Rumseys

Rumsey is an unusual name, in fact in my research there are only 3 Rumseys on Long Island prior to 1800. Rumsey 1 was the son of Israel Reeve and is documented as having died on the Prison Ship Jersey with his brother Benjamin (We assume this Benjamin is the one who Salmon Records shows in 1782 (no month or day given) who died "about 3 weeks ago"). Rumsey 2 was born in 1789 he was the son of Luther Reeve, grandson of Israel Reeve. Rumsey 3 was born in 1790 and was the son of Joel Reeve (b. Abt. 1755).

Where does a name like Rumsey come from? Most likely it's origin is in remembrance of a mother's maiden name. Much like "Wines Reeve" is an ommage to the Wines family into which Anna Wines Reeve was born. Most researchers believe that Rumsey is a derivitive of the surname "Ramsey/Rumsey". Baker states on p. 270 of his Study:

"...we think it more likely he (Israel) was a son of Solomon Reeve 3 (Joseph 2, Thomas 1) because, as Mather notes Solomon married in 1724 Sarah Rumsey and Israel had a son Rumsey (and a daughter Sarah)."

Baker theorizes that Israel was the son of Solomon Reeve and Sarah Rumsey because of the use of the name Rumsey. This is the simplest explaination of the use of the unusual name. Unfortunately, Solomon left no will and there is no record of his children other than the conclusion that Solomon Jr. was one of his son. I can only think of three reasons Joel (b. abt 1755) would name his second son Rumsey. He named his first son Bethuel after his father, and his second son Rumsey was named for his first wife's maiden name. Now this is a very plausible theory until one realizes that no other marriages besides that of Solomon Reeve and Sarah Rumsey, occurred on Long Island between the Reeves and the Ramseys/Rumseys.

Perhaps Joel was so moved by the deaths of the patriot soldiers aboard the Prison ship Jersey, that he resolved to commemorate Rumsey 1 by naming his second son in his honor. Certainly this could have happened this way and there may be a bit of truth in it. But I prefer the last possibility, which is that Joel named his second son for his grandmothers familiy and his uncle's lost son Rumsey 1. He may even have been inspired by his cousin Luther who name one of his sons, Rumsey 2 who was born a year earlier, after his brother Rumsey 1. I think this is a rather compelling theory and makes the case for Israel and Bethuel being brothers and sons of Solomon even stronger. In fact, when writing his manuscript in the 1970's, Baker did not have the information about my line that has since come to light. He in fact dismissed Bethuel as being a descendant of one of the earlier Southamton Reeves such as Thomas Reeves. It was not until I was able to substantiate Rumsey 3 as a grandson of Bethuel in 2004, that the name Rumsey became solidly connected to Bethuel. It's a critical piece of the puzzle in my mind. Connecting to Solomon is crutial as it transports both Israel's line and Bethuel's line back across the Atlantic Ocean to England.

Four Brothers from France

In todays post I'm going to examine the Reeve myth that four brothers, huguenots, came from France, the original spelling of the name was Revee, or pronunced that way. One brother spelled his name Rives and went south.

As I've shown already this legend is well documented in Israel's line as recounted by his decendant and quoted in both Mather's and Baker's books. What is interesting is source in print for my own line in the History of the Western Reserve.

"The first Reeves came from Dijon, France. They were Huguenots, and, seeking religious freedom, the most fled to England, though a few settled in Ireland and Holland."

Huguenots were French Protestants who were persecuted in France for their beliefs. Many fled to other countries including the American Colonies where they founded New Paltz and New Rochelle in New York. There was a small settlement on the south shore of Staten Island as well. There are currently a large number of sites on line that list surnames of Huguenot families that immigrated to America. None of these sites list the name Reeve, Reeves, or even Revee. The closest names listed are Rives that became Rivers in America or Revere. While there does appear to be a surname "Revee", it seems to be an alternate spelling of perhaps Reve or Rive and may be related to Reeve.

I think this story is a confusion, perhaps exageration of the true story, or poor research of the surname Reeve. As anyone researching the surname Reeve should know, a Reeve in England was a minor official. They were a sort of tax collector and enforcer of the laws for the Lord in feudal times. Chaucer's "The Reeve's Tale" is a classic example of the Reeve, if a bit unflattering. It shows that Reeve's were well established in England by the time Chaucer was writing his tales in the late 1300's. The modern word Sheriff was dervived from the Shire Reeve. There are may assertions that Reeves and their many spellings came from France. This is true, the first Reeves crossed the English Channel with William to Conqueror in 1066. There were Reeves in France, and Reeves crossing to England throughout this time period. Some may have been Huguenots, but like any Profession based name like Cooper, Tanner or Smith, there were loads of Reeves. The following is a quote from "Reliques of the Rives":

"That the Ryves or Rives family is of French derivation is susceptible of proof from the pronunciation of the name: even after a separation of four or more centuries from France, the "i" in "Rives," as also the "y" in "Ryves," is pronounced as the French "i": that is to say, like the English double "e" in "Reeves." As a general rule, with but insignificant exceptions, the final "s" in French is not pronounced; and, it might be expected, therefore, that the early generations in England would have pronounced the name, "Reve.""

Currently, it is universally accepted that all variations of spelling of the name originate from Norman feudalism in France. That does not mean however that there was one Reeve ancestor, nor that all Reeves are somehow related any more than would it be true that all individuals bearing the surname Smith are related.

One of the first most complete studies of the Reeve surname was the Reliques of the Rives by J. Rives Childs, published in 1929. This particular work deals with the decendants of Robert Ryves (1490-1551) of Dorsetshire, England. This work also details the immigration of William Rives to Colonial Virginia in the mid to late 1600's. William is the founder of a long line of Rives of various spellings throughout Virginia, Tennesee and the Carolinas. Childs states in his book:

"Although the descent of the emigrant, William Rives, unfortunately is not susceptible of record proof - despite the fact that no pains have been spared in the effort to establish the fact beyond cavil - inferential evidence thereof is by no means lacking.
Comparison of the baprismal names used by the first and later generations of the family in Virginia with those of the Oxfordshire branch of the Dorsetshire family reveals a striking similarity and gives strong support to the assumption that the emigrant ancestor of the Virginia family was the youngest son of Timothy Ryves. As a renealogist has remarked: "In old families, baptismal names were religiously adhered to, and it is almost a certainty that any line of descendants may be placed upon the main stem by attention to the baptismal names""

I find it interesting that a work as cited as Reliques of the Rives is as dependant on "inferential evidence" as my line is to make the leap back to England.

I think over time, research from different Reeve lines has been muddled together and confused by poor research. I think that the migration of Reeves from France to England in general has been mixed up with the flight of Huguenots from France, and suddenly Reeves were Huguenots. The fact is that the Reeve surname was well established in England long before the rise of the Huguenots and the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in the late 1500's. I think this confusion is where the Huguenot notion originates and the four brothers from France.

Consider the children's game "Telephone", there is a long line of people and the first person whispers a message in the next person's ear. The last person in the line speaks the message they received out loud. The fun is to see how the message changed at the end of the line. This is the trouble with oral traditions, each teller changes the story a little bit until it's hardly recognizable. In Genesis, god made the world in seven days, this is hardly likely, more likely this is a representation of a longer period of time, simplified for convenience and limited understanding. In a the barely literate world of Colonial America, ancestors who crossed the English Channel with William the Conqueror, are compressed in time to generations that are closer and easier to imagine.

In the absence of availible evidence, people often turn to conjecture which they repeat as though it were proven. Eager genealogists see several Reeves living in the same area and assume they are related. Searching google for the origins of the surname Reeve brings up a business were you can buy a copy of your coat of arms with a very general outline of it's origins. The information is generally correct, but over simplified and copied from multiple sources. Reeves in general, were not nobility to begin with. Now certain ancestors of lines like Robert Ryves may have been awarded lands or titles or purchased them. Certainly, Robert Ryves coat of arms is valid for that line of Reeves. Everyone wants to have noble blood though, the idea of being related to nobility is very seductive. I have one family line that has been claiming relationship to a English Countess for a century even though no one can prove it. Robert Ryves might have had some land and minor titles, this makes it very desirable to somehow tie to that line. Many Reeves probably rang true to Chaucer's charicterizations, being hungry for greater position and power; to be the Lord and not his agent.

It would be quite attractive to weave a tale of four brothers of noble blood, persecuted in France, who came to America and founded four branches of Reeves one brother who used the name Rives and went south. Simply borrowing bit's and pieces of the truth and of other Reeve's tales and melding them into one large family story.

The facts are, that when you try to find any substantiating evidence, the whole fairy tale falls apart. The true tale should sound more like four brothers who's ancestors originated in France and crossed the English Channel with William the Conqueror. Perhaps there were four brothers, but the immigrants seem to be more distant than Israel and Bethuel's generation. Maybe "came from France" referred to the earlier history and was interpreted as more recent history by young ears.

Parallel Families: Israel and Bethuel

The speculation about Israel and Bethuel began as a footnote attached to Israel Reeve in Mather's The refugees of 1776 from Long Island to Connecticut.

"The family tradition is that Israel was French. We have always been told stories of our old French grandfather, Israel the weaver; that he was one of four, or more, brothers who came from France; that the spelling of the name was changed; it was supposed the spelling was Revee, or was pronounced as if spelled Revee; that the family was of noble birth, which was not impossible amoung the Huguenots. Our g. grandfather, Luther, used to be very proud of his French blood, which he called "royal blood". He said he was one-eighth French blood, which was worth more than all the rest. The "one-eighth" which he claimed makes me look farther than his father for his French blood. As I count it, the Frenchman should be his g. grandfather. However, as our grandfather told us of his grandfather, the Frenchman, we had always supposed he was indeed the immigrant. We have so far failed to find either the parents of Israel Reeve, or record of his coming to this country. As others theorize, and do not hesitate to publish his parentage as they see it, I feel that our family tradition as to his nationality should receive as much consideration as their theories; especially the one which calls him sone of Daniel and Experience who were married six years after he was born! Of the year of his birth we are positive. Among the decendants of Bethuel we find, practically, the same traditions as our own. That of four, or more, brothers from France; the change in the spelling or pronunciation of the name; and they add that one of the brothers went South and his name is Rive or Rives. Thay also have the name Rumsey in their family. As we knew nothing of this family except an occasional rumor of a Rumsey Reeve who lived in Willoughby, Ohio, and had a prominent nose (as had my grandfather Rumsey) the tradition have now been handed from one to the other. After 10 years of research, we have not found the ancestors of Israel; nor thye, the ancestors of Bethuel. (Mrs. H.A.R.C.)"

The parallel traditions are significant even if the are not accurate. It certainly points to a relation of some kind. If Israel and Bethuel were immigrants to this country, there should be a record of at least one of them arriving. They did not spring from the ground fully grown. There are records of arrivals in the colonies far older that the time in which these men lived that still exhist, and if the records of arrival were destroyed, as we have seen from other lines, there are records of departure that can be referenced. In all this time no one had found such records for either Israel, Bethuel or the fictional boat that arrived from France with the four Reeve brothers. The Huguenots as a group are well documented and Reeve is not among the lists of names of of protestants fleeing France. If Israel and Bethuel are not immigrants, then they were born in the colonies to some family.

Rumsey Reeve of Willoughby, Ohio is no rumor, he is my ggg grandfather. In fact, there are only three Rumsey Reeves in Suffolk County, New York up to 1800. Israel's son who dies on the Prison Ship "Jersey", Luther's son who is born in 1789, and Joel's son (Bethuel's grandson) Rumsey who was born in 1790. There really are no other Reeve/Reeves families using the name Rumsey. Baker might be wrong about Isaiah and Zadok being brothers to Israel and Bethuel, he might even be wrong about Solomon being their father. However, I think there is significant and compelling arguments to say that Israel and Bethuel are related.

Israel Reeve

Israel's line, of all the possible sons of Solomon, is the line that parallels Bethuel's line the most closely. Israel's line is also possibly one of the more researched and documented genealogical lines. Baker says of Israel:

(c) Israel (possibly), a refugee from Southold to Lyme, Connecticut in September 1776 with 8 passengers (p278) which corresponds to the size of his family in 1776 Census (p123). Considerable information about him is given on p521 of Mather's Refugees (p278 hereof) including speculation of his parentage by a descendant, Mrs. H. Amelia Reeve Chapin.

She reported a tradition that Israel was one of four or more brothers who came from France. She nevertheless considered, by doubted, that Israel was son of Solomon and Sarah as "it does not seem probable that Israel fled to Connecticut, leaving his aged parents as Southold".

We dealt with this matter at some length on pages 124 & 270, including "It is true Solomon was of avanced age in 1776...but we believe the circumstances in Southold following the defeat of the Revolutionary Army in the Battle of Long Island were such that few men of Israel's age (46) would stay in Southold, regardless of the age of their parents. We therefore think it could well be that Israel was a son of Solomon". We might add that another reason for Solomon to stay was his refusal to sign the Association in 1775. We also noted that Israel had a son Rumsey and a daughter Sarah who may have derived their names from their mother, Sarah Rumsey.

If the reported tradition that Israel was one of four or more brothers from France is correct, Israel of course could not be a son of Solomon. While traditions have oftentimes proved to be accurate, we wonder if it is in this instance. For Israel and his brothers to settle in a remote part of the English colonies in the same area as other Reeves who seem to be related to the Southold or Southampton families, would be quite a coincidence.

As we noted on p124 Israel was born 1730, married Theodosia Case in 1753 (June 17 - see p67) in Cutchogue Chruch, was a Representative in Connecticut Legislature and dies at Lyme, Conn. (The date of his death was June 6, 1813; his wife died April 2, 1808, per Salmon Records). Israle Reeve witnessed the 1760 will of Joshua Wells (p135), and a 1763 deed for land at Indian Neck (p.40). This is the same part of Southold in which Solomon Reeve received land under the 1722 will of his father, Joseph Reeve. He was appointed Executor of the 1774 will of Benjamin Case, and in the same year he witnessed the will of Timothy Wells (p135).

His four sons were Benjamin, Rumsey, Israel Jr. and Luther who also were refugees to Connecticut (see Mather's Refugees, p518 etc.) Israel Jr and his sister Mehitabel were baptized on July 10, 1757 at Cutchogue (p67).

Mather (p521-p278 hereof) says Israel Reeve Jr married Fannie Lord; also that he served and was wounded in the Revolution and received a pension. "After the War he returned to Southold. He also served in the War of 1812; and was, for some time, warden of the State Prison at Auburn, N.Y.". He witnessed a Southold deed in 1788 (p40) and participated in expense of building the meeting house in Cutchgue 1788-91 (p315). He appears in Southold 1790 Census with 1 male over 16 and 2 females over 16 (p128). His daughter Sarah died in Southold August 8, 1798 (p103). We obtained a photo copy of his PEnsion Application papers; a summary of them is given in the Military Records Chapter of our Study, p217. It shows he was born on June 5, 1757 and was a mariner of Southold in 1787, was of Cayuga County, N.Y. in 1824, and moved to Massachusetts in 1835.

Benjamin & Rumsey, two of the other sons of Israel Reeve, also served in the War and died in the prison ship "Jersey" (Mather, p518 & 527 - p275 & 284 hereof). We assume this Benjamin is the one who Salmon Records shows in 1782 (no month or day given) who died "about 3 weeks ago" (p101).

Luther, last sone of Israel Reeve, was born in 1759, served in the War, shows as age 17 in August 5, 1776 Muster of Capt. Paul Reeve's Company (p213), married 1785 Anna Pearson, was a pensioner in Ohio in 1828, and died at New Lyme, Ohio Dec. 13, 1843, age 83. Mumerout descendants of Luther's son Rumsey Reeve (1789-1863) joined the D.A.R. Mather p525 (p282 hereof) carried out this line at some length. Mrs. Chapin stems from this branch of the family. Luther was a refugee from L.I. to Conn. in 1776 (p282).

This is a long quote so I'll continue this discussion in the next post.

Zadok Reeve

Poor Zadock, I've seen his name spelled so many ways; Zadok, Zedoc, Zydoc and Ledok just to name a few. Baker states on page 373 of his manuscript:

(e) Zadok (possibly) who appears in Southold 1776 Census immediately after Solomon which indicates Solomon may have been his father. His Family consisted of 1 male age 16-50 (Zadok himself as he was born about 1741; he shows as age 19 in 1760 in the Suffolk County Militia), 1 male under 16, 1 female over 16 and 1 under. He also is in 1790 Census - 1 male over 16, 2 under 16, 3 females. He married Phebe Tappen on March 8, 1768 at Aquebogue. The Church Records state they were both of Wading River. Date of their Death unknown. Zadok Reeve witnessed the 1780 will of Timothy Hudson.
We should add that a Zadok Reeve was in the Riverhead Tax List in 1819 & 1820 but not in 1821 and was in Riverhead Census in 1800 and 1810. Also a Zadok Reeve is buried in Vigo County, Indiana, died March 7, 1885, age 88-4-24 (b 1796) who may have been his son, or grandson.

I believe the Zadok in Riverhead is indead the same Zadok, looking at the neighbors and placement with them. By the 1790 census Zadok has two boys and 2 girls. The 1800 census however shows a family of ten. It's unclear whether Zadok has eight children or that this might be a blended family. In 1800 Zadock would be close to 60 and it is possible that an older child and his family living with Zadok, caring for the aging parents. Although not proven, I suspect the names of at least some of Zadok's children are Zadok Jr., Silas, John and Jane. But again more research is necessary as this is not my direct line.

Early Census of Long Island

This is a convenience post, since I find myself constantly looking for and interpreting the early Long Island Census.

Theses are the catagories for the 1776 Census:
1. Males above 50 years of age
2. Males above 16 and under 50 years of age
3. Males under 16 years of age
4. Females above 16 years of age
5. Females under 16 years of age
6. Male and Female negros above 16 years of age
7. Male and Female negros under 16 years of age

These are the categories for the 1790 Census:
1. Males 16 years of age and above
2. Males under 16 years of age
3. Females including heads of families
4. All other free persons
5. Slaves

Pre 1790 Census resources:

1675 Census:
East Hampton

1698 Census:
Southold
Southampton

1737 Census:
Suffolk County

1776 Census:
Brookhaven Town Early Census
Southampton east of the watermill
Southampton west of the watermill
Inhabitants of New York 1774-1776 at Ancestry
Refugees from Long Island

1778 Census:
Suffolk County

Solomon and Isaiah

Since Solomon Sr. did not leave a will, it becomes a challenge to discover his children's names and connect the lineage. In fact, except for Solomon Jr. the only way to know who Solomon's other children were may be DNA testing. Even that might be futile as I'm not entirely certain that Solomon Jr. had male issue. Solomon Jr.'s line is not one I've spent a great deal of time on yet. He is the only child who is clearly related to Solomon Sr.

Fortunately, Isaiah Reeve did leave a will that was published in the Wills of Suffolk County, Long Island [New York], Liber A, 1787-1798, which can be found in Google Books.

"A-452. Isaiah Reeve, of Brookhaven, 15 Oct. 1795...given son Silas Reeve estate for life and than to his two sons Charles and Joel Reeve equally divided...gives daughter Abigail Post five shillings annually, and if she have an heir it gets 40 pounds...gives daughter Elizabeth Homan 50 pounds...gives daughter Julianna Reeve three pounds annually and home while single and 50 pounds when married...gives daughter Mehitable Brushup, (Bishop) 30 pounds... gives four granddaughters Abigail, Catherine, Elizabeth and Marah Homan 10 pounds each...executors: son Silas Reeve and John Havens Jr. Proved 29 June 1796 by Zachariah Sandford. Administration granted 29 June 1796 to Silas Reeve and John Havens Jr."

So family count in the will totals 3 sons, 3 married daughters, 1 single daughter, at least 4 female grandchildren. We can infer that Isaiah's wife is already dead in 1795 as there is no mention of her. John Havens Jr. may or maynot be related to the family.

In the same Liber is the will of Matthew Woodruff, of Brookhaven dated 8 Feb. 1791 to which Isiah Reeve "weaver" is listed as a witness. Along with Isaiah, Mordecai Homan "cordwainer" is also listed as a witness. Likely Mordecai Homan is either Isaiah's son in law or he is Elizabeth Homan's father in law. And no doubt they all live in close proximity to each other.

In the 1776 Census, Isaiah is listed in Meritches also know at one time as the Manor of St. George, which is at the edge of Brookhaven. His family consists of 1 male above 16 years and below 50, likely this is Isaiah; two females over 16 years and 4 females under sixteen years of age. That's a total of six females, 4 daughters, a wife and one unknown female.

It appears Isaiah has no sons at home at this point, while we know they are alive, Joel and Charles are not in the census. There is a Silas in Southold that may be Isaiah's oldest son, his family is 1 male between 16 and 50, 1 female over 16 yrs. and 3 females under 16, they could be a young family.

There are two Solomons in the census, obviously one is the father and one is the son. The Solomon in Southold is obviously Sr. as the household has 1 male over 50 and one female over 16. The Solomon in Brookhaven is most likely Jr. and his household includes one male above 50, 2 males between 50 and 16, and 1 felmale above 16 likely his wife.

In the 1790 Census, we find Isaiah in Brookhaven with 2 males over 16 and 3 females. We know from Isaiah's will made in 1795 that Julianna was unmarried, she is likely one of the female and one of the married daughters was likely still single in 1790 and married before 1795. Solomon Sr. dies in 1783-4 and is now missing from the Southold Census. Solomon Jr. is missing from the 1790 census it's possible that Isaiah is now living with Solomon in Brookhaven. Oddly there is no sign of Isaiah's sons Joel and Charles; Silas has also disappeared from Southold. The will tells us that they are alive but I am uncertain where they have gone.