Not sure this came through the list. Please reply to gu6225@telocity.com and not hit "reply". Linda -------- Original Message -------- Subject: {not a subscriber} Halifax Co. Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:02:01 -0700 From: "Grace Upshaw" <gu6225@telocity.com> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-D@rootsweb.com> John Bruce Sr. and Benjamin Hall were neighbors on Difficult Creek in Halifax Co mid 1700 to early 1800s. Benjamin was married to Wilmouth Irby, dau. of Anthony Irby. Ben died 1803 Halifax Co. naming his wife and children in his will. John Bruce Sr. died there in 1816, leaving several daughters and one son, John Jr. I need parents and birth places for both men, plus wife of John Bruce who was the mother of his children. These two men are my brick walls. John Bruce's gr. dau, Rachel Bruce, married Benjamin Hall's gr. son James H. Hall in 1821 in Halifax Co. Any clues greatly appreciated. Thanks Grace Hall Upshaw

Hello Southside, I have been away from the fold for a while, and decided that I should re-subscribe, and see what "new" developments have occurred. My families are usually found in Amelia, Brunswick, Charlotte, Dinwiddie, Halifax, Henry, Isle of Wight, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Nottway, Prince George, Southampton, Surry, and Sussex. Please add the families of: Hines, Gregory, Mason, Wheeler, Wrenn, and Wills(Wells) to my researching. Will enjoy hearing from those of you who share these counties/and/or families. Best regards, John Fox Winston Salem, NC

Thank you, Janet (Baugh) Hunter, for your impeccable and unbiased review of this very sensitive subject. All the Jeffersons, black or white, descendents or not, are genuinely interested in the truth. Your analysis and analytical opinions are appreciated...and long overdue. Best regards, Hugh S. Jefferson

I am looking for any information on a mother and daughter named IDA May Fisher, And IDA May Ross. They were both born in Danville, Ida May Ross in 1903, no year is known for Ida May Fisher. Both mother and daughter migrated to Baltimore, Maryland. Ida may Ross had nine children, six sons-Earl, Charles, Franklin (my father),twins Hugo and Theo, and Nathan. She also had three daughters-Pauline, Rose, and Shirley. Ida May Ross died in 1944, and all the children that was old enough was left on their own, with Shirley being adopted to a family in Washington, DC. All the children are deceased, with the exception of Rose and Nathan, both being too young to remember their mother, or give any information about her. If any of this sounds familiar, Please email me at musedmm@aol.com Donna M. Muse

With no offense intended to my cousin, this is not the proper forum for discussion of this. Bob Juch http://www.Juch.org -----Original Message----- From: jleehunt1@aol.com [mailto:jleehunt1@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 10:35 PM To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Analysis of Evidence -- Jefferson Scholars Report <snip>

Good Evening, We have been talking about evidence this weekend, and we haven't said too much on this list about the recently released summary of the "Jeffersons Scholars Commission Report" examining the documentary evidence that might lend insights into whether or not Thomas Jefferson was the father of any or all of his slave Sally Hemmings' children -- and concluding with views from skepticism that he was to the conclusion that it was certainly untrue that he was the father of any of the children. For the "evidence" for the new report there are no documents, such as wills, deeds, bibles, etc., but there is a wealth of letters, "hearsay" documents, circumstantial evidence and observations on what is known about the individuals involved to be weighed. There IS an indication from a DNA study in 1999 that one of more than two score Jefferson men MIGHT have been the father of ONE of Sally's children. The summary of the new report available online I think is an extremely clearly written, easy to read analysis of the avilable evidence, and I encourage you all to read it. It is found here: http://www.tjheritage.org/scholars.html For me, with an illegitimate great grandfather ,proof of whose parentage some older cousins have made their life's quest -- cousins who have shown no real interest in either their prominent, upstanding nor their scandal-plagued ancestors in the 1600/1700s on the Eastern Shore-- the Scholars Commission Report has provided suggestions to more places we can look to add to OUR list of evidence and further the cause. (We have the same DNA problem as the Jeffersons...too many likely HILL men in Warren Co TN..to pin down for sure, but they all do probably descend from one "grandpa" in the county.) I wrote a synopsis of the earlier DNA study and the Scholars Commission Report, and posted it on the LVA's VA-Roots, and have been told that it is accurate, though the Thomas-as-father theory still has its fans, and some don't like the fact that I may have "fallen" under the spell of the our-President/Ancestor Thomas-can't -possibly-have-had-a-child-by-a-slave proponents (a slave albeit she was his late wife's half-sister). I'm simplifying a bit. Again, I urge you all to read the online summary, see what they did and how they analyzed it, and if so inclined draw your own conclusions on Jefferson. My slightly amended post to Va-Roots is pasted in below. I added for this, hopefully less high-strung list's purpose the info that (a) PBS had all "sides" of the story prior to production of the special and chose to ignore important "facts" such as Eston Hemming's family lore that they descended from an "uncle" Jefferson and not Thomas himself; (b) the fact that Madison's descendants declined testing; (c) the reference to Abigail Adam's letters re Sally, which I found to be quite remarkable; and (d) the argument that Thomas' brother Randolph's 16-18 year old boys were too young to bed Sally. My long-standing interest in this controversy stems from my CARR ancestry.(and there are some real interesting comments on the Carr boys' claims in the summary) Best Regards, Janet (Baugh) Hunter _________ Subj: Re: [VA-ROOTS] READ IT -- Jefferson Scholars Report Date: 4/17/01 3:38:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: jleehunt1 To: va-roots@listlva.lib.va.us << << What is so wrong with Jefferson falling in love with Sally, a beautiful woman who resembled his dead wife, it was interesting he did not remary, but showed faithfulness to Sally by staying single.>> >> Hello Everyone, There is nothing wrong with the sentiment, but evidence suggests that it just isn't true. I urge you all to read the summary of the Scholars Commission on the Jefferson-Hemmings controversy (link below). While it may seem like we are getting involved in an actual controversy that side tracks us from geneaology, the way the facts were gathered by the Scholars Commission and the analysis of them I feel DOES HAVE a broader application by way of example for all of us who have ancestor connections that we cannot prove via wills, deeds, etc., but have quite thick files of circumstantial arguments and data, as I do. I too shared the above quoted sentiment, which seemed to be a likely scenario after watching a PBS documentary about a year ago (with two of my children, with one of whom I am now in protracted discussions about the latest developments). And I am appalled to find out that even though PBS knew the evidence was lacking and had interviewed "all sides", the documentary still leaves the impression that Sally Hemmings basically gave Thomas Jefferson a second family in a loving, long-running, monogamous relationship that began in Paris, when our future President also inaugurated the truly incredible spending-way-beyond-his-means habits that extended throughout his lifetime. While Jim Self's statement(s) of Jefferson's own denial of the affair should be taken seriously, the combination of the earlier DNA study and the summary of the still -to-be-released full Scholars Commission report provide more objective support for Jefferson's denial, and I personally think together make a strong case that it is unlikely that he was the father of any of Sally's children. They seem to me anyway to also make a case that there well could have been at least three separate fathers involved, and there are other known Jefferson candidates for the honor of siring children by Sally. Background facts in brief: (1) Sally Hemmings had seven children: Thomas Woodson, Madison, Eston, Harriet1 (died young), Harriet2, Beverly and another daughter who died in infancy. (2) DNA studies, only applicable to male descendants, were done on descendants of only two sons: Thomas Woodson and Eston. Madison's descendants have so far declined to be tested, which they can do at any time; at least one said the family story was quite sufficient (see below). (3) No DNA work on others; (4) Madison Hemmings' descendants have a story that Thomas Jefferson was their ancestor: (5) Eston Hemmings' descendants have a story that an "uncle Jefferson" was their ancestor: and (6) two Carr brothers, Peter and Samuel, claimed to have fathered children by Hemmings. (Source: http://www.angelfire.com/va/TJTruth/background.html) QUICK SUMMARY OF THE NOVEMBER 1999 DNA STUDY, designed to test for BOTH Jefferson and Carr genetic markers: (1) Thomas Woodson's descendant tested DOES NOT have the JEFFERSON genetic marker; (2) Eston Hemmings' descendant tested DOES have the JEFFERSON genetic marker; (3) NEITHER of the tested descendants have the CARR genetic Marker. Conclusion: Eston likely has Jefferson ancestry; Thomas Woodson likely does not; neither likely have Carr ancestry. Even though Eston's Jefferson ancestry could have been any one of many Jefferson men, the test results were interpreted by many of Sally Hemmings' descendants (plus other interested parties and the media) to mean that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of her children Thus the controversy and need for further study and analysis. For more information on the DNA study: http://www.angelfire.com/va/TJTruth/background.html (There are some other sites). Observation re Thomas and Sally having long-term monogamous relationship. Based on the assumption that the Carr brothers weren't just boasting about bedding one of the best looking slaves at Monticello but actually did "sleep" with her and sired some of her children, it looks like Sally MIGHT well have had children by at least THREE or FOUR different men: Peter and/or Samuel Carr; a Jefferson man; and a non Carr/non Jefferson man. But DNA testing is in the early stages and is complicated, and the verdict is still out on that (Jefferson Scholars Commission report below, which indicates no clan OR individual, including Thomas Jefferson, is "off the hook" for ANY of the children). MY QUICK TAKE ON SUMMARY OF JEFFERSON SCHOLARS COMMISSION REPORT found here: http://www.tjheritage.org/scholars.html : The Scholars Commission concludes it "is by no means proven" that Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more of Sally Hemmings children, and the views of the 12 scholars agreeing with this range from the skeptical to those who feel it is certainly untrue that Jefferson was the father. One of the scholars dissented. The reason there is at the least skepticism among the twelve that Thomas Jefferson is the father of any of Sally Hemming's children centers (in my reading) on their analysis that the evidence suggests that while he was in the right "time and place" to have done so, it is questionable whether he would have had either the "motive" to bed Sally or "opportunity" to do so without detection. They find no evidence that Thomas Jefferson had sexual relations with Sally Hemmings, while there is evidence she had other liaisons, and further: (a) a number of factors would argue against such a liaison in any event -- no motive -- (her age and personality, his age and personality, etc. -- read especially reference to First Lady (later) Abigail Adams' letter from London regarding Sally right before she went across the Channel with Jefferson's daughter to Paris, saying Sally was less mature than the 9 year old daughter); and (b) while Thomas Jefferson was in the vicinity of Sally Hemmings when all of her pregnancies were conceived ("time and place"), he had virtually no privacy when he was at Monticello (no opportunity to do so without detection). They argue that if there had been an ongoing relationship it would have been known and recorded by someone, somewhere -- and there were observations that Thomas' brother Randolph spent the night with Sally Hemmings on many occasions. They also further point to the fact that Sally's children do not seem to receive treatment in the Jefferson household any better than those of Sally's siblings also there. Monticello was, it seems, the scene of a giant "house party" whenever Thomas Jefferson was in residence, with "alert" servants and guests everywhere. The report goes on to indicate that among the more likely candidates for the Jefferson genetic marker for Eston are Thomas' brother Randolph, or one of his sons. (I have been told that advocates of the Thomas-as-father theory have argued that Randolph's 16-18 year old boys were too young to have bedded Sally..!!*#$@!! You've got to read about Randolph to fully appreciate this.) Ann Avery Hunter just wrote: "Men who don't talk about their love/sex lives are not called liars in Virginia. They are called gentlemen." I urge everyone to go and read the excellent, clear summary of the report, which is unfortunately in PDF form, which means you need to download Acrobat Reader. The summary is fairly lengthy and describes in a very forthright manner the facts the scholars chose as key and the reasons for their interpretations. We have had quite a to-do on the issue on the VA-HIST list, companion to Va-Roots. The orientation there is different. I recommend that you look at the summary, pretend that Thomas Jefferson was just another rich plantation owner, who'd never done a day of public service beyond jury duty, and that your family lore has a story such as this, and ask yourself what your "tentative" conclusions (preponderance of evidence, etc.) might be -- "tentative" as there is a book coming out shortly with all the details on the specifics of the evidence. I am pretty sure I've made some horrible faux pas in here somewhere, so I ask your forgiveness in advance, Best Regards, Janet (Baugh) Hunter...a descendant of a cousin of Peter and Samuel Carr.

LCandBC@aol.com wrote: > We are in the process of cleaning up and restoring an old family cemetery > (first known burial in 1796) in southeastern Patrick County. Within the rock > wall enclosing the cemetery there are several tree stumps. Two of these had > pushed two headstones (husband & wife buried beside each other) out of > alignment and very uneven. Prior to correcting this situation we decided to > remove the two stumps which both had the centers completed decayed to below > the surface of the ground (as much as 2/3rd or possible 3/4th). Both stumps > were cutoff by a saw at 10 inches above the ground (prior to a 1974 picture > of the cemetery that he have) and one stump measured 20 inches across at its > narrowest point and 23 inches at the widest at the cutoff point. The larger > stump measured at the same point 26 inches at the narrowest and 31 inches at > the widest. OUR SURPRISE WAS THAT BOTH WERE CEDAR TREES. > I would like some information on the following: > 1). How prevalent in Patrick County were cedar trees in Patrick County > in the nineteenth century? Today? > 2). How common were cedar trees in cemeteries, and if very, why? > 3). Is the diameter of the tree stumps cited above large for this type > of tree (Eastern Red Cedar)? What diameters have you seen? > 4). Can any estimate or guess of age of tree when cut be made from > the diameter of the stumps? > Larry I have no answer to your specific questions, but over here in the Tidewater area of Virginia, a cedar tree was planted to mark a burial site. About 4 years or so back, there was an article about some folks hereabouts who specialized in locating old burial sites, and it was noted in the article that it was a colonial folkway in this area of Virginia to mark the burial sites with a cedar tree. Ed Hamblin Virginia Beach, VA

June wrote: " Hello Paul, An ancestor surveyed land in southern Virginia in 1706. That is documented, but I don't know where he was before that time. Do you know who would have hired a surveyor and whether or not there would be a record of such hiring? Thank you very much." **** Very likely there is no record of that particular survey or surveyor or of his contract or agreement to make that certain survey, unless it just happens to remain in the clerks' office with the deed records. Those "surveyors" were appointed/approved by the court/county/colony to a certain term of months or years and were paid from the fees they charged for identifying land and its boundaries and then preparing the description and for making a drawing - sometimes called a "plat" - of those boundaries. The work of surveyors was very important in order that the county records show where every tract was, who owned it, and also in order that the taxing authority might proceed to levy a land tax (tithe) the new owners. Paul

While this isn't Tennessee and it's not clear whether land is involved -- I have an interesting VA case where legal steps were taken to ensure "ownership" of assets (unnamed) by the wife after her marriage. I have a "pre-nuptial" indenture in the early 1830s (buried somewhere at the moment) in Amelia Co VA between my gg grandfather (Archibald Bolling "AB" Baugh) and the man (Samuel Whipple) who was about to marry AB's sister-in-law (Mariah Goode Wash/Walsh). Mariah had apparently inherited part of the estate of her brother Samuel H. (probably Hyde) Wash/Walsh. (I have looked through the Amelia Co will books microfilm, though not the court records, 1810-1850 and not found a will for Samuel H. Wash/Walsh) The indenture seems to say that Mariah will maintain "primary" control over the inheritance after she marries Samuel Whipple, with AB having some sort of "secondary" control, and if Samuel messes with any of it he is answerable to and can be sued by AB. I use the terms primary and secondary not to bait Paul, but as a shorthand because at the beginning the indenture seems to say that AB will have control, but then there is more extensive tortuous legal language that suggests that Mariah is really the decisionmaker..in the humble opinion of a group of us four cousins who find it interesting. I am assuming that AB got involved because Mariah could not have asserted her rights all by herself, thus the indenture between AB Baugh and Samuel Whipple was necessary??? Comments anyone?? Is this an unusual case? I honestly doubt there was much money involved, unless Samuel Wash/Walsh did particularly well for himself. Both couples moved shortly thereafter to Lawrence Co MO, where Samuel Whipple died sometime before 1840. Best Regards, Janet (Baugh) Hunter

These three entry columns reveal much to the observant genealogist. The "for whom entered" tells you the name of the party who was to be the new "owner" of the land. That person might or might not have been the person who came to the recorder's office to do that little chore, and might have been an agent, lawyer, or other person with the authority to declare the person named as the rightful "owner." The "for whom surveyed" might have been the new "owner," the original patent holder, or for any other person, agent, or land speculator who intended a profit in buying up land rights here and there, having such surveyed and identified, and then selling the same to someone who wanted to buy that land for settling. The "for whom patented" may - MAY - reveal the original person who earned that patent (land) right for military service, payment, or for whatever other reason. If "A" was a veteran who earned that right to a patent, yet did not want to take up the land, he could sell, trade, give away, or dispose of that patent (or grant) right in any other way he saw fit. Often he sold it to others who wanted to settle or to land speculators, as mentioned. Notice that the surveyor might also have bought and sold the land as a profit making venture. The combinations of possibilities are many. Paul -- Original Message ----- From: "Mary Margaret Selig-Trahan" <mmst@classicnet.net> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:14 PM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Query-land listed on tax lists. | In KY and I assume in VA, a piece of land was listed on a tax list and | when this was done, it stated: For whom Entered; for whom surveyed and for | whom patented. These "for whoms" could be 3 different people. Request that | this be explained, as I do not understand what it means. mary margaret | selig-trahan | mmst@classicnet.net | | | ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | USGenWeb Archives http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb | | | ============================== | Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! | http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp |

Re: "Pre-nupts" Wife Land Ownership in Tennessee Bait me?? LOL :) C'mon Janet; brand your sources as you choose, and pay no attention to me. :) :) I would like to see the "pre-nuptial" indenture (contract). While such were very common and ridded a newly married (or betrothed) couple of the jointure of property in the husband problem, yours seems to be remarkable, since it vests some measure of control in a third party. Why not copy it in .jpg on your scanner and send it along. Thanks. Paul | ----- Original Message ----- | From: <jleehunt1@aol.com> | To: <martee@citlink.net>; | <va-southside-l@rootsweb.com> | Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:42 PM | Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: "Pre-nupts" | Wife Land Ownership in Tennessee | | | | While this isn't Tennessee and it's not | clear whether land is involved -- I | | have an interesting VA case where legal | steps were taken to ensure | | "ownership" of assets (unnamed) by the wife | after her marriage. | | | | I have a "pre-nuptial" indenture in the | early 1830s (buried somewhere at the | | moment) in Amelia Co VA between my gg | grandfather (Archibald Bolling "AB" | | Baugh) and the man (Samuel Whipple) who was | about to marry AB's sister-in-law | | (Mariah Goode Wash/Walsh). | | | | Mariah had apparently inherited part of the | estate of her brother Samuel H. | | (probably Hyde) Wash/Walsh. (I have looked | through the Amelia Co will books | | microfilm, though not the court records, | 1810-1850 and not found a will for | | Samuel H. Wash/Walsh) | | | | The indenture seems to say that Mariah will | maintain "primary" control over | | the inheritance after she marries Samuel | Whipple, with AB having some sort of | | "secondary" control, and if Samuel messes | with any of it he is answerable to | | and can be sued by AB. | | | | I use the terms primary and secondary not | to bait Paul, but as a shorthand | | because at the beginning the indenture | seems to say that AB will have | | control, but then there is more extensive | tortuous legal language that | | suggests that Mariah is really the | decisionmaker..in the humble opinion of a | | group of us four cousins who find it | interesting. | | | | I am assuming that AB got involved because | Mariah could not have asserted her | | rights all by herself, thus the indenture | between AB Baugh and Samuel Whipple | | was necessary??? Comments anyone?? Is | this an unusual case? I honestly | | doubt there was much money involved, unless | Samuel Wash/Walsh did | | particularly well for himself. | | | | Both couples moved shortly thereafter to | Lawrence Co MO, where Samuel Whipple | | died sometime before 1840. | | | | Best Regards, | | | | Janet (Baugh) Hunter | | |

In KY and I assume in VA, a piece of land was listed on a tax list and when this was done, it stated: For whom Entered; for whom surveyed and for whom patented. These "for whoms" could be 3 different people. Request that this be explained, as I do not understand what it means. mary margaret selig-trahan mmst@classicnet.net

Here in Ohio, only the very new and modern cemeteries do not have cedar trees. I would guess the practice probably followed the many Virginians who moved "over the mountain" and settled here. Sally T. Baughn SallyBaughn@aol.com

I should have added: In some instances, where the husband owned the land prior to the marriage, the rights of the wife did/do not attach, especially where she bore no children by him. Sorry 'bout that. Paul

In answer to Joyce, who asked "...if there was no wife's signature on an early deed, could there have been such a wife anyhow?" To answer; we have a saying, "At marriage a man and woman became one person, and that person was the man." In Tennessee, as in nearly ALL the Southern States, the belongings of a woman - land and personal property alike - became the property of the husband when she married him, and men could buy land (or anything else) with no participation or assent whatever by the wife. HOWEVER, no one with good sense or sound judgment would ever buy land without the written assent to the sale by the seller's wife, since to do so would be to ignore her near inviolate rights to a "widow's share" in that land (and any other he came to own during the marriage) at the death of that husband, no matter how much later that death occurred. So, NO signature on a deed of the wife almost without exception meant there was NO wife at the date of the deed. Notice though, if the husband owned the land BEFORE the marriage, under some circumstances her rights would not attach if she bore no children by him. Paul

In answer to Joyce, who asked "...if there was no wife's signature on an early deed, could there have been one anyhow?" We have a saying: "At marriage a man and woman become one, and that one is the man." In Tennessee, as in nearly ALL the Southern States, the belongings of a woman - land and personal property, of every sort - became the property of the husband when she married him, and men could buy land (or anything else) with no participation whatever by the wife. HOWEVER, no one with good sense or judgment would buy land without the written assent of the seller's wife to that sale, since to do so would be to ignore her nearly inviolate rights to a "widow's share" at the death of her husband, no matter how much later that death occurred. So, NO signature on a deed of the wife almost without exception means there was NO wife at the date of the deed.

Out here in the boonies of Missouri and Arkansas, also. Large cedar trees in a grove or group, often in a field, frequently, are the mark of an old cemetery in the county, particularly when it has been abandoned for many years and there are no buildngs or other landmarks close by. ----- Original Message ----- From: <SallyBaughn@aol.com> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 1:32 PM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: Cedar trees in Cemeteries in Patrick Co., Va > Here in Ohio, only the very new and modern cemeteries do not have cedar > trees. I would guess the practice probably followed the many Virginians who > moved "over the mountain" and settled here. > > Sally T. Baughn > SallyBaughn@aol.com > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb Archives Census Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/ > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > >

Correction: According to Michael A. Dirr who is the Chair at the University of Georgia Department of Horticulture in Athens, Georgia and the author of the MANUAL OF WOODY LANDSCAPE PLANTS THEIR IDENTIFICATION ORNAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS, CULTURE, PROPAGATION AND USES, the tree that is locally called the Virginia Red Cedar is actually Juniperus virginiana....or Eastern Redcedar. So, the tree is not a cedar but is in the juniper family. Deane Mills

PS. Regarding the age and size of the one you measured and mentioned: Red Cedars are very fast growing and within about 25 years reach their maximum size and girth which is about the size of the tree you mentioned. I believe that once a cedar tree gets to be about that size it simply stops growing at any discernable rate. The one you describe sounds like it was big and old and the only way to determine its age would be to cut it down and count the rings........but I am not even sure if that would be reliable since I do think that they basically stop growing.

Cedrus virginiana aka the Eastern Red Cedar is an old-timey favorite tree among Virginians. Why? Because it was plentiful and being cedar almost indestructable. Here in Tidewater Virginia and, I assume, throughout other parts of Virginia too, it was used for fence posts since it will not rot. I do not know whether or not the famous split rail fences used by early Virginia colonists were made of cedar or pine but it would be interesting to find out. As far as cemetary use, I know that there is an old a lovely cemetary in Williamsburg called Cedar Grove Cemetary and it has hundreds of old, gnarled and beautiful Virginia Red Cedars growing throughout it. I think that Virginians liked to use the red Cedar because it is evergreen and has pretty blue-green berries during certain times of the year, so if some were growing in a cemetary they were left standing. I remember when I was growing up that my grandfather, who lived on a farm in Henrico County, used to cut down a Red Cedar to drag in the house and use as a Christmas tree. They do not make a very pretty Christmas tree by today's standards because of their shape. I think that, perhaps, another reason for encouraging cedars in a cemetary might be because that particular tree has a long tap root that goes down straight and deep into the ground and does not have a wide spreading set of superficial roots that would disturb graves or make digging new graves difficult as would, say, a large pine tree. The long tap root makes it difficult to transplant a red cedar but the little volunteers that sprout up can be carefully dug, potted up and eventually planted somewhere. That has been my method of planting the cedar tree, which is one of my sentimental favorites, in a special spot....like at the entrance to my driveway where I planted 2 of them years ago. Deane F. Mills York County, VA > We are in the process of cleaning up and restoring an old family cemetery > (first known burial in 1796) in southeastern Patrick County. Within the rock > wall enclosing the cemetery there are several tree stumps. Two of these had > pushed two headstones (husband & wife buried beside each other) out of > alignment and very uneven. Prior to correcting this situation we decided to > remove the two stumps which both had the centers completed decayed to below > the surface of the ground (as much as 2/3rd or possible 3/4th). Both stumps > were cutoff by a saw at 10 inches above the ground (prior to a 1974 picture > of the cemetery that he have) and one stump measured 20 inches across at its > narrowest point and 23 inches at the widest at the cutoff point. The larger > stump measured at the same point 26 inches at the narrowest and 31 inches at > the widest. OUR SURPRISE WAS THAT BOTH WERE CEDAR TREES. > I would like some information on the following: > 1). How prevalent in Patrick County were cedar trees in Patrick County > in the nineteenth century? Today? > 2). How common were cedar trees in cemeteries, and if very, why? > 3). Is the diameter of the tree stumps cited above large for this type > of tree (Eastern Red Cedar)? What diameters have you seen? > 4). Can any estimate or guess of age of tree when cut be made from > the diameter of the stumps? > Larry > > > > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb Archives Census Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/ > > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library >