Re: [CHILDRESS RESEARCH] Joel Childress
by Conduff G. Childress, Jr.
Lee,
There is a lot more involved here then what Joel's father's name
was. Joel existed in a context. The identity of the people around Joel may
be the only key to figuring out Joel's ancestry, especially since there are
so far no other records that link his father to him. Whether his father's
name turns out to be Benjamin, John Benjamin, Joel Benjamin or something
else really is of little importance if we can go nowhere from there. The
two people we know that definitely connect with him is 1789 are named
Abraham and Stephen. What is of importance in going forward from here is
determing how they relate to him, how others may relate to them, etc. and
only then have we any hope of unraveling his ancestry.
Con
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee A. Rau" <leerau(a)comcast.net>
To: <CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:24 PM
Subject: RE: [CHILDRESS RESEARCH] Joel Childress
> Con,
>
> The critical point with respect to the name of Joel's father isn't who
> was present when the first order was entered or why a hearing was
> ultimately held. What is critical is that a hearing was held and the
> court did not feel the need to correct the existing record as to the
> identity of Joel's father.
>
> Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conduff G. Childress, Jr. [mailto:cchldrss@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 4:00 PM
> To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS RESEARCH] Joel Childress
>
> Lee,
> I don't follow this at all. You wrote
>
> >I think you are probably right that Joel
> > was emotionally attached to Abraham and when he learned about the
> > apprenticeship to Stephen he voiced his objections resulting in a
> > setting aside of the original order and a hearing.
>
> On what basis are you assuming that Joel was not present at the original
> hearing? I can see absolutely no basis to assume that this is something
> that Stephen did on his own. It is considerably more likely that the
> person
> voicing opposition was Abraham.
>
> Con
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lee A. Rau" <leerau(a)comcast.net>
> To: <CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [CHILDRESS RESEARCH] Joel Childress
>
>
> > Thanks Ted, I appreciate it. I think you are probably right that Joel
> > was emotionally attached to Abraham and when he learned about the
> > apprenticeship to Stephen he voiced his objections resulting in a
> > setting aside of the original order and a hearing.
> >
> > For the benefit of Cindy Childrey and others who might not be familiar
> > with Joel and the issues that have arisen concerning his parentage I
> > apologize for not making that clear. As you probably know, Joel was
> the
> > father of Sarah Whitsett Childress, b. September 04, 1803, who on
> > January 1, 1824, married James Knox Polk. Polk became the Eleventh
> > President of the United States. For that reason alone there has been
> a
> > great deal of interest in Joel's pedigree, of which little is known.
> >
> > The question of Joel's pedigree, though, has taken on broader
> > significance because one of his descendants, John Williams Childress,
> in
> > 1960 wrote family memoirs in which he describe his childhood
> observation
> > of an inscription on Joel's tombstone which he said read "Joel
> > Childress, son of John, son of Joel, who first emigrated from Wales,
> in
> > his own ship, with cargo, in the year 1745." My recollection is that
> > tombstone ended up in part as the hearth of a fireplace, and only what
> > appears to be a fragment survives today.
> >
> > The reason that this took on a broader significance is that the owners
> > of the original Rootsweb Childress list have inferred from this
> > inscription, and perhaps other evidence as well, that the first
> > Childress immigrants arrived together in 1745 in a ship that they
> > purchased collectively. On that basis they have rejected earlier
> views
> > held by Childress researchers that their immigrant ancestor was one
> > Abraham Childers who settled on the James River in Virginia circa
> 1648,
> > or some other Childers, including a possible brother of Abraham,
> > Philemon. The owners of the original Childress list believe that the
> > earlier Childers are English and genetically distinct from the
> Childress
> > family, which they believe has Scotch origins.
> >
> > A few years ago, I came across abstracts of the minutes of Joel's 1789
> > apprenticeship proceeding wherein Joel's father was said to have been
> > Benjamin. Based on that, and evidence that one possible Childers
> family
> > of pre-1745 origins had apparently changed its name from Childers to
> > Childress, I challenged that theory. My point then, as it is now, was
> > that we can't rule out the possibilities that at least some Childress'
> > descend from Childers' or from Childress ancestors who were here
> before
> > 1745. This list was started because the owners of the original
> > Childress list continue to resist those possibilities.
> >
> > I hope that clears it up for you.
> >
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TChildress45(a)aol.com [mailto:TChildress45@aol.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:55 PM
> > To: CHILDRESS-RESEARCH-L(a)rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: [CHILDRESS RESEARCH] Joel Childress
> >
> >
> >
> > Evening Lee,
> >
> > I must say, your exhaustive research is quite impressive. I admire
> your
> >
> > interpretation refererance Joel Childress and his fate as an orphan.
> > Being
> > aged 12 myself, once apon a time, I can imagine the mixed feelings of
> > the
> > young man. I fathom he fancied Abraham Childress for one reason or
> > another,
> > just my opinion. What Stephen Childress'es role and his kinship was,
> > has not
> > been established it would seem. I ofcourse realize there was a
> Stephen
> > Childress in Tennessee. I've been sent documents from a fellow
> > researcher
> > concerning a Stephen in Rutherford County, Tennessee. However, it is
> my
> >
> > belief at this point, that he was not the Stephen of whom was involved
> > with
> > Joel Childress in 1789 per your discovery, however it could be
> possible.
> >
> >
> > I thank you for your consistancy of your documentation. As we all
> know,
> > this
> > is most important as we search for elusive ancestors. I agree with
> your
> >
> > opinion regarding Joel's father's name. I've done a study of
> Charlotte
> > County, Virginia records, I feel there were many unaccounted
> > Childress'es of
> > whom their records were lost or destroyed. The message regarding a
> > Benjamin
> > Childress'es wife, named Susan, I believe made known by list members,
> > Kay,
> > Mary Jean and perhaps you? This is the type of evidence we should
> > investigate, due to Joel's father being known as Benjamin. If Joel's
> > father
> > had the double name which included John, I've seen no solid proof
> > regarding
> > it. Keep up the good work.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ted Childress
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>