Prompt: Surprises Abound
The John Barkley/BankstonPuzzle
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 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. The Rev. Dr. Cynthia Forde
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.
After the research, a big surprise came when YDNA testing was done by two of John Bankston's descendants, showing John was not Bankston nor Barkley. Instead, he is genetically a Runnels.
After the research, a big surprise came when YDNA testing was done by two of John Bankston's descendants, showing John was not Bankston nor Barkley. Instead, he is genetically a Runnels.
The timeline provided for research places Lawrence Bankston’s birth at about 1730 and John’s birth at 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, he was born to a Barkley parent or parents. The immediate 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 was 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, 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 B Orange. 1779
George Barkley Northampt 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 Barkley together, to demonstrate some 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 then, 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’ which 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 William Barclay, who signed the survey for Thoms Lindvall, 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 Bankston's were mentioned in association with any of these Barkleys or Bartley's, 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 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, beginning in 1752, includes Thomas’ petition for the ordinary license in March 1755. On the same page, Lawrence ‘Banckson’ appeared on 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 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 hope to find involving John Barkley and Lawrence Bankston. From this, we 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 were abstracted into print from 1752 to 1800. But no mention of Bankston's, Barkleys, or Bartley's 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 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 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 did not mention John or any Bankston.
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 mentions a son John. Still, 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 in 1798 on 670 acres. No Bankston's were noted in this source. This John Barkley in Rowan County is 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 Gailey 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. 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 179 Guilford NC
John Bartley m. Rachel Field 3 Mar 18 Guilford NC
Mary Bartley m. Thomas Wilson 18 Jun 179 Guilford NC
The Cantrell name appeared in the marriage records of Orange, Guilford, and Rockingham Counties, which is 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 chronologically. 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 did 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 only for the principal 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 Cantrell Meeting House Laurance Bangston….” This certainly places Lawrence and the Cantrells in Guilford County in the middle 1780s. The identity of John ‘Berkley’ and Rachael ‘Barkley’ 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 questions whether John had used the Bankston surname from a young age or took it after 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's record includes 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 on Wolf Island Creek. An October 1795 deed of sale by Robert Peirce references ‘widow Bartley’ as a neighboring landowner in the Hickory Creek area. Perhaps Widow Bartley was Rachael Barkley 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 the Big Alamance River in the southeastern part of present-day Guilford County. At the same time, 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 Google Maps search. 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 about 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 was 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 mention 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 in 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 relationships, 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 of 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 was not found in either North Carolina or South Carolina in 1800. Other states near the Carolinas did 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 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 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 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. 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 seeks support from the child's father. Guardianship actions were employed when a non-relative was chosen to provide for an orphaned or illegitimate child without a provider in the home of the child’s birth. This researcher has confirmed through DNA testing that such a situation occurred in her 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 supported such a situation, but the DNA testing confirms the family lore. The predicament was a private family matter that, in that period, did not require any legal action. This seems to be the case for John Barkley/Bankston.
Raquel Lindaas, Heritage Consulting
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.