February 22, 2008


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.



Photobucket

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.

Photobucket 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. PhotobucketThere 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. PhotobucketWe 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.

PhotobucketAnd 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.

PhotobucketIn 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.

PhotobucketBased 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.

PhotobucketOne 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.

February 15, 2008


Untangling Four Holes Swamp ~ 1800-1840

Photobucket

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.

PhotobucketHere 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.

PhotobucketIn 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.

PhotobucketIn 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.

PhotobucketThere 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.

PhotobucketAnd 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:

PhotobucketIn 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.

PhotobucketSo 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.

PhotobucketNow 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.

PhotobucketAs 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.

PhotobucketAnother 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.

PhotobucketIn 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.


PhotobucketMy 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.

PhotobucketAnd 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.

February 7, 2008


Grammy and Me

PhotobucketMy 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.

PhotobucketMy 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!

PhotobucketMy 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.