Yesterday I watched this video from RootsTech 2019 on the cool things Ancestry is doing with DNA results. From it I learned that they read all the comments people make in the feedback from their beta testing. Well, I thought, I have something that needs fixing, so let’s test that.
My g-g-grandfather Jacob Myers was adopted by his step-father Daniel Myers. His biological father was John Naylor. Close to 50% of all the matches for me and my uncle are Naylor/Carpenter, so it was frustrating to me that ThruLines kept showing Daniel Myers as Jacob’s father instead of John Naylor. I clicked on the little link at the bottom of the page where we can give feedback on Beta testing and filled out their four-slide survey. On two of the slides there are boxes where text can be entered to augment the answers to the Strongly Disagree > Strongly Agree choices for questions in the survey. On the last slide I explained the problem, mostly just hoping it would help them improve their algorithm for choosing parents. I also mentioned that my William Wood kept showing up as a potential ancestor from other people’s trees even though he’s on my tree. I submitted the survey and gave it no more thought.
This morning I checked ThruLines (I do that every day because it’s not static, it changes) and lo and behold John Naylor was shown as an ancestor! It gets better. Now that they have the correct ancestor, John Naylor’s parents showed up as well and BOOM my uncle has 56 possible matches spread out over 10 children and I have 37 over 6 children!
AND William Wood is a real ancestor now.
All this happened in less than 24 hours. Now that is one amazing customer experience.
Collecting records is more fun than understanding them. There, I said it. The part of genealogy that is addictive is the hunt for treasures. Snagging an elusive census record, obituary, Will, vital record or deed gives more pleasure than slogging through the legalese trying to ‘get’ what we’re seeing. Sometimes a deed isn’t all that complex, like a bill of sale. Still, something as straight forward as a bill of sale can activate the imagination and spawn more questions than it answers.
The above bill of sale shows Robert Schoolfield selling the sloop the Two Brothers to Hampton and John Rownd for three hundred and sixty pounds on 19 Apr 1787.
My first question was: What is a Sloop? Googling it wasn’t all that helpful except to learn that a sloop is a shipping vessel with one mast. The size can vary. The document states that the vessel was “…riding at ankor (sic) in Synapn“. Um, where’s that? Took me some doing, but I figured it out.
Sinepuxent Bay. Cool.
Next: What was Robert doing with a sloop? I have seen nothing to suggest any of the Schoolfield family in Worcester or Somerset counties were in any way seafaring people. No fishermen, sailors, traders…only planters, gentlemen, carpenters and such. They owned land and slaves, and probably grew tobacco, but nothing to do with the sea. To date the only ancestor I’ve found with any relationship to the sea was James Houston, the grandfather of my Levi Houston. He was a shipwright and trader. The Schoolfields? Not so much. Why has nothing like this ever shown up in an inventory?
I would be remiss if I didn’t hunt around for two Schoolfield brothers. Robert was one of four brothers. Robert’s father John was one of three brothers. One of those brothers lived in Delaware and died 9 years prior to the sale, so John and Joseph were sort of ‘two brothers’. Going back to the original immigrants, there were five brothers, but only two had known offspring: Joseph I and Henry I. All the white Schoolfields in Worcester and Somerset counties were descendants of those two men. I looked at Robert’s sons: John and Joseph. Joseph wasn’t born yet. Nothing seemed to fit.
When in doubt, make a chart or a spreadsheet or some other correlation tool. In this case I made a table of the males (looking for brothers, after all).
Funny thing about tables, spreadsheets, charts, etc. They have a tendency to show patterns we weren’t looking for. Besides the fondness for the name William in both lines, does anything else jump out? It did to me: No one in the left column is named Joseph.
Colonial naming conventions aren’t proof, I get that. They’re a mishmash of cultures. The biggest weakness they have is that we rarely know about the children who died in infancy. Sometimes the names get recycled like with the sons of Henry III: Isaac and John were used twice. I once attempted to use a naming scheme as evidence in a proof to a lineage society and got swatted down for it, so I’m leery of lending them even a little weight. They’re like unsourced genealogies in that they’re finding tools–ways to look for patterns or something that’s missing. Also, the women introduce names from their own families. For instance the name Robert was introduced to the Schoolfield line by his mother Katherine Givans, whose father was Robert Givans.
Of course you knew I was going to somehow make this about Dolly Schoolfield; she is the whole reason I research this family. Her children were named: George S, Joseph, Nancy, Sarah, John, Elizabeth and James. George and James are names from her husband Levi Houston’s family. Using the table above, where would it make the most sense to place Dolly?
It’s not evidence, but it is one more data point that lands Dolly in the Joseph branch of the family.
In the end I decided that the Two Brothers were the two brother who purchased the sloop: Hampton and John Rownds. Who knew a bill of sale could be so fun?
One constant about doing research is that someone else should be able to replicate our findings. When a scientist conducts a study, other scientists will attempt to replicate the results of the study as a means of proving or disproving the first scientist’s work. Seems to me that this standard applies to genealogy. As researchers we ought to be able to find a path to, if not reach the same conclusions, at the very least see why previous researchers reached the conclusions they made.
I am still trying to understand why those who went before claim that Dolly Schoolfield’s parents were John Schoolfield and Mary Richardson. I found an earlier source for this information: A History of the Houston-Sherwin Family, compiled by Houston Mulloy Houston, 1950, revised 1963. This is not an easy ‘book’ to find. Worldcat shows only 4 libraries have it. I was lucky enough to get some of the pages sent to me by the librarian in Fort Myers, Florida. It is small and self-published, as are most such genealogies. From it we learn the original compilation was begun in 1945.
On page 6 of the revised edition is the following statement:
I believe this is what he is referencing:
This is an 1899 transcription of the original records. The author of the Houston genealogy appears to be claiming that his family records show Levi was born 20 Aug 1750, and that this is a baptism record rather than a birth record. Without seeing the original documents, there’s no way to know for certain. (I have to wonder if the ‘family records’ were indeed the DAR lineage books published in 1923?)
I’m trying to determine how much credibility to assign to this author. He was three generations closer to Levi and Dolly than me; that is a factor that needs some weight.
On the previous page (5) he made this statement:
On page 5 he said they were married in 1777; on page 6 he said they were married about 1778. I weigh that as speculation, and conclude he was as unsuccessful as every other researcher in finding a marriage record for this couple. Unfortunately this book is the source for that date with the DAR. Kind of puts the first known child George Schoolfield Houston in a bind given that he was born (coincidentally) on his father’s 27th birthday: 20 Aug 1777.
On page 6, the author reveals that he had considered two different men as the John Houston (father of Levi). The first was an Irish immigrant to Philadelphia in 1735. He rejected that man in favor of someone from an earlier family in Delaware. Why he cast his net outside of Maryland diminishes my view of his research. If this were being graded on a point system, he would get points for being closer to the ancestral couple, and points for finding the church records. I’d dock him on the marriage speculation for lack of evidence, and he’d run into negative points for not finding John in Maryland. (Especially since he advised his readers to cast about for further evidence in Worcester and Somerset Counties.)
The author of the book in question is a descendant of the last known child of Levi and Dolly: James Houston. He was probably named for Levi’s grandfather, whose Will excerpt is shown above that gives the lineage of Levi as the beneficiary of the inheritance to be left to him from John Houston. Had the author been serious about finding John’s identity, he would have had to look no further than this 1772 Will.
Moving on to the Schoolfield reference: Page 4 contains a list of the surnames the author credits for the existence of the family he is tracing:
The Mary Richardson who married John Schoolfield was born Mary Martin. She is still single when her father Robert Martin mentions her in his Will in Liber W.D. 1, pg 383, probated 16 Jun 1725. In Maryland Will Books Liber B.T. 1, pg 538, John Richardson lists Mary as his wife and his children as: John, Samuel, William, Comfort, Polly, and Robert Martin Richardson. Mary’s mother Mary Richardson mentions a daughter, Mary Schoolfield in her 1774 Will. In Mary Schoolfield’s Will (Worcester Co JW4, pg 393, probate 13 Mar 1778), the children mentioned are William, Polly and Robert Martin Richardson. Don’t know what happened to John, but Samuel died in 1770; Comfort died in 1774. John Schoolfield’s Will (Worcester Co MD Will Book 4, pg 132) makes no mention of any of the Richardson children. He lists his seven children: Thomas Givens, John, Robert, Mary, Betty, Merin and Cate. He also states that no part of his estate is to go to pay for any of his wife’s debts from prior to their marriage. (As discussed in a previous post, these children might be those from John’s first marriage to Katherine Given.)
If the author of this book had particular knowledge of Dolly Schoolfield’s parents, then why didn’t he know Mary Richardson was a Martin? Why doesn’t the above read: Milborns, Martins, Schoolfields and Houstons?
And…the question remains: If Dolly is the daughter of John Schoolfield and Mary (Martin) Richardson, then why is she not mentioned in either of their Wills? For the reasons stated, I am still dismissing this couple as the parents of Dolly.
The good news is that I can place the date the supposed names of her parents were put forth as early as 1950. That bad news is that I am no closer to understanding what led this researcher to make the claim.
My mind naturally compiles things–sorting like things into some kind of order. I see the attraction and admire the dedication of people who take records from a location and compile them into a collection that is easily researched. Most of what is searchable on Ancestry.com is some form of compilation of records. We need them to do our research. I’m all for benefiting from the work of others. I’m learning to avoid becoming dependent on either the work of others or compilations.
Recently I have encountered examples of why it is not a good idea to take compiled data at face value, even when it is sourced. The first kind of error that creeps into compiled data is the transcription error: missing tick marks in the census, gender and race marked incorrectly, etc. To their credit Ancestry.com allows users to add corrections on most fields (although not those). Nothing replaces looking at the image to verify the information for ourselves. I’ve done transcription for Ancestry.com; it is challenging and easy to make mistakes.
Just today I discovered an error on a record on familysearch.org.
Below is the image used to produce the above transcription.
There is no year. Other dates on this same page range from 1745 to 1768, but most are in the 1760’s. The document itself is a transcription done about 1899 from the original church records that were not filmed by the LDS church.
Another type of compilation is a book. Spotting errors in books is more of a challenge, and close to impossible to correct. All too often the publisher is defunct and/or the author is deceased, leaving no one to update any later editions.
One book I rely on a lot in my current research project is Land Records of Worcester County, Maryland 1666-1810 by Ruth T Dryden. This book represents a staggering amount of work drawing information from various sources into a readable format that is unique in its focus on individual tracts of land in the county. I was lucky enough to find a library willing to lend it long enough for me to photograph all the pages relating to my Schoolfields and Houstons. It is impossible for a book this size to be error-free. It’s a human thing.
The above is from page 575 of the book that begins to track the history of this tract of land through 1810. The wording of the 1720 entry alerted me to double-check the Will since this entry indicates both recipients received the ‘upper’ part of the property.
Checking the Will that was recorded in the Will book, we see that the lower part was given to his brother Joseph. The next page does indeed show that the upper part of Smith’s First Choice was given to Armwell Robert Vigerous. Bear in mind the Will book is itself a transcription of the original Will. Sometimes Will books are transcriptions of transcriptions of earlier versions that have deteriorated, or were kept separately by the county. Some archives possess the original Wills, and will, for a fee, provide a photocopy or photo of it. If there is any doubt about the transcription, it can be worthwhile to attempt to get a digital image of the original to see if it is legible. The above transcription has handwriting from the time period, so it is likely to be the first derivative of the original. In this instance, the error was easily resolved by viewing this image.
Somerset County Maryland Marriage References and Family Relationships, 1666-1800 by Lyndeth Esgar (2013) is another compilation I take with a dose of caution.
I was looking for clarification about Katherine Givan as the mother of John Schoolfield’s children. I’ve written about this family before because this John Schoolfield was a possible parent to my Dolly Schoolfield. The names John Schoolfield and Mary Richeson/Richardson are in the water supply as Dolly’s parents. I have a post devoted to debunking this.
I wanted to know why Katherine Givan was named as the mother of John’s children. If the above image from that book were to be believed, then George and Day Givens were her parents. I looked for and found a Will for George Givan on Ancestry.com in Volume 25 Wills, Liber DD #4, pg 472 written 15 Oct 1748. The image is poor quality, but it reveals that George and Day Givan are brothers to Cathren Scoffel. George mentions his ‘cousin’ Thomas Givan Scoffel. Thomas Givens Schoolfield is mentioned in the Will of the above-mentioned John Schoolfield as his son. The Will was written 13 Jan 1772 and appears in Worcester Co Maryland Will Book 4 pg 132. I looked at the other Givan Wills from the correct time period and found that Katherine is the daughter of Robert Givan. His Will appears in Volume 21, Liber T & D, pg. 451 and is dated 24 May 1735. Katherine is not married at that point.
Also in that entry is the last name Gatchel for daughter Mary. It’s Satchel. The one that bugs me, though, is the name Miriam as one of the daughters. The Will Book shows the following:
One other time in this Will, her name is shown as Merin. Below is part of a marriage bond for Robert Schoolfield’s daughter Merin in Bracken County, Kentucky.
She appears to have been named for Robert’s sister. (It is likely that the witness John Schoolfield is Robert’s son.) Yet the name Miriam persists in records and trees.
That makes at least three errors in one entry from a compilation. One problem comes from at least one of the sources the author cites also being a compilation, making it a few generations from the original.
The lesson here is to view compilations as finding aids, not established facts. Go to the sources that are cited, then review them for accuracy. Get as close to the original as possible. Then cite the earliest version rather than the compilation.
Periodically I go looking for potential Revolutionary War patriots in my own tree, hoping to apply new skills to push back another generation on any branch that looks likely. Things don’t always go as I planned however.
One of my proven ancestors is William Moorhead, probably born in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in 1747, and is buried in New Castle, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. The tombstone itself hasn’t been found, but reference to it gives the date of death as 27 May 1819.1 His wife was Elizabeth Barnett.2 None of that is in question. The question is, who are William Moorhead’s parents, and, more importantly, can I find a new patriot?
During my early days of adding ancestors based on shaky leaf hints, I added Samuel Moorhead and Euphemia Fergus, basically because that’s what everyone else had, so why not? Somewhere along the line I began to question that policy, then pruned my tree of all the unproven ‘ancestors’. They weren’t my ancestors until I could find something to make them seem at least likely.
I began by looking at the Samuel Moorhead who was most likely to have been married to Euphemia Fergus and had a son named William. This Samuel Moorhead left behind a Will recorded in Franklin County, Pennsylvania Will Book A pg 17. The Will is dated 1777, proven 11 Feb 1785, and in it he named his wife as “Yuphian”. He also names the following heirs: his daughter Martha and her husband Thomas Espey, sons Thomas Moorhead, Alexander (200 acres in Hamilton Twp.), Samuel (200 acres, part of same tract called Locust Hill), son Joseph (200 acres adjoining John Sullivan’s land), son William (200 acres known as Blacks Bottom). He also names a daughter Jane Mitchell and a son Fergus.
I can see how tempting it is to latch on to this Will, and say that the William named therein is the same William Moorhead 1747-1819. It would be totally awesome for me, cuz: New Patriot! Sigh.
Above is the first part of a quit claim deed where Alexander strives to clear up any misunderstanding about the land he inherited and dispense with any claims from family on that land. He is currently living in Rostraver Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania and wants to sell the land to his brother William.
There can be no mistake that the wife of this William Moorhead, heir of Samuel Moorhead of Hamilton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, is named Mary. Not Elizabeth. That’s new. The rest of the page, and the next accomplish the sale between Alexander and Margaret his wife to William Moorhead of Hamilton Township, and is dated 29 Dec 1797.
Let’s look at William Moorhead and his wife Mary.
The 1800 Census shows him living in Hamilton Township. William Moorhead 1747-1819 is the gentleman living in Derry Township in Westmoreland County. Clearly two different men.
Here is what I have discovered so far about the rest of this family:
Franklin Co Will Book B pg 228: letters of administration were granted to John Moorhead and William Bleakley on 20 Nov 1804 for the estate of Fergus Moorehead.
Westmoreland Co, PA Will Book 1 part 1 pg 143 is the Will of Margaret Moorhead ‘relict of the late Alexander Moorhead deceased’ dated 9 Apr 1798, proved 18 May 1798. Alexander and at least some of his sons routinely appeared in the Pennsylvania Tax and Exoneration lists for Rostraver. It is safe to believe he probably died there, even though Margaret’s Will doesn’t specify.
It would appear Joseph Moorhead continued to live in Hamilton as he appears in the 1800 Census there. Not sure what happened to Samuel Jr or Thomas, although the document above has as a witness Thomas Moorhead Jr.
Edit 5/9/18: Jane Moorhead married Alexander Mitchell and moved to Kentucky. Franklin Co, Pennsylvania Deed Book 5 pg 78.
What is important is that recorded in Franklin County, Pennsylvania Will Book B page 412, Mary Moorhead was granted letters of administration for William Moorhead on 12 Jun 1810.
This completes the picture of the William Moorhead named in the Will of Samuel Moorhead. His birth year is unknown, but he was 45+ in 1800; he died before 12 Jun 1810. It appears he lived his entire adult life in Hamilton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, and at no time lived in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
Granted, there are males named in Westmoreland County, PA with a similar naming convention as this family, but the Samuel Moorhead of Hamilton Township is not the father of my William Moorhead. I need to look elsewhere.
1Book of biographies: the volume contains biographical sketches of leading citizens of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.. Buffalo, N.Y.: Biographical Pub. Co., 1897, pg 175
2Book of biographies: the volume contains biographical sketches of leading citizens of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.. Buffalo, N.Y.: Biographical Pub. Co., 1897, pg 29
In my earlier post A Plausible Theory I began the search for the parents of my Dolly Schoolfield who was born 25 Feb 1759 in Worcester Co MD. I poked gaping holes in the prevailing belief that her parents were John Schoolfield and Mary Richardson, then went on to posit the theory she might be one of the two unidentified children of Joseph Schoolfield who died intestate in 1767. I also stated that if I found records that called that theory into question, I would move off it and develop a new one. Here is an entry in the 1790 US Census for Worcester County, Maryland:
Um. Hmmm. Okay. That second Joseph Schoolfield has an abbreviation for Junior after it. For my theory to work, there needed to be only one Joseph Schoolfield in the 1790 census. There are two. Granted the identifier of Jun. doesn’t necessarily mean these two men are related. This is an alphabetical list. Census and tax takers commonly referred to two men with the same name in the same area as Senior and Junior, but family relationships weren’t noted. As often as not it only meant that one was older than the other.
If what happened next were a movie, the music score for it would have a beat that sounded like a head banging on a desk, and the melody would sound like a vacuum cleaner as I hoovered up all the early Worcester Co MD Wills and Deeds for the surname Schoolfield, then struggled to make sense of them. I am a big fan of timelines. Putting things in the order in which they happened shows us things we wouldn’t normally see. So I deployed the Lazy Genealogist’s version of abstracting documents, and put them in order by date.
Lo and behold, right after the 1790 Census list of names were these two deeds:
5 Jun 1791 Joseph Schoolfield Senior sells to his son William Schoolfield part of SCHOOLFIELD’S PLEASURE AND RECOVERY Book O pg 146
25 Jun 1791 Joseph Schoolfield and his son Joseph Mitchelly Schoolfield part of SCHOOLFIELD’S PLEASURE Book O pg 149
There are various ways to convey property to one’s heirs: by writing a Will with specific instructions; dying intestate and allowing all the land to be entailed on the oldest son; give or sell the property directly to the intended heirs.
The person I’m calling Joseph Schoolfield the 1st died in 1744 and willed to his son John land called SMITH’S FIRST CHOICE. He willed to his son Joseph the 2nd part of a piece of land called DESART and all of an adjoining piece of land called RECOVERY. No mention was made of any of his sons being minors, so I’m assigning a birth year of 1722 to Joseph the 2nd to make him easily old enough to inherit the land without a guardian. It appears to me that the land RECOVERY passes from Joseph Schoolfield the 1st to his son Joseph Schoolfield the 2nd, to his son Joseph Schoolfield the 3rd. Joseph Schoolfield the 2nd, then, would be the Joseph Schoolfield in the above 1790 census, and Joseph the 3rd would be Joseph Schoolfield Junior in that census. (Did I forget to mention that the music score has a refrain that sounds very much like under-the-breath invectives?) If Joseph the 2nd was born about 1722, he would have been about 69 years-old when he sold that property to his sons for fifteen shillings per son. That’s an age when someone would be getting affairs in order.
Taken alone the 1800 Census can be interpreted in more than one way. Combined with other records, the possible stories it can tell narrow significantly. Here is a Joseph Schoolfield living next door to Levi and Dolly Houston:
Joseph and Levi are both shown as males 45+. Levi was born 9 Sep 17551. He is 45. Looking at later census records, Joseph the 3rd was born sometime from 1755 to 1761, making him Levi Houston’s peer.
On the page before the one above is a different Joseph Schoolfield.
See the correction made by the enumerator? That column is for males from age 16 to 25. My interpretation of this correction is that this Joseph Schoolfield is 26, giving him a birth year of 1774. That lines up with the 1820 census. I know it seems like I’m going pretty far into the weeds here, but it is important to establish that this is probably Joseph Schoolfield the 4th, aka the new Joseph Schoolfield Junior. He is now a grown up man able to start purchasing land in his own name:
7 Jun 1802 Joseph Schoolfield Junior purchased part of GREAT CONVENIENCY (sic) in Pitts Creek Hundred (located next to Levi Houston’s swamp) Book V pg 163
This next (abridged) document is the very first one I’ve found where there is anything like a connection between the Schoolfield family and the Houston family. It is also the earliest document I’ve found with Dolly’s name on it.
CHESTNUT RIDGE came to Levi Houston from the Will of his grandfather, James Houston (Worcester Co MD Will Book 4 pages 111-2) in 1772. Levi paid the supply tax on it in 1783. So here he is selling it and HOUSTON’S LOTT to Joseph Schoolfield Junior for 100 dollars in 1805. The next document I found is where George Schoolfield (son of Levi and Dolly named George Schoolfield Houston) sold land to Nehemiah Schoolfield in 1811 (Book AB pg 425).
Fair warning: trigger alert. This next document is not a happy one. It is revolting and sad and reality for the time period.
Joseph Schoolfield Senior (the 3rd) [EDIT: I now think this was Joseph Schoolfield the 2nd, that he was still alive, based on the ages of his daughter Sarah Ewell and her husband Charles] is giving children ages 11, 7 and 4 years of age to his daughter Sarah Ewell in Accomack, Virginia as slaves. I’m not going to go on a tear about how awful this is; nobody needs a lesson in morality from me. I’m going to point to the significance of this document: One of the witnesses is Levi Houston for one, and this is the last known document that shows Levi Houston living in Maryland for two. After this his family and their slaves migrate to Bracken County, Kentucky, thus ending all opportunities for contact between the two families.
I discovered an even more remarkable document dated 12 December 1830 in Worcester County Maryland Deed Book AW pages 139-142. Levi Houston died 11 Feb 1824 in Bracken County, Kentucky. The executors of his Will were two sons James and Joseph Houston. In that capacity they granted their power of attorney to recover and sell a runaway slave named Peter, who ran away before the family moved to Kentucky if he could be found. The document also reveals that on the way to Kentucky, the family lost another runaway slave named Grace while they were in Pittsburgh, PA (a busy gathering point for people headed to Kentucky via the Ohio River). And to whom do they give this power of attorney? Joseph Schoolfield (the 3rd) in Worcester County, Maryland, who was still alive in 1830 (he died in 1834). If I’m understanding this document correctly, Peter was located and was allowed to purchase his freedom for 100 dollars.
So what am I saying in all this? I’m looking very seriously at Joseph Schoolfield the 3rd as Dolly’s brother, and therefore, Joseph Schoolfield the 2nd as her father. It’s just a theory, like the one before it, but one with a better road map for making the case.
1 Coventry P.E. Church, Somerset Co., MD Parish and Vestry Records, Vol 1 from familysearch.org
As a genealogy hobbyist, I have found myself drawn to a couple sub-specialties in the field of family research: helping people find Revolutionary War Patriots in their trees, and tracking down family lore. After spending some quality time helping others find more Patriots, I was suddenly without a project. I decided to apply what I’d learned about research to my own family and quickly discovered a new patriot! He is the father of one of my existing patriots, Levi Houston.
What about his wife, Dolly Schoolfield? Could I find some form of patriotic service for her father as well? To clarify, patriotic service does not have to be military in nature. It can take the form of paying a supply tax, swearing an oath of fidelity, serving on a jury, supplying food, clothing, transportation, medical relief, etc. This significantly raises the age of an individual who could be considered for recognition by the DAR. Someone far too old to bear arms could provide any number of allowed types of service with no limit to age. This is why I could contemplate looking for service for Dolly’s father.
Raise your hand if you’ve attached someone to your tree as a result of a shaky leaf hint without doing the research to support the relationship. *Raises hand*. I added Dolly’s parents and their parents years ago to my tree based solely on shaky leaves, then never gave them another thought.
The prevailing belief about Dolly Schoolfield’s parents is that they were John Schoolfield born 1730 in Worcester County, Maryland, and either Mary Richison or Richardson, no info. The vital stats on Dolly that have been accepted by the DAR are: born 25 Feb 1759 in Worcester Co MD, died 12 Feb 1836 in Bracken Co KY, married 1777 in Maryland. The closest I’ve come to a legit source for this data is the DAR. Earlier descendants of Dolly and Levi provided the information with no supporting documentation like a bible or baptism reference. The information had been handed down somehow to descendants of the first known child of Dolly and Levi: George Schoolfield Houston. One of these early applicants was the granddaughter of George Schoolfield Houston, making Dolly her great-grandmother. That’s good enough for me.
Using the year 1759 as a starting point, Dolly’s father needed to be at least 21, so he had to be born no later than 1738. The shaky leaf hint pointed to a John Schoolfield born 1730, son of Henry Schoolfield and Ann Bozman. I looked at the trees that had attached this person to see if I could track down the source. Nothing jumped out at me, so the search was expanded. Eventually I read a reference to a newspaper article that appeared on page 13 on 8 July 1906 in the Baltimore Sun. I highly recommend any Maryland Schoolfield researcher make the effort to find it on newspapers.com. Here is the part that matters to this topic:
There he is, just like everyone said: John Schoolfield, son of Henry and Ann, b. 3 Feb 1730. Wait, what? Died 12 Feb 1720? Clearly he didn’t die 10 years before he was born; that is a typo. Still, he died when he was 9 days old. This article doesn’t mention the second John born to this couple, but records from Coventry Parish Church in Somerset, MD reveals this family had another son named John.
This John was born in 1747, making him too young to be Dolly’s (b. 1759) father.
Why are people so sure Dolly’s father is John Schoolfield and Mary Richardson (I have yet to find anyone in Worcester Co MD from that time period with the surname Richison.)? Time to look for any other John Schoolfield married to a Mary Richardson. There are two probable options.
John Schoolfield #1 is the son of Joseph Schoolfield (brother of the aforementioned Henry). His Will, written 13 Jan 1772, can be found on familysearch.org in Worcester Co MD Will Book 4 image 74. In it he acknowledges his wife Mary (Martin) and is very specific to state that she is to inherit any property that was hers before their marriage, and that no part of his estate is to go to pay any of her debts from before their marriage. This suggests that they were married later in life. Indeed, that seems to be the case given that when she died, her 1777 nuncupative Will (Worcester Co MD book JW4 images 203-4) only mentions children from her first marriage to John Richardson. Neither document mentions Dolly.
John Schoolfield #2 was the son of John Schoolfield #1. He died intestate; a bond was filed on 1 Nov 1796. His wife Mary was named administrator. The documents for this time period were never filmed by familysearch.org. Someone on Facebook recommended I contact the Nabb Research Center for help finding the resolution to this estate. A researcher there found the partition of land for this estate in 1806 that names the heirs-at-law: Nancy, Harrison A, Mary Ann, John, William and minor son Robert. That this Mary Schoolfield is a Richardson is a guess on my part. On 18 Jan 1788 a Will for Robert Richardson was proven in which he names a daughter Mary Schoolfield (Worcester Co MD Will Book 13 image 105). There was a Benjamin Schoolfield who was also married to a woman named Polly. He died in 1799. Either way, that John Schoolfield isn’t Dolly’s father either.
I’ll admit that at one point I began to doubt Dolly was a Schoolfield. Yet evidence began to mount that she belongs in this extended family. Near as I can tell, there were three sons born to the original Maryland Schoolfield immigrant who might have been Benjamin Schoolfield. One son, Benjamin Jr. daughtered out. The remaining sons, Henry and Joseph represent the two branches of the Worcester/Somerset Schoolfield family. Members of both lines chain-migrated to Bracken County, Kentucky from about 1797 to about 1816. Joseph’s grandson Robert Schoolfield was the first to appear in the tax records in Bracken County. Eventually most if not all of the offspring of Henry’s grandson George Thomas Schoolfield followed. The family established the Bracken Academy in Augusta, KY. More than one teacher in the area bore the surname Schoolfield. Dolly and Levi Houston moved to Bracken County as well in 1812. At least some of their known children accompanied them. The question remains: who are her parents?
Well, I have a working theory. Since I’ve accounted for all of Henry’s sons/grandsons who could be of the correct age, that leaves sons and grandsons of Joseph. Robert Schoolfield, the anchor for the chain migration to Bracken Co was the son of John Schoolfield #1 from above. John Schoolfield #1 had a brother Joseph. Joseph died intestate in 1767. His widow Rebecca (Ennis) remarried to William Anderson Parker. Together they settled his estate. That final account leaves behind a tantalizing clue. In Worcester County Accounts Book Liber 60 page 340-1 presented to the court an accounting of the assets of Joseph Schoolfield in 1769 amounting to 71 pounds 15 shillings. After all the debts were paid, what remained was 39 pounds 19 shillings and 11 pence.
It helps to know that the term infants was what we call minors. People up to the age of 20 could be called infants. As it happens, Dolly would have been 9 years old at the time of this accounting. Was she one of the two children of Joseph and Rebecca Schoolfield? There is no mention of her in the Will of William Anderson Parker. He names children, but not her. Dolly would have been married 11 years by the time William A Parker died in 1788. I’m still looking to see what happened to Rebecca.
What could account for the persistent belief that Dolly’s parents were John and Mary Schoolfield? Part of my theory involves the possibility that when Rebecca remarried to William A. Parker, she farmed her first two children out to Joseph’s family to raise. Like, say, for instance John Schoolfield #2 who might have married Mary Richardson? There are other options, of course, but this one, given what I’ve learned so far, is at least plausible.
Like all theories, they stand or fall over time based on new evidence. I’ll happily abandon this theory if better information appears. For now I can find nothing to support the belief that Dolly’s parents were John and Mary Schoolfield.