This is the THIRD page of John BLANKENBAKER's series of Short Notes on GERMANNA History, which were originally posted to the GERMANNA_COLONIES Discussion List. Each page contains 25 Notes.
|
GERMANNA History Notes Page 3 |
Nr.51:
History has a lot to say about the Germanna Colonists and iron in Virginia
and much of it is incorrect. It is not entirely clear where some of the
erroneous facts originated. One early source, but perhaps not the earliest,
is W.W. Scott in his book, "A History of Orange County Virginia" published
in 1907. His credentials have misled others into believing he was an
authority on the subject. The man was a member of the State Historical
Society and for ten years the State Librarian of Virginia. But let him speak
for himself,
There are errors in this statement.
Scott may have erred due to the writings of Willis Miller Kemper and Harry
Linn Wright who published "Genealogy of the Kemper Family in the United
States" in 1899 [referred to in short as Kemper]. Kemper noted many facts
correctly including several facts that he "uncovered". But at the same time he
invented facts out of thin air. He says, "It was not long [after
Spotswood's appointment as Governor in 1710] until he discovered evidences
of iron ore in the districts toward the Blue Ridge." It is true that
Spotswood was writing back to England about iron ore in Virginia within
three months of his arrival. But this was not newly discovered iron ore;
the existence of it had been known for over 120 years and it was considered
quality ore. The ore had actually been tested in England and found to be
quite excellent.
The general plan here for a few notes will be to develop the history of iron
in Virginia and correcting some of the errors. In contrast to the historians who
copy other historians, and these are the most numerous kind, the attempt
will be put original quotations or sources before you. And, you can read
what the people at that time said, not what people two hundred years later said.
Nr.52:
Iron ore was known to exist in Virginia from the earliest dates. In 1588,
Thomas Harriott published "A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of
Virginia" in London. Two years later, it was republished, this time with
illustrations. The book makes it very clear that considerable effort had
been spent in determining the resources to be found in Virginia. It had this
to say about iron:
[This book is interesting reading and the 1590 version was reprinted by
Dover Publications, Inc. in 1972. It has an extensive description of
Virginia and its inhabitants.]
Thus people in England were knowledgeable about Virginia and, in particular,
about iron there. After the English settlements, Captain John Smith sent
home several barrels of bog ore in 1608 and Captain Newport shipped enough
ore to England the next year to make over fifteen tons of iron which proved
to be of good quality. [See Rutland, "Men and Iron in the Making of
Virginia", p.3]
A group of investors, the Southhampton Adventurers, raised 4,000 pounds
sterling and sent a labor force of 80 skilled ironworkers to build an iron
furnace on Falling Creek, a tributary of the James River, about seven miles
below the present Richmond. At the time, 1621, this was an extremely
exposed position within the natural range of the native Indians. The
furnace was built and while it was in its first firing, the Indians
attacked, killing all of the workers but allowing two children to escape.
The furnance was destroyed and the tools and equipment were tossed into the
creek.
Tobacco was a cheaper alternative and economic activity was directed into
that line. Farsighted people throughout the sixteen hundreds saw that the
dangers in relying on tobacco alone and saw also the need for iron.
Pleadings were made to refine the ore in Virginia where wood, water (for
power) and the ore were readily available. No Englishman was interested
enough to supply the sizeable amount of capital (thousands of pounds) which
was needed. A Virginian, the first William Byrd, kept the thought alive and
made preparations. He patented land containing ore deposits and enough
adjacent land to insure wood for a possible furnace. His son, another
William, continued his father's work and invested in books for his library
on the subject of minerals. Though the Byrds were considered by their
fellow Virginians to be rich, they did not pursue the refining of their iron
ore. Apparently, they felt that too much capital was required.
We have seen that the Southhampton Adventurers raised 4,000 pounds sterling
for their project. In the seventeen hundreds, a Mr. Chiswell said that his
partners in an iron furnace had put 12,000 pounds into the enterprise before
they reached the breakeven point. With capital amounts of this magnitude
required, no group came forward to sponsor a furnace for refining iron ore.
Nr.53:
When Col. Alexander Spotswood arrived in Virginia as the new Lt. Governor in
the summer of 1710, he met William Byrd, the owner of tracts of land known
to have iron ore. Spotswood saw there were immense advantages to England in
pursuing the refining of this ore. He proposed to the Assembly that they
sponsor the mines and the furnace.
One advantage to the people of Virginia would have been a weakening of the
dependence on the single commodity, tobacco. Virginia had all of the
necessary resources, labor, iron ore, water power, and timber for making
charcoal. If the ore were shipped to England, it would help there in
several ways. First, they had been producing so much iron that they had
consumed the trees used to make the charcoal. They were reduced to
importing iron from the Baltic nations. This put them into an untentable
defensive posture. During wars, their supply of iron, and naval stores
also, could be limited. Also the off shore purchases hurt their trade balance.
The assembly declined to sponsor the iron mine and the furnace. There may
have been some politics involved. William Byrd, who owned the land,
voluteered to surrender the land if he would be given a managerial position
in the operation. The Burgesses may have been voting more against Byrd than
in favor of the soundness of the idea. After the Assembly turned thumbs
down on the job, Spotswood wrote to the Council of Trade proposing that the
Queen herself undertake this task. No favorable reply was coming from England.
The common characteristic of the Assembly and the Queen is that they had
deep pockets. Spotswood knew that it would take a lot of capital or perhaps
Byrd gave him estimates. A century before, the Southhampton Adventurers had
raised 4,000 pounds sterling and, in the early eighteenth century in
Virginia, it was proven to take about 10,000 pounds.
After the rebuff from the Assembly and the lack of a favorable response from
England, Spotswood let the subject of iron drop for many years. He
certainly could not afford to sponsor a mine and furnace. He lived on a
modest income and his expenses were heavy. He kept about eight personal
servants, such as a doctor and a private secretary. His income was small,
consisting of half pay for the job of Governor (he split the pay with Lord
Orkney, the Governor of Virginia).
Many years later, about 1717, Spotswood started getting interested in a
personal way in iron. His comments in 1710 about iron do not represent a
personal statement but are the voice of a Governor seeking an alternative to
the ups and downs of the Virginia tobacco economy. Because he was a later
iron industrialist, some people have thought that these early comments about
iron were expressing a personal interest.
The letters of Spotswood on official business are collected in the volume,
"Collections of the Virginia Historical Society", volume 1 published in
1882. In this R.A. Brock was the editor for The Official Letters of
Alexander Spotswood. Bruce P. Lenman wrote a modern article, Alexander
Spotswood and the Business of Empire, in "Colonial Williamsburg", Autumn
1990, p. 46. George Park Fisher in "The Colonial Era", New York, 1910, p.
280 says Spotswood's salary was 800 pounds.
Nr.54:
Between the time of Spotswood's arrival in Virginia in 1710 and the arrival
of the First Germanna Colony in 1714, Spotswood met with Graffenried.
Graffenried was excited about the prospects for silver. The writings of
Graffenried and Spotswood imply that others were also talking about silver
in the "back country", meaning toward the Blue Ridge Mountains.
Spotswood didn't want to miss the boat on this, but he was methodical enough
to read up on the law pertaining to gold and silver mines. He was not
pleased at what he found. It was normal for the Crown to reserve a
percentage of the gold and silver which might be found. What Spotswood
found was that no reservation had been specified on the lands of the Crown
available to patent. He was concerned lest the Crown might retroactively
make a claim and not limit it to the usual ten percent or so. This became a
burning issue with him since he and others, including Graffenried, had
identified a tract of land which was thought to contain silver. Larkin Chew
patented the land and sold shares to the other partners.
Spotswood pushed Col. Blakiston in London to resolve the question of the
Crown's rights to gold and silver. Progress was very slow in London and, in
the midst of the attempt to get approval, forty odd Germans arrived in
London expecting to go on to Virginia at the expense of Graffenried's
company. The company and Graffenried were both broke and the company of
Germans was stranded. Knowing that Spotswood was very anxious to start the
silver mining operation, Col. Blakiston agreed to have Spotswood pay the
additional one hundred and fifty pounds sterling that was needed on their
passage money. Blakiston must have been optimistic about getting the
Crown's approval for the silver mining operation; at least, Spotswood
interpreted the action this way; however, approval was not forthcoming.
Queen Anne died. George I was crowned and the arguments were renewed. In
Virginia, where the Germans were by now, they confined their activities to
raising and growing food.
In February 1715/16, nearly two years after the Germans had arrived in
Virginia, Spotswood wrote to the Lord Commissioners that the Germans had
done no work for him and his partners. He commented that the Germans wanted
to explore more but he would not allow it. The silver mine tract has been
identified and plotted in Beyond Germanna (v.8, n.1). It is only a few
miles from Fort Germanna and very likely the mine had a considerable
influence on where Fort Germanna was built. This is the mine that
fascinated John Fontaine so much.
About this time, the Germans were set to searching for iron ore. As
Spotswood explained it in a later letter of 28 March 1724 Nathaniel
Harrison, he said that he had been approached by Sir Richard Blackmore, who,
with partners, was interested in setting up an iron works and desired that a
search would be made for the ore. Spotswood apparently became a partner
also and set the Germans to work. From his standpoint, it put the Germans
to work and it could supply the capital he needed but did not have. From
the later testimony of J. Justus Albrecht and Jacob Holtzclaw, this work
went from March 1715/16 until December of 1718 and consisted of mining and
quarrying.
By the end of 1718, more than eight years after Spotswood arrived in
Virginia, there was an iron mine.
Nr.55:
In the last note, recognition was taken of Albrecht's and Holtzclaw's
testimony that they were engaged in mining and quarrying from March 1715/16
until December of 1718. This does not quite jibe with Spotswood's testimony
as given to Harrison when he said the search for iron ore began in 1717. It
may be that the Germans were first engaged in an active search for silver
and that after about one year this was changed to a search for iron ore.
In either case, toward the end of 1718, the activity ceased for two reasons.
First, the English partners of Spotswood dropped out and did not want to
pursue the quest any longer. Second, the time the Germans were to serve had
expired. In London, they had agreed to work four years and they arrived in
April of 1714. Thus their time was up in 1718. From the testimony above,
we know they stayed a while longer, until December, but it would seem that
they left about then.
What had been accomplished by December of 1718? The first clue is the
amount of money which was spent on the project. Spotswood wrote that it had
cost him and the partners upwards of three score pounds. Such a paltry sum
would just have covered the cost of the black powder used in the mining and
quarrying operation. Thus at the end of the 1718, there was no iron furnace.
Spotswood probably had a proven iron mine though he had not yet patented the
land. Certainly he was far short of the capital needed to build an iron
furnace and for this he needed partners.
So when the Germans (the First Germanna Colony) left, there was no iron
furnace. Though Spotswood at this time could not yet say he was in the iron
business, he may have had hopes but he certainly had an unclear path to the
future. In fact, he seems at this time to be placing more emphasis on land
development than on iron smelting. Toward this end, he, with partners, had
placed seventy-odd Germans on a large tract of land. When this Second
Germanna Colony arrived, there was no iron mine, yet alone an iron furnace.
So there was no intention to use them in the iron operation.
When he built his new home, which didn't occur until the early 1720's, he
placed the new home so that it would be in the midst of his land holdings
which extended out to the west beyond the present city of Culpeper. This
home was about thirteen miles from the future iron furnace which shows the
state of his thinking when he was building his home. He was thinking of his
land and not of the iron prospects. The former had been proven as a course
of success in Virginia while the latter was most uncertain.
As an additional comment on yesterday's note, when the partners in England
asked Spotswood to seek out iron ore, Spotswood did not turn to the proven
source on William Byrd's land. He could have answered to Sir Richard
Blackmore by "return mail" that there was iron ore. Instead, Spotswood
started a search on unpatented (unclaimed) land that he could patent if ore
was found.
From the length of time spent in developing the mine, it is not at all
certain that a source of the ore was known when the search was started.
Rather than saying that Spotswood had found iron when he came to Virginia
and that he recruited people to mine it (which was not even true), I would
prefer to say the Germans found the iron that eventually put Spotswood into
the iron business.
Nr.56:
When did the First Germanna Colony relocate from Germanna to their new home?
In 1718, they purchased over 1800 acres of land in the Northern Neck from
the proprietors there. (This future home was to become known as Germantown.)
This date is not a proof of anything but it does indicate that they were
planning on moving. It is unlikely that they would have purchased very far
in advance of their intention to use the land.
They had agreed to work four years to pay the balance of their passage
money. Their time in Virginia commenced in April of 1714 and they probably
did not arrive at Germanna until May or June. There are good reasons that
they might have preferred to stay at Germanna for a few extra months beyond
the four years. They were responsible for their own food and they had crops
and animals which would not be ready to harvest or butcher until the fall of
the year. In the fall the larder would have been at its maximum and this
would have been the best time to commence life at a new location.
They testified that they worked at mining and quarrying until December of
1718 which would be a few months past the end of their service. From this
we know they were active in the general vicinity of Germanna until 1718 so
this fixes the earliest date for moving. Since no labor beyond 1718 was
listed, it is unlikely that there were any services performed beyond 1718,
especially in view of the other factors.
Another clue is provided by the naturalization of Jacob Holtzclaw. (He
considered this important and filed a copy at the Spotsylvania Court House
so that it is available today in Deed Book A, p.165.) This naturalization
was made on the 11th day of July 1722 by A. Spotswood, one of his last
official acts as Lt. Governor of Virginia. In this naturalization,
Holtzclaw makes the statement that he had been a resident of Stafford County
for several years. If the minimum for "several" were three, then he must
have moved shortly after December of 1718, say in January of 1719 by the
modern calendar. It would not be desirable to wait long past this time as
there was a need to build homes, clear ground and plant crops for the
growing season.
When the Germans left, Spotswood had a proven mine. Through the use of a
forge, samples of the metal had been tested to prove the quality. There was
also the task of proving the extent of the ore. Since the furnace would be
expensive, thousands of pounds, and could not be moved, it was vital to make
sure that the quantity or amount of the ore would be sufficient to run the
furnace for many years. So most of the time that the Germans spent on the
iron project was not in locating a source of the ore but in proving that the
bed was large enough to sustain several years of output.
But, having an iron mine was hardly sufficient to solve Spotswood's problems.
He now needed money if he were to have a furnace. William Byrd, from the
richest family in Virginia, did not seem to be interested. The capital
sources had to be from England and these arrangments took time. Also labor
was needed. The next note will offer a schedule for the building and first
firing of the furnace.
Nr.57:
By December of 1718, it is reasonable to assume that Spotswood had proven
iron mines but no furnace. The difficult part in this statement for most
people is the claim there was no furnace by that date. The basis for this
is Spotswood's own statement that the partners in the search for the iron
had spent about three score pounds in the effort. This was a very small amoun.
The earliest mention of Spotswood's iron furnace in Virginia (actually he
seems to have had partners) comes from Hugh Jones, cited here before. He
lived in Virginia from 1717 to 1722 when he returned to England. In 1724 he
published a book in which he wrote about the furnace:
At a couple of points, Jones uses the future tense. Still it seems as if
the furnace has produced some output because it has been proven to be good.
Most likely, in 1722, the furnace had had a first "pour" which had been
successful but the operation was still on shaky grounds.
There was another event in 1722 that bears on the subject. Spotswood
purchased land from the Smith heirs, below the falls of the Rappahannock, so
that he could build a wharf for loading ships with the iron. So in 1722 he
was getting serious about shipping iron.
About this same time, in 1723, Lt. Gov. Drysdale, Spotswood's successor as
Governor, wrote to the Board of Trade:
Evidently, the "iron works" was still something of a novelty. Considering
the implications of the iron works and considering Drysdale's negative
attitude toward Spotswood, had the works been in existence for any great
length of time, Drysdale would have written to London sooner. It is said
that in 1723 he shipped 20 tons of iron to England. Later his objective was
to ship 1,200 tons of iron each years. Therefore in 1723, the furnace was
probably just coming into regular production.
Though the First Germanna Colony had moved on to Germantown in January of
1719 (NS) and it would appear there was a mine by then, Spotswood did not
patent the iron mine land until 1720(NS).
Putting this all together, the timetable looks like:
Nr.58:
To summarize the activities of the Germanna Colonists towards Spotswood's
iron industry, the First Colony developed the iron mines. Probably they
found the iron ore but proof of this is lacking. They had left the lands of
Spotswood for their own land in what is now Fauquier County before the
furnace was built.
The Second Colony had essentially nothing to do with the iron mines or the
iron furnace. They were engaged in other activities, principally farming,
grape culture and naval stores. Still there is a hint that they may have
been engaged in the iron industry briefly on a trial basis. That is, they
made charcoal. This was "shipped" down the Rapidan River to the furnace
site. The clue that they may have done this lies in a comment of Spotswood
in which he advised William Byrd not to make the charcoal at any great
distance from the furnace. He said he had tried to make charcoal across the
river and it had not worked out (charcoal does not ship well). The Second
Colony did live across the river. The activity is consistent with
Spotswood's managerial characteristics as described by his furnace manager,
Mr. Chiswell.
Who did build the furnace? Probably workmen imported from England. Some of
the Germans who came after the First and Second Colonies might have been
involved as labor. Initially the general labor at the furnace when it was
fired was could have been a mix of English and German workers. Spotswood
soon replaced these with slaves, saying he believed they could do all of the
necessary tasks if they were properly trained.
So the First Germanna Colony could say they started Spotswood down the path
leading to an iron idustry though they did not build his furnace. The
Second Germanna Colony should not make any claim to having been involved in
any part of the activity. It is entirely unproven, but some of the later
Germans may have worked at the furnace.
Dr. Charles H. Huffman, in Germanna Record Nine, published in 1966, errs in
a few points of his time schedule as given on page 110 there. He says that
within one year, in 1715, that the Germans started mining. Spotswood said
in 1716 that the Germans had been here two years and they had done no work
for him and his partners. Huffman says the furnace was completed in 1717
while Spotswood says that by December 1718 he had expended "upwards of three
score pounds" which would not have sufficed for a furnace. The following
point might be debated but it seems to be in error by a year. The Germans
left in 1719 (NS) while Huffman says 1720. Other evidence points to the
furnace being built about 1720 to 1721 and in its first firing in late 1721.
There is a lesson from this. Do not trust someone's interpretation of
history just because someone says it is so. Check it out for yourself. Mr.
Scott, in his history of Orange County, seems to have given his imprint to a
misreading of the events which others, who followed him, copied without asking
any critical questions. Scott seems to have been influenced by the earlier
writings of Willis Kemper, a descendant of the Germanna families and so
Scott may blame Kemper. A corollary to the principle of trust is to be
especially doubtful of history when it is written by a descendant,
especially when he writes it almost two hundred years after the facts.
Nr.59:
Research in the German church records is a good source of information and
often very rewarding for the information which it tells. The records are
not easy to use, being handwritten in a script which was peculiar to the
Germans; however, it can be learned, as several descendants have proved.
The following information is due to Mrs. Margaret James Squires who found
many of the Second Colony Germanna families in Germany.
The story centers around the small village of Neuenb�rg in the Kraichtal.
Today the village is in Baden. To confuse the issues, Baden has two
Neuenb�rgs which are only about twenty miles apart. This has come about
because the Neuenb�rg in which we are especially interested was originally
on ecclesiastic lands belonging of the Catholic Church as represented by the
Bishops of Speyer. Early in the 1800's these lands were ceded to the civil
state of Baden which gave it two Neuenb�rgs. If we regard Baden as a state
(it is now Baden-W�rttemberg), then we can add the district or county name
of Kraichtal to distinguish the Neuenb�rg we want. It is the smaller of
the two, having perhaps a few hundred inhabitants. The only church in town
is Catholic and it is not clear where the Lutherans met. The following
information is from the "Lutheran" records.
Anna Barbara Sch�n was born there on 29 Sept 1664. Her father was
Quirin(us) Sch�n(e) and her mother was Maria Barbara, maiden name unknown.
The letters in the parenthesis indicate spelling variations sometimes found
in the records. Besides Anna Barbara, we know of three other children for a
total of four:
The father died 17 May 1683 not long after the birth of the last child.
Anna Barbara Sch�n, barely past her sixteenth birthday, married Johann
Thomas Blanckenb�hler on 2 Nov 1680 in Neuenb�rg. He was the son of
Matthias and Margaretha ( ? ) Blanckenb�hler. This Matthias, a weaver, died
11 Aug 1691 at age 70 in Neuenb�rg.
Four children of Anna Barbara (Sch�n) and Johann Thomas Blanckenb�hler
were baptized in Neuenb�rg:
When the fourth child was born, Anna Barbara was only twenty-two and
a-half years old. As we will see, she certainly had a full life.
Three of the four children above are immediately recognized as Germanna 1717
immigrants. One of the surprises in the church records is that they showed
that the fourth child, Anna Maria, was also a Germanna immigrant. But there
were lots of other surprises also.
The name Blanckenb�hler became many names in the colonies. Citing a few of
them, there are: Blankenbaker, Blankenbeker, Blankenbeckler, Blankenbecler,
Pickler, Bickler, Blank, Blanken and Baker.
Nr.60:
After the birth of Anna Maria Blanckenb�hler in 1687, there is a gap in the
church records of a few years. The mostly likely cause was war, probably
due to an invasion by the French. During such periods, the pastors often
took the church books to a more remote location (and perhaps took himself
also). When the church books resume, we find that Anna Barbara (Sch�n)
Blanckenb�hler married Johann Jacob Schluchter on 2 Nov 1691. Herr
Schluchter acquired a ready made family of four step-children aged four to
nine years.
Johann Jacob Schluchter was born about 1652 and some records indicate he was
from "Hollsultz". He died 13 Feb 1698 so Anna Barbara was left as a widow
for the second time when she was 34 years old. Her family had grown by the
addition of Henerich Schluchter, born 7 May 1697.
Four years later, Anna Barbara married her third husband, Cyriacus
Fleischmann on 5 Mar 1701 in Neuenb�rg. Cyriacus is noted as "of Klings"
and his father was Weltin Fleischmann. Three children were born to Anna
Barbara and Cyriacus in Neuenb�rg:
At the birth of Hans Peter, Anna Barbara has seven living children with a
spread of 26 years in their ages.
Anna Maria Blanckenb�hler was the first child to marry. On 18 Nov 1711 in
Neuenb�rg, at the age of 24, she married Johann Thomas, the son of Albrecht
Thomas. They had three children born in Neuenb�rg:
Johann Nicholas Blanckenb�hler married Apollonia K�ffer in Neuenb�rg on 6
May 1714. Two children were born in Neuenb�rg:
The father of Apollonia was Wolfgang K�ffer who seems to have originated in
the region of Ansbach, some distance to the east. Apparently he lived in
Zaberfeld, Kreis Heilbronn, W�rttemburg for a brother of Apollonia, Jerg
Niclas K�ffer was born there 20 Jul 1701. Wolfgang died on 8 Aug 1728 in
Zaberfeld. His wife was Elisabetha.
The day after Johann Nicholas Blanckenb�hler married, Johann Mattheus
Blankenb�hler, tailor, married Anna Maria Mercklin on 7 May 1714 in
Oberderdingen, W�rttemburg. Anna Maria was born 12 March 1693 in
Oberderdingen to Hannes Jacob Mercklin and K�nigunda ( ? ). Mattheus and
Anna Maria may have lived in Oberderdinger for that is where the birth of
one child is recorded:
[Some of the details of this paragraph are courtesy of Mrs Jean Strand.]
No marriage has been found in Germany for Hans Balthasar Blanckenb�hler
though when he stepped off the ship in Virginia he had a wife but no children.
Nr.61:
One other family came to Virginia from Neuenb�rg, the Sheible family which
consisted of the father, mother and three daughters. Mrs. Squires had the
hunch that the family might be related to the Blankenbakers but she could
not prove it. Of the five daughters born to the Sheibles in Neuenb�rg, two
died there, leaving three to emigrate.
A high percentage of the Neuenb�rg residents eventually end up in Virginia.
It is instructive to compare those leaving with those arriving. Cyriacus
Fleshman and his wife Anna Barbara both arrived in Virginia making two who
left and two who arrived.
The name was only slightly distorted, being recorded as Coz Jacob Floschman.
Their two children, John Peter and Maria Catharina, also arrived safely
making four who left and four who arrived. The eldest son of Anna Barbara,
John Nicholas, with his wife Apollonia and son Zacharias were three more to
leave and to arrive for totals of seven and seven. Second son, Bathasar,
had no known family on leaving but did arrive with a wife. Eight and eight.
Third son, Matthias, with Anna Maria and George, left and arrived. Eleven
and eleven. Fourth son, Henry Schlucter had no known wife in Germany (he
was 20 years old) and he arrrived safely. Twelve and twelve.
Eldest daughter Anna Maria with husband John Thomas and children John and
Anna Magdalena were in Germany but it is unknown if they came in 1717. In
fact there is no absolute proof that John Thomas, the father, ever did make
it to Virginia. We do know that the father and mother had two more children,
one of whom was a son Michael. Michael was not naturalized, suggesting he
was born in Virginia and suggesting that his father did come to Virginia.
Just to round out the Neuenb�rg crowd, let us add in the Sheibles who
arrived as the Chively family, complete with all five. This brings the
count up to sixteen and sixteen. (If we did count the Thomases as
probables, they would add four more.) Thus the little village of Neuenb�rg
sent along 20 people to the New World and all 20 arrived.
From this, one concludes that the death rate on the trip was not as bad as
some people have stated. There was a wide spectrum of ages included.
George Sheible was 47 years old, and his wife was perhaps of a similar age.
Anna Barbara, now married to Cyriacus Fleshman, was 53 years old. Among the
younger members, the grandchildren of Anna Barbara were very young.
This little village was to have a far reaching impact on the genealogy of
the Second Germanna Colony. For example, three-quarters of the Garr
descendants can claim descent from Anna Barbara. We will explore more
examples of this later.
Nr.62:
The closing of the last note mentioned that three-quarters of the Garr/Gaars
were descendants of Anna Barbara Sch�n. A quick survey of the Germanna
families discloses at least the following families can also trace some lines
back to her.
All of the Blankenbakers. (There was a son Henry Schlucter of Anna Barbara,
but whether he left descendants is unknown.) All of the Fleshmans. All of
the Fishers. Three quarters of the Garrs. Because so many of the Finks
family married Garrs, Fishers and Blankenbakers, the Finks family has a good
number of Sch�n descendants. Anyone who has a Michael Kaifer ancestor is a
descendant of Anna Barbara. All of the Thomases are descendants. This
means that all of the John Michael Smith, Jr., descendants are included also.
Many, maybe over half, of the Barlow descendants are Sch�n descendants.
Since the immigrant Railsback married Elizabeth Thomas, all of the
Railsbacks are included.
Christian (or Christopher) Reiner married Elizabeth Fleshman.
At least two-thirds of the Utz family married Sch�n descendants and the other third is an
unknown.
The Waylands are extremely well represented. Two lines of the
Peter Weaver family come down through Anna Barbara. The line of John
Zimmerman includes Ursula Blankenbaker.
These ties are in the early generations. In the later generations there
were many ties to other families. Still, the descendants tended to hang
together and to remember their common ancestry. We will take a look shortly
at an example.
Nr.63:
In the last note, we saw how Anna Barbara Sch�n, through her three
husbands, tied together many of the Germanna families. This association
among the families continued for many years. Today, I am going to jump
forward to Easter Sunday in 1776 when the Lutheran Church (known now as
Hebron) recorded a list of people taking communion. Many of us are familiar
with passing of the wine and bread among the congregation. In 1776 at
Hebron, the people filed out of the pews up to the altar (communion bar?)
where they partook of the communion. In the process, a writer wrote down
the names. Because they went up in an orderly way, we have a picture of the
seating pattern. That is, we can see who was sitting next to whom. Let's
see who was sitting in the front pews.
First was Adam Weyland and his wife, Maria. Adam was in the group because
his first wife was Elizabeth Blankenbaker, the daughter of Balthasar
Blankenbaker. She had died and he married Mary Finks. But he was still a
member of the group. Elizabeth was a granddaughter of Anna Barbara.
The next couple was a grandson of Anna Barbara, Christopher Blankenbucher,
and his wife, Christina Finks.
Next was Adam Fischer and his wife, Elisabeth Garr. His father, Lewis
Fisher, had married a granddaughter of Anna Barbara, another Anna Barbara,
the daughter of Balthasar Blankenbaker. Elizabeth Garr was also a
descendant of Anna Barbara Sch�n since her mother was Elizabeth Kaifer and
her grandmother was Anna Maria Blankenbaker. So Elizabeth was a
greatgranddaughter of Anna Barbara.
Next was Johannes Weyland, Sr. and his wife, Rosina Willheit. John was the
son of Adam, above, by his wife, Elizabeth Blankenbaker. Therefore he was a
greatgrandson of Anna Barbara. Rosina went along for the ride as she was
the daughter of John Willheit and Waldburga Weaver.
The next couple was John Flieschmann and his wife Elisabeth. Again, both
were descendants of Anna Barbara. John was a grandson and Elizabeth was a
granddaughter through John Nicholas Blankenbaker.
Following them in the communion line were Michael Blankenbucher, a son of
John Nicholas Blankenbaker and therefore a brother to Elizabeth, preceeding.
Michael's wife was the daughter of the immigrant, Andrew Garr.
Michael's brother, Zacharias (he was born in Germany) with his wife, Els, or
Alcy, were the next couple. Zacharias was a grandson of Anna Barbara. Els
maiden name is not known definitely, but there is hint that she may have
been the widow Finks, perhaps of a brother of the immigrant, Mark Finks, Sr.
Then came George Utz, Sr., and his wife, Mary Kaifer, who was a granddaughter
of Anna Barbara through Anna Maria Blankenbaker.
The next couple were not descendants though they were the parents of Rosina
Willheit, above, married to a descendant. The couple was John Willheit and
Waldburga Weaver.
By now, we have gone through 18 people or about three pews worth.
This sort of analysis is fun just for the insight it gives into our
ancestors and, on occasion, one can draw conclusions. In the front of the
church, most often, people sat with their relatives, not with friends. But
to them, relatives were friends. After marriage, you became one of your
spouse's extended family and were treated as such.
(I used the spelling in the church register to introduce people above.)
Nr.64:
Margaret James Squires found other Germanna families besides the ones from
Neuenb�rg that we have recapped. In an act of serendipity, while looking
for one set of families, she found two more Germanna families. She was
looking in the church records of H�ffenhardt, Mosbach, Baden, when her eyes
happened to fall on the names of Volck and Utz. To help keep the following
story more intelligible, here is a recap.
Anna Maria (?) married Johann Michael Volck. She died and he married Anna
Barbara Majer. He died and she married Johann Georg Utz. Mrs. Squires
recognized that the names Volck, which might be spelled Folg, and Utz were
Germanna names. Looking at the details, Hans (or Johann) Michael Volck of
Wagenbach married, ca. 1685, Anna Maria, maiden name unknown. Wagenbach is an
estate farm of a few houses just a couple of miles from H�ffenhardt.
Michael and Anna Maria had seven children born 1687 to 1704. The first
three children died young. The other four have no known death records --
Hans Adam, b. 26 Dec 1692; Maria Philippina Rosina, b. 18 Feb 1695; Maria
Charlotta, b. 27 Feb 1699; and Anna Christina, b. 22 Dec 1704. After a gap
in the church records, Johann Michael Volck married Anna Barbara Majer(s) on
29 Jan 1709. Three children were born to this marriage -- Maria Sabina
Charlotta Barbara, b. 19 Mar 1710; Louisa Elisabeth, b. 23 Mar 1711; and
Maria Rosina, b. 22 Aug 1712.
Johann Michael Volck died 7 Apr 1714 at the age of 51 years. The widow,
Anna Barbara (Majer) Volck married Johann Georg Utz on 10 July 1714. Two
children were born in Germany -- Ferdinand, b. 3 Apr 1715; and Johannes, b.
25 Jul 1716. Others were born in Virginia.
The identity of these people is certain. George Utz was a member of the
Second Germanna Colony. Maria Sabina Volck became the second wife of John
Huffman, First Colony pioneer. She has the right name, the right birthday,
and perhaps even more telling is that when John Huffman married Maria
Sabina, he moved to land adjacent to George and Barbara Utz who were Maria
Sabina's mother and step-father.
George Utz and his family are on the Spotswood list of immigrants whose
headrights he claimed. By comparison, using the original spellings, he was
Hans Jerich Otes, his wife was Parbara, and his only son was Ferdinandis and
his step-daughters were Sylvania and Anna Louisa (their surnames were
implied as Utz). The son Johannes did not make it, but we do not know where
the death occurred. It may have been on board ship or it may have been
earlier. Among her daughters, Sylvania was the transcription of Sabina.
Why Louisa Elisabetha was called Anna Louisa is not clear. And also it is
not clear what happened to Maria Rosina. The assumption is that the
step-daughters of Barbara Utz did not come. They might have raised in
another family.
In Virginia, Ferdinand must have died as there is no record of him. What
happened to Anna Louisa is not clear.
Nr.65:
Continuing with the Volck, Utz, Majer families who have an appearance in
H�ffenhardt, the name Volck in Germany was transcribed in Virginia by John
Huffman as Folg. Probably John's wife and mother-in-law could not write and so may have been uninformed on the spelling. John Huffman's spelling is reasonable; it sounds almost the same.
In Germany, the letter "j" was a vowell and was used almost interchangeably
with the letter "i" or "y". Thus the name Majer might have been spelled by
some as Maier or as Mayer. And it would not be difficult to believe that it
might be spelled as Moyer in Virginia. It is interesting that the Moyer
family had land in Virginia that was close to the Utz and the Huffman
tracts. Therefore much interest has been expressed in the origins of Anna
Barbara Majer whose father was Hans Majer of "Wolfartweyher". Though
several villages might have this variation of spelling, research has been
unsucessful in finding Hans Majer.
Another family in Virginia that seems linked to the origins of Hans Majer
and his family is the Balthasar Blankenbaker family. Bathasar was a sponsor
at the baptism of all twelve children of John and Mary Sabina Huffman which
indicates that perhaps his wife was also a member of the Majer family.
The parents of Johann Michael Volck are known; they are Michael Volck and
Margaretha Albrect. The grandfathers of Johann Michael Volck are also
known; they are Martin Volck and Hans Georg Albrect.
The marriage of Michael Volck and Margaretha Albrect took place in
H�ffenhardt on 18 Nov 1656. The births of nine children are recorded at
H�ffenhardt:
The father of Johann Georg Utz was Michael Utz who is identified with
"Haundorff". This seems to be located to the east where several Utz family
members have been located; however, due to a lack of records, no positive
identifications have been made. (At some future time, I will recap the
movements of several of the Germanna people from the "east".) [In the
1700's, there was a poet from this region by the name of Utz. He was so well
thought of that his works were reprinted a hundred years later.]
The death of the sons of George and Barbara Utz, namely, Ferdinand and John,
may have occurred at a late date. In the 1739 tithables, George Utz is
charged with three which we presume to be the father and two sons. The two
sons might have been Ferdinand and John or it might have been one of these
and Michael who was born in Virginia. In 1739, Ferdinand would have been 24
and John would have been 23 so it is possible that they left heirs.
However, no evidence is known to support the idea.
Nr.66:
We continue to be indebted to Margaret James Squires for research into the
German church records. Today's subject is Christopher Zimmerman, member of
the Second Germanna Colony.
The Zimmermann family came from Steffisburg, canton of Bern, Switzerland,
before 1665 to Ravensburg, Baden, Germany. Ravensburg is very near Sulzfeld
where John, the son of Christopher, stated he was from. The Sulzfeld
Evangelische Church Parish (Lutheran) shows the birth of Johann Christoph
Zimmermann on 16 Mar 1692 and his baptism as the 17th. He was the third son
of Christian (Christian, Michael) Zimmermann and Eva D�nstler of
Langenbruck, the daughter of Michael D�nster (as written).
When Christopher was six years old, his mother died. His father remarried
nine months later. The new wife was Maria Barbara Edel, the daughter of
Englehard Edel and his wife Anna Maria of Sulzfeld. A large second family
followed.
Johann Christopher, at the age of eighteen years (on 27 Jul 1710), marrried
a woman five or six years older than he was. This was Dorothea Rottle, the
daughter of Martin Rottle of "Horndorff". Their first child, Johannes, was
born 11 April 1711 and was baptized the next day. There were no other
surviving children before Dorothea died on 16 January 1714 at twenty-seven
years of age. Christopher was a widower at twenty-two years of age with a
son Johannes of less than three years of age.
A year and a half later, Christopher appears in the same parish with a wife,
Anna Elizabeth, when their first child, Johann Martin, was born 15 June
1715. Where the marriage took place and Anna Elizabeth's maiden name are
unknown. At the age of 25, Christopher decided to leave his father and
several half-siblings and to go to America. He landed in Virginia with
Elizabeth and John and Andrew. It is presumed that during the trip Johann
Martin died and Andrew was born. Still there is no doubt that this is the
same family in Virginia as in Sulzfeld.
Later in Madison Co., VA, John Zimmerman and Elizabeth Weaver swore that
Frederick Zimmerman was the only brother of "the whole blood" and heir at
law of Christopher Zimmerman (II), deceased. This shows that the John
Zimmerman who came to Virginia was not the son of Elizabeth (see Madison
Co., VA Order Book #1-3, 1793-1798).
Other families came also from Sulzfeld in the typical pattern that the
emigration of one family often led, if not simultaneously, to the eventual
emigration of other families. One family that may have been from Sulzfeld
(or from the nearby villages) is the Fisher family.
When the son, Johannes, of Christoph and Dorothea Zimmermann was baptized in
Sulzfeld on 12 April 1711, one of the godparents was Anna Barbara Fischer.
On 16 June 1715, the parents, Christoph and Anna Elisabeth Zimmermann had
their child, Johann Martin, baptized with one of the witnesses being Ludwig
Fischer. Though one of the later families in Virginia was Lewis and Anna
Barbara Fisher, this later family could not have been the Sulzfeld family.
They could be related though. As noted it was often the tendency to travel
together. Also it might be noted that Johannes, b. 1711, married Ursula
Blankenbaker and that Lewis Fisher (in Virginia) married Anna Barbara
Blankenbaker.
Nr.67:
Johann Christopher Zimmerman was a 1717 colony member from Sulzfeld in
Baden. His father was Christian Zimmermann (a Junior) who was christened 30
December 1669 and who died 22 May 1735 after the son above had moved to
Virginia. He had married on 28 January 1688 Eva D�nstlerin who was the
daughter of Michael D�nster and by whom he had four children:
Christian Zimmerman (Junior) was the son of Christian Zimmerman (Senior) and
Maria Schucter.
Depending upon the church records, a history or ancestry can sometimes be
carried back several generations, but information in the 1500's is hard to
come by. In the following notes, one family will be carried back several
generations in more than one branch.
In the names above, Eva D�nstlerin has the "in" added to her father's name.
This is a feminine ending showing that she was a female. Her name and her
father's name are also spelled differently, apart from the feminine ending.
This is not unusual.
Another family from Sulzfeld was the Kabler family as it sometimes spelled
in Virginia. In Virginia, Christopher and Frederick Kabler lived close
together in the Mt. Pony settlement. Thus an association which began in
Sulzfeld is continued in Virginia. This is not an unusual pattern. Also,
in Virginia, Christopher Zimmerman and Frederick Kabler are both given as
coopers. Christopher was also a large land owner.
Nr.68:
The family of Michael Willheit is one of the most extensively researched of
the Germanna families. The genes seem to have imbued descendants with a
desire to learn more about their ancestors. The research to be reported
here comes from several private individuals including Mary Mickey, Earl and
Leona Willhoite, and Fred Westcott. Their efforts have been amply rewarded
as several lines of the German ancestry have been traced back for the better
part of a couple of hundred years.
The immigrant Johann Michael Willheit was christened 25 Jan 1671 in
Schwaigern, W�rttemburg. His first marriage yielded no children who lived.
His second marriage was to Anna Maria Hengsteler who had been christened 9
Oct 1685 in Oberbaldingen, Baden. Anna Maria was a widow with a daughter
who survived and who came to America after her mother did.
These facts already tell us that Germanna Record 13 is in error in its
Wilhoit history where the wife of Michael Willheit is given as Mary Margaret
Blankenbaker. Not only is there no such record to be found in the Germany
records, there was no record found for the birth of Mary Margaret
Blankenbaker in Germany. How this error started is known; let it be said
that it is proof of the danger of suppositions.
Letting Micheal Willheit be number 2 and letting Anna Maria Hengsteler be
number 3, I continue with the conventional numbering style.
The name Willheit is spelled in many ways but not as Willheit. Popular ways
include Wilhite, Wilhoit(e), sometimes with a doubled "l". A similar
spelling, Wilhide, originates with a cousin of Johann Michael Willhite who
came to America also.
Nr.69:
Continuing with the Willheit family and following the same numbering scheme:
WORD OF WARNING: Do not use the information in this note or in any of these
notes as an authority. The information may be true but the presentation for
these notes is meant to be interpreted as "what might be done" by research
in the German church records, the principal source of the data. Do not copy
the information onto family group sheets without more careful verification.
What can be done is that many lines can be carried back into the 1500's, but
at that point, progress becomes very difficult. Tracing the maternal sides
is often more difficult. When another locality is involved, the spelling
seldom conforms to modern geographical names.
I have rendered the unlauted vowels by adding an "e". Thus "�" becomes "ue".
(NOTE FROM WEB PAGE AUTHOR: Originally, in John's notes, he had rendered all
"�" as "u", "�" as "o", etc. I have already changed most of John's American transliterations
back to the German characters. If you find any I have missed, please let me know by sending
me an e-mail. George W. Durman)
Nr.70:
In later notes, mention will be made of research in the German records by a
professional research firm. This pioneering work has opened many doors for
descendants. But as today's note will illustrate, perhaps it is best to
regard this type of activity as the starting point.
The source of data for this note is a 1991 copyrighted monograph by Stephen
H. Broyles entitled "Additional Information Regarding the German Origin of
the Broyles/Briles Family" and used here with permission. When Steve started
this work, he publically stated that he had no qualifications for the task.
Of course, that is not totally true as he had the essential qualification of
desire. But he did admit that there was a learning curve to the work which
he insisted others could duplicate also. Other individuals, who heard Steve
describe his work, have agreed with him.
The family in Germany was Johannes and Ursula (Ruop) Breyel which came in
the group that made the Second Germanna Colony. In Virginia, the spelling
of the name became Broyles or Briles. Johannes Briel/Breyel was the oldest
son of Conrad and Margaretha and was christened on 1 May 1679 in Du�lingen,
W�rttemberg. Conrad Breyel died 8 October 1703 in Du�lingen, five days
after breaking his back.
This accident was described in the death register as the result of falling
"over" a crabapple tree. How "over" (�ber in German) is to be interpreted
is a debated but it seems logical that Johannes was in the top of the tree
when he fell or it broke.
Less than a month after Johannes Breil's father, Conrad, died, Johannes
married Ursula Ruop, daughter of Hans Jacob Ruop, gravedigger, on 6 Nov
1703. What was so unusual or questionable is that this marriage took place
in a village, �tisheim, that was forty miles away. Since Johannes was 24,
he was of a marriageable age. But his father, Conrad, had been the miller
and, as the eldest son, Johannes could have expected to inherit the mill.
Therefore it seem unlikely that he would leave the village of Du�lingen,
but he did. This had bothered Steve Broyles and he wanted confirmation that
we were talking about the same Johannes. Fortunately, there is a notice in
the Du�lingen parish marriage records of the marriage of Johannes and
Ursula in �tisheim which resolved this question without any doubts.
Johannes and Ursula had the following children in �tisheim:
The birth of Maria Elisabetha is the last record found in the German records
which would be consistent with emigration in 1717. Later, in Virginia, more
children would be born.
As a result of his research, Steve discovered the birth of the twins which
had been reported earlier as one son with the three part name: Hans Jacob
Conrad. The twin, Conrad, is presumed to have died because the name was
reused again in 1709. Steve was also able to correct the christening date
for the 1709 Conrad.
The reuse of names is not unusual.
Nr.71:
In recent notes, we have looked at the information that can be found in the
German church records. All of the work that we have reported, had been
found, corrected, or verified by private individuals who were willing to
release the information into the public domain.
The German ancestry of the First Germanna Colony members has been worked out
just about as far as is possible. Much of this work was done by German
residents who were interested in the Germanna Colonies. The Germanna
Foundation published this, as compiled by B. C. Holtzclaw, as a part of
Germanna Record Five, "Ancestry and Descendants of the Nassau-Siegen
Immigrants to Virginia, 1714-1750". Not nearly as much had been done for
the Second Colony members.
Professional researchers saw a void which they could fulfill. Knowing where
the Willheits and the Blankenbakers and perhaps some others were from, they
adopted the search strategy of looking at all of the churchs in villages
that were close to the known villages. The strategy was extremely
successful. The results, by Johni Cerny and Gary J. Zimmerman of Lineages,
Inc., were published in a series of twelve booklets called "Before
Germanna". I believe that all twelve booklets can be purchased from them on
a computer diskette. If interested, contact Lineages, Inc. at PO Box 417,
Salt Lake City, UT 84110. I also believe that the booklets can be purchased
as printed matter from American Genealogical Lending Library Publishers, PO
Box 244, Bountiful, UT 84011.
Not all families have yielded the same amount of data for a variety of
reasons. As we saw, the Willheit family yielded a great amount of data while
other families have a minimum, such as the Utz family. Using a modern
spelling (but not necessarily the only one), the following families were
found:
The church records for these families are available on microfilm through the
Latter Day Saints. Not all church records have been filmed. There are also
civil records to be consulted. Almost all research so far has omitted the
sponsors at the baptisms, a veritable font. Someone who wished to benefit
his fellow researchers could undertake the task of extending and augmenting
what has been found so far.
The individual who is interested in one family, say one whose origin is
unknown, would do best to identify closely allied families in America and to
see if they have known origins. This is the basic "Hank Jones strategy".
One needs a detailed map and gazeteer, a willingness to consider spelling
variations and patience. There is a learning curve for the German script,
but as Stephen Broyles said here, "It can be done". Some people would
prefer to hire experts, but others love the fun of the chase itself.
Gary Zimmerman of Lineages was not related to the Germanna Zimmermans nor to
any of the Germanna people. Though he was the principal researcher and
apparently made some initial mistakes, he did start from ground zero and he
did succeed. I used the past tense in speaking of Gary as he died on the
morning of a Germanna Seminar when his co-worker, Johni Cerny, gave a talk
on the research effort.
Nr.72:
The road of Charles II toward the throne of England was not easy. Oliver
Cromwell prevented him from occupying the seat. In this state, Charles
could do little to reward his supporters but he did grant seven loyal
supporters the "land bounded by and within the heads" of the Potomac and
Rappahannock Rivers (in 1649). While Cromwell remained in control, this was
a dubious claim.
When Charles was restored to the throne in 1660, the value of the claim was
raised considerably. A son of one of the original proprietors, Thomas
Second Lord Culpeper, saw the potential value and he acquired the total and
exclusive rights from the other proprietors. His interest in the land went
to his daughter and heir in 1689. She married Thomas the Fifth Lord
Fairfax. Their son, Thomas the Sixth Lord Fairfax, inherited the grant. In
1730, he began a 15 year battle to assert his claim in the broadest
geographical sense.
There was a dispute about how much land was to be included. The Crown
wanted a narrow definition, with the least amount of land, because the land
that Fairfax had could not be sold by the King nor could quitrents be
levied. Fairfax saw the question in just the opposite light.
That there were questions hinged on the definitions and their
interpretations. For example, the Rappahannock River splits into two parts
just above the town of Frederickburg. The northern branch was called the
Hedgman or the North Fork of the Rappahannock. The southern branch was
called the South Fork of the Rappahannock until Alexander Spotswood came as
Lt. Governor. He started calling this South Fork, the Rapidan River. One
wonders if this was an attempt to disguise the issue and to weaken the
proprietor's claim. That the two branches were part of the same river
system is emphasized by land claims of the period which refer to the Great
Fork, meaning the land between the northern and southern branches of the
Rappahannock.
This was a question of some importance to people who were buying land in the
Great Fork. Did one buy it from the King or from Fairfax? The King did
preempt Fairfax and was selling the land in the Great Fork, but Fairfax was
insisting that it belonged to him. Today this land constitutes the modern
counties of Culpeper, Madison, and Rappahannock. Land to the north of the
Northern Fork (Hedgman) and east of the Blue Ridge Mountains was clearly in
Fairfax's domain. This included the original counties of Stafford, Prince
William, and today's Fauquier County. Thus the First Germanna Colony was
living, at Germantown, on land purchased from the proprietor, not from the Crown.
This region was called, in a broad sense, the Northern Neck because it the
northern tier of counties in Virginia. The Second Germanna Colony lived on
land in the Great Fork they purchased from the King.
How does one settle questions of the type raised by the proprietor's claims?
The Northern Neck proprietor and the Colonial government argued and measured
the relative flows of waters in the branches. Was the northern branch
larger than the southern branch? Commissions were appointed and surveyors
were put to work. Recommendations were made and rejected. There was a
little give and take but the positions were, by and large, inflexible.
Nr.73:
Some of the arguments used by the Colony of Virginia against Lord Fairfax
were specious. For example, the Potomac River divides at Harpers Ferry into
two rivers and Virginia argued that the Potomac came to an end there. The
same argument could have been used with the Rappahannock when it splits into
the North Fork (Hedgman) and the South Fork (Rapidan). But all of this
river splitting was just splitting hairs.
Generally, it was agreed that the largest branch was to be followed when two
streams of water merged. This process was to be continued until the
headwaters were reached. Then a line was to be drawn between the headwater
of the Potomac and the headwater of the Rappahannock and all of the land
bounded by the rivers and this line were to be a part of the Fairfax or
Northern Neck grant. But this did not solve the question of which branch
was the largest.
Virginia, trying to enforce their decision, had George Hume survey a line
from the head of the Hedgman River to the head of the Potomac. This was
done in 1743. But Fairfax did not concede the issue and boldly carried the
issue to the King in the form of his Privy Council. In 1745 they ruled that
the Fairfax grant extended to the south branch of the Rappahannock (the
Rapidan) and up it and the Conway River to its headwaters.
There were several implications and complications from this issue. All of a
sudden, the landowners in the Great Fork (today's Rappahannock, Madison and
Culpeper Counties) found they were to pay quitrents to a new person.
Several people who were worried about their titles had new surveys made and
filed with Lord Fairfax. There was little danger in losing the land as the
Privy Council noted that the land patents had been made in good faith and
were to be observed. New land, never taken up before, was now to be granted
from Lord Fairfax and not patented from the Crown.
Over in the Shenandoah Valley, Hume's line, which formed a county boundary,
had no meaning now and a new line, called the Privy Council line, was
surveyed in 1745. This is one reason that county boundaries in the Valley
changed as much as they did.
The Colony of Virginia certainly made its share of blunders in this whole
episode. First, the King (Charles II) transferred land not knowing the
extent of what he was giving away. How the words defining the grant were to
be interpreted was an open question. Even after there was a better
geographical knowledge of the extent, the Colony continued to patent land
when it was rather clearly in the Fairfax grant. This made lots of legal
trouble, especially in the Valley, for the land owners.
The transfer of land to the private individuals occurred by two different
sets of procedures depending on whether the King (the Colony of Virginia) or
Lord Fairfax was selling the land. Lord Fairfax wanted cash for his land
while the Colony would accept other means of payment for the land.
Nr.74:
Very early in its history, the Virginia Colony decided it would be better if
more people lived there. To encourage people to come, everyone who came
into Virginia could have fifty (50) acres of land for "free". This applied
to men, women and children, whites and blacks, English and non-English
subjects. One had to go to court and swear they were immigrants to
Virginia. The clerk of the court then issued a certificate entitling the
person to 50 acres of land. Since many people came in a family, say one of
four people, the certificate would be for 200 acres of land. These
certificates became known as head-rights. The headrights were transferrable
from one person to another. Very quickly, the practice became that the
headright went to the person who paid the transportation.
When the First Colony was ready to move away from Germanna, they bought land
in the Northern Neck from the owner. Now the proprietors in the Northern
Neck did not honor headrights. They wanted cash or, at least, a promise to
pay cash. So the Germans had no need for the headrights; however, they did
apply for them a few years later though they were essentially of zero value
in the Northern Neck. In some cases they sold the headrights to people who
wanted to buy land from the Crown and could use the headrights.
The Second Colony members did not apply for headrights since Spotswood paid
their transportation costs. But most of the land he was "buying" or
patenting from the Crown was free. So he had little need for the
headrights. Eventually he did need them and did use them. For this we are
grateful since it gives us the names of 48 people for whom he paid the
transportation. We believe that all 48 of these people were Second Colony
members and several genealogical questions have been answered by these names.
These headrights appear in two sources. One is in the court records when
application was made for the headright. But not all headrights appear here.
The other appearance of the headright is in the patents for land where it
notes how the land is being paid for. If by headrights, the names of the
people who took out the headright appear in the patents. The 48 names
mentioned above, appear in this way; they occur in a patent of land taken
out by Spotswood. Generally, the court records are more complete and tell a
lot more than a name in the patent which is just that and nothing more.
Still names can be very valuable.
The system was liable to corruption. When Spotswood came to Virginia, he
observed that procedures were very lax. He complained that the captains of
the ships bringing people would claim headrights. Then the wholesaler who
bought the people from the captain to sell at retail as servants would claim
them. The person who bought the servant would claim them also. Finally the
person who came into Virginia and had already been claimed as a headright
three times would claim himself also. So Spotswood set up a registry of
names to try and prevent the multiple use of names. Spotswoood also thought
it was unfair that citizens living in the Northern Neck could have
headrights which they could sell for use outside the Northern Neck but there
was little he could do about his practice.
Nr.75:
The purpose of headrights was to transfer land at a fixed schedule of fifty
acres per headright. An immigrant to Virginia was entitled to one
headright. Usually the headright went to the person who paid the
transportation. But it wasn't always the case.
For example, Lawrence Crees of the Second Germanna Colony patented 200 acres
of new land in 1732 and paid for it with four headrights, those of John
Cuntz, Katherine Cuntz, Peter Hitt and Elizabeth Hitt, all of whom were
members of the First Germanna Colony. Did Lawrence Crees pay the
transportation of John and Katherine Cuntz and of Peter and Elizabeth Hitt?
No, he wasn't even in Virginia when the Cuntzes and Hitts came.
From the application for the Cuntz headright (in 1724), the testimony was
that Joseph, his wife Katherine, and children, John, Annallis, and
Katharina, came in 1714. The headright certificate was actually issued in
1729. Similar dates apply to Peter and Elizabeth Hitt. (All of this is in
the Spotsylvania Order Book for 1724 to 1730.)
What happened is that Joseph Cuntz applied in 1724 and received five
headrights in 1729. The five year delay was probably because he couldn't
use the headrights in the Northern Neck so he did not push to obtain the
certificates. The value was quite small, worth only a few shillings per
headright. But eventually he did obtain them. Then he did nothing with
them until a few more years had gone by and then he sold two of them to
Lawrence Crees who used them in 1733 outside the Northern Neck.
Though the names appear in the Crees patent, Crees did not pay the
transportion costs. Nor was he here before the Cuntzes were here.
Also, one might form an erroneous opinion about who was in the Cuntz family.
From the headright, one might think that the head of the family was John and
that Katherin was probably his wife. As we have just seen, this would be
wrong. It remains a question as why Lawrence Crees did not buy all four of
the four headrights he could use from Joseph Cuntz. Instead he split his
purchase with two Cuntz headrights and two Hitt headrights.
On the same 1724 and 1729 dates, John Huffman applied for headrights for
himself and his wife, Katherina, saying they came in 1714. You might
conclude that John and Katherina were married when they came. Since
Katherina was only twelve years old in 1714, you might also conclude that
she had married very young. Fortunately, we have John Huffman's Bible
record in which he records his wedding at a later date. In 1714, Katherina
was still the unmarried daughter of Rev. H�ger.
There is a general lesson here. For a variety of reasons, we must be very
careful about drawing conclusions. Headrights are not always what they
appear to be. But we should extend this conclusion to other types of
records as well.
I have, and you probably have also, read Virginia genealogies based on
nothing much more than an appearance of a name as an importee. Makes you
wonder.
(This page contains the THIRD set of Notes, Nr. 51 through Nr. 75.)
John and George would like very much to hear from readers of these Germanna History pages. We welcome your criticisms, compliments, corrections, or other comments. When you click on "click here" below, both of us will receive your message. We would like to hear what you have to say about the content of the Notes, and about spelling, punctuation, format, etc. Just click here to send us your message. Thank You!
There is a Mailing List (also known as a Discussion List or Discussion Group), called
GERMANNA_COLONIES, at RootsWeb. This List is open to all subscribers for the broadcast
of their messages. John urges more of you to make it a research tool for answering your questions,
or for summarizing your findings, on any subject concerning the Germanna Colonies of Virginia.
On this List, you may make inquiries of specific Germanna SURNAMES. At present, there are
about 1200 subscribers and there are bound to be users here who can help you.
If you are interested in subscribing to this List, click here. You don't need to type anything, just click on "Send". You will shortly receive a Welcome Message explaining the List.
(As of 12 April 2007, John published the last of his "Germanna Notes"; however, he is going to periodically post to the GERMANNA_COLONIES Mailing List in the form of "Genealogy Comments" on various subjects, not necessarily dealing with Germanna. I'm starting the numbering system anew, starting with Comment Nr. 0001.)
"These colonists [the First Germanna Colonists] were induced to
leave their homes in Germany by the Baron de Graffenried, acting for
Governor Spotswood who was then making preparations to develop his iron
mines in the vicinity of Germanna, and this business enterprise of the
Governor was the sole cause of their coming to America and Virginia". [page 81]
"In two places of the countrey specially, one about fourescore and
the other six score miles from the Fort or place where we dwelt: wee founde
neere the water side the ground to be rockie, which by the triall of a
minerall man, was founde to holde Iron richly. It is founde in manie places
of the countrey else. I knowe nothing to the contrarie, but that it maie
bee allowed for a good marchantable commoditie, considerring there the small
charge for the labour and feeding of men; the infinite store of wood: the
want of wood and deerenesse thereof in England: & the necessity of
ballasting shippes."
"This iron has been proved to be good, and it is thought, will come
at as cheap a rate as any imported from other places; so that 'tis to be
hoped Colonel Spotswood's work will in a small time prove very advantageous
to Great Britain . . ."
"I judge it part of my duty to inform your Ldspps. of an affair,
that is at present the common Theme of people Discourses, and employs their
thought. Coll Spotswood's Iron workes: he had brought itt to that
perfection that he now sells by public auction at Wm:burgh, backs and frames
for Chymnies, Potts, doggs, frying, stewing and baking panns . . ."
1717: iron ore is discovered about 13 miles from Germanna;
1718: the ore beds are developed and proven;
1720: the iron mine tract is patented and construction of the furnace begins;
1721: trial runs occur at the furnace;
1722: while production amounts are encouraging, flaws need to be worked out;
1723: the furnace is in regular and consistent operation.
Anna Barbara Sch�n, b. 29 Sept 1664
Peter Matthaeus Sch�n, b. 31 Aug 1667
Maria Barbara Sch�n, b. 17 July 1671, d. 3 March 1679
Jerg Martin Sch�n, b. 10 Jan 1682
Hans Niclas Blanckenb�hler, b. 2 Jan 1682
Hans Balthasar Blanckenb�hler, b. April 1683
Hans Matthias Blanckenb�hler, b. 29 Dec 1684
Anna Maria Blanckenb�hler, b. 5 May 1687
Maria Catharina Fleischmann, b. 8 Mar 1702 (presumably she died young)
Maria Catharina Fleischmann, b. 26 Jan 1704
Hans Peter Fleischmann, b. 10 April 1708
Hans Wendel Thomas, b. 17 April 1712
Ursula Thomas, b. 8 May 1714, d. same day
Anna Magdalena Thomas, b. 24 Nov 1715
Maria Barbara Blanckenb�hler, b. 22 Dec 1714, d. the next day
Zacharias Blanckenb�hler, b. 21 Oct 1715
Hannes Jerg Blanckenb�hler, b. --Feb 1715.
Hans Jacob Broyles married Mary Catherine Fleshman.
John Clore marrried Dorothy Kaifer.
Adam Cook married Barbara Fleshman.
Nicholas Crigler married Margaret Kaifer.
Peter Fleshman probably married Barbara Tanner.
Jacob Holtzclaw, the son of the immigrant, married Susannah Thomas.
PERHAPS Mary Tanner married John Thomas.
Hans Diether, 30 Oct 1657;
Hans Martin, 29 Jan 1660;
Hans Jerg, 30 Nov 1661;
Hans Michael (the father of the immigrant, Mary Sabina), 29 Jan 1663;
Georg Dieterich, 3 Sept 1666;
Maria Margareta, 23 Feb 1669;
Anna Margareta, 30 Nov 1670;
Maria Christian, 27 Jan 1679;
Maria Barbara, 12 Aug 1680.
Johann Georg, b. 23 April 1688, d. 8 May 1688
Johann Conrad, b. 22 January 1690, d. 18 April 1700
Johann Christopher, b. 16 March 1692, will dated 30 November 1748 in Orange Co.
Maria Eva, b. 15 May 1697, fate unknown.
This material has been compiled and placed on this web site by George W. Durman, with the
permission of John BLANKENBAKER. It is intended for personal use by genealogists and
researchers, and is not to be disseminated further.
Pg.101-Comments 0001-0025
