USA > Virginia > A history of the valley of Virginia, 3rd ed > Part 19
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).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41
An opinion prevails among our most distinguished jurists, resting solely upon traditionary information, that about 1761, Fred- erick Lord Baltimore presented a petition to the king and council, praying a revision of the adjustment made in 1745, which petition was rejected, or after a short time abandoned as hopeless. If there ever was such a proceeding, I can find nothing of it in the archives of Virginia.
Be that as it may, it is certain that ever since 1745 Lord Fair- fax claimed and held, and the Commonwealth of Virginia constantly to this day has claimed and held by the Cohongoroota, that is by the Northern Branch, as the Potomac, and whatever Lord Baltimore or his heirs, and the State of Maryland may have claimed, she has held by the same boundary. There is no reason why Lord Fairfax, being in actual possession, should have controverted the claim of Lord Baltimore, or Maryland. If Lord Baltimore, or Maryland, ever controverted the boundary, the question must, and either has been decided against them, or it must have been abandoned as hope- less. If they never controverted it, the omission to do so, can only be accounted for, upon the supposition that they knew it to be hope- less. If Maryland ever asserted the claim-seriously asserted it I mean-it must have been before the revolution, or it least during it, when we all knew she was jealous enough of the extended territory of Virginia. The claim must have had its origin before the compact between the two States, of March, 1785, (1 Rev. Code, ch. IS). We then held by the same boundary by which we now hold ; we held to what we called and now call the Potomac ; she then held to what we call the Potomac. It is possible to doubt that this is the Potomac recognized by the compact ? That compact is now forty- seven years old.
I have diligently enquired whether, as the Potomac above the confluence of the Shenandoah was called the Cohongoroota, the stream now called the South Branch of the Potomac ever had any peculiar name, known to and established among the English set- tlers-for it is well known that it bore the name of Wappacomo. I never could learn that it was known by any other name, but that which it yet bears, the South Branch of the Potomac. Now that very name of itself sufficiently evinces, that it was regarded as a tributary stream of another river, and that river the Potomac; and
169
FAULKNER'S REPORT.
that the river of which the South Branch was the tributary, was re- garded as the main stream.
But let us for a moment concede that the decision of the king in council was not absolutely conclusive of the present question ; let us concede that the long acquiesence of Maryland in that adjustment has not precluded a further discussion of its merits ; let us even sup- pose tlie compact of 1785 thrown out of view, with all the subse- quent recognition of the present boundary by the legislative acts of that State, and the question between the two streams now for the first time presented as an original question of preference ; what are the facts upon which Maryland would rely to show that any other stream, than the one bearing the name, is entitled to be regarded as the main branch of the Potomac? It were idle to say that the South Branch is the Potomac, because the South Branch is a longer or even larger stream than the North Branch which Virginia claims to hold by. According to that sort of reasoning, the Missouri, above its confluence with the Mississippi, is the Mississippi, being beyond comparison the longer and larger stream. The claim of the South Branch, then, would rest solely upon its great length. In opposition to this it might be said that the Cohongoroota is more frequently navigable-that it has a larger volume of water-that the valley of the South Branch is, in the grand scale of conformation, secondary to that of the Potomac-that the South Branch has not the general direc- tion of that River, which it joins nearly at right angles-that the val- ley of the Potomac is wider than that of the South Branch, as is also the river broader than the other. And lastly that the course of the river and the direction of the valley are the same above and below the junction of the South Branch. (See letters accompany- ing this report No. 26). These considerations have been deemed sufficient to establish the title to the "father of waters," to the name which he has so long borne. (See History and Geography of Western States, vol. 2, Missouri). And as they exist in an equal extent, so should they equally confirm to pre-eminence which the Cohongoroota has now for near a century so proud and peacefully enjoyed.
The claim of Maryland to the territory in question is by 110 means so reasonable as the claim of the great Frederick of Prussia to Silesia, which that Prince asserted and maintained, but which he tells us himself he never would have thought of assert- ing, if his father had not left him an overflowing treasury and a powerful army.
While this brief historical retrospect, presented as explanatory of the accompanying testimony, I will now lay before your Excel- lency, in chronological order, a list of the documents and papers re- ferred to in my preceding observations.
No. I. Is the original grant from King James II. to Thomas Lord Culpeper, made on the 27th of September, in the fourth year of his reign.
22
170
FAULKNER'S REPORT.
No. 2. Copy of a letter from Major Gooch, Lieutenant-gover- nor of Virginia, to the lords commissioners for trade and plantations, dated at Williamsburg, June 29, 1729.
No. 3. Petition to the King in Council, in relation to the Northern Neck grants and their boundaries, agreed to by the House of Burgesses, June, 30, 1730.
No. 4. The petition of Thomas Lord Fairfax, to his Majesty in Council, preferred in 1733, setting forth his grants from the crown, and that there had been divers disputes between the governor and council in Virginia and the petitioner and his agent, Robert Carter, Esq., touching the boundaries of the petitioner's said tract of land, and praying that his Majesty would be pleased to order a commis- sion to issue for running out, marking and ascertain the bounds of the petitioner's said tract of land.
No. 5. A copy of an order of his Majesty to his privy council, bearing date of 29th of November, 1733, directing William Gooch, Esq., Lieutenant-governor of Virginia, to appoint three or more commissioners, (not exceeding five), who in conjunction with a like number to be named and deputed by the said Lord Fairfax, are to survey and settle the marks and boundaries of the said district of land agreeably to the terms of the patent under which the Lord Fair- fax claims.
No. 6. Copy of the commission from Lieutenant-governor Gooch to William Byrd, of Westover ; John Robinson, of Piscataway ; and Johm Grymes, of Brandon ; appointing them commissioners on behalf of his Majesty, with full power, authority, &c.
[I have not been able to meet with a copy of the commission of Lord Fairfax to his commissioners-they were William Beverly, William Fairfax and Charles Carter. It appears by the accom- panying report of their proceedings, that " his lordship's commission- ers delivered to the king's commissioners an attested copy of their commission," which having been found upon examination more restricted in its authority than that of the commissioners of the crown, gave rise to some little difficulty which was subsequently adjusted].
No. 7. Copy of the instructions on behalf of the right honor- able Lord Fairfax, to his commissioners.
No. 8. Minutes of the proceedings of the commissioners ap- pointed on the part of his Majesty and the right honorable Thomas Lord Fairfax, from their first meeting of Fredericksburg, Septen- ber 25th, 1736.
No. 9. Original correspondence between the commissioners during the year 1736 and 1737, in reference to the examination and survey of the Potomac river.
171
FAULKNER'S REPORT.
No. 10. The original field notes of the survey of the Potomac River, and the mouth of the Shenandoah to the head spring of said Potomac River, by Mr. Benjamin Winslow.
No. 11. The original plat of the survey of the Potomac River.
No. 12. Original letter from Jolin Savage, one of the survey- ors, dated January 17, 1737, stating the grounds upon which the commissioners had decided in favor of the Cohongoroota over the Wappacomo, as the main branch of the Potomac. The former, he says, is both wider and deeper than the latter.
No. 13. Letter from Charles Carter, Esq., dated January 20, 1737, exhibiting the result of a comparative examination of the North and South Branches of the Potomac River. The North Branch at its mouth, he says, is twenty-three poles wide, the South Branch sixteen, &c.
No. 14. A printed map of the Northern Neck of Virginia, situated betwixt the Rivers Potomac and Rappahannock, drawn in the year 1737, by William Mayo, one of the king's surveyors, ac- cording to his actual survey in the preceding year.
No. 15. A printed map of the course of the Rivers Rappa- hannock and Potomac, in Virginia, as surveyed according to order in 1736 and 1737, (supposed to be by Lord Fairfax's surveyors).
No. 16. A copy of the separate report of the commissioners appointed on the part of the crown. [I have met with no copy of the separate report of Lord Fairfax's commissioners].
No. 17. Copy of Lord Fairfax's observations upon and excep- tions to the report of the commissioners to the crown.
No. 18. A copy of the report and opinion of the right honor- able the lords of the committee of council for plantation affairs, dated 6th April, 1745.
No. 19. The decision of his Majesty in Council, made on the IIth of April, 1745, confirming the report of the council for planta- tion affairs, and further ordering the Lieutenant-governor of Vir- ginia to nominate three or more persons, (not exceeding five), who, in conjunction with a like number to be named and deputed by Lord Fairfax, are to run and mark out the boundary and dividing line, according to his decision thus made.
No. 20. The original commissioners fron Thomas Lord Fair- fax to the Honorable William Fairfax, Charles Carter and William Beverly, Esqrs., dated 11th June, 1745.
[Col. Joshua Fry, Col. Lunsford Lomax, and Major Peter Hedgeman, were appointed commissioners on the part of the crown].
172
FAULKNER'S REPORT.
No. 21. Original agreement entered into by the commission- ers, preparatory to their examination of the Potomac River.
No. 22. The original journal of the journey of the commis- sioners, surveyors, &c., from the head spring of the Rappahannock to the head spring of the Potomac, in 1746. [This is a curious and valuable document, and gives the only authentic narrative now ex- tant of the planting of the Fairfax Stone].
No. 23. The joint report of the commissioners appointed as well on the part of the crown as of Lord Fairfax, in obedience to his Majesty's order on 11th of April, 1735.
No. 24. A manuscript map of the head spring of the Potomac River, executed by Col. George Mercer, of the regiment commanded in 1756 by General Washington.
No. 25. Copy of an act of the General Assembly of Maryland, passed Februray 19, 1819, authorizing the appointment of commis- sioners on the part of the State, to meet such commissioners as may be appointed for the same purpose by the Commonwealth of Vir- ginia, to settle and adjust, by mutual compact between the two gov- ernments, the western limits of that state of Commonwealth of Virginia, to commence at the most western source of the North Branch of the Potomac River, and to run a due north course thence to the Pennsylvania line.
No. 26. Letters from intelligent and well-informed individu- als, residing in the country watered by the Potomac and its branches, addressed to the undersigned, stating important geographical facts bearing upon the present controversy.
There are other papers in my possession, not listed nor referable to any particular head, yet growing out of and illustrating the con- troversy between Lord Fairfax and the crown ; these are also here- with transmitted.
There are other documents again not at all connected with my present duties, which chance has thrown in my may, worthy of pres- ervation in the archives of the State. Such, for example, as the original "plan of the line between Virginia and North Carolina, which was run in the year, 1728, in the spring and fall, from the sea to Peter's Creek, by the Hon. William Byrd, Wmn. Dandbridge and Richard Fitzwilliams, Esqrs., commissioners, and Mr. Alex'r Irvine and Mr. William Mayo, surveyors-and from Peter's Creek to Steep Rock Creek, was continued in the fall of the year 1749, by Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson." Such documents, should it accord with the views of your Excellency, might be deposited with "the Vir- ginia Historical and Philosophical Society," an institution of recent origin, yet founded upon the most expanded views of public utility, and which is seeking by its patrotic appeals to individual liberality,
173
FAULKNER'S REPORT.
to wrest from the ravages of time the fast perishing records and memorials of our history and institutions.
With sentiments of regard, I am, very respectfully, your obedi- ent servant,
CHARLES JAS. FAULKNER.
To JOHN FLOYD, Eso., Governor of Virginia.
After perusing this masterly exposition, the reader will be at a loss to conceive on what grounds Maryland can rest her claims to the territory in question, and what authorities she can adduce to support them. The controversy is still pending, and, in addition to Mr. Faulkner, Col. John B. D. Smith, of Frederick, and John S. Gallaher, Esq., of Jefferson, have been appointed commissioners on the part of Virginia.
174
LAYING OFF THE COUNTIES.
CHAPTER XIV.
LAYING OFF THE COUNTIES.
The two counties of Frederick and Augusta were laid off at the same session of the colonial legislature, in the year 1738, and in- cluded all the vast region of country west of the Blue Ridge. Pre- vious to that time the county of Orange included all the territory west of the mountains. Orange was taken from Spottsylvania in the year 1734, Spottsylvania having previously crossed the Blue Ridge, and took in a considerable part of what is now the county of . Page. Previous to laying off the county of Orange, the territory west of the Blue Ridge, except the small part which lay in Spott- sylvania, does not appear to have been included in any county. Spottsylvania was laid off in the year 1720; the act for which is worded as follows :
" PREAMBLE. That the frontier towards the high mountains are exposed to danger from the Indians, and the late settlements of the French to the westward of the said mountains : ENACTED, Spottsylvania county, bounded upon Snow Creek up to the mill ; thence by a southwest line to the River North Ann ; thence up the said River as far as convenient, and thence by a line to be run over the high mountains to the river on the northwest side thereof, * so as to include the northern passage through the said mountains ; thence down to the said river until it comes against the head of the Rappahannock River ; thence by a line to the head of the Rappa- hannock River, and down that River to the mouth of Snow Creek ; which tract of land, from the first of May, 1721, shall become a county, by the name of Spottsylvania county."
Thus it appears that a little more than one hundred years ago Spottsylvania was a frontier county, and that the vast region west of the Blue Ridge, with its millions of people, has been settled and improved from an entire wilderness. The country for more than a thousand miles to the west has been within this short period rescued from a state of natural barbarism, and is now the seat of the fine arts and sciences, of countless millions of wealth, and the abode of freedom, both religious and political. Judging from the past, what an immense prospect opens itself to our view for the future. With-
* South Fork of the Shenandoah.
175
LAYING OFF THE COUNTIES.
in the last half century, our Valley has poured out thousands of emmigrants, who have contributed towards peopling the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and other regions south and west, and migrations still continue.
It has already been stated that Frederick county was laid off in the year 1738. The first court of justice held in the county was in the year 1743. This delay, it is presumable, arose from the want of a sufficient number of Magistrates to form a quorum for the legal transaction of business. The first court was composed of the fol- lowing justices, to-wit: Morgan Morgan, David Vance, Marquis Calmes, Thomas Rutherford, William M'Mahon, Meredith Helm, George Hoge and John White. James Wood, clerk. This court sat the first time, on Friday, the 11th day of November, 1743. At this term of the court is to be found on record the following entry : "Ordered, that the sheriff of this county build a twelve foot square log house, logged above and below, to secure his prison- ers, he agreeing to be satisfied with what he shall be allowed him for such building by two of the court, and he not to be answer- able for escape. This was the first jail erected in the county of Frederick."
The County of Hampshire was the next laid off, and was taken from Frederick and Augusta. This was done in the year 1753. The first court held in this county was in December, 1757. Thomas B. Martin, James Simpson, William Miller, Solomon Hedges, and Nathaniel Kuykendall, justices, composed the court, and Gabriel Jones the clerk.
Berkeley and Dunmore were taken from Frederick in the year 1772. In October, 1777, the legislature altered the name of Dun- more county to Shenandoah. It does not appear, from the langu- age of the law, for what particular reason this alteration was made. It had been named after and in honor of Lord Dunmore, the then governor under the royal government. But his lordship took a most decidedly active part in opposition to the American Revolution ; and in order to have the liberty of wearing his head, took shelter on board of a British armed vessel. His conduct is pretty fully related in Mr. Jacob's account of Dunmore's war, given in the preceding pages ; and it was doubtless owing to this cause that the name of Dunmore county was altered to that of Shenandoah.
In the year 1769, Botetourt county was taken from Augusta. In the act is to be found the following clause : "And whereas the people situated on the Mississippi, in the said county of Botetourt, will be very remote from the court house, and must necessarily be- come a separate county, as soon as their numbers are sufficient, which probably will happen in a short time; Be it therefore enact- ed, by the authority aforesaid, that the inhabitants of that part of said county of Botetourt, which lies on the said waters, shall be ex- empt from the payment of any levies to be laid by the said county court for the purpose of building a court house and prison for the
176
LAYING OFF THE COUNTIES.
said county." Thus it appears that Virginia, at that period, claimed the jurisdiction and territory of that vast region of country westward to the Mississippi.
In 1772 the County of Fincastle was taken from Botetourt ; and in 1776 Fincastle was divided into the counties of Kentucky, Washington and Montgomery, and the name of Fincastle became extinct.
In the year 1777 Rockbridge county was taken from Augusta and Botetourt. Rockingham county, the same year, was taken from Augusta, and Greenbrier from Augusta and Botetourt. The year 1776 and 1777 were remarkable for many divisions of the western counties. West Augusta, in the year 1775, by the convention as- sembled for the purpose of devising a plan for resisting the oppres- sions of the mother country, among other proceedings determined, that "the landlords of the district of West Augusta shall be con- sidered as a distinct county, and have the liberty of sending two dele- gates to represent them in general convention as aforesaid."
This is the first account which the author has been able to find in our ancient statutes in relation to West Augusta as a separate dis- trict or county. In fact, it does not appear that we ever had a county legally established by this name. It is presumable that it acquired the name by general usage, from its remote and western locality from the seat of justice. Be this as it may, it appears that the district of West Augusta never had its bounds laid off and de- fined until the month of October, 1776, when it was divided into three distinct counties, viz : Ohio, Yohogania, and Monongalia. By the extension of the western boundary between Pennsyl- vania and Virginia, the greater part of the county Yohogania falling within the limits of Pennsylvania, the residue was, by an Act of Assembly, of 1755, added to Ohio, and Yohogania became extinct.
Harrison county was established in 1784, taken from Monon- galia. In 1785 Hardy county was laid off, taken from Hampshire. In 1786 Randolph county was laid off, taken from Harrison. In 1785 Russell county was taken from Washington. In 1787 Pendle- ton county was taken from Augusta, Hardy and Rockingham. In 1788 Kanawha was taken from Greenbrier and Montgomery. In1 1789 Wythe county was taken from Montgomery, and a part of Botetourt added to Montgomery. In 1790 Bath was taken from Augusta, Botetourt and Greenbrier. In 1792 Lee county was taken from Russell and in the same year, Grayson county was taken from Wythe.
The author has deemed it an interesting part of his work to give a particular history of the establishment of our counties, be- cause it goes to show the rapid increase of our population, and im- provement of our country, since the termination of the War of the Revolution. To an individual born and raised in the Valley, and who is old enough to recollect the passing events for the last half
177
LAYING OFF THE COUNTIES.
century-who was acquainted with the state of our country fifty years ago, its sparse population, rude log buildings, and uncultivat- ed manners and customs of our ancestors-the great improvement of every thing calculated to better the condition of human life, the as- tonishing change in the appearance of our country, its elegant buildings, finely cultivated farms, improved state of society, &c., calculated almost to raise doubts in his mind whether these vast changes could possibly have taken place within his little span of ex- istence. The author's destiny when a youth, threw him into a busi- ness which gave him an opportunity of exploring a considerable part of the lower counties of the Valley, and he has lately made it his business again to explore the same counties ; and if he had been for the last forty years, shut up in a dungeon, and recently set at liber- ty, he would almost doubt his own senses and believe himself in another country. A great part of our Valley may be said to be ele- gantly improved. *
* Capt. James Russell, of Berkeley, some years ago built a brick barn 150 feet long and 55 feet wide. The late Mr. John Hite, in the year 1785, built the first brick house ever erected west of the Blue Ridge. This is but a small one-story building, and is now owned by the heirs of the late Mr. A. Neill, at the north end of Stephensburg, in the County of Frederick. In 1787 Mr. Hite built a merchant mill, which was at that time considered the finest mill in the Valley. It is now hardly considered a second rate mill
23
178
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TOWNS.
CHAPTER XV.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TOWNS.
About the year 1738, there were two cabins erected near the Run, in Winchester. * The author regrets that he has not been able to ascertain the names of the first settlers in this town. Tradition however relates that they were Gerinan families.
In the year 1752 the legislature passed "an act for the estab- lishing of the town of Winchester." In the preamble are the follow- ing words :
"WHEREAS, it has been represented to the General Assembly, that James Wood, gentleman, did survey and lay out a parcel of land at the court house ; in Frederick county, in twenty-six lots, of half an acre each, with streets for a town, by the name of Winches- ter, and made sale of said lots to divers persons who have since set- tled and built and continue building and settling thereon ; but be- cause the same was not laid off and erected into a town by act of Assembly, the freeholders and inhabitants thereof will not be entitl- ed to the like privileges enjoyed by the freeholders and inhabitants of other towns in this colony. Be it enacted, &c., that the said par- cel of land lately claimed by the said James Wood, lying and being in the County of Frederick aforesaid, together with fifty-four other lots of half an acre each, twenty-four thereof in one or two streets on the east side of the former lots, the street or streets to run par- allel with the street already laid off, and the remaining thirty lots to be laid off at the north end of the aforesaid twenty-six with a com- modious street or streets in such manner as the proprietor thereof, the right honorable Thomas Lord Fairfax, shall see fit, be and is hereby constituted, enacted, and established a town, in the manner already laid out, to be called by and retain the name of Winchester, and that the freeholders of said town shall forever hereafter enjoy
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.