FROM NORTH CAROLINA TO KENTUCKY
This segment of the chapter on John Scalf Sr. is an effort to
take you through the life and movements of John Scalf, Sr. according to his pension file.
Hopefully, the pension file and the court minutes of Russell County, Virginia,
will help someone in their search for more facts. Some of these documents you
have previously read in the earlier writings. I will also present further
documents so you may be able to read the accounts and form your own opinion of
what is fact and what is speculation.
Copies of the original documents will be posted. Most of these documents are
not difficult to read. However, a couple might present some close studying.
Some of these documents will not be posted at the same time as this chapter
due to the time involved in scanning. However, all documents will be posted as
soon as scanning is completed.
I cannot say if John Sr. may have brought troubles on himself, nor can I say
he was unjustly accused. I can only relate the evidence I have found, for this
is ultimately a matter of opinion. The records I have studied of Russell
County, Virginia suggests there may have been other things happening behind
the scenes that did in fact, instigate problems for John Sr. I cannot give a
well-informed opinion as to what may have been the problem in North Carolina
or Kentucky because there are not enough records to make an informed
assumption. However, there is a strong indication that some of the things that
happened in Russell County happened for reasons John had no control over.
As in a court case, family history is merely a preponderance of the evidence.
To withhold the evidence is not justly or accurately presenting enough
evidence for the jury to deliberate with. This manuscript is not presented to
give you a simple opinion, nor are we trying John Sr. on a specific charge.
This manuscript is presented to help aid you in your search while trying to
give you a rounded balance of the evidence found in my research. It would be
wonderful if I could say without hesitation that these are all facts without
any speculation, but this is not, and will not, be the case with any
genealogy. The period of time in which our ancestors lived hinders this due to
the lack of laws regarding record keeping and the tragedies of the burnings of
what records were kept.
However, in defense of not only John Sr., but many folks of this period, many
things happened that might suggest these folks were not very reputable people.
On the contrary, these folks were very much reputable. Although the majority
of our ancestors were not of the more prominent of society, they were
hardworking, honest, and some of the toughest among men. The majority of the
early ancestors were brought here as indentured servants to work out the
payment of their passages after their arrival for they had no monetary means
of payment for their transport. Some were considered “vagabonds.” Some were
imprisoned in jails in England for one thing or another. History relates that
England wanted rid of her “less fortunate” society and most of our ancestors
certainly qualified in this category.
These people were illiterate and this was a majority, not a minority. This
also did not necessarily correlate only to the region one may have lived in.
Most of the folks who were literate were in positions of government for the
Crown or some type of prominent position. Being illiterate did not cause one
to be totally ignorant, however. In the early colonial period of our country,
what we refer to in Appalachia as “common horse sense” applied more to
survival than literacy. History proves that this adventure to the “New Word”
would be a survival of the fittest.
It would have been utterly useless to recite poetry or be able to spell one’s
name if one did not know or learn how to survive in this new and very
dangerous frontier. These folks may not have known how to survive the
hardships in the beginning, but they certainly adapted and learned.
We are not here today simply because we had ancestors with royal blood or of
the highest book knowledge of the period. We are here because we had ancestors
who had “common horse sense” and with all due respect, little book knowledge.
I believe in education to the highest degree but our ancestors did not have
this opportunity, so where opportunity is omitted, “common horse sense” will
sustain. I have no idea where the term “common horse sense” began but have
heard this all of my life. In recent years, “horse” has been dropped and it is
now termed “common sense.” Times do change. <Smile> I think the proper term
for this now is “politically correct.”
To fully appreciate our history, it is important to read and understand the
times our ancestors lived in. The old documents left are more than valuable in
finding one’s family. They are the story of a place and time that we cannot
imagine in our wildest dreams having been able to survive in. From document to
document the story is told of the difficult lives of these people who were our
ancestors. Some did not survive but many did. Many of the “vagabonds” sent
here became prominent citizens. Descendants of these vagabonds now hold
positions of the highest esteem. It is a reminder of the story of “The Ugly
Duckling” and as we know, one day the ugly duckling became a beautiful swan!
John Sr. was a product of his time and truly a mountaineer in all aspects of
the term. John lived in a time when fighting was a means of survival.
Regardless of what type of survival one was dealing with, whether it be to
defend ones self from an enemy physically, or to do what was necessary to
sustain ones daily life and family. The Appalachian Region has always been
considered a “poverty region.” This is true in the aspect of material
possessions. However, Appalachia is rich in many ways that is often unnoticed
by others but is treasured by the natives of Appalachia.
Many family researchers have found it difficult to believe that John Sr. was
eleven or twelve years old when he enlisted in the Revolution. I also could
not believe this in the beginning of my research. However, after some years of
researching and studying the old documents, I have found this was common and
not at all unusual.
It might be construed that John Sr. was a very strong-willed, stubborn,
outspoken man to the point of causing himself many problems. On the flip side
of this coin, John could be said to have been a man of great character and
persistence and a loving family man. Many references to the character of John
Scalf Sr. can be drawn from reading his pension file but I doubt that it could
ever be said that John Scalf Sr. was a man of few words, nor could he be
deemed a “quitter.”
Quite the contrary, I imagine if John Sr. thought it, he said it. If you liked
it, that was fine and if you did not, that was equally fine. I cannot imagine
this man apologizing for anything he said or did that he truly felt he was
right about. This statement is not made to portray John as a man who thought
he was always right and everyone else was wrong. However, in my opinion, when
he felt he was right he was 100% right and there was no room for doubt. He was
also willing to fight to the last for his belief. John had been fighting since
he joined the Continental Line in 1777 as a young boy. The battle changed as
John got older, but the spirit of the young soldier remained.
It was ordered by the court in Russell County, Virginia, that the children of
John be removed due to John’s inability to care for them. John Sr. was very
upset concerning this and brought his son, William, home the day he met him on
the road in Russell County. John evidently did this without any thought or
care to the consequences. The removal of his children from the home was a
direct blow at John’s character and something he was not about to ignore. The
fact that he took his son home with him when he met him on the road that day
depicts the nature of John Sr. He was ready to fight the man who had taken him
as well as the court that allowed it.
I believe it can be said with some degree of confidence that John was now
living in a time different from that of his earlier North Carolina years.
Almost fifteen years had passed since John had left his home in North Carolina
and as we well know, times do change and the process changes as well.
In the years before John made his way to Russell County, Virginia things may
have been different concerning the act of apprenticeship. This procedure might
have been different in North Carolina than it was in Russell County, Virginia
because of the variation of the laws from state to state. Possibly, children
were not “apprenticed” due to poverty in North Carolina. I have read accounts
of “apprentices” in North Carolina history but it was due to the death of a
parent. I have not had the opportunity to study this further and it is
possible that children were apprenticed due to poverty in North Carolina, but
I cannot speak with any knowledge on this matter without further research.
Whatever the case, it was short-lived and John was ready for battle. No doubt,
he had no idea just how many more battles were ahead for him that would stem
from this one action. I also doubt that it would have changed one thing that
John Scalf Sr. did had he had the foresight to see this.
It should be noted here as well that in many instances an apprenticeship was
often a legal means of obtaining free labor. Children were sometimes
apprenticed to a family for “free labor” under the misconception that they
were learning a trade and in the meantime paying for their upkeep by working
long, hard hours and living with nearly none of life’s necessities. In fact,
in many cases they had little or no upkeep and were often abused by the family
they were apprenticed to. Lack of food, clothing, heat, and bedding which were
the bare necessities of life were withheld in some instances.
The apprentice might be required to sleep in whatever outbuilding the family
deemed necessary and to eat only after the family had eaten if there was food
left to eat. If not, a simple meal of corn mush and bread was supplied to the
“apprentice.” Corn mush was simply ground corn cooked into a mush something
similar to grits. Sometimes, water gravy would be made in place of the corn
mush. Water gravy is certainly not a delicacy and not very nutritional for one
working ten and twelve hour days at hard manual labor in the heat or cold.
Corn mush would have been tastier but alone; it was not very nutritional for
the labor of farm life.
Clothing was often no more than the clothes they wore when they arrived and
more often than not, they were barefoot during all the seasons. The only time
shoes were worn was when an old ragged pair was discarded by one of the
family. Being barefoot during this time was of little significance as most
folks were barefoot in the summer months. The one pair of shoes one owned was
saved for important occasions such as church on Sunday.
However, shoes were worn in the winter when available. As my dad stated many
times, “shoes were saved as much as possible for the winter months when the
snow was on the ground.” This was in the early 1900s, so I’m it was a way of
life prior to this time.
The apprentice might be up before daylight tending to the chores and often
working until the last bit of light slipped into darkness with little food and
little water, then back to the designated sleeping quarters at night to sleep
in a haystack or whatever the building might hold for them to lay down on.
Sleeping on bare floors was common. Winters can be very cold in Appalachia and
was much colder during this period in time than they are now.
Not all apprentices suffered these cruelties but many did. In all fairness, I
cannot say with certainty that this was the motive behind what happened to
John Sr.’s sons. The fact that several families of the area held many acres of
land and the records of Russell County relate that a number of “poor people”
were apprenticed out, might suggest something more was happening. Though
slavery was not as abundant in Appalachia as it was in many southern states,
slavery did exist. However, free farm labor was preferred in comparison to the
cost of slaves. This may, or may not have been the case in Russell County at
this time.
One might also assume John knew about this and it may have been what prompted
him to bring William home that day, or it may simply have been the fact that
he loved his children and wanted them home as well as needing their help on
the farm himself. The records do not hide the fact that John and Edy would
have been considered “poor dirt farmers” of the time. The title, “tenant
farmer” was most often the words of choice used in Appalachia.
With John himself being crippled, he could not physically work a farm well
enough to feed such a large family. As a tenant farmer, John would have needed
all the help his sons could give for as long as possible to maintain the
crops. Part of being a tenant farmer meant that John shared what was produced
on the farm with his landlord. This was payment for the rental of the farm.
Whether John was crippled or not, he would have still needed help with this as
most tenant farmers did.
This was a way of life during this time. Children worked along beside their
parents on the farm as soon as they were big enough to hold a hoe or plow
handle regardless of whether the man of the house was able-bodied or not.
There were few “lazy” kids during this time. The age of a son made no
difference at this time. If a son was tall enough to reach the plow handles,
he was old enough to work. This equally applied to the young girls in the
home. If they were big enough to reach the pots on the cook stove, they were
old enough to cook.
Unfortunately, history records the deaths of many children who burned to death
due to this, as well as the long dresses worn during this time. A fireplace
was used for heating purposes as well as cooking and some young girls (as well
as older women) were burned to death when the long skirt would catch fire from
the fireplace.
It appears that John went to Floyd County, Kentucky when he left Wilkes
County, North Carolina. John was in Wilkes County until around 1805 or 1806
after he was accused of stealing a hog, along with James Bougus. James
immediately left the area but John remained. This might indicate that John was
not guilty and James was. However, John did eventually leave and did not
appear in court to satisfy this charge. For this reason, there are not enough
records concerning this event to determine if John was not available to state
his guilt or innocence or to explain the circumstances.
John might have been involved in this or it may have simply been a case of
being in the “wrong place at the right time.” By today’s standards, John was
innocent until proven guilty and this of course, did not take place because
John left. The fact that John did leave the area would cause one to wonder.
His brother, William, (son of Lewis and Elizabeth) and father, Lewis,
satisfied the charge. This could have been the last contact John had with his
father and possibly due to this event.
The pension file of John Scalf Sr. reveals that he married Edeah (Edy) Carlile/Carlisle
on February 15, 1787 in Edgecombe County, North Carolina. This marriage record
has not been found but this statement was made by Edy Carlisle in the pension
file of John Sr. Edy was the daughter of Robert Carlile and Nancy. Nancy’s
maiden name is yet unknown. It is evident from the will of Robert Carlile that
this was a second marriage for Nancy as Robert stated in his will “I give to
my wife’s Daughter one feather bed and furniture.”
I have not found the marriage record of Robert Carlile and his wife, Nancy,
and therefore, it is difficult to determine if Nancy was actually the mother
of Edy Carlisle and her siblings even though it is possible that she was. It
appears that this Robert Carlile/Carlisle was the grandson of William Carlile
(will of 1769) and his wife, Sarah (__) Bell Carlile.
The will of William Carlile (will of 1769) and another Robert Carlile (will of
1786) of Edgecombe County indicates that this Robert Carlile was the son of
William and Sarah (__) Bell Carlile. William (will of 1769) only named two
children in his will. The two children named were Robert and William Carlile.
This Robert died and left his will in 1786, not to be confused with the Robert
Carlile who was the father of Edy Carlisle Scalf. Edy’s father Robert, died in
1815.
Our Robert Carlile (father of Edeah) made his will in 1808 and the will was
probated in 1815 so these two Robert’s are not the same person. If William and
Sarah had daughters they were not mentioned in the will of William Carlile. (Will
of William. Carlile 1769) (William-Carlile-Probate-1769)
This older William died shortly after his will was made in 1769 for his will
was probated in the May court of 1769 in Edgecombe County. His wife, Sarah,
had previously been married to a Bell so her maiden name is also unknown.
Sarah also made her will on July 13, 1772 and the will was probated in the
January Court of 1776. Sarah names her children by both husbands in this will.
The two Carlile children named were William and Robert Carlile. These children
appear to be the same children named in her husband’s will of 1769. The other
boys named in Sarah’s will were William, Richard, and Joseph Bell. Her
daughters were named as Elizabeth Bradley and Sarah Baldwin.
It is interesting to note that another daughter is named in the will of Sarah
Carlile as Milla Carlile and apparently this daughter was handicapped and
possibly had to be cared for. This daughter was not mentioned in the will of
Sarah’s husband William in 1769 even though this daughter carried the name of
Carlile. Sarah stated in her will the following sentence:
“I lend to my Daughter Milla Carlile one feather Bed during her life & after
her Death to the person that has the Trouble of her.” (Will of Sarah Carlile,
1772).
This indicates that Milla (most likely Millie) may have been handicapped in some way. I doubt the will would have been worded this way if Milla were simply under age. I have no way of knowing the ages of William and Sarah without further research but it is doubtful they were young enough to have minor children when they made these wills. This is also a good indication that the two married daughters in the will of Sarah were her daughters by her first husband since they were not mentioned in William’s will. According to this will, only two sons would have been the sons of William Carlile and they were Robert and William
It might appear unusual that William would not have made
provisions for this daughter in this will, had she been his daughter, but the
will states her surname as Carlile. By this we can conclude that William left
this chore to his wife Sarah. It is evident that William would soon die by the
dating of the will. In this case, it would be understandable for him not to
include his handicapped daughter. His wife most likely would have been left
this responsibility. These were different times than we live in today.
In studying the old wills of the colonial period, it appears that grudges were
sometimes held against a spouse because of a handicapped child. The
responsibility of the child was then left to the surviving spouse. At least,
some of the earlier wills reflect this. We have no way of knowing what took
place concerning this and we can only speculate. However, due to the
information, it appears that this daughter was handicapped and was the
daughter of William and Sarah Carlile until further research proves otherwise.
Daughters were not greatly considered at the making of one’s will during this
time, as it was believed that the daughter would be the responsibility of a
future husband. Money was generally given or personal family items as part of
her marriage dower. In the case of a handicapped daughter, the mother would be
responsible for her maintenance when known that the mother would still be
living at the death of the father and would be expected to provide for her at
her death with the provisions left to the widow by her husband. This was a
common practice but did not necessarily mean that everyone followed this
practice. I’m sure, if Sarah had died before William, the will would have been
worded differently concerning Milla.
In all probability, Milla was a daughter of William and Sarah and William had
left her care to his wife, Sarah. The timing of this will and the death of
William is certainly an indication that William knew he would soon die.
Apparently, William was very ill at this time.
Robert Carlile, who died in 1786, did not mention a son Robert in his will and
therefore, was not the father of Robert Carlile who married Nancy (parents of
Edy Carlile/Carlisle). However, he did have a brother William who was most
likely the father of our Robert Carlisle/Carlile. I find no will for this
William at this point. Edy Carlile was most likely the granddaughter of
William Carlile and Sarah (___) Bell Carlile by their son, William Carlile
(wife unknown). For identification purposes, the Williams and Roberts will be
listed as Robert (I), Robert (II), William (I), and William (II).
Robert Carlile (Robert I) who left his will in 1786 married Sarah Coleman
February 5, 1763 in Edgecombe County, North Carolina. (Marriages of Edgecombe
Co. NC)
This marriage record can also be viewed at the following URL address. http://www.geocities.com/ncedgecombe/vitals/Edgecombe_Marriages_C.html
According to the will of this Robert Carlile, the children of this union were;
Susanna, Mary Ann, Sarah, Rhoda, Coleman, Simon and Edwin. There is no mention
of a son, Robert, in this will. There appears to be confusion among the
Carlile descendants as to the correct name of Edwin Carlile. Some suspect it
was Edmund and some suspect it was Edward. However, it appears to be Edwin in
my interpretation of this will.
According to the customs of the time, the old English rule was “oldest son
inherits all” and was normally appointed Executor of the Estate and William
(I) followed this rule in his will. His son Robert (I) inherited the
plantation and was named Executor of the Estate indicating that he was the
oldest son. His brother William (II) inherited half of the remainder of the
estate.
Robert (I) (son of William and Sarah) did not follow this rule, however. He
leaves his estate after the death or marriage of his wife to his two sons;
Simon and Edwin, indicating that Simon was either the oldest or that Simon and
Edwin were twins. The old wills generally named the children in the order of
birth. This was not always the case, but for the most part, this was generally
practiced.
Robert’s son, Coleman, inherited 56 acres and a debt owed to his father, which
indicates he was certainly the youngest son. I believe this Robert Carlile to
have been the uncle of Edy Carlile and the brother of William II. (Will
of Robert Carlile 1786,
Page 2 of Will.).
Robert Carlile (II) (father of Edeah) made his will September 27, 1808 and the
will was probated in the February Court of 1815. Will Book E. page 81. This
Robert Carlile was the father of Edea (Edy) Carlile Scalf for in this will we
find Edy listed as Edea Scalf. (Will
of Robert Carlile-1808)(Page
2) (Page
3) (Page
4)
In the Abstract of Wills of Edgecombe County, North Carolina by Williams -
SCALF is spelled SEALF. However, this was a typical mistake in interpreting
the early writings. Will Abstracts are transcribed copies of wills with the
important information transcribed from the original will.
In the original copy of the will the (c) does appear to be (e)
but this was most likely due to the old writing style that caused this error.
The transcriber for the Abstracts interpreted this to be an (e). The quill
pens caused many strokes that were not intended and the writing was different
then than now. Also, note the tail on the (s) in the name Joseph Carlile. The
(s) will always have the appearance of an (f). This is another example of the
old writings.
In the will abstract, it also lists the name Polly Bellflower as a daughter of
this Robert Carlile. In a copy of the original will obtained from the Raleigh,
North Carolina Archives, I do not find the name, Polly Bellflower. However,
there are a couple of white (blank) spaces in this certified copy that could
obscure this name.
I have studied these spaces with a
magnifying glass and in every position possible because writing can be seen
through these spaces; however, I only find the name Edea Scalf listed in this
space below her brother, John. The name, Polly Bellflower, may be somewhere in
this space but if so, it is not distinguishable in this copy. (Will
Abstract-Robert Carlile – 1815)
Robert Carlile II (father of Edy) left all of his children five schillings
each with the exception of Liddy. Liddy (probably Lydia) received five pounds
because she was the youngest daughter and unmarried at this time. Joseph and
Cary inherited the land and plantation and all residue that had not been given
away after the death or marriage of his wife to be equally divided between
them. This might suggest these two were twins. Even so, the son born first
would generally have received the plantation. It may simply have been that
Robert wanted his two oldest sons to share the majority of his possessions.
The fact that Robert and Clark received only five shillings suggests they were
the youngest sons.
Two of John and Edy’s daughters carried the namesakes of two of Edy’s. Three
daughters, if there actually was a Polly Bellflower in this will. Maybe
someone has a copy that does not have these blank spaces in it and the name
does appear. John and Edy named a daughter Lydia, one Nancy and one was named
Polly. John Sr. and Edy also named sons; Robert and John but John Jr. most
likely carried his father’s namesake.
The children named in this will were; Rebecca Jackson; Liddy Carlile; Nancy
Riley; John Carlile; (possibly Polly Bellflower); Edea Scalf; Clark; Robert;
Joseph, and Cary Carlile.
There is an abstract for the will of a Cary Carlile/Carlisle August 22, 1831
but no probate date is given. I do not have a copy of the original will for
this and only have the abstract. According to this abstract, it appears that
Cary did not marry, or if he did, his wife had died and he had no children for
he left everything to his mother, Nancy, and then to his sister Martha
Carlisle. The will also suggests this may not be the same Cary Carlile,
brother of Edy because there was no Martha Carlile listed in Edy’s father’s
will.
The alternative to this is either Nancy had another child after the death of
Robert or Martha may have been Liddy Martha or vice-versa since this sister
appears to have been unmarried at this time. This would not have been the
Polly mentioned above for she was named as Polly Bellflower (Abstract of
will-Cary Carlisle 1831)
During the 1990s, a close cousin, Mary Scalf Kilgore, made a trip to England
with a friend who was a native of England. Mary brought a Tartan history of
the Bruix/Bruce family back as a gift to me. I have been told that the Isobel
mentioned in this Tartan was from “Castle Carlisle” along the border of
Scotland and England; hence, the Carlisle/Bruce connection. I cannot say this
is fact for I have no reference to this. I only have the name Isobel listed in
the Tartan history and the statement of an avid researcher of European
history.
What is known of the ancestry of the Carlile/Carlisle family is that the name
is a very old English/Scottish name. The Carlisle/Carlile family is one of a
select few families who are accepted into the Bruce Society due to their
marital connections with the Bruix/Bruce family. Exactly where the marital
connections began is unknown to me at this time. The following brief history
is listed in part from the Tartan.
“Robert de Bruix came to England about 1066 and held land at Yorkshire. Robert
de Bruix had son, Robert who later was granted Lordship of Annandale. Robert,
the 4th Lord married Isobel, co-heiress of David, grandson of David I, Earl of
Huntington and their son Robert Bruce, The Competitor, was grandfather of King
Robert I (Bruce), 1274 - 1329.” (Clan
Tartan History)
It is from King Robert that Edwin O. Scalf, another Kentucky cousin (now
deceased) believed Edy Carlisle descended and was able to prove the lineage to
join the Bruce Society. From the appearance of the papers sent to me, Edwin
was a member of the Bruce Society at his death. I have a copy of his
membership card sent to me by another researcher in Oregon during my earlier
research. Edwin stated on some of these papers that Edy was a distant relative
to the Queen of England and a direct descendant of Robert de Bruix (Bruce).
However, Edwin did not elaborate on how this connection was made.
Whether
Edy was a direct descendant of King Robert or not, she was certainly not
living a royal life. John and Edy’s first child, Polly, was born March 27,
1788 in Edgecombe County, North Carolina. The next child, was born April 29,
1789 in Edgecombe County. These birth dates were gleaned from Edy’s statements
in the pension file. These children were the only two children Edy gave
information on. Previous writings suggest that Nancy was the second child
born after Polly and John Jr. was then born in 1790.
The birth of the next child, John Jr., was estimated around 1790-1791. Between
1790 and 1798, John and Edy moved over to Surry County, North Carolina where
they are found in the 1798 tax list and again on the 1800 census. Surry was
formed in 1770 from Rowan County and lies in the northwestern part of the
state where it borders the Virginia line.
Between 1800 and 1806, John was living in Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Wilkes was created from Surry County in 1777 and lies in the northwestern part
of the state on the Virginia line. John most likely had not moved far from the
area in Surry where he previously lived in 1798 or he may not have moved at
all and only the county line changed. John is found charged in Wilkes County
with the theft of “a light blue hog” on January 1, 1805. An excerpt concerning
this incident is presented from Chapter IV of Chronicles of the Scalf Family.
“On January 1, 1805 according to a sworn statement by Peggy Love, resident of
Wilkes County, North Carolina, John Scalf and James Bougus with force and arms
stole one large, light-blue, castrated hog commonly called a barrow of twelve
pence value. Peggy Love took the case to court and presented as her witnesses
Benjamin Parks, Reuben Parks and Robert Martin. James Bougus fled the county,
however, John remained for a while and was scheduled to stand trial for the
alleged theft. William, John's brother, went on his bond for $40 to guarantee
John's appearance in court; however, John also saw fit to leave Wilkes County.
William stayed on, went to court and straightened things out.
Judgment was made against John and both he and William were summoned to court
in 1806 to forfeit the original bond. In 1807 Lewis Scalf apparently picked up
the bond. A horse, cow and another item or two were confiscated from John in
1805 after which he disappeared from the area. A notation on the judgment for
William indicated that nothing of value was found of his. The case was
continued against Lewis in an attempt to collect the rest of the 40 dollars
and this went on until 1813-1814 when the court in Surry County where Lewis
had gone back to live finally sought to, sell 50 acres, which Lewis had sold
earlier to one Andrew Pruitt. It was about this time that John's sister, Sarah
Scalf, was charged for the murder of her infant child and brought to court in
Surry County.” (Chapter IV – Chronicles of the Scalf Family).
This is presented in place of the original document. Due to various moves in
the past, some of my original documents have been misplaced. When these are
found, they will be posted as well. This appears to be an accurate account of
the records I have read concerning this event, however.
By this time, John and Edy’s family had grown. Apparently, John went to Floyd
County, Kentucky sometime around 1806. A John Scalf shows up in Floyd County,
Kentucky on the 1810 census but the ages of the children do not match the
assumed ages given of John’s children in previous writings. This could be an
error on the census however, or an error in the proper placement of the
children of John and Edy previously.
Reviewing the 1810 Floyd County, Kentucky census, there is a John Scalf listed
as head of house. This is a transcribed copy of the 1810 Floyd County,
Kentucky census so please keep this in mind. The original document of a
transcribed copy should always be checked for accuracy.
Floyd Co., KY 1810 Census
SCALF, John head of house Estimated Birth Dates
three males under 10 years of age (1800-1810)
One male between 26 and 45 years of age (1765-1784)
Three females under 10 years of age (1800-1810)
Two females between 16 and 26 years of age (1784-1794)
One female between 26 and 45 years of age. (1765-1784)
As can be seen above, there were three males and three females under the age
of ten. John and Edy married in 1787, their first daughter was born in 1788,
and another in 1789 according to the pension file of John Scalf Sr. These
girls would have been 22 and 21 years of age respectively by 1810. Two females
born 1784-1794 are most likely Nancy and Polly and this does correlate with
what was stated by Edy in the pension papers.
John Jr. was allegedly born around 1790-1791 but there is no male near this
age on this census. A son, William was born 1795 and died young; Brittan was
born 1799; Dicy was born 1800; Lydia was born 1804 and another William born
1806, Berryman was born 1809 and Lee was born 1810 according to the previous
writings.
Previous writings indicate there were four females and six males all born
before or by 1810, which totals ten children. The above census shows five
females and three males if the census is correct which totals eight children
by 1810. If John and Edy had ten children by 1810, then two of them are
missing on this census. One is probably John Jr. and the other, the first
William that died. Since there are only eight children here, William had
probably died by this time and John Jr. was working away from home.
We have no way of knowing just how young the first William may have been when
he died and he had probably died before this census. If so, then there would
have been four males and five females living by 1810. Information from the
pension file indicates that Cecelia (aka Sela/Celia) was actually born much
sooner than listed in the previous writings. She may possibly be one of the
females listed here as being born 1800-1810. The listing in previous works was
most likely her marriage date. Information from the pension file suggests she
married around 1823. This census could account for Nancy, Polly, Dicy, Lydia
and either Betsy or Cecilia as the female children born to John and Edy by
1810.
If John Jr. was the oldest son and born 1791 according to previous writings
then he is not listed here on this census. He should have been around 19 years
old at this time. He may have already married but even that is questionable
for his wife, Patsy Counts, expressed in her deposition in 1845 that she had
known the Scalf family for about twenty-five years so John and Patsy most
likely married around 1820-1825. When the years are subtracted, this gives a
marriage date of 1820 for John Jr. and Patsy Counts. Had John Jr. and Patsy
married 1800-1810, he would have been in Russell County and listed on the tax
records of 1810 and I do not find him there nor have I found him as head of
house in Kentucky in 1810.
The only alternative that comes to mind concerning this is John Jr. was likely
working on a nearby farm or possibly at the Salt Mines in Clay County and was
not counted on this census. He was certainly old enough now to have left the
nest and may have worked out somewhere to help the family. As will be noted
later on the Russell County court records, John was employed as a laborer in
Russell County. He was most likely on a nearby farm in Kentucky, and possibly
enumerated in the home of a neighbor in 1810.
The accuracy of this census is questionable as well since it is a transcribed
copy. I know of no other John Scalf that fits this age and none that would
have been in Kentucky this early. The 1810 tax list of Russell County,
Virginia does not show that a Scalf family was living there in 1810.
If this is John Sr., on this census, then John had fled North Carolina only to
find more trouble for himself in Kentucky.
The Floyd County Court Minutes indicate that a John Scalf was detained in the
Prestonsburg jail but the charges have not been located. This can be found in
the Scalf Family History as well as Chronicles of the Scalf Family. I have
also read this account in the records but as Henry and Elmer, I did not found
a record of the charges. John apparently broke jail and took the leg irons
with him. We most likely will never know the details of this or even if this
was John Sr. or not. This record was not copied on my visit to Kentucky.
It is noted in the writings of Henry Scalf (Chronicles of the Scalf Family)
that John was very outspoken and easily provoked about his enemies, the
Tories. It is possible that this was the cause of John’s trouble in Kentucky.
It is stated in Chronicles of the Scalf Family that John had been in a fight
with a man named Guinn and had “cut him seriously.” An excerpt from Chronicles
of the Scalf Family relates the following:
“It was while residing in Floyd County, Kentucky, that his propensity for
trouble landed him in irons in the Prestonsburg jail. We have no record of the
charge other than an oral tradition related by Hezekiah Scalf, a grandson,
that he had a fight with one of the McGuires and cut him seriously with a
knife. Whether it was the condition of the jail, which was admittedly bad, or
the seriousness of the offense that required irons, we do not know. We are
indebted to a few laconic court orders for all we know.” (Chronicles
of the Scalf Family, Chaper IV).
John was not to be held for very long in the Prestonsburg jail and by the
November court term, John escaped and left Floyd County, Kentucky taking the
irons with him and shedding them along the way. Most likely, John shed these
irons not very far from the jail for the old Floyd County court order book
records that Robert Haws was allowed $1.50 “for breaking handcuffs and mending
fetters.” This indicates that they were found and the handcuffs were still
locked together but the leg irons had been damaged in the removal.
No doubt, John Sr. and his family made their way across the Mountain from
Floyd County, Kentucky into Virginia. It is interesting to note that Pike
County Kentucky, home of the McCoy family from the infamous Hatfield and McCoy
feud was taken from a part of Floyd County, Kentucky in 1821. It is also
interesting to note that Patsy Counts Scalf, daughter-in-law of John Scalf
Sr., was probably a relative of some of the Counts family who lived in the
area of Matewan, West Virginia, home of the Hatfield family of this feud.
Kentucky and West Virginia border each other in the Tug Valley area.
John Sr. may have used the same route used by Daniel Boone during his trips
from Russell County, Virginia to Kentucky many years before. History records
the journeys from Russell County to the “Big Sandy” made by Daniel and various
others. Clay County, Kentucky, where John returned later to work in the Salt
Mines, had been formed in 1807 from parts of Floyd, Madison and Knox Counties.
Many trips across the Mountain from Virginia to Kentucky were made during the
early days. This was an old Indian Path used by the Indian’s during their
winter hunts and used by the “long-hunters” before the first white man ever
settled in the area. Bushwhackers were numerous along this route as well.
Confederate and Union deserters of the Civil War were also known to use this
route during the war. This route has witnessed many different eras in time and
the stories that could be told are far more numerous than we could possibly
digest, if a mountain could speak.
Copyright (C) 2002-2008 by Margaret Fleenor, All Rights Reserved.
To Be Continued