SCEDGEFI-L ArchivesArchiver > SCEDGEFI > 2011-02 > 1297459960
From: doonboggle <>
Subject: [SCEDGEFI] Identification of 'Johann' Jacob ZIMMERMAN – Palatinate member - 1764-65
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:32:40 -0800 (PST)
For those of you that are not
familiar with how the ‘back country’ of colonial South Carolina first was populated, and
especially Edgefield and surrounding counties, may I suggest you view the
wonderful study and analysis performed by Gordon Rampy on the Poor Palatines at
There you will see the enormous
work that Gordon did in identifying the group and sorting them into
families. The historical documentation
of 1764-65 that was created by the South
Carolina governmental Council does not assimilate the
folks into families. Gordon’s work,
using these documents, and applying the resulting land grant acreage, along
with other documentation from later years, wills, Revill list, etc., results in
identifying my ancestors, and possibly those of you reading this.
For my ZIMMERMAN family, later ‘Americanized’
to Timmerman by poor spelling, writing, etc. of the era’s recorder, the data that Gordon had was lacking in that one
(1) of the children he assigned did not have a given name to show. Using the formula the Council followed in
calculating land grant, Gordon came up short with the family, relative to the
300 total acreage allotted, of 50 acres.
This shortage of a name indicated a male child under the age of two (2)
years; thus, with the confirmed children of Anna (9) and George (2), the family
now had an un-named male child. Upon
their arrival, another male was born, Johann Peter ZIMMERMAN, but being born on
land, rather ‘at sea’, there was no acreage granted for that child.
This brings me now to the purpose
of this post; that being to identify that un-named male child. Upon arrival in 1764, the family had one (1)
identified male child, George at age two (2).
There was also a no-gender child of less than two (2).
In a letter written about 1906,
Washington Hodges TIMMERMAN (dob 1832) wrote a letter in which he stated his
grandfather (Jacob TIMMERMAN) had two (2) brothers, Henry and Peter. He further stated that Peter “never married”,
and had been born “at sea” and was “the
youngest” of the three (3) boys of the immigrant, Frederich Wilhelm
ZIMMERMAN. In previous postings to this
forum, we have posted documented references from the federal government clearly
showing that Peter was not ‘born at sea’ (arrival of ship Union),
and had been ‘married’ (1850 governmental mortality report). We will now address the “youngest” reference.
But before that, let me state here
that this is not a repudiation of the W.H. Timmerman letter. By the time he was born in 1832, there had
been two (2) major wars in the newly organized United States of America, with
the result that the immigrant Frederich Wilhelm having been killed in the
Revolutionary war, leaving behind a widow in a strange and hostile environment
due to the fact that her husband, and son Henry, had been Loyalists in the war. More on ‘Henry’ to follow.
In addition to the above comment
about W.H. Timmerman, bear in mind that in 1906 he was in his 70’s, and memory
of ‘hand-me-down’ facts may have begun to be vague and confusing due to the
duration of time. While a fact or two
(2) in the letter may be flawed, nevertheless it is an ‘historical’ document in
it’s own right, and must be realized for that.
So, from above, we have designated the
‘legend’ that Peter was born ‘at sea’ as a flaw in the letter. After their arrival in South Carolina, there has been nothing found
since to indicate that Frederich and Margaretha ZIMMERMAN had born other
children. That fact supports our
analysis that Peter was in fact the LAST, and the “youngest” that the W.H.
Timmerman letter mentions. However the
flaw that W.H. made is now rampant throughout the internet genealogy sites,
like ancestry.com, rootsweb.com and others, as well as unknown numbers of
non-diligent descendants adopting the flaw as ‘gospel’. Of course this includes the research 'experts' of this family, who continually refuse to accept analysis that proves their input as flawed.
With Johann Peter identified, we
now turn to Jacob, more likely 'Johann' Jacob since the German practice was to
use that additional name as a sort of entitlement, akin to the American manner
of addressing all males, infant or otherwise, as Mister or Master, as it was
when I was a child in the 1940s.
For the time era of these
individuals, the late 1700s-early 1800s, there were three (3) sons. As they matured, they began to be marked in
the census reports as ‘Head’ of household.
The 1790 census report, being the first, was not well designed, with the
result of analysis being difficult.
However in the 1800 census, records begin to be a bit more clear.
The 1800 Edgefield census report
lists all three (3) sons as alive and heads of their household. Henry is in the OLDEST age range of 45+.
Peter and Jacob are in the YOUNGER category of 26-44 years. The 1810 census reflects all three (3)
brothers in the same range of 45+.
On November 1, 1832, Henry applies for
a pension from the American government.
Apparently after Frederich was killed as a Loyalist in 1779 during the
Siege of Savannah, with Henry being present also, sometime later after his father was killed, Henry switched sides and signed on with the Patriots, as quoted
in his application for the pension.
that application, he swears to the pension application process testimony that
he, at that time, was “72 years, 7 months” of age.
Subsequently in amendments to his
initial testimony, he reaffirms this age again.
Following that is a sworn statement, by brother Peter, that the “…
statement of his service by the said Henry is correct.” Therefore, using the age that Henry swore to,
it results in a birth date of about April, 1760, meaning that he, as mentioned
above regarding the 1800 census, was the OLDEST.
With Johann Peter having been born in 1764, he was
the ‘youngest’. With Henry being recorded in the SC Council record at
age of two (2), coupled with being reflected as the oldest on the 1800
census report, further coupled with the statement he swore to in 1832, and
even further supported by a sworn statement from brother Peter, Henry was
the ‘oldest’.This leaves only Jacob to be the aforementioned ‘less
than 2’ un-named male listed on the analysis that Gordon performed in the
writing of his research. True that
the birth year of 1760 calculation is a couple of years off when compared
to the 1764 records that Gordon calculated, but that can once again be attributed
to memory fog and/or confusion of an elder person.
If you reflect Jacob
ZIMMERMAN/TIMMERMAN, or more appropriately 'Johann' Jacob ZIMMERMAN, as being
born in the later years of the 1760 decade, like 1768, that is incorrect.
As mentioned above, a similar
analysis on the 'George' individual referred to and named on the SC Council
records, and marked as being the age of two (2), will be similarly discussed in
an upcoming posting.
As with all our research results, I
am always open for discussion.
can be summed up this way …
‘I did not write this … I read it!’
Meaning that the facts, sources,
etc. referenced herein have been in existence longer than the time I, or any other researcher, have on
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
|[SCEDGEFI] Identification of 'Johann' Jacob ZIMMERMAN – Palatinate member - 1764-65 by doonboggle <>|