Chenoweth History - Background

John Chenoweth & Mary Calvert

[COAT-OF-ARMS]

Quick Links

[Master Site Menu] [Main Page] [Census Page]

Who was John Chenoweth? The search for John Chenoweth? [NEW] Who was Mary Calvert?
John Chenoweth: [Where did he live?] [Gunpowder Manor] [Early Property] [Early Sightings]
The Chenoweth Family as defined by Arthur L. Keith, 1922
Richard Harris introduction of the Chenoweth Family
Marie Eberle's and Margaret Henley's background on the Chenoweth Family
[Later Baltimore Records] [Early Virginia Records]
[Early Wills] [Early Census Records] [Early Religions]
separate page: The places they lived
Chenoweth Genealogy
Chenoweth Genealogy Milestones
Questions and disputes
Placed 'Harris Unknowns'

A NAME: CHENOWETH

The name Chenoweth means "new house". These are Cornish words and a Cornish name, and Chenoweths, then and now, live in Cornwall, Great Britain*. It is one of the oldest names found in Cornwall dating from about 1472 during the reign of Edward IV. Though writings about the American family of John Chenoweth, from earliest times, have often maintained that their family roots were Welsh, it is unlikely that John Chenoweth was Welsh in the modern usage of the word. Perhaps the tradition comes from a practice at the time of referring to Cornwall as "South Wales" or "West Wales". When stationed in England during World War II, J. Richard Buckey came across this aspect regarding the term Welsh:

The name Chenoweth is not Welsh, it is Cornish; and the two should not be confused with present day Wales. The Cornish were of Celtic origin, a rugged independent people with their own language. Dr. A. L. Rowse of Cornwall wrote extensively on the Cornish people and migrations. In his book "The Cornish in America", pub 1967, he wrote: "The Cornish are a small people, but a quite distinctive one. They have inhabited from prehistoric times the little peninsula at the extreme southwest end of Britain, running from the frontier of the Tamar River out into the Atlantic with Land's End and the Scilly Isles beyond. It is a beautiful land, with a half a dozen different landscapes within its narrow boundaries, and two contrasting coasts..."

It is almost certain that John Chenoweth came from Cornwall. In A. L. Rowse continues in his book: "There are several thousand people called Chenoweth in the United States, many times more that in all Britain, let alone in Cornwall itself. The name is a pure Cornish name, meaning Newhouse, and could be nothing else. The Chenoweths are old stock, who came into Virginia early and fanned out from there." Indeed DNA testing has confirmed that John Chenoweth is closely related to other Chenoweth families that are known to have originated in Cornwall.

Eugene Victor Chenoweth of Indiana has introduced me to the tenor of another of Dr. Rowse's books, "Cousin Jacks", published in 1969. In Chapter 4, Rowse describes a Cornish Quaker named Edward Billings who founded the first Quaker Colony in what is now West New Jersey, offering to give 100 free acres to each of 100 families of Quaker poor from his county. Billings described the New Jersey area as well-peopled, a free and well-settled country with many Friends and large meeting houses. Rowse wrote, "We know this offer was made to Quakers in Cornwall, for a record remains in the monthly records of Falmouth, 1682.... Only a few recognizably Cornish folk trickled into West New Jersey at that early date..... but by 1700, we find a Chenoweth family established in Burlington." This reference by Rowse is surely our John Chenoweth and the 1704 record found in Burlington, New Jersey.

Cora Hiatt said the root name for Chenoweth was TREVELISEK. This is correct. But then she said this dates back to Saxon times prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066. Re-stated by Harris, "Sometime between 890 and 1020, John Trevelisek, one of the aging family patriarchs, split off portions of his holdings in favor of his sons. One such portion went into the hands of the youngest son, also named John. Soon after, the younger John built a new stone house on his property." Harris repeats the mistake. Not to the name and events, but to the timing. TREVELISEK should not be confused with Doomsday Book listings, but dates from the reign of Edward IV (1461-1483). There was a noble line of Chenoweths. As far as can be determined, John Chenoweth is not of this noble family, but his name was Cornish.

Over time, with the variances of spellings based on phonetic interpretation, the name has taken many forms. Cora Hiatt claimed that there are over 200 different spellings of the name. Whereas I have observed some 30 to 40 different spellings, the more common of which are posted on the site's front page , I am unsure as how one would get to Cora's larger number. I have never found the this American family use the forms beginning with "Chy" which are found in England, other English colonies and later American immigrations in the 19th century. Chenoweth on Wikipedia

A Cornish Blessing
Deep peace of the running wave to you.
Deep peace of the flowering air to you.
Deep peace of the quiet earth to you.
Deep peace of the shining stars to you.
Deep peace of the son of peace to you.
(courtesy of Edmund Willis)

*[I have been admonished by Don Whitman of Kansas City: "Stop placing the word 'England' immediately after the word Cornwall. Cornish people are not English people...! Cornish history is not English history. We must preserve the tiny bit that remains. We treat Cornwall as a tiny little Celtic Country adjacent to England on the west--and refer to it always as, Cornwall, GB. We think that to aid the English in rewriting history to make Cornwall a quaint little county in the west of England is unacceptable. To see signs on Cornish sites of antiquity that read "English History" is criminal--particularly when the object was there 2000 years before the word English was invented."].

Jim Thompson maintains a list of Cornish surnames at his website for those interested. A Cornwall Webcam depicts views of Cornwall from a site also recommended by Jim Thompson.

WHO WERE THE CHENOWETHS?

American Chenoweths were a Colonial family of pioneer settlers. The roots of the Cornish Chenoweth family are characterized as refined and educated. Cornish trades were metal workers and miners. The family of John Chenoweth was educated. Their signatures are always legible. Census data indicates they could read and write. There were many doctors in the family, and later teachers and educators. They have done well in the arts. John Chenoweth's trade was blacksmith, and this occupation was handed down through at least four generations. But like the people of their times, they became farmers. Some were builders. In the westward movement across the county they were settlers with families, but more often than not, on the leading edge of the frontier: VA before 1742, KY before 1779, OH 1795, TN before 1800, IN 1807, IL 1818, MO and IA before 1840, TX before 1836, CA and OR before 1850. In each move, as they pushed on, some of the family stayed back rooted in the area they had settled. By 110 years they had crossed the country. They were involved with communities and churches. They held civic offices. They answered the call and served in wars. They are the essence of the fiber that built a nation, ordinary people who persevered through inordinate challenges.

WHO WAS JOHN CHENOWETH?

This database of American families begins with John Chenoweth, born about 1682, probably in Cornwall. There are many mysteries surrounding his life. It is neither certain as to who his father was, nor precisely when he came to America. Cora Hiatt said that he located on a tract of land of some 7,600 acres in Baltimore Co., MD near Joppa on the Gunpowder River. He gave his trade as "blacksmith" and built a house called "Gunpowder or Chenoweth Manor" in which all his 8 children were raised, five sons and three daughters. But Chenoweth Manor and land holdings in "Gunpowder Manor" that belonged to the Chenoweth Family have no basis in fact. There are but three parts of this claim that are true. He had eight children as proven by his will, he was a blacksmith by trade, and he lived in Baltimore Co., MD for a time. "Gunpowder Manor" was a Calvert holding and John Chenoweth had no part in it.

According to Elmer R. Haile, Jr., the first record of John appears in Baltimore Co., MD in the year 1737, when he and his sons were assessed for tythes in support of the Anglican Church. He could have been there prior to this event, his son John was married there in 1730 and his daughter Mary in 1733; but 1737 is the first record of John Chenoweth in Baltimore Co., MD.

Assuming that John Chenoweth arrived in America about 1700, though we don't know the exact timing or route, we can paint a picture of what was likely. He was a young man. His origins, by his name were Cornish, also called Welsh. He came into the West New Jersey-Philadelphia area, which for the last 20 years had been attracting thousands of Quakers seeking freedom from religious persecution. At the time Philadelphia was the 2nd largest city in the New World with some 5,000 inhabitants. That his name is found as a witness on various documents of this early time, shows that he was trustworthy and had made friends.

When or where John married is not proven, but the name of his first wife is given by family tradition as Mary Calvert, whose own origins are equally questioned and argued. That John existed is certain, as his will made on April 11, 1746, shortly before his death, firmly establishes his family and children. He mentioned each of them by name. Though he referred to his wife, he did not give us her name. Recent information developed by Dr. A. L. Rowse, J. Richard Buckey, Marie Eberle & Margaret Henley, indicates that John Chenoweth appears in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, then moved to Maryland where his two older children married and sons, Arthur and Richard, would established their families. On December 16, 1736, apparently widowed, John married the widow, Jane Wood, in St. Paul's Parish, Baltimore Co., MD. In 1737 he is found listed with the names of 3 of his sons in the tax rolls of the Back River Upper Hundred of Baltimore Co., MD. He did not own this land. After 1739, John then moved on to Virginia where he died in 1746. In his will, John describes himself as.... "John Chenoweth, of Frederick County, Virginia". It is almost certain the John, the progenitor, lived and died in Virginia, and was not there on a visit as Cora Hiatt proclaimed. This is clearly evident in the inventory of his assets conducted in Virginia and presented on July 11, 1746. The items describe a "well-supplied farming household complete with livestock" [Elmer Haile]. The disposition of a "fabled Gunpowder Manor" cited by Cora Hiatt is not mentioned in the will, nor for that matter are any lands in Maryland. Also missing are any blacksmithing tools [Elmer Haile], which he must have previously passed down to one of his sons. The other three of five sons John, William and Thomas, relocated to Virginia, and though the order and timing is not known, it is likely they moved there are the same time that John himself did. There are no records in Maryland after 1740 of John or his 3 Virginia sons.

Did John Chenoweth ever own any land? His name has not been found on any official record to date. However his will does indicate that some land was involved when he stated "deeds of gift already made and given to my son Thomas and John Petit, my son-in-law, of my land and other particulars therein stand good and valid..." If land was previously given to Thomas, surely it was in Virginia, as Thomas was in Virginia to witness and administer the will.

Cora Hiatt has placed John in the ancient Chenoweth line as either the grandson of William (XI in the Chenoweth ancestor Chart ) or John (XI in the Chenoweth ancestor Chart ) from Anthony Chenouth (X in the Chenoweth ancestor Chart ). He is certainly not from John and there is no proof of William. Kathie Weigel, from a line from Elinor, the sister of Anthony Chenouth states: "It was VERY common in the "old days" for people to hook their immigrant ancestor onto an old world family of gentry, usually because they wanted the coat of arms. I can tell from the data that Ms Hiatt had seen both the St. Martins P.R. and Vivian's 1620 Visitation (That is where the "Trevelisek to Chynoweth information came from); therefore she had to have been aware that the Chenoweth name did not continue in St. Martins. Chenoweth is a very common name in Cornwall; there are a number of places called Chenoweth, so unrelated families can have arisen simultaneously with the same surname." Despite all the early references to Wales, it is unlikely that any one with the name Chenoweth came from any place other than Cornwall. DNA testing has shown that John is closely related to at least one other Chenoweth migration from Cornwall. Given the problems with the origins of John Chenoweth, Richard Harris choose not to touch any of these claims with a proverbial ten foot pole and concentrate his book with the American family of John and Mary. Greg Wulker has wriiten two excellent articles on the early life of the family for the December 2006 newsletter and Mar 2007 newsletter

In the fall of 2012, Peter Chenoweth commissioned a genealogy familiar with Cornwall, Richard Shimell, to explore the origins of John. Over a six month span, Richard examined all the parishes in Cornwall where the Chenoweth name was found during a span that that our John Chenoweth was born. He then tried to trace the John Chenoweths he found to determine if they remained in Cornwall. Richard’s final report follows. As you will read he found two candidates for our John, one more likely than the other. While this does not prove who John was, it does present a possibility.

The Search for the Baptism of John Chenoweth the Emigrant


by Richard Shimell - Mar 4, 2013

Earlier attempts to find the origins of John Chenoweth, who emigrated to America, married Mary and had at least eight children from 1706 on, appear to have relied on pedigrees and records of wealthier families in Cornwall, probably because these were the easiest records to access. However, such families were a tiny minority of people living in Cornwall in the 17th century. Most families left few traces, apart from records in parish registers of their baptisms, marriages and burials, and the occasional will or property record.

Not much was known about John Chenoweth’s origins. Given his surname he undoubtedly came from Cornwall, as it would be very unusual to find the name in any other county in the 17th century. We also knew he was a blacksmith in America, and that his son William was baptised in an Anglican church in New Jersey in 1704, suggesting John may have married in 1702/3.

So the starting point for this search was to find a baptism of a John Chenoweth born in Cornwall about 1780/81, as the majority of men married at the age of 21. He could, of course, have been older, or a little younger.

It is now easier to use a more thorough approach to finding the baptisms of all babies named John Chenoweth in Cornwall, combining the searching of digital records of births, marriages and burials in the 250 or so Cornish parishes, with those that have not yet been digitised.

I created a database of all Cornish parishes, then worked out which were covered online for 17th century baptisms and which were not. This was a lengthy task. I then searched microfiche copies of the original register and original copies (known as Bishops’ Transcripts) of those registers not yet digitised for all instances of the Chenoweth name with all variant spellings. I concentrated on looking for baptisms of Chenoweths between 1660 and 1685, but where possible I also noted down any Chenoweth marriages and baptisms in a slightly larger time frame. I have comprehensively searched all Cornish baptisms I could find between 1660 and 1685 for Chenoweths. The only John Chenoweth baptisms 1660-1685 were:

As John was probably as common a name then as it is now, this helps illustrate how few Chenoweths there were in Cornwall at this time. However, it is not the full story.

Both the John Chynoweths baptised in Martin-in-Meneage appear to have died young, and would have been rather old to fit with an emigrant who appears to have started his family in the early 1700s.

The Liskeard John Chenowith appears to have survived. No burial can be found in Liskeard, but neither can a marriage, despite a search of both burials and marriages in the all surrounding parishes which have been digitised, and also those which have not for this time period, including St Keyne, St Neot, St Cleer, St Ive, Menheniot, St Pinnock and Looe. As would befit an emigrant, he seems to simply disappear. He cannot, therefore, be ruled out as a candidate.

In fact, it might appear that the Liskeard John Chenowith must be the one we are seeking, as his is apparently the only baptism in Cornwall at roughly the right time. He also has a brother named William and what appears to be a half-brother named Thomas, as their father Bernard appears to have remarried following the death of his wife Alice in 1676. It was not uncommon for families to name their children after relatives, and John Chenoweth the emigrant named two of his sons William and Thomas. Equally, however, John the emigrant did not name any of his children Bernard or Alice, which we would have expected from someone following such a naming convention.

But, importantly, it should also be noted that, sadly, not all baptisms were recorded in parish registers, not all parish registers have survived, and where they have survived, there can be gaps in them where accidents spoiled pages, no records were kept for years for various reasons, pages were torn out or pages were damaged beyond legibility.

This makes it very difficult to be sure that any candidate John Chenoweth is the correct one. It is more a case of gathering proof to make the best argument for one or the other. An illustration that there are gaps in baptisms is shown by the fact I have found no baptism for the John Chenoweth who married Diana Litticott in the parish of Cury in 1694. As well as the marriage, a son John is mentioned in the will of William Chenoweth of Cury in 1703. We know he exists from other sources. If he had not married, and the will had not been found, he would not have existed in the terms of this research.

Apart from baptisms recorded in parish registers, another prime source of the names of children and their relationship to an adult is, of course, probate records: wills and administrations (records created when a person died without making a will).

Most of these records held at the Cornwall Record Office in Truro relate to wealthier Chenoweths – those in the neighbouring parishes of Martin-in-Meneage, Mawgan-in-Meneage and Cury, for example. But there are also a batch which relate to Chenoweth families living in a group of adjacent, or almost adjacent, parishes on the north coast of Cornwall: Cubert, Crantock, St Columb Major and St Agnes.

Prime among these are two which relate to a farmer Ralph Chenoweth (document ref AP/C2287/1 and /2), who died in the parish of Cubert in 1695 and left no will, and his widow Elizabeth (doc ref AP/C2334), who died two years later.

Following Ralph’s death, as was normal in such situations, his widow Elizabeth went to court in September 1695 to start the process of probate so she could claim title to his possessions. She appeared before the church court and promised to make an inventory of her late husband’s possessions and return with it to court. She was accompanied by Samuel Lyne and Jonathan Bawden, who agreed to stand surety, ie forfeit a payment if Elizabeth failed to return to court. She did return, with a full inventory dated October 12th 1695 listing Ralph’s goods and chattels, signed as having been completed by Samuel Lyne and Humphry Lawrence.

It listed Ralph’s possessions as:

Ralph was a farmer, and a relatively well-off one at that, leaving goods and chattels to the value of almost £100. It should, however, be noted that it is unlikely he owned the land he farmed, which would probably have been rented on a long term lease.

When Ralph’s widow Elizabeth Chenoweth of Cubert died she left a will leaving her goods and chattels to her son John, as well as bequests to her son Samuel and daughter Elizabeth. All three were under the age of 21 when the will was signed on May 10 1697. We know this because Elizabeth states it in her will.

Her will reads: “Item I give and bequeath unto my son Samuel Chenoweth the sume of ten pounds. Also I give unto my daughter Elizabeth Chenoweth the sume of ten pounds, which said sumes shall be paid them as soon as they shall attain the age of one and twenty years. Also I give unto the poor of parrish where I now dwell the sume of ten shillings. I give unto my servant Honor Delbridge one ewe lamb. Item, it is my will that my son John Chenoweth shall pay unto his uncle William Chenoweth, after the said William shall exceed the age of sixty years the sum of fourty shillings yearly, so long as he shall happen to live; provided likewise [] the said William shall follow the employment of husbandry on this estate or on any other [] my son may or shall be hearafter possessed of [] to his utmost ability. And farther I doe entreat, nominate and apoint Mr Edward Cottey of the parrish of Perran in Zabulo, to be the sole and only trustee of my children during their nonage. All the rest of my goods and chattels not before debited or given I doe give and bequeath unto my son John Chenoweth whome I doe make and ordaine the sole executor of this my last will and testament to pay my debts and legacies and to see the due execution thereof [] written here. I have hereunto fixed my seale and subscribed my name this tenth day of Maye Anno Dom: 1697.”

NOTE: (The square brackets denote words I was unable to decipher).

Elizabeth leaves just £10 for Samuel and Elizabeth, and the rest to John.

Because all her children are below the age of 21 – in their ‘nonage’ - from the French “non”, meaning not and “age”, Elizabeth had to appoint a trustee to look after the finances.

This is clear evidence that her son John is also below the age of 21, as otherwise he would almost certainly have been made executor of her will.

There are baptisms in the surviving pages of the Cubert register for both Elizabeth Chenowth daughter of Ralph, September 18 1682, Samuel Chenowth son of Ralph and Elizabeth his wife, October 10th 1684, and a Joseph Chenowth son of Ralph and Elizabeth (who is not mentioned in the will so probably died), but nothing for John. However, closer examination of the register and the contemporary copies of it, reveals many missing years. Between 1663 and 1686 the following years are missing: 1666, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1673, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1679, 1680, 1681, 1683.

It is likely that both John’s baptism and his brother Joseph’s burial are recorded in these missing years.

Elizabeth’s son John is named as the inheritor of her goods and chattels, with his brother and sister receiving just a bequest of £10 each. This means he was the eldest, so therefore born before his sister Elizabeth, who was baptised in 1682. If John had been born in 1679/80 or 1681, there would be no record of his baptism, as those years have not survived. But does this make John Chenoweth of Cubert the emigrant? It is not conclusive, but he appears to fit the basic profile, so is a candidate alongside John Chenowith baptised in Liskeard.

Looking at the later records of the parish of Cubert, there is a marriage entry for John’s brother Samuel Chynoweth, who married Elizabeth Moore in Cubert on February 10 1711, but not one for Elizabeth or John. However, the missing years continue. Between 1686 and 1714, the following years are missing: 1687, 1688, 1690, 1693, 1694, 1695, 1697, 1698, 1700,1703, 1705, 1706, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1712, 1713. It therefore seems possible that John Chenowth/Chenoweth of Cubert and his sister could have married in one of those missing years. However, following the 1710s the records improve, and there are few gaps, but there are no children born to a couple with a father John Chenowth/Chenoweth, either in Cubert, or any other parish within many miles. The only children born to fathers of that name are on The Lizard peninsula, where the wealthier Chynoweths lived in parishes such as Mawgan in Meneage, Gunwalloe and Cury, and where there were also earlier baptisms of sons named John.

It seems more likely than not that the John Chenoweth mentioned in the will of his mother Elizabeth did not marry and father children in Cornwall.

(His brother Samuel, who did marry in Cubert and fathered a son, who was baptised in 1715, named him John, perhaps after his brother.)

Another probate record provides more circumstantial evidence to back up the idea that the Cubert John Chenoweth was the emigrant. The 1691 inventory of an older John Chenowith of Crantock (doc ref AP/C2139), which is a parish neighbouring Cubert (ie the village of Cubert is less than two miles from Crantock), states that he had been a blacksmith. John did not leave a will, so his widow Anne went to court and an inventory was made of his possessions in October 1691. With her were John Martyn of St Merryn and Richard Chenoweth of Cubert. All three signed the agreement to return to court with an inventory. Richard Chenoweth’s signature also appears on the inventory agreement following the death of his father Michael Chenoweth of Cubert in 1691. There is a baptism of a Richard Chenoweth son of Michael in Cubert on May 1 1668. His presence in Crantock, helping Anne, strongly suggests the Chenoweths in Crantock were related to those in Cubert. It could be that Ralph the farmer in Cubert, John the blacksmith in Crantock and Michael in Cubert, who all die within a few years of each other, were brothers. This would make Richard Chenoweth son of Michael, most probably the man who helped Anne in Crantock, the cousin of the John Chenoweth mentioned in the 1697 will of Elizabeth. It would also make John Chenoweth son of Ralph a nephew of John Chenoweth the blacksmith of Crantock.

Many trade apprenticeships in England at this time would have been organised within families. If your uncle was a blacksmith, it would not have been unusual for you to have been apprenticed to him, and as there are no records in the baptism registers for Cubert or Crantock for children of John Chenoweth the blacksmith, it seems more likely that he would take an apprentice from his extended family.

If John and Anne did not have children and were related to the Chenoweths of Cubert, then it is not unlikely that John Chenoweth of Cubert, son of Elizabeth, could have been named after his uncle John the blacksmith in Crantock, or that he could have been apprenticed to him at a young age, up to John’s death in 1691.

It is certainly true that the Chenoweths of Cubert go back a long way. Not only are they mentioned in the few surviving years of the parish registers for the first few decades of the 1600s, but a will index for the parish (doc ref Cornwall Record Office ACP/WR/182/71), which survives while the wills it mentions do not, includes wills for a Sampson Chynowth 1639, Jenetta Chinoweth 1597 and Ralph Chinowth 1621.

Further ancient connections to the Chenoweths is revealed by the manors of Cubert. For many hundreds of years the system of parishes, which each included a parish church, existed alongside the feudal manor system. Manors were an ancient division of land, at least as old as the Domesday Book 1086. A manor was a geographical area centred around a manor house, in which lived the lord, who controlled manor courts, at which tenancies, boundary disputes, and other such matters, were adjudicated. These courts and the geographical manors in which they functioned, survived for a long time, some even into the 20th century.

In the 17th century the parish of Cubert occupied an area in which were found all or part of the following manors: Treluddra, Nancolleth, Ellenglaze, Perlees, Tregenna and, interestingly, Chynoweth. This indicates an ancient connection between this part of Cubert and a family of that name. Chynoweth is the only manor to be found exclusively within the bounds of the parish of Cubert. All the others had boundaries which also included one or more other parishes.

The manor courts had a system of record keeping, especially relating to decisions of the courts. Where they survive these can be full of information about tenancies, deaths and disputes. However, these records are difficult to track down, as ownership of manors is rarely local. There is a central manorial records project, which has digitised parts of a manorial documents register held in London, but sadly it has not covered Cornwall yet.

One of the more famous histories of Cornwall, by William Lake, A Complete Parochial History of the County of Cornwall”, published 1867, referred to the parish of St Cuthbert/Cubert and its connections with the Chynoweths. Lake referenced the earlier historians William Hals, who was born in 1655 and published 1750, and Thomas Tonkins, born 1678, but whose manuscripts were largely lost in the later 19th century. Hals, as referenced by Lake, wrote that a John Chynoweth was the present (late 17th/early 18th century) possessor of the manor of Chynoweth. Lake wrote in the1860s that there had been wealthy Chynoweths in Cubert, and that the name Chenowen was associated with the parish in the Domesday book 1086 Lake wrote: “Chynoweth, the Chenowen of Domesday, formerly the residence of an ancient family of that name, was conveyed by them to the Angoves; since which time it has been sold in parcels. On the site of the barton, which still retains the name, is a farm house. Branches of the Chynoweths remain; but they are reduced to the position of mechanics and miners. The manor of Chynoweth is vested in the Hosken family.” While the very name of the manor: Chynoweth, is more or less the same as the Chenowth/Chenoweth families living there in the 17th century, the details of their earlier ancestry are not known at present, and books such as Lake’s are often part fact, part supposition. The Cubert Chenoweths could be descendants of wealthier Chenoweths in the past, or have come from elsewhere.

Conclusion

It is my opinion that the John Chenoweth mentioned in the will of his mother Elizabeth in 1697 is the best candidate to be the man who emigrated to America. There is a likely connection in his family to a blacksmith. I have found no marriage or burial for him, nor have I found a John Chenoweth fathering children in Cornwall in the early 1700s who could be him. He was neither poor, which would have made it difficult for him to emigrate without assistance or position as the servant of someone who did, nor wealthy, which would have made it less likely he would have emigrated in the first place. He inherited what would now be called a smallholding – doubtless leased to his family, rather than owned by them.

WHO WAS MARY CALVERT?

Early family accounts by Alexander Crawford Chenoweth and Cora Hiatt give Mary as a daughter of Charles, the Third Lord of Baltimore. None of the known Calvert family history supports this tradition. Cora gave her mother as Mary Banks, the third of four wives of Charles Calvert, but this Mary was married to Charles only about 5 years before the traditional date of marriage of Mary Calvert to John Chenoweth in 1705. Involved in this tradition and controversy are the mythical vast holdings of the Chenoweths in Maryland, which evolved into a legal battle in the early part of teh 20th century. Where Mary's name came from itself is a mystery. A wife is mentioned in John's will, though not specifically by name. It is almost certain that this wife was the widow, Mrs Jane Wood, whom John married in Baltimore County in 1736. Cora Hiatt stated Mary's name is found in two diaries belonging to the families of John's sons, Arthur and Thomas, and an entry in a Bible which came from the family of John's eldest son John. No existing copies of these have been found. The earliest mention of Mary Calvert's name that I can find is 1894 in Alexander Crawford Chenoweth's genealogy study of the Chenoweths and Cromwells. The modern theory is given best by J. Richard Buckey in "The History of the Calverts Who Were Quakers". Here Buckey traces Mary through John Calvert and Judith Stamper who settled in Pennsylvania back to Leonard Calvert, the father of the First Lord of Baltimore, George.

Buckey's theory has the merit of having "time and location" agreement. In the early part of his life in America, John Chenoweth is found in the Philadelphia area, reasonably close to where Mary's parents settled. Families of these Calverts later relocated to the Frederick County area of Virginia as did John Chenoweth and three of his sons. Family tradition has it that William Chenoweth, the first born grandson, married Ruth Calvert, the daughter of Isaac Calvert, then of Frederick County. This Isaac, was a nephew of the Mary Calvert that Buckey has found. Like Mary, no written documentation has been found proving the family tradition at William's wife was indeed Ruth Calvert. William, Jr. did however name one of his sons, Isaac Calvert Chenoweth.

The origins of Mary will probably never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, but the claimed relationship to the Lords of Baltimore is surely impossible. Additional information: December 2006 Newsletter - Mary Calvert and John Chenoweth, by Greg Wulker and articles by Harris and Eberle & Henley

An explanation of where John Chenoweth(1) lived in Maryland

By Elmer R. Haile, Jr. of Maryland

John (1) Chenoweth was living in the year 1737 in Baltimore Co., MD when his name first appears in Maryland tithing records. Unfortunately, tithing records have not been preserved between 1706 and 1737, so we cannot say in what year John (1) was first taxed in Baltimore County.

However, his eldest son, John (2) was married to Mary Smith November 26, 1730/31 (St. John's Parish register) so we know that John (1) was in Baltimore County by 1730. His eldest daughter, Mary, was married to John Watson May 24, 1733 (St. John's).

Baltimore County was divided into "hundreds" in Colonial times, similar to the election districts in use today. Attached is a map showing approximate boundaries of hundreds as of 1737. Gunpowder Manor (not shown) is in the Unionville-Baldwin area of Upper Hundred North of Gunpowder. Joppa is just off the map in Lower Hundred North of Gunpowder River.

In 1737, John (1) was living in Back River Upper Hundred near lands of John Boring and Charles Merryman. This area is between Towson and Cockeysville. John (1) did not own any property, but by searching the titles of the Boring and Merryman lots, we can plot them on a map, and get an approximate location of John (1), s residence. This can be done by using the land records at Maryland State Archives.

BACK RIVER UPPER HUNDRED

Other Nearby Families: Tomas Cole, Nicholas Haile, William Parrish, Sr. John Wilmott, John Boreing, Richard Cole, Charles Merryman, Dunkin Coleman, William Towsen, Thomas Boreing, Charles Yates, John Cross, Abraham Raven, Thomas Stansbury, Thomas Matthews, Sr., Thomas Matthews, Jr., Charles Robertson, Thomas Right, Alexander Tansey

Female white persons are not taxed. Male and female slaves are taxed. John(1) was taxed for himself, three of his sons, and one hired man. John (2) had married and departed, and the youngest son Thomas was too young to be taxed. John(1) had no slaves in 1737.

Looking at Middle River Hundred, note that John (2) Chenoweth is living near Perry Hall, next door to John Watson. John (2) did not own any property, but Watson was a landowner. His farm consisted of 50 acres, for which he paid 5000 pounds of tobacco in August 1734. Watson's first wife was Jean Scott, a widow whom he married May 13, 1729 (St. John's). She died December 23, 1732/33. Shortly after, on May 24, 1733, Watson married John(1)'s daughter Mary as stated above.

It is possible, but not proven, that John (2) lived on Watson's farm, and either paid rent or farmed on shares.

MIDDLE RIVER HUNDRED

Thomas Taler, William Wiley, Mordeca Price, James Tomson, William Bucks, Joseph Bosley, Benjamin Price, Benjamin Anderson, John Wiley, Danil Deskings, Anthony Cahmnes, Henry Mance, Edward Day, Samuel MacCubbin, Isaac Raven, Luke Raven, Francis Russel, Thomas Wright, John League, Anthony Incles, Gile Stevens, William Wood, William Matheney, Charles Pines, Thomas Morres, Robert Parks, Ann Woodall, Edward Parks, Samuel Wood, William Denton, Parthm Mildves, William Denton, William Andrew, Thomas Dollerhide, John Biven, Sr., Crist Durbin, Tabia Cothrel, William Wright Blough, Joseph Wright, Anthony Asher, George Presbury, Thomas Stephens, John Chinworth, John Watson, Mary Harman, William Wright, Thomas Baly, Daniel Scott, Henry Hendrickson, Francis Grace, John MacCubbin, William Kings, Robert Heneman, James Greer, Mary Ingram, Henry Peregoy, Samuel Stansbury, Sr., Walter James, John Hash, Richard Harred, Henry Adams, John Rogers, Thomas Kings, John Happy, William Thomas.

Now I will introduce you to another landowner who lived in the area. His name was William Wood, who bought 100 acres from Joseph Bosley for 4000 pounds of tobacco in August 1729. However, he did not enjoy his farm long. He died in 1736, and his widow Jane Wood posted administration bond on March 30, 1736 with her son Samuel and John Watson.

Perhaps Watson called on his father-in-law to help settle the Wood estate, or perhaps John(l) persuaded Watson to furnish bond. The record does not show who initiated the action. The record does show, however, that on December 16, 1736, John Chenoweth married Jane Wood, and on October 29, 1737, John Chenoweth and his wife Jane filed the administration papers for the estate of William Wood.

This raises the question: What was the name of the unnamed wife of John(l) mentioned in the will dated in Virginia?

Site Comments: By Elmer's account we now have John Chenoweth in Maryland in 1737 and in Virginia in 1746. Between these dates, the family moved, leaving Arthur and Richard in Baltimore Co. The order of this movement is not known. William, shown in land records below, has the earliest known record in Virginia in 1743. Did the others accompany William, or follow him? Indications are that at least William, Thomas, Hannah and Ruth were all in Virginia, by the time John(1) died there in 1746. Moreover John(1) was there long enough to consider himself a resident of the State of Virginia. It may be that John(2) and Mary Chenoweth Watson came later. What is clear is that when John Chenoweth died, all his 8 children were married and living separately.

As John(1) owned no land, the absence of a disposition in his will is explained. Clearly Mary Calvert had died before 1736 and John remarried to the widow Jane Wood. This may have been the impetus for the move South. In the surrounding area of John(1) and John(2) are the names of many of the families with which the Chenoweths would later unite: Haile, Parrish, Wilmott, Raven, Stansbury, Price, Bosley, Parks( ? = Parke). Maybe herein are clues to unknown pieces.

GUNPOWDER MANOR

(Paraphrased from research by Elmer R. Haile, Jr., of Maryland with thanks)

Cora Hiatt said that John Chenoweth located on a tract of land of some 7,600 acres in Baltimore Co., MD near Joppa on the Gunpowder River called "Gunpowder Manor". This tract of land, actually 7,269 acres, belonged to Lord Baltimore. Laid out in 1683, (about the time of John's birth) it stood as a wilderness for almost 40 years, used for hunting, by Indians and settlers alike. It was located between the present towns of Glen Arm and Baldwin, in Baltimore County, north northeast of the City of Baltimore. In 1716, Lord Baltimore sent out surveyors to establish boundaries, and in 1720, he began leasing these lands to others. The name of John Chenoweth, nor of any Chenoweth, does not appear on the lease rolls. It is certain that John Chenoweth, never had a "manor" of any sort on this tract of land.

There is one actual citation of land in Gundpowder given in Cora's book on page 28 of a 175 tract (Liber A. L. No A folio page 514) which she says was sold by a Thomas Chenoweth. This Thomas had married Rachel Moore and was the son of John(2). Rachel's grandfather, James More, Sr. was the steward for Gundpowder Manor. The citation is not a sale, but a recording of a mortgage for monies owed Thomas by his brother-in-law, Groombright Bailey, who had married Mary Moore the sister of Rachel. The 175 tract itself was under lease by Groombright Bailey. Since Thomas did not cite this mortgage or debt in his 1780 will in Virginia, it is likely that the debt had been repaid or forgiven. All the properties of Lord Baltimore were confiscated by the State of Maryland and this particular tract was sold at auction in 1785, an interesting footnote to the whole mistaken premise of Cora regarding the Chenoweths and Gunpowder Manor.

EARLY LAND HOLDINGS - FIRST FAMILY

based on research by Elmer R. Haile, Jr.

There is no record, neither in Maryland or Virginia of John Chenoweth, the progenitor, owning property. We know that in 1737, John was leasing his residence in the Back River Upper Hundred. His son John was at that point living with his wife in the Middle River Hundred, next door to John's sister, Mary, who had married John Watson. All the other children were still with John(1). Then:

Arthur, married Saphira Hooker, and on September 1, 1740 he surveyed 43 acres, in Soldiers Delight Hundred, about a mile northwest of present-day Reisterstown. A patent was granted to him on October 7, 1741. (see 1 on map)

The next son to acquire land was William, who married Anne and settled in Frederick County, Virginia. He had become an established resident of Opechan, when he obtained an indenture for 100 acres of land, being part of a grant of 1315 acres previously patented to John Mills in 1735. This indenture was dated February 9, 1743 and finalized on March 9, 1743. According to Harris, this land was finally recorded as 171 acres in 1752.

The son, Thomas, married Mary Prickett., their first child, Martha, was born December 25, 1744. (Note: whether this was in Maryland or Virginia is unknown. The known facts would infer that it was in Virginia and that John, William, Thomas and their father, as well as Hannah Chenoweth Carter and Ruth Chenoweth Peteet were all in Virginia at this point. According to Harris, Thomas purchased 275 in Frederick Co., VA in 1751. Possibly, like William, Thomas arranged this land much earlier). Thomas was co-executor of his father's 1746 Virginia will and signed as a witness.

The son, Richard, married Kezia and, on November 25, 1746, bought 100 acres of "Merryman's Addition" from Samuel Merryman. This is located west of the present day Texas Station between Cockeysville and Timonium, north and slight east of Towson. So Richard was to the east southeast of Arthur some 9 miles. (see 2 on map) The earliest record of Kezia is found in January 1744 where she signs as a witness to a Quaker marriage as Casiah Chenowth. Richard's land was somewhat close to the orginal location of land that his father John leased in 1737.

John(2), the oldest son, recorded 248 acres of property in Frederick Co., in 1762 (Harris). According to Marie Eberle, many land recordings in this area were done at a much later date than the property was actually acquired. Whether this is true for John(2) or not is an open question. It would seem logical that he would have staked out his land in the same time frame as his brothers.

Early sightings of John Chenoweth

Though we do not know the family origins of John Chenoweth, nor exactly where he lived until 1737, when he is found in the 1737 Tax Rolls of the Back River Upper Hundred of Baltimore Co., there are a number records which give us clues as to his whereabouts. The listing that follows is taken from Elmer Haile, Marie Eberle & Margaret Henley, J. Richard Buckey and the Chenoweth histories. By this list, movements of John Chenoweth are traced between Pennsylvania and New Jersey to Baltimore Co., MD and Frederick Co., VA. In 1702-1703, he marries Mary Calvert probably in Pennsylvania (Buckey). Mary's father is buried in Philadelphia. Between 1704 and 1727 he is found in neighboring parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Between 1730 and 1737 he is found in Baltimore Co., MD. In 1746 he dies in Frederick Co., VA, stating he is a resident of that county.

The following is taken from an Email from Greg Wulker of Ohio describing his understanding of the early life of John:

"I have been searching John1 in early PA and Jersey, and also find who he is associating with really interesting. As we have found him in 1709 witness of Thomas Brock's will in Bristol, PA (Bucks Co), I have also found him as witness to two other land deeds, one in 1707, and 1706 in Bucks Co., no doubt where he was living. One of the deeds is also a witness Lemuel Oldale (O'dell), Cecil O'dells ancestor (who did the book on Frederick Co., VA). With the baptism of his children by John Talbot, John evidently crossed over the Delaware to Burlington(settled by quakers) for that purpose. [JE Note: James Carter who would marry Hannah Chenoweth probably in Frederick Co., VA grew up in Bucks Co.]

Later St. James Episcopal church was built in Bristol, PA., and John Talbot was 1st rector there, crossing over into Bristol. Bristol, PA, or New Bristol as it was called, was settled by Quakers; and John Chenoweth's association with them is plentiful. Bristol, PA was founded by Samuel Clift in 1681, after arriving at Burlington. The three men who laid out New Bristol(Bristol,Pa.) were:

All of these men were Quakers, and all of them knew John Bowne in Jersey. John Bowne was an early merchant, and was a large land owner, who in the late 1600's, received large patents in Jersey. He was also a Justice of the Peace ,and had a "trading post " at Matawan. The list of people in his will are those who he had on his account books when he died. Some were mortgagees.

Henry Bowen and Jane Carter Bowen were also living in Bristol, PA. Henry was a blacksmith, and John Chenoweth already new him before he went to Maryland and Virginia. Maybe John1 came to America with Bowen family. Wiliam Jolliffe, and others John Chenoweth already knew as well as Baldwins, Chapmans, O'dells, Carters, Whites, Heatons, Bordens, Janneys. All members of these families later went to Frederick Co.,VA.

So it appears John Chenoweth was applying his trade as a "smith", working for and about these men, and probably had something to do as the early ship yards about Bristol and West and East Jersey, forging ship parts and implements and nails in the early furnaces there. It helps me to see that John 1 was a pretty worldly man, and probably came to America by way of Barbados, as most of those ships passed. I can now see the vast Quaker influence this region of the U.S. had, and many of the Quakers had fled to Barbados, later came to Jersey and PA."

Later Maryland records

(Tax records by Elmer Haile, Jr.)

Early Virginia records

Hampshire Co., VA (now WV) was formed from Frederick Co. in 1754. Berkeley Co., VA (now WV) was formed from Frederick Co. in 1772. Frederick Co. remains today in Virginia. The 3 counties are contiguous, with Frederick County forming a wedge between Berkeley County on the east and Hampshire County on the west. The approximate areas of the lands of the three second generation sons: John, William, and Thomas may be viewed on this map, taken from "Pioneers of Old Frederick Co., VA", by Cecil O'Dell. Also see Virginia story of "The places they lived"

Records

Early Tax Rolls

In the summer of 2002, Greg Wulker and I spent two days looking through the courthouses of Frederick co., VA and Berkeley Co., VA. There is considerable detail there still to be captured. The Berkeley Co. Deeds are of considerable importance proving that William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson was William, Jr., the son of William(2). Sarah, the widow of Isaac is found living on Back Creek in Berkeley Co., and Isaac J. is established as the son of Isaac and Sarah. Greg also walked me through the properties once held by William(2) and John(2) in the Mill Creek drainage area on the eastside of North Mountain. It was an exhilaration experience to see this area.

Early Wills

Early Census records

Some comment should be made about early census data and the Chenoweth family. In 1790, the first Census, records from Virginia were lost, Kentucky and Ohio were territories and not included. There are tax listings available for these areas, but no Census data. Thus only the families living in Maryland and Pennsylvania can be found as recorded. The families in Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio are not in the enumeration. In 1800 Baltimore County, where the Chenoweths primarily lived, is not available, nor again is Virginia, that data again was lost. Families living in the rest of Maryland and Pennsylvania can be found as recorded in the Census. Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee have no census data, only tax listings are available. This lack of data in vital areas of where the families settles is one of many roadblocks to more fully answering some of the early genealogy questions about the family. It is only in 1810 when a fuller picture becomes available and even then, Ohio is limited to Tax listings. A fuller explanation of Census Research on the Chenoweth family has been organized on a separate page.

Later Census Records

Peter Chenoweth, my partner in the Chenoweth database, has spent years finding and extracting Census data on named Chenoweth families though each of the 15 published Censuses of the United States (1790-1930). We have created a spreadsheet listing each of the some 2800 males of the family through 1930 and where they were. A summary of the status of this effort is presented in the detailed 1880 Census discussion on the main page. [Link]

EARLY RELIGIONS

For the most part early family members were either Baptist or Methodist Episcopalians. In 1692, the Maryland Colony Assembly passed that the Church of England (Episcopal) was the State Church. All marriages, births and deaths were required to be placed in Episcopal Church registers. Thus the early marriages of John, the eldest son, and Mary, his sister, are recorded at St. John's Parish. Arthur Chenoweth was a vestryman at St. Thomas Episcopal Parish. The Chenoweth family was associated with many Quaker friends as their names appear frequently as witnesses to Quaker marriages. There is no evidence that any of them were Quakers themselves, they did however live in various Quaker areas. Of the Virginia families, most seem to belong to Baptist Church, except the families of Thomas. The families of Thomas are almost uniformly Methodist. When Hannah's Carter children went to Pennsylvania, they joined the Ten Mile Baptist Church. Mary Chenoweth, the daughter of John2, married Levi Ashbrook, a Baptist Minister. In Baltimore, the Baxters and the Chenoweths who married into their families became Baptists. After the Revolution, the Methodist religion came into favor and Baltimore lines as well as those of Thomas became Methodist Episcopalians. For the lines of Thomas(2), we know that this conversion happened during the stay of the Chenoweth family in the present day Allegany County area of Maryland by the writings of Thomas Scott of Chillocothe, OH. The name of John Wesley, the founder of the Methodists, was used for naming at least 9 Chenoweth sons. For the most part, the Chenoweths were "church-minded" and became established members of churches in the various locations they settled. A sense of the Chenoweth religious fervor can be gain from reading through the various wills posted at the site. Another sense of this respect might be seen in the family naming practices, which in the 3rd generation added the following names to those of the original five: Absolom (twice), Samuel, Joseph (twice), Isaac, Elijah and Abraham.

CHENOWETH GENEALOGY

[Thomas Scott] [Joel] [Alexander Crawford] [Heirs Association] [Arthur Keith] [Cora Hiatt]
[J. Richard Buckey] [Marie Thompson Eberle & Margaret Shipp Henley] [Shirley Harris]
[The Chenoweth Website]

Thomas Scott: In 1851, on the occasion of his 79th birthday, Thomas Scott, a grandson of Thomas Chenoweth(2) living in Chillicothe, OH, began to write a biographical sketch of the Scott family to his children. It contains some of the earliest details we know of the Chenoweth family fixing the place of both the death of Thomas and his wife, Mary. It also gives us this wonderful description of his impressions of the family.

There were, if my information be correct, three brothers of the name Chenoweth; who at an early period emigrated from England to the United States and from these brothers have descended all the Chenoweths which are found in the middle and Western States and Territories of the United States. [JDE: In this case, I think Thomas Scott is referring to the 3 Virginia brothers] The external appearance and prominent traits of character observable in one, may be pretty distinctly traced in all who bear the name. They may with propriety be denominated a hard fisted set of men, who never show labor and toil. External appearance, rough bones and muscles large. Step firm. Countenance evincive of independence, kindness of purpose and of courage that never quails before an enemy. Kind, honest and sincere. Never quarrelsome, but ever ready to avenge an insult offered by others to innocent females, aged persons and such others as by reason of weakness or other infirmity were unable to avenge their wrongs done to them by others. Generally, they are plain good substantial livers; I do not recollect of having heard of one of the name having ever been guilty of a mean, dishonest, dishonorable action. These are the marks and prominent traits of character which male ancestors of your grandmother Scott possessed. She had seven brothers, Thomas, Arthur, John, Elijah, Richard, William and Abraham, and three sisters, Patsey, Polly and Hannah, all of whom attained majority, married, raised large families of children and are now dead. The three first named of her brothers served in the Revolutionary War. Patsey intermarried with Henry Carter of Virginia, and Polly with Timothy Downey. Hannah's first husband was named Kerr, the second Glaze, and the third Davis. The descendants of said brothers and sisters are very much scattered through the Western States and Territories. All the brothers except Richard and their sister Hannah when in life were acceptable members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and a large portion of their descendants are at this time acceptable members. Thomas and Elijah were among the first who became members of the church on the introduction of Methodism along the north branch of the Potomac River. The others joined at a later period.

THOMAS4 SCOTT (SARAH3 CHENOWETH, THOMAS2, JOHN1) was born October 31, 1772 in Old Town, Allegheny Co., MD, and died February 13, 1856 in Chillocothe, Ross Co., OH. He married CATHERINE DORSEY WOOD May 12, 1796 in Mason Co., KY, daughter of ROBERT WOOD and CATHERINE DORSEY. She was born December 11, 1778 in Frederick Co., MD, and died 1858.

Joel Chenoweth: The first real genealogy study of the Chenoweth family found was done by Joel (1811-1878) of the 4th generation. He was the son of the youngest son of the youngest son. The line goes Thomas2 Abraham3 Joel4. Joel set forth the children of Thomas, said to be found in his Bible, and then the children and marriages of his father Abraham's family. Then he recorded this own family. Joel's work was later extended by his daughter, Rebecca Ann Chenoweth Barnes. Rebecca included in the study recollections of her sister, Susanna, then 81 and the study was published in the late 1920s following the publication of the Cora Hiatt book. Joel stated that the origin of the Chenoweth family were two brothers, Arthur and Richard, who settled in Virginia. It is likely that this myth, which became prevalent in the late 1800s, was based on memories of the Virginia based Chenoweths from their fading knowledge of the two brothers, Arthur and Richard, who had remained behind in Baltimore, when the rest of the family moved to Virginia. From there a strange listing of two sets of children are listed by Joel. One of these from Arthur is cited as his grandfather, Thomas. This story of two brothers became imbedded in many writings of the time including the Draper papers.

JOEL4 CHENOWETH (ABRAHAM3, THOMAS2, JOHN1) was born May 13, 1811 in Ross Co., OH (now Pike Co.), and died February 07, 1878 in Louisa Co., IA. He married (1) HARRIETT MCNATTON December 29, 1836 in Scioto Co., OH. She was born November 14, 1813 in Scioto Co., OH, and died June 28, 1853 in Louisa Co., IA. He married (2) MARY ELIZABETH VINSON September 03, 1857 in Pike Co., OH, daughter of JESSE VINSON and ELIZABETH ?. She was born June 27, 1816 in 16 miles north of Portsmouth, SciotoCo., OH, and died March 18, 1861 in Louisa Co., IA. He married (3) NAOMI (FOWLER) ? August 31, 1865 in Louisa Co., IA. She was born Abt. 1820 in Ohio.

Alexander Crawford Chenoweth: In 1884, Alexander Crawford Chenoweth wrote a family genealogy on his branch, "Genealogy Chart of the Chenoweth and Cromwell Families of Maryland" which was published in 1894. Alexander was from the line of the two sons of Arthur, John and Samuel, who had married Cromwell sisters and settled in Berkeley Co., VA (now WV) in the last of the 1700s. Alexander was 6th generation in this line. Forty-one years later, in 1925, the first genealogy study of the entire family would be published by another 6th generation Chenoweth, Cora Hiatt. Alexander Crawford's work described the Chenoweth connection to Trevelisick and the Chenoweth Coat of Arms which would be incorporated by Hiatt. Moreover, this is a study was the first mention of the name of Mary Calvert and her connection to the Baltimores, again used by Cora. Alexander talked of two brothers, Arthur and Richard, who were sons of a John, and described some of their Baltimore land purchases correctly. He incorrectly mentioned two sisters who married a Cecil and a Dorsey, names which have no place in the family. He also correctly described his ancestor, John who came to Virginia, as a son of Arthur2. The will of John1 had not yet come into play.

ALEXANDER CRAWFORD6 CHENOWETH (GEORGE DAVENPORT5, JOHN4, JOHN3, ARTHUR2, JOHN1) was born June 05, 1849 in Baltimore, Baltimore Co., MD, and died April 13, 1922 in New York City, NY. He married CATHERINE RICHARDSON WOOD April 19, 1876 in New York, daughter of FERNANDO WOOD and ANNE RICHARDSON. She was born January 18, 1856 in Washington, DC, and died April 11, 1928 in New York City, NY.

It should be noted that during this period of the late 1800s, besides Alexander Crawford Chenoweth, many different Chenoweths became involved with exploring their Chenoweth roots, writing and letters back and forth and collecting data. Some 5th and 6th generation Chenoweth known to be so involved were: Abraham J. of Kansas, Issac S. of Illinois, Nimrod Hunter of Ohio, and Dr. William Fitzwilliam of Arizona. In a letter dated Dec 8th 1892, Nimrod Chenoweth in writing to Lincoln Edward Chenoweth wrote "My G Father's [JE: Samuel(3)] Bible was burned up in the late war. It is said, it contained a full history of our ancestors from the first that came over. The gap is not very wide, but hard to fill..... Arthur Chenoweth, my G G Father, born in 1716. Arthur's father or G father at the farthest must be the (what is the name) "sole" Chenoweth you speak of. [JE: he was probably searching for "progenitor"] We will see in time, what we can find." Nimrod died about thirteen months later. Nimrod's letter included an extensive listing of the families of Samuel and Patience Cromwell.

Chenoweth Heirs Association: About 1910 the Chenoweth Heirs Association was formed. [A fuller discussion of this organization and its activity is included in the front page of the Chenoweth Family Site as linked.] By this time, the Calvert connection described by Alexander Crawford Chenoweth, had become part of the Chenoweth lore and played into the genealogy scams of the time. In this case, alleged valuable land leases in Baltimore Co., MD became the focus of many in the family and this pursuit of riches drove the Chenoweths to compile their genealogy lines. Cora Hiatt became involved in the association as a secretary of a one of the chapters. These events would be the genesis of Cora Hiatt's expanded book, "The History of the Chenoweth Family"

Arthur L. Keith: THE CHENOWETH FAMILY by Arthur L. Keith: Any one interested in the modern formation of Chenoweth genealogy should read this 1922 study by Arthur L. Keith as it was presented in Elkins, WV at the 8th Chenoweth reunion there. [The article is also found in Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine.] I have annotated it in places to compare it to the present website treatment. Keith's description of the family, after careful research, formed the basis upon which the present day family is structured. This work cleared away many of the myths and mistakes of earlier writings. The true nature of the early Chenoweths family had been revealed. This framework was clearly used by Cora Hiatt in her 1925 book, but she ignored and changed a few things she shouldn't have.

Cora Hiatt: Arising out of Bowen and Chenoweth family reunions and her work as secretary of a Chapter of the Chenoweth Heirs Association, Cora Hiatt, born Cora Viola Chenoweth, in collaboration with many family members, published "The History of the Chenoweth family" in 1925. Cora was of the line of a William, who lived near Hampstead, Baltimore Co., MD. [Note: Hampstead is in Carroll County which was formed out of Baltimore County in 1836 after William died in 1820 and while his two sons were still living there.] Cora had set out to write about the families of this William of Baltimore County that had come west to Randolph Co., IN. This was her own line. She completed this work in 1922. But through her connection with the Heirs Association, she was persuaded by many other Chenoweths to expand her work. The Chenoweth Heirs Association that arose in pursuit of the Maryland leases had done much of the groundwork for this effort. For at least a decade this organization had been gathering names of "Chenoweth heirs". With the help of their complied data, submittals of earlier family studies begun in the late 1800s, a flurry of advertisement and letters, and the hiring of two genealogists, Cora completed the rest of the entire family in a year and a half, by her own words. This became the standard for the family.

Cora was an invalid, confined to a wheelchair, and it is almost certain she did most of her history from her home in Indiana by correspondence. She did have access to wills of early Chenoweths that had recently come to light, and which, for the first time, had organized a family structure from a true genealogical sense, based on work by Arthur Keith. Cora used this framework, correcting the "two brother myth". On page 38, Cora wrote ".. this chart is built up, almost entirely from the wills and synopsis of wills of John and his five sons and three daughters, namely sons, John, Richard, Arthur, William and Thomas, the daughters, Mary, Hannah, and Ruth, as named in his will. The grandchildren are taken from their father's wills [JE note: except in the case of Thomas], so you see we had the first three generations correct, and many of the fourth. The other charts were attached where they belonged as fast as they were sent in. It will be well to familiarize yourself with the first generations, in order to get the old tradition of only 'two sons' out of your mind."

Cora's statement is not entirely correct. While she had helped to banish the "two brother myth" and she had the names of the 3rd generation children, she mixed some of them up, placing some of the continuing lines to the wrong grandsons. This confusion became worse in the 4th generation, particularly in the line of John, the oldest son. Charts that were sent to her were "hung" on the new "Keith" framework as best she could identify. And identify them she did, placing all the charts sent in but one, that of Randolph Chenoweth on page 119 [Randolph was a son of William Pugh, and because Cora had misplaced another William's line under William Pugh, there was no room for Randolph]. It would have been a remarkable feat, had her placements been correct. But Cora lacked the detailed information required for such accuracy. Obviously, as exhibited in the Draper Papers, memories of descendants were sometimes vague and, though well intended, sometimes wrong. It is doubtful whether the results of the 1850 Census, called first modern Census, were indexed or available for this effort.

Since the bulk of Cora's book was taken from submittals by living Chenoweths across the country, it is perhaps helpful to understand the family make-up in 1925. There were perhaps 19 people of the 5th generation [out of a possible total of 267] still living as Cora worked on her book, none from the lines of John, Arthur or William. Cora had no contact with those of the ones still living from the Tennessee lines of Richard. Most were from Thomas, the youngest son. About 40% of the 6th generation was still living, and half of these were in the line of the youngest son Thomas. Only four of the 6th and next generation from Cora's own lines from William of Hampstead were living. Not one of the four apparently knew their own great grandfather's name. The bulk of the family was in the 7th and 8th generation, with the 9th generation underway. Personal memories go back 2 generations, so there were obviously gaps between the living and the solid knowledge of the first 3 generations. Some lines had preserved the lines, but many had no real knowledge of what the connection was. Richard Harris relates a story in his book about Sommerville Chenoweth who visit Dr. William Fitzwilliams Chenoweth in Arizona about 1905. After much discussion they could find no relationship between the two of them. Yet both were from the lines of Thomas, actually 3rd cousins. Their grandfathers had been first cousins in Ohio, but the link was lost.

Cora simply did not have enough information to get everything right. Several of the mistakes she made, placing a line in the wrong place, even though the names matched, caused chain reactions throughout the tree. A family misplaced would cause another to be displaced and, in turn, misplaced somewhere else. Greg Wulker has likened the Chenoweth family to a covered wagon wheel broken and lying on the prairie with many of its spokes lying on the ground. They all belong fitted into the axle. But where? Cora's work made the problem a bit worse for later researchers as she jammed some of these spokes into the wrong holes. They didn't fit well, and it has taken decades and much research to realign them.

As there is no existing documentation for Cora's work, we are left today with some of her structure unproven. In some instances, no trace of the people she mentions can be found. But as Cora Hiatt, herself, stated in her book, "As to mistakes, there are bound to be a few in a chart as large as this one, also there will be some wrong dates, but they are as they were sent in. Some were from family Bibles, while others would write: 'I think my grandfather was born about...', and proceed to send in a chart built upon supposition, and there is where many of the mistakes are." Cora's work, however faulty, served as a foundation and launched a new interest in Chenoweth genealogy. Cora's book did a lot to preserve parts of the tree. There are valid links today that have no 'proofs' except for the information that Cora received from descendants living then. One caveat to note, when using Cora's material, years of birth in many instances should be viewed with some skepticism. Modern research has shown many of these dates to be without basis and clearly wrong.

Perhaps, the most unfortunate aspects of Cora's book were her claims to "royal" lines and nobility for both John Chenoweth and Mary Calvert. Alexander Crawford Chenoweth had started this misconception. Cora's stories of a secret noble marriage between warring religions and vast land holdings with a Manor house on the Gunpowder River are whole-cloth stories with no basis in fact. These misconceptions have become imbued in the Chenoweth psyche for over 50 years. Like Don Quixote, Chenoweth genealogists spent a good deal of time tilting at windmills in the attempt to prove or disprove these myths.

As I progressed in my study of the Chenoweth family, one of the most puzzling remnants of Cora's work was what happened to her research papers and letters from which she derived the family information. Shirley and Richard Harris searched for this data with out success. Recently Ernst E. 'Cap' Chenoweth shed some light on this, writing: "I got in touch with my cousin Joyce Carol Chenoweth, daughter of Cecil Emerson, and she sent back a long letter with some of her memories. She's almost 80 .... and she notes the following:

Ernst continued, "Joyce had a lot of the records, she was with my grandfather alot and Cecil ended up with much of the paperwork. Joyce's home on Lake Erie burned down in 1976 and everything there was lost." Thus it appears that the basis for Cora's book and what we could learn from it can never be recovered.

The full text of Cora Hiatt's book can be viewed on-line at Hertiage Qwest. The Rockville Public Library has created an [index] of 4,831 names.

CORA VIOLA7 CHENOWETH (JOHN MURRAY6, JOHN BAXTER5, WILLIAM4, ARTHUR3, ARTHUR2, JOHN1) was born April 04, 1868 in Randolph Co., IN, and died November 02, 1933 in Randolph Co., IN. She married ALVIN I. HIATT August 06, 1885, son of ADAM HIATT and LUCINDA WOLF. He was born July 1865 in Indiana.

J. Richard Buckey: In 1991, J. Richard Buckey published his book "The History of the Calverts who were Quakers". Mr. Buckey is a Chenoweth descendant of the Randolph Co., WV of John4. His research is a compilation of early records that pertain to the Calverts and Chenoweths in the Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia areas. He used these records to advance a theory as to who Mary Calvert might have been, arguing that she was the daughter of John Calvert and Judith Stamper of Pennsylvania. His purpose was to dispel the tradition embedded in most Chenoweth descendants that Mary Calvert was part of the line of the Lord of Baltimore Calverts. There is very little discussion in this book, however there is a wealth of records to aid the researcher. His research provides a solid foundation of early source documents on the Chenoweths. His citations of early records in New Jersey and Pennsylvania of John, the progenitor, has been the basis for a new understanding of the original family. For this enlightenment, the family owes a debt of gratitude.

JOHN RICHARD10 BUCKEY (JEFFERSON PAUL9, JOHN JEFFERSON8, LUCINDA 'BODE'7 CHENOWETH, WILLIAM CURRENCE6, GABRIEL5, JOHN4, WILLIAM3, JOHN2, JOHN1).

Marie Thompson Eberle & Margaret Shipp Henley: In 1989, Marie Eberle and Margaret Henley, cousins from Hannah Chenoweth's Carters, published their first book on research of the Carter families of Buck Co., PA. They followed this in 1997 with an additional second book, that included a broad clear outline of the Chenoweth family and the early history of John. [The books are Carter Cousins, Vol I & II]. Their work represents at least two decades of interest and research in family genealogy. Besides their wonderful work in detailing Carter lines, their 2nd book depicts in concise terms one of the clearest pictures of the early Chenoweths published to date. In their research they had independently found several of the same records that J. Richard Buckey had found of John in Pennsylvania. They used these and his additional citations in their depiction of the early family.

MARIE EILEEN9 THOMPSON EBERLE (RUTH CELIA8 FORDYCE, BERTHA CELIA7 APT, CELIA6 MILLER, PRISCILLA5 CARTER, HENRY BOWEN4, JAMES3, HANNAH2 CHENOWETH, JOHN1) and MARGARET LUELLA8 SHIPP HENLEY (LUELLA7 PACKER, MARY LUELLA6 OAKES, MARY5 CARTER, HENRY BOWEN4, JAMES3, HANNAH2 CHENOWETH, JOHN1.

Shirley Harris: More recently Richard Harris published over fifteen years of research begun by his wife, Shirley Bales, an eighth generation Chenoweth descendant of Thomas(2), titled "The Chenoweth Family in America" (1994). This work sets a new standard. The Harris research expanded many of Cora's lines and detailed many of their lives. But for the most part, it has left the Cora Hiatt structure in place, with the exception of two or three obvious and immediate errors.

Shirley Harris started her search in Hawaii where she and Richard then lived. She had been told that the Chenoweths were part of the Mayflower immigrants. Though this is found in some early genealogy claims, it is certainly false, and Shirley was quickly disabused of this fact by a local researcher. The genealogy bug however had found its mark. A copy of the Cora Hiatt book was soon located and the hunt began. Yearly field trips led Shirley and Richard across the country to Chenoweth places, genealogy libraries and archives and hundreds of cemeteries. Their travels put them in contact with many others in the family that had taken up the quest, inspired by the 1925 Cora Hiatt account. The Harris research began a comprehensive process of supporting and expanding the family history through Census Work. One of the more significant finds in their book were the addition of the two Tennessee lines from Richard(2)'s son John and Arthur(2)'s son Richard, albeit this later line was misplaced by them. John's progeny settled in Washington Co., TN and Richard's in Knox Co., TN. Richard's line also included the biggest block of Baltimore Co., MD descendants known today. Both these lines were 3rd generation and not included in Cora's book. In the latter stages of the research, Peter Chenoweth, who helps support this site, furnished Richard Harris with many additional names he had gathered through interviews and his own Census work.

There are other, perhaps more serious errors in the present structure. As they are identified, they will be detailed on this page. [see Questions and disputes] Perhaps, one of the problems is that both books, and the majority of Chenoweth research that has been done by descendants, has been done from outside of Baltimore Co., MD and from lines other than the two brothers, Arthur(2) and Richard(2), who remained there. There are so many loose ends and unidentified lines in Baltimore County, that much work still needs to be done there to properly document the Chenoweth Family. To avoid the problems found with Cora's lack of backup material, Richard Harris donated all their research material to the Kentucky Museum at Bowling Green University.

A debt of gratitude and appreciation is owed to both Cora Hiatt and Richard and Shirley Harris for their superb efforts in documenting the descendants of this prolific American family. There are literally hundreds of descendants who work on family genealogy. This website is dedicated to the further evolution of Chenoweth genealogy.

SHIRELY DOROTHY8 BALES HARRIS (COMMODORE EMMETT7, RACHEL MARGARET6 HENDERSON, MARY 'POLLY'5 CHENOWETH, THOMAS4, THOMAS3, THOMAS2, JOHN1) was born November 15, 1928, and died December 11, 1992 in Kentucky. She married RICHARD CARLTON HARRIS July 23, 1949.

The Chenoweth database: Started in January 1996, this website, and the activity and research it has generated among many Chenoweth family members, is the logical extension of this evolution in understanding the Chenoweth Family of John and Mary Calvert. It is founded on the hard work of the above researchers and their publications. Many of the past mistakes, long embedded by Cora Hiatt have been uncovered and corrected as new and more detailed material has come to light. At present, after 10 years of research, it is my opinion that the structural mistakes in the early tree (3rd to 5th genration) have found and corrected. Most all of these correction have been proven. There remains a dozen or so large lines that in all probablity belong to the family but the links are unknown. Half of these are in Baltimore Co., MD.

From almost the outset, Peter Chenoweth has been a significant part of the website's development and research. His methodical documentation of present day Chenoweths has continued to add depth and texture to the database. Peter, now retired from the military, lives in Georgia. While we have worked this material, he has lived in Georgia (to where he has now returned), Texas and Utah. Prior to that he was in Tennessee, Massachusetts and Florida. These travels have exposed him to many Chenoweths and research sources. For the last several years the Database has enjoyed the day to day help of Dot Tucker Hock in researching data in the Baltimore area and in locating obituaries and other Chenoweth postings on the internet. Dot is from the line of the Unkown George of the Backriver Hundred of Baltimore.

Since 1996, complete listings of all Chenoweth listings in each and every US Census and the SSA death listings have been assembled. Most of these have been identified. The overwhelming majority of these listings have been found to belong to the root family of John Chenoweth and Mary Calvert. This body of evidence, in conjunction with the published research above, has become the underlying basis for most of the presentation at this site, making the Chenoweth family one of the best documented genealogy databases available.

JON DEXTER9 EGGE (EDNA LOUISE8 CHENOWETH, HENRY EDWARD 'HARRY'7, ALBERT WHITE6, HENRY S.5, JAMES FRANCIS4, THOMAS3, JOHN2, JOHN1) and Other line: PETER CLINTON13 CHENOWETH (HAROLD RICHARD12, FRANK LARKIN11, WILLIAM CLAWSON10, WILLIAM E.9, JOHN8, EDWARD7, JOHN6, EDWARD5, WILLIAM4, WILLIAM3, JOHN2, EDWARD1).


MILESTONES in CHENOWETH GENEALOGY


CHENOWETH GENEALOGY PROBLEMS

I am certainly not a professional genealogist, but I am slowing learning my way. More correctly I am a gatherer of data. I have, however, in the process gained a good understanding of the entire structure of the family and how it interrelates. With that said, some mention should be given to the various questions that arise in the genealogy of any family, particularly when the lines fade back into earlier times. The website contains important corrections to the historic structure of the 3rd and 4th generations. These changes, among others, are defined and explained below. The true structure of all the early family may never be fully uncovered, but over a four year period from 1998 to 2002, the website through its many contributors has made substantial progress in correcting and re-aligning many past mistakes.

[Hiatt] [Harris ] [Other Disputes] [Assumed Placements]


OUTLINE OF 3rd and 4th Generation Errors


The major Hiatt miscalls and mistakes:

[Calverts] [Chenoweths] [William I/S] [the 2 Williams of Warren Co: - William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson]
[Jonathan] [Samuel] [Arthur m: Rachel Bowen] [Ephraim] [Thomas(3) of Baltimore] [Jehu Ichells]
[Issac J(4)] [Thomas(4) m: Elizabeth Watson] [James(4)][James Francis(4)]
[Absolom of Arthur(3)] [Arthur(3), Kentucky] [Arthur(3), Junior] [Cora's William]


    Note: The proof below were written at numerous times and amended many times afterwards as facts developed. Though they correctly argue the various proofs, the manner tends to be somewhat involved and convoluted. I apologize for the sloppiness of this and hope it is not too confusing. Certainly, a rewrite, which I have little energy for at this point, would be far clearer and succinct.

  1. THE CALVERTS The biggest misconception involving the Chenoweths seems to be the family lineage of John Chenoweth and Mary Calvert. Hiatt claimed Mary was the daughter of the third Lord of Baltimore, through Mary Banks. Most modern genealogist view this lineage as very questionable. A more likely line, which is now in vogue, is that Mary was a daughter of John Calvert and Judith Stamper. This is discussed in more detail elsewhere on this page. Either lineage appears to arrive back at Leonard Calvert who was the father of George, The First Lord of Baltimore. Continuing with the Calverts, Hiatt also claimed that Ruth Calvert, the wife of John and Mary's grandson, William, through John(2), was also from the Baltimore line. This too is questioned and the exact lineage of Ruth has never been proven. The Buckey theory places her as a grandniece of Mary Calvert, William's grandmother. It should be noted that there is no existing source document today that gives Calvert as the surname for either Mary or Ruth. Its use is simply family tradition as aggrandized by Cora Hiatt.

  2. THE CHENOWETHS Hiatt also claimed that John Chenoweth was a descendant of the House of noble Chenoweths, who lived in Cornwall, giving his grandfather as either a William or John. Neither is the case. The origins of John Chenoweth, the progenitor of this family, remain shrouded in the past.

  3. WILLIAM S: [pages: Hiatt 47 & 93; Harris 30 and 494-5] In Hiatt's book, the descendants of William. are placed under William Pugh(4). Richard Harris corrected this stating "on page 47 of her book, Cora Hiatt incorrectly lists the family of William Pugh Chenoweth, apparently confusing him with the family of William I (1760-1838)", (Though Harris calls this William, William I, a land record recorded at Allen Co., OH has him as William S.) The children of William, that Hiatt placed in Randolph County, were in fact born in Frederick Co., VA and then Warren Co., OH, where the family of William S(I?) moved. William Pugh and his children never left Randolph County, and are quite well documented there.

    Shirley Harris, by a process of elimination, then placed this William who married Catherine Rinker as the son of Thomas, b 1720. This William and William the son of Thomas were both known to have fought in the American Revolution. The family of William s/o Thomas is not given in Hiatt. It appeared to be an easy natural choice. But the tie between William S. and Thomas(2) does not fit well. The William s/o Thomas appears in the 1790 Kentucky census in Mason County with his brothers, at the same time that William S. is still in Frederick Co., VA. Descendants of the other Thomas brothers claim that their brother, William, did not come to the Scioto Valley in Ohio with the family, but remained in Kentucky. William S. on the other hand never went to Kentucky and stayed in Virginia until after 1810, when he came to Warren Co., OH. [See William(3) of Thomas below].

    In summer of 2002, Greg Wulker and I made a trip to Winchester, VA just prior to the reunion in Elkins. We found that the 1812 deed of William in Berkeley Co., VA proved that the William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson was indeed William, Jr., the son of William(2). This confirmed the theory developed in the fall of 2001 at this website. The Berkeley Co. sale of land of William and Elizabeth Hutchinson in 1812, prior to his move to Warren Co., OH, delineates his lands as those of William(2), his father, which he inherited. The deed explicitly states that the father of the William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson was William. This corrects Cora's statement that this William was the son of John(3) John(2). A perhaps more detailed discussion is found below titled "The Two Williams".

    This proof leaves the door open for William S. to assume his rightful place as the son of John(3), by his first wife Mary. William is older than his half siblings by the second wife, Eleanor Parke. As found by Greg Wulker, the will of John(3) leaves a special legacy to William from an unnamed grandfather. This grandfather is thought to be the William Smith who left a verbal will to John(3). The bond on Smith's will was posted by Levi Ashbrook and Joseph Bean. On John's death the legacy left was passed uniquely to William. An interesting aspect of this information is that this would mean that both John(2) and John(3) had wives named Mary Smith.

    William was the executor for his father's will and stayed in the Virginia area until after his father John died. The lands on Back Creek in Frederick Co. given to his wife Catherine Rinker by her father Casper Rinker were apparently passed on to William's children upon Catherine's death. In 1812, one month after the death of John(3), these children sold their shares to their brother William, who would follow them to Warren Co. some years later. As a confirmation, it should be noted that the in the naming of his children, William very closely followed names used in the line of John. It may well be that his name was William Smith Chenoweth, bearing the name of his grandmother, Mary Smith. It also now appears that his mother too may have been a second Mary Smith and his grandfather a William Smith. Both a grandson and a great grandson would bear the name William Smith Chenoweth. A great deal of credit must be given to both Rosella Vohs and Greg Wulker for many of the details and research that allowed this determination to be made.

    The placement of William S. as the son of John(3) and his first wife Mary has an interesting twist. Cora's original mistake places William S. under a different John and Mary. Besides the progenitor John and his wife Mary Calvert, there are 4 sets of John and Marys in the immediate lines of John(2) creating room for confusion. Cora's methodology was to "hang" the lines from letters she received on the appropriate known framework of the time. In several instances, including this one, she chose the wrong place. In reading her work, Cora had little knowledge of the families that had remained in Elkins where John Chenoweth and Mary Pugh settled. Many of William Pugh's descendants then resided, and still today reside, in this isolated valley. The one Chenoweth she cited in her book that she could not place, was Randolph, a son of William Pugh, who went early to Oregon. Unknown to Cora, Randolph's rightful spot had been filled by the misplacement of William S. The database has been corrected to reflect this placement.

  4. THE TWO WILLIAMS OF WARREN CO: William m: Elizabeth Hutchinson and William m: Catherine Rinker. [Hiatt page 47, 57 & 93, Harris page 140 & 494-5 misplaced] A part of the rich history of the Chenoweth family are the three cousin marriages of two William Chenoweths that settled in Warren Co., OH between 1810 and 1813. Three daughters of William Chenoweth and Catherine Rinker married three sons of William Chenoweth and Elizabeth Hutchinson. Both families were from Virginia. The marriages started there and finished in Warren Co. Both these Williams have been misplaced in both Chenoweth histories.

    By 2001, information seems to indicate that the two Williams in Warren County are mixed up, and that the William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson and traditionally placed as the 4th generation son of John(3), John(2), was really be William, Jr. In summer of 2002, Greg Wulker and I made a trip to Winchester, VA just prior to the reunion in Elkins. We found that the 1812 deed of William in Berkeley Co., VA proved that this William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson was indeed William, Jr., the son of William(2). The Berkeley Co. sale of land of William and Elizabeth Hutchinson in 1812, prior to his move to Warren Co., OH, delineates his lands as those of William(2), his father, which he inherited. The deed explicitly states that the father of the William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson was William.

    Cora Hiatt said very little about the family of William(2). When William(2) died shortly before December 20, 1785 in Berkeley Co., his son William was there. Cora Hiatt had this William marrying a Nellie Skelley and listed 6 children. Neither Nellie Skelley, nor any Skelley family in this area, has yet to be found. Of the 6 children, only one has any known existence, James Mathias. According to Hiatt, he married a Nancy McBride and went to Perry Co., OH. This James is is really a duplication of James(4) John(3) John(2). [further discussion below]. If James Mathias is removed, the whole line collapses into fiction that has not one shred of support. Moving William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson into his rightful place displaces no one and cleans up what was essentially gibberish.

    This would mean that the William who married Catherine Rinker was the son of John(3), John(2). William and Catherine Rinker lived on Back Creek in Frederick Co., on land he obtained from Catherine's father, Casper Rinker. The William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson lived in Berkeley Co. Both are found in the 1810 census of Virginia, one in Frederick Co., one in Berkeley Co. The family of William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson was older and indeed this matches Census data of the William in the Berkeley Co. It is known that in 1808, Absolom, the son of William(2) was living on half of the land received from his father. The other half belonged to his brother, William, confirmed by William's 1812 sale of his property. This land was on Mills Creek in Berkeley Co. With the next website update, William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson will be listed as William, Jr.

    This placement has also led us to find his son Thomas, mentioned in William, Jr.'s will as the "Thomas" who married Elizabeth Watson and lived in Clark Co., OH.

  5. JONATHAN: [Hiatt page: 50, Harris 79-80] The next biggest error was the generation skip of the Jonathans. Hiatt skipped a generation with Jonathan(4) son of William(3) John(2) and put his son Jonathan(5) in his stead. This omitted 7 of 8 children and many descendants. Cora had received this information at the last minute from Creed Lee Chenoweth, a descendant in the line of Samuel. Creed had committed the error, creating the skip. Harris again has corrected this mistake, as found by many genealogist over the course of the ensuing years, including my new found relative Mary Elizabeth Padden, whose ancestor Elizabeth was one of the skipped children.

  6. SAMUEL: [Hiatt page: 55, Harris 80 & 126] As part of the Jonathan skip above, Samuel, Jonathan's son, was misplaced by Cora as a son of his grandfather, William, by the 2nd wife Jane. Though not proven, her placement, repeated in Harris, is likely incorrect. Given the will of William, written just before his death, it is highly unlikely that he had a son Samuel...Samuel shows up in Logan Co., KY where Jonathan lived. His age appears younger and he receives land from Jonathan.

  7. ARTHUR(4): [Hiatt page: 106, Harris 465 & U594] Cora cited this son of Richard(3) in the line of Thomas as having married a Rachel Bowen and living in Kentucky. She then proceeded to list out children that rightfully belong to Absolom, Jr. the grandson of John(2). Further details of this and the misplaced children are discussed below under "EPHRAIM". Joyce Wiegand was a great help discovering that this so called Arthur was not part of Richard's family, as in her work on Richard's estate papers she found that Richard's son Arthur had been the executor and never was in Kentucky. Richard's son, Arthur, was born in Allegany Co., MD and lived with and near his parents through migrations to Mason Co., KY, Ross Co., OH and Tippecanoe Co., IN. While in Ross Co. he married an Elizabeth Parker on May 02, 1811, who he left and later divorced in 1837 while in Indiana. He then married Anna Warren on October 20, 1837 in Tippecanoe Co., IN. He served as the executor of his father's will and is found in both the 1840 & 1850 Censuses of Tippecanoe Co., IN. The actual marriages of this Arthur are discussed in the unknown sections of the Harris book.

  8. EPHRAIM: [Hiatt page: 71 & 106, Harris 234 & 465] A new error uncovered, but not by Harris, as he repeats it, is that of Ephraim B(owen) Chenoweth. Recent information, unearthed by Joyce Wiegand, in Tippecanoe Co., Indiana, casts serious doubt upon his placement as a son of Arthur(4) Richard(3) Thomas(2). First the movements of Richard, and subsequently his son Arthur, do not match those given by Hiatt or Harris. Arthur is to be found with his siblings and parents, at Richard(3)'s death in 1848, in Tippecanoe Co. and neighboring White Co., IN. Before this he lived and married in Pike Co., OH. Certainly he was not in Bullitt Co., KY as Hiatt states in 1835, and if he had a son, Ephraim, this is not the Ephraim that went to Morgan Co., Indiana in 1835.

    There are two Ephraims in Cora Hiatt's book. (Actually are 3 and one is a grandson of the other). The second Ephraim is the son of Absolom(4) Absolom(3) John(2). In reality there was only one (actually 2, grandfather and grandson). On page 106 Cora states this line of Arthur was a late addition. Whoever sent it in, must have mistakenly used Arthur's name in place of Absolom. Cora placed the line under Richard's Arthur, when it belonged to Absolom and his son, Ephraim, already placed in her book.

    More simply put, though Hiatt correctly gives Ephraim's marriage to Mariah Reisinger, in Kentucky, but she incorrectly said the "second" Ephraim was married to a Reisinger and proceeded to list Ephraim's family under Arthur(4) Richard(3) Thomas(2), which is the wrong place. Harris kept this placement. But it is Absolom, Jr. who lived and died near Mt. Washington in Bullitt Co., KY, not Arthur. There is no son Ephraim of Arthur. Ephraim is the son of Absolom, Jr.

    This is confirmed when one looks at the relationship between these people. Ephraim's father, Absolom, Jr., came to Kentucky about 1807. The family of his aunt, Rachel Chenoweth Seaton, had been in this part of Kentucky for 20 years. Absolom(3), the father, was close to his sister, Rachel, and her husband, James Kenner Seaton, as he mentions James in his will when he died in Virginia, before James and Rachel left for Kentucky. When the nephew, Absolom, Jr., goes to Kentucky, he settles near his aunt, Rachel. Rachel's daughter, Margaret, marries Levi Grafton Whitaker and Ephraim married Mariah Reisinger, daughter of Sarah Seaton, who was a niece of James Kenner Seaton and Rachel. Ephraim names his first son after his brother, Stephen, and his second son after his second cousin, Levi Grafton Whitaker. The Whitakers go to Morgan County, Indiana and Ephraim and his family soon follow. Thus, the descendants listed in Hiatt and Harris shift from a Thomas(2) line to a John(2). The database has been corrected to reflect this.

    In Dec 2002, some four years after this correction was posted, Don Melching me a copy of a letter written by Ephraim B. Chenoweth (living in Gosport) to his brother-in-law and sister in Clinton Co., IN (Elijah Thurman and Mary Chenoweth whom he calls Polly). He mentioned his brother Stephen in KY and his brother Ross (ie James Ross) whom he has not heard from. Visiting at their home is mother Reisinger (Sarah Seton). It is the winter of 1840, and they have just come through a hard winter. Grafton Whitaker Chenoweth is their newest son. This is proof positive (not that it is in any doubt) as to who Ephraim and Mary were.

    A transcription of that letter follows:

    To Elijah Thurman - Frankford, Clinton Co., IN
    From Gosport, IN (Feb 26 00)

    February 9th, 1840
    Morgan Co., IN

    Dear Brother and Sister

    I have sat down to write a few lines to you once more to let you know that we are all well at present and hope that you are all enjoying the same blessing. I have never heard anything of you since you was here. Neither have I ever heard any thing from Brother Ross. I have had no opportunity of coming to see you or going to Kentucky. I got a letter from Stephen about a month back, the connection was all well at that time. I have nothing strange to write you. We have had an uncommon hard winter but I think that the winter is now broke. Times is more dull that ever. I knew there is no article that will demand money at present. I would like to hear from you all and also if you have heard from Ross. Let me know the name of the office nearest him. Write to me often as you can and I will try to answer you as often. I know of no situation in life that would make us happy therefore it is unnecessary to say what our desires are all that we can do is hope for the better to come. Hope is all that makes life bearable in the world. The children are all well. We call our last Grafton Whitaker. Tell Polly that if my family ever gets so that I can leave them that I will come to see her but time and our circumstances would not admit of my leaving home this winter and it is now too late for me to think of starting from home. Sugar making is about to commence and I have more other work to do than I can do. I lost a heifer and my horse since you was here. Tell the children that if they have any opportunity of coming to see me that I shall always be glad to see or hear from them or anybody that left is any a kin to me. I must close my letter having nothing more to write. But ever remain your brother.

    Ephraim B. Chenoweth

    Mother Resinger is now at my house and sends her respects to you both and says tell Polly that she would like to see her very well. Marie and the children sends their respects to you all farewell.

  9. THOMAS(3) of BALTIMORE: [Hiatt page: 81 Harris 291] Harris repeats Hiatt's detail of Thomas(3) Richard(2) in Baltimore, MD. He cites her account though as highly doubtful. Quoting from his book:
        "Born ca 1740 in Baltimore Co., MD, but little else is known about him.
        According to information on page 81 of Cora Hiatt's book, this Thomas made
        his will in Baltimore on June 2, 1846! It was probated August 21, 1846,
        indicating that he lived to be about 106 years old. Possible, but extremely unlikely.
    
       On August 1, 1846, the death of a Thomas Chenoweth on July 31, 1846
       was documented in the Baltimore Sun newspaper.  There is little doubt
       that this was the Thomas who wrote the will, but nothing additional
       is known to further identify him as Thomas ca 1740, subject of this narrative.
    
       Unfortunately, the source Cora Hiatt used in making the connection is
       unknown and cannot be pursued. So, there is justifiable reason to doubt
       the information as presented.  Without the will, only speculation about
       Thomas is possible, because no other information about him is known.
    
       The will of Thomas that Cora Hiatt refers to mentions by name his wife,
       Elizabeth, two sons, and five daughters.  Because of the question of Thomas's
       longevity, one theory is that Thomas b:1740 did have a son Thomas, as Cora
       Hiatt presumed, but that the will and family were the son's not the father's.
    
       This conjecture immediately conflicts with Cora Hiatt's later statement
       that this younger Thomas married Deborah Buckman, not someone named
       Elizabeth. Multiple marriages maybe guessed at, but then the speculation
       becomes more complex and more difficult to accept.
    
       It appears that until more knowledge surfaces about Thomas b: ca 1740, his
       genealogy and that of his descendants will remain cloudy.  However for the
       sake of retaining the information known about later generations heretofore
       taken to be his descendants, the Thomas who wrote the will in 1846 and the
       Thomas who was born ca 1740 will be "called" the same person."

    Recently a Chancery Court record, of a petition to sell real estate to satisfy creditors of a Thomas, in Baltimore, who died intestate in 1801, [certainly a more reasonable date for Thomas b: 1740], has been found by Dorinda Shepley and Ann Lieberson. This suit was brought because the seller of land that Thomas had purchased and paid for before he died, mistakenly named the widow of Thomas as the grantee instead of the estate. The suit was brought by the children of Thomas, who won the case. This Thomas had a wife Elizabeth. The document is detailed with names and dates for the wife and children of Thomas. So it is likely that these are the children of the Thomas described by Hiatt as Thomas b: 1740.

      Children of Thomas and Elizabeth Chenoweth:
              Absolom b. 5/10/1775 went to Kentucky
              Mary b 9/20/1776
              Ruth b. 9/30/1778, w/o Michael Wall m3/29/1794 Baltimore
              Rebecca b 2/28/1780 w/o Alexander Coulter, Baltimore
              Elizabeth b 2/7/1782 w/o Eli R. Griffith, went to Kentucky
                    children: Darius Griffith
                              Charles Griffith
                              Harriett Griffith
              Sarah b. 10/13/1783
              Ellener b. 5/26/1785 died young
              Thomas b. 8/5/1787
              Chloe b 10/23/1789 w/o Jacob Houck
              Harriott b. 12/4/1793 died young
              Enoch b. 1/25/1798
    

    But what of the will of 1846 of Thomas? Both Hiatt and Harris cited a newspaper article, announcing the death, but it appears they didn't read the actual article. This is the article, sent to me by Dean Merriman of New Jersey:

     Baltimore Sun for Obit for Thomas Chenoweth:  1 Aug 1846
              --On Friday afternoon the 31st (July), in the 59th year of his age,
                 funeral Sunday (2 Aug) 10am from the late residence at #58 Union Street.
    

    Obviously the Thomas who died in 1846 was not 106, but 58. This gives us a year of birth of 1788, which matches the son of the Thomas, who died in 1801. By will, This Thomas had a wife, Elizabeth, so father and son both had wives named Elizabeth. This establishes a new Maryland line for this Thomas(3), mistakenly listed as the son of Richard(2) and is now incorporated in the database. The children, listed for Thomas(3) in the Harris book, become the children of Thomas(4). This was a generation skip similar to the [see "Jonathan skip"]. Cora Hiatt assigned the will to the wrong Thomas. The will is clearly that of Thomas(4) the son and not Thomas(3) the father.

    A problem remains as what to do with the listed line of the Thomas, on page 292, who married Deborah Buckman. This now appears to be a first marriage for Thomas(4) who left his 1846 will naming his wife Elizabeth. From information developed by Elmer Haile: Deborah Buckman died July 16, 1826 and a Thomas remarried to Elizabeth Airey on December 18, 1829. This key information unravels the problem that Cora had: If the son married Deborah, why did the will say Elizabeth?

    Two points should be made. The 1846 will of Thomas lists children: Anna Eliza, Oliver (misinterpreted as Olivia or Olive), Eveline, Thomas, William, Cecelia and Frances. Cora said that the son, Oliver Buckman, who had the one known line down to present day in her book, had brothers Thomas and William. Indeed he does in the will as well. The cursive writing of Oliver's name has been mistaken for Olive or Olivia for years. But Oliver Buckman is found in the Baltimore City directories living within a few houses of his father Thomas on Union Street. Indeed in the 1850 Census finds most of this family fragmented throughout a number of wards in Baltimore.

    An Elizabeth is living with a Priscilla (page 601 Harris) in the 1850 and 1860 Census. This Elizabeth matches the area and age of the widow of Thomas. Until this two-marriage information developed, this arrangement was puzzling, as Elizabeth and Priscilla were 17 years apart in age. It is now possible and likely that Priscilla is a daughter of Deborah Buckman and living with her stepmother. Priscilla is not in the will as she was married in July 26, 1838, 8 years before the will, and fathers often left married daughters out, thinking them taken care of by their husbands.

    A explanation of how Cora Hiatt may have made this mistake may lie in the 1840 Census. Thomas is listed with his family in the 10th Ward of Baltimore City. He is given a bracket age of 90-100. This must be an error. In the 1830 Census, in the 12th Ward, his age is given as 40-49 which matches the known dates above. These are the only listings in Baltimore City for a Thomas in the 1830 and 1840 census. The family data listed appears similar, except for this 40-year age jump. Early Census data has it share of errors. This one, in 1840, led to the wrong conclusion. In the 1840 Census, Oliver Buckman, the son is living in the same 10th Ward. The 1830 Census data confirms that Thomas has a new wife, younger than he and too young to be a mother of the listed children born before 1830, in agreement with the December 18, 1829 marriage of Elizabeth to Thomas

    But THERE IS A LARGER ERROR here, that has been unraveled by Elmer Haile, Jr. of Baltimore. The father, Thomas(3), who died in 1801, lived in Frederick Co., MD. The land he owned was that received from his father Arthur. When he sold his land in 1796 to Richard Chenoweth (presumed to be his brother), the transaction was also signed by his wife, Elizabeth. So Thomas(3) and Thomas(4) described on pages 291 and 292 under the Richard section of Harris are really the Thomas line of Arthur(2). This Thomas was born March 31, 1753 (as recorded by Arthur). The Thomas of Richard b: 1740 becomes a puzzle and the Thomas described as Thomas(3) of Arthur on page 382, who married Rachel Norris and fathered Benjamin Norris, is NOT Arthur's and would seem too young to be Richard's Thomas b: 1740. Recent examinations, however, of the children of Richard, appear to indicate that Richard's marriage may be later and his children all may be younger that Cora Hiatt described.

    As a further note to the Thomas of Richard. In the 1773 Tax Rolls of Back and Middle River Upper Hundreds, Richard, Jr. is taxed for himself and Arthur, William and Thomas (presumed his brothers). Ten years later, in 1783, Arthur and Thomas are both listed as single men in the same tax area. This would fit the Thomas who married Rachel Norris January 01, 1788. The database has been corrected to reflect this 'correction'.

  10. JEHU's CHILDREN: [Hiatt page: 86 Harris 63 & 354] Hiatt's listing of the children of John(5) Joshua(4) John(3) Arthur(2) on her page 86 are really those of Jehu I. Chenoweth(5) of Randolph County, WV son of John(4) William(3) John(2). This is similar to the misplacement of William S.(3)'s children under William Pugh. Harris corrects this error.

  11. THOMAS WHO MARRIED ELIZABETH WATSON: [Hiatt page: 78 Harris 242] Thomas was a last minute insertion in Cora Hiatt's book. She stated on page 78 under Richard(3) Richard(2): "Not much is known of Richard's life. He may have died unmarried, or he may have left Baltimore Co., MD, and I have failed to located his branch…." She continued "Later after the book had gone to press, the following chart was sent in: This chart came into the possession of Miss Elva Wilson, South Charleston, Ohio, at the death of her sister. They are the descendants of Thomas Chenoweth. The record does not state when Richard Chenoweth left Baltimore Co., MD, nor whom he married, and gives this genealogy of only one son, Thomas….."

    This basis has placed Thomas in Chenoweth genealogy for over 70 years as the son of Richard(3) Richard(2). Not one shred of corroborating evidence, in support of this insertion, has ever been found. Thomas, by all records, was born in Virginia. There is no evidence that Richard(3) ever left Maryland or even married. So who is Thomas?

    He is now proven to be the son of William, Jr. Though this conclusion was reached in the fall of 2001 on the suggestion of Greg Wulker and on examination of new material, it was more recently proven by two separate documents that give his exact day of birth. The first was a daybook found by Roberta Burnes belonging to Elijah, Jr. who married his cousin Nancy Chenoweth. Nancy was the daughter of Thomas Chenoweth and Elizabeth Watson. The date given in this daybook for the birth of Thomas was May 10, 1777. More Recently, Herman William Chenoweth of Ohio has come into possession of records of William, Jr. These included his handwritten will that was in the possession of Bertha Smith Hess, a daughter of Emma Murray Smith, a daughter of Eleanor Chenoweth Murray, a daughter of Absolom Chenoweth, son of William, Jr. In this listing the birth date of Thomas is given as May 10, 1777, an exact match with the daybook record.

    The previous reasoning for this placement, now proven above, was given as follows as background information: At the time of the marriage of Thomas in 1801 in Berkeley Co., VA (now WV) three major Chenoweth groupings were present in Virginia: John(3)s, William(2)s and two sons of Arthur(2). Thomas(2) and his children had long departed for Kentucky as had Richard(3) and Arthur(3) of John. Thomas(3) of John was in Botetourt Co., VA, having previously resettled in Maryland. William(3) of John was dead and his children had moved west.

    John(3) of John was in Hampshire County, and his children all defined by will. In Berkeley County were the two groups of John and Samuel Churchill of Arthur. They had come to Virginia, about 1780, later than the families of John(2), William(2) and Thomas(2). Both left well-defined wills with no mention of Thomas. Then too, Thomas appears by census data to have been born in Virginia slightly before their arrival.

    That leaves the William(2) groupings. William unlike his brothers did not leave an inclusive will. Joseph was dead and had only one son. As Joseph had died fairly young, his children were minors and defined in guardianships. Isaac was dead and his children had left for Pennsylvania. That leaves William and Absolom as the other two sons that are a possible place for Thomas.

    Recently, Absolom's marriage to Anne Hayes, sister to Sinah Hayes, who married Absolom's brother, Joseph, was uncovered by Greg Wulker's efforts through Hayes family researchers. Absolom, well into his sixties, went late in life to Clark Co., OH with Ann. Absolom was preceded to this location by Thomas Chenoweth and Elizabeth Watson had gone! In fact Clark Co., OH also became the home of Sinah Chenoweth Banes (Ann's sister, and widow of Joseph), William Chenoweth who married Sinah's daughter, Sarah Banes, and William's unmarried sister Nancy, who witnessed to Absolom's estate. No other Chenoweth group went to Clark Co., OH this early.

    Mistakenly, I first placed Thomas under Absolom. But more recently, it has been determined that William, Jr., the other of our two possibilities, is actual the William who married Elizabeth Hutchinson and went to Warren Co. [see "The Two Williams"]. It is known by the will [dated April 15, 1816] of William, Jr. that he had a son Thomas. It is obvious now that this Thomas is the Thomas who is found in Clark Co. Thomas had come to Clark County via Warren County. There he had sold land to William S, whose daughters had married three of the brothers of Thomas.

    The database has been corrected to reflect this placement.

  12. ABSOLOM of ARTHUR(3): [Hiatt page 84; Harris 331-2] For some strange reason Cora Hiatt says that Absolom, the son of Arthur(3) of Kentucky, went to Perry Co., OH. There are two glaring facts that refute this. First Arthur, his father went to the Louisville area of Kentucky between 1782 and 1786, so Absolom was between 8 and 12 years old when this occurred. Obviously he went to Louisville with his parents. No Chenoweth went from Louisville back up to Perry Co., OH. Indeed an Absolom, did go to Perry County, that was Absolom the son of John(3). He went there with his brothers, James and Elias. All three are found there in the 1820 Census and the 1830 Census. There is only one Absolom in the county.

    The will of James,, who resided in Perry County and went to Delaware Co., IN, is found in neighboring Grant Co., IN. Neither Hiatt nor Harris ever examined this will. The children listed in the will are those described by Hiatt as the children of Absolom, the son of Arthur(3) of Kentucky. [see more detail in James below]. So everything except the date of his birth is wrong about this Absolom. We believe that this Absolom married in February 19, 1795 in Nelson Co., KY to Eleanor Duvall. They went after 1820 to Lawrence Co., IL, where their three known children married.

    The database has been corrected to reflect this 'correction'.

  13. JAMES(4) of Perry Co., OH: [Hiatt page: 87 & 93 Harris 181 & 388] Three brothers, Absolom, James and Elias, went to Perry Co., OH. Hiatt confirms this in her history, but when she states it, she used the name William instead of James and John instead of Elias. Both she and other research confirm that William was in Warren Co., OH and John was in Washington Co., IN, so there is no doubt that James indeed went with his brothers to Perry Co. Indeed we find him there in both the 1820 and the 1830 census. A James bought 160 acres land in Pike township, Perry Co., OH on December 27, 1813. This was recorded in Fairfield, which was then the land office for that region. Harris in his recent book assigns this land to a James Mathias in the line of William. In doing so he is mimicking another Hiatt mistake. There was only one James in Perry County (though James would later have a son, James, born there). The description that Harris uses for James Marthias is exactly the description of James the son of John(3):

    "James was born in Hampshire County, Virginia, date not known. He married Nancy McBride. No further information about her is known. Where or when James or Nancy died is not known,.... They came there from Hampshire County, Virginia in 1809 and were enumerated as residents there, in Pike Twp. in the 1820 and 1830 Census. James entered a claim of 160 acres on Dec.27, 1813 in Pike Twp., in what became Perry County when it was formed in 1818, the NE 1/4 of S18, T15, R15. This is just southeast of the town of Lexington. In "Ohio Records of Pioneer Families", James is listed among those pioneers who came to Pike Twp. before 1818. He is also recorded as being one of the twenty-five charter members of the Regular Baptist Church when it was constituted on Dec.4, 1819 in Lexington in Perry County."

    This highlights a second clue to the fact that James of John and James Mathias are one and the same individual. They both married McBrides from Hampshire Co., VA. In one case she is said to be Nancy, in another, Susan. Both these marriages seem to occur about the same time in the same place, and in neither case are the parents of this McBride known to the Chenoweth histories. But from the McBride side we find that Sarah McBride married a James Chenoweth in Hampshire Co., VA. She was the daughter of James McBride and Sarah Edwards. She was probably still single when she is mentioned in the will of her grandfather, Thomas Edwards in 1791 in Hampshire Co. There are some interesting ties here.

    This James McBride, father of Sarah, would later marry, as his third wife, Mary Chenoweth Ashbrook, the widow of the Rev. Levi Ashbrook. This Mary was the aunt of James, and though the marriage occurred 1804, after James had married, it is apparent that the McBrides and Chenoweths were aquatinted. James McBride lived near the Great Capon, where both William(3) and John(3) inherited land from John(2). Thomas Edwards, the father-in-law of James McBride, was probably a brother to Mary Edwards who married Robert Pugh. Robert and Mary's daughter, Mary Pugh, would marry John(4), son of William(3), and first cousin to James. Mary McBride, sister to Sarah, who married Joseph Yates, also went to Perry Co, as did another sister Hannah, who never married. It may be that details of these two sisters to Sarah in Perry Co. may lead us to more information on Sarah. One of the Yates daughters, Margery, would marry John Chenoweth there in Perry Co., the son of Elias and a nephew to James.

    Susan House Cooper in her research of Perry County found that James married a Sarah (probably described in a land dealing). So we have fairly confirmed James and Sarah McBride in Perry Co. But what of their children? Here again the Chenoweth histories are a complex puzzle. Traditionally James and Sarah are given children: Thomas, James, Sarah, Margaret, Henry S, and John W. But evidence of the existence of the first four cannot be found. There is no trace of these children. Only Henry S and John W have traceable lives.

    Now we must jump ahead to the will of James in Grant Co., IN. The Chenoweth histories say that James, the son of John(3), went to Delaware Co., IN and died there in 1846. Indeed there are several land purchases by James in Indiana beginning in 1838. By 1840 James is gone from Perry Co., OH He can be found in the 1840 Census of Grant Co., IN.

    1. The first record was land in Delaware County, dated Aug 1, 1837 and was for 40 acres to James Chenoweth of Perry County, Ohio
    2. Second was to James Chenoweth, Senior of Perry county, Ohio for 320 acres located in Blackford County, Indiana and dated Aug 20, 1838
    3. The third record was also for James Chenoweth, Senior of Perry County, Ohio for 80 acres of land in Grant County, Indiana, dated Aug 20, 1838
    4. The fourth record was for James Chenoweth, Junior of Henry County, Indiana for 40 acres of land located in Delaware County, Indiana and dated Aug 20, 1838.

    These three counties border each other, Blackford to the east of Grant and both on the northern edge of Delaware Co. Five children are mentioned in the will of this James. A deceased son John, Sarah Ball, Lydia Ketchum, James, and Stephen K. Sarah's husband, Oliver Cromwell Ball is made the executor. The estate papers of what Oliver did have not been located. In part the terms were: [Actual Will]

    1. Bequests to Son Stephen K. Chinowerth - my farm as his forever in consideration of which he pay my son (Thomas crossed out) John's childern $100 two years after my decease.
    2. To daughter Lydia Ketchum one blue, red and white double coverlet and that light calico quilt be attached to my bed and bedding.
    3. I give to my son Stephen K. Chenoweth, one big kettle, one skillet and B-----.
    4. I give to my daughter Sarah, my hatchet, and my plough and groove pl---- ---- The balance was to be sold and divided as follows.....
    5. First to pay debts, then that my son James receive $27 dollars as balance of his legacy to make him equal with the rest of the heirs. and that the balance be divided evenly among all my children except Stephen K., who is not to have a part in that, but my wish is that my son Johns children have their proportionable part with the rest. I appoint Oliver C. Ball to be executor.

    No mention is made of Henry, and John W cannot be this John, as John W is very much alive. To see where Henry or John W. belong, the traditional children of James, (along with a Thomas, a Sarah and a Margaret), see James Francis. It is apparent that John W. belongs elsewhere. Henry is in Missouri, having been in Pickaway Co., OH in 1840 and Ross Co., OH in 1830, where he married.

    Who are these children? We find them all, with several others, in the Chenoweth Histories under an Absolom. Again a mistake has been made. The Absolom in question was the oldest son of an Arthur who went to Kentucky, when Absolom was quite young. This Absolom never went to Perry Co., OH and there are indications that he later married an Eleanor Duvall in Nelson Co., KY. But the children had lives in Perry County and environs. Cora Hiatt mixed up the children, and it is not the first instance of this. There was an Absolom in Perry County. He was the brother of James and Elias. He has his own marriage and own children, these are not they. There were not two Absoloms in Perry Co., just like there were not two James'. So who were these children?

    1. JOHN M. CHENOWETH, b. 1797, Hampshire Co., VA (now WV); d. bef 1831, Fairfield Co., Ohio; m. CATHERINE PETERS, Fairfield Co., Ohio.
    2. NANCY5 CHENOWETH, b. Abt. 1798; m. JOSHUA SHIELDS, June 11, 1816, Ohio.
    3. ABSOLOM CHENOWETH , JR., b. August 12, 1806; d. June 20, 1853; m. MARTHA RAYES, June 06, 1832.
    4. WILLIAM CHENOWETH, b. 1807; m. SARAH RAYES, April 18, 1831.
    5. JAMES R. CHENOWETH, b. 1810, Perry Co., Ohio; d. Bef. 1900; m. NANCY (ELIZABETH?) SKINNER, February 21, 1834, Perry Co., Ohio.
    6. SARAH ANN CHENOWETH, b. 1810, Ohio; d. August 23, 1883, Indiana; m. OLIVER CROMWELL BALL, December 28, 1827, Ohio.
    7. STEPHEN K. CHENOWETH, b. 1818, Ohio; d. March 14, 1881, Henry Co., IA; m. CASSANDRA PERFECT, February 11, 1841, Henry Co., IN.
    8. LYDIA CHENOWETH, b. 1800-1820; m. JOHN HOLMES KETCHUM, May 21, 1835, Perry Co., OH.

    Five of these children are mentioned in the will, three are not, but were very much alive in 1846. Curiously the 3 not mentioned were the older children, so if he left them out of the will, he may have settled with them earlier. There are indications that he may have done so. In the will James says "that my son James receive $27 dollars as balance of his legacy to make him equal with the rest of the heirs." Coupled with the fact that James left his farm to Stephen, it can be imagined that James had settled with some of his children earlier, perhaps when he left Perry County, and William and Absolom (and Henry?) remained in Ohio. In the 1850 Census, four years after the will, Nancy, Sarah, Stephen, James are found in Indiana. Lydia, widowed, is in Iowa. Absolom and William are in Ohio.

    The names seem to fit. James had bothers, William, Absolom and John and gave these names to his children. Sarah had a brother Stephen, a name which was unusual to Chenoweths. Sarah and James are naturals. The derivation of Lydia is unknown. Something might be added of John. He married a Catherine Peters in Fairfield, not far from Perry Co., and apparently died as she remarried to a Warren Smith in 1832.

    Another aspect that should be mentioned is the listed children for James Mathias by Hiatt and Harris.

    1. JOSHUA CHENOWETH, b. Aft. 1780. IS THIS JOHN?
    2. STEPHEN CHENOWETH, b. Aft. 1780. STEPHEN K?
    3. WILLIAM CHENOWETH, b. October 11, 1806, Hampshire Co., VA (now WV); d. February 25, 1870; m. MARYLANDER BURGESS, April 18, 1831, Hocking Co., OH; b. February 12, 1816, Anne Arundel Co., MD. SAME AS WILLIAM ABOVE
    4. ABSOLOM CHENOWETH, b. 1807, Hampshire Co., VA (now WV); d. June 20, 1853, Perry Co., OH; m. SARAH G. BURGESS, January 06, 1832, Hocking Co., OH; b. September 22, 1814, Anne Arundel Co., MD; d. December 26, 1891, Perry Co., OH. SAME AS ABSOLOM ABOVE
    5. JAMES CHENOWETH, b. Aft. 1809, Perry Co., Ohio. IS THIS JAMES, Jr.?

    Certainly, Stephen and James are the same we have identified in the will. Josuha maybe a blurring of John or his son, Joshua. The William and Absolom here are remarkably similar to the William and Absolom, previously mistaken as children of Absolom of Arthur and now reassigned to James of John. Both sets come from Hamsphire County, both born about the same years, both married sisters, in one case Maryland and Sarah Burgess and in the other Sarah and Martha Rayes. Again, as in the case of the two James', only one set has traceable lives and descendants. In this instance, it is the set of James Mathias that married Burgess daughters. This blurred duplication is actually a positive reinforcement that Absolom and William were children of the one James of Perry Co.

    Now let's look at the 1820 and 1830 census for James in Perry Co.

    1820 Census, Perry County

    Males:

     0-10: 2 ea = Stephen K age 2 (IN WILL), James R. age 10 (IN WILL)
    10-16: 2 ea = Absolom, age 14 and William age 13
    18-26: 1 ea =  Is this John K. who married in Febuary of this year? (IN WILL)
    45-plus  2 ea = James age 53
    

    Females:

    0-10: 1 ea = fits Lydia age 6 (IN WILL)
    10-16: 1 ea  fits Sarah Ball age 10 + (IN WILL)
    26-45  1 ea = McBride wife
    

    John married in February of 1820, so likely he and Catherine, as well as Nancy who married in 1816 are on their own.

    1830 Census, Perry County

    Males:

    10-15: 1 ea =   Stephen K:  age 12  (IN WILL)
    15-20: 1 ea =   James R. age 20 (IN WILL)
    20-30   2 ea = Absolom, age 24 and William age 23
    50-60 1 ea = James age 63  
    

    Females:

    15-20: 1 ea =   Lydia age 16 (IN WILL)
    40-50: 1 ea = unknown maybe McBride wife
    50-60: 1 ea = unknown maybe McBride wife
    

    The 1820 census fits the children we have identified and so does the 1830 Census. Sarah has left as she married on December 28, 1827. William and Absolom would marry shortly. Possibly the extra older female is a sister to Sarah McBride Chenoweth. She has a sister Hannah, who never married who died in 1835 in Perry Co. This Hannah may have left a will as the McBride family uses this 1835 date to say that sister, Mary McBride Yates, died before and sister, Sarah McBride Chenoweth, died afterward.

    In summary, James and James Mathias, are one and the same. James(4) went to Perry Co., OH with his wife Sarah McBride, the daughter of James McBride, and his brothers Absolom and Elias. he later moved to the Delaware County are of Indiana, about 1840. He died there in 1846, leaving a will. His children are those traditionally listed in the Chenoweth histories as those of Absolom(4) Arthur(3) Arthur(2).

    The database has been corrected to reflect this 'correction'.

  14. James Francis [Hiatt omitted from Thomas listing page 73, Harris page: 198] The Hiatt book gives only 3 of the five children of Thomas, son of John(2), omitting James Francis and his step brother John Thomas. They are however given in the will of Thomas and included in the newer Harris book. Hiatt had no mention of any continuing lines of the three of five children she listed. The whole section devoted to Thomas was limited to less that 1/6 of a page. Harris added lines of the two older children and mentioned the two marriages of James Francis that occurred in Botetourt Co., VA. Though no children are given for James Francis, he is found in the 1810 Census of Botetourt Co., VA with his wife and five children, two daughters and 3 sons.

    1810 Census, Botetourt County, VA James Chenoweth household
    Males:
    0-10: 3 ea = could be Henry, John, Thomas or James
    26-45: 1 ea = James Francis, age 34
    Females:
    0-10: 2 ea = Sarah and Margaret
    26-45: 1 ea = Rebecca Safly, age 26

    Now proven, the children of James Francis are those mistakenly cited by Hiatt as the children of James, son of John(3): Thomas, James, Margaret, Sarah, Dr Henry S, Dr John W. While her source for this listing is unknown and her book remains the only mention on this family group, a number of facts have been uncovered to affirm that such a family existed. Cora Hiatt did give correct descriptions of the descendants of Doctors Henry and John. Several Missouri accounts seem to confirm that they were indeed brothers. Henry and John were both born in Virginia and are of the right age to be sons of James Francis. Separate unidentified Ohio marriages of a Margaret, a Sarah and a Thomas all born in Virginia seem to fill out the described families.

    This is not the only instance of Cora Hiatt misplacing a set of children under the wrong Chenoweth bearing the right given name. Indeed it would explain why, once this misalignment was in place, it caused a chain reaction that ended up with the actual children of James Chenoweth and Sarah McBride of Perry Co., OH being misplaced. Cora's mistake stemmed from her lack of knowledge that Thomas has a son James Francis, so she had no where to correctly place this family. The researcher should refer to the presentation above for JAMES(4).

    As background, there are only 6 James Chenoweths born before 1800. They are:

    There are many naming clues here. The use of Henry S. itself is unusual. There were no instances of the use of Henry within the Chenoweth family until 1804 when three sons were born with his name. In this case Henry S. appears to be named for the father of Rebecca the wife of James Francis, Henry Safley. The family of Henry Safley was Methodist Episcopalian. This may explain the name of John W(esley). Margaret was the name of the wife of Henry Safley and the mother of Rebecca. Sarah was a sister to Rebecca Safley. In the next Generation, Sarah Chenoweth who married Jesse Tuttle named three of her children Rebecca, Henry and John Wesley.

    For a long time this data presented a puzzle. What happened to James Francis and how did the children get to Ohio and marry in separate counties? The glue behind all this now appears to be Henry Safley, the father of Rebecca Safley, who was the first wife of James Francis. Henry Safley was a resident of Botetourt Co., VA until 1818 when he moved to Champaign Co., OH. Here he left a will in 1839 that mentions his deceased daughter Rebecca Chenoweth and directs that her portion be divided among her children. Though the names of the children are not given, this tells us that they were indeed alive and that they were probably in Ohio. This fits well with the presumed daughters Margaret and Sarah, both of whom married in Champaign Co., OH where Henry resided. Champaign Co. was a location where not many other Chenoweth families resided.

    Several records in Champaign Co. have come to light that corroborate and prove this line. There is a record of a Alexander McCorkle being appointed guardian of John Chenoweth in 1825 in Champaign Co. This would fit with the age of John W. and there is an earlier land grant from Henry Safley to Alexander McCorkle that would indicate that the two were acquaintances. This record would also indicate that James Francis, the father, died before 1825. But the absolute proof are three Champaign Co. land transactions in 1839 and 1840. William Safley, the uncle of the children of Rebecca Safley Chenoweth, buys land from Benjamin and Margaret Sharp, Jesse and Sarah Tuttle and Henry S. and John W. Chenoweth. Each describes the land as having been received as heirs of Rebecca Chenoweth to the estate of Henry Safley. These transactions very clearly prove that Sarah, Margaret, Henry S. and John W. were children of Rebecca Chenoweth who married James Francis Chenoweth. Combined the 3 land transactions amount to 4/20ths or 1/5 of the real estate of Henry Safley. Henry divided his land 4 ways between his two sons William and Adam and the heirs of his two daughters, Sarah Snodgrass and Rebecca Chenoweth both deceased. Rebecca share was 25% which means we are missing one of the heirs of her estate in the records, possibly the son Thomas or James.

    JAMES FRANCIS4 CHENOWETH (THOMAS3, JOHN2, JOHN1) was born 1774 in Maryland, and died Bef. 1825. He married (1) REBECCA ROBINA SAFLEY August 20, 1799 in Botetourt Co., VA, daughter of HENRY SAFLEY and MARGARET DUNLAP. She was born November 18, 1784 in Rockingham Co., VA, and died February 28, 1813 in Botetourt Co., VA. He married (2) NANCY CRAWFORD November 14, 1813 in Botetourt Co., VA, daughter of WILLIAM CRAWFORD. She was born Bet. 1769 - 1789, and died Unknown. Children of JAMES CHENOWETH and REBECCA SAFLEY are:

    1. THOMAS5 CHENOWETH, b. Aft. 1799.
    2. MARGARET CHENOWETH, b. Abt. 1802, Virginia; d. 1853, Ohio; m. BENJAMIN N. THARP, January 10, 1822, Champaign Co., OH; b. Bet. 1787 - 1804.
    3. HENRY S. CHENOWETH, b. December 13, 1804, Virginia; d. April 19, 1869, Nesosho, Newton Co., MO; m. LEVINA FRANCES WHITE, August 26, 1829, Chillicothe, Ross Co., OH; b. 1811, Ohio; d. May 29, 1889, Newton, Co., MO.
    4. SARAH CHENOWETH, b. Abt. 1806, Virginia; d. Bef. 1900, Missouri; m. JESSE TUTTLE, February 26, 1834, Champaign Co., OH; b. Abt. 1801, Ohio; d. Bef. 1880.
    5. JOHN W. CHENOWETH, b. December 25, 1807, Virginia; d. October 05, 1874, Grayson Co., TX; m. FRANCES JACKSON RANDLE, September 01, 1831, Madison Co., IL; b. November 20, 1811, Illinois; d. April 24, 1894, Texas.
    6. JAMES CHENOWETH, b. Aft. 1799.

    This placement is now proven. Credit and many thanks to: Harry Holt Chenoweth, my uncle, for several key contributions and his analysis, as well as Alice Sanders and Greg Wulker who all played key roles in this establishing this proof.

  15. ARTHUR(3) of Kentucky: [Hiatt page 83, Harris page: 331] Arthur(3) of Kentucky is wrong in both Chenoweth histories. It is not surprising that Shirley Harris did not uncover this, as for the most part, she accepted the structure that Cora Hiatt had laid down. This long embedded error has only slowly come to light.

    The natural assumption would be that Arthur of Kentucky was Arthur the son of John(2). All the other Chenoweths lines in Jefferson County, KY at this time, and for several decades to come, were from the Virginia families of John(2). Indeed, several researchers prior to Cora Hiatt, including Arthur Keith, made this a same assumption about Arthur. Cora's book departed from this position, claiming the Arthur(3) of Kentucky, and later Bartholomew Co., IN, was Arthur, Jr. from Baltimore. Outside of Cora's book, there is not one shred of evidence to support this. Where she got this idea is perplexing.

    The detail of what Harris says about Arthur(3) of Kentucky on page 331 of his book is very confused. Clearly part of this narrative is Arthur(3) of John(2). That Arthur(3) administered the will of Elizabeth Stuart in Louisville and signed a bond on February 7, 1786, shows that he was Elizabeth's brother. The histories always said that John's son Arthur went to Kentucky, and here he is. How did Arthur of Baltimore married in Virginia in 1773? All of his siblings married in Baltimore. Arthur, Jr. had land in Baltimore and transacted land with his father, what was he doing in Virginia? The Estate records of Arthur, Jr., who died intestate, are found in Baltimore Co., MD. The Arthur available to wed Elspa Lawrence in Virginia is Arthur(3), son of John(2).

    There are not two Arthur's in Kentucky! The Census only shows one. Some surmise that one replaced the other. That Arthur of John came first, and, between a Census taking, died or left, and Arthur, Jr. arrived. But there was no further trace of the first Arthur, he simply vanished.

    Look at the names of Arthur's kids, Rachel, Elizabeth and Mary, all named for siblings of Richard and Arthur. There is a Margaret named for Richard's wife. There is Eleanor named for his brother's John's 2nd wife. There is a son Absolom named for their brother, who had died the year before Arthur's first son Absolom was born. There is a John named for their father John. These are clearly names of the JOHN(2) line.

    As a further note, in an 1782 Census of Hampshire County, taken by Levi Ashbrook, John(3) is living next door to Arthur(3) his brother. The number of people in Arthur(3)'s household match exactly with those children of Arthur(3) of Kentucky, born to that date. The one single fly in the ointment is there is a recording with the names of Arthur and his wife Margaret on Hampshire County. The use of Margaret is a mistake. It stems from a 1773 sale of land by Mary, John's widow, and three sons of John: Thomas, Absolom and Richard. Richard's wife was Margaret, but some accounts of this transaction use the name of Arthur (who did not receive this land) in place of Richard, thus mistakenly linking Arthur to a wife Margaret.

    The stories of the Arthurs always seem so solid as exact dates were known and clearly there were bibles involved. Indeed Cora Hiatt mentioned on page 84 that the dates of Arthur, Jr. and his son John came from bible pages held by William Lewis Chenoweth. A study on the family of William Lewis Chenoweth as assembled by Mathias Rose 'Cy' Chenoweth, II has copies of these two bible pages in the back: The families of Arthur(3) of KY and his son John(4). These are the same pages mentioned by Cora Hiatt and held by William Lewis. They were attested to by Lewis Rose, the grandson of Arthur(3). There was no linkage to Arthur(2) of Baltimore on the pages. The date of birth for Arthur was July 16, 1752. All the other dates, some 20 or so, matched the Hiatt book but this one date, the birth of Arthur. Yet, the handwriting and apparent timing of the entry of Arthur's information matches that of Elspa and their marriage.

    Arthur, Jr. was born March 31, 1740 in Baltimore Co. This is known because Arthur(2) was a vestryman at his church in the St. Thomas Parish of Baltimore Co., and in the process he recorded the dates of his children. This is no mere typo. The date in the bible is clear and not one element matches the Baltimore recording. Arthur(3) of KY cannot be Arthur, Jr. He is clearly the son of John(2).

    A final piece in this "proof" is that whereas Arthur of John was in Kentucky on February 7, 1786 to post a bond for his sister Elizabeth Stuart, Arthur, Jr. was still in Baltimore in 1790 where he witnessed the sale of a lot owned by his brother Thomas in Reisterstown. Arthur of John appears on the tax list of 1789 living near Floyd's Creek (remember Arthur, Jr. is still in Baltimore in 1790). In the 1800 tax roll, Arthur is still living near Floyd's Creek, he can only be Arthur of John. The Estate records for Arthur, Jr. are found in Baltimore Co., MD where he died intestate in 1803.

    In summary, it takes a very convoluted logic to believe that Arthur, Jr. wooed and married in Virginia, while his siblings and land holdings were in Baltimore. That he raised his family in Virginia, still receiving land from his father in Baltimore and enlisting to fight the Revolutionary War from Maryland. That, when his two brothers, John and Samuel, do finally move down to Berkeley County, he skedaddled to Kentucky, and seamlessly replaced the Arthur of John who moved there some ten years earlier. That the Arthur of John then vaporizes; and he, his wife and his children leave no trace or record. And that Arthur, Jr. joins in community with the family of John(2) already there, and never again associates with his siblings from Baltimore, and now Virginia. On top of all this you have to deny the recording of his date of birth in the bible record.

    On the other hand, if you say that Arthur(3) of Kentucky is the son of John(2), everything falls into a natural order. Arthur leaves Virginia, between 1782 and 1786, probably with his newly married sister Elizabeth Stuart. There they join siblings Rachel and Richard along with their nephew William. Elizabeth dies and Arthur administers her will and stays in the Jefferson Co., area until the early 1820, went he moves with sons and his son-in-law Benjamin Irvin to Bartholomew Co., IN. Moreover that dates fit easily into the framework of JOHN(2).

    The database has been corrected to reflect this 'correction'.

  16. ARTHUR(3), Jr.: [Hiatt page 79, Harris page: 283] When Cora Hiatt turned to connect the Maryland Arthur lines together, she only had one Arthur to deal with because she had mistakenly placed Arthur, Jr. in Kentucky. Her proofs of connection between the Arthur who married Ann Beasman and Richard's son, Arthur, are not known, but this placement is incorrect. The website re-alignment of the Arthur in Kentucky to be Arthur, the son of John(2), reverted Arthur, Jr. back to Maryland, and raised the curious question as to what happened to him. His life is very much in evidence in dealings between he and his siblings and his father. When one examines the early locations of the two Baltimore families, that of Arthur(2) and Richard(2), Arthur is found in the west near Reisterstown, in the Soldiers Delight 100, boarding the Pipe Creek 100. In 1790, the first Census, an Arthur is found here with a large family along with the other children of Arthur(2). Here also are located the Baxter, Butler and Gist families that associated with the Arthur who married Ann Beasman in 1758 and Arthur(2)'s daughter Ruth. Nine miles to the east in the Middle and Back River Upper 100s, are Richard's families. Here in 1773 tax rolls, an Arthur is found, living as a single man with Richard, Jr. There is a marriage of an Arthur to a Cassandra Bosley on March 24, 1784 that by date is only easily attributed to one of the two second generation Arthurs in Baltimore. This Arthur appears to settle east near Harford Co., a location that appears to be associated with Richard's lines.

    The picture presented is that the Arthur who married earlier and associates with the families of Arthur(2) should be both Arthur, Jr. and the Arthur that married Ann Beasman. The Arthur who married later and associates with the families of Richard(2) should be both Richard's son, Arthur, and the Arthur that married Cassandra Bosley. There are claims in studies of other Baltimore families that support just this structure. In examining this problem, Jane Ryan, a descendant in this line of Arthur and Ann Beasman, found that this Arthur died intestate in 1803 and that in the purchase of property, which his children inherited, he was known as Arthur, Jr. Moreover in land dealings known to belong to Arthur, Jr, Jane has found that his wife was Ann. These latter documents also indicate that Ann(a) Beasman was alive on 31 October 1777. Ann must have died shortly after this as by the Bible of Arthur's son Richard Beasman, Arthur also married Delilah Bosley Helms on 29 July 1778. Richard's Arthur in turn married Cassandra Bosley sisters. This structural change has been in the website database.

  17. Cora's William: [Hiatt page 131, Harris page: 294] At one point in our work together, Peter Chenoweth suggested to me that the William who married Sarah Baxter to found the lines of William Thomas and John Baxter that settled in Randolph Co., IN, might be William(4), the son of the Arthur who married Ann Beasman. This is Cora Hiatt's own line and the original genesis of her book. At the time, though I agreed with the possibility that this could be true, I saw no way it could be proved, nor did I see that it made a great deal of difference. Both after all were Williams in the line of Richard(2), one the uncle of the other. One was a dead end and one was a very strong line. Moreover, this was Cora's own line. Was it possible that Cora was wrong about her own placement within the family?

    Cora Hiatt gave her William to be as the son of Richard. This was not family knowledge that had been passed down. When she became involved in writing her book she determined at some point her William was the son of Richard. There were three William Chenoweths of somewhat similar age in Baltimore County at the time. Current research indicates that she was incorrect in this choice and that her William is more likely William the son of Arthur, Jr. No absolute proof has been found to prove or disprove her claim, but evidence makes Cora's choice unlikely.

    Cora Hiatt said that William(3), the youngest son of Richard, was born in 1758. No documented date for any child of Richard has ever been found. Circumstances are likely that he was born about 1753. Outside of Cora Hiatt, what is known about specifically about Richard's son, William, is that he was over the age of 16 in 1773, that he was alive when his father died in 1781, and that he did not share in the four way division of Richard's lands, but was to be compensated in turn by each of his four brothers. In the ensuing years between from 1781 to 1794 he is found in Harford Co., MD to the east of where Richard lived and in an area that other children of Richard gravitated. In Cora Hiatt's version he settled near Hampstead, in a part of Baltimore Co. that later became Carroll Co., and that he married Sarah Baxter, the daughter of Greenbury Baxter and Charity Lane.

    William(4), the son of Arthur and Ann Beasman Chenoweth, was born July 13, 1763. He was alive when his father died in 1802. Cora Hiatt says he married Elizabeth Baxter, another daughter of Greenbury Baxter and Charity Lane. Richard Harris says no, Elizabeth Baxter married Arthur(4), William's brother, and William married Sarah Baxter of unknown parentage. Thus the accounts are conflicting. What is known is that three children of Greenbury Baxter and Charity Lane married Chenoweths: Samuel Baxter married Sarah Chenoweth, Elizabeth Baxter married Arthur Chenoweth and Sarah Baxter married William Chenoweth. Sarah and Arthur are siblings, and if William is William(4), then he too is a sibling.

    With the restructuring above in between the third generation Arthurs of Maryland, this realignment between the Williams takes on a wholly different character. Now instead of a slight shift between lines and generations of Richard(2), moving Cora's William from William(3) to William(4), shifts this entire line to that of Arthur(2), a realignment of massive proportions. The proposition is that it becomes a better fit. William who marries in 1793, now is 28 not 35-40. Three Baxter sisters and brother marry three Chenoweth brothers and sister. The Hampstead, Carroll Co. locale more closely aligns with the known locations of Arthur(2). Every record found supports that fact William is indeed the son of Arthur, Jr., including two land transactions. One shows that wife of William, the son of Arthur, Jr. to be named Sarah. (Sarah Baxter?). The other shows that in 1783 a William owned part of a property called Rochester (located in what would later be Carroll Co.) while eight years later a William and Thomas in Harford County (thought to be Richard's children by their location) are insolvent. Based on this evidence, the database has been corrected to reflect William as the son of Arthur. Jr.

  18. ISAAC J.(4): [Hiatt page 71, Harris page: 231 & 392]

    On page 71 under the line of James Bruce, Cora Hiatt gives a confused listing of children John B and Isaac. This Isaac is actually Isaac J. Son of Isaac(3) William(2) and his son James Walton (J.W.). The children are mixed in generations. Harris has corrected these misplaced people to their correct place on page 392. Harris failed to identify Isaac Edwin the son of James Bruce, whose family Cora misrepresented. That Isaac is found in this unknown listing of Isaac on page 608. Isaac(3) of William is not listed in Hiatt. Isaac J. is the proven son of Isaac by Berkeley Co. deeds.

  19. James, Thomas, Joseph, John: [Hiatt page 77, Harris page: 255] On page 77 Cora adds the names of James, Thomas, Joseph and John as children of James Marelya Chenoweth. They are not. They and the following description of descendants are misplaced and duplications of children of the same name of James(5) Thomas(4) Richard(3) John(2). Harris repeats Cora's error.



Harris departures:

[Derryberrys] [Beekmans] [Hales] [Elizabeth(4)] [Opal and Norma] [James Hampton]
[Harvey R.][Margaret Columber][Claude Drake][Arthur(4)]
[Absolom(3)][Mary(3)] [William(3) of Thomas]
[Richard of Knox Co.][Samuel misplaced as the s/o Joel] [Priscilla Hitt misplaced as the w/o Samuel]
[Thornton(6)]


    daughter omissions:

  1. THE DERRYBERRYS: Harris omits a 7th child of Benjamin Franklin Chenoweth(4) Thomas(3) Thomas(2). This child was Sarah Chenoweth b: March 26, 1830 who married Henry Alexander Derryberry. Her sister Elizabeth married Henry's brother, John A. Derryberry. Bobbie Glyn Derryberry has documented in his book "The Derryberry Families in America" that are his ancestors. The web site has corrected this omission, as has the Harris addendum.

  2. THE BEEKMANS: Catherine Chenoweth(5), the daughter of Joseph(4) Arthur(3) Thomas(2). She married Oliver Perry Beekman on April 14, 1844 in Pike Co., OH, documented by a family Bible. This information comes from a descendant, Ed Pennisten, of Ohio.

  3. THE HALES: Elizabeth Chenoweth, daughter of John(3) Richard(2). She married Thomas Hale, a Haile cousin from the line of Nicholas Haile, and went with both the Chenoweths and the Hales to Tennessee. Besides the fact that the Chenoweth and Hale families were tightly bound (John(3), married Frances Haile), Elizabeth and Thomas named their first two children Francis and John after Elizabeth's parents, Archibald after her brother, and the 4th child was named Chenoweth Hale. In the 1850 census of Washington Co., TN, a Fannie Chenoweth is found living with Elizabeth Hale. This is mostly like Elizabeth's sister, Sarah Francis, who never married. This placement is from the work of Susan Ann Chinowth, James Ernest Hale and Denzil Mauldin

    other corrections:

  4. OPAL AND NORMA: [Harris pages: 185 & 527] Another departure is the placement of Opal and Norma given by Harris as daughters of Charles W. Blair(7) Albert W (6) Henry S(5) James(4) John(3) John(2) under Carl R(7) Thomas Newton(6) Thomas N(5) Thomas C(4) Elijah(3) Thomas(2). This is verified by the 1920 Census for Missouri.

  5. JAMES HAMPTON: [Harris page: 153] Harris lists James Hampton Chenoweth b: April 07, 1848 as a son of Joseph Chenoweth and Bethany Dunevant. He was actually born a year earlier on April 07, 1847 and is a son of Thomas Benjamin Chenoweth (a 1st cousin to Joseph) and Matilda Winfield. This corrected placement comes from the research of Greg Wulker, who is a descendant of Joseph. James Hampton is listed in the 1860 Indiana Census at age 12 with his father, Thomas Benjamin, and stepmother, Minerva Johnson.

  6. HARVEY R.: [Harris page: 497] Harris places Harvey R. Chenoweth b: October 05, 1821 as a child of Jacob Chenoweth and Charlotta Cabe. This is in the line of the misplaced William S. (see 5 above). But Emily is the oldest child, and Elias the second child, of the family of Jacob and Charlotte. Harvey R. belongs to John Chenoweth and his wife and cousin, Elizabeth S. Chenoweth, per research of Rosella Vohs. Elizabeth was a sister to Jacob, so that Harvey R remains in the line of William S., but because of the cousin marriage, he also joins the line of John(5) William(4) John(3) John(2) John(1). Harris does indeed have a Harvey R. listed for this family, but he has no continuation. That continuation is of course Harvey's marriage to Sarah Ann Copner, given on page 497.

  7. MARGARET COLUMBER: [Harris page: 528] Harris places Margaret Columber as a child of John Foster and Margaret Ferguson, indicating that her middle name might have been Columbia. Actually she was a Columber, orphaned by the death of her parents and staying with The Chenoweths in the 1850 Madison County Census of Ohio. This is from research by Valerie Auld of Kansas, a descendant of Margaret Columber and Elijah Horn. Her name on that marriage license was Margaret Cullumber

  8. Claude Drake: [Harris page: 409] Harris has Claude Drake married to the wrong Grace Chenoweth. The correct Grace is on page 246, GRACE8 CHENOWETH (CHARLES NELSON7, WILLIAM C.6, WILLIAM5, THOMAS4, ABSOLOM3, WILLIAM2, JOHN1)

  9. ARTHUR(4) [Harris page: 345] Harris has Arthur (4) Arthur(3) of Kentucky ... married to Ann Clark with two children. Jonathan Paul, a web cousin, has strong arguments that the wife of this Arthur was Elizabeth Edmonson, his ancestor, with 9 children. Arthur(4) was in Kentucky with his parents. He never was in Baltimore to marry Ann Clark, as Harris suggests. The evidence Jonathan gives is compelling, including the marriage certificate and two census listings of this family of Arthur and Elizabeth that match the times and places of Arthur(4). Moreover the exchange places several lost, or unknown Chenoweths, listed in Harris, including Havilah Chenoweth, directly in the line of Arthur(3). Peter Chenoweth has concurred with this placement and the web site has listed Elizabeth Edmonson and her children as the family of Arthur, Jr. [Note part of this problem, lies in the original misplacement of Arthur(3) of Kentucky]. It now known that that the correct Arthur for the Ann Clark marriage is: Arthur(4) Richard(3) Arthur(2), a Baltimore line.

  10. SAMUEL(4) of Baltimore [Harris page: 294] Harris has a number of children listed for this Samuel s/o Joseph and mentions Kentucky. This is a confusion with Samuel(4) s/o Jonathan. The only known child of this Samuel who married Elizabeth Shipley is Elizabeth Patterson Chenoweth.

    Added developments:

  11. ABSOLOM(3): s/o William [Harris page: 385] Harris states that nothing is known about Absolom(3) William(2) other than he is in the will of William(2) and co-executor of his brother Joseph's will. But information has recently come to light. Absolom's marriage to Anne Hayes, sister to Sinah Hayes, who married Absolom's brother, Joseph, was uncovered by Greg Wulker's efforts, through Hayes family researchers. Absolom, well into his sixties, went late in life to Clark Co., OH with Anne. Here, he left a small estate in 1823. His wife Anne survived him. A Nancy Chenoweth, probable daughter, witnessed the estate. Though the estate did not mention his children directly, he had probably long since settled with his sons. Various members of this William(2) had a custom of not mentioning married daughters in wills. However traces of this family can be found by locality and family associations and by Berkeley County marriage records. This reconstructed family is thought to be:

    ABSOLOM3 CHENOWETH (WILLIAM2, JOHN1) was born Abt. 1747 in Virginia, and died Abt. 1823 in Clark Co., OH. He married ANNE HAYES, daughter of JOHN HAYS and JEAN/JANE ?. She was born Bet. 1742 - 1762, and died Aft. 1823.

    Children of ABSOLOM CHENOWETH and ANNE HAYES are:

    1. WILLIAM CHENOWETH, b. September 06, 1786; d. January 01, 1838, Clark Co., OH; m. SARAH BANES, April 13, 1813, Champaign Co., OH; b. Abt. 1793, Virginia; d. August 25, 1871, Champaign Co., OH.
    2. ELEANOR 'NELLIE' CHENOWETH, b. Abt. 1788, Berkeley Co., VA (now WV); d. 1837, Hancock Co., OH; m. JOSHUA BALDWIN, October 29, 1806, Berkeley Co., VA (now WV); b. Abt. 1779, Berkeley Co., VA (now WV); d. 1853, Findlay, Hancock Co., OH.
    3. JANE CHENOWETH, b. Bet. 1779 - 1790; m. GEORGE JENNINGS, September 06, 1808, Berkeley Co., VA (now WV); b. Bet. 1770 - 1790.
    4. NANCY CHENOWETH, b. Bet. 1779 - 1800.

    In the 1820 census there are 3 Chenoweths in Clark Co., OH: Absolom, Thomas and William. No other Chenoweth settled in Clark County until later periods. Also in this same county was the Banes family of Anne's sister, Sinah, who was the widow of Absolom's brother, Joseph. Absolom, William and the Banes lived in close proximity near Moorefield. This appears to be a grouping of closely related families.

    Nancy of course, is the witness of her mother Anne's mark in the estate papers. She is also mentioned in Ohio county histories as the sister of William. This William married Sarah Banes, the daughter of the widow of Joseph Chenoweth, Sinah Hayes, who married second, Dr. Evan Banes. This would be a 2nd cousin marriage. William and Sarah settled in Clark County with the Banes family and is listed in the same 1820 Census as Absolom in that county.

    Of the 5 children, 3 married in Berkeley Co., VA before coming to Ohio: Thomas, Eleanor and Jane. The dates of the marriages range from 1801 to 1807. In the marriage of Jane, Absolom is given as the surretor. In the marriage of Eleanor, the surretor is a William. Eleanor is given in Ohio county histories as a daughter of an Absolom Chenoweth. Among her children are found names: William, Absolom, Amy Jane (or Anny Jane) and Sarah, all corresponding to this same family grouping. Jane's children are just as telling: Absolum C., Amy Jane, Sarah Jane, and Nancy C. Names of the children of Thomas also correspond: William, Nancy and Eleanor. A more detailed study of the placement of Thomas is given above.

    The database has been corrected to reflect this 'correction'.

  12. MARY(3) d/o William [Harris page: 385] Harris states that nothing more is known. Greg Wulker's work with the estate records of William show that Mary married Abraham Sutton, a neighbor of Mary's uncle Thomas. Mary and Abraham would go to Ft Cumberland and then Washington Co., PA and found a large family. The Sutton lines have undergone intense research including recent work by Mary Lou Hermiller.

  13. WILLIAM(3) of Thomas [pages: Hiatt 93; Harris 494]: Since Harris was wrong in his description of William, son of Thomas, what happened to William? We know his date of birth, from the family bible records of the Thomas group, to be May 03, 1760, and that the family tradition was that he fought in the Revolutionary War with 4 of his brothers. In the 1790 census of Mason Co., KY, William is clearly there with his brothers: John, Thomas, Richard and Elijah. Then, a year later, in 1791, in a land listing, we have this detail: "1791—Wm. Chenowith, age 31, Mary his wife age 20 and Michael his son age 2. (lease land in Mason co. A-44)". The age, location and fact that he was the only William of that age in Mason Co., KY tell us that this is William of Thomas. The recollections of the Thomas(2) descendants tell us that William, alone of the siblings, stayed in Mason Co., KY after the rest of the family crossed the Ohio River into the Scioto Valley. Indeed, though he disappears in 1800, William is there in both the 1810 and 1820 Census:

     
    1810 Census for Mason Co., KY 
    Chinneth, William
    1 – B-10 (male)
    2 – 10-16 (male)
    1 – 26-45 (male) (William himself b:1760 =50)
    1 – B-10 (female)
    1 – 10-16 (female) 
    1 – 16-28 (female)
    1 – 26-45 (female) (his wife, Mary b:1771 =39)
    
    1820 census for Mason Co., KY lists:
    Chenoweth, William
    1 – 16-18 (male)
    1 – 18-26 (male)
    1 – 45 - + (male) (William himself b:1760 = 60)
    1 10-16 (female)
    1 45-+ (female) (his wife, Mary b:1771 = 49)
    

    In 1819, William is a witness at the marriage of Mercy Chenoweth (his presumed daughter) in Mason Co., KY, to Thornton Ellis. On January 01, 1820, a Thomas marries in Mason Co. to Mary 'Polly' Dix. Thomas would be a natural name for a son of William. There are no other known Chenoweths in Mason Co., KY at this point. The Census data indicates that William and Mary had at least 5 children, 3 sons and 2 daughters. This is the first beginnings of the real family of William(3), son of Thomas.

  14. ELIZABETH4: [Harris pages: 140 & 57 - LINE JOHN3 JOHN2] Mentioned by Hiatt, because she is in the will of John3, her father, Elizabeth is known to have married a Monroe. The Harris book gives her husband, as John Monroe, based, perhaps, on the fact that John Monroe was a witness to John's will. However the Monroe Family has this records as Elizabeth married Alexander Monroe, Jr. on March 19, 1782 in Frederick Co., VA. There were at least 5 children from this marriage. T his date places Elizabeth as born much earlier that Cora Hiatt claimed. But a look at Cora's listing shows that she followed the order of children as listed in the will. In this instance, the common practice of listing the sons first and the daughters last was used. Hiatt's dates in this citation are not reliable.

  15. RICHARD OF KNOX CO.: [Harris pages: 249] Richard was born in Baltimore. He had two wives and two separate families, one in Maryland and one in Tennessee spanning a period of 47 years between the first and last child. This is known by his will, which he wrote in 1821 in Knox Co., TN, seven years before his death. He mentions children of both marriages and locations as well as both wives in this will. But Hiatt did not give the life of Richard of Knox Co. and the Harris book places him as a son of John3 Richard2.

    This placement was primarily based on the fact that the families of John3 had started migrating to Tennessee before the turn of the 19th century. But that was to Washington Co. and this Richard came about 1812 to Knox Co., TN, 106 miles to the SW. There is no indication that he had any connections to the Washington County Chenoweths. Indeed John had a son Richard, known by the will of John's father, Richard2, who mentions Richard, his grandson, from his recently deceased son John. But there are date problems with this placement and Harris discusses these on page 249. The grandson Richard mentioned in the 1781 will by Richard2, was not yet 21, placing his birth after 1760. Yet in the description of Richard of Knox Co., he serves in the Revolution in 1776 as a 2nd Lt. and marries in 1779. The descendants of this Richard place his date of birth as 1755, a date that seems reasonable when balancing between these early dates in Maryland and the birth of his last son in 1827. The dates cited appear to preclude consideration of John's son, Richard, a minor in 1781.

    So who is this Richard? The dates and Baltimore locations give us two choices, the 3rd generation Richards of Richard2 and Arthur2. Both are alive and in Baltimore at the time of the deaths of their fathers, in 1781 and 1802 respectively. Virtually nothing is known as to what happens to either. Both could fit the profile. But the military service described by Hiatt for Richard of Arthur is the same identified with Richard of Knox Co. At first the dates seem a problem as the 1744 for Richard of Arthur and 1734 for Richard, Jr. would seem too old for a man fathering a child in 1827. But the question is really, where did Cora Hiatt get these dates?

    There is an increasing problem with the dates given for Richard2's marriage and children by Cora Hiatt. None of these dates has been found on any document. In 1737, Richard is living with this father and 3 of his other brothers. John, the oldest, married in 1730 and has a separate dwelling. There is no indication that Richard is married at this point in 1737, though Hiatt gives the birth of the first child, Richard, Jr., as 1734. The earliest sighting of Kezia (Casiah) as Richard's wife is in 1744 as a witness in a Quaker marriage at the Gunpowder MM. The marriage dates of at least his sons Arthur and Thomas would indicate that they were not as old as Hiatt claimed. Could it be that Richard, Jr. is much younger than Hiatt claimed? From what is known, his date of birth could fall anywhere between 1739 and 1755. The main argument for Richard, Jr. would be the same as applied to the mistaken placement by Harris, it was a family of Richard2, by his son John, that went to Tennessee, albeit to Washington Co.

    The date of Arthur's Richard is equally open. Of all the sons of Arthur's Richard's is the only one not recorded by his father at St. Thomas Parish. Hiatt gives 1744, but, again, where did she get this? There is an interesting result in assuming a 1755 date for this Richard, and a number of known parallels between Arthur's Richard and Richard of Knox Co. Actually there were two unrecorded children in Arthur's family. Richard and Ruth, a supposed younger daughter, with a date cited as 1756. The 1755 date for Richard would make him one of the two youngest children and a more natural occurrence for a failure to record the two youngest than skipping one in 1744 and then failing to insert it in the several following times that Arthur recorded births of his later children. In making Richard the youngest son, the fact that he was the executor of the will, fits a pattern already seen in the will of John1, the progenitor, when he used Thomas, his youngest son, as executor. Richard of Arthur is known to have had a daughter Elizabeth, and a recent listing of the births of all the children of Richard of Knox Co., taken from information that is obviously sourced from a family bible, adds a daughter Elizabeth to the known children of Richard of Knox Co. This comes from Bill Close who got this list of dates and children from a study done by his grandfather, Walker Eugene McBath (1874-1963), who in turn got from his uncle, Bartley Russell McBath (1855-1935), a child of Eliza Jane. The Maryland side came from Miss F.E. Gregory, of Florida, a descendant of Sarah Ann Chenoweth and Ralph Gregory who exchanged information with Walker Eugene McBath.

    This Elizabeth is the right age to be the Elizabeth who married George Keyser in Baltimore. A look at the naming of children by Richard of Knox Co. has an "Arthurish" flavor to it as it includes names that are only found in Arthur lines this early: Joshua, Absolom, and Saphirah. It also includes a son Arthur.

    Jane Ryan, in looking for the proofs of Richard, has confirmed that he is indeed the son of Arthur by the following land transaction:

    This transaction tied Arthur's original land to the Richard who married Eleanor Askew. It adds another dimension, that Eleanor was not dead when Richard started his family with Ellen.

    A recent contribution from James Eippert of Rocky River, OH, a descendant of Richard's Tennessee daughter, Henrietta, sheds even more light on this situation. In a letter written by Richard's Baltimore grandson, Arthur b: November 18, 1833, Arthur wrote in part: "I am 63 years old. I am the son of Wm Chenoweth who was the son of Richard Chenoweth all of Balto County. My Grandfather was married to Ellen Asque of Delaware September 14th, 1776. My Father was born March 9th 1791, died April 13th 1853. My Grandfather owned considerable property in this County. He left here sometime about 1812 or before. He made several trips to Tennessee and returned and after Grand Mother died he returned and got his housekeeper and they left here on horse back for Tennessee were (where) they were married."

    This indeed may be the reason that the Tennessee marriage record of Richard and Ellen reads January 14, 1823. This record was commonly held to be an error by researchers as it fell after Richard's will of 1821. But in the will Richard used a rather strange terminology when addressing both his "wives", Eleanor and Ellen, by preceding each name with this phrase "wife or companion". And so the story unfolds, and the puzzle of Richard and why he went late in life to Tennessee seems to be solved.

    An even more detailed account of these activities was found by Dorinda Shepley in the Chancery Court proceedings of Frederick Co. This wonderful detail includes a description of Arthur's original lands.

    The website is being adjusted to reflect Richard as the son of Arthur2.

  16. Lloyd s/o Lyman: [Harris pages: 429-30] On page 430 Harris describes a Lloyd who died in Seattle as the son of Lyman. This is wrong. The son of Lyman was Lloyd Alder b: July 25, 1880 in DeWitt Co., IL and died May 01, 1973 in North Carolina. The Lloyd Harris describes is Lloyd Atlas Chenoweth b: August 03, 1882 in Marion, IL who died as Harris said in Seattle. According to his death certificate Lloyd Atlas was the son of John Chenoweth and Mary Ward, based on the recollection of his son, Jim. This was puzzling until the SSA application of Lloyd Atlas was obtained by Peter Chenoweth. There Lloyd stated he was the son of James Chenoweth and Mary Cash. This is LLOYD ATLAS9 CHENOWETH (JAMES M.8, WILLIAM7, JAMES FRANCIS6, JAMES FRANCIS5, NICHOLAS RUXTON4, THOMAS3, JOHN2, JOHN1).

  17. Samuel Chenoweth s/o Reason Shriver: [Harris pages: 448 & 581 misplaced] Harris rightly gives Samuel as a son of Reason Shriver found with this family in the 1850 Census of Ohio. But no further information is available. However this Samuel is also listed on page 581 with the family of Joel. Indeed this is where he is found in the 1860 Census in Louisa Co., IA with his mother, Mary Elizabeth Vinson, the widow of Reason Shriver Chenoweth. Recent research has shown that this was the Mrs. Mary Chenoweth that Joel went back to Pike Co., OH to wed after his first wife, Harriet McNatton, died. The knowledge of who Mary was explains the "extra children" that appear in the 1860 Census that combines Joel's family with the youngest children of Mary. It is probably that the eight-year old Mary Chenoweth, who has been misinterpreted as a twin to Rebecca Ann, is also a child of Mary Elizabeth Vinson and Reason Shriver Chenoweth. This explains why these two children are not included in Joel's list of his children with his wife Harriet.

  18. Priscilla Hitt: [Harris pages: 414 misplaced] Harris lists Priscilla Hitt as the wife of Samuel Chenoweth, the son of John Chenoweth and Mary Van Buskirk, also giving that Samuel Hitt was the father of Priscilla. The first statement is wrong, the second, right. According to Marilyn Thomas, a great granddaughter of Samuel, he married Sarah Wilmot, the daughter of Robert Wilmot who had come to Kentucky from Maryland. They had one daughter correctly listed in Harris as Mary Ann who married Napoleon Koscialowski. After Samuel's death, Sarah remarried to Samuel Hitt and their daughter was Priscilla, half sister to Mary Ann.

  19. Alexander Thornton(6) presumed son of Julia Ann Dickey: On page 376 Harris notes that a grandson Thornton is mentioned in the will of Samuel, Jr. This Thornton is found in the 1850 Census of Berkeley Co., VA (now WV) working as a carpenter. This matches with the Alexander T. Chenoweth, in age, state, and occupation who shows up in 1860 in Wayne Co., OH and in 1870 in Chicago, IL married to Elizabeth Eshleman. Harris found Elizabeth in the 1880 Census widowed and living in California with her children. Unaware of the earlier Censuses he listed the family as unknown on page U601. A close examination of Samuel's family gives only one likely child to be Thornton's parent, Samuel's daughter Julia Ann Dickey. As confirmation, Thornton was granted $100 in the will as a share of the $500 dollars Samuel gave to each of his 2 daughters. Julia received the balance, $400, or at least this appears to be the most logical explanation of the terms of the will. [will of Samuel, jr.]. Julia Ann , age 17, when Thornton was born, would later marry William Kerney and then John George Ramsburg. The father of Thornton is unknown.



Other Disputes:

[Samuel] [Sarah m: Moses Sutton] [Mary m: Abraham Sutton] [James D.]
[Jane d/o Richard][Isaac N(ewton), Arkansas]


  1. SAMUEL [Hiatt page 55, Harris pages: 80 & 126] In omitting Jonathan(4) and seven of his 8 children, there is the curious question of the children of Samuel Chenoweth, who married Nancy/Elizabeth Orr. Peter Chenoweth, Mary Padden, and Greg Nelson, all tireless researchers, place the eight children of Samuel as Samuel(5) from Jonathan(4). Both Hiatt and Harris place these children under Samuel(4) directly under William(3), John(2). Hiatt gives Samuel the date of birth of 1780 [note William(3) died in 1772], Harris gives Samuel(4) as 1770 and Samuel(5) as 1783. Because of the skip, Hiatt had no Samuel(5) to work with, as he was one of the missing children lost in the generation skip above.

    Harris gives the wife of Samuel(4) as Nancy Orr, married in 1806 in Logan Co., KY and the wife of Samuel(5) as Elizabeth Orr, married in 1810 in Logan Co., KY. Harris places the eight children under Samuel(4) and, on page 17, states that nothing is known of Samuel(5) other than the marriage. But in his own words Harris writes "Samuel, listed ... as William's son, is attributed to him by Cora Chenoweth Hiatt on page 48 (sic: should be 55) of her 'History of the Chenoweth Family'. This Samuel goes on to have a verifiable history of his own, but no mention of him is made by William in his will, a document that is otherwise most thorough. The evidence that Mrs. Hiatt used is unknown, but the discrepancy deserves further investigation, and hopefully, clarification."

    Recently, Greg Nelson, discovered this date of 1780, attributed to Samuel by his grandson Creed in his family bible. It is believed that Creed submitted much of the knowledge of the children of Samuel to Cora Hiatt for her book [most of her knowledge came from letters from descendants], but skipped Jonathan(4) in the process.

    The website database placement of the children is Samuel(5) and is a departure from Harris and Hiatt. Part of the key to this dispute is Samuel's age. Being a son of William would place him about 10 years older than being a son of Jonathan. While some question whether Samuel(4) existed, (he is not mentioned in William's careful will of 1772), the confusion is heightened by the 1810 Census of Logan Co., KY.

          SAMUEL Chinneth         SAMUEL Chinneth
          2 m < 10                2 m <10
          1 m 10-16               1 m > 45
          1 m 16-25
          1 f < 10                1 f 10-16
          1 f 16-25               1 f 26-45
    
    In the 1820 Census there is only one Samuel listed. This listing appears to be the younger of the two Samuels listed 1810.

          SAMUEL 
          4 m < 10
          1 m 10-15
          1 m 27-45
          1 f < 10
          1 f 27-45
    

    In the Hill Grove Baptist Church of Meade Co., KY, June 29, 1822 there is a listing of a Chloe Chenoweth [probably widow of Jonathan(4)], Samuel Chinaweth and wife Nancy [probably Samuel(5)], and Robert Simmons and wife, Chloe [Samuel's sister Chloe and her husband]. This appears to associate the Samuel who married Nancy (Orr) with his mother Chloe and sister Chloe Simmons.

    In the 1830 Census, Samuel appears to have moved to Pike Co., IL. It is thought that Samuel(5) died April 15, 1836 in Illinois or Missouri. One should note that all of the listed children of Samuel that have known lines to the present day were born after 1810 and would correspond somewhat closely with the listing in 1820. But what are there 2 listings for Samuel in 1810 and what of the older children?

    This observation of records from Greg Nelson adds another slant. "[Jonathan grants] 200 acres on Muddy Creek in Logan County on Nov 7, 1804, to Nancy Orr. Samuel and Nancy were married on December 22, 1806. Samuel and Nancy sold part of her property to Richard Bibb, Sr., in 1808. Apparently Nancy was a neighbor of Jonathan's and fell in love and married his son Samuel."

    It may well be that Nancy was married prior to an Orr or her parents died and left her as a head of household for her siblings. The Census data indicated children too old for the marriage. they are likely Orrs as all of what we know of Samuel's children today are younger that either the 1806 or 1810 marriage date and "stray" older Chenoweths of Samuel who would account for the listing have not appeared.

  2. THE SUTTONS [Harris page: 465] Harris gives the marriage of Sarah Chenoweth the daughter of Arthur(4) Richard(3) Thomas(2) to Moses Sutton. In the same light, the evidence, that Joyce Wiegand has uncovered on the estate of Richard(3) (cited above in Hiatt mistakes: "ABSOLOM of ARTHUR(3)"), would indicate that this Sarah was, in all likelihood, dead in 1848, and Mrs. Sarah Chenoweth Sutton was very much alive. For a time, Sarah and her marriage to Moses Sutton was tentatively placed in the line of Arthur(4) Arthur(3) Richard(2). This Arthur, who married Elizabeth Baxter, is said to have gone to Ohio before 1820. Though Arthur's children are not known, the line of Sarah and Moses Sutton is very long, and two of their sons have the given name Baxter and Stansbury, tying them to a line under Richard(2). This placement, appears to be wrong as well. We presently believe this Arthur was in Brooke Co., VA (now WV) in 1810 and is the Arthur who went to Harrison Co., OH in the 1820 Census. There is no daughter that would match Sarah's age in the 1810 census. Two other marriages of daughters of Richard(3) are wrong as well. Ruth married Samuel Findley not James McCalb and Martha married John Davis. See Arthur III for further information

  3. The Suttons of Mary Not found in Hiatt or Harris is a marriage between Mary Chenoweth b: March 22, 1744 and Abraham Sutton in Frederick Co., VA. The names and dates come from a Bible Record of their son David, clearly delineating Mary as a Chenoweth. Abraham Sutton, a Baptist minister from a family of ministers, lived on property that adjoined Thomas(2) on Back Creek in Frederick Co. in the 1750s. Though Thomas had a daughter Mary, her birth, known by the bible of Thomas, is later and different from Abraham's wife Mary. But clearly Abraham Sutton is associated with the Virginia Chenoweths. John(2)'s daughter Mary appears to be the wife of Levi Ashbrook and, though there is no real record of this, it appears right. That would leave William(2)'s daughter Mary as the only possibly Mary that could be born this early. Almost nothing is known of William's daughters. They are names in William's will without their marriages. Moreover Cora Hiatt knew little about William's line and incorrectly gave the daughters dates that would make them very young. Greg Wulker however found the name of Mary Sutton in the estate papers of William and this seems to confirm that, indeed, the Mary Chenoweth who married Abraham Sutton was the daughter of William(2) and Ann. This would make her their first born child and fit about a year after their marriage. This Sutton line has been included in the family database.

  4. JAMES D [Harris page: 506] The James D. Chenoweth, given as a son of William, the son of William S., is not right. This information was a tentative placement as suggested by Greg Wulker to the Harris'. The key reasoning was that James was in Allen Co., OH where William S. had died and James had named a son Casper Newton. Casper is a unique name in the Chenoweth family. There are two other occurrences of this name found. One was a son of William S, as a name sake for his father-in-law, Casper Rinker. The other is found in the family of Elizabeth and John Chenoweth (a cousin marriage), where Elizabeth is the daughter of William S, and a brother to Casper. It was known that this William (the son of William S.) did have children, but their names are unknown. Later information turned out that William did not marry until 1825, 12 years after the birth of James D. So again researchers are faced with a puzzle.

    Researchers have looked at also Joseph, Jr., a nephew to William S., who also lived in Warren Co., OH where William S. first came to Ohio. Joseph, Jr. has 5 known children and there is ample room for James between the first and second know child. But when his wife, Nancy Ann James, died in August 25, 1857, she mentioned only 4 living children and James would become a 5th, as he did not die until June 13, 1868. Joseph or his children are not known to have gone to Allen Co.

    Though there were many Chenoweths in Ohio in the early 1800s, they generally can be sorted out by varying counties as to which general grouping they belong to. Recently Greg Wulker found an obit on James which stated that he came to Allen County at age 21 (ca. 1834) and was born in Warren Co. This is compelling evidence for a placement within the family of William S. as only his family was known to have been in both Warren and Allen Counties in this given time frame. The question become how he fits?

    The children of William S. are known by his will left when he died in 1838 in Allen Co. There is a Lewis listed among these children, who must certainly be alive in 1838 and who is thought to have been born about 1813. But no trace of this Lewis has ever been found. It is now thought that Lewis is somehow James and will be called James 'Lewis' in the database. This placement fits time, location and naming practices. It is not proven, but highly likely with no other likely solutions.

  5. JANE [Hiatt page 74, Harris page 216] Cora Hiatt states on page 74 that Jane, the daughter of Richard Chenoweth and Peggy McCarty, married an unknown Miller. Shirley Harris matched this to an April 22, 1793 Jefferson Co., KY marriage of a Jane Chenoweth and William Miller. But until recently, details have been unknown. Gary Watkins now added some facts to this marriage, and, in turn, created a question. Was the Jane that married William Miller a daughter of Richard(3) or his brother Arthur? Both had daughters named Jane. The dates of birth for both are similar. But the bondsman on the marriage certificate is that of Arthur Chenoweth, not Richard. John Chenowet,h s/o Arthur and brother to Arthur's Jane, in the Clark Co., Il Census is found next door to a William Millier. Illinois was a place were the older children of Arthur went, and not any of the lines of Richard. Yet a lawsuit filed over the estate of Richard Chenoweth in Kentucky names his daughter Jane Miller. Did both Janes marry Millers? Until further data is found there are mysteries here.

  6. ISAAC N [Harris page 443] Isaac N is listed in Harris with no continuation listed in the 1850 Census as 6 months old. Though not proven, it is probable that this son is the Isaac N b: September 1849 known from Joanna Gregg, a descendant who found him in the 1900 Sevier Co, AR Census. Isaac married Martha Jane Ellison on April 09, 1879 in Six-Mile Valley, Logan Co., AR. They had 6 children and the family spells its name Chineworth. They are found in the 1880 Census of Logan Co. and the 1910 Sevier Co., AR where Isaac is a widower

    Recently he has been found in the 1930 Census of Oklahoma, apparently remarried to a Caroline. In that Census he states that his father was born in Ohio and mother in Indiana. This lends credence to the belief that he is the son of Joseph(4) Thomas, Jr(3) Thomas(2) who lived in Taney Co., MO and had come from Indiana. Indeed Joseph was born in Ohio and Rose, though born in Kentucky, grew up to marry in Indiana. Moreover, in 1850, Joseph is the only male Chenoweth born in Ohio in Missouri that has been married long enough to have a son. This son Isaac is found with this family in the 1850, 1860 and 1870 Census, the first 2 in Taney Co. and the latter in Polk Co., MO. He is variously interpreted as "Isaac W." "I.N.", "J.M.".


    Assumed Placements:

    After 14 years of studying the Chenoweth family and building confidence by Census data as to the entite framework of Chenoweths in the United States, I have made a number of placements of unknowns listed by Harris with a great deal of confidence. These placements are not proven, but highly probably based on names, dates and places associated with each. All of these assumed placements are in families that moved west. To date we have never been able to crack the unknown linkages with in the families that remain unidentified in Baltimore, all believed to be part of the lines of Richard2 in some way. Though these placements are my best guess, I have been aided by many and assembling the data which permits me to make these identifications. I hope that someday that actual proof will be found. I am confident however that my “guesses” will be proven correct. All of these placements fit a jump from a known son to a married family, with a male that fits fits a son that left to go out on his own.

    [Arthur III of Ohio] [John of Texas] [John of Ohio] [John Wesley of Piatt Co., IL] [William R. of Oregon] [William, Jr. of Adam Co., OH]


    1. Arthur III of Ohio [Hiatt page 79, Harris page 283, U627] Cora Hiatt said Arthur went to Ohio. We know he married Elizabeth Baxter on November 25, 1791 in Baltimore Co., MD. Harris adds nothing to this, but does find what we believe to be Arthur's son Arthur IV and Robert in the unknown sections of his book. Both Bill and Ford Chinworth have been instrumental in helping to identify the family of Arthur who settled in Tuscarawas Co., OH by 1820 and his found there in the 1820 and 1830 Censuses and in neighboring Harrison Co. in 1840. We believe this Arthur is the same Arthur found in Brooke Co., VA (now WV) in 1810. This is the upward neck that boarders Ohio and the move west to Ohio a very short journey of less than 30 miles. In the same 1810 census, Arthur's sister Sarah married to John Baxter is found in Brooke Co. Arthur had married John's sister Elizabeth. There is no other Arthur that fits these circunstances and the link between Arthur and Sarah's Baxters helps the identification. It is possible that Elizabeth Baxter died and Arthur remarried given the birthdates of the known children some beginning 12 years after the marriage. The name of Arthur's wife in Ohio is unknown. If this is the case there is also a likelihood that the Sarah Chenoweth who was born June 28, 1793 in Baltimore Co., MD and married Moses Sutton, Jr. on January 27, 1814 in Licking Co., OH was a daughter of the marriage of Arthur and Elizabeth. Arthur's sister Sarah Chenoweth Baxter settled in neighboring Muskingum Co., OH. Sarah Chenoweth moses named many of her child with names associated with the Chenoweth family of Arthur, Jr. See: [Descendants of Arthur, III of Tuscarawas Co., OH]

      ARTHUR4 CHENOWETH III (ARTHUR3, ARTHUR2, JOHN1) was born April 15, 1768 in Baltimore Co., MD. He married (1) ELIZABETH BAXTER November 25, 1791 in Baltimore Co., MD, daughter of GREENBURY BAXTER and CHARITY LANE. She was born 1767 in Baltimore Co., MD. He married (2) ? Bef. 1804.

      Child of ARTHUR CHENOWETH and ELIZABETH BAXTER is:

      1. SARAH5 CHENOWETH, b. June 28, 1793, Baltimore Co., MD; d. June 14, 1866; m. MOSES SUTTON, JR., January 27, 1814, Licking Co., OH; b. December 27, 1786, Fayette Co., PA; d. September 23, 1865, Ottawa twp., Putnam Co., OH.

        Children of ARTHUR CHENOWETH and ? are:

      2. ARTHUR5 CHENOWETH IV, b. Abt. 1804, Virginia; d. February 11, 1886, Paulding Co., OH; m. MARY (MCCLISH) DELONG, October 09, 1828, Tuscarawas Co., OH; b. April 22, 1791, Ohio; d. April 16, 1876, Paulding Co., OH.
      3. ROBERT S. CHENOWETH, b. February 13, 1810, Virginia; d. January 04, 1879, Wabash Co., IN; m. (1) MARY ANNA 'ANN' PROVINES, April 16, 1835, Wayne Co., OH; b. April 23, 1814, Burgetstown, Washington Co., PA; d. September 07, 1862, Wabash Co., IN; m. (2) JANE (KEHLER) PITTENGER, November 12, 1862, Indiana; b. September 22, 1825, Ohio; d. February 15, 1921, Missouri Valley, Harrison Co., IA.
      4. ANN CHENOWETH, b. September 23, 1814, Pennsylvania; d. June 06, 1884, Urichsville, Tuscarawas Co., OH; m. WILLIAM B. LAIZURE, March 19, 1840, Harrison Co., OH; b. 1801, Beford Co., PA; d. Abt. 1865, Urichville, Tuscarawas Co., OH.
      5. MARGARET JANE CHENOWETH, b. Abt. 1816, Ohio; d. Aft. 1874; m. JOHN HENRY WARNER, October 08, 1835, Harrison Co., OH; b. Abt. 1813, Harrison Co., OH; d. February 07, 1874, Brown Co., KS.


    2. John of Texas [Hiatt page 86, Harris page 354, U615] Cora Hiatt lists a John as a son of Joshua. A John shows up in Texas in the 1850 Census, having come there before 1836 to participate in the War of Texas Succession. In this Census John says he is 49 and born in Pennsylvania. There were few Chenoweths in Pennsylvania in 1800, but Joshua, the son of John Chenoweth of Darksville, VA was one of them. His son John is the only known fit. John apparently was well off on his arrival he had money to pay for supplies and equiping his regiment. This wealth would also fit with a line from John(3)of Darksville. The biggest basis for this fit is the Pennsylvania birth location. See: [Texas: John M. m: Mrs. Elizabeth Reed] and [newsletter article]

      JOHN M.5 CHENOWETH (JOSHUA4, JOHN3, ARTHUR2, JOHN1) was born Abt. 1801 in Mercer Co., PA. He married (1) ? ?. She was born Aft. 1800, and died 1837 in Louisiana. He married (2) ELIZABETH N. ? December 21, 1847 in Washington Co., TX. She was born Abt. 1817 in Kentucky.

      Children of JOHN CHENOWETH and ELIZABETH ? are:

      1. JOHN6 CHENOWETH, b. Abt. 1848, Texas; m. FLORENCE ABLES; b. March 1857, Texas.
      2. VINCENT 'VINCE' CHENOWETH, b. Abt. 1849, Texas; m. FLORENCE 'FLORA' MAINES; b. May 1853, Texas.


    3. John of Ohio [Harris pages U610 & U614] In the 1850 Census of Vinton Co., OH, Ison has an 11 year old son son John. A John of similiar age marries Christina 'Christy Ann' Hall on August 09, 1860 in nearby Pickaway Co., OH. No other John born near this time in Ohio fits this profile. John will name a son Edward, seemingly after his grandfather. His wife Christinia will end up in Macon Co., IL, the same location that John's half brother George will go. This is a good fit. See: [Ohio: John m: Christina 'Christy Ann' Hall]

      JOHN E.6 CHENOWETH (ISON5, EDWARD4, ISAAC3, WILLIAM2, JOHN1) was born Abt. 1839 in Ohio, and died July 24, 1874. He married CHRISTINA 'CHRISTY ANN' HALL August 09, 1860 in Pickaway Co., OH. She was born January 12, 1842 in Ohio, and died April 04, 1928 in Macon Co., IL.

      Children of JOHN CHENOWETH and CHRISTINA HALL are:

      1. CHARLES ARTHUR7 CHENOWETH, b. June 19, 1861, Ohio; d. February 12, 1941, Pierce Co., WA; m. MARY C. 'MAGGIE' MORRIS, August 23, 1881, Macon Co., IL; b. July 1863, Illinois; d. May 16, 1940, Pierce Co., WA.
      2. EDWARD I. CHENOWETH, b. June 21, 1864, Ohio; d. August 15, 1913; m. ALICE RASE, July 07, 1894, Macon Co., IL; b. Bet. 1859 - 1874; d. Bef. 1900.
      3. GEORGE H. CHENOWETH, b. November 16, 1869, Macon Co., IL; d. August 20, 1939.
      4. LAURA J. CHENOWETH, b. April 1871, Macon Co., IL; d. Aft. 1950; m. FREDERICK J. 'FRED' WOLFER, February 21, 1889, Macon Co., IL; b. January 1866, GERMANY; d. Aft. 1950.
      5. JOHN WALTER CHENOWETH, b. April 14, 1874, Macon Co., IL; d. August 12, 1950, Macon Co., IL; m. ANNA ROSS DUKE, October 04, 1912, Macon Co., IL; b. 1884, Kentucky; d. April 08, 1961.


    4. John Wesley of Piatt Co., IL [Hiatt page 102, Harris pages 454 & U622] In 1850 John is living with his siblings in the household of his aunt Ada Chenoweth Boswell. On April 05, 1860, a John Wesley Chenoweth marries Mary Ann Anderson in Piatt Co., IL not far west. The usage of Wesley fits well with a line of Thomas(2) which followed the Methodist Episcopaltan Religion. John used the name of Alzono for one of his sons, a name of one of Ada's children. No other John born near this time in Indina fits this profile. See: [Illinois: John Wesley m: Mary Ann Anderson] and [newsletter article]

      JOHN WESLEY5 CHENOWETH (HIRAM4, ARTHUR3, THOMAS2, JOHN1) was born May 16, 1836 in Vermillion Co., IN, and died September 02, 1891 in Piatt Co., IL. He married MARY ANN ANDERSON April 05, 1860 in Piatt Co., IL, daughter of RHUBEN ANDERSON and GERTRUDE TRUITT. She was born January 13, 1840 in Indiana, and died January 26, 1910 in Piatt Co., IL.

        Children of JOHN CHENOWETH and MARY ANDERSON are:

      1. JAMES EDWIN 'ED'6 CHENOWETH, b. January 25, 1861, Piatt Co., IL; d. April 23, 1924, Piatt Co., IL; m. ANNA RACHEL STOUT, September 10, 1891, Piatt Co., IL; b. February 11, 1873, Illinois; d. March 08, 1926, Piatt Co., IL.
      2. MELLISSA JANE CHENOWETH, b. April 01, 1862, Piatt Co., IL; d. January 17, 1863, Piatt Co., IL.
      3. MARTHA ELLEN 'ELLA' CHENOWETH, b. October 26, 1863, Piatt Co., IL; m. GEORGE W. SHIELDS, March 25, 1886, Piatt Co., IL; b. Abt. 1857, Indiana.
      4. MARY SUSAN 'MOLLY' CHENOWETH, b. September 04, 1865, Piatt Co., IL; d. 1939, Hammond, Piatt Co., IL; m. JOSEPH MARION FOREMAN, December 25, 1883; b. March 26, 1863; d. 1945.
      5. ALONZO CHENOWETH, b. September 26, 1867, Piatt Co., IL; d. December 26, 1929, Hammond, Piatt Co., IL; m. ANNA ELZERA CUNNINGHAM, January 24, 1889, Piatt Co., IL; b. November 15, 1869, Illinois; d. December 26, 1968, Piatt Co., IL.
      6. EMMA CHENOWETH, b. October 20, 1869, Piatt Co., IL; d. February 28, 1870, Piatt Co., IL.
      7. WILLIAM CHENOWETH, b. June 26, 1872, Piatt Co., IL; d. September 15, 1878, Piatt Co., IL.
      8. CORA FRANCIS CHENOWETH, b. July 25, 1874, Piatt Co., IL; d. April 22, 1969, Hydro, Caddo Co., OK; m. GEORGE ARTHUR FOREMAN, August 20, 1891, Piatt Co., IL; b. October 10, 1870, Chesnut, Piatt Co., IL; d. May 04, 1931, Hinton, Caddo Co., OK.
      9. JOHN WESLEY CHENOWETH, JR., b. January 31, 1878, Piatt Co., IL; d. December 02, 1946, LaPlace, Piatt Co., IL.


    5. William R. of Oregon [Hiatt page 116, Harris pages 558 & U637] Cora Hiatt say William went to Texas. It appears he ended up in Oregon. The family bible passed down in the family of William hove his birth as August 02, 1826 in Pike Co., OH. This is remarkably similar to the April 02, 1827 given by Cora's information. At this time, Pike Co., Oh was lamost exclusively the domain of the families of Thomas, Arthur and Abraham who had remained in this Settling place after others had moved on. Jacob, the father of the William in question, mooved to Darke Co., Oh in the 1820s. William is not in Ohio with the family in 1850, but a young William, boen in Ohio does show up in Oregon where he later marries Mary Ann 'Maria' McKinney on May 29, 1853. No other William born near this time in Ohio fits this profile. See: [Oregon: William R. m: Mary Ann 'Maria' McKinney]

      WILLIAM R.5 CHENOWETH (JACOB4, ABRAHAM3, THOMAS2, JOHN1) was born August 02, 1826 in Pike Co., OH, and died August 23, 1886 in Douglas Co., OR. He married MARY ANN 'MARIA' MCKINNEY May 29, 1853 in Washington Co., OR, daughter of JOSEPH MCKINNY and DORCAS VERMILLION. She was born August 16, 1836 in Logan Co., OH, and died December 11, 1908 in Medford, Jackson Co., OR.

      Children of WILLIAM CHENOWETH and MARY MCKINNEY are:

      1. JOSEPH RICHARD6 CHENOWETH, b. June 26, 1854, Douglas Co., OR; d. November 20, 1928, Coquille, Coos Co., OR; m. CLARA CASSANDRA BLOYD, June 26, 1879, Douglas Co., OR; b. October 21, 1859, Washington Co., OR; d. July 05, 1895, Pullman, Whitman Co., WA.
      2. JAMES H. WILBUR CHENOWETH, b. April 15, 1856, Douglas Co., OR; d. January 25, 1867.


    6. William, Jr. of Jasper Co., IA [Harris page U631] There is no known listing of the children of William, but early Census record of Mason Co., Ky show that he had a family of at leat 2 sons and 3 daughters. This will fits the age bracket and his birth in Ohio corresponds with the known journey of William, Sr. through Ohio. The adams Co., marriage of William, Jr. fits in close location from Mason co., KY which lies across the Ohio River. No other William born near this time in Ohio fits this profile. See: [Ohio-Iowa: William, Jr m: Sarah M. McClelland]

      WILLIAM4 CHENOWETH, JR. (WILLIAM B.3, THOMAS2, JOHN1) was born March 03, 1803 in Ohio, and died May 11, 1858 in Jasper Co., IA. He married SARAH M. MCCLELLAND March 29, 1830 in Adams Co., OH, daughter of EDWARD MCCLELLAND and JANE ?. She was born May 05, 1812 in Manchester, Adams Co., OH, and died May 04, 1891 in Jasper Co., IA.

      Children of WILLIAM CHENOWETH and SARAH MCCLELLAND are:

      1. MARY JANE5 CHENOWETH, b. January 15, 1831, Adams Co., OH; m. GEORGE DOOLEY, February 27, 1851, Jasper Co., IA; b. Abt. 1818, Virginia.
      2. MARGARET ANN CHENOWETH, b. January 04, 1835, Adams Co., OH; d. April 09, 1921, Bernalillo Co., NM; m. CHARLES MAYHEW KAPPLE; b. August 09, 1823, Fredonia, Chautaqua Co., NY; d. January 28, 1908, Bernalillo Co., NM.
      3. LUCY M. CHENOWETH, b. February 09, 1839; d. September 01, 1843, Missouri.
      4. SAMANTHA B. CHENOWETH, b. March 17, 1841, Missouri; m. SAMUEL MURPHY, March 31, 1859, Jasper Co., IA; b. Abt. 1833, Ohio.
      5. ELIZA J. CHENOWETH, b. September 22, 1843, Missouri; d. Bef. 1890; m. MICHAEL E. JACKSON, January 31, 1867, Jasper Co., IA; b. Abt. 1842, Ohio.
      6. ANDREW JACKSON CHENOWETH, b. November 10, 1845, Gentry Co., MO; d. March 19, 1932, Jasper Co., IA; m. MARY J. SAMPSON, February 25, 1869, Jasper Co., IA; b. March 16, 1846, Illinois; d. June 07, 1898, Jasper Co., IA.
    Return to Start

    PLACED 'HARRIS UNKNOWNS'

    The following is a list of 82 unknown Chenoweths listed by Harris, that have been identified and placed within the family framework or identified as not part of the Chenoweth family out of 107 listings in the unknown section of the book [pages 589-637]. Excluded listings are in Brown. Many of the remaining unidentified listings are in Baltimore, MD and thought to be a part of the lines of Richard2, though the links have never been established. Peter Chenoweth is largely responsible for most of these identifications. Other cousins contributing to placements are Joyce Wiegand, Michael A. Chenoweth, Gary Chenoweth, Joyce Hagerty, Mary Susanne Goro, Charlotte Dobson, Dorothy Jean Cocking, Greg Wulker, and Jonathan Paul. For a detailed list of all Harris unknowns, you should visit this page.

    1. A(DOLPHUS) b: December 1850 m: Laura V. Clemmens [page 589] has been placed in the database as ADOLPHUS HERMAN(6) (ABSOLOM B.5 WILLIAM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    2. AARON b: c 1782 [page 589] is a Chanault, not part of the Chenoweth family.
    3. ABSOLOM b: ca 1827 m: Sarah M. Cox [page 589] has been placed in the database as ABSOLOM (4) (RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    4. ALEXANDER b: April 19, 1839 in Wayne Co., OH m: Hannah Maria Tidball [page 590] is known to be the son of Robert, a son of Arthur of Tuscarawas Co., OH. This Arthur is thought to be Arthur III(4), (ARTHUR, JR3 ARTHUR2) . This placement though likely is not proven.
    5. ALICE ? b: 1857 m: [page 591] has been placed in the database as the wife of FOSTER(6) (HEZIKIAH5 JOHN FOSTER4 ELIJAH3 THOMAS2)
    6. ALONZO b: September 26, 1867 in Piatt Co., IL m: Anna Elzera Cunningham [page 591] is known to be the son of John Wesley of Piatt Co., IL. This John Wesley is thought to be the son of Hiram4 (ARTHUR3 THOMAS2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    7. ANDREW JACKSON b: November 10, 1845 in Gentry Co., MO m: Mary J. Sampson [page 593] is known to be the son of William, Jr of Jasper Co., IA. This William is thought to be the son of William3 (THOMAS2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    8. ARTHUR b: ? and ARTHUR b: 1786 m: (1) ? = [Elizabeth Parker] (2) Anna Warren [page 594] has been placed in the database as ARTHUR(4) (RICHARD3 THOMAS2) [2 entries]
    9. ARTHUR LOGAN b: February 03, 1885 in Jasper Co., IA m: Mary J. Sampson [page 594] is known to be the son of Andrew Jackson s/o William, Jr of Jasper Co., IA. This William is thought to be the son of William3 (THOMAS2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    10. ARTHUR b: 1804 m: Mary McGrish (now thought to be Mary (McClish) DeLong) [page 595] is known to be the son of Arthur of Tuscarawas Co., OH. This Arthur is thought to be Arthur III(4), (ARTHUR, JR3 ARTHUR2) . This placement though likely is not proven.
    11. ARTHUR A. b: 1846 m: Mary L. Bell [page 595] has been placed in the database as ARTHUR A.K.(5) (ABSOLOM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    12. ARTHUR E. b: 1869 m: Minnie Sprout [page 596] has been placed in the database as ARTHUR E.(8) (DAVID B.7 GEORGE WASHINGTON6 JOHN5 JOHN4 WILLIAM3 JOHN2)
    13. ARTHUR NOLAND b: 1880 m: Jessie Leveretta Griggs [page 596] has been placed in the database as ARTHUR NOLAND(7) (WILLIAM MCLEAN6 RIXTON5 WILLIAM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    14. CHARLES A. b: February 17, 1872 near Colfax, Clinton Co., IN m: (1) Alta Snow Dunbar & (2) Dora E. McDole [page 597] is known to be the son of William N(ewton). William Newton is the son Arthur3 (JOHN2) and his 2nd wife Jackealina Wall, a marriage misplaced by Harris on page 108 to the wrong Arthur
    15. CHARLES R(OSS) b: March 12, 1876 in Galt, Whiteside Co., IL m: Maud Lee Lyles [page 597] has been placed as the son of John Russell [page 615] CHARLES ROSS7 (JOHN RUSSELL6, JAMES ROSS5, ABSOLUM4, ABSOLUM3, JOHN2, JOHN1)
    16. CHARLES A(RTHUR) b: February 17, 1872 Ohio m: Mary C. 'Maggie' Morris [page 597] is known to be the son of John E. of Macon Co., IL. This John is thought to be the son of Ison5 (EDWARD4, ISAAC3, WILLIAM2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    17. CLEMENT b: February 01, 1872 in Wayne Co., OH m: Hannah Maria Tidball [page 598] is known to be the son of William H. s/o Robert, a son of Arthur of Tuscarawas Co., OH. This Arthur is thought to be Arthur III(4), (ARTHUR, JR3 ARTHUR2) . This placement though likely is not proven.
    18. E. B. b: 1872 m: Susan Eleanor Irvin [page 598 and page 366] has been placed in the database as EDGAR B.(7) (WILLIAM ERASMUS6 ALFRED GRIFFITH5 JOHN4 JOHN3 ARTHUR2)
    19. EDWIN b: 1868 m: unknown Frances [page 600 and 62 ] has been placed in the database as EDWIN WISLON(7) (THOMAS HYRE6 JOHN5 JOHN4 WILLIAM3 JOHN2) thanks to Peter Chenoweth and Charles Alfred 'Chas' Temple, Jr.
    20. ELI HINKLE b: 1858 m: Laura Virginia Kidd [page 600] has been placed in the database as ELI HINKLE(6) (JOHN5 WILLIAM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    21. ELIZABETH ? (spouse) b: 1836 m: unknown Chenoweth [page 601] has been placed in the database as Elizabeth Eshleman wife of ALEXANDER THORNTON CHENOWETH(6): (JULIA ANN DICKEY5, SAMEUL4, SAMUEL3, ARTHUR2, JOHN1)
    22. ERASTUS M. b: 1859 m: Jennie unknown [page 602] has been placed in the database as ERASTUS M.5 CHENOWETH (JAMES 'LEWIS'4 WILLIAM S .3 WILLIAM2) thanks to Greg Wulker.
    23. FRANK AMBROSE b: 1907 m: Helen Mary Agee [page 602] has been placed in the database as AMBROSE8 CHENOWETH (FRANK PETER7, GILBERT ALLISON6, PETER H.S.B.5, THOMAS T.4, RICHARD3, THOMAS2)
    24. FRANK B b: 1883 m: Edith Holt [page 603] is the same as Frank Lee listed on page 612, a son of JAMES H. The line of James H., in turn has been placed as as James H7 CHENOWETH (WILLIAM6, SAMUEL5, JONATHAN4, WILLIAM3, JOHN2).
    25. GEORGE. b: 1856 m: Margaret unknown [page 603] George, [brother to Jacob] last name Channoth, is not part of the Chenoweth Family
    26. GEORGE. b: ca 1787 in Mason Co., KY [page 603] is the s/o Arthur3 (THOMAS2)
    27. GEORGE THOMAS b: 1855 m: Hannah Robinson [page 604] has been placed in the database as GEORGE THOMAS(6) (GEORGE5 WILLIAM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    28. HARRY RAYMOND b: 1887 m: Grace P. Merryman and Hattie M. Wheatley [page 605] has been placed in the database as HARRY RAYMOND(7) (ELI HINKLE6 JOHN5 WILLIAM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    29. HAVILAH b: bef 1790 [page 606] is considered the same person as ARTHUR(4) (ARTHUR3 JOHN2)
    30. HAVILAH A. b: 1810 m: Mary P. Miller and Elizabeth Chambers [page 606] has been placed in the database as HAVILAH A.(5) (ARTHUR4 ARTHUR3 JOHN2)
    31. HENRY N. b: 1847 m: Charlotte Walton [page 606] has been placed in the database as HENRY N(7) (NELSON H.6 JOSEPH5 NICHOLAS4 JOHN3 RICHARD2)
    32. HOWARD C. b: 1875 m: Jessie Belle ? [page 607] has been placed in the database as HOWARD C(6) (ARTHUR A5 ABSOLOM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2).
    33. ISAAC b: 1803 m: Catherine ? [page 607] is a Chanault, not part of the Chenoweth family.
    34. ISAAC b: 1840 m: Mary J. ? [page 608] has been placed in the database as ISAAC EDWIN "EDWARD"(6) (JAMES BRUCE5 JAMES4 ABSOLUM3 JOHN2)
    35. ISAAC N. b: 1843 [page 608] has been placed in the database as ISAAC N(5) ARTHUR(4) RICHARD(3) THOMAS(2)
    36. ISAAC P. b: 1850 m: Margaret ? [page 609] has been placed in the database as ISAAC P.(7) (NELSON H.6 JOSEPH5 NICHOLAS4 JOHN3 RICHARD2)
    37. ISON. b: 1805 m: ? [page 609] has been placed in the database as ISON(5) (EDWARD4 ISAAC3 WILLIAM2)
    38. J. FOSTER b:1888 m: Grace C. Gamma [page 610] has been placed in the database as JESSE FOSTER(7) (FINIS EDWIN6 JAMES FOSTER5 BENJAMIN FRANKIN4 THOMAS3 THOMAS2)
    39. JACOB. b: 1855 m: Julia unknown [page 610] Jacob, [brother to George] last name Channoth, is not part of the Chenoweth Family
    40. JAMES b: about 1874 m: Olive E. ? [page 610] has been placed in the database as JAMES(7) (LEVI EDMUND6 THOMAS FOSTER5 JOHN C.4 THOMAS3 THOMAS2)
    41. JAMES EDWIN b: January 25, 1861 in Piatt Co., IL m: Anna Rachel Stout [page 611] is known to be the son of John Wesley of Piatt Co., IL. This John Wesley is thought to be the son of Hiram4 (ARTHUR3 THOMAS2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    42. JAMES H. b:1865 m: Della B. ? [page 612]has been placed in the database as James H has been placed in the database as James H7 CHENOWETH (WILLIAM6, SAMUEL5, JONATHAN4, WILLIAM3, JOHN2).
    43. JAMES S. b: February 15, 1866 m: Emma Hortense Edwards [page 613] has been placed in the database as SAMUEL JAMES(6) (JAMES M5 JOHN4 WILLIAM3 WILLIAM2)
    44. JESSE (JAY) b: August 28, 1883 in Hardinsberg, Washington Co., IN m: Hattie Hollowell & (2)Ruth Cleo Brooks [page 613] is believed to be the illegitimate son of Martha Evaline Chenoweth(6) (JOSEPH5 JOHN4 JOHN3 JOHN2)
    45. JOEL b: about 1866 m: Mary E. Pritchett [page 613] has been placed in the database as JOEL HARVEY(6) (HARVEY R.5 JOHN4 WILLIAM3 WILLIAM2)
    46. JOHN b: about 1839 in Ohio m: Christina 'Christy Ann' Hall [page 614] is thought to be the son of Ison5 (EDWARD4, ISAAC3, WILLIAM2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    47. JOHN b: about 1801 in Pennsylvania m: Mrs Elizabeth Reed [page 615] is thought to be the son of Joshua4 (JOHN3, ARTHUR2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    48. JOHN b: 1853 m: Lucy [page 615] is John Russell b: December 20, 1848 m: Lucinda 'Lucy' Williams JOHN RUSSELL6 (JAMES ROSS5, ABSOLUM4, ABSOLUM3, JOHN2, JOHN1)
    49. JOHN b: 1857 m: Susan Carnahan [page 616] has been placed in the database as JOHN(6) (JUSTIN5, JOHN4, ARTHUR3, JOHN2)
    50. JOHN ANDRE b: 1867 m: Beulah Lee Turner [page 616] has been placed in the database as illegitimate son of Ruth A.6 (JOSEPH5 NICHOLAS4 JOHN3 RICHARD2)
    51. JOHN E b: 1856 m: Effa M. Van Horn [page 617] has been placed in the database as JOHN EMORY(6) (JAMES M.5 JOHN4 WILLIAM3 WILLIAM2)
    52. JOHN EMORY b: August 07, 1898 in Lintner, Piatt Co., IL m: Emma Lourene Sidwell [page 617] is known to be the son of James Edwin s/o John Wesley of Piatt Co., IL. This John Wesley is thought to be the son of Hiram4 (ARTHUR3 THOMAS2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    53. JOHN KING. b: 1846 m: Mary Elizabeth Starnes and Margaret ST. John [page 618] has been placed in the database as JOHN KING(7) (NELSON H.6 JOSEPH5 NICHOLAS4 JOHN3 RICHARD2)
    54. JOHN M D b: September 01, 1814 m: 1) Elizabeth Fail and 2) Mary Fail [page 619] has been placed in the database as JOHN MILES DUVALL(5) (ABSOLOM4 ARTHUR3 JOHN2).
    55. JOHN R. b: abt 1788 in Pennsylvania m: Margaret Miller [page 621] is a Chilcote, not part of the Chenoweth family.
    56. JOHN WESLEY b:May 16, 1836 in Vermillion Co., IN m: Mary Ann Anderson [page 620] is is thought to be the son of Hiram4 (ARTHUR3 THOMAS2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    57. JOSEPH b: c 1809 m: Hannah [page 622] is a Chanault, not part of the Chenoweth family.
    58. JOSEPH B. b: c 1823 m: Elizaneth [page 622] is a Chanault, not part of the Chenoweth family.
    59. LAWERENCE (ARTHUR LAWRENCE) b: 1829 m: Hannah Safronia McGinnis [page 623] has been placed in the database as ARTHUR LAWRENCE(5) (ARTHUR4 ARTHUR3 JOHN2)
    60. LEMUEL b: c 1812 m: Mary [page 624] is a Chanault, not part of the Chenoweth family.
    61. LUTHER b: 1880 m: Mary Bell [page 624] has been placed in the database as LUTHER(6) (ARTHUR LAWRENCE5 ARTHUR4 ARTHUR3 JOHN2)
    62. NELSON H. b: 1823 m: Sarah W. King [page 625] has been placed in the database as NELSON H.(6) (JOSEPH5 NICHOLAS4 JOHN3 RICHARD2)
    63. OLIVER DORSEY b: 1882 m: Margaret Elizabeth Palmer [page 625] has been placed in the database as OLIVER DORSEY(7) (WILLIAM F.6 ROBERT5 WILLIAM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    64. P.G. b: c 1825 m: Nancy [page 626] is a Chanault, not part of the Chenoweth family.
    65. RIXTON b: 1868 m: Lu G. ? [page 626] has been placed in the database as RIXTON(7) (WILLIAM McCLEAN6 RIXTON5 WILLIAM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    66. ROBERT b: 1810 m: Mary Ann Provines and Jane Pittenger [page 627] has been placed in the database as ROBERT S.(5) (ARTHUR III4 ARTHUR JR3 ARTHUR2) See the lines Arthur of Tuscarawas Co., OH. This Arthur is thought to be Arthur III, son of Arthur, Jr. of Baltimore. This placement though likely is not proven.
    67. ROBERT LEWIS b: May 03, 1879 in Warsaw, Kosciusko Co., IN m: Rosa Gries [page 628] is known to be the son of William H. s/o Robert, a son of Arthur of Tuscarawas Co., OH. This Arthur is thought to be Arthur III(4), (ARTHUR, JR3 ARTHUR2) . This placement though likely is not proven.
    68. SARAH b: ca 1806 in Botetourt Co., VA m: Jesse Tuttle[page 629] is the d/o James Fracis4 (THOMAS3, JOHN2)
    69. T(homas) A(ustin) b: 1847 m: Ellen Kelso Cook? [page 630] has been identified in the larger unknown tree of George b: Bet. 1760-1769
    70. THOMAS b: 1823 m: Emily (McCubbins) [page 630] has been identified placed by Peter Chenoweth as THOMAS5 (THOMAS4 ARTHUR3 JOHN2)
    71. VINCE b: about 1849 in Texas m: Florence 'Flora' Maines [page 631] is known to be the son of John of Texas. This John is thought to be the son of Joshua4 (JOHN3, ARTHUR2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    72. WILLIAM b: March 03, 1803 in Ohio m: Sarah M. McClelland [page 631] is thought to be the son of William3 (THOMAS2) This placement though likely is not proven.
    73. WILLIAM b: October 1873 m: Nellie Grant Person [page 632] has been placed in the database as WILLIAM HARDING(8) (SAMUEL7 WILLIAM6 SAMUEL5 JONATAHN4 WILLIAM3 JOHN2)
    74. WILLIAM b: 1831 (sb: July 13, 1846) m: Anna Elizabeth Schuller [page U633] has been placed in the database as WILLIAM M(7) (WILLIAM6 SAMUEL5 JONATAHN4 WILLIAM3 JOHN2)
    75. WILLIAM b: ? m: Elizabeth Caskey [page 633] has been placed in the database as WILLIAM J.(6) (RICHARD B5 WILLIAM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2) b: February 1858
    76. WILLIAM b: 1874 in Decatur Co., IA m: Lucy M. Craig [page 633] has been placed in the database as William Merret(7) (LEMON6 IRA L5 RICHARD4 RICHARD3 THOMAS2)
    77. WILLIAM ARTHUR b: August 29, 1894 in Macon Co., IL m: Pearl Rupp [page 634] has been placed in the database as William Arthur(8) (CHARLES ARTHUR7 JOHN E6 ISON5 EDWARD4 ISAAC3 WILLIAM2)
    78. WILLIAM C. b: 1860 m: Eva C. [page 634] is NOT from the family of John & Mary. He is a Chynoweth line s/o William Jacob, grandson of William Chynoweth b: 1788 ENGLAND m: Bridget Turner
    79. WILLIAM H. b: December 29, 1837 in Wayne Co., OH m: Esther Jane Hawley [page 634] is known to be the son of Robert, a son of Arthur of Tuscarawas Co., OH. This Arthur is thought to be Arthur III(4), (ARTHUR, JR3 ARTHUR2) . This placement though likely is not proven.
    80. WILLIAM M(cClean) b: 1840 m: M.J. ? [page 636] has been placed in the database as WILLIAM McCLEAN(6) (RIXTON5 WILLIAM4 RICHARD3 ARTHUR2)
    81. WILLIAM N(ewton) b: April 20, 1839 m: Esther Bowers + 3 others [page 636] has been placed in the database as WILLIAM NEWTON(5) (ARTHUR4 ARTHUR3 JOHN2) by Arthur's 2nd wife
    82. WILLIAM R. b: August 02, 1826 in Pike Co., OH m: Mary Ann 'Maria' McKinney [page 637] is believed to be the s/o Jacob4 (ABRAHAM3 THOMAS2). This placement though likely is not proven. Return to Start

    INTRODUCTION by Richard Harris, "The Chenoweth Family in America"

    The complete text of the Harris Book introduction by Richard Harris is now presented on a separate page. Also included are his discussions of John Chenoweth and Mary Calvert as well as his thumbnail sketches of the eight children of John and Mary.


    Return to Start

    THE CHENOWETHS: by Marie Eberle & Margaret Henley

    In her second book, Carter Cousins Vol. II, Marie Eberle & Margaret Henley, researchers in this and the Carter family for over 25 years, have written a very detailed and accurate treatise on the present knowledge and background of the Chenoweth family. I am quoting it here verbatim with Marie's gracious permission. For those interested in obtaining either of her two books on Carters and Allied families, I found this on the web:

    • CARTER - Carter Cousins 1681-1989 Vol. 1 Some descendants of James Carter and Susannah Griffith, Quakers of Bucks Co., PA, by Marie Thompson Eberle & Margaret Shipp Henley, 1989. 8½x11", hardbound book, 290 pages, every name index, photos, documents, charts, and maps. AD096-$40.00
    • CARTER - Carter Cousins Vol. 2 Some descendants of James Carter & Susannah Griffith, Quakers of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, by Marie Eberle & Margaret Henley, 1997. 8½x11", hardbound book, 268 pages, includes photos and maps, name index, and many more Carter descendants. AD097-$40.00
    • The Gregath Publishing Company
      PO BOX 505, Wyandotte, OK 74370, USA
      Phone/FAX 01-918-542-4148 | Toll Free (inside the USA) 1-800-955-5232

    INTRODUCTION TO CHENOWETH HISTORY

    Since the Chenoweth/Chenowith families in general have considered Cora Hiatt's "1925 History of the Chenoweth Family" their family bible, I think a few facts need to be brought to the attention of those hard core Chenoweths who take great pride in their so-called Lords Baltimore background. At the time Hiatt wrote her history no Calvert has researched the family history of the Maryland Lords and their families. Also, many resources for searching were not very easily accessed, especially by those who were not educated and trained in research. Family stories passed from generation to generation were heavily relied on in Family History compilations.

    From the 1930s to 1960, John Bailey Calvert Nicklin compiled a history of the Maryland Lords, their families and related families. He began with the earliest records in England, including the handwritten record of the Honorable Benedict Leonard Calvert, Esq., son of Lord Baltimore III, Charles Calvert and his second wife, Jane (Lowe) Sewall, M.D. (Jane Sewall, Henry & Jane's daughter, married, as his 2nd wife, Phillip Calvert, half brother of Cecil, Lord Baltimore II.) Nicklin had no interest in proving or disproving the Chenoweth claim that John married Mary, the daughter of Charles Calvert. He simply researched all the families and published his findings. In reading and studying his record, I find there was NO Mary Calvert in any of the early Maryland families, the titled or untitled lines! Likewise, the name Ruth does not appear in any of those families from 1600 to 1800.

    The diaries and Bible quoted by Cora Hiatt in her book, I believe were misquoted, or the entries referring to Lord Baltimore were written a generation or two after the fact by someone who did not know the background of Mary Calvert, but assumed if they were in Maryland, she must be Charles' daughter. In any event, we now know Charles Lord Baltimore III did NOT have a daughter, Mary; however, Charles's first marriage was to Mary Darnall, who died in childbirth (without issue) (1657), and his third marriage in 1701 was to Mary (Banks) Thorpe, widow of John Thorpe, and she died in 1710. They had no children. A researcher and Thorpe descendant who lives in Cornwall, Great Britain, within 15 miles of St. Martins in Menage, could find no information concerning our John Chenoweth there or in the London archives (1993/94), but she did send me a copy of Lord Baltimore's will written at his estate in Ireland, where he died. The will (1715) names only his fourth wife and none of his children. Nor does he mention Maryland.

    George Calvert, the First Lord Baltimore, was given the title Baron Baltimore of Baltimore in the County of Longford, Ireland, in which county the King (James I) had granted him a manor of 2,300 acres, 18 Feb 1621. About 1622 George Calvert, Baron Baltimore, became a Roman Catholic, perhaps through Irish influence? He came to Maryland (so named in honor of the English Queen), and Baron Baltimore asked the King for a grant of land. The rest is history!

    In researching in Maryland (at the Archives) we have found no evidence that John Chenoweth/Chenowith lived at Gunpowder Manor or owned, leased, etc. any land there, although there are records for other families who did live there. When John and Mary Chenoweth and several of their children moved on to northern Virginia (1730s), the sons who stayed in Baltimore County had purchased land near the Gunpowder River and at least two of them received land from their wives' families. Arthur and Richard married into Quaker families, and their names appear in the early Gunpowder Monthly Meeting records. Even John and John Jr. appear in the Nottingham Quaker records among the people who proved to be relation by marriage, etc.

    All of the above, plus the fact that many Chenowiths in Virginia married into Quaker families and appear in northern Virginia Quaker records, makes it impossible not to search into the Calverts who were Quakers (in Ireland) for our Mary Calvert. At this point in time, I have not found proof that the earliest John Calvert in Irish Quaker records is of the same Calvert family as the Lords Baltimore, but I am of the opinion that they are one and the same. This first John Calvert, who became a Quaker in Ireland, was born in Yorkshire near the seat of the early Lords. Also, we must consider the fact that the first Baron (Lord) Baltimore received the grant of land in Ireland from the King, and III Lord (Charles) was in Ireland at the time he wrote his will. Then we find Mary Calvert born in southeastern Pennsylvania of the Quaker family at just the right time to be our Mary. Also, her brother, John, and family came to Frederick (Orange) Co., VA in the 1730s. AND their oldest sister's name was RUTH. I am convinced, at this time, that we have found our Mary Calvert who married our John Chenowith.

    Anyone who wishes to study the Calvert genealogy researched by Nicklin, will find most of his research has been published in MARYLAND GENEOLOGIES VOL. I from the "Maryland Historical Magazine" (pp 132-253), although it is quite possible that Nicklin has published a book on the Calvert Family History as it was his intention at the time he gave his work to the historical magazine for publication. He wanted to get more complete information from the living families so he could extend the early lines into the 20th century.

    "THE COMPILER WISHES TO SAY A WORD ABOUT THE MYTHICAL CALVERT ESTATE WHICH EXISTS IN IMAGINATION ONLY IN SPITE OF THE RIDICULOUS NOTICES WHICH APPEAR FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS. WHEN FREDERICK, 6TH AND LAST LORD BALTIMORE, DIED IN NAPLES IN 1771 HE LEFT THE PROVINCE OF MARYLAND TO HIS ILLEGITIMATE SON, HENRY HARFORD, WHO NEVER OBTAINED CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY. THIS LORD BALTIMORE, ALTHOUGH MARRIED HAD NO LAWFUL ISSUE, SO HE DIVIDED HIS ESTATE, WHICH WAS QUITE LARGE, BETWEEN HIS TWO LAWFUL SISTERS (LOUISA, WIFE OF JOHN BROWNING, AND CAROLINE, WIFE OF SIR ROBERT EDEN) AND HIS FIVE ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, VIZ, HENRY HARFORD, FRANCES MARY HARFORD, SOPHIA HALES, ELIZABETH HALES AND CHARLOTTE HOPE. SINCE THIS LORD BALTIMORE DIED IN 1771, HE COULD HARDLY HAVE LEASED ANY BALTIMORE LAND TO THE B & O RAILROAD WHICH DID NOT EXIST UNTIL MORE THAN 50 YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH. THE COMPILER HAS MADE AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH OF THE RECORDS OF MARYLAND AND HAS NO HESITATION IN SAYING THAT THERE WAS, THERE IS AND NEVER WILL BE ANY CALVERT ESTATE DUE TO THE CALVERT FAMILY OF MARYLAND!………………."
    ---------JOHN BAILEY CALVERT NICKLIN quoted from pp 194/95 in Maryland Genealogies (above)

    CHENOWITH/CALVERT FAMILY

    by Marie Ebrle and Margaret Henley

    JOHN CHENOWITH,** the immigrant, probably was born about 1682 in Cornwall, England, and his family may have been members of a Welsh Quaker congregation there, although we cannot prove it. The first record of him found in America appears in the records of the Church of St. Ann (later known as St. Mary's), Burlington, New Jersey, where a son, William, was baptized by Rev. John Talbot, a former Quaker minister. There is no year after "William of John Chenoweth, Bapt. Aug. 27th," but the baptisms registered just before are dated 1704, with those following 1705/5, therefore the date is surely 1704, as in the IGI listing. This probably means that John and Mary married c1702/2, and William, their first child died prior to the birth of the second William in 1718. The first child named William may also be a clue to John Chenowith's father's given name (?).

    The next record concerning John Chenowith appears in "Abstracts of Philadelphia Wills Part 1, 1682-1726" pg. 188, when he witnessed the will of Thomas Brock of New Bristol, Bucks Co., PA, 16 Nov 1709. Then in the "New Jersey Colonial Documents: Calendar of Wills", 9 Apr 1716 in the inventory of the personal estate of John Bowne, the name John Chenoath appears, along with that of Mordecai Lincon (ancestor of Abraham Lincoln), Richard and Benjamin Kirby, William Clark, John Saltar, and others. In "Old Times in Old Monmouth" (New Jersey), a letter written by John Saltar to Mr. Obediah Browne (called "Hon'r Uncle Browne") in Middletown 25 Apr 1716, Saltar speaks of "my deceased uncle, Capt. John Browne," saying he was sending Mr. Browne (Bowne) "a bond from John Chenoath to my uncle…….."

    The above records obviously refute the claims of the Chenoweth/Chenowith family that John and his wife came from Wales to Gunpowder Manor in Maryland about 1715! As a matter of fact, John Chenowith's wife, Mary Calvert, was born in Pennsylvania, of Quaker parents. John Calvert, son of Thomas and Jane (Glassford), was born near Belfast, Ireland 6 Oct 1648, and died 23 Sep 1699 in southeastern Pennsylvania. He married Judith Stamper, daughter of Hugh and Bridget of Lurgan, Co. Armagh, Ireland, 29 May 1673 (Lurgan Quaker record). They came to Pennsylvania in 1683 and obtained 300 acres in Upper Providence Township, now Delaware County, which was granted to him by William Penn 13 Mar 1683. Four of their eight children were born in Ireland, the others in Pennsylvania. Mary Calvert was their sixth child.

    Mary's father's (John) sister, Ann Calvert (b. Nov. 1650), married, as his second wife, Valentine Hollingsworth on 12d 4m 1672, in the Friends Meetinghouse, Co. Armagh, Ireland. Valentine brought his family to Philadelphia Co., PA, just prior to the arrival of the "Welcome" (1682). The Hollingsworths had long been residents of Lurgan and members at Lurgan MM. Valentine and Ann appear in the records of Delaware Co., PA, Concord MM, and after Valentine's death in 1711, Ann and her children and grandchildren appear in the Chester Co., PA, New Garden and Nottingham MM records, where we found the records for John Chenowith Sr. and Jr. Descendants of Valentine and Ann (Calvert) moved on across Maryland into Frederick Co., Virginia, at about the same time (if not actually with) Chenowiths, Calverts, Bowens, Carters, and were members at Hopewell.

    Mary's mother, Judith, was baptized by Thomas Martin 10 Aug 1697, becoming an Episcopalian. Prior to that time, John, her husband, had been dismissed by the Quakers. Mary was a Quaker by birth, but we do not know if she was of that faith at the time of her marriage to John Chenowith. It seems likely she was, however, because her husband appears in the Nottingham records prior to their move to Virginia. John Chenoweth and John Chenowith Jr. signed as witnesses to the Quaker marriage of Roger Kirk and Jean/Jane Bowen (see Bowen family pg. 101) 9 12th mo 1726/7 at the public meeting house of Nottingham, Chester Co., PA. Since Hopewell MM records do not exist before late 1750s (destroyed by fire), we do not have any Virginia Quaker records for John and Mary; however, some of their children DO appear in Hopewell records, as well as Gunpowder MM records in Maryland.

    Absolom Chenowith, s/o John Jr. and Mary (Smith), and his wife, Ruth (Carter?), witnessed several marriages of relatives at Hopewell. Also, some of the other Chenoweth/Chenowiths named in the later Hopewell records include: Samuel #117, Philemon #118 & Henrietta (1802 at Middle Creek, Berkeley Co.), John (1802 at Middle Creek), Elizabeth (1761), Henrietta M. & Charlotte #123 (1808 at Middle Creek), Rachel (1812) and John W. (1826). These records include signatures of Bowens, Reeses, Kirks, Downings, Mendenhalls, Moons, Pughs, all known to be related to the Chenowiths through marriages. By this time, the older Hollingsworths were deceased and George had migrated south. Though John Jr. appears in the Nottingham records with his father, he and Mary were married in the Episcopal Church (St. George's Parish), Baltimore Co., Maryland. Arthur Chenowith (Chinworth), s/o John (I) and Mary (Calvert), married Saphira HOOKER d/o Samuel, whose family appears in the Gunpowder MM records of Baltimore/Harford Co., Maryland. Marriage record, possible dismissal, etc. have not been found so we do not know if Saphira and Arthur were Quakers when they married.

    The Irish Quaker Calverts arrived in Ireland prior to 1617 from Yorkshire, which was also the home of the titled Calverts, so it seems likely they were of the same origin, though we do not have definite proof of this. George Calvert, son of Leonard of Yorkshire, had the title conferred upon him by James I of England – Baron of Baltemore in Ireland, then Lord Proprietor of Avalon in America, which became LORD BALTIMORE in Maryland. Charles, the Third Lord Baltimore, wrote his will and died (1715) at the Calvert estate in Ireland. We know that the Calverts (John) became Quakers after their move to Northern Ireland. According to Richard Buckey's "The History of the Calverts Who Were Quakers" a Leonard Calvert (c1618-aft.1655) is buried in the Friends Burial Ground in Moyraverty, County Armagh, where Thomas Calvert'' parents (John & Grace) are interred (possibly Thomas' bro.?)

    John Chenowith's will, written 11 Apr 1746, was proved in Frederick County, Virginia court, 6 May 1746, by oaths of Joseph & Mary Stanley, William Jolliffe, witnesses, and Thomas Chinoweth & James Carter, executors. John's surname is spelled Chinowith, but we do not know if the handwritten will was actually written by him or not, although it would appear that Thomas and James actually signed their own names. Final papers, after the inventory of 11 Jun 1746, were definitely signed by Thomas Chinowith, James Cartar and his brother, Richard Carter, who used a distinctive mark as his signature (same mark found in later records of Laurens Co., South Carolina, for Richard Carter).

    John Chenowith, ironmonger (blacksmith), named his wife and all his children in the will, as well as sons-in-law. No deed or land grant seems to have been recorded in Frederick Co. for John Sr., but, in his will, he mentions the land he "had previously given to Thomas," so it seems likely the deeds in Thomas' name recorded after the death of John, refer to his father's land. Many Virginia grants were not made official until 5, 10, 15 years after actual settlement, so it seems likely this is what happened in John Chenowith Sr.'s case. The Chenowiths probably moved from Maryland to Virginia in the 1730s with John Calvert (Mary's brother) and his family, although, sons, John Jr. and William Chenowith may have moved to Virginia with their Calvert relations, and John and Mary came later. (?). In any event, part of the family remained in Maryland, i.e. Richard and Arthur, although their children later moved west.

    John Petite/Pateet, father of John who married Ruth Chenowith, received a Fairfax grant in Old Frederick County, Virginia, as early as 1735. Ruth and John probably were married in Frederick County, as we believe Hannah Chenowith and James Carter were. Early Hopewell records, if they had survived, might have given us more information on these ancestors we know came from Quaker families


    Return to Start

    Answers and Solutions appreciated - Jon Egge

    You can reach me by e-mail at:
    jegge@chenowethsite.com
    Copyright c 1996-2013 by Jon D. Egge. All Rights Reserved. Any republication of this page material for personal use requires inclusion of this copyright. Any other republication of this page material requires the express consent of the author.

    [IMAGE] to return to Chenoweth main Page...

    Last Revision Monday, June 24, 2013