Grandmother Matilda Calvert Delana was born the 9th March of 1811 in "Kentucky." She was a daughter of Thomas Calvert--the son of William Calvert (born 1753) who was a son of Resin Calvert (born 1722, just like Grandfather Caleb Cande). Resin married Harriet Bryan and they actually had three sons (William, Thomas, and George). Resin was the son of John Calvert (born Way Back in 1686) and John Calvert was a son of George Calvert who was born in that fateful year of 1661.
We get this information from: __________________ . Can't reach the file from this seat.
We'll get re-organized. We're re-connecting taken down blogs with piles of hardcopy notes. It's an obnoxious process to carry out at the speed of blog and I'm frustrated. Only so much "free" or "hobby" time to accomplish all the many tasks of history-ing.
Sorry...John Conklin's information comes from "Frame of reference: The Descent and Ancestry of Isaac Calvert of Greene County, Pennsylvania" which has been filed with the Cornerstone Genealogical Society.
Was just reading how Taverns proliferated in Pennsylvania and New England, but not down south! Down south visitors were accepted as guests at plantations and manors. Slaves were posted near the road to draw visitors in and there were laws against charging visitors for their stays.
It's too early in the research to scan a picture of any of the Lord Baltimores who were also named Calvert. Calvert was a famous name. But that's not how we found Grandmother Matilda.
We found her by looking at the census records of Great Ida Mae's sister, Ada Jane Delaney. Ada Jane was with her grandmother Matilda in 1880 and Matilda's daughter Malissa and son, Isaac. Then we found Isaac as Ida Mae's Uncle and Elias Fox's father-in-law listed in post 1900 censuses. This confused us because we didn't think that Isaac Delana was the father of Ida and Ada. We had the name John Delaney as their father. So we did some running around, virtually, in whatever records we could find and also contacted the Cornerstone Genealogical Society in Pennsylvania and had confirmed the fact that John Delaney was the father of Ida and Ada. He was married to Rebecca Blaker and the sisters had four other siblings!
Apparently, according to a book we haven't been able to read yet but heard about from the the genealogical society, Furlong's Dulaney et.al., John and Rebecca had six children.
Thomas Arlington
Columbus
Ida
Ada
Flora
And Sarah.
It wasn't long afterwards that we found notes online of a man named John Conklin who was the son of Malissa (Dulaney) and Josiah Conklin! John was the grandson of John Delaney and Matilda (Calvert) Delaney.
We could hardly believe it. And we didn't do a very good job of writing all of the information down perfectly, so we felt EXTREMELY lucky to find it again!
These people were associated with the Mount Morris area of Pennsylvania, much like the Foxes and Longs who were the antecedents of those living in Miracle Run, West Virgina.
Here's one way to read this amazing document online...go to the address:
http://docdigger.com/docs/frame_of_reference__the_descent_and_ancestry_of_isaac_calvert_of.html
Please excuse our lack of computer finesse in describing what that site is. In our effort to preserve the information we tried to put the document itself right into this blog somehow but we didn't have much success with that either. We've been able to save some text from the document but not, apparently, in a formatted version. So for posterity's sake we'll preserve it the way we got it off online and post that below.
This was a huge amount of information for us to receive and without much guidance so we were hesitant to tell Mama it was for sure.
And we still don't know what happened to Rebecca and John that made orphans of their six children. But Mama Sherry recalls her Grandma Pearl saying of her mother--Ida Mae (Delaney) Fox that she raised some of her siblings. And by reading obituaries of some of the siblings we find out that they were adopted.
We felt positive about locating Rebecca Blaker on a list of family with the parents John L. Blaker (3 MARCH 1810-24 JULY 1868) and Mary Munion (born 1819, died 1894) but lost contact with a cousin who might have confirmed the information. According to his data Rebecca Blaker had 12 siblings and the names of her biological siblings have an uncanny similarity to her own children with John Delaney...
David
Jane
Orpha born 1842
REBECCA born 1844
Columbus born 1846
Abigail born 1849
Sarah born 1851
Mary Elizabeth (1855-1911)
John E. born July 1861
William born 1862
Thomas L. (1864-1929)
Emma J. born 1864
Harriet A. born 1867
And we got a case of long distance confusion regarding this cousin suggesting that Rebecca Blaker died prior to 1870. That DID NOT go with the information we'd worked hard to confirm about our people who came after Rebecca. For example, Ida Mae was born in 1877 or 1878 according to her different vital records. So HOW could Ida Mae be Rebecca's child if Rebecca died before 1870? Or was other information wrong????? This long distance gleaning and second guessing was frustrating. And to make matters more mucky, John and Rebecca are fairly common names which we found out might lead to further confusion in regards the surname of Delaney.
We did have good luck in finding Matilda and John "Delana" in a Fox household on a US CENSUS of 1850. John and Metilda are 48 and 40 years old and living with the younger William and Elizabeth Fox, two Fox children, and Elizabeth, Pishna, and Margaret Delana (who are 21, 18, 17 respectively). Whereas we found seven year old John Delana listed with Thomas Delana, Meriah Delana, Sarah Delana, William Delana, John Delana (born 1843), Jane Delana, and Isaac (born 1849) on a different household list, US CENSUS 1850, Perry Township, Greene County, Pennsylvania.
And we looked around for Rebecca in those censuses but were hesitant to run into that research on account of being more unsure than sure and Rebecca being a popular name.
Plus we stumbled into a thick patch of family sorting re: the Blakers, Andersons and Longs and some place called Muddy Creek. Having NO EXPERIENCE with researching and talking deeds and property ownership, we shied away from getting too involved with some information we found on the computer in regards this discussion.
Like everybody else, we can use our primers to pump some general history into this post about our people.
Grandmother Matilda got us interested in the historical intricacies of Maryland.
In 1660, while "differences" were arising between the Connecticut Colony at Hartford and the New Haven Colony, across the Atlantic major trouble had been brewing and stewing in England!
Long story short...the Restoration of 1660 returned the Royalists to power and the King's party took control of the government. With the installation of King Charles the Second in England, gains for democracy which had thus evolved in America slowed to a crawl as the Aristocracy reiterated itself as the dominant structure or model of governance here too.
So, for example, whereas in Maryland in the 1640's gains for democracy had been made through compromise between Proprietor and Assembly, by 1661 Maryland was deemed a royal province and the oldest son of Lord Baltimore--Charles Calvert--made Governor. All these official steps along the pathway happened because the King's Party took control of the government.
Remember Clayborne who had a royal license to trade in the region and planted a settlement on Kent Island in Chesapeake Bay (now in the boundaries of Baltimore)? He'd been a troublemaking "dissenter" against the Catholics in Maryland and when the King's Party regained control of the government Clayborne was DISMISSED just as soldier after soldier in England was cashiered or moved on up the ranks according to loyalties and willingness to PROVE allegiance in actions.
In Virginia harsh measures were made against dissenters, economically and physically.
And the enforcement of empirical economic measures designed to control the world's finances took full effect. The Navigation Acts, for example, obliged the colonists to ship tobacco to English ports ONLY.
And there was a ruthless invalidation of long-established land-titles.
When "the Puritans" of the American southern colonies (replete with all the baggage they carried from the Old World) rose against the (more religiously bound) government in 1663, their "revolt" was not suppressed until several of their leaders were hanged.
The thousands of Cavaliers who'd flocked to America were bolstered in their political views by their Old World connections and various services performed in the ongoing warfare (sometimes just simmering and sometimes flaring up) that had long been transpiring in Europe.
Pomfret tells us that, "The issue of political loyalty complicated the religious problem in England, posing for the State the question of how best to dispose of recalcitrant groups" (75 Founding the American Colonies). Queen Elizabeth I had broken with the Catholics on the right, the Presbyterians in the center, and the separatists on the left. The spectrum was funneled into an ideal of conformity. The maxim of Queen Elizabeth's Statesmen was "obedience joins, disorder separates" (75).
Dissident groups sought refuge in America just as the Huguenots in France--prior to the Edict of Nantes--sought asylum in Brazil, Florida, and South Carolina. There was concern in England that IF people could flee the country and have space to protest policy like loyalty to the Crown, trouble would brew.
There were laws put in place to control the rising tide of nonconformists who "called themselves Reformers, and we commonly call Puritans," so-said the Secretary of State in England.
It was the Catholics turn to be persecuted and the long-time warring between religious groups flared up again. Remember the Protestants and Catholics had been going at each other's throats for a very long time so contemporary instances of abusing each other were flare ups of deeply rooted contentions.
John Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, spurred a policy of Repression in 1583 expelling all Protestants within the Church and dealing harshly with all outside of it (as in developing relism or religious racism). The policy of Repression lingered for a couple decades and both Protestants and Catholics suffered from IT except when the Queen made an exception.
Penalties for embracing Catholicism were harsh as well. These people were prohibited from hearing Mass and FINED stiffly for not attending State-approved Churches. Pomfret tells us that non-attendance could cost a Catholic gentleman 240 pounds PER YER for EACH member of his family.
And escaping to Ireland where members of both religions could, theoretically, take over the natives and claim the space for their kind, proved a tumultuous enterprise rather than a solution. In fact, thrust into a different kingdom on a personal mission fostered more fighting than it did loyalty-proving and popular sentiment for officials.
Pomfret claims the founding of Maryland in 1632 as advance of history, rather than a retreat and lauds George Calvert (born in Yorkshire, England) with acting on his own initiative to achieve what amounted to a sole proprietorship in the New World of America.
George had entered Oxford at the age of 14, graduated Trinity College in 1597, learned the Romance Languages, and become a private secretary to Sir Robert Cecil (Secretary of State under James I) by 1606. George rose through the ranks and won the confidence of the King. He held a judicial post in Ireland where he owned estates and then moved into a clerkship in the Privy Council. He was knighted in 1617 and in 1619 he became the principal Secretary of State and he was also made a member of the Privy Council. He defended the King's unpopular policies and thus kept proving his loyalty.
But in the face of pending measures for the persecution of the Catholics, George Calvert announced his conversion to Catholicism and resigned his secretaryship. This didn't make him a Saint but it did speak loudly of his putting faith before State as ruler in his life. James retained George on the Privy Council and created him Baron of Baltimore in the Kingdom of Ireland.
Through relatives of his first wife, George got interested in "adventure."
He became friends with Sir Thomas Arundel (a Roman Catholic) and via this friendship George became a member of the New England Company. Once again, being a member was a foot up from simply owning stock or a holding a clerical position for the group.
In 1620 Calvert had purchased part of the peninsula of Avalon in the southeastern part of Newfoundland. Pomfret offers us more insight into the distinctions between types of settlements by suggesting we read in particular, Gaillard T. Lapsley's THE COUNTY PALATINE OF DURHAM: A STUDY IN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY (NY, 1900). Avalon had been established by royal charter and erected into a province on the model of the county palatine of Durham whose lord bishop in the 14th century had exercised truly regal powers. Although the small colony at Ferryland (Newfoundland) did not flourish, George Calvert visited it in 1627 and 1628. He was so discouraged by the climate that he went back to England and petitioned for a grant in Virginia.
Even before he got a reply to his petition he set out for Virginia WITH HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN hoping to find there more mild winters and a suitable location south of Jamestown.
The Virginia authorities welcomed the Baron of Baltimore--Kingdom of Ireland hence called LORD BALTIMORE and expressed hopes that he and his family would settle there with them, but George had a problem. He REFUSED to take the Oath of Supremacy.
He returned to England to obtain the rights to charter a separate colony. There James' son, Charles I, was friendly with George but expressed concern about the scheme being impracticable.
George would not be deterred is how Pomfret phrases it and together with the Arundel group there was, on his part, a renewed vigor to establishing a haven for persecuted Catholics.
It was 1632 before Charles granted George Calvert, Lord Baltimore, territory for his envisioned refuge. When members of the then-defunct Virginia Company learned of the "gift" they raised a clamor and the bill was withdrawn.
Another warrant was issued in which the original Mariland encompassed the Eastern Shore and Virginia adherents again clamored, objecting to the southern boundary.
Subsequently the boundary was altered to run from the mouth of the Potomac across Chesapeake Bay to Watkins Point, thence to the Atlantic Ocean. leaving part of the Eastern Shore for the Virginians.
George died on the 15th of April 1632.
His estates and his patent went to his eldest son, Cecil, the new Lord Baltimore. Also called Cecilius which was how he signed his name in Latin. Cecil was 26 years old by the time the patent was in its final phases of progression. Of Cecil, Pomfret tells us that his interest in colonization was "persistent and abiding," and his "views on religion remained tolerant in a violent age" (78). Pomfret also recommends the books, THE SOUTHERN COLONIES IN THE 17th CENTURY, 1607-1689 (by Frank Wesley Craven) and Charles M. Andrews' THE COLONIAL PERIOD OF AMERICAN HISTORY (several volumes produced between 1934 and 1938 in New Haven, CT).
The fourth warrant prepared was the last warrant prepared (it pushed the northern boundary and extended it westward to the source of the Potomac). On 30 JUNE 1632 the government finally issued the charter.
The governmental provisions followed those of the Avalon grant so there was precedent but the Calverts were different than Virginians and even the Pennsylvanians who they would eventually grapple with in more border battles.
Pomfret explains that the governmental provisions of the Calvert's charter followed those of the Avalon grant EXCEPT that the type of tenure was changed from knight service to free and common socage. In a footnote he draws out attention to Andrews' THE COLONIAL PERIOD OF AMERICAN HISTORY and the note reads, "Knight service bestowed feudal rights that were more trouble than they were worth. Free and common socage was more vital, permitting both an oath of allegiance AND the imposition of quitrents" (Pomfret, 78).
Yeah that had us reaching for the dictionary.
Socage, from Soke. Feudal tenure of land by a tenant not a knight, in return for agricultural or other nonmilitary services or for payment of rent in money (thus vital).
Quitrents: A rent paid by a freeman in lieu of services required of him by feudal custom.
Pomfret: "The alteration was included because Baltimore had learned from his Irish experience that he did not wish to be burdened with knight service. Familiar with procedures in chancery, he fashioned his original petition so as to yield a maximum of rights and a minimum of obligations. As in the Avalon patent, there was a stipulation that he was to hold his lands in the same manner and exercise the same authority as the Bishop of Durham. In this way Baltimore successfully obtained the very special privilege accorded in ancient times to an English lord charged with the heavy burden of maintaining security on a dangerous frontier. He received absolute power over the administration and defense of his province. All writs were issued in his name instead of that of the king, and confirmation of laws rested in him. The Statute of Quia Emptores, forbidding feudal subdivision except with the king's assent, did not apply to his proprietary, and he could fix rents and services on whatever manors he created. Added to these prerogatives was a clause to the effect that every interpretation of the charter terms would be favorable to the patentee. From the point of view of English law, the palatinate of Maryland was as free from royal intervention and control as the palatinates of the 14th Century on the Welsh and Scottish borders. Thus the king carved the province of Maryland out of the territory granted to the Virginia Company in 1621, a reassignment of land which he felt free to make after annulment of the company charter in 1624" (79 Founding the American Colonies).
When word of Calvert's charter got around bitter opposition bristled.
The Virginia planters protested and their complaint was referred to the Privy Council whose legal adviser quickly pointed out that it was "not only awkward but dangerous to bestow so many powers upon the Calverts" especially because such powers had not been bestowed upon neighbors of the colony. The competition (Virginia) was slighted. Legal counsel also pointed out that the privileges granted to one person could jeopardize the rights of Englishmen in the colony.
But legal counsel, at that time, did not compromise the institution of the charter and Lord Baltimore (Cecil) advertised his plans for the new colony "carefully and widely."
First expedition to depart JUNE 1633.
The Jesuits were permitted to sponsor the undertaking and this swayed the mission into a decidedly Catholic objective. For marketing purposes this generated a targeted audience.
Pomfret tells us that a number of Catholic gentlemen and their servants agreed to go and to split the considerable cost (estimated to be at least 10,000 pounds). The Maryland Assembly later made some effort to compensate Cecil for his outlay.
The Virginians tried to fate the expedition into a no go by appeals to the Privy Council and even by hiring Calvert's seamen. The Council did hold up the expedition from 20 August until the 22nd of November 1633 on the ground that certain passengers had not taken the Oath of Allegiance. "Since the oath required denial of papal authority, it is thought that a number of priests and Catholic laymen avoided it by concealing themselves or by boarding the two ships, the Ark and the Dove, below London" Pomfret tells the story. Citing that only 128 out of several hundred passengers ever did take the oath.
The ships sailed from Cowes on 22 November but were soon separated by storm. The Dove was forced to return to the Scilly Islands. Both vessels finally proceeded by way of the Canaries and West Indies, where they rejoined one another at Barbados. After resting and separating again they arrived at the Virginia Capes on 27 February 1634. The Virginians were "far from cordial," but Governor John Harvey helped them obtain provisions.
On the 25th of March the little band celebrated Mass and took formal possession of the country. Later they moved southward to the Indian town of Yoacomico which they renamed St. Mary's in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria and their religious freedom.
Other accounts, such as Thwaites', say that Cecil sent his brother Leonard with about 200 colonists (20 gentlemen and the rest laborers and mechanics). I suppose the way history works, it is sometimes fashionable to flaunt aristocratic order and sometimes preferable to show how ordinarily human the folks were when they established those first living spaces.
Thwaites also suggests that the Jesuits were peaceable to the Indians and there is a lot of controversy about that fact.
Going through many note piles we re-found a piece of online information that seems relevant to research on Dulaney/Delaney, maybe even DELANA in a mammoth work entitled, "DULANEY/DELANEY Descendants," Compiled 5 Mar 2008 by Eobert Stone Duggan, Jr.
It certainly reminds us that we have a ways to go in our Quilt project! We're still reading up on the thirteen original colonies and haven't even started a trek through Kentucky territory. One glaringly important historical fact we have strewn across a few folders is that Green County, Pennsylvania wasn't carved out as a Pennsylvania place before 1796. That area was considered Virginia.
Anyway, we're not saying that Grandmother Matilda or her husband John Delana jump out at us on this long list of "DULANEY/DELANEY Descendants" but we want to include it as possible further research material in the quest. Like the Fox-es in the Pennsylvania/West Virginia area where our people lived, it's amazing how many different lineages and travel journeys are all contained within the same names of old.
