GERMANNA History Notes Page #099

(This Page Was Last Modified Wednesday, 06-Apr-2011 15:52:04 MDT.)

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

This is the NINETY-NINTH page of John BLANKENBAKER's series of Short Notes on GERMANNA History, which were originally posted to the GERMANNA_COLONIES Discussion List.  Each page contains 25 Notes.

(See bottom of this page for Links to all Notes pages.)
This Page Contains Notes 2451 through 2475.

GERMANNA History Notes
Page 99

(If the text on this and other pages on this website isn't large enough, click here to see how to increase the size.)
(If you wish to print only part of this page, and not the entire page, click here for instructions.)

Nr. 2451:

*[Die Tassen stehen im Schrank.]

It was a long time ago that these Notes started but many readers are discovering them for the first time.  Sgt. George and I get a stream of emails from people who take time to express their appreciation.  For the newbies and even the old timers, I take time out at the beginning of the half centuries to say a little about the aims of these Notes.

We deal with the Germanna Colonists of 1714 and 1717 who came directly to Virginia.  There were additions for several decades to these core groups but they mostly came through Pennsylvania and moved down to Virginia.  The earliest of these Germans lived in Fort Germanna, or near by, a few miles outside the fort.  The fort itself, originally built for protection from the Indians, proved to be redundant and was intentinally destroyed about 1720.  The site continued to be called Germanna and was distinguishable as a community past the time of the Revolution.  (The site is halfway between Culpeper and Fredericksburg on state route 3 where it crosses the Rapidan River.)

The name Germanna became a symbol of all of the Germans who settled on the east side of the Blue Ridge Mountains in the modern counties of Culpeper, Fauquier, Madison, and Rappahannock, and the counties from which they were derived.  It is true that less than half of the Germans who settled in this Piedmont region lived at or near Germanna, but Germanna became their symbol.  It was here that the first group, called the First Colony, lived.

Germanna itself is distinguished today by several features.  First, it is the Locust Grove site of the Germanna Community College.  Second, it is location of the Visitor�s Center of the Germanna Foundation.  Thirdly, not so obvious, there are the ruins of Lt. Gov. Spotswood�s home, which was built over the site of Fort Germanna.

The identities of these Germans are better known than for the average German immigrant.  Their histories have been carried back to Germany for most of the people.  Collectively, the descendants today recognize what they owe to these early pioneers through their association in the Germanna Foundation.  Progress in research is best made through cooperation.  The list of which these notes are a small part serves as one means of communication.  I have undertaken here in the notes to write about general and specific points that will help to maintain interest in the list.

*[The cups are in the cupboard.]  (Literally: The cups are standing in the cupboard.)
(30 Jan 07)

Nr. 2452:

*[Deine Wohnung ist sehr schoen.]

[I have been away for a while from these Notes for a variety of (good) reasons.  Eleanor and I are members of the Delaware Photographic Society and they hold an international exhibition of work which has to be judged.  One of the judges came from Germany and we, with others, hosted him.  This involved feeding him, bedding him, and taking him to several local sites where he took many photographs.  His English was good but still we had to resort to the dictionary once in a while.  More or less simultaneously with this, I have put up two web pages and I�ll just give the URLs for them: and]

Recently one of the editors, Dr. Thomas W. Jones, of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly sent me the December 2006 issue in which he has an article that pertains to people in the Robinson River Valley.  Some of the families discussed are Germanna families and others are �English�.  The big difficulty that he faced in his research was the lack of records.  His article was entitled �Uncovering Ancestors by Deduction:  The Husbands and Parents of Eleanor (nee Medley) (Tureman) (Crow) Overton�.  As these names show, she was married three times and only one of them, the last, has a record.

Germanna researchers will recall that Susanna Castler, who married Samuel Klug, the Lutheran minister at the German Church, became a widow about 1764.  Shortly thereafter, she married Jacob Medley.  In tracing the history of the subject Eleanor, it seemed that she might be from the Klug family or from the Medley family because of the associations exhibited in a variety of documents.  The Klug family does have two unnamed daughters and possibly Eleanor was one of these two.

After examining the evidence, much of it inferential, Dr. Jones did decide that Eleanor had been born a Medley.  Along the way, he discussed the Klug, Medley, and Lotspeich families with brief mentions of other Germanna families.  If you are from one of these families or the Castler family, you may want to read the article which is not light reading.  The reasoning is very involved, though Dr. Jones lays it out rather clearly.  The conclusion that he arrives at is never stated explicitly in any record but he believes the available evidence shows Eleanor�s nativity and marriages.  (I am reminded of the work of Nancy Moyer Dodge who has done some good work based on the implied evidence of many documents.)

The issue of the NGSQ is Volume 94, No. 4 for Decemember 2006.

*[Your apartment is very pretty.]
(05 Feb 07)

Nr. 2453:

*[Ich habe den Tisch selbst gebaut.]

There has been a tremendous improvement in the Settlers� List on the Germanna Association web page, see  The authors or creators of the current page admit that there might be still more improvement and/or corrections.  Without in any way being critical of what has been done, I thought I might spend some time on a discussion of this list.  I will concentrate on the Second Colony, certainly at first.

A major source of information for the names is the Headright List of Alexander Spotswood which appears in a patent of his to be found in Virginia Patent Book 14, page 378ff.  One of the questions that we must answer is a decision about is whether the appearance of a name in this list indicates that the person arrived in Virginia.  Ship captains typically charged a fare for everyone who boarded the ship even if the person did not walk off the ship.  If Spotswood�s list came from Captain Tarbett, it might include some names of people who did not live to see Virginia.  Examples, not necessarily an exhaustive count, are Joseph Weber and two of the three daughters of George Scheible.  Naturalization records or Head Right applications do not clarify this point as the Weavers and Scheibles did not apply for either.

We could adopt the attitude that these names do show that the people left Germany in 1717.  That, though, is hardly a correct attitude to take, since several people who did leave Germany in 1717 did not make it to Virginia until about 1719.  This too raises another question.  When we say the Second Colony, do we include all of the people who left their home in Germany in 1717, or do we only include those who made it to Virginia in 1717?  Perhaps there should be a statement in the Settlers� List to how the Second Colony is being defined.

Now there are several names in the Headright List which are not included in the Settlers� List.  For example, Hans Michel Milcher (perhaps Milcker), Sophia Catharina Milcher, and Maria Parvara (Barbara) Milcher.  Also, Hans Jerich (George) Wegman, Anna Maria Wegman, Maria Margaret Wegman, Maria Gotlieve Wegman are in the Headright List but not in the Settlers� List.

There is good evidence that the other names in the Headright List are Second Colony members.  It should probably be assumed that all of the names in the Headright List are Second Colony members, even though there is the possibility that some of them may have died on the way; however, the Headright List is not a total enumeration of the Second Colony.  Both Spotswood and the Second Colony members put the number in the colony between seventy and eighty.  There are only forty-eight names in the Headright List.

*[I have built this table myself.]  (Are you noticing how many of these words in these statements suggest a word in the other language of the same meaning?)

[[Note from Webmaster:  In the study of languages, these similarly sounding words are known as "cognates".  They sound the same, or nearly the same, in other languages.  Consider the English "stool", the German "stuhl", and the Russian "shtul"?  (The German and Russian actually mean chair, but one can see that the words have a common origin.)  Sgt.George]]
(06 Feb 07)

Nr. 2454:

*[Sie arbeitet gerne mit Holz.]  (Holz = wood as in Holtzklau.)

The names of the Milchers in the Spotswood Headright List are not unfamiliar to us.  We encountered them in the departure list from Gemmingen.  As best that list could be read, we had Hans Michael Michlekhr, Sophia Catharina (his wife aged 30), two children, namely, Anna Margaret, Anna Catharina, and the wife�s sister, not named.  In the Headright List, the names of the two children are not present, nor apparently the wife�s sister.  In route, another child, Maria Barbara, must have been born.  However, we should not draw a too-refined estimate of who arrived because the maker of the Headright List had several known errors.

These names suggest that the names in the list are those who arrived at Virginia, because the probability is high that the entire family boarded in London.  If they did not appear on arrival in Virginia, then it is likely they died at sea and were not entered on the Headright List.  But it seems clear that three members of the family did arrive in Virginia as members of the Second Colony.  What happened to them in Virginia is unknown.  This would indicate that the names in the Headright List are those who did arrive in Virginia.  There are other scenarios but the one that I have outlined is the most probable.

We must also say the four Wegmans were members of the Second Colony and again we do not know what happened to them.  It is tempting to compare this family with that of Thomas Wayland who was one of the slightly later comers to the Robinson River Valley.  So far, there is no known connection.

Another source for the names of the Second Colony members is the list of Headright applications.  This adds the names John Motz, his wife Mary Apollonia; John Harnsberger, his wife Anna Barbara, his son Stephen; Andrew Kerker, his wife Margaret, his daughter Barbara; Christopher Barlow, his wife Barbara; Jacob Broyles; John Broyles, his wife Ursula, his children Conrad and Elizabeth; Nicholas Yager, his wife Mary, his children Adam and Mary; Philip Paulitz, his wife Rose, his children Margaret and Catherine.  This adds about 23 names which with the 48 names on the Headright List makes 71 people.  According to the Second Colony writers and Spotswood, we should perhaps be looking for 70 to 80 people.

However, the Headright List and the Proofs of Importations just cited, are not exhaustive.  There could still be others; in fact, at least one more family is known.

*[She likes working with wood.]
(07 Feb 07)

Nr. 2455:

*[Heute scheint die Sonne.]

In the last Note, I talked about the Headright List of Spotswood and the applications of some of the Second Colony members for Headrights.  Now, there should be only one Headright per person, yet we have some of the names appearing in both places.  As an example, Michael Cook is on both Lists.  This says something about the rigor with which these names were checked.  Spotswood described the Second Colony members as �free�, which would normally mean they were not servants.  But when the need arose, he had no hesitation about using the names.  (For the record, they were first, and he was second except for Peter Weaver.)

In our counting of the Second Colony members, we were short a few from the seventy to eighty that both Spotswood and spokesmen for the Second Colony mentioned.  Some of these were working for partners of Spotswood.  When the Spotsylvania tract was conceived with its more than 40,000 acres, Spotswood took in partners.  One of these was Robert Beverley, who died not long after the partnership had been created.  His only son inherited the tract and he soon sold out to Spotswood.  There is excellent evidence that George Meier (Moyer) was in this category, since in the lawsuits brought by Spotswood, the younger Beverley testified for Spotswood in the case of Moyer.  The natural explanation for this is that Spotswood acquired Moyer�s �contract� when he bought out the Beverley interest.  This might add six people which brings the total to the mid-seventies.

What this suggests is that any more names which are to be added to the list must be looked at very carefully.  For example, there is no solid evidence that John Thomas, his wife, and two children, were members of the Second Colony if we define the members by their arrival in Virginia.  It is extremely probable that this family left with her three brothers and their families and her mother, stepfather, and three half-siblings.  Yet we have no evidence that they arrived in 1717.  The sons in this family, John and Michael, had a land patent in 1726 along with many known members of the Second Colony, but the two boys were young and their relatives were probably the leaders in arranging for these patents.  Another name in the doubtful category is Michael Willheit who had his land patent two years after the known members of the Second Colony.  (Now already, I have raised the hackles of some excellent people here.)  I am inclined to count those who left in 1717 as members of the Colony even if they were delayed en route.  On this basis I would have no qualms about including John Thomas and Michael Willheit and their families.  Or, I could define the Second Colony as those who arrived in 1717, or in the immediately following years.

*[Today the sun is shining.]
(08 Feb 07)

Nr. 2456:

*[Welche Farbe gefaellt dir am besten?]

We have another source for clues as to whom the members of the Second Colony were.  From 1723 to 1726, Alexander Spotswood (or his lawyers, since he had gone to England for most of this period) were involved in a series of lawsuits against a number of Germans.  Several of these are identified as leaving Germany in 1717 and appear on the Headright List of Alexander Spotswood.  It seems reasonable to assume that all of the people who were sued were Second Colony members.  (If they had come later, then the end of their servitude would not have been reached.)  The converse is not true; not all Second Colony members were sued by Spotswood.  This is because Spotswood had partners who paid the transportation costs of some members, namely the difference between the 48 on the Headright List and the seventy-odd mentioned by Spotswood and the Second Colony historians.

The lawsuits against Jacob Crigler, Andreas Bellenger, Michael Holt, George Utz, Michael Clore, and Cyriacus Fleshman were dismissed.  The following went to trial:  Phillip Paulitz, Conrad Amberger, Nicholas Yager, Balthasar Blankenbaker, Henry Snyder, George Moyer, Michael Cook, John Broyles, Michael Smith, Michael Kaefer, Matthias Blankenbaker, Nicholas Blankenbaker, and George Scheible (modern spellings).

Individuals sued but not on the Headright List include Jacob Crigler, Andreas Bellenger, Michael Holt, Philip Paulitz, Conrad Amberger, Nicholas Yager, George Moyer, John Broyles, and Michael Kaefer.  From a detailed analysis of the court case of George Moyer, it appears his transportation had been paid by Robert Beverley, but that Spotswood acquired his contract when he bought out the younger Beverley.  (This suggests that the Headright List had been prepared when Spotswood paid the transportation for the 48 names and that he did not add the names which he acquired by buying out his partners.)

In the last Note we saw that several people, in their application for Headrights, said they came in 1717.  In fact, if we add up all of the people who are now candidates for inclusion in the Second Colony, we have too many if we are to believe the number of seventy to eighty.  In the documents that we have, there is no evidence for John Thomas and Michael Willheit.  It might be argued that the reason John Thomas and Joseph Weaver were not sued is that they had died before the commencement of the lawsuits.  Joseph Weaver was on the Headright List but he was not sued.  John Thomas appears on no List, but he definitely appears to have two children born in Virginia.

*[What is your favorite color?]  (Literally: Which color appeals to you the best?)
(09 Feb 07)

Nr. 2457:

*[Ich mag rot sehr gerne.]

Alexander Spotswood had to explain his land acquisitions which had been called into question.  He wrote a long letter to explain them and a major part of it was reproduced in Beyond Germanna (v.5, n.6, p. 296ff).  It is appropriate to the recent discussion here and I quote from his letter.

". . .until an opportunity hapned of freeing a considerable number of German families imported in 1717, when [Robert Beverley] invited me to become a sharer in the land, and at the same time admitted in some other partners, to the end we might all joyn our abilities to make a strong settlement with a body of people at once.  Accordingly I came into the proposal, as judging it no ways unbecoming to me, in the station of Governor, to contribute towards the seating of H.M. [His Majesty's]lands; and paying down the passage-money for 70 odd Germans, we settled them upon our tract as freemen [not servants] in 20 odd tenements, all close joyning to one another for their better defence, providing them there with a stock of cattle and all other things necessary for their support, without receiving (even to this day) one penny or penny�s worth of rent from them.  The tract then consisted of about 13,000 acres, but afterwards understanding that many others of the Germans, who had been sold for servants in this Colony, designed when the time of their servitude was expired, to come and joyn their country-folks, we thought it needful to inlarge the tract; and I finding, by the care which the Lords Commissioners of Trade took to send over the methods for making hemp and tar, that the Ministry at home was for encouraging the Plantations to raise Naval Store, judged it convenient to take in a large quantity of piney lands, which lay contiguous and fit for tar and masts, and so it was increased to a tract of 40,000 acres.�

It seems to me that Spotswood is saying:

1. Seventy-odd Germans came in 1717,
2. Other Germans came in the following years and worked for other people.

Forty-eight of these Germans had their transportation paid by Spotswood.  About thirty more had their transportation paid by partners of Spotswood in the Spotsylvania Tract.  And �many others� came later and had their transportation paid by others.

It seems to me that an attempt is being made to include some of these �many others� into the Second Colony.  Distinguishing whether someone came in 1717 or 1718 or 1719 is difficult, if not impossible.  I incline to call all of these as Second Colony members, where I define a Second Colony member as someone who came in 1717 to about 1720.

*[I like red a lot.]
(10 Feb 07)

Nr. 2458:

*[Kann ich dir helfen?]  (Even if you have not studied German, this one should be easy enough.)

I thought we might go through the list of Second Colony members which appears now on the Germanna web site.

Conrad Amberger was one of the people who was sued by Alexander Spotswood.  For the present, I will take it that all people who appear there are Second Colony members.  He does not appear though in Headright List, nor did he file for a Headright himself.  His first land patent was in 1728, but it was in the Mt. Pony area where the patents ran a little later than in the Robinson River Valley.  The number of people in his party is uncertain but he did leave with more than himself.  Count as one for the present.

Henry Aylor is a total mistake.  Henry was not even born in 1717 (he was born in 1718 as the church records in Germany show).  His father, Jacob, left no records in Virginia

Andrew Ballenger.  He was sued by Spotswood, though the suit was dismissed when neither side appeared in court.  After 1724 there are no records for him.  Other Ballengers are in the community.  Count as one.

Christopher Barlow was not sued, nor was he on Spotswood�s Headright List.  He did apply for Headrights for himself and his wife Barbara and he said at that time he came in 1717.  Count as two.

Balthasar Blankenbaker.  He was on Spotswood�s List with a wife and he was sued by Spotswood.  Count as two.

Matthias Blankenbaker.  He was on Spotswood�s List with a wife and son.  He was sued.  Count as three.

Nicholas Blankenbaker.  He was on Spotswood�s List with a wife and son.  He was sued.  Count as three.

Jacob Broyles.  He testified he came in 1717 with his wife and two children.  At the same time his son John testified he also came in 1717.  Count the family as five.

[Note from Webmaster:  Jacob Broyles was born in 1705 in Germany, as attested to by Church Records in �tisheim. He would have been 12 years old in 1717 when he arrived in Virginia. John was not Jacob's son; John was Jacob's father! John and wife Ursula Ruop, came with their three children, Jacob, Conrad, and Maria Elizabetha. Sgt. George]

For this note, the count is 17.

*[Can I help you?]
(12 Feb 07)

Nr. 2459:

*[Ja, aber nur bis morgen.]  (See the last note for the lead-in to this.)

Michael Clore was in the Headright List and was sued.  The List shows him, the wife, and three children for a total of five.

Michael Cook and his wife are in the Headright List and he was sued by Spotswood.  He also applied for Headrights, stating that he came in 1717 with his wife.  Count as two.

Jacob Crigler was sued by Spotswood.  He had the honor of being the first sued, but the suit was dismissed early.  Let�s assume he was a bachelor and count as one.

Cyriacus Fleshman came with his wife, Anna Barbara, and two children, Peter and Catherine, who are all named in the Headright List.  He was sued, though the suit was dismissed.  Count as four.

John Harnsberger applied for a Headright, saying he came with wife and son in 1717.  Count as three.

Michael Holt�s lawsuit was dismissed.  It is believed that he was a bachelor, as he later married one of the Scheible girls.  Count as one.

Michael Kaefer was a bachelor.  No other members of a family are mentioned in the Headright List.  (His sister, Apollonia, was the wife of Nicholas Blankenbaker.  Later, he married Anna Maria (Blankenbaker) Thomas.) Count as one.

Andrew Kerker stated he came in 1717 in his Headright application with his wife and daughter.  Count as three.

I have my doubts about George Long and his wife Rebecca.  It is true that he said in 1729 that he came �about twelve years earlier in the ship called the Mulberry�.  His land patent was later than those of the known Second Colony.  The ship has the wrong name and all of the dates suggest he came in the contingent which followed the first of the Second Colony.  If so, the name of the ship may be the one which brought the 1719 group.  Count as zero.

John Motz, in his Headright application, stated he came in 1717 with his wife Maria �Pelona�.  Count as two.

In this note we have added 22 names to the 1717 group.  In the last note we had 17 for a total of 39 so far.

*[Yes, but only until tomorrow.]
(13 Feb 07)

Nr. 2460:

*[Ich muss machen die Schnee gehen.]  (Maybe Elke can correct this original composition.)

George Moyer was sued by Spotswood, and Robert Beverley, the son, gave testimony at the trial which suggests that Moyer had his transportation paid by Robert Beverley, the father.  When the son sold his interest to Spotswood, the contract covering Moyer was a part of the deal.  This is the only case where the younger Beverley testified.  Beverley was a significant partner but he contributed a portion of the land.  The 1717 Settler�s List gives six people and I have no other information.

Philip Paulitz applied for Headrights for himself, his wife and two children, saying that he came in 1717.  He was sued by Spotswood.  Count as four.

Henry Schlucter was a young bachelor, the son of Anna Barbara Schoen and her second husband.  In the List, there is a minor typo in placing him with the Paulitz family.  Count as one.

George Scheible, with his wife and three daughters, was in the Headright List under the spelling Chively.  He was sued by Spotswood.  Count as five.

Matthew Smith was one of the 1717 departees from Gemmingen but he was not in the Headright List where his brother is found.  But he did apply for a Headright saying that he came in 1717 with his wife but no children (the 1717 Settler�s List credits him with two children).  Count as two.

Michael Smith was in the Headright List with his wife and son.  There is no evidence in Virginia that he arrived with more than this, though it appears he left as a member of the larger group.  He was sued by Spotswood.  Count as three.

Henry Snyder applied for a Headright, saying he came in 1717 with his wife.  The 1717 Settler�s List counts a daughter, but that would seem to be an error.  Count as two.

I have no evidence that John Spaeth and his wife (the mother of Michael Holt) arrived in Virginia.  Count as zero.

So I have added 23 names in this note to the list of 1717 people bringing the total to date to 62 if my arithmetic is correct.

*[I must make the snow go.]
(14 Feb 07)

Nr. 2461:

*[Wir wollen nach Berlin fahren.]

Next we continue with John Thomas, his wife, and two children who were born in Germanna.  The two children show up later in Virginia, as does the wife who married, secondly, Michael Kaefer.  There is no solid evidence that this family came in 1717 except it would have been very logical, since all of the mother�s relatives came in 1717.  To be hard-nosed about it, I will count them as zero.

George Utz appears on the Headright List as George Utz, his wife Barbara, and his son Ferdinand.  He was sued by Spotswood, though the suit was dismissed.  Count as three.  (See also the Volck family.)

The Volck family consisted of the children of Barbara Utz by her first husband.  In the Headright List with the Utz family, they were Sylvania (Sabina) and Anna Louisa.  Count as two.

The Weaver family consisted of Joseph, Susanna, Dietrich, Maria Sophia, and Waldburga.  This family represented a unique situation as they arrived with more children than they had when they left.  The father, Joseph, was not sued by Spotswood.  Apparently he died early and Susanna married Jacob Crigler.  Count as five.

I have no evidence that Michael Willheit and his family arrived in 1717.  (I don�t doubt that they left in 1717 but I have no evidence they arrived in 1717).  The fact that Michael�s land patent was dated two years after the other early land patents in the Robinson River Valley suggests that he arrived two years later than the others.  Count as zero.

Nicholas Yager applied for his Headrights and stated he came in 1717 with Mary his wife and children Adam and Mary.  He was sued by Spotswood (for big money).  Count as four.

Christopher Zimmerman applied for his Headrights and stated he came in 1717 with his wife Elizabeth and sons John and Andrew.  He was not on the Headright List of Spotswood nor was he sued.  Count as four.

We have added eighteen to the list of 1717ers making a total of 80.  This is slightly more than Spotswood gave (seventy-odd) and we have not yet counted some names on his Headright List.

*[We would like to go to Berlin.]
(15 Feb 07)

Nr. 2462:

*[Es ist kalt.]

So far we have counted about 80 candidates as members of the Second Colony and we have left some favorites out.  There are a few more names that should be counted from Spotswood�s Headright List.  Surely, when he said �seventy-odd� he would have been counting all the names on his head right list.

The names from his Headright List that we have not counted are:

Michael Milcher, Sophia Catharina Milcher, and Maria Parvara Milcher.  This family was from Gemmingen and was named in the departure list.  Even in Gemmingen, the spelling was erratic.  The members of the family who left there were Michael, his wife Sophia Catharina, Anna Margaretha, Anna Catharina, and the wife�s sister.  The Maria Parvara (Barbara) in the List could be a baby or might be the wife�s sister (even though her surname was not the same as her sister).  Apparently, the two daughters in Gemmingen died on the trip.  In any case we have to count three for the family.

Another family in the Headright List was Hans Jerich Wegman, Anna Maria Wegman, Maria Margaret Wegman, Maria Gotlieve Wegman.  The origins of this family are unknown.  We have to count them as four though.

This additional seven brings our total to 87 which exceeds Spotswood�s �seventy-odd�.  So we have to return to our original list and see where we can cut out about ten people.  That is an unpleasant task as it is bound to irritate people.

A document in London says that 200 were returned to Holland in the fall of 1717.  Since the Germans who did make it to Virginia that year (old style) were quite late, I would expect that these 200 people might have included many relatives and friends.  We know some of the people on this list did make it to Virginia slightly later.  Whether they made it back to Holland (and perhaps to Germany) is uncertain.  I believe the document only says they petitioned for the fare back to Holland and it is not clear whether they did get their fares paid.  I suspect they remained in England waiting for opportunity to go to America.  So, many of these people did leave in 1717 but did not make it immediately.  I am inclined to favor calling the Second Colony as those who arrived in the period 1717 to 1719.  The so-called Third Colony was merely the stragglers from those who left in 1717.

I have been surprised that my recent notes have not evoked more comments and opinions.

*[It is cold.]
(16 Feb 07)

Nr. 2463:

*[Warst du schon einmal verliebt?] (Clue: I am a few days late with this one.)

I thought we might note the documents I have been using recently.  A major one is the Headright List of Alexander Spotswood.  This is recorded in Virginia Patent Book 14, page 378ff.  I believe this can be obtained online from the Virginia State Library.  Those of you who have Nell Marion Nugent�s volume III of Cavaliers and Pioneers can find it there, but she has a few flaws in her transcription.  She, for example, had the Clores scattered around in the list of names whereas in the Patent they are contiguous.  The original list has a few errors in it, quite aside from the very poor spelling.  Two names were combined into one, namely, Ferdinandis Sylvina Otes, which should be Ferdinand Utz and Sylvina Volck.  Anna Louise Otes should also be a Volck, we believe.

[From Elke Hall's reply to this Note, 19 Feb 07:  "John, do we know who Sylvina Volck is?  Does it imply in one of the Germanna Notes (my wife's mother) that Sylvina is Maria Sabina Charlotta Barbara Volck and that she was the wife of Ferdinand Utz?  I thought she was married to Johannes Hoffmann from Siegen?  Elke"]

[From John's reply to Elke, 19 Feb 07:  "Elke is correct.  Sylvina is Sabina, namely Maria Sabina Charlotta Barbara Volck, who married John Huffman.  Ferdinand Utz is a young son of George Utz and Barbara his wife.  He did not live long.  John Blankenbaker"]

Apparently, another good source of information is the list of people who were sued by Alexander Spotswood.  The thought is that the lawsuits would not have been brought against anyone who arrived later than 1717 since not enough time has gone by since they arrived.  James E. Brown examined the court books of Spotsylvania County and extracted all references to suits by Spotswood against the Germans.  He presented a summary of his findings in Beyond Germanna in volume 5, number 3, on pages 265ff.  This is, I believe, the best summary that has ever been prepared.  Twenty people appear to have been sued, though it is true that the Germans, in a petition to the Assembly, said above 25 had been sued by him.  I have no explanation for this difference.  The suits against Crigler, Bellenger, Holt, Utz, Clore, and Fleshman were dismissed.  Judgments were obtained against Paulitz, Amberger, Yager, B. Blankenbaker, Henry Snyder, Moyer, Cook, Broyles, M. Smith, Kaefer, M. Blankenbaker, N. Blankenbaker, and Sheible.

Good sources of information are in the Headright Applications.  Again, James E. Brown compiled a list of all that he could find in the Spotsylvania County records.  These, for both the First Colony and the �Second� Colony were summarized in Beyond Germanna, volume 7, number 5, on pages 401 and 402, plus page 435.  For the �Second� Colony and later, applications were made from 1725 to 1729.  The families were Motz, Harnsberger, Zimmerman, Snyder, M. Smith, Cook, Kerker, Carpenter, Barlow, Broyles, Yager, Paulitz, Turner (Tanner), Long, and Wayland.  One of the values of the information is that the applicant stated when each came and the names of the family members.  All except Carpenter (1721) and Tanner (1720) said they came in 1717.  Wayland did not specify an arrival date.  The non-appearance of a name here is not too significant since Headrights were not very valuable and most of the people were obtaining their land under the free land clause in the legislation creating Spotsylvania County.

*[Have you ever been in love?]
(19 Feb 07)

Nr. 2464:

*[Ich liebe dich.]

When I first examined the question of who the members of the Second Colony might be, I thought that the dates of the Land Patents might help.  I came to the conclusion that those with the earliest dates were confirmed in other ways and so having an early Land Patent date was not strong evidence.  It tends to confirm.  Let�s go through some of the earliest ones.

Cyriacus Fleshman 1726.  He was on the Headright List and was sued.  John Motz & John Harnsberger.  Both of these in their Headright Application said they came in 1717.  Henry Snyder 1726.  He said he came in 1717 in his Headright Application, he was on the Headright List of A.S. (Alexander Spotswood), and he was sued.  Nicholas Blankenbaker 1726.  He was on A.S. Headright List and was sued.  John and Michael Thomas 1726.  These boys are a special case and their uncles and step-grandfather probably filed on their behalf.  I would not take their 1726 Patent date as evidence of coming in 1717.  John Broyles 1726.  He was sued by A.S. and said he came in 1717 on his own application.

Michael Holt 1726.  Sued by A.S.  William Zimmerman (aka Carpenter) had land in 1726.  He said he came in 1721 when he applied for his Headright.  If he had paid his own way, he could have sought land at any time after he came.  This is an example where a Patent in 1726 does not prove Second Colony membership (see the Thomases above).  Michael Clore 1726.  He was sued and was on the A.S. Headright List.  Michael Smith 1726.  He was not on A.S. Headright List, nor was he sued, nor did he apply for a Headright on his own.  Michael Smith left Germany in 1717 and we are inclined to count him as a Second Colony member, especially because he did get land in 1726.  In this case we are inclined to count the Land Patent of 1726 as favorable evidence, especially in conjunction with the departure date.

George Moyer 1726.  He was sued by Spotswood and we believe he was a Second Colony member.  George Utz 1726.  He was on A.S. Headright List and was sued by A.S.  Michael Kaefer 1726.  He was on A.S. Headright List and was sued.  Michael Cook and Jacob Crigler 1726.  Cook was on A.S. Headright List, was sued and applied for a Headright, saying he came in 1717.  Jacob Crigler was sued by A.S.  Matthew Smith and Matthew Barlow 1726.  Matthew Smith�s claim to Second Colony membership rests on his own Headright Application where he said he came in 1717.  Matthew Barlow is believed to be the son of Christopher Barlow.  Christopher Barlow said he came in 1717 on his Headright Application, but he did not mention Matthew Barlow.  Matthew Blankenbaker 1726.  He was on A.S. Headright List and was sued.

There are a few more names for the next Note.  More desirably, I need to make a table.

*[I love you.]
(20 Feb 07)

Nr. 2465:

*[Ich moechte ihn heiraten.]  (Clue:  What does it normally take to generate heirs?)

We left off with Matthew Blankenbaker in the list of people who had land Patents in 1726.  George Scheible also had a Patent in 1726 and he was on the Alexander Spotswood Headright List and was sued by A.S.  Nicholas Yager�s first land Patent was in 1726.  He was on the A.S. Headright List and he was sued.  He applied for a Headright in his own name saying he came in 1717.  Balthasar (Paul) Blankenbaker was on the A.S. Headright List, he was sued by A.S.  He had a Land Patent in 1726.  Christopher Zimmerman is an interesting case as his land, which he obtained a Patent for in 1726, was in the Mt. Pony area.  Still, he obtained it in 1726.  He was not sued by A.S. but he did apply for Headrights on his own, saying he came in 1717.  He was not on the A.S. Headright list though.

I believe I have gone through all of the 1726 Patents to Germanna Colony members.  In 1727, there was a Patent to Joseph Bloodworth whose nationality is not clear.  He had a lot of interactions with the Germans.  Conrad Amberger had his Land Patent in 1728 in the Mt. Pony area.  Why he was so late is not clear but he was sued by A.S., which is taken to be proof of entry in 1717.

About 1729, we had Patents in the Robinson River Valley (RRV) to John Huffman, Jacob Broyles, William Carpenter, Andrew Kerker, George Woods (Utz), and Michael and John Clore.  Patents about this time to Christopher Zimmerman and to Jacob Holtzclaw were outside the RRV.  Throughout this time period, 1726 to 1730, the English were also taking Land Patents in the RRV.

Matthias Castler had an RRV Patent in 1728.  Adam Yager had a Patent in the Mt. Pony area in 1728.  Cyriacus (and Peter Fleshman) went to the well again in 1728.  Frederick Kabler got his first land in 1728 in the Mt. Pony area and we know he was delayed in coming.  John Fishback obtained a tract in the Little Fork area in 1730.  Several of the Germans were obtaining second land Patents in this time period.

Michael Willheit obtained his first Patent in 1728.  There is no evidence to support his arrival in 1717 with the others, though I have no doubts that he left Schwaigern in 1717.  I believe this was one of the families that was delayed in transit.  We can name other families that were delayed such as the Yowells, Kablers, and Tanners.

We see that the date of the first Land Patent is not solid evidence, though in the majority of the cases its does confirm arrival in 1717.  We depend in part on Alexander Spotswood�s statement that the number of Germans was seventy-odd.

*[I would like to marry him.]
(21 Feb 07)

Nr. 2466:

*[Alles Gute fuer eure Zukunft.]

We have been talking about who came in 1717.  If we were to use the modern calendar, the answer might be that no one came in 1717.  We may be totally barking up the wrong tree.

Why can we say this?  In the early Eighteenth Century, the new year in England started on March 25 and ran from March 25 to the next March 24.  When it was observed that the classical calendar was getting out of sync with the sun, Pope Gregory revised the calendar by dropping ten days.  At the same time, it was decided to start the year on January 1.  I don�t know why they chose this day but the first of any month would certainly be better than starting the new year in the middle of a month.  In the European continental lands, especially where there was a strong Catholic element, the new calendar was adopted immediately, but England held out against the change just because it had a Popish flavor to it.  So, for many years, there were two calendars in effect.  Sometimes they were referred to as Old Style (OS) and New Style (NS).

We know that our Second Colony people left their homes in July, an unusually late time in the year to emigrate.  Then in London they had some difficulty in finding a ship.  When they did find one, the Captain (Tarbett) was thrown into Debtor�s prison.  During August, and some of September at least, the Germans were in London waiting and attending church at St. Marys in the Strand, where they left a few records.  We do not know when the ship got underway, but we do know that ten weeks was a very typical time for crossing the Atlantic.  Some voyages were less but many were longer than this.  The ship Oliver carrying passengers from Freudenberg was in transit for more than six months, but that was a very unusual case.

Not knowing when the ship Scott left London, and not knowing the time it took, we are hard pressed to say when it arrived, but it could well have been after January 1; however, using the calendar in use in England, if they arrived after January 1 but before March 25, they would have said that they arrived in 1717.  Today, we would say that they arrived in the year 1718, if they had arrived in the period from January 1 to March 24.  There is a good probability that they arrived in the year 1718 by the modern calendar.

The move to the Robinson River Valley was in 1725.  If they arrived in 1718 and did serve seven years, this would be in agreement.  It is not proof that they did arrive in 1718 (NS).  Someone who says their ancestor arrived in 1717 may be in error on two points.  They may have been a couple of years later and they may have been in 1718 (NS).

*[All the best for your future.]
(22 Feb 07)

Nr. 2467:

*[Sie ist sehr gluecklich.]

Recently, in connection with the Second Colony definition, we discussed the Headright List of Alexander Spotswood.  One of the things that interested me about this is that the forty-eight names that he gives as Headrights never lived on the land that was being patented.  They instead lived on the �40,000� acre Spotsylvania Tract in the Great Fork.  The land being patented in which they appear was south of the Rapidan River.  There was no requirement that the Headrights be related in any way to the land being patented.

When Spotsylvania County was formed, the legislation contained clauses saying that the land in it would be free of the purchase fees and quit-rents for ten years.  This was very unusual legislation and it required confirmation from London.  There were several uncertain conditions.  For example, some of the land had been settled with patents issued before the county was formed.  Was this land included under the free clause?  The Germanna tract was patented about 1716.  Would the people who patented it be entitled to a rebate on the �purchase price�?  These questions persisted for many years.  The Germans were able to go ahead and take up the free land in the Robinson River Valley (RRV).  They were never questioned.  But Alexander Spotswood had so many uncertainties in his land titles that his claim was clouded for many years.  This was one of the reasons that he went back to England in 1724.  He needed to get these claims settled.  It required him to appear before the King to get the questions answered.  In the end he had to pay something.  Whereas earlier he may never have had any intention of using the Headrights of the Germans, when it was found that he had to pay something, he used the names of the forty-Germans for which he had, directly or indirectly, paid the transportation.

Cary Anderson found it strange that the Blankenbaker families in the Headright List were not listed together.  I don�t think it is so unusual.  The families were independent.  It is true that they probably wanted to be on the same land together but there no reason that their names should appear consecutively in the list.  It is more significant how their own Land Patents lay.  In the RRV we find a continuous sequence of Blankenbakers, Thomases, Scheibles, and Fleshmans, and I believe all of these were related.

I do find it interesting that Hans Michael Schmidt and his family were there, but that his brother Hans Matthias Schmidt was not there.  Thinking that related families would try to stay together, it has always surprised me to find Michael there but not Matthias.  But to carry this thought a bit further, there was very little interaction between the families of Michael and Matthias in the succeeding years.

*[She is very happy.]
(28 Feb 07)

Nr. 2468:

*[Vielen Dank fuer die Blumen.]

The Smith families are extremely hard to trace in America because of the common name.  I thought, though, that we might review the family of Michael Smith.  He was from Gemmingen and the family is recorded in the departure list of 1717.  Besides him (age 28), there was his wife Anna Margaretha (28), sons Hans Michael (5 �) and Christopher (�), plus the in-laws who, are not named.  Since Anna Margaretha�s father (a Sauter) was already dead, we presume the in-laws to be her mother and stepfather.  Spotswood�s Headright List, gives only Hans Michael, Anna Creda, and Hans Michael.  The son Christopher presumably died during the trip.  The fate of the in-laws is most uncertain.

There were no more children in Virginia.  So, the heirs of Hans Michael Smith, Sr., were only Hans Michael Smith, Jr.  The son married Anna Magdalena Thomas, so all of the Michael Smith descendants have Thomas and Blankenbaker ancestors.  Anna Magdalena was the daughter of John Thomas and Anna Maria Blankenbaker.

There were seven children of Michael and Anna Magdalena which we know by the deeds and church records.  The son Adam was married twice, where the wive�s maiden names are unknown.  The daughter Mary married Adam Barlow.  Susannah married John Berry, Jr.  Zachariah is said to have married, first, Anne Elisabeth Fishback, and, secondly, Sarah Anne Watts.  John married Elisabeth Unknown.  Anna Magdalena married John George Crisler.  The daughter Catherine married John Marbes, but she was unfaithful to him and had at least one child by another man.

The sons Adam, Zachariah, and John all moved to Kentucky at a very early age.  The route they took may have been by the Ohio River because Adam�s daughter married Abraham Thomas who was in southwestern Pennsylvania.  Abraham tells that he went to Kentucky (Mercer County) by the Ohio River.  The three sons have no records in Virginia after 1777.  These last records are in the German Lutheran Church in Culpeper County.

Late in life, Michael Smith, Sr., disposed of most of his land, if not all, among his children.  He then became a preacher in Pennsylvania and Virginia (this is my opinion, but it is buttressed by good circumstantial evidence).  Muhlenberg speaks of him as a �free booter�.  Around 1782 he undertook to become the minister at the Lutheran Church in the RRV but he was a failure and was kicked out.  His skimpy education may have been a contributor to this.

*[Thank you for the flowers.]
(27 Feb 07)

Nr. 2469:

*[Hast du schon ein Geschenk gekauft?.]

The phrase "Baron Ludwig Fischer" was mentioned recently and Thom Faircloth doubted that Ludwig was a Baron.  Thom is right; there was no Baron Ludwig Fischer but there was a Ludwig Fischer (Lewis Fisher), possibly two Ludwig Fischers if the tax reports are to be believed.  The heirs of Ludwig Fischer let their imagination run away and before the story could be stopped, Ludwig Fischer was a Baron with a castle, etc., etc.  Some of the heirs did believe that he left a fortune in Germany and they set out in a half-hearted way to reclaim it.  Their story is told in Beyond Germanna in volume 9, number 3, page 501ff.

Bill and Susan Holsclaw have asked if anyone knows the maiden name of Catherine who was the second wife of Jacob Holtzclaw, the 1714 immigrant.  At some time after his fourth child was born, and before his eighth child was born, he married Catherine Unknown.  This is only one mystery and I have been intrigued by other aspects of the family.  Let me recite my conundrum which is related to Bill and Susan�s question.

The eldest son of Jacob, namely John, married Catherine (Russell) Thomas, a widow with a young son Jacob.  The two youngest sons of Jacob Holtzclaw, namely Jacob, Jr., and Joseph, married daughters of John Thomas and an unknown wife.  Is there some connection between the Thomas who married Catherine and the Thomas daughters who lived in the RRV?

One can make a story that if there had been, then John Thomas (Hans Wendel) and his children might have followed the fortunes of Jacob Thomas and thereby have brought the Thomas family and the Holtzclaw families into closer contact.

Another possibility is that Catherine was from the RRV community.  Thus, she might have been the tie between the Thomas family and the Holtzclaw family.  Of course, neither of these possibilities might be true or both might be true.  We just don�t know.

Catherine, the wife of the son John, is said to be a Russell.  Some Russells were close to Alexander Spotswood.  We could find no evidence that John Thomas and his wife Anna Maria Blankenbaker came in 1717, but perhaps this family became the servants of the Russell family.  Thus, they might have escaped the lawsuits and the Headrights of Spotswood.  Was there another member of the Thomas family who came, perhaps a brother of John Thomas, Sr.?  Perhaps he married Catherine and had a son Jacob.  The RRV Thomases might have continued to remain close to the Holtzclaw family just because of this connection.

If you want to see a three-generation chart of the Holtzclaw family, there is one on the web site.

*[Have you already bought a present?]
(28 Feb 07)

Nr. 2470:

*[Nein, ich kann mich nicht entscheiden.]

Marilyn Hansen recently gave us a good fill-in on Adam Smith, the eldest child of Michael Smith, Jr., and his wife Anna Magdalena Thomas.  I am going to copy some of the material here to make the Smith story more complete.  Apparently, Adam was the first of the Michael Smith family to leave the Robinson River Valley.  He sold his land in 1772 in Culpeper Co., VA, and apparently moved to Augusta County, for he was a curate (assistant to a rector or vicar) for five months in 1773.  His next appearance in the records is in Kentucky in 1780 and 1782 where he acquired land.  In two of these entries, he is noted as Reverend Adam Smith.

The will of Adam was proved March 1793 in Mercer County, KY, with a wife Elizabeth, sons Ezekiel, Benjamin, and Solomon, and a daughter Elizabeth.  The witnesses to the will were Zacharias Smith, John Smith, and John Samuel Mow(?).  Zacharias and John were his two brothers.  The identity of this Rev. Adam Smith as the son of Michael Smith, Jr., of the RRV seem to be proven by the appearance of the names Adam, Zacharias, and John together in Virginia and together in Kentucky.

Elizabeth, apparently Adam�s wife, appears in the tax records in 1796, in 1800, and perhaps in 1810, though at this latter date the location is Warren County.  Probably this is not the same Elizabeth.

The fact that Adam was at one time a curate and then later a Reverend was news to me.  As I indicated in a recent note, I believe the father, Michael, Jr., was briefly the leader in the German Lutheran (�Hebron�) Church in the RRV .  Michael, Sr., was a collector of funds for the church and a Church Warden in 1733 and 1740.  This is the same Michael who accompanied John Caspar Stoever, Sr., to Europe on the fund-raising trip.  The family had a long association with the church in major roles.

Michael Smith, Jr., who had inherited all of his father�s land as the only son and who had purchased land in his name, gave this land away by gifts to his three sons and four sons-in-law from 1762 to 1772.  The land that Adam sold in 1772 was the land that his father had given him.

*[No, I cannot decide.]
(21 Mar 07)

Nr. 2471:

*[Du musst dich beeilen.]

Zacharias Smith, the son of Michael Smith, Jr., and his wife Anna Magdalena Thomas, is said to have married, first, Ann Elizabeth Fishback, the daughter of John Frederick Fishback and his wife Ann Elizabeth Holtzclaw.  The Hebron� baptismal records show Zacharias Schmidt and Anna Schmidt as sponsors of the child Julius Crisler, the son of Johann George Crisler and his wife Anna Magdalena Smith who was the sister of Zacharias.  This was in 1767.  For the next four children up to 1775, Zacharias was a sponsor without a wife.  In 1777, Zacharias was a sponsor for the child Elizabeth of John Smith, Jr., (his brother) and his wife Elizabeth.  The Junior designation was perhaps added because his father and grandfather, both christened John Michael Smith, often used both of their given names.  In 1777, Zacharias Smith and his wife Sarah Ann deeded away land in 1777 to Henry Field.  Zacharias testified that he had raised a crop of corn in Kentucky in 1776, which certainly makes him an early pioneer in Kentucky in the area which became Mercer County.  He took out his land rights in 1779-80.  Zacharias served during the Revolutionary War in a detachment of Lincoln militia under the command of Ensign John Smith.

The corn growing and the Revolutionary service are the same as for Jacob Holtzclaw, the son of the 1714 colonist.  Jacob had married Susannah, the daughter of John Thomas.  Remembering that the Smiths all had a Thomas ancestor, in particular their mother, it appears that Zacharias and Susannah Holtzclaw were first cousins.

Zacharias and Sarah Ann made deeds in 1790 and 1805 in Mercer County.  In 1800 and 1811 they made deeds to Jesse Smith who, by tradition, was a son of the first wife.  Peter Smith, Abraham Smith, and Jeremiah Smith, other witnesses to other deeds.

Zacharias Smith died in Mercer Co., KY, in 1816.  In 1817 Sarah Ann Smith deeded to Zachariah, James, and Jesse Smith, and to Joseph Fisher, Robert Ragan, and to Jeremiah, Samuel, and Abraham Smith of Garrard Co., all of rights in the land of her deceased husband, Zachariah, on condition that they pay her $91 annually in accordance with notes that she holds from them.  Sarah Ann did not die until 1835 and she mentions her daughter Nancy Ragan�s second son, Reuben G. Ragan.  Zacharias Ragan, the eldest son of Nancy, was also mentioned.  Three daughters were mentioned, Sally Taylor, Mildred Fisher, and Nancy Ragan.  It is believed that all of these people were Sarah Ann�s own children.  In the next Note, we give a list of all of the children of Zacharias Smith.

So we are in Kentucky now with family connections to the Smiths, Thomases, Fishers, and Holtzclaws and others.

*[You have to hurry up.]
(02 Mar 07)

Nr. 2472:

*[Es ist schon so spaet?]

The issue of Zachariah Smith (b. ca 1735, d. 1816) and his first wife, Ann Elizabeth Fishback:

  1. William Smith, d. prior to 1818, leaving seven children, of whom one was Sallie, wife of Thompson Williams of Scott Co., KY.
  2. Elizabeth Smith, m. Capt. Henry Grider of Swiss Mennonite descent (b. 9 May 1755 in Lancaster Co., PA; d. 1843 in KY).  He was a soldier in Revolution from Rockingham Co., VA, and in 1788 he was a Lieutenant in the Militia in Mercer Co., KY.
  3. Mary Smith, m. William Powell and was a widow living in Warren Co., KY, in 1818.
  4. Jesse Smith, m. Joanna Pendleton.

The issue of Zachariah Smith and his second wife, Sarah Ann (who died in 1835) was:

  1. Zachariah Smith of Mercer Co., KY, b. 1770-1780, m. Annie or Agnes Dickie.
  2. Peter Smith, m. Elizabeth ___; living in Bullitt Co., KY, in 1818.
  3. Jeremiah R. Smith, m. Polly ____; living in Garrard Co., KY, in 1821.
  4. James Smith, m. Margaret ____; living in Garrard Co., KY,, in 1821.
  5. Samuel Smith.
  6. Abraham Smith, m. Nancy _____; living in Garrard Co., KY, in 1821.
  7. Sally Smith, m.(1) a cousin, William Smith, according to family tradition, and had a daughter Mary (Polly) Smith (b. 16 April 1788, d. 5 May 1848 according to her tombstone record).  Mary married (2) George Green in 1806 in Mercer Co., KY, with the bond signed by her stepfather and mother, Uriah and Sally (Smith) Taylor.  The marriage, her second, of Sally Smith to Uriah Taylor was on 28 June 1793, with Zachariah Smith and Elijah Holtzclaw on the bond.  Elijah was the son of Jacob Holtzclaw and Susannna Thomas.
  8. Mildred (Milly) Smith, m. Joseph Fisher [I believe he was a descendant of Ludwig Fisher and Anna Barbara Blankenbaker.  Therefore, Milly and Joseph were distant cousins.]
  9. Nancy Smith, m. Robert Ragan, and had two sons, Zachariah Ragan and Reuben G. Ragan, who are mentioned in Nancy�s mother�s will.

The statements above are not entirely proven.  The identity of Ann Elizabeth Fishback is not proven.  The division of the children between the two wives of Zachariah is not proven either.  We do see that the family connections which were formed in Virginia are continued into Kentucky.  There is quite a bit of mixing between the First and Second Colonists and the later-comers.

*[Is it that late already?]
(05 Mar 07)

Nr. 2473:

*[Warum arbeitest du nicht?]

It is believed that the eldest son of John Michael Smith, Jr., was Adam, who might have been born in the late 1730's.  (Adam was deeded land by his father in 1762.)  Adam died in Mercer Co., KY, in 1793.  His wife was Elizabeth, surname unknown.  Adam Smith and Elizabeth deeded away the land given him by his father in Culpeper Co. in 1772 and 1777 and moved to Mercer Co., KY.  The will of Adam Smith, probated in Mercer Co. at the March Court in 1793, mentions his wife Elizabeth and his children, Ezekiel, Benjamin, Soloman, and Elizabeth.  The witnesses were Zachariah and John Smith.  The son Benjamin died in Mercer Co., KY, in 1798.

An agreement between Ezekiel Smith and his cousin Jesse Smith regarding the boundaries of their land is dated 14 May 1809 (Barren Co., KY, D.B. �C�, p.44).  At that time Ezekiel was living in Barren Co.

Three daughters of Adam Smith are known.  They were married in Lincoln Co. before Mercer Co. was formed from it.

Issue of Adam Smith and his wife Elizabeth:

  1. Ezekiel Smith.
  2. Benjamin Smith.
  3. Solomon Smith.
  4. Elizabeth Smith.
  5. Mary Smith, �daughter of Adam Smith�, married William Barbee 20 Feb 1781.
  6. Catarine (Catharine) Smith, �daughter of Adam Smith�, m. Michael Hampton 19 April 1784.
  7. Anna Smith, �daughter of Adam Smith�, m. William Custer 16 June 1785.

John Smith, the son of John Michael Smith, Jr., was younger than his two brothers, Adam and Zachariah.  He was not deeded land until 1771, so perhaps he was born about 1750.  He died in Barren Co., KY, in 1809.  His wife was Elizabeth ____.  He and Elizabeth deeded their land away in 1777 and moved to what is now Mercer Co., KY.  On 29 October 1796, John Smith and his wife Elizabeth of Mercer Co. deeded to Uriah Taylor (who was the son-in-law of Zachariah Smith) 900 acres.

*[Why are you not working?]  (Literally: Why work you not?)
(06 Mar 07)

Nr. 2474:

*[Was sind deine Hobbies?]

The youngest son of John Michael Smith, Jr., another John, married Elizabeth ____.  His will was dated 5 June 1806.  It was probated in Barren Co. at the October Court 1809 and mentions his wife Elizabeth, daughters Martha, Keziah, Mary Elizabeth, Susannah and Fanny, and names the sons Aaron and John, who have been given their full portions as has the daughter Ann.  The son Michael was nominated as executor.  We have the following children of the couple:

  1. Aaron Smith.
  2. John Smith.
  3. Michael Smith.
  4. Henry Smith, perhaps, who, with John Smith, was deeded land by Zachariah Smith in 1801.  [Note that he was not named in the will.]
  5. Ann Smith married in 1787 Ambrose Barlow.  The marriage bonds of Mercer Co., KY, show the bond of Ambrose Barlow and Ann Smith, with the consent of John Smith for Ann�s marriage.  The witnesses were Peter Huffman and Jesse Smith.
  6. Martha Smith.
  7. Keziah Smith.
  8. Mary Elizabeth Smith; Elizabeth, the daughter of John Smith and Elizabeth, was born 24 April 1777 according to the baptismal records at �Hebron�.  The sponsors were Zachariah Smith (the father's brother), Barbara Aylor, and Mary Weaver.  In my work on the Baptismal Records I did not identify the relationship of Barbara Aylor and Mary Weaver to the parents, if any.
  9. Susannah Smith.
  10. Fanny Smith.

This information on the families of John Michael Smith, Sr., and, Jr., appeared in Beyond Germanna where credit was given to several people for their contributions.

The family of John Michael Smith is better known than that of his brother Matthias.  To make things interesting (confusing?) there was an English Smith family in the RRV whose ties to the Germanna people were strong.

The families we have been studying recently show that:

  1. There were connections between the First and Second Colonies.
  2. The ties among all of the Germanna families continued after migration to Kentucky, where many Germanna names are to be found.
  3. The Germanna Colonists were very early immigrants to the area which became Kentucky.
  4. *[What are your hobbies?] (German and English borrow words from the other language.)
    (07 Mar 07)

    Nr. 2475:

    *[Heute habe ich Geburtstag.]  [Nein, es ist nicht mein Geburtstag!]

    In the last Note we had two unknown sponsors for the child Elizabeth who was the daughter of John Smith, Jr., and his wife Elizabeth.  We have their names; the question is, is there any relationship between these sponsors and the parents.  In my book, �Hebron� Baptismal Register, I did not give any relationships.  Upon reexamining the question again, I see these �unknown� relations are actually known.

    One of the unknowns was Barbara (Carpenter) Aylor.  Going back to Henry Aylor, he married Anna Margaret Thomas and they had a son Henry who married Barbara Carpenter.  Going back to Anna Margaret Thomas, she had a sister Anna Magdalena Thomas who married John Michael Smith, Jr.  They had a son, John Smith (sometimes called a Junior).  So John Smith, Jr., the father in the baptism, was a first cousin to Henry Aylor.  Therefore, the relationship between the father and Barbara Aylor was that they were cousins-in-law.  Spouses of cousins were just as good as the cousin.  So the uncertainty of Barbara Aylor to the parents is solved.

    The other unknown sponsor relationship was Mary Weaver.  There are two Mary Weavers, but the one with the best fit, age-wise, is the daughter of John Weaver and Barbara K�fer (Kaefer).  Now, Barbara K�fer was the daughter of Michael K�fer and Anna Maria Blankenbaker Thomas.  Anna Maria Blankenbaker, by her first marriage to John Thomas, was the mother of Anna Magdalena Thomas, who married John Michael Smith, Jr., and they were the parents of John Smith, the father in the baptism.  Mary Weaver, yet unmarried, was the half-cousin of John Smith.  The common ancestor of Mary and John was Anna Maria Blankenbaker Thomas K�fer.

    Thus, we have identified all of the sponsors as being related to the father in a very logical way.  The most desirable choices are when the sponsors are divided in their relationships to the father and the mother.  Since Elizabeth Smith appears to have had no related sponsors, we might ask the question, �Why didn�t she?�

    Perhaps Elizabeth came from a non-Germanna family who did not feel comfortable in the Lutheran church.  Or perhaps Elizabeth had no younger relatives in the community.  The third possibility that Elizabeth was related to some of the sponsors in an unknown way is possible, but doubtful.  We do see that the Thomas family was close to the John Michael Smith, Jr., family where the mother was a Thomas.  The only way I can think that Elizabeth might be related to the Thomas family is if she were a daughter of Michael Thomas, the son of John Thomas and Anna Maria Blankenbaker, but I believe an Elizabeth there has been identified.

    *[Today is my birthday]  [No, it is not my birthday!]
    (08 Mar 07)

    (To see John & Eleanor Blankenbaker's May, 2000, and May, 2002, Germany and Austria photos, click here.)

    (To see maps of villages in Germany and Austria from which our Germanna ancestors immigrated, click here.)

    (This page contains the NINETY-NINTH set of Notes, Nr. 2451 through Nr. 2475.)

    John and George would like very much to hear from readers of these Germanna History pages.  We welcome your criticisms, compliments, corrections, or other comments.  When you click on "click here" below, both of us will receive your message.  We would like to hear what you have to say about the content of the Notes, and about spelling, punctuation, format, etc.  Just click here to send us your message.  Thank You!

    There is a Mailing List (also known as a Discussion List or Discussion Group), called GERMANNA_COLONIES, at RootsWeb.  This List is open to all subscribers for the broadcast of their messages.  John urges more of you to make it a research tool for answering your questions, or for summarizing your findings, on any subject concerning the Germanna Colonies of Virginia.  On this List, you may make inquiries of specific Germanna SURNAMES.  At present, there are about 700 subscribers and there are bound to be users here who can help you.  If you are interested in subscribing to this List,

    (GERMANNA History Notes, Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 John BLANKENBAKER.)
    (GERMANNA History Web Pages, Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 George W. DURMAN.)
    This material has been compiled and placed on this web site by George W. Durman, with the permission of John BLANKENBAKER.  It is intended for personal use by genealogists and researchers, and is not to be disseminated further.

    Index Links to All Pages of John's GERMANNA NOTES and Genealogy Comments
    INDEX Links to All Pages of John's GERMANNA NOTES
    Pg.001-Notes 0001-0025
    Pg.002-Notes 0026-0050
    Pg.003-Notes 0051-0075
    Pg.004-Notes 0076-0100
    Pg.005-Notes 0101-0125
    Pg.006-Notes 0126-0150
    Pg.007-Notes 0151-0175
    Pg.008-Notes 0176-0200
    Pg.009-Notes 0201-0225
    Pg.010-Notes 0226-0250
    Pg.011-Notes 0251-0275
    Pg.012-Notes 0276-0300
    Pg.013-Notes 0301-0325
    Pg.014-Notes 0326-0350
    Pg.015-Notes 0351-0375
    Pg.016-Notes 0376-0400
    Pg.017-Notes 0401-0425
    Pg.018-Notes 0426-0450
    Pg.019-Notes 0451-0475
    Pg.020-Notes 0476-0500
    Pg.021-Notes 0501-0525
    Pg.022-Notes 0526-0550
    Pg.023-Notes 0551-0575
    Pg.024-Notes 0575-0600
    Pg.025-Notes 0601-0625
    Pg.026-Notes 0626-0650
    Pg.027-Notes 0651-0675
    Pg.028-Notes 0676-0700
    Pg.029-Notes 0701-0725
    Pg.030-Notes 0726-0750
    Pg.031-Notes 0751-0775
    Pg.032-Notes 0776-0800
    Pg.033-Notes 0801-0825
    Pg.034-Notes 0826-0850
    Pg.035-Notes 0851-0875
    Pg.036-Notes 0876-0900
    Pg.037-Notes 0901-0925
    Pg.038-Notes 0926-0950
    Pg.039-Notes 0951-0975
    Pg.040-Notes 0976-1000
    Pg.041-Notes 1001-1025
    Pg.042-Notes 1026-1050
    Pg.043-Notes 1051-1075
    Pg.044-Notes 1076-1100
    Pg.045-Notes 1101-1125
    Pg.046-Notes 1126-1150
    Pg.047-Notes 1151-1175
    Pg.048-Notes 1176-1200
    Pg.049-Notes 1201-1225
    Pg.050-Notes 1226-1250
    Pg.051-Notes 1251-1275
    Pg.052-Notes 1276-1300
    Pg.053-Notes 1301-1325
    Pg.054-Notes 1326-1350
    Pg.055-Notes 1351-1375
    Pg.056-Notes 1376-1400
    Pg.057-Notes 1401-1425
    Pg.058-Notes 1426-1450
    Pg.059-Notes 1451-1475
    Pg.060-Notes 1476-1500
    Pg.061-Notes 1501-1525
    Pg.062-Notes 1526-1550
    Pg.063-Notes 1551-1575
    Pg.064-Notes 1576-1600
    Pg.065-Notes 1601-1625
    Pg.066-Notes 1626-1650
    Pg.067-Notes 1651-1675
    Pg.068-Notes 1676-1700
    Pg.069-Notes 1701-1725
    Pg.070-Notes 1726-1750
    Pg.071-Notes 1751-1775
    Pg.072-Notes 1776-1800
    Pg.073-Notes 1801-1825
    Pg.074-Notes 1826-1850
    Pg.075-Notes 1851-1875
    Pg.076-Notes 1876-1900
    Pg.077-Notes 1901-1925
    Pg.078-Notes 1926-1950
    Pg.079-Notes 1951-1975
    Pg.080-Notes 1976-2000
    Pg.081-Notes 2001-2025
    Pg.082-Notes 2026-2050
    Pg.083-Notes 2051-2075
    Pg.084-Notes 2076-2100
    Pg.085-Notes 2101-2125
    Pg.086-Notes 2126-2150
    Pg.087-Notes 2150-2175
    Pg.088-Notes 2176-2200
    Pg.089-Notes 2201-2225
    Pg.090-Notes 2226-2250
    Pg.091-Notes 2251-2275
    Pg.092-Notes 2276-2300
    Pg.093-Notes 2301-2325
    Pg.094-Notes 2326-2350
    Pg.095-Notes 2351-2375
    Pg.096-Notes 2376-2400
    Pg.097-Notes 2401-2425
    Pg.098-Notes 2426-2450
    Pg.099-Notes 2451-2475
    Pg.100-Notes 2476-2500
    Pg.101-Comments 0001-0025

    INDEX Links to All Pages of John's GENEALOGY COMMENTS

    (As of 12 April 2007, John published the last of his "Germanna Notes"; however, he is going to periodically post to the GERMANNA_COLONIES Mailing List in the form of "Genealogy Comments" on various subjects, not necessarily dealing with Germanna.  I'm starting the numbering system anew, starting with Comment Nr. 0001.)

    Pg.101-Comments 0001-0025