Was Michael's wife Hannah Scott?

Researchers through the years have put forward that Michael married Hannah Scott, daughter of Daniel Scott.

In a disposition taken on 17 February 1729, Michael Rutledge, "aged 34 years or there abouts", said that he lived with Daniel Scott and heard him speak of a certain tree. This statement places Michael in the Scott household and gives us a birth year of about 1695. It is possible that Michel lived with the Scotts after the death of his father Michael in 1709. Daniel Scott was a large landowner and certainly had room for the young teenager. Ten years later (1719), at the age of 24, Michael bought Rutledge's Venture.

No will was found in Baltimore or Anne Arundel counties.

The probate account record of 9 July 1725 of Daniel Scott's estate lists these family members:

Jane, widow of the deceased 163:10:0

Ann Smith (wife of Thomas), one of the daughters 65:1:0

Jane Hughs (wife of Samuel) , one of the daughters 65:7:5

Sarah Preston (wife of James), a daughter 64:18:3

Avarilah Durbin (wife of John), a daughter 62:18:7

There is no payment to a Hannah, or to Michael Rutledge. The amounts paid are consistent with the dower rights of one third of the estate going to the widow and the rest to the children. No record of disbursement to his son Daniel was noted. Nor information on the land. I assume Daniel junior received the land.

Daniel Scott, son of Daniel, died in 1745. He had a daughter Hannah who was married to Edward Norris. The names Daniel and Hannah appear to have continued down through the Scott family. Hannah who was married to Michael Rutledge signed a deed in 1719, so Michael could not have married Daniel Junior's daughter. There is no mention of a Rutledge in the 1745 probate of Daniel Scott, Jr.

Research is not complete without a look at land records. A search of the Grantor Index from 1655-1769 and subsequent look at the Scott entries found in those indices revealed no connection to the Rutledge family. There is no record of a sale to a Rutledge from 1693-1769. In 1729 Jane Scott, widow of Daniel bequeathed property to her grandchildren. No Rutledge was mentioned. It is odd that there is no record of property dispersal for the estate of Daniel Scott, or later of his widow Jane Scott. A search of Anne Arundel county chancery court was negative. Later land records show that Daniel, son of Daniel took over the lands of his father.

There is no other Daniel Scott in Baltimore or Anne Arundel County during this period.

Conclusion: There is no evidence to support the statement that Michael Rutledge married Hannah Scott, daughter of Daniel.

Baltimore County grantor index 1693-1769
Download • 234KB

I understand I do not think like most people. My College professor in a flowcharting class confirmed what many teachers behind her had realized. My mind just does not work as expected. She had used the same problem as a final exam for years. I missed a lot of the classes because of work related training but she let me turn in the work and kept me in the class. I missed the final, but she agreed to proctor it in the library the next week.

When I turned my answer in quickly, she first asked if I had been given information by one of the students (I had not), then she peevishly said she would 'get back to me'. A few days later I was summoned to her office. "Oh, ohh..." She pulled out my giant piece of paper (yes, we used paper to actually draw the flowcharts) and asked me to go through my process. I was waiting for the big mistake. It never came.

She told me I had solved the problem in the fewest steps, with the most direct path. Ever. Ever as in all the years she had used the problem. Then she asked if she could use my chart in future classes. Of course. The problem? Many times I cannot understand why someone takes a different path.

So what does this tidbit of looking into the past have to do with tax list analysis? I track 1850 forward censuses the same as most people. I probably track the pre-1850 like most genealogists, but then I got stuck. The Baltimore County Maryland 1783 tax list transcriptions did not make sense to me. Don't ask me why, it was a gut feeling. I knew I was missing something just looking at names. So I set out to really look at the list.

First - find the originals! In this case that was vital! The transcriptions had my family in the wrong hundred! Instead of walking you through the process I am going to show you the start of my final product. I hope this helps you really dive into the tax lists.

1783 Tax Lists

The 1783 Tax List is organized in the loose alphabetical order of the time, where all "R" surnames are found together. The original papers are found at MSA - MSA-s1161_scm871-0181.

NOTE: This is vital! I looked at the ACTUAL pages from the MSA film above. There are NO RUTLEDGES in MINE RUN HUNDRED! All the transcriptions I have found are INCORRECT!

The Tax List lists the owner's Name, Land Name, No of Acres, Value, Value of the Improvements, Slaves, Slaves value, livestock, value of other property, total value and tax. But the last two columns are of interest - Number of white male inhabitants and total number of white inhabitants. The table below extracts the data in fewer columns.

1783 Tax List Analysis

I will take these name by name and see where they fit in relation to my known ancestors.

I am going to start with the grouping in North Hundred

William Rutledge Jr: I have no profile that matches William (1 son and 1 daughter). It is possible that junior was used to differentiate this William from an older William in the area who was not his father. There is a possibility this is my William and Mary with two children who died, or maybe other adults. Mary was born in 1766, so was 17 at this census. She and William could have married young and had one or two children for this census. William is living close to Ephraim and Ephraim's page is torn, so more evidence is needed. William and Mary's first known child was born about 1795, twelve years later. This COULD be William, son of Michael and Hannah, brother of Abraham and Ephraim and father of Thomas - He was born before 1721, so may have had children or others in his household. No other children except Thomas G have been found (nor looked for).

Ephraim Rutledge: I have no record of this property. Ephraim bought Rutledge's Wisdom in 1787, so he may have owned this property first. Pocock's Lott was not found in a search of the Tract Index. Ephraim was married to Susannah Pocock, so this may have been her property in My Lady's Manor. Ephraim had three sons: John, Ephraim Junior and an unknown. This fits the tax list. I would expect 3 and possibly 5 daughters on this list (there were 2 on the 1790 list born before 1790).

Abraham Rutledge, Jr: I have no record of this property. It appears Abraham and Rebecca had a large gap between children. The earliest children recorded are John and Elijah both born before 1774. There was also an unknown male in the age group on the 1790 census. Ruth (b. abt 1777, m Archer Howard) may be one of the females on this list along with Rebecca (wife). Elizabeth and Leah were born after 1783 but before 1790, so are NOT on this list. The third female on this list apparently died or left home before 1790.

Thomas Rutledge: Maybe Thomas Gorsuch Rutledge, he was 24 years old in 1783 and held lands in the area. He was the son of William and Margaret Rutledge. His first marriage record is 1782, but he may have had a previous as yet unfound marriage. He is of age to have 2 sons and one daughter in 1783.

Michael Rutledge: This MIGHT be Michael who was married to Eleanor Deason, then Elizabeth. Michael died before 1810, so may not have had any property at this time. The five males may have been: Michael, Edmund (b. 1765-1775), William (b. 1769), John D (b. 1773-1774), and Michael (b. 1777). The females may have been Elizabeth (wife) and Clara (b. abt. 1768).

Abraham Rutledge, Sr: I have no record of this deed. In 1754 Abraham did lease 100 acres of pt Blathenia Canbria in Baltimore County from Benjamin Tasker. The four males may be: Abraham, Edward (aft 1774), an unknown son that was on the 1790 census (bef. 1774), and Jacob (abt. 1762; married Monica Wheeler 1799). The 3 females may be Penelope (wife), Elizabeth (b. 1770 m. Thomas Talbott 1795), and Penelope (b. 1765 m. Thomas Kelso 1789). The other children of Abraham, Sr are not expected to be in the household.

Conclusion: This group appears to be the families of Michael and Hannah Rutledge. Abraham Sr, William and Ephraim were Michael's sons. Abraham Jr and Thomas were their grandsons.

But, Who was Michael? Michael m. Eleanor was born abt 1740. Michael m. Hannah was b. 1695, 45 years apart. I believe Michael m. Eleanor was the nephew of Michael m. Hannah. IF Michael m. Eleanor's father was named William, this would account not only for the age difference, but also for William Jr found on this tax list.

I need to find a William b. about 1700. I have a Y-DNA match, Larry Rutledge, that goes back to a William R Rutledge b. 1734. His father would be born about 1700. I need to research this line more.

While working in the 1700's I stumbled across some conflicting evidence about the residence of my target person: Ephraim Rutledge.

A search on two popular sites gave me an index entry of Misc Run Hundred for the 1790 Census. Here is the image from one of the sites.

I have not heard of Misc Run Hundred, so I am skeptical. A Hundred was a section of the county, similar to modern townships. The term Hundred comes from England and means the area needed to support one hundred families or to raise one hundred men for a militia.

A look at the actual record shows me images of the actual pages of the census. Here is an image of the part of page 72 showing Ephraim's Entry.

There is no title or header on the page, so I go back a few pages to see if I can find more information.

The title is on page 67. It clearly says "The Enumeration of Mine Run Hundred". At least it's clear to those of us who spend most days buried in old musty documents. I do miss the smell of the documents. Page 67 is only one check, and being the OCD person that I am - or to put it more 'professionally" - realizing the need to conduct reasonably exhaustive research, I go forward to check for any other names.

On the very first page of this section, I found the image below. I can see why the indexer wrote "Misc' instead of "Mine".

I am sure you are wondering: " But did she check the last pages, too?" Of course, I did! The list just ended. There was no paragraph attesting to the ending.

So, Ephraim lived in Mine Run Hundred. Or did he?

I happened upon a 1783 Tax List (MSA S 1437) - typed, so at best a transcript. Ephraim was listed in Mine Run Hundred on Pocock's Lot. Good.

I searched the Maryland State Archives and found the original 1783 lists in a collection: MSA-s1161_scm871-0181. Originals! Yes! Originals - a Genealogist's Dream! I quickly turned to the Mine Run Hundred Census... scrolled down to the "R" entries - Ephraim is not listed! In fact, NO Rutledge is listed. They should be right in the middle of the page. I check every page of Mine Run Hundred (it's that OCD/reasonably exhaustive search gene again). NADA. Not on the valuation pages, not on the Poll tax list.

So, that OCD kicked in again. I started checking the adjoining Hundreds and there he was! Ephraim was listed in the North Hundred, which is directly west of Mine Run Hundred. This list says he is on Pocock's Lot. So does the Mine Run Hundred entry above. Hmmm....

Was Pocock's lot in Mine Run or North Hundred? I have several maps that were put together detailing a lot of the landowners during this time period. So, I pull the maps and look for Pocock's Lot. The maps are not definitive. At least one is not showing the land anywhere near where the others are.

Conclusion? In 1783 and 1790 Ephraim lived on Pocock's Lot. The property may have straddled the line between Mine Run and North Hundreds. Depending on the actual location of the home, I cannot say with certainty which Hundred he lived in. An attempt to locate the home and/or map the property is in order. For now, confirming how long he owned the land and following him, his neighbors, or the future owners forward on succeeding tax lists and censuses will add evidence to the land's location. A check for any boundary changes of the Hundreds is also in order.

It's important to go to originals when you can find them. Always consult the State Archives, University Archives, libraries, Historical Societies, and Museums to see what they hold. It's not always easy to locate records in Archives. Ask the Archivists for help. They always know more than you ever will about their holdings.