Chapter IV: Hughbanks – Power

According to the Zink family histories and other sources, Clarissa {Hughbanks} Zink was the daughter of WILLIAM HUGHBANKS (who in life may have preferred the spelling of Hughbank but was buried with an s as part of his last name). His wife, whom we will discuss first, was NANCY JANE {POWER} HUGHBANKS. Using the ages shown for her on censuses from 1810 through 1830, we can estimate that Nancy Jane's birth occurred being between 1784 and 1790. She is not listed after the 1830 census, and information gleaned from an article about a daughter, Sarah Jane, reveals that Nancy Jane died in 1837.¹

As we shall soon see, Clarissa's father lived in Fleming County, Kentucky, before moving to Indiana. Marriage records for Fleming County show that a William Hubanks married a Nancy Power on March 8, 1810. Other than this marriage record, there is, unfortunately, no information about this Nancy Power in any source I have examined. Based on my analysis of the Power(s) males in Kentucky on the 1810 census, it is my belief that Nancy Power was the daughter of the Joseph Power who in that year was a close Fleming County neighbor of the father of our William Hughbanks.² Recorded in the census category for 45 years old or older (which accords with Joseph Power's known date of birth, March 14, 1764), he was the only Power(s) male in this county or its neighboring counties old enough to have been her father. The fact that Joseph Power was the bondsman when William and Nancy were married in 1810 gives us further evidence that we have identified her father.

A female also listed on the census as 45 years old or older lived in the Joseph Power household in 1810, along with another woman, who was described as 26 to 45 years old. The wife of Joseph Power was a woman named Sarah {Taylor} Power, who was born in 1768 (on December 18, according to some Power researchers), so she was the younger of the two women. We will return later to the identity of the other woman in this Power household in 1810.

Researchers who have studied this Joseph Power have somewhat varying lists of children for him and Sarah, but none of these researchers includes a Nancy (or a Jane, for that matter) among them. Indeed, there is only one daughter on any of these lists, a Sarah born in 1795. None of these lists is definitive, though, and the absence of a Nancy on them is not conclusive. Indeed, the lists suggest that there is in fact room for her: taken together, none of them shows any child born to Joseph and Sarah Power between their sons in 1787 and 1791. If Nancy Jane was in actuality born between 1784 and 1790, as later censuses all suggest, she would fit neatly into the sequence of this couple's children between 1788 and 1790, and the fairly regular spacing of these children suggests that Nancy Jane would have been born in 1789 or early 1790.³ In addition, Joseph and his wife Sarah apparently named their first-born son after Sarah's father, Joshua, and since this man's wife was a woman known as Ann or Nancy they might well have named their first-born daughter, our Nancy, after her. Unfortunately, there is no census for Kentucky in 1800, so we cannot confirm that Joseph and Sarah had a young daughter that year.

It remains possible that Nancy Jane {Power} Hughbanks was the daughter of one of the brothers of Joseph Power, who signed the marriage bond in 1810 on behalf of his absent or deceased brother, but I have been unable to find an unmarried Nancy or Jane Power listed among the children of those brothers. In addition, there is no female Power widow and head of household in Fleming County in 1810 who might have living with her a daughter named Nancy Jane Power. All in all, I think the evidence is very persuasive that JOSEPH POWER and SARAH {TAYLOR} POWER were the parents of Nancy Jane Power, wife of William Hughbanks. Joseph and Sarah were married in Leesburg, Loudoun County, Virginia, on December 29, 1785.⁴

The fact that Joseph Power was listed in Kentucky tax information for 1800 but not for 1790 suggests that he had arrived there sometime between those years; he was the only Power in Fleming County in 1800, which is consistent with his having been the patriarch of this family. This conclusion is correct: we discover from Joseph's Revolutionary War pension application that he moved to Fleming County from Loudoun County, Virginia, in 1793. Our first sighting of him in Kentucky comes in 1795, when he is on a tax roll in Mason County, from which Fleming County would soon be created. We then move to 1799, when Joseph Power was recorded as witness in a property sale. In 1804, Power served for the first time as messenger (delegate) from the Wilson Run Baptist Church in what was then Mason County (near Flemingsburg in what is today Fleming County). This was a role he would perform eleven more times through 1829, when it appears the church dissolved over theological disputes. The 1810 census tells us Joseph Power and his family lived in the area along the North Fork (of the Licking River) near Flemingsburg when that census was taken. Presumably Joseph was renting property there, perhaps the 125 acres he would purchase in November 1817 (and to which he would add in 1833 an adjoining 22 acres).⁵

On the 1810 census, Nancy Jane is not listed among the children of Joseph and Sarah Power (daughter Sarah, born in 1795, was the female in the category 10 to 16 years). But since Nancy Jane had married William Hughbanks in March in that year she should not have been included in her father's household in 1810. The census sheet on which this Power family is listed in 1810 also shows that a William Hughbanks and a Joshua Taylor were near neighbors, as was a Jacob Reed whose family was related to the Power family in Loudoun County, Virginia.

Joseph Power, identified as a farmer, is again listed on the census in Fleming County in 1820. He and his wife are both shown to have been forty-five years old or older, and a second female also in that age category was very likely the same woman we observed in the Power household in 1810. The 1830 census describes the Power couple as living in the East Division of the county. Both Joseph and Sarah Power were now listed in the column 60 to 70 years of age, which is correct as they were born in 1764 and 1768 respectively. Once again in 1830 there was also an older female, now described as 80 to 90 years old, who we can assume was the same person we saw was in the Power household in 1810 and in 1820.

Ten years later, in 1840, there was no Joseph Power(s) in Fleming County, or in any other Kentucky county, and yet we know from our Joseph's pension application (discussed immediately below) that he and his family were still living in Fleming County then. Looking at the other Power males in the state, it seems apparent that Joseph and Sarah had gone to live with their second son John, who in previous censuses had been a near neighbor of his parents. John's household in Fleming County shows a man and a woman both recorded as 70 to 80 years old in 1840 (and so born between 1760 and 1770, as his parents were). John, whose age on the censuses matches the year of birth the Power researchers generally assign to him, had had no older persons in his household on earlier censuses.

Joseph Power's pension application – actually, his two applications and an amendment – help us to understand more about his later years, along with his service during the American Revolution, so we will examine this information here. On June 23, 1834, Joseph applied for a pension under the legislation Congress had enacted on June 23, 1832.⁶ He stated that he was drafted into the Loudoun County militia three times between November 1780 and August 1781, each time for a term of two months (or three months, according to the later application and the amendment). The account of his militia service that follows is an amalgam based on the three documents and the depositions of other individuals included in Power's file.

Serving as a private, mainly under other Loudoun County residents (several of them neighbors) who were officers, Power says he spent most of his time in the Yorktown, Virginia, area.⁷ On his first tour, the company was marched seven days to Fredericksburg, Virginia, only to be sent home to await further orders that did not come before the company's terms of service had expired. Then, in February 1781, Power's company was sent to Williamsburg, Virginia, where they joined the main American army and served two (or three) months on the James River and at York, Jamestown, and Hampton before being discharged at Richmond.⁸ In a later document, Power includes a description of his additional detached duty at the ferry at Cobham (on the James River opposite Jamestown), where he and fifty other men were told to watch the British, guard the crossing, and assist any riders carrying expresses (urgent messages). He and several other men, all good watermen, then volunteered to cross to the south side of the river, where, when the British advanced, this detachment was for a few days "cut off" and ""hemmed in," Power recalled. By the time Joseph and his colleagues managed to recross the river, their company had already returned to Loudoun County. Joseph and the others had to make their own way home, without rations and eating only what little they could beg.

Drafted again in early September 1781, Power's company was in his words "hurried" – without waiting for the other members of the battalion – to Gloucester County, Virginia, opposite Yorktown. Here he drilled, built entrenchments, participated in the siege of Lord Charles Cornwallis's army, and observed that general's surrender (in mid-October 1781). Afterwards, Power says, he was ordered to accompany a group of British prisoners back to Loudoun County. Here, in late November, at Nowland's Ferry (the point at which the Carolina Road crossed the Potomac River), his company assisted getting the prisoners and their baggage across the river and handed them off to the Maryland militia for detention in Frederick in that state.⁹

The Bureau of Pensions denied Joseph Power's application for a pension in July 1834 on the grounds that he was not specific enough about his first tour of duty and (peculiarly) because his last tour was longer than he was drafted for. The lack of any documentary evidence whatsoever of Power's service during the Revolutionary War in the surviving records of the War Department must have influenced this decision. Somehow, though, his case got the attention of Nicholas D. Coleman, a former member of the House of Representatives from Kentucky (1829-31), who wrote to Commissioner of Pensions J. L. Edwards on February 25, 1836. Coleman told Edwards that Power was dissatisfied with the action and asked him to review Power's case personally. Power's file contains a note that his application was rejected again on April 16, 1836, this time because he had not served six months.

There things stood for a decade. By the mid-1840s, Power's situation had deteriorated, according to his second application dated March 25, 1846, and its supporting documents. These state that he was bedridden, unable to use his limbs or to work in any way. Power could not even be transported by a carriage, one supporter wrote. (The fact that Power could not sign his application but had to make his mark instead seems to confirm this testimony.) Power also noted that he once had had a piece of land in Fleming County but had lost it years before (date not stated) when another claimant prevailed – a typical situation given Kentucky's tangled land ownership situation. And, having been supported by a son-in-law, Jasper Seybold, until Seybold's death in June 1843, Power said, now he and his wife were totally dependent on Seybold's widow Sarah, who was herself indigent. We cannot judge the veracity of all of this testimony (and the second application and amendment have one or two inaccuracies to trouble us), but there can be little doubt that Power deserved some assistance from his country for the services he had rendered five decades earlier.¹⁰ Indeed, he was the kind of person the pension act of 1832 was meant to help, whether he was in the Virginia militia or in the Continental Army.

It seems apparent that numerous friends had rallied around Power and had orchestrated an effort to secure him a pension. (One of them, Obed Nute, who had been a character witness for Power a dozen years earlier, was now a justice of the peace and likely played a key role in this effort.) These friends must have coached Power on exactly how to pitch his second application, and when that was not persuasive or explicit enough they saw that he prepared an amended version later during the spring of 1846. Like Power's two applications, their own supporting depositions were careful to emphasize that he had served more than six months and spoke glowingly of his integrity, honesty, unassuming nature, and role as a family man and local peacemaker.¹¹ The testimony of one long-time friend, Burtis Ringo, himself a Revolutionary War pensioner, must have been especially important, since he could verify that Power had served in the Virginia militia as he had claimed. More to the point, someone – Nute? – made sure that a copy of the set of documents was sent to Representative Andrew A. Trumbo, a Kentuckian who in 1846 was in the midst of his single term in the House of Representatives (1845-47).

All of this effort on behalf of Joseph Power was successful: his certificate of pension – $20 per year to be paid in equal installments in March and September – was signed on July 21, 1846. Less than three years later, on June 4, 1849, Joseph Power died. According to family tradition, he was buried in the Seybold Cemetery in Foxport, Kentucky, a town in eastern Fleming County very close to the North Fork of the Licking River. Sarah continued to live with the couple's daughter, Sarah Seybold, the widow of Jasper, with whom her mother Sarah is listed on the 1850 census. (Her age is shown as seventy-two years old; Sarah {Taylor} Power was actually eighty-two years old in 1850). On September 26, 1851, Sarah {Taylor} Power asked that as his widow Joseph's pension continue to be paid to her (as legislation in 1848 had made possible), and this request was approved on October 11, 1851. She presumably received payments until her death, which the burial records of Seybold Cemetery indicate occurred on January 7, 1854. A poignant item in the settlement of the estate of Joseph Power, which was completed in June 1856, was an expenditure for a coffin for "Sally," his widow.¹²

Top

Moving on to the families of Joseph Power and Sarah {Taylor} Power, we find a mixture of good information and gaps that we have to fill with informed speculation. We will explore the Power line first since we know less about it than we do about the Taylor line. We can be sure that Joseph and Sarah Power originated in Loudoun County, Virginia, where they evidently lived near Whitely's Ford over Goose Creek in Shelburne Parish; this is the area above Goose Creek. In the Loudoun County context, this meant the area north and west of Goose Creek, generally between it and both the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Potomac River. Joseph Power appears on the tithe lists in Loudoun County in 1785 and then on the county's personal property tax lists for 1787 through 1789. On the 1787 list he is shown with two blacks, two horses and mules, and five cattle. The next year he had three horses and in 1789 four.¹³

Joseph was the son of another man named JOSEPH POWER. Family tradition identifies this man as "the immigrant" – evidently a man born in Ireland, if this tradition is also correct about the place, but as we shall see there is good reason to doubt this tradition. Our first certain view of the man we will call Joseph Power, Sr., comes on February 7, 1751, when he (as Joseph Pore) is mentioned as a son-in-law in the will of Richard Shore of Fairfax County, Virginia (out of which Loudoun County would be formed seven years later). We can conclude from this that Joseph was very likely born no later than 1730 and probably sometime during the 1720s.

In October 1755 Joseph Power, Sr., witnessed several deeds in Fairfax County, and in 1760 he began to appear on the tithe rolls in Loudoun County. There are various other references to him in Loudoun County – on the clerk's fee list, as a party to a suit, as an appraiser of an estate, as a witness, and so forth – through 1785, when he appears on the tithe list for the final time.¹⁴ Like his son, he appears on the personal-property lists in Loudoun County from 1787 through 1789. In each of these years he was taxed for five horses, and the first list also shows he had eight head of cattle. It is interesting to note that the two Joseph Powers, father and son, were not close neighbors in Loudoun County. Joseph Power, Sr., signed his will on August 21, 1794, and died before December 8 in that same year, the date when the will was proved in Loudoun County.¹⁵ His will mentions his wife, Sarah, which gives us her full name: SARAH {SHORE} POWER. We can only guess at when she was born (probably, based on what we know about her family, in Maryland) about 1730, but we do know from this reference to her that Sarah died sometime after 1794.

The parents of Joseph Power, Sr., are said by some of that family's researchers to have been James Power and Mary {Lewis} Power. We know that two persons bearing those names were married in St. Paul's Parish of Stafford County, Virginia (out of which Fairfax County was later created) on October 19, 1724; this parish was in the area below Passapatangy Creek. This circumstantial evidence – both the place and the time – fit with what we know about the senior Joseph Power. But if this was the same James Power who dictated a will in Fairfax County on December 25, 1744, he would seem to be eliminated as a possible father of Joseph Power, Sr., as that will does not include Joseph among the three children who are named in it. On the other hand, young Joseph could have been omitted for some reason we are not aware of, and we must keep open the possibility that he was the child of this James Power despite Joseph's absence from that man's will.

Beyond this point we cannot proceed, at least with what we learn from documentary evidence alone, except to speculate. There were many other Power males in the colonies of Virginia and Maryland as far back as the 1630s. Of particular interest is a John Power mentioned in Stafford County, Virginia, during the late 1680s, since that was the parent county of Loudoun County and Fairfax County. It is also intriguing to note that a Thomas and Mary Power sold land in Fairfax County in March 1763, but we know nothing more about this couple – including whether they would have been old enough to be Joseph's parents.

Still more interesting is the connection, informed by DNA results, between our two Joseph Powers of Loudoun County and an earlier Power family of Maryland. These results show that a Walter Power of Fauquier County, Virginia, was related to Joseph Power, Sr.; both men, in fact, were descended from the same Power male. If this Walter Power was the man of that name found in Port Tobacco East Hundred, Charles County, Maryland, in 1775, as some additional evidence suggests, we can reasonably theorize that the roots of our two Joseph Powers were there as well. Among the other Power males in Charles County in 1775 was a John Power born before 1742, who could have been the elder Joseph's father or brother. It bears remembering that many of the families closely associated with the Powers of Loudoun County we will meet later in this chapter (Taylor, Taverner, and especially Shore) apparently originated in southern Maryland, and it would be no surprise if our Power family originated there as well.

Because so many Charles County residents came up the peninsula from St. Mary's County (which was settled earlier), of particular interest to us are two men named Nicholas Power and Joseph Power, sons of an older Nicholas Power who died in mid-1712. Evidence in this man's will suggests that both boys were born during the 1690s, and so either could have been the father of Joseph Power, Sr., of Loudoun County, Virginia, who was born sometime before 1730.¹⁶ The elder Nicholas Power first comes to our attention when he was residing in the Patapsco Hundred in Baltimore County, Maryland, in 1692. His wife, mentioned in a document in 1706/7 but not in his 1712 will, was Sarah Neale, the daughter of Anthony Neale. The earlier lineage of Nicholas Power is unknown.¹⁷

Although this Power line would seem to hold considerable interest for us (not least because it used the given name Joseph), it should be noted that Nicholas Power was a Roman Catholic and the Power family of Loudoun County was Protestant. This is not reason enough by itself to rule out a connection between these Power groups, though it does give us reason to be cautious about making one. But, in addition, these St. Mary's County Power families seem to have remained in Maryland after we know that our Joseph Power was living in Loudoun County, and the DNA evidence would seem to link him to a different Power family. Only further research will show whether the two Power families in Maryland, one in Charles County and the other in St. Mary's County, had some earlier relationship. The fact that the earliest men named Power in both counties arrived in Maryland in 1758 suggests this could be the case.

Let us turn, therefore, to Walter Power of Fauquier County, Virginia, to whom Joseph Power, Sr., is linked by DNA evidence, and see what we know about his line. Walter, the son of Robert Power (the family name was often spelled Poore then), was born between 1718 and 1722; he is, therefore, a good candidate to have been a sibling of Joseph Power, Sr., who was born sometime during the 1720s. Walter's father Robert was the son of another Robert Power, whose wife was named Anne Lewis – the surname that Power family tradition gives us for the mother of Joseph Power. The elder Robert and Anne were married in St. John's Church in Broad Creek, Maryland (near Oxon Hill), on June 27, 1710. He was born about 1685 and died between March 24 and November 8, 1762.

We know from church records and other sources that this union produced three daughters and evidently also the son named Robert – Walter's father. Our Joseph Power, Sr., of Loudoun County, Virginia, thus could have been another son of Robert and Anne, and the common male from whom he and Walter were descended would have been their father, the Robert born about 1685. The fact that our Joseph Power, Sr., named his first son Robert reinforces our belief that he was the brother of Walter and the son of Robert Power. (Joseph and Sarah's second son was named for her father, Richard.) In addition, the given name Walter was used in our Power line for several more generations.

The father of Robert Power (about 1685-1762) the elder was Walter Power, born sometime before 1658, whose wife was named Margaret; we do not know her family name. Margaret married a William Witter after Walter's death in September 1702. DNA evidence seems to establish a connection between the two Power males named Walter, the one born before 1658 and the other born about 1720 – and between this later Walter and our Joseph Power, Sr. Because the earlier Walter and his wife Margaret are known to have had only the one son, the Robert born in 1685, our Joseph Power, Sr., of Loudoun County thus must also be linked to them as well – through this same man. As noted earlier, a Walter Power was transported to America in 1658, but we cannot say whether or not this man was the same one who married Margaret and fathered Robert Power, presumably the father of our Joseph Power, Sr. As DNA evidence expands and its interpretation improves, our confidence in this estimated line of descent may grow; for now, we can only hypothesize that Joseph's parents were Robert Power and Anne Lewis.

Why some Power family researchers say that Joseph Power's parents were James Power and Mary Lewis is unclear; it could be a simple recording error or a faulty memory, or possibly Joseph was the child of this couple and Robert and Anne Power raised him after James and Mary both died. Or, there may be other Power males in this particular Power line that we have not yet discovered, including a James who married Mary Lewis (possibly the sister of Anne?). I suspect, though, that researchers have settled upon the known James Power and Mary Lewis of Virginia as the supposed parents of Joseph Power, Sr., in the absence of any documentary evidence about their identities, and by coincidence this James Power married a woman with the same family name, Lewis, as Robert Power did in 1710 when he married Anne Lewis. Now that we have been enlightened by DNA information, we can focus instead on the Power family of Maryland discussed here.

Having taken the Power line as far as evidence presently permits, we take up the Shore family, specifically the lineage of Sarah {Shore} Power, the wife of Joseph Power, Sr., of Loudoun County, Virginia. Some researchers state that Sarah was born in St. Mary's County, Maryland, about 1728 and died sometime after 1800 (estimates include 1803 and about 1828), but I have seen no documentary evidence to confirm any of this. As we noted earlier, Sarah's father was RICHARD SHORE.¹⁸ Researchers state that he was born either in Ireland or in St. Mary's County about 1700. He died in Fairfax County, Virginia, no later than March 27, 1751, when his will (dated February 7, 1751) was proved. Richard Shore's wife is said to have been Mary {Hulse} Shore, born either on September 21, 1703, or in 1705, but I do not know what evidence exists for identifying her as Mary Hulse. She was deceased when Richard wrote his will in 1751. (As we have seen, this will mentions Joseph Power, Sr., as a son-in-law.) It could be that the Shore and Hulse lines were also Irish in origin, but beyond that we can only speculate.¹⁹

We do have some sightings of Richard Shore during the 1740s to show that he was present in Fairfax County and then in Loudoun County, where the records have him witnessing a lease, inventorying an estate, purchasing items, and serving as an executor. Presumably it was in Fairfax County, therefore, that Joseph Power, Sr., met Sarah Shore, so we can date Richard Shore's arrival there sometime during the 1740s. Before that we cannot say anything definite about this man or his family, but it is intriguing to note that a man with that name from Mansfield in Nottingham, England, a stocking maker and knitter twenty years of age, was sent to Maryland in late 1721 for four years, having signed in service to a John Taylor of London. If Shore was sent to St. Mary's County, this would have placed him in the right place at the right time to marry Mary Hulse there, after which he and his family could easily have moved westward across the Chesapeake Bay and into the part of Virginia that we are concerned with here. It may be noteworthy that in the accounting in Fairfax County for Richard Shore's extensive estate, there was a substantial payment for an administration in Maryland, which might indicate that he still owned property there when he died.

Perhaps this theory about Shore's origins is too neat, however, and he was descended instead from some earlier immigrant. As with the Power family, there are references to Hulses and Shores in America as early as the 1630s, including in areas where the Taylors (the family of the wife of Joseph Power, Jr.) and their kin lived. Both early Virginia and early Maryland produced candidate families. We see references to a Thomas Shores in Northampton County, Virginia, from at least 1702 until his death in early 1724. It is interesting to note that he seems to have lived near to, and been associated with, members of the Gascoigne family to which his daughter Sarah Shore would become related (distantly, to be sure) by marriage.

A better candidate family, though, would seem to be the one in St. Mary's County, Maryland. Here Thomas Shores had 175 acres on St. George's Creek (called Shore's Delight) surveyed in 1680 but apparently did not patent it, so that when his widow remarried the matter had to be adjudicated. Might this have been related to the expense in Richard Shore's accounting just cited? And were these two men named Thomas Shores one and the same man, someone holding property in both southern Maryland and Virginia's portion of the Delmarva Peninsula, just across the Chesapeake Bay? This Thomas Shores could also have been the man who petitioned for release from debtors prison in Maryland in 1724, but we have more to learn about these families before we can figure out how they all fit together.

Top

Having exhausted both the Power line and the Shore line, we return to that of the wife of Joseph Power, Jr., Sarah {Taylor} Power. Her father was JOSHUA TAYLOR, whose wife was named ANN (or NANCY ANN). Some researchers contend that Ann's family name was Tarvin; I have not yet seen documentary evidence to verify either her or her family name, a matter to which we will return shortly. Most Taylor researchers estimate that Joshua was born about 1730, a date based on estimates of 1726 as the date when his parents married. When we see that Loudoun County ordered him free of both county and parish levies on October 9, 1780, ten years before he ordinarily would have been eligible for this relief, we are led to wonder if he petitioned for exemption because of illness or other physical problem. Joshua was born in Prince William County or Stafford County, Virginia, given what we know of the whereabouts of Joshua's father, but we cannot be more precise than that.

Our first reference to Joshua comes on October 16, 1755, when he is mentioned in a deed as the second son of his father, Henry Taylor. From 1760 through 1781, Joshua appears on the tithe lists in Loudoun County. Like Joseph Power, Sr., he lived in Shelburne Parish, above Goose Creek. Not until 1767, though, was Joshua the head of a household: before that he was living with a Thomas Shores. Because the two men were jointly responsible for fees and were co-defendants in a number of Fairfax County suits, we can surmise that they had some kind of business relationship as well. A Joshua Taylor was assessed a church levy in Shelburne Parish twice in 1782, but based on the exemption from all levies the county court approved in 1780 we can probably conclude this man was the elder Joseph Taylor's adult son of the same name.

We do not know when the senior Joshua Taylor died, but it must have been sometime between October 1780, when the court order released him from levies (or perhaps 1781, when he is on the tithe list for the last time) and May 10, 1784, when his widow Ann signed a bond to become administrator of his estate. A date of death for Joshua Taylor in early 1784 is probably the best guess. His death before the age of sixty not long after his exemption from levies strengthens our suspicion that some kind of physical ailment cut short his life. When Ann Taylor made the first payment from her late husband's estate in May 1786, almost exactly two years after she became his administrator, she was represented (as the law then required) by her second husband, Jacob Reed. She and Reed presumably had married between mid-1784 and 1786, therefore. The final settlement of Joshua's estate was recorded in 1792. From a Loudoun County suit for nonpayment of a debt filed against Ann as the administrator during the late 1790s, we learn that she and Jacob Reed had moved to Kentucky sometime between 1786 and then.²⁰

Jacob Reed had been a neighbor of Joshua and Ann Taylor. He and Ann were still living in Loudoun County as of 1785 but then disappeared from there, only to turn up, along with Joseph Power, Jr., and his family, in Fleming County, Kentucky. One suspects that the couple moved there in 1793, about the time we know Power relocated to Kentucky. Jacob Reed paid his tax in Fleming County in 1800 on the same day that Power paid his, so they were very probably neighbors here as they had been in Loudoun County. Jacob Reed had vanished by 1810, and the younger man with that name on the Fleming County census that year did not have an older female in his household. From this evidence, and from what we previously have seen in the household of Joseph Power, Jr., on the censuses for 1810 through 1830, we can draw the conclusion that Ann, widowed for the second time between 1800 and 1810 when Jacob Reed died, went to live with her daughter Sarah {Taylor} Power and her son-in-law, Joseph Power. Ann would remain living with them for more than two decades before dying sometime between 1830 and 1840. The older woman in the Power household during those years would have been born between 1740 and 1750, which seems about right for the woman who would give birth to Sarah Taylor in 1768.

And so we turn to Ann Taylor's parentage, which presents us with another set of problems. The first of these is the name some researchers have proposed for her father: Tarvin. So far as I can tell, there are no references to a Tarvin family anywhere in Virginia through the first half of the 18th century and only a handful of references to such a family in Maryland. I have found, however, a George Taverner in Loudoun County who lived close to the Power, Taylor, and Shore families there, and the similarity of Taverner to Tarvin is striking.²¹ Since Joshua Taylor seems to have spent his entire adult life in the area that became Loudoun County in 1757, and so almost certainly met and married his wife there, a Taverner family in that county seems like the most plausible source of that wife. Let us examine, therefore, whether that George Taverner could have been the man who fathered Joshua Taylor's wife, Ann.

What we know about George Taverner is hardly abundant but is fairly straightforward. Along with a son with the same name, George is on the Loudoun County tithe lists from 1760 through 1765. A deed dated October 28, 1755, reveals that he was a tenant on land on both sides of Goose Creek that was being sold, and there is never any evidence that he owned property in Loudoun County.²² Indeed, we can deduce that Taverner led something of a precarious economic existence. He was in the Fairfax County court as a defendant in several debt cases during the 1750s, and his troubles continued in Loudoun County once that county was formed in 1757. On November 8, 1757, he had to sell a large quantity of household goods in order to pay off a merchant named Benjamin Grayson. On March 14, 1759, Taverner sued another man, perhaps for debt. (It is in this case that Henry Taylor and Thomas Lewis served as witnesses for Taverner.) Taverner's troubles continued: on August 13, 1760, he was released from jail in Loudoun County, having served for at least twenty days, after he delivered a schedule of his estate and took the oath required of insolvent debtors. But Grayson sued him for debt again during the mid-1760s. This time the suit was dismissed, on June 13, 1766, but only because George Taverner had recently died.

Working on the hypothesis that George Taverner was in fact Ann's father, we move on to where he originated. He might have been the George Taverner who was transported from Newgate Prison to Virginia in January 1731. Or, he might have been a descendant of a long line of Taverners (back to 1636 in Virginia), most of them²³ also transported from England, who lived in eastern Virginia (mostly in Richmond County and York County). In either case, the George Taverner we are trying to track might well have been the man of that name who married Elizabeth Bishop in St. Paul's Parish, Stafford County, Virginia, on January 2, 1740. As we have seen, this county supplied many residents of Loudoun County, and a marriage there at that time matches what we have learned about Joshua Taylor's wife, Ann: that she was probably born between 1740 and 1750.

Some Taylor researchers, though, have tried to tie Joshua's wife Ann to the one family called Tarvin for which there is some information: the one in Maryland. The names of the males in this family, which lived in Charles County, consistently included George and Richard, names used among the Loudoun County Taverners. There is in fact in this Maryland family a Nancy Ann²⁴ Tarvin, born in 1746, along with a George born in 1744 and a Richard born in 1742. This George would have been too young to have been the man who was in jail in Loudoun County in 1760 and died in 1766. Might he have been the George Taverner, Jr., who is also found on that county's tithe lists later during the 1700s and who died there in 1832? Tarvin researchers believe, however, that the younger George Tarvin of Maryland – a Church of the Brethren minister – died in Bracken County, Kentucky, in 1811. It is noteworthy that Tarvin had lived in Fairfax County, Virginia, until 1757 (the year that Loudoun County was formed from it) and then very near Fleming County, Kentucky, after having moved there in 1793 or 1794 – about the time that the Power family went there.

The parents of these three Maryland Tarvin children (Nancy, George, and Richard) are thought to have been a George Tarvin and Eleanor {Mudd} Tarvin of Charles County. George lived between 1721 and 1750, so clearly he too was not the man we see in Loudoun County, Virginia, later on. Having thus eliminated the two George Tarvins in Maryland who might have been the George Taverner in Loudoun County we are examining here, it is difficult to see how the Nancy Ann Tarvin born in Maryland in 1746 could have been the wife of Joshua Taylor. Tradition among the Loudoun County Taverners says that the George who died in 1766 came to America from England before the American Revolution, which also would indicate that the suggested link with the Maryland Tarvin family is not correct. In light of all this, I have concluded that the George Taverner who was transported to Virginia in 1731 is the best candidate to have been the father of Ann {Taverner} Taylor, but more evidence is needed before we can declare this issue entirely resolved.²⁵

Top

This brings us to the Taylor line, which has its own set of problems in store for us. Joshua Taylor was the son of HENRY TAYLOR and a woman named Margaret – Cork, if some Taylor researchers are correct. (I have seen no documentary evidence establishing this as her surname.) Henry and Margaret were married in Cameron Parish of Loudoun County, Virginia, but we do not know the exact date. Logically the marriage ought to have occurred before 1730, if Joshua, the second son, was born about then, and in fact most researchers suggest that Henry and Margaret were wed about 1726. Henry Taylor was born about 1707, apparently, but we do not know when Margaret was born.

Indeed, we know nothing more about Margaret except that she died sometime before 1755, when Henry referred to both her (as the mother of Joshua) and his second wife. A James Cork is mentioned in two wills for which Henry Taylor was responsible, including that of Henry's own father, and this may be a clue that James Cork was Margaret's father. Many Taylor researchers identify Robert Cork as her father instead, but I have not found a trace of such a man. Indeed, the entire Cork family is difficult to find anywhere in the surviving records. We do see that a James Cork was living in Overwharton Parish of Stafford County, where we think the Taylors lived before Loudoun County, as early as 1724, which strengthens this case for his having been Margaret's father. A David Corke was also in this general area in 1660, and a couple of other Cork men can be glimpsed back to 1635.²⁶ Without the documentary evidence to identify Margaret's father, however, we must leave her line until such evidence turns up.

Our first documentary evidence of Henry Taylor comes when he was named executor of his father's will, which was recorded in May 1748. In that will, Henry received a quantity of household and farm goods, along with one of his father's two adult slaves, Bess, and her child. Over the years, Henry Taylor continues to appear in records in Prince William County, then in Fairfax County and in Loudoun County as they were formed. He was first tithed in the last of these counties in 1749, and in the next year he was a witness to the will of Richard Shore, the father of Sarah {Shore} Power. In 1755, Henry Taylor took out two leases, for 585 acres, on Lord Fairfax's property. This land was in the Goose Creek Tract of Loudoun County. It is these leases that identify both of Henry's two wives, along with the children of each. The next year, either Henry or else his son of the same name was a member of a Fairfax Horse militia unit sent west on detached duty during the French and Indian War.²⁷

There are additional references to Joshua's father Henry Taylor in Loudoun County records throughout the 1750s and 1760s. He is regularly on that county's tithe lists, sometimes with as many as six slaves, and in 1759 he was identified as a planter. In 1761, either he or his son Henry served as road overseer near Lasswell's Ford across Goose Creek in the vicinity of the Mountain Road. In 1768, Fairfax County fined Henry for concealing a tithable slave named Ben, so Taylor must have retained property in that county even after he himself had moved to Loudoun County. A 1769 reference to him in Loudoun County tells us that he owned a still house and possibly a mill as well.

During 1770, Taylor paid for the care of the John Andrews, the Anglican minister of Cameron Parish, a man who apparently was better at consuming alcohol than paying his bills and was very ill during the last nine months of his life. Henry Taylor's second wife was a woman named Susannah {Compton} Whitely, the widow of Robert Whitely. It was at Whitely's Ford where Joseph Power, Jr., enlisted in the militia, Burris Ringo tells us in supporting Power's application for a pension, so we are undoubtedly right to think that the Power, Taylor, Taverner, and Whitley families all were neighbors in Loudoun County, along with members of the Shore and Lewis families.

Henry Taylor approved his will (on which he made his mark) on March 29, 1770; this will was recorded on August 12, 1771, so he had died sometime during the year and one half between these two dates. The possessions described on the 1772 inventory of his estate suggest that he was quite prosperous. Henry may have been a Quaker, as one researcher states that he was buried in a Friends burial ground in Loudoun County; perhaps he and Andrews were personal friends rather than fellow communicants, therefore. Henry Taylor's second wife continued to be tithed in Loudoun County through 1777 but must have died soon thereafter.

Henry Taylor was the son of JOHN TAYLOR. John Taylor's will was prepared on May 1, 1748, and was proved in Fairfax County on May 17 in that year, which fixes his date of death fairly precisely.²⁸ He does not mention a wife in his will, which probably means that she was no longer living. Some sources state that Henry Taylor's mother was a woman named Elizabeth, and that John was later married to women named Mary Burbury and Tabitha, but I have not seen the documentary evidence to confirm any of this and Mary Burbury almost surely married John's brother instead. Although the will of John Taylor's father is no longer in existence, we know from other evidence that John was its co-executor, which along with certain land transactions establishes the relationship between these two Taylors.

The John Taylor who died in May 1748 was the last of four successive generations of our Taylors with that same given name, and we will identify them here as [I], [II], [III], and [IV]. John [IV] was born in Lancaster County, Virginia, in 1674. We find a John Taylor in Stafford County at about when we would expect to see John [IV] as an adult there: he was helping to survey on Fishing Creek in 1706, a tithable in Overwharton Parish of Stafford County, and a landowner on Great Hunting Creek in that county in 1729-30. The John Taylor who paid rent to George Mason in Prince William County in 1735 might also have been Henry Taylor's father, John [IV]. Additional references come in Prince William County in 1736 (an estate sale) and in 1741 (an election), but also in Stafford County and Fairfax County in 1742 (the quit rent roll in the former and another vote in the latter county). There are two last references to John Taylor [IV] between the date of his will, 1740, and when we know he died, 1748.

John Taylor [IV] was the son of JOHN TAYLOR [III], who was born in Northumberland County, Virginia, about 1654. We observe a number of land transactions from 1666 onward that enable us to place John Taylor [III] in Wicomico Parish of Northumberland County and in White Chapel Parish of Lancaster County. It is those land transactions that enable us to link John [III] to his father, John Taylor [II]. There are several other references to John [III] (who was called John, Jr., until his father died in 1702). Involved in a suit in 1703, he was described as a merchant, so he may have been the John Taylor who in 1683 claimed a bonus for some linen of his own manufacture. (This might have been his father instead: difficult as it is to distinguish the Taylors we are interested in from other Taylor families in Virginia at the time, it is perhaps even more difficult to distinguish our four John Taylors from one another when their lives overlapped for many years.) John Taylor [III] was also a vestryman in Wicomico Parish of Northumberland County from about 1703 until at least late 1712, and he might have been the John Taylor who was deputy clerk and justice in that county about 1712 and 1713. John Taylor [III] died in Northumberland County between October 11, 1714 (when he made his will) and April 10, 1717, when it was proved.²⁹

About 1673 John Taylor [III] married ANNE {VESEY} TAYLOR, who died sometime after 1713; later, he married Judith Hudwell and Ann Smith, but it was Anne Vesey who was the mother of John Taylor [IV]. The Vesey³⁰ line continues back through Anne's father, GEORGE VESEY, who died in Lancaster County, Virginia, on November 8, 1665, and a woman known only as JOAN. The names of George's parents and the identities of earlier generations of Veseys and their related families in England are not known for certain, though it seems likely that they lived in Little Baddow Parish in Essex, where a good many Veseys are found in the records. Our George is not among them, but the records are not complete. In Virginia, George Vesey was in Lancaster County from 1655 until his death sometime before March 14, 1665, when his will was probated. He owned property in James City County as well.³¹

Returning to the Taylor line, we learn that John Taylor [III] (born 1654) was the son of JOHN TAYLOR [II], who was born in Carlisle, Cumberland County, England, on September 12, 1627, and died in Wicomico Parish, Northumberland County, Virginia, in 1702 – probably during the first few months of that year.³² John Taylor [II] came to America in 1648 on the Amsterdam, which landed at Fleets Bay in Northampton County on Virginia's Eastern Shore. John lived near Old Neck on the south side of Occahannock Creek (later the boundary between Northampton County and Accomack County) until about 1652, when he relocated across the Chesapeake Bay to the new Lancaster County, Virginia.³³ Here he began to patent land on the borders of Corotoman Creek and Wicomico Creek, where he established extensive holdings – some 3,600 acres in all. Some of the land came from transporting immigrants. He was tithed in Lancaster County in 1654. From 1652 through 1657, John Taylor served as an official and vestryman in Christ Church Parish in what was then Lancaster County. Although this man's will has been lost, it was proved in Northumberland County prior to April 15, 1702.

About 1648 or 1649, John Taylor [II] married ALICE {GASCOIGNE} TAYLOR, who was born in England during the early 1630s, it would appear, and died in Northumberland County, Virginia, in August 1702 – just a few months after her husband had preceded her in death. Alice was the daughter of THOMAS GASCOIGNE and ELIZABETH {GAMBLING} GASCOIGNE, who was born to JOSIAS GAMBLING or GAMELYN³⁴ and an unknown woman in Spalding, Lincoln, England. We have no solid information about the earlier Gambling family of Elizabeth and Josias.

Thomas Gascoigne was the first member of his family to come to America.³⁵ Several documents fix his birth date in 1601 (he was christened in Aberford, Yorkshire, England, on May 16 in that year). He and two other men aboard the Bona Nova, which arrived in Virginia in 1619, were credited with bringing provisions that included corn, powder, and shot, along with a house and a store (presumably, their construction materials). In February 1624 we observe him at Flowerdew Hundred, a well-known early plantation on the James River, but by February 1625 a muster list on the Eastern Shore reveals that he has moved there.

Thomas Gascoigne evidently went back to England sometime during the 1620s or early 1630s, however, for when he returned to Virginia about 1635 he was transporting five other persons, who seem to have included a wife (Elizabeth), her father (or perhaps brother) Josias, and two or three children – one of them Alice. We cannot be sure whether Thomas's wife and children had also previously lived in Virginia, or if he married and began his family in England and brought them to Virginia during the 1630s. The latter possibility seems like the better one, in my view, in which case Alice was probably born in England. For transporting these persons, Thomas Gascoigne on September 9, 1636, received 300 acres of land (50 for transporting himself, 250 for the others) under Virginia's "head right" system.³⁶ This land was located on Old Plantation Creek in the original Accawmack County (now Northampton County), Virginia, part of that colony's foothold on the Eastern Shore of Chesapeake Bay. Thomas Gascoigne also owned land in the northern section of the new Accomack County that was created out of Northampton County in 1662. ³⁷

Throughout the first two-thirds of the 17th century, we see numerous references to Thomas Gascoigne, who seems to have prospered. By September 15, 1649, he had acquired land near Dennis Creek in the Wicomico section of Northumberland County, Virginia, across Chesapeake Bay, and here he moved – about the same time the Taylors did; indeed, it was about this year when Alice Gascoigne married John Taylor [II].³⁸ The home Thomas built here was called Gascony. On April 11, 1652, Gascoigne signed the oath of allegiance to the English Commonwealth that the Puritans had established. In 1660 he had a tanner bound to him. On July 22, 1661, he was exempted from levies owing to his age. Both in 1659 and in 1662, he deeded land to two men, John Taylor and his partner James Jones. Gascoigne made his will between June 20, 1663, and November 20, 1665, the date it was proved in Northampton County. His wife at his death was a woman named Sarah, so it would seem that the Elizabeth who had been his wife in 1635 had died and Thomas had remarried – when, we cannot say.

The Gascoigne line immediately preceding Thomas is somewhat problematic – there may or may not be a missing generation. But the consensus among that family's researchers is that Thomas was the son of HENRY GASCOIGNE (1566-86) and ANN {HOBBS} GASCOIGNE and the grandson of FRANCIS GASCOIGNE and ELIZABETH {SINGLETON} GASCOIGNE.³⁹ The Gascoigne line is a very long and interesting one. The family lived in several places in Yorkshire, England, including Micklefield, Harewood Castle, Gawthorpe, and Lasingcroft, most of which are not on today's maps. The males included, moving from Francis back to his antecedents, another HENRY, a NICHOLAS, another HENRY, and then no fewer than ten men in succession who were called WILLIAM GASCOIGNE. The earliest of these Williams was born before 1100. Spouses, in addition to Ann Hobbs and Elizabeth Singleton, included a woman named COURNAY whose given name is not known, MARGARET BOLTON, JOAN WYMAN, ELIZABETH DE MOWBRAY, AGNES FRANKE, two women – several hundred years apart – named ELIZABETH DE BOLTON, MATILDA DE GAWKETHORPE, and five other women about whom we know nothing at all.

Because none of these people came to America, we will not pursue here the Gascoigne line and its very many related families in England, but two of the Gascoignes deserve brief notice.⁴⁰ One William Gascoigne was killed in Henry V's siege of the French fortress at Meaux on March 28, 1422. His father, also named William, was England's Lord Chief Justice. In this capacity he sentenced Prince Henry (later Henry V) to prison for contempt of court, a circumstance that inspired William Shakespeare to include in Henry IV, Part 2 (Act 5, Scene 2) a memorable exchange between the newly crowned Henry V and the Chief Justice in which the two men discuss justice, loyalty, obedience, and the duty of sons. (It seems ironic, then, that William Gascoigne's son would later die in service to Henry V.) The Gascoignes were undoubtedly French in origin, probably originally from Gascony in southwest France (as the name of Thomas's home in Virginia suggests), but some members of the family believe it resided in Normandy before the Norman Conquest in 1066.

We return again, now, to the Taylor family. Alice Gascoigne's husband John Taylor [II] (born 1627) was the son of the first JOHN TAYLOR of the four who followed in succession. John [I] was born on August 10, 1607, in Pennington Castle, Carlisle, England, and died in January 1652 in Lancaster County, Virginia.⁴¹ His wife is known to us only as ELIZABETH. John also came to America in 1648, possibly with his son. (One John Taylor that year received land for importing ten persons and another was the head right of a different man.) He – or possibly his son, John [II] – patented land in Northampton County (now Accomack County) in 1648 and 1651, then also moved to Lancaster County in 1652.⁴² Here he passed land to John [II] not long before dying there. By October 2, 1654, his estate was settled and his widow had remarried.

John Taylor [I] was the son of THOMAS TAYLOR, who lived between March 15, 1574, and 1618. He was born in Hadleigh, Suffolk, England, and died there as well; he is often given the title of captain. His wife was MARGARET SWINDERBY, born in Copenhagen, Denmark, about 1578 and died before 1672 in Hadleigh; her father was ANDREW SWINDERBY. Three children of Thomas and Margaret {Swinderby} Taylor, who married about 1599, emigrated to America on the Truelove in 1635, more than a dozen years before John Taylor [I] and his son John Taylor [II] made the trip in 1648.

Thomas Taylor was the son of an earlier THOMAS TAYLOR, who was born in Hadleigh on September 15, 1548, and died there on October 1, 1588. His wife was ELIZABETH BURWELL, whose parentage is unknown. The elder Thomas was the son of a well-known English religious leader and martyr named ROWLAND TAYLOR. Born in Rothbury, Northumberland, England, on October 6, 1510, Rowland Taylor was educated at Cambridge during the 1520s and 1530s. Here he met a number of other young men, including Thomas Cranmer and William Tyndale, who were attracted to the ideas of the Reformation and began to work for changes in the English church. Taylor married Tyndale's sister, MARGARET TYNDALE, entered the Anglican priesthood, and became the rector at Hadleigh. He remained active in the English Reformation into the 1550s and was highly respected for his learning. Soon after Mary (Tudor), Queen of Scots took the English throne in 1553, Taylor was arrested for the first time. He was soon released but was arrested again the next year when he refused to use the Latin rite, defended marriage for priests, rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, and insisted on the primacy of the Bible. Charged with heresy, he was imprisoned for ten months, tried, and sentenced to death. Having refused numerous opportunities to recant, on February 9, 1555, Rowland Taylor was burned at the stake on Aldham Common, outside Hadleigh, where a marker can be found. His last words are resolute and inspiring.⁴³

It seems appropriate that the earliest Taylor we know about, Rowland's father, was also a man named JOHN TAYLOR. He was born in Rothbury, Northumberland, England, about 1478, married SUSAN ROWLAND in 1509, and had a long and distinguished religious and judicial career himself. Family lore is that the first Taylors came to England with William the Conqueror in 1066, and that William Taillerfer (as the name was written then) was rewarded for fighting at the Battle of Hastings with extensive land holdings. Later the name evolved into Taylor.⁴⁴

Top

Having explored the line of Nancy Jane {Power} Hughbanks to its furthest reaches, we now try to determine which man named William Hughbanks was Clarissa's father and see what we can learn about his origins. We have no corroborating documentary evidence, but it seems safe to assume that the farmer named William Hewbank or Hughbank listed in the vicinity of Hymera, Indiana – and very near Clarissa and her husband, Michael Zink – on the censuses of 1840, 1850, and 1860 was her father. There is no William Hughbank (however spelled) in the information that has been contributed to the LDS, and there is no record of this man's death in the vital statistics in the IHS. As it happens, two men named William Hughbank or Hughbanks are buried in Hymera's Bethel Cemetery, but it seems clear from their respective ages that they were of different generations – perhaps even father and son. The one who would have been Clarissa's father is described on his grave marker as having been eighty-one years old when he died on December 23, 1868.⁴⁵ This man's ages in 1840, 1850, and 1860 match those shown on the censuses for the one who lived near Michael and Clarissa, and in each of these years William Hughbanks was enumerated without a spouse – which is in accord with our knowledge that Sarah {Power} Hughbanks died in 1837. Thus we can conclude that our William Hughbanks was born in 1787. In both 1860 and 1870, his birthplace was recorded as Pennsylvania.⁴⁶

With these important clues in hand, we look first in Pennsylvania to see what Hughbanks families we can find. Unfortunately, this is a dead end. There are no Hughbanks of any kind (that is, however spelled) in the censuses for 1790 and 1800, when Clarissa's father would have been a boy. The information contributed to the LDS shows only a few names, under Eubank in this instance, and none of them seem to match up with our William Hughbanks. From this evidence (or lack thereof) it would appear that soon after this son's birth his parents left Pennsylvania and moved west or to another state – North Carolina, Virginia, or Tennessee, perhaps – that was an intermediate point on their way west. Beyond that we cannot go. We must try to trace William Hughbanks back from our first definite sighting of him, which is the Indiana census of 1840.

Since there are no Eubank, Eubanks, Hewbanks, or Hughbanks males named William on the 1830 census for Indiana, we can hypothesize that he and his family moved to that state sometime between the 1830 and 1840 censuses. This agrees with the high school history of Jackson Township, which states that William "Billy" Hughbanks came to the township in 1835 and settled on land that from its description can be identified as lying in School District 5. Information about the daughter mentioned earlier in this chapter confirms that our William Hughbanks and his family arrived in the Hymera area of Jackson Township in 1835 after a journey by covered wagon from Kentucky.⁴⁷ (The high school history was probably based upon the daughter's memories.) The fact that William Hughbanks purchased 80 acres in Section 22 of Jackson Township – in School District 5 – on November 18, 1836, adds some documentary evidence that corroborates these two accounts of the arrival of the Hughbanks family.⁴⁸

Billy Hughbanks may have lived further east in Jackson Township before moving to Section 22, however, for the high school history also states that he entered land in School District 6 (just to the east of District 5) "about 1835." It is true that William Hughbanks purchased 80 acres in Section 24, which is in District 6 of Jackson Township, but that purchase came in 1842. Whether he lived there before relocating to Section 22 or bought this land in eastern Sullivan County later on in order to increase his holdings, or perhaps as an investment, cannot be determined.⁴⁹

Even before that, William Hughbanks and his family may have lived for a time in Scott County, Indiana, which is very near the Ohio River in the southeast part of the state and on a common migration path between northern Kentucky and Sullivan County: a man bearing that name purchased 40 acres of public land there on April 27, 1833. But since a William Hughbanks born in Ohio can be found on Scott County's censuses in 1850 and 1860, the land purchase in 1833 was almost certainly his and not that of our William Hughbanks, the father of Clarissa.⁵⁰

Because Clarissa is usually said to have been born in Maysville, Kentucky, in 1822, we know to begin our search in northern Kentucky for the whereabouts of William Hughbanks before 1835 (and for Clarissa, who would probably have been living in his household until the mid-1830s at least). Is there anyone on the 1830 census with that unusual last name (however it is spelled) who in that year was the right age and had a daughter about her age, five to ten years old?

There is no one listed as William Hughbank or Hughbanks in Kentucky in 1830, but there were four men named William whose family names are spelled Eubank or Eubanks. Two we can probably rule out on the basis of their ages. The first of these, a William Eubanks in Nicholas County, had two females who were Clarissa's age but was too young himself (only thirty to forty years old) to have been the man we see in Indiana in 1840 and later – who would have been about forty-three years of age in 1830 if we accept the statement on the 1840 census that he was born about 1787. The second man on the 1830 Kentucky census, by contrast, was too old to have been the man we later see in Indiana, although he too had a female Clarissa's age in his household. He was a William Eubank, Sr., of the Western District of Fleming County who was between sixty and seventy years of age in 1830.

The other Kentucky men appear to have been about the right age, however. Another man named William Eubank lived in Mason County – though in the town of Washington rather than in the town (Maysville) where Clarissa is said to have been born in 1822.⁵¹ He was forty to fifty years of age in 1830 and had in his household a female who was five to ten years old. This man is particularly interesting because he lived so close to where Clarissa is said to have been born. The older William Eubank (the man described as sixty to seventy years old living in Fleming County) could have been his father, given his age and the use of Sr. after it in census records. We need to remember, though, that the use of Sr. and Jr. at that time did not necessarily indicate a blood relationship, let alone a father-son relationship: sometimes, it was nothing more than a convenient way of distinguishing between two men with different ages who had the same name and lived near to one another.

But in this instance, despite the fact that their names are spelled differently on the census sheets, it is likely there was indeed a father-son relationship between this older William Eubank, Sr., and our fourth man on the 1830 census, the William Eubanks, Jr., in the Western District of Fleming County. The latter was forty to fifty years old, had two females the right age to be Clarissa, and is listed immediately next to the William Eubank, Sr., who was sixty to seventy years of age. The high school history of Jackson Township also tells us, moreover, that William ("Billy") Hughbanks resided in Fleming County in March 1826, when a daughter was born there. We also know that he was still in Fleming County as late as October 1833, when another daughter was married there. Unless we have reason to believe that the William Eubank of Mason County who was forty to fifty years old had moved from there to Fleming County between 1822 and 1826 and then back to Mason County again by 1830 before returning yet again to Fleming County by 1833, we can probably eliminate him and conclude that Clarissa's father was the William Eubank, Jr., who lived next to the older William Eubank, Sr., in Fleming County in 1830. We have to remain somewhat cautious about his conclusion owing to some information, to be considered later in this chapter, that gives us another perspective on why Clarissa's father might have had multiple residences in the two counties during those years.

Let us see if we learn more by looking back to the 1820 census, taken two years before Clarissa was born. In that year, Clarissa's father would have been about thirty-three years old. Two men in Fleming County named William Hubanks naturally attract our attention, and in fact only they among the Hughbanks men in Kentucky seem to be viable candidates to have been her father.⁵² These men are not only listed as Sr. and Jr. as in 1830 but again seem to have lived in adjoining households. The older man was forty-five years old or older and the younger one was twenty-six to forty-five years old, just right for the William Hughbanks we are seeking to identify. The case is made even stronger by the fact that a land transaction in Fleming County on September 13, 1814, shows that a William Hughbanks purchased 50 acres adjoining property that the record describes as belonging to "William Hughbanks, Sr." Thus we can make a persuasive case that the two men designated as Sr. and Jr. on the censuses in both 1820 and 1830 were indeed father and son. These men are described on the 1820 census as farmers.

We should be able to strengthen our case by finding that William G. Hughbanks, the younger man buried near William Hughbanks in Bethel Cemetery in Indiana (which, naturally, makes one suspect they were father and son), was living in the latter's household in Kentucky in 1820 and 1830. But according to the censuses the older William had no son that age – no sons at all, as a matter of fact. Unless these censuses or our reasoning is incorrect, William G. Hughbanks (born in Kentucky) must have been the son of another Kentucky man named Hughbanks. For reasons unknown to us, William G. Hughbanks evidently also moved to Sullivan County, Indiana, close to our William Hughbanks and his daughter, Clarissa {Hughbanks} Zink.⁵³

In 1810, the census lists the senior William Hughbanks of Fleming County as William Hugbanks, forty-five years old or older. His son, Clarissa's father, would have been twenty-two or twenty-three years old in 1810. Although William Hugbanks did have a male that age in his household, there was no female to match the wife the younger man should have had as a result of his marriage to Clarissa's mother in March 1810. Another male sixteen to twenty-six years old (recorded on the census as William Huhbanks) who was living elsewhere in Fleming County is a more likely candidate for Clarissa's father, for he seems to have had a wife that same age living with him. All this circumstantial evidence linking these two Kentucky men named William Hughbanks seems impressive, if not conclusive, and I believe that they should be considered the father and grandfather of Clarissa {Hughbanks} Zink.

Fortunately, we have some additional information from Hughbanks family researchers that dovetails nicely with the picture we have sketched here. With the help of this information, we can round out our picture and attach it, somewhat tentatively to be sure, to the earlier history of the Hughbanks family, before they went to Kentucky. We begin with the premise (which these researchers also generally accept) that Clarissa's father and grandfather were indeed the William Hughbanks, Jr., and William Hughbanks, Sr., we have seen in 1820 and 1830. The older man, born about 1760 to 1765 if we accept his ages on the censuses from 1810 through 1830, is not on the census after 1830 but is on tax lists in Fleming County, Kentucky, as late as 1847; he probably died in that year or soon thereafter. From the Hughbanks family history information, we can identify a possible match: William Hughbanks, Sr., who was probably born in Queen Anne's County (in a portion of that county that had been Talbot County), Maryland. The name of his wife is unknown, but the census listings for her suggest that she was born between 1765 and 1770.

Unfortunately, census data for the period before 1810 is not very helpful in tracking this William Hughbanks, but other information helps us to fill the void. We cannot use it at all to find him (and thus his son, Clarissa's father, then two or three years old) in 1790, for the older William Hughbanks is not listed that year in any of the states in which the larger Hughbanks family seems to have lived and for which there is census information.⁵⁴ Hughbanks family researchers believe that the father of William Hughbanks, Sr., moved to Kentucky during the late 1790s, and that the son presumably moved along with him. There is no 1800 census for Kentucky that will confirm their appearance in that state, but a John Hughbanks of Mason County bought 200 acres on Fleming Creek on November 9, 1799. This creek would have been in the recently created Fleming County. Two years later, he deeded much of this land to his sons, John, Jr., and Thomas; that same day, John Hughbanks, Jr., deeded 72 acres to William Hughbanks. Tax information for the new Fleming County then shows a William Hughbanks from 1802 through 1814 and again in 1820. (The reason for this gap is not known.) As noted above, a man of this name continues to be named on tax lists there through 1847. He owned more than 100 acres on Fleming Creek.⁵⁵

Significantly, this William Hughbanks had a male who had reached age sixteen in 1803 – just right for a boy born in 1787 – who remained in his household, with minor inconsistencies, through 1809, when this younger male moved to the column for twenty-one years old and older.⁵⁶ In addition, a tax sheet in 1812 describes one of the two men named William Hughbanks as Sr. This information helps us to complete our picture, as follows. Young William Hughbanks came of age during the first decade after 1800, married in 1810, (probably) rented land for a few years, acquired property on the North Fork of Fleming Creek near his father in 1814, and remained in Fleming County until the mid-1830s. He may also have served as a private in the War of 1812: a William Eubank is shown as a member of the 5th Regiment (Lewis's) of the Kentucky Volunteers from August 15, 1812, until March in the next year.⁵⁷

As we have seen, about 1835 William Hughbanks then moved, along with his wife and youngest daughter, to Indiana – perhaps in order to live near Clarissa and her husband. We find confirmation of this move when on August 10 in that year he sold the 50 acres on Fleming Creek that he had purchased in 1814 (plus another 14 acres that he had added in February 1835), surely in preparation for his imminent move to Indiana; he may have left other property to another child in Fleming County. William Hughbanks would remain in Indiana for the rest of his life.⁵⁸

The only ⁵⁹ real mystery left to us is why Clarissa was born in Maysville, Mason County, if her parents consistently lived in Fleming County, Kentucky. Several possible explanations for this should be considered. Perhaps Nancy Hughbanks was visiting family in Maysville when Clarissa came to be born. Perhaps she chose to bear her child at the home of a particular relative, either a Hughbanks or a Power. (Nancy's brother, Joseph, did live in Maysville between 1816 and 1835, and his wife, Chloe, could have been a close friend because her Willett family had been neighbors of the Power family.) Or perhaps there has been some confusion during subsequent decades about where Clarissa was born. Flemingsburg is close to the Mason County line and no more than fifteen to eighteen miles from Maysville, the largest town in the area; over time Clarissa's birth near Maysville may have evolved into a birth in Maysville itself.

Yet another intriguing possibility is that the census listing for William Eubank in Washington, Mason County, in 1830 (when this man had a daughter the right age) may be a duplicate one for Clarissa's father, who as we have seen was farming in Fleming County. Researchers in Mason County tell us that many men in Fleming County also worked seasonally (presumably on river-related tasks) in Maysville and in effect "commuted" to their permanent homes in Fleming County, which could have led to William's having been listed on the censuses for both of the two neighboring counties. Washington is only a few miles from the Ohio River (today it is in fact a part of Maysville), and perhaps that is where Clarissa's family lived at times during the 1820s; indeed, she could well have been born in Washington itself in 1822, which, again, might have evolved over time into a birth "in Maysville." For now, we can only add this mystery to the others we are collecting and move on.

Top

The father of William Hughbanks, Sr., who migrated to Kentucky during the late 1790s was, many of this family's researchers say (and the deed information cited earlier confirms), a man named JOHN HUGHBANKS.⁶⁰ Born in St. Paul's Parish, Queen Anne's County, Maryland, on October 12, 1735, his property was along the Chester River on the Eastern Shore. John married SARAH {VANDIFORD} HUBANKS sometime between 1755 and 1758; we know nothing about this woman and her family. The state's local census in 1778 shows John in Caroline County (formed from Queen Anne's County and Dorchester County in 1773), where he resided on the Upper Choptank River. John Hughbanks took the fidelity oath there in 1778. Another such census in 1783 as well as the first national census in 1790 also list him as living there.⁶¹

As the eldest son, John had inherited property called Ratcliffe from his father but sold it on April 18, 1797; two years previously, he had sold another part of the property, Abner's Park, to his son George. John is thought to have gone west about 1797, and it seems clear that several of George's brothers (presumably including our William Hughbanks, Sr.) accompanied their father on this move. As we have seen, in 1799 John purchased 200 acres on Fleming Creek in Fleming County, Kentucky, and he is listed in that county's tax information for 1800.⁶² A John Hughbanks is listed fairly regularly in this information through 1809, then again in 1814, but since all we know is that this man was twenty-one years old or older some of these listings could have been other Hughbanks males with the same given name. John Hughbanks is not listed by name on the 1810 census, but if he was still alive in that year he was likely the man forty-five years old or older (he would have been seventy-five years of age in 1810) shown living in the household of William Hughbanks. This older man's appearance in William's household may explain the somewhat curious transfer of properties that took place in 1802: the 72 acres William received presumably recognized his agreement to care for the father of the three brothers (John and Thomas in addition to himself).

John Hughbanks was the son of an earlier WILLIAM HUGHBANKS, born in Talbot County, Maryland, (probably the portion that later became Queen Anne's County) on October 6, 1697. This William married a woman named Mary, family name unknown, probably during the 1720s. She was likely MARY SWIFT, the daughter of a WILLIAM SWIFT of Kent County, Delaware: in his will, dated September 3, 1742, this man mentions an heir named William Hughbanks, who was living in Queen Anne's County in Maryland. On April 30, 1739, William Hughbanks bought 140 acres in Queen Anne's County; this was the property called Ratcliffe. William Hughbanks died sometime between December 11, 1750 (the date of his will) and January 10, 1751 (when that will was probated).

William's father was RICHARD HUGHBANKS, date of birth unknown, who died prior to August 23, 1698. About 1685 Richard married a woman named NAOMY, family name also unknown but possibly Summers or Sumners.⁶³ Richard Hughbanks may have been a Quaker, as some of the information about him seems to have come from Quaker records. We also know that he had been transported (perhaps as an indentured servant) to the colonies in 1675, along with his brother Thomas. The two brothers together bought a place called Poplar Hill on the Chester River in what was then Talbot County, Maryland, later part of Queen Anne's County. The date of purchase was January 1, 1685. Apparently it had taken them ten years to pay off their debt and acquire the capital to purchase their own place.

There are references to other Hughbanks males who were in America before Richard and Thomas arrived in 1675. A Henry Eubancke who resided on Maryland's Eastern Shore evidently had arrived in that colony by the 1620s. During the 1630s, he was engaged as an interpreter with the Indians by traders living on Kent Island, Maryland. Some of his relatives may have continued to live on Kent Island, and at least some Hughbanks researchers believe that the Richard and Thomas who appear in Maryland in 1675 could have come from another part of Maryland rather than from England. Researchers also have located English records for Hughbanks families in Yorkshire, Cumberland, Norfolk, and London as early as 1258. The origins of the family are thought to have been Norman, probably from northern France.⁶⁴

Although there is no specific documentary evidence to show how Clarissa's father and grandfather were related to this Maryland Hughbanks family, in general the circumstantial evidence fits together without too many problems and the only real loose end is confirmation of the parentage of William Hughbanks, Sr.⁶⁵ There is one other nagging mystery, though: how did the younger William Hughbanks, Jr., come to be born in Pennsylvania in 1787 or 1788, as he reports on later censuses, since the migration path we have just examined does not show that any Hughbanks families lived in that state? Although on geographic grounds we can imagine them detouring through Pennsylvania en route from Maryland to Kentucky, this scenario would have to have had William's father John and his sons departing Maryland about a decade sooner (1787) than the Hughbanks researchers and the evidence we have indicate they did.

Complicating this question is the fact that census records for certain Maryland counties are lost. The affected counties include some in the western part of the state adjoining Pennsylvania, a border area that was then being disputed by these two states.⁶⁶ It is possible that William Hughbanks, Sr., moved west along the Maryland/Pennsylvania border about 1787 (before his father and brothers left Maryland) and then moved on into Kentucky before the 1790 census, where they later joined him. Or it may be that William went back to eastern Maryland from Pennsylvania before going to Kentucky along with his family in 1797. It may also be that his census sheet is among the Maryland ones that have been lost. As a worst case, it may be that we are mistaken and William Hughbanks, Sr., was the son not of the John who remained in Maryland until 1797, as described above, but of another Hughbanks male who left Maryland a decade or so earlier. Once more we are reduced to guessing.

The best explanation, I think, is that the "Pennsylvania" in question was in reality Delaware. Before 1776, the three counties that now comprise Delaware were called the "lower counties" of Pennsylvania, and both they and Pennsylvania were owned by the same proprietor (the Penn family). Both also had the same governor, although Delaware had a separate assembly and made its own laws. The three counties were often considered a part of Pennsylvania well into the 1780s or even later. If the early Hughbanks family to which Clarissa – and we – attach lived in a (disputed) portion of Maryland that later became part of Pennsylvania and then was in the area of that state defined as part of Delaware, we could account for the references to all three states in various records and family accounts.⁶⁷

In this connection, it is interesting to learn that Hughbanks researchers have discovered ties between the Hughbanks family we have observed in Queen Anne's County and Talbot County of Maryland and various families in Kent County, Delaware. Kent County adjoins a portion of Queen Anne's County and is also not far from Talbot County, Maryland. Kent County also borders Caroline County, Maryland, where we know William Hughbanks's father resided on the Choptank River in 1778. (In fact, this river has its origins in Delaware.) It seems entirely possible, then, that in 1787 William Hughbanks was born in what we know as Delaware – a place he may have continued to think of, though, as "Pennsylvania" even many years later.⁶⁸

Another perspective on the Hughbanks/Eubanks family comes from the comment of one well-informed Hughbanks researcher, who pointed out that after about 1700 the H spelling of the name was found only in North Yorkshire, England, where it remained a local spelling convention. Most members of the parent Hughbanks/Eubanks family who came to America, this researcher says, either had already adopted the Eubank(s) or Ewbank(s) spelling or did so soon after coming to America, and they were predominantly Southerners. (This would include the ones in Maryland.) He suggested to me that the parents of Clarissa's father, William Hughbanks, could have arrived in Delaware or New Jersey directly from North Yorkshire rather late, perhaps after 1770, then migrated westward through Pennsylvania to Kentucky.

The birth of William Hughbanks in Pennsylvania in 1787 fits somewhat better into this second scenario than it does into one that ties him to the Maryland group we have focused on in this chapter, but that explanation also leaves us completely at sea when it comes to tracing Clarissa's father before he arrives in Indiana and sharply conflicts with some of the evidence about William we have reviewed. A link to the Maryland family is a more likely explanation of this family's origins.

Those origins having been charted as well as possible with the present information, we will now leave the Hughbanks family and resume our exploration of the Zinks, the family into which Clarissa Hughbanks married in 1837.

Next

Previous | Table of contents

rev. 7/4/11

Notes

¹Sarah Jane Hughbanks, who married George Asbury, lived to be nearly 102 years of age before dying in 1927. (It is her death certificate that verifies Power as her mother's family name.) Shortly before Sarah Jane died, by a special act of Congress she was awarded a pension as the only living mother of Civil War veterans, and she was thought then to have been the only woman so honored. Return to text

²This family used both spellings: Power and Powers, with Power predominating during the earlier generations. For the sake of clarity I will henceforth use the Power variation because that was how Joseph Power signed his name when he applied for a Revolutionary War pension. In earlier generations, the name was often spelled Pore or Poor. Return to text

³ Information I have seen identifies a Mary Power who was born in Loudoun County on April 4, 1790. Since this date falls just about when Nancy Jane Power would have been born, could it be that this "Mary" was actually our Nancy and somehow there was confusion about the name of the girl born then? It also seems noteworthy that when John D. Power, Joseph and Sarah's second son, had a daughter born in 1810 they named her Nancy – perhaps in honor of Nancy Jane's marriage to William Hughbanks that year? Return to text

⁴The marriage was performed by a minister named Amos Thompson, who spent several decades in Loudoun County, where he organized two Presbyterian churches. One of them, Catoctin Presbyterian Church near Waterford, Virginia, was located about five miles north of Leesburg. Joseph and Sarah might have been married there, but the church also held some services in Leesburg and so they might have been married there – or in a family residence – instead. Return to text

⁵See slide 12987 (2008) for the Wilson Run area in Fleming County; the exact location of the church is not known. See slide 12992 (also 2008) for a view of the area of the North Fork of the Licking River, part of the boundary between Fleming County and Lewis County, Kentucky. Return to text

⁶The fact that the pension application was prepared exactly two years to the day after the legislation was enacted in 1832 apparently confused the Fleming County clerk, who mistakenly dated it June 23, 1832. A close reading of the application and other documents in Power's file shows that his application had to have been written in 1834. Return to text

⁷The officers Power cited Captain Thomas Humphreys, Major [Samuel] Cox, Captain Augustus Elgin, and Colonel George West. All these men are known to have been Loudoun County militia officers at this time, although not necessarily at the ranks Power accorded them. Power also mentions four other officers, a General Warren (?), a Colonel Mathews, a Colonel Ennis, and a Major Ramsay of Fredericksburg, Virginia. I have not been able to identify these other officers, and a search of the surviving pensions, service records, and muster rolls in the National Archives turned up no evidence relating to the Revolutionary War service of any of these men. They were, however, militia officers and so perhaps had not created such records in the first place.

⁸Power observes in his second application that some members of the militia company had grumbled because they had already served a tour and that it was too soon for them to be called for another one. Power states that he was eager to go and did not object to the call as it was made by "competent authority." Return to text

⁹A deposition by Thomas Power, Joseph's brother, provides some interesting details of this transfer of prisoners in 1781. Thomas recalled the contingent arrived near the Power home late on Saturday night, when Joseph went off to a corn shucking. The next day, the residents gathered to view the prisoners. One of the soldier took a liking to a local woman (one with several bastard children, according to Thomas) and persuaded the officers to release him from captivity so he could marry her. Noland's Ferry is due north of Leesburg, Virginia. Joseph Power probably did not know that Lord Cornwallis was a distant relative of his wife, Sarah {Taylor} Power. Return to text

¹⁰Besides the discrepancy that saw two-month tours of service become three-month tours, there is the matter of Power's erroneous statement in 1846 that he had never applied for a pension before because he had only recently learned that there was a law providing for pensions for Revolutionary War veterans. John Power, the son with whom Joseph and Sarah were living at the time of the 1840 census, died in October in that year, which is probably when the Seybolds took the aged couple in. Return to text

¹¹We also learn that Joseph Power was a Baptist. Return to text

¹²Although I found transcriptions of grave markers for the cemetery in this area (called the Pleasureville Cemetery today), my thorough search of the cemetery itself did not turn up markers for either Joseph or Sarah Power. It is possible the Seybold Cemetery is now lost, for the Pleasureville Cemetery seems to be the only one in this area today. See slide 12991 (2008) for a general view of it. Return to text

¹³For views of the ford and the surrounding area as of 2005, see slides 11116-18 and 11120-21. Tithe lists record annual assessments for the established Church of England, which were required up until American independence. Return to text

¹⁴During some years, heads of households in Loudoun County were required to submit two squirrel scalps per tithe. Power exceeded his quota, in some years submitting dozens of them. Power also had one slave in 1761. In one instance he was sued for ill treatment by a woman who must have been an indentured servant, but the suit was dismissed.

¹⁵Perhaps because all but one of the children had left Virginia for Kentucky, the will of Joseph Power, Sr., mentions only one, younger, son. That son received two slave girls and Joseph's widow received everything else. Thomas Power's deposition in the pension file of his brother states that their father had died in 1794. Return to text

¹⁶The will and estate papers mention schooling for Joseph Power (at James Carroll's school) and a marriage for Nicholas Power, Jr.

¹⁷A Joseph and Katherine Pore who arrived in America on January 14, 1673, might be good candidates for the parents for Nicholas Power. Return to text

¹⁸This name is often found as Shores, Shoar, and even as Sherer.

¹⁹The accounting for Richard Shore's estate notes that several of his indentured servants "escaped" after his death. If Mary Hulse was indeed the wife of Richard Shores, her father could well have been William Hulse, who died in St. Mary's County, Maryland, between December 19, 1725, and March 2, 1725/6, but his will mentions only a son and a wife named Mary. Return to text

²⁰Ann Taylor's final accounting was recorded on October 8, 1792. The date of October 8, 1782, is typically cited as Joshua Taylor's date of death, but this must be a misreading of the date when the estate was finally settled exactly ten years later, as I know of no evidence indicating that Joshua died on October 8, 1782. It seems unlikely, too, that the county court would have waited so long – a full year and one half, from October 1782 until May 1784 – after Joshua's death to appoint an administrator of his estate; he probably died in early 1784. Ann lost the lawsuit referred to in the text and made payment in 1808. Return to text

²¹The question remains: which name was the variation from (or the corruption of) the other – Tarvin or Taverner? Return to text

²²Family lore states that George Taverner lived on "the Griffith place," which I have not yet identified. Return to text

²³An exception is Henry Taverner, a mariner who was an explorer of Virginia during the 1630s. Return to text

²⁴It is worth reminding ourselves here that the daughter of Joseph and Sarah {Taylor} Power who married William Hughbanks, Jr., was also named Nancy Jane. Return to text

²⁵In addition, some researchers have identified a husband for Nancy Ann Tarvin of Maryland, and he was not our Joshua Taylor. Another possibility is the line of John Taverner of Rappahannock County, Virginia (1683-1711), but I have been unable to find a son named George in that line. Return to text

²⁶It is interesting to note that a Fairfax County property transfer was consummated at the home of a Richard Corke of St. Mary's County, Maryland, in 1763, which suggests that the Virginia Corks may indeed trace back to those in Maryland. In nearby Talbot County, Maryland, we find two Corks – Peter (deceased 1726-1729) and Laurence (on a tax list in 1733) about the right age to have been Margaret's father. Return to text

²⁷From at least 1759 through 1765, a Henry Taylor also leased land from George Washington, as the future president's account books show. Taylor was living on this land, located near Mount Vernon, which makes us suspect that this man was a different Henry Taylor than Joshua's father. Washington's account books show an amount brought over from someone named Smith, so Henry Taylor had been leasing this land for at least a year before 1760. Additional references to Henry Taylor in Washington's accounts and other records through 1773, several years after the death of the Henry Taylor of Loudoun County who was Joshua's father, also indicate that the Henry Taylor who appears in Washington's accounts was someone else. Some researchers date the will of Henry Taylor's father in 1740, but a careful reading of the document and surrounding ones reveals that the clerk wrote the date as 1748.Return to text

²⁸Some researchers believe that John Taylor was buried in St. Mary's White Chapel in Lancaster County, Virginia, but that seems unlikely given its distance from Fairfax County. This Lancaster County man was probably one of the many other John Taylors in Virginia at this time. Some of the references to follow in the text may also be to men named John Taylor who were not members of the family we are researching but lived in the same Virginia counties as they did. Return to text

²⁹A land transaction in nearby Essex County in December 1714 mentions John Taylor, Jr., as deceased. It is possible this document refers to John [III] as "Jr." because the original deed did, even though he himself was no longer using that appellation. Return to text

³⁰This family sometimes spelled its name with such variations as Vessey, Vezie, and Vezey.

³¹Joan married Giles Crouch in 1666, after George Vesey had died. Return to text

³² In two depositions, John Taylor [II] confirms that he was born in 1607.

³³In 1651, John Taylor swore loyalty to the English Commonwealth in Northampton County. This man could have been either John [II] or his father, John Taylor [I], who also lived there. Return to text

³⁴The Gambling or Gamelyn name also has numerous spellings. Return to text

³⁵It is interesting to observe, however, that three men named Gascoigne (George, John, and Savill) were sent to Virginia for various offenses during the first few years of Virginia's settlement. Other Gascoignes (or Gascoynes) were transported in later years. In America, and even in England earlier, the name was often reduced to Gaskins, which is how it has survived in this country. Even in early Virginia, the Gascoignes used the two names interchangeably – as in Thomas's will, in which he calls himself Gaskins but signed as Gascoigne. Return to text

³⁶A head right was a grant, typically of 50 acres, to which those persons (ship captains, merchants, planters, etc.) who imported new settlers – and paid the costs for doing so – into Virginia would be entitled. It was an attempt to enlarge the population rapidly by trading abundant vacant land for immigrants.

³⁷Some researchers believe that Thomas Gascoigne was a ship captain based in Hull, England. If so, he might have been back and forth across the Atlantic Ocean many times, acquiring acreage each time by transporting persons – some of them, perhaps, more than once: it was not unknown for captains and others to receive acreage in Virginia, through the head right system, for transporting the same persons over and over. Some of the early Power, Cork, Shore, and other families we are considering in this chapter seem to have participated in this fraud, which was widespread and difficult to prevent. (How many Giles Taverners could have come to America? As many as are listed on the surviving lists?) Needing population and with all that land to dispose of, officials in Virginia did not pay very close attention to stopping the fraud. Return to text

³⁸Some researchers believe that Alice had married James Taylor before John Taylor [II]. Return to text

³⁹The missing generation might be a Thomas Gascoigne and Anne Vasasour, but exactly where they should be placed in the line of descent is not clear. More information is needed before we can confirm this and add them. Return to text

⁴⁰See my notes for information about these families. Return to text

⁴¹John Taylor [I] had a brother named Daniel Taylor, who was a minister. As a later chapter shows, the Taylor family of our Lucinda {Taylor} Blevins may trace back to a Virginia minister also named Daniel Taylor. That man was born about 1700, however, nearly eighty years after the brother of John Taylor [I] was born. It remains possible that the two Daniel Taylors were related somehow, as both lived in the same area of Virginia, but of course Taylor is a fairly common name.

⁴²The land of John Taylor and Thomas Gascoigne can be found in or adjacent to the triangle east of U.S. 13 that is enclosed by the Virginia towns of New Church, Wattsville, and Horntown. This area is quite near NASA's Wallops Island facility. Return to text

⁴³Rowland Taylor's widow subsequently married a minister named Charles Wright. Some researchers believe that the Vesey family had its roots in Aldham, and if so it seems quite likely that the Taylors and the Veseys had known one another in England before coming to Virginia. Return to text

⁴⁴In Virginia, one sees spellings ranging from Taler to Tailler to Teylour. Return to text

⁴⁵See slide 07142 (1994). The grave marker of the younger man, William G. Hughbank, gives his dates as December 10, 1813, to November 14, 1886. According to the census, he was born in Kentucky. These dates hint that he was the older brother of Clarissa (born in 1822), but as we will see later in this chapter there is good reason to doubt this. William G. Hughbank was in Sullivan County during these years, according to the censuses of this period, but his ages on them do not exactly match the birth year on his grave marker. The value of the real estate of William Hughbanks was recorded as $500 in 1850. Ten years later that had risen to $800 and he had personal property worth $150.

⁴⁶The handwriting in 1850 is such that the birthplace could be read as either Pennsylvania or Tennessee, but that in 1860 clearly shows it to be Pennsylvania. In addition, on the 1880 census his daughter Clarissa stated that Pennsylvania was the birthplace of her father, William Hughbanks. Return to text

⁴⁷Some of the obituaries of Sarah Jane {Hughbanks} Asbury state that the family's route along the National Road took them through Indianapolis and Terre Haute, where they crossed the Wabash River, en route to Hymera (southeast of Terre Haute). This indirect itinerary seems unlikely, but it is possible that Hughbanks chose good roads over following a more direct route.

⁴⁸This purchase was the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 22, Township 9 North, Range 8 West. One of the witnesses to the deed was our Michael Zink, who would marry the daughter of William Hughbanks a few months later. See slide 11989 for a 2006 view of this property. See Appendix II for a description of how public lands were surveyed and sold by the United States government. Return to text

⁴⁹William Hughbanks's purchase in Section 24, for which he received his patent on August 1, 1844, was the west half of the southwest quarter of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 8 West; it cost him $100. (See the USGS map for Hymera/Indiana and slide 11982, taken in 2006.) The other thing we learn about William Hughbanks from the high school history is that he was probably a Methodist: a William Hughbanks "and wife" are described as charter members (in 1859) of the Shiloh Methodist Episcopal Church in that part of Jackson Township. This was probably William G. Hughbanks, born in 1813, and his wife: the census does not show the elder William Hughbanks with a wife in 1840, 1850, or 1860, and she probably died before 1840. The chances are good, however, that the Hughbanks family as a whole was Methodist: Sarah Jane married a Methodist minister, and both Clarissa and her father William were buried in the cemetery of a Methodist church (Bethel, in Hymera). Return to text

⁵⁰The northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 7 East. This land (purchase price $50) was patented on October 8, 1834. See the USGS map for Scottsburg/Indiana. Return to text

⁵¹The only Hughbanks who lived in Maysville itself was a man named George Hughbanks, for whom the 1830 census shows no daughters. Return to text

⁵²A William Eubank of Nicholas County in the age category for 16 to 26 years old in 1820 was probably the William Eubanks we have seen listed there in 1830 (when he was thirty to forty years of age), which confirms that he was too young to have been Clarissa's father. Return to text

⁵³I have come to believe that William G. Hughbanks was most likely a nephew of Clarissa's father, which may explain why he would later move to the same Indiana county, Sullivan, as did the older William Hughbanks. Alternatively, William G. Hughbanks might not have been born in 1813, as his grave marker states, or the census may have missed him in both 1820 and 1830. In any event, this is not our mystery – although the identity of William G. Hughbanks may provide a clue about how this family as a whole is related to us. If the G stood for George, this would be another indication that William G. Hughbanks was probably the son of one of the several brothers of William Hughbanks, one of whom was George. Return to text

⁵⁴These include not only Pennsylvania, as noted, but also Kentucky and Maryland – where, as we shall soon see, this family evidently originated.

⁵⁵A Hughbanks family seems to have arrived in Clark County, Kentucky, by the 1780s, but there is no obvious connection between them and the Maryland family discussed here. The evidence suggests, in fact, that this was a colony of a Hughbanks (here Eubanks) family from Caroline County in eastern Virginia. The Virginia Eubanks family lived near Oil Springs, and some of its members are found on the 1792 and 1800 tax rolls for Clark County. For views of the Fleming Creek area in 2008, see slides 12988-89. Return to text

⁵⁶The inconsistencies are as follows: in 1804, the younger William Hughbanks, then 17 years old, seems to have been put in the column for 21 years old and older, and in 1810 only one William Hughbanks is listed. (This could have been accurate if the younger man had left the county for awhile, returning before the 1812 tax list was prepared.)

⁵⁷This William Eubank was a private in Captain John Martin's Company and received $34.38 for his military service. A William Eubanks was a member of Captain Eli Hammond's Company of the Rangers, U.S. Volunteers, from August 1812 through August 1814, when he was discharged. He was paid a dollar a day and received $675 despite his having been absent without leave for two months in 1813. Which man was our William Hughbanks we are interested in, if either was, cannot be determined from the evidence we have. Return to text

⁵⁸The 1835 deeds of sale describe the property of William Hughbanks as being on Indian Creek, and the 1810 census also shows the family's residence was near that tributary. Today, the only Indian Creek in this part of Kentucky is in Lewis County, quite distant from the Fleming Creek and North Fork area where the Hughbanks (and Power) families are known to have resided. It seems likely, therefore, that over time the particular branch of Fleming Creek known as Indian Creek lost that name. Return to text

⁵⁹Except, perhaps, for the parentage of the William G. Hughbanks who is buried in Bethel Cemetery in Hymera, Indiana. Return to text

⁶⁰The earlier generations of this family customarily used the spelling Eubanks, but I am continuing to use the Hughbanks spelling for the sake of consistency.

⁶¹On a 1778 census that includes some useful details, John is described as owning no slaves, though he did have four horses and seven black cattle. This 1778 census is thought to have been the first instance in America when the name was spelled Hughbanks in any record. In 1790, John had two males under 16 years of age in his household. Return to text

⁶²Hughbanks family tradition describes three brothers who went west together at this time. One (this would have been George) settled in Ohio and another (John, of course) in Kentucky; the third went further down the Ohio River, after which the other two brothers lost contact with him. This same tradition about three sons is heard in other families. Once again, for views of Fleming Creek in 2008 see slides 12988-89. Return to text

⁶³One source states that after Richard's death Naomy married a William Swift (in 1699) and had numerous children with him; another source states that it was Richard who remarried, after Naomy's death. Which account is correct (if either is) remains to be seen. Return to text

⁶⁴A William Hughbanks arrived in America in 1735 or early 1736, and some Hughbanks researchers think he might have been related to the two brothers who had come half a century earlier. There is a Eu River in Normandy that may explain the family's name. Return to text

⁶⁵One Hughbanks researcher states that the line of William Hughbanks, Sr., of Kentucky (born about 1760) extends back not through John (born in 1735) to William (born 1697) but through one of John's brothers – possibly Thomas (born in 1744). Thus this portion of the Hughbanks line remains something of a moving target. Return to text

⁶⁶On the 1880 census William G. Hughbanks is said to have reported that his father was born in Maryland rather than in Pennsylvania, but as we have seen there is some doubt as to who his father actually was. Return to text

⁶⁷The curved Delaware/Pennsylvania border was first surveyed in 1701, but there was an irregular section called the Delaware Wedge where it met Maryland, and this small (800 acres) area did not become part of Delaware until 1921. Return to text

⁶⁸A land record dated 1768 mentions a William and Mary Hughbanks of "the Province of Pennsylvania," which supports the hypothesis outlined in the text. This couple was not the William and Mary Hughbanks who were the parents of our William Hughbanks born in 1787 or 1788 (both of them had been born during the 1760s, probably) nor the William and Mary {Swift?} Hughbanks who were two generations earlier in this same line: that William Hughbanks died in 1750 or 1751. The William Hughbanks in the 1768 land record was that couple's son and so a sibling of the John Hughbanks (born 1735) we think was the patriarch of our Hughbanks line. The 1800 census for Delaware has no listings for any Hughbanks, however spelled. The 1790 census for Delaware no longer exists. Return to text

Next

Previous | Table of contents

Copyright © 2000-2011, Donn C. Neal. All rights reserved.
donnnealATyahoo.com