Very Early Family History?

While it is generally accepted that the 1637 land patent to one Robert Rockhould (Rockwell), for the arrival of himself, his wife Sarah and daughter Mary, and one Thomasin Rockhould and a Mary Sayo? is the beginning of our family in America.  I have questioned whether Thomasin was Robert's son or maybe his mother.

I found the following on line:  While there is always question as to the accuracy of transcribed historical documents, I now am more convinced that Thomasin was Robert's mother.  Thomas arrived in 1639, after the original immigrants.  I suspect the Mary Roe might have been a servant or some connection and she brought Thomas to the new world.  I still need to search the eitire document for any others that Robert might have sponsored in the '37 - 40 time frame.

I have only extracted those names I have found interest in, the Boatwright might connect to my mother's family, and any of the Richardsons might connect to Mary, wife of Robert's son John; both Learward and Leonard arrived in Norfolk..  I still have not found the Mary Sayo? (or whatever her name is) that is listed on the 1637 land patent.

New Norfolk,Upper Norfolk,and Namsemund are all pretty much the same, there were several name changes in the '37-'40 time frame.  You can view the entire transcript at the web site below.


http://www.evmedia.com/virginia/
Complete listing of
Early Virginia Immigrants, 1623-1666
(from book published 1912 by George Cabell Greer, now copyright-free)
Each line contains from left to right:
   LAST & FIRST - Name of immigrant who came to America
   ARRIVAL -  Year of immigrant arrival
   SPONSOR - Name of sponsoring person(s) paying passage of immigrant
   COUNTY - County in which sponsor received land for payment of passage
"There are over 17,000 names of immigrants and over
25,000 names including the sponsors.  The original book had many alphabetizing errors,
which have been corrected with computerized sorting.
Scanning the 300+ pages and correcting the many errors has been a labor of love as
partial repayment for those genealogists (professional and non) who have given me gifts.

Allen Price, 2011"


LAST       FIRST       ARRIVAL  SPONSOR COUNTY

Boatwright      John       1654 Humphry Dennis Gloucester

Rockwell     Mary       1637 Robert Rockwell New Norfolk
Rockwell     Sarah       1637 Robert Rockwell (husband) New Norfolk
Rockwell       Thomas      1639 Robert Rockwell Upper New Norfolk
Rockwell     Thomasin    1637 Robert Rockwell New Norfolk
Roe              Mary       1639 Robert Rockwell Upper New Norfolk

Richardson     Barbary      1653 Major Abraham Wood Charles City
Richardson     Bridgett      1639 Ralph Barlowe Northampton
Richardson     Dorothy     1655 Richard Price New Kent
Richardson     Evan       1648 Thomas Ludwell James City
Richardson     Isaac       1650 Wingfield Webb & Richard Pate ???
Richardson     Isabell       1642 Hugh Gwyn ???
Richardson     John       1650 James Williams ???
Richardson     Learward   1637 Henry Catalyn New Norfolk
Richardson     Leonard     1638 Henry Catelyn Upper Norfolk
Richardson     Luke       1636 John Chandler Elizabeth City
Richardson     Mary       1645 Bartholomew Hoskins ???
Richardson     Nicholas    1655 Jervace Dodson Lancaster
Richardson     Peter       1638 Capt Christopher Wormley ???
Richardson     Peter       1651 Capt Stephen Gill Northumberland
Richardson     Robert       1639 Thomas Faulkner ???
Richardson     Robert 1655Thomas Peck Gloucester
Richardson     Symon 1636William Clarke Henrico
Richardson     Thomas      1650Capt Moore Fautleroy ???
Richardson     Thomas      1638Christopher Branch Henrico
Richardson     Thomas      1642Daniell Lewellyn ???
Richardson     Thomas      1642Thomas Bagwell Isle of Wright
Richardson     Thomas      1643William Warder ???
Richardson     Mary       1649 Rowland Burnham ???
Richardson     William      1637 William Farrar Henrico

Distant Family Relations

Watching the TV series "Reign" and I remembered that my mother's line connected back to the Stuart line in Scotland.  Then, I began to wonder if I had any connection to the "royal" Stuart family.  Well, turns out that if I go back seven generations before Queen Mary, to her (I think) fifth great grand father; Robert de Bruce Stuart (Robert II, King of Scotland) and Elizabeth Mure I find one.  They had twelve children; their son, Robert Stuart, became Robert III, King of Scotland, and Mary's ancester,  his sister, Elizabeth Stuart, married Iain Macdomhnaill.  And, that is my connection to the Scot's ancient royality.

The Macdomhnaill line became the McDaniel's.  And, of that line, Charity McDaniel (1794-1877) married the Frenchman William Humphrys.  Their daughter, Charity Melinda, married a cousin, John Daniel McDaniel.  Their daughter, Melvina, married Benjamin Mitchell, and their daughter, Emma Geneva Mitchell, was my Grandmother.

It gets a bit complex here:  Emma married (first) Robert Ridley Perry, my grandfather, second she married Thomas Blevins, and third to Henry Allen Perry, Robert's brother.  Robert remarried Eula Isabel Washburn, widow of John Mitchell who was Emma's brother.

So, my great uncle Henry became my other Grandfather, and great aunt Eula became my other Grandmother.  When I look at the lineage of the Stuart and Tudor families of ancient England and Scotland, it don't really look all that bad.

Thomas Rockholt married Caroline Kinsey on August 24, 1865

Thomas Rockholt married Caroline Kinsey on August 24, 1865, McMinn County, Tennessee.  There are several good (and not so good) references for this event:

A photo copy of the original county record indicating a  marriage license was issued on August 22nd and the marriage was on August 25th, before a justice of the peace.

There is a hand written record, probably the county clerks' book, which shows the same information but is indexed as Caroline Kinser.

A typed sheet, listing 1865 marriages in Tennessee, has Thomas Rockholt and Caroline Kinser married on August 22, 1865,

It appears that the original was probably misread, resulting in the wrong spelling of Caroline's name; the date error is obviously a misreading of the license date for the marriage date.  While in this case the differences are not severe, they could certainly result in ones tree having the wrong information.  Even with the best research there is always the chance of error -- we can only do our best to get it right.

Now I need to find exactly who Thomas is and where he fits on the family tree.  I believe he was born around 1845 and died after 1880.  Caroline is actually Rachel Caroline Kinsey.

1880 Dist 3, McMinn County Tennessee Census has Thomas and Rachel C. Rockhold and their children.  Also on the same page I find Nancy A. Rockhold (55 YO) living by herself; James R (36 YO) and Katherine F.S. and kids and William and Celia Rockhold and their son Eli.  Near the first of the census report I found F.M. and Susannah Rockhold and daughter Mary Josaphine in house number 4.

This Nancy A. Rockholt, living by herself, is probably a widow and at age 55 is about the right age to be the mother of most if not all of the boys on this census.  I also see a few "Melton" families on the census, and since I have seen the Rockholt/Melton union before, I suspect this might be Nancy Melton, wife of one William Rockhold/t.  I also see there are a few of the Colbough family, which I have also seen married into the family.

What happened to Town Neck, and Providence, Maryland

We often wonder where our ancestors came from, where they lived and what kind of life they had.  Trying to trace our early ancestors to an exact location in Virginia is proving to be impossible.  The move to Maryland not so.

Eight persons took out patents in the first settlement of Virginians in Maryland, at Greenbury Point (then called Town Neck) in 1649: William Pell, George Slaughier (Sapher), ROBERT ROCKHOULD, William Penny, Christopher Oatley, Oliver Sprye, John Lordkin and Richard Bennett. The whole tract eventually passed to Bennett and the name finally became Greenbury Point, as it is today.

Early maps of the area indicate that there was more land on Greenbury Point than there is today.  Erosion, caused by the flow of the Severn River over the years, has taken away much of the land that our ancestors probably settled when they moved from Virginia.  What exists today is part of Naval Station, North Severn, Annapolis, MD, part of the Naval Academy.

Greenbury Point is managed as a conservation area and is used for light midshipmen tactical training. The Radio Transmitter Facility at Greenbury Point was ordered to close, per BRAC '91. The the 231 acres of land and existing facilities, except the towers, at Greenbury Point conservation area at North Severn (formerly the Naval Radio Transmitting Facility (NRTF)) had been transferred to the US Naval Academy in September 1994. The undeveloped areas are being managed as wildlife habitat; therefore, human access is limited. Residents of Greenbury Point housing have free access to their homes and surrounding area except the East and West Roads and undeveloped areas.

During the Cold War, Greenbury Point was a key communications center for the Navy's submarine fleet. The antennas transmitted Very Low Frequency signals capable of penetrating the ocean, allowing communications with submerged submarines. By the early 1990s, with advances in satellite communications, the antennas became obsolete.

The property -- then called "Hammond's Inheritance" -- was purchased by the Navy on August 21, 1909 for use as a dairy farm. From 1911 to 1917, part of this site was also used for the first Naval Air Station. In August 1911 a handful of Naval officers received orders to report for duty at the Engineering Experiment Station at the Naval Academy "... in connection with the test of gasoline motors and other experimental work in the development of aviation, including instruction at the aviation school." The site of the aviation camp at the Academy was Greenbury Point. The Greenbury Point station has not come in for its fair measure of recognition in the history of Naval Aviation. It was a very small affair, and it shared its location with the Academy as its host. Nonetheless, its establishment was a landmark event, It was the Navy's first air station and it was at Greenbury Point that the Navy began to conduct its first formal aviation training program. Pensacola, known as "The Cradle of Naval Aviation," succeeded the "naval air encampment" at Greenbury Point as the training site for naval aviators in 1914.

The Navy first built the four of the most northern radio towers on Greenbury Point in 1918 to communicate with US forces fighting in World War I. The transmitter, with call letters NSS, went on the air on 06 August 1918. The Annapolis transmitters operated in conjunction with a large antenna receiver facility at Cheltenham, MD. Two additional southerly towers were erected at Annapolis in 1922. In August 1938, the erection of three "Eifel Towers" (1G7, 1H7 and 1T9) was completed. In 1941, Building #60 was completed, a 50 kW Low Frequency transmitter was installed and operations established. The station was used for communications with the Atlantic Fleet during World War II.

Extensive modification and improvement of the VLF antenna system was begun in 1969. The old 600-foot radio towers on Greenbury Point were demolished to make way for a new communications link with vessels of the Atlantic fleet. A new 1200-foot guyed center tower was erected and surrounded with nine 600-foot towers (three of which were identical to those erected in 1917). The modified "Goliath" antenna consisted of the 1200-foot tower and the "top hat" assembly supported by the 600-foot towers, covering about 200 acres. To power the new VLF antenna a 1000 kilowatt AN/FRT-87 transmitter was installed in the original transmitter building.

Since the radio towers had no operational requirement and the Naval Academy has no mission requirement for the towers, the disposal action for the antenna towers was the responsibility of the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Command (NCTC) under MILCON project P-501.

The demolition of the towers had political implications. A Senate appropriation staffer attempted to allocate funding to this project; however, he also tried to place language in the appropriations bill that would limit the use of the property to only conservation and any changes require Congressional approval. The staffer was informed that this is not acceptable to the Naval Academy.

The demolition of the naval radio transmitting facility (NRTF) towers at Naval Station, Annapolis was initially projected to include demolition and removal of 19 antenna towers, antenna arrays and guys, the excavation and removal of a causeway in the Chesapeake Bay, and incidental related work. The towers to be demolished include: Six 600 foot towers supported by 2 levels of 3 guys, Three 600 foot freestanding Eiffel-style towers, One 1200 foot tower supported by 4 levels of 3 guys, Four 300 foot freestanding towers, One 800 foot tower supported by 1 level of 8 guys, Three 80 foot triangular towers with rigid conical antenna frame supported by rope guys, and One 66 foot freestanding download terminal tower. Six tower guy anchors located in the Bay were removed; and all other tower foundation/anchors and the radial grounding systems remained in place. The base insulator for Tower No. 10 was salvaged and turned over to the Government. The work also included removal of 4 HF curtain array antennas and supports. These include a total of approximately 20 wood pole supports, 55 guy cables, 250 foot (plus or minus) length of 2 foot wide wood access piers, and 60 (plus or minus) wood dolphin poles. The naval station, primary school and golf course remained in operation during the entire demolition period.

The final demolition of 16 of the 19 former Navy radio towers on Greenbury Point took place on 09 December 1999. Three towers remained standing and were turned over to Maryland or Anne Arundel County for telecommunications or training purposes.

The undeveloped area of Greenbury Point is being managed as a environmentally sensitive conservation area and is the surface danger zone for the Naval Station rifle ranges. In the developed area, the facilities are occupied by Construction Battalion Unit 403, a Bachelor Enlisted Quarters, Married Enlisted Quarters (being used as swing space during NavSta BEQ Renovation), and a soon to be renovated Environmental Nature Center.

There are no planned changes to the facilities or land usage at Greenbury Point. An updated Integrated Natural Resources Plan and a Facilities Master Plan are being developed to manage this area. Greenbury Point has a variety of other habitats including wooded coves, shallow wetland ponds, forests and scrub/shrub areas. Many interesting wildlife make this area their home. For example, Greenbury Point supports the only bobwhite quail population in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

US Fish and Wildlife Service staff developed a Natural Resources Management Plan for the Annapolis Area Complex of the Navy, which includes the Naval Academy, the North Severn Complex of the golf course and Greenbury Point and the Naval Dairy Farm in Gambrills, Maryland. The Service's restoration and environmental education experts assisted the Navy's natural resources manager by evaluating Navy lands and writing a plan for the future of conservation areas and natural habitats under Navy management.

Greenbury Point, the 231 acre peninsula at the mouth of the Severn River, provides numerous opportunities to integrate wildlife habitat and education with the training mission of the Naval Academy. Outdoor education planners from the Service's Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge are lending their expertise to help shape the Visitor's Center Environmental Education facility the Navy is currently building on Greenbury Point. Nineteen osprey pairs that nested on Greenbury Point's radio towers were provided new platforms before the towers were demolished.

Nothing remains of the earliest settlements. Providence, which followed Town Neck's settlement,  today is small community of 77 homes, quietly nestled between Mill Creek and the Naval Academy Golf Course on the St. Margaret's Peninsula just outside of  Annapolis. 

A Little Bit of History

Joshua Pettit was born 25 Sep 1734, Essex, New Jersey; died 11 Sep 1786, Spartanburg, South Carolina.  He served with Colonel Roebuck's batallion against the loyalists and the British during the Revolutionary War.  Joshua's Grand Daughter Hannah, married Thomas McDaniel; their Grand Daughter Melvina, married Benjamin Mitchell, their Daughter Emma Geneva (Mitchell) Perry was my maternal Grand Mother.

Spartanburg County, South Carolina bears a proud Revolutionary War heritage. The county has more Revolutionary War engagement sites than practically any other locale in the United States. The fiercely independent upstate settlers rallied ‘round the cause' early on, with the Spartan Regiment being formed in the late summer of 1775.

As independent as they were, some could not see the sense in breaking away from the crown. Staunchly Loyalist settlers seethed beside neighbor Patriots. The first engagement seen by local troops involved not a single British soldier. That winter, the Spartan Regiment was bloodied along with other Patriot troops in a fight against regional Loyalists in the Battle of the Great Cane Break, along the Reedy River.

In July 1776, a new threat erupted. Alarmed at the news of a British fleet at Charleston, the Cherokee swept over the frontier borders in a maelstrom of violence. Whites fled to forts, but hundreds of settlers in the border areas were killed before a counterattack could be formed. In early 1777, the Spartan Regiment was split into two - the 1st Spartan Regiment and the 2nd Spartan Regiment.

Colonists all along the western frontier raised a large militia, which pursued the Indian army. As was often the case when European and Indian cultures clashed, many noncombatants suffered. The white militia destroyed scores of Cherokee villages and by mid-1777, Indian aggression collapsed. A treaty was signed in July 1777 forcing the Cherokee to relinquish most of their lands in South Carolina.

The British regained the colonists’ full attention in 1780, when they captured Charleston in May. The Redcoats began their trek inland over three main routes. Initially, the Patriots thought they were whipped. Their situation seemed hopeless, as they faced the might of the greatest military power on earth. Many laid down their arms and surrendered. Benjamin Roebuck did the opposite - he raised his own regiment - Roebuck' s Batallion of Spartan Regiment.

The war very well could have ended then, but for the British’s savage violation of their own terms of surrender. At the Waxhaws at the end of the month, a troop of Virginians were slaughtered after throwing down their arms. Homes of independence-minded Carolinians were burned; their properties seized. The Patriots’ anger rose.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was the British order, in direct violation of their own terms of surrender, that the Patriots don the red coat to serve the crown. The Rebels took the order another way, concluding that the violation of their surrender released them from their parole. The time for peace had past.

The clashes that ignited in the ensuing months in Spartanburg County sent shock waves throughout the world. The area saw six engagements in four weeks, beginning in July with the first battle of Cedar Spring. In quick succession and escalating violence, there quickly followed the battles of Gowen’s Fort, Earle’s Ford, and Fort Prince; then came the second battle of Cedar Spring and the battle of Musgrove Mill. These battles set the stage for two decisive engagements.

Nearly two months later, Patriot forces assembled from several states scored a major victory at the nearby battle of Kings Mountain. The Patriot forces suffered less than 30 killed and some 60 wounded, but the troops of the crown bled red – nearly 160 killed, about 150 wounded and a staggering 760-odd taken prisoner. Most of the crown’s casualties were American Loyalists.

Kings Mountain was a great victory, but it was a merciless one. The British had not seen fit to honor their own terms of surrender. Now 760 men looked to the Rebels for compassion, but they found only hardened hearts. The prisoners were marched to the North Carolina foothills, where the Patriots held a trial and found 36 men guilty of Loyalist atrocities. They were sentenced to hang, though all but nine were pardoned.

Three months after Kings Mountain, the conflict returned in full fury to the Spartanburg County area, when Continental General Daniel Morgan gave British Colonel Banastre Tarleton “a devil of a whipping” at a crossroads known as the Cowpens. The battle at this holding area for cattle being driven to market put the British on the road to surrender at Yorktown.

After the war, some Loyalists fled to Canada. The settlers returned to the land, having subdued both the Cherokee and British threats. More settlements grew up in the area, and the new district began to form its government. Court officers originally met at several plantations, but legislative pressure forced them to choose an official site. In January 1787, they approved the purchase of two acres of land from Thomas Williamson for five shillings. The new courthouse was smack in the middle of the county. The town of Spartanburg was born.

Early Records

From the early records of immigrants to the Virginia Colony there can be found a lot of information which results in creating the confusion of just who did what and when.  Robert Rockwell/Rockhould did, on 19 August 1637, receive a grant of two hundred fifty acres land in Norfolk, Nansemond County, Virginia Colony.  The patent is not very legible in the copy I have but it appears to be for the transportation of five (50 acres per person):  Robert himself, his wife Sarah or Hanah, daughter Mary, one Thomasin Rockwell, and Mary Sayor/Hayor (probably a servant).  This Thomasin might be a son, later called Thomas but I believe it is actually Robert’s mother and that Thomas the son was actually born in Virginia, as was Robert Jr. and John.

This patent, 19 August 1637, is the earliest known record.  Considering it is the actual grant of land and not just the authorization for the land, it may have been issued some time after the family actually arrived in Virginia.  It was not unusual for several months, even a year or so, between the arrival and the actual claim for land being made.

If you have anything before this, or some clarification of this patent I sure would like to know about it.  I have it in . PNG format and will gladly email it to you if you want to view it better than on this blog.  Or, if you have a better copy or what you believe to be a good transcript of it, let me know.

What was it like?

At the start of the seventeenth century the entire eastern portion of North America, which afterward became the thirteen original states, was known as Virginia. Interest in American colonization was awakened in England by a little book on "Western Planting," inspired by Raleigh and written by Richard Hakluyt. Several voyages were made before any permanent settlement was established.

These voyages, undertaken by individuals, were not successful financially or otherwise and others were deterred from risking their fortunes in similar enterprises. But the success of various commercial companies which had multiplied in the last half century for the purpose of trading with distant countries, such as the East India Company, chartered in 1600, suggested similar enterprises for the western world. And, the corporation as a form of local subordinate government had long been familiar to the English merchant, and readily lent itself to plans of colonial extension.

In 1606, two companies were formed, Virginia was divided into two parts and a part granted to each, the London Company and the Plymouth Company. A royal charter enabled each to found a colony, granting them the right to coin money, raise revenue, and to make laws, but still reserving much power to the king. Each was given a block of land a hundred miles square, and the settlements were to be at least one hundred miles apart. The London Company had permission to plant a colony anywhere on the coast between the thirty-fourth and forty-first degrees north latitude.

Great haste was now made by the London Company in preparing for colonization in America, and on the 19th of December, 1606, three small ships bearing one hundred and five colonists and commanded by Christopher Newport, a famous sea captain, set out upon the wintry sea for the New World. The largest of the vessels, the Susan Constant,was of one hundred tons burden and the smallest of but twenty tons. The voyage was long and dreary, and it consumed the remainder of the winter. On reaching the American shore the weary voyagers were greeted by the singing of birds and the fragrance of flowers. Entering Chesapeake Bay they named the two projecting points at its sides, Cape Henry and Cape Charles, after the two young sons of the king.

They chose one of the great rivers flowing into the bay, left upon it the name of King James and followed it for about thirty miles, and founded a town which also they called Jamestown, after the name of their king. Thus was founded the first of the permanent settlements which were to multiply and expand, and in three hundred years to grow into the greatest nation of the earth. It would be difficult to imagine a set of men less fitted to build a colony and found a nation than were those who settled at Jamestown in 1607. Among them were but twelve laborers, a few carpenters, a blacksmith, a mason, a barber, and a tailor, while more than fifty were "gentlemen," that is men without an occupation, idle, shiftless men who had joined the enterprise without realizing that years of labor were essential to success. But there were a few men of worth in the company. There was Wingfield, who became the first president of of the governing council, the hero of many strange adventures. They soon erected a few tents and small cabins; some, however, found a dwelling place by burrowing into the ground. For a church they nailed a board between two trees, stretched a canvas over it, and beneath this the Rev. Robert Hunt held services according to the rites of the Church of England.

Thus was the beginning.

America -- The First 763 Years

1000.  Leif Ericson discovers Vinland   (New England).
1451.  Birth of Christopher Columbus.
1492.  October 12. Columbus discovers the New World.
1497.  The Cabots discover the continent of North America.
1498.  Columbus on third voyage discovers South America.
1506.  Columbus dies at Valladolid, Spain.
1507.  New World named after Americus Vespucius.
1513.  Balboa discovers the Pacific Ocean and Ponce de Leon discovers Florida.
1519-1521.  Cortez conquers Mexico. Magellan sails round the world.
1524.  Verrazano and Gomez explore New England coast.
1528.  Cabeza do Vaca explores southern United States.
1533.  Pizarro conquers Peru.
1534.  Cartier sails to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
1541.  Do Soto discovers the Mississippi River.
1565.  Founding of St. Augustine.
1576.  Frobisher discovers northwest passage, Frobisher Strait.
1579.  Drake explores coast of California.
1584.  Raleigh sends first expedition to America.
1588.  Defeat of the Spanish Armada.
1604.  Acadia settled by the French.
1605.  Birth of Robert Rockhould, probably in England.
1607.  May 12. Founding of Jamestown, Virginia.
1608.  Founding of Quebec by Champlain.
1609.  Hudson discovers the Hudson River.
1614.  Birth of Sarah Greniffe.
1619.  First assembly meets at Jamestown. Slaves first sold in Virginia.
1620.  Coming of the Pilgrims in the Mayflower.
1623.  Settlements at New Amsterdam. First settlements in New Hampshire.
1630.  The great emigration to Massachusetts. The founding of Boston.
1634.  Maryland first settled by Calvert.
1635.  Connecticut settled by emigrants from Massachusetts.
1636.  Founding of Providence by Roger Williams. Harvard College founded.
1637.  Rockhould family arrives Virginia.
1638.  Swedes first settle in Delaware.
1639.  First constitution in America adopted by Connecticut.
1640.  Birth of John Rockhould.
1643.  May 30. New England Confederation formed.
1649.  Toleration Act in Maryland.
            Rockhould and Bennett families relocate to Maryland.
1655.  Stuyvesant conquers the Swedes in Delaware.
1656.  Quakers expelled from Massachusetts.
1662.  Connecticut charter granted.
1663.  Charter granted to Rhode Island.
            Charter for the Carolinas granted.
1664.  September 8. The English conquer New Amsterdam. New Jersey given by King Charles II to his brother, the Duke of York.
1666.  Death of Robert Rockhould.
1667.  Fundamental Constitutions drawn up for the Carolinas.
1673.  Marquette explores the Mississippi.
1676.  Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. King Philip's War in New England.
1681.  Penn receives charter for Pennsylvania.
1682.  Penn founds Philadelphia and makes treaty with the Indians. La Salle explores Louisiana and takes possession for France.
1685.  Birth of Charles Rockhold.
1686.  Edmund Andros made governor of all New England.
1689.  Rebellion against Andros; his fall and arrest.
1692.  Salem witchcraft delusion.
1700.  Iberville plants colony in Louisiana.
1713.  Treaty of Utrecht, ending Queen Anne's War, which began in 1702.
1720.  Birth of Asel Rockhold.
1724.  Birth of Anne Rowe.
1733.  Georgia settled by Oglethorpe.
1739.  Birth of Ruth Ford.
1746.  Birth of Dawson Rockhold.
1748.  Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, ending King George's War, which began in 1744.
1754.  Colonial Congress at Albany; Franklin's plan of union.
1755.  Braddock's defeat.
1756.  French and Indian War formally begun.
1759.  Wolfe captures Quebec.
1763.  Treaty of Paris; end of the war. Conspiracy of Pontiac.

How Goes It?

Europe, through the thirteen and fourteen hundreds, was conflict upon conflict.  The English kings were constantly trying to uphold their positions and standing.  The French, the Scots, the Irish, the Welch, and others were all warring against the English Kings at some time or another.  The Kings were fighting with the nobles, the nobles with the peasants, the clergy with the faithful and the unfaithful.  It was not a very calm, friendly environment.

The fifteen hundreds brought a different kind of war, one pitting the church against the crown, and the followers of the various emerging protestant churchs against the crown and "church".  The thirty years of the civil war created some strong rifts between those who supported the "church" and those who felt that there was a god given right to life, liberty, and happiness, and to worship in the manner that they felt was right for them.

Robert Rockhould (name as on earliest found documentation) was born probably between 1600 and 1605.  He was likely born in England but could have been born in the Netherlands.  While no documentation, there is sketchy information that his father was one Richard Rockwell who died about 1621 in Fitzhead, Somerset, England.  Richard was the son of William Rockwell and Marion Wyke (or Pyke or Kyne); he married Thomazine Littlejohn in Fitzhead, September 1593.  This Thomazine could be the Thomasin that arrived in Virginia in 1637 under the sponsorship of Robert.

Considering the interchanging of the Rockhould, Rockhold, Rockholt, Rockwell names over the years, it is not a long stretch.  History tells us many Puritans were not willing to convert to the religious ilks of the English royals and some left England for the Netherlands in the early 1600s, before any real colonization of America.  This leads me to believe that Robert and maybe Samuel Greniffe did relocate to the Netherlands and then at a later date on to Virginia.

Robert married Sarah Greniffe about 1633, probably in the Netherlands where sons Robert Junior and Thomas, and daughter Mary were born.  The family immigrated first to Virginia colony around 1637, as reflected in land records of the time.  Daughter Ann and son John were born in Virginia.  The family relocated to Maryland colony around 1649.

Richard was an armourer (gunsmith) by trade but the family became very successful farmers with several hundred acres, mostly in tobacco.  All of the first generation, Robert Jr., his siblings and their wives died in Maryland.  Their descendants moved eventually to the corners of the new world, as it grew.  Today there are relatives found with three variations of the family name; Rockhold, and Rockholt as well as Rockwell.  The family Rockwell does not always trace back to Robert, there is a seperate line of the Rockwell family originating in Massachusetts around the same time Robert came to Virginia.

I favor the idea our Robert, who could be the son of Richard Rockwell of Fitzhead, was a brother or cousin of William Rockwell, father of the New England Rockwell family.  If, and it's a very big if, Robert left England under penalty of arrest (which could have occurred over even a trivial matter) he would have changed his name since the arrest warrant would have followed him to the colony.  I support this idea with the documentation of the use of Rockwell by a few of the second generation individuals.  Also, I have found some information regarding the history of the name itself:  "Rockwell, formally Rockholt; from old English,

hroc (rook) + holt (wood), of Buckinghamshire and Somerset".

I thought I had a good lead on another Rockhould family in England, around the time Robert would have left, but it turned out to be a Rockwell that was indexed as Rockhould.  I have also found some Rockholts in Sweden, I have yet to gain any contact with them but I am trying.  I have not found anything that would tie the family to Germany.

There is not a lot of documentation existing that allows us to trace the family forward from Robert's arrival in Virginia.  Some land records and a few probates of wills along with a very few surviving family bibles are about all we have that can be considered reliable.  The early histories of Virginia and Maryland contain some information on the early families, the Rockhould/hold/holts, the Todds, the Warfords, the Dorseys, the Richardsons and others are often presented in totally different lights in the various histories.  It seems that there just might have been a little bias towards some and against the others. 

Until 1850, when the United States census began to list all members of the household by name, it is a very difficult task to piece together the lineage from one generation to the next.  Even after 1850 it can be imposable.  The 1890 census was destroyed leaving twenty years, from the 1880 census to the 1900 census, with very little information to work with.  Also, early records were often made with names spelled wrong, children visiting with family members were sometimes recorded as son or daughter of the head of household when in fact they were a niece or nephew.  Orphans and step children were often misidentified. 

The children of Alfred Rockhold/holt and Elizabeth Sisk, who accompanied Elizabeth to California, are good examples.  They are identified with the surname of their stepfather on one census.  As both Rockhold and Rockholt  they emerged into adulthood.  Alfred's second wife, Elizabeth Presley, was only identified as Elizabeth on the census records and was thought to be the same person as Elizabeth Sisk until the marriage document for her and Alfred was found.

Another great question is whether or not Elizabeth Presley was Presley by birth or by marriage.  Some of the Presley family attest the name to marriage to one John Presley, but no marriage documents have been proven, and there just doesn't seem to be any good evidence to support the idea.  While there is good evidence of a single Elizabeth, in the area, of the right age to marry Alfred, there is just no good evidence that the two young Presley boys living with Alfred and Elizabeth were not hers by a previous marriage.  While they could well be her nephews, there is nothing to prove that they are.

Duplicate names, especially the more common given names of the family, such as William, Alfred, and Robert often create questionability.  In one case I have identified three individuals with the same name, near the same age in Tennessee in 1860.  As the family increased in numbers, as the years went by, it becomes even a greater problem.  Until the early 1900's death certificates did not exist, and births were only recorded in church records and family bibles.  In the few instances where state/colony records were kept they were mostly kept only long enough to prepare an "indexed record".  These records are often filled with errors in transcription from the originals. 

The Mormon Church has done extensive work in transcribing and indexing historical records.  The federal and many state census records, old military records and extensive collections of family tree are made available on the web site "ancestry.com".  For anyone looking into the family lineage the cost of subscription to "ancestry" is money well spent.

Julian Rockhold (1855-1936)

Past and Present of Livingston County

Vol 2, Biographies

By Major A.J. Roof, 1913

JULIAN ROCKHOLD.

Page 220-222

Julian Rockhold is a prominent representative of agricultural interests in Mooresville township, Livingston county, Missouri, owning a farm of two hundred and eighty acres on sections 26 and 27. He is a native of Green township, this county, being born January 23, 1855, and is a son of John and Mary A. (Cave) Rockhold. The father was one of the earliest settlers in Livingston county, where he followed farming during all his life, buying his first land at a dollar and a quarter per acre. It was timber land, which he cleared and brought under the plow by incessant labor and under untold hardships, but be gradually succeeded in transforming this wild tract into a valuable form. The father was very well known and well liked in this section, enjoying the esteem of all who were acquainted with him. He passed away in 1877, his wife following him in death in 1886, and both are buried in the Utica cemetery. John Rockhold was an indulgent and kind father and husband and his demise not only occasioned deep mourning to his own family but was widely regretted by all those who had learned to esteem and honor him. The family is of German origin, having come to this country at an early date in its history. Mr. and Mrs. John Rockhold were the parents of nine children.

Julian Rockhold received his education in the Brush College, which derived its name from the fact that it was standing on a stretch of brush land. At the age of eighteen years he discontinued his lessons and assisted his father in the farm work,gradually acquiring under the latter's able guidance through methods of farm culture. Subsequently, in 1883, he bought one hundred and thirty acres of land, which he owns today, and as his resources increased he extended his holdings to the present acreage. Our subject has instituted many improvements on his farm and has placed thereon such equipment as is considered necessary on an up-to-date and modern agricultural establishment. His property stands today as a credit to his energy and industry and presents a pleasing appearance, bespeaking the prosperity of its owner. He engages in mixed fanning, largely specializing in the raising of horses, cattle and hogs.

On February 22, 1883, Mr. Rockhold was united in marriage, in Mooresville township, to Miss Leora Kirtley, a daughter of Marcus and Mary C. (Stuckey) Kirtley, the former of whom was a prominent pioneer farmer of this district. He passed away in 1882, at the age of forty-nine years, and is buried in the Mooresville cemetery, leaving a widow and five children, namely: Homer; Melvin; Leora, the wife of our subject; Neill; and Gertrude, who died February 14, 1885, and is also buried in the Mooresville cemetery. Mr. and Mrs. Rockhold are the parents of three sons and two daughters: Herbert, assistant cashier of the First National Bank of Chillicothe, Missouri; Buford, who follows agricultural pursuits in this district; May, the wife of Hobart Bryan, a farmer in Mooresville township; Eugene, who is still attending school and assists his father in the work upon the farm; and Genevieve, also attending school. Among the many and important improvements which Mr. Rockhold made upon his property is the family residence, which is very comfortable, handsome and modernly equipped.

Mr. Rockhold is a stockholder in the Mooresville Savings Bank and his political affiliation is with the democratic party, which finds in him a stanch supporter. He has always championed the cause of education and for a number of years has served in the capacity of school director of this district. His fraternal relations are with the Modern Woodmen of America. The success of Mr. Rockhold must be largely attributed to his energy and industry and the intelligent management of his affairs, but he himself gives largely credit for his attainments to his wife, who has been his true and faithful helpmate for many years. He has made a creditable record in agricultural circles and his work has not only resulted in financial independence to himself but has been largely constructive in the development of agricultural methods in this locality and the prosperity which he has attained is the natural outcome of incessant and intelligently applied efforts. He is a man of strong character and highly esteemed and honored wherever known, his sterling qualities having won him the confidence of all with whom he has come in contact.

More on Julian:

Julian Buford Rockhold, b. 23 Jan 1855, d. 11 Nov  1936.  Married Leora Kirtley 22 Feb 1883, Livingston, Mo.  She b. 3 Feb 1864, d. 25 Feb 1946, was daughter of Neil Kirtley, d. 29 Dec 1921.

His holdings, sections 26 and 27 of Mooresville is just below the holdings of his father and uncles, as well as below the farm of Leora’s father.

Continuing:  In January 1920, Julian, Leora and daughter, Genevieve L. Rockhold, are in a Ft. Morgan City, Colorado boarding house.  In the 1930 Census they are still together in a residence of Ft Morgan.  Julian dies in 1936, Leora dies in 1946, both are buried in Mooresville, Missouri.

Map Showing Holdings of John Rockhold (1813-1877) and his Kids, Missouri

John - West half, Section 13, except NW Qtr of NW Qtr; and 80 acres Section 24.
Asa - SE Qtr of NE Qtr Section 23,
Samuel - NE Qtr and SE Qtr of SE Qtr Section 23.
James - NW and SW Qtr of NW Qtr Section 25

This map is supposed to be of 1878 holdings, since John died in 1877 I assume his estate has not been settled as of this mapping.

IF YOU WILL SAVE THE IMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER AND OPEN IT UP WITH ABOUT ANY IMAGE VIEWING PROGRAMS YOU CAN ENLARGE THE IMAGE TO READ IT.  OR, IF YOU PREFER I CAN EMAIL YOU THE IMAGE.

Where Does It All Come From?

From one document we can extract an awful lot of information.  For example, from a “Standard Certificate of Death” I obtained the following:

Frank Walker Rockholt, born 4 May 1867, died 12:00 noon, 16 December 1949 at York County Hospital, Rockwell, South Carolina.  Cause of death was coronary thrombosis.  His residence was Rural, Rockwell.  His usual occupation was farmer.  He was born in York County, father was Jason Rockholt, mother was Mary Jane Parrish, and wife was Maggie Sexton.  Burial was on 18 December 1949, Bethesda Church Cemetery, York County, S.C.  The reporting individual was Frank Rockholt, who was probably a son or grandson. 

With this information we now have several areas to seek additional information and family connections.  The parent’s names, the wife’s name and possibly a son’s name.  His age, given as 82 in 1949, narrows a search for his family.  Searching the census data from 1870, 1880 and 1900 (1890 seems to have been lost) might turn up Frank’s brothers and sisters.  1850 and later might allow you to determine age/birth year for Jason, Mary and Maggie, this would allow some educated conclusions to be drawn from 1840 and earlier when family members were not listed but simply counted in age/sex groups.

1920 Bethesda tsp, York County, S.C. census gives us a little more information:  Frank Rockholt is head of house, he rents, is a married white male, 49 years old.  He does not read or write English.  He was born in South Carolina, as was his mother, his father was from Tennessee.  Wife Maggie, white female, 48 years old, also does not read or write English, she, her mother and father were all born in South Carolina, as were all the children:  Bula J. (16), Eula R. (13), Frank B. (10), Ready M. (8), Ada Ines (6), and Emma E. (1  8/12).  Also living in the house is Louis W. Sexton, 19 year old, Frank’s brother-in-law.  This confirms Maggie Sexton.  Next door is Hosia Rockholt, 18 years old, and his wife Emma L.  Since Hosia is born in South Carolina as were his parents it would be reasonable to assume he is not Frank’s brother, since Frank is 49 and Hosia is 18, so Hosia is probably Frank’s son.  Further indications are the age of Hosia compared to Bula; the two year difference is typical of child births in the 1800s and early 1900s.  1910 census might confirm Hosia's father as Frank  1910 and 1930 might reveal additional children, these, along with 1940 might reveal more information.  Due to privacy considerations the 1950 and later census data is not made public yet.

1880 Hazlewood, Chester County, South Carolina has Jason Rockholt (40) wife Mary (34), children William (15), Leroy (13), John (11), Sarah (8), Franklin (6) and Peter (4).  This Franklin could be our Frank.  Mother and Father seem to match, but there is a problem with his age.  Death certificate says born in 1867, 1920 census shows 49 years old, which indicates birth about 1871, and now we have 1874.  The date on the death certificate is the date which was provided by Frank (the son) who reported the information upon his death.  I’m sure it was the best information that could be provided at the time.  Additional research might prove productive but 1876 is probably the best date, after all it is the earliest recorded date.

Printed historical books are often cataloged on the internet, some have even been digitized and published as electronic books, and some are available on-line at no charge.  Family bibles often are a very accurate source of information, don’t forget to look at the several unprinted pages usually found at the back of the printed book, often they contain notes entered by grandmother or some great aunt.

Twentieth century records, for the most part are accurate, the problem comes when the individual reporting the information does not have correct information to report.  The same can be said of the earlier documents.  Who ever was at home, and provided the information for the census taker, provided the information to the best of their knowledge.  Since that probably was the woman of the house, I can only guess that mistakes were frequent and sometimes severe.  (Not to slight the women, it’s just that they did not have all the right information.)  Those who took and recorded the census can probably be blamed for a lot of the name spelling errors, a lot of the early family did not read or write and could not tell what the proper spelling of their names were.

Another problem is actually reading the documents.  Early cursive scripts are often very hard to read.  When the records are transcribed into on-line data bases, mis-read names are entered wrong and searching them becomes difficult.  Early inks were mostly “iron-gall” and they fade in time, especially if exposed to moisture or high humidity.  Some early documents are just too washed out to read.

 Sometimes, long after their death, with information engraved in stone on their tombstone, we learn that what we thought was the truth, is simply not.  My grandfather was known as Walter, he often used the initials W.W. as his signature and on documents.  The family, at least the younger members, knew him as Walter William Rockholt.  When he died, his grandson provided the information for his death certificate and tombstone, so Walter William was recorded and engraved.  I have since come to accept that his name was, in fact, William Walter, not Walter William.  What can be done about it?  Nothing really, a simple note in the family tree, explaining what I believe to be true, is about all that can be done.  Suffice to say, constant vigil and a willingness to revise, when it becomes apparent, are very necessary as we search for our ancestry. 

So, exactly when did that happen?

Occasionally, while researching historical references, I encountered notations such as, “date adjusted”, “old calendar” and “new calender”.  I had no idea what these notations referred to or how they affected the dates they were attached to.  So, I did some research and found that by Papal decree, way back in 1582, the calendar was being changed to bring in into more close alignment to church history and references.  This was done by removing days from the calendar year and changing the way leap year was calculated.  Thus, Friday, 15 October 1582 followed Thursday 4 October 1582 and everything in between was lost forever.

The Catholic decree was implemented by the Papal States – Spain, Portugal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and most of Italy.  France adopted the revision 9 December 1582 to 20 December 1582.  The Dutch on 25 December 1582, 1 January 1583 and 12 January 1583.

The Protestant countries initially rejected the Catholic invention, maybe fearing the new calendar was part of a plot to return them to Catholic rule.  In the Czech lands the Protestants resisted the calendar imposed by the Hapsburg Monarchy.  In Ireland the Catholic rebels kept the “new Easter” in defiance of the English authorities.  By 1690 there was pretty much uniform acceptance of the new calendar but implementation was done differently in the several nations over the next decade. 

In the American colonies, adoption was made generally by Wednesday, 2 September 1752 becoming Thursday, 14 September 1752.  In Alaska the change took place when Friday, 6 October 1867 was followed by Friday 18 October 1867, when the US purchased Alaska from Russia.  Friday was followed by another Friday due to the relocation of the “International Date Line”, which had previously placed Alaska in the different day of the week.

Russia did not change until 1918, as did most of the other Orthodox countries, with Greece holding out until March 1923.  Japan officially replaced its lunisolar calendar in 1872 but still refers to the “Nengo” (reign name reference) instead of the “Anno Domino” system, especially in official documents.  (Meiji 1=1868, Taisho 1=1912, Showa 1=1926 and Heisei 1=1989).  Korea and China adopted the Gregorian calendar as late as 1928.

Today, many Orthodox churches continue to use the old Julian calendar and thus their Christmas falls on 7 January instead of 25 December.  Some countries, especially in the Middle East, maintain a calendar different from the rest of the world.  In some early historical records and references the dates were recorded in a transitional manner, i.e. 10/21 /February 1750/51.  Occasionally, reference to “Old Style” and “New Style” are sometimes added, i.e. “OS” and “NS”. 

While all these changes don’t really have much effect on very much, they do in some instances.  For example, William III of England arrived at Brixham, England on 5 November 1688 (Julian calendar) after setting sail from the Netherlands on 11 November 1688 (Gregorian calendar).  While the Gregorian calendar, our present system, is more accurate than the old system, it too is flawed.  By the year 4000 A.D. we will have accumulated near a full day’s error, and by the year 12,000 A.D. that error will be at least eight days.  There is a proposal to change the leap year schedule so that any year that can be evenly divided by 400 will not be a leap year.  There seems to be no agreement amongst the several nations to implement the change, after all it still leaves a calendar which is not “accurate”.  Sometime, centuries down the road, the leap year would have to be included in a year that could be evenly divided by 400, and that still would not be a perfect calendar.   And, I suspect, that those references to “date corrected” or some such notation, are probably wrong one way or another – there simply is no standard to adjust to and any “adjustment” could well be in error.  But does it really matter if there were 365 calendar days in the year, or if there really were only354?  Does it really matter that a marriage recorded on say 20 September 1559 would actually relate to 2 October 1559 if the date were converted to our modern calendar?  I think not and therefore I do not make any adjustments to dates.  I do wonder how the mothers and fathers dealt with the children, who happen to have a birthday fall on the days “lost” when the new calendar was implemented.  “Mommy, since I didn’t have a birthday, does that mean I’m not really a year older?” 

MDR 6/10/2013

Where did our name come from?

“ROCKHOLT”  Could be a variant of the Germanic “Rockolt”, a variant of “Rocholt”, or “Rocholl”; thought to be from variants of  a Germanic personal name, “Hrokwald”, composed of the elements hrok (prudence) or (care) + wald (rule),  and by others thought to be of Slavic origin.  I also found reference to the name, as being “Rockwell”, formally Rockholt, from old English:  hroc (rook) + holt (wood), of Buckinghamshire and Somerset, England.  I have not been able to source anything in England or Germany that leads me to strongly believe in one idea over the other.

While I did find many sources of Rockholt’s in Germany in the 17^th and 18^th century, the given names were all in the Germanic form, such as Karl, Johanna, Helmut or Wilhelm.  Our family is full of those named John, Robert and William, all of which could have been anglicized versions of the Germanic form.  In England, the Rockwell name is present.  I did find a few Rockhould and Rockhole references but was able to eliminate them with parallel references to Rockwell, which I found to be the correct listing.  I have made contact with a few Rockholts in Sweden but are still trying to break the language barrier.

So, what does all this mean?  From my perspective, and it’s simply my “learned opinion” at best:  With the Virginia colony being English, and the settlers being English, which at that time also included England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (at least to some extent), it is easy to assume that the settlers were for the most part English.  There were some, but not a lot, of Dutch settlers in the early days of the English colonies, but the Germans did not show up until after the revolutionary war.  I believe our original American immigrant, Robert Rockhould, left England and moved first to the Netherlands, where he married and began the family.  Once the new world settlements were somewhat established, he moved his family to Virginia.

Either our ancestors were English, Rockwell’s turned Rockhould, turned Rockhold and Rockholt, or they were of German extraction, some how moved through England leaving no trace behind (at least I have not found it yet).  I doubt there can be clear, concise proof short of a lot of DNA research.

From all I have been able to determine, our early ancestors immigrated to America from the Netherlands.  Indications are that the earliest was Robert Rockhould, who probably left England for Holland in the turmoil of the religious uprisings of the early 1600s.  Some time passed while he was in Holland, he married and had children before departing for the English colony of Virginia in 1637.  Tracing our ancestry into the Netherlands or England, during the time of Robert, is proving very difficult.  While there is great evidence of German movement into England prior to the 1600’s, there is little recorded history from which information can be gathered.   Some of the wives of the earliest found American Rockholts were of Welch and Scottish birth, leading me to believe that the early Rockholts, while maybe of German extraction, were English.  I have found records of Rockhoulds in Faizhead, Somerset, England in the church records of St James.  There are also records for the Rockwells.  Maybe the names were recorded in error, maybe both surnames existed.  More research is needed.

Virginia had its’ own problems with religious practices and that seems to be the reason Robert and his family left Virginia to join other English in the new colony of Maryland where religious freedom was to be available.  History tells us otherwise, but the colonist prevailed in their revolt  against British rule, first gaining independence, then eventually ceding the government back over to Colonial rule with assurances of religious freedom.  But, in time the Colonial rule just proved too much and the Revolutionary War was on.

Our family members have been present in every major war/uprising, sometimes even on opposing sides.  Robert was an armourer by trade, active in the Savern and Patuxent  uprising.  He was, from what I  can find, a prosperous individual.  His name is found as being indebted to on several wills.   At the same time it appears that he did not get involved in politics, his name is not found on any documents relating to government.

The Virginia  Colony seems to be the earliest settling of the Rockholt/Rockhold families in the Americas.   From there they moved into Maryland and down into Tennessee, into the Carolinas, and New York .  They seemed to spread out, generally as the Unitied States expanded, so did the family.  Farmers, craftsmen, school teachers, railroad men, preachers, boat builders, merchants, solders, sailers and statesman.  They seem to have ventured into about every aspect of the nation, both in occupation and in location, There is today a large number of Rockholts in Tennessee, they are also concentrated in Texas, Arkansas, Alabama and California.

Variants of the name, be they the result of intentional or unintentional change, have been found while researching the family genealogy.  While today our line spells the family name “ROCKHOLT”, it appears also as ROCKHOLD.  The use of Rockhould seems to have been only used for two or three generations  The family ROCKWELL seems to have originated from some source other than Robert Rockhould, even though you will find any number of Rockwell family trees that show Robert as their American origin.  The Rockwell Foundation (Norman Rockwell) has done a lot of DNA research and pretty much ruled out Robert from their line.  There is one ROCKHOLD family line originating in Maine in the late 1600s which does not appear to associate with our Robert and his descendents, but could well come from the same origin.

And the search continues.

 

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

I have an original duplicate of my birth certificate, so there is no doubt of my name; it’s spelling, or who my legal parents are.  The same cannot be said of many of our ancestors.  For instance,  Robert Rockwell, or Rockhole, or Rockhold, or Rockholt?  He was born 4 Jul 1800, or was it 1804, or maybe even 1809.  His father was Loyd or maybe Lloyd Rockhold.

Whether in census pages , public records, church records, bible entries, on tombstones or in history books, there seems to be no end to the name/date game.

The upper New England Rockwell’s first aligned themselves with our Robert Rockhould (Virginia), but then DNA evidence proved them not , and now they are not related – sorry, their loss.

Onomastics or onomatology is the study or history of names.  I found reference to the name, “Rockwell”, formally Rockholt, from old English = hroc (rook) + holt (wood), of Buckinghamshire and Somerset.

Some of the early family went with Rockhold, some with Rockholt, even some with Rockwell.  I have found records that clearly relate to the same individual, but with the name being different.  Sometimes this could simply be the spelling by the individual recording the data, such as the census takers, the church deacon, or the town clerk.  Since so many of our early ancestors could not read or write (as indicated on the census records) it is understandable that there could always be some mix-up.

If you are new to this genealogy stuff, and just beginning to look into your family line, a word of caution:  Don’t believe everything you find, and don’t believe just because you can’t find it, it isn’t so.  If you’re searching, try alternate spellings:  William can be Wm, or Will, or Willy, or Willie, sometimes it’s simply Bill or Billy.  Elizabeth is also Eliza, Liza, Lizzy, El and Liz.  Don’t get hung up on the spelling.

Dates are yet another problem.  Very early dates (colonial period) are often recorded on the old calendar and therefore could be off a couple years from today’s calendar.  Ages listed on census page entries are often the best guess of who ever provided the data to the census taker, and, in some cases, it’s simply a matter of an individual not wanting to reveal his/her real age.

Handwritten records sometimes are just unclear, is that a 4 or is it a 9 that the top is simply not closed up?  Is that a U or a V?  Sometimes it’s a matter of who’s guess is best.  I even found one individual recorded in two census pages.  On one page she is in the family home, in the other, four days later, she is in the home of her sister and brother-in-law, along with her 1/12 year old nephew.

Happy hunting!

The French Connection

French citizens who embraced the Protestant teachings of the 16th-century reformation were known as Huguenots. Because they were unwelcome in Catholic France, hundreds of thousands left their native land, with several thousand eventually making their way to the British colonies in North America. Huguenots, generally prosperous and well educated, were among the immigrant groups who were rapidly assimilated into the dominant English culture of Colonial America.

Huguenots had attempted to settle in Florida (near present day St. Augustine), the Carolinas, and the Guanabara Bay (in present-day Brazil) during the late 16th century, but none of the settlements was successful. The first Huguenots to settle successfully in the Americas sailed from the Netherlands early in the 17th century, and a small number followed throughout the century. Our ancestor, Augustine Jean, was born on the Isle of Jersey so we can assume his father, Edmond Jean was one of the very early to leave France seeking religious freedom.

Augustine Jean, b. 9 Jan 1647, arrived in the Massachusetts colony in the spring of 1675, settling first in Reading then on to Falmouth in 1680. He served in King Philips War 1675/76 (first Indian War) under both Captains Beers and Turner. His wife, Elizabeth Brown (b. 26 Mar 1657) was probably an English resident of the colony, it was not common to record much of the women’s activities but there is record of their marriage in 1677.

Augustine and Elizabeth’s son John Gustin (1691-1777) and his wife Mary, produced Elizabeth Gustin who married Abraham Covalt, who were the parents of Zuriah Covalt who married Jonathan Taylor Buck in 1775. Their daughter, Elizabeth, married our Loyd Rockhold. And that’s the French Connection.

Note: My narrative is generally written specifically with my own family and ancestry in mind. There will often times be instances where references that I make will not necessarily be connected to your own ancestry, we have just too many Loyds, Roberts, Williams and Elizabeths in the extended family for it not to be confusing. MDR

Dawson Rockhold and the Revolutionary War

The Flying Camp Battalion

Our Dawson Charles Rockhold (my 4th Great Grandfather), 1746-1840, was a member of the Maryland Flying Camp.

On December 8, 1774 an act was passed in Frederick to prepare for the worst, a revolution. The act enabled citizens to start organizing companies for military use. It stated that all companies should start drilling and enlisted volunteers between the ages of 16 and 50. A company called the Game Cock was attached to a Flying Camp Battalion, which was organized in Toms Creek Hundred, Maryland in early spring of 1775 due to the act. The Flying Camp Battalion consisted of three companies that were raised in the Toms Creek Hundred-Mechanicstown area that were soon re-organized into the Maryland Regiments.

Today when you hear the term ""Flying Camp Battalion"" it’s being referred to as an association to Captains Blair, Shields, or Ogle. However, with a creation of a small independent regiment was common for the term Flying Camp Battalion to be used as a battalion association for home defense. When these companies were organized into state regiments for service, the term ""Flying Camp"" disappeared.

The term ""Flying Camp Battalion"" was also associated with the German Battalion that was formed from Maryland and Pennsylvania. It had eight companies and the citizens would refer to them as a Flying Camp Battalion. In reality, they were also given a battalion designation of the Pennsylvania Line commonly associated with the Maryland Line. That’s why when the battalion was transferred to Maryland it was supposed to become the 8th Maryland Regiment, but Maryland never officially recognized the German Battalion as a state regiment.

So what was a Flying Camp Battalion?

By June 1776, General Washington appealed to the Continental Congress for more troops. Maryland responded by organizing the ""Maryland Flying Camp"" of 3400 militia troops. The Flying Camp was then authorized to join the Continental Army, and assigned to fight beside troops from Delaware and Pennsylvania in the area of operations stretching from Maryland to New York. General George Washington wanted a 10,000 man strategic mobile reserve originally conceived the ""Flying Camp"". Under the command of Brigadier General Hugh Mercer, of Virginia, the flying camp was to be comprised of militia units from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Headquartered in Perth Amboy, this force would be expected to perform a number of vital functions in New Jersey while Washington’s army was preoccupied with the defense of New York. Its duties would include guarding the vulnerable Jersey coast, protecting the Continental Army's supply lines, suppressing roving bands of Tories and acting as a ready reserve should Washington have need of reinforcements. (Pennsylvania Archives, 5th Series, Vol. V; History of Bucks County, Davis)

On June 3, 1776, the Continental Congress resolved "that a flying camp be immediately established in the middle colonies." For its part, Pennsylvania was called upon to provide a force of some 6,000 men. Delegations of one officer and two enlisted men from each of Pennsylvania's fifty-three associated battalions met in Lancaster, on July 4, 1776, for the purpose of selecting this force. Then, on July 10, 1776, the Bucks County Committee of Safety, citing "the Resolve of the late Provincial Conference for embodying four hundred of the Associates of this County," appointed the following officers to command. (Pennsylvania Archives, 5th Series, Vol. V; History of Bucks County, Davis)

The flying camp received little support from New Jersey. Pennsylvania sent some 2,000 associates, many of who were quickly drafted into service by Gen. Washington in New York. More men soon arrived from Maryland and Delaware, but despite the best efforts of Gen. Mercer the flying camp was fraught with difficulties almost from its inception, and never realizing its full potential was disbanded by the end of November, shortly after the fall of Fort Washington. (Pennsylvania Archives, 5th Series, Vol. V; History of Bucks County, Davis)

The definition of the Flying Camp Battalion is a Reservist or a Home Guard. Their duties were to serve and protect citizens of the state in case of an invasion. They acted like a police force guarding barracks, government buildings, so on and so forth. Before the Revolutionary War there was no such thing in America as a Reservist or a Home Guard. Therefore, the militia was formed, a group of trained soldiers that could pack up and leave for duty at a moments notice.

During the Revolutionary War, however, the militias were called to active service. This left the state and it’s cities needing protection. A Flying Camp Battalion was organized in Frederick during the early spring of 1775 due to the act that called for independent companies for home service duty. However, there were several regiments called the Flying Camp Battalion that was called for active service by July of 1776. When you read about the Flying Camp Battalion of Toms Creek Hundred, which one is being referred? Here is a list of Flying Camp Battalions that were formed in Maryland and also Pennsylvania in 1776:

Maryland: 1st Regiment Flying Camp, 1776
Maryland: Flying Camp Regiment (Ewing's), 1776
Maryland: Flying Camp Regiment (Griffith's), 1776
Maryland: Flying Camp Regiment (Richardson's), 1776
Pennsylvania: 1st Regiment Flying Camp, 1776
Pennsylvania: 1st Regiment Flying Camp of Lancaster County, 1776
Pennsylvania: 2d Regiment Flying Camp, 1776
Pennsylvania: Baxter's Battalion Flying Camp, 1776
Pennsylvania: Clotz' Battalion Flying Camp, Lancaster County, 1776
Pennsylvania: Haller's Battalion Flying Camp, 1776
Pennsylvania: Swope's Regiment Flying Camp, 1776-80
Pennsylvania: Watt's Regiment Flying Camp, 1776
When Caroline County’s battalions of minutemen were disbanded in August 1776, Richardson was appointed Colonel of the Eastern Shore Battalion of the Maryland Flying Camp. Richardson’s battalion consisted of seven companies from the various Eastern Shore counties, about 650 men in all. Early in the conflict, troops were provisioned mostly from local stores. Richardson also received supplies, including firearms, from Annapolis and Baltimore to be distributed among the various companies of his regiment. Richardson may have used the landing and storage facilities at Gilpin Point, and possibly his own sailing vessels, to import and supply his regiment at this time, and later during his Eastern Shore campaign. Provisioning the troops was difficult and caused delays before Richardson and his 4th Maryland Battalion of the Flying Camp could join the Continental Army at Elizabethtown, New Jersey, on September 8, 1776.

In 1776 Captain William Smallwood had the only Maryland unit that was called to active duty. Of these companies in Smallwood’s Battalion was the Game Cock Company commanded by Captain William Blair. William Blair was a Toms Creek Hundred citizen, who attended the Troxell meeting at Tom’s Creek on Sunday August 28, 1770. The second Company was under the command of Captain William Shields who also attended the Troxell meeting in 1770. Captain Benjamin Ogle raised the Third Company. More than a hundred and fifty soldiers that were ready for military use manned these companies.

Upon the arrival of the news that a war had started up North in Massachusetts, Frederick County, Maryland proposed a general movement for the enlistment of volunteers. There were two companies raised, Michael Cresap was captain of the first company, with Thomas Warren, Joseph Cresap, Jr., and Richard Davis, Jr., lieutenants. Captain Cresap’s company was composed of a hundred and thirty backwoodsmen. Of the second company Thomas Price who was captain, and Otho Holland Williams and John Key as lieutenants. The Committee of Observation appointed these officers. These companies were to march and join the Continental Army at Boston. A gallant, hardier and more efficient body of men never marched to the defense of their country. The men of this company, many of them educated in the frightful conflicts of the Indian Wars, were skilled in Indian warfare and hardened to Indian discipline, with remarkable skill in the use of their rifles.

Captain Daniel Morgan’s company enlisted in the neighborhood of Shepherdstown, (West) Virginia. These were the first troops from the South to reach the field. A writer, in August 1775, described them upon their arrival as remarkably stout and hardy men, many of them exceeding six feet in height. They were dressed in white frocks or rifle shirts, and round hats. These men were remarkable for the accuracy of their aim, striking a mark with great certainty at two hundred yards distance. During a review of the company, while on a quick advance, they fired their balls into objects of seven inches diameter at the distance of two hundred and fifty yards. Nothing could exceed the satisfaction of General Washington, upon the arrival of this contingent upon whom he could always rely, part of them coming from his own State.

On July 17, 1775 Captain Morgan’s company came into Frederick on their way to Boston. One mile from Frederick they were met by Captain Price’s company as they marched to Boston with Captain Cresap. The Maryland Line was next to be organized. It composed of four companies from Frederick County (three of which were from the Emmitsburg district), and two to three companies from Montgomery County. Colonel William Smallwood would command these companies that were from Frederick County. Captain George Stricker was commissioned, as captain in the Maryland 400 and would later be promoted to Lt. Colonel in a German Regiment that was raised by the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania.

A (Flying Camp) Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment was authorized June 17, 1776 in the Continental Army and was assigned to the Main Army. The Regiment was organized June 27, 1776 to consist of the three existing companies two from Maryland and one from Virginia, plus two new companies to be raised in Maryland, and four new companies to be raised in Virginia. The regimental organization was disbanded with the surviving Virginia portion being transferred on February 3, 1777 to the 11th Virginia Regiment and the Maryland portion provisionally reorganized in November 1776 as a single company under Captain Alexander Lawson Smith and attached to the 4th Maryland Regiment.

The German Regiment

The Continental Congress authorized the recruitment of a German Regiment to be composed of eight companies from Pennsylvania and Maryland. German immigrants first settled the Emmitsburg and Mechanicstown area in 1748. The General Assembly in July of 1776 defined those two companies; each would be raised in Frederick and Baltimore counties. The German Battalion unofficially referred to as the 8th Maryland Regiment under the command of Haussegger's and DeArendt's.

The German Battalion enlisted for three years but served between 1776-1780 and saw action for almost five years at Trenton, White Plains, and Brandywine. In January of 1781 the Regiment was disbanded as a separate entity and was folded into the Maryland Continental Troops, part of the 3rd Maryland Regiment. They marched back to Frederick and then to Baltimore where they were re-equipped to go south to Yorktown.

The Maryland Line and Daniel Morgan's Virginians

On July 18, Daniel Morgan's Company started on their long march to Boston, armed with tomahawk and rifle, dressed in deerskins and moccasins and treading as lightly as the savages themselves. They needed no baggage train or equipment. They used their blankets to wrap themselves in at night and then they slept around the campfire as contentedly as if they had been comfortably housed. As they marched to the field they could easily procure game in almost sufficient quantities for their support, along with a little parched corn as the only provision they had. Before marching, these men gave the people of Frederick an exhibition of their marksmanship. A man would hold a target in his hand or between his knees for the others to aim at, with such confidence in their own skill. Not only did they practice in the ordinary way but assumed various postures, showing in all circumstances the same skill.

Several Maryland militia companies were mustered into service and attached to the Maryland 400 that made up the Maryland Line (1st Maryland Regiment) and was ordered to New York, on July 4, 1776. There the Maryland Line took action in the early part of the war at Brooklyn Heights, New York. This was their first baptism of fire in the war and a very costly battle for them as well. When Captain Blair fell, mortally wounded at the battle of Brooklyn Heights, Captain Henry Williams took charge of the "Game Cock" company. Under Henry’s command, the company participated in many hard-fought battles, with Captain Williams in the thickest of the fray.

After the retreat from New York, the Maryland Line found themselves being recalled to Frederick. According to Williams’ Frederick County History it is stated that, "While in Frederick, a company of the Flying Camp Battalion was then unattached from the Maryland Line and guarded the barracks where Hessian and British soldiers were imprisoned. The barracks housed those taken prisoner from the battles of Saratoga. Trenton, and Yorktown."

During September of 1776 a committee was formed to build a state constitution. On September 6, the convention provided that the upper district of Frederick County should be formed into a new county named Washington along with the lower district forming Montgomery County. On September 12, at the Frederick Court House, Lt. Colonel William Blair, Colonel George Sticker (although a native of Winchester. Virginia), and Colonel Charles Beatty were among some of those chosen for the observation of the committee in forming the Maryland State Constitution. On November 8, the constitution was agreed upon and elections were ordered to carry it into effect. On February 10, 1777 the State Assembly was held and three days later Thomas Johnson was elected Maryland’s first Governor.

In February of 1777, the Maryland Line was reorganized with five new regiments that were raised in Maryland. Colonel William Smallwood of the Maryland 400 was promoted to General and given command of a brigade and French General Debarre was given command of the other brigade. The new command structure placed the Flying Camp Battalion into separate regiments. William Blair was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel of the Third Battalion and William Shields was given the rank of First Major of the same command. Two of Emmitsburg’s companies were placed in the Third Battalion under the command of Thomas Johnson Jr. The Second Battalion enlisted the third company that was from the Toms Creek Hundred and under the command of Colonel James Johnson and Toms Creek Hundred own Benjamin Ogle who was promoted to First Major.

From 1775 to 1777, Maryland had raised eight regiments for the Continental Army. However the German Regiment that was raised in Maryland and Pennsylvania is listed with a Virginia Brigade. The new organization at Valley Forge was as follows:

3rd Division; Major General Sullivan Commanding

1st Maryland Brigade
1st Maryland Regiment Colonels William Smallwood and Francis Ware
3rd Maryland Regiment Colonel Mordecai Gist
5th, Maryland Regiment Colonel William Richardson
7th Maryland Regiment Colonel John Gunby
2nd Maryland Brigade
2nd Maryland Regiment Colonel Thomas Price
4th Maryland Regiment Colonel Josiah C. Hall
6th Maryland Regiment Colonel Otho H. Williams
Delaware Regiment
Hazen's 2nd Canadian Regiment
1st Division; Major General Greene Commanding

1st Virginia Brigade; Brigadier General Muhlenberg

1st Virginia Regiment
5th Virginia Regiment
6th Virginia Regiment
9th Virginia Regiment
3th Virginia Regiment
German Regiment; Brig. Gen. Peter Muhlenberg (Of the eight companies in this regiment, four were raised in Pennsylvania and four from Maryland. It was credited as part of the Pennsylvania Line until February 26, 1778 when it was transferred to the Maryland Line. It was officially designated the 8th Maryland Continental Regiment, but was seldom ever referred to as that.)

Many of those from Toms Creek Hundred who re-enlisted served in the 6th Maryland Regiment that was raised in 1777. In the Matthews family history their ancestor’s names appear on the roster of the 6th Maryland Regiment. They are listed as follows: Corporal Robert Matthew, Corporal Thomas Matthew, and Private William Matthew. The Matthews family also had several family members that served in Williams and Cresap’s Companies that was raised on June 21, 1775. In Blair’s Company George Matthews served as a Sergeant while Conrad Matthews, also a sergeant served in Ogle’s Company. Listed with Ogle’s Company was Private Henry Matthews. These companies were commanded by Colonel William Smallwood and were organized as the First Maryland Regiment.

By 1781, the war for Independence cost Maryland many lives. The Maryland Line had to re-organize with the loss of three regiments. The Maryland Line in 1781 consisted of the 1st MD Regiment, 2d MD Regiment, 3d MD Regiment (In January of 1781 the German Regiment was disbanded into the Maryland Continental Troops, part of the 3rd Maryland Regiment.), 4th MD Regiment, and the 5th MD Regiment. By 1783 the Maryland Line was again re-organized with only two Regiments left that fought the duration of the Revolutionary War. The new organization now had the 1st and 2nd Maryland Regiments, with a small battalion of Maryland troops as re-enforcements. Maryland had paid a heavy price for her freedom during the Revolutionary War and Toms Creek Hundred contributed to her efforts.

If I can find  more specific information, such as engagements or actual dates of involvement I will amend this. All I have right now is data from Rev Pension rolls, which are not very specific. If anyone has located any of the Maryland Regiment rosters I would sure like to see them. My best guess would be Richardson's Regiment, due to family association.