|
a.
|
Note: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=63281528 Find A Grave Memorial# 63281528 http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=brendabarnett&id=I00337 by Brenda Barnett Jacob must have been unmarried in on July 24, 1748. On that date he and Henry signed a deed for land, and Henry's wife, Anne, signed the deed, but Jacob signed alone, indicating that he was unmarried. He must have been married in the same year, however, for his eldest son, Peter, was born November 1, 1749 Fauquier Co Va Deeds pg pg 152 pgs 364-365 / June 1773 Sale bet Charles Rector and Elizabeth his wife of LEEDS PARISH and BENJ RECTOR L71.13 s 128 acres on the branches of GOOSE CREEK CORNER to HENRY RECTOR SR part of tract given to CHARLES RECTOR by the will of JOHN RECTOR dec'd signed Charles Rector Elizabeth Rector recorded 28 June 1773 ack by grantors pg 123 pgs 306-309 Sale 1 Oct 1771 bet JOHN RECTOR & CATHERINE his wife and HENRY RECTOR SR L60 150 acres being part of tract pur by Rector of Burgess Ball 1770 corner to said JOHN RECTOR corner to GEORGE GLASCOCK to JOHN ANDERSON'S LINE to Chattin's line signed, wit recorded 28 Oct 1771 ackk by grantors Abstracts of Fauquier co Virginia Wills, Inventories and Accounts 1759-1800 by John K Gott copyright 1976, pg 298 pg 182-184 8 January 1799 wife not mentioned all property 150 acres at her decease to be divided in the following manner son ELIJAH DAU CATY after death of wife, property to be sold and divided - 100 acres son SPENCER lived on leave to his children EDWARD, JOHN, HENRY, MARY ANN AND PENCEY no executors named witnesses: JOSEPH LLOYD, HEZEKIAH GLASSCOCK, WILLIAM FINCH proven 24 June 1799 NANCY RECTOR made oath and with GEORGE GLASCOCK, JOSEPH JEFFRIES AND ELI RECTOR her securities Fauquier Co Virginia HENRY RECTOR ADMINISTRATORS ACCOUNT 22 Oct 1804 The Estate of HENRY RECTOR DEC'D In account with GEORGE GLAFSCOCK, Administrator with the will annexed To commifsia a L600.4.7 of the amount of money collected for the estate at 5 pcc? 30.00 to cash paid ELIJAH RECTOR his specific legacy & rec'd 35.00 to cash paid CATHERINE RECTOR her specific legay & rec'd 12.00 To clerks fee paid $5.8 To ELIJAH RECTOR for keeping the stock 5.25 to WILLIAM TURLEY for crying the sale 5.0 to copy of the will .52 ________ 15.84...... 4.15 By sale of the movable property amounting to L 100.5.8 By amount of land sold to HEZEKIAH GLAFSCOCK 450.?.? By cash collected on debts due the estate 48.18.1 By interest rec'd on the debts collected 7.0.10 __________ L 600.4.7 MOSES RECTOR paid him in full for his portion of the estate 57.36 ELIJAH RECTOR same same AGNES GLAFSCOCK same same JACOB FAUBEN who married DINAH same same JEFE HITT who married NANNY WILLIAM BARTLETT who married SALLY JOHN BUCHANAN who married WINNY CATHERINE RECTOR (note: who's husband was already dead) GEORGE GLASSCOCK to my own part of the estate in right of my wife HANNAH remaining in the hands of the Administrator owing to an error in the division of the estate owing the heiirs 3.18.1 _____ L 600.4.7 In obedience to the worshipful court of FAUQUIER county we have examined the account as above and find it truly and truely stated. In witness whereof our hands this 20 of Octr 1804 WILLIAM RECTOR JOSEPH JEFFERIES WILLIAM TURLEY Virginia ancestors and Adventurers, Vols 1-3 by Charles Hughes Hamlin pg 33 Fauquier Co Virginia Deed book 17, pg 246 Indenture dated 2 May 1808 in which JACOB FAUBIN and DIANA, his wife, late DIANA RECTOR, of COCKE CO, STATE OF TENNESSEE and LATE OF FAUQUIER CO VIRGINIA one one part sell to GEORGE GLASCOCK of FAUQUIER CO of the other part witnessed that whereas HENRY RECTOR, DECEASED of FAUQUIER COUNTY, in and by his last will dated 8 Jan 1799, devised his estate to his THEN WIFE, NANCY, for her life, and then to be equally divided among his representatives, and where as after the dath of the said NANCEY, Administration of said estate was granted to the said GEORGE GLASCOCK, who sold a tract of land containing 150 acres for 450 pds Virginia money, and whereas JACOB FAUBIN and DIANA, his wife, being heirs and devisees aforesaid and having rec'd their proportionable share of said money, do sell their part and claim, etc witnesses: W. GARRETT EZEKIEL CAMPBELL COLEMAN SMITH Certified by the JUSTICES OF COCKE COUNTY, TENNESSEE said date as above RECORDED FAUQUIER CO VIRGINIA 26 Sept 1808 http://family.insytz.org/54.htm Recognized as a patriot for furnishing beef to the Revolutionary Soldiers. SOURCE: Larry King, Rector Records, 1986. p3. Library of Congress No. CS71.R3 1986. "2-2 HENRY RECTOR s/o 1-1, B abt 1715/1720 Germanna, VA, D1799 Fauquier Co., VA. His wife is thought to be Anne Spencer, B1729, D1803; both bur near Rectortown, VA. C 3-1; 3-10; 3-1 1; 3-12; 3-13; 3-14; 3-15; 3-16; 3-17; 3-18; 3-19 and Sally B1755, M1778 William Bartlett. The land records of Prince William and Fauquier Cos., VA contain many entries pertaining to subject Henry Rector. The account of his estate, dated 20Oct1804 in Fauquier Co., shows his assets went to his living children and grandchildren." Sons of the American Revolution, patriotic service. SERV: PS VA SAR #143647 TX #07522 SAR FILE REF: #18058 2NZ.GED 24 Jun 1999. Ancestor of Ann Nell Baughman, 17426 Kansas Avenue, Bonner Springs, KS 66012. 913-724-2470. Virginia Rent Rolls Fauquier County Henry Rector 1770 1777 REF: FAUBION AND ALLIED FAMILIES Ref: Genforum Rector Family - LISTS COMPLETE GENEALOGY http://www.genforum.com/rector/messages/601.html Ref: By John Blankenbaker - Notes Germanna History Notes Nr. 643: The early history of the Rector family in America is a lesson for family genealogists. The family had been specified through the third generation and, though there were points which for which the evidence was weak, most everyone was in agreement. If probabilities had been assigned to the truth of some of the facts in the story, most of the facts would have received a rating of 95% or more. Usually, this is creditable rating to a statistician. But then, John Gott, John Alcock, and Barbara Vines Little contributed their findings to the history and the world was turned upside down. Two of the finds involved loose papers (the findings of the Johns), and the third find was the act of digging out records that were known and reinterpreting them (the mark of the true professional, which Barbara is). Some other contributors will be mentioned along the way. How do loose papers come about? One way is that a court case is never resolved, and never ordered to be recorded in the books. The case goes on and on without ever coming to a head. Papers pertaining to it are held to one side, and finally it is clear that no further action will be occurring. Then the papers are assigned to a box of incomplete cases. As to what eventually happens to these is arbitrary. Some are burned to heat the office. Maybe they continue to gather dust. Others are organized, indexed, and made available for research. John Gott found a case among the loose papers in Fauquier County, Virginia, which went on from 1774 to 1791. It was Robinson (sometimes written as Robertson or Roberson) versus Rector Executors. Within the body of the suit, it becomes clear that it was a suit by the children of a women against her and another man, a half-sibling of the plaintiffs. The suit started when George the Third was the head of judicial system and the last action occurred when the Virginia Commonwealth was the head. The principal plaintiff was David Roberson (Robinson), though at one point it appears he was joined by his siblings, Ann, who had married Henry Rector; Joseph Roberson; and William Howell, who had married another sister of David. William Robertson had married Catherine Taylor and they had five children, the eldest of which was David. The father, William Roberson, died on or about the _____ day of _____ seventeen hundred and _______, leaving a personal estate of stock, furniture, tools, utensils, and crops of corn and tobacco. Catherine, William's wife, took possession of these items, and before long married John Rector. David claimed that John Rector intermingled the assets of his father, William Roberson, with his own assets, without ever making an account of the assets of William Roberson. David claimed to be the heir at law to his father's estate. While he was a minor, he worked for John Rector "like a slave and had no education", but when he reached his full age, he applied to John Rector for his share of his father's estate. He was told by John Rector, with perhaps the help of his wife, Catherine, who was David's mother, that William Roberson's estate had been blended and intermixed with the estate of John Rector and it was impossible to distinguish them. David's sister, Ann, married Henry Rector, and his sister Francis married William Howard. They were invited to join with David's brothers, Joseph and William Robertson, in the suit as plaintiffs, but they refused to join. David presumed that they had received some small satisfaction already. Now it appeared to David that they had combined with Catherine and Henry Rector, who are the executors of the estate and the defendants in the case, to defeat and defraud David out of his share of his father's estate. Nr. 644: The last note might have been more meaningful with a cast of the players, especially with those two Henrys who played leading roles. The immigrant was Hans Jacob Richter who came in 1714, with his wife Elizabeth Fischbach and very young son John. Three more sons were born in Virginia, Harmon, Henry, and Jacob. This Henry is the one who married Anne Robinson. In the third generation, John Rector married Anna Catherina Fishback. Anna Catherina died, and John, as we see from the lawsuit, married Catherine (Taylor) Robinson, who was the mother of five children, including the Anne just mentioned. Catherine was the widow of William Robinson. Altogether, John Rector was the father of nine children, and their sequence is usually given as: John, Henry, Daniel, Jacob, Charles, Catherine, Elizabeth, Benjamin, and Frederick. (The eldest son, John, is considered to be a son of Anna Catherine Fishback.) Since Charles was Catherine Taylor Robinson Rector's father's name, Charles and the younger children are usually considered to be her children. But what about Henry, Daniel, and Jacob who come between John and Charles in the sequence above? They are less certain and the court case sheds a little light, but not much. If we assume that Catherine was the mother of five Robinson children, and then eight Rector children, she would be the mother of thirteen children. This is definitely a possibility. We will return later to consider when Catherine might have married John Rector. The Henry who married Anne Robinson was the brother of John Rector and the son of Hans Jacob, the immigrant. (Editors Note: This would mean that Henry married his brother's step-daughter.) The Henry who was an executor was probably the son of John Rector. If Catherine had any influence with John Rector, she would probably have liked to have one of her children serving with her in administering the estate. But then, John Rector may have included someone from his first family to balance things out. The lawsuit was initiated in 1774, and the eldest son John (of John) was certainly experienced in the business world and assumed responsibilities readily. Why was he not chosen as an executor? Was he not on the best of terms with his stepmother? Nr. 648: In talking about the John Rector family, there has been some confusion because there were two Catharines and two Henrys. In this note, the confusion will be compounded because there were more John Rectors. All of our discussion has centered on the family of Hans Jacob Richter, the 1714 immigrant and his children. He did have a son John, and this John has been deeply involved in the recent discussions. Today we introduce John Rector who came in 1734. He arrived at Philadelphia with nineteen other Nassau-Siegen colonists, on 23 Sep 1734, on the ship Hope. This John did not live long in Virginia, as he died in 1742. This fact is used to distinguish him from other John Rectors. John Rector (d. 1742) was married by 1736, and B. C. Holtzclaw thought that he was married to a daughter of John and Mary Spilman of the 1714 group. The records provide ample evidence that John (d. 1742) and his wife had two sons, John, Jr., and Nathaniel. Nathaniel was the younger of the two; he married Anne and died sometime before 20 February 1805, when his estate was sold. Until a few years ago, when Barbara Vines Little researched the question, John, Jr., was confused with another John Rector. She pointed out that the records generated by John Rector would have been difficult for one person to generate. She traced a path of land purchases and sales that led south for John Rector and another path which led north. It would have been very unlikely that one individual would have been involved in these land deals which were not in the same region. One John Rector purchased and sold land in Fauquier County, then in Culpeper County, and then appears in North Carolina. He had a son, Benjamin, who said, in his Rev. War pension application, that he had originally been of Culpeper County, and that he had served as a substitute for his father, John Rector, in a North Carolina regiment. Barbara Vines Little made a convincing case that this John Rector was the son of John Rector (d. 1742). Meanwhile, there was another John Rector who was appearing in the records of Fauquier County, at this same time as the North Carolina John. They must have different individuals, though in the past they had been treated as one person. Holtzclaw, for example, said that the Fauquier John had a second wife, Mary, and left a will in 1815, and had nine children. Holtzclaw also said that this Fauquier John and the North Carolina John were the same individuals. The work of Little made it clear that this could not be the case. With this challenge, John Alcock examined the records again (using his own book, "Fauquier Families, 1759-1799") and found the second John who had been overlooked. The lesson for us is that we must examine the records outside of the action arena to find the anomalies. John (d. 1742) came to Fauquier Co. in 1734 and left a son, John, Jr. Because Little went outside of Fauquier Co. and looked at the records in other areas, she was able to prove there were two John Rectors whereas previously there had been thought to be only one. Coming up, who was the second John Rector? Nr. 649: After Barbara Vines Little showed that it was necessary to find a slot for another John Rector, John Alcock reexamined his research. He summarized the problem as follows (with paraphrasing): John Rector, son of the 1734 immigrant, John Rector who died in 1742, had married Rebecca and moved to Culpeper Co. in 1761. Later they moved to North Carolina. Previous researchers had thought that this John, married to Rebecca, had remained in Fauquier County, where Rebecca had died and he had remarried a Mary. The evidence for this was that John and Mary had sold land in Fauquier Co. in 1795, and John died in 1815. Now it was evident that the Fauquier John, with wife Mary, was not the son of the 1734 immigrant. Fauquier John needed parents. John Alcock found evidence that this John Rector was the son of Harman Rector, Sr., the son of the 1714 immigrant, Hans Jacob Richter. This was not an easy thing to do. Harman, Sr., in his will, had not named more than one of his sons, a Harman, Jr., but did refer to three sons. One problem was that too many names had been put forward as sons of Harman, Sr. B.C. Holtzclaw even distorted a straightforward reading of the will, and said that there were three sons besides Harman, Jr. And none of the candidates included a John. John Alcock's evidence was the tithe lists and the land records. He found that a 1759 tithe list for Fauquier contained Harman Rictor with three other tithes, John Rictor, Harman Rictor (Jr.), and a slave. Among the lists which remain, John Rector is present down to 1810. He was joined by his son in 1799 and they were the only Rectors in that part of Fauquier Co. He is identified once as from Germantown, at some distance from the land which John and Rebecca sold. This John Rector was probably born about 1740, since his first appearance in the tithe list was in 1759, under his father Harman, Sr., and above his brother Harman, Jr. He first purchased land in 1765 which was probably about the time of his marriage. He had six sons and three daughters and it can't be told whether Mary was their mother, since she did not appear until land sales were made in 1795 and 1796. This entire family had previously been assigned to John Rector who came in 1734 and died in 1742, but they belong instead among the descendants of the 1714 Hans Jacob Richter. Prior to finding that Harman, Sr., had a son John, he (Harman, Sr.) had been assigned three, four, or even five sons not including John. Harman, Sr.'s will made it clear that he had one son by the name of Harman. John Alcock found another son, John. And by a strict reading of the will there were only three sons. Some of the previous assignments needed to be kicked out of the nest and this leads to another research problem and solution. [Tomorrow is another day of showing visitors around the Hans Herr House. I do not know now whether there will be a note for the day.] Nr. 1088: Recent inquiries about the Richter family, usually known in the U.S. as Rector, have been answered partially. The name Richter in Germany occurs quite often, so it should not be assumed that all Richters and Rectors in the U.S. are related. (The Richter scale for earthquake measurement was invented by a Richter, who I believe was at the California Institute of Technology.) The Richter history is rich in knowledge. The house in which Johann Jacob Richter lived in Germany (at Trupbach) stood until about fifty years ago, when it was destroyed during World War II. Pictures of it exist, and one is displayed on the German Photo Page for Trupbach. The actual site of the home is known, and even the door threshold still exists. An implement shed for a farmer now stands on the site. I thought that we might go back to Trupbach as of 1707. There were 25 homes in the village then, and the occupant of each is known. Incidentally, each house had a name and I believe that the names have continued down to the present. The surnames of the inhabitants of the village in 1707 were Jung (Young), Zimmerman, Becker, Heide, Otterbach, Heite, Richter, Schneider, Goebel, Becker, Schneider, Otterbach, Otterbach, Wisse, Fischbach, Jung, Hugo, Fischbach, Lück, and Schneider. One house had no named occupants. One of the houses is claimed to have been built in 1563, but the rest were built in the 1600’s. Two of these 25 houses are no longer standing, and one was rebuilt in 1948. Buildings don't die in Germany; they are just born again. The locations of the 25 houses are known. Usually the ownership can be traced down to the present. Several farmers live in the heart of the village even today. In 1707, each house was the home of a farmer, even if he had another means of earning a living. Almost universally, the houses were built on three levels. The first level was the stable, or barn, for the animals which always included at least one cow, usually pigs, and, commonly, sheep. The number of horses was very limited and the basic draft animal was a cow (ox). Above the ground floor used for the animals were the quarters in which the family lived. Then, above this was the hay mow (pronounced as in "now", not as in "no"). The hay mow was excellent insulation for the humans and the animals and people were mutually supportive. This arrangement, not unusual in Germany, was particularly important in Trupbach, because iron processing was done in the region and it consumed prodigious amounts of wood for charcoal. For every pound of iron that was smelted, it took about fifty pounds of wood to make the charcoal. Wood for heating a house was scarce. Essentially, what was available were the twigs and small branches that were left after heavier wood was taken for charcoal. So it was very important to conserve the heat in the homes. Many of the homes were large enough that, without the animals, they would be too large today. So many have been converted to duplexes and split in the middle to make two homes. I am quoting here from a recent article in Beyond Germanna. It in turn was based on the book, "Trupbach 1389 1989, Ortgeschichte in Texten und Bildern". The book was published in German by individuals in Trupbach who were interested in its history.(06 Feb 01) Nr. 1090: It is often said that the First Germanna Colonies consisted of miners. In this note, I will examine the occupations of people living in Trupbach, from where three of the First Colony families came (the Rectors, the Fishbacks, and the Utterbacks). The time of our looking is the Eighteenth Century. The data comes from the church records, where the occupation of the father is often mentioned in connection with marriages, baptisms, and funerals. Trupbach itself had no church, only a Chapel, and the people went into Siegen, a few miles distant. In the 1600's, one miner is mentioned. In the 1700's, two are mentioned (in 1780 and 1785). In the 1800's, twenty names are mentioned as miners, but this was a century after the Germanna people left. Trupbach did sit on some good underground ore beds, but until the steam engine came along, it was impractical to open those mines. It took too much power to pump out the water which seeped in, and to lift the ore and burden. So when our people left, Trupbach was not known as a mining town because the steam engine was not a practical device yet. The occupation employing the most people was carpentry. Seven people, during the 1700's, gave this as their occupation. Included in this number were the two Fischbach sons, who came to Virginia. Their father, who was also listed a carpenter, was mentioned in 1683. Other carpenters in the village were Jost Schneider (1637), Veltin Schneider (1678), Johannes Otterbach (1704), Henrich Cursch (1736), Jacob Heide (17??), and Ludwig Jung (1806). All of these people lived in the same house, and where there is a name change, the man had married a daughter of the previous generation. There was one wheelwright, one wood turner (1791), and three forge workers. Henrich Schneider was a forge worker in 1743, Philipp Schuss in 1786, and Michael Heide in 1786. A respectable water course flows by Trupbach, which furnished power for forge(s). The forge seems to be distinct from the blacksmith shop. No one is listed as a blacksmith in the 1700's. Though it is hard to visualize a market large enough for the products, four generations of the Richters were clockmakers. They started with Christoffel in 1666, on to Johannes in 1704, then Herman in 1738, and the latter's son-in-law, Henrich Hoffman in 1773. One concludes that the basic occupation of the inhabitants was farming. Farming kept body and soul together as we say. On the side, a few of the men are listed as having other occupations, but, after the carpenters and the clockmakers are removed, little remains. In the next century, the Nineteenth, several other occupations are listed. Certainly, from the occupations given here about the Trupbach residents, one would not conclude that the First Colony consisted of miners. I have asked if anyone could furnish proof that any member of the First Colony was a miner, or, in general, a mine worker, or a smelter of iron. No one has come forward with the evidence. Lt. Gov. Spotswood did write once in a letter that they were "generally miners". This could mean many things, but perhaps nothing more than that they had seen some mining done.(08 Feb 01) Nr. 1091: The overall picture of Trupbach, the home of the Richters, Otterbachs, and Fischbachs in the Germanna Colonies, is a small village that was a dependency of a larger city, in this case, Siegen. In 1713, it had 25 homes, up slightly from the century before. It still did not grow until the nineteenth century, when mining became important. However, even in the early twentieth century it retained the flavor of a smaller agricultural village. Today, it is much larger, with hundreds of homes at the core of the older village and in the surrounding area. In 1713, it was definitely an agricultural village. The design of the older homes has been maintained, and they show the agricultural flavor. Nearly all of the 1713 homes had an interest in the "Hauberg" cooperative which grew wood, bark, and grain, and was used for some pasture. These Haubergs had been established centuries earlier in an effort to supply the region with bark for tanning, large wood for charcoal, and small wood for heat. The photographs that exist from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, even up to 1950, show that a major element in the labor force was made up of females of all ages. They harvested grain and hay, and stripped the trees in the Hauberg of their bark. It was not a division of labor. More exactly, both sexes worked at everything. (The practice continues until today. The men ride the tractors and mow hay, and the women use the scythes to cut the edges and the corners missed by the mower.) Some of the men were trained in other activities. John Jacob Rector was a metal worker. His family had been clockmakers for a few generations. The Fishbacks seem to be carpenters. John Huffman, who came from Eisern, seemed to be in training as a carpenter. His brother, Henry, who came later, apparently was a master carpenter. The process of becoming a master in any of these trades was extensive and took many years. Depending upon the trade, it might take ten or more years of training before a person could say he was a master of the trade, and able to go into business on his own. How did one become a "Master" of anything? The process was controlled by the guilds, one for each trade. They admitted individuals into training, under the immediate supervision of a Master in the guild. This lowest level was the Apprentice, and the training might start as early as the age of ten years. The responsibilities at this age were minor, but, as the Apprentice was growing, the Master was judging whether the boy had any potential. Eventually, if the Apprentice did show an aptitude for the work, he would advance to the level of Journeyman. Then he would work with other Masters and broaden his knowledge and skills. Eventually, when he was in his late twenties, he would pass an examination and be called a Master. Johann Jacob Richter was a member of the Guild of Steelsmiths and Toolmakers of the Freudenberg District, having been admitted at the age of 37 years. Just the previous year, he had married Elisabeth Fischbach. This was typical, as people in training were not allowed to marry. Philip Fischbach was apparently a carpenter. I will presume he was a Master also, as he was said to be a carpenter in the church records, and one was not entitled to the title until the level of Master had been reached. The two sons of Philip seemed to have been in training as carpenters, but they were not old enough to have reached the level of Master.(09 Feb 01) Nr. 1092: The recent notes, which generally had Trupbach as their central theme, were originally prompted by the request of a reader for more information about the Rectors. Fortunately, there is quite a bit that is known. Not only does this add to the Rector history, it adds to the history of the First Colony, and to emigration from Germany in general. Here, in America, the revisions to the Rector history that have been made in the last ten years serve as a warning to all families. When I started publishing Beyond Germanna about twelve years ago, there were some questions about the early history of the Rectors, but on the whole it seemed very secure. Then John Gott dug around in the loose papers at the Fauquier Courthouse and found documents that required a revision to the history. One man had been married twice, and apparently most of the children were by the second wife. How does a court house get loose papers? In this case, it appears that a lawsuit was never concluded. Papers had been filed and dispositions had been taken, but the suit was never concluded. The papers were never recorded, and were being held in the Pending file. Eventually, it was recognized there would be no conclusion to the suit and the papers were consigned to a storage box, without being recorded. After John Gott and I published the contents of the papers, John Alcock offered an interpretation of them. There had been a difficulty in assigning the parentage of some of the men in the Rector family. The best that had been offered was a contorted reading of the will of one man. Now it was John Alcock's turn to find some loose papers that clarified and corrected the assignments that had been made. Barbara Vines Little put her expertise with land records (and other areas) to work and found that one Rector man was really two men. By the time all of these experts had finished, the early history had been revised in several ways. (Nor was this the complete story.) Now, I grant there was an expert pursuit of the problem by these people. In no way do I wish to imply that there was not a skill factor in their research. Still, there was a probability to be connected to the findings. It was a lucky turn that the county commissioners at some point decided not to use the loose papers to start fires. Commissioners did things such as this, and, had they done so in this case, we would never have suspected that John Rector, son of the immigrant John Jacob Rector, had two wives. So it was a lucky event that the papers survived. It was even a lucky event that there were papers in the first place. Had not one individual been dissatisfied and brought suit, there would not have been papers. There is a warning for researchers in all families. How sure can we be that the stated history is really correct? Can you really vouch that So-and-so was not married twice? Even if the same name appears in the records as a wife, this is not hard proof that she is the same woman. All of these events are only probabilities, which, with hard work, might be improved or actually corrected.(10 Feb 01) Nr. 1093: On the German-Life Mailing List at Rootsweb, there was a recent discussion concerning guilds, trades, masters, occupations, etc. We had had some little discussion here, especially as pertains to John Jacob Rector, who was admitted to the Guild of Steelsmiths and Toolmakers at about the age of 38, which seemed older than necessary. Fred Rump, who has some knowledge of life in Germany, makes some points which might amplify on this. Until one reached the level of Master within a guild, one could not claim the occupation. And it was not up to him to determine whether he became a member of the guild. Admission was strictly controlled by the existing members of the guild, who were all Masters, and who sometimes did not want any more competition. They might have a quota, saying there would be no more than five Masters in their district. Until one of these died, there could be no more people admitted as members. Even though you might be as well trained as an existing member of a guild, you could not claim the occupation, nor hang out your shingle, or set up a shop for the purpose of conducting business. Generally, everyone in a village was a farmer. Some individuals might have been skilled at one of several trades, and have reached the Journeyman level. Even at this level they were not guaranteed work. They had to travel around and find a Master who wanted to take on a Journeyman. Sometimes this was dependent upon the Master having a large job to do, which required additional help. Otherwise, it was a matter of working on the farm. Even after completing all of the work of a Journeyman, including executing his masterpiece and passing his examination, advancement to the Master level was not automatic. The guild had to take him in as a member. Until they did this, one was out in the cold. We do know that a significant percentage of the people around Siegen emigrated, in the year 1709, to America (New York). Perhaps the percentage was higher in the Siegen area than in any other area of Germany. This may be taken as an indication that the economic life of the region was depressed, and this may have made the existing members of the Guild of Steelsmiths and Toolmakers reluctant to admit more members. In turn, Johannes Jacob Richter may have turned these things over in his mind and listened more closely to Johann Justus Albrecht, who appeared in 1710, and was recruiting people to go to Virginia. Albrecht, besides recruiting "miners", was also charged with purchasing tools. To have a man who could make the tools would be an advantage. Fred adds that when his ancestor came to America, he obtained work as a carpenter for which he had been in training. In America, the only question was a matter of skill, not of any formalities such as membership in guilds.(12 Feb 01) Nr. 159: Last week there was a (profitable) discussion of the Rectors, especially Uriah and Maximillian. Some points in their history were not noted. Using the information presented by Tommie Brittain (1105 Pampa Road, Pasadena, TX 77504-1631) in an article in Beyond Germanna (volume 9, number 3), I can add a bit to the Uriah and Maximillian story. Maximillian served in the Revolution and was taken prisoner at the siege of Charleston and marched to Greenville, SC, where he remained until the war was over. A mystery occurs for the second marriage of Uriah in 1805. He married Winifred ___ in South Carolina. Perhaps it was related to the time that Maximillian was a POW in South Carolina. Winifred made a pension application from Williamson Co., Illinois in 1854 in which she stated they were married, as best she could remember, in 1805 in Grinville (Greenville?) Co., SC. She also thought the minister was Isaiah Lemon. She was 78 at the time, so born ca 1776. Uriah had been born ca 1756 according to his pension application. The father of Uriah Rector has recently been found in a conclusive way by John P. Alcock, the author of the book, Fauquier Families, mentioned here several notes ago. In the loose papers at the Fauquier Courthouse, John found that Uriah Rector had been sued by John Peyton Harrison in 1784 because Uriah's father, John, had been "killed by thunder" before he could execute a deed to Harrison for land Harrison bought of John. Uriah was the eldest son of John Rector. This John (killed by lightning) was the son of another John Rector and the grandson of the 1714 immigrant Hans Jacob Rector. Last May's issue of Beyond Germanna contains the articles by Tommie Brittain and John Alcock mentioned above. Any Rector descendant trying to sort out these branches can have a free copy of this issue by requesting it. Since the time that I mentioned Fauquier Families, several people have written to confirm they thought the book was excellent. So I will repeat John Alcock's address which is 3910 Lea Road, Marshall, VA 20115. Louise F. Hodge sent information which apparently solves a mystery or at least gives a starting point for further investigations. I have mentioned a Carl Vrede at the Hebron Lutheran Church in Madison, VA. Louise writes that this may be her Charles Frady. She is probably correct. When a German pronounces Vrede and an Englishman pronounces Frady, they will sound almost alike. Of course, Charles and Carl are equivalents. In the Culpeper records of 1782 to 1790 the name occurs as Charles Frady/Veraity/Frawdy. Known children in Virginia are Henry, John, Ephraim, and William. They lived near Thoroughfare Mountain and moved in the early 1790's to Surry County, NC (now Yadkin Co.) near the Moravian settlements. Charles' second wife was Elizabeth. If you can tell Louise any more information such as the wives maiden names, the marriage records or the family origins, then please write to her at 2101 Oakengate Lane, Midlothian, VA 23113.
|