June 5, 2007

South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 4

1800 Chesterfield, SC

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketI 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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketUnfortunately, 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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketThe 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 ....

June 4, 2007

South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 3

3rd Generation Continued

Four Holes Swamp

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketFour 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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket 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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketWhen 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.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting 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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketNow 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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketGoing 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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketFinally, 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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketNow, 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.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

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.

June 3, 2007

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?

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

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.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

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”.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

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.

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingBut 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.

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingAnd 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.

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingAlso 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.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting 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. Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting 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.

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingAnother 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:

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingThere 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.

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingYou’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.

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingA 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

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingIn 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

June 2, 2007

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.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

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.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

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

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting 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!!