The Scotts Ferry / Dead Lakes People

In my earlier post about James Richards, I thought about including the fact that Scotts Ferry, which is only about twenty miles from the Richards blockhouse, was founded by an American Indian named Jacob Scott and for many years was largely an Indian settlement.  However, it seems that only a few families had moved to that spot by 1849, which is when James Richards died, so this provides little evidence of him peacefully coexisting with Indians after the massacres.  It might seem a little surprising to have Indians move into the area so soon after a war fought over the Removal Act, but the difference seems to be that the newcomers did not try to maintain their own laws and political independence.

Honestly, this whole dimension of the story of Scotts Ferry came as a complete surprise to me.  My parents were married in the Methodist church at Scotts Ferry, and the churchyard is full of my relatives, including my grandfather and grandmother on my mom's side, but I never heard a whisper about the town being founded by an Indian.  Nor was there anything about this in any of the Florida history classes I took as a schoolboy -- classes that, in retrospect, were remarkably lacking in the sort of local information that might have made them "come alive".

The reason appears to be that none of my elders knew that Scotts Ferry was founded by an Indian.  The Jim Crow laws had tended to isolate the different racial communities from each other, and about the time those laws disappeared, the Indians largely dispersed to other parts of the country.  There was a real risk of this chapter of history being lost.

Fortunately, Christopher Scott Sewell and Steven Pony Hill have collected a good portion of this history into The Indians of North Florida: From Carolina to Florida, the Story of the Survival of a Distinct American Indian Community.  My only complaint is that the book suffers from some of the same problems as certain of the historical books of the Bible; lists of unfamiliar and difficult-to-pronounce names can interrupt the flow and distract the reader from the main point of the story.  It is definitely important to preserve the names, but I wonder if some reorganization of the material might have kept a tighter focus that would leave readers wanting to know all the details.  Perhaps some information should have been moved to an appendix or end notes.  Fortunately, the authors have also put up a web page dealing specifically with the history of Scotts Ferry, and gives a much more succinct picture.

As is so often the case with history, it is not a pretty picture, showing the inexcusable discrimination that was entrenched in laws and attitudes and that had much more serious consequences than determining where one sat on a bus or what water fountain one used.  I've known for a long time that there never really was a golden age and that the New Jerusalem will only descend from Heaven at the end of time, but I can't help still being disappointed to discover again and again that we humans have always been a pretty sorry lot.

James Richards and the Legend of Bloody Bluff

Mosely Flag of Florida (1845) 
 Image from Zscout370 at English Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA-2.5,2.0,1.0 

This post is a little long and somewhat rambling, so let me apologize for that in advance.  I had planned to use a family legend as an example of how retaliation tends to spiral out of control, but it soon became apparent that the tale, though anchored in fact, requires some corrections and clarifications.  My sources are usually incomplete and often contradictory, but taken together they help fill in some holes in the often-repeated story.

My whole life I have heard variations on the following story.

Thomas C. Richards left Ocheesee and moved to a settlement on the Dead Lakes called Wewahichka. Thomas C. Richards and his sons built a log fort on the river bank for protection against unfriendly Indians. The fort was built with port holes and the families lived inside. On the night of Jan. 14, 1838 a band of hostile Indians came up the river by canoe, made a surprise attack on the fort and the battle lasted all night. Thomas C. Richards was killed in the attack. ... James Richards lost most of his family in a Creek Indian massacre. Under the threat of removal to lands in Arkansas, the Indians staged several uprisings. ... They killed Mrs. Richards and her three small sons in their log house. Harriett and Jehu, who were playing outside, went undetected by the Indians. They managed to steal into the deep swamp known today as Hunter's Head. When Richards returned home that night he found his home in ashes. In the midst of the smoldering rubble, he discovered the remains of his wife, who had been scalped, and his three children. Richards searched the woods for the other two but found only feathers fluttering in the breeze from the bed pillows that had once been inside the house. The next day Richards and his neighbors combed the swamp with their dogs. They found both children safe -- Jehu at a place known today as Jehu's Landing and little Harriett in another section of the alligator infested swamp. According to legend, Richards swore vengeance against all Indians after the massacre. He became a "madman" and spent his time "Indian hunting." In retaliation for what had been done to his family, Richards, along with several others, slew a band of Indians camped on a bluff on the Chipola River. Although lost today, the site was known for many years as "Bloody Bluff," because of the blood that ran down into the river after the attach.

Another version adds a few additional details.

In 1830, the federal government passed the Removal Act, which forced most of the Indians to move west to Arkansas and Indian territory. Rather than be relocated, some Indian bands went on an uprising, striking families when the men were gone. 

They massacred the wife and three small children of James (Jim) Richards and torched his home while he was away hunting with the other men. The older children, Jehu and Harriett, a young girl staying with the family, escaped in the deep swamp known as Hunter’s Head. But the date of the massacre is uncertain, with some saying it took place in 1838 and others believing it occurred earlier than that. 

To protect the Richards and other families attempting to survive on the frontier, John C. Richards and his sons built a two-story wooden fort so people could go there for protection. 

This structure of typical blockhouse design, measured 16 by 32 feet. It was built from heavy hewn logs, 10 inches square, and pegged together with oak pins. The second floor extended over the first. It was made with an opening in one side through which a ladder could be lowered and raised. Portholes were built into the walls of both stories for light and firing weapons. Many people sought protection at the fort, but Richards died in an attack on Jan. 14, 1838.

Yet another account of the same story contains the interesting "fact" that

Thomas Cupples Richards and his family were among the first group of white settlers along the river. Richards, who was born in France in 1770, came to America with his wife, Elizabeth Hogg, to escape religious persecution. 

I wish I knew the origin of that part of the story, which again I heard growing up and have spent most of my life repeating, but it has serious problems.

• It is well documented that Thomas Cupples Richards was the son of George Richards of North Carolina.  
• "Thomas" and "Stephen" could be either English or French names, but "Cupples" is an Anglo-Saxon name.
• What kind of religious persecution was he supposed to have fled?  The persecution of the Huguenots had happened a century before he is supposed to have fled France, so if he was French and religious, he would have been Catholic.  The Catholic Church was indeed persecuted during the Terror of the French Revolution.  However, when we see the Richards family appear in Florida, they are Methodists.

At any rate, a few questions should arise from the "classic" version of this legend.

• Why exactly did Thomas C. Richards move down to Wewahitchka?
• Was the attack on the Richards homestead random, or was it targeted?
• Why was James Richards away from home the night of the attack?
• Who are the "others" who helped him "[slay] a band of Indians camped on a bluff on the Chipola River"?
• If James Richards went crazy and started murdering Indians at every opportunity, how is it that he was not made to pay for his actions, either by the government or by the Indians?

A consideration of the context and timing of the events makes it possible to give plausible answers to these questions.

The Richards family started off with good relations with the Indians of Florida.  Perhaps the best summary comes from Calhoun County's The County Record:

Stephen Richards was appointed as interpreter for Chief John Blount and four other Indian chiefs who had acted as guides in Andrew Jackson's invasion of Spanish Florida in 1819. One of Stephen's first assignments was to accompany Chief John Blount to visit the President of the United States, President James Monroe. In his assignment as Indian Interpreter, he met with the Florida Indian Chiefs and the U.S. Commissioners at the Treaty of Fort Moultrie Creek. This treaty set up reservations for the Seminole nation and in particular, the five Indian Chiefs in the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee Valley. 

Stephen Richards proved many times his friendship for the five Indian Chiefs. Before the treaty of 1823, he visited Pensacola to discuss Indian affairs with Governor Andrew Jackson. Jackson, in a letter to Washington, D.C., gave an account of this trip to the Secretary of War, describing Richards and John Blount as good friends to him and to the United States. One part of the treaty that the United States government failed to validate was the grant to Stephen Richards of one square mile of land on the Ocheesee Bluff.

Stephen (1796-1871) first came to Florida in 1818, and his older brother Thomas C. Richards (1774-1838) followed in 1821.  Both men were veterans of the War of 1812. As such, they were each entitled to a claim of land in the new territory.

Unlike Stephen, Thomas seems not to have been much engaged with public life.  One might reasonably guess that he intended to grab up fertile land while the getting was good and exploit the long growing season to found a plantation larger than what his father, George Richards, had owned in North Carolina.  Ocheesee Bluff, where both Stephen and Thomas settled (and which essentially coincides with the site of Torreya State Park, where the Richards family reunion was held until the mid 1980's) was well-positioned for this, with the Apalachicola River providing access north into Georgia and south to the Gulf of Mexico.  However, a large plantation would have required slaves, and as far as I can tell, Thomas never had any during the time he was in Florida.  Possibly he made his living off land speculation, a well-established practice in new territories that in many ways still persists near the Florida beaches.

The 1790 census shows Thomas Richards of Beaufort, NC, as the head of a household that included one slave.  More significantly, the will of George Richards directed Thomas Richards to receive one third of his estate (after withholding Hicksey and a few items), which certainly could be expected to include slaves, but the Thomas Richards of Early, GA in the 1820 census, who is perhaps Thomas C. Richards, lived in a household of ten people in which there were no slaves and only one person was engaged in agriculture.  By the 1830 census, Thomas C. Cupples was living in a household of five, none of whom were slaves, and none of whom were listed as "engaged in agriculture", though they unquestionably had at least a small garden, as many people in the Florida Panhandle still do today.  The fact that he was able to move down to Wewahitchka a few years later also shows he was not tied down by a large plantation.

The territorial years of Florida saw significant changes that impact this story.  Aside from the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the most important one was the founding and growth of the city of St. Joseph, which was founded in 1835.  St. Joseph grew rapidly, its population of 6,000 making it for a few years the largest city in the territory of Florida and earning it the privilege of hosting the first constitutional convention to discuss Florida statehood, which was held in late 1838.  Sadly, St. Joseph would soon be destroyed by two disasters in rapid succession --  yellow fever in 1841 and "The Great Tide", probably a hurricane, in 1843 -- but at the time of the massacre, St. Joseph was near its peak.  One of the great benefits it brought was Florida's first steam-powered railway, which in 1836 connected St. Joseph with Lake Wimico, which flows into the Apalachicola River.  By 1839 it would connect to Iola, just east of Wewahitchka.

The attraction of the site at Wewahitchka to Thomas C. Richards thus becomes clear.  It was near the confluence of the Apalachicola and Chipola rivers, and it would soon be connected by railroad to the most populous city in the territory, a city that was showing signs of being politically important.  This would be an excellent spot for a plantation -- or to buy land that might be sold to a planter later.  Being so close to a "large city", the site might even provide better protection from Indian raids than the comparatively remote Ocheesee Bluff.

There was, after all, trouble brewing with the Indians; the threat of removal had triggered the Second Seminole War.  Not all the Indians were hostile to white settlers, though, and who better to recognize and organize these friendly Indians than Stephen Richards?  Accordingly, he organized Richards' Company of Friendly Indians as a part of the Mounted Florida Militia in 1837.  Among the names on the muster are Stephen Richards, captain; John G. Richards, first lieutenant; John Richards, first sergeant; James Richards, Sr., and James Richards, Jr.  

It is impossible to be sure, but the James Richards referred to in the massacre story is mostly likely James Richards, Sr., who was probably the son of Thomas C. Richards.  Unfortunately, the records are incomplete and contradictory, and James was a popular name in the Richards family.  Thomas C. and Stephen Richards had a brother named James who had been an army captain in the American Revolution, but he lost a hand in a duel and died not long afterwards; since no James is mentioned in the will of George Richards, the James of the massacre story must not have been a third brother.  The James of the massacre story had to be old enough to have at least three children, which makes it very unlikely that he was the James Richards born to Stephen Richards in 1820.  Thomas C. Richards was 24 years older than Stephen, though, so he could well have had a grandson old enough to fight.

A similar problem comes with the identity of Jehu Richards.  A son named Jehu was born to Thomas C. Richards around 1799, but he could not have been described as a child in 1838!  However, some sources indicate that Stephen Richards had a son Jehu in 1830, which would have made him 7 or 8 years old at the time of the massacre. 

So let me tie this all together in a way that is somewhat speculative, but much more plausible than the incomplete version of the story normally told.  

Knowing that major trouble was brewing with many of the Indians, Stephen and Thomas C. Richards concentrated their families in a fortified blockhouse.  They sited the house at a location which made strategic sense from both military and economic perspectives.   Stephen Richards also organized friendly natives into a fighting force.  However, he was such a known figure among the Indians that this action could not fail to be noticed.  As a result, the blockhouse holding his family -- and very likely acting as a sometimes base of operations for his Company -- was specifically targeted.

When James "was away hunting with the other men", he was not hunting for meat, he was hunting for hostiles, along with his brother John George Richards and his uncle Stephen Richards.  No doubt he was wild with grief and anger at the fate of his family, but the statement that he "went crazy" and "became an Indian hunter" might mean no more than that he tracked and fought the hostile Indians with amplified intensity and savagery.  He certainly did not attack the men under the command of Stephen Richards.  In fact, these mounted, armed, friendly Indians were probably who made it possible for the Richards family to exact retribution on those who had slaughtered their families.  Furthermore, because his actions took place in the context of war, there was no stigma on the killing and there were no legal consequences for James Richards.

Today there is a campsite maintained by the State of Florida at a place called "Bloody Bluff" only about 5 miles from the site of the Richards' blockhouse.  The official explanation, however, links the name to unrelated skirmishes fought back in 1816.  Possibly both the 1816 skirmishes and the 1838 retaliation happened near the same spot, and the place name fits either event.  There is also a "Bloody Bluff" near the original homestead at Ocheesee Bluff, but that is too far away for it to be a likely part of this story.

My Revolutionary War Ancestors: George Richards

As a prominent Virginia Colonial family, George Richards (1727-1818) was with Washington at Braddock’s Defeat (1755), and with his sons in the Revolutionary War (1776). -- Historical Marker at the Site of Richards Cemetery, Florida


There are a number of difficulties with this inscription.  Even the Richards plantation cannot be placed in Virginia. According to an online message board post,

Mrs. Susan Bennett Wester, then of Hokes Bluff, Alabama wrote up the history of her ancestors. The following is given as this history in her own words: "My great-grandfather, George Richards and his brother James, came from Nansemond County, Va., before the Revolutionary war and settled at the Richards homestead, about five miles Northeast from Louisburg. The place was then Bute County, and under British rule; after 1779 it was in Franklin County and under colonial rule; later still it was and now is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government. Thus it will be seen that George Richards lived in two different counties and under three different governments and yet lived in the same house all the time. All I know of my Richards ancestors, I learned from my grandmother, who died 1844, when I was twelve years old..."

It is important to note that this is entirely consistent with other records, such as his will.  I had hoped that either the plantation or its cemetery would be indicated by a North Carolina historical marker, but such is not the case.
 
As for George Richards being a Revolutionary War soldier, that is also almost certainly untrue.  Contrary to what is claimed on some Internet sites, his obituary did not state that he was himself a Revolutionary War soldier, but only that six of his sons were.  (Thomas Cupples Richards, from whom I am descended, was born in 1774, so he had no part in that war.)  Furthermore, if George Richards had been in the Continental Army, his experience and social position would undoubtedly have made him an officer -- his son James was an army captain.  There are many men who answered to the name of "George Richards" and participated in the Revolutionary War -- for example, a naval chaplain from Rhode Island, whose literary accomplishments include a (mediocre) poem about the Declaration of Independence, an "Indian spy" from Virginia (who seemed to be a very promising lead, given that "my" George Richards had a son, Stephen, who was an important Indian translator in early Florida), the unrelated George Richards Minot, but most importantly, his own son, George Richards, Jr.  However, there are no good matches to the place and rank where "my" George Richards should have been expected, which is among the officers from North Carolina.

There is a wonderful extended family story from the descendants of Micajah "Cage" Davis about his adventures during the Revolutionary War with a "Capt. George Richards", and how Cage came to marry Capt. Richards's sister Martha "Patty" (or "Patsy") Richards as a reward for obtaining some cattle for the starving troops at the Battle of Cowpens.  The story includes the note

This account is in conflict with the tree that describes Capt. Geo. Richards as Patty’s father, who was a known Revolutionary War soldier born in England and it would also be unlikely that a brother would betroth his sister.

I suspect that this story somewhat exaggerates Cage's role in starting the Battle of Cowpens, but it certainly does confuse George Richards, Sr., George Richards, Jr., and James Richards.  The captain who had his hand cut off in a duel was James Richards.  George Richards, Jr., was about the same age as Cage, and since they were both privates from the same part of North Carolina (though not, it seems, in the same companies), they may well have been friends.  It is likely that when Cage's descendants heard him talk about a "Captain Richards" and about "George Richards", his friend and eventual brother-in-law, the two became confused, particularly since James Richards died in 1781, unsurprisingly not long after losing his hand and six years before Cage married Patty.

A great deal can be learned from George's will, which I give here in full.  

In the name of God, amen. 
I, George Richards of the county and state aforesaid, being of sound mind and memory, do think proper to make this my last will and testament in manner and form following: 
Item 1st: I give and bequeath unto each of my sons: Joshua Richards, Stephen Richards, and George Richards, the sum of one dollar each.
Item 2nd: I give & bequeath to my Daughter, Patsy Davis, one bead and furniture her choice, one bound tea table, her choice of my chests, my loom, & all the thereunto belonging and also one third part of all my personal property of whatsoever nature or kind it may consist in, with the exception of my Negro woman, Hicksey, to her, and her heirs, assigns for ever. 
Item 3rd: I give & bequeath unto my son, Thomas C. Richards and unto my Grandsons, John & Jeter Hog, sons of my Deceased daughter, Jane Hog, the remaining two thirds of all my personal estate of whatsoever nature and kind it may consist in except the aforesaid Negro woman, Hicksey, that is to say, I give to Thomas C. Richards the one half of the two thirds of my estate hereby given to him, his heirs and assigns for ever. The other half to be divided between John & Jeter Hog on their arrived at lawful age and in the event that of them should dye before they arrive at lawful age, it is my will and desire that the survivors share the whole estate,hereby intended to be divided between them, to then, their heirs, and offspring for ever. 
Item 4th: It is my will and desire that my Negro woman, Hicksey, Who has been a faithful and dutiful slave, be liberated and set free and I hereby request and enjoin it on my Executor after named to use all lawful means in their power to have her emancipation and set free, but should my desire to have the said Negro woman, Hicksey, set free prove abortive, it is my will & desire that my son, Joshua Richards shall have the said Negro woman, Hicksey not doubting, but he will endeavor to comply with my will or maintain my said Negro woman, Hicksey on easy terms and not on the of real bondage and that he will act towards her the part of a friend more than that of a master. 
I hereby nominate and appoint my friends, Amus Jones, John Perry (_____) and _______ Gordon executors to this, my last will & testament. Whereof I have hereunto set my hand this 17th June, A.D. 1818. 
Witness Present, 
Nath Hunt 
John Thomas 
George Richards seal (his mark) 

There are a number of hints that make me think I would not have liked George Richards, Sr.  For one thing, there is this from DAR records:

Patty Richards married Micajah Davis in 1784, despite not having the approval of her father. George was a wealthy man and wanted a more affluent husband for Patty. 

The year is off, but that is no reason to suspect the thrust of the statement. It is backed up by this:

In 1784 Micajah married Patty Richards. Her father being a wealthy man, opposed the match on the grounds that young Davis was a poor man- -though he owned a good plantation- - and was so enraged that he never gave her anything until his death, at which time she received the old homestead and several negroes, besides other property...

Allowances must be made for the age and the culture of the day, and whatever breach may have opened due to the marriage was clearly closed by the time of his death, as his will is generous to Patty; but he still comes across as a bit of an arrogant jerk.

One other factor bothers me more than it would most people.  George Richards was a Freemason, and Masonry requires oaths that can only be made flippantly by disregarding God as a reality, but which if taken seriously make Masonry a distinct religion.

Finally, not only did George Richards own several slaves (the 1800 census shows him with 13), but the obsession in his will with his "Negro woman, Hicksey, Who has been a faithful and dutiful slave" has a distinctly creepy feel to it, one that brings to mind the "relationship" between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.  If George were really so solicitous for Hicksey's freedom, I see no reason he could not have freed her during his lifetime, but he no more did that than Jefferson gave Sally Hemings her freedom.  

My Civil War Ancestors: Summary

There is something we all know which can only be rendered, in an appropriate language, as realpolitik. As a matter of fact, it is an almost insanely unreal politik. It is always stubbornly and stupidly repeating that men fight for material ends, without reflecting for a moment that the material ends are hardly ever material to the men who fight. In any case no man will die for practical politics, just as no man will die for pay. Nero could not hire a hundred Christians to be eaten by lions at a shilling an hour, for men will not be martyred for money. But the vision called up by real politik, or realistic politics, is beyond example crazy and incredible. Does anybody in the world believe that a soldier says, 'My leg is nearly dropping off, but I shall go on till it drops; for after all I shall enjoy all the advantages of my government obtaining a warm water port in the Gulf of Finland! Can anybody suppose that a clerk turned conscript says, 'If I am gassed I shall probably die in torments; but it is a comfort to reflect that should I ever decide to become a pearl-diver in the South Seas, that career is now open to me and my countrymen! Materialist history is the most madly incredible of all histories, or even of all romances. Whatever starts wars, the thing that sustains wars is something in the soul; that is something akin to religion.
-- G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

As he does so often, Chesterton puts his finger right on the essence of the matter.

Relationship	Name	Rank	Unit	Outcome
great2 uncle	Alford, Jasper	Private	6th Florida Infantry, Company E (H?)	Died in GA, 26 Sep 1862 (no details).
great3 grandfather	Bradshaw, Samuel J.	Private	8th Florida Infantry, Company B	Died (of disease?) in VA, 19 Feb 1863.
great2 grandfather	Conoley, James Wallace	Corporal	2nd North Carolina Cavalry, Company D	Wounded Sep 1863 in White Oak Swamp, VA. Survived War. Died 3 Jul 1922.
great3 grandfather	Edmondson, David	Private	7th Georgia Militia, District 660 Company	Died May 1864 (no details).
great2 grandfather	Edmondson, David	Private	26th Georgia Infantry, Company I	Wounded and disabled at Spotsylvania, VA 12 May 1864. Survived War; Died 1895.
great3 grandfather	Hines, Charles Wesley	Sergeant	29th Georgia Infantry, Company H	Wounded 19 Sep 1863 at Chickamauga. Died of wounds 25 Sep 1863.
great3 grandfather	Jenks, Wiley	Sergeant	10th Confederate Cavalry, Company C	Survived War; Died 1885.
great2 grandfather	McDaniel, Benjamin Franklin	Private	11th Florida Infantry, Company L	On leave sick since 17 Sep 1864; Survived War; Died 3 Mar 1926.
great3 grandfather	Miller, Mason Covington	Private	10th Georgia Infantry, Company E	Lost his right foot on 23 June 1864 near Petersburg, VA. Survived the War; Died 12 April 1903.
great2 uncle	Pelt, Obadiah	Private?	6th Florida Infantry, Company F	Killed at Missionary Ridge 25 Nov 1863.
great2 uncle	Pelt, Peter	Private	2nd Florida US Cavalry, Company E	Executed as deserter from 2nd Florida CSA Cavalry, Company G, and turncoat, March 7, 1865
great2 uncle	Pelt, Robert	Corporal	6th Florida Infantry, Company F	Killed at Missionary Ridge 25 Nov 1863.
great3 grandfather	Prevatt, Furney A.	Private	18th North Carolina Infantry, Company D	Wounded at Hanover Courthouse, VA. Captured and imprisoned in Elmra, NY. Survived War; Died 18 Mar 1921.
great3 grandfather	Richards, Daniel Thomas	Private	6th Florida Infantry, Company G	Wounded at Chickamauga. Survived War; Died 1879
great4 grandfather	Richards, John George	Private	2nd Florida Cavalry, Company A	Survived War; Died 1876.
great2 uncle	Thomas, Edward	Private	5th Florida Infantry, Company H	Left sick at private house 20 Sep 1862. Died 8 Dec 1862.

[Update August 16, 2018: Some people on Ancestry.com are reporting Allen J. Rigsby, my great⁵ grandfather, as having served as a private in Company E, Georgia 7th Infantry Regiment.  The problem is that he would have been at least 90 at the outset of the war.  He died near his home, with some reports saying 1861, some 1862, and a few even saying 1860, before the war began.  In the early part of the war, the Confederacy was not so desperate as to enlist a 90 year old man as a private.  On the other hand, Allen John Rigsby had a son, Allen Jefferson Rigsby, who would have been about 56 at the outbreak of war.  Either this son -- a great⁴ uncle of mine -- or perhaps a son of his (if he had a son) would be a much more plausible fit for the "Allen J. Rigsby" found in the records.]

No one in his right mind expects a soldier to go on until his leg drops off for a warm water port in the Gulf of Finland, but many people unthinkingly hold that Mason Covington Miller went on until his leg did fall off, just so that his wealthier neighbors could own slaves.  In fact, I have found no record of any of the men above owning slaves with the exception of David Edmondson, Sr.  Perhaps slavery was a sufficient motivation for him and for his son, but it fails to explain the others. [Update May 29, 2017:  Samuel Hines, the father of Charles Wesley Hines, had 8 slaves in 1840, as shown in the 1840 census.  Whether or not he had any at the time of the War is not clear.]

No, what divided the Union was not in its essence the issue of slavery, though perhaps that was the final straw.  What destroyed the Union was what has destroyed countless marriages:  a breakdown in mutual trust.

So let us imagine a married couple, whom we shall call Sam and Bonnie.  Sam and Bonnie both used to smoke, but a few years ago Sam switched from smoking to dipping snuff.  Many of the arguments between Sam and Bonnie have been about Bonnie's continued smoking and whether or not dipping snuff is more like or more unlike smoking.  Eventually Sam says he will cure her of her nasty habit, and Bonnie says if he tries she will leave him.  Sam responds that if she tries, he will chain her in the basement and beat her until she gives up her cigarettes.

Neither one is a paragon of virtue.  Both smoking and dipping are offensive and unhealthy, though smoking is somewhat more thoughtless than dipping regarding the harm it does to others.  Certainly it would be wrong to suggest that Bonnie leave Sam just so that she can continue an offensive habit!

Correct:  that is not the reason Bonnie should leave Sam.  However, she should leave him, and immediately, while she still has a chance!  She should leave him because he has made it clear that theirs has become an abusive relationship, and whatever sentimental feelings may linger, she can no longer trust him.

The point of my story is not to change your mind about who was right and who was wrong, but rather to make it clear that the Confederate viewpoint is morally comprehensible and does not deserve to be demonized -- a fact that even many, perhaps most, Union veterans acknowledged.

So why is the Confederate viewpoint consistently demonized today, and does it do any real harm to vilify that perspective?  After all, everyone who lived through the Civil War is now dead, and whether such a person is now in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory, surely his happiness is unlikely to be much affected by whether statues of him are being erected or torn down or whether parks are being named for him or having his name removed, right?

Let me briefly dispense with that last question.  For a Catholic or an Orthodox Christian, burying the dead is a corporal act of mercy, and it is considered appropriate to venerate the Saints, along with their images and relics.   To that can be added the Biblical importance of names (e.g. the Name of God, which was not to be spoken lightly, and changes of name, as with Abraham and Peter), the commandment to honor our fathers and mothers, and many other passages, perhaps most notably Romans 13:7, which says, "Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour."  To a Christian people (which we were once, even though we may not be now) it is therefore fitting to honor deceased forebears and countrymen who have suffered for what they thought was right, particularly when their beliefs were morally defensible, and it is infuriating to have these forebears and countrymen casually dishonored.

Now back to the other questions.  My answer is that 

• in general, Americans are very susceptible to two errors:  the idea that "might makes right" and the deification of the US government;
• there are powerful forces which wish to expand their exploitation of these errors; and
• anyone who considers the Confederate cause at least morally plausible is partially resistant to these errors, which is inconvenient to the powers that be.

"Might makes right" has been an appealing error in most times and places, particularly when some form of success was being experienced.  In more pious times, it might be expressed the way it was in the song "Just Before the Battle, Mother":

Now, may God protect us, mother,
As He ever does the right.

If God "ever does [protect] the right", whoever has won must have had God's protection and therefore must have been in "the right", so there is still an identity between winning and being in the right.  People back then were not quite so stupid, though, so the possibility that the man "in the right" might still "nobly perish" is explicitly acknowledged.  

Today's version of the error is phrased in terms of being "on the right side of history", forgetting what everyone once new:  that Fortune is a strumpet. What it boils down to, of course, is, "We're going to do such-and-such regardless of your objections, and there's nothing you can do to stop us.  Our triumph is inevitable!"  This is exactly what "might makes right" means, perhaps combined with the cliché about the winners writing history.  It actually goes beyond the already bad idea (found in the Medieval practice of trial by combat) that might reveals right; it is the ancient idea that might creates right.

In fact, the essential conflict of the current "culture war" is over whether human nature really exists at all and whether right and wrong have any stable meaning.  It is hard to overstate how important it is to find the correct answer these two related questions.  As with all the really important ideas, these questions must be confronted by each generation, regardless of which side "wins" in our generation.

The same applies for literal wars.  Just because previous generations have fought successfully to provide us with national independence, national unity, and personal liberties does not prevent us from losing these blessings now or in the future.  In that sense, the most important thing a man's military service can give his descendants (aside from survival itself, of course) is not wealth or power or prestige or liberty, but rather a good example.  That is quite a lot, though, and it is something for which we owe them gratitude.

To sum up a long and rambling post and, very likely, my series of posts about Confederate ancestors:

• these men probably constituted a reasonably accurate cross-section of the Southern middle class;
• at least for the most part, they had morally comprehensible reasons for fighting;
• their defeat provides a counter-narrative to the widespread misconception that might makes right;
• their willingness to fight and suffer for what they believed set an example for which we should be grateful.

...oooOooo...

Notes on the table:

• A great-great uncle is the brother of either a great-great grandfather or great-great grandmother.
• I have not made any serious attempt to find all the greatⁿ uncles involved in the war.  Those listed here had sisters who were my ancestors, and their fathers did not fight in the Civil War.

My Mysterious Teat Lineage

The confidence I have in the genealogical information I present varies widely, but there is an unusually large amount of doubt concerning the identity of my great-great-great grandfather Teat.

According to ancestry.com, the father of Robert V. Teat and the husband of Elizabeth "Betty" Scott Teat was an Alfred Robert Teat, who was born in Alabama around 1835.  This must come from an undocumented family tradition, because I have not found any evidence of a person by that name. 

The 1860 census refers to a single man named A. F. Teat born around 1835 in Alabama living in Jackson County, FL.  Likewise, there is record of A. F. Teat enlisting in Company H of the 5th Florida Infantry.  In fact, this is the only man named "Teat" of the right age recorded as living in Florida at the time.  Presumably Alfred Teat and A. F. Teat are the same person?

At first I thought so.  I noticed that the 5th Florida Infantry fought mostly in Virginia, and Elizabeth Scott was born in Virginia.  Maybe A. F. Teat met Betty while he was deployed to Virginia and married her after a whirlwind romance, resulting in the birth of Robert V. Teat in October 1862 just before the death of A. F. Teat on 3 July 1863 at Gettysburg.  As touching as that story might be, it is impossible for several reasons.  For one, Robert V. Teat was born in Florida, not Virginia, and the resource demands of the war would have severely limited civilian travel.  For another, the 5th Florida Infantry was not even organized until April 1862, which is only six months before the birth of Robert V. Teat.  Furthermore, the 1900 census shows Elizabeth Teat living with her daughter Ida and her son-in-law Charles Burke, and Ida was 28 at the time, meaning she had been born in 1872.  Finally, the 1910 census reports that Elizabeth Teat had been married 15 years before being widowed.  "A. F. Teat" could not have been the same person as "Alfred Robert Teat", and I have no information about the latter.

This is not the first time I have had trouble along this line.  For example, there seemed to be a contradiction between the records of the Alford Family Association, which shows Frances Elizabeth Alford marrying Tyne Teat and having Henry Vastine Teat as one of their sons, and all the other records, which show her marrying Robert V. Teat instead.  Eventually the obvious solution dawned on me:  Robert V. Teat's middle name was "Vastine" or "Vastyne", and "Tyne" was just a nickname.  As for the name "Vastine" itself, ancestry.com reports it to be a French version of the German name "Wetzstein", so it was probably a family name -- quite possibly the maiden name of Alfred Robert Teat's mother, though I have no way of being sure.

Connecticut Connections

I grew up in the Florida panhandle, and from about 1900 on, all my ancestors have lived in either Florida or south Georgia (not to be confused with South Georgia Island!).  Only one or two of my male ancestors from the period of the Civil War remain unaccounted for, and it is virtually certain that all of them, if they were able to fight, fought for the Confederacy -- with the exception of the turncoat Peter Pelt, who is anyway a collateral ancestor, not a direct ancestor.  It comes as something of a surprise, then, to find that one of my mother's ancestors was practically a neighbor of one of my father's ancestors in the mid-1600's in Connecticut.

I have already mentioned that Samuel Hine(s), the father of Charles Wesley Hines, came from Milford, CT.  The first of this line was Thomas Hine (also spelled "Hind" and "Hinde"), who, as recorded in Genealogical and Personal Memoirs Relating to Families of the State of Massachusetts, by William Richard Cutter and William Frederick Adams, was in residence at Milford by 28 Jan 1646.

Thomas Hine was particularly noteworthy for his good relations with the local American Indians.  In particular, he gained the gratitude of the Mohawks by rescuing one of their warriors who had been left tied to a stake to die of exposure; this had been his punishment by the Pequots for being part of a failed attempt to ambush them. What is more,

Not only did the act of being a good Samaritan impress the Mohawks but the Pequot tribe held Hine in high regard and promised to him and his descendants, that when the time came for them to die, the Great Spirit would take them to the big Wigwam. But until that time the Great Spirit would watch over them.

Thomas Hine had a son named Samuel (b 26 Jan 1659-60), who had a son named Samuel (baptized 9 Jan 1703-4), who had a son named Samuel (b 9 Nov 1743), who had a son named Samuel (b 8 Nov 1770), who had a son named Samuel (baptized 15 Oct 1797), who moved to Georgia and was the father of Charles Wesley Hines.

That is five generations of "Samuel Hine" -- and there were also, apparently side branches which also had men named "Samuel Hine"!  This, naturally enough, gives ample opportunity for confusion.  The account by Cutter and Adams, for example, appears to omit altogether the Samuel born in 1770.  (I say "appears" to omit because the 1743 Samuel seems to be the one called "Samuel Hine, Jr." -- at least, the numbering system does not indicate an intermediate between the 1743 Samuel and the "Samuel, born at Derby, removed to Georgia".)  On the other hand, Families of Early Milford, Connecticut by Susan Emma Woodruff Abbott notes of the 1743 Samuel that "He is confused with his son Samuel," and it gives this son Samuel (our 1770 Samuel) as the father of the Samuel that "Hine gen says went to Ga?"  (There is no doubt of this fact.  In the 1850 census, Samuel Hine(s), by then living in Georgia, gives his place of birth as Connecticut.)  Even Abbott does not give the year of his birth, but only the date of his death:  28 Mar 1800.  The 1770 date of birth comes from ancestry.com, on what basis I am not sure, though it fits and is reasonable.

Regardless, it is agreed that it was the 1743 Samuel who served one year with Captain John Prudden and Captain Benjamin Hine's company in the Revolutionary War, and who shortly before his death (in 1843) received a pension on that basis.  In fact the records are again a bit confusing, as there was another Samuel Hine from the same general area who also served in the Revolutionary War, but this could not have been the 1743 Samuel, because he would have added that information to his pension application.

On my mother's side, the wife of David Adam Edmondson was born Martha Ann Gertrude Todd.  The Todd family also traces back to Connecticut, as recounted in The Todd Family in America, or the Descendants of Christopher Todd, by John Edwards Todd.  Christopher Todd, born in Pontefract, West Riding, Yorkshire, in 1617, moved to New Haven, CT, in 1639, becoming a wealthy miller.  This put him in the same county that would shortly be occupied by Thomas Hine, who probably came by way of New Haven; note also that the distance between New Haven and Milford is less than a dozen miles.

Once again, there are a lot of Samuels in this story.  Christopher Todd was the father of Samuel Todd (b. 1645), who was the father of Samuel Bradley Todd (b. 1672), who was the father of Rev. Samuel Todd (b. 1716), who was the father of Dr. Eliel Todd (b. 1746), who moved to Vermont and was the father of Samuel Bryant Todd (b. 1783), who was the father of Samuel Bryan Todd (b. 1814), who moved to Georgia and was the father of Martha Ann Gertrude Todd.

Dr. Eliel Todd "was a lieutenant in the Revolution.  He died in 1793, from poison accidentally taken," according to History of Rutland County, Vermont, with illustrations and biographical sketches of some of its prominent men and pioneers, by H. P. Smith.  He appears to have been a well-liked and respected physician, so this does not seem particularly suspicious, but its is still odd.  Most likely it was due to sloppy or careless labeling.  Sadly, it took many such accidents for the pharmaceutical practices we have today to develop.

EDIT:  I should add that Mary Todd, who married Abraham Lincoln, was apparently descended from an Irish family named Todd.  All the Todds are believed to ultimately have come from Scotland, but the name itself refers to a profession or avocation -- specifically, to one who hunts foxes.  As a result, there may be multiple independent origins of "Todd" families.  One way or the other, Mary Todd Lincoln is at most a distant relative.

My Civil War Ancestors: David A. Edmondson

At first, the story of my great-great-great grandfather David A. Edmondson (1809 -- 1864) appears to be a familiar one.  Furney Alfred Prevatte had a son by the same name, and Edward J. Thomas had a son whose name was probably identical.  (I am not sure about the middle name of Edward Thomas, the son.)  In both cases, it was the son who fought in the Civil War.  David A. Edmondson likewise had a son named David A. Edmondson, and that son fought in the War.  However, the father's name was David Adella Edmondson, whereas the son's name was David Adam Edmondson (1841-1921).  (Yes, "Adella" sounds to me like a strange name for a man.)  Also, in this case, both father and son were in the Confederate Army.  The father was a private in the Georgia Militia, although I'm not quite sure exactly what "PVT CO. DIST 660 7 GA. MIL." means, and the son was a private in Company C of the 26th Confederate Infantry.  1864 was a bad year for the Georgia Militia, and that may or may not have something to do with the date of the father's death; I have not been able to find any record that explains how he died.

A more important difference from other stories is this:  to the best of my knowledge, David Adella Edmondson is the only one of my ancestors to have both owned slaves and also fought in the Civil War.  The "slave schedule" from the 1850 Census shows him owning at least six slaves:  a man aged fifty, a woman aged 35, and four children aged 12, 9, 6, and 5.  Nothing more is recorded about them, not even their names, but the obvious implication is that these were a family.  This is the last entry on the page, so there might be more on the next page.

Certainly other ancestors of mine were also slave-owners.  As a general rule, the greatest number of slaves were owned by ancestors living sometime in the mid-1700's and in either Virginia or North Carolina; the maximum number I have found is twenty four, owned by David Adella Edmondson's great-grandfather, John Cox (1703-1764) of Virginia.  I am not at all sure what caused the general decline in slave-owning among my ancestors through the 1800's:  declining wealth?  distaste for the institution?  something different about the physical or economic environment between north Florida and Virginia?  The last option sounds like it has potential, but I can't really identify a difference, especially since my ancestors arrived fairly early in the colonization of both Virginia and Florida.

By the way, although I should not have to say this, slavery had been, was, is, and always will be a very bad thing.  This is true even in those cases where the treatment of slaves is not marred by cruelty.  Essentially, slavery is an affirmation by government and society of a metaphysical heresy:  the idea that some mere humans are a bit more than human, and that others are a bit less, with the consequence that those who are lesser have significance only insofar as they serve the conveniences of the greater.  This heresy is not always called slavery, but because it makes those in power feel justified in doing whatever they please, it reemerges in every society and generation.

My Civil War Ancestors: Furney Alfred Prevatte

I don't think anyone will be surprised that I'm not thrilled with certain contemporary trends, among them tattoos for everyone and idiosyncratic names for kids.  Don't let stereotypes fool you:  the trend of oddball names is not confined to any one racial group!  But as someone who is interested in genealogy, I am also annoyed by excessively conservative names.  It's not just that a search for a specific "George Richards" in America during the 1700s can be expected to return dozens, maybe hundreds of different individuals who may not be closely related, there is also the problem that the reuse of the same name within a family name can lead to all manner of confusion -- certainly for me, at any rate.  (I have a good example of the confusion extending to family folklore, but that does not pertain much to the branch I am dealing with today.)

This brings me to Furney Alfred Prevatte (30 June 1808 -- 28 May 1895), the father-in-law of James Wallace Conoley and the grandfather of William Furney Conoley.  He was a minister at the Baptist church in Raft Swamp Township; the church had been built on land donated by his brother James J. Prevatte.  So would the Confederacy want a clergyman in his early fifties to serve as a private?  Based on the case of John George Richards, who was 9 years older than Prevatte and a Methodist preacher (among other things), but who nevertheless served as a private, it is not entirely implausible; and indeed, the records show that Furney A. Prevatte was a private in Company D of the 18th North Carolina Infantry.

In this case, though, there is a much simpler explanation.  The Baptist preacher had a son who was born in 1842, and thus who would have been at the prime of his life for soldiering when he enlisted on May 18, 1861 -- and the son's name was also Furney Alfred Prevatte.  For some reason, the "Jr." (and "Sr.") seem not to have been carefully recorded before the 20th century, but surely it was only "Junior" who served in the war; there do not appear to be two different Furney Alfred Prevattes serving simultaneously, and the various biographies all mention "Junior's" military service, but none for "Senior".  

I cannot hope for a better description of the life of "Junior" than this, which comes from his second wife's obituary as it appeared in his local newspaper, The Robesonian. 

Of him it was written -- more than one time in long-ago issues of The Robesonian -- "He stood with Jackson at Chancellorsville, with Lee at Gettysburg." In a fight at Hanover Courthouse in Virginia, he was seriously wounded in the shoulder, and at the Battle of the Wilderness he was captured and taken to the federal prison at Elmira, N.Y. He was a prisoner there until Lee surrendered and became a trusted nurse in care of ill and dying Confederate soldiers. When the war ended in 1865, the then-young man returned to his home in the Saddletree area. Not only did he take an active part in veterans' affairs, serving in time as commander of the Willis Pope Camp, Confederate Veterans of Robeson County, but also he began to preach. Rev. Prevatte remained an active Baptist pastor throughout his life, following in the footsteps of his father, for whom he was named. It was said that he baptized Over 1,500 converts, married 500 couples and helped organize 16 churches in Robeson and adjoining counties. At the tune of his death on October 17, 1940, he was the oldest Confederate veteran in the county.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about "Junior" was his marriage to this second wife, the former Dora Moody.  The marriage took place in 1917, when he was a widower and nearly 75, and she was approaching 24.  In fact, "Junior" had officiated the marriage between Dora's father (another Baptist preacher) and mother.  That ... actually makes it a lot creepier, in my opinion.  If they had met as adults, it still would have been a startling age difference, but it seems that he, as a man in his fifties, must have known her as a little girl.  It would be interesting to know what she saw in him; Baptist preachers were not wealthy in 1917 North Carolina.  At any rate, she was fully an adult at the time of the marriage, and since her father officiated, apparently it met with family approval.

My Revolutionary War Ancestors: Lodowick Alford (and My Other Alford Kin)

One of my great-great grandmothers was born Frances Elizabeth Alford (b. March 1870).  One of her great-great grandfathers was Lodowick Alford.  Much of the information I have about Lodowick and his descendants comes from the Alford American Family Association; in particular, the document Known Descendants of Cullen Alford and Pherebe Wooten traces the connection between Cullen (or Collin, the spelling seems to vary) Alford and my maternal grandmother, and Lodwick Alford (ca1710-1800) Genealogy -- Three Generations documents the connection between Lodowick (or Lodwick) and Cullen Alford.

Right away we notice that the spellings of names are not entirely consistent, which can be a source of confusion.  Another is that the same names are used repeatedly by different generations.  In fact, a Captain Lodwick Houston Alford, retired from the US Navy, died in 2007, and yes, he was a descendant of the Lodowick mentioned above. There is also a small community in Texas called Lodwick after a Lodwick Alford -- probably Lodwick Pierce Alford (12 Jan 1812 -- 7 Jun 1896), as he lived and was buried nearby.  Another example:  Lodowick had a brother named Julius (b. Sept. 1717), a son (b. ca. 1750) named Julius, and a grandson named Julius (son of Lodowick's son Lodwick!).

Lodowick Alford was born in the early 1700's (there is some dispute regarding the exact year) in Craven County, NC.  In 1754, he was serving in Captain Benjamin Simm's company of Colonel William Eaton's Granville County regiment of the North Carolina Militia.  He seems to have been a planter of some wealth, as indeed several of his twenty-one children were (more on that in a moment), though perhaps some of that wealth was diminished by being divided among a large family.  During the period of the Revolutionary War, Lodowick Alford was a delegate to the North Carolina House of Commons from Wake County -- unless, that is, the delegate was actually his son Lodwick / Lodowick, Jr.  The same ambiguity lies over which Lodowick was appointed Justice of the Peace for Wake County.

Regardless, the Alford family was deeply involved in the Revolution.  The Lodwick Alford who served as a 2nd-major in the Wake County militia was certainly Lodowick Jr.  James Alford, Lodowick's son from whom I am descended, was granted 287 acres in Georgia as compensation for his service during the Revolutionary War, and he is referred to as a captain on his tombstone.  Indeed, all five of Lodowick's oldest sons served in the Revolutionary War, and Sion Alford, son of Lodowick's son Jacob, was a delegate to the North Carolina Constitutional Convention in 1789.

Before continuing on with my own branch, mention must be made of Col. Julius C. Alford, son of Julius Alford and grandson of Lodowick.  His biography is sketched in the second volume of Men of Mark in Georgia; please go there for the details -- I cannot do justice to the story here!  The first half of Col. Alford's life was dominated by Indian troubles:  they killed his wife's father, led to the death of her mother, and nearly killed her and her sisters; he fought them at the Battle of Chickisawhatchie Swamp; and as a congressman, he punctuated his argument for relocating the Creek Indians to the west by simulating an "Indian war whoop".  After the death of his wife, he moved to Alabama.  He did not favor secession, but considered it his duty as a representative at Alabama's secession convention to make the vote unanimous.  Having cast his vote, he also cast his energy and resources into supporting the young Confederacy; it cost him one son, and he only lived halfway through the war.

Although Lodowick and his son James (along with most or all of the rest of his descendants) were slave-owners, James' son Cullen was not, at least as of the 1830 census.  In fact, although Lodowick seems to have owned a number of slaves (Lodwick Jr. owned 13 in the 1800 census), James had only one in the 1800 census.  This is less likely to be due to moral objections to slavery than to the fact that this branch of the family was simply not as wealthy as Julius C. Alford's branch.  These facts have to be borne in mind when evaluating the statements of Faye Mitchell Lawes, a granddaughter of Wiley Walton Alford, who was a son of Cullen.

My grandfather, Wiley Alford, came to Florida in the early 1800’s. He left a wealthy home and family in Wilmington, N.C. because he wanted to work and make his own living without slaves. He had been well educated in North Carolina. He travelled [sic] by stage coach and river boats. He visited relatives in Savannah, Columbus, and Quincy. He worked a few years in Columbus. In Quincy his first cousin was a Love of the Judge Love family . Then he went to Old Aspalaga Ferry, crossed into West Florida and settled there in Jackson County. He cleared land, built a home and farmed there. There were several non-slave-holding families living near them.

This appears to be making a virtue out of necessity, but it could also be a matter of miscommunication.  "I wanted to make my own living without slaves" could mean "I wanted to stop owning slaves but still make a living," or it could mean "I didn't own slaves, but I still needed to make a living."  

In any event, the latter interpretation seems to agree better with the facts.  Remember, Florida was as wild as "the wild West" in the early 1800's; the Indian attack that killed Thomas Cupples Richards near Wewahitchka took place in 1838.  Florida was on the frontier, with all the danger and opportunity that implies, and the frontier has always attracted men who want to get ahead.

That's about it.  Wiley Walton Alford was 50 when the War started, so he appears to have remained at home, probably as part of the Home Guard.  According to Lawes, though, his son Allen died fighting for the Confederacy.  His daughter Frances Elizabeth Alford, with whom I started this posting, married my great-great grandfather, Robert V. Teat (b. October 1862) on Valentine's Day, 1888.  (The "V" is probably for "Vastine", the middle name of their son Henry.)

UPDATE:  I had wondered if the small community of Alford, FL, near Marianna, might be named after Wiley Walton Alford or one of his sons, since he was in that neighborhood at an early date.   It appears, however, to have been founded by "S. A. and Chauncey Alford, naval store operators". This Chauncey, in turn, appears to be William Chauncey Alford, b. 24 Aug 1867 and d.  26 Feb 1938 in Bonifay, FL, and he is not listed among the Known Descendants of Cullen Alford and Pherebe Wooten.  There may well be a connection, but it must be a distant one.