Notes and queries historical, biographical, and genealogical, Vol. I, Part 54

Author:
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: s.n.
Number of Pages: 618

USA > Pennsylvania > Notes and queries historical, biographical, and genealogical, Vol. I > Part 54

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

391

Historical and Genealogical.

and divided, and sold by the proprietors to those first named after the No. and acres This manor embraced all the land between the Conodoguinette and Yellow Breeches Creek, extending as far west as the road leading from the Conodoguinette to the Yellow Breeches, past the Stone Church or Frieden's Kirch, and imme- diately below Shiremanstown." Just here it may be proper to remark, that Col. Crain, who died in 1852, is represented as "more thoroughly acquainted with the business of the Land Office than any other man in Pennsylvania," and served for the greater part of half a cen- tury as Deputy Secretary in that office. (Men of Mark of Cumberland Valley, p. 96.) We also know from the same au- thority, as well as old papers in our pos- session, that the Manor of Louther was "surveyed at an early date." Again, in 1765, it was surveyed by John Armstrong and divided into eight-and-twenty por- tions, and in 1767 it was re-surveyed by John Lukens. As stated, it was divided into twenty-eight "Tracts or Planta . tions," varying in size, but the aggregate number of acres in them all is about equal to the whole manor as originally sur- veyed. The writer has in his possession several of the old papers indicating the No. of the Tract, and the name of the original purchaser. These papers bear date of 1772, '73, and '74. When Rupp published his history of Cumberland county, nearly forty years ago, only No. 4, No. 12, and part of No. 17-but three of the twenty-eight-were owned by any of the heirs or representatives of the orig- inal purchasers; and, on this point, the writer cannot say what is the fact at pres- ent.

Now, in turning to the Atlas of Cum- berland county, carefully prepared from actual surveys, and published in 1872, we have a plan of the county, having a scale of distances (three miles to the inch), and from this plan we have here very carefully traced so much as includes the entire Louther Manor, as embraced be- tween the creeks and within four miles from the river, as well as the land within "eleven miles" of it, as indicated by the western extension and termination of each creek. The manor proper incloses about the eastern half of Lower Allen,

about the southern half of East Penns- boro', and the southest corner of Hamp. den townships, containing the quantity of land given in the early survey.

NOTES AND QUERIES. Historical, Biographical and Genealogical.

CII.

WOLTZ (N. & Q., xc.)-It was George or Samuel Weltz, the silversmith, who lived in Hagerstown. His relatives in Brownsville have old family silver with his initials stamped thereon. He had George or Samuel, who married Catharine Bowman, sister of Jacob Bowman, of Hagerstown, Md. Mr. Bowmen moved to Brownsville, Pa., in 1787. After Mr. Woltz's death at Hagerstown, his widow, with her two children, George and Mary, moved to Brownsville to be near her brother. George, the eldest child, died young, of typhoid fever. Mary married Jacob Bowman McKennan, brother of Hon. Wm. McKennan, and son of Hon. Thomas Mckean Thompson McKennan, LL. D .. Secretary of the Interior under President Fillmore. Mr. J. B. McKen. nan was a prominent business man in Brownsville. He was associated with me for some years as a vestryman of my church at B. He died about 1878. His cousin, Jacob Bowman McKennan, also lived in Brownsville,

and was warden of my church. To distinguish them one was known as Jacob B. McKennan, and the other, who married Mary Woltz, was known as J. Bowman McKennan. Mrs. McK. still lives in Brownsville, an invalid. It must have been the Post Master's clerk who returned the letter of your correspondent. If he will write to Mr. Nelson B. Bow- man, of Brownsville, he will give him other facts, but in that case he had better enclose a stamped envelope, and not mention the name of the writer.

HORACE EDWIN HAYDEN.

BONNAFON -Reading in the papers of the city of the death of Albert Bonna- fon, recalls to mind the winter Monsieur Bonnafon lived in Harrisburg and taught dancing. Mrs. Bonnafon was

a lovely French lady, and Mon-

392

Historical and Genealogical.

sieur himself was of course hand- some and gentlemanly. They lived in Wyeth's house, a tall three-story brick, that stood mid way between Market Square and Court House alley. He used the large room of the old Masonic Hall. I was the only boy in Harrisburg that went to the school and participated in the hops / given during the winter-not much though-for I was entirely too diffident to mingle much with the girls. The only girls I can remember were Matthew Wil- son's daughters and Miss Church, from Bridgeport. Dancing was poorly patron- ized. That winter the Siamese twins cx- hibited in the same room (I think). I saw them fight-they whipped a man who had insulted them. A show of some kind exhibited that same winter in the same hall, and the musician, an Italian, blew his brains out with a blunderbus. The floor had scarcely dried from the scrubbing necessary on our dancing night. Bonnafon had two sons-Albert and Sylvester. Al. played the flute and Syl. the violin. They made all the music we had-very good, tco. Balancees, Chassee, &c., &c. I hear it now. The boys both became rich men as merchants and manufacturers. Albert's son, think, is Colonel of one of our regiments. Syl. never married; was eccentric; ran a hobby on clocks. It was said he had a hundred when he died. Now, I want you to tell me what year it was these things took place that I have been de- tailing. B. A.

A NEGLECTED GRAVEYARD.

Some fiftcen days since, returning from a professional visit in Cumberland coun- ty, we were shown the location of an old neglected graveyard. It belonged to the Presbyterians, but what its extent is not now determined, owing to the constant encroachments of the adjoining farm. It is located two miles west of Harrisburg at the junction of the Carlisle Ferry road and the State road to Gettysburg. But one tombstone was found entire. On it was the following:

In memory of ROBERT PATTERSON Who was born the 4th Day of March 1744 and Deceased the 30th

of September 1792 Aged 48 Years Six Months and 25 Days.

On a small foot stone were the letters M. G. This was evidently a Galbraith, as it is stated that as late as twenty-five years ago there were quite a number of stones containing the name Galbraith. Now what have become of them ? Buried out of sight, one by one, so that in due time not a sign of this abode of the early settlers of the locality may be seen, and the resting place of the old pioneers be included in the cultivated land adjoining. Such is the greed and cupidity of the present generation. What is Carlisle Presbytery doing towards the reclaiming and preserving these ancestral graves? These are its legacy, and let it look well to the heritage. Since writing the fore. going we have received in reply to some inquiries the following:

"I would have replied sooner but wanted to see several old people. Neither my father nor his sister know when it was started. They moved on the farm in. 1807; it was then an old burying place. After 1820 very few persons were buried there-not, many atter my grandfather bought the place, in 1807. I recollect several tomb-stones with names-I be- lieve only two, Magdalena Galbraith and - - Patterson, and it appears to me one with - Hendricks' name, one which was walled around, although I may be wrong; and Patterson's grave had a wall around it. I think the latter the case."

PAXTANG OR LOUTHER MANOR.

II.

On an average Louther Manor could not have embraced more than an area of about three miles between the creeks and four miles west of the river, as such an area would enclose twelve square miles, or 7,680 ares, and which is really between one zand two hundred acres more than was actually contained in the manor.

As something worthy of notice, on the plan or map it will be observed that the entire land embraced within the true limits of the Louther Manor, is the most compact or the very narrowest between the two creeks, forming of itself a desira- ble Reservation, and from the western

393

Historical and Genealogical.

boundary of the manor, where it touches the creeks, each creek begins suddenly to diverge or incline outwardly more and more. So that, if the manor, as h .s been repeatedly alleged, really extend- ed eleven miles west of the Susquehan- na, it would necessarily have to embrace a vastly larger extent of territory than it really contained, or than the actual sur- vey gives it, and nearer 30,000 acres than "between seven and eight thousand." In addition to the land that was only and truthfully in it, if it extended westward the distance now claimed of "eleven miles," it would have to embrace, hesides the half of East Pennsboro', the entire townships of Upper and Lower Allen, nearly half of Hampden, a very large part of the large township of Silvers Spring, about half of Monroe, and a slice of Middlesex, and in Silvers Spring and Monroe townships, the extreme distance between the two crecks is about ten miles.

Therefore, to declare as a matter of clear and veritable history that "the Pro. prietaries laid off between seven and eight thousand acres of land extending eleven miles from the river, and between the Conedoguinet and Yellow Breeches creeks, tor a manor on which settlements were forhidden," seems to the writer somewhat unfortunate.

Of course we can imagine a rarrow strip of land as actually extending eleven miles from the river, and as between the two creeks, and as embracing the given number of acres, "between seven and eight thousand." But in this case such a stretch of imagination is certainly not allowable. Because the proper and natu- rally permanent boundaries of the manor, as detailed in the early survey, are: The river on the east side with a well known creek on the north side and a no less well known creek on the south side, and then on the west side "by a line drawn from the said Yellow Breeches to Conodagwinet creeks afore- said." And the quantity of land speci- fied in the old surveys as existing within those clearly defined limits-that of 7,507 acres, or that of 7,551 acres, and which quantity does fully exist therein-could not possibly have extended farther west- ward than "the road leading from the Conodoguinette to the Yellow Bree hes,

past the Stone Church, and immediately below Shiremanstown." We can also easily understand, as both creeks are very crooked, that, by following

their. devious courses Westward

from the mouth of each, for the distance of ahout eleven mites, it might probably lead to the point on each creek where touches the line drawn by the old survey from the one creek to the other, as the termini of the western limit of the manor, and this doubtless was the way in which the survey was originally made, to ascertain the acreage of it. But the line constituting the western boundary of the manor, and which is really its true extent from the river, is, as we believe and maintain, only four miles from the river, in popular and intelligible parlance, and no more than four miles. And to assert that it "extended eleven miles west of the river" is alike in- correct and misleading. We do not believe that one person in a thousand, in hearing or reading such a statement, would suppose that the distance thus given referred to and meant the length so far of the serpentine or the incurve-recurved course of the creeks ! Just as rcasona- hle would it he to assert that Lower Al- len township (part of which forms the southern portion of the manor), whose eastern houndary is the Susquehanna, ex . tends twenty-five miles west of said river, because its southern boundary is the meandering course of the Yellow Breeches for about that distance ! When, in fact, the true length or extent of the township from the river is not more than one- fourth of said distance, or about six miles instead of about twenty five. Like- wise, according to the same common sense method of speaking and under- standing, the territory of Louther Manor, in its extent from the river to its western boundary, reached hut four miles, and not "eleven.

It is generally understood that the first white people came over the Susquehanna about 1725. They were chiefly Scotch- Irish, to whom the Donegal Presbytery sent a supply as early as 1734. But it was not until two years afterwards that the Manor of Louther was laid out. Was not the land embraced in it previously settled, in part, if not wholly ? Is it not

394

Historical and Genealogical.

reasonable to suppose that the first set- tlers would move warily as well as bravely into a country belonging to the Indians, and be careful not to leave a side belt of unoccupied land between them and their eastern friends? Was not even then squatter sovereignty, with its pre- emptive privileges, practically observed ? And while the settlers were willing in due time to purchase the land which they hid commenced to improve, yet it was not an easy matter to dispossess them- because they had settled upou it, and claimed their rights as colonists who had been desired to come to the country, and who, as a hearty and combative frontier people, formed a desirable cordon of de- fence between the savages and the more eastern settlers. (The Penn and Logan Correspondence, Watson's Annals, &c. )

As evidence that the land subsequently contained in Louther Manor had been very early settled by the whites, we will be excused in giving the following addi- tional matter.

It has been said that about 1724 1be Delaware Indians moved to the branches of the Ohio, and that in 1728 the Shawa- nese, who had been the predominating aborigines of our valley, gradually fol- lowed them. Afterwards French emissa ries tried to alienate them from the English. Consequently the Pennsylva- nia authorities became alarmed, and ap- pointed three persons to visit them and persuade them to return. The following letter, addressed to one of the three, con- tains the inducement to return, and also the evidence of an early settlement by the whites on the west side of the river:

PESHTANK. + Nov. ye 19th, 1731.

FRIEND PETER CHARTIERE. This is to Acquaint Thec that By the Comision- ers' and the Governour's order We are now Going over Susquehanna, To Lay out a Tract of Land between Conego- gwainct & The Shaawna Creeks five or six miles back from the River, in order to accommodate the Shaawna Indians or such others as may sce fit to Settle there, To Defend them from Incroachments. And we have also orders to Dispossess all Persons Settled on that side of the River, That Those woods may Remain free to ye Indians for Planting & Hunt- ing, And We Desire thee to Communi-

cate this to the Indians who Live About Allegening We conclude Thy Assured Ff'ds,

JOHN WRIGHT, TOBIAS HENDRICKS, SAM'L. BLUNSTON.

This enterprise failed. The Indians did not return. But the letter shows that the "Tract of Land" mentioned in it is the same about which we have been writing; that white persons were settled on it as early as 1731; and that timber land or "woods" really existed there. As the Indians did not accept the offer to come back, about five years afterwards the manor was there laid out.

It may be of some pertinent interest just bere to add, that, two of the three persons selected to visit the Indians who had gone westward were James Le Tort and Peter Chartier. The former was a Frenchman and Indian trader, who had his cabin not far from where Carlisle is, and after whom the town spring is named. The other was the son of Martin Chartier, also a Frenchman, who lived among the Shawanese. His son, Peter, (who was appointed an Indian trader by the Lancaster court), married a Shawa. nase squaw, and lived at the mouth of the Yellow Breeches creek, which was then known as the Shawnee creek, pre- sumably because occupied by them; but it was also called the Callapasscinck, with reference to its curvatures, and this namc according to Heckewelder is a Delaware Indian word. Not only is the name of one of these Frenchmen perpet- uated among us by the Letort spring, but the name of the other is also perpetuated in Western Pennsylvania by Chartier creek. The other negotiator was Edmund Cartlidge, a prominent Indian trader, whose name occurs in the Colonial Records and Pennsylvania Archives, and who, in his correspondence with Governor Gordon relative to this business, reports more favorably of Chartier than of Le Tort, though the former at last went over to the French, and the latter has been regarded as a person of better char- acter. (Pennsylvania Archives, Vol. I., pp. 299, 328. Historical Register, Vol. II., p. 250. Memoirs of Charlotte Chambers, by her grandson, Lewis H. Garrard, p. 12, and also Chambersburg in

Historical and Genealogical.

395

Manor of Louther .*

Conorloquemet

S. G. H.

E.P.

Mechanicsburg

0 S.

L.A.

Susquehanna

Yellow Breeches

the Colony and in the Revolution, by the same writer, p. 12. &c.)

The foregoing statement we respect- fully submit to the candid judgment of those who may be interested in the mat- ter. We know that to err is human; and if it should appear hereafter that our statement is faulty or inaccurate, we shall be glad to revise it, as our sole object is to give the truth, and nothing but the truth. J. A. MURRAY.

CARLISLE, 1885.

P. S .- We have also some old docu- ments, written and printed, that indicate the existence of such a Proprietary Reser . vation as "Eden Manor," which embraced a few thousand acres of land in the north .

western portion of what is now Cumber- land county. In one of the papers- bearing date of 1746, and signed by "Wm. Parsons, Surveyor General," un- der the Provincial Government-there is a plan of the manor, an oblong square, which contains a section of the creek and some of its tributaries. The distances are given, and the number of acres.

J. A. M.

*EXPLANATION OF THE MAP.

[ The initial letters within the limits of the manor indicate portions of Hampden, East Pennsboro', and Lower Allen town- ships; the other initials indicate the Stone Church and Shiremanstown; the western boundary of the manor is "the

396

Historical and Genealogical.

road leading from the Conodoguinette to to the Yellow Breeches, rast the Stone Church or Frieden's Kirch, and imme- diately below Shiremanstown," about four miles from the river; and the two creeks extend westward about, "eleven miles," to show what would be the greatly increased quantity of land em- braced in the manor if it really extended that distance from the river. ]

t The same as Paxtang, Peixtan, Paxton, &c., where Harrisburg now is. J. A. M.

NOTES AND QUERIES.

Hisorlcal, Biographical and Genealogical.

CIII.

THE HISTORY OF BERKS COUNTY, by Morton L Montgomery, Esq., of Read. ing, is expected to be issued in a weck or ten days, by Everts & Peck, of Philadel- phia. Mr. Montgomery, we feel assured, will not disappoint us, as he is one of the most careful and painstaking historians we have in our State. There will not be much to glean after him, for he is an in- defatigable worker, and we shall look for the appearance of this history upon which he has spent so many years of loving labor, with great pleasure.

A NEW STATE .- On the 20th of No- vember, 1782, a bill was reported in the General Assembly entitled "An act to prevent the erecting any new and inde- pendent State within the limits of this Commonwealth;" and read the first time. On the 27th of November it passed sec- ond reading and on the 1st of December read the third time, and passed finally. On the day following Dec. 2, 1782, it was signed by the Speaker. Now what was the occasion of the hasty passage of this act. Can any of our readers inform us ?

NEW COUNTY HISTORIES. - We learn that those enterprising Philadelphia pub- lishers, Messrs. Everts, Peck & Richards, have in course of preparation the Histo- ries of Susquehanna, Wayne, Monroe and Pike counties, the first named to be a separate volume. Mr. Brodhead, of Delaware Water Gap, has furnished from his invaluable collection abundant mate-

rial for the history of the northeast cor- ner of the State, and much that is of great value to the student of American history. The publishers are to be congratulated on securing this important data.

RECORDS OF THE SCOTCH-IKISH.

Our Scotch Irish maternal ancestors were a remarkable people; they were certainly not as selfish as the "lords of creation." Whilst the latter claimed the privilege of marrying two or three times, and more frequently after the first, to a widow, they often inserted a clause in their wills depriving their widows of the enjoyment of the "homestead" in case they .remarried. In looking over the records I find that but little attention was given to dying requests of this kind. It will be remembered that Susanna How. ard married first James Patterson, by whom she had issue (surname Patterson): i. James.

ii Susanna,

iii. Sarah.

iv. Rebecca.

v. Thomas.

She married secondly, Thomas Ewing, by whom she had issue (surname Ewing) : vi. James.

v.i. William

viii Samuel.

ix John.

She married thirdly, John Connolly and had issue (surname Connolly ):

x. Dr. John.

Let us take two or three more cases by way of illustration.

ROBERT MCFARLAND settled along Lit- tle Chickies creek, in Donegal township, Lancaster county, about one mile south of Mount Joy borough, in the year 1720. Hugh White adjoined on the north, on the south Andrew Mays, and on the west the Works. Mr. McFarland's family were grown up, some of whom were married at the time he made his settlement, or soon afterwards. His wite Jannet sur- vived him. They had issue:

i. John.

ii. James. He was the joint owner with his father of the mansion farm con- taining about 300 acres. James, d. in 1752, and left no issue His wife Mar- garet survived him. His property went to James, son of his brother John, who

397

Historical and Genealogical.

was 20 years of age at this time. He also gave legacies to Robert, son of his brother John and also to his brothers Joseph and Robert. His wife Margaret and his brother in-law. William Greer, were bis executors.

iii. Robert, m. Esther Dunn, ot Done- gal, in 1748, by the Lutheran minister in Lancaster. He owned a farm adjoining his father's, and another one further down Chickies creek, which he sold to Jacob Heistand. He also became sole owner of his father's plantation, contain - ing two hundred and eighty six acres, which he sold to Thomas Clingan, June 20, 1757. He was then living in Bedford county, Virginia.

iv. Rachel, m. John Wilkins, Indian Trader, in 1731 or 2, by whom she had:

1. Rachel, m. Matthew Laird, who resided along Big Chickies Creek in Hempfield Township.

2. John, b. in 1733; m. 1st, Mary, 2d, Catharine.

John Wilkins, jr., became owner of several hundred acres of his father's estate, situated in Mount Joy Township on the north side of the Paxtang and Conestoga road, now owned by the Nisleys, about two miles west of Mount Joy. This land Gordon adjoined Howard, Samuel Smith and John Wil- son. In 1761 he moved to Carlisle and became a store keeper. John Wilson, who owned part of the Wilson tract, also moved to Carlisle, where he carried on carpentering. Col. Wilkins moved to Pittsburg, and was the ancestor of that branch of the family in that place.

3. Rebecca, m. Thomas Anderson (blacksmith), son of the Rev. James Anderson, of Donegal.

4 Mary, m. William Poor.

5. Jean, m. John Kirkpatrick.

John Wilkins d. in 1741, and in 1742 his widow, Rachel, m. John Ramsey, an uncle of Dr. Ramsey, the historian, and a distinguished general of the Revolution. Mr. Ramsey died in the winter of 1746- 47, and on April 16, 1751, she was mar- ried to Gordon Howard by the Lutheran minister in Lancaster. In 1755 she

was again a widow, and resided until "her

death with Joseph Howard, son of Gordon Howard, upon the mansion farm, now owned by J.

Hershey. She became involved in a law suit with Joseph Howard about one of the Wilkins farms, but lost her case.

v. Joseph.

vi. Rebecca, the youngest daughter of Robert McFarland, sr., m. Andrew Mays who owned a farm on the south side of her father's. He died in 1754 and left:

1. James.

2. Mary.

3. Rachel.

4. Rebeckah.

5. Margaret.

6. Susanna.

Mr. Mays in his will provided for his widow, but expressly said that she could not enjoy his mansion if she again mar, ried. In 1755 she married Samuel Mc- Elhenny, and changed her place of abode.

DUNCAN MCFARLAND was old enough to be a brother of Robert of Donegal. He died in 1769 and left a widow Mary, and children as follows:

i Thomas.

ii. [ A dou. ]; m. Robt Willson.

iii. [ A dau ]; m. Samuel Hamilton.

iv. [ A dau. ]; m. Edward Knight.

v. John.

James Hamilton and Wm. Reed were the witnesses to his will This family resided near Pequea Creek in Strasburg, Township, Lancaster county.

DANIEL MCFARLAND was also old enough to be a brother of Robert. He died in July, 1752, and left a widow Jean and children :

i. William.

ii Margaret.

He devised a sum to his grandson, James Chesnut. He resided in the lower end of Lancaster County, and must have been well advanced in years when he died.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

Notes and queries historical, biographical, and genealogical, Vol. I, Part 54

Author: Publication date: 1884 Publisher: s.n. Number of Pages: 618

Author:
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: s.n.
Number of Pages: 618