Simplicity is Relative

Simplicity is relative.

Speaking of "relative". Those of us who live in the world of genealogy research have often dealt with the struggles of explaining to interested parties (albeit a fleeting interest) at family reunions the degrees of relationship between them and some famous relative of yesteryear.


You've seen it. Come on now, be honest. For that brief moment in time your audience - Aunt Milly or cousin Billy or that brother-in-law who tried so hard to fit in - shows a heightened degree of interest in the story you've just imparted. Their eyes are wide open. Their smile extends from ear to ear. Inevitably, your story has once again led someone to ask that infamous question.

"How are we related to him again?"

So naturally you launch into the logical, generation by generation (impossible to miss) lineage that explains how this person - your audience - and the object of your story, cross paths within the same family tree.

The eyes are now glazed over. The smile has fallen ever so slightly into a sloping, sliding look of consternation. There might as well be a neon flashing light over their forehead shouting out loud "I don't get it! What did he just say? I don't want to say something and sound stupid."

And of course, you want to go ahead and say out loud, "I know. I just lost you, didn't I?".

And yet, you just explained that relationship as simply as possible. How else can you explain it?

Simplicity is relative.

With that in mind, I thought I'd share this story with you, just to put into context that genealogy researchers are not the only "industry" in which clarifying certain issues are next to impossible. The following excerpt is from a British Airways 1996 Memorandum. Enjoy.

Wes

"It appears some confusion exists over the new pilot role titles. This notice will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings.

"The titles Pilot-in-command, Commander, First Officer, Pilot Flying, Pilot-not-flying, P1, P2 and Co-Pilot will now cease to have any meaning, within the BA operations manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot, Non-Handling Pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot, Handling Non-Landing Pilot, and Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

"The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the take-off and landing, except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling Pilot for taxi, until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the Handling to the Landing Pilot at eighty knots.

"The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling) Pilot reads the checklist to the Handling Pilot until after the Before Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

"The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude" call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "go-around", in which case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, continues handling and the Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of "land" or "go-around", as appropriate.

"In view of the recent confusion over these rules, it was deemed necessary to restate them clearly."

Location of Robert Patterson's Sussex Co DE Land

Robert Patterson of Pemberton’s Branch of Broadkill River, Sussex Co DE

In trying to pinpoint the exact location of Robert Patterson’s 106 acre tract in Sussex Co DE, what details do we know? Let’s take a look at the deeds concerning this tract and see what we can glean from them.

G7-030. 7 November 1732 Matthew Ozbon Jr. of Sussex County, Delaware to Robert Patterson yeoman, of same for 50 pounds, 106 acres on the South side of Pemberton’s Branch, one of the branches that runs into the Broadkill Creek below the county road. Tract was taken up and surveyed for Matthew Ozbon by commissioners warrant granted to Robert Lodge, carpenter of Sussex by proprietors in Philadelphia on 8 December 1718. Robert Lodge sold to Matthew Ozbon dated 2nd day 10th month of 1719. Land was surveyed by Matthew Ozbon and found to contain 212 acres of which half is sold to Robert Patterson. Bounded by Pemberton’s Branch, by a small branch below the county road. Witnesses: Phil. Russel, Robt. Shankland. Acknowledged: 7 February 1733.

G7-032. 7 November 1732 Matthew Ozbon Jr. of Sussex County, Delaware to Thomas Black yeoman, of same for 15 pounds, 106 acres on the South side of Pemberton’s Branch, one of the branches that runs into the Broadkill Creek below the county road. Tract was taken up and surveyed for Matthew Ozbon by commissioners warrant granted to Robert Lodge, carpenter of Sussex by proprietors in Philadelphia on 8 December 1718. Robert Lodge sold to Matthew Ozbon dated 2nd day 10th month of 1719. Land was surveyed by Matthew Ozbon and found to contain 212 acres of which half is sold to Thomas Black. Bounded by Robert Patterson. Witnesses: Phil. Russel, Robt. Shankland. Acknowledged: 7 February 1733.

G7-287. 7 March 1738 Robert Patterson, yeoman of Sussex County and his wife, Sarah, spinster to John Isaac and Jonathan Dunton, late of Summerset County, now of Sussex for 40 pounds, 106 acres on the South side of Pembertons Branch below the County Road and was taken up and surveyed for Matthew Ozburn Jr. by commissioners warrant granted to Robert Lodge, carpenter of Sussex by proprietors in Philadelphia on 8 December 1718. Robert Lodge sold to Matthew Ozburn dated 2nd day 10th month of 1719. Land was surveyed by Matthew Ozburn and found to contain 212 acres of which half is sold to Robert Patterson. Land is bounded by Pembertons Branch below the road, and by the dividing line. Signed: Robart Patterson (his "R" mark), Sarah Patterson (her "S" mark). Witnesses: Jeremiah Claypoole, James Smith. Acknowledged: 6 March 1738

JONATHAN LEWIS m. Mary Brice, 9 Apr 1760. Mary was widow of James Brice and dau. of Thomas Black.

On 16 Feb 1763 Orphans' Court recorded the inventory of the estate of James Brice, filed by Jonathan Lewis who m. Mary admx. of James Brice. . . . Petition to sell land in Broad Kill Hundred.

On 31 Jan 1763 Jonathan Lewis and his wife Mary, Elias Mason and his wife Sarah for (pounds) 75 sold to John Clowes, Jr., merchant, 2 tracts on s. side of Pemberton's Branch, one of which was granted by virtue of a warrant to Robert Lodge and he assigned over his right thereof to Matthew Ozburn, Jr., for whom it was conveyed. The southern 1/2 part of the tract on 7 Nov 1732 became the right of Thomas Black and he d. intestate and the land became the right of Mary and Sarah, daus and only surviving heirs of afsd. Thomas Black, 106 a.; the other tract was granted to Agness Black, sister to afsd. Mary and Sarah by virtue of a warrant adj. afsd. tract and the said Agness d. without issue and the land became the right of the afsd. Mary and Sarah.

First of all, we can determine that the southern boundary line of Patterson’s tract was described as the “dividing line”. What did it divide? It doesn’t specifically say. However, we see from the legacy of Thomas Black’s half of the original 212 acre tract, that Black’s land was the “southern half” of the divided tract. This suggests the “dividing line” was the line that divided the 212 acre tract in half, with Patterson to the north and Black to the south.

The following map highlights the town of Milton, DE. We can see that the Broadkill River flows from west to east directly through the town of Milton and dumps into the Delaware River a few miles to the east. This map was captured using Yahoo maps. All of the following maps may be clicked on to see a larger version of it.

The following map was captured using Google maps in Terrain mode. This tool allows us to see the waterways better, as they flow east to the town of Milton. We can see that the larger body of water just to the west of Milton is called Wagamons Pond, fed by streams from the west and south. Pemberton Branch is the main branch coming from the west and is the branch we are most interested in.

The following map is the same but zoomed out further to see the names of the various branches better, such as Brittingham Branch to the west. We now know that’s the one that flows into Pemberton Branch in the previous map. Likewise, we can see that Ingrams Branch flows north into Diamond Pond which in turn feeds into Wagamons Pond from the south.

The following map is captured from Google Maps but in Traffic mode instead of Terrain mode. The benefit of this mode is that at certain zoom levels we can see tract boundaries. Now we know they are modern tract boundaries, but in some cases the boundaries are still similar to that of two or three centuries ago. So occasionally we can get lucky and see meaningful patterns. That’s where the program DeedMapper comes in. If you have previously mapped out the metes and bounds of a tract of land using DeedMapper, you will know the shape of the tract you are looking for. Before we go any further on that subject though, look at the following map and notice the numbered markings.

Patterson’s tract had five corners, three of which involved a branch. #1 denotes the “corner white oak Pemberton’s Branch”. Then going NE (N75E 167P) “down the sd branch on the several courses”. This means that going NE “down” the branch – down stream – in other words EAST. When a line follows the course of the branch it is not a straight line. However, the next corner it goes to if drawn in a straight line would be North 75 degrees East. That means face due north, then rotate to the right or east 75 degrees. The distance was 167 poles (one pole = 16.5 feet) or 2755.5 feet. That would be the right distance to corner #2 in the above map.

#2 denotes a “corner red oak sapling standing on the sd branch on the west side of the mouth of a small branch”. First notice it doesn’t say Pemberton Branch, but rather a small branch. The head of this small branch begins at #3 just below the road and flows north to #2 where its mouth is at Pemberton Branch. So on the west side of the mouth is where corner #2 is located. The next line then follows the small branch “up the sd branch on the several courses”. It goes “up” the branch – in other words, south. It goes to corner #3 which is located S12W 48P (792 feet).

#3 denotes a “corner white oak standing on the SE side of the sd branch below the road”. This corner is on the SE side of the small branch and “below” the road, or south of the road – Sand Hill Road, that is. Take a look at the following image of the tract from DeedMapper.

Remember the blue lines are the waterways and simply denote the straight path from corner #1 to #2 and from #2 to #3, but in fact the boundaries of the tract were not straight on those blue lines, but rather followed the course of the branches.

Notice the following map, same as previous Google map but zoomed closer. The angle of the modern tract below corner #3 runs SW at the same angle as the DeedMapper image. Same goes for the western boundary of the tract that no doubt followed the line that is now Sandhill Rd running SW from corner #1. Also notice the faint white line running SW from corner #3, separating the two darker sections. This signifies a separation of tracts. This matches how Patterson’s tract should have looked. Furthermore, Patterson’s line from corner #3 running SW to corner #4 was 110.5 Poles or 1823.25 feet. Corner #4 would have terminated near Gravel Hill Rd. Corner #5 would have been along the Sandhill Rd about the point where you see “Rd 319” on the following map.

Basically, it appears to me that the modern road (yellow road in previous map) called County Rd 248 or Gravel Hill Rd or Hwy 30 runs south crossing onto the northern line of Patterson’s old tract and leaves his tract at or around the SE corner of it.

So here is a blend of two mapping programs (Yahoo and Google) and multiple modes in each (Traffic and Terrain), plus the DeedMapper program working together to help pinpoint on modern maps the specific location of a tract of land from almost 300 years ago.

Amazing! I love technology.

WP

Productive Diversions

Sometimes I get so deep in research on a particular topic that the end result is I'm so deep I can't see much. It's like the old saying, "You can't see the forest for the trees." Apparently that applies to family trees as well.

I've learned over the years I have to force myself to switch gears and go work on a different tangent, some other avenue of research. It may be about the same person, but a different part of his life or at a different location.

This is precisely what I've done the last couple of days regarding my ancestor Robert Patterson (d. 1775 SC). Much time and effort has been spent of late on his years on Linville Creek in VA. A lot of progress has been made and I'm getting closer to pinpointing exactly where he lived. But it's time for a break.

So I've switched over to his time prior to that - in Sussex Co DE. In 1732 Robert Patterson bought 106 acres on Pemberton's Branch (of Broadkill River). Past research has allowed me to get fairly close to where this was, but like Linville Creek VA of late, the road blocks appeared. So the last couple of days I've picked that up again as a diversion, to clear my mind of VA and focus on something new.

SUCCESS!

I am in the process of documenting my findings and will publish them in my next post. But I can say with great confidence that I have identified the exact location of Patterson's 106 acre tract in DE. He sold it in 1738 when they were preparing to move to VA. Between his buying and selling deeds, plus future dispositions of the land, coupled with the advancements of modern mapping tools on Yahoo and Google, I have located the spot where it stood. And don't forget the best tool of all - DeedMapper. With the latter program I know the shape of the tract which is critical to finding it on modern maps.

So why couldn't I find it before? Who knows? But this is an example of a PRODUCTIVE DIVERSION. You'd be surprised at how often this works for me.

WP

My Favorite Genealogy Books and Other Recommended Reads

Ground-breaking. Informative. Essential.

These words come to mind when I considering certain books in my office. Not just any books, mind you. Books that enlarged the world that is genealogy for me. The world I spend many waking hours speculating on my ancestors, imagining their conditions, their ambitions, their experiences. These books helped shape reality in regards to my ancestors. They have closed the gap between imagination and truth.

18th century America - the frontier. Several books reside on my shelf that cover various aspects of frontier migrations of the 1700's, such as:

Settlers by the Long Grey Trail: A Contribution to the History and Genealogy of Colonial Families of Rockingham County, Virginia (by J. Houston Harrison) [Amazon]

Carolina Cradle: Settlement of the Northwest Carolina Frontier, 1747-1762 (by Robert W. Ramsey) [Amazon]

Makin' a List, Checkin' It Twice

No. This is not a Christmas story. But the carole is right, you know.

Did you ever have that teacher who kept insisting you show your work? Did you ever have points counted off your math test because you didn't show how you obtained your answers? Even though you got the correct answer? How many times were you told to check and re-check your work to make sure you didn't make a mistake? Even worse, how many times did you re-check your work and find a mistake you made? Yeah, me too.

I call it "The Discipline of Documentation".

It's not just some dumb thing teachers and parents make kids do as punishment. There's value in showing your work. There are benefits to double checking your conclusions, your plans, your grocery lists, your checkbook register.


It's life. We know it's true. I would suggest it's just as true in the world of genealogy research. But not just for reasons you might assume. Yes, there are mistakes you need to catch. But more importantly, I have found on many occasions that when I go through the discipline of documenting my work, I learn something new that I wouldn't have seen otherwise.

It's like the football player who goes through the discipline of practice. Over and over and over. He begins to see patterns in the way his opponent is defending him. At that moment he is then able to see ways he can beat his opponent. Strategies unfold that would not have been realized without going through the discipline of practice. Repetition. Streamlining. Efficiency.

As I have recently been rebuilding the Timeline of Recorded Events for Robert Patterson (my 6-greats-grandfather), it has taken me through this discipline of documentation once again. It can be very tedious. It can be time-consuming. But it's worth it.

Here are some benefits I have found in taking the time to show your work, document your sources, and double-and-triple-checking your information:

1. Erroneous Inclusions: I built my initial list on paper. Hand-written. There were 55 events for which I had vague references scribbled in my notebook. As you can imagine, with that many items on the list they can run together. As I began to enter them into a Word document, the repetitive process began to take place. I began to get them in order. I even found one item that was for the wrong Robert Patterson (Jr. instead of Sr.). This process of double checking my work and showing my sources helped me find one record I should not have included.
    
2. Duplications: And yes, I did accidentally include one event twice by mistake. Again, not a difficult mistake to make, and certainly one that should be caught before presenting your work.
    
3. Omissions: Here's the fun one. I had my list built. I got it transferred from paper to the electronic version. I then went through my source documents to double check my documentation (book number, page number, record type - was it a Land Entry or a Survey or a Land Grant or a Deed, etc.). The process of going through the source files again brought three more records to my attention that I had missed previously. Discipline pays off.
    
4. Clarifications: One court case Robert Patterson was involved in was listed as "April and June 1746". Initially I put this down as two events. One for April and one for June. Makes sense, right? It did to me as this case continued on for almost a year. But when I checked the source information, I learned that this particular event was just one event. It was recorded in a block of court minutes that was actually one recording for both sessions - April and June 1746. In other words, there weren't two sets of minutes recorded, one for each session. There was just one set of minutes recorded for both sessions. So this court case was heard one time, in either April or June 1746, but not both.
    
5. Presentation Issues: It's important to present your work in a professional manner. If it's worth presenting, do it right. If your work is sloppy no one will read past the first paragraph. Correct spelling is necessary. Good grammar is important. Consistent formatting is pleasing to the eye and will not distract the reader from the message of what's being presented.

You can probably think of other benefits that I have not listed here. If you think of any, please leave a comment below.

Yes, it takes work. Yes, it can be tedious and time-consuming. But it's worth it. You find more nuggets in the process of just doing it right. It makes your work trustworthy. People will share more information with you because they see your professionalism. But more importantly, you'll find great satisfaction in producing a piece of work that will stand the test of time.

Have you made your list? Did you check it twice? Can I look at your work and see how you came to your conclusions?

WP

A Lesson in Genealogy

So often we take for granted the need to carefully document an event we've researched in our never-ending quest for genealogical omniscience. For example, my 6-greats-grandpa (Robert Patterson) obtained a Virginia Land Patent (grant) in 1764 for 265 acres on Linville Creek near Harrisonburg.

Big deal. Get a copy of the 1764 patent and you're good to go.

Well, not so fast.

You see, there were at least three recorded events pertaining to this tract. In 1740 there was the Land Entry. Patterson recorded the tract as 230 acres in the Orange County VA Land Entry book.

And then there's the survey which was done and recorded in the Augusta Co VA book of surveys. The survey was for 265 acres instead of 230.

Then there was the Land Patent, issued and recorded in 1764, also for 265 acres.

Here's the lesson. If I were doing my research and all I had found was the 1740 Orange Co Land Entry, I would think Patterson owned 230 acres on Linville Creek.

If all I had found was the Augusta Co Survey, I would think Patterson owned 265 acres on Linville Creek. But I would have also been led astray by the survey on a couple other matters. Here's the 1753 survey (15 Dec 1753, Augusta Co VA, 1-070b):

(Image courtesy Harald Reksten)

The survey is not oriented to North, by the way. You need to rotate the tract 60 degrees clockwise (North 60 degrees East) to get an accurate rendering.

The bottom right corner says "Red Oak near Hits Line". Joist Hite was a prominent land holder in the Shenandoah Valley. He received thousands of acres patented to him and some business partners. Many surveys would indicate a "joining to" Hite's line or Hite's corner, etc. Often, it was spelled "Hit" or "Hits". Problem is, all indications have always said this Patterson tract was near Abraham Hill's tract, such as "near Hill" or "near Hils Line". So this is misleading to some degree. Is it Hill or Hite?

Another problem with the survey is that on two of the seven lines, there is an error in the direction recorded in the survey book. Without the 1764 patent, you wouldn't get the correction needed. Two of the directional descriptions in this survey says "W" instead of "E", or vice-versa. All of the "N" and "S" beginning directions are correct, it's the degrees direction that is off two times. In other words, "N60E244" would indicate North 60 degrees East 244 Poles. This means that from this point, face due north, then turn 60 degrees to the east or clockwise, then go 244 poles to the next point. Each "Pole" is 16.5 feet by the way.

Here's the 1764 survey Land Patent (27 June 1764, Augusta Co VA, 35-516):

(Image courtesy Doris Ross Johnston)

There are two pages here. On the first page, on the fifth line from the bottom of that page, in the middle of that line, you can clearly see "Hills Line". All seven directional descriptions for the lines are accurate here as well.

Our lesson in genealogy with this example is that no one record by itself is sufficient to give us a full picture about Robert Patterson's involvment with this land and the scope of this land. The patent gives us the most accurate description of the land - its scope - but by itself, you'd think Patterson just acquired it in 1764. If you found the survey, you might then realize that he had it surveyed in 1753, so perhaps he was already living there by that time.

In reality, he entered the land in the record books in 1740. In fact, he entered it twice, the first time in 1739, and then entered again in 1740. We also know that he sold his DE land in 1738, and that many of his relatives and neighbors from DE had moved to the Linville Creek area in 1737 and 1738.

The point? You need to pull all associated records to get the big picture. You need all associated records to clear up any scribal errors by the county officials, of which there were many.

It's a tough lesson to learn sometimes, but it's a lesson that comes with benefits. Keep that in mind.

WP