EXPLOSND The SNEAD/SNEED Family: An Exploratory Discussion by Dick Baldauf OCT 1996 [This may at first appear to be a move away from CLARK/MOORMAN research, but it falls under that umbrella when we review Dick's first submission to the group--BLDFNTES.asc--where he surmisses the granddaughter of Thomas and Susan (SNEAD) REYNOLDs is the one who married Charles "X" MOORMAN in early 1700s. Although Susan is mentioned by name only once in the following, this is her lineage. I stress we haven't yet proven Elizabeth, wife of Charles Moorman, was a REYNOLDS or that her father was Thomas; previous researchers give her father or grandfather as Chris topher of Isle of Wight Co. VA. I plan an indepth review of REYNOLDS hopefully early next year. Quoting from Dick's letter 23 OCT 1996: "I have written up an exploratory account of the Snead/Sneed family which may have some interest for a few in your group. As you can see, there is difference of opinion as to who our ancestor was in the second generation. I was feeling my way on this, and I never went back to reorganize the data, so sometimes I contradict myself...I also include a copy of the Snead family as Hatcher presents it...along with a few additions that also seem to belong." As in other things, Dick gets full credit for the commentary and I for typing errors. My initialed comments are within brackets. LSS] "The first SNEAD to arrive in the colony, by reference to the Land Grant Office, was Samuel, with his wife, son and ser vant, in 1635. The patent of land was given them by King Charles I. ... It declared that Samuel SNEAD and Alice, his wife, son Wil- liam and servant, Henry Vincent, after arriving, received two hundred acres of land, fifty each, in James City County, at head of Keth's Creek for which the charge was one shilling, on each St. Michael's day. The plantation adjoined Samuel Grige's, near Thomas Smith's plantation; signed by Captain John West, Captain and Governor of Virginia, in the reign of the Sovereign Lord, King Charles of England, 1635. ...Governor John Harvey etc. did give and grant to Samuel SNEAD two hundred acres in James City County, for transportation at his own expense and charges, of four persons into this colony, whose names are in the records men- tioned under this patent, to hold the 28th day of March, 1639. ... This 'patton' renewed by Lt. Governor Wm Berkeley, 19th day of March, 1643, in the name of Alice SNEAD." (_The Sneads of Fluvanna_, by Hatcher, pp. 24-5.) [I also refer you to the end of ALTNPII.asc for a discussion of Keth's Creek. LSS] It was long thought that the renewal of the patent in the name of Alice SNEAD meant that Samuel had died. Further research, however, has revealed that Samuel SNEAD's name is recorded in 1651 as the purchaser of one thousand acres of land on the south side of the York River. William Benjamin Sneed, head of the SNEED Assn., concludes that this finding means that Samuel lived at least 16 years after his arrival in America. Hatcher confirms this land patent as being the last patent found referring to Samuel SNEAD in York County. (Hatcher, p.98) Hatcher then goes on to say that in 1664 Samuel SNEAD was living on the Pamunkey River in what became New Kent and is now King William County. His lands were bounded on the south by a creek forming the northern boundary of William Woodward's 2100-acre patent, which in turn began at the mouth of John's Creek. The dwelling house of Captain William Bassett immediately adjoining "the land of Mr. Samuel SNEAD Sr., whereon he now lives." (Hatcher p.99) Hatcher tells us that Samuel SNEAD was survived by his son Wil liam, or William's descendants of York County, and by at least two other sons, Henry and Samuel, Jr. of New Kent. The SNEADs of Fluvanna are descended from Henry. (Hatcher p.99) As to Samuel SNEAD's origin, Hatcher says that there are no data available, but suggests that it may have been Staffordshire County. (p.97) Before going further it is necessary to retrace our steps, as the SNEED line, which uses the double _e_ spelling, provides a dif ferent version of the SNEAD background. Unfortunately, most of it is heresay. However, there are portions of it that may be more accurate than the material presented by Hatcher. It appears that in 1929 a professional genealogist, Mrs. Jennie T. Grayson of Richmond, VA, sent data on the SNEED line to Frank M. Sneed of Chicago. One reference suggests that it contained little material that was not already known. The main problem, however, is that only a generalization of the data seems to have been made avail able to the family. Thus we are told that the SNEED line is "descended from William SNEYD of Keel through his second son Richard SNEYD, Sheriff of Derbyshire, England who died in 1694 - _Burke's Peerage_, page ?" No wonder Cousin Frances Trader writes in her notes, "What does this mean? (Samuel or William?)" According to Grayson, son Wil liam returned to England to be educated, and married and died there. His two younger sons returned to the VA plantation of their grandmother, Alice SNEED. This information ties in nicely with the appearance of John and Thomas SNEED of New Kent County. But why could Grayson not be specific as to the names of the two younger sons? Are John and Thomas indeed the younger sons of William? And where is the documentation? Hatcher writes, "Little is known of William, the son who arrived with his parents in 1635. A headright claimed in 1664 for William SNEAD by John Ashton of Westmoreland County sug gests the possibility, by no means unusual for a colonist, that he had gone back to England and then returned to Virginia." The SNEED ancestry, then, is vague on the line of succession from Samuel through _William_ to John of New Kent, father of Henry, bpt. 1687 and William, bpt. 1690. Hatcher, as noted earlier, states that the SNEADS of Fluvanna are descended from Samuel through _Henry_ to John, father of Henry and William. Who is right? Such information as we have comes from Hatcher (pp. 100 101): "Of Henry, progenitor of the SNEADS of Fluvanna, we are able to say with certainty, that he was born sometime after 1635 and died before 1689, as in that year his son John, instead of him self, was a processioner of the parish. "Not only was John, not Henry, the landowner and proces sioner in 1689, but in 1690 John instead of Henry was the heir at-law of Henry's brother Samuel, Jr. This brother of Henry, Samuel SNEAD Jr., had left lands of his father and moved to what was then Stafford County. Sometime before 1690 Samuel died without issue...His will devised under certain conditions that the estate was to revert to the 'heir-at-law'; and the attempt of certain SNEADS to prove their right as heirs-at-law to their uncle's land forms an important link in tracing the SNEAD line of descent. "Henry, who in his youth moved with his father, Samuel, Sr., to the new lands of the Pamunkey, probably did much of the work in clearing the land. He was on friendly terms with his neigh bors, William Bassett and Martha Woodward, whose husband, Gideon Macon, employed Thomas, Henry's son, as one of the builders of Bruton Parish Church. "...Henry suffered from the conditions that led up to Bacon's Rebellion and must have taken an active part in the Rebel- lion itself. On January 29, 1677, after the Rebellion, he was one of the signers of the petition of grievances to the English Com missioners, stating the reasons for the revolt." Shortly there after Henry, perhaps fearing sequestration of his land, sold it and moved to the southwest bank of the Pamunkey in New Kent. [Linda here--unless his names appears on two lists, he signed the grievance list at Blisland Parish Church, NK Co 2 APR 1677; others who signed include Thomas MOORMAN and Edward JOHNSON. pages xliv-xlvii, Chamberlayne, _Vestry Book of Blisland Parish_] "The date of Henry's marriage probably falls between 1660 and 1664, for the oldest surviving son, John, was over twenty-one years of age in 1689. Both of his sons, John and Thomas, were landowners of New Kent, as is shown on the quit rent rolls of 1704 and in the records of St. Peter's Parish." On the basis of Hatcher's data, we know that Samuel SNEAD had at least three sons: William of York Co.; Henry of New Kent; and Samuel Jr. of Stafford. From the research of Susan Stewart we know that Samuel had a daughter Susan, wife of Thomas REYNOLDS. (_VA Col. Abstracts, York Co., 1648-57_, vol. III, page 117). [It is their daughter who MIGHT BE the wife of Charles "X" MOOR MAN. LSS] Susan also mentions a grant for transporting persons, and that is to Charles SNEAD, for 1933 acres, 7 persons, 20 OCT 1666 in Rap pahannock. This would seem to be the Charles SNEAD, dec. who was father of the Elizabeth who married Francis TAYLOR, and of Charles SNEAD (son of Charles Snead dec'd) of Rappahannock. In this 1681/2 deed, Francis Taylor and Charles Snead (Jr) sell to David Ivins 225 acres on the north side of the Rappahannock that part of land given by Charles Snead, dec'd to Thomas and William SNEAD on 7 APR 1671. The land adjoined that of Hawkins SNEAD. This Charles may be the one shown in a Trader version of the SNEED descent: Samuel and Alice SNEAD had sons -- John Sr., Wil liam b. 1630 and Charles. On the basis of this, Samuel may have had as many as five sons and one daughter. To avoid confusion, however, we will restrict this discussion to _John SNEAD of New Kent Co._, the grandson of Samuel through either William or Henry, and John's descendants. Of this John, of course, we have the record from the _Registry Book, St. Peter's Parish, New Kent Co., 1684-1786_ showing the birth of John's two sons: _Henery_, son of Jn Snead bpt. ye 8th day of Mary 1687 (p392) _William_, son of John Snead bapt. 9 Nov. 1690 (p392) None of the early pedigree records of the SNEED family shows John as an ancestor. They move from Samuel to William (b.1630) to Wil liam living in Hanover in 1740. With the publication of the _Register of St. Peter's Parish_, however, it was clear that the generation of John of New Kent Co. had been omitted. As william Benjamin Sneed writes in 1991, "My line is correct up to William SNEED living in New Kent Co., Virginia in the 1690s down through the years to me. Also, my great Aunt, Lucy Walker Sneed who was born in 1853 and knew her grandfather Ben (1795 1870), said our line came from Keele Hall in Staffordshire, England." And Ben goes on to show the SNEED pedigree as he believes it to be. A few additions from the Trader pedigree are added to round out dates and places: [I won't attempt to dupli cate Dick's linear pedigree chart, but will "describe" it as best I can. LSS] Samuel and Alice SNEAD had three sons: John Sr., William b.1630 and Charles. He shows nothing further for Charles and only "John Jr. married Mary Gooch 1765, removed to SC" under son John Sr. Son William b.1630 had two sons: John and Thomas both of New Kent Co. The only child of Thomas shown is Rebecca b. 1688. John of New Kent (son of Wm b.1630) had two sons--Henry b.1687 and William b.1690. Descent shown on this chart is only through son William b. 1690 who had seven children: Benjamin (1721-1819), Alexander, Zechariah, Charles, William, Robert and John. Dick fol- lows Benjamin's line--here's what he has under the other names: Alexander "Deed Bk 3, p.206 Jacob to Alexander"; Zechariah- "SNEEDS of Diamond Spring KY". He or brother Charles Archibald "d. 1781 Louisville KY"; William "1739 Louisa Co.", Robert "1740--12 chil: Jesse, Albert, Thomas, Rev. Edward"; and brother John. Oldest son Benjamin (1721-1819) had five children: John (1755 1856) "Priv. Sec to Thos Jefferson. Rev. War, m. Sarah JOHNSON (1755-1831)"; Peggy; Susannah; Frances and William (1768-1836) m. Lucy Stevens. [Back to Dick's commentary LSS] The identities of most of these SNEEDS are not documented. We know that John of New Kent had sons Henry (b.1687) and William (b. 1690). And by tradition it was this William who was the father of Benjamin (b.1721) and his several brothers. That this William existed is a matter of record, as he made an attachment on the estate of Story Hall in Henrico County in 1758. The Trader account also reports a William living in Hanover County in 1740. In any event, it seems unlikely that six known sons, living on the same lands for several generations, would not know who their father was. Curiously, Hatcher provides additional support in her attempt to prove her own SNEAD line. She writes: "We have to rely upon cir cumstantial evidence in assuming that John was the son of Wil liam. There is a clear documented line of descent from Samuel 1635 to William, who was living in Hanover County when John was born. We have found three generations of Sneads, grandfather, father and son, owning and living on the same land. When we find a fourth generation of the same name on the same land...it seems natural to assume that the fourth generation on the same land is a son of the third." (Hatcher, pp. 108-9) Taken out of context, this paragraph is a little difficult to interpret. But a look at Hatcher's Snead Chart shown below makes it clear that there is only one John who is a son of William. This John is presumably one of the "others unknown" who must be added to the brothers of Benjamin (b.1721) on the Sneed chart. And in a letter to Frances Sneed dated 25 SEP 1995, Ben Sneed has included the name of John as one of the brothers of Benjamin. [Again, I'll attempt a description rather than verbatim copy. LSS] Samuel Snead had sons: William of York, Henry of New Kent and Samuel of Stafford. Henry of New Kent had sons John (New Kent and Hanover) and Thomas (New Kent). John of New Kent and Hanover had sons: Henry, William of Hanover, John and Samuel. William of Hanover had sons: John of Hanover and William. John of Hanover (son of John) had sons: John of Hanover and Archibald of Hanover and Fluvanna. Archibald of Hanover and Fluvanna had: Holman, Archibald, John, Burwell, Elizabeth, William and Matilda. Archibald's son John had: John, Sarah, William, Jane, Polly, George and Benjamin. [Back to Dick LSS] This chart by no means indicates that there were not other children of the generations before Archibald Snead of Fluvanna County. Thus both Hatcher and the Sneed Assn. would seem to agree on the direct line of descent through the fifth generation, except for the Henry/William difference in the second generation. But now we must part company from Hatcher and follow the Sneed line of de scent from Benjamin (b.1721) to John (b.1755) to Martha Sneed (b.1785) who married Michael Hope, ending this branch of the Sneed line. [I will cut off here, for Dick sent an updated report on Benjamin b. 1721 before I got around to typing this. I will, however, at tempt to describe one more linear pedigree chart, this one "The Snead Line according to Hatcher". Dick adds, "See _The Sneads of Fluvanna_. LSS] Beginning with Samuel SNEAD and Alice: "arrived 1635; Samuel was still living 1664." They had: William "b. prior 1635"; Henry "b. after 1635 d. before 1689"; and Samuel Jr. "d. before 1690 d.s.p." Following the line of Henry: he had sons John of New Kent "nephew & heir of Samuel Jr." and Thomas "patent for 450 acs. in New Kent". Thomas had: Rebecca, John, Jacob, Alexander, "et al". Alexander had: Matthew, Jacob and Christopher. John of New Kent "nephew & heir of Samuel Jr." had: Henry "b.1689 d. 1729"; William Sr. "b.1690 liv. 1755"; John and Samuel. Henry "b.1689 d.1729" had: Charles "clerk of parish" William "b.1690 liv 1755" had: John "b. bef 1715, pur. land adj. Wm Snead" and William. John b. bef 1715 had: John of Hanover and Archibald of Hanover & Fluvanna. Archibald had: Holman, Archibald, John, Burwell, Elizabeth, William, Matilda. And Archibald's son John had: John, Sarah, William, Jane, Polly, George and Benjamin. John, son of John "nephew & heir" of New Kent had: John m. 1763 Sarah Woodrum and William m. Catherine Sharp. John and Sarah (Woodrum) had: Benjamin, Claiborne "liv. Fluvanna" and Elizabeth. William and Catherine had: Catherine "b. 1748", Martha "b. 1750" and Robert "b. 1754".