A Short Biography of William Allen (1711-1799)
Revised September 2005
© 2005 Douglas Allen (Great, great, great, great grandson)
William Allen came to America from Northern Ireland as an
eighteen year-old youth in 1729. Since visiting the old Allen farm there in
1994 I have been interested in finding out more about him. Over the last
century several sketches of his life have been written, but all have been
extremely brief, covering just the bare facts of his life. However, the
genealogical record that has been put together by such researchers as Carrie E.
Allen, Vella Miller, Philip Allen and others contains a wealth of information
that gives a much richer picture of the circumstances of his life than has been
put down in one place up to now. William lived in interesting
times--one might even say tumultuous times, if the American Revolution can
count as such. His life took irregular and unexpected twists and
turns. He gained much during his eighty-eight years, and lost much as
well. This expanded sketch attempts to flesh out the man and his times
more fully. There is still much to be explored, and not everything that
is hinted at in the existing records can be proven, but we have enough
information to expand what has heretofore been told with some degree of
confidence.
In the old country
William
was born on the outskirts of the small town of Larne in County Antrim on the
Northern Ireland coast on Feb. 2, 1711 to Robert and Janet (Hare) Allen--one of
twenty-three children in that family. At the doorway to adulthood he set
out on a fantastically risky adventure, leaving home and family behind forever
to brave the uncertainty of life in a frontier land thousands of miles away.
Why did he do this? To understand, we need to look at both the socio-political
context of life in Larne in the 1720s and the particular circumstances of his
family.
Northern Ireland, until the early 1600s, had been a land of Irish Catholics. Since the 12th century they had been under pressure from the Norman kings of England, who were trying to extend their rule over all of Britain and Ireland. The attack on Ireland began under Henry II (r. 1154-1189) when, armed with the support of the Pope, he began diplomatic and ultimately military efforts to "pacify" the island. Not having the time to devote to managing the enterprise himself, he turned it over to his youngest son John in 1185--who botched the effort and had to return to England in shame (thus earning the nickname Lackland). This was the famous Prince John of Robin Hood fame, who was later forced to sign the Magna Carta (in 1215) under pressure from members of the nobility.
Over the centuries, the combination of Irish tribal chiefs, Norman barons, and English kings all trying to control Irish affairs led to an increasingly complicated political situation, punctuated frequently by armed conflict. In one such affair, King James I (r. 1603-1625 - and, yes, of "King James Bible" fame) defeated the Irish lords who ruled the northern counties of Ireland (known collectively as Ulster). He jailed one and forced two others to flee to the European continent. Many Irish peasants were driven off their land as a consequence. In order to secure the area more permanently, James began what was called the Irish Plantation. He encouraged English and Scottish lords to occupy the land, bringing settlers with them. The Scots, especially, were enthusiastic at the prospect. Times were tough in Scotland in the early 17th century, and the possibility of getting free land only a few miles across the Irish Channel was too tempting to resist. During the 1600s, County Antrim, and the town of Larne especially, became almost totally populated by Scottish Presbyterians, though there were a few English Anglicans and Irish Catholics in the area as well.
This was the century of religious wars between Protestants and Catholics throughout Europe. One's religious convictions had political ramifications, since church and state were decidedly not separate. As a consequence, a three-tiered society evolved where Anglican "conformists" ruled by virtue of their acceptance of the official ("established") Church of Ireland; the Irish, as "papists" were cast to the bottom tier where they suffered major deprivations, both political and economic; and the Scottish Presbyterian "dissenters" occupied a tenuous middle ground. Because they did not accept the authority of the Church of England (the head of which was the English monarch), they were excluded from holding public office much of the time, and found it difficult to participate fully in the economic life of the country. While they shared the Anglican disdain for "papists," their "dissent" from the established church (which was interpreted by the ruling authorities as dissent from the authority of the government) made them outsiders in their own way. It is interesting, and somewhat ironic, that their disdain for both lower and higher rungs on the socio-political hierarchy sprang from the same cause: disagreement over religious doctrine and religious patterns of governance. Both Catholic and Anglican Churches were governed from the top, through bishops who reported to a single head of church (pope and king respectively). "Dissenters" (the term applied at the time to Presbyterians, Quakers, and the like) favored church rule from the bottom up, with local congregations firmly in control of their own affairs--including the choosing of ministers and other church leaders.
In addition to being in the middle of this rigid socio-political hierarchy, the Ulster Scots (as they came to be identified) also suffered from the general economic restrictions which the English enforced against Ireland. The main export trade of Northern Ireland at the end of the 17th century was wool. By law, it could only be sold to English merchants, not traded directly to other nations. The natural result was a buyer's market, with prices set by the English. The linen trade which evolved around the turn of the 18th century partially offset this, but it was subject to the same kinds of restrictions.
Partly as a result of this economic squeeze at the hands of the British, Irish landlords began to raise tenant rents. "Rack-renting" was devastating to small farmers who operated on the basis of long leases (31 years was standard at the time). A severe hike in annual rents when it came time to renew the lease could drive tenants off the farm, creating significant unemployment problems throughout the community.
As a "final straw," during the late 1720s, and occasionally throughout the rest of the century, the region suffered years of famine. While not as severe as the potato blight of the 1840s, they spurred many Scots and Irish to head across the Atlantic in a search for survival. During the 1720 to 1776 period somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000 Scots-Irish made the journey. (Note: "Scots-Irish" is a term usually applied to Ulster Scots in America, not in Ireland.)
The Allen Family
Though many of the Ulster Scots were tenant farmers, William's father Robert (as far as we know) owned his own farm on the northern edge of Larne, perhaps receiving it in a grant from the Earl of Antrim. This would have made him fairly well off, given the general economic malaise of the time. He was reported by descendents to have been a ruling elder in one of the local Presbyterian congregations. (There were two as of 1712 when the Larne congregation split over the selection of a new minister.) Robert's name does not appear on the session lists that still exist from the time, but since the records are incomplete this is not conclusive evidence that he wasn't. We do not know when his family came over from Scotland, nor from where in Scotland they came. There is a mention in a 1923 letter of Robert's father, also Robert (Sr.) "of Scotland & Ireland." This would place the family migration sometime in the third quarter of the 17th century.
Robert, Jr. was born in 1676 and married Janet Hare (b. 1679). Her father is given in one source as William Hare, who is mentioned in a history of the Old Presbyterian Congregation of Larne and Kilwaughter. He is described as the "keeper of a public house" who was elected to the church session in 1699.
One account of these years states that Robert Allen "took a prominent part in the war James II waged in Ireland for regaining his crown." If true, Robert would have certainly fought on the side of William of Orange, not that of James (who was Catholic). However, this war took place in 1689 and 90, when Robert, Jr. was 13 or 14. It is much more likely that his father was the one involved.
We don't have a marriage date for Robert and Janet, but it was probably in the late 1690s, as she was approaching the age of twenty. Given that Janet was thirty-two when William was born, it is likely that he was somewhere between her 5th and 8th child. She lived to be seventy-five (d. March 31, 1754) and Robert lived to be ninety-four (d. 1770).
Of their twenty-three children, eighteen are said to have lived to maturity. We have the names of a few of them. David, an older brother (b. 1710 according to one source) is noted in most of the stories about William coming to this country because they came over together in 1729 (more on him later). Other names are listed in accounts of this family, though some are (I believe) conjectural. In the list below I've starred the ones we are most certain of.
Jean (married John Hay in 1729)
James
Elizabeth
Ann *
Isabelle
Mary (married Samuel Smith in 1721)
Joseph (?)
Thomas (b. 1720, married Janet Neilson June 1, 1749) *
Patrick (baptized March 8, 1721, married Ann Knox) *
The Joseph listed above is a stretch entry. A Joseph Allen came to Philadelphia from Larne in 1730 with his two children and his brother William. There is no mention of him in the records of our William Allen's descendents and there is no reason to believe that he was a child of Robert Allen and Janet Hare, though some genealogists have made the connection. I have tried to do this myself, since I am descended from Joseph on my mother's side, but other than the common last name, the common departure city, and the nearness of departure date, there is no evidence to suggest a family connection. That he traveled with a brother named William is actually evidence to the contrary, since these two Williams are distinct people, each with his own history in this country. Additionally, Larne and the region around it had many unrelated Allen families. One piece of evidence in support of two different Allen families: in 1724 a Jean Allen, daughter of William Allen, was baptized in one of the Larne Presbyterian churches. The timing would make her not the Jean listed above and her father would not be our William. He could, however, be the William that came over with Joseph Allen in 1730.
As far as we know, the two pairs of brothers had no contacted with each other after coming to America.
The Allen farm was about two miles north of Larne in a district called Ballycraigy. It sat on a hill which slopes down to the North Channel of the Irish Sea to the east, and has a wonderful view of the surrounding countryside. On a clear day one can see Scotland in the distance. The property was in the Allen family until the early 20th century. As of 1994 it was still agricultural land, though just barely. The town of Larne has expanded to what is apparently the property line. No house or other structures remain.
The
graveyard of the local Church of Ireland has a head stone for the family,
though it has been separated from the grave itself. It reads: "Here
lieth the body of Janet Har [sic] who died March y [the] 31, 1754 aged 75 years
Who was wife to Robert Allen of Bally-Craigie and he died 1770 aged 94
years. Also his son Thomas Allen who died 15th August 1804 aged 84 years
Also the remains of Martha Anne widow of the late John Boyle of
Ballycraigie died 7th January 1866 in the 93rd year of her age." (This is just a guess, but Martha
(b. 1773) may have been Thomas Allen's daughter.)
There are still descendents of William's brother Patrick Allen living in Larne, whom we met when visiting there in 1994.
The Crossing
So, what would induce two young men, eighteen and nineteen years of age, to get on a small ship and head off to a land that most knew only by rumor? The lack of economic prospects, surely, accounts for much of it. The economy was in tough shape. They were in a difficult societal position as dissenters. Food had been scarce the previous few years. They were from a large family and, as younger sons, probably not in line to inherit any land. By 1729, there would have been many mouths to feed in the family. One more factor needs to be added to this mix: that there were concerted efforts made by shipping companies to encourage such emigration.
Much of the impetus for American colonization during the 17th century had come from Englishmen who had received land grants in the colonies and were looking for settlers to work the land. These grantees saw the prospect of significant profits through the production and sale of raw materials which were to be sent back to England. To make this system work, they needed people to settle on the land and either raise the crops or cut down the timber that would be shipped back across the Atlantic. However, this work required much labor, and the families who initially settled in America usually could not provide for their own survival and also generate these materials without help. While black Africans were increasingly being imported as slaves during the 17th and early 18th centuries, they were used mainly in the southern colonies (as well as in the Caribbean and South America). The New England colonies used a few, but the Mid-Atlantic colonies came to rely more on indentured servants--people who had to borrow funds for their ocean passage and who would sign a contract to work for four years or so after arriving to pay off their debt. The general pattern was for ship owners (or captains) to advertise for and sign up a shipload of non-paying, but contracted, passengers. They would then sell those contracts to farmers and other people needing labor when the ships docked in America.
The voyage generally took eight to ten weeks and could be relatively pleasant or rather wretched, depending on the weather, the quality and quantity of food that was provided, and whether or not disease broke out among the passengers (who were packed in pretty tightly). Upon arriving at an American port (Philadelphia in the case of William and David) the servants would be paraded on deck to prospective buyers and their contracts sold at auction. Histories of this time report that approximately 90% of the Scots and Irish ΘmigrΘs came over using this arrangement.
The evidence is mixed as to whether David and William came over on an indenture contract or paid their own way. None of the family lore admits to it, and the argument can be made that their parents were in a good enough financial position to purchase their fare. But the general economic situation in Ireland, the large size of their family and what happened to them in America suggests that they, indeed, might have taken the indenture route.
Early days in the new world
Probably the strongest piece of evidence for an indenture contract is that William and David went in different directions upon arrival: David to Pennsylvania, upriver from Philadelphia, ultimately settling in Mt. Bethel (near Bethlehem), and William "to live with a Quaker family in New Jersey" (probably near Amwell, a bit north of Princeton). Why would two brothers, knowing no one in this strange land, and being young and inexperienced, split up at this critical moment? Certainly not unless they had to--and having their contracts purchased by men living in different colonies seems as good an explanation as any.
David
drops off the radar at this point. Earlier narratives of William's life
had no information on him at all. Recently, though, his will has been
discovered, which mentions William and therefore leaves open the possibility
that they kept in touch with each other. It also fails to mention any children for
David and his wife Isbaell, which perhaps explains why there is so little about him in the
genealogical record. More on his will later.
A final piece of information that supports the argument for an indenture contract is that after four years William married Alice Berry (in 1733) and settled near Freehold, NJ, in Monmouth County. The specific four-year wait suggests that he met her sometime during his indenture and married her when he was free to do so (after the contract expired).
There is some evidence that he lived in or near Amwell in the southeast corner of Hunterdon County during his indenture. How he would have met Alice is open to speculation at this point. Freehold and Amwell are about twenty-five miles apart--not a prohibitive distance, but not a trivial one either.
Also open to speculation is the relationship William would have had with his Quaker family. At this time, Quakers were not above purchasing indenture contracts or even owning slaves, though in the middle colonies, as stated above, slaves were less used than indentured servants. In the 1740s, there was a movement within the Quaker community to abandon the use of unfree labor, but that came well after William had come through the system.
The normal pattern would have been for a servant not to live in the family house, but in an out-building of some kind, which normally he would have built himself. His duties would have been agricultural--tasks for which he would have been at least somewhat trained, except that in America of these years one of the primary jobs would have been to clear land by chopping down trees and cutting them up, in part for firewood and in part for shipping back to England. This would not have been a skill used much in Ireland, but learning it would have prepared him for developing his own farm down the road. Histories of indentured servitude make the point that these years indenture were great training for life in the colonies. Not only were young men able to adjust to the American climate (decidedly different from that back home), but also the culture. They were able to pick up needed farming and/or craft skills and also learned how the agricultural markets worked. In addition, they could make valuable contacts in the community which would be useful once they were out on their own.
The Allens were a devout Presbyterian family, and William maintained his membership in that church throughout his life. It is interesting to speculate as to how he might have gotten along with his "Quaker family in New Jersey." Masters of indentured servants could be fair or cruel. They could help their servants get ready for independent living or not, as their temperament dictated. It is probably fair to guess that a Quaker family would have been more helpful than most, especially as all the evidence suggests that William was ambitious, hardworking, devoutly religious, and ultimately successful in establishing himself. He and his family were probably a good match for each other.
A related question is how well William's Presbyterianism matched with his master's Quaker affiliation. Would he have ever gone to Quaker meetings? How well might he have gotten to know people in the Quaker community that his master belonged to? How far might he have had to go to join a Presbyterian congregation? There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that there was some degree of tolerance among the two groups--even intermarriage. But, given the strong affiliation the Allens have always had with the Presbyterian Church, it is unlikely that William had more than cordial relations with the Quakers. It is a reasonable guess that William would have gone to some trouble to join a Presbyterian congregation as soon as possible. (Was it this extra effort on his part that led him to Alice Berry in Freehold?)
Indentured servants, once they had fulfilled their obligations, were to receive certain considerations. These were governed by both custom and law. In New Jersey at this time, "freedom dues" would usually include: "seven bushels of corn, two suits of clothes, two hoes and an axe." Land--usually on the order of fifty acres--was often given, though it's not clear whether this came from the master's holdings or the colonial authorities.
In William's case, we're not sure where his initial stake was, though it's pretty clear that he got one, since he did indeed become a farmer (not all did) and, in the end, he was a fairly wealthy one. What we are sure of is that after his indenture he married Alice Berry and lived near Freehold, New Jersey (Monmouth County). While there, he was a member of the Old Tennent Presbyterian Church, a few miles west of town and which still exists today, though in a new (1752) building. The church records list William as renting a pew in 1734 and Alice Allen as having received communion there in 1735.
William and Alice had two children. Sarah was born January 8, 1735 and died in infancy. Janet (or Jane) was born April 1, 1736. Alice died fairly soon thereafter, but whether as a result of complications in childbirth we don't know. It is probable at this point that William gave up the child to Alice's brother John Berry. The record is sketchy, but in 1756 Berry gave permission for the marriage of Jane Allen to Ephraim Herriott. In the marriage bond he calls Jane "a yong weoman I have Brought up from her infantcy. [sic]" As a side note, Berry's wife Isbela is also listed as receiving communion in the Old Tennent Church in 1735.
These two deaths (Alice and Sarah) are the
first of many that William endured. Why would he have given up his new
daughter to compound the loss of his wife at this time? Perhaps the answer lies in
the general circumstances of his life at this point. He was only twenty-five years old (perhaps twenty-six) and
only recently out on his own. His farm was probably not yet profitable, if he
even had one at this point. He could easily have known more people and
been more at home in his previous community than in Freehold. He would
have been emotionally devastated at the loss of his young wife, and if he had
no prospect of remarrying in the near term, taking care of a young daughter
could have been an untenable situation. In the midst of this, John
and Isbela, perhaps being more established, could easily have offered to raise
their niece, leaving William free to put his life back together without the
responsibility of raising a daughter he was not prepared to provide for.
Whatever the actual events, we find him next back in Amwell a few years later, remarried and starting his family anew.
The Middle Years
In 1740, William married Jane Warford, born about 1720 (nine years his junior). Her family had been in the colonies since the mid 1600s and were quite well established. It appears that many of her ancestors were from England, some having spent time in the West Indies (Barbados), some in New York (then New Amsterdam). Her father, at his death in 1769, owned a farm on the Delaware River, though it is not clear that the family lived there in the 1740.
While in Amwell, William and Jane had seven
children. The various reports of their birth years (even birth order) are
inconsistent, but the most specific reports list:
William (1742)
John (1743)
David (1745)
Thomas (1750)
Else, sometimes spelled Alse (1752)
Ann (1756)
Elizabeth (1758).
Move to Virginia
In 1759, at age 48 and after 30 years in New Jersey, William began laying the groundwork for a move south to Virginia. In that year he joined a Joseph Allen (reportedly a cousin, though we know nothing beyond this about him) in purchasing 1150 acres in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties in Virginia, near what is now the town of Arcola (then Gum Springs). Then in December 1762 (at age 51), he purchased an additional 900 acres and moved the family to it that winter. In March 1763, cousin Joseph sold his interest in the first property to a John Violett, though we don't know whether the property was split at this point or jointly owned by Violett and William. The 900 acre parcel was originally part of a larger property owned by Thomas Lord Halifax, who granted a portion of it to Rev. Doctor Charles Green on April 25, 1741. Green built a brick, two-storey manor house in 1745 and sold part of the property to William Elizey in 1761. The portion purchased by William (which included the house) came to be known as Red Hill Plantation (later Red Hill Farm) and was held in the family until 1909. The house still exists, though has been added to over the years. Portions of the farm were sold off in the 19th century.
(An interesting side note: Patrick Henry's plantation in Louisa County, Virginia was also called Red Hill. He died there three days before William died at his own Red Hill.)
William's motives for the move to Virginia are something of a mystery--and will receive more attention as I probe further into his life. For now, let me speculate that his reasons were grounded in getting more land and, perhaps, better land. Virginia of the mid-eighteenth century was becoming something of a paradise, compared to many places in the colonies. The land was relatively fertile, the climate was far enough south to lessen the impact of northern winters and far enough north to attenuate the intense heat of southern summers. The hardships of early colonial life were pretty much behind it, especially in the Tidewater and Northern Neck areas (though in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge farther west things were still relatively undeveloped). Tobacco was a lucrative cash crop, and even without a major investment in land and slaves, one could lead a relatively prosperous life.
Loudoun County, to the northwest of what is now Washington DC, had been settled but not totally filled by mid century. It had been split off from Fairfax County in 1757 (home of such notables as George Washington) and was developing its own political and social character by the time the Allens arrived,. Many of the new settlers were "dissenters"--not conforming to the predominant Anglican Church. This put them in somewhat the same position dissenters held in Britain and Ireland, but their numbers were such that their political and social power was not insignificant. They were, however, not yet on an equal footing with the Anglican elite. It's not clear why William would want to put himself in such an inferior position, but perhaps the economic potential and the climate, combined with the fact that there was a growing Presbyterian community, made life in Virginia enough better than life in New Jersey to justify it.
William's children came to adulthood at Red Hill farm, and perhaps this helps us understand why acquiring more land was important to him. Having enough to share with his children would have been a good way to keep his family close to him. As support for this premise, when his son Joseph married in 1787, William gave him 100 acres to live on (though apparently he did not do this for his older sons).
Another fact that helps us understand the move was that in those days multiple families would often move together. This was a practice especially followed by the Scots-Irish. In the Allen's case, it appears that at least two families made the move together to Virginia: William and Jane (Warford) Allen and Gabriel and Ann (Warford) Fox. Both appear on the 1768 Tithables list (tax roll) for Loudoun County. (See below for more on this.)
The exact circumstances that led to the move are unclear, but it appears that it had been planned for some years. That William would have made it so late in life suggests that, as long as he had been in New Jersey, he hadn't really "settled down." He must have been anticipating a future of some substance, and not merely retirement, when he packed up a wife and children ranging in age from 2 to 20 and trekked 200 miles to the south.
Shortly after the move, William and Jane had an eighth child, Joseph (b. April 20 or 30, 1764) and within a year Jane died (January 1765).
A year later William married Sarah Cox (b. 1726 in Middlesex, New Jersey). She was recently widowed, having been married to Christopher Beekman and living in Griggstown, New Jersey. They had married in 1741 and had seven children, the youngest being just a baby when her father died of smallpox in 1764. Sarah reportedly brought her younger children with her when she married William and moved to Virginia. Though the Allen genealogical records haven't recorded the state of William's family at this time, Beekman family records give us the names of Sarah's children and the 1768 Tithables list mentioned above gives us some pretty good clues as to who was in the home:
The Tithables list for Loudoun County was a "head" tax roll, listing the people on whom tax was due. One column listed the household head along with the names of any slaves or white males sixteen years of age and older. In a second column was the total number of "tithables" or taxable persons in the household. William is listed alone with the number "1" in the second column. This skimpy record gives us a clue as to the composition of the Allen home at this point, and it is essentially one where all the older sons had left, leaving William and his new wife with only the younger children on the farm. These would have included most probably:
His children by Jane Warford: Else (16), Ann (14), Elizabeth (12), and Joseph (4)
Sarah's children by Christopher Beekman: Sarah (17), William (13), and Elizabeth (5)
Sarah's older children by Christopher Beekman (Christopher Jr., Catherine, James, and John) ranged in age from 28 down to 18 that year, and obviously had moved out, as had William's older sons by Jane Warford (William, John, David, and Thomas).
William and Sarah had three children of their own. One report says two daughters (who died in infancy) and a son, James (b. October 15, 1769). Another report lists Samuel, Hester, and James. The first two of these children would have been born by 1768, but if they died in infancy, it's an open question if they were actually part of the family at the time of the list.
Adding it all up, it looks like William (57) and Sarah (42) would have had eight or nine children in tow in 1768, ranging in age from infancy up to late teens. Only two or three would have been boys, and only one of these, William Beekman (13), would have been old enough to be significant help on the farm. Sarah, on the other hand, would have had a lot of help from the four adolescent girls in caring for the infants and toddlers.
Except for a John Allen, the older boys (men) do not appear on the Tithables list in Loudoun County. I deal with the question of where they might have gone in a later section. The question for now is how William farmed his 900 acre plantation without adult assistance during these years. At this point, we have no answer for this, unless there was a market for hired labor that did not live on site. Another possibility is that he rented out portions of the plantation to tenant farmers.
By the way, the Gabriel Fox household also had just one tithable listed for this year. John Allen is listed by himself, and John Violet, who bought land from William's cousin Joseph is also in the roll.
The existence of this cousin in Virginia raises the interesting question of the extent to which William would have kept in touch with his family back in Ireland. Colonists certainly wrote letters home, and there is no reason to think William (and brother David, too) did not let their families know how they were doing. Their success would have been encouraging to others looking for better opportunities, and so this meeting of the two cousins is not surprising.
By one report, William's brother David, died in 1776. The date on his will (mentioned above) is missing, but in it he leaves Twenty Pounds to his "Brother William Allen now living in the Jerseys" and three of William's children: John (£5), David (£30), and Janet (£30)--identified as the wife of Ephraim Herned (a misspelling of Herriott?). These bequests suggest that the will was written between 1756 and 1763--after Janet's marriage and before the move to Virginia (discussed below). Why he didn't leave anything to William's other children who were born by 1756 is an open question.
There apparently was a problem in executing the instructions in David's will, which evolved into a legal dispute between William and David's executors. It still had not been resolved by the time of William's own death because his will mentions it. (We have this from a secondary source, not the will itself, so what was actually going on is unknown.)
Revolution
The move to Virginia coincided with a shift in the political winds in the American colonies. With the conclusion of the French and Indian Wars (1763, known as the Seven Years War or the Great War for Empire in Europe), Britain began a series of maneuvers to get the colonies to help with its war debts. Gradually, the resistance to these efforts evolved into the American independence movement, and the Allens appear to have been very involved in it. The main evidence for this is that at least four of his five sons enlisted in the Continental Army and three of them died during the fighting: William, John, and Thomas. We have no reference to David joining the army, and while this is not conclusive evidence that he did not, we also have his marriage in 1779 to suggest he wasn't directly involved--at least not for long.
As a bit of background, George Washington had been commissioned during the summer of 1775 by the Continental Congress to build a force that, on paper anyway, represented all the colonies. Previously, colonial militias had been under the control of each colonial authority. New England, having been in the forefront of the independence movement, had provided most of the troops until early 1776 when recruitment efforts were made farther south. Regiments were being assembled in Virginia as early as March 1776 and these were apparently involved in the siege of Charleston, South Carolina a few months later. Members of the early Virginia regiments also joined Washington in New York City in September 1776, just in time to be caught up in the rout of the American army by the British. Washington's hasty retreat from the colonies' largest city, the dash across New Jersey, and the counter-offensive against Prussian and British troops at Trenton and Princeton in the last week of the year are well described in David McCullough's book, 1776.
In addition, some Virginia riflemen were at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777/78. In 1778 General George Rogers Clark (older brother of William Clark, of "Lewis & Clark" fame) had a contingent of Virginia riflemen with him on his campaign in the Ohio Valley.
William Jr., John, David, and Thomas would have been thirty-four, thirty-three, thirty-one, and twenty-six, respectively, at the beginning of the war. We know nothing for sure about the circumstances of their service, but there is some evidence to suggest possibilities:
A fragment of William Jr.'s will, which was recorded on 14 March 1776 states, in part: "Soldier being joined in the Army: TO brother my clothing when Joseph is 21; Sister Else, my Horse and Saddle; Sisters Ann and Elizabeth, All remainder of my estate to be divided equally." The will was probated 10 Feb 1777, which, given the speed of communications at the time, suggests that he died in late 1776 or early 1777.
Payroll records for a Private/later Sergeant John Allen, of the 1st Virginia regiment document that he returned to service in May 1777 after being absent since the previous October. According to the records, he was killed October 4, 1777, which happens to be the date of the Battle of Germantown, Pennsylvania--in which the 1st Virginia Regiment participated and took heavy casualties.
A Certificate of Service for a David Allen, serving under Peter Muhlenberg who commanded the 8th Virginia Regiment of the Virginia Line (state army rather than U.S. army) starting in January 1776. David served from July 22, 1776 to July 22, 1779, at which time he was discharged for having completed the terms of his enlistment.
Taken together, these traces suggest the battles engagements that they participated in and where two of them may have died. It looks like William and John may have participated in the battles in and around New York City in September and October of 1776. There were many casualties from those battles, as well as many soldiers who sickened and were not fit for battle. We may speculate that William "hung in there" and was part of Washington's retreat across New Jersey in late 1776 and his desperate attempts to recapture the initiative after Christmas, while John had to bow out for a while, due to sickness or injury, returning to his regiment in the spring of 1777 as it prepared to rejoin Washington in August 1777. David's service under Muhlenberg may put him at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777/78. At any rate, his discharge coincides nicely with his marriage to Ivea Fox in 1779. (See below.)
As yet, we have no evidence to suggest what Thomas's participation may have been.
Son Joseph was too young at the beginning of the conflict to join up (twelve in 1776), but the story has come down through the years that he had enlisted before the end of the war and, at age 17, was in the assembled masses when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781. The colonial army at that event included both regular Virginia "Continental Line" soldiers and members of the Virginia militia. Which one Joseph might have joined is an open question.
The loss of three sons had to have been a hard blow for William (not to mention the rest of the family). Allowing young Joseph to join up, even toward the end of hostilities, must have been an extremely difficult thing to do . One wonders if they considered it a fair bargain to have paid such a price for independence from Britain.
Later years
In spite of the war, life went on. In 1779, son David married Ivea Fox, his first cousin on his mother's side. (Ivea was the daughter of his mother's sister, Ann Warford, who had married Gabriel Fox and lived near the Allens in both New Jersey and Virginia.) They had two children: Margaret (Peggy) and William. In 1782 they were all living in Hampshire County, up in the Appalachian foothills (since the Civil war, part of West Virginia), along with her parents (the Foxes) and David's sisters' families. They all appear in the "Heads of Families" lists of 1782 and 1784 for that county:
Ephraim Herriott (who married David's older half-sister Jane in 1756 and who had six children at the time)
Benjamin Forman (who had married David's younger sister Else and had four children--according to the current day Forman family research, this marriage took place in 1770, when Else was 18)
William Forman (who married David's younger sister Elizabeth and had two children and one slave in the household)
Robert Colvin (who married David's youngest sister Ann and had two children)
There were several other Formans and Berrys in the area. The Berrys, of course, were the family that raised Jane Allen after her mother Alice Berry (William's first wife) died. While John Berry does not appear in the Hampshire County list, it is possible that the Berrys who do are his children. The Formans had lived near William in Hunterdon County, New Jersey and at least some members of the family had come to Hampshire County, Virginia in the first wave of white settlement in 1725/26.
How William's children and their spouses came to be in this frontier setting by the end of the war is undocumented, but this thin evidence suggests that the Allens and Foxes living in Loudoun County knew of the Formans and Berrys living up in the hills. There are several possible explanations for the moves, but the following seems most plausible to me:
In the years after William moved his family to Virginia in 1763, his older sons (including David) moved out, settling in Hampshire County by 1768 (though it looks like John may have stayed in Loudoun County). There they reestablished friendships with the Formans, Herriotts and Berrys.
In 1770, Else Allen was introduced to Benjamin Forman by her brothers, married him, and joined him in Hampshire County.
When David was ready to marry, he returned to Loudoun county to court Ivea Fox, bringing her back to Hampshire County after they were married in 1779. Soon thereafter they were followed by her parents, Gabriel and Ann Fox, though it's also possible that the Foxes had moved to Hampshire County earlier and this brought Ivea and David together.
Through these connections, Elizabeth and Ann Allen would have met William Forman (a brother or cousin of Benjamin Forman?) and Robert Colvin, respectively, and joined the folks in Hampshire County during the late 1770s or early 1780s after their marriages. (We can guess that they married after 1776 because their brother William, Jr. named them, but not their older sister Else, in his will that year.)
Since William's older sons, William Jr., John, and Thomas were of adults well before the war, it is entirely possible that they had married and started families before they were killed. Unfortunately, we have no suggestions in family records that they did, and to date have found no other documentary clues to say one way or the other.
Joseph, the youngest of Jane Warford's children, married Francis Wright on August 10, 1787. 'Fanny' was of either Scottish or English descent--different sources give different accounts. The Wrights were quite well-to-do, her father Robert leaving substantial property to the family in his will of 1803. As noted above, upon their marriage, William gave Joseph 100 acres from Red Hill Plantation to live on, and the young couple did not join the other siblings in Hampshire County.
Robert Wright's will says that he and his wife Margaret lived in Hampshire County, but they do not appear on the 1782 and 1784 Hampshire County Heads of Families lists. Neither do they appear on the 1768 Loudoun County Tithable list, so we're not sure where Francis lived when she and Joseph got together, though in the Allen family records she is described as being from Virginia.
Joseph and Fanny had ten children, six of whom were born while Grandfather William was still alive. All but one survived and had families of their own. John, the third child (b. 1792) was killed by a falling tree at age twenty. We have an interesting description of Joseph and Fanny, albeit a much later one, from one of their grandchildren. John F. Lander said of them in an 1895 letter: "Grandfather Joseph was a tall and slender man, florid complexion, and hair white as cotton from the first I knew of him. A staunch and devoted Presbyterian; never missed having family prayers, and I have knelt on such occasions asleep on foot! I believe Grandmother Allen (Frances) was one of the best women I ever knew. How I enjoyed, as a little boy, standing and looking into her precious face as she sat and smoked her pipe."
Elder brother David married a second time in 1789, this time to Elizabeth Wright, Fanny Wright's sister. We don't know what happened to Ivea Fox, though a safe assumption is that she died from disease or complications in childbirth. One source gives her year of death as 1787. David had eight more children by Elizabeth: Elizabeth (b. abt. 1790), Joseph (abt 1792), Asa Everett (1794), Francis, David Jr. (1805), Alfred, Harrison, and Ivea. (Some of these birth years are recorded in genealogies; some are conjecture based on marriage dates.)
The last of William's children, James Allen (b. 1769), was born to his third wife Sarah Cox Beekman, and married twice. His first wife was Elizabeth Lee. We don't have a date for the marriage but it was probably in the 1790s. He had six children by her that we know of. His second wife was named Martha; we don't have her family name. She had one child with James: John F. Allen (b. 1823).
Interesting Questions
The move to Virginia raises interesting issues, some of which I mentioned above but they deserve more attention.
Though only a couple hundred miles from New Jersey, Virginia was culturally, politically and economically quite different from its neighbor to the north. Settled primarily by the English, its society was dominated by Anglicans who saw religion in very different terms than Scots-Irish Presbyterians. In addition, the deism that evolved in the area as part of the Enlightenment would have been even more objectionable to the Allens than Anglicanism. (As evidence of how seriously Presbyterians took their faith, we can look at brother David's will. In it he left money to the "Congregation of Mount Bethel, so long as they continue to adopt & maintain the Doctrines as at Present taught by [synod?] at New York & Philadelphia." In the event that they strayed from these, the money was to go to "Indigent Students in Divinity at Nassau Hall or Prince Town College, so long as there be any there studying the Same." He was obviously very committed to a particular way of looking at the world. The evidence is strong that many Presbyterians felt much the same way.)
According to Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Anglicans had a strong hold on the legal apparatus of Virginia until after the Revolution--even though the population was by then about two-thirds dissenters. Even when he wrote the Notes in 1781, the transition to total religious freedom was not yet complete. I would suspect that, even though, legally and economically, William would have been better off in Virginia than in Ireland, in some ways his move to that colony would have felt like a step backward into the old social milieu. That this was tolerable to him was probably due to the relative isolation of life on the farms of the time and the presence of others of like mind in the vicinity.
Revolutionary politics in Virginia were probably more to William's liking. Virginia's House of Burgesses was one of the more democratic institutions in the colonies. It took the lead (along with Boston) in challenging British efforts to expand control over the colonies in the 1763-1776 period. The Presbyterian Church, much more than the Anglican, was a fount of democratic thought. Since its inception in the mid 1500s, power within the church was derived from "the people"--the congregation. Those who held leadership positions did so at the behest of those lower in the church hierarchy, no matter at what level. That Virginia would have evolved a strong democratic tradition, even though continuously under pressure from the royal governor, would have warmed the heart of William and his family.
Economically, Virginia was agricultural, with fewer towns and cities than other colonies. Much of its wealth derived from exporting tobacco as a cash crop to England. Tobacco farming was supported by slavery, and this gets us to the question of whether or not William owned slaves. He does not appear to have had them in 1768, and no mention is made in the family reports that have come down to us. Did he resort to their use later on? Or would he have renounced this practice based on the same principles that led the Quakers to do so back in the 1740s?
It would be easy to dismiss the possibility of slaves in the household except for one piece of evidence: Francis and Elizabeth Wright (William's daughters-in-law by Joseph and David respectively) were each given ownership of "Negroes" already "in their possession" by their father's will in 1803--one in the case of Elizabeth and two in the case of Francis. In all, Robert Wright gave fourteen slaves to his wife and children in the will. No slaves were given their freedom, even at that late date. (George Washington freed his slaves upon his death in 1799.)
Any efforts to surmise that William himself did not eventually slaves will sound weak in the face of this evidence. That his children owned slaves argues that he tolerated the practice at a minimum. To succeed economically at that time and place would have been much easier if had actually followed it. As to how he felt about it, we can only speculate. Perhaps he had no problem with it. Perhaps he felt, with Jefferson, that the practice offended human nature. And perhaps, with Jefferson, he could not bring himself to incur the financial cost that came with foreswearing the practice. Much has been written in the last decade or two on the contradiction between the Enlightenment ideals that spawned the American Revolution and the institution of slavery. Jefferson has come under much criticism for trying to have it both ways--complaining about slavery and keeping them at the same time. It seems William and his family should be subject to the same scrutiny.
A follow-up question needs to be asked: that of how long the family was involved in slave holding. As noted below, sons David and Joseph moved to Kentucky in 1800. Robert Wright's 1803 will suggests that they took slaves with them--that the practice was not confined to their time in Virginia. We can be sure that when the next generation (William's grandchildren) moved to Indiana in the 1830s they left the institution behind, as Indiana (being part of the Northwest Territory) was a free state. It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that family lore has not dealt with this question.
There is one final question that has occurred to me, totally unrelated to the above. That is the fact that none of William's sons was given the name Robert. Convention at the time was to use grandparents' names for the first and second children--sometimes maternal first, sometimes paternal first. The Allen family generally followed this practice: Janet, David, William, Jr., Elizabeth, Thomas, and Ann were all named for grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc. But there was no Robert among William's thirteen children. Did this indicate some falling out with his father? And could this have had something to do with his migration in the first place? And does it add to the case that he and brother David came over using an indenture contract (i.e., without his father's support)? The name came back in the next generation--both Joseph and James named their fourth sons Robert--but the gap is tantalizing, if not conclusively significant.
Legacy
In the closing years of his life William Allen had a substantial family surrounding him. His third wife, Sarah Cox, lived until 1797, preceding him to the grave by two years. Two of his three surviving sons had married and were living on the land that William had purchased close to forty years earlier. Joseph had five children before William's death; James had probably three or four. We don't know if any of Sarah's children were also near Red Hill, but if so, the number of grandchildren parading about would have been considerable. He was by any measure a successful man, both in terms of his financial accomplishments and the size and closeness of his family. By all accounts, he was respected in his church and in his community. But these achievements came with a terrible price. Along the way he outlived three wives, lost three sons to war, gave up one infant daughter for adoption, and buried three more. There are also reports that the daughters who made it to adulthood died at relatively young ages. In addition to his own pain, he had to watch son David suffer through the loss of a wife, too. If we run the numbers--a potentially cruel way to look at itσthe picture is bleak. He gave life to thirteen children. It looks like only three (possibly four) outlived him. He had the help of three women along the way, none of whom were with him at the end.
William Allen left this world on June 9, 1799. He was buried, along with Janet Warford and Sarah Cox, in the graveyard of the local Presbyterian Church (Gum Springs, now Arcola--reportedly under what is now its parking lot). His eighty-eight years spanned the bulk of the 18th century, a time when his adopted land made a daring transition from colonial backwater to, even at the time, one of the largest nations in the world.
After his death most of the Allen clan pulled up stakes and left it all behind. In 1800, son Joseph sold his 100 acre parcel to his half brother James and moved his family (and slaves?) to Clark County, Kentucky--only recently become a state. At about the same time, David moved from Hampshire County to Bourbon County, Kentucky, along with the Herriotts and at least some of the Formans. From there, later generations of Allens moved to Indiana, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa and beyond--each generation of children forsaking the legacy of their parents in order to provide for themselves.
James, who stayed behind, saw his children move to Tennessee and Illinois. One grandson only, remained behind at Red Hill: John F. Allen (b. 1823), the youngest but one of all William's grandchildren, married but childless, as far as we know, who tended the farm until his death in 1884. He was buried in the family graveyard on the property and left the farm to a cousin, John Gulick.
Wrap-up
Historians like to look for meaning in the stories they tell. The meaning of this story is complex, carrying elements of hope, pride, sorrow, shame, and sadness. It is, in many respects, the American story writ small--on the scale of one family. Immigrant nation. Westward movement. The breaking of old patterns, though not necessarily old connections. Perseverance in the face of loss. Building (sacrificing) for the future. Expediency in the face of need. And rejecting the past in order to fulfill that most human of needs: to do it on one's own.
In assessing the significance of all this, we need to remember that William Allen would not have judged his life in these terms. What his life meant to him is easily quite different from what it may mean to us. This is an okay thing. Social context changes; values change; and a historical perspective evolves which mandates new ways of looking at past events. I hope this description, though it may not represent William's way of looking at the world, brings him to life, at least to some extent, to his descendents today.
A final note. It is quite possible that there are
errors of fact in this sketch. It is based on incomplete records and in
some cases on conjecture, either by me, or those who preceded me in this
research. If any reader knows of such errors, a notice of them would be
appreciated. In addition, it should go without saying (but I will say it
anyway) that what appears here is my take on William Allen's life. I'll
bear responsibility for the questions I've raised and the particular spin that
I've put on things. Others are free to look over the source documents and
arrive at their own way of interpreting the story told there.
Douglas Allen
Orinda, California
September 5, 2005