VanHook-L Archives

Archiver > VanHook > 1997-11 > 0879923355


From: Neal F GANZERT <>
Subject: Re: VanHook-D Digest V97 #55
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:09:15 -0800


wrote:
>
> Subject:
>
> VanHook-D Digest Volume 97 : Issue 55
>
> Today's Topics:
> #1 Subject: [Fwd:
> Research Before 1850?] [Larry Matthew Van Hook <vanhook@wo]
> #2 Re: Kentucky Van Hooks [Larry Matthew Van Hook <vanhook@wo]
>
> ______________________________
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [Fwd: (MR WILLIAM L DENNEY): Dead Ended in Your
> Research Before 1850?]
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:24:24 -0600
> From: Larry Matthew Van Hook <>
> To:
>
> Here are some facts that may help us in our research decisions.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: (MR WILLIAM L DENNEY): Dead Ended in Your
> Research Before 1850?
> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 97 19:58:15 +0000
> From: (Larry M VanHook)
> To:
>
> Matthew VanHook
> --------- Begin forwarded message ----------
> From: (MR WILLIAM L DENNEY)
> To:
> Subject: Dead Ended in Your Research Before 1850?
> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 17:21:03, -0500
> Message-ID: <>
>
> -- [ From: Bill Denney * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] --
>
> All,
> The following came from http://www.ancestry.com and I thought perhaps
> it might be of help to some our Denny/Denney researchers (I have found
> most of the points below to be true in my experience):
>
> Checking the Averages
>
> If your research in the pioneering period (before 1850) has "dead-
> ended", it's time for creative thinking. You may find these trends
> helpful in analyzing your problems.
>
> 1. There are approximately three generations per century.
> 2. Average age for men to marry was 24. They rarely married before age
> 20.
> 3. The average age for women to marry was 20. They rarely married
> before age 16.
> 4. First marriages were usually between couples who were near the same
> age. Women generally outlived their husbands. But, older widowers
> frequently married much younger women, who had never been married before
> ..
> 5. Births generally occurred at two-year intervals. Frequently the
> first child was born a year after marriage. As a woman aged, the
> interval between births grew slightly. Child bearing generally ended
> around 45.
> 6. Families and neighbors usually migrated together from their old homes
> . Women rarely traveled alone.
> 7. Men usually married women from their neighborhood, but if a seemingly
> "strange" woman turned up, check the man's former home. Often, men
> returned to their proper residence to find a wife.
> 8. If you can't find an old parent, chances are he/she "went West" with
> a son.
> 9. If you have a male ancestor born around 1840, strongly consider Civil
> War service.
> 10. Studies show that after 1850, Ohio pioneers frequently moved to
> counties in other states on the same latitude as their home county in
> Ohio.
> 11. If your ancestor has a virtue name (e.g. Patience, Silence...),
> consider a New England heritage.
> 12. Children were often named for grandparents, both male and female.
> 13. Frequently a middle name or even a first name was the mother's or
> grandmother's maiden name; especially if the name was repeated through
> several related families.
>
> (Original article was taken from KERN-GEN, March, 1994).
> --
>
> Bill Denney--Vancouver USA
>
> Researching: DENNEY/DENNY, BEEM, BENNETT, DANIEL, HILL, HOLT,
> HOOPER, HOWARTH, ROBINSON, SOUTHARD/SUDDARTH
>
> --------- End forwarded message ----------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Kentucky Van Hooks
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:26:17 -0600
> From: Larry Matthew Van Hook <>
> To: Dan VanHook <>,
>
> Dan VanHook wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your patience and help in starting me on the Van Hook genealogy.
> > If my questions become a bother, please let me know. I was able to use your
> > gedcom file.
>
> Great!
>
> >
> > Item 1:
> > The reason I sent you the death certificate info on George C. VanHook and
> > Franklin Pierce VanHook was because the information on George C. VanHook seemed
> > to contradict the material from Bernice Keister. The information on Franklin
> > Pierce VanHook I thought was new.
>
> I'll recheck what that was and compare. I don't remember what I did with
> the
> information.
>
> >
> > Item 2:
> > Perhaps you have seen this one also. The 1790 Russell Co Virginia Personal
> > Property Tax List shows 4 Vanhook's - Aaron, Benjamin, Lawerence, and Samuel.
> > See
> >
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~varussel/census/1790.html
>
> Yes, we know that at least half of these probably belong to Hendrick Van
> Hook's
> line. These have been confusing to the Kentucky branch because of the
> preponderance
> of the same names.
>
> >
> > Item 3:
> > Have you contacted John Duling about his information on Samuel VANHOOK?
> > Interestingly his Samuel VANHOOK marriages match your Samuel VANHOOK's, but he
> > claims they are different people.
>
> He is right. We know that at least 2 Samuels traveled to Kentucky. The
> problem
> is decifering which wife, children went with which. This is why I have
> the Kentucky branch
> unattached. Keister listed them with Hendrick's line, which one of the
> Samuels
> probably was. What we need is a record which names both one Samuel's
> father and his
> wife. Then, we could at least connect one of the Samuels to the rest of
> the tree.
> For the sake of convienance (pardon my spelling), I have left all the
> wives connected
> to one Samuel but have unattached him from the tree. Another
> possibility is to trace
> land deeds carefully enough to distinguish Samuels.
>
> >
> > But Kathryn Parks writes: I am a descendant of Samuel Van Hook who was captured
> > at
> > Ruddells Station. Samuel had traveled to KY with Daniel Boone on his second
> > trip to KY. Samuel was captured and taken to Detroit along with his 12 yr old
> > son Benjamin. They remained there 4 yrs and 2 mos. Samuel discovered that his
> > wife Hannah Higgins Van Hook had been scalped when he arrived back in KY. He
> > married widow Hannah (Wilson) Williams. This is in Collins' HISTORY OF KY
> > according to Dorris Easley Estes in her book JOSEPH WHITELEY, SR., OF
> > WHITEHAVEN, ENGLAND AND HIS AMERICAN DESCENDANTS. Below is my genealogy.
> > Harry C. Bowman in the list was my dad. --
>
> Yes, this is true too. But we do not know which Samuel this is. You'll
> find too
> a mixture of opinions about whose wives were who. Then there are
> problems with
> who children belong to which wives or which Samuels. They HAD to name
> their
> children Samuel, Benjamin, etc. Then, they lived near each other.
> Frustrating
> isn't it? If we could prove that this Samuel was the Samuel in Virginia
> and that
> that Samuel was the Samuel, son of Hendrick (Henry), we could connect
> that branch.
> All I've seen so far that does this is secondary information. I may
> have missed
> something somewhere, if so maybe someone in the list could provide a
> paper trail
> from Henry to Samuel of Ruddle's Station? It has to distinguish between
> the two
> Samuels.
>
> Matthew

Hi, what about the inherited land in Person Cty., N.C. was that deeded
from
Samuel to Isaac. Was Isaac the son of Henry?

Neal

This thread: