Menu
- Home
- Search▼
- List▼
- Add▼
- My Relate▼
- Admin▼
ViewsWatchers |
[edit] Related
[edit] BackgroundAccording to Orange County records July 24, 1740. While this record does not give the relationships between these people, it is commonly interpreted as a single nuclear family, headed by John Maxwell and wife Margaret. Subsequent to taking the importation oath, John Maxwell have settled on a parcel of land in Beverley's Manor. Page 243.--5th April, 1749. William Beverley to John Maxwell. Patented to Beverley, et als....Conveyed to Beverley by deed recorded in Secretary's office of Colony. Borden's Road. 439 acres. Source:Chalkley's Chronicles John probably settled on this parcel shortly after (if not before) swearing his oath of importation. The fact that the land was not formally acquired by Maxwell until 1749 is probably related to the sale of the land about this same time. 27th February, 1749. John Maxwell to Andrew Johnston, merchant, 218-1/2 acres in Beverley Manor. Corner John Madison. Corner John Maxwell. Teste: Alexander Wright, William Hamilton, Adam Breckenridge. Other land transactions [1]which take place at about this time, show that this particular John Maxwell was moving from Beverley's Manor, south into the Forks of the James, where he settled near Natural Bridge. This area will become in later years part of Botetourt County, and later of Rockbridge County. [edit] AnalysisWhen you consider the record showing that John Maxwell imported himself, and five other people named Maxwell, you are left pondering the exact relationship between John and the people named. Most think that "Margaret" is his wife, and the other four are their children. This seems a reasonable conclusion, though factually, there's little to confirm this, and some evidence that suggests that "Margaret" was not his wife. In particular, the wife of the John Maxwell who sold the Beverley Manor property in 1750, and subsequently purchased/sold properties in the Forks of the James, is clearly identified as "Mary". For example, we have the following records:
These records occur more or less simultaneously with the land sales by John Maxwell on Beverley's Manor, and in the Forks of the James. These records make it clear that this is the same John Maxwell who sold land on Beverley's Manor in 1750, and moved to the Forks of the James, and that the wife of John Maxwell in both locations was "Mary". If the John Maxwell who sold land on Beverley's Manor in 1750 is identified as the same person as John Maxwell the Oath Taker of 1740, then an explanation is needed as to why the wife of the Oath Taker has a different given name than the wife of John Maxwell who sold land on Beverley's Manor in 1750. There are several ways that this is done, or could be done:
With regard to the first explanation, we have NO independent records that confirm that the wife of John the Oath Taker was in fact "Mary Margaret". In fact, the only record that we have that can be clearly associated with him is the court record that attests to his swearing to self importation. That record only identifies Margaret as one of the Maxwell's whose passage he paid for. She IS listed first, and that might be taken as indicating that she was his wife, but the record does not attest to that. You could also interpret this record to mean that she is his mother, or that she is his eldest daughter, etc. Overall, solving the problem of the conflict in the names of John's wife, by uniting the names as "Mary Margaret" is a facile explanation. It explains away the conflict without providing any substantiating information. Moreover, this is a commonly encountered device used by genealogists to "explain the inexplicable". As such, it seems more driven by a need to confirm preconceptions, than by the a desire to explain the data. Such explanations can be developed to explain away ANY inconsistency. The other alternatives require no unsupported leaps of faith, and are inherently more plausible. It is not uncommon for a spouse to die, and for the surviving partner to carry on, and perhaps remarry. Sons marry and start families of their own. Both scenarios fit the available data records, though those records do not in themselves confirm either view, at least directly. We can point to things in those same records, however, that strongly suggest that the second alternative is less likely. Specifically, while we know that John the Oath Taker, had a son John Jr, the only record that refers to John, Jr. per se, is the 1740 importation record. Despite having numerous records for "John Maxwell from 1749 onward, none refer to either John Jr, or John Sr. Most genealogists assume that some of these records are for the father, and other for the son, but you will also see considerble difficulty, and some frustration) in assigning individual records to one or the other. The truth is, many/most of these records can not be assigned rationally to one person or the other for one simple reason: they lack any internal clues as to who is meant. And that is surprising. Being able to distinguish one person by a certain name from another in colonial and Revolutionary era records is a common enough problem---not only for we later day genealogists, but also for the courts of the time. And for the courts, this was not a trivial matter---they had an immediate and direct need to be able to tell who their records were referring to. There's a record in Augusta County records where the Sheriff is sent to arrest a "John Walker", only to be frustrated by the fact that there were four different John Walkers living in Augusta County at the time. His plaintiff appology for not carrying out the courts wishes---"for I can not tell which one"---also speaks to the frustration of the genealogist. Yet the "John Walker" instance is fairly unusual, because usually the court takes considerable pain at inserting identifiers to distinguish between different person by the same name. Often this is done by using the designations "Sr." and "Jr", and often its done by using a by-name "Of Beverley Manor", or "Of Augusta County". For instance There is a reference, for example, in the Albemarl County records to an action by "John Maxwell of Botetourt County". This clearly refers to John Maxwell (88) Oath Taker, or his son John Maxwell (89), but the by name "of Botetourt County" makes it clear that this is not one of the John Maxwell (11) living in Albemarle County, and the son of Bazaleel Maxwell (2). The use of by names is a simple, effective, and oft used device in court records to make sure officials new who was involved in a particular action. What's surprising about this, though, is that this device, no matter how common place, was not used to distinguish between John (88) and John (89), despite the voluminous records for "John Maxwell" in Augusta County. it could be that they didn't make the distinction simply because "they didn't make the distinction", as they didn't make the distinction for the four John Walkers. But they usually did draw these distinctions where needed. Perhaps the reason they didn't draw them in this instance is because there was no need. This would be the case if one of these John Maxwell's was dead, or moved out of the area. While we can't say for sure that this is the explanation, it seems likely that one or the others of these John Maxwell's is gone from the area, or more likely, has died. This interpretation that would fit in with the disconnect between the the presumed name of Margaret, the Oath Takers wife, and Mary, the wife of John maxwell of Beverley's. Assuming that this is what is going on in these records, we can construct the following family history:
|
