Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: JosephAHittle
Surnames:
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypoole/66.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1/...
Message Board Post:
"The intent of my contributions to the discussions/statements in this forum is to identify and quote documented evidence in support of any claims I have made/may make. When are documented facts relevant to a discussion pointless? Perhaps esoteric, but pointless?
Is this the "argument" you refer to?"
No, actually not. I have no problem with anyone discussing evidence.
But instead of that you began this and have continued this with the intimation that I (or others who have taught me) have blindly followed Bracken, that I've held that the tradition of my branch belonging to the Cromwell line is the correct one, and that I'm to discount my understanding of what caring people have taught me.
You've invested a great deal of time in creating a webspace in which you openly hold Bracken in contempt, and sure seem to me to have brought that angst into this conversation.
Now, that all may be my reading into what you've done, are doing here, and probably will continue to do in the future.
The real shame of it is that you've done good work that's largely overwhelmed by your presentation.
And, I'm guessing (hoping) that that never was your intent. But if it was, it's totally pointless
Joe
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: barrychapman59
Surnames: Claypoole
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.claypoole/66.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1/mb...
Message Board Post:
Joe,
The intent of my contributions to the discussions/statements in this forum is to identify and quote documented evidence in support of any claims I have made/may make. When are documented facts relevant to a discussion pointless? Perhaps esoteric, but pointless?
Is this the "argument" you refer to?
For my part, I applaud your search for evidence, using reputable source material, which is evident from your posting of Dec 31, 2008, to which I'm replying.
To assist others who may be interested in following our discussion, I'm inserting my comments/replies into your original 12/31/08 posting, using the following notation method {*......my words.........*}.
A Happy New Year to you too!
Barry
Joe wrote........
However, in one of your replies, you made mention of the idea that James Jr. (son of James Sr. and Helena Mercer) had not came to America and had remained in England as a bookkeeper for the Society of Free Traders. {*No, I didn't - what I said was "It was James the migrant's eldest son John Claypoole who arrived in America before his father, mother and siblings. James Jr. remained in London, working in his father's business till the rest of the family left England on the 'Concord'."*} Then you offered a citation that I haven't been able to follow, and would like clarification. {*I cited 'James Claypoole's Letter Book.......1681-1684', edited by Marion Balderston, published 1967 by the Huntington Library, CA, USA, - from which some of your information below appears to have been taken*}
However, it's highly unlikely that James, son of James and Helena, would have been left in England for a very long time at all. In 1681, in a letter to his brother in the West Indies, James Sr. attempts to send son James (then 17 according to both his father's letter and according to Sr.'s journal in which he gives Jr.'s birthdate as 1664) to Edward. The gist of the letter is that Jr. is longing for an "adventure" before settling down to his lifework.{*I agree entirely - from James Claypoole's Letter Book - letter to 'Brother Edward Claypoole' dated 'London, the 13th, 5th mo., 1681' = 13th July 1681*}
It is not clear from that letter whether or not Sr. is expecting (I believe it's Edward that he's writing to) his brother to accept/approve his request. The letter is complementary to Jr's ability and intellegence, and is basically a testament to a caring father's regard for a son who he hopes is in the final stages of becoming a worthwhile man. {*I agree - see above*}
However, the math of the logs of the ship Concord also imply that Jr is still with Sr on its arrival in Philadelphia in 1683. While the "7 children" of Sr. are not named, I struggle to find a more likely candidate than James to be one of the 7. {*I agree - I've never intended to infer otherwise. That James Jr. travelled with his parents and siblings, except John, on the 'Concord' is supported by a Quaker certificate from the Bull and Mouth monthly meeting, dated '11th day of the second month, 1683' = 11 April 1683, which names James Claypole [sic], his wife Helena and their children, Mary, Helena, Priscilla, James, Nathaniel, George and Joseph, as "transporting themselves...into Pennsylvania, in America"*}
The previous year Sr. had sent a "servant" by the name of Cole to Philadelphia to accomplish building a dwelling for himself and his admittedly large family. {*Yes, Edward Cole was the "servant" in question.*} Your contention is that eldest son John was also sent at that time with Cole. {*I cannot recollect nor find any such contention of mine*}
That is somewhat correct, and there are those publications which credit John with being the family "overseer" of the project. However, John's specific role, and appointment by William Penn himself, was to be an assistant to surveyor Thomas Holme, and therefore did not come to America on his father's terms. It is unlikely that Holme would not have availed himself of this appointment, and likely kept John Claypoole more busy with government work than would have allowed him to have much more than a cursory oversight of his father's building project. {*I agree. John Claypoole went to Pennsylvania as an assistant to surveyor Thomas Holme, leaving England in April 1682 - see Balderston, page 109*}
More likely is that as I suggested, "family legend" which suggests that James Jr. was that on-site representative is probably correct. This does present a problem for those who would hold that, if indeed the math of the Concord's record is correct. However, Sr. refers to the on-site representative as "my attorney," a reference which would fit Jr's later roles in government in New Castle more closely than it would John's in Philadelphia. {*According to Balderston, James Sr. as Treasurer of the Free Society of Traders obtained the position of local secretary to the Free Society of Traders, Philadelphia, for James Jr. The original Philadelphia home for the Claypoole family, as built by/build supervised by Edward Cole, was available to James Sr. & family when they arrived in October 1683, when James Jr. was 19 years of age. James Jr. was in London, as a corresponding clerk in the family business, until he left London with his parents and siblings in July 1683. He was neither an !
attorney nor was he in Philadelphia prior to October 1683, so he couldn't have been the "on-site representative" for the first Claypoole house. Perhaps for the later larger house?*}
The problem then becomes, if Jr. was that "attorney" how did he leave Philadelphia in time to return to England, and subsequently return with his parents on the Concord in 1683? The answer to that would nearly have to be that James left early after ice out in 1683, and that his brother John did indeed fill in for him with cursory visits which subsequently were interpreted as him being the sole family representative {*See above - no further comment*}
It may well be that "family legend" is not correct. On the other hand, I'm not seeing a smoking gun yet which would suggest that it cannot be. {*The evidence above suggests otherwise*} .............
.........You're probably correct in pointing out that I had confused John and James Jr. as Sheriff of early Philadelphia. I'm not coming up with the reference I thought I had on hand, but am not absolutely ruling out that I may still have it and am simply not able to lay my hands on it at the moment. {*The Pennsylvania Archives record just John Claypoole (two terms, 1687-1689 and 1693-1698) and James Claypoole (1777-1780) as 'Claypoole' Sheriffs of Philadelphia*}
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.