-- 1 (829) --


Genealogy of the Shackelfords and Shacklefords

Editor: T. K. Jones, 251 Morgan St., Versailles, Ky

$1.00 a year. Published monthly. 10¢ a copy.

Versailles Ky. January 1954. Vol. 9. No. 9.


Motto: A people which takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors, are not likely to achieve anything worthy to be remembered with pride by remote descendants.



It has been suggested by one of our subscribers that we begin a series of articles on the subject of genealogical research and methods to be used in pursuance thereof. And we think the suggestion a good one. And as we have always begged you to offer suggestions for ways and means in which we can improve our little leaflet, we are going to follow through on the above suggestion. And the only way we know to begin is to begin at the beginning.

So in the next several issues we shall devote at least one page, perhaps more now and then, to this subject, and give you what we believe to be the best methods of obtaining genealogical information. And since we began this work strictly as a beginner, all the things this writer has learned has been via the "Hard Way" -- strictly by experience.

So to those of you who may be contemplating making a search for information of ancestors and/or progenitors, we would say to you: First, formulate your plans by obtaining, if possible, a pedigree chart. On this chart first write your own name, then in a space provided add the names of your own father and mother, the names of your father's father and your father's mother, and so on as far back as you know or can learn through positive information. Do the same for mother's father and mother's mother. And

-- 2 (830) --

right here let me say that one of the most important things to remember is the maiden name of all women, as well as her given name. Remember that the female line in genealogy is as important as the male line, and unless the maiden name of the women are known no further work can be done on that line.

This writer has written thousands of letters asking for genealogical information, and has received in many cases, replies as follows: John Doe, whose wife was Mrs John Doe. So in this case, if you should wish to continue your quests for information of your maternal grandmother just who would you be looking for.

Then, in many cases, information has come to us as follows: John Doe, wife Jane Doe. Now would this help you to obtain information of her family?

And another very important thing to remember has to do with dates. This writer is a stickler for the dates, feeling that next to the correct name, dates are the most important. In many cases among the old records it will be found that there are two more men and/or women with the same names and living in the same area at the same time, but it would be rare indeed to find two men of the same name at the same place whose birth dates and death dates were the same. We have found many errors among our records due to the lack of dates, often times entire generations have been omitted because some one failed to show correct dates or no dates at all.

So wherever and whenever possible be sure to show dates of birth, marriages and deaths. And by all means never leave a name off the list because that person died young or without issue.

After you have completed your chart as far as you can go from memory or from information of immediate relatives, then begin the search by making inquiries among the older relatives of the family, particularly those who have good memories. Ask them where your parents or grand parents came from, and never be satisfied by having them name the State or country., always insist on the name of the City and/or County named if possible.

(Continued Next Month)

-- 3 (831) --

In the December issue of the Magazine we began a discussion of the Virginia tax lists, which serves as a substitute for the first census, as the first census records were destroyed. And we shall now continue that discussion in this issue, but before we begin we wish to discuss briefly another question that has arisen.

Early this month we had the honor to have a query from Mr. George Green Shackelford, or Orange, Va., son of the late Honorable Virginius R. Shackelford, and who incidentally, is a direct descendant of our third beloved president -- Thomas Jefferson, young Mr Shackelford descends from John Shackelford, whose wife according to our records, was Anne Lyne. But Mr Shackelford has brought forth a question that we need help on.

In the book "The Shackelford Family" by Col Robert B. Shackelford, it is stated that the Shackelford immigrant was John, who came to America 1649, and whose wife was a Miss Livingston, by whom he had three sons -- John Benjamin and William, and that the son John, born about 1700, married Anne Lynn.

But those of you who have been subscribers of the Magazine since the beginning know that we have never subscribed to the theory that John was the immigrant, or that John, son of John, was the one who married Anne Lynn. We are of the opinion that John Shackelford who married Anne Lynn, was a son of James, and that James was a son of Roger, and Roger was the immigrant.

And too, Mr Shackelford asks the question, and we quote: "How can it be reconciled that the wife of John Shackelford, II, - Anne Lyne, was married to him about 1725, and the daughter of John Lyne of King William County and the sister of George Lyne of the House of Burgesses? I believe Hayden indicates the first Lynes in Virginia were William, died 1760, and Henry who died in 1797, and that William's eldest son married about 1737, having a sister whose name was Nancy. Nancy, William Lyne, II, Captain John Lyne and Major George Lyne, (M.H.B.) were brothers and sisters" -- end of quote. So by this we see that young Mr

-- 4 (832) --

Shackelford, being a Lyne descendant, has brought up a question that is food for thought. Any of you that can help us out on this problem please do so.


"Strive to be like a good watch -- open face, busy hands, pure gold, well regulated, full of good work" -- from Chadwick Chat.


Now the tax lists we have were copied during our 1951 tour, and as our time was running out on us by the time we went to work on the tax lists we did not have the opportunity to copy as many of them as we want to, but we will give you what we have.

King William County, another County whose records have been either partially or totally destroyed, will now claim our attention. But our copies are far from being complete as regards King William.

William (Buck) Shackelford, who was a Revolutionary war soldier, and who died in Henry County, Va., stated in his pension petition that he was born in King William, so it was particularly in order to try to establish his ancestry that we checked King William records.

So in 1782 we find here Henry Shackelford with 1 tithe and 5 blacks. And J. L. Shackelford, with 1 tithe and 1 black. In 1783 J. L. Shackelford has gone, and only Henry appears on the personal tax lists, and only Henry appears for the next nine years, but in 1792 we find Henry with 4 tithes and 4 blacks, and Samuel with two tithes and one black. No Shackelford appears in King William after 1796.

William (Buck) Shackelford, in his pension petition, states that he went from King William to Caroline County, whose records also have been partially destroyed. So in Caroline County we find the following: John Shackelford was there in 1783 with 2 tithes and 3 blacks. Then we have James Shackelford in 1787 with 1 tithe and no blacks. John appears for the last time in 1788. So evidently this is the Rev John Shackelford who came to Fayette County, Kentucky, and died there in 1829.

Henry Shackelford appears in 1789 with 100 acres of land; and Daniel also appears with 1 tithe and

--5 (833) --

no blacks. Then in 1790 we find Henry with 100 acres of land, James with 1 tithe and one black, and Samuel appears in 1794, with 3 tithes and 2 blacks. This being as far as we checked King William and Caroline Counties.

William (Buck) Shackelford then states that from Caroline County he went to Powhatan County, so the first time we find him on the tax lists of Powhatan in 1791, when he had 2 tithes and no blacks. He put in his appearance in Henry County in 1803.

Henry Shackelford, Sr., and Henry, Jr, were both in Henry County in 1798. Henry, Sr, with 6 tithes and 5 blacks, while Henry, Jr, had 1 tithe and no blacks. Henry, Sr, 2 males over 16 years of age. Samuel was also here with 1 tithe and no blacks. Then in 1799 Daniel appears with 1 tithe and no blacks.

Both Henrys were still here in 1800, but in 1801 Henry, Jr, appears to have left. We mention all of these men because when Henry Shackelford died in 1806 he named as children -- Susannah Jacobs, and sons John, James, Henry, Jr, William, Daniel and deceased son Samuel. The son William first went from Powhatan County to Montgomery County, but was in Henry County, in 1803.

Since some of these people later show up in Pittsylvania County it is indicated that the son Henry may have gone there, and the son John settled there instead of in Henry, later moving over into Henry.

Tax lists of Pittsylvania County indicate that Henry Shackelford, Sr, came into Pittsylvania before moving over into Henry County, for in 1797 we find the following men in Pittsylvania: Henry, Sr, with 4 tithes and 4 blacks; Henry, Jr, with 1 tithe and no blacks; John with 1 tithe and no blacks; John with 1 tithe and no blacks; Daniel with 1 tithe and no blacks; Unice with no tithes and 1 black; and Absalom with 1 tithe and no blacks.

Since both Henrys were in Pittsylvania in 1797 and in Henry in 1798, we see here just when they moved into Henry County. And in this last named list we find two Johns. These would be sons of Henry and Francis, for it will be remembered that in an earlier issue of the Magazine we gave you the will

--6 (834) --

of one Francis Shackelford whose wife was Eunice, and who had among several others, a son -- John. He also had a son -- Henry. But since here we find Henry Jr, we can safely assume that this Henry was the son of the elder Henry, and Henry, son of Francis, is gone or deceased.

In 1800 we find a means of identification for the two Johns, as one of them was known as Sandy River John, therefore an abstract of this property would be an excellent means of learning which John was a son of Henry and which was a son of Francis.

Also in 1800 we find the following men: Thomas Shackelford, with 1 tithe and no blacks; Unice with 2 tithes and 2 blacks; John with 1 tithe and no blacks; John (Sandy River) with 1 tithe and 1 black; And at this time we find the estate of one Henry Jacobs. Query: Was this Henry Jacobs the husband of Susannah Shackelford, daughter of Henry?

One Abner Shackelford married Frances Wright in Pittsylvania County in 1795. Then in 1798 John T. Brock married one Mrs Frances Shackelford, whom we believe was the widow of Abner. John T. Brock appears on the tax lists in 1802 with 1 tithe and no blacks, but does not appear on the tax lists again, either personal or real. Query: What became of him?

Also in 1802 we find Absalom Shackelford with 3 tithes and 2 blacks; John with 3 tithes and no blacks; and with two sons over 16 years of age. Also John, (Sandy River) with 2 tithes and 1 black; and Thomas with 1 tithe and no blacks. So by this list it is indicated that the first mentioned John was a son of Francis, and Sandy River John was a son of Henry.

By this last named list it would appear that Henry, Sr, and all of his sons except John, had gone, perhaps moved into Henry County or elsewhere.

This is as far as we checked the Pittsylvania Co, tax lists. We did not make an extensive check of the Henry and Pittsylvania tax lists because both counties have all their old records, and a check of the tax lists is not necessary except to prove origin and identity.

We will now give you something of what we found in the Gloucester County tax lists. Gloucester Co,

-- 7 (835) --

was the original place of settlement of the Shackelfords, therefore it has special significance, but here again their old records have been destroyed.

Col Robert B. Shackelford, in his book "The Shackelford Family", says that Roger Shackelford, the immigrant, is known to have had four sons, ie James, John, Francis and Zachariah, and probably four more, ie Benjamin, Roger, William and Charles. And this writer has found two others that may have been his sons, or perhaps his grandsons, ie Robert and Henry. The son Francis moved to North Carolina, and it is our opinion that the son John did also. We have records to prove that James died by or before 1734, and that his family moved to Spottsylvania County, some or all of the land they occupied being in what was later to become Orange County, and still later Culpepper County. Which would leave the son Zachariah in Gloucester, and any other sons or daughters that Roger may have had.

Our first real estate tax list for Gloucester Co, was the year1786, at which time we find only two Shackelfords -- Warner and Zachariah, Sr. Benjamin appears in 1787. John is here in 1790 with 100 acres of land, but in 1794 the list had grown considerably, as we now find Charles, Benjamin, Zach, Warner, Henry, Robert, John, George and another Charles. In 1795 we find Frances with 60 acres of land. But among the early records the name "Frances" appears often as "Francis", so we are unable to determine if this last named person was a man or a woman.

In 1796 we find one John with 40 acres of land, so this is either another John or the first John has disposed of some of his land. As Frances has 60 acres it is possible that he was a son of John and has purchased this land from his father.

Among the old Gloucester County personal tax lists we find some very interesting records, but records that we need a lot of help on. The first personal tax lists we find is the year 1782, when there were Zach, Sr, with 1 tithe and no blacks; Zach, Jr, with 1 tithe and no blacks; Warner with 1 tithe an no blacks; and Mordecai, with 2 tithes and 1 black.

-- 8 (836) --

Henry Shackelford appears in1783, and Charles is here in 1785. In 1787 we find Henry with 1 tithe and 1 black; Mordecai with 6 tithes and 3 blacks; Zach with 1 tithe; Charles with 1 tithe and no blacks; Robert with 1 tithe and no blacks; and John with 1 tithe and 1 black; also Mordecai has 6 tithes and 3 blacks, with 3 males in the family over 16 years of age.

In 1788 we find Mordecai, Robert, Warner and Mary, with no tithes and no blacks; Henry with 2 tithes and 3 blacks; Charles with 1 tithe and no blacks; George with 1 tithe and no blacks; Zach with 2 tithes and 1 black. So since John does not appear in this list and Mary does, it is indicated that Mary was the widow of John. Query: Would this be John Shackelford who married Mary Drummond?

But in 1789 we do find a John, and there is nothing to indicated that it is the same John, and there is now no Mary. Francis and Will (we presume it should be William) also appears; and Mordecai is now deceased and his estate is listed.

In 1790 we find a John, Sr, and a John, Jr. John, Sr, having 7 tithes and 7 blacks, but John, Jr, has nothing. Henry now has 2 males over 16 years of age in his family.

Thomas Shackelford appears in 1791. Then in 1792 Richard Shackelford appears, and John Shackelford, Sr, is gone.

In 1795 we find Benjamin Shackelford and Seamor Shackelford. Bannister is on the list in 1797, and William puts in his appearance in 1800.

In 1801, we find Henry, Zachariah, Robert, George, John, Charles, Warner and Benjamin. Henry has two males in his family over 21 years of age, and Zachariah has three males in his family over 21 years of age. In 1802 Charles Shackelford does not appear, but there are two Benjamins. Then in 1803 Zachariah Shackelford is gone, but we find Elizabeth, who may have been the widow of Zachariah, although he is not listed as deceased. (Continued).

Wishing each and every one of you a Happy and Prosperous 1954.

Until next month, Adios -- The editor

[Transcribed 6 Jun 1998 by Tee Forshaw]


© -Copyright Notice

UpdatedThursday, 01-May-2008 17:18:47 EDT