Nr. 377:

Baron von Steuben recognized very quickly that the Americans did not defer to anyone simply because he had a noble title and wore epaulettes.  He knew that the Americans were there because they wanted to be in the Continental Army, not out of fear of punishment.  This meant treating them with respect, making them understand the reasons for orders, and leading by example while sharing their hardships.  In a letter to a Prussian officer, Steuben explained the Continental Army:  "The genius of the nation is not in the least to be compared with that of the Prussians, Austrians, or French.  You say to your soldiers, 'Do this' and he doeth it; but I am obliged to say 'This is the reason why you ought to do that,' and then he does it."

Within days of his arrival, working through an interpreter, Steuben had model platoons of ten to twelve men drilling under his command.  The soldiers respected him because, as Joseph Martin, a private in the Connecticut line, wrote, "He had more sense than our officers who cared but little about us."  The results of the training that winter and spring were evident as the Americans fought the British to a standstill on the Monmouth battlefield.

Congress appointed Steuben a Major-General and the first Inspector General of the Continental Army, which was a disappointment to him because it was a desk job.  Encouraged by Washington to take the position, Steuben wrote, in 1779, his famous "Blue Book", the official American military manual until the War of 1812.  But in 1781, Steuben won a coveted field command.  He was the commander of one of the three American Divisions at Yorktown.

After 1783, Steuben spent his time lobbying Congress for funds.  With the help of Alexander Hamilton, he secured an annual pension of $2,500 in 1790.  Steuben was in need of the money, as he had decided to stay in America after the war, and he bought a 16,000 acre estate in New York.  The mortgage on this was due when the pension came through.  He died on his place in 1794 where he lived in a two-room log cabin with a lean-to at the rear.  He was buried very simply at home.

His memory lives in the Steubenvilles, Steuben Counties, and Steuben parade.  His statue stands today in Valley Forge National Park.  He was a founding member of the Cincinnati Society.  But, he did not live long enough to see a favorite idea become a reality -- the establishment of the Military Academy at West Point.

Present during the dark days at Valley Forge, he took a ragtag army, taught it the basics of soldiering, and saw the fruits of his labor at Yorktown.

Nr. 378:

John Hoffman, 1714 immigrant, moved from Germantown after living there about ten years.  He moved to the Robinson River community, where the Second Germanna Colony had moved after their term of service for Spotswood was ended.  Today, we can see two possible motives that John Hoffman had for this move, namely, land and love.  I am inclined to "love" as opposed to "land," but that is prejudice, not a decision based on facts.  This note examines who his second wife was.

First, a score card is needed to keep the events to be related straight:

Anna��� 1����   ���� Johann��� 2������   � Anna�� �  3   ������    �� Johann
Maria�� =�����   ��� Michael�� =������   ��Barbara�� =����� �   �     Georg
-----�������� ����   Volck�������������    Majer���������             Utz

where the equals sign (=) denotes a marriage and the numeral above is the sequence number.

The information to be presented was found by Margaret James Squires, who was looking through the microfilm records of the Lutheran Church of H�ffenhardt, Mosbach, Baden, for another family having no connection with Germanna.  She recognized the Germanna names and compiled the information on them.  Wagenbach, the home of the people, is an estate farm which is a mini-village.  It is a couple of miles from the church.

Hans (Johann) Michael Volck of Wagenbach married, probably about 1685, Anna Maria ____.  (The two names, Volck and Folg, sound almost alike when pronounced in German.)  Seven children were born to Johann Michael and Anna Maria, the last in 1704.  Anna Maria's death is not recorded but there are gaps in the church records, probably due to war.  There is a record of a marriage between Johann Michael Volck and Anna Barbara Majer(s) on 29 Jan 1709.  Three children are in the church records:

1. Maria Sabina Charlotta Barbara, b. 19 Mar 1710,
2. Louisa Elisabetha, b. 23 Mar 1711,
3. Maria Rosina, b. 22 Aug 1712.

Not long after the last birth, Johann Michael Volck died on 7 Apr 1714, at the age of 51 years.

The widow, Anna Barbara (Majer) Volck, married Johann Georg Utz, on 10 Jul 1714.  Two children were born in Germany:

4. Ferdinand, b. 3 Apr 1715,
5. Johannes, b. 25 Jul 1716.

The family, with enough names to make the identity certain, was on Spotswood's list of importees.  Maria Sabina Charlotta Barbara, the daughter of Mrs. George Utz, married John Hoffman in Virginia when she was about 19 years of age.

Nr. 379:

The Utz family, as it arrived in Virginia, has been recorded.  There are several differences from what we know the family to be later.  The recording of the family came about because Alexander Spotswood paid the way of 48 of the members of the Second Colony.  Eventually, he used their head rights to help pay for land.  When the patent for the land was issued, the names from the head rights were recorded in the patent.

Pertaining to the Utz family, the names in the patent were Hans Jerich Otes, Parvara Otes, Ferdinandus Sylvania Otes [sic], and Anna Louisa Otes.  In the German church records, and in later usage, the name is Utz.  Jerich is George and Parvara is Barbara.  From the church records in H�ffenhardt, we would expect that George and Barbara Utz would have had two sons, Ferdinand and Johannes.  Ferdinand is recorded but Johannes did not arrive in Virginia.  We do not know whether Johannes died before departure from Germany, or during the trip.  Although Ferdinand did arrive in Virginia, we do not know his fate here.

Prior to her marriage to George Utz, Barbara (Majer or Maier) had three daughters by Johann Michael Volck (recorded as Folg in Virginia).  They were Maria Sabina Charlotta Barbara, Louisa Elisabetha, and Maria Rosina.  Without any known death records for them, we would have� expected the three of them on the importation list.  There are only two, Sylvania and Anna Louisa Otes. The recording as Otes is a mistake, which is typical of early ship lists, as step-children of the father are often recorded under the name of the stepfather.  Sylvania is Mary Sabina.  One would wish that Anna Louisa were Louisa Elizabeth for better conformity, but on balance, the names match so well that there is no question.

Of the three daughters of Barbara Majer by Johann Michael Volck, we apparently have only one survival, Mary Sabina, who married John Hoffman.  Though Louisa made it to Virginia, we have no later record of her.

The first two children of Barbara Majer by George Utz died without any known issue.  The three surviving Utz children, Michael, Margaret, and George, were all born in Virginia.

Though a high percentage of the Volck and Utz children died, there was one notable success story in the next generation.  Mary Sabina, who married John Hoffman, was the mother of twelve children who themselves all lived to adulthood.

Nr. 380:

Researchers studying Germans in America have learned to be extremely suspicious of the spelling or the conversion of German names into other forms.  One cannot trust the index in a book.  Just recently, I was reading deed abstracts for Orange County, Virginia, and encountered the name Finkt.  It was a bit unusual but I was helped by a knowledge of the particular physical area where I recognized some of the neighbors.  Also, I was helped by the first names, John Paul.  The person is our Germanna citizen, John Paul Vaught, which is sometimes given as Vogt.

Reading patent abstracts for land in the 1730 time period, I noticed the name Plunkepee, which occurred three times.  It was a name I hadn't seen before.  I was struck by the first names, Paul, Nicholas, and Matthew, which I recognized as the same as the first names of the three Blankenbaker brothers who came in 1717.  The area in which the Plunkepee land was located was also the same as the Blankenbaker land.  One has to conclude that Plunkepee is just a variation of Blankenbaker.

Peggy Shomo Joyner, in her book "Abstracts of Virginia's Northern Neck Warrant and Surveys," volume 3, suggests in the index that the following are identical:  Iler, Ilor, Eiler, Eyler, Isler, Oiler, Oyler, Ayler.  This family is generally known as Aylor today.  At Hebron Church the name was written as Oler, �hler, and Aylor.

Perhaps readers have similar examples to recount.  More to the point perhaps, how should one overcome the spelling distortions which are found?  The task is not easy.  Even the combined research efforts of many people over several generations have failed to detect equivalences.

One point which I make is to never trust an index.  There is no substitute for reading the text and pronouncing the names and studying the context.  This is how I found that Vaught could be spelled Finkt.  In this case, as with the Plunkepees, the context was especially important.  In some cases the sound is the important characteristic.  For example, saying Carehaut aloud might make you suspicious that the name could be Gerhard.  In this latter case, the first names were important clues, as four of the five first names were known Gerhards or Garretts.  All of these examples are drawn from our Germanna families.

Here is a problem from an early will of a Germanna man where the spelling was not the best.  The name of an individual is given as Coller.  Who was this individual?  If you fail to detect immediately who this was, don't feel bad.  In the last few months, his identity has been found, which is probably the first time in two hundred years that it has been known.

Nr. 381:

The last note closed with a puzzle which was, "Who was Henry Coller?"  The name appeared in the will of Michael Kaifer when he named a step-son-in-law, Hannry Coller.  The spelling for Henry should have been a tip that Coller might not be the exact spelling.  People spent a lot of time trying to find the Coller family, but they didn't seem to have lived in Culpeper County at the time of the will, in the mid-eighteenth century.

Michael Kaifer had five daughters and two stepdaughters.  Six of them married Germans and the seventh, Margaret, married Henry Coller.  The chances are that Henry was a German also.

After a neat piece of sleuthing by Nancy Dodge, Cindy Crigler, and Jeff Aylor, Henry's identity has been discovered.  Henry Aylor, at one time, sold land, which he described as his wife's fortune, which had been transferred from John Thomas.  Earlier, John Thomas had transferred land to Henry Aylett.  John Thomas had a sister, Ann Margaret.  John Thomas, in lieu of his father, who had died earlier, acted as the head of the family.  Putting it all together, along with some other evidence, the wife of Henry Aylor was (Anna) Margaret Thomas.  Previously, Margaret had been described as a daughter of Jacob Crigler, but there was no evidence that this was the case.

In the last note, a number of spellings were given for Aylor.  To this list must be added Aylett and Coller.  This is what makes researching German ancestry research fun, and FRUSTRATING.

I was asked if the names Dorscheimer, Tushimer, Tishtimer, Dustheimer, and Dusthammer could be the same name.  Yes, they are.  They are just minor variations in the spelling of the basic name, Dorscheimer.  At the German-English interface, where a German gives his name to an English person, the letters "D" and "T" are often interchanged.  The spelling "shimer" is an English simplification of� "scheimer", and sounds are much the same.  I would hardly regard these names as misspellings of the name; they are just valid variations.  Therefore, one who engages in German ancestor research must become aware of some basic German phonetics.  Using these rules, one gets variations of spelling.

The different ways of spelling the name Aylor go beyond normal variations in spelling.  The ones that I have quoted are absolute misspellings for which there are hardly any rules to inform us of the possibilities.  We must be on guard for these.

Nr. 382:

John Rouse obtained a patent for 610 acres of land in 1728 on White Oak Run, a tributary of the Robinson River.  (For a map showing the location, see the Broyles Family Web pages which George W. Durman maintains.  Main Land Patent Map, showing Germanna 1 and Germanna 2 land holdings, and Supplementary Land Patent Map, showing land holdings of later German immigrants.)  John Rouse's origins in Germany are unknown, though there has been speculation; apparently he came as a young man without any children.

John Rouse appears in the Hebron Church records of 1733.  By 1739, there were two tithables, so one son (presumably) was born by 1723.  John Rouse was never naturalized and, when he died, his wife Mary petitioned the Proprietor of the Northern Neck for a transfer of his land to his sons Martin, Matthais, and Adam.  This petition was made 7 Mar 1747 and the land was granted as a life interest to Mary, with the sons as residual heirs.  (In 1728 the land had been considered a part of the Crown's lands, so the deed was issued as a patent.  By 1747, the land was considered to be a part of the Northern Neck, owned by Lord Fairfax.  When he issued a deed in response to the petition, it was called a grant.)

In 1764, Matthais Rausch and his wife Elizabeth transferred the land to Martin Rouse, so Mary must have been dead by then.  Since Adam did not participate in this, it is presumed that he was also dead.  From the petition, the known children of John� and Mary (�? ) Rouse are:

1. Martin,
2. Matthais, and
3. Adam.

These were probably all of the sons.  There may have been daughters.

Martin Rouse and his wife Elizabeth deeded land in 1762 and 1772.  In 1793, Martin and his wife Elizabeth communed at the Hebron Lutheran Church.  His Madison Co., VA, will, dated 11 Jul 1802, which was probated 26 Jan 1809, names four children:

1. Elizabeth Rouse, m. John Loyd,
2. John Rouse, no known heirs,
3. Adam Rouse, m. 1795 Tabitha Vawter, d. 1847 in Madison Co.,
4. Samuel Rouse, d. 1817 in Madison Co. and left his property to his brothers John and Adam.

The information on the Rouses (to be continued also) comes from an article by Mrs. Robert (Nancy E.) Rouse, in Beyond Germanna.  She is the author of "John Rouse of Virginia and His Descendants, 1717-1980,", a 250 page hardbound book, published in 1982.

Nr. 383:

Matthias Rouse was born about 1723 in Virginia and was a foot soldier of Culpeper Co. in 1756.  From 1762 to 1788 he was involved in several land transactions.  With his wife Elizabeth, he was a communicant in 1775 at Hebron Lutheran Church.  He wrote his will in 1796, which was probated in 1806 in Madison Co., VA.  He named his wife Elizabeth and the children who were:

1. Joseph Rouse, b. 15 Feb 1750, d. ca 1831/2 in Marion Co., Indiana.  He married, first, Susannah Railsback, and, second, Mary Magdalena Tanner,
   
2. Samuel Rouse, b. 1752, d. 24 May 1834 Boone Co., Kentucky.  He married, in 1775, Mary Weaver, b. 1755,
   
3. Michael Rouse.  He married, first, in 1782, Catherine _____, and, second, in 1786, Nancy _____,
   
4. Lewis Rouse, b. 1756, d. ca 1835 in Henderson Co., KY.  He married, in VA, Elizabeth Garriott,
   
5. Jacob Rouse, b. 1758, d. 29 May 1833 Boone Co., KY.  He married, in 1783, Anna Weaver, who died ca 1843,
   
6. Ephraim Rouse, b. 1765, d. 16 Jul 1851 in Boone Co., KY.  He married, first, Mary Huffman, who died in 1793, and he married, second, in 1795, Barbara Deer, who died before 1850,
   
7. George Rouse, b. 1766, d. ca 1845 in Rails Co., Missouri.  He married, in 1794, Betsy Zimmerman,
   
8. Mary Rouse, d. before 1815 in Boone Co., KY.  She married Frederick Tanner, who was born 1748/50, and died 1815/8.

The family epitomizes the westward movement, as the children moved to Missouri, Indiana, and Kentucky.  Several of them were a part of the large number of Germanna people who moved to Boone Co., Kentucky, where the Rev. Carpenter went.

Mrs. Rouse's book added much information to the Germanna history.  The largest work done previously on the Rouses was Emma Rouse Lloyd's "Clasping Hands With Generations Past."

The above children of Matthias are well represented in the records of Hebron Church, as parents and sponsors, although none are given in the birth records.  All of the children above were born in Culpeper County, VA.

Nr. 384:

There was a Hart family in the Hebron Lutheran Church.  Moses Hart was confirmed in 1782 at the age of 17.  At this time, the language was still German, so it appears very likely that there was a Hart family who was German.

Michael Thomas is said to have married, as his second wife, Eve Susannah Margaret Hart.  Michael was the youngest son of the 1717 immigrants, John and Ann Mary (Blankenbaker) Thomas, a German couple.  Michael was born about 1720.

At the Christmas service at Hebron in 1775, Valentine Hart and his wife, Anna Maria, attended.  They sat next to Christopher Moyer and his wife, Catharina, and Peter Clore and his wife, Mary.  They also attended the 25th Sunday after Trinity in 1782.  They sat next to Carl Wrede (Frady) and his wife, Barbara.  Elizabetha Hart was also present, next to Valentine and Anne Mary.  Christian Reiner and his wife, Elizabeth, were next.

In 1769, Ephraim Hart was a witness for the will of Robert Slaughter, but this may be a different family.  In the 1787 personal property tax list for Culpeper County, there are no Harts.

Michael Thomas, shortly before the Revolution, moved to southwest Pennsylvania (thought to be a part of Virginia at the time).  If the Hart and Thomas families were traveling together, this might be an area where the Hart family would be found.

Because there are more mysteries than known facts about the Harts at the Hebron Church, I would like to learn more if anyone can add to the scanty information above.

Nr. 385:

The two Smith brothers, Hans Michael and Matthias, were members of the Colony of 1717.  Michael was more prominent than his brother Matthias and his family is better known.  Both brothers came from the village of Gemmingen in Baden, but due to the loss of the church books there, probably due to war in the last decade of the seventeenth century, their ancestry cannot be traced back.  From their marriage records we know their father's name was Michael.

Matthias married Regina Catharina [per "Before Germanna" by Zimmerman and Cerny].  Matthias was not sued by Spotswood.  Matthias and Christopher Bellar [Barlow] had a joint patent for 400 acres.  The connection, if any, between the two families is unknown.  That there might be a connection is strengthened by the fact that Michael Barlow was a tithe in the house of Nicholas Smith, Sr. [son of Matthias] in the 1787 Culpeper Co., VA tax list.

Apparently Matthias had two sons, Matthias, Jr., and Nicholas.  Matthias, Jr., was born in Germany, while Nicholas was born in Virginia.  That these were the only two sons seems probable by the division of Matthias's two hundred acre share of the original patent.  One hundred acres went to each son.

Nicholas married Mary Magdalena Reiner [born 21 Sep 1720, in Schwaigern, W�rttemberg], as is indicated in part by the names of the children in the Reiner family, plus the sponsorship patterns in the baptisms at Hebron Lutheran Church.  Nicholas and Mary Magdalena were sponsors in 1751, 1753, 1756, 1758, and 1768, for George and Mary Sarah (Reiner) Cook.  The two women were sisters. The Reiner family arrived in 1750, so the marriage of Nicholas and Mary Magdalena was probably ca 1751.  In his will [p. 1797], Nicholas left his property to his sons, John, Nicholas, Michael, and Godfrey.

Matthew Smith, Jr. married Mary ____.  He deeded the 100 acres on which he lived to Michael Smith and Matthias Smith, Jr., [i.e., the III] in 1765.  His wife, Mary, outlived him and she is shown in later years with three tithables.  In addition to the two sons who received land, there is also a Samuel.

Thus, the immigrant Matthias Smith left seven grandsons and an unspecified number of granddaughters.  Since the family of the immigrant Michael Smith is better known down through the third generation, other Smith girls born about 1750 to 1775 are candidates for granddaughters of Matthias.  [There was also an English Smith family in the neighborhood.]  Among the unidentified women are Barbara, Leah, Christina, and Susannah.  All of the lines from Matthias Smith, the immigrant, need work.

Nr. 386:

I am a sentimental person who finds many stories to be interesting.  Some of them are only peripheral to the general subject matter of these notes.  The note today is about Lizzie Longnecker (it would appear there were some Germans in her family), who was born in 1889 and died only last year.  When she was sixty years old and retired from farming, she started quilting, which she kept up for a few decades.  Throughout her 106 years, she was active in the Church of the Brethren.

The Church of the Brethren holds annual auctions to raise funds for disaster relief.  In Lizzie's district in 1989, on her one hundredth birthday, there was an auction to which she had donated the last quilt she made.  Perhaps by prearrangement, she was on stage in her wheelchair when the auctioneer opened the bidding, "Who will give me $10,000 for Lizzie Longnecker's quilt?"  A woman nodded her head. "Who will give me $10,200..."� "Who will give me $10,400?"  Then Lizzie's own son called out $10,600 and the bidding ceased.  Lizzie was slightly overwhelmed; she could remember when bread sold for six cents a loaf.

A spontaneous ovation for her lasted several minutes out of respect for her lifelong devotion to her church and to relief activities.  After it was all over, they brought out a birthday cake, large enough for everyone to have a piece.

When Lizzie was 98 years old, she had had her first banana split. "I could hardly get through that banana split", she said.  "I'll never order another one."

At 102 she had a pacemaker implanted to assist her heart rhythm.  The hospital workers gasped, though, when their computers told them that a two-year old person was the recipient.

Lizzie was born a Hershey, as in the name of the chocolate.  The Church of the Brethren is an Anabaptist group given to living simply.

Nr. 387:

Darryl J. Diemer wrote an article in Beyond Germanna on the Smith family of English descent in the Robinson River area (v. 4, n. 4, July 1992).  Isaac Smith, Sr., was born ca 1720 in Virginia.  He was the son of William Smith and Elizabeth Downing.  Isaac married Margaret Rucker ca 1738.  Margaret was the daughter of Capt. John Rucker and Susannah Coghill.

Isaac and Margaret had ten known children.  They are known through land transactions and the will of Isaac's brother, Benjamin Smith (Madison Co. W.B. 1, pp. 342-343).  Isaac also left a will in Madison Co. (W. B. 1, pp. 344-345), but he mentions only one child in the will and left the majority of his estate to grandchildren.  The ten children of Isaac and Margaret are:

1. Winifred Smith, born ca 1739.  She married Peter Fleshman, Jr., and had three children:  Elizabeth, John (married Nancy Dunn), and Benjamin (married Delilah Shirley).

2. Elizabeth Smith, married William Rucker, her first cousin, and had seven children, who are given in Rucker histories.

3. Henrietta Smith, married Daniel Hollenback.  She separated from Daniel and received a court-ordered maintenance from him.  No known issue.

4. Susannah Smith, married Thomas Standley in 1781 and had one known child, Henrietta Standley, who married, first, Jeremiah Rucker, and, second, William Thornton.

5. Isaac Smith, alias Sims, married a daughter of William Sims of Culpeper Co. and had several children, but only one is known.  This was Isaac Smith, Jr., who married Susannah Smith, daughter of Downing Rucker Smith (they were first cousins).  Three of their children were:  Isaac R. Smith, who married Matilda Clore; Susannah, who married Abel Carpenter; and a daughter, Barbara.

6. Melinda Smith, never married and died in Madison Co. in 1803.

7. Mary Smith, married Elijah Underwood and had ten children.  One of these was Henrietta Underwood, who married James Aylor.  See the "Underwood Family of Madison County, Virginia", by Ben H. Coke for more information.

Nr. 388:

Continuing with the children of Isaac Smith, Sr. and Margaret Rucker (thanks to Darryl Diemer),

8. William Smith, married Frances Cave and died in 1802.  He apparently had no heirs, as he left everything to Downing Rucker Smith's five children.

9. Edwin Smith.

10. Downing Rucker Smith, married Catherine Boehm (Beam, Beemon).  Catherine could be a sibling of Daniel Boehm of the Hebron Church, but proof is lacking.  Downing Rucker Smith and Catherine Boehm had five children:
    1. William Downing Smith, married Diana Yager and had thirteen children including:
       1. Fielding Smith (married Rhoda Carpenter).
       2. Nancy Smith (married Benjamin Garr).
       3. Ellen Smith (married Joel Smith).
       4. Mary Smith (married Jonas Finks Blankenbaker).
       5. Barbara Jency Smith (married John S. Yowell).
       6. Robinson G. Smith (married Elizabeth Shirley Clore).

    2. Benjamin Smith, married Anna Yowell.
    3. Susannah Smith, married Isaac Smith, Jr., her first cousin.
    4. Downing William Smith, married Elizabeth Bush.
    5. Asa Smith, married Barbara Yager.  They had four children including:
       1. Weeden Smith (married Alpha Yager).

Sorting out the German Smiths and the English Smiths gets confusing at times, with all of cross marriages that took place.  Other families in this same category are the English Thomases and the German Thomases.  Germans did not always marry Germans.

Nr. 389:

The question has been asked, "What was the name of the ship that brought the Second Germanna Colony to Virginia?"  Many answers have been put forth, but I believe the correct answer is "Scott".  Most people, though, say Scott was the name of the Captain, but this is because of an erroneous statement published by the Germanna Foundation.

B. C. Holtzclaw, writing in a publication (Germanna Record Six, page 5) of the Germanna Foundation, says that an importation records says, ". . about nine years since with Capt. Scott."  The record is a part of a set of three for the Broyles, Yeager, and Paulitz families, made on 2 May 1727, at the Spotsylvania Court House (Order Book, 1724-1730).  The statement that Holtzclaw makes is in error in two ways.

First, the word "about" does not appear in the record.  Second, the word which he quotes as "with" actually reads as "in".  By comparison to an extended sample of the writing, one can see that it is not reasonable to read the word "in" as "with".

What should one make of a statement that reads "in Capt. Scott"?  One does not normally refer to ships' Captains in this way.  Yet, the clerk at the courthouse surely did not dream up the name Scott. The Germans must have said something with the name Scott in it.  The logical answer is that Scott might be the name of a ship, not the name of a man.

The State of Virginia, shortly after World War II, sent teams to England to microfilm records which pertained to Virginia.  There are thousands of such records from Colonial times.  Back in Virginia, an index to these microfilms has been prepared.  This index is now online and can be searched from one's own computer.  One of the ways of searching is by the name of a person.  A search shows many ships' Captains with the name Scott, but none of these are in the right time period.

A search by the name of a ship shows there was a ship named the Scott in this time period.

With a ship in the 1717 period named Scott, but with no captain named Scott, how should we interpret the statement "in Capt. Scott"?  Remember that the speakers making the statement were Germans whose knowledge of English was limited.  Surely, what they were saying was something like "with the Captain of the Scott."  The clerk misunderstood the meaning of this and confused the name of the ship with the name of the Captain.

If we accept for the moment that Scott is a reasonably correct word itself, then it is very probable that the Second Colony came on the ship Scott. In the next note we will examine who the Captain was.

Nr. 390:

In the last note, recognition was taken of B. C. Holtzclaw's error in saying the Second Colony came with Capt. Scott.  In the colonial records there is no captain named Scott, but there was a ship named the Scott.  This ship was engaged in the Virginia tobacco trade, where tobacco was brought back from Virginia, and trade goods and passengers were taken to Virginia.

Custom officials were caught once for taking bribes from the Captain of the Scott, for allowing tobacco to pass through customs without the payment of the mandated tariffs.  (The custom officials lost their jobs because of this.)  The record is important to us because it establishes two facts.  First, it names the Captain who was Andrew Tarbett.  Second, it tells a lot about the character of Tarbett, whose morality put economics above principles.

Knowing the name of the Captain of the Scott, another search was made of the Virginia Colonial records.  One other record was found in which Tarbett appears.  In the spring of 1717, he lost a ship to pirates off the Virginia coast (the pirates sank the ship).  Tarbett had to give a disposition to the Governor of Virginia, Alexander Spotswood, which has been preserved.  The important point here is that Tarbett was speaking to Spotswood early in 1717.

At this time, not long after the land scouting junket known as the "Ride of the Knights of the Golden Horseshoe", Spotswood was embarked on a western land development program on the frontier.  (These lands went past the present Culpeper courthouse.)  What was needed was a group of settlers who could be placed simultaneously on the land.  Spotswood let Tarbett know of his interest in Germans, a whole shipload of them if possible.

Late that summer, or in the early fall, Tarbett was back in London with a new ship (the Scott), when a group of Germans arrived in London seeking transportation to Pennsylvania.  Tarbett promised them he would take them, but he knew even then that his destination would be Virginia.  Tarbett was taken to debtors' prison, perhaps because of losing a ship and cargo to pirates, but he negotiated his release and the voyage commenced.

The Germans were very surprised when the land they saw was Virginia and not Pennsylvania.  Who was to blame?  Mostly, Tarbett who was of a weak character.  Spotswood had placed temptation in his path and Tarbett couldn't resist.

[The story is told in more detail with copies of the records in the September 1997 issue of Beyond Germanna.]

Nr. 391:

Another Smith family that was contemporary with the Smith families discussed here recently is the John Michael and Anna Margaret (Sauder) Smith family.  Michael was a brother of Matthias.  The two families seem to have interacted very little.  J. Michael Smith had one son, another John Michael Smith.  Michael, Jr., married Anna Magdalena Thomas, the daughter of John Thomas and Anna Maria Blankenbaker.  Michael, Jr., was perhaps married twice but the second would have been a late-in-life marriage.

There are seven children (given in estimated birth order):

1. Adam, b. ca 1735, was married twice.  His first wife is unknown and his second wife is Elizabeth.
2. Mary, b. ca 1738, married about 1756, Adam Barlow.
3. Susannah, married about 1762 John Berry, Jr.
4. Zachariah, married Anne Elizabeth Fishback, first, and, second, Sarah Anne Watts.  Zachariah raised a crop of corn in Kentucky in 1776
5. John, married Elizabeth, who may have been a B�hm.
6. Anna Magdalena, married John George Crisler.
7. Catherine, married John Marbes.

There are uncertainties in the sons' spouses.  Zachariah and John disappear from the Robinson River community records about 1777, when they started west.  They were settlers in Mercer Co., Kentucky, but prior to Kentucky, they may have lived briefly in southwestern Pennsylvania.�

The daughter Catherine is often omitted and her descendants should be careful about their ancestry.  Catherine brought Sara, her daughter, for baptism and she admitted that her husband was not the father.

John Michael, Sr., was a church warden and accompanied Rev. Stover to Europe on the fund raising drive.  Michael, Jr., was the owner of a thousand acres of land, which he disposed of by gift to his sons and daughters.  The sons-in-law were named.  These deeds are a major source of our knowledge about the family.

Nr. 392:

Lynnea Dickinson presented circumstantial evidence that Elizabeth Smith, the wife of John Smith, might have been a Powell.  She might be correct.  I had suggested that she might be a B�hm.  My evidence depended largely on one baptism at the Hebron Lutheran Church in Madison Co., VA.

When Daniel B�hm and his wife Nancy had their daughter, Susanna, baptized in 1777, the three sponsors were John Smith, Jr., Delila Broyles, and Eva B�hm.  (If you look this up in the Register for the church, you may not find Eva B�hm.  This is because the baptism is recorded twice and, in one of the cases, Eva is not listed.)  Eva is Daniel's sister and Delila is Nancy's stepsister.  These two sponsors are typical as they are closely related and of the same generation as the parents.

The only reason I can assign for John Smith being a sponsor is that his wife was a sister or a cousin of Daniel or Nancy (?Chelf?)  I was inclined to the view that Elizabeth Smith was a sister of Daniel.

If you wonder why John Smith is listed as a Junior, it would be because his father was John Michael Smith.  In the duplicate recording of this baptism, the Junior is omitted.

There are four times that Elizabeth Smith is involved in a baptism at the church.  Once was as a parent, in 1777, when she and John brought Elizabeth.  The sponsors were Zacharias Smith (John's brother), Barbara Aylor (John's cousin), and Mary Weaver (his "cousin").  None of the sponsors are related to Elizabeth, suggesting she may have come from outside the Hebron community.  If she had been a B�hm, she could have asked her brother Daniel.  The Powells do not have a presence at the Hebron Lutheran Church (perhaps because they did not speak German).  Therefore, this baptism might be considered as supporting Lynnea.

Elizabeth was a sponsor for Michael Delph and his wife Mary Schneider.  It is mystery why she was chosen.  Also, she and Jacob Redman were sponsors for John Jacob Kneissle and his wife Margaret.  I have tentatively assigned Margaret as a B�hm, so this would be a natural sponsorship pattern under my assignment of Elizabeth as a B�hm.  Elizabeth and John Smith were sponsors for Conrad K�nzle and his wife Rachel.  Rachel was a Barlow (her mother was a Smith) and John Smith was her uncle, but of approximately the same age.  This is a rational choice.

With all this said, there is a mystery here.  Another point for Lynnea's case is that John Smith usually attended church without his wife.  Again, this may indicate that Elizabeth didn't understand German.

It would be good to have some discussion of the Kneissle, Redman, and K�nzle families.  Can anyone comment on them?  So that a Web search will pick up this note, the English spelling of the B�hm name is usually Beemon in the civil records, and sometimes Boehm.  There was a marriage of Ann Powell and Henry Delph.  He was a brother to Michael Delph above.

Nr. 393:

The Second Germanna Colony was greatly impacted by two individuals in Virginia, Alexander Spotswood and Robert Beverley, the Historian.  These two were the chief partners in the giant Spotsylvania tract of more than 40,000 acres.  But, had it not been for the Germans, it is very doubtful that there would have a Spotsylvania tract.  So strong was the urge of Spotswood and Beverley to acquire land that they abetted the kidnaping of a whole boat load of Germans to obtain the settlers which made the tract possible.  After they did have the settlers, Spotswood placed the naval stores work before the Germans, while Beverley urged the Germans into viniculture, the growing of grapes.

Robert Beverley is usually called the historian, first because he did write a history of Virginia, and second to distinguish him from his father, another Robert Beverley.  The father, the founder of the family in Virginia, is called Major Beverley, or the elder, to distinguish him from the son.  Major Beverley arrived in Virginia about 1663, the scion of small gentry in Yorkshire.  He did have some capital with him, which he put to good use in acquiring a small property.  Later, he acquired 50,000 acres of frontier land, personal property worth five thousand pounds, and forty-two slaves.  All of this was done in a period of twenty-four years when, at his death, he was one of the richest planters of Virginia.  He set an example for his children and, indirectly, for the future governor, Spotswood.

Major Beverley was politically active.  Within seven years of his arrival, he was elected clerk of the House of Burgesses.  He was a justice of the peace in Middlesex County and a member of the Council during Bacon's Rebellion, where he took an active role in suppressing the uprising.  After the Rebellion, the governors did not trust him and Beverley returned their sentiments in a series of open actions against them.  He became a Whig in a land of Tories.  In a civilized way, he became rebellious, though his wealth was never in danger and he maintained support from a large segment of the population.

The younger Robert Beverley was born about 1673.  His mother was the daughter of a merchant of Hull (and the widow of George Keeble).  Major Beverly sent his sons to England for schooling.  The son Robert returned to Virginia when he was nineteen years old.  To learn something about Virginia law and politics, he worked as a volunteer in the office of the Colonial Secretary of State, who at that time was Christopher Robinson.  This was the last time he worked as a volunteer and thereafter he always asked for a fee for the work he did for the Colony.  Within a short time, he was Secretary of the Committee for Public Claims, Clerk of the General Court, Clerk of the Council, and Clerk of the General Assembly.

Nr. 394:

Robert Beverley, soon after his return from England, where he attended school, married Ursula Byrd, sixteen years old.  She had, herself, been educated in England.  She went to England when she was four with her sister and their governess.  She did not return until just before her marriage.

William Byrd was her brother (her father was William also).  Thus, two of the wealthiest and most powerful families in Virginia were�united.  Ursula Beverley died at the birth of her first child, William, and her husband, Robert Beverley, never remarried.

Shortly after his return from England and after his marriage, Robert Beverley started buying properties.  He had inherited some property from his father in Gloucester County.  A little later, his half brothers, John and Thomas, died and left him six thousand acres on the frontier of King and Queen County.  This land became his seat under the name of Beverley Park.  He was appointed clerk of the court there and at the same time he was Burgess from Jamestown, where he owned property.  Among the properties which he had bought were a series of lots in Elizabeth City.  Litigation arose over their titles and he lost the suit.

He decided to appeal the decision to the Privy Council and went to England for that purpose.  He started writing letters home making satirical attacks upon the Governor and the Surveyor General of Customs.  Thus he embarked on a course, laid down by his father, of being a Whig among Tories.

While he was in England, he was asked to review material on Virginia which was to be published.  He thought there were so many errors in the work that he refused to allow his name to be associated with the work.  He promised that he would write an improved set of material.  As a consequence he wrote "The History and Present State of Virginia" which was published in 1705.  This has given him his place in history including the appellation "the historian."  This was the only positive thing about his trip to England, as he lost his pleading and, because of the letters he had written home, he lost the clerk's job he had held.

The book received wide attention and was published abroad in France.  In Virginia, it added fuel to the fires of invective piled on Beverley.  In spite of the fact that Beverley had nothing favorable to say about the present administration in Virginia, he was first and foremost a Virginian.  In fact, it was his love for Virginia that prompted him to attack others, whom he saw as desirous of taking away the liberties of the Virginians.  But Beverley, who had lived many years in England, saw himself as a Virginian and not as an Englishman.  When he wrote "my country," a phrase he often used, he meant Virginia and not England.

Nr. 395:

The history which Robert Beverley wrote was divided into four parts.  The first gives a running narrative of the settlement of the colony up to the writer's own time.  The second is a description of the natural history.  The third part deals with the Indians.  The fourth part is a discussion of the form of government, with a description of the laws and public offices.  It was the last part that generated the most excitement, as it was filled with comments, mostly negative, about the present office holders.  The historical narrative was too sketchy to be of value but the natural history and the description of the Indians were good.  All were written with verve, clarity, and a sense of humor.

Back home in Beverley Park, the historian was content to live in austere simplicity.  His brother-in-law, William Byrd, tried to make his establishment into a replica of an English lord's estate.  Beverley disregarded all trends and fashions.  While others purchased their furniture from England, Beverley made his furniture on the plantation.  Style was not important to him; he and his guests sat on stools, not chairs.

Though he had only the one child, William, and had no plans to remarry after the death of Ursula Byrd, Beverley labored to increase his estate by land speculations.  He scouted a tract of 13,000 acres along the south side of the Rapidan and had it surveyed.  He was ready to patent the tract in 1710 when the law was changed to require him to pay his fees and commence the seeding and planting period.  He held off on this because getting settlers was doubtful for a tract that was this remote.  Without the settlers, he could lose his investment.

When Spotswood came in 1710, they became friendly (they were of a similar age, just past thirty).  Spotswood gave Beverley a few small public offices to hold.  Beverley gave Spotswood a lesson in western land development, the area where the action and the profits would lie.  Beverley proposed that they might enter into a joint land development project based on Beverley's 13,000 acres.  Spotswood wanted more land and on their trip across the Blue Ridge Mountain they explored Beverley's proposed tract plus other land that they could add to it.  As a consequence they found a total of 40,000 acres (the public description) but in reality it was closer to 65,000 acres.

What was needed was a group of settlers.  Spotswood's experience with Germans led him to favor the "Dutchmen" but they were not coming to Virginia.  Spotswood let the ship Captains know that he would take a whole boatload of Germans.  In particular, about six months after the expedition, Spotswood was talking to Capt. Tarbett.  About nine months later, in late 1717, Tarbett arrived in Virginia with some seventy-odd Germans.  Spotswood and Beverley formalized their partnership, and took in a few small partners, to settle the Germans on the 40,000 acres.

The initial hope had been that the Germans would remain on the tract indefinitely and lease the ground from the partners.  But an important point was that this would secure the title to the tract.

Nr. 396:

One of Robert Beverley's enthusiasms was wine.  He was very serious about this and made a collective bet that he could produce seven hundred gallons of wine from one year's grapes.  John Fontaine tells us in 1715 that Beverley was likely to win his bet.  After the Germans were settled on the north bank of the Rapidan River, Beverley, who was one of the major partners in the settlement, encouraged them to grow grapes.

John Fontaine spent several days with Beverley.  Originally he had planned to stay only one night, but it rained and Beverley insisted that he stay until the weather was better.  For several days, Fontaine joined in the hunting, church, and socializing of the Beverley household.  Beverley took pride in being hospitable; this was, in his estimation, the mark of a true Virginian.  Fontaine noted, "This man lives well, but though rich, he has nothing in or about his house but what is necessary.  He hath good beds in his house, but no curtains; and instead of cane chairs, he hath stools made of wood.  He lives upon the product of his land."

Though Beverley liked to hunt and fish, he was not given to doing anything in excess.  He was envious of the Indians, who "by their pleasure alone, supplied all of their necessities."  But in all things, temperance was the watch word of Beverley.  The gardens about his house were developed with a view toward enhancing the birds to visit.  During his last years, he busied himself about his own little realm and a revision of his history.  He had mellowed and he removed most of the pungent comments about his contemporaries from the history.  The second edition of his history was published in the year of his death, in 1722, when he was only 49 years old.

Another project of Beverley's later life was compilation of the laws of Virginia.  This too was published in the same year as the second edition of the history.  This "An Abridgment of the Public Laws of Virginia" was dedicated to Alexander Spotswood for "protecting the laws and liberties of the country, for suppressing the pirate Teach, for reviving the College of William and Mary, for encouraging teachers to instruct the Indians, and for extending the frontier settlements."

The biggest project in extending the frontier settlements was the joint project of Spotswood and Beverley in settling seventy-odd Germans to the west of Germanna.  After Robert Beverley died, William Beverley, who was quite young, did not wish to continue in the partnership and he sold his share to Spotswood.  When Spotswood sued the Germans, he included those Germans whose transportation had been paid by Beverley.  In the case of the German, George Moyer, William Beverley was called to court to testify about the contract between his father and Moyer.  Unfortunately, we do not know what the testimony said.

The inventory of Beverley's estate has been lost.  It would have been interesting to see what his library contained, for Beverley was one of the two strongest pre-Revolutionary writers that Virginia developed.  The other was his brother-in-law, William Byrd.

Many of the comments here about Robert Beverley came from Louis B. Wright's "The First Gentlemen of Virginia", which was published in 1940 by the Huntington Library.

Nr. 397:

One family, who was a part of the Second Colony, was the Barlow family.  Barlow is not the German spelling of the name.  Barlow, as a name, is English.  What we presume is that the name was close enough to Barlow that the clerks and members of the family used Barlow because it was desired to use a familiar name.

Christopher Parlur testified in a proof of importation at the Spotsylvania Court House on 5 Apr 1726 that he came in 1717, with his wife Pauera (Barbara).  He did not mention any children who came with him.  A few months later, a patent for 400 acres of land by Beaverdam Run, a branch of the Island Run (now White Oak Run), in the Robinson River Valley, was issued to Matthias Smith and Matthias Beller.

This leads to puzzle number one.  Who was Matthias and how was he related to Christopher?  Were Matthias and Christopher the same person, i.e., Christopher Matthias Parlur/Beller?  Were the two men not of the same family?  Did Matthias come later?  Was Matthias very young, born after the arrival of Christopher?  Why did Smith and Beller go together on the patent?

As we discuss the Barlow family, there is going to be opportunities for comment.  If you have something that you can add, I hope you will respond here.  (As always, if you wish to add to John's "Notes", you can either send an email to John, or post your response to the Mailing List at RootsWeb, by sending an email to the GERMANNA_COLONIES Mailing List.   GWD).  Already, you have seen that there are questions for which I do not have answers.  We do not know how the name was spelled in Germany, nor do we have information on the family from Germany.  If we did, it might be a step in solving some of the mysteries of this family.

Another early record was the excusing of Christopher Parlow from the payment of tithes on 5 May 1730 (Spotsylvania Order Book, 1724-1730, p.388).  There were two common reasons for being excused from tithes, disability and age.  It is also noteworthy that Christopher Barlow was not sued by Spotswood, which may mean his transportation had been paid by another partner in western lands development partnership.  After being excused from tithes, there are no further records for Christopher Barlow.  In the 1739 Orange County tithe list, there are no Barlows.

Later, there are at least three Barlow men and possibly a fourth.  The two earliest names, Christopher and Matthias, disappear.  We are left with Jacob, Christopher, Adam, and the possible fourth, John.  The first three are considered to be brothers.  Whether John should be included also is questionable but not out of the question.  The one reference to John, which I know,� is the North Carolina will of John Garrett (Johannes Gerhard), who had lived in Orange County, Virginia.  Gerhard moved to North Carolina with his sons-in-law, Michael Moyers/Myers and Martin Walke (and stepson, John Blankenbaker/Pickler).  One of the witnesses to Gerhard's will was John Parlor (5 August 1757, Rowan County).

Nr. 398:

The suggestion that the name Matthias (Beller) was an error in the patent to Matthias Smith and Matthias Beller has merit.  Last night I looked at a photographic copy of the patent in question and reread it.  The name is quite clear as Matthias.  But it is possible that the copyist read the given name of Smith as the given name of Beller and wrote the wrong thing.

I really have some difficulty in accepting that Matthias was the son of Christopher.  Christopher came in 1717 without any children.  The patent was issued in 1726 and the application had to be made earlier.  It is possible that Matthias was a minor son but he could not have been more than about seven years of age.  Perhaps Christopher Barlow was not well and Matthias Smith was acting as a guardian for Matthias Beller.

I am bothered by the omission of Adam Barlow, supposed youngest son of Christopher Barlow, from the land distribution.  The two hundred acres of the patent went to Jacob Barlow, and then half of that went to Christopher (II).  Nothing went to Adam. � I am inclined to think that Matthias Beller was a brother to Christopher Barlow (I).  Matthias had sons Jacob and Christopher (II).  [I use the Roman numeral even though the line is not direct.]  Christopher (I) had the son Adam, and a possible son John, who moved to North Carolina.  In this proposal, Jacob and Christopher were brothers and cousins of Adam.  Adam got no land because his father had no land.

This would make Jacob, Christopher (II), and Adam contemporaries.  Jacob would appear to be older than Christopher (II).  I will pause on this thought right now and see if readers have thoughts that confirm or deny something of this nature.

The answer might lie in information to be found in Germany. The surname in question is not even known for sure, but it probably is not Barlage, one suggestion.  This name certainly occurs in Germany today as the phone directory lists 236 Barlages; however, that name is a northern German name and does not appear in the Kraichgau in south Germany where most of the Second Colony came from.  For the present, Christopher Barlow should probably be considered as originating in the area of the Second Colony.

[If memory serves me correctly, there are about 30 Barlows in Germany today. They are a bit suspicious as the given names seem more like American or perhaps English than German.]

The suggestion has been made that Christopher Barlow (I) lived until the 1740's.  The 1739 Orange County list of residents does not include a Barlow.  These are normally the head of households and the number of males 16 and above.  I believe it is the case that people who are excused from the tithe are listed but with a note that they are excused.  [Women who are the head of households are listed but noted as excused from the tithe.]  If someone can clarify this point, please do.  Tentatively, I believe that Christopher Barlow (I) did not live until 1739.

Nr. 399:

Any one group of German immigrants often came from the same village or region.  Therefore, if you know where some of the members came from, a search in the same area will often find other members of the group.  The First Germanna Colony illustrates this very well as they all came from a tight circle around Siegen.  This was an unusual case though, as they were recruited and the effort of the recruiter (Johann Justus Albrecht) was concentrated on Siegen.

The origins of the Blankenbaker and Willheit (Wilhite/Wilhoit) families had been known for some time when Lineages, Inc., a professional genealogical research firm, started a search for other members of the Second Colony.  They observed that the villages of the two families above were not very far apart.  Based on the thought that others might have come from nearby villages, they searched through the church records (as available on microfilm) in nearby villages.  They found some information on about forty families, not all members of the Second Colony, but known to be immigrants to Virginia at some time.

In the process, they have basically proven that Rev. St�ver was in error when he said the Second Colony came from the Alsace, Palatinate, and adjacent places.  No one has been found in the Virginia Germans who came from the Alsace.  Only a very small number came from the Palatinate.  Because of the shifting and confused political structures, it is not easy to say exactly where the people came from.  Geographically it is somewhat easier.

The river that flows by the town of Heidelberg is the Neckar, which runs to the west at this point toward the Rhine River.  A little bit to the east of Heidelberg, the Neckar makes a turn as it comes from the south.  The Neckar region is defined as the area between the Rhine and the Neckar Rivers.  Though it is not strictly true, this same region is sometimes called the Kraichgau.  At the time, the political jurisdiction was very confusing, being partly the Palatinate, Baden, W�rttemberg, and a variety of smaller political jurisdictions, including some no larger than a village.  Today, the entire region is in the state of Baden-W�rttemberg and the smaller principalities have disappeared.

Not all of the Second Colony members were found in this small area, which is only a few percent of the total German area.  The Yagers came from the west side of the Rhine, and the Harnsbergers came from Switzerland.  But, allowing for a few exceptions, it would seem safe to say the Second Colony members came from the Kraichgau or, slightly more broadly, the Neckar regions.

Therefore, a search for the Barlow family ought to concentrate on this region.  There is no reason to believe that they are any different from the typical Second Colony member; however, there are some problems in the search.  First, the spelling of the original name in Germany is not known.  Second, not all church records are available from this region.  Third, some families have very few appearances in the church records.  Judging by the number of records in Virginia, the Barlows may be in this category.

Nr. 400:

The last note discussed the Second Colony in Germany and where the Barlows might be found.  Going back to Virginia, there are three Barlow men who appear to have been born early in the eighteenth century:  Jacob, Christopher, and Adam.  Jacob and Christopher appear to be brothers, and Adam may be another brother or he may be a cousin.

Adam is known to have married Mary Smith, because Michael Smith gave land to his son-in-law, Adam Barlow.  At the church there is a recorded baptism in which Adam and Mary Barlow are the parents.

Christopher is known to have married Catherine Fleshman, the daughter of Peter Fleshman, and the granddaughter of Cyriacus Fleshman.  Thus, Christopher's wife and Adam's wife were first cousins once removed.  That Catherine was the daughter of Peter Fleshman comes from the estate settlement of Peter.  Participants in this were Adam Cook, Christopher Barlow, Christian (Christopher) Reiner, all sons-in-law, who joined with John and Peter Fleshman, sons of Peter Fleshman, Sr.

Jacob Barlow's wife was Mary and her maiden name is unknown.

Christopher Barlow left a will which is filed in two states:  Madison Co., Virginia, in W.B. 2, p. 249; and Boone Co., Kentucky, in W.B. A, p. 82.  Since there was an estate sale for Christopher in Boone Co., which would place him there at his death, the filing in Madison Co. is explained as the residence of the witnesses to the will.  The will was proven by the testimony of the witnesses in Virginia and filed there. A copy of the will with the testimony of the witnesses was transferred to Kentucky where the estate was settled.

In this will, Christopher names Joseph, Ephraim, Michael, Aaron, Daniel, Mary (who married John Millbanks), Margaret (who married John or Michael Delph) as children.

Unfortunately, neither Jacob nor Adam Barlow left such a clear statement as to who their children were.