Showing posts with label Genealogy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genealogy. Show all posts

Saturday, February 15, 2014

250 Years Ago* ... Happy Birthday St. Louis!

Happy Birthday St. Louis.  Today you are 250 years old! Some people think your birthday was yesterday, but I side with those who think it is today.  February 15.  But we are celebrating all weekend.


How do we know when St. Louis began its existence?   St. Louis appears to be among the chosen few cities that has an account written by an eyewitness.  Many years after the fact (probably after the Louisiana Purchase in 1804) Auguste Chouteau hand-wrote (in French) his memoirs.  Unfortunately, most of the original was destroyed in the 1840's in a fire while the document was on loan.  But a fragment was found among Auguste Chouteau's papers and, fortunately for us, what survived was his "Narrative of the Settlement of St. Louis".   The original is now in the collection of the St. Louis Mercantile Library which is located on the campus of the University of Missouri - St. Louis.

In 1858 the Mercantile Library published the original of the work along with an English translation.  Then in 1911, the Missouri Historical Society Collections republished both the English and French versions and included helpful footnotes.  They also included a photograph of the original manuscript  that containes a portion of the description of the day of the founding.  This is the publication that I use. 

Chouteau wrote:
Navigation being open in the early part of February, [Laclede] fitted out a boat, in which he put thirty men, - nearly all mechanics, - and he gave the charge of it to Chouteau, and said to him:  "You will proceed and land at the place where we marked the trees; you will commence to have the place cleared, and build a large shed to contain the provisions and the tools, and some small cabins, to lodge the men.  I will give you two men on whom you can depend, who will aid you very much; and I will rejoin you before long."  I arrived at the place designated on the [15th] of March and, on the morning of the next day, I put the men to work.  They commenced the shed, which was built in a short time, and the little cabins for the men were built in the vicinity.
Ah, I hear you say.  But doesn't Chouteau state that the date was March 15th?  And isn't this February 15?  And, looking at the deep winter that surrounds us, doesn't it make more sense that they would have waited the additional month?

In helpful footnote (which refers us to the facsimile of the original page) we learn:
The date of the founding of St. Louis has been the subject of much discussion.  As will be seen in the facsimile here given, Col. Chouteau wrote fevrier - February.  By his, or some other hand, the word mars was written over the word fevrier.  In his deposition before Recorder Hunt, Colonel Chouteau testified that, "On the tenth of February, A.D. 1764, Mr. Laclede sent Auguste Chouteau, this deponent, at the head of a party of mechanics of all trades, amounting to upwards of thirty in number to select a place suitable for an establishment such as he proposed.  On the 15th of February, A.D. 1764, they landed at a place which they thought convenient for the purposes of the company and immediately proceeded to cut down trees, draw the lines of a town, and build the house where this deponent at present resides.  Mr. Laclede on his arrival named the town Saint Louis, in honor of the King of France."  1 Hunt's minutes, p. 107.
And why the brackets around the 15th?  The translation is the 14th but the footnote begs to differ: 
Some person have mistaken Colonel Chouteau's figure 5 for the figure 4 (see facsimile).  But a comparison with other documents shows beyond question that the date here is fifteen.  ...
So I looked at the way Chouteau wrote the number "5" and I'm in agreement.  It was the 15th.

Unfortunately Chouteau does not name the two men on whom he was to depend (Chouteau, you might remember, was only about 14 years old).  It also does not name the 30 "mechanics" who accompanied him.  Later, however, in the original manuscript there is a list of names which the editor says appears to be Chouteau's best effort at recalling the names of the thirty men who were with him.

  • A. Joseph Tayon
  • Roger Tayon
  • Dechene
  • Beauchamps
  • Morcerau
  • Joseph Bequet*
  • Andre Bequet*
  • Gabriel Dodier
  • Baptiste Marligne
  • Lemoine Marligne
  • Beaugenou
  • Cotte
  • Pichet
  • Hervieux
  • Bacune
  • Francois Delin
  • La Garosse
  • Kierseraux
  • Gregoire Kierceraux
  • Alexia picard
  • Antoine Pothier
  • Th. Labrosse
  • Labrosse
  • Louis Chancellier
  • Chancellier
  • Gamache
  • Ride
  • Roi
  • Layoie
  • Le Grain

I've asterisked the two Becquets.  As the footnote says:

... the list is intended to be the muster roll of the thirty (in a deposition given 18 April, 1825 Col. Chouteau said upwards of thirty) men who came with Chouteau from Fort Chartres.  ... The errors in the list seem to be the mistakes of a copyist, and would indicate that Col. Chouteau had transcribed it from some previously written document.  Beauchamps was probably intended for Deschamps.  Marcereau should be Marcheteau dit Desnoyers.  The Becquets were both named Jean Baptiste.  Marligne should be Martigny.  The Martignys were near kinsmen of Iberville and Bienville.  Bacane should be Bacanne dit Riviere.  Layoie was Jean Salle dit Lajoie.  Most of the men named in the list became respected citizens of St. Louis. Nearly all were Canadians who had lived in the village about Fort Chartres.  (emphasis mine).
Other books about the founding of St. Louis reference the two Becquets (or Bequets as it is sometimes spelled) and agree that they were named Jean Baptiste and were from the Fort de Chartres area.  There were two Becquets, both named Jean Baptiste, who came to St. Louis.  (There was another Becquet family who went to Ste. Genevieve.)   Later records make clear that one was a blacksmith and one was a miller.   

The blacksmith, Jean Baptiste Becquet, was my ancestor, the son of Jean Baptiste Nicolas Becquet and his wife, Catherine Barreau who were immigrants from France.  J. B. Becquet (the younger) was married to Marie Francoise Dodier, the sister of Gabriel Dodier who was another member of the group of thirty who came with Chouteau.  Both men were blacksmiths.  If you intend to build a settlement, blacksmiths are essential to help make hinges and locks, etc.  They are also very useful to have around for trade because they would draw the Indian population in to have their metal goods repaired.

Jean Baptiste Becquet and his brother-in-law Gabriel Dodier were among the thirty who accompanied Chouteau.  Eventually Marie Francoise Dodier would join her husband in Saint Louis, as well as JB Becquet's mother-in-law, Veuve (Widow)  Dodier.  The founding would be a family affair for my family.

Over the years the family would become less French and more Irish and German, just as St. Louis became less French and more Irish and German.  Eventually in the late 1800s a descendent of Jean Baptiste Becquet would, for the first time, marry someone not of French descent - an Irish immigrant girl who had recently arrived in St. Louis.   Their daughter would marry a British citizen who had come to St. Louis from the British West Indies.  Her son would marry a woman of German-Irish descent.  The stories of our family's French heritage would be almost forgotten.  I would have a general understanding that my great-great-great grandfather with the French name had come "from Canada".  The knowledge that we were descended from a founding family would be misplaced.

But knowledge that is misplaced is not lost forever.  My father started digging into the history of that g-g-g grandfather.  Thanks to the tremendous resources of the St. Louis Public Library, the St. Louis County Library and the Missouri History Museum Library, and some help from my sister and me, the link was rediscovered.    And, thankfully, it was discovered in time for the Birthday Party!

So, again, Happy Birthday St. Louis.  You are a fine place to live.
   



*Part of my continuing blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis in February 2014.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Tis the Season - to Buy Stuff

During this holiday season, retailers hope that we go out and buy a lot of stuff.  Stuff for gifts and stuff for ourselves.  I count myself lucky to be able to buy stuff.  Some aren’t so lucky.

On the other hand, most people used to live with a lot less stuff.   I was thinking about this the other day as I was organizing some papers.  I came across a transcript of an estate inventory from 1782.

My ancestors, Antoine Barada and his wife, Marguerite DesRosiers, were married at Post Vincennes, in what is today the state of Indiana.  They moved to St. Louis with their children not long after St. Louis was founded.  Antoine Barada died in 1780.  Two years after his death, Marguerite re-married.  I previously wrote about the marriage contract for Marguerite DesRosiers’ second marriage.

It was customary under French and Spanish law to inventory the estate prior to the re-marriage of the widow so that the children of the deceased knew what was to eventually come to them.  (St. Louis was a French city living under Spanish rule at the time.)

And so, on April 30, 1782 an inventory was taken in the presence of Don Francisco Cruzat, “Grand Captain, Infantry Colonel, Commander-in-Chief of the Louisiana Territory and Governor of the Western Part of Illinois and its annexed parts”.  The Widow Barada brought two witnesses who were the named executors of the estate:  Baptiste Becquet and Gabriel Dodier.   Becquet and Dodier were both originally from the town of Nouvelle Chartres in Southern Illinois and had come to St. Louis with the first group of settlers.  They were brothers in law; each had married the sister of the other.  Becquet’s daughter, Marie, had married the Widow Barada’s son, Louis, the year before.

The remaining estate of Antoine Barada was valued at 928 livres.  More than half of the value was the wooden house “with no stone” located on First Street in St. Louis, described as being on a lot 120 feet in front and of “customary depth”. Inside the house was the second most valuable possession:  a bed with a feather mattress.  There was a pair of sheets and a down comforter for the bed.  The only other furniture was two walnut dressers, one table and two chairs. For tableware there were seven tin plates, nine tin spoons, five old iron forks, one big spoon and eight “used” ceramic plates.   The kitchen accoutrements included one saucepan, two earthen jars.  At the fireplace were two iron andirons and two iron hooks.  There were three iron cans and one millstone.   Three iron bars and miscellaneous other iron pieces rounded out the estate.

And that was it.   Perhaps there had been more and it had been gifted to their various children upon their weddings.  But we have no records of that. 

The Baradas were not particularly poor people.  Oh, they weren’t rich like the Chouteaus, but they had a house and were considered upstanding citizens.  But like most people of that time, they didn’t have a lot of stuff.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

More LeBeau Mysteries – Thomas Dumont

I’ve had such good luck with people contacting me about past family mysteries that, what the heck - I’m going to try again. For all the regular readers – sorry. You’re probably sick of the LeBeau family. Back to our regularly scheduled programming soon.

Thomas Dumont was my g-g-g-grandfather and he has always been something of a mystery. He married Louise, the daughter of Jean Baptiste LeBeau and Marguerite Barada. She was a young widow with two children. Louise and Charles only had one child: my g-g-grandfather Charles Dumont. Louise came from a family with a St. Louis history. Thomas? Thomas seems to have just shown up one day. We can’t find any family that he would have come to join. Since it seems so unlikely that she would have married a total stranger who had no “references” we assume that he must have been involved in the fur trade and her male relatives must have known him from somewhere.

Here’s what we do know.

Marie Louise LeBeau and Thomas Dumont were married at St. Charles Borromeo Church, St. Charles, Missouri, on February 9, 1836.

“After a publication, dispensation having been given for the two others, I received the mutual consent of Mr. Thomas Dumont and Miss Marie Louise LeBeau, in the presence of several witnesses. His mark Baptiste LeBeau; His mark Louis Gournon; His Mark August Dorlac; His mark Baptiste LeJeunesse; A. Janis; His mark Sylvestre Barada His mark Louis Geau; Van Assche”

All the witnesses were from the area. Baptiste LeBeau was either her father or her brother. Sylvestre Barada was an uncle. August Dorlac was probably the uncle of her first husband. Louis Gournon and Louis Geau were from the area as were Baptiste LaJeunesse and A. Janis. We know that LaJeunesse and Janis were in the fur trade and it is possible that they were friends of Thomas Dumont, but we can’t tell for sure.

The marriage record does not say where Thomas Dumont came from but family lore said that he came “from Canada”. The burial record for Thomas Dumont lists his parents:

Burial at St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church St. Charles Missouri; November 20, 1849, Thomas Dumond, 60 yrs, s/o Charles Anton & Catherina (Aught); spouse Louisa (LeBeau)

If Thomas Dumont was about 60 when he died in 1849 he would have been born about 1789. Fr. Van Assche was a Belgian priest and he tended to mangle the spelling of French names. After researching various Dumont couples my dad feels fairly sure, and I agree, that Thomas Dumont’s father was Charles Antoine Dumont and that his mother’s name wasn’t Catherina Aught but was really Catherine Hotte. They lived in Canada, mostly around the Montreal area.

Here is what we know about Antoine Dumont and Catherine Hotte:

Antoine Dumont, son of Charles Dumont dit LaFleur and Genevieve Baribeau Beaupre (Ste-Genevieve de Batiscan), was born March 6, 1749. (see PRDH Cert. # 110291) This couple appears to have had two sons named Antoine, one married Marie Josephe Baillergeon and the other (ours) married Marguerite Decelles Duclos in 1771 and then married Catherine Hotte.

Catherine Hotte, daughter of Claude Hotte and Catherine Pilet (Quebec) was born July 13, 1760. (see PRDH Cert #247977)

Antoine Dumont (s/o Charles Dumont and Genevieve Baribeau) married Marguerite Decelles Duclos, widow of Joseph Lavigne, in St. Denis sur Richelieu on January 21, 1771. They had Francois Noel Dumont b. 12-24-1771, d. 10-04-1773 and Antoine Dumont b. 06-26-1775, d. 07-16-1775. Marguerite Decelles died 07-22-1775. Their marriage, the baptisms of their children and all burials were at St. Denis sur Richelieu although at the burial of their son Noel there is a notation that the parents are strangers of the parish.

At the burial of theisecond child, Antoine is listed as a “Fermier” but at the death of Marguerite he is listed as a “Journalier”. (See PRDH certs 226862; 546880; 562601; 704217; 562655; 378146).

Antoine Dumont did not remarry for five years – which seems a long time for those days.

On February 7, 1780, at Batiscan, Antoine Dumont, widower of Marguerite Duclos, married Catherine Hotte daughter of Claude Hotte and Catherine Pilet. (PRDH 215391).

These are their children as listed in PRDH and where they were baptized:

Antoine b. 07-07-1782 (Champlain civil archives) PRDH 740294

Esther b. 03-31-1784 (Champlain civil archives) PRDH 740320

Marie Marguerite b. 04-21-1786 (Sault au Recollet) PRDH 656276

Marie Rose b. 02-16-1789 (Montreal) PRDH 625763

Marie Louise b. 08-12-1791 (Sault au Recollet), d. 05-31-1792 PRDH 656531 and 516383

Michel b. 10-01-1795 (St. Eustache), d. 04-10-1796 PRDH 651548 and 515266

Marie Louise b. 03-30-1797 (St. Eustache) PRDH 651860

On all of these records the spelling of Catherine Hotte’s name is all over the place: Hotte, Hot, Huot, Hote, Hante, Hauilt.

Antoine Dumont died 01-24-1798 and was buried at St. Eustache (see PRDH 385196 which lists his age as 53 but he would have been 49 based on his birthdate of 1749).

On January 7, 1799 Marie Catherine Hotte, widow of Antoine Dumont, remarried Charles Masson at St. Eustache (PRDH 347320). Her brother in law Charles Dumont and nephew Joseph Dumont were witnesses. One child is listed as born to them (but there could have been more, PRDH stops at that point). He was named after his father: Charles Masson b. January 28, 1799 St. Eustache (PRDH 652287)

Charles Masson died March 13, 1814 at St. Eustache at age 75. (PRDH 1145019)

In searching generally on the web I found a website that states that Catherine Hotte married a third time to Jean Baptiste Gagnon on October 20, 1823 at St. Eustache. There is no citation so I don’t know how reliable it is, but the other information they have on that site is correct:

So … the problem is obvious …. There is no Thomas Dumont listed in PRDH as the son of Antoine Dumont and Catherine Hotte, much less a son born around 1789 who lived. Of course ages were often simply guesswork. Perhaps Thomas is really the Antoine Dumont born in 1782? Or perhaps his baptism record is simply missing?

I’ve searched for his siblings on the web to see what may have happened to them, and I found a reference to his youngest sister Louise married to Jean Benjamin Cadorette. There is no citation so, again, I don’t know how reliable it is.

I also found this on the web:

“Je cherche le mariage
et les parents de Jean-Baptiste
DUCHESNE & Marie-Louise CAILLÉ,
leur fils Michel a épousé
en premières noces
Angélique VALIQUETTE
(François & Angélique BOURDON
) le 14 août 1794 à
Sainte-Thérèse-de-Blainville
et en secondes noces,
Catherine DUMONT (Antoine
& Catherine HOTTE) le 12 juillet 1802
à St-Eustache.”

That stumped me too – there is no Catherine Dumont listed in PRDH as the daughter of Antoine Dumont and Catherine Hotte. If she married in 1802 let’s assume she was born sometime in the early to mid 1780’s. So was she really Esther or Marguerite? Or, again, maybe her baptism is missing? Just like her brother Thomas?

There is a Thomas Dumont who is listed as an employee of the Northwest company at Ile-a-La-Crosse in 1812-1814. I do not know if that is my Thomas Dumont. He would have been about the right age, but there were other Dumonts out in the west. My dad found some St. Louis fur trade records that show payment to a Thomas Dumont at a post along the upper Missouri in the 1820’s. My Thomas Dumont showed up in St. Charles in the 1830’s when he married Louise LeBeau. As I said, we have always assumed he came to Missouri in connection with the fur trade.

[Update:] This is the Upper Missouri information we have from records of the American Fur Company account books (lists that didn't reproduce well so some of the information is a best guess at what is written). In October 1829 a Thomas Dumond was affiliated with the "Kanzas Outfit".

1830 - 375 Thomas Dumond paid his order (31.00) (I don't know where this was)

May 2, 1832 Fort Union Th. Dumond 396.25

August 2, 1832 payable our note to Th. Dumond 153.00 (Fort Clark?)

August 3, 1832 to cash pd. C. Labuyr in acc't of note to Th. Dumond 32.00

August 13, 1832 Thomas Dumond for amt. of his acknowledgment of his note given him.

October 26, 1832 Thomas Dumond - reference acct. Vanderburg family

November 10, 1832 Th. Dumond 300.19


So. Anybody out there have any additional information? I also posted this on a genealogy forum but thought maybe my blog would get other hits. We’ll see.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Ouaouaboukoue or Ouaouagoukoue? Whatever.

In reviewing some of my family history information recently in connection with my LeBeau family research, a question was raised regarding the grandparents of Marie Louise Jourdain, the wife of Jean Baptiste/Jacques LeBeau.  My dad and I list her maternal grandparents as Jean Baptiste Reaume and Symphorose Ouaouagoukoue.  Or sometimes it is spelled Ouaouaboukoue. And sometimes, believe it or not, it is spelled 8a8ab8k8e.

I think it is pronounced something like  wah-wah-goo-kway.   Anyone who has ever traveled through Wisconsin will see many places containing a syllable sounding like “wah”.   Wausau. Waukesha.  Milwaukee.  Waushara.  Kewaunee. Once you start seeing it, you see it everywhere.  And you realize it must mean something in one of the Indian languages.  Of course, when I ask non-Indian Wisconsinites they just shrug and say they don’t know.  But someday I’ll find out.  

Anyway, as I’ve said before, Symphorose Ouaouagoukoue is something of a mystery and I wish I knew more about her. 

I know a lot about her husband.  Jean Baptiste Reaume was born September 24, 1675 in Petite Riviere St. Charles, just outside Quebec. He was the son of Rene Reaume and Marie Chevreau, both of whom immigrated to New France separately. They married in 1665 and had quite an extensive family – thirteen children, out of which eleven were boys. 

Jean Baptiste was only one of the many Reaume brothers to leave Quebec and head west.  References to his brothers, Robert, Pierre, Charles and Simon, show up in multiple French records of the time as voyageursRobert Reaume was, in fact, hired to escort Madame Cadillac, the wife of the founder of Detroit, to join her husband at that new post.  Simon Reaume was a very well known fur trader, perhaps the most successful of the brothers, and at one point the temporary commander of the French post at Ouiatenon.

Jean Baptiste joined (or succeeded) Pierre Reaume in the La Baye (Green Bay WI) area as a scout and interpreter and trader.  There is some confusion over whether Pierre Reaume was the son of Rene Reaume, and a brother to Jean Baptiste, or was a son of Robert Reaume and a nephew to Jean Baptiste.  Also, some historians believe that some references to “Reaume” the interpreter in the La Baye area that have been identified as Pierre Reaume should really be Jean Baptiste Reaume.   In any event, according to a voyageur contract transcribed by Peter Scanlan in his excellent resource Prairie du Chien: French, British, American,  by 1718 the 42 year old Jean Baptiste Reaume was officially in La Baye having been licensed to take a canoe there for the well known Montreal merchant Pierre de Lestage. 

By at least 1725 he was an interpreter at the post and was trading for himself (and possibly Pierre).  That year Robert Reaume, “representing Jean Baptiste Reaume, voyageur and interpreter”, bought merchandise valued at 4821 livres  on credit from the Montreal merchant Charles Nolan Lamarque.  We are all indebted to whoever took the time to list many of Jean Baptiste Reaume’s  (and other voyageur’s) contracts on a very useful website.  I encourage anyone interested to click through and read them (warning: they are in French).

In 1725, a daughter of Jean Baptiste Reaume was baptized at Michillimackinac.  Her name was Marie-Judith but the name of her mother is not disclosed.  I can find no mention of Marie-Judith ever again.  I do not know if she was legitimate or illegitimate.

By 1728 the French decided to abandon the military post at La Baye due to fighting with the Fox Indians.  Reaume moved down to the post at the River St. Joseph (present day Niles Michigan) to serve as interpreter to the post commander there.  He continued to trade there as can be seen from his contracts.

More importantly for us, it is only when Jean Baptiste Reaume transfers to the post at the River St. Joseph that we discover he has a wife and that she is an Indian.  And we discover that they have have at least one child, named Marie.  We discover this because Marie Reaume acts as godmother at a baptism and the names of her parents are listed in the entry in the church register: 

In the year 1729 the 7th of March I J. Bap. Chardon priest and missionary of the society of Jesus at the river St. Joseph baptized Joseph son of Jean Baptiste Baron voyageur from the parish of Boucherville at present settled in this post and of Marie Catherine 8ekioukoue married in the eye of the church, baptized the 8th of March the day following his birth. The godfather was Mr. Louis-Coulon de Villiers junior and the Godmother Marie Rheaume daughter of Sieur Jean Baptiste Rheaume interpreter and of Simphorose ouaouagoukoue married in the eyes of the church.

J. B. Chardon M. of the soc. of Jesus

Louis de villier

marie reaume

It is unlikely that this “Marie Rheaume” was the four year old Marie Judith Reaume.  Most people assume that the Marie Reaume in this record is Marie Madeleine Reaume who, within 2 years, would be married to Augustin L’Archeveque, a prominent St. Joseph fur trader.  Madeleine was probably not very old when she married.  She might have been as young as 12, which would account for the guess of many that the Reaumes were married about 1720..  Madeleine spent most of the rest of her life in St. Joseph and was a leading citizen.  After L’Archeveque died she married another prominent trader named Louis Chevalier.  Marie Madeleine Reaume has been the subject of some interesting historical research into the role that women played in the French fur trade.  I recommend Susan Sleeper-Smith’s book, Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounters in the Western Great Lakes.  Many of Madeleine’s descendents moved to Cahokia and St. Louis.  When Toussaint Jacques LeBeau married Marie Le Fernet in 1795, one of the witnesses to his marriage contract was “L. Chevalier, cousin” and this was probably one of the grandchildren of Madeleine Reaume.

As an interesting aside, the godfather in that baptism at St. Joseph was Louis Coulon de Villiers, the son of the military commander of Post St. Joseph.  Young Louis would grow up to enter the military like his father and, as his wikipedia entry notes, he is the “only military opponent to force George Washington to surrender”.   

But I digress.  In the late 1720's the war was between the French, their Indian allies and the Fox Indians.  While serving at St. Joseph, Jean Baptiste Reaume acted as an agent and spy for the post commander to try to learn what the Fox were planning.  He and his brother Simon played a large role in the defeat (and massacre) of a large party of Fox in 1730. 

By 1732 Jean Baptiste Reaume seems to have returned to La Baye with Commander de Villiers, who was ordered to re-open that post.  De Villiers was killed not long after that in an Indian battle and references to Reaume cease.  I’ve always wondered if he was at that battle.  He worked so closely with de Villiers that I feel he would have been there if he was not away at the time for some reason.  I’ve wondered if he was wounded, I’ve even sometimes wondered if he died.  But he was a well enough known figure at the time that I think his death would have been reported.  In the website that lists his contracts, the contracts cease for a long period and then begin again in the 1740s, but I think it is possible that by that time his son, the younger Jean Baptiste Reaume, was already acting as official interpreter at the post and those contracts could be his.  Or they could be our Jean Baptiste Reaume’s and there was a reason we do not know as to why there was such a long period between contracts.

We do know that in 1746 he is not listed as “deceased” at the marriage of his daughter, but he also was not listed as present at the wedding:  

1746, I received the mutual [marriage] consent of B. Jourdain, son of Guillaume [Jourdain and of] Angelique la Reine, and _______ Reaume, daughter of J.B. Reaume, residing at la Baye … P. DU JAUNAY, miss. of the Society of Jesus. Louis Pascale Chevalier.

Although the name of the daughter is blank in the marriage record, we know that this is Josephe Reaume because she and JB Jourdain are listed as parents at the baptism of a daughter the following summer of 1747.  The summer of 1747 also saw the marriage of another daughter of JB Reaume and, again, he is not listed as deceased as the parents of the groom are: .

July 1, 1747, I received the mutual marriage consent of Charles Personne de la Fond, son of the late Nicolas Personne de la Fond and of the late Madeline la Suse, of the parish of Montreal; and of Susanne Reaume, daughter of Jean Baptiste Reaume and of Symphorose Ouaouaboukoue, residing at La Baye, after one publication of Bans instead of three, having granted dispensation from the other two publications.

P. du Jaunay, miss. of the society of Jesus

Amiot; Baptiste Le Beaux; Coulonge, witnesses

(Did you LeBeau fans notice who the witness was at that wedding?)  So, we have church records that confirm that both Josephe and Susanne are daughters of Jean Baptiste Reaume.  The church records also confirm that Susanne is the daughter of Symphorose Ouaouaboukoue.  Assuming that the older sister would marry first, that makes Susanne the younger sister.  Jean Baptiste Reaume and Symphorose Ouaouaboukoue were married in the eyes of the church according the the St. Joseph church record. And if the Jesuits said you were married, you were married.  So it seems unlikely that Josephe would have a different mother than her younger sister Susanne.   From this evidence most of us have decided it is more likely than not that the mother of Josephe was also Symphorose Ouaouaboukoue.  If we guess that both daughters were probably about 15 years old when they married, they would have been born in the early 1730’s, perhaps even after the Reaumes returned to La Baye.

When did Jean Baptiste Reaume die?  By September of 1747 his son Jean Baptiste Reaume is entering into a marriage contract with Felicite Chavillon and he is described as the son of the deceased Jean Baptiste Reaume, .  It does not appear that this marriage of the younger Reaume ever occurred though.  The younger Jean Baptiste Reaume married a woman of the Folle Avoine tribe a few years later at Michilimackinac.  He and his wife already had a child, who had been born “at the wintering grounds” and who was brought to Michillimackinac for baptism.  (I’ve seen some researchers who think it was the older Jean Baptiste Reaume who married the Folle Avoine woman, but I feel fairly certain it is the son since the older Jean Baptiste Reaume would have been about 80 at this time – plus that marriage contract says he was dead by the time of that marriage.).

But this marriage contract of the younger Jean Baptiste Reaume also causes confusion because it lists his mother as Marie-Anne Thomas.  Who is Marie-Anne Thomas?   I don’t believe there is a baptismal record for the younger Jean Baptiste Reaume so I suppose it is possible that he is younger than Suzanne and had a different mother.  Some family researchers seem to have assumed that Marie Anne Thomas was a dit name for Symphorose Ouaouagoukoue.  I wonder why?  Symphorose is an unusual name but it is the name of a Christian saint.  Why would she go by Marie Anne?  On the other hand why would her granddaughter Marie Josephe go by Marie Louise?  And why would Baptiste LeBeau go by Jacques LeBeau?  The French never seemed very attached to their given names.  Since the mother of the bride-to-be was also named Marie-Anne it is possible that the notary just messed up and entered Marie-Anne twice.   But what about the last name Thomas?  It is very confusing.

In any event, that’s all we know.  I’d love to know more about Symphorose Ouaouaboukoue, as would the many people who post messages on the various genealogy message boards.  But so far no one has come up with any definitive information.  I’ve seen people state that she “must” be from such and such tribe, but I’ve never seen documentation.  Personally, I’ve always suspected she was Pottawatomie.  But that’s just a hunch, not real information. There are many people who think she belonged to the Illinois.   Hopefully someday we’ll find out more about her.

As usual, if anyone has anything to add, make a comment or drop me an email.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Investigating Mr. LeBeau

I’ve learned a lot of things from working with my dad on our family genealogy. I’ve learned a lot about parts of American history that aren’t covered in American History classes, or are covered only perfunctorily. I’ve learned a lot of facts. But the most important thing I’ve learned is to approach the whole endeavor with an open mind. I’ve learned to ask myself if what I believe to be true really is true or whether it is something I simply assume to be true.

In the comments to my post about Jean Baptiste LeBeau I listed some of the sources I and my dad used to try to track him down. But I want to tell the story of how we discovered he existed at all. It is a story of mistaken assumptions. Finding the existence of Jean Baptiste LeBeau, voyageur, made me realize how important it is to regularly question my assumptions.

About ten years ago my dad got a call from a man on the west coast who thought we might be distantly related. The man’s family had originally come from St. Louis and the man had hired a professional genealogist in St. Louis do some research for him. The man had taken the ancestral names he was provided with and had done a little work to discover if any descendents might still be living in or around St. Louis. He discovered my uncle who put him in touch with my dad - “he’s the one you should talk to; he’s the one that knows the family histories.” The man and my dad figured out that, yes, they were probably related. The connection appeared to be the family of my great-great grandfather – a man named Charles Dumont. And the only thing my family had ever known about Charles Dumont’s heritage was that he was supposedly born in St. Charles, Missouri and his father had come from Canada.

MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION NUMBER ONE: Neither my dad nor I had, at that time, bothered to research the Charles Dumont line because the word “Canada” stopped us. I think we assumed that it would be difficult to do any type of genealogical research on Canadians. Would it involve a trip to Canada? If so, we had no idea what part of Canada the father of Charles Dumont came from. I think we assumed that researching this branch would be harder than other branches and so we put it off for the future. We ended up being wrong about this. Researching your French Canadian ancestors turned out to be incredibly easy compared to researching other nationalities. There are compilations of records that give good starting places. And the French Canadians seemed to document everything with contracts and those contracts give you lots of clues in your research.

During the conversations between my dad and this distant relative, the man very generously offered to share with my dad the research that he had compiled with the help of the professional genealogist. He asked my dad to use the information freely but to share with him any additional information my dad came upon that would correct or complete the information on that branch of the family. My dad said he would be glad to look at it. I remember that he was excited to get it but didn’t seem too sure that he could add anything. At that time my dad was still a novice researcher. That was about to change.

MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION NUMBER TWO: In looking at the research sent by our west coast distant relative, we saw that he had taken the family back pretty far through the female lines. We hadn’t thought about starting with the mother of Charles Dumont. We tended to assume that researching female lines is harder than researching male lines. This is a reasonable assumption. In order to research a female line you must know the wife’s maiden name. We had been spending time researching English, Irish and Scottish lines and under British law a woman pretty much lost her identity when she got married. My dad had gotten (and still is) pretty frustrated with the Irish branches of the family. Even if you can figure out that Mary Murphy the wife of John Murphy (and do you KNOW how many John and Mary Murphys there are?) was originally, say, “Mary Ryan ” – how on earth were you going to figure out her father or mother when there were also thousands of Mary Ryans in the world. It isn’t impossible, but it is hard.

So we, I think, assumed that if the Canadian father of Charles Dumont was going to be hard to find, his mother would be even harder to find. There may have been other assumptions in here too. Maybe we assumed that she came from Canada too. And maybe we assumed that tracing the father’s line would lead to more interesting stories because men had always led more adventurous lives and certainly it would have been the man who made the decision to make that long journey overland from Canada to St. Charles, Missouri. (And why St. Charles? That had always bothered me. If you were going to come all the way to St. Charles, why not come a few miles further to St. Louis? Maybe because they were farmers and there was better land up near St. Charles? But if they were farmers why would they have lived in town?)

So my dad started looking at what he had been sent. According to the professional genealogist, Charles Dumont’s father “a Canadian, brought his family to Missouri about 1835 and settled in St. Charles. His wife was, apparently, deceased, and, within a few years, he married Marie Louisa Lebeau” and they had one son, Charles. “Brought his family” sounded so American. The great American migration – in covered wagons of course. At least that’s what I assumed when I read that. Based on census data, the genealogist stated that Dumont had five children who had come to St. Charles with him, so Charles Dumont would have had five half-siblings. The genealogist even gave the names of two of them based on 1850 census data: Florence and Anuranth Dumont.

My dad went out to the St. Louis County Library and talked to the research librarians and learned a lot about researching your Canadian ancestors. As I said, it turned out to be a lot easier than we thought and we wondered why we hadn’t started sooner. It all was made easier by the fine resources here for researching the French who came to Missouri from Canada. There are lots of St. Louis records of those people. The most important thing my dad discovered was that French women don’t lose their maiden names when they marry, they are still referred to by their maiden names in official records and even though the United States had taken over French territory the French custom of listing the mother’s maiden name had stuck among the French settlers. So tracing the female line was not going to be any harder than tracing the male line.

MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION NUMBER THREE: It is easy to assume that the name that is recorded on any official record is the right spelling or even the right name. Don’t assume that! Record keepers are human. They make mistakes. They hear things wrong. They sometimes have bad handwriting. They make assumptions that turn out false. They spell things the way THEY usually spell them. One of the biggest issues in St. Louis genealogical research is that the French who came to St. Louis were living under a Spanish regime and then an American regime. The Spanish tended to spell things in the Spanish way. “Jean Baptiste” might be recorded as “Juan Bautista”. Americans were even worse when it came to French spellings. And the priest at St. Charles Borromeo church in St. Charles originally came from Belgium and spelled things his own way. So you MUST be flexible in your thinking and search under what would ordinarily be “wrong” spellings.

Since the mother of Charles Dumont was a local St. Charles woman my dad started by looking for information about her. He found some deeds that she and her husband executed that named her as “Luisa”. Sometimes she is referred to as “Mary Louise” or just “Mary” or just “Louise”. But he did find her marriage records and her baptismal records and her gravesite. Her real name was Marie Louise LeBeau.

Eventually we discovered that her marriage to Charles Dumont’s father was, in fact, a second marriage. She had been widowed in her 20’s with two children – Florence and Amaranthe. It appears that the census taker in 1850 assumed that all the children were Dumonts because the French speaking mother was named Dumont when, in fact, only Charles was the Dumont. In fact, we’ve never found any indication that Charles Dumont’s father brought any children with him. We’re not even sure it is a good assumption that he was previously married. Note that the census taker had spelled Amaranthe incorrectly. And the records for Marie Louise’s first marriage had transcribed her first name incorrectly as Larisse instead of Louise (handwritten records are hard to read). But once we put two and two together, it all became clear.

Oh, and our assumption about the overland route with the wagons? Turns out nobody travelled by wagons in those days if they could help it. The roads, if they existed at all, were terrible. They travelled by river. Why would we, living here in this city at the confluence of two great rivers, have forgotten about river travel? Because nobody travels by river anymore except people moving grain and coal. And our history lessons told us that people came through St. Louis to travel west in wagons. Yes, they did – at a later date. It is a lesson to not just assume you know how people moved around. Think about it. Research it.

And Charles Dumont’s father, Thomas Dumont? His marriage record lists his parents’ name and the place they were from in Canada (although the spelling is so mangled it is hard to interpret their French names), so, yes, family lore was right. He was Canadian. But the more we look into him the more we think he did not come to St. Louis directly from his original home in Canada. We think he may have headed first to the Saskatchewan region, working the fur trade for a while. Then we think he came down through the Dakotas to Missouri, on the Missouri River. He may have been doing work for the American Fur Company which was based here and that’s how he ended up here. But that’s still a working hypothesis since the records are few.

When my dad found Marie Louise LeBeau’s baptismal record he confirmed her correct name and that she was born June 13, 1811, baptized at St. Charles Borromeo Church in St. Charles on July 31, 1811. And the baptismal record listed not only the name of her father, Baptiste Lebeau, but also the maiden name of her mother, Marguerite Barada, who turned out to have an interesting family history which I won’t go into here. We ended up going all the way back to the early 1600s on her line.

But what about Marie Louise’s father? What about his family?

MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION NUMBER FOUR: We bought into the narrative created by the professional genealogist. We thought it was based on facts or if it was based on assumptions they were reasonable.

Never assume that a narrative is completely true. It is always dangerous to create a narrative based on only a few facts. If you create a narrative make sure your facts are correct and if you are making assumptions you should state them.

In the genealogical summary sent to my dad, it stated that Baptiste Lebeau was Jean Baptiste LeBeau, the son of Jacques LeBeau and Marie Louise Jourdain from the Diocese of Quebec, and he “was an infant in 1780 when his family moved from Canada to Spanish Upper Louisiana. He grew up in St. Louis and subsequently settled in St. Charles where he married.” Later the narrative states that Jean Baptiste Lebeau was born about 1779 and still “not baptized, he was a babe in arms of his pregnant mother in late spring or early summer of 1780 when the family arrived in St. Louis. After Madame LeBeau gave birth to a baby girl, Marguerite, on June 19, 1780, both the newborn infant and Jean Baptiste were baptized by Father Bernard de Limpach, a Capuchin Friar, who was a parish priest of St. Louis, King of France, Catholic Church.”

Again, my dad and I had only our school histories to guide us and we had visions of wagons heading southwest from Canada carrying the LeBeau family to their new life in St. Louis. Why? Well because that’s what people did in those days, wasn’t it? They went west, always west. And in wagons. We still hadn’t figured out the whole river thing. And we certainly hadn’t yet figured out that fur traders, sometimes with their families, moved over vast distances on those rivers as on a regular basis. Voyageurs didn’t travel to a new town to settle in it. They travelled to trade. And often they went back and forth to towns over the course of many years. But of course we hadn’t yet figured out that we had Voyageurs in our family. We just assumed that, like the Americans who came later, the French Canadians were moving west to settle the land. We assumed, in fact, that the genealogist was correct that the LeBeau family had “moved” to St. Louis.

The narrative also went back to Jean Baptiste’s parents, which was where we got stuck. The father, Jacques LeBeau, was named, but not his parents. But the summary said that the mother, Marie Louise Jourdain, was the daughter of Francois Jourdain and Celeste Roussel. The marriage took place sometime about 1769 in the Diocese of Quebec. It said that Jacques was “born about 1740” and married “about 1769”. And it said: “Because there is no record of LeBeau’s death or burial in St. Louis’s Catholic Church records (nor any civil or military record), it must be presumed that Jacques died in Canada or on the long journey south.” The baptismal date of Jean Baptiste LeBeau is only three weeks after a British led Indian attack on St. Louis and if they were here before that date Jacques LeBeau surely would have been pressed into duty and there were no records of that. So, according to the genealogists narrative, the widow LeBeau arrived in St. Louis with her children, settled down and then, in 1790, married again to Michael Quesnel. Her children then moved to St. Charles when it was founded.

All of that sounded so exciting, if somewhat vague. Picture it. The LeBeau family making their way with pregnant Marie Louise holding little Jean Baptiste in the wagon, making their way toward St. Louis. Jacques dying along the way (how sad! and maybe it was death by Indians!) and the widow finding her way into St. Louis only to find the town in turmoil after the Indian attack. How frightening it must have been for her! And then after long years of widowhood she marries again.

It was a good narrative. But this was where things got interesting for my dad and me. Up until now the actual factual data we were sent had been correct and confirmable in the public records. There was a baptismal record for Jean Baptiste LeBeau and it did state that his parents were Jacques Lebeau and Marie Louis Jourdain. And it was the right date. But neither he nor I could find anything at all about Jacques Lebeau except references that had to do with his children. And neither he nor I could find confirmation that Marie Louise Jourdain was the child of Francois Jourdain and Celeste Roussel. There were Jourdains in St. Louis at the time by that name and we eventually concluded that the genealogist must have concluded that it was a good assumption that Marie-Louise Jourdain was related to the other Jourdains in the St. Louis area. But he didn’t state it as an assumption, he stated it as a fact.

Turns out that although it fit a narrative, it was a bad assumption. And the truth turned out to be far more interesting. My dad found the marriage contract of Marie Louise Jourdain and her second husband Michael Quesnel. (St. Louis was a big enough town that it had a notary to make actual contracts. If you are doing research you have to love the French and their contracts.) This contract lists the names of the bride’s parents as Jean Baptiste Jourdain and Marie Josephe Reaume. So the facts we were given were wrong. And the new facts we discovered changed the entire narrative.

The new information sent my dad and me off on a search for the Jourdains. We discovered that Jean Baptiste Jourdain had been born in Montreal, the son of a stone mason, but had moved to the area now known as Green Bay Wisconsin, where he became a trader and married Marie Josephe Reaume. He never went back to Montreal and he is listed among the first families to settle Green Bay. His wife was born somewhere in the Lake Michigan area and was the daughter of Jean Baptiste Reaume, the official French interpreter (and trader) at the post of Green Bay, and Symphorose Ouaouagoukoue, a Native American woman, who were legally married in the eyes of the church.

Well, that was interesting! And it made me rethink the whole theory of Marie Louise cowering in fear of Indians.

But although Marie Louise’s marriage contract lists her parents (and we assume it is correct because… why would she lie?) there was no record that those two persons had a daughter named Marie Louise. That was a bit of a mystery.

We discovered that Jean Baptiste Jourdain and Marie Josephe Reaume did have two daughters who were (confusingly) both named Marie Josephe after their mother but were known as Josette and Lysette. There was another daughter Madeleine. And there were references to a younger daughter named Angelique (who showed up later in St. Louis with her husband Augustin Roc). And references to a son named Jean Baptiste. But there was no Marie Louise.

Interestingly, however, in 1764 both Josette and Lysette Jourdain were married at Michilimackinac. Josette married a voyageur named Francois LeBlanc and Lisette married a voyageur named … Jean Baptiste LeBeau.

Now what are the odds, we thought? What are the odds that Jean Baptiste Jourdain and Marie Josephe Reaume had a daughter Lysette who married Jean Baptiste LeBeau, a voyageur, and also a daughter Marie Louise who married a Jacques LeBeau? Probably not good but also not impossible. Could they be the same person? Or is it just that her baptismal record is missing?

We’ve never resolved the question of whether Marie Louise is Lysette but that isn’t a road block. We know that, whether they are the same person or not, she is the daughter of Jean Baptiste Jourdain and Marie Josephe Reaume. So, from a genealogical perspective we could continue researching back from there, and we did. My dad and I took her family back two or three more generations to the point where her ancestors immigrated to Canada in the 1600’s. Unfortunately we were not able to find anything at all about her Indian grandmother, not even what tribe she belonged to. She remains a mystery to be solved.

And that leaves us with Jacques/Jean Baptiste LeBeau. We have no narrative for him, but we are continuing to work off the theory that they are the same person. While it is important not to create a narrative out of false assumptions, it is also important to have a working theory that states your assumptions and then to try to prove your assumptions true or false.

How did we decide this was a viable theory? First, by looking at the genealogist’s assumptions about Jacques LeBeau to see if we could challenge them. We were told he was “born about 1740”. We have no idea where that assumption came from. It probably seemed a logical age. It would have made Jacques about 40 years old when his children were being baptized. But what if he wasn’t born then? Could he have been older? At first I didn’t consider that, but then one day I asked myself why not? Why couldn’t he have been significantly older than Lysette? Maybe my mistake was to consider Lysette, who was three quarters French and one quarter Indian, to be a typical Frenchwoman. Maybe she was more like the Indian women of her grandmother’s people than Frenchwomen. Voyageurs were known to take young wives from among the Indians. They formed a working partnerships with these women who could do the hard work of preparing the skins for transport. Lysette would have been brought up in the fur trade, her father was a trader, her grandmother was an Indian. The Indians in Green Bay were a part of everyday life. They outnumbered the French. The entire settlement was built around the fur trade. Lysette had the opportunity to learn all the traditional skills. She would have been a good wife to a voyageur, no matter his age. This idea came to me when I ran across a reference to Francois LeBlanc with his “Indian” wife and I thought “well, either he had another wife or that was Josette.” And it occurred to me that there was no reason it couldn’t have been Josette.

Second, the genealogist states that Jacques was married “about 1769”. This was probably based on the age of his known children. Again, once I challenged that date (which had no documentation behind it) I realized there was no reason he couldn’t have been married earlier. Maybe their earliest children didn’t survive. Maybe they were baptized elsewhere or were never baptized. Maybe they didn’t have any children for a few years. The only children listed for them are Toussaint Jacques LeBeau (who is listed as 21 years old in 1792), Jean Baptiste LeBeau and Marguerite LeBeau. The genealogist assumed that their oldest child would have been born immediately after their wedding and that Toussaint was the first child they had. There is no reason either of those assumptions have to be true.

Third, we knew through documentary evidence that Marie-Louise didn’t marry Michael Quesnel until 1790 and we also know that, at that point, she and Michael Quesnel already had children. This was something the genealogist didn’t mention but it is a pretty important fact, Maybe he thought it would be embarrassing to document illegitimate children? But they are right there in the baptismal records. It was a fact in those days that children were often born out of marriage. For one thing, there weren’t always priests around when you needed them. You had to go into a town to find a priest.

Marie-Louise and Michael Quesnel were married in 1790, the same year that three of their children were baptized. That leads us to believe that she left St. Louis sometime after the baptisms in 1780 and she would have, of course, taken her LeBeau children with her. So maybe the genealogist was wrong and Jacques Lebeau wasn’t dead when his children were baptized. Maybe they had lived out among the Indians prior to that. Then, perhaps the turmoil of all the Indians being on the move for the Indian attack on St. Louis caused them to come into St. Louis after the attack. Heck, maybe they were with the Indians who were moving down to attack. Maybe they were a part of the attack? And then they decided that as long as they were there they would stop in at the church and have their children baptized and then move on again. All great narratives with no documentary evidence. But in any event Jacques LeBeau could have died before Louise showed up in St. Louis or after Louise showed up in St. Louis for the baptisms. There is no proof either way. The mere fact that there isn’t a death record for Jacques Lebeau in St. Louis doesn’t mean he didn’t die after that date. Especially not if they left St. Louis again.

And here is where modern assumptions got in the way for the genealogist. If a family came to St. Louis in 1780 then they must have come to settle there. That’s what we think. The idea that they might just come for a while and leave seems foreign to us. It doesn’t fit the narrative we learned in school. But the fact is that they could have left and gone out among the Indians again. People did that in those days.

We can assume that Jacques was dead before 1790 when Marie-Louise remarried. And we can assume he died a few years before that, the three Quesnel children baptized in 1790 point to that fact. But should we assume that he was dead in 1780? I’d say no. It doesn’t make sense that Marie Louise would have stayed “single” for almost 10 years after Jacques died. Or even for five years. That’s a modern concept, not how life was in those days. Almost all women remarried fairly quickly in those days. The marriage registers provide proof of this. So if Marie Louise was acting as most women of that time and place acted, there shouldn’t have been too long between the death of Jacques LeBeau and the appearance of Michael Quesnel in her life.

So, if our narrative is true, the genealogist was wrong and they did not “move” to St. Louis and their son Jean Baptiste LeBeau did not “grow up” in St. Louis. He grew up wherever his parents were and then wherever his mother and step-father were. Where were they? We don’t know. And trust me we’ve looked. We’ve looked for Lebeaus and for Quesnels.

And where, oh where, were Marie Louise Jourdain and Jacques Lebeau in the years between their possible marriage at Michilimackinac in 1764 and 1780 when their children were baptized in St. Louis? Again, we’ve looked. We found her brother in law, Augustin Roc, in Peoria during that time (presumably his wife Angelique Jourdain was with him) and there is even a reference to a Jean Baptiste Jourdain in Peoria in the early 1780s. That could be her father or her brother. But there is no evidence of the Lebeaus in Peoria.

So our current working theory consists of the bare minimum of this: Jacques and Marie Louise are the same people as the Jean Baptiste and Lysette who were married in 1764. We have no idea where they went after their marriage, where they lived or where he died, but we know they made a stop in St. Louis in 1780 to have two children baptized. And then later she came back to St. Louis with Michael Quesnel to have their children baptized and to get married. And the Quesnels either settled here or used it as a base to come and go.

That’s the theory. If anyone can prove or disprove any part of it or fill in the gaping holes in it, or come up with a better theory, let me know.


[Update: My dad reminds me that the census taker in 1850 not only spelled Amaranthe's name wrong but got the gender wrong too. Also, today I ran across a reference to a smallpox epidemic that raged up the Missouri River in 1781-82. I wonder if that is what might have killed Jacques LeBeau. The timing might work out with the births of the Quesnel children. ]

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Who Is Jean Baptiste LeBeau?

This will be of no interest to most of my readers, but what else is a personal blog for if not to throw out a question to the world and wait for the long tail to drag in an answer.

Who was Jean Baptiste LeBeau?

In 1764, at the Mission of St. Ignace at Michilimackinac (in present day Michigan ), there was a double wedding of two sisters:

July 24, 1764, I received the mutual marriage consent of jean Baptiste le Beau, voyageur; and marie joseph, called lysette jourdin, after the three publications of Bans.

On the same day I received the mutual marriage consent of francois le Blanc, voyageur; and of marie joseph, called josette jourdin after the three publications of bans. P. DU JAUNAY, miss. of the society of Jesus. Francois le Blanc, + his mark; Baptiste Le Beau; Langlade; Laurent Ducharme; Cardin; Jean Baptiste Jourdain, + his mark, father of the brides.

Who was this Jean Baptiste Le Beau who married Lysette Jourdain in 1764? From the wedding register we know nothing about him except that he was a voyageur and he could sign his name (unlike the other groom and the father of the brides). He is a mystery that I would like to solve.

We know a fair amount about Lysette Jourdain although we don’t know her age because, confusingly, she and her sister were baptized with the same name. The first Marie Josephe Jourdain was born in 1747 the year after her parents were married at St. Ignace:

1746, I received the mutual [marriage] consent of B. Jourdain, son of guillaume [Jourdain and of] Angelique la Reine} and _______ Reaume, daughter of J.B. Reaume, residing at la Baye … P. DU JAUNAY, miss. of the Society of Jesus. Louis Pascale Chevalier.

June 20, 1747, I solemnly baptized (S.C.) marie joseph, legitimate daughter of jean baptiste jourdain and of josephe Reaume, residing at La Baye, the child having been born at la baye in the month of April last. The godfather was Mr. de Noyel, the younger, commandant of this post; and the godmother Mlle Bourassa, wife of Mr Bourassa, the elder, who signed here with me. P. DU JAUNAY, miss. of the society of Jesus. Noyelle, fils; Marie La Plente Bourassa.

Residing at “La Baye” meant that they were living at the French settlement at what is now Green Bay Wisconsin. The second Marie Josephe Jourdain was baptised in 1756 along with a sister and two cousins:

July 19, 1756, I, the undersigned priest, missionary of the society of jesus, supplied the ceremonies and baptized conditionally, jean Simon personne, son of Charles personne and of Suzanne Reaume, his father and mother; and hubert personne, son of the same above mentioned; marie joseph, daughter of jean Baptiste jourdain and marie joseph Reaume, her father and mother, and Marie magdelaine, daughter of the same – the first boy, six years old, born on the fourteenth of April, 1750; the second born on the 1st of December, 1753; the first girl born on the tenth of October, 1751, the second on the 25th of january 1754. The godfather of the first boy was jean le febvre; and the godmother marie josette farley; the godfather of the second boy was Mr Couterot, Lieutenant of infantry; and the godmother Charlotte Bourassa; the godfather of the first girl was jean Baptiste le tellier; and the godmother Marie Anne Amiot; the gofather of the second girl was Antoine janis; and the godmother Marie Angelique Taro. M. L. LEFRANC, miss. of the society of Jesus. H. COUTEROT; BOURASSA LANGLADE; JEAN LE FAIBRE; JOSETTE FARLY; JEAN TELLIER; ANTOINE JANISE; MARI ANGELIQUE TARO

In between a brother, Jean Baptiste, born in November 1748, was baptized. Then in 1760 another sister, Angelique, born in February 1759, was baptized.

Which of the Marie Josephe Jourdains was Lysette and which was Josette? We’ll never know. But on their marriage day one was 17 years old and the other was only 12 1/2 years old. Three years later, on February 9, 1768, her sister Magdeleine, was contracted to marry Jean Saliot in Detroit. She was 14 years old. There is no existing record of when Angelique Jourdain married her husband, Augustin Roc.

But who is Jean Baptiste Le Beau? Where did he come from and where did he and Lysette go after they were married?

1764 was a year of transition for the French in the Wisconsin/Michigan area. France had lost the Seven Years War and had ceded all of its territory east of the Mississippi River to Britain. The British were beginning to move into the territory and the French traders were seeing their livelihood dry up. Earlier in the same month of Lysette’s marriage, a deposition was given by Garrit Roseboom, Tunis Fischer, Cummin Schields and Wm. Bruce, merchants from La Bay “before a Court of Enquiry at the Detroit the 4th day of July 1764”.

Garrit Roseboom declares that about the latter end of April, 1763, he was going from the Bay to the Soaks [Sac Indians] to look for his Partnr Abrah Lancing who had been up there [with the Sac], being told that he was killed, that on his way he met some Indains coming down with some Packs [of furs], which he knew to be his, and which they said he might have for paying the carriage; That both the French and Indians told him Mr. Lancing and his son were killed by two Frenchmen, Tibot [Thibaut] and Cardinal, both servts. of Mr. Lancing, who, they had been told, upon the above Murder made their escape to the Illinois [the country south of Prairie du Chien along the Mississippi River]; that on his return to the Bay he found Mr. Garrit and the Garrison there, and came with them to Michilimackinac, leaving his goods in possession of one Jordan, a Frenchman and an Inhabitant at the Bay; that when he returned from Michilimackinac with the Indians to La Bay, he found some of his goods taken away he thinks of his and Mr. Fischer’s to the value of 20 pounds, wh. he [Jourdain] said was stolen by the Indians, but Mr. Roseboom declares he saw his goods wore by Jordan’s Family afterwards.

That was almost certainly Lysette’s father who was accused of taking Mr. Roseboom’s goods. Of course in a “he said/he said” situation it’s hard to know what happened and it doesn’t appear that the testimony of Mr. Jourdain was sought. But stolen goods might have been the least of his problems. Mr. Roseboom continued his deposition:

That the Indians told him that the French at the Bay … had told them there was an open war between the English and French; That the French would send the Indians ammunition enough & if they went down amongst the English they [the English] would put poison in their [the Indians] Rum, which he [Roseboom] was sure prevented the Indians from coming down [to trade] much sooner, [Roseboom] declares from the treatment He and the rest of the English Traders received, and the lyes propogated by the French at LaBay, among the Indians … he thinks these Inhabitants [of La Baye] were Very bad subjects …

So the new British overlords were hearing from Mr. Jourdain’s new competitors that Mr. Jourdain was a Very Bad Subject. The remainder of the deposition continues with the things that the English Traders heard from the Indians which was all mostly wishful thinking on the part of the French and the Indians that the French govt. would return.

But the deposition of William Bruce also refers to a LeBeau who must be the same LeBeau who married Lysette Jourdain:

That about the latter end of Sept. a Chief of the [Saks Indians] had brought him up [a river] called the [Wisconsin] and at the Renards Castle [the encampment of the Fox Indians], an Indian told him that he was come from la Bay with a letter from Goalie, the Interpreter, to one Le Beaue [sic] telling him that there were officers from France who had come with a large Fleet commanded by the Dauphin, etc., and that the Governor of Quebec had offered these officers a Purse of Money for their News, that soon after the Fleet was seen, and that Quebec and Montreal would soon be taken, being no more than 500 men in Each, which news immediately spread among the Indians, who were there at the time in great numbers; that the Sauteurs, Ottawas, Renards and Puants gave a Good Deal of Credit to it … but that the [Saks] and the Folloeavoines could not believe it; that at the [Saks] Castle, the Indians told him, the Deponent, that the French there intended to kill him, on which they called a council and brought the French to it, and told them if they killed the Englishman every Frenchman should die with Him, this had been told to [the deponant] by the Indians to whom the French had discovered their intentions; the Names of the French on the above Voyage up to the Wisconsin were Martoc [Jean Baptiste Marcot?], Jordan & Labeau , Rivier, St. Pier, Mon. Fontasie, Havness, Lafortain, the three first discovering all the marks of bad subjects and disaffection to the English in their whole behaviour; That he hear’d St. Pier say that if he had wrote such a letter as the Interpreter wrote to Labeau, he wo’d expect to be hanged if ever he went among the English.

Tensions were high at this time because in the summer of 1763 the Indians around Michilimackinac attacked the English, sparing the French. Given the political situation, and given that Jourdain was being tagged as a “bad subject” who showed “disaffection to the English” in his behaviour, maybe he thought he ought to start getting his daughters married because he might not be getting much in the way of trade goods in the future.

But who was the man he chose to marry Lysette?

Although there were many LeBeaus in the Detroit region, there were not many references to LeBeau in the Wisconsin, Northern Michigan area. In 1736, among the boatmen contracted for that year were “Baptiste Lebeau, Antoine Giguaire, Louis Marcheteau to the Sioux”. That same year a new Company of the Sioux had been formed to trade with the Sioux (west of the Mississippi in present day Iowa and Minnesota) and some of the traders licensed through that company were members of the Giguere family. This leads me to believe that the boatman, Baptiste LeBeau, might be the son of the Jean Baptiste Lebeau who married Marguerite Giguere. Their son, Jean Baptiste LeBeau, was born in 1705 which would make him 31 years old in 1736.

But he may have been in the area earlier. In the early 1730’s there is a reference to a Lebeau in a report made to the Canadian government regarding the exploration of some copper mines in the Lake Superior area:

The said Corbin left Sault Ste. Marie … with two men named Vaudry and Le Beau who were going to meet the Sieur de la Ronde’s son. The latter was returning after spending the winter at Chagouamigon. He embarked with Them and they were followed by two others named feli and Gobin. They took on board a savage at the place called The cove (L’anse") near the point of Kienon, who asserted that he had thorough knowledge of the mines and of the Copper in the said River of Tonnagane. They travel led thither, and after entering the said River, which they ascended for a distance of about 8 leagues from the shore of lake Superior, they found a mine about 15 arpents in length ascending the river, 30 feet from the water’s edge and which may be at a height of 60 feet in the cliff.

There is no indication of the first name of this “Le Beau”.

Jean Baptiste LeBeau is never a godfather (or a father, for that matter) at any of the baptisms at St. Ignace, but he was a witness at the 1747 marriage of Lysette Jourdain’s aunt, Suzanne Reaume, to Charles Person de la Fond. This seems to indicate a lasting relationship with the Reaume/Jourdain family. The only other church record that lists a LeBeua is on July 23, 1786, there is a Bte. Labeau listed as a churchwarden of the church of Ste. Anne de Michilimackinac. This seems unlikely to be the same Jean Baptiste Lebeau since he never showed any interest in the church before this, although at this point if it is the same man he would have been 81 years old and maybe the church appealed to him. More likely it is not him.

Of course if Jean Baptiste LeBeau, voyageur, was born in 1705, he would have been close to 60 when he married Lysette. This isn’t outside the realm of possibility but it does give one pause. So maybe that isn’t who Jean Baptiste LeBeau is. Or maybe it is his son – perhaps through a relationship with a Native American woman and the son was never baptised at St. Ignace. Or maybe he is just someone else. But I’ve been through all the possible Jean Baptiste Lebeaus and can’t pin anyone else down unless their wives died early or they were also bigamists. (This would be a real possibility in later fur trade years but less so in the 1700s – and why risk getting married in the church if you were committing bigamy? The Jesuits were big blabbermouths and wrote a lot of letters.)

In the list of Licenses granted for Michilimackinac and places beyond in 1778, the trader “J.B. LeBeau” is licensed to take two (2) canoes to the “Illenois” with Fuzees, gunpowder, shot and ball. This is interesting to me because two years later, in the summer of 1780, there was an attack on the town of St. Louis which was located outside of British territory on the Spanish side of the Mississippi River. And immediately after the attack a woman named Marie Louise Jourdain showed up in St. Louis to have two children baptized. The first was her son, Jean Baptiste LeBeau, who must have been a few years old already, and the second was a daughter named Marguerite who was a newborn. The father is listed as “Jacques LeBeau”.

What is the connection you may ask? In 1790 Marie Louise Jourdain married for the second time to Michael Quesnel and her marriage contract lists her parents as Jean Baptiste Jourdain and Marie Josephe Reaume. In 1800 she died and her age is listed as “about” 50. So the immediate question is whether this was a Jourdain daughter who was never baptized and who happened to marry a man named Jacques LeBeau who may or may not have been related to the husband of her sister Lysette? Or is this really Lysette using the name Louise. I’ve found numerous examples of French men and women using names different than their baptismal names, so it seems a real possibility that this is Lysette and that Jacques Lebeau is really Jean Baptiste LeBeau.

In any event, whether she is or isn’t Lysette, she is the daughter of the Jourdains. There is no reason she would have lied in her marriage contract. And Augustin Roc, the husband of Angelique Jourdain, is a fixture in the lives of her children (witnessing weddings, attending burials, etc.).

But who is Jacques LeBeau? If the name Jean Baptiste LeBeau leads to few places in the Green Bay/Michilimackinac area, the name Jacques LeBeau leads nowhere. There are a couple of men named Jacques Lebeau in other places but the facts just don’t match up. (And to add confusion there is one reference to her husband being Francois LeBeau.)

The St. Louis LeBeaus had three living children (that we know of): Toussaint Jacques LeBeau (who was about 21 in 1790 and who married Marie LaFernai or LaFernay), Jean Baptiste LeBeau (who married Marguerite Barada), and Marguerite Lebeau (who married a man named Etienne Bernard but died in childbirth a year later). If Jacques is the Jean Baptiste LeBeau who was the son of Marguerite Giguere, he may have wanted his daughter named after his mother. It’s a thought.

The reason I’m interested is that I’m descended from Jean Baptiste LeBeau and Marguerite Barada. And my dad and I have been looking for Jacques/Jean Baptiste Lebeau for years.

By the way, the reason I don’t think that the LaBeau who was a churchwarden in Michilimackinac in 1786 is the LeBeau I’m looking for has nothing to do with the St. Louis connection. I am fairly sure that the LeBeau family showed up in St. Louis after the Indian attack, had the baptisms performed and then left again. Why? Bechttp://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1974275832677042000&postID=1333076643983233155ause when Marie Louse Jourdain remarried in 1790 she also had three children baptized at the same time – Joseph, Susanne and Etienne, all the children of Michael Quesnel, her new husband. So they were clearly not in St. Louis during those years. And then their daughter Angelique was born a few months later, so the bride was pregnant. But if the LaBeau who was in Michilimackinac in 1786 was the husband of Lysette, and if Lysette really was Marie Louise – she was cheating on him.

Anybody who has any helpful information please leave a comment or feel free to email me.


[Update August 14, 2010: In response to comments I've been looking through some of my information and want to confirm exactly what I have on Jacques/Jean Baptiste LeBeau and realized that the baptism records make it even more likely Jacques/Jean Baptiste are the same but show how confused the naming is:

The index to the baptism at the Old Cathedral in St. Louis shows that on June 19, 1780 were baptised Jean Baptiste "LeVeau" and Margaret "LeVeau" children of Baptiste "LeVeau" and Marie Jourdain.

There is no death record for Lebeau.

The transcription of the marriage contract for the second marriage of "Marie Louise" Jourdain to Michel Quesnel in 1790, lists her as the widow of "Francois LeBeau" and the daughter of Jean Baptiste Jourdain, deceased, and Marie Joseph "Reamme" (Reaume). Present was her brother in law Augustine "Roe" (Roc or Roch or Roque- transcribers often get his name wrong and he couldn't sign his own name) and Etienne Bernard, her son-in-law.

In the baptismal records of the Old Cathedral of St. Louis are records of "Guinel" children of Michel "Guinel" and Marie Louise Jourdain all baptised on July 1, 1790: Joseph, Susanne and etienne. Then Angelique is baptised October 19, 1790 (Marie Louise was pregnant when she and Michel arrived back in St. Louis.) Later there is an August listed with the same parents but not baptised until May 3, 1837 - this is either an error (since the parents were long dead) or he had never been baptised as a child and was baptised as an adult. On January 27, 1796 their daughter Emilie was born and was not baptised until May 1, 1796 at St. Charles Borromeo (so they may have left between 1790 and 1796).

The transcribed copy of the marriage contract, in 1795, of Toussaint Jacques LeBeau and Marie LaFrenais doesn't list any parents for either of them but lists those present for the groom as: Augustin Roch, his uncle, Pierre Quesnel, L. Chevalier, cousin" (the Chevaliers are related to the Jourdains through the Reaume mothers).

O.W. Collet's index to St. Charles Marriage Register lists the marriage on February 4, 1800 of Jean Baptiste LeBeau, son of "Jacques" Lebeau and Louise Jourdain now wife of MIch. Quesnel, to Margt. Barada daughter of Louis Barada and Marie Becquet.

The records of St. Charles Borromeo Church show the baptism of Marguerite LeBeau, daughter of Jean Baptiste LeBeau and Marguerite Barada on December 18, 1800 with godparents Toussaint LeBeau "uncle of child" and Marie Bequet.

Marie Louise Jourdain, wife of Michel "Quenelle" died October 3, 1802 and was buried at St. Charles Borromeo Church "age about 50 years". Michel "Quenel" died January 1, 1816 "husband of the deceased Marie Louise Jourdain" and was buried in St. Charles Borromeo.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

A Little Family History

(Next weekend I'm going to a family reunion and my dad thought he should bring some of the family history he has put together. He's doing the charts to show all the genealogy he's put together. I thought I would do some narrative about one of the earliest families in this branch. This won't interest non-family but maybe another researcher out there will see it and contact me with additional information they have.)

Researching your family history is a time consuming task that can take a lifetime. We (my dad and I) started doing research years ago and we are still not finished. For some reason, neither of us began by looking at the German branch of our family. We knew that my dad’s mother was of German and Irish descent but so are half the people in St. Louis. Family lore said that her paternal grandfather had come to the Midwest from Bucks County, Pennsylvania. We knew that he went by the name of “Iron Scheetz” but we assumed that “Iron” was a nickname. Perhaps because we had no idea of how to discover his real name we started with other branches of the family and saved the Scheetz Family for later.

Then, one day in the late 1990’s my dad was doing research at the library and he reached an impasse on whatever line he was following at the time. This happens often in genealogical research. You hit a wall and can’t go any farther with the resources that you have. Rather than beat your head against that wall it is best to simply pick another branch of your tree and see what you find.

He decided to wander over to the section on Pennsylvania history and see what they had on Bucks County families. He selected “A History of Bucks County Pennsylvania” edited by J.H. Battle. It contained a more or less oral history of Bucks County families that was done in 1887. The volume confirmed that the Scheetz family was a Bucks County family. He began to read about the various members of the Scheetz family and in a small biography of Charles Scheetz of Keller’s Church, Pennsylvania, and his wife Magdalena Hager, he found this:

“They have had eight children : Vestilla, wife of C. Y. Apple, of Haycock township ; Grier, in Perkasie ; Horace, in Norristown ; George, in Haycock ; Iron, in St. Louis; J. Edwin, at Keller's Church ; Charles with his brother, J. Edwin ; and Laura, living with her parents.”

“Iron, in St. Louis …” It seemed doubtful that there could be more than one Iron Scheetz in St. Louis in 1887 and later examination of census records confirmed this. And so with very little effort my dad had discovered the family history of the Scheetz branch of our family. Of course, true genealogists don’t rely on histories like this but go out to find source documents if they exist, so the search wasn’t completely over. But most of the hard work was done by finding this little volume.

Iron did indeed come from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, from a place known as Keller’s Church. He came from a large family and if Iron wasn’t his real name it was the only name we have ever been able to find for him. His father was Charles Scheetz who ran a store in Keller’s Church and was the postmaster and a justice of the peace. His mother was Magdalena Hager and he had lots of brothers and sisters all of whom seemed to have stayed in Pennsylvania. Iron’s grandfather was George Scheetz who started out life in Germantown, Pennsylvania as a hatter. George eventually moved to Keller’s Church where he became a teacher and was married to Hester Fluck. George was the son of Conrad Scheetz, also a hatter of Germantown. According to the Bucks County historians: “His wife survived him many years, dying at an extreme old age.”

In September, 2001 my dad, my sister Anne and I travelled to the Philadelphia area to see what we could see. The pastor at the church in Keller’s Church was very helpful even though we showed up without an appointment. We wandered around the church cemetery looking at the tombstones of Charles and Magdalena and George and Hester and many of their children and grandchildren. We drove around beautiful Bucks County seeing the various little towns where these people had lived. We went into Germantown and visited the Germantown Historical Society where, again, the people were very helpful. We discovered that the wife of Conrad Scheetz, who survived him for so long, was Christiana Pflieger and that she was from the Germantown area and her family was active in St. Michael’s Reformed Lutheran Church of Germantown. We visited that church and walked around that cemetery looking at tombstones that were barely legible any more.

We returned to St. Louis and tried to discover more about the background of Conrad Scheetz but hit a dead end. From the various genealogy message boards it seems that everyone has hit a dead end on Conrad. But I stayed on the mailing list for The Germantown Historical Society through which I eventually learned of a publication called “The Back Part of Germantown: A Reconstruction” which I ordered from The Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania. This is primarily a history of property in an area near Germantown called Chestnut Hill. By drawing timelines and sketching maps, and adding that information to what we learned in Pennsylvania and through other historical records, my dad and I were eventually able to piece together more of the history of Conrad Scheetz’ in-laws: Frederick and Christiana Pflieger. This was not easy since the Americanization of the name resulted in records for Pflieger, Pflueger, Flieger, Flueger, Fluger and Fleager, just as Scheetz is often Schutz or Schuetz.

The Pfliegers lived in Chestnut Hill before, during and after the American Revolution. This is their story as pieced together by my dad and me. I hope you enjoy it.

I

Germantown Road - 1757

What is today known as Germantown Avenue is a very old road that began as an Indian path. From the commercial part of old Philadelphia the old Germantown Road headed northwest, eventually climbing Chestnut Hill where it forked. One fork would take the traveler to Plymouth Meeting. The other fork was the Bethlehem Pike. In 1753, Frederick Pflieger traveled as far as the forks where, instead of choosing a direction, he settled down to raise a family.

Little is known about Frederick Pflieger and it is not clear when he arrived in America. He might be the Georg Friderich Pflieger who arrived in Philadelphia from Rotterdam on the ship Richard and Mary on September 17, 1753.[i] That Frederick Pflieger appears on the Captain’s list as “Jurg Fredk Fleger” but he signed the oath of allegiance and the oath of abjuration as Georg Friderich Pflieger. There were, though, other Frederick Pfliegers in Pennsylvania in 1753 and, perhaps, the Frederick Pflieger of Chestnut Hill was related to one of them. He may have been a brother of Maria Caterina Pflieger who, in 1757, was the wife of Martin Hauser and lived just down the road from Pflieger.[ii]

Even less is known of Frederick Pflieger’s wife except that her name was Christiana. Did she come with him from Germany or did he meet her in America? No one knows. What is known is that Frederick and Christiana had four children who survived: Godfrey (Gottfried), George, Sarah, and Christiana. His daughter Christiana eventually married someone named Conrad Scheetz and our family is descended from them.[iii]

Frederick Pflieger was not one of the first settlers on Chestnut Hill, although the settlement was not very large when he arrived. Seventy years before, in 1684, William Penn granted 5,700 acres of land that became known as “the German Township” to a group of immigrants from Frankfort and the Palatine who were seeking religious freedom. The settlement was originally intended to have four villages (Germantown, Cresheim, Sommerhausen and Crefeld) situated along the Germantown Road, or the Great Road as it was called then. But the southern village, called Germantown, predominated over the others so much that the entire area became known as Germantown. Sommerhausen would eventually be known almost exclusively by its descriptive name of Chestnut Hill.[iv]

At that time the Great Road was still little more than a path that was almost impassable in the winter when it was muddy. Although the center of Philadelphia was only five miles away it took more than two hours to travel there from Germantown. Because of this, Germantown became a meeting place for the rural farmers who did not want to travel all the way to Philadelphia and the merchants of Philadelphia who wanted to trade salt, fish, seeds and dry goods for the produce of the farmers. Inns and stores were strung out along the Great Road.[v]

But Germantown was also filled with craftsmen, most of them German. By 1790 there were seven workshops for every one store in Germantown.[vi] The German immigrants who settled Germantown were a people for whom crafts were commonplace. From the first they spun flax and made linen. Weaving was a big industry in Germantown (cloth, linen and fustian) but there were also tailors, shoemakers, locksmiths and carpenters.[vii]

In Germantown, occupations included the leather crafts, woodworking and building crafts, metal crafts, food preparation, professionals and others. But tax and probate records from 1773 show that fabric crafts was the single biggest occupation; 57 Germantown men listed their occupation as something to do with the fabric crafts. Those working in fabric crafts included stocking weavers, general weavers, tailors, hatters, dyers, fullers and breeches makers.[viii]

Young Frederick Pflieger was one of these persons. He was a blue dyer.[ix] A blue dyer was the equivalent of a master dyer because blue was the most difficult color with which to dye. In the days before synthetic colors were invented, indigo was the source of blue coloring and indigo was difficult to work with. Blue dyers knew how to make the color stick and were a specialized part of the fabric industry.[x]

II

Frederick Pflieger – Blue Dyer

When Frederick Pflieger settled on Chestnut Hill, he bought a small piece of property fronting on the Great Road just below the forks. From what we can tell by looking at contemporary maps, it would today be located on Germantown Avenue between Highland Avenue and Evergreen Avenue on the right side of the street as you head out of Philadelphia toward the suburbs (it is hard to tell if that is north or east). Only one-acre, it originally had a small log house that had been built about fifteen years previously by a butcher named John Slaughter. The property had changed hands multiple times since Slaughter built the house and Pflieger bought the lot from a fellow named Jacob Souder. It is not clear if the dwelling was still a simple logg house or if the house had been replaced.[xi]

The new Pflieger property was next to a substantial two story stone building owned by John Shepherd (whom the Germans called John Schaeffer). Shepherd had purchased the property near the forks in 1738 and had constructed the building to be used as an inn where people traveling to and from Philadelphia could break their journey. Later he added a shop in which he sold goods to the locals as well as the travelers.[xii]

Living next to an inn may have been convenient for Pflieger especially if he was engaging in dye work for persons who weren’t local. Inns were where travelers stopped and that meant wagons and stage coaches stopped too. These vehicles could carry goods as well as passengers. Another Germantown blue-dyer, Jacob Beck, advertised in New Jersey that customers could “send their yarn, cloth, etc.,” to him by leaving it at a local inn in Trenton where the innkeeper would see that it was sent on to him. It is possible that Frederick Pflieger used Shepherd’s inn the same way. [xiii]

Although there is no record that explicitly states that Pflieger had his dye house on his property, there is no indication that he had any other property in the vicinity and most crafts did tend to be done at home. If Pflieger did his blue-dying at his Chestnut Hill property, what would it have been like? Asa Ellis published the first book in the United States on dying in 1798 and gave this advice:

"Your dyehouse should be sixteen or twenty feet square; well furnished with light and placed near a stream; water being essentially necessary for preparing your cloths, and for rinsing them when dyed. The floor should be made of leached ashes and it will soon become hard and render you more secure from fire.

"Your copper, or coppers, should be situated near the centre of the house; and the blue vat, about six feet from the coppers, in which you intend to heat the blue die.

"The size of your blue vat will be in proportion to the business you expect. The common size and dimensions are as follow; viz it should be five feet deep, three feet diameter at the top, and twenty inches at the bottom. Place your vat two feet in the earth, for the sake of conveniency; observe that its cover fit close. …"A copper or caldron is necessary for all dyers. The business cannot be carried on without one or more of them. Your largest copper should contain sixty, or seventy gallons. It should be set in a brick furnace; because that will heat your copper sooner. The top of the furnace, which encloses the copper ought to be six inches thick, so that you may plank the brick work, and nail the lip of the copper to the plank and plaister of the furnace. Then your copper, with care, can be kept clean, which is absolutely necessary.

…"Those, who intend to dye indigo blue, must have an iron kettle, that will hold a pailful, in order to grind indigo; and an iron ball, of twelve pounds weight; one of eighteen pounds is better. [xiv]

Operating a dye house would have been a smelly business because one of the key ingredients in blue dying was urine. The process of preparing the indigo was a delicate process.

The indigo had to be solubilized in order to be suitable for dyeing. In order to be solubilized the indigo had to be reduced or in other words "de-oxygenated." In the early days, the only satisfactory method for carrying this on was by a fermentation process wherein the required reducing conditions were set up. Both bran and madder as well as urine each contributed its own ferments and bacteria. One fermenting ingredient might give quick reducing action and then lose its power whereas another material might be slower but last longer. Hence the use of a combination of natural ingredients which would contribute various ferments to the bath. Only through long experience could a vat dyer tell when conditions were right. To plague him even more, the natural materials such as bran and madder varied from lot to lot in their fermenting power. An indigo vat had to be nurtured and tended as carefully as one might a child. The vat required the dyer's constant attention and care. No vat dyer of the old days could listen to a five o'clock whistle. In fact, the dyer's living quarters often were attached to the dyehouse so that he could constantly watch his vat and keep it in "the best of health."[xv]

That last sentence tells us that Frederick Pflieger’s dye house was probably on the one acre lot with the little log house.

Next to Pflieger, along the Great Road, was a three acre lot bought in 1751 by Jasper Scull son of the provincial Surveyor General. Scull was a blacksmith and built a small house on the property.[xvi] But in 1758 the Sculls sold the property to Martin Erdman, a shoemaker. It isn’t clear if this happened before or after the Pfliegers moved to Chestnut Hill. Martin Erdman lived until 1798 and his son stayed on Chestnut Hill, so the Erdmans would have been fixtures in the lives of the Pfliegers.[xvii]

Behind Pflieger, without any frontage on the Great Road, was a small tract of land with a house that had originally been built by the husband of one of John Slaughter’s daughters, Andrew Campbell, who was a carpenter. Presumably Campbell was still living there when the Pfliegers moved in although his wife, who is not listed in her father’s 1759 will, was probably dead. John Slaughter had another daughter, Elizabeth, who married in 1758, the year the Pflieger’s moved in. Her husband was Michael Millberger “a young victualler from the city” and, in 1760, Campbell sold the land to Millberger who was buying up land during that year. It isn’t clear if the Millbergers lived on that land or one of the other pieces of land that Millberger owned near that portion of the road, although if Campbell was a decent carpenter it was probably a fairly nice house. [xviii]

III

Frederick Pflieger and his Neighbors

The early years in Chestnut Hill could not have been easy for the Pfliegers. The winter of 1759 was severe and included a March snow that lasted 18 hours.[xix] There was also a war going on. The English colonists of Pennsylvania were fighting the French and Indians as part of a great world war known in Europe as the Seven Years War. The attacks by the French and Indians did not reach as far as Philadelphia, but it would have been a time of anxiety as travelers brought back news from the western reaches of Pennsylvania where fighting was going on.

In 1763, with the war finally over, the Pfliegers found they had a new neighbor. John Shepherd had sold his inn and his other acreage to Samuel Bachman, a saddler and innkeeper from Northhampton County.[xx]

That year also saw the opening of the first stagecoach line that went all the way to Bethlehem from Philadelphia. The stage stopped near the forks twice a week, on the way to and from Bethlehem.[xxi] Perhaps the Great Road had been improved as part of the war and could now handle wheeled traffic better than before.

Bachman only kept the Shepherd property a little more than ten years. In addition to running the tavern/inn, Bachman was a skin dresser. In 1774 he sold the portion of the property nearest the Pfliegers to Henry Cress, a hatter who had lived in the Chestnut Hill community a long time.[xxii] According to local lore, Cress continued to operate an inn while he carried on his trade as a hatter. In those days hatters worked mainly with animal skins, particularly beaver skins. The guard hairs of the beaver pelts would be removed by hand and then the remaining fur would be removed via a process using mercury. The removed fur, called fluff, was processed into hats. The hats would eventually be dyed.[xxiii] Perhaps Henry Cress worked with Frederick Pflieger to dye his hats.

Bachman sold the remainder of the Shepherd property to John Biddis, who like him was a skin dresser.[xxiv] Biddis would work with tanned or partially tanned hides and finish them with dye and glaze. Again, perhaps Frederick Pflieger worked with Biddis in dying his finished skins. One can only imagine what this portion of Chestnut Hill smelled like with Pflieger operating a dye house, Cress creating hats and Biddis dressing skins. Any smell must not have bothered the locals and travelers because, in addition to his principal trade, Biddis also operated a tavern called “The Bonny Jockey” on his premises.

IV

War Comes to Chestnut Hill

In 1775, Elizabeth Millberger, the neighbor of the Pfliegers, died.[xxv] Then, in April 1775 news reached Chestnut Hill of the altercations in the Massachusetts Bay colony between the colonists and the British army. Meetings were called to discuss the matter in Germantown.[xxvi] Whether Frederick Pflieger, Henry Cress and John Biddis attended the meeting is not known. Over the next year and a half the residents would learn that the British colonies were declaring independence from Britain, the colonial army had held off the British army in Massachusetts, the British had taken New York and, finally, armies were converging on Philadelphia.

In 1777 a Militia Act was passed ordering the enrollment of all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 53. The new recruits in Chestnut Hill were made part of the First Company of the 2nd Battalion of the Philadelphia County Militia. The First Company was further divided into classes which were to be called into service in rotation. Frederick Pflieger was in the 6th Class.[xxvii] The first three classes were called up in the beginning of the summer.

Washington arrived at the beginning of August and on August 8, 1777 the residents of Germantown and Chestnut Hill watched as 11,000 troops made their way from Philadelphia to Whitemarsh. The troops would have passed in front of the Pflieger’s home. The object was for the troops to encamp at Whitemarsh but news that General Howe was advancing caused a change in plans. The fourth class was called up to assist[xxviii].

Washington’s army was defeated at the Brandywine and marched back through Germantown in defeat a week later. The 5th and 6th classes, which included Frederick Pflieger, were called out to build “small redoubts” along the Schuylkill. The Great Road was filled with people fleeing Philadelphia.[xxix]

For a week, there was no news. Then on September 23, 1777 came word that the British were marching on Germantown. The defenses had not held. Two days later, on September 25 the predominantly German-speaking people of Chestnut Hill watched a column of the British Army go past heading into the village of Germantown. As the British Army settled into Germantown and September turned into October, the people tried to go on with their lives. The 5th company with Frederick Pflieger was still presumably out with the colonial army while the people of Chestnut Hill made hay.[xxx]

Then on the morning of October 4, 1777, the people of Chestnut Hill woke to find that Washington was sending troops down the Great Road into Germantown. The Battle of Germantown had begun. Fortunately for the Pfliegers and their neighbors, Chestnut Hill was far enough away from the village of Germantown that they sustained no damage.

Washington’s action was unsuccessful and eventually the colonial troops streamed back past the Chestnut Hill residents in defeat, pursued by some British troops. On October 17 the British requisitioned all the horses in the area and entered Philadelphia. As the British moved out of Germantown the colonial forces cautiously moved in, leaving a force at Henry Cress’ place next door to the Pfliegers.[xxxi]

On October 22, 1777, the 7th and 8th classes were called out because the tours of the 5th and 6th classes were due to expire. Frederick Pflieger presumably came home with the others who had survived. Despite the nearby battle of Germantown, he would have found that Chestnut Hill had not suffered much damage.

The fortunes of the Chestnut Hill residents would change when, on December 5, 1777, General Howe, knowing the state of Washington’s army, decided to attack the American forces. 12,000 British troops headed to Chestnut Hill. In the lead were troops led by General Cornwallis.

Arriving at the forks about eight in the morning, the British Army halted to survey the situation. . Entering Matthias Busch’s house, General Howe found Matthias’ son Solomon in bed recovering from wounds received in battle and Matthias’ wife an expectant mother. Posting guards over the invalid and threatening the poor woman, General Howe established temporary headquarters in the place.

Once established on Chestnut Hill, Howe didn’t move at once.

All during the 6th, the Army lay at Chestnut Hill, threatening such inhabitants as ventured out of doors, invading the houses of the defenseless villagers to ransack them for hidden arms and supplies … Informed by some disaffected person that Henry Cress’ house had been used as barracks by the outpost, the British plundered the house and set it afire.[xxxii]

After the war was over, Henry Cress’ widow Amelia would ask for restitution, stating that “during the invasion, the valuable house her husband owned near Germantown was occupied as a barrack by the Continental troops [and] that by information to the enemy it was consumed by fire.” In fact two of Henry Cress’s buildings were destroyed by fire. The damage to the Cress place was placed at ₤1275, second only to a claim by Julius Kerper who had one of the “best developed” farms in the area. The area near the forks appears to have been hard hit. Cress’s neighbor, Frederick Pflieger, claimed damages of ₤200 as did Pflieger’s neighbor on the other side, Martin Erdman. Michael Millberger estimated a loss of about ₤680 although it is not clear from which property. [xxxiii]

Eventually the British moved off the hill. But the war wasn’t over for Chestnut Hill. Through the winter the British passed along the Great Road regularly. Then in the spring, 2,000 British troops appeared at the forks. Although battle sounds could be heard in the distance, the troops on Chestnut Hill did not move.

It was not until later that the hill learned that the entire operation had been part of an abortive attempt by General Howe to surprise and trap the French general Lafayette who had been established with a fair force as an outpost at the Barren Hill church.

This was the last major action that Chestnut Hill and the Pfliegers witnessed. By July of 1778 the British had evacuated Philadelphia and the Continental Army was off in pursuit. But although the military was finished with Chestnut Hill the inhabitants were still affected by the war, especially because of the requisitioning of supplies and the devaluing of the continental currency.

The residents of Chestnut Hill tried to pick up the pieces left from the British. Some people left. John Biddis bought the small bit of property between his property and Henry Cress’s property that had a two story stone house on it which had been occupied by Michael Berndollar. The Hausers moved to Lancaster, so if Mrs. Hauser was Frederick Pflieger’s sister he lost a nearby family member. Although the militias were still called out, it seems that many men from Chestnut Hill preferred to pay the fines than to leave their homes.[xxxiv]

V

After the War

In 1783, with the war over, changes started to come to Chestnut Hill. John Biddis decided to move to Philadelphia and sell his property, presumably including the two story stone house he had purchased from Berndollar. Biddis, in addition to operating the Tavern and practicing the art of skin dressing was also a tinkerer. He invented a new white lead paint and decided to move to the city to exploit this idea.[xxxv] In July 1784, Frederick Pflieger purchased the portion of the Biddis place that had been the tavern for ₤425 and he and his wife moved down the road. Four years later they purchased the remainder of the property for ₤300. They rented their original property to their daughter Christiana and her new husband, Conrad Scheetz. They were married on November 11, 1784 at St. Michael’s church in Germantown.[xxxvi]

The origins of Conrad Scheetz are almost as much of a mystery as the origins of Frederick Pflieger. Conrad Scheetz came to Chestnut Hill during the revolution but it is not clear why. Although there were other residents on Chestnut Hill with the name of Scheetz (or, sometimes, Schutz), it does not appear that Conrad Scheetz was related to them. Among the group of original Crefeld investors who had purchased land from William Penn, one was named Scheetz but, although he purchased the land, he never emigrated and his wife eventually sold it back to the investor group. Some think that the various Scheetz families who showed up in Pennsylvania over the next fifty years were related to him and, so, indirectly related to each other. But this is simply a guess, no one ever proved it.

Conrad Scheetz was a hatter by trade. Of course the Pfliegers’ neighbor, Henry Cress, was also a hatter by trade so it seems probable Christiana Pflieger met Conrad Scheetz through Henry Cress.[xxxvii]

Some say Conrad Scheetz was the son of a papermaker named Scheetz who had settled in Germantown in 1737 and then moved away. But others say he is the Conrad Scheetz who emigrated aboard the ship Loyal Judith in 1743.[xxxviii] If he was, then he may have been as old as, or older than, Frederick Pflieger who may have immigrated in 1753 which might account for why Christiana outlived him by so long. According to Conrad Scheetz’ grandchildren, Conrad Scheetz was originally from Philadelphia and then moved to Germantown. Perhaps he was displaced by the war. According to his great-grandson Grier Scheetz, Conrad had two brothers, Philip (who settled in Montgomery County) and Jacob (who settled in Berks County). [xxxix]

On December 12, 1785, Christiana Scheetz gave birth to George Scheetz.[xl] When George was five years old, in 1790, his parents, who had been renting the house in Chestnut Hill from the Pfliegers, purchased the property for ₤22. They would also eventually buy the old Millberger property next door, giving them a frontage of 150 feet on the Great Road.[xli] According to the 1790 Federal Census Conrad Scheetz was living in Germantown in a household with four free white males of 16 years or older, three white males under the age of 16 years and 1 free white female. The female was obviously Christiana and the three children were George and his brothers Johannes and Jacob. One of the men was Conrad. Who were the three other men? They could have been workers. Or maybe at least one was related to Conrad or Christiana. The census records at the time have no additional information.

Christiana Scheetz’ father, Frederick Pflieger, died on November 19, 1806 according to probate records (according to his tombstone in St. Michael’s churchyard he died November 20, 1806, aged 80 years, 2 months and 18 days). His will was probated on January 2, 1807 in the Germantown Township, City of Philadelphia. He left the profit of his estate to his wife Christiana (that means she could use all the property but not sell it). After her death, the executors were to sell the “house wherein I dwell in Germantown Township” and the proceeds from the sale were to go to his son Godfrey “Pfleager”, his daughter Sarah Dedier (making clear that her husband Peter Dedier was to have no claim) and his grandson John Dedier. He also left a legacy to his daughter Christiana, the wife of Conrad “Schuetz”. The residue of the estate was to go to his sons George and Godfrey and his daughters Sarah and Christiana. His executors were his wife Christiana and his nephew George Jarrett. (We have not traced the connection to the Jarretts yet). The will was witnessed by, among others, George Cress who must have been the son of Henry Cress.[xlii]

We do not know how long his wife Christiana lived after Frederick died. Conrad Scheetz is said to have died not long after his father-in-law, in 1812.[xliii] We do not know when Christiana Pflieger Scheetz died, only that she survived Conrad by “many years”. Their son, George Scheetz, would also become a hatter but would eventually move to Bucks County where he became a teacher and was a founding member of Keller’s Church. He has descendents throughout Bucks County but one grandson, Iron Scheetz, moved west to St. Louis giving him descendents west of the Mississippi also.


[i]Strassberger and Hinke, Pennsylvania German Pioneers, Volume I, 531-53-55, Lists201-A-B-C.

[ii]Roach, Hannah Benner. The Back Part of Germantown: A Reconstruction. The Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, Monograph Series No. 7 (2001), p. 29. I tried to trace the Hausers to see if that would lead me anywhere but could find nothing.

[iii] Wills: Abstracts, Book 2 - Part A: 1806 - 1807: Philadelphia Co, PA , see will of Frederick Pflueger. There may, of course, have been other children who did not survive but these are the only children listed in his will.

[iv]Wolf, Stephanie Grauman, Urban Village: Population, Community and Family Structure in Germantown Pennsylvania, 1683-1800, Princeton University Press Princeton New Jersey 1976, p. 23.

[v] Wolf, p. 25.

[vi] Wolf, p. 103.

[vii] Wolf, p. 105

[viii] Wolf, p. 107

[ix] Roach, p. 29. The age of Pflieger can be computed from his tombstone. It was apparently the custom among the Pennsylvania Germans to put the exact number of years, months and days that the deceased had lived. Roach, per her footnotes, must have gotten her information on his profession from the Pennsylvania deed books which we’ve not been able to examine.

[x] Edelstein, Sidney, Coppers, Kettles and Vats: Equipment in Early Dyehouses, Transcribed from The American Dyestuff Reporter Vol 44, April 1955.

[xi] Roach, p. 29 and pp. 9-10. Roach’s book is the result of her examination of all the deed records for Chestnut Hill in the early years. The deed, which we have not yet been able to see, must describe the dwelling on the property. The original owner of the property was John Streeper William Streeper had come to Germantown with the first batch of settlers in 1683 and his land grant was very large. One of his children was John Streeper who ended up with a great deal of property. The land was mostly farmland and when Streeper died in 1740 his widow began selling off pieces including the one acre lot sold to John Slaughter in 1741 and the adjoining land sold to John Shepherd for use as an inn. It was Slaughter who erected a “logg house” on the lot. Streeper’s widow also sold a small half-acre lot below the Shepherd property to Samuel Channel. Later, Streeper’s son sold nine acres of land on the other side of the Channel property to Shepherd, and Shepherd used a narrow passage across the back of Channel’s lot to reach that property. Later part of this lower Shepherd land was sold to John Biddis who erected the tavern on it that Pflieger bought in his later years. According to Roach, the present Highland Avenue runs through part of the Channel property. In 1750 the Slaughters sold their lot and furnishings to a John Bertholt who must have been a speculator because he only held it ten days. (I suspect he was a creditor of Slaughter’s.) He sold it to John Rudolph of Roxborough who held it for three years and then sold the property to George Sterner. In 1753 Sterner sold the property to Jacob Souder. In 1758 Pflieger bought the lot from Souder.

[xii] Roach, p. 9. There is no explanation for why the Germans’ called Shepherd “Schaeffer”.

[xiii] http://trentonhistory.org/His/landmarks.html (See reference to the tavern called The Indian King).

[xiv]See, Edelstein.

[xv] See, Edelstein.

[xvi] Roach, p. 20 descrbes the purchase of the Scull land from William Streeper and the transfer of land to Campbell, p. 20 describes the sale to Martin Erdman .

[xvii] Roach, p. 65 gives the date of death of Erdman and transfer of the land to his son Andrew Erdman.

[xviii] Roach, pp. 20-21 describes the Campbell purchase and presumed death of Campbell’s wife; pp. 28-29 describes the various Millberger transactions.

[xix] Roach, p. 20

[xx] Roach, p. 32.

[xxi] Roach, p. 35.

[xxii] Roach, p. 45 describes the transaction with Henry Cress and his longevity on Chestnut Hill.

[xxiii] See, Tunis, Edwin, Colonial Craftsmen and the Beginnings of American Industry. The Johns Hopkins University Press (June 17, 1999) for a description of the art of colonial hatmaking.See also, http://www.whiteoak.org/learning/furhat.htm

[xxiv] Roach, p. 44 describes the transfers of the Bachman land to Cress, and Biddis. The old Channel property between Cress and Biddis was now owned by Michael Berndollar who was also a skin dresser..

[xxv] Roach, p. 45, fn. 141 states that Elizabeth Millberger aged 41 was buried in St. Michael’s Lutheran Cemetery on February 9, 1775.

[xxvi] Roach, p. 45 describes the news of the Revolution reaching Chestnut Hill.

[xxvii] Roach, pp 47-48 describes the Militia Act; see fn. 149 regarding the composite roll of the company and the Pennsylvania archives.

[xxviii] Roach, pp. 48-49 describes the passage of the troops.

[xxix] Roach, p. 49; fn 154 gives citations for the work of the 5th and 6th classes.

[xxx] Roach, p. 49-50; The haymaking was the week of September 27.

[xxxi] Roach pp. 50-51 describe the further activity by the British; see fn. 158 regarding billeting at Henry Cress’s place.

[xxxii]Roach, pp. 51-53 describes Howe’s intrustion upon Chestnut Hill which Roach claims comes from Ancient and Modern Germantown, by Hotchkiss.

[xxxiii] Roach, p. 53 and p. 51 fn. 158 describe the damage claims.

[xxxiv] Roach, pp. 55-56 deals with the remainder of the war.

[xxxv] Scharf, John Thomas, History of Philadelphia 1609-1884, L.H. Evarts & Co. (Philadelphia, 1884) p. 2229.

[xxxvi]Roach, p. 59.

[xxxvii] Roach, p. 59. All of Conrad’s grandchildren recalled that he was a hatter.

[xxxviii] Davis, pp. 383-384.

[xxxix] Battle, A History of Bucks County p. 1082 contains the recollections of Grier Scheetz. He recollects that his great- grandfather Conrad came from Germany and was one of three brothers: Philip, Jacob and Conrad. Philip settled in Montgomery County, Jacob settled in Berks County and Conrad settled in Philadelphia. Grier’s father was Charles and his grandfather was George Scheetz. Grier’s uncles Samuel (p. 1062), Edwin (p. 1062)) and Albert (p. 872) merely recollects that Conrad came “at an early date from Germany” and settled in Philadelphia. Grier’s father, Charles, (p. 744) recollected that Conrad “came from Germany and settled in Philadelphia, whence he went to Germantown, but later returned to the former place, where he died.” Since Grier is the next generation it is not clear why he would know more than his father and his uncles but maybe he did. In any event, the Philadelphia Directory for 1811 (the year before Conrad died) shows Conrad Scheetz, hatter, at 415 North Front Street (p. 278).

[xl] Conrad and Christiana Scheetz would eventually have eleven children: George (December 12, 1785); Johannes Georg (August 21, 1786); Jacob (September 19, 1788); William (Wilhelm) (November 25, 1793); Elizabeth (November 28, 1795), Maria (April 15, 1798), Charles (Carolus) (March 15, 1800), Christina (December 14, (1801), Samuel (February 23, 1804), Sarah (no known date) and Christina Jacobina (August 20, 1806). See Records of St. Michael’s Evangelical Lutheran Church Germantown 1741-1841 Volume I compiled and edited by Frederick S. Weiser and Debra D. Smith GGRS, Picton Press, Rockport Maine 1998 and tombstone of George Scheetz. The Christina who was born in 1801 died April 10, 1804 per her tombstone in St. Michael’s churchyard. The information about Sarah and Samuel comes from Grier Scheetz’ biography in Battle’s A History of Bucks County. Grier says that Conrad had eight children: Sarah, Eliza and Mary; and Smauel, Jacob, William, Charles and George. Perhaps Sarah was really the last Christina that didn’t die. Samuel is a mystery but there is no Johannes listed in Grier’s memory.

[xli] Roach, pp. 59-60. Roach identifies Conrad as the son of Conrad Scheetz the papermaker but there is no documentary evidence of this. Roach does cite certain records in the Orphans books but this seems inconclusive. The Millbergers had sold their property in 1781 to Michael Friedly and in 1791 Friedly sold the property to George Consor who was married to Michael Millberger’s daughter Barbara. Six months later the Consors sold to Conrad Scheetz.

[xlii] Wills: Abstracts, Book 2 - Part A: 1806 - 1807: Philadelphia Co, PA

[xliii] I am not sure where the date 1812 came from, I'm still checking that out.

October Reading

I found myself very impatient in my reading this month and it was in general unsatisfactory.  This may partly be because I was traveling for...