GERMANNA_COLONIES-L Archives

From: (by way of "George W. Durman" <>)
Subject: [GERMANNA] KEITH/WILHITES
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 22:25:53 -0400

One way that A. L. Keith is related to the Wilhites is
through the Broyles. On 3 Dec 1758, in Orange County,
VA, Elizabeth Broyles (his third great aunt) married
Conrad Reuben Wilhite. Elizabeth
> John,
>
> Exactly how was A. L. Keith related to the Wilhites? I have never been
able
> to determine that.
> Just call me dumb!
>
> I have a copy of a letter that he wrote to "Judge Wilhite" in Sapulpa,
> Oklahoma eons ago, but
> still could not put it all together.
>
> Ruby
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Blankenbaker <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:48 AM
> Subject: [GERMANNA] (948)Germanna Colonies, History of
>
>
> > The nine hundred and forty-eighth note in a series on the Germanna
> Colonies
> >
> > Recently the question was asked whether we knew which ship brought
the
> > Second Colony members. I believe that I know the answer so I will go
> > through the thought process which led me to this conclusion. First,
credit
> > must go to James E. Brown, now deceased, for his part in the
> investigation.
> >
> > Much earlier, A. L. Keith who wrote about the Second Colony in "The
> William
> > and Mary Quarterly" said that the colony came with Captain Scott.
This was
> > repeated by B. C. Holtzclaw in writings published by the Germanna
> > Foundation. The only statement which bears on this subject appears in
the
> > importation hearings in the Spotsylvania Courthouse in the statements
of
> > the Broyles family, the Yager family, and the Paulitz family. They
all say
> > the same thing. The duplication is clearly a case of copying since
they
> all
> > appeared on the same day, the second of May in 1727. The records do
NOT
> say
> > "with Capt. Scott," they say "in Capt. Scott."
> >
> > That, of course, is a strange thing to say. First though, we will
look at
> > the possibility that "in" was an abbreviation for "with." This can be
> > discounted because the statements do contain, in another location,
the
> word
> > "with" which is not abbreviated.
> >
> > It is safe to say that the Germans did use a word much like "Scott"
but
> the
> > exact context or meaning of the word was not clear to the clerk. Very
> > likely, they were referring to either the captain or to the ship. So
the
> > next two questions become, "Is there a captain named Scott in that
> period?"
> > and "Is there a ship named Scott in that period?"
> >
> > There is one set of data that can help us though it is admitted it is
not
> > 100% proof either way. The English have been big on maintaining
records.
> In
> > 1958, the state of Virginia sent people to England to look at these
> records
> > and to photograph all of them which pertained to Virginia. Back home,
they
> > compiled an index and one can search by a personal name, by a ship's
name,
> > or by a keyword though the last case the emphasis is on "key." The
card
> > catalog or index is now on a computer and one can search through the
card
> > index from home. But like all card catalogs, this is not the record
itself
> > but only a pointer to the record. If you find something, you must go
to
> > Richmond and read the microfilm.
> >
> > A search on the personal name Scott does not disclose any civilian
> captains
> > in the period from about 1700 to 1740. There are some military
captains
> but
> > these can be discounted. A search on a ship of the name of Scott
discloses
> > there was one, engaged in the Virginia tobacco trade, in 1724. This
is
> > close enough to 1717 to qualify. The record also tells us the name of
the
> > captain of this ship and it also tells us a lot about his character.
> >
> > The Germans, when testifying in court, probably gave an answer using
the
> > word order in their sentences which is peculiar to them. The clerk
> > misunderstood what they intended and confused the ship and the
captain.
> (to
> > be continued)
> > John Blankenbaker

This thread:

• [GERMANNA] KEITH/WILHITES by (by way of "George W. Durman" <>)