I discussed the system of indentured servitude in a couple of earlier posts. Today I am going to focus on apprenticeships.
An apprentice is contracted to a master craftsman for a set time to receive training in a craft.
The system developed during the Middle Ages. Master craftsmen employed and trained young boys and gave them food, lodging and formal training. In some cases, girls were apprenticed as well.
The system was brought to colonial America. Boys as young as 10, but generally 14 -17 were apprenticed for a term of up to seven years, or until age 21. The contract was signed by the Master, the parents and the child. The young apprentice would be instructed in the Master's trade and learn to read, write and "do sums." [arithmetic for those of you not familiar with the term] Less than 20% of apprentices were girls. They were usually contracted to seamstresses or taught the skills of the housewife.
The apprentice would work on increasingly difficult projects during his [or her] term and finally present the Master craftsman with a final project to demonstrate his mastery of the skills taught. Upon completion of his/her contract, the apprentice would be given a new suit of clothes, a set of tools and independence.
Some variations on the apprenticeship system:
[1] Orphans would be indentured to farms until their 21st birthday or end of the contract.
[2] Coveted apprenticeships with lawyers, merchants or other professionals involved the parents paying the masters to take and train their children.
[3] Children might be indentured or apprenticed by their parents to pay off debts.
[4] A farmer might apprentice his sons or daughters during the winter to learn a trade. This would allow the children to have a trade to fall back on during the winter months or if crops failed.
Parents were relieved of rearing their children and providing educational/occupational training.
One case in point for #4 above: My 3rd great-grandfather, Joseph Faucett, was apprenticed to a tailor. Joseph was a farmer, but had a trade to supplement his income or to fall back on during hard times.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Confusing Details!
As I attempt to put the wraps on the Keeling family, I am currently dealing with one of the daughters. Ann's birth is given as 1618, 1630, 1634-38, the 1640s, or 1650, depending on the undocumented source. Her first husband was born about 1616, so that complicates matters a bit!
Some digging turned up the fact that Ann was John Martin's third wife. That sheds some light on the subject! She could have been a number of years his junior.
Ann married twice after John Martin died. The births of hubbies #2 & #3 are estimated at about 1630 and 1638-40. This also sheds a bit more light on the subject.
Examining the possible birth years for Ann, we can rule out 1618. Her mother was born in the 1613-1618 range.
1630? Very much a long short. Her parents arrived in Virginia in 1635. Her father had been in the colony from 1628-1634. Thomas Keeling was granted 100 acres for transporting two persons to Virginia in 1635 - himself and his wife. That would place serious doubt on Ann being born before 1635.
Let's go to the other extreme - 1650. Ann would have been 15/6 when she married Martin about 1665/6. [He died by May 1664 and fathered a son by Ann.] At the time, that was a young age for a girl to marry. Her husband would have been 34 years her senior.
Ann's other husbands were born between 1630 and 1640. So, there's a good chance she was born during that decade as well. She had children with her 1st and 2nd husbands. By 1665, Ann was nearing the end of childbearing years, if born in 1618. If born between 1635 and 1640, she was between 25 and 30. [Childbearing years.]
Based on the clues available, I would estimate Ann's birth between 1635 and 1644. That would make her between 21 and 30 when she married for the first time.
Ann died about 1672.
Some digging turned up the fact that Ann was John Martin's third wife. That sheds some light on the subject! She could have been a number of years his junior.
Ann married twice after John Martin died. The births of hubbies #2 & #3 are estimated at about 1630 and 1638-40. This also sheds a bit more light on the subject.
Examining the possible birth years for Ann, we can rule out 1618. Her mother was born in the 1613-1618 range.
1630? Very much a long short. Her parents arrived in Virginia in 1635. Her father had been in the colony from 1628-1634. Thomas Keeling was granted 100 acres for transporting two persons to Virginia in 1635 - himself and his wife. That would place serious doubt on Ann being born before 1635.
Let's go to the other extreme - 1650. Ann would have been 15/6 when she married Martin about 1665/6. [He died by May 1664 and fathered a son by Ann.] At the time, that was a young age for a girl to marry. Her husband would have been 34 years her senior.
Ann's other husbands were born between 1630 and 1640. So, there's a good chance she was born during that decade as well. She had children with her 1st and 2nd husbands. By 1665, Ann was nearing the end of childbearing years, if born in 1618. If born between 1635 and 1640, she was between 25 and 30. [Childbearing years.]
Based on the clues available, I would estimate Ann's birth between 1635 and 1644. That would make her between 21 and 30 when she married for the first time.
Ann died about 1672.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Taking Action On Online Family Trees
I have frequently squawked about poorly documented or undocumented online family trees during my posts. You may wonder,
(1) "Why doesn't he contact the owners of these trees and point out the errors?
(2) "Why doesn't he just post his own tree on one or more of the available sites that host trees?"
The answers....
(1) Contacting tree owners:
I have tried making a few contacts about errors that I have come across. I have been both polite and diplomatic. [I hope!] As a general rule, the pleas for corrections have gone unheeded. Out of about 25-26 contacts I made about Jacob Crousore marrying Ama Jemima Smith, not Anny Ice, I believe one or two were changed and one combined the two into "Ama Jemima Anny Smith Ice," or something close to that.
I did achieve a little success in contacting owners of trees that had solid info on my Prall line, except for showing Anne Bathia Rhodes as Ann Bathia Porter. Confusion over her mother's maiden name vs. the aunt who raised her.
You can chalk it up to laziness, lack of faith in mankind or frustration. I'm just not sure the return would be worth the effort!
(2) Posting my own tree:
Actually, I did post a tree on the Tribal Pages site some 20 years ago. I was going to try to upload a new/corrected tree several years ago, but had access problems.
There are some websites that allow others to make additions or corrections to posted trees. I would live in fear of having well-meaning souls add incorrect data to what I have posted. I would have to opt for a "private tree" on Ancestry.com or a similar site. My other choice would be a site that doesn't allow changes to be made without my permission.
I may eventually choose to publish additions and corrections to my 2009 hardcover genealogy or convert to a webpage with password access. I'm not sure which. The latter would probably be best. I probably won't live forever.
(1) "Why doesn't he contact the owners of these trees and point out the errors?
(2) "Why doesn't he just post his own tree on one or more of the available sites that host trees?"
The answers....
(1) Contacting tree owners:
I have tried making a few contacts about errors that I have come across. I have been both polite and diplomatic. [I hope!] As a general rule, the pleas for corrections have gone unheeded. Out of about 25-26 contacts I made about Jacob Crousore marrying Ama Jemima Smith, not Anny Ice, I believe one or two were changed and one combined the two into "Ama Jemima Anny Smith Ice," or something close to that.
I did achieve a little success in contacting owners of trees that had solid info on my Prall line, except for showing Anne Bathia Rhodes as Ann Bathia Porter. Confusion over her mother's maiden name vs. the aunt who raised her.
You can chalk it up to laziness, lack of faith in mankind or frustration. I'm just not sure the return would be worth the effort!
(2) Posting my own tree:
Actually, I did post a tree on the Tribal Pages site some 20 years ago. I was going to try to upload a new/corrected tree several years ago, but had access problems.
There are some websites that allow others to make additions or corrections to posted trees. I would live in fear of having well-meaning souls add incorrect data to what I have posted. I would have to opt for a "private tree" on Ancestry.com or a similar site. My other choice would be a site that doesn't allow changes to be made without my permission.
I may eventually choose to publish additions and corrections to my 2009 hardcover genealogy or convert to a webpage with password access. I'm not sure which. The latter would probably be best. I probably won't live forever.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
9/11
I thought I'd bypass the post today to make mention of the 15th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
I was teaching my 2nd grade Social Studies class in my K-5 Soc. St. program on that day. The principal came on the PA and told me to turn on the TV. I did so, just in time to see the 2nd plane hit. We watched the news coverage and I did the best I could to answer the questions that were asked.
How do you explain the madness that led to the attacks to 8 year-olds?
Reflect on where you were that day. Posts will resume tomorrow.
I was teaching my 2nd grade Social Studies class in my K-5 Soc. St. program on that day. The principal came on the PA and told me to turn on the TV. I did so, just in time to see the 2nd plane hit. We watched the news coverage and I did the best I could to answer the questions that were asked.
How do you explain the madness that led to the attacks to 8 year-olds?
Reflect on where you were that day. Posts will resume tomorrow.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Recapping Frustrating Research
My apologies for this post in advance. It is sort of a recap of a frustrating week of online research. I'm hoping to have the Keeling-Thorowgood families wrapped up in a day or two and the results posted. I also hope to get to the Indiana State Library next week to access the repository's Virginia resources.
[1] Document your work!
[2] If you do use evidence, make sure it applies to the person you are researching, not a cousin or person of the same name.
[3] Use common sense when matching children to parents. If mama is pushing the limits of childbearing years, there is a fair to middling chance she is the wrong mama.
[4] If a couple has three or four children born before they get married, that's a red flag! The marriage date is off, the birthdates are in error, or the kids aren't theirs. [We're not talking about the last 30 years or so; that's a whole other story!]
[5] Realize that typos or poor eyesight may play a role. 3 vs. 8, 5 vs. 6, 3 vs. 9. Numbers can be transposed, misread, miswritten or mistyped. Also, the folks copying headstone inscriptions may make errors as well.
[6] Evaluate the information you have gathered and formulate a reasonably sound hypothesis based on that information. Don't be afraid to disagree with the 25-30 folks who have posted trees, they all may have followed one person's tree - accurate, or not.
[1] Document your work!
[2] If you do use evidence, make sure it applies to the person you are researching, not a cousin or person of the same name.
[3] Use common sense when matching children to parents. If mama is pushing the limits of childbearing years, there is a fair to middling chance she is the wrong mama.
[4] If a couple has three or four children born before they get married, that's a red flag! The marriage date is off, the birthdates are in error, or the kids aren't theirs. [We're not talking about the last 30 years or so; that's a whole other story!]
[5] Realize that typos or poor eyesight may play a role. 3 vs. 8, 5 vs. 6, 3 vs. 9. Numbers can be transposed, misread, miswritten or mistyped. Also, the folks copying headstone inscriptions may make errors as well.
[6] Evaluate the information you have gathered and formulate a reasonably sound hypothesis based on that information. Don't be afraid to disagree with the 25-30 folks who have posted trees, they all may have followed one person's tree - accurate, or not.
Friday, September 9, 2016
More Venting: Chronology!
A note to new and veteran researchers: Make sure the dates fit!
When you are researching an individual and find a tree on Ancestry, FamilySearch, Rootsweb, My Heritage, Geni, Wiki, or whatever, make sure it really does apply to your ancestor.
As I have been wading through the ancestral forests [get it? family trees!] on my newly discovered Keeling family of Virginia, the chronology has been oft ignored.
Two prime examples:
[1] Most of the trees [undocumented and documented] give the parents of Thomas Keeling [b. c1608] as John Keeling [b. c1582] and Alice Waterhouse [b. c1586]. Nice fits. John was about 26 and Alice about 22 at Thomas' birth. Then there's Alice's parents: Edward [b. c1533] and Margaret Turner [b. c1539]. That makes them 53 and 47 when Alice was born. A few trees show Alice with a brother born in 1587. The ages are possible, but very, very improbable for the 16th century!
[2] John Keeling [c1582 - c1642] is frequently documented as the Chief Justice of the King's Court in 1665. Not a bad gig for a guy who had been dead for a nearly a quarter of a century. John Keeling, the Chief Justice, according to his bio on Wikipedia, was born in 1607 and died in 1671.
Please! Look at your birth, marriage, death and event dates - if they don't work chronologically, you probably have the wrong people in the mix somewhere along the line.
Just because somebody posted it on the internet, it don't mean it ain't wrong!
When you are researching an individual and find a tree on Ancestry, FamilySearch, Rootsweb, My Heritage, Geni, Wiki, or whatever, make sure it really does apply to your ancestor.
As I have been wading through the ancestral forests [get it? family trees!] on my newly discovered Keeling family of Virginia, the chronology has been oft ignored.
Two prime examples:
[1] Most of the trees [undocumented and documented] give the parents of Thomas Keeling [b. c1608] as John Keeling [b. c1582] and Alice Waterhouse [b. c1586]. Nice fits. John was about 26 and Alice about 22 at Thomas' birth. Then there's Alice's parents: Edward [b. c1533] and Margaret Turner [b. c1539]. That makes them 53 and 47 when Alice was born. A few trees show Alice with a brother born in 1587. The ages are possible, but very, very improbable for the 16th century!
[2] John Keeling [c1582 - c1642] is frequently documented as the Chief Justice of the King's Court in 1665. Not a bad gig for a guy who had been dead for a nearly a quarter of a century. John Keeling, the Chief Justice, according to his bio on Wikipedia, was born in 1607 and died in 1671.
Please! Look at your birth, marriage, death and event dates - if they don't work chronologically, you probably have the wrong people in the mix somewhere along the line.
Just because somebody posted it on the internet, it don't mean it ain't wrong!
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Headright System
I mentioned the headright system in the indentured servant posts. Today, I will detail it a bit more.
A headright was a legal grant of land. It was first used in the British-American colonies in 1618 by the Virginia Company of London. The Plymouth Company also used the system. Maryland, Georgia and the Carolinas would use headrights as well. The headright system helped to resolve a labor shortage on Virginia tobacco plantations and attract new settlers.
The headright range from 1 to 1000 acres. The land was a lure for anyone willing to leave Great Britain to settle in the colonies. It would also apply to anyone willing to pay for the transport of laborers or indentured servants to the colony.
A new arrival to the colony would receive a 50 acre headright for each person he transported [20 people = 1000 acres]. A person who had lived in the colony for a time would receive two headrights [100 acres] per person transported. As time passed, indentured servants had little chance to acquire land. Early on, however, some servants would work off their indentures, return to England and sponsor new indentured servants themselves. Since headrights were granted to heads of families, entire families might travel together. A family of, say, seven would get a minimum of 350 acres.
Steps in obtaining a headright:
[1] get a certificate validating the transport of each person from the governor or county court.
[2] select tracts of land
[3] have the land surveyed
[4] take the land description to the colonial secretary
[5] have a patent created and approved by the governor
Headrights served as commodities. They could be kept, bought, sold, traded or saved to be used later.
The cost of transport was about six pounds per person. If a servant/laborer died during passage, the person paying their passage still received a headright.
Until 1699 headrights were granted for slaves. After that, only English citizens counted toward headrights.
Over time, the headright system began to fall apart. The secretary's office grew lax. Both a ships captain and the person paying for the transport might receive a headright for the same servant. Headrights were issued for fictitious people. Too many headrights were being saved up, as well. Tensions grew between Indians and colonists as indentured servants were granted headrights inland, in territory claimed by local tribes.
A headright was a legal grant of land. It was first used in the British-American colonies in 1618 by the Virginia Company of London. The Plymouth Company also used the system. Maryland, Georgia and the Carolinas would use headrights as well. The headright system helped to resolve a labor shortage on Virginia tobacco plantations and attract new settlers.
The headright range from 1 to 1000 acres. The land was a lure for anyone willing to leave Great Britain to settle in the colonies. It would also apply to anyone willing to pay for the transport of laborers or indentured servants to the colony.
A new arrival to the colony would receive a 50 acre headright for each person he transported [20 people = 1000 acres]. A person who had lived in the colony for a time would receive two headrights [100 acres] per person transported. As time passed, indentured servants had little chance to acquire land. Early on, however, some servants would work off their indentures, return to England and sponsor new indentured servants themselves. Since headrights were granted to heads of families, entire families might travel together. A family of, say, seven would get a minimum of 350 acres.
Steps in obtaining a headright:
[1] get a certificate validating the transport of each person from the governor or county court.
[2] select tracts of land
[3] have the land surveyed
[4] take the land description to the colonial secretary
[5] have a patent created and approved by the governor
Headrights served as commodities. They could be kept, bought, sold, traded or saved to be used later.
The cost of transport was about six pounds per person. If a servant/laborer died during passage, the person paying their passage still received a headright.
Until 1699 headrights were granted for slaves. After that, only English citizens counted toward headrights.
Over time, the headright system began to fall apart. The secretary's office grew lax. Both a ships captain and the person paying for the transport might receive a headright for the same servant. Headrights were issued for fictitious people. Too many headrights were being saved up, as well. Tensions grew between Indians and colonists as indentured servants were granted headrights inland, in territory claimed by local tribes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)