« VorigeDoorgaan »
The Notes are assembled in series under Part I, Alphabetical Arrangement.
It is but natural that the eight original shires (or counties: Hening i, 224) and the "original County' of Northumberland (Hening i, 337-8) should be selected as the “immigrant ancestors” of the counties which have resulted from Virginia legislation, with the result that the charts which compose this Part are numbered 1 to 9,— # 9 having four supplemental charts on account of the large number of counties descended through this line. In preparing these "family trees", it soon developed that the lines often crossed from one chart to another, as in the case of Louisa, which came through the Charles River line, and appears on chart # 3, a portion of which was added to Albemarle (Hening vii, 419),—a county which came through the Henrico line and appears on chart # 5. Thus, it was obviously difficult to present clearly the data for all the counties on one chart. The complexity of such a task will be recognized more clearly when one considers the fact that Appomattox, Craig, Doddridge, Fayette and Logan were each initially formed from four counties, one of them (Craig) having as many as five additions to its area, while twenty-six of them were each initially formed from portions of three counties,-to one of which (Giles) there were added six territorial increments.
For these reasons, it was decided to give to each of the "immigrant ancestors" a chart of its own, and to have an individual index for this part of the Bulletin,-chart # 9 having four supplemental charts on account of the large number of counties which descend through the Northumberland line,--one hundred and sixteen in number.
The number of counties “descended” from each of the "immigrant ancestors" is as follows: 1634,–Accawmack,
18; 9; 7; 11; 3;
Counties here listed,..
..172. The horizontal lines on each chart have no significance, other than the adjustment and balance of each individual chart, except, of course, that the earliest county from each parent-county appears at the left, while the vertical lines indicate in an approximately correct degree the chronological descent,—the "scale" being uniform on each chart, but not the same for all, and where two or more counties come into existence in the same year, they appear at the same distance below the parent-county; or, if formed from different parent-counties, at the same distance below the “immigrant ancestor”. If they be from the same pa rent-county, they are in alphabetical order from left to right, as can be seen by reference to chart # 9, where it appears that Essex and Richmond were formed from Rappahannock in 1692; that Berkeley and Dunmore were formed from Frederick in 1772; and that Warren and Clarke, formed from different parent-counties, are on the same chronological line, though not in alphabetical order for reasons which have been given.
In naming the parent-county in cases where portions of several counties were initially utilized to form the new county, only the name of the first county mentioned in the title if the Act has been used, as where Appo. mattox was formed from Buckingham, Prince Edward, Charlotte and Campbell, in which case the chart (# 5) shows only that Appomattox was formed from Buckingham, but in each of these cases an asterisk refers to a note which says, “Initially formed from portions of more than one county,the parent-county here shown being the first one mentioned in the title of the Act of Assembly forming this county : for other counties, portions of which were utilized in the formation of this county, see Part I, Alphabetical Arrangement". Some such arbitrary treatment was necessary in order to avoid the alternative of a confused tangle of crossing lines; and the plan adopted gives a direct and unconfused “line of descent" for each of one hundred and twenty-three counties which were initially formed from but one county (which include the eight original shires; Northumberland, an "original county”, which was formed from an indeterminate area called “Chickacoan”; Brunswick which was formed from an area not named [Prince George]; and Illinois which was formed from territory “on the western side of the Ohio River" (Augusta), while the twenty-one counties which were initially formed from portions of two counties, the twenty-three which were initially formed from portions of three counties, and the five which were initially formed from portions of four counties are just as clearly set forth, with an asterisk, and the corresponding note which explains that there were more than one parent-county and refers to direct data as to these additional parent-counties.
It is a source of the greatest regret to the compiler that the financial condition of the Library prevented the adoption of his suggestion that all these charts be assembled in one chart originating from “Virginia, 1607”, which he considered as necessary to a proper presentation of the relativity of the counties, as is a map of the United States to the same status concerning the several states.
The following abbreviations are used in this Part:
E (superior): resulted from Virginia legislation, but now extinct,
as shown by accompanying dates. K (superior): resulted from Virginia legislation, but now in Kentucky. W (superior): resulted from Virginia legislation, but now in West
839 see noto
342 See note 7. 240 See noto 62.
and 11, &..
243 See note 61. Initially formed from-portions of more than one county, - the parent-county hero shown being the first mentioned in the title of the Act of Msembly sorming this county: for other counties, portions of which were utilized in the formation of this county. 866 Part 1, Alphabetical Arrangement.
250 See note 1. 251 See note 22. 252 See note 55. 253 See note 56. 254 Soo note 55. 255 See note 44. 256 See note 55.
257 See noto 77. 258 See notes
52 and 55.
55 and 57.
55 and 57.
244 See noto 1. 248 See note 15.
246 Sed noto 88. 247 See note 28.
248 See note 30. 249 See note 43.