> > > The following is an abstract I prepared of a deed found at Hartford > > > Deeds, Book 3, p. 228 [FHL 4511]: > > > > > > I Richard Risley of Hartford Connecticut for and in consideration of > > > the natural love and affection I do bear unto my loving son Samuel > > > Risley have given granted and I the said Richard Risley for my self > > > and my heirs do fully and absolutely give grant and confirm unto my > > > said son Samuel Risley his heirs and assigns forever two ...parcels > > > of land situated on the east side of the Connecticut River in the > > > town of Hartford aforesaid. [description of first parcel omitted] > > > also more one parcel of land lying or being part of the land that I > > > bought of John Crow deceased butted north on land of Jeremiah Risley > > > as may appear by a deed from his father and to begin as far west as > > > the said Jeremiah Risleys land and there butt west on my own land > > > south on land of Thomas Spencer east on common or undivided land for > > > him my son Samuel Risley his heirs executors administrators and > > > assigns to have and to hold. In witness whereof I the said Richard > > > Risley have set my hand and seal this nineteenth day of March Anno > > > Dom 1716/7 > > > > > > Does "his father" as used in "butted north on land of Jeremiah > > > Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" refer to the father > > > of Jeremiah Risley or the father of Samuel Risley? > > > > > > Ukes > > > > No. "his father" is John Crow, dec'd. > > > > "...that I (Richard Risley) bought of John Crow dec'd... as may > > appear by a deed from his father." > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > Thank you for sharing your interpretation. It's interesting that > four out of five people share that interpretation, because it's one > that hadn't occurred to me before. I still don't think, based on the > text, that it's the most plausible interpretation. Furthermore, the > evidence shows that John Crow deeded 330 acres in East Hartford to > Richard Risley in 1682. John Crow was the largest landowner in > Hartford, and he died in 1686. > http://tinyurl.com/klpcj > So John Crow was living when he deeded land to Richard Risley. > > Ukes And thus *dead* by 1716, the date of the deed in which he was identified as "dec'd". Thus far the stated facts do not support anything beyond a similarity of surname for the Risleys you mention. However, your family, your research, your conclusions. Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

> > > > The following is an abstract I prepared of a deed found at Hartford > > > > Deeds, Book 3, p. 228 [FHL 4511]: > > > > > > > > I Richard Risley of Hartford Connecticut for and in consideration of > > > > the natural love and affection I do bear unto my loving son Samuel > > > > Risley have given granted and I the said Richard Risley for my self > > > > and my heirs do fully and absolutely give grant and confirm unto my > > > > said son Samuel Risley his heirs and assigns forever two ...parcels > > > > of land situated on the east side of the Connecticut River in the > > > > town of Hartford aforesaid. [description of first parcel omitted] > > > > also more one parcel of land lying or being part of the land that I > > > > bought of John Crow deceased butted north on land of Jeremiah Risley > > > > as may appear by a deed from his father and to begin as far west as > > > > the said Jeremiah Risleys land and there butt west on my own land > > > > south on land of Thomas Spencer east on common or undivided land for > > > > him my son Samuel Risley his heirs executors administrators and > > > > assigns to have and to hold. In witness whereof I the said Richard > > > > Risley have set my hand and seal this nineteenth day of March Anno > > > > Dom 1716/7 > > > > > > > > Does "his father" as used in "butted north on land of Jeremiah > > > > Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" refer to the father > > > > of Jeremiah Risley or the father of Samuel Risley? > > > > > > > > Ukes > > > > > > No. "his father" is John Crow, dec'd. > > > > > > "...that I (Richard Risley) bought of John Crow dec'd... as may > > > appear by a deed from his father." > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > > > Thank you for sharing your interpretation. It's interesting that > > four out of five people share that interpretation, because it's one > > that hadn't occurred to me before. I still don't think, based on the > > text, that it's the most plausible interpretation. Furthermore, the > > evidence shows that John Crow deeded 330 acres in East Hartford to > > Richard Risley in 1682. John Crow was the largest landowner in > > Hartford, and he died in 1686. > > http://tinyurl.com/klpcj > > So John Crow was living when he deeded land to Richard Risley. > > > > Jerry "Ukes" <[email protected]> > > Deeded does not mean inherited. A living person may deed property > to another. I would suggest that it was probably purchased in which > case would receive a deed to the part that he bought. > > "Celia Mitschelen" <[email protected]> I'm aware that deeded doesn't mean inherited and that a living person deeds land to another living person. The point is that John Crow was alive when he deeded land to Richard Risley. Richard Risley didn't get a deed from John Crow's father as part of some contract that John Crow had entered into to sell land while he was living but hadn't actually deeded when he died. The "his father" as used in the Richard Risley - Samuel Risley deed doesn't refer to the father of John Crow, dec'd. I would also note that while it's not impossible that a father would be the executor or administrator of the estate of his son, it's much more common to see a father deeding land to a son, which is a factor to consider in interpreting the meaning of the language in question. Jerry Ukes <[email protected]>

> Have you ever tried? --- > Searching the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) in One Step > Frequently Asked Questions > Stephen P. Morse , San Francisco > http://stevemorse.org/ssdi/faqi.htm Thank you Maureen. Steve Morse has so many nice searches I overlooked this one. If you go to http://stevemorse.org/index.html you will see all the searches he has. bob gillis bob gillis <[email protected]>

> > > Were Black men drafted for service in the War of 1812? > > > > > > "Fran" <[email protected]> > > > > I wouldn't want to swear *anyone* was drafted for 1812. > > > > If the question is, did black men serve, then yes. Both free blacks > > and slaves. > > > > "singhals" <[email protected]> > > I stress that this is a purely idle question (I have no genealogical > links to the USA, although I do have slaves from other areas in my > ancestry), but if somone was a slave, wouldn't they have to be > drafted to be able to serve in the army? Presumably they couldn't > just inform their owner that they were off to join up? Or was the > army actually buying slaves? Lesley Robertson > > "Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]> Hi Lesley - Not all blacks in the US were slaves. There were free black men in the North, and many served in black units during the Revolutionary war. As I understand, there was no federal draft for the war of 1812, but some states had a draft; NY being one of them. So yes, there were blacks who served voluntarily in the war in 1812, but I'd have to look around to see if any states actually included blacks in their draft. Lisa "Lisa Lepore" <[email protected]>

> > > The following is an abstract I prepared of a deed found at Hartford > > > Deeds, Book 3, p. 228 [FHL 4511]: > > > > > > I Richard Risley of Hartford Connecticut for and in consideration of > > > the natural love and affection I do bear unto my loving son Samuel > > > Risley have given granted and I the said Richard Risley for my self > > > and my heirs do fully and absolutely give grant and confirm unto my > > > said son Samuel Risley his heirs and assigns forever two ...parcels > > > of land situated on the east side of the Connecticut River in the > > > town of Hartford aforesaid. [description of first parcel omitted] > > > also more one parcel of land lying or being part of the land that I > > > bought of John Crow deceased butted north on land of Jeremiah Risley > > > as may appear by a deed from his father and to begin as far west as > > > the said Jeremiah Risleys land and there butt west on my own land > > > south on land of Thomas Spencer east on common or undivided land for > > > him my son Samuel Risley his heirs executors administrators and > > > assigns to have and to hold. In witness whereof I the said Richard > > > Risley have set my hand and seal this nineteenth day of March Anno > > > Dom 1716/7 > > > > > > Does "his father" as used in "butted north on land of Jeremiah > > > Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" refer to the father > > > of Jeremiah Risley or the father of Samuel Risley? > > > > > > Ukes > > > > No. "his father" is John Crow, dec'd. > > > > "...that I (Richard Risley) bought of John Crow dec'd... as may > > appear by a deed from his father." > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > > Thank you for sharing your interpretation. It's interesting that > four out of five people share that interpretation, because it's one > that hadn't occurred to me before. I still don't think, based on the > text, that it's the most plausible interpretation. Furthermore, the > evidence shows that John Crow deeded 330 acres in East Hartford to > Richard Risley in 1682. John Crow was the largest landowner in > Hartford, and he died in 1686. > http://tinyurl.com/klpcj > So John Crow was living when he deeded land to Richard Risley. > > Jerry "Ukes" <[email protected]> Deeded does not mean inherited. A living person may deed property to another. I would suggest that it was probably purchased in which case would receive a deed to the part that he bought. Celia

> > A kind soul has sent me the front page of a newspaper in acrobat > > reader and I would like to be able to enlarge and print an obituary > > from the page. I know how to enlarge, but every time I try to cut > > and paste it picks up the other columns too and really messes things > > up. Can anyone tell me how I can work this? > > > > Pat > > You might try copying and pasting it to an e-mail and send it to > yourself. > > JoanC <[email protected]> Hello, If it is a true PDF document (that is made with some Adobe Acrobat software directly or converted from another text document to a PDF) and not a scanning of an image and then converted to a PDF, then I suggest you get Foxit Reader here: http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php It is a small stand alone program, no installation needed. With this you program you can do what you want, cut and paste text and more. Bengt Bengt Boysen <[email protected]>

I think Fran asked; > > > > Were Black men drafted for service in the War of 1812? and Cheryl said; > > > > I wouldn't want to swear *anyone* was drafted for 1812. I can swear that they were-- at least in NY. There was no Federal Draft-- but states were required to provide a certain number of men, and they drafted to do so. My 25yr old ancestor [a farmer with 5 young kids] was drafted for 90 days in 1814. > > If the question is, did black men serve, then yes. Both free blacks > > and slaves. > > > > "singhals" <[email protected]> "Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]> asked : > I stress that this is a purely idle question (I have no genealogical > links to the USA, although I do have slaves from other areas in my > ancestry), but if somone was a slave, wouldn't they have to be > drafted to be able to serve in the army? Presumably they couldn't > just inform their owner that they were off to join up? Or was the >army actually buying slaves? Lesley Robertson [noting that the OP said 'Black man' - and we're just expanding on the thought, here] *If* someone bought slaves to serve, it wouldn't have been the US Army. It *could* have been states or towns. The Feds required a certain number of troops from the states, and the states would sometimes divide that number up amongst counties or towns. I'm pretty sure I read of towns buying slaves during the Revolution to make their quotas. But it is more likely, that if a slave served he did so at his master's bidding. Either as an act of patriotism by the master, or as a substitute for someone. Or he could be a runaway- recruiters were paid bonuses, so many were happy to sign someone up under questionable circumstances. An interesting aside-- according to this page; http://www.africanamericans.com/MilitaryChronology.htm It was 1815 when the government forbade blacks from serving in the Army, Marines and militias. [I think it was 1952 before the Army was integrated again.] Jim [email protected]

> John Crow's father has sold the land to Richard Risley. John Crow > is deceased so possibly his father was Executor or Administrator for > his son's estate, or possibly the land went to the father through > the laws of intestacy of the state. > > [email protected] This isn't directly responsive to the point you were making, but the first rule that governed who inherited an intestate's real estate during the Colonial period (and a considerable period of time thereafter in most states) was that inheritances lineally descended, but *never* lineally ascended. (An intestate is a person who dies without a will). In other words, the real property owned by an intestate could be inherited by the children and grandchildren of the intestate, but could never be inherited by the parents or grandparents of the intestate. This rule sometimes produced what today seem to be very unjust results. There were situations in which a father and mother were married to each other and had a young child together. The father, who owned considerable property, died intestate. His property was inherited by his young child. If the child died before they were old enough to make a will, the laws of intestacy provided that the land the child owned went, not to the child's mother, but to the closest relatives of the father (since the child had inherited the property from the father). If the father was an only child, the child's land could be inherited by relatively distant relatives, while the child's mother inherited nothing (she still had her dower rights to one-third of the property, though). A good source for understanding the English laws applied in Colonial America is Blackstone's Commentaries, which are here. http://tinyurl.com/mv372 Book 2, Chapter 14 governs the rules applying to intestacy. Jerry Ukes <[email protected]>

> > http://members.aol.com/famjustin/ccchis.html > > > > > > Index of States/Camp Listings > > > > > > http://www.cccalumni.org/states/index.html > > > > http://www.cccalumni.org/guidelines.html > > > > "L.L. Scott" <[email protected]> > > Been there, read those. And I went to NARA's site as well. The > ROSTERS seem to be by application only, but I don't see anything > that admits there are names in the actual records. > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> What kind of information are you looking for exactly? A particular person or a particular camp, or ? When I looked at those websites, the information seemed pretty clear. Send for the discharge papers of the person to NARA, then use that information to find more data at the Museum, or at NARA. It did say there are very few records for the years 1933 and 1934 when the program first started. Further on it said "The National Archives stores information from most of the state parks camps, including Camp Inspection Reports, Project Reports with pictures and some correspondence.* Now, I have never seen any of these reports so I don't know if they will give you the kind of information you are looking for, but maybe knowing the names of these reports will help someone else answer your question. I also found this site - http://www.crl.edu/content.asp?l1=5&l2=23&l3=44&l4=23 CCC Camp Newspapers at the Center for Research Libraries. Apparently, there were Camp Newspapers which are available on microfilm if they exist. You can search at the above site to see what is available. Lisa "Lisa Lepore" <[email protected]>

> > The following is an abstract I prepared of a deed found at Hartford > > Deeds, Book 3, p. 228 [FHL 4511]: > > > > I Richard Risley of Hartford Connecticut for and in consideration of > > the natural love and affection I do bear unto my loving son Samuel > > Risley have given granted and I the said Richard Risley for my self > > and my heirs do fully and absolutely give grant and confirm unto my > > said son Samuel Risley his heirs and assigns forever two ...parcels > > of land situated on the east side of the Connecticut River in the > > town of Hartford aforesaid. [description of first parcel omitted] > > also more one parcel of land lying or being part of the land that I > > bought of John Crow deceased butted north on land of Jeremiah Risley > > as may appear by a deed from his father and to begin as far west as > > the said Jeremiah Risleys land and there butt west on my own land > > south on land of Thomas Spencer east on common or undivided land for > > him my son Samuel Risley his heirs executors administrators and > > assigns to have and to hold. In witness whereof I the said Richard > > Risley have set my hand and seal this nineteenth day of March Anno > > Dom 1716/7 > > > > Does "his father" as used in "butted north on land of Jeremiah > > Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" refer to the father > > of Jeremiah Risley or the father of Samuel Risley? > > > > Ukes > > No. "his father" is John Crow, dec'd. > > "...that I (Richard Risley) bought of John Crow dec'd... as may > appear by a deed from his father." > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> Thank you for sharing your interpretation. It's interesting that four out of five people share that interpretation, because it's one that hadn't occurred to me before. I still don't think, based on the text, that it's the most plausible interpretation. Furthermore, the evidence shows that John Crow deeded 330 acres in East Hartford to Richard Risley in 1682. John Crow was the largest landowner in Hartford, and he died in 1686. http://tinyurl.com/klpcj So John Crow was living when he deeded land to Richard Risley. Jerry Ukes <[email protected]>

> > The following is an abstract I prepared of a deed found at Hartford > > Deeds, Book 3, p. 228 [FHL 4511]: > > > > I Richard Risley of Hartford Connecticut for and in consideration of > > the natural love and affection I do bear unto my loving son Samuel > > Risley have given granted and I the said Richard Risley for my self > > and my heirs do fully and absolutely give grant and confirm unto my > > said son Samuel Risley his heirs and assigns forever two ...parcels > > of land situated on the east side of the Connecticut River in the > > town of Hartford aforesaid. [description of first parcel omitted] > > also more one parcel of land lying or being part of the land that I > > bought of John Crow deceased butted north on land of Jeremiah Risley > > as may appear by a deed from his father and to begin as far west as > > the said Jeremiah Risleys land and there butt west on my own land > > south on land of Thomas Spencer east on common or undivided land for > > him my son Samuel Risley his heirs executors administrators and > > assigns to have and to hold. In witness whereof I the said Richard > > Risley have set my hand and seal this nineteenth day of March Anno > > Dom 1716/7 > > > > Does "his father" as used in "butted north on land of Jeremiah > > Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" refer to the father > > of Jeremiah Risley or the father of Samuel Risley? > > > > Ukes <[email protected]> > > I would say Jeremiah's, but it could be that both are the same with > Jeremiah and Richard being brothers. > > I think you would have to look at the relationship in more detail. > > Ye Old One <[email protected]> First, thanks to everyone for their replies. In terms of looking at the relationship in more detail, there is strong indirect evidence that Jeremiah Risley was a son of Richard Risley as well - which would make him the brother of Samuel Risley. This indirect evidence largely consists of the lack of other possible candidates as Jeremiah's father. Additionally, three days before the deed I previously quoted from Richard Risley to Samuel Risley, Richard Risley gave this deed to Jeremiah Risley: I Richard Risley Senr. of Hartford Connecticut for and in consideration of the sum of seventeen pounds well and truly paid by Jeremiah Risley of Hartford have given granted conveyed unto him the said Jeremiah Risley one messuage or tract of land situate lying and being in Hartford, on the East Side of the Connecticut River butted and bounded as followeth west on Richard Risley Senr or the Curt path that goes across Stony Brook and on James Forbs land north and east on the Common land and South on Richard Risley, being forty-three rods in width In witness whereof I have set my hand and seal this sixteenth day of March Anno Dom 1716/7 [Hartford Deeds, Book 3, p. 107 [FHL 4511]] Based on the compatibility of abutting property owners and the fact that this is evidently the only deed of record in Hartford pursuant to which Jeremiah Risley acquired any land, I think this deed probably refers to the same land that forms a boundary in the Richard Risley-Samuel Risley deed. You'll note that no relationship between Richard & Jeremiah was given in this deed, but often when a father would deed land to a son for money, no relationship was stated in the deed. See Walter Lee Shepard, Jr. "Interpreting Genealogical Records" in Genealogical Research Methods and Sources (1980). Furthermore, Jeremiah Risley sold a little less than one third of the land one month after he received it from Ricard Risley to James Forbs for 20 pounds (3 pounds more than he paid Richard Risley for all of the land), so the land was obviously sold to him for less money than it was worth. I interpret the Samuel-Richard deed as probably providing direct evidence that Jeremiah was also a son of Richard. But, as a descendant of Jeremiah Risley, I may not be totally objective and wanted to see what others thought. Jerry Ukes <[email protected]>

> Is there a SSDI that will allow a ? or * in a a search for surname > or given name? > > bob gillis <[email protected]> Bob, Have you ever tried? --- Searching the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) in One Step Frequently Asked Questions Stephen P. Morse , San Francisco http://stevemorse.org/ssdi/faqi.htm Depending on the SSDI database chosen, there are different search parameters. Description in the FAQs - note it was writeen in 2002. This page (above) has a link to the 'search' page. Hope this helps, Maureen "MJ Mann" <[email protected]>

> > The following was found at the Houghton Mifflin College Division > > Online Study Center . . . > > > > LGO > > URL for the Online Study Center please? I can't find it at the HMCo > site. Thank you. > > Carol Botteron I just googled (without the quotes) "war of 1812 military draft" and received the following as the second item on the list; READERS COMPANION TO AMERICAN HISTORY -- CONSCRIPTION with this link: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_019500_conscription.htm If you can't access through there (they want your account name and password), then click on the "Cached" link at the end of the item. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:CiQLiHwsRRYJ:college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_019500_conscription.htm+war+of+1812+military+draft&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 LGO <[email protected]>

> > // cut // > > > > Did those grants just dissolve into thin air then as unclaimed? > > (I'm trying to figure out how one of my ancestors used a land grant > > to obtain property when it was another who received the grant...) > > TIA. Sorry if this is unclear. > > > > katy <[email protected]> > > Just after the American Revolution, thousands of vets were awarded > land grants. Those who could not, or did not, pay the tax on the > land forfeited the claim. In Maine, there were a few speculators > who bought up the land for pennies on the dollar. In some cases, > these lots went for as little as five or six cents an acre! Part of > the problem was that the assessments were WAY too high for land out > in the middle of nowhere! Some ten years or so later, the state > stepped in and reassessed the land to a more realistic value. That > said, many vets were too old to do anything with the land grant > anyway. Many of those vets simply executed a quit claim (gave it to > the state or the speculator), while a few were smart enough to deed > it over to a son who could do something with the land. > > One would like to believe that by 1815, the government had worked > out the kinks when awarding land to vets. But then, I wouldn=C2=B9t bet > on it! > > As for your ancestor's land deal, I would venture that he might have > been illiterate and employed someone else to "administrate" his > claim. Another possibility is that he used his own grant as > collateral for a loan to buy the land from the other party. And oh > yes, one more idea comes to mind: he might have been helping a > neighbor financially and when his friend could not pay up, he took > possession of the land. > > Regards, Arnold <[email protected]> Thanks...that enlightens me on the historical aspects of the issue...I'm fairly convinced now that he must have quit claim over to his son.

> > Were Black men drafted for service in the War of 1812? > > > > "Fran" <[email protected]> > > I wouldn't want to swear *anyone* was drafted for 1812. > > If the question is, did black men serve, then yes. Both free blacks > and slaves. > > "singhals" <[email protected]> I stress that this is a purely idle question (I have no genealogical links to the USA, although I do have slaves from other areas in my ancestry), but if somone was a slave, wouldn't they have to be drafted to be able to serve in the army? Presumably they couldn't just inform their owner that they were off to join up? Or was the army actually buying slaves? Lesley Robertson "Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]>

> Assuming your friend knows where the ancestor lived, it should be > relatively easy to narrow the the list of units from that area and > then check their muster rolls, unit histories, etc. > > [email protected] Again, I thank you for taking time to write and provide this information. I pass along all the messages to my friend. This specific search information will help her. Thank you. Fran/Awkoska "Fran" <[email protected]>

> > If the question is, did black men serve, then yes. Both free > > blacks and slaves. > > > > [email protected] > > Cheryl, my question is as previously written "were Black men > drafted"? From your reply, it may be there was no draft during the > War of 1812? > > Fran Virginia had no draft for 1812. I wasn't aware that any state _did_, but from what others are saying, some did. Your friend might ponder the various definitions of "drafted." Cheryl [email protected]

> A friend has reason to suspect her Black ancestor served in the War > of 1812, yet she finds no record of his service. While I am not > aware of her source of information, somehow she is led to believe > there may be records (but where?) that did indeed show Black men > were drafted during that war. > > Fran I wouldn't fool around trying to find draft records after first inquiring at the state archives/state library for the state where the ancestor lived to see if that state had a draft, and if so are those records are extant? Make that quick check, and then move on to traditional military records of units formed from that state during the war. Assuming your friend knows where the ancestor lived, it should be relatively easy to narrow the the list of units from that area and then check their muster rolls, unit histories, etc. Good luck, LGO LGO <[email protected]>

> The following was found at the Houghton Mifflin College Division > Online Study Center . . . > > LGO URL for the Online Study Center please? I can't find it at the HMCo site. Thank you. Carol Botteron <[email protected]>

> If the question is, did black men serve, then yes. Both free > blacks and slaves. > > [email protected] Cheryl, my question is as previously written "were Black men drafted"? From your reply, it may be there was no draft during the War of 1812? Thanks for the reply. Fran "Fran" <[email protected]>