Hello to Chris, aka thee Kid 18 January, 2012
Last summer I emailed thanking you for the blog http://therealisaacjones.blogspot.com/ devoted to our mutual ancestor in which you figuratively ask “Will the real Isaac Jones please step forward?”
My email provided some interesting new findings on our family that you have not replied to in any manner. I tried posting comments on your blog but found it difficult or perhaps just awkward to post copies of historical documents and other detail necessary for the real Isaac Jones to step forward.
It was at that time that I created this blog http://hejhcjclj.blogspot.com/ to serve as a platform to hold important additional historical facts and opinions on Isaac, his son Thomas Jones and their descendants that offer an alternative view . . . in fact what I believe to be the correct view of their life in Kentucky. Since you are a follower of my blog and have not in these many months either posted a public comment or responded by email I can only assume you have chosen to ignore this new information on our family.
I don’t agree with all you have written particularly your "definitive" conclusions about Isaac’s activities in Kentucky as exemplified in your posting of Friday, May 18, 2012 focusing on Child #1.....Thomas Jones (1788-1874) and other similar posts. Our differences will be addressed in six posts that focus on; (I) Location of Tinsley Lands, deeds, land titles, etc (II) Value of using tax roll and deed data to locate where people lived, (III) The life of James L Jones, (IV) Issues relating to Isaac T Jones and George Washington Jones and (V) Fate of John U Jones and, (VI) Genealogy of the Thomas Jones (1788 NC-1873 KY) family. The last posting in this series will be (VII) a factual rebuttal and argument of opinions.
Earl Jones,
A fifth generation descendant of Thomas Jones
I Locations, land titles, etc
Location of the Tinsley Survey
Two hundred forty two Military land grants were awarded to Revolutionary war soldiers for lands west of the Tennessee River and they are accessible on the state of Kentucky’s Land Office website 1. Several were in the vicinity of the Tinsley Survey; the four most pertinent have been carefully plotted on the relevant portion of the 1885 Proctor map of Calloway and Marshall Counties2. Four additional surveys are referenced and six reference sheets from the Kentucky Land grants website are included in the references below 3.Tinsley Survey on Proctor's 1885 Map
These Military Land grants were surveyed using the pole system in which one pole equals 16.5 feet, one mile is 320 poles and a 400 pole square of land contains 1,000 acres. The survey lines were marked at corners using natural elements like trees. When no trees or rocks were available as in the barrens which made up much of KY’s Jackson Purchase, posts were driven.4
The yellow star on the Proctor map marks a Meets-&-Bounds “common corner” to four of these surveys; Holt, Tinsley, James Barren and Richard Barren. That point was established using angles and measurements to/from Harlan Creek and the Barren Fork of Harlan Creek.
The point is easily located both on the ground and on any map because the common point is formed a right triangle with known distances to both the main and barren forks of Harlan’s Creek. On the ground the point was marked by three trees (a White Oak, a Post Oak and a Black Oak) independently noted on each of the four surveys. The surveyors made note that these lines were “run by the true meridian, the magnetic was 7.5 degrees East” of the true. The on-line historical magnetic declination calculator http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag-web/#ushistoric estimates Marshall County KY’s declination in 1825 to have been 7° 23.0'. Pretty good work!
Holt’s Survey established the common point to be 192 poles east of Harlan’s Creek along a line that courses S 79.5 East (180°-79.5° =100.5° degrees from true north). At that point Holt’s line turns 90 degrees clockwise, coursing S 10.5 West (180° + 10.5° =190.5° degrees from true north). The Tinsley Survey defined the length of this S 10.5 West line from the common corner to both the Barren fork of Harlan’s Creek (170 poles) and the main fork (292 poles) and on an additional 38 poles to Holt's SE corner. Thus, Holt's South East corner and Tinsley’s SW corner were located 20 poles west of the main fork of Harlan’s Creek. With this line established it can be seen that Holt and Tinsley’s surveys are simple 400 pole mirror image squares of each other.
All the other surveys line up accordingly from this baseline. Note on the 1885 map that the measurements are close but don’t fit perfectly with the locations of the streams. Small streams like this meander within their riparian zones every few years. On Proctor’s map these lowlands are roughly 80 poles wide which is within the error of my plots making errors of this magnitude irrelevant.
The crux of the matter is; 1. the referenced triangle could only be located where it is (+/- stream meanders), and 2. the underlined Tinsley survey text pasted below clearly establishes that the western property line of Mr. Tinsley is essentially a north-south line that crosses the east west course of the Barren Fork of Harlan Creek near its midpoint.
As a result there can be no other conclusion except that the Tinsley lands were astride the Barren Fork of Harlan’s Creek (aka, Little Jonathan Creek). This survey anchors the Tinsley lands in Calloway County Kentucky. It can be clearly seen from the section numbers for this township that no portion of the Tinsley land was in Marshall County. This completely dispels any theory that the Tinsley lands were somewhere to the north in Marshall County.
Clear titles to real estate surveyed for military grants were evasive
It is important to note that Meets and Bounds surveys were routinely not honored in early Calloway County. Abundant evidence for this can be found in Mr. Simmons’ Calloway County KY Plat Book. 5 This mass of data, no doubt painstakingly assembled clearly shows that plated areas within the aforementioned military grants were purchased from the land office in Wadesboro both before and more typically after the surveys were completed. Take the Tinsley Survey for example; John Miller bought part of the SEQ Section 15, T 3, R 5 in 1829 four years before and Josiah Barnett bought SWQ Section 16, T3 Range 5 on 29 Dec 1834 some twelve months after Isaac closed the deal on the Tinsley land.
The yellow star on the Proctor map marks a Meets-&-Bounds “common corner” to four of these surveys; Holt, Tinsley, James Barren and Richard Barren. That point was established using angles and measurements to/from Harlan Creek and the Barren Fork of Harlan Creek.
The point is easily located both on the ground and on any map because the common point is formed a right triangle with known distances to both the main and barren forks of Harlan’s Creek. On the ground the point was marked by three trees (a White Oak, a Post Oak and a Black Oak) independently noted on each of the four surveys. The surveyors made note that these lines were “run by the true meridian, the magnetic was 7.5 degrees East” of the true. The on-line historical magnetic declination calculator http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag-web/#ushistoric estimates Marshall County KY’s declination in 1825 to have been 7° 23.0'. Pretty good work!
Holt’s Survey established the common point to be 192 poles east of Harlan’s Creek along a line that courses S 79.5 East (180°-79.5° =100.5° degrees from true north). At that point Holt’s line turns 90 degrees clockwise, coursing S 10.5 West (180° + 10.5° =190.5° degrees from true north). The Tinsley Survey defined the length of this S 10.5 West line from the common corner to both the Barren fork of Harlan’s Creek (170 poles) and the main fork (292 poles) and on an additional 38 poles to Holt's SE corner. Thus, Holt's South East corner and Tinsley’s SW corner were located 20 poles west of the main fork of Harlan’s Creek. With this line established it can be seen that Holt and Tinsley’s surveys are simple 400 pole mirror image squares of each other.
All the other surveys line up accordingly from this baseline. Note on the 1885 map that the measurements are close but don’t fit perfectly with the locations of the streams. Small streams like this meander within their riparian zones every few years. On Proctor’s map these lowlands are roughly 80 poles wide which is within the error of my plots making errors of this magnitude irrelevant.
The crux of the matter is; 1. the referenced triangle could only be located where it is (+/- stream meanders), and 2. the underlined Tinsley survey text pasted below clearly establishes that the western property line of Mr. Tinsley is essentially a north-south line that crosses the east west course of the Barren Fork of Harlan Creek near its midpoint.
As a result there can be no other conclusion except that the Tinsley lands were astride the Barren Fork of Harlan’s Creek (aka, Little Jonathan Creek). This survey anchors the Tinsley lands in Calloway County Kentucky. It can be clearly seen from the section numbers for this township that no portion of the Tinsley land was in Marshall County. This completely dispels any theory that the Tinsley lands were somewhere to the north in Marshall County.
Clear titles to real estate surveyed for military grants were evasive
It is important to note that Meets and Bounds surveys were routinely not honored in early Calloway County. Abundant evidence for this can be found in Mr. Simmons’ Calloway County KY Plat Book. 5 This mass of data, no doubt painstakingly assembled clearly shows that plated areas within the aforementioned military grants were purchased from the land office in Wadesboro both before and more typically after the surveys were completed. Take the Tinsley Survey for example; John Miller bought part of the SEQ Section 15, T 3, R 5 in 1829 four years before and Josiah Barnett bought SWQ Section 16, T3 Range 5 on 29 Dec 1834 some twelve months after Isaac closed the deal on the Tinsley land.
Isaac Jones must have understood the importance of securing the land by occupancy; otherwise why would he have marshaled his sons, daughters and their spouses in 1833/34/35 to relocate and live on the Tinsley land. By 1834 his sons, Burrell, Wiley, Joshua D and his son-in-law John Jeffery were in Calloway County on the local tax rolls in an effort to secure the Tinsley land, Thomas Jones arrived the next year and William Jeffery a few years thereafter.
Even so, four years later on 25 Jan 1838, Jane Sullivan consummated the purchase that her husband John had earlier started from the state land office on the NWQ Section 16, T3, R5 despite the fact Isaac and/or his family was living on and paying tax on the land.
Isaac must have recognized that his Tinsley lands were 10.5 degrees off square with the township range plats and consequently tried other steps to secure clear title to these differences. In 1836/37 he purchased a total of 960 acres, or should we say re-purchased, the four Quarters of section 15 plus the NE & SE Quarters of section 16. Still, Joshua D Jones, Isaac’s youngest son found it necessary to “re-re-purchase” 147 acres of the SEQ, Section 15, T 3 R 5 from the state of KY in 1854. This was 20 years after the Tinsley deal and three years after Isaac’s death. These extreme measures may explain why Isaac’s block of Tinsley land became one of few former military grants to stay in the hands of a patriarch’s extended family past the 1850s.
But Isaac’s difficulties were not unique. For example the other three Military Land Grants plotted plus the other four roughed-in on the map were never developed. Together they consisted of over 13,000 acres and not a one of them can be traced forward. Why? They were obliterated by incremental section purchases! A relevant example that is also pertinent to this blog was the William D Jones’s purchase from the state land office in 1853 of the NWQ 31 and the SWQ 35 in the next township to the north which was within Richard Anderson’s and John Lustys (sp?) surveys. The same decimation process destroyed the 10,000 acres granted Revolutionary War hero General George Rogers Clark of which only 1500 acres were surveyed in McCracken County and that was after his death. 6
It is puzzling that Kentucky did not honor these military grants. During this time things were happening that impacted these surveys; (a) some of the revolutionary war soldiers had established homes elsewhere by this late date and/or were selling their warrants/surveys to speculators, others had died or were getting old and simply lost interest in these grants (competitive lands were now available at nominal costs in the new western states), and (b) in Kentucky the Meets and Bounds system was used in the rest of the state but in the state’s new acquisition, the Jackson Purchase it was forced to work with the Public Land Survey System or Jeffersonian Plat. Kentucky dealt with the use of two land survey systems poorly. It seems that KY recognized they were unable to rectify the two survey systems and with decreasing pressure from the old warriors they chose to let time fix the problem.
4. W T Henderson’s comments on his survey of KY’s
Jackson Purchase
It is puzzling that Kentucky did not honor these military grants. During this time things were happening that impacted these surveys; (a) some of the revolutionary war soldiers had established homes elsewhere by this late date and/or were selling their warrants/surveys to speculators, others had died or were getting old and simply lost interest in these grants (competitive lands were now available at nominal costs in the new western states), and (b) in Kentucky the Meets and Bounds system was used in the rest of the state but in the state’s new acquisition, the Jackson Purchase it was forced to work with the Public Land Survey System or Jeffersonian Plat. Kentucky dealt with the use of two land survey systems poorly. It seems that KY recognized they were unable to rectify the two survey systems and with decreasing pressure from the old warriors they chose to let time fix the problem.
References
1. Kentucky Land Grant Website http://apps.sos.ky.gov/land/military/tnriver/
2. Geological
Survey of Kentucky, Map of the Jackson Purchase. Comprising Ballard, McCracken,
Marshall, Graves, Calloway, Hickman, and Fulton Counties. Prepared by
John R. Procter, Director; R.H. Loughridge, Geology; J.B. Hoeing, Map; H.R.
Ayres, A D
3. Six Revolutionary War Grants in Kentucky
West of the Tennessee River
Patent #: WTRM 240
|
Grantee: Tinsley,
Samuel
|
Patent #: WTRM 188
|
Grantee: Holt,
John H.
|
|
Survey Name: Tinsley,
Samuel
|
Principal.
Surveyor: Taylor, Richard Jr.
|
Survey Name: Holt,
John H.
|
Principal.
Surveyor: Taylor, Richard Jr.
|
|
Acres: 1000
|
Dep.
Surveyor: Taylor, John E.
|
Acres: 1000
|
Dep.
Surveyor: Taylor, John E.
|
|
Entry Date: 8/11/1784
|
Chainman
#1: Henson, Bartlett
|
Entry Date: 8/11/1784
|
Chainman
#1: Henson, Bartlett
|
|
Survey Date: 3/11/1825
|
Chainman
#2: Henson, Jesse
|
Survey Date: 3/11/1825
|
Chainman
#2: Henson, Jesse
|
|
Grant
Date: 12/1/1826
|
Marker: Unknown
|
Grant
Date: 11/30/1826
|
Marker: Unknown
|
|
Grant Bk/Pg: 1 -
236
|
Grant Bk/Pg: 1 -
193
|
|||
Patent #: WTRM 225
|
Grantee: Barren,
James
|
Patent #: WTRM 224
|
Grantee: Barren,
Richard
|
|
Survey Name: Barren,
James
|
Principal. Surveyor: Taylor,
Richard Jr.
|
Survey Name: Barren
Or Barron, Richard
|
Principal.
Surveyor: Taylor, Richard Jr.
|
|
Acres: 1777.66
|
Dep.
Surveyor: Taylor, John E.
|
Acres: 2000
|
Dep.
Surveyor: Taylor, John E.
|
|
Entry Date: 8/11/1784
|
Chainman
#1: Henson, Bartlett
|
Entry Date: 8/11/1784
|
Chainman
#1: Henson, Bartlett
|
|
Survey Date: 3/12/1825
|
Chainman
#2: Henson, Jesse
|
Survey Date: 3/14/1825
|
Chainman
#2: Henson, Jesse
|
|
Grant
Date: 11/30/1826
|
Marker: Unknown
|
Grant
Date: 11/30/1826
|
Marker: Unknown
|
|
Grant Bk/Pg: 1 -
223
|
Grant Bk/Pg: 1 -
222
|
|||
Patent #: WTRM 182
|
Grantee: Buford,
Abraham
|
Patent #: WTRM 206
|
Grantee: Kelly,
Thaddy
|
|
Survey Name: White,
Thomas
|
Principal.
Surveyor: Taylor, Richard Jr.
|
Survey Name: Kelly,
Thaddy
|
Principal.
Surveyor: Taylor, Richard Jr.
|
|
Acres: 1000
|
Dep. Surveyor: Taylor,
John E.
|
Acres: 1000
|
Dep.
Surveyor: Taylor, John E.
|
|
Entry Date: 8/11/1784
|
Chainman
#1: Henson, Bartlett
|
Entry Date: 8/11/1784
|
Chainman
#1: Henson, Bartlett
|
|
Survey Date: 3/10/1825
|
Chainman
#2: Henson, Jesse
|
Survey Date: 3/9/1825
|
Chainman
#2: Henson, Jesse
|
|
Grant
Date: 11/29/1826
|
Marker: Unknown
|
Grant
Date: 11/30/1826
|
Marker: Unknown
|
|
Grant Bk/Pg: 1 -
188
|
Grant Bk/Pg: 1 -
206
|
|||
5. Calloway County KY Plat
Book, Don Simmons, pp73 plus index, 1987 Simmons Historical
Publications, Melber, KY
6. George Rogers Clark’s 10,000 acre Military Grant
near Paducah
No comments:
Post a Comment