Rebut/Andrew MAR 1999 The past few days Heather Olsen and Doug Tucker have responded directly to each other while cc'ing me as they've discussed various points of Doug's recent report on Andrew MOORMAN b. 1689. I've attempted to group the "responses to responses" together to make it easier to follow their analysis of records; I only hope I haven't created confusion in the process. I left excerpts from the original report within quotation marks "as is"; Heather's responses begin with HO and Doug's with DCT. When the response is to a previous comment, and not the original report, I indented the first line of the comment the new response is to. We begin with the original report: "He [Andrew} was married to Susannah, whose surname may have been Reynolds, ." HO: What evidence do we have that her name was Reynolds? DCT: No hard evidence, or I wouldn't have used the phrase "...may have been Reynolds". Here's what led me to believe her name might have been Reynolds. Andrew Moorman lived adjacent to Henry Reynolds (Runnals) in Hanover, Goochland and Brunswick/Lunenburg Cos. over a period of some 20+ years. In Goochland, they actually owned property jointly which appears to have been property originally patented by Isaac Reynolds. This joint ownership "suggests" that the property may have been jointly inherited by Henry Reynolds and Susannah Moorman, though it is also possible that Andrew Moorman purchased his share of the property from Isaac. However, under VA colonial law, property inherited by Susannah would have been titled in her husband's name. Additionally, the Moormans and Reynolds are known to have been proximate neighbors in New Kent Co. during the period when Charles Moorman and younger brother Andrew were reaching their majority. Geographic proximity and existing family relationships were often key factors in who married whom. HO: fair enough "In 1739, Andrew Moorman Sr.'s daughter, Lucy, born about 1723, married Capt. James Johnson, son of John Johnson and Lucretia Massie of King William Co. James Johnson was dismissed from the Cedar Creek Quaker Meeting for marrying out of unity, establishing that Lucy, and probably her parents, were not practicing Quakers. Can we prove that Lucy was Andrew Sr.'s daughter? Indirectly, yes, since we can prove that she wasn't the daughter of Charles Moorman, the only other Moorman male who could have been Lucy's father. (There is no record indicating that Andrew's "brother by tradition" Thomas Jr. (b c1688), survivied to adulthood.)" HO: I have never seen anything documenting this marriage. I'm NOT saying it didn't happen, but am curious how we know it happened, and that Lucy was in fact a Moorman. DCT: The date of the marriage, 3 Mar 1739 was recorded in Hanover Co., HO: Is this from St. Paul's parish records? From the few court records that survived the Civil War? Something else? DCT: as was the dismissal of James Johnson from the Society for "marrying out of unity." -- see Hinshaw's Cedar Creek records. HO: I'm aware of this, but that doesn't tell me who he married. As I said, I have no particular reason to doubt this couple is who you said they are. I'm just not familiar enough with the folks in question to say they are myself, so want to know how we know. "Dec 1747 Court papers refer to John as "George Smith, also known as John Moorman". What exactly the "alias" reference meant is not known." HO: You mentioned this before. Very odd. Wish I knew what it meant. Has anyone seen anything like this anywhere else in the vicinity? DCT: My "guess" is that Andrew Moorman Jr. had acquired right to property that was officially titled to George Smith. One way this happened was through marriage to an heir of George Smith, in which case Andrew Jr. might have been referred to as "alias George Smith" until property title was perfected in Andrew's name. I am sure there are other possible explanations, but I have not been able to get to the bottom of it. "Andrew Moorman Sr.'s children included: Thomas (c1715-1782) m. (1) _____c 1737, (2) Sarah Clark 1752" HO: I think we've been over this before, but why do you think there was a first wife before Sarah? (I'm not saying there wasn't, I'm just not aware of any evidence of it. As you know, I think this Sarah Clark was Francis and Cordelia's daughter. You asserted last year that you had evidence she was a granddaughter of Francis, (In the form of records from the final settlement of Francis's estate after the death of Ursula Mosby.) DCT: Here's my rationale for a first wife for Thomas Moorman. First, he was married to Sarah Clark in 1752. That would make Thomas roughly 37 at the time of his marriage -- quite old for a first marriage. Second, Thomas did not move to Brunswick Co., VA with his father and siblings in 1740. He remained behind in Goochland Co. His sister Lucy also remained behind as she was married to James Johnson in 1739. I think Thomas would have accompanied his father to Brunswick Co. if he was not already married. Third, there was an "extra, unaccounted for" Andrew Moorman hanging around the Anson Co., NC countryside in the 1760's. This Andrew Moorman appeared to have been born about 1739. He married Ann Diggs in Anson Co. in 1761. There were only three Moorman males who could have been the father of an Andrew Moorman born about 1739. They were Andrew Sr., Andrew Jr. and Thomas. Andrew Sr. already had a son named Andrew. Andrew Jr. also had a son named Andrew who was born about 1758. Only Thomas did not have a "documented" son named Andrew, and traditional naming patterns suggest that Thomas would have named his oldest son Andrew. Thomas Moorman's next oldest son was named Thomas Jr. and it seems highly unlikely that a Quaker would have named his eldest son after himself -- not the humble thing to do. That's why I think Thomas Moorman had an earlier wife. DCT: Thomas Moorman was married to Sarah Clark in 1752. HO: I've never seen that date documented, and am curious where you got it from. I will nevertheless agree that its _probably_ in the right ballpark. DCT: That would make Thomas roughly 37 at the time of his marriage -- quite old for a first marriage. HO: Granted, but some people did marry late for a variety of reasons. DCT: Second, Thomas did not move to Brunswick Co., VA with his father and siblings in 1740. He remained behind in Goochland Co. His sister Lucy also remained behind as she was married to James Johnson in 1739. I think Thomas would have accompanied his father to Brunswick Co. if he was not already married. HO: I think you said [correct me if I'm wrong] that Andrew maintained some land holdings in Goochland. ... perhaps Thomas was "looking after" them? I don't know, just a thought. DCT: "Third, there was an "extra, unaccounted for" Andrew Moorman hanging around the Anson Co., NC countryside in the 1760's. This Andrew Moorman appeared to have been born about 1739. He married Ann Diggs in Anson Co. in 1761. HO: I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of this marriage, and of this "extra" Andrew Moorman. DCT: Traditional naming patterns suggest that Thomas would have named his oldest son Andrew. Thomas Moorman's next oldest son was named Thomas Jr. and it seems highly unlikely that a Quaker would have named his eldest son after himself -- not the humble thing to do. That's why I think Thomas Moorman had an earlier wife. HO: I always assumed Thomas b. 1757 was the oldest because his father made him executor and wrote his will very soon after Thomas's 21st birthday. Of course, if there were two marriages, Thomas Sr. might not trust a son from a previous marriage to be fair to the stepmother, so that could explain the above. As for the naming thing, keep in mind Thomas and Sarah could have had a son born before 1757 who died young, and this son could have been named Andrew, or anything else. I'm not arguing the existence of such a person, just saying its possible. " Andrew Jr. (c1717-1761) m. Catherine Robinson bef 1754 Lucy (c1723-aft1784) m. Capt. James Johnson 1739 John (1728-1758) m. Tabitha Clark 1751 Benjamin (1735-1782) m. Lucia Haley 1756 Charles (1736-c1760) did not marry Sarah (1737-1800) m. David Dumas 1753" HO: As with Lucy, what evidence is there for the marriage, and for her being Andrew's daughter? DCT: I wasn't aware that there was any controversy concerning the 1753 marriage of Sarah Moorman and David Dumas. However, land records establish that David's parents, Benjamin and Frances Clark Dumas, were immediate neighbors to Andrew Moorman Sr. along Hitchcock Creek in Anson Co., NC. (The Dumas' also had been residents of New Kent and Hanover Cos. before heading for NC.) The 1753 marriage date and the Anson Co., NC location of the principals make it clear that Sarah (b.1737) could only have been the daughter of Andrew Moorman Sr. Additionally, she named her first-born son Andrew Moorman Dumas. I'd judge that a good pointer toward her father. HO: Not controversy, lack of knowledge [about marriage Sarah Moorman and David Dumas]. I'm trying to establish how much is definitively known about these folks. "Zachariah (1742-1819) m. (1) Sarah Hall 1764, (2) Mary Mathews 1774, (3) ??" HO: Do we have anything definite showing Andrew was his father? I'm not saying he wasn't, but I've never been sure. DCT: Zachariah's parentage can be firmly established by land documents which show Andrew Moorman Sr.'s property being distributed to his sons beginning in early 1757. In Zachariah's case, he was under age when his father died and property records show Thomas acting as legal guardian on behalf of Zachariah prior to 1763. HO: These are land documents in Anson Co., NC? "Mary (1743- ?? ) possibly died young" HO: What evidence is there for her? DCT: No hard evidence that I am aware of. "Archelaus (1745-1778) did not marry" HO: What evidence for the 1778 death? I've newer been able to sort out which records refer to this guy and which refer to Thomas's son of the same name, and am not COMPLETELY sure the records refering to Archelaus are not all refering to Thomas's son. DCT: Land records establish that Andrew Moorman Sr. had a son named Archelaus. This Archelaus also received a land grant in 1768 and signed the Regulators Petition in 1769 (his name has been incorrectly transcribed as Achilles in some cases). The 1768 land grant establishes that this Archelaus Moorman was born before 1747 which was five years before Thomas Moorman married Sarah Clark. The Archelaus Moorman who was the son of Thomas and Sarah Moorman married Nancy Adcock and migrated to Clinton Co., OH in 1811. He died in Clinton Co., OH in 1816 and is buried near his sister Rachel Moorman Adcock Johnson in the old Quaker Cemetery in Wilmington. Archelaus' son, John C. Moorman, later migrated IN and settled in Amboy, Miami Co. HO: Who is the Archelus Moorman who went from NC to Indiana in 1817? (Heiss, New Garden MM, Indiana, 22 11mo 1817 Archelus Moorman rocf Back Creek MM,) NC. Please don't tell me there was a third. 2 were bad enough ;-) "Andrew Moorman Sr. died in Anson Co., NC in 1756." HO: This is the first I've seen a death date. Where is this from? DCT: Andrew Moorman Sr. signed a deed in November 1755. In Jan 1756/57, Thomas Moorman sold a piece of property that can be shown to have belonged to his father, Andrew Moorman Sr. This pretty well places date brackets Andrew Sr.'s death. "There is strong circumstantial evidence that Andrew Sr.'s daughter, Sarah Moorman, who was born in 1737 and later married David Dumas, was the daughter of Sarah Clark (daughter of Francis and Cordelia Clark) and that Sarah Clark also was the mother of Zachariah, Mary and Archelaus. Sarah Clark may also have been the mother of Benjamin and Charles (I think she was their mother) but we do not know the date of Susannah Reynold's death or the date of Andrew Sr.'s marriage to Sarah Clark. This pronouncement of Sarah Clark as the last wife of Andrew Moorman Sr. is certain to produce challenges, HO: You saw me coming, eh? DCT: You and the rest of the thundering herd. By the way, I neglected to point out that Sarah Moorman, wife of Andrew Sr., died in Richmond Co., NC in 1776. The other was still alive in 1797. Thomas Moorman's will establishes that his wife was still alive in 1782. Thus the Sarah Clark Moorman of 1797, who court documents show was the granddaughter of Francis Clark, was also the wife of the Thomas Moorman who died in 1782. The Sarah Moorman who died in 1776 could only have been the daughter of Francis Clark Sr. HO source on this please? "but I think it can be indirectly "proved" as I will try to show, below. Fact #1 -- Francis Clark's 1769 will established that he had a DAUGHTER, Sarah, whose married name was Moorman.Fact #2 -- In 1797, the Richmond (NC) Co. Court issued a power of attorney to William Haley Jr. to represent a Sarah Moorman in the sale of a jointly owned property in Louisa Co., VA that was left to Sarah Moorman and other descendants in Francis Clark Sr.'s 1769 will. In that PoA, Sarah Moorman was described as a GRANDDAUGHTER of Francis Clark, deceased." HO: These are the documents, refered to above, which I would still like to see copies of. "So, there were two married Sarah Moormans who were descendants of Francis Clark, one a daughter and one a granddaughter. Which Moorman did the daughter marry and which Moorman did the grandaughter marry? It turns out that the Sarah Moorman who granted PoA to William Haley Jr. in 1797 was the daughter of Joseph and Mary Clark and thus was the grandaughter of Francis Clark Sr. How do we know -- because Sarah's 80-acre share of the inherited property in Louisa Co. was sold to Benjamin Clark, who also had inherited an 80- acre share of the same property. It can be proven that Benjamin was the son of Joseph and Mary AND that he had an older sister named Sarah (bc1736). This Sarah Clark was too young to have been the mother of Andrew Sr.'s daughter, Sarah, who was born in 1737. So, the Sarah Clark who was the granddaughter of Francis Clark was the Sarah Clark who married Thomas Moorman in 1752." HO: As I've told you Doug, In Joseph's will, (written in the 1770's) his daughter is called Sarah Clark, not Sarah Moorman. I have a copy of the will, which I will send to anyone who is interested. Joseph's daughter Sarah may have married someone named Moorman, but it would have to have been after the will was written, so she could not have been Thomas's wife, who had a documented son born 1757. DCT: Yes, I have a copy of Joseph's will and he did call her Sarah Clark. However, his daughter, Sarah was born in 1735/36 and odds are that she was married in 1770 despite being called Sarah Clark. My judgement that she was Joseph's daughter is largely based on the fact that the property in question was acquired by Joseph's son, Benjamin, who also inherited a share of the property, similar to that received by Sarah Moorman. However, it is possible that Sarah Moorman was one of Benjamin's cousins rather than a sister -- doesn't change the central conclusion that this Sarah Moorman was Francis Clark's granddaughter and the wife of Thomas Moorman. HO: What is your source for the 1735/6 b. date? Some of Joseph's children were born in that time frame, but I have no idea when Sarah was born. As Joseph calls 2 daughters by married names, I can't think why he would call her Sarah Clark if she wasn't. "As further confirmation, David and Sarah Moorman Dumas named their oldest daughter, Unity Dumas after David Dumas' grandmother. They named their second daughter Sarah Clark Dumas after Sarah Moorman Dumas' mother." HO: Sarah was a very common name. DCT: Yup, but the daughter was named Sarah Clark Dumas and the Dumas naming pattern remains. "Another circumstance which supports the identification of which Sarah Clark married which Moorman is that Thomas Moorman's wife, Sarah Clark, bore children up until 1769. Subtract 45 years from 1769 suggests that Thomas Moorman's wife was likely born after 1724. Yet, there is every indication that the Sarah Clark who was the daughter of Francis and Cordelia Clark was born before 1715 and could not have still been having children in 1769." HO: I've never seen anything that proves one way or another when Francis's daughter Sarah was born. What evidence do you have? DCT: This was/is probably the weakest argument supporting my conclusion of which Sarah Clark married which Moorman. Here's the way I look at the issue. We know that Francis Clark and Cordelia Lankford were married in 1705. We know that they had ten children who were still living when Francis Clark wrote his will in 1769. These ten included four daughters -- Elizabeth Haley, Mary (Agnes) Haley, Sarah Moorman and Ursula Clark, and six sons -- Joseph, Thomas, John , Francis, Christopher and Isaac. We also know that three of their adult children had died before 1769, including daughters Frances Dumas and Tabitha Moorman, and son Benjamin. There may have been other children who did not survive to adulthood. Of Francis and Cordelia's daughters, we know for certain that Mary (or Agnes as her parents called her) married John Haley Jr. Their daughter, Cordelia, is singled out in grandfather Francis' will. We also know for certain that Ursula was single in 1769 and that she subsequently married Benjamin Mosby. We also know for certain that Tabitha Clark married John Moorman, son of Andrew Sr., and that both Tabitha and John died before 1769. There is a bit less certainty about the parentage of Frances Clark Dumas who died in 1754, but she certainly appears to have been part of this family. That leaves Elizabeth Clark Haley and Sarah Clark Moorman to argue about. Elizabeth's husband I will leave to the Haley researchers. We do not know the specific birth dates of Francis and Cordelia's children, but we can generally break their children into two groups, those born before 1720 and those born after 1720. The six children born before 1720 include daughters Sarah, Elizabeth and Frances and sons Thomas, John and Joseph. It seems likely that there may have been other children among this pre-1720 group that did not survivie to maturity. The seven children born after 1720 include daughters Mary (called Agnes by her parents), Tabitha and Ursula and sons Francis, Christopher, Benjamin and Isaac. Ursula Clark was definitely the youngest of the Clark brood and was probably born in 1729, certainly no later than 1729. That adds up to seven children for Cordelia between 1720 and 1729 -- a pretty full maternity schedule, and strong circumstantial evidence that Sarah Clark Moorman must have been among the children born before 1720. I also think naming patterns of this family strongly suggest that Sarah was Francis and Cordelia's oldest daughter. For example, five of Francis and Cordelia's children (Frances Dumas, Joseph, John, Sarah Moorman, and Isaac) named their oldest daughters Sarah. Mary (Agnes) Haley named her second daughter Sarah. The simple fact that there were three daughters and three sons born before 1720, and the likelihood that Sarah was the oldest daughter makes it probable that Sarah Clark Moorman was born before 1715. DCT: Of Francis and Cordelia's daughters, we know for certain that Mary (or Agnes as her parents called her) married John Haley Jr. HO: Actually, we don't know for sure that Agnes married John, though I very strongly suspect it. In the will, a slave that is to go to Agnes is to go to granddaughter Cordelia Haley after Agnes's death. This suggests that Cordelia is Agnes's daughter, but doesn't tell us who her father is. "DCT: That leaves Elizabeth Clark Haley and Sarah Clark Moorman to argue about. Elizabeth's husband I will leave to the Haley researchers." HO: Probably William Haley. DCT: We do not know the specific birth dates of Francis and Cordelia's children, but we can generally break their children into two groups, those born before 1720 and those born after 1720. The six children born before 1720 include daughters Sarah, Elizabeth and Frances and sons Thomas, John and Joseph. It seems likely that there may have been other children among this pre-1720 group that did not survive to maturity. These seven children born after 1720 include daughters Mary (called Agnes by her parents). HO: Personally, I would put Agnes in the earlier group, but I'm just guessing. DCT: Tabitha and Ursula and sons Francis, Christopher, Benjamin and Isaac. Ursula Clark was definitely the youngest of the Clark brood and was probably born in 1729, certainly no later than 1729. That adds up to seven children for Cordelia between 1720 and 1729 - a pretty full maternity schedule, and strong circumstantial evidence that Sarah Clark Moorman must have been among the children born before 1720. HO: I'm going to go out on a limb and get myself in trouble here, but do we know these are all Cordelia's children? Could Francis have married twice? (Ducking). DCT: "To be fair, we remain unclear about the birth dates and order of Francis and Cordelia's children. However, we do know that Sarah Moorman is identified in Francis Clark's will and her husband is not mentioned whereas the living husbands of his other married daughters are identified in the will. HO: No they aren't. He calls them Elizabeth Haley, Agnes Haley, Sarah Moorman, and Ursula Clark, respectively. It would solve a lot of mysteries if he had named the husbands of the above, but he didn't. DCT: OK, you're right. I had assumed that John Haley, Mary's husband, was the Isham Haley mentioned in Francis Clark's will since Isham was sometimes used as a nickname for John. Rereading the will suggests that Isham was a grandson and probably the oldest son of Elizabeth Clark Haley. Was he the same Isham Haley who was the son of William Haley Sr. of Anson Co., NC? If so, this would identify Elizabeth Clark Haley's husband. Isham Haley, son of William, married Elizabeth Mathews in NC in 1762 but could have migrated back to Louisa Co. by 1769. Francis Clark's will states that Isham lived next to Francis' son Joseph. However, why was Isham Haley singled out in Francis Clark's will? I think it was because he was married and because his father was dead. He does not appear to be Francis Clark's oldest grandson as David Dumas, son of Francis Clark Dumas, was born in 1730. Francis Clark left daughters Elizabeth, Mary and Ursula Louisa Co. property while he left Sarah Moorman two pounds money. The difference in treatment suggests a difference in status. Money would be of more immediate value to a widow than property, particularly if the widow were a resident of NC rather than Virginia. DCT: OK, you're right. I had assumed that John Haley, Mary's husband, was the Isham Haley mentioned in Francis Clark's will since Isham was sometimes used as a nickname for John. Rereading the will suggests that Isham was a grandson and probably the oldest son of Elizabeth Clark Haley. HO: That's my thought. DCT: Was he the same Isham Haley who was the son of William Haley Sr. of Anson Co., NC? If so, this would identify Elizabeth Clark Haley's husband. Isham Haley, son of William, married Elizabeth Mathews in NC in 1762 but could have migrated back to Louisa Co. by 1769. Francis Clark's will states that Isham lived next to Francis' son Joseph. HO: Actually, no, He was given land next to Joseph. It doesn't say he was living there. DCT: However, why was Isham Haley singled out in Francis Clark's will? I think it was because he was married and because his father was dead. He does not appear to be Francis Clark's oldest grandson as David Dumas, son of Francis Clark Dumas, was born in 1730. HO: Isham could have been the oldest. I don't know when he was born, but I would not rule out pre-1730. There could have been some other reason for singling him out. DCT: Francis Clark left daughters Elizabeth, Mary and Ursula Louisa Co. property while he left Sarah Moorman two pounds money. The difference in treatment suggests a difference in status. Money would be of more immediate value to a widow than property, particularly if the widow were a resident of NC rather than Virginia. HO: Its Agnes, not Mary. My guess as to why he gave Sarah money is geography. We agree that she was in NC.