Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Fall Festival, Sneedville, Tennessee

2008 Sneedville Fall Festival
32nd Annual “Welcome Home” Fall Festival
Sneedville, Tennessee
11 a.m. - 7 p.m. Saturday Oct. 4th
11 a.m. - 4 p.m. Sunday Oct. 5th
Concert Saturday Night Oct. 4th at 7:00 p.m.
Tractor Parade Sat. Oct. 4th at 11:00 downtown
with Bill Landry as Grand Marshal.
Tractor Show and display directly after parade.
Beauty Pageant for Harvest Queen Sunday at 1:00 p.m.
Other pageants held on Saturday, times to be announced.
Bill Landry Award Presentation Sat. Oct. 4th at noon.
Farmers Market with produce to be sold from local farmers
This year the festival is honoring the farmers, and heritage
of the people of Hancock County.
Lots of good music, good food and local craftspeople
displaying and demonstrating their work.
There will be gasohol, molasses making,
woodworking, applebutter stirs, and more.
There will also be a kids corner for crafts.
For more information call 423-733-4341
Don’t miss the fun!!

Fall Festival program details courtesy of Becky Nelson, MHS Secretary/Treasurer. The MHS will be represented at the festival by various members, with a booth open both days.
Melungeon Historical Society blog
picture is Rebel Hollow, Hancock County TN, taken by Jack Goins

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Remember My Chains

American Indian Records

Various American Indian Records

By Steven Pony Hill

More f.p.o.c. Petitions from various States

1723 - Virginia

"That all free Negroes, mulattos, or Indians (except tributary Indians to this government) male and female, above the age of sixteen, and all wives of such Negroes, mulattos, or Indians shall be accounted tithables"

May 28, 1745 - Louisa Co. VA

"Ordered that William Hall, Samuel Collins, Thomas Collins, William Collins, Samuel Bunch, George Gibson, Benjamin Branham, Thomas Gibson, and William Donathan be summoned to appear at the next Court to answer the presentment of the Grand jury this day made against them for concealing tithables within twelve months past."

…pled not guilty…

November 6, 1752 - Henrico Co. VA

Grand Jury presentment against Thomas Moseley, David Going, James Matthews, and William Gwinn for not listing their wives as tithables, "being mulattos". Presentment against Jane Scott, Patt Scott, Lucy Scott, Betty Scott, Elizabeth Scott, Sarah Scott, and Hannah the wife of John Scott for not listing as tithables, "being mulattos."

May 1765 - Halifax Co. VA

Grand jury presentment against William Chandler, Shadrack Gowin, Peter Rickman and Phillip Dennum for concealing a tithable.


1738 - North Carolina

"every white person male of the age of sixteen years and upwards all Negroes Mulattoes Mustees male or female and all persons of mixt blood to the fourth generation male and female of the age of twelve years and upwards shall be tithables."

1749 - Granville Co. NC

Edward Harris refused to pay the tax on his wife (the daughter of William Chavis).

August 1756 - Edgecombe Co. NC

Edward Gowen was prosecuted for concealing tithables.

1761 - Granville Co. NC

Joseph Gowen, Thomas Gowen, and Michael Gowen refused to list their wives.

1765 - Granville Co. NC

Edward Gowen refused to list his wife.

1765 - Edgecombe Co. NC

Francis Jenkins, a Mustee, indicted for failing to list his wife.

1805 - Sampson Co. NC

Petition of Stephen Carrol for services while he pursued accused murderer Johnathan Chavers, a free man of color also called John White. He finally captured Chavers and placed him in jail at Fayetteville.

1794 - South Carolina

"seeking to repeal the Act for imposing a poll tax on all free Negroes, Mustees, and Mulattoes. They wish to support the Government, but the poll tax caused great hardship among free women of color, especially widows with large families. Tax collectors hunted them down and extorted payment." Petitioners: Isaac Linagear, Isaac Mitchell, Jonathan Price, Spencer Bolton, William N. Swett, and 29 other unnamed f.p.o.c.

1806 - Richland Dist. SC

"Sundry female persons of color" resident in Richland District petitioned the Senate concerning the discriminatory tax levied on them. Petitioners: Elizabeth Harris, Dicey Nelson, Lydady Harris, Keziah Harris, Clarissa Harris, Elenor Harris, Katherine Rawlinson, Elizabeth Wilson, Jerry Sweat, Sarah Jacobs, Sarah Wilson, Sarah Holley, Edey Welsch, Sarah Bolton, Nancy Grooms, Mary Jeffers, Sarah Jeffers, Mary Jacobs, Rachel Portee, and Sarah Portee.

1809 - South Carolina

Petition to the Senate to excuse "people of color and free Negroes" who paid property tax from also having to pay the capitation tax. Petitioners: Jehu Jones, Thomas Inglis, James Mitchell, Isaac Austin, William Clark, John Livingston, William Cooper, William Pinceel, Joseph Humphries, Phillip Manuel, Robert Hopton, Corlus Huger, James Wilson, C.G. Pinceel, George Logan, Peter Robertson, Henry Chatters, Richard Holloway, William Eden, John Martin, Morris Brown, Abraham Jacobs, Ed Chrighton, George Chrigton, John Francis, Jehu Jones jr., George H. Bedon, Moses Irving.

August 1809 - Marion Dist. SC

Thomas Hagans refused to pay the levy "upon all Free Negros, Mulatoes and Mestizos," claiming he was a white man. In October 1812 the Court ruled that he was of Portuguese descent and acquitted him.

1825 - South Carolina

Free man of color, John Chavis, submitted in 1823 a petition to secure a pension for Revoluntionary War service. Although it was denied, it was only because Chavis did not have a white guardian. Chavis was killed when a tree fell on him.

Jefferson Co. MS

Petition by 12 residents regarding Malachi Hagins, was married to a white woman and the couple had 10 children. Asked Legislature to extend to Hagins and his children "all the rights, privileges and immunities of a free white person of this state."

1859 - Warren Co. MS

Warren Co. whites petition that a 60 year old free man of color names Jordan Cheever, who fought as a soldier in the War of 1812, be permitted to remain in the state.

1859 - Franklin Co. MS

Ann, Caldwell, a free woman of color, asks for a special Act to allow her to remain in the state.

1860 - Carroll Co. MS

Citizens write on behalf of Wiley Wiggins, a 22 year old free person of color, who had lived in the area 6 years.

1867 - Pike Co. MO

James Gambol, L. Davis, Joseph Montgomery, Jerry Bell and Ralph Wheeler, petition as free persons of color ask that the State remove all legal restrictions "on account of race or color.

1819 - Green Co. TN

Free man of color, Joshua Hall, paid taxes, performed military duty, participated in the War with Britain.

1819 - Cooke Co. TN

Free man of color, Obadiah Going, seeks "the privileges of a citizen." He states that it is his misfortune to be the descendant of persons of mixed race.

1826 - Washington Co. TN

Free man of color, Phillip Bell, age about 22 years, complains of "many inconveniences & disadvantages" particularly his inability to "prove his accounts by his own oath." As a result he cannot collect debts owed to him by whites.

1832 - Madison Co. TN

Free man of color, Richard Matthews, seeks permission to marry a white woman. Matthews says he is "of the Portuguese Blood.

more here

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The Hidden Clues In Guardianship Bonds

By Richard A. Pence

The researcher was becoming frustrated by her inability to discover the maiden name of her ancestor Mary, the wife of Anthony KELLER.

"All I have been able to find out," she lamented on a surname mailing list, "is that Anthony's second wife made life so miserable for Mary's two boys that they were forced to go back to Ohio to live with their Uncle Bill."

When someone asked how she was able to learn that, here is the story she told:

Anthony's wife Mary died, leaving two small boys, Philip, age five, and George, age three. About a year later, in 1847, Anthony remarried to a woman named Sally and the following spring the family moved from Ohio to Indiana. Our researcher discovered that in February of 1850, Anthony's brother William, who remained in Ohio, had been made the guardian of Philip and George, "children of Anthony KELLER" (the word "orphans" had been crossed out and "children" inserted in the record). "That second wife actually drove them out of the house!," our researcher declared.

When another family researcher pointed out that Philip and George were enumerated with their father and stepmother in Indiana in both 1850 and 1860, our researcher wrote this off by saying the boys were "probably just visiting" in the summer.

We all know guardianship bonds are important genealogical sources. Often, in the case of the early death of a parent, they provide the only proof of the link from one generation to the next. As important, an understanding of the reason for such records can help solve other knotty genealogical mysteries.

One of the perplexing things for many researchers is that a family might exist without one of the parents for a considerable period -- even several years -- and then, suddenly, the names of the children appear in the guardianship bond book and they now have a court-appointed legal guardian.

Why? Why the long delay? Why suddenly is there a need for a guardian for the orphans of a man or a woman who has been dead for a half dozen years? Was the surviving spouse just too busy to get around to doing a required legal chore? Or were the children actually being maltreated by the surviving parent? What is going on?

An important thing to understand is that when a person was appointed the guardian of a minor child (generally any child under age 21), the reason is not to place the guardian in charge of rearing the child. "Bound boys and girls" are the ones who are placed in the care of others. Guardians have a different responsibility, that of protecting the material assets of their wards.

Therein lies the answer to the question, "Why now?" What a guardianship bond silently tells us is that some recent event has triggered the need for a guardian. Some new event may mean the children are about to acquire some property.

For example, one reason for the sudden need to have a guardian for the children might be that a widow has decided to remarry. Now it has become necessary to protect the children's property rights in their father's estate from the "clutches" of their new stepfather. So one of the first things you should do is check the marriage bonds for that time frame. If the widow did remarry, knowing who she married might enable you to track the family's later moves, for example.

It gets better.

Let us consider the case of "The Unwanted Stepchildren" who were "adopted by their Uncle Bill." Our researcher saw the record and thought of it in terms of an adoption proceeding, thus missing the real message in the record.

The reason for a guardian surely had to be that some outside event had made it necessary. It is this triggering event that might have told our researcher how to solve the mystery of the maiden name of Anthony's wife Mary.

For, you see, Philip and George were about to come into some money. Therefore, they needed a guardian to look after their interests. The family was way off in Indiana, so it was decided that Anthony's brother William back in Ohio was the one to look after things -- because he was where "the action" was.

"The action" was this: Mary's father had died intestate (without a will). Since Mary's mother was already deceased, this meant that Mary and her siblings were each entitled to an equal share of their father's estate. Because Mary also was deceased, her two sons were, by law, each entitled to half of her share.

So, while the guardianship record didn't actually say that Uncle William was going to be keeping track of how Mary's father's estate was being administered, it should have alerted our researcher to the fact that something recently happened to trigger this action. And what triggered the activity probably was not the "wicked stepmother" at all.

Once you have this clue, then it is time to start looking at the other county records for the "trigger" -- in particular, the contemporary estate records. You can now focus your search, making it relatively easy to discover that among the heirs of Alexander WILEY, who died in late 1849, is "Mary KELLER, deceased, leaving two sons in Indiana."

There are still other clues in guardianship records and these, too, must be properly interpreted.

Sometimes, for example, you will encounter a record that says, "George Jones, age 14, orphan of Samuel Jones, chose Adam Jones as his guardian."

In most jurisdictions, once a child reached age 14, he or she had the legal right to choose his or her own guardian. Thus, in the absence of a specified age, a person who has chosen his or her own guardian can be presumed to be at least 14 years old. However, the words "age 14" in such a record may not mean that the child was age 14 at the time. What they often mean is that he or she is at least age 14 and thus is entitled to choose his or her own guardian.

As you become more experienced, your eye will discover even more hidden messages in guardianship records. What, for instance, could be the reason one of the children in the family is not mentioned in any of the guardianship records? When the mother is made the guardian is it relevant when the record says "the orphans of her deceased husband" and DOES NOT say something like "her minor children"? Is there a story behind why the bond says "orphan and sole heir" rather than just "orphan"? (There sure can be!)

The lesson is that even a supposedly brief and direct record such as a guardianship bond can contain within it the answer to a completely different puzzle.

[Copyright 2002, Richard A. Pence. This article first appeared in MISSING LINKS: A Magazine for Genealogists, Vol. 7, No. 22, 2 June 2002.]


Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Catawba County Library System

Spanish roots run deep in Catawba Valley

September 22nd, 2008 by twilson

While many of us believe that Latinos are relatively new to our area, history proves otherwise.

The Juan Pardo Expedition brought Spanish warriors through what is now Catawba County as early as 1567. Now known as the Berry site, the archaeological dig north of Morganton has already revealed a wealth of information about 16th century Native Americans and their Spanish visitors.

Dr. David Moore of Warren Wilson College and his cohorts from around the nation have been working the site since 1986. The site was once the native town of Joara, visited by the Spanish expeditions of Hernando de Soto in 1540 and Juan Pardo from 1567-1568. Pardo’s Fort San Juan, constructed at Joara, is the earliest Spanish outpost in the interior of what is now the United States, 40 years before the English founding of Jamestown and 20 years before the ill-fated Lost Colony.

An account of Pardo’s exploits is in The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee 1566-1568 by Charles Hudson (975.01 HUD) is available at the Main Library in Newton. In the book, Hudson literally re-wrote history as he detailed the expedition to seek an inland route to silver mines in Northern Mexico. They mistakenly assumed that the North American continent was much smaller than it actually is.

Hudson gleaned the Pardo documents to find a wealth of information about the explorer’s routes, his encounters with native peoples and delves into the social and political structures of Indians of the time. Joara in Burke County was actually the seat of a Mississippian chiefdom.

In late 1566, Capt. Juan Pardo left Santa Elena, the capital of Spanish Florida (on modern Parris Island, S.C.), with a company of 125 men. Their mission: to explore the interior, to claim the land for Spain while pacifying local Indians, and to forge a route to Mexico. In January 1567, Pardo arrived at Joara, the largest Indian settlement in what is now North Carolina. He renamed it Cuenca, after his hometown in Spain, and built Fort San Juan de Joara, leaving 30 men to defend the fort and occupy the town. For undetermined reasons, they met a fiery end soon afterward. Only one survivor made it back to Santa Elena.

David Moore co-wrote the afterward of Hudson’s book, describing how he and colleagues were led to the Berry site from writings of Domingo de Leon, who described the route that Pardo’s group traversed along what surely was the watercourse of the Catawba, more specifically Upper Creek. Discovery of 16th century artifacts such as pieces of olive jar, chain mail and nails reinforce their theory.

This book will give you a leg up on the history of Fort San Juan, which has already woven its way into local consciousness. Pardo’s men were depicted in a tableau during the recent Night at the Museum Catawba County Museum of History. And a group of area ladies have named their provisional chapter of Colonial Dames 17th Century the “Fort San Juan Chapter.”

Every summer the Berry Site Field School engages volunteers in the dig. And one Saturday in June, the public is invited to visit. For details, log on to http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~arch/fieldschool

Books about archaeology in general are available on the 930.1 shelves at Catawba County Library.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Indian Slavery in Colonial Times Within the Present Limits of the United States

Lauber, Almon Wheeler

104 105


To arrive at any knowledge of the exact number of Indian slaves in any of the English colonies is impossible. Census reports and other vital statistics are infrequent or lacking, especially in the early colonial period; and often in such statistics as are extant Indian slaves either receive no mention, or are classed with negro slaves without distinction. From existing records, however, one is able to obtain a knowledge of the comparative numbers in the different groups of colonies, and to some extent in the individual colonies, during the colonial period. New England and the southern colonies were the sections that employed Indian slave labor most extensively, the south taking precedence, for climatic conditions there were more favorable, and economic conditions made necessary a larger quantity of servile labor than was required in the north.1 Yet New England made use of the natives as slaves as long as they lasted,2 and drew further supplies from Maine,3 the Carolinas,4 and other districts.5

Among the English colonies, the Carolinas stood first
1 Doyle, English Colonies in America, The Puritan Colonies, ii, p. 506.
2 I. e., until after the Pequot and King Philip Wars.
3 Freeman, The History of Cape Cod, p. 72.
4 Connecticut Colonial Records, 1715, p. 516.
5 Coffin, A Sketch of the History of Newbury, etc., p. 337; Essex Institute Historical Collections, vii, p. 73; Connecticut Colonial Records, 1711, p. 233.


in the use of Indians as slaves. Such use began with the founding of the colony. The need for laborers was great; the source of supply was near at hand and the colonists availed themselves of their opportunity. Probably captives of the Stono War became the Indian slaves mentioned in the inventory of Captain Valentine Byrd, “one of the grandees of the time.”1 In a report on conditions in the colony, made to the proprietors, September 17, 1708, by Governor Nathaniel Johnson and his council, the number of Indian men slaves was given as 500, Indian women slaves, as 600, Indian children slaves, as 300, a total of 1400 Indian slaves. The number of negroes at the same time was stated as 4100, of indentured servants, 120, and of free whites, 3960. The governor gave the cause of the rapid increase in the number of the Indian slaves during the five preceding years, as “our late conquest over the French and Spanish, and the success of our forces against the Appalaskys and in other Indian engagements.”2

Only a small portion of the whole number of Indians enslaved were kept in the colony.3 Yet, in 1708, it was estimated that the native population furnished one-fourth of the whole number of slaves in South Carolina.4 The public records of that colony contain a list of ninety-eight Indian slaves with their owners’ names, taken by the Spaniards and their allies in 1715, during the Indian
1 Hawks, History of North Carolina, etc., second edition, ii, p. 577.
2 Bancroft Papers Relating to Carolina, in New York City Public Library, MSS. vol. i, 1662-1769; Rivers, A Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close of the Proprietary Government, etc., p. 232; South Carolina Historical Society Collections, ii, p. 217; Thomas, The Indians of North America, etc., p. 95; Schaper, Sectionalism in South Carolina, p. 263.
3 Logan, A History of the Upper Country of South Carolina, i, p. 189.
4 Rivers, A Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close of Proprietary Government, etc., p. 231.


war, and carried to St. Augustine. The number of these slaves belonging to individual persons varied from one to ten.1 A report of 1723 mentions the number of slaves in South Carolina and Georgia as ranging from 16,000 to 20,000, “chiefly negroes and a few Indians.”2 Another report of the following year estimates the number of slaves as 32,000, “mostly negroes”,3 In 1728, the population of St. Thomas’ parish, South Carolina, consisted of 565 whites, 950 negro slaves, and 60 Indian slaves.4 From
1 Public Records of South Carolina, 1711-1716, vi, p. 276; British Public Record Office, Am. N. I., vol. 620.
2 Hewat, An Historical Account of the Rise of the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia, i, p. 309.
3 Glenn, A Description of South Carolina, etc., p. 81; Charleston Year Book, 1883, p. 407. (A quotation from a pamphlet entitled, “The Importance of the British Plantations in America to this Kingdom,” London, 1731).
4 Dalcho, An Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina, p. 287; Humphreys, An Historical Account of the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, etc., edition of 1730, pp. 103-105.
As the result of the intermingling of negroes and Indians, which came about when the coast tribes dwindled and the small number of remaining members moved inland, associated and intermarried with the negroes until they finally lost their identity and were classed with that race, a considerable portion of the blood of the southern negroes is unquestionably Indian. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1897-1898, p. 233. It was these mixed bloods, as well as the pure blood Indians, to which the statutes referred by the terms “Indian slaves” and “mustee,” or “mestee,” slaves. Occasional mention is made in the colonial newspapers of slaves of the mixed red and black races. American Weekly Mercury, October 24, 1734. The opinion has even been advanced that, in certain of the colonies, there never were any pure blood Indian slaves. Mr. W. B. Melius of Albany, New York, asserts; “I do not believe the pure Indian was sold as a slave (in New York), I believe the Indian who was the slave was not without mixture.” New York State Library Bulletin, History, No. 4, May, 1900. One instance of the mixture of the Indians and negroes in New York is found in a complaint made in 1717, that negro slaves ran away, and were secreted by the Minisink with whose women they intermarried. Ibid., No. 4, May, 1900.


these statistics, it will be seen that the number of Indian slaves was much smaller than the number of negroes, and that it was growing smaller toward the middle of the eighteenth century, while that of negroes was constantly increasing.

The early history of Indian slavery in Georgia is so bound up with that of Carolina, the Indian wars, and the difficulties with the Spaniards of Florida, as to require but little especial attention. After the settlement of Georgia as a separate colony, occasional mention is made of Indian slaves.1 In 1759, as the basis for a tax bill, the number of slaves was placed at 2500, but a committee of the legislature declared the number to have been underestimated. How many of this number were Indians is not known. The colony was settled at a time when Indian slavery was passing out of existence. So it is safe to state that the number of such slaves was small.

The number of Indian slaves in Virginia, also, was small, owing largely to the number of indentured servants, and to the early introduction and fitness of the negroes for the labor of the colony. In 1671, Berkeley reported the whole population of the colony as 40,000, the number of indentured servants as 6000, and that of slaves as 2000.2 But no division of slaves according to color was made. In certain sections but few slaves were used. The Scotch-Irish and the Germans preferred their own labor to that of slaves. Some Indians were taken in war, but they were inconsiderable when compared with the number captured in the Carolinas. Occasional mention of Indian slaves is found well into the eighteenth century.

Indian slavery in Massachusetts began early. Following
1 Colonial Records of the State of Georgia, vi, p. 259, mentions an Indian slave in 1749.
2 Howe, Historical Collections of Virginia, etc., p. 134.


the Pequot War, 1637, forty-eight captives were retained as slaves in the colony,1 After King Philip’s War, 1675, also, certain of the captives were made slaves,2 but no record exists of the exact number. The various records and histories of the Massachusetts towns show a general distribution of Indian slaves throughout the colony during the colonial period, such as existed following the two Indian wars above noted. Mere mention may be made of some of these: Plymouth,3 Boston,4 Roxbury,5 Ipswich,6 Quincy,7 Charleston,8 Malden,9 Haverhill,10 Milton.11 None of the official reports on the condition of New England makes mention of Indian slaves.12 But statistics show the number of slaves in Massachusetts in 1720 to have been 2000, including a few Indians.13 In 1790, according to the
1 Winthrop, Journal History of New England, i, p. 225, in Original Narratives of Early American History.
2 See Chapter V.
3 “It seems probable that there were no Indian slaves in Plymouth before the division of land in 1623.” Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, series 4, iii, p. 114.
4 Boston News Letter and other newspapers.
5 Ellis, The History of Roxbury Town, p. 136.
6 Felt, The History of Ipswich, pp. 306, 320; Boston Weekly Mercury, October 2, 1735.
7 Wilson, Where American Independence Began, p. 154.
8 Corey, The History of Malden, p. 416.
9 Ibid.
10 Chase, The History of Haverhill, pp. 239, 248.
11 Earle, Customs and Fashions in Old New England, p. 84.
12 Doyle, English Colonies in America, The Puritan Colonies, ii, p. 68. In 1708, Governor Dudley made a report on slaves and the slave trade to the Board of Trade, in which he stated that there were 400 negro slaves in Massachusetts. No mention was made of Indians. Historical Magazine, x, p. 52.
13 American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, 1885-1887, new series, iv, p. 216.


United States census report, the number of slaves in the state was 6,001, which number included about 200 half breed Indians.1 Since Massachusetts took the lead in the two Indian wars of New England, it seems likely that the number of Indian slaves in that colony exceeded that in either Connecticut or Rhode Island.2

The Rhode Island laws from 1636 to 1704 make no mention of Indian slaves. Yet they were held in the colony before 1704. The records of Block Island show them there in sufficient numbers, in 1675, to warrant the town council regulating their action. Captives taken in King Philip’s War were retained in the colony temporarily as slaves. The Boston newspapers occasionally mention runaway Indian slaves of Block Island.3 Both negro and Indian slavery reached a development in colonial Narragansett unusual in the northern colonies.4 In 1730, South Kingston had a population of 935 whites, 333 negroes and 223 Indian slaves. Eighteen years later, the proportion of races was nearly the same: 1405 whites, 380 negroes, and 193 Indians.5 As late as 1778, the laws of Rhode Island mentioned Indian slaves.6

Indian slavery in Connecticut began almost with the founding of the colony, and came about as a result of the Pequot War (1636). The captives taken in the war were
1 American Statistical Association Collections, i, pp. 208-214; Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, series 1, iv, p. 199.
2 Livermore, A History of Block Island, etc., p. 60.
3 New England Courant, June 17, 1723—A Spanish Indian runaway from Newport; Boston Gazette, October 28, 1728—An Indian runaway slave from Warwick, Rhode Island.
4 Channing, The Narragansett Planters, p. 10, in Johns Hopkins University Studies, iv.
5 Ibid., p. 10.
6 Colonial Records of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, viii, p. 359.


assigned directly to the colony and were retained and distributed among the inhabitants.1 The colonists appear to have held a greater number of such slaves then than at any later period. Certain Indians, also, were kept in the colony as slaves following King Philip’s War, but the number is unknown.2 Local histories show them in different towns well into the eighteenth century.3 An answer sent to a query from the Board of Trade in 1680 states that there were then thirty slaves in Connecticut, but no mention is made of Indian slaves though they existed in the colony.4

The number of Indian slaves in New Hampshire was undoubtedly very small. During the Pequot War and King Philip’s War, New Hampshire remained at peace with the Indians, and the statement has been made that no New Hampshire merchant or captain, during the Indian wars, kidnapped natives or consciously broke faith with them.5 The close connection with Massachusetts, however, made inevitable the existence of Indian slaves in the former colony,6 and the Boston newspapers occasionally mention such slaves as late as approximately 1750.7
1 Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, p. 342, in Original Narratives of Early American History.
2 See pp. 130-131, 150.
3 Caulkins, History of New London, pp. 330, 335, mentions Indian slaves in 1711 and 1735; An Indian woman slave lived in Westbury until her death in 1774. Steiner, History of Slavery in Connecticut, p. 21, in Johns Hopkins University Studies, xi.
4 Steiner, op. cit., p. 12, in Johns Hopkins University Studies, xi.
5 Sanborn, New Hampshire, an Epitome of Popular Government, p. 137.
6 Sanborn, op. cit., p. 151, states that in 1720, hardly an Indian remained in New Hampshire, except, perhaps, an enslaved captive.
7 The Boston Postboy, May 2, 1743, advertises a runaway Indian slave from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The same paper, July 25, 1743, advertises another runaway Indian slave from New Castle, in the same colony.


In the middle group of colonies, the number of Indian slaves was never large, and, in comparison with that in either the southern or New England groups, it was conspicuously small. There appear to have been more of such slaves in New York than in any other colony of the group, a condition due to its greater trade with the colonies which exported them. The English colony, furthermore, took over no Indian slaves from its Dutch predecessor.1
1 “In theory, at least, the Hollander considered the Indian a man like himself, with analogous rights to life, liberty and possessions.” Consequently, “Indians were not enslaved in New Netherland.” Van Rensselaer, History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth Century, i, p. 63. These statements are rather difficult to prove. Holding Indians as slaves who had been enslaved elsewhere and then brought into the colony, and making slaves in the colony and then sending them out of it, were practices that unquestionably existed, even if on a small scale. The declaration of the governor and council of New York in 1680 that “all Indians here have always been, and are, free, and not slave, except such as have been formerly brought from the Bay and Foreign Ports,” (Brodhead, History of the State of New York, first edition, ii, p, 331), shows the presence of some Indian slaves in the Dutch colony.
The records of New Netherland contain accounts of manumission in that colony of slaves called Spaniards and bearing Spanish names. Whether these individuals were Spanish Indians, or negroes from the Spanish Islands, is not specified in the records. One such person received his freedom in 1645, by payment of 300 carolus guilders. O’Callaghan, Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State, Albany, New York, pt. i, p. 45. Another received his freedom in 1646, in return for his long and faithful services. O’Callaghan, op. cit., pt. i, p. 105. Two others, slaves in the Company’s service, were freed in 1664. O’Callaghan, op. cit., pt. i, p. 264. Still others, belonging presumably to individual owners, received freedom in this same year. O’Callaghan, op. cit., pt. i, p. 269.
Two incidents of enslavement of Indians in New Netherland are noteworthy, even if the individuals concerned were subsequently sent out of the colony. The first instance occurred in 1644, in connection with the Indian troubles of that time. At the close of the difficulties, some of the Indian prisoners were sent by Governor Kieft to the Bermudas “as a present to the English governor.” Still others were given to the “oldest and most experienced soldiers,” who, at [footnote continues on p. 113] that time, were allowed to go to Holland. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, revised edition, i, p. 396; New York Colonial Documents, i, p. 215; Van Rensselaer, op. cit., i, p. 235. The second instance was connected with the Esopus Indians. On May 25, 1660, a resolution was taken in the council to transport to Curaçao all but two or three of the lately acquired Esopus Indians, “to be employed there, or at Buenaire, with the negroes in the Company’s service.” Brodhead, op. cit., revised edition, i, p. 676; O’Callaghan, Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State, Albany, pt. i, p. 295. On June 29th, Stuyvesant issued an order and arranged for their passage. O’Callaghan, op. cit., pt. i, p. 214. O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland, etc., ii, p. 420, gives the number transported as eleven. Schoonmaker, The History of Kingston, p. 16, states it as twenty. Those retained in the colony on this occasion were not enslaved, but were to be punished “as might be thought proper or as necessity might demand.” Schoonmaker, op. cit., p. 16. The relations with the Iroquois had prevented any serious Indian wars in the colony, and because of this relation Stuyvesant’s act was considered highly impolitic. His course, which was perhaps patterned after the action of the English following the Pequot War, he sought to justify in his declaration that “their enlargement would have a tendency to create disaffection toward our nation. Our barbarian neighbors would glory, as if they had inspired us with terror.” Schoonmaker, op. cit., p. 16. In 1661 these Indians were recalled from slavery. O’Callaghan, Calendar of Historical Manuscripts, etc., pt. i, p. 295.


The inhabitants of New York, under Dutch or English rule, never waged any war on the order of those in New England against the Indian tribes. Nor did the distribution of New England captives affect this colony to any great extent. A few Indian slaves were introduced from foreign parts, but the selling and holding of Indians as slaves was never a general custom.1 The existence of Indian slaves, however, was recognized by a decree of the governor and council in 1680.2 An Indian slave was sold
1 Van Rensselaer, History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth Century, i, p. 193.
2 Brodhead, History of the State of New York, revised edition, i, p. 193.


July 30, 1687, in Hempstead, Long Island.1 The narrative of grievances against Jacob Leisler includes the following: “The same night, December 23, 1689, an Indian slave, belonging to Philip French, was dragged to the Fort (New York), and there imprisoned.”2 In July, 1703, the governor received a petition regarding an Indian slave.3 The will of William Smith, of the manor of St. George, Suffolk County, April 23, 1704, divided a number of negro and Indian slaves among his children.4 In 1715, certain Indians complained that the whites were enslaving native children entrusted to them for instruction.5 Arent Schuyler of New York, 1724, gave to each of his two daughters, in his will, an Indian slave woman.6 The same year the Reverend Mr. Jenny reported: “There are a few negro and Indian slaves in my parish.”7 On July 3, 1726, the Reverend Mr. Vesey of New York, in a letter to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, stated that in the colony there were “about one thousand and four hundred Indian and negro slaves,”8 but told nothing about the proportion of each. Colonel Johnson’s letter to Governor Clinton, January 22, 1750,9 and William Johnson’s letter
1 Records of the Towns of North and South Hempstead, Long Island, ii, p. 60.
2 Northrup, Slavery in New York, in New York State Library Bulletin, History, No. 4, May, 1900, p. 305.
3 O’Callaghan, Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State, Albany, New York, pt. ii, p. 314.
4 New York Historical Society Collections, 1892, i, p. 413,
5 New York Colonial Documents, v, p. 433.
6 Schuyler, Colonial New York, ii, p. 193. Note that April 27, 1699, Bellomont reported to the Lords of Trade: “They have no other servants in this country but negroes.”
7 Scharf, History of Westchester County, etc., ii, p. 667.
8 Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York, iv, p. 2357; Dix, History of the Parish of Trinity Church in the City of New York, i, p. 203.
9 New York Colonial Documents, vi, p. 546.


to G. W. Banyar, June 28, 1771,1 the former relating to Indian children held as slaves, and the latter mentioning a Pawnee Indian slave in New York, show the existence of such slaves until a late date. Occasional mention is found in the newspapers of the time of runaway Indian slaves.2 From the evidence the conclusion is that although the existence of Indian slavery was continuous in New York throughout the colonial period, the number of Indian slaves, in comparison with that of individual colonies in New England and the south, was small.

William Penn, speaking of his purpose in founding a colony in America said: “I went thither to lay the foundation of a free colony for all mankind.” Yet in Pennsylvania existed the indentured servant, the negro slave and the Indian slave. Considering the attitude and the relations of Penn and his followers toward the red men one would hardly expect to find the Indians enslaved. In the absence of wars with the natives,3 no Indian captives were reduced to servitude. The Indian slaves used were brought from other colonies. The newspapers contain accounts of their being bought and sold, and of their running
1 O’Callaghan, Documentary History of New York, ii, p. 984; Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections, xxx, p. 596.
2 New York Gazette, July 23, 1733 (a runaway Indian slave from Flushing); March 3, 1734 (a runaway Indian slave from Westchester); February 13, 1739 (a runaway slave from New York City). New York Weekly Mercury, October 27, November 3, and November 10, 1740 (a runaway Indian slave from New York); August 16, 1756 (a runaway Indian slave from Long Island); May 30 and June 13, 1757 (a runaway Indian slave from “the mines near Second River”); June 12, June 19, June 26, July 3, 1758 (a runaway Indian slave from Newcastle, Westchester County).
3 The Delaware Indians had been conquered by the Iroquois, and so humbled that they were glad to accept the friendship of the Quakers and live in peace. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, etc., sixth edition, i, p. 82.


away, as in the other colonies.1 The leading men of the colony owned them. Penn’s own deputy, Governor William Markham, owned one, born in 1700, who, by the terms of Markham’s will, was to be freed at the age of twenty-five.2 In a bill of sale of the personal effects of Sir William Keith, dated May 26, 1726, an Indian woman and her son were mentioned among the seventeen slaves listed.3

In 1780, a farmer of East Nottingham, Chester County, registered, at the county seat, the names of an Indian girl, aged twenty-four years, a slave for life, and of an Indian man in slavery until he arrived at the age of thirty-one years.4 The action of the Friends’ Yearly Meeting in 1719, also, shows that Indian slaves, as well as negro slaves, were owned by the members of that religious society.5

It has been said that slavery in New Jersey was more prevalent among the Dutch settlements and the plantations of South Jersey than in the Calvinistic towns of East Jersey.6 Since the number of negro slaves throughout the Dutch possessions of America was considerable, it may be
1 The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 20, 1737, October 5, 1738, March 16, 1731. The American Daily Mercury, March 24, 1720; May 24, 1726; August 28, 1729; July 30, 1730; August 16, 1733; July 8, 1771. The Pennsylvania Journal, June 18, 1726.
2 Scharf, History of Delaware, i, p. 180; Smith, History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, p. 219.
3 Martin, Chester and its Vicinity, p. 189.
4 Smith, History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, p. 335; Martin, Chester and its Vicinity, p. 189; Futhey and Cope, History of Chester County, Pennsylvania, etc., p. 424. The registration was made in accordance with the terms of the act of 1780, which provided for the registration of all negro and mulatto slaves and servants for life.
5 Report of the Friends’ Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jersies, from the 19th to the 24th of the 7th month, 1719, p. 211.
6 Lee, New Jersey as a Colony and as a State, i, p. 199.


concluded that the scarcity of Indian slaves was due to conditions rather than to scruples, though the presence of a Quaker element may have affected the situation. The proximity of the powerful Iroquois, also, by shutting off the source of possible supply, may have had something to do with the matter. The number of Indian slaves in New Jersey was very small, yet the newspapers of the time show the presence of such a servile class in the colony throughout the colonial period.1

In Maryland, there appears to have been even a smaller number of Indian slaves than in New Jersey. There were no Indian wars to furnish captives,2 and the Indians from the Carolinas were sent to ports in New England where the demand for them was greater. In Maryland indentured servants largely supplied the need for laborers and so minimized the use of the natives as slaves.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Huguenots Emigration to Virginia--Manakin Towne


Mr. De Joux, Philipe and his wife, - 3
Mallett and his wife, - 2
Moulin and his wife, - 2
Jonthier, Farcy, and Chastain, - 3
Nicod, Duloy, and Minot, - 3
Jouany and his wife, - 2
Gaury, his wife and one child, - 3
Tho. Constantine, - 1
ffaure, his brother, and 2 Sisters, - 4
Tillou, Tignaw, and Bilboa, - 3
Laureau, Parontes, and his sister, - 3
Bazoil, Voyer, and his wife, - 3
the two Gourdonnes - 2
Gowry and his wife - 2
Guichet and Panetier,11 - 2
Savin and his Mother, - 2
Chambor, his wife, and Peru, - 3
Malver his wife and her father, - 3
Brousse, his son and Corine, - 3
Arnaud and his wife,12 - 2
Chalaine and 5 children - 6
Godriet, Lavigne13 and Saye - 3
Chenas and Augustin Symend, - 2
Verau and his wife, - 2
Soblet, his wife and 5 children, - 7
Verry and Gigon, - 2
Katharine Billet, -1
Guerin and Sassin - 2
Chalanier, his wife and one child, - 3
Tonin and his wife, - 2
Da Tartre and Cupper - 2
Bernard,14 his wife and Caboine, - 3
Richard and his wife, - 2
Morell, his wife and one child - 3
Cantepie and Castra, - 2
Le Febvre, Martin and Robert, - 3
Onan, his wife and one child, - 3
Michel and his wife, - 2
La Vilain and Remy, - 2
ffoix, his wife and four children, - 6
Sobriche, his wife and seven children, - 9
hugon and le Roux, - 2
Bossard, his wife and 3 chil'n, - 5
Durand and his wife, - 2
Clapier, Du Puy, Joseph and Brooke, - 4
Chabran and his wife, - 2
Chinandan, his wife and 2 chil'n - 4
Des Rousseau and Morisset, - 2
Labadie, Castige, Rounel, de Logny, and Mazel, - 5
Legrand, his wife and 6 chil'n, - 8
Malarde and 3 children, - 4
Richet, his wife and 2 children, - 4
Corbet and Bonduran, - 2
Mare, his wife and 2 children, - 4
Des fontaine and his wife, - 2
Baudry, hugo, and Prevost, - 3
Trion, his wife and one child, - 3
Riviole, Rambrey and De Launay, - 3
fflemnois, his wife and 3 children, - 5
Jourdan and his wife, - 2
Verdüil, his wife and 5 children, - 7
Bloüet, his wife and seven children, - 9
La Maro, his wife and Petit, - 3
Cavalier, his wife and one child, - 3
Gerner, his wife and 3 children - 5
Samuel, his wife and two children, - 4
Durand, Boignan, Morizet, - 3
In All - 218

If any of the above named don't settle above, or leave their settlement, or dye, their names are to be blotted out upon ye advices of Mr. de Joux or Philipe, given every month to ye said Miller, who is desired to distribute unto them by turne such meale as he shall have for them without partiality, and so doing he shall oblige his servant at Capt. Webb's15 house.

This 4th of ffeb'r, 1700 [1701.] OLIVIER DE LA MUCE.


Mons'r Latane, 16 Ministre, Madame sa femme un Enfan unne Servante, - 4
Mr. Daniel Braban, sa femme, 3 enfans, 1 garcon, - 6
Jean Pierre Gargean, sa femme, 3 enfans, - 5
Jacob Amonet,17 sa femme, 4 enfans, - 6
Paul Papin - 1
Jean Leroy - 1
Jacques Lacaze, -
Jean Dubroq - 1
Catharine Basel, une fille, - 2
Ester Lefebre, - 1
Ester Martin, un enfan, - 2
ffrancois Ribot, - 1
Joseph Molinie, sa femme, - 2
Leon Auguste Chareitié, sa femme - 2
Jean Barachin, sa femme, - 2
Joseph Caillau, and sa femme, - 2
Jean Dauphin, - 1
Jeane Bellin, - 1
Margueritte Gautie - 1
Marie Mallet - 1
Thomas Deneille, [Deneale]- 1
Jacques Macan, et sa femme - 2
Jean Thomas and sa femme [settled in SC]- 2
Jean Robert, sa femme and une fille - 3
Alexandre Madouy - 1
Noel Richemon and sa femme, - 2
Jean ffonnielle and sa femme, - 2
Estienne Bocar, sa femme and 2 enfans, - 4
Jaques ffradot - 1
Gabriel Maupain, [Maupin] sa femme and 3 enfans - 5
Jacob Sponge and sa femme - 2
Ester Duncan - 1
Jaques Hernon, - 1
Jean Chaperon, 21- 1
ffrancois Felsau, - 1
Jean Pram, - 1
Salomon Taniere and sa femme, - 2
Pierre Odias, - 1
Jean ffaouton, - 1
Pierre fferré, sa femme and un enfant, 22- 3
francois Gonfan, sa femme and sa fille - 3
Lazare Lataniere and sa femme, - 2
Jean Belbe, - 1
Jacques Delinet, - 1
Salomon Bricou and sa femme, - 1
Glaude Barbie and sa femme, - 1
Estienne Dehon, - 1
Henry Corneau, - 1
Daniel fferran - 1
Jean Gomar, sa femme and 5 enfans, - 7
Jean Rousset, - 1
Pierre Montgut, - 1
Alexander Vaillan, - 1
Salomon Gondemay and sa femme, - 2
Louis Girardeau, - 1
Daniel Dousseau, - 1
Michel Cahaigne, - 1
Daniel Duval, 23 - 1
Corneille Prampain, - 1
Paul Coustillat, - 1
Pierre des maizeaux, - 1
Jean Velas Lorange, sa femme and un enfan, 24 - 3
Jean Egarnae, - 1
Pierre Gueraux - 1
Anthoine Lalorie, - 1
Matthieu Bonsergent et sa femme, - 2
Paul Leroy and sa femme, - 2
Bernard Lanusse and sa femme, - 2
ffrancois Charpentier and sa femme, - 2
Jean Surin, - 1
Jacques Lemarchand, - 1
Isaac Bonviller, - 1
Melkier de Vallons, - 1
Isaac de' Hay, - 1
Abraham Cury, - 1
Joseph Berrard and sa femme - 2
Charles Parmantie, - 1
Emanuel Langlade, - 1
Jean Olmier, - 1
Charles Charier, - 1
Sebastian Prevoteau, - 1
ffrancis Delpus, - 1
Henry Collie, sa femme et un enfan, - 3
Estienne Cheneau and sa femme, - 2
Daniel Duchemin 25 and sa femme, - 2
Daniel Gueran, 26 sa femme and 4 enfans, ]- 6
Jean Soulié, sa femme and 3 enfans, - 5
Nicholas Ducre and sa femme, - 2
Jean Noel Levasseur and sa femme, - 2
Rebeca Poitevin,27 - 1
Louis Losane, sa femme and 2 enfans, - 4
Elizabet Curien, - 1
Jean Boye Surgan, - 1
Marie Catherine Lecoin, - 1
Jean ffauquaran 28 and sa femme, - 2
Elizabet Morel, - 1
Pierre Balaros; -
Paul Legover, - 1


Jean Jacques Faizant, - 1
Jacob Aigle, - 1
Pierre Shriflit, - 1
Ouly Cumery, - 1
Madame Herbert, 4 demoiselles, sa filles, - 5


Jean Pasteur, - 1
______ Dupuy, - 1
Charles Pasteur and sa femme, 29 - 2
Elizabet Hayer, alemande, - 1 Marie Hehns, yanwelle flamande, - 1
Total, - 191

Delivered to the ffrench Refugees on the Charitable supscription of several persons:

At ffalling Creek 30 256 Bushells of Indian Corn, besides private donation. Quantity not Known, whether of Corn nor Wheate. Capt. Webb for Beeves and Corn to Monsieur de Joux Company. atid Corn delivered Mons. de Joux Company from Mrs. Kennon's mill (to Busshells by Capt. Webb's note), and ever since their arrivall by mine. Quantity not knowne.

Two horses for their use £ 10
Two Beeves, of 7 and 8 yeares old, 6
At my store at Arahettox for nailes about £ 11

besides money, meat, ffish, Come and wheat given by severall charitable persons. Quantity not Knowne to


Monday, September 15, 2008

Family Tree DNA Reporting in From Houston

Dear Customers,

As a follow-up to our letter informing you of the level of preparedness Family Tree DNA established regarding the coming of Hurricane Ike to Houston, we are coming to you now to update you on our status post-Ike.

a) As you may know, all of our standard Y-DNA and mtDNA tests are processed at the lab in Arizona, and therefore, this processing has not been affected at all.

b) Also, as we advised previously, we have taken appropriate measures to safeguard and protect the data and our servers and therefore all computer systems are in place and functioning normally. You may have noticed that our web sites have been up, available, and are running normally as they were before and during the storm.

c) The building where Family Tree DNA's offices and Houston laboratory are located is without power, like most of Houston office buildings, and sustained damage, like so many other Houston office buildings. This means that the building will be closed for the next few days until it is ready for tenants to return. Despite this situation, several members of our staff have worked over the weekend to transfer equipment to other locations so that our normal office operations can resume on Monday, or at the latest on Tuesday, from an alternate location. All postal mail will be picked up normally at our local post office, so that kits can be checked-in and processed normally.

d) The coming days will allow us to have a better assessment of when our Houston lab will resume normal operations, at which point we will be back to you again with additional information about any delays in delivering results for the advanced tests that our lab processes in Houston. (Advanced panels, FGS and Deep Clade Y SNP's)

Please forgive us if in the next few days we don't meet our standard level of customer service as to e-mails and phone calls. We will be back to normal as soon as possible. We appreciate your continued support .

E-mail us anytime!

Bennett Greenspan Max Blankfeld
President Vice-President, Operations and Marketing
bcg@familytreedna.com max@familytreedna.com


"History Unearthed Daily"


Friday, September 12, 2008

Pioneer Soldiers, 1778 to 1781

Lewis Collins, in his wonderful history of Kentucky, has aided us greatly in piecing together the names and locations of our earliest settlers in Kentucky. Kentucky did not reach statehood until 1792, but even while we were still a part of Virginia, the hearty pioneers were blazing out trails into this wonderful commonwealth. According to Collins, the following is a “large portion of those who were enrolled as pioneer soldiers of Kentucky.” Some name were spelled incorrectly. Captain Joseph Bowman’s Company 24 January 1778. Located at Harrodsburg and neighboring stations: Jos. Bowman, Capt., Isaac Bowman, Lt., Abr. Keller, 2nd Lt., Dan. Dust, Sgt., James Bentley, Wm. Berry, Ed. Bulger, Nathan Cartmell, Henry Chrisman, Thomas Clifton, Jacob Cogar, Peter Cogar, Patrick Doran, Henry Funk, Philip Harbin, Henry Honaker, Elijah Huston, Abr. James, Isaac Kellar, George King, George Livingston, Philip Long, Isaac McBride, Robert McClanahan, Chas. McGlack, Alex. MyIntyre, Abraham Miller, George Miller, Wm. Montgomery, Barney Morter, Edward Murray, Joseph Pendergrast, Michael Pendergrast, Thos. Pendergrast, Thos. Perry, Henry Prather, John Setser, Michael Setser, Joseph Simpson, Wm. Slack, Jacob Spears, Samuel Stroud, H. Vance, Barnaby Walters. Those shown as deserters were: James Gonday, Samuel Dust, Wm. Berry and Zeb Lee. Total of 48.
Captain Benjamin Logan’s Company, in now Lincoln County at or near Logan’s Station, ca 1779: Capt. Benjamin Logan, Lt. John Logan, Ensign Alex. Montgomery, Ensign Azariah Davis, Sgt. Benj. Pelton, Sgt. Wm. Menifee, Sgt. Roswell Stevens, Sgt. George Clark. Robt. Barnet, Wm. Barton, Samuel Bell, Arthur Blackburn, Alex. Bohannon, John Bohannon, Benj. Briggs, Samuel Briggs, James Brown, John Canterbury, Caspar Casener, Wm. Casey, John Castillo, Pierce Castilio, Philip Conrad, Azariah Davis, Samuel Deason, Ogden Devers, Ben. Drake, Isaac Drake, John Drake, Jonathan Drake, John Ealor, Chas. English, Stevens English, John Fain, Bartholomew Fenton, George Flinn, Lee Garrett, John Gibson, Richard Glover, John Grimes, Wm. Grimes, Jacob Gunn, David Hawkins, Jacob Herman, Roger Hines, Stephen Haston, John Johns, James Johnson, John Jones, John Kennedy, James Knox, Hugh Leeper, James Leeper, Wm. Logan, Thos Loveledd, Joseph Lusk, John McCormick, John McElhon, James McElwain, John McKaine, Archibald Mahone, James Menifee, Jarrett Menifee, Joseph Menifee, John Martin, Joseph Martin, Samuel Martin, James Mason, Samuel Mayes, Andrew Miller, Henry Miller, Wm. Miller, David Mitchell, Wm. Mitchell, Alex. Montgomery, John Montgomery, Wm. Montgomery, Wm. Neal, Wm. Patton, Samuel Phelps, Wm. Phelps, Chas. Philips, John Philips, Nich. Proctor, Sr., Nich. Proctor, Jr., Chas. Runsle, James Russell, Julius Sanders, Alex. Sinclair, George Scott, John Story, John Summers, Arch. Thomason, Nicholas Tramel, Philip Tramel, George White, Wm. Whitley. Total: 99.
Wm. Harrod’s Company, 1780, at the Station near the Falls, in now Jefferson and Shelby Counties. Capt. Wm. Harrod, Lt. James Patton, Ensign Ed. Balger, Peter Balance, Alex. Barr, James Brand, John Buckras, A. Cameron, Amos Carpenter, Sol. Carpenter, Benj. Carter, Thomas Carter, Reuben Case, Thomas Cochran, John Conway, John Corbley, John Crable, Robert Dickey, Daniel Driskill, Isaac Dye, John Eastwood, Samuel Forrester, Joseph Frakes, Samuel Frazee, John Galloway, Wm. Galloway, James Garrison, Joseph Goins, Isaac Goodwin, Samuel Goodwin, James Guthrie, Daniel Hall, Wm. Hall, John Hatt, Evan Henton, Thomas Henton, A. Hill, Andrew Hill, Samuel Hinck, Fred. Honaker, Joseph Hughes, Rowland Hughes, Michael Humble, John Hunt, Abram James, John Kenny, Val. Kinder, Moses Kuykendall, John Lewis, John Lincant, Samuel Lyon, Pat. McGee, Samuel Major, Amos Mann, Edward Murdoch, John Murdoch, Richard Morris, Wm. Morris, Wm. Oldham, John Paul, George Phelps, Joseph Phelps, Samuel Pottinger, F. Potts, Reuben Preble, Urb. Ranner, Benj. Rice, Reed Robbins, Thos Settle, Wm. Smiley, Jacob Speck, John Stapleton, James Stewart, James Stewart, Daniel Stull, Miner Sturgis, Peter Sturgis, James Sullivan, Wm. Swan, Joseph Swearingen, Samuel Swearingen, Van Swearingen, Robt. Thorn, John Tomton, Bev. Trent, Thos. Tribble, Robert Tyler, Abr. Vanmetre, Michael Valleto, Joseph Warford, James Welch, Abram Whitaker, Aquilla Whitaker, Jacob Wickersham, Ed. Wilson. Total: 96.
Captain John Boyle’s Company, 1 April 1780, at stations near and or on Dick’s River, in now Garrard, Lincoln and Boyle counties: Capt. John Boyle, Lt. Samuel Davis, Ensign Elisha Clary, Sgt. Barney Boyle, Sgt. Jonathan Marshall, Jacob Anderson, James Anderson, Thomas Arbuckle, James Coyle, Wm. Crawford, James Davis, Robert Desha, Dennis Diven, Owen Diven, Hugh Galbreath, Evandon Gordon, Peter Higgins, John Hicks, Wm. Hicks, Sr., Wm. Hicks, Nathan McClure, Wm. Marshall, Basil Maxwell, Wm. Menifee, Wm. Mitchell, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Nehemiah Poore, John Poynter, James Reeves, Wm. Rowan, John Vardeman, Alex. Walker, Wm. Whitley, John Wilkinson, Wm. Young. Total: 36.
Captain John Holder’s Company, 10 June 1779 – in now Madison County, at and near Boonesborough: Capt. John Holder, Uriel Ark, Thos. Bailey, Bland Ballard, John Baughman, G. Michael Bedinger, James Berry, James Bryan, James Bunten, John Butler, John Callaway, Elijah Collins, Josiah Collins, Wm. Collins, John Constant, David Cook, Wm. Coombs, Wm. Cradlebaugh, John Dumpord, James Estill, Edmund Fear, David Gass, Stephen Hancock, Wm. Hancock, John Hawiston, Wm. Hays, Jesse Hodges, Jeremiah Horn, Robert Kirkham, Samuel Kirkham, John Lee, Charles Lockhart, John McCollum, Wm. McGee, Ralph Morgan, Wm. Morris, James Perry, John Pleck, Samuel Porter, Nicholas Proctor, Reuben Proctor, Pemberton Rollins, Hugh Ross, Bartlett Searcy, Reuben Searcy, John South, Sr., John South, Jr., John South, younger, Thos. South, Barney Stagner, Jacob Stearns, John Stephenson, Bennoi Vallandigham, John Weber, Daniel Wilcoxson, Moses Wilson. Total: 56.
Captain Isaac Ruddle’s Company 1779-890 at Ruddles and Martin’s stations, near now Cynthiana. Capt. Isaac Ruddle, Lt. John Haggin, Ensign John Mather, Quartermaster Joseph Isaacs, Sgt. John Waters, Andrew Baker, George Baker, Andrew Bartle, John Bird, George Bronker, Caspar Brown, Reuben Boughner, John Burger, Sr., John Burger, Jr., Peter Call, Leonard Croft, Wm. Dehlinger, David Ederman, Thos. Emory, Paul Fishes, George Hatfall, John Hatton, Jacob Leach, Sr., Edward Low, George Loyl, Henry Loyl, Peter Loyl, Thomas Machen, Wm. Marshall, Chas. Munger, Wm. Munger, Sr., Wm. Munger, Jr., Andrew Pirtenbustle, Henry Pirtenbustle, H. Pirtenbustle, Jr., Len. Pirtenbustle, Peger Rough, George Ruddell, Stephen Ruddell, James Ruddle, Patrick Ryan, Wm. Sandidge, Wm. Scott, John Smith, Sr., John Smith, Jr., James Stuart, Frederick Tanner, Martin Tuffelman, Moses Waters, John Cloyd, Drummer. Total: 50.

Captain Squire Boone’s Company, 23 June 1780 – partial list, stationed at “Painted Stone,” near now Shelbyville. Capt. Squire Boone, Alex. Bryant, John Buckles, Richard Cates, Chas. Doleman, John Eastwood, Joseph Eastwood, Jeremiah Harris, John Henton, Abraham Holt, Morgan Hughes, Evan Kenton, John McFadden, John Nichols, Peter Paul, John Stapleton, Robert Tyler, Abraham Vanmeter, Adam Wickersham, Jacob Wickersham, Peter Wickersham, James Wright, George Yunt. Total: 23. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(c) Copyright 3 December 1998, Sandra K. Gorin, All Rights Reserved, sgorin@glasgow-ky.com
Pioneer Soldiers

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Hamilton McMillan Letter 1890

Exhibit B7.


RED SPRINGS, N. C., July 17, 1890.

T. J. MORGAN, Esq.,
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Washington.

MY DEAR SIR: Your letter of July 14 ultimo just to hand. The communication and report from the Bureau of Ethnology to which you refer were never received, and your letter just received conveys the first intimation of their having been sent. Had they been received I would have responded with pleasure.

I inclose to you to-day a copy of a pamphlet containing much of interest in this connection. The pamphlet was written very hastily nearly two years ago in order to give the North Carolina Legislature some information, as the Croatans were asking some legislation in their behalf.

The Croatan Tribe lives principally in Robeson County, N. C., though there are quite a number of them settled in counties adjoining in North and South Carolina. In Sumter County, S. C., there is a branch of the tribe and also in East Tennessee. In Lincoln County, N. C., there is another branch, settled there long ago. Those living in East Tennessee are called "Melungeans," a name also retained

Page 40

by them here, which is a corruption of Melange, a name given them by early settlers (French), which means mixed. The pamphlet sent you will outline their history as far as it can be discovered from their traditions. In regard to their exodus from Roanoke Island their traditions are confirmed by maps recently discovered in Europe by Prof. Alexander Brown, member of the Royal Historical Society of England. These maps are dated in 1608 and 1610, and give the reports of the Croatans to Raleigh's ships, which visited our coast in those years. These maps will be lithographed and published in a book, now being prepared by Prof. Brown. The particulars of the exodus preserved by tradition here are strangely and strongly corroborated by these maps. There can be little doubt of the fact that the Croatans in Robeson County and elsewhere are the descendants of the Croatans of Raleigh's day. In 1885 I got the North Carolina Legislature to recognize them as Croatans and give them separate public schools. In 1887 I got $500 a year from the State for a normal school for them for two years. In 1889 the appropriation was extended two years longer.

Their normal school needs help--at least $500 more is needed. The appropriation to the public schools amounts to less than a dollar a head per annum.

If you can aid them in the way desired we would be glad. They are citizens of the United States and entitled to the educational privileges enjoyed by other citizens, but those advantges are not much.