Edgar - I agree with much of what you say. However, I was referring to Rootsweb, et al, thinking they own facts such as birth dates, census reports, marriage dates, etc., information that they themselves obtained from other sources. I don't think there's any question about plagarism being illegal, it always has been as far as I know. To take someone's books, stories, essays, etc. and pass them off as their own work is wrong, no matter who's doing the taking. I was referring directly to facts, not someone else's work. I specifically mentioned the information that they get from courthouses, etc. which they then consider their own. MargoBelle

13 Articles of No Faith We believe in Aunt Clara, the eternal pursuer of our genealogy, in the tradition that allows us to "let Aunt Clara do it" and in her persistence in supplying us with xerox copies of all her work. We believe that man will be excused from their own genealogy, if they are earning a living, or are just too busy. We hope that through the temple attendance of others, all mankind may be saved. We believe that the first principles of genealogy work are: first, faith that someone else will do it; second, repentence through maintained ignorance; third, baptism by immersion and in so many other things that we don't have time to do anything; fourth, the laying on of excuses for the gift of self-justification. We believe that a man must be born a genealogist, or he will never have the ability to perform the functions of record-keeping, or any research thereof. We believe in following the same organization that existed before the correlation program; namely, don't try to improve the system, don't take any training courses, don't form a family organization, etc. We believe in the gift of time -- time for TV, time for clubs, time for movies, etc. We believe the handbook of genealogy and temple work to be the work of the Church as far as it is translated correctly. We also have our doubts about the genealogy lesson manuals. We believe nothing that the ward committees for genealogy has revealed and we doubt that it will yet reveal any great or important things that we do not already know. We believe in the literal gathering of names out of library books only, and that pedigrees can be built upon this theoretical foundation that all our pedigree sheets will be renewed automatically to paradisiacal correctness. We claim the privelege of interpreting all family traditions and printed histories to suit our own convenience, and we allow all men the same privelege...let them assume who, where or what they may. We believe in being subject to discouragement, lack of confidence, and busy schedules and ignoring, resisting or withstanding the law. We believe in being lazy, and in not supporting genealogy work (which would result in good to all men), indeed we may say that we follow the lines of least resistance; we hope all things, but we do nothing, we have not endured anything and we do not expect to be able to endure anything; if there is any approved way to get out of these responsibilities, we seek after these things. I thought that these were cute. Sabrina

Please post all comments to the list so we all can read them. MargoBelle

The message we were sent from Rootsweb also contained a file to be downloaded. I am re-sending their message which includes this downloaded portion. Rather than clarify the situation, all it does is add confusion and ambiguity to their opinions about "intellectual property" and what can and cannot be shared. The next to last paragraph is an eye-opener. MISSING LINKS: RootsWeb's Genealogy Journal Vol. 4, No. 39, 22 September 1999 Circulation: 360,899+ (c) 1996-99 Julia M. Case and Myra Vanderpool Gormley Editor-at-Fault: Julia M. Case Co-Editor-to-Blame: Myra Vanderpool Gormley, CG CONTENTS: Welding Links: Dark Side of the Internet; Swedish Roots: A Genealogy Find in the Archives of the Emigrant House in Vaxjo; Web Links; Successful Links: Chance Meeting; Letters to the Editors; Humor; Reprint Policy; Call for Articles; Back Issues; How to Subscribe/Unsubscribe; Somebody's Links (an occasional supplement that will be sent separately) * * * * * WELDING LINKS: DARK SIDE OF THE INTERNET by Myra Vanderpool Gormley, CG <rwr-editors@rootsweb.com> Disguised as the nicest people on earth, many genealogists are nevertheless thieves, plagiarists, and copyright infringers. Some are high-tech robbers using computers, mice, and Internet Service Providers to steal intellectual property. Some try to hide their crimes under mantles of excuses such as: o I thought everything on the Internet was FREE. o I'm just looking up information for FREE. I don't charge people anything. o You can't copyright facts and that's what genealogy is. o Genealogy was meant to be shared. o This is information about my family and I'm entitled to it. o Reproduction of copyrighted materials was intended to keep people from distributing information for profit. o Authors are too greedy and should be grateful they are getting free advertising on the Web. No matter how easy it is to copy from the Web, a book, or a CD, taking another's work is wrong. Access to a great deal of genealogical material may be free, but that does not give you a right to copy and use someone's intellectual property -- without his or her permission. If you offer to do lookups for others (whether you charge or not) in books or CDs that you own, you may be guilty of copyright infringement. Obtain the author's permission first -- you might be surprised at how gracious most authors are. Broderbund, one of the largest producers of genealogical CDs, clearly notes in all of its CD booklets that it considers the following wholesale sharing a copyright violation: o Systematically making a CD freely available to more than one person at a time. o Systematically make large parts of a CD's contents freely available to others. o Uploading all or part of a CD's contents onto an electronic bulletin board. o Circulating a printout taken straight off the CD. The USGenWeb Project offers four "golden rules of copyright" at http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/copyright.html>: o Materials older than 1923 are absolutely safe. (They are in the public domain.) o Relaying FACTS is OK. (This does not mean copying.) o If the use of material created by someone else diminishes the market value of that person's work, then the copyright has been violated. o Getting written (not e-mail) permission from the author/publisher is the surest way to ensure that you are not violating copyright law. So what is copyrightable? Some like to argue that genealogy is just facts, and facts can not be copyrighted or that the information came from public records and therefore can not be copyrighted. It is true that original public records in the U.S. cannot be copyrighted, but a compilation of them can be. The law recognizes the right of transcribers and compilers to be compensated and have their work protected. If you don't think this is work, transcribe some 17th-century Virginia court records or decipher some 19th-century ship passenger lists. Accumulated genealogical information, to the extent that it is an expression, can be protected by copyright, but the actual facts in the information cannot be protected. If authors quit compiling records and writing books because of copyright infringements, what will happen to genealogy? It is true that the basic facts about your ancestors -- name, birth date and place, spouse, date and place of the marriage, death date and place, are not copyrightable. However, adding any kind of narration to the basic genealogical facts gives rise to a copyright in the creative portion of the work. See Gary B. Hoffman's article "Who Owns Genealogy? Cousins and Copyrights" <http://www.genealogy.com/14_cpyrt.html>. Does living far from genealogical repositories, having a physical limitation, being a certain age, or being in reduced circumstances entitle us to any special privileges of copying or using someone's material? Is it ever right to take anything that belongs to someone else? Would your ancestors be proud of your answers and your actions? For more information about copyright issues see: 10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained by Brad Templeton. <http://www.templetons.com/brad//copymyths.html> The United States Copyright Office <http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/>

To say using information from published records of families is a no-no apparently comes from someone who has never fully checked court records. Having gone through two trials over the past 30 years regarding the use of facts from published works, the courts contend using general facts can be used. That's why we can copy spelling from copyrighted dictionaries. What can't be used are the fruits of the author. That means you can't use their exact words of description People and linage history can't be called the fruits of the author. Its arrangement can be if is in an unusual arrangement thought up by the author, but family tree information is mostly, if not all, in formats that are in common usage. Authors don't own usual formats nor the information. They do own the writing about such. At least that is how we won two such cases and both went up on appeals which also came back in our favor.----Joe Bob (I spent four decades in the newpaper wars publishing copyrighted products daily that were used for information. My wife's novels are another matter, the people in them are creations of her imagination.)

I am compelled to add my two cents worth to MargoBelle's message (below). I agree with her 100%. I believe that us honest, caring, and sharing "online" genealogists are not "thieves, plagiarists,and copyright infringers", and I am offended by the characterization presented my "Ms. Gormley". We are all doing the best we can to obtain whatever information is available to further our genealogical research. If someone "finds" the information that we need before we do, it doesn't mean that that they "own" it, even if they publish it in a book, a CD, or a web page. Of course, we cannot "re-publish" any of their "pages", but the data itself should be "free for all". If you agree with me, I invite you to write to your Congressman(woman). I have already done so. Jack -----Original Message----- From: MargoBelle@aol.com <MargoBelle@aol.com> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 9:57 PM Subject: [DAVENPORT] Rebuttal to Rootsweb Article >Regarding this message from Rootsweb: > >"WELDING LINKS: DARK SIDE OF THE INTERNET > >by Myra Vanderpool Gormley, CG <rwr-editors@rootsweb.com> > >Disguised as the nicest people on earth, many genealogists are >nevertheless thieves, plagiarists, and copyright infringers. >Some are high-tech robbers using computers, mice, and Internet >Service Providers to steal intellectual property. Some try to >hide their crimes under mantles of excuses such as: > >o I thought everything on the Internet was FREE. >o I'm just looking up information for FREE. I don't charge > people anything. >o You can't copyright facts and that's what genealogy is. >o Genealogy was meant to be shared. >o This is information about my family and I'm entitled to it. >o Reproduction of copyrighted materials was intended to keep > people from distributing information for profit. >o Authors are too greedy and should be grateful they are > getting free advertising on the Web. > >No matter how easy it is to copy from the Web, a book, or a CD, >taking another's work is wrong. Access to a great deal of >genealogical material may be free, but that does not give you a >right to copy and use someone's intellectual property -- without >his or her permission. If you offer to do lookups for others >(whether you charge or not) in books or CDs that you own, you >may be guilty of copyright infr, etc" > > > >This is a very vocal rebuttal to the previous message: > >It's a prevalent but faulty theory that the gatherers of information have now >become the OWNERS of the information. To imply that those of us who share >information with other genealogists are crooks, thieves, plagarists, robbers >and worse, is insulting to the entire genealogical community. > >Rootsweb and all the other genealogical co-ops did not write the information, >they did not create it, they do not lease, copyright or own it, and they >certainly cannot forbid the dissemination of information that they themselves >acquired from other sources. > >ALL the information contained on Rootsweb, Ancestry.com, CD's, etc. came from > public records. While they perform a needed service in gathering and >condensing the information, they did not buy it from courthouses, the Census >Bureau, authors, Civil War veterans, etc. What they did was gather it, >consolidate it, and for a fee, charge others for this service. We are paying >for the SERVICE, not the information itself. The information still exists in >the original courthouses and public records. > >I am perfectly willing to pay monthly fees or subscription fees for the >convenience of accessing information. I pay my money to Rootsweb, >Ancestry.com and several other online services. I am fortunate that I am >able to do this because many people cannot. But for you to imply that you now >OWN this information and can forbid people like me from sharing it, you are >grossly out of line and I take great offense at your statements. You are >confusing paying for the consolidation of the information with OWNING the >information. > >MargoBelle > > >==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >Please Help Support RootsWeb! Learn how at >http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > >============================== >Search the Social Security Death Index online for FREE! >http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/ >The most powerful SSDI search engine on the Internet! > >

Regarding this message from Rootsweb: "WELDING LINKS: DARK SIDE OF THE INTERNET by Myra Vanderpool Gormley, CG <rwr-editors@rootsweb.com> Disguised as the nicest people on earth, many genealogists are nevertheless thieves, plagiarists, and copyright infringers. Some are high-tech robbers using computers, mice, and Internet Service Providers to steal intellectual property. Some try to hide their crimes under mantles of excuses such as: o I thought everything on the Internet was FREE. o I'm just looking up information for FREE. I don't charge people anything. o You can't copyright facts and that's what genealogy is. o Genealogy was meant to be shared. o This is information about my family and I'm entitled to it. o Reproduction of copyrighted materials was intended to keep people from distributing information for profit. o Authors are too greedy and should be grateful they are getting free advertising on the Web. No matter how easy it is to copy from the Web, a book, or a CD, taking another's work is wrong. Access to a great deal of genealogical material may be free, but that does not give you a right to copy and use someone's intellectual property -- without his or her permission. If you offer to do lookups for others (whether you charge or not) in books or CDs that you own, you may be guilty of copyright infr, etc" This is a very vocal rebuttal to the previous message: It's a prevalent but faulty theory that the gatherers of information have now become the OWNERS of the information. To imply that those of us who share information with other genealogists are crooks, thieves, plagarists, robbers and worse, is insulting to the entire genealogical community. Rootsweb and all the other genealogical co-ops did not write the information, they did not create it, they do not lease, copyright or own it, and they certainly cannot forbid the dissemination of information that they themselves acquired from other sources. ALL the information contained on Rootsweb, Ancestry.com, CD's, etc. came from public records. While they perform a needed service in gathering and condensing the information, they did not buy it from courthouses, the Census Bureau, authors, Civil War veterans, etc. What they did was gather it, consolidate it, and for a fee, charge others for this service. We are paying for the SERVICE, not the information itself. The information still exists in the original courthouses and public records. I am perfectly willing to pay monthly fees or subscription fees for the convenience of accessing information. I pay my money to Rootsweb, Ancestry.com and several other online services. I am fortunate that I am able to do this because many people cannot. But for you to imply that you now OWN this information and can forbid people like me from sharing it, you are grossly out of line and I take great offense at your statements. You are confusing paying for the consolidation of the information with OWNING the information. MargoBelle

Need info on the following family: Richard Davenport from Spots Co., VA to Mercer Co., KY in 1795 at age 21. Died 1818 in KY. Wife: Elizabeth Tadlock Known issue: Eliza Shannon, Sarah Ann, Charles F., John A., James M., and P. Henry. Richard was a Major in the 17th Reg US Inf during the Rev. War. Is he the son of John and Elizabeth (Carter) Davenport??? Thanks........Mary Duncan

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------411BCC2B2418A656183ACE13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If anyone has come across a Travis Davenport, I would be very interested. --------------411BCC2B2418A656183ACE13 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for William K. Davenport, III Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: William K. Davenport, III n: ;William K. Davenport, III email;internet: wkd3@mindspring.com x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------411BCC2B2418A656183ACE13--

Hello everybody, It's time for me to try on Phebe Davenport again. Perhaps some new subscribers have clues for me. I'm seeking ancestral and family information pertaining to Phebe Ann Davenport (ca 1807 KY). Phebe appeared in some documents as Ferbia and Fereby. She was first married to Isaac B Loman. She was married second to Leonard F Coffman. I am descended from Leonard's daughter and from Phebe's son. Leonard and Phebe had a son together named Leonard, Jr. They both moved from Logan Co, KY, to Jefferson Co, IL, where their spouses died, they married, and they raised their families together. Leonard and Phebe died in Jefferson Co in the 1860's. Jim Crownover-

There is a page on the web for Clyde Davenport who is an old-time fiddler and banjo player, born in Ky in l92l. (still living). Don't know if he is any relation to your family but you might recognize some names in the article. The URL I have is: http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/davenport/CLYDE_DAVENPORT.html Hope this helps. GerRnd@aol.com

I'm looking for my dad's Family. Dad Dickie Lane DAVENPORT 1949 Grandfather Clyde W. DAVENPORT 1926 Great Grandfather Louis Erwin DAVENPORT Sr.1900 GG Grandfather John Henry DAVENPORT 1874 Help! Cherrie G. Hays 4501 Packard Dr. Apt H-3 Nashville, TN. 37211 cherrie@thays.com

Hello All, This is a general follow up question to Robert's posting. Who is J. C. Davenport of Newberry. Could it be John Cole Davenport (1834-?) son of John Gillam Davenport of Newberry? Phil

I have this copy in my file and thought it might be of interest to someone. DAVENPORT MARRIAGE BOND NC Data Known all men by these presents that Austin Davenport and Jesse Davenport are held and firmly bound unto his Excellency Benjamin William, Esquire Governor and his Successor in office in the just sum of five hundred pounds current money for the true payment whereof we bind ourselves our heirs executors & administrators jointly and generally firmly by these presents. Sealed with our Seals and dated this 7th day of February Anno Domo 1801. The condition of the above Obligation is such that whereas the above bounden Austin Davenport hath obtained a marriage license to celebrate the Rites of Matrimony between him and Jincy Bass - - Now if there shall not here after appear any just cause to abstract said marriage then the above oligation to be void otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. Signed & Delivered) Austin Davenport (Seal) in the Presence of) Jesse Davenport (Seal) P. Wright) I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original document on file in the Clerks Office at the Courthouse, Asheboro, Randolph County, NC 4-1-1787 W. H. Bason P. Wright Gen ---? ?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------63121C478566B84727AA1D5B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This may not be new to anybody, but look at who witnessed a will in Newberry, SC in 1853. For what it is worth. Bob. --------------63121C478566B84727AA1D5B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from shadow.csufresno.edu (shadow.csufresno.edu [129.8.57.22]) by cvip.fresno.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA27727 for <rdb18@cvip.fresno.com>; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (bl-11.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.27]) by shadow.csufresno.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21611 for <rdb18@csufresno.edu>; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:20:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14687; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 08:20:08 -0700 (PDT) From: carolegilmour@mindspring.com Message-ID: <004801bef87a$2346e5a0$9dc6f7a5@CGilmour.viperlink.com> Old-To: <SkyVine@aol.com>, <SCROOTS-L@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: Crout, Butler, Aiton, English, Banes, Fike, Rivers, Williams,Robertson Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:11:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Resent-Message-ID: <HiLISB.A.BkD.nu903@bl-11.rootsweb.com> To: SCROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: SCROOTS-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: <SCROOTS-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/10301 X-Loop: SCROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: SCROOTS-L-request@rootsweb.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 >From "As I Find It" by Emma P. Ivey: Page 172,Wills & Estates in Newberry County: Hetty Butler- Exec Martin Butler Ref 284-108-2812. filed 7 Apr 1853. on Martin, daughter Drucilla, sons Cary, Jackson, MYER. Wit:Rhesa Butler, J. C. Davenport, Benjamin Butler. Hope this helps, Carole >Following are a few of my loose ends, need maiden names/parentage. I would be >quite indebted! > >1 _ Butler b: 1794 d: Aft. 1860 >.. +Ann _ (probably Lexington/Newberry) >=========== >1 Mier J. Butler b: 1815 SC >.. +Lucinda _ b: 1810 SC (probably Newberry) >======== >1 Henry Butler b: 1825 SC >.. +Elizabeth _ b: 1822 SC (probably Newberry) >========= >1 James Pinckney Butler b: Jul 19, 1846 d: May 07, 1920 Burial: >Butler Cemetary, Saluda, SC >.. +Roda S. _ b: Apr 01, 1850 SC m: ca 1868 d: Sep 02, 1880 > *2nd Wife of James Pinckney Butler: >.. +Nancy "Nannie" Waits b: Feb 01, 1860 m: ca 1881 d: Jul 02, 1935 >============ >1 _ Banes d: Bef. 1893 >.. +Alice A. _ b: Oct 1861 SC m: ca 1881 <, Greenwood, SC> d: Aft. >Jan 14, 1920 (Alice m2. Emile Boggero) >=========== >1 Daniel English d: May 27, 1853 Abbeville, Abbeville, SC >.. +Elizabeth _ d: Aft. May 1853 >========= >1 _ Aiton b: ca 1778 <SC> >.. +Nancy _ b: 1780 SC >========= >Parents of each needed: >1 Oliphant Williams bca: 1865 SC (prob Edgefield) >.. +Maggie Robertson bca: 1864 SC >========= >His parents needed: > 1 James Robert Rivers b: Mar 11, 1835 Richland Co. or Lexington Co., >SC d: Aug 25, 1912 , Newberry, SC >.. +Sybil Elizabeth "Sibbie" Fike b: Mar 18, 1843 , Lexington, SC >d: Aug 25, 1912 , Newberry, SC >============== >His parents needed: >1 David (probable son) Fike b: Mar 02, 1807 d: Dec 05, 1884 >.. +Mary Crout b: ca 1806 m: ca 1825 d: Jan 16, 1877 (Lexington) >+ any tree on the Crout family; want to get them straight. >=========== >Thanks, >Bonnie Ferguson Butler >skyvine@alum.wofford.org (permanent email forwarding) > > >==== SCROOTS Mailing List ==== > ********** QUOTING SHOULD END ABOVE THIS LINE ********** >Remaining subscribed or otherwise using the Forum in any manner >constitutes acknowledgment that you have read and agreed to the >Forum Policy. The policy is provided automatically with new subscribe >requests and is posted at the Forum web site. >Steven J. Coker, SCRoots Manager >scroots@geocities.com, http://www.scroots.org/ > >============================== >Support free genealogy on the Internet! Join RootsWeb.com today! > ==== SCROOTS Mailing List ==== ********** QUOTING SHOULD END ABOVE THIS LINE ********** Statements expressed herein do not represent the opinions of SCRoots or the manager, unless they are profound and unequivocally correct. Address comments about the Forum to the SCRoots Manager at: Steven J. Coker, P.O. Box 359, Charleston, SC 29402 scroots@geocities.com, http://www.scroots.org/ ============================== Support free genealogy on the Internet! Join RootsWeb.com today! --------------63121C478566B84727AA1D5B--

I'm looking for the daughter or any other siblings of Willie Vander Neal and Nellie Davenport Neal. Who lived at Madisonville KY. Daughter was born Ernestine Neal in the 1930's. Anyone knowing of any of this family please contact me. Robert Miles rmiles@blomingdaletel.com

Yes I am a decedent of Thomas Davenport. But I decend from John's older brother Ebenezer.. Regarding John's wife Naomi I came across an article from "Dawes_Gates Ancestral Lines" (Sutro Library microfiche G1331) " The wife of JohnDavenport is believed by many to be Naomi Foster. -- but a new theory has evolved that Neomi may have been Neomi May of Roxbury born 1667 and still living single in 1694. Neomi May had an uncle Samuel, a brother Ephraim, and a sister Mehitable which are 3 names given to 3 children of John and Naomi." Nice to know another cousin. Steve Davenport of Boston and California.

Looking for connections. I think his father may have been John Davenport Descendants of Benjamin Davenport 1 Benjamin Davenport b: 1754 New Milford, Litchfield, Connecticut d: Abt. 1800 in New Milford, Litchfield, Connecticut . +Elizabeth Betta Rice b: Abt. 1756 Stockbridge, Massachusetts m: May 1781 Stockbridge, Massachusetts d: 1853 in Woodstock, McHenry Co., Illinois . 2 Anna Davenport b: October 23, 1782 New Milford Twp , Litchfield, Connecticut d: 1868 ..... +Andrew Sturdevant b: January 17, 1785 New Milford Twp , Litchfield, Connecticut m: 1806 d: 1870 . 2 Benjamin Davenport b: August 07, 1792 New Milford, Litchfield, Connecticut d: Unknown in New Milford, Conn . 2 Elizabeth Davenport b: Unknown d: Unknown ..... +Pickett b: Unknown d: Unknown . 2 Levi Davenport b: Unknown d: Unknown . 2 Ransom Davenport b: Unknown d: Unknown . 2 Laura Davenport b: Unknown . 2 Seymore Davenport b: Unknown d: Unknown . 2 Colvin Davenport b: Unknown David L. Anderson mailto:dla@pcez.com Dave's genealogy pages, http://www.pcez.com/~dla/anderson.htm

I am researching my Davenport line. They are from Missouri. My grandmother was Ollie Mae Davenport. She married George Washington Byford. She was born in Cassieville, Missouri. Her parents were Richard Jackson Davenport and Rachael Francis Massey. Thank you, LaHonda

Those with Terry-Davenport interests: One of the projects I am currently working on involves another Pamunkey Neck family that moved to Goochland, Cumberland, Amelia, Prince Edward, Halifax, and Pittsylvania counties--then South Carolina and Georgia. In pursuing that research, I have serendipitously extracted a considerable amount of both Pamunkey and Prince George Davenport data, and became thoroughly intrigued with the Terry family in Colonial Halifax and Pittsyvania counties. Inasmuch as I have Thomas Davenport, Sr., and his wife Grace Terry, among my ancestors, via their eldest son James Davenport of Halifax County, and James' daughter Rhoda who married William Boyd, I decided to do an intensive analysis of the Terrys. Fact: The story of the South of the James Pamunkey Davenports, excepting those of Glover and the Bedford County confusion, is best told within the Terry story. The Terrys were a vigorous, high profile frontier family, and where you find a South of the James Davenport in a historical context, there was one or more Terrys in association, leading the party or commanding the Company. The Davenports in Cumberland County began totally within a Terry-created settlement, and the Davenports took over the Terry interests when the Terrys moved south to high power and glory on the waters of Dan River and the Banister in present-day Halifax and Pittsylvania counties. There was apparently a schism of some sort between Thomas Davenport, Sr., and his eldest son James, for James did not live on the 200 acres in the Terry settlement of Goochland-Cumberland that Daniel Terry deeded him in 1740 (next to his father Thomas, Sr., and brothers Henry and Thomas, Jr.), but lived on a tract that Thomas Terry of Caroline (King William before 1728) had patented on the waters of Buffalo of the Appamattox in early 1740s. The land was in Amelia when patented, but in Prince Edward in 1755 when James Davenport and three slaves were listed as tithables in the district between Bush and Buffalo rivers. I am also intrigued by where Bedford Davenport, eldest son of James of Thomas, Sr., got his given name. Was he a namesake of the earlier Bedford Davenport, who along with Joseph Davenport, writing master at William & Mary and long time City Clerk of Williamsburg, transcribed Colonel Byrd's survey notes on establishing the Virginia-North Carolina, and was rewarded for doing so by the House of Burgesses? Or was he a namesake of a grandfather or an admired neighbor? Stephen Bedford, originally from Gloucester County, was the first Sheriff of Cumberland County, and had been an authority figure in Goochland County for a decade or more when Cumberland was erected out of Goochland below the James in 1748-49. Bedford of James was born in 1748. Subsequently, Stephen Bedford took up land on Little Roanoke and finished his days in what is now Charlotte County. I have found no record associations between James Davenport and Stephen Bedford, but I have not done a due diligence on either Lunenburg or Prince Edward counties. I would be interested in exchanging data and information relative to the Terrys or the family of James Davenport of Halifax County (d.1780), eldest son of Thomas, Sr., of Cumberland (d. 1775). John Scott Davenport