Motoring History: Henry Ford (Part Three)
Henry Ford, with only an eighth grade education, always valued hard work. He did, however, make sure that his only child Edsel received a good education at a prestigious Detroit all-boys school. As a young boy, Edsel had followed his father around the plant, much to the delight of Henry – to see his son in coveralls and getting his hands dirty was what he expected.
All along he was being groomed to run the company someday. However, after Edsel graduated he preferred to spend time with the Detroit well-to-do crowd, marrying into one of the most prominent families in Detroit. Eleanor Clay’s uncle was the founder of the Hudson’s Department Store. The differences in Henry and Edsel were striking – Henry was a highly disciplined individual who neither drank nor smoked and Edsel had a taste for the high life.
This article is no longer available at this site. However, it will be enhanced and published later in a future issue of Digging History Magazine, our new monthly digital publication available by individual purchase or subscription. To see what the magazine is all about you can preview issues at our YouTube Channel. Subscriptions are affordable, safe and easy to purchase and the best deal for getting your “history fix” every month.
I invite you to check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!
Surname Saturday: Rhys and Rice
These two surnames, Rhys and Rice, share similarities. First of all, both are of Welsh origin. Secondly, both can be traced back to the Celts (or Britons) who once lived in the Moor of Wales. Thirdly, both are derived from the old Welsh forename “Ris”, which means “ardour”. Spellings variations for both include: Rice, Rhys, Rees, Reece and others.
Spelling variations of these Welsh surnames might have been due to the challenge of converting them from Welsh to English. The Welsh used the Brythonic Celtic language which contained sounds for which there was no direct translation – the sounds didn’t exist in the English language. In addition, often a family might change their surname, even if slightly, to denote a religious or patriotic affiliation. It seems reasonable to believe that “Rice” is the Anglicized version of “Rhys”.
The Rice surname was brought to Ireland by Welsh settlers and today there are still many Rices in Ireland. Earliest Welsh records mention a person named “Hris” (no surname, however) in 1052. In the Domesday Book of 1086, the result of a survey ordered by William the Conqueror, the surname is listed as “Rees”.
The Rhys surname literally meant “the son of Rees.” Records document a person by the name of “William Rys” who lived in County Somerset during Edward III’s reign. Edward Reece, who lived in County Hereford, enrolled at Oxford in 1601. Stories of other notable people with either the “Rice” or “Rhys” surname follow – one a Welsh Baptist minister who immigrated to America in the late eighteenth century, and the other, one of the earliest Rice immigrants to come to America.
Rev. Morgan John Rhys
A quote from Rev. Morgan John Rhys: The Welsh Baptist Hero of Civil and Religious Liberty of the 18th Century:
Dr. Armitage said that Morgan John Rhys was “the Welsh Baptist Hero of Religious Liberty.” Dr. Lewis Edwards, of Bala, Wales, said that he was “a man who had consecrated his life to fight against oppression and tyranny and that he excelled as a defender of civil and religious liberty,” and the Rev. J. Spinther James, M.A., says “that he was a man far in advance of his age, and that he was nor properly known nor properly appreciated by the age in which he lived, nor the one that followed. He was one of the few Welsh who belonged to that class that started the ball of the reformation to roll in Europe. Inasmuch as that ball in its course struck the British government and shattered it, so that the American colonies became free forever, and inasmuch as it also struck the oppressive monarchy of France, so as to cause the great revolution there, so that the English government was so possessed with the fear that the lives of all who advocated liberty were in danger.”
That quote is quite an assignation – to say that someone who lived the majority of his life in Wales was influential in liberating the colonies from British tyranny, as well as plant the seeds of discontent which led to the French Revolution.
Morgan John Rhys was born on December 8, 1760 to parents John and Elizabeth Rees of Graddfa, Llanfabon, Glamorganshire, South Wales. Because his father was a well-to-do farmer, Morgan received the best possible education available at that time. After joining the Baptist Church of Hengoed, he also began to preach. Then it was on to Bristol College in August 1786 to further his education before accepting his first pastorate as an ordained minister at Penygarn Baptist Church. One source called him a “radical evangelical” – his sermons were themed with principles of parliamentary reform and he was also strongly anti-slavery.
He went to France in 1791, believing that the Revolution was an open door to spread the Gospel in that country. He apparently had great success – not long afterwards the Bible was being translated into French. Upon his return to Wales in 1792 he opened a book store and print shop. After speaking at a meeting of churches later that year, he preached in both the Welsh and English languages during the same sermon. In that same meeting, he proposed that money be raised in order to distribute French Bibles.
At the next year’s meeting he urged churches to establish Sunday Schools to teach the young ones how to read the scriptures. With his printing press, he published a book entitled “A Guide and Encouragement to Establish Sunday Schools and Weekly, in the Welsh Language through Wales, with lessons easy to learn, and principles easy for children to understand; and others who are illiteral.”
It was said of Morgan Rhys that when he came up with a good plan he would work to put it into practice quickly. He continued to press the need for Sunday Schools at the 1794 meeting. He also had plans to publish a hymnal. Then something abruptly changed Morgan Rhys’ life.
While meeting with some friends privately at a Carmarthen hotel near the end of July, he was informed that a man had entered the hotel and inquired about his whereabouts. The gentleman hinted that he had been sent from London to arrest Morgan Rhys. When Morgan learned of the plot, he bid his friends a sorrowful goodbye, and on August 1, 1794 he began his journey to America.
When he finally reached New York on October 12, he was met by the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia, who was also the Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, the Rev. Dr. Rodgers. The two formed a friendship and almost immediately Morgan returned to the ministry and was met with great success. According to the biography cited above, “He was followed by admiring crowds wherever he spoke, and preached Christ with an earnestness and an unction, but rarely witnessed since the days of Whitfield.”
As he traveled and preached, he was mindful of finding a suitable place to settle and establish his own colony. He married Ann Loxley of Philadelphia and after living there for two years, he and Ann bought a large tract of land which they named Cambria. The seat of the county would be Beulah. In 1798 he removed to Beulah with other Welsh immigrants where he served as both a landlord and pastor of the church in Beulah.
He later left Beulah and moved to Somerset, county seat of Somerset County. Soon afterwards he accepted an appointment as Justice of the Peace for Quemahoning Township, Somerset County, and later as an Associate Judge in the same county. He served in various civil offices until his sudden death on December 7, 1804. Morgan John Rhees (he had changed the spelling of his name after arriving in America) left behind a widow and five children. As death neared he remarked to his wife, “The music, my love, it is so sweet; do you not hear it?” When his wife said she did not hear it, he said, “Oh, listen – now – now – the angels sing come waft on high, we wait to bear thy spirit to the sky.”
Edmund Rice
Edmund Rice was born in Suffolk, England in approximately 1594. He was a deacon at his local parish, but in 1638 he left England and was one of the early immigrants who joined the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Although it is not recorded why he and his family left, many people who immigrated at that time did so because of religious persecution.
He and his wife and children (seven at least) set out on their journey. Upon arrival with his wife and children, he perhaps first lived in Watertown, Massachusetts. Not long afterwards he helped found the town of Sudbury, and in 1656 he was one of thirteen founders of the town of Marlborough.
After being made a freeman on May 13, 1640, Edmund served Sudbury as a selectman and was ordained as a deacon in 1648. He also became the largest landowner in Sudbury and served in the Massachusetts legislature for five years. Part of his civil duties included laying out roads in Sudbury.
On June 13, 1654, his wife Tamazine (or Thomasine) died. He remarried the following year on March 1 to Mercy Brigham, a widow. When he and other petitioners were granted the right to form the new town of Marlborough, he and his family moved there. Communal farming was practiced in Sudbury, but that practice was apparently not agreeable to Edmund Rice and twelve other dissenters. When Marlborough was established it was specifically organized to be a place where only individual ownership was practiced.
Edmund was elected as selectman in 1657 and every year thereafter until his death on May 3, 1663. Edmund and Thomasine together had ten children: Mary, Henry, Edward, Thomas, Lydia, Matthew, Daniel, Samuel, Joseph and Benjamin. Edmund and his second wife Mercy had two children: Lydia and Ruth.
One of Edmund’s grandsons, Jonas Rice, founded Worcester, Massachusetts. The descendants of Edmund Rice began meeting annually in 1851. Several genealogies have since been published and in 1912 his descendants organized the Edmund Rice (1638) Association (ERA). The following year a marker was erected and dedicated near his home in Sudbury (now Wayland). The Association was incorporated in 1934 and four years later an updated genealogy was published. ERA continued its research and by 1968 26,000 descendants had been verified.
In 2013, using a statistical model, it was estimated that the 12th generation alone contained 2.7 million descendants. Generations 1-12 totaled 4.4 million. When allowing for spouses of half that number would bring the total to almost 7 million. When parents of spouses are added in, the astonishing total is near 10 million. No wonder genealogy is such a tedious and time-consuming effort!
Did you enjoy this article? Yes? Check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!
Feudin’ and Fightin’ Friday: Turk-Jones Feud, aka “Slicker War”
This Ozark Mountain feud was carried on much like the more famous Appalachian Hatfield-McCoy feud, encompassing the Missouri counties of Benton and Polk. Benton County was a newly organized county when two families, the Joneses and Turks, migrated from Kentucky and Tennessee, respectively. Colonel Hiram Turk came to Benton County with his wife and four sons: James, Thomas, Nathan and Robert, settling in an area known as Judy’s Gap.
The Andy Jones family settled along the Pomme de Terre River, a tributary of the Osage River. Jones and his sons had a penchant for gambling, horse racing and were suspected of counterfeiting. They were said to be coarse and likely illiterate as they always signed their names by a mark.
Colonel Turk, as he was called, had served in the Tennessee militia and was said to have been full of buck shot. A businessman in Tennessee, he also opened up a general store and saloon in the recently-designated county seat of Warsaw. Although his family was generally described as being courteous and well-educated, they also had a reputation for being “quarrelsome, violent and overbearing” (A Sketch of the History of Benton County, by James H. Lay).
Tensions between the two families began on Election Day in 1840 when Andy Jones walked into Hiram’s store, which was being used as a polling place. Jones started an argument with James Turk about a horse race bet. A fight ensued as Hiram and his other sons joined in and his son Tom pulled out a knife. No one was seriously injured but the Turks were charged with inciting a riot and committing assault.
Earlier that year James Turk had attacked a man by the name of John Graham, seemingly unprovoked, near Judy’s Gap. John Graham was a prominent member of the community and on the day following the attack he personally wrote a note to the Justice of the Peace:
February the 19 day – 1840.
mister wisdom sir please to come fourth with to my house and fetch your law books and come as quick as you can as I have been Lay waid by James turk and smartley wounded sow that I Cant Come to your house and is A fraid that he will Escape. JOHN GRAHAM.
When a warrant was issued for James Turk’s arrest a posse arrested him, but Turk refused to go to Graham’s house for the trial – and Graham refused to be in Turk’s presence until he was officially disarmed. Justice Wisdom ordered James to be disarmed and when he stepped in to assist, Hiram intervened and Tom Turk drew his gun on the officers of the court. The Turks and their friends took James home.
A warrant was then issued against the Turks for springing James from custody. Justice Wisdom had James bound over for the assault of John Graham, Tom for rescuing James, and Hiram for the rescue and threatening John Graham. In court, Hiram accused the Justice of malicious prosecution, whereupon the judge fined him twenty dollars. According to James H. Lay, “[T]hese proceedings aided in planting the animosity that took shape in the Slicker war.”
Back to the Election Day brawl. A few days later Tom, James and Robert Turk were indicted for inciting a riot and Hiram and James were indicted for assaulting Andy Jones. In December the three boys were convicted of starting the riot and fined one hundred dollars. Hiram and James’ trial was delayed, however, until the April 1841 term.
The Circuit Court convened on April 3, 1841. Abraham Nowell, a prominent and respected citizen of the community, was the chief witness against the Turks. Nowell was on his way to court with Julius Sutliff, a neighbor of the Turks, when James Turk assaulted him. Abraham Nowell, in self-defense, grabbed Sutliff’s gun and killed James Turk.
Nowell, fearing Turk family retribution, fled the area only to return in September to turn himself into the Sheriff. He was arrested and posted bail awaiting trial in April 1842. Nowell was acquitted, possibly on the strength of testimony against James Turk. One witness, John Prince, testified:
I heard James Turk say that Mr. Nowell was a main witness, and never should give in evidence against them, that he intended to take the d____d old son of a b____h off his horse and whip him, so he could not go to court. Turk further said that if they took the case to Springfield he would have him (Nowell) fixed so he never would get there.
During the spring of 1841 when James was killed, Hiram and Tom had filed a number of “nuisance” lawsuits against their neighbors. After James was killed the tensions between the Turks and Joneses heated up again.
A relative of the Joneses, James Morton, had killed an Alabama sheriff in 1830 and fled to Benton County. On May 20, 1841, a bounty hunter by the name of McReynolds brought indictment papers to the attention of the Benton County sheriff. The sheriff, however, was unconvinced that the evidence was sufficient to warrant Morton’s arrest.
The reward for Morton’s capture was four hundred dollars and McReynolds, determined to bring Morton to justice, recruited the Turks to assist him. The Turks were successful in capturing Morton. After turning him over, McReynolds took Morton back to Alabama where he was acquitted, later returning to Missouri. Meanwhile, Hiram Turk had been charged with kidnapping (charges later dropped).
Of course, this escalated the animosities between the two families. Andy Jones and his family vowed revenge on the Turks. In early July 1841, Jones entered to an agreement with some of his friends to kill Hiram Turk. They went so far as to draw up a binding agreement among all co-conspirators – anyone who divulged the secret plot to kill Hiram would himself be killed.
On July 17 Hiram Turk was ambushed, shot from the brush as he rode through a hollow. Upon being shot, he fell off his horse and exclaimed, “I am a dead man!” Even though he was attended daily by a doctor, he never fully recovered. He lingered for a few weeks and died at his home on August 10, 1841.
Since the Circuit Court was still in session, Andy Jones and several of his friends were indicted for the murder of Hiram Turk. On December 9, 1841, Andy Jones was acquitted, the jury deciding that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. One friend, Jabez Harrison, later confessed that he and Andy, along with three other men were hiding in the brush. He accused Henry Hodges of firing the shot. Some of the co-conspirators, including Hodges, fled the area.
The unsuccessful attempt to convict Andy Jones of Hiram’s murder was when the so-called Slicker War began in earnest (as if these two families hadn’t been seriously feuding for quite some time!). The Turks would not be satisfied until they had exacted their own brand of “frontier justice,” driving the Joneses out of the Ozarks.
So why was it called the “Slicker War”? “Slicking” was a form of punishment common in the Ozarks, perhaps brought by settlers who migrated from Tennessee. Emboldened by the spirit of vigilantism, the Turks took it upon themselves to exact punishment on anyone related to or aligned with the Joneses. Their preferred method was “slicking” – the victim was captured, tied to a tree and whipped with a hickory switch. One way or the other they were determined to get a confession from someone as to who really killed their kin.
Each side formed their own alliances. Just like Andy Jones had made a binding agreement with his friends to kill Hiram Turk, Tom Turk made a similar one with thirty or so of his friends. To make it more palatable, they publicly declared their purpose was to drive out horse thieves, counterfeiters and murders – so who would that be?
The Joneses formed their own alliance known as “Anti-Slickers” for, after all, they had to defend themselves. As it turns out the “Anti-Slickers” were no better than the “Slickers” – they weren’t above using the exact same tactics. In reading the detailed account given in A Sketch of the History of Benton County, one almost needs a score card. The feud even drew members of the community not related to either the Turks or Joneses into the fray. “These slickings threw the whole County into excitement, and the feeling was so intense that the entire community took sides in sentiment with one party or the other, and many good citizens openly favored each side and gave them aid in their law suits.”
By the way, the Turks also got their revenge for Abraham Nowell’s acquittal for killing James Turk. On the morning of October 18, 1842, they shot him dead as he was coming out of his house to fetch some water. Meanwhile, the slickings continued, each side determined to drive the other out of the country.
The feud ended, or at least died down, after the state arrested thirty-eight Slickers for their part in attacking an innocent farmer, Samuel Yates. The case never went to trial. Tom Turk was later killed by one of his own posse members. Andy Jones fled to Texas and Nathan Turk followed him. When Jones was arrested for stealing horses, Nathan’s testimony helped convict him – he was found guilty and hanged.
Nathan Turk would later be killed in a gunfight in Shreveport, Louisiana. Mrs. Turk and her remaining son Robert returned to Kentucky. According to James H. Lay, “She is said to have deeply deplored the violence of her sons and husband. Her share in this bloody drama is unwritten, but it is hard to conceive of a heavier burden of woe than fell to her lot.” Indeed.
The practice of “slicking” was picked up by other would-be vigilante groups. Some residents of Lincoln County, in the eastern part of Missouri, used “slicking” to ostensibly rid their communities of horse thieves and counterfeiters. Unfortunately, several innocent people lost their lives as a result. As the saying goes, “time heals all wounds” – with the passage of time, the practice of “slicking” faded away and ended the Slicker Wars of the Ozarks.
Did you enjoy this article? Yes? Check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!
Wild Weather Wednesday: The Great Flood of 1913 (Part One)
The recent disasters of the Titanic sinking on April 15, 1912, the devastating San Francisco earthquake and fire on April 18, 1906, as well as the previous year’s Mississippi River flood which swept through the river valley killing two hundred people and causing $45 million in damages, all paled in comparison to this disaster that took place in the spring of 1913.
The aforementioned disasters were devastating in their own right, but the one that came to be known as “The Great Flood of 1913″ was the most widespread disaster in United States history. Thousands upon thousands of people were affected. The death toll was second only to the Johnstown, Pennsylvania flood of 1889 which killed 2,209 people. In 1913 this super-storm affected communities in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Michigan, New York, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana, and beyond.
This article is no longer available on this web site. It will be re-written and enhanced with footnotes and sources in a future issue of Digging History Magazine. I invite you to check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!
Tombstone Tuesday: George Washington Cluck, Sr.
George Washington Cluck, Sr. was born on July 22, 1832 (or 1833) in Tennessee. His parentage is unclear, although I believe his parents to be John and Mary (Hunt) Cluck. George first appeared in census records in 1850 in Hamilton County, Illinois living with or employed by the Malden family as “Washington Cluck”, aged seventeen.
George married Mary McDaniel, daughter of John and Mary (Hopkins) McDaniel on January 16, 1853 in Hamilton County. Mary was approximately four years older than George, probably born in 1828. These are the children born to their marriage:
Amanda J. – 29 May 1854
William Martin – 06 May 1857
John L. – 01 Oct 1859 (or 1860)
Cassander A. – 16 Apr 1862 – 19 Aug 1862 (4 months, 3 days)
George Washington, Jr. – 02 Feb 1866
Military records indicate that George enlisted as a private on February 7, 1862. Whether he began to serve immediately is unclear. If he was deployed soon after his enlistment, he very likely missed the birth of his daughter Cassander on April 16, 1862 and perhaps never saw her as she passed away at the age of four months and three days on August 19, 1862.
A second enlistment occurred on October 3, 1863 when he joined Company D, 6th Cavalry Regiment Illinois. He was discharged from that regiment and ended his military service on January 28, 1865. Just over a year later his namesake, George Washington Cluck, Jr. was born on February 2, 1866. (One source claimed there was one more child named Delilah who was born after George, Jr., but I could find no record.)
Mary died on October 25, 1872 and was buried in the Knight’s Prairie Cemetery in Hamilton County. She and George had been married for over twenty years and he was left with children who needed a mother.
George married Milinesa Jane “Miley” Braden less than two months after Mary’s death on December 12, 1872, according to family history. Miley was born to parents William and Margaret (Foster) Braden on June 29, 1855, so she was several years younger than George. One interesting note regarding Miley – for the 1860 census Milinesa J. Braden is listed with her other siblings in the Samuel Foster home (possibly her grandparents or some other kin of her mother’s). Milinesa J., William M. and Marinda J. are all listed as five years old – triplets?
The children born to George and Miley’s marriage were:
Milinesa J. – 12 Oct 1874 – 12 Jan 1875 (4 months old)
Clarissa J. – 15 Dec 1875
Dora L. – 04 Feb 1877 – 07 Jul 1900 (23 years old)
Arvice Clarence – 20 Dec 1879
Cora Ada – 25 Jan 1882 – 11 Aug 1901 (19 years old)
Mary J. – 23 Jun 1884
Arthur Lawrence – 23 Jan 1886
Their first child, Milinesa who was named after her mother, was exactly four months old when she died on January 12, 1875. Another daughter, Clarissa was born later that year. Their daughter Dora was only twenty-three years old when she died in 1900 and Cora Ada was just nineteen when she passed away the following year. Some family history sources indicate that Miley had a son from previous marriage or relationship, although I could not locate proof of such.
George lost his second wife when Miley passed away on January 5, 1888, about six months short of her thirty-third birthday. She was buried in the Little Springs Cemetery in Hamilton County.
Again, George was left with young children and he quickly re-married. On April 12, 1888 he married a widow, Cassie Willis Johnson. Cassie was born to parents Eli and Sarah Willis on February 17, 1865. The children born to their marriage were:
Napoleon Bonaparte – 24 Mar 1889
Willard Allen – 05 Aug 1893
Ella Mae – 11 Jul 1894 – 06 Apr 1900
Willis Clarice – 13 Feb 1896
James Elton – 11 Oct 1899
Tragically, shortly after his youngest son James Elton was born, Cassie and Ella Mae contracted a fever (possibly typhoid) in 1900. Cassie died on March 29, 1900 and Ella died a few days later on April 6. They were both buried in Rector Cemetery in Hamilton County. George, now sixty-seven, was once again a widower with several children still living at home.
His fourth wife, Delilah “Lila” Culpepper was born on December 26, 1871, and she and George married on April 7, 1901, according to one family tree. Their only child, born when George was sixty-nine years old, was:
Nellie Rose – 02 Sep 1902
Nellie Rose was the youngest of eighteen children sired by George Washington Cluck, Sr. Some anecdotal family history indicates there may have been one or two additional children but I could find no solid evidence. Interestingly, when Nellie Rose died in 1951 her estate, which was more than $7,000 at the time, was shared with all of George’s children who were still living at the time.
George Washington Cluck, Sr. was a farmer, a soldier, and a father who lived a long and fruitful life. He was said to have been a well-respected member of his community. He had been married for almost sixty years to four different wives, outliving three of them. On August 13, 1912, he passed away and was buried in Knight’s Prairie Cemetery where Mary was buried. Delilah, several years younger than George, lived until November 26, 1949. Delilah was also buried in Knight’s Prairie, as were several of George’s children.
Did you enjoy this article? Yes? Check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!
Motoring History: Henry Ford – Maker of Men (Part Two)
Henry Ford and his car company hit a home run with the Model T – and he knew it (see Part One of this series). On January 1, 1910 he opened his new factory in Highland Park with the intention of producing one thousand Model T’s a day. His whole business model centered around making an inexpensive, affordable product for the masses. Machine parts could be made quickly but assembling cars was another story. Again, Henry Ford began to tinker.
One member of his team proposed an idea based on a conveyor system used in meat-packing plants. As the animal carcass moved along the conveyor throughout the plant, meat cutters cut pieces from the animal. They thought a sort of reverse conveyor process would work – put the machine on a conveyor and move it past people to place things on it. To test the theory his team tried it out in the flywheel magneto department. Instead of one person building one coil at a time, individual tasks were broken down – each person along the conveyor had a specific task to perform. Previously it had taken twenty minutes to assemble and with the new system it would drop to just over thirteen minutes.
This article is no longer available at this site. However, it will be enhanced and published later in a future issue of Digging History Magazine, our new monthly digital publication available by individual purchase or subscription. To see what the magazine is all about you can preview issues at our YouTube Channel. Subscriptions are affordable, safe and easy to purchase and the best deal for getting your “history fix” every month.
Did you enjoy this article? Yes? Check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!
Surname Saturday: Blood
Blood
This surname was possibly derived from the Welsh name Lloyd. The original form of the surname was “Ab-Lloyd” with the prefix “ab” meaning “son of”. From “Ab-Lloyd” the name eventually evolved to “Blud” and then “Blood”.
Some sources suggest two additional theories for this surname’s origination:
- The name is an affectionate term for a blood relative.
- The surname may have derived from an occupational name for a physician, i.e., one who lets blood (“bloden” from Middle English)
The first recorded spelling of the surname was in 1256 during King Henry III’s reign for “William Blod”. Other spelling variations of this surname include “Blud”, “Bludd”, “Bloode” and “Blood”.
While it is believed that the surname is more likely of Welsh origin, some members of the Blood family moved to Ireland in the 1590’s. One member of this family branch, Thomas Blood, made a name for himself when he attempted to steal the Crown Jewels from the Tower of London in 1671.
Thomas Blood
Thomas Blood had joined the Parliamentarians (or “Roundheads”) during the Irish rebellion which coincided with the English Civil War (1642-1651). Their foes were the Royalists (or “Cavaliers”) and their conflicts arose over disagreements relating to governance, whether Parliamentary or directly through the monarchy. The Parliamentarians were victorious and thereafter precedent was set for the monarchy to govern only with Parliament’s consent.
Members of the Parliamentary Army were rewarded with large estates. However, when the monarchy was restored (with governing limits), Thomas lost his land. Revenge was in order, so he organized a band of men in 1663 to overthrow Dublin Castle and capture a Royalist and supporter of King Charles II, James Butler, the Duke of Ormond. Their plans were thwarted and exposed, however. Thomas was able to escape to Holland, disguising himself both as a Quaker and a priest, but his accomplices were executed. Obviously, there was a price on his head so he remained in Holland for a time.
He joined various dissident groups when he returned to England and even made another unsuccessful attempt to capture the Duke of Ormond in 1670. Then came his bizarre plan to steal the newly-fashioned Crown Jewels from the Tower of London (following Charles I’s execution in 1649 the original jewels had been melted down).
In early 1671, Thomas disguised himself as a parson from a country parish accompanied by his wife. While visiting Jewel House he made the acquaintance of the custodian, Mr. Edwards. The wife was suddenly taken ill (perhaps feigned?) and Mr. Edwards took them to his own home where his wife attended the sick woman. To thank them for their kindness, Thomas returned with a gift and made small talk. Their conversation led to Mr. Edwards mentioning he had a daughter of marriageable age, wherein the “parson” remarked that he had a nephew that he would be happy to introduce her to at 7:00 the next morning.
On May 9, Thomas returned for the early morning introduction, or at least that was the pretense. Instead he had three friends with him all carrying concealed weapons. They bound Mr. Edwards and seized the jewels. They took the crown, orb and scepter intending to conceal them in a bag, but Mr. Edwards’ son and brother-in-law unexpectedly arrived and interrupted the heist. Thomas flattened the crown with a mallet, shoved the orb down his breeches and off they fled, only to be quickly captured and thrown into prison.
Again, Thomas Blood acted audaciously when he demanded the right to confess his crime to none other than King Charles himself. Charles agreed to meet him. Historic UK records their meeting as such:
Blood was taken to the Palace where he was questioned by King Charles, Prince Rupert, The Duke of York and other members of the royal family. King Charles was amused at Blood’s audacity when Blood told him that the Crown Jewels were not worth the £100,000 they were valued at, but only £6,000!
The King asked Blood “What if I should give you your life?” and Blood replied humbly, “I would endeavour to deserve it, Sire!”
Apparently, King Charles was sufficiently impressed by Blood’s audacity for he pardoned him and returned his Irish land to him – and granted him a yearly pension of five hundred pounds. Some believe the king’s pardon came as a result of a reward for Blood’s services as a Secret Agent.
For years afterwards Thomas Blood was seen around London and at Court. But in 1680 he became ill and died on August 24, 1680. “His reputation for trickery was such that his body was later exhumed by the authorities to verify the fact that he had died.” (Clare County Library)
Robert and John Blood
Two members of the Blood family are recorded in Concord, Massachusetts during the seventeenth century, although probably not the first of the family to immigrate to New England. Brothers John and Robert Blood were proprietors of an independent plantation, which was situated outside the limits of any town. This was an unusual occurrence for that day since in Puritan New England settlements were organized and administered by members of the Church.
The property, referred to as Bloods Farms, was first occupied by the brothers before 1651. They first paid taxes to nearby Billerica until Indian troubles arose and they decided Concord would provide better protection. Billerica objected and had their money refunded by Concord. Later their tax allegiance would return to Concord, but tax problems would continue and become a point of contention with the town governance.
Their property had steadily been increasing in value and thus far the Bloods had managed to pay only minimal tax rates since theirs was an independent plantation. Still the town attempted to exact land taxes from the Bloods. When their land tax bill continued to remain in arrears, Constable John Wheeler was dispatched to seize the property. Arguments and “contumelious speeches” ensued as well as physical violence.
Robert was summoned to court for abusing the constable, his speeches and for vilifying the King’s authority. He was fined and then retaliated by unsuccessfully counter-suing Constable Wheeler for coming to his house “with a great attendance and disturbing him with provoking speeches and striking him at his own house.”
The authorities tried again the following year to exact taxes and were again met with resistance. Robert and his sons were again called to appear before the court, this time fined for “disorderly carnage towards the constables.” A few months later Concord apparently decided the family had some justification for their protests as the fines were reduced. On March 7, 1696, the two parties came to an agreement as to how taxes would be assessed and paid from that date forward.
Robert’s brother John apparently never married and not much is recorded about his life. It is known they appeared together in Lynn, Massachusetts by 1647 and then in Concord by 1649. On October 30, 1682 John was found dead with a gun in his hand, presumed to have accidentally killed himself while hunting. Papers of Samuel Sewall record the following about his death:
Satterday night November 11, (1682) . . . One Blood of Concord about 7 days since or less was found dead in the woods, leaning his Brest on a Logg. Had been seeking some Creatures. Oh! what strange work is the Lord about to bring to pass.
Since John had never married, his estate was passed to Simon and Josiah Blood, Robert’s sons. Two generations later the Bloods Farms had been split up among so many heirs that it ceased to exist.
The family history recorded in The Story of the Bloods is filled with many stories of this family. Evidence exists that the family has contributed much to America through the years – as soldiers, farmers and ranchers, doctors, dentists, miners, oilmen, poets, inventors and more. For example, in the 1860’s, a patent was issued to W.H. Blood for a “clothes-washing machine” and another patent to C F & F Blood for a “washing & wringing machine.” Several members of the family contributed by inventing labor-saving farm equipment.
According to The Story of the Bloods, through the years Blood families used a variety of forenames which were traditional, Biblical, poetic, classic and fanciful. Names like: Aaron, Abel, Alfaretta, Arathusa, Bathsheba, Corvallis, Comfort, Ebenezer, Erastus, Drasella, Obed, Philanda, Submit, Thankful, Mehitable, Narcissa, Paschal and more. The author of the book mused that the prize for the most impressive name was “Lois Jane Amanda Adaline Blood”.
As was the case long ago, family members often married other family members, even first cousins:
Susannah Blood of Carlisle (1776/1818) was born a Blood, died a Blood, was twice married, yet her name was never anything but Blood – Susannah (Blood) (Blood) Blood. She married her first cousin Abel Blood (1771/1803) and when he died married his brother Elnathan Blood (1773/1818).
In that case, Blood was apparently thicker than Blood.
Did you enjoy this article? Yes? Check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!
Feisty Females: The Great Western
Today’s “feisty female” has been described as “Amazonian” and a “buxom behemoth”. Some believe she was born Sarah Knight, perhaps of Irish parentage, in 1812 or 1813 in either Tennessee or Missouri – history is unclear as to exactly when and where. She has been referred to variously as “Sarah Bourdett”, “Sarah Borginnis”, “Sarah Bourgette”, “Sarah A. Bowman”, and “Sarah Bowman-Phillips” – but she is best remembered by her nickname “The Great Western”.
The Great Western Steamship Company was formed in 1836 by a group of Bristol, England investors for the purpose of building a line of steamships which would travel between Bristol and New York. Their theory was that “bigger was better” – in fact they believed that the larger the ship the more fuel efficiently it would run.
When the Great Western made its maiden voyage across the Atlantic in 1838, it was the largest steamship afloat in the world. The ship left Bristol on March 31, 1838 but a fire broke out in the engine room. Although damage was slight, the ship still had to dock at Canvey Island. Several passengers cancelled their bookings and when the Great Western started out again on April 8, there were only seven passengers on board.
The 235-foot long ship was wooden and iron-strapped with side paddle wheels and four masts for auxiliary propulsion and “balance” to keep the paddle wheels in the water and the ship traveling in a straight line. To date it was the most modern technologically designed ship, also called a “floating palace.” The ship caused a stir when it arrived in New York, and apparently not soon forgotten.
In the spring of 1846, Sarah Bourdett (or Bourgette) drove her wagon loaded with cooking equipment into General Zachary Taylor’s army camp in Matamoros, Mexico. She, being at least six feet tall and perhaps two hundred pounds, cut quite an imposing figure. Possibly her impressive size reminded someone of the steamship Great Western, for thereafter that would be her sobriquet.
It is said that upon meeting General Taylor she loudly proclaimed, “If the general would give me a strong pair of tongs, I’d wade that river and whip every scoundrel that dared show himself.” Although the phrase “strong pair of tongs” seemed a little odd, some historians believe that perhaps she was referring to a new style of men’s work pants which were called “tongs.” Nevertheless, she was obviously loaded for bear and ready for action.
Sarah and her husband had first made an appearance in Corpus Christi in 1845 when her husband was part of the part of Taylor’s occupying force after enlisting in Jefferson Barracks, Missouri. It was a common practice that wives were allowed to join the army as cooks or laundresses and accompany their husbands on their missions.
Sarah was an admirer of Zachary Taylor, confident of his leadership skills. President James K. Polk, anticipating problems with the annexation of Texas, sent Taylor to make a stand. When the troops moved to Matamoros to hastily construct Fort Texas, Sarah accompanied them. Supplies had been left behind at Point Isabel so Taylor had to march back and retrieve them. Fort Texas, although well-defended, was lacking supplies.
The 7th Infantry was left behind at the fort. This regiment had earned the nickname of the “Cotton Balers”. During the War of 1812 these troops had made an heroic defense behind cotton bales in the Battle of New Orleans. Major Jacob Brown was the regiment commander. Camp women, including Sarah, remained with the regiment. So Far From God: The U.S. War With Mexico, 1846-1848 describes Sarah:
A strapping, muscular woman six feet in height, she reputedly could trounce any man in the regiment, and once had nearly done so when an unwary soldier made an untoward remark to her back at Corpus Christi. At the Arroyo Colorado she had reportedly offered to cross the stream herself and “straighten out” the entire Mexican army. But despite her strength and pugnacity, she was physically attractive, with dark hair and gray-blue eyes, and she could be tender of heart when the situation called for it….Though officially a noncombatant, she and her like shared the hardships and the dangers of the troops.
General Taylor departed for Port Isabel on May 1, 1846, leaving five hundred soldiers at Fort Brown. On the morning of May 3, the Mexicans began firing upon the fort. Rather than retreat to safe quarters, as would be expected of the women, Sarah continued to serve meals, dress wounds and load rifles. Sarah was said to have been an excellent shot, often seen carrying pistols, and at least one source suggests that she joined in the battle.
The battle continued for seven days and Major Brown was killed. Sarah would be lauded for her heroic efforts in the face of battle. In honor of Major Brown, the fort was renamed to “Fort Brown” and Sarah, a.k.a. “The Great Western” would also become known as “the Heroine of Fort Brown”.
Her story of bravery in the face of danger would be told in newspapers across the country. Some newspaper articles would refer to her as “a queer old woman”, but most lauded her.
After Matamoros, General Taylor crossed the Rio Grande into Mexico and Sarah followed. The Mexicans and Americans clashed in Monterrey, both sides inflicting heavy casualties, but in the end the Americans occupied the city. Sarah set up a restaurant in one of the buildings and called it “The American House.”
Taylor soon moved on to Saltillo and Sarah followed, re-establishing The American House there. She gained a reputation of a willingness to fix meals at any hour of the day or night if a soldier was hungry. The American House would become a “headquarters for everybody” – and not just a restaurant but a bordello as well.
Another battle would soon take place in nearby Buena Vista. For two days the battle raged and Sarah again fed and nursed the troops. One account relates that she had briefly returned to Saltillo when a private from Indiana ran into her restaurant and declared that General Taylor was whipped. Sarah, who practically worshiped Taylor, decked the young man and declared, “There ain’t Mexicans enough in Mexico to whip old Taylor. You just spread that rumor and I’ll beat you to death.” The rumor turned out to be untrue as Taylor was victorious.
At some point Sarah’s husband was perhaps killed, as some accounts have suggested. When the Mexican War ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, troops were next dispatched to defend travelers heading to the gold fields of California. Sarah wanted to accompany them but her husband was gone now, and the rule had been as long as the husband was a soldier the wife could travel with his regiment.
To circumvent the regulations, Sarah proclaimed, “Who wants a wife with $15,000 and the biggest leg in Mexico? Come, my beauties, don’t all speak at once. Who is the lucky man?” A dragoon by the name of Davis stepped forward. According to More Than Petticoats: Remarkable Texas Women:
One brave private came forward and said, “I have no objections to making you my wife, if there is a clergyman here who would tie the knot.” To which The Great Western replied, “Bring your blanket to my tent tonight and I will learn you to tie a knot that will satisfy you, I reckon!”
For two short months, she would be Sarah Davis, until she met another man who caught her fancy. Davis was dispensed with and, for several months she presumably lived with the other man. Sarah made her way to El Paso in 1849 where she briefly ran a hotel for travelers heading to California. Then, with another man, possibly Juan Duran, she went to Socorro, New Mexico, as evidenced by the 1850 census (Sarah had reverted to her first husband’s name apparently, listed as “Sarah Bourgette”). Also listed with them are five young girls which some believe might have been frontier orphans. Nancy Skinner, two years old in 1850, would remain with Sarah as an adopted daughter.
Less than two years later Sarah married Albert Bowman and moved to Fort Yuma. Sarah worked in the hospital and served as a cook for the officers. Later she and Albert would continue to move with troops throughout Arizona. When gold was discovered in Fort Yuma the two returned. Albert was several years younger than Sarah and in 1864 he ran off with a younger woman. Now Sarah was left alone with several adopted Mexican and Indian children to raise.
Historical facts are unclear as to when or how Sarah died, but some accounts say she died of a tarantula bite. She was buried in the Fort Yuma cemetery on December 23, 1866 with full military honors. Twenty-four years later all bodies buried in the cemetery were exhumed and moved elsewhere. Sarah’s body was sent to The Presidio in California – her tombstone lists her name as “Sarah A. Bowman”, but to so many who knew her throughout her illustrious life, she would always be known as “The Great Western.”
Did you enjoy this article? Yes? Check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!
Motoring History: Henry Ford (Part I)
Henry Ford was a lot of things: industrialist, self-made man, wealthy and successful, maker of men (as he liked to say). His business philosophy became known as “Fordism” – mass produce inexpensive goods and pay high wages. It seemed he had an opinion on just about everything in the world. After he became successful, he printed his own newspaper espousing those (often controversial) views and opinions.
Henry Ford was born on July 30, 1863 to parents William and Mary (Litogot) Ford in Wayne County, Michigan not far from Detroit. His father was born in Cork County, Ireland and his mother was the daughter of Belgian immigrants. Henry was their eldest and four children followed him. William, a farmer, expected his children would contribute by working on the family farm. But, Henry was different – he was a tinkerer.
This article is no longer available at this site. However, it will be enhanced and published later in a future issue of Digging History Magazine, our new monthly digital publication available by individual purchase or subscription. To see what the magazine is all about you can preview issues at our YouTube Channel. Subscriptions are affordable, safe and easy to purchase and the best deal for getting your “history fix” every month.
Did you enjoy this article? Yes? Check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!
Surname Saturday: Gildersleeve
According to Bardsley’s A Dictionary of English and Welsh Surnames, the Gildersleeve surname is a nickname meaning “with sleeves braided with gold”. One source refers to it as an English nickname for an ostentatious dresser. Originally, the name was derived from the Middle English nickname “Gyldenesleve” or “golden sleeve” – “Gyld” (gold) + “Slef” (sleeve).
Some of the first records of the surname date back to 1273 for a Roger Gyldensleve from County Norfolk, and in 1421 John Gildensleve was a Fellow of College of the Holy Cross, Atleburgh, County Norfolk. Other variations of the surname include “Gildensleeve”, “Gyldersleive”, “Gildersleeve” and “Gildersleive”, along with similar names such as “Gilder”, “Gildersome”, Gyldenloeve” and “Gildensholme”.
The first New England immigrant and the progenitor of all American Gildersleeves was Richard Gildersleeve. Even though he is barely mentioned in early American history, he played a significant role in the country’s early days. The Declaration of Independence would be tinged with the sentiments expressed by Richard Gildersleeve over one hundred years before it was signed in 1776.
Richard Gildersleeve
Richard Gildersleeve was born in 1601 in County Suffolk, England. Little is known about the early years of Richard, but at some point prior to 1635, he joined other like-minded believers in the great Puritan exodus, desiring to escape religious persecution. It is believed that Richard was an English yeoman, a commoner who cultivated the land.
Upon arrival in New England, he first dwelt in Watertown, Massachusetts. By the time Richard arrived, the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were already setting up a theocratic government. If one wanted to vote and participate in civic affairs, church membership was required. Settlers who had fled England to avoid religious persecution would begin to experience it again. “The ministers ruled supreme, minute laws interfered with personal liberty, amusements were studiously discouraged and devotional exercises substituted in their stead.” (Gildersleeve Pioneers, p. 21).
To flee New England religious persecution, Richard joined other Puritans who decided to leave Massachusetts and settle the newly-formed Connecticut colony. They departed in the autumn of 1635 with their oxen and cattle, while food supplies and household goods were loaded onto ships. After a month-long trek, the group reached Wethersfield, but the ship was delayed due to a storm and the Connecticut River froze early, leaving the new residents of Wethersfield without the food and household goods they had expected to arrive. The pioneers had no choice but to build cabins and wait out the long and dreary winter as best they could.
Richard Gildersleeve would become “one of the most interesting pioneers of the first settlements of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Haven and Long Island, N.Y.” (Gildersleeve Pioneers, p. 22). Early Connecticut records indicate that Richard might have been a little “rough around the edges.” Summoned by the General Court to provide an inventory of goods, he was late in responding to the order – he had to be reminded by the constable to appear. He also had a dispute with a neighbor, Jacob Waterhouse.
Waterhouse owed Richard a considerable sum of money. Richard had purchased a hog from his neighbor and apparently refused to pay for it until Waterhouse paid his debt. Each man sued the other and in court each lost his case, which perhaps didn’t sit well with Richard. After freely expressing his opinions as to his treatment in court, he was summoned to court where he was accused of delivering “pernicious speeches, tending to the detriment and dishonor of this Commonwealth”. He was fined forty shillings, with a sort of “probation” attached — an additional twenty pounds — until the next general court would be held. Richard eventually paid the entire fine, but as it turns out he had probably been planning to leave the Commonwealth altogether after residing there for four years.
It had not been an easy four years either. The Pequot Indians terrorized the nascent colony, and wild animals, especially bears, were prevalent. A girl shot one from the doorway of her home and remarked, “He was a good Fatte one and kept us all in meat for a good while.” (Wethersfield and her Daughters, 1634-1934). In April of 1637, William Swayne, a neighbor of Richard’s was attacked by Pequots and his two daughters were kidnapped.
His legal troubles and the ever-present dangers notwithstanding, the town of Wethersfield had problems of its own in regards to discontented parishioners. He left Wethersfield and headed to New Haven, where he participated in the founding and organization of the new colony, settling in Stamford. The move must have done wonders for Richard because his standing in the new colony was elevated and he began to hold a succession of various offices (including fence-viewer and deputy of the New Haven general court).
Richard migrated once again in 1644 to Hempstead, Long Island, New York and soon became one of the largest and most influential land owners. He served as a Dutch magistrate under Governor Stuyvesant. Perhaps not so admirably, however, the first instance of Quaker persecution by the Dutch (and remember Richard was a Puritan) was led by none other than Magistrate Richard Gildersleeve:
[Quakers] ran against a rock in the person of Magistrate Gildersleeve. As soon as the latter heard of the coming of Hodgson, he issued a warrant to the constable to arrest the preacher. Already a place had been appointed for the holding of a meeting, and there the constable found the Quaker, “pacing the orchard alone in quiet meditation.” He at once seized hold of him and hauled him off to the magistrate. But as it was just time for worship, the conscientious justice locked him up in his private house – for Hempstead had no jail – and went off to hear Mr. Denton preach. While the magistrate was thus performing his religious duty, the Quaker got the better of him; for in some way, probably by shouting in a loud voice from the window of his prison, he succeeded in collecting a crowd of listeners, who, gathering before the house, “staid and hearth the truth declared.” (The New England Magazine: An Illustrated Monthly – Volume 7)
Of course, Richard was not pleased to have been outwitted. Hodgson was seized by the sheriff and taken to New Amsterdam, thrown in prison and fined six hundred guilders.
During the years preceding his death in 1681, Richard Gildersleeve was often called upon to serve in other civic offices and settle disputes with Indians, which, of course, meant that Richard Gildersleeve had finally obtained a measure of community and civic stature – with age came wisdom and forbearance. He would witness controversies that arose when the English sought to gain jurisdiction over the Dutch Long Island settlements.
When the Long Island towns came under English jurisdiction more controversies arose. On October 9, 1669, Richard Gildersleeve met with other aggrieved parties of the eight towns and drew up what was called the “Hempstead Petition”. It appears to have been a case of “taxation without representation” – something that would agitate colonists in the next century and incite the Revolutionary War.
One family historian was so bold as to suggest that the Hempstead Petition marked the beginning of American independence. The historian lauded his ancestor:
Richard Gildersleeve was a yeoman, the best stock of English blood, the bone and sinew also of English strength. It was his particular destiny to play an important part in the history of political liberty. He was one of the strongest links of that long chain of events that marked the slow development of political liberty with the consequent foundation of the greatest republic in history. The story of his life was a constant struggle for his fellow men against despotism and tyranny. The crowning feature of his struggle was the part he took as an American pioneer and leader of men in personally experiencing and personally directing a notable contest of Long Island colonials against overbearing disregard of the dearly bought liberties of himself and fellow colonists.
In the long chain of events that marked the slow progress of political liberty from the Magna Carta in 1215 to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, he personally forged a strong link. He led in the making of one of the documents that showed the continued development of political liberty in the New World after it had been checked in England by the Stuart kings. This document, the Hempstead Petition of 1669, marks one of the beginnings of American independence. (Gildersleeve Pioneers, pp. 15-16)
That is quite a statement regarding a person who is barely mentioned in early American history. Following Richard Gildersleeve’s death, “The Charter of Liberties and Privileges” was drawn up in 1683. Known also as the Dongan Charter, it was the first time the term “the people” was mentioned in any form in regards to the powers (or limits) of government. Thank you Richard Gildersleeve.
Did you enjoy this article? Yes? Check out Digging History Magazine. Since January 2018 new articles are published in a digital magazine (PDF) available by individual issue purchase or subscription (with three options). Most issues run between 70-85 pages, filled with articles of interest to history-lovers and genealogists — it’s all history, right? 🙂 No ads — just carefully-researched, well-written stories, complete with footnotes and sources.
Want to know more or try out a free issue? You can download either (or both) of the January-February 2019 and March-April 2019 issues here: https://digging-history.com/free-samples/
Thanks for stopping by!