Elizabeth (not Elijah) Rutledge (before 1620 - )

Men were not the only Rutledges found in Maryland in the 17th century. Elizabeth was transported into Anne Arundel County before 1650 by Ralph Hawkins.[1] There are no Rutledge entries in the Anne Arundel County Land Index from 1653-1718. There is no mention of Elizabeth in Hawkins's 1679 estate inventory [2], yet, in 1669 he wrote that the maid servant and others that he brought out of England were to either stay with his wife, or be sold to satisfy his debts.[3]


But was it Elizabeth or Elijah that Hawkins transported? A Rootsweb entry listed the people Hawkins transported, but the transcriber listed Elijah.[4]


In Coldham's book the source for Elizabeth's arrival is RY1/228. After many hours of research, a reference to RY1 was found in Provincial Court records. The MSA helpdesk did not find RY 1 when I initially contacted them, but armed with this new information, they quickly located the record and sent me the link.[5] The record does use an abbreviation, but it is clearly Eliza Rutlidge.


This 1715 request to Charles Calvert to honor the land warrant given to Ralph Hawkins for 150 acres states that Ralph transported himself (now deceased), Margaret Hawkins, William Jerman, Richard Moss, John Cole, Eliza Rutlidge, Ralph Hawkins Junior, William Hawkins, and Mary Hawkins. Since Elizabeth is the only non-Hawkins female and Ralph calls out the maid he brought from England, it is assumed that Elizabeth Rutlidge was this maid. Ralph Junior died in his minority and without issue.


Hawkins property was located almost due north of Annapolis, on the landmass between the Severn and Magothy Rivers[6]. The area today is mostly sod farm.


A National Park Service report of a Quaker settlement in Providence, Maryland describes Ralph Hawkins as a Quaker.[7] However, George Fox founded Quakerism in 1652 in England and William Penn arrived in Pennsylvania in 1682. So, Hawkins was not a Quaker in Maryland in 1650.[8]


The original documents naming the people Hawkins transported were not found. I suspect the entry was an abbreviation, just like the copy in RY1, and some transcribers interpreted it as Elizabeth and others as Elijah. [9]

[1] Coldham, Peter Wilson, Settlers of Maryland 1679-1783, p. 581, Rutlidge, Elizabeth, reference RY1/228. Maryland State Archives SE23-50, http://guide.msa.maryland.gov/pages/item.aspx?ID=SE23-50. Page 146 of PDF. [2] Maryland State Archives, Security reels, http://mdhistory.msa.maryland.gov/msaref10/msa_te_1_064/html/msa_te_1_064-0067.html . [3] Maryland State Archives, Security Reels, http://mdhistory.msa.maryland.gov/msaref09/msa_te_1_246/pdf/msa_te_1_246-0184.pdf [4] Rootsweb entry [5] Maryland State Archives, https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/stagsere/se1/se23/000000/000050/pdf/mdsa_se23_50.pdf image 146 is page 228. [6] Early Land Grants of the Severn River Area. Personal files of Cindy Barber. [7] National Park Service, Providence, MD: Archaeology of a Puritan/Quaker Settlement near the Severn River. https://mht.maryland.gov/secure/medusa/PDF/NR_PDFs/NR-MPS-11.pdf . [8] https://haygenealogy.com/hay/quaker/quaker-PA.html [9] Coldham, Peter Wilson, Settlers of Maryland, 1701-1730. Liber AB&H:280 - surveyor report of land laid out. Of Anne Arundel County by 1652; in 1666 gave up his right to land upon the Seaven Mountains Transcript: 10:216; 11:223 (not found); Original: FF:217 (mention of Hawkins rights to Seaven mountains parcel) ; GG:203 (pages missing from scan), MSA SC 4341

0 views0 comments

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



0 views0 comments

Updated: Dec 15, 2020

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! NO! Read the MSA information! The records SAY North - but the Archives says these are actually the Mine Run Hundred lists mixed it with the North!

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 (really Mine Run 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.


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, L. 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.

0 views0 comments