Crenshaw Family File 3: Joseph Crenshaw, son of Thomas Crenshaw, the ferryman of Pamunkey Neck. Take note that court documents, including enlistment certificates and the list of dead at Fort Duquesne spell the name as Crenshaw the same as that name is spelled today. The name of his father Thomas and his grandfather John is written in a variety of spellings, often beginning with the letter G. These records of Joseph leave no doubt that the Grancha/Cranshaw/Granger/Granchawe spellings of earlier colonial generations were phonetic renderings of the name which finally settled as Crenshaw. Spelling rules did not develope until about 1850, so earlier spelling could not be branded as correct or incorrect by todays standards. The orthography of the family name is a subject not yet studied with the intensity it deserves, and a lack of understanding of this accounts for some of the difficulty (and faux historie) of the early American period. ********* The Death of Joseph The circumstances under which the Crenshaws first came into contact with George Washington may never be known, but certainly the month of July 1757 was an important point in that relationship. It was that month that Joseph Crenshaw was sworn into the Virginia Militia and served in the staff, or headquarters unit, of Colonel George Washington who was temporarily in command of the militia units being organized for an attack on Fort Duquesne. The enlistment certificate of Joseph Crenshaw lies in the papers of George Washington at the Library of Congress. Ferry operators were exempt from conscription. It was necessary for Colonel Washington to persuade one of them to enlist voluntarily if the Virginia Brigade was to have expert help in crossing the Beautiful River on the banks of which Duquesne had been erected. The same month that saw Joseph Crenshaw enlisted in the colonial army, also witnessed the death of a Pamunkey area resident. He was Daniel Parke Custis, the first husband of Martha Dandridge, and they lived at White House Plantation on the Pamunkey River. Young Martha Dandridge Custis was the heiress to 17,438 acres of land along the Pamunkey and, elsewhere, in several Virginia counties. It would have been almost impossible for Daniel Custis to not have known the Crenshaws and the Dabneys, since he would have made use of their ferry system in his many travels to and from the Custis estates. These river crossing points were the places where ferry owners also operated inns, livery stables, and sometimes stagecoach lines. They were natural stop-over places. When young Colonel Washington came into possession of the lands and plantations of the Widow Custis, it would have been natural for him to make use of Crenshaw facilities in his inspection of this vast domain his wife had inherited from her first husband. Martha Custis was only 26 when she wed George Washington. That happened to be the same age that Washington's mother had reached when she married Washington's father at Sandy Point, the Eskridge seat in Westmoreland County. Joseph Crenshaw was a man nearly sixty, if not already so, and with a large family and a flourishing enterprise on the banks of the Pamunkey, when he enlisted. We do not know the precise reason for the enlistment of a sixty year old man into the British Colonial Army, but some of the background information has been examined, and from that source, a reasonably laid out analysis may be made. First of all, it was probably something that young Washington may have wished. This youthful soldier had gained much experience by his early participation in the French and Indian War and in the engagements preliminary to it. As early as the campaign of 1753, half a decade before Joseph Crenshaw became involved, George Washington had certain military responsibilities thrust upon him. The manner in which he anticipated problems and prepared for them bears upon this point. For example, he had no knowledge of the language of the French and Indian enemies against whom he was to contend. In order to solve one of these shortcomings, Washington, at the insistence of Governor Dinwiddie, sought out the help of Christopher Gist. Selection of Gist was a boon for two reasons. First was his command of the Indian language, and second, was his skill as a woodsman. It was into a wilderness that Washington must go, and it was in such a place that Washington was to learn that a military commander must be a master of many things. It was here, on the way to the Ohio River that the future leader of the Continental Army was to struggle with great difficulties and to learn how to solve problems, or to avoid them. Quality in manpower, brainpower and experience became very important, and the test of quality became more important than quantity. Gist had much experience, not only in translating for his commander, but was something of a diplomat and he could negotiate with the Indians, both those who were allied with the French and those who supported the British forces. In George Washington's Papers II, page 41 it says that Washington, "...knows but little of their language." Christopher Gist was not the first of the great Indian linguists of Colonial Virginia. Cornelius Dabney, of Pamunkey Neck had performed that function for the Williamsburg authorities when Joseph Crenshaw was an infant. Later, John Crenshaw, brother of Joseph had married Sarah Dabney, a grand daughter of the old man who served the colony in its negotiations with the Indians. It is a strong possibility that Joseph Crenshaw had acquired a knowledge of the Indian language. The opportunity to do so, must have developed from the many Delaware, Pamunkey and Rappahannock Indian families who crossed at the ferry landings, and who gathered about that place where there was trading to be done and jobs to be had. But certainly, the example set by Cornelius Dabney must have influenced other family members to emulate him. There is every reason to believe that Joseph Crenshaw had a more than elementary understanding of the Redman's tongue, and, added to his other skills, made him a valuable addition to the headquarters unit of George Washington. Several years after the period of the French and Indian War, the families of Gist and Crenshaw were united in South Carolina. Robert Crenshaw, a grandson of Joseph, had a grand daughter who married Colonel Nathaniel Gist (1776-1861). Mrs Gist was a niece of Randolph Crenshaw (1775-1849) who was progenitor of the Mississippi branch of the family. The South Carolina marriage was between people who were five generations from those who served George Washington. On the Gist side the line runs from Christopher to Richard, then to William and to his son William, and finally to Nathaniel. On the Crenshaw side, the generations were Joseph, William, Robert (who went to South Carolina 1784), Frances (who married McDaniel), Elizabeth (who married Colonel Nathaniel Gist). In addition to the sensitivity which George Washington had about communicating with foes in the wilderness, there was the matter of recruiting the kind of men who would benefit him on the campaign. Much of the historical source material concerning this phase of Washington's career is taken up with route selection, not only for the First Militia Regiment, but also the Highland Regiment of Major Grant. Here it was evident that Braddocks Defeat at Fort Duquesne in 1755 had a visible effect on Washington and other leaders of the British Forces. River crossings had played a large role in limiting Braddock and may have been his undoing. The corps of troops and their train of wagons had to be ferried across the rivers if they were to prevail. This matter of troop movements, and particularly stream crossing was a major concern to the Colonel of Militia and may have been foremost in him mind. It is no surprise, then, that his attention would turn to those who were most experienced in solving such a problem. The Crenshaws operated a key ferry system in the colony. The Journal of The House of Burgesses took notice of its importance and measures were taken, by that body, to regulate its operation. The official record shows that Joseph Crenshaw was mustered into service in the summer of 1757. His recruiting certificate was signed by John Cox, Jr. on 25 July 1757. (Colonial Soldiers Of The South, by M.J. Clark, p. 530). The efforts made to search out this man are not known to us but his name is to be found among the miscellaneous enlistments made during those summer months and he was not a part of a general levy, or conscription, under way at that time. Joseph's age (he was about the same age as Brigadier John Forbes) would have left him outside the limits of the mobilization. Service in the militia, or provincials, was mandatory on all men in colonial Virginia, and in other provinces also. This service had no upper age limit, but men who were judged aged and infirm were excused. Certainly Joseph had answered to many musters during his lifetime, as did every man in the colony. That Joseph Crenshaw was hastily summoned into the detachment is attested by the circumstances in preparing and executing his will. Joseph had a wife and several children to provide for, and he understood the great peril which was to come in the venture with Colonel Washington. No doubt, this prospect of danger, had prompted other, and younger ferrymen to turn aside from the plea of the army's emissaries. Obviously Joseph had his attorney prepare his will, and there is a mark of haste about it. We do not know the name of the man who did this for Joseph, but it was probably a fellow parishioner of Cumberland Church, whose records contain many Crenshaw entries. In doing his work the lawyer left blank the month and day that the will was to be signed. This was something for Joseph to fill in when he was presented the paper for execution. When the moment came, Joseph put down his pen after affixing his signature and he overlooked dating the piece. The year 1757 had been placed there by the lawyer and that is the only date on the page. Joseph was in a hurry. He went, straightaway to Washington's camp and, there, offered up his considerable skill as ferryman and translator. From that moment on, Joseph Crenshaw was caught up in history, and the few months remaining to him are to be found in the dispatches of soldiers, and the chronicles of historians. Considering his age, there is some doubt, that the Joseph Crenshaw of the French and Indian War was the same Joseph Crenshaw who was the son of Thomas Crenshaw and who had married Sarah McAllister, the daughter of Andrew McAllister of Pamunkey Neck. (The will of Joseph Crenshaw reveals that Sarah McAllister Crenshaw had named one of her daughters after her mother, Hannah McAllister.) There are reasons to support the contention that, indeed, Joseph, the ferry operator was the same man who fell in the ranks of the King's Colonial Army, and who served in Washington's detachment. There were two men named Joseph Crenshaw and they were father and son. The younger of the two would be the obvious choice, if only age were a consideration for military service. One of the most compelling reasons for selection of the older man is that he brought with him experience of a kind which may have been more valuable than a primitive knowledge of musketry. But there is other evidence which supports the belief that the man killed at Fort Duquesne was the older Joseph and not the younger one. The will of the elder Joseph, and its tell-tale lack of a date, was probated 4 October 1758, which was three weeks following the death of the man who lay on the field near Fort Duquesne. There is also evidence that the younger man lived on for several years after the death of his father on 14 September 1758. An entry in the Vestry Book of St. Pauls (1759) named young Joseph to a group who were "...to see the processioning performed" and the following year received a payment for "...keeping William Brichen." That was on 25 November 1760. The preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that the man slain in the French and Indian War was the son of Thomas Crenshaw, immigrant of Pamunkey Neck, and there is not any evidence to show otherwise. There are several sources which chronicle the events on the day Joseph Crenshaw met death. Murtle June Clark in her study Colonial Soldiers Of The South, 1732-1774, places his time of death as 14 September 1758 and includes his name with a dozen others in the unit which is described as Colonel Washington's Company. Only in unusual cases is a man of that rank in command of a unit of that size. Washington's overall command was almost brigade strength and it included all of the The First Regiment of Virginia under Lieut. Col. Stephen. As was usual with such forces, Colonel Washington did have a headquarters detachment and a staff which consisted of specialists and advisers whose duties were extra-regimental. Joseph Crenshaw was in this unit which, for lack of a better name, has been designated as his company. In the campaign this group was nearer to the seat of command than the other troops, and their association with the baggage train may be a clue to their location during the battle. Perhaps this position, removed from musket range, may have influenced Joseph to undertake the stress and danger of the campaign, as it was clear that he was to serve in a manner different from the rank and file. It was these men who were to be lauded as hero's of the day. There are several sources which speak of the events of the night of the 13th and 14th of September 1758. On that night, Major Grant, of the Highland Regiment planned to form a demonstration in front of the main gate of the Fort, take some prisoners, burn a free standing building used to store goods, and allow his detachment to also survey the facade of the main structure, itself. One dispatch referred to this plan as A la barbe DE la Garisson, which literally, means a foray "into the beard of the Garrison." It is the name given a military operation to assess the defenses of a fort at its strongest point which is in and around the main gate. The purpose of the operation was to move engineers up to the gate of the fort so that measurements may be taken of wall height and gateway dimensions. Such gages of the fort's battlements were necessary for the construction of huge battering rams, ladders and other equipment necessary for the storming of the citadel. The burning of the storehouse was a diversion, but the light from its flames aided the surveyors on the night when the plan miscarried. Prior to that time, perhaps late in the evening of 13 September, Captain Bullett, and a detachment which was thought to number about 50 men, was sent to the rear for the purposes of guarding the baggage which remained on carts and wagons parked "on the road by which we were to return." These people were known to be men of the Virginia Militia and there is a high probability that Joseph Crenshaw was among the original fifty to be so detached. His age and other considerations make it unlikely that he was in the militia unit of Andrew Lewis who joined them later. The main force which was designated to approach closest to the fort walls and which was to carry out diversions was a regular army unit known as the Irish Regiment. They were all Scots, but they had served in Ireland many years to put down troubles there. They had been sent directly to Fort Duquesne from Irish garrison towns. The kilt-clad highlanders carried their foray into the "whiskers" at a point too close to the jaws of the fort, and they were set upon by a sortie from there, of Indians, and French Regulars. Many of those in the British Army perished, only the men at the baggage train stood firm. It was these men, said to be under the command of Captain Bullett, who saved the day. Some were pushed into the Beautiful River and drowned there. Grant had arranged for the bag pipes to offer up a certain tune as a signal for men of the highland regiment to withdraw from the beard of the garrison. In the excitement of this night with a full regiment moving upon the main gate, and a fire lighting up those who were at the burning store house the Indians inside the fort were extremely tense. When these savages heard the wail and moaning sound of the bag pipes they imagined it to be the sounds of demons and spirits who were intent on nothing good. These frightened Indians burst forth from the main gate and fell upon the Scots with such fury that none survived the wrath of terrified Huron warriors. Prior to the events of that night one report stated that these Hurons had found a human body floating in the river and had brought it ashore and devoured it. These cannibals, now in a state of panic and horror fell upon the Scot soldiers and killed all of them. The momentum of their attack carried them to the detachment of Captain Bullett where Crenshaw stood, "on the road by which we were to return." The name which the French had given this place was Fort Duquesne Of The Blessed Virgin At The Beautiful River. Colonel Washington did not have a major role in the events of the night of September 13th and 14th. Joseph Crenshaw did, and his name is among those known to have been killed with the few militia troops engaged in that field, and at that place, where the road comes down to the banks of the Beautiful River. The word Allegheny means beautiful in the Algonkian language. Some historians say that it is not proper to refer to the events of 1914-1918 as the First World War. The real conflagration, which was world wide in scope, began when the King of Prussia sent his troops into Saxony, and began a long war, which in America, is known as The French and Indian War. The hill near the Beautiful River was its theatre. It is difficult to understand why a man, age 60 or thereabouts, would take himself away from the comfort and wealth of Pamunkey River country, to the wagons and baggage that stretched out "on the road by which we were to return." and there die in the most valiant action on a day which is otherwise known for its catastrophe. W.W. Smyth, speaking of men in another war and in another time (A Year With The Turks) said of them: "...they did what men could do, and when they could do no more, left there, their bodies in testimony of their mind." Later the French abandoned Fort Duquesne Of The Blessed Virgin Beside The Beautiful River and burned its stockade, barracks and all its store rooms. When the colonials came upon the place, they found the path to be lined with poles, upon which were the heads of the men captured during the long night of the 13th and 14th of September 1758. In downtown Pittsburgh, near the Three Rivers Stadium is a section known as Grant's Hill, where Major Grant began his advance into the beard of that garrison which hid the mouth of the demon. Below that hill, where some old buildings now stand was "the road by which we were to return" and where the wagons were parked near the Beautiful River. Jack Crenshaw Grantham, Jr. Revised February 1996 ********************** George Washington's papers are on microfilm and available at many libraries. The archivist arranged the papers in chronological order. The enlistment certificate of Joseph may be found on the date of his enlistment in July 1757 in the court room at the courthouse in Lunenburg County. The casualty list, which names Joseph first, is to be found in Washington's files as of the date of his death which was 14 Sep 1758. The Will of Joseph Crenshaw is filed in the same court which saw his swearing in at the time of his enlistment. There is no doubt as to the identity of the man slain on 14 September 1758. His estate was probated before the same magistrates who swore him into the militia a few weeks previously. ******************** The Virginians At Duquesne When Joseph Died Taken from the volume at a place noted as Book Three, Fort Duquesne of the Blessed Virgin at the Beautiful River and found in Guns At The Forks, by Walter O'Meara, published by Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1965), page 199 ff: "Early on the morning of September 14, de Ligneris was aroused from sleep, and hastening to the rampart, was astonished to see one of his storehouses in flames. "Grant had arrived about midnight, and after a brief reconnaissance, had ordered Major Andrew Lewis to proceed with 400 men and 'attack everything that was found about the fort.' Lewis an expert woods fighter, must have questioned the feasibility of such an action in pitch darkness, but he was too good a soldier to protest an order, even an impossible one. With his men wearing white shirts over their uniforms--to distinguish them from the Indians--he marched his frontiersmen off through the woods. "Grant waited uneasily until close to daybreak for the noise of an attack. Then, to his astonishment, he saw Lewis' men returning through the woods, in what he called 'complete disorder.' They had not been repulsed by the fort garrison; they had simply lost contact with one another in the darkness and like honest woodsmen, had decided to get back to familiar ground. Grant ordered them to the rear to guard the baggage and form a reserve. "Then, incomprehensively, he sent fifty of his Highlanders to attack an Indian camp near the fort. Finding no Indians, the Highlanders set fire to a storehouse and withdrew. "At this point--according to Bouquet's own wry version of the affair--Grant got the idea that the French were too weak to attempt a sally. Stationing himself on a rise of ground with 200 Highlanders, 100 Marylanders, and 100 Pennsylvanians, he sent 100 of the Highlanders, with drums beating and pipes skirling, across open ground--possibly to cut off a sortie from the garrison. "It was seven o'clock now, and de Ligneris, listening to Grant's drummers lustily beating out the reveille, and watching his kilted Highlanders marching straight at his fort, came to terms with his unbelieving senses. He opened the gates of Fort Duquesne and turned his Indians, and a few troops--possibly 800 in all--loose on them. "Yelling and firing as they came on, the savages and French overwhelmed the little company of Highlanders, killing Captain McDonald and throwing his men into disarray. The Pennsylvanians turned and made off without firing a shot. The rest of Grant's force soon found themselves surrounded and milling about in complete confusion. 'Fear had got the better of every other passion,' Grant afterwards wrote, 'and I hope I shall never again see such a panic among troops..' "To complete the confusion, Major Lewis, in attempting to come to Grant's aid, arrived just in time to become inextricably entangled with the fleeing Provincials. All of Grant's desperate efforts to rally his troops were futile. It was the Virginians, under Capt. Thomas Bullet, who saved the rout from becoming a massacre. Bouquet, in his report of the action to Forbes, described the heroic stand of the Americans as the one bright spot in a day of otherwise unbelievable disaster; "They would probably have been cut to pieces but for Captain Bullet of the Virginians who with 100 men sustained the battle with all their forces until, having lost two-thirds of his men, he was pushed into the direction of the river...They were soon surrounded, and the Frenchmen, calling him Major Grant by name, offered him quarter. He did not wish it. They did not want to fire on him, wishing to take him prisoner. Captain Bullet still fired, and in the end they fired too, and routed his party into the Ohio, where a large number were drowned." -----oooOooo----- Washington Found in George Washington In The Ohio Valley, by Hugh Cleland, U. of Pittsburg (1955), p. 201: A message Washington to John Augustine Washington: "Raystown "25 September 1758 "I greatly bewail the misfortune that gives rise to the following relation. Major Grant of the Highlanders with a chosen detachment of 800 marched from our advanced post at Loyal Hannah the 12th instant for Fort Duquesne what to do there I cannot certainly say, but it is reported and I suppose justly, to annoy the enemy and gain intelligence. In the night of the 13th (Note: this night which say the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th was the night when Joseph Crenshaw died). He took post with his troops in several columns on a hill just above the fort, from whence he sent out to reconnoiter the works, this they did, and burnt a log house just by the walls. Not content with this success Major Grant must needs sent an engineer in full view of the fort next morning with a covering party to take a plan of the place. He also ordered Major Lewis two miles back to their baggage guard where Captain Bullet commanded, and while this was doing caused the Revielle to beat in different places which caused the enemy to sallie upon them in very great numbers. Hence ensued an obstinate engagement and the running away of the Pennsylvanians, who were just behind, and ought to have sustained the Highlanders. Major Lewis notwithstanding his former orders marched up the Virginians with great dispatch and intrepidely...their bravery fell with more of my officers besides Capt Walter Steward who was left wounded in the field but has since come in. I had also 62 killed; this is a heavy stroke upon the Regiment who only had 8 officers 166 men there. I inclose you a return of all the troops that were there of the killed wounded &ca." p. 206 a portion of Major Grant's account: "I there sent Major Lewis the 14th at break of day with the Americans & Virginians to reinforce Capt. Bullet who I had left with about 50 men as a guard upon our horses & provisions, within 2 miles of the fort directly upon the Road by which we were to return to Camp." p. 210 which speaks of the phase of the battle in which Joseph Crenshaw is thought to have fallen: "They would probably have been cut to pieces but for Captain Bullet of the Virginians who with 100 men sustained the battle with all their forces until, having lost two-thirds of his men, he was pushed in the direction of the river." ------------------ Thursday 14 September 1758 Found in Wilderness Empire, by Allen W. Eckert, Boston, Little, Brown & Co. (1969), which presents, in Journal form, the events day by day. From the calendar for 14 September 1758: "...Captain Thomas Bullet, who were in command of the provincials...at two o'clock this morning...sending him two hundred men to guard the baggage, two miles to the rear, where a small party of Virginians under Captain Bullet were already camped...but Captain Bullet and his little company almost immediately the whole body of the French and Indians was upon them. The fighting was furious and they were gradually forced toward the Allegheny." ------------------------ The Casualty List Found in the papers of George Washington where the date 14 Sep 1758 is to found. "A list of the men's names belonging to the First Virginia Regiment, that was killed while in the last action near Fort Duquesne, Sept 14, 1758. "Colonel Washington's Company Sergeant Stephens Private Joseph Crenshaw Here follows a list of others killed that morning. <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>> Will Of Joseph Crenshaw Will Book I, Lunenburg County, Virginia, pages 228-230. In the name of God Amen. I Joseph Crenshaw of Lunenburg County & Parish of Cumberland, being in perfect sense, will & memory of mind, do make this my last will & testament in manner & form following (That is to say). First and principally I commit my soul to Almighty God my body to this earth, there to be decently buried according to the discretion of my Exrs. Item. I leave to my beloved wife the liberty of the plantation during the time of her widowhood. Item. I leave unto my eldest son William Crenshaw five pounds sterling money. Item. I leave to my son Gideon five pounds currant money. Item. I give to my son Joseph thirty shillings current money I lend unto my daughter Priscilla Duke one feather bed & furniture being the bed that my son Micajah usually lies on. Item. I lend to my daughter Hannah Barkman (or Parkman) one feather bed and covering being the bed she now lies on and one horse and side saddle an my will is that if the said Hannah's husband shall come & entice the said Hannah away that which I have lent her, the said Hannah, I give unto my daughter Mary Cook. And if the said Hannah is so enticed away my will is that the said Hannah shall not have any part of my estate. Item. I give to my youngest son, Micajah and to the heirs of his body, forever, the land whereon I now live and in case if failure of such heirs then my son Joseph & the heirs of his body forever to enjoy & have the said land forever. Item. I give to my son Micajah my young colt and saddle & all my wearing cloths and my will and desire is that my son Micajah lives under the care of his brother Thomas and my will further is that all the rest of my estate be equally divided amongst them all, excepting my son William to have only as above mentioned and that my estate be not appraised. Item. I give to my son, Micajah one feather bed & covering and my desire & will is that my son Thomas and Gideon be the Executors of his my will & testament. Which I have hereunto set my hand & seal in the presence of the said witnesses and acknowledged this to be my last will & testament this ----- day of ---- one thousand seven hundred & fifty seven. /s/Jos Crenshaw S.S. Signed, sealed & acknowledged in the presence of Gideon Crenshaw, William W. Wilkins, Ann (her mark) Wilkins. *********** Probate At a court held for Lunenburg County the fourth day of October 1758. The above written last will & testament of Joseph Crenshaw and was exhibited in court by Gideon Crenshaw & Thomas Crenshaw, the Executors therein named and the same was proved by the oaths of two of the witnesses thereto and ordered to be recorded and on the motion of the said Executors who made oath according to law. Certificate is granted them for obtaining letters in probate of the said will in due form (they giving security) whereupon they together Joseph Crenshaw Williams, gentlemen, their securities entered into & acknowledged their bond for that purpose. Teste Clement Read. L.C.C. ************ Inventory of Estate Joseph Crenshaw Lunenburg County, Virginia Will Book I, pp. 292-294 Joseph Crenshaw - Inventory of Estate, at court 5 Feb 1760. Copied from a paper prepared by Mrs Echardt of Houston, Tx in 1877. Cash pd. William Crenshaw legacy 6.5.0 Cash pd. Robert Langley, merchant 4.5.5 Cash pd. David Garland 2.11.3 Cash pd. John Potter 1.1.0 Cash pd. John Brady 9.6 Cash pd. Francis Brady 5.6. Cash pd. Jeremiah Clauncy 2.6 Cash pd. John May 8.8 Cash pd. Thos Wagstgaff for F-- 6.10 Paid James Mitchel for ditto 2.6 Paid Charles Cook 1.8 Cash pd. C. Rand 94 H. Tab @ 25/ 1.3.8 Cash pd. Zack Baker 10.0 Cash pd. Gideon Crenshaw legacy 5.0.o Cash pd. Joseph Crenshaw legacy 1.10.0 Paid Micajah Crenshaw legacy 4.10.6 Paid Hannah Barkman legacy 4.15.0 Total paid 25.2.5 Paid to ---- ---- for ----- the estate .5.0 Returning the works of --- land 2.0.0 Paid Nancy Barkman 1.0.4 Paid --- Brooks 1.0.0 --- Paid --- --- --- for --- .14.0 to ditto pd. Abner Hack for advice on the will .10.0 to ditto pd. Thomas Anderson for --- --- 0.5.0 Total paid 40.15.1 Cash pd John Humphrey 0.1.] Paid Major Tabb 0.4.0 Total 41.10.4 To all --- the Executors for their trouble 7--Cont. 5.10.3 ` Total 46.10.4 A bed etc delivered to Robert Cook as a legacy.... A bed etc delivered Hannah Barkman as a legacy Ditto delivered to Micajah Crenshaw as ditto Per cont'd. 1 Cow & yearling 2.5.1 2 Tidy, Sand, Leader Cow & Calf 1.17.6 2.6.6 An iron pot 10/ one plain wooden collar 5/6 15.6 A mare 2.15.1 a cow 1.17.0 4.12.1 2 cows & 2 steers 9.6.0, one bull 7/6 3.13.9 Iron tongs 4./-, 2-- 1/8 0.9.8 1 pair cotton -- 3/6 2 pair ditto 2/ 5.6 2 -- 1/, a pound of buttons 1/4 0.2.4 1 pot hook 13/6, 1 dish & some pewter etc 1.8.6 1 bowl 4/, 1 hand -- & drawing knife & auger 13/ .17.0 1 cart 1.6 4 gimlet 2/ 3.6 1 pair money scales 4/, a small wheel 2/ 0.60 1 crosscut saw & other tools .8.0 1 B-- 5/, --spindle & crank 2/6 0.7.6 1 grindstone 6/, glass 3/ 0.9.0 1 negro man 32.0.0. 1 raw mix 6/ 32.6.0 A trunk, 1 pair -- 10/7 0.16.4 2 scissors 4/, 1 bedstead & 4 chairs 10/ 0.14.0 A skillet, ladle F-- &--- & caskes 5.8 2 -- 11/, 1 small trunk 6/7 0.17.7 1 looking glass 4/6, 5 B---2/4 6.10 4 chairs 1/8, 1 skillet 8/ 9.8 2 pint bowls 1/, 1 drinking glass /8 1.8 2 bottles & old p--6, ch-- 0.1.0 500 6lb nails 2/, 1 old ---4 2.4 1 safe 1/...dozen spoons 2/1 3.4 7 spoons 2/1, 1 pair tongs & shovel 5.2 7.3 1 b-- & -- lumber 7/8, 1---1/ 8.8 1 mug --- --- --- --- 1.12.0 1 razor &--- 1/--- leather 16/ 17.0 1 man's --- 17/6 & crank 9/ 1.6.6 A pot 1.6.8, 1 gun 1.6.6 2.13.2 A --- of carpenter's tools 10/6, 1 bolt 2/, a -- 7/6 18.4 A lot of shoemaker's tools 10/6, some cooper's tools 7/ 17.6 Cooper's tools 10/, ditto 6/6, a b---3/7 1.0.1 2 --- 7/, a meal bag 2/8, a frying pan & other --- 11.11 A butter pot & some other trifles 9.5, 1 --- 4.8 14.1 A covered---9/, a tab--n-- & chamber pot 4/ 13.0 A candlestick 8/, 1 jough 1/3 1/11 Cr-- in Richard Neiham's hand 9.9 Cr-- found in ---'s house 2.0.0 Cash received of John --- 5.0 Ditto of Richard Wilkins 1.3 Ditto received of Tony--- 1.0.1 Ditto received of Thomas Akin 3.0 Ditto received of Cal Eaby (could be Irby) 1.3.4 --- --- the Executors for their trouble 5.10.3 Total 79.6.6 Pursuant to an order of Lunenburg County Court we have stated carefully and examined the assets of Thomas & Gideon Crenshaw, Executors of Joseph Crenshaw, Deceased & so find a balance in the executors hands of 27.5.11 Certified under our hands ye -- day of -- 1759 /s/Rich. C. Wilson Jas Williams At a Court held for Lunenburg County the 5th day of February 1760. The within written account current of the Estate of Joseph Crenshaw, Deceased was returned in Court by the auditors thereunder, as furnished, and the same was approved by the court, which together with the report thereunder written, were ordered to be recorded. Teste: Clement Reed C.L.C. Ferrymen Exempt From Militia Executive Journals of Council of Colonial Virginia, Vol. I, p. 526, an item with a date 23 May 1691. "Council Order the Militia Officers not to list the following persons, 1st in Commission of Peace, Physician, Surgeons, Readers, Clerks, Ferrymen, Negroes. <<<<<<>>>>>> Micajah Crenshaw son of Joseph Portions of a letter signed B.M.D. to Hazel Wilkins, written at Atlanta, Georgia 27 Sep 1990. Not all of the letter reproduced her. Writer thought to be Beatrice Mackey Doughtie, Jr. of 3680 Peachtree Rd. NW Apt., B-4 in Atlanta, GA 30319. She was compiler of Documented Notes on Jennings and Allied Families (1961). "Micajah Crenshaw, Sr., youngest son of Joseph Crenshaw, Sr. who died in Lunenburg County, Virginia 1758 leaving a will. I approximated his date of birth to be c1739/44. I was never able to document his date of death but it had to be after 2 Jan 1804, for on this date he made over to his son, Micajah, Jr. the land on which he lived in Lancaster County, SC. He was a minor when his father died and according to the will of Joseph Crenshaw he was to live under the care of Thomas Crenshaw. In May Court, 1760 in Lunenburg Co. VA (and Granville Co. N.C.) Micajah Crenshaw, Sr. came into court & being of lawful age (age 14, or above) made choice of Gideon Crenshaw. Although I have found men named Micajah in Georgia, Alabama and Texas, in the counties of Limestone, Robertson, Guadalupe, that gave any inkling that I was dealing with the one and same Micajah Crenshaw, Sr. of Granville Co. N.C. and Lancaster Co. S.C. He was witness for Samuel Crenshaw (made affidavit 7 Apr 1855 from Limestone, TX certifying the marriage of Samuel Crenshaw to Nancy Sims which took place in Kershaw Co. S.C. (Camden County Seat). Samuel Crenshaw had died 1843 in Mobile AL. His widow Nancy (Sims) Crenshaw was residing in Limestone Co. TX in 1855, age 84 years who was filing claim for Samuel's service in the War of 1812. This lead took me to Limestone Co. TX, but the court records did not reveal anything, neither did the Clerk of the Court know any Crenshaws living in the County. Micajah Crenshaw, Sr. disappears from the court records in Granville Co. N.C. after 4 Nov 1768, when he sold land to William Matthews. He next appears in the S.C. records when he served in the Militia. He married Mary Ann Matthews (old letters in family data) the date and place not known. But he must have been very young. She was living in Lancaster Co. S.C. 7 Nov 1804, when she witnessed with Micajah Crenshaw, Sr. Their children were: 1. Mary Ann Crenshaw (c1760-1844) m. Thos. Mackey, Sr. (1762-1842), Lancaster Co. S.C. 2. Matthew Crenshaw d. in S.C. before 1850 3. Duke Crenshaw 4. Joseph Crenshaw 5. James Crenshaw 6. Micajah Crenshaw, Jr. (1782-1862) m. Hapsey Jane Morris, b. in Chester Co. S.C. He went to Sumter Co. Fla. & died there. 7. Probably other children, names unknown, including Samuel Crenshaw? Micajah Crenshaw, Jr. (1782-1862) is buried in Wildwood, Sumter Co. Fla. in the Oak Grove Cemetery. His (known) children were b. in S.C. I was able to prove: 1. James Crenshaw (1810-1879) d. in Webster, Fla. 2. Mary Jane Crenshaw (1820-1880) Sumter Co. Fla. ` 3. Ella Louisa Crenshaw (1821-1897) m. John Sykes Perry 4. Hiram Crenshaw (1822-1889) m. Millie Duncan in Lancaster Co. S.C. & d. Fla. 5. Rachel Crenshaw (1825-1861) m. Joshua Perry, Jr. ---------------- Gideon Crenshaw, s. of Joseph, Sr. of Lunenburg Co. VA; wife was Sarah --? His only (known) son was Chas. Crenshaw. Granville Co. N.C. list of tithables for 1769: Gideon Crenshaw 1 white, 2 blacks (slaves). State census of N.C. 1784-1878, by Register shows following: Granville County: County Line District for year 1786: Gideon Crenshaw 1 white male 21>60, 1 W.M. >21 & 4 <60. 4 female all ages, 2 blacks >12, <60. Gideon lived between John Hart & David Smith. Several Names Away was: Abraham Crenshaw, Granville Co.: County Line Dist. p. 44: 1 male 21>60; 3 W.M. >21 7 5 <60; 5 females all ages; 2 blacks 12<60; 3 blacks 12<60. It appears Abraham Crenshaw was a contemporary of Gideon C. but certainly not his son, for see his age which compares with Gideon's age. Abraham resided between Bat. Stovall & Saml Pittard. Relationship to Gideon, if any, unknown /s/ B.M.D. -----oooOooo----- Major Andrew Lewis who later was in command of Virginia forces at the first battle of the American Revolution was taken prisoner at Duquesne. (The U.S.Congress and some historians, including Theodore Roosevelt in Winning of The West, have declared Lewis' engagement at Point Pleasant in 1774 to be the first Battle of The Revolution. It followed closely upon the Boston Tea matter.) George Washington thought Lewis had been among those killed. General Andrew Lewis of Roanoke and Greenbrier (1980) by Patricia G. Johnson gives a report of a letter Washington wrote 25 September 1758. That letter is reproduced in The Writings of George Washington From The Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1794, (1931) U.S. Government Printing Office, edited by John C. Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick's collection also includes a letter Washington wrote Francis Fauquier only a fortnight following the death of Joseph Crenshaw: "The troops were divided, which caused the front to give way, and put the whole into confusion, except the Virginians, commanded by Captain Bullet, who were a means of preventing all of our people from sharing one common fate." The importance of an interpreter is underscored, page 140, Volume II of Writings Of Washington, edited by Fitzpatrick. That same source, p. 120 of Volume II, contains a letter (27 Aug 1757) which mentions that Washington had received "the draughts from Lunenburg." No doubt what was received in these drafts included the enlistment certificate of Joseph Crenshaw. The same "draughts from Lunenburg" are the subject of the letter (17 Sept 1757) which Washington wrote Governor Dinwiddie. <<<<>>>> Joseph Crenshaw in Hanover The Vestry Book, St. Pauls Parish, Hanover County, VA: "...to Joseph Crenshaw for keeping William Johnson." Dated about 1719 when Joseph was in his 20's. 30 Sep 1750 land of Joseph combined with others into one precinct for processioning. Among the land owners named is this group was the Sims family." In 1759 the name Joseph Crenshaw (the younger) appears in the minutes of St Pauls when we was named to a group "...to see the said processioning performed." and the following year received a payment for keeping William Bricheen, 25 Nov 1760. From: Virginia Historical Register, Vol. V, p. 187: "The Shawnee 'defeated' Major Grant and his Scotch Highlanders at Fort Pitt, in 1758, where the whole of the troops were killed and taken prisoners. Note: Major Grant's Highland regiment numbered 800 and none survived the excursion A La Barbe de La Garisson. --------------- The French & Indian War as a part of The First World War The seven years war (in America known as F & I War) began when Frederick of Prussia, an ally of the British in 1756 crossed the Saxony border. England and Prussia were against a powerful coalition of France, Austria, Sweden, Russia and Saxony. <<<<>>>> Sarah McAllister A letter from Sue Harris to Jack Grantham, 26 Nov 1992. Not all reproduced here. "I subscribe to Granville County Queries, published by Frances Wheeler of Loxahatchee, Florida. I ran queries in Nov. issue about some of my Granville families, Vass, Crenshaw and Howard. In the same issue, Dorothy Haizlip Ward of Fort Lauderdale, FL ran a query having to do with, among a number of other names, Cook and McAllister. Since the Benjamin Cook she mentioned was the Benjamin Cook (son of Abraham) who married Mary Crenshaw, daughter of Joseph Crenshaw, I wrote Mrs. Ward. "In my letter, I said that Joseph Crenshaw, who died in 1757 at Fort Duquesne, but whose will was probated in Lunenburg, was married to Sarah McAllister, daughter of Andrew and Hannah McAllister of Pamunkey Neck, and asked if this was the McAllister family she was researching. "I immediately had a very nice, informative letter from Mrs. Ward, but it was a shock to read that a Cook genealogy says Sarah McAllister, daughter of Andrew and Hannah, was the wife of Abraham Cook. She said the book offered no proof, but merely said, "further research reveals Sarah's maiden name was McAllister." Mrs Ward had recently found a record in King William Co., where Hannah McAllister was giving power of attorney to Abraham Cook in 1706. She believes this was the father of the Abraham Cook who died in Lunenburg, and she had written for the record. I asked Mrs Ward for the name of the Cook genealogy, along with the author's name and address, as I think we ought to look into this. I am very interested in whether the Cooks can offer better proof than the Crenshaws! "Mrs Ward asked if I had a record of administration for Andrew McAllister, or how I found that Sarah Crenshaw was his daughter. I went back through my files to see what McAllister records, if any, I do have, and found nothing. I always meant to copy the McAllister land grant, after the library got them on microfilm, but haven't done so. I also meant to see if I could find anything more about the McAllisters, but never got around to it. I sent her the fourth page from your "Joseph Crenshaw" manuscript in which you describe Andrew's land patent and point out that Joseph and Sarah named a daughter Hannah after her mother. I also mentioned that Joseph was a ferry operator and that his father, Thomas, had earlier bought from John Langston land north of the Pamunkey River as a ferry landing - and that the Johnson land next door to Thomas Crenshaw adjoined Seller's Race Ground, in the McAllister's neighborhood, which is probably where Joseph met Sarah McAllister. "I have been thinking long and hard as to just where I first heard that Joseph married Sarah McAllister, and think it must have been from Wilkin's book - at least I can't find any other source. "I wrote Hazel last week and asked where she first heard that Joseph Crenshaw married Sarah McAllister. Hazel says a land named Link Eckhardt of Houston, with whom she corresponded in the 1970's was the source. She had seen and copied a 15 page handwritten booklet by Mrs Eckhardt. Hazel says Mrs Eckhardt sent her a chart showing her husband was a descendant of Benjamin Cook and Mary Crenshaw through their son George, and that she showed Sarah McAllister as the wife of Joseph Crenshaw. Hazel's last letter to Mrs Eckhardt in 1979 was returned, and since she was 84 in 1977, Hazel feels sure she died in 1979. ________________________ ************************ It is to be kept in mind when reading the genealogies of early Crenshaws from Wilkins first edition that the 1667 error concerning Tremain being read as Crenshaw was an error that caused early researchers to change the generations of Thomas and his children. Wilkins tends to make the first two or three generations of Virginia Crenshaws to be about 30 years older than they actually were. In other words Thomas was a generation younger than portrayed in the first issue of her book because Thomas was not the one issued a land patent in 1667. That land patent went to a Tremaine and not to a Crenshaw. Likewise, as Wilkins pointed out in a letter, the children of Thomas were much younger than originally thought to be. When Hannah McAllister gave Cook a power-of-attorney in 1706, Joseph Crenshaw was not married to anyone. He was far too young to do so. This man, husband of Sarah McAllister, was a soldier in 1757 and had minor-age children when he died. In 1757 Micajah was under the age of fourteen. That is why Joseph directed him to be under the care of his brother Thomas. Micajah in 1757 had not reached the age of consent, so that is why a special provision is made for him. We also know the Hannah McAllister was a widow when she made out the Power-of-Attorney in 1706. If Andrew was alive at that time, she would have had to act through her husband. Andrew McAllister seems to have been alive when a patent was granted to him for the land he purchased from Yarborough several years before. That places Andrew alive in 1704 and dead in 1706. The will of Joseph Crenshaw, and especially the inventory of his estate mention Cook family members. There is no doubt there is a Crenshaw/Cook relationship and it is a family relationship. The absence of records do not help, but it is possible that the Widow Hannah McAllister married a widower named Cook and that each had childen before their marriage and these step-brothers and sisters account for the multitude of Cook names in Crenshaw literature. Under such circumstances Cooks and Crenshaws were one family, with no bar to marriage among Cooks sons to Crenshaw girls. ******************* Grantham's Letter to Harris Concerning Cook 30 Nov 1992 Dear Sue, It is almost certain that very little research has gone into the identification of the wife of Joseph Crenshaw. My only knowledge of her was what appeared in the Wilkins book. My feeling was that there was no reason to dispute the assertion that Joseph had married Sarah McAllister for two reasons. First, is the reason that Joseph's will offered evidence of the possibility that such was the case, and second was, "the law of courting distance." In 1985, Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman published a two volume study, A Place In Time, on the cultural anthropology of a Virginia County (Middlesex) at the time which interests us. In Volume II, which they termed Explicatus, the Rutmans devoted a chapter (VII) to child naming patterns. This study has been an aid in tracing Virginia families, especially so is this true among the Crenshaw, because they valued the tradition of family union and carried it to an almost clan like passion. What bears on the matter at hand, and which caused me to not question the McAllister/Crenshaw relationship is this quotation from pp 85 - 86. "...name sharing was a common phenomenon. Of male children, 77 percent shared their forename with a father, grandfather, or uncle; 6 percent with some other relation; 3 percent were given the name of a deceased brother; only 14 percent bore unique names. Of females, 69 percent shared a name with a mother, grandmother, or aunt; 6 percent with another relative, 3 percent with a deceased sister, 22 percent with no one...a more refined pattern emerged when we asked the same question of data broken down by birth order of the children...90 percent of the [male] first and second shared names with fathers, grandfathers, and uncles...among daughters the same pattern held. Some 80 percent of first and second daughters shared names with mothers, grandmothers, aunts.." "Instances of shared names are highly suggestive of a familial rather than individual view of children. But they are not definitive." What the study shows is that Virginia colonials were an extension, in America, of British roots and traditions, and the pattern of name identification followed this. The emphasis was on family, or clan, association and not on individualism. When Joseph and Sarah named a son Thomas, they branded that infant as members of a much larger group, and thus claimed him as one who fell within their protection. In that world there was no security anywhere outside of the family and the neighbors who often intermarried into a composite group. This was how wealth and influence were preserved. Even today British genealogists make use of The Pedigree Rule, which holds that if 6 or more names are found in one generation, and the same 6 names, without duplication, are found in another generation then the two groups are the same family, no matter how far apart they are in time. Their experience ante-dates the Rutman study by many years, and is more restrictive, but it illustrates how strong English traditions lingered in the colonies. It was no surprise then to find that Joseph, in his will, spoke of a son that had been named for Joseph's father. A young man named Thomas Crenshaw is there as a child of Joseph Crenshaw, as the Rutman study suggested. The names from generation III beg the names from generation I. Likewise, when I first began to suspect that Thomas was not an immigrant, my first impulse was to search for his father who was probably named John. To find him in the church records was about as much proof as I could muster and it was in keeping with Crenshaw tradition of naming patterns. Something to keep in mind in working with the paucity of evidence which we now have is this from Rutman. "In the female segment [of a published table] are all first and second daughters who shared their forename with either their mothers or maternal grandmothers--51 percent of all first and second daughters and 81 percent of all bearing a parent's or grandparent's name." We are not at the point where we must depend on this statistical evidence to determine which child is older than the other. The only reason that I bring up these patterns of name distribution is that it supports the belief that Sarah McAllister was the wife of Joseph Crenshaw. Hannah Crenshaw Barkman may have obtained her name from some other source, but the Rutman study suggests that she was probably named for her maternal grandmother. The second reason why I decided not to question the marriage of Joseph and Sarah was the proximity of the McAllister and Crenshaw families at Pamunkey Neck. It was at that place where the courtship took place. This is what I referred to as, "the law of courting distance." It isn't likely that Sarah McAllister could have married any one in Virginia. She had to find her mate among those who were close enough to her home to get courtship underway. Both the McAllisters and the Crenshaws were resident in Pamunkey Neck, and this is fortunate to those who seek to match up husbands and wives. Pamunkey Neck is the land bordered on the north by the Mettapony River, and on the south by the Pamunkey River and it extends as a peninsula into the York estuary. On its western side was the wereowicki, or Indian Capitol. The English who resided at Pamunkey Neck and who owned land there are well known because much early Virginia history is taken up with the problem brought about by the Indian's sale of some of their land to the English. That sale did not have the consent of either Williamsburg or the Colonial Office in London. The purchase of the Pamunkey Neck property and the names of those who came into possession of it are in two official records, and the names are known. When the initial purchase was made from the Queen of The Pamunkey, both the colonial authorities in Virginia and the Queens ministers got involved. Thus we have what amounts to two lists of landowners living in the territory known as Pamunkey Neck. In examining these lists it was not possible to find the name Cook, although that family may have been there but not as landowners. In its session of 4 September 1701, the House Of Burgesses recognized the title of the Pamunkey Neck landowners. They were listed in the Journal of the House. There were 41 names, among which was Andrew McAllister, Thomas Carr (there were two marriages between Carrs and Crenshaws), George Dabney (whose daughter Sarah married John Crenshaw. This Sarah was named after her mother, the widow of Cornelius Dabney) and Thomas Crenshaw. These lists which grew out of the land dispute are as close to a Pamunkey Neck census as we shall find. Louis des Cognets, Jr. located, in the summer of 1957, a second list which had been sent to London. This list from English archives was published in, English Duplicates Of Lost Virginia Records, and was much more detailed. This papers found in London included the names shown above and included a chain of title. They also included Daniel Parke whose land eventually came into the hands of George Washington when he married the widow of Daniel Parke Custis. This English discovery is the more important one but it does not show a Cook as landowner in Pamunkey Neck, thus making courtship between the McAllisters and the Cooks to be one which has to be proved up by other sources. Also found at the same time in the British Public Records Office was a Quit Rent Roll of King William County for the year 1704, listing Thomas Crenshaw and also a name which the abstractor wrote down as Robert Coakes, but which may be Cook. Andrew McAllister would have been there if he were alive at the time, but his name is not shown on the Quit Rent Roll. Two years later Hannah (who had to be a widow in order to do this) granted a power-of-attorney to Abraham Cook. Often it is the handicap of distance which prompts the execution of a power-of-attorney. The circumstances surrounding the posting of the power may add to our knowledge of the case. The people who have done research on the Abraham Cook/Sarah McAllister marriage have evidence which we do not have, and we must consider it to be convincing in order for them to be so sure of their position. My evidence only showed that there was reason enough to believe that what Wilkins wrote in her volume was probably true. There is no mistake that Mary Crenshaw married a Cook, and Abraham Cook is involved some way. The Louisa County records, on 13 Apr 1795 show that David Crenshaw acted as surety for William Cook when he posted a bond as Administrator in the estate of Samuel McGhee, Deceased. Also William Cook appraised the estate of William Crenshaw 13 Jan 1800, Louisa County Will Book IV, p. 102. This item mentions Nicholas Meriwether. The Meriwethers are a family from Pamunkey Neck having come there from Surry County, Va. Probated on 14 Oct 1800, in Louisa was the will of Susannah, widow of William Crenshaw who named William Cook as her executor. A witness was Dabney Trice, which again is a trace name from the land between the Mettapony and the Pamunkey, where Sarah once dwelt, and which illustrates the strength of these naming patterns. ------------- Louisa County, Virginia Deed Book H, p. 406, dated 1785, a deed whereby Nelson and Frances Anderson, Jr. convey land "which Benjamin Cook lived on and which adjoined John Johnson, William Ward, and Sarah Hambleton." Also Louisa Deed Book H, p. 236, dated 1778, a deed of Richard Anderson on land described as adjoining Nicholas Crenshaw. <<<<>>>> Joseph Crenshaw in Caroline County Colonial Caroline, page 213. lists, (1725) Joseph Crenshaw with 300a at a place described as below William Terrell's on Polecat Swamp and about 2 miles below a fork of said swamp. On the same date a grant to Philemon Hawkins on Polecat describes that tract as adjoining the land of Thomas Carr. In 1724 John Dawson charged with 200a on the north side of Polecat, and the same year Thomas Carr and William Terrell were awarded land on Polecat. With a date of 1718 is 300a to John and David Crenshaw and described as below William Terrel's on Polecat and 2 miles below the main fork of said stream. This may be the same land granted to Joseph Crenshaw in 1725 and shown above. Lands were located in St Margaret's Parish of Caroline County.