Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

Elizabeth Juliana Stevens

F, #58001, b. 18 Apr 1797
Elizabeth Juliana Stevens|b. 18 Apr 1797|p581.htm#i58001|Col. John Stevens|b. 1749\nd. 6 Mar 1838|p581.htm#i58002|Rachel Cox|b. 16 Nov 1761\nd. Dec 1839|p581.htm#i58003|||||||||||||
      Elizabeth Juliana Stevens was born on 18-Apr-1797 at Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey. She was the daughter of Col. John Stevens and Rachel Cox. Elizabeth married Commodore Thomas Anderson Conover, son of James Conover and Margaret Anderson, on 31-Jul-1821. Elizabeth Juliana Stevens died on 3-Apr-1912 at age 114.
Census29-Jul-1850Princeton Twp., Mercer County, New Jersey

Children of Elizabeth Juliana Stevens and Commodore Thomas Anderson Conover

Col. John Stevens

M, #58002, b. 1749, d. 6 Mar 1838
      Col. John Stevens was born in 1749 at Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey. John married Rachel Cox in 1783. Col. John Stevens died on 6-Mar-1838 at Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey.

Child of Col. John Stevens and Rachel Cox

Rachel Cox

F, #58003, b. 16 Nov 1761, d. Dec 1839
      Rachel Cox was born on 16-Nov-1761. Rachel married Col. John Stevens in 1783. Rachel Cox died in Dec-1839 at age 78.
     She resided at at Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey, in 1821.

Child of Rachel Cox and Col. John Stevens

Hannah Letitia Conover

F, #58004
Hannah Letitia Conover||p581.htm#i58004|James Conover|b. 9 Jun 1765\nd. 3 Oct 1814|p20.htm#i1954|Margaret Anderson|b. 17 Sep 1774\nd. 10 Jun 1836|p20.htm#i1955|Peter Covenhoven|b. 4 Dec 1732\nd. 3 Mar 1802|p20.htm#i1941|Hannah Forman|b. 30 Dec 1727\nd. 1830|p20.htm#i1942|Maj. Thomas Anderson||p20.htm#i1956|Latitia Thronton||p580.htm#i57999|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Hannah Letitia Conover was the daughter of James Conover and Margaret Anderson. Hannah married Henry Norman Miller.
     Hannah Letitia Conover was also known as Hannah Letitia Cowenhoven.

Child of Hannah Letitia Conover and Henry Norman Miller

Henry Norman Miller

M, #58005
      Henry Norman Miller was born at Of, Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. Henry married Hannah Letitia Conover, daughter of James Conover and Margaret Anderson.
     Henry Norman Miller was also known as H. J. Miller.

Child of Henry Norman Miller and Hannah Letitia Conover

James Cowenhoven

M, #58006
James Cowenhoven||p581.htm#i58006|James Conover|b. 9 Jun 1765\nd. 3 Oct 1814|p20.htm#i1954|Margaret Anderson|b. 17 Sep 1774\nd. 10 Jun 1836|p20.htm#i1955|Peter Covenhoven|b. 4 Dec 1732\nd. 3 Mar 1802|p20.htm#i1941|Hannah Forman|b. 30 Dec 1727\nd. 1830|p20.htm#i1942|Maj. Thomas Anderson||p20.htm#i1956|Latitia Thronton||p580.htm#i57999|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     James Cowenhoven was the son of James Conover and Margaret Anderson.
     James Cowenhoven resided at at Connecticut.

Mary Francis Conover

F, #58007, b. 1800, d. 19 Sep 1866
Mary Francis Conover|b. 1800\nd. 19 Sep 1866|p581.htm#i58007|James Conover|b. 9 Jun 1765\nd. 3 Oct 1814|p20.htm#i1954|Margaret Anderson|b. 17 Sep 1774\nd. 10 Jun 1836|p20.htm#i1955|Peter Covenhoven|b. 4 Dec 1732\nd. 3 Mar 1802|p20.htm#i1941|Hannah Forman|b. 30 Dec 1727\nd. 1830|p20.htm#i1942|Maj. Thomas Anderson||p20.htm#i1956|Latitia Thronton||p580.htm#i57999|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Mary Francis Conover was born in 1800 at New Jersey. She was the daughter of James Conover and Margaret Anderson. Mary married Commodore John Henry Aulick, son of Carl Christopher Edman Aulick and Margaret Hoots, on 14-Sep-1819 at Sussex County, New Jersey. Mary Francis Conover died on 19-Sep-1866.
     She was also known as Mary Cowenhoven. Aulick, Mary F. d. 19 Sep 1866 71 yrs. R52/92
Aulick. In this city on Wednesday, September 19th, Mrs. Mary F. Aulick, wife of Commodore John H. Aulick, U.S. Navy, aged 71 years. The funeral will take place from her late residence corner I and 18th streets on Saturday the 22nd inst. At 2 p.m. The friends of the family are respectfully invited to attend.

Census20-Jul-1850Ward 2, Washington, District of Columbia
Census10-Jul-1860Washington, District of Columbia

Children of Mary Francis Conover and Commodore John Henry Aulick

Commodore John Henry Aulick

M, #58008, b. 28 Jun 1790, d. 27 Apr 1873
Commodore John Henry Aulick|b. 28 Jun 1790\nd. 27 Apr 1873|p581.htm#i58008|Carl Christopher Edman Aulick|b. 17 Sep 1760\nd. 1 May 1817|p2282.htm#i228176|Margaret Hoots|b. 1760\nd. 3 Feb 1803|p2282.htm#i228177|||||||||||||
      Commodore John Henry Aulick was born on 28-Jun-1790 at Winchester, Frederick County, Virgina. He was the son of Carl Christopher Edman Aulick and Margaret Hoots. John married Mary Francis Conover, daughter of James Conover and Margaret Anderson, on 14-Sep-1819 at Sussex County, New Jersey. Commodore John Henry Aulick died on 27-Apr-1873 at Washington, District of Columbia, at age 82.
     He was also known as J. H. Aulick. He began military service on 15-Nov-1809; entered the U. S. Navy as a midshipman from Maryland. He resided at at Baltimore, Maryland, in 1816. Aulick, Commodore John H. d. 27 Apr 1873 81 yrs. R52/93
Aulick. On Sunday, April 27 at 12:10 a.m., Commodore John H. Aulick, U.S.N. in the 85th year of his age. The funeral will take place from his late residence, corner of 18th and I streets on Tuesday, April 29 at 12 m.
The Evening Star, April 28, 1873
Death of Commodore Aulick
Commodore John H. Aulick, U.S.N., died yesterday at his residence in this city, corner of 18th and I streets, in the 85th year of his age. The deceased was a Virginian by birth, but was appointed an officer in the navy from Maryland Nov. 15, 1809. In 1812 he served on the Enterprise in all her actions, and carried her captures, the Boxer, and the privateers Flyer and Mars, into port. He afterwards served on the Saranac, Ontario, Constitution, and Brandywine, and was in command of the Washington Navy Yard from 1843 to 1846. He returned from his last cruise in 1853, and has since 1864 been on the retired list. His funeral will take place from his late residence tomorrow, at 12 m.
The Evening Star, April 29, 1873
The Funeral of Commodore Aulick took place at noon today from his late residence, corner of 18th and I streets. There were present the Secretary of the Navy, Admirals Porter, Goldsborough, and Powell; Commodores Almy and Rodgers; Commander Kane, and a large number of naval officers at present in Washington, all in full dress uniform; General Sherman, Col. Audenried, of his staff; General M.C. Meigs, Col. Dunn, and many other officers of the army, besides a large concourse of civilians. The remains of the Commodore were encased in a magnificent burial casket, decorated with the American flag and an anchor of beautiful flowers. The Rev. W.F. Watkins, rector of the Church of the Epiphany, read the burial service of the Episcopal church, after which the procession moved down the avenue to the Congressional cemetery in the following order; Batallion of the marine corps, (headed by the full marine band) Capt. Tilton, commanding, with arms reversed and drums muffled; the hearse escorted by a guard of honor, consisting of eight sailors from the United States steamer Tallapoosa, under command of Mate C.H. Cleveland; carriages containing the pall-bearers, consisting of Admirals Porter, Goldsborough and Powell, Commodore Rodgers, Major Slack; and Dr. Eversfield, Maj. A.S. Nicholson, of the marine corps, had charge of the funeral arrangements.
The National Intelligencer, August 23, 1845
Letter from Captain Aulick, U.S. Navy
Navy Yard, Washington, August 19, 1845
Dear Sir: the accompanying lithographic likeness of our enterprising countryman, Mr. William Wheelwright, who first introduced steam navigation in the Pacific Ocean, was sent to me a short time since by an American gentleman residing in Valparaiso, with a request that I "would have it placed in some public institution of this capital, as that of a man who is an honor to his country, and who is likely to reap no other benefit from it than such fame as his countrymen may accord to him."
From the inscription beneath the likeness it will be seen that the portrait from which this lithograph is taken was obtained by order and at the expense of the commercial community of Valparaiso, and placed in the Exchange of that city as a testimonial of esteem for his character, and admiration of his merits.
Although Mr. Wheelwright has been for many years a sojourner in foreign lands, and was compelled to resort to foreign capitalists for means to accomplish his undertaking, after having failed in his efforts to induce those of his own country to engage in it, he has lost none of his native love of country. From a long personal acquaintance and intimacy with him, I think I can safely say that a more warm-hearted and patriotic American does not live in the land of his birth.
If you shall be of opinion with me that his likeness is not unworthy of a place in the "National Institute", I beg it may be so honored. With great respect, your obedient servant.
J.H. Aulick
F. Markoe, Esq.
Corresponding Secretary, National Institute.

Henry another son, was Commodore Aulick of the U.S. Navy during the early part of the 19th Century. He had several children, all dead, one being Richmond Aulick, who was Lieut. Comdr. in the Navy when he died. Frederick Aulick, the third son, lived and died in Winchester an old man. His wife was a Miss Smith. She was the mother of James and Alberta. The latter became Mrs. Kuhnert, the wife of a German professor of music. She survives her husband. George Aulick, the fourth son, married Mary Crebs (Crepts). Her father was Conrad Crepts. He was a native of Hesse-Cassell, Germany; and claimed that he was one of the Hessian soldiers connected with the British Army. Geo Aulick's children were Eliza, Cordelia, Edwin, George who married and went to California, was the founder of the town of Modesta, the citizens of which honored his memory by the erection of an imposing monument. The next son, Charles E., is Mr.
Eugene Aulick, the extensive florist, living in the handsome property on South Braddock Street. He married Miss "Reb" Kreemer, daughter of James and
Annie Kreemer. They have two children, Mary C. and Charles E. Another son of George Aulick was Hendren Aulick, generally known as Ernest, Surgeon in the U.S. Navy. He had won distinction for his services, when his untimely death in 1881 cut short his career..."



"Numerous and Insurmountable Obstacles":
John Henry Aulick on the Far China Station
A History Honors Thesis

By:
Midshipman 1/c Stephen D. Chivers, Class of 2001
Professor Craig L. Symonds, Advisor
U.S. Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland

"I should like nothing better then to be down on those fellows chop, chop!"
-Commodore John Henry Aulick, 1852

In February of 1852, Commodore John Henry Aulick arrived in Hong Kong in command of the new paddle-wheel steamer U.S.S. Susquehanna after an 18,000-mile cruise from Norfolk that had occupied a full eight months. In addition to taking command of the rather grandly-named two-ship East India Squadron, Aulick was preparing to lead his command to the mysterious island empire of Japan in the hope of opening that country to western trade. It was a mission he had proposed to Secretary of the Navy William A. Graham in 1850 and he now looked forward to its imminent fulfillment. But only a week after his arrival on station, Aulick received new orders from the Secretary of the Navy: he was to stand fast in Hong Kong and await relief as commanding officer.

Surprised, confused, and eventually angered by these unexpected orders, Aulick was further astounded by another set of orders that arrived a week later. These came via the State Department Consul in Canton, and they ordered him to proceed with his squadron to Japan as originally planned. Graham's orders bore a more recent date, but Aulick clung to the hope that he could clear up the confusion surrounding his proposed relief and proceed with his original orders.
For more then a year, Aulick fought the orders removing him from command --even as his physical health deteriorated- but in the end the struggle mastered him. In 1853 he surrendered his command and returned to America a beaten man. He achieved a pyrrhic victory of sorts when the Navy officially cleared him of any wrong doing in October. But that same year, Matthew C. Perry won professional acclaim and historic distinction by concluding a treaty with Japan.

Aulick's personal and professional dilemma, as well as his behavior, offers a window into the world of squadron command during the mid-19th century. On the one hand, it illuminates the near sovereignty of a naval squadron commander operating thousands of miles from his own country in the age before telegraph or radio. As commodore of the East India Squadron, Aulick dealt with various European rivals, foreign dignitaries, merchants from every corner of the globe, Manchu Chinese officials, and kept a weather eye out for Chinese junks (both compliant merchants and bloodthirsty pirates). In addition he received supplications from American diplomats overseas who tended to view him as their personal cop-on-the-beat, as well as from American merchants who expected him to respond to their nearly-continuous calls for protection.

But while the American Consul in Canton, a man with the unlikely name of Peter Parker was the putative representative of American authority in the Far East, it was Aulick's squadron that was the living embodiment of American power on the Far China Station. On the other hand, Aulick was considerably less sovereign within the highly personal and politicized world of the Navy's high command. In a service with 700 officers of all ranks, there was not only an understood set of professional values, there was also a fierce rivalry for command opportunities. This was especially true in a Navy which boasted only 34 ships and six squadron commands, but which had some 68 Captains and 97 Commanders to fill the available positions.1 As powerful and sovereign as he seemed to local observers in Hong Kong, Aulick would be undone in part by the poisonous rivalry between senior officers of the navy. A forty-one year veteran of the U.S. Navy, Aulick had almost literally grown up in the service. Having entered the Navy as a Midshipman in 1810 at the age of 20, he accepted the value system of the nineteenth century officer corps which held personal honor in the highest regard. This was a value system in which personal honor was the most valued coin. As historian

1Charles Oscar Paullin, History Of Naval Administration, (Annapolis, M.D.: U.S. Naval
Institute Press, 1968), 239. (first published as a collection of articles in U.S. Naval Institute
Proceedings)


Charles Oscar Paullin has noted:
"The sense of personal honor among the officers of the Old Navy was so excessive and extravagant that it was often absurd... On the Mediterranean, Brazil, and Pacific stations our officers often fought with foreigners, and especially with foreign officers. At home they sometimes engaged in bouts with civilians." As Aulick rose through the ranks, he fought numerous duels, particularly while serving as a young Lieutenant on the Mediterranean station in the 1820's. This was a decade in which "dueling was quite common," especially among junior officers. As Paullin has noted, "more duels were fought during these years than during all the others of the Navy's history." The value of personal honor was thus embedded in young Aulick during his formative years, and throughout the duration of his time on station in China it would prove his primary concern when dealing with higher authority.2 Aulick also knew that the internal politics of the Navy Department were in complete disarray. Naval Secretary after Secretary were appointed by Whig and Democratic presidents from 1812 to 1852 solely to implement administration policies for expansion or retrenchment of the U.S. Navy. The Navy Department was too small and understaffed -the department's entire staff numbered only 30 men in the 1840's- to seriously examine the needs of the nation in terms of Naval policy. Because of this, "The navy was more or less run by cliques...the inferior officers accused their superiors of applying or withholding the laws of the navy according to the dictates

2 Ibid, 193.

of convenience and prejudice." In a Navy divided against itself, it was these cliques that largely determined which officers appeared on the Secretaries' preferred list for command, and which were quietly deposited in shore commands and bureaus. Aulick knew that many of the younger officers in his own squadron looked upon him with contempt and believed that he was too old to exercise effective command, indeed, that officers of his age and rank impeded the flow of promotions. The quarter-deck, many young officers fondly pointed out, was not the place for the "lean and slippered pantaloon" of old age.3

Such views also hindered the Navy's ability to deal effectively with a Congress that grew increasingly interventionist throughout Aulick's career. In the early 1840's, Congress led a charge to discontinue the daily ration of alcohol aboard Naval vessels. Despite opposition from many in the Navy, in 1842 Congress reduced the alcohol rations for officers and seamen alike to only one- fourth of a pint. Another social revolution occurred in 1850 when Congress banned flogging in the Navy. Despite a fierce campaign of opposition from officers, administrators, and enlisted men alike -all of whom felt flogging to be a manly punishment from which a true seafaring man should not shrink- the House and Senate passed bills banning flogging in the Navy. For officers the effects were a devastating loss of discipline afloat and "numerous complaints reached the Navy Department of insubordination and serious irregularities among the seamen... The number of desertions increased, and many good seamen refused to enlist."4 This occurred just as Aulick was preparing to begin his cruise to the Far East, and in his view the ill-effects were made worse by the fact that Congress had not thought to implement other punishments in place of flogging.

3Ibid, 174-175, 191, 234.
4Ibid, 233-234.


The Navy had also changed in terms of its diplomatic role. When Aulick took command of the East India Squadron he was 62 years old. He had cut his teeth in a Navy that had known only sails and functioned mostly in single-ship operations. During his career, he had fought in two wars (1812 and Mexican), negotiated several treaties and diplomatic agreements, commanded numerous vessels ranging from schooners to frigates, spent nearly 24 years at sea, and endured many other tumultuous experiences. As his career progressed he saw the steady rise in involvement and prestige of the United States in world affairs. At the start of his career, despite some limited success against the Barbary states in the early part of the century, America had not attempted to project power overseas. National policy goals abroad consisted of promoting international commerce and defending established trading relationships. Yet by the 1850's, in the wake of the successful war against Mexico, America was already beginning to seek a more prominent role for itself in the international arena. After witnessing the success of the British and French in establishing favorable trade relations with China, the U.S. sought to expand its own export markets in Asia as well. Lacking the colonial assets or force of arms of the European powers, America relied on diplomacy to do this.5
American Naval officers were frequently used for diplomatic negotiations. In many respects, Naval officers represented America's principle diplomatic tool in the nineteenth century. Unlike their foreign service counterparts, U.S. Navy Commodores moved from nation to nation on a monthly or even weekly basis. This mobility required them to continually adapt themselves to new environments and cultures as they encountered them. Their training as mariners reinforced in them the ideals of reciprocity between host and guest, and the importance of maintaining an
5Thomas Bailey, The Art of Diplomacy. (New York: Meredith Publishing, 1968), 71-76.

even keel in the balance of power in a region. In the nineteenth century, it was therefore common practice for the Executive Branch to entrust delicate negotiations to naval officers abroad.6 Prior to the widespread introduction of steam and the telegraph, these Commodores formed the backbone of American overseas presence. They had the firepower and mobility needed to deal with regional crises, and they knew it. Even their very title - Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces- lent them an air of legitimacy that State Department Consuls could only dream of. The notion of being a law unto themselves was the rule rather then the exception. As Commodore David Porter once noted a Commodore on station was,"the little tyrant who struts his few fathoms of scoured plank; a solitary being in the midst of the ocean."7 Old Naval Commodores had their own notions of dignity and proper conduct between superiors and subordinates. It was not uncommon for Commodore's to associate with officers through formal correspondence only, despite being present aboard the same vessel. The case of Commodore John Henry Aulick however exposes some of the practical limits on a Commodore's authority and illuminates the changing nature of naval command and American diplomacy in the 1850's. By the middle of the nineteenth century it was not nearly enough that an officer should be "a capable mariner...gentlemen of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor." Naval leaders needed to be politically adept, connected, and opportunistic in their approaches to senior officials. The squadron commander's duties had grown to such an extent that it was not enough for him to be an accomplished military leader or diplomat abroad. In the new rubric, success required a high

6Ibid, 248.
7Paullin, 191.


level of technological competence and political shrewdness to overcome the fierce rivalries within the Navy Department. An officer without strong advocates in Washington could find himself quickly in disfavor and so far removed from the communications loop as to become expendable. When Aulick took command of the East India Squadron in April of 1851, it had but one vessel: the newly commissioned U.S.S. Susquehanna. This frigate was to usher in the era of dual steam and sail propulsion for the U.S. Navy in global operations. Her sails were equal to that of a Constitution-class vessel, but her boilers were designed to enhance her mobility in ship-to-ship combat. Her great length (some 257 feet) and displacement (nearly 2500 tons) were intended to make her ideal for long voyages. Yet there were severe limitations to the vessel. Despite her advanced design, the side-wheeled steamer could only make 3,500 miles on a full load of coal. In addition, no one had thought to design a better way to coal the ship then simply having the sailors hoist individual bags over the side and into the bunkers. It took some 10 days of heavy labor by the ship's compliment to coal some 380 tons into the ship. In Aulick's opinion Susquehanna was the wrong vessel with which to travel to east Asia; nearly half a world away from the nearest American port or secure coal supply.8 Yet the problems with the Susquehanna also extended below-deck into the steam propulsion plant. The organization and construction of the steam frigate's engineering spaces
were flawed. The boilers and engines were remarkably inefficient, her paddle-wheels were ill-8 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, September 27, 1851, U.S. Navy Department, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy from Commanding Officers of the East India Squadron, 1841-1861. Reel
7. Naval Records Collection of the Office of Naval Records and Library, National Archives, Record Group 45, Washington D.C. Hereafter cited as: CommandingOfficer's Letters.

constructed, and her draft too slight to allow the paddles the chance to remain submerged in heavy seas. Despite being some 30 feet of diameter, only six feet of the paddle-wheel ever reached the water! As early as June, Susquehanna's chief engineer was writing the department of the Navy complaining of ill-fitting pipes, leaky boilers, and poor condensers.9 Soon after the ship got underway with full steam, it was discovered that the boilers had been bolted together improperly and leaked steam directly into the engine compartment whenever the ship was cruising at high speeds (9 knots). Worse, the Susquehanna's main steam line was laid directly below her mainmast. Although the steady speed of nine knots through the water made Susquehanna faster
then the average frigate, the time required to coal the ship easily negated the gain in speed.10 Aulick's flagship was also in very poor shape in terms of personnel. Her large size meant that Susquehanna possessed not only a complex engine configuration, but also the sails of a full-size frigate. Yet Aulick was rather disturbed to learn that the ship's crew was short some 50 seamen and petty officers. A comparable frigate of the day would have had a full compliment of 430 sailors and 50 Marines. Yet Susquehanna had only 270 men and 40 marines.11 Even when Susquehanna eventually received the requested additional petty officers, the sail-handling

9 Chief Engineer Archbold to Bureau of Construction, Equipment, and Repairs, June 8, 1851, Commodore John Henry Aulick Papers, 1810-1874. Box 5, Vol. 17. United States Naval Academy Special Collection, Record Group 336, Annapolis, M.D. Hereafter cited as: Aulick Papers.

10 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, August 2, 1851. Commanding Officers Letters, Reel 6. National Archives.
11 Captain Inman to Navy Department, January 23, 1851. Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy from Captains, 1805-1861. Reel 347 Naval Records Collection of the Office of Naval Records and Library, National Archives, Record Group 45, Washington D.C..Hereafter cited as: Captain's Letters
.

department of the ship was only half the size of that found on a sail frigate. Yet the most serious problems with the steamer would reveal themselves upon the seas. En route to Rio de Janeiro, the Susquehanna encountered rough weather. Within a few days the topmasts began to show signs of giving way. Eventually the foremast and mainmast sprang free of their footings within the ship, due to the tremendous strain placed on the inferior materials anchoring them below deck. Problems with the ship's engines and boilers continued as well, with the added difficulty that the high seas in the South Atlantic often prevented the paddle- wheels from remaining submerged.12 By the time the ship reached Rio de Janeiro, Aulick found himself thousands of miles from U.S. territory in command of a technological monstrosity which could not reliably go to sea without serious repairs. In fact, Aulick's counterpart in command of the Brazil Squadron --Commodore McKeever- commented, "she [Susquehanna] is a total failure...I would not think of attempting to proceed around the Cape of Good Hope in her."13

McKeever's suggested that Aulick send Susquehanna home and await the sloop U.S.S. Plymouth to convey him to Hong Kong. Instead through the good graces of the Brazilian government the dry dock in Rio de Janeiro agreed to repair the ship. Unfortunately the best estimates put the time required for the
needed changes at six weeks. Aulick decided that the delay would have to be endured because the Susquehanna could not put to sea again safely in her disgraceful state. Yet as one of Aulick's problems was nearing resolution, another became untenable.

12Chief Engineer Archbold to Bureau of Construction, Equipment, and Repairs, September 27, 1851. Aulick Papers, Box 5, Vol. 17, United States Naval Academy.

13Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, September 22, 1851. Aulick Papers, Box 5, Vol. 17, United States Naval Academy.


It was during the stopover in Rio that Aulick's relationship with Susquehanna's commanding officer collapsed. By virtue of his posting as squadron commander, Aulick bore the rank of Commodore. The relationship of a squadron's flag officer with ship's commanding officers was somewhat ill-defined in the mid-nineteenth century. Conflict often arose because the ship's commanding officer was responsible for the vessel and personnel under his command, as
well as daily operations, while the Commodore was responsible for the execution of the mission and the overall welfare of the squadron. Yet if the two officers refused to uphold their ends of the arrangement, little could be accomplished.

The commanding officer of the steamer Susquehanna was Captain William Inman. A veteran of nearly 30 years naval service, Inman was many years Aulick's junior. He apparently resented the fact that Aulick's son Wily -himself a Midshipman-- was on board. But in addition, Inman found many other things to complain about. He wrote numerous letters to the Navy Department seeking lists of orders and manuals governing the duties of squadron commanders aboard embarked vessels. He felt it was his duty to inform the Department that Aulick had twice countermanded his orders in front of junior officers, thus severely hampering his command authority.14 Inman also complained that Aulick had ordered him to appoint one of the coxswains as a musician, for the purposes of completing the ship's musical compliment. He therefore wrote a letter to "ask the department whether the ratings of the crew proper of this vessel are entrusted to my direction or to the order of the Commander-in-Chief [Aulick]."15

14 Captain Inman to Secretary Graham, July 22, 1851. Captain's Letters, Reel 348,National Archives.
15 Captain Inman to Secretary Graham, August 8, 1851, Captain's Letters, Reel 348,National Archives.


Two incidents in particular convinced Aulick that he could not trust Inman to execute his duties. The first was Inman's refusal to allow his own clerk -Mr. Heyvel-- to assist Wily in the execution of his duties. Inman reported to Aulick that if his son was to be embarked aboard in the assigned billet of Commodore's clerk he ought to be able to adequately perform the task without help. This response infuriated Aulick, who sent Inman a heated letter in which he reminded his
flag captain in no uncertain terms that the Commodore could give orders to any person under his command. Aulick also noted that Inman had several persons on board listed as 'supernumerary' whom he had not yet seen fit to train for proper billeting, which was all Aulick wanted for his son.16 The straw that broke the camel's back was not long in coming. In late September Aulick began to audit the ship's ledger, when he noted that a sum of $1,300 was missing from the accounts. Upon further investigation he discovered that Inman had distributed those funds to eighteen members of the ship's company who "were either in debt or had nothing due them at the time." Regulations specified that ship's funds could not be distributed in advance to crew members or officers. Given their strained relationship, Aulick decided he would not look the other way on such an impropriety. He wrote to Inman that he was relieved as the Susquehanna's commanding officer and ordered him to return to the United States. The Squadron sailed from Rio de Janeiro on September 27, 1851 without her flag Captain.17

16Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, September 21, 1851, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 6, National Archives.
17Ibid.


After departing Rio for the Cape of Good Hope, Susquehanna was battered mercilessly by the elements. Aulick reported that due to the lateness of the season and the extreme southern latitude, the ship was hit with "seas higher then any I have ever known before- causing the ship to roll and plunge to such a degree that frequently one wheel was eight or ten feet entirely clear of the water."18 Yet thanks to the quality of the refit in Rio, no major damage ensued to the ship or her company. Susquehanna reached the Cape, where she took on more coal and Aulick was able togather more news about ports ahead of him from passing ships. Aulick's first diplomatic encounter was with the Caliphate of Zanzibar. He had been charged in his original orders to deliver a letter to the Sultan from President Fillmore and attempt to restore good relations. In many ways, Aulick's stopover in Zanzibar would be a dress rehearsal for his forthcoming mission to Japan. From the U.S.S. Dale Aulick learned that the political circumstances in Zanzibar were precarious. He wrote to the Secretary of the Navy that he was concerned his mission could not succeed because, "the chief of authority there is deemed untrustworthy."19 When coaling was completed at the Cape, Susquehanna departed with best possible speed to reach Zanzibar before the situation deteriorated further. While approaching Zanzibar up the east coast of Africa, Aulick received more news from a passing southbound mail packet that the Sultan of Zanzibar had not yet returned from a visit to Muscat. Although Aulick's orders specifically directed him to deliver a letter from President Fillmore to the Sultan himself, the Commodore decided that to delay his visit on a mere

18 Commodore Aulick to Secretary of the Navy Graham, October 17, 1851, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 7, National Archives.
19Ibid.


technicality would put American interests at risk in the region. The Commodore was facing a culture historically closed to the west without longstanding diplomatic relations with the United States, and he had no accurate firsthand information on which to base an initial opinion. When the Susquehanna arrived off the coast of Zanzibar on December 5, 1851, there was no formal recognition of her arrival: no salute, and no greeting party. Aulick learned that the American Consul had departed the station. Charge d' Affairs Ward had become so disgusted with the refusal of the local leadership to properly render honors to the American flag, that he had filed a letter of protest and returned to the United States. The Commodore immediately realized that this situation was changed dramatically and that his original orders had been overtaken by events. He drafted a letter to three American merchants ashore asking for their aid to determine the exact diplomatic conditions there. In their reply, the merchants informed Aulick that the U.S. Consul had returned to the United States over a dispute with the Sultan's eldest son -Crown Prince Kahlid- over when the colors of each nation should be saluted and when they should be hauled down. The merchants claimed "the sultan to be incapable of offering an intentional insult to our Country or flag...we have never been molested in any way and in all our personal intercourse with him, he is always kind and affable and we have ready access to him."20 Although Aulick did not have any knowledge of the treaty obligations or agreements between the United States and Zanzibar (he would not obtain them until reaching Hong Kong in mid-February 1852), he decided the

20 American Merchants Association of Zanzibar to Commodore Aulick, December 5, 1851,Aulick Papers, Box 5, Vol. 17, United States Naval Academy.


uncertainty of the situation required immediate intervention on his part.21 Yet faced with conflicting reports of the conduct and intentions of officials ashore, Aulick decided that his only viable course of action was to land and determine them himself. Aulick therefore wrote a letter to the Prince of Zanzibar asking for a meeting aboard the Susquehanna for an exchange of formal diplomatic letters and courtesies. The Prince agreed, and when the two finally met on December 6, 1851, they established an immediate personal relationship. From the outset, Aulick instructed his officers and crew to be extremely attentive to all diplomatic courtesies and honors to be rendered. The size and smartness of the Susquehanna was not lost upon Prince Kahlid and he soon extended Aulick a gracious invitation to his personal palace in the hopes of "restoring friendly ties between our two great nations."22 Ashore, Prince Kahlid extended full honors to Aulick and offered him the gift of a fine Arabian stallion. The Commodore politely refused the horse, but did accept the fresh fruits and vegetables the Prince offered for his crew. After several hours of tours and visits, Aulick broached the subject of restoring diplomatic ties between the United States and Zanzibar. Kahlid told Aulick that the former Consul to Zanzibar had not been a very diplomatic person. He had insisted that the American colors be saluted by gunfire every morning they were raised, and he had refused to discuss any issue until that one was resolved.23 Eventually Kahlid's father had grown weary of these demands. Aulick explained to Kahlid that salutes and honors of the colors

21 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, February 20, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 7, National Archives.
22 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, December 8, 1851, Ibid.
23 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, December 11, 1851, Ibid.


is standard procedure among nations, but that daily cannon salutes were not necessary. Determined to restore good relations, Aulick proposed a formal exchange of national honors the next morning when colors were raised aboard the Susquehanna. The American flag would be raised first, followed immediately by Zanzibar's. The fort ashore and Susquehanna would exchange cannon salutes in alternate volleys until 21 guns had been fired by each side. The two men further agreed that on national days of celebration -July 4th for the Americans- each nation would fire a full salute to honor the other. In terms of naval honors, it was decided that Zanzibar would salute first upon sighting an American warship offshore, and the American warship would return the salute and await a visiting official from Zanzibar before taking any further action. In all these decisions, Aulick played the role of chief negotiator as well as squadron
commander. Aulick also appointed the senior American merchant, John F. Wells, as consul pro-tempore, for the purpose of establishing a diplomatic base in the capital. On the morning of December 7th, 1851 the salutes were exchanged without incident, and the American Consulate established ashore.24

When some months later, Secretary of State Daniel Webster learned of these negotiations, he wrote to praise Aulick for a job well done. Webster was directed by the President to inform him "of his entire approval of the firm and judicious manner in which you have discharged the delicate and important trusts confided in your care."25 Aulick's experience and diplomatic ability enabled him to smooth over a very rough situation and derive a positive result on behalf of his

24 Ibid.
25 Secretary Webster to Commodore Aulick, April 9, 1852. Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18.United States Naval Academy.


nation. In this instance Aulick successfully fulfilled his dual role as ambassador and military liaison. By virtue of his rank and authority, he had appointed an American Consul ashore and provided him with a small cannon and equipment for the establishment of a permanent diplomatic mission in Zanzibar. During the Susquehanna's voyage from Zanzibar to the Far East, Aulick concerned himself primarily with two issues: keeping the ship's coal bunkers well stocked, and showing off the Susquehanna to foreign representatives. In Ceylon he had to buy coal at a 25% markup from suppliers who recognized that he had no real choice; at Panay in the East Indies, he had to buy coal from the British East India Company since no local sources could be found.26In addition however, Aulick enjoyed those occasions when he could show off the Susquehanna to visitors. He described the circumstances to Navy Secretary Graham: "We were...literally crowded every day...with all descriptions of visitors.

Such has been the case indeed wherever we have touched. All are received courteously, and properly attended to. Every part of the ship is thrown open to their inspection. She has been the admiration and wonder of every place--not excepting even the English ports. So large and splendid a war steamer they had never before seen. And it is easy to perceive that they leave us with more exalted ideas of our national power and greatness than they before entertained. The effect on our commercial interests alone of displaying this

26 Commodore Aulick to Mr. Touynam, Ceylon, December 26, 1851, and Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, December 26, 1851, both in Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.

noble ship in these remote seas will, in my opinion, be of more value to the nation then the cost of twenty such vessels."27Indeed as the voyage progressed, Aulick's initial displeasure for taking the Susquehanna all the way from Norfolk to Canton faded. By the time the Susquehanna reached Hong Kong on February 5, 1852, Aulick was ready to perform his duties on station, and begin conducting the business of his nation. Along with three other American Navy ships in the region --the sloops Marion, Saratoga, and Plymouth-- and in firm control of his post as Commander-in-Chief of the East India Squadron, Aulick had a healthy crew and a refurbished flagship to augment these forces. In a sign of positive relations between the Naval and State departments, the US charge d' Affairs in Canton Peter Parker invited Aulick to "make the House of Legation my home on arrival."28 From Parker, Aulick also received a
package of official documents from the President and Secretary of the Navy. These included letters from the State Department for Aulick to proceed to Japan "for the purpose of negotiating a treaty between the U.S. and that government" and a letter from the President dated 30th May authorizing him "to negotiate a treaty between the United States and the Emperor of Japan."29 Yet against this backdrop of ever-better news and increasing responsibility on his part, Aulick two

27Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, December 26, 1851, Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.
28Commodore Aulick to U.S. Charge d' Affairs Canton Peter Parker, February 10, 1852, Ibid.
29Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, February 20, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 6, National Archives.


stunning letters from Secretary of the Navy Graham that would end his tenure as Commodore of the East India Squadron and deny him the opportunity to fulfill his ambitions of opening Japan to American interests. The first letter was dated November 17, 1851 and arrived in February. In it Graham informed the Commodore that "very grave implications [have been] cast upon your character" by some person who had accompanied Aulick on his trip to Rio de Janeiro. Specifically, the unnamed accuser alleged that Aulick had misled a passenger on board, the Chevalier d. Macedo, top believe that Aulick himself was to pay for his travel and mess expenses onboard the Susquehanna, instead of the U.S. Government. Graham also implied that Macedo had not been afforded the appropriate care due a man of his rank while embarked. Although the letter did not name the source directly, it did mention that the complaint had first been received by Secretary of State Daniel Webster, and then forwarded to Graham. Aulick saw at once that the charges against him could have only come from someone on board the Susquehanna during the passage from Norfolk to Rio.30 Commodore Aulick noted his "great surprise and regret that the department would have thought it proper to act in this matter upon exparte information...as if I were guilty of the conduct imputed to me." He noted that his command had "just succeeded against numerous and almost insurmountable obstacles in bringing the Susquehanna, on her experimental trip, to this distant part of the globe" only to find their commanding officer forced to stop all operations and address false accusations against his conduct.31 Aulick could not understand how the accuser's claim that

30 Secretary Graham to Commodore Aulick, November 17, 1851, Aulick Papers. Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.
31 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, February 17, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 6, National Archives.


Macedo had been led to believe that the Commodore was paying for his meals in order to curry favor could be thought truthful, and then be used against him in so drastic a fashion. It was particularly frustrating to Aulick's that while the Secretary knew the identity of the accuser, but refrained from relaying that information to Aulick. All his experience and training in the Navy taught Aulick to confront accusers in a straightforward fashion, and it was extremely frustrating and disgusting to him that he was denied this opportunity. Aulick immediately sought the support of his officers. In a series of letters to the wardroom Aulick asked each of them describe their understanding of the situation, and if they ever understood him to imply that he was footing the Chevalier's mess and lodging bills onboard the Susquehanna. All the officers affirmed that they knew that the Chevalier had been a guest of the United States Government and not Aulick's personal guest. The purser noted that he himself had filed the order with Aulick's signature stating that the Chevalier was a guest of the American government, but that he had also overheard Captain Inman addressing a rumor that Macedo was a guest of the Commodore's while in the wardroom sometime during Susquehanna's refit in Rio.32 Armed with these statements and his own righteous indignation, Aulick wrote an
impassioned eight-page reply to the Secretary's letter. The Commodore told the Secretary that "not only is it untrue, but...I cannot understand how it can have even the shadow of truth for its foundation." Aulick insisted that he did not recall discussing the subject of monetary compensation while underway, and denied that Macedo had ever suffered any discomforts while embarked. Aulick also forwarded the statements of his officers and the purser in which they

32 Lt. John Barry to Commodore J.H. Aulick, February 16, 1852, Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.

acknowledged that everyone on board knew the Chevalier had been a guest of the nation, not the Commodore. They insisted that Macedo never complained of experiencing any discomfort "except those necessarily incident to a sea life, and which are aggravated in the case of every person who suffers from sea sickness." Yet contained within the same envelope was the message that would signal the end of John Henry Aulick's career on the high seas.33

The second letter, dated November 18th 1852, informed Aulick he was relieved of his command. Secretary Graham, having discussed the matter with President Fillmore, decided that Aulick must be recalled "in order to satisfy Brazil."34 This letter -written one day after the first one- directed Aulick to restrict the movement of his flagship to either Hong Kong or Macao, and await his relief. Aulick's successor, the Secretary informed him, was coming "by the most speedy conveyance."35 After only two weeks on station, Aulick found himself a lame-duck squadron commander chained to a very short leash; relieved on accusations made against him by an anonymous source. The effect on Aulick's pride and honor were devastating. Yet being the
senior officer in the region, he could not ignore his obligation to his nation and navy. After several days of stunned contemplation of his options, Aulick determined that his duty as a naval officer was paramount to his own personal or professional concerns. He consequently set out to effect whatever influence he could in East Asia by dispersing the other vessels under his command

33 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, February 17, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 6, National Archives.
34 Charles Oscar Paullin, Diplomatic Negotiations of American Naval Officers, 1778-1893, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1912), 250.
35 Secretary Graham to Commodore Aulick, April 23, 1852, Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol.18, United States Naval Academy.


to various ports in the region. Aulick hoped that this would give him at least reasonable access to information and some ability to influence events. Foremost, Aulick ordered the U.S.S. Marion home to Norfolk. Marion had been on station nearly two years and was in such a wretched state of disrepair Aulick felt the sloop more a liability then asset. This decision however, left Aulick with only two ships (the sloops Saratoga and Plymouth) whose movements he could control, his own flagship being restricted by the Secretary's orders. Fearing reports of "the frequent occurrences of acts of piracy along the whole Chinese coast," Aulick issued orders to Commander Walker to patrol up the East Coast of China and attempt to ascertain the situation at the various ports.36 Unknown to Aulick, the increased disruptions along the Chinese coast were and indirect result of the most serious civil war in China of the nineteenth century. The war -known to the west as the Taiping Rebellion- began in earnest in 1850. The Taipings formed loose alliances with pirate consortiums that roamed the Chinese coast, and authorized them to attack western shipping.37 It was with these pirates that western merchants and navies experienced the most difficulty. Throughout 1852 and early 1853, Aulick dealt with an ever-increasing level of piracy and violence against westerners on the Chinese coastline. United by either religious or financial zeal, the Chinese Taipings and their allies attacked western commercial houses, rioted in several coastal cities, and attacked merchantmen. Yet with the Susquehanna under orders to remain in the vicinity of either Hong Kong or

36 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, 24 February 1852, Ibid.
37 Philip A. Kuhn. Rebellion and Its Enemies in Late Imperial China. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 113-118.


Macao, Aulick had little real flexibility in the region. The few precious assets he had been able to dispatch were rendered nearly impotent by the seasonal weather changes. Unlike other vessels in the area, Susquehanna enjoyed freedom of movement in almost all weather conditions. With the March monsoon setting in, sailing vessels were unable to make any sort of movement against the strong winds. Commander Kelly of the Plymouth reported to Aulick that it took his vessel some forty days to make the passage from Batavia to Singapore - a distance of only five hundred miles! Despite his squadron's limitations, Aulick felt it his duty to provide whatever aid he could to American merchantmen and diplomats in distress around the region.38
The first real challenge to the Commodore came in mid-April of 1852 when two American merchantmen wrote Aulick an impassioned plea for aid. The captains of the James Perkins and Clarendon pleaded that they were "in danger of being plundered by the Burmese...they say the British Governor has informed them that he will not give them protection if attacked and they ask me to send...vessels of this squadron."39 The British and Burmese were about to go to war, and the merchants were threatened with attack if they tried to leave the colonial port of Maulmein. Aulick dispatched the U.S.S. Sword Fish to try to reach the British colonial port of Maulmein and relieve the trapped Americans. Although the Sword Fish was only supposed to be passing through Asia on her way from San Francisco to Norfolk, Aulick felt he had to order her to help because he could not go himself.

38 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, April 23, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 6, National Archives.
39 Commodore Aulick to U.S. Consul in Singapore William Shaw, April 18, 1852, Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.


Not all the problems arising in the region were the result of piracy or warfare. In Batavia the Dutch authorities were holding an American vessel and crew on undisclosed charges, and the US Consul in Batavia Edward Cramerus wrote Aulick to demand that he send a warship to indicate American concern. Aulick replied that although his own squadron was busy elsewhere, he would order the Sword Fish to stop at Batavia en route to Burma. Although this would leave the merchants stranded in Maulmein harbor for a while, Aulick felt the Flirt to be the more pressing matter. However Aulick wrote to both Cramerus in Batavia and Shaw in Singapore that the European authorities were "enlightened and magnanimous" governments and that their officials would no doubt aid the Americans in any way they could. It must have been galling, however, to ask American citizens to depend on Europeans for support when the huge
Susquehanna sat idle in Hong Kong.40 Other pleas for aid continued to arrive in Hong Kong, along with requests from various U.S. Consuls for warships to convey them to various points along the Chinese coast. In many cases, Aulick wanted desperately to comply. His orders from the Navy Department however, severely limited his ability to help. Aulick -the Presidentially appointed Commander-in-Chief of U.S. forces in East Asia- quickly grew exasperated with the entire situation and he wrote a blistering letter of complaint to Secretary Graham. In it Aulick informed Graham that: "more then five months have elapsed since the receipt of your letter directing me to remain with this ship at this place...until the arrival of my successor...who you inform me will arrive by the most speedy conveyance. He has not

40 U.S. Consul Cramerus to Commodore Aulick, February 25, 1852, Commodore Aulick to U.S. Consul Cramerus, April 19, 1852, and Commodore Aulick to U.S. Consul Shaw, April 19, 1852, all in Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.

yet arrived and according to the news papers...his arrival seems likely to be delayed several months longer. I therefore deem it my duty to say to the Department that the services of this ship are greatly needed over a much wider field of operations...I have lately received applications from several of our citizens at different and distant points on the station, to come or send ships to them for the protection of their persons or property, which they consider in danger of lawless attacks."41 Aulick was also distressed that the news of his relief had been published in the local papers, and that in consequence he felt his authority and effectiveness -to say nothing of his dignity- had been severely undermined. With no ships to utilize, no freedom of movement, his reputation tarnished, and distressing news about his wife's health from home; Aulick was now "exceedingly anxious to return home."42 Unfortunately for Aulick, his earliest opportunity for relief was still months away. In the interim he had to confront the most serious event of his stay in East Asia: an act of mutiny aboard a U.S. merchant vessel. Peter Parker, the U.S. Charge d' Affairs in Canton, wrote to Aulick to inform him of a nearly successful mutiny aboard the American vessel Robert Browne. The vessel had been transporting Chinese Coolies from Amoy, China when the Chinese had tried to overthrow the crew and gain their freedom from forced indentured servitude under the coolie

41 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, April 23, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 6, National Archives.
42 Commodore Aulick to U.S. Consul Shaw, April 19, 1852, Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.


system. A lifetime mariner, Aulick was naturally horrified and appalled at the news. As a squadron Commodore however, he was even more disturbed to learn of the "fourth act of murder in Chinese waters the last 10 months." Without hesitation, Aulick ordered the sloop Saratoga to Amoy in order to address the situation there and bring the perpetrators to justice. Parker's letter informed Aulick that many of the mutineers had escaped the Robert Browne and gone hiding
amongst the islands off the Chinese coast.43 Eventually the demands for aid grew so strident that Aulick felt compelled to exceed his orders. When, on one occasion, some 100 pirates had been captured Aulick decided it was a situation too serious to entrust to a sloop commander. He therefore sailed in the Susquehanna -in violation of his orders- to deal with the matter personally.44 Eventually Aulick and the U.S. Consuls from Amoy and Canton convened a consular court to determine the facts of the case. After much testimony and translation, they determined that only seventeen of the accused had committed murder or piratical acts. Aulick decided that, "justice as well as humanity requires that they be sent back to the place whence they embarked onboard the Robert Brown."45 The seventeen remaining mutineers were turned over to Imperial authority. Eventually additional aid for the beleaguered squadron began to arrive. The sloop U.S.S. St. Mary's from San Francisco arrived with the load of shipwrecked Japanese sailors to be

43 U.S. Charge d' Affairs Parker to Aulick, April 29, 1852, Ibid, and Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, May 3, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 6, National Archives.
44 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, May 28, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 6, National Archives..
45 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, June 20, 1852, Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.


returned to Japan. Aulick hoped that this was a sign he would soon receive permission to continue his suspended mission to Japan. His frustration level continued to rise. He still knew "nothing officially of the movements of my successor"46 as of July. Initially he replied to requests for transportation from American diplomats very respectfully and cordially, even though he had to deny them. Eventually, Aulick became sarcastic in his letters to the diplomats, telling one "this is, to be sure, a quite modest request, asking for only one half of my squadron, for I have but two vessels at present [free to maneuver]."47 Aulick was also annoyed when he learned in June that the British court in Hong Kong would not hear the case against the coolie mutineers because under British law, "a mutiny by coolies on a foreign ship is not piracy...therefore not justiciable by them."48 Added to all this was the knowledge that Charles Gibson and the crew of the Flirt were still being held in Batavia without official charges, a serious embarrassment to the United States.
Then, in mid-November 1852, Commander Franklin Buchanan reached Hong Kong with orders from the Secretary of the Navy directing Aulick to place Buchanan in command and to consider himself as "detached from command of the United States Squadron in the East India and China Seas." By the same mail, however, Aulick also received another letter dated subsequent to Buchanan's orders. Issued by the new Secretary of the Navy, John Kennedy, it instructed Aulick "not to leave the China Seas until regularly relieved by an order."49 Aulick therefore placed

46 Commodore Aulick to Acting U.S. Consul Shaw, July 17, 1852, Ibid.
47 Commodore Aulick U.S Consul Charles Currier, April 19, 1852, Ibid.
48 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, June 16, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 6, National Archives.
49 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Kennedy, November 16, 1852, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 7, National Archives.

Buchanan in command of the Susquehanna in compliance with the first order, but retained command of the Squadron in compliance with the second. Owing to the delicate situation in the region and the fact that two steamers had just reached Hong Kong and Macao with nearly 1500 tons of coal for the Susquehanna, Aulick hoped that his mission to Japan would yet come to pass.
Either way, Aulick felt Buchanan to be too junior to handle the deteriorating situation in China.50 However, with the second set of orders in hand, Aulick now felt authorized to move more freely about the region. He sailed in the Susquehanna up the Chinese coastline in order "to see that our own flag has not been, and is not used, to protect those who have not a just or proper claim to its protection." Alas, while sailing up the coast of China, Aulick engaged in a
professional disagreement with Humphrey Marshall, the U.S. Commissioner to China. Upon hearing that Aulick was on the move in the Susquehanna from Hong Kong, Marshall wrote and demanded "that you [Aulick] will furnish me, at Macao, immediately, a suitable vessel of war from the naval force under your command on this station to carry me."51 After all he had endured on station, Aulick was in no mood to deal with impatient and self-important American diplomats. His curt reply to Marshall was that the movement of U.S. warships was under his discretion, and that his ships were not diplomatic ferries. After a series of heated letters to Aulick, Marshall eventually confined himself to complaining bitterly to the Secretary of State that, "I hope that the
Secretary of the Navy....will place me in possession of such a general and standing order as will

50 Commodore Aulick to Commodore Shubrick, Chief of the Bureau of Construction, Materials, and Repairs, November 18, 1852, Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.
51 U.S. Commissioner to China Marshall to Commodore Aulick, January 17, 1853, Correspondence Between the State Department and the Late Commissioner to China, U.S. Department of State, House Document 123, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854.


shield me from the effect of...Naval Commander's hereafter."52 The requested order never came. While returning from a month-long excursion to Manila however, both the Susquehanna and Commodore Aulick suffered nearly catastrophic problems. For the steamer, it was the failure of a vital air pump in the engineering spaces. Without it, the Susquehanna was reduced to a mere sailing vessel. The search for replacement parts revealed that "they cannot be procured this side of England or the United States."53 Without those parts, Aulick felt the Susquehanna to be too dangerous on the high seas during monsoon season, as her masts and rigging could break as they had in the Atlantic storms. But it was the illness that struck Aulick that finally forced him to depart China and return home. While in Manila, Aulick became very ill. By the time he reached Hong Kong in February, he was in terrible physical shape. He wrote Secretary Kennedy that "the state of my health being very low...I now weigh but one hundred pounds...I am now unable to write and am obliged to
dictate to my secretary." Aulick saw no other option but to surrender command of his squadron to his senior officer and leave the tropical station. Aulick was very bitter toward Secretary Graham for " I am not allowed to return in the ship I brought out but after upwards of forty four years in the Navy...I do not merit the harsh treatment which I have received." On March 13th 1853, Commodore Aulick formally gave command of the East India Squadron to Commander John Kelly of the U.S.S. Saratoga and departed the next morning on an English steamer for

52 Commissioner Marshall to Secretary Kennedy, February 8, 1853, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy from the President and Executive Agencies, 1837-1886, Naval Records Collection of the Officer of Naval Records and Library, Record Group 45, Reel 9, National Archives, Washington D.C.
53 Commodore Aulick to Secretary Kennedy, February 7, 1853, Commanding Officer's Letters, Reel 7, National Archives.


London.54 The experience of Commodore Aulick in his brief command on the Far China station reveals a great deal about the demands upon Naval commanders on distant stations. Aulick's case is unique because it also shows how the role of diplomacy, the types of naval operations, and the kind of leadership required on distant station were changing in the mid-nineteenth century U.S. Navy. Aulick represented the old style of naval leadership of the type that Commodore Porter had described: older, inflexible in his ideals, gentlemanly, honorable, and possessing a high-degree of self importance. His eventual replacement --Commodore Matthew Perry-- was of the newer breed of naval leadership: smart, well-educated, technically informed, politically savvy, and more open to new ideas. Whereas Aulick was a man who honestly claimed to be of the opinion that, "my services...belong to the country and whatever disposition the department may see fit," his counterpart took a different attitude.55 When Perry was offered the command of the East India
Squadron he originally declined by stating that he "would accept command....if the sphere of action and size of the squadron were so enlarged as to hold out well-grounded hope of conferring distinction upon its commander."56 Perry knew that his career in the navy was far from over and

54 Ibid, and Commodore Aulick to Secretary Graham, March 10, 1853, Commanding Officers Letters, Reel 7, National Archives.
55 Commodore Aulick to Commodore Shubrick, November 18, 1852, Aulick Papers, Box 6, Vol. 18, United States Naval Academy.
56 John H. Schroeder, "Matthew Calbraith Perry: Antebellum Precursor of the Steam Navy," ed. James Bradford, Captains of the Old Steam Navy. (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1986), 14-15.

that he needed to accept assignments that were challenging and rewarding in order to continue to rise in the ranks. Aulick knew that his career was largely behind him, and his window of opportunity to command vessels at sea was rapidly closing. More importantly it was not in his nature to demand preferred commands or stipulations: Aulick viewed himself as a faithful tool of American policy to be wielded when and where he was needed. In this sense, the 1850's also marked a turning point for the U.S. Navy: a transition period from mostly sailing ships and sailing captains, to the new rubric of steam propulsion and hard
engineering knowledge. From 1843 to 1860 the number of sailing ships remaining in the U.S. Navy decreased from 59 to 44, while the number of steamers increased from 6 to 38. It was therefore no small coincidence that less then two years after Aulick left China, the Navy Secretary convened a board to forcibly retire some 200 officers of advanced years. Aulick was one of those placed on the retired list as a result of this board.57 Although he was no stranger to command on distant stations, or to long deployments from home, Aulick proved unable to operate effectively in the role as Squadron Commander for a variety of reasons. Foremost, he was outdone by his own high standards. By relieving Captain Inman and sending him home, Aulick effectively doubled his own workload. He now had to fulfill the role of both ship's captain and squadron commodore. Although this was easy to do en route
to Hong Kong, once there it served to merely multiply his problems. Secondly, Aulick suffered from poor relations with and weak support from his superiors.
In the end, Secretary Graham ordered Aulick relieved because of one letter sent by a lone American diplomat aboard the Susquehanna. When he returned to the United States in June of

57 Paullin, Naval Administration, 219.

1853, Aulick learned that the author of the letter had been Mr. Richard Schenck, an American diplomat traveling with Macedo and also a familiar of Captain Inman. In spite of this, had the Secretary possessed more faith in Aulick as an officer, such an unsubstantiated charge might not have been fatal to his command tenure. Instead Aulick was relieved of command, and then abandoned by the Secretary's office for six months as the official correspondence made its tortuous way back and forth between Hong Kong and Washington. Ultimately, however, Aulick failed because he could not adapt to the world in which he
lived. Duty and honor-bound, Aulick downplayed political considerations when dealing with his fellow Americans. Although he had been successful in Zanzibar when dealing with foreign dignitaries, he was less successful when dealing with the demands placed upon him by other branches of the government or naval bureaus. With them he lacked both the tact and patience required to be an effective commodore on a distant station. Aulick ignored the context of the political environment in which he worked, instead believing himself to be a patriot beyond political reproach. Yet Aulick's actions in relieving Inman and allowing Macedo to gain such an erroneous impression showed an inability or unwillingness to confront the larger political issues of the day facing the U.S. Navy. Aulick's service had just lost two major political battles with the Congress for the reduction of the alcohol ration afloat and the cessation of flogging. When Secretary of the Navy Graham received the letter of complaint against Aulick via the Secretary of State, it was an embarrassing incident that rattled Graham's faith in Aulick as a naval officer who was capable of handling delicate diplomatic assignments. In dealing with Graham, Aulick himself was unwilling to make a firm stand -as Perry had done over command of the East India Squadron- for fear of removal and creating a scandal. In one of the painful ironies of history however, that is exactly what happened.

Census20-Jul-1850Ward 2, Washington, District of Columbia
Census10-Jul-1860Washington, District of Columbia
Census28-Jun-1870Washington, District of Columbia, real estate value 40,000.00 personal property 100,000.00
Census-Occ20-Jul-1850a Captain in the U. S. Navy
Census-Occ10-Jul-1860a Commander in the U. S. Navy
Census-Occ28-Jun-1870serving in the U. S. Navy
Occupation1816a lieutenant in the U. S. Navy
OccupationUnited State Official Register 1861
Naval List-Senior Flag Officer-Captains
Active List 4,500.00 per annum

Aulick, John H. Born Virginia, Appointed from Maryland Present duty or station Leave of Absence

Children of Commodore John Henry Aulick and Mary Francis Conover

William Cowenhoven

M, #58009, b. circa 1808, d. 27 Nov 1855
William Cowenhoven|b. circa 1808\nd. 27 Nov 1855|p581.htm#i58009|James Conover|b. 9 Jun 1765\nd. 3 Oct 1814|p20.htm#i1954|Margaret Anderson|b. 17 Sep 1774\nd. 10 Jun 1836|p20.htm#i1955|Peter Covenhoven|b. 4 Dec 1732\nd. 3 Mar 1802|p20.htm#i1941|Hannah Forman|b. 30 Dec 1727\nd. 1830|p20.htm#i1942|Maj. Thomas Anderson||p20.htm#i1956|Latitia Thronton||p580.htm#i57999|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      William Cowenhoven was born circa 1808. He was the son of James Conover and Margaret Anderson. William Cowenhoven died on 27-Nov-1855 at drowned, Port Monmouth, Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Cornelia Cowenhoven

F, #58010
Cornelia Cowenhoven||p581.htm#i58010|James Conover|b. 9 Jun 1765\nd. 3 Oct 1814|p20.htm#i1954|Margaret Anderson|b. 17 Sep 1774\nd. 10 Jun 1836|p20.htm#i1955|Peter Covenhoven|b. 4 Dec 1732\nd. 3 Mar 1802|p20.htm#i1941|Hannah Forman|b. 30 Dec 1727\nd. 1830|p20.htm#i1942|Maj. Thomas Anderson||p20.htm#i1956|Latitia Thronton||p580.htm#i57999|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Cornelia Cowenhoven was the daughter of James Conover and Margaret Anderson.

(Unknown) Quay

M, #58011
     (Unknown) married Agnes Covenhoven, daughter of Col. John Covenhoven and Eleanor Wyckoff, after 1799.

Nathaniel Fish

M, #58012, b. 18 Dec 1700, d. 3 Mar 1769
      Nathaniel Fish was born on 18-Dec-1700 at Newtown, Queens County, New York. Nathaniel married Jannetje Berrien on 14-Feb-1738 at Newtown, Queens County, New York. Nathaniel Fish died on 3-Mar-1769 at Newtown, Queens County, New York, at age 68.
     He and Jannetje Berrien resided at at Newtown, Kings County, New York, in 1780.

Children of Nathaniel Fish and Jannetje Berrien

Jannetje Berrien

F, #58013, b. 29 Sep 1716, d. 24 Mar 1789
      Jannetje Berrien was born on 29-Sep-1716 at Newtown, Queens County, New York. Jannetje married Nathaniel Fish on 14-Feb-1738 at Newtown, Queens County, New York. Jannetje Berrien died on 24-Mar-1789 at Newtown, Queens County, New York, at age 72.
     She was also known as Jannetie Berrien. She was also known as Jane Berrien. She and Nathaniel Fish resided at at Newtown, Kings County, New York, in 1780.

Children of Jannetje Berrien and Nathaniel Fish

Julia Anne Conover

F, #58014, b. 11 Jul 1781, d. 24 May 1834
Julia Anne Conover|b. 11 Jul 1781\nd. 24 May 1834|p581.htm#i58014|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|Col. John Covenhoven|b. 8 Mar 1733/34\nd. 23 Apr 1803|p20.htm#i1965|Eleanor Wyckoff|b. 1732 or 1737\nd. 26 Aug 1792|p20.htm#i1966|Nathaniel Fish|b. 18 Dec 1700\nd. 3 Mar 1769|p581.htm#i58012|Jannetje Berrien|b. 29 Sep 1716\nd. 24 Mar 1789|p581.htm#i58013|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Julia Anne Conover was born on 11-Jul-1781 at Monmouth County, New Jersey. She was the daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish. Julia married Rev. Dr. John Schureman, son of Jacobus Schureman and Neiltye Williamson, on 11-May-1802. Julia Anne Conover died on 24-May-1834 at age 52.
     She was also known as Julia Ann Covenhoven. Page 54 Schuremans of New Jersey. IGI Film 177883 Page 1029 Ordinance 40540.

Children of Julia Anne Conover and Rev. Dr. John Schureman

Rev. Dr. John Schureman

M, #58015, b. 19 Oct 1778, d. 18 May 1818
Rev. Dr. John Schureman|b. 19 Oct 1778\nd. 18 May 1818|p581.htm#i58015|Jacobus Schureman|b. 12 Feb 1756\nd. 22 Jan 1824|p3844.htm#i384364|Neiltye Williamson|b. 16 Jan 1761\nd. 17 Jul 1823|p4150.htm#i414996|||||||David Williamson|b. 25 Jul 1731|p184.htm#i18351|Eleanor Schuyler|b. 30 Nov 1735|p4150.htm#i414997|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Rev. Dr. John Schureman was born on 19-Oct-1778 at New Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey. He was the son of Jacobus Schureman and Neiltye Williamson. Rev. Dr. John Schureman was baptized on 15-Nov-1778 at New Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey. John married Julia Anne Conover, daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish, on 11-May-1802. Rev. Dr. John Schureman died on 18-May-1818 at New Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey, at age 39. John was buried at Dutch Reformed Church Cemetery, New Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey.
     He was also known as Rev. John Shureman. He was also known as Rev. John Shurman. Rev. John Schureman was born in New Brunswick, NJ and graduated from Queen's College (Rutgers University) in 1795. He studied theology in New York and was licensed in 1801. He was pastor at Bedminster, NJ (1801 - 1807), Hillsborough Church in Millstone, NJ (1807 - 1809), Collegiate Church in New York (1809 - 1811), and New Brunswick Church (1813 - 1815). He was also a Queen's College trustee (1800 - 1818), Vice-President (1811 - 1818), and faculty member (1813 - 1818).

Children of Rev. Dr. John Schureman and Julia Anne Conover

Jane Covenhoven

F, #58016, b. 1783, d. 7 Jan 1822
Jane Covenhoven|b. 1783\nd. 7 Jan 1822|p581.htm#i58016|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|Col. John Covenhoven|b. 8 Mar 1733/34\nd. 23 Apr 1803|p20.htm#i1965|Eleanor Wyckoff|b. 1732 or 1737\nd. 26 Aug 1792|p20.htm#i1966|Nathaniel Fish|b. 18 Dec 1700\nd. 3 Mar 1769|p581.htm#i58012|Jannetje Berrien|b. 29 Sep 1716\nd. 24 Mar 1789|p581.htm#i58013|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Jane Covenhoven was born in 1783 at Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey. She was the daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish. Jane Covenhoven died on 7-Jan-1822; did not marry.

Marianna Haight

F, #58017, b. 20 Feb 1794, d. 16 Jan 1872
Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|William Haight||p581.htm#i58018|Sarah Rogers||p581.htm#i58019|||||||||||||
      Marianna Haight was born on 20-Feb-1794. She was the daughter of William Haight and Sarah Rogers. Marianna married John Edward Conover, son of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish, on 19-Dec-1815. Marianna Haight died on 16-Jan-1872 at age 77.

Children of Marianna Haight and John Edward Conover

William Haight

M, #58018
     William married Sarah Rogers.

Child of William Haight and Sarah Rogers

Sarah Rogers

F, #58019
     Sarah married William Haight.

Child of Sarah Rogers and William Haight

William Haight Conover

M, #58020, b. 18 Oct 1816, d. 24 Jun 1877
William Haight Conover|b. 18 Oct 1816\nd. 24 Jun 1877|p581.htm#i58020|John Edward Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|William Haight||p581.htm#i58018|Sarah Rogers||p581.htm#i58019|

Relationship=5th cousin 3 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=6th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      William Haight Conover was born on 18-Oct-1816. He was the son of John Edward Conover and Marianna Haight. William married Mary Otterson, daughter of Rev. James Otterson and Sarah Leader, on 10-Oct-1838. William Haight Conover died on 24-Jun-1877 at Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, at age 60.
     He was also known as William Haight Covenhoven.

Children of William Haight Conover and Mary Otterson

Mary Otterson

F, #58021, b. 5 Feb 1819, d. 2 Jan 1894
Mary Otterson|b. 5 Feb 1819\nd. 2 Jan 1894|p581.htm#i58021|Rev. James Otterson||p581.htm#i58037|Sarah Leader||p581.htm#i58038|||||||||||||
      Mary Otterson was born on 5-Feb-1819 at New York City, New York County, New York. She was the daughter of Rev. James Otterson and Sarah Leader. Mary married William Haight Conover, son of John Edward Conover and Marianna Haight, on 10-Oct-1838. Mary Otterson died on 2-Jan-1894 at Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey, at age 74.

Children of Mary Otterson and William Haight Conover

Judge Charles Haight Conover

M, #58022, b. 16 Mar 1818, d. 8 Mar 1881
Judge Charles Haight Conover|b. 16 Mar 1818\nd. 8 Mar 1881|p581.htm#i58022|John Edward Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|William Haight||p581.htm#i58018|Sarah Rogers||p581.htm#i58019|

Relationship=5th cousin 3 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=6th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Judge Charles Haight Conover was born on 16-Mar-1818. He was the son of John Edward Conover and Marianna Haight. Charles married Marianna Bruen, daughter of Judge Cyrus Bruen and Eliza Henderson, on 29-Nov-1841. Judge Charles Haight Conover died on 8-Mar-1881 at Of, Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey, at age 62. Charles was buried after 8-Mar-1881 at Maplewood Cemetery, Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
     He was also known as Charles Haight Covenhoven.

Children of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen

(Unknown) Covenhoven

F, #58023
(Unknown) Covenhoven||p581.htm#i58023|John Edward Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|William Haight||p581.htm#i58018|Sarah Rogers||p581.htm#i58019|

Relationship=5th cousin 3 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=6th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     (Unknown) Covenhoven was the daughter of John Edward Conover and Marianna Haight.

Ellen Conover

F, #58024, b. 31 Mar 1800, d. 17 Mar 1842
Ellen Conover|b. 31 Mar 1800\nd. 17 Mar 1842|p581.htm#i58024|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|Col. John Covenhoven|b. 8 Mar 1733/34\nd. 23 Apr 1803|p20.htm#i1965|Eleanor Wyckoff|b. 1732 or 1737\nd. 26 Aug 1792|p20.htm#i1966|Nathaniel Fish|b. 18 Dec 1700\nd. 3 Mar 1769|p581.htm#i58012|Jannetje Berrien|b. 29 Sep 1716\nd. 24 Mar 1789|p581.htm#i58013|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Ellen Conover was born on 31-Mar-1800. She was the daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish. Ellen Conover was baptized at Old Tennent Church, Tennent, Monmouth County, New Jersey. Ellen married Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff, son of Col. William S. Wikoff and Hannah Scudder, in 1824. Ellen Conover died on 17-Mar-1842 at age 41.
     She was also known as Eleanor Covenhoven. She was also known as Ellen Covenhoven.

Children of Ellen Conover and Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff

Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff

M, #58025, b. 11 Aug 1788, d. 30 Sep 1859
Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff|b. 11 Aug 1788\nd. 30 Sep 1859|p581.htm#i58025|Col. William S. Wikoff|b. 16 Mar 1755\nd. 8 May 1824|p29.htm#i2833|Hannah Scudder|b. 16 Aug 1763\nd. 9 Dec 1834|p29.htm#i2834|Jacob W. Wyckoff|b. 1730\nd. 15 Mar 1812|p29.htm#i2832|Saartje Covenhoven|b. 30 Nov 1733\nd. 25 Aug 1796|p29.htm#i2831|Dr. Nathaniel Scudder|b. 10 May 1733\nd. 15 Oct 1781|p1466.htm#i146597|Isabella Anderson|b. 6 Jul 1737\nd. 20 Dec 1782|p1294.htm#i129348|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff was born on 11-Aug-1788 at New Jersey. He was the son of Col. William S. Wikoff and Hannah Scudder. Nathaniel married Ellen Conover, daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish, in 1824. Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff died on 30-Sep-1859 at age 71.

Children of Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff and Ellen Conover

Ellen Conover Wikoff

F, #58026, b. 25 May 1825, d. 9 Aug 1870
Ellen Conover Wikoff|b. 25 May 1825\nd. 9 Aug 1870|p581.htm#i58026|Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff|b. 11 Aug 1788\nd. 30 Sep 1859|p581.htm#i58025|Ellen Conover|b. 31 Mar 1800\nd. 17 Mar 1842|p581.htm#i58024|Col. William S. Wikoff|b. 16 Mar 1755\nd. 8 May 1824|p29.htm#i2833|Hannah Scudder|b. 16 Aug 1763\nd. 9 Dec 1834|p29.htm#i2834|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|

Relationship=5th cousin 3 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=6th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Ellen Conover Wikoff was born on 25-May-1825. She was the daughter of Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff and Ellen Conover. Ellen married William Wyckoff Woodhull, son of Dr. John Tennent Woodhull M.D. and Ann Wikoff, on 6-Apr-1852; first cousins
no issue. Ellen Conover Wikoff died on 9-Aug-1870 at age 45.

William Wyckoff Woodhull

M, #58027, b. 28 Jul 1817
William Wyckoff Woodhull|b. 28 Jul 1817|p581.htm#i58027|Dr. John Tennent Woodhull M.D.|b. 24 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Nov 1869|p1467.htm#i146610|Ann Wikoff|b. 5 Jul 1793\nd. 3 Feb 1852|p1467.htm#i146609|Rev. John Woodhull Jr.|b. 26 Jan 1744\nd. 22 Nov 1824|p3225.htm#i322428|Sarah Spofford|b. 26 Oct 1749\nd. 14 Oct 1827|p3225.htm#i322429|Col. William S. Wikoff|b. 16 Mar 1755\nd. 8 May 1824|p29.htm#i2833|Hannah Scudder|b. 16 Aug 1763\nd. 9 Dec 1834|p29.htm#i2834|

Relationship=5th cousin 3 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=6th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      William Wyckoff Woodhull was born on 28-Jul-1817. He was the son of Dr. John Tennent Woodhull M.D. and Ann Wikoff. William married Ellen Conover Wikoff, daughter of Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff and Ellen Conover, on 6-Apr-1852; first cousins
no issue.
     

WILLIAM WIKOFF WOODHULL, (Ph. D.), seventh generation from Richard Wodhull I., Patentee of Brookhaven, Long Island, was the third son of John Tennent Woodhull, M. D., and Ann_ Wikoff. He was born July 28, 1817.
He was prepared for college by tutors at his father's home at Manalapan, Monmouth County, New Jersey, and entered the College of New Jersey (now Princeton -University), at the age of thirteen, graduating at sixteen at the head of his class in 1833.

For a brief period he was a tutor in the college, and all his life was spent in imparting knowledge.
He was the head of a very successful Classical School in Freehold, New Jersey, for many years assisted by his brother Charles Frederick Woodhull, who was also a graduate of the College of New Jersey, and who later opened a Classical School for boys in Camden, New Jersey.
William Wikoff Woodhull was a man of superior intellect and. attainments, but one whose retiring disposition deterred him from seeking the higher college position he could have filled so creditably.
He was a man of a deeply religious nature, a profound thinker and a gentleman of the old school. When a young man of thirty he wrote upon the subject of teaching as follows: (The quotation oc­curs in a letter written February 10, 1847, to the Rev. Allen H. Brown, then pastor of the May's Landing Presbyterian Church, Atlantic County, New Jersey.)
"I am glad to hear that you are turning your thoughts and efforts towards the furtherance of the cause of education throughout the Pines, and I verily believe that you give it its proper place when you rank it 'Next in importance to the promotion of religion.'
"I consider the office of the teacher second only to that of the preacher of the Gospel, and the longer I live, the more difficult it is for me to comprehend, why it is, that most people take so little interest in this matter, and are so regardless of the qualifications, and especially of the moral and religious character of those whom they employ to instruct their children."
In 1867 the degree of "Doctor of Philosophy" was conferred upon him by his Alma Mater.
In his later life Dr. Woodhull was for a time Head Master of the Trenton Academy; he also taught for several years in the Classical School of Professor George Eastman, in Philadelphia.
He married, April 6, 1852, Ellen Conover Wikoff, of Freehold, New Jersey. They had no children.

Marie Antoinette Wikoff

F, #58028, b. Aug 1831, d. 24 Dec 1890
Marie Antoinette Wikoff|b. Aug 1831\nd. 24 Dec 1890|p581.htm#i58028|Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff|b. 11 Aug 1788\nd. 30 Sep 1859|p581.htm#i58025|Ellen Conover|b. 31 Mar 1800\nd. 17 Mar 1842|p581.htm#i58024|Col. William S. Wikoff|b. 16 Mar 1755\nd. 8 May 1824|p29.htm#i2833|Hannah Scudder|b. 16 Aug 1763\nd. 9 Dec 1834|p29.htm#i2834|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|

Relationship=5th cousin 3 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=6th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Marie Antoinette Wikoff was born in Aug-1831. She was the daughter of Nathaniel Scudder Wikoff and Ellen Conover. Marie Antoinette Wikoff died on 24-Dec-1890 at age 59; did not marry.

Elias Covenhoven

M, #58029, b. 1790, d. Apr 1826
Elias Covenhoven|b. 1790\nd. Apr 1826|p581.htm#i58029|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|Col. John Covenhoven|b. 8 Mar 1733/34\nd. 23 Apr 1803|p20.htm#i1965|Eleanor Wyckoff|b. 1732 or 1737\nd. 26 Aug 1792|p20.htm#i1966|Nathaniel Fish|b. 18 Dec 1700\nd. 3 Mar 1769|p581.htm#i58012|Jannetje Berrien|b. 29 Sep 1716\nd. 24 Mar 1789|p581.htm#i58013|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Elias Covenhoven was born in 1790. He was the son of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish. Elias Covenhoven was baptized in 1794 at Old Tennent Church, Tennent, Monmouth County, New Jersey. He died in Apr-1826; did not marry.

Elinor Covenhoven

F, #58030, b. 3 Mar 1785, d. 20 Feb 1866
Elinor Covenhoven|b. 3 Mar 1785\nd. 20 Feb 1866|p581.htm#i58030|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|Col. John Covenhoven|b. 8 Mar 1733/34\nd. 23 Apr 1803|p20.htm#i1965|Eleanor Wyckoff|b. 1732 or 1737\nd. 26 Aug 1792|p20.htm#i1966|Nathaniel Fish|b. 18 Dec 1700\nd. 3 Mar 1769|p581.htm#i58012|Jannetje Berrien|b. 29 Sep 1716\nd. 24 Mar 1789|p581.htm#i58013|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Elinor Covenhoven was born on 3-Mar-1785. She was the daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish. Elinor married Benjamin Lefferson, son of Auke Lefferts and Sarah Schenck, on 3-Mar-1802. Elinor Covenhoven died on 3-Feb-1866 at age 80. She died on 20-Feb-1866 at age 80.
     She was also known as Eleanor Conover.

Children of Elinor Covenhoven and Benjamin Lefferson

Benjamin Lefferson

M, #58031, b. 3 Jan 1781, d. 13 Feb 1820
Benjamin Lefferson|b. 3 Jan 1781\nd. 13 Feb 1820|p581.htm#i58031|Auke Lefferts|b. 8 Nov 1747\nd. 22 Jun 1809|p14.htm#i1395|Sarah Schenck|b. 29 Dec 1754\nd. 19 Nov 1802|p14.htm#i1394|Leffert Lefferson|b. 4 Oct 1711\nd. 4 Aug 1755|p12.htm#i1168|Jannetje Williamson|b. 1711\nd. after 1748|p12.htm#i1167|Garret Schenck|b. 4 Oct 1725\nd. 22 May 1761|p15.htm#i1497|Neeltje Voorhees|b. 1 Mar 1727\nd. 1803|p15.htm#i1498|

Relationship=3rd cousin 5 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=4th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Benjamin Lefferson was born on 3-Jan-1780 at Monmouth County, New Jersey. He was born on 3-Jan-1781. He was the son of Auke Lefferts and Sarah Schenck. Benjamin married Elinor Covenhoven, daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish, on 3-Mar-1802. Benjamin Lefferson died on 13-Feb-1820 at age 39. Benjamin was buried at Old Brick Church, Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
     He was also known as Benjamin Lefferts.

Children of Benjamin Lefferson and Elinor Covenhoven

Eleanor Covenhoven

F, #58032
Eleanor Covenhoven||p581.htm#i58032|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|Col. John Covenhoven|b. 8 Mar 1733/34\nd. 23 Apr 1803|p20.htm#i1965|Eleanor Wyckoff|b. 1732 or 1737\nd. 26 Aug 1792|p20.htm#i1966|Nathaniel Fish|b. 18 Dec 1700\nd. 3 Mar 1769|p581.htm#i58012|Jannetje Berrien|b. 29 Sep 1716\nd. 24 Mar 1789|p581.htm#i58013|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Eleanor Covenhoven was the daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish. Eleanor married (Unkonwn) Forman.

(Unkonwn) Forman

M, #58033
     (Unkonwn) married Eleanor Covenhoven, daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish.

Catherine Covenhoven

F, #58034
Catherine Covenhoven||p581.htm#i58034|Col. Elias Covenhoven|b. 1756\nd. 5 May 1820|p20.htm#i1968|Anna Fish|b. 7 Jan 1757\nd. 15 Nov 1821|p20.htm#i1969|Col. John Covenhoven|b. 8 Mar 1733/34\nd. 23 Apr 1803|p20.htm#i1965|Eleanor Wyckoff|b. 1732 or 1737\nd. 26 Aug 1792|p20.htm#i1966|Nathaniel Fish|b. 18 Dec 1700\nd. 3 Mar 1769|p581.htm#i58012|Jannetje Berrien|b. 29 Sep 1716\nd. 24 Mar 1789|p581.htm#i58013|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Catherine Covenhoven was the daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish. Catherine married (Unkonwn) Remsen; 1st marriage Catherine. Catherine married (Unkonwn) Brinckerhof; 2nd marriage Catherine.

(Unkonwn) Remsen

M, #58035
     (Unkonwn) married Catherine Covenhoven, daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish; 1st marriage Catherine.

(Unkonwn) Brinckerhof

M, #58036
     (Unkonwn) married Catherine Covenhoven, daughter of Col. Elias Covenhoven and Anna Fish; 2nd marriage Catherine.

Rev. James Otterson

M, #58037
     James married Sarah Leader.

Child of Rev. James Otterson and Sarah Leader

Sarah Leader

F, #58038
     Sarah married Rev. James Otterson.

Child of Sarah Leader and Rev. James Otterson

William H. Conover

M, #58039, b. 5 Sep 1839, d. 9 Sep 1878
William H. Conover|b. 5 Sep 1839\nd. 9 Sep 1878|p581.htm#i58039|William Haight Conover|b. 18 Oct 1816\nd. 24 Jun 1877|p581.htm#i58020|Mary Otterson|b. 5 Feb 1819\nd. 2 Jan 1894|p581.htm#i58021|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Rev. James Otterson||p581.htm#i58037|Sarah Leader||p581.htm#i58038|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      William H. Conover was born on 5-Sep-1839. He was the son of William Haight Conover and Mary Otterson. William married Charlotte (Unknown). William H. Conover died on 9-Sep-1878 at age 39. William was buried after 9-Sep-1878 at Maplewood Cemetery, Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
Occupationa state Senator

Charlotte (Unknown)

F, #58040
     Charlotte married William H. Conover, son of William Haight Conover and Mary Otterson.

Henry Conover

M, #58041, b. 8 Feb 1848, d. 3 Mar 1857
Henry Conover|b. 8 Feb 1848\nd. 3 Mar 1857|p581.htm#i58041|William Haight Conover|b. 18 Oct 1816\nd. 24 Jun 1877|p581.htm#i58020|Mary Otterson|b. 5 Feb 1819\nd. 2 Jan 1894|p581.htm#i58021|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Rev. James Otterson||p581.htm#i58037|Sarah Leader||p581.htm#i58038|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Henry Conover was born on 8-Feb-1848. He was the son of William Haight Conover and Mary Otterson. Henry Conover died on 3-Mar-1857 at age 9.

Judge James Clarence Conover

M, #58042, b. 12 Aug 1850, d. 31 Dec 1919
Judge James Clarence Conover|b. 12 Aug 1850\nd. 31 Dec 1919|p581.htm#i58042|William Haight Conover|b. 18 Oct 1816\nd. 24 Jun 1877|p581.htm#i58020|Mary Otterson|b. 5 Feb 1819\nd. 2 Jan 1894|p581.htm#i58021|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Rev. James Otterson||p581.htm#i58037|Sarah Leader||p581.htm#i58038|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Judge James Clarence Conover was born on 12-Aug-1850. He was the son of William Haight Conover and Mary Otterson. James married Josephine Sarah Bleakley, daughter of William M. Bleakley and Rosalie Lataunt. Judge James Clarence Conover died on 31-Dec-1919 at age 69.
     He was also known as J. Clarence Conover.
Census10-Jun-1880Freehold Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey
Occupationwas a Judge of the Common Pleas Court

Child of Judge James Clarence Conover and Josephine Sarah Bleakley

Josephine Sarah Bleakley

F, #58043, b. 1844, d. 1929
Josephine Sarah Bleakley|b. 1844\nd. 1929|p581.htm#i58043|William M. Bleakley||p3415.htm#i341443|Rosalie Lataunt||p3415.htm#i341444|||||||||||||
      Josephine Sarah Bleakley was born in 1844 at Verplank, Westchester County, New York. She was the daughter of William M. Bleakley and Rosalie Lataunt. Josephine Sarah Bleakley was born circa 1849 at New York. Josephine married Judge James Clarence Conover, son of William Haight Conover and Mary Otterson. Josephine Sarah Bleakley died in 1929.
Census10-Jun-1880Freehold Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey
Occupation10-Jun-1880a lawyer

Child of Josephine Sarah Bleakley and Judge James Clarence Conover

Rosalie B. Conover

F, #58044, b. circa 1879
Rosalie B. Conover|b. circa 1879|p581.htm#i58044|Judge James Clarence Conover|b. 12 Aug 1850\nd. 31 Dec 1919|p581.htm#i58042|Josephine Sarah Bleakley|b. 1844\nd. 1929|p581.htm#i58043|William H. Conover|b. 18 Oct 1816\nd. 24 Jun 1877|p581.htm#i58020|Mary Otterson|b. 5 Feb 1819\nd. 2 Jan 1894|p581.htm#i58021|William M. Bleakley||p3415.htm#i341443|Rosalie Lataunt||p3415.htm#i341444|

Relationship=7th cousin 1 time removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=8th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Rosalie B. Conover was born circa 1879 at Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey. She was the daughter of Judge James Clarence Conover and Josephine Sarah Bleakley. Rosalie married Harold McDermott, son of William McDermott Jr. and Sarah P. West, on 9-Oct-1912 at Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
Census3-Jan-1920with his mother, Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey
Census8-May-1930Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey, real estate value 14,000.00

Harold McDermott

M, #58045, b. 12 Mar 1888
Harold McDermott|b. 12 Mar 1888|p581.htm#i58045|William McDermott Jr.||p4430.htm#i442920|Sarah P. West||p4430.htm#i442919|||||||||||||
      Harold McDermott was born on 12-Mar-1888 at Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey. He was the son of William McDermott Jr. and Sarah P. West. Harold married Rosalie B. Conover, daughter of Judge James Clarence Conover and Josephine Sarah Bleakley, on 9-Oct-1912 at Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
     





HAROLD McDERMOTT—Harold McDermott, of Freehold, New Jersey, is one of the leading lawyers of his section of central New Jersey, being prominent as a practitioner and an official of professional organiza­tions. He is also one of the outstanding citizens of his community, has held local and State offices as well as being generous with his time and talents in the support of civic, business and fraternal organizations, particularly those concerned with the prosperity and well-being of all.
Harold McDermott was born at Freehold, New Jersey, on March 12, 1888, the son of William, Jr., and Sara P. (West) McDermott. William McDermott, Jr, who was born at Manalapan Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey, established himself at Freehold as a con­tractor and builder, an activity which he followed for many years. His wife, Sara P. (West) McDermott, was born at New York City.
After attending the primary and grammar schools of Freehold, New Jersey, and graduating from the Free­hold High School, Harold McDermott began his studies for entrance into the legal profession at the University of Pennsylvania. He completed his work at the New York Law School, graduating from that institution in 1909, with his degree of Bachelor of Laws. Admitted to the New Jersey bar in June, of mop, he became associ­ated in the practice of his profession with R. V. Law­rence, of Asbury Park, New Jersey, but, in 191o, he joined the staff of the Fidelity Trust Company at New­ark, New Jersey, and for a year was active in the insti­tution's title department. In 1911 Mr. McDermott accepted appointment as court clerk at Freehold, and occupied this office until 1914, when he entered the Red Bank office of John S. Applegate and Son. Finally, in 1915, Mr. McDermott established himself independently in the practice of his profession at Freehold, opening offices which he has maintained through the present time, prac­ticing in all the courts under the firm name of McDermott and Finegold. Always deeply interested in the well­being of his community and county, Mr. McDermott who is a Republican in his political affiliations, served several townships as attorney and for five years, beginning in 1930, he was first assistant prosecutor of Monmouth County, while in 1939, 1940 and I941, he was a member of the New Jersey State Assembly. He serves as attor­ney for the Freehold Trust Company, and holds similar positions in association with the Freehold Mutual Build­ing & Loan Association and the Englishtown Building & Loan Association, is a member of the Freehold, New Jersey, Episcopal Church, and a member of various local civic and fraternal organizations, as well as professional groups. He belongs to the Freehold Chamber of Com­merce, the Freehold Republican Club, the Monmouth County Historical Society, Freehold Lodge, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Olive Branch Lodge, An­cient Free and Accepted Masons, of which body he is a Past Master, and the Freehold Rotary Club, a body which he helped to organize and of which he was the first vice- president. He supports his profession by membership in the Monmouth County Bar Association, of which he is a past president, the New Jersey State Bar Associa­tion and the American Bar Association.
Harold McDermott married at Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey, on October 9, 1912, Rosalie B. Con­over, who was born at Freehold and is the daughter of Judge J. Clarence Conover, and Mrs. Josephine (Make- ley) Conover. Judge Conover was born at Freehold, while his wife is a native of Westchester County, New York. Mr. and Mrs. McDermott have become the par­ents of two children: t. Clarence W., born at Free­hold, and married Grace Philips, of West Long Branch, New Jersey. 2. Harold Conover, born at Freehold, New Jersey, in October of 1918, and is now a second lieutenant in the United States Army, being assigned to headquarters of the 3o2d Engineers, 77th Division.

Census3-Jan-1920with his mother, Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey
Census8-May-1930Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey, real estate value 14,000.00
Census-Occ3-Jan-1920a lawyer
Census-Occ8-May-1930a lawyer

Julia Conover

F, #58046, b. 14 Feb 1854, d. 21 Feb 1937
Julia Conover|b. 14 Feb 1854\nd. 21 Feb 1937|p581.htm#i58046|William Haight Conover|b. 18 Oct 1816\nd. 24 Jun 1877|p581.htm#i58020|Mary Otterson|b. 5 Feb 1819\nd. 2 Jan 1894|p581.htm#i58021|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Rev. James Otterson||p581.htm#i58037|Sarah Leader||p581.htm#i58038|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Julia Conover was born on 14-Feb-1854. She was the daughter of William Haight Conover and Mary Otterson. Julia married Samuel M. Cleveland. Julia Conover died on 21-Feb-1937 at Of, California, at age 83. Julia was buried after 21-Feb-1937 at Maplewood Cemetery, Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Children of Julia Conover and Samuel M. Cleveland

Samuel M. Cleveland

M, #58047
     Samuel married Julia Conover, daughter of William Haight Conover and Mary Otterson.

Children of Samuel M. Cleveland and Julia Conover

Arthur Cleveland

M, #58048
Arthur Cleveland||p581.htm#i58048|Samuel M. Cleveland||p581.htm#i58047|Julia Conover|b. 14 Feb 1854\nd. 21 Feb 1937|p581.htm#i58046|||||||William H. Conover|b. 18 Oct 1816\nd. 24 Jun 1877|p581.htm#i58020|Mary Otterson|b. 5 Feb 1819\nd. 2 Jan 1894|p581.htm#i58021|

Relationship=7th cousin 1 time removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=8th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Arthur Cleveland was the son of Samuel M. Cleveland and Julia Conover.

Julia O. Cleveland

F, #58049, b. 1894, d. 1937
Julia O. Cleveland|b. 1894\nd. 1937|p581.htm#i58049|Samuel M. Cleveland||p581.htm#i58047|Julia Conover|b. 14 Feb 1854\nd. 21 Feb 1937|p581.htm#i58046|||||||William H. Conover|b. 18 Oct 1816\nd. 24 Jun 1877|p581.htm#i58020|Mary Otterson|b. 5 Feb 1819\nd. 2 Jan 1894|p581.htm#i58021|

Relationship=7th cousin 1 time removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=8th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Julia O. Cleveland was born in 1894. She was the daughter of Samuel M. Cleveland and Julia Conover. Julia O. Cleveland died in 1937.

Dr. Charles H. Conover

M, #58050, b. 3 Mar 1859, d. 2 Jul 1934
Dr. Charles H. Conover|b. 3 Mar 1859\nd. 2 Jul 1934|p581.htm#i58050|William Haight Conover|b. 18 Oct 1816\nd. 24 Jun 1877|p581.htm#i58020|Mary Otterson|b. 5 Feb 1819\nd. 2 Jan 1894|p581.htm#i58021|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Rev. James Otterson||p581.htm#i58037|Sarah Leader||p581.htm#i58038|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Dr. Charles H. Conover was born on 3-Mar-1859. He was the son of William Haight Conover and Mary Otterson. Dr. Charles H. Conover died on 2-Jul-1934 at age 75.

Marianna Bruen

F, #58051, b. 25 Apr 1822, d. 3 Mar 1906
Marianna Bruen|b. 25 Apr 1822\nd. 3 Mar 1906|p581.htm#i58051|Judge Cyrus Bruen||p581.htm#i58052|Eliza Henderson|b. 1790\nd. 1851|p581.htm#i58053|||||||Lt. Col. Thomas Henderson|b. Aug 1743\nd. Dec 1824|p1650.htm#i164989|Rachel Burrowes|b. 1751\nd. between 1840 and 1841|p1303.htm#i130255|
      Marianna Bruen was born on 25-Apr-1822. She was the daughter of Judge Cyrus Bruen and Eliza Henderson. Marianna married Judge Charles Haight Conover, son of John Edward Conover and Marianna Haight, on 29-Nov-1841. Marianna Bruen died on 3-Mar-1906 at age 83. Marianna was buried after 3-Mar-1906 at Maplewood Cemetery, Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Children of Marianna Bruen and Judge Charles Haight Conover

Judge Cyrus Bruen

M, #58052
     Cyrus married Eliza Henderson, daughter of Lt. Col. Thomas Henderson and Rachel Burrowes.

Child of Judge Cyrus Bruen and Eliza Henderson

Eliza Henderson

F, #58053, b. 1790, d. 1851
Eliza Henderson|b. 1790\nd. 1851|p581.htm#i58053|Lt. Col. Thomas Henderson|b. Aug 1743\nd. Dec 1824|p1650.htm#i164989|Rachel Burrowes|b. 1751\nd. between 1840 and 1841|p1303.htm#i130255|||||||||||||
      Eliza Henderson was born in 1790. She was the daughter of Lt. Col. Thomas Henderson and Rachel Burrowes. Eliza married Judge Cyrus Bruen. Eliza Henderson died in 1851.

Child of Eliza Henderson and Judge Cyrus Bruen

Minnie Haight Conover

F, #58054, b. 20 Jul 1854, d. 15 Feb 1881
Minnie Haight Conover|b. 20 Jul 1854\nd. 15 Feb 1881|p581.htm#i58054|Judge Charles Haight Conover|b. 16 Mar 1818\nd. 8 Mar 1881|p581.htm#i58022|Marianna Bruen|b. 25 Apr 1822\nd. 3 Mar 1906|p581.htm#i58051|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Judge Cyrus Bruen||p581.htm#i58052|Eliza Henderson|b. 1790\nd. 1851|p581.htm#i58053|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Minnie Haight Conover was born on 20-Jul-1854. She was the daughter of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen. Minnie Haight Conover died on 15-Feb-1881 at age 26. Minnie was buried after 15-Feb-1881 at Maplewood Cemetery, Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Matilda Hammill Conover

F, #58055, b. 25 Mar 1857
Matilda Hammill Conover|b. 25 Mar 1857|p581.htm#i58055|Judge Charles Haight Conover|b. 16 Mar 1818\nd. 8 Mar 1881|p581.htm#i58022|Marianna Bruen|b. 25 Apr 1822\nd. 3 Mar 1906|p581.htm#i58051|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Judge Cyrus Bruen||p581.htm#i58052|Eliza Henderson|b. 1790\nd. 1851|p581.htm#i58053|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Matilda Hammill Conover was born on 25-Mar-1857. She was the daughter of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen. Matilda married John P. Walker, son of Anselle Walker and Mary (Unknown), on 10-Jan-1888.

Child of Matilda Hammill Conover and John P. Walker

John P. Walker

M, #58056
John P. Walker||p581.htm#i58056|Anselle Walker||p581.htm#i58057|Mary (Unknown)||p581.htm#i58058|||||||||||||
     John P. Walker was the son of Anselle Walker and Mary (Unknown). John married Matilda Hammill Conover, daughter of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen, on 10-Jan-1888.

Anselle Walker

M, #58057
     Anselle married Mary (Unknown).

Child of Anselle Walker and Mary (Unknown)

Mary (Unknown)

F, #58058
     Mary married Anselle Walker.

Child of Mary (Unknown) and Anselle Walker

Frank Bruen Conover

M, #58059, b. 14 Jan 1860, d. 2 Feb 1924
Frank Bruen Conover|b. 14 Jan 1860\nd. 2 Feb 1924|p581.htm#i58059|Judge Charles Haight Conover|b. 16 Mar 1818\nd. 8 Mar 1881|p581.htm#i58022|Marianna Bruen|b. 25 Apr 1822\nd. 3 Mar 1906|p581.htm#i58051|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Judge Cyrus Bruen||p581.htm#i58052|Eliza Henderson|b. 1790\nd. 1851|p581.htm#i58053|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Frank Bruen Conover was born on 14-Jan-1860 at Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey. He was the son of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen. Frank married (Unknown) Sullivan, daughter of Gen. Peter J. Sullivan, circa 1884. Frank Bruen Conover died on 2-Feb-1924 at Of, New York City, New York County, New York, at age 64.
     
Census9-Jun-1880with his parents, Freehold Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey
Census1-Jun-1900Asbury Park, Monmouth County, New Jersey, listed as married 16 years
Census-Occ9-Jun-1880a clerk, R R Office
Census-Occ1-Jun-1900a hotel keeper

Child of Frank Bruen Conover and (Unknown) Sullivan

(Unknown) Sullivan

F, #58060
(Unknown) Sullivan||p581.htm#i58060|Gen. Peter J. Sullivan||p581.htm#i58061||||||||||||||||
     (Unknown) Sullivan was the daughter of Gen. Peter J. Sullivan. (Unknown) married Frank Bruen Conover, son of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen, circa 1884.

Child of (Unknown) Sullivan and Frank Bruen Conover

Gen. Peter J. Sullivan

M, #58061
     Gen. Peter J. Sullivan resided at at Of, Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio.

Child of Gen. Peter J. Sullivan

Dorothy Conover

F, #58062
Dorothy Conover||p581.htm#i58062|Frank Bruen Conover|b. 14 Jan 1860\nd. 2 Feb 1924|p581.htm#i58059|(Unknown) Sullivan||p581.htm#i58060|Judge Charles H. Conover|b. 16 Mar 1818\nd. 8 Mar 1881|p581.htm#i58022|Marianna Bruen|b. 25 Apr 1822\nd. 3 Mar 1906|p581.htm#i58051|Gen. Peter J. Sullivan||p581.htm#i58061||||

Relationship=7th cousin 1 time removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=8th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Dorothy Conover was the daughter of Frank Bruen Conover and (Unknown) Sullivan.

Ellen Wikoff Conover

F, #58063, b. 3 Oct 1842, d. 22 Mar 1902
Ellen Wikoff Conover|b. 3 Oct 1842\nd. 22 Mar 1902|p581.htm#i58063|Judge Charles Haight Conover|b. 16 Mar 1818\nd. 8 Mar 1881|p581.htm#i58022|Marianna Bruen|b. 25 Apr 1822\nd. 3 Mar 1906|p581.htm#i58051|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Judge Cyrus Bruen||p581.htm#i58052|Eliza Henderson|b. 1790\nd. 1851|p581.htm#i58053|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Ellen Wikoff Conover was born on 3-Oct-1842. She was the daughter of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen. Ellen married LaFayette Schenck, son of Sidney Schenck and Sarah Ann Smock, on 13-Apr-1864. Ellen Wikoff Conover died on 22-Mar-1902 at age 59. Ellen was buried after 22-Mar-1902 at Old Brick Church, Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Child of Ellen Wikoff Conover and LaFayette Schenck

LaFayette Schenck

M, #58064, b. 6 Oct 1841, d. 18 Aug 1915
LaFayette Schenck|b. 6 Oct 1841\nd. 18 Aug 1915|p581.htm#i58064|Sidney Schenck|b. 17 Mar 1810|p33.htm#i3298|Sarah Ann Smock|b. 22 Nov 1807|p273.htm#i27205|Lafayette Schenck|b. 27 May 1781\nd. 11 Sep 1862|p33.htm#i3292|Eleanor Conover|b. 13 Dec 1787\nd. 21 Mar 1873|p33.htm#i3291|Aaron Smock|b. 24 Jul 1783\nd. 1834|p22.htm#i2153|Sarah C. Schenck|b. 4 Oct 1786\nd. 1825|p22.htm#i2152|

Relationship=3rd cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      LaFayette Schenck was born on 6-Oct-1841. He was the son of Sidney Schenck and Sarah Ann Smock. LaFayette married Ellen Wikoff Conover, daughter of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen, on 13-Apr-1864. LaFayette Schenck died on 18-Aug-1915 at age 73.

Child of LaFayette Schenck and Ellen Wikoff Conover

Eliza Buren Conover

F, #58066, b. 12 Jun 1847
Eliza Buren Conover|b. 12 Jun 1847|p581.htm#i58066|Judge Charles Haight Conover|b. 16 Mar 1818\nd. 8 Mar 1881|p581.htm#i58022|Marianna Bruen|b. 25 Apr 1822\nd. 3 Mar 1906|p581.htm#i58051|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Judge Cyrus Bruen||p581.htm#i58052|Eliza Henderson|b. 1790\nd. 1851|p581.htm#i58053|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Eliza married (Unknown) Fisher. Eliza Buren Conover was born on 12-Jun-1847. She was the daughter of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen. Eliza married John R. Vannius.
     Eliza Buren Conover resided at at San Diego, San Diego County, California.

Children of Eliza Buren Conover and (Unknown) Fisher

John R. Vannius

M, #58067
     John married Eliza Buren Conover, daughter of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen.

John Elias Conover

M, #58068, b. 21 Sep 1851, d. 21 Sep 1853
John Elias Conover|b. 21 Sep 1851\nd. 21 Sep 1853|p581.htm#i58068|Judge Charles Haight Conover|b. 16 Mar 1818\nd. 8 Mar 1881|p581.htm#i58022|Marianna Bruen|b. 25 Apr 1822\nd. 3 Mar 1906|p581.htm#i58051|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Judge Cyrus Bruen||p581.htm#i58052|Eliza Henderson|b. 1790\nd. 1851|p581.htm#i58053|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      John Elias Conover was born on 21-Sep-1851. He was the son of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen. John Elias Conover died on 21-Sep-1853 at age 2.

Henry Conover

M, #58069, b. 1848, d. 1857
Henry Conover|b. 1848\nd. 1857|p581.htm#i58069|Judge Charles Haight Conover|b. 16 Mar 1818\nd. 8 Mar 1881|p581.htm#i58022|Marianna Bruen|b. 25 Apr 1822\nd. 3 Mar 1906|p581.htm#i58051|John E. Conover|b. 6 Aug 1786\nd. 18 Apr 1833|p20.htm#i1970|Marianna Haight|b. 20 Feb 1794\nd. 16 Jan 1872|p581.htm#i58017|Judge Cyrus Bruen||p581.htm#i58052|Eliza Henderson|b. 1790\nd. 1851|p581.htm#i58053|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Henry Conover was born in 1848. He was the son of Judge Charles Haight Conover and Marianna Bruen. Henry Conover died in 1857 at Maplewood Cemetery, Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Jacob Ten Eyck

M, #58070, b. 29 Apr 1759, d. 23 May 1828
      Jacob Ten Eyck was born on 29-Apr-1759. Jacob married Jane Lane in 1778. Jacob Ten Eyck died on 23-May-1828 at age 69.

Child of Jacob Ten Eyck and Jane Lane

Jane Lane

F, #58071, b. 8 Jan 1755, d. 11 Jun 1832
      Jane Lane was born on 8-Jan-1755. Jane married Jacob Ten Eyck in 1778. Jane Lane died on 11-Jun-1832 at age 77.

Child of Jane Lane and Jacob Ten Eyck

Neeltje Covenhoven

F, #58072, b. 25 Dec 1746
Neeltje Covenhoven|b. 25 Dec 1746|p581.htm#i58072|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah Janse Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|Pieter W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 12 Feb 1671\nd. circa Feb 1755|p4.htm#i337|Patience Daws|b. 1674|p4.htm#i338|Jan R. Schenck|b. 1 Mar 1670\nd. 30 Jan 1753|p6.htm#i566|Sara W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 27 Dec 1674\nd. 31 Jan 1761|p4.htm#i342|

Relationship=2nd cousin 6 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=3rd great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Neeltje Covenhoven was born on 25-Dec-1746. She was the daughter of Peter Cowenhoven and Leah Janse Schenck. Neeltje Covenhoven was baptized on 8-Feb-1747.

Pieter Covenhoven

M, #58073, b. 3 Mar 1749
Pieter Covenhoven|b. 3 Mar 1749|p581.htm#i58073|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah Janse Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|Pieter W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 12 Feb 1671\nd. circa Feb 1755|p4.htm#i337|Patience Daws|b. 1674|p4.htm#i338|Jan R. Schenck|b. 1 Mar 1670\nd. 30 Jan 1753|p6.htm#i566|Sara W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 27 Dec 1674\nd. 31 Jan 1761|p4.htm#i342|

Relationship=2nd cousin 6 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=3rd great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Pieter Covenhoven was born on 3-Mar-1749. He was the son of Peter Cowenhoven and Leah Janse Schenck. Pieter Covenhoven was baptized on 9-Apr-1749.

Elias Covenhoven

M, #58074, b. 14 May 1751
Elias Covenhoven|b. 14 May 1751|p581.htm#i58074|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah Janse Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|Pieter W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 12 Feb 1671\nd. circa Feb 1755|p4.htm#i337|Patience Daws|b. 1674|p4.htm#i338|Jan R. Schenck|b. 1 Mar 1670\nd. 30 Jan 1753|p6.htm#i566|Sara W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 27 Dec 1674\nd. 31 Jan 1761|p4.htm#i342|

Relationship=2nd cousin 6 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=3rd great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Elias Covenhoven was born on 14-May-1751. He was the son of Peter Cowenhoven and Leah Janse Schenck. Elias married Catherine Forman on 2-Oct-1774.

Child of Elias Covenhoven and Catherine Forman

William Covenhoven

M, #58075, b. 4 Jan 1753, d. 11 Dec 1823
William Covenhoven|b. 4 Jan 1753\nd. 11 Dec 1823|p581.htm#i58075|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah Janse Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|Pieter W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 12 Feb 1671\nd. circa Feb 1755|p4.htm#i337|Patience Daws|b. 1674|p4.htm#i338|Jan R. Schenck|b. 1 Mar 1670\nd. 30 Jan 1753|p6.htm#i566|Sara W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 27 Dec 1674\nd. 31 Jan 1761|p4.htm#i342|

Relationship=2nd cousin 6 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=3rd great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      William Covenhoven was born on 4-Jan-1753. He was the son of Peter Cowenhoven and Leah Janse Schenck. William Covenhoven was baptized on 11-Apr-1753. He died on 11-Dec-1823 at age 70. William was buried at First Baptist Church Cemetery, Hopewell, Mercer County, New Jersey.
     He and Sgt. Maj. William Covenhoven were This is a discrepency as to who the correct parents are.

Lea Covenhoven

F, #58076, b. 25 Mar 1756
Lea Covenhoven|b. 25 Mar 1756|p581.htm#i58076|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah Janse Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|Pieter W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 12 Feb 1671\nd. circa Feb 1755|p4.htm#i337|Patience Daws|b. 1674|p4.htm#i338|Jan R. Schenck|b. 1 Mar 1670\nd. 30 Jan 1753|p6.htm#i566|Sara W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 27 Dec 1674\nd. 31 Jan 1761|p4.htm#i342|

Relationship=2nd cousin 6 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=3rd great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Lea Covenhoven was born on 25-Mar-1756. She was the daughter of Peter Cowenhoven and Leah Janse Schenck. Lea Covenhoven was baptized on 9-May-1756. Lea married Jacob La Rue, son of Matthew La Rue and Elizabeth Mary Dove, circa 1773 at Monmouth County, New Jersey. Lea married William Combs on 31-Aug-1780.

William Combs

M, #58077
     William married Lea Covenhoven, daughter of Peter Cowenhoven and Leah Janse Schenck, on 31-Aug-1780.

Ruleff Covenhoven

M, #58078, b. 3 Feb 1758, d. circa 1792
Ruleff Covenhoven|b. 3 Feb 1758\nd. circa 1792|p581.htm#i58078|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah Janse Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|Pieter W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 12 Feb 1671\nd. circa Feb 1755|p4.htm#i337|Patience Daws|b. 1674|p4.htm#i338|Jan R. Schenck|b. 1 Mar 1670\nd. 30 Jan 1753|p6.htm#i566|Sara W. Van Kouwenhoven|b. 27 Dec 1674\nd. 31 Jan 1761|p4.htm#i342|

Relationship=2nd cousin 6 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=3rd great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Ruleff Covenhoven was born on 3-Feb-1758. He was the son of Peter Cowenhoven and Leah Janse Schenck. Ruleff Covenhoven was baptized on 12-Mar-1759. Ruleff married Rachel Carr. Ruleff Covenhoven died circa 1792.
     He was also known as Rulif Covenhoven.

Rachel Carr

F, #58079
     Rachel married Ruleff Covenhoven, son of Peter Cowenhoven and Leah Janse Schenck. Rachel married John Johnston in 1799.
     Rachel Carr was also known as Rachel Ker.

John Johnston

M, #58080
     John married Rachel Carr in 1799.
     John Johnston resided at at Saratoga County, New York, in 1799.

Leah Covenhoven

F, #58081
Leah Covenhoven||p581.htm#i58081|Ruleff Covenhoven|b. 3 Feb 1758\nd. circa 1792|p581.htm#i58078|Rachel Carr||p581.htm#i58079|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah J. Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|||||||

Relationship=3rd cousin 5 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=4th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Leah Covenhoven was the daughter of Ruleff Covenhoven and Rachel Carr.

Euphame Covenhoven

F, #58082
Euphame Covenhoven||p581.htm#i58082|Ruleff Covenhoven|b. 3 Feb 1758\nd. circa 1792|p581.htm#i58078|Rachel Carr||p581.htm#i58079|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah J. Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|||||||

Relationship=3rd cousin 5 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=4th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Euphame Covenhoven was the daughter of Ruleff Covenhoven and Rachel Carr.

Ursula Covenhoven

F, #58083
Ursula Covenhoven||p581.htm#i58083|Ruleff Covenhoven|b. 3 Feb 1758\nd. circa 1792|p581.htm#i58078|Rachel Carr||p581.htm#i58079|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah J. Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|||||||

Relationship=3rd cousin 5 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=4th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Ursula Covenhoven was the daughter of Ruleff Covenhoven and Rachel Carr.

Rachel Covenhoven

F, #58084
Rachel Covenhoven||p581.htm#i58084|Ruleff Covenhoven|b. 3 Feb 1758\nd. circa 1792|p581.htm#i58078|Rachel Carr||p581.htm#i58079|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah J. Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|||||||

Relationship=3rd cousin 5 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=4th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Rachel Covenhoven was the daughter of Ruleff Covenhoven and Rachel Carr.

Jane Covenhoven

F, #58085
Jane Covenhoven||p581.htm#i58085|Ruleff Covenhoven|b. 3 Feb 1758\nd. circa 1792|p581.htm#i58078|Rachel Carr||p581.htm#i58079|Peter Cowenhoven|b. 11 Jan 1712\nd. 14 May 1774|p11.htm#i1078|Leah J. Schenck|b. 24 Dec 1714\nd. 14 Mar 1769|p11.htm#i1085|||||||

Relationship=3rd cousin 5 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=4th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
     Jane Covenhoven was the daughter of Ruleff Covenhoven and Rachel Carr.

Tunis V. Conover

M, #58086, b. 1802, d. 1 Feb 1864
Tunis V. Conover|b. 1802\nd. 1 Feb 1864|p581.htm#i58086|William I. Conover|b. 3 Jan 1778\nd. 10 Sep 1852|p21.htm#i2028|Jane Vanderveer|b. 1781\nd. 12 Oct 1859|p21.htm#i2029|John P. Covenhoven|b. 6 Jan 1740\nd. 24 Dec 1811|p21.htm#i2021|Mary J. McGalliard|b. 23 Jan 1749\nd. 14 Aug 1798|p21.htm#i2022|Tunis Vanderveer|b. 19 Apr 1739\nd. 1 Oct 1801|p670.htm#i66968|Jane Honce|b. 1740|p670.htm#i66975|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Tunis V. Conover was born in 1802. He was the son of William I. Conover and Jane Vanderveer. Tunis married Rebecca Conover, daughter of Hendrick Conover and Ann Bowne Crawford, on 19-May-1830. Tunis V. Conover died on 1-Feb-1864. Tunis was buried after 1-Feb-1864 at Old Tennent Church, Tennent, Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Children of Tunis V. Conover and Rebecca Conover

Rebecca Conover

F, #58087, b. 19 Aug 1812, d. 11 Mar 1897
Rebecca Conover|b. 19 Aug 1812\nd. 11 Mar 1897|p581.htm#i58087|Hendrick Conover|b. 8 Apr 1773\nd. 17 Sep 1835|p30.htm#i2902|Ann Bowne Crawford|b. 25 Jun 1788\nd. 10 Feb 1832|p30.htm#i2903|Jacob Covenhoven|b. 19 Jun 1746\nd. 18 Oct 1825|p29.htm#i2900|Mary Schenck|b. 17 Mar 1757\nd. 7 Mar 1818|p30.htm#i2901|William Crawford||p1414.htm#i141366|Rebecca Patterson||p1577.htm#i157605|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Rebecca Conover was born on 19-Aug-1812. She was the daughter of Hendrick Conover and Ann Bowne Crawford. Rebecca married Tunis V. Conover, son of William I. Conover and Jane Vanderveer, on 19-May-1830. Rebecca Conover died on 11-Mar-1897 at age 84. Rebecca was buried after 11-Mar-1897 at Old Tennent Church, Tennent, Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Children of Rebecca Conover and Tunis V. Conover

William I. Conover

M, #58088, b. circa Aug 1835, d. 26 Jan 1902
William I. Conover|b. circa Aug 1835\nd. 26 Jan 1902|p581.htm#i58088|Tunis V. Conover|b. 1802\nd. 1 Feb 1864|p581.htm#i58086|Rebecca Conover|b. 19 Aug 1812\nd. 11 Mar 1897|p581.htm#i58087|William I. Conover|b. 3 Jan 1778\nd. 10 Sep 1852|p21.htm#i2028|Jane Vanderveer|b. 1781\nd. 12 Oct 1859|p21.htm#i2029|Hendrick Conover|b. 8 Apr 1773\nd. 17 Sep 1835|p30.htm#i2902|Ann B. Crawford|b. 25 Jun 1788\nd. 10 Feb 1832|p30.htm#i2903|

Relationship=5th cousin 3 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=6th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      William I. Conover was born circa Aug-1835 at New Jersey. He was the son of Tunis V. Conover and Rebecca Conover. William married Cornelia Smock. William I. Conover died on 26-Jan-1902.
Census1-Jun-1900with his daughter Marion, Marlboro Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey
Census-Occ1-Jun-1900a retired farmer

Children of William I. Conover and Cornelia Smock

Cornelia Smock

F, #58089, b. 1844, d. 21 Mar 1884
      Cornelia Smock was born in 1844. Cornelia married William I. Conover, son of Tunis V. Conover and Rebecca Conover. Cornelia Smock died on 21-Mar-1884.

Children of Cornelia Smock and William I. Conover

Anna Bowne Conover

F, #58090, b. circa Oct 1875
Anna Bowne Conover|b. circa Oct 1875|p581.htm#i58090|William I. Conover|b. circa Aug 1835\nd. 26 Jan 1902|p581.htm#i58088|Cornelia Smock|b. 1844\nd. 21 Mar 1884|p581.htm#i58089|Tunis V. Conover|b. 1802\nd. 1 Feb 1864|p581.htm#i58086|Rebecca Conover|b. 19 Aug 1812\nd. 11 Mar 1897|p581.htm#i58087|||||||

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Anna Bowne Conover was born circa Oct-1875 at New Jersey. She was the daughter of William I. Conover and Cornelia Smock. Anna married Henry Cook Longstreet, son of John E. Longstreet and Christianna Hazzard Schenck, on 7-Oct-1896 at Old Brick Church, Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey. Anna married Charles Crawford; 2nd marriage Anna.
Census12-Jun-1900Asbury Park, Monmouth County, New Jersey, 2 children, 2 living
Census19-Jan-1920Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania

Children of Anna Bowne Conover and Henry Cook Longstreet

Henry Cook Longstreet

M, #58091, b. circa Apr 1869
Henry Cook Longstreet|b. circa Apr 1869|p581.htm#i58091|John E. Longstreet|b. circa 1843|p2633.htm#i263215|Christianna Hazzard Schenck|b. 5 Jun 1841|p2633.htm#i263214|Hendrick H. Longstreet|b. circa 1813\nd. after 1871|p1050.htm#i104902|Ann W. Taylor|b. 13 Mar 1826\nd. 26 Feb 1848|p1241.htm#i124032|John Schenck|b. 31 Mar 1799\nd. 26 Dec 1866|p1577.htm#i157627|Jane A. Hazzard|b. 28 Aug 1811\nd. 27 Apr 1867|p1577.htm#i157629|

Relationship=5th cousin 3 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=6th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Henry Cook Longstreet was born circa Apr-1869 at New Jersey. He was the son of John E. Longstreet and Christianna Hazzard Schenck. Henry married Anna Bowne Conover, daughter of William I. Conover and Cornelia Smock, on 7-Oct-1896 at Old Brick Church, Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
Census12-Jun-1900Asbury Park, Monmouth County, New Jersey, 2 children, 2 living
Census-Occ12-Jun-1900a hoslter

Children of Henry Cook Longstreet and Anna Bowne Conover

Charles Crawford

M, #58092, b. circa 1873
      Charles Crawford was born circa 1873 at Pennsylvania. Charles married Anna Bowne Conover, daughter of William I. Conover and Cornelia Smock; 2nd marriage Anna.
Census19-Jan-1920Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania

Marion Conover

F, #58093, b. 8 Jun 1876, d. 8 Jun 1957
Marion Conover|b. 8 Jun 1876\nd. 8 Jun 1957|p581.htm#i58093|William I. Conover|b. circa Aug 1835\nd. 26 Jan 1902|p581.htm#i58088|Cornelia Smock|b. 1844\nd. 21 Mar 1884|p581.htm#i58089|Tunis V. Conover|b. 1802\nd. 1 Feb 1864|p581.htm#i58086|Rebecca Conover|b. 19 Aug 1812\nd. 11 Mar 1897|p581.htm#i58087|||||||

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Marion Conover was born on 8-Jun-1876 at Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey. She was the daughter of William I. Conover and Cornelia Smock. Marion married Alexander Millspaugh Baird, son of James Henry Baird and Huldah Millspaugh, on 20-Oct-1898. Marion Conover died on 8-Jun-1957 at at home Swan Lake Drive, Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey, at age 81. Marion was buried at Old Brick Church Cemetery, Bradevelt, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
Census1-Jun-1900Marlboro Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey
Census18-Apr-1910with his parents, Marlboro Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey, 2 children, 2 living
Census27-Jan-1920Marlboro Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey
Census15-May-1930Marlboro Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey, real estate value 10,000.00

Children of Marion Conover and Alexander Millspaugh Baird

Alexander Millspaugh Baird

M, #58094, b. 8 Jun 1876, d. 10 Dec 1957
Alexander Millspaugh Baird|b. 8 Jun 1876\nd. 10 Dec 1957|p581.htm#i58094|James Henry Baird|b. 24 Sep 1849\nd. 1921|p581.htm#i58095|Huldah Millspaugh|b. 1850\nd. 1922|p581.htm#i58096|John Baird|b. 5 May 1822\nd. 10 Jul 1898|p1738.htm#i173735|Sarah A. De Nyse|b. 15 Oct 1829\nd. 7 Sep 1923|p1738.htm#i173734|Rev. Alex C. Milspaugh||p1738.htm#i173738|Sarah A. Bariclo||p1738.htm#i173739|

Relationship=6th cousin 2 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=7th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Alexander Millspaugh Baird was born on 8-Jun-1876 at New Jersey. He was the son of James Henry Baird and Huldah Millspaugh. Alexander married Marion Conover, daughter of William I. Conover and Cornelia Smock, on 20-Oct-1898. Alexander Millspaugh Baird died on 10-Dec-1957 at age 81.
     
Census1-Jun-1900Marlboro Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey
Census18-Apr-1910with his parents, Marlboro Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey, 2 children, 2 living
Census27-Jan-1920Marlboro Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey
Census15-May-1930Marlboro Twp., Monmouth County, New Jersey, real estate value 10,000.00
Census-Occ1-Jun-1900a miller? in Freehold
Census-Occ18-Apr-1910a bookkeeper, ???
Census-Occ27-Jan-1920a produce dealer

Children of Alexander Millspaugh Baird and Marion Conover

James Henry Baird

M, #58095, b. 24 Sep 1849, d. 1921
James Henry Baird|b. 24 Sep 1849\nd. 1921|p581.htm#i58095|John Baird|b. 5 May 1822\nd. 10 Jul 1898|p1738.htm#i173735|Sarah Ann De Nyse|b. 15 Oct 1829\nd. 7 Sep 1923|p1738.htm#i173734|James Baird|d. 1 Mar 1848|p1583.htm#i158231|Ann Buck|b. 10 Mar 1795\nd. 10 Jan 1851|p1583.htm#i158232|Daniel De Nyse|b. 22 Jan 1795\nd. 18 Aug 1870|p828.htm#i82732|Ann Wyckoff|b. 4 Dec 1797\nd. 12 Apr 1837|p1738.htm#i173728|

Relationship=5th cousin 3 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=6th great-grandson of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      James Henry Baird was born on 24-Sep-1849 at New Jersey. He was the son of John Baird and Sarah Ann De Nyse. James married Huldah Millspaugh, daughter of Rev. Alex C. Milspaugh and Sarah A. Bariclo, on 21-Oct-1874. James Henry Baird died in 1921.

Child of James Henry Baird and Huldah Millspaugh

Huldah Millspaugh

F, #58096, b. 1850, d. 1922
Huldah Millspaugh|b. 1850\nd. 1922|p581.htm#i58096|Rev. Alex C. Milspaugh||p1738.htm#i173738|Sarah A. Bariclo||p1738.htm#i173739|||||||||||||
      Huldah Millspaugh was born in 1850. She was the daughter of Rev. Alex C. Milspaugh and Sarah A. Bariclo. Huldah married James Henry Baird, son of John Baird and Sarah Ann De Nyse, on 21-Oct-1874. Huldah Millspaugh died in 1922.
     She was also known as Huldah Milspaugh.

Child of Huldah Millspaugh and James Henry Baird

George Taylor

M, #58099
     George married Emma Holmes, daughter of Maj John S. Holmes and Sarah Hendrickson.

Emma Holmes

F, #58100, b. 30 Jul 1803
Emma Holmes|b. 30 Jul 1803|p581.htm#i58100|Maj John S. Holmes|b. 29 Nov 1762\nd. 15 Aug 1821|p1414.htm#i141351|Sarah Hendrickson|b. 9 Mar 1767\nd. 28 Aug 1824|p1414.htm#i141352|Samuel Holmes|b. 4 Oct 1726\nd. 29 Nov 1769|p1412.htm#i141195|Mary Stout|b. 1731\nd. 22 Apr 1773|p1412.htm#i141196|Col. Daniel Hendrickson|b. 5 Dec 1736\nd. 15 Apr 1797|p268.htm#i26714|Catryntie Van Brunt|b. 29 Jan 1738|p268.htm#i26713|

Relationship=4th cousin 4 times removed of David Kipp Conover Jr.
Relationship=5th great-granddaughter of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven.
      Emma Holmes was born on 30-Jul-1803. She was the daughter of Maj John S. Holmes and Sarah Hendrickson. Emma married George Taylor.
Close