tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95806892024-03-13T08:50:44.428-05:00Burlingham Rudd ~Town of Holt, County of Norfolk, EnglandBurlingham Rudd was about 21 years old when he arrived at the British colony of South Carolina in late 1728, early 1729. Even though he left few records behind, much can be learned about him. This blog is written in narrative fashion in an attempt to tell the story of his life. These anecdotes are based on found records and historical events to provide context and reveal the probable circumstances of the lives of those who came before and after.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-63959658193406029972014-01-07T05:00:00.000-06:002015-10-28T12:44:51.638-05:00Burlingham Rudd of Norfolk, England<i><b></b></i><br />
<center><i><b>~ Every man is a quotation from all his ancestors - Ralph Waldo Emerson ~</b></i></center><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TGwCaZl4BpY/T6f_STkoRoI/AAAAAAAAAUI/CjH-W8xo4QU/s1600/Boudicca.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TGwCaZl4BpY/T6f_STkoRoI/AAAAAAAAAUI/CjH-W8xo4QU/s320/Boudicca.jpg" height="183" width="215" /></a></div>The area known today as Norfolk was a pre-Roman settlement with camps along the high ground to the west where flints were quarried. An ancient Celtic tribe of Eastern Britain known as the Iceni inhabited this area from the first century BC to the end of the first century AD. Sometime between 43 and 45 AD, Prasutagus, King of the Iceni, married Boudicca. Her ancestry is not known, she may have been from one of the numerous tribes that lived on the island. As the Roman Emperor Claudius was conquering large parts of Britain, Prasutagus remained passive and attempted to avoid conflict by becoming his patron. That forced the Iceni into a subservient role, but did allow the tribe to remain relatively secure. When Prasutagus died, he left his kingdom to be shared by his two daughters and the new Roman emperor, Nero. But Roman law did not allow for royal inheritance to be passed to daughters and co-ownership with a woman was not acceptable. Prasutagus’ kinsmen were enslaved by Nero; Boudicca was flogged and forced to watch the public torture and rape of her two young daughters. After years of suffering under Roman taxation, being driven off their lands, and being taken as prisoners and slaves, the indigenous tribes joined together under Boudicca in a rebellion in 60 AD. The natives fought a guerilla type war, but the Romans were better equipped and they defeated the Iceni and drove them into what we know today as Scotland and Ireland. It is believed that after the battle, Boudicca took her own life to prevent the Romans taking her prisoner. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1mYUCXBWcXU/T6gABWBTs5I/AAAAAAAAAUU/uWc17es0N0w/s1600/Angles%2BSaxons%2BJutes%2B400_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1mYUCXBWcXU/T6gABWBTs5I/AAAAAAAAAUU/uWc17es0N0w/s400/Angles%2BSaxons%2BJutes%2B400_500.jpg" height="332" width="295" /></a></div>Then came the Roman era; ports were established, roads were built and agriculture became an economic base. Since Norfolk was situated on the east coast and vulnerable to invasions from Scandinavia and northern Europe, the Romans built forts to defend the coast. After the Romans left the area in the early 5th century, those left behind became known as Britons. They were vulnerable to raids by the Scots and Picts so they sought the assistance of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes from across the North Sea about 446 AD. The Franks and the Frisians eventually joined them. The Angles came from the area of western Germany that is modern-day Denmark, the Saxons were from northern Germany, the Jutes are believed to have come from the Jutland Peninsula, the Franks and Frisians were from the low counties and north-western Germany.<br />
<br />
This coalition decided they liked the land and turned against the Britons who they called “wealas”, which meant foreigner, and drove them to the west where they became the Welsh. About the year 520 AD, more Angles migrated from across the North Sea and settled in the eastern area of the island. They began to refer to themselves as the “north folk” and the “south folk” which gave name to Norfolk and Suffolk. Eventually a kingdom grew; it is believed to have been ruled by Wehha Wilhelming who died about 571 AD and passed the kingdom to his son, Wuffa. This succession led to the creation of the ancient Kingdom of East Angles by 575 AD and they named it for their homeland, Angeln. His descendants became known as the Wufflings, or wolf-people. It is speculated that it was here in East Anglia that the poem <i>Beowulf</i> was composed in the seventh century as it mentions all the tribes that crossed the sea and came to this area. By 653 AD, the kingdom had passed to King Anna/Onna. His daughter, Etheldreda, married Tondberct, chief or prince of the South Gyrvians (fenmen) which added the Isle of Ely (pronounced to rhyme with mealy) to the Kingdom. Etheldreda maintained her vow of virginity and founded the monastery at Ely in 673 AD. Anglen ultimately gave name to England. The East Angles spoke an Old English dialect and it was here that English was first spoken anywhere in the world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xwBZbm1DBio/T6gALs9TaTI/AAAAAAAAAUg/Oxdb_clwfCs/s1600/Anglo-Saxon%2BHeptarchy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xwBZbm1DBio/T6gALs9TaTI/AAAAAAAAAUg/Oxdb_clwfCs/s400/Anglo-Saxon%2BHeptarchy.jpg" height="400" width="241" /></a></div>The Angles and Saxons gave name to the Anglo-Saxon people of England. Over the course of about 150 years most of southern Briton was under their domain and they set about dividing it up into states. East Angles was one of the seven Anglo-Saxon heptarchs (kingdoms) until about the ninth century. In the year 869 AD, Danish Vikings crossed the sea and invaded the kingdom. They killed King Edmund who became the Martyred Saint Edmund. The Danes took control of the kingdom and gave it the name East Anglia. <br />
<br />
About fifty years later, in 920 AD, the Anglo-Saxons retook the kingdom from the Danes. They lost it again about 1015 AD when it was conquered by Canute the Great of Denmark. This brought the crowns of England, Denmark, Norway and parts of Sweden together. Canute the Great gave East Anglia as a fiefdom to Thorkell the Tall who became the Jarl of East Anglia. By 1021 AD, Canute and Thorkell had a falling out. Thorkell was outlawed but later pardoned in 1023 AD. However, it seems that after this date Thorkell’s whereabouts are unsure. <br />
<br />
After the death of Canute the Great’s successor, Harthacnut, in 1042 AD, the native English dynasty was restored with King Edward the Confessor. East Anglia became an earldom that was passed between the male heirs of two families, one of which was the husband of Lady Godiva. <br />
<br />
The Battle of Hastings in 1066 AD brought about the Norman Conquest and the reign of William the Conqueror as William I. He gave East Anglia to Ralph the Staller, who is said to have been born in Norfolk, and he passed the title of Earl of East Anglia to his son, Ralph the Gauder, who lost it in 1075 AD because of his participation in the <i>Revolt of the Earls</i> against William the Conqueror. This resulted in Ralph the Gauder having to flee to Brittney. His estates were confiscated and given to Sir Roger Bigod, loyal Knight of William I. His second son, Hugh Bigod, succeeded him and became the 1st Earl of Norfolk. <br />
<br />
In 1154, the Norman Dynasty ended and brought the first king of the House of Plantagenet to the throne of England with Henry II. As far as invasions were concerned, things began to settle down for East Anglia. The Domesday Book survey records East Anglia as the most densely populated part of the British Isle at the time. Throughout the Middle Ages agriculture and wool became the base of the economy and the area prospered in spite of continued plagues that killed large percentages of the population and fires that repeatedly destroyed the capital city, Norwich. More than one thousand mediaeval churches were built in Norfolk alone, more than in all the rest of Great Britain. <br />
<br />
In the mid-1500s inflation was extensive, unemployment was rising and civil unrest spread throughout England. The upper-class began to enclose the common lands that were used by the lower-class to graze their sheep. This led to full scale revolts across England and the most intense was in Norfolk in 1549 known as Kett’s Rebellion, led by Robert Kett. The rebels eventually seized control of Norwich and it took about 14,000 men under the Earl of Warwick to break the rebellion. Robert Kett was captured, tried and hung at Norwich Castle. When it was over, about 4,000 people were dead.<br />
<br />
By the 16th century, Norwich was England’s second largest city but in economic decline. The need to boost the textile industry brought about the invitation of Protestant refugees fleeing religious persecution from the Spanish controlled Netherlands (Holland and Belgium) in 1565. They brought with them the manufacture of leather and weaving of wool into cloth for export. Their skills also contributed to the draining of much of the fens and reclaiming of the land which led to reforms in agriculture. By 1700, the textile industry of Norwich stood supreme in Britain and Europe. The city’s population was about 25,000. During the 18th century, Norfolk was one of the wealthiest and most densely populated counties of Britain with over 700 rural parishes, 1,500 manors, one of the largest cities at Norwich and two major sea ports, King’s Lynn to the west and Great Yarmouth to the east, brought prosperity to the county, particularly through the export of wool cloth.<br />
<br />
However, in the early 1800s, the introduction of coal and steam as sources of energy created competition for the textile industry and the economy began to collapse once again. This combined with an agricultural crisis which affected the whole of Britain. The countryside began to depopulate as people migrated towards the cities. By the mid-1800s, about twenty percent of Norwich’s population was classified as paupers and it had one of the highest mortality rates in all of Britain. <br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><center><b>1636 – 1728</b></center><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wfktoKkie7g/T6gAcYSHoSI/AAAAAAAAAUs/5cu_RhxXGrs/s1600/Holt%252C%2BNorfolk.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wfktoKkie7g/T6gAcYSHoSI/AAAAAAAAAUs/5cu_RhxXGrs/s400/Holt%252C%2BNorfolk.jpg" height="400" width="350" /></a></div>Burlingham Rudd was from the town of Holt, located in north Norfolk, not far from the coast of the North Sea. The town is believed to have derived its name from the Anglo-Saxon word for woodland and lies on wooded high ground of the Cromer-Holt ridge at the intersection of two ancient roads which would be a natural location for a settlement to grow. <br />
<br />
In the Domesday Book commissioned by William the Conqueror in December 1085, the entry for Holt says:<br />
<blockquote>Holt: King's land; Earl Hugh from the king. 5 mills, market. 140 sheep. Small market town. The church has a Norman font bowl.</blockquote>In 1808, Francis Blomefield published <i>“An Essay towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk”</i> which contains a description of the towns, villages, hamlets, manors and religious buildings across the county. He documented the evidence of both Anglo-Saxon and Norman founding of towns and villages, as well as, the chain of transfer of land through inheritance and purchase. In volume 9, pp. 394-400, he included a description of the Holt settlement, the amenities, as well as, the annual dues paid to William the Conqueror. He tells us that prior to the Conqueror, Holt and the larger area belonged to eight freemen under the reign of Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) and at the time of the survey by the Conqueror it belonged to Walter Giffard, the Earl of Bucks. Then it was given under the protection of Earl Hugh, the Earl of Chester, to the De Vallibus or Vaux family as a lordship. After that it was given to the Earl of Albemarle, and eventually it made its way through marriage and inheritance to James Hobart, Esquire, who gave it to his son, Edmund. When Edmund died in 1666, it went to his daughter, Hannah, who married Dr. William Briggs, a physician, in ordinary to King William III. <br />
<br />
According to the transcription of Burlingham’s baptismal record, he was baptized on August 7, 1706 at St. Andrew Church in Holt. However, a look at the <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1706sonburlingham.jpg">parish register book</a></b> seems to indicate on the left-hand side that the year was 1707, not 1706, but I’m not the transcriber. His father’s name was Gualterus Rudd, which translates from Latin as Walter. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V24xirfES8U/T6gDXkQFEOI/AAAAAAAAAVE/pqyl2tfRx_0/s1600/nfk_wr%2526amarriage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V24xirfES8U/T6gDXkQFEOI/AAAAAAAAAVE/pqyl2tfRx_0/s400/nfk_wr%2526amarriage.jpg" height="60" width="318" /></a></div>The transcription of his marriage record lists his name as Walterum Rudd of Skaring (sic) and he married Annam Pricard of Holt. The <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1703marriage.jpg">parish register</a></b> list their marriage as November 2, 1703 in Holt at St. Andrews Church. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PaScAnQCddY/T6gDfA61OcI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/HascNk8QCEc/s1600/nfk_wr%2526achildren.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PaScAnQCddY/T6gDfA61OcI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/HascNk8QCEc/s400/nfk_wr%2526achildren.jpg" height="240" width="290" /></a></div>The baptismal records for the children of Walter Rudd and wife, Anna begin with a daughter, Dorothy, baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1704daudorothy.jpg">January 16, 1704</a></b> in Scarning. <br />
<br />
Then came Burlingham on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1706sonburlingham.jpg">August 7, 1706</a></b> in Holt, but as I mentioned, the parish register seems to say 1707. <br />
<br />
Elizabetha, a daughter, was baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1708dauelizabeth.jpg">April 7, 1708</a></b> in Holt. <br />
<br />
Next came a son, Thomas. But I don’t find a baptismal record for him. I do find a burial record dated <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1710sonthomasbur.jpg">July 4, 1710</a></b> in Holt. He may have died at birth or before he could be baptized. <br />
<br />
Followed by two daughters, Maria on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1713daumarie.jpg">July 28, 1713</a></b> in Holt, and Anna on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1715dauanna1716songaulterus.jpg">June 8, 1715</a></b> in Holt. But there is also a parish record for the burial of Anna Rudd, daughter of Gualterus and Anna, on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1720dauannabur.jpg">June 27, 1720</a></b> and it looks to me like it says infant after her name, so there may have been another daughter born last who died as an infant. However, according to the laws at the time, minor children were referred to as infants and this entry may be the first Anna who may have died soon after her fifth birthday. <br />
<br />
Then a son, Gaulterus, named after his father was baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1715dauanna1716songaulterus.jpg">October 28, 1716,</a></b> and buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1716songualterusbur.jpg">October 31, 1716</a></b> in Holt. <br />
<br />
Based on these records, Burlingham had four, perhaps five, sisters and two brothers. The brothers appear to have died as infants, leaving him as not only the first born son, but also, the only son to live past infancy. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ENxTnSwDK68/T6gI7rcEBgI/AAAAAAAAAV4/sOFbUYFWfE4/s1600/nfk_arburial.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ENxTnSwDK68/T6gI7rcEBgI/AAAAAAAAAV4/sOFbUYFWfE4/s400/nfk_arburial.jpg" height="52" width="151" /></a></div>Walter was from Scarning and Anna was from Holt. They married in Holt, but began their life together in Scarning. After the first child, Dorothy, was born they relocated to Holt, which was probably Anna’s hometown, by the time Burlingham was born. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e7rrRSJGjKI/T6gJR0Mp8GI/AAAAAAAAAWE/OjfByQ2Wix0/s1600/Holt%2BSt.%2BAndrew%2BChurch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e7rrRSJGjKI/T6gJR0Mp8GI/AAAAAAAAAWE/OjfByQ2Wix0/s400/Holt%2BSt.%2BAndrew%2BChurch.jpg" height="169" width="223" /></a></div>I don’t find a record of Walter’s death, but I do find a burial record for Anne Rud in Holt on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/wa1731motherannebur.jpg">September 3, 1731</a></b>. My guess is this was Burlingham’s mother. There doesn’t appear to be another Rudd family in Holt at this time. Because she is not identified as the wife of Gualterus or Walter Rudd on this record, it seems to indicate that by that time he had died. Could be that everyone, but Burlingham, is buried in the graveyard of St. Andrews Church in Holt.<br />
<br />
Walter Rudd’s father was Thomas Rudd and his mother was named Catharinae (maiden name unknown). A marriage record for them has not been found, but the baptismal records for their children do include their names. The parish register for West Dereham, where it appears they were likely married and gave birth to their children, is in poor condition. Luckily, some of the entries were legible enough to be indexed and those pages of the parish register are available. There are eight children identified. Among their children is the name Gaulterus, which fortunate for us, appears to not have been a common name for the time period and makes the family all the more identifiable. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lkgj5zCr1CU/T6gKA2eKXyI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/vcaU578bg2A/s1600/nfk_tr2%2526cchildren.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lkgj5zCr1CU/T6gKA2eKXyI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/vcaU578bg2A/s400/nfk_tr2%2526cchildren.jpg" height="229" width="366" /></a></div>First born was Thomas, baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1668sonthomas.jpg">December 20, 1668</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Next came Edwardus, baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1671sonedwardus.jpg">August 13, 1671</a></b>. He died when he was almost nine years old and was buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tcbur3son1680.jpg">April 11, 1680</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Then, Susanna was baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1674daususanna.jpg">May 24, 1674</a></b>. She had just turned five years old when she died and was buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tcburdaususan1679.jpg">May 27, 1679</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Followed by Johannes baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1675sonjohannes.jpg">February 24, 1675</a></b>, who died nine days later on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1675sonjohannes.jpg">March 4, 1675</a></b>.<br />
<br />
They named a second son Johannes who was baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1677sonjohannes.jpg">September 30, 1677</a></b>. He was about two and a half years old when he was buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tcbur3son1680.jpg">February 5, 1680</a></b>.<br />
<br />
The next child was Hammondus, baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1680sonhammondius.jpg">August 12 or 21, 1680</a></b>, who is listed twice in the parish register. It looks like they were uncertain of the day and recorded both dates because he died and was buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tcbur3son1680.jpg">August 21, 1680</a></b>. It appears that he either lived about nine days or he died at birth. <br />
<br />
Then, Gualterus, our Walter, was baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1681songualterus.jpg">February 17, 1681</a></b>.<br />
<br />
The last child appears to have been Maria, baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1683daumaria.jpg">November 15, 1683</a></b>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YTiTUCJi5p8/T6gM02BINiI/AAAAAAAAAWc/XM21hbGx0Zg/s1600/nfk_tr1%2526mmarriage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YTiTUCJi5p8/T6gM02BINiI/AAAAAAAAAWc/XM21hbGx0Zg/s400/nfk_tr1%2526mmarriage.jpg" height="47" width="247" /></a></div>I do not find a baptismal record for Thomas Rudd, Burlingham’s grandfather. But the evidence suggests that Thomas was born in West Dereham and that is where he married Catharinae because I do find a marriage record in the parish register for <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&m1636marriage.jpg">Thomas Rudd and Margareta Benard (sic)</a></b>, who look to be his parents. <br />
<br />
The transcription of this record states they were married on June 14, 1636. It is difficult to make out Margareta’s surname. Based on the portion of the parish register that has now been transcribed, there does not appear to be another Rudd family in West Dereham. I don’t find a baptismal record for this Thomas Rudd either, however, there does appear to be two possible women who could be our Margareta Benard with a variant surname. One was baptized as Margereta Barnard on September 16, 1604 by parents Henrici and Margerete Barnard. The other was baptized as Margareta Barnard on August 3, 1606 by parents Edmundi and Margarete Barnard. This documents the existence of a Barnard family in West Dereham in early 1600 and it’s likely one of these is our Margareta. Then there is a record for burial of Margareta Bernard on October 25, 1633. It’s not our Margareta, it could be the other Margareta. It seems Henrici and Edmundi would be Barnard brothers, so perhaps it is the death of their mother or maybe a wife. As I said, there are portions of the West Dereham parish register that are in very poor condition, but it’s notable to me that I find baptism records for a couple of Margareta Barnard entries, but not Thomas Rudd, especially if they were close in age. So we need to consider that Thomas Rudd, Burlingham’s great grandfather, was baptized some where else and was not born in West Dereham.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ALq0ecrh_pg/T6gNCIz39qI/AAAAAAAAAWs/jQPUVPUb5MA/s1600/nfk_crburial.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ALq0ecrh_pg/T6gNCIz39qI/AAAAAAAAAWs/jQPUVPUb5MA/s400/nfk_crburial.jpg" height="50" width="237" /></a></div>There is a parish record for Catherine Rudd, wife of Thomas Rudd Sr. buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/t&c1704catherinebur.jpg">October 24, 1704</a></b> in Scarning.<br />
<br />
This is the grandmother of Burlingham and indicates that at some point the family moved to Scarning from West Dereham which is supported by the fact that the marriage record for her son, Gualterus, our Walter, says he was from Scarning when he married Anna Pricard in 1703. Note too, Thomas and Catherine had four children die within about a year of each other in West Dereham; Edwardus, Susanna, Johannes and Hammondius between May 1679 and August 1680. Their surviving children were Thomas Jr., Walter and Maria. <br />
<br />
The <b><a href="http://www.archives.norfolk.gov.uk/index.htm"><i>Norfolk Record Office</i></a></b> database includes two Last Wills in Scarning for Thomas Rudd during our time period. Fortunate for us, the <b><a href="https://www.familysearch.org/locations/saltlakecity-library"><i>Family History Library</i></a></b> in Salt Lake City, Utah has the microfilm and Nathan Murphy who is an accredited genealogist at the library has provided us with the images of those Wills. But even more so, Mr. Murphy has abstracted the information for us, which is no easy feat. I challenge you to try it for yourself! <br />
<br />
First, <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tr2lastwill1720.jpg">Thomas Rudd of Scarning</a></b>, Norfolk, Yeoman. He was buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tr2bur1720.jpg">May 3, 1720.</a></b> His Last Will is dated 1719 and proved in 1720 by his relict, Susan. He named a son Walter Rudd, a daughter Mary Dack, a brother John Rudd and two minor children, George Rudd and Margaret Rudd. He left his widow an annuity. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vdjZ8QE0iF0/T6gOqqACmJI/AAAAAAAAAW4/6XDkzZaqDSQ/s1600/nfk_tr2will.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vdjZ8QE0iF0/T6gOqqACmJI/AAAAAAAAAW4/6XDkzZaqDSQ/s400/nfk_tr2will.jpg" height="179" width="324" /></a></div>Thomas and Catherine Rudd had three surviving children. This Last Will named two of them, Walter and Maria. The baptismal records for Scarning include George Rudd baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/ts1708songeo1711daumarg.jpg">May 2, 1708</a></b> as the son of Thomas Rudd, Sr. and wife, Susan. On <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/ts1708songeo1711daumarg.jpg">May 13, 1711</a></b>, Margaret Rudd was baptized as the daughter of Thomas Rudd, Sr. and wife, Susan. Walter’s mother’s name was Catherine. In 1704, she died in Scarning. A different wife and two minor children indicate a second marriage for Burlingham's grandfather. <br />
<br />
Thomas and his first wife, Catherine had a surviving daughter named Maria, the variant name is Mary. On May 12, 1699 Mary Rudd married Francis Dack in Thuxton On January 21, 1701, they baptized a son in Scarning named John. <br />
<br />
Also, this Will shows that Thomas Rudd, Sr. had a brother named John Rudd, but remember, we did not find a brother in West Dereham. It might be because of the condition of the records. But the marriage records for Scarning include a John Rudd who married Ann Ring (also listed as King), on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tr2brotherjohnmar1678.jpg">December 13, 1678</a></b> This is likely the brother of Thomas Sr. and if so, he seems younger since Thomas and Catherine had five children by the time he was married. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MemWVHHSoUs/T6gQIAaG53I/AAAAAAAAAXE/k8XMlrIThSo/s1600/nfk_tr3will.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MemWVHHSoUs/T6gQIAaG53I/AAAAAAAAAXE/k8XMlrIThSo/s400/nfk_tr3will.jpg" height="144" width="321" /></a></div>Second, <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tr3lastwill1715.jpg">Thomas Rudd of Scarning</a></b>, Norfolk, Yeoman. He was buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tr3bur1715.jpg">December 30, 1715</a></b> His Last Will is dated 1710 and proved in 1715 by his widow, Susan. He left small monetary gifts to his brother Walter, and sister Mary Dack. So this is Thomas Rudd, Jr. from the West Dereham family, the oldest son of Thomas and Catherine. He’s not included in his father’s Last Will because he died five years earlier. The relationship to his kinswoman, Blanchflower, is not clear but the indication is that she was a minor. He did not name any children in his Last Will and it was written about five years before he died at the age of forty-seven years. Perhaps, that is an indication of about the time he married. <br />
<br />
From these two Last Wills we find out that Burlingham’s father, Walter, was alive when the grandfather wrote his Last Will in 1719. From the second marriage of his grandfather, Burlingham had a half-uncle named George <i>(Yes, I know George Lounsdell branch cousins, my eyebrows rose too!)</i> who was about one or two years younger than he was. And based on the monetary gifts that were bestowed in grandfather’s Last Will, he was not a poor man for the times. <br />
<br />
There is one other Rudd family in Scarning at the same time that Thomas and Catherine Rudd are document there by the name of Hamond Rudd. My best guess is that it is not likely a coincidence that Thomas Rudd had a son named Hammondius, aka Hamond. These two Rudd families are the only Rudd families in the Scarning parish register, so it seems very likely they are somehow related. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S8MB8GKc0Bc/T6gRDc9LqKI/AAAAAAAAAXQ/yVPEeTQEfHg/s1600/nfk_hr2%2526mchildren.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S8MB8GKc0Bc/T6gRDc9LqKI/AAAAAAAAAXQ/yVPEeTQEfHg/s400/nfk_hr2%2526mchildren.jpg" height="241" width="340" /></a></div>There are five children documented in the parish register for Hamond Rudd and his wife, Mary. But there does appear to be one more born first that is not found in the register. A daughter, Sary, baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2darsary1687mary1690hamond1693bap.jpg">January 10, 1687</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Next was Mary, baptized <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2darsary1687mary1690hamond1693bap.jpg">January 1, 1690</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Then a son, Hammond, baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2darsary1687mary1690hamond1693bap.jpg">January 9, 1693</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Next was another son, Richard, baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2sonrich1696darsusan1699.jpg">August 2, 1699</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Last was Susanna, baptized on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2sonrich1696darsusan1699.jpg">July 30, 1699</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Mary married Gregory Blockwell on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2maryandsusanmar.jpg">February 5, 1715</a></b>, and Susan married Bennet Spencer on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2maryandsusanmar.jpg">September 29, 1720</a></b> in Scarning.<br />
<br />
Hammond married Bridget Filby on May 24, 1720 in Thuxton. Her family appears to have been from the Thuxton area.<br />
<br />
Mr. Murphy at the <i>Family History Library</i> in Salt Lake City, Utah provides copies of two Last Wills for Hamond Rudd in Scarning along with the abstracts. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yTKmNHDZwx0/T6gSWSlBLUI/AAAAAAAAAXc/8hF4usMAYz4/s1600/nfk_hr2will.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yTKmNHDZwx0/T6gSWSlBLUI/AAAAAAAAAXc/8hF4usMAYz4/s400/nfk_hr2will.jpg" height="169" width="322" /></a></div>First, the Last Will of <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2lastwill1717.jpg">Hammond Rudd the Elder</a></b> of Scarning, who was buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2bur1717.jpg">July 8, 1717</a></b>.<br />
<br />
He left his land in Yaxham to his son, Hamond, and made him his sole Executor. He named three daughters who he gave monetary gifts to; Sarah, Mary and Susan. He also named three grandchildren, Mary Sutton, Margaret Sutton and Rachael Sutton as minors. These are the children of this other daughter, Rachel, whose baptism is not found in the parish register. However, her <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2daurachelmar1703.jpg">marriage to John Sutton in 1703</a></b> is documented in the parish register. She looks to be the oldest child and perhaps was born in another parish. Hammond doesn’t mention his wife, <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr2wifebur1713.jpg">Mary, because she died</a></b> in 1713.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-57V55I034TA/T6gTCRhTwkI/AAAAAAAAAXo/jp9Z7Bm_XLI/s1600/nfk_hr3will.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-57V55I034TA/T6gTCRhTwkI/AAAAAAAAAXo/jp9Z7Bm_XLI/s400/nfk_hr3will.jpg" height="192" width="321" /></a></div>Next, the Last Will of <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr3lastwill1720.jpg">Hammond Rudd of Yaxham</a></b>. He was buried on <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/hr3bur1720.jpg">November 18, 1720</a></b>.<br />
<br />
We see that he moved onto the land that his father left him in Yaxham and left that land with some money to his wife, Bridget. Her father was named as his Executor. He named his sister Susannah Brown, so she had married since their father died. He, too, named the minor Sutton children of his sister, Rachel. Evidence that the responsibility as head of the family as the oldest son had passed to him after his father's death. But he did not name his other sisters, Sarah and Mary, and I don’t find a parish record for what happened to them. <br />
<br />
His widow, Bridget, remarried on April 30, 1722 to John Grimmer in Garveston. She was living in the parish of Reymerstone at the time. <br />
<br />
These records tell us a sad story. Hammond Rudd, Jr. and Bridget Filby were married in Thuxton on May 24, 1720, about five months later he wrote his Last Will and died about a month later, buried on November 15, 1720, less than six months after marriage. He was twenty-seven years old. <br />
<br />
Several of our Rudd family died that year. <br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
Over the years, there has been much speculation about the source of the name Burlingham, hoping it was a clue to his identity in Norfolk. But I don’t think any of us expected this:<br />
<br />
<center><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_2Z0Uauwry4/T6gUUiKBJJI/AAAAAAAAAX0/JUhr6kinDX4/s1600/Thomas%2BBurlingham%2Bof%2BHolt.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_2Z0Uauwry4/T6gUUiKBJJI/AAAAAAAAAX0/JUhr6kinDX4/s400/Thomas%2BBurlingham%2Bof%2BHolt.jpg" height="209" width="400" /></a></div></center><br />
As Francis Blomefield recorded in his essay on the history of Norfolk, Dr. William Briggs became the Lord of the Manor of Holt through his marriage to Hannah Hobart who inherited the land from her father. As entered into the <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/tburlinghamrectorofholt1686.jpg">parish register</a></b>, in 1686 Dr. Briggs introduced to the townsfolk of Holt a new rector for St. Andrews Church named Thomas Burlingham. By the time our Burlingham was born, Thomas Burlingham had held the position of Rector for about twenty years. He died in 1722, so he was in that position for thirty-six years. Our Burlingham Rudd looks like he was the namesake for Thomas Burlingham. But why would Walter name his first born son for the church rector and not a family member? Well, Walter was from Scarning and his wife was from Holt. So his wife, Anna Pricard, had family in Holt and obviously knew the church rector, possibly as long as she had been alive. A search of the name Pricard (and variants) in Holt turned up a burial record for Elizabetha Picard, widow of Thomae (Thomas), with a notation that her husband may have been connected to the clergy. Were the families of P[r]icard and Burlingham connected? Perhaps, this Elizabeth and Thomas Picard, were the parents of Burlingham’s mother, Anna Pricard; they may have been connected through the church, or maybe through marriage. Perhaps, Thomas Burlingham was the godfather of Burlingham, which was the practice then to recruit someone prominent in the community. Or perhaps, it was just the fact that he was the Rector of their Church. <br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
<center><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p23UZpIzwc8/T6gVvqQsQuI/AAAAAAAAAYA/n9o2t1KeS2g/s1600/BR1%2Bapprentice%2Bextract.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p23UZpIzwc8/T6gVvqQsQuI/AAAAAAAAAYA/n9o2t1KeS2g/s400/BR1%2Bapprentice%2Bextract.jpg" height="72" width="400" /></a></div></center><br />
In December 1721, Burlingham Rudd was indentured to James Gurlington of Swanton as an apprentice butcher. The date December 18 is on the left hand side and the date December 2 is on the right hand side. One date is likely the date of the transaction and the other is likely the date his indenture began. So it appears at about the age of fourteen or fifteen, Burlingham began to learn a trade as a butcher. Knowing now that he was the first-born son and the only son to survive childhood, perhaps the fact that he was apprenticing at this age is an indication that, for whatever the reason, he was not going to inherit any sizable estate from his father. This is an attempt to give him the skills necessary to find gainful employment. The full page of the register can be seen <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/1721apprenticeindenture.jpg">HERE</a></b>.<br />
<br />
There were three Swanton parishes in Norfolk at the time and all of them look like possibilities. Swanton Abbot seems to be the less likely because it was a good distance from Holt. Of the other two, Swanton Novers was located about six miles from Holt and within the boundaries of the Hundred of Holt; Swanton Morley was located near East Dereham in the Hundred of Launditch which included Scarning. Both locations are good possibilities. <br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
In <i>“The Complete Book of Emigrants in Bondage ~ 1614-1775”</i> by Peter Wilson Coldham, we find on page 692 the entry:<br />
<blockquote><center>Rudd, Burlingham of Poringland, S s horse Summer 1728 *Nf</center></blockquote>Mr. Coldham states in his book that this information was extracted from original records that are held at the <i>Public Record Office</i> in London. Based on the key he provides for the record extracts this translates into; Burlingham Rudd of Poringland was sentenced to transportation for stealing a horse in the summer of 1728 by the Assizes Circuit Court for the County of Norfolk, England. The circuit judges conducted proceedings twice a year. The Norfolk Circuit included Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. The court would likely have sat at Norwich Castle where the county goal was located.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d_rujX2kSww/T6gXfuLmwrI/AAAAAAAAAYY/-oU_sT8UFeY/s1600/County%2Bof%2BNorfolk%252C%2BUK.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d_rujX2kSww/T6gXfuLmwrI/AAAAAAAAAYY/-oU_sT8UFeY/s400/County%2Bof%2BNorfolk%252C%2BUK.jpg" height="240" width="360" /></a></div>Between May 10 -14, 1728, Lee Warner, Majesties Justice of the Peace, conducted an <b><a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/assicourt1728.jpg">examination of Burlingham Rudd and witnesses</a></b> on the charge that he:<br />
<blockquote>feloniously stole a Grey Gelding valued at 30 pounds the goods and Chattels of the said Mary White widow against the peace of the said Lord King, his Crown, and Dignity etc.</blockquote>Among the witness to the felony was Mr. Thomas Sayar of Gressenhall, farmer, who testified that:<br />
<blockquote>Burlengham Rud of Holt bought .. an Iron Grey Horse to his House in the sd Parish of Gressenhall on Sunday the 12th of this pr[e]sent Month which he offer’d to sell to him and agreed to sell it him with Bridle and Saddle for 37 Shillings, which he thinking too cheap made him Suspect he had Stole him he on Examining the sd Burlengham Rud he pretended he had it of one James Paul of Fakenham upon which he went to ye sd James Paul who said he knew nothing of the Horse, upon which the sd Thomas Sayar secured the said Burlengham Rud.</blockquote>Mr. Nathaniel Money of Norwich, weaver, testified that it was his mother’s horse:<br />
<blockquote>.. saith that Mary White his Mother of Pawling (sic) in the sd County did on Saturday the 11th Day of this Present Month lose an Iron Gray Horse off of the Common of Pawling (sic) aforesaid and Suspecting that Burlengham Rud of Holt had taken ye same we pursued the said Burlenham Rud to ye Parish of Walsingham Parva where He found the said Burlengham Rud in Custody of the Constables of Gressenhall and the sd Grey Horse in his Possession.</blockquote>Then Mr. Richard King of Bixley, husbandman, confirmed both of the testimonies with his own:<br />
<blockquote>.. saith that Mary White of Pawling (sic) Widow in the sd County did on Saturday ye 11th Day of this present Month lose an Iron Grey Horse off of the Common of Pawling (sic) aforesd and he Suspecting that Burlengham Rud of Holt had taken the same pursued ye Burlengham Rud to the Parish of Walsingham Parva where he found the sd Burlengham Rud in Custody of the Constables of Gressenhall and the sd Grey Horse in his Possession.</blockquote>I know, you’re thinking there is some logical reason that our dear Burlingham stole the horse from the widow, Mary White. Well, we’ll probably never know because Burlingham didn’t give any excuses when he confessed to his crime:<br />
<blockquote>The Examination of Burlingham Rud of Holt Market in the said County Butcher taken before me Lee Warner Esqr one of his Majesties Justices of the peace this 14th Day of May 1728. The sd Burlengham Rud being examined Concerning Feloniously Stealing an Iron Grey Horse belonging to Mrs Mary White of Pawling (sic) in the sd County Widow confesseth that he did on Satturday the 11th Day of this pr[e]sent Month Steal the sd Horse off of ye Common Belonging to ye sd Parish of Pawling (sic) and that he Offer’d to sell the same to Thomas Sayer of Gressenhall and further this Examinant saith not. <br />
Signed: Burlingham Rudd</blockquote><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gvhi4QUqtOk/T6gXw6Hpk3I/AAAAAAAAAYk/gO-KglzN-cs/s1600/Scarning%2Band%2BGressenhall%252C%2BNorfolk.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gvhi4QUqtOk/T6gXw6Hpk3I/AAAAAAAAAYk/gO-KglzN-cs/s400/Scarning%2Band%2BGressenhall%252C%2BNorfolk.jpg" height="345" width="367" /></a></div>We may never know any more about this incident. It was a serious felony. On one hand, crossing the county to steal a horse would be a good plan if you’re intent on stealing a horse. But on the other hand, taking it to Gressenhall (which is essentially his backyard, the Scarning area), trying to sell it so cheap, saying it belonged to some who could be found and questioned, is not a good plan! Burlingham does not seem to have been very experienced with this for a twenty-one year old. <br />
<br />
Burlingham Rudd signed his name to his confession and he was a butcher by trade when he was arrested. Later, in Anson Co., NC, he will sign all his land deeds with his legal signature too. Hopefully, the fact he could write and was skilled in a trade was to his advantage when he was sold into indenture in South Carolina. <br />
<br />
And since I have the benefit of knowledge of things to come … it likely put him in a better social situation when he arrived in the backcountry of Anson Co., NC.<br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
Anthony Vaver succinctly points out at his excellent website on <a href="http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/convict-transportation/introduction/introduction"><b>Early American Crime</b></a>, <br />
<blockquote>over 50,000 convicted felons who were uprooted from their families and friends in Great Britain and forced to travel overseas to begin new lives as indentures in the American colonies between 1718 and 1776. These convicts accounted for one quarter of all British immigrants who came to what would become the United States during this period. They constituted the next largest group of people ever to be forced to immigrate to America, second only to African slaves.</blockquote><br />
Interesting, twenty-five percent of the population in the colonies were sentenced to transportation in the last 60 years of about 160 years of colonial history. For all the years that I’ve been involved in genealogy research, both for my own family lines and many others who I have assisted in getting started or over brickwalls, I have never come across another genealogy of someone sentenced to transportation to the American colonies. <br />
<br />
Our Burlingham Rudd brought his name with him to America, but unlike most of the more than 50,000 who were sentenced to transportation to the colonies, once he completed his punishment for his crime, he did not change his name and disappear into the frontier to leave his old life behind and begin anew. He kept his name, married and raised a family. He passed his name to his first born son, who passed it to his first born son. And George Lounsdell looks to me like he passed it to a son also. Actually, the name Burlingham or Burrel was passed down to third and fourth generations. <br />
<br />
I would guess that had something to do with both his family ancestry and his own perseverance.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-53734735480421576552014-01-06T05:00:00.000-06:002015-10-28T12:43:38.790-05:00Sentenced to Transportation<center><b> ~ From Norfolk, England to the Colony of South Carolina ~ </b></center><center><b>1729 – 1744</b></center><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D4C4-SOuDj8/T8KOX2setEI/AAAAAAAAAZE/0gUh_pImm64/s1600/transportation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D4C4-SOuDj8/T8KOX2setEI/AAAAAAAAAZE/0gUh_pImm64/s320/transportation.jpg" height="259" width="305" /></a></div>"I sentence you," says the Judge, "but to what I know not—perhaps to storm and shipwreck—perhaps to infectious disorders perhaps to famine—perhaps to be massacred by savages — perhaps to be devoured by wild beasts. Away, take your chance; perish or prosper, suffer or enjoy; I rid myself of the sight of you, the ship that bears you away saves me from witnessing your sufferings, I shall give myself no more trouble about you."<br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>The colonies in America were founded in two ways. They were either under charters and grants to English Lords, or they were royal colonies under the administration of a Crown appointed governor. Some of the chartered colonies had restrictions about accepting transported convicts, which made the royal colonies the preferred destination. The oldest colony was Virginia, founded in 1607, followed by Massachusetts in 1620, and New Hampshire in 1623, all under James 1st. Then came Maryland in 1634, Connecticut in 1635, Rhode Island in 1636, and Delaware in 1638, all under Charles 1st. Those were followed by a pause in colonization during the period of the English Civil War between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians which brought about the execution of Charles 1st and ushered in the Cromwell government. The Commonwealth eventually failed after Cromwell died, and in 1660 leaders in the English military invited the son of Charles 1st to take the throne of Britain. Charles 2nd returned from exile in France which brought about the period known as the Restoration. He rewarded eight English nobles who had been loyal to him and his father with a charter for Carolina in 1663. That was followed with the colony of New Jersey in 1664 by a couple of the same nobles, New York in 1664, and Pennsylvania in 1682. Then there was another long lull in colonization in America as the British sorted out their throne succession problems that eventually brought the House of Hanover, an ethnic German, Protestant, to the throne with George 1st. Our last colony, Georgia, was founded in 1732 under George 2nd, the grandson of George 1st. Remarkably, George 1st, not only did not speak English, he never physically stepped his foot on English soil. <br />
<br />
By the time Burlingham Rudd was sentenced to transportation in 1728, all of the colonies except Pennsylvania were royal colonies (Georgia had not yet been established) and the British had been using this form of deportation for over 100 years. It served a dual purpose. On one hand it helped to rid the population of petty thieves, vagrants, orphans and other undesirables. On the other hand, the practice provided the much needed labor for the plantations of the British Empire, first in the West Indies and later in America. <br />
<br />
From it’s founding, the Virginia colony was the destination for most of those banished and many of those who received a reprieve from capital punishment by the Privy Council. But after the English Civil War, Cromwell found a new use for transportation and disposed of several thousand defeated Royalists by sending them to New England, Virginia and the West Indies. Eventually, the use of royal pardons for capital crimes on the condition of transportation became an annual custom. But as the crime rate increased, the hanging rate increased and juries grew hesitant of passing sentences for theft that would automatically invoke the death penalty because it was grounded in the law. So they began to underestimate the value of stolen property which made the use of transportation a popular alternative. Then in 1715 there was an unsuccessful attempt in Scotland by Jacobites to return the House of Stuart to the throne with James III&VIII, <i>”The Old Pretender”.</i> He was the son of James 2nd of England and 7th of Scotland (James II&VII), who was the brother of Charles 2nd. In 1701, the British Parliament passed the Acts of Settlement which ensured a Protestant succession to the throne. Six years later, in 1707, both the English and the Scottish Parliaments passed the twin Acts of Union which created the joint kingdom of Great Britain. It reinforced the exclusion of Catholic monarchs from the throne. So in 1714, when Queen Anne died, the Jacobites tried to prevent the House of Hanover from succession. Their failed coup filled the gaols of London and the problem of overpopulation pushed the British Parliament to create the 1718 Transportation Act. Up until this time, there had been no real organization in the use of transportation, so this legislation institutionalized the practice and was administratively a success because it allowed the Justices in London and in each county to contract with the merchant or his ship’s captain to arrange transportation of the convicted. It also added to the list of crimes that were subject to transportation, such as, horse theft. In 1720, expansion of the legislation authorized payments by the state to the ship’s captain who was contracted to take the convicts to America and gave them the revenue from the sale of their indenture once they arrived at their destination. In essence, they created a profit incentive to rid themselves of the problem and it worked very effectively.<br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>The parish register for St. Andrews Church in Holt, Norfolk, England records Burlingham’s baptism as <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/w&a1706sonburlingham.jpg"><b>August 7, 1707</b>.</a> This date is based on the Julian calendar. According to traditions at the time, he would have been about two or three days old at baptism, so he was likely born around August 4, 1707. On May 14, 1728, when he confessed to stealing an iron grey gelding horse from Mary White off of the common in Poringland three days earlier, he was twenty years old and very likely spent his twenty-first birthday in the goal at Norwich Castle which served as the county jail. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lFkjD4mWAF0/T8KO8f9xKYI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/Lqs5NPZm_qs/s1600/norwich%2Bcastle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lFkjD4mWAF0/T8KO8f9xKYI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/Lqs5NPZm_qs/s400/norwich%2Bcastle.jpg" height="166" width="295" /></a></div>Norwich Castle was built in 1067 by William the Conqueror. By 1120 it became a Royal Palace and in 1220 it became the gaol of the County of Norfolk. When the castle was no longer of military importance, the King gave the two baileys to the city of Norwich in 1345. The Keep and the Shirehouse were under the purview of the Sheriff of Norfolk. Information at the website, <a href="http://www.historicalnorwich.co.uk/old_norwich/castle.html"><b>Historical Norwich,</b></a> gives us a peek at the conditions inside the jail.<br />
<blockquote>In 1729 a debtor who had a bed to himself paid the gaoler 2 shillings (10p) a week, if he shared the bed with another person, they each paid Is. 6d. (7 1/2 p), while if three people shared they only paid 6d. (2 1/2 p) each. Unless food was brought in, prisoners had to exist on a small amount of bread and water.</blockquote>We know Burlingham had family in Holt and Scarning. I’d like to believe that someone brought him something to eat and paid for him to have a bed to sleep in. Given his apparent social status, this was likely a sobering experience. But it had only just begun. <br />
<br />
The Assize Circuit Court conducted proceedings twice a year. The Norfolk Circuit included Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. The court records for Burlingham’s examination are contained in the session that ended on August 12, 1728. He might have been held in the gaol at Norwich until he was transported. There is no indication in his court records that he was sentenced to transportation, however, we know he was because his sentencing is included in <i>“The Complete Book of Emigrants in Bondage ~ 1614-1775”</i>, by Peter Wilson Coldham. <br />
<br />
<center>Rudd, Burlingham of Poringland, S s horse Summer 1728 *Nf</center><br />
According to the key provided in his book, this translates as: Burlingham Rudd was found guilty of stealing a horse from Poringland Parish during the summer session of the Norfolk Circuit Court in 1728 and was Sentenced to Transportation, which was the normal penalty for this crime. <br />
<br />
Mr. Coldham states, he extracted this information from the Public Records Office in London and he included all the details that were provided. Since the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lindarudd/Norfolk%20records/assicourt1728.jpg"><b>court records from his examination in Norfolk</b></a> do not include the sentencing that Mr. Coldham found in London, there seems to have been some administrative process that provided that information to the London court. Also, other information that is not included in the extract from the Public Records Office would have provided us with the date of his departure, the name of the ship and captain that transported him and the date and location of his entry into the American colonies. Evidently that information is not in the record in London either. However, the timeline on Burlingham indicates he arrived at Charles Towne Harbor in the Colony of South Carolina because the <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/registerbookforp00prin/registerbookforp00prin_djvu.txt"><b>parish register for Prince Frederick’s Parish Chapel</b></a> in Georgetown, South Carolina records that on October 27, 1745 he baptized three children; Martha born on March 1, 1738/9, Burlingham Jr. born on October 13, 1741 and Walter born on March 20, 1743. <br />
<br />
Indentured servants and indentured convicts were not treated the same. Usually an indentured servant had a contract that had been negotiated prior to their transportation to the colonies. They were allowed to appeal to a provincial court if their contract was breached or if they suffered abuse by their master. In most cases, they received freedom dues, a parcel of land and clothing once their contract was completed. Indentured convicts were the property of the ship’s captain. The contract was between him and the purchaser of the indenture. England had washed her hands of them once they were put on the ship. They had no rights of appeal to a court for abuse. If they ran away and were caught, they were punished and the length of their sentence was extended. Their liberties were restricted. They could not marry; all of the income generated by their labor was turned over to their master; they received no freedom dues and no property when their term of sentence was completed. And if they returned to Britain before their sentence was done, they were subject to hanging. <br />
<br />
The term of sentencing for transportees at the time was either seven or fourteen years, or life depending on the classification of their crime. Most received seven years, some received fourteen years and a few were sentenced for life. Burlingham appears to have received a seven year indenture that began some time after the Assize Circuit Court pronounced his sentence in the later half of 1728. He would have completed his indenture by late 1735 or early 1736. His first documented child was born a little more than two years later indicating he had married about one year before or at least by mid-1737. <br />
<br />
It’s my guess that the reason Mr. Coldham did not find information in the record which would give us the details of Burlingham’s transportation and destination is because he was not transported by a convict ship contracted out of London, but rather, it was a ship that was contracted by the Justice of the Peace for Norfolk, as the 1718 Transportation Act allowed each county to do. Of the two harbors in Norfolk, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, the later was the deep water port that accommodated ships large enough to sail across the Atlantic Ocean; the former was mostly a fishing port.<br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>The founding of the colony of Carolina was unique in comparison to the other American colonies in that its origin came from another colony, Barbados. Also, it was the only colony from its conception to use African slave labor to support the plantations, while the plantations in our other colonies began with white slave labor. Early in the developmental years, the population grew to twice as many slaves as whites and that only increased with time. The influence that those who came from the West Indies had on shaping the psyche of the Low Country in South Carolina was passed from generation to generation. <br />
<br />
The original charter was for the colony of Carolana and was granted in 1629 by Charles 1st of England to Sir Robert Heath, but the name Carolana originates from the founding of the French colony of Charlesfort near present-day Parris Island in 1562 by Jean Ribaut for his king, Charles 9th of France. The colony was intended as an asylum for Huguenots from France, who were Protestants, but they abandoned the fort, some perished and others returned to France. Then in 1564 Rene de Laudonniere of France established Fort Caroline near the mouth of the St. Johns River at present-day Jacksonville, Florida. In 1565 Ribaut sailed to reinforce Fort Caroline and caused such alarm for the Spanish, who were colonizing at St. Augustine, that Catholic Spain dispatched Pedro Menendez de Aviles to drive out the Protestant French. Ribaut followed Menendez back to St. Augustine but his fleet of ships was wrecked in a hurricane. He and most of his men were captured and executed. Menendez took his men and marched overland to Fort Caroline and massacred most of the colonists. The threat of the Spanish in Florida to South Carolinians with episodes of invasion and fighting would last throughout the colonial period. <br />
<br />
Remember that after the English Civil War, many of the Royalists were exiled by Cromwell, but some of them escaped into self-imposed exile to the West Indies where many of them had sugar plantations. One of those Royalists was John Colleton who established himself as a planter in Barbados. Of the eight noblemen who Charles 2nd rewarded with the charter for Carolina, Colleton was the visionary behind it.<br />
<br />
<b>Sir John Colleton</b>, 1608-1666 – A Royalist who served as a colonel under John Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Stratton. He rose in rank during the English Civil Wars and spent a small fortune in the service of Charles 1st. His property was seized by Parliament. He retired to Barbados where he became a successful planter and became embroiled in a series of political intrigues between Royalists and Parliamentarians. After the Restoration of 1660, he returned to England to claim his reward and was knighted by Charles 2nd. He was a member of the Council for Foreign Plantations and the Royal African Company which introduced African slavery into British possessions. As one of the most enterprising of the Barbadian planters, he was the driving force behind the Carolina charter and actively interested in the successful development of the colony. He had excellent connections in London; several relatives were London merchants, his close friend was Lord Berkeley and his distant cousin was George Monck, Duke of Albemarle. He was the first Proprietor to die.<br />
<br />
<b>William, Lord Craven</b>, also the Earl of Craven, 1608-1697 – A Royalist during the English Civil Wars who provided substantial financial support for both Charles 1st and Charles 2nd. He had a distinguished military career in Germany, was a patron of the arts and letters and an early member of the Royal Society for Scientific Research. He outlived all the other Proprietors and died a bachelor, at the age of almost 90. <br />
<br />
<b>Monck, Duke of Albemarle</b>, 1608-1670 – He was a professional soldier and skilled politician who had served with distinction in the Parliamentary army and under the Commonwealth, Cromwell’s regime. But after Cromwell died, Monck understood that it was to be Charles 2nd back to the throne … or chaos. He was instrumental in reconciling the army to the growing sympathy for the restoration of the Stuart monarchy and for his service he received the title of Duke of Albemarle, was appointed Gentleman of the Bedchamber, Privy Councilor, Master of the Horse, and Commander of all military forces, as well as, granted estates and a pension.<br />
<br />
<b>Anthony Ashley Cooper</b>, Earl of Shaftsbury, 1621-1683 – During the early years of the English Civil Wars he supported the Crown until 1644. He then joined the Parliamentarians and became a member of the Commonwealth council of state and supporter of Oliver Cromwell until 1654. He turned against the Protectorate because of his distrust of autocratic rule and later supported George Monck in the Restoration of Charles 2nd as a means of national peace. He became a member of the Privy Council and knighted as Baron Ashley in 1661. The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina were the work of his friend and secretary, the philosopher John Locke, which produced the greatest measure of political and religious freedom in British North America. He was a part owner of a sugar plantation in Barbados and a shareholder in the Hudson Bay Company. During the reign of Charles 2nd, he became growingly concerned about the absolute rule of the monarchy and the possibility of Protestantism becoming extinct in England if Charles’ brother, James 2nd, should succeed the throne which caused him to fall out of favor with the throne and was exiled to Holland where he died. <br />
<br />
<b>Edward Hyde</b>, Earl of Clarendon, 1609-1674 – A one time supporter of the rights of Parliament against Charles 1st, he later joined forces with him when the Parliament Party, which was mostly made up of Puritans who attacked the established Church of England. He became one of Charles’ most distinguished and wise councilors and followed Charles 2nd into exile. In 1658 he was appointed Chancellor to Charles 2nd while in exile and following the Restoration he was made Baron Hyde of Hindon, Viscount Cornbury, Earl of Clarendon and Chancellor of Oxford University. In 1667 his political enemies at court succeeded in undermining him and he was driven from office into exile. He was the father of Anne Hyde who married the Duke of York who became James 2nd, a future king. He died in 1674. <br />
<br />
<b>John, first Baron Berkeley of Stratton</b>, 1602-1678 – He was a Royalist and English army officer who was a fanatical follower of the Stuarts. Trusted by Charles 1st, he provided safe haven for the Queen who was expecting a child during the English Civil Wars. As a skillful politician, he was president of the Council for Foreign Plantations and made many of the decisions affecting the British colonies in America and elsewhere. He served as one of the Lords’ Proprietors of New Jersey in 1664 and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from 1670-1672. <br />
<br />
<b>William Berkeley</b>, 1606-1677 – The youngest brother of Lord John Berkeley, was an uncompromising Royalist who was appointed colonial governor of Virginia in 1641, arriving in 1642 he made Virginia a haven for supporters of Charles 1st by driving out the Puritans. He was deposed by a Puritan force from England in 1652 and retired to his plantation in Virginia until the Restoration in 1660 when he once again was appointed governor of the colony. In 1676 he put down Bacon’s Rebellion with such brutal force that he was recalled to England where he died the following year.<br />
<br />
<b>Sir George Carteret</b>, 1615-1680 – Born of French ancestry, he held the Channel Island of Jersey as the last stronghold for Charles 1st against Oliver Cromwell’s army. He died before he received the patent of nobility from the monarch. He was a distinguished naval officer, but not a business man, and had little education. For a while he and Lord Berkeley were the Lords’ Proprietors of New Jersey, which he named for his home island. <br />
<br />
In <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=EFSbwGk2szgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=related:ISBN0872497976&as_brr=0&rview=1#v=onepage&q&f=false"><b>“South Carolina – a History”</b></a>, Walter B. Edgar provides us with a very good description of the relationships between these eight Lords' Proprietors on pages 38-39. <br />
<blockquote>One Englishman who was familiar with Barbados was John Colleton, a royalist exile. When the Puritans triumphed in England, he and other monarchists had escaped to the island. There he established himself as a planter and witnessed first hand the fortunes made from sugar. He also witnessed the colony’s relative economic decline as sugar spread to the other English islands and the cost of production increased. In addition, he was aware of the steady exodus of the white colonists as the slave population increased. Where some might have seen problems and been discouraged, Colleton evidently saw opportunities. <br />
<br />
With the Restoration in 1660, Colleton returned to London to seek reward for his support of the royalist cause. Through the intervention of an old friend, John Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Stratton and member of the Privy Council, Colleton received a knighthood and an appointment to the Council for Foreign Plantations. Membership on the council brought him in contact with Sir William Berkeley, governor of Virginia; Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the Earl of Shaftsbury), Chancellor of the Exchequer; Sir George Carteret, vice chamberlain of the household and treasure of the navy; Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, who was the King’s first minister. In addition to these new and powerful acquaintances, Colleton’s cousin was General Monck, Duke of Albemarle.<br />
<br />
It is probable that Colleton turned first to his cousin and his old friend, Lord Berkeley, for assistance for his scheme for a colony between Virginia and Spanish Florida. Four other fellow members of the Council for Foreign Plantations (Berkeley, Ashley Cooper, Carteret, Hyde) and William Craven, the Earl of Craven, were soon party to the plan. It was a powerful group, and everyone had a claim on Charles 2nd. Their request was successful, and on the 24 March 1663 the King granted a charter for the colony of Carolina that made the eight petitioners the “true and absolute lords and proprietors” of the province. While the proprietors were interested in promoting the expansion of the empire, it is also quite evident they were interested in making money. The charter certainly gave them every opportunity to do so.</blockquote>The charter granted the eight noblemen the rights to make war and peace, create towns and ports, grant “titles of honor”, raise and maintain an army, collect taxes and custom duties, impose the death sentence and issue pardons. Income could come from fees for the establishment of towns and fairs, taxes and custom duties. Control over all veins, mines and quarries, trade with native Indians and fishing rights, including whales, sturgeons and all other royal fishes, a list of commodities that could be exported duty-free from England for seven years … and hundreds of thousands of acres of land. Since most of the proprietors were experienced in colonial matters, they felt that not only would the colony pay for itself, but it would also make them a very handsome profit. <br />
<br />
The Virginia colony had been in existence for about sixty years when the Carolina charter was granted and settlements had migrated across the designated border into the upper area of what would become North Carolina. Since Sir William Berkeley had been returned as governor of the Virginia colony by Charles 2nd and was now a member of the group of eight, the original plan was based on the idea that colonists could be enticed into the northern portion of the Carolina colony from Virginia and the New England colonies. A group of New Englanders had explored around the Cape Fear area in 1662 but had left and returned to New England after six months. In 1663 a group called the Barbadian Adventurers commissioned William Hilton to explore the Carolina coast but the Adventurers and the proprietors could not reach an agreement. In 1665 the proprietors attempted to encourage settlement by issuing a document called “Concessions and Agreements”. Sir John Yeamans was one of the Adventurers and had been involved in the drafting of the “Concessions” part of the document which allowed for self-government, freedom of religion and generous land grants. A company of Barbadians led by John Vassall had established Charles Town on the Cape Fear River and Yeamans and another rival group had joined the settlement which grew to about 800 in population. Another settler was Robert Sandford who had been a planter in Surinam and Barbados. In June of 1666, he undertook exploration of the coast south of the northern colony and reported back to the Lords’ Proprietors in glowing terms that the area was better than anything in the West Indies. However, the Barbadians were not impressed and by summer of 1667 they had abandoned the Cape Fear colony citing hostile Indians and lack of support from the proprietors as the reasons. <br />
<br />
But it was likely that events back in England were the reasons for the lack of attention by the proprietors. Monck, Duke of Albemarle, was Admiral of the Royal Navy and England was involved in a second naval war with Holland. He was responsible for keeping order in London after the plague and Great Fire. His health failed, he withdrew from public life and died in 1669. Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, had finally accumulated enough enemies in government that he was held responsible for failure to win the war, was impeached by the House of Commons and went into exile. Sir John Colleton died in 1666 and his heir, Sir Peter Colleton, was in Barbados. Sir William Berkeley was in Virginia being governor again. So the plans to develop the Carolina colony had been put on the back burner until 1668 when Lord Ashley instigated a plan to secure a grant for the Bahamas and other unnamed and unclaimed Caribbean islands which involved six of the original eight proprietors. Ashley was invested in the slave trade, held part ownership in plantations in Barbados and was invested in several overseas trading companies so he believed that the Bahamas and Carolina would be mutually supportive and profitable. It was through his persistence that Carolina became a reality. He convinced the others that they would have to make significant investment in order to make Carolina a success, and they agreed the plan would require experienced settlers like those in Barbados, but they also wanted emigrants from the mother country to be among the first settlers. <br />
<br />
In ninety days, Ashley bought and supplied three ships, commissioned Captain Joseph West as commander of the fleet for the expedition, enticed about one hundred English men and women to immigrate to Carolina, and worked with his friend, John Locke, to draft the first version of the <a href="http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1657"><b><i>Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina</i></b>.</a> By mid-August 1669, three ships, the <i>Carolina</i>, the <i>Port Royal</i> and the <i>Albemarle</i> under the command of Captain West set sail on the first leg of the journey. The first stop was in Ireland where Captain West hoped to take on more settlers but the opposite happened when several on board jumped ship. The fleet then set sail for Barbados. They arrived in October and remained on the island until February. While in Barbados, the <i>Albemarle</i> was wrecked in a tropical storm and was replaced by a Barbadian built sloop called <i>The Three Brothers</i>. On February 26, 1670 they set out for Carolina and while sailing through the eastern Caribbean they encountered a storm that ran the <i>Port Royal</i> aground in the Bahamas. The remaining two ships headed for Bermuda but another storm drove <i>The Three Brothers</i> into Virginia. Only the <i>Carolina</i> with most of the settlers on board made land fall on March 15, 1670 at Bull’s Bay, about thirty miles north of Charleston. <i>The Three Brothers</i> passengers later joined them.<br />
<br />
Accounts vary as to the number and make-up of the first group of settlers, but they were mostly English and a few from Barbados with one family from Nevis. The majority were indentured servants who had indentured themselves out of England to the people of wealth who had joined the expedition. <a href="http://sciway3.net/proctor/ships/v1/carolina1669.html"><b>Here</b></a> you will find a partial list of those who are recorded as being onboard the <i>Carolina</i>. Among the arrival party was ship’s master of the <i>Carolina</i>, Henry Brayne, who had previously explored the area, Colonel William Sayle who was the official governor for the expedition, Captain Florence O’Sullivan for whom Sullivan’s Island was named and Captain Joseph West who became the second governor of Carolina. Over the next few years about half of the whites and over half of the African slaves came from the islands. Some of the family names of the early settlers will be familiar to those of you who have ancestors in the Low Country of early South Carolina. They were not just of English descent; they were English-West Indian: Allston, Beadon, Beresford, Colleton, Daniel, Drayton, Fenwicke, Gibbes, Godfrey, Ladson, Logan, Middleton, Moore, Schenchingh and Yeamans from Barbados; Amory, Parris, Pinckney and Whaley from Jamaica; Lucas, Motte and Perry from Antiqua; Lowndes and Rawlins from Saint Christopher’s; LaMotte from Grenada; Woodward from Nevis. <br />
<br />
These were the offspring of those planters who had made their fortunes in the West Indies. They had learned from their parents how to develop a prosperous colony, economically, socially and politically. They brought with them the Barbadian cultural model and looked at Carolina as their opportunity to make their fortunes. Among them were servants, merchants and the younger sons of planting families. Eighteen of the biggest planting families and thirty-three of the middle size planting families of the English West Indies sent representatives or families members to the colony of Carolina. These were not the “gentlemen” of Virginia and New England. Because the Barbadians, as all of the islanders came to be called, became the majority of the white population within two years of settlement, they defined the culture of the colony, the life-style of the settlement, and those who came from Old and New England learned quickly to assimilate into the culture or move on. The Barbadians brought their slaves with them and the slave code that had been developed on Barbados. It became the model for the Carolina slave laws. The Barbados model had been based years before on the Brazilian model which had been brought to the West Indies by the Spaniards when they established their sugar plantations. <br />
<br />
In Carolina, Barbadian society combined old world elegance with the boisterousness of the frontier and many of the traditions they brought with them became hallmarks of Low Country culture. They dressed very ostentatiously and built huge plantation homes that were flamboyantly furnished. They used military titles like captain and colonel that did not necessarily indicate a military rank or a history of military service. Most of them were Anglicans, members of the Church of England, ex-patriot British Royalists. Their interest was in prosperity, their own. The prosperity of the proprietors was never their consideration. Many of them settled around the area of Goose Creek and developed large plantations; after all, their families had been in the plantation business for decades. They quickly dominated the seats of government and made many attempts to exclude non-Anglicans from elected positions in the Assembly and on Council. If they believed the designated colonial governor appointed by the Proprietors was not supportive of their agenda, then they took action to have him removed and often manipulated the legislative process to usurp his authority. They began to deal in the native Indian slave business, selling kidnapped Indians to New England and West Indies plantations. They also dealt in trade with pirates who raided ships along the Atlantic coastline and paid them in gold and silver coins. These things didn’t set well with the Lords’ Proprietors, living thousands of miles away, who were attempting repeatedly to get the colonists to accept the <i>Fundamental Constitutions for Carolina</i>. So the proprietors set about <a href="http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/2043"><b>advertising the colony in London</b></a> in glowing rhetorical language intended to entice those looking for health, wealth and freedom of religion, which did succeed in encouraging immigration and boosting the population during the 1680’s. <br />
<br />
A group of Dissenters arrived in 1680. The Lords’ Proprietors had hoped that by encouraging Dissenters to immigrate to the colony they would help to neuter the growing control and influence in the Council and Assembly by the Anglicans. Dissenters were a diverse group of Protestant denominations who were non-conformists. They refused to accept the doctrines of the Church of England. This brought Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers and Congregationalists to the colony from England, Scotland, Ireland and other European counties. In April of 1680 forty-five French Huguenots arrived aboard the sailing vessel <i>Richmond</i>. Over the next decade an estimated 1500 Huguenots fleeing France migrated to South Carolina when Louis 14th of France revoked the <i>Edict of Nantes</i>. They mostly settled in Craven County in an area along the Santee River which became known as the French Santee. Among those family names were; Bonneau, Cordes, DeSaussures, Deveaux, DuBose, Fort, Gaillard, Gendron, Guerard, Horry, Huger, Laurens, Legare, Manigualt, Marion, Peyre, Porcher, Prioleau, Ravenal, Simmons, and Timothy. In 1695 a group of Puritans from Dorchester, Massachusetts Bay relocated and founded the town of Dorchester. But after two decades of trying to adjust to the Barbadian culture, they decided to relocate and the entire congregation moved to Medway (Midway), Georgia.<br />
<br />
The Barbadians seemed to have had the attitude that they were there first, their plantations were the basis for the economy, and they would make the rules. They had been relentless in their drive for control of the government and the Protestant Dissenters had been just as relentless in pushing back the Anglican Barbadians. At one point the Barbadians conspired with the colonial governor to call for the Assembly to meet before the scheduled meeting and before the Dissenters could organize. They then passed legislation allowing only members of the Church of England to be elected to the Assembly. Next they passed legislation which made the Church of England the established church of the colony and imposed a tax on the colonists to provide financial support only for their Church. Then they told the French Huguenot minister that any marriages he performed were not legal. This pushed the line and the legislation was overturned. During the chaos that was created, Queen Anne authorized the Catholics the right to vote in 1702. Up until this time, Catholics had been forbidden in the colony and if there were any, they kept their religion to themselves. The first Anglican Church was St. Phillips built in 1683. The French Huguenot Church was built in 1686 and the Baptist Church with William Screven as minister was built in 1690. The Quakers arrived about 1682 and met in private homes. The White Meeting House of the Presbyterians and Congregationalists also was built between 1680 and 1690. As you can see the colony was quite diverse religiously, and that was an important selling point for the Proprietors because religious tolerance was one the magnets that drew people from Europe. <br />
<br />
By the dawn of the 18th century there were four major cities in colonial America; Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston. The port at Charleston was emerging as a shipping capital and was filled with merchant ships during the peak shipping season from December to March. It was strategically located to harbor English ships during those times when England was at war with one or more of the other European powers who shared the continent and the West Indies. During these times the city was flooded with marines and sailors … and drunks, prostitutes, gamblers, trappers, beggars and others from the lower classes of society. Charleston had endured reoccurring epidemics of yellow fever, small pox and malaria, floods, droughts, hurricanes, fires and an earthquake in 1698, invasions and attacks by the Spanish from St. Augustine, marauding Indians and plundering pirates with still more to come. <br />
<br />
In August of 1712 a yellow fever epidemic with a small pox epidemic fell on the colony until about February the following year. It is said to have been the worst in history and an estimated 1200 people died. <br />
<br />
Then in the summer of 1713 a hurricane raged for twelve hours. It flooded the city carrying away houses and businesses and about seventy people drowned. <br />
<br />
Two years later, in 1715, one of the bloodiest and most costly Indian wars in colonial history, the <a href="http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/creek/early-history/yamasee_war.htm"><b>Yamassee War</b></a>, took place in the colony. Governor Craven heard rumors of unrest among the Yamassee Indians who did business with about 100 English traders and had complained to him about being cheated, as well as, the continued kidnapping of Indians that they then sold as slaves in the West Indies and New England. Attempts by the Governor to control the English traders had failed and he sent Captain Nairn to inquire about the rumors. On April 15th, Captain Nairn met with the tribe and several of the English traders who lived among them. After several hours of discussing resolutions to the problems, the Indians appeared reconciled, prepared a supper for their guests and all went to sleep. Early the next morning the English were surprised by an attack in which the Indians murdered Captain Nairn, John Wright and Thomas Ruffly. Mr. Cockran and his wife were held captive and later murdered. Mr. Burroughs escaped with a bullet wound to his face and swam a river to warn the plantations at Port Royal that the Indians were on the war-path. It’s estimated about 90 of the English traders were killed. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vEDvWm11V_A/T8KSBKtwrgI/AAAAAAAAAZg/2L2FAZGV_1s/s1600/Yamassee%2Bat%2Bgoose%2Bcreek.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vEDvWm11V_A/T8KSBKtwrgI/AAAAAAAAAZg/2L2FAZGV_1s/s400/Yamassee%2Bat%2Bgoose%2Bcreek.jpg" height="346" width="259" /></a></div>The Yamassee had entered into a confederacy with the Creeks, Choctaws, Appalachee, Catawbas and fractions of Cherokee to attack the settlers from all sides of the colony. First they divided into two parties: one fell upon Port Royal, the other upon St. Bartholomew's parish; about 100 colonists fell into their hands and were tortured and murdered, the rest fled towards Charleston as the Indians advanced towards the town murdering, pillaging, burning houses and crops, slaughtering livestock and destroying everything in their path along the upper reaches of the Ashley, Cooper and Santee rivers. <br />
<br />
On the northern side of the colony, the Catawbas and the Creeks advanced on the plantation of Mr. John Herne at Goose Creek under the ruse they were in need of provisions, and killed him. When the news reached Captain Thomas Barker of Goose Creek, he gathered men and rode to confront the Indians. He was ambushed and murdered by an Indian whom he trusted. The Indians advanced towards Goose Creek laying in waste everything in their path. The whole parish was deserted as the colonials fled to Charleston, except two fortified plantations. After hours of attacking the fortifications, the Indians proposed peace and entered the forts where they murdered the inhabitants. Then they advanced father towards Charleston. Several months later, Governor Craven, Captain MacKay and the colonial militias succeeded in pushing back the Indians, but not until they had to resort to arming African slaves to assist the men in fighting. The sight of armed slaves was very unnerving to the white colonists. About 400 of the Carolinians were killed during the war. Security had been shaken and armed convicts were preferable to armed slaves. In May and August 1718 ships from Britain brought indentured convicts to Charleston. <br />
<br />
The Yamassee were defeated so severely that they fled to the protection of the Spanish in St. Augustine. The Catawba became staunch friends of the colonists, and the Cherokee resumed peaceful relations with them. Many of the other tribes moved farther from the borders of South Carolina into west Florida and south Alabama. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-caXcIpdYTC0/T8KSSaBtkCI/AAAAAAAAAZs/F0A8P02Y8Qo/s1600/Pirates%2Bin%2BCharleston.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-caXcIpdYTC0/T8KSSaBtkCI/AAAAAAAAAZs/F0A8P02Y8Qo/s400/Pirates%2Bin%2BCharleston.jpg" height="277" width="259" /></a></div>In June 1718 the notorious pirate, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbeard"><b>Edward Teach</b></a>, otherwise known as Blackbeard, with four ships and 400 men plundered merchant ships in Charleston Harbor and kidnapped some of the passengers who he held for ransom ... demanding a chest of medicines. He promised to send the heads of Samuel Wragg, at the time a merchant and member of Council, and his four year old son if his demands were not met. Blackbeard and his men paraded through the streets of Charleston while the governor contemplated his response. He eventually complied with 400 pounds of medicines to which Blackbeard responded by stripping his captives almost naked and sending them ashore, leaving Charleston inhabitants humiliated and angry. The colonists appealed to England for help, but none was to come. Then in August the black flag of the pirates again appeared on the horizon of Charleston Harbor seizing and plundering merchant ships waiting to dock and unload. This time the merchants enlisted <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rhett"><b>William Rhett</b></a> who organized a posse of about 300 volunteers to pursue the pirates. They captured the notorious pirate, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stede_Bonnet"><b>Stede Bonnet</b></a>, and his sailing master, David Herriot, along with thirty-nine pirates on the Cape Fear River and retuned them to Charleston for trial. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q0-R6jHKIAk/T8KTDkZnoXI/AAAAAAAAAZ4/4nW0zNNllD8/s1600/Stede%2BBonnet%2BMonument%2BCharleston.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q0-R6jHKIAk/T8KTDkZnoXI/AAAAAAAAAZ4/4nW0zNNllD8/s400/Stede%2BBonnet%2BMonument%2BCharleston.jpg" height="247" width="277" /></a></div>While awaiting trial, some of those (Anglican Barbadians) who had traded with the pirates were afraid the testimony might tie them to the crimes so, the guard posted to secure Bonnet and Herriot was bribed and a small boat was provided for their escape. They were recaptured on Sullivan’s Island. The trial returned a guilty verdict and they were hung. Notice that the last sentence on the plaque says they were buried “in the marsh beyond the low water mark”. After this, those few pirate ships that appeared on the horizon of Charleston Harbor ... did not linger. <br />
<br />
All of these events, disease, Indians, pirates and natural disasters came one upon the other and were having a detrimental effect on the economy. There was a growing concern among the colonials that they had been left to fend for themselves and resentment for the Lords’ Proprietors was growing among the people who increasingly felt that men who lived thousands of miles away had no right to tell them what they could and could not do if they were not financially responsible for their security and colony’s infrastructure. In early 1719, the Assembly met and passed new import duties to help defray some of the cost of the Indian war and rebuild the town. They presented to the Proprietors a list of requests that they felt would help improve the economic situation. The response from the Proprietors was ... no to the new import duties ... no to the issuance of land grants to new settlers ... no to the expansion of currency ... no to the idea of a new settlement on the lands confiscated from the Yamassee after the war. The Proprietors wanted that land for themselves. They went even further, in June that year the Proprietors order the colonial governor, Robert Johnson, to reorganize the Council, dissolve the Assembly and hold new elections. Then in November that same year came the rumors that the Spanish Armada was planning an invasion of Charleston. The influential citizens beseeched England to send troops to protect the colony and warned if England did not come to their aid, they would seek independence. In early December that year the Assembly met and voted to make themselves the government “until the King’s wishes were known”. The appointed governor, Robert Johnson, refused to accept the Assembly’s decision, but they would not back down, so they elected their own provisional governor, General James Moore, Jr. who was a popular son of an unpopular former governor and who had also led successful raids into Florida against the Spanish and the Indians. The Assembly set December 21st, which was a muster day for the militia, as the date of inauguration for the new government. During the muster, Governor Johnson ordered the militia to disperse the crowd attending the ceremony but Colonel Parris ordered the militia to point their muskets at Governor Johnson and “bid him stand off”. Later Johnson’s attempt to regain control failed and he returned to England. The 1719 <i>“Charles Town Revolution”</i> was effectively the beginning of the end of proprietary control over the colony. South Carolina was now a royal colony and all that was left to do was finalize the buyout price. <br />
<br />
In February 1724 another convict ship was sent to Charleston; and Jacobites who had been imprisoned after the 1715 Uprising were deported as prisoners-of-war to South Carolina. Among them were thirteen members of the McGillivray Clan. Later, after the Battle of Culloden that brutally ended the Uprising in 1745, more Jacobites were deported to South Carolina which brought the families of Abercromby, Allen, Buchanan, Bullock, Deas, Kinloch, Logan, Michie and Pringle to the colony.<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=zzGFIoVWEgoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false"><b>“Charleston! Charleston!: The History of a Southern City”</b></a>, by Walter B. Edgar: <br />
<blockquote>The year 1726 had been the worst winter ever experienced in the colony. The small farmers were going bankrupt and organized an anti-tax committee to prevent the collection of debts and called for expansion of the currency. By June 1727 an armed mob of 300 took to the streets. The Assemble and Council could not agree on a tax bill and taxes went uncollected, the judicial system collapsed and the colony was on the brink of chaos. The next summer, 1728, was very hot and drought conditions caused ponds to dry up and livestock to perish, crops wilted in the fields, yellow fever returned with a vengeance and many people, black and white, died. Back country farmers who were fearful of contracting the disease would not bring their fresh produce to town so people went hungry and commerce ceased. Then in August a hurricane damaged the city and 23 ships in the harbor. The conditions in the colony were at a crisis level and served as the impetus for completing the buyout of the proprietors by the Crown and at that time a plan was approved to increase the white population in the colony and a moderate expansion of currency was endorsed. Robert Johnson was appointed as the first royal governor.</blockquote><center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RznNJ1dwDI8/T8KUEjv70vI/AAAAAAAAAaE/2AKaZzhDyZE/s1600/sailing%2Bship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RznNJ1dwDI8/T8KUEjv70vI/AAAAAAAAAaE/2AKaZzhDyZE/s400/sailing%2Bship.jpg" height="211" width="259" /></a></div>Burlingham was arrested in May and, as I said, he most likely shipped out of Norfolk after the circuit court session ended in August. The voyage to America was about six to eight weeks long depending on the weather and the size of the ship. In his book, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=wFc1rx43Xr0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=related:ISBN0872497976&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1#v=onepage&q&f=false"><b>“Charleston in the Age of the Pinckney’s”, </b></a>George C. Rodgers describes for us on page 3 the sailing route to the New World. <br />
<blockquote>As long as the age of sail lasted, Charleston was on the main Atlantic highway which circumnavigated the Bermuda High. Vessels leaving England or leaving any European port for North America, generally sailed southwestwardly to the Azores, to catch the trade winds then with full sail made for the West Indies, Barbados standing out front like a doorman to welcome all to the New World. Next they made their way through the West Indies to the Gulf Stream. From the Florida Keys to Cape Hatteras they hugged the American coast before veering off to England and northern Europe. It was a great circle and Charleston was on its western edge.</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tvoHHGQErW8/T8KVKicjU7I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/z49Q3xj1YiI/s1600/Colony%2Bof%2BSC_Charleston%2BHarbor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tvoHHGQErW8/T8KVKicjU7I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/z49Q3xj1YiI/s400/Colony%2Bof%2BSC_Charleston%2BHarbor.jpg" height="255" width="400" /></a></div>If Burlingham was transported by a merchant ship, rather than a convict ship, then the conditions may have been better, but in all likelihood he spent the voyage below deck in a brig with other convicts. When the ship arrived in port, the customs agent boarded the ship to inspect the cargo of convicts. He recorded the names of those who were to be auctioned, those who were too ill and needed to be quarantined, and those who had died during the voyage. The date of auction was set and announced to the public through newspapers or advertisements placed around the town. When auction day came, the convicts were taken to the market place and, just as African slaves, were auctioned off to the highest bidder. Since Burlingham was about twenty-one years old, from a middle class family, apparently literate and a butcher by trade, he most likely sold for a premium price. I think it probable his indenture was purchased by an owner of a rice plantation, maybe in the area of Georgetown in Prince George’s Parish since he baptized his three children in Prince Frederick’s Parish in 1745 after it was split from Prince George’s in 1734. By this time the plantation system had been well developed and included all the amenities necessary to support, not only the family of the owner, but also the slave population. There would have been a place for a butcher who was also literate and indentured without the liberties that even the slaves were allowed. <br />
<br />
The colony was almost sixty years old. The population was about 30,000 and 20,000 of them were African slaves. The white population consisted of merchants and artisans, plantation owners, and small farmers. They were surrounded by Indians and forests. To the south, down the coast, were the Spaniards. After the buyout of the charter by the Crown, the colony experienced an economic boom because the Crown agreed to lift the export restrictions on Carolina rice and that opened up foreign markets. This created a scramble for land and more slaves. The rich became richer and a second class of wealthy families began to emerge. The power struggle between the Anglicans and the Dissenters had ebbed to some extent. The plantation families and the merchant families began to integrate with arranged marriages and a plutocracy began to emerge. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xboK7EBOVM4/T8KVuL7--MI/AAAAAAAAAac/UORa11rwpSE/s1600/1731%2BSouth%2BCarolina%2BColony.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xboK7EBOVM4/T8KVuL7--MI/AAAAAAAAAac/UORa11rwpSE/s400/1731%2BSouth%2BCarolina%2BColony.jpg" height="331" width="367" /></a></div>In 1730 Colonel John Barnwell came up with the idea to develop townships in a ring around the populated areas near Charleston in order to encourage Europeans to settle. Governor Robert Johnson took the idea to the Board of Trade who approved the plan. The idea was to build a defensive buffer between the population and the Indians and Spaniards that allowed for orderly settlement of the back country by white immigrants that would also counteract the increasing slave population. A headright system was created and economic incentives were given to new settlers and they came in droves. Most of the new townships developed into ethnic enclave and between 1730 and 1740 Charleston doubled in size, property value rose 500% and hundreds of structures went up, quickly and cheaply. The new townships were: Fredericksburg, first settled in 1732 by Quakers and Scots-Irish from Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Purrysburg, settled in 1732 by Jean Pierre Purry, a Swiss-Palatine who brought over several hundred Protestants, including French Huguenots and German Lutherans. Amelia, settled in 1732 by some of the same German Lutherans from Purrysburg. Kings Town became Kingston and was settled in 1734, mostly Scots-Irish and some English from Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland. Congaree was renamed Saxe-Gotha and was settled in 1735 by German Lutherans. Edisto was renamed Orangeburg and was settled in 1735 by Swiss immigrants. Queensborough became Queensboro and was settled in 1735 by Scots-Irish and Welsh from Pennsylvania and Delaware. Williamsburg, settled in 1735 by Scots-Irish from Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland. The Welsh tract was established in 1734 and settled in 1736 by Welsh recruited from Delaware and Pennsylvania. And New Windsor, settled in 1737 by 200 Swiss-Palatines, mostly French, but also some Germans. <br />
<br />
Many of the new immigrants were poor and had come to the colony with hopes of prosperity, but the increase in the number of slaves limited their employment opportunities. By mid-1730 many white people were begging door to door and dependent on the benevolent societies that had been established by the various ethnic-religious groups. <br />
<br />
Then on Sept 9, 1739, one of the Carolinian’s worse fears came to pass. The Stono Rebellion, the bloodiest slave rebellion in American history began at Stono River Bridge, twenty miles south of Charleston. By this time, the population in the colony was about 15,000 whites and 30,000 slaves. A group of slaves murdered about thirty whites, looted a store, burned houses and set out for Spanish Florida. They were intercepted at Jacksonbrough Ferry by a posse of planters, who shot fourteen of them, questioned the other captives and shot them. About thirty escaped into woods. About forty were seized and killed. The next year a group of slaves at Goose Creek planned to take the city. About sixty-seven were tried and punished or killed. As a result the importation of slaves was shut down for a period of time. <br />
<br />
On Nov 18, 1740 the great fire of Charleston raged for four hours and destroyed 300 houses, many businesses, wharfs and warehouses storing export and import goods, as well as, the security fortification along the Cooper River causing many of the weapons to become useless. This caused commerce to cease and brought about an economic depression. <br />
<br />
When war broke out between Spain and England in 1739, the fear of a Spanish invasion from Florida became very intense in the colony. This brought British troops to the colony with barracks at Charleston and British warships to Charleston Harbor. In 1744 France joined with other European powers and declared war on England. It became known as the Great War for Empire as the continental powers fought for control of North America. This brought French prisoners of war from Canada into the colony until the war ended. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F38dShZo4ZE/T8KV8JBPKII/AAAAAAAAAao/1jnd_A0moC0/s1600/Prince%2BFrederick%2527s%2BParish%2Bmarker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F38dShZo4ZE/T8KV8JBPKII/AAAAAAAAAao/1jnd_A0moC0/s400/Prince%2BFrederick%2527s%2BParish%2Bmarker.jpg" height="285" width="295" /></a></div>The following year, October 27, 1745, Burlingham Rudd and his wife, Elizabeth, baptized their three children at Prince Frederick’s Parish, in a little chapel on Brown’s Ferry Road, near the Pee Dee River, and Burlingham moved his family up the river to Jones’ Creek where they became one of the founding families of Anson Co., North Carolina. <br />
<br />
Now, 284 years later, I offer my apology to the ancestors of Mary White for Burlingham Rudd stealing her iron grey gelding horse from Poringland Common, but ... I confess ... I’m awfully glad he did! Unknownnoreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-66934322333905754692014-01-05T05:00:00.000-06:002015-10-28T12:43:09.350-05:00First Migration ~ North Carolina Frontier<center><b>~ Jones Creek, Pee Dee River Settlement ~</b></center><center><b>1745 – 1749</b></center><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TjVhU5KbHto/UDvXyHnlmlI/AAAAAAAAAa8/j2mE6E-76LY/s1600/roanoke.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TjVhU5KbHto/UDvXyHnlmlI/AAAAAAAAAa8/j2mE6E-76LY/s400/roanoke.jpg" height="142" width="223" /></a></div>Elizabeth 1st of England gave a patent to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 to explore and establish a settlement in North America and he made five attempts to plant a permanent settlement in North Carolina. The longest lasting was at Roanoke Island known as the “Lost Colony”. In 1603, Elizabeth 1st died and James 1st ascended to the throne, but years of war with Spain had left England financially strapped. Resources that were needed for building ships were in short supply. Imports from the Dutch were not sufficient and England’s unstable relationship with the other European countries made trade unpredictable. So, James 1st looked to the New World and granted a proprietary charter to two competing branches of the Virginia Company, a commercial enterprise supported by investors. One was the Plymouth Company and the other was the London Company. The Plymouth Company was permitted to establish a colony of one hundred square miles roughly between Chesapeake Bay up to our northern Canadian border. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rPHX-zq1BmI/UDvX_MvzUmI/AAAAAAAAAbI/vN_zrxn8wBQ/s1600/Fort%2BSt.%2BGeorge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rPHX-zq1BmI/UDvX_MvzUmI/AAAAAAAAAbI/vN_zrxn8wBQ/s200/Fort%2BSt.%2BGeorge.jpg" height="200" width="128" /></a></div>The London Company was permitted the same between roughly Long Island Sound and Cape Fear in present-day North Carolina. Neither company was allowed to establish a colony within one hundred miles of the other. <br />
<br />
The Plymouth Company sailed for the New World in August 1606, but the ship was intercepted, captured by the Spanish near Florida and never reached its destination. Their next attempt was in May 1607, and that time they sent two ships and about 120 colonists. They arrived in August 1607 and established a settlement known as the Popham Colony in present day Phippsburg, Maine near the Kennebec River. Half the colonists returned to England in the fall of 1607 and the other half stayed through the winter, spring and summer. During that time they built a 30-ton ship they named <i>Virginia</i> and late that summer the colony was abandoned when all the remaining colonists returned to England. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zVLY2mVEZA4/UDvYMOwzI0I/AAAAAAAAAbU/bSju6Lp7ITo/s1600/cape%2Bhenry%2Bcross.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zVLY2mVEZA4/UDvYMOwzI0I/AAAAAAAAAbU/bSju6Lp7ITo/s200/cape%2Bhenry%2Bcross.jpg" height="200" width="122" /></a></div>In December 1606, the London Company set sail with three ships and thirty-nine sailors along with 105 men and boys. In May 1606, they arrived at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay where they came ashore, erected a cross and named the point of land Cape Henry for Henry Fredrick, Prince of Wales. In American history, this is known as the “First Landing”. They explored the area for the most favorable defensive location where they built their first fort and in 1607 named the settlement Jamestown. In 1609, the London Company’s charter was adjusted to include the territory that had been abandoned by the Plymouth Company. Thus, America was born with the first colony in Jamestown, Virginia. By 1624, the investors were bankrupt and James 1st revoked the London Company’s charter which made Virginia a crown colony under royal authority. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nli-iLnQgHY/UDvYT7_IbPI/AAAAAAAAAbg/S4v8NYkQESQ/s1600/Pilgrims%2Band%2BPuritans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nli-iLnQgHY/UDvYT7_IbPI/AAAAAAAAAbg/S4v8NYkQESQ/s400/Pilgrims%2Band%2BPuritans.jpg" height="168" style="cursor: move;" width="223" /></a></div>During this same time period, tensions between the Puritans of the English Separatist Church and the Bishops of the Church of England were becoming fierce. The Puritans believed that the Anglicans had kept too much of the symbolism and ornamentation of the Roman Catholic Church after its separation under Henry VIII. Their attempt to forcibly destroy those symbols by vandalizing the Anglican churches, resulted in many of them fleeing to the Netherlands where they remained for about a decade. But they began to fear they were losing their language, as well as, their cultural identity and made plans to migrate to the New World. Their intended destination was the area near the Hudson River which they believed to be a part of the already established colony in Virginia. After securing financing for their voyage from London and recruiting more settlers, about 100 pilgrims, including many Puritans, set out from Plymouth, England in September 1620 aboard the Mayflower. In November they landed at Cape Cod, Massachusetts and in December 1620 they established a permanent settlement at Plymouth Harbor. <br />
<br />
Then in 1625, James 1st died and Charles 1st ascended to the throne. In 1629, he granted to Sir Robert Heath a charter for Carolana with the same goal of establishing a permanent settlement in North Carolina, but the results were unsuccessful. Some years later, in 1653, settlers from Virginia crossed over the border and settled on the Chowan and Roanoke rivers, in a district called Albemarle. <br />
<br />
After the Commonwealth period, the English monarchy was restored in 1663 when Charles 2nd returned from exile. He gave the charter for Carolina to eight noblemen … the true and absolute Lords’ Proprietors … who had assisted with his return and the Restoration of the British monarchy. <br />
<br />
Now history merges with the attempts to establish a permanent settlement in Carolina that I described in the previous narrative. The original idea was that settlers from Virginia and New England could be enticed to move down the coast into Carolina. Sir William Berkeley had been returned to the crown appointed governorship of Virginia as a reward for his role in bringing Charles 2nd back to the British throne and he was, also, a member of the group of eight noblemen who had been given the Carolina charter. The Lords’ Proprietors who had financial interests in the other American colonies believed that Berkeley could promote migration into Carolina. In 1662, a group from New England explored around the Cape Fear area but left after staying about six months. In 1663, William Hilton was commissioned by a group in Barbados to explore the area, but they could not reach agreement with the Lords’ Proprietors. In 1665, a group from Barbados including Sir John Yeamans, John Vassall and Robert Sandford established Charles Town on the Cape Fear River, but abandoned the settlement in 1667. Finally, in 1670 the Lords’ Proprietors succeeded in establishing a permanent colony at Charleston in present-day South Carolina. <br />
<br />
Because of the migration of settlers from the Virginia border into the Albemarle area just across that border, Sir William Berkeley, the governor of Virginia, appointed William Drummond as the first governor in 1664. Drummond had been born and educated in Scotland. He came to the Virginia colony as an indentured servant, although after arriving he conspired with other indentures to run away. His plan was discovered, for which he received a public flogging and an extension of his indentured time. But by 1650, he had improved his situation, married and had children, became an attorney, merchant, Presbyterian clergyman and a large land owner. By all accounts he was an efficient and effective governor and the Albemarle colony began to grow. Drummond’s term ended in 1667. About ten years later he would become a follower of Nathaniel Bacon and a supporter of Bacon’s Rebellion. After Sir William Berkeley put down the Rebellion, he had Drummond arrested, tried for treason, being found guilty, he was hung to death on the same day. <br />
<br />
The next governor of Albemarle appointed in 1667 was Samuel Stephens who pushed for a new law with incentives that would attract settlers. It gave newcomers a one year tax exemption, outlawed any debts they had elsewhere and gave them a five year protection against any law suit brought by anyone for any cause outside of the colony. As you can imagine, like June bugs to a light bulb, they came and soon the Albemarle settlement came to be known in Virginia as “Rogues’ Harbor”. <br />
<br />
Over the next forty years the North Carolina colony grew slowly. The barrier islands along the coast and the wetlands were obstacles to the establishment of a deep water port for shipping, so trade was inhibited. The storms and hurricanes that frequented the area did not encourage any great expense in building permanent structures. The Great Dismal Swamp, the fall line rapids and the south running rivers of the Piedmont Plateau were all hindrances to migration from the eastern coastal area into the Piedmont.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LhNE_YVpDjI/UDvcUwv0qiI/AAAAAAAAAb8/MkqvdSRivXw/s1600/NC%2Bfour%2Bregions.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LhNE_YVpDjI/UDvcUwv0qiI/AAAAAAAAAb8/MkqvdSRivXw/s400/NC%2Bfour%2Bregions.jpg" height="157" width="367" /></a></div>In the early 1700’s, the population in the Coastal Plains began to increase; Huguenots from France settled at Bath near Pamlico Sound and Germans from the Rhine founded New Berne at the junction of the Trent and Neuse rivers. The white population was about five thousand and the Albemarle settlement had pushed many miles into the forest which encroached on the natives and brought about the Tuscarora War in 1711. It started when the Tuscaroras and other allied tribes massacred, within two hours, 130 German settlers at New Berne. It ended when Colonels John Barnwell and James Moore from South Carolina destroyed 400 of their warriors at a battle near the Neuse River. The Tuscaroras of North Carolina were descendents of the New York tribe. In 1714, they returned to the land of their ancestors and joined the Iroquois Confederation which was then known as the Five Nations of New York. This transformed the Confederation into the Six Nations. <br />
<br />
The Carolina colony was officially split between north and south in 1712 for the purposes of administrative management. The two settlements in Carolina were the Albemarle region in the north and the Charleston region in the south. In 1729 when the last of the Lords’ Proprietors, who by now were the heirs of the original group of eight, finalized the deal that gave up ownership to the Crown, the heir of Sir George Carteret, his great-grandson John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville, decided he wasn’t interested in selling his inheritance, so he negotiated with the Crown to retain his one-eighth share with his agreement he would not participate in the government. The boundary for his charter was a sixty mile wide strip of land along the North Carolina/Virginia border known as the Granville District. The land was passed down to his son, Robert, who died in 1776. After the Revolution, the Carteret family was compensated for the loss of the land by the new American government. <br />
<br />
In the mid-1720s, South Carolinians began to migrate into the Cape Fear River area. It began with small farmers looking for new land as the settlement of the South Carolina coastal area spread north. That was quickly followed by planters who began to accumulate large tracts of land for pine plantations that provided the lumber and naval stores for Britain’s expanding Navy. The South Carolinians also brought their slaves. Eventually, rice plantations developed. But the northern part of Carolina resembled Virginia, used Virginia ports and Virginia money while the southern part with its plantation culture resembled the Low Country of South Carolina. By the 1730s a steady stream of immigrants were beginning to flow into North Carolina. Welsh settlers moved in along the northeast Cape Fear River early in that decade. In 1732, Highland Scots began to move into the Cape Fear backcountry. Cape Fear was navigable by seagoing vessels for over twenty miles upstream. At that point it was necessary to disembark at Brunswick Town and again at Wilmington. But the arriving Highlanders preferred the Wilmington site because it placed them closer to the backcountry. After landing, they transferred their belongings to longboats, canoes, and rafts and made their way up the Cape Fear River. Ninety miles upstream, at the site of present-day Fayetteville, they debarked for the last time and built their homesteads.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z5b4sCgKgGU/UDvenLOlrcI/AAAAAAAAAcI/Z6QFSXOZhrA/s1600/NC%2Bfrontier%2Bdevelopment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z5b4sCgKgGU/UDvenLOlrcI/AAAAAAAAAcI/Z6QFSXOZhrA/s400/NC%2Bfrontier%2Bdevelopment.jpg" height="190" width="367" /></a></div>For almost eighty years, most of the population of North Carolina was contained in the Coastal Plains area. Then in 1743, the Iroquois sold their remaining claim to the Shenandoah Valley to the Virginia Colony for 200 pounds in gold at the Treaty of Lancaster. This gave rights to colonists to use the <i>Great Warrior’s Trail</i>, also known as <i>Indian Road</i>. It extended the Great Wagon Road, which really at this time was more of a trail, through Shenandoah into the backcountry region of North Carolina along the Alleghany Mountains, eventually passing through Charlotte and on into Camden, South Carolina and Augusta, Georgia. This brought not just new immigrants from Europe, but also many of the descendants of colonists in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia in search of new lands. As the established colonies to the north had grown in population, land had become scarce and expensive. The eastern slope of the Alleghanies was rapidly being populated, as was the upper Piedmont area along the Virginia border. The settlements in the Up Country of South Carolina were also experiencing a flood of new immigrants who pushed toward the North Carolina border. <i>The Great Awakening</i> had swept across Europe and had arrived in the American colonies bringing with it, not only a diversity of Protestant religions, but also a new way of thinking about the relationship between Church and State and power over the individual. So there were Lutherans and Reformers, Quakers, Presbyterians, Moravians, Baptist and Anabaptist. As traffic increased, so did commerce which caused towns to spring up along the migration path. However, most of the Piedmont settlers were small farmers who grew corn, wheat and tobacco; raised cattle, hogs; built gristmills, sawmills and tanneries. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1bH1QHX7Lkw/UDvfGS0ibbI/AAAAAAAAAcU/6KsFbiVcvu4/s1600/1729-50%2BNC%2Bcounty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1bH1QHX7Lkw/UDvfGS0ibbI/AAAAAAAAAcU/6KsFbiVcvu4/s400/1729-50%2BNC%2Bcounty.jpg" height="400" width="256" /></a></div>The influx of new settlers into the colony drove the creation of new counties as the frontier was pushed westward across the Piedmont. Anson County was the first to be created on the border between North and South Carolina since Bladen had been carved out of New Hanover in 1734, fourteen years earlier. On <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr04-0272"><b>September 29, 1748</b></a>, a petition was presented to the North Carolina Governor’s Council proposing its creation and laying out the boundaries, <i>“divided and distinguished from Bladen County by little Peedee River to the head of the main branch thereof and then by a line to be run equal distance from Haw River and Great Peedee River and until another county be erected to the westward or northward of this new county all the inhabitants to the westward of the aforementioned dividing line shall belong and appertain to Anson County.”</i> The petition also gives us an idea of the population density in this vast geographic area as <i>”between two and three hundred white tithables”</i> and states the nearest courthouse in Bladen was more than <i>”one hundred miles distant from the nearest inhabitants of Peedee; and that at some seasons of the year, the roads between are very bad, if not impracticable.”</i><br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>Some time around the beginning of 1736, Burlingham Rudd would have completed his seven year sentence and been released from his indenture. How those seven years were spent and the impact they had on the remainder of his life will have to be left to our imagination. What we do know is that Burlingham came from, by all indications, a middle-class family. He was literate. He was trained as a butcher. His presumed namesake was rector of St. Andrew Church in Holt, Thomas Burlingham. There’s indication that his maternal grandfather was also clergy. And the details of how he stole the horse off of Poringland Common and was caught trying to sell it, indicate he was not a very experienced criminal. What impact would this experience have had on a twenty-one year old who had come from those circumstances and been sentenced to seven years of indenture to the South Carolina colony? No doubt it was a life changing experience. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>The first record that we do find for Burlingham after his transportation to South Carolina is the October 27, 1745 baptism of his three children in the <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/registerbookforp00prin/registerbookforp00prin_djvu.txt"><b>Prince Frederick’s Parish register book</b></a>. It can tell us some things and raise questions about others. <br />
<br />
For example, at the time of baptisms Martha was seven years old, born March 1, 1738, Burlingham Jr. was four years old, born October 13, 1741, and Walter was two years old, born March 20, 1743. Based on Martha’s birth year, it appears Burlingham married soon after his liberty was restored, within about a year. Martha appears to be his first born child, but that name does not appear as a family name in the parish register records back in Norfolk, England, so we have no way of knowing if she was someone’s namesake. He named his second child, Burlingham, which appears to be after himself and the third child, Walter, after his father. This record indicates that the family consisted of two parents and three children in 1745. Noticeably absent from the list of children is George Lounsdell, who has long been speculated to have also been a son of Burlingham and Elizabeth, and there are some possible reasons why he is not listed.<br />
<br />
Having all their children baptized on the same day begs the question ... why? And why were the children baptized and not Burlingham and Elizabeth? I can only guess. On one hand, they may have already been baptized as infants by the Anglican Church, that was the tradition. On the other hand, then why wait so long to baptize the children? My guess is that Burlingham and Elizabeth Rudd weren’t necessarily adherents to the Church of England or their children would have already been baptized according to that tradition. I would guess the motivation for the baptisms was the pending migration into the wilderness of the North Carolina frontier and not wanting to expose their children to the dangers that lurked there without first making sure their souls were secure in the afterlife. The baptisms were in 1745 and the land grant in North Carolina was registered in 1749, perhaps George Lounsdell was born during those years or after they had arrived in North Carolina. My guess is Burlingham and Elizabeth left South Carolina shortly after the baptisms, and I think it is a safe assumption that the family migrated to that land on Jones Creek years before the application for the grant was made.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9Bgw4roiLgc/UDvgEzjBZrI/AAAAAAAAAcg/a9zkdTHbAls/s1600/Prince%2BFrederick%2Bformation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9Bgw4roiLgc/UDvgEzjBZrI/AAAAAAAAAcg/a9zkdTHbAls/s400/Prince%2BFrederick%2Bformation.jpg" height="374" width="360" /></a></div>The location of the chapel where the baptisms took place also tells us the general location where they were living at the time. In 1706, the South Carolina Assembly passed the Church Act for the establishment of religious worship according to the Church of England and building Anglican churches. It divided the province into ten parishes, one of which was in Craven County named St. James Santee. As the parish became more populated, in 1721 Prince George, Winyah Parish was established out of St. James Santee. It stretched from the Santee River on the southwest to the Cape Fear River on the northeast; the Atlantic Ocean on the east and as far as was inhabited on the west. As the population spread further inland from the coastal area, Prince Frederick’s Parish was carved out of Prince George in 1734. It encompassed the upper Pee Dee River area to the North Carolina line. The boundary lines of the parishes determined the service area of the church. So those living within the boundaries of Prince Frederick’s would have registered their marriages, baptisms and deaths in that parish’s register. Unfortunately, the parish register for Prince George did not survive to tell us if Burlingham and Elizabeth’s marriage record was recorded in the old parish, but the fact that the baptismal records are in the new parish, indicates they lived within the boundaries of Prince Frederick’s. The historical marker for Prince George and Prince Frederick’s is located at the dividing line between the two parishes near Dunbar, South Carolina on Brown’s Ferry Road. So even though we have no information telling us how and where Burlingham Rudd spent his seven years of indenture, it’s very likely the years following and until the family migrated to Anson Co., North Carolina were spent in this area of South Carolina. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X_6qc3yKmbo/UDvgUGLY6II/AAAAAAAAAcs/QT_a2C3vxd4/s1600/BR1%2Bgrant%2Bentry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X_6qc3yKmbo/UDvgUGLY6II/AAAAAAAAAcs/QT_a2C3vxd4/s400/BR1%2Bgrant%2Bentry.jpg" height="201" width="400" /></a></div>In October 1748, Burlingham registered his land claim for 300 acres on Jones Creek at the land office in Bladen Co., North Carolina. This entry tells us that the family migrated between the baptisms in October 1745 and this entry in October 1748 and it tells us something else. The land allotment system in place at the time was a fifty acre headright for every person moving into the colony. In the baptisms we had three children and two parents, a total of five people. In this entry we have 300 acres which indicates there were six members of the family by October 1748. The sixth person is likely, George Lounsdell. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fr5Cm_ykbwo/UDvghiPWbZI/AAAAAAAAAc4/iTRaC-MacUw/s1600/BR1%2Bwarrant.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fr5Cm_ykbwo/UDvghiPWbZI/AAAAAAAAAc4/iTRaC-MacUw/s400/BR1%2Bwarrant.jpg" height="229" width="400" /></a></div>After Burlingham registered his land claim, he was required to wait six months before a warrant could be issued to the surveyor. This was to insure that no one else had laid claim to the same land. At the end of six months the surveyor laid the boundaries for Burlingham’s 300 acres by marking the trees and listing the identifying landmarks on the warrant. That was followed by the issue of the land patent which laid out the conditions for retaining ownership of the tract. If those conditions weren’t met, the patent would be recalled and Burlingham would lose his claim. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LSqAEffDwMw/UEJN_ErSO7I/AAAAAAAAAd8/KyELHF-bzKA/s1600/BR1%2Bnc%2Bpatent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LSqAEffDwMw/UEJN_ErSO7I/AAAAAAAAAd8/KyELHF-bzKA/s400/BR1%2Bnc%2Bpatent.jpg" height="293" width="400" /></a></div>Not only were taxes levied annually per 100 acres, but there was also a requirement that the land was improved and cultivated within a set time frame. The taxes, of course, were intended to generate revenue for the provincial government but the improvement and cultivation requirement was intended to prevent the accumulation and hording of land which did nothing to improve the financial conditions of the colony, and North Carolina was a poor colony. Notice that the patent also requires the owner to notify the auditor within six months so the tax collector was made aware there was revenue to be collected. <br />
<br />
The distance from Georgetown in Prince Frederick’s Parish to the Morven area on the North Carolina border, near the location where Burlingham Rudd claimed his land, is approximately 125 miles up the Great Pee Dee River to the border. I would guess that by horseback, it was about a three or four day trip. So, since this wasn’t a long migration, I’d guess that Burlingham had already began the clear a homestead and built a first dwelling before the family moved to Jones Creek and, as I said, the family likely was living on the land for a while before he made the trip to the courthouse in Bladen to register his claim. Remember, the petition that formed Anson out of Bladen said the courthouse was over 100 miles away from the Pee Dee River settlement and the trail was often not passable in certain times of the year. That distance, too by horseback, would be about three days there and three days back under good conditions, about a week that he would be away from his family and they would be subject to the dangers of the forest. Neighbors were far and few between back then, when Anson was new and the Pee Dee River area was being settled. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_ydYBKJy62c/UDvgwi6btdI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/6S7PVZM2JAA/s1600/Anson%2BNC%2BPee%2BDee%2BRiver.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_ydYBKJy62c/UDvgwi6btdI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/6S7PVZM2JAA/s400/Anson%2BNC%2BPee%2BDee%2BRiver.jpg" height="246" width="367" /></a></div>I can just imagine how beautiful the wilderness was when the first family began their new lives. The views must have been striking with the fall line rapids and waterfalls to the east of the river and the virgin forest and rolling hills of the Piedmont to the north and west. Then there were the beast of the wilderness along with the wildlife and wildflowers. It was a pretty isolated area at the time they moved there but it must have looked like a paradise to Burlingham and Elizabeth and an adventure to the children. <br />
<br />
Henry William Elson wrote about all thirteen colonies in his <a href="http://www.usahistory.info/southern/North-Carolina.html"><b>History of the United States of America</b></a> and he had this to say about North Carolina.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HMtZ_Ec-C7A/UDvg26X2EuI/AAAAAAAAAdc/GmrwtLzhJ2Y/s1600/Uwharrie%2BNational%2BForest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HMtZ_Ec-C7A/UDvg26X2EuI/AAAAAAAAAdc/GmrwtLzhJ2Y/s400/Uwharrie%2BNational%2BForest.jpg" height="274" width="203" /></a></div><blockquote>Of all the thirteen colonies, North Carolina was the least commercial, the most provincial, the farthest removed from European influences, and its wild forest life the most unrestrained. Every colony had its frontier, its borderland between civilization and savagery; but North Carolina was composed entirely of frontier. The people were impatient of legal restraints and averse to paying taxes; but their moral and religious standard was not below that of other colonies. Their freedom was the freedom of the Indian, or of the wild animal, not that of the criminal and the outlaw. Here truly was life in the primeval forest, at the core of Nature's heart. There were no cities, scarcely villages. The people were farmers or woodmen; they lived apart, scattered through the wilderness; their highways were the rivers and bays, and their homes were connected by narrow trails winding among the trees. Yet the people were happy in their freedom and contented with their lonely isolation. </blockquote><br />
Burlingham Rudd was twenty-one years old when he arrived in Charleston, South Carolina and he was about thirty when he completed his indenture. In October 1745 when he baptized his children, he was thirty-seven years old and had three kids who needed a future that would not be found in Charleston. And considering the cultural and societal conditions in Charleston at the time, this move was also the opportunity for a fresh start for himself and Elizabeth as well. We’re actually very fortunate that he didn’t change his name like many others who were sentenced to transportation and then disappear into colonial history. The Rudd family was among the original founders of the Pee Dee River settlement. Members of the family will remain in Anson for at least the next 80 years. <br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-49773161256272916902014-01-04T05:00:00.000-06:002015-10-28T12:42:19.821-05:00French and Indian War ~ Anglo-Cherokee War ~ Pontiac’s War<center><b>~ Join or Die ~<br />
1754 - 1766</b></center><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Czv1LOLOtKA/TdmR0AxBsII/AAAAAAAAAHk/lifeVkQ3mAM/s1600/JoinOrDie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="163px" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Czv1LOLOtKA/TdmR0AxBsII/AAAAAAAAAHk/lifeVkQ3mAM/s400/JoinOrDie.jpg" width="223px" /></a></div>On May 9, 1754, <i>the Pennsylvania Gazette</i> published this political cartoon which accompanied an editorial about the “disunited state” of the British colonies which inhibited “…speedy and effectual measures for our common defense and security; while our enemies have the very great advantage of being under one direction, with one council and one purse... ”. <br />
<br />
The publication was intended to provide support for <i>The Albany Plan</i> which was a proposal, unanimously adopted, by the Albany Congress that would create a centralized government structure among the colonies that included a President General appointed by the Crown and a Grand Council chosen by representatives of the various colonial assemblies. <i>The Albany Plan</i> was an attempt to organize the colonies into a union for their common defense against the encroachment of the French into the upper Ohio Country. <br />
<br />
The author of the cartoon and editorial, as well as, the plan was Benjamin Franklin. <br />
<br />
A copy of <i>The Albany Plan</i> was presented to each of the colonial assemblies and, being suspicious of creating a central taxing authority, it was promptly rejected. <br />
<br />
A copy of <i>The Albany Plan</i> was sent to the Board of Trade and Plantations in London and because many in the British government were already suspicious of some of the strong-willed colonial assemblies and weren’t keen on the idea of consolidating power in the colonies, it was promptly rejected. <br />
<br />
On May 28, 1754, a young Lieutenant Colonel in the British army was involved in a short skirmish at Fort Necessity resulting in the first shot in the opening battle of the French and Indian War. <br />
<br />
His name was George Washington. <br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
At the conclusion of the King George’s War (1744-1748), as it is known in America, known in Europe as the War of the Austrian Succession, the <i>Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle</i> was signed. The details of the <i>Treaty</i> were mostly negotiated between Britain and France and, basically, returned the world to the status quo of 1744. New England colonials were not happy. In 1745, they had captured the mighty fortress at Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, not only without the assistance of the British Navy, but with the adamant refusal of the British government to assist them in any way … and now the British Empire gave it back to France. Since 1740, when the fort had been completed, French privateers had used it as a base to prey upon New England fishermen working the Grand Banks. In 1745, a small force of New Englanders under William Pepperrell, with the support of Sir Peter Warren and a fleet of merchantmen, attacked Louisbourg and forced its surrender. Now, it was being returned in exchange for Madras, India. The <i>Treaty</i> also failed to resolve the growing colonial and commercial tensions between the British colonists and the French traders along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. The struggle for North America would continue in North America while Europe pretended peace had finally come to their continent. <br />
<br />
About thirty-five years earlier, the Queen Anne’s War (1702–13) as it is known in America, in Europe as the War of the Spanish Succession, had been fought by colonials in New York and New England along the Canadian border against French forces and their native Indian allies. As a result, the British had captured Port Royal which brought French Arcadia under British control as the province of Nova Scotia. But under the <i>Treaty of Utrecht</i> which brought an end to this war, the British had allowed France to retain control of Cape Breton Island, upon which they had promptly built Fort Louisbourg creating a French base for the launch of attacks against New England fishermen. <br />
<br />
Also in North America, France ceded to Great Britain all claim to the Hudson’s Bay Company, Rupert’s Island and Newfoundland. As a condition of the <i>Treaty</i>, France was required to recognize British dominion over the Iroquois and commerce with the “Far Indians” was to be open to traders of all nations. This part of the <i>Treaty</i> should not be underemphasized. The British and Iroquois had a strong relationship and as you’ll see, as far as native culture is concerned, the Iroquois had dominion over the Ohio Country. But France wasn’t inclined to share the grip they had on the fur trade. <br />
<br />
About sixteen years before the end of the Queen Anne’s War, the New England colonists and their native Indian allies had fought the French Canadians during King William’s War (1689-97) as a part of the War for the Grand Alliance (1688–97) which resulted in Great Britain’s failure to capture Quebec and France’s failure to capture Boston. <br />
<br />
Therefore, by 1748, New England colonials had had more than their share of conflicts with the French along their borders for about fifty years. They had rallied to the side of the British government in conflict after conflict and when the British government did not come to their assistance, they took matters into their own hands and emerged triumphant, only to have the British government trade their conquests for Madras, India. <br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EoDAfQdWYNQ/TdmK_3e1DPI/AAAAAAAAAG4/hrFyT7_9LY0/s1600/Eastern+Indians+prior+to+colonization.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; height: 156px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; width: 212px;"><img border="0" height="165px" j8="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EoDAfQdWYNQ/TdmK_3e1DPI/AAAAAAAAAG4/hrFyT7_9LY0/s200/Eastern+Indians+prior+to+colonization.jpg" width="200px" /></a></div>The Iroquois Indians were an association of several tribes of indigenous people located mostly in present-day central and upstate New York and into Canada. Around the 16th century they united into an association known as the Iroquois League, also known as the Iroquois Confederacy, including Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca nations. They are often referred to as the Five Nations. After the Tuscarora War (1711-15) in North Carolina, the Tuscarora returned to their ancestral home and joined the League in 1722 which then became known as the Six Nations. <br />
<br />
<br />
Beginning in the early 1600s, the Iroquois traded mostly with Dutch and British merchants, a few traded with the French. They gave beaver and other hides to European traders and in turn they received muskets, iron tools, blankets, glass beads and other items of their interests. By mid-1600s, the Iroquois had hunted and trapped most of all the fur-bearing animals in their homeland and turned their eyes towards the rich hunting grounds of their neighboring tribes in the Ohio Country. The natives in that area had been weakened by diseases and had lost many of their numbers. Between 1650 and 1700 the Iroquois waged a war (The Beaver Wars) of extermination against the tribes in Ohio Country and claimed the land for the Iroquois Confederacy as the Beaver Hunting Ground. Most the hunters and warriors did not live there but came primarily to hunt deer and beaver and returned home after a hunting expedition. The Erie Indians were the exception and lived along the south shore of Lake Erie from New York to about present-day Cleveland, Ohio. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7N1Bmhmb_RY/TdmLuo8n9xI/AAAAAAAAAG8/w_eRzBeeeP0/s1600/Nanfan%2BTreaty%2BMap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200px" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7N1Bmhmb_RY/TdmLuo8n9xI/AAAAAAAAAG8/w_eRzBeeeP0/s400/Nanfan%2BTreaty%2BMap.jpg" width="257px" /></a></div>During King William’s War (1689-97), the Iroquois Confederation allied with the British against the French and in 1701 they deeded their Beaver Hunting Ground in the <i>Nanfan Treaty</i> to the acting colonial governor of New York. The <i>Treaty</i> was ratified in 1726. Of course, the vast majority of the Beaver Hunting Ground was located in New France and the French did not recognize the treaty as valid. That same year, 1701, the Iroquois signed a peace treaty with France known as the <i>Great Peace of Montreal</i>. During the next war, the Queen Anne’s War, the Iroquois pretty much stayed neutral even though Queen Anne had them at Court in an effort to secure their assistance. <br />
<br />
Between 1721-22, the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia renewed the <i>Covenant Chain</i> with the Iroquois in the signing of a new <i>Treaty of Albany</i> which recognized the Blue Ridge as the boundary between the Iroquois and the Virginia Colony. But by 1730, new settlers began to move beyond the Blue Ridge into the Shenandoah Valley to which the Iroquois objected and were told that the agreed upon demarcation line was intended to prevent them from trespassing east of the Blue Ridge, but not to prevent English from moving west of the Blue Ridge. The Iroquois were on the verge of war with the Virginia Colony when Governor Gooch, acting on behalf of the Crown, in 1743 agreed to pay them 100 pounds sterling for any settled land in the Valley that was claimed by them. The next year, the <i>Treaty of Lancaster</i> was signed whereby the Iroquois sold to Virginia all of their remaining claims on the Shenandoah Valley for 200 pounds gold. <br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BeG_cPjqNnU/TdmMKvxQ8BI/AAAAAAAAAHE/w0I6QODskmo/s1600/NewFrance%2B1750.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="287px" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BeG_cPjqNnU/TdmMKvxQ8BI/AAAAAAAAAHE/w0I6QODskmo/s400/NewFrance%2B1750.jpg" width="400px" /></a></div>However, the French had a different opinion about who held the lands west of the Allegany Mountains. As you can see by this 1750 map of New France; their claim stretched from Louisiana to the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. They had secured the western boundary of the British colonies with a cordon of fortifications, especially along the upper northern area. As far as they were concerned, the vast landmass between Louisiana and Canada belonged to them. Even though colonization was not as successful for France as it had been for England, France argued that the area was majority populated by French. They argued that their countrymen had been the original explorers who navigated the area, and therefore, they had the right of discovery. They did not recognize the Iroquois’ claim of domination over the Beaver Hunting Ground and were negotiating treaties with the powerful Delawares and Shawnees on the frontiers of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The French were not going to allow expansion westward of the British colonies and apparently had even greater plans for pushing the British colonists off the continent. The British colonials perceived real and impending danger. Those living on the frontier were becoming alarmed. <br />
<br />
From the <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=tjDN4rsduUwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=related:ISBN1570032556&rview=1#v=onepage&q&f=false"><b><i>”The history of South Carolina under the royal government, 1719-1776,</i></b></a> by Edward McCrady, page 300-302<br />
<blockquote>The colony of Georgia was now interposed between the Carolinians and the Spaniards in Florida; but her western frontier was still exposed to the claims of France. Firmly established in Canada and Louisiana, France was rapidly connecting these extreme points by a chain of military posts, stretching through the entire length of the Mississippi Valley, and having formed close commercial alliances with several of the most powerful tribes of the continent, her triumph was apparently, beyond peradventure, not far distant. Her design was to secure the possession of the great valley, and having circumscribed the English colonists within their narrow belt along the Atlantic, when everything was ready for the blow, to fall upon them, with the hordes of their savage confederates, and exterminate or drive them from the soil. <br />
<br />
In an old map, constructed previous to 1741, by M. de L’Isle, geographer to the French King, a definite line is traced, marking the eastern limit of France’s assumed domain on the American continent. It set out from a point near Charlestown, ran northeastward to Cooper River, - which it crossed some sixty miles from the ocean, - passed the Santee one hundred miles from its mouth, turned northwestward along the eastern bank of that stream till it reached the Catawba, pursued this tributary into the Alleghany Mountains, followed that course around the head waters of the Potomac to the Susquehanna, - crossing it at a point some sixty-five miles from the head of the Chesapeake Bay, - ran thence up the eastern bank to the North Branch, and along that stream to the Mohawk, - which it crossed some fifty miles above its junction with the Hudson, - thence to a point near the lower extremity of Lake Champlain, and along the channel of that water to the mouth of the Sorrell, by which it finally passed to the River St. Lawrence. The sandy strip of country lying between this imaginary defiant line of frontier and the ocean was all that was allowed England for her portion of the continent. Through all the immense territory between this strip and the Mississippi, English and French emissaries were alike alternately stirring up the Indians against each other. </blockquote><center>~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
Now the stage was set. Great Britain had purchased the Beaver Hunting Ground located in Ohio Country from the Iroquois. The area was rather thinly populated by native Indians since the Iroquois had driven them out. Those tribes still in the area were under the Iroquois’ dominion, for example the Delawares, with whom the French were negotiating. So, before the ink had time to dry on the <i>Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle</i> in 1748, the Earl of Halifax, who had just attained the position as head of the Board of Trade and Plantations, convinced the Crown to deed land to two new land speculation companies, the <i>Ohio Company</i> and the <i>Loyal Company</i>, both based in Virginia. During the mid-1740s, a sprinkling of British colonists had made their way across the Allegany Mountains and settled on the frontier, businessmen from Great Britain had moved into the region and set up trading posts among the natives and were competing with the French for the lucrative fur trade. The French had strong influence over the native populations in their near-area, but it was beginning to wane as the Indians were developing a trade relationship with the British. On the North American continent, the French claimed more land mass, but the British had more population. Tensions were high. <br />
<br />
The group known as the <i>Loyal Company</i> was organized in 1749. Among the investors were Peter Jefferson, who was the father of Thomas Jefferson, Joshua Fry, a surveyor and map maker among other things, Reverend James Maury and Thomas Walker, the first being Thomas Jefferson’s teacher and the latter will become his guardian, and Thomas Meriwether, who was the grandfather of Meriwether Lewis of Lewis & Clark. This group acquired an 800,000 acre patent located on the southern border of Virginia in what is present-day southeastern Kentucky, which they renewed twice, but even though they completed the surveys, the coming war interrupted the process and their plans never got off the ground. <br />
<br />
However, the <i>Ohio Company of Virginia</i> which organized in 1747 was more successful. Among the members were Thomas Lee, the namesake for Leesburg, Virginia, Nathaniel Chapman, a prominent physician, John Mercer and his son, George Mercer, Lawrence Washington and Augustine Washington, Jr., who were the brothers of George Washington, as well as, the Duke of Bedford, Virginia Lt. Governor Robert Dinwiddie, and John Hanbury, who was a wealthy London merchant. This group acquired 200,000 acres of land near the headwaters of the Ohio River in what is now western Pennsylvania. The patent was awarded in 1749 and made with the conditions that one hundred families would be settled within seven years, that the Company would build a fort at their own expense to protect the settlers and the claim, and that the settlement would establish a regular trade with the local natives in order to maintain friendly relations. To that end, in 1752, the Company signed a treaty of friendship and permission at Logstown with the main tribes in the region. Then, from 1748-50, they hired Thomas Cresap who opened a trading fort and founded Oldtown, Maryland at the foot of the eastern climb up the Cumberland Narrows. He was was contracted to blaze a trail over the mountains to the Monogahela River as the first step in building a wagon road. In 1750, the Company hired Christopher Gist to explore the Ohio Valley and identify lands for potential settelment which he did in 1750, 1751 and 1753. He traveled far and kept a journal of his experiences and when he returned his report, the Company identified the an area in western Pennsylvania and present-day West Virginia for settlement. <br />
<br />
On July 1, 1752, Marquis Duquesne, the governor in New France, ordered the construction of new forts to secure control of the Ohio Country and in 1753 sent 1,500 French soldiers into the upper Ohio Valley to established Fort Presq'-isle in modern day Erie, Pennsylvania, Fort Le Boeuf in modern day Waterford, Pennsylvania and Fort Manchault in modern day Franklin, Pennsylvania. Back in England, the Earl of Halifax charged the French had broken the 1713 <i>Treaty of Utrecht</i>, which acknowledged the Iroquois as British subjects, therefore, their land, even areas conquered by them were British. <br />
<br />
The Ohio Company’s land patent was technically under the control of the Virginia colony because it fell within the chartered boundaries. Robert Dinwiddie, a member of the Company, as well as, Lt. Governor of Virginia first sent Major George Washington to Fort Le Boeuf with a letter of remonstrance to Captain Legardeur de Saint-Pierre, the French commander. He was joined by John Davidson as Indian interpreter, and Jacob Van Braam, who spoke the French language and Christopher Gist who acted as a guide, as well as four other men, two of them Indian traders. Forty-one days later they arrived at Fort Le Boeuf and handed the letter to Captain Saint-Pierre. Four days later, December 16, 1753, Saint-Pierre handed to Major Washington his sealed reply to Lt. Governor Dinwiddie and the party began their perilous journey back to Virginia. The mountains were covered with snow, the streams were swift and swollen and filled with ice, and much of the journey was on foot. They arrived back in Williamsburg on January 16, 1754. In addition to the letter, Washington reported on the reconnaissance he had gathered telling Dinwiddie that the French had swept south; he detailed the steps they had taken to fortify the area and their intention to fortify the confluence of the Allegheny and the Monongahela rivers. <br />
<br />
Lt. Governor Dinwiddie commissioned Major Washington a Lieutenant-Colonel, and placed him in chief command of two hundred troops to be raised to march to the Ohio River and build two forts before the French could descend the stream or its tributaries in the spring. The Governor sent an appeal to the other colonies for help. All hesitated except … North Carolina … whose Assembly immediately voted men and money, for the first time a colony put their money and their men in support of another colony beyond their boundaries for common defense. The other colonial assemblies became bogged down in the debate over the supremacy of parliament verses the rights of the colonists in regards to which group had the authority to levy taxes and direct the use of those funds; and on the frontier, there was competition for the Indian trade among the provincial governments. <br />
<br />
Thus, Benjamin Franklin’s political cartoon … “Join, or Die” … and his scathing editorial about the “disunited state” of the British colonies.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dySd2S2Vkc0/TdmM9Eoy_cI/AAAAAAAAAHM/2ZRMHxnzbjY/s1600/ForksOfOhio.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149px" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dySd2S2Vkc0/TdmM9Eoy_cI/AAAAAAAAAHM/2ZRMHxnzbjY/s400/ForksOfOhio.jpg" width="223px" /></a></div>Washington recommended the building of the first fort at the forks of the Ohio River and Captain Trent took a contingent of troops and went ahead to speed the construction while Washington remained in Alexandria recruiting. In early April, Washington left Alexandria with his small force, along the way he was intercepted by swift runners from the Half-King on the Monongahela with reports of the French movements toward the forks of the Ohio River. He reached Will’s Creek on April 20, 1754 and was met by a member of Trent’s Company with news that French Captain Contrecoeur had come down the Alleghany and not only taken possession of the unfinished fort that Trent’s troops had begun, but had finished it on a stronger plan and named it Fort Duquesne for the Governor of New France. <br />
<br />
By late May, Colonel Fry and his contingent of troops had reached Washington on the banks of the Youghiogheny River, within forty miles of Fort Duquesne. There they received a message from the Half-King warning the French were on the move, so Washington fell back across the Great Meadows and built a stockade that he named Fort Necessity. Christopher Gist, who lived nearby, reported tracks of Frenchmen within five miles of the Great Meadows. That night the Half-King sent a message saying a party of armed Frenchmen was lying in ambush about six miles away. Even though it was dark and rainy, Washington immediately set out with about forty men for the camp of the friendly Seneca Chief to enlist his help and together they sought the hiding place of their common foe. On May 28, when they met the enemy, Washington order this troops to fire and the enemy returned fire, the fight lasted about fifteen minutes. When it ceased, French Commander Jumonville and ten of his men were dead, one Virginian had been killed. <br />
<br />
Colonel Fry died on May 31 and Washington was promoted to Colonel. He spent the next few days fortifying his position, preparing for the French to attack. On June 9, the rest of the Virginia regiment arrived at the Great Meadows, bringing supplies and nine swivel guns. Washington had under his command now a total of 293 officers and men. Several days later about 100 men of Captain James MacKay’s Independent Company of regular British troops from South Carolina arrive but Washington’s attempt to retain his Indian allies was not successful. <br />
<br />
The South Carolina troops remained in the Great Meadows while Washington and the Virginians spent most of June opening a road from Fort Necessity to Gist’s Plantation in direction of the forks of the Ohio. When he received reports of a large force of French and Indians advancing from Fort Duquesne, Washington withdrew his men to the Great Meadows, arriving there on July 1.<br />
<br />
On the morning of July 3, a force of about 600 French and 100 Indians took up position in the woods. Rain fell all day and flooded the marshy ground. Both the British and the French and Indians took casualties, but the British suffered greater losses. At about 8 o’clock that evening, the French Captain, Louis Coulon de Villiers, commander and brother of Jumonville, requested a truce to discuss the surrender of Washington’s command. The British forces were allowed to withdraw with the honors of war, were allowed to keep their baggage and weapons, except for the swivel guns. On July 4, Washington and MacKay left Fort Necessity and marched back to Virginia. The French burned Fort Necessity to the ground and returned to Fort Duquesne. <br />
<br />
The French and Indian War had begun in North America. <br />
<br />
After the surrender of Washington at Fort Necessity, Lt. Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia pressed the British government for assistance to remove the French from Fort Duquesne and found them eager to advance a full war on the French in North America. What resulted was a disaster in the making, infamously known in American history as Braddock’s Defeat. On July 9, 1755, about 1,500 British and American troops from Virginia, Maryland, North and South Carolina were set upon by a force of 300 to 600 Indians including Ottawas, Miamis, Hurons, Delawares, Shawnees and Mingoes and about 30 French colonial troops on the Monongahela River at the fork of the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers near present-day Pittsburgh. Braddock attempted to fight European-style, while the French and Indians fought Indian-style. When the colonial militias fell behind the trees out of instinct to fight Indian-style, Braddock forced them back into European-style. When it was over the British command had lost twenty-six officers killed, thirty-seven wounded, 430 soldiers killed and 385 wounded, many had been shot by their own men in the confusion. The French and Indian losses were probably less that thirty killed and an unknown number of wounded. Most of the women and children who had been permitted to accompany the march were killed and scalped. Twelve prisoners were stripped naked and tortured to death throughout the night. <br />
<br />
The defeat of Braddock unleashed a relentless wave of French and Indian attacks on frontier settlements from Pennsylvania and Maryland to Virginia. Many of the settlers living on that frontier had recently arrived during the migration period that had brought the expansion of the North Carolina Piedmont and their experiences with the Indians thus far had not prepared them for the onslaught that was to come down upon them. The peaceful, non-violent Quakers had entered into a treaty with the Delawares, and now they were being murdered, scalped, kidnapped and tortured by those very same Indians. The tomahawk of the Shawnees was at work on the Virginia frontier. There are numerous accounts of the horrendous brutality that was brought down on their heads. One of those accounts you can find <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/06/sidneh-rosine-brown-and-george-fleming.html"><b>HERE</b></a>, of Sidnah Rosine, one of my ancestors who lived to tell her story, which I suspect was not that unusual except that she survived it. <br />
<br />
On May 8, 1756, Britain and France formally declared war against each other as the conflict grew world-wide and became the Seven Years’ War. <br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
Meanwhile, back in South Carolina, it was about the time of Governor Dinwiddie’s initial adventurer into the Ohio Country that Governor Glen of South Carolina was made aware of Dinwiddie’s attempt to secure a larger share of trade with the four southern tribes, Cherokee, Catawba, Muscogee/Creek and Chickasaw, by enticing them away from their dependence on South Carolina for their necessities of life. The South Carolina colony had a long standing relationship with the Cherokee, as well as, the Catawba. Governor Glen understood the importance of their trade with South Carolina, and more importantly it seems he understood how to manage the Cherokee. They had been on and off allies with the Carolinians during the 1711 Tuscarora War in North Carolina and the 1715 Yamasee War on the South Carolina/Spanish Florida border. <br />
<br />
Edward McCrady, in his <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=tjDN4rsduUwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=related:ISBN1570032556&rview=1#v=onepage&q&f=false"><b><i>”The history of South Carolina under the royal government, 1719-1776,</i></b></a> records on pages 303-4, the letter Governor Glen sent to Governor Dinwiddie. It not only describes how Glen has learned to manage the Cherokee, but also, gives us some insight into just how unprotected the Carolina frontier was at the time. All that stood between them and the Indians, on their western boundary, was a small Georgia colony on the Savannah River. <br />
<blockquote>“South Carolina,” he wrote, “is a weak frontier colony, and in case of an invasion by the French would be their first object of attack. We have not much to fear, however, while we retain the affections of the Indians around us; but should we forfeit that by any mismanagement on our part, or by the superior address of the French, we are in a miserable situation. The Cherokees alone have several thousand gunmen well acquainted with every inch of this province – their country is the key to Carolina. We have been greatly alarmed by the behavior of the Virginians in regard to the Cherokees. Few or no Indians are in treaty with Virginia. By long experience we have become thoroughly acquainted with their nature and inclinations, and have been so successful in managing them as to keep them steady to the British interest, notwithstanding the vigorous and persevering efforts of France to seduce them from us. We can see no good or wise policy in endeavoring to draw away these Indians form one of his Majesty’s provinces to another. We have been enabled to fix the affections of the four great nations around us. Let facts speak: they come when we send for them, and go when we bid them depart; they do whatever we desire them. They now perfectly understand the injustice of punishing the innocent for the guilty, and the necessity of punishing the latter in conformity to the treaties between them and us. And when, under any circumstances, a white man is killed in their country, the offender is sure to die, through the greatest of the nation. <br />
<br />
“When a people unacquainted with the nature of crimes and punishments are brought to deal with offenders on principles that guide, under similar circumstances, the most enlightened nations, may we not safely boast of having progressed a great way in the education of savages? All this we do aver to be truthful. What benefit, therefore, do you hope to gain for the common cause by sending so many pressing invitations to those nations, or the five of New York to come to Virginia? I will answer for their good behavior with my life if your province will let them alone. In my absence the Council of this colony wrote praying you not to intermeddle with out Indians. I have also requested the same, yet you have sent messages lately to the Catawbas and the Chickasaws inviting them to come and receive the presents sent over by the King.”</blockquote>Between 1753 and 1755, battles had broken out between the Cherokee and the Muscogee/Creek nations over disputed hunting grounds in North Georgia with the Cherokee emerging victorious. In 1753, Governor Glen of South Carolina agreed to build Fort Prince George in present-day Pickens County on two thousand acres of land opposite the Indian town of Keowee to serve as protection against the Creek Indians, as well as, a trading post for the Cherokee Lower Towns. Chief Old Hop, crippled King of the Cherokee, agreed to give Governor Glen all the land lying between the Cherokee nation and the existing white settlements which at the time extended no higher than Aiken and Lexington counties and two years later deeded the area to Governor Glen which became District Ninety-Six. <br />
<br />
At the outbreak of the French and Indian War, the Overhill Cherokee located on the Tennessee were attacked by the French-allied Shawnee and requested of Governor Glen to build a fort among them for protection and trade, so in 1756, Governor Glen began the building of Fort Loudon, in present-day Monroe County, Tennessee, a few miles downstream from the Cherokee capital Chota in an attempt to ensure their allegiance. The British representatives in the colonies were aware of attempts by French traders to sway the Overhills to their ally. Over many years French traders from Fort Toulouse in French Alabama had made numerous visits to the Overhills on their way to and from their fort on the St. Lawrence River. It is said that at the beginning of the French and Indian War, the Cherokee allied with the British, however, suspicions and tensions grew between them, misunderstandings and indignations perpetuated mistrust which resulted in the Cherokee switching sides and joining with the French before the end of the war. The Battle of Quebec in 1759 ended most of the fighting against the French in the British colonies of North America. By September 1760, fighting in Canada ended with English victories in Montréal, then Newfoundland. But that was not the case with the Indians. The timing of and causes for the switch of allegiance is difficult to determine. I think it was a case of gradual drifting of allegiances. It seems the Upper Towns flipped first, perhaps beginning with the Overhill Cherokees on the Tennessee. It seems the older, more moderate Cherokees in the Lower Towns were more British-leaning, perhaps because of long relationships and their attachment to the items they acquired through trade with the British; and the younger, more fundamentalist Cherokees were influenced by the French who were telling them that the British intended to make them slaves. There was a history of Indian slave trading in the colonies, so that played on their fears. No doubt the increased migration of new white settlers, pushing the frontier of the colonies further into Indians lands was a major factor also. <br />
<br />
On page 24 of her book, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYnet6iZEk0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=anson+county+nc+history&hl=en&ei=FsR7TYHyBYGBlAfoxJCaBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=anson%20county%20nc%20history&f=false"><b><i>”History of Anson County, North Carolina-1750-1976”</i></b></a>, Mary L. Medley tells us that Fort Dobbs, in present-day Rowan County, North Carolina, was built in 1756 as an outpost against the Cherokee. That same year, Governor Dobbs recommended another fort near the headwaters of the Catawba called Old Fort in present-day McDowell County, North Carolina. So, it seems that at least by that time, the threat from the Cherokee was a concern for North Carolinians. <br />
<br />
On page 22, Ms. Medley quotes for us from <i>The Colonial Records</i> an account of a meeting in Salisbury, North Carolina held on May 26-27, 1756 between chief justices and King Hagler of the Catawbas with fifteen of his warriors. King Hagler says:<br />
<blockquote>The Cherokees, we and the white People have been brothers and I desired that the path between them might be kept clear but the Cherokees have been playing the Rogue at which I am terribly concerned. We will stand by our brethren the English or go down to the grave with them. Mine is a small nation yet are brave men, and will be fast friends to their brothers the white people as long as the sun endures.</blockquote>On page 23, Ms. Medley tells us that at the Salisbury Conference, King Hagler also made an interesting plea for the life of a white woman, who had been captured or delivered to him by the Cherokees. He said that she had been forced to do what she did and added, “I always hate to lose a woman for she may become the mother of sons.”<br />
<br />
On page 24, Ms. Medley quotes again from the <i>The Colonial Records</i>, this time a letter sent by Governor Dobbs of North Carolina to the Board of Trade in London on June 14, 1756:<br />
<blockquote>My Lords,<br />
There having been a conference with the Catawbas held at Salisbury by their King Hagler and some warriors with Chief Justice Henly which had been sent down to me I thought to send you a Copy of it occasioned by some of the Cherokees who were returning from Virginia after their disappointment of attacking the Shawnee, who carried off a white Woman from Virginia and tis’ supposed at her instigation carried off horses, saddles and plunder from the Back Settlers as they passed through the Province, but I suppose they would not supply them with provisions, and our Mad settlers want to repel force with force. But I have sent strict orders at their peril to make any opposition but save their lives. I shall order 100 weight of Gunpowder and 400 weight of lead to the Catawbas, our friends although, we have not 1000 weight in the Province and none can be unless the Government supplies us from England in case of war.</blockquote>In South Carolina, Governor Glen’s replacement, William Henry Lyttleton, arrived from England on June 1, 1756. His inability, or rather unwillingness, to “manage” the Cherokee as Governor Glen had done, brought down horrendous butchery upon the Carolina frontier. His brusque treatment of their chiefs was cause for concern for Lt. Governor William Bull and others of influence in the colony, and they were right to be concerned. An incident involving about twenty-six Cherokee chiefs held hostage at Fort Prince George by Governor Lyttleton, while awaiting his demand to surrender those Cherokee warriors responsible for raids resulting in the murder and kidnapping of white settlers, ended with an attempt by the Cherokee to free their chiefs that resulted in, not only the killing of the officer and wounding of the small contingent of soldiers at the fort, but also the killing of the hostages by those soldiers. <br />
<br />
A quote from a quote in <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=e9rdhTozA2YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=related:ISBN1570032556&rview=1#v=onepage&q&f=false"><b><i>”History of South Carolina, Volume 1”</i></b></a>, edited by Yates Snowden, Harry Gardner Cutler, on page 271:<br />
<blockquote>The horrible sequel in graphically told in Landrum’s “History of Upper South Carolina,” to this effect: “This unfortunate catastrophe maddened the whole Cherokee nation. The pleasant relations which had been so recently formed with these people were at the end. It is said that in the murder of these hostages, there was scarcely a family among the Cherokees that had not lost a friend or relative. The whole nation seized at once the hatchet, sang their war songs and, burning for revenge, fell upon the frontier settlements of Carolina, and with merciless fury set to work murdering men, women and children. The settlements, everywhere alarmed and terrified, lost no time in setting to the work of building forts and stockades. It is said that a line of forts extended along the borders of the outer settlements from Virginia to Georgia.</blockquote>As Indian trouble rose up to the north, south and west of Anson, the provincial government at Wilmington sent Hugh Waddell of Rowan County to defend the frontier about the same time that a smallpox outbreak struck the Catawbas and reduced their numbers by half, so they were not able to provide much assistance against the Cherokee. By 1758, there was a temporary relief from the Cherokee threat until an attack on settlers in the Catawba Valley that year which killed Robert Gillespie and the fourteen-year-old son of Richard Lewis. Then the Cherokee attacked Fort Dobbs in 1759 which resulted in about twelve Indians killed and two North Carolina militia killed, one who died from scalping. <br />
<br />
In late 1759 the Cherokees laid siege to Fort Loudoun, which had been built for the Overhills on the Tennessee. After five months, the fort surrendered under terms that allowed the garrison to return to South Carolina under a white flag. After spending the night on the bottoms of Cane Creek near Belltown, the garrison woke to find the Cherokee guides gone and their party surrounded. Cherokee warriors attacked at dawn, killing about twenty-five soldiers. Attakullakulla, a respected Cherokee leader, asked that John Stuart be spared, describing him as "a true friend." The Cherokees considered it a retaliation for an earlier killing of Cherokee hostages at Fort Prince George in South Carolina.<br />
<br />
From 1759-61, the Anglo-Cherokee War was unleashed on the Carolina frontiers, from the western border of South Carolina to the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in western North Carolina. After the incident at Fort Prince George unleashed the fury of the Cherokee on settlers in the Carolina frontier, General Jeffrey Amherst, the British commander in North America, sent Archibald Montgomerie with an army of 1,200 troops consisting of the Royal Scots and the 77th Regiment of Foot Highlanders to South Carolina and they razed the Cherokee Lower Towns including Keowee. When Montgomerie attempted to enter the Middle Towns territory at Echoee Pass, he was defeated and withdrew. After the siege at Fort Loudoun and the resulting ambush, in 1761, James Grant, who had replaced Archibald Montgomerie, enlisted the help of Catawba scouts and led an army of 2,600 men through Echoee Pass, and proceeded to raze about fifteen Middle Towns. Hugh Waddell and Griffith Rutherford of Rowan, and Hugh Montgomery of Salisbury accompanied Major Grant on this final push against the Cherokee that brought an end to the war. In November 1761, the Cherokee signed a peace treaty with Virginia and another with South Carolina. <br />
<br />
In 1762, King Hagler, head of the Catawbas, was murdered by a Shawnee while on a journey into the Waxhaw settlement with only one bodyguard. He was a friend of the Carolinians, and that is what likely got him killed.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZhNrsUHhIzQ/TdmOpQ-CwNI/AAAAAAAAAHU/YGu1uUroU9M/s1600/PontiasWar1763.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160px" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZhNrsUHhIzQ/TdmOpQ-CwNI/AAAAAAAAAHU/YGu1uUroU9M/s200/PontiasWar1763.jpg" width="200px" /></a></div>Then in May 1763, came Pontiac’s War, named after an Ottawa chief Obwandiyag, whom the English called Pontiac. It included tribes of the Great Lakes region, Ottawas, Ojibwas, Potawatomis and Hurons, and the tribes of eastern Illinois Country, Miamis, Weas, Kickappos, Mascoutens, and Piankashaws, As well as, tribes in the Ohio Country, Delawares, Shawnees, Wyandots, and Mingos. Two things they had in common; one, they had all been French allies, and two, they were very alarmed to learn that they were under British sovereignty after the French loss of North America. They discovered this when the British moved into Fort Detroit and began to fortify the other forts in the region that had been vacated by the French. It is said that the policies of General Amherst spurred the tensions that led to this war. Those polices included the practice of giving presents such as guns, knives, tobacco, and clothing to village chiefs, who in turn distributed these gifts to their people. By this process, the village chiefs gained stature among their people. This was an important aspect of the colonial-native relationship. Amherst considered it a form of bribery that was no longer necessary. The Indians regarded this change in policy as an insult and an indication that the British looked upon them as conquered people rather than as allies. Amherst also restricted the amount of ammunition and gunpowder that traders could sell to Indians because he did not trust them, especially after the Anglo-Cherokee War. <br />
<br />
Nine forts were captured by the Indians, eight of which were destroyed, about 2,500 white settlers were killed, others were captured and hundreds fled from the region. The war spread throughout the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley regions with the Indian’s coalition having many successes. However, Pontiac's alliance slowly began to disintegrate, first the Potawatomis dissociated themselves, and then Hurons broke their alliance. Little by little most of his Ojibwa and Ottawa followers also deserted him and scattered to their winter hunting grounds. The final peace was concluded at Fort Ontario July 23-25, 1766. <br />
<br />
It is said that Pontiac's acquiescence in peace set his former allies against him; his own village decided to banish him. He was murdered at the hand of a Peoria.<br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2XZ00vw8mKo/TdmPBT9lJlI/AAAAAAAAAHc/rah8QvzMVZU/s1600/NorthAmerica1762-83%2Bsml.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244px" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2XZ00vw8mKo/TdmPBT9lJlI/AAAAAAAAAHc/rah8QvzMVZU/s320/NorthAmerica1762-83%2Bsml.jpg" width="320px" /></a></div>The Peace of Paris or Treaty of 1763 was signed on February 10, 1763 in Paris between the kingdoms of Great Britain, France and Spain, with Portugal in agreement. It ended the world-wide Seven Years’ War and the North American French and Indian War. As you can see, the Crown created an Indian reservation the entire distance of the western colonial frontier from Florida to Quebec. I bet I can guess how those who had just lived through the worst nightmare imaginable felt about that ... can’t you?<br />
<br />
Then the Crown went even further. <i>The Royal Proclamation of 1763</i> was issued on October 7, 1763 by King George the Third. It is said that the intent of the proclamation was to organize Great Britain’s North American empire and to stabilize relations with the natives through regulation of trade, settlement and land purchases on the western frontier. Basically it said, any British subject living on the western side of the Proclamation Line was to move immediately, no compensation or assistance was offered, and if you didn’t ... you were on your on ... the Crown was not responsible for your safety. <br />
<br />
I think I can guess how that was received. Bet you can too. <br />
<br />
There are several points of view as to why the Crown made these decisions depending on who is doing the opining. But the one thing they didn’t succeed in doing, which should not have been a surprise, was stop the migration west of the colonists. As a matter of fact the demarcation line was moved twice with more treaties ... by the Crown. After the war, George Washington requested and received a 20,000 acre patent in Ohio Country for those who had served during the French and Indian War ... from the Crown. This land grant was located in parts of present-day West Virginia and Kentucky, very near the area that had been granted to the Loyal Company prior to the war. That land was eventually opened to Virginians. As settlers continued to venture west, Indians continued to attack attempting to push them back, most notably Lord Dunmore's War in 1774 between the Colony of Virginia and the Shawnee and Mingo nations. <br />
<br />
The back and forth attacks, skirmishes and raids between Indians and settlers on the frontier continued right up until the outbreak of the American Revolution. And by coincidence … or perhaps design … the very Indians to whom the Crown had granted a land reserve became their allies against the Patriots. <br />
<center>~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~</center><br />
With the exception of the attack on Fort Dobbs in 1759, the location of the Burlingham Rudd family on the Pee Dee River appears to have limited their exposure to the fighting between the British and the French and Indians during most of the war. No doubt the news of the fighting reached Anson, and no doubt there were neighbors who fought as part of the colonial militias from the Piedmont. However, I think that was not likely the case when it came to the Anglo-Cherokee War that followed. Not only was that conflict much closer to home, along the South Carolina and North Carolina border, but the Carolinians and the Cherokee had been trading partners for a long time up until the outbreak of the fighting between them. It seems that the trouble is traced back to the alliance with the Cherokee and the troops in Virginia against the Shawnee. For the Carolinians and the Cherokee, it must have been a terrorizing time for two cultures that had pretty much adapted to each other over the course of many decades.<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-89088843966326742272014-01-03T05:00:00.000-06:002020-02-18T15:17:45.362-06:00The Regulators' Movement and the Aftermath<center>
<b>~ 1764 – 1772 ~</b></center>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hXbeOe1Lri4/TfZz3h3cjfI/AAAAAAAAAH8/Seqfc_uNYnw/s1600/regulator%2Breenactor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180px" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hXbeOe1Lri4/TfZz3h3cjfI/AAAAAAAAAH8/Seqfc_uNYnw/s200/regulator%2Breenactor.jpg" width="200px" /></a></div>
If you have not heard of the Regulators' Movement in North Carolina, then you’re likely not aware that Burlingham Rudd was one of the signers of the <a href="http://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2012/10/anson-county-regulators-petition-9.html"><b>October 9, 1769 petition from the inhabitants of Anson County</b></a>. Through the previous two decades, our Rudd family in Anson County has witnessed the French and Indian War in their “backyard”, the Anglo-Cherokee War in their “front yard”, and now the Regulators' Movement comes to their “doorstep”. The story is a captivating episode in our history, not just our family, but for our Nation. The French and Indian War had ended in 1763 and the British had established the Royal Proclamation Line intended to keep the Americans inside their colonial boundaries and the Indians in their reserve along the colonial western frontier. In 1764, the British Parliament passed the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sugaract.htm"><b>Sugar Act</b></a> and the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/currencyact.htm"><b>Currency Act</b></a>. These taxing legislations prompted <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/adams_s.htm"><b>Samuel Adams</b></a> to create the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/coc.htm"><b>Committees of Correspondence</b></a>. Then in 1765, the British Parliament passed the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/quartering.htm"><b>Quartering Act</b></a> and the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/stampact.htm"><b>Stamp Act</b></a> which was met with the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sac65.htm"><b>Stamp Act Protests</b></a> across colonial America. In 1767, the British passed the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/townshend.htm"><b>Townsend Acts</b></a> which brought about the occupation of Boston by British troops and led to the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/massacre.htm"><b>Boston Massacre</b></a> in 1770. All these well known causes of the American Revolution were taking place at the same time the Regulators’ Movement was unfolding and ultimately extinguished in the North Carolina backcountry. <br />
<br />
There has been a lot written about the Regulators' Movement from various perspectives, some believe it to be the opening battle in the American Revolution, others disagree. Some believe the underlying cause was inspired by the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sons.htm"><b>Sons of Liberty</b></a> and their successful protest against the Stamp Act, others disagree. And then there are those who characterize the men who were the Regulators in a variety of ways from criminals to fools. Now, knowing our Burlingham Rudd’s name is among the list of signatures of men from Anson County, I wanted to know why. <br />
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
The published literature and the North Carolina colonial records tell the story. There were, of course, many noteworthy men on both sides of the Movement, but there were a few who were pivotal in the making of the uprising. <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/96/entry"><b>Edmund Fanning</b></a>, a native of Long Island, New York, moved to Hillsborough, North Carolina in 1759 after he received his law degree and began his political career at the age of twenty-two. He successfully cultivated a personal friendship with Governor William Tryon which helped him become a prestigious and profitable lawyer. He held many official offices in the provincial government of colonial North Carolina. In 1761 he was appointed Crown Attorney and had a probate law practice in Rowan County. He soon became the clerk of the Superior Court of Orange County. Next he was appointed the Associate Justice of North Carolina for an interim period when Judge Alfred Moore was temporarily deposed for publicly criticizing the Stamp Act. Many of his positions in the government were bought including a colonelcy in the militia. He was perhaps the most arrogant of all those who participated in the corruption and extortion that provided the fuel for the Movement. Fanning is recorded in history as saying he believed he was right to take all he could take. North Carolina was an English colony, and as such, the prevailing social order in Great Britain favored the aristocracy of the ruling/political classes over the layman of the working class. And Edmund Fanning had deep family roots in the English aristocracy. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/790/entry"><b>William Tryon</b></a> became the royal governor of North Carolina after the death of <a href="http://ncpedia.org/biography/governors/dobbs"><b>Governor Arthur Dobbs</b></a> in 1765. He was a professional soldier who rose through the ranks because he was “well-bred” and “well-married”, in spite of his lack of formal education. It is speculated he attained his position of governor due to his family relationship with Lord Hillsborough of the Board of Trade and Plantations. He was an ardent Anglican who imposed the Church of England as the official church of the colony and levied a vestry tax for the support of Anglican ministry. History has provided him with two faces. One is the efficient governor of North Carolina during trying times. The other is an aristocrat with high ambitions who put his self-interest first above the people. Given the times, both at likely true. His ultimate political ambition was to become governor of New York, which he achieved, a result of his brutal put-down of the Regulators’ Movement. <br />
<br />
Even though there were no elected, designated or self-appointed leaders among the Regulators, William Butler and James Hunter are often referred to as having leadership roles among the backcountry farmers who participated in the Movement. However, there were agitators primarily in the persons of <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/55/entry"><b>Herman Husband</b></a> and Rednap Howell. Husband had been a successful farmer in Maryland who had visited Orange County, North Carolina and was so impressed with the potential of the Piedmont for farming that he relocated to the Sandy Creek area in 1762 at the age of thirty-eight. Husband had been a member of the Anglican Church who became disenchanted and converted to Presbyterianism and then to Quakerism by the time he moved to North Carolina. After living in the community for a few years he became enraged at what he saw as injustice and exploitation by the wealthy land owners against their workers and farming families striving to acquire land. He co-organized the Sandy Creek Association in 1766 as a way to address these injustices but the movement failed after two years. In 1768, the movement rose again when the Piedmont farmers reorganized as the “Regulators” and Husband became their chief spokesman, political thinker and negotiator ... and the nemesis of Governor Tryon. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-revolution/4068"><b>Rednap Howell</b></a> was a musician, songwriter and school teacher who is believed to have relocated from Delaware to Orange County, North Carolina around 1750 when he was about twenty-one years old. During the uprisings he taunted those who he saw as corrupt and oppressors by publishing and circulating about forty ballads and broadsides set to music which mocked government officials, lawyers and merchants who made up the aristocrat-class which undermined the influence and control they had on the common people and rallied public opinion to the Regulators’ cause. He was also one of the men who led the Hillsborough Riot in September 1770. <br />
<br />
<center>
<i>When Fanning first to Orange came, He looked both pale and wan,<br />
An old patched coat upon his back, An old mare he rode on.<br />
Both man and mare wa’n't worth five pounds, As I’ve been often told,<br />
But by his civil robberies, He’s laced his coat with gold.</i><br />
</center>
<br />
What began as an attempt to exercise their constitutional rights as Englishmen, to assembly, and to petition their government for redress of grievances, was mischaracterized, intentionally or not, as an anti-government insurgency by Edmund Fanning. The Regulators’ claim was that corrupt officials appointed by the Governor and his Council were using their authority to extort unlawful fees for services and manipulating the tax collection system which often resulted in the illegal confiscation of property and the illegal incarceration of backwoodsmen. <br />
<br />
The colonial records show that several attempts were made by different groups of Regulators in their respective counties to petition the governor, as well as, the Hillsborough District Court and the Salisbury District Court in an effort to open dialogue, and attain fairness, not as anti-government rabble-rousers, or traitors as they would eventually be condemned, but as men who saw injustice and sought to set it right. <br />
<br />
The refusal of officials to heed what was a clarion call for equality and evenhandedness according to English law provided the spark that set the fire in the belly of the backwoodsmen and grew into a popular uprising involving several of the back counties of the Piedmont. As it escalated into intimidation on both sides, desperation grew on the part of the Regulators and sometimes pushed them into violent confrontations. And just when it appeared a compromise was in the works, fate took a cruel turn and the Movement became a War which ended with a showdown between about 2,000 Regulators gathered in the woods at Great Alamance Creek and 1,452 militia men, of which 1,068 were from eastern counties, in the <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/533/entry"><b>Battle of Alamance</b></a> on May 16, 1771 near Hillsborough in Orange County. <br />
<br />
The next day, <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/534/entry"><b>James Few</b></a>, a twenty-five year old Orange County farmer, was hung without trial. His body was left swinging beside the road to Hillsborough as a warning to others. A few weeks later, fourteen Regulators were tried and twelve were convicted, of that, six were hung. The other six were released in an effort that North Carolinians would think the government generous and forgiving. All were accused as traitors and outlawed, when Governor Tryon issued amnesty to those who took an oath of allegiance to the King, the choices were 1) leave North Carolina, 2) be shot on sight, 3) swear allegiance to the British Crown. In the two weeks that followed, 6,409 swore allegiance and an estimated 1,500 fled the colony. But, as we will see the distrust of far away, centralized power of government over citizens only grew stronger. <br />
<blockquote>
To quote historian Milton Ready: <i>“Backcountry freeholders had become Jeffersonian long before Jefferson in their belief that a government that exercises the least control over its people governs best.”</i></blockquote>
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
Those offices appointed by the King, or the Governor as the King’s representative, were considered gifts and the office holder’s property right. That included every office in the provincial government structure with the exception of the Lower House of the General Assembly which was elected by the freeholders. In addition, the Sheriff, who was selected by the Governor, was in charge of elections. The sheriff’s salary came from a percentage of the taxes he collected. Lawmaking moved up the chain beginning in the General Assembly, but the Lower House needed the approval of the Upper House. Then it went to the Governor’s Council and next to the Governor. Ultimately, the Board of Trade and Plantations was the final approval body which looked out for the Crown’s interests. The individual county courts which included the Justices, Clerk of Court and Sheriff were the sole unit of local government. Frequently, a man held a military commission and a public office; in fact, he might hold several offices at the same time. <br />
<br />
The results of this type of government structure ensured that a certain number of men in each county were in control of all the offices. The effectiveness of government depended too much on the personal honesty of the office holders. <br />
<br />
To quote Professor John S. Bassett, Trinity College, North Carolina, from <b>“The Regulators of North Carolina 1765-1771”</b>, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bassett95/bassett95.html"><b>page 149:</b></a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>“In many of the eastern counties this state of affairs seems to have worked well. But in the remote sections there is much evidence that the officers were selfish and mercenary, and that they were mutually leagued together to forward their own selfish ends. It was to try to clean out this Augean stable that Regulation had its existence.”</i></blockquote>
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
Great Britain accumulated a huge debt during the French and Indian War and turned her eyes to the colonies in America as a source of revenue, as well as, passing legislation that served to reduce her cost. The scarcity of hard currency in the colonies had always been a problem. But it was worsened when the British Parliament passed the Currency Act of 1764 which took control of the entire colonial currency system. It prohibited the issue of new bills and the reissue of existing bills in favor of hard currency based on the pound sterling. Rather than regulate the colonial monetary system, they chose to abolish it. No longer could the Assembly issue proclamation money. This made the trade deficit with Great Britain worse because now British merchants and bankers wanted debts paid in hard currency. The money shortage in the North Carolina backcountry was severe. Banks did not exist and there was not a consistent monetary system, not just in North Carolina, but throughout colonial America. The lack of ports on the east coast of the colony was partly the reason for the economic situation, but even if ports were available, there were no roads for backcountry farmers to take their commodities to port in order to maximize their profits. From time to time, the legislative body had issued proclamation money, but this money often came with restrictions concerning how it could be used. It might be used to purchase land, but not pay debts to merchants. It wasn’t used to pay taxes but might be used for legal fees, and it very often wasn’t accepted outside of the North Carolina colony. Up until this point in time, creditors were paid mostly in commodities. Those commodities were kept in warehouses and warehouse receipts were traded as a form of currency. The backcountry was also warehouse poor. <br />
<br />
The farmers in the backcountry grew and raised what they needed to support their families, often using the barter system among their neighbors, few kept hard currency on hand. If they needed hard currency, they usually borrowed from neighbors and most areas had someone who was a lender. Professor John S. Bassett gives us an example of how dishonest county sheriffs took advantage of the situation and sometimes used the shortage of hard currency as a pretext to confiscate personal property for payment of taxes, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bassett95/bassett95.html"><b>page 151</b></a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>When the sheriff would come unexpectedly to the taxpayer, the latter would propose to get the money if the officer would accompany him to the home of this neighborhood banker. The officer usually refused to do this and proceeded to distrain on some property, taking a fee of 2s. 8d. for the same. The taxpayer would then hasten to his neighbor's, secure the needed money, and hurry after the sheriff. That officer would take a different route than the one he had promised to take, and the luckless pursuer would arrive in Hillsboro in time to see his property sold to some friend of the officer's for much less than its value. The Regulators charged that officers played into each others hands for this purpose, and that there were men in Hillsboro who had made large sums by dealing in such business.</i></blockquote>
The first recorded incident that seemed to foretell things to come was in <a href="http://www.enfieldnc.org/history.htm"><b>1759 in Enfield, Granville District.</b></a> In January 1759, a group of backwoodsmen seized Lord Granville's land agent, Francis Corbin, in Edenton and brought him to Enfield. There they forced Corbin to give bond to return illegal fees which had been collected. On May 14, 1759, a group of citizens in Enfield expressed the same sentiments against British tyranny. Several of the "rioters" were arrested and jailed. However, they were soon released when an irate group of citizens broke into the jail and freed them.<br />
<br />
Then in 1764, groups of citizens in Anson, Orange and Granville counties banded together to create a number of local disturbances which prompted a response from the Board of Trade and Plantations with orders to publish <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr06-0359"><b>a proclamation by the King</b></a> strictly forbidding the collection of illegal fees.<br />
<br />
In Mecklenburg County in 1765, there was an incident known as the <a href="http://www.landmarkscommission.org/Morrill%20Book/CH2.htm"><b>Sugar Creek War</b></a>. Farmers led by Thomas Polk attacked John Frohock and six surveyors on a tract of land said to be patented to absentee landlords, Henry Eustace McCulloch and George A. Selwyn, who had been partners in land speculation with former Governor Dobbs before he died. The conflict arose when McCulloch and Selwyn assembled a team of surveyors to lay out the boundaries of the land that had been settled by squatters so they would have to purchase the land from McCulloch and Selwyn. Many of them had been on the land for several years where they had built homesteads and improved the value of the property. They felt McCulloch and Selwyn’s claim to the land was no longer valid; the patent was a couple of decades old and the requirements laid out for retaining the land had not been met. The cost was assessed at “current value” instead of the original value with back rents. The older residents objected, the newer ones agreed. The older ones intimidated the newer ones into backing down. A violent conflict ensued. Frohock was lashed across his face and another man was said to have daylight cracked in his head. Governor Tryon interceded and appointed a commission which determined the proprietorships were null and void because they had not met the requirements to settle the land according to the original patent. Therefore, they had to relinquish their claim. The history of the incident is recorded in Minutes of the North Carolina Governor's Council, May 07, 1765 - May 09, 1765, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0011"><b>Volume 07, pages 10-31</b></a><br />
<br />
On June 6, 1765, a school master by the name of George Sims in Granville District published what became known as the <a href="http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-revolution/4254"><b>Nutbush Address</b></a> describing the <i>“deplorable situations”</i> the people suffer. How a poor man without cash resources who tried to do the right thing, provide for his family and meet his obligations, was victimized by the system and those who manipulated it. Professor John S. Bassett excerpts part of the address for us, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bassett95/bassett95.html"><b>page 160</b></a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>A poor man is supposed to have given his judgment bond for £5, and this bond is by his creditor thrown into court. The clerk of the county has to enter it on the docket and issue execution, the work of one long minute, for which the poor man has to pay the trifling sum of 41s. 5d. The clerk, in consideration he is a poor man, takes it out in work at 18d. a day. The poor man works some more than twenty-seven days to pay for this one minute's writing. Well, the poor man reflects thus: At this rate, when shall I get to labor for my family? I have a wife and parcel of small children suffering at home, and here I have lost a whole month, and I don't know for what, for my merchant is as far from being paid yet as ever. However, I will go home now and try and do what I can. Stay, neighbor, you have not half done yet. There is a d--d lawyer's mouth to stop yet--for you empowered him to confess that you owed this £5, and you have 30s. to pay him for that, and go and work nineteen days more; and then you must work as long to pay the sheriff for his trouble; and then you may go home to see your horses and cow sold, and all your personal estate for one-tenth part of the value, to pay off your merchant. And lastly, if the debt is so great that all your personal estate will not do to raise the money--which is not to be had--then goes your lands the same way to satisfy these cursed hungry caterpillars that will eat out the very bowels of our commonwealth if they are not pulled down from their nests in a very short time. </i></blockquote>
In August 1766, in Orange County the <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/112/entry"><b>Sandy Creek Association</b></a> founded by Shubal Stearns, a Separate Baptists minister, joined with Hermon Husband and other Quakers to call for a meeting between taxpayers and county officials. <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0129"><b>Regulator’s Advertisement No. 1</b></a> was read at the Orange County Courthouse, inviting county neighbors to elect delegates to attend a meeting at Maddock’s Mill on the Eno River. The purpose of the meeting, the advertisement stated, would be...<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"... to judiciously enquire whether the free men of this county labor under any abuses of power or not and let the same be notified in writing if any is found and the matter fully conversed upon and proper measures used for amendment; this method will certainly cause wicked men to tremble..." </i></blockquote>
County officials were invited to attend, but Colonel Edmund Fanning, who had just been promoted from Attorney General to <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0092"><b>Assistant Judge of the Superior Court of Justice for the District of Salisbury</b></a>, deemed the gathering <i>“insurrectionary”</i> and no county officials attended. <br />
<br />
As land, personal property, farm animals and implements, even clothing, continued to be taken from the people for payment of taxes, fuel was added to the growing fire when Governor Tryon secured a $15,000 appropriation from his Governing Council to build a new combination statehouse-governor’s residence at New Bern to be paid for by an extra poll tax. The backcountry settlers gave it the name of “Tryon’s Palace” and many were furious, only to be made more furious when Tryon and his entourage undertook a very costly and luxurious march to survey the western boundary line of the Cherokee country, which would also be paid for by taxes. That was followed by an announcement by the Sheriff of Orange County that he would accept tax payment at only five locations in his huge county and that, if he were forced to visit the taxpayer to collect, he would levy the legal 2s8d additional fee for his "distress." <br />
<br />
These things added to the feeling that the government did not care about the welfare of the citizens in the western counties and caused the unrest to spread. Soon the backcountry men of Orange County were joined by others who formed an association calling themselves “Regulators” and published their resolves. <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0284"><b>The Regulators in Anson County also took an oath</b>:</a><br />
<blockquote>
<i>The Regulation in Anson County ~ Rules and Resolves</i><br />
<i><br />
</i> <i>Whereas the Tax for the present year is very high part of which, unseen seem to many unlawful and unnecessary, that together with the great scarcity of Money that have put it out of our power to make payment of the same, and we the subscribers being in that circumstance and also willing to consider the Public, that we are sensible of oppressions and therefore have thought convenient to stay the payment of the Tax aforesaid, not but what we acknowledge ourselves true and lawful subjects to the crown of Great Britain and therefore have entered into a league with each other and have taken the following Oath & subscribed our name, being willing to pay four shillings for Kings Dues.</i><br />
<br />
<i>THE OATH</i><br />
<i>I [A. B.] do promise and swear that if any Officer or any other Person do make distress on any of the goods or other Estate of any Person sworn herein being a subscriber for the non-payment of the said Tax that I will with other sufficient assistance go take if in my power from the said Officer and restore it to the party from whom taken and in case any one concerned herein should be imprisoned or under an arrest or otherwise confined, or his Estate or any part thereof by reason or means of joining into this Company of Regulators for the non-payment of Taxes, that I will immediately do my best endeavour to raise as many of the said subscribers as will be of force sufficient and if in my power set the said Person and his Estate at liberty and I do further promise and swear that if in case this our scheme should be broke or otherwise give out our intention, any of our Company should be put to any expence or be put under any confinement that I will bear an equal share with those in trying to pay and make up the sufferer, all these things I do promise and swear and subscribe my name. </i></blockquote>
Tension grew when the Regulators of Orange County published a new advertisement demanding the sheriff show his tax lists, collection records and fees table. Local officials became furious and <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0276"><b>Fanning wrote a frantic letter to Tryon</b></a> encouraging him to call out the militia <i>“and do battle” </i>referring to the Regulators as <i>“the mob”</i> and declaring they thought themselves to be <i>“the sovereign arbiters of right and wrong”</i>.<br />
<br />
In a day or two the powder keg was lit by an incident. The sheriff seized a Regulators’ horse, saddle and bridle for tax payment. On April 8, 1768, eighty angry Regulators marched on Hillsborough armed with clubs, staves and cloven muskets; they captured and bound Sheriff Hawkins, then "rescued" the horse and tack. On the way out of town, some in the group fired shots into Fanning's house. He was in Halifax at the time and when he was informed, he ordered the arrest of the "ringleaders". He then called out seven companies of the Orange militia, hurried back to Hillsborough to take command and wrote again to Tryon asking for more authority to deal with the <i>"traitorous Dogs . . .</i>" <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0279"><b>Tryon's Council declared the Regulators guilty of insurrection</b></a>. Fanning was authorized to call up militia from the surrounding counties. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, terrified officials in Orange agreed to meet with the Regulators to discuss grievances. While this was happening, Fanning rode with a posse to the Sandy Creek area and arrested William Butler and Herman Husband on a charge of <i>"inciting to rebellion."</i> The two prisoners were jailed in Hillsborough. When news reached the Regulators, they dropped plans for the meeting and 700 Regulators and supporters marched on Hillsborough. County officials released the two prisoners on bail. Isaac Edwards, the governor's private secretary, promised the Regulators if they would lay out their complaints in a petition to the governor, he would see that justice was done them. The Regulators agreed to the request. But on hearing this, Governor Tryon stated that his secretary had exceeded his authority, refused to deal with the Regulators as an organization, and demanded they immediately disband.<br />
<br />
About three weeks later, on April 27, 1768, trouble erupted in Anson County when a “mob” marched to the Anson County Court House and disrupted the proceedings. They demanded the removal of local magistrates and clerk Samuel Spencer, Sheriff James Medlock and Anthony Hutchins. <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/272/entry"><b>Samuel Spencer</b></a>, a colonel for the Anson County militia, had purchased his position as clerk of the county court from John Frohock for one hundred and fifty pounds. <a href="http://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2011/06/letter-from-samuel-spencer-to-william.html"><b>Spencer wrote a letter to Tryon</b></a> describing the scene and expressed that he believed the entire business had been instigated by someone trying to garner support for the next election. The Regulators had held a vote during the commotion and elected Charles Robinson to represent them in the Lower House of the Assembly. <br />
<br />
The Anson County Regulators also wrote to Governor Tryon concerning the incident. The document is known as the <a href="https://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2011/05/anson-county-regulators-protest-paper.html"><b>Regulator Protest Paper, April 28, 1768</b></a> and is signed by ninety-nine men. They say, <i>“we blame ourselves” </i>but <i>“being long under the growing weight of oppression became rash, and precipitate”</i> and decided they would make those who are abusing their offices <i>“wary of their employments”</i>. So they organized themselves into <i>“the opposite Party called a mob of about five hundred men”</i>. They say to Tryon, surely you as governor have the good of your people at heart and would not want them <i>“oppressed to gratify the errors and ambition of any particular Persons, who are Anthony Hutchins, Colonel Samuel Spencer, Charles Medlock and their Assistants the Justices and Sheriffs.”</i> They did not believe these persons were capable of performing the duty of their offices and their character was <i>“extremely doubtful and precarious” </i>because they arrest citizens, put them in jail, causing a great expense, then let them go without a trial to cover up their corruption. Then they listed examples of the <i>“unusual manner” </i>of taxing. <br />
<blockquote>
<i>First, Persons who commit capital offences are committed to the County Goal and there retained five or six months, a County Tax is laid to defray the expence when it is notoriously known it is a Province Expence, But Medlock the late Sheriff stop’t not there, but proceeded by Mr. Spencer the Clerk and Member for the County to have the same claim allowed by the Assembly, and were only prevented as we are informed by its being proved to the Committee of Claims that the Prisoners had made satisfaction themselves – These things were not unknown to Mr. Spencer when he laid Medlock’s claim before the Assembly. In the next place where the Justices are in possession of Public Ferries they establish them free at times pretending for the free passage of Courtiers a considerable Tax is laid for that Purpose. In the next place they tax considerable sums of money for particular Persons, who not having the right thereto, the Magistrates after receive back part, if not all to their own use. All these things can be made to appear, and we conceive that no People have a right to be taxed, but by the consent of themselves or their Delegates. But here the Magistrates assume it, then the Sheriffs who receive the Tax particularly Medlock and his Associates have made a constant practice to exact 2.8 for distress money, when no distress is made nor necessary to be made, and also have taxed different sums from the People according to their non acquaintance with the right Tax so that several different sums were received from the People in the same year surmounting the right Tax. </i><br />
<br />
<i>As to the Clerk his extortions are burthensome to all that fall in his power as he takes double and some times treble his due – And tho’ it is true he purchased his Office from Colonel Frohock and gave to the amount of one hundred and fifty pounds for it yet it’s unreasonable we should bear the expence by way of extortion, Please Sir, to enquire of Mr. Edwards, touching the connection of Hutchins Spencer and Medlock, and their unreasonable method of proceeding by means of their influence over the ignorant Magistrates as he had doubtless made some observation on their behaviour. This and much more are the causes of the present disturbances which we humbly pray your Excellency will please to reconcile by discharging the most of the Magistrates from their seats, and appointing better men, more capable and willing to discharge that Office, and also the Clerk if it seems right to you.</i></blockquote>
They close by saying to Tryon, that if he will give them honest officials who are knowledgeable and capable of performing their duties, then it will ease the minds of the people who are willing to pay honest taxes for the support of their government. The names of those petitioners are at the above link. Burlingham Rudd’s name is not on this petition, but I think it likely these are the names of those who represented “the mob” that stormed the court house. <br />
<br />
In May 1768, <a href="http://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2011/06/letter-from-william-tryon-to-samuel.html"><b>Governor Tryon wrote back to Spencer</b></a>. He tells him that he has issued a proclamation <i>“requiring the Rioters to disperse, and return to a dutiful obedience to the Laws of their Country” </i>and he hopes it will be effective. Tryon gives Spencer the authority to raise the Anson Regiment of Militia if need be in order to apprehend the ringleaders of the mob so they can be brought to trial to discourage future outbreaks. Tryon acknowledges receiving from Spencer the copies of the <i>“rules and Oath of the Insurgents” </i>and calls it <i>“rash, inconsistent and illegal”.</i> Tryon then tells Spencer if the people of Anson have any real grievances they should put them in a petition to the General Assembly or to him so they can be redressed. Tryon assures Spencer he does not form his opinion of the people of Anson based on <i>“a few Incendiaries who are more desperate perhaps in their Fortunes than in their Courage” </i>but he will not allow <i>“the most dissolute part of the inhabitants of this Province to pay off their Public Taxes by Insurrections”.</i> Then Tryon tells Spencer, <i>“This contagion and disaffection has spread from Anson to Orange County”</i>, that a similar confrontation had transpired in Hillsborough but Fanning and his officers through their firmness and with the assurances of Tryon’s secretary, Mr. Edwards, dispersed them through the same strategy … put your grievances in a petition. What that last statement reveals is that Fanning, evidently, did not want Tryon to know that the bulk of the unrest was in Orange County because it would be poor reflection on him; it was a cover-up of personal responsibility that would fan the flames in Orange County. <br />
<br />
On July 6, 1768, Tryon arrived in Hillsborough with two purposes. First, persuade the Regulators to disband, and second, protect the September term of the Superior Court – the court that was about to put William Butler, Herman Husband, Samuel Devinney and John Hartzo on trial charged with inciting the recent <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/174/entry"><b>Hillsborough Riot</b></a>. On July 21, 1768, Tryon issued a new <i>"Proclamation Against Charging Exorbitant Fees"</i>, ordering that fee tables be posted and that illegal practices be stopped. At this point, he began to exchange messages with the Regulators in an attempt to get them to disband. He ordered the Attorney General to initiate prosecutions against officers charged with taking illegal fees. One officer charged was Colonel Edmund Fanning. <br />
<br />
The Regulators would not agree to disband, but they did agree to petition the Assembly for redress. They would not agree to make a bond to ensure their good behavior at the upcoming trials because it might limit their ability to restrain the more volatile members among them. Governor Tryon knew most of the backwoodsmen were sympathetic to the Regulators’ cause and he needed to raise county militias to protect the upcoming court session. He turned to the Presbyterian ministers for assistance and offered 40 shillings per volunteer.<br />
<br />
Tryon did not respond to the Anson County Regulators’ Protest Paper of April until August 1768. <b>Read it well</b>. He tells them that the charges they make against county officials are so serious that it will require consultation of his Council at New Bern, but he’s away at Hillsborough at the moment. Anyone who feels they have been extorted should file a complaint with the Attorney General who will prosecute those who abuse the public trust. And by the way, nice of you to admit your guilt because there will be an investigation of the incident at Anson County Court House by the Salisbury District Superior Court and your acknowledgement of your rash and illegal behavior might bring you some leniency IF you behave yourselves and <i>“dutifully submit to the law.”</i><br />
<br />
On trial in the Hillsborough District Superior Court during the September term were four Regulators: Herman Husband, William Butler, Samuel Devinney, and John Hartzo. Husband was acquitted of the charge of inciting a riot. The other three were found guilty of the same charge, but Tryon suspended the fines and released the prisoners. Later, they received a full pardon from the governor.<br />
<br />
Also on trial for extortion were three county officials: Edmund Fanning, Francis Nash and John Wood. About 800 Regulators were waiting outside Hillsborough for the outcome of the court trials. Also waiting were 1,461 militia members who had been raised from Rowan, Mecklenburg, Granville, and Orange counties with the help of the ministers. No Anson militia.<br />
<br />
Fanning was found guilty on five counts of extortion, and fined one penny for each count. But the three judges, Martin Howard, Chief; <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/445/entry"><b>Maurice Moore</b></a> and Richard Henderson, Associates were unsure of the legality of judging Fanning guilty, and the case was referred to England. Fanning immediately resigned the office of Registrar and never fulfilled his five penny fine. <br />
<br />
After the trials in Hillsborough, about eighty Regulators unsuccessfully attempted to disrupt the court in Johnston County and in Edgecombe County about thirty Regulators tried to rescue a fellow Regulator from the Halifax jail but were routed. In Rowan County, the Regulators attempted to prosecute Judge John Frohock and three other officers for extortion in the Salisbury District Superior Court. When the Regulators arrived at court they discovered the grand jury was stacked with their enemies, all but three of the men were officers. They later found out that those sitting on the jury were not the first chosen. Not surprisingly, the juries refused to return "true bills" on the cases.<br />
<br />
There was not another election for Assembly representation until July 18, 1769 with the next session scheduled to convene in October 1769. This election demonstrated the strong feelings against the officers throughout the province by the results. Carteret, Beaufort, Anson, Halifax, Bladen, Edgecombe, Tyrrell, Orange, Granville, and Hyde changed their entire delegations. In Orange, Granville, Anson, and Halifax, where the Regulator sentiment was strong, the change was complete. In Rowan, a strong Regulator county, Griffith Rutherford, considered a moderate friend of the people, was retained, but his yokefellow, John Frohock, was dropped and in his place Christopher Nation, an ardent Regulator, was elected. Out of the 78 members of the new Assembly, 43 were new men. Professor Bassett explains the change in political thinking on <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bassett95/bassett95.html"><b>page 183</b></a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>The next step taken by the Regulators was in the line of practical politics. Until recently no suspicion had been cast upon the members of the assembly. The people were accustomed to leaders and willingly trusted their affairs in their hands. With no widely circulating newspapers and no political aptness, they formed themselves into no parties, but usually accepted the candidate put forward by the officeholders, who was generally either a member of or closely associated with the officeholding class. When they first began their agitation the Regulators had been content to aim at the local officers. They were told to apply to the courts, where justice should be done them. They complied, and found that the laws were in favor of the officers. They concluded that the laws should be changed. At the same time, since the issue had been sharply defined, they saw that the assemblymen were ranged on the side of the county officers. They now determined to attack this office, and here they were more successful than they had been in any of their other undertakings.</i><br />
<i>[ ]</i><br />
<i>This idea, as we have seen, had taken shape in Anson when the Regulators had nominated Charles Robinson as their candidate for the assembly, making, perhaps, the first political nomination in America.</i></blockquote>
At the fall session of the new Assembly, the Anson County Regulators submitted their petition dated <a href="http://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2012/10/anson-county-regulators-petition-9.html"><b>October 9, 1769</b></a>. It was signed by approximately 250 men, many of whom who had signed the <a href="https://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2011/05/anson-county-regulators-protest-paper.html"><b>1768 Protest Paper</b></a> after “the mob” took the court house. Orange and Rowan counties united in another petition that contained some of the same issues as the Anson petition, although not as extensive. A very noteworthy petition came from the Presbyterians in Mecklenburg. They declared themselves a thousand freemen, "who hold to the Established Church of Scotland, able to bear arms." They told Tryon they were ready and cheerful to support him during the recent trouble in Hillsborough and then demanded that he repeal the vestry and marriage acts in the counties of Mecklenburg, Rowan, and Tryon so that the Scottish church had the same footing with "our sister church of England." <br />
<br />
It is true that freedom of non-Anglican worship was granted to colonials in America, the exception being the Catholic Church was banned in most all of them. But since the Church of England was the official church in the colonies and was supported by a vestry tax upon the people, it was the only Church allowed to perform legal marriages, register birth, baptisms, and burials. For those who were not Anglican, their choice was something like Quaker-style where they announced their marriage to their neighbors, or “jumped the broom” as was an old-world tradition, or common law marriages. The Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland wanted equal rights with the Anglicans of the Church of England. <br />
<br />
The Assembly was working along, proposing legislation that addressed many of the problems that had been listed in the various petitions, when a situation developed between Tryon and the lower chamber which was represented by the freeholders that had come into the legislature during the last anti-establishment election. The issue prompted Tryon to dissolve the Assembly and schedule an election for a new Assembly in March 1770. <br />
<br />
When the election was completed, many of the same freeholders were returned to the next legislative session which was described as having the “Regulator spirit”, with an additional representative seat for Hillsborough created by Tryon, to which Fanning was promptly elected, and therefore, returned to one of his previous offices. <br />
<br />
Preparations for the next legislation session were underway when word came in September that there had been another riot at the Hillsborough District Superior Court. The Orange County Regulators had presented a petition to the justice requesting an investigation of extortion; a measure that had been previously recommended by Tryon. Judge Richard Henderson was the only justice on the bench and deferred the petition to the following Monday. When Monday came about 150 Regulators gathered outside the courthouse. The crowd inside included Hunter, Howell, Husband, Butler, Hamilton, and Devinney. Jeremiah Fields asked for permission to speak. Granted, he rose and said that the Regulators understood that the judge had decided not to try their causes at that term but they were determined to have them tried, and if the court would do it, it would prevent <i>“mischief”</i>. They insisted that the jury that had been selected be changed. While the judge was trying to pacify them on the inside, the group gathered outside was becoming restless. They were all carrying switches and sticks when a lawyer named John Williams started to enter the building. The crowd fell upon him, beating him severely until he made his escape. They rushed into the courthouse and found Fanning. They seized him by the heels and dragged him into the street and beat him mercilessly until he made his escape. They went after him, but allowed him to go home with the promise he surrendered himself the following morning. They also whipped several others that were there before they could make their escape. The next morning Fanning gave himself up to the Regulators and they told him they would release him if he agreed to take to the road running until he was out of sight. Which he no doubt did! Then they went to his pretentious new house, which represented to them all that Fanning had acquired with illegal fees. They tore it up, then demolished it. <br />
<br />
The Regulators returned to the courthouse and allowed Judge Henderson to adjourn the court for the day on the promise he would take up their case the next day. He promised. About 10 o’clock that night the judge took a fast horse out of town. On November 12th, Judge Henderson’s barn and stables were burned to the ground, two nights later his house was burned to the ground. Regulators were suspected.<br />
<br />
Tryon inquired of the attorney general if the Regulators involved in the second <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/174/entry"><b>Hillsborough Riot </b></a>could be tried for treason. The AG told him no, they could only be charged with rioting and the law required they be tried in their home district court. Tryon knew there would be too much sympathy for the Regulators in Orange County to raise a jury that would return his desired verdict. He ordered his officers to call for a muster of their militias to test the responsiveness of volunteers. Soon came rumors that the Regulators were going to march on the coming session of the Assembly in New Bern. The Governor's Council was panicked, offered rewards for the instigators and called the militias between Hillsborough and New Bern into readiness. The General Assembly finally had a quorum on December 5th and a report came from Pitt County that the Regulators of Bute and Johnston were marching on New Bern to stop Fanning from taking his seat for Hillsborough. The Council fabricated some charges against Husband, expelled him from the Assembly and had him arrested by the Chief Justice in mid-December. At the end of December word came that another group of Regulators were at Cross Creek preparing to march on New Bern. With that the <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/173/entry"><b>Johnston Riot Act</b></a> was passed into law giving the governor and attorney general extensive authority in suppressing riots with a one year expiration date. <br />
<br />
The Assembly was making great progress with legislation addressing the grievances of the Regulators, perhaps the rumors of gathering Regulators preparing to march on the government was having some effect. They passed a bill to amend the act for appointing sheriffs and to direct their duty in office; a bill to ascertain attorneys' fees; an act more strictly to regulate officers' fees; an act for the more speedy collection of debts under £5; an act to grant the chief justice a salary, and acts to erect the counties of Wake, Guilford, Chatham, and Surry, all lying in the region infected with the Regulator spirit. All these laws contained reforms sought by the Regulators. Many of them are reflected in the <a href="http://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2012/10/anson-county-regulators-petition-9.html"><b>1769 Regulators’ Petition from Anson County</b></a> that bears the name of Burlingham Rudd. <br />
<br />
Tryon did not wait for the new laws to have effect on the unrest. The first law he signed was the riot law and at once had the leaders of the Hillsborough riot charged. He called for a special court at New Bern as the location of their trial. The new law gave the attorney general the power to change of venue, no longer was a sympathetic jury in Orange County an obstacle. On February 2, 1771, the grand jury took up the case of Hermon Husband who had been in jail since December 1770. The grand jury found “no bill” and Husband was released. Tryon was <i>"unpleased with the discharge of Husband."</i> He dismissed that term of the court and called another for March 11th. He instructed the county sheriffs to only select jurymen who were <i>“gentlemen of the first rank, property and probity”. </i>The witnesses were all one-sided and most were officers who testified before the grand jury which returned “a true bill” for all sixty-two counts. The riot law declared that the defendants would be considered outlaws if they did not appear for trial within sixty days. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, on March 7, 1771 in Rowan County, a committee of arbitrators had been formed to work out a resolution between the Regulators and representatives of the government including Hermon Husband, James Graham, James Hunter, and Thomas Person on the Regulators side and Matthew Locke, John Kerr, Samuel Young, and James Smith on the other side. Alexander Martin and John Frohock reported the progress to Tryon with great enthusiasm telling him the committee had planned to meet on the third Tuesday in May. Tryon wrote back that he did not approve of their entering into negotiations with insurgents and he was about to march with an army into the Regulators’ country. He believed this was a more effective resolution than a Rowan agreement.<br />
<br />
On March 18, 1771, Tryon read to the Governor’s Council an <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0198"><b>intercepted letter from Rednap Howell to James Hunter</b></a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Halifax Feb. 16th 1771. </i><br />
<i><br />
</i> <i>Respected Friend,</i><br />
<i>On my setting out for Hallifax my horse fell sick which detained me some time so that on my arrival here I had certain information that Herman was at liberty; so that I found it needless to raise the Country but I am satisfied it would be easily done if occasion required, however I have animated the people here to join the Regulation; on Saturday come 2 weeks they are to have a meeting for the purpose. If it once takes a start here it will run into the neighboring Counties of Edgecomb, Bute and Northampton and this will undoubtedly facilitate Justice to poor Carolina. I will now inform you of such things as I have learnt since I left home. At New Bern the Governor called a general muster of 1,100 men; after treating them at yours and my expence he tried to prevail on them to march against the rebels but on one man's absolute refusal he ordered him to turn out of the Ranks for a Traitor which he very readily did and all the Regiment followed or were following him; the Governor perceiving his mistake says Gentlemen you mistook me I only meant should they come down and destroy all your livings would you not fight them; they answered yes on which he dismissed them, they then gathered in Companys of 6, 8, 10 and 12 growling and swearing would the Mob come down they would join them. In Dobbs a general muster was called for the same purpose, but only seven men attended. I am informed the Clerk's places in the New Countrys are parcelled out among the Quality; one Cooper is designed for your Country but if you suffer any rascal to come there may eternal oppressions be your lot: as I cannot solely depend on the Irish ahead pray you will reserve that morsel for yours to serve; for as the whole province is in your favor you may do as you list in that respect. I understand Butler and you are to be outlawed; despise it laugh at it—We hear that the Governor has sent a proclamation to you importing as the French and Spaniards are now at war with us, it's a pity to breed a civil war among ourselves; that the Chief cause of the trouble was the counterfeit money for which the great men were to blame; artful V—n! if he could have raised the Province on us he would have told another tale. However if this be true the day is ours in spite of Lucifer—I give out here that the Regulators are determined to whip every one who goes to Law or will not pay his just debts or will not agree to leave his cause to men where disputes; that they will choose Representatives but not send them to be put in jail; in short to stand in defiance and as to thieves to drive them out of the Country. I leave the plan to your consideration from your sincere friend ~ Rednap Howell</i></blockquote>
Tryon also read a letter to the Council from the Chief Justice of Hillsborough District Superior Court stating that he and his associates could not attend the March term of the Hillsborough court for fear of personal safety. Tryon’s strategy paid off. The Council resolved the governor should immediately raise a body of militia to march against the insurgents.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nJqERkbn0sQ/UG84GTymChI/AAAAAAAAAeU/NourgeYzfLQ/s1600/NC+Regulators+Map.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="217" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nJqERkbn0sQ/UG84GTymChI/AAAAAAAAAeU/NourgeYzfLQ/s400/NC+Regulators+Map.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The following day, March 19, 1771, Tryon began preparations for a military campaign against the Regulators. He gave orders to raise 2,550 men by April 20th. A bounty of 40 shillings was promised to each volunteer. Tryon would lead one column of eastern militias directly from New Bern to Hillsborough. <a href="http://www.fortdobbs.org/history-waddell.htm"><b>General Hugh Waddell</b></a> would take the Cape Fear militia and lead a second column to overcome the Rowan Regulators, raise the western militias, march to Salisbury, and then join Tryon at Hillsborough. Tryon’s regiment included 917 rank and file and 151 officers with detachments from Craven, Carteret, Orange, Beaufort, New Hanover, Onslow, Dobbs, and Johnston, and an artillery company. The Wake County militia showed up with no arms which appeared to have been a ruse to keep from having to serve in the conflict, but when a smaller detachment reported, Tryon ordered the sheriff to take the smaller detachment with him and collect taxes in Wake County.<br />
<br />
Waddell’s regiment contained 236 rank and file and 48 officers and an artillery company. In addition to the Scots at Cape Fear, along the march he picked up militias from Anson, Rowan, Mecklenburg, and Tryon, but he met opposition along the way. First, on the way to Salisbury, his column was attacked by a group of Regulators who had disguised themselves with black-face, later they became known as <i>“The Black Boys of Cabarrus”</i>, they destroyed a power shipment coming from South Carolina by ambushing the wagons on Rocky River. Later, on the march to Hillsborough, Waddell’s camp was surrounded by about 2,000 Regulators in a daring and insolent attempt to push the regiment back, which they did without a fight. Waddell had no more than 300 men and he had his doubts they would be willing to engage, so he had no other option than to retreat over the Yadkin River. <br />
<br />
On May 12th, Tryon and the Regulators received news of Waddell's rebuff. The Regulators issued a call for all men to assemble at James Hunter's plantation, to prevent Waddell and Tryon from linking forces. On Monday, May 13th, Tryon’s forces camped on the west bank of Great Alamance Creek. On the evening of May 15th, Tryon received a petition from the Regulators who were camped about five miles west of him. They asked if he was prejudiced against their cause and determined for bloodshed. They asked for a meeting to state their grievances. The next morning, May 16th, Tryon marched is column within a half-mile of the Regulator camp and dispatched his aide, Captain Malcom, with the Sheriff of Orange County who carried his response to their petition: <br />
<blockquote>
<i>In answer to your petition, I am to acquaint you that I have been attentive to the true Interest of this Country, and to that of every Individual residing within it. I lament the fatal Necessity to which you have now reduced me, by withdrawing yourselves from the Mercy of the Crown, and the Laws of your Country, to require you who are Assembled as Regulators, to lay down your Arms, Surrender up the outlawed Ringleaders, and Submit yourselves to the Laws of your Country, and then on the lenity and Mercy of Government. By accepting these Terms in one Hour from the delivery of this Dispatch you will prevent an effusion of Blood, as you are at this time in a State of War and Rebellion against your King, your Country, and your Laws. </i></blockquote>
The sheriff and aide returned to Tryon with the news that <i>“the Rebels”</i> rejected his offer with distain, saying they needed no time to consider his terms. About mid-morning, Tryon sent another message <i>“cautioning the Rebels to take care of themselves, as he should immediately give the signal for action."</i> According to traditional accounts, the Regulators' reply was <b><i>"Fire and be damned"</i></b>. Tryon gave the order for the cannons to fire on the Regulators and the first line of militia fired a volley, kneeled to reload and the second line fired a volley. The Regulators scrambled for cover. They had no battle plan, officers, or discipline. They were crouching behind rocks and trees, each man waging his own private war against a unified militia. The militia began moving forward advancing through the trees, the Regulators began to flee. The battle lasted about two hours, fifteen Regulators were captured. Remarkably, only nine Regulators and nine militia were killed, many were wounded. Tryon took the prisoners and wounded back to his camp on Alamance Creek. The next day, May 17th, a captured Regulator named James Few was hung without benefit of military trial. His body was left hanging beside the road to Hillsborough as a warning to others. During the next few days, militia units scoured the countryside for Regulators. The main body of the army stayed at Alamance Camp. <br />
<br />
Tryon issued a proclamation of pardon to all Regulators who would swear a loyalty oath to the government with the exception of those responsible for destroying General Waddell’s ammunition, the remaining fourteen prisoners and four others; Herman Husband, Rednap Howell, James Hunter, and William Butler, who had already fled the province. On May 21st the troops marched to James Hunter's farm at Sandy Creek were Tryon burned the dwelling and outbuildings. That evening he marched to Hermon Husband’s plantation and took possession of it.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1xuDD7U04JE/UG8664u5ddI/AAAAAAAAAew/XkVMHm3clAc/s1600/James+Pugh+plaque.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1xuDD7U04JE/UG8664u5ddI/AAAAAAAAAew/XkVMHm3clAc/s1600/James+Pugh+plaque.jpg" /></a></div>
By June 6th, Tryon and Waddell joined forces at the Moravian settlement and celebrated the King’s birthday and their victory. On June 14th, they arrived in Hillsborough. Four days later a court martial tried the prisoners. On the bench were Chief Justice Martin Howard and Associate Justices Maurice Moore and Richard Henderson. Of the fourteen prisoners remaining after the execution of James Few, two were acquitted, twelve were found guilty of high treason against the Crown. Of the twelve, six were pardoned: Forest Mercer, James Stewart, James Emerson, Hermon Cox, William Brown, and James Copeland; and six were hung: Robert Messer, Benjamin Merrill, Robert Matear (Matter), James Pugh, and two others whose names have been lost in history. Of those six, James Pugh died steadfast in his principles. He lectured Tryon from the barrel which served as his scaffold. He told him that "his blood would be a good seed sown on good ground, which would produce a hundredfold". He recalled the causes of the conflict noting that the <i>“Regulators had taken the life of no man previous to the battle, nor had they aimed at anything more than a redress of grievances”</i>. As he was about to address Fanning, he was strangled when the barrel was overturned at the instigation of Fanning.<br />
<br />
After the hangings, Tryon hastened back to New Bern. Back in February he had been told his long sought for appointment as Governor of New York had final come true. He had proven his loyalty to the King and on June 30, 1771 he left for New York. Soon he sent for Edmund Fanning to come to New York as his personal secretary.<br />
<br />
About two weeks after the hangings at Hillsborough ... 6,409 Regulators had taken the oath of allegiance and an estimated 1500 fled the colony.<br />
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
<center>
<b>~ The Aftermath ~</b></center>
<center>
<b>1771 – 1772</b></center>
<br />
Because the Regulators’ Movement followed on the heels of the Stamp Act Protests that swept across the American colonies, it gave some support to Governor Tryon’s claim that the unrest in the backcountry was directed at the British Crown and not at his own governing policies. Outside of North Carolina newspapers, such as, the <b><i>Boston Gazette</i></b> and <b><i>Pennsylvania Journal</i></b> published accounts and opinions about the Regulators' uprising. There were a few <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0234"><b>in support</b></a> of Governor Tryon which were countered <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0254"><b>with others</b></a> <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0255"><b>condemning his actions</b></a> and laying the facts <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0253"><b>before the public</b></a>. The most demoralizing one was a <b><i>“Letter from “Atticus” to Governor Tryon”</i></b> on November 7, 1771 in <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0370"><b><i>The Virginia Gazette</i></b></a>. We now know it was anonymously penned by Maurice Moore, one of the Associate Justices of the Superior Court during the Regulators’ Movement. He was on the bench during the <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/96/entry"><b>trial of Edmund Fanning</b></a> when the guilty verdict was deferred to England for clarification and consequently not enforced, and he was on the bench during the trial after Alamance which resulted in the hanging of six Regulators for treason, one of the six was <a href="http://patp.us/genealogy/bio/bmerrill.aspx"><b>Benjamin Merrill</b></a>, who certainly would have been pretty well known and respected in the province to be the Captain of the Rowan County Militia. <br />
<br />
<i>“Atticus”</i> not only recounted the Regulators’ Movement from its origins and condemned Tryon’s actions, but also exposed the ruse Tryon created that the Regulators were in rebellion against the Crown when actually the upheaval was against Tryon’s government. Moore was especially critical of Tryon’s manipulation of the legislative process that created the temporary law, the Johnston Riot Act. There is so much detail and first hand knowledge in the <i>Letter</i>, it’s hard to imagine that Maurice Moore’s compatriots didn’t know he was <i>Atticus</i>. <br />
<br />
Seems Maurice Moore had reason to be concerned. The <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0089"><b>February 1772 memorandum from the Board of Trade and Plantations</b></a> to George 3rd lists four Acts that had been passed by Tryon’s government but not forwarded for final approval. The first one was the Johnson Riot Act. They determined that since the temporary status of the Act meant it was about to expire, it was best to just allow that to happen rather than repeal it. But they also warned that the Act included a clause that <i>…appears to us to be irreconcilable with the principles of the Constitution, full of danger in its operation, and unfit for any part of the British Empire …”</i> That clause said anyone who had been charged and did not surrender within sixty days could be lawfully killed by anyone and his lands and chattels would be confiscated by the King. <br />
<br />
The other three Acts concerned quid quo pro deals made between Governor Tryon and the Presbyterians and Highlanders for their role in defeating the Regulators’ Movement. 1) an Act for the establishment of Queen’s College in Mecklenburg, 2) an Act authorizing the Presbyterian ministers to solemnize the Rites of Matrimony according to The Church of Scotland, 3) an Act to suspend taxes for four years to a group of Highlanders who had settled in Cumberland County. Now, a year later, all three Acts are disallowed. <br />
<br />
North Carolina was Josiah Martin’s first governorship. He had retired his military commission in 1769 due to illness and was well connected through his family ties. Born in Ireland in 1737, educated in Ireland and England and later in the West Indies with a private tutor, he was the younger half-brother of the secretary of the Treasury in London, Samuel Martin, and the brother of Sir Henry Martin, a naval commissioner and Comptroller of the Royal Navy. Both influenced Lord Hillsborough in recommending him for the appointment. He arrived in North Carolina intent on bringing order to disorder. He was well aware of the upheaval that had taken place, not only during the Regulator’s Movement, but also during the Stamp Act Protests. His monarchical management style did not mesh well with the psychological and fiscal conditions in the colony. From the very beginning, he and the Lower House of the General Assembly butted heads. During the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0056"><b>first legislative session in December 1771</b></a>, Martin instructed the Lower House to select a panel and appropriated the funds necessary to implement the King’s directive to resolve the long disputed boundary between North and South Carolina. The Lower House refused his directive. That caused Martin to be embarrassed before the King. Throughout the next year, the Lower House continued to pass legislation that was in direct opposition to the instructions that Governor Martin received from George 3rd and the Upper House continued to approve and pass the legislation on for the governor’s blessing, and that only intensified their relationship problems. A breaking point was reached in early 1773 when the Lower House continued to ignore their Royal instructions not to attempt to constitute their desired court system and voted to approve legislation that allowed for the attachment of property for non-payment of debts of those who never lived in the colony. When the Lower House completed their business, instead of following protocol by waiting for the Governor to reply and adjourn the General Assembly, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0166"><b>they left town</b>.</a> A severe insult to the Royal Authority. <br />
<br />
Things went downhill from there. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-15040470952004263732014-01-02T05:00:00.000-06:002015-10-30T18:46:09.308-05:00In the Pursuit of Liberty!<center>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">~ From Regulation to Revolution ~</span></center>
<center>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">~ 1765 - 1776 ~ </span><br />
<br />
"Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell; and George the Third may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it." ~ Patrick Henry, Speech on the Stamp Act in the Virginia House of Burgesses, May 29, 1765</center>
<br />
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M-B6k-XrtmU/Tzl7aPtdtbI/AAAAAAAAAQM/WQngXCR31gU/s1600/american%2Brevolution%2Bflags.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M-B6k-XrtmU/Tzl7aPtdtbI/AAAAAAAAAQM/WQngXCR31gU/s400/american%2Brevolution%2Bflags.jpg" width="295" /></a></div>
Our Rudd family lived in Anson during the entirety of the American Revolution. They were among the original settlers of the Pee Dee River region. By the time Patrick Henry delivered his famous speech, they had lived off of Jones Creek for about thirty years. Burlingham 1st began with a 300 acre homestead which was joined with additional land acquisitions by Burlingham 2nd and George Lounsdell. Members of the family did not begin to migrate out of Anson until after the War ended and our new Constitution had been adopted by the Philadelphia Convention. George Lounsdell was the first one to leave Anson, probably sometime in early 1788. The War had been over for about six years. That's the same year that George Washington took the oath of office as our first President. In November 1789, North Carolina was the twelfth state to ratify our Constitution. Burlingham 2nd remained in Anson for a few more years.<br />
<br />
In 1776 Burlingham 1st would have been sixty-eight years old. There is no evidence of when he died, but we do know he was exempted from taxes in 1771 when he was sixty-three years old. There is also no evidence that his wife, Elizabeth, was still alive. If Martha, their eldest daughter was living, she would have been about thirty-seven, married and had children, some of which might have been military age. Burlingham 2nd was about thirty-five, and we know he had a son named Burlingham 3rd who was about fifteen. He likely had some younger children and perhaps had a living wife also. There is also evidence of a William Rudd who appears to be a younger son of Burlingham 2nd living in Anson at this time. We also know that Burlingham 1st and Elizabeth baptized one other son named Walter, but I find no trace of him in Anson. He would have been about thirty-three. Then we have George Lounsdell, and we have no evidence of how old he would have been. But no doubt, he was married by this time and had children. The number of children he had is uncertain, but probably more than the four sons he named in the <a href="http://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2011/07/george-lounsdell-rudd-1797-deed-of-gift.html">Screven Co., GA Deed of Transfer of Property</a>. And we know that he also had a daughter named Margaret named later in a Charleston land deed. So you see there are potentially several military age males in the family but the only evidence we have is from the Revolutionary War Pension Application of Burlingham 3rd. And there are many reasons why we find no records of service by other Rudd males. First, just like Burlingham 3rd, their service was in the county militia; those militias have no rosters or payrolls. The Act of Congress that authorized county militia service as eligible for a War Pension was passed <span style="font-family: '';">on June 7, 1832</span> and many of those who served were dead by that time. Or those that could be witness for them were dead. So only those who lived long enough and applied for a pension are in the records. And this is much of the case across the colonies. Continental service was rewarded and the records were kept, but since militia service was called-up and funded by the Provincial governments in each colony, the our newly formed federal government did not extend that reward to local militia members. George Washington funded his troops through legislation passed by the 2nd Continental Congress, which in turn was funded by taxes that came up from those same Provincial governments. So, it took about fifty years after the War had been won for the surviving militias member to be allowed pensions for their service.<br />
<br />
In "<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ZYnet6iZEk0C&pg=PA366&lpg=PA366&dq=mary+medley+history+of+anson&source=bl&ots=UJJveL45Lt&sig=VvFyBf6ulPwR8Pv8mlgvuLbp8cM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwB2oVChMIhJKWjprryAIVjOImCh15bwZ_#v=onepage&q=mary%20medley%20history%20of%20anson&f=false">The History of Anson County, North Carolina, 1750-1976</a>", Mary Medley describes the ruthlessness of the guerrilla war between the Loyalists and Patriots in the area around Anson County. It started with Indians attacks along the western frontier and then came the skirmishes among neighbors that grew into murderous ambushes and conspiracy between Loyalists and Cherokee. Much more is described by Malcome Fowler in his book, <a href="http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/historyfiction/fullview.aspx?id=maf">"They passed this way; a personal narrative of Harnett County History"</a>, Mr. Fowler describes the predicament that the Scottish immigrants in the area of Cape Fear found themselves in shortly after their arrival. The colonial records tell us that their predicament was designed by new Governor Martin and the Earl of Dartmouth. The Scots were intended to be the secret weapon in the southern colonies, but the Regulators' War, the Battle of Alamance, in a very ironic way sealed their fate. This is where the Regulators' Movement and the Revolutionary War cross paths in North Carolina. The British intended to recruit Loyalists in South Carolina with the assistance of the Scots who had been granted land at Cape Fear, it was a quid quo pro that the Scots were made aware of before they left Scotland. But the planned rendezvous at Wilmington didn't go as planned, the Scots were defeated at the Battle of Widow Moore's Creek Bridge, and Henry Clinton and Peter Parker were defeated by the Patriots and General Moultrie at the Battle of Sullivan Island. Those defeats came before the Declaration of Independence was signed and gave confidence to the Continental Congress when the news of British defeat reached their ears. And of course, right across the border was General Francis Marion, "the Swamp Fox" in South Carolina. An excellent source for the intensity of that period is described by William Dobein James in his book, "<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/923/923-h/923-h.htm">A Sketch of The Life of Brig. Gen. Francis Marion</a>".<br />
<br />
Have no doubt, that period in our history was vicious, brutal, cruel and very bloody. The local arch-nemesis on the side of the Loyalists was a man by the name of David Fanning, who wrote his own memoir <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr22-0043">"Narrative of Colonel David Fanning"</a>
concerning his service in the Revolutionary War.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
I previously told you about the Regulators' Movement and the Aftemath, but now I want to give you a behind the scenes look at what happened in North Carolina that lead up to the Revolutionary War including the impact of the Regulators' Movement.<br />
<br />
We have all learned about the Stamp Act in American History, but it was much more than just a protest against tax legislation, it set the stage for the engagement of the populous in the pre-war days a good ten years before. From there, the Sons of Liberty were born and the Correspondence Committees were conceived. The network had been laid by representatives of Samuel Adams so when the time came to rise up, the shadow governments were in place in each of the colonies.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<br />
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
</center>
<center style="text-align: left;">
In April 1763, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Grenville">George Grenville</a> replaced John Stuart as Prime Minister of Great Britain. His most immediate task was to resolve the debt England had accumulated during the Seven Year’s War (1756-1763). The American theatre of that war is known as the French and Indian War (1754-1763). He was the hard-liner during the negotiation of the Treaty of Paris 1763. His negotiation style is described as what we call today “gun boat diplomacy”. It was Grenville’s position that the American colonists should bear <i>“their share”</i> of the cost of <i>“defending them from the French”</i>, as well as, provide the revenue to support military outposts which would be permanently based along the 1763 Proclamation Line imposed on the western frontier to protect them from rouge French and Spanish, as well as, Indian attacks. The British Parliament approved General Jeffery Amherst’s request for 10,000 additional soldiers to man the outposts. The colonists saw the new boundary line, which created an Indian reserve along their western border, as siding with their enemy, the Indians, snatching away the land they had fought for and penning them in against the eastern settlements so they were easier to control. The British wanted to prevent any future problems; they didn’t have the money to fight another war with the Indians and wanted to capitalize on the fur trade with independent traders under contract with Britain. Within a few years of the issuing of the 1763 Proclamation Line, it was moved due to lobbying by land speculators in Britain and prominent American colonists to exclude the land that now includes West Virginia and Kentucky, but it maintained all the other land down to Florida as off-limits to settlers.</center>
<br />
Next Grenville instituted reforms in the customs service and the regulation of trade with the colonies. The first thing he did was mandate that custom officials had to live in the colonies. No longer could they live in England where they enjoyed the refinements of comfort and culture, and performed their duties long distance. Now, enforcement was on location. The Royal Navy was empowered to act as customs agents in American waters which expanded the reach of the agents with intentions of curtailing smuggling. They were authorized to conduct general searches of ships and warehouses for contraband under a general warrant. The Admiralty Courts were expanded and allowed to conduct proceedings without juries. And colonial governors, some of whom were complicit in evading imperial trade regulations, were put on notice. <br />
<br />
Then Grenville took the 1733 Molasses Act which levied a sixpence tax on imported non-British (French and Spanish) sugar and molasses and refashioned it into the 1764 Revenue Act (Sugar Act) by reducing the tax by half and increasing the list of items taxed to include wine, cloth, coffee, tropical fruits and silk. Since rum was a major product of New England distilleries, for years the colonists had worked around the tax through smuggling and black markets and the 1733 Act was no longer of any significance to them. But now, with the tightening of the customs laws, general warrants to search for contraband and customs agents living in the colonies, they felt the pinch. American exports of iron and lumber were also closely supervised and shippers were required to complete bonding procedure before loading cargoes, so shippers began to feel that pinch. This caused immediate economic hardship on the New England and middle colonies. The economy slowed down and people began to hoard their hard currency of gold and silver and increased their use paper money to settle debts. The distillers began a non-importation boycott of British goods that was adopted in Boston and spread to outer areas of New England and New York. It was during these protests that the cry of <i><b>“no taxation without representation”</b></i> was first widely heard. <br />
<br />
This was followed by the 1764 Currency Act which ended the use of paper money and bills of credit as legal tender in the colonies and mandated hard currency in its place. Colonial America had always experienced currency shortage problems to the extent that commodity trading in beaver pelts, tobacco and corn had been made legal tender. But British merchants had complained about the dubious value of paper money which had an impact on Great Britain’s economy. The economic depression was a disaster for the working class as we saw in the Regulators’ Movement in the North Carolina backcountry when extortion and corruption among the ruling class brought poverty to the middle class. <br />
<br />
Now Grenville had ignited the anger of the two disparate classes of American society, the laborers and small farmers of the working class and the merchants and planters of the wealthier class. His next program succeeded in drawing the anger of the middle class, the 1765 Stamp Act which was paired with the 1765 Quartering Act. <br />
<br />
After the French and Indian War, the British government was faced with the additional expense of soldiers returning from the colonies and providing these veterans with pay and pensions. If they could keep the soldiers in service in America, then the colonies would have to pay for them and that would relieve the English from the financial burden. American colonials did not believe a standing army was necessary, they felt the major threat to their security was the French and they had been vanquished. When there was a security problem with the Indians, the colonial militias were called into duty and when the problem subsided, the militias were disbanded. They also were skeptical of the reason for the military to be kept in America, and the Proclamation Line with the restrictions on expansion westward added to that skepticism. <br />
<br />
Under the Quartering Act, each colonial assembly was directed to provide for the basic needs of the soldiers stationed within its borders which included such things as, bedding, cooking utensils, firewood, beer or cider and candles. The law was expanded to include housing for soldiers in taverns and unoccupied houses. The Stamp Act was intended to raise the funds needed to pay the soldiers. So the legislation for the Quartering Act and the Stamp Act were both passed in March 1765 with the Quartering Act effective immediately and the Stamp Act being effective on November 1, 1765.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iwpmlM9vOfA/TuPinNV0qtI/AAAAAAAAAOo/swL9ag53AIs/s1600/stampact-skull.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="115" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iwpmlM9vOfA/TuPinNV0qtI/AAAAAAAAAOo/swL9ag53AIs/s400/stampact-skull.jpg" width="107" /></a></div>
Originally, Grenville had floated the Stamp Act idea months before, and it had generated opposition in the colonies. He said that he was willing to consider a substitute for generating the revenue if one could be found, but none was volunteered. The Act required both the use of small stamps to be affixed on items, as well as, the use of stamped paper for <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/stampact.htm">a list of fifty-four items</a> including all legal documents, newspapers, broadsides, pamphlets, letters, almanacs, calendars, posters, playing cards, everything made of paper, skin or vellum and ... apprenticeships. Violators of the Act would be tried in the Admiralty Courts, those with royal appointed judges and without juries whose authority was intended to be maritime. The reaction in the colonies was loud and quick! <br />
<br />
There was a distinction in the rallying cry <i><b>“no taxation, without representation”</b></i> that the colonists understood that many in England did not. They recognized themselves as British citizens, and therefore, they had the same rights as those living in Britain. But they had no representation in the British Parliament. There were some members in the Parliament that agreed with them. However, many others did not, nor did George the Third. For almost their entire 150+ years of existence, the colonies had pretty much enjoyed self-rule, even at this point in time as royal colonies with Crown appointed governors, they had a government structure that allowed for elected assemblies and these assemblies were authorized by the colonial electorate to levy taxes as needed for the operation and security of the colony. They were use to taxes being levied for a designated purpose and when that purpose was fulfilled the assemblies eliminated the taxes. The only real mandated internal tax was the one which supported the Church of England as the official church. <br />
<br />
So when the Sugar Act was instituted, even though it drew protests in specific colonies where it had a drastic impact, it was viewed largely as an indirect and external tax on trade. But when the Stamp Act was instituted it was viewed as a direct and internal tax. This distinction was incomprehensible to the Parliament and royal officials. But it served to unite some of the most powerful and influential elements of colonial America … lawyers, clergy, journalists and merchants. Rioters took to the streets and violence against royal officials ensued, so much so that by mid-November, all but the appointed Stamp Agent in Georgia had resigned. <br />
<br />
Shortly after the passing of the Sugar Act and when Grenville floated the idea of the Stamp Act, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Otis,_Jr.">James Otis</a>, a well known radical of the Massachusetts Assembly, sent a circular letter to the other colonial assemblies calling for a meeting to plan organized resistance. By November 17, 1764 the letter had been received and was laid before the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr06-0369">Lower House of the North Carolina Assembly.</a> During the following months, North Carolina <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Dobbs">Governor Dobbs</a> became ill and died on March 28, 1765. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tryon">Lt. Governor, William Tryon</a>, succeeded him in April 1765 and did not call meetings of the Assembly from May 1765 to November 1766. This prevented the selection of a delegation from North Carolina to New York for the Stamp Act Congress on October 7, 1765. At the Congress, John Dickinson of Pennsylvania was mostly responsible for the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0039">14-point Declaration of Rights and Grievances</a> that emerged which argued that colonial taxation could only be imposed by their own assemblies. The Stamp Act and the use of the Admiralty Courts (trial without jury) were singled out for specific criticism. They also ended their statement with a pledge of loyalty to the king which reinforced their demand that they be treated the same as all other British citizens. Some of the more radical elements of the colonial assemblies believed the statement to be too moderate and would not sign it, but it didn’t matter because the British Parliament rejected it. <br />
<br />
On November 2, 1765, The <i>”North Carolina Gazette”</i> recorded the protests that took place in the days following the Stamp Act Congress. There is no way my description can do justice to this report, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0041">so here it is</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Wilmington - On Saturday the 19th of last Month, about Seven of the Clock in the Evening, near Five Hundred People assembled together in this Town, and exhibited the Effigy of a certain Honourable Gentleman; and after letting it hang by the Neck for some Time, near the Court-House, they made a large Bonfire with a Number of Tar Barrels, &c. and committed it to the Flames.—The Reason assigned for the People's Dislike to that Gentleman, was, from being informed of his having several Times expressed himself much in Favour of the STAMP-DUTY.—After the Effigy was consumed, they went to every House in Town, and bro't all the Gentlemen to the Bonfire, and insisted upon their drinking, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND NO STAMP-DUTY, and Confusion to Lord B-TE and all his Adherents, giving three Huzzas at the Conclusion of each Toast.—They continued together until 12 of the Clock, and then dispersed, without doing any Mischief. And, on Thursday, 31st of the same Month, in the Evening, a great Number of People again assembled, and produced an Effigy of Liberty, which they put into a Coffin, and marched in solemn Procession with it to the Church-Yard, a Drum in Mourning beating before them, and the Town Bell, muffled, ringing a doleful Knell at the same Time:—But before they committed the Body to the Ground, they thought it adviseable to feel its Pulse; and when finding some Remains of Life, they returned back to a Bonfire ready prepared, placed the Effigy before it in a large Two-arm'd Chair, and concluded the Evening with great Rejoicings, on finding that LIBERTY had still an Existence in the Colonies.—Not the least Injury was offered to any Person.<br />
<br />
On Saturday the 16th of this Inst. William Houston, Esq; Distributor of STAMPS for this Province, came to this Town; upon which three or four Hundred People immediately gathered together, with Drums beating and Colours flying, and repaired to the House the said Stamp-Officer put up at, and insisted upon knowing, “Whether he intended to execute his said Office, or not?” He told them, “He should be very sorry to execute any Office disagreeable to the People of the Province.” But they, not content with such a Declaration, carried him into the Court-House, where he signed a Resignation satisfactory to the Whole.<br />
<br />
As soon as the Stamp-Officer had comply'd with their Desire, they placed him in an Arm-Chair, carried him first round the Court House, giving three Huzzas at every Corner, and then proceeded with him round one of the Squares of the Town, and sat him down at the Door of his Lodgings, formed themselves in a large Circle round him, and gave him three Cheers: They then escorted him into the House, where was prepared the best Liquors to be had, and treated him very genteely. In the Evening a large Bonfire was made, and no Person appeared in the Streets without having LIBERTY, in large Capital Letters, in his Hat.—They had a large Table near the Bonfire, well furnish'd with several Sorts of Liquors, where they drank in great Form, all the favourite American Toasts, giving three Cheers at the Conclusion of each. The whole was conducted with great Decorum, and not the least Insult offered to any Person.<br />
<br />
Immediately after the appointed Stamp-Master had comply'd with their Commands, they call'd upon Mr. A STUART, the Printer,—(who had not printed the GAZETTE for some weeks before the ACT took Place, it having pleased GOD to afflict him with a dangerous Fever) when he appeared, they ask'd him, if “He would continue his Business, as heretofore?—And Publish a Newspaper?” He told them, that “As he had no Stampt Paper, and as a late ACT of Parliament FORBID the Printing on any other, He could not.—He was then positively told, that “If he did not, he might expect the same Treatment of the STAMP-MEN,” and demanded a positive Answer:—Mr. Stuart then answer'd, “That rather than run the Hazard of Life, being maimed, or have his Printing-Office destroy'd, that he would comply with their Request;” but took the WHOLE for Witness, that he was compell'd thereto. <br />
<br />
His Excellency our GOVERNOR has been for some Time past very ill of Health: but we have the pleasure to say he is now recovering.<br />
<br />
Circular Letters were sent last Week by the Governor, to the Principal Inhabitants in this Part of the Province, requesting their Presence at his Seat at Brunswick, on Monday last; where, after Dinner, his Excellency conferr'd with them concerning the Stamp-Act: The Result of which shall be in our Next.<br />
<br />
We hear from Newbern, that the Inhabitants of that Place, try'd, condemn'd, hang'd, and burn'd Doctor William Houston, in Effigy, during the Sitting of their Superior Court.—Mr. Houston, however, thinks that there was too much of the Star-Chamber Conduct made Use of, in condemning him unheard; especially as he had never solicited the Office: Nor had he then heard he was appointed Stamp-Officer.—At Cross-Creek, 'tis said, they hang'd his Effigy and M' Carter's together, (he who murder'd his Wife;) nor have they spar'd him even in Duplin, the County where he lives.<br />
<br />
We are told that no Clearances will be granted out of our Port, till a Change of Affairs.</blockquote>
On November 16, 1765, William Houston the Stamp Agent resigned, on November 18th, Governor Tryon invited a committee of fifty gentlemen representing New Hanover, Brunswick and Bladen counties to dinner to discuss his proposal. These counties represented the center of shipping commerce for the province and Tryon wanted to try and head off any trouble when the stamps arrive. It went something like this:<br />
<br />
Tryon assured them he would use his influence in England to promote the prosperity of the colony bearing in mind his duty to King and country and he would be most happy if he could at the same time serve <i>“his Majesty’s faithful subjects of this Province.”</i> He criticized the assaults taking place in other colonies against royal appointees including having their houses torn down, furniture and belongings destroyed and stamped paper burned. He hoped that no violence would come to North Carolina when the stamps arrived and warned of the consequences if it did. He would not discuss the right of Parliamentary taxation but hoped the Province wasn’t considering separating from Great Britain and urged the prudent thing was not to oppose the legislation. He then told them that it was unlikely the Stamp Act would function in parts of the province anyway because cash was too scarce to cover one year of tax. So he would ask for an exemption for the colony unless his <i>“endeavours were frustrated by the conduct of the people”</i> and noted that the other colonies who had refused the stamps had suffered the economic consequences of obstructed trade. Tryon then proposed that if they accepted the small stamps, he would pay the fees associated with those documents that required stamped paper, such as, land documents, testimonials, marriage licenses, Last Wills and probate documents, and also would provide four wine licenses for Edenton, Newbern, Wilmington, Salisbury and Halifax, two for Brunswick and Cross Creek and one each for Bath and Tarborough. <br />
<br />
The next morning the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0043">fifty gentlemen offered their reply</a>. After praising Tryon for his generous offer and acknowledging his influence in England and how very fortunate they were that he was their governor, they said:<br />
<blockquote>
...every view of this Act confirms us in our opinion that it is destructive of these Liberties which, as British Subjects, we have a Right to enjoy in common with Great Britain.<br />
<br />
To our Sovereign we owe, and shall always be ready to testify by our Conduct, every Act of Loyalty and Obedience consistent with the Rights of a free people; and we most sincerely pray, that the British Throne may never want Heirs of the present illustrious House of Hanover to secure that happy constitution: But the Extention of the Stamp Act, by a melancholy presage of America being deprived of all, or most of the British Privileges, naturally suggests to us, that the submission to any part of so oppressive and (as we think) so unconstitutional attempts, is opening a direct inlet for Slavery, which all Mankind will endeavor to avoid.<br />
<br />
For these Reasons it is with great pain we are obliged to dissent from what your Excellency has been pleased to mention of your paying the Stamp Duties on the Instruments enumerated in the Proposal; nor can we assent to the payment of the smaller Stamps: An Admission of Part, would put it out of our Power to refuse with any Propriety, a Submission to the Whole; and as we can never consent to be deprived of the invaluable Privilege of a Trial by Jury, which is one part of that Act, we think it more consistent as well as securer conduct to prevent to the utmost of our Power, the operation of it—At the same time, we assure your Excellency, that we will upon every occasion, avoid and prevent, as far as our Influence extends, any Insult or Injury to any of the officers of the Crown; but must confess, that the Office of Distributors of the Stamps is so detested by the People in general that we dont think either the person or Property of such an Officer, could by any means be secured from the resentment of the Country.</blockquote>
Governor Tryon responded that he was comforted by their expression of loyalty to the King and their assurance of support for his administration, but regretted that his offer was not accepted because of the consequences that would come from their position. <br />
<br />
The stamps and the stamped paper arrived on November 28, 1765 aboard the sloop <i>Diligence</i> under the command of Captain Phipps but there was no Stamp Agent to receive them and they sat on the sloop. As a result of having no stamps to affix to documents, no ships left port. Commerce ceased. No business was transacted in the courts, all civil government came to a halt, public business and commerce stagnated. There was little to no currency circulating and the province fell into economic depression. <br />
<br />
On February 1, 1766, Governor Tryon wrote to England and reported the stamps were still on the ship. He also said that since there is no activity at the ports, he could not receive any dispatches from England with instructions, so direct his mail to the Governor of South Carolina and it will be sent over by express. <br />
<br />
A few weeks later the stand off at the port caused all heck to break loose. Ships had been seized by port inspectors carrying smuggled contraband; ships attempting to leave port without stamped papers had been stopped and not allowed to depart. Ship owners, plantation owners and merchants became irate. <br />
<br />
On February 18th, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0077">an association was formed and an oath was taken</a> for the purpose of stopping the Stamp Act. This appears to be the birth of the North Carolina chapter of the Sons of Liberty. Cornelius Harnett was their leader.<br />
<blockquote>
An Association signed by the Principal Gentlemen, Freeholders and Inhabitants of several Counties in this Province. North Carolina.<br />
<br />
“We the Subscribers, Free and Natural-born Subjects of George the Third, true and Lawfull King of Great Britain and All its Dependencies, (whom God preserve) whose Sacred Person, Crown, and Dignity, We are ready and Willing, at the Expence of Our Lives and Fortunes to defend, being fully convinced of the Oppressive and Arbitrary Tendency of a late Act of Parliament, imposing Stamp Duties on the Inhabitants of this Province, and fundamentally subversive of the Liberties and Charters of North America; truly sensible of the inestimable Blessings of a free Constitution, gloriously handed down to Us by Our Brave Fore Fathers, detesting Rebellion yet preferring Death to Slavery, Do with all Loyalty to Our most Gracious Sovereign, with All deference to the Just Laws of Our Country, and with a proper and necessary Regard to Ourselves and Posterity, hereby mutually and Solemnly plight Our Faith and Honour that We Will at any Risque whatever, and whenever called upon. Unite, and truly and Faithfully Assist each other, to the best of Our Power, in Preventing entirely the Operation of the Stamp Act.<br />
<br />
Witness Our Hands this 18th day of February 1766. </blockquote>
On February 19th, a group of men broke into Mr. Dry’s office, the Collector, and stole the unstamped paper belonging to one of the seized ships and pursued an effort to force the release of the ship. On February 21st, about 8 o’clock that morning a group of armed men shut down all the roads to Governor Tryon’s house. At 10 o’clock about 500 armed men surrounded the house and a detachment of about sixty led by Cornelius Harnett came down the road and demanded to speak to Mr. Pennington, the Comptroller, who had taken refuge in Tyron’s house. Tryon refused to allow him to leave, but Mr. Pennington agreed to go to them. He did and they forced him to sign a resignation and promise to never issue any stamped paper. Afterwards, Pennington informed Tryon that all the clerks of the county courts and other public officers had also been forced to make the same promise. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr07-0067">Tryon writes to Great Britain</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
By the best accounts I have received the number of this insurrection amounted to 580 men in arms, and upwards of 100 unarmed. The Mayor and Corporation of Wilmington and most all of the gentlemen and planters of the counties of Brunswick, Newhanover, Duplin, and Bladen with some masters of vessels composed this corps. Thus, Sir, I have endeavoured to lay before you the first springs of this disturbance.</blockquote>
Many of the men involved in this incident were members of the elected Lower House of the General Assembly. So in his next dispatch to England, March 1766, Tryon told the minister that he had decided not to call an Assembly, he did not want to fan the flames. He had been told by <a href="http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americanrevolutio1/p/gage.htm">General Thomas Gage</a> that British troops could not reach him until October and he only had about twenty-two days of provisions on hand.<br />
<br />
The non-importation of British goods began to spread and London merchants began to feel the effects. Even though they preferred the colonies pay some taxes, they were more concerned about the non-importation movement and the effect on trade. On January 17, 1766, they appealed to Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act and on March 17, 1766, Parliament did just that, but not because they agreed with the American’s argument. <br />
<br />
As a result of the upheaval over the Stamp Act, Grenville’s government fell, and he was replaced with the <a href="http://www.historyhome.co.uk/pms/rocky.htm">Marquis of Rockingham, Charles Watson-Wentworth</a>. As soon as the Stamp Act was repealed, the Parliament passed the Declaratory Act which stated that Parliament:<br />
<blockquote>
“had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statues of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of AMERICA, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”</blockquote>
Some colonial leaders were too busy celebrating to pay attention to the Declaratory Act, but others were outraged. They recognized that it hinted more restraints would be coming. It had been copied almost word for word from the Irish Declaratory Act which had placed Ireland in a position of subjugation to the British Crown and that implied the same fate was intended for the Americans. They were right.<br />
<br />
The New York colony was the base for the British military under General Thomas Gage so the Quartering Act had a significant impact on the colonials. The Assembly resisted full compliance with the requirements laid out in the legislation and that resulted in a confrontation between a group of soldiers and the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sons.htm">Sons of Liberty</a>. General Gage ordered the suspension of the Assembly which eventually forced compliance with the Quartering Act. This was followed by the passage of the Townshend Acts in 1767. <br />
<br />
Five laws were included in the Townshend Acts; the Revenue Act, the Indemnity Act, the Commissioners of Customs Act, the Vice Admiralty Court Act, and the New York Restraining Act. The last one specifically intended to punish New York. The other four were intended to raise money to pay salaries for governors and judges, to establish Parliament’s supremacy in raising taxes, and to enforce trade regulations. <br />
<br />
In Boston, the protests and boycott led by Sons of Liberty leader, Samuel Adams, prompted the Governor to request assistance from General Gage. In October 1768 British troops arrived in Boston and occupied the city. That resulted in the Boston Massacre in 1770. But as an outcome of the confrontation and subsequent trial of the British soldiers involved, the British Parliament repealed most of the taxes in the Townshend Act, except the tax on tea.<br />
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
It was during this period of time that the Regulators’ Movement rose in Orange County, NC and spread through the North Carolina backcountry. You can read my narrative <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2011/06/rudd-family-of-anson-co-nc-part-two.html"><i>Era of the Regulators’ Movement</i></a> for more details. But to sum it up, the economic depression spurred on by the Stamp Act resistance, the passage of the Currency Act which was putting an end to paper currency and commodities as legal tender, the shortage of hard currency and the unwillingness of Governor Tryon to allow for a redress of grievances, eventually erupted at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alamance">Battle of Alamance</a> on May 16, 1771. Regulators who had gathered in the woods along the Alamance River, expecting to have their grievances heard, were fired on and some were killed by militias under the command of Governor Tryon. Twelve men were identified as leaders and tried in Hillsborough on June 19, 1771. Six of them were hung and six were pardoned. After the trials, Tryon required an oath of allegiance to the Great Britain from the remaining Regulators and their supporters, many of whom had their names on petitions for redress, just like our Burlingham Rudd. As a result of Tryon’s army disarming inhabitants, burning houses, destroying crops, confiscating beef and commodities for his purposes, and holding court martial for those who defied him, 6,409 took the oath of allegiance. Approximately, 1,500 fled the province. Governor Tryon’s heavy hand at putting down the insurgency was rewarded by George the Third who granted to him his long coveted commission to Governor of New York. <br />
<br />
Some historians assert the Battle of Alamance was the opening battle in our War of Independence. Governor Tryon certainly portrayed the insurgency as a rebellion against the Crown government which elevated his status. However, the petitions that were addressed to Governor Tryon, appealing to him for redress, do not indicate this was a movement to break from England, although the Regulators did claim their constitutional rights as the subjects of England were being violated. Outside of North Carolina, published accounts and letters appeared in newspapers, such as, the <i>Boston Gazette</i> and <i>Pennsylvania Journal</i>. There were <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0234">a few in support</a> of Governor Tryon which were <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0254">countered</a> with others <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0255">condemning his actions</a> and laying the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0253">facts before the public</a>. The most demoralizing one was a <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr08-0370"><i>“Letter from “Atticus” to Governor Tryon”</i></a> on November 7, 1771 in <i>The Virginia Gazette</i> which we now know was anonymously penned by Maurice Moore, an Associate Justice of the Superior Court in North Carolina during the Regulators’ Movement. He was on the bench during the trial of <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/96/entry">Edmund Fanning</a> when the guilty verdict was deferred to England for clarification and consequently not enforced, and he was on the bench during the trial after Alamance which resulted in the hanging of six Regulators for treason, one of the six was <a href="http://patp.us/genealogy/bio/bmerrill.aspx">Benjamin Merrill</a>, who certainly would have been pretty well known and respected in the county to be the Captain of the Rowan County Militia. <br />
<br />
<i>“Atticus”</i> not only recounted the Regulators’ Movement from its origins and condemned Tryon’s actions, but also exposed the ruse Tryon created that the Regulators were in rebellion against the Crown when actually the upheaval was against Tryon’s government. Moore was especially critical of Tryon’s manipulation of the legislative process that created the temporary law, the Johnston Riot Act. There is so much detail and first hand knowledge in the <i>Letter</i>, it’s hard to imagine that Maurice Moore’s compatriots didn’t know he was <i>Atticus</i>. Also, given the evidence of so many published accounts stating the details and condemning Tryon’s actions, it caused me to wonder just what did happen after the Battle of Alamance. What impact, if any, did it have on the political class? Were they emboldened? Did the Assembly take any legislative steps at all to address the issues that contributed to the rise of the Movement? And what impact did the aftermath of the Battle of Alamance have on the general population in the years that led up to the Revolution? With more than 6,000 men taking an oath of allegiance to England in 1771, which was imposed by the political class, how did North Carolina move from Regulators to Revolution in the following four years? Most of the published history of the Regulators’ Movement ends with the hangings after the battle, so I turned to the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/">State and Colonial Records</a> that are transcribed and made available online by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and found some interesting details. We are so lucky to have them. THANK YOU!<br />
<br />
Governor Tryon’s replacement was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Martin">Josiah Martin</a> who arrived in North Carolina in August 1771. He was born in Long Island, NY and entered the British Army at the age of nineteen; by the time he was twenty he was serving on the New York Governor’s Council from 1759-64. He resigned his rank of Lieutenant Colonel in 1769. North Carolina was his first governorship. His communications to the Secretary of State for the American colonies depict him eager and willing to do the best job he could for his King and country. He was a personal friend to Tryon, and a new member of the <i>“royal governor’s club”</i>, he understood what had transpired, but resisted laying responsibility at Tryon’s feet. His first encounter with the Lower House of the General Assembly was during the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0076">November 10 – December 23, 1771 session</a>. James Picket and a Mr. Robertson represented Anson County. This was the second session of the present assembly, the first session had concluded on January 1771. Therefore, the members of this Lower House were sitting as representatives in the Assembly during the year leading up to and after the Battle of Alamance; the Assembly had not convened since. The Lower House was the elected representation; the men were the political movers and shakers in their respective counties and boroughs. They held the purse strings through their authority to levy taxes to fund the costs of running the province. The county sheriff collected the taxes. Most of this session dealt with paying the bills related to the campaign against the Regulators which cost the taxpayers six thousand pounds. <br />
<br />
Interestingly, one of the first orders of business was a Bill proposed by Maurice Moore to indemnify those who had participated in <i>“defence of the Government”</i> and pardon <i>“the misguided offenders”</i>. The Bill was amended to exclude from pardon Hermon Husband, Rednap Howell and William Butler. The Lower House approved the Bill and notified Governor Martin, who told them he did not have the authority to issue a pardon, but would send the Bill on to England for George the Third to respond. Knowing what we now know about the <i>“Atticus Letter”</i>, was this Maurice Moore doing some CYA in anticipation that the law might not be on their side if law suits were filed against those in government? As far as I can tell, indemnification was never approved. The Board of Trade responded that the language in the Bill was too broad and needed to be narrowed and specific.<br />
<br />
Then something that appeared to be routine business ended up being a shot across the new governor’s bow. The Lower House proposed a Bill that discontinued a poll tax of one shilling and a duty of four pence per gallon of rum, wine and other spirits that had been levied first in 1749 and renewed in 1754. The reason given was because the tax had served its purpose and was no longer needed. The Bill passed both chambers and was sent to the Council for their approval. When it came to Governor Martin for his approval, he denied the Bill because he wanted the revenue tied to the sinking of proclamation money which had been ordered discontinued under the Currency Act. Martin believed the process of moving from paper money to hard currency was too slow. The Assembly defied Martin’s order and did not include the one shilling poll tax on the list to the sheriffs and did not include the four pence tax on the list to the port collectors. Martin found out after the fact. He was told a discussion had taken place in the Lower House where the decision had been made, but when he referred back to the House journals, the official record, he found no mention of it. The Lower House had defied Martin and intentionally did not record their discussion in the official record. So Martin wrote to the Treasurers insisting they direct the sheriffs to collect the tax. The Treasurer of the Northern District complied, but the Treasurer of the Southern District said it was not his duty to give lists of taxes to the sheriffs and refused. <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0082">In Martin’s letter</a> to the Secretary of State for the American Colonies he included an interesting example of how Governor Tryon had used this method to go around the Assembly. Martin explained, in 1768, both Houses of the Assembly discontinued a poll tax of three shilling dedicated to the sinking of paper money. Governor Tryon worked around the Assembly by directing the sheriffs to collect the tax. Because some did and some didn’t, the tax was not universally collected. Martin supposed it was this lack of consistency in the collection of the tax that contributed to the unrest that led to the Regulators’ Movement. Perhaps it was the other way around and the collecting of taxes not approved by the Assembly was viewed as unconstitutional.<br />
<br />
Next, Martin sent a message to the Lower House that he had received orders from the Crown’s representative to appoint commissioners to meet with South Carolina and continue the running of the border between the two provinces from the Salisbury Road, the stopping point at which the boundary had been run in 1763, to the Cherokee Lands (western border). The Speaker of the Lower House responded that the House refused the expense and gave reasons why. First, they told Martin the province had already paid thousands of pounds for a plan which ended up being drawn by the Governor of South Carolina and it had been put before the House for approval, but they had rejected it. They had asked Tryon to communicate to the King their concerns, but Tryon had left before that could happen, so they appealed to Martin to communicate their concerns. They had no interest in paying thousands of pounds for a boundary line that would deprive the province of many <i>“useful inhabitants”</i>, take from the province a great tract of valuable land now under North Carolina patents, cut off all communication and commerce between the province and the western Indians because it would leave then with a tract of impassable mountains between them, and ultimately cost them money they didn’t have to spend only to see the land go to South Carolina based on the old plan. <br />
<br />
Governor Martin was exasperated by their refusal to fund a direct order from the King and dissolved the Assembly. <br />
<br />
The following month, February 1772, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0089">Governor Martin wrote to the Board of Trade</a>, as a matter of routine business, and informed them there were four legislative acts that had been passed by Tryon’s government in January 1771 that were still under consideration awaiting authorization from England. <br />
<br />
First was the Johnson Riot Act. Martin advised that the legislation had been created in order to suppress the Regulators’ Movement and while there were some useful regulations in the law, there was one particular clause that his Crown lawyer advised he could not pass. It said that if any person was indicted for a crime under the Act, the Justices of the Court could post the indictment at the court house and each church, give the offender sixty day to surrender and stand trial. If the offender did not surrender, he would be deemed guilty and could be lawful killed and his lands and chattel confiscated for the use of government. The lawyer advised the clause was <i>“unfit for any part of the British Empire”</i> and recommended the Act be repealed. In May 1772, the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr11-0112">Board of Trade wrote back</a> and told Martin ... <i>”said clause appears to us to be irreconcilable with the principles of the Constitution, full of danger in its operation, and unfit for any part of the British Empire, but ...”</i> let it stand until it expires. <br />
<br />
Now, isn’t that an interesting development? The Johnston Riot Act issued by Tryon’s government was unconstitutional. The Act had never been transmitted to England for review and approval. Maybe Maurice Moore had a good reason for submitting the Bill to indemnify those who participated in the campaign against the Regulators. <br />
<br />
Second was an Act for the establishment of Queen’s College in Mecklenburg. Third was an Act authorizing the Presbyterian ministers to solemnize the Rites of Matrimony according to The Church of Scotland. Both of these Acts were a quid pro quo to the Scots-Irish and Highlander Presbyterian ministers who had used their sermons to rally the militias that assisted Tryon with the suppression of the Regulators’ Movement. The fourth Act was a suspension of taxes for four years to a group of Highlanders who had settled in Cumberland County three years earlier. Perhaps, another quid pro quo that Tryon gave to Highlanders who provided the militia that assisted him at the Battle of Alamance. In April 1772 the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0175">Board of Trade disallowed</a> these three Acts. <br />
<br />
The next election for the Lower House of the Assembly took place in May 1772 and the new <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0169">Assembly convened on January 25, 1773</a>. Charles Robinson and James Picket represented Anson. Governor Martin opened this session with the traditional Governor’s Address before both Houses of the Assembly and touched on four points. First, George the Third proposed <i>“an Act of Pardon and Oblivion”</i>. He did not include the indemnification. Second, the public funds were in such disarray that he recommended the example of Virginia be adopted. Third, the establishment of permanent courts of law with a focus concerning the appointment of sheriffs needed their attention to <i>“prevent for the future the evils that have originated in their mismanagement or corruption.”</i> Martin told them he had toured the western counties during the summer and found some of the abuses still prevailed, for example the practice of making an arrest based on nothing more than accusations and holding the person in jail without bail or proof. This was one of the issues listed in both the <a href="http://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2011/05/regulator-protest-paper-april-28-1768.html">1768 Anson Regulators’ Protest Paper</a> and the <a href="http://burlingham-rudd-back-pages.blogspot.com/2011/05/corresponding-narrative-join-or-die.html">1769 Anson Regulators’ Petition</a>. Martin recommended they look to Great Britain as the example for this legislation. Fourth, he asked for the refurnishing of Fort Johnston of the necessary supplies to provide for the necessary defense. <br />
<br />
The deliberations between the upper and lower houses of the Assembly are recorded in the minutes for both chambers and they include two incidents directly related to the Regulators’ Movement. Remember, the Lower House holds the purse strings for the province. <br />
<br />
First, Governor Martin sent a request to the Lower House and told them that he had been approached the previous March by <i>“many Judicious Gentlemen well wishers to this Country”</i> with concerns that continued attempts by attorneys for Edmund Fanning to recover cost for the loss of his property (destroyed by angry Regulators in Orange County) were keeping alive <i>“the dissentions that have recently thrown this Province into Civil commotions.”</i> Martin informed the Lower House that because he desired peace and tranquility, he had advised Fanning’s attorneys that if Fanning dropped his lawsuits, the Legislature would pay Fanning’s losses in the amount of £1500 proclamation money. Fanning dropped his lawsuits. The Lower House responded that just the opposite would be the effect; paying reparations to Fanning would be <i>“productive of discontent to the Inhabitants of this Province in general.” </i> They denied the Governor’s request. As you can imagine, Martin’s response expressed his displeasure and then asserted his authority. The Lower House responded by expressing their appreciation for Martin’s good intentions and they surely felt uneasy about the denial, especially since Martin had already told Fanning to expect reparations. But it was not consistent with the justice they owed to the province to pay Fanning’s private losses from the public treasure. And … when the insurrection was quelled, the offenders were held to justice by the court … and Fanning’s continued attempts only affected a small part of the province. And, if the Legislature was to grant such a request, it might start the discontent all over again by injuring the public faith. And besides, they could not justify an appropriation of the public money for private purpose without the consent of the public. <br />
<br />
The second incident involved payments to individuals who had filed claims related to sundry items either provided for or perhaps confiscated by Tryon’s military during the expedition against the Regulators. The minutes do not provide us with the details of the claims, only the name of the individual, the item(s) and amounts. Most of the claims were denied. But three claims were approved and among those three was a payment to William Few for a field of wheat, barley and oats for thirty-seven pounds ten shillings. William Few was a family member, perhaps brother, of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Few">James Few</a> who was captured at the Battle of Alamance and hung the next day without trial and left to swing from a tree on the road to Hillsborough as a warning to others. After which, Tryon’s army turned their horses loose in his fields to forage and destroyed them as punishment. <br />
<br />
So it does seem there was some “setting straight” going on in the Lower House concerning Edmund Fanning and his role, as well as, the hanging of James Few.<br />
<br />
Most of the session of this Assembly was directed at the legislation to establish the Superior and Inferior Courts. It seems that it was the practice to establish these courts and applicable laws on a time limited/term basis and when the time limits expired, the Assembly recreated the legislation for the next term. A committee was established to determine which laws were set to expire and in their communication to Governor Martin there are a couple of additional indications that they recognized they needed to make changes. One was to the role of the sheriffs in collecting taxes because the current system did <i>“not answered the intention of the Laws, but is a general grievance to this Colony.”</i> The second one was to the method for selecting jurymen. They wanted the County Court to select juries, the reason being that when a sheriff makes the selection the juror tends to feel he is obligated to follow the will of the sheriff and not the law. This became a minor sticking point in a much larger battle. The Lower House continued the practice of <i>“foreign attachments”.</i> This meant that someone who owned property, such as land, in the province but never lived in North Carolina could have their property attached as a debtor to settle the debt. Governor Martin had orders from the Board of Trade to change the language to remove foreign attachments. The Lower House refused and cited it had always been the practice to attach and every other colony used attachments. <br />
<br />
Towards the end of the session, Governor Martin presented the Lower House with a bill for the running of the SC/NC border over the summer months. You’ll remember that in the previous Assembly, the Lower House had refused to fund the project. But Governor Martin had orders from the King to get it done, so he had it done after he dissolved the previous Assembly. Martin stated to them that he had addressed their previous concerns. Assured them it was not the old plan that they had rejected, but a new plan. Once again they refused to provide the funds. <br />
<br />
Governor Martin responded by setting the following Tuesday to reconvene the Assembly in order to give <i>“a farther opportunity to reconsider the state of the Colony, and to proceed to the dispatch of public business”.</i> When Tuesday came, the Clerk of the House informed Martin that there were not enough representatives left in town to make a quorum. Martin responded that according to English law only fifteen were needed to make a quorum and sent the message back to the Lower House. The Speaker of the House, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_(North_Carolina_politician">John Harvey</a>, replied that fifteen was not consistent with their duty to their constituents, a majority was required for a quorum. Martin responded by asking the Speaker if he expected a sufficient number of representatives to return in order to make a quorum. The Speaker replied ... no, actually those that are here are on their way home. <br />
<br />
Governor Martin dissolved the Assembly on March 9, 1773 and set May 1, 1773 as the election date for a new Assembly. He’s now been governor for the province for a little less that two years and he’s dissolved the Assembly twice. The tension between Martin and the Lower House was mounting right along with the power struggle. Martin wrote to England and told the Secretary of State what transpired and why he dissolved the Assembly. The Secretary wrote back and told him to stand his ground; the King had instructed that fifteen was a quorum. <br />
<br />
But before the election in May, a man by the name of <a href="http://www.masshist.org/education/resources/blackington/josiah_quincy.pdf">Josiah Quincy</a> traveled through North Carolina on his way back to Massachusetts from South Carolina. He visited with several of the important men of the province. Quincy was a member of the Sons of Liberty in Boston and had joined with John Adams in the defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. The <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0180">journal of his trip</a> and his impression of North Carolina are transcribed.<br />
<blockquote>
March 30th (1773). Dined with about twenty at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hooper">Mr William Hooper's</a>; find him apparently in the Whig interest; has taken their side in the House—is caressed by the Whigs, and is now passing his election through the influence of that party. Spent the night at <a href="http://www.harnett.org/library/Biographies/harnettc.htm">Mr Harnett's</a>,—the Samuel Adams of North Carolina (except in point of fortune). <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/56/entry/">Robert Howe, Esq.</a>, Harnett and myself made the social triumvirate of the evening. The plan of <b>continental correspondence</b> highly relished, much wished for, and resolved upon as proper to be pursued.</blockquote>
Then on May 10, 1773, the Tea Act which gave a monopoly on the sale of tea to the East India Company went into effect. The Company had a surplus of tea and was on the verge of bankruptcy, so the Act was intended to secure the shareholder’s investments. The British Prime Minister, now <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_North,_Lord_North">Lord North</a>, thought the colonists would agree to pay the tax because he had reduced the tea to half price. He miscalculated. In Philadelphia and New York, the tea ships were turned back to Britain. In Charleston the cargo was left in the basement of the Exchange to rot. In Maryland the colonists set the ship and cargo on fire. In Boston the Governor held the ships in port, but the colonists would not allow the ships to unload. The harbor filled up with tea cargo ships and the town filled up with British crews looking for work and finding trouble. On December 16, 1773, colonists disguised as Indians snuck onboard the ships and threw 342 chests of tea overboard, the Boston Tea Party. When word reached the Privy Council in London, they scolded Benjamin Franklin and, in due course, punished Massachusetts, Boston in particular. <br />
<br />
Back in North Carolina, the new <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0229">Assembly convened on December 4, 1773</a>. Governor Martin gave his Address which was intended to give direction by defining the agenda for the legislative session. Once again he instructed that the Superior and Inferior Courts needed to be established and made permanent. He reported to the Assembly that the King had set the perimeters for the Law of Attachments, the jurisdiction of the Superior and Inferior Courts, and instructed that they pass the Act of Pardon and Oblivion with the excepted persons. Martin then told them that since they had failed to establish the courts in the last session, the province had been without a mode of justice over the last year and the goals had filled up with criminals. Therefore, he had used his authority to appoint Courts of Oyer and Terminer to alleviate the problem and he requested that the Assembly provide for the cost that had been acquired including the salary for the Judges. <br />
<br />
James Picket and William Robeson represented Anson County. What a session it was! The first order of business was a reading of the letters and resolutions that had been received from the provinces of Massachusetts Bay, Virginia, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware. <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/192/entry">Samuel Johnston</a>, Robert Howe and Cornelius Harnett were appointed to a committee to draft the responses. Before the House adjourned, Robert Howe reported back from the committee. I’ve excerpted two most significant resolves: <br />
<blockquote>
Resolved that a <i>Standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry</i> be appointed, to consist of nine persons to wit, Mr. Speaker (John Harvey), Mr. Robert Howe, Mr. Cornelius Harnett, Mr. William Hooper, <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/476/entry">Mr. Richard Caswell</a>, <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/100/entry">Mr. Edward Vail</a>, <a href="http://www.ncmarkers.com/Markers.aspx?ct=ddl&sp=search&k=Markers&sv=D-65%20-%20GENERAL%20JOHN%20ASHE">Mr. John Ashe</a>, <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/442/entry">Mr. Joseph Hewes</a>, and Mr. Saml Johnston, and five of them to be a Committee whose business it shall be to obtain the most early and authentic intelligence of all such Acts and resolutions of the British Parliament, or proceedings of Administration as may relate to or effect the British Colonies in America and to keep up and maintain a correspondence and communication with our Sister Colonies respecting these important considerations and the result of such, their proceedings from time to time, to lay before this House.<br />
<br />
Resolved that it be an instruction to the said Committee that they do without delay inform themselves particularly of the principles and Authority on which was Constituted a <b>Court of Enquiry said to have been lately held in Rhode Island with powers to transmit persons accused of offences committed in America to places beyond the seas to be tried.</b> </blockquote>
The second resolve referred to <a href="http://gaspee.org/WhatstheImportance.html">The Gaspee Affair</a>.<br />
<br />
This was the session, December 1773, where North Carolina set up their Committee of Correspondence to maintain communication with the other colonies. In the North Carolina Assembly there were those who identified with the Whigs and those who identified with the Tories. Those were the political parties of the British Parliament. Those in the North Carolina Assembly who leaned toward resistance adopted the name Whig, while those who leaned toward compliance adopted the name Tory, but their taking of those names did not necessarily mean that those two political parties in the British Parliament were aligned the same way with Americans. <br />
<br />
The Lower House established a committee to respond to the Governor’s speech. They acknowledged the expediency of framing laws for the establishment of the courts but stated it would be in such manner <i>”as may be judged best adapted to the situation and circumstances of their constituents.”</i> They told Martin that his recommendation concerning foreign attachments was not adequate, and therefore, would not be adopted. Then they reminded him that the authority delegated to him from the King concerning the commissions of Oyer and Terminer <i>”cannot be legally carried into execution without the aid of the Legislature of this Province; and the House cannot, consistent with the Justice due to their Constituents, make provision for defraying the expence attending a measure which they do not approve.”</i><br />
<br />
So in other words, no they were not going to pay the cost of the courts and judges as Martin requested, they did not agree with the Crown’s instructions concerning foreign attachments, and the courts would be established according to what was best for America, not England.<br />
<br />
The Lower House proceeded and did as they said they would do and when the Bill to establish the Superior and Inferior Courts arrived in the Governor’s Council with the foreign attachment clause, a stand off began. The Council would not accept the Bill. The foreign attachment clause was in the Superior Court Bill and some members of the Council proposed they just pass the Inferior Court part. The Lower House did not agree and insisted the two be joined in one Bill and adjourned on December 21, 1773. Governor Martin told the Lower House representatives to go ask their constituents if including the foreign attachment clause in the Superior Courts Bill was more important to them than not having a functioning Inferior Court system. He then set March 1, 1774 as the date for the Assembly to reconvene. <br />
<br />
On March 2, 1774, the General Assembly convened and Governor Martin gave his address to the joint session. He acknowledged that he had read in the Lower House journals of the last session that the members had called on the London agent for the Province to the Crown to petition George the Third concerning their objection about the elimination of the foreign attachment clause in the Superior Court legislation. Martin told them that since they were awaiting a response from the Crown, he requested they lay that issue aside and move ahead with the establishment of a permanent court system. To emphasis the necessity, he cited <i>“a flagrant and alarming instance in the barbarous and inhuman murder lately perpetrated at Cross Creek in the County of Cumberland. That is perhaps only a shocking prelude to scenes still more flagitious and tragical, if the hands of Justice continue longer disarmed by the suspension of the executive power of the Law”</i> as an example of not having a system of justice in the province. He also spoke of <i>“hostilities committed by the Indian Nation on the back part of the Southern Colonies”</i> and requested they create the legislation to re-establish the militias for defense. <br />
<br />
In the Lower House, Charles Robinson and James Picket represented Anson County. The stand off concerning the foreign attachment clause persisted. The previous incident concerning the Lower House’s discontinuance of the poll tax of one shilling and a duty of four pence per gallon on rum, wine and sprits that Martin had instructed the sheriffs to collect despite the legislation, also, arose again. This time the Lower House included the discontinuance in the court legislation Bill because the original intent of the tax and duty was to pay the salary of the Chief Justice. Their argument was they had established another system for paying the salary and no longer needed the tax. <br />
<br />
When the Lower House presented the Bill for the establishment of the Superior Courts, it contained the foreign attachment clause and the legislation to discontinue the poll tax and duty. The Council responded with a proposal for temporary relief … that the Lower House create three separate Bills, one for the establishment of the Courts which would terminate in one year, and a second one in which <i>“the attachment Law be drawn up as shall be most agreeable to your House”</i> and a third for the repeal of the fee Bill with the last two subject to the suspension clause. <br />
<br />
So the Lower House put the Council's proposal to a vote of the membership. Did they agree to separate bills for the court system and the foreign attachment law? No. Did they agree to separate out the fee bill? No. The Lower House drafted their preferred language for the foreign attachment clause and negotiated it with the Upper House and representatives of the Governor’s Council, who signed off on it. <br />
<br />
Then the Lower House passed a resolution stating that they had the authority to levy taxation, as well as, discontinue that taxation and resolved that the collectors of taxes and duties would discontinue the collection of the one pound poll tax and four pence duty, and then resolved to indemnify the collectors from prosecution. <br />
<br />
During this session the Act of Pardon and Oblivion was passed for the old Regulators, but the Act of Indemnification for those who acted on behalf of the government in putting down the insurrection was rejected on basis it needed to be clarified and more specific. England said it was too general. The Lower House responded it was based on a previous Act of Parliament and North Carolina asked no less than was granted in England to Englishmen, especially with a six thousand pounds debt to the province because of the campaign against the Regulators. <br />
<br />
The General Assembly adjourned on March 25, 1774 with a date to reconvene on May 25, 1774 and sent their representatives to the Governor’s Mansion with the Bills they had passed for his signature. Martin signed all the Bills except one, I bet you can guess which one that was ... the Bill establishing the Superior Court with the foreign attachment clause. That same day, Martin required the members of the Governor’s Council who had signed off on the Bill to put their reasons in writing. <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0262">Lewis De Rosset</a> gave the most complete and compelling argument, but <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0263/">John Rutherford</a>, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0264">John Sampson</a> and <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0265">Samuel Cornell</a> all basically said the same thing ... they had tried every way possible to get the Lower House to separate out the foreign attachment clause to no avail and they believe it was best for the province to pass the Bill so that the Courts of Justice would be established because they had now gone a year without them. <br />
<br />
This time, Martin found out about the resolution disallowing the collection of the poll tax and duty when he read the House journals. He was irate, to put it mildly. <br />
<blockquote>
Whereas the Assembly of this Province having by their resolves of the 24th of this Instant March assumed to themselves a power unconstitutional, repugnant to the Laws, and derogatory to the honour and good faith of this Province, by attempting to abrogate an Act of the General Assembly upon which the public credit essentially depends, It becomes necessary for His Majesty's service to dissolve the said Assembly of this Province. I do therefore with the advice and consent of His Majesty's Council and by virtue of the powers and Authorities in me vested by His Majesty, dissolve the said Assembly—And it is hereby dissolved accordingly. Given under my hand &c., dated 30th March 1774.</blockquote>
Governor Martin dissolved the Assembly. It was the last General Assembly to convene in North Carolina. <br />
<br />
Following the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773, the Boston Port Act was passed on March 31, 1774, and on May 13th British General Gage replaced the Massachusetts governor with himself and occupied Boston with additional British troops. On May 20th the Massachusetts Government Act and the Administration of Justice Act took effect. On June 2nd the Quartering Act was reinforced and on June 22nd, the Quebec Act was passed, which extended the boundaries of French Quebec beyond the Proclamation Line of 1763 and allowed for Catholics to practice their faith without restrictions, the objective of which was to intimidate the Americans, and it reinforced their suspicion about the intent of the western boundary line. <br />
<br />
On July 17, 1774 in Virginia, a meeting took place between George Mason, Patrick Henry and George Washington at Mount Vernon. They drew up the <a href="http://www.constitution.org/bcp/fairfax_res.htm">Fairfax Resolves</a> of Virginia which were adopted by the county convention the following day. <br />
<br />
On July 21, 1774, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0285">a meeting was held in Wilmington, North Carolina</a> by a group of freeholders. They took the lead and prepared a circular letter to the other counties condemning the oppressive acts taken against the Massachusetts Bay colony for having exerted itself in defense of the constitutional rights of America. They called for all counties of North Carolina to send representatives to a general meeting at the Johnston County Court House on August 20th. They stood in alliance with Maryland, Virginia, the Northern Provinces and South Carolina. They agreed that Philadelphia was the place to hold the First Continental Congress in September. They said they considered the cause of Boston as the common cause of America and would send all the supply of provisions possible to assist by every means possible and encouraged Bostonians to stand firm. <br />
<br />
In Anson, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0298">a meeting was held at the Court House on August 15, 1774</a>, Thomas Wade was selected Chairman. Their language wasn’t as nuanced as Wilmington. It was more straightforward. Here’s an example:<br />
<blockquote>
Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Meeting, that the late arbitrary and cruel Acts of the British Parliament, and other unconstitutional and oppressive measures of the British Ministry, against the Town and Port of Boston, and province of Massachusetts Bay, are no other than the most alarming prelude to that yoke of slavery already manufactured by the said Ministry, and by them intended to be laid on all the Inhabitants of British America, and their Posterity for ever.</blockquote>
Samuel Spencer and William Thomas were appointed representatives to the August meeting at the Johnston County Court House and empowered to <i>“consult on the great and important Subject of American Freedom”... “to the preservation of the Rights and Liberties of this Colony and those of America in general”.</i><br />
<br />
Thomas Dockery, Thomas Wade, Samuel Spencer, William Thomas, Charles Robinson, Charles Medlock, William Pickett and James Auld were appointed to a <i>Committee of Correspondence</i> and empowered to call meetings of the freeholders when they thought necessary. <br />
<br />
The Anson committee gave instructions to their representatives ... <i>“the speediest, most constitutional and effectual way to obtain redress of the grievances above mentioned will be for the several American Colonies on this Continent to stop all trade and commerce with Great Britain, and every part of America that shall continue any trade or commerce with the same (except in some necessary articles such as salt) until the above said Acts be repealed”.</i><br />
<br />
On August 25, 1774, the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0303">First Provincial Congress of North Carolina</a> opened at New Bern. The list of resolutions they produced was long. They began with confirmation of their loyalty to George the Third and the rights of succession of the House of Hanover. They stated that the imposing of taxes by the British Parliament without their consent was illegal, unconstitutional and a violation of their rights as Englishmen. They called the forcing of tea from the East India Company dishonorable to America. They praised the colonists of Massachusetts Bay for having distinguished themselves as standing up for the rights of America and stated their cause was the cause of every honest American. They condemned the actions taken in Boston and Massachusetts Bay as a breach of the charter granted by King William and Queen Mary, a violation of their rights as confirmed and sanctified by the Magna Charta. Then, they listed what they were not going to do and applied specific dates, including no imports of East India goods, except medicines, beginning January 1775, no export of tobacco, pitch, tar or turpentine to Great Britain beginning October 1775, no import of slaves or purchase of imported slaves beginning November 1775, no use of East India Tea by anyone beginning September 1775 and anyone that violated any of those items would be considered an enemy. They would not do business with any other colony who did not take the same position of embargo and vendors would not be allowed to take advantage of the increase of prices because of the embargo. They agreed to send representatives to the General (First Continental) Congress in September for the purpose of securing the rights of Americans, repairing the violations of those rights and guarding from future violations. They agreed as a colony to provide support for the Town of Boston as each is able to contribute. They agreed to the establishment of a Committee of Safety, as well as, a Committee of Correspondence in each county to ensure the resolutions of both the Continental Congress and the Provincial Congress were enforced. They selected Joseph Hewes, William Hooper and Richard Caswell to represent them in Philadelphia in September and committed that each county raise twenty pounds Proclamation Money to pay their expenses. They then laid out their specific instructions to their representatives and closed with … <i>“That therefore until we obtain an explicit declaration and acknowledgment of our rights, we agree to stop all imports, from Great Britain after the first day of January 1775, and that we will not export any of our commodities to Great Britain after the first day of October 1775.”</i> <br />
<br />
On September 1, 1774, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0305">Governor Martin wrote to William Legge</a>, Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the American colonies. It’s a long letter that detailed all the problems he had with members of the Lower House, the jest of which was; this was all just political theatre, he was being stonewalled by a “cable” of members who are using the legislative process to prevent the court system from being constituted under English laws. It’s a puppet show. He would like to change the number of representatives per county and township in order to change the balance in the Lower House because most of his problems came from the representatives of the southern counties. The bigger problem was that when the province was brought under royal supervision, there was not an effort change from the old constitution under the Lords’ Proprietors to rule under English Law. <br />
<br />
The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774. Twelve of the thirteen colonies sent representatives, absent was the Georgia colony (but a couple of individuals from Georgia did attend). Hewes, Hooper, Caswell were in attendance representing North Carolina. On September 9, the <a href="http://www.ahp.gatech.edu/suffolk_resolves_1774.html">Suffolk Resolves</a> of Massachusetts were unanimously passed by the leaders of Suffolk County and Paul Revere carried a copy to the Congress in Philadelphia where they were endorsed. The main outcome of the First Continental Congress was a <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/intol.html">Declaration of Rights and Grievances</a>, a petition to George the Third, and an agreement to form a Continental Association which would ensure the enforcement of the boycotts. They set a date for their next meeting on May 10, 1775 if the Parliament had not agreed to their demands. <br />
<br />
From London, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0331">Benjamin Franklin wrote</a> to John Harvey in North Carolina on December 24, 1774 and informed him that the petition to the King that was produced at the First Continental Congress had been given to him by Lord Dartmouth who had informed Franklin that <i>“his Majesty had been pleased to receive it very graciously, and say it was a matter of so great Importance that he should as soon as they met, lay it before his two Houses of Parliament.”</i> <br />
<br />
Sure he was!<br />
<br />
There still were a few members of Parliament who wanted to find some resolution to the problem and were sympathetic to the Americans cause. Lord Chatham recommended removing British troops from Boston, but that was shot down. Then he proposed that if American would formally recognize Parliament’s supremacy and enact their own revenue plan, the British would not enforce the tax programs and would recognize the Continental Congress. But this plan was quickly killed. Lord North proposed that if the colonies taxed themselves to pay for their own defense and salaries for royal judges and other officials, then Parliament would not impose taxes on them. This was a favored proposal by the House of Commons but needed the House of Lords and the King’s approval. <br />
<br />
Instead, on February 9, 1775 Parliament declared the American colonies in a state of rebellion and on March 30, 1775, Parliament passed, and George the Third approved, the New England Restraining Act which targeted the northeastern colonies as the troublemakers. It said, effective July 1, 1775, New England trade was to be limited to Britain and the British West Indies; trade with other nations was prohibited, and effective July 20, 1775, New England ships were barred from the North Atlantic fisheries. This last measure very much pleased the British Canadians, but threatened great harm to the New England economy. <br />
<br />
In April 1775, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland and South Carolina were added to the Restraining Act as a punishment for joining the <a href="http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-creates-the-continental-association">Continental Association</a>. North Carolina was not included in the expansion because Lord North did not know if North Carolina had joined the Continental Association.<br />
<br />
When the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0391">Second Provincial Congress</a> convened in North Carolina on April 3, 1775, Hewes, Hooper and Caswell presented the oath of the new Continental Association for approval by the representatives. All those at the meeting signed the oath, except Thomas MacKnight, a delegate from Currituck County. He withdrew himself as a representative. Upon which the other members issued the following resolve:<br />
<blockquote>
Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention that from the Disingenuous and equivical behaviour of the said Thomas Macknight, it is manifest his intentions are inimical to the Cause of American Liberty, and we do hold him up as a proper object of Contempt to this Continent, and recommend that every person break off all connection, and have no further Commercial Intercourse or Dealings with him. </blockquote>
They also ordered the resolution to be printed in the newspapers of the neighboring provinces. <br />
<br />
When the Second Provincial Congress of North Carolina adjourned on April 7, 1775, General Gage was undertaking a British troop build-up in Boston and had given orders to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Paul Revere made his famous ride to Lexington to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams <i>that the British were coming</i> to arrest them. Hancock and Adams escaped. Jonas Parker with seventy-five Minutemen were waiting and met the British upon their arrival. <br />
<br />
On April 19, 1775, the British fired on the Minutemen ... <i>”The shot that was heard around the world”</i>, at the Battles of Lexington and Concord. <br />
<br />
The Second Continental Congress convened on May 10, 1775 in Philadelphia, as had been planned. On that same day, the Green Mountain Boys led by Ethan Allen and Colonel Benedict Arnold defeated a small garrison and captured Fort Ticonderoga, and Fort Crown Point the following day. Seven days later, Arnold and fifty men raided Fort Saint-Jean and seized the British’s largest military vessel on Lake Champlain. They took the armaments and cannons to Boston. <br />
<br />
The first shots of the War had been fired by the time the Second Continental Congress came into session and the sentiment had begun to shift from reconciliation to independence, especially in Boston which was under occupation by the British military. The advocates for independence marshaled a resolution recommending that any colony that lacked a proper revolutionary government should form one.<br />
<br />
On May 15, 1775, the Congress adopted John Adams’ preamble to this resolution which called for the colonies to throw off the authority of the Crown government and their oath of allegiance to Britain. The Virginia Convention gave instructions to their delegates to propose a resolution calling for a declaration of independence. <br />
<br />
Coincidentally, on May 20, 1775, the freeholders in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina met and issued the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0428">Mecklenburg Resolves</a> calling for independence from England. <br />
<br />
On June 13, 1775, the colonial leaders in Boston heard of a plan by General Gage to occupy the hills surrounding the city and lay siege to Boston. They took those cannons they had captured from that British ship on Lake Champlain with 1,200 colonial troops and fortified the area at the surprise of the British. On June 17th the colonial forces repulsed two assaults by the British, but fell on the third one and retreated to Cambridge. The British attained a victory at the Battle of Bunker Hill, but their losses were significant, 800 wounded, 226 killed, including a large number of their officers. The colonial forces had few losses, but more importantly they demonstrated they were willing to stand and fight the British army. <br />
<br />
The Second Continental Congress stayed in session throughout the War and took on the role of our national government. Delegates communicated back to their Provincial Congress the instructions and recommendations and periodically reported back in person. On June 14, 1775 the Congress created the Continental Army and named George Washington Commander in Chief on June 15th, he took command on July 3, 1775.<br />
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
Meanwhile back in North Carolina, Governor Martin had fled from the Governor’s Mansion at New Bern because the training of the Brunswick County militia had caused him to fear for his safety. He relocated to Fort Johnston which was guarded by Captain John Collett with a small contingent of British military. On June 30, 1775, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0019">he wrote to William Legge</a>, the Earl of Dartmouth, to appraise him of the situation in the colony, and he proposed a plan to return control of the government back to his authority. <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0389">Three months earlier</a>, March 1775, Martin had first proposed to raise the Highlanders at Cape Fear if the King would restore his military rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Once again he requested a return to his former rank and said he could raise 3000 Highlanders. He needed some arms and ammunition and had communicated this request to General Gage. He told Legge that he had been working on building an alliance in the western counties and proposed rallying the old Regulators, as well as, an alliance with the Indians on the western frontier before they were persuaded to support the Americans. He recommended using the Negroes, who were few in the western counties but larger in number in the southern counties. Martin told Legge that he felt confident he could hold back the insurgency if the British would just do something about Virginia’s influence! He closed by requesting his dispatches be sent by way of South Carolina’s Governor because he feared they would otherwise be intercepted. He was right. <br />
<br />
On July 13, 1775, the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0041">Committee of Safety in Wilmington wrote to Samuel Johnston</a> and told him the Committee of Intelligence had incepted a letter from Legge to Martin that indicated a plan to use the Regulators, Indians and Negroes against them. They asked that the Provincial Congress be convened without delay because the time had come to raise the militia and put them on a payroll for the defense of the province. Only the Provincial Congress had the authority to do that. They also told him they had <i>“a number of enterprising young fellows that would attempt to take the fort, but are much afraid of having their conduct disavowed by the Conventien.”</i> In other words, they wanted orders to attack Fort Johnston. When Governor Martin heard of the talk about the attack on Fort Johnston, he fled to the safety of the British sloop-of-war <i>Cruizer</i>, anchored on the Cape Fear River, leaving Captain Collett at the fort. Because Martin had dismantled the guns at the fort and remounted them on the Cape Fear River to protect the <i>Cruizer</i>, Captain Collett could not protect the fort and abandoned it. On the night of July 18th, Colonel Robert Howe and his militia, with John Ashe and Cornelius Harnett, marched to the abandoned fort and burned it in full view of Governor Martin aboard the <i>Cruizer</i>. When Martin eventually received a response from Legge, he was told that the King approved his plan but would not restore his rank, instead the command had been given to Lieutenant Colonel MacLeane and the King expected Martin to give his full support. <br />
<br />
Highlanders began arriving by shiploads and Governor Martin required an oath of allegiance to Great Britain before he would issue their land grants. On July 10, 1775, the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0092">Presbyterian ministers in Philadelphia</a>, Pennsylvania sent a circular letter to the Presbyterian inhabitants of North Carolina explaining to them that what they have been told about the ministers in Pennsylvania was not true. That it is totally in keeping with the principles of their faith to demand their rights as Englishmen. <br />
<blockquote>
Listen not to them who abuse our General (Continental) Congress, or our poor distressed brethren at Boston, who are contending for American liberty, and now bear the burden and heat of the day; but above all listen not to their bloody Counsels who would excite you to draw your sword to enslave your fellow subjects in North Carolina and make your Province a field of blood. We conclude with hearty prayers for your temporal and everlasting welfare, and for a speedy and honorable decision of our contests with Great Britain on constitutional principles: and beg leave to subscribe ourselves, with great respect, your friends and brethren in the Lord Jesus Christ</blockquote>
The <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0089">Third Provincial Congress</a> of North Carolina opened on August 20, 1775 at Hillsborough and adjourned on September 10th. Representing Anson County were Thomas Wade, Samuel Spencer, William Thomas, David Love and William Picket. There were several items on their agenda with most of the meeting dedicated to the formation of the military structure: Minutemen, Militia and Continentals or Regulars. The province was divided into six military districts. Anson County fell in the Salisbury District and the Field Officers appointed were: Thomas Wade, Colonel; Adlai Osburn, Lieut. Colonel; Joseph Hardin, Major. They put the province on a war footing and appointed Richard Caswell Treasurer of the Southern district and one of the Signers of the Public Bills of Credit, so he resigned his position as one of the three representatives to the Continental Congress and was replaced by <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/439/entry">John Penn</a>. They implemented the resolution of the Continental Congress to defy the Navigation Act and declared their ports open to any country of Europe except Great Britain, Ireland and the British West Indies, duty free! The Articles of Confederacy from the Continental Congress were presented and sent to a committee. Persons suspected of suspicious behavior were sent to a committee for examination. Governor Martin’s recent proclamation of condemnation of the Provincial Congress as an illegal bunch of traitors was presented and unanimously resolved:<br />
<blockquote>
That the said Paper is a false Scandalous, Scurrilous, malicious, and sedicious Libel, tending to disunite the good people of this province, and to stir up Tumults and Insurrections, dangerous to the peace of His Majesty's Government, and the safety of the Inhabitants, and highly injurious to the Characters of several Gentlemen of acknowledged Virtue and Loyalty; and further that the said paper be burnt by the common Hangman.</blockquote>
A committee was established to prepare an address to the inhabitants of the province to explain the situation and called on them to unite behind a new government, pointing out that the Governor had abandoned his duties without any threat or violence towards him and was onboard a sloop-of-war on the Cape Fear River. Likewise, a committee was appointed to meet with the Highlanders <i>“to explain to them the nature of our unhappy controversy with Great Britain, and to advise and urge them to unite with the other inhabitants of America in defence of those rights which they derive from God and the Constitution.”</i> <br />
<br />
In <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0114">his letter to William Legge</a>, Earl of Dartmouth, dated October 16, 1775, Martin confirmed that the committee appointed by the Provincial Congress had succeeded in persuading many of the settlers in the western counties to the American’s side and those who had voiced their support for him now claimed neutrality. He wasn’t sure, but he thought the same had happened among the Cherokees. He was surprised to learn that the Highlanders had also declared neutrality, but he felt like they were just lying dormant and would rally to the Crown’s side. He suggested that two battalions of Highlanders be raised in Britain and sent to North Carolina so they could use their influence to rally their countrymen to the King’s Standard. He voiced his frustration that he had not heard from General Gage about his request for arms and ammunition, lamented that the colony was slipping away, and what a shame it was to loose such resources. If he could just get some support, he was certain he could restore royal authority. <br />
<br />
In October 1775, the British recalled General Thomas Gage from his command as a result of the huge loss of men he had incurred at the Battle of Bunker Hill and put Major General William Howe in charge. On October 27, 1775 <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0122">William Legge wrote the Governor Martin</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
The advantages that may attend the sending immediately a Force to the assistance of the Friends of Legal Government in the Four Southern Provinces of Virginia North and South Carolina, and Georgia, are so apparent, and have been so fully stated, by yourself and the Governors of the other 3 Provinces, that the King has thought fit to order, that a Body of His Majesty's Forces, consisting of seven Regiments should prepare to embark at Cork about the 1st of December, in order to proceed with two companies of Artillery and a proper number of Battalion Guns, Howitzers, etc to Cape Fear River.<br />
<br />
You will see by the enclosed copy of a Letter to Major General Howe, that this separate corps is to be commanded by one of the several officers with him, and it will also fully instruct you as to the whole plan and conduct of the expedition, and I have only to add, that any corps of Provincials that may be formed upon this occasion, must be raised by your authority, and commanded by you as Provincial Colonel.</blockquote>
The provincial governor of Georgia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wright_(governor)">James Wright</a>, had lived in the colonies for a long time. His father had been the chief magistrate of South Carolina when he began his law practice in Charleston. Eventually, he became the London agent for South Carolina, and then he became the lieutenant governor of Georgia, followed by the governorship in 1760. The governor of South Carolina, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Campbell_(governor)">Lord William Campbell</a>, was a Scot. He was married to a native South Carolinian, Sarah Izard. She was the daughter of Ralph Izard, a family name that those familiar with the Rudd clan at St. James Goose Creek will recognize as prominent in early South Carolina history. Campbell had been governor of Nova Scotia prior to his successful petition to be reassigned to South Carolina in 1775 because of his wife’s family. He replaced the acting governor, <a href="http://www.halseymap.com/Flash/gov-detail.asp?polID=99">William Bull</a>, who was a Loyalist, and often acted as governor in the absence of a royal appointee. In Virginia, <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/439/entry">John Murray</a> was governor. Murray was a Scot who had participated in the Jacobite campaign of 1745 to restore the English Crown to the House of Stuart. He was only fifteen years old at the time and served with his father, William. He joined the British Army at age twenty, served in the British Parliament and became governor of Virginia at about age forty in 1771. <br />
<br />
In his letter of November 7, 1775, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0126">Legge laid out the strategy to Martin</a>. He told him to gather his force of Loyalists to be ready for British troop arrival at Cape Fear. Once the troops were landed and the Crown’s authority was returned, the command would take forces to Charles Town, South Carolina and do the same there. <br />
<br />
In his November 12, 1775 letter to Legge, we find the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0134">details of Governor Martin’s strategy</a> to raise the Highlanders. He said, about three weeks ago, Captain Alexander McLeod, a gentleman from the Highlands of Scotland and a former officer of the Marines who had been in the province for about a year, as well as, his father-in-law, Mr. Allan McDonald, had sought him out and told him they each had raised a company of Highlanders. And Major (Donald) McDonald who was sent by General Gage from Boston under orders to raise a battalion of Highlanders under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Allan McLeane (mentioned above as appointed by the King) had offered to these Highlanders a position of rank and title under his command which they had agreed to if the King decided not to grant Martin’s request to raise the Highlanders under his own command. Martin also expressed his concern that taking those men away from the province would undermine the solidarity of the Highlanders that were under their influence.<br />
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZNT9Yhfr-OU/TuPvp4_Ka8I/AAAAAAAAAO0/N3yfdV36FiA/s1600/cheeks%2Bcreek.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="295" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZNT9Yhfr-OU/TuPvp4_Ka8I/AAAAAAAAAO0/N3yfdV36FiA/s400/cheeks%2Bcreek.jpg" width="145" /></a></div>
Allan McDonald, the father-in-law of Alexander McLeod, was the husband of Flora McDonald, the main character in the escape of Bonnie Prince Charlie after his defeat at the Battle of Culloden in 1746. Alexander McLeod, the son-in-law, was married to their daughter, Anne. Alexander and Anne had two sons, Alexander Jr. and James. The family emigrated to North Carolina in the summer of 1774, and eventually settled at Cheek’s Creek which at the time was in Anson County, a tributary of the Pee Dee River. It’s important to understand the history of the Highlanders at Cape Fear. <br />
<br />
According to Malcolm Fowler, author of <a href="http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/historyfiction/fullview.aspx?id=maf"><i>”They Passed this Way; a Personal Narrative of Harnett County History”</i></a>, after Gabriel Johnston, a Scot and a graduate of the University of Edinburgh, became governor of North Carolina in 1734, he established his residence and the seat of government on the Cape Fear River, over the protests of the Albemarle planters. (I think that was likely because the colony was populated down from the Virginia side and up from the South Carolina side and that location shifted the seat of political influence.) He began to write back to his friends in Scotland about the opportunities in North Carolina and encouraged them to emigrate. As governor, he also offered incentives including ten years of free poll taxes and grants of money to get them started in their new life. In 1736, a group of Highlanders came to have a look and not finding the area around Wilmington and lower Bladen very appealing, they moved up the Cape Fear River just above present-day Fayetteville where they found the hills and streams that reminded them of their Highlands. Some of them remained and others returned to Scotland and spread the word of this appealing new home in the new world where they would be far from England’s yoke. In September 1739, the first shipload arrived and headed up the Cape Fear. Gradually, the settlement grew into thousands as more and more Highlanders arrived over the decades. <br />
<br />
Now, some English-American colonial history, I’ll try not to confuse, but it does get complicated!<br />
<br />
The era known as the <i>”Restoration”</i> began in 1660 when the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland were restored to a monarchy with the return of the House of Stuart by Charles II. The colony of Carolina was established by eight noblemen who had helped Charles II regain the English Crown by rewarding them with the land grant and a lot of freedom to do with it as they pleased. They (or their heirs) had sold their interest back to the Crown by 1727, except for a strip along the VA/NC border that became known as the Granville District. The colony split between North Carolina and South Carolina. As the eastern coastal tidewater portion of North Carolina was being populated, the migration from South Carolina flowed into the southern end of the eastern portion and began to spread towards the Pee Dee River area within the following twenty years. (That’s when our Burlingham Rudd, the father, migrated to the lower Pee Dee River region.)<br />
<br />
Prior to the reign of Charles II, England had just come out of the Commonwealth period of Cromwell which was the result of a religious war between Cromwell’s Puritans and Charles I’s Royalists. That ended with Charles I being charged with treason and his ultimate execution for a secret deal to use the Scots against Cromwell. Prior to that period, England had a long bloody history of the throne being back and forth between Anglican or Catholic, depending on who succeeded. When Charles II became King, many were concerned that he was secretly a Catholic and he had married a Catholic. But he died in 1685 leaving no legitimate heirs. The Crown passed to his brother, James II of England and VII of Scotland who was a Catholic convert. He had two daughters, Mary and Anne, by his first wife and both were raised Protestant at the command of Charles II. His first wife died, he remarried a Catholic and had a son. Now there was a Catholic heir to the throne and this gave impetuous for the <i>”Glorious Revolution”</i>. James II&VII was deposed by his nephew, William of Orange, who was also his son-in-law, the husband of Mary, his daughter. <br />
<br />
During the <i>”Glorious Revolution”</i>, the Scot Presbyterians supported William, but the Scot Highlander Catholics supported James II&VII. The period of joint rule by two heirs began in 1689 with William and Mary. James fled to the protection of Louis XIV of France with his son and wife. When James II&VII died in 1701, Louis XIV officially recognized his son as James III of England and VIII of Scotland, who became known as <i>“The Old Pretender”</i> (to the throne). During the reign of William and Mary the Declaration of Rights was signed into law which laid out the succession that brought Anne to the throne as Queen in 1702. And in 1701, before William died he had signed the Acts of Settlement which ensured the Protestant succession to the throne. Anne had eighteen pregnancies, but left no heir when she died in 1714. The Acts of Settlement directed that succession go to Sophia, House of Hanover (Germany), grand-daughter of James I (VI of Scotland and I of England) who was a Protestant. But Sophia died seven weeks before Anne, so the English throne passed to Sophia’s eldest son, George Lewis, who was 52nd in the line of succession to the throne. This marked the beginning of the Hanoverian Dynasty with George I. <br />
<br />
The year following his coronation, 1715, the Jacobites (exiled Highland Scots loyal to the House of Stuart and James III&VIII) landed in Scotland and made an unsuccessful attempt to take the throne from the Hanoverians. Some of the captured leaders were exiled as prisoners-of-war to Charleston, South Carolina. George I militarized the Highlands and when George II became King, he continued the militarization. In 1745 there was another unsuccessful Jacobite uprising instigated by the son of James III&VIII, Charles Stuart, also known as “<i>Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Pretender”</i>. This time the Jacobite forces were brutally defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1746 by the English forces under William Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland who was the youngest son of George II. His defeat of the Jacobites earned him the nickname of <i>”Butcher Cumberland”</i> for his scorched earth policy in the aftermath of the battle. Those Highlanders who survived submitted to the <i>Blood Oath</i>. Many of them eventually fled to North Carolina where Gabriel Johnston was the Royal Governor. In 1754, Cumberland County was set off from Bladen County and given the name honoring the man who was responsible for the butchery of thousands of Highland Scotsmen following the Battle of Culloden in 1746 … no doubt as a reminder to the Highlanders living at Cape Fear.<br />
<br />
So, there was an old settlement of Highlanders at Cape Fear by the time of the American Revolution, some of them were former Jacobites, some were descendants of Jacobites, others had come over the years to join them. Those who had been in America for a generation or more, no longer felt the loyalty to England. For some, it was their fathers or grandfathers who had taken the <i>Blood Oath</i> and bore the brand on their wrist, not them. This is what Governor Martin discovered when he attempted to persuade them to the Loyalist side. This is why the strategy of importing new Highlanders into Cape Fear was developed and why Governor Martin required the oath of allegiance to Great Britain before he allowed their land grants. And in a very twisted logic, this is why Flora McDonald and her family had such influence over those Highlanders at Cape Fear who had ties to the defeat at Culloden and had taken the <i>”Blood Oath”</i>. It was a powerful bond.<br />
<blockquote>
“I, _____, do swear and as I shall answer to God at the great day of judgment, I have not, nor shall I have in my possession any gun, pistol or arm whatsoever, and will never use plaid, tartan or any part of Highland garb. That I will defend His Majesty the King and support him in any measure he may take. And should I break this, my solemn oath, may I be cursed in all my undertakings, family and property; may I never see my wife, children, father, mother or other relations; may I be killed in battle as a coward and lie without Christian burial in a strange land, far from the graves of my forefathers and kindred. May all this come across me if I break my oath.”</blockquote>
Likewise, the oath of allegiance to Great Britain that the old Regulators had taken after the Battle of Alamance bound some of them as Loyalists.<br />
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
On December 23, 1775, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0163">George Germain, Viscount Sackville wrote to Martin</a> and told him they were ready to put the plan in motion. <a href="http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/army/p/cornwallis.htm">Lord Cornwallis</a> was given command of the land forces, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Peter_Parker,_1st_Baronet">Sir Peter Parker</a> was in command of the naval forces, and instructed Martin to gather his provincial troops to join the King’s troops when they landed. <br />
<br />
Governor Martin issued a <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0218">Proclamation on January 10, 1776</a> calling for all loyal to the King to rally to the cause of restoring royal authority and issued commissions to Highlanders and Regulators as officers. On February 5th, Donald MacDonald, a British officer sent by General Gage, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0219">issued his Manifesto</a> as a general call for loyalists to rally. That was followed by a <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0225">Manifesto by Thomas Rutherford</a>, Colonel for the Cumberland County Loyalists, to meet at Cross Creek by February 16th. <br />
<br />
On February 12th, John Penn, one of the North Carolina delegates to the Continental Congress, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0222">wrote to Thomas Person</a> and told him he read in the newspaper that the British were on their way to North Carolina, that <a href="http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americanrevolutio1/p/hclinton.htmhttp://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americanrevolutio1/p/hclinton.htm">Major General Clinton</a> had left from Boston about three weeks ago (January 20th) and stopped in New York to consult with Governor Tryon about what strategy to pursue when he arrived at Cape Fear. By February 10th, the <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0220">New Bern Committee of Safety</a> had received word that men were on the move from Cumberland, Anson, Bladen and Guilford to Cross Creek in response to Donald MacDonald’s call for Loyalists to repair to the King’s Royal Standard and ordered Richard Caswell to raise the Minutemen and join forces with the other Patriot militias. There were three officers deployed to stop the Loyalists before they arrived at Wilmington, Colonel Richard Caswell, <a href="http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/249/entry">Colonel Alexander Lillington</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Moore_(Continental_Army_officer)">Colonel James Moore</a> (the father of Maurice Moore) who was the lead commander. The various Committees of Safety around the province began arresting and disarming Highlanders and old Regulators as a deterrent and calling out their militias for the march to Wilmington. Research now shows that about twenty-three of the thirty-five counties sent as many men as they could spare. The Anson County regiment of militia detachment was led by Major David Love with two known companies led by Captain Thomas Harris and Captain Thomas Wade; a third company led by Captain Thomas Childs arrived after the battle and most likely assisted with the capture of prisoners. <br />
<br />
On February 23rd, Colonel William Purviance reported on activity around Wilmington and that he had taken some Tories into custody. His reconnaissance said that there were <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0232">about 200 old Regulators and about 900 Highlanders </a>on the move toward Wilmington. <br />
<br />
Colonel Caswell led the New Bern District and Colonel Lillington led the Wilmington District, all the other District Militias were instructed to join Colonel Moore with the 1st NC Regiment of the Continental Line who had positioned his troops along Rockfish Creek, south of Cross Creek. This position at Rockfish Creek blocked the most direct route for the Loyalists forces from Cross Creek to Wilmington so they were forced to detour by crossing the Cape Fear River at Campbelton and using Negro Head Point Road for their march to Wilmington. When Colonel Moore learned of their route, he sent messages to Colonel Caswell to block their way at Corbett’s Ferry over the Black River, to Colonel Alexander Martin and Colonel James Thackston to take their troops to Cross Creek and prevent a retreat, and to Colonel Lillington to fortify Moore’s Creek Bridge. Colonel Moore took his troops to Elizabeth Town hoping to meet the Loyalists at Corbett’s Ferry, but they constructed a bridge above the ferry and crossed, continuing towards Moore’s Creek. On February 25th, Colonel Lillington and 150 Minutemen built earthworks on the east bank of the creek. The next day February 26th, Colonel Caswell and his 850 Militiamen arrive and brought two pieces of artillery, <i>Old Mother Covington</i>, a 2 ½ pound cannon, and her <i>Daughter</i>, a ½ pound swivel gun, and camped on the west side of the creek. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PaTEE2Gw9vM/TuPx2OHxyRI/AAAAAAAAAPA/hqyCwFAC7tE/s1600/moores%2Bcreek%2Bbridge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PaTEE2Gw9vM/TuPx2OHxyRI/AAAAAAAAAPA/hqyCwFAC7tE/s400/moores%2Bcreek%2Bbridge.jpg" width="280" /></a>When the Loyalists arrived about six miles from the bridge, General McDonald, the British commander, sent a messenger under a flag of truce to the Patriots offering terms of surrender. The Patriots refused and sent that message back. His messenger told General MacDonald that the Patriots were camped with their backs to the creek. That night Colonel Caswell moved his troops to the east side of the creek where Colonel Lillington was camped. Together they made up about 1000 troops. Colonel Caswell ordered his tents left up and campfires burning on the west side to fool the enemy. They removed the planks from the bridge and greased the girders.<br />
<br />
General McDonald wanted to move on to the coast, but he fell ill that night and Lieutenant Colonel McLeod took command of the Loyalists troops. He decided to attack and began his march to the bridge at about 1 a.m. on February 27, 1776. When he arrived he found Colonel Caswell’s camp empty and saw some men on the other side of the bridge. The men called out and asked if he was a friend. He replied “to the King”. The men fell back to the earthworks. Lieutenant Colonel McLeane approached the bridge and called out in Gaelic. There was no reply and he realized they were Patriots. Lieutenant Colonel McLeane told Lieutenant Colonel McLeod and he rallied the Loyalists troops and moved toward the bridge. In spite of discovering that the planks had been removed, and only about half of the Loyalists forces were armed, Lieutenant Colonel McLeod and Captain John Campbell led the charge down the girders of the bridge with the battle cry <i>“King George and Broadswords”</i> to the beat of drums and Scottish war pipes. They were met with cannon and musket fire from the Patriots. The battle was over within minutes. Over thirty Loyalists were killed including Lieutenant Colonel McLeod, some fell on the road, some on the bridge and some drowned in the creek. About twenty Loyalists were wounded. Most of the fleeing Loyalists were captured, about 850, including General Donald McDonald. Colonel Moore with his troops arrived after the battle but his forces assisted with rounding up the fleeing Loyalists, some three to a horse. The Loyalist officers were taken to Halifax and placed in the goal, which now was bulging with prisoners-of-war. The remaining Loyalists were paroled upon their taking an oath not to raise arms against the Patriot cause ever again. <br />
<br />
The Battle of Widow Moore’s Creek Bridge was the first battle of the American Revolution in North Carolina. The charge of the Highlanders is thought to have been the last broadsword battle ever fought. <br />
<br />
Major General Clinton arrived at the coast of North Carolina on March 12, 1776 to find no Loyalists troops waiting and remained there expecting Lord Cornwallis and Sir Peter Parker to arrive not knowing they had been delayed by stormy seas. The situation had now changed in North Carolina. The Committees of Safety had continued to seek out old Regulators and Highlanders, pressing them to choose to take the oath of allegiance to the American cause, claim neutrality or be disarmed. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6bhDkp_B4Tk/TuP5TM0NhXI/AAAAAAAAAPY/1uk3AhPa2Jc/s1600/nc%2Bflag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="144" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6bhDkp_B4Tk/TuP5TM0NhXI/AAAAAAAAAPY/1uk3AhPa2Jc/s400/nc%2Bflag.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
The <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0250">Fourth Provincial Congress</a> convened on April 4, 1776. Representing Anson County were Daniel Love, Samuel Spencer, John Crawford, James Picket, and John Childs. At this meeting the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Resolves"><i>Halifax Resolves</i></a> were passed granting authority for North Carolina delegates to the Second Continental Congress, Joseph Hewes, William Hooper and John Penn, to cast their votes for independence. It’s noteworthy that the resolution also maintained the independent rights of North Carolina. Both the date of the <i>Mecklenburg Resolves</i> and the date of the <i>Halifax Resolves</i> are emblazoned on the North Carolina State Flag in commemoration of the bold steps taken by North Carolina in being the first of the American colonies to call for independence from Great Britain. <br />
<blockquote>
Resolved, That the delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be impowered to concur with the delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency, and forming foreign alliances, reserving to this Colony the sole and exclusive right of forming a Constitution and laws for this Colony, and of appointing delegates from time to time (under the direction of a general representation thereof), to meet the delegates of the other Colonies for such purposes as shall be hereafter pointed out. The Congress taking the same into consideration, unanimously concurred therewith.</blockquote>
The Provincial Congress established a committee of inquiry including: Allen Jones, John Ashe, Miles Harvey, Thomas Benbury, Nathaniel Rochester, Griffith Rutherford, Arthur Council, Whitmill Hill, Thomas Burke, Thomas Person, John Rand, Thomas Jones and Cornelius Harnett, to investigate the extent of the involvement of those incarcerated at the Halifax gaol and reported back to the Congress on April 20, 1776. They singled out one particular as a traitor to the cause because he had taken the Association oath:<br />
<blockquote>
Your Committee are of Opinion that Farquard Campbell disregarding the sacred Obligations he had voluntarily entered into to support the Liberty of America against all usurpations has Traitorously and insidiously endeavoured to excite the Inhabitants of this Colony to take arms and levy war in order to assist the avowed Enemies thereof. That when a prisoner on his parole of honor he gave intelligence of the force and intention of the American Army under Colo Caswell to the Enemy and advised them in what manner they might elude them—and that he is a Freeholder and lives in Cumberland County.</blockquote>
Among the list, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0254">you can find here</a>, are these men from Anson County, who they charged with participation at the Battle of Moore’s Creek Bridge on the side of the British: <i>Alexander MacDonald (son of Kingsborough), Samuel Snead, Lewis Lowrey, Nathaniel Stead, Murdoch McLeod, John Smith, Norman McLeod, John McLeod, Rory McKinnen, Allen Macdonald (of Kingsborough), Alexander McRaw, Hugh McDonald.</i><br />
<br />
Both <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr11-0146">Colonel James Moore</a> and <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0237">Colonel Richard Caswell</a> wrote after-battle accounts to Cornelius Harnett. And on March 21, 1776, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0242">Governor Martin wrote a very long explanation</a> to his new boss, George Germain, Viscount Sackville, who had replaced William Legge, in which he pretty much said ... he moved ahead with plans estimating that the British would arrive mid-February based on the instructions he had received from William Legge unaware that the plans for deployment from Great Britain had been delayed. Then Martin described a very interesting picture that referenced an <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr09-0374"><i>Address from Inhabitants of Anson County</i></a> proclaiming their loyalty to Great Britain. Martin said the delay caused loyalists support to decline. If the British had arrived according to his plans, then the loyalists of the backcountry would have rallied to the side of restoring the Crown’s authority. There is no date on the Anson County document, or a list of signatures, but it was signed by 227 inhabitants. We can see by the list of names of officers that the committee identified, most of those from Anson have Scottish surnames, but one surname in particular ... Lowrey (Lowery) ... is a surname of one of the Rudd family neighbors. But so were many of the men representing Anson County in the Provincial Congress. No doubt there were family, friends and neighbors in Anson on both sides, just as there was throughout the colonies. Martin had been given the impression from the North Carolina loyalists, as well as, the prediction of Highlander support by Lieutenant Colonel MacLeane that 10,000 men could be successfully raised. The first report he received indicated about 5,000, the next report indicated about 3,500. Most of the Highlanders came from Cross Creek, the main settlement on the Cape Fear River, and numbered about 1,400 when the march began. But as they moved towards Wilmington, many abandoned the march and returned home which reduced the numbers. Martin explained that by the time the Loyalists forces had reached Moore’s Creek Bridge, they numbered about one hundred “country” people (likely old Regulators) and 600 Highlanders because along the way there were defections <i>”as danger and difficulty increased upon them”</i>. <br />
<br />
Sir Peter Parker’s fleet began arriving at Cape Fear on April 18th and Lord Cornwallis arrived on May 3rd. On May 5, 1776, <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0252">Major General Clinton issued a proclamation</a> which offered a pardon to any “insurgent” who laid down their arms and took a loyalty oath to Great Britain … expect for Cornelius Harnett and Robert Howe. Then the British set about raiding the property of Patriots and Governor Martin ordered the “Crown’s share” of supplies for the British fleet. In late-May, Clinton sent recognizance to Charleston Harbor and by May 31st, realizing that the Patriots had done a really good job of disarming Loyalists, Clinton decided to move ahead with the plan to take Charleston and lifted anchor with Lord Cornwallis and Sir Peter Parker. Governor Martin went with them.<br />
<center>
~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~</center>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rutledge">John Rutledge</a>, one of the representatives from South Carolina, had returned to Charleston in February 1776. He had received the same intelligence that John Penn had received when he warned Thomas Person of the British plans to capture the southern colonies. The royal appointed governor, Lord William Campbell, had opted for the safety of a British warship in September 1775. On March 26, 1776, the last Provincial Congress of South Carolina adjourned and the same men convened themselves as the first General Assembly and elected John Rutledge as president and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Laurens">Henry Laurens</a> as vice president. Rutledge ordered the strengthening of Charleston’s defenses and put <a href="http://www.sciway.net/hist/governors/moultrie.html">Colonel William Moultrie</a> in charge of the military preparations. Rutledge ordered Moultrie to Sullivan’s Island to supervise the building of a fort for seacoast defense, to either stop the British landing or make it as costly as possible. Since it was unlikely the fort could annihilate Clinton’s armada, inland troops and arming the city was also planned. General George Washington had given <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lee_(general)">Major General Charles Lee</a> command of the Southern Department in March 1776 with the orders to protect Charleston, the most important port in the south. Major General Lee marched a detachment of Colonel Muhlenberg's Virginians to North Carolina where he picked up a detachment of North Carolina Regulars under Colonel Jethro Sumner and Colonel Thomas Clark. These 2,000 men joined Colonel Thompson’s South Carolina Rangers in Charleston. <br />
<br />
At Sullivan’s Island, Colonel Moultrie’s work gangs, among them Charleston’s African slaves, began construction on a fort that was to be 500 feet square with double walls, sixteen feet apart and filled with sand to absorb the cannon shots. The walls were made of twenty feet high palmetto logs that rose ten feet above a wooden platform where the artillery was mounted consisting of a assortment of thirty-one cannons along the front and rear walls, but only the front, seaward side was completed. When Major General Lee saw the fort he called it a “slaughter pen” and told Colonel Moultrie to abandon it. John Rutledge told Colonel Moultrie to obey the orders of Major General Lee in everything, except in leaving Fort Sullivan. <br />
<br />
The British fleet of nine Man-of-War ships, <i>Bristol, Experiment, Actaeon, Active, Solebay, Syren, Sphinx, Friendship, and the bomb-vessel Thunder</i>, and their accompanying support vessels, eleven ships total arrived off the coast of Charleston Harbor by June 10th. They carried a total of 300 heavy cannons. General Clinton’s plan was to take Sullivan’s Island, then use it as a base to take Charleston Harbor. The warships would obliterate the unfinished fort. Lord Cornwallis was to land his army on Long Island (Isle of Palms) and cross Breach Inlet to Sullivan’s Island. Then they would take the harbor. <br />
<br />
By the morning of June 28th the warships had maneuvered into position. At 9 a. m., Sir Peter Parker fired a signal gun and in about an hour the warships began to advance. Cornwallis discovered that the low tide at Breach Inlet was six to seven feet deep instead of the estimated two the three feet and the army could not wade the Inlet, so he resorted to “Plan B” … use boats to cross.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PRl6Et9xC5w/TuP0yZxHg3I/AAAAAAAAAPM/6f1Sao4oJcE/s1600/sullivans%2Bisland.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PRl6Et9xC5w/TuP0yZxHg3I/AAAAAAAAAPM/6f1Sao4oJcE/s400/sullivans%2Bisland.jpg" width="160" /></a></div>
Thousands of Charlestonians were watching from the banks of the Cooper River and from rooftops. Their royal governor, Lord William Campbell, was on board Parker’s flagship, the <i>Bristol</i> <a href="http://www.halseymap.com/flash/window.asp?HMID=47">and commanded the gundeck</a>. <br />
<br />
At 11:30 a. m. the bomb-vessel, <i>Thunder</i>, started throwing mortar bombs towards the fort. Colonel Moultrie’s men returned fire at the closest ship, <i>Active</i>. Colonel Moultrie only had about thirty rounds of powder for the cannons when the fight started, so he told his troops to take good aim and not waste their shots. He sent Lieutenant Byrd to inform Lee and bring back more ammunition. Then the British ships started firing broadsides at the fort, and the three frigates attempted to use the fire cover to sail past the fort to the weak side. But their pilots were unfamiliar with the sandbars and they ran aground. Inside the fort the cannons were firing furiously, the British mortar bombs were hitting the palmetto trees outside the fort and most of them were smothered before they could explode. The spongy palmettos also stopped most of the cannon balls from penetrating into the fort. Most of the American casualties came from direct hits to the cannon embrasures or those few bombs that made it over the walls. The 400 troops that Colonel Moultrie had stationed on the end of Sullivan’s Island as advanced guard stopped Clinton’s troops from crossing the Inlet. During the battle, a cannon ball from a British ship successfully took down the battle flag over the fort and Sergeant William Jasper, <a href="http://www.ccpl.org/content.asp?id=15742&catID=6047&action=detail&parentID=5748">in the words of Captain Horry</a>, <i>“leapt over the ramparts and deliberately walked the whole length of the fort, until he came to the colors and the extremity of the left, when he cut off the same from the mast, and called to me for a sponge staff, and with a thick cord tied on the colors and stuck the staff on the rampart in the sand. The sergeant fortunately received no hurt, though exposed for the considerable time, to the enemy’s fire.”</i> <br />
<br />
About 4 p. m., Major General Lee visited the fort and more powder was brought. Lee described the men as <i>"determined and cool to the last degree, their behavior would in fact have done honors to the oldest troops."</i> With the additional ammunition, the Americans fired at the British ships until after sunset. At about 9 p. m., Parker had had enough. He had been able to get two of the three frigates afloat and retreated. The next morning the British set the one frigate still grounded, <i>Actaeon</i>, on fire and the Americans sailed out to her and fired her guns at the departing <i>Bristol</i>. After they returned to shore, the <i>Actaeon</i> exploded and sent up an inferno of fire and smoke that Moultrie described as <i>”a grand pillar of smoke, which soon expanded itself at the top, and to appearance, formed the figure of a palmetto tree.”</i> <br />
<br />
The British used 32,000 pounds of powder, the Americans used 5,000 pounds. The British causality count was about 78 dead, 127 wounded. <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr10-0270">General Lee’s report to General George Washington</a> said the American’s loss was <i>”ten killed on the spot, and twenty-two wounded; seven of whom lost their legs or arms”</i>.<br />
<blockquote>
The cool courage they displayed astonished and enraptured me; for I do assure you my dear General, I never experienced a hotter fire—twelve full hours it was continued without intermission. The noble fellows who were mortally wounded conjured their brethren never to abandon the standard of liberty. Those who lost their limbs deserted not their posts. Upon the whole, they acted like Romans in the third century.</blockquote>
And this about the detachments of troops under his command.<br />
<blockquote>
The manifest intention of the enemy was to land, at the same time the ships began to fire, their whole regulars on the east end of the Island. Twice they attempted it, and twice they were repulsed by a Colonel Thompson of the South Carolina Rangers, in conjunction with a body of North Carolina Regulars. Upon the whole, the South and North Carolina troops, and the Virginia Rifle Battalion we have here, are admirable soldiers.</blockquote>
In late July, Clinton, Cornwallis and Parker left South Carolina and returned to New York. Governor Martin hired a sloop to accompany General Clinton’s armada on its limp back to New York. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cgM1dRDfl7U/TuP5hFA186I/AAAAAAAAAPk/zpCiIOMu5Oc/s1600/sc%2Bflag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="151" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cgM1dRDfl7U/TuP5hFA186I/AAAAAAAAAPk/zpCiIOMu5Oc/s400/sc%2Bflag.jpg" width="223" /></a></div>
The flag that flew over Fort Sullivan bore the symbol of a crest on a field of dark blue which represented the color of the militia’s uniforms and the crescent moon emblem on their caps. When South Carolina seceded from the Union and needed a new flag in joining the CSA, the palmetto tree was added as symbolism of the Battle of Sullivan’s Island. Fort Sullivan was eventually renamed Fort Moultrie in honor of the Colonel. <br />
<br />
On July 4, 1776, the final draft of our Declaration of Independence was presented to the Second Continental Congress. The attempts of the British to invade, as well as their defeat, at Moore’s Creek Bridge in North Carolina and Sullivan’s Island in South Carolina were strong encouragements for signing of the pact ... <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/history/franklin.html"><i>"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."</i></a> ~Benjamin Franklin, in the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1149628523080487562006-06-20T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:20:56.447-05:00George L. Rudd ~ Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/deedscreven1797.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/deedscreven1797georgelrudd.jpg"><strong>CLICK FOR LARGER VIEW</strong></a><br />
<br />
Several years ago when I began to research my Rudd family I knew only three things; my grandfather who I had met once when I was about 12 years old was named Eulis Rudd, his father was named Walter Rudd and they both had lived in Gadsden County, FL. But I was very fortunate that many others who were researching the same Rudd family were generous in sharing with me information they had collected on our family.<br />
<br />
One of the very first documents I received was this Deed of Gift from George Lounsdell Rudd to his four sons. I’m sure most of you have also seen this document. I was told it was the Last Will and Testament of George L. Rudd, Sr. but it didn’t read like a Last Will to me. Later I discovered it was a document that had been filed in the South Carolina State Papers under Wills. Evidently, it was filed as a result of George Lounsdell Rudd’s death. It’s strange that no other documents have been found relating to his death, so I guess we are left to assume whatever other property he had at the time had either been sold, distributed to his heirs, or left to his wife, Margaret.<br />
<br />
The four sons listed in the South Carolina record led us to read them as George Jr., Ely, James and Luis. And since my ancestor line runs back through Elias David Rudd, most researchers leaned towards Ely as the designated son. I became curious why a son of an English colonial father would name a son Luis since it is clearly a Hispanic spelling of the name that in English would most likely be Lewis or Louis but not at all a very common English name for the time. I was also curious that a document that originated in Screven County, Georgia had surfaced in South Carolina. One day while I was at my genealogy library I looked through the Georgia Deed Book microfilm and to my surprise, there it was, registered on August 30, 1797. When I compared the two documents, you could clearly see the name believed to be Luis was actually Lias. Another noteworthy difference in the two records is that the record in South Carolina does not include the header, Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock. Therefore it was naturally assumed to be his Last Will.<br />
<br />
Now this raises the question that I don’t think we will ever answer, why would GLR name a son Ely and another son Lias and what are their actual given names? Are they both Elias?<br />
<br />
But getting back to the Deed, it’s clear that George Lounsdell Rudd’s intent was to distribute stock and moveable property he owned in Screven County, Georgia to four sons:<br />
<blockquote><i>my stock of hogs with their increase, likewise any stock of cattle with their increase and two mares and one gelding and all my moveable property</i></blockquote>You will notice GLR list cattle, horses and moveable property. It sounds very much like he was living on land in Screven Co., GA but there is no mention of the distribution of the land. I could find no record of the deeding of the land in the Georgia records. But those records are very lacking indeed. So did GLR sell his land in GA or was his land given to another son, perhaps his oldest son as was the tradition back then. And if so, perhaps that son is not listed in this document. That raises the questions ..<br />
<br />
Did GLR have more than these four named sons? Was George Jr. as the oldest son given the land in Georgia? Did he live on this land and keep the stock there from 1797 to 1804 when the deed was filed as a probate of GLR’s estate?<br />
<br />
Here’s another key part of the Deed:<br />
<blockquote><i>appoint my son 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</i></blockquote><br />
I’ve asked many genealogy researchers, more knowledgeable than I, what would "become of age" mean in 1797 Georgia, including the archivist at State of Georgia. The consensus is that age would have been 21. So we can assume that in 1797 George Jr. and Ely are over 21 but James and Lias are not.<br />
<br />
If we look to the available census data in trying to determine the ages of the four sons we can clearly see in the 1790 Fairfield census that GLR has three males under 16 years old. George Jr. is obviously alive and over 21 in 1797. If he is counted in this census then he is under 16 in 1790, but at least 22 in 1797 if the sons are listed in birth order and Ely is the second oldest. That would mean Lias is not yet born.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790-1840FairfieldandCharleston.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><br />
<br />
In the 1800 Charleston census GLR has 2 males listed as 26/45 years old. Is this an error in the transcription? Are these 2 males actually 16/26, and therefore, James and Lias? They can’t be under the age of 21 in 1797 and then be at least 26 years old 3 years later. It seems to be an error. If so, then that backs us up to the 1790 census again and places Lias in the household and George Jr. has left the house. If the 1800 census is James and Lias, then Ely has now left the household. I think this theory is supported by the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/surveycharleston1798elyrudd.jpg"><strong>evidence of a 1798 survey for 500 acres paid for by George Rudd and granted to Ely Rudd.</strong></a> Perhaps a wedding gift.<br />
<br />
It gets very confusing when we look at the 1810 Charleston census. We see an Elias who is 26/45 with his oldest child, a male, 10/16 among his children. Then there’s Elijah with 2 males 16/26 and then there is O’riley who is 26/45 with his oldest child, a female, 16/26 and another child, a male, 10/16. Both Elias and O’riley have children old enough to indicate they would have been head of household in the 1800 census but they don’t show up. Either they were not counted in the census or they’re living in the 1790 Burlingham Rudd or George L. Rudd households because by this time this branch of the Rudd family has moved from Anson Co. NC to St. James Goose Creek in SC. Also by the 1810 census, GLR has died and most likely the household of Margaret 45+ years old listed in between Elijah and O’riley is his widow. So 1810 is no help in determining ages.<br />
<br />
But in 1820 we see Eli, Burrel and James. If this is the same Ely in the Deed we can narrow down his birth year. He’s under 16 in 1790 so born between 1774 and 1790. The Deed indicates he is at least 21 in 1797 so born before August 30, 1776. In 1820 he says he’s 45+ so born by 1775. That would place his birth year between 1774 and 1775. If the birth order is correct in the Deed, then George Jr. is older than Ely by at least a year and that would place his birth year by 1773/4.<br />
<br />
But where is George Jr.?<br />
<br />
This analysis of Ely’s birth year is a key piece of information for descendants of Elias David Rudd when we add another key piece of information that surfaced later (thanks to Tim Inman); Elias David had a brother named George Washington. Of course, this also will add to the confusion since there is both a George, Ely/and Lias mentioned in the Deed. But my investigation of George Washington Rudd indicates he was born between 1780 and 1784 and that means he is too young to be of age in 1797. Therefore, he is not the George Jr. in the Deed. And since he is the brother of Elias David, neither the Ely nor the Lias in the Deed are Elias David. That brings us to the conclusion that George Lounsdell Rudd is NOT the father of Elias David Rudd or George Washington Rudd.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1150254746255014632006-06-19T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:21:32.069-05:00In Search of Elias David RuddI’ve come to realize that there were several reasons that contributed to the assumption that Elias David Rudd was the son of George Lounsdell Rudd. One of those reasons was due to the fact that George Lounsdell did have sons named Ely and Lias and both of those names appear in the Charleston District census. If you look at the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790-1840FairfieldtoCharleston.jpg"><strong>1820 Charleston census</strong></a> you will see Ely Rudd and, like I said before, there was an assumption that this Ely was our Elias David. This assumption was reinforced because Ely Rudd does not show up in Charleston after 1820, and we know that Elias Rudd surfaces in the 1830 Jefferson County, Florida census. The assumption was made that Elias David migrated from South Carolina to Florida after the 1820 census and before the 1830 census. That assumption was then reinforced by what we know about the reported birth location of his children. <br />
<br />
Well, as it turns out the assumption about his migration is correct. He did migrate out of South Carolina to Florida after 1820 and before 1830, but he’s not the Ely in the Charleston District census. Before I go any further I want to also point out that there is also an Elias Rudd in the Charleston census who is alive in the 1840 census when Elias David is recorded in the Dale County, Alabama census. <br />
<br />
Remember my telling you about some of the obstacles we have to overcome when depending on the census indexes and the interpretation of the name RUD and REED? Well, I’m now of the opinion that’s why our family researchers of the past couldn’t find Elias David in 1820 and assumed him to be in Charleston. But he was living in Beaufort County, South Carolina. In the index to that census he is listed as Elias Reed. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BeaufortEliasRudd.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BeaufortEliasRuddlg.jpg"><strong>CLICK FOR LARGER VIEW</strong></a><br />
<br />
Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, there is a Reed family in Barnwell, actually they might be Rud since sometimes their name clearly looks like Rud and sometimes it looks like Reed. They could be somehow related to our family, they’re not in our cluster of families, but they live nearby. I’ve done a good deal of investigation of the records concerning this family that includes Hugh, Samuel and John, but they never include an Elias. <br />
<br />
Take a look at the 1813 land survey in Beaufort that list G. Rud as a land owner and taking note also of the other family names listed on the survey. Then compare that survey with the 1820 census and the cluster of names. Of course we have to allow for two variables. First, the survey and the census are 7 years apart. Second, the survey records the names of the land owners not necessarily the inhabitants. That’s one of the challenges in using land records, trying to determine what tract of land was the homestead. We’ll talk about that more when we identify George Washington Rudd in Barnwell. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/EDR1820BeaufortSC.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><br />
<br />
Make note that on the survey you also see Absolom Breland. I’ve discovered a wonderful website for this Breland family and in a future post we’ll explore the origin of the name Fannie Breeland Tanner. Also make note of the Breland and Taner names on the 1820 census. It seems we have pretty strong circumstantial evidence that this is Elias David Rudd and he is living on land that is owned in 1813 by G. Rud. Unfortunately, I’ve not been able to find a grant or deed assigned to a G. Rud in Beaufort to determine who this is. It’s not a far stretch to guess the G stands for George. We can’t be certain this is George Washington Rudd, Elias David’s brother, but it’s a good guess!<br />
<br />
Also note on the census that Elias Rud has 3 males and 2 females under the age of 10 years old. He and Fannie list their ages as between 26 and 45 years old. To determine the most likely birth year for Elias David Rudd, we have the War of 1812 Pension Application he filed on November 1, 1875 where he states he is eighty-seven years old, making his birth sometime between November 2, 1787 and October 31, 1788. Most census schedules we have available have insinuated his birth as January 1790. However, I feel his pension application in most likely more accurate than those census schedules. Therefore, in 1820, Elias David was 32 to 33 years old. <br />
<br />
In addition, this discovery of 3 male children born before 1820 would support the idea that those males were: William Wesley, b. 1815; Seth Jackson, b. 1817; Elias Trowell, b. 1819. I’ll not tell you YET who I think the 2 female children are!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1150388986525192192006-06-18T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:22:11.496-05:00George W. Rudd, father of Burrel Rudd of Coffee Co., ALA couple of years ago (my, how time has flown) my cousin Jacque Rudd and I had committed ourselves to take on a new intensive investigation into the parentage of William Wesley Rudd. Jacque’s husband, Michael Trent Rudd, descends from William Wesley by way of James Ervin, Sr. to James Elias to James Elvin to Michael Trent. William Wesley is such an enigma. It’s amazing how a man can live to be so old and have so many wives and children and still remain a mystery to most of his descendants. <br />
<br />
But first a little background. <br />
<br />
There is a belief among some family researchers that William Wesley of Dale Co., AL and Burrel of Coffee Co., AL were sons of James Rudd the son of George Lounsdell Rudd, Sr. This belief was intertwined with the belief that Elias David was also a son of George Lounsdell. As the story goes, James was married to Sarah Bowman and had two sons and one daughter. When James died, Sarah remarried George Poland and gave up her children to be raised by Elias David Rudd. Another version is that James and Sarah both died and left the children orphaned and they were taken-in by Elias David and Fannie who raised them as their own. The daughter is said to be Nancy Rudd who married her cousin Seth Jackson Rudd, son of Elias David and Fannie.<br />
<br />
Then there's this conflicting belief that simply puts Burrel Rudd as the son of Elias David Rudd which would mean his mother was Fannie Breland Tanner. <br />
<br />
Jacque and I decided the way to approach this investigation would be to first try and find documentation that would support this belief and to dig up all the information we both had about William Wesley Rudd. So I started looking for James and Sarah while Jacque took on William Wesley. <br />
<br />
I remember when I got the phone call from a very excited Jacque. <br />
<br />
"Lin! Didn't you say Burrel's mother is supposed to be named Sarah?" <br />
<br />
I said, "Well, according to that story it should be." <br />
<br />
Jacque said, "Well, I'm looking at the 1850 Coffee County census and <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1850CoffeeBurrelRudd2.jpg"><strong>there's an older female in Burrel's household whose last name is Rudd but it looks like her first name is SUSAN!" </strong></a><br />
<br />
I said, "Who is Susan Rudd?"<br />
<br />
So we had the possibilities that Susan Rudd was either a Rudd widow or an unmarried Rudd female. <br />
<br />
The next day while I was searching through the Rudd message board at GenForum.com I came across an old posting from Tim Inman that said he had information from an old letter written in the 1920’s by James Dallas Rudd, son of Burrel. The letter said that the father of Burrel was named George W. Rudd who came from North Carolina and settled in Georgia. Also that George W. Rudd had a brother named Elias Rudd. <br />
<br />
Another William Wesley descendant, <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/grantbarnwell1811georgerudd.jpg"><strong>William Harry Rudd, had shared with me a copy of an 1811 land grant to a George Rudd in Barnwell County, South Carolina</strong></a> so I began to look for George in the 1810 census. The indexes to the census didn’t list him, so I began to look page by page for the name. I was very excited when <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810BarnwellGeoRud.jpg"><strong>I found a George Rudd in 1810. </strong></a><br />
<br />
We all knew that in the 1800 Barnwell census, there was <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800BarnwellBurlinghamRud.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Rudd</strong></a> and a <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800BarnwellWilliamRud.jpg"><strong>William Rudd</strong></a> but since no one had found any Rudd in the 1810 or 1820 census (that dang Rud/Reed problem with the indexes) it was said that the 1800 Burlingham in Barnwell was the same 1800 Burlingham in Charleston and for some reason William was never questioned. After all, the Elias David Rudd researchers knew EDR was in Jefferson County, FL in 1830 and based on the belief he was the son of George Lounsdell Rudd, Sr. there was no motivation to look back at Barnwell. And the existence of two Burlingham Rudd males reporting the same age that would put them in the second generation was unrealistic. That would indicate that Burlingham Rudd, Sr. had named two sons Burlingham. <br />
<br />
Well, I’ll get back to this perplexing turn of events in a future posting but let me just state now that there do appear to be two Burlinghams in 1800 who report they were born by or before 1755. One must be Burlingham 2nd, born 1741, but who is the other one? <br />
<br />
A search through the South Carolina land surveys turned up <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/surveybarnwell1811georgerud.jpg"><strong>this 1811 land survey for George Rudd.</strong></a> <br />
<br />
Notice that in the land grant says: <blockquote>unto George Rudd his heirs and assigns, a plantation or tract of land containing One Hundred and Ninety Four Acres surveyed for him the 10th of January 1811. Situated in Barnwell District between Lower 3 Runs & Big Saltcatcher including a Pond called ( ? ) Pond on a Road from Ed Brown’s Mill to Barnwell Courthouse.</blockquote>And the land survey says:<br />
<blockquote>I do hereby certify for George Rud a tract of land containing One Hundred and ninety four acres surveyed for him the 20th of April 1811. Situated in Barnwell District between Lower Three Rivers and Big Saltketcher including a Pond called Persemmon Pond and on a road leading from Col. Brown’s Mill to Barnwell Courthouse. Bounded NE by land surveyed for Thos. Morris and on all sides by land supposed to be vacant.</blockquote>So the land grant and the land survey seem to be for the same property. On the survey we have Thomas Morris identified as an owner of adjoining property. Looking at the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810BarnwellGeoRud.jpg"><strong>1810 census we see Thomas Morris.</strong></a> <br />
<br />
A search of the South Carolina Archives turned up this <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/deedbarnwell1831georgerudd.jpg"><strong>1831 land deed from George Rudd to Moses Sanders. </strong></a> <br />
<br />
The land deed says:<br />
<blockquote>one hundred and ninety-four acres more or less situated in the District and State aforesaid adjoining lands of the said Moses Sanders, John Barfield, Elijah Davis and William A. Peyton lying on the south side of the great Saltcatcher on the road leading from Barnwell Court House to Stinson Landing on Savannah River which land was granted to the said George Rudd on the Sixth day of December 1813.</blockquote>This is the same property. George Rudd had the property surveyed in 1811 and it was granted to him in 1813. He sold the property in 1831. <br />
<br />
Now look at the end of the land deed. It says:<br />
<blockquote>I, James G. W. Duncan, one of the Justices of the Quorum do hereby certify unto all whom it may concern that Mrs. Susannah Rudd the wife of the within named George Rudd did this day appear before me and upon being privately and separately examined by me did disclose that she does freely and voluntarily without any compulsion, dread or fear of any person or reason whatsoever, renounce, release and forever relinquish unto the within named Moses Sanders all her right and claim of Dower of, in and to all and singular the premises within mentioned and released.</blockquote>George Rudd had a wife named Susannah who waived her rights to Dower when the property was sold. This most likely was their homestead. <br />
<br />
There is another <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/deedbarnwell1822georgerudd.jpg"><strong>land deed where George Rud sells land (originally granted to Thomas Morris) to Curtis Owens in 1822.</strong></a> That deed also bears the Waiver of Dower by Susannah Rud, wife of George Rud. <br />
<br />
All this evidence seems to indicate that most likely the father of Burrel Rudd was George W. Rudd. That would dispel the theory that James Rudd, son of George Lounsdell Rudd, Sr., was the father of Burrel Rudd, as well as the theory that Elias David was his father. <br />
<br />
I’m thankful to Tim Inman for posting the contents of the James Dallas letter that gave us the clue that Burrel’s father was George W. Rudd, to William Harry Rudd for sharing the 1811 Barnwell land grant with me that set me on the path back to Barnwell, and to Jacque Rudd for her discovery of Susan Rudd in Burrel’s house in the 1850 Coffee County, AL census. All these pieces of information led to this discovery. This is the reason I decided to start this blog. By working together and sharing information we can put this early Rudd family together.<br />
<br />
Of course, we still don’t have definitive evidence to the parentage of William Wesley. But I think we can dispel the theory that James Rudd was his father. And the fact that Elias Rudd in 1820 Beaufort County, South Carolina has three males under the age of 10 years old moves us closer to the belief that William Wesley was a son of Elias David Rudd and Fannie.<br />
<br />
Note that on the 1810 census, George Rud reports his age as 26/45 years old. This indicates he is born between 1765 and 1784. I’ll narrow down this birth year in a future posting. And remember that this George W. Rudd has a brother named Elias Rudd. So when I show you that this George W. Rudd isn’t old enough to be the George Jr. in the GLR Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock, son of GLR, that Elias David isn’t a son of George Lounsdell Rudd, Sr. either!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1150737903662129692006-06-17T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:22:51.143-05:00George Washington Rudd of BarnwellIn the previous posting <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/06/george-w-rudd-father-of-burrel-rudd-of.html"><strong>George W. Rudd, father of Burrell Rudd of Coffee County, AL</strong></a>, we located George W. Rudd living in 1810 Barnwell County, SC. <br />
<br />
When we look at the 1820 Barnwell census we see two clusters of Rud families. <br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800-1830BarnwellRud.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><br />
<br />
One on <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BarnwellGeorgeSrGeoJrWmRud.jpg"><strong>page 17a shows a George Rud, Sr., George Rud, Jr. and Wm. Rud </strong></a>the other one shows <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BarnwellGeorgeRud.jpg"><strong>George Rud on page 20b</strong></a> and a <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BarnwellUnknowRud.jpg"><strong>Rud who we can’t identify on page 20a.</strong></a> (Based on the space available for the given name of this Rud, I wonder if the name is Wm. Rud.) But for our purposes here it doesn’t really matter since both of these George Rud household say the head is 26/45 years old. In addition, it does appear that the 1820 census was transcribed by several different people and some of it is in alphabetical order, some of it appears to be in chronological order, so it is of no use to us as far as determining neighbors!<br />
<br />
Based on the 1810 census we established George Rud with a wife named Susannah Rud was born between 1765 and 1784. In the 1820 census we can establish that both of the listed George Ruds are born between 1775 and 1794. That narrows down George W. Rudd’s birth year as 1775 and 1784. <br />
<br />
Now we move to the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BarnwellGeoRud.jpg"><strong>1830 census</strong>. </a><br />
<br />
We see George Rud reporting his age as between 50 to 60.<br />
<br />
That means he is born between 1770 and 1780. When we combine all these census records together we can now narrow down the birth year for George W. Rudd to be between 1780 and 1784. <br />
<br />
Next we need to identify the George Rud in 1810 who we have determined to be the father of Burrell Rudd to be the same George Rud in 1830. <br />
<br />
Looking back at the land records for the George Rud we have identified as the father of Burrell Rudd we see the names of his neighbors and landmarks. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/grantbarnwell1811georgerudd.jpg"><strong>The 1811 land grant says</strong>:</a><br />
<blockquote>One Hundred and Ninety Four Acres surveyed for him the 10th of January 1811. Situated in Barnwell District between Lower 3 Runs & Big Saltcatcher including a Pond called ( ? ) Pond on a Road from Ed Brown’s Mill to Barnwell Courthouse.</blockquote><br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/surveybarnwell1811georgerud.jpg"><strong>The 1811 land survey says:</strong></a><br />
<blockquote>Situated in Barnwell District between Lower Three Rivers and Big Saltketcher including a Pond called Persemmon Pond and on a road leading from Col. Brown’s Mill to Barnwell Courthouse. Bounded NE by land surveyed for Thos. Morris and on all sides by land supposed to be vacant.</blockquote><a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/deedbarnwell1831georgerudd.jpg"><strong>The 1831 deed of sale of his land says:</strong></a><blockquote>Tract of land containing one hundred and ninety-four acres more or less situated in the District and State aforesaid adjoining lands of the said Moses Sanders, John Barfield, Elijah Davis and William A. Peyton lying on the south side of the great Saltcatcher on the road leading from Barnwell Court House to Stinson Landing on Savannah River which land was granted to the said George Rudd on the Sixth day of December 1813.</blockquote>Keeping in mind that the land records only list the names of the land owners and not the actual persons living on the land we can see that <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BarnwellGeoWRud.jpg"><strong>in the 1830 census we have George Rud with John Sanders, Sidney Davis and Nathan Davis on page 136</strong>.</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BarnwellTaltonBrwn.jpg"><strong>On page 135 we see John Peyton and Talton Brown. </strong></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BarnwellBartlettBrwn.jpg"><strong>On page 137 we see what is most likely Bartlett Brown</strong> </a> (not the Barrett Brown as transcribed). <br />
<br />
Since the 1830 census appears to be transcribed based on the actual report of the Census Taker, we can conclude that it is reflective of the cluster of families. <br />
<br />
When George Rud sold his land in 1831, the adjoining land was owned by Sanders, Davis and Peyton. His 1811 land grant and survey name Ed Brown and Col. Brown as owners adjoining land. This is of course circumstantial evidence, but it does indicate that the George Rud in the 1830 Barnwell census is our George W. Rudd. <br />
<br />
In addition we have the Mill’s Atlas for Barnwell County surveyed in 1818.<br />
<br />
George Rud’s land was located between the Big Saltcatcher and the Lower Three Runs/River on the road from Barnwell Courthouse to Stinson’s Landing/Bridge. Between the head of Cedar Branch and land owned by Talton Brown. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/MillsAtlasBarnwellGWRud.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
<br />
That brings me to the conclusion that George Washington Rudd of Barnwell County, SC, the father of Burrell Rudd was born between 1780 and 1784. He is too young to be of age in 1797 Screven County, GA (21 years old) to be the same George Jr. in the Deed of Gift by George Lounsdell Rudd, Sr. to his four named sons. <br />
<br />
This George Washington Rudd would have been 13 to 17 years old in 1797.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1150777918632442292006-06-16T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:23:28.379-05:00Elias Rudd of St. James Goose CreekElias Rudd of St. James Goose Creek wrote his <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/willeliasruddcharleston.jpg"><strong>Last Will and Testament</strong></a> on May 13, 1847 and it was proved with testimony on February 29, 1848. He died within 9 months.<br />
<br />
In his will he identifies the location of his several tracts of land. <br />
<blockquote>I direct that my several tracts of land be divided by a line running as nearly as is practical in the center of a Branch known as the continuation of Partridge's Creek Water of Wasamasaw and extending through my said land in a nearly western direction</blockquote>We know by the land grants and land surveys found in the South Carolina Archives that he did indeed have several tracts of land. <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/land.html"><strong>You can view the land grants and land surveys here.</strong></a><br />
<br />
It’s difficult to determine just how many of those documents pertain to him because the use of the name Eli, Ely and Elias can be confusing when we try to follow the census. And at times it seems that the name Eli and Elias are interchangeable in the St. James Goose Creek census. Oh, if we only knew why George Lounsdell would name two sons with such similar names. It’s evident that Ely, son of George Lounsdell Rudd, Sr. also had land grants and land surveys. <br />
<br />
Elias Rudd also names his heirs in his Will:<br />
<blockquote>my son, George W. Rudd; wife, Elizabeth; daughter, Amelia Ann Rudd; daughter, Mary S. Rudd; daughter, Margaret Rudd; daughter, Tabitha Bradwell; daughter, Catherine Long</blockquote>When we look to the 1840 Charleston census I think we can dentify the Elias Rudd with the St. James Goose Creek Will because his daughter Tabitha Rudd is living next to him. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790-1840FairfieldandCharleston.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
<br />
It appears that by the time of his Will, daughter Tabitha has married, as has daughter Catherine. But at the time of this census, Tabitha was living separately which would indicate to me that she is living on one of the adjoining tracts of property that had been improved. <br />
<br />
Based on the information in his Will, the households in 1840 might have looked like this:<br />
<br />
<strong>1840 Census</strong><br />
Elias Rudd, Pg 155 Ln17<br />
1m 10/15...George Washington, son<br />
1m 20/30...Unknown male (possibly Catherine’s husband)<br />
1m 50/60...Elias, head<br />
1f 5/10.....Margaret ?, daughter<br />
1f 15/20...Unknown female (possibly Catherine, daughter)<br />
1f 40/50...Elizabeth, wife<br />
<br />
Tabitha Rudd, Pg 155 Ln18<br />
1f -5........Amelia ?, sister (Elias daughter)<br />
1f 5/10.....Mary S. ?, sister (Elias daughter)<br />
1f 20/30...Tabitha, head (Elias daughter)<br />
<br />
Two thoughts. First, Catherine only receives 50 acres of the land while the other children receive 150 acres. That might indicate she had already received 100 acres between the 1840 census and the 1847 Will, maybe when she and her husband moved out to the home. Second, based on this census, Elias Rudd would have been born between 1780 and 1790. <br />
<br />
In addition, when we look at the Eli and Elias households in 1820 and 1830 respectively it could appear that the 1840 Elias Rudd emerges as a son of Eli but we have already determined that Ely, son of GLR, was born between 1774-5, so if as indicated, Elias Rudd was born between 1780-90, it's very unlikely that Ely is his father. My impression is that at some point, Elias Rudd and his family were living in the Eli Rudd household, his brother. <br />
<br />
In my research it is clear that the children of George Lounsdell Rudd, Sr. owned land in the area of Four Holes Swamp. <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1818eliasrudd.html"><strong>Elias Rudd also had a tract at Four Holes Swamp</strong></a>, with additional tracts expanding out towards Cypress Swamp and Wassamassaw Swamp. The <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1820eliasrudd.html"><strong>1820 land survey</strong></a> not only identifies the Partridge Creek area but shows a survey for a third tract being added to two existing tracts. <br />
<br />
Here is the general location of Elias Rudd's land. It appears to be near lands owned by a Burlingham Rudd based on <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1808burlinghamrudd.html"><strong>land surveys identifying Rolling Road</strong></a> as a land mark.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/EliasRuddPartridgeCreek.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><br />
<br />
A few years ago I found a listing for a George and Emily Rudd buried at Rudd Branch Cemetery. Based on the estate probate for George Rudd, he had a wife named Emily and a son named Charles W., two daughters named Mary Elizabeth and Martha Jane. Recently, I discovered a new tool for a topographical map locator and was pleased to <a href="http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=17&n=3668498&e=573479&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25"><strong>locate not only Rudd Branch, but also Rudd Cemetary.</strong></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/RuddBranchCemeterysml.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/RuddBranchCemetery.jpg"><strong>CLICK FOR LARGER VIEW</strong></a><br />
<br />
Most likely the George and Emily Rudd buried beside each other at Rudd Branch Cemetery are the son and daughter-in-law of Elias Rudd of St. James Goose Creek.<br />
<br />
I can’t be certain, but I do tend to believe that Elias Rudd with the Last Will and Testament in St. James Goose Creek is Lias, the son of George Lounsdell Rudd, Sr. identified in the Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock in Screven Co., GA.<br />
<br />
In that 1797 Deed, Elias Rudd would have been 7-17 years olds and not yet of age.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1152295978548220812006-06-15T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:24:07.849-05:00Elias David Rudd ~ from Beaufort Co. SC to Jefferson Co. FL<em><strong>Discovering the Two Unknown Daughters</strong></em><br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/covered_wagon.gif" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" align=left></a>I’ve always been fascinated by the courage it must have taken to pack up your family in a wagon, leave all you’ve known behind and set out for new land. What drove Elias David, and later George Washington, to such aspirations?<br />
<br />
I can tell you that based on my research of the Rudd families in South Carolina after the Revolution, I have developed in my senses that we are looking at two distinct families that are bound by a common ancestor, but appear to have taken different paths, set different priorities. In Charleston, we have the George Lounsdell Rudd, Sr. clan who are land wealthy, live in what appears to be more of an affluent society, their neighbors are socially influential. In Barnwell and St. Peter’s Parish, Beaufort the family of Elias David and George Washington appear to be living rather modestly, out of the two brothers, only George appears to own land and the area is very rural as compared to the Four Hole Swamp area at St. James Goose Creek. <br />
<br />
You can view the South Carolina land records that I have transcribed <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/land.html"><strong>HERE</strong>. </a>Soon I hope to have the North Carolina land records transcribed for your viewing. But I will tell you now, George Lounsdell appears to be very land wealthy in North Carolina too as compared to Burlingham 2nd. <br />
<br />
In reading <em>“The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina, Volume 1 1514-1861”</em> I came across two interesting passages I want to share with you. In the first passage, the authors are describing the living conditions in St. Peter’s Parish as compared to the two other Parishes in the county. St. Peter’s was the “poorer” of the other two because most of Beaufort at the time was plantations for growing cotton and later rice with many absentee landlords that generally lived in Charleston. The plantations hadn’t yet spread to St. Peter’s Parish at the time when Elias David was living there. It might be that eventual push of large plantations to the Savannah River that made the Rudds feel they needed to move west. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Page 304-305 <br />
Even the wealthier of the resident families of upper St. Peter’s Parish lived plain and modest lives compared to the style of Charleston, Savannah, and Beaufort. In 1821, Charlotte Verstille, a New England schoolmistress who had moved to Robertville with her husband, Tristram Verstille, a headmaster and mistress of the Black Swamp Academy, described the homes of the more substantial planters of upper St. Peter’s Parish:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>These buildings can boast neither of a cellar nor an upper story – all the rooms being on the surface of the ground. Glass windows are quite a rare luxury, light being admitted by throwing open a wooden door swung on hinges where the windows should be. When found necessary to guard against the cold, the light is sure to be excluded. It is surprising how many comforts these people of wealth will voluntarily deny themselves … the grand staple here is bacon – bacon and collards … you will find it on every table in every season. </blockquote></blockquote>I’ll remind you that Robertville and Black Swamp are the area of the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/EDR1820BeaufortSC.jpg"><strong>1813 land survey </strong></a>where we see land owned by G. Rud and the location of Elias David and Fannie on the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BeaufortRudTaner.jpg"><strong>1820 Beaufort Co. census</strong>. </a>We can imagine that if the wealthier residents of St. Peter’s Parish lived as such, so did Elias David and Fannie, if not with lesser. <br />
<br />
This was a time when the United States was expanding. There had been the Louisiana Purchase in 1802, the Mississippi Migration out of St. Peter’s Parish began as early as 1806. Alabama Fever struck when Alabama became a territory in 1817.The Missouri Compromise in 1820, then in 1822 the Florida Territory was established. All of these probably created a yearning inside of Elias David to establish his own. It doesn’t appear that he owned his own land in South Carolina, or at least I’ve found no record of it. I feel certain though that the location of his residence in the 1820 census is land owned by G. Rudd, probably his brother. <br />
<br />
I’m sure Elias David was a farmer, perhaps a planter, most likely cotton and rice. There is no record that either of the brothers owned slaves. That’s another big difference between the Charleston and Barnwell clans. And since they didn’t have any slaves, their farms were most likely small and the families were self-sustaining. <br />
<br />
Now, let me share with you another interesting passage from <em>“The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina”</em>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Page 325<br />
In the chapter “Savannah River Rice Plantations” there is a reference to an 1852 hurricane that devastated the Savannah River area up to Augusta, GA. The Savannah newspaper noted, “The extent of the damage to the crop is impossible to estimate but known to be great.” Two years later (1854) another hurricane swept ashore. It was said to be “the most destructive storm since 1824,” Three-quarters of the rice crop on the Savannah River was destroyed by high water.</blockquote>So according to this account, in 1824 there was a hurricane that hit Beaufort County that was a destructive storm and was only surpassed in it’s destruction by the storm of 1854. That probably contributed to Elias David’s motivation to move westward. <br />
<br />
We know from the reporting of birth location of Elias David’s children that he left Beaufort Co., SC sometime after Rachel Delila was born in September 1826 and the birth of James C. B. in about 1830. And we know that Elias Rudd is listed in the 1830 Jefferson Co., FL census. <br />
<br />
I’ve always been intrigued that the children all report they were born in Georgia until the last child, Sarah, who reports she was born in Florida in 1838. We had no record of Elias David in Georgia, but we know that the location in Jefferson Co. FL is on the border with Thomas Co. GA. <br />
<br />
Maybe Elias David thought he was in Florida? Maybe when the time came for the birth of the children, Fannie traveled across the state line to a location in Georgia to give birth? However it happened, for years in the census records those children report they were born in Georgia, not Florida. <br />
<br />
One thing I think is probably sure; Elias David and Fannie didn’t set out for Florida by themselves. When you look at the families in Beaufort and Barnwell counties, many of them followed the same migration into Florida, Georgia and Alabama. Some of them married into the Rudd family, but many more of them can be seen as neighbors in the new lands. Most likely they migrated out in groups and it’s likely that followed the Old Trading Path trail that ran from just across the old Barnwell and Beaufort area of South Carolina on the Savannah River and crossed Georgia somewhere around upper Thomas Co. GA heading west and crossing the Chattahoochee River at the junction of Jackson and Gadsden counties in Florida ending somewhere near Pensacola Bay.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/OldTradingPath.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/migrationtrails.jpg"><strong>Click for a larger view</strong></a><br />
<br />
Why Jefferson Co. FL? We will never really know why but here’s a little of the history of early Jefferson Co. FL. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>The first Europeans to enter what was to become Jefferson County were the members of Panfilo de Narvaez's expedition. They passed through an Apalachee town in 1528. In the 17th century, the Franciscans administered five missions in the county along an east-west line near what would become U.S. Highway 27. These missions were destroyed at the beginning of the 18th century by the English governor of South Carolina in retaliation against Spanish depredations. When American settlers entered the county in the 19th century, the land was occupied not by the Apalachees, who had been dispersed when the missions were abandoned, but by Miccosukees, a branch of the Creeks who became part of the Seminole group. <br />
<br />
Florida was ceded by Spain to America in 1818. Settlement of Jefferson County was spurred both by its proximity to Tallahassee, the newly selected capital, and by the suitability of its soil for cotton cultivation. Early settlers bought large tracts of virgin forest, or, if they could, the old fields of the Indians. They cleared this land to plant cotton.<br />
<br />
Jefferson County was separated from Leon County in 1827. The county, named for Thomas Jefferson, was established January 6, 1827. Monticello, named for Jefferson's Virginia home, was named county seat before statehood, while Florida was a territory of the United States. Monticello remains the county's only incorporated city. <br />
<br />
Robison's Post Office was named its county seat, superseding the older settlement of Waukeenah. The county seat was soon renamed Monticello. The county quickly acquired its first school, the Jefferson Academy, and a courthouse. Its prosperity suffered in the late 1830's when many of the settlers went to fight in the Seminole War. The failure of the Union Bank in Tallahassee also affected the county. In the 1850's, county residents who had been endeavoring to make the Wacissa and Aucilla Rivers navigable by canals adopted the railroad instead as their means of transportation. The arrival of the train at Station Number Two signaled the birth of Lloyd, which prospered with the railroads until the 1930's. The railroad also gave a boost to Aucilla, but Monticello was left stranded three miles north of the main track. </blockquote>It’s believed that Elias David settled somewhere near Monticello which is approximately 10 miles for the Georgia state line. I’ll call your attention to this statement: <em>“suffered in the late 1830's when many of the settlers went to fight in the Seminole War”. </em>I’ve always thought that perhaps the reason Elias David left Jefferson Co. FL was because of the unrest with the Seminoles. I now think another reason he left was to join his brother George Washington’s family in the Stewart Co. GA area. I’ll tell you more about that in the next segment. <br />
<br />
In the 1820 census we see that Elias David and Fannie have 5 children under the age of ten years old in their household, 2 females and 3 males. We know that those three males are mostly likely William Wesley born 1815, Seth Jackson born 1818, and Elias Trowell born 1819. Now, if it was the case that Fannie was a widow when she married Elias David it could be that one of the female children is from her previous marriage. But we know that she was married to Elias David in 1810, ten years earlier, and that William Wesley was born in 1815, five years into the marriage, so my educated guess is that these female children are both the daughters of Elias David and Fannie. <br />
<br />
A few years ago, before I discovered these two female children in their household, I had stumbled upon a marriage listed for Martha Rudd and James Carter (misspelled as Catrer) in Jefferson Co. FL on January 8, 1835. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/MarthaRuddJeffersonCoFL1835.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
We have evidence of Elias Rudd in the 1830 Jefferson Co. FL census on page 162, the last line. On page 165, line nine is Joseph Carter and on line ten is Jacob Carter. Also in the 1830 Madison Co. FL census (which is the adjacent country) is Elizabeth Carter, in 1840 she appears in the Jefferson Co. FL census. In 1840 Thomas Co. GA, census at Thomasville (which is adjacent Jefferson Co. FL across the state line) we see James Carter, 20-30 years old with two children under 10. And in the 1840 Stewart Co. GA census is a Jacob Carter. He’s no longer listed in the Jefferson Co. FL census. This is all circumstantial evidence, and the name Carter is very common. But there is no disputing the evidence that a Martha Rudd married a James Carter in Jefferson Co. FL in 1835 and there is no evidence there is any other Rudd family neither in Jefferson Co., FL or adjacent counties, nor in all of Florida before or during the time that Elias David was there. <br />
<br />
Then…<br />
<br />
A couple years later, I received an email inquiry from a Peak family researcher who was looking for the Rebecca Rudd who married Thomas Peak. He was aware that in the 1850 Stewart Co. GA census there is his Thomas Peak living near Seth Rudd. This researcher was working off of old research done by a member of his family and passed to his father. His goal was to identify this mystery Rebecca Rudd as a gift to his father. He knew his Thomas Peak had come out of upper St. Peter’s Parish, Beaufort Co. SC but he couldn’t find a Rudd there. (Of course not! Elias is listed in the index as Reed!) I was very surprised when I received the family group sheet for Thomas Peak and Rebecca Rudd and it listed their marriage in 1833 Jefferson Co. FL! Surely the person who originally did this Peak family research could not pull something like this out of the air. Especially since there is no evidence that this Peak family was ever in Jefferson Co. FL. As a matter of fact, the person I was communicating with asked me if I thought that was a mistake and it was actually Jefferson Co. GA since that county is adjacent to Burke which is across the Savannah River from the St. Peter’s Parish area in Beaufort Co., SC where Thomas Peak’s family came from. Well, that might be possible, but I don’t think it’s likely. He was under the impression that perhaps Rebecca was a Rudd living in that part of Georgia. To my knowledge, there is no Rudd in Jefferson Co. GA in the 1830. There is a Rud in Richmond in 1830 which is adjacent to Jefferson Co. and Burke Co., but I just think that when you add in the evidence that both the Peak family and Elias David were living in upper St. Peter’s Parish at the same time, add to that this old Peak research lists Thomas and Rebecca married in Jefferson Co., FL and in 1850 both Thomas with Rebecca and Seth Jackson Rudd (son of Elias David) with Nancy are living in Stewart Co., GA very near each other. And here’s another interesting fact. In 2002 when Jacque Rudd and I visited Seth’s grave, there were descendants of Thomas Peak buried in the same graveyard, Rehoboth Church Cemetery, Randolph Co. GA. And Thomas Peak’s Last Will and Testament was filed in Randolph Co. GA where he died as did Seth and wife, Nancy. There is obviously a relationship between Seth Jackson and Rebecca Rudd, wife of Thomas Peak. <br />
<br />
So I’m going to propose that the household of Elias David and Fannie in 1820 Beaufort Co. SC looked like this:<br />
3m -10 ..... William Wesley, Seth Jackson, Elias Trowell<br />
1m 26/45 .. Elias David<br />
2f -10 ...... Martha and Rebecca<br />
1f 26/45 ... Fannie<br />
<br />
Now it is possible these two females are the daughters of George Washington Rudd, Elias David’s brother. But I’ve never found any evidence of George Washington Rudd in Jefferson Co., FL. And let’s recall what the James Dallas letter said about his grandfather George W. Rudd: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"My grandfather Rudd's name was Geo. W. Rudd. He came from N.C. & settled in GA. He had a brother Elias Rudd.”</blockquote>Before I live this, let me tell you what I think about the 1830 Jefferson Co. FL census because I think it has contributed to so much confusion about the parentage of William Wesley. <br />
<br />
The household looks like this: Elias and Fannie, with 4 boys and 3 girls.<br />
1m -5 <br />
1m 5/10 <br />
2m 10/15 <br />
1m 30/40 <br />
1f -5 <br />
1f 5/10 <br />
1f 10/15 <br />
1f 20/30 <br />
<br />
And the children born at the time look like this: Elias and Fannie, 5 boys and 4 girls. <br />
1811 c. ......... Martha<br />
1813 c. ......... Rebecca<br />
1815 Mar 22 ... William Wesley<br />
1818 ............ Seth Jackson<br />
1819 Feb 28 ... Elias Trowell<br />
1822/3 c. ...... Mary<br />
1824 May 2 .... Samuel A.<br />
1826 c. ........ Joshua<br />
1826 Sept ..... Rachel<br />
<br />
First, let’s keep in mind that census records aren’t always reliable and we don’t know the circumstances of the recording of this information. Did someone give the information? If so, we don’t know who. Did the census taker just guess at it based on who he saw at the time? Was it properly transcribed? One thing that I’ve already pointed out is that Fannie’s age is recorded incorrectly. She and Elias David were married in 1810, they have now been married 20 years, therefore, and she is NOT 20/30 years old! She’s most likely somewhere between 36 and 40 years old. <br />
<br />
There has been speculation that Fannie and Elias David had a son named Joshua born about 1826. I don’t doubt that Elias David and Fannie had a son named Joshua. I tend the believe that information came from a source that had that knowledge, perhaps an old family bible that has been lost, perhaps it was Mallie Croft Erickson’s interviews with Harriett Finn and Mary Sadberry in 1930 and 1938. <br />
<br />
When I began the Rudd family research, many people shared information with me and everyone included a son named Joshua living in the 1830 census but not listed in the 1840 census, nor is there any estimated death date, no family story of how he died. In 1840 he would not have been old enough to be on his own and if he was, he surely would have shown up in the census somewhere because we can see how clannish the Rudds are. So I have to assume that someone years ago was told that Elias David and Fannie had a son named Joshua that died as a child and they could give no more information or surely it would have also been recorded just as his name was. <br />
<br />
Therefore, I think we have to give consideration that he might not have been living in the 1830 census. If Joshua was born in 1828 and died before 1930 he wouldn’t be reflected in the 1830 census. And giving a one year adjustment for the ages of Elias Trowell and Samuel A. the 1830 household could look like this:<br />
<br />
1m -5 ...... Samuel A.<br />
1m 5/10 ... Elias Trowell<br />
2m 10/15 .. Seth Jackson and William Wesley<br />
1m 30/40 .. Elias David<br />
1f -5 ........ Rachel<br />
1f 5/10 .... Mary<br />
1f 10/15 ... Rebecca age 17 or Martha age 19 <br />
1f 20/30 ... Fannie (Fannie married in 1810, she is 30/40)<br />
<br />
Yes, that does still leave the problem that we’ve got one too many daughters to account for who aren’t yet married, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are living in the household. <br />
<br />
I’ll propose another scenairo. <br />
<br />
Joshua is living in the house and William Wesley is absent. And the 20/30 year old female isn’t Fannie, it’s one of the unknown daughters, perhaps Martha who would be about 19 years old. Because Fannie is about to give birth to James C. B. who was born about 1830 and Wesley has taken her to Georgia. <br />
<br />
My point is that, we can’t make judgements based on one census. We have to look at the big picture and take into consideration all the clues that are presented to us.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1152548037848735452006-06-14T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:24:49.346-05:00The Elias David and George Washington Reunion in Georgia<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/wagon_train.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
Short of having personal writings from our ancestors such as diaries and letters it’s not possible for us to know what motivated them to migrate to new territory. But when I relate it to the number of times I’ve moved in my lifetime, it was always motivated by a quest to improve my conditions. Sometimes even going into the unknown held out a better promise than what you had. Sometimes the motivation is to give to your children a better opportunity than you thought they could have if you stayed where you were. Sometimes it’s the feeling of being smothered by urban sprawl. Sometimes it’s just an adventurous spirit. I think it must have been the same for our Rudd ancestors. <br />
<br />
I’m not sure what was going on in Barnwell Co., SC in the mid to late 1830’s but in my reading about Beaufort County, the large plantations were moving towards the Savannah River. Rice had been introduced as a commercial crop that required fewer slaves. So I tend to think the smaller farmers were being squeezed by the larger plantations. <br />
<br />
And we know that many of Elias David and George Washington Rudd’s neighbors had already left during the Mississippi Migrations and when Alabama Fever struck. Creek Nation Lands in Georgia were being ceded and Georgia had already completed several Land Lotteries by 1830. A new land was opening up to the West and without a doubt, both Elias David and George Washington knew the value of fertile land. The closer to a river, the better!<br />
<br />
But whatever the reason, Elias David Rudd packed up his family and left Beaufort Co. SC and ventured into the forest of Jefferson Co., FL where he built a home and then left it behind to join his brother. Here is what I’ve discovered about their migration and my theory of how and when it happened.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/migrationfltoga.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" align=left></a>From the census records where the children of Elias David report the State of their birth it appears that Elias David left Beaufort Co., SC after his daughter, Rachel, was born in September 1826 and was residing in Jefferson Co., FL for the 1830 census. All of his children born after Rachel will eventually say they were born in Georgia with the exception of the last child Sarah who says she was born in Florida about 1838. But we know from the 1840 Dale Co., AL census for Elias David and Fannie that Sarah was born in AL. <br />
<br />
Other than these two censuses, 1830 and 1840, we only have two other documents during this time period that provide us with some insight into the migration of Elias David’s family, marriage records for William Wesley to Christiana Williamson, and Seth Jackson to Nancy A. Rudd, that surfaced in Stewart Co., GA thanks again to those who came before us and laid the ground work for research of the Rudd family or we may never have found them without some personal knowledge of who to be looking for because both are wrongly transcribed.<br />
<br />
<center>William Rudd not Reed, this is William Wesley Rudd<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/WilliamWesleyRuddmarriage1835.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />
<br />
S. J. Rudd not T. F. Rudd, this is Seth Jackson Rudd<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/SethRuddmarriage1838.jpg" border="0" /></a></center><br />
<br />
Because two of Elias David’s sons were married in Stewart Co., GA I always wondered if Elias David and Fannie had moved their family to that area and when. It would appear they made a detour through Stewart Co., GA on their way to Dale Co., AL. As I proposed in the previous posting, one of the reasons I think Elias David might have left that area of Florida was the Second Creek War which began around 1835. But why Stewart Co., GA? The answer to that question might be tied to when his brother, George Washington Rudd, left Barnwell Co., SC.<br />
<br />
Let’s look back at the statement that James Dallas makes in his letter about his grandfather, George Washington Rudd.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"My grandfather Rudd's name was Geo. W. Rudd. He came from N.C. & settled in GA.”</blockquote>There are two distinct clues in that statement. One, that George Washington was born in North Carolina which based on his likely birth years indicate he was born shortly before his Rudd line leaves North Carolina, and second, he eventually settled in Georgia. Curious that James Dallas doesn’t mention that George Washington lived in Barnwell Co., SC for most of his life. But I assume the word “settled” indicates the last place that George Washington lived. From this, we do know that George Washington did in fact leave Barnwell and migrated to Georgia.<br />
<br />
It’s still not definite whether Arthur and David Rudd are the sons of George Washington and brothers to Burrell of Coffee Co., AL because we don’t have any clear evidence and perhaps never will. But what we do know is that back in 1830 Barnwell Co., SC not only is George Washington listed in the census, but as I have shown you, we can identify him as the brother of Elias David using the census records and the land survey with the land grants and deeds of sale for the land. <br />
<br />
The only other Rudd we can identify in the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800-1830BarnwellRud.jpg"><strong>1830 Barnwell Co., SC census is Arthur Rudd.</strong></a> And in future censuses we will see Arthur and David Rudd’s migration pattern mirror that of our Elias David Rudd clan. So let’s go with the assumption that even if Arthur and David aren’t his sons, at least they all migrate together out of Barnwell and into Georgia. <br />
<br />
We should assume that David Rudd and Charlotte were married previous to the birth of their first documented child, Thomas, in Georgia about 1835. There could have been other children who did not survive but we know from this that by about 1835 they were in Georgia. And once we develop a listing of the children for Arthur with their reported birth year and place we see child # 5, Rebecca A. Rudd, born about 1835 in South Carolina and child # 6, Mary J. Rudd, born about 1837 in Decatur County, Georgia. Allowing for the margin of one year, 1834 to 1836 seems to be the year of migration for the George Washington Rudd family out of Barnwell. <br />
<br />
Now, let’s go one step further and add to this that William Rudd and Christiana Williamson, who says she was born in Georgia, were married on January 20, 1835 in Stewart Co., GA. Now, it’s possible that William Wesley who had been living in Jefferson Co., FL could have met Christiana Williamson who perhaps might have been living across the Florida/Georgia border, but why would they then travel to Stewart Co., GA to get married? Personally, through my research of our families in Barnwell and Beaufort, I’ve developed a belief that Christiana Williamson is from the Williamson clan who are early residents of Barnwell Co., SC. The family eventually expands to Screven Co., GA and they have large holdings in Beaufort Co., SC. I think it’s likely when Christiana says she was born in Georgia, it was Screven Co., GA which is directly across the Savannah River from the Lower Three Runs where George Washington Rudd lived in Barnwell. My impression is that Christiana Williamson and perhaps other members of her family migrated with George Washington Rudd’s family into Georgia and eventually into Dale Co., AL. I believe shortly after George Washington Rudd arrived in Stewart Co., GA, William Wesley and Christiana were married on January 20, 1835. Perhaps they were informally married eariler and only legally registered their marriage when they arrived in Stewart Co., GA. That surely wasn't unusual for the times. This leads me to my third hypothesis as to why William Wesley may not be reflected in the 1830 Jefferson Co., FL census with the Elias David Rudd family; he stayed behind in South Carolina and came to Georgia with his uncle, George Washington. <br />
<br />
Going back to Elias David in Jefferson Co., FL and his two unknown daughters, in my previous posting I proposed those daughters were <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/MarthaRuddJeffersonCoFL1835.jpg"><strong>Martha Rudd who married James Carter on January 8, 1835</strong></a> and Rebecca Rudd who married Thomas Peak about 1833. I’m surely more certain about Rebecca than I am of Martha because of Rebecca and Thomas Peak’s close proximity to Seth Jackson in the Stewart Co., GA census. But if we assume Martha is Elias David’s daughter, then she married James Carter about two weeks before William Wesley married Christiana Williamson in Stewart Co., GA. This could indicate the time frame for Elias David and Fannie’s migration from Jefferson Co., FL to Stewart Co., GA. <br />
<br />
The next record we have is Seth Jackson Rudd, Elias David’s son, married Nancy A. Rudd on August 5, 1838 in Stewart Co., GA. So this begs the question, was Elias David in the area of Stewart Co., GA between 1835 and 1838 based on these records? Well, two additional pieces of evidence have emerged. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/SethGravemarkercopy.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" align=left></a>Jacque Rudd and I visited Stewart Co., GA during the genealogy research trip we took to Georgia, Alabama and Florida in the summer of 2002. Perhaps one day Jacque and I will collaborate on a posting about our week of adventure looking for Rudds in courthouses and graveyards from Stewart to Dale to Decatur to Gadsden, down roads that seemed to be taking us nowhere, never really knowing where we would be at the end of the day. It was Jacque's first time to visit Old Friendship where Elias David and Fannie are thought to be buried. But it was a first for both of us to visit Seth Jackson's grave. Words can not express the feelings we both felt standing at the site of Seth's final resting place. It's sadly deteriorating and we do worry that within the next few years Seth's ancestors may not be able to identify his final resting place.<br />
<br />
During our adventure we discovered some very interesting things. One of them was a book, <em>“The History of Stewart County, Georgia, Section I”</em>, by Helen Eliza Terrill, that held the following entries:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In December 1836 Elias Rudd is listed as a buyer at Estate Auction of John Benton, Stewart Co., GA.<br />
<br />
In March 1839 Elias Rudd is listed as a buyer at Estate Auction of Samuel Williams, Stewart Co., GA.</blockquote>Yeah, it was most definitely a whoohoo moment! <br />
<br />
This seems to indicate that Elias David was indeed living in the Stewart Co., GA area. And if he wasn’t in Stewart by the time his son William Wesley married Christiana Williamson on January 20, 1835, he was there shortly after and remained in the area until at least March of 1839. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/Macon-MontgomeryTrail.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" align=right></a>Now this brings me to my theory that when George Washington Rudd left Barnwell, he went to Stewart Co., GA and reunited with his brother, Elias David. And this is why Elias David went to Stewart Co., GA. There was a well used migration trail out of Augusta, GA that ran across the State of Georgia to Montgomery, AL known as the Macon-Montgomery Trail. It passes just north of Stewart County as it heads through Columbus, GA on the way to Montgomery, AL. <br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/migrationtrails.jpg"><strong>Click for larger view of trails.</strong></a><br />
<br />
Given the fact that in 1835 the Creek Indians were once again on the warpath in the area of the Georgia/Florida border where the Old Trading Path Trail ran, it’s doubtful that George Washington would have used that trail for migration into Georgia. This is one of the reasons why I don’t believe George Washington was ever in Jefferson Co., FL. The other reason is that it's evident that Elias David left Jefferson Co., FL around the time that George Washington left Barnwell Co., SC. Therefore, neither Martha Rudd nor Rebecca Rudd were his daughters.<br />
<br />
George Washington Rudd was between 51 and 55 years old when he migrated with his family out of Barnwell to “settle in Georgia” as James Dallas writes in his letter. It’s most probable that James Dallas never knew his grandfather, George Washington, because he appears to have died within 5 years of leaving Barnwell. He does not appear in the 1840 Decatur Co., GA census. Remember that James Dallas was telling a history that had been told to him by people who knew his grandfather. He was surrounded by uncles and aunts, cousins and others who probably also migrated into Georgia from South Carolina. He was getting to be an old man and wanted to pass on what he knew about his family history. That’s why he wrote the letter.<br />
<br />
I’m so thankful he did. He left us a wonderful gift. A treasure trove of information in just a few words.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1153116903836922492006-06-14T02:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:48:45.780-05:00The Rudd Triangle<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/RuddTrianglesml.jpg" align="left" border="0" /></a>The Rudd Triangle begins to form in Stewart Co., GA. where two sons of Elias David and Fannie Rudd were married; William Wesley to Christiana Williamson on January 20, 1835 and Seth Jackson to Nancy A. Rudd on August 5, 1838. William Wesley and Christiana’s third son, William Elias (known to his family as Uncle Bill) was born on February 23, 1840 in Dale Co., AL. And in the book, <em>The History of Stewart County, Georgia, Volume 1</em>, we have Elias David recorded as a buyer at an estate sale for Samuel Williams in that county in March 1839. So it would appear that <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1840DaleCoALEliasRudd.jpg"><strong>Elias David</strong>,</a> <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1840DaleCoALWesleyandSethRudd.jpg"><strong>William Wesley and Seth Jackson</strong></a> took their families and migrated out of Stewart Co., GA between March 1839 and February 1840 because they all appear in the 1840 Dale Co., AL census. But Elias David and Fannie’s daughter, Rebecca Rudd who married Thomas Peak, remained behind and they are <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1840StewartGAThomasPeak.jpg"><strong>recorded in the 1840 Stewart Co., GA census.</strong></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1840.jpg" align="right" border="0" /></a>As I proposed in <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/07/elias-david-and-george-washington.html"><strong>The Elias David and George Washington Reunion</strong></a>, I believe that George Washington and his family, including Burrell, David and Arthur, as well as other families from the Barnwell Co., SC area migrated into Georgia about 1835 and most likely took the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/Macon-MontgomeryTrail.jpg"><strong>Macon-Montgomery Trail</strong></a> which ran north of Stewart Co., GA instead of the Old Trading Path Trail even though that trail runs through Decatur Co., GA. One reason being in 1835 the Second Creek Indian War was in early stages along parts of that Trail and the other reason being Elias David had relocated to Stewart Co., GA by 1835. But regardless of how they got to Georgia, it appears that when James Dallas writes in his letter that his grandfather, George Washington, “settled in Georgia”, that place was most likely in Decatur County.<br />
<br />
We see by the<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1840DecaturCoArthurandDavidRudd.jpg"><strong> 1840 Decatur Co., GA census</strong></a>, Arthur Rudd with Rachel and David Rudd with Charlotte have also migrated. We don’t have much evidence of when they relocated to Decatur, but if we accept the birth place put forth for Arthur and Rachel’s sixth child, Mary J. Rudd, they were in Decatur Co., GA about 1837.<br />
<br />
This lays out the beginning of The Rudd Triangle. One road leads to Dale Co., Alabama and the other road leads to Decatur Co., Georgia.<br />
<br />
You’ll notice in Arthur’s household there is a female child that’s not accounted for among those thought to be Arthur’s children. And there’s an older female that appears to be someone’s mother. My guess is that the child is Arthur’s sister and the older woman is Arthur’s mother, Susannah Rudd. This appears to be the same women, named <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1850CoffeeBurrelRudd2-1.jpg"><strong>Susan Rudd in the 1850 Coffee Co., AL census living in Burrell Rudd’s household.</strong></a> Sadly, George Washington Rudd has died by the 1840 census.<br />
<br />
Now, if we look back at the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BarnwellGeoWRud.jpg"><strong>1830 Barnwell Co., SC census for George Washington Rudd</strong></a>, we see there are four female children in his household; 1f 5/10, 2f 10/15 and 1f 15/20. It is likely five years later, in 1835 when the family migrated, that some of these female children migrated into Georgia with their parents or with their own new families. Also back in <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BarnwellUnknowRud.jpg"><strong>1820 Barnwell Co., SC there is an unknown Rud</strong></a> who I can’t account for. The household doesn’t appear in the 1830 census anywhere. There are a lot of children in that household. It’s hard to determine what the relationship is with the 1820 George Rud household by the location on the census because this is one of those census that appear to be in part organized by placing all the R’s together, however not entirely throughout the entire census, but appears more according to be intervals so in this cluster of R’s this “unknown Rud” is on page 20a, line 32 and our George Rud is on page 20b, line 17. That’s pretty close to each other. Another interesting thing about this “unknown Rud” is that he list 2 involved in manufacturing which brings to mind the reported occupations of several of our Rudds, including blacksmith and shoemaker. There are probably descendants of more Rudds than we are aware of living in the Rudd Triangle today.<br />
<br />
In the 1850 census we see these families on the move again with the exception of William Wesley who stays in Dale Co., AL. This move will connect the dots on the Rudd Triangle in what is a very interesting move.<br />
<br />
By the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1850AlabamaArthurRudd.jpg"><b>1850 census Arthur has moved from Decatur Co., GA to Coffee Co., AL</b></a>. About 1844 Burrell, his brother, had married Frances Clay in Georgia and we can see by the reported birth locations of their children that the move was made after January 1845 and before August 1846. <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1850AlabamaBurrelRudd1-1.jpg"><strong>Burrell and his new family are documented in the 1850 Coffee Co., AL census.</strong></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Child # 1: James Dallas RUDD b: January 11, 1845 in Decatur Co., GA<br />
Child #2: Martha Jane RUDD b: August 15, 1846 in Clintonville, Coffee Co., AL</blockquote><a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1850FloridaEliasDavid.jpg"><strong>By 1850 Elias David and Fannie have moved from Dale Co., AL to Gadsden Co., FL.</strong></a> Based on the reported birthdates and locations of two of their children they make their move to Gadsden Co., FL between April 29, 1847 which is the birthdate of Elias Trowell’s second child, Frances Caroline, and February 8, 1849, the birthdate of Samuel A.’s second child, Thersey Ann. They will spend the rest of their lives in Gadsden Co., FL.<br />
<br />
At about the same time <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1850FloridaDavidRudd.jpg"><strong>David and Charlotte leave Decatur Co., GA and move to Gadsden Co., FL.</strong></a><br />
<br />
It would appear that at the time of the 1850 census, none of the Rudds are living in Decatur Co., GA but I’m not so sure about that because as I pointed out in the 1840 census, there is an unknown female in Arthur’s household that appears to be his sister. Hopefully, one day we’ll find out who she is and who she married and just how many more Rudd descendants came from her.<br />
<br />
The Rudd Triangle now reaches from Stewart Co., GA to Decatur Co., GA and Dale Co., AL then to Gadsden Co., FL and it was traveled again as recorded in the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1860GeorgiaArthurRudd.jpg"><strong>1860 census when Arthur moves from Coffee Co., AL back to Decatur Co., GA</strong>, </a>but his son, <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1860FloridaRaymond.jpg"><strong>Raymond moves from Coffee Co., AL to Gadsden Co., FL</strong></a>, while <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1860WebsterGASethRudd.jpg"><strong>Seth finally shows up in Webster Co., GA</strong></a> (which was carved out of Steward Co./Randoloh Co., GA). Seth has been lost in The Rudd Triangle for the last 20 years! Based on the reported birth locations of his children, he’s been bouncing around between Alabama and Georgia or he’s been living in Webster Co., GA all this time and his wife has been moving around when she is about to give birth, or the children are just confused on where they were born! It’s a very strange looking situation. But nonetheless in 1860, Seth Rudd is living in dwelling # 493 and <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1860WebsterGAThomasPeak.jpg"><strong>Thomas Peak, widower of Rebecca Rudd, is living in dwelling # 483 </strong></a>with his new wife. Yes, Rebecca has died. She must have been less than 47 years old. By the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1860FloridaEliasnoFannie.jpg"><strong>1860 census Fannie Rudd has also died</strong>. </a>My information places her death on August 14, 1855; she was about 65 to 69 years old.<br />
<br />
The only other move we see of this group of Rudds in the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1870GeorgiaCharlotte.jpg"><strong>1870 census is when Charlotte, widow of David, moves from Gadsden Co., FL to Decatur Co., GA</strong>. </a>David has died by this census and it appears that Charlotte returns to David’s family in Decatur, namely Arthur Rudd. And Arthur's son, <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1870GeorgiaArthurandRaymond.jpg"><strong>Raymond, moves from Gadsden Co., FL to Decatur Co., GA.</strong></a><br />
<br />
One thing that this Rudd Triangle tells us is that the family while each of them established their own homesteads, all remained in close proximity to each other. No doubt the roads in the Rudd Triangle were traveled often and I like to think that there were places along the way from one end to the other end where other family members or friends lived. So that when Fannie wanted to go visit her daughter, Rebecca, or her son, Seth, in Stewart Co., GA the trip was made easier by stopping along the way to visit or stay the night or have a meal with friends or family. I think this proximity and the mingling of the first cousins such as Burrell in Coffee Co., AL and Wesley in Dale Co., AL with Elias David leaving Dale Co., AL to Gadsden Co., FL also, unfortunately, contributed to the assumption that Burrell and Wesley were brothers. It also contributed to the belief that Elias David was Burrell’s father. We know now he wasn’t, but I do believe that after George Washington Rudd died, Uncle Elias did fill that “father void” for Burrell, just like he did for David. Elias David became the <em><strong>Rudd Family Patriarch. </strong></em><br />
<br />
You know how during the research process you collect little pieces of information, you don’t understand the significance but you can just feel there is a relationship somewhere, so you store that information away in the back of your mind. Then one day, without warning, WHAM!! There it is, the connection is revealed! You’re overwhelmed with excitement ... you’ve just got to tell somebody!<br />
<br />
Well, that’s what happened for me when I discovered George Washington Rudd. During my search for the Elias David Rudd’s family, I had found Arthur and David Rudd in 1840 Decatur and then noted their movement in 1850; Arthur to Burrell and David to Elias David. I knew there had to be some connection but I didn’t understand it until George Washington Rudd was added to the picture. I just had to tell somebody that would understand the significance and be just as excited as I was. So I told my cousin Jacque Rudd and she understood. I’m so fortunate to have someone who shares the adventure with me and gets as much thrill from discover as I do.<br />
<br />
By linking the two Rudd brothers, George Washington to Elias David, so much has been learned about the makeup, migration and connections with these families.<br />
<br />
And in that light, there is just one other thing I want to put in the back of your mind, so to speak. It’s just a little thing that I noticed in the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1850AlabamaArthurRudd.jpg"><strong>1850 Coffee Co., AL census for Arthur Rudd and Rachel Spears</strong>.</a> You see how Ramen Rudd is listed as the first child but the name Rudd is written again. Many times in my experience this indicated the person living in the household, even though they may have the same surname, they are not a member of the immediate family. And in this case, perhaps Ramen is Arthur’s child but not Rachel’s child? Or Ramen is not a child of either? This census doesn’t record relationships to the head of household. I’ve just got a feeling that this notation indicates something other than a son of Arthur and Rachel.<br />
<br />
Let's just keep that in the back of our mind.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1151682558167131442006-06-13T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:25:25.360-05:00The Fannie Breland Tanner MysteryWhat MYSTERY.. you ask?<br />
<br />
Well, I’ll tell you.<br />
<br />
Like most of us I think, when I heard the name Fannie Breland Tanner, I assumed Fannie’s middle name was indicative of her mother’s family’s surname. Thus, her mother was born a Breland and her father was born a Tanner. <br />
<br />
But let’s look back at what Mallie Croft Erickson documented for us more or less 70 years ago. From her notes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>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. Each also confirmed that his wife was Fannie Tanner.<br />
<br />
I have learned that his wife in one place is referred to as Fannie Breeland. Could it possibly be that he married a widow? If so which of the names is the maiden name? Oh well, such are the problems confronting genealogy research. Who is she, where did she come from, who are her people, etc, etc.</blockquote>Now for those of you who are not aware of the Elias Trowell Rudd line. Elias Trowell was the son of Elias David and Fannie. He had a son named Ellison James who was the husband of Harriette Ann Finn, Thus, she is Fannie’s granddaughter-in-law. Mary Sadberry was Elias Trowell’s 2nd wife and therefore, Fannie’s daughter-in-law. So in 1930 Harriette and in 1939 Mary both told Mallie that Fannie was a Tanner. I take this to mean that Fannie was a Tanner by birth. Or at least, her father was a Tanner.<br />
<br />
Now Mallie also says “that his wife in one place is referred to as Fannie Breeland.” Well, I believe she was referring to Elias David’s response in his War of 1812 Pension Application:<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/EDRwifeFrancesBreland.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
Elias says his wife’s name is Frances Breland and they were married in Beaufort County, SC in 1810.<br />
<br />
This seems to indicate that at the time of their marriage Fannie’s last name was Breland. Not Tanner. I don’t think that Mallie had actually seen Elias David’s War of 1812 Pension Application, but it sounds like someone told her about it because she refers to Fannie instead of Frances and she spells Breeland with a double e. <br />
<br />
First, let’s determine Fannie’s birth year by looking at what is reported in the census records:<br />
1820 Beaufort Co., SC census 26/45 ... born: 1775-1794<br />
1830 Jefferson Co., FL census 20/30 .. born: 1800-1810<br />
1840 Dale Co., AL census 40/50 ........ born: 1790-1800<br />
1850 Gadsden Co., SC census 60 ....... born: 1790<br />
<br />
Since Elias David says he and Fannie were married in 1810, then she most definitely was born before 1800. We can throw out that 1830 report! If we take all the various ages reported on the other censuses for Fannie, I think we can determine she was born between 1790 and 1794. <br />
<br />
Also note that Elias David filed this application on November 1, 1875 and says that he is 87 years old making his birth date sometime between November 2, 1787 and October 31, 1788.<br />
<br />
Based on the mystery at hand .. How can Fannie be both a Breland and a Tanner? .. I set out on my mission to try and solve this mystery by investigating the Breland and the Tanner families in the same area of South Carolina as our Rudd families. I discovered that both the Breland and the Tanner families were long time residence of the South Carolina Low Country, with the Brelands more clearly defined and living at Boggy Gut in St. Peter’s Parish, Beaufort Co. <br />
<br />
Looking for Tanner in the census is much like looking for Rud in the early days. The transcription of the spelling of the name is very difficult to identify. I was quite surprised, however, when I was searching the South Carolina Archives for land records and I kept turning up Robert Tanner as the surveyor of numerous tracts of land. The Tanners date back to the early 1730’s in the same area that was back then called Granville District, specifically around <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purrysburg,_SC "><strong>Purrysburg which is located in St. Peter’s Parish, Beaufort Co.</strong></a><br />
<br />
In addition I found in the South Carolina Archives a 1793 land grant to Captain Robert Tanner for 820 acres located in the District of Beaufort, St. Peter’s Parish, situated on Carter’s Branch, a prong of the Great Swamp, the waters of New River. On the 1825 map of Beaufort this area appears to be slightly northeast of the town of Purysburgh and southeast of Boggy Gut. Boggy Gut is the location of the 1813 land survey showing Absolom Breland and G. Rud land. You can view the general area <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/MillsAtlasBeaufort.jpg"><strong>HERE</strong>.</a><br />
<br />
But the Tanners aren’t as clearly defined as a family as the Brelands. I found a wonderful Breland Family website which clearly identifies how the Brelands in Beaufort are related to each other. The patriarch is Abraham Breland. Sr. The Absolom Breland on the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/EDR1820BeaufortSC.jpg"><strong>1813 land survey that bears the name G. Rud </strong></a>appears to be Abraham Sr.’s son Absolom Breland, Sr. And this Absolom Sr. appears to be the same Absolom Breland in <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BeaufortRudTaner.jpg"><strong>the 1820 census that also list Elias Rudd (and William and John Tanner). </strong></a><br />
<br />
On that census you’ll see Elias Rudd with Fannie both aged 26/45. Two lines up is William Taner, age 16/26 and at the bottom of the page we see John S. Taner, age 26/45. These two Taner male head of households are perhaps her brothers, maybe cousins. Note Absolom Breland and son Jessy Breland are nearby. This most likely is Absolom Breland, Sr, son of Abraham Breland, Sr. <br />
<br />
We have clear evidence that members of the Breland and Tanner families, and Elias Rudd all lived in the same general area of St. Peter’s Parish at the same time. I’ll tell you now that I’ve not been able to solve the mystery, but I have narrowed it down to some possibilities and I’ve also discovered some very interesting connections that I want to share with you. <br />
<br />
First the possibilities.<br />
<br />
<em>Was Fannie a Breland by birth?</em><br />
<br />
Based on the available information at the Breland Family Website and based on Fannie’s estimated birth year, she could be a child of one of Abraham Breland, Sr’s children, she fits in that generation. There are about a half dozen possibilities of females that haven’t yet been defined by name. But there are no females listed as married to Elias David Rudd. <br />
<br />
<em>Was Fannie at one time married to and then divorced from a Breland male?</em> <br />
<br />
I’ve not found any record of this but I don’t think it’s likely for the time period. <br />
<br />
<em>Was she a Breland widow?</em><br />
<br />
Based on her birth year and based on the information at the website, there is one possibility, Samuel Breland born about 1789 and son of Absolom Breland, Sr. The same Absolom Sr. that appears to be the owner of the land on <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/EDR1820BeaufortSC.jpg"><strong>the 1813 land survey </strong></a>and the same Absolom Sr. that appears on <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BeaufortRudTaner.jpg"><strong>the 1820 census</strong>. </a>There is no additional information on this Samuel Breland but I am in contact with the website owner and hope he can shed some more information on Samuel.<br />
<br />
<em>Was she an illegitimate child of a female Breland that was fathered by a Tanner?</em> <br />
<br />
This of course is possible and we have an example of the confusion that this type of parentage can create with Harriet Finn, wife of Ellison James Rudd. Based the information on the website and her birth year, there appears to be one possibility, Patience Breland born about 1774 in Boggy Gut, daughter of Abraham Breland, Sr. but there is no other information on her. <br />
<br />
Like I mentioned before, the Tanner family is not that easy to analyze. I can’t tell how they relate to each other. It’s difficult to even identify all the Tanners in the area using the census. There appear to be several based on the land records but land records only indicate who owned the land not who was living there. So it’s not possible to identify which Tanner could be Fannie’s father. But I don’t think that she became Fannie Breland Tanner because she had married first a man named Tanner. Both Harriette Finn and Mary Sadberry said Fannie was a Tanner.<br />
<br />
As I was working with the Breland website, I noticed that most of Abraham Breland, Sr.'s extended family died in Mississippi. Now let me tell you about the interesting connections I discovered. <br />
<br />
While I was reading up on the history of Beaufort in a great resource book: “The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina, Volume 1, 1514-1861” by Lawrence S. Rowland, Alexander Moore and George C. Rogers, Jr., I discovered on page 302 and 303:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In 1806, ninety-seven settlers from upper St. Peter’s Parish, led by Robert Tanner and Reverend Moses Hadley of Pipe Creek Church, abandoned their farms, packed their belongings, gathered up their families, and set out in ox-driven wagons for Mississippi. When they reached the Tennessee River they boarded flatboats and floated down the river to the Ohio river, and then down the Mississippi River to Fort Adams. Near Fort Adams they founded the town of Woodyville, Mississippi. Many members of the Grimball and Robert families were part of this first Mississippi Migration. <br />
<br />
Two years later, Seth Stafford, the youngest brother of Colonel William Stafford who had moved from North Carolina in 1766, took his family as well as some Cheney, Robert, and Maner relatives on the long trek to Mississippi. Ten years later, in 1818, many of this group moved across the Mississippi River to Louisiana where William Fendon Cheney founded Cheneyville. <br />
<br />
In 1811, a third group from St. Peter’s Parish joined the Mississippi Migration. Led by Alexander Scott, John Stafford, and John Audibert, this group included Reverend Howell Wall of the Black Swamp (Robertville) Church, John Tison, David McKenzie, William H. Tuten, Namaan and Seth Smart, Robert Chisolm, Joseph Tanner, Benjamin T. D. Lawton, and Allen and Morris Sweat. Not all of these pioneers, however, found success in Mississippi. Benjamin and Joseph Lawton, Namaan and Seth Smart, and Allen and Morris Sweat all returned with their families to their ancestral homes in upper St. Peter’s Parish. </blockquote>So according to this information, Robert Tanner, most likely Robert Tanner, Jr., was involved in the 1806 migration to Mississippi and in 1811 Joseph Tanner also left for Mississippi. <br />
<br />
I had posted an inquiry on a Tanner message board and received a response from a Tanner researcher who provided me with the forward to a book about a descendant of this Robert Tanner, Jr. line. Here is the relevant part: <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/RobertTannergenealogy.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
You can read the forward <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/linn-tanner1.jpg"><strong>HERE</strong></a> and <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/linn-tanner2.jpg"><strong>HERE</strong>.</a><br />
<br />
As is stated in the forward at the links I've provided, Robert Tanner came to Cheneyville, Louisiana by way of Woodyville, Mississippi. My contact kindly searched the book for me and determined that of the list of names of the children of Robert Tanner, Jr., none of them are unaccounted for and none of them list Elias David Rudd as a spouse. In addition all the females died in Cheneyville. <br />
<br />
Bummer huh!!<br />
<br />
What grabbed my attention was the statement that Robert Tanner, Jr. had a father named Robert Tanner, Sr. Also in “The History of Beaufort” above, we note that there was a third migration led by a Joseph Tanner. Those migrations by the way are probably how members of the Breland family show up in Mississippi. Maybe Fannie’s father was Joseph Tanner. Perhaps Robert Tanner, Sr. had other sons and one of them was her father. <br />
<br />
Here’s another interesting piece of this mystery related to Gadsden/Jackson County, Florida area.<br />
<br />
In the booklet “From Mount Vernon to Chattahoochee, A history of Mt. Vernon, River Junction, Chattahoochee and vicinity” by Grady Turnage, on page 1 it says:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The First Whites<br />
<br />
It must have looked a lot like the view from Washington’s home on the Potomac River in Virginia as John Tanner stood on the heights in 1821, and gazed at the point where the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers merged to form the Apalachicola River on the Georgia/Spanish Florida boundary. So they called it Mount Vernon when Tanner and his family, the first whites to settle that corner of the new United States Territory, homesteaded in Section 33 of the remote frontier lands of West Florida. Another attraction of the area could have been the rich soil or the forest of rare, sharp-needled, evergreen gopher wood trees that covered the slopes above the river.<br />
<br />
John Tanner might have been one of “Old Hickory” Jackson’s Tennesseans or Georgians who stormed into Spanish Florida from Fort Scott on the Flint River in 1818, wiping out Seminole villages all the way to the Suwannee river and Saint Marks. Maybe he liked what he saw in the swamps here. Although Tanner was the first white man to settle in what is now Chattahoochee, William Stuart Pope, kin of the Tanners, William Ellis, and John Collins settled on the land along the Apalachicola River prior to July 27, 1821. </blockquote>When I read this passage years ago after this booklet was given to me as a gift from James Owen Rudd in Chattahoochee, he and I talked about the possibility that Fannie was related to this John Tanner but I had no information to work with as to where this John Tanner had migrated from. So I went back to read the section and noticed the name William Stuart Pope. Since I had read the passage the first time, I had pursued a great deal of research in both the Barnwell and Beaufort records, so when I read the passage again the name Pope and the statement “kin of the Tanners” raised a flag for me. <br />
<br />
I did a search to see if I could find any William Stuart Pope researchers and the following is an example of what I turned up:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>POPE: <br />
My 2X gt-gdfather WILLIAM STUART POPE 1789-1837 settled in Jackson County, FL about 1823. He likely went to FL from a home in Beaufort Co. SC (I note with great interest that there is a Pope Cemetery in Beaufort) and is likely also to have had at least 3 siblings: a Col. John Pope, a sister ? Elizabeth Pope Tanner (both settled in FL?) and a brother named Green Pope who went to TX in the 1820s. My lineal ancestors from William Stuart Pope 1789-1837 to present all are buried in Sneads, FL (or have graves reserved there!) but William Stuart, thought to have gone from Beaufort to Jackson Co. FL is my "brick wall" tracing backward. </blockquote>Hummm .. it does appear that William Stuart Pope was from Beaufort and he had a sister who evidently married a Tanner. My guess is that Tanner was from Beaufort also and the John Tanner in Chattahoochee “being kin” to this William Stuart Pope is also from the Tanner clan in Beaufort.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the Fannie Breland Tanner mystery is not solved, and perhaps it never will be. I leave the evidence that I discovered in my mission to learn more about Fannie for the readers to decide. One thing I do think is clearer now is that we can’t assume that Fannie Breland Tanner was her actual name. It very well could have been Frances Tanner Breland Rudd. But either way, the three families are tied together.<br />
<br />
My records show that Fannie died on August 14, 1855, somewhere between the age of 61-65 years old. I’m sure that date was passed to me by another researcher and perhaps comes by way of the family information compiled by Mallie Croft Erickson. We truly are indebted to her for all the work she did gathering information for us that surely would have been lost forever. <br />
<br />
Over the course of about 27 years, Fannie and Elias David had 13 children. Elias went on to live for about 21 more years. He was somewhere around 90 years old when he died. He had filed for a War of 1812 Pension only three years earlier. <br />
<br />
Before I close this posting I want to share just one more curious discovery for those of the Elias Trowell Rudd line. Some of us have always wondered where the name Trowell came from as it does not appear in the family previous to Elias Trowell, who was the son of Elias David and Fannie. Take a look <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810BeaufortBrelandTrowell.jpg"><strong>HERE</strong></a> on this 1810 Beaufort census. You’ll see among the Breland names, who appear to be the sons of Abraham Breland, Sr. … Joseph Trowell. It’s hard to say but it’s probably the case that this Joseph Trowell is Elias Trowell Rudd's namesake. If we only knew why.<br />
<br />
Sounds like a new mission!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1151512049220152742006-06-12T11:20:00.000-05:002015-10-27T12:58:07.832-05:00Sidneh Rosine (Brown) and George FlemingSoon after I began this “addiction” called family genealogy research I came to realize that there were many things about the process of discovery that contributed to my obsession. But I think for me, the most rewarding part is when I find stories about my ancestors, especially those of personal triumph against foes and odds, be they of man or of nature. These are two such stories of two remarkable people who I and so many others of us share DNA. At times in my life when I meet challenges along the way, I find strength in my ancestors, even my 6th great grandparents! <br />
<br />
First, here’s the descendant line: It migrates from Chester Co. SC to Gadsden Co. FL. <br />
<br />
George Fleming married Sidneh Rosine, who was the widow Brown. Their daughter, Sidnah Fleming married Matthew W. McClintock. Their daughter, Jane McClintock married Alexander P. Clark. Their son, David Clark married Mary Alice McKeown. Their daughter, Sidnah Clark married Robert V. Suber. Their daughter, Annie Lee Suber married Walter Washington Rudd, my great grandfather Rudd. <br />
<br />
That’s how this line of Rosine, Fleming, McClintock, Clark, McKeown, and Suber blood become one with my Rudd blood. And that’s really the way I like to look at it. All that DNA is mixed up in me. I strive to be worthy of it! <br />
<br />
<blockquote><strong>George Fleming</strong><br />
<br />
George Fleming, a native of England, sailed from Ireland for America with a gentleman named Kelso. They were men of wealth and George Fleming belonged to the aristocracy, his family crest being a gauntleted hand and a flaming sword. The ship they sailed on was wrecked three miles from the American coast (where about is not known).<br />
<br />
A day or two before the wreck, a boy on the ship said he was troubled about a dream he had had the night before -- he dreamt that a rat bit off his big toe. During a terrific storm the vessel was driven on the rocks. The boat's crew tore up planks and made a raft and put off, leaving the passengers to their fate. George Fleming and his friend emptied their chests and their gold (a large amount) overboard and lashed their chests together and, tying a rope to them, heaved them overboard. They asked the boy who had had the dream to jump into one of the chests but could not prevail on him to try, but he said, "I'll hold the rope for your." Fleming jumped and caught the chests, although he was large and heavy. Kelso, the more active of the two, jumped and missed them and sank to rise no more. The boy went down with the wreck. Fleming floated to shore as the tide was coming in. One good swimmer swam to shore. One woman with two children drifted to shore on the quarterdeck. One of the children was dead. Only one of them was her own. The long-boat had been lost on the voyage. When the storm arose, the Captain sent out a boat for a Pilot but it was never heard from again.<br />
<br />
George Fleming went first to Charlestown, South Carolina, and afterwards to Virginia, where he bought convicts from England. In Virginia he became acquainted with and married a Mrs. Brown, whose husband and child had been killed by Indians. She was Sidneh Rosine. George Fleming was a widower, with one son named James, when he met Mrs. Brown<br />
<br />
<strong>Sidneh Rosine (Brown)</strong><br />
<br />
During Sidneh Rosine's first marriage, while living with her husband, Brown, and a little son, a party of six Indians and one Frenchman, disguised as an Indian, came to the house one day as the snow was falling at the commencement of winter and knocked on the door. One of them said, "Who keeps house?" Brown, deceived by the English words, opened the door and they rushed in and attacked the family. Brown killed one Indian with a sickle. The rest emptied their rifles into him and he fell dead. They then took the two year old boy from his cradle and dashed his brains out against the jamb. They tied Mrs. Brown, set fire to the barn where the cattle were and burned them. She said the moans and cries of the burning beasts were terrible to hear. They then took what clothing they wanted. They caught up a feather bed, cut it open and shook the feathers out in the storm, laughing and yelling like demons to see the feathers fly. They then started with Sidneh Rosine Brown, a prisoner, her house a desolation and her dead lying unburied, to meet some stronger parties of Indians who were going to Canada. <br />
<br />
After some days their provisions gave out. One night, when they were almost perishing with hunger, a young Indian roasted a skin shot-pouch and, dividing it, offered some of it to all the rest. All took some, except one old Indian and the captive woman, Sidneh. When she refused to eat of it, the old Indian patted her on the back in approval of her power of endurance. She one day asked the Frenchman how he could be so cruel, saying she knew he was a white man and a Frenchman. "How do you know that?" he said. She replied, "I know you are white by the color of your eyes. No Indian ever has blue eyes." <br />
<br />
They crossed the Ohio River high up at a narrow point on a raft and one of the Indians shot a buffalo across the river, which was considered by them a good shot. Sidneh Brown gave birth to a son on the wearisome journey. The Indians broke the ice on a stream and after plunging him in the water, returned him to his mother. Afterward, having performed the entire journey on foot, they arrived at Quebec and sold her to the French for five French crowns. (One crown = $1.06 1/2). <br />
<br />
The French Governor kindly invited her to stay with his family, which she did. She was always grateful for their kindness. They were Catholics. The daughter of the house, having by some means obtained a Protestant Bible, asked Mrs. Brown to read it to her as she could not read English. <br />
<br />
In the year 1759 Mrs. Brown was exchanged and tried to start home on foot, but one of her feet had been badly injured with cold and the long journey on foot, she gave out one day. At the same time General Wolfe's army came up on their way to Quebec and General Phillip Schyler, moved with noble generosity, took her back and told General Wolfe to send a surgeon to her. The surgeon sent an apprentice. Schyler would not be put off but told General Wolfe her history and insisted that the surgeon must come himself. The surgeon was sent immediately and she was taken to a hotel for English officers, where she remained until she was well. Then she started home again and, as she said, "back to the old desolation." <br />
<br />
She was still young and, as stated before, became acquainted with and married George Fleming, an Englishman and a high churchman (Episcopalian). He had a brother in England whose name was Richard. In conformity with English custom, he wore a wig. He belonged to the nobility and his family crest was a gauntleted hand and a flaming sword. His grandfather owned a war horse and a coat of mail and had been a soldier in some of the English wars.<br />
<br />
George Fleming and his wife settled near Bull's Run, Virginia, and at the close of the Revolutionary War they moved to Winsborough, South Carolina. Two daughters were born to them, Margaret and Sidneh. Margaret Fleming was married to Robert Stuart Coulter, and Sidneh Fleming was married to Matthew McClintock. George Fleming and his wife died and were buried at Winsborough, South Carolina. Her son, young Brown, who was born during her captivity, lived to become an Indian fighter of note. He determined to go into Governor Dunsmore's war with "Cornstalk". His mother opposed, but he hid an old gun in the woods and went although he was only a boy. In battle he was so rash and incautious that the soldiers, on several occasions, jerked him back out of danger. No more is known of him except that he married a widow and went to live away from his own people.<br />
<br />
They had the following children:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Margaret FLEMING, female, born in 1764 and died in 1835.<br />
<br />
Sidneh FLEMING, female, born before 1772 and died January 20, 1839.</blockquote>George and Sidneh Fleming were buried in Winsborough, South Carolina.</blockquote>Did you notice the irony in the story of George Fleming? He first went to Charleston, SC and later to Virginia where he BOUGHT CONVICTS FROM ENGLAND!<br />
<br />
I want to thank my fellow researcher who shared this story with me. I apologize that I’m not certain I can recall who it was. I believe it was a couple of people. And if you are reading this posting and it was you, please let me know so I can express my appreciation publicly. Like I’ve said before, we are all so much richer in our research when we work together and share information. <br />
<br />
And if you’re reading this and recognize any of these names but you don’t know if you’re connected, email me. Maybe I can help. I’m always looking for more cousins!!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1153864507356386792006-06-12T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:25:56.643-05:00The Burlingham Rudd who married the Widow Mary Whaley<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/weddingcouple2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" align=left></a>Have you ever wondered why a widow who was probably in her mid to late 40’s would marry an 86 year old man? Especially, when she came from a socially recognized family and her husband left her an estate. I doubt it was for the “conjugal perks” of marriage. Although William Wesley Rudd, oldest son of Elias David Rudd, might undermine my theory! But that’s another story for later. <br />
<br />
From the first time I was told that Burlingham Rudd 2nd married the widow Mary Whaley, I thought it to be a rather curious arrangement. I think it’s one of those old assumptions where no one actually took a look at the documentation because it didn’t really matter. It didn’t affect anyone’s generational line. Maybe they didn’t have the information that is available today or maybe they just didn’t find it. But I thought it was an interesting story and from time to time I had been contacted by Whaley researchers who also had the same information and never really questioned it. The one document that most of us had was the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/burlinghamruddestateinventory.jpg"><strong>Inventory of the Estate of Burlingham Rudd of Goose Creek</strong></a>. It’s a very interesting accounting of his material possessions and provides us with a glimmer into what his life was like back in 1836 Charleston, South Carolina. <br />
<br />
But there are other documents pertaining to the marriage between Burlingham Rudd of St. James Goose Creek and Mary Whaley, widow of George Powell Whaley, Sr. also of St. James Goose Creek. One of those documents is the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/willburlinghamruddcharleston.jpg"><strong>Last Will and Testament of Burlingham Rudd</strong></a> signed and sealed with his legal signature on October 30, 1827. <br />
<br />
Another document is a <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/ruddwhaleyprenuptial.jpg"><strong>Pre-Nuptial Marriage Contract between Burlingham Rudd and Mary Whaley</strong></a> dated December 26, 1826 which is signed by Burlingham Rudd with his legal signature and Mary Whaley makes her mark “X”. Contained in that document is the sworn testimony of the witness G. Crawford who says he and the other witnesses were present and saw “Burlingham Rudd subscribe his name and Mary Whaley subscribe her mark on this act”.<br />
<br />
There is another document that was created during their marriage, a <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/deedofgiftwhaley.jpg"><strong>Deed of Gift from Mary (Whaley) Rudd to Susannah Whaley</strong></a>, her daughter, dated October 15, 1829 where Burrel Rudd is one of the witnesses and signs his name, Burrel Rudd. Is this her husband, Burlingham Rudd, who now calls himself Burrel? I think it’s very likely. <br />
<br />
The point is that the Burlingham Rudd that married the widow Mary Whaley could write his name. This will be a very important clue to his identity ... not who he is, but who he is not. <br />
<br />
I have found and transcribed three land surveys, two land grants and one deed of sale in the name of Burlingham Rudd of St. James Goose Creek. You can view them all <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/land.html"><strong>HERE</strong>. </a>It’s not clear if they are all the same person but on the one <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/deedcharleston1814burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>deed of sale from Burlingham Rudd to William H. Harrall on April 5, 1814</strong></a>, Burlingham Rudd signs his legal signature. This land was <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/grantcharleston1808burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>acquired by grant on September 6, 1813</strong></a> after it had <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/surveycharleston1808burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>been surveyed on March 4, 1808</strong>. </a>The survey plat notes that adjacent land was owned by the Late George Lounsdale Rudd. George Lounsdale died around 1804. <br />
<br />
Now I’ll take you back to Anson County, North Carolina and give you a brief review of those land deeds of sale that bear the Burlingham Rudd name as seller which requires a signature or mark to seal the deal. I apologize, I still need to transcribe those deed and grant and post them for you to see. <br />
<br />
The original April 11, 1749 land grant of 300 acres in Anson Co., NC to Burlingham Rudd 1st changes hands quite frequently, which I must say peaks my curiosity but I’ll wait to discuss that at another time. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Item 1:<br />
October 12, 1750, 40 acres from Burlingham Rudd to John Red. Burlingham Rudd signs his name.<br />
<br />
Item 2:<br />
1750, same tract of land not defined by acres, John Read to James Steward. Burlingham Rudd is a witness and signs his name. <br />
<br />
Item 3:<br />
(April 15, 1751, the same tract of land returns to Burlingham Rudd sold by James Steward.)<br />
<br />
Item 4:<br />
January 26, 1757, 200 acres of the original grant, Burlingham Rudd, Sr. to Burlingham Rudd, Jr (2nd). Burlingham Rudd Sr. signs his name. <br />
<br />
Item 5:<br />
October 20, 1788, one tract of the original grant not defined by acres, Burlingham Rudd, Jr. (2nd) to Lewis Lanier. Burlingham Rudd makes his mark “X”.<br />
<br />
Item 6:<br />
March 11, 1792, 100 acres of the original grant, Burlingham Rudd (2nd) to James Lanford. Burlingham Rudd makes his mark “X”.</blockquote>All of the above transactions involve the same land. In Item 1-3, 40 acres of the original 300 acre grant to Burlingham 1st change ownership and is eventually sold back to Burlingham 1st.<br />
<br />
In Item 4, Burlingham 1st sells 200 of his 300 acres to Burlingham 2nd for 20 pounds sterling. What is very strange to me is that Burlingham 2nd would have been only 15 years and 3 months old at the time and 20 pounds sterling is a lot of money. Where did Burlingham 2nd get so much money at such a young age? Why did his father sell him the land at such a young age? It’s a mystery we’ll have to tackle later. <br />
<br />
Item 5, appears to be the same land that Burlingham 2nd bought from his father and he sells it to Lewis Lanier in 1788. This is the deed that includes access to the Rudd graveyards on the property. I think Burlingham 1st has died by this date. <br />
<br />
Item 6, appears to be the other 100 acres of the original 300 acre land grant to Burlingham 1st. Apparently Burlingham 2nd inherited the land. I think he must have been living on this tract and he sells it in 1792 in preparation for his move from Anson Co., NC.<br />
<br />
In Item 1-4, Burlingham 1st signs his legal signature. Yes! He could write his name. But in Item 5 and 6, Burlingham 2nd makes his mark “X”. He could not write his name. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Item 7:<br />
January 18, 1790, 2 tracts of 100 and 150 acres, purchased for Burlingham Rudd from the Sheriff thru his friend, Malachi Watts, at auction with Lewis Lanier as witness. <br />
<br />
Item 8:<br />
July 16, 1793, the same 2 tracts of land bought at the auction, from Burlingham Rudd, Sr. to Burlingham Rudd, Jr. Burlingham Rudd signs with his mark “B”.<br />
<br />
Item 9:<br />
September 9, 1793, the same 2 tracts of land, Burlingham Rudd to Robert Wallis. Burlingham Rudd makes his mark “X”.</blockquote>In Item 7, it appears that Burlingham Rudd, perhaps 2nd, authorized a friend to bid for a parcel of land that contained 2 tracts at an auction in 1790. That land in Item 8 is then sold by Burlingham Sr. to Burlingham Jr. for one pound current money of North Carolina in July 1793. Burlingham Jr. then sells that same parcel of 2 tracts in Item 9 in September 1793. <br />
<br />
I believe that Burlingham Jr. in these transactions is the one we have come to call Burlingham 3rd because the description of the land list William Vaughn as an adjacent land owner and in Item 9, William Vaughn is a witness on the deed. We know that Burlingham 3rd married Mary Vaughn. This William Vaughn appears to be her relative, perhaps father or brother. But what I’m not certain of is that the Burlingham Sr. in these transactions is the 2nd unless he has switched his legal mark to a “B”. This is really interesting because if this is not Burlingham 2nd with the “B” mark, then Burlingham 2nd is not the father of Burlingham 3rd! <br />
<br />
So based on these documents, Burlingham 3rd signs with his mark “X”. He evidently could not write his name. And Burlingham 2nd signs with his mark “X” and perhaps later with his mark “B”. But either way, he could not write his name. <br />
<br />
That brings us back to the Burlingham Rudd and Mary Whaley documents. I don’t think it’s likely that Burlingham 2nd went from signing with a mark “X” or even a mark “B” in North Carolina to being able to sign his entire name as a legal signature on documents in South Carolina. <br />
<br />
In addition, it doesn’t appear that the Burlingham Rudd in Goose Creek with the 606 areas of land he acquired in 1808 and sold to William H. Harrall on April 5, 1814 is Burlingham 2nd unless he learned to write his name between 1793 and 1814. I think that’s unlikely. <br />
<br />
In 1793 Burlingham 2nd is about 52 years old. In 1826 at the time of the pre-nuptial marriage contract with the widow Mary Whaley he would have been 85 years old. He would have been 86 when they married. He would have been 94 when he died. I think when we add to this that the Burlingham Rudd who married Mary Whaley could write his name and the documentation in North Carolina shows us that Burlingham 2nd could not write his name, I have to propose to you that it was not Burlingham Rudd 2nd who married the widow Mary Whaley.<br />
<br />
But which Burlingham Rudd did marry the widow Mary Whaley?<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/CharlestonDistrict1800-1830.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
You’ll notice that when we look at the Rudd households in Charleston District, SC between 1800 and 1830 there is a Burlingham Rudd in 1800 that records his age as 45 years and older and a Burrel Rudd in 1820 that records his age as from 26 to 45, which I believe at the time meant he was at least 26 but not yet 45 years old. These are clearly not the same man. The one in 1800 might be Burlingham 2nd but that’s not clear either. <br />
<br />
A while back I was working with Jean Hollars who is descended from the Eli Rudd (1815-abt 1859) and Maryanne Mizell line who were the parents of Hiram Rudd (1845-1910). Hiram married Anne Caroline Williams (1842-1910) who was the daughter of Reverend West Williams. Jean and I were trying to figure out who was the father of her Eli Rudd when she made what I think is a significant discovery that goes right to the question of which Burlingham Rudd married the widow Mary Whaley. She called to my attention that on the 1820 St. James Goose Creek census there is a woman head of household identified as Mrs. Valey living next door to Burrel Rudd. <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820CharlestonBurrelRudd.jpg"><strong>Look HERE.</strong></a> <br />
<br />
Given that this census was transcribed as a copy, you can clearly see that by the way it looks, and given the accents that could have contributed to a “W” sounding like a “V”, and I have looked through the rest of the census and there is no other Valey listed. Also, the number and gender of the children in “Mrs. Valey’s” household match the number of children the widow had with George P. Whaley, Sr. <br />
<br />
This is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that this is the Burlingham Rudd that married the widow Mary Whaley.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1154887334921530562006-06-11T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:26:25.761-05:00Burlingham Rudd vs Burlingham RuddI mean … really … how many Burlinghams can one family take?<br />
<br />
On one hand we are very fortunate that our progenitor bore the given name Burlingham. That name made him identifiable as we sorted through the Rudd families in North Carolina and Virginia. But on the other hand, the name does make it difficult to clearly define the lines back to Burlingham Rudd 1st. <br />
<br />
It seems each generation, at least through 1820, named a son Burlingham Rudd. That’s almost a hundred years after the first Burlingham Rudd touched the ground in the American colonies. Can you just imagine what the family gatherings were like? No wonder some of them changed their names to Burrel and Burwell and Burrelham. <br />
<br />
On the positive side, it does give us the clue we need to identify the lines of the family as it grew by generations. Unfortunately, it also makes it difficult to clearly establish those lines. One thing that has become clear to me, as I became more intrigued by discoveries, that in turn raised more questions, is that we don’t really know how many sons Burlingham 1st had and therefore, we don’t know how many second generation lines there are. That lack of knowledge appears to be the major missing link for us. The only record we have that identifies the known children of Burlingham 1st is the Prince Frederick’s Parish baptism record that says: <br />
<br />
Burlingham Rudd and wife Elizabeth baptized three children on October 27, 1745: Martha born: March 1, 1738/9; Burlingham born: October 13, 1741; Walter born: March 20, 1743.<br />
<br />
We have a land deed in North Carolina that confirms that Burlingham Rudd Sr. sold 200 acres of his original 300 acre grant to Burlingham Rudd Jr. in 1757. <br />
<br />
That’s the extent of the evidence we have about his children. It is assumed that George Lounsdell Rudd is a son of Burlingham 1st. But there is no evidence of that either. He could be a brother or a nephew. The geographic evidence of their presence in the same location in Anson Co., NC and the appearance of the name Burlingham in the Charleston, SC records provides us with strong circumstantial evidence that they have a family relationship. <br />
<br />
It’s curious how you develop an impression about your ancestors when you begin to look at the evidence they left behind and move beyond the census records into the social structure they moved around in, who their neighbors were, who witnessed their legal documents, the extent and content of their material possessions, how much land they owned and how often they bought and sold that land, etc. For example, my impression is that we have two very distinct family groups in South Carolina that developed after they migrated out of North Carolina, one group in Charleston at Four Holes Swamp on the Charleston/Colleton border and another group in Barnwell at the Lower Three Runs near the Savannah River.<br />
<br />
I confess I do have two curiosities about George Lounsdell that I will probably never resolve. First is his name, he always used his entire name or he always included his middle initial. As a matter of fact, he used “L” as his mark. Where did the name Lounsdell come from? Did his siblings have middle names too? Seems to me that if parents gave one child a middle name they would tend to give middle names to other children. Maybe they did and that’s what adds to the confusion in tracking them from one census to another. Some of them seem to switch from using one name in one census year to using another name in the next census year. <br />
<br />
The other curiosity I have about George Lounsdell is with all the Burlinghams in every generation for a hundred years, why didn’t George Lounsdell have a son named Burlingham? Maybe he did and we just aren’t aware of it because sorting through the Burlinghams is very difficult. <br />
<br />
My ultimate goal when I started this investigation into the early family, that generation (be it one or two) between Burlingham 1st and Elias David Rudd, was to discover who Elias David’s father actually was. I began with the theory that his father was George Lounsdell because that’s what I had been told and that’s what a lot of Elias David’s descendents believe. Along the way, as additional pieces of information revealed themselves, that theory began to look weak. Now, I’m convinced Elias David’s father, and subsequently George Washington’s, was not George Lounsdell Rudd Sr. as I outlined in <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/06/george-l-rudd-deed-of-gift-forwarding.html"><em><strong>George L. Rudd ~ Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock</strong></em>.</a><br />
<br />
As I mentioned earlier, I do have the distinct impression that Elias David’s parentage lies with the Rudd clan in Barnwell Co., SC so I’ve undertaken a great deal of research into all the records I could find for both Barnwell and Beaufort. I’ve got a feeling the key to our mystery lies in the dilemma of having two 1800 Burlingham Rudd males who both say they were born by 1755. That would indicate second generation or very early third generation. So I want to focus today on sorting out these two Burlinghams:<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/18002Burlinghams.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
<br />
A long time ago when this discovery was made by a previous researcher, the theory was put forth that these were the same man who had relocated during the census year. Well, evidently that theory was not based on knowing when the census was actually taken. All I’ve been able to discern is that the final census was compiled and certified in April 1801. The individual districts including Barnwell and Charleston do not have a date on them. So let’s review what I discussed earlier in the posting, <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/06/census-taker.html"><em><strong>The Census Taker</strong></em></a>. Generally, the census was taken during the early summer months, June and July, by persons hired to survey the county and gather the information. That information was then transcribed by someone from those notes, which were written with a quill pen. There were three copies made at the time of the transcription. This certainly took a period of time to complete this entire process. So it might be possible that these two Burlinghams are the same person, if the households didn’t look so different. I think another reason there was an assumption about these two entries is that it appeared there were no Rudd families left in Barnwell County in 1810 and 1820 because the census index books that were available at that time lists them as Reed. That ol’ Rud/Reed problem again!! But as I’ve shown you, the Rudd families are clearly identifiable as remaining in Barnwell at least through the 1830 census.<br />
<br />
Unless Burlingham 1st named two sons after himself, let’s start with the theory that one of these men is Burlingham 2nd and the other one is a son of a son of Burlingham 1st, in other words, a grandson. In order for that grandson to be 45+ in 1800 he would be born by 1755 or earlier. That would mean his father being at least 16 years old when he was born would be himself born by 1739 or earlier. The baptismal records document that Burlingham 2nd was born on October 13, 1741 and he had a brother named Walter who was born on March 20, 1743. The first child listed is Martha born on March 1, 1738/9. So the father of this other Burlingham Rudd in the 1800 census was born before Martha. <br />
<br />
When I was researching the punishment I outlined in <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/06/sentenced-to-transportation.html"><em><strong>Sentenced to Transportation</strong></em></a> used by the Old Bailey Court in England I discovered that Burlingham 1st was indeed an indentured convict not an indentured servant. A contractor was engaged by the Court to transport criminals for a fee and they in turn then sold those indentures upon arrival in the colonies. Very much like the practice of slavery, only with a limit on the number of years based on the classification of the crime. Most likely Burlingham 1st had a seven year indenture placed on him. The restrictions placed on him would be dictated by his owner. That probably included not being allowed to marry and raise a family because the point of his indenture was to work for his owner and all of the money he made from his labor belonged to his owner. The record says Burlingham Rudd was sentenced in the summer of 1727 so let’s theorize he arrived about September or October 1727 and was sold about the same time. That would mean he would have completed his indenture toward the end of 1734. If he married Elizabeth after his indenture was completed they could have had a child by 1735 and another one in 1737, then maybe Martha in 1738/9, Burlingham 2nd in 1741 and Walter in 1743. That’s every two years. So it’s possible that Burlingham 1st had at least two children before those documented in the baptismal records at Prince Frederick’s Parish and one of these children is the father of the other Burlingham in the 1800 census. <br />
<br />
Another possibility is that one of these 1800 Burlingham Rudd males is Burlingham 2nd and the other is his son but it wouldn’t be the one we all refer to as Burlingham 3rd because he’s going to leave Anson for Tennessee. But I want to remind you about what I revealed to you in the previous posting <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/07/burlingham-rudd-who-married-widow-mary_25.html"><em><strong>The Burlingham Rudd who married the Widow Mary Whaley</strong></em></a>; Burlingham 2nd signs his mark as “X” and the Burlingham Rudd, Sr. in Anson that bought land in January 1790 that he sells to Burlingham Rudd, Jr. in July 1793 signed the deed with his mark “B”. That land listed William Vaughn as an adjacent land owner. I think this is the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790AnsonBurlinghamSr.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Sr.</strong></a> and the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790AnsonBurlinghamJrVaughn.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Jr.</strong></a> in the 1790 Anson Co., NC census and might not necessarily be Burlingham 2nd. <br />
<br />
Another interesting bit of information goes back to the January 1757 sale of 200 acres of his original grant for 200 pounds sterling from Burlingham 1st to Burlingham 2nd, who would have been only 15 years and 3 months old at the time. Was that because he was getting married or starting a family. The dates would only be off 2 years, 1757 instead of 1755. <br />
<br />
Lastly, we don’t really know when George Lounsdell was born. He doesn’t appear in the Prince Frederick Parish record, so there evidently was an assumption made he was born after 1745. Maybe he wasn’t. If he was born before Martha, about 1735-7, he very well could have had a son that could be one of those 1800 Burlingham Rudd males. One indication of his potential birth year lies in the North Carolina land grant issued to him on April 20, 1762 for 150 acres on Jones Creek that he named Lounsdell’s Folly. The land was surveyed for him on June 6, 1759. According to the process I’ve researched for the issuing of land grants in the North Carolina colony, George Lounsdell would first apply for the land grant, then have it surveyed, then have the survey filed in order for the grant to be issued. So, if he was at least 16 years old at the time of the application, he would have been born by 1743, but that’s when Walter was born. If he was at least 21 years old, then he would have been born by 1738 and that would be before Martha. One thing that seems clear is that George Lounsdell was not born after 1743 as he applied for a land grant that was surveyed in his name. <br />
<br />
Now, let’s recap.<br />
<br />
We have two Burlingham Rudd males in the 1800 census, one in Barnwell and one in Charleston. Both say they were born by 1755. <br />
<br />
One of them is Burlingham 2nd and the other is: <br />
<br />
1) The son of an unknown son of Burlingham 1st born before Martha was born in 1739.<br />
<br />
2) The son of Burlingham 2nd with the possibility that the one we refer to as Burlingham 3rd is not his son.<br />
<br />
3) The son of George Lounsdell Rudd. <br />
<br />
As I pointed out in our theory, one of these households is likely Burlingham 2nd the other is someone else. It’s not possible to tell by the makeup of the households which one is which. But let’s look closer at the age of these two households. Based on that someone else being the child of someone born about 1735-37, the head of that household is probably not much older than 45 years old, born between 1751-55<br />
<br />
1800 Charleston, Burlingham Rudd, b. bef. 1755: <br />
1m 45+ (b. bef. 1755)<br />
1f 45+ (b. bef. 1755)<br />
2m 16/26 (b. 1774-1784)<br />
1f 10/16 (b. 1784-1790)<br />
1m -10 (b. 1790-1800)<br />
<br />
1800 Barnwell, Burlingham Rudd, b. bef. 1755:<br />
1m 45+ (b. bef. 1755),<br />
1f 45+ (b. bef. 1755)<br />
1f 26/45 (1755-1774)<br />
1m 16/26 (b. 1774-1784)<br />
1m 10/16 (b. 1784-1790)<br />
<br />
The Charleston household has 4 children with the last one under the age of ten years. Either these children belong to the 45 and older adults or it's possible the 10/16 years old female is a wife to one of the 16/26 years old males and the under 10 years old male is their child. <br />
<br />
In the Barnwell household, either the children listed belong to the 45 and older adults and the 26/45 female could be an unmarried daughter, or she is a sister (or sister-in-law) or a widow (daughter-in-law) and those are her children. Regardless, the household doesn’t have a child under the age of ten years old. <br />
<br />
The Barnwell household looks to be the older of the two.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1156018141241478842006-06-10T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:27:10.544-05:00Burlingham Rudd and His Crown Grant, April 11, 1749<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/OriginalGrantBR.jpg" border="0"/></a></center><br />
<center><span style="font-size:85%;">Crown Grant – April 11, 1749 – King George the Second to Burlingham Rud</span></center><br />
<blockquote>George the Second (symbol) To all to whom (symbol) Know ye that we (symbol) have given unto Burlingham Rud a tract of land containing three hundred acres of land in Anson County on the So. Side of Great Pee Dee beginning at a Red Oak on Jones Creek running So. 13 West 200 poles to a Red Oak then So. 70 West 188 poles to a Pine then No. 310 poles to a Pine then to the first station. To Hold (symbol): Dated the 11th day of April 1749. Gab. Johnston<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;">Source: North Carolina Secretary of State Land Grant Record Book 5, p. 314, Burlingham Reed, File #506<br />
</span></blockquote><i>This appears to be the warrant that was entered into the land book that authorized the surveyor to complete the survey for Burlingham’s original 300 acre grant.</i><br />
<br />
<blockquote>George the Second (symbol) To all to whom (symbol) Know ye that we (symbol) have given and granted unto Burlingham Rud a tract of land containing three hundred acres lying and being in the County of Anson on the So. Side of the Great Pee Dee beginning at a Red Oak on Jones Creek running So. 13 West 200 poles to a Red Oak then So. 70 West 188 poles to a Pine then No. 310 poles to a Pine then to the first station. To Hold (symbol): Yielding and paying (symbol) four shillings proclamation money yearly for every hundred acres. Sealing the same according to his rights. Clearing and cultivating three acres for every hundred within three years and entering these letters with the auditor within six months. In Testimony (symbol): Witness (symbol): dated the 11th day of April 1749. Gab. Johnston<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:85%;">Source: North Carolina Secretary of State Land Grant Record Book 10, p. 154, Burlingham Reed, File #563<br />
</span></blockquote><i>(Pictured Above) This appears to be the patent that was issued to Burlingham 1st laying out the details of the tax to be levied on the land and the requirements for cultivation.</i><br />
<br />
In 1663 and 1665 Charles II granted to eight men who helped him regain the English throne, an enormous expanse of land in America in which was located present-day North Carolina. Under the two charters, these eight Lords Proprietors received the authority to grant land. These grants from 1663 to 1729 were almost always in the form of headrights.<br />
<br />
The Lords Proprietors, absentee landlords, were disappointed that their investment in the Americas did not reap them the wealth they had expected. In 1729 all the proprietors, except Lord Granville, sold their grants back to the Crown. North and South Carolina became two separate royal provinces. The Crown appointed royal governors.<br />
<br />
Between 1713 and 1763 North Carolina's population grew because land was available at such low prices. The royal governors were directed to "grant 50 acres free to each settler, and Lord Granville, who held the counties bordering on Virginia, charged only three shillings for 640 acres.<br />
<br />
These grants, for 50 acres for each person they brought into NC, were usually based on the passage being paid for by the emigrant applying for the patent. These patents were usually called headrights and there were no fees required of those who qualified for these patents. It was common practice for settlers to sell their headrights entitlement to an assignee. (A person to whom property, rights, or powers are transferred) The rules changed through the years. The Crown continued the headright system used by the Proprietors until about 1752. After that date, purchase patents were the usual form.<br />
<br />
The purchase patent way of obtaining land in the Carolinas existed from 1720 -1754. It required settlers to pay fees to cover the cost of the paperwork involved with entering the plot in the records, the warrant, and plat. In 1754 through the early years of NC statehood, this became the only way of acquiring vacant land.<br />
<br />
The process involved several steps:<br />
<br />
<strong>Entries or Applications</strong><br />
A person chose a piece of vacant land, entered a claim or applied for it by describing its features to a government official or entry-taker. The entry-taker would record the description on loose sheets or into bound volumes, depending on the time period. These descriptions show the name of the person seeking the land, a description of the land, the number of acres, the name of adjacent land owners, and the date the entry was made.<br />
<br />
<strong>Warrants</strong><br />
If, after three months, the person seeking the land received no opposition to his entry by way of legal caveat, the entry taker would convey a warrant to the assigned surveyor. This warrant was the authorization for the surveyor to complete a plat. Sometimes as many as 10 years could pass between entry and warrant.<br />
<br />
<strong>Plats or Surveys</strong><br />
After receiving the warrant, the surveyor would survey the land and draw a plat map. This map may vary from the land description given in the entry or warrant. The surveyor sent copies of the plat to the land office.<br />
<br />
<strong>Grants or Patents</strong><br />
After officials received the necessary papers and fees, the new land owner was given the grant document that was his patent to the land.<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/JonesCreek.jpg" border="0"/></a></center><br />
<center><span style="font-size:85%;">Anson County, North Carolina - Jones Creek at the Great Pee Dee River</span></center><br />
<br />
Without further investigation I can’t decide if this was a headright grant or a purchased patent. After The Crown bought back that part of the Carolinas from the Lord Proprietors in 1729 they continued the headright system until about 1752. After that date, purchase patents were the usual form. And in 1754 through the early years of NC statehood, the purchased patent became the only way of acquiring vacant land.<br />
<br />
During my research of the system used to grant land in North Carolina it is said by some that the headright system was seldom used by the Crown and it became increasing difficult to obtain a headright. This was because it became a very popular way to accumulate large tracts of land. The person bringing the settlers into the colony and paying for the patent process was the one who acquired the 50 acre allotment of land, not the person being brought into the colony. The date on Burlingham’s original grant is so close to the time that the system was changing, it’s difficult to know whether he had a headright or purchased a patent by the language in the grant. It’s my understanding the financial requirements (property tax and cultivation requirement) laid out in the grant would have applied in either case.<br />
<br />
The reason this is an important issue for us is that if Burlingham acquired his 300 acres as a headright and that headright system was to give 50 acres per person he transported into the colony, then that would indicate he brought in at least 6 people including himself. And that could be two adults and four children, one more than is listed in the Prince Frederick’s Parish baptismal records.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1150948114356968312006-06-09T20:00:00.000-05:002015-10-27T12:56:16.926-05:00Talton BrownIn the posting <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/06/george-washington-rudd-of-barnwell.html"><strong>George Washington Rudd of Barnwell</strong></a> you can see that Talton Brown was key in identifying the location of the George Washington Rud land in Barnwell. When I was on the hunt for George W. in Barnwell, I stumbled upon this very interesting publication about Talton Brown. <br />
<br />
<blockquote><center><a href="http://sciway3.net/clark/allendale/tbrownintro.htm"><strong>BROWN, TARLTON (sic) (Browne, Tarleton) (1757-1845)</strong> </a></center><br />
Tarleton Brown, son of William Brown (1730-1780) and Sarah Jennings, was born 5 April 1757 in Albemarle County, Virginia. In 1769, his family moved to South Carolina, settling near Brier Creek in what was then Orangeburg and later Barnwell District. As an adult, he first resided near Sand Hill and Cedar branches of Lower Three Runs. He operated gristmills on his property which he named Fork Mills. Through grants (1786-1804), he obtained 1,980 acres. Brown moved circa 1820 to nearby Boiling Springs, an area in Barnwell District known for its cooling, pure waters. Writing his will 9 June 1842, he mentioned land of undisclosed acreage on the west side of Lower Three Runs, 350 acres on "Wolf-pit" branch in Barnwell District, and a residential tract (1,110 acres) on the east side of Lower Three Runs. An inventory of his estate revealed he owned twenty slaves in Barnwell. <br />
<br />
Brown was active during the American Revolution. Early in 1776, he enlisted as a private in the South Carolina militia. Commissioned a lieutenant in 1778 and promoted to captain 1 April 1780, he was present at the siege of Savannah (September-October 1779), Battle of Moncks Corner (April 1780), and siege of Augusta (May-June 1781). His commanders included WILLIAM HARDEN (1743-1785), FRANCIS MARION (1732?-1795), and ANDREW PICKENS (1739-1817). The war also brought personal tragedy to Brown; his father and other family members were killed by Tories, and he himself contracted smallpox. After peace was established, he wrote an account of the Revolution which was later published as Memoirs of Tarleton Brown, a Captain in the Revolutionary Army. Public service for Brown began in earnest after the war. He was appointed coroner (8 May 1788) and sheriff (4 November 1788) for Winton County; he continued in the latter post until 1791. Winton elected him to the House for the Tenth (1792—1794), Eleventh (1794—1795), and Twelfth (1796—1797) General Assemblies; he served on the House committee on privileges and elections (1792—1795). Elected to the state Senate. he represented Winton in the Thirteenth General Assembly (1798—1799) and served on the committees on high roads, bridges, and ferries (1798—1799) and privileges and elections (1798— 1799). Upon his election as sheriff for Barnwell on 21 December 1799, he resigned from the Senate; he served as sheriff until 1804. Other offices he held included road commissioner (1786); road overseer (1787); lieutenant colonel of the Twenty-third Regiment, Fifth Brigade, of the state militia (ca. 1794—1808); commissioner, to erect a courthouse and jail in Barnwell District (1798); and trustee, for establishing public schools in Orangeburg (1798). <br />
<br />
Sometime in 1788, Brown wed Almedia Matthews (1770—1800). They were the parents of three children—William Duke, Lewis Matthews, and Almedia A. (m. Preston Harley). On 16 May 1804, he married his second wife, Judith O’Bannon, widow of Wilson Cook, Jr. Four children were born to them: Austin Barnett, James Kennedy, Frances Caroline (m. William H. Peyton), and Sarah Wilson (m. Dopson). Judith Brown predeceased her husband in 1837. Tarlton Brown died 4 September 1845 and was buried as he requested in the cemetery of the Baptist church at Boiling Springs, Barnwell District. </blockquote>Talton Brown tells of his service during the Revolutionary War in his first-person account. It is both breathtaking and horrendous. But it provides us with some insight into the life and times in Barnwell District. <br />
<br />
Go here and you can read <a href="http://sciway3.net/clark/allendale/tbrownmemoirs.htm"><strong>"Memoirs of Tarleton Brown ~ A Captain in the Revolutionary Army" Written by himself</strong></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-1156633776080504742006-06-09T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:27:41.246-05:00Who was Elizabeth Rudd?<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1782_1801DeedElizabethRuddtoGeorgeL.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
As most of us I think, a lot of “Rudd Cousins” have shared with me many items related to the research of our progenitor. Among those things, I have two items that were done by previous researchers that mention this deed. One of the items is what appears to be a listing of documents and in the margin to the side of this Elizabeth Rudd deed there is a notation that questions if this Elizabeth was the wife of Burlingham 1st. <br />
<br />
I don’t think so based on what we now know. The record of the Prince Frederick’s Parish baptism list Martha as born in 1738-9 and as I discussed in <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/08/burlingham-rudd-vs-burlingham-rudd.html"><em><strong>Burlingham Rudd vs Burlingham Rudd</strong></em></a>, there is an indication that George Lounsdell was born before Martha (1738/9). So if Burlingham 1st married wife, Elizabeth, by 1735 and she was at least 18 years old, she would be 82 years old in 1801. I think it’s more likely she’s died by this time. Furthermore, I can’t imagine why George Lounsdell’s mother would have a deed to 100 areas at Old Mill Creek when she would of had her own land upon the death of Burlingham 1st. That last 100 acres was sold by Burlingham 2nd in March 1792. <br />
<br />
The other item that was shared with me is a very well written thesis with a lot of helpful information and the conclusion is drawn that this Elizabeth Rudd is the daughter of Burlingham 2nd. <br />
<br />
As I’ve said before, the evidence doesn’t support the assumption that the Burlingham Rudd in the 1800 Charelston census is Burlingham 2nd. And there is very strong indication that the Burlingham Rudd who married the widow Mary Whaley is NOT Burlingham 2nd. In the Last Will and Testament of that Burlingham Rudd in St. James Goose Creek he names his daughter, Elizabeth Smith, as his executrix in 1827. So the assumption was made that Elizabeth Rudd and Elizabeth Smith were the same person. And I guess that’s possible but it ignores the fact that this land was origionally granted to George Lounsdell Rudd not Burlingham 2nd. <br />
<br />
And that fact was the first thing I noticed when I began to transcribe this deed. This 100 acre tract of land that Elizabeth Rudd is selling to George L. Rudd in 1801 is land that was granted to George Lounsdell Rudd on October 24, 1782. So that raises the question, how did she acquire this land? I’ve not found a deed that documents the land was transferred to her, but she must legally own it if she is legally deeding it back to George Lounsdell. Another question is why is she selling the land?<br />
<br />
The second thing I noticed is this deed is witnessed by Burlingham Rudd, who SIGNS his name, and James Rudd, who makes his mark “X”. Now, as I’ve discussed in <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/07/burlingham-rudd-who-married-widow-mary_25.html"><em><strong>The Burlingham Rudd who married the Widow Mary Whaley</strong></em></a>, Burlingham 2nd could not write his name, all his deeds in Anson County, North Carolina bear his mark “X”. <br />
<br />
The Burlingham Rudd of St. James Goose Creek, Charleston, South Carolina who married the widow Mary Whaley signs all of those documents with his legal signature. And the Burlingham Rudd who sells land at Four Hole Swamp in <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/deedcharleston1814burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>1814 to William H. Harrall</strong></a> signs his legal signature. That land can be tracked back to this Burlingham’s <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/grantcharleston1808burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>1813 grant</strong></a> and <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/surveycharleston1808burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>1808 survey</strong></a>. Now we have a Burlingham Rudd who appears to be in Charleston who signs his legal signature in 1801 on this Elizabeth Rudd deed. I’m thinking these are the same man and we now can document his presence in Charleston as early as 1801.<br />
<br />
Another interesting thing about this deed. The James Rudd who signs his mark as a witness is most likely the son of George Lounsdell Rudd mentioned in the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/deedscreven1797georgelrudd.jpg"><strong>1797 Screven County, Georgia Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock</strong></a>.<br />
<br />
If you missed my critique of that document, you can read it <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_burlinghamrudd_archive.html"><strong>HERE</strong></a>. <br />
<br />
What’s of particular interest is that if this is James, the son of George Lounsdell, he wasn’t “of age” in 1797 but by 1801 he is witness to a deed. Did James become “of age” in four years? <br />
<br />
Lastly, this deed was then proven in the Anson County July Session of the Court in 1803 by Burlingham Rudd who testifies he was the witness to the deed. The very well written thesis I mentioned earlier draws the conclusion that this is Burlingham 3rd but there is no evidence of that. Actually the statement ...<br />
<blockquote>Then the within deed was duly proven in open court by the oath of Burlingham Rudd as witness thereto ordered to be registered.</blockquote>... indicates that it was the same Burlingham Rudd who witnessed the deed and he then appeared in the Anson County July Session in 1803. The Anson County land deeds reveal that the Burlingham we called 3rd, could not sign his name, he uses the mark "X".<br />
<br />
I think that we have another clue here in this statement, almost two years after Elizabeth sells the land to George Lounsdell the deed is then proven in Anson. Well, we know that the 1797 Screven County, Georgia Deed of Gift Fowarding Stock was recorded in Charleston in 1804, so this statement in this Elizabeth Rudd deed seems to indicate that George Lounsdell Rudd died by July 1803 and this deed was proven in Anson as a part of his estate settlement probably because the land was going to be sold. It also makes me wonder if the Burlingham Rudd who witnessed this deed and took it to Anson, was also designated the executor of George Lounsdell’s estate. I’ve always wondered why we have never found any record of a Last Will and Testament for George Lounsdell Rudd. Now I think it’s because he died unexpectedly. Even if he had been first born child of Burlingham 1st, born about 1735-1737, he would have been only 66-68 years old in 1803. I know that sounds old for that day and time, but not from what we know of the longevity of Rudd men back in those days. <br />
<br />
Let’s go back to the language in the deed that identifies the location of the land.<br />
<blockquote>beginning at a stake two pines and black jack pointers near Haley’s Road and runs So. 30 Et. 150 poles crossing said Road to a pine and two white oaks and a pine pointers then No. 60 Et. 115 poles crossing a branch of the Old Mill Creek to a stake then No. 30 Wt. 150 poles to a stake then So. 60 Wt. 115 poles crossing the road to the first station</blockquote>The Warrant from the land office to the surveyor gives us a little more information about the location of the land.<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1782WarrantGLR.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
Notice is says <em><strong>“on the West side of the Creek”</strong></em>. Mill Creek runs from the Great Pee Dee River to the west and very near the border between Anson County in North Carolina and Chesterfield County in South Carolina and according to this map (which is a modern day map and the creek may have changed) you will see the stretch of the creek that turns north then south that would allow for a west side.<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/seansonsml.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/seansoncounty.jpg"><strong>Click for Expanded View of Map</strong></a></center><br />
On the Survey you’ll see that one of the chainers was Burlingham Rudd, Jr. A chainer is someone who carries the chains for the surveyor in the type of measurement detailed in the deed. I think it’s likely that since this was July 27, 1781 and in Anson County, this is Burlingham 2nd, he would have been about 40 years old at the time. And if so, his calling himself Jr. would indicate that Burlingham 1st was still alive at the time of this survey.<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1782SurveyGLR.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
We can see by the documentation provided on the cover sheet to the grant by which this land was acquired by George Lounsdell Rudd that he entered the land into the land office entry book on October 17, 1778. The grant was issued October 24, 1782. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1782GrantcoverGLR.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
Elizabeth Rudd then sells the land back to George Lounsdell on August 10, 1801, almost 19 years after the issue date. So sometime between 1782 and 1801, Elizabeth Rudd acquired the land from George Lounsdell. She obviously is selling the land because she no longer has any use for it. There’s no way of knowing where this deed was actually physically prepared but my impression is that it was drafted in South Carolina probably in St. James Goose Creek since that is where George Lounsdell had relocated his family by 1800. That’s where James Rudd is located and most likely the Burlingham Rudd that is the other witness is located there as well. I wonder if Elizabeth Rudd had relocated there also. <br />
<br />
What are the possibilities of her relationship to George Lounsdell and why would she have possession of this 100 acre tract of land granted to him in 1782? <br />
<br />
Is Elizabeth Rudd ...<br />
<br />
1) An unmarried daughter of George Lounsdell?<br />
<br />
2) An unmarried sister of George Lounsdell?<br />
<br />
3) The widow of a son of George Lounsdell?<br />
<br />
4) An unmarried niece of George Lounsdell and perhaps her father, his brother, died?<br />
<br />
5) The widow of a brother of George Lounsdell? <br />
<br />
But like I said earlier, I think we can rule out that this Elizabeth is George Lounsdell’s mother. Perhaps she is the daughter of the Burlingham who married Mary Whaley (who, by the way, is not Burlingham 2nd), if that Burlingham is also directly related to George Lounsdell and this land somehow went from George Lounsdell to the Burlingham who married the widow Mary Whaley to this Elizabeth Rudd.<br />
<br />
I would be remiss if I didn’t include another twist to our mystery. It surely adds to the confusion, but I don’t think we should exclude information when we’re trying to work through an analysis. I think that type of practice has not served us well in understanding the larger family and how we all fit together. <br />
<br />
Based on the scale on this map of 1”=3 miles, that stretch of Mill Creek where it turns north and then south that would allow for a <strong><em>“west side of the creek”</em></strong> and is approximately 6 miles from the NC SC border. <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800ChesterfieldBurlinghamRud-1.jpg"><strong>In the 1800 Chesterfield, South Carolina census we have yet another Burlingham Rudd.</strong></a> <br />
<br />
He is indexed in the 1800 Census Index Book as Reed, but he’s Rudd as you can clearly see. You’ll notice this Burlingham says he is born between 1755 and 1774, a wife in his same age group and what appear to be three daughters, the oldest at least 16 years old. So working backwards, in 1800 a 16 year old daughter was born in 1784 and if her father was at least (18 when he married and) 19 at the time of her birth, he would have been born about 1765, if she is older or he’s older then he’s born before 1765. <br />
<br />
This gives us another unidentified Burlingham who appears to be a son of a son of Burlingham 1st so we have three 1800 Burlingham Rudd households!<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/3burlinghams.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
I’m beginning to believe the only way to reconstruct the early family in Anson will be to gather as many land deeds for adjoining property as possible and buy the software that will plot the land using the meters and bounds system. We’re lucky that the Anson County land records include that information. <br />
<br />
And Thanks Cousin Rodney for the Anson County Map!!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-17990118106366464842006-06-08T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:36:27.795-05:00South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 1<strong><em>2nd Generation</em></strong><br />
<br />
As I wrote in <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/11/rudd-boys-of-anson-county-nc_28.html"><strong><em>The Rudd Boys of Anson County, NC</em></strong></a> 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 <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/08/burlingham-rudd-vs-burlingham-rudd.html"><strong><em>Burlingham vs Burlingham</em></strong></a>, 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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantsurveyanson1790georgerudd.jpg"><strong>HERE</strong>,</a> 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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Based on the land records in Anson Co., NC, we can surmise that George Lounsdell sold out his lands in December 1787.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedanson1787glrtomichaelcrawford.jpg"><strong>The deed of sale to Michael Crawford</strong></a> for several parcels of land includes Lounsdell’s Folley (sic) which most likely was his homestead. And as I stated in <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/11/rudd-boys-of-anson-county-nc_28.html"><strong><em>The Rudd Boys of Anson County, NC</em></strong></a>, 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?<br />
<br />
We can’t be sure where George Lounsdell migrated to after leaving Anson, but we do know he is recorded in the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790Fairfield.jpg"><strong>1790 census for Fairfield County, Camden District, SC.</strong></a> There is a <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveyfairfield1792georgerudd.jpg"><strong>March 1792 survey for an 88 acre parcel of land on Dutchman’s Creek in Fairfield County, Camden District, SC</strong></a> that is a certification of land for a William Bryan that was surveyed for George Rudd.<br />
<br />
This appears to be land being sold by George Lounsdell and could indicate he was moving once again.<br />
<br />
Also in <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedanson1792burlighamruddtojameslanford.jpg"><strong>March 1792 we see that Burlingham Rudd sells</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedanson1788burlinghamruddtolewislanier.jpg"><strong>sold to Lewis Lanier in 1788</strong></a> the 200 acres of the original grant that was <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedanson1757burlinghamruddsrtoburlinghamruddjr.jpg"><strong>sold to him by his father in 1757</strong>.</a><br />
<br />
There’s also another parcel of land that appears to have been <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedanson1790sherifftoburlinghamruddbywatts.jpg"><strong>brought by Burlingham 2nd in 1790</strong></a> that is <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedanson1793burlinghamruddsnrtoburlinghamruddjr.jpg"><strong>sold to who appears to be Burlingham 3rd in July 1793 for one pound</strong>.</a> That deed disposes of what we can determine to be the land holdings by Burlingham 2nd in Anson Co., NC.<br />
<br />
When we look at the 1790 census for Anson Co., NC we see <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790AnsonBurlinghamSr.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Rudd, Sr. on page 189</strong></a> and <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790AnsonBurlinghamJrVaughn.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Rudd, Jr. on page 196</strong></a> 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?<br />
<br />
George Lounsdell Rudd<br />
<br />
The earliest mention of land in South Carolina belonging to George Rudd appears in <em>“Historic Ramblin's Through Berkeley" by Mr. J. Russell Cross</em> that says:<br />
<blockquote>500 a. to George Rudd in 1781, 500 a. to Eli Rudd in 1798, 500 a. to Eli Rudd in 1808</blockquote>Of those mentions, I’ve only found a record of the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1798elyrudd.jpg"><strong>1798 grant to Ely Rudd</strong></a> 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.<br />
<br />
Mr. Cross also says:<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>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.<br />
<br />
Based on this entry by Mr. Cross in <em>“Historic Ramblin's Through Berkeley"</em>, 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?<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.sciway.net/hist/amrev/loyalists.html"><strong>South Carolina Assembly to confiscate lands from Loyalists at the end of the War.</strong></a><br />
<br />
If this is our George Lounsdell, was he trying to get ahead of what would surely become a land rush after the Revolution?<br />
<br />
Next we have a record of George Lounsdell with the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedscreven1797georgelrudd.jpg"><strong>Deed of Gift Forwarding Stock in Screven Co., GA</strong></a> 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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
As I referenced above, the first document I’ve found of land issued to George Lounsdell is a <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantcharleston1797georgelrudd.jpg"><strong>January 1797 grant to for 500 acres</strong></a> in Charleston.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1798elyrudd.jpg"><strong>see on this plat</strong></a> that Benjamin Singletary is a neighbor.<br />
<br />
We know from the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800CharlestonGerogeandBurlingham.jpg"><strong>1800 Charleston Co., SC census that George Lounsdell</strong></a> 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.<br />
<br />
There are at least two other land records related to George Lounsdell before he died. One is for the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedcharleston1800georgerudd.jpg"><strong>purchase of 300 acres from Gilbert Crosswell in February 1800</strong></a> and the other is for the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedcharleston1803georgerudd.jpg"><strong>sell of these same 300 acres in February 1803 to Jacob Danciller.</strong></a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
On March 4, 1808 we find <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1808burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>a land survey for Burlingham Rudd for 606 acres</strong></a> that list one of the boundaries as <em>“the late George Lounsdell Rudd”</em>. 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810ColletonRudds.jpg"><strong>1810 SC census</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1798elyrudd.jpg"><strong>this plat</strong></a> 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.<br />
<br />
So the timeline for George Lounsdell based on documentation goes something like this:<br />
<br />
His first mention is the <strong>June 6, 1759 land survey in Anson Co., NC</strong>. 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.<br />
<br />
On <strong>December 30, 1787</strong> he sells the remainder of his land holdings to Michael Crawford (520 acres for 160 pounds) that indicates his migration out of Anson.<br />
<br />
There is a mention in <i>Historic Ramblin’s Through Berkeley</i> of a <strong>1781 land grant to George Rudd for 500 acres in Berkeley </strong>(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.<br />
<br />
We have a <strong>1790 census for Camden District, Fairfield Co., SC </strong>documenting his residence.<br />
<br />
That is followed by a <strong>March 7, 1792 land survey </strong>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.<br />
<br />
On <strong>January 30, 1797 he authored a Deed of Gift in Screven Co., GA</strong> 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 <strong>May 1804 in Charleston Co., SC indicating he had died.</strong><br />
<br />
Then on <strong>January 5, 1797 he acquired 500 acres in Charleston Co., SC. The land is granted on February 6, 1797 </strong>which is likely the location of his residence in the 1800 Charleston census.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Burlingham Rudd 2nd<br />
<br />
When we look at the 1800 South Carolina census we see that there is a <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800BarnwellBurlinghamRud-1.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Rud in Barnwell Co.</strong></a> and there is also a <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800CharlestonGerogeandBurlingham.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Rudd in Charleston Co. at St. James Goose Creek.</strong></a> <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/08/burlingham-rudd-vs-burlingham-rudd.html"><em><strong>Burlingham Rudd vs Burlingham Rudd</strong></em></a> 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. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/18002Burlinghams.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
As I mentioned earlier, we can deduce by the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedanson1792burlighamruddtojameslanford.jpg"><strong>1792 Anson Co., NC land deed to James Lanford</strong></a> that Burlingham 2nd left Anson about 1792. <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedanson1787glrtomichaelcrawford.jpg"><strong>Based on this land deed</strong>,</a> 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. <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedscreven1797georgelrudd.jpg"><strong>Deed of Gift.</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/Barnwell-Scriven.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
In the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810Barnwell.jpg"><strong>1810 Barnwell census we see Burrel H. Rud</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
But I don’t think there is any doubt that the Burrel H. Rud in the 1810 census is the same man in this <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/willburrelhamruddbarnwell.jpg"><strong>1820 Last Will for Burrelham Rudd of Barnwell Co., SC.</strong></a> 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 href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveybarnwell1811georgerud.jpg"><strong>a land survey</strong></a> that matches <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantbarnwell1811georgerudd.jpg"><strong>a land grant</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedbarnwell1831georgerudd.jpg"><strong>sells this land in 1831</strong></a> he sells it to Moses Sanders. Now look at this <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveybarnwell1803williamrud.jpg"><strong>1803 land survey</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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: <br />
<br />
1) He went with George Lounsdell to Screven Co., GA and then relocated to Barnwell Co., SC.<br />
<br />
2) He went with George Lounsdell to Screven Co., GA and relocated again with George Lounsdell to Charleston Co., SC. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Walter Rudd<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/WalterRuddCharlestonCo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=right></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<center>~~~~**~~~~</center><br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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!!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-22002347446392857612006-06-07T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:36:52.621-05:00South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 2<strong><em>3rd Generation</em></strong><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
First, let’s go back to the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantsurveyanson1790georgerudd.jpg"><strong>William Rudd that surfaces in Anson Co., NC on a 1787 land survey</strong></a> 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, <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-was-elizabeth-rudd.html"><em>Who was Elizabeth Rudd?</em></a><br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790OrangeburgWmRudinsert.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
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. <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790OrangeburgEstofWmRud-1.jpg"><strong>You can see HERE</strong></a> 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.<br />
<br />
<center><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://stat.radioblogclub.com/radio.blog/skins/mini/player.swf" allowScriptAccess="always" width="180" height="23" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" id="radioblog_player_0" FlashVars="id=0&filepath=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brigadoonian.com%2Fradio.blog%2Fsounds%2FJames%20Taylor%20-%20Carolina%20On%20My%20Mind.rbs&colors=body:#FFFFFF;border:#FFCC00;button:#FFCC00;player_text:#339900;playlist_text:#999999;"></embed></center><br />
<br />
<em><strong>Barnwell District, SC</strong></em><br />
<br />
The next mention of a William Rud is in the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800BarnwellWilliamRud-2.jpg"><strong>1800 Barnwell Co., SC census on page 64, line 18;</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800BarnwellBurlinghamRud-2.jpg"><strong>Burlingham who we find on page 69, line 14.</strong></a> <br />
<br />
But, once again we should scrutinize transcription errors that turns Reed into Rud. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800BarnwellWilliamRudinsert.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800BarnwellBurlinghamRudinsert.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
<br />
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”.<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800BarnwellSarahReedinsert.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a></center><br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800BarnwellBurlinghamRud-2.jpg"><strong>the page for Burlingham</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/BarnwellDist.jpg"><strong>this map of the Barnwell District, marked #4.</strong></a> And later on this <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedbarnwell1831georgerudd.jpg"><strong>deed for George Washington Rudd</strong></a> 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.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveybarnwell1803williamrud.jpg"><strong>1803 there is a land survey for William and Edmond Jones in Barnwell</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/BarnwellDist.jpg"><strong>marked as #1 on this map of the Barnwell District</strong></a> 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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantbarnwell1811georgerudd.jpg"><strong>1811 Land Grant to George Rudd</strong>,</a> brother of Elias David, <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/BarnwellDist.jpg"><strong>marked #4 on the Barnwell map.</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveybarnwell1803williamrud.jpg"><strong>this 1803 survey</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/WilliamRuddBarnwell.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=left></a>But as often happens, the next census year throws us a curve. In the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810Barnwell.jpg"><strong>1810 Barnwell census</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810BarnwellGeo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=right></a>And this time, this William Rud is living next to Burrel H. Rud. He could still be a third generation male based on his reported age. You’ll also notice in this 1810 Barnwell census <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810BarnwellcensusGeoRud.jpg"><strong>there is for the first time a George Rud.</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantbarnwell1811georgerudd.jpg"><strong>1811 Land Grant to George Rud in Barnwell</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
There is another record of <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedbarnwell1818williamrudd.jpg"><strong>William Rudd in Barnwell in an 1818 land deed</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/BarnwellDist.jpg"><strong>designated by #2 on this map</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820otherrud_reed.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=left></a>Also it appears to me that the Rud/Reed transcription problem starts with this census. There is a female indexed on page 13a in the census as Charity Reed, the name looks like Rud, and in the land records she’s listed as Charity Rud. I’ve followed the chain of custody on her land and she appears to be a Reed not a Rud. Likewise, on page 9a in this census there is Hugh, Samuel and John who are indexed as Reed and look like Rud. I’ve followed up on them in the following census and they are Reed. Also there is a land deed from a W. Samuel Rud, Jr. to a son, John Rud, that appears to be this Samuel and John Reed. So you see what a problem we have with the transcribing of our surname and this is most likely the reason that for so long Rudd family researchers were unaware of the continued residence of our Rudd line in Barnwell. But the land records show us something different. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820georudbarnwell.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=right></a> To begin with, on <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BarnwellGeorgeRud-1.jpg"><strong>page 20a we find what looks like George Rud.</strong></a> Then on <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/UnknownRud1820Barnwell.jpg"><strong>page 20b we find what looks like the name L. P. Rud.</strong></a> <a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/Rud1820Barnwell.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=left></a> 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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BarnwellLPandGeorgeRud.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=right></a>Another interesting aspect of this <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BarnwellGeorgeRud-1.jpg"><strong>George Rud household</strong></a> 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:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820geosrjrwmbarnwell.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=left></a>There is still another possible group of <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BarnwellGeoSrJrandWm.jpg"><strong>Rud households in Barnwell in the 1820 census.</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BarnwellGeoSrGeoJrandWm.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=right></a>You’ll notice in this last group there is a George, Sr. and a George, Jr. living beside a William Rud. George, Sr. and William appear to be third generation or early fourth but George, Jr. is clearly fourth generation. We know that the use of Jr. doesn’t necessarily mean that Jr. is the son of Sr. but rather that there is a older person who is the senior and a younger person of the same name who is the junior in the same family. So in this case it appears that George, Jr. is either the son of George, Sr. or William. Again, in 1820 Arthur would be 18 years old, David would be 12 years old and Burrell would be 2 years old. Unless Arthur is already out of the house and not reflected in this census, he's not reflected in either the George, Sr. nor the William household. David isn't either unless his age is off by two years, but knowing that Burrell's father was named George, he clearly could be reflected in the household of George, Sr.<br />
<br />
Well, there is an <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantbarnwell1821georgeruddesq.jpg"><strong>1821 Land Grant for 170 acres to George Rudd, Esq.</strong></a> that has an accompanying <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveybarnwell1821georgeruddsr.jpg"><strong>land survey</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedbarnwell1822georgerudd.jpg"><strong>1822 George Rudd sells land to Curtis Owens </strong></a>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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedbarnwell1823georgerudd.jpg"><strong>deed in 1823 from George Rud to Lyman Hubbard</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedbarnwell1831georgerudd.jpg"><strong>sells this land in 1831 to Moses Sanders,</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
One other point I want to make about the 1811 land grant and survey to George Rud, on the survey <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveybarnwell1811georgerud.jpg"><strong>it identifies the road from Col. Brown’s mill,</strong></a> who is Talton Brown and the grant <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantbarnwell1811georgerudd.jpg"><strong>identifies Ed Brown’s mill road</strong></a> who is Talton Brown’s uncle. In 1820 there is a Deed of Transfer of Property that will serve as the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/willburrelhamruddbarnwell.jpg"><strong>Last Will and Testament for Burrelham Rud.</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BarnwellGeoandArthurRud.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=left></a>A curious thing about all these potential Rud male households in 1820 which reflect many male children, in the next decade, the 1830 Barnwell census, we find only George Rud and Arthur Rud. Where did they all go?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Beaufort County, SC</strong></em><br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820beauforteliasrud.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"align=right></a>In the 1820 Beaufort census we also <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820BeaufortEliasRudd-1.jpg"><strong>find Elias (David) Rud</strong></a> who is indexed as Elias Reed. We see the familiar family names of Tanner and Breland living near by. And on this <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveybeaufort1813grud.jpg"><strong>1813 Survey for Beaufort</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
<em><strong>Four Hole Swamp</strong></em><br />
<br />
To be continuedUnknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-3223454408337844642006-06-06T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:37:15.659-05:00South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 3<em>3rd Generation Continued</em><br />
<br />
<em>Four Holes Swamp</em><br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/4HS2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"align=left></a>Four Hole Swamp is an approximately <a href="http://scalc.net/_old/dhec7/dhec7_3/950762.htm">60 mile long system with a one-and-a-half mile wide flood plain from swamp edge-to-edge</a> which drains into the Edisto River.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/4HS1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"align=right></a> 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. ~ <a href="http://www.rootsweb.com/~scdorche/towns.html">Dorchester Place Names</a><br />
<br />
Without a doubt the four sons that George Lounsdell Rudd named in the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedscreven1797georgelrudd.jpg"><strong>1797 Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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:<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantcharleston1797georgelrudd.jpg"><strong>land grant for 500 acres dated January 5, 1797.</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
In <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantcharleston1798elyrudd.jpg"><strong>1798 a grant to Ely Rudd</strong></a> states that the 500 acres were surveyed for George Rudd. The <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1798elyrudd.jpg"><strong>survey</strong></a> 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 <em>“Historic Ramblin's Through Berkeley" by Mr. J. Russell Cross </em>(that I discussed in <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2007/01/south-carolina-rudds-part-1.html#links"><strong>South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 1</strong></a>) that says:<br />
<blockquote><center><strong>500 a. to George Rudd in 1781</strong></center></blockquote>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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800RuddCharleston.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket" align=left></a>When we look at the 1800 Charleston census, we only see households for Burlingham Rudd and George L. Rudd. So if as is stated in the Deed of Gift, the two older sons, George, Jr. and Ely were “of age” they do not show up in the 1800 South Carolina census as head of household. If the census is correct, then the make up of George Lounsdell’s household seems to include unidentified persons or they might be George, Jr. and Ely because if the two younger sons in the 1797 Deed of Gift are “not of age” in 1797, how can they be 26/45 years old three years later? Assuming the census is correct, those two males in George Lounsdell’s household were born between 1755-74 and would be early to mid third generation males and the two males in Burlingham’s household that were born between 1774-84 are mid third generation males, the one male born 1790-1800 is either late third generation or early fourth generation. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
In February <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedcharleston1800georgerudd.jpg"><strong>1800 George Lounsdell purchases another parcel of land</strong></a> from Gilbert Crosswell, for $43 by the way, and then <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedcharleston1803georgerudd.jpg"><strong>sells this same parcel in February 1803</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
The next land record I’ve found is an <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1802burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>1802 survey for 116 acres for Burlingham Rudd</strong></a> 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.<br />
<br />
Then in <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantcharleston1808burlinghamruddrevised.jpg"><strong>May 1808 there is a land grant</strong></a> and <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1808burlinghamruddrevised.jpg"><strong>survey</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedcharleston1814burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>sold in 1814 to William Harrall</strong></a> we see that Burlingham signs his legal signature, he didn’t use a mark. As I noted in the narrative <a href="http://burlinghamrudd.blogspot.com/2006/07/burlingham-rudd-who-married-widow-mary_25.html#links"><em><strong>The Burlingham Rudd Who Married the Widow Mary Whaley</strong></em></a>, this Burlingham who signs his name (<a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/wills_probates.html"><strong>and signs all the documents between Burlingham Rudd and Mary Whaley</strong></a>) 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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1809CharlestonDirectory.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" align=left></a> 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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810RuddColleton.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></center><br />
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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810Colletoncensus.jpg"><strong>HERE</strong></a>.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810RuddCharleston.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket" align=right></a>Now also what is interesting is that this 1810 census records Elias, Margaret (the older), Elijah and O’riley as living in Colleton Co., but there is also a Margaret Rudd in St. James Goose Creek (SJGC). Based on her reported age range she could be out of either the Burlingham or George Lounsdell household in 1800. But we don’t have any Margaret in the 1809 directory. We have Jane. My speculation is that Margaret the mother, widow of George Lounsdell, is living on land that has been given as inheritance by 1809 and that’s why George Lounsdell isn’t listed as a land owner in the directory. As I’ve seen in many Last Wills of this time period, the land is given to the heirs with a clause that says that the wife is allowed to live on the land until her death or her remarriage. That’s why Margaret the mother is in the 1810 census as a head of household, she’s living in her own dwelling. My guess is that Jane in the 1809 Directory is the same person as the Margaret (the younger) in the 1810 SJGC census. And if that is the case, then Margaret in 1810 SJGC is most likely an unmarried daughter of George Lounsdell. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/StGeoStJamesSml.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket" align=left></a>Going back to George Lounsdell’s 1797 land grant that was originally survey for Benjamin Singletary in 1791, I searched for Benjamin in the 1790 census and found him residing in St. George Dorchester, Charleston District. According to this map, the parishes of St. George Dorchester and St. James Goose Creek shared a border and both laid within the Charleston District. Four Holes Swamp crosses over the border by coming from St. James into St. George where the swamp drains into the Edisto River approximately at the point where I’ve place the blue asterisk. The 1798 land survey for Ely Rudd also shows Benjamin Singletary as a border and remember that it also shows what looks to be two parcels of land owned by George Lounsdell on both sides of Four Hole Swamp. And remember all the land acquired by George Lounsdell, Ely and Burlingham up until this period adjoined each other. It would appear that these tracts of land became divided by the Colleton/Charleston border for the 1810 census, thus Elias, Margaret, Elijah and O’riley are on the Colleton side and Margaret the younger is on the Charleston side. That would mean that Margaret the younger is living on the outer edge of land that lies east of the rest of the family. <br />
<br />
You’ll notice on the 1810 census for Margaret the younger there are two Joiner families. <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantcharleston1797georgelrudd.jpg"><strong>Joiner is a name that appears on George Lounsdell’s 1797 grant</strong></a> as a neighboring land owner.<br />
<br />
Also, you’ll see that on the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800CharlestonGerogeandBurlingham.jpg"><strong>1800 census for George L. and Burlingham </strong></a>the name in between them is Thomas Ray. <br />
<br />
By the 1810 census, we know that George Lounsdell has died, but notice on the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810CharlestonMargaretRudd.jpg"><strong>1810 census for Margaret Rudd the younger</strong></a>, she is living near Thomas Ray. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820CharlestonEliBurrelJames.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></center><br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820EliBurrelJamesRuddSJGC.jpg"><strong>HERE.</strong></a><br />
<br />
In comparing the land records leading up to the 1820 census we find in <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantcharleston1819elirudd.jpg"><strong>1819 Eli Rudd was granted 291 ½ acres</strong></a> of land at Four Holes Swamp. On the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1819elirudd.jpg"><strong>survey</strong></a> you see that West Williams was a boundary land owner and on the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820EliBurrelJamesRuddSJGC.jpg"><strong>1820 census page</strong></a>, Eli Rudd is listed next to West Williams. <br />
<br />
That same year, <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantcharleston1819burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Rudd was granted 352 acres</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1819burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>survey for this land</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820EliBurrelJamesRuddSJGC.jpg"><strong>1820 census</strong></a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820EliBurrelJamesRuddSJGC.jpg"><strong>James Rudd</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
In <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/grantcharleston1818eliasrudd.jpg"><strong>1818 Elias Rudd is granted 218 acres</strong></a> at Four Holes Swamp. The <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1818eliasrudd.jpg"><strong>survey</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1818eliasrudd.jpg"><strong>1820 there is another land survey for 326 acres</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/willeliasruddcharleston.jpg"><strong>Last Will and Testament for Elias Rudd of St. James Goose Creek</strong></a> which identifies his land as being at Partridge Creek and names all of his children. Today there is a <a href="http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=17&n=3668498&e=573479&s=50&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25"><strong>Rudd Branch that comes off of Partridge Creek</strong></a> in the Berkeley area of South Carolina as well as a <a href="http://www.rootsweb.com/~scberkel/Cemeteries/RuddBranch.html"><strong>Rudd Branch Cemetery near Summerville</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BurlinghamEliasSJGC.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></center><br />
Let’s look at the <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BurlinghamEliasSJGC.jpg"><strong>1830 Charleston census</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1810RuddColleton.jpg"><strong>1810 Colleton census</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820CharlestonEliBurrelJames.jpg"><strong>1820 St James Goose Creek census</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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, <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820CharlestonEliBurrelJames.jpg"><strong>1820</strong></a>, no slaves were recorded but two free colored persons were identified. We know from the St. James Goose Creek records that <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/wills_probates.html"><strong>Burlingham Rudd married the widow of George Powell Whaley, Sr., Mary Williams Whaley</strong></a>, 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BurlinghamEliasRuddcopy.jpg"><strong>look at the census page</strong></a> 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, <em><strong>The Burlingham Rudd who Married the Widow Mary Whaley</strong></em>, 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 <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1819burlinghamrudd.jpg"><strong>Thomas Harry on Burlingham’s 1819 land survey</strong></a>. <br />
<br />
Also on this <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BurlinghamEliasRuddcopy.jpg"><strong>1830 census page you see Elias Rudd</strong></a> and the name John Varner and Jacob Peagler. On the <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1833eliasrudd3.jpg"><strong>1833 land survey for 228 acres to Jacob Peagler</strong></a> we see two tracks of land for Elias Rudd which also identifies land owned by John Varner. There is also an <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/surveycharleston1833eliasrudd2.jpg"><strong>1833 survey for Isaac Peagler for 271 acres</strong></a> 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! <br />
<br />
Now looking at <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830BurlinghamEliasSJGC.jpg"><strong>Mary Rudd in the 1830 census</strong></a>. 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1830MaryRuddSJGC.jpg"><strong>Smith family names and the Wilson family on the 1830 census page</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1850SJGCGeorgePoland.jpg"><strong>1850 Charleston SJGC census</strong></a> 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.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1840EliasandTabithaSJGC.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket" align=left></a>Finally, let’s look at the 1840 Charleston census. We only find Elias and Tabitha Rudd listed although surely there are others there at the time because they will show up in the following years. However, in those following census years they do show up in a somewhat fractured and inconsistent manner which indicates to me the disconnecting of the family maybe through unexpected deaths and remarriages. I don’t get the impression that many of those at Four Holes Swamp migrated out of that area this early in time because I’ve not found them anywhere else. As I referenced before there is a <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/willeliasruddcharleston.jpg"><strong>Last Will and Testament for Elias Rudd of St. James Goose Creek</strong></a> written in May 1847 and proved in February 1848 where he names all six of his children and his wife. Thank you Elias! The <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1840CharlestonSCEliasandTabithaR-2.jpg"><strong>Tabitha Rudd living next door to Elias Rudd in the 1840 census</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790GLR.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket" align=left></a>Now, if as it appears, the 1840 Elias Rudd is the same Elias Rudd in 1830 we can determine he is born around 1790. Going back to the 1790 Fairfield District census for George L. Rudd, we see that he has 3 males under the age of 16 in his household. Until we can find George, Jr. we really won't be able to determine who these three males under 16 are. If George, Jr. is out of the household by 1790, I've not been able to find him somewhere else in the 1790 (or the 1800 census for that matter). If those three males are George, Jr., Ely and James as named in the Screven Co., GA Deed of Gift, then it would fit that Lias was not yet born making it very possible that Elias Rudd is Lias, the son of George Lounsdell. When we add to the fact that Elias of Goose Creek named his only son George W. Rudd it's makes it even more plausible. <br />
<br />
Using the land records, the censuses and the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/3837/SCGW_Mills1825.html?200726"><strong>1825 Mill’s Atlas</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/4HSRuddsMap.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></center><br />
<br />
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.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9580689.post-14024489209606382652006-06-05T05:00:00.000-05:002015-10-28T14:37:44.401-05:00South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 4<em><strong>1800 Chesterfield, SC</strong></em><br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800chesterfieldbr.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket" align=left></a>I had intended to leave this South Carolina Rudd for another day, but I think now that in order to properly submit for your consideration and solicit your response in my next narrative, it would be better to go ahead and include this 1800 Chesterfield Co., SC Burlingham Rudd in this analysis. <br />
<br />
Yes! There is yet another1800 Burlingham Rudd! And you can see from the census page, <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1800chesterfieldcensus.jpg"><strong>which you can view here,</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/seansoncounty.jpg"><strong>here on this map</strong></a> that was given to me by Cousin Rodney.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790AnsonBurlinghamSr.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Rud, Sr.</strong></a> and <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790AnsonBurlinghamJrVaughn.jpg"><strong>Burlingham Rud, Jr.</strong></a> and we have a <a href="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lindarudd/deedanson1793burlinghamruddsnrtoburlinghamruddjr.jpg"><strong>1793 Deed of Sale</strong></a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1820AnsonBRBurwell.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket" align=right></a>Unfortunately, we find no Rudd in the 1810 census for Anson Co., NC nor Chesterfield Co., SC. So we skip 20 years between 1800 Chesterfield and 1820 Anson. And look what we find in 1820 Anson; Burlingham Rudd, who appears to be The 3rd, and Burwell Rudd, who appears to be third or early fourth generation. We know that Burlingham 3rd does not show up in Tennessee until the 1830 census, and by the way for future reference, there is going to be a record of a Stephen Rudd in 1820 Tennessee who appears to be related somehow to our Rudd family. So this Burwell is not Stephen. And I find no further records of this Burwell Rudd in the following census. <br />
<br />
This is going to get a little complicated so bear with me.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/lindarudd/1790AnsonSrandJr.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket" align=left></a>The obvious possibility is that Burlingham 3rd was married previous to Mary Vaughan. When you look at the 1790 Anson census, we see no household for Junior and that leads us to think he is single. And when we look at the household for Senior, it leads us to think those are his immediate family members. But what if one of those females is The 3rd’s wife, another of the females is The 3rd’s first born daughter in the 1800 Chesterfield census and the second female could be another daughter of The 3rd if she is older than 10 and was born before the 1790 was taken, if not the third female is probably The 2nd’s wife. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Sigh ....Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0