A correspondent, John Wolfe, says that he is confused by the name of a daughter of Harman Utterback (Otterbach) and Elizabeth Heimbach.  In some places, he sees the name as Elizabeth Katherina and in other places as Ailsey/Alice Katherine.  He asks if these are the same person and if so, which one is correct.

In the different areas of Germany, the spelling of given names varies.  For example, the name that we would say is Henry may be Henrich or Heinrich.  The name we would say is Elizabeth may be Elisabeth or Elisabetha.

Even a simple and very common name such as Hans is sometimes spelled Hannss or Hanss.  This name is very confusing as the baptismal name is often Hans but the marriage name may be Johann.  (This was the case with my namesake in Germany.) This would be similar to baptizing a child here as Johnny while he would be known in later life as John.

Returning to the original question, Ailsey is a nickname for Elizabeth.  Though Ailsey looks more like Alice, it is a nickname in the Nassau-Siegen area for Elisabeth(a).

There are regional variations in the spelling of names.  It would be best not to say that any one of the spellings was the correct one.  Perhaps Elke or Andreas would like to comment.

Since Mr. Wolfe is not a member of the list here at the present, cousins of his may wish to write him at [email protected].
(22 Nov 05)

Philipp Joseph Weber, to use his baptismal name, arrived in Virginia with the Second Colony as Joseph Wever.  The only time that his name appears in Virginia was in the list of 48 names that Alexander Spotswood used as head rights in paying for a piece of land.  That he actually did arrive in Virginia may be inferred from his appearance in this list.  To be used as a head right, a person had to arrive in Virginia (fraud excepted).

The cost of transportation was independent of whether a person arrived in America.  Even if a person died en route, his fare was still due to the ship owners.  If one died, then his family was obligated to pay his fare.  If everyone in the family died, the captain of the ship would claim the possessions to help pay the fares.  In general though, to be a head right, a person had to arrive in Virginia.

The only surviving son of Joseph Weaver (as the name is usually spelled in America) was Hans Dieterich (as given at his baptism in Germany) or Hans Fredich Wever (as given in the Spotswood head right list).  "Dieterich" became "Dieter" or "Teter" and finally "Peter." Whom Peter Weaver married is not known except that her first name was Elizabeth.  It is very improbable that she was the daughter of either 1714 John Huffman or his younger brother Henry Huffman.  John Huffman did have a daughter, Elizabeth who was born in 1744 (much too young to be a wife of Peter Weaver) and who married Henry Back.  Henry Huffman was about twenty years younger than his brother John and his daughters would have been too young to be a wife of Peter Weaver, the young immigrant of 1717.  A daughter, Maria Elizabeth, of Henry Huffman did marry Peter Weaver, Jr.  Sometimes, the two Peter Weavers, father and son, are confused.

Joseph Weaver�s wife was Susanna Clore who married Jacob Crigler after Joseph died.  She is now known to have had two sons and two daughters by Jacob.  The two sons were Christopher and Nicholas.  The two daughters were Elizabeth who married Michael Yager, the son of Adam Yager, and Susanna who married Michael Utz, the son of the immigrant George Utz.

The thought that Susanna had a daughter Anna Margaretha Crigler who married Henry Aylor is false.  It has been shown, satisfactorily, that the wife of Henry Aylor was Margaret Thomas, the daughter of Michael Thomas.  (See Beyond Germanna, page 574.)

There were two Weaver families, one each in the First and Second Colonies, and the two are sometimes confused.
(23 Nov 05)

Here are some German proverbs translated into English for Thanksgiving 2005.

Clean your plate and tomorrow will be a nice day.

To good eating belongs good drinking.

Mirth is the sugar of life.

A day without laughter is a day lost.

A penny's work of cheerfulness can dispel a pound of problems.

Those who can be happy today should not wait until tomorrow.

If you put out another's candle, you also will be in the dark.

He who is grateful for a kindness unlocks the door for another.

A good word costs nothing.

Truth gives a short answer; lies go round about.

To remain young while growing old is the highest blessing.

Instead of complaining that the rosebush is full of thorns, be happy that the thornbush has roses.

God blesses the seeking rather than the finding.

The fewer the words, the better the prayer.

Proverbs are like butterflies; some are caught and some fly away.

A recent message here contained a letter from Peter B. Bowen to his daughter Sarah Bowen who was at William A. Bowen�s place in Fauquier Co., Virginia.  This was written 10 May 1829.  Mr. Bowen�s will was written in Culpeper Co.  In 1859 Culpeper Co. would have had the same boundaries then as it does now.  One of the witnesses was a James M. Button, which suggests the Little Fork area of Culpeper County.

Peter Bower, in writing the letter to his daughter, gives his return address as "Hebron".  This gave me a pause because the only Hebron that I am aware of in the Germanna area is the Lutheran Church outside Madison, Virginia.  The name might have applied to the Community and not to the Church.  Does anyone know if there was another area or church which was known as Hebron besides the Madison, Virginia, church?

In the Church Records for the Lutheran church outside Madison, the name Hebron was not used until about an 1850 date.  Prior to that it was called the German Church, or the German Lutheran Church, or simply the Lutheran Church.  Since so much of our discussion on this List pertains to the Eighteenth Century (the 1700's), I do not like to refer to this Church as Hebron.  Doing so would be similar to saying the First Colony moved to Fauquier County or the Second Colony moved to the Madison County.  The latter case would be truthful only if you said "the present Madison County", since it did come into existence until 1792.

There is another reason that I like to avoid identifying people as from the Hebron Community and that is that the name Hebron became associated with a Lutheran Church.  There were many people who lived in the area who were German Reformed, or Church of England, or Baptists, or other.

I prefer to describe the area which is sometimes known as the Hebron area as the Robinson River Valley.  Madison County today is close enough to being the extent of the Robinson River area that no serious harm is done by this description.  It is the only name that is truthful from the early 1700's to the present day.  Furthermore, it does not discriminate against any group.  The only disadvantage that I see is that many people today do not know the extent of this valley.  So, for them, I will say it approximates Madison County today.

I started by asking what Peter Bowen meant by Hebron when he used it in his return address.  Was that the name of his farm?  Was there a community known by this name?
(28 Nov 05)

The family of Hans Jacob Holtzclaw fascinates me because of some unanswered questions.  By his first wife, Anna Margaret Otterbach, the eldest child, John Holtzclaw, married Catherine Russell, who seems to be a widow who had married a Thomas man.  According to B. C. Holtzclaw, she had a son, Jacob, by this Thomas husband.

The two youngest sons of Hans Jacob Holtzclaw by his later wife Catherine were Jacob and Joseph.  Their wives were descendants of the Thomas family of the Second Colony who lived in the Robinson River Valley.  Not only did they marry Second Colony descendants but they lived in the area where most of the Second Colony people were living.

How did this come about?    We do not know, so everything that follows here are speculations and unanswered questions.

Was Catherine from the Second Colony?  This might account for the introduction of Jacob and Joseph to people in the Second Colony.  Some people might even say that this is a valid argument for Catherine being of the Second Colony.

Is it just a coincidence that the first son of Hans Jacob Holtzclaw married a woman who had married a Thomas man and that the two youngest sons of Jacob married women who were named Thomas?  This thought could be extended in this way.  Catherine Russell Thomas had a son Jacob Thomas.  If this son was related to the Thomases of the Second Colony, perhaps the Second Colony Thomas family kept in contact with this Jacob and his mother, and thereby fostered acquaintanceships between some of the members of the Holtzclaw and Thomas family.

The problem with this last thought is that there were no spare known male members of the Thomas family who could have married Catherine.  Therefore, the occurrence of the Thomas name with the oldest and youngest members of the immigrant Holtzclaw family was strictly a coincidence.  This would tend to increase the chances that Catherine was from the Second Colony.

My personal interest in this problem is increased by the fact that descendants of eight of the eighteen grandsons of Jacob Holtzclaw have a Blankenbaker ancestor.  Anyone surnamed Holtzclaw by birth today has a good chance that they have a Blankenbaker ancestor.  However, this thought does not affect the original problem of whether the multiple appearances of the Thomases in the immigrant Holtzclaw family are a coincidence or not.
(29 Nov 05)

A recent discussion involved who was to be included in the Second Colony.  Gary Zimmerman and Johni Cerny in their "Before Germanna" monographs included many people whom most other writers do not include.  As a consequence they would make the Second Colony much larger than even contemporary writers did.

The first point, though, that should be brought out is a definition of what it takes to be a member of the Second Colony.  Does leaving Germany in 1717 qualify?  Or should the definition be more strictly confined to those who arrived in Virginia in 1717?  Though they did not say what they considered the qualification to be, most people, in the absence of a definition, would say that "arrival" was the key word.  We now know that some families left in 1717, but did not arrive in 1717 (or 1718).  The basic fact that Zimmerman and Cerny used was that the family disappeared from the German Church Records by the summer of 1717.

Some of these individuals were stranded in London temporarily.  I also believe that some of them may have paused en route to London for a year or two.  Let me give the arguments for this in the case of the Willheit family.

When Tobias Wilhoid and John Wilhoid appeared on 19 April 1745 at the court in Williamsburg to be naturalized, they said that they were natives of the "Electorate of Mentz in Germany".  Normally, one is a native of where he was born.  There has never been a satisfactory explanation of why these two men would have claimed to be natives (citizens) of a place other than Schwaigern, where the church records seem to have their Baptismal Records.

First, Mentz is probably Mainz, a city on the Rhine River across from Wiesbaden, and down the river from where the Willheits would have started their trip.  It was not unusual for a family who was emigrating to stop temporarily at an intermediate point.  There could be many reasons but I would bet that Anna Maria Hengsteler Willheit was pregnant and not feeling up to continuing the trip.  So I offer that the Johannes Willheit who was born in 1713 had died and another son, also named Johannes, was born in Mainz and thereby became a citizen of Mainz.

Why would Tobias Willheit say he was a citizen of "Mentz"?  The Court Records in Virginia have examples where the clerk misunderstood the Germans and wrote what he thought he heard.  In particular he might have thought that two men with the same last name would have been born in the same place.  So I attach no significance to the inclusion of Tobias as a native of "Mentz" or Mainz.  But I do feel that it is significant that the place was not Schwaigern.  The men had nothing to hide from the English authorities.
(30 Nov 05)

Alexander Spotswood, in a 1724 letter to Col. Nathaniel Harrison, the Deputy Auditor of H.M. Revenues, said that he and his partners paid the passage money for 70 odd Germans and settled them on the [Spotsylvania] tract in 20 odd tenements.  Descendants of these Germans, later in the Century, said that the emigrants had numbered about 80 people.  It is true that the statement of Spotswood leaves open the possibility that he and his partners did not pay the transportation costs of all of the Germans, but the later statements of the descendants would support the idea that the partners paid and settled all of the Germans on their tract.

Recently, there was a discussion about obtaining the records for the German Lutheran Church in Culpeper County ("Hebron") on microfilm.  The great majority of these records apply when the church was in Culpeper County, though some of the records were later when the church was in Madison County.  Years ago, when the Library of Virginia would make and sell copies of microfilms, I purchased a copy this microfilm.  This included the Baptisms, Communion Lists, and general records, including many financial records.  Because I had to go to microfilm reader to use these records, I paid a significant sum of money to have the roll converted to a CD so I could read them on my computer.  The professional service that did this gave me a cut-rate price because they said the quality of the microfilm was so poor that they could not do a good job.  This should be a warning to anyone who proposes to use the microfilm.

I gave a copy of the CD to Nancy Dodge and we undertook to read the Communion Lists which had never been published in their entirety.  The information was very hard to read.  It seemed as though we were guessing in many cases.  By bouncing our individual readings off each other, we improved the general consensus.

Andreas Mielke also became interested in these records and he too read them.  There were differences from what Nancy and I had read.  All the time we were comparing the Communion Lists to what other sources we had read, though these were often incomplete.  Finally, after we had read all that we could, we made a list of the questionable items.  Then Andreas and I visited Hebron and, through the kind cooperation of Pastor Larson, we were permitted to see the originals.  This resolved some of the differences and uncertainties.  Only a very few, perhaps two or three out of thousands, remained ambiguous.

As we looked at the original documents, we realized that the difficulty was often in the hand written documents as much as in the microfilm.  But microfilm does deteriorate and it had contributed to the problems of working with it.

The final result as published in "Hebron" Communion Lists by Mielke and Blankenbaker [and dedicated to Nancy Moyers Dodge] is the best source document available and by far the easiest to use.
(01 Dec 05)

Why should be interested in church records?  The most useful information in them are the baptisms which may also contain the birth information.  Even if the birth date information is not included, baptisms were often performed at a very young age.  In Germany, the baptism is sometimes the day of birth.  In America, there were often delays.  The baptism nearly always includes the parents and perhaps the sponsors.  It should never be assumed, though it is usually correct, that the couple who brings a child for baptism are the parents.

What information is implied by the sponsors?  At the German Lutheran Church in the Robinson River Valley, for the years of 1750 to about 1790, the sponsors were siblings or cousins of the parents, or the spouses of the siblings and cousins.  There were a few exceptions to this rule, but 95% (as a guess) met this rule.  In other churches, this rule may NOT apply.  It was the position of the Catholic church that the sponsors could not be related to the parents.  The different denominations varied as to the number of sponsors.  The Reformed Church in Germany often had only a single sponsor, but, in Virginia, the 1714 John Hoffman often had three or four sponsors and most of these were known to be related by blood or marriage.

Who could perform a baptism?  Any Christian believer (even a layman) may perform a baptism.  So records of baptisms may be found in many places other than the church to which the parents belonged.  John Hoffman's baptisms were recorded in his Bible and may have been performed by him.

Because the German Lutheran Church in the RRV did adhere for many years to the requirement that the sponsors be related to the parents, this can often be used to establish the maiden names of the wives, and the family structures.  Working this out requires a study of the community and not just a family.  I have published the baptisms that were recorded for this church and given my best estimates of the relationships and the maiden names of the wives.  This is a unique document and so far as I know it has only been done for this church.  It also has the advantage that this printed record is very accurate and easy to use, much easier than the microfilm or even the original documents.

There are no death or marriage records per se in the RRV German Lutheran Church.  Deaths can sometimes be inferred from the appearance of an individual in the communion lists as a widow or a widower.

There are a few recording errors in the church records.  Some of these came about because of the recopying of earlier documents.
(03 Dec 05)

In the German Lutheran Church in the Robinson River Valley, the next most important class of information after the baptisms are the Communion Lists.  Not every church maintained Communion Lists, but from 1775 to 1812, this church kept lists of the people who partook of communion.  Since these are simply lists of names, it might be wondered what information they might have.

I began to suspect that the information in the Lists for this church had not been mined when I read some of the Lists transcribed by George Smith and published by Klaus Wust.  When I looked at the names (of couples) for the first nine entries on Easter 1776, I was able to see that these people were related.  In eight of the couples, at least one of the two was descended from the same woman.  In one couple, both were descended from this woman which counterbalanced the one couple who were "outsiders".  This led me to consider the Lists with more respect.  It also led to frustrations of not having all of the Lists and of not having an index to the names.

The solution was to find all of the Lists that I could, to transcribe them, and to publish them so that others would not have the same problems.  I was assisted in this endeavor by Nancy Dodge and by Andreas Mielke.  This was not an easy project.  I took my microfilm, had it converted to a CD and went to work.  I printed some of the Lists so we could examine them in more detail.  When the doubtful cases had been isolated, Andreas and I went to the church where Rev. Larsen had brought the originals from their secure storage.  We looked at the doubtful cases and made the best decisions that were humanly possible.  We had access to other Lists with which we could compare our results.  The final result was printed in a fifty-two page booklet complete with an index.

After the work was done, I used the information to find the wife of Peter Fleshman, who came as a young boy in 1717.  Actually, I had started by trying to confirm whether Peter Fleshman was the husband of Barbara Tanner, but the evidence for this was nil.  Instead, the evidence showed that Peter had married Maria Sophia Weaver.  What form did the evidence take?  It showed a high percentage of association between the descendants of Fleshmans and Weavers.  The actual details, involving several pages of analysis, were given in Beyond Germanna (see page 767).  The Communion Lists were also valuable in establishing that Susanna Clore Weaver Crigler Yeager had two Crigler daughters, namely, Elizabeth, who married Michael Yager, and Susanna, who married Michael Utz.

The hidden factor in these Lists is that the Lutheran Church uses a prescribed method for administering communion.  The order of the names in the Lists is the order of seating.  So, the Lists show who was sitting next to whom.

[The notes will be stopped for about a week while we travel from Albuquerque to Chadds Ford.]
(04 Dec 05)

As comments made by others here indicate, there is no uniform practice for holding the Communion Service.  Many denominations allow the participants to remain in their seats but the Catholics and the "first removes" (to use a phrase of John Humphrey) have the participants come up front.  The "first removes" are the Lutherans and the Episcopalians (including their parent, the Anglicans).

Now, taking the Lutherans as an example, they are organized in Synods and within the Synods the practices vary.  Some allow open communion, i.e., other denominations may participate.  Other Synods follow closed communion, i.e., only confirmed members of the member churches in the Synod are allowed to participate.  In the Catholic Church, generally, communion is available only to confirmed Catholics in good standing.

The German Lutheran Church in the Robinson River Valley originally followed closed communion practices.  This is why no German Reformed members appear in the Communion Lists.  Today they practice open communion.

When I told Rev. Larsen at the Hebron Church that it appeared the order within the Communion Lists bore some relationship to the seating order, he was not surprised.  If fact, he said they served communion in a very particular order.  They served the left side of the church first starting with the front pew.  After the left side was completed, the right side was served.

We must remember that at most of the time of the Communion Lists, Hebron Church differed physically from the present configuration.  The extension of the building in front of the altar did not exist.  There were probably a few pews in the original structure directly in front of the altar and the pulpit, but the majority of the seats were probably on the sides of the altar, but still on the main floor.  There were also the two balconies, which seem to be reserved for the single men and for the single women.  (By "single" I mean there was no spouse present.)  So the original rules would have been altered to confirm to the physical configuration then.

Certainly the comment made here on the List recently would indicate that there were definite rules for serving communion.  The general statement that the order within the Communion Lists indicates some close proximity in the seating seems to be confirmed by the evidence of the Lists themselves and by the practices which are used.

The List is one continuous roll, but the pews would segment the names in groups.  It probably is impossible to see the effect of the pews today.  And, two pews, one behind the other, could be considered as adjacent.  Four adjacent names today might have been divided between two pews.
(05 Dec 05)

John W. Wayland published an English translation of John Hoffman�s Bible records as "John Hoffman of Germanna and Some of His Descendants" in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 454-460.  The original Bible record would have been written in German.  It is not clear to me who did the translation and to what extent names were anglicized.  It would appear that given names were freely translated.  The exception is such names as Baltz, for which the translator was puzzled.  I believe that Wayland claimed to have a handwritten copy of the original Bible record but his article should be consulted.

John Hoffman:  Records from his Bible, 1663-1813:

In the year 1663, July 27th, my father John Hoffman was born at Eisern.  In the year 1690 my father entered into matrimony with my mother Gertrude, the daughter of John Reichman and his wife Elizabeth, living in Siegen.

In the year 1728, September 25th, my mother fell asleep blessed in the Lord.  In the year 1731, March 16th, my father fell asleep blessed in the Lord.

This Bible is a part of my paternal inheritance sent to me from Eysern in Nassau-Siegenschon.

In the year 1692, March 1st, O.S., I John Hoffman was born in Siegen; March 8th I was baptized in the Nichlaus Church.

In the year 1721, November 7th, I John Hoffman was married to Anna Catharine nee Haeger.

In the year 1722, November 25th, my daughter Agnes was born; was baptized December 2d, witness, Agnes, the sister of my wife, nee Haeger.

In the year 1724, January 18th, my son John Henry was born; baptized January 24th; his witness was my father-in-law, Henry Haeger.  He died January 27th.

In the year 1725, June 7th my daughter Anna Catharine was born; baptized June 13th; her witness was the mother of my wife.

In the year 1727, May 6th, my son John was born, baptized May 14th, witness John Fischbach.

In the year 1729, February 9th, in the morning about 9 o'clock my wife gave birth to a young son stillborn; in the evening of the same day about ten o'clock my wife fell asleep blessed in the Lord.

[to be continued]
(13 Dec 05)

[continuing the family history which John Hoffman recorded in his Bible]

In the year 1729, July 13th, I John Hoffman was married to my second wife Maria Sabina, the daughter of the deceased John Michael Folg, of Wagenbach.  She was born March 29,1710.

In the year 1731, February 4th, my son Nicholas was born; baptized July 10th; his witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger and Baltz Blankenbuechler, and the mother of my wife.

In the year 1732, March 26th, my son Michael was born; baptized July 11th; his witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger, Baltz Blankenbuechler and the mother of my wife.

In the year 1733, December 3d, my son Jacob was born; baptized December 16th; his witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger, Baltz Blankenbuechler and the mother of my wife.

In the year 1735, May 13th, my son Baltz was born; baptized July 17th; his witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger, Baltz Blankenbuechler and the mother of my wife.

In the year 1737, December 8th, my son Wilhelm was born, baptized January 9th; his witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger, Baltz Blankenbuechler and the mother of my wife.

In the year 1739, April l0th, my son George [Jarg] was born; baptized May 28th; his witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger, Baltz Blankenbuechler, and the mother of my wife.

In the year 1740, February 7th, my son Frederick was born; baptized February 17th; his witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger, Baltz Blankenbuechler and the mother of my wife.

In the year 1742, May 25th, my son Henry was born; baptized June 6th; his witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger and Baltz Blankenbuechler and his wife.

In the year 1744, June 1st, my son Tilman was born; baptized June 10th, his witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger and Baltz Blankenbuechler and his wife.

In the year 1746, July 13th, my daughter Elizabeth was born; baptized August 3rd; her witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger and Susana his wife and Anna Margaretha the wife of Baltz Blankenbuechler.

In the year 1748, November 27th, my daughter Anna Margaretha was born; her witnesses were Baltz Blankenbuechler and his wife and the wife of Nicklaus Jaeger,

In the year 1751, August 4th, my daughter Maria was born; baptized August 18th; her witnesses were Nicklaus Jaeger, Georgia[?], his wife, and the wife of Baltz Blankenbuechler.

[An entry follows which was probably made by John Hoffman, b. 1727, and others.]

In the year 1772, July 3rd, my father fell asleep blessed in the Lord.

[John Hoffman the Second died the 4th of March 1813.  He reached the age of 85 years, 8 months and 28 days.]

John Hoffman, the 1714 immigrant, must have kept his first baptismal records in something besides the Bible which he inherited, presumably, after his father died in 1731.  In 1721, John married Anna Catherine Haeger who was also Reformed.  Their first four live births had only one witness to each baptism, as was often the custom with the Reformed people.  Also, these four sponsors were different.  They tended not to repeat.  Also, a mixture of relatives and friends were used.

In his second family, his wife was Lutheran where the baptismal practices were slightly different.  They had multiple sponsors or witnesses, who were usually relatives and who might be used several times.  [But this was not universally the case; in many instances in Germany the sponsors were never relatives.]  Though the children (twelve) were baptized in accordance with some of the general practices of the Lutherans, they were never confirmed as Lutherans.  They regarded themselves as Reformed.

Apparently, as long as she lived, the mother of his wife, Maria Sabina Volck (Folg), was a sponsor.  John Hoffman never tells us who the mother was except that she was his wife�s mother.  We now know that she was the wife of George Utz and that her maiden name was Anna Barbara Majer (Maier).  Earlier, she had married John Michael Volck of Wagenbach.

Under the assumption that the sponsors were related by blood or marriage, we have several problems.  Nicholas Yager and/or his wives were sponsors on twelve occasions.  The Yager history must be regarded as incomplete until this relationship is understood.  For all twelve children, Baltz Blankenbaker (Blankenbuechler) and/or his wife (name not given in the record) were sponsors.  This latter case would be easily understood if Baltz had married the sister of Maria Sabina�s mother.  Circumstantial evidence that this might be the case was that George Utz and Balthasar Blankenbaker had adjacent patents, and George Utz was a witness to the will of Balthasar (Baltz, or Paul in English) Blankenbaker.

The mystery name, which is probably a mistake in the original or copy, is the appearance of "Georgia" as the wife of Nicholas Yager.  Usually, the wives or mothers are not given by name but by their relationship to a male.

It would be a monumental find to have the original Bible record or an original copy.

Still, if the original Bible record were found, it would not solve the mystery in the choice of the sponsors.  That will most likely be found in Germany and would clarify relationships among the Yager, Blankenbaker, Moyer (Maier), and Volck families.
(15 Dec 05)

Are the Kinslow and Kincheloe (or Kinchloe) families the same but with a slight variation in the spelling?  According to L. D. McPherson�s "Kinchelow, McPherson, and Related Families", the Conrad Kinslow who died intestate in Barren County, Kentucky, in 1814/15, was the son of Peter and Margaret (Walls) Kincheloe.  Linda L. Hope reexamined this question and concluded that the statement was in error.  Her findings are summarized in Beyond Germanna on page 722.

She notes that the geography does not work out for the claimed relationship, nor do the ages of Conrad Kinslow and Peter Kincheloe work out well.

Peter "Kintelo" married Margaret Unsel, widow, sometime after 6 April 1778, when she was granted administration of the estate of Henry Wall, deceased.  On 2 November 1778, Margaret Unsel, "since married to Peter Kintelo", was summoned to appear at the next court regarding the estate of Henry Wall.  Peter "Kimolo" appeared on the 1785 tax list of Harrison County, Virginia with a family of seven.  Although the birth of five children within a seven-year period is not totally unreasonable, it is possible that some of these children were from earlier marriages.

Peter Kincheloe left Harrison County sometime after the marriage of his daughter Nancy in 1798.  He apparently died in Muhlenberg Co. sometime after 1 Nov 1819, when he applied for a Revolutionary War pension, but before the 1820 Census.  The same year that Peter Kintelo and Margaret Unsel were married, the birth of Ambrosius Genssle (a variant of Kuenzle) was recorded in the German Lutheran Church now outside Madison, Virginia.  The eldest daughter in this family, Elisabetha, married (as Elizabeth Kansler) Andrew Carpenter on 19 Dec 1792 in Culpeper Co., Virginia.  Probably Conrad Kuenzle or Kinslow is the man who was listed in the 1783 Culpeper tax list as Coonrod Kensley.

I believe that the Kincheloe family was found in the area of present day Fauquier County.  This was before the appearance of the Kuenzle family in the area of present day Madison County.  With the many variations in the spelling of Kuenzle, it is understandable that the two families might be confused.  But the facts are that Conrad Kinslow is not in the right place at the right time to be the son of Peter Kincheloe.

The Kinslow family has been worked out in some detail in Beyond Germanna.
(15 Dec 05)

Many souls in Virginia were there because they were sentenced in England to transportation.  That is, they had committed a crime in England, and, in lieu of imprisonment or even the death penalty, they were ordered transported to Virginia, usually to spend their life there.  Why Virginia?  Virginia was a Royal Colony that was owned by the Crown.

I can think of three people who were connected with the Germanna Colonies who were in Virginia because they had been sentenced to transportation.  The first that comes to mind is Francis Hume.  He had revolted against the Crown and was sentenced to transportation.  His case was unusual because he was a second cousin of Alexander Spotswood, who was the Royal representative in Virginia.  This made an embarrassing situation for Spotswood and he tried to hide Francis Hume from view.  He sent him to the frontier as the supervisor of the Germans at Fort Germanna.  This was about 1715.  (By then, some of the Germans had probably learned enough English to communicate with him.)  Unfortunately, Hume died after about a year.  He was buried along the Rapidan River.

A brother of Francis, George Hume, was involved in the same revolt against the Crown.  George was first sentenced to be hung and quartered, but this was commutated to serving on a ship (a man without a country?).  When it called at Virginia, his freedom was purchased to the extent that he was released from the ship.  He, too, of course, was a second cousin of Spotswood.  This time, Spotswood aided him in getting established in a livelihood.  He passed the test given for surveyors by the William and Mary College and became a surveyor on the western frontier.

In this connection he met many of the Germans.  He purchased land in several localities, including in the Robinson River Valley.  Here his descendants married several of the Germanna people.  (Some Germanna branches have genes from the ancestors of Alexander Spotswood.)  As a surveyor, he had a long and honorable life measuring the lands of the King Georges.  Thus, he went from revolting against the throne to supporting the Crown.

Somewhat later, John Millbank(s) appears in the Robinson River Valley.  He would appear to be the John Millbank who was tried for robbery at Old Bailey in London in 1770 and sentenced to death.  The sentence was commuted to transportation for life.  He came to America on the ship Scarsdale.  Normally, he would have been sold as an indentured servant.  He married Mary Barlow, the young daughter of Christopher Barlow and his wife Catherine Fleshman.  The first child of Mary and John was baptized in 1774.  Mary was not yet confirmed at this time, but two years later she was confirmed.  Later they moved to Kentucky.

In the situations mentioned here, the "convict" appears to have achieved a normal life in Virginia.  Were it to be known, many of the ancestors of Virginians were convicts who found new opportunities in America.
(19 Dec 05)

In discussing John Millbanks in the last Note, I would like to mention that his case was researched and written up by Ellie Caroland and published in Beyond Germanna (p. 123).  Among the works she cited was the book, English Convicts in Colonial America: Middlesex, 1617-1775.  It was published by Plyanthos at New Orleans in 1974.  Apparently, from the title, convicts were sent to America from the earliest days to the time of the Revolution.

I believe it was during the period when Alexander Spotswood was acting as Governor of Virginia (but perhaps slightly later) that the Virginia legislature passed a law forbidding convicts to be shipped to Virginia.  This law was disallowed in England because the man who held the contract to actually ship the convicts said that if the law were passed he could not perform his contractual duties with the English government.

There were many differences between the general class of the immigrant from Great Britain and the immigrant from Germany.  One can obtain data on this question by studying the names in the head rights used to obtain land.  The book series, Cavaliers and Pioneers, is an excellent source for this information.  (In the Northern Neck, head rights could not be used to obtain land.)

If the head right name is only a given name, then the person referred to was a slave.  As to whether a person was Germanic or otherwise is decided by the general knowledge of the pattern of names.  For example, if the name is Cook, it is indeterminate.  In this case, look at the other names mentioned in the head rights for this patent.  Generally it is to be expected that all of the head rights will be of the same nationality.  For example, in Patent Book 14, on p. 362, we find that the Moore patent used the head rights, "Camper (x2), Huffman (x2), Richart (x3), and Cunk."  It is not hard to decide that all of these were probably German names.

I did a study once of the surname Thomas which might be either English or German.  But based on the adjacent names, my base of names was considered to be English in roughly the period of time from 1695 to 1732.  There were 37 occurrences of the name Thomas as head rights.  But only 13 Thomases patented land.  Whether a name was used more than once as a head right is a valid point but the given names with the surnames would suggest that the great majority of the Thomases in the head right lists were unique and not duplicated.  The numbers 13 and 37 show that most of the English did not obtain land by patent.  On the other hand, we know from other sources that the majority of the Germans did obtain land, usually by patent.
(20 Dec 05)

Still using the book series Cavaliers and Pioneers as a data source, I counted the Thomas head rights in the period 1695 to 1732.  There were 37 male Thomases and 13 female Thomases.  It would appear to me that these numbers approximate the ratio of the number of males and females in that area at that time.  Of course, some of the Thomas immigrants may have had no head rights, but it would seem to me that there is no reason that the Thomases without head rights should differ merely on the basis of sex.

Therefore, I conclude that the English immigrants (or citizens of Great Britain) were predominantly male and probably unmarried individuals.  Our records, though, for the Germans show that the sexes were divided more evenly because the German immigrants were family members where the entire family came.

Very few of the Germans had their transportation paid by a civil authority.  As has been pointed out by others here, the numbers of English convicts numbered in the tens of thousands.  The Germans who had their transportation prepaid were not convicts but were people who were burdens on the home village.  Sometimes a village found that the cheapest answer to supporting a family would be to send the family to the American Colonies.  There is no exact count on the numbers, but most of them would have been sent to Pennsylvania where the ships were more apt to go.

Thus, the typical German immigrant to Virginia was more likely to be a family man who wanted to own land.  It is often true that he had little material wealth.  It is amazing to us that they would undertake the trip with as little money as they had.  They had a faith, though, they would find the means to survive.  And they had a belief that would be leaving their children in a better situation than they could in Germany.

Take some pity on the people who had English ancestors.  If they can�t match us in the excellency of their ancestor�s motives, don�t hold it against them.  Probably you have a few English in your tree but you needn�t be ashamed of them.

[This may be all for a few days; we�ll see.]
(21 Dec 05)

A correspondent writes to ask if there is any information that Jacob Barlow married Mary Fleshman, the daughter of Peter Fleshman, the young 1717 immigrant.  Jacob is said to be the son of the 1717 immigrant, Christopher Barlow and his wife Barbara.  Jacob is known to have married a Mary.  They moved to Rockingham County circa 1775, and then on to Kentucky, where Jacob died after 1794.

We know that Peter had children John, Barbara, Robert (or Albertus), Catherine, Elizabeth, and Peter, Jr.  The first five of these have appearances in the church records.  Peter, Jr., married, first, Winifred Smith, and, second, Hannah, and he is oriented to non-Germanna families.  There is no mention of a Mary Fleshman of the correct age in the church records to be a daughter of Peter Fleshman, Sr.  The book "Our Families" by Larry Shuck does not give any daughter of Peter, Sr., by the name of Mary.  The conclusion is that there was no Mary Fleshman who was a daughter of Peter Fleshman, Sr.

The five children who have appearances in the Communion Lists were sufficient to define who Peter Fleshman, Sr.�s wife was.  She was Maria Sophia Weaver (Weber).  [This was a most instructive case study and illustrates excellently what can be done in some cases with the Communion Lists at the German Lutheran Church in the Robinson River Valley.  This was detailed in Beyond Germanna, starting on page 767 (vol. 13, n. 5 for September 2001).]

The Winifred Smith who married Peter Fleshman, Jr., was the daughter of Isaac Smith and Margaret Rucker.  Isaac Smith was of English descent.  Many of the descendants in this family became associated with the Germanna citizens who were descendants of Yagers, Yowells, Carpenters, Blankenbakers, Garrs, and Clores.

A source for the claim that Jacob Barlow married Mary Fleshman is said to be the book "The Barlow Story from 1717", which was written by Mary Wolf.  My correspondent has been unsuccessful in obtaining a copy of work.

If there is any further information on the wife of Jacob Barlow, I would like to learn it.
(26 Dec 05)

Recently, on the Germanna Colonies List, there was a question about the Fishback and Harris families.  Perhaps the following information from the "John Fishback Family Bible" would help.  The Bible was owned by Mrs. Beverly (Rogers) Button, the widow of William Ryland Button III of Manassas, Virginia.  It was copied by the late John K. Gott on 15 August 1995 and published in Beyond Germanna (vol. 8, n.1, p.428).

The Bible was printed at Philadelphia on 27 October 1802.  It was purchased in 1804 by John Fishback, Senr., for $9.50 cts.  Entries made in the Bible read:

Jane Settle married John Spilman Armstrong November 18th 1834.
Edward Fillison Settle son of Joseph Settle & Judith Brown, his wife, married Lucy Young Triplette Nov. 15, 1886.

Births

John Harris, son of Elisha Harris & Margaret his wife was born [blank].
Hannah Harris, Daughter of John Fishback & Alice, his wife, was born July 30th in the year of our Lord 1779.
Elizabeth Harris, Daughter of John Harris and Hannah, his wife was born July 30th in the year of our Lord 1810.
Lucinda Harris, daughter of the above was born March 8th in the year 1813.
Lauretts [?] Harris, daughter of the above was born June the 30 in the year 1816.
James William Harris, son of the above was born July 30th Domini 1818, AL 5818.
Hannah Harris daughter of the above was born December 29th AD 1821 A Lucius 5821.
William M .Settle son of Edward S. & Lucy, his wife, was born Sept. 23rd 1813.
Jane Settle, daughter of the above was born 14 of December 1814.
Richard H. Settle, son of the above was born 30 July 1817.
John E. Settle son of the above was born 22 July 1819.
James W. Settle, Son of the above was born 11 January 1822.
William Joseph Edwin [Settle] son of the above was born 14 Jan. 1824.
Lucinda Elizabeth Settle, daughter of the above was born 26 February 1827.
Edward Filison Settle, son of Joseph Settle & Judith Bowen his wife was born [blank].

[to be continued; meanwhile, what is the significance of the numbers 5818 and 5821?]
(27 Dec 05)

[continuing with the "John Fishback Bible"]

Deaths

William M. Settle departed this life 4 October 1813.
Richard H. Settle departed this life 7th day October 1818.
James William Settle died July 17, 1903.
Joseph Edwin Settle departed this life February 27, 1907.
Lucinda Elizabeth Settle depart this life April 4, 1886.
Jane Settle 1894.
John E. Settle departed this life � 1891.
Edward Filison Settle son of Joseph Settle and Judith Brown, his wife, died February 22, 1924.

[Between the Old Testament and Aprocrypha]

Frederick Fishback � see his will of Record at Culpeper C.H.
First wife was Miss ____ Rector.
2d wife was Miss Eve Martin.
John Fishback was the oldest son of Frederick Fishback & his first wife � see will.

John Fishback�s wife was Alice Morgan � their children were:

I. Elisabeth Fishback (m. Johnson & Corbin) children:  French Johnson, John M. Johnson & Mary Johnson & Mary Johnson (Shipp)
II. John Fishback (married & moved to Scottsville, Ky.  Has children.[)]
III. Ann Fishback (Stark) married Stark & moved to Allen Co., Ky.
IV. Hannah Fishback (married Harris)
V. Sarah Fishback, married Taylor
VI. Lucy Fishback, m. Settle
Gayton Settle died 1787, June 18
His sons were Wm. Settle & Joseph Settle ( moved to Nelson Co., Ky.)
Wm. Settle son of Gaton Settle, married Lucy [?] one son Edward and one daughter Sally (Kemper)
Edward Settle married Miss Lucy Fishback
Recorded by Edward Settle.

[In this Bible record, the first wife of Frederick Fishback is given as a Miss Rector.  Other sources name the first wife of Frederick Fishback as Ann Elizabeth Holtzclaw, the daughter of the immigrants, Jacob Holtzclaw and his wife Anna Margarethe Otterbach.  No explanation for the difference is offered; the difference is highlighted to bring it to your attention.]
(28 Dec 05)

There was a recent query about Edward Smith and whether he was related to the Germanna families.  His descendants are Germanna Colonists since Edward married Agnes Stonecipher.  Edward and Agnes had a son Nicholas.

I have no proof that Edward Smith was himself a Germanna descendant.  I suspect that he was not.  The question is an intriguing one because of the presence in the Robinson River Valley of both English Smiths and German Smiths (generally known as Schmids/Schmidts/Schmitts in the old country).

We do know there was an Isaac Smith who married Margaret Rucker.  Isaac Smith was born ca 1720 in Virginia.  He married Margaret Rucker whose nationality is probably German and English.  They had ten children, one of whom married Peter Fleshman, Jr., and one of whom married Catherine Boehme.  Three sons of Downing Rucker Smith and Catherine Boehme married, respectively, Diana Yager, Anna Yowell, and Barbara Yager.  The English Smiths and the Germanna people were mixed up enough to make sorting the various Smiths difficult.

At a first glance, Edward Smith might be a brother of Isaac Smith.  Certainly, their ages are about equal.  But we do not know that this is true.

Johannes Steinseifer came to Virginia in 1749 with his wife (Elisabeth Schuster) and family of nine children (the eldest son came later).  One of the daughters of Johannes was Agnes Catharina, baptized 26 August in 1736.  In 1749, Agnes would have been thirteen years old.  The Steinseifer family settled in the Robinson River Valley near their fellow German neighbors, Hoffman(s) and Rehlsbachs.

If Edward Smith married Agnes Stonecipher, it would probably have been after 1749, as Agnes was only 13 in 1749.  So, Edward might have been born a little later than 1720.  There were Germanna Nicholas Smiths, but they would have been too old to be a son of Agnes Stonecipher.

If anyone could help with the English Smiths, it would be good to have the information to help sort out all of the Smiths.
(29 Dec 05)

How can we tell if someone is a member of the Second Colony?

First, we would need to define whether we meant by "Second Colony member" a person who left Germany in 1717, or a person who arrived in Virginia in 1717 (ignoring for the moment whether by the new calendar they did actually arrive in 1717 or in 1718).  For example, was Johann Michael Willheit a member of the Second Colony, where I mean for this discussion that he arrived in Virginia in 1717.

Next, we have a list of people, from the Gemmingen Church Records, who left in 1717.  The writer was very specific about when they left and who they were.  The odds would be that at least some of these made it to Virginia in 1717.

Next, we have a list of the head rights that Alexander Spotswood used.  This gives us 48 names.  Now, the majority of the people on the Gemmingen list show up in this head right list.  Therefore, we are inclined to believe that all of the people who were in the head right list were members of the Second Colony.

Then we have the people who were sued by Alexander Spotswood.  This includes a few people who were not on the head right list, such as George Moyer; however, we understand that Spotswood bought out some, or all, of his partners in the land enterprise.  One of these partners was the heir of Robert Beverley, the historian.  In doing so, Spotswood acquired the contract of the people who had been sponsored or had their passage paid by Beverley.

Next, we have the dates that the people acquired their first land patent.  For the people who settled in the Robinson River Valley, this date was 1726; however, some had their patent in 1728, but the land was outside the RRV.  Christopher Zimmerman was one of these people and probably the surveyor did not get to that area (southeast of Mt. Pony) until then.  The date 1726 adds no new information, but the absence of the date 1726 in the RRV is meaningful.

We also have the proofs of importation which sometimes give an arrival date; however, these are the least trustworthy because the information was taken down by an English-speaking clerk who was taking the testimony of the German-speaking individuals.  This is how we have statements such as "in Capt. Scott" where the name of the ship was "Scott" and the captain was Andrew Tarbett.

By none of the tests above, does it look as if Johann Michael Willheit arrived in 1717.  The only test, not mentioned above, that he does pass is that he does not appear in the German and, in particular, the Schwaigern Church Records after 1717.  We now know there were several individuals who left in 1717 but did not arrive in 1717.

(to be continued).
(30 Dec 05)

(continuing the quesiton of whom to consider members of the Second Germanna Colony)

Among those who left Germany in 1717, but who did not make it to America in 1717, were the following families (the numbers indicate the number of individuals):

Hans George Forchel (4),
Chistoph Uhl (8),
Frederic Kapler (3), and
Hans George Long (4).

These consecutive names came from a list made in England of people who were asking for money to return to Germany.  There is no evidence that they obtained their money, nor is there any evidence that this was an exhaustive list of the people who were stranded in England.  Also, there may have been others who were detained in Germany.  What this does establish is that there were people who left in 1717 but who did not make it to Virginia in 1717.

Therefore, the disappearance of a name from the German church records by 1717 doses not constitute evidence that the person made it to Virginia with the Second Colony who arrived in 1717.

One thing that had always bothered me was the appearance of the people in 1719.  How did they know to go to Virginia?  Why did they not go to Pennsylvania, which is the place where the people who left Germany in 1717 originally wanted to go?  How could letters have gone back to Germany in sufficient time for the 1717 (or 1718 NS) people to inform the people in Germany where they were (i.e., in Virginia, not in Pennsylvania)?  Also, very few ships left Rotterdam for Virginia.  How did people know in 1719 to go to London to catch a ship for Virginia?  [I acknowledge that this latter point is weak.]

The answer to these questions is best provided by the knowledge that a German Lutheran Church in London was used as a contact point between the Germans who went to Virginia in 1717 and the Germans who, I believe, were stranded in London from the fall of 1717 to the spring/summer of 1719.

I do not believe that mere "disappearance from the German Church Records by 1717" is a reason to claim that a person made it to Virginia in late 1717 or early 1718.  This is the case with Johann Michael Willheit.  He does not meet any of the tests that were described in the previous note.  Most likely he was detained en route and did not arrive until 1719.

That Michael Willheit was detained en route is, I believe, also supported by the statements of his sons, John and Tobias, that they were from Mentz rather than Schwaigern or Wuerttemberg.  "Mentz" is a city along the Rhine, and I take it that the Willheit family spent some time there as they went down the Rhine.

The whole argument is changed if you wish to argue that leaving home in Germany in 1717 would make you a member of the Second Germanna Colony.
(02 Jan 06)

Our knowledge of the constituency of the Germanna Colonies is only partial.  In the Second Colony, we have several indicators, such as the Gemmingen list, the head right list of Spotswood, the lawsuits, the land patents, etc.

It is only an assumption that we know the actual members of the First Colony.  Again, do we mean to classify as First Colonists those who left Germany around 1714, or those who arrived in Virginia in 1714?  Of those who left, not all of them left at the same time.  At Oberfischbach, the pastor who succeeded Rev. Haeger (Sr.) wrote of the departure of Rev. Haeger and at the same time mentioned that Jacob Holtzclaw had not obtained permission to leave.  So if Haeger and Holtzclaw did not leave at the same time, are they both members of the same First Colony?  Did some leave Nassau-Siegen, but grow discouraged in London and return home?  Or did they become "Englishmen"?  I jest slightly, but seriously.  We simply do not have enough good information that permits to say anything with certainty.

Consider the following.  In 1709, the Sixth Party (of Palatines, or Germans) from Rotterdam was headed by Johan Fredrik Heger (as written by the Dutch).  That there were many Germans from the Nassau-Siegen area seems obvious from the great number of names from the parish of Oberfischbach where Johan Fredrik Heger was from.  One of the entries in the list was Peeter He�dee & vr. + K.  Remember that this was written by the Holland Dutch as the party was embarking for London.

We should interpret this as Peter Heide, or Heite, wife, and child.  Would this be the Peter Heide whom we think of as a member of the Second Colony?  Do the facts fit with what we know?  We have a record of the marriage of Peter Heite and Maria Elisabeth Freudenberg in 1707.  By 1709, one child would be expected.  In Germany, there are no known records after the marriage.  One of the reasons there may have been no more records is that Peter Heide was not in Germany after 1709.  So the family structure in the Rotterdam list is what we would expect, the Sixth Rotterdam List has many people from Nassau-Siegen, and there is a dearth of further records in Nassau-Siegen for Peter Heite.

I cite all of this to show that we should not be so certain that we know the members of the First Germanna Colony.  What happened to the 13,000 to 15,000 Palatines who did make it to England in 1709?  New York got 3,000; Ireland got 3,000, but 2,100 found their way back to England; North Carolina got 650; another 1,000 were sent to English villages; a thousand went to Jamaica in the West Indies; 4,700 were returned to Rotterdam; and 4,000 died in England.  So the possibilities for Peeter He�dee & vr + K are many.  I must leave it to you to identity this family with Peter Heite (or Peter Hitt) of the First Colony, but it does strike me as extremely probable.
(03 Jan 06)