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