#52 Ancestor Challenge 2019, Week 39 On the Map
 |
| Orange County, North Carolina 1756 |
The John Barkley/Bankston
Puzzle
The ancestor John Bankston appears to have begun his mortal journey about 1760, most likely in Orange County, North Carolina. His name is found in Rockingham and Guilford Counties through the 1780s and 1790s, and eventually in Spartanburg County, South Carolina by 1800. An older Lawrence Bankston followed the very same migration pattern, strongly suggesting that they were father and son. But a startling entry in the minutes of the South Carolina Legislature, dated October 28, 1805, reveals that John Bankston’s real name was actually John Barkley. This entry consisted of a petition by John Bankston, alias John Barkley of Spartanburgh District, to confirm his legal name as John Bankston, “for certain good causes”. John reveals that his legal name had actually been Barkley, but wishes for his posterity to carry the Bankston name henceforth. John’s petition was granted, and the decision was recorded on December 19, 1805.
Learning the true biological parentage of John Barkley is the goal of this research session. Certain theories can be put forth, such as:
· John may have been orphaned as an infant and adopted by the Bankston family. He could have been completely unrelated.
· John may have been the grandson or nephew of Lawrence Bankston, perhaps by a daughter or sister who married a Barkley and died soon after John’s birth.
· John may have been fathered by Lawrence and a Barkley woman, who may have died or been unable to care for the child.
The timeline provided for research places Lawrence Bankston’s birth at about 1730, and John’s birth about 1760, about thirty years apart. If correct, this would not allow enough time for Lawrence to produce a daughter old enough to have a baby by 1760, which casts doubt on the second theory, shown above. Clearly, if John’s legal name was Barkley in 1805, then he was born to a Barkley parent or parents. The immediate time period around John’s birth, 1760, would be crucial to establishing what Barkley families lived in the same area as Lawrence Bankston, who most likely raised John from early childhood. According to the timeline provided for research, Lawrence resided in Orange County, North Carolina until about 1765, and then removed to Anson County. Orange County records are excellent and have been abstracted into print.
North Carolina tax lists, those that have survived, have been transcribed and compiled into a two-volume set. The first volume shows ‘Laurence Bankson’ in Edgecombe County in 1744 and Orange County in 1755. A Thomas Barkley also paid taxes in Orange County in 1755, the only Barkley listed. John ‘Bartley’ was taxed in 1757 in Bertie County, in the eastern part of the state.
The second volume of tax lists shows Andrew, Ann, Daniel, Peter and Susannah Bankston in Montgomery County in 1782, but no Lawrence. Barkleys and variant spellings (Barcley, Barclay, Bartley, etc.) in this second volume were as follows:
Francis Barkley Orange 1779
George Barkley Northampton 1780
James Barkley Wilkes 1784
James Barkley Wilkes 1782
Joseph Barkley Wilkes 1784
Robert Bartley Orange 1779
Clearly, the Barkley name was not prevalent in North Carolina, which should help the research effort. Thomas Barkley lived in Orange County at the same time as Lawrence Bankston, in 1755. It would be especially exciting to find a document that names Lawrence and a Barkley together, to demonstrate some sort of association.
North Carolina land grants can assist in placing people in certain locations in colonial times. On May 17, 1754, John Barkley patented 300 acres in Anson County, on the south side of Bear Creek.
Anson County covered a vast portion of the state at that time, before the formation of Rowan, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Burke, and others. There may be several waterways known as Bear Creek in North Carolina, one of them being in Chatham County, adjacent to Orange County to the south.
On May 13, 1755, James Ray patented 240 acres in Orange County, one of the witnesses being H. Barkley.
Robert ‘Bartley’ patented 700 acres in Rowan County on April 4, 1761, on both sides of ‘Buffelow’ Creek. His name is spelled ‘Barkley’ where he signed with his mark. Rowan County was also the home of John ‘Bartly’, who signed the survey of John Burnet’s 1756 patent in Rowan County. Henry ‘Bartley’ owned land adjoining Thomas Gillaspie’s 1758 patent in Rowan County, on both sides of Back Creek, a fork of Second Creek, on the west side of the Yadkin River.
Another name of interest is that of William Barclay, who signed the survey for Thoms Linvall, Sr. for his patent of 200 acres in Orange County on March 20, 1753. Henry Bartley again appeared as a neighboring landowner in Rowan County, to John Killpatrick in 1761.
No Bankstons were mentioned in association with any of these Barkleys or Bartleys, unfortunately.
Court records would be the most likely place to find some explanation for John Barkley being placed in the care of Lawrence Bankston. Orange County being the most logical location for the nexus of the Bankston and Barkley families, it is fortunate to find the court records transcribed into print, with every-name indexes. These include bastardy bonds and guardianship orders, beginning in 1752. The only mention of a Barkley in the years from 1752 to 1766 comes in March 1755. Thomas Barkley was denied a license to keep an ordinary (tavern). This source includes a map of Orange County as it existed in 1752, with the future county divisions shown with dotted lines and the year of formation for each one.
Another set of transcribed court records, also beginning in 1752, includes Thomas’ petition for the ordinary license in March 1755. On the same page, Lawrence ‘Banckson’ appeared in a list of justices of the peace. These court minutes also show Lawrence being sued in September 1755 by Blake Baker, the charges not specified. Thomas Barkley is seen on the same page, embroiled in three lawsuits against Nathaniel Owens, Joseph Barker, and Henry Reynolds. The cause of all three seems to be debts owed. In September 1757, William Richmond sued Thomas Barkley, the reason not stated. The case continued into December 1757, and Thomas had to pay Richmond a sum of money for damages.
Later Orange County court minutes from 1762 to 1766 did not mention Bankston's or Barkleys. The volume covering 1777 to 1786 did contain one interesting entry, from the August 1784 term of court. John Bartley, age eight, and Eleanor ‘Barton’, age six, orphans of Francis Bartley, deceased, were bound to James Neal until they reached adulthood.
This is the type of court entry we would hope to find, involving John Barkley and Lawrence Bankston. From this, we do learn that Francis Barkley, who paid taxes in Orange County in 1779, had died by 1784. He had a son named John born about 1776 and can be eliminated as a possible father of John Barkley/Bankston. Notice how the name was spelled ‘Barkley’ in the tax assessment, then ‘Bartley’ and even ‘Barton’ in the above court entry.
Wills of Orange County have been abstracted into print from 1752 to 1800. But no mention of Bankstons, Barkleys or Bartleys could be found. If Thomas Barkley of Orange County left a will, perhaps it was filed in one of the counties formed from Orange. A statewide index to North Carolina wills does not list Thomas, either as Barkley, Barclay or Bartley. There were a few Barkley wills before 1800, namely for William in 1796, Hendry in 1798 and Robert in 1786, all in Rowan County. The only other relatively early Barkley will be for George of Northampton County, in 1788.
Northampton County is far to the east of Orange County, but printed abstracts of that county only took a minute to search. George Barkley’s will, written in 1784, listed his wife and children but made no mention of John or any Bankston's.
Three Barkley men have been identified in Orange County in the 1750s, namely Thomas, ‘H.’, and William. The latter two may be the same as Henry and William who later showed up in records of Rowan County. Thomas’ name is not noted in the records after the 1750s, suggesting that he died intestate or moved away.
Abstracted court records of Rowan County from 1753 to 1789 mentioned Robert, David and Henry Barkley, and no Bankston's. Rowan County will show that Robert Barkley’s 1786 will do mention a son John, but John Barkley continues to appear in Rowan County records concurrently with the ancestor, John Barkley/Bankston’s appearance in Rockingham County, and Spartanburg District. Rowan County tax lists from 1757 to 1800 show John ‘Berkley (Bartly)’ in a 1785-1786 list of men who paid the county marriage tax. John Barkley paid taxes in 1793 on 156 acres, and again in 1798 on 670 acres.
No Bankston's were noted in this source. This John Barkley in Rowan County is surely distinct from John Barkley/Bankston, who is believed to be in Rockingham County with Lawrence in the 1790s. John Barkley of Rowan County can be seen marrying there in 1785 to Jean Knox, and in 1790 to Geiley Kern.
He is seen still residing in Rowan County in the 1790 census, long after John Barkley Bankston is documented in Rockingham County land grants.
A statewide index to North Carolina marriages contained only one Bankston marriage, of seemingly little significance. Very few Barkley marriages were shown, but many early North Carolina marriage records have been lost. This statewide index demonstrates the distribution of the Barkley name, in Rowan, Rutherford, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Lincoln, and Orange Counties. Three Bartley marriages took place in Guilford County and two in Orange County, as listed below:
Rachel Barkley m. Joseph Finney, Jr. 13 Dec 1783 Orange NC
Anne Bartley m. Lewis Roach 27 Jul 1783 Orange NC
Elinor Bartley m. William Parsons 25 Jan 1792 Guilford NC
John Bartley m. Rachel Field 3 Mar 1800 Guilford NC
Mary Bartley m. Thomas Wilson 18 Jun 1798 Guilford NC
The Cantrell name showed up in the marriage records of Orange, Guilford and Rockingham Counties, which comes as no surprise.
Another statewide index was searched, for John Bankston or Barkley’s name in Revolutionary War lists, but to no avail. The national compilations of service and pension records related to the Revolution do not mention John, with either surname. Official North Carolina colonial and state records are available at the Family History Library, fully indexed and arranged in chronological order. The index shows a few Barkley entries, with some variant spellings. Each of these was followed to the appropriate volume and page, but none contained anything helpful. No John Bankston entry appeared in the index.
Continuing with the survey of county court records, Guilford County court minutes were searched next. Guilford was formed from Rowan and Orange Counties in 1771, but the Family History Library does not have court records for Guilford before 1781. The court records from 1781 to 1788 have been transcribed into print, and fully indexed. This is important, since microfilmed court records are usually not indexed, or indexed only for the principle people involved in each entry. Witnesses, jurors, road overseers, etc., would not be included in most court records indexes. The Guilford court minutes show that in August 1782, Ralph Gorrell sued John ‘Berkley’, the reason not stated. On the same page is a list of persons cited to appear and show cause why their estates should not be confiscated. Among these was Rachael ‘Barkely’. Another entry from the May 1785 session of court gives details of orders for the overseer of roads. The paragraph is devoid of punctuation, and one part reads, “…to Cantrels Meeting House Laurance Bengston…”
This certainly places Lawrence and the Cantrells in Guilford County in the middle 1780s. The identity of John ‘Berkley’ and Rachael ‘Barkely’ would be very desirable to learn. The subject of this research effort, John Barkley/Bankston, would have been a legal adult by 1782 and may have been the man sued by Ralph Gorrell. This calls into question whether John had used the Bankston surname from a young age, or took it after reaching adulthood. Rachael may have been related, perhaps widowed and in dire financial straits. She would have to be at least forty-five years old to be his mother, not at all unlikely for a widowed head of household.
Guilford County wills include an 1800 will of Lewis Holton, with Rachel ‘Bartley’ named as one of his daughters.
She may have been the same woman mentioned in the court record above. Perhaps land records of the county would clarify her identity further, so these were searched next. In August 1784, John ‘Bankson’ and Martha Smith witnessed a deed for John Browder, the land located on Wolf Island Creek. An October 1795 deed of sale by Robert Peirce makes reference to ‘widow Bartley’ as a neighboring landowner in the Hickory Creek area.
Perhaps Widow Bartley was Rachael Barkely mentioned above, the same one in danger of losing her land. No earlier deeds were found that might have revealed the name of Rachael’s deceased husband.
Guilford County land grants show that John ‘Bankson’ entered 300 acres on November 4, 1783, the land located on Wolf Island Creek near Widow Browder and Charles Harris. An entry of 200 acres by Robert Shaw on February 29, 1780, on the waters of Big Alamance (Creek) mentions that it includes “John Barkley’s improvement.”
Perhaps he was the husband of Rachel.
A topographical map of this area of North Carolina shows Big Alamance River in the southeastern part of present-day Guilford County, while Wolf Island Creek is a considerable distance north, in the northeast corner of Rockingham County, almost to the Virginia border.
Hickory Creek, where Widow Bartley lived, is also in the southern part of Guilford County. It does not show on the map used in Document 18, but the location was learned through a search of Google Maps. The distance between the two areas diminishes the likelihood that these Barkley/Bartley families were related to John Barkley Bankston.
Rockingham County, created from Guilford County in 1785, does not have much to offer for the purposes of this research effort. While there were several entries in the deed abstracts pertaining to John and Lawrence Bankson/Bankston, these are all included in the timeline provided for research. The Barkley name in its various spellings could not be found there.
Some members of the ancestral Bankston family are believed to be in Montgomery County, North Carolina by 1782, although Lawrence remained in Rockingham County through 1796. Records of Rockingham County show that on December 9, 1790, John Bankston sold to Lawrence his 300-acre grant on Wolf Island Creek. By the following December, John is documented in Spartanburg District, South Carolina, so he preceded Lawrence to that area by several years. This information comes from the timeline provided for research. It is possible that members of the Barkley family also moved to Spartanburg District, as people often migrated in groups of friends and relatives. Will abstracts of Spartanburg County from 1787 to 1840 mentions the well-known dispute over the executorship of Isaac Cantrell’s will, which includes John ‘Bangston’ as a witness.
A John ‘Barclay’ brought suit against William Moore on September 1786. The suit continued into 1788 when his name took on the spelling of Barkley. William Barkley testified on behalf of John Barkley in a September 1788 session of the court.
These Barkleys preceded John Barkley Bankston to Spartanburg District, as demonstrated by the timeline that shows John selling land in December 1790 as a resident of Rockingham County, North Carolina. That does not preclude some relationship, but the records do not reveal if such a relationship exists.
The Barkley marriages shown above in Document 13 may be for persons related to John. Tracking the migrations of these couples might be interesting, to see if any ended up in Spartanburg District. Joseph Finney, who married Rachel Barkley in Orange County in 1783, was searched in online forums. A posting in the North Carolina Genweb site tells that ‘Rachael’ Barkley was born about 1762 in Orange County, and died about 1807, the place not specified. The person who submitted this query requests more information about Rachael and her parentage. Francis and Thomas are the two possibilities suspected for Rachael’s father. There was another Rachael Barclay who lived in Rowan County, born about 1784, daughter of Robert.
This posting does not tell where the Finney family may have subsequently lived, or if they ever left Orange County.
The 1790 census shows the Joseph Finney name in Surry County, and not found in either North Carolina or South Carolina in 1800. Other states near the Carolinas do not have surviving censuses before 1820, so it is possible the family went to Tennessee or Georgia, but apparently not South Carolina.
Anne Bartley married Lewis Roach in Orange County in 1783. His name is noted in Orange County in 1790, and then in Greenville County, South Carolina in 1800.
Greenville County and Spartanburg County share a long border in the present-day geographical configurations. Lewis Roach’s name is not found in 1810, in any of the available states. Online sources contain Lewis’ ancestry, but do not even speculate on Anne’s parentage.
William Parsons, who married Elinor Bartley in 1792 in Guilford County, still resided there in 1800. The 1810 census shows men by that name in both Surry County, North Carolina and Pendleton District, South Carolina. In-depth research would be needed to determine if either had a wife named Elinor, but since they did not live in Spartanburg County, the effort does not seem warranted. Ancestry.com’s World Tree Project contains one posting asserting that Elinor/Eleanor, born about 1771 in Guilford County, was the daughter of Jeremiah Bartley, a name not seen in any of the statewide indexes for North Carolina.
John Bartley married Rachel Field in 1800 in Guilford County, rather late to be closely related to John Barkley Bankston. There were several men named John Bartley in the 1810 census, four in North Carolina and one in Marion County, South Carolina. Nothing helpful could be found online for John Bartley and Rachel Field.
Thomas Wilson, who married Mary Bartley in 1798 in Guilford County, has a much too common name to attempt to trace forward. There were twelve of them in the 1810 census of South Carolina, none of them in Spartanburg County. Nothing helpful from other researchers posting online could be found. In all of the above searches, the Bartley spelling was substituted with Barkley for additional possibilities.
The most likely Barkley relative to John found so far is Thomas Barkley of Orange County, noted there in the 1750s. Francis Barkley had small children in 1784, which makes him an unlikely candidate to have fathered a child in 1760. Thomas or one of his sons may have fathered John with the daughter of Lawrence Bankston. At any rate, it seems that John’s Barkley origins were treated as a private family matter. If illegitimacy occurred within a family and the child was kept in the home of its birth, court proceedings were usually not considered necessary. Bastardy bonds are seen when a woman sought support from the father of the child. Guardianship actions were employed when a non-relative was chosen to provide for an orphaned or illegitimate child, in the absence of a provider in the home of the child’s birth. This researcher has confirmed through DNA testing that such a situation occurred in her own family, in 1810. A child was born out of wedlock to the daughter of the head of the family, according to family tradition. That head of the family, actually the child’s grandfather, raised him as his own and called him by his own surname. No court records have been found to support such a situation, but the DNA testing confirms the family lore. The predicament was a private family matter that in that time period did not require any legal action. This seems to be the case for John Barkley/Bankston.
The mystery grows deeper because the YDNA of John Barkley Banskston's descendants does not match the Barkleys either; instead, it matches Runnels or Reynolds. A Nathaniel Runnels is also listed on the 1755 tax list for Orange County, North Carolina leaving more research to be done on the Runnels of North Carolina.
Raquel Lindaas, AG
Heritage Consulting
