The Quarterly
December 1989
A Site Survey Of A Civil War Gun Pit At The Old Nation Ford Near Rock Hill
Three Views Of Yorkville On The Eve Of The Civil War
Harvey L. Hart's Reminiscences
Early North Carolina Land Grants In Present Day York County
Samuel Mendenhall Writes New Book On York County History
York County Men In Camden's Old Burial Ground
Silas Buchannon V. John Campbell, Adm.
The Descendants Of Matthew Irwin (Erwin)
A SITE SURVEY OF A CIVIL WAR GUN PIT AT THE OLD NATION FORD
NEAR ROCK HILL, SOUTH CAROLINA
By Sam Thomas
[Editor's Note: This past spring, Sam Thomas, a Winthrop College graduate student in history from Clover (York Co.), researched a historical site for a paper he was writing in a USC anthropology course. At the same time, bulldozers were on the tract pushing up fill dirt for housing projects. This unprotected site may have, by this time, lost its identity. We regret that we do not have the space to print all of the paper but, with his permission, have excerpted portions that we think will interest our readers.]
....On 19 April [1865], Palmer [Col. William J. of the U.S. First Brigade] and his cavalry force of four hundred men were making their way toward the railroad bridge spanning the Catawba River near the present community of Red River. Meanwhile, when the Confederate forces reached Charlotte, they found that Stoneman's raiders [Gen. George and 6,000 U.S. Cavalry] were headed toward the Old Nation Ford and the military post of Catawba Bridge. By the time the Confederates reached Catawba Bridge they found the Union forces had already set fire to the bridge and dug in with an artillery piece on a hill overlooking the bridge.
There is no mention to be found as to how the Confederate guard at the bridge was overtaken, but according to tradition, they were duped into believing the Union forces before them were just an advance party of Stoneman's entire force. In any case, the Confederate guard would have been members of the local Home Guard - made up of young boys and old men, and not regular troops.
A skirmish ensued between the Federal raiders and the Confederate relief force in which a local resident with the defenders was killed. The identity of the man killed is not known, but he was supposed to have been a resident of Rock Hill, and his body was taken to the home of David Hutchison above the ford and laid on the porch.
There are conflicting reports as to how the battle ended. Some sources state that the Federals were driven off down the Nation Ford road toward Yorkville. Other sources state that a train arrived from Charlotte with a flag of truce stating the order from both Generals Johnston and Sherman to cease hostilities. After meeting with the two forces, the Union cavalry supposedly retired toward Lincolnton.
Old Nation Ford gathered more importance each day as the Confederacy rapidly faded. This was to be the key crossing place for President Jefferson Davis on his intended flight south and possible route to Texas where he had the intention of organizing the scattered Confederate forces still west of the Mississippi in the vain hope of continuing the fight there. On 20 April, Davis wrote from Charlotte to General P. G. T. Beauregard in Greensboro that, "This post is without artillery, as was the bridge over the Catawba. General Echols brought no field artillery with him. Communication with the south side of the river being broken..." After the bridge was burned, a pontoon bridge was constructed so that supplies in Chester could be brought up to Greensboro. Cavalry was also ordered to a position on the Catawba, probably at Catawba Bridge, to await Davis' party as it fled south.
The Site: Located in the small community of Red River, just outside of Rock Hill, South Carolina is the remnants of a three-sided earthwork. The earthwork, located just off Red River Road in the midst of a trailer park, appears to be a gun emplacement. The site is on the Rock Hill side of the Catawba River near the present railroad trestle bridge. The emplacement is positioned on the top of a knob southeast of the bridge. The land directly adjacent to the southeast side of the emplacement has recently been disturbed for the use of fill dirt....
The earthwork, itself, is rather small - having only about twenty square yards within its parapets. The shape is of an open-ended rectangle, slightly flared outward towards the rear with curved rear salients. The floor the emplacement from the front slopes upward toward the rear. There also appears to have been a ramp leading into the back of the pit.
The work was obviously built on the high precipice to serve as a mili- tary post. From this elevated point, the defenders would have held an increase in both their range and fire effectiveness. A plunging fire from the emplacement could drive off any would-be attackers or destroy the bridge if necessary.
Construction: In the mid-1800s, specific procedures were followed in the construction of earthworks and gun emplacements. The placement of the earthwork at Old Nation Ford clearly shows that it was intended to give its defenders the ability to command the approaches to the railroad and the fording area of the river. The original construction is not quite as clear. Prior to and during the Civil War, a bridge or fort was guarded by either a block-house or a small earthen fort called a redan.
A blockhouse was generally used to guard a point on a railroad such as a bridge crossing. It was constructed of log timbers in one or two tiers, depending on the importance of the site and the size of the garrison station-ed at the post. An earthen base would have been added to strengthen the whole structure. Such a work was commonly built with a width of eighteen to twenty-four feet, if cannon were to be positioned in it; and twelve to twenty feet if it was to be used by infantry only.
....If the work included an artillery piece, then a wooden platform was built over the ground where the wheels of the gun were placed so that a rut was not cut into the floor of the emplacement. The platform was built of timbers and could be positioned only under the gun's wheels.
The area between the emplacement and the river and bridge was prepared for defense. All undergrowth such as bushes, shrubs, and trees were cleared out of the way so that the defenders could have a clear field of fire at their target. No stumps higher than around two feet would remain the entire way down the hill to the bridge and river.
The post garrison at Catawba Bridge would have varied in size, depending upon the proximity of the enemy....It was standard practice to allow one and one-half square yards per man...we come up with a garrison figure of about fourteen men. The members of the garrison would have come from the local Home Guard Unit which this late in the war consisted of young boys, old men, and crippled soldiers.
Speculations: There seems to be several contradictions about the earthwork other than the exact date for the burning of the bridge. According to local sources, some believe the earthwork was built by the Confederate forces, while others say the Federal forces constructed the work. It seems more likely that it was Confederate built since there was already in place a military post, plus the fact that a group of soldiers raiding behind enemy lines will not generally take the time to build defense works of this magnitude unless they were planning on staying awhile. Also, it would have taken much of the raiding force all day to construct these earthworks; and why build an earthwork which defends only a handful of men?
We also find a report in the Official Records of the Union and Confed-erate Armies, dated 21 April 1865, from John C. Breckenridge, Secretary of War [CSA], to General Joseph E. Johnston in Greensboro, in which Breckenridge states, "It is said that our own men have burned the Catawba bridge." It is possible that upon the approach of the Federal cavalry, the Confederate defenders tried to delay the Union crossing by burning the bridge. There is no mention in any of the known sources of prisoners being taken by the Federals, which makes one think that the bridge may have been fired by the defenders and a fight then ensued which was quickly joined by the newly-arriving Confederate cavalry from Charlotte.
Whether there was artillery positioned in the earthwork is not certain. A local report has it that the two guns were dismounted and thrown in the river. This earthwork, however, is not large enough to accommodate two guns. The work does have two embrasures in the front salients and one gun could have been pivoted around to fire through either. There may have been another emplacement, for on the opposite side of the rail line sits a second knob about equal distance from the bridge as the first....The placement of the earthwork, however, is ideal for a plunging fire from artillery. At this time in history, most artillery pieces which would have been used in this situation had a range of about fifteen hundred yards - clearly within range of the bridge and its approaches.
As far as the type of emplacement, while the dimensions of the work match more closely with that given for the construction of a blockhouse than a redan, a blockhouse is generally located much nearer to the point it is to guard. A redan, on the other hand, would be of greater use sitting on an elevated position.
Recommendations: There are four things that should be looked at more carefully before a final verification can be made:
1) If there is indeed another emplacement on the opposite knob or a second position on the opposite side of the river.
2) The location of the original trestle which was burned.
3. Test pits should be dug on the interior of the work for possible artifacts, and to try to locate any part of the wooden gun platform. (If the earthwork was hastily thrown up upon the approach of Sherman's forces earlier in the year, then a platform may have been non-existent from the beginning.)
4. A test trench should be cut into one of the walls of the work to try to ascertain the construction method used.
More information on this site and the ensuing battle is necessary for a complete history to be known. The site holds much importance because there are so few sites of this type known to still exist. It is also of great local interest as the battle fought here was one of the last battles of the Civil War, east of the Mississippi.
[In one of his footnotes, Mr. Thomas points out that the Old Nation Ford site has other historical significance than the Civil War raid: "The ford across the Catawba River was part of the old Indian trading path located near the abandoned site of the Catawba settlement of Nasaw Town. The path later became known as the Virginia trading path during colonial times....Legend also holds that this is the site of the great battle between the Catawba and Cherokee nations in which fifteen thousand warriors are said to have died. After the battle it was agreed that the area around Old Nation Ford would be a no-man's land between the two. The area was also the probable site of a fortified camp set up by Thomas Sumter and a force of five hundred patriot troops in July 1780." It might also be added that this was the site in 1841 of the Nation Ford Treaty in which the Catawba Indians gave up its claim to 144,000 acres, mostly in eastern York County, to the State of South Carolina but, because the state did not submit the treaty to the U.S. Congress for ratification, there is a current lawsuit (one of a series dating back into the last century) in which the Catawba Indians are attempting to get back the land. Because the suit affects title insurance, it has had a powerful impact on economic development in the area. Other than Kings Mountain Battlefield, there is probably no more historically important site in York County than the Nation Ford crossing of the Catawba River.]
THREE VIEWS OF YORKVILLE ON THE EVE OF THE CIVIL WAR
1. In 1860 the Due West Telescope editor attended a state bible convention in Yorkville and felt moved to write that Yorkville was "one of the prettiest and pleasantest towns in the Southern country...the purest and best water....an intelligent and enterprising population, is the terminus of the Kings Mountain Railroad; has a large back country trade; two excellent high schools, the Yorkville Female Academy and the Kings Mountain Academy and several other schools....two first class hotels and no grog shops..."
2. In 1860 Yorkville had five churches: Associate Reformed Presbyterian, Old School Presbyterian, Independent Presbyterian, Methodist and Episcopal. Just as Yorkville had three branches of the Presbyterian church, Presbyterianism dominated in York District with a total of 25 Old School, Associate Reformed and Independent Presbyterian churches.
3. "Plunge and Shower Baths" were advertised by W. C. Creps in the Yorkville Enquirer, July 5, 1860. Mr. Creps said that his Bathing House was open for "a reasonable compensation." Elsewhere in the newspaper it was written that Mr. Creps had fitted up his Bath House for the season and that "A good cold bath in hot weather is a great luxury and Mr. Creps is prepared to furnish it. We have tried it."
HARVEY L. HART'S REMINISCENCES
When Harvey L. Hart was 69 and living in Troy, Tennessee, he applied for a pension as a Confederate veteran. He filled out an extensive list of questions carefully and fully and in the process tells us a great deal of his life and the neighborhood in which he grew up.
Hart said that he was born at Rock Hill in York Co., S. C., the son of a farmer. He had owned no slaves himself but his father owned about 19. The family worked 180 acres and owned, other than slaves, property worth about $3,000. The family home had three rooms and a cook kitchen in the yard.
When asked what work he did before he entered service, Hart wrote: "I farmed, plowed, hoed, cut and tied wheat and oats which was cut by hand with a cradle, cut all our rail timber with an axe and split rails with a wooden maul and built all of the rail fence. Tramped wheat with horses then threshed with (?) cleaned by hand."
His father also carried out like duties on the farm. His mother's duties were to take care of the house and the children. She had a slave woman to do the cooking and the spinning and weaving for most of the clothing for black and white.. Other black women helped with the care of the children and did the washing.
Hart thought the blacks were well-treated in general with a few exceptions. He noted that the slaves attended church with the whites. "There were seats prepared for them in back of house or upstairs."
Hart observed that the people of the neighborhood "mingled on a footing of equality as much as any people could. "They were generous kindhearted and the wealthy were generous to the poor....the men of respectable parentage who owned no slaves were accorded and encouraged to engage in all kinds of honorable pursuits and were often assisted by men of means." He further stated that men who owned slaves "cut very little figure in a political contest as the people sometimes preferred the one who owned no slaves and was looked upon as being the better man of the two."
Hart described his own schooling as being typical. The schools were all "subscription schools" and were open from two to ten months a year, depending upon the amount of local money raised to operate them. The local people would subscribe for so many scholars, or pupils. We called them scholars but they were not."
Hart's first school lasted two months. "I learned to spell words of four syllables and to read and got a whipping to boot." All together, Hart estimated that he attended school 34 months. "The war broke up my schooling." When asked the distance to school, Hart wrote: "About one mile, but I attended one ten months school and walked two and one-half miles morning and evening with a sister who was younger than I, which was hard on her, and I felt sorry for her at times."
Hart's teacher was always a man. "There were very few women teachers in those days. I could say more on the subject but will not."
In 1861 Hart's father joined Co. H, 12th S.C.V. Regt. which was raised from the area around Rock Hill and the Catawba River. He went to Virginia and fought under Lee's command and then was discharged for bad health. Meantime, young Harvey was in the State Troops. When his father came home in February 1864 Harvey went to Virginia to take his father's place in Co. H. He was so young that he was given guard duty around camp. "We drilled and fought some battles with snow balls."
Hart recalled some of his company: Capt. Robert Kerr, Lt. Jones, Lt. Black, Sgt. A. Steel, Sgt. William Reed, Sgt. William Roland, James Westbrook, Charles Westbrook, William Sturgis, Zed Sturgis, John Harris (Indian), Jim Harris (Indian), William Sweat, Hack Allen, Jeff Roach, John Hart, Calvin Workman and William Workman.
Hart's first battle experience was in the Battle of the Wilderness where the company lost its colonel and lieut.-colonel. During the battle of Spottsylvania Courthouse, it rained constantly and he was exposed night and day, lightly clad with poor footwear. Hart was captured on May 12, 1864 and ended up in Fort Delaware for the remainder of the war--13 months.
After pledging allegiance to the United States, Hart was transported by train from Philadelphia to Port Amboy, New York where he boarded a ship for Hilton Head Island and then to Columbia where he saw all the damage done by Sherman's forces. He came home by train.
"We had a somewhat weird experience during the days of reconstruction and for a good while after we had the Ku Klux Klan and negro clans drilling at night. We could hear the drums beating. Widow women would come hunting something to live on and said they wanted to make a crop but would have to plow a cow and milk her at night."
In 1872 Hart moved to Obion County, Tennessee where he farmed successfully. "I like the people of Tenn., the land is better and clear of rock than in S. C. but the good old Palmetto state seems dear to me and there was fine soldiers went out from that State as ever trod the earth...."
(Taken from: The Tennessee Civil War Veterans Questionnaires, Vol. 3, Com-piled by Gustavus W. Dyer & John Trotwood Moore, The Southern Historical Press, Inc., 1985.)
Sooner or later, most people doing family research want a copy of an ancestor's military record. The official records are available for any war prior to World War I.
Our experience is that the S.C. State Archives is quicker but much more expensive than the National Archives. The National Archives requires certain forms and only one request per form but will generally send complete records (even an 86-page record we obtained) for $5.00 (not to be paid until after the records have been checked).
To get a copy of the form (ask for NATF Form 80) write: Reference Services Branch (NNIR), National Archives and Records Administration, 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20408. The office will generally mail no more than two forms at a time. The form has a very helpful cover sheet explaining what types of records are available and how to secure them.
The National Archives adds a warning: "Due to the heavy volume of requests,
please allow a minimum of 8-10 weeks for processing of your order." Our last
request took about three months to be filled but it was worth it.
EARLY NORTH CAROLINA LAND GRANTS IN PRESENT DAY YORK COUNTY
The North Carolina-South Carolina boundary line was drawn in stages. The line stretched to the east bank of the Catawba River in 1764 and was run on the west side in 1772. Before these dates NC issued more than 1,000 land grants from the Crown in upper SC. The following list is of land grants either known to be in present-day York Co. or the name of the grantee is the same as known residents.
Instead of describing the land as situated on the east or west of the Catawba River, the grants were designated as south side (the western side) or north side (Fort Mill township grants would be on the north side). The descriptions were brief and few grants had an accompanying plat. Anson County, N. C. claimed the area of present-day York County from 1749 to 1763. The following listings are from North Carolina Patent Book 2. The first number is the file number.
100. p. 20. George Carthy [ also Cathey]. 29 March 1753. 100 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of Catauba River, joining James Armour.
102. p. 20. Andrew Woods. 31 March 1753. 400 acres on S. side of the Catauba River on a branch of Fishing Creek, joing George Carthy.
105. p. 21. George Rennick. 31 March 1753. 350 acres on the S. side 350 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of the Cataba River below the place George Carthy claimed on the creek, joining the Branch.
108. p. 21. James Kirkendall [also Kuykendall] 29 March 1753. 700 acres in Anson Co. on the south side of the Catawba River below George Carthy's land on Fishing Creek, joining a Meadow.
132. p. 26. James Patton. 3 April 1753. 500 acres in Anson Co. on the East side of Fishing Creek a little above the Saludy Path [York or Chester Co?]
133. p. 26. William Patton. 31 March 1753. 386 acres in Anson County not far from the Trading Path on the S. side of the Catauba River being the place he now lives on, joining the river. [York or Chester Co.?]
142. p. 28. Joseph Clark. 29 March 1753. 640 acres in Anson Co. on Allisons Creek below the fork and taking in a Great Bottom, joining George Rennick.
146. p. 29. Charles McKnight. 3 April 1753. 400 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of the Cataba River on the lower N. fork of Fishing Creek called the Wildcat Branch Below George Rennicks Survey.
147. p. 29. George Davison. 31 March 1753. 389 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of the Cataba river on the N. fork of Turkey creek about three miles from Moses Dickey.
148. p. 29. George Rennick. 28 March 1753. 400 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of the Catauba River on a N. fork of Fishing creek called Wild Cat branch.
156. p. 31. James Whahop [Wauchope or Walkup?]. 29 March 1753. 650 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of the S. fork of the Cataba River on a branch of Crowders Creek on the N. side.
158. p. 31. Francis MacKilwean [McIlwain?] and John Cathey. 29 March 1753. 750 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of the Catauba River on the N. side of Crowders Creek.
159. p. 31. Abraham Kuykendall. 29 March 1753. 570 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of the Cataba River on the S. fork of Fishing creek below George Rennicks entry.
163. p. 32. John Barr. 31 March 1753. 640 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of Cataba River on a N branch of Ellisons Creek near William Dickie.
168. p. 33. Benjamin Davis. 4 April 1753. 640 acres in Anson Co. near a little branch between Crowders creek and the S. fork, joining (a point) near to Evan Lewis.
193. p. 38. John Carr [also Kerr]. 5 April 1753. 625 acres in Anson Co. on the N. side of Half Mile creek on the West side of the Catauba River.
199. p. 38. George Salter. 6 April 1753. 300 acres in Anson Co., joining John Cathey.
200. p. 39. Jacob Taylor. 6 April 1753. 370 acres in Anson Co. upon the N. fork of Fishing creek.
280. p. 53. William Love. 11 May 1753. 400 acres in Anson Co. on the N. side of Broad river on both sides of Moores Creek being the place he now lives on, joining the river.
295. p. 56. Dennis Crosby. 11 May 1753. 600 acres in Anson Co. on the N. side of Broad river, joining his own line and the sd. river.
296. p. 56. Dennis Crosby. 11 May 1753. 600 acres in Anson Co. on the N. side of Broad river at the Mouth of Sandy river, joining the sd. Broad river and sd. Sandy river to the Mouth thereof.
316. p. 60. James Sharp. 30 August 1753. 400 acres in Anson Co. on the S. side of the Cataba river about four or five Miles from the Cataba Nation.
318. p. 60. Thomas Reynolds. 30 August 1753. 300 acres in Anson Co. on Kings creek that runs into Broad river on the N. side.
(The above patents were extracted from Colony of North Carolina, 1735-1764,
Abstracts of Land Patents, Vol. 1, by Margaret Hofmann, The Roanoke News
Company, Weldon, North Carolina, printers-publishers, 1962.
(To be continued.)
THE CATAWBAS, A BOOK REVIEW
James R. Merrell. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1989. 112 pages.
At long last a history of the Catawba has been written for school students. For too long the Catawba Nation has been relegated to cursory introductory comments to general South Carolina histories. In some cases the Catawba are even omitted from the usual, almost stock, sweeping statements about the Native American presence in the Palmetto State. At times the Catawba Nation is only footnoted. Merrell's effort, though deficient in its treatment of recent Catawba history, is definitely a step in the right direction.
Merrell begins with a colorful discussion of Paleo, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian cultural periods. The narrative breaks new ground in Chapter 2 with a description of life among the 17th century American Indians. Topics of interest to young readers include hunting practices, war customs, home construction, speculations on governmental structure, religious beliefs, and games the Catawba once played.
The tragedy of the Catawba story begins with Chapter 3. European contact brought new diseases, depleted the Catawba Nation's resources through trade, and introduced abuses which came along with trade, such as alcohol. Although the Nation declined, it remained politically vital and successful, at least in part, because South Carolina needed a buffer Indian state to protect the frontier. The politically astute Catawba were well known for their bravery, and far larger Indian nations were reluctant to face the Catawba in battle. As the frontier moved west, however, the traders who were easily controlled by the Catawba were replaced by settlers. These new arrivals were interested in establishing homesteads and did not care to do business with Indians. The settlers came in such large numbers that the Nation was soon beset by new and insurmountable problems. This period began just before the American Revolution and heralded the decline of the Catawba Nation. By the early 19th century, a number of writers predicted the extinction of the Catawba as a tribe. In spite of dismal prophesies, the Nation endured. From this point on, the narrative emphasizes the survival of Catawba culture in spite of tremendous odds against the Indians.
Unfortunately, Merrell's work may be divided into two vastly distinct parts. The Colonial period is obviously his most certain ground, but the closer he comes to the modern period, the more dangerous the pitfalls. The problem which Merrell and his general editor, Frank W. Porter, face is that the Catawba people and Indians in general have a very strong knowledge of their own history. There are too many Catawba who can and will object to misinformation regarding their story. Ironically, the most glaring error probably involves a poor choice of words not from the modern period but from the Colonial. Merrell states in Chapter 5: "In 1763, the Catawbas asked for and received title to 144,000 acres of land--a tract approximately 15 miles square--from the king of England." More accurately, the Catawba Nation ceded a large tract of land to the Crown of England and retained 144,000 acres of this much larger land base. Merrell's approach reflects a major problem that American Indian tribes face today. They rightfully wish to avoid the impression that they were given their current tracts of land. Although the Catawba Nation could hardly argue much with Crown officials, the Treaty of Augusta was negotiated between sovereign Indian nations and the Crown. In the Catawba treaty, the Nation retained its ancient hunting rights throughout South Carolina, a far more valuable right in 17th century Indian eyes than retaining a large land base that could not be defended against settlers.
By the end of the 19th century, the Catawba were Christians of the Baptist and Presbyterian faiths. Some were nominal in their beliefs; others, quite devout. In Merrell's narrative it appears that the Mormon missionaries converted pagan Catawba to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. In Chapter 7 there is a discussion of the Catawba tribal government as it survived into the 20th century. While the Catawba have long been divided into political factions, the tribe has never been without a governing body. Merrell states that the tribal government was revived in the 1940s, but this is not the case. The Memorandum of Understanding required a constitution and by-laws which simply made council elections more regular than they had ever been before. Also, the Catawba never felt the real impact of Jim Crow laws. First of all the Catawba has always been recognized as Indians. Although they experienced discrimination, their position was tempered by the fact that the landowners of both York and Lancaster Counties knew that the Treaty of 1840 had never been ratified or settled properly. All the Catawba's neighbors knew they were living on Indian land. In light of these facts, the photograph "For Colored Only" is particularly lamentable for its misinformation. I belabor this point because young readers will not have the benefit of these warnings. Each reader will come away from this book with his own set of misconceptions regarding the Catawba. As Indians, the Catawba constantly face a world fraught with errors concerning what it means to be an American Indian, and fuel not be added to the fire, particularly in this age of information.
In spite of its shortcomings, The Catawbas breaks new ground. It contains visual materials designed to spark young imaginations ready to absorb the history in all its complexity. The book contains maps from the earliest period to the present, facsimiles of Catawba documents, and numer-ous photographs of contemporary Catawba. Many of the photographs can be identified by the Catawba but are not identified by Merrell. Perhaps the most lavish photos are found in the color insert picturing a century of Catawba pottery. Again, most of the potters responsible for the vessels could be identified but are not.
The Catawbas is an exciting publication. It makes an effort to bring the full impact of Catawba history to young readers. Carolina students have long been denied access to this story until they read at the 12th grade level. Should The Catawbas go into a second printing, its errors and misconceptions can be corrected. The work is well worth the effort.
Thomas J. Blumer, Library of Congress
SAMUEL MENDENHALL WRITES NEW BOOK ON YORK COUNTY HISTORY
Lovers of York County history will be delighted with Samuel B. Mendenhall's latest contribution, Tales of York County, just off the press. One hundred "stories" about people and places in the county's history are told with a sure touch. We like the selections, recognize the years of good research, and couldn't put the book down. The 79-page hardbound book, privately printed, is available from the author for $10, plus $1.50 postage, mailing address, 1756 Ebenezer Rd., Rock Hill, S.C. 29731. Judge Mendenhall also has available for purchase his fine History of Ebenezer Presbyterian Church Including a History of Ebenezer Academy and The Town of Ebenezer, (1985), 150 pages, hardback, for $15, plus $1.50 postage.
YORK COUNTY MEN IN CAMDEN'S OLD BURIAL GROUND
"James Adamson was one of the noted Tories in the Revolution, who, like his kinsmen, the Beltons and Englishes, regained after the War their high standing in the community. It was he who gallantly rescued Martha Bratton from decapitation at the hands of Huck's ruffians [ in a skirmish at Williamson's Plantation near Brattonsville in York County]. Because of this the loyal citizens of Camden secured from the Legislature the removal of his political disabilities [presumably restored Adamson's property and right to vote.]
"Nearby lies one Capt. James Berry, a native of York district, probably a soldier of the Revolution, who died in 1818. On his monument is this verse:
"My friends and neighbors, if you call
To see where I do lie,
Remember well that you're from home
And may die as well as I."
(From a paper read by Robert M. Kennedy before the Kosmos Club, Columbia, S. C., 1933.)
SILAS BUCKHANNON V. JOHN CAMPBELL, ADM.
(Continued from last issue)
(From York County Court of Equity Journal in 1848, pp. 157 ff. The original spelling and punctuation has been retained.)
J. D. P. Currence Sworn Says--Testifies knew Mary Buckhannon. Saw her in 1841 first. Thinks she went to school to him as regularly as other scholars. From her appearance she was as healthy as other girls. Knew that the Buckhannon family are remarkable for drinking water. Mary walked to school--about a mile. Never heard her complain of her health. John Campbell paid for Mary's tuition.
Joseph F. White Sworn--Testifies that he knew Mary P. Buckhannon. Saw her at John Campbells a short time before her death. She was at that time washing clothes in a wash tub. Saw her at William Campbells. She was well treated and affectionately spoken of by Mrs. Campbell.
"Complainant proposes to prove that from what he saw of of Mary P. Buckhannon's treatment in the family of William Campbell Witness concluded that she was an addopted daughter.
"Testimony objected to on the ground that it is mere opinion of witness. Objection sustained.
"Proposes to prove that Mrs. Campbell told witness that she wanted Mary P. Buckhannon to remain with her, but that John Campbell wanted to take her away and Mrs. Campbell wanted to know of witness whether he could do so or not and that Mrs. Campbell expressed a determination to keep her unless she was obliged to give her up. [Note: Joseph White is referring to his wife as Mrs. Campbell. It was not unusual at that time for the community to continue calling a widow by the name of her first husband even though she had married a second or third--this was especially true if there were children by the first marriage.]
"Testimony objected to on the ground that is the declaration of a witness who is competent and should be examined and secondly that the testimony is irrelevant to the issue.
"Objection sustained.--with ground of incompetency. These declarations were made in the summer or fall of 1836. Mr. White married Mrs. Campbell 3 or 4 years after the death of William Campbell....
"Jane Henry Testifies-- Knew Mary P. Buckhannon well. Lived one mile from John Campbell in 1841 and is still living at same place. Was frequently at John Campbells until the time Mary lived there--was there when Mary died. Mary was sick several times while at John Campbells, had several hard spells. Don't think Mary was healthy. Mary too much swollen and bloated. She drank a great deal of water--too much for any one.....She had sick brashes (?) and was a hard hand to wait on in sickness. Witness lived in friendship with John Campbell's family and thought that John Campbell was always kind and attentive to Mary....On all occasions when she was there Mary was either sewing, knitting or spinning. Mary pretended to work for a living. The other nieces of John Campbell did not....Mary usually went well clothed but did not do it by her work....Says that what Mary did would amount to but little at night. Saw Mary undertake to make a fine dress and could not do it, and Mrs. Campbell assisted her....Mrs. Campbell was weaver--but never saw Mary weaving.
Elizabeth White--Testifies that she is wife of A. White. Comp't objects to the competency of Mrs. White on the ground of interest of her husband. Objection overruled. Says that she has been supoenaed by the Complainant and also by the Deft. Says that Mary was about 2 years old when Mary came to his house. Was at the funeral of her mother. Silas B. was there and Mary as Witness thinks. Silas asked Wm. Campbell if he would take his child and keep it. Wm.Campbell replied that he would ask his wife. Witness was contacted and replied to Wm. Campbell that they had no children and she was willing. Mary shortly after went to her house and remained until she was 14 or 15 years of age. While at her house Buckhannon visited her but seldom. Never knew of him furnishing her with Bonnett, while she lived with her. Visited J. Campbell not often after Mary went there. Saw Mary spinning and she said for herself. ....Says that Mary had white swelling while at her house and it was opened by Dr. J. D. Miller....Had a great thirst for water & has seen her drink a quart or more at one draught. After drinking these large draughts became dull and stupid and shiver when it was cool weather, and turn blue and spotted....Had rather raised 5 ordinary children than Mary. Knows of no provision that Silas Buckhannon made for Mary
Says that Mary was brought to her house in pursuant of the under- standing had at the funeral. Did not hear the conversation between Buckhannon and Campbell, witness is related to her by her husband. Witness was the administratrix of William Campbell. He died in May 1836. Was married to A. White about Jany 1839. As administratrix of Wm. Campbell don't know exactly how much the estate of Mary amounted to, can't say whether the return filed in ordinary's office [the ordinary before 1868 filled the same position as the probate judge since that time] is her return or not. Says that Col. Witherspoon was her counsel as the Admx. of the Estate of Wm. Campbell.
Comp't proposes to prove (which witness does not recollect) that she did not return any accounts to the ordinary against Mary for board & clothing of Mary as administratrix of Wm. Campbell.
Objected to by Deft and objection sustained on the ground that the testimony is offence to charge (illegible phrase) with the Estate of Mary in the hands of A. S. White the Admr.
....Don't know that William Campbell ever applied to Buckhannon to take Mary away. Mary left her house because she then had children of her own and Mr. White had children--and John Campbell had none and could take better care of Mary. Don't recollect whether or not she heard Mr. White tell John Campbell that he would not keep Mary any longer. Before her marriage to Mr. White don't recollect that she gave Buckhannon or anyone else notice to take Mary away....Drinking inordinate quantities of water was a peculiarity of all the Buckhannon family except one. Silas looked healthy but don't think he was stout....When Silas visited Mary he treated her kindly, but her uncle thought very hard of him that he did not visit her oftener.
Silas B. was in low circumstance. Cannot say why Wm. Campbell did not charge Buchanan [at this point the clerk changed his spelling from Buckhannon to Buchanan] for board, whether he did not intend to charge or whether he thought he could get nothing. Mary was expense to witness in her raising and was not worth her victuals & clothes when she left her house...."
(To be continued.)
THE DESCENDANTS OF MATTHEW IRWIN
(ERWIN)
by Mrs. Addie S. Mayfield and William B. White, Jr., (continued)
I. William Erwin Born in Ireland in 1735. Died 5/20/1814. Buried in Bethesda Presbyterian Churchyard, York Co., SC Married in 1759 to Sarah ("Sally) Ross who was born before 1744 to George and Sarah (McCullough) Ross. She was a sister of Major Frank Ross of York. She died at the age of 98 years. Issue:
A. Dorcas Erwin. Born in 1765. Died 10/22/1798. Married in 1784 to Alexander Moore, born in 1756 to James & Rachel (Black) Moore. Died 12/14/1813. Buried in Bethesda Churchyard. Issue:
1. James Moore. Born 12/16/1784. Died 1849. Married Sophia Springs.
2. Sarah Moore. Born 8/3/1786. Died 1848. Married Eggerich Johan Addickes.
3. Jane Moore. Died unmarried before 1798.
4. Mary ("Polly") Moore. Born 1790. Married Andrew Baxter Springs.
5. William Shakespeare Moore, M. D. Born 6/25/1791. Died 12/1/1861. Married (1) Harriet Baxter Springs, daughter of Captain Richard &Jean (Baxter) Springs. Married (2) Jane Baxter (Dinkins) Cushman.
6. Alfred Moore. Born 3/23/1793. Married Jane (McElhaney) Murphy.
7. Rachel Moore. Married Jedidiah Coulter.
8. Maurice Augustus Moore, M. D. Born 8/10/1795. Died in Union, S.C., on 8/31/1871. Author of Reminiscences of York. Married (1) Elizabeth Adeline Evalina Allison, (2) Sophronisba Nott
9. Dorcas A. Moore. Born February 1798. Died in Union, S. C., in 1871. Married in 1821 to John J.Pratt.
B. Francis Erwin. Born 1767. Died 1839. Married Mary (Moore) Moore, daughter of James and Rachel (Black) Moore, & widow of James Moore. Both are buried in Bethesda Churchyard. Issue:
1. William Leonidas Erwin. Born 12/21/1797. Married (1) Anne B. Williamson, (2) Adelaide Kennedy.
2. Rachel Maria Erwin. Born 7/4/1800. Married Thomas Spratt Erwin.
3. Francis Alexander Erwin. Born October 1803. Married Ann. S. Adair.
4. Arthur Randolph Erwin. Born 5/28/1806. Married (1) Mary M. McLean, (2) Nancy Adeline (Carothers) Thompson.
C. Arthur Erwin. Born 3/14/1770. Died 12/29/1849. Married Rachel Spratt about 1796, daughter of Elizabeth (Bigger) Spratt. Buried in the Spratt Family Cemetery, near Fort Mill, S.C.
Issue:
1. Dorcas Moore Erwin. Resident of Tennessee.
2. William G. Erwin. Born about 1802. Married Eliza Amelia (Orr) Steele.
3. Margaret Erwin.
4. Elizabeth Erwin
5. Jane S. Erwin. Born about 1809. Died without issue on 6/13/1859. Married about 1845 Judge John Miller Ross. Buried at Bethel Presbyterian Churchyard, York Co., S. C.
6. James M. Erwin. Born 4/14/1812. Died without issue on 11/4/1895. Buried at Pleasant Hill Churchyard, Mecklenburg Co., N.C. Married Eliza E. Lindsay.
D. William Major Ross Erwin. Born in 1778. Died 6/13/1848. Married before 1809 Elizabeth Bratton, daughter of Colonel William and Martha (Robinson) Bratton. Both are buried at Bethesda Churchyard. Issue:
1. William Albertus Erwin. Born 3/22/1809. Married Isabella Smith.
2. Francis James Erwin. Born 7/24/S1813. Married Letitia J. Smith.
3. Martha Emily Erwin. Born 3/20/1816. Died 12/30/1804. Married 4/8/1841, to Dr. Hazel H. Smith. Both are buried at Bethesda Churchyard.
E. Jenny Erwin. Died unmarried.
F. Mary Erwin. Nothing further is known of her.
G. Catherine ("Katie") Erwin. Married ____________ Miller
II. James Irwin. Born ca. 1737. Died in Anson (later Mecklenburg) Co., N. C. Married in North Carolina ca. 1757 to Margaret Chesnut, daughter of James Chesnut and his wife, Margaret, who had removed south from the Valley of Virginia after Braddock's Defeat to North Carolina in company with others, including the Phifers and the Irwins (Erwins). Margaret (Chesnut) Irwin was born ca. 1739 and died at or near Camden, S. C., in 1763. Issue:
A. Alexander Irwin. Born in Anson County, N.C. in 1759. Died in Fairfield Co., S.C., in January 1799. Married (1) Catherine Baker Whitaker, of Camden, ca. 1782. Issue:
1. James Irwin. Born ca. 1784.
2. Margaret Irwin. Born 1786. Died 10/20/1855. Married (1) Adam Fowler Brisbane II. Born 12/19/1779. Died on 1/3/ 1806. No issue. Margaret (Irwin) Brisbane married in 1807 (2) Thomas Durham Salmond, Esq., who came to Camden from Edinburgh, Scotland. Issue
3. Catherine Irwin. Married Robert Mickle, son of Joseph Mickle. Issue.
Alexander Irwin married (2) Mary Parr, of Fairfield Co., S. C., who survived her husband. Issue:
4. John Chesnut Irwin. Died unmarried.
5. Mary Irwin.
6. Sarah Irwin. Died in June 1800.
7. Parthenia Irwin. Born 4/19/1798.
B. Mary ("Polly") Irwin. Born in Anson (or Mecklenburg Co., N.C., in 1761. Died in York District, S.C., May 30, 1807. Married at Knight's Hill, country seat of her uncle, Col. John Chesnut, in 1781 or 1782, to Capt. Jonathan Sutton of New Jersey, a nephew of Jasper Sutton of Camden, S. C., husband of Mary's grandmother, Margaret Chesnut. Captain Sutton was the son of Jonas Sutton and his first wife, of Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Capt. Sutton was born in New Jersey in 1753 and died in York District, S.C., on 5/20/1818. Buried at Beersheba Church. Issue:
1. James Irwin Sutton. Born 1783. Died 6/26/1830. Married Mary McClain, daughter of Lieut. Andrew McClain, one of the heroes of the American Revolution. Buried at Beersheba Church.
2. Alexander Sutton. Born about 1785. Married Mary Candlish who was born in 1785 & died 12/26/1869. She was the daughter of Alexander and Sarah (Knox) Candlish, and granddaughter of Samuel Knox of Mecklenburg Co., N.C. Buried at Flint Hill Baptist Church, York Co., S.C.
III. Arthur Erwin. Born 1739 in Pennsylvania. Died in 1821 in Burke Co., N.C. Married about 1762 to Margaret Brandon. Born 1740. Died 1832. Issue:
A. William Willoughby Erwin. Born 3/22/1764. Died 7/25/1837. Married 5/21/1788, to Matilda Sharpe. Born 3/3/1769. Died 7/29/1846. Born were born in Rowan (later Iredell) Co., N.C. Both died at Belvedere, their home, near Morganton, Burke Co., N. C. Issue:
1. Adolphus Lorenzo Erwin. Born 2/14/1789. Died 11/24/1855. Married 11/27/1817, to Mary Gertrude Simiana.
2. William Alberto Erwin. Born 4/7/1790. Died 5/29/1847.
3. Leander Arthur Erwin. Born 5/10/1791. Married 9/5/1816, Eliza B. Marable. Died 11/10/1845.
4. Marquis de La Fayette (called Marcus) Erwin. Born 1/25/1793. Married Margaret Erwin McDowell, his cousin. Died 7/22/1824.
5. Harriet Eloise Erwin. Born 5/3/1795. Married 6/27/1815, Col. Isaac Thomas Avery. Died 8/4/1858.
6. Mary Elvira Erwin. Born 11/3/1796. Died 11/18/1863.
7. Sydney Stanhope Erwin. Born 12/31/1798. Married 4/10/1827, Caroline R. Carson. Died June 1849.
8. Catherine Reese Erwin. Born 5/3/1800. Married 4/8/1828, Dr. Alfred M. Gaither. Died 1/7/1866.
9. Margaret Caroline Erwin. Born 12/2/1801. Married 2/22/1821, Capt. James Moffit McDowell. Died 7/23/1831.
10. Elam Alphonso Erwin. Born 3/13/1803. Died 11/8/1830.
11. Elizabeth Sharpe Erwin. Born 10/17/1804. Married 7/13/1830, Col. Burgess Sidney Gaither. Died 5/30/1859.
12. Edward Jones Erwin. Born 3/24/1806. Married 12/6/1837, Ann Elizabeth Phifer. Died 7/8/1871.
13. Alexander Hamilton Erwin. Born 5/11/1808. Died 10/4/1877.
14. Cecilia Matilda Erwin. Born 5/11/1808. Died 5/3/1894.
15. Justina Louisa Erwin. Born 4/11/1810. Died 6/13/1811.
16. Delia Haywood Erwin. Born 4/2/1812. Married 10/10/1839, Dr. J. F. E. Hardy.
B. James Erwin. Born 3/15/1766. Died 5/7/1843. Married 5/29/1791, Mary Miller. Born 3/13/1773. Died 9/3/1843. Both died in Rutherford County, N.C. Issue:
1. James Miller Erwin. Born 10/12/1793. Died 10/2/1866. Married Lemira Byrum. Born March 1804. Died February 1900.
2. Arthur Erwin. Born 9/30/1785. Died 3/24/1886. Married 1/18/1825, Evelina Anville Terrell. Born 4/21/1800. Died 8/1/1897.
3. William A. Erwin. Born 9/16/1797. May have moved to Clarksville, Georgia from Rutherford County, N.C.
4. Richard Lewis Erwin. Born 9/13/1799.
5. Nancy Erwin. Born 8/3/1801. Died 1881. Married 1827 to Edward Simmons. Born 5/21/1799 in Hall Co., Ga.
6. Sarah E. Erwin. Born 6/3/1804.
7. John Watson Erwin. Born 9/13/1806. Married Gash Jones.
8. Mary Matilda Erwin. Born 5/7/1809. Married David Brown Miller.
9. Alfred Erwin. Born 4/29/S1811.
10. Overton L. Erwin. Born February 1816.
C. John Erwin. Born 1768. Married about 1790 to his uncle Alexander's daughter Catherine Erwin. She was born in 1770 and died in 1824.
D. Alexander Erwin. Born 1770. Died before 1819. The name of his wife is unknown at this writing.
E. Frank Erwin. Born about 1774.
F. Mary Erwin. Born about 1776. Died about 1860. Married Joseph Patton, who was related to his uncle Alexander's second wife, Margaret (Crawford) Patton.
G. Arthur Erwin, Jr. Born about 1782.
IV. Hugh Erwin. Born about 1741. He was a buyer at the estate sale of his brother James, in Anson Co. N.C., in 1761. Nothing further is known of Hugh at this writing.
(To be continued.)
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITION to part one of "The Descendants of Matthew Irwin (Erwin)" in the Fall 1989 issue: 1) page 9, the date of letters of administration for Matthew Irwin should be 1767; 2) page 10, James Erwin should be James Irwin and the death date 1761 added; 3) page 10, the birthdate of Arthur Erwin should be 1739, not 1737; 4) page 10, following "VIII. Alexander Erwin" should read "1749-Oct. 16, 1830." Please make the needed corrections and addition on your copy.
Back to: The Quarterly