2. PETER BURKELOW, probably the eldest member of the group appearing in 1801 in Kentucky records, may be the Peter Van Burkelow who suddenly left Delaware before the August,1800 militia roll, resulting in a warrant issued for his return. The coincidental appearance of a Peter Van Burkelow in Kentucky on an 1801 tax list for Logan County may be misleading. His absence in the August,1800 Militia Roll could actually eliminate him from being the Peter Van Burkelow in the 1800 Federal Census of Kent Co.,DE., St. Jones Hundred, who shows 6 sons. Although a Peter Van Burkelow does not appear in the 1810 Federal Census of Delaware, a Peter Vanburkelow does continue to be listed on tax lists in 1801 Dover Hundred and 1801 Murderkill Hundred, Kent County. In 1802 and 1803, a Peter Vanburkelow appears in St. Jones Hundred with the same taxables as the 1801 Peter Vanburkelow in Dover Hundred. So, there appears to be at least two, possibly three Peter Vanburkelows in the same time period.

The Peter Vanburkelow in Murderkill Hundred most likely is the one who removed to Kentucky. He first appears in Murderkill in 1787 and remains there through 1801 before disappearing. His name on the 1801 list may be a case of auditor carryover from the previous year. Land deeds show Peter Vanburkelow, et.ux.(and others) selling land to Thomas Cooper in 1803, and then disappearing altogether. The transaction takes place at the same time, and is recorded on the same page as a Sarah Vanburkelow receiving property from Isaiah Latchem.

3. WILLIAM BURKELOW reappears with 50 acres on 1807 tax roll of Hopkins County, which was taken from Henderson County in 1806. Again he is alongside Peter Van Burkelow, who still shows 200a. John Van Burkelow, possibly a younger brother, appears for the first time with no acreage, but one horse.

4. WILLIAM BURKALOE is listed in the 1810 Federal Census of Hopkins Co.,KY as 26-45 yrs.,with 2 sons and one daughter under 10 years. His wife is 16-26 yrs., suggesting, if his first wife, they probably married close to 1802, plus or minus a year or two. Neither Peter, nor John Van Burkelow are enumerated, Peter having disappeared from Hopkins County records in 1809, and, being unlocatable elsewhere, may have died.

5. WILLIAM BURKELOW may be the same who now appears in 1811-1812 tax rolls of Union County with 100 acres on Cypress Creek. Union County, as a note, was taken in 1811 from Henderson County.

6. WILLIAM BURKELOW, owing to missing tax books, may be the same appearing in 1818-1819 tax rolls of Union County with 100 acres.

7. WILLIAM V. BURKELOW, in 1819, appears in Union County Grantee Book A,p.525 registering his 100 acres on Cypress Creek, on which he has already been taxed since 1811. His wife, Provey(may be Prudy), is co-signer. The deed shows he purchased the land from Richard(1736-1822) and Hannah Dodge. Note- Richard Dodge is buried on his land in Old Bethel Cem.,Dodge Hill,off Hwy.492,Union Co.,KY.

8. ISAAC BURKLOW, is married in Union County, 29 Nov 1819, to Phoebe Ragsdale. Isaac also appears for the first time in tax rolls with no land, but one horse. The association seems strong for linking Isaac to William V. Burkelow in a father-son relationship, as long as Isaac's birthyear is established as closer to 1800, plus or minus a year, than that given in 1820. None of the censuses credit William with being born prior to 1780, making the age Isaac gave in the 1820 census highly suspect. If Isaac was born before 1794, William would have been about 14 at Isaac's birth. Evidence from Isaac's War of 1812-1815 service suggests he was a young teenager, perhaps no more than 13 years. While residing briefly in Russelville,Logan Co., Isaac may have fudged on his age because all other censuses fail to corroborate the age given in 1820. In 1850, he claimed age 50, which may be closer to his correct age.

9. WILLIAM V. BURKELOW, is enumerated in the 1820 Federal Census in Morganfield, Union County, on the same page 152 as John Burkelow. William shows 4 sons and 5 daughters and both he and wife, Provy(as named in deed records) claim to be at least 26 yrs. old, but less than 45yrs. His 2 oldest sons show as 16-18, and 18-26, and based upon the previous census, neither can be over 20, making their ages 16-19, or between 1801-1804.

One of those could be John D. Burklow, who married Elizabeth Hall, 19 Nov 1819, but does not appear to be the John Burklow in Union County in either 1820 or 1830. It is believed the John Burkelow(b.c1789) in Morganfield(William's brother) is the same who married Catherine Timmons, Mar.17,1813 in Hopkins County and that Catharine(Timmons) Burkelow, age 55(b.1795,VA.) is still living in 1850 Henderson County,p.282. That would mean the John D. Burklow who married Elizabeth Hall either went to Illinois, or, is the John Burklow(son of William) who appears in Hickman County in the Jackson Purchase in 1830. This would calculate to John D. Burklow being only about 17 when he married Elizabeth Hall, not too unusual for the times. The remnants of the family of John D. Burklow(c1802-p1840) might be the same shown living in Mississippi Co.,MO, in the 1850 census. A James W.(age-21,b.KY.) and sister, Elizabeth Burkelow(age-10,b.KY) are residing with Phebe Hall,35,b.KY., probably their aunt. An older son of John, named William Burkelow(age-24,b.KY) is also residing in Mississippi Co.,MO not far from James and Elizabeth Burkelow.

10. ISAAC BURKLOW claimed age 50 as of June 1,1850, although the census taker came by his Crittenden County residence on Aug.30,1850. The Federal Censuses of 1800-1840 were based upon the date on the first Monday in August. For Isaac to be William's oldest son, he could not have been officially age 50 on June 1, but may have turned 50 between Aug.1 and Aug.30, in which case he inadvertently gave his real age. Based upon the censuses 1810-1830, and the probability William's initial appearance on tax lists meant he had actually attained the age of 21, his[William's] birthyear can be calculated as about 1781.

11. WILLIAM V. BURKELOW, is taxed in Union County in 1821 and 1822, but suddenly disappears permanently from any records in that county. Is he the same William Burkelow who appears the following year(1823) in Hickman County, one of several counties created in 1821 in the Jackson Purchase region? Calloway and Graves Counties are also formed in 1821, and John Burkelow(William's son?) is listed as a Juror in Graves County(1824) and Miles H. Burkelow, age 19, marries his first wife, Eliza Roach, 4 Aug 1825, in Calloway County. If they are the same, it would appear William attempted to take advantage of the cheap land offered during the county partitioning of the Jackson Purchase area.

EVALUATING ANCESTRY PROBABILITIES:

Although it is difficult to draw many absolute conclusions from the known data other than assumed relationships, there are additional facts which can help keep the descendants of this branch focused in the right area.

One important conclusion is that any William Burkelow taxed east of Cave-in-Rock,IL after 1798 cannot be William Van Burkleo,Sr.(c1755-1802) who had already crossed to the Missouri side of the Mississippi River by then. William's discontent with St. Charles County and his passion to be a salt trader along the Tennessee River sent him back into the Jackson Purchase in 1801. But, he only lived another year and all remaining members of his family were returned to St. Charles Co.,MO shortly after his death. His marketing territory during his brief venture ranged from Davidson Co.,TN to the Saline River in Illinois, and William apparently chose Cave-in-Rock to billot his family while he was operating flatboats up and down the rivers.

A corrolative deduction is the William Van Burkelow(c1781-p1830) listed alongside Peter Van Burkelow in early Hopkins and Henderson County tax records has to have a much closer relationship to Peter Van Burkelow(c1748-c1809) than does William Van Burkleo(c1755-1802).

If we analyze the data of Peter Van Burkelow in the 1800 census of Kent Co.,DE, against the probable names of his six sons as being those who appear in or near the Henderson/Hopkins Co.,KY area after 1800, we can probably start the association with William Burkelow(c1781-p1830), the first to appear alongside Peter. Next, the John Burkelow(c1789-c1838) who appears alongside William in the 1820 census of Morganfield, Union Co.,KY is likely a brother of William, and therefor another son of Peter. In similar contradiction, John also did not have any surviving sons named Peter.

The data(0110001-320011) of the William Burkelow in 1830 Calloway Co.,KY could seemingly contradict the 1820 data(111110-32010) of William Burkelow of Union County if it weren't for the probability that Miles Burkelow(b.1806), also of Calloway, and John Burkelow(b.c1802), of nearby Hickman County are likely sons of that William, thereby accounting for two of his three older sons, now 10 years older. A 3rd son of William listed in 1820, aged 10-16, may be the Abner Burkelow(b.c1804) in 1830 Williamson Co.,TN., because it could not be Isaac(b.1800), who had already married by 1820 and was living in Russelville, Logan County. Apparently, Isaac didn't opt to venture into the Jackson Purchase with his father and brothers.

In looking closely, the most obvious fact about the William Burkelow in 1830 Calloway County, should he actually be the same William residing in Union County in 1820, is that he has had 6 or 7 more children during the decade, an unlikely scenario to expect for his wife and mother of Isaac, John, Abner and Miles, who would have been in her 40's during the entire decade. William's first wife, therefor, must have died, and William remarried about 1818/19. Coincidentally, 1819 is the same year Isaac married in Union County and William purchased land for which his wife, Provy/Prudy was a cosigner. Was William's new wife bringing a little dowry money to the marriage?

It might be noted that if Isaac Burklow(c1800-1850) is the oldest son of William(c1781-p1830), protocol would not dictate naming his oldest son, Peter. Isaac would have known very little about his grandfather, if Peter died in 1808/09. Miles H. Burklow named his first son, William Bryant Burklow, and did name a son, Peter Hagler, who was only his 4th son(and 2nd son by Miles' 3rd wife). The absence of a son named "Peter" among Isaac's children would not exclude him from being a grandson of Peter, but it would raise questions as to why there aren't any Peters in this line.

Another point might be made about the middle initial "D" which appears with Isaac D. and John D. at various times. I've seen it assumed to stand for "Daniel", but I've never seen any proof of that. Because it appears brothers had the same initial and their father was likely named William, my best guess would be that the "D" stands for the first letter of a surname, probably the surname of the mother of William Burkelow's first four sons. If the "H" in Miles H. Burklow does, in fact, stand for "Harper", an recognizable surname, then I suspect there is a surname that needs serious researching in connection with this line.