Richard Did anyone respond to your request abt Joel Davenport and Sarah Boyd's son Augustine, Sr.? I don't recall seeing any response. Some of your answers are undoubtedly on the Davenport web page. I'm a 4th Gr. grandson of Augustine Sr. Cliff Davenport-----Original Message----- From: Richard Davenport <klingon1@airmail.net> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT-L] American Presidents with Davenport Ancestors >Jack, >I just love it when your tidbits like this show me my lack of information. >What info can you send me on the 2nd oldest child of Joe Davenport and Sarah >Boyd. I have his birth/death dates and places for the same. I have no >information on his wife, how she ties into the Prez and then of course the >known descendents for Augustine. I now have a single database going for >direct descendents for Davis Davenport. Can you send me a DOC file or >something like that with that brach and what you know about them. Thanks >ever so much for this info. > >Richard Davenport > > > > >==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >Having problems with the list? Tell Nevada Jack at >nvjack@intercomm.com >

Dear Cousins, Please forgive this non-genealogy message, but it was too good not to share. Nevada Jack __________ Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now. Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind. You will not understand the power and beauty of your youth until they've faded. But trust me, in 20 years, you'll look back at photos of yourself and recall in a way you can't grasp now how much possibility lay before you and how fabulous you really looked. You are not as fat as you imagine. Don't worry about the future. Or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind, the kind that blindside you at 4 pm on some idle Tuesday. Do one thing every day that scares you. Sing. Don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with people who are reckless with yours. Floss. Don't waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long and, in the end, it's only with yourself. Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how. Keep your old love letters. Throw away your old bank statements. Stretch. Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your life. The most interesting people I know didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives. Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't. Get plenty of calcium. Be kind to your knees. You'll miss them when they're gone. Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll have children, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll divorce at 40, maybe you'll dance the funky chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary. Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much, or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else's. Enjoy your body. Use it every way you can. Don't be afraid of it or of what other people think of it. It's the greatest instrument you'll ever own. Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your living room. Read the directions, even if you don't follow them. Do not read beauty magazines. They will only make you feel ugly. Get to know your parents. You never know when they'll be gone for good. Be nice to your siblings. They're your best link to your past and the people most likely to stick with you in the future. Understand that friends come and go, but with a precious few you should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle, because the older you get, the more you need the people who knew you when you were young. Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard. Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft. Travel. Accept certain inalienable truths: Prices will rise. Politicians will philander. You, too, will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, and children respected their elders. Respect your elders. Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund. Maybe you'll have a wealthy spouse. But you never know when either one might run out. Don't mess too much with your hair or by the time you're 40 it will look 85. Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth. But trust me on the sunscreen.

Hi Caroline How is it going with the new baby? Sometimes they can be real stinkers and others seem to be as quiet and complacent as can be. I am still anxious to hear from you re: Davenports as mentioned on this letter so if you can spare a minute or two let Mr. hear from you. Ann Graham -----Original Message----- From: Caroline Faison <carolinefa@juno.com> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, June 12, 1999 10:04 PM Subject: [DAVENPORT-L] Re: Newberry Davenports >This (message below) may be what you are referring to..... >I've been half-way monitoring the list lately. On Memoral Day we had our >first child, a baby boy. So, I've been rather busy recovering and >getting to know our new addition to the family. I don't check my box >often so please don't get offended if I don't respond very quickly. >BTW.. my delete button sure got a work out this week :) ....Just kidding >around! >Caroline Faison >Sugar Land, TX > >On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:31:03 EDT JSDDOC@aol.com writes: >>Caroline: >> >> Sorry, you're a NEWBERRY DAVENPORT. Incidentally, James >>Madison >>Davenport was born in 1815 (Bible proof). The James Davenport you >>cite (there >>was no James Madison Davenport of that generation) is likely the one >>certified >>by the DAR. Altogether, the name, the ancestry, and the military >>service of >>the DAR certification are wrong. James, son of Francis, depending on >>when he >>was born, was a native of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the Shenandoah >>Valley of >>Virginia, or Granville County, North Carolina. >> >> The NEWBERRY DAVENPORTS trace from the Shenandoah in the >>mid-1730s, to >>Upper East Central North Carolina in the 1740s, to Little River of the >>Saluda >>(now Newberry County, SC) in the late 1760s. They were the most >>Southern of >>all the Davenports in Colonial days. The military service cited for >>DAR >>membership for the James "Madison" Davenport certification was >>actually that >>of James Davenport, Jr., son of James Davenport, Sr., and his wife >>Frances >>Jouett, of Hanover County, VA, and Ogelthorpe County, GA. There is no >>doubt >>about the service belonging to James, Jr., for he was wounded at the >>Battle >>of Brandywine and was disability pensioned (much corroborating paper >>work). >>Your James, son of Francis, was on the other side, appears on the >>British Army >>muster rolls and payrolls for Captain William Hendricks Company, >>Cunningham's >>Little River Regiment, Ninety Six Brigade, King's Loyal Militia. In >>other >>words, he was a Tory during the Revolution--but he's not the first >>that has >>been certified as a Patriot by the DAR. I can cite a half dozen >>others. DAR >>genealogy in past years was not well vetted. >> >> Incidentally, any serious NEWBERRY DAVENPORT searchers >>reading this >>who would like some help on the North Carolina aspects of your family, >>I've >>got some time open--and would be glad to share my data on your >>Davenport's in >>North Carolina. What I have is missing the years 1763-69, but is >>complete >>otherwise. I would also be interested in hearing from the Davenport >>descendant who has the geneaology of Francis Davenport, immigrant of >>1683 to >>West Jersey. >> >> Jersey Doc >On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:36:56 EDT Wellann2@aol.com writes: >>Anne, >> In a letter to a Caroline on 28, Sept, 1998, Doc Davenport speaks >>of a >>James Madison Davenport born in 1815. He tells Carolyn that the James >> >>Madison Davenport cited by the DAR was actually James Davenport Jr. , >>son of >>James Davenport Sr. and Frances Jouett. They used the James Jr's >>service >>record. >>Let me see if I saved that letter on the computer. I Printed it out. >>Actually, the time frame seems wrong for the James Madison >>Davenport-b. 1815 >>to have been the son of Francis who was a Tory during the Rev. war. >>This >>would make Francis upwards of 65 in 1815. >>what do you think? I'll look in my file for that letter. >>Ellen Eanes in Idaho >> >> >>==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >>View the Cousins Directory at >>http://users.intercomm.com/nvjack/davnport/others.htm >> > >___________________________________________________________________ >Get the Internet just the way you want it. >Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! >Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. > > >==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >Having problems with the list? Tell Nevada Jack at >nvjack@intercomm.com > >

*John Wesley Davenport b. Jan 4 1856 m. Cordelia Lee Evans thanks Charity FIREJOLLY@email.msn.com *-----Original Message----- *From: Richard Davenport [mailto:klingon1@airmail.net] *Sent: Thursday, June 24, 1999 7:55 PM *To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com *Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT-L] John Wesley Davenport * * *Charity, *Which one do you refer to. I have three in my database * *John Wesley Davenport b.(1840-1857) m.Elizabeth Hampton *John Wesley Davenport b. Oct 2 1849 m.Maggie Hoggard *John Wesley Davenport b. Jan 4 1856 m. Cordelia Lee Evans * *Tell me which one and I will send you a Report from Family Tree *Maker on him * *Richard Davenport * * *==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== *Search the List Archives at *http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=DAVENPORT *

I have a John Davenport b. abt 1808 prob in NC. Married Elizabeth Surname unknown abt or before 1828-29 in Tenn or NC. Elizabeth was also b. abt 1808 in NC. Seven children b. in Tenn are: Absalom (b. NC?) Nancy, Susan, William, Elizabeth (b. NC)?, John, Rachel all born 1829-1848. Family relocated to Jersey County Ill by 1850. Absalom's first child was named Isaac. Does anyone have any possibilities for who this John Davenport could belong to? I know of a John Davenport m. Elizabeth Isaacks in Wilson County Tenn? about the right time to be this family. Does anyone know for sure that this is NOT that family? If you have a Davenport family in which the names, dates, location of this family might fit please contact me. Cara

Joann, will you email me personally about William and Mary Davenport? Thanks sara scoobydoo@sltic.com At 05:53 PM 6/22/99 -0000, you wrote: >Anything you can send me would be wonderful. I have a long line of >Davenport's on my other side but not much regarding William. > >Thanks so much, > >Joann > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric and Sara Long <scoobydoo@sltic.com> >To: <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 9:28 PM >Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT-L] William Davenport m Mary ? > > >> I can try to get all the I have typed up and send it to you if you would >> like. I just got the info on this line and trying to look for connections >> now. >> >> Sara >> >> At 02:23 PM 6/22/99 -0000, you wrote: >> >I have just started to research this Davenport line. I am trying to >> >establish the family of Dorothy Davenport Kip. Would love to work with >you >> >to see what we can come up with. >> > >> >Joann >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: Eric and Sara Long <scoobydoo@sltic.com> >> >To: <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> >> >Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 6:10 PM >> >Subject: [DAVENPORT-L] William Davenport m Mary ? >> > >> > >> >> I am looking for the following family: >> >> >> >> I-1 William Davenport was probably the brother of Thomas Davenport >> >> formerly of New york, who executed his will in London in 1698, and was >> >> living in Flushing in 1675. He moved to Westchester County shortly >after >> >> that date. The name of his first wife, the mother of John and William, >is >> >> not recorded, but probably was Dorothy, as both sons gave a daughter >that >> >> name. He married Mary, widow of John Hitchcock, before 30 May 1681, >when >> >> he and his wife sold to Joseph Hadley three acres of land formerly >owned >> >by >> >> John Hitchcock. He was living in Westchester in 1698, but moved to >Pelham >> >> before 1709. Their children included: >> >> >> >> >> >> II-2 John b circa 1675 m Rebecca Waldron >> >> II-3 William b circa 1677 m Martha Leggett >> >> m Mary Price >> >> II-4 Thomas b 1682 m Sarah >> >> m Elizabeth >> >> II-5 Mary b circa 1684 >> >> II-6 Robert b circa 1686 >> >> II-7 Samuel b circa 1688 >> >> II-8 Rachel b circa 1690 >> >> >> >> If anyone is also doing this line, I would love to get connected with >you. >> >> >> >> Sara >> >> scoobydoo@sltic.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >> >> Having problems with the list? Tell Nevada Jack at >> >> nvjack@intercomm.com >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >> >Concerned about computer viruses, cookies, copyright, spam? >> >See Internet Stuff You Need To Know at >> >http://www.cyndislist.com/internet.htm >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >> View the Cousins Directory at >http://users.intercomm.com/nvjack/davnport/others.htm >> >> > > >==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >Having problems with the list? Tell Nevada Jack at >nvjack@intercomm.com > > >

Could you tell me please when John Wesley Davenport was born? Did he have a son named John also born in TN? My g-grandfather was born in TN about 1840 - 1860 I think. My grandmother Ada was born to John DAVENPORT and his wife Lucy STEVENS in 1911. It has been said in the family that her father was 50+ when she (Ada) was born. If anyone knows anything about these people please help me out. I have been researching them with nothing but brick wall after brick wall for 6 years. Many thanks, Valerie

Charity, Which one do you refer to. I have three in my database John Wesley Davenport b.(1840-1857) m.Elizabeth Hampton John Wesley Davenport b. Oct 2 1849 m.Maggie Hoggard John Wesley Davenport b. Jan 4 1856 m. Cordelia Lee Evans Tell me which one and I will send you a Report from Family Tree Maker on him Richard Davenport

I would appreciate any more information on John Wesley Davenport. My grandfather said that John Wesley had many children, I know a few of them, could anyone tell me anymore. Thanks. Charity *-----Original Message----- *From: DixieChx@aol.com [mailto:DixieChx@aol.com] *Sent: Thursday, June 24, 1999 4:46 PM *To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com *Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT-L] John Wesley Davenport * * *Hi Lee and Richard. Thomas g. Davenport was born in Burke County, N.C. his *parents then later moved to Giles County, TN. I have a little *more. What do *you need? * *Carol * * *==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== *View the Cousins Directory at *http://users.intercomm.com/nvjack/davnport/others.htm *

Hi Lee and Richard. Thomas g. Davenport was born in Burke County, N.C. his parents then later moved to Giles County, TN. I have a little more. What do you need? Carol

>Colleagues: > > This continues my spot study reports on research targeted at >identifying the origin of Davis Davenport. Today, I would address the matter >of Parish records as they might include Davis. > > Our earliest glimpse of Davis (1696) placed him on the South side of >Mattaponi River, approximately seventeen miles above its confluence with the >Pamunkey River to form the York River, in then King & Queen County. At that >time, Davis was either responsible to St. Stephen's Parish (north of >Mattaponi) or to St. John's Parish (Pamunkey Neck below Jack's Creek). The >question as to which parish of the Established Church then claimed him as a >tithable is problematic, for Virginia historians disagree in their portrayals >of what was going on in Pamunkey Neck during the last thirty years of the >Seventeenth Century. > > Timewise, our quest for Davis Davenport's identity should be centered >on the last thirty years of Seventeenth Century also, for the John >Talbot-Elias Downes patent of 1667 cited only Edward Holmes as an adjoining >landowner. This being twenty-nine years before Davis's plantation and >landing were identified as adjoining the tract in 1696, Davis was likely >still a lad in either England or Virginia. When Phillip Ludwell, Tobias >Handford, and Richard Whitehead obtained their 2,000-acre patent adjoining >Talbot and Downes in 1673, no adjoining land owners were cited, but one side >of the survey description was contiguous to the upriver side of the >Talbot-Downes patent. As we have discussed earlier, this patent was >fraudulently raised to a 20,000-acre grant, which was traded for three >5,000-acre patents in 1699, with the 1673 tract of 2,000 acres being >abandoned. Davis Davenport, per Taylor's survey of 1696, was located >adjacent to the Talbot-Downes tract on the upriver side on that abandoned >tract. Analysis of subsequent (after 1699) patents suggests that a patent >including the land whereon Davis was located in 1696 was obtained in 1701 by >James Edwards, who before 1699 and in concert with Lewis Davis and Stephen >Terry, had obtained 1300 acres from Richard Yarbrough, who earlier (1677) had >leased an indeterminate amount of land from the Pamunkey Indians. A >surviving King William deed documents that James Edwards conveyed 330 acres >to Thomas Terry in 1703. On the King William Quit Rent List of 1704, James >Edwards was charged with 350 acres, Thomas Terry with 300 acres, and Davis >Davenport for 200 acres, a total of 850 acres. Edwards' 1703 patent was for >854 acres. The supposition is made that Davenport took title to his land >from Edwards. > > Timewise again, we are looking at the period 1673-1696. Davis was >not there in 1673, was there in 1696, a window of 23 years. We can tighten >up the spread by noting that all of the settlement on the South side of >Mattaponi above the Talbot-Downes patent occurred after 1677 (after Nathaniel >Bacon's army had decisively quelled the Indians) when Richard Yarbrough >obtained his lease of Indian land. Yarbrough, an Indian translator and >trader, apparently included the Ludwell-Handford-Whitehead tract within his >lease. > > There is no evidence that Ludwell et al either seated or seeded the >2,000 acres. Hence, the patent by grant stipulation should have lapsed after >two years. Yet because the land granted was not Crown land (the Indians >still held title in 1677), technically it could not be taken back by the >Crown and regranted. It was a tangled web, and Davis Davenport seemingly was >right square in the middle of it. (I'll deal with Philip Ludwell, Tobias >Handford, and Richard Whitehead in another study--there are some interesting >implications concerning Ludwell and Whitehead which might bear on Davis' >identity, but it will take us back towards the Ann Davenport-Thomas Davis >theory. Tobias Handford was a Gloucester County miller who possibly was one >of those hanged for participation in Bacon's Rebellion.) > > Given this state of affairs, what can we find in written history and >Established Church records that might help identify Davis? > > The least creditable authority is John H. Gwathmey's Twelve Virginia >Counties, Where the Western Migration Began (Richmond, 1937, reprinted by the >Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, 1979). In his chapters on New >Kent and King William County, Gwathmey makes a number of statements which, >compared with other records and authorities, border on fiction. For example, >his claim that King William Court House served as the Court House for New >Kent County has no basis in fact, for prior to 1701, Pamunkey Neck, where >King William Court House was and is located, was by treaty an Indian >reservation where the Pamunkey Queen was supposedly the ultimate authority. >Englishmen began encroaching upon Pamunkey Neck in 1650, and after the Rebel >Nathaniel Bacon's army had decisively defeated and decimated the Indians at >West Point (the lower tip of Pamunkey Neck) in 1676, the Pamunkey Queen did >not have enough warriors left to protect Indian interests. By 1701 she was >forced to accept British citizenship, pledge allegiance and loyalty to the >Crown, and seek the protection of British law for herself and her tribes. >Gwathmey's portrayal of New Kent Court being held monthly in the middle of an >Indian reservation suggests that he had not done his homework, for had he >done so, he would have found that New Kent County had a Northside (above the >Mattaponi River) and a Southside (below the Pamunkey River) and that Courts >were held alternately from one side to the other. Above the Pamunkey River >and below the Mattaponi was Pamunkey Neck, and that was Indian >territory--even though the English there outnumbered the Indians by 1680, and >twice petitioned Jamestown before 1696 for county status. No county was >established until the Indian title to the Neck was surrendered in 1701. >Then, and only then, was King William County erected from Pamunkey Neck and a >court house established. > > Inasmuch as political units (counties) and established church units >(parishes) in Seventeenth Century Virginia tended to be one and the same, >their records supposedly included the same people. Hence, where county >records have been destroyed, parish records provide a backup resource, and >vice versa. Where both county and parish records have been lost, as is the >case for King William County and its three historical parishes, namely St. >John's (1680?), St. Margaret's (1721), and St. David's (1742), we have to >fall back to the incomplete records of the colonial government and to private >archives. > > In the mid-1850s Bishop William Meade, head of the Episcopal Church >in Virginia, wrote the two-volume Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of >Virginia (Philadelphia, 1857, reprinted by Genealogical Publishing Company, >Baltimore, 1966). Working from original documents in the Episcopal Archives, >Meade wrote a comprehensive history of the Established Church in Virginia, >parish by parish, which was more of an identification and glorification of >colonial aristocracy than a scholarly development of how the church >functioned (or did not function). While Bishop Meade did not gloss over the >manifest failings and worldliness of the majority of the Anglican vicars >before the Revolution, he paid little attention to the importance of >consistency in chronology and geography. He had mother parishes being >created after daughter parishes, could not find some of the early parishes, >either in the records or on a map, misidentified church sites, etc. Meade >should be read to savor the aristocratic flavor of Colonial Virginia, which >continued in the Episcopal Church after it had been disestablished. For >those families which were gentry before and after the Revolution, the Bishop >wrote a seminal history. Others should expect little, for there were few, if >any, commoners among the vestries enumerated in the two volumes. The >Pamunkey Davenports were low land commoners, are not mentioned. But in the >Piedmont and after 1760, the Thomas Davenports (Sr. and Jr.) of Cumberland >and Halifax (III and IV), Richard Davenport of Albemarle, and Charles >Davenport of Culpeper, all Pamunkeys, were Anglican vestrymen, and were so >noted by Meade. But there is no Davenport genealogy recounted in the >Bishop's chronicles of aristocratic families. (Burket Davenport, a Tidewater >Davenport, the highest profile of the surname in Colonial and Revolutionary >Virginia, was identified as Bisket Davenport.) > > The most comprehensive analysis of the Church in Pamunkey Neck >appears strangely in the "Introduction" to The Vestry Book of Blisland >(Blissland) Parish, New Kent and James City Counties, Virginia, 1721-1786 >(Richmond: Library of Virginia, 1935) by Dr. Churchill Gibson Chamberlayne. >Chamberlayne was convinced that Blissland Parish was the Mother Parish of the >York River Basin, and searched all the early records studiously to find the >evidence to prove his contention. While he was not so rude as to contradict >or indict Bishop Meade, he wondered how the Bishop could have come to some of >the conclusions he did when he had used the same records that Chamberlayne >did. > > In essence, Chamberlayne makes a strong case for Blissland Parish >having originally included all of New Kent County when it was erected in >1654. He argues with evidence and from a void that prior to 1680 Pamunkey >Neck was included in whole or in part in five parishes: Blissland (c1652, >entire York River Basin), Stratton Major (c1655, north side of York and >Mattaponi, north of the dividing ridge in Pamunkey Neck), St. Stephens >(c1673, all of Stratton Major above Harquake Creek, Northside New Kent), St, >Peter's (1678-79, Southside New Kent, south side of the dividing ridge in >Pamunkey Neck above John's Creek), and St. John's (c1780, all of Pamunkey >Neck below John's Creek). > > Based on Davis's 1696 location, his land after 1650 was successively >in Blissland Parish, then Stratton Major Parish, then St. Stephen's Parish, >and finally St. John's. The records of St. Stephen's and St. John's are long >lost. The records of Blissland and Stratton Major exist in part, but for >later years when the parishes had shrunk away from Pamunkey Neck. Blissland >ended its existence after the Revolution split between New Kent and James >City counties. Stratton Major ended as the parish for Lower King & Queen >County. St. Stephen's at the end included Upper King & Queen. St. Peter's >was New Kent. St. John's was exclusively Pamunkey Neck and spawned St. >George's (1721, Spotsylvania), St. Margaret's (1721, King William and >Caroline, later solely Caroline), and St. David's (1742, Upper King William). > > There is no help for identifying Davis found thus far in searching >Anglican parish records. The circulated report that there are Davenport >mentions in the Petsworth Parish (Upper Gloucester County) records is false. >There are no Davenport mentions in those records. Nor are there any mentions >of Davenports in the relatively complete St. Peter's records. > > This possibly comes under the classification of "Much Ado About >Nothing," but it was a job that had to be done. > > Comment? > > John Scott Davenport > >

>Hi, all. > >It seems that the central question concerning John Martin is whether he >might have been kin to Davis' wife and therefore the Martin name was given >to Davis' son. I'll express a few thoughts that have undoubtedly occurred to >Doc to see what reaction there might be from the other members. > >A sticking point would appear to be that Mr. Martin did not come to Pamunkey >Neck until after Martin D. was a grown man. The obvious conclusion is that >Davis would not have been likely to travel any great distance to meet and >woo his future wife. But if he indeed married a Martin girl then if the >Martins were better situated financially than Davis was it would not be >beyond the realm of possibility for the Martins to have occasionally visited >the Neck either on business or to see relatives. This is quite a postulate >to put forward but it does allow this: Given that Davis was of reduced >circumstances, then his wife may have anticipated birthing difficulties by >removing herself to her parents' home and giving birth there. A subsequent >christening would have normally occurred in the home parish. > >These ruminations are another way of saying that I would neither accept nor >dismiss a connection to John Martin based on available evidence. Alas, more >work needs to be done. > >Tom Duda

>> Further study of the Waller Lawsuit documents, now in the Library of Virginia archives, is needed, ... of who later owned the >> land where Davis Davenport had been located in 1696. >> >> Comments? >> >> > >Doc, >Comment #1, It is good to read your words again. They have been missed. > >Comment #2, If the Waller Survey is the oldest evidence we have found of >recording DD's name, I think we would be remiss if we did not research >the lawsuit and try to trace the land too. > >Elaine >

>Colleagues: > > John Waller, Sr., was born c1670, not c1770, as I erroneously noted >in my previous message. You'd think that as many times as I've lamebrained >the centuries wrongly that I'd check myself, but I'm two for two today on the >same goof--which should tell you something. > Doc >

>Colleagues: > > Of interest to us is the provenance (origin, derivation, source) of >the James Taylor survey of 1696 for Major John Waller that began "below davis >davenports landing" and located both Davis' plantation and landing as being >next up Mattaponi River from the John Talbot-Elias Downes patent of 1667. >Waller had bought 934 acres of the patent from Downes a month earlier, then >employed Taylor to lay off of his tract from patent acreage. > > While there is no mention of Davis Davenport's presence, the Taylor >survey was among the documents cited extensively by Andrew Lewis Riffe in his >article, "The Waller's of Endfield, King William County, Virginia," which >appeared in The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, in two parts: >Vol. 59 (1953), 337-352; and Vol. 61 (1955), 458-493. > > In essence, Riffe identified and documented the origin of John Waller >(who was born in England c1770) and brought his family forward three >generations. The article is magnificently researched, and includes not one >but three surveys of the Pamunkey Neck property--John Waller, Sr.'s survey of >1696, John Waller, Jr.'s survey of 1756, and yet another survey apparently >for Edmund Waller following John Waller, Jr.'s survey. > > All of these Waller documents were saved as evidences in a legal file >concerning a long and bitter lawsuit filed by Edmund Waller against his >brothers John Waller, Jr., and Benjamin Waller concerning the division of >"Endfield," as the King William plantation was named, following John Waller, >Sr.'s death in 1754. Edmund Waller was the least successful of Colonel >John's children, apparently was in constant financial difficulties and >apparently had a combative litigious bent. (A suit and counter suit >involving Edmund Waller of Spotsylvania and Richard Davenport of Albemarle >over a L9 debt, had its beginning in 1757, was in and out of Spotsylvania >Court for thirty years before a jury in 1787, at the request of Benjamin >Waller, executor of Edmund Waller, Decd., returned a verdict of "False >Clamor" against Davenport and denied him all redress.) > > Without going into extensive detail (those interested will find the >articles cited comprehensive), suffice to say that the Wallers took their >family argument to the highest Virginia courts, where Benjamin, a >Williamsburg attorney, ultimately prevailed. (The issue was largely over how >much and what part of the Enfield Plantation had been devised to John, Jr., >to Benjamin, and to Edmund.) Edmund had prepared his case well, had acquired >all of the pertinent surveys, and his descendants treasured the file through >ten generations, making it available to Riffe for his article, and >subsequently donating it to the Library of Virginia. > > The first citation of the James Taylor survey relative to Davis >Davenport's identification appears to be Maribeth Lang Vineyard and Eugene M. >Wiseman, "William Wiseman and the Davenports, Pioneers of Old Burke County, >North Carolina" (Franklin, NC: Genealogy Publishing Service, 1997), 255, >called to my attention by Carol White, who edited "The Pamunkey Davenports of >Colonial Virginia." > > There is a discrepancy between the Riffe's article of 1953-1955 and >the description given in Vineyard and Wiseman. The latter portrayal refers >to a Downes to Waller deed dated 28May1696 wherein it is alleged that the >document included a description of the land as adjoining John Martin, >Quarles, and Isbell. Riffe specifically states that the 28May1696 deed had >been lost. When I first inspected the 1696 survey, I had noted that of those >cited as bounders by Viineyard and Wiseman, only Isbell appeared as adjoining >landowner. Neither Martin nor Quarles were mentioned. Subsequent research >established that John Martin did not move across the Mattaponi from King & >Queen County to King William County until 1710 or later, and Quarles did not >move across until still later. Apparently a later deed had been mistaken for >the 1696 conveyance. > > The erroneous John Martin attribution, of course, was crucial in >providing a rationale for Davis Davenport having named his eldest son Martin. > The reality, easily demonstrable by the few extant King William documents >remaining and Virginia Patent records, was that John Martin did not come into >close proximity with the land where Davis Davenport was in 1696 until well >after Martin Davenport was grown man and had apparently moved thirteen miles >up Pamunkey Neck. If Martin Davenport had a Martin mother, his birth likely >occurred elsewhere than in Pamunkey Neck, possibly in Northside New Kent, >later (1691) King & Queen County, where there were a number of Martins in the >records early, including several who were transportees. > > Further study of the Waller Lawsuit documents, now in the Library of >Virginia archives, is needed, for the reduction of the two later surveys for >magazine reproduction in 1953 and 1955 lost the legibility of some of the >detail, particularly those identifications, if any, of who later owned the >land where Davis Davenport had been located in 1696. > > Comments? > > John Scott >Davenport >

>Colleagues: > > The Committee of the House of Burgesses adjudicating claims for land >in Pamunkey Neck reported in 1699, not 1799 as I indicated in previous >communication. I had caught the error earlier, but failed to make the >correction. > >Doc

Pamunkey Cousins, Here is the latest from Jersey Doc. More to follow soon. Nevada Jack >Colleagues: > > It's high time and then some that we got the train back on the track >and returned to the subject of Davis Davenport and our search for his origin. > Several new generalities qualify our efforts. > > In the context of the King William Quit Rents of 1704, several recent >studies, including Professor Baird's, indicate that Davis' first appearance >thereon in the King William County list was more common than unusual, for >approximately sixty-five percent of those identified as quit rent liable >freeholders had no previous appearance in Virginia patent or other land >records. Patent records, you'll recall, include the extant headright lists. >Hence, Davis' status vis-a-vis identification is the most common one for >Seventeenth Century Virginians, i.e., roughly two-thirds of Virginia >landowners or leasers recorded in 1704 have yet unknown antecedents. Their >only identifications may well be among the parish records in the British >Isles. > > Publications of the past twenty years of British colonial records of >convict transportees as well as gentry and merchants sailing to and from >Virginia, the only records seemingly maintained with any degree of >consistency, all indicate that there had to have been more commoner emigrants >from the British Isles to Virginia who paid their own ways than heretofore >credited. Reliance solely on extant records has heretofore given historians >a distorted view of Virginia's Seventeenth Century population. True, there >was a large underclass of convicts and indentured servants (poor people who >went into servitude for at least four years to pay for their passages), but >there was also a sizable freeman, yeoman class, men and women who arrived in >Virginia, unrecorded either in Britain or Virginia. It was these people who >apparently composed the majority of the freeholders identified in the Quit >Rents of 1704. (They were a majority only in freeholder numbers, for the >gentry held the majority of the acreage.) Historians have largely discounted >any upward mobility in social class other than the rare exception in Colonial >Virginia. As a result, heretofore portrayals of Virginia population before >the Revolution have been those of extremes, emphasizing the gentry and the >under class. > > The presence of this heretofore unacknowledged group of middle class >immigrants has been revealed by the computer studies made by the Williamsburg >Foundation in association with the College of William & Mary. Heretofore, >the magnitude of such a data analysis as well as the vagaries of the records >on both sides of the Atlantic discouraged broad, sweeping studies. Baird's >study, which I reported on superficially, worked with the Williamsburg >Foundation data base. (Tom Duda has been reviewing Baird's thesis. If he >found aspects bearing on our quest that I overlooked, I hope that he will >enlighten us.) > > The point of all this is that the probabilities that Davis Davenport >was an emigrant to Virginia who paid for his own passage are now higher than >the probabilities that he was illegitimate, the son of two >transportees--which was admittedly a force fit. While I do not abandon the >Tom Davis-Ann Davenport concept, I now devalue it and put it on the shelf as >a concept of last resort. > > Thanks to the research of Robert Hiland McKeon, a descendant of >Quaker Joseph Davenport (West Jersey, 1682), we now know that there were two >Davies Davenports among the Cheshire gentry contemporary to Davis Davenport >in Virginia. According to Harrison's "Surnames of the United Kingdom, A >Concise Etymological Dictionary" (London, 1912), Davies and Davis are variant >spellings of the same surname, namely "Davey." The two Davies Davenports in >Cheshire, father and son, were the result of a Davenport father and a Davies >mother among the landed gentry. If there were two Davies Davenports above >the salt, there well could have been a Davis Davenport below the salt who >sought his fortune in Virginia. > > A further note of possible value, virtually all of the Pamunkey Neck >claims located above Davis Davenport's plantation of 1696 on the Mattaponi >River ratified by the Committee of the House of Burgesses in 1799, and >converted into patents in the years following, were paid for entirely or in >part by the headrights earned by the patentees and their wives. In other >words, none of Davis Davenport's neighbors northwardly appear to have been >transportees, all had paid for their own passages, owned their own >headrights. > > Comments? > > John Scott >Davenport >

Lee, Thought you might like these additions. According to my records... Cordelia Evans was born in Jane, McDonald County, Missouri Thomas G. Davenport was born in Giles County, North Carolina I just love making discoveries like this. It is so nice to have things more complete. Richard Davenport

It is not a new site, so many of you have probably been there already, but a Mr. W.D. (Bill) Floyd maintains a site which is mainly devoted to cemeteries. http://ns1.rfci.net/wdfloyd I found it hard to search (or else I didn't figure out how to do it), but there also is a Deed Index showing deeds recorded in Rutherford Co., 1779 to 1917. The following Davenports are shown at: http://ns1.rfci.net/wdfloyd/Deed-D.html AD, John, EJ, William, Ina, WM, Mathew, Susan. Hope this helps someone. Bob.

Jack, I just love it when your tidbits like this show me my lack of information. What info can you send me on the 2nd oldest child of Joe Davenport and Sarah Boyd. I have his birth/death dates and places for the same. I have no information on his wife, how she ties into the Prez and then of course the known descendents for Augustine. I now have a single database going for direct descendents for Davis Davenport. Can you send me a DOC file or something like that with that brach and what you know about them. Thanks ever so much for this info. Richard Davenport