Re: Birth of William John Blakely Sr married to Rachel Orr
-
In reply to:
Re: Birth of William John Blakely Sr married to Rachel Orr
Charles Blakley 1/15/09
Dear Charles,
I'm sorry to hear your ancestor isn't a proven son of John and Rachel, but am certain you know why, all internet and printed reports to the contrary, I'm saying my Robert Blakely isn't a proven son of theirs either, and I'm concerned about it.
As you know, there were several groups of unrelated Blakelys in Tennessee at an early date. That my Robert had the same given name as a son of John's, and also lived in Tennesseee, is definitely not proof he was John's son.
As for John and Rachel, I've concluded they were very probably Ulster Scots for the following reasons:
1. The Blakely surname originated in England and Scotland, and most people carrying the name are of English or Scottish descent. There were Blakelys in northern Ireland at an early date, but northern Ireland was long controlled by the English, and a large settlement of Scots lived there for several centuries. They remained Scots, never intermarrying with, or living among, the Irish.
2. It's reported, but not proven, John, born circa 1715, was born in Ireland, and moved to Pennsylvania by, or before, adulthood. There were three successive waves of Ulster Scots emmigration, the first starting shortly before the time he's estimated to have been born. Almost all the Scots in northern Ireland eventually moved to the colonies, because of conflicts with their English overlords, and moved first to Pennsylvania, where they'd been encouraged to come by William Penn.
3. They moved on into Virginia and North Carolina, going on from there into other Southron states, when there were conflicts resulting from cutural differences with the English Quakers in the Pennsylvania Colony, and fears their enormous numbers there would result in them taking political control of the colony. They moved mostly into the the backcountry, wanting to establish Scottish communities far from the English. John moved to Laurens County, then in the backcountry of South Carolina, and moved to the Duncans Creek area, which was an Ulster Scots settlement.
4. He appears to have been Presbyterian, and the Ulster Scots, without exception then, were Presbyterian. He gave his children no names that were identifiable as Irish, and all intermarried with people with Scots' surnames, meaning they married into Ulster Scots families.
5. At the time, because of cultural differences, and language barriers (The Ulster Scots were still speaking Gaelic as their primary language.), the fact he was living among, and his children intermarrying with, Ulster Scots, says he was almost certainly an Ulster Scot himself.
Records of John's estate settlement suggest the following:
1. He died in old age, but left no will. This indicates, (1.) he died suddenly, without expecting to, or(2.)had already given his children what he wanted them to have,(3.) didn't think he had enough to make it worthwhile writing a will, or (4.) couldn't afford to have a will written.
2. He had only a hundred acres at the time of his death. That's a very small land holding, and especially so for a man with a large family. This indicates (1.) he supported himself by some method other than farming, (2.) had already given land he'd owned to his children, keeping just enough to support himself and Rachel, or (3.) was a poor man. (That his land adjoined that of sons, Thomas and William, suggests he may already have divided his land.)
3. The laws had been changed by the time he died. Rachel didn't inherit only the use, or proceeds, from one-third of his land. She actually owned one-third of it! One-third was only about thirty-three acres though. It would have barely enough to have supported her, and she was too old to have been able to have farmed it herself. She's not on the 1800 census, so must have been living with one of her children. She "conveyed' her share to Thomas and William before the estate was finally settled, suggesting she may have given it to them. It sounds like they were selling the whole of the hundred acres though. She would have extremely old by 1814. Still, I'm wondering if she might not have been living, and knowing she was certainly nearing death, given it to them so they could sell it for her, along with the rest, as a single property.
I'll add that I don't think they were actually poor though. There are two reasons:
1. John and Rachel lived into old age, and they had eight children who lived to adulthood when infant mortality rates were very high. That wouldn't have been likely if they'd been poorly housed, clothed, and fed. Their longevity, and large family, suggest they were at least comfortably situated.
2. Their daughter, Sarah, married Days Gill, who's father is identified by being called "Mister" Gill, as a man who held the rank of "gentleman". In a class conscious society, he's unlikely to have married Sarah unless her father was a respectable man.
On that point, Days Gill was a Tory. The William Blakely who survived the savage massacre of the Whigs at Days Station, may very well have been her brother, William. If so, relations between the Blakelys and their Gill in laws, and betwen family members, must have been strained during The Revolution.
As for John having served in the militia during the Revolution, I doubt it. He was too old even during the first year of the Revolution to have been in the militia. It's not impossible, since there were several battles, and quite a few skirmishes, in Laurens County, that he might not have gotten involved in something, but I suspeect he may have been confused with a younger man of the same name.
South Carolina does keep it's own militia records, so I'll see what may be found in the state archives. Who knows, maybe your John and my Robert will show up there. Both should have served somewhere!
Always,
Lynn
More Replies:
-
Re: Birth of William John Blakely Sr married to Rachel Orr
Charles Blakley 1/20/09