Seth & Alan, Thank you both very much for your informative replies. Robert Cooke

On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:23:54 -0400 (EDT) Bob Cooke <cookerl3@aol.com> wrote: > > > How does a Quaker funeral differ from a regular Christian funeral? >Do Friends allow dedications or eulogies for the departed or is it >silent as they are during meeting? Would the dedication or eulogy be >given by a "minister" or as in meeting, there is no "minister" and >someone would just rise and begin speaking? Is there a timeframe for >the length of a service, could they last 60 to 90 minutes or longer? >Is there a timeframe for the actual burial? Early on many Quakers >were buried in unmarked graves, so it seems they didn't want any type >of recognition. Would this lack of recognition discipline prevent >dedications and/or eulogies from being given? Could someone be >disowned for giving one? > > Thank you, > Robert Cooke > Bob, the 1806 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Book of Discipline is available on line at http://www.qhpress.org/texts/obod/index.html. Click on the link for Births and Burials to see that section. -- Dan Treadway P. O. Box 72 Gilbert IA 50105 treadway@netins.net http://showcase.netins.net/web/treadway/

How does a Quaker funeral differ from a regular Christian funeral? Do Friends allow dedications or eulogies for the departed or is it silent as they are during meeting? Would the dedication or eulogy be given by a "minister" or as in meeting, there is no "minister" and someone would just rise and begin speaking? Is there a timeframe for the length of a service, could they last 60 to 90 minutes or longer? Is there a timeframe for the actual burial? Early on many Quakers were buried in unmarked graves, so it seems they didn't want any type of recognition. Would this lack of recognition discipline prevent dedications and/or eulogies from being given? Could someone be disowned for giving one? Thank you, Robert Cooke

Hi Bob - this is an interesting question that Quakers never approved suitable guidelines for. The general rule was that funerals would be a meeting for worship that would minimize eulogizing. Those gathered would speak as they were led by the Spirit. Many members (particularly two of our current prominent ministers) remind us that the focus of worship is the transforming role of Christ Jesus, not building up of the deceased.  Having said that, however, printed journals sometimes mention that the writer attended a funeral and someone pointed out evidences of a spiritual faithfulness of the decedent. Ministers have historically shied away from autobiography while speaking, and funerals would have been the same.  My impression is that funerals had the same length as other meetings for worship - which would mean roughly 90-120 minutes in the 1700s, 60-90 minutes in the 1800s, and 60 minutes thereafter.  Most meetings appointed a funeral committee who had oversight of funerals. These committees occasionally would report to the MM, and on occasion they would complain of excesses that took place. There has always been a difference of opinion about departing from solemnity, and I would think that Friends with a solemnity concern would be more likely to be appointed to a funeral committee. Historically, the remains would be buried in the next available spot. In the mid-19th century, some Friends wanted to be buried with family members, which led to the current inefficient mode of burials that had resulted in the grave allotted not being wide enough for the casket (this happened about 25 years ago in Ohio YM). Just as a reminder, Friends call the area where remains are interred the "burial ground," sometimes the "grave yard." The word "cemetery" was brought into common use in the early 19th century as a place to re-inter remains of soldiers from the Revolution, so Quakers have avoided the use of that term.  Seth  ________________________________ From: Bob Cooke <cookerl3@aol.com> To: quaker-roots@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:23 PM Subject: [Q-R] Quaker Funerals How does a Quaker funeral differ from a regular Christian funeral? Do Friends allow dedications or eulogies for the departed or is it silent as they are during meeting? Would the dedication or eulogy be given by a "minister" or as in meeting, there is no "minister" and someone would just rise and begin speaking? Is there a timeframe for the length of a service, could they last 60 to 90 minutes or longer? Is there a timeframe for the actual burial? Early on many Quakers were buried in unmarked graves, so it seems they didn't want any type of recognition. Would this lack of recognition discipline prevent dedications and/or eulogies from being given? Could someone be disowned for giving one? Thank you, Robert Cooke

On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:06:06 -0400 (EDT) willow703@aol.com wrote: > John & Sarah (Woolard/Willard) of Suttons Creek MM (Perquimans Co., >NC, requested certificates, > May 11, 1811, to join Deep River MM, Guilford Co., NC. Deep River >rec'd the cert. 8 Jul & 5 Aug 1811 & endorsed them to New Garden MM, >then in Guilford Co. . New Garden rec'd the cert. 31 Aug 1811 & > returned them to Deep River MM, 29 May 1813. Deep River MM rec'd the >cert., 5 Jul 1813 & granted > certificates to White Water MM, Harrison [sic] Co., IN (Whitewater >MM, Wayne Co., IN?) 6 Sep 1813. John, Sarah & children are next found >in Crawford Co., IL, on 1820 census. > I find no further evidence of members of this family being members >of the Society of Friends. But, other > than what is in Hinshaw"s Encyclopedia, I find little information >online. I'd appreciate anything that > others can dig up. My last Evans connection was my mother's maternal >grandmother, Mary (Evans) > [Moore] b. 1853, IL, & last found on the 1930 census, at age 73, a >health practitioner for the Christian > Science Church. > I am unable to find any record of this couple in Hinshaw's Encyclopedia, having looked for Willards in the sections for Deep River, New Garden, and Suttons Creek. In the section for Suttons Creek, I do find five certificates dated 1814,4,9, from Suttons Creek to "Lick Creek MM, Harrison County, Ind." The five are for: Josep, minor, s Daniel; Joseph & s Thomas, Cyprian & Exum; Peninah & dt Mary, Susanna, Clarky, Rebekah & Elva; Margaret; and Elizabeth. Ialso see a Daniel Willard received into membership in 1800, then disowned for marriage contraty to discipline in February 1814. Lick Creek Meeting is located in Paoli, which is now located in Orange County. When it was founded in 1813, Orange County had not yet been created. Orange County was formed in 1816 from parts of Washington, Knox, and Gibson Counties. Washington County was formed in 1814 from Clark, Harrison and Jefferson Counties. It is not clear to me if Lick Creek Meeting was ever located in Harrison County, but it given these scraps of county history, it does seem possible. Lick Creek meeting did receive the five certificates from Suttons Creek on 7-30-1814. In 1817, the marriages of Elizabeth, daughter of Daniel and Sarah of Orange County to Aaron Guier, and of Margaret daughter of Martin and Rachel to Roberet Holaday, are recorded. Honey Creek Meeting in Vigo County, Indiana, was set off from Lick Creek in 1820. I do see mention of Joseph Willard in those minutes in 1820 and 1822, of Daniel in 1824, and of Penina in 1825. In the Hicksite-Orthodox split of 1828, it appears most members were Hicksite. Memberships of those siding with the Orthodox were attached to the Bloomfield meeting. Willards mentioned in Honey Creek (Hicksite) records include Exum in 1832 (disowned), Clarkey in 1834 (m Robert Reynolds), Joseph (dis in 1835, rec back in 1840) and Martin in 1841 (disowned). Bloomfield records mention Joseph, Penina, Clarkey, and Eva in 1829 (disowned for disunity), Exum disowned in 1832, Cyprian disowned 1838, and Martin disowned in 1840. I am finding all these Indiana records in /Abstracts of the records of the Society of Friends in Indiana/ by Willard Heiss. This History of Blue River Quarterly Meeting may be useful. http://quaker.org/urbana/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20Blue%20River%20Quarterly%20Meeting.htm -- Dan Treadway P. O. Box 72 Gilbert IA 50105 treadway@netins.net http://showcase.netins.net/web/treadway/

John & Sarah (Woolard/Willard) of Suttons Creek MM (Perquimans Co., NC, requested certificates, May 11, 1811, to join Deep River MM, Guilford Co., NC. Deep River rec'd the cert. 8 Jul & 5 Aug 1811 & endorsed them to New Garden MM, then in Guilford Co. . New Garden rec'd the cert. 31 Aug 1811 & returned them to Deep River MM, 29 May 1813. Deep River MM rec'd the cert., 5 Jul 1813 & granted certificates to White Water MM, Harrison [sic] Co., IN (Whitewater MM, Wayne Co., IN?) 6 Sep 1813. John, Sarah & children are next found in Crawford Co., IL, on 1820 census. I find no further evidence of members of this family being members of the Society of Friends. But, other than what is in Hinshaw"s Encyclopedia, I find little information online. I'd appreciate anything that others can dig up. My last Evans connection was my mother's maternal grandmother, Mary (Evans) [Moore] b. 1853, IL, & last found on the 1930 census, at age 73, a health practitioner for the Christian Science Church.

Quaker-Roots list members, I have in recent months been tracing the Friends-meeting locations (and property titles) in Baltimore, which in 1851 became a separate-title recording jurisdiction from Baltimore County. I have come to question whether events in the early 1800s foreshadow which branch Friends chose in the 1828 separation. The first meeting in Baltimore County was Gunpowder, set off as a monthly meeting ("MM") in 1739 from Herring Creek MM in Anne Arundel County (what became Sandy Spring MM). In 1714 Herring Creek MM set up Patapsco Preparative Meeting in what is now Baltimore, the PM (now under Gunpowder) was renamed Baltimore PM in 1781, and the membership grew sufficiently that Baltimore MM was set up in 1792. Baltimore, formerly Western Shore, Quarterly Meeting ("QM") set off Baltimore MM for the Western District in 1807 and renamed the original Baltimore MM as Baltimore MM for the Eastern District, but shortly after the property disputes started. The original deeds were to named trustees "in trust for the use of the Society of Christian people called Quakers inhabiting and dwelling in and near the Town and County of Baltimore", which presented no ambiguity so long as there was only one MM there. Shortly after the Western District MM was set off, however, the Eastern District MM decided not to share with the Western District MM the original Friends Burial Ground ("FBG") at Aisquith Street in the eastern part of the city. This dispute continued for some years and the Yearly Meeting directed that the Eastern District MM be discontinued and attached to the Western District MM. That was done in 1819. This action did not end the dispute, as some of the Eastern District members petitioned both the Baltimore City Council and the Maryland General Assembly to declare some of them as the legal trustees for the original Baltimore Quaker properties. This appeal to the civil authorities was widely viewed as a breach of discipline. The Western District MM treated with several members over many months, and on 1822/10/04 the Western District MM Men's Meeting disowned 14 men. I read their names as: John Cornthwait Samuel Wilson, son of John Uriah Brown Joseph Brevitt Samuel S. Smith William Dowson Jr. David R. Wilson Thomas Wilson Israel Price Samuel Register David W. Brown Abel Spencer Isaiah Littler Samuel Wilson Jr. I have not traced the minutes carefully thereafter, but 13 of them appealed to the QM, and some of them appear as trustees appointed by the Western District MM 1830, so I do not know which memberships were discontinued in the early 1820s. My question to the list is whether the 1810 to 1822 title dispute played any part in the 1828 separation resulting in (1) the Hicksite Western District MM now named "Baltimore Monthly Meeting of Friends, Stony Run" and (2) the Orthodox MM first named "The Baltimore Monthly Meeting of Friends for the Eastern & Western Districts, in Unity with the Ancient Yearly Meetings of Friends" and now named "Baltimore Monthly Meeting of Friends Homewood". Do any of these names show up as disowned by one party or the other in the 1828 split? Tom Hill Thomas C. Hill Charlottesville, VA 22901-6355 U.S.A. www.QuakerMeetings.com E-mail: MonthlyMeetings@gmail.com

Sorry, when writing the information into my book I didn't record all the information - Elias ENGLAND, you find he was the father of a Dorothy ENGLAND of Eastwood, Notts who in 1696 married Thomas BIGGS of Nottingham, recorded in the Quarterly Meeting of Nottingham, ie. the Quakers. Among the witnesses are: John ENGLAND; George ENGLAND; David ENGLAND. It doesn't look as though Elias was a long-term Quaker himself, but there could be more information about him in the Quaker collection at Notts Archives. BMDR index also shows a Quaker marriage in Chesterfield Monthly Meeting for Elizabeth ENGLAND in 1691, she married William DAWS of Graisley, she being of Eastwood, Notts. Among the witnesses were Ellis and Elizab. ENGLAND, John ENGLAND, David ENGLAND. Elias/Ellis and David were both popular Puritan or Quaker names at this time. It's entirely possible that Elias's birth/bap record does not exist if his family were Puritans (ie. Presbyterians, Independents or Congregationalists) in the 1660-1689 period of persecution, as they were often forced to meet in secret and records were seldom kept. It's possible Elias was a 'friend of the Friends' not a full member, though the two girls in the marriages were, presumably, fully in unity. I have a John RENSHAW of Chesterfield and Whitwell in my files who was such a 'friend of the Friends' and probably Puritan himself (I suspect Independent) - an Edward ENGLAND yeoman of Whitwell is one of John's Will witnesses in 1706, another location close to the Notts borders. Hopefully this information will help - Karen

Hi Karen     My opinion below - which others may not agree with ....     George Fox had a huge personal impact in the 1650s. Many people were convinced by him, and maybe later by others, in a way that cut across families. One partner may have been convinced, but not another. One teenage child may have been convinced, but not another. One child may have been young enough to accept the new faith as normal but not another. This meant that, in England, there wasn't quite the concept of 'unity' in the late 17th century as may be recognised later or elsewhere. Families were mixed.   Nor does the concept of persecution and secrecy quite apply. Early Quaker strongholds were rural, where everyone knew what was going on - early meetings in the summer were open air, before meeting houses were built.; and absence from church would have been a major give away. The problem with records in the late seventeenth century is probably not to do with persecution, but with simple logistics. Indeed, many Anglican BMDs of the period (maybe in desperation) record Quaker events. Quite what is there in records depends upon local politics and the attitude of local clergy.   Mixed families helped Quakers to survive. People were needed, for instance, to swear in legal documents.   Puritans and Quakers weren't normally friendly - quite the reverse.   Obviously you've researched some Quaker records for the period, and found (not surprisingly). yeoman connections.  My suggestion is that you check out local probate records - yeoman wills can provide a vast family infrastructure beyond religion.     Chris                     >________________________________ > From: Karen <kaehansen28@gmail.com> >To: QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com >Sent: Friday, 17 May 2013, 22:46 >Subject: [Q-R] Update - Nottinghamshire, England "ENGLAND" > > >Sorry, when writing the information into my book I didn't record all >the information - > > >Elias ENGLAND, you find he was the father of a >Dorothy ENGLAND of Eastwood, Notts who in 1696 married Thomas BIGGS of >Nottingham, recorded in the Quarterly Meeting of Nottingham, ie. the >Quakers.  Among the witnesses are: John ENGLAND; George ENGLAND; David >ENGLAND. > >It doesn't look as though Elias was a long-term Quaker himself, but there >could be more information about him in the Quaker collection at Notts >Archives. > >BMDR index also shows a Quaker marriage in Chesterfield Monthly Meeting for >Elizabeth ENGLAND in 1691, she married William DAWS of Graisley, she being of >Eastwood, Notts.  Among the witnesses were Ellis and Elizab. ENGLAND, John >ENGLAND, David ENGLAND. > > > >Elias/Ellis and David were both popular Puritan or Quaker names at this >time.  It's entirely possible that Elias's birth/bap record does not exist >if his family were Puritans (ie. Presbyterians, Independents or >Congregationalists) in the 1660-1689 period of persecution, as they were >often forced to meet in secret and records were seldom kept. > >It's possible Elias was a 'friend of the Friends' not a full member, though >the two girls in the marriages were, presumably, fully in unity.  I have a >John RENSHAW of Chesterfield and Whitwell in my files who was such a >'friend of the Friends' and probably Puritan himself (I suspect >Independent) - an Edward ENGLAND yeoman of Whitwell is one of John's Will >witnesses in 1706, another location close to the Notts borders. > >Hopefully this information will help - > >Karen > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

I am looking for information regarding the following people Elias England father of Dorothy England of Eastwood Nottinghamshire Dorothy England married Thomas Biggs of Notts recorded in the Quarterly meeting of Notts (Quakers) Witnesses: John England, George England and David England Also in the Quaker collection of Notts Archives BMDr it also shows Elizabeth England married William Daws of Graisley (should be Greasely), Eastwood Notts Witnesses: Ellis and Elizabeth England, John and David England I am sorry but that is all the information I have which is why I have contacted your organisation - Many thanks Karen

Lick Creek and Blue River are fairly straightforward. 1. Lick Creek https://www.quakermeetings.com/Plone/search_display?MeetingName=Lick+Creek&S tateOrProvince=Indiana [Many e-mail servers insert a line break or return in long URLs like this one, and one must manually edit the link to remove the break before clicking through to the desired site.] , though giving an early (1813) and a late (1985) meeting. 2. A Blue River search gives both Orthodox/FUM and Hicksite/FGC branches and a later spin-off. https://www.quakermeetings.com/Plone/search_display?MeetingName=Blue+River&C ounty=Wash&StateOrProvince=Indi [Many e-mail servers insert a line break or return in long URLs like this one, and one must manually edit the link to remove the break before clicking through to the desired site.] 3. The northwest Indiana and Michigan questions raised by Sara Cree's Q-R post are a little more difficult only because LaPorte had a Clear Lake Preparative Meeting 1843-1855 under Whitewater Hicksite/FGC and because some of the Michigan records may now be at the Cass County Library instead of an official depository. Tom Hill Thomas C. Hill Charlottesville, VA 22901-6355 U.S.A. formerly Cincinnati, OH www.QuakerMeetings.com E-mail: MonthlyMeetings@gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: quaker-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:quaker-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Horned Sent: Friday, 17 May, 2013 9:04 AM To: QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com Subject: [Q-R] Indiana Quakers Where do you find the original records for Indiana Quakers. I am interested in the Lick and Blue River records ? Thanks very much. Joseph

I would also like any information that you might have on the research of Indiana MM records ... there is some confusion over early La Porte Co., MM records. I am also looking for the very early Birch Lake, Cass Co., Michigan records? Thank You for any directives you might have ..... Suza SUZA J. CREE, ASID, LEED AP BD+C Vice-President - Design Director The Vision Group Studios One Page Avenue Suite 323 Asheville, NC 28801 O 828 252 8868 x1 M 828 242 5857 www.visgrp.com www.workplacetransformations.com -----Original Message----- From: quaker-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:quaker-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Horned Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:04 AM To: QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com Subject: [Q-R] Indiana Quakers Where do you find the original records for Indiana Quakers. I am interested in the Lick and Blue River records ? Thanks very much. Joseph ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Where do you find the original records for Indiana Quakers. I am interested in the Lick and Blue River records ? Thanks very much. Joseph

I have done extensive research on this Baldwin family, and this one also confused me at first, because I only had photocopies of the Baldwin pages from Heiss's published Indiana Quaker records, but soon after I managed to purchase a copy of these records, and I came to the same conclusion as Dan and Tom. It appears that when Sarah's marriage was being typed in, the typist's eye accidently skipped up to the marriage of her sister. Since then, I have researched other records (probate, census, etc.) which confirm the same picture. Susannah Baldwin married (as his third wife) Jesse Dillon, and her sister Sarah Baldwin married Samuel Vernon Stanfield. Stewart Baldwin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Hamm" <tomh@earlham.edu> To: "Daniel W Treadway" <treadway@netins.net> Cc: "QUAKER-ROOTS" <QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [Q-R] Baldwin sisters >I have the Back Creek marriage record book in front of me. Dan has resolved >the mystery. Jesse Dillon married Susannah Baldwin 2-19-1841. Samuel >Stanfield married Sarah Baldwin 3-25-1841. > > Tom Hamm > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Daniel W Treadway" <treadway@netins.net> > To: "Dale Harguess" <daleharguess4@gmail.com>, "QUAKER-ROOTS" > <QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:40:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Q-R] Baldwin sisters > > On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:07:58 -0700 > Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com> wrote: >> I have a puzzle that I hope someone out there in Quaker land can >>help me >> with. On page 110 of the Abstracts of the records of the Society of >>Friends in Indiana there are two entries that I am a little confused >>about. >> In the section of Back Creek meeting it has an entry on 2-19-1841 >> "Susannah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of >>Madison Co, >> at Back Creek MM. >> >> Directly below it is another entry on 3-25-1841 "Sarah, Grant Co, dt >> Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co at Back Creek MM. >> >> I'm pretty sure these are not the actual marriage dates but are >>actually >> the dates that the events were officially entered into the minutes. >> I >> cannot find anywhere where either Susannah or Sarah died but Jesse >>later >> married a Lydia Faulkner so I assume that if he married Susannah and >>later >> her sister they must have died. >> I forgot to mention that their maiden name was Baldwin. >> Does anyone out there know anything that would help me figure this >>one out? >> Thanks, >> Dale in California >> > > Dale, > > Back Creek Meeting was created in 1838 by setting off from > Mississinewa (now Marion) meeting. Mississiniewa records (Abstracts > of the records of the Society of Friends in Indiana, part 3, page 2) > show Charles and Sarah Baldwin did indeed have daughters named > Susannah, born 6-3-1808, and Sarah b 2-16-1824. Both are shown as > being buried at Back Creek. > > http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Baldwin&GSiman=1&GScid=1980843&GRid=62642206& > is an entry for Susannah (Baldwin) Dillon, born Jun 3, 1808, died Oct > 6, 1844, buried Back Creek Friends Cemetery. > > I note that on page 116, where Dillon marriages appear, Jesse's > marriage to Susannah is shown, and in 1847 a marriage to Lydia Johnson > in 1847. (For this one, Jesse's parents' names do not appear, so it > is possible it is a different Jesse Dillon.) > > This all makes me think the wrong groom's name appears in the entry > for Sarah's marriage entry on page 110. > > So who could Sarah's husband have been? > > Searching for the first name Sarah (any surname) born in 1824, among > the burial listed for Back Creek Cemetery, > http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr&GSiman=1&GScid=1980843&GSfn=sarah&GSln= > I see a Sarah Newby who died in 1911. I don't see anything about > this Sarah Newby in Back Creek records (page 131) > > > Ahhh. Here it is! On page 139. 3-25-1841 Samuel V [Stanfield] of > Grant County, son of David and Elizabeth, married Sarah Baldwin, > daughter of Charles and Sarah (dec), Grant County, at Back Creek MH. > Samuel and Sarah were both disowned in 1844 for joining another > society. > > It appears she is buried at Clear Lake, Iowa, rather than at Back > Creek. > http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=stanfield&GSfn=sarah&GSby=1824&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=79693856&df=all& > > > -- > Dan Treadway > P. O. Box 72 Gilbert IA 50105 > treadway@netins.net > http://showcase.netins.net/web/treadway/ > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > QUAKER-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > QUAKER-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

By any chance do you have any information on David Baldwin who was not a Quaker, but lived and married among them in Wrightsboro, Georgia? He was a captain in the Revolutionary War. Need to find where he was from and anything on his famiily. I am assuming that Baldwins in Indiana might be related. His wife Sarah was/is thought to have been an Owen. Joseph Moore Georgia In a message dated 5/16/2013 3:32:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, quaker-roots-request@rootsweb.com writes: Today's Topics: 1. Baldwin sisters (Dale Harguess) 2. Re: Baldwin sisters (grannyroots) 3. Re: Baldwin sisters (Daniel W Treadway) 4. Re: Baldwin sisters (Thomas Hamm) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:07:58 -0700 From: Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com> Subject: [Q-R] Baldwin sisters To: QUAKER-ROOTS <QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <CAPG4UJbpGNk+1-5HXzY1YPnadzCSAv2x3DQaSxbXUaHPJi_aPQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I have a puzzle that I hope someone out there in Quaker land can help me with. On page 110 of the Abstracts of the records of the Society of Friends in Indiana there are two entries that I am a little confused about. In the section of Back Creek meeting it has an entry on 2-19-1841 "Susannah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co, at Back Creek MM. Directly below it is another entry on 3-25-1841 "Sarah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co at Back Creek MM. I'm pretty sure these are not the actual marriage dates but are actually the dates that the events were officially entered into the minutes. I cannot find anywhere where either Susannah or Sarah died but Jesse later married a Lydia Faulkner so I assume that if he married Susannah and later her sister they must have died. I forgot to mention that their maiden name was Baldwin. Does anyone out there know anything that would help me figure this one out? Thanks, Dale in California ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:09:52 -0400 From: grannyroots <grannyroots@iowatelecom.net> Subject: Re: [Q-R] Baldwin sisters To: Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com> Cc: Quaker-Roots-L <QUAKER-ROOTS-L@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <C15265E6-6A94-4476-8B74-865246394B1E@iowatelecom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The couple went before the men's and the women's meeting to be allowed to marry. When they were liberated to marry they could. You really need to see the original records to see where they got the dates. It sounds like to me you have one date when they were liberated to marry and the second when it was reported back they were married. Neither one would be the actual date of marriage. Jean Leeper grannyroots@iowatelecom.net Sent from my iPad On May 15, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a puzzle that I hope someone out there in Quaker land can help me > with. On page 110 of the Abstracts of the records of the Society of > Friends in Indiana there are two entries that I am a little confused about. > In the section of Back Creek meeting it has an entry on 2-19-1841 > "Susannah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co, > at Back Creek MM. > > Directly below it is another entry on 3-25-1841 "Sarah, Grant Co, dt > Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co at Back Creek MM. > > I'm pretty sure these are not the actual marriage dates but are actually > the dates that the events were officially entered into the minutes. I > cannot find anywhere where either Susannah or Sarah died but Jesse later > married a Lydia Faulkner so I assume that if he married Susannah and later > her sister they must have died. > I forgot to mention that their maiden name was Baldwin. > Does anyone out there know anything that would help me figure this one out? > Thanks, > Dale in California > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:40:05 -0500 From: "Daniel W Treadway" <treadway@netins.net> Subject: Re: [Q-R] Baldwin sisters To: Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com>, QUAKER-ROOTS <QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <web-29210312@cgpb4.cgp.netins.net> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1; format="flowed" On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:07:58 -0700 Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a puzzle that I hope someone out there in Quaker land can >help me > with. On page 110 of the Abstracts of the records of the Society of >Friends in Indiana there are two entries that I am a little confused >about. > In the section of Back Creek meeting it has an entry on 2-19-1841 > "Susannah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of >Madison Co, > at Back Creek MM. > > Directly below it is another entry on 3-25-1841 "Sarah, Grant Co, dt > Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co at Back Creek MM. > > I'm pretty sure these are not the actual marriage dates but are >actually > the dates that the events were officially entered into the minutes. > I > cannot find anywhere where either Susannah or Sarah died but Jesse >later > married a Lydia Faulkner so I assume that if he married Susannah and >later > her sister they must have died. > I forgot to mention that their maiden name was Baldwin. > Does anyone out there know anything that would help me figure this >one out? > Thanks, > Dale in California > Dale, Back Creek Meeting was created in 1838 by setting off from Mississinewa (now Marion) meeting. Mississiniewa records (Abstracts of the records of the Society of Friends in Indiana, part 3, page 2) show Charles and Sarah Baldwin did indeed have daughters named Susannah, born 6-3-1808, and Sarah b 2-16-1824. Both are shown as being buried at Back Creek. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Baldwin&GSiman=1&GScid =1980843&GRid=62642206& is an entry for Susannah (Baldwin) Dillon, born Jun 3, 1808, died Oct 6, 1844, buried Back Creek Friends Cemetery. I note that on page 116, where Dillon marriages appear, Jesse's marriage to Susannah is shown, and in 1847 a marriage to Lydia Johnson in 1847. (For this one, Jesse's parents' names do not appear, so it is possible it is a different Jesse Dillon.) This all makes me think the wrong groom's name appears in the entry for Sarah's marriage entry on page 110. So who could Sarah's husband have been? Searching for the first name Sarah (any surname) born in 1824, among the burial listed for Back Creek Cemetery, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr&GSiman=1&GScid=1980843&GSf n=sarah&GSln= I see a Sarah Newby who died in 1911. I don't see anything about this Sarah Newby in Back Creek records (page 131) Ahhh. Here it is! On page 139. 3-25-1841 Samuel V [Stanfield] of Grant County, son of David and Elizabeth, married Sarah Baldwin, daughter of Charles and Sarah (dec), Grant County, at Back Creek MH. Samuel and Sarah were both disowned in 1844 for joining another society. It appears she is buried at Clear Lake, Iowa, rather than at Back Creek. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=stanfield&GSfn=sarah&G Sby=1824&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=79693856&df=all& -- Dan Treadway P. O. Box 72 Gilbert IA 50105 treadway@netins.net http://showcase.netins.net/web/treadway/ ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:12:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Hamm <tomh@earlham.edu> Subject: Re: [Q-R] Baldwin sisters To: Daniel W Treadway <treadway@netins.net> Cc: QUAKER-ROOTS <QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <47706fd8-f5d1-4180-9c20-b6a11494e319@baris.earlham.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I have the Back Creek marriage record book in front of me. Dan has resolved the mystery. Jesse Dillon married Susannah Baldwin 2-19-1841. Samuel Stanfield married Sarah Baldwin 3-25-1841. Tom Hamm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel W Treadway" <treadway@netins.net> To: "Dale Harguess" <daleharguess4@gmail.com>, "QUAKER-ROOTS" <QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:40:05 PM Subject: Re: [Q-R] Baldwin sisters On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:07:58 -0700 Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a puzzle that I hope someone out there in Quaker land can >help me > with. On page 110 of the Abstracts of the records of the Society of >Friends in Indiana there are two entries that I am a little confused >about. > In the section of Back Creek meeting it has an entry on 2-19-1841 > "Susannah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of >Madison Co, > at Back Creek MM. > > Directly below it is another entry on 3-25-1841 "Sarah, Grant Co, dt > Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co at Back Creek MM. > > I'm pretty sure these are not the actual marriage dates but are >actually > the dates that the events were officially entered into the minutes. > I > cannot find anywhere where either Susannah or Sarah died but Jesse >later > married a Lydia Faulkner so I assume that if he married Susannah and >later > her sister they must have died. > I forgot to mention that their maiden name was Baldwin. > Does anyone out there know anything that would help me figure this >one out? > Thanks, > Dale in California > Dale, Back Creek Meeting was created in 1838 by setting off from Mississinewa (now Marion) meeting. Mississiniewa records (Abstracts of the records of the Society of Friends in Indiana, part 3, page 2) show Charles and Sarah Baldwin did indeed have daughters named Susannah, born 6-3-1808, and Sarah b 2-16-1824. Both are shown as being buried at Back Creek. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Baldwin&GSiman=1&GScid =1980843&GRid=62642206& is an entry for Susannah (Baldwin) Dillon, born Jun 3, 1808, died Oct 6, 1844, buried Back Creek Friends Cemetery. I note that on page 116, where Dillon marriages appear, Jesse's marriage to Susannah is shown, and in 1847 a marriage to Lydia Johnson in 1847. (For this one, Jesse's parents' names do not appear, so it is possible it is a different Jesse Dillon.) This all makes me think the wrong groom's name appears in the entry for Sarah's marriage entry on page 110. So who could Sarah's husband have been? Searching for the first name Sarah (any surname) born in 1824, among the burial listed for Back Creek Cemetery, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr&GSiman=1&GScid=1980843&GSf n=sarah&GSln= I see a Sarah Newby who died in 1911. I don't see anything about this Sarah Newby in Back Creek records (page 131) Ahhh. Here it is! On page 139. 3-25-1841 Samuel V [Stanfield] of Grant County, son of David and Elizabeth, married Sarah Baldwin, daughter of Charles and Sarah (dec), Grant County, at Back Creek MH. Samuel and Sarah were both disowned in 1844 for joining another society. It appears she is buried at Clear Lake, Iowa, rather than at Back Creek. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=stanfield&GSfn=sarah&G Sby=1824&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=79693856&df=all& -- Dan Treadway P. O. Box 72 Gilbert IA 50105 treadway@netins.net http://showcase.netins.net/web/treadway/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ To contact the QUAKER-ROOTS list administrator, send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the QUAKER-ROOTS mailing list, send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of QUAKER-ROOTS Digest, Vol 8, Issue 42 *******************************************

I have the Back Creek marriage record book in front of me. Dan has resolved the mystery. Jesse Dillon married Susannah Baldwin 2-19-1841. Samuel Stanfield married Sarah Baldwin 3-25-1841. Tom Hamm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel W Treadway" <treadway@netins.net> To: "Dale Harguess" <daleharguess4@gmail.com>, "QUAKER-ROOTS" <QUAKER-ROOTS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:40:05 PM Subject: Re: [Q-R] Baldwin sisters On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:07:58 -0700 Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a puzzle that I hope someone out there in Quaker land can >help me > with. On page 110 of the Abstracts of the records of the Society of >Friends in Indiana there are two entries that I am a little confused >about. > In the section of Back Creek meeting it has an entry on 2-19-1841 > "Susannah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of >Madison Co, > at Back Creek MM. > > Directly below it is another entry on 3-25-1841 "Sarah, Grant Co, dt > Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co at Back Creek MM. > > I'm pretty sure these are not the actual marriage dates but are >actually > the dates that the events were officially entered into the minutes. > I > cannot find anywhere where either Susannah or Sarah died but Jesse >later > married a Lydia Faulkner so I assume that if he married Susannah and >later > her sister they must have died. > I forgot to mention that their maiden name was Baldwin. > Does anyone out there know anything that would help me figure this >one out? > Thanks, > Dale in California > Dale, Back Creek Meeting was created in 1838 by setting off from Mississinewa (now Marion) meeting. Mississiniewa records (Abstracts of the records of the Society of Friends in Indiana, part 3, page 2) show Charles and Sarah Baldwin did indeed have daughters named Susannah, born 6-3-1808, and Sarah b 2-16-1824. Both are shown as being buried at Back Creek. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Baldwin&GSiman=1&GScid=1980843&GRid=62642206& is an entry for Susannah (Baldwin) Dillon, born Jun 3, 1808, died Oct 6, 1844, buried Back Creek Friends Cemetery. I note that on page 116, where Dillon marriages appear, Jesse's marriage to Susannah is shown, and in 1847 a marriage to Lydia Johnson in 1847. (For this one, Jesse's parents' names do not appear, so it is possible it is a different Jesse Dillon.) This all makes me think the wrong groom's name appears in the entry for Sarah's marriage entry on page 110. So who could Sarah's husband have been? Searching for the first name Sarah (any surname) born in 1824, among the burial listed for Back Creek Cemetery, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr&GSiman=1&GScid=1980843&GSfn=sarah&GSln= I see a Sarah Newby who died in 1911. I don't see anything about this Sarah Newby in Back Creek records (page 131) Ahhh. Here it is! On page 139. 3-25-1841 Samuel V [Stanfield] of Grant County, son of David and Elizabeth, married Sarah Baldwin, daughter of Charles and Sarah (dec), Grant County, at Back Creek MH. Samuel and Sarah were both disowned in 1844 for joining another society. It appears she is buried at Clear Lake, Iowa, rather than at Back Creek. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=stanfield&GSfn=sarah&GSby=1824&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=79693856&df=all& -- Dan Treadway P. O. Box 72 Gilbert IA 50105 treadway@netins.net http://showcase.netins.net/web/treadway/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:07:58 -0700 Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a puzzle that I hope someone out there in Quaker land can >help me > with. On page 110 of the Abstracts of the records of the Society of >Friends in Indiana there are two entries that I am a little confused >about. > In the section of Back Creek meeting it has an entry on 2-19-1841 > "Susannah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of >Madison Co, > at Back Creek MM. > > Directly below it is another entry on 3-25-1841 "Sarah, Grant Co, dt > Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co at Back Creek MM. > > I'm pretty sure these are not the actual marriage dates but are >actually > the dates that the events were officially entered into the minutes. > I > cannot find anywhere where either Susannah or Sarah died but Jesse >later > married a Lydia Faulkner so I assume that if he married Susannah and >later > her sister they must have died. > I forgot to mention that their maiden name was Baldwin. > Does anyone out there know anything that would help me figure this >one out? > Thanks, > Dale in California > Dale, Back Creek Meeting was created in 1838 by setting off from Mississinewa (now Marion) meeting. Mississiniewa records (Abstracts of the records of the Society of Friends in Indiana, part 3, page 2) show Charles and Sarah Baldwin did indeed have daughters named Susannah, born 6-3-1808, and Sarah b 2-16-1824. Both are shown as being buried at Back Creek. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Baldwin&GSiman=1&GScid=1980843&GRid=62642206& is an entry for Susannah (Baldwin) Dillon, born Jun 3, 1808, died Oct 6, 1844, buried Back Creek Friends Cemetery. I note that on page 116, where Dillon marriages appear, Jesse's marriage to Susannah is shown, and in 1847 a marriage to Lydia Johnson in 1847. (For this one, Jesse's parents' names do not appear, so it is possible it is a different Jesse Dillon.) This all makes me think the wrong groom's name appears in the entry for Sarah's marriage entry on page 110. So who could Sarah's husband have been? Searching for the first name Sarah (any surname) born in 1824, among the burial listed for Back Creek Cemetery, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gsr&GSiman=1&GScid=1980843&GSfn=sarah&GSln= I see a Sarah Newby who died in 1911. I don't see anything about this Sarah Newby in Back Creek records (page 131) Ahhh. Here it is! On page 139. 3-25-1841 Samuel V [Stanfield] of Grant County, son of David and Elizabeth, married Sarah Baldwin, daughter of Charles and Sarah (dec), Grant County, at Back Creek MH. Samuel and Sarah were both disowned in 1844 for joining another society. It appears she is buried at Clear Lake, Iowa, rather than at Back Creek. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=stanfield&GSfn=sarah&GSby=1824&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=79693856&df=all& -- Dan Treadway P. O. Box 72 Gilbert IA 50105 treadway@netins.net http://showcase.netins.net/web/treadway/

The couple went before the men's and the women's meeting to be allowed to marry. When they were liberated to marry they could. You really need to see the original records to see where they got the dates. It sounds like to me you have one date when they were liberated to marry and the second when it was reported back they were married. Neither one would be the actual date of marriage. Jean Leeper grannyroots@iowatelecom.net Sent from my iPad On May 15, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Dale Harguess <daleharguess4@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a puzzle that I hope someone out there in Quaker land can help me > with. On page 110 of the Abstracts of the records of the Society of > Friends in Indiana there are two entries that I am a little confused about. > In the section of Back Creek meeting it has an entry on 2-19-1841 > "Susannah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co, > at Back Creek MM. > > Directly below it is another entry on 3-25-1841 "Sarah, Grant Co, dt > Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co at Back Creek MM. > > I'm pretty sure these are not the actual marriage dates but are actually > the dates that the events were officially entered into the minutes. I > cannot find anywhere where either Susannah or Sarah died but Jesse later > married a Lydia Faulkner so I assume that if he married Susannah and later > her sister they must have died. > I forgot to mention that their maiden name was Baldwin. > Does anyone out there know anything that would help me figure this one out? > Thanks, > Dale in California > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUAKER-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have a puzzle that I hope someone out there in Quaker land can help me with. On page 110 of the Abstracts of the records of the Society of Friends in Indiana there are two entries that I am a little confused about. In the section of Back Creek meeting it has an entry on 2-19-1841 "Susannah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co, at Back Creek MM. Directly below it is another entry on 3-25-1841 "Sarah, Grant Co, dt Charles & Sarah (dec) m Jesse Dillon of Madison Co at Back Creek MM. I'm pretty sure these are not the actual marriage dates but are actually the dates that the events were officially entered into the minutes. I cannot find anywhere where either Susannah or Sarah died but Jesse later married a Lydia Faulkner so I assume that if he married Susannah and later her sister they must have died. I forgot to mention that their maiden name was Baldwin. Does anyone out there know anything that would help me figure this one out? Thanks, Dale in California

Does anyone know the parents or birth date and place of a Chloe Dear who married a Solomon Hodgson in Guilford County February 23, 1792. thanks, Dale in California