Cliffords
New Jersey to
Pennsylvania and beyond
CliffordsNew Jersey to
|
|
| Home | Contents | Search | First Four Generations | Index |
|
The story of the capture of Charles Clifford by Senecas in 1779
In April 1779, Charles Clifford was captured by Senecas near Fort Ligonier, Pennsylvania. He was taken to Quebec where he was a prisoner of the British for about 2 years. Almost 3 years elapsed from the time Charles was captured until he returned to his family in Pennsylvania. Most of the early books on the history of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, give an account of Charles's capture.219 That this interesting event in our family history did take place has been verified by United States National Archives Records and a letter from the Public Archivist, Ottawa, Canada, both obtained by Charles D. Clifford (see Acknowledgments). Also, I received from the Public Archivist, Ottawa, copies of some of the original "Rebel Prisoner Returns," listing Charles Clifford (see Document 2).220
By the early eighteenth century, three European powers were vying for the lands and riches of North America. The Spanish in Florida need not concern us here. Great Britain's colonies extended from present-day New England, south to Georgia, but not much farther west than the Allegheny Mountains. The French controlled what is now eastern Canada and much of the vast interior of North America drained by the Mississippi River, extending from what is now Canada to New Orleans. By the middle of the eighteenth century, relations between Britain and France had worsened, if that was possible. Britain and France had twice taken up arms against each other earlier in the century; these conflicts were due mainly to European matters. But in the 1750's, smoldering disputes in North America, especially in the Ohio Valley, erupted into what was known in North America as the French and Indian War. The war quickly spilled into Europe, with Great Britain and its former adversary Prussia pitted against France and Austria. Globally, the war was known as the Seven Years War. In North America, the Ohio Valley was on the French's eastern flank. This area and the St. Lawrence River region were to be the two great strategic areas of the war. The Ohio Valley, besides being militarily strategic, was in the eyes of the land hungry colonists (still loyal British subjects) the next frontier in their expansion westward. By the mid 1750's, the French with help from their aboriginal allies had built a series of forts extending southward from Canada to protect the Ohio Valley and the regions westward. One of their most important fortresses and the most southerly was located at the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers. This was Fort Duquesne, the future site of Pittsburgh. (The next most southerly French fort was Fort Venango, site of present-day Franklin, Venango County, Pennsylvania.) Much to the British credit, they first sent an emissary, none other than George Washington, to negotiate the removal of the French from lands that, in the eyes of the British at least, the French were not entitled to.221 But the French would not budge. In 1755, General Edward Braddock led his ill-fated expedition against Fort Duquesne. Using European tactics in the wilds of western Pennsylvania proved disastrous to Braddock. His troops were decisively beaten by the French and their aboriginal allies, and Braddock was killed in the bargain.222 But immediately the British, buttressed by many more colonials, prepared another expedition, this time under the direction of General John Forbes. The British built and garrisoned a series of forts westward towards the Ohio Valley. The last major fort was completed in 1758, built by Colonel James Burd. This fort was located in what is present-day Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, on the banks of what is now known at the Loyalhanna River near its major tributary, now called Mill Creek. This was the first Fort Ligonier223 (called initially Fort Preservation). The fort was to be the jumping off site for Forbes's assault on Fort Duquesne. Forbes and his British regulars and colonial volunteers occupied the newly built fort in the autumn of 1758. (Present day Highway 30 in Westmoreland County mainly follows the old Forbes Road, which was his route westward towards Duquesne.) On 28 November 1758, Forbes took Fort Duquesne, after the French had abandoned it four days earlier,224 and this heralded the end of the French influence in that part of North America. The following year General Wolfe defeated the Marquis de Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham overlooking Quebec City, both generals being mortally wounded in the battle. This battle would subsequently determine the future of Canada and essentially brought to a close the North American phase of the war. In Europe the British navy and the Prussian army were winning the day. Hostilities came to an end at the Treaty of Paris in 1763. By this treaty France ceded to Great Britain most of her colonies in India, some colonies in the West Indies, all of Canada, and the vast interior of North America drained by the Mississippi, except for New Orleans. To backtrack, when Forbes's army in 1758 reached the fort that was to become Fort Ligonier, enter the picture two colonial soldiers of this campaign: one Charles Clifford and one James Clifford. Charles and James Clifford are mentioned in at least two early accounts of that time.225 As indicated, I have placed this James Clifford as the brother of Charles, see #12. In setting the stage for Charles Clifford's capture, I emphasized only three of the participants with a vital interest in the Ohio Valley, the French, the British, and the British colonists. There was a fourth party, the native North Americans. The French were more successful than the British in winning the aboriginals to their side.226 The French lived among the native North Americans, married native women, and generally were more sympathetic to their culture than the British and their colonists, who the North America natives rightfully feared as having designs on their ancestral hunting grounds. But rather oddly, the French, with their peaceful alliances with most tribes of the north and midwest, alienated the powerful and politically progressive Iroquois (the Six Nations: the Mohawks, Oneidas, Tuscaroras, Onondagas, Cayugas, and the most populous of them all, the Senecas; these were all northern tribes except for the ill-fated Tuscaroras).227 The Iroquois were the tradition allies of the British during most of the eighteenth century including the French and Indian War—although to the chagrin of the British, many of the Iroquois chose to sit out much of the French and Indian War.228 With the departure of the French from Fort Duquesne in 1758, the aboriginals were on their own in the Ohio Valley. They loosely banded together and vowed to fight on to keep their hunting grounds free of colonists. One of the actions was known as Pontiac's Rebellion (Pontiac was an Ottawa).229 The bands included not only tribes formerly allied with the French, for example, Delawares and Shawnees, but also Iroquois, especially raiding parties of Senecas—the Iroquois were already making a distinction between the British military and the British colonists, who would soon be American colonists. The next few years were terrible times for the settlers of southwestern Pennsylvania. Raiding parties of aboriginals massacred many settlers in the Ligonier Valley and there was no regard for age or gender. And on the part of the settlers and their military protectorate, if the chance arose, there was the inevitable reciprocity. The journals of that time and region are replete with the descriptions of the brutality, massacres and other atrocities.230 From the descriptions, it seems almost inconceivable that people would willingly attempt to homestead out of sight of Fort Ligonier. But this they did. However, in 1763, Colonel Henry Bouquet and his British and colonial troops defeated a large contingent of raiding party aboriginals at the Battle of Bushy Run231 (Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania)—see also the section "About Westmoreland County." From that time until the beginning of the Revolutionary War, there was little harassment of the southwestern Pennsylvania settlers by raiding parties. When the Revolutionary War started, the Iroquois, with the exceptions of most Tuscaroras and Oneidas, once again took sides with their old allies, the British. Most of the other tribes, never friendly to the colonists and fearful of their westward expansion, also were hostile to the Americans. In western Pennsylvania, Seneca raiding parties from their home in western New York state again made life precarious for the settlers of western Pennsylvania. The British had centers of operations from which they supported raids by colonists loyal to the Crown (called loyalists or Tories) and their aboriginal allies against frontier American settlements and farms. Most of the activity in Pennsylvania and New York State was conducted from the British stronghold at Niagara. This became known as "war out of Niagara."232 The Mohawk Valley raids (New York) and the "Wyoming Massacre" (eastern Pennsylvania) were examples of raids carried out by Loyalists and their Iroquois allies.233 The British also paid a bounty to the aboriginals for the capture and transport to Niagara of what they called "rebel soldiers." And with this the stage is set for the story of Charles Clifford's capture by Senecas. The account presented here is that of the Westmoreland County lawyer and historian John Newton Boucher and appeared in his History of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.(1906), pages 98-102. We can consider John N. Boucher "family," since his sister Sarah Boucher was the first wife of Hugh McCune Clifford (#718) and his sister Bertha Kate Boucher married Hugh's second cousin once removed Edward Marcellus Clifford (#1256). See also the section "The Bouchers." Boucher's account:234
Of the capture of Charles Clifford we have a very good account both by tradition and by various writings which confirm it. He resided on Mill Creek, a tributary of Loyalhanna, two and one-half miles northwest of Fort Ligonier.235 In winter time he and his family stayed in or near the fort, and in the early spring they resumed their work on their clearings. On April 27, 1779, he and two sons236 went to their land to do some work preparatory to planting their spring crops. When they reached the place of their work they could not find their horses which they had left there the day before to graze over-night. The boys set to clearing up the land and the father went to look for the horses. He first went up to some newly deadened timber tracts near the present town of Waterford, for there he had found them once before when they strayed away. Not finding them there he continued the search, and finally reached the Forbes road leading to the fort, perhaps between Waterford and the present town of Laughlinstown [present day Highway 30 generally follows the old Forbes Road in that area]. Still he could not find his horses, and so concluded to abandon the search and return to the fort by the road. He had gone down the road but a short distance until he was fired on by five Indians who were concealed behind a log lying by the wayside. None of the balls wounded him severely, though one of them splintered his gunstock and thus cut his face, which bled profusely, though it was only a flesh wound. The Indians ran up to him, wiped the blood from his face, and seemed very glad he was not injured. They told him he would make a good man for them, and that they would take him to Niagara.237 They took from him his hat, coat, vest, and shirt, allowing him to retain his trousers and shoes. One of the Indians cut away the brim from his hat and amused his fellows very much by wearing the crown. Another wore his shirt and another his vest. They gave him his coat to put on, but to this he objected unless they gave him his shirt also, saying he could not wear a coat without a shirt under it. But they did not take his suggestion kindly, and he was forced to submit, and told to hurry up as they must hasten on their journey.
A picture of James's musket is included in Boucher's (1906) and (1918a) accounts, page 101 and page 447 respectively. The caption beneath the gun (for both accounts) reads: "Gun which James Clifford shot Indian. At his death, Clifford bequeathed it to his nephew, James Clifford, late of Lockport, Pennsylvania, and it is now owned by his heirs." This statement needs more explanation since the James Clifford (#48) who bequeathed the gun died in 1801, and his nephew James Clifford of Lockport (#251), who inherited the gun, was not born until 1804. In the early twentieth century, the gun was said to be in the possession of James Frederick Clifford (#1312) of Altoona, Pennsylvania.242On the long march they treated him much more kindly than one might expect. The whole race was superstitious, and when five of them shot at him at once and failed to kill him, they concluded that he had some power to ward off dangers and might be very useful to them. They did not tie his arms, as was their universal custom even with half-grown boys. At night he slept between two Indians, with a leather strap across his breast, the ends held firmly by two Indians lying on them. As soon as they lay down they slept, but Clifford had too many things to think of to sleep so readily. Gently he drew the one end of the strap from under the Indians by his side and sat up. The moon was shining bright, but there was an Indian on a log, whose turn it was to watch the camp and keep up the fire. The watch sat silent and motionless as a statue, but the prisoner knew he was awake and would probably make short work of him if he attempted to escape. They had journeyed nearly north from where they captured him. At a point where now the village of Fairfield is located, they were joined by fifty-two other Indians, whose general trend was northward. The chief, Clifford said, had his head and arms covered with silver trinkets.238 They tore down fences to roast meat, but warily marched a mile or so away from the smoke to eat and prepare a place to rest over night. Clifford had great desire to see the other prisoners and to learn if his sons were among them. They had only one other prisoner, whose name was Peter Maharg [Mehargs]. [His name also appears on the list of Rebel Prisoner Returns.] When Clifford found him he was sitting on a log much dejected, too much so to reply to Clifford's salutation. and sat his head down in perfect silence. As it was learned afterwards he had been taken the same day and while hunting his horses. He had seen the Indians before they saw him, and was making his escape, but his dog running ahead of him, came running back to his master as soon as he saw the Indians. To the Indian this was all that was necessary. Maharg was taken at once. They further scoured the northern part of the valley for prisoners or booty, but finding nothing that was not guarded they left on the third day for their home, which was near the boundary between Pennsylvania and New York, near the headwaters of the Allegheny River. They had thus journeyed about two hundred miles and killed but two people and secured but two prisoners. On their long march homeward they marched by daylight, but always camped an hour or so before sunset. Eight or ten of them guarded the prisoners while the others hunted through the woods. At the camp they generally all met about the same time, and the hunters generally brought in venison, turkey or smaller birds. After the evening meal they lay down after the manner of the first night. After they crossed the Allegheny river the game became scarce, even a squirrel. All the party from then on suffered greatly from hunger. At one time for three days they had nothing to eat at all except the tender bark of young chestnut trees. This they cut with their tomahawks and offered it to their prisoners. Each of them refused, and received the consolation of 'you fool; you die.' They now sent out two swift Indians, who went ahead and in three days returned with some other Indians, among them some squaws, and who had beans, dried corn, and dried venison. They gave the prisoners a fair share of these provisions. The Indians then divided into two parties, and one of them took the dejected Maharg, while the other took Clifford. Maharg was treated most cruelly, most likely because he remained so morose and dejected, for this from the first disgusted them with him. They made him run the gauntlet, and pounded him so severely that he fell before he had passed the line. The beating that he received did not stop when he fell. He never recovered from it, but bore marks from it on his body when he was laid down many years afterwards in his last sleep. Running the gauntlet consisted in passing between two lines of Indians stationed about six feet apart, and the lines the same distance apart. The Indians were provided with clubs, and each had a right to hit the prisoner as he passed. If the prisoner was strong he could sometimes escaped pretty well, but it was at best a most painful and dangerous ordeal. Clifford had been from the first under an Indian who claimed him as his servant. After he had become somewhat accustomed to traveling without a shirt, his Indian gave him a shirt and hat. The shirt was covered with blood and had two bullet holes in it, and was probably taken from one of the men whom they had killed. Before he was taken prisoner, Clifford while working among the bushes had badly snagged his foot, and this without care became very painful, and the long marches had brought about inflammation and swelling. On showing it to his particular Indian guardian, he examined it very carefully and then went to a wild cherry tree with his tomahawk and procured some of the inner bark. This he boiled in a small pot and made syrup with which he bathed the foot, and after laying the boiled bark on the wound bound it up with pieces of a shirt. It very rapidly reduced the swelling and allayed the pain. They kept Clifford six weeks and then delivered him to the British at Montreal. He learned much about their customs and curious manners, and never failed to interest his hearers by a narration of his experiences and observations among them. He saw four prisoners running the gauntlet, one of whom was killed. At another time, when a horse had kicked a boy, the animal was at once shot by the father of the lad, and the Indians ate the meat, which they thought delicious.239 At Montreal [actually at Fort Chambly, which at that time was about 20 miles east of Montreal, Quebec, on the Richelieu River, a tributary of the St. Lawrence River] he grew in favor with the officers of the garrison and fared much better than most prisoners. He procured from one officer a pocket compass which he gave to a prisoner named James Flock, who escaped, and by the aid of the compass, made his way back to Westmoreland county through an almost endless wilderness, finally arriving at his home long after his friends had given him up for dead. Clifford was in Montreal two years and a half when he was exchanged. He then made his way back to Ligonier valley, having been gone three years.240 [See end note #240 for an interesting addendum to Charles returning home.] Charles lived to be an old man and was respected by all who knew him. He is buried in the old Fort Palmer cemetery, one of the oldest graveyards in the county. He died in 1816. He was a soldier of the Revolution. The year before Charles was captured, his son James [born 1758, died circa 1801] left Fort Ligonier to hunt game, having with him a very sagacious and well-trained dog.241 The dog all at once showed signs of scenting an enemy and came to his master whining and snarling as though something was wrong. He continued to advance along the path in the forest, but with a very watchful eye. In front of him stood a large tree with thick bushes growing about its stem. Behind these he saw an Indian crouching stealthily and waiting for him to come nearer. He saw instantly that to turn back or to stop would be to draw the Indian's fire, and perhaps with a fatal result. So he walked on, whistling in an unconcerned way, but slowly fetching his rifle down by his side and cocking it. When this was done he fired quickly at the Indian, though almost completely concealed by the bushes, then turned and ran for the fort, where he found his father and Captain Shannon talking about the noise of the firing. The captain immediately started out with a party of fifteen or twenty men to try to get the Indian, either dead or alive. They found that he had not been killed, but they tracked him by the blood on the ground, and found that he was twisting leaves and forcing them into the wound to stop the flow of blood. It was evident from the loss of blood that he could not survive long, but from his not being found it was surmised that he had not been alone, but had been carried off by others who were with him. Not long after this Robert Knox, Sr., one of the first settlers of the valley, had a conversation with a renegade who asked Knox who it was who killed the Indian, mentioning the circumstances. Knox told him it was one of his neighbor's boys. This shooting happened near Bunger's spring, at Ligonier. The Cliffords are the, ancestors of the well known Clifford family in Westmoreland county. 
Document 2. List of Rebel Prisoners at Fort Chambly, Quebec, 1779-1780. The list is from MG 21, Haldimand Papers, volume B-183, page 44, and was included in a 29 February 1984 letter from Brian Driscoll, British Archives, Manuscript Division, Public Archives, 395 Wellington Street, Ottawa KIA 0N3. This part of the list shows the name of Charles Clifford: (age) 52 (sic), (province) New West Jersey, (when and where captured) on the 22nd April 1779 in his house near Ligonier. Ancestors of Jane (Gordon) Clifford
Who were the parents of Jane (Gordon) Clifford? Most Clifford workers believe Jane Gordon's parents were Thomas (Jr.) and Margaret (Oliphant) (or less likely, Mary Leavy) Gordon of Amwell Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey. This prominent Gordon family descends from the Pitlurg, Scotland, Gordons. Although Jane's father might have been Thomas Gordon (Jr.), to my knowledge, this has never been proven. Because the Thomas Gordon (Jr.) family lived in the same region of New Jersey as our Cliffords, and one of the grandsons of Charles and Jane (Gordon) Clifford was named Thomas Gordon Clifford, some Clifford workers feel that the prominent Thomas Gordon (Jr.) and his first wife Margaret (Oliphant) Gordon of Hunterdon County are the best candidates to be Jane's parents. (Jane could not have been the daughter of Thomas and second wife Mary Leavy Gordon, since Thomas and Mary did not marry until 1782.)243
Although the Pitlurg and other Scottish Gordons appear to be the most likely candidates at this time to be the ancestors of our Jane Gordon, there is considerable circumstantial evidence that would question accepting the Scottish Gordons as Jane's ancestors without more proof. I have not (yet) included them in the family tree, because I have never seen a primary source stating that the Jane Gordon who married Charles Clifford was the daughter of Thomas and Margaret (Oliphant) Gordon. Jane was not mentioned in Thomas's will (but no daughters were mentioned—see later). To my knowledge, there is no Clifford family legend about the beautiful Grecian names of some of Thomas Gordon's (Jr.) children (and therefore Jane's siblings), Adgesilous, Euphenetus, and Othiel. As indicated above, Hedley (1918a), page 15, states: "In Ligonier Valley, Charles married a woman named Gordon." Also, possibly one of Charles Clifford's sisters was a Rebecca Clifford who married in 1768 Robert Gordon. One would expect Robert Gordon to be related to Jane Gordon. If he were a brother, Thomas and Margaret (Oliphant) Gordon could probably be ruled out as Jane's parents because there are primary sources pertaining to Thomas Gordon's sons and no Robert was mentioned. The Gordon file of Hunterdon County Historical Society (Flemington, New Jersey), has an 8 January 1939 letter from Mrs. Allie M. Cass of Aurora, Indiana. She apparently descends from Gordons and was interested in Jane Gordon and Charles Clifford. She said there was an old family story that a Scotch-Irish girl, presumably Jane Gordon, came to America and stayed in the home of the Cliffords and later married their son, presumably Charles Clifford. But she reported no other information on the Gordons or Cliffords other than to write that Charles and Jane Gordon Clifford were married in 1757 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey; no source given. If and when valid documentation of Jane being a daughter of Thomas Gordon (Jr.) of Hunterdon County, New Jersey, is forthcoming, people interested in the Clifford's family tree will have a large amount of information. The above mentioned Thomas Gordon (Jr.) was a son of Thomas Gordon (Sr.) and Janet Mudie.244 Thomas (Sr.) was the Attorney General of New Jersey in 1702. His Scottish ancestors are of the House of Gordon, with a rich family history and a family tree that extends back to the fourteenth century. The immediate Scottish ancestors would be the Pitlurg (Scotland) Gordons. Robert Gordon and Catherine Burnet (?Barnett) of Pitlurg were the parents of Thomas (Sr.). Hopefully, someone will find a primary source stating that Jane Gordon was the daughter of this Thomas Gordon (Jr.), of Amwell Township ("old" Amwell Township), New Jersey. Thomas Gordon (Jr.), whose farm was less than 20 miles from the Cliffords' Pattenburg home, was born 1696; died June 1784 in Hunterdon County, Amwell Township, New Jersey. He married (first) Margaret Oliphant, born 1709; married (second), 9 May 1782, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Mary Leavy245 (no other information). Known children of Thomas and Margaret (Oliphant) Gordon:246 1. Adgesilous (and other spellings as well) Gordon, baptized 28 May 1747 in Shrewsbury, Monmouth County, New Jersey. Adgesilous (as Agesilas, Ageselaus, Agesilaus and Adjaverselew) was taxed in Amwell Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, in 1780, 1784, and 1786.247 Charles D. Clifford (#1981) cites a letter from Edwin W. Huff, Jr., of the Hunterdon County Historical Society, who in turn cites an Opdycke family genealogy book listing Agisyles, born 28 February 1745, marrying Mary Opdycke, born circa 1747. Mary was a daughter of John and Margaret (Green) Opdycke of Hopewell Township, present-day Mercer County. Margaret Green's parents were Samuel and Sarah (Bull) Green.248 2. Euphenetus Gordon; married John Salter. No additional information. 3. Franklin Gordon, died 6 July 1793 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey; married (first) Pamelia Izor; married (second) Ann [-?-].249 Franklin and first wife, Pamelia, had at least six children: (a) Othniel Gordon, married Martha Heath; (b) John Gordon, married, 27 December 1828, Catherine Case (a Catherine Case, but not the Catherine who married John Godon, married Enoch Clifford, #274, son of Charles and Leah Clifford);250 (c) Thomas Gordon, married Amy Tice (or Hice or Hise);251 (d) Charlotte Gordon, (e) Pamelia Gordon, married Benjamin Heath; and (f) Franklin Gordon (married Mary Dalrymple). 4. Othniel Gordon. No information. Thomas's will mentions only two children, sons, Adgesilous and Franklin. Assuming Adgesilous was born 1745-1747, our Jane (Gordon) Clifford, age-wise, could have been an older sister. Direct line ancestors of Thomas Gordon of New Jersey:252 1. [-?-] Seton and [-?-] Gordon. 2. Alexander Seton,253 1st Earl of Huntly (died 1470) and Elizabeth Crichton. The children of Alexander and Elizabeth (Crichton) Seton took the surname Gordon, which was the maiden name of Alexander's mother. 3. Christian Gordon and William, 3rd Lord Forbes (died 1483). 4. John Gordon, 6th Lord Forbes (died 1547) and Christine Lundin. 5. William Gordon, 7th Lord Forbes (died 1593) and Elizabeth Keith. 6. Sir John Gordon of Pitlurg, Scotland, and Lady Isabel Forbes. 7. Robert Gordon of Pitlurg254 (died 1661) and Katherine Irvine. 8. Robert Gordon of Pitlurg and Catherine Burnet. 9. Thomas Gordon (Sr.) of Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and Janet Mudie. 10. Thomas Gordon (Jr.) of New Jersey, married Margaret Oliphant and Mary Leavy. Family legend and Pocahontas
Before leaving Jane Gordon, mention should be made of J. P. Lytle's 1909 "The Reed History"255 and what this genealogy says about Jane Gordon's ancestors. Recall that Robert Reed was a compatriot of Charles Clifford during the Forbes campaign in 1758, and one of Charles's daughters, Sarah Clifford (#55), married Robert Reed's son, Robert Reed (Jr.). Here is what the "Reed History," page 2, had to say about Jane Gordon:
"The descendants of Robert Reed, Jr., are also eligible for DAR or SAR due to the fact that Sally Clifford Reed his wife, was a daughter of Charles Clifford, a soldier of the Revolutionary War[,] and her mother Jane Gordon Clifford was a direct descendant of Powhatan, an Indian Ruler born in 1550, through his daughter Pocahontas (Rebecca) and John Rolfe, her husband." Most people are familiar with the story of Pocahontas and her marriage to the young British officer in Virginia. Rolfe and wife Pocahontas returned to England where Pocahontas soon died, but not before having a son Thomas Rolfe. The descendants of Thomas Rolfe (born 1615) and his wife Jane Poythress have been thoroughly worked out (I believe), at least through the middle of the nineteenth century. A check of these descendants relative to our Jane Gordon's time period indicates that our Jane Gordon probably could not have descended from Rolfe and Pocahontas. An outline of Pocahontas's descendants.256 I. Pocahontas; born circa 1595; died 1616; married John Rolfe; died 1622. II. Only child was Thomas Rolfe; born circa 1615; married Jane "Poythress," who was ?adopted. III. Only child was Jane Rolfe; born 1650; died 1676; married 1675 Colonel Robert Bolling; born 1646; died 1709. IV. Only child was John Bolling; born 1675 or 1676; died 1729; married Mary Kenyon. The family lived in "Cobbs," on the Appomattox River, below Petersburg, Virginia. Their children were (Generation V) 1. Jane Bolling; born 1698; died 1767; married Richard Randolph; born 1689, died 1748. 2. John Bolling; born 1700; died 1757; married 1 August 1728 Elizabeth Blair. 3. Elizabeth Bolling; born 1709; died circa 1766; married William Gay. 4. Mary Bolling; born 1711; died 1744; married John Fleming; born 1697; died 1756. 5. Martha Bolling; born 1713; died 1749; married 1727 Thomas Eldridge; born 1710-1712; died 1754. 6. Anne Bolling; born 1715-1718; died 1800; married James Murray (no dates). Assuming generations II, III, and IV are complete as reported (that is, of one child each), if our Jane (Gordon) Clifford descended from Pocahontas, in all likelihood her mother would be of Generation V. Jane (Gordon) Clifford was born 1738. We are looking for Jane's mother, someone who would have been born between (to be on the safe side) circa 1690 and 1725. Birth dates or death dates or marriage dates or dates of husbands or dates of generation VI children (not show above) would probably rule out all of generation V except Anne Bolling who married James Murray. Of course it is remotely possible that Wyndham Robertson and his informants missed a child of John and Mary (Kenyon) Bolling. Another possibility would be for a generation V child to have had issue by another spouse. All would seem to be ruled out, except for a possible first husband for Anne Bolling. By James Murray, Anne had seven children between 1743 and 1757. At least in theory it would have been possible for Anne to have had issue by a first husband named Gordon, although there is not a shred of evidence for this. Two of James and Anne's six children did marry Gordons. Margaret Murray, born 8 February 1748 or 1749, died 1779, married Thomas Gordon (no dates); and Mary Murray, born 1754, died 1823, married (first) Alexander Gordon; married (second) William Davies. What then was the basis for this appearing in the "Reed History." Certainly the item was based on something, albeit a misconception. Possibly the Thomas and Alexander Gordon, who did marry into Pocahontas's line, were relatives of our Jane (Gordon) Clifford. Of course this entire exercise is based on my reviewing two publications: Robertson's 1887 Pocahontas, and Brown, Myers and Chappel's 1985 Pocahontas' Descendants, which is a revision, enlargement and extension of Robertson's 1887 list. The parents of our Jane Gordon are not known nor is Jane's birth place. Most Clifford workers feel that she was from New Jersey (but I know of no primary source for this), although there is one report giving her birthplace as Virginia.257 But what is known seems to rule out our Jane being a direct descendant of Pocahontas. Another problem is the geographical distant between our Jane Gordon's husband, Charles Clifford of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and the Bollings of mainly the lower James River area of southern Virginia. There was a Robert Gordon with a large household enumerated in Powhatan County, Virginia (the Richmond area), in 1790.258 Could this Robert Gordon be a relative (father or more likely a brother or cousin) of our Jane Gordon? If so, this could indicate an area for Jane's ancestors, and might also explain the Pocahontas family legend; that is, Jane's ancestors, instead of descending from Powhatan, lived in Powhatan County. This would also give some credence to one report having Charles and Jane (Gordon) Clifford's daughter Mary (Clifford) Whitsett being born in Richmond, Virginia—see Mary Clifford (#50). The will of Powhatan County Robert Gordon was written 24 October 1801259 (our Jane Gordon Clifford was still alive; she died in 1802). Those mentioned were wife Anne, daughters Ann Dixon, Elizabeth Gordon, Frankey Gordon, Mary Trent and Judith Shackleton, and sons John Gordon and Thomas Gordon. From the will, I can find no evidence for our Jane Gordon either being or not being related to this family. 12. (tentative) JAMES3 CLIFFORD (James2, unknown Clifford1); possibly deceased by 1780 when his father's will was written. We know from early accounts of the Ligonier area of Westmoreland County that Charles was there during and shortly after the Forbes Campaign of 1758, and he was there with "James Clifford" (and also Robert Reed, see #55).260 Also this from Sipe (1932):261 Robert Read settled several miles from Fort Ligonier in the spring of 1759 … Reed had persuaded a number of his fellow soldiers of the Forbes campaign to accompany him to the Ligonier Valley. Among these were Charles Clifford, James Clifford, Isaac Stimble, and James F. Flack …" An entry in a journal262 kept at Ligonier mentions on page 286: "Charles Clifford, brother to James Clifford, was taken prisoner on the 22nd of April 1779… ." We know that Charles returned to New Jersey, but what happened to James. The suggestion here is that he probably died without heirs and therefore there was no reason for his father to mention him in his will. But there might have been other reasons James was not mentioned in his father's will. We could ask if Charles did not have a son James (who was mentioned in the will of James, #3), would we have known from James's will that Charles was a son of James.
|
| [ Top ] |
|---|
| [ < Prev ] [ Next > ] |