Category: Data

“Data” refers to our collection of records for a particular county. These are usually organized in tabular form with four columns, from left to right: (1) the date (beginning with the oldest record at the top of the page), (2) the main name in the record so that searches can be facilitated by one consistent spelling, (3) a summary of the contents of the record (e.g., an abstract of a deed), with names spelled as they were in the original, and (4) a citation to a source, typically either an original record or an abstract. The document usually begins with a county formation history and perhaps notes explaining which of our ancestors lived in that county, or which families we were researching for whatever reason. Following the tables are lists of marriages or marriage bonds, census entries, and a list of citations to all sources.

Keeping Up With the Joneses

The surname Willis is relatively common, which means I struggle to keep unrelated Willis families from infiltrating my research. Until now, I have never tried to research a Jones family – a surname that occurs ten times more frequently than Willis. However, a recent comment on this blog led me into the morass.

The comment arose because an article “The John Willis Family of Dorchester and Caroline Counties, Maryland” mentioned Andrew Willis, son of the immigrant John Willis, and Andrew’s wife Jennet Jones. She was the daughter of William Jones and his wife Jennet LNU. The commenter wondered if I had any information about the migration of the Jones descendants from Dorchester County, Maryland to Amherst County, Virginia. I did not, but offered to help — with some trepidation. As it turned out, a paper trail of deed and probate records identified the correct family, traceable through four men named William Jones. The record indicates, however, the Dorchester County Jones family went to North Carolina, not Virginia. For clarity in this article, I numbered these men the First through the Fourth. Here are the provable facts about this family.

William Jones the First was an early inhabitant of Dorchester County.

Dorchester County deed records show that a William Jones sold two 100-acre tracts of land in 1674, which establishes him aas one of the early settlers of the Eastern Shore of Maryland.[1] One tract was on the Hungar (now Honga) River; the other was in the same vicinity.[2] The Hungar River is in far western Dorchester County. Based on information in other deeds, Jones probably acquired the land via grants from the colonial proprietor.

William Jones the First’s wife was “Jone,” who married John Kimball after Jones died.

In 1676, William Jones and his wife “Jone” LNU sold a 50-acre tract called “Sealvas Choice” on Hungar River to Richard Kemball and John Early.[3] William Jones apparently died a year or so after that sale, and his widow Jone married John Kimball. In 1678, the same 50-acre tract, identified by its name, was the subject of a duplicate deed to the same two men. However, the sellers in the second deed were John Kimball and his wife Jone, identified as “formerly the wife of William Jones.”[4] This second deed confirmed that Jone did not claim or retain any dower interest in the land.

William Jones the First and wife Jone had two sons, John and William the Second.

In 1690, a John Jones gave his interest in 200 acres of land at the head of Hungar River to his brother William Jones the Second. The deed stated that the land had previously been owned by their now deceased father William Jones, who died without a will. It states further that the land was then in the possession of their mother and “their father-in-law” John Kemboll.[5]

William Jones the Second moved from the Hungar River region.

In 1691, John, William the Second, and his wife Jennet (LNU) sold their interests in several parcels of land in western Dorchester.[6] The deed states the sale excluded the tract and plantation house chosen by their mother Jone Kemball in lieu of dower during her life. The deed recites that all the tracts were originally laid out as land grants, one dating back to 1670.

This sale establishes that John and William the Second were the only surviving children of the first William Jones family. Having died intestate, William the First’s property would have been shared equally by all his children, with his widow entitled to a third during her life. Any sale of land inherited in this manner required the agreement of all the heirs. Since only sons John and William participated in this sale, we can conclude they were the only children.[7]

William Jones the Second lived on Shoal Creek adjacent Andrew Willis

There does not seem to be a deed in which William the Second acquired land on Shoal Creek, which flows into the Choptank River at a point several miles east of Cambridge, Dorchester’s county seat. However, a probate record proves he was there. A will written in 1722 involving parties not related to this search mentioned a 50-acre tract of land on Shoal Creek, describing it as a plantation where Andrew Willis lived on a branch lying between Andrew Willis and William Jones.[8] Apparently, Willis was or had been renting from the land owner. The Jones family may have lived on Shoal Creek for 28 years. Possibly, it was from about the time William and Jennet married – before mid 1691 – until they moved further east in the county. In any event, it was long enough to raise a daughter Jennet who wed their neighbor Andrew Willis, as we will see later.

William Jones the Second and his wife Jennet moved to Cabin Creek.

In 1718, William Jones bought 101 acres of land called “Goodriches Choice” on Cabin Creek, which flows into the Choptank River to the east of Shoal Creek.[9] About two years later, he bought an adjoining 150 acres.[10] The Cabin Creek property remained in the Jones family for more than 60 years.

William the Second and Jennet Jones had a son and a grandson named William Jones, the Third and Fourth, respectively.

In 1729, William Jones the Second died. He left a will naming his wife Jennet, a son William the Third, and four daughters.[11] His daughters Sarah and Elizabeth were unmarried at the time; a married daughter was Rebecca Vearing. The fourth daughter was Jennet Willis, already deceased. Jones’s will divided his land among son William the Third and the two unmarried daughters. It left one shilling each to his four grandchildren, identified only as children of Jennet Willis.

Five years later, William’s widow Jennet Jones gave some livestock and home furnishings to four named grandsons: William Jones the Fourth, the son of her son William Jones the Third; and William, Thomas and Andrew Willis.[12] The Willis grandsons were three of the four children of her daughter Jennet, deceased, and Andrew Willis.[13]

William Jones (probably) the Fourth sold the land on Cabin Creek.

In 1780, a William Jones of Cabin Creek, Dorchester County, and wife Delitha sold 209 acres of “Goodriches Choice,” where they lived at the time.[14] This sale was most likely by William the Fourth. William the Third was possibly 25 years old at the time the widow Jennet Jones gave his child personal property in 1734. If so, he would have been 71 in 1780. That is pretty late in life to be pulling up stakes and moving to new territory.

On the other hand, William the Fourth may have been less than 50 years old in 1780 and more likely to move. The opportunity to cash out (the sale of “Goodriches Choice” netted 313 pounds in gold and silver) and move the family to better land would have been tempting. Further, the Cabin Creek land, if used for growing tobacco, may have been played out. That crop was notorious for rapidly depleting soil nutrients. The 1780 deed gives no clue as to the family’s destination, however, a lost deed helped track them to North Carolina.

William the Fourth and Delitha Jones moved to North Carolina.

In about 1790, the new owner of the Cabin Creek land decided to sell the property. At the time, apparently, a copy of the original deed could not be immediately located in the Dorchester County records. The owner got in touch with William Jones at his new residence and asked him to sign a duplicate, which William did. This was possible because William and Delitha had planned their move carefully.

Before selling the Cabin Creek land, William applied for a 150-acre land grant in Guilford County, North Carolina.[15]His application was entered in the record and a survey ordered on 3 May 1780. With this new acreage awaited their arrival, William and Delitha sold the Cabin Creek land six months later and left Maryland. They undoubtedly told friends and neighbors where they were going.

While the Joneses took up residence in North Carolina immediately, the land grant took time to be formally completed, a normal occurrence. The county surveyor did not conduct the survey until 1787. By that time, the land was located in Rockingham County, which was created from part of Guilford in 1785. The grant was fully executed and filed in Rockingham in 1788.

When the new owner of the Cabin Creek property decided to sell and could not locate the original deed, he knew where to find Jones. Their destination had been no secret. The buyer contacted Jones and asked for a duplicate deed. William and Delitha complied, and appointed two Dorchester County attorneys to represent them in acknowledging the sale. That replacement deed recites that William Jones was then of Rockingham County.[16]

And here is where we got really lucky …

In a final twist to the story, during the slow, long distance communication between Maryland and North Carolina, the original Dorchester deed apparently turned up. The original and the new deeds are recorded sequentially in the Dorchester land records. It is just lucky for our research that the original deed had been lost or misfiled and not quickly located. Had it not been lost or had it been found sooner, we would not have the replacement that identified Jones’s new location.

The Jones family appears in Rockingham in the 1790 and later censuses and in the deed and marriage records into the 1800s. However, I did not review those later records. Having kept up with the Joneses thus far, I did not want to press my luck.

Good Hunting,

Gary N. Willis

____

[1] All deed records cited here are available for review at MDLANDREC.net. See Maryland Land Records Online for a discussion about using this valuable resource.

[2] Deed Book 3 Old 98 and 3 Old 100 – 10 July 1674 – William Jones, planter of Dorchester County, sold a 100-acre tract called “Keenes Rest” and a 100-acre tract called “All Three of Us” to Raymond Staplefort.

[3] Deed Book 1 Old 187 – 16 April 1676 – William Jones and wife Jone of Dorchester County sold 50 acres called “Sealvas Choice” on Hungar River to Richard Kendall and John Early.

[4] Deed Book 1 Old 187 – 1 April 1678 –A sale to Richard Kimball by John Kimball and his wife Jone, formerly the wife of William Jones, deceased, of Jone’s dower interest in the 50 acres called “Sealvas Choice” on Hungar River.

[5] Deed Book 4 Old 69 – 27 February 1689/90 – John Jones of Dorchester County, carpenter, grants for love and affection to his brother William Jones of Dorchester County, Planter, John’s interest in two tracts of land adjoining one another at the head of Hungar River, containing about 200 acres. The land belonged to their father the late William Jones, deceased who died without a will. It is now in the possession of grantor’s mother and father-in-law John Kembell.

[6] Deed Book 4 ½ Old 29, also at Deed Book 1 Old 135 – 1 June 1791 – John Jones, William Jones and Jennett his wife of Dorchester County, Planters, to Richard Tubman, Planter, for 3,000 pounds of tobacco: “Georges Point” 100 acres on the head of Slaughters Creek 100 acres, formerly granted to Thomas Newton, deceased, by patent dated 31 Aug 1670; “Jones Orchard” 50 acres on Hungar River; “Jones Chance” 4 adjoining acres on Hungar River; and “Matthews Vineyard” 46 acres on Hungar River. The last three parcels were formerly granted, surveyed and laid out for William Jones late of Dorchester County, deceased. The sale excludes the tract and plantation house taken by “our loving mother Jone Kemball in lieu of dower during her natural life.”

[7] Further, the two sons were probably minors at the time of their father’s death. Thirteen years elapsed after the father’s death before the sons’ land transactions began in 1690, which they could not have done without a guardian or “next friend” until they reached maturity. It is reasonable to assume they were no older than about ten when he died.

[8] Baldwin, Jane, The Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol IV, (Baltimore: Koln & Pollock, Publishers, 1904, reprinted Westminster, Maryland: Family Line Publications, 1988), 167-9 (Will Book 14:631) – 7 May 1718 –Will of Thomas Ennalls – to Thomas Hayward, 50 acres, part of “Ennalls Purchase,” a plantation where Andrew Willis lived, at head of Shoal Creek, and on a branch lying between William Jones and the said Andrew Willis. Filed for probate 13 August 1718.

[9] Deed Book 2 Old 16 – 2 February 1718 – Thomas Gray and his wife Mary sold to William Jones 101 acres part of a tract called “Goodriches Choice.”

[10] Deed Book 2 Old 27 – 15 November 1719 –Jacob Gray and his wife Isabell sold 150 acres on Cabin Creek, part of “Guttridg Choice” to William Jones. Philadelphia Williams assigned to Jones her “third part of ye within mentioned lands.”

[11] Baldwin, 127 (Will Book 19:765) – 10 May 1729 – Will of William Jones

[12] Deed Book 9 Old 257 – 18 February 1734 – Deed of personal property for love and affection from Janet Jones to her grandson William Jones, son of William Jones and to her three grandsons William Willis, Thomas Willis, and Andrew Willis.

[13] William’s will and Jennet’s gift deed establish even without a marriage record that their daughter Jennet married their earlier neighbor Andrew Willis and had four children with him before her death. Andrew remarried (Rebecca Goostree) and moved from Shoal Creek to land his second wife inherited from her father 1728.

[14] Deed Book HD 3:425 – 16 October 1780 – William Jones of Cabin Creek, Dorchester County, Maryland Planter sold to Benjamin Collison of Dorchester County for 313 pounds and 10 shillings in gold and silver a tract on Cabin Creek called “Goodridges Choice” where William Jones now lives containing 209 acres with all the houses, etc. Signed 16 Oct 1780 William X Jones. Wit: Jos Richardson, Thos Jones. Acknowledged in court 16 Oct 1780 with William Jones’s wife Delitha being questioned privately as to her agreement to the sale

[15] At Ancestry.com – North Carolina, US, Land Grant Files, 1693-1960, Image 225 of 1506 – Entry No 1990, entered for William Jones for 150 acres of land in Guilford County, NC, on Brush Fork of Great Rock House Creek. Entered 3 May 1780 at Guilford County Court House by Will Dent, entry officer. Survey of 150 acres adjoining Aaron Allen and Adam Baker dated 21 April 1787 by A. Philips, County Surveyor, Chain bearers: Robert Brown and Aaron Allen. Grant executed 11 July 1788

[16] Deed Book HD 3:428 – 22 Oct 1790 – Deed – Whereas William Jones of Rockingham County, North Carolina Planter sold to Benjamin Collison of Dorchester County, Maryland for 313 pounds and 10 shillings in gold and silver a tract on Cabin Creek called “Goodridges Choice” where William Jones formerly lived containing 209 acres with all the houses, etc, being all of the lands William Jones owned on Cabin Creek, Jones now authorizes trusty friends Henry Waggaman and Nicholas Hammond Esquires attorneys of the County Court to appear for him and acknowledge this deed. Signed 22 Oct 1790 William X Jones. Wit: Timothy X Corkran, Edwr Collison, Jonathan Bird. Acknowledged in court by two witnesses and by Waggaman and Hammond 22 March 1792.

Henry Willis, Carpenter of Maryland and Philadelphia (1829-1906), Part 2

Introduction

In Part 1 we established that Henry Willis, a carpenter born in Maryland in 1829, married Martha Anne (Annie) Stewart in about 1880. They appeared in the 1900 census in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with their children Lola and Harry.[1] The couple lived in Philadelphia during the 1880s. They appeared in a city directory and in records showing the deaths of two children and the baptism of a surviving child. Henry died and was buried in Philadelphia in 1906.

Beyond those few facts, Henry does not exist in records where we would expect to find him. He does not appear in the 1850 through 1880 censuses. There is no record of his marriage. Henry bought no land either in Maryland where he was born or in Philadelphia where he lived.

Search for a Family of Origin

Finding little record evidence of Henry Willis, I stopped looking for him and searched instead for people who could have been his parents. Since Henry was born in Maryland and family legend says he married in Cecil County, I focused the search there. Because he was a carpenter, I looked for a Willis family that included others of that trade. With those criteria in mind, I went to the usual sources:

- The standard people-search features of Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org.
- The Maryland land records at MDLANDREC.net
- The Cecil County Historical Society at cecilcountyhistory.com with its links to Maryland and Delaware records, and
- The separate birth, death, marriage, and probate records for Cecil County and neighboring counties in Maryland and Delaware at FamilySearch

Results

The search involved many records, lots of note taking and analyzing, and an interesting but frustrating twist at the end. One family in Cecil County fit the search criteria – the family of John and Rebecca Kilgore Willis who married in Cecil County in 1817.[2] According to the 1830, 1840 and 1850 censuses, they had at least ten children – six sons and four daughters. John Willis and several of his sons were carpenters.

So far, so good. To see if his could be Henry’s family, we dug deeper into the censuses and other records.

1820 Census

Although married in 1817, John Willis does not appear as a head of household in the 1820 census for Cecil County. He should have been listed with a wife and a daughter under five years of age. He and Rebecca were also not listed with her parents, James and Isabella Kilgore.[3]

1830 Census

John does appear in the 1830 census. It shows John Willis and a female between 30 and 40 years old with six minors — three females and three males. The two youngest males, under five years of age, fit Henry’s later-proved birth year of 1829.[4] This is promising.

1840 Census

The 1840 census shows even more promise. John’s eldest daughter is gone from the household, possibly married. Five earlier listed children remain, and three younger children are added to the family.[5] Henry, at age 11 in 1840, fits the age 10 to 15 reported for one male in that census. The census states one person in the household is engaged in agriculture. Four people are engaged in “manufacturing or the trades,” which includes carpentry.

1850 Census

The 1850 census reveals that John is 53 and Rebecca is 54. The older children, including our possible Henry, are all of age and out of the house. The remaining children are George, 19; Amos, 15; Andrew J., 13; and Rachel R., 10. Those ages track perfectly from the previous census data.[6] The census lists John, George, and Amos as farmers, not carpenters. However, later records show George as a carpenter and Amos and Andrew as iron mill workers.[7] Separate records prove two adult sons to be James Kilgore Willis and John Thomas Willis. Both are carpenters.[8]

Deed Records

Deed records reveal more about these families. John Willis’s wife Rebecca Kilgore had an older sister Rachel who married Samuel Burnite in 1810. Gift deeds prove the sisters to be daughters of James and Isabella Kilgore. In 1826, James and Isabella sold 20 acres of land north of Elkton in Cecil County to John Willis for one dollar.[9] Kilgore had inherited the land from his mother in 1788.[10] In 1827, the Kilgore’s sold about 50 acres to Samuel Burnite for three dollars.[11] Prior to those sales, Willis and Burnite owned no land. We can reasonably conclude they already lived on the lands, probably since the date of their marriages to the Kilgore sisters.

The timing of the gifts seems apparent in retrospect. James was obviously in ill health. The couple liquidated all their assets in 1827. They sold the 8-acre lot that contained their house for $100 and much of their personal property for $86. James died shortly afterwards.

John and Rebecca Willis lived on their piece the Kilgore land for another 29 years as they raised their family. They sold the place in 1856 for $2,500.[12]

Probate Records

John Willis made a will in December 1857 and died before the end of the year. Probate records do not include the names of any of his children, except the eldest son James. John left his entire estate to his wife Rebecca for her lifetime. The will stated that at or before her death she could dispose of the estate among the heirs as she saw fit.[13]

The estate, all personal property, amounted to $1,456 after debts and expenses. Rebecca loaned $500 to her eldest son James Kilgore Willis, secured by a mortgage on his property, 20 acres located near the former Kilgore place.[14]

On behalf of himself and all the heirs at law, i.e., “the children of John Willis,” James K. Willis sued his mother and Benjamin C. Cowan the co-executor of John’s estate in 1870. James asked that the estate funds be invested under the court’s supervision to protect the money for the benefit of the heirs at law. James claimed the heirs feared the estate would be squandered without the court’s intervention. Rebecca did not object but responded that $500 was already committed to a secure investment – her son’s property. The court agreed and in June 1870 ordered the co-executor to arrange for secure interest bearing mortgage investments of the remaining $956. The court also ordered interest from all investments go to Rebecca for her use.

Unfortunately, the probate files for John’s estate do not include a final distribution of funds identifying the heirs. There is no will or probate file for Rebecca. She died in 1886 at the home of her daughter Isabella and John T. Steele.[15]

Identity of the Six Sons

Our review of census, deed, and probate records to this point revealed six sons and proved the identities of five. The 1850 census proves the three youngest: George, Amos, and Andrew J. Willis. Probate records prove the eldest son James K. Willis. James and John T. Willis appear often in the deed records of Cecil County from 1850 through 1861 – James nine times and John four. Several of those transactions, including short term loans, are between the two of them. That activity is good circumstantial evidence that James K. and John T. are related and likely brothers.

That accounts for five of the six sons. Who is the sixth? Could it be our Henry?

Well, heck no.

The remaining son is Daniel Willis. He appears in several Cecil County records in the 1880s that do not definitively connect him to the family.[16] However, the 1900 and 1910 censuses do the trick. In 1900, he is in the household of John T. Steele, the husband of John and Rebecca’s daughter Isabella Willis. Daniel is listed as a brother-in-law at age 77. This is the same place Rebecca Willis died in 1886. In 1910, Daniel is listed at age 87 as an uncle in the household of Annetta S. Crossan. She is a Steele daughter who married Samuel Crossan in 1869 and who had no children. Daniel died in 1911. Clearly, Daniel is a son of John and Rebecca Willis.

Conclusion

Our search for Henry Willis turned up a perfectly interesting Willis family of carpenters in Cecil County, Maryland. It just does not include Henry Willis. Below is a table setting out the data from the 1830, 1840 and 1850 censuses for John Willis’s household. The column of names and the information in the last two columns are proved by the census or other sources.

Name	1830	1840	1850	Born	Comment
John Willis	30-40	40-50	53	Dec 1796	Carpenter/Farmer
Rebecca Willis	30-40	40-50	54	1796	Married 1817
Female	10-15	–		1815-20
James K. Willis	5-10	15-20	–	1821	Carpenter
Daniel Willis	<5	15-20	–	1823	Carpenter
Female	<5	15-20	–	1820-1825
John T. Willis	<5	10-15	–	1827	Carpenter
Isabella Willis	<5	10-15	–	1830	m. John T. Steele ~1849
George Willis	–	5-10	19	May 1831	Farmer/Carpenter
Amos Willis	–	5-10	15	1835	Farmer/Iron Mill
Andrew J. Willis	–	<5	13	1837	Iron Mill Worker
Rachel R. Willis	–	<5	10	1840	m. Dennis Dwyer~1858

The table highlights in bold the age range in the 1830 and 1840 censuses that I had mentally reserved for our Henry Willis. Cleary, that slot is occupied by John T. Willis. After this effort, I am convinced that Henry is not a native of Cecil County. So, the search for the will-o-the-wisp Henry goes on …

In any event, I hope that some descendants of John and Rebecca Willis will take DNA tests and join the Willis DNA Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/willis/about) to see where they fit in the broader scheme.

Post Script – Part I of the search for Henry Willis was also published in the Spring 2022 edition of Chesapeake Cousins, the semiannual journal of the Upper Shore Genealogical Society of Maryland (USGSMD). I will also submit this Part 2 to them for publication. I recommend USGSMD, now in its 49^th year, as a worthwhile organization for any researcher with ties to the Eastern Shore.

[1] 1900 Census Philadelphia, Ward 26, District 0628 at FamilySearch.org

1335 Kick [sic South Hicks] Street

Henry Willis head May 1829 71 M20 MD MD MD Carpenter Rent House

Annie Willis wife Jun 1846 53 M20 4/2 DE DE DE

Lola Willis son [sic Dau] Apr 1882 18 S PA MD DE

Harry Willis son Oct 1885 14 S PA MD DE

[2] Married 28 Jul 1817 per Maryland Compiled Marriages, 1655 – 1850, at Ancestry.com

[3] James Kilgore appears in Cecil County in the 1820 Census at age 45+ with two women. One age 45+ is obviously his wife Isabella. The other woman is age 16-26, the correct age for Rebecca. However, there is no entry for people who could be her husband and/or her child. The indicated woman is likely Rebecca’s younger sister.

[4] 1830 Census Cecil County, Maryland, District 2, John Willis (2 1 – – – 1 – – – – – – – – 1 – – 1 – – – – – -) https://www.ancestry.com. The household also contains a second female age 30 to 40. We can reasonably assume she is an adult relative of John or Rebecca. She may have been the single female aged 16-26 listed with James Kilgore in 1820, possibly a younger sister of Rebecca.

[5] 1840 Census Cecil County, Maryland, District 2, John Willis (1 2 1 2 – – 1 – – – – – – 1 – 1 1 – 1 – – – – – – ) https://www.ancestry.com. The ages in the census fit a perfect progression from the 1830 census, that is: John and Rebecca are 40-50; two elder sons are 15-20; a remaining elder daughter is 15-20; the third son and a younger daughter are 10-15; two new sons are 5-10; and the youngest daughter is under 5. The household includes four enslaved persons.

[6] 1850 Census Cecil County, Maryland, District 3, https://www.ancestry.com

John Willis M 53 Farmer DE $1,200 real property

Rebecca F 54 MD

George M 19 Farmer MD

Amos M 15 Farmer MD

Andrew J. M 13 MD

Rachel R. F 10 MD”

[7] No enslaved persons are associated with the household in 1850. The separate Slave Schedule for 1850 shows no Willis as an owner of an enslaved person. Deed records do not record any manumissions.

[8] 1860 Census Cecil County, Maryland, District 4, https://www.ancestry.com

James Willis M 40 Carpenter MD $,1500 real property $800 personal

Mary F 30 MD

Joseph M 13 MD

Sarah F 11 MD

Kate F 9 MD

Clara F 7 MD

Georgeanna F 4 MD

Mary F 1 MD

1860 Census Cecil County, Maryland, District 4, https://www.ancestry.com

John T. Wiles (Willis) M 33 MD Carpenter $500 real property, $100 personal

Catherine F 28 MD

Mary F 7 MD

Louisa F 4 MD

[9] Cecil County, Maryland Deed Book JS 23:357, “James Kilgore, Esq., of North Milford Hundred, Cecil County, Maryland” sold to “John Willis, Carpenter, of the same hundred, county, and state.” The deed is signed by James Kilgore and his wife Isabella is named as having been privately questioned regarding her approval of the sale. The land was part of a 378-acre tract called Wallace’s Scrawl originally patented in 1737 to Matthew Wallace It was resurveyed and patented again in 1791 at 496 acres to Andrew Wallace. MSA S1194-1063 and S1194-1062, respectively.

[10] Cecil County, Maryland Will Book 5:213, Will signed by Rebekah Kilgore dated 3 Jun 1785, probated 25 Oct 1788, gave 5 shillings each to five sons and three daughters. Daughter Elizabeth Alexander received all Rebekah’s wearing apparel. Son James Kilgore received the family plantation and the remainder of the personal estate.

[11] Cecil County, Maryland Deed Book JS 25:39, on 31 Mar 1827 Kilgore sold 50+ acres to Samuel Burnite for $3.00

[12] Cecil County, Maryland Deed Book HHM 7:304, The deed recites that the 20 acres descended to James Kilgore by will and that Kilgore sold it to Willis, and that the land is part of a tract called “Wallace’s Scrawl.”

[13] Maryland Probate and Guardianship Files, 1796-1940, https://www.familysearch.org

[14] James later sold the land, subject to the existing mortgage, for a tidy profit.

[15] The Midland Journal, Rising Sun, Maryland, 5 Feb 1886, Friday, p. 5. At www.newspapers.com. Mrs. Rebecca Willis widow of the late John Willis died at the residence of he son-in-law John T. Steele on Saturday, the 9^th instant (9 Jan 1886) in the 91^st year of her age. Her remains were interred at Head of Christiana Cemetery on the Tuesday following (12 Jan 1886).

[16] Daniel Willis married Hannah Ann Sutton on 15 Apr 1847 in Cecil County. They appear in the 1850 census living next door to James Willis. Hannah likely predeceased Daniel because he registered in 1863 for the Civil War draft as a single man at age 41, occupation carpenter. Daniel appears in the 1970 census in a boarding house as a single man, age 45, occupation carpenter. If he had children, he likely would have resided with one of them.

Friendship Andrew Willis – Part II, the Last Man Standing

Researcher Ann Wilson recently received Y-DNA results for two male Willis cousins that placed her lineage within “The Maryland Group” in the Willis DNA Project. That lineage descends from “Wantage John” Willis, died 1712, who occupied 50 acres called Wantage in Dorchester County, Maryland. Ann’s paper trail, however, leads to “Friendship Andrew” Willis, died 1777, who is not currently tied to Wantage John. Those facts launched the search for Andrew’s parents among a couple of Willis families. Part I of this analysis posted earlier concluded that Andrew Willis did not descend from the family of Quaker Richard Willis.

Part I Recap

The analysis showed the following as to Friendship Andrew:

- He may have been born between 1720 and 1730, or likely sooner.
- His first appearance may have been 1743 when an Andrew Willis posted a bastardy bond.
- He was a planter of Dorchester County when he bought land called Friendship in 1753.
- Friendship was located in Caroline County after 1773.
- Friendship Andrew died in late 1777 or early 1778.
- His eldest son distributed per his father’s direction Friendship Andrew’s land among five heirs including four surviving sons.
- Andrew was likely Quaker. Two of his sons were Nicholite, or New Quakers, a sect which later merged with the Quaker

And as to the Quaker Richard Willis family:

- Quaker Richard had a daughter Frances and sons Richard II and John:
  - Richard II had a daughter Mary and a son Richard III, who had no children.
  - John had no children.
- Quaker Richard “daughtered out” with no male descendants beyond Richard III.
- Friendship Andrew is not descended from Quaker Richard.

Part II

This post continues the search for Friendship Andrew’s parents within Wantage John Willis’s family. This analysis will try to eliminate men who could not have fathered Friendship Andrew, concluding with “the last man standing” as his parent. Wantage John had four sons:

- Andrew – six known sons, one named Andrew
- William – possible sons William and Thomas
- Thomas – no children
- John Jr. – six known sons, none named Andrew

Neither Andrew Willis, Son or Grandson of Wantage John, is Friendship Andrew

Andrew Willis, son of Wantage John, was born in 1690.[1] His well-documented family lived in southern Dorchester County, and he died in 1738.[2] He had a son named Andrew born around 1719, about the right time to be Friendship Andrew.[3] However, that son Andrew lived until at least 1781 in southern Dorchester, not the part that became Caroline County in 1773.[4] Moreover, young Andrew was not Quaker. Three of his children were baptized at Old Trinity Church between 1768 and 1775. His children were not the known sons of Friendship Andrew.[5] Therefore, neither Andrew Willis born 1690 nor his son is Friendship Andrew.

William Willis, Son of Wantage John May Be Friendship Andrew’s Father

William inherited the family homestead under Wantage John’s 1712 will and lived there with his wife Judith (neéSeward/Soward). In 1734, they sold the property to Judith’s brother Richard.[6] Dorchester records do not show them buying or inheriting other land. However, deed records show they gave a deposition in 1748 about the boundaries of a tract in the Neck Region of Dorchester County.[7] William testified he had known the property for about 25 years near Hudson’s Creek. William and Judith must have moved there even before they sold Wantage, maybe as early as 1723. Such a move makes sense because Judith’s family owned land in that region.

Dorchester records do not show William and Judith had any children. However, two deed book entries indicate they may have had sons. In 1764, a sale of land on Hudson’s Creek locates the tract at the head of Willis’s Cove near where William Willis lives.[8] This reference could be to William husband of Judith, or it could be to a son of that couple. Second, a Thomas Willis gave a 1784 deposition about the boundaries of Bridge North, property of William Soward.[9] At the time, Thomas was about 70 years old, therefore born about 1714. He stated he had been shown one boundary marker of the tract about 30 years ago. Thomas is the right age to be a son of William and Judith.

Beyond those two instances, the records give no clue about children of William and Judith. Regardless, the couple is the right age to have had a child Andrew, a relatively common name among William’s extended family.

One factor not in their favor, besides the lack of circumstantial evidence, is geography. Friendship Andrew Willis in 1753 purchased land a considerable distance from the Neck Region of Dorchester County. That distance brings into question how a son of William would know about the land or the owner from whom he bought it. Two siblings, Thomas and John Jr., lived much closer to Andrew’s land purchase and are thus more geographically desirable.

Thomas Willis, Son of Wantage John, Is Not the Father of Friendship Andrew

Thomas and Grace Willis are not Friendship Andrew’s parents. They are in the right place, the part of Dorchester County that became Caroline. However, there are no children in the record and circumstantial evidence indicates there were none.

No Children in the Record

In 1717, Thomas Willis purchased 50 acres of land, one half of a tract called Sharp’s Prosperity, adjacent his brother John Jr. in what would become Caroline County. Thomas died intestate in 1722, and Grace Willis administered his estate. His brothers Andrew Willis and John Willis signed the inventory of his estate as kindred. John was on the adjoining property. Andrew was not too distant, living at the time on Shoal Creek some fifteen miles away. The record does not state whether Grace Willis is Thomas’s widow or his sister, nor does it indicate if he had children. However, the inventory of Thomas’s estate lists only one bed and bedstead suggesting Grace is his widow, and they were childless.[10]

Land Records Also Suggest No Children

The ownership history of Sharp’s Prosperity also suggests the couple had no children. Various parties paid the rents on the tract after Thomas’s death.[11] The last such entry, thirty-four years after Thomas’s death, shows payment by “heirs of Thomas Willis.”[12] If Thomas and Grace had children, those children would be the heirs. If there were a single child, that child at maturity would have taken over the land and payment of rents, which did not happen. If there were multiple children, they likely would have sold the land and divided the proceeds. The record shows no such sale.

If there were no children, Thomas’s siblings and his spouse would be the heirs. In that case, Grace may have been living on the tract, and her in-laws farmed the land and helped pay the rents. The debt books show no rent payments after 1756.[13]Upon non-payment of rents the land reverted to the proprietor. We do not know why the heirs quit making payments. Possibly, Grace died. Also, her brother-in-law John Jr. acquired some additional land in 1756. Both of those events would be reason to let the land go.

Clues in the Probate Record

Thomas’s probate record reveals a couple more facts about Grace. First, she was not a Quaker. The inventory states that she took an “oath on the Holy Evangels”, that is, swore on the Bible, that her inventory filing was true and correct. Quakers did not swear on the Bible, they “affirmed” or “testified according to law” and the record usually noted that fact. The couple’s religious affiliation is significant because Friendship Andrew was probably Quaker. Two of his sons were members of the Nicholites, or “New Quakers.”

Secondly, Grace’s maiden name may have been Bexley. Her administration bond listed William Woods and William Bexley as sureties.[14] Normally, bondsmen assuring probate administration performance included one or more relatives and, if necessary, a non-relative wealthy enough to be good for the bonded amount. It surprised me to see no Willis as a surety. In 1693, a William Bexley in Talbot County made a will naming a son William. That son may be the listed bondsman.

Thomas’s estate inventory shows total assets of only £12.10.4, including a debt William Bexley owed the estate of 2 shillings, 4 pence. William Bexley’s debt suggests he may be a relative. No one else owed money to the estate. In colonial Maryland, wealthy people loaned money on a regular basis. Non-wealthy people like Thomas Willis did not, except to family. However, Thomas’s inventory of cobbler tools and leather shows he was probably a shoemaker. One explanation for the debt might be that Bexley bought a pair of boots and had not yet paid for them. We just do not know. However, we do know that there are no hints in the record that Thomas and Grace had children or that they were Quaker.

All things considered, we can be relatively certain that Thomas and Grace were not Friendship Andrew’s parents.

John Willis Jr. Could Be Friendship Andrew’s Grandfather

John Willis Jr. had six sons, none named Andrew. However, his eldest son John III is a candidate to be Friendship Andrew’s father. John Willis III was born to John Jr. and his first wife Mary about 1704.[15] Documentary evidence does not help us here. History does not record a marriage, land purchase, children, or even the death of John III.

If John III were Anglican, the records of St. Mary’s White Chapel Parish might have that information. However, those records do not survive. If Quaker, John III likely would have attended Marshy Creek Meeting established in 1727 near his family’s home. However, I cannot find records of that meeting. Other meetings he may have attended such as Northwest Fork Meeting do not record his name.

John III died sometime after 1771, likely during the period 1776-1790 when there is a gap in the Caroline County probate records. If Friendship Andrew were born between 1724 and 1732, John III was about 21 to 29 years old at that time. That makes John III a reasonable candidate to be his father. John III is the only son of John Jr. that fits as a possibility. The other sons are either too young or their families are well documented and do not include a son Andrew.

Conclusion – The Last Man Standing

Two of Wantage John’s four sons cannot be the forebearer of Friendship Andrew:

- Direct evidence shows Friendship Andrew did not descend from Wantage John’s son Andrew.
- Solid circumstantial evidence rules out son Thomas.

That leaves William and John Jr.

- Son William is geographically undesirable but has a proved marriage and likely children. William could be Friendship Andrew’s father.
- Son John Jr. had a son John III the right age to be Friendship Andrew’s father. John III is in the right place at the right time, but nothing else in the record argues either way as to his parentage.

Between William and John III, the latter is more likely the father of Friendship Andrew based on location, but we cannot prove it. Possibly down the road more facts will emerge. Until then we have two “last men standing,” and cannot conclusively prove either one.

[1] Dorchester County Deed Book 8 Old 404 – 4 Sep 1730, Deposition of Andrew Willis, aged about 40.

[2] Maryland Will Book 21:918 – 24 May 1733, Will of Andrew Willis submitted to probate 23 Aug 1738

[3] Birth year estimated.

[4] Dorchester County Deed Book 28 Old 356 – 22 Sep 1781, Andrew Willis of Dorchester County, planter, purchased for £60 current money 49½ acres from Benedick Meekins of Dorchester County, planter, and Mary his wife, being part of a tract called Addition to Adventure and part of a tract called Adventure

[5] Palmer, Katherine H., transcribed Baptism Record, Old Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, Church Creek, MD, Cambridge, MD – Children of Andrew and Sarah Willis: Andrew 12 Feb 1768; Keziah 12 Oct 1770; George 3 Dec 1775.

[6] Dorchester County Deed Book 9 Old 214 – 15 Aug 1734, William Willis and wife Judeth of Dorchester County, planter, for £6 current money sell to Richard Seward of Dorchester County 50 acres called Wantage near the head of Blackwater River adjoining Littleworth. Signed William (M) Willis, Judeth (+) Willis

[7] Dorchester County Deed Book 14 Old 658 – 3 Sep 1748 Judah [sic Judith] (+) Willis age 50 stated she had heard of the tracts Rosses Range and David Ropies but did not know the bounders; Wm (M) Willis age 52 stated he has known the place for 25 years but not the bounders.

[8] Dorchester County Deed Book 19 Old 343 – 11 Jun 1764, John Taylor Sr. of Dorchester County, Merchant., to Nicholas Maccubbin of Annapolis, Merchant for £285.14.6, three tracts totaling 291 acres on Hodsons Creek, at the head of Willis’s Cove near where Wm. Willis lives.

[9] Dorchester County Deed Book NH 5:259 – 4 Dec 1784, Deposition of Thomas Willis, aged about 70, regarding the boundaries of Bridge North, property of William Seward/Soward.

[10] Perogative Court of Maryland Inventories, 9:9 – Inventory of the Estate of Thomas Willis, 15 Oct 1722.

[11] Skinner, V.L. Jr., Abstracts of the Debt Books of the Provincial Land Office of Maryland, Dorchester County, Volume I and II, Genealogical Publishing Company: Baltimore, MD, 2016

[12] Ibid, Vol II, p 234, 1756, Book 20:159, Heirs of Thomas Willis, Sharp’s Prosperity, 50 acres.

[13] Ibid, Vol I and II, Rent entries, which include the years 1758, 1766, 1767, and 1770, show no property named Sharps Prosperity nor any payments on behalf of Thomas Willis.

[14] Testamentary Proceedings of the Perogative Court of Maryland, 26:77, on 28 Nov 1722 John Pitts, gentleman, of Dorchester County exhibited bond of Grace Wallis administratrix of Thomas Wallis. Sureties William Bexley, William Woods, dated 29 Sep 1722. Also filed inventory of the estate.

[15] Dorchester County Deed Book 25 Old 26, 13 Nov 1770 -2 Aug 1771, Deposition of John Willis the Elder of Dorchester Co, aged about 67 years, mentions his father John Willis and a bounder of land called Painters Range on Hunting Creek Mill Pond.

New Research Links for Maryland Researchers

Good news for anyone researching ancestors in Maryland! The Upper Shore Genealogical Society of Maryland (USGSMD) has expanded its website to include more links to online resources. Recently, I provided indexes to several Caroline County Administrative Accounts. USGSMD added links on its site to those indexes covering accounts for the years 1790 to 1805 and 1805 to 1817 . They will soon post a link to a third index for 1703-1776.

USGSMD also provides links to a joint project of the Maryland State Archives, Comptroller of the Treasury, Register of Wills, and FamilySearch.org to index probate records for all the counties in Maryland. This project began in 2013 and is ongoing. So far, Baltimore, Caroline, and Carroll counties have been completed. If you would like to volunteer to help with this project, please send an email to usgsmd@yahoo.com.

The items mentioned above are just a few of the links to information you can find at their resource page. Check it out, and you will be well rewarded in your research. If you find their material worthwhile, I also suggest joining their organization … a nominal cost for a worthwhile endeavor.

Foster Willis, Maryland to Missouri, 1804-1850

One rewarding aspect of genealogy is meeting wonderful people while digging up those pesky dead relatives. I had that privilege several months ago when the Reverend Charles Covington introduced himself via the Internet. The Rev (as he asked to be called) and I are related by marriage. One of his Covington ancestors married a descendant of my ancestor John Willis of Dorchester County (d. 1712). The Rev previously documented the descendants of his earliest known Covington ancestor down to the present and gifted the finished product to his children. He proposed that we do the same thing, generation by generation, with the descendants of John Willis. This joint project has led to many discoveries I would not have found on my own.

Case in point is the subject of today’s article. Foster Willis has always been of interest because he is the twin of my great-great-grandfather Zachariah Willis. This project forced me to focus on Foster for the first time. Deed, probate, and census records tell most of Foster’s story. The tale is typical of an early nineteenth century farmer/craftsman who achieves some success, raises a large family, and moves west seeking other opportunities. However, like most stories constructed after the fact, there are gaps and mysteries.

Born into a Farming Family

Two days after Christmas in 1804, Foster and Zachariah were born in Caroline County, Maryland, to Richard (1759-1823) and Britannia Willis, née Goutee (1765-1826). Richard was a successful farmer who amassed several hundred acres of land on the upper reaches of Hunting Creek northeast of the present town of Preston. He willed adjacent parcels of land to his four surviving sons Senah, Foster, Zachariah, and Peter. Foster’s share of the land was about 75 acres, part of a tract called Battle Hill.[1]

On 23 Mar 1826, Foster married Sarah Emerson. They had one child, Thomas Foster Willis born 16 Nov 1827. Tragically, Sarah died 15 Dec 1827, most likely from complications of that birth. Foster remarried 12 Jul 1828 to Anna Andrews who lived on adjoining land. Over a period of twenty years, they would have ten children, six of whom reached maturity.

Move to Town

Foster grew to some prominence in the county, but not as a farmer. The 1830 and 1840 censuses list his occupation as “manufacturing & trades” indicating he was a craftsman, although the exact trade is not specified.[2]His craft probably dictated his move from the countryside into a population center providing more access to customers for his services. Foster and Anna sold small pieces of Battle Hill in 1831 and 1832, including one-half acre as the site for the Friendship Methodist Church and a schoolhouse.[3]In 1834, they sold the remaining seventy acres to their neighbor Caleb Bowdle for $250 and bought a house in the town of Federalsburg where five of their children would be born.[4]

In Oct 1829, his elder brother Senah declared insolvency, and under a Deed of Trust Foster took control of all Senah’s assets except his wearing apparel. This was an unusual development, especially since Senah had only four months earlier sold his inherited land for $300 to Caleb Bowdle.[5]We do not know where Senah’s money went.

Foster was appointed Justice of the Peace for Caroline County, serving two terms in 1835 and 1836. However, the next year, he and Anna sold their house and lot in Federalsburg to Steven Andrews, presumably a relative of Anna, and moved to Cambridge in Dorchester County.[6]Deed records do not indicate Foster and Anna purchased property in Cambridge, so they must have rented a home.

Foster last appeared in Maryland records in the 1840 census for Dorchester. That census shows Foster as head of household with his wife and six children.[7]The household also includes a young couple, possibly Foster’s younger brother Peter W. Willis and his wife Susan. A William P. Flint and his wife Sarah were neighbors of Foster and Anna Willis in the Dorchester 1840 census. Flint owned several lots and houses in Cambridge and in Church Creek. Flint was a likely doctor and quite possibly Foster’s landlord.[8]

Move to Missouri

In 1843, Flint and his wife sold their Cambridge properties. In 1845, they were noted as being “of Buchanan County, Missouri” when they sold the Church Creek land and houses. It is possible that Dr. Flint attended the Willis family and was there at the birth and the death of two Willis children born in 1842 and 1843 in Cambridge. It is further likely that the families migrated together to Missouri in the 1843-1845 timeframe.

In Missouri, Foster Willis applied for and was granted a quarter section of land located a few miles southeast of St. Joseph, Missouri.[9]Not coincidentally, William P. Flint and his wife Sarah owned adjoining land. In 1849, the Willises had their last child, a daughter Sarah E. A. Willis, probably named in part for their friend Sarah Flint. However, tragedy befell the Willis family during this period. Eldest son Thomas Foster Willis died in November 1849, and Foster died in April 1850 without leaving a will.[10]

The widow Anna Willis probably did not outlive her husband by more than a year or two. She appears as head of household in the 1850 census in Buchanan County with real estate valued at $3,000 and personal property of $1,000.[11]However, Anna never appeared in the probate records. She never received any moneys from the estate, leading to the conclusion she passed away during the probate period.

Probate of Foster’s Personal Estate

After Foster died intestate, the court appointed Erasmus F. Dixon administrator of the estate on 3 June 1850. The probate records are extensive, but in many ways unrevealing. The records do not include an inventory of Foster’s personal property. A list of his tools might have defined Foster’s tradecraft. A list of crops in the field, livestock, or farm implements would provide an understanding of his life on the land. Without this detail, we are left to wonder if he maintained his tradecraft. In fact, one wonders if even his tradecraft in Maryland were successful. If it were, why would he move to Missouri and acquire farmland? Did he plan to entirely depend on farming, at which he previously had not shown success? A clue to the answer may be that the 1850 census lists his widow Anna as a farmer, and the 1860 census lists each of his sons as farmers. Whatever Foster’s craft, he did not hand it down to his sons.

Furthermore, the probate record lists about 50 claims against the estate, many of them filings by claimants directly in the county court.[12]However, few claims indicate the basis, such as a note, an account at a store, or a time purchase of equipment or inventory. The few details that are available paint a picture that is fuzzy around the edges.

Take for example the following three items. First, one asset of the estate in 1851 was an “Amount against William P. Flint … $116.34.” Second, Flint filed a demand against the estate in 1853 for $136.00, which the court allowed to offset the estate’s claim. Third, Buchanan County in 1852 had entered its claim against the estate for $138.63 for the unpaid balance of Foster’s quarter section of land. We can conclude from these items that Foster and Flint each signed a bond ensuring payment for the other’s land purchase, and that those two obligations offset in probate. The record also shows Foster still owed money for his land. This makes sense because the sale did not become final until 25 Dec 1850, eight months after Foster had died. The balance due became an obligation of the estate.

The record also shows claims of $120.60 against the estate by a firm named “Donnell, Saxton, and Duvall,” a retail mercantile enterprise. Another firm, “[illegible]tor & Riley,” claimed $137.69. To have $160 debts outstanding to a couple of stores seems excessive. However, Foster died in the Spring. These debts may have been related to farming during the upcoming season, such as the purchase on credit of seed and equipment. Additionally, Foster owed money to numerous individuals. Several individuals claimed amounts ranging from $25 to $80, which may have been personal loans.

In the final analysis, Foster owed a lot of money to a lot of people. His personal property was valued at $991.52 in October 1851 but proved insufficient to satisfy the estate’s debts, resulting in the need to sell some of the estate’s land. In 1854 and 1855, the administrator sold with the court’s permission a total of about 40 acres of land, netting an additional $880 to the estate. Despite that, the final personal estate settlement in April 1855 does not show any residual amount paid to the heirs, nor does it even list the heirs.

In fact, Foster’s widow Anna does not appear in the probate record. Instead, the couple’s eldest surviving son, James R. Willis, filed a $195.00 claim against the estate. We can conclude that Anna died shortly after her husband and that James became head of household at age 20 or 21. Logically, he received money from the estate to support his younger siblings.

Disposition of the Land

By 1860, all the heirs resided outside Buchanan County. Each apparently still owned a share of the remaining family homestead of 118 acres. Even eleven year-old Sarah is listed in the census as owning $900.00 worth of real estate. Five heirs were in three households in Doniphan County, Kansas Territory, just across the river from Buchanan County[13]One heir, Harriett, was with her husband in Andrew County, Missouri, just north of Buchanan.[14]

Sarah Willis’s $900 interest in the land represented one-sixth of its total value in 1860. Therefore, the whole parcel was worth $5,400. Regardless of Foster’s success or failure as a craftsman or farmer, his and Anna’s investment in the land proved a good legacy for their children.[15]

I have not yet located the final sale of the land by the heirs of Foster Willis. However, they likely sold it to a Mr. A. M. Saxton. An 1877 atlas of Buchanan County shows him as owner of the former Willis land and the quarter section north of it. The atlas states Albe M. Saxton operated a mercantile partnership in St. Joseph with Robert W. Donnell.[16]Foster’s estate owed their firm $130.60 back in 1850. Saxton became extremely wealthy from the store and other ventures, including banking, steamship building, and land holdings of more than 1,000 acres. Saxton not only owned the Willis property but also the Flint lands, since the atlas states he married in 1856 “Mrs. Sarah Emeline Flint originally of Dorchester County, Maryland.”[17]

As the story circles back to a connection with Maryland, it seems like a good place to end this discussion of my great-great-great-uncle Foster Willis.

[1]Caroline County Will Book,Liber JR-C, Folio 465 and subsequent Deeds

[2]Manufacturing and Trades would include cobblers, blacksmiths, silversmiths, wheelwrights, wood carvers, carpenters, cabinetmakers, etc. Other occupation categories in the 1840 census were Mining; Agriculture; Ocean Navigation; Canal, Lake, River Navigation; and Learned Professions & Engineers.

[3]Caroline County Deed Books, Liber Jr-R, Folios 115 and 130.

[4]Caroline County Deed Book Liber JR-S, Folios 340 and 402

[5]Caroline County Deed Book Q: 259.

[6]Caroline County Deed Book T: 524.

[7]The age ranges in the census indicate the children are Thomas F. Willis from Foster’s first marriage, and James R. born 1830, Harriett A. born 1832, Peter M. born 1835, John F. born 1837, and William H. H. born 1840, from the second. Deceased are Foster and Anna’s eldest son John W. born in 1829 and their daughter Louisa born in 1833. The couple had two more sons who died as infants: Charles E. born 1842 and Samuel A. A. born 1843.

[8]Flint’s occupation in the 1840 census for Dorchester County, MD, was “Learned Professions and Engineers.”

[9]The southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 57, Range 34, surveyed at 158 acres priced at $1.25 per acre for a total cost of $198.00. The land transaction completed on 25 Dec 1850.

[10]Thomas F. Willis may have been married. There is no marriage record and no probate record, which argues against there being any heirs at law. However, a Rebecca J. Willis, age 26, appears in the 1860 census in brother James Willis’s household. She is possibly the widow of Thomas, although she would have been age 15 at the time of his death.

[11]Living with Anna, age 44, are James, age 20; Harriett, age 18; Peter, age 15; John, age 13; William, age 11; and Sarah age 1. Sarah, by the way, is listed as Sarah E. H. (sic} A. Willis in a later census. I originally thought she was the daughter of Foster’s deceased son Thomas Foster Willis, who named the child after his mother Sarah Emerson Willis. However, the 1880 Cole County, MO, census of her brother James R. Willis’s household lists her as “Lizie A. Willis, age 31, sister.” She is clearly the child of Foster and Anna, and her full name is likely Sarah Elizabeth Anna Willis.

[12]Volumes A and B, Buchanan County, MO, Probate Records

[13]The Doniphan County, Kansas census shows the following, including the value of their real estate: James R Willis, age 30, $3,000, Married with four children; Peter M. Willis, age 25, $2,500, Single; John F. Willis, age 23, $1,000, Single, residing with the following two: Wm H. H. Willis, age 20, $1,000, Single, and Sarah E. Willis, age 11, $900, Single. Curiously, Peter and Sarah are listed a second time in James’s household.

[14]The Andrew County, Missouri census lists John Speed S. Wilson, age 36, $3,200, and Harriett A. Wilson, age 28, Married with four children.

[15]As a final comment regarding the estate administrator, there is no apparent familial relationship between Erasmus F. Dixon and the Willises. He served as a court appointed administrator for the estates of several unrelated parties. In any event, James R. Willis clearly held him in high regard for his handling of the estate and support of the family. James named his first son Erasmus D. Willis, obviously honoring Mr. Dixon.

[16]Published online by The State Historical Society of Missouri, “An Illustrated Historical Atlas Map of Buchanan County, MO, 1877,” p. 31

[17]The atlas does not state that Mrs. Flint was a widow, but we can presume that to be the case.

Indices to Administration Accounts of Caroline County, Maryland

As many of you know, Family Search publishes online scans of original documents such as wills and probate record books. Some of those original volumes contain at least a partial index in the front or back. You must look at each book to discover if you are lucky enough to find one with an index, and further, whether the surviving pages contain names you seek.

I recently discovered that the Caroline County, Maryland Administration Accounts Books available on Family Search do not have any such index. Finding anything related to my ancestors meant I had to page through every image. I felt like I was back in front of a microfilm reader scrolling, scrolling, and scrolling, forever.

Knowing that I would never know every name to capture on the first run through the volume, I decided to make an index. Then, I could come back later and pick up people I had missed the first or second time through the record.

There are seven volumes of Admin Accounts from 1703-1850. Initially, I completed an index for the volumes for 1790-1805 and 1805-1817. I asked the Upper Shore Genealogical Society of Maryland (USGSMD) to publish them on their website free of charge to all interested parties, and they have gladly complied. Here is a link … http://usgsmd.org/research-links.html#wills

I recently finished the index for 1703-1776 and have sent it to USGSMD. I expect them to post it soon. Most of this particular record, of course, is for Dorchester County, prior to the formation of Caroline. By the way, this record contains data not included in the books previously indexed. Many of these accounts indicate surviving children of the deceased, sometimes noting those of age and those who are minors. If your ancestor did not leave a will, an administration account containing children’s names might be the only direct evidence available of those relationships. You will want to check out the result to see if you are among the lucky ones!

Once you have found a name in the index at usgsmd.org you will need to find that item at Family Search. This link goes straight to the page in Family Search containing the Administration Accounts (and many other records) https://www.familysearch.org/search/image/index?owc=SNYC-K68%3A146535101%3Fcc%3D1803986

However, the link may not work unless you are already signed in to your (free) account at Family Search. Therefore, here is the step-by-step approach.

1) Login to Family Search. If you do not have an account, create one for free.

2) Select “Search” and then “Records” from the pull down menu.

3) At the Research By Location page, click on the US map and select “Maryland.”

4) On the Maryland Research Page scroll below the section titled Indexed Records to “Image-Only Historical Records.”

5) Scroll down to the fourth subsection, “Probate and Court.”

6) In that subsection, click on “Maryland Register of Wills Records, 1629-1999.”

7) When the next page comes up, click on “Browse through 1,933,787 images.” Browsing through 2 million records really sounds like fun doesn’t it? Don’t worry … press on.

8) Select “Caroline.”

The next page will display all the available records including the seven volumes of Administration Accounts from 1703-1850. Unfortunately, the records from 1776-1790 are missing.

Again, the indices for the first, second, and third volumes are available at Upper Shore Genealogical Society of Maryland. I will get to the other four in due time.

The Heirs of Joshua Willis Sr. – Proved by Petitions, Patents, Depositions, and Deeds

John Willis bought land on Marshy Creek in 1717 in what became Caroline County, MD. One of his sons Joshua was born about 1720 and died in 1797. Joshua left a 1790 will that has not been located. However, several legal documents … petitions, patents, deeds, and depositions … combine to identify accurately Joshua’s children and provide other details about the family. These records emphasize the need in genealogy to “Follow The Land.”

Joshua acquired during his lifetime several hundred acres of land. He devised all the land he possessed at the time he made his will. Thankfully for us, Joshua did not amend the will to devise the tracts he acquired subsequent to 1790. The tracts not disposed of in the will fell to Joshua’s heirs at law under the law of intestate descent and distribution. This led to petitions, patents, deeds and depositions that identify those heirs. Since the will is lost, those other records relating to two specific tracts of land are the only evidence we have. Luckily, they are all we need.

Willis’s Landing

Joshua acquired land he called Willis’s Landing in two transactions in 1793. On 8 Jan 1793, John Nicolls assigned to Joshua 7½ acres of a 26-acre tract that Nicolls had acquired under a special warrant. Pursuant to a special warrant dated 20 Apr 1793, Joshua surveyed 69 ¾ adjacent acres, and named it Addition to Willis’s Landing. Petitions and subsequent land sales prove that Joshua’s will did not devise these parcels acquired after 1790. Further, his will clearly did not contain a “residuary clause” whereby property not specifically devised or bequeathed would fall to an identified beneficiary. In effect, Joshua’s estate was “intestate” as to this particular land.

Joshua Willis Jr. cited those facts in a petition seeking a patent for the land in the names of the heirs. He showed that his father properly acquired and paid for the tracts and that he died intestate as to those lands, leaving “Elizabeth Everngham, Joshua Willis (your petitioner), Frances Baker, Deborah Lucas, Charles Willis, Peter Willis, Thomas Willis, James Willis, John Willis, Annaretta Fleming, and Mary Willis his only children and heirs at law.” The filing stated that Charles Willis and Thomas Willis had died without issue and that Annaretta also died, leaving Mary Fleming and Robert Fleming her only children and heirs at law. Note that Joshua Sr.’s wife must have predeceased him, otherwise the petition would have named her as an heir.[1]

Joshua Jr. filed this petition on 14 May 1805, and an order issued the same day naming the living heirs. The order called for a patent to be issued to the ten named individuals, with the first eight (the living children of Joshua Sr.) each having an undivided one-ninth interest in the property and Mary Fleming and Robert Fleming to share the remaining ninth.[2]

An earlier deposition also names Joshua’s eleven children and notes that four of the five daughters had married, identifying their husbands:

Elizabeth married William Everngham
Frances married Charles Baker
Deborah married Joshua Lucas
Annaretta married Silas Fleming

That deposition also stated that Charles and Thomas Willis had died intestate and without issue, and that Annaretta and Silas Fleming had died leaving children Mary and Robert.[3]

A short aside … Annaretta’s husband made a will dated 1 Feb 1804 naming his brother-in-law Peter Willis executor. This will reveals that Annaretta predeceased Silas because she was not named, as well as the fact that the two Fleming children were minors.[4]

On 17 Jun 1805, the heirs sold Willis’ Landing and recorded the sale in Dorchester County (the tract fell partly in Caroline and partly in Dorchester). The signatories were William Everngham and his wife Elizabeth, Joshua Willis, Frances Baker, Joshua Lucas and his wife Deborah, Peter Willis, and John Willis.[5]

We are missing a few signatories in this list: Frances’ husband Charles Baker; James Willis; the two Fleming children; and Mary Willis. What does this tell us? Likely the following:

Frances’s husband Charles Baker must have died before this sale. A husband represented a wife’s interest in legal transactions. Frances would only represent herself if no longer married.
James Willis made up for his absence by filing in the Dorchester County Court acknowledging and recording the sale on 9 Dec 1805.[6]
Regarding the Fleming minors, we can assume that Peter Willis probably signed on their behalf. I have not found a record of an official guardianship, but the children lived in his household.
The mystery is Mary Willis. Where is her signature? I believe that Mary was still a minor at the date of this sale (therefore born after 1784). I find no official guardian appointed, but there is not one for the Fleming children either. The lost will of Joshua Sr. may have designated one of the siblings to be her guardian.

The record related to Willis’s Landing proves the children of Joshua Willis. However, we can learn a bit more by examining the documents surrounding a second tract called Willis’s Luck.

Willis’s Luck

Joshua Sr. acquired 229½ acres he named Willis’s Luck under a special warrant in 1763. He sold 100 acres shortly thereafter, simultaneously buying a small tract named Bank of Pleasure that provided access to Hunting Creek for the larger tract. A 1793 resurvey of his land defined 136½ acres that he called Addition to Willis’s Luck. The resurvey included 25 vacant acres, which turn out to be genealogically significant.

Joshua Sr.’s 1790 will devised Willis’s Luck, Addition to Willis’s Luck, and Bank of Pleasure to his son Charles. Sons Joshua and Peter were contingent beneficiaries and would share the land if Charles died without issue. Several records confirm this provision of the lost will.

On 28 Feb 1799, Joshua Jr. sold to Peter Willis 150 acres, part of Bank of Pleasure and part of Addition to Willis’s Luck. The record states this was half the land that fell to them at the death of their brother Charles.[7]
On 7 Aug 1804, Joshua Jr. sold to Peter Willis 150 acres, parts of Bank of Pleasure, Willis’s Luck, and Addition to Willis’s Luck. This record recites that the land fell to Joshua by the demise of his brother Charles.[8]

Charles clearly received this land through the will, and when he died without children, Joshua and Peter inherited under the terms of the will. Absent such a contingency provision, the death of Charles would have entitled all his heirs — his siblings — to a share of the land. An 1800 petition confirms those facts but with an interesting twist. The vacant land added through the 1793 resurvey was notcovered by Joshua Sr.’s prior ownership of the tracts. The will could not devise those added acres. Here we go with another petition, since these “intestate” acres descend to Joshua Sr.’s heirs at law.

In 1800, Joshua Willis and Peter Willis petitioned for a patent related to the vacant land. They cited their father’s acquisition and patent history of the tract. They specifically stated their father Joshua made his will in 1790. They stated that the land was devised to their brother Charles and fell to them divided equally should Charles die without issue. Finally, they noted that the vacant land added to the tract in 1793, subsequent to the date of the will, was not covered by the devise of land in that document. The estate was intestate as to that extra 25 acres. They therefore asked that a patent issue for that land in the name of the heirs at law. On 10 Dec 1800, the Chancellor of Maryland ordered the patent issued as requested, which happened on 20 Feb 1801.[9]

Nine years later the heirs sold that small acreage for $87. William Everngam and his wife Elizabeth, Deborah Lucas, Peter Willis, James Willis, John Willis, and Matthew Hardcastle and his wife Mary signed the 25 Jan 1810 deed of sale. The deeds and petition related to Willis’s Luck reveal some details about these people other than just their names:

Charles Willis obviously died before the first sale from Joshua Jr. to Peter in February 1799.
In the 1810 sale, only six of the nine shares appear to be represented. The three missing shares are as follows:
- Joshua Willis did not participate in the 1810 sale. Joshua must have died before 1810 and left no issue, or he transferred his interest to one of the other heirs. There is no record of a conveyance from Joshua to an heir or anyone else. Since there is no such record, Joshua must be deceased.
- Frances Willis Baker did not participate and was likely also dead.
- The Fleming children did not sign. If alive, they must still be minors and therefore born after 1789. In that case, Peter still represented them.
Mary Willis was by then married to Matthew Hardcastle.[10]Her absence as a signatory on the 1805 sale of Willis’s Landing established she was born after 1784. She might have married Hardcastle as early as age 16, which would mean she was born by 1790, when her father wrote his will. I put her likely birth range at 1785-1789.

It would have been nice if Joshua Sr.’s 1790 will survived and had been updated over time to cover all his property. Had that occurred, however, we might not be privy to these additional details about this family. The lesson, as always, is “Follow The Land.

[1]Joshua outlived two wives, Susannah LNU, mother of his first three children, and Deborah Greenhawk whom he married 20 May 1774.

[2]Maryland State Archives Online, Dorchester County Circuit Court, Patented Certificates, MSA_S1196_3662

[3]This deposition by Captain William Haskins states the will was made in 1797. The petition seeking a patent in the name of Joshua’s heirs at law filed in 1800 gives the date as 1790. The earlier date is correct based on the subject matter of the petition, that is, to provide proper title to lands acquired in 1793. If the will were made in 1797, it likely would have devised those lands making the new patent unnecessary.

[4]Keddie, Leslie and Neil, Caroline County, Maryland, Register of Wills, 1800-1806, Liber JR Bi, Transcript& Liber LR C, i,(The Family Tree Bookshop, 2001), 48.

[5]Maryland State Archives online, Dorchester County Land Records, MSA_CE 46-48,(Liber HD No. 23: 181

[6]IdatHD 23:183

[7]Leonard, R. Bernice, Caroline County Maryland Land Records, Volume F, 1797-1799, (St. Michaels, MD: Helen E. Seymour), F:448.

[8]Leonard, Volume I, 1804-1809, I:090.

[9]Maryland State Archives Online, Caroline County Circuit Court, Patented Certificates, MSA_S1192_18.

[10]Marriage records indicate she married in Caroline County on 17 Sep 1806.

Who Was Jarvis Willis

Introduction

The name Jarvis Willis appears only a few times in the 18^th century civil records of Dorchester and Caroline Counties, Maryland. In one instance, a 1764 will names a Jarvis Willis as a son of John and Elizabeth Willis.[1] In a second, a 1768 land valuation records where a Jarvis Willis is living.[2] Third, the 1783 Maryland Supply Tax assessment lists a Jarvis Willis in the upper district of Dorchester County heading a household of eight and a Jarvis Willis in Caroline County with a family of four.[3] Fourth, a Jarvis Willis appears as a head of household in the 1790 federal census for Dorchester County.[4] Further, a 1798 deposition proves that one Jarvis Willis was born in 1735 (“Jarvis/35”),[5] while church records establish that another Jarvis Willis was born in 1758 (“Jarvis/58”). The latter was a son of John and Nancy Willis.[6] Finally, the name Jarvis Willis appears several times in records related to Maryland’s role in the Revolutionary War.

It is not immediately apparent how many different men named Jarvis Willis are represented in this handful of records. However, it is clear that at least two men named Jarvis belonged to different generations of the Willis family: Jarvis/35 and Jarvis/58. It is also clear that two different Willis couples had a son named Jarvis: John and Elizabeth, and John and Nancy. To learn more about these men, we need to correlate other information with the records mentioned above.

The Connection to an Original Immigrant

Two of the Willis men named Jarvis were descended from John Willis (“John #1”). John #1 was very likely the original immigrant to the Eastern Shore of Maryland of one ancestral Willis line. John #1 had several proved children, and two of his sons had proved children of their own. One such son is John (“John #2”), whose proved children include a son Jarvis. Consequently, at least one Jarvis Willis is a proved grandson of John #1.

The other son of John #1 having proved descendants was Andrew, who had a son John (“John #3”). Several researchers have suggested that John #3 is the same man as the John Willis who was the father of Jarvis/58. In fact, DNA evidence indicates that Jarvis/58 is descended from John #1. Thus, the notion that Jarvis/58 was a son of John #3 is, on its face, a reasonable theory. The purpose of this paper is to provide documentary proof of that theory. The evidence will also establish some other Willis family relationships.

Specifically, the evidence will show that Jarvis/58 was the great-grandson of John #1 through John#1’s son Andrew and Andrew’s son John #3. Further, the records will establish that Jarvis, son of John #2, was very likely the same man as Jarvis/35, and was, therefore, the uncle of Jarvis/58.

John #1 Was the Father of Andrew Willis

The records establishing that Andrew Willis was a son of John #1 are fairly straightforward, despite the fact that the 1712 will of John #1 failed to name a son Andrew.[7] Records filed during probate of the will at the Perogative Court of Maryland plainly identified Andrew as a son of John #1.[8] Thus, John #1 was clearly the father of Andrew Willis.

Andrew Willis Was the Father of John #3

At this point, the record trail becomes more interesting. Fortunately, records concerning a tract of land called “New Town” (or, “Newtown”) prove that Andrew Willis was the father of John #3. The New Town record trail starts with Andrew Willis, who was born in 1690[9] and died in 1738.[10] Andrew married first Jennet Jones, and they he had four children: sons William, Thomas, and Andrew and daughter Sarah.[11] Jennet had died before April 1728, by which time Andrew had married Rebecca Goostree. By 1733, when Andrew wrote his will, he and Rebecca had four children: sons Richard, George and John and another daughter Sarah. The following transactions concerning New Town, inherited from Rebecca’s father, establish the relationship between Andrew Willis and John #3:

1728 – Richard Goostree devised 100 acres called Newtown to his daughters Elizabeth, wife of Robert Johnson, and Rebecca, wife of Andrew Willis.[12] Thus, Rebecca and Andrew inherited fifty acres of land from her father.

1730 – the Maryland Land Office granted a warrant for forty-five acres called New Town to Andrew Willis. The tract was located in Dorchester County on the west side of Blackwater River, east of Cattail Swamp, and west of Andrew’s dwelling plantation.[13] This appears to be acreage that Andrew added to the fifty acres inherited from Richard Goostree with the combined acreage still known as New Town.

1733 – Andrew Willis devised New Town to his sons Richard and George to be divided equally. Andrew’s will provided if either son died without issue, then the deceased son’s part would go to Andrew’s son John #3.[14]

New Town can, therefore, be tracked from Rebecca’s father, to her husband Andrew Willis, and then to their sons Richard and George, with a contingent right to the land held by their son John #3. Thus, Richard and George each received about forty-seven acres, half the ninety-five acres Andrew held. Subsequent records confirm Richard’s possession of the land. However, the record shows that by 1784 Andrew’s son John #3 held an interest New Town, rather than George. Apparently, George had died without issue, triggering John #3’s contingent right. These records are as follows:

1759 – the Maryland Land Office granted a special warrant to Richard Willis to resurvey New Town. The resurvey certified a total of eighty-seven acres.[15]

1773 – Richard Willis devised Newtown to his daughter Mary Meekins. If she were to die without heirs, the land would descend to Richard’s daughter Sarah.[16]

1782 – Mary (Willis) Meekins sold land, including New Town, to Levin Hughes of Dorchester County.[17]

1784 – John #3 sold his ownership in New Town to Levin Hughes, ending the Willis family’s ownership of any part of the tract.[18]

In short, the Willis family’s transactions involving New Town began in 1728 when Andrew and Rebecca first acquired ownership and ended in 1784 when Andrew’s son John #3 sold the final parcel of the land. Tracking this ownership conclusively proves that Andrew was the father of John #3.

John #3 Was the Father of Jarvis/58

As we already know from church records, a man named John Willis was the father of Jarvis/58. Compelling circumstantial evidence proves the father of Jarvis/58 to be John #3.

The Old Trinity Church Birth Register confirms the birth date of a “Jarvey” (Jarvis) Willis born 6 Dec 1758, son of a John and Nancy (a common nickname for Ann) Willis.[19] The parish records, however, do not directly prove that the John Willis who was named in that register was John #3, i.e., the son of Andrew. Nevertheless, we can reasonably come to that conclusion from other entries in the record. First, the register also contains the record of birth of “John,” another son of John and Ann (Nancy) Willis.[20] Second, the parish record contains names of other Willis parents who were of the same generation as John Willis. During the period 1754-1775, a couple named Richard and Rachel Willis had six children, while a couple named Andrew and Sarah Willis had three.[21] There were, therefore, three Willis men – Richard, Andrew and John — who attended the same church during the same time period. We know from the will of Andrew Willis that he had sons named Richard, Andrew and John. It is reasonable to conclude that these men who attended Old Trinity Church were all sons of Andrew Willis. Consequently, the John Willis named in the church register as father of “Jarvey” was almost certainly John #3.

It follows that Jarvis/58 was a son of John #3, a grandson of Andrew Willis who owned New Town, and a great-grandson of John #1, the original immigrant.

Additional Relationship

We can also conclude that the Jarvis Willis who was born in 1735 — Jarvis/35 — was the son of John #2 and an uncle of Jarvis/58. Several facts make that likely.

First, we know from his will that John #2 and his second wife Elizabeth had a son named Jarvis.

Second, Jarvis/35 was born at the right time to have been a son of John #2. John #2 would have probably been 45 and 50 years old when Jarvis/35 was born.[22] That age for a new father is not uncommon, especially since Jarvis was a child of his second wife.

Third, the name Jarvis was extremely rare in the Willis line. The instances named at the beginning of this paper are almost the only record of that name in Dorchester and Caroline Counties during a 100-year period. We can safely conclude there were few men with that name.

Fourth, the 1790 federal census shows only one Jarvis Willis in the region, while the 1800 census shows none. That record agrees with the fact that Jarvis/35 lived in the region until at least 1798 when he gave a deposition in Caroline County. Furthermore, as will be shown later, Jarvis/58 had moved to North Carolina by 1790.

Finally, a 1799 estate administration in Caroline County for a Jarvis Willis names a Joshua Willis, Jr., as administrator. John #2 had a son named Joshua, who also had a son Joshua. Thus, the administration records indicate a possible connection to the Willis family that included John #2.[23]

We can reasonably surmise that the Jarvis who died in 1799 was also the Jarvis who was deposed in 1798 at age 63, that is, Jarvis/35. Furthermore, by process of elimination, there are no good candidates other than John #2 to be the father of Jarvis/35. The indirect evidence, therefore, indicates it is highly probable that Jarvis/35 the Jarvis Willis who was the son of John #2. Consequently, we can say with a large degree of assurance that Jarvis/35 was the grandson of John #1, the original immigrant, and that Jarvis/35 was an uncle of Jarvis/58.

The Military Service of Jarvis Willis – Jarvis/58 or Jarvis/35

One last issue to clarify is the military service of Jarvis Willis. Some researchers have confused the military records of these men. However, analyzing the military records in conjunction with census data clearly distinguish the two. To begin, other researchers indicate that both men served:

Dora Mitchell states that Jarvis Willis (son of John #2, i.e., Jarvis/35) served in the Revolutionary War.[24]

William Hunt states that Jarvis Willis (son of John #3, i.e., Jarvis/58) served in the 1^st Carolina [sic] Company … under Capt. Joseph Richardson, citing The History of Caroline County, p. 75.[25]

The History of Caroline County states the company in which Jarvis Willis served was one of seven formed by various counties in Maryland during the period July to September 1776. These units were designated as part of the “Flying Camp,” a militia regiment from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware tasked with operating from Maryland to New York. In that role, the Caroline County contingent fought in the Battle of Harlem Heights. The soldiers were then discharged according to their enlistment terms on 1 Dec 1776 after only a few months service.[26]

Background

A little background is helpful in understanding the various military records of Maryland. Initially, the state organized militia companies from each county. These were generally “Minute Men,” called to duty for defense of their local area. Subsequently, the states abandoned the Minute Man concept, opting for organized militia committed to larger operations and centralized control, i.e., the Flying Camp. While the Flying Camp was an improvement over previous organizations, the limited enlistment term of just a few months significantly hindered its effectiveness. Finally, the Continental Congress determined that the war effort required a standing army with longer-term enlistments. Thus, Congress directed each state to organize and field a certain number of battalions. Each county in a state supplied one or more companies depending on the size of the county. In addition to these actions, Maryland required men age 18 and older to sign an oath of fidelity. That endeavor not only induced a pledge of loyalty to the state, but also provided a list of potential future recruits for the war effort.

Appearance of Jarvis Willis(es)

The records generated by these activities provide information about many of the men in the region, including both Jarvis Willis/35 and Jarvis/58. The name Jarvis Willis first appears in Joseph Richardson’s company of militia assigned to the Flying Camp. Thomas Wynn Loockerman enrolled a Jarvis Willis in that company by at least 17 Jul 1776.[27]

Second, that name appears twice in companies of militia organized by 13 Aug 1777 in Caroline County as part of the 14^th Battalion. Company Captain Joseph Richardson enlisted one Jarvis Willis.[28] At the same time, Captain Joseph Douglass enlisted a second Jarvis Willis in a different company.[29]

Also, the name Jarvis Willis appears three times in the 1778 loyalty oaths of Caroline County. The evidence suggests those three occurrences represent two different men. Various officials in the county collected signatures of men who swore allegiance to the state. The Constable for each political district, or “Hundred,” then combined the names collected by these officials into a consolidated list and submitted it to the county court. Charles Dickinson, Justice of Caroline County, prepared one document indicating that a Jarvis Willis signed the oath with his mark (signifying he could not read or write).[30] On 28 Feb 1778, Thomas Wynn Loockerman, Constable of Great Choptank Hundred, a district in the southwest part of Caroline County, submitted to the court a consolidated list for the Hundred, incorporating names collected by others including Dickinson.

The name Jarvis Willis appears twice on Loockerman’s consolidated list, with one occurrence presumably coming from Dickinson, and the second occurrence indicating another Jarvis Willis. That second instance provides an additional piece of information. That listing indicates Jarvis Willis lived in Forke Hundred, a district neighboring Great Choptank to the east.[31] Thus, the record establishes two men named Jarvis Willis: one who lived in Choptank Hundred of Caroline County, and the other who lived in Forke Hundred. One researcher from Caroline County states that “Jarvis Willis (Forke)” was Jarvis Willis, son of John #2.[32] Meanwhile, the name Jarvis Willis does not appear on any loyalty oath list from Dorchester County. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Caroline County list contains the names of both Jarvis/35 and Jarvis/58.

In addition, the name Jarvis Willis appears on the Muster Rolls as a corporal in Williams’ battalion, having enlisted 17 Feb 1777 and serving until discharged 14 Feb 1780.[33] This unit was part of the Maryland Continental Line. Significantly, only one Jarvis Willis appears in that record. It is logical to conclude that this man was Jarvis/58 rather than Jarvis/35. While both men would have signed loyalty oaths and likely served in the local militia, when the state began recruiting for the Maryland Line it would have sought soldiers the age of Jarvis/58, not Jarvis/35.

Federal Pension Records

Finally, only one Jarvis Willis appears in the Federal pension rolls. He can be clearly identified as Jarvis/58 and as the corporal who served in the Maryland Continental Line. In that regard, the first pensions were only for veterans disabled during the war and unable to earn a living. Neither Jarvis/35 nor Jarvis/58 qualified under that criteria. Congress loosened the criteria in 1818, but by that time Jarvis/35 had died. However, Jarvis/58 was able to apply under the 1818 act, and is, therefore, the man who appears in the record. His pension application indicates the following:

Jarvis Willis (#S39128) of the Maryland Line applied for a pension 24 Nov 1823 in Franklin County, TN, at age 60. In 1837, he had moved to Alabama because his children had moved there (his P.O. address was Moulton, AL).[34]

There is an age discrepancy in this application. The 60-year age Jarvis gave at the time he applied is not correct. That age indicates he was born in 1763 not 1758. A five-year error in estimated age is not terribly significant. However, the error was perpetuated in the Pension Roll of 1835. That listing shows the following:

Jarvis Willis, Corporal, was entitled to $96.00 per year and had collected thus far $1,050.93. He served in the Maryland Continental Line. He was placed on the Pension Roll on 9 Jun 1824, and his pension commenced 25 Nov 1823. It states his age as 71.[35]

The information for this publication was gathered in 1834. Therefore, a stated age of 71 would again indicate Jarvis Willis was born in 1763 not 1758. Despite the age discrepancy, I am convinced that Jarvis/58 is the Jarvis Willis who appears in the Muster Rolls and the Pension Rolls.

Federal census data provide further proof that the man in the pension records is Jarvis/58. Those data confirm that a Jarvis Willis lived in the places mentioned in the pension records, and also that he was inconsistent in estimating his age. Researchers have identified him in the census at the following locations: Stokes County, NC, in 1790 and 1800; Franklin County, TN, in 1820; and Lawrence County, AL, in 1840 and 1850. The birth years indicated in those census data range from 1750 to 1765. Regardless of the birth year discrepancy, it is clear from the record that this pensioner was the Jarvis Willis born in 1758 who served in the Maryland Continental Line.

Unanswered Questions

A few questions not answered in this analysis are as follows:

Why did Jarvis/58 join a Caroline County militia company? I thought at age 17 he would still be living at home with John #3 in Dorchester County. That county, of course, fielded its own company of soldiers for the Flying Camp under Captain Thomas Burk[36] and for the subsequently organized Maryland Line. Why did he not join Captain Burk’s company?
Or, am I mistaken that John #3 and Jarvis/58 resided in Dorchester at this time? Even though John #3 held an interest in New Town until 1784, he certainly could have lived elsewhere, possibly in neighboring Caroline County.
In that regard, Jarvis/58 and his brother John (born 1762) were the only births John #3 and Nancy/Ann recorded at the Old Trinity Church in Dorchester Parish. Is this a sign that the couple had no additional children, or moved away after 1762, or just stopped going to church?
And what about Jarvis/58’s age as a corporal? During his years of service, 1777-1780, he would have been only 19 to 22 years old. I thought that more mature men held these noncommissioned officer ranks.
Finally, is there a third, younger, Jarvis Willis indicated in the 1790 Federal Census for Dorchester County, or does Jarvis/35 head that household? In 1790, Jarvis/35 may have been living in Caroline County with someone else or, maybe, the census taker missed him. After all, the deposition Jarvis/35 gave in 1798 indicates he a resident of Caroline County not Dorchester. If there is a third Jarvis Willis, how is he related to Jarvis/35 and Jarvis/58?

These questions will just have to wait.

[1] Jane Baldwin Cotton, Maryland Calendar of Wills, (Baltimore: Kohn and Pollock, 1904, reprinted Westminster, MD: Family Line Publications, 1988), XIII:58. Will of John Willis proved 23 Jan 1764. Dorchester County, MD, Will Book 33:27

[2] James A. McAllister, Jr., Abstracts from the Land Records of Dorchester County, Maryland, (Cambridge, MD, 1964), XIX:21. Report recorded 26 Nov 1768 stated Jarvis Willis was living on land called Richardson’s Choice owned by Peter Edmondson. Dorchester County, MD, Deed Book 23 Old 184.

[3] 1783 Maryland Supply Tax, http://www.mdssar.org/membership/marylandtaxlists, Dorchester County Upper District, p. 21, and Caroline County, p. 58. Neither is shown as owning land. Presumably, each lived on rented land, possibly rented from a relative.

[4] Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790, Maryland, (Washington, DC: GPO, 1908, reprinted Bountiful, UT: AGLL, Inc., 1977), 57.

[5] Irma Harper, Heirs and Legatees of Caroline County, (Westminster, MD: Family Line Publications, 1989), 20. Deposition of Jarvis Willis given at age 63 in 1798. Caroline County, MD, Deed Book B:105.

[6] Katherine H. Palmer, Birth Register of Old Trinity Church, Protestant Episcopal, Dorchester Parish, Church Creek, MD, 19.

[7] Cotton, Calendar of Wills, IV:23. Will of John Willis dated 18 Sep 1712, proved 24 Nov 1712, naming sons William and John (John #2) and daughters Grace and Eliza. Dorchester County, MD, Will Book 14:12.

[8] V.L. Skinner, Jr., Abstracts of the Inventories and Accounts of the Perogative Court (Westminster, MD, Family Line Publications, 1994), X:33. June 1714 inventory of John Willis of Dorchester County named Andrew as John’s son. Liber 36A:203.

[9] McAllister, Land Records, V:145. 1730 deposition of Andrew Willis, age 40. Dorchester County, MD, Deed Book 8 Old 404.

[10] Cotton, Calendar of Wills, VII:259. Will of Andrew Willis dated 24 May 1733, proved 23 August 1738. Dorchester County, MD, Will Book 21:918.

[11] Id. at 259.

[12] Id. at 80. Will of Richard Goostree dated 30 Apr 1728, proved 12 Nov 1728. Dorchester County, MD, Will Book 19:501.

[13] FHL Film No. 13086, Maryland Land Office Records of Warrants, Surveys and Patents, Book EI 2:164.

[14] Cotton, Calendar of Wills, VII:259.

[15] FHL Film No. 13102, Maryland Land Office Records of Warrants, Surveys and Patents, Book BC 14:350. On 23 Mar 1759, the Maryland Land Office granted a special warrant to Richard Willis of Dorchester County to resurvey New Town. The resurvey certified 39 original acres and 48 acres of vacant land for a total of 87 acres in Dorchester County on the west side of Blackwater River, east of Cattail Swamp and west of Willis’s plantation.

[16] Cotton, Calendar of Wills, XV:141. Will of Richard Willace dated 4 Jun 1772, proved 13 Oct 1773, devised a tract called Newtown to daughter Mary Meekins, but if she died without heirs, then to daughter Sarah. Dorchester County, MD, Will Book 39:692.

[17] McAllister, Land Records, XXVI:11. On 25 Sep 1782, Mary Meekins, widow of Benjamin Meekins, sold to Levin Hughes 87 acres on Blackwater River at Cattail Swamp, and all lands devised to her by her father Richard Willis. Dorchester County Deed Book 2 NH 88.

[18] Id. at 60. On 13 Oct 1784, John Willis sold to Levin Hughes land on west side of Blackwater River, east side of Cattail Swamp, called New Town, devised to John Willis by his father Andrew Willis. Dorchester County Deed Book 2 NH 546.

[19] Katherine H, Palmer, Birth Register of Old Trinity Church, Protestant Episcopal, Dorchester Parish, Church Creek, MD, 19.

[20] F. Edward Wright, Maryland Eastern Shore Vital Records, 1751-1775, (Silver Springs, MD: Family Line Publications, 1984). John Willis was born 21 Apr 1762, 34.

[21] Id. at 33-39.

[22] Cotton, Calendar of Wills, IV:23. John #2, named in the will of John #1, was the eldest son. He was, therefore, born before 1690, the birth year of his brother Andrew.

[23] Sandra Willis, Caroline County Original Inventories, Box 9450 (1792-1799), http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mdwillis/CCInventory.htm Inventory filed 26 Jun 1799 in the estate of Jarvis Willis mentions the following: Joshua Willis, Jr., administrator; next of kin, Ann Trice, John Carrol; creditor, Peter Willis. Note: Sandra Willis collected data directly from the Maryland Archives and posted it on her website prior to her death in 2007.

[24] Dora W. Mitchell, A History of the Preston Area in Lower Caroline County, Maryland, (Caroline County Historical Society, Inc., 2005), 123.

[25] William P. Hunt, “A Documentary History of One Branch of the Willis Family of the State of Maryland, c.1680-c.1805,” (New York: Copyrighted as an Unpublished Manuscript, 1975), 2.

[26] Caroline County School Teachers and Students, The History of Caroline County, (Baltimore: Regional Publishing Company, 1971), 70-75.

[27] Maryland Archives, Muster Rolls and Other Records of Service of Maryland Troops in the American Revolution, 1775-1783, (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1900, reprinted Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1972), XVIII:69.

[28] S. Eugene Clements and F. Edward Wright, Maryland Militia in the Revolutionary War, (Westminster, MD: Family Line Publications, 1987), 154.

[29] Id. at 156.

[30] Bettie Sterling Carothers, 1778 Census of Maryland, (Chesterfield, MD), 1.

[31] Id. at 6.

[32] Mitchell, History of Preston, 123.

[33] Maryland Muster Rolls, 254.

[34] Virgil D. White, Genealogical Abstracts of Revolutionary War Pension Files, Volume 3: N-Z, (Waynesboro, TN: The National Historical Publishing Company, 1992), 3876.

[35] United States Senate, Pension Roll of 1835, (Washington, DC: GPO, 1835, reprinted Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1992), III:543.

[36] Maryland Muster Rolls, 70.

Madison’s “Remonstrance”

Here is what is essentially a petition, written by James Madison in 1785, arguing that the state of Virginia should not pass a bill providing that the state pay the salary of Christian ministers. It is long and is not an easy read. It also has the names of the men who signed it, including my ancestor John Oakes of Orange County, VA, father of Isaac Oakes Sr. Perhaps your 18th-century Virginia ancestor signed it as well.

It’s also a good reminder of what one of the most prominent founding fathers thought about state involvement in religion. Enjoy.

**************

James Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and viceregents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,” all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.” Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthropy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.

Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.

Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed “that Christian forbearance, love and charity,” which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. “The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly.” But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.

James Gordon, Jr.

John Watkins

William Sebree

Thomas Ballard

Bartlett Bennett

George Newman

Richard Sebree

Joseph Wood

Benjamin Johnson

William Terrill

Elijah Morton

George Waugh

[illegible] Bramham

John Henderson

[David Gillespy?]

Thomas Barbour

Uriel Mallory

Zachary Herndon

Richard Gaines

Moses Perry

Belfield Cave

George Morton

Joseph Bell

Joseph Smith

John Lucas

John Sutton, Jr.

John Sutton, Sr.

Moses Lucas

Thomas Lucas

Thomas Edwards

Martin [Collier?]

William [Tomlinson?]

James Marr

Vivion Daniel

Madison Breedlove

Martin [Shearman?]

William Watts

Benjamin Quinn

Thomas Watts, Jr.

William Wright

Joseph Spencer

James Coleman

John Oakes

Ambrose Madison

Robert Dearing, Jr.

Lewis Willis

William [Procter?]

Patrick Cockran

Andrew Bourn, Jr.

Edward Thompson

William Twyman

Jonathan Davis

Prettyman Merry

Pierce Sanford

John Willis

James Sleet

John Samuel

John Kendal

Nicholas Porter, Jr.

William Buckner

William Moore

Reuben Finnel

Miller Bledsoe

Samuel Brockman

Abner Porter

Henry Barnett

Camp Porter

Abner Shropshere

Samuel Porter

James Shropshere

Thomas Coleman

John Leather

Lawrence Gillock

Daniel Thornton

Thomas Briant

John Terrill

Henry Chiles

William Porter

Joseph Porter

William Bledsoe

William Leake

William Oakes

[illegible] Newman

John Oakes

Thomas Oakes

John Barnett

[William Ford?]

John [Keally?]

Docketed, November 3, 1785