The Barnwell Branch ~ 1800-1830

My Rudd line descends from Elias David Rudd of Gadsden Co., FL. Growing up I never knew any of my Rudd family with the exception of my father and his sister. They were children from the first wife of my grandfather, Eulis Franklin Rudd. Eulis was the son of Walter Washington Rudd and Annie Lee Suber. He was born in Gadsden Co., FL. When I was about 11 years old, my parents took me and my younger sister to Alabama where I met my grandfather for the first and only time (he was living in Dothan, AL at the time). He had daughter from his third wife, Mary Ann. And then when I was a teenager, I met my father’s half-brother, Franklin Wyatt Rudd. He was from the second wife. That’s the extent of my knowledge of the Rudd family when I began this research that was mostly driven out of curiosity.

In the early days, goodness about twelve years ago, I was fortunate to stumble upon other Rudd family researchers who shared information with me. Some of those things they shared had been shared with them. One of the items was a couple of pages of notes compiled by Garrard Rudd that contains some of the personal notes from Mallie Croft Erickson with information dating back to the 1930’s, you know, back in the days when you had to actually travel to the courthouse of your ancestor or to a National Archive Library!

Garrard’s forethought to record Mallie’s notes helped bring me to this point. Let me explain.

In one part of Mallie’s notes she writes back to her mother and says that she has discovered “the Rudds were from Barnwell, just like the Crofts”. Well, there didn’t seem to be any evidence of the Rudds in Barnwell with the exception of Burlingham Rud and William Rud in the 1800 census. Then there was George Rud and Arthur Rud in 1830 Barnwell, but the indexes to 1810 and 1820 censuses didn't included Rudd heads of household, therefore, it made it appear that the Rudd family in Barnwell had migrated over to Charleston. The logic was that in 1830, George and Arthur possibly being from the Charleston group, migrated back into Barnwell. In essence the Rudd family was assembled around Four Holes Swamp at St. James Goose Creek in Charleston. That was the conventional reasoning on things. But it kept bothering me that Mallie had said the Rudds came from Barnwell. That indicated to me that she meant they came from Barnwell on the migration that lead them in to Florida.

So I began the task of going each possible day to the local genealogy library where I could use a microfilm reader to examine each page of the Barnwell census in hope of finding the evidence to the clue that Mallie had left us in her notes. Well, I must tell you, it was quite an undertaking. What I found was that the census indexes were very misleading. This is where I discovered the problem with the mistranslation of our Rud name into Reed by reading the U as EE. There are several authentic Reed families in Barnwell, as well as, Charleston, Colleton and Beaufort. I eventually compiled a list of the Rud and Reed households that needed to be investigated by examining the development of their families through the following census years, looking at their land records and Last Wills; anything I could find to help eliminate the Reeds from the Ruds. I’ve also looked at all the Rudds in South Carolina and North Carolina to identify our specific Rudd Family. It’s taken me a few years to get to this point but the households I’ve now identified seem to me to be accurately our Rud/Rudd households. Most of them also match up with the land records and deeds that I know to be Rudd.

So Mallie was right. The Rudds in Florida do come by way of Barnwell.


Barnwell County was settled in the early 1700's by pioneers wishing to adventure into the "back country". By the 1740's, Palatine settlers entered the picture spreading throughout Orangeburg District. By the end of the Revolutionary War, many settlers obtained grants in Barnwell County. Most were from North Carolina and Virginia. Barnwell was actually a district within Orangeburg until the late 1780's. At this time, Winton District was created and the Barnwell name wasn't used again until 1798.

That’s when “The Barnwell Branch” moved in.

Unlike the George Lounsdell Rudd group in St. James Goose Creek Parish at Four Holes Swamp, the Barnwell branch doesn’t have the benefit of a Deed of Gift from a father that named sons, but over the years and through the sharing of information by other family researchers, I have been able to piece together a group of siblings. Elias David Rudd’s likely birth year can be determined by his War of 1812 Pension Application. He filed it on November 1, 1875 and in the document he states that he is eighty-seven years old. That indicates that Elias David was born between November 1, 1787 and October 31, 1788. Elias David had a brother named George Washington Rudd who was well known by one branch of his descendents, while the vast majority of the other descendents had no idea of his existence. I’ve since been able to confirm that George Washington did exists, he lived in Barnwell and had several land records in his name and his wife was named Susannah. I’m certain the George Rud in the 1830 Barnwell census is him, as well as the George Rud in the 1820 census. I’m only slightly less certain the 1810 George Rud in Barnwell is him, but an 1811 land grant to George Rud is the land he sells last before leaving Barnwell after the 1830 census. Those land records tie the 1810, 1820 and 1830 George Rud together as the same person. Also all the land deeds of sale bear the same “R” as his mark. So by taking all of those reported ages together, he appears to have been born between 1775 and 1780. Therefore, in the 1800 census Elias David should be about 12 years old and his older brother, George Washington, should be between 20 to 25 years old.

Recently I discovered they also had a sister named Caroline. Here again, if it had not been for Mallie Erickson’s notes that Garrad Rudd transcribed and passed down, we might never had known about Caroline. In her notes about Elias David, Mallie says:

The following information was given to me by Harriette Ann Finn, wife of Ellison James Rudd, and Mary Sadberry, 2nd wife of Elias Trowell Rudd, in 1930 and 1939 respectively; Elias had a sister who married a Kitterer or Kittarer.

Well, a few months back I was contacted by a new cousin, Sherry Bloodsworth, looking for a connection to a Caroline Rudd who was listed as the wife of William Kittrell on her grandmother’s pension application to the Eastern Creek Nation in 1957. I was just ecstatic! I had looked for years for the name Kitterer in every spelling variation trying to find evidence of that little clue Mallie left us, hoping that if I could piece together enough siblings in the Elias David family group it would help to narrow the search for his father. Come to find out, the Kittrell name was once spelled Kitterel which gives it the “er” sound that Mallie recorded in her notes. And the descendents of this Kittrell and Caroline believe that William went by the name Craven. Those of us in the Elias David line know that he is living in Dale Co., AL in the 1840 census, as well as two sons, Seth with his wife, and Wesley with his wife. Well, so was Craven Kitrel and wife. Then Craven Kitterel and Caroline are living in Holmes Co., FL in 1850 and 1860. I haven’t been able to locate her in the 1870 census but, in 1880 Caroline is living in Holmes Co., FL with a daughter and in 1900 in the same county with a different daughter. Unfortunately, her reported age varies throughout the censuses; she seems to be born as early as 1802 or as late as 1824. But even though I can’t tie down her age any better right now, it does serve the purpose of telling us at least three things: 1) Mary Sadberry and Harriett Finn were right, Elias David did have a sister, 2) Caroline won’t appear in the 1800 census, and 3) Since George Lounsdell Rudd died in 1804, it’s probably unlikely he was her father since his wife, Margaret, was most likely passed the age of childbirth. Looking at the 1800 census for George Lounsdell we see a 10/16 y/o female in his household. This most likely was his last daughter because no daughter under the age of 10 y/o shows up with his wife, Margaret, in the 1810 census.

Thank you … again … Mallie and Garrad for your gift to us.

We’re going to look at the Rudd households in Barnwell Co., SC a little differently than we did in Untangling Four Holes Swamp.

Since I do now know in the 1800 census, George Washington Rud was 20 to 25 years old and Elias David Rud was about 12 years old, we can see that of the two households, only Burlingham Rud has males that fit in those age groups. I’m going to assign them to Burlingham Rud in 1800 and remove them from our analysis through the remaining decades so we can focus on the other households in Barnwell to see if we can determine their relationship to each other. The only exception is going to be in the 1810 census for George Rud there are two 16/26 y/o males, one of them is likely Elias David Rud. Since I don’t know who the other one is, we’re going to include him in our analysis.

There is little doubt that there is a relationship between Burlingham Rud and William Rud in Barnwell but it’s not clear what that relationship is. Off hand, William appears to be either a son or brother, or perhaps even a nephew. In the 1800 census they appear to be living a short distance from each other, in the 1810 census they appear to be living beside each other with Rebecha Wood living in between. The 1800 census is deceiving and I caution against drawing conclusions about the location of family members as recorded in the censuses unless, they are listed beside each other. We have no way of knowing the route the census taker took in gathering the household information but we do know that the information was later copied onto the census forms and that can inadvertently rearrange the location of the households. This is the case in 1800 for Burlingham and William. When you look at the other household names on the same page with them in 1810 those same households are located nearby in 1800. Therefore, most likely the Burlingham and William locations in 1800 are the same locations in 1810.

The real question is; are they the same households headed by the same males?

I do think that Burlingham Rud in 1800 is the same Burrel H. Rud in 1810 even though there is a change in his name because the household in 1800 has males under the age of 45 y/o and the household in 1810 has one male over the age of 45. This seems to be the same man and his sons have left the family group. There is a Deed of Gift from Burrelham Rud in Barnwell dated 1820 whereby he gives his stock of hogs, cattle, a horse and household furnishing to his daughter, who appears to be named Argust or August, with the condition that he and his wife continue to live there until death. The Deed is written in April, sworn in May and recorded in June, so it appears Burrelham expected he was dying. The Deed doesn’t mention his land and causes me to wonder if the land belonged to William because there is a land survey in 1803 for William and Edmond Owens that documents Wm. Rudd as a land owner and the name is written as Rudd not Rud, so no confusion with the U appearing as EE in this case. There is one mention of a William Rudd in Anson Co., NC on a survey for George Lounsdell Rudd dated 1787 where Burlingham and William were the chain carriers. It looks like this is the same William Rudd since he is the only William Rudd in Barnwell at this time.

Let’s begin with the 1800 census for William Rud. What is most noticeable is that we have five children under the age of 10 y/o and the possible parents are only 16/26 y/o. Unless there is a set of twins, we can project that the ages of those children are something like 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 and that would mean the parents were about 16 y/o when they began their family. And you can also see that the 16/26 y/o male and female in 1800 do not progress to the 26/45 age group for 1810 even though the head of the household is still William Rud. There are three possibilities; 1) the census is in error and they should have been recorded at 26/45 y/o in 1800, 2) They died. Now, if they died, how do we still have the 1810 household in the same name? 3) Only if the 16/26 y/o is William, Jr. and the 45 y/o is not the head and that 16/26 y/o male came from that group of under 10 y/o in 1800. You might think there is a fourth possibility. That they were 16 y/o at the time of the 1800 census and had not yet turned 26 y/o at the time of the 1810 census, both of them. Well, then you would have to believe it possible for them to be 16 y/o heads with five children under the age of 10 in 1800. That leaves us with either 1) the 16/26 y/o male and female in 1800 were not the parents therefore, not the head of household; 2) or the 16/26 y/o parents in 1800 died and their son, William, Jr. became head of household in 1810; 3) or the census is in error. While all three possibilities are viable, I tend to believe it more likely the census was recorded in error.

I see two possible scenarios when projecting the children in William’s household from 1800 to 1810. I’ll demonstrate the first with this graphic. We have four males under the age of 10 y/o, considering they all progress to 1810, we see in William Rud’s household, two 10/16 y/o males and one 16/26 y/o male; then in George Rud’s household we see the other 16/26 y/o male. So it seems that of the four males under 10 in 1800, two were under the age of 6 y/o and two were between the ages of 7 to 9 y/o. Therefore, it’s possible that one of the males in William’s household went to live with George. The second possible scenario is, of course, that the extra male in George’s household came from somewhere else and one of the four males in William’s household in 1800 didn’t live to 1810.

Now there is a 16/26 y/o female in William’s household in 1810 and she could be one of the four males who might have been mistaken for a boy instead of a girl in 1800 since we do see two females in 1810 that should have been reflected in 1800, but I think she is more likely the new wife of the 16/26 y/o male, and the under 10 y/o male in the household is their son, George Rud, Jr. It is the existence of George Rud, Jr. as a 16/26 y/o male in the 1820 census that causes me to believe that when we go back to the 1810 census for William Rud, that the 16/26 y/o in the household is not the same William in 1820, but rather George Rud, Sr. Of course, it is also possible that George Rud, Jr. is the son of William Rud and named after his brother, George, Sr. But in either case, the William Rud family in 1800 is the same William Rud family in 1810. The William Rud in the 1820 census is not the same man as head of household in 1810 and 1800, in addition, the George Rud, Sr., George Rud, Jr. and William Rud households in 1820 are extensions of the same family group.

This George Rud, Sr. is NOT George Washington Rud the brother of Elias David Rud, he's the other George Rud in the 1820 census.

The 1820 census for Barnwell is one of those transcriptions where all the R’s magically all live together in the same geographical location in the county ... you know what mean? For those reading here who don’t understand my ‘joke’, it’s one of those recordings of the residents where the person who transcribed the census taker’s notes arranged the residents in alphabetical order rather than in geographic order. Not the entire county is recorded that way, just enough of it to cause us frustration! I really do dislike those types of recordings which I’m sure at the time served some extraordinary purpose since the person doing the transcription had to take such an extraordinary measure. There is really no way to tell how the county residents lived in relation to each other! At least in this census it appears that only the first letter of the surname is alphabetized in a process that looks like the clerk extracted all the R’s in the order they appeared in the entire county census. The one useful thing for us is that since the group of three Rud households that I mentioned in the previous paragraph are listed beside each other, that would indicate that even though this census was arranged somewhat alphabetically, those household were in very close proximity to each other.

An unknown Rud male head of household shows up in the 1820 Barnwell census. The first initial looks to be “L”, “J”, “S” or “T”. The paper is stained so badly you can’t make it out but to me it does look more like “L” when compared to other “L” names on the pages. This L. Rud is listed towards the bottom on page 20a and George Rud is listed about midway on page 20b, so they appear to be located in the same general area of the county. I’ve not found any land records for any “L”, “J”, “S” or “T” Rud in Barnwell, so perhaps this L. Rud is living on land owned by another family member.

In the above graphic, since I previously moved one of William’s four sons in 1800 into George’s household in 1810, I’ve now moved him into this L. Rud household in 1820, as well as moving one of the 10/16 y/o males in 1810 (William Rud) in with L. Rud because if it is the case that L. Rud originated as one of the under 10 y/o males in the 1800 William Rud household, it would make sense that one of his brothers would be living with him.

And when I look at the makeup of that L. Rud household, I wonder if it’s actually two family groups because we can see how there could be two husbands and two wives with four children between them. One family group is L. Rud and perhaps the other family group is indeed a brother from the 1800 William Rud household. Or the second group could be related back to the wife. If this L. Rud household does not progress out of the George Rud household, then we could be seeing another Rud family that perhaps crosses over into Barnwell after the 1810 census. Whoever he is and wherever he comes from, he completely vanishes by 1830.

I didn’t include the 1820 household for Elias Rud in the above graphic because he’s living in Beaufort Co., SC on the other side of the Barnwell county line and appears to be living on land owned by brother George as you can see in this 1813 land survey whose land owners seven years later still have the most amazing match of family names to the 1820 Beaufort census.

In Elias David’s house we see five children under the age of 10 y/o. As I mentioned earlier, Elias states on his War of 1812 Pension Application that he and Fannie Breland were married in 1810. Therefore, they were married sometime after the 1810 census if that is indeed him in George’s household and I tend to believe it is. Until I found this census, which was index as Elias Reed, I wasn’t aware of the two female children in the household and believed William Wesley to be their first born child (1815) but I thought it unusual that there would be a five year gap between marriage and first born. But I now can identify one of the daughters as Rebecca who married Thomas Peak and settled in Stewart Co., GA next to her brother, Seth Jackson, Elias’ second son born in 1818. The third son is Elias Trowell, my 3rd great- grandfather born in 1819. I’m not completely sure, but I think the other daughter is probably Martha Rudd who married James Carter in 1835 Jefferson Co., FL because it would be an incredible coincidence for there to be another Rudd in Jefferson Co., FL at the same time that Elias David is there with his family and it not be his daughter. Circumstantial? Yes, but also likely.

Based on the reported birth years and locations for Elias David’s children, he left South Carolina after 1826 and appears in the 1830 Jefferson Co., FL census. The only households we can find in the 1830 Barnwell census are for George Rud and Arthur Rud. According to the reported birth years and locations of Arthur’s children they left between 1835 and 1837. We know from a letter written years ago before his death by James Dallas Rudd, the son of Burrel Rudd and grandson of George Washington Rud, the family migrated to Georgia, which I wrote about in “The Elias David and George Washington Reunion in Georgia”.

Long before I knew about George Washington Rud, I wondered what was the relationship between Arthur Rudd and David Rudd who are recorded in the 1840 Decatur Co., GA census and Elias David Rudd. In 1850 Elias David has relocated to Gadsden Co., FL and so does David Rudd. And Arthur Rudd is in Coffee Co., AL a few houses from Burrel Rudd. There had to be some kind of family relationship. There had been speculation among family researchers that Burrel Rudd of Coffee Co., AL was a son of Elias David but for some reason, the presence of Arthur and David right across the border seemed to be unimportant to the speculation. When the existence of George Washington Rudd was made known, the pieces of our puzzle finally came together. In the 1820 census for the George Rud household you can clearly see the three sons once you determine their approximate birth years. In 1820 there was a special category for the identification of the males between 16/18 y/o who were also counted in the 16/26 y/o age category. The most consistent reporting of Arthur’s birth year is about 1803, thus he was about 17 y/o in 1820, so we got a lucky break. Arthur falls into that 16/18 age category and George Rud’s household in 1820 is the only one with a 16/18 y/o male. We know that Burrel was born in 1818. David, the middle son, is a more difficult to age because he appears to have died by the 1860 census, but in 1850 he states he is 41 y/o and therefore, born about 1809-10. All three boys fit very nicely into George Rud’s household. In the 1830 census we see the beginning of Arthur’s family and they too fit nicely into what we can determine to be the birth years of his children before the migration into Georgia.

But the mystery, probably a tragedy, is whatever happened to the other households from the 1820 Barnwell census? As I mentioned earlier there is a statement in “The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina, Volume 1”, that there was an 1824 hurricane that devastated that area of the Savannah River. In 1820, with the exclusion of the households for George Washington and Elias David, there were eight male children under the age of sixteen, two males 16/26 y/o (one was a head of household) and three heads 26/45 y/o. We have to fast forward to 1860, forty years, to find a Rudd male in Barnwell and then only one, Sidney Rudd who reports to be 18 y/o and living as a laborer with a Smith female head of household, so he’s born about 1842 which is a good generation after the 1820 census. Next in 1870 we find Sydney Rudd again living as a laborer, as well as, a group of Rudd orphans living with George and Francis Wood; Henry, age 15; John, age 13; Jim, age 11; Laura, age 9. This group begins about 1855. It really does look like something happened between 1820 and 1830 that eliminated those Rud households and what few minor children survived were living with relatives until Sidney emerged about 1842 and then whoever was the Rud father of the group of orphans that emerged about 1855 and he evidently died about 1861.

One more interesting observation. These Rudd orphans are living with a family named Wood. The oldest child was born about 1855, so projecting his father was a generation earlier, that would be about 1835. A generation back from there we can see in the 1810 census Rebecha Wood living between Burrel H. Rud and William Rud. Her household looks very much like two widows with six children between them. Makes me wonder if this Rebecha was a Rud before marriage and perhaps the other female was a Rud widow and the Wood family with the Rudd orphans generations later in 1870 is an extention of this Rebecha Wood household.

Untangling Four Holes Swamp ~ 1800-1840

Untangling Four Holes Swamp is not an easy thing to do. All we have to work with are census and land records and when you get down into the details, you discover that there are missing pieces of information.

Census records present us with the challenge that we only have head counts in gender and age groups with just the name of the head of the household to work with. We can't be sure that those records accurately reflect all of the Rudd households, nor do we know if everyone in the household is a family member. Family groups seem to fade from existence about 1830 and 1840 only to gradually reappear in 1850, 1860 and 1870. So linking them back to each other is very difficult. It seems to indicate that during a generation or two, the head of households died and wives remarried, as well as the likelihood that some of the offspring went to live with other family members only to resurface once they started their own household. And then of course, there's the problem of the females being of little use to us unless they were a head of household.

The land records are useful to an extent but are incomplete since we don’t find a grant, survey and deed of sale for each parcel of land. So I’m just going to have to work with what I’ve got and put forth the best theory I can, based on the documentation I can provide.

Here you will find the chart I’ve compiled that extracts from the census records all the Rudd households I’ve been able to satisfy myself to undoubtedly be our Rudd families in South Carolina between 1800 and 1840. I’ve repeatedly tried the conventional method of age progression in an attempt to track the development of the households to the next decade. That has only served to frustrate me to no end! So maybe what we need is an unconventional approach.

We know that George Lounsdell Rudd named four sons in his 1797 Screven Co., GA Deed of Transfer and that Deed was filed in the SC State Papers under the Wills Index in 1804. He said that the two sons, James and Lias, were not of age, so how can they be the two 26/45 y/o males in his 1800 household?

Let’s conduct a little exercise and see how the age progression for the males should look in 1810 and compare it to what is actually reported in 1810. We’re going to only deal with the males in this exercise and I’m going to combine the Burlingham and George L. households and list the males by age group.

Here you can see the Rudd households reported in the 1800 and 1810 census for Charleston and Colleton. There were two family groups in 1800 and there were five family groups in 1810. When you look at the 1810 census page you can see that Elias, Margaret the older, Elijah and O’Riley are living beside each other on the Colleton side of Four Holes Swamp. Margaret the younger is living on the Charleston side of Four Holes Swamp.

What we see here is there was one under 10 y/o male in Burlingham Rudd’s 1800 household, so there should be one 10/16 y/o male in 1810 but there are two. One is in Elias Rudd’s household and the other is in O’Riley Rudd’s household. Granted it could be that one of those males was born immediately after the 1800 census and, therefore, does show up in 1810 as a 10/16 y/o male. That would give us two 10/16 y/o males in 1810.

In 1800 there were no 10/16 males so in 1810 there should be no 16/26 y/o males, but there are two and they are both living in the household of Elijah Rudd. Where did they come from?

Look at the 1800 households. There were two 16/26 y/o males who should progress to the 26/45 y/o age group and considering that the two 26/45 y/o males could remain in that same group we could have two to four 26/45 y/o males in 1810. But we only have two.

Finally, in 1800 we have two males over the age of 45. Likewise the 26/45 males could also progress to the over 45 y/o age group if they were indeed over 36 y/o in 1800. So we have the possibility of two to four males over the age of 45 in 1810. But we have none. Taking those last three age groups together there are six males in 1800 and when we progress those same groups to 1810 we have only two males. For sure the males that were over the age of 45 in 1800 have died by 1810. We know that one of them was George Lounsdell Rudd who died in 1804, the other one is the 45 y/o male in the Burlingham Rudd household. Two additional males in the 1800 households have died or moved elsewhere and they come from the group of four males that are the two 26/45 y/o males in George Lounsdell’s household and the two 16/26 y/o males in Burlingham’s household. In addition, we see that between 1800 and 1810, there were two males who had been born between 1784 and 1794 appear in the Four Holes Swamp area. They do not appear to have come out of either of the 1800 households.

In 1810 there were five households but only three of them had male heads. Of the two female heads, one is Margaret Rudd, the widow of George Lounsdell and the other is Margaret the younger, as I have nicknamed her, she is most likely relates back to George Lounsdell and his wife, Margaret. As I discussed in the narrative South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 3 she appears to be living on land that joins land owned by George Lounsdell Rudd that crosses the border of Colleton and Charleston at the basin of Four Holes Swamp. So that leaves us with three male head of households in 1820, Eli, James and Burrel.

In 1810 there are no males under the age of 10 y/o. So it fits that there would be no males to progress to the 10/16 age group in 1820.

There are two 10/16 y/o males in 1810; one in the Elias household and one in the O’Riley household and we should see them progress to two 16/26 year olds in 1820, but there are none. Perhaps they died or moved away.

In 1810 there are two 16/26 y/o males; these are the same males that we looked at previously that seemed to have no source in the 1800 households. They should progress to the 26/45 age group being 26-36 years old. We see there are three 26/45 y/o males in 1820. Looking back at 1810 we see there were two 26/45 y/o males and no males over 45 years. So projecting to 1820 we see how we could have two 26/45 y/o males by advancing the two 16/26 y/o or we could have up to four 26/45 y/o if the two males in that age group don’t progress. Or it’s possible those two males progress to the over 45 y/o age group. By combining those age groups we should see four males and that is what we see in the 1820 census records three males 26/45 and one over the age of 45, a total of four males.

It is difficult to say which household came from which household but my guess is that in 1810 the Elias Rudd household is Eli the son of George Lounsdell Rudd. In 1820 the Eli Rudd household is the same Eli but he is now the over 45 y/o male and the 26/45 y/o male is the Elias Rudd we will see in the 1830 and 1840 census. The same Elias Rudd that leaves a Last Will in St. James Goose Creek where he does us the favor of naming his children. In that Will you’ll notice he names only one son and five daughters. I’ll demonstrate for you why I believe this is him when we get to that part of this mystery we’re solving.

Now, looking back at 1810, the Elijah Rudd household has two 16/26 y/o males that progress to 26/45 y/o males in 1820. I believe this Elijah household is the aforementioned Elias Rudd that moves into the 1820 Eli Rudd household and the other one is James Rudd. Since we do know that George Lounsdell named a son James, this is most likely him. But George Lounsdell didn’t name a son Elijah that we know of. He did name a son Lias and I have to wonder if this could be him. You know when you think about that name, Elijah, it sounds very much like a combination of the names Elias and James if you were to take the first three letters of each name ... Eli-Jam, especially considering how the name James was abreviated during that time period. What if this mystery to their identity hinged on the understanding of the names by the clerk that transcribed the census taker’s notes! By the way, I’m not yet convinced that the Elias that moves into Eli's household is the Lias in the 1797 Screven Co. Deed, but I do believe that Elijah is the same Elias. Something I do suspect, however, is the reason these two males don’t track back to either of the 1800 households for Burlingham or George L. is because they migrated over from Screven Co., GA during the decade. Later when we look at the Barnwell family groups, we will see another household that looks to have males that migrated during the same period.

That brings me to the 1820 Burrel Rudd household. The only possibility left is the 1810 O’Riley Rudd household. As I mentioned earlier we saw that the 10/16 y/o male did not progress to 1820. But the 26/45 y/o male can progress and stay in the same age group. The 16/26 y/o female in 1810 also progresses to a 26/45 y/o female in 1820 and the 26/45 y/o female can also progress to the over 45 y/o age group. My guess is that in the 1810 O’Riley household, the 16/26 female was the wife and the 26/45 female was someone’s mother. It would appear that O’Riley and Burrel are the same man by different names. The other reason I think this is the case is demonstrated by looking at the land records for Burlingham Rudd.

In 1808 there was a land grant for 606 acres to Burlingham Rudd that was authorized in 1813. The grant has an accompanying survey documenting the same dates. This land was then sold in 1814 by Burlingham Rudd to William Harrall

And let me call you attention to a very important piece of evidence on this deed ... notice that Burlingham Rudd signed his legal signature. Burlingham Rudd 2nd has demonstrated to us in the Anson Co., NC land records that he could not sign his name therefore, he used an "X" for his mark, later on his last deed, he used a "B" for his mark. On this deed we see his wife is named Sarah. This indicates to us that there was indeed a Burlingham Rudd two years before the 1810 census and four years after the 1810 census.

There are other land records for Burlingham Rudd. In 1802 a survey for 116 acres that documents existing land owned by Burlingham Rudd in partnership with James McNish and bordered by land owned by Ely Rudd. This land was issued in 1815. There is a 1819 grant for 352 acres that was issued in 1820 that has an accompanying survey that documents the same years. Regretfully, neither of these two additional land documentations have a accompanying deed of sale so we could see if Burlingham Rudd used his same signature, but we can tell from the surveys that they bear similar if not the same names of the bordering land owners.

And then there is this extract from a 1809 Charleston Directory of land owners. You see the names Burlingham, Elias, Ely and Jane. My guess is that in matching this directory to the 1810 census we have: Burlingham = O'Riley, Elias = Elijah, Ely = Elias, Jane = Margaret the widow of George Lounsdell or the other Margaret the younger.

So if all these land records involve the same Burlingham Rudd then that means he was at Four Holes Swamp at least as early as 1802 and that takes me back to the 1800 census.

Let’s recap:

In the 1800 households there were two 16/26 y/o males who should progress to the 26/45 y/o age group and considering that the two 26/45 y/o males could remain in that same group we could have two to four 26/45 y/o males in 1810. But we only have two.

In addition, we have two males over the age of 45 in 1800 and the two 26/45 y/o males could also progress to the over 45 y/o age group if they were indeed over 36 y/o. So we have the possibility of two to four males over the age of 45 in 1810. But we have none. So taking those last three age groups together there are six males in 1800 and when we progress those same groups to 1810 we have only two males. Therefore, the males that were over the age of 45 in 1800 have most likely died by 1810. We know that one of them was George Lounsdell Rudd who died in 1804; the other one is the 45 y/o male in the Burlingham Rudd household which means that he was not the head of that household. This is a major discovery for me! I’ll explain why in a little bit.

Therefore, out of the six males in 1800, the two older males died leaving us with the evidence that out of the remaining four males, two either died or moved and two remained which is reflected in the 1810 Elias Rudd and O’Riley Rudd households. I’ve demonstrated that I believe that Elias is in actuality Eli the son of George Lounsdell Rudd. Eli Rudd was granted 500 acres of land in 1798 that was surveyed for George Lounsdell Rudd and bordered his property.

You’ll notice on that land survey it appears that George Lounsdell had land on both sides of Four Holes Swamp and as I mentioned earlier the Swamp became the border between Colleton and Charleston and that’s why in 1810 we see Elias, Margaret the mother, Elijah and O’Riley on the Colleton side and Margaret the younger on the Charleston side.

So it appears that in the 1800 household for George L. Rudd we see Ely among the two 26/45 y/o males. Who the other one is, I have no clue. If the 10/16 y/o female is not George Lounsdell’s daughter, then she might be Ely’s new wife. Or perhaps she the wife of the other unknown male and that’s the origin of how Margaret the younger ended up on land that appears to belong to George Lounsdell, as his widowed daughter-in-law. Then of course, we see George the father and Margaret the mother. I wonder if the other female over the age of 45 is George’s mother, the wife of Burlingham 1st.

Now let’s move O’Riley Rudd back into the 1800 Burlingham household. In 1810 O’Riley is 26/45 y/o and that means in 1800 he falls in the 16/26 y/o age group. So he is one of those two males in the household. The over 45 y/o male is not the head so it’s likely the over 45 y/o female is the wife of that male. Which might indicate these are the parents of the female that is the wife of Burlingham Rudd, and she would be the 10/16 y/o female in 1800 who becomes the 16/26 y/o female in 1810. Perhaps the other 16/26 yo/ male in 1800 was her brother. Lastly, the under 10 y/o male in 1800 does progress to the 10/16 y/o male in 1810, noting however, that this male son does not appear in the 1820 census, therefore, he has died or moved away. And just one last point, the 1802 land survey for Burlingham Rudd does document that he owned land in partnership with James McNish prior to 1802 and that’s most like the location of his residence in the 1800 census.

Now let’s move on to the 1830 and 1840 census.

Starting with the Elias Rudd in 1840 we see his household and next door to him is Tabitha Rudd. We know from his Last Will and Testament he did us the great favor of naming his living children; George W. the one son, and five daughters; Amelia Ann, Mary S., Margaret, Tabitha Bradwell and Catherine Long. Therefore, the Tabitha Rudd next door is his daughter and at the time his Last Will was written in 1847 two daughters, Tabitha and Catherine were married. He goes on to say that everything he leaves to his wife, Elizabeth, until her natural death will then pass on to his three younger children, George, Amelia and Mary.

Looking to the 1850 census we can determine that Tabitha married Isaac Bradwell and was born about 1811. She was his second wife and about 27 years his junior, they have one 6 y/o daughter, Leah. She married rather late in age for a female of that time so that’s probably the reason she was living in a separate household in 1840. Her father gave to her the share of his land that she would eventually inherit. It looks like she married after 1840 and before 1844.

Catherine married James Long and was born about 1816. She appears to have been married to James in the 1840 census where they have one daughter under 5 y/o, therefore, she was not in the 1840 households.

As is the case with the census records at times, especially with the females, their ages often seem to advance on a one-for-two basis, they age five years for each ten year decade once they reach the age of puberty! So in this comparison all I can offer to you is that the number of male and female bodies do seem to match up going from 1830 to 1840 by factoring in the number of bodies we should have based on Elias Rudd’s Last Will. According to him the household contained the head, one son, four daughters (because Catherine was already married), and a wife; two males and five females. When we combine the Elias and Tabitha households for the 1840 census we have three males and six females which indicate one unknown male and one unknown female between the two households.

But looking back to the 1830 census we have a much clearer picture of a match between names and ages except for the female under 5 y/o. That has to be George W. Rudd, the son. His age advances properly … of course, he’s a male. And since his father will die in about seven years, he was 17/22 y/o at the time. Another interesting thing in the 1830 household is the unknown 20/30 y/o female. Is she the origin of the unknown male and child in the 1840 census? Perhaps she was a family member and she died in childbirth. According to the make up of the two households in 1840, the unknown male is living is Elias and the unknown child is living with Tabitha.

As I said earlier, I get the impression that Elias and wife, Elizabeth, are living in the same household with Ely Rudd in the 1820 census. It’s difficult to determine but my theory is that Elias and family are living with Ely. When we looked at the progression of the males from the 1810 to the 1820 census we found that as a group of four males; two 16/26 y/o and two 26/45 y/o, they ended up as three 26/45 y/o and one over 45 y/o. Obviously the over 45 y/o came from one of the 26/45 y/o males and it doesn’t appear to be O’Riley in 1810 because he and 1820 Burrel seem to be the same man. That only leaves us the 1810 Elias Rudd household as the source of the over 45 y/o male in 1820 Elias Rudd’s household.

Now taking the fact that Ely is now our likely over 45 y/o male let’s look at the land records. Ely’s first grant was in 1798 for 500 acres at Four Holes Swamp that bordered George Lounsdell’s property a road ran through the parcel and Benjamin Singletary was a border land owner. Ely’s next grant was in 1819 for 291 ½ acres at Four Holes Swamp the grant was issued in 1820 and has an accompanying survey which names James and Jonas Singletary as border land owners. This indicates to us that Ely was still alive by the 1820 census and his land acquisition in 1819 appears to be in the same area as his 1798 land.

The first land record that I’ve located for Elias Rudd was an 1818 grant for 216 acres that has an accompanying survey dated the same year.

In looking for the names listed on the survey as border land owners in the 1820 census I find Mrs. Mary Smith on page 77. Eli, Burrel and James Rudd are on page 95. So it seems to me that this parcel of land for Elias Rudd is not in the same general area as the other Rudd households in 1820.

Elias Rudd’s next land record is an 1820 survey that shows he is adding to land he already owns at Partridge Creek. This is the land he leaves to his children in his Last Will. On the survey you’ll see the name of Peter Varner as an owner of bordering land and when you compare that to the 1820 census page Peter Varner is at the bottom of the page, two households below James Rudd. Eli is at the top of the page. This indicates that the land in Elias’ survey is moving in the opposite direction of Eli. And it just could be that James is living on the land that Elias acquired in 1818.

Another consideration is that since we know that Elias’ daughter Tabitha was born about 1811 they must have been living somewhere in the Four Holes Swamp area between the time Elias and Elizabeth married and the 1820 census but he doesn’t show up as head of household until the 1830 census. My impression is that he and his family were living with Ely Rudd until after the 1820 census and then they relocated to the Partridge Creek area. It does cause me to wonder if something dreadful happened between 1810 and 1820 that caused Ely to loose his wife and son and daughter.

In the 1830 census we see Mary Rudd, she looks to be the widow of a Rudd male. There are three considerations; 1) the former Mary Whaley who married Burlingham Rudd in St. James Goose Creek that created several documents which you can see here, 2) the widow of James Rudd, the son of George Lounsdell, 3) she relocated to the area from somewhere else.

Personally, I don’t think she is Mary Whaley Rudd even though the 1830 census for Burlingham is incomplete, I don’t think he was dead yet. On October 15, 1829 he witnessed this deed for Mary Rudd to her daughter.

Mary Rudd’s marriage settlement based on the pre-nuptial agreement between her and Burlingham was filed on January 22, 1835. I doubt she would have waited five years to take control over her property.

Finally, Burlingham’s estate inventory was filed in 1836.


My guess is he died in late 1834. It’s very unfortunate for us that no family information was recorded for his household in the 1830 census when he was certainly alive and recently married. My first thought was perhaps the census taker only recorded the slaves because Burlingham wasn’t there when he came around to enumerate the household. Maybe that was the case. But dang it!! If they only knew what an important task they were charged with in recording our family for us!

I think this Mary Rudd very well could be the widow of James Rudd and I can understand why it was easy to overlook her presence. The family lore is that James’ wife’s maiden name was Sarah Bowman and after James died, she remarried George Poland. I believe this is correct. But I also believe Mary is Sarah. One reason is there aren’t any other known Rudd males in that time period who could have been her husband so unless she migrated into the area for the 1830 census she is by default James’ widow. Another reason I think she is James’ widow is her location in the 1830 census is a pretty close match to the same general area as James Rudd in 1820. Finally, the age progression is a perfect match. I think this is just one of those cases we often see of a female with the interchangeable name of Mary.

And what’s really interesting about her, is in 1830 there are three sons and one daughter. Family lore says James and Sarah had two sons. Well, look here at the 1850 census for Sarah (Rudd) Poland and husband George Poland. See that son James Rudd listed in the household? Looks like Sarah’s son doesn’t it? He’s 28 y/o which means he was born in 1822, after the 1820 census. There is a tax record at the South Carolina Archives online search database that says:

Date: 1825/04/26
Description: RUDD, JAMES, TAX RETURN FOR 100 ACRES IN ST. JAMES GOOSE CREEK PARISH.
Names Indexed: RUDD, JAMES
Locations: CHARLESTON DISTRICT/SAINT JAMES GOOSE CREEK PARISH

Therefore, James most likely died after April 1825 and before the 1830 census. And you’ll notice that above Sarah and George Poland is Jacob Rudd living in the Sol Cannady household. I think the Amelia who is listed as Sol’s wife is Amelia Ann, one of Elias Rudd’s daughters named in his Last Will. I wonder if Jacob is one of the sons of James and Mary/Sarah?

As I said when we began this exercise I was going to have to work with the records I have found and put forth my best theory based on the documentation I can present to you. So here it is.

Starting with the 1800 census, we see two heads of household, one is Burlingham Rudd and one is George L(ounsdell) Rudd. George Lounsdell has died by the 1810 census and we don’t find the name Burlingham but we do find the name O’Riley Rudd. My analysis leads me to the conclusion that O’Riley and Burlingham are the same man and therefore, the male over the age of 45 y/o in the 1800 household is not named Burlingham Rudd, but some other male.

In the 1810 census we have three male heads of household, Elias, O’Riley and Elijah. Elias Rudd looks to be Ely the son of George Lounsdell, O’Riley is Burlingham but I can’t yet determine who his father was. I have two theories. First, is he is also a son of George Lounsdell, granted I don’t have any evidence to support this, but as I’ve said before in other narratives, I find it very hard to believe that George Lounsdell didn’t name a son for his father, Burlingham 1st. We know that George Lounsdell did name a son George Jr. in the Screven Co. GA Deed of Transfer and we don’t find that name here in Four Holes Swamp. If it is the case that O’Riley and Burlingham are the same man, then he’s not George Jr. That would indicate that George Lounsdell had more than the four sons named in the Deed of Transfer which would actually be in keeping with the norms of the day if Burlingham was the oldest son, older than George Jr., and had already been given his share. I have always been curious as to why the Screven Co., GA Deed had no mention of land being distributed along with the other property. I now think it very likely that the land was given to this Burlingham, the oldest son and if George Jr. did live beyond the migration of George Lounsdell from Screven Co., GA to Charleston Co., SC, that George Jr. remained in Screven. Other than that possibility, this Burlingham Rudd could be the son of another son of Burlingham 1st, such as the son Walter that was named in the Prince Frederick Parish Register. Perhaps it was Walter and his wife who were the over 45 y/o male and female in the 1800 household.

Also in 1810, we see the arrival of the Elijah Rudd household at Four Holes Swamp. Based on the age group of these two males we can’t place them back in the 1800 Charleston census, therefore, my conclusion is they arrived after the 1800 census and the two males are Elias and James. As I mentioned earlier, this appears to be James the son of George Lounsdell, and this Elias might just be Lias that is also a son of George Lounsdell. But that presents us with the problem of having two sons with similar names that seem to be used interchangeably in the records. I tend to believe these two males remained behind in Screven when George Lounsdell and Burlingham migrated into Four Holes Swamp and they followed a short time after. Perhaps they stayed behind with George Jr.

In the 1820 census, we see the Eli Rudd household and the makeup of the household compared to the previous 1810 census leads me to conclude that Eli Rudd is the son of George Lounsdell and living with him is Elias Rudd of the Goose Creek Last Will and his new family including wife, Elizabeth and two daughters, Tabitha and Catherine. Something has happened to Eli’s family. The 10/16 y/o son in 1810 doesn’t show up in 1820 and since he could be a male head of household, if he doesn’t show up in Barnwell, then perhaps he died. The under 10 y/o daughter could have been married by the 1820 census, but the mother appears to have died.

We clearly see James Rudd the son of George Lounsdell and his new family. Thank you George for naming just one son James!

The Burrel Rudd household appears to advance also but the 10/16 y/o male in the 1810 O’Riley household does not show in 1820. So once again, if he doesn’t show up in Barnwell, perhaps he died.

By 1830 it appears that Ely, son of George Lounsdell has died and Elias Rudd has moved onto the land he has accumulated at Partridge Creek. The census appears to misrecord his young son, George W., as a female instead of a male and there is an unknown 20/30 y/o female in his household. By 1840 we see Elias Rudd with his family as recorded in his Last Will of 1847 with the exception that there is an unknown 20/30 y/o male and unknown under 5 y/o female among the combined households of Elias and Tabitha. Perhaps this male is the widower of the unknown female in the previous census and this is their child.

We also see Mary Rudd living as head of household who appears to be a Rudd widow. Of three possible sources, my theory is that Mary is James Rudd’s widow and therefore, she is Sarah Bowman who married George Poland after James died. The 1850 census documents a 28 y/o James Rudd, Jr. living in the George Poland household with wife, Sarah. A male of that age does appear in Mary Rudd’s household and the ages of the other children in James’ household do advance properly. In addition, Mary Rudd appears to be living in the same general area of James Rudd in the previous census and as Sarah Poland in 1850.

Finally, we are left with the puzzle as to why there is no family information for recorded for Burlingham Rudd in the 1830 census when we can safely assume, based on other documents, he was still living. I think the most significant outcome for me in this exercise is that it adds one more element to my quest to identity of the two 1800 Burlingham Rudd households, one in Charleston and the other in Barnwell. Since I have determined without any doubt that Burlingham 2nd could not write his signature, he first used the mark “X” and later used the mark “B”, he has become increasingly unlikely the Burlingham Rudd in 1800 Charleston. And for the first time, there appears to be two emerging theories as to who this Burlingham Rudd in Charleston could be; either a son of George Lounsdell or perhaps the son of another brother, such as, Walter Rudd who we never see again after the Prince Frederick Parish baptism register.

If you have tried to follow the Rudd branch at St. James Goose Creek back from the 1880 census you know how difficult it is. Fortunately, there were some estate probates that were filed that give the names of minor children and on an individual family basis, you can get back somewhere around the late 1870s. But there is a big gap in information from the 1830 to the 1870 census. So for our Rudd cousins who are looking to connect back to the Four Holes Swamp branch of our family, it can be very frustrating … hair pulling frustrating!

We know that Elias Rudd had a son named George W. Rudd and that George W. left an estate probate. But what we see here as a result of this exercise is that James Rudd left three sons, and one was named James Jr. who had a son named David. There are possibly two other sons of James Rudd, Sr. we haven’t yet identified. Burrel Rudd had a son under the age of 10 in 1820, so if that son survived then he was under the age of 17 when Burrel married Mary Whaley. If he lived, he ought to show up in the 1850 census as thirty something. Burrel also could have had other sons before his wife, Sarah, died. Perhaps that’s how she died. It’s doubtful that Burrel and Mary Whaley had children from their marriage. Mary’s first son with her first husband George Whaley was born about 1801 and she married Burrel almost 26 years later. And then keep in mind we do have two 10/16 y/o males in 1810 that we don’t know what happened to them.

Hope this helps in your search.

Grammy and Me

My very fondest memories of my childhood almost exclusively include my Grandmother Ella. She was the perfect grandmother. Today … she has been gone 21 years, it seems like yesterday. She was my father’s mother.

Ella Wilson was born on March 10, 1911 in Escambia Co., AL to Matthew Wilson and Mary Elzine Manning. The Wilsons and Mannings were of Scottish descent and came into Escambia by way of Santa Rose Co., FL which in the early days had become a migration destination for Scottish people after Florida was acquired from Spain. She was the seventh child in a family of eight children; Mattie, Jerry, Riley, Lawrence, Fred, Evaline, Ella and Margaret. In 1954, her sister Margaret was killed in an automobile accident. My earliest memory is going to Alabama for that funeral, I was four years old.

My grandmother Ella married my grandfather Eulis Franklin Rudd in Florida when she was sixteen years old. This is a picture of them on their wedding day. She was a beautiful girl. She had three children with Eulis. The first one, Eulis, Jr. died before he was a year old. My father, Doyle Carlton, was their second child and my Aunt Zine, Margaret Elzine, was their third child. About nine years after her marriage to Eulis, they were divorced and a few years later, she married Robert Cleveland Ferguson and moved with him and her children to Texas. Her second husband is the one I knew as my Poppa. My mother told me that the happiest times of my grandmother’s life were when she was taking care of me. Me too!

My parents and I lived with my grandparents for the first year couple of years after I was born, until shortly after my sister was born. Then my parents moved into a house next door so we were always my grandparent’s house. My mother’s family was in Maine so my grandmother became more than just her mother-in-law. My mother has often said she just doesn’t know what they would have done without my grandmother in those early years.

My grandmother was absolutely the most kindest person I’ve even known in my life. Anyone who needed help, she was there to do anything she could to make their life easier. After my parents bought their first house we moved about 20 miles away but my Poppa would come and pick me up on Friday after work and take me to their house for the weekend. Then on Sunday my parents would come to dinner and pick me up and take me back home. Even when I became a teenager, I would spend at least one weekend a month with my grandparents.

So many wonderful memories.

When I was 19 years old my parents moved to East Texas and I went to live with my grandparents for a while until I was able to afford to move into my own apartment. She was always there for me. She taught me to cook, to sew, and passed her green-thumb to me. She taught me kindness and charity. She taught me loyalty. She taught me to be brave and how to weather life’s storms. She taught me to be optimistic.

I am who I am today because of my Grammy.

I miss you Grammy.

Boxes and Epiphanies!

I’m sure those of you who are engaged in family research as an addictive hobby such as myself, can relate to how easy it is to get tunnel vision and how difficult it is to break away from old thinking. It can be very hard to get out of the box that we sometimes find ourselves in, a box built on a foundation that often was passed down from someone else and instead of rebuilding the foundation we just continue filling up the box. I hate when I do that. That’s the main reason I decided to go all the way back to the beginning of Burlingham 1st and reinvestigate the theories and myths that have caused such a mess in untangling the identity of my Elias David Rudd’s parents.

As I looked back at the last posting I was working on, Untangling Four Holes Swamp, it was my intent to have it completed in the next week or two but the draft just wouldn’t come together without having to cherry pick things to make them fit in that box. It was so frustrating. Weeks turned into months and then chores and illnesses and family responsibilities started to take up time. And before I realized it, almost a year has passed.

But all was not naught! I did have an epiphany of sorts over these months. Well, not a complete one as in the answer and the documentation came with the epiphany, but the epiphany itself was so obvious that I had to acknowledge I had broken one of my very own rules! Get out of the box!!

Briefly, I’ll tell you what it is and how it came about because it’s going to relate back to the narrative, Untangling Four Holes Swamp.

Here’s the box:

George Lounsdell Rudd left a Deed of Transfer of Personal Property from Screven Co. GA and that Deed was filed in Charleston Co., SC upon his death in 1804. He named four sons, George Jr., Ely, James and Lias. Somehow, someone a long time ago decided that the Ely in this Deed was Elias David Rudd and connected him to George Lounsdell Rudd as his father. Evidently, the knowledge by someone in the family that Elias David had a brother named George W. Rudd added credibility to that theory. Over the course of time the existence of George W. Rudd seemed to be lost in the family knowledge, but the theory remained. Unfortunately, no one worked the timeline on this Ely to determine he was born about 15 years before Elias David. At the same time the name Lias in the Deed was believed to be Luis because of the terrible handwriting in the records filed in Charleston after George Lounsdell died. When I found the original filing of the Screven Co. Deed you could clearly see the name was Lias. Then the theory was adopted that this Lias was Elias David but ignored the evidence that there was a Last Will for an Elias Rudd in Goose Creek and since both the Elias in Goose Creek and Elias David are alive and living in different States at the same time, it was impossible for them to be the same person.

Through my research I have satisfied myself that my Elias David Rudd is not the Ely in the Deed because his age and birth year range doesn’t fit. I’m also satisfied that he is not the Lias in the Deed. (I’m even more convinced of that now that I have found he had a sister who was born somewhere between 1802 and 1820 since George Lounsdell died in 1804.) But I had come to the conclusion that since the George Lounsdell clan was at Four Holes Swamp, I assumed it likely that this Elias Rudd of Goose Creek was the son named Lias in the Screven Co. Deed and that since he had named a son Ely and another son Elias, that Lias was a nickname for Elias that was used in the family to keep down the confusion.

So when I began to work on that narrative, I started with Elias Rudd of Goose Creek. I decided he was a good starting place because he left a Last Will that names his children and land records that document the location of his land holdings, a stream named Rudd Branch comes off of Cypress Swamp and is in existence today, as well as, the Rudd Branch Cemetery where his son, George W. Rudd, and George’s wife, Emily, are buried; and this son left an Estate Probate. But as I followed his likely parentage back through the census years, I could not get him back into the 1800 George Lounsdell Rud household as a boy 10 years old or younger. If he does go back to 1800, he’s more likely in the 1800 Charleston, Burlingham Rud household, which could present us with an entirely new mystery if that is indeed Burlingham 2nd.

The epiphany:

I mentioned briefly in December that I had discovered that Elias David and George Washington Rudd had a sister named Caroline who married William Craven Kittrell. She evidently migrated out of Barnwell at some point and is listed in the 1840 Dale Co., AL census, the same county where Elias David and his family are located. In the 1850 census, she and Craven Kittrell have relocated to Holmes Co., FL where she apparently remained until her death. But the census records really play havoc with her reported age. She’s born anywhere between 1802 and 1820. Determining her age will greatly help us identify the potential households in Barnwell Co., SC that could be the parents of Caroline, Elias David and George Washington. So back when I was trying to narrow that down, I took another look at all the Rud and Reed households in the censuses from 1810 to 1830 for Barnwell Co., SC.

There are three 1810 Rud households in Barnwell. Then in 1820 there are five Rud households. One of those five has a head named Rud that looks like the first initial is "L" or maybe "S", "J" or "T". The census page is very hard to read due to water stains on the document but he's definitely a Rud family member, the middle initial might be "P" or it's the bottom portion of the name on the line above.


As a matter of note, you can see that these 1820 households do have children who are old enough to show up in the previous 1810 census and it’s possible that the additional households in 1820 are integrated into the 1810 households except for that Burrel H. Rud household. That is Burrelham Rud who leaves a Deed of Transfer of Property to his daughter upon his death and he appears to have died by the 1820 census based on the recording of that deed. So that means if indeed the five households in 1820 are reflective of the 1810 households, it will be only two of them, George and William. And I say if because that’s a lot of people in 1820.

The epiphany was the L. Rud name.

Since the Deed by George Lounsdell in Screven Co., GA was a legal document, it’s more probable than not that when he named his sons he used their legal name. Therefore, if Lias was his legal name, not his nickname, then perhaps that L. Rud in 1820 Barnwell is Lias Rudd of Screven Co., GA. That's what I'll explore to see rather than trying to force Elias Rudd of Goose Creek into this box that I had built around this foundation that had not truly been examined.

If it is him, then that raises the question of why was Lias in Barnwell and not in Charleston? And since we don’t find George Lounsdell’s son, George Jr. in Charleston either, did George Jr. and Lias, remain in Screven Co., GA on the land that George Lounsdell must have owned but did not distribute in the Deed while sons James and Ely relocated to Four Holes Swamp? If so, when did they cross over into Barnwell? And since I feel certain that not only did George Lounsdell move into Screven Co., GA about 1792, but Burlingham 2nd made that move also, how many of those in Barnwell came out of Burlingham 2nd?

Here’s another interesting thing that you just can’t help but notice. By 1830 there are only two Rudd households in Barnwell. One is George Washington Rudd and his family, the other is Arthur Rudd and his newly started family. So what happened to all those Barnwell Rudds between 1820 and 1830? When I extract the household I feel I can identify as George Washington Rudd in the 1820 census, there are at least 9 males; 7 under 10, 1 under 16 and 1 under 26 in the 1820 census not counting the heads. I wonder if they all perished in the 1824 hurricane I referenced in my narrative, Elias David Rudd from Beaufort Co., SC to Jefferson Co., FL.

In “The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina” on page 325 in the chapter “Savannah River Rice Plantations” there is a reference to an 1852 hurricane that devastated the Savannah River area up to Augusta, GA. The Savannah newspaper noted,

“The extent of the damage to the crop is impossible to estimate but known to be great.” Two years later (1854) another hurricane swept ashore. It was said to be “the most destructive storm since 1824,” Three-quarters of the rice crop on the Savannah River was destroyed by high water.

Did that 1824 hurricane take those Rudds from us? They lived in that area of the Savannah River off of the Lower Three Runs.

Auld Lang Syne

The English translation of that Scottish phrase is “old, long since” or “long, long, ago”. I think that might be a fitting title to our family genealogy! Today I was reflecting back over the past year.

First, I want to appologize for my blog absence for most of this year. It wasn’t intentional. Life got in my way. It just seemed to be in full blown assault at times!

Back in April after the last narrative, it was my intent to follow up with the next one at the beginning of May but it became apparent that I wasn’t as clear in my analysis and I wanted to be in order to tackle the untangling of Four Holes Swamp. The more I looked at the data and incorporated other bits of information, the picture of who related to who began to change. So I did the only thing I could do and stepped back from that direction. And as is usually the case, by doing that, the picture I think is now clearer but not entirely crystal! So I will get back to that narrative. And I’ll attempt to identify the generation lines in South Carolina between 2nd and 3rd generation as best I can.

Now, I’ll not bore you with the details of the personal pitfalls I’ve had this year that have interferred with my being able to bring you more blogging, but they have been numerous, expensive and at times anoying as well as painful! Maybe it just comes with age, I don’t know, but I don’t like it!

One thing I do know is I’ll be completely happy to see this year GO!

On a very serious note, the saddest of all this year and the most difficult to accept was the sudden, unexpected passing of my dear cousin Michael Rudd on November 28th.

Michael is without any comparison the sweetest and kindest man I’ve ever known in my entire life. Micheal and I are technically 5th cousins, once removed. His ancestor William Wesley and my ancestor Elias Trowell were both sons of Elias David and Fannie Tanner.

I found Michael and his dear wife, Jacque, by way of Jim Rudd, my 3rd cousin, twice removed, about 10 years ago. Ironically, they live about 150 miles south of me. We became not only good friends, but close family. Michael used to tease me and Jacque by telling her “Hey, Lin is MY cousin!” and Jacque used to tease him back with, “Yeah, but Lin’s my sis-tah!” We’ve made a few wild and crazy genealogy field trips together and together we were able to reslove the question of the parentage of William Wesley, at least to our satifaction.

There just aren’t words to describe the big empty hole that was created by Michael’s passing. No cliques can fill that emptiness. And it absolutely breaks my heart that I can’t help Jacque’s heart, but I know in time Michael will.

I will always and forever miss you my dear cousin Michael.

Honestly, trying to find something good that came out of 2007 is very difficult. One thing, maybe the only thing, is that I found (rather she found me) a new cousin who comes by way of a new found sister of Elias David and George Washington named Caroline Rudd. She married William (Craven) Kittrell. That right! Not only did they have a sister, but she lived in Holmes Co., FL right across the border from where William Wesley was living in Dale Co., AL. She was still living for the 1900 census and might have been at least 98 years old!

It’s a very interesting story of how I connected her, with some help from a couple of our “old, long since” ancestors who left us a clue back in 1930 and 1939, as well as the forethought of one of our “long, long, ago” family researchers who put their words on paper and passed it on to another, then he to another, and so forth and luckily ended up in my files. Yes, I will tell you all I can about her in the coming months.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation to all of my cousins who continue to check back in for a new blog posting and even though you have found none, you do keep coming back. That alone has helped to keep me motivated throughout this year of trial and tribulation. So, seeing that I’m really, really not a New Year’s Resolution kind of person, I will however resolve to return with new narratives and items of interest before the groundhog sticks his head up in 2008.

My very best wishes for a Prosperous, Healthly and Happy New Year!

And there’s a hand my trusty friend!
And give us a hand o’ thine!
And we’ll take a right good-will draught,
for auld lang syne.

South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 4

1800 Chesterfield, SC

I had intended to leave this South Carolina Rudd for another day, but I think now that in order to properly submit for your consideration and solicit your response in my next narrative, it would be better to go ahead and include this 1800 Chesterfield Co., SC Burlingham Rudd in this analysis.

Yes! There is yet another1800 Burlingham Rudd! And you can see from the census page, which you can view here, he reports to be third generation. As I mentioned in an earlier narrative, Chesterfield Co., SC is directly across the border from Anson Co., NC. In the land records for the Rudds in Anson, they appear to move towards that border with land purchases on Old Mill Creek. You can see how close Old Mill Creek is to the Chesterfield border here on this map that was given to me by Cousin Rodney.

Now, we don’t have any actual proof but we do have strong circumstantial evidence that Burlingham 2nd had a son born about 1760 who he named Burlingham 3rd. We have the 1790 Anson Co. NC census that shows both Burlingham Rud, Sr. and Burlingham Rud, Jr. and we have a 1793 Deed of Sale for two tracts of land totaling 300 acres from Burlingham 2nd who was then called Senior, to Burlingham 3rd who was then called Junior. We’re pretty confident this is Burlingham 3rd because in the deed land owned by William Vaughan is noted as a boundary marker and we know that Burlingham 3rd married Mary Vaughan based on the Revolutionary War Pension Application.

But, it has been commonly thought that she was his first and only wife and that he had married her when he was about 47 years old.

Unfortunately, we find no Rudd in the 1810 census for Anson Co., NC nor Chesterfield Co., SC. So we skip 20 years between 1800 Chesterfield and 1820 Anson. And look what we find in 1820 Anson; Burlingham Rudd, who appears to be The 3rd, and Burwell Rudd, who appears to be third or early fourth generation. We know that Burlingham 3rd does not show up in Tennessee until the 1830 census, and by the way for future reference, there is going to be a record of a Stephen Rudd in 1820 Tennessee who appears to be related somehow to our Rudd family. So this Burwell is not Stephen. And I find no further records of this Burwell Rudd in the following census.

This is going to get a little complicated so bear with me.

The obvious possibility is that Burlingham 3rd was married previous to Mary Vaughan. When you look at the 1790 Anson census, we see no household for Junior and that leads us to think he is single. And when we look at the household for Senior, it leads us to think those are his immediate family members. But what if one of those females is The 3rd’s wife, another of the females is The 3rd’s first born daughter in the 1800 Chesterfield census and the second female could be another daughter of The 3rd if she is older than 10 and was born before the 1790 was taken, if not the third female is probably The 2nd’s wife.

It’s difficult to say who Burwell belongs too. We don’t really know his age, only the birth year range as reported in the 1820 census, 1775-1794. He does have four children under the age of 10 years old and that would lead us to think that works out to be one child every two years for eight years and allowing one year for marriage before the first child is born, that he might have been married around 1810. But, like I said, we don’t find any Rudd head of household in Chesterfield or Anson in 1810, even though it sure seems evident they were there. If he was married at age 18 around 1810 that would push his birth year back to about 1792 and that would fit within the reported year range. If he is a son of The 3rd from a first marriage and if the 1800 Chesterfield Burlingham Rudd is indeed The 3rd, then Burwell doesn’t show up in his household, unless of course he was mistaken for the under 10 years old female, which I’ve seen happen very often with toddlers.

Based on Burwell’s reported birth year range, he could be out of the house by the 1800 census and based on the fact that we know The 3rd was born about 1760, he surely would be old enough to have a son out of his house by 1800, but Burwell doesn’t show up in the 1800 census. And guess what? There is no 1800 census for Anson Co., NC! So, it’s very possible that for the 1800 census, Burlingham 3rd was recorded on the Chesterfield side of the border and Burwell was recorded on the Anson side of the border. Neither of them were recorded in the 1810 census and then they both show up in the 1820 Anson census.

Now, Burwell could be a son of Burlingham 2nd, George Lounsdell or even the Walter that is identified in the Prince Frederick’s Parish baptism register, or some other unknown son of Burlingham 1st. But I think if he was one of their sons and he had not established a family by the time that Burlingham 2nd and George Lounsdell migrated out of Anson, he would have gone with them. And I think the very reason that Burlingham 3rd did not migrate with his father was because he had married previous to Mary Vaughan in 1807 and he did have an established family. In the 1800 census we see he had female children, this is most likely the very reason that no trace of his progeny was found remaining in the area.

Sigh ....

South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 3

3rd Generation Continued

Four Holes Swamp

Four Hole Swamp is an approximately 60 mile long system with a one-and-a-half mile wide flood plain from swamp edge-to-edge which drains into the Edisto River.

Four Holes Swamp is the large swamp which forms the upper half of the northern boundary of Dorchester County with Orangeburg and Berkeley Counties. It is said to be so named because the water in the swamp starts from four holes or springs.

Derives its name from four large pits which alternately suck in and expel the waters of the swamp. From the discharging holes the water boils over like a mighty well, and into the receiving holes it plunges with considerable noise. ~ Dorchester Place Names

Without a doubt the four sons that George Lounsdell Rudd named in the 1797 Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift are third generation: George, Jr., Ely, James and Lias. Now that was a very helpful thing for George Lounsdell to do for us, if only he had been just a little more considerate and not named a son Ely and another one Lias! As you’re going to see, the census data only adds to the confusion because of the inconsistency in names of head of households from one decade to the next. And the very existence of Burlingham Rudd in 1800 Charleston is confusing because there is also a Burlingham Rudd in the 1800 Barnwell census and both seem to reflect a head of household who says he is age 45 or older. We have no clear indication of how this 1800 Burlingham Rudd at Four Hole Swamp relates to George Lounsdell.

So, I’m going to try to sort through this as best as I can and try not confuse you along the way. Hopefully, at the end of this narrative, we’ll all have learned something about this group that we didn’t know before.

First, let’s go back to the Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift. It was written on January 30, 1797 and recorded almost seven and a half years later on May 4, 1804 upon the event of George Lounsdell’s death. It was not his Last Will and Testament but it was recorded in Charleston, SC in the Wills Section of the State Papers. I’ve not found any Last Will document for George Lounsdell but it does appear to me that whatever land he owned at the time of his death was passed to his widow, Margaret. We don’t have a Last Will for her either, so I’ve not found any record of how that land was disposed of when she died. And keep in mind that the 1797 Deed of Gift only distributes livestock and moveable property; it does not include any mention of land. Since it is a Deed of Gift, we should not assume it is necessarily inclusive of all of George Lounsdell’s sons. Remember that in the Deed of Gift, George Lounsdell says:

I do acknowledge and appoint my sons George Rudd and Ely Rudd to take in their possession all the property aforesaid and to keep it carefully until these two younger brothers become of age. And then for it with increase to be equally divided among the four, their heirs and assigns.

Other than the mention of George, Jr. in the Deed of Gift, we find no further evidence of him in this family group at Four Holes Swamp, at least not under that name. Of the two George Rudd head of households that appear to be in the 1820 Barnwell Co., SC census, both reporting the same age range, one of them could be George, Jr., the son of George Lounsdell. It would be a close fit when we factor in all the evidence we have in order to compute the age of George Lounsdell’s son Ely as the second son listed in the Deed of Gift, but it could fit. And we know that it’s not unusual for ages in census to be off by a few years.

At about the same time as the Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift was written, George Lounsdell makes his first appearance in the Charleston District of South Carolina with a land grant for 500 acres dated January 5, 1797. The land had been previously surveyed for Benjamin Singletary in 1791 and since this is a State Grant and not a Deed of Sale, it appears to me that the land had been surveyed for Singletary but he did not take possession of it, therefore, when it was granted to George Lounsdell, it wasn’t necessary to survey it again.

In 1798 a grant to Ely Rudd states that the 500 acres were surveyed for George Rudd. The survey shows the land granted to Ely Rudd bordered by land owned by George Rudd that appears to be on both sides of Four Holes Swamp. The line down the middle of this land is not identified but appears to be a road or perhaps a path. Interestingly, the manner in which George Rudd is identified as a land owner appears to indicate two parcels of land which brings me back to a mention in the “Historic Ramblin's Through Berkeley" by Mr. J. Russell Cross (that I discussed in South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 1) that says:

500 a. to George Rudd in 1781

Therefore, if George Lounsdell did have two parcels of land by the time this 1798 survey was performed for Ely Rudd’s grant, then this survey might be showing us both of those parcels. This 1798 land grant to Ely Rudd was surveyed for George Rudd. That means that George paid the fees for the land but the land was granted to Ely. That’s a strong indication of a personal relationship and more than likely this is Ely, the son of George Lounsdell as named in the Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift.

When we look at the 1800 Charleston census, we only see households for Burlingham Rudd and George L. Rudd. So if as is stated in the Deed of Gift, the two older sons, George, Jr. and Ely were “of age” they do not show up in the 1800 South Carolina census as head of household. If the census is correct, then the make up of George Lounsdell’s household seems to include unidentified persons or they might be George, Jr. and Ely because if the two younger sons in the 1797 Deed of Gift are “not of age” in 1797, how can they be 26/45 years old three years later? Assuming the census is correct, those two males in George Lounsdell’s household were born between 1755-74 and would be early to mid third generation males and the two males in Burlingham’s household that were born between 1774-84 are mid third generation males, the one male born 1790-1800 is either late third generation or early fourth generation.

By the way, it might make sense that if Ely acquired his land in 1798, he might not have built a residential structure on that land by 1800 and since the land is located next to his father’s, he very possibly is living in his father’s house. But who is the other male 26/45 if not George, Jr.? And where are the two younger sons, James and Lias? Told you this was frustrating!

In February 1800 George Lounsdell purchases another parcel of land from Gilbert Crosswell, for $43 by the way, and then sells this same parcel in February 1803 to Jacob Danciller for $800! True to his form as we’ve seen in Anson Co., NC, George Lounsdell appears to be quite the land speculator! We don’t have a survey for this parcel but in the deed it states that Benjamin Singletary is one of the boundaries. He’s also listed as a boundary on Ely’s 1798 survey and identified in George Lounsdell’s 1797 grant as the person who had originally surveyed the land in 1791. Benjamin Singletary seems to be the one constant landmark we have at this point in identifying the location of these parcels of land. And I’m going to get back to the significance of that real soon. But let’s move on for now.

The next land record I’ve found is an 1802 survey for 116 acres for Burlingham Rudd where he acquires land adjoining what appears to be Ely Rudd’s 1798 grant. According to the survey, they are moving north. Unfortunately, not all the surveys carry a directional arrow that identifies north but rather use language that identifies north, south, etc. of a specific landmark, such as Four Holes Swamp. On this survey we once again see the name of Benjamin Singletary and note that it also reflects land owned jointly between Burlingham Rudd and James McNish. Since the survey doesn’t distinguish between the two Burlingham Rudd names listed, such as Sr. and Jr., I think it indicates that they are the same person. We do know that based on tradition of the time, if two men in the same family used the same name, one was generally called senior and the other junior. I would think that on a legal document such as this survey, if they were two different men, it would be distinguished because when the land is sold the survey is generally used as the official registry of the land. I've often seen deeds of sale of this time period which include a reference back to the land plat registered in the land office. If such is the case, Burlingham Rudd is purchasing a parcel of land that adjoins land he already owns, or at least has joint ownership. And if they are the same man, that indicates to us that Burlingham Rudd owned land prior to 1802 and that could be the reason he appears in the 1800 Charleston census even though I’ve not found a record of that particular parcel of land. And more importantly it could be evidence that the Burlingham Rudd in the 1800 census is the same Burlingham Rudd in this 1802 survey.

Then in May 1808 there is a land grant and survey for Burlingham Rudd for 606 acres. We see in both of these records the reference to land owned by the late George Lounsdell Rudd. This confirms that George has died but the land appears to still be in his name, therefore not sold as part of his estate. I think his widow, Margaret, is probably living on the land. What’s really significant about this 606 acres of Burlingham Rudd is when it is sold in 1814 to William Harrall we see that Burlingham signs his legal signature, he didn’t use a mark. As I noted in the narrative The Burlingham Rudd Who Married the Widow Mary Whaley, this Burlingham who signs his name (and signs all the documents between Burlingham Rudd and Mary Whaley) can not be Burlingham 2nd because The 2nd uses a “X” mark for his legal signature on the records in Anson Co., NC. But what we don’t know is if this Burlingham in 1808 is the same Burlingham in 1802 and, therefore, potentially the same Burlingham in the 1800 census. If they are the same man, then the 1800 Burlingham Rudd at Four Holes Swamp is not The 2nd. If they are different men, then who does this Burlingham come from? If he is at least 21 years old to acquire this 1808 land grant, then he has to be born by 1787, that’s late third or early fourth generation at the latest.

Recently my new found cousin, Kathleen, shared with me a listing she found in an old Charleston Directory that dates back to 1809, one year before the 1810 census, one year after this 1808 land grant and survey. The directory list land owners which might not be specific to the residents and states that some names are duplicated because of that system, therefore, it appears this directory is developed based on who were the land owners at the time. I’m just guessing but I think that’s probably because only land owners were allowed to vote. Only the males that is!

Now look at this: Burlingham, Elias, Ely, Jane. The names appear to be in alphabetic order rather than geographic order. Interesting, the year before, in 1808 the land grant and survey for Burlingham Rudd identified the land owned by the late George Lounsdell Rudd but we don’t see his name in this directory. We do see the name Jane and not Margaret, his widow. Because the directory lists both Elias and Ely and they are spelt differently, they appear to be two different men. We have a record of a 1798 land grant for Ely Rudd but I’ve not found a land record for Elias Rudd that early. Let’s compare this directory with the 1810 census.


Elias, Margaret, Elijah and (what appears to read) O’riley. Now these are head of households, families living in different dwellings, not necessarily the land owners. You can look at the census page HERE.

They are listed next to each other and that would indicate they are living next door to each other. The only consistent name between these two records is Elias! But like I said, we don’t have a land record for Elias by 1810. We have a 1798 land record for Ely, but surely he’s older than the Elijah in the 1810 census. So is Ely as named in the Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift actually named Elias? And if that’s the case then what is Lias’ actual name? I do think the Elias and Ely in the 1809 Directory are the same Elias and Elijah in the 1810 census, I’m just not sure who is which one.

In the 1809 Directory we have Burlingham a land owner, but in the 1810 census we don’t have Burlingham as head of household. We know he didn’t sell the 606 acres he acquired in 1808 until 1814. So in 1809 he is a land owner. Does this indicate that Burlingham was a land owner in 1809 but for some reason, not the head of household in 1810? We don’t see an older male in any of the households that would match the age of the 1800 Burlingham household. And who the heck is O’riley in the 1810 census? Is Burlingham in the directory the same man as O’riley in the census? And isn’t O’riley such a strange name to appear now. We never see it again.

Now also what is interesting is that this 1810 census records Elias, Margaret (the older), Elijah and O’riley as living in Colleton Co., but there is also a Margaret Rudd in St. James Goose Creek (SJGC). Based on her reported age range she could be out of either the Burlingham or George Lounsdell household in 1800. But we don’t have any Margaret in the 1809 directory. We have Jane. My speculation is that Margaret the mother, widow of George Lounsdell, is living on land that has been given as inheritance by 1809 and that’s why George Lounsdell isn’t listed as a land owner in the directory. As I’ve seen in many Last Wills of this time period, the land is given to the heirs with a clause that says that the wife is allowed to live on the land until her death or her remarriage. That’s why Margaret the mother is in the 1810 census as a head of household, she’s living in her own dwelling. My guess is that Jane in the 1809 Directory is the same person as the Margaret (the younger) in the 1810 SJGC census. And if that is the case, then Margaret in 1810 SJGC is most likely an unmarried daughter of George Lounsdell.

So based on the 1810 census, as far as the males are concerned, we have two males born between 1765-84, Elias and O’riley, thus they are third generation, and two males born between 1784-94 in Elijah’s household, thus making them mid third to early fourth generation and two males born between 1794-1800, one with Elias and one with O’riley, thus they appear to be fourth generation, sons of the head of household. Even though the names don’t match up, the total number of third and early fourth generation males does match up between the 1800 and 1810 census.

I wondered how it came about that the family is listed in Charleston in 1800 then in 1810, one group is in Colleton while Margaret the younger is in Charleston at St. James Goose Creek. And keep in mind that all of the land records up until this point are in Charleston District with the one constant landmark of Benjamin Singletary as a boundary land owner. Here’s what I discovered and it might eventually help us figure out how this group relates to each other if I can succeed in laying out the land parcels on a map.

Going back to George Lounsdell’s 1797 land grant that was originally survey for Benjamin Singletary in 1791, I searched for Benjamin in the 1790 census and found him residing in St. George Dorchester, Charleston District. According to this map, the parishes of St. George Dorchester and St. James Goose Creek shared a border and both laid within the Charleston District. Four Holes Swamp crosses over the border by coming from St. James into St. George where the swamp drains into the Edisto River approximately at the point where I’ve place the blue asterisk. The 1798 land survey for Ely Rudd also shows Benjamin Singletary as a border and remember that it also shows what looks to be two parcels of land owned by George Lounsdell on both sides of Four Hole Swamp. And remember all the land acquired by George Lounsdell, Ely and Burlingham up until this period adjoined each other. It would appear that these tracts of land became divided by the Colleton/Charleston border for the 1810 census, thus Elias, Margaret, Elijah and O’riley are on the Colleton side and Margaret the younger is on the Charleston side. That would mean that Margaret the younger is living on the outer edge of land that lies east of the rest of the family.

You’ll notice on the 1810 census for Margaret the younger there are two Joiner families. Joiner is a name that appears on George Lounsdell’s 1797 grant as a neighboring land owner.

Also, you’ll see that on the 1800 census for George L. and Burlingham the name in between them is Thomas Ray.

By the 1810 census, we know that George Lounsdell has died, but notice on the 1810 census for Margaret Rudd the younger, she is living near Thomas Ray.

It’s hard for me to say since I’m not personally familiar with that area in South Carolina, but it looks to me like it’s possible that in 1800 George Lounsdell and Burlingham were living in dwellings on the east side of Four Holes Swamp. Between 1800 and 1810 the family had moved to the west side of the Swamp and built individual dwellings that fell within the Colleton boundary. Except for Margaret the younger, who might have moved with the family and then moved back to the Charleston side by 1810. That’s what makes me think that for some reason, perhaps an inheritance of land from George Lounsdell’s estate, she is living on the old homestead at St. James Goose Creek. But of course, we can’t be sure because there is a female of the right age living in both the Burlingham and George Lounsdell households in the 1800 census and both of them are living in that same area in that census.


By the 1820 census, it appears Margaret, George Lounsdell’s widow, has died or she is living in the household of Burrel Rudd. What’s noticeable is that when comparing the 1810 to the 1820 census, the 10/16 male in Elias’ household and the 10/16 male in O’riley’s household do not show up as 16/26 males in the 1820 census. There are of course several possibilities but I’ll wait for the next narrative to explore them. For now the four adult males reflected in 1820 census as third to early fourth generation total the four male head of households identified as third or early fourth generation males in the 1800 and 1810 census.

But if we progress the ages of the males in 1810 to 1820 we should be seeing six males instead of four. So two males are either living somewhere else in 1820, not accounted for in the census or they’ve died. However, it would appear that one of the four adult males in 1810 is living in the household of Eli in 1820 if this census is correct and there are three Rudd households. This time the families are listed as living in St. James Goose Creek. You can see the census page HERE.

In comparing the land records leading up to the 1820 census we find in 1819 Eli Rudd was granted 291 ½ acres of land at Four Holes Swamp. On the survey you see that West Williams was a boundary land owner and on the 1820 census page, Eli Rudd is listed next to West Williams.

That same year, Burlingham Rudd was granted 352 acres that adjoined land owned by Burlingham Rudd. Once again we don’t see anything that distinguishes one Burlingham from the other, so that leads me to believe they are the same man. On the survey for this land you see border lands formerly owned by Thomas Singletary, George Crawford Sr. and Jr. and Thomas Faulling. Those names appears on the same page of the 1820 census.

James Rudd is also listed on the same census page down near Thomas Faulling. I’ve not found a land record for James, but this would appear to be the James Rudd that George Lounsdell names as his son in the 1797 Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift. His household reflects three children under the age of 10 and that would indicate that he was married within the last decade and for that reason he hasn’t shown up as a head of household before now.

In 1818 Elias Rudd is granted 218 acres at Four Holes Swamp. The survey doesn’t give me much help in trying to identify the location of his land. The name Mrs. Mary Smith is too vague and I haven’t been able to locate the other names in the 1820 census. What is significant, however, is that this is the first land record for Elias Rudd. In 1820 there is another land survey for 326 acres in the name of Elias Rudd and on the survey we see other tracts of land belonging to Elias Rudd. The land is identified as being on Partridge Creek which will correspond to the Last Will and Testament for Elias Rudd of St. James Goose Creek which identifies his land as being at Partridge Creek and names all of his children. Today there is a Rudd Branch that comes off of Partridge Creek in the Berkeley area of South Carolina as well as a Rudd Branch Cemetery near Summerville where there are two undated headstones, one for George Rudd and another for Emily Rudd. This seems logically to be George Washington Rudd, son of Elias Rudd of St. James Goose Creek and his wife.

So the land records leading up to the 1820 census confirm the existence of Eli, Elias and Burlingham, but we find no land record for Elijah or O’riley at all.


Let’s look at the 1830 Charleston census starting with Elias Rudd. If his age is reported correctly, he is late third or early fourth generation. Since he reports being born between 1790-1800 and if the one female 20/30 years old is his daughter, then he is most likely close to 38 to 40 years old which would make his daughter around 20 and therefore might indicate he married about the time of the 1810 census. Looking back at the 1810 Colleton census we see only one household that could be him, Elijah with two males 16/26 years old. But there is not a female that could be the wife, unless there is a mistake in the census and that’s not two males. The other possibility is that he was married after the census was taken, which is generally in the mid to late summer. That would really push the timeline for a daughter to be born in 1810. In the 1820 St James Goose Creek census it’s possible he is living in the Eli Rudd household where we see one male 45+ which is probably Ely, son of George Lounsdell, and one male 26/45 years old who would be born between 1775-94. The household contains a female under ten who could be Elias’ daughter in the 1830 census and there is another female 16/26 in the 1820 household who could be Elias’ wife in 1830. And since as I mentioned before it appears that one of the males in 1810 is living with Eli in 1820, I think it’s a pretty good guess that male is Elias from the 1830 census with the beginning of his family. By 1830 it appears that Ely has died.

In the 1830 census, the situation in the Burlingham Rudd household is absolutely perplexing! There is no family information listed, but 15 slaves are recorded. In the previous census, 1820, no slaves were recorded but two free colored persons were identified. We know from the St. James Goose Creek records that Burlingham Rudd married the widow of George Powell Whaley, Sr., Mary Williams Whaley, some time between December 1826 and October 1827. Mary Whaley Rudd’s marriage settlement in January 1835 and Burlingham Rudd’s estate inventory is dated May 1836 indicates to us that Burlingham died sometime before January 1835 but his estate wasn’t inventoried until almost a year and half later. That might be one reason there wasn’t much left to it! But surely he was alive for the 1830 census. And when you look at the census page there is little doubt this is the right Burlingham Rudd because we see Mary Whaley Rudd’s two sons living near by. And as I discussed in the narrative, The Burlingham Rudd who Married the Widow Mary Whaley, it does appear likely that the Ms. Valey living next door to Burrel Rudd in 1820 is the widow and her name was mis-recorded due to dialects that made a W sound like a V. Notice at the top of that census page you see the name Thomas Harry which corresponds to the Thomas Harry on Burlingham’s 1819 land survey.

Also on this 1830 census page you see Elias Rudd and the name John Varner and Jacob Peagler. On the 1833 land survey for 228 acres to Jacob Peagler we see two tracks of land for Elias Rudd which also identifies land owned by John Varner. There is also an 1833 survey for Isaac Peagler for 271 acres that identifies land owned by Elias Rudd and Jacob Peagler. So it appears that Elias Rudd who owned land around the Partridge Creek area was very near the land granted to Burlingham Rudd in 1819. I can’t explain why there was no household information for Burlingham Rudd in the 1830 census unless this land was strictly farm land and he was not residing on it. But it’s been my experience that in such situations, the census taker lists it as “Estate of” which was not done in this case. And when we look back at the 1820 census, this would appear to be the same location of Burrel Rudd. Perhaps, after Burlingham (Burrel) and Mary Whaley were married, he moved off his land, perhaps by the 1830 census he had already died but the land was still in his name, such as we saw with George Lounsdell. It is a mystery!

Now looking at Mary Rudd in the 1830 census. This does surely look to me to be James Rudd’s widow even though family tradition says her name was Sarah (Bowman). As I mentioned earlier, I’ve not found a land record for James Rudd but there is a record of his paying tax on one slave. The names on the 1830 census page don’t help us in trying to identify her location, but since she’s not near by Burlingham and Elias in 1830 like James was in 1820, I think it’s likely they had moved. The several Smith family names and the Wilson family on the 1830 census page may hold a clue as to her geographic location. Family tradition says that she and James had two sons and one daughter and that James died about 1825 whereupon she remarried George Poland. Her remarriage does seem to be the case but if she is the Mary Rudd in the 1830 census, then she and James had three sons before he died. If you look at the 1850 Charleston SJGC census you will see Sarah Poland, wife of George Poland, they have a James Rudd, age 28, with who appears to be his wife and 1 year old son living with them. Sarah and George Poland have a 21 years old son and a 19 years old son in the household. That would fit the family tradition about Sarah remarrying after James Rudd died and she could have married about 1827-28. There’s another family “lore” that says that Sarah gave up her children to Elias David Rudd to be raised when she remarried and they were William Wesley Rudd of Dale Co., AL and Burrell Rudd of Coffee Co., AL. But I have since determined that Burrell Rudd of Coffee Co., AL is the son of George Washington Rudd and most likely William Wesley Rudd of Dale Co., AL is a true son of Elias David Rudd. Anyway, it surely doesn’t look to be the case that Sarah gave up her children, at least not as far as son James Rudd is concerned. I think it’s also likely that the Jacob Rudd living next door as a laborer is also one of her sons. James Rudd, Jr. would fit the 5/10 male and Jacob Rudd would fit the 10/15 male in Mary Rudd’s 1830 household. Jacob and one other son would fit the 1820 James Rudd household with James, Jr. not yet born.

Finally, let’s look at the 1840 Charleston census. We only find Elias and Tabitha Rudd listed although surely there are others there at the time because they will show up in the following years. However, in those following census years they do show up in a somewhat fractured and inconsistent manner which indicates to me the disconnecting of the family maybe through unexpected deaths and remarriages. I don’t get the impression that many of those at Four Holes Swamp migrated out of that area this early in time because I’ve not found them anywhere else. As I referenced before there is a Last Will and Testament for Elias Rudd of St. James Goose Creek written in May 1847 and proved in February 1848 where he names all six of his children and his wife. Thank you Elias! The Tabitha Rudd living next door to Elias Rudd in the 1840 census is his daughter Tabitha Bradwell as named in his Last Will. She is Isaac Bradwell’s second wife. Notice that we also see the family name Joiner and Thomas Ray living near by. This would indicate that this land is nearby the location of George L. and Burlingham Rudd in the 1800 census and Margaret Rudd in the 1810 census. We also know from the Last Will that the land being divided among the heirs is located at Partridge Creek and most likely in the same location as present day Rudd Branch and Rudd Branch Cemetery, this cemetery as I mentioned earlier is where George and Emily Rudd are buried, no doubt the George W. that Elias names as his son in his Last Will.

Based on the 1840 census, Elias is born between 1780-90, late third or early fourth generation. Looking back at the 1830 census where we see Elias Rudd, the make up of the household does not clearly match a 10 year progression based on the listing of his children in his Last Will. But it’s really not that far off. I’ll get into more detail in the next narrative about that.

Now, if as it appears, the 1840 Elias Rudd is the same Elias Rudd in 1830 we can determine he is born around 1790. Going back to the 1790 Fairfield District census for George L. Rudd, we see that he has 3 males under the age of 16 in his household. Until we can find George, Jr. we really won't be able to determine who these three males under 16 are. If George, Jr. is out of the household by 1790, I've not been able to find him somewhere else in the 1790 (or the 1800 census for that matter). If those three males are George, Jr., Ely and James as named in the Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift, then it would fit that Lias was not yet born making it very possible that Elias Rudd is Lias, the son of George Lounsdell. When we add to the fact that Elias of Goose Creek named his only son George W. Rudd it's makes it even more plausible.

Using the land records, the censuses and the 1825 Mill’s Atlas we can identify the general area where the Rudd family members lived at Four Holes Swamp. The map for Charleston District was completed in 1820 and includes not only waterways and roads but also the names of public establishments and some private dwellings.



Well, I hope you have been able to follow me as I went through this documentation for Four Holes Swamp Rudd clan! Have you developed any theories of how this family fits together? When I continue, I'll give you my best guess.

South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 2

3rd Generation

Since we don’t know the age of Burlingham 1st and Elizabeth when they married and we don’t know how long Elizabeth lived, it’s not possible to predict how many children they could have had. We do know that in 1771, the Anson Co., NC General Assembly minutes record a motion that deemed Burlingham 1st aged and exempted him from taxes. I’ve seen databases that place Burlingham 1st as born by 1707 but that’s just a guess derived by subtracting 21 years from 1728 as his potential age at the time of his transportation. He could have been younger, actually as young as 14 according to tradition in 18th century England, and he could have been older. My guess is that if he was “aged” in 1771, he was somewhere in his early 70’s. If so, he was somewhere in his early 40’s when Walter, his last recorded child, was born in 1743. If Elizabeth was about his same age or younger, then there was potential for more children to be born into the second generation. And as I discussed in the previous narratives, somehow we have an extra Burlingham in 1800 that appears to be second generation.

But in order to establish a time frame for the third generation based on what we do know about the second generation I think we can use the birth year of Burlingham 3rd, 1760, as a beginning point and take into consideration that Burlingham 1st had a son named Walter (according to the Prince Frederick’s Parish baptism register) born in 1743. We don’t know if Walter survived to adulthood, we never see his name again in the Anson Co., NC records, but if he did, I would add 20 years to his birth year to allow for him to reach adulthood and then add another 30 years for offspring which would bring us to about 1790. So, third generation offspring can be defined, generally, as those born between 1760 and 1790, maybe a little later if Burlingham 1st had additional children after Walter. And of course, we need to allow for the overlapping of a fourth generation that probably begins about the early 1780’s.

First, let’s go back to the William Rudd that surfaces in Anson Co., NC on a 1787 land survey as a chain carrier on that land survey for George Lounsdell Rudd. He is either going to fall into the second or third generation. Of the known sons of Burlingham 1st, George Lounsdell (assuming he is one), Burlingham 2nd and Walter, he is either Walter by another name or another son of Burlingham 1st or a son of a son (grandson). This is the one and only mention of William Rudd I have found in Anson Co., NC. There is a Will/Wm. Reed in the indexes to the Anson Co., NC land records who in 1761 witnesses two deeds to other persons for land on the southwest side of the Pee Dee River. It is true that both Burlingham and George Lounsdell have instances where they appear in these indexes as Reed instead of Rud and their land was on the southwest side of the Pee Dee River, however, I’ve not been able to determine if the name Will/Wm. Reed is a transcription error. Personally, I think if there was a William Rud old enough to be a witness to legal documents in 1761, then we would have seen his name in the land records in Anson before 1787. Or he would appear as a witness to a land deed as a member of the Rud family. Based on not seeing his name any where before 1787, I tend to believe he was young, perhaps even a boy. I want to also point out that the date on this survey, 1787, is near the time that George Lounsdell is going to leave Anson. This land is his last recorded purchase and in fact this land will end up being seized as payment as the result of a court case and sold at auction. It appears that no one took up residence on this parcel of land. Another interesting point about this tract of land is that it is on the south side of Old Mill Creek which moves towards the Anson Co., NC/Chesterfield Co., SC border. This is the same area where a parcel of land that was granted to George Lounsdell was sold back to him in 1801 by Elizabeth Rudd which I discussed in the narrative, Who was Elizabeth Rudd?


Since we can identify George Lounsdell in the 1790 Fairfield Co., SC census and we can safely assume that Burlingham 2nd was still in Anson for the 1790 census, I looked for William Rud in the 1790 NC and SC census. I did find what appears to be documentation of “the Estate of William Rud” in 1790 Orangeburg, SC. You can see HERE that no family, but 43 slaves are listed. The last name surely does look like Rud instead of Reed, especially since the “u” appears to begin with a downward stroke instead of an upward stroke that could indicate an “e”. It would seem strange that our William Rud in 1787 Anson would have an estate in Orangeburg three years later with 43 slaves. There is another Rud family near Orangeburg located in Newberry Co., SC. This William Rud might be connected to that family.



Barnwell District, SC

The next mention of a William Rud is in the 1800 Barnwell Co., SC census on page 64, line 18; 4 males and 1 female under 10 years old; 1 male and 1 female 16/26 years old. That indicates the adults in this household were born between 1774 and 1784, therefore third generation. We don’t know if this is the same William Rudd as listed on the Anson Co., NC survey but that was thirteen years earlier. I think it surely is possible since we do know our Rud family is in Barnwell in 1800 as marked by the presence of Burlingham who we find on page 69, line 14.

But, once again we should scrutinize transcription errors that turns Reed into Rud.





Looking at the “u” in Rud for William we see there appears to be an upward stroke that could indicate this is an “e” instead, but looking at the “u” in Burlingham’s last name we see the same possible upward stroke. This is an instance where we can be grateful for the name Burlingham! There is also this entry in the 1800 Barnwell census: Sarah Reed with a household containing “2 other free persons”.


It looks very similar doesn’t it? In the indexes it has William and Burlingham listed as Rud but Sarah is listed as Reed. She is the only Reed in the 1800 Barnwell census index and she very well could be Rud. All three of these entries are in the same census but for some reason the person who indexed them saw them differently.

We don’t know the exact route the census taker took to record the residents of the county and these two Rud households aren’t listed beside each other, but they are not that far apart, 5 pages of county residents. If you look back at the page for Burlingham you’ll see the family name Stinson two and four places above his. I’ve not done the research on this family but the landmark name Stinson’s Bridge appears on this map of the Barnwell District, marked #4. And later on this deed for George Washington Rudd we find Stinson’s Landing. This would indicate that either 1) Stinson is a person of some significance in Barnwell or 2) Stinson owns land that encompasses the bridge on the map and the landing to a waterway on the deed. I vote for the second option.

In 1803 there is a land survey for William and Edmond Jones in Barnwell that identifies land owned by William Rud as a boundary. Is this the same William Rudd in the 1800 Barnwell Co., SC census? It very well could be. The location of this land is in the same general area as we will later find George Washington Rudd according to land records.

In the language describing the location of this land it says “Situated in the District of Barnwell on the south side of Big Saltcatcher and near the Cowpens Branch”. The only Cowpens Branch I’ve found on an 1825 Mill’s Atlas map is located in upper Colleton near the intersection of the Beaufort and Barnwell borders. The area I’ve marked as #1 on this map of the Barnwell District is the general area that would be on the south side of the Big Saltcatcher and inside the Barnwell District while being near the Cowpens Branch in Colleton. Coincidently, the Cowpens Branch inside Colleton is where we find the Jones and Vaughan families that are the ancestors of Mary Jones who will later marry Elias David’s son, Elias Trowell Rudd.

You’ll notice that this area isn’t very far from the Lower Three Runs. And let’s remember that the survey is for 468 acres to another person, there was no directional arrow on the plat to identify north, but since there is no graphic denoting the Saltcatcher River on this survey, all of this land is adjoined on the same side of that river, south. The land identified for William Rud begins at the boundary of that survey. If the survey is drawn do north, then it appears that William Rud’s land is southwest, moving towards the Lower Three Runs River which is the area where we will find an 1811 Land Grant to George Rudd, brother of Elias David, marked #4 on the Barnwell map. Also we don’t know how large a parcel of land William Rud owned nor do we know who owned the land on the other side of his boundary. The survey denotes who owns the land, not who may be living on the land. We know that it was very common for land owners to begin with a parcel of land that they homesteaded, then to add to their lands through subsequent acquisitions and it was also very common for other family members to acquire adjoining parcels or for portions of land to be given to children when they married or the father died. All of these practices are very well documented with our Rudd family in Anson Co., NC. On this 1803 survey you’ll see the name Robert Bradley as a boundary and appears to have adjoining land to William Rud. Robert Bradley also appears in the 1800 Barnwell census on page 70 which would be one page over from Burlingham Rud.

There is no conclusive evidence that the William Rud on this 1803 Barnwell survey is the same William Rud in the 1800 Barnwell census, but it is likely since this land survey is only three years later. I also think it’s very likely the William Rud and the Burlingham Rud in the 1800 Barnwell census are related to each other. They do appear to be the only Rud head of households in that census and I’ve look through the entire census line by line several times. Other than the Sarah Reed/Rud mentioned above, I’ve found no name that looks like Rud or Reed in the 1800 Barnwell census.

But as often happens, the next census year throws us a curve. In the 1810 Barnwell census we find a William Rudd on page 76, line 1. But the age progression of a decade doesn’t fit for those that appear to be the parents, even though it could fit for the children in the household more of less. So let me make an observation about the 1800 census. Listed there are 5 children under the age of 10 years old. Unless there is a set of twins, these adults (under the age of 26 years old) are very young to have 5 children under 10 years old. That causes me to question if the recording of the age of the adults is in error, or they are not the parents but perhaps older siblings.

And this time, this William Rud is living next to Burrel H. Rud. He could still be a third generation male based on his reported age. You’ll also notice in this 1810 Barnwell census there is for the first time a George Rud. Based on his age, he is either third generation or early fourth generation. What struck me about the make up of his household is the two 16/26 year olds. It appears that he and his wife are 26/45 years old and have 4 children under the age of 10 years old which might mean they were married within the decade. This could explain why he doesn’t show up in the previous census as head of household. So perhaps the two 16/26 year old males are not his sons? Or they are from a previous marriage and this George Rud moved into the county between 1800 and 1810? Both possibilities would correspond with the 1811 Land Grant to George Rud in Barnwell who based on the chain of custody of this land is George Rudd, brother of Elias David. This George Rudd in not living next to the other two households, but based on the recording of names in the census, they are not far from each other.

There is another record of William Rudd in Barnwell in an 1818 land deed where he sells property jointly owned with John Jackson to James Bates. And this time the name is spelled Rudd so there is no mistake that it is Rudd and not Reed. The land is located above James Furses’ Mill Creek which I’ve designated by #2 on this map of the Barnwell District. You’ll notice just how close it is to where George Washington Rudd’s 1811 land grant is located, designated by #4 on the map.

Based on the census and the surveys, I think we can safely assume there is a William Rudd well documented in Barnwell, but I get the impression that there are at least two William Ruds in Barnwell over the course of 20 years between the 1800 and 1820 census. One appears to be the same genereation of the Burrel H. Rud in the 1810 census and the other seems to be the same generation as the George Rud in the 1820 census, which I'll show you in the following. One thing for sure, there is no mention of William Rud at Four Hole Swamp in any document.

The 1820 Barnwell census is both challenging and interesting. The census itself appears to be recorded in segments that are alphabetized almost like the county residents were recorded over the course of time and transcribed in groupings. So it’s even harder to determine who might have been living next to whom.

Also it appears to me that the Rud/Reed transcription problem starts with this census. There is a female indexed on page 13a in the census as Charity Reed, the name looks like Rud, and in the land records she’s listed as Charity Rud. I’ve followed the chain of custody on her land and she appears to be a Reed not a Rud. Likewise, on page 9a in this census there is Hugh, Samuel and John who are indexed as Reed and look like Rud. I’ve followed up on them in the following census and they are Reed. Also there is a land deed from a W. Samuel Rud, Jr. to a son, John Rud, that appears to be this Samuel and John Reed. So you see what a problem we have with the transcribing of our surname and this is most likely the reason that for so long Rudd family researchers were unaware of the continued residence of our Rudd line in Barnwell. But the land records show us something different.

To begin with, on page 20a we find what looks like George Rud. Then on page 20b we find what looks like the name L. P. Rud. You can’t make it out clearly on this scan but I’ve looked at the census page and it’s clearly L. P. I have no idea what name those initials represent. And the only one instance I can think of is the Lias in the 1797 Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift from George Lounsdell Rudd. These two households are very near each other. And the George Rud household is very near two Breland households that represent the Breland family that Fannie Tanner, Elias David’s wife, somehow connects too.

Another interesting aspect of this George Rud household is that in the 1820 census, one of the features that year was to identify males between the ages of 16 and 18 years old. Based on information we have that Arthur Rudd, who is an assumed son of George Washington Rudd, was born about 1802, he would be about 18 years old in 1820. And son, David born in 1808, would be about 12 years old. Son, Burrel born in 1818 would be 2 years old. That’s a perfect fit for the sons in this household. This looks to be Arthur Rudd's father's household, however, a problem presents itself with this:

There is still another possible group of Rud households in Barnwell in the 1820 census. George Rud, Sr. George Rud, Jr. and Wm. Rud. You can clearly see that on the census page they clearly look to be Rud. They are listed next to each other and therefore indicate they are indeed a family group. I haven’t been able to determine their geographic location in this census because of the alphabetizing of the residents as I mentioned earlier. I haven’t been able to determine if they are indeed Rud and if they have some relationship to the two other households, but with this group on page 17a and the others located on page 20a and 20b, they are pretty near each other geographically.

You’ll notice in this last group there is a George, Sr. and a George, Jr. living beside a William Rud. George, Sr. and William appear to be third generation or early fourth but George, Jr. is clearly fourth generation. We know that the use of Jr. doesn’t necessarily mean that Jr. is the son of Sr. but rather that there is a older person who is the senior and a younger person of the same name who is the junior in the same family. So in this case it appears that George, Jr. is either the son of George, Sr. or William. Again, in 1820 Arthur would be 18 years old, David would be 12 years old and Burrell would be 2 years old. Unless Arthur is already out of the house and not reflected in this census, he's not reflected in either the George, Sr. nor the William household. David isn't either unless his age is off by two years, but knowing that Burrell's father was named George, he clearly could be reflected in the household of George, Sr.

Well, there is an 1821 Land Grant for 170 acres to George Rudd, Esq. that has an accompanying land survey that denotes existing land owned by George Rudd, Sr. According to the language in the survey, George, Esq. and George, Sr. are the same person. But this would indicate there is a George Rudd, Jr. And this census clearly shows George Rudd, Sr. and George Rudd, Jr. Note that on the survey there is adjoining land owned by Curtis Owens. In 1822 George Rudd sells land to Curtis Owens but the acreage, 134 acres, doesn’t match to be sure it’s the same parcel, it might be only a portion of it. But George Rud uses the mark “R”. There is a waiver of dower rights by Susannah Rud, George Rud’s wife. Then there is another land deed in 1823 from George Rud to Lyman Hubbard that appears to be in the same general area based on the land owners named as boundary that names George Rud, Sr as the seller and he uses the mark “R”. And remember the 1811 land grant and survey for George who we have determined to be George Washington Rud? When he sells this land in 1831 to Moses Sanders, his mark is “R”. These are all transactions by the same George Rud who used the legal mark “R”. This is George Washington Rud, brother of Elias David. Unfortunately, we don’t know which George is the correct George in the 1820 census, but they both report the same age, so for our purposes, they both appear to be either third generation or early fourth generation born between 1775 and 1794, as is the William Rud in the 1820 census.

However, if it is the case that there are two George Ruds in the 1820 Barnwell census and as it appears one household (not the George Rud, Sr.) reflects the possibility of male children fitting the birth year of Arthur, David and Burrell Rudd, but the other household (George Rud, Sr.) with three males under 10 years old would only reflect Burrell, born 1818, unless the George, Jr. next door is Arthur Rud. This raises the possibility that Arthur and perhaps David are not the sons of George Washington Rud. Perhaps they are nephews and these two George Ruds are cousins. As a matter of fact, we have no documentation at all that Arthur and David were the sons of George Washington Rudd and brothers to Burrell Rudd of Coffee Co., AL.

One other point I want to make about the 1811 land grant and survey to George Rud, on the survey it identifies the road from Col. Brown’s mill, who is Talton Brown and the grant identifies Ed Brown’s mill road who is Talton Brown’s uncle. In 1820 there is a Deed of Transfer of Property that will serve as the Last Will and Testament for Burrelham Rud. He appears to have died before the 1820 census since the deed is recorded in June 1820. The witnesses are Talton Brown, Talton’s 2nd wife, Judith and his daughter. Talton Brown lived in the same vicinity as George Washington Rud based on the landmark descriptions in his 1811 land grant and survey. And as I noted in the previous narrative, this Burrelham Rud appears to be the same Burrel H. Rud in the 1820 Barnwell census and might be the same Burlingham Rud in the 1800 Barnwell census. If not, they are most assuredly related to each other.

A curious thing about all these potential Rud male households in 1820 which reflect many male children, in the next decade, the 1830 Barnwell census, we find only George Rud and Arthur Rud. Where did they all go?




Beaufort County, SC

In the 1820 Beaufort census we also find Elias (David) Rud who is indexed as Elias Reed. We see the familiar family names of Tanner and Breland living near by. And on this 1813 Survey for Beaufort we see land owned by G. Rud across the way from Absolom Breland. If you compare the names on the survey with the names on the 1820 Beaufort census, they match up very well even seven years later. Notice that Elias David and Fannie have five children under the age of 10 years old in 1820. We also know now from Elias David’s War of 1812 Pension Application, that he was born between November 2, 1787 and October 31, 1788, so he is either late third generation or early fourth generation. And since he and George Washington are brothers they are of the same generation. Determining their generation is important in identifying their descendant line. And probably the closest we will come to identifying their father.

Four Hole Swamp

To be continued

South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 1

2nd Generation

As I wrote in The Rudd Boys of Anson County, NC we don’t really know how many sons Burlingham 1st had, nor do we know how many wives he had. But we do know that back in the 18th century if was not uncommon for a wife to die before her husband and for that husband to remarry a younger women of child bearing age, and then start another family. I’ve often wondered if that was the case with our progenitor, Burlingham Rudd, because as I discussed in Burlingham vs Burlingham, both of those Burlingham Rudds say they are old enough to have been born by 1755, so one of them is possibly Burlingham 2nd but the other one isn’t clearly identifiable based on the records we can point to that name the second generation. It sure would be easier if we were to discover that Burlingham 1st had at least two marriages and two family groups and in each one he named a son Burlingham. But alas, we don’t have that evidence.

For now, we can establish based on the Prince Frederick Parish baptism record that Burlingham 1st had a son named Burlingham (2nd) and a son named Walter (as well as a daughter named Martha). We do have evidence of George Lounsdell in Anson and based on his proximity we can assume he was also a son. And as I showed to you HERE, we do have a land survey for George Lounsdell dated February 1787 in Anson that states that William Rudd along with Burlingham Rudd were the chain carriers. It is possible that Walter and William were the same person, but there is no evidence of Walter in Anson and only the one mention of William in Anson. It’s also possible that William is a child of the third generation making him a son of Burlingham 2nd, Walter, George Lounsdell or an unknown son of Burlingham 1st.

If you’ve done any research of the Rudd family in South Carolina, you’ve come across a cluster of Rudds in 1810 Newberry County. Well, those aren’t ours. But the other Rudds in the 1790 Fairfield, 1800 Charleston and Barnwell, 1810 Charleston, Colleton and Barnwell, 1820 Charleston, Barnwell and Beaufort, 1830 Charleston and Barnwell, 1840 Charleston can be identified as belonging to the Burlingham Rudd family. After 1840 the lines down get pretty confused. And just a note so you’re not confused, when you try to use a search engine to locate the Barnwell and Beaufort groups, they won’t show up because they are indexed as Reed, but I’ve looked at the films line by line and they are without a doubt Rud.

I’m not entirely sure about how each one’s individual line goes back through the generations, as in who actually begat whom, but slowly the pieces are coming together. That’s been one of the great benefits of publishing the research I’ve done in this fashion, as narratives rather than in generational charts. If I tried to use charts, I’d have a bunch of blanks between the first and third generation or I’d have to list all the options and explain them! But as more Rudd descendants become involved in researching their lines, they will hopefully locate me and we can work together to piece the lines backwards.

By the 1800 census there are two clusters of our Rudd family in South Carolina; one cluster is in the Charleston/Colleton area of St. James Goose Creek at Four Holes Swamp and the other is the Barnwell cluster in the area of the Lower Three Runs River near the Savannah River at the Georgia border. The reason that the Four Holes Swamp group appears in both Charleston and Colleton in some of the census is because they are located on both sides of the swamp and the swamp is the border between the two counties. Actually, as the decades move along and that family expands, they appear to pretty much circle the Four Holes Swamp area as is indicated in the land surveys at the time.

Based on the land records in Anson Co., NC, we can surmise that George Lounsdell sold out his lands in December 1787.

The deed of sale to Michael Crawford for several parcels of land includes Lounsdell’s Folley (sic) which most likely was his homestead. And as I stated in The Rudd Boys of Anson County, NC, I find it remarkable that George Lounsdell sold so much land for so little money at the time. Was Michael Crawford a son-in-law?

We can’t be sure where George Lounsdell migrated to after leaving Anson, but we do know he is recorded in the 1790 census for Fairfield County, Camden District, SC. There is a March 1792 survey for an 88 acre parcel of land on Dutchman’s Creek in Fairfield County, Camden District, SC that is a certification of land for a William Bryan that was surveyed for George Rudd.

This appears to be land being sold by George Lounsdell and could indicate he was moving once again.

Also in March 1792 we see that Burlingham Rudd sells what seems to be the last 100 acres of the original grant of Burlingham 1st to James Lanford (sic). This appears to be Burlingham 2nd and could indicate his move out of Anson. Burlingham 2nd had already sold to Lewis Lanier in 1788 the 200 acres of the original grant that was sold to him by his father in 1757.

There’s also another parcel of land that appears to have been brought by Burlingham 2nd in 1790 that is sold to who appears to be Burlingham 3rd in July 1793 for one pound. That deed disposes of what we can determine to be the land holdings by Burlingham 2nd in Anson Co., NC.

When we look at the 1790 census for Anson Co., NC we see Burlingham Rudd, Sr. on page 189 and Burlingham Rudd, Jr. on page 196 living next to William Vaughn. So it does look like Burlingham 2nd remained in Anson until about March of 1792 but George Lounsdell had relocated to Fairfield by 1790. By March of 1792 George Lounsdell was on the move as was Burlingham 2nd. They both would have been about fifty years old at the time. But where did they move to?

George Lounsdell Rudd

The earliest mention of land in South Carolina belonging to George Rudd appears in “Historic Ramblin's Through Berkeley" by Mr. J. Russell Cross that says:

500 a. to George Rudd in 1781, 500 a. to Eli Rudd in 1798, 500 a. to Eli Rudd in 1808

Of those mentions, I’ve only found a record of the 1798 grant to Ely Rudd in the South Carolina Archives. But I don’t doubt the other records do exist or did exist at one time. Based on my experience in reading the South Carolina land surveys, I would guess that the mention of George Rudd land twice on the 1798 survey for Ely indicates two parcels of land on either side of a road (not identified by name) running through Ely's tract. In other instances when I've seen land divided by a road or a waterway the name of the owner is written across the entire area. So one of those parcels might be the 1781 grant and the other is probably the 1797 grant.

Mr. Cross also says:

The Rudds were among early settlers. Eli (Ely) and George both had large grants here. In 1818, when the Rev. West Williams left the traveling ministry of the Methodist Church and located here, he bought 500 acres from Eli Rudd, to which he added later purchases from Burlingham Rudd and others.

I’ve not found any record of sale of land by any of the Rudds to the Reverend West Williams, but I don’t doubt they too exist(ed). If we could find these records they might shed some light on the relationship between the Rudd and Whaley families.

Based on this entry by Mr. Cross in “Historic Ramblin's Through Berkeley", in 1781 George Rudd acquired a grant of 500 acres in South Carolina, but we know that George Lounsdell was still residing in Anson until 1787 and later in Fairfield in the 1790 census where it’s indicated he sold out his land in 1792 according to the land survey. In addition during 1782 and 1783 George Lounsdell acquired three additional parcels of land in Anson. So this entry is a strange development and raises the question of why would he be acquiring land in that area of South Carolina, does he have a relationship with someone in that area?

Another interesting aspect of this entry in Mr. Cross’ book is the date of 1781. The Revolution didn’t end until 1782. In February that year there was a move underfoot by the South Carolina Assembly to confiscate lands from Loyalists at the end of the War.

If this is our George Lounsdell, was he trying to get ahead of what would surely become a land rush after the Revolution?

Next we have a record of George Lounsdell with the Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock in Screven Co., GA that was registered on August 30, 1797. In the deed George Lounsdell refers to himself as “planter” and states that he and his sons are “of the county”. The deed lists cattle, horses and moveable property to be divided between four sons, George Jr., Ely, James and Lias, so I think we can safely assume there was land in Georgia previous to 1797. It’s peculiar to me that there is no mention of the land in this deed. That leaves us with the possibilities that 1) the land was given or sold in a separate deed when the family moved, 2) someone remained on the land and kept the property in their possession, 3) George Lounsdell didn’t have deed to the land.

In this Deed of Gift we see that George Lounsdell set his hand to it on January 30, 1797 then it is registered in Georgia on August 30, 1797, but this Deed of Gift is recorded on in May 4, 1804 in the State Papers of South Carolina in the Will Index indicating that George Lounsdell had died about seven years later. Thus, it created a lot of confusion for researchers for several years that took this deed as the Last Will of George Lounsdell and, therefore, inclusive of all of his sons. When I found the entry in the Georgia records and compared it to the entry in the South Carolina records, I noticed the South Carolina copy did not include the header, "Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock", therefore it is understandable that the South Carolina entry would be assumed to be a Last Will since it was found in the Will Index. The only point I would like to make about this is that we can't assume the four sons listed in this Deed are inclusive of all of George Lounsdell's sons. There could be other sons who he had already given property to. Unfortunately, the records in Georgia are sketchy at best, so I’ve not found any record of the land being transferred.

As I referenced above, the first document I’ve found of land issued to George Lounsdell is a January 1797 grant to for 500 acres in Charleston.

This land was surveyed for Benjamin Singletary in 1791. My reading of the language in this grant indicates to me that the land had been surveyed by Benjamin Singletary and he had clear title to the land. Therefore, another survey was not necessary for the land to be regranted (commutated) to George Lounsdell on January 5, 1797. George Lounsdell probably paid Singletary for the survey he had done in 1791 and then paid the other fees to the State of South Carolina to acquire the land. You’ll see on this plat that Benjamin Singletary is a neighbor.

We know from the 1800 Charleston Co., SC census that George Lounsdell is living in St. James Goose Creek at Four Holes Swamp but he does not appear in the 1810 Charleston census and as I said before, we can assume that the filing of the Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift in the SC State Papers under the Will Index indicates his real property was being probated by 1804.

There are at least two other land records related to George Lounsdell before he died. One is for the purchase of 300 acres from Gilbert Crosswell in February 1800 and the other is for the sell of these same 300 acres in February 1803 to Jacob Danciller.

Notice on this last document that George Lounsdell uses the mark “X” instead of his usual “L” which might indicate he was too incapacitated to make his usual mark. Also note that on this document, we find his wife’s name is Margaret, she makes her mark “M” and waives her right to any dower on the property. This could indicate there was other property where she lived on a homestead. I’ve not found any record of a deed for sale of the 500 acres granted to George Lounsdell in 1797 (or the 1781 land grant), this land was most likely retained by Margaret until her death. Nor have I found any record of a probate for George Lounsdell that would constitute an actual estate probate by a court.

On March 4, 1808 we find a land survey for Burlingham Rudd for 606 acres that list one of the boundaries as “the late George Lounsdell Rudd”. Since this is about four years since George Lounsdell died (1804), this might be an indication that his widow, Margaret, was still alive and living on this land. As a matter of fact, when we look at the 1810 SC census we see in Colleton, a Margaret Rudd who reports her age as 45+ living between Elias Rudd and Elijah Rudd with what looks like O’reily Rudd to his side. Now look back at this plat and notice that one of George Lounsdell’s parcel of land is on the south side of Four Holes Swamp and like I mentioned earlier this was the boundary between Charleston and Colleton counties. Therefore, in 1810 these Rudds are in Colleton, not Charleston. This is George Lounsdell’s widow, Margaret.

So the timeline for George Lounsdell based on documentation goes something like this:

His first mention is the June 6, 1759 land survey in Anson Co., NC. If he was at least 16 years old when this land was surveyed for a land grant, he is born the same year as Walter (1743), but since he is not mentioned in the Prince Frederick Parish register, he's likely born before Martha (1739) and therefore, before Burlingham 2nd.

On December 30, 1787 he sells the remainder of his land holdings to Michael Crawford (520 acres for 160 pounds) that indicates his migration out of Anson.

There is a mention in Historic Ramblin’s Through Berkeley of a 1781 land grant to George Rudd for 500 acres in Berkeley (Old Berkeley District), SC where he may have lived between 1787 and 1790. I’ve not found the record of the grant but there is a land plat almost seventeen years later to Ely Rudd in 1798 that seems to support that mention.

We have a 1790 census for Camden District, Fairfield Co., SC documenting his residence.

That is followed by a March 7, 1792 land survey for William Bryan by George Rudd at Dutchman’s Creek, Fairfield Co., SC indicating he was once again moving. That appears to be the same property he was living on in the 1790 census.

On January 30, 1797 he authored a Deed of Gift in Screven Co., GA to four sons. That would indicate he was living in Screven Co., GA after leaving Fairfield Co., SC and before going to Charleston Co., SC. Noting that the Deed of Gift does not include land and was filed in May 1804 in Charleston Co., SC indicating he had died.

Then on January 5, 1797 he acquired 500 acres in Charleston Co., SC. The land is granted on February 6, 1797 which is likely the location of his residence in the 1800 Charleston census.

The main impression I am left with about George Lounsdell is that he was very aggressive in land acquisition, especially in Anson Co., NC where he bought multiple parcels of land, but also evidently owned land in Fairfield Co., SC, Screven Co., GA and Charleston Co., SC. As someone who evidently appreciated the value of land, I find it strange that when he left Anson he sold a bundle of land to Michael Crawford for what would appear to be a lot less than the land was worth, 520 acres for 160 pounds. I question if there is a family relationship between them. In his last land transaction in St. James Goose Creek in 1803, he had bought 300 acres for forty-three dollars and turned it for eight hundred dollars just three years later. I find that impressive! When we take a look at the next generation of Rudds in St. James Goose Creek we will see the same aggressiveness in land acquisition. Those surely do seem to be his sons who learned from their father not only the value of land but also the value of its location.

Burlingham Rudd 2nd

When we look at the 1800 South Carolina census we see that there is a Burlingham Rud in Barnwell Co. and there is also a Burlingham Rudd in Charleston Co. at St. James Goose Creek.

Both of these men state their age as 45+ which means they are born by 1755 and therefore, gives us the impression they are both in the second generation. How is that possible? 1) Burlingham 1st named two sons after himself. 2) Burlingham 1st had a brother who also named a son Burlingham. I can’t think of any other way it’s possible to have two second generation males, both named Burlingham Rudd.

When we go back to the Prince Frederick Parish register we see that Burlingham 1st baptized three children; Martha b. 1739, Burlingham (2nd) b. 1741, Walter b. 1743. As I discussed in Burlingham Rudd vs Burlingham Rudd if the census records are correct and unless Burlingham 1st named two sons after himself or he had a brother, then one of these men is the likely Burlingham 2nd, born in 1741, and the other is a son of a son of Burlingham 1st who is born before Martha in 1739. That would mean one of these Burlinghams is second generation and the other is third generation. Personally, I think there is a strong possibility that one of these Burlinghams is the son of George Lounsdell, but I don’t have any evidence of that, just an impression. He could also be a nephew. The other possibility is that these two Burlinghams are the same man and perhaps he moved or maintained two households. But when you look at the two households side by side in the 1800 census, the makeup of those households are too different to be the same. Of course, there’s no guarantee that the people in either household are reflective of the immediate family of the head of the household.


As I mentioned earlier, we can deduce by the 1792 Anson Co., NC land deed to James Lanford that Burlingham 2nd left Anson about 1792. Based on this land deed, George Lounsdell had already left Anson in late 1787 or early 1788 and was in Fairfield Co., SC according to the 1790 census. But in 1792 they both appear to be on the move.

The next record of George Lounsdell in the Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift but we have no evidence of the whereabouts of Burlingham 2nd. Is it likely that since both were moving at the same time that they both went to Screven Co., GA? The only evidence we have that George Lounsdell was in Screven Co., GA is the Deed of Gift. And it appears he was there for only about five years at most. I have looked and looked for evidence of our Rudd family in Georgia during those years and I’ve not found anything to document either man’s presence. But they would have been there for such a brief period of time and records for that time period of Georgia are so scarce, that I’m not inclined to rule out that Burlingham 2nd wasn’t there too.

Another consideration is the location of this Barnwell group at the Lower Three Runs River which happens to be right across Screven Co., GA border. Based on the pattern we’ve seen in Anson of acquiring land along waterways, my guess is the land in Screven Co. was on the Savannah River bank or a close by creek that flowed into the Savannah River. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to theorize that the Barnwell group grew out of a migration from Screven Co., GA. And if that’s the case, the missing pieces to our puzzle might be in finding the answer to the question why one group developed at the Lower Three Runs in Barnwell while the other group developed at Four Holes Swamp in Charleston.


In the 1810 Barnwell census we see Burrel H. Rud who reports that he is 45+ years old. I’d like to be able to clearly claim this is same man as in the 1800 census but the age progression of the households to the next decade won’t fit! However, we have to wonder where he came from? His reported age places him as possible second generation but no later than third generation, born by 1765. If he is not the same man as in the 1800 census then he could possibility be a son of a second generation son, but that would mean we had offsring of yet another unknown second generation male! However, if he is the same man, I have to say the name change is a strange thing.

But I don’t think there is any doubt that the Burrel H. Rud in the 1810 census is the same man in this 1820 Last Will for Burrelham Rudd of Barnwell Co., SC. When you look at the dates on this document it appears this was pretty close to a deathbed proclamation. It was authored on April 5, 1820, filed with the Justice on May 16, 1820 and recorded on June 9, 1820. That might indicate that Burrelham died about 2 months from the date this Last Will was written. Notice that Burrelham’s mark is “BR”. That’s a unique mark and we’ve not seen it before. Also notice that the witnesses on this document are Talton Brown, his second wife Judith Brown, and his daughter Francis Brown. Were these Burrelham’s neighbors? Col. Brown, who is Talton Brown, will show up on a land survey that matches a land grant issued to George Rudd in 1811 in Barnwell. I have concluded without any doubt this George Rudd is George Washington Rudd who is reported to be the brother of Elias David Rudd. Also notice that on the George Rudd land survey there is adjoining land belonging to Thomas Morris. And when George Rudd sells this land in 1831 he sells it to Moses Sanders. Now look at this 1803 land survey that includes adjoining property owned by William Rud. Both Thomas Morris and Moses Sanders own adjoining lands based on this survey. Of course, land surveys are reflective of land owners not residents, but they can give us a good indication of the general area in the county where the families lived and most often they add to their lands by extending the boundaries. For example Moses Sanders expanded his boundary when he purchased George Rudd’s land.

We don’t yet have enough information to determine which Burlingham is the 2nd or who is the father of the other Burlingham but it appears to me that Burlingham 2nd migrated with his brother, George Lounsdell in 1792. I think we can determine three possibilities:

1) He went with George Lounsdell to Screven Co., GA and then relocated to Barnwell Co., SC.

2) He went with George Lounsdell to Screven Co., GA and relocated again with George Lounsdell to Charleston Co., SC.

3) He migrated at the same time as George Lounsdell but went directly to Barnwell Co., SC and lived across the Savannah River from his brother.

My impression of Burlingham 2nd is that he is just the opposite of George Lounsdell. Where as, George Lounsdell was very land aggressive in his younger days, especially when he lived in Anson, Burlingham 2nd was not. Burlingham 2nd purchased 200 acres of his father’s original grant in 1757 (at the age of 15 years and 3 months!). He evidently had power of attorney or was legally in possession of the remaining 100 acres because he sold both parcels. The only other record of land acquisition I’ve found was the 1790 purchase of two tracts of 150 acres each that he sold to his son Burlingham 3rd for one pound in 1793. If Burlingham 2nd indeed is the one in the 1800 Charleston census, then it’s not likely to me that he is also the same Burlingham with the several land grants in Charleston. That just doesn’t fit his style. On the other hand, if he is the Burlingham in the 1800 Barnwell census and the same Burrel H. Rudd as well as Burrelham Rud, then why did he change his name? Or maybe he didn’t, but rather it was just recorded that way because he couldn’t spell it. I find it interesting that Burrelham Rudd doesn’t mention any land in his Last Will, but he does list quite a bit of stock that he leaves to his daughter. Maybe he didn’t own the land. Maybe he was living in a separate residence on land owned by a son, perhaps that William Rudd we see in the Barnwell census.

Walter Rudd

Lastly, other than his name appearing in the Prince Frederick Parish register we have no evidence of Walter Rudd in Anson Co., NC unless as I said at the beginning of this narrative, he and William Rudd are the same person.

There is a record of a Walter Rudd who married Sarah Campbell in Charleston in 1793. We have no way of knowing if this is the son of Burlingham 1st but I doubt it. And that is the only record of that Walter Rudd I have found.

~~~~**~~~~
That is the extent of our knowledge of the second generation of Rudd males. In a time when families were large and women had children from the time they were married until they could no longer reproduce I find it curious that we don’t have more males. But we don’t know how old Burlingham 1st and Elizabeth were when they married. And we don't know when they died. We only know that Burlingham 1st lived at least until July 11, 1771 when he is recorded as being "aged" by the Anson Co., NC Assembly and exempted from taxes. Interesting, Burlingham 2nd would have been just 30 years old. That might give us an indication that Burlingham 1st was older than normal for the times when he married Elizabeth and began his family.

We’re fortunate that George Lounsdell left us the Deed of Gift from Screven Co., GA and listed the names of four sons. That at least gives us a starting point for the third generation. As for Burlingham 2nd, we do know that it’s very likely that Burlingham 3rd is his son and based on the Revolutionary War Pension Application for the 3rd, we know that he was born about 1760. We can determine that Burlingham 2nd was fifty-one years old when he left Anson. He was about seven years old when Burlingham 1st relocated with his family. George Lounsdell left Anson about four years earlier, Therefore, the family lived in Anson about forty years before migration began. And since Burlingham 3rd was about 32 years old when Burlingham 2nd left Anson, there are likely more children fathered by Burlingham 2nd.

The challenge for the third generation is both in identifying them and then connecting them to their father! I’ll give it my best shot in the next narrative!!

The Rudd Boys of Anson County, NC

Burlingham Rudd of Anson County, North Carolina is how our progenitor has come to be known. That’s because long ago his first documented appearance was his 1748 Crown Grant in Anson County. I know there has been a lot of speculation that Burlingham was a part of the Rudd family out of Virginia, but that is not the case. And there is some belief that Burlingham was part of the Rud/Rudd family in Pasquotank, Rowan, Halifax, Caswell and other northern counties in North Carolina. I have thoroughly investigated those possibilities and found no documentation or even any crossing of paths to support that belief. I'm still open to the possibility that members of the Anson Rudd clan might be mingled among the Rudds in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina until I can find someone researching those Rudds that can account for them all. Mecklenburg is a neighboring county to Anson, so a migration westward is possible for some of the family members.

In actuality it appears he began his life in America in South Carolina. As I discussed in Burlingham Rudd, Our Progenitor ~ Part Four, Burlingham 1st arrived in America in late 1728 or early 1729 and most likely came in through the Port of Charles Town or the Port of George Town where he completed his term of sentencing, married and began to raise a family. About 20 years later, he migrated to Anson County, North Carolina where he spent the remained of his life. We know that of the three known children, Martha was about 9, Burlingham 2nd was about 7 and Walter was about 5 years old at the time of the migration but we don’t really know just how many children he and his wife, Elizabeth, raised.

We find evidence in Anson County which I will discuss in this narrative of Burlingham 2nd, but I’ve not found any evidence of Walter. We also find evidence of George Lounsdell in Anson, which is the first indication that he might be a son of Burlingham 1st. And I say might because we don’t have any evidence that he is, as far as documentation is concerned, we don’t even find among his known sons one that carries the name Burlingham. This seems to me to be unusual since we have more Burlinghams than we know what to do with! And it’s not likely that Walter is also George Lounsdell unless he bore all three names.

A couple of years ago I hired a researcher in North Carolina to extract these records and I do believe I have now acquired all of the land records that the North Carolina Archives have in their inventory that directly relate to Burlingham and George Lounsdell Rud/Rudd, but there are other listings in the indexes where Burlingham or George Lounsdell were witnesses for other land owners or their property is listed as adjoining property. In addition, there are some Red, Read and Reed surnames in the same general area of Jones Creek that may also be Rud. One that is of particular interests to me is the name Will Reed who is witness to several deeds in the same area. And just for the record, there are a few instances of Burlingham and George Lounsdell being recorded as Reed instead of Rud, so that makes this Will Reed a real possibility for us. I’ve no doubt it will actually require me to make a trip to the North Carolina Archives myself and spend a few days there to effectively gather all the remaining potential documents, it’s just not possible to do that by hiring someone who doesn’t recognize a clue in the records when they see one. So for now, I’ll just discuss those records that I feel certain reference our Rudd family.

But before we get to the land records, there are several other recorded instances of Burlingham and George Lounsdell documented in Anson County NC Abstracts of Early Records, the May Wilson McBee Collection, Vol 1:

October 11, 1771: Burlingham Rudd listed in a group of men to lay out road from Mecklenburg to Cheraws between branches of Westfield Creek and those of Huckleberry Crick into new road from Cheraws to Anson C.H. (courthouse)

October 14, 1774: Burlingham Rudd listed in a group of men to lay a road from Mecklenburg road near William Leverett's to cross Pee Dee at Moorman's Ferry above mouth of Hitchcock's Creek to join road to Cole's bridge on Drowning Creek.

April 13, 1775: Burlingham Rudd serves on jury of James Cotton vs Daniel Burford.

July 12, 1775: Burlingham Rudd serves on jury of Burford and Howard vs Issac Brigman.

October 12, 1775: Burlingham Rudd serves on Grand Jury

April 1777: Burlingham Rudd serves on Grand Jury

February 1779: Petition to Governor, Council and Assembly from inhabitants of the upper end of the county for a division to form Montgomery County, signed by Burlingham Rudd and George Loundesdell Rudd

1783: Petition of inhabitants of Anson County to General Assembly showeth that whereas an act of the Assembly appointed commissioners to fix a place in Anson County to build a courthouse within two miles of the center of said county, it appears from the plan thereof to be remote from the bulk of inhabitants and a very poor settlement of barren black-jack land unfitting for public road, etc., a remedy where of the petitioners pray an act empowering commissioners to build courthouse on plantation of William Bert, which is high, dry land, well-watered, etc. (end of petition torn of) includes signature of Burrell Rudd.

Since it appears that the General Assembly determined that Burlingham 1st was aged and infirmed in July 1771, it would make sense that the October 11, 1771 and October 14, 1774 entries concerning laying out a road would refer to Burlingham 2nd who would have been 30 and 33 years old respectively. The one we know as Burlingham 3rd would have been only 11 and 14 years old respectively.

My guess would be that the four entries of serving on a Grand Jury also refer to Burlingham 2nd. But that last entry in 1783 that bears the signature of Burrell Rudd is interesting. Since the record says the end of the petition is torn off we don’t know if there were other Rudd signatures. But I wonder if this is Burlingham 2nd calling himself Burrell (he would be 42 years old) or if this is Burlingham 3rd (he would be 23/24 years old) … or perhaps yet another Burlingham Rudd using the name Burrell.

Now, let’s look at the Anson land records, first for Burlingham Rudd.

In 1788 Burlingham 2nd sells to Lewis Lanier for 200 pounds a parcel of land that is not defined by acres but is referenced as a tract lying on the south side of the Pee Dee and both sides of Jones Creek once belonging to his father that was granted by patent. This is the land that was sold by father to son in 1757 when Burlingham 2nd was 16 years old. He seals the sell by using his mark “X”. The deed has a codicil that gives to Burlingham Rudd (2nd) the land that contains the grave yard forever. This is most likely where Burlingham 1st is buried. Sure would be nice to locate the actual land and find out who owns it today. But by the codicil and the fact that Burlingham 2nd is selling this land we can conclude that Burlingham 1st has died by 1788.

In 1792 Burlingham 2nd sells to James Lanford the remaining 100 acres of this father’s original patent for 18 pounds 10 shillings. He seals the sell by using his mark “X”. I wonder if Burlingham 2nd inherited this land, but I’ve not found any evidence of a will or probate. If he did, this could indicate he was the oldest son.

Now here’s an interesting development. In 1790 Burlingham Rudd purchased two 150 acre tracts at auction through a friend Malachi Watts.

Based on the description of the parcels they adjoin land owned by William Vaughan who is most likely related in some manner to the Mary Vaughn who married Burlingham 3rd. One would naturally assume this was Burlingham 2nd but this land is sold in July 1793 by the purchaser Burlingham Rudd Sr. to Burlingham Rudd Jr. for one pound and the deed selling this land, unlike the other deeds, bears the mark “B” instead of the mark “X”. I don’t understand why Burlingham 2nd would use “X” as his mark in 1788 and 1792, but one year later use the mark ”B” when the land is sold to Jr. who would appear to be Burlingham 3rd. I can only think of two options: 1) during the year between 1792 and 1793, Burlingham 2nd learned to make the mark “B” and chose to use it because Burlingham 3rd began to use the mark “X” or 2) it could be that this is not Burlingham 2nd or rather the one we know as the 2nd is not the father of the one we know as the 3rd (who married Mary Vaughn). Just two months later, in September 1793, Burlingham Jr. (possibly the 3rd) sells this land to Robert Wallis (Wallace) for 110 pounds. Notice he uses the mark “X”.

That’s the extent of the records concerning land in Anson for the name Burlingham Rudd (minus one small tract referenced in someone else’s deed as previously owned by Burlingham Rudd that I’ve not found a record in his name as the owner). They consist of two separate parcels; first was the original 1748/9 Crown Grant to Burlingham 1st that eventually is passed to Burlingham 2nd and he then sells them in 1788 and 1792 with the mark “X” which indicated his migration out of Anson, and second was another parcel containing two 150 acres that is eventually sold from Sr. to Jr. in 1793 with the mark “B” and then sold by Jr. about two months later. But because of the change in the legal mark from “X” to “B” we need to remain inconclusive that both of these documents belong to Burlingham 2nd.

If both of these parcels of land are indeed being sold by Burlingham 2nd then he didn’t leave Anson until about 1793. In any case, he appears to have been in Anson for the 1790 census. We find Burlingham Rudd Sr. on page 189 and Burlingham Rudd Jr. on page 196.

Of course, we don’t know the actual route the census taker took to record the county, but we can tell by the order in which they are listed it’s likely an actual representation of how the residents lived in relation to each other rather than being rearranged in alphabetical order (which I detest!!). Since we find only two Burlinghams in this census and one clearly appears to be Burlingham 3rd living next to William Vaughan, then I think it’s likely that both of the parcels of land mentioned above are indicated to be Burlingham 2nd and he changed his mark. The fact that the two Burlinghams are several pages apart in this census and given the description of the land in the 1790 purchase, it doesn’t appear that Burlingham 2nd moved from his residence on the original grant to Burlingham 1st. The date of purchase of these two tracts is January 1790 and since the census is generally taken in the early summer months, I think it’s likely that Burlingham 2nd purchased this land and Burlingham 3rd moved onto the land or was listed as owner of the land for the sake of the 1790 census. This could be the reason there is only Burlingham 3rd in the household. Perhaps a house had not yet been built and among the three females listed in the household of Burlingham 2nd are the wife and a child of Burlingham 3rd. I just want to raise this possibility and keep it in mind for later in this narrative when we look at the 1800 census.


Notice that Burlingham Sr. has 1 male over 16 that would be him and one male under 16 (born after 1774) that we haven’t identified by name and three females, one of which is most likely his wife. Burlingham Jr. has on one but himself in his household.

We don’t find Rudd in the Anson County census records for 1800 or 1810 and we know that by the 1800 census both Burlingham 2nd and George Lounsdell had left Anson. Even though we don't find Burlingham 3rd in 1800 or 1810, I don’t believe he left Anson because we do find him and another Burwell in the 1820 Anson County census.

This census isn’t helpful to us in determining how these two men lived in relationship to each other because it is transcribed into alphabetical order by township! (which I detest!!)


This appears to be Burlingham 3rd who is likely third generation, I don’t know who Burwell is but he appears to be third or fourth generation. My guess is his name is Burrell and was recorded as Burwell. Sure would be nice to know how he relates back to Burlingham 3rd.

Just one more item I want to include in this segment. There is an 1800 census for Chesterfield District, South Carolina that documents a Burlingham Rudd. Chesterfield District is directly across the NC/SC border from Anson County and the Anson County map does show just how close to the border the Rudd lands, especially the land at Old Mill Creek is to the Chesterfield border.


If you look at this household, you see that the age range for the head fits into the known birth year of Burlingham 3rd, (1759-60) but there is no male child in the age range of the Burwell/Burrell in the 1820 census (1775-1794) unless the census taker made a mistake and that youngest child under 10 years old is actually a male and could be this Burwell/Burrell in 1820. That could mean that Burlingham 3rd was married previous to his marriage to Mary Vaughan. Personally, I think this is highly possible and the reason we don’t find the 3rd in the 1800 Anson census is because he's recorded in the Chesterfield census. Possibly the reason we don’t find him in either the 1810 Anson or Chesterfield census is because the border was in dispute and maybe that area was missed by the census takers on both sides of the state line.

Another possibility for this Burlingham Rudd in 1800 Chesterfield is that he is a son of another son of Burlingham 1st, such as Walter that is mentioned in the Prince Frederick Parish Register. But I’ve found no evidence that Walter lived to adulthood. The age of the children in this household would indicate the household should have shown up in the 1790 census. The only one we have to look at is the 1790 Anson census for Burlingham the elder, assuming that is Burlingham 2nd. When you do the math, it doesn’t seem to work.

Now George Lounsdell as far as his land acquisitions in Anson County are concerned is an entirely different story. He had several parcels of land. After transcribing all of his grants and following them through their chain of custody, he leaves me with the impression that he was a type-A personality! This impression will continue as he acquires land in South Carolina and Georgia as well. He’s very different from his brother in this manner. His sons appear to have the same personality!

In order to present George Lounsdell’s land transactions in the least confusing way possible, I’m going to address them by their chain of custody instead of chronological order. That way we can see both the time line they create as well as identify the land that was not sold at the time of his departure from Anson.

The first mention of him in the North Carolina records is an April 24, 1762 land grant for 150 acres on Jones Creek that is adjacent to land owned by Burlingham Rudd. George Lounsdell names this parcel Lounsdell’s Folly and it would appear to be his first land grant. Interesting that this parcel of land was surveyed on June 6, 1759 and the chain bearers were Burlingham Rudd and Burlingham Rudd, Jr. (who would be seventeen years and eight months old).

It’s not possible for us to know how old George Lounsdell was when he acquired this land but if he was sixteen years old, then we can calculate that he was born about 1743. If he is older than sixteen, then that moves his birth year back. For example, if he was 21 years old, then his birth year would be 1738. But if we look at the birth years of Burlingham and Elizabeth’s children in the Prince Frederick Parish Register, we see 1739, 1741, 1743. I think it is doubtful that George Lounsdell was younger than sixteen in 1759 (born after 1743) when this land was surveyed. So this document presents us with the possibility that George Lounsdell was born before Martha in 1739 and is the first born child or he was a twin.

In 1773 George Lounsdell was issued another land grant of 100 acres that based on the description is adjacent to land owned by Burlingham Rudd Sr. who I think is probably Burlingham 1st. George Lounsdell now appears to have two parcels of land, one on each of two sides of the original 1748/9 Crown Grant. (But later we will discover this is actually his third parcel.)

The records show that in January 1783 George Lounsdell had two parcels of land surveyed that were awarded in October 1783. One of these tracts was for 70 acres that identifies a line beginning at Burlingham Rudd’s beginning and concluding with a line back to his 150 acre parcel which is Lounsdell’s Folly.

Someday I’ll find the way to plot all this land visually so we can get a clearer picture of how the land belonging to Burlingham and George Lounsdell adjoins but just reading the bounds and meters indicators, it does appear that George’s land is surrounding Burlingham’s land on the south side of Jones Creek. And Burlingham’s land extended to the north side of Jones Creek.

On December 31, 1787, George Lounsdell sells these tracts of land as well as one other parcel of 300 acres (that I’ve not located a grant or survey for yet) to Michael Crawford for 160 pounds North Carolina money. That was a total of 620 acres, which seems like a lot of land for little money to me. Makes me wonder if Michael Crawford was related to the family, perhaps a son-in-law.

A couple of other indicators in this deed are, first the order in which the land is listed. We can track the dates the different parcels of land were acquired by their grant and survey on all but this 300 areas. In this deed of sale, it doesn’t say when the 300 acres was acquired, but the parcels appear to be listed in chronological order of acquisition. Why is that important? Because as I mentioned earlier the first record of land to George Lounsdell that I have found was the 1759 survey for Lounsdell’s Folly which gave us some idea of his birth year. These 300 acres are listed after that 150 acres tract that was Lounsdell’s Folly and before the 100 acres in 1773. So the first purchase of Lounsdell's Folly still seems to stand. The next indicator is that since this will be the last of the land sold by George Lounsdell in Anson, it gives us an idea of when he left Anson, about 1788, and he will next show up in the Fairfield District, South Carolina 1790 census.

But that wasn’t all the land holdings for George Lounsdell in North Carolina. As mentioned the second parcel of land he had surveyed in January 1783 and granted in October 1783 was a tract containing 100 acres that included a line at Burlingham Rudd’s old corner. This land was sold on July 31, 1786 to Evan Thomas for 80 pounds North Carolina money. That would be a year and half before the sell to Michael Crawford and cost per acre quite a bit more than it was to Michael Crawford.

Another tract of land that was once owned by George Lounsdell is identified in a 1787 deed of sale from James Farr to Richard Farr that includes a 50 acres parcel that identifies a chain of custody of land sold by Wm. Owens to George Lounsdell on January 25, 1783 (which was the same time he surveyed to two other parcels) and then sold by George Lounsdell to James Farr on July 5, 1785.

Thus far we have record of 6 parcels of land totaling about 770 acres but that’s not all of it. On October 24, 1782 George Lounsdell purchases 100 acres at Old Mill Creek, which according to the map is south of his land at Jones Creek. The land was surveyed on July 27, 1781 and one of the chair bearers was Burlingham Rudd, Jr.

If this was Burlingham 2nd still referring to himself as Jr. then that might indicate to us that Burlingham 1st was still alive in July 1781. I for one certainly hope so. I hope that our old progenitor was witness to the American Revolution. There surely would have been no greater patriot than Burlingham 1st!

This parcel of land was granted to George Lounsdell in 1782 but it was sold back to George Lounsdell by Elizabeth Rudd in August 1801. As I discussed in Who Was Elizabeth Rudd?, how is it that the land was granted to George Lounsdell but sold back to him by Elizabeth Rudd?

The witnesses on her deed of sale are Burlingham Rudd and James Rudd. Burlingham Rudd signs his name and James Rudd made his mark “X”. Therefore, this is not Burlingham 2nd but most likely is the same Burlingham Rudd who married the widow Mary Whaley. So who is this Burlingham Rudd as witness on this 1801 deed and is he the same Burlingham Rudd in the 1800 Charleston, South Carolina census with George Lounsdell? If so, like I pointed out, he is not Burlingham 2nd. The only known James Rudd we know of is the son of George Lounsdell.

Was Elizabeth Rudd an unmarried daughter or widowed daughter-in-law of George Lounsdell? If she was the former then her father gave her this parcel of land in Anson. She either stayed in Anson when her father and brothers left or she left with them and for some reason (she) did not sell the land when clearly Burlingham 2nd and George Lounsdell sold off all of their land holdings when they left Anson. If she was the later, then who was her husband? One possibility that comes to mind is that this Elizabeth was a wife to the Burlingham Rudd in the 1800 Chesterfield census (above) and he died. That could indicate that George Lounsdell did have a son named Burlingham.

I found one final record of land in the name of George Lounsdell in Anson that identifies a 100 acre tract surveyed on February 21, 1787 also at Old Mill Creek which is the same area of the deed mentioned above with Elizabeth Rudd and this tract adjoins land owned by James Farr who would be the same person that George Lounsdell sold 50 acres to in July 1785. It’s hard to read but it looks like the warrant was issued in January 1788 and the grant was awarded in November 1790.

By this time George Lounsdell had left Anson. The land ended up being seized by the Sheriff of Anson as the result of a court order to pay a claim made against George Lounsdell brought by Charles Sparks. I'm making a note to look that up and see what that was all about! The land is later purchased at auction by Daniel Short. But for me, the most interesting thing about this land is on the survey we find the chain bearers were Burlingham Rudd and William Rudd. This is the only mention of the existence of William Rudd in the Anson County records. That for those of us who hail from the Elias David Rudd line is a significant find! Elias David's first son was named William Wesley Rudd and his parentage has been the subject of MUCH dispute!

As you can tell, I’m very intrigued by the legal marks that were used in the old deeds by those who could not or did not write their full legal name. In the case of Burlingham 2nd, as I said earlier, I think he switched from using an “X” to using a “B” because Burlingham 3rd was taking on the “X” to identify himself. Another interesting thing is how George Lounsdell seems to always use both his given and middle names in the records and his legal mark was “L” which I think we can safely assume stood for Lounsdell. He even named one of his parcels of land as “Lounsdell’s Folly” so the name Lounsdell seemed to carry some importance for him. Perhaps one day we will discover why but I can’t help but wonder if George Lounsdell was the first born child, if perhaps Lounsdell was Burlingham 1st’s mother’s surname.