Capt. Henry Line - The Fate of the Schooner Fair American

 

On 8 Feb 1819 the Alexandria Gazette reported the loss of the schooner Fair American on a voyage from Fredericksburg to New York with a cargo of wheat and flour. And the report included the tale of the mishap related by the ship's occupants, one of them a great grandson of Henry The Immigrant:

“On the 20^th of January, (instant,) 20 minutes before 8 P. M. we had the misfortune to run ashore on Absecum Bar, on the Jersey side of the Delaware Bay, and after making every exertion to get off, but without success, we turned our attention to the means of preserving our lives—At 12 o’clock at night the vessel bilged and filled, when we (7 in number, including Mr. James V. Fraser, a passenger) secured ourselves on the quarter-deck suffering all the horrors of an awful ship-wreck. At about 2 in the morning the schooner severed at the break of the quarter deck, when little remained to us but the assurance of a watery grave. The quarter deck, however, holding together, a ray of hope dawned from the reflection that this our last resting place, might remain entire until the return of day, when some friendly sail might snatch us from impending destruction. About the dawn of day, our sufferings were for a moment mitigated by he sight of a sail, with an old shir attached to an oar, we made a signal to attract their attention; but from the heaviness of the weather and increasing thickness of the fog, they soon disappeared to our view, perhaps without having observed our signal of distress. At this moment, hope seemed to abandon us forever, but in a short time the fog began to dissipate, the land became visible, and discovered to us the welcome sight of some vessels, which had made a harbor, about two miles distant—we also saw some persons walking on the beach, but soon discovered that they were much more intent on saving the ruins of our vessel and cargo for their own benefit, than on procuring the means of rescuing us from our perilous situation.—Some of the crews of the vessels in the harbor, seeing our deplorable condition, came with great difficulty to our relief, and conveyed us to their vessels, where we were received with the greatest kindness and treated in a manner which merits our eternal gratitude.

“Having lost every thing except what we had on our backs, the benevolence of these strangers it may be supposed was a cordial to our bosoms. But while we acknowledge with hearts overflowing with thankfulness, the good offices of these our seafaring brethren, we want language sufficiently strong to depict the base and inhuman conduct of some of the inhabitants of Absecum and the adjacent country, who although apprised of our misfortunes and destitute situation, refused even to deliver up our cloathing which they had picked up on the beach, after it had drifted on shore, and treated us in other respects so much like savages, that we had just reason to believe, that but for the humanity and generosity of the masters and crews of the vessels in the harbor, we should have been abandoned to all the horrors of shipwreck, on a coast where the claims of humanity were stifled by the sordid and unmanly consideration of self aggrandizement. 

E. L. B . TAPSCOTT, one third owner.

BENJAMIN GEORGE, Master.

JAMES V. FRASER, passenger.

And the CREW of the Fair American

And who was E. L. B. Tapscott? He was Ellis L. B. Tapscott (middle names unknown), son of Rawleigh and Ann (Shearman) Tapscott and grandson of Capt. Henry Tapscott. We have met him once before in this Blog as a purchaser of half interest in the schooner Dispatch from his uncle Martin Shearman (Chicanery, Monday, August 25, 2014). Although he escaped from the shipwreck, Ellis was soon deceased, dying by 20 May 1822, when a bond was issued to administer Ellis's estate. Ellis, seemingly a well-to-do business man, died young, less than forty years old, without widow or descendants.

The ship’s master, Benjamin George, was probably Ellis’s second cousin, son of first cousins Nicholas Lawson George and Susanna Tapscott. Benjamin and Ellis had the same great grandmother, Ann Edney. And not only were they related, the two had served in the same regiment and company during the War of 1812.

Fauquier County Tapscotts - A Tapscott Family Reunion

This blog has often talked about Tapscotts of Fauquier County, Virginia (search for the word “Fauquier” and you will see what I mean).

Each year since 1983, with one exception, the Fauquier Tapscotts have held a reunion in Fauquier County the last weekend of July. Until recently the gathering was held in a rural field in the Cedar Run District, where many Tapscotts once lived. The creek that runs through the field, Cedar Run, was used for baptisms by Poplar Forks Church, two miles distant, where many Tapscotts are buried. In the earlier years, when the reunion was a two-day event, multiple tents were set up, allowing overnight camping to keep the party going. Since its initiation the reunion was only canceled once, in 2017 due to the threat of heavy rain, which never occurred. The event is now limited to one day and is held in a more convenient and comfortable site than the field, despite the field’s sentimental value. (Thanks to Mark Porter for this information.)

The earlier reunions were held near Poplar Forks
Church and Cemetery, where many Tapscotts rest.

On Saturday, 27 July, the 2019 reunion the was held at Northern Fauquier Community Park, Virginia.. And Mary Frances and I drove 1852 miles one way from Albuquerque to attend this 36^th gathering. We actually drove much further because the trip was not only to meet the Tapscotts, but to collect information on Mary Frances’s family, the Summers. (But that is another subject and a different blog, http://summersfamilyhistory.blogspot.com/).

We had attended the Tapscott reunion once before, in 2015, and had a great time. Then we had met sixth and seventh cousins, their spouses, their children. But this time was even better. Mark Porter did a superb job planning and coordinating the function, with help from funds manager, Bridget Harris. Mark’s dad, Conway, worked continuously grilling hamburgers and hot dogs. Greg and Daron Tapscott provided splendid live entertainment. But perhaps the best entertainer was “Duke” Bland, who did an outstanding job auctioning off donated items to pay for next year’s reunion.

And in addition to renewing old acquaintances and making new ones (including folks I had corresponded with for years but had never met), I met a descendant of Robert “King” Carter, who in 1723 had hired Henry Tapscott, “The Immigrant,” my 6^th great grandfather, to do carpentry for him. And I met a descendant of Bishop Enoch George Jr., whose grandmother was Ann Edney, whose first husband was Henry the Immigrant. Wow!

Great event, great people, great memories. We’ll be back next year.

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.”

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.

The Elusive Miss Ann

I still find that a surprisingly large number of people believe the first Henry Tapscott (Henry The Immigrant) to have married an Ann Lee or an Ann Davis or even an Ann Lee Davis despite the fact that there is not a single reliable record - i.e., something other than trees based on imagination (see post of 3 Nov 2013). The latest score shows 98 Ancestry.com user-submitted trees showing Ann Davis as Henry's wife and 13 showing Ann Lee as Henry's wife. I had hoped that reliable research had put this ridiculousness to rest. Allow me to quote from my recent book:

On 16 May 1711 Elizabeth Nigings bound her son as an apprentice to ‘Henry Tapscott & Ann his wife.” Ann (sometimes “Anne”) appears in several records, but always, it seemed, with her married name, “Tapscott.” At first, attempts to establish Ann’s parentage were unsuccessful. The surname “Lee” was (and, regrettably, still is) assumed by many since Richard Lee was the recipient of a deed of gift from Henry. Richard Lee of “Ditchley,” a prominent Northumberland County citizen and Northumberland County Court Clerk from 1716 to 1735,  was often involved in legal transactions and signed numerous documents. This was one of those. In the deed of gift, which was restricted, Richard Lee was essentially (though not officially) acting as a trustee, not a member of the family.

Since one of Henry’s three sons was named Edney (as well as a great-grandson and a great-great-grandson), it was proposed that this might be Ann’s last name. Virginian first-borns were often named after grandparents, and the use of surnames as forenames to show family connections was common.  (The first-born children of Henry’s son Edney were named for a paternal grandfather and a maternal grandmother. The first-born of Henry’s son James was named for his maternal grandfather.) 

One of the grandchildren from Ann’s second marriage, to Benjamin George, was Ann Edney George.  But the name “Edney” was almost nonexistent in the colonial Northern Neck—almost nonexistent, but not quite. For in Northumberland County near the end of the seventeenth century lived a James Edney with a daughter Ann, who would one day be of marriageable age and appropriate residence—Wicomico Parish—to become Henry’s wife. Not only are James and Ann the only Edneys found in either Lancaster or Northumberland County documents of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, three legal records reference the name “Ann Edney,” or a variant thereof, before Henry’s marriage and none afterwards, when the name “Ann Tapscott” first appears. And James Edney owned property in the area in which Ann and Henry settled. Finally, there is no negative evidence, nothing that needs be explained away. 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.

The next nine pages of the book, which is available at several libraries (see post of 20 Mar 2015), provide fully documented evidence for Ann Edney, her parentage, and her marriage to Henry citing over 100 historical records. Not a single record of any kind, other than duplicated, erroneous trees, created by who-knows-who from who-knows-what, exists with even the slightest hint that Henry Tapscott knew, let alone married, an Ann Lee or an Ann Davis. Unlike "Edney," neither "Lee" nor "Davis" is found as a given name among Ann's known descendants.