SHACKELFORD CLAN MAGAZINE
Genealogy of Shackelfords and Shacklefords.
Editor: T. K. Jones. 2306-8th St. Lubbock, Texas.
$2.00 A Year. Published Monthly. .10c A Copy (sic)
Lubbock,Texas. December 1955 Vol. 11. No. 8.
---------------------------------------------
Motto: A people which takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors, are not likely to achieve anything worthy to be remembered with pride by remote descendants.
---------------------------------------------
GENEALOGY - HOBBY, PROFESSION, OBSESSION?
To some people genealogy is a hobby, to some it is a profession, while to others it appears to be an obsession, and still to others it is mere curiosity. To this writer it is both obsession and determination to reach a certain goal.
It is only natural that intelligent people would have some desire to know, some curiosity to satisfy regarding their origin, from whence they came, what blood courses through his or her veins, from what sources his or her parents or grand parents derived their physical and mental characteristics, the uniting of which, under certain conditions, has formed his or her peculiar form or character. There is also, more or less an affection for those things and those places that are closely connected with a family name. It is much stronger in Europe where homes are more permanent and tradition more valued; but it exists even in America where succeeding geneations have, as a rule, left their native places and levelled the forests, braved the elements, withstood the onslaughts of savages, and broken the prairies of some new country, possibly never more to see their kindred. These in their manly battles to subdue nature and build homes and fortunes, become in a measure, unconscious of their ancestral ties, or so much occupied with their present aims and ambitions as to neglect them; no doubt the life
Page 2
they lead tends to lessen the family affection, but with education and culture the curiosity and interest mentioned will arise and the questions demand answers, and thus a new interest is born.
It was so with this writer, and during visits to our paternal home and numerous other places we have attempted their solution. The work became so interesting to us, and apparently to others we have met that we have continued and still continuing as the opportunity offers, to search old records for more data, hoping all the time that some member more competent than we are would take sufficient interest to either come to our aid and/or to incur the immense task of completing a genealogy of the family. But after several years of desultory searching no one has, so we concluded to do it to the best of our knowledge and ability.
What we have accomplished has been done at such times and during such hours as perhaps we should have devoted to business, recreation and to our family, and much has been sacrificed, more perhaps than any member of the clan would appreciate, but it has been a labor of love, largely acquired after the work was commenced, for our ancestry and our family name.
And although much time has been expended, and although there are many that have graciously contributed their time and records to help us, we are well aware of the crude and incomplete condition of the records at this time. In literally hundreds of cases different correspondents have given various spellings and mis-spellings, largely due to their inability to read correctly the very old writings, and we might add, that it was not a fault--perhaps any one would have made the same error. But we have had to use our own judgement, poor as it is, in many cases, as to which was the correct.(sic) So we here make the request that every reader discovering an error will please send us a correction at once, and we agree to make note of it and to publish the correction. We wish we had the space to give you the names of those who has contributed to our collection of records, and some day we shall. But at this
Page 3
time we do not have either the time or the space to do so.
Had we known what a gigantic task we were undertaking when we began it is doubtful that we would have undertaken it. But as we became more and more involved, the work became more and more a challenge, and then too, other members became interested and began to contribute. So is it any wonder that to us, genealogy is more than a hobby? It started as a hobby, then became a satisfaction to curiosity, in Kentucky we made it a profession, and now it is an obsession.
All of which is why we continue to publish our little leaflet and to beg for co-operation from any person, be they members or not, in collecting all availabe records so that in the end we may have the most complete family record in existence.
In the next several numbers of the magazine we will give you odd bits of information that have come to us, some from genealogists that we have paid a great deal of money for, some has been contributed gratis, and some that we have garnered at one time or another when making our own searches. These items will largely concern Shackelfords or their descendants of whom we know little or nothing, and give them to you hoping that some one some place will be able to add at least a little to what we have. So won't you please help us?
------------------------------------------
"Failure: A man whose advice you should not scorn, because he is an authority on what not to do"--
------------------------------------------
We are going to begin by going back and making a few casual remarks about Roger Shackelford, the immigrant, his family and a few of his descendants.
As has been stated previously, there are different opinions regarding the identity of the immigrant, some saying that it was Roger, while others believe that it was John. And too, as has been stated previously, we hold to the theory that the immigrant was Roger, since never at any time have we found where John was the first of the name to reach our American shores. All records that has
Page 4
come to our attention points to Roger, son of John, who was baptized in Old Alresford Parish, Hampshire, England, April 23, 1629.
Roger Shackelford, along with seven other persons, was transported to America by one Edward Palmer, who was given 400 acres of land for so doing, the date of the grant being June 4, 1658. So Roger Shackelford, along with seven other persons namely--Mary Palmer, (sister to Edward), Thomas Hall, Thomas Kibble, Guy Knight, Jane Annis and Richard Palmer, arrived in America some time before June 4, 1658.
It is generally conceded that Roger Shackelford married Mary Palmer, sister of Edward Palmer, and one of the eight persons of the above named list of emigrants. But we have never found proof for that.
Colonel Robert B. Shackelford in his book "The Shackelford Family", page 7, states that it is not definitely known how many children he left to survive him, but certainly James, Francis, and John were his sons, also Zachariah and probably others.
In the book "George Shackelford-Annette Jeter and Descendants" by Edward Madison Shackelford and his nephew-Rev. Franklin S. Moseley, page 20, it is said that Roger and Mary Palmer-Shackelford probably had sons James, John, Benjamin, Zachariah, Charles, Roger, Francis and William. Then this writer has found two others that could have been sons or grandsons of Roger and Mary--Henry and Robert, both in Essex County.
Now then it is known that Francis, son of Roger, went to Bath, later Carteret County, North Carolina, where he was mentioned as deceased in 1727. His wife was Sarah Lewis, sister to Zachariah Lewis.
It is also the opinion of this writer that John, son of Roger and Mary, went to North Carolina too. See your Shackelford Clan Magazine for November 1945.
Although no documentary proof is shown, it is the opinion of the above named authors that one of the sons of Francis Shackelford and his wife Sarah Lewis was Roger, born about 1700, and whose wife was Carey Baker. But since no proof is shown this opinion is questionable. However, they made no positive statements.
Now from the book "Kinfolks" by General Harllee, Vol. 1, page 836, we find the following: We quote-"The following is from a paper dated April 20, 1891 and sent to Mrs. Martha (Shackelford) Harllee, and preserved by her daughter-Miss Elizabeth Ashby Harllee. Its authorship is not stated. It is headed: "Shackelford--Copy of original papers at Fort Reid, Florida"--
Roger Shackelford came from England about the year 1730, married Carey Baker about 1735, settled in Hanover County, Va., and died about 1779 or '80. There was an older brother--name not recollected--who also came from England and settled in Virginia.
Roger and Carey Baker-Shackelford had
John----------------(b. 1736, married Frances Butler)
William-------------(b. 1738, married Rebecca Cook)
Roger, Jr.-----------(removed to Tenness (sic) on Holston River, married and his
family unknown)
Robinson------------(settled in Virginia)
Sarah----------------(married-------------Colins, lived Ga)
Richard--------------(married Mary Ann Roberts)
Elizabeth-------------(married John Glass, settled Halifax")
End of quote.
And as will be noted, the last mentioned statement is a direct contradiction to the opinion or statements of Col. Robert B. Shackelford, Mr. Edward Madison Shackelford and Rev. Franklin S. Moseley.
But that there was a Roger Shackelford in Hanover County is proved by records in our possession. He was there as late as 1754. Then what appears to be the same Roger, appears in Halifax County 1767. He married there in 1770, which was his second marriage without a doubt. And his sons John, William, Robinson, and Richard, along with his daughter Elizabeth, wife of John Glass, also shows up in Halifax County. But Roger did not remain in Halifax but a few years, then returned to King and Queen County, where he died leaving a Will dated in December 1779, in which he named each of the above named children, and another son by the name of James, that was deceased. See your Shackelford Clan Magazine for March 1947, for a copy of his Will.
Now this writer is inclined to differ with both of the above claims as to the origin and parentage
Page 6
of this Roger Shackelford. We will not make the positive statement that we believe it, we simply say that we are inclined to belive it. And hereby give our reasons.
Col. Shackelford, in his book "The Shackelford Family"--page 10, gives the names of the children of James Shackelford, James, son of Roger the immigrant. This James Shackelford married Elizabeth Robbins, Abingdon Parish,Gloucester County, July 14, 1687. And according to Col. Shackelford they had the following children:
James, born June 10, 1690, Mary, John, Charles, Roger, Robert, Richard, Jane and Diana.
The Abingdon Parish Register also show that they had a second son named James, the first one being born in 1688. So that one evidently died and the second child, also a son, was given the name of James too.
So note here that James and Elizabeth Robbins-Shackelford also had a son Roger. Note too, they married in 1687, and as they had no less than ten children, it is reasonable to assume that their son Roger was born about 1700.
And here is more food for thought. Francis Shackelford, who is thought to be the father of Roger, was in North Carolina by or before 1712, his son Roger, if he had a son Roger, would have been but a lad of about twelve or thirteen years of age, perhaps younger. Why then would this son return to Virginia and remain there?
James Shackelford remained in Virginia and died there by or before 1734. And as far as we have records to prove it, his children all remained in Va.
So we are inclined to believe that Roger Shackelford, who married Carey Baker, was a son of James and Elizabeth Robbins-Shackelford.
But since it is the consensus of opinion that the Roger in question was a son of Francis, we shall go along with that opinion until we find proof otherwise, but with reservations however.
Now back to James Shackelford who married Elizbeth Robbins. In your Shackelford Clan Magazine for January 1945 will be found the beginning of our
Page 7
story under the caption of "A Remarkable Document", which concerns the afore mentioned James and his family, and of whom we shall give you more records in this and subsequent numbers of the magazine.
This James Shackelford lived in Gloucester Co., Va., and apparently died there. He had married Elizabeth Robbins, a grand daughter of John Robbins, from whom she had inherited a large tract of land, and her sister, Ann, wife of Robert Freeman, had inherited a like number of acres. But it appears that James Shackelford and Robert Freeman, husbands of the two Robbins girls, had sold or otherwise disposed of their lands, and later died leaving their families in very unfavorable circumstances. But Henry Willis, to whom they had sold the lands, in order to secure a better title, had offered to settle them on two thousand acres of land in Spottsylvania County, along with eight slaves. They accepted his offer and both families moved in a body to their new homes in Spottsylvania County. And in this document it is stated that there were some three score of them--children and grand children. That was 1734.
Now we know that Spottsylvania County was created in 1720 from Essex, King & Queen and King William Counties. Then in 1734 Orange County was created from Spottsylvania.
And we have records shown that part, if not all, of the above mentioned two thousand acres of land fell into the new County of Orange.
Later, in 1749, Culpepper County was created out of Orange County, and from records in our possession it appears that the above mentioned lands fell into the new County of Culpepper.
So it is apparent that the early Shackelfords of Spottsylvania, Orange and Culpepper Counties, were descendants of James and Elizabeth Robbins-Shackelford. Of whom we shall have somewhat more to say in this and subsequent numbers of the magazine.
--------------------------------------------
"Today it costs people more than it ever did before to live beyond their means"--
--------------------------------------------
As before stated, James Shackelford, son of Roger
Page 8
the immigrant, lived in Gloucester County, Va., in Abingdon Parish. And fortunately the old Abingdon Parish Register is still around, although almost all of the early Gloucester County records have been destroyed. And it is from the old Parish Register that we find the marrige records of James Shackelford to Elizabeth Robbins as July 14, 1687, and birth of some of his children.
And from the old Abington Parish Register we give you the following records, just as they came to us: The first digit representing the number of the volume, and the second digit the page number.
1-113 Charles Shackelford married Eleanor Monney, July 1, 1743.
Henry Fletcher married Mary Shackelford, April 7, 1735. Parentage of Mary, book and page not shown.
1-75 William Darnaby married Diana Shackelford, daughter of James and Elizabeth Robbins-Shackelford, October 29, 1732.
2-69 John Shackelford married Mary Sanders, October 11, 1741.
Joseph Boswell married Jane Shackelford, daughter of James and Elizabeth Robbins-Shackelford, October 23, 1731.
Benjamin Bosell, son of Joseph and Jane Boswell, baptized July 23, 1732.
Richard Shackelford married Susanna Darnaby, January 19, 1734.
John Shackelford and Mary Drummond, of King and Queen County, married February 14, 1783.
William Shackelford and Catherine Daniel, of Middlesex County, married December 21, 1776.
Robinson Shackelford, son of Roger, married Ann Bushrod Carpenter, of Middlesex County, May 12, 1781.
Elizabeth Shackelford, said to have been the widow of James, died August 2, 1748.
To be continued next month.
---------------------------------------------
Let us remind you again to please pass along all birth, marriage and death announcements, and/or other items of interest.
And don't forget your subscription renewals.
Until next month, Adios--The Editor.
Transcribed by Alex Early July 1998
UpdatedThursday, 01-May-2008 16:49:04 EDT