Another Gauntlet

The email I cited earlier had a second paragraph (some deletions):

“I do not accept the appropriation that … Henry, son of Edney , was a son of  Edney's wife, Judith. There is no one named Judith in Henry's family nor anyone bearing her family name of Purcell. That he distanced himself from the other children of Judith is also very telling. He very quickly disposed of the land his father left him and moved to NC.”

I love it when someone throws down a gauntlet. It brings back my days as a research professor. From the 2nd Edition of Henry the Immigrant:

“Sometime before 8 April 1735 he [Edney] wedded his first wife Judith Purcell, daughter of Thomas and Elizabeth (Woodward) Purcell. Some say that Edney had an earlier marriage, which produced most or all of his children, a claim based on the absence of the names “Judith” and “Thomas” among Edney’s offspring. But in view of a total lack of other evidence, the assertion is weak and unconvincing.”

My statement that the “assertion is weak and unconvincing” is itself weak and unconvincing. Sorry to bore you readers, but you deserve something more. Here is a summary of the evidence presented in my book. See Henry the Immigrant for details and sources.

On 11 Jul 1734, Edney sued his mother and her second husband Benjamin George for a portion of the estate of Henry, his father. Henry's gift of deed stated that Edney would receive his share when he turned 21. Edney probably instituted this “friendly” suit shortly after he turned 21, and was, therefore, likely born a little before 11 Jul 1713. This seems quite reasonable since Edney was the oldest and his parents were married between 15 Mar 1709 and 16 May 1711. He and Judith Purcell were married by 8 Apr 1735 because the Lancaster County will of Judith Purcell’s grandmother Elizabeth, signed on that date states “I do appoint my Grandaughter Judith and her husband Edney Tapscott Executors of this my Last Will & Testament.” On Apr 1735, Edney was around age 22, somewhat young since most Colonial Virginia men first married around age 25 or 26 (a reliable statistical number). In fact, Edney was sufficiently young, 22 or younger when he married Judith, that it is highly unlikely that he had a previous wife.

How long were Judith and Edney married? There is no way to tell for certain. Certainly they were no longer married when Edney took Mary, the widow of William Waugh Jr., as his second wife around 15 Feb 1762 (bond). That was 27 years or more after his first marriage, and more than sufficient time to have the seven children that we know Edney had, presumably with Judith. Even had Judith died well before Edney married Mary Waugh, there was more than sufficient time.

Judith and Edney’s first child was Henry, who would become known to us as “Henry of Caswell.” In the 1800 census, he was aged 45 or older, corresponding to a birth year of 1742 or earlier. When he married Winifred Hill around 1763 (based on a chancery court record) he would have been aged 21 or older. As we have pointed out, Virginia men tended to marry around 25 or 26, making it likely that Henry was born around 1737 or 1738, the birth year one might expect for a marriage of Edney and Judith in 1735 or earlier. No matter how one juggles the numbers, Henry of Caswell was almost certainly a child of Judith.

So far everything holds together. There are no conflicts, no negative evidence, nothing that needs to be resolved. But we still have to look at the names of descendants.

For the second generation of Edney's descendants, counting Judith Purcell and Edney as the first, no one is named “Thomas” or “Judith.” One must go to the third generation, where we find Judith Clayton, daughter of Edney’s daughter Elizabeth and Judith George, daughter of Edney’s daughter Susannah. Thus we have two granddaughters of (presumably) Judith Purcell and Edney who are named “Judith.” Many (including the writer of the above memo) would say that this provides good evidence that Elizabeth and Susannah Tapscott were daughters of Judith Purcell. I'm not convinced that this evidence is all that good though I do believe that Elizabeth and Susannah were daughters of Judith. And these two “Judiths” are all we have, even going through six generations (admittedly some of the lists of descendants are incomplete).

But we do have a slug of descendants named “Thomas” when we go through six generations (admittedly a little far). There are a whopping eleven for Henry of Caswell (two 4^th generation, five 5^th generation, and four 6^th generation). For Ezekiel there is one with a middle name "Thomas," 6^th generation. Are any of these named for Thomas Purcell? For 4th generation and beyond, as all these are, I doubt it. The relationship distances appear to be too great.

But, the thing to realize is that people didn’t always name children after ancestors. Indeed, the brother of Edney, Capt. Henry Tapscott, first married Margaret Stott and had a huge number of descendants by this first marriage, 254 by my count through the 6^th generation, but there are only five named “Margaret” (and these do not appear until the 4^th generation and 5^th generation) and nobody is named “Stott”. What is particularly striking is that Margaret’s father was named “John,” an exceedingly common name, but out of all of the descendants of Capt. Henry and Margaret, only one John is found before the 5^th generation. There are no “Margarets” at all among the 61 identified descendants of William, the last child of Margaret and Capt. Henry. Does this mean that William was not a child of Margaret and Capt. Henry? Certainly not. The will of John Stott shows William to be a child of Margaret. I'll say it again. People did not always name descendants after ancestors, as is demonstrated here.

One final note. I and other descendants of Edney Tapscott have autosomal DNA matches with a number of people descended from Purcells of the Isle of Wright County, Virginia. This is where Thomas Purcell appears to have originated. At this point it is far too early to draw any conclusions, and perhaps we will never be able to do so.

All evidence strongly indicates that Edney had but one marriage producing children, and that was with Judith Purcell.

Proof, Fact, or Conclusion?

Today, I received an email that included the following:

I have just been made aware that you have ascribed a James Edney as the father of Ann Edney Tapscott George. I have already seen several Tapscott descendants listing that as fact. That you found a person named James with a daughter Ann somewhere in the vicinity would not hold water if a person is going to attempt membership in any reputable historical or genealogical organization. There would need to be a paper trail to firmly establish that, such as a deed or will in which he named Ann Tapscott or George as his daughter. It would be better to say that it is plausible that he is her father with the qualifying statement that it is not a proven fact. We have to consider the possibility that Ann could have been brought into the country under the same conditions that Henry came; under the sponsorship of the captain of a ship just in time for Henry to be searching for a wife.

To me this was a pleasant surprise. Why “pleasant”? It means that there are some “researchers” who rely on more than leaps of faith or unsourced trees, both abominations to me. In fact, I am only upset by one thing in the email — the statement that “I have just been made aware …” The first edition of Henry the Immigrant with the James Edney conclusion (not “fact") was published in 2006, ten years ago!

I have partially addressed some of the Ann Edney question in my blog of 5 Jan 2016 “The Elusive Miss Ann,” but something more is needed. The second edition of my book Henry the Immigrant contains ten pages of information and reasoning about Ann Edney and her marriage to Henry with more than 100 sources provided in footnotes (pp. 48-57), far too much to be put in a blog. If any of you would like a free electronic pdf copy of the book, send me an email and I will immediately return a copy as an attachment.

It is not always necessary that there be “a deed or will” if the evidence is sufficiently strong. No one doubts the existence of the atom, but who has seen one? Although my book never uses the words “proven” or “proof” for Ann Tapscott's parentage, the Board for Certification of Genealogists provides a list of requirements for a statement to have sufficient credibility to be “proved”:

1. Reasonably exhaustive research;
2. complete, accurate citations to the source or sources of each information item;
3. tests—through processes of analysis and correlation—of all sources, information items, and evidence;
4. resolution of conflicts among evidence items and
5. a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.

1. Was there reasonably exhaustive research? I have been to Northumberland and Lancaster County Courthouses several times (in one case spending more than a week on site), reviewing ALL of the court records between 1700 and 1727 (and, of course, outside this time period) and also several trips to the Library of Richmond in Virginia, which maintains microfilms of court records in Lancaster and Northumberland Counties. The book, Henry the Immigrant, contains 2514 sources, nearly all original, contemporary, or from academic historians. Out of these only two family trees are referenced. I refer to one of these as “questionable.” I cite the other only to show that it is ridiculous.

2. All citations are 100% complete. Don’t believe me? Get a pdf file of the book and let me know if you find any incomplete citations.

3. Testing is a matter of opinion. However, the probable ages of Henry’s wife and James Edney’s daughter based on various records (e.g., guardianships, usual marriage ages) are approximately the same, the geographic location of both is the same, associates are the same, dates correspond, etc. Note that Henry and James Edney were not “somewhere in the vicinity.” They appear to have been in what became the Wicomico Parish 6th Processioning Precinct as laid out in 1711.

4. There are NO conflicts, not one, a fact pointed out in the statement in my book that “there is no negative evidence, nothing that needs be explained away.”

5. The conclusion? Rather than repeating what has already been printed, I urge that you refer to the blog of 5 Jan 2016 “The Elusive Miss Ann,” for a synopsis of the evidence from my book. And the synopsis ends with a conclusion, not a “fact”: “The evidence detailed below allows us to conclude that Ann Edney, the daughter of James Edney of Wicomico Parish, and Ann Tapscott, the wife of Henry, were one and the same.”

Again, I could not be more pleased about an email. Some people are thinking for themselves. Perhaps some day we can have an academically oriented “Tapscott Conference.”

Dolores Hope (Tingley) Berbaum

Four generations of Wabash Valley Tapscotts
Edna Earl (Wright )Tapscott, Nellie (Tapscott) Tingley,
Jerry Berbaum, Dolores Hope (Tingley) Berbaum, July 1943.

Dolores Hope (Tingley) Berbaum, who passed away 22 Nov 2016 in Urbana, Illinois (obituary), was my cousin and the source of much Tapscott information for my still unfinished book “The Wabash Valley Tapscotts.” She gave me her copy of The Merry Cricket, which describes the lives of the relatives and neighbors of the Tapscotts who inhabited Martinsville, Auburn, and Anderson townships in Clark County, Illinois, at the turn of the last century (blog of 29 Sep 2015) and provided for copying several photos of Tapscotts and their relatives (e.g., blog of 9 Aug 2016). Dolores and her son Jerry also allowed the recording of an extensive oral history of the Clark County Tapscotts. And she authored a detailed “John Wesley Tapscott Family” tree for June Tapscott Leathers, who passed it on to me. Besides, Dolores was a friend who will be greatly missed.

Dolores was the daughter of Nellie Pearl Tapscott and Walter Albert Tingley, the granddaughter of John Wesley Tapscott and Edna Earl Wright, the great granddaughter of William Tapscott and Mary Angeline Wallace, and the great great granddaughter of Henry (“The Traveler’) Tapscott and Susan Bass who founded the Wabash Valley Tapscotts.

Ithamar

“Ithamar” (Hebrew אִיתָמָר) was the youngest son of Aaron, a Biblical high priest, and the eldest son of "Bell" (Tapscott) and Morgan Sweet. The unusual name makes Ithamar Sweet easily traceable, though one must take into account mistaken and alternative spellings. “Ithmar,” “Ithamer,” “Ithemar,” “Ithenear” are all found for Ithamar Sweet.

Born in Martinsville, Clark County, Illinois, Ithamar’s birth date is a little uncertain. The age of 30 years, 10 months on his grave marker indicates a birthdate of Dec 1887, a date that appears wildly incorrect based on the birth dates of his siblings. His brother Robert is known to have been born on 31 May 1887. A Texas death record shows a birthdate of 29 Dec 1884, a date that agrees with census data, is a reasonable nine months, three weeks following Bell and Morgan’s marriage, and fits in well with the birth dates of the other Sweet children.

On 16 Jun 1906 in Danville, Illinois, Ithamar enlisted in the Army, achieved the rank of sergeant, and was discharged 15 Jun 1909, in Walla Walla, Washington. He reenlisted the following day and was shipped off to Fort Stotsenburg, at Luzon in the Philippines. On 15 Jun 1912 Ithamar was discharged at Ft. Clark in Texas, but he apparently reenlisted since he spent the rest of his life as a reserve officer in the Army.

Sometime between 1910, when he was still single in the Philippines and 1913, when his first child was born, Ithamar married Frances Isadora (“Fannie”) Baker, a Texas girl. Born 25 Dec 1889 in Brownwood, Texas, Frances was the oldest daughter of John William and Minnie (Conklin) Baker, a Texas farm family. Ithamar’s transfer by the Army to Texas, had brought with it a chance to meet Minnie.

In 1915 Minnie and Ithamar lived in Marfa, Texas, where soldiers at Camp Marfa patrolled the Rio Grande during the stormy Mexican Revolution. In 1915 the couple lived in Eagle Pass, Texas, where an unsteady Army camp was increasing in strength due to WW I.. In 1917 Ithamar, who was then a first lieutenant, submitted his resignation as a reserve officer, but he was still serving at the Army Post at Eagle Pass on 24 Oct 1918, when he died of bronchopneumonia, probably brought on by influenza. An estimated 675,000 Americans died from the misnamed 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic. A much lower 116,708 Americans died from all causes during WW 1 military service.

Ithamar was returned to Clark County, where he rests in Mount Pleasant Cemetery. He left a single child, Eugene Madison Sweet (15 Jul 1915-30 Oct 1989). His and Minnie’s other child, Ithamar Jr., born 5 Dec 1913, died by 1915.

Frances remarried, to George M. Doney, on 27 Sep 1919 in San Antonio, Texas, and Eugene adopted his stepfather’s last name, going by “Eugene Madison Doney” or “Eugene Sweet Doney.” The family settled in Lynwood, California, where George became the Chief of Police. But things did not go well for George. In 1930 the police department was under investigation for misappropriation of funds, and on 31 May 2016 when George was interviewed by members of the district attorney’s office, he named names and implicated colleagues. The following day, Police Chief Doney was found dead in his car with a bullet wound in his chest, and clutching a revolver. He left a note fit for a B-grade gangster movie:

To the District Attorney's office: I told you a pack of lies. The men of this police force are all OK. I was the crook, so drop that statement your man got out of me, because they are square guys and never take a nickel from anybody that I know. This is the truth, so help me God. ____ never paid me or not one else one cent, so drop any charges you have made.

St. Louis Post Dispatch, 3 Jun 1930.

The story made newspapers nationwide. The police department concluded that George had committed suicide out of remorse for turning on his friends in the department. But was it a suicide, or a cover-up by murder? Some thought it was the latter.

Frances, who appears to have been married one more time, briefly, to a man named “Nugent,” lived for a while in Medford, Oregon, but returned to California, where she died 10 Jan 1959 in Shasta County.

Cora Isabelle Tapscott

Family of Richard and Cora

The book, The Tapscotts of the Wabash Valley, is coming along, albeit very, very slowly. One problem is the sheer number of individuals covered. Henry the Traveler, who founded the Wabash Valley clan, has 199 descendants with 155 spouses through 4 generations, which is as far as this book goes. The earlier book, Henry the Immigrant, covered only 132 descendants of Ann Edney (both Tapscotts and Georges) with 122 spouses through 4 generations. While many of the Wabash Valley Tapscott men had few descendants (see “not good husband material” in blog of 28 Aug 2015), this was definitely not true of the women, One example is Cora Isabelle Tapscott, daughter of William and Mary Angeline (Wallace) Tapscott, who is the cause of multiple pages in the current book.

Born 21 May 1869 in Anderson Twp, Cora Isabelle (usually called “Bell” or “Belle”), had a brief childhood. Before age fifteen, she was married, on 1 Mar 1884, in Clark County. The groom, Richard Morgan Sweet, was twenty-two. Morgan, the name he always used, was one of fourteen children of Mary Ellen Johnson and Austin Sweet Sr., a Clark County veterinarian and farmer.

Richard Morgan and Cora Isabelle
Sweet, at Martinsville home, c1932.
 (Courtesy of Sharon Poteet.)

Bell and Morgan, who lived all their married lives near Martinsville, wasted no time. Their first child, Ithamar, was born 29 Dec 1884, their last, Nila, was born 4 Apr 1908. In between were born twelve children, a child every two years.

On 23 Oct 1932, Bell Tapscott passed away. Morgan, who went from farmer to blacksmith in his later years, lived another few years, dying on 13 Apr 1937 at his daughter Nila’s house. Bell and Morgan are interred in Mt. Pleasant Cemetery, in Martinsville Twp.

Sons of William and Mary (Wallace) Tapscott. L to R James
William, John, Millard, Joseph. (Courtesy of Sharon Poteet)

Millard F. Tapscott, “Tinker,” the youngest of the sons of William and Mary Angeline (Wallace) Tapscott, of Clark County, Illinois, appears in a most interesting story of probate and litigation.

Born 4 May 1867 in Clark County (two years after the end of the Civil War), Millard spent most of his life as a bachelor farmer. After living for many years with his parents, William and Mary, he was suddenly on his own when his mother died in 1904 and his father moved in with Millard’s sister Emma and her husband William Mallory. Millard stayed on the family farm, apparently inheriting the land, at least eventually, though no probate proceedings are found, and living in his parents’ partially log-constructed house.

Millard was forty-seven years old when he finally married, on 19 Sep 1914 in Vigo County, Indiana, but it was a marriage that was far less than successful. His wife, Samantha, was the daughter of Thomas McNary, an Auburn blacksmith, and Reba (Cox) McNary. And she was the widow of William Henry Johnson, whom she had married 27 Oct 1889, and who had died 3 Feb 1913 of pneumonia after fathering four children, two of whom died young.

Millard and Samantha did not hit it off well. It has been claimed that the two had divorced, but no records show that an official divorce took place. However, around 1920, the couple separated and Samantha “released her rights to the property by contract in writing.” The contract came back to haunt her when Millard died on 17 Nov 1926 at the home of his niece, Alma Thompson, daughter of his sister Emma (Tapscott) Mallory.

Samantha petitioned the court stating that “as the surviving widow of Millard F. Tapscott, she is entitled to her Widow's Award in said Estate.” She stated that “on or about the 11” day of October A.D. 1920 she and the said Millard F. Tapscott signed an agreement, the purport of which agreement your Petitioner did not at that time understand, and that at that time Petitioner did not know her rights pertaining to the property of Millard F. Tapscott, and did not know what a widow's award meant, and did not understand the agreement and should not be held bound by said agreement because of the fraud which said agreement perpetrated against your Petitioner because of petitioners misunderstanding and lack of knowledge as to her rights.” Samantha claimed that “for many months prior to Millard's death, he and her had “resumed the marriage relation, and were living as man and wife, having repudiated aforsaid [sic] contract, and resumed the status of husband and wife.”

Find a Grave.

A child of Samantha from her first marriage, Violet Johnson, filed a claim for $500 against the estate “For care, washing for, ironing , sewing, getting up wood, cooking, keeping house and attention for three years at different intervals” and for $1000 for “Services as per contract.” Just what the “Services” were is not stated. The claim appears particularly unusual since Violet was unmarried and as Millard's stepchild, she was (more or less) a family member. One might expect that she would help out around the house, where she was presumably living, for no charge. Millard's brother and sisters, the estate heirs, got together and settled with both Samantha and her daughter for all their claims for $1000.

R. E. Tapscott, 6 Oct 2014.

Following her death, Samantha was buried with her first husband in Auburn Cemetery. The stone reads “Samantha His Wife.” Millard, who left no descendants, rests alone.