|
|
01/18/07 |
|
Énumérations des terres sur le Block No. 4 assigné aux
anciens soldats du King's Americant Regiment avec les soldats sur la
partie haute du Block No. 5 assigné aux soldats du Queen's Rangers (en
apposition des lots du capitaine Attwood), en date du 5 août, 1785. Note: Esther Clark Wright écrit dans son livre, The Loyalists in New Brunswick, que l'on confondait souvent le Block No. 4 avec le No. 6, et que le Régiment des 1st DeLancey's confondait leur Block avec le No. 6. Ce recensement devrait indiqué le Block No. 6 - comme c'est celui du KAR et de celui de Philip Long où il recevra 198 acres de terrains en août, 1787. Le document en date du mois d'août 1785, une nouvelle information qui pourrait changer notre vue globale de la vie de Philip Long! Repérer des nouveaux documents sur la vie de Philip Long est un évènement plutôt rare mais c'est toujours un moment palpitant pour les descendants qui s'y intéressent. La dernière découverte nous est parvenue grâce aux efforts de Gilles Long. C'était un document en date de 1799 avec la signature même de Philip! Benoît Long a "retrouvé" un document récemment dans la collection Winslow Papers aux Archives du Nouveau-Brunswick qui porte le nom “Return of Settlers on Block No. 4 assigned to the King’s American late Regiment of Foot including also the settlers on the upper part of Block No. 5 Assigned to the Queens Rangers (opposite Captain Attwood's), 5 August 1785”. Nous disons bien retrouver puisque ce document sagit bien du même document que Jean-Guy Poitras avait déjà entrevu il y a plusieurs années. Cette énumération est signé par le capitaine Isaac Attwood lui-même. Les images de ce recensement sont incluses plus bas pour votre visionnement, et nous avons aussi réalisé un tableau qui met en relief toute l'information contenu sur le document original. Les originaux sont parfois difficiles à lire. Ce document contient au moins une pièce d'information qui pourrait surprendre, et peut-être même choqué certains de la famille, dépendamment de la façon dont on voudra bien interpréter celle-ci! Une recherche plus poussée sera nécessaire pour vérifié ces informations mais nous voulions faire part de cette trouvaille le plus rapidement possible pour que tous les recherchistes de la famille s'en donnent à coeur joie ... Le recensement indique clairement que Philip Long était accompagné par une "femme" lors du recensement. Malheureusement, il n'y pas pas plus de détails pour éclaircir un tellmorceau d'histoire, mais les scénarios débordent immédiatement. Nous allons tenter d'en élaborer quelques uns. Il est clair que pour nous, que le premier scénario est celui d'une épouse tout simplement. Philip aurait pu être marié avant son arrivée à Saint Jean en Septembre 1783, où même après son arrivé mais avant son mariage avec Marie-Julie en 1792. Par contre, l'enregistrement de mariage de Philip et Marie-Julie en 1792 est clair - Philip était "Batchelor", c'est-à-dire célibataire. Selon Jean-Guy Poitras, une autorité dans le domaine des mariages, une telle note était importante et indique que Philip ne fût pas marié avant 1792. Dans la plupart des cas connus par l'auteur (à ce point dans sa recherche), des femmes dans une "maisonnée" (pensons ici une hutte ou une cabane en bois tout au plus), recensés avec des hommes tombent dans les groupes suivants: (a) un officier ou un soldat avec une épouse, parfois avec des enfants; (b) un officier avec une servante - certains voudront peut-être croire qu'un simple soldat pourrait avoir une servante en plein milieu de la forêt vierge, mais cela demande des circonstances qui dépassent l'entendement! - les Privates étaient très pauvres, souvent eux-mêmes des servants aux officiers qui se servaient d'eux pour débroussaillés leurs propres terres - alors l'idée de voir notre ancêtre, a moitié aveugle dans la forêt avec une servante demandera de longues discussions ...; (c) des officiers avec des esclaves, ou une indiennes peut-être. Bien sûr, cette femme pourrait être une servante lié a un autre officier ou un autre soldat Voilà quelque chose de nouveau a cherché dans toutes les banques de données, n'est-ce pas? Un autre scénario pourrait faire appel à une mère, une tante, une cousine, bref de la parenté. C'est difficile à comprendre que non seulement nous parvenons tout juste à sortir du gouffre dans lequel l'hypothèse d'un frère nous a emmené depuis des décennies, mais maintenant il faudra se jeter dans un autre gouffre encore une fois avec l'idée d'une mère ou une soeur inconnue depuis toujours. Il est beaucoup plus facile d'expliquer les raisons pourquoi une épouse qui a précédé Marie-Julie aurait été gardé un secret (peut-être) par Philip que d'expliquer pourquoi sa parenté serait aussi demeurée secrète à travers toutes ces décennies ... Après une vérification auprès de Jean-Guy Poitras, il est clair que le scénario d'un mariage avant celui de 1792 est très peu probable. Philip est inscrit comme célibataire en 1792 lors de son mariage avec Marie-Julie, et selon Jean-Guy, les enregistrements de mariages pour l'époque sont très clairs quand il s'agissait de veufs, divorcés etc ... Personne n'a autant d'expertise dans le domaine que Jean-Guy alors les scénarios de servantes, mère, soeur etc .... prennent plus de poids La recherche continue ...
Note: le document ci-haut montre le nom Philip Long, et les colonnes sont pour les "hommes", et pour les "femmes". Il n'y a pas de marques, heureusement, pour les enfants. Pour ce qui est des autres informations sur le dossiers, je vous demande de bien lire la version anglaise à droite. Cela me facilitera la tâche .... car cette information est braiment intéressante mais elle ne mène qu'à une correction des fichiers des archives alors ... Bonne lecture et j'ai hâte de recevoir vos réactions!
|
Return of Settlers on Block No. 4 Assigned to the King's American late Regiment of Foot including also the Settlers on the upper part of Block No. 5 Assigned to the Queen's Rangers (opposite Captain Attwood's) Bel.vus? 5th August 1785~ Note: Esther Clark Wright remarked that Block No. 6 was sometimes referred to as Block No. 4, and the 1st DeLancey's block as Block No. 6. The Return incorrectly describes the Canterbury Grant as Block No. 4 - it is actually No. 6 (where Philip would be granted 198 acres in August 1787). Philip Long on August 5, 1785 – An Amazing Discovery Full Of Possibilities! New and exciting documents about our ancestor are not often discovered but when they are, it is alwyas a special event. The last one was discovered by Gilles Long and contained an actual signature of Philip Long in 1799. Benoît Long uncovered recently a fascinating document in the Winslow Papers entitled “Return of Settlers on Block No. 4 assigned to the King’s American late Regiment of Foot including also the settlers on the upper part of Block No. 5 Assigned to the Queens Rangers (opposite Captain Attwood's), 5 August 1785”. This is the same document that Jean-Guy Poitras saw two decades ago ! Benoît believes there is still yet another census of Fredericton's colony in 1784 that has yet to be found and that has Philip's name on it! The Return is signed by Captain Isaac Attwood himself. The images of the Return are included given their historical value to the Long family, and we have also transcribed the document from these images into a table so that the reader can identify each of the members of the KAR. Of course, this document contains at least one fundamental piece of information that may change forever how we view our ancestor. More research is required into this new information but we wanted to share with new this new find that is full of possiblities .... The record for Philip Long indicates that he was enumerated with a “women”. There are no further details on the relationship between Philip and this women but the scenarios are not very difficult to imagine. We will undertake a first attempt at reviewing each as they are elaborated. It would be fair to say that the immediate implications seems, at least to this author, that Philip may have been married at this time to another women, either prior to his arrival at St John in the Fall of 1783 or after his arrival but before his later marriage to Marie-Julie Couillard Després. We have no proof of this possibility at this point. In fact, in discussions with Jean-Guy Poitras, a true archivist and authority on mariages based on his seminal work on the Mariages in Madwaska, Church Records were very careful in noting details such as Widow, or Divorced. As we know, the Mariage Ceriticate for Philip and Marie-Julie is very clear and includes a reference to Philip as "Batchelor" makes it pretty clear to Jean-Guy that Philip had NOT been married prior to 1792. The other instances that have been found at this point whereby soldiers were enumerated with "women" include (a) Officers or Privates who were actually married; (b) Officers who had servants - it is very unlikely that Privates could afford servants in the middle of a wilderness like Canterbury, New Brunswick in 1785!; or (3) Officers who had slaves. All three of these possibilities are still entertained for the reasons why Philip would have been enumerated with a women, in Canterbury, in 1785 when very few habitations were actually in existence. Of course, without any further information, it is going to be hard to pinpoint what is truth or not but it certainly gives researchers something totally new to find out about our ancestor! The final possibility might be of a mother or a sister, or a cousin / aunt, etc ... These too cannot be dismissed out of hand but it seems very difficult to understand how such a sibling could have existed without ever leaving any trace, including across the generations in oral history. We have barely escaped the "gouffre" with the theory of a brother; to throw a sister or mother on top of that would really get everyone excited ... then again, there is no oral history about a second wife either but that circumstance would be a lot easier to explain! If Philip had been married, it could have taken place either before his arrival in St. John on September 23, 1783 or after. Before his arrival means that there may be a marriage bond somewhere in the United States today that would have his record. Given our knowledge of where Philip resided or lived (which is basically very little), researchers should seek this record out anywhere in the New England area (Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut), or some Southern States such as Georgia, the Carolinas or Virginia. Frankly, its really anyone's guess at this point. Of course, if he married in between his arrival and the Return's date of August 1785, then the possibilities are pretty limited. There were no formal Churches in Fredericton for quite some time, and the only one's were really in St. John. There were many Missions and so marriages might have been recorded. Of course, if the marriage was not recorded or not official .... Reviews of Esther Clark Wright, The Loyalists of New Brunswick, Dave Bell's Early Loyalist St. John, Peter Fisher's, The First History of New Brunswick, and W. O. Raymond, The river St. John, did not yield any information on which Churches were actually organized in that period to capture marriages and where those records might be kept. We know that the Chruch of England the Catholic Church would have kept records, and probably the Presbyterian Church as well. But unless Philip married two French women in his life, the probability is very high that any such first marriage, would have taken place in a Protestant religion (since Philip likely remained a Protestant for the rest of his life). Queries have been sent to the Archives, and the regular search of the websites for the New Brunswick Archives of Vital Statistics, Government Records etc .. have yielded no new information in this regard. The search continues ... A search of Ancestry.com also yielded no useful results but family members are encouraged to seek out their own databases just in case ...
Note: The above inset from the full record (below) shows Philip Long’s name, and a “1” under a column titled Man, and a “1” under the column entitled woman. No childrenwere identified with Philip in this survey. There is another piece of information found in the New Brunswick Archives materials on their website and indicates that Philip Long had been with the King’s American Dragoons as well as having been part of the King’s American Regiment . There is only one other individual in the entire list who is mentioned as having been part of the King’s American Dragoon and that is Sergeant Daniel Wright, also settled in Canterbury. We believe this is simple mistake and we will demonstrate why. The Archives are now in agreement that this is a transcription error, at least in Philip Long's case, and they are double checking Wright's case as well. We have some information on Sergeant Wright from Esther Clark Wright, The Loyalist of New Brunswick. He is listed in the back note pages as a Sergeant but in the KAR and having settled Block 6. From Clark, we also know that enumerators sometimes confused Block 4 and Block 6 and so this part of contradictory information is easily explained. As for the confusion between the KAR and KAD, that presented a much more interesting challenge. Based on the Murtie June Clark XE "Clark:Murtie June" book, Loyalists in the Southern Campaign, and our own research from the New Brunswick Archives, we know that Sergeant Daniel Wright was enumerated as part of the KAR in the following Muster Rolls:
At no time is Captain Wright found, at least in these records, to have been part of another Company or Regiment such as the King’s American Dragoons. There are no Muster Rolls for the KAD in Murtie June Clark’s Loyalists in the Southern Campaign. In Clark, page xvi, of Volume II, we learn that “The Philadelphia Light Dragoons were raised in Phildelphia by their commander, Captain Richard Hovenden. They served with the Queen’s Rangers and the British Legion and in the 1782 were merged with the King’s American Dragoons.” We find this information absolutely captivating since if there ever existed a connection between Philip Long and the KAD, then some link could have existed between our ancestor and Philadelphia through the Company of Light Dragoons. However, after a conversation with the personnel at the Archives and investigation by their personnel, it has been shown that this notation on the KAD versus the KAR may have been simply a transcription error from the original materials. This would be true for Philip Long as well. Confirmation from the Archives, that corrections to the records will be made, are expected at any time. The records for Philip Long will definitely be corrected. If the reader has any interest in the King’s American Dragoons, Donald’s book on Serjeant John Long from the KAD is an excellent source of material. The search continues ...
|
||
|
||||
|
|
||||
This site was last updated 01/18/07
