Burklow Orphan Lines - 4

Orphan lines, by definition, can be any lines with ancestral OR descendancy connection problems. They will invariably lack hard evidentiary documentation such as bibles, church or probate records to complete the link in either direction.


William Van Burkleo(c1755-c1802) of Kent Co.,DE.

CHRONOLOGY OF COINCIDENTAL OR LINKABLE EVENTS:

1. WILLIAM BURKLO appears in tax lists of Little Creek Hundred, Kent Co.,Delaware for the first time in 1784 with 4 acres, alongside Peter Van Burkelow. We can be fairly sure this is William Van Burkleo who went to Missouri(Spanish Country) about 1798 because his son, William,Jr. stated he "was born in Kent Co., Jun 11,1783/4 and that when abought 4 years old my father moved to the Monongahalah." William Van Burklo of Little Creek Hnd. disappears from Delaware tax lists after 1787. A William Burcalow appeared in Dover Hundred in 1776 with 8 acres of land, but disappears immediately without seemingly reappearing anywhere.

However, "The Reconstructed Delaware State Census of 1782", by Harold B. Hancock,1983., lists a William Burcloe in St. Jones Hnd., who needs consideration. Because it's a census and not a tax list, it does not provide acreage and details to corrolate with other lists. But, it does offer two age categories for both sexes and shows William as the only male(over 18yrs.) with 2 females over 18 years and one under 18. If the 2nd female over 18 is not his mother or mother-in-law, this could not be the William Van Burkleo under consideration, as he would have to have been born prior to 1744.

In the same 1782 State Census, Peter Burkeloe appears in Little Creek Hnd. with one son under 18 years and 2 females over 18. This matches the tax list of 1782 which also shows the only Peter Burkoloe in Little Creek Hnd. But a William Burkloe was not found on any of the tax lists used to replace the missing census, giving this reference extra consideration. In 1780, two Peters(with differing acreage) and a John were listed in Jones Hnd.

2. WILLIAM BURKLEO continues to be taxed in Little Creek Hundred from 1784 through 1787, variously as William BURKLO/BURCALO/BURKLOE/BURCALOW or BURKELOE. His 4 acres diminished to 2 acres in 1785 and three times he appeared on the "Delinquents Lists" suggesting he was not faring well, or, is resisting paying his taxes.

3. WILLIAM BURKLEO is listed alongside Samuel Burkelo in 1786 and again in 1787 in Little Creek Hundred, with each being taxed on just 2 acres.

4. WILLIAM and SAMUEL BURKELO married women named Irons/Hirons, intimating a residential proximity and probable kinship as close as "brothers". Samuel Burkelo is likely the same born 1766 and who remained in Kent Co.,DE until his own death in 1842. If Samuel is a brother, William's diminished acreage from 4 acres(1784) to 2 acres after Samuel shows up could suggest Samuel came of age in 1786 to assume his rightful share of an inheritance and responsibility for his share of the property taxes. Coincidentally, there was a probate record in Jan.,1785 for a Peter Burkelow of Little Creek Hundred. It is not known whether the deceased Peter Burkelow was a brother of William and Samuel, or their father.

After several years of two Peter Burkelows being taxed in Dover Hnd., just one Peter Burkelow was listed in Dover in 1781, while another Peter appeared in Little Creek Hnd. Two Peter Burkelows were on tax rolls in Jones Hnd. in 1780, but only that year, suggesting a temporary move, or border-straddling properties. The timing gives reason to suspect a change of venue for perhaps, just two Peter Burkelows, not five.

The eldest Peter(Peter,Sr.), son of Reynier Hermanse Van Burkelow(1659-1713), would be the same(born 1691) who died in 1758. A Peter,Jr. would likely be the one probated in Jan.1785, born perhaps about 1720. Peter Burkelow III, would be born about 1748/50, who is likely the same enumerated in the 1800 census of St.Jones Hnd.,with 6 sons and 3 daughters, one daughter of whom is at least 26 years of age. Because Samuel and John Burkelow seem to be the only clan left in Delaware after 1800, it can be reasonably assumed that Peter(III) and his large family are the same who suddenly appear in Kentucky in 1801. The William Van Burkleo under scrutiny here has, by then, already traversed to the west side of the Mississippi.

5. WILLIAM VAN BURKLEO disappears from Delaware Tax Lists in 1788. This coincides with the statement of William,Jr.(1783-1867) that "When I was abought 4 years old, my father moved to the Monongahalah[sic] whare he stayed 2 years, then move to Kantucy in the hootest Indien times", which suggests he probably left in the spring of 1787 and remained, perhaps, until the spring of 1789. Of further note, William,Jr. stated,"We moved out abought 12 milds for the waters of licking to Milses Station whare times was pretty warm." There were only two major paths running south to southwest from Limestone. Only two "burgs" of that distance(12 miles) would likely have had a blockhouse for protection- Mays Lick and Germantown, the former being almost on the Licking River and the latter being a logical place for a group speaking Dutch or German. Germantown is today on the border between Bracken and Mason Counties.

William Van Burkleo,Sr.(1755-1802) remained there "until the same year that General Anthony Wayne whipped them[Indians]", which would have been the Battle of Fallen Timbers,Aug.20,1794. William,Sr. had, according to his son, left his family, and "volunteered to join the army as a spy" and soon after Wayne's last battle, returned to Miles Station, bringing "two or three Indien skelps, a tomahawk and some trinkets, which was a grate tost in the station." William,Sr. then moved his family to Ohio. "We arived at Sensanata a few days after wanes trety with the Indiens. We remained their until the fawl of 1798."

The "History of Washington Co.,OH.",p.41, offers a reference which may well apply to William Van Burkleo,Sr. during this period. An entry recorded from a diary of a Mr. M. Cutler, relating to Ohio Company activities of the Ordinance of 1787, reads: "July 26th: This morning I accompanied General St. Clair and General Knox on a tour of morning visits, particularly to the foreign ministers: Sieur Otto, French Charge; Don Diego Guardoqoi, Spanish; Van Berckle, Dutch, a frank open Dutchman, who speaks bad English, but is very talkative. He is fond of conversing about the western country, and seems to interest himself much in the settlement of the western lands."

It is not obvious from this entry under just what capacity "Van Berckle" was actually serving, as the term "minister" may only have applied to the roles of the Frenchman and Spaniard because the Dutch did not have any claims to western lands and Dr. Cutler, therefor, may have used the term in a loose generality trying to describe their actual function as "interpreters". It may have been that Generals St. Clair and Knox likewise employed the term "ministers" to his interpreters, knowing many Dutch and Germans communities were already settled along the length of the Ohio River, and were anxious to push the frontier boundaries beyond the Mississippi despite the imminent risks. It seems highly improbable actual "foreign ministers", or political appointees as we would know them, would be accompanying our military officials in and about our own acquisitions. France's interior foreign minister/s would have resided at New Orleans, and Spain's at St.Louis. Up to 1798, when Spain relinquished its claims west of the Mississippi to France, visas to travel there had to be obtained at Fort Massac, in Illinois Territory. After 1803, the U.S. owned that region.

Bilingual persons were needed to accompany the military into the newly created Northwest Territory and in 1787, these references to Washington County,Ohio history do not necessarily involve just the area occupied by that county today. In 1787, the people anxious to venture down the Ohio River and the military expected to protect them from Indians were operating out of western Pennsylvania, Maryland, and what is now the narrow panhandle of West Virginia between Ohio and Pennsylvania, all once part of a district called Transylvania. Two of the major jumpoff points to acquire flatboats and supplies would have been Wheeling and Parkersburg(W.VA.).

A discrepancy arises here as to whether William,Sr.(1755-1802) began his trek down the Ohio to Limestone in 1789, or 1794. We know, for instance, that Samuel Burkleo(1789-p1860) of Adams Co.,IL., a brother of William,Jr.(1783-1867), claims his birthplace to be Mills/Miles Station,Kentucky(1789), which, by William's recounting, was about 12 miles SW of Limestone(Maysville) on the waters of the Licking[River]. But, William,Jr's personal account also seems to suggest he[William] begins his "Small Sketch of My Life and of Anchent Times from 1794." at about 10 years old, not age five or six. However, he may have originally decided that 1794 was about as early as he could recall great detail but still chose to regurgitate some of the more traumatic events he could never forget from pre-1794 days.

6. WILLIAM BURKALOE, also based upon his son's account, remained in the area between Maysville,KY and Cincinnati,OH until Oct.1,1798, when they began their final effort to move the family to the Spanish Country.

EVALUATING ANCESTRY PROBABILITIES:

In his "Sketch of My Life and Anchent Times from 1794", William Van Burkelo,Jr.(1783-1867) offers just enough background about his father and his family's travails getting to Missouri to help separate the Van Burkleo clan from the Van Burkelow clans of southern Illinois and western Kentucky. No doubt they are related, but in the absence of family bibles and probate records, it can be confusing to research unless one has as much data as is still available from such an early period of uncharted, sparsely settled and non-partitioned frontier.

One important conclusion is that any William Burkelow taxed east of Cave-in-Rock,IL in 1798 cannot be William Van Burkleo,Sr.(c1755-1802) who had already crossed to the Missouri side of the Mississippi by then. William's discontent with St. Charles County and his passion to be a salt trader along the Tennessee River sent him back in 1801. But, because his marketing territory ranged from Davidson Co.,TN to the Saline River in Illinois, William apparently chose Cave-in-Rock to billot his family.

When William suddenly died(cause unknown) in 1802, the family had to send the message of urgency with someone to locate William,Jr.(1783-1867) and inform him of his father's death and the plight of the family. William,Jr., still in his teens, albeit a competent young man of nineteen, had been exploring the upper Missouri and Platte Rivers as far as Wyoming with a couple trappers and couldn't be contacted until his return to the St. Charles area. Upon learning of the need for his help, William had to outfit himself for the trip to Illinois and both engineer and finance a return trip to Missouri with his mother and younger siblings, a process which took months. Two of the younger children, in fact, didn't make it, having fallen off the flat boat and drowned in the Ohio River.

From the accounts of William,Jr., we can only identify 6 of the 8 known children of William Van Burkleo,Sr.(1755-1802). The two toddlers who drowned were boys, so we only have the names of the two surviving sons, William(b.1783) and Samuel(b.1789). The given name, "Peter", for instance, never appears in this branch, in any generation. It is possible one or more male children born were named Peter, but they didn't survive. But, without a single Peter ever showing up, it is hard to deduce where the eventual connection with Peter Van Burkelow(1691-1758) may have occurred, if it ever did.


More Burklow Orphan Lines

Home Page Burklow Sub-Directory Directory