> She said to pass it on, so that's what I'm doing. > ~Virginia > > << LenFTho@cs.com writes: > I took a minute out of our volunteer typing time to check this site > out. > http://www.familydiscovery.com/ > > It is a fraudulent site because a membership gives you links to our > free sites. You do not have to pay to get to any site in USGenWeb > of which Macoupin County ILGenWeb is a part of. > Right here, there is no charge to get to all the counties in USGenWeb. > http://www.usgenweb.org/statelinkstext.html > We are all hardworking volunteers to have genealogy information > free for researchers. > > I have found links to our Macoupin civil war rosters, censuses, > which we spent many hours of volunteer time now to have unknowing > researchers pay a membership to click on a link to view our work. > Macoupin County ILGenWeb volunteers have put over 1400 pages of > free information and continuing to work to get more pages up. > > If any person finds our complete work in their membership, please > notify me. Please pass this information onto any list. Let's try to > keep these ripoffs from making their pile of money from our > volunteer work. > > Please pass this onto any list you might be on. Hopefully, this > site will be removed soon if not sooner. > > Thanks for listening. > > Gloria >> > >

John Lewis of Prince George County MD, Stafford County VA, Prince William County VA, was the son of John and Elizabeth (Houser) Lewis of Prince George's County MD; he removed to Stafford County VA and is still spoken of as owner of tract 14 February 1742; [dead 1744]; will proven 30 September ----- Stafford County VA; his brothers Thomas and Stephen Lewis were prominent landowners along Difficult Run in Fairfax County VA Standard family accounts, including Michael Lewis' Pioneer Lewis Families, give John two sons: 1. John Lewis of Loudoun County VA; born 1725; married Elizabeth Hickman, daughter of Joshua Hickman 2. Thomas Lewis of Loudoun County VA; born 1720; married Anne Hickman, daughter of William and Jane (Hopkins) Hickman What solid evidence is there that these men were John's sons? They were certainly wealthy and prominent men of a rank suitable to John's family, but I have seen no documentary connection. Many thanks for your help, and best wishes to you. Scott Swanson Department of History Butler University 4600 Sunset Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46208-3485 sswanson@butler.edu

Phyllis, This might help. From: Stafford@us-gen.com (Kristy Williams) Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001, 1:51pm To: VASTAFFO-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [VASTAFFO-L] Stafford County Site Update! Reply to: VASTAFFO-L@rootsweb.com Hi everyone, It's been a while but I have some great news! We now have online the following: Stafford County Veterans from the Colonial War thru WWI 1860, 1870, 1920 Census (coming soon 1900 & 1910) and Stafford County Deaths from microfilm 1853 - 1896 We will also, in the near future, have births and cemeteries online! Stay tuned for further updates! You can find the new links on the "What's New" page at http://us-gen.com/va/stafford/new.htm Happy Hunting! Kristy Williams Stafford County, VAGenWeb Coordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~vastaffo ==== VASTAFFO Mailing List ====        Search this list's archived messages! http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl ============================== Add as many as 10 Good Years To Your Life If you know how to reduce these risks. http://www.thirdage.com/health/wecare/hearthealth/index.html

Would anyone have a list, addresses, etc. of Churches and Cemeteries in the 1800 to 1850 time frame in Stafford Co. that was on or near the border of Southern Fauquier Co., VA? Also, would anyone know for whom the town of Heflin, Stafford Co., VA was named? Thanks, Phyllis.

I have a John R. Heflin b 28 Apr 1869, d 17 May 1932, m 27 Feb 1890 to Susan A. Hoffman b 18 Dec 1867. d 15 Mar 1933. John R. s/o William Bernard Heflin and Isabella F. Vogt. I also have Kendrick Heflin b 15 Jun 1860, d 15 Dec 1931, m 4 Feb 1884 to Susan A. Huffman b 1860, d 22 Aug 1922. Kendrick s/o James Edward and Catharine Heflin. Now, both John R. Heflin and Kendrick Heflin are buried in the Grace United Methodist Church Cemetery in Fauquier Co., VA, but, there is only one Susan A. Heflin buried there. Can anyone tell me whether or not both Susan's are buried in the Grace United Methodist Church Cemetery, is Susan A. Hoffman the same as Susan A. Huffman, or if there is contaminated data above? Thanks, Phyllis.

More maritime info for those of us with mariners in our trees....enjoy, malinda > Fine by me. Bill Bunting > ---------- > Hi Bill....this is fascinating. > > I descend from some earlier mariner/shipping folks in Colonial VA and NC. > Would you mind if I shared your post with some of those lists ? We genealogists > don't usually have access to the realities of our mariners. This is a wonderful > piece of history. > > Thank you for sharing it...malinda > > bunting wrote: > > Mark Snow asked about masters employed on shares. > > In the Aug. 1955 Maine Coast Fisherman Capt. Frank Wilson writes of taking > the ripe little coaster St Leon on a 40/60 share arrangement. He took 60% of > the freight money, paid the grub bill, and one half of port charges. The > owner took the 40% minus half of the port charges. Making the skipper foot > the grub bill sped up turnarounds. > > In the post Civil War era, at least, the more traditional arrangement, at > least on larger schooners, was the 'square halves' system, under which port > charges (including pilotage, towage, stevedoring, brokerage commissions, > etc.) were deducted from gross earnings. The money remaining was equally > divided between the vessel (i.e. the owners) and the captain. (The owners > included the captain, who owned a 1/8th interest and--for a new vessel-- > found owners, among friends and business associates, for another 1/8th). Net > profits for the vessel were paid out in owners' dividends. The captain paid > crew's wages and grub from his half. When a vessel incurred a large expense > the owners were accessed for an "Irish dividend." On very large schooners > after the '90s captains were commonly paid a monthly salary of $40 or $50, > along with "primage" of 5% of gross earnings. He would still have to come up > with 1/8th ownership. (At least one managing owner was said not to allow > captains to insure their shares, but don't ask me to find that reference!). > Typically a deep-water square-rigger master received $20 a month ( his chief > mate made $50) plus 5% primage and whatever dividends his 1/8 interest > earned. Additionally, he profited from the slop chest, often as his private > venture, although some managing owners required that profits be split with > the vessel. (It is unlikely that much attention was given to the law > limiting slops profits to 10%.) He also profited from various gratuities, > commissions, and kickbacks from those with whom he did business in port. > Since the vessel paid for food, If any family members accompanied him he > reimbursed the vessel for their board. > > Bill Bunting

Thanks, right on target, big help!! Emrays@webtv.net wrote: > > James, Try this. Frank Pyle > > Mail message > > From: Stafford@us-gen.com (Kristy Williams) Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001, > 1:51pm To: VASTAFFO-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [VASTAFFO-L] Stafford County > Site Update! Reply to: VASTAFFO-L@rootsweb.com > Hi everyone, > It's been a while but I have some great news! We now have online the > following: > Stafford County Veterans from the Colonial War thru WWI 1860, 1870, 1920 > Census (coming soon 1900 & 1910) and Stafford County Deaths from > microfilm 1853 - 1896 > We will also, in the near future, have births and cemeteries online! > Stay tuned for further updates! > You can find the new links on the "What's New" page at > http://us-gen.com/va/stafford/new.htm > Happy Hunting! > Kristy Williams > Stafford County, VAGenWeb Coordinator > http://www.rootsweb.com/~vastaffo > ==== VASTAFFO Mailing List ==== > Search this list's archived messages! > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl > ============================== > Add as many as 10 Good Years To Your Life If you know how to reduce > these risks. > http://www.thirdage.com/health/wecare/hearthealth/index.html > > ==== VASTAFFO Mailing List ==== > List problems? First, read the Welcome Message that you received > when you subscribed to this list. Feel free to contact > Valerie Holmes Thomas, List Administrator, vthomas@otn.net > with questions concerning this list! > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library -- James P. "Jim" Lynch jplynch@crosslink.net

James, Try this. Frank Pyle Mail message From: Stafford@us-gen.com (Kristy Williams) Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001, 1:51pm To: VASTAFFO-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [VASTAFFO-L] Stafford County Site Update! Reply to: VASTAFFO-L@rootsweb.com Hi everyone, It's been a while but I have some great news! We now have online the following: Stafford County Veterans from the Colonial War thru WWI 1860, 1870, 1920 Census (coming soon 1900 & 1910) and Stafford County Deaths from microfilm 1853 - 1896 We will also, in the near future, have births and cemeteries online! Stay tuned for further updates! You can find the new links on the "What's New" page at http://us-gen.com/va/stafford/new.htm Happy Hunting! Kristy Williams Stafford County, VAGenWeb Coordinator http://www.rootsweb.com/~vastaffo ==== VASTAFFO Mailing List ====        Search this list's archived messages! http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl ============================== Add as many as 10 Good Years To Your Life If you know how to reduce these risks. http://www.thirdage.com/health/wecare/hearthealth/index.html

Are there any Stafford County burial or cemetary records on line? Thanks (looking for Mortons in Stafford). -- James P. "Jim" Lynch jplynch@crosslink.net

Enjoy....again, this is with Frank's permisson, finis....malinda Frank Pierce Young wrote: > AMERICAN PRIVATEERS IN THE WAR OF 1812 (2 of 2) > > At first, the privateers worked up and down the North American coast and > around the West Indies. But as the RN brought in more and more warships and > fewer and fewer British merchantmen remained to be taken, they moved east -- > to Britain's own home waters. In the spring of 1813, YANKEE ran down the > Irish coast and took 7 vessels; SCOURGE and RATTLESNAKE ruined Baltic > commerce for the entire spring and summer season, the latter taking 18 prizes > worth $1 million plus, while the former stayed on for the year and took ten > Canadian merchantmen while en route home, for a total of 27 captures. > ANACONDA worked the Capa Verde islands and took HM packet EXPRESS and $80,000 > in specie; AMERICA took six merchants off Land's End; LION worked the Bay of > Biscay and went home with $400,000 in auction money. And so forth, and by now > the latest commission number was well over 318. PRINCE DE NEUFCHATEL, which > on one cruise alone brought in nearly $1 million in value, was chased 17 > times by British warships and never caught, and those few privateers that > were, fell to mishap -- grounding, wreck, accident, storm. The GOVERNOR > TOMPKINS sailed right into a protected convoy, and took three. KEMP sighted > an escorted convoy of seven East Indiamen, snookered the protecting frigate > into a fruitless chase into dark squalls, circled back, and took five > Indiamen before departing with her prizes. Admiral Warren got still more > ships for blockade, now upward of 200 overall. > > It did no good. In 1814, privateers took mail packets in the Irish Sea on a > dismally regular basis. They sailed impudently into the Thames Estuary. They > scooted by anchored warships almost as an amusement. Dozens were lost, but > scores replaced them. One small Massachusetts inlet put out three privateers, > fully armed and manned, in 30 days. One British skipper reported sighting ten > in his short trip between Britain and Spain. COMET worked the South Atlantic, > took some treasure ships, and went home with $1.5 million in cash. MAMMOTH > took 18 prizes in 17 days. HARPY was out three months, and took a prize > daily. CHASSEUR, a two-masted topsail schooner -- a fairly typical rig -- > under "Wild Tom" Boyle, blockaded St. Vincent so tightly that its merchants > appealed to Admiralty to relieve them lest they be ruined; when a frigate > finally appeared, Boyle vanished, only to reappear in the English Channel and > take 20 merchantmen. One he sent back into London with a message to Lloyd's, > proclaming "all the ports, harbours, bays, creeks, rivers, inlets, outlets, > islands and seacoast of the United Kindom of Great Britain and Ireland in a > state of strict and rigorous blockade." Insurance, already skyrocketed in > cost, in many cases went altogether unavailable. Insurors of London, Bristol, > Liverpool and Glasgow met four times. Liverpool petitioned the Prince Regent > to stop the war. Collectively the insurors announced they would accept no > more risks. Glasgow declared that ".. the number of American privateers with > which our channels are infested, the audacity with which they have approached > our coasts, have proved ruinous to our commerce, humbling to our pride and > discreditable to the British navy; that 800 vessels have been taken by that > Power, whose maritime strength we have impolitically held in contempt, and > that there is reason to anticipate still more serious suffering." > > Well... yes. RAMBLER had gone to the Far East and was auctioning prizes in > Canton and Portugese Macao; JACOB JONES took an Indiaman with 20,000 pounds > worth of gold dust and opium aboard; LEO took a transport and uniforms for > the Duke of Wellington's army; a privateer took five merchantmen off the > Nore; English markets ran short of fish, a food staple, because so few > trawlers were left; and finally the Secretary of Admiralty issued a notice to > mariners that nobody should even attempt such a short and simple coastal > voyage as from Bristol to Portsmouth without an armed escort. The West Indies > merchants, who had aggravated the whole war by insisting on enforcement of > the Rule of 1756, a trade-protective mercantile act, decided that competition > from Americans was lots cheaper than the protection of no trade at all. > Formal communications began to go back and forth between the U.S. and Britain > about the war nobody really wanted. > > Parliament went into session on 8 November of 1814, its main discussion the > Prince Regent's address about pending negotiations at Ghent, in which he > noted war had led to unavoidly large arrears, and that the war still > subsisting with the United States rendered the continuance of great exertions > indispensable. Parliament was deep in second thoughts about the American war. > This led to December's Treaty of Ghent, in which everything went basically > back to the status quo ante albeit with more careful details, and impressment > -- the oft-cited causus belli for the U.S. -- was never mentioned at all. > > Alfred Thayer Mahan said that American commerce, about $7 million in its last > normal year of 1811, was destroyed without replacement. Not so. The commerce > was lost, but not its replacement. Few records attesting to their takings and > auctions have survived, but those which did show cited privateers bringing in > a net balance of $9,507,000 -- one historian estimating this as "perhaps" a > third of the whole. Some thumbnail figuring: on peacetime business, we are > now looking at a crudely estimated $3.5 million for the rest of 1812, another > $7 million each for 1813 and 1814; total, $17.5 million in "lost commerce." > If the estimated third of $9,507,000 is nearly correct for privateering input > meanwhile, it becomes $28,521,000. Thanks to privateering, the War of 1812 > turned a sizeable American profit. > > Whether, as has been averred, the purported notion that American privateers > won the war is a "myth" may be argueable. Careful reflection suggests nobody > really won. But how they forced the issue is not. The war came down to not > how much damage Britain could do to the United States, but the other way > 'round, and Britain simply could not afford it. And privateers were the money > drainpipe. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Readers: Apart from style there is little original with me in any of the > above; I have cribbed liberally from those who know lots more than I do. > References have included THE NAVY, A HISTORY, by Fletcher Pratt, 1941 > edition; THE NAVAL WAR OF 1812, A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY, edited by Wm. S. > Dudley, 1985; CANADA, THE STORY OF THE DOMINION, by J. Castell Hopkins, > F.S.S., 1901; and THE HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE III (third of three > volumes), by Robert Bissett, LL.D., 1828. << N.B. - this latter volume is the > last of a History of England in a set of nine; prior trios were written by > Hume and Smollett. >> > > -- FRANK PIERCE YOUNG > Annapolis, MD FPY1229@aol.com

Enjoy....again, this is with Frank's permisson....malinda Frank Pierce Young wrote: > American Privateers in the War of 1812 (1 of 2) > > When on 18 June 1812 the U.S. Congress declared war upon the United Kingdom > of Great Britain & Ireland, etc., a weak new nation grabbed the Lion by its > tail. The U.S. War Department was an incompetent political mess and its > little army of 6,700 little better, when Great Britain could move thousands > of crack troops as it pleased. (And it did; though logistically limited > essentially to raid-and-run, the bumblefooted U.S. Army did not exactly cover > itself with laurels during the war.) The Navy Department was a very different > matter -- but its forces very small. At war's outbreak, the USN had nine > frigates and eight smaller vessels on hand; the Royal Navy had 1,048 vessels > of all types. Very poor odds. > > Worse: though years-long RN stopping of American merchantmen for real or > alleged attempts to get cargoes into Napoleonic France and French-controlled > areas, and RN impressment (even from a warship) of real or alleged British > seamen from them infuriated Americans and became political mantras -- "Free > Trade & Sailors Rights" came to appear even on flags -- the nation was > nonetheless divided. The small but busy New England states, whose very > considerable shipping earlier got shut down by a Presidential embargo, and > then later bear by far the bulk of the risks, confiscations, manpower takings > and trade losses from RN searches and seizures, not to mention the dark value > of insults, were not in favour of war with Britain. The push for that came > from the mid-Atlantic states and those of the south. > > All logic made war foolish. In fact, had a telephone existed at the time, war > might not have occurred at all. On 16 June, Mr. Brougham, MP moved in > Parliament for an address to the Prince Regent, beseeching him to recall or > suspend all related Orders and adopt such measures as might conciliate > neutral Powers without sacrificing the dignities of the Crown, withdrawn when > Lord Castlereagh announced that the government was about to make just such a > conciliatory move directly to America. It was too late. In the U.S., the > declaration of war two days later doused New England's reluctance, and > sparked a remarkable patriotic upsurge everywhere. > > A contemporary historian of English history notes that "Compared to the war > in the peninsula [Spain and Portugal], the war with the United States was > regarded by the people of England as an affair of inferior importance [though > Americans] obtained some successes at sea ..." Indeed. What the tiny U.S. > Navy managed to do against the vaunted RN in the first few months of the war, > before it was mostly blockaded, is well known; suffice that it stunned the > Royal Navy and utterly shocked Parliament. The nose-bloodied RN got sailing > orders in heaps: shut down all American ports; blockade their merchantmen, > kill their trade, lock up those infernal Yankee warships. But more was > already going on in American ports, ad hoc, driven by that most sparkly of > inducements -- the gleaming prospect of Big Money, there for the easy > taking. > > When news of war came, the merchants of Salem, Massachusetts, promptly began > financing their own little private warships. On 27 July their letter to the > Secretary of the Navy advised that eight were armed and crewed within ten > days of the war news, three more in a "state of forwardness, one of which > will sail this day, and a number of others preparing. The number of prizes > already sent in amount to sixteen sail, and a number more are known to be > captured." Then they asked for two gunboats for harbour protection. More of > the same was going on in Baltimore and Norfolk, where fitting out privateers > became an overnight fury of activity, the latter sending out its first on 20 > July, with crowds cheering from shore. > > >From war's outbreak through the rest of 1812, British merchantmen were taken > by the score, nay the hundred, by Americans; the London TIMES asking, "Good > God! Can such things be?", and the weekly PILOT stating that Lloyd's List had > posted notices of "...upward of five hundred British vessels captured in > seven months ... Five hundred merchantmen and three frigates! Can these > statements be true? Anyone who had predicted such a result of an American war > this time last year would have been treated as a madman or a traitor ..." > > Over that period, U.S. Navy warships ESSEX took 11 merchantmen, CONSTITUTION > nine, PRESIDENT seven, and little ARGUS six; some others took fewer. Given > the enormous size of the British merchant marine, these naval captures were > picayune. The too-real floating fright was American privateers. > > Within weeks they were a veritable infestation, and would become more so. A > coterie of merchants of the West Indies petitioned Parliament that they had > already lost "... 200 sail of British merchantmen and three or four packets > .. .so daring as to cut vessels out of harbours, though protected by > batteries, and to land to carry off cattle. Jamaica is blockaded by > privateers ..." In Parliament during debate on this problem, Lord Lansdowne > said, "I am almost ashamed to mention .. what had been the services of our > own navy..." > > The year 1813 saw full British port blockade in force, and American land > affairs at best in doldrums. Not so at sea. Back on 5 October of '12 British > Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren wrote the Secretary of Admiralty from Halifax > about "..the demand of Ships for Convoys and the protection of Commerce, the > State of War which seems to assume a new as well as more active and > inveterate aspect than heretofore ... the Enemy's Cruizers being very active > and perservering which by the accompany Copy of a Commission found on the > Prize Master of a ship recaptured by the SAN DOMINGO will be seen already to > amount to three hundred and eighteen ... the necessity of re-inforcing the > Squadron on this Coast and in the West Indies, to enable me to meet the > exertions of the Enemy, who seem determined to persevere in the annoyance and > destruction of the Commerce of Great Britain and these Provinces. I have the > honour to be, Sir, &c ..." > > Privateer licence no. 318, and this capture was almost an anomaly. Warren > sailed south to the Indies to check out the merchants' stories, and saw > privateers daily in the distance all the way down. Meanwhile, Warren wrote, > "The Swarms of Privateers and the Crews of several having landed at points on > the coast of Nova Scotia and in the Leeward Islands, and cut out of the > harbours some Vessels, render it too necessary immediately to send out a > strong addition of ships or the Trade must inevitably Suffer, if not be, > utterly ruined and destroyed." > > He already had 100 warships on blockade and chase duty, and the first part > was solid. Chasing was the problem. It took fairly large vessels to remain on > station for lengths of time -- that meant frigates, which as the late Lord > Nelson had glumly noted were always in short supply. And while frigates' guns > could overawe fat merchantmen and keep in warships trying to get out, doing > so required watchfulness around the clock, and people got weary, and darkness > came daily, and weather could bring rain or fog -- and in the relative blink > of a few eyes, another fast privateer, and often two or three, were out and > gone. And if the blockader tried going after them, they would split up and > force choices; meantime, the moment any blockading warship moved away, still > more privateers sleeked out. As time went on, they tended to work in pairs. > > (End pt. 1 of 2)

A friend of mine on the excellent MARHST-L (Maritime History) list posted a series of informative items about privateering during the War of 1812. Since many of us descend from families who might have engaged in such activites, but don't generally know where to find Maritime records , I thought it might be helpful to share these posts with you. Frank has given his kind permission . The later posts mention both ship names and people names. Hope you recognize someone...or, just enjoy a well written historical tidbit.....malinda Frank Pierce Young wrote: > The statement prompting this discussion concerned the effect of American > privateers upon the outcome of the War of 1812, it being averred that their > oft-storied turning it in American favour was a "myth". > > But first, for the benefit of any MARHSTers or pass-along readers unfamiliar > with that term -- and some apparently have been -- privateers are NOT > pirates. (Anyone knowing the difference may delete all this.) Thus a short > explanation of terms. A privateer is a privately financed, owned, > outfitted, crewed, and operated armed vessel -- a private warship -- allowed > forth under government licence to attack the vessels of a declared national > enemy, for profit. Thus, unlike pirates, who are simply criminal, privateers > are quite legitimate. Also, their activity must cease with peace; anything > further indeed is piracy, and so recognised internationally. > > The profits, if any, derive not from sinking or other destruction, but from > capture of vessels and goods which may then be sold off. Customarily, all > concerned share in any monies. Likewise, all risks are entirely their own. > They were active out of most maritime nations at one time or other, and for > centuries. Typically, and certainly at the time of the War of 1812, > privateers were relatively small vessels vice many actual naval warships, and > compared to regular naval warships including any about their size, usually > relatively lightly armed -- but this was more than enough to overpower even > more lightly armed or unarmed merchantmen, which were their primary targets; > enemy warships as such were to be avoided. Known as Letters of Marque & > Reprisal, the right of the U.S. Congress to issue such private warship > licences is written into the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, para. > 11) -- though subsequent mid-19th Century international treaty agreements > made that moot long ago. > > Privateers always aimed at enemy merchant trade, because that's where risk > was least and any profits would lie. In short, they were ad hoc quasi-naval > raiders; and their licensing government's benefit, aside from no risk but a > usual share in any proceeds, was that they tended to draw off enemy warships > needed to protect enemy merchantmen while simultaneously slowly reducing > available enemy trading vessels and supplies (and hence enemy strength) while > raising their costs of same, even as captures enriched their captors, thus > encouraging still more privateering. > > The question of just Who-Is-A-Legitimate-Privateer lies behind much of the > modern labelling confusion, as does the matter of who is doing the talking. > Back in the early 1200s, a cunning and conscienceless character known as > Eustace the Monk became a virtual Capo di Capi of mafia-like sea raiders > working the English Channel/Bay of Biscay areas -- taking, of course, > primarily English merchantmen as well as anything else that looked good. He > got away with this for a long while because he and his men resided, hid out, > and spent liberally in French coastal ports and paid off all the right > people, whose vessels he (again, of course) never bothered, all at a period > when warfare between England and some French ruler or another was an > intermittent risk of everyday life. In that sense, Eustace might be > considered a sort of medieval privateer; but King John of England saw his > direct and very nasty threat to English sea trade as just plain old piracy, > and en fin cornered and captured him. A large tapestry at Cambridge > University shows him having his head lopped off on the rail of his own > vessel. The famous (or notorious; again, according to who tells the stories) > Francis Drake, better known to his usual Spanish victims and their > impoverished backers as El Draque (the dragon; a cute bilingual pun nobody > laughed at), never had a truly formal "licence", but assuredly went about > raiding Spanish trade with full if backdoor approval of Good Queen Bess, to > the considerable enlargement of her Tudor treasury. Which is how come he got > a "Sir" before his name at a great ceremony, which infuriated the Spanish > ambassador. > > Privateering may be gone, but the net concept remains. The raiding of > merchant traffic has characteristically come to be perceived as the style of > a weaker maritime Power vice a much stronger one, and the anticipated effect > of successful continued merchant traffic raiding on Britain, which depended > almost totally upon it, lay directly behind the sly raiding efforts of > Imperial Germany in WWI (especially the famous SEEADLER, an armed sailing > barque skippered by the humorous Kapitan u. Graf Felix Von Luckner) -- and > especially the long-planned one of Nazi Germany in WWII, in arming and > sending out numerous disguised merchantmen as naval raiders worldwide to > attack Allied merchantmen. Some were quite successful indeed, especially > early on, in wreaking havoc, especially on British trade, and tying up > numerous RN warships in often goosechase hunting expeditions. > > Other MARHSTers will likely have far more detail to offer on the nature of > privateering. It and those involved in it, and how they came to do so and why > and with what, is a fascinating maritime topic of itself and as said involved > most maritime nations, especially Atlantic ones from the mid-1600s on. > > In my next posting I'll get into that business of American privateers in the > War of 1812, and what they wrought. > > FRANK PIERCE YOUNG > Annapolis, MD FPY1229@aol.com

A Lister queried: I have been told that in the 1600 to 18000's that Junior & or Senior after a gentleman's name, did not necessarily mean that they were father & son, but that 2 men of the same name in a community were used Sr. & Jr. only to denote the elder & the younger. Response: No doubt there will be dozens of responses to your query. Yes, and yes. I think one has to corroborate with other records to determine whether Jr. was indeed the son of Sr., or whether one man was older than the other, and that is all. Sometimes, Jr. and Sr. can also be cousins. I find instances of both uses in my Williams family. When you have so many John Williamses in one locality, some differentiation has to be made. I research Williamses of colonial times in the Nutbush Creek area of Granville Co., NC. There was John Williams, Sr., his son John Williams, Jr. There was John Williams SD [son of Daniel], who even used that name when he relocated to South Carolina. There was John Williams, son of William, but evidently the family called him Jackie. He didn't live long enough to have trouble with his name, but if he had he may followed his cousin John SD and used John SW [son of William]. John Williams, Jr. later used the suffix *Esq.* because he became a lawyer, a judge, a jurist, etc. (land speculator). One thing about genealogy--you have to keep studying, attending as many seminars as you can, etc. And travel, and dig around in dusty and sometimes unfriendly courthouses. And photocopy, photocopy, photocopy! And joining a genealogy society in your neighborhood is a great way to learn things. (But you may have to volunteer your services!) E.W.Wallace

I have seen Jr., Sr. and 111 (the third) etc used in families where they are not father and son, but grandson or uncle. It seems some families use those designations to identify people with the exact same name. Bill in Orlando

1. Jr./Junior 2. the younger of two persons by the same name who may or may not be related. Source: Genealogists and Historians Comprehensive Dictionary June

JR. & Sr. SURNAME EXTENSIONS Following is a transcription of an entry in the Index to Marriage Bonds and Returns, Book 4, Located at the Fauquier County Court House, Warrenton, VA: PAGE NO. INTENT TO MARRY PARENTS BONDSMAN 133 Lawson A. Heflin William Heflin Jr. William Heflin Jr. Ann Eliza Heflin William Heflin Sr. William Heflin Sr. Bondsmen were Lawson A. Heflin, William Heflin Jr., and William Heflin Sr. The marriage document identifies Lawson A. Heflin as the son of William Heflin Jr. and Miss Ann Eliza Heflin as the daughter of William Heflin Sr. A lot of the early Heflin researchers have proliferated the interpretation of this marriage bond as William Heflin Jr. also, being the son of William Heflin Sr. This misinterpretation was further compounded when an early researcher assigned the middle name of Lawson to William Heflin Jr. The assignment of middle names by this researcher was common place for this researcher and he did so to help him keep all of the William’s, James’, and John’s straight in his own mind. Unfortunately, a lot of these middle names have also been proliferated by subsequent researchers. In fact, the William Heflin Jr. here (Irish Line) is the son of John Hefferlin (VA Revolutionary War Soldier) and his middle name was James. The William Heflin Sr. here (German Line) is really William Heflin Jr. (who married first Susannah Sukey Ellis and second Elizabeth Payne) the son of William Hefling Sr. and Margaret Nancy Haddox. This misinterpretation was made because of the common day interpretation of Jr. being the son of a Sr. with the same given names. In the olden days it was common practice to identify two individuals with the same given name by attaching the Jr. to the younger of the two, and Sr. to the elder regardless of whether or not they are related. In the above case, the William Heflin Jr. was born on 20 August 1777 and the William Heflin Sr. was born on 7 Mar 1740 and were of different lineage. The identification of the parents of Lawson A. Heflin and Ann Eliza Heflin is supported by analysis of the Fauquier Co. Personal Property Tax Lists with the German Line being located in NW Fauquier Co. and the Irish Line being located in Southern Fauquier Co., VA. Regards, Phyllis. > I have been told that in the 1600 to 18000's that > Junior & or Senior after a gentleman's name, did > not necessarily mean that they were father & son, > but that 2 men of the same name in a community > were used Sr. & Jr. only to denote the elder & the > younger. > > Any fact to this?????? > Discussion??? > What you've found to be true???? > > This might clear up some problems that I'm having > in my research in more than one branch of the family. > > Thanks, > ljuhl > > ==== VASTAFFO Mailing List ==== > Visit the Stafford County USGenWeb Home Page! > http://www.rootsweb.com/~vastaffo > > ============================== > Search more than 150 million free records at RootsWeb! > http://searches.rootsweb.com/

I have been told that in the 1600 to 18000's that Junior & or Senior after a gentleman's name, did not necessarily mean that they were father & son, but that 2 men of the same name in a community were used Sr. & Jr. only to denote the elder & the younger. Any fact to this?????? Discussion??? What you've found to be true???? This might clear up some problems that I'm having in my research in more than one branch of the family. Thanks, ljuhl

I'm sorry I do NOT do look-ups (or, I might for $500, standard fee for some research genealogists.) I live in the country, I am 78 years old, take lots of pills. etc. If you want the name of a researcher in Salt Lake City, suggest you contact the Family History Library in Salt Lake City. www.familysearch.org E.W.Wallace

I would also appreciate a look up for Trammells and Williams in Stafford Co, VA. They were there in 1680. Thomas Trammell was an indentured servant for Mr Wyeth and he wouldn't release him so there was a court record. Any help appreciated. Thanks in advance, Linda

Thanks for the thumbs up but remember, it's just web space unless someone contributes the information. Boy have we hit the mother load all of a sudden! Check out the latest additions including the 1900 Census and some very small little known about cemeteries. http://us-gen.com/va/stafford/new.htm Ok, back to work on the last census 1910! Whew! Kristy CC Stafford County, VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vastaffo/ P.S. To the list owner, can you please change the URL in the tag line to read http://www.rootsweb.com/~vastaffo ? Thanks! ----- Original Message ----- From: <KeyesPerry@aol.com> To: <VASTAFFO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 10:10 AM Subject: [VASTAFFO-L] Stafford County censuses online > In a message dated 2/19/01 2:01:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, > VASTAFFO-D-request@rootsweb.com writes: > > Kristy wrote: > > Stafford County Veterans from the Colonial War thru WWI > > 1860, 1870, 1920 Census (coming soon 1900 & 1910) > > and Stafford County Deaths from microfilm 1853 - 1896 > > > > Many thanks to Kristy and Carl and Mildred Musselman. This is a great > resource! > It is not perfect -- for example, the 1920 transcription omits details about > non-white families. But Kristy is willing to put in any additions or > corrections we send her. So the entire site should prove a blessing to > researchers. Go GenWeb! > > > ==== VASTAFFO Mailing List ==== > Visit the Stafford County USGenWeb Home Page! > http://www.rootsweb.com/~vastaffo/stfford1.htm > > > > > > > ============================== > Search over 900 million names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp >