Colonial Virginia, Order of the First Families of Virginia

The Cutting Edge of Colonial Virginia Genealogy – Adventurers of Purse and Person

Adventurers of Purse and Person – In Three Volumes

Membership in the Order of First Families of Virginia is limited to lineal descendants of someone who aided in the establishment of the first permanent English colony – Virginia, 1607-1624/5. Membership goes beyond exclusive and is actually by invitation only. All such members are in the direct line of either:

  1. Stockholders in the Virginia Company who came to Virginia between 1607 and 1625 and had progeny, or did not come to Virginia but had grandchildren who did; or
  2. Immigrants to Virginia between the years in question who left descendants. The first group is referred to as “Adventurers of Purse;” the second, “Adventurers of Person.” A grand total of 109 individuals have been authenticated in both categories.

Since its establishment in 1912, the Order of First Families of Virginia has striven “to promote historical, biographical, and genealogical researches concerning Virginia history during the period when she was the only one of the thirteen original colonies.” The Order has collected genealogical information on an ongoing basis; however, its principal mechanism for disseminating this early 17th-century Virginia genealogical scholarship has been through its book, Adventurers of Purse and Person, 1607-1624/5. First issued in 1956, this work had gone through three editions by 1987. To mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of colonial Jamestown, the Order asked John Frederick Dorman, its official genealogist and the leading authority on colonial Virginia ancestry, to prepare a fourth edition.

While the first three editions covered four generations of Virginia founding families, the fourth edition expands the coverage to six – a monumental achievement. The sheer scope of the new edition required that it be published in three large, indexed volumes.

The foundation of Adventurers of Purse and Person is the famous “Muster” of January-February 1624/25 – essentially a census taken by the Royal Commission, which succeeded the Virginia Company, to determine the extent and composition of the Jamestown settlements. The Muster, which is reproduced in entirety in Volume One, names about 1,200 persons, of whom approximately 150 are shown in this work to have left descendants to the sixth generation. In addition to the Muster, this work builds on the investigations of dozens of scholars, correcting, revising, and supplementing the best genealogical scholarship of the past half century. New discoveries, newly available information, and a further reevaluation of evidence concerning previously accepted relationships have led, in some instances, to wholesale changes in the accepted genealogies.

Whereas Volume One concerned 52 families from A through F, Volume Two covers 51 families, beginning with letters G through P, that were established either by settlers of Virginia prior to 1625 or by members of the Virginia Company whose descendants came to Virginia later. Volume Two identifies 7,684 individual descendants resident in Virginia (or subsequently in other states), and its index contains 20,000 name, place, and subject entries. Volume Three focuses (G-Z) concentrates on 46 main families possessing about 6,500 individual descendants, and boasts an index of 20,000 names:

  • Volume One, Families A-F: The first volume covers founding families alphabetically from A-F and includes the following: Andrews, Bagwell, Baley-Cocke, Barkham-Jenings, Barne, Bates, Bayly, Beheathland, Bennett (Edward), Bennett (Samuel), Bennett-Chapman, Bernard, Bibby, Bickley, Bland, Boyce, Boyle-Mountney, Branch, Buck, Burwell, Bush, Calthorpe, Calvert, Carsley, Carter, Chaplaine, Chew, Chisman, Claiborne, Clay, Clements, Cobb, Codrington, Cole, Cope, Cox, Crew, Croshaw, Crump, Curtis, Davis, Dawson, Delk, Digges, Edloe, Epes, Evelyn, Farrar, Fisher, Fleet, Flood, and Freeman.
  • Volume Two, Families G-P: Gaither, Gaskins, Gilbert, Gookin, Gosnold, Granger, Graves, Gray Grendon, Gundry, Hallom, Hampton, Hansford, Harris (John), Harris (Thomas), Harwood, Holt, Hooe, Hopkins, Johnson-Travis, Jordan (Samuel), Jordan (Thomas), Kent, Kingsmill, Knott, Laydon, Lloyd, Lovelace-Gorsuch, Lukin, Lupo, Macock, Martiau, Mason, Mathews, Menefie, Montague, Moone, Moore, Offley, O’Neil-Robins, Osborne, Pace, Parramore, Pead, Peirce, Peirsey, Perry, Pierce-Bennett, Price, Price-Llewellyn, and Purifoy.
  • Volume Three, Families R-Z: Reynolds, Robins, Rolfe, Rookings, Royall, St. Leger, Salter-Weld, Savage, Scarburgh, Sharp, Sharp-Baugh, Sheppey, Slaughter, Smith (Arthur), Smith (Richard), Smith (Roger), Southey-Harmar-Littleton, Spencer, Stephens, Strachey, Swann, Tatum, Taylor-Cary, Thorowgood, Tooke, Townshend, Trussell, Utie, Utie-Bennett, Vassall, Waters, West, West (Anthony), Whiting, Wilkins, Williams, Willoughby, Wood, Woodhouse, Woodliffe, Woodson, Woodward, Wroughton, Wyatt, Yeardley, and Zouche.

If you are into 17th-century Virginia ancestry, it doesn’t get any better than Adventurers of Purse and Person. Genealogical Publishing Company, the parent company of this blog, is honored to be the publisher of this fourth edition of a work that is nothing less than the bedrock of colonial Virginia genealogy.

Image credit: Map of land granted to the Virginia Company by the charter of 1609, according to the terms of the charter and current geographical knowledge. By Anonymous cartographer [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Paul Heinegg

Surprises in the Family Tree, Thanks to Paul Heinegg

John Archer first appears in Northampton County, Va., in the mid-17th century. He started a family that prospered, fought in the Revolutionary War and built a mansion. Generations later, Archer’s blood trickled down to me. It mingled in my veins with DNA from a gravedigger in 17th-century Wurttemberg, Germany; from an Appalachian clan with a recessive gene that turns their skins indigo blue; and from a rich young widow in Jamestown, Va., whose fickle heart led to America’s first breach-of-promise suit, in 1623.

I have been researching my past for two decades, since I was in high school, so finding a new ancestor is hardly startling. Learning about John Archer three years ago, however, was startling. He was black, a slave or indentured servant freed around 1677. I am white. That’s what it says on my birth certificate. Now I know better, thanks to Paul Heinegg.”

When New York Times Columnist Mitchell Owens’ wrote a story entitled Surprises in the Family Tree, he credited uncovering his own surprises due to the work of Paul Heinegg. While this may have been a new and welcome discovery by the author, we bet that many serious students of 17th-, 18th-, or early 19th-century African-American genealogy would have heard of him. Heinegg is the author of two authoritative books published by Clearfield Company: Free African Americans of North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina from the Colonial Period to About 1820 (now in its Fifth Edition) and Free African Americans of Maryland and Delaware from the Colonial Period to 1810.

Paul Heinegg’s interest in the early roots of African Americans goes back to 1985, when he started to research his wife’s maternal line. His findings confirmed that the blurring of lines between servitude and early slavery, occurring until about 1715, made for what Professor John Boles has described as a “biracial camaraderie” and frequent unions between blacks and non-slave-owning whites of the same class.

Such novel results encouraged Mr. Heinegg to expand the scope of his work; in fact, his goal is now to trace the roots of every free black family living in the Southeastern colonies. Working from microfilm copies of deeds, wills, tax records, and other local sources, he has been able to trace the origins of over 12,000 individuals who are related to colonial freedmen. His accomplishments are all the more remarkable when one considers that he conducted most of his research from places like Tanzania and Saudi Arabia, where his livelihood as a petroleum engineer took him and his family.

Mr. Heinegg’s books are important in other ways. From the standpoint of social history, they dispel a number of myths about the origins and status of free African Americans, such as the “mysterious” origins of the Lumbees, Melungeons, and other such marginal groups, and they demonstrate conclusively that many free African-American families in colonial North Carolina and Virginia were landowners. Considered from the standpoint of methodology, Heinegg’s work illustrates how to get the most mileage out of the scant records, particularly for African Americans, of the colonial period.

Image credit: Arch Goins and family, Melungeons from Graysville. Archival family photograph from the 1920s, provided to http://www.geocities.com/melungeonorigin/maomg2.html by Barbara Goins. By Badagnani at en.wikipedia. Later version(s) were uploaded by John at en.wikipedia. [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons.

federal land patents, Federal Lands

The Federal Land Series

In several recent posts, we mentioned the pertinence of land records. Please feel free to read the posts that started us off in the last few weeks, Home Sweet Homestead Part I about the importance of homestead records to genealogy research, and Home Sweet Homestead Part II  where we discuss how to obtain the records. We also recently revised and updated posts from the late Carolyn Barkley on the Bureau of Land Management’s General Land Office. The GLO has an amazing treasure trove of records related to Federal Land Patents and Federal Surveys and Plats.

Given how many posts we could make on the topic of federal land records, we’re continuing the discussion here and offering information including definitions, tips and resources to help you in this endeavor.

Working with land records of the young American country can be a complicated affair. If you are hunting for your ancestors among land records of this era, here are terms you are almost certain to run across. The “entry,” also known as the “petition” or “application,” was the first step in the land acquisition process. It was filed by an individual hoping to obtain a land grant. If the individual’s application was approved, he received a “warrant” directing that the land granted should be laid out. After surrendering his “warrant” at the colonial land office, the land was surveyed, mapped, and described in writing. Now, the grantee could take possession of his land and receive his patent, securing his title. The patent “was documentary evidence of title to land and is probably the land-grant document most often preserved” among early records.

If the variety of terms used in land records is not complex enough, the consolidation of the national domain from the end of the American Revolution to the ratification of the Constitution certainly is. From 1785 on, as it became safer to settle in the West, government and private landed interests (read “speculators”) from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia were quick to grab a portion for their own uses. Eventually, all the territory that became Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin was returned to the federal public domain and was laid out in accordance with the rectangular grid system prescribed by the federal Land Ordinance of 1785. The land records for Florida and the states established from the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 are the products of a similar history and in some cases, must be translated from Spanish or French.

The peculiarities of official land policy–owing to the claims of the aforementioned states, Revolutionary War veterans seeking the bounty lands their service entitled them to, and the U.S. government itself, to name just three–may require the genealogist to look for an Ohio, Mississippi, or Indiana ancestor in a number of places.

One of the first sources of land records the researcher should consult is Clifford Neal Smith’s four-volume Federal Land Series (originally published in five parts). Volumes 1 and 3 of this work, in the aggregate, calendar all assignments of land records recorded by all federal land offices in the “Old Northwest” and Southeast territorial districts of the U.S. (excluding war bounties and land company sales) from 1788 and 1814. These volumes are arranged in chronological order, according to the assignment of tracts, followed by indexes to names, tracts, and subjects. Volume 2 picks up all persons assigned land by the U.S. government on the basis of their Revolutionary War service from 1799 to 1835. The final volume, originally published in two parts, concerns non-federal bounty land warrants issued in the Virginia Military District of Ohio to over 22,000 persons based on Revolutionary War service. One of the great virtues of this set is that it names and follows the movements of persons who lived in sparsely populated sections of the new American nation before they would appear in the federal census.

In all, the Federal Land Series identifies 50,000 individuals found among early American land records.

Image credit: A U.S. General Land Office land patent for 40 acres of land in Dixon, Illinois, dated September 1, 1845. It is signed on behalf of President James K. Polk by Col. J. Knox Walker, the President’s private secretary and nephew. By US General Land Office. (The Cooper Collection of Historical US Documents.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

 

quakers, quaker genealogy

Preeminent Source to Find Quaker Ancestors

As discussed in last week’s article on Quaker genealogy by Ellen and David Berry, almost no class of records, religious or secular, has been kept as meticulously as the monthly meeting records of the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers. The oldest such records span three centuries of American history and testify to a general movement of population that extended from New England and the Middle Atlantic states southward to Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, then west to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The importance of these records cannot be overstated. Not until recently have the vital statistics of Quakers been recorded in civil record offices; thus, for more than two centuries the only vital records identifying these people were found in the Quaker records themselves.

Quaker monthly meeting records contain extensive lists of births, marriages, and deaths, as well as details of the removal of members from one meeting to another. Following we’ll discuss state by state examples of these records, contained in Hinshaw’s Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, and give an overview of what each volume of his work contains.

Painstakingly developed from Quaker monthly meeting records, William Wade Hinshaw’s Six-Volume work, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, is the magnum opus of Quaker genealogy. In its production thousands of records were located and abstracted into a uniform and intelligible system of notation. Each of the original six volumes of the Encyclopedia is crammed with genealogical value, and each of the prodigious volumes (all but one of them are over 1,000 pages) is indexed. The records include births, marriages, deaths, and minutes of proceedings, grouped together for each meeting by families, in alphabetical order, and covering the period from 1680 through the early 1930s. The minutes relating to certificates of removal are numerous and of great genealogical interest, as they give evidence either of membership in a previous monthly meeting or membership in a new meeting, thus enabling genealogists to trace Quaker ancestors from one place to another. Identified below are the monthly or annual meetings covered in each of the six volumes of the Encyclopedia.

Despite the importance of the index at the end of each volume, the parent company of this blog, Genealogical.com, commissioned a master index to the work, a vast collection of all 600,000 names in the Encyclopedia. Each entry in this “seventh” or companion volume contains the surname and given name, and the volume number and page number wherein the name can be found. For those who own the Encyclopedia, or even individual volumes, this is a godsend; for those hoping to find out if any of their ancestors appear in Hinshaw, this is as good as it gets. For those with Quaker ancestry, this is a researcher’s dream. Following is a summary of the Quaker meetings covered in each volume of the Encyclopedia.

Volume I: North Carolina (including meetings in Virginia, South Carolina and Tennessee)

  • North Carolina Meetings: Perquimans (Piney Woods), Pasquotank (Symons Creek), Sutton Creek, Rich Square, Core Sound, Contentnea (Nahunta), Neuse, Woodland, Cane Creek, Spring, Holly Spring, New Garden, Dover, Hopewell, Greensboro, Center, Black Creek, Marlborough, Deep River, Springfield, Union, High Point, Westfield, and Deep Creek
  • Virginia Meeting: Mt. Pleasant (Chestnut Creek)
  • South Carolina Meetings: Bush River, Wrightsborough, Cane Creek, Piney Grove, and Charleston
  • Tennessee Meetings: New Hope, Lost Creek, and Newberry (Friendsville)

Volume II: New Jersey and Pennsylvania

  • Philadelphia Yearly Meeting: Salem Monthly Meeting (NJ), Burlington Monthly Meeting (NJ), Philadelphia Monthly Meeting (PA), and Falls Monthly Meeting (PA).

Volume III: New York

  • New York Yearly Meeting: New York City (including Flushing, Westbury, and Jericho Monthly Meetings) and Long Island from 1657 to 1940. Comprehensive for both Hicksite and Orthodox groups of the New York Yearly Meeting.

Volume IV: Ohio (including meetings in western Pennsylvania and Michigan)

  • Ohio Meetings: Concord, Stillwater, Flushing, Somerset, and Plainfield (Belmont Co.); Plymouth-Smithfield and Short Creek (Jefferson. Co.); Middleton, Salem, New Garden, Upper Springfield Sandy Spring, and Carmel (Columbiana Co.); Providence (Fayette Co.); Alum Creek (Delaware Co.); Goshen (Logan Co.); Deerfield (Morgan Co.); Marlborough (Stark Co.); Chesterfield (Athens Co.); Gilead and Greenwich (Morrow Co.); East Goshen and West (Mahoning Co.); Plymouth (Washington Co.); Columbus (Franklin Co.); and Cleveland (Cuyahoga Co.).
  • Pennsylvania Meetings: Sewickley (Westmoreland Co.), Westland (Washington Co.), and Redstone (Fayette Co.).
  • Michigan Meeting: Adrian.

Volume V: Ohio

  • Ohio Meetings: Miami and Springborough (Warren Co.); Fairfield, Fall Creek, and Lees Creek (Highland Co.); West Branch Mill Creek and Union (Miami Co.); Center (Clinton Co.); Elk and Westfield (Preble Co.); Caesar’s Creek, Clear Creek, Newberry, Springfield, Dover, Hopewell, and Wilmington (Clinton Co.); Cincinnati (Hamilton Co.); Green Plain (Clark Co.); and Van Wert (Van Wert Co.).

Volume VI: Virginia

  • Virginia Meetings: Chuckatuck, Pagan Creek, Western Branch, Black Water, Upper, Henrico, Cedar Creek, Camp Creek, South River, Goose Creek (Bedford Co.), Hopewell, Fairfax, Crooked Run, Goose Creek (Loudoun Co.), and Alexandria.

Master Index Volume – Volume VII, or the companion index

  • Here in one mammoth volume–in a single alphabetical sequence–are the 600,000 names found in the great Encyclopedia. Each entry in this index contains the surname, the given name, and the volume number and page number wherein the name can be found.

Image credit: The Atwater Family of Quakers, From a family archive. See page for author (none available) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

Land Records

Federal Surveys and Land Records – Using the General Land Office Site

Editor’s Note: In a recently revived two-part post on Homesteading by the late Carolyn Barkley, she discusses the importance of land records to genealogical research. In Part II of those posts there is brief mention of the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM website has a huge amount of original source information. Ms. Barkley wrote another post on utilizing the BLM site as an information goldmine. We have updated and edited her post as the search functions she describes have changed. However, the information is still incredibly relevant and meaty, so we are presenting it in two parts. Part I gave an introduction to the types of records you can find in the BLM’s General Land Office and an example of Federal Land Patents, one type of those records. Part II, below, continues the discussion with the two other types of records that are most useful for genealogical research, Federal Survey Plats and Field Notes and Federal Land Status Records. It is recommended that you read Parts I and II in respective order. 

Federal Survey Plats and Field Notes – Surveys

Federal Survey Plats and Field Note records, listed on the side navigation bar as Surveys, represent the “official survey documentation used when land title was transferred (via a land patent) from the Federal government to individuals. For each survey, the plat illustrates the acreage used in the legal description of a tract of public land. Since the time of this original post, the survey search has been simplified and become much easier to use. It used to require that you have a legal land description. While it may be helpful to know this information, you can now start by just selecting a state and entering as much as you know for the following fields: county, meridian, and surveyor. You don’t have to fill in everything, and the search will pull records that match the fields you have completed. Note that you can utilize the information from a patent you found through the federal land patent search (described in Part I) to refine your search.

While you will probably want to search across “all types of surveys,” you may also choose a specific type of survey such as small holding claims, mineral surveys, homestead entry surveys, township surveys, etc. A successful search will allow you to view plat details, an image of the actual plat(s), and the applicable field notes (if available). If field notes are available for your survey, they may include names of settlers living in the area surveyed as well as descriptions of land details found at the time of the survey. Field note reports may be downloaded.

When I searched for surveys for the David Barkley and the James B. Yellowly patents, I was able to locate plat images for original surveys and for subsequent surveys conducted at later dates. A plat image was not available for the Charles Barclay patent.

I also looked for all surveys available for Virginia and from the resulting list, I looked at two dependent resurveys which are defined as “the retracement and reestablishment of the lines of the original survey to their true original positions according to the best available evidence to the positions of the original corners.” One survey dealt with a wetlands boundary at the Malvern Hill Unit of the Richmond National Battlefield Park in Henrico County; the second with a Dulles International Airport access road bordering the Wolf Trap Farm Park in Fairfax County.

Using the patent search and the survey search in combination with one another will provide you with the opportunity to find a specific patent document as well as the survey information and plats pertaining to the piece of property described in the patent.

Federal Land Status Records

Master title plats for Colorado, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota are recent additions to the BLM site. These plats are large scale “graphic illustrations of current Federal ownership, agency jurisdiction and rights reserved to the Federal government on private land within a township.” These files are quite large and unless you have a very specific research need, will be of less interest than the patent and survey search portions of the site.

A fourth documents search area has been added since this post appeared several years ago. The Control Document Index (CDI) cards section contains:

documents that affect or have affected the status of public lands, including those documents that control, limit, or restrict the availability of right or title to, or use of public lands. These documents include:

  • United States patents and deeds which convey title to public lands from the United States
  • Other conveyance documents such as deeds which convey title to public lands to the United States, including warranty deeds, quit claim deeds, acquired easements, and condemnation judgments
  • Recordable Disclaimers
  • State Selections
  • Indemnity Lists
  • Act of Congress or Public Law that concerns specific interest in public lands
  • Executive Orders
  • Presidential Proclamations
  • Public Land Orders
  • General Land Office, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, or other Bureau within the Department of the Interior Order
  • Notices (such as Federal Register Notices) that have a segregative (restrictive) affect on public lands.

A new effort is underway to scan the CDI microfilm to electronic images and whenever possible to link the images to document data extracted from BLM’s LR2000 database. The CDI document images and data will appear on [the BLM GLO]  website on a state-by-state basis as individual states’ microfilm is scanned and linked.

You may also wish to refer to Land and Property Research in the United States by E. Wade Hone (Ancestry 1997) and Dividing the Land: Early American Beginnings of Our Private Property Mosaic by Edward T. Price (University of Chicago, 1995). In addition, Clifford Neal Smith’s four-volume Federal Land Series contains a “calendar of archival materials on the land patents issued by the United States Government, with subject, tract, and name indexes.”

I highly recommend the Bureau of Land Management’s General Land Office Records website as a favorite for your browser.  Be sure to check out the “Resource Links” section that provides links to individual state genweb projects, Bureau of Land Management state offices, state libraries and archives, historical societies, and state land offices. Users are invited to submit sites for various categories including the thirteen original colonies and the District of Columbia.

Image credit: Table lands, northeast from the Colorado Divide. Colorado. William Henry Jackson [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.