South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 4

1800 Chesterfield, SC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh ....