Chenoweth History - Background

John Chenoweth & Mary Calvert

Quick Links

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

Who was John Chenoweth? 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, has 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:

• According to a short history of Great Britain by James Munro which covers the period from about A.D. 450--613. It was at this period in History when the when the Anglo--Saxons (or old English) drove the Britons (or Celts) into Cornwall and Wales and the Country between the Clyde and the Mersey, which had it's capital at Dumbarton and was known as "Strathclyde," This is the period of History when Cornwall was refereed to as West Wales and was Celtic. King Arthur was also Celtic.
• The Early English spoke of the Welsh of Strathclyde; they spoke of the Britons (Celts) as Welsh, the Welsh of Wales and the Welsh of Cornwall. At this time in history Welsh meant foreign.

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.

*[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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

• (1704) Marie Eberle & Margaret Henley: 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, Anglican (Episcopal) clergyman and a British Navy chaplain. 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 (?). [This record is also cited in Buckey's book on page 31, page 77 and page 83]
• (1709) Marie Eberle & Margaret Henley: 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. [Note: New Bristol, PA is within a mile of Burlington, NJ] [This record is also cited in Buckey's book on page 83]
• (1715) Sue Solomon: "New Jersey Colonial Documents: Calendar of Wills", April 29. Rowe, Joseph, of Burlington Co. Inventory of the personal estate, £66.6.--; made by Tho. Scoley and John Cheshire. Settlements: 1719 Sept. 1. Account of the estate by Mary Cleayton, the admininstratrix, showing payments to Thomas Barton, Francis Davenport, Samuel and Jonathan Lovett, Wm. Wood junior, Susannah and Joseph Furnis, Jacob Doughty, John Chinoth, John Wheeler, Sam'l Smith, Will. Basnett, Joseph Recklis and Tho: Huff.
• (1716) Marie Eberle & Margaret Henley: 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…….." [This record is also cited in Buckey's book on pages 78 & 79]
• (1727) Marie Eberle & Margaret Henley: The signatures of John Chenoweth and John Chenoweth, Jr. are on the marriage Certificate list of the daughter of Henry Bowen, Jane Bowen, to Roger Kirk recorded at the public Meeting house of Nottingham in Chester Co., PA [Nottingham is just north of the Maryland border and Baltimore County.] [This record is also cited in Buckey's book on page 77]
• (1730) Chenoweth histories: John Chenoweth, Jr. marries Mary M. Smith on November 26, 1730 in John's Parish, Baltimore Co., MD [Parish records]
• (1733) Chenoweth histories: Mary Chenoweth marries John Watson on May 24, 1733 in John's Parish, Baltimore Co., MD [Parish records]
• (1736-1737) Elmer Haile: on December 16, 1736, John Chenoweth married Jane Wood in Baltimore Co., MD, and on October 29, 1737, John Chenoweth and his wife Jane filed the administration papers for the estate of William Wood.
• (1737) Elmer Haile: John Chenoweth on the Tax Rolls of the Back River Upper Hundred of Baltimore Co.
• (1746) Chenoweth histories: John Chenoweth made his will on April 11, 1746 in Frederick Co., VA, proven in May 1746, stating he is a resident of that county.

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."

• The 1754 Debt Book (tax on real estate) lists Arther Chinworth in posession of Arther's Lot and Arther's Addition. Richard Chinworth has Merrymans Adventure, Franklins Gift and Honeys Delight in Emma's Garden. (No other Chenoweth land owners.)
• The 1763 tax list shows Arthur Chinoth and Arthur Chynoth, Jr. in Soldiers Delight Hundred, and Richard Chenworth in Back River Upper Hundred. (Record for the eastern and northern sections of the county are missing.)',
• 1773: Soldiers Delight Hundred is missing for the 1773 tax list. In Middle River Upper Hundred, John Chennaweth is taxed for himself and for James Morgan. In Back River Upper Hundred, Richard Chinworth, Jr. is taxed for himself and for Arthur Chinworth, William Chinworth, and Thomas Chinworth . In Back River Lower Hundred, Kingsbury Furnace is taxed for (among others) Richard Chinworth.
• The 1783 tax is on both real estate and personal property. Soldiers Delight Hundred is missing. In Middle River and Back River Upper Hundreds (combined), Arthur and Thomas Chenoweth are listed as single men with no land. Richard is listed with Merryman's Adventure and Henry's Delight and 5 white inhabitants. Francis Chenoweth is listed with no land and 8 white inhabitants. In Delaware Upper Hundred (now Carroll County), William Chinnowith has Rochester, but he is not living there.
• The 1790 US Census - Baltimore County (First Census) has:
  • Page 24 William (2 M over 16, 1 M under 16, 2 F)
  • Page 26 Arthur (1 M over 16, 3 F)
  • Page 28 Richard (1 M over 16, 1 M under 16, 1 F)
  • Page 29 Arthur (2 M over 16, 1 M under 16, 4 F)
  • Page 29 Samuel (2 M over 16, 5 M under 16, 3 F)
  • Page 29 William (1 M over 16, 4 F)
  • Page 29 Richard (2 M over 16, 2 F)
  • Page 34 Frances (3 M over 16, 3 F)
  The group on page 29 appear to Arthur(2) lines with sons Arthur, Jr. (or Arthur, Sr.), William, Richard and Samuel Churchill [these names are grouped alphabetically]. Son Thomas is in Frederck Co., MD and Son John in Virginia. Frances is the widow of John(3) Richard(3). Page 26, 28 and 34 would then appear to be Richard(2) lines. In all likelihood, William on page 24, is William of Hampstead [Cora Hiatt's ancestor]. He is known to have been married by this time. Cora claimed he was the son of Richard, however it is much more likely he was the son of Arthur, Jr. [see detail]
• The 1798 tax list shows Richard Chenworth in North Hundred [Richard, Jr.], William Chenworth in Pipe Creek Hundred [Cora's William, the s/o Arthur, Jr.], and Arthur Chinowith in Soldiers Delight Hundred [Arthur(2)]. This tax list describes all the improvements on the land. Also see Maryland story of "The places they lived"

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

• 1743 William s/o John buys Land on Mill Creek in present day Berkeley Co., WV (then Frederick Co., VA)
• 1746 John, the progenitor, dies and leaves his will stating he lived in Frederick Co., VA
• 1747 Thomas named as one of four appraisers for the will of John Quinn
• 1748 John Chenoweth signs as surity with James Wood to will of George Hobson in Frederick co., VA (from Buckey)
• 1751 William Chenoweth granted a patent for his 171 acres on Mill Creek from Lord Fairfax
• 1751 Deed in Frederick Co. has Thomas buying 276 acres on Back Creek that he already lives on from John Bozarth
• 1759 Rent Rolls of Frederick Co., VA: John, William, presumed to be two of the three Virginia 2nd generation sons and their families.
• 1761 Thomas granted a patent for his 274 acres on Back Creek from Lord Fairfax, the same land he purchased in 1751
• 1762 John(2) granted a patent from Lord Fairfax for his 314 acres in present day Berkeley Co., then Frederick Co.
• 1762 Thomas sells his land on Back Creek and presumably departs for Allegany Co., MD shortly afterwards.
• 1764 Rent Rolls of Frederick Co., VA: John, William and Thomas, presumed to be the three Virginia 2nd generation sons and their families.
• 1771 John(2) dies leaving his will in Frederick Co.
• 1772 William(3) s/o John dies leaving his will in Frederick Co.
• 1773 Richard(3), Thomas(3) and Absolom(3) sons of John, sell land left to them by their father in Frederick Co.
• 1773 Absolom(3) s/o John dies leaving his will in Berkeley Co.

Early Tax Rolls

• Berkeley Co:
  • 1782
    • Morgan Morgan's list
      • Absolam Chenoweth, 1 white tithable, 2 horse, tax 14 shillings [Absolom(3) William(2)]
      • William Chenoweth 1 white tithable, 5 horses, 16 cattle, tax 1P 4 shillings [William(2)]
      • William Chenoweth's Exors. 1 white tithable, 3 horses, 6 cattle, tax 17 shillings, 6 p [William(3) John(2)]
      • Joseph Chenoweth, 1 white tithable, 1 slave over 16, 3 horses, 3 cattle, tax 1 pd. 6s,9p [Joseph(3) William(2)]
    • George Cunningham's list
      • John Chenoweth 1 white tithable, 2 slaves over 16, 5 horses, 15 cattle, tax 2P,3s,9p [John(3) Arthur(2)]
      • Isaac Chenoweth 1 white tithable, 1 slave under 16, 2 horses, 4 cattle, tax 1P,5s [Isaac(3) William(2)]
  • 1787
    • Chenoweth, John [John(3) Arthur(2)]
    • Chenoweth,Ann [widow of William(2)]
    • Chenoweth, Absolom [Absolom(3) William(2)]
    • Chenoweth, Isaac [Isaac(3) William(2)]
    • Chenoweth, William [William(3) William(2)]
    • Chenoweth, Sinah [widow of Joseph(3) William(2)]
• Hampshire Co (WV):
  • 1782
    • John Chinoweth Sr. 13 white souls [John(3) John(2)]
    • Arthur Chinoweth 7 white souls [Arthur(3) John(2)]
    • John Chinoweth Jr. 5 white souls [John(4) William(3) John(2)]
  • 1784
    • John Chenoweth 5 white souls, 1 dwelling, 1 other building [John(4) William(3) John(2)]
    • John Chenoweth 11 white souls, 1 dwelling, 6 other buildings [John(3) John(2)]
    • Jonathan Cheneworth 6 white souls, 1 dwelling [Jonathan(4) William(3) John(2)]
• Frederick Co (VA):
  • 1787
    • Chenoweth, William [William(4) John(3) John(2)]

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.

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 seperate page.

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]

For the most part early family memebers 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 regelious 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 pratices, which in the 3rd generation added the follwing names to those of the original five: Absolom (twice), Samuel, Joseph (twice), Isaac, Elijah and Abraham.

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:

• "My grandfather Ernst Elihu funded the complete book to give his sister, Cora Hiatt, a major project to do. She had a terrible arthritus that left her totally immobile for years. She would dictate to my grandfather's secretary (after hours); and all communications and research was done from there.
• A lot of the info in Cornwall came from the mother of a Stephen Chenoweth of Cubert, Cornwall; she kept in constant contact with my grandfather during the research".

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.

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).

JOHN(2)
• WILLIAM(3)
  • family of William Pugh(5) misplaced, corrected in Harris [detail]
  • children of Jonathan(4) missed in generation skip, corrected in Harris [detail] and one, Samuel, misplaced as a son of William intead of a grandson [detail]
  (unproven)
• JOHN(3)
  • family of William(4) mis-identified as William m: Elizabeth Hutchinson, corrected in database as William S. m: Catherine Rinker (proven) [detail]
  • family of James(4) mis-identified under Absolom(4) s/o Arthur, corrected in database (proven) [detail]
• THOMAS(3)
  • family of James Francies(4) not given, found under James s/o John(3) above (proven) [detail]
• ABSOLOM(3)
  • family of Ephraim Bowen(5) misplaced under Thomas2 line in Harris, corrected in database (proven) [detail]
• ARTHUR(3): family of Arthur mis-identified as Arthur, Jr., corrected in database (proven) [detail]
  • Absolom misplaced in Perry Co. and given children of James of Hampshire Co. - Found to be s/o Arthur3, John2 - lived Kentucky, married Eleanor Duval, went to Illinois - corrected in database (proven) [detail]
• RICHARD(2)
  • RICHARD(3) - mis-identified as the father of Thomas who m: Elizabeth Watson - corrected in database as WILLIAM LINE (proven) [detail]
  • JOHN(3)
    • Son Richard mis-identified by Harris as Richard M; Eleanor Askew - corrected in database as ARTHUR LINE (proven) [detail]
  • ARTHUR(3) - mis-identified as Arthur m: Anne Beasman, corrected in database as ARTHUR LINE (proven) [detail]
  • THOMAS(3) - mis-identified as Thomas m: Elizabeth Carter, corrected in database as ARTHUR LINE (proven) [detail]
  • WILLIAM(3) - mis-identified as William m: Sarah Baxter, corrected in database as ARTHUR LINE (unproven) [detail]
• ARTHUR(2)
  • ARTHUR(3) mis-identified as Arthur in KY, and misplaced as s/o Richard2 - corrected in database Arthur m: Anne Beasman (proven) [detail]
    • WILLIAM(4) mis-identified as William s/o Richard2, corrected in database as ARTHUR LINE (unproven) [detail]
    • ARTHUR(4) - thought to be the Arthur found in Tuscarawas, father of Robert (unproven)
  • THOMAS(3) - mis-identified as Thomas s/o Richard2 - corrected in database Thomas m: Elizabeth Carter (proven) [detail]
  • RICHARD(3) - mis-identified by Harris as Richard s/o John3 Richard2 - corrected in database Richard m: Eleanor Askew (proven) [detail]
• WILLIAM(2)
  • WILLIAM, Jr.(3) - mis-identified as William m: ficitious Nellie Skelly - corrected in database William m: Elizabeth Hutchinson (proven) [detail]
    • Thomas(4) mis-identified as the son of Richard, Jr., Thomas who m: Elizabeth Watson - corrected in database as WILLIAM LINE (proven) [detail]
• THOMAS(2)
  • RICHARD(3)
    • Son Arthur misplaced in Kentucky, found to be in Indiana [detail](proven)
  • WILLIAM(3) - William m: Rinker - misplaced again by Harris as son of Thomas - thought to be the son of John3 John2 (proven) [detail]

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". 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 h