I have fixed the Ringgold Muster Roll for the Civil War. It can be found under the Civil War information at the following address. http://www.rootsweb.com/~vapittsy/MR1.htm

In a message dated 4/25/01 5:31:02 AM, BilleeS@aol.com writes: << Growing up in Virginia we always called periwinkle "myrtle". Perhaps that is the root of the confusion. >> YES! That is the source of the confusion. Here in Missouri we just call it myrtle also. I added the crape in front of it which is obviously wrong. I have never heard it called periwinkle but I received about 15 e-mails all of which agreed 100% that it was periwinkle and that combined with a grove of cedar trees is a sure sign of an old cemetery. Ah, one more little mystery solved! THANKS. Craig Kilby

I truly and sincerely apologize if I sent the current .pif or .scr virus file to any one of you good folks. I had it a few hours before several of you made me aware of the fact. I very much thank you for so apprising me. For the record, I never send attachments unless asked specifically to do so, so do not open any attachment from me unless you did so request. I will be gone for a couple of weeks. See y'all later. Paul

In a message dated 4/25/01 12:15:22 PM, dhrenaud@midwest.net writes: << If anyone has access to marriages in Spotsylvania Co. or Orange Co. Va., I am looking for a marriage of James Payne and Elizabeth Harris about 1770-80. James is believed to be the son of Thomas Payne who died in Orange Co 1815. Elizabeth the daughter of Thomas Harris who died Orange Co. 1782. Thank you. Dorothy >> Hello Dorothy, I know that this is a far stretch to attempt to tack onto your research of the Payne family, but I hope that you might have some idea of the origin of these Paynes found in early Orange County, NC, now Caswell County, in partnership with my ancestor John Satterfield: >>John Satterfield, himself, received an Earl of Granville grant for 151 acres of land 11 November 1760. On the 12 March of 1761, John deeded 151 acres to William Satterfield, his brother. By 11 November 1766 William Satterfield was deeding 67 acres to James Satterfield, witnessed by John Satterfield. This James was apparently the son of William, as was indicated in the St. James District of Caswell County tax list of 1777 when James was noted as son of Will to distinquish him from his uncle James. The exchanging of this land either by sale or deed of gift makes a significant statement that there existed some special kind of relationship among the Jays and the Satterfields. Established an ordinary at Paynes (Paines) Tavern in 1775 with John Payne and Robert Payne.<< I have always wondered if there were some other kind of relationship, other than business, which the Paynes and Satterfields had. They often witnessed documents for each other, such as deeds. Thank you for being considerate of my leap of faith. Best regards, John Fox Winston Salem, NC

I am trying to contact the descendants of any of the following African Americans who were living in Halifax County, VA in the late 1800s, generally in the Black Walnut district. If you are a descendant, or know someone who is, PLEASE respond to me individually, and NOT to the entire list: Clem Fountain, Sr. 1842 - ? ......... +Jane Harris 1847 - 1927 ............ 3 Clem Fountain, Jr. 1871 - 1923 ................... +Anna Gorrens ................... 4 [1] Gabriella Fountain 1892 - No additional information ................... 4 [2] Mary L. Fountain 1897 - No additional information ....................... +[3] Venable Owen ................... 4 [4] Janie Fountain 1899 - No additional information ............ *2nd Wife of Clem Fountain, Jr.: ................ +Eliza Brooks 1877 - Unknown ................... 4 Rebecca Fountain 1904 - No additional information ................... 4 Haywood Fountain 1908 - No additional information ................... 4 Aleas Fountain 1910 - ....................... +Mearl Majors ................... 4 Ethel Fountain 1912 - ....................... +Nat Faulkner ................... 4 Jonah Fountain 1913 - No additional information ................... 4 Joe Fountain 1916 - No additional information ................... 4 Willie Shepherd Fountain 1911 - ....................... +Lucy Gerst ............ 3 Lizzy Fountain 1873 - No additional information ............ 3 Robert Fountain 1876 - ................ +Sarah Royal 1882 - ................... 4 Otis Fountain 1906 - ....................... +Hannah Royster ................... 4 Frank M. Fountain 1908 - No additional information ................... 4 Lorenzo Fountain 1911 - No additional information ................... 4 Amanda Fountain 1913 - No additional information ................... 4 Irene Fountain 1914 - No additional information ................... 4 Nathan E. Fountain 1915 - 1939 ................... 4 Velricer Fountain 1916 - ....................... +Cressela Faulkner .......................... 5 Lucille Christine Fountain 1945 - .............................. +John Jordan .................................. 6 ------ ? Jordan ................... 4 Clem (ie, III) Fountain 1918 - ....................... +Edna Chander ................... 4 Henry Grant Fountain 1919 - 1957 ....................... +Catherine Faulkner .......................... 5 Robert Junious Fountain 1943 - .............................. +Dorothy Bell Sydnor .................................. 6 Robert Alphonso Fountain 1962 - ...................................... +Senora Genetta Betts .................................. 6 Junious Alverez Fountain 1968 - ...................................... +Deidra Michelle Betts .......................... 5 John Jasper Fountain 1945 - .............................. +Sallie Rosa Holt .................................. 6 Derek Marquism Fountain 1975 - ...................................... +Tamika Renee Robertson .......................... 5 Deloris Estelle Fountain 1947 - .............................. +Ralph Lee Williams .......................... 5 Shirley Fountain (Unknown -) .............................. +(unknown) Holeman .......................... 5 Rita Jane Fountain 1958 - .............................. +Joseph Lee Faulkner ................... 4 Thomas Fountain (Unknown -) No additional information ................... 4 Earnest Fountain 1926 - 1935 ............ 3 Josephine Fountain 1878 - No additional information ............ 3 Janie Fountain 1884 - No additional information ................ +Ellis Watkins ............ 3 John Fountain 1887 - No additional information ................ +Mary Carrington 1887 -

Thanks for the time and effort expended to provide information and suggests on my query on cedar trees in southern Virginia. I know much more now than I did and I am now satisfied. Thanks to all respondents. Larry

If anyone has access to marriages in Spotsylvania Co. or Orange Co. Va., I am looking for a marriage of James Payne and Elizabeth Harris about 1770-80. James is believed to be the son of Thomas Payne who died in Orange Co 1815. Elizabeth the daughter of Thomas Harris who died Orange Co. 1782. Thank you. Dorothy

Growing up in Virginia we always called periwinkle "myrtle". Perhaps that is the root of the confusion.

Located a small white tombstone with the inscription "Miss Frances E. Goulder 1824-1892. Tombstone in Maury Cemetery, Richmond, Va. Have not had time to use the microfilm for Maury Cemetery.

I was going through my old emails and found the following from the LVA's VA-HIst list that I thought might be of interest. FYI, information on how to subscribe is found at the bottom. Best Regards, Janet (Baugh) Hunter Subj: Re: [VA-HIST] Separate Property Date: 4/6/01 8:56:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time From:    BTarter@LVA.LIB.VA.US (Brent Tarter) Sender:    VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US (Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history) Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US">VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US</A> (Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history) To:    VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US The Virginia Married Women's Property Act was adopted on 4 April 1877. Virginia's was the last state statute to overthrow the Common Law on this subject; but there were many ways by which individual women could have had control of their own property before that. Some references that might be helpful: J.P. Bishop, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW OF MARRIED WOMEN UNDER THE STATES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, AND AT COMMON LAW AND IN EQUITY (Boston, 1875). George L. Christian and Frank W. Christian, "The Virginia Married Women's Act," VIRGINIA LAW JOURNAL 1 (1877): 63-75. S.S.P. Patteson, "The Law for Married Women," VIRGINIA LAW JOURNAL 14 (1890): 537-547. Martin Parks Burks, NOTES ON THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN IN VIRGINIA (Lynchburg, 1894). W.B. Pettit, "The Property and Contractual Rights of Married Women," REPORT OF THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION (Richmond, 1899), 251-255. Cynthia Gianakos, "Virginia and the Married Women's Property Acts" (MA, University of Virginia, 1982). Brent Tarter, "When Kind and Thrifty Husbands Are Not Enough: Some Thoughts on the Legal Status of Women in Virginia," MAGAZINE OF VIRGINIA GENEALOGY 33 (1995): 79-101. Brent Tarter The Library of Virginia btarter@lva.lib.va.us To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

In a message dated 04/24/2001 3:10:06 PM Mountain Daylight Time, jleehunt1@aol.com writes: > Although they did away with primogeniture, the > wills are full of examples of entailing the lands left to the sons and > daughters either forbidding them to sell the land outside of the family, or > laying out the proper descent of the testator's lands (thus you get those > marvelous wills where they say and "should Leaven die without heirs and > before coming of age then the land left to him to be the property I've got one (York Co VA 1688) where he goes through the whole list of sons, sons children, etc. and finally winds up saying if there's no one left here, it goes to the first son of his uncle's line (the uncle was an oldest son) who comes to the New World. I'm sure he thought he had locked it up tight for eternity, but the 3rd great grandson who inherited it in 1730--under the strict primogeniture of the 1688 will--sold it four years later. So much for eternity. What I need to know is what "laws" of inheritance might have been followed in 1730 Stafford Co. if a man died intestate. I think I can identify several sons, but none of the patterns of location seems to follow primogeniture. The inventory of his estate is signed by his brother and his widow--which suggests to me the sons were not of age, but how then would property have been distributed as they grew older? Why is the one who seems the eldest buying property several miles away while an apparently younger son got the "home" plantation? Who decided that? Did the mother control the land? She remarried within a couple of years--would her second husband have had some control over which son got what? I think I can identify the second son--he inherited land under his paternal uncle's will (1733), the uncle having no sons of his own. But as best I can tell, the oldest never owned anything he didn't buy, and the youngest owned land he never bought. But since there's no will... Any suggestions? Karen Dale

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0B80691784CBEE10498586AA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is the response I got back when I sent in the virus that came attached to one of Paul's messages. It came from the Norton Anti Virus people-the program that I have. Gayle --------------0B80691784CBEE10498586AA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: by chinook (mbox gayle) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Tue Apr 24 17:58:44 2001) X-From_: bacta@symantec.com Tue Apr 24 17:49:03 2001 Received: from tonga.symantec.com (host17-sub156.symantec.com [155.64.156.17]) by flathead.gate.net (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA246328 for <gayle@gate.net>; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:49:00 -0400 Received: (from bacta@localhost) by tonga.symantec.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA08473; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:48:08 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:48:08 -0700 Message-Id: <200104242148.OAA08473@tonga.symantec.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_988148888-13900-213" Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) From: snd@symantec.com To: gayle@gate.net Subject: SARC Automation: Tracking #490943 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_988148888-13900-213 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline This message is an automatically generated reply. This system is designed to analyze and process virus submissions into the Symantec AntiVirus Research Center (SARC) and cannot accept correspondence or inquiries. Please contact your Technical Support representative if more detailed information about your submission is required. Do not reply to this message. Below is a status update on your virus submission: Date: Tue Apr 24 14:48:08 PDT 2001 Gayle Austin 115 Laurel Oak Dr Longwood, Fl 32779 Dear Gayle Austin We have analyzed your submission. The following is a report of our findings for each file you have submitted: filename: c:\windows\TEMP\searchURL.scr machine: PAVILION result: This file is infected with W32.Badtrans.13312@mm The current monthly definitions are capable of detecting and repairing this virus. Please update your definitions by clicking the "LiveUpdate" button in your NAV program. Developer notes: c:\windows\TEMP\searchURL.scr is infected by a non-repairable virus or a Trojan Horse. You should delete this file and replace it if neccessary. Should you have any questions about your submission, please contact technical support at the appropriate number listed below and give them the tracking number in the subject of this message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was generated by SARC automation. For USA: For electronic support options, Symantec provides On-Line Services at http://www.symantec.com/techsupp. Knowledge Base, FAQ's, Support Genie, and Ask a Tech are all free serv

Joyce, In 1784, North Carolina changed its inheritance laws to eliminate common-law dower. Instead the widow was entitled to the use during her lifetime of 1/3 of the land owned by her husband at the time of his death. According to one reference, some later deeds do contain dower relinquishments, apparently by people from other states. The NC statute authorizing the ceding of TN to the US required that the then current laws of the State of NC be in effect until they were changed. I assume this was what actually occurred, but the lawyers can help us there. I wouldn't think that they would have gone back to common-law dower since it was so impractical. A good TN genealogical reference should have a more accurate answer and the exact dates of any changes from the NC laws.

In a message dated 4/24/01 5:10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jleehunt1@aol.com writes: > Posted by Neil Eddie, one or the LDR list's > resident historians, Co-owner of the Family Tree Bookshop, which used to > have > a store in Easton, MD, some of you may know, but now operates via > www.familytreebookshop.com) > That should have been Neil Keddie, not Eddie. I think I can blame it on the spell check. It wanted to change Choptank to Shoptalk Sorry about that (Neil). Janet

Hello Everyone, Also this weekend we were discussing entailment/sales of land/slaves on the Lower-Delmarva Roots list which includes Accomac and Northhampton. I am inserting below two paragraphs that appeared in a post there that parallels what we have discussed, but wanted to highlight up front a notable, enjoyable quote on language from wills emphasizing the testator's "command" for the land to stay in the family: "the best wording of entail that Les and I have seen so far comes in two wills, one in which the testator stated the land to be his sons until fire no longer burns wood, water no longer quenches thirst and time is no more--or the one in Caroline County where the testator stated that his son was to have the land until the tide on the Choptank no longer ebbed or flowed" (Posted by Neil Eddie, one or the LDR list's resident historians, Co-owner of the Family Tree Bookshop, which used to have a store in Easton, MD, some of you may know, but now operates via www.familytreebookshop.com) <Larger Insert> Most of those "swells" as you so beautifully phrased it that came over here were the younger offspring of aristocratic families, either coming over here to live on land that was purchased for them, or to "manage" the estate for the family. There is a good study by Martin Quit in the William and Mary Quarterly from a few years back that indicates most of those coming over here were alienated from the old notions of primogeniture and did engage in partible inheritance (there are other reasons for this as well--particularly with regard to Virginia). Although they did away with primogeniture, the wills are full of examples of entailing the lands left to the sons and daughters either forbidding them to sell the land outside of the family, or laying out the proper descent of the testator's lands (thus you get those marvelous wills where they say and "should Leaven die without heirs and before coming of age then the land left to him to be the property of George and should George die without issue before coming of age, then to Thomas, etc.--the best wording of entail that Les and I have seen so far comes in two wills, one in which the testator stated the land to be his sons until fire no longer burns wood, water no longer quenches thirst and time is no more--or the one in Caroline County where the testator stated that his son was to have the land until the tide on the Choptank no longer ebbed orflowed). So, entail of land or real estate was practiced widely, and the land record show the number of instances when a son attempted to break it--it will be in an indenture titled something like "for the barring and docking of estate intail"--this all revolved around a rather complicated court process where the son would sell the land and the case would go to the Chancery court where a"common recovery" was made. <End Insert> Best Regards, Janet (Baugh) Hunter

Here's the info on that worm: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.badtrans.13312@mm.html Bob Juch http://www.Juch.org -----Original Message----- From: Paul [mailto:martee@citlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 3:29 PM To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] multpiple messages - Apparently my server or machine or whatever is sending - multiple copies of the same message with an attachment. I did NOT send that attachment, nor do I send ANY ever unless I tell you ahead of time; do not open it, as I suspect it is a virus. *** Sorry too, for the inadvertent - statement that women could not inherit. I - surely meant that they could inherit - anything, but that land and most other - property gained by them during coverture - became the property of their husbands. Will - be gone for a while. Paul ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== USGenWeb Archives Digital Maps Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/maps/ ============================== Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2

Ok, you folks may be a little argumentative, but you are also the most knowledgeable and studious bunch I have seen... I came across this listing in Talbot County today: Fagan, William H. married Jane Drennell 4 Aug 1853 John C. Calhoun, JP pg C103 This is surely my gg-gm, as Wm's first wife died in June, 1852, but what could the DRENNELL name really be?? Any clues appreciated! Thanks Zou Feagin zfeagin@aol.com

- Apparently my server or machine or whatever is sending - multiple copies of the same message with an attachment. I did NOT send that attachment, nor do I send ANY ever unless I tell you ahead of time; do not open it, as I suspect it is a virus. *** Sorry too, for the inadvertent - statement that women could not inherit. I - surely meant that they could inherit - anything, but that land and most other - property gained by them during coverture - became the property of their husbands. Will - be gone for a while. Paul

In a message dated 4/24/01 8:31:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, CASHKILBY@aol.com writes: << some sort of ivy/ground cover that is green year round. Can anyone tell us what the name of that sort of ground cover I am thinking of? >> Usually it is Periwinkle. << 4/22/01 - harriscl@plattsburgh.edu writes: Northern white cedar, also known as arbor vitae, which means "tree of life." Its hardiness explains the name and also why it was often planted in cemeteries. >> Good point. Cedar can live a long time and outlast other trees. According to the old folks evergreens represent Christian symbolism pertaining to everlasting life. Along with the cedar you will also likely find Dogwood trees. You will also often find vine like plants on the ground like Periwinkle and occasionally running cedar which was used for ground cover. The dogwood and periwinkle have flowers which reflect the shape of the cross - again Christian symbolism. And of course the periwinkle and running cedar also are evergreens representing the theme of everlasting life. Adding to this, cedar was mentioned several times in the Bible. "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree; he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those who are planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God." - Psalms 92: 12, 13 Ya'll have a great day, Elvin Perkins Jr. Greensboro, NC

I have sent NO attachments, and apparently have a virus. I will be gone till it is fixed. If you have a message from me - as Margaret so graciously mentioned - DO NOT OPEN IT, as I do not send attachments ever. !!!! ---- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" <martee@citlink.net> To: "Paul Drake" <martee@citlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: attachment Paul, did you send me an attachment in an email today, Tuesday, April 24th?