households.  The rest of the county reported 781 households.  Note that the James Miller household now contained four sons and two daughters, and that the two eldest sons were under age 14, giving them a birth year of 1815 or later.  The two added sons are believed to have been Jacob and Christorpher J. Miller.  In the obit for Christopher J. Miller it was reported that as a youth he “ran a wood boat from Hardin (County) to St. Louis”.  There will be more discussion of this experience later in this work.

In the 1840 census in Greene County, IL the James Miller household was summarized as shown in Figure 6.  James and his wife were reported aged 60 to 69 and 50 to 59, respectively.  Their two youngest sons (Christopher J. and Jacob) and the two daughters appeared to still be living in their parent’s household.  Additionally, there appeared to be a young married couple, aged 20 to 29 in the household.  It is the author’s belief that this young couple was the eldest son, George J. Miller, and his new wife, Catherine Gough, who are recorded marrying in Greene County on 1Sep1840.  It is curious that the apparent heads of this household: James Miller and his presumed wife were reported with ages that were older than might have been expected, when compared to the ages reported in the 1830 census.  The author cannot explain this age discrepancy, except to point out that James’ age was reported as 70 years on the 1860 census, which suggests that he was born around 1790.  Assuming 1790 to have been his approximate birth year, then the age reported in 1840 would have been understated by only one year, and his age reported in 1850 would have been virtually precise.  This variance is well within the range of acceptance.  Additionally, there was an elder female, aged 70 to 79.  The identity of this older woman is uncertain.  She may have been James Miller’s mother, but she just as easily could have been Nancy Blissett’s mother.  She almost certainly was a kinsperson to the heads of this household, or of their new daughter-in-law, Catherine Gough.

So, we have tracked James Miller to Hart County Kentucky in the 1820 and 1830 census records, based on information obtained from the obit of his presumed son, Christopher J. Miller.  We have also tentatively identified four sons for James Miller and Nancy Blissett named George J., Henry B., Jacob and Christopher J.  We have also established that there may have been two daughters, who survived to their early teens and who moved with the family from Hart County to Taylor Township, Greene County Illinois by 1840.  These presumed daughters were no longer living in their parents’, or their brothers’ households in 1850, so presumably they had moved away from home, married or had died.  A search of marriage records for 1840 through 1852 for Greene and Jersey Counties failed to locate anyone matching their descriptions.  There were a total of five marriages of Miller women in Greene County and one in Jersey County, but none were later reported to have been born in Kentucky.  It is possible that the place of birth could have been misreported in those later records.  It is also possible that these daughters may have married elsewhere, away from Greene or Jersey counties.  Regrettably, Christopher Miller’s obit failed to mention the names of his siblings.  Further attempts to identify these presumed daughters of James Miller and Nancy Blissett will be left to other, more intrepid researchers.

Now we will return to our search for the family of James Miller in Kentucky.  Since James Miller married in Hardin County in 1815, we might expect to find a land record for James Miller in that area.  Searching through the volume entitled The Kentucky Land Grants four records were found for a James Miller listed as follows:

1. James Miller, 300 acres, Bk. A, p. 424, 8Nov1816, Hardin County, Nolinn Waters (p.642)[2]
2. James Miller, 50 acres, Bk. E, p. 526, 10Sep1818, Grayson County, Short Creek (p. 642)[3]
3. Nicholas and James Miller, 100 acres, Bk. F, p. 469, 8Apr1819, Hardin County, Millers Creek (p. 642)
4. Nicholas and James Miller, 50 acres, Bk. F, p. 470, 8Apr1819, Hardin County, Clear Creek (p. 642)

It is possible that any or all of these records could have been for our James Miller, but the first record seems the most probable, given that it was a warrant, that it was filed the year after James Miller married Nancy Blissett, and that the tract was located in Hardin County.  It may be significant that this tract reportedly was situated on the waters of the Nolin River, so keep that fact in mind.  Also, the two records involving Nicholas and James Miller may be of particular interest later in this chapter.  Having searched for land records related to James Miller, and having identified four possible candidates, the author then attempted to find any similar records for Blissetts.  Searching the same volume, The Kentucky Land Grants, the author was unable to locate any records for persons named Blissett.  However, it should be recognized that, although the records contained in this 1,844 page volume are arranged in alphabetical order, the records within each letter of the alphabet are not necessarily in alphabetical order.  Consequently, the author had to visually scan more than 50 pages of persons whose names began with the letter “B”, and it is possible that entries for Blissett could have been overlooked.

As luck would have it, an inventory of land owners was compiled for tax purposes in 1819 when Hart County was erected[4].  Several persons of interest to this inquiry were found in that list:

1. Thomas Atterbury – 385 acres, Bacon Creek
2. Elijah Atterbury – 140 acres, Nolin
3. Michall Atterbury – 10 acres, Bacon Creek
4. Elisha Atterbury – 150 acres, Bacon Creek
5. George Blissett – 325 acres, Nolin
6. Perdy [Priddy] Meeks – 450 acres, Nolin
7. James Miller
8. Robert Miller
9. Abraham Peoples – 100 acres, Bacon Creek
10. Bird Peoples – 100 acres, Bacon Creek

From this 1819 Hart County Tax List it was found that a George Blissett was reported with 325 acres on Nolin River.  This list also contained an entry for a James Miller, but did not identify the amount or location of his land.  Given the above cited warrant filing by James Miller, it is reasonable to assume that his tract reported on the tax list probably was on the Nolin River.  Also, given that James Miller had married the daughter of George Blissett, it seems probable that their lands were located in relatively close proximity to each other, perhaps within a couple of miles.  The author has highlighted a tract owned by Priddy Meeks, as it was also located on the Nolin River.  This Priddy Meeks is believed to have been the same person who witnessed the LWT of Richard Atterbury I in 1806.  It is also believed that Priddy Meeks’ son, Benjamin Meeks, married Rebecca Atterbury, daughter of Richard Atterbury I.  Benjamin and Rebecca relocated to White County Illinois by about 1817. 

So, from the 1819 tax list from Hart County we have evidence suggesting that George Blissett, presumed father-in-law of James Miller, may have homesteaded land along the Nolin River in the near vicinity of tracts owned by James Miller and several members of the Atterbury family and allied parties.  However, it should be noted that the Nolin River formed the boundary between Hart County and Grayson County for a distance of almost 12 miles, so presumably lands described as having been on the waters of the Nolin River in Hart County may not necessarily have been in close proximity, or were they.  Note the lands belonging to the Atterberrys and Peebles on Bacon Creek.  Bacon Creek is a tributary of the Nolin River about 9 miles downstream from the northern border of Hart County.  About midway between the northern boundary and Bacon Creek is another significant stream known as Roundstone Creek.  A review of the 1819 tax list showed 56 entries for Bacon Creek , but only seven for Roundstone Creek.  Almost half of these tax records contained no geographic reference at all.  Only nine records were specifically identified with Nolin.  Since the Nolin River extended along virtually the entire western border of Hart County, it might be assumed that the references to “Nolin” were associated with a smaller, specific geographic area, rather than to lands that were within the Nolin River drainage.  A fairly thorough search of the Web failed to yield any reference to any specific locale identified as “Nolin”; only references to Nolin Creek or Nolin River were found.  In the very early days of Kentucky settlement there was a site on the upper Nolin River known as Nolin Station, however, Nolin Station would have been within Hardin County after the formation of Hart County.  Consequently, nothing was found with certainty that could fix the relative locations of lands identified as having been on “waters” of Nolin.

Absent any direct reference to the specific location of the James Miller and George Blissett tracts, aside from having been on the waters of the Nolin River within Hart County, the author then resorted to secondary connections.  The first such secondary connection found was in the form of another member of the Blissett family, namely George Johnson Blissett.  In the 1840 census George Johnson Blissett and his presumed son, Jacob Blissett, were listed immediately abutting the households of Adam Miller and his presumed son, Samuel Miller listed as follows:

Gideon Skag                                          Hart        Kentucky

Allie Fletcher                                        Hart        Kentucky

G I Blepel [sic]                                      Hart        Kentucky

Jacob Blepel [sic]                                 Hart        Kentucky

Adam Miller                                          Hart        Kentucky

Saml Miller                                            Hart        Kentucky

H L Hison                                              Hart        Kentucky

Fortunately, the 1840 census was not ordered alphabetically, so its listings might be construed as having a more geographical ordering, i.e. spatial continuity.  These households appear near the bottom of page 27 of 72.  There were a total of 967 households recorded in Hart County in 1840.  Given the close proximity of these households within the 1840 census, and given the relatively large number of households in the entire county, it is reasonable to assume that these Millers and Blissetts were living on abutting or nearly abutting properties.  Also recorded in this 1840 census, a few households removed from the Millers and Blissetts, was the household of Gideon Skaggs.  Gideon Skaggs reputedly was the bastard son (born out of wedlock in about 1815) of Rebecca Skaggs, daughter of Henry Skaggs (long hunter?).  The near presence of Gideon Skaggs may be relevant to identifying the geographic locale of these Millers and Blissetts in 1840.  The main body of the Skaggs family was settled on Rock Creek in Grayson County, a few miles southwest of the community of Millerstown.  It might be presumed that Gideon Skagg would not have strayed too far from his nearest relations, and consequently, it might also be presumed that he and these Millers and Blissetts were situated not too distant from Millerstown.

The location of Millerstown is of particular interest to this investigation into the possible ancestry of James Miller, due to the association of the James Miller tract and the Nolin River.  Millerstown is situated on the Nolin River within Grayson County as indicated on Figure 7, but within one mile of the corner boundaries between Hart, Hardin and Grayson County.  Because of this unique location of Millerstown being within a stone’s throw of three separate counties, the search for James Miller’s ancestral roots may need to extend into all three of these counties. 

The summary of the households of Adam Miller and George Johnson Blissett in 1840 are presented in Figures 8 and 9, respectively.  From the summary of the Adam Miller household it is shown that he was aged 50 to 59 years, and that his wife was aged 40 to 49, and that he appears to have had two sons and four daughters living at home.  George Johnson Blissett was also reportedly aged 50 to 59, his wife aged 40 to 49, and three sons and three daughters still living at home.  So, given their matching ages, it would appear that George Blissett and Adam Miller were of the same generation, or peers. 

At least one researcher has suggested that George Johnson Blissett’s wife was surnamed Miller.  With that in mind, the author went in search of proof and discovered a pension application record, which appears to substantiate that claim.  This record has been inserted as Figure 10.  The subject pension application was for Private George A. [aka J.] Blissett for services performed during the War of 1812.  On this application it was asserted that George Blissett served almost two months between 18Sep1812 and 30Oct1812 in the company commanded by Captain Aaron Hart of Hardin County KY.  It is also stated on this application that Private George Blissett’s widow was named Margaret [aka Peggy] Miller, and that they had married on 2Apr1812 in Grayson County, and that George had died on 9Jul1862 in Hart County.  Margaret died in about 1884, presumably near Big Springs in Breckenridge County.  For what its worth, the biography of Capt. Aaron Hart states that he made application in 1834 to erect a water grist mill on the Nolin River.

So, given the close geographic proximity between George Johnson Blissett and Adam Miller in 1840 and the rarity of the Blissett surname, it seems reasonable to conclude that George Johnson Blissett may have married a sister of Adam Miller.  The fact that this marriage occurred in Grayson County will later be shown to be even more revealing.

We have now compiled a sufficiency of records for the author to posit a hypothesis relative to possible kinship connections for our James Miller:

Hypothesis No. 1:  James Miller, Adam Miller and Margaret Miller were siblings; and Nancy Blissett, Reason Blissett and George Johnson Blissett were siblings.

This hypothesis was formulated based substantially on the intermarriages between Millers and Blissetts, the apparent close living proximity between George Johnson Blissett and Adam Miller [Time and Place Convergence], and the apparent close spatial proximity between lands owned by James Miller and George Blissett on the Nolin River.  Assuming the foregoing hypothesis to be correct, we will now explore the background of Adam Miller in an effort to establish his ancestry.  For, if we can establish the ancestry of Adam Miller, we will have indirectly established the ancestry of his presumed brother, James Miller.

However, before launching into a study of the background and possible ancestry of Adam Miller, let us first clarify the identity of George Johnson Blissett vis a vis the person identified as George Blissett in the 1819 tax record.  Because of the singular character of the Blissett surname in Kentucky in the early part of the 19th century, namely its attribution to only one source, George Blissett, we can state with a high degree of certainty that Nancy Blissett, Reason Blissett and George Johnson Blissett were all siblings, and children of George Blissett Sr.  However, given the presence of George J. Blissett [Jr.], we cannot state with certainty whether the owner of the tract of land on the Nolin River was George Blissett Sr. or George Blissett Jr.  In the 1810 census of Kentucky there was only one George Blissett household, and that household contained one young male aged 16 thru 25, presumably George Johnson Blissett, so this clearly would seem to have been the household of George Blissett Sr.  (see Figure 11)

In 1820 there was also only one household found for George Blissett, which is summarized in Figure 12.  Given the age range of the heads of household being over 45 years, it seems highly likely that this was still the household of George Blissett Sr.  Assuming that to be the case, then we are left to ponder the whereabouts of the George Johnson Blissett household in 1820.  After all, according to the pension application, George Jr. and Margaret Miller had married on 2Apr1812 in Grayson County.  Using every trick known to the author, no other Blissett households were found anywhere in Kentucky in 1820.  One thing about this 1820 census record might appear to be somewhat incongruous with a person owning land on the upper Nolin River.  The George Blissett household was recorded in the Woodsonville Township.  The author had initially assumed that because Woodsonville is located south of the Green River, its township territory would have logically encompassed that part of Hart County to the south of Green River.  However, closer scrutiny of the persons recorded living in the Woodsonville Township reveals that all the Atterburys living in Hart County were recorded living in the Woodsonville Township.  From the earlier presentation of 1819 tax records it was shown that all four Atterberrys thus recorded were living on either Bacon Creek or Nolin River, both of which streams are situated to the north of the Green River.  From this little test we might conclude that George Blissett Sr.’s household was also situated north of the Green River in 1820.  So, we might further extrapolate that the 325 acre tract reported in the 1819 tax record in possession of George Blissett on the Nolin River, was in fact the property and home place of George Blissett Sr. in 1810 and 1820, not of his son, George Jr.

Now it is time once again for the author to posit another hypothesis:

Hypothesis No. 2 – George Johnson Blissett and his new wife, Margaret Miller, were living in the household of Margaret’s father in 1820.

Assuming that George and Margaret Blissett were not omitted from the 1820 census compilation, it seems possible that they may have been living in the household of a close relation, possibly Margaret’s father’s household.  If only we knew the identity of Margaret’s parents!  Well, as it so happens, we may just be able to establish her parent’s identity through an analysis of her presumed brother, Adam Miller.  If we trace Adam Miller through successive census records, we find that he was captured in every census from 1820 thru 1870.  We will not bore the reader by including each and every one of those census records, but we will include the records from 1820 and 1860, because they offer clues in support of identifying his presumed parents.

The 1820 census summary for Adam Miller has been provided in Figure 13.  The significant element of this census record is the fact that it showed that Adam Miller was living in Grayson County in that year and not in Hart County.  Why, you might ask, is that significant?  Well, there are a variety of factors which suggest that Adam’s parents had moved to the west side of the Nolin River sometime prior to 1810.  We will return to that discussion, momentarily.

First, let’s turn our attention to the 1860 census record for the Adam Miller household as summarized in Figure 14.  Adam is now reported to have been 71 years old, born in Pennsylvania, and receiving his mail at the Millerstown Post Office.  Adam’s wife, Nancy [Taylor] was still alive and in that household, but all other members of the family have reached adulthood and moved out of Adam’s care.  The fact that Adam was reported living in the near vicinity of Millerstown is a clear indication that he was living in the extreme northwest corner of Hart County, nearby to the upper Nolin River.

And finally, we present the death record of Adam Miller abstracted as follows:

1. “Adam Miller, white, Age: 100, Sex: male, Marital Status: married, Occupation: farmer, Date of Death: 16Feb1877, Cause of Death: old age, Place of Birth: Virginia, Residence at Death: Hart County, Place of Death: Hart County, Parents: Jacob and Nancy Miller, Parents Birthplace: not stated.”[5]

Given the matching name, date, and locations, it seems a certainty that this was the death record of the same Adam Miller, who was living nearby to George Johnson Blissett in 1840.  There are several important pieces of information provided in this record, the most important of which are the names of Adam’s parents: Jacob and Nancy.  However, there was one piece of information that was clearly at odds with all of the census records, that being Adam’s reported age of 100 years at the time of his death in 1877.  Such age would suggest a birth year of 1777, almost ten years earlier than reported in most of the census records, which consistently showed approximately 1787.  Also, the place of birth was shown as Virginia.  There were at least two contradictory citations which showed Pennsylvania as his birth place.  Given that his place of birth was most frequently cited as having been Virginia, the author is inclined to accept Virginia as Adam’s correct place of birth.

Now, armed with the names of Adam’s parents, it may be possible to identify the household of his parent’s family.  In 1810 and 1820 censuses there are records for the household of a Jacob Miller, which appear to fit with the father of Adam Miller, and which are summarized in Figures 15 and 16, respectively.  Since this Jacob Miller was reported over the age of 45 in 1810, it follows that he was born sometime before 1765.  If this Jacob Miller was Adam Miller’s father, and if Adam Miller was born around 1777 (as suggested by his death record), then Jacob Miller probably was born before 1755. 

One important factor shown in each of these records is that Jacob Miller was living in Grayson County before 1810 and after 1820.  Adam Miller is believed to have been one of the two young males in Jacob Miller’s household in 1810 in the age range of 16 thru 25.  Adam Miller, himself, was recorded living in Grayson County in 1820. 

The reader may remember that we promised to return to the discussion of the whereabouts of George Johnson Blissett and Margaret Miller in 1820.  Since we could not find a household headed by George Johnson Blissett in 1820, it was hypothesized that he and Margaret might have been living with Margaret’s parents.  Based on the theory posited in Hypothesis No. 2, above, we might expect to find George and Margaret Blissett living in Jacob Miller’s household in 1820.  As it so happens, there does appear to be a young couple matching George and Margaret’s demographics living in Jacob Miller’s household.  They would be the young male aged 26 thru 44 years and one of the females aged 16 thru 25.  It is the author’s belief that the apparent young married couple living in Jacob Miller’s household, were in fact George and Margaret Blissett.  It is further believed that the two young males under age 10 were the children of George and Margaret.  For a basis of comparison and support for Hypothesis No. 2, the household of George J. Blissett from the 1830 census is summarized in Figure 17.  One possible discrepancy in this interpretation is the fact that George and Margaret appear to have had a daughter in their household in 1830 aged 10 to 14 years, yet there does not appear to have been a corresponding female in Jacob Miller’s household in 1820.  The author must admit that this discrepancy does cast a cloud over the proof of Hypothesis No. 2.  That issue aside, the author is still inclined to believe that Hypothesis No. 1 and 2 are reliable.

To assist the reader in a better understanding of the probable connections of Adam, James and Margaret Miller as siblings, and as children of Jacob and Nancy Miller, the author has compiled a link diagram showing the probable connections between the households of each respective family in 1810, 1820 and 1830 as presented in Figure 18.  It must be admitted that this link diagram has a few loose ends, which cannot be explained by the author, but which do not necessarily undermine the basic kinship assumptions asserted by the author.  For example, there appear to have been two young males aged 10 to 18 years in Jacob’s household in 1820, which do not appear to have been in his household in 1810.  It seems possible to the author that those young males may have been grandchildren from a yet to be identified child of Jacob Miller, who may have died in the previous decade.  That discrepancy aside, the author believes that these families are generally a perfect match.

Having fairly reliably established the names of the parents of James, Adam and Margaret Miller as Jacob Miller and his wife, Nancy (mnu), is there anything further to be learned about the family of Jacob Miller?  The answer to that question may well lie in the averred origins of the community named Millerstown.  Figure 19 contains an image of the Millerstown Historical Marker.  The inscription on this monument reads as follows:

“Pioneer Family – Millerstown, settled before 1800, founded by Jacob Miller Jr.  He owned 500 acres along Nolin River and built a grist mill.  Christopher, a brother, was prisoner of Indians for 11 years; rescued by spies of Anthony Wayne, he then helped Wayne secure peace, 1794.  Christopher and his brother, Nicholas, both served in Kentucky House of Representatives.  Town was at peak circa 1900, with population of 150.”

According to the Millerstown Historical Marker, the town was founded by Jacob Miller Jr., who built a water grist mill nearby on the Nolin River.  This history further asserts that Jacob Miller Jr. had at least two brothers: Christopher and Nicholas, both of whom served in the Kentucky House of Representatives.  While this “story” of a pioneering family, headed by a person named Jacob Miller, having been the namesake for Millerstown, the author must issue a word of caution regarding the averred connection between that Jacob Miller and the more celebrated Miller brothers: Christopher and Nicholas.  While careful research has disclosed numerous references to Jacob Miller’s grist mill on the Nolin River in the vicinity of Millerstown, sod all has been found of any connection between that Jacob Miller and the Miller brothers: Christopher and Nicholas.

First, it must be stated that very little information has been found regarding the community known as Millerstown on current maps, and further, that whatever information was found appears to be undocumented and rife with discrepancy and incongruence.

However, before launching into the study of Jacob Miller Jr.’s averred siblings: Christopher Miller and Nicholas Miller, we offer the added historical narrative for Millerstown as follows:

“Pioneer Family

By Ashlee Chilton

Historical Marker #1828 notes the town of Millerstown, which was settled before 1800.

Millerstown is the oldest settlement in Grayson County. Founded by Jacob Miller in the late eighteenth century, Millerstown was originally called Skaggs after the first postmaster, Jefferson G. Skaggs. In 1882, the name was changed to Millerstown after a pioneer family. The settlement was located in the farthest southeastern part of the county on the Nolin River, adjacent to Hardin County. Miller built a grist mill, or a flour or corn mill, near the river. As it is located between the Twin Lakes – Rough River Lake and Nolin Lake – Grayson County has produced a number of flour mills, corn mills, and lumber mills.

Millerstown was the first town in Grayson County to be incorporated, which was done in 1826. It would be forty more years before the county seat of Leitchfield was incorporated. In 1896, a professor named John McClure established the “Teachers College,” also called “Brick College” in the community. The purpose of this college was to train school teachers who also came from the counties surrounding Grayson County.

At its peak in 1900, Millerstown had a population of about 150 people. Maintaining its own law enforcement and jail for several years, the town also possessed two larger general stores, one roller mill, one drugstore, one grocery store, two blacksmith shops, and a wool carding mill. Millerstown is actually no longer incorporated.”[6]

The foregoing “history” of Millerstown appears to have been little more than an embellishment of the Historical Marker, but does offer a couple of intriguing added elements.  First, it should be noted that the historical marker credited the founding of Millerstown to Jacob Miller Jr., whereas the narrative offered by Ashlee Chilton states that Millerstown was founded “by Jacob Miller in the late eighteenth century”.  Hereinbefore, the author has presented census records from Grayson County in 1810 and 1820 for a Jacob Miller family, which the author presumes to have been the father of James, Adam and Margaret Miller.  Was this Jacob Miller the same person, who is credited with the founding of Millerstown?  The Marker identifies the founder as Jacob Miller Jr., whereas Ashlee Chilton simply ascribed that honor to a Jacob Miller, who was residing in the area in the late-18th century.  Are we talking about two different persons, or the same person?  Was that person Jacob Miller Jr. or simply Jacob Miller? 

It should further be noted that there was a discrepancy in the founding and naming of Millerstown.  Ashlee Chilton states that it was originally named Skaggs, allegedly in honor of the town’s first postmaster, Jefferson G. Skaggs, and that the name “Millerstown” was only adopted after 1882.  She further stated that the town was incorporated in 1826.  These “facts” may all be accurate, but what is not mentioned is the fact that the name “Millerstown” predated 1882 by several decades.  For example, the 1860 census recorded four census pages (85 thru 88) in Hart County as having been within the vicinity of the Millerstown post office.  The Grayson County census in 1860 was not segregated by townships, so it is not possible to state whether Millerstown was recognized as a township in that county in 1860, but very likely.  In 1870 and 1900 there was no mention of Millerstown in the census listings from Hart County, but there are listings for Millerstown in Grayson County.  No listings were found in any census year in either Hart County or Grayson County for a township named “Skaggs”.  So, it would appear that the name of Millerstown post office had emerged in the census records in 1860 and 1870, disappeared in 1880, but reemerged in 1900.

One further “fact” worthy of our note is taken from the records of the National Archives which tabulates the names and dates of Post Masters appointed at various towns and villages across the country.  Of particular interest is a listing of post masters appointed for the post office at Millerstown, Grayson County Kentucky transcribed as follows:

1. Adam Heyser – 16Jan1828
2. William G. Bourman and S. McClure – 12Apr1837
3. Charles Wortham and Isaac Thomas – 26Jul1842[7]

These entries would suggest that the town was named “Millerstown”, when it was first incorporated, not decades later as suggested by Ashlee Chilton.  Further, that Jefferson G. Skaggs was not the first post master of Millerstown, but rather that distinction probably should be accorded Adam Heyser.  But, most importantly it would be inferred that Jacob Miller had already left an indelible mark on the region at a very early date.

Another interesting fact about the history of Millerstown as offered by Ashlee Chilton is the absence of any reference to an association between the averred town’s founder, Jacob Miller, and Christopher Miller, who was captured by Indians.  Is it possible that the historical marker is in error?  Clearly, further research is needed in order to bring clarity to these questions.  Let’s begin this discussion by offering the following description of the boundary of Hart County at the time of its formation in 1819:

“An Act for the erection of the county of Hart, out of the Counties of Barren and Hardin, approved 28Jan1819… beginning at the mouth of Little Barren River, running thence up the same to Elk Lick; thence with the Green County line four miles and a half; thence a straight line to a point 10.5 miles due north of Barren courthouse; thence a due west line to the Warren County line; thence with the same to Green River’ thence down Green River to the mouth of Nolin Creek; thence up same to the mouth of Jacob Miller’s spring branch; thence a straight line to Benjamin Martin’s old place, where ___ Raglin now lives; leaving the same in the new county, and the same course to the Green County line; thence with the same to Green River; thence up the same to the beginning.”

From this description of the formation of Hart County we find a reference to Jacob Miller’s spring branch.  From Jacob Miller’s “spring branch” the boundary turned easterly, away from the Nolin River on a straight course to Benjamin Martin’s old place.  The foregoing description seemingly would place Jacob Miller’s spring branch at the extreme northwest corner of Hart County.  Given that the census records during this period place the Jacob Miller households in Grayson County, it might be inferred that Jacob Miller’s spring branch actually flowed into the Nolin River from the west side, less than one-half mile upstream from the town of Millerstown.  It is peculiar that the boundary description for the newly formed Hart County would reference Jacob Miller’s spring branch, if it were located across the river, in Grayson County.  No such tributary is found on present day maps.  However, there is evidence of a minor side channel or finger of the Nolin River main channel extending easterly from the river immediately adjacent to the county line corner boundary as illustrated on an excerpt of the USGS Quad map contained in Figure 20 (circled in red).  This low-lying boggy protrusion may well be the remnant of the ancient water feature referred to as “Jacob Miller’s spring branch”.  The fact that the county line is identified as “indefinite” at this location might be the result of the vague nature of the boundary description at the time of the formation of Hart County.  Unless a precise survey of the boundary was performed, the determination of its location in future years would depend on the ability to establish the location of such generalized and transitory geographic features at “Jacob Miller’s spring branch” and “Ben Martin’s old place”.  The author is inclined to believe that the location of Jacob Miller’s spring branch was that minor finger of the Nolin River channel protrud