In a message dated 9/30/2006 6:20:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, brenick@columbus.rr.com writes: wish i knew the reason for the migration from hardy and northern/western > virginia to licking co. > It's beautiful country and no one was living there at the time.

If one tries to sum up the movement west into a sentence ("there was more work there") or ("the game was plentiful") it will certainly overlook the bigger picture which is complicated, convoluted, and to understand it one needs threads back 200 years earlier. There had been a fast-running land grab going on for two generations by the time of 1810, in the west, wherever the "west" happened to be at that moment. Ohio had been opened up for settlement in the late 1790s and the Federal Government had it ceded by Virginia in the complex negotiations after the Revolution. There they laid off one region as "military lands" to pay off the promises made to the soldiers in the Continental army. Meanwhile immigration had not slowed alot but would shift from time to time as to where the immigrants were coming from. as in the 1600s and early 1700s the settled regions began to get more crowded and the "population center" of the US gradually moved west into areas (like Ohio) where there was land available for settlement. While I have not personally studied the move into Ohio (it is after 1800 and therefor loses my interest) it is little different from earlier ones. INDIVIDUALS could go for their own varied reasons. They may simply have been falling in with the moving center of population looking for land grants (the word "grant" being key) since in more settled areas (like the Tygart Valley)the best land had been taken up at least as the best lands went and there was little but hilly foothills and mountain land left which was being gobbled up by speculators in spite of the efforts of leftists in the 1770s to draft legislation to stop that. Some (like my ancestor Cornelius Bogard) went to Ohio to get away FROM something (in his case a financial disaster having to do with holding public office and land speculation), and I believe (although controversial) that some were going home. Some who were held captive as a child in Ohio by the Indians before 1781 or later had good experiences there and may have just went back. I once read an e-mail from a person who said "they would go to Ohio and buy land and then sell it for less than they paid so they could move to Indiana to do it all over again" (!!). This I think was finally published in a family history. From my experience it is not habitual for people to move 300 miles to take a financial loss with a motive to move another 300 miles to take another. That is where some folks can get in trouble trying to sum up historical events in a sentence. Genealogy lends itself well to the identification of individuals and family connections but the genealogist may want to be cautious before they publish their interpretation of historical trends. Why the forbears may have gone to Ohio is insanely complicated and a fine family history can be written if one can place their ancestor's particular experience in the bigger picture of a developing America. If you can sum it up in a sentence it may be best to leave it out. Best regards, David Armstrong, Elkins, WV

Thanks David a great clarification. I am sure some will question for "financial" reasons that there was such a great migration. I tend to lean for the "land grant" option. My family, LANDES, were will established in Hardy but with the population increasing so and the lands shrinking, my family left to get more land ,stay with the ones they believed the same way as they did, and able to give something to their future generations. I am with you, one sentence will not tell each individual families reason "Why". Yours, Don S. >From: "David Armstrong" <heraldry@meer.net> >Reply-To: wvhardy@rootsweb.com >To: <wvhardy@rootsweb.com> >Subject: Re: [WVHARDY] United Brethren Church & Stover Family >Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 08:29:24 -0400 > >If one tries to sum up the movement west into a sentence ("there was more >work there") or ("the game was plentiful") it will certainly overlook the >bigger picture which is complicated, convoluted, and to understand it one >needs threads back 200 years earlier. There had been a fast-running land >grab going on for two generations by the time of 1810, in the west, >wherever >the "west" happened to be at that moment. Ohio had been opened up for >settlement in the late 1790s and the Federal Government had it ceded by >Virginia in the complex negotiations after the Revolution. There they laid >off one region as "military lands" to pay off the promises made to the >soldiers in the Continental army. Meanwhile immigration had not slowed >alot >but would shift from time to time as to where the immigrants were coming >from. as in the 1600s and early 1700s the settled regions began to get >more >crowded and the "population center" of the US gradually moved west into >areas (like Ohio) where there was land available for settlement. While I >have not personally studied the move into Ohio (it is after 1800 and >therefor loses my interest) it is little different from earlier ones. >INDIVIDUALS could go for their own varied reasons. They may simply have >been falling in with the moving center of population looking for land >grants >(the word "grant" being key) since in more settled areas (like the Tygart >Valley)the best land had been taken up at least as the best lands went and >there was little but hilly foothills and mountain land left which was being >gobbled up by speculators in spite of the efforts of leftists in the 1770s >to draft legislation to stop that. Some (like my ancestor Cornelius >Bogard) >went to Ohio to get away FROM something (in his case a financial disaster >having to do with holding public office and land speculation), and I >believe >(although controversial) that some were going home. Some who were held >captive as a child in Ohio by the Indians before 1781 or later had good >experiences there and may have just went back. I once read an e-mail from >a >person who said "they would go to Ohio and buy land and then sell it for >less than they paid so they could move to Indiana to do it all over again" >(!!). This I think was finally published in a family history. From my >experience it is not habitual for people to move 300 miles to take a >financial loss with a motive to move another 300 miles to take another. >That is where some folks can get in trouble trying to sum up historical >events in a sentence. Genealogy lends itself well to the identification of >individuals and family connections but the genealogist may want to be >cautious before they publish their interpretation of historical trends. >Why >the forbears may have gone to Ohio is insanely complicated and a fine >family >history can be written if one can place their ancestor's particular >experience in the bigger picture of a developing America. If you can sum >it >up in a sentence it may be best to leave it out. > >Best regards, > >David Armstrong, >Elkins, WV > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >WVHARDY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip

some good info. s >From: "David Armstrong" <heraldry@meer.net> >Reply-To: wvhardy@rootsweb.com >To: <wvhardy@rootsweb.com> >Subject: Re: [WVHARDY] United Brethren Church & Stover Family >Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 08:29:24 -0400 > >If one tries to sum up the movement west into a sentence ("there was more >work there") or ("the game was plentiful") it will certainly overlook the >bigger picture which is complicated, convoluted, and to understand it one >needs threads back 200 years earlier. There had been a fast-running land >grab going on for two generations by the time of 1810, in the west, >wherever >the "west" happened to be at that moment. Ohio had been opened up for >settlement in the late 1790s and the Federal Government had it ceded by >Virginia in the complex negotiations after the Revolution. There they laid >off one region as "military lands" to pay off the promises made to the >soldiers in the Continental army. Meanwhile immigration had not slowed >alot >but would shift from time to time as to where the immigrants were coming >from. as in the 1600s and early 1700s the settled regions began to get >more >crowded and the "population center" of the US gradually moved west into >areas (like Ohio) where there was land available for settlement. While I >have not personally studied the move into Ohio (it is after 1800 and >therefor loses my interest) it is little different from earlier ones. >INDIVIDUALS could go for their own varied reasons. They may simply have >been falling in with the moving center of population looking for land >grants >(the word "grant" being key) since in more settled areas (like the Tygart >Valley)the best land had been taken up at least as the best lands went and >there was little but hilly foothills and mountain land left which was being >gobbled up by speculators in spite of the efforts of leftists in the 1770s >to draft legislation to stop that. Some (like my ancestor Cornelius >Bogard) >went to Ohio to get away FROM something (in his case a financial disaster >having to do with holding public office and land speculation), and I >believe >(although controversial) that some were going home. Some who were held >captive as a child in Ohio by the Indians before 1781 or later had good >experiences there and may have just went back. I once read an e-mail from >a >person who said "they would go to Ohio and buy land and then sell it for >less than they paid so they could move to Indiana to do it all over again" >(!!). This I think was finally published in a family history. From my >experience it is not habitual for people to move 300 miles to take a >financial loss with a motive to move another 300 miles to take another. >That is where some folks can get in trouble trying to sum up historical >events in a sentence. Genealogy lends itself well to the identification of >individuals and family connections but the genealogist may want to be >cautious before they publish their interpretation of historical trends. >Why >the forbears may have gone to Ohio is insanely complicated and a fine >family >history can be written if one can place their ancestor's particular >experience in the bigger picture of a developing America. If you can sum >it >up in a sentence it may be best to leave it out. > >Best regards, > >David Armstrong, >Elkins, WV > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >WVHARDY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Search—say hello! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG