|
Note: There were several men named Larkin Hensley but this one is the
oldest of the bunch. Special Thanks to Laura White Hensley, Ruthe
Muench and Laura Schreibman for information shared on this family.
Larkin Hensley was born ca 1761 or earlier. I base this on his
first known public record being dated 1782 when he received a Land Grant
as an assignee (agent) of someone else. He didn't have to be 21 to do
this, for anyone could receive a grant at any age if certain conditions
were met (being an orphan for example.) He didn't appear by name on a
tax list until 1788, so perhaps he didn't turn 21 until around that
time. That would put his birth at ca 1767 or earlier. I'm rather
inclined to use "ca 1767" instead of "ca 1761" now. The two dates aren't
that far apart anyway.
Larkin was born in Virginia presumably, but the county is unknown.
Culpeper or Buckingham are strong possibilities based on presumed
relationships with other Hensleys from those counties. It should be
noted that none of these relationships have been proven, so perhaps
Larkin was from somewhere else entirely.
I have not been able to determine who Larkin's parents were. It has
been suggested by others (and I concur) that Larkin might be a
brother to one or several of the other Hensleys about his age who also
settled in Washington County, Virginia. This list includes:
Joseph Hensley (1750/60-1832),
Samuel Hensley (1755-1841),
Fielding Hensley (c1761-1833) and
William Hensley (bef 1761-aft 1810). There is no direct proof that
any of them are brothers, but they did all apparently know each other
and lived near each other. They are certainly related in some close
fashion. See my general commentary on
Hensleys of Washington County, Virginia for more information.
Of the above, we have no definitive birth places, but Fielding
Hensley did live in Buckingham County before moving to Washington
County. There was also a William Hensley in Buckingham from the
1770's through late 1780's, but I don't know if it is the same one later
found in Washington County records. Seems likely that it is. A
Zachariah Hensley (c1751-aft 1774) was listed in Buckingham in 1773
and 1774. Fielding named one of his sons Zachariah, so he may be another
potential brother.
Proven sisters Milly Hensley (1760/65-aft 1850) (wife of William
Cornett) and Agnes Hensley (c1763-1850) (wife of William Godsey) were
both from Buckingham Co., VA and both lived in Washington Co., VA for a
time. These two are quite possibly siblings to Larkin Hensley as well.
None of that proves that Larkin Hensley was ever in Buckingham
County, but it is certainly a possibility. Unfortunately, Buckingham is
a burned county and very few pre-Civil War era records remain.
On 5 Apr 1782, Larkin Hensley was issued a land warrant as an
Assignee of Loven Bledsoe, for 89 acres on Ketron's Fork in Washington
Co, VA. "Assignee" means that although
Lovin Bledsoe was the one entitled (or qualified) to receive this
land, he transferred his rights to Larkin Hensley for some reason. Are
they related? Or was this Bledsoe's way of settling a debt? This does
show that Larkin was in this area at this time, and that he was of age
(21 or older) in 1782. This land was not actually granted to him until
1797. (Washington Co, VA Land Warrant #
8473).
See
Lovin Bledsoe's page for more information about him.
The 89 acre patent was the only land Larkin Hensley had and he
apparently lived on it, and 15 years later the same land was finally
granted to him by the State of Virginia. Ketrons Fork is in the
extreme southeastern corner of present Scott County, Virginia (which was
formed from Washington County in 1815) and the head waters are still in
present Washington County, but most of its course is in Scott County. It
runs only about 2 miles from the Sullivan County, Tennessee line. It
would seem that Larkin and family resided on the part of the creek that
is now in Scott County, Virginia.
Larkin Hensley did not appear on the 1782 tax lists in either
Washington or Buckingham County or elsewhere as far as I've found. He
also did not appear on the 1787 tax list in either place or elsewhere.
This is unusual since every male over 21 was supposed to be listed by
name. Perhaps he didn't turn 21 until late 1787 or early 1788.
Larkin Hensley was listed on the
tax lists in Washington County 1788 through 1790. He had no land at
this time (the 89 acre entry had not been granted yet.) For some reason
his name was listed as "Larkins" just as often as "Larkin" so I wonder
what his correct name was?
|
Year |
District |
Personal Property Tax List |
W16-21 |
B12+ |
Horses |
|
|
Land
Tax List |
Acres |
|
1782-1787 |
Not found |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
1788 |
John Lathim's |
Larkin Hensley |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
- |
- |
|
Year |
District |
Personal Property Tax List |
W16-21 |
B16+ |
B12-16 |
Horses |
Cattle |
Land
Tax List |
Acres |
|
1789 |
Walter Preston's |
Larkin Hancely |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
1790 |
Walter Preston's |
Larkins Hancley |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larkin Hensley married ca 1788, presumably in Washington Co, VA (no
marriage record located). There is some doubt as to who his wife was.
Circumstantial evidence suggests his wife was named Sarah ---.
No direct evidence has been found proving this, but here is the logic
behind "Sarah" as his wife. Larkin Hensley was listed on the various tax
lists in Washington Co, VA beginning in 1788, and ending in 1805. The
1805 entry was his last, and the next year Sarah Hensley was listed on
the tax list for the first and only time. Since Larkin was not listed in
1806, and Sarah was, it is assumed that she was his widow. This is a big
assumption, but if you look at the 1805 personal property tax list there
were seven Hensleys listed: Fielding, Ichabod, Larkin, Nicholas, Samuel,
William and William. In 1806 all of these were still listed except
Ichabod and Larkin. Two new listings in 1806 included one for Sarah and
one for Jesse. Since Ichabod and Larkin were listed in 1805 but not in
1806, it is generally assumed that one of them was dead leaving widow
Sarah behind. Ichabod was not dead but had moved to Knox Co., TN, so
that leaves only Larkin as suspect for husband of Sarah. Of course this
is entirely circumstantial. Read on.
Sarah being Larkin's widow is further supported by two Court Cases
dated 181- and 1819 which seem to list the heirs of Larkin
Hensley (the case does not say specifically that they are Larkin's
heirs, though apparently Ruthe Muench located one record that actually
said they were Larkin's heirs, I have not seen that record.) The first
name in the list was "Sarah Hensley", followed by the children.
Typically, the widow is listed first in estates, probate and other
similar records. These two tidbits combine to strongly suggest, but not
prove, that Larkin's wife was named "Sarah." Another possibility is that
"Sarah" was the oldest daughter of Larkin, and thus named first in the
list due to her being the oldest.
So based on the above you can see that Sarah is very likely the widow
of Larkin Hensley, though there is room for doubt and the following
information seems to contradict the above, but I don't know how to
reconcile it.
Laura Schreibman shared two different Family records, written by two
granddaughters of Thomas Hensley (Larkin's youngest child.) Thomas'
granddaughter Dollie Bradley Hensley (1873) wrote out a brief family
record stating:
Major Thomas Hensley mothers name was Emmie Childres
Now "Emmie" is probably short for Emaline, and "Childres" is a common
misspelling of "Childress." These records do not list Thomas' father.
There were Childress' in Washington Co., VA, so this could easily be
correct. I can't reconcile this with "Sarah" being Larkin's wife though.
This conflict could be easily resolved if her name was "Sarah Emaline
Childress" or something similar. However, I doubt that was her name as
women rarely had two names in that time period. My first reaction was
that Thomas' grandchildren were mistaken about who his mother was, but
dismissing their information outright is not wise. Since they were
grandchildren of Thomas, they were not eyewitnesses, so their record
can't be considered primary evidence, but they obviously had access to
family members, and family knowledge that has since been lost, so their
data should not be ignored. Even if they were mistaken about her given
name, this should be considered a strong clue about something. Perhaps
Sarah's maiden name was Childress, even though her first name might not
be "Emmie." More research is needed to prove something either way.
There were no Childress or similar names on the Washington County tax
lists until 1788 when a Roland and Henry Childs were listed in John
Lathim's District. That same year Patterson Childers was listed in the
other district. That was his one and only entry on the tax lists, he
didn't appear after that. Their surname was spelled various ways,
Chiles, Childs, Childes. I don't know if there is any connection between
them and Larkin's wife, but it is worth noting. Rowland and Henry
Chiles / Childes appear on the tax lists through 1794. That is the last
entry for Rowland, but Henry continues to appear through at least 1802
and perhaps later. A John Childes appears in 1795. In 1799 a Gideon
Childers shows up on the tax lists. Henry Childs was listed on
the land tax lists as well, and by 1803 the spelling of his name had
evolved to "Childers" though on the personal property list of that same
year he was spelled "Childs."
The 1790 census for Virginia was lost, but presumably Larkin Hensley
would have been listed on it, in Washington Co, VA.
On 4 Sep 1797, Larkin Hensley, assignee of Loven Bledsoe, received a
State Land Grant for 89 acres on Ketron's Fork, a branch of Cove Creek,
on the waters of the North Fork of Holston River. This is the same land
he received a warrant for in 1782. This land is in present Scott County,
Virginia (Land Office Grants No. 37, 1796-1798, p. 392 (Reel 103)
from the Library of Virginia.)
In 1798 Larkan Hensley was listed as a Militia Man (probably a
private) in the 2nd Battalion, 70th Regiment. (Clark, Gerald H. The
Militia of Washington County, VA Officers 1777-1835 Militia Men
1798-1835. 1979)
Larkin Hensley was listed on the
Washington Co., VA Tax Lists 1791 through 1800. In 1799 he appeared
on the land tax list with his 89 acres that was finally granted in 1797.
|
Year |
District |
Personal Property Tax List |
W16-21 |
B16+ |
B12-16 |
Horses |
Land
Tax List |
Acres |
|
1791 |
Walter Preston's |
Larkins Hancley |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
- |
- |
|
1792 |
Walter Preston's |
Larkin Hencley |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
- |
- |
|
1793 |
Walter Preston's |
Larkin Hancley |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
- |
- |
|
1794 |
Walter Preston's |
Larkin Hencly |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
- |
- |
|
Year |
District |
Personal Property Tax List |
W16+ |
B16+ |
B12-16 |
Horses |
Land
Tax List |
Acres |
|
1795 |
Matthew Willoughby's |
Larkins Hensley |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
- |
- |
|
1796 |
Matthew Willoughby's |
Larkin Hensly |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
- |
- |
|
1797 |
Matthew Willoughby's |
Larkins Hensly |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
- |
- |
|
1798 |
Matthew Willoughby's |
Larkins Hensley |
1 |
0 |
0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
1799 |
Lower District |
Larkins Hensly |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Larkins Hensly "Entry" |
89 |
|
1800 |
Lower District |
Larkins Hensly |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Larkins Hensly |
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 1800 census for Virginia was also lost, but presumably, Larkin
would have been listed in Washington Co, VA.
Larkin Hensley was listed on the
Washington Co., VA Tax Lists 1801 through 1805. In 1806 he was not
listed, but a Sarah Hensley was, and she is probably his widow.
|
Year |
District |
Personal Property Tax List |
W16+ |
B16+ |
B12-16 |
Horses |
Land
Tax List |
Acres |
|
1801 |
Lower District |
Larken Hensley |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Larkins Hensly |
89 |
|
1802 |
Lower District |
Larkin Hensly |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Larkins Hensly |
89 |
|
1803 |
Lower District |
Larkin Hansly |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Not found |
- |
|
1804 |
Lower District |
Larkin Hensley |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
- |
- |
|
1805 |
Lower District |
Larkin Hensley |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
1806 |
Lower District |
Sarah Hensly |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
1807 |
Not found |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
1808 |
(no list) |
|
|
|
|
|
(no list) |
- |
|
1809-1810 |
Not found |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larkin's last entry on the land records was 1802. In 1803 he was not
listed. What happened to his 89 acre tract? He must have sold it. I read
the entire 1803 tax list to see who had a "new" 89 acre tract, and the
only listing in all of Washington County for 89 acres was Frederick
Fulkerson who had a new tract marked "from Cornelius Carmack" which
means it was deeded from Carmack to Fulkerson sometime within the
previous 12 months or so. Based on that I don't see that as being the
same land Larkin owned, but it is possible, especially if it changed
hands twice before 1803. I have not checked the deed records yet. Could
the Scott County court case (see below) have anything to do with this
land? I read the 1801 land tax list and neither Mr. Carmack nor Mr.
Fulkerson had an 89 acre tract that year. In 1802 Frederick Fulkerson
had the 89 acres already, and it was marked "C. Carmack" so it is the
same land he was listed with in 1803. Since Larkin himself was listed in
1802 with 89 acres, the two tracts can't be the same land, unless taxed
twice in the same year.
Larkin Hensley must have died (or moved away) before 1806, for he was
not listed on that tax list. As noted earlier, an apparent widow Sarah
Hensley appears on the 1806 tax list. She had no tithes, 1 horse and no
slaves. The number of horses match what Larkin had back in 1805, but
that isn't definitive proof she was his widow.
This same year (1806), Larkin and Sarah's last child was born on 17
Mar 1806, and his birth was reported as being in Sullivan Co., TN. This
suggests that Sarah was in Sullivan Co, TN in early 1806, either
visiting relatives (several Childress families were living there at that
time), or perhaps she was living there, already in her widowhood. The
1806 tax list showing her in Washington Co, VA could have been taken
before March, or she could have been going back and forth.
Sarah and her children had all apparently moved to Knox Co, TN by
1808, for in that year her daughter Agness was married there, and the
following year, daughter Rhoda married there.
Unfortunately, the 1810 census for Tennessee was lost, so I can't
tell if Sarah was living there at that time. Since her children were
marrying in Knox Co, TN in 1808, 1809, and 1816, I strongly suspect she
was there during those years.
Meanwhile, back in Virginia, Scott County was formed from the western
part of Washington County in 1815. This included the majority of Ketrons
Creek where the family had previously lived, though a small portion
(about 1 mile) of the creek was still in Washington County. They no
longer lived there, but this change is important as you will see in the
following court case.
In the February 1819 term of Scott County, Virginia Court, an
interesting suit was brought by Sarah and her children against a variety
of people. The case was started before this date for a Court record
dated 12 Mar 1818 refers to it in regard to the Benham orphans.
I have three different versions of this. The first was sent to me
type written, many years ago, and it seems to be from a different book,
the typist labeled it "Scott Co, VA Minute Book # 1 1815-1818", document
dated 8 Sep 181- (last number not legible, but probably 1815, 1816, 1817
or 1818). The person who sent this to me originally later said they
didn't remember sending it to me and didn't know where it had come from.
It is almost identical to the later document, but with four exceptions.
First, this document states that the names were the heirs of Larkin
Hensley (the two other version don't say that), secondly, this one left
off daughter Susannah Hensley, and thirdly, this document had Ichabod
Hensley listed in a different sequence within the names, listed as the
3rd name, where the other documents list him 2nd to last. Fourthly,
Ichabod has a middle initial of "C" on the other two documents. Assuming
that this is a verbatim copy (which I can't say for sure that it is),
this is very significant for a variety of reasons which I'll explain
later.
Heirs of Larkin Hensley, deceased - Sarah Hensley, Abednego Casteel and
wife Agnes (formerly Hensley), Daniel Casteel and wife Rhoda (formerly
Hensley), Ichabod Hensley, Polly Hensley, Catherine Hensley, Samuel
Hensley, Nancy Hensley, Thomas Hensley -vs-
Polly Benham, widow of William Benham, deceased, John, Samuel, Joel,
Catherine, Sampson, Isaac, heirs of William Benham, deceased, and
Elizabeth Godsey, heir of Gilbert Godsey, deceased, Catherine Johnson,
widow of Thomas Johnson, deceased. The defendants do not live in
Virginia. (Scott Co, VA Minute Book # 1,
1815-1818 as transcribed by someone anonymously, possibly Ruthe Muench)
I have two original copies from different books, which I've typed
verbatim. One in the index (or a judgment book), and then a fuller
version in the actual minutes. First the Index or judgment entry:
(In Chancery) Feb T 1819 1-385
Hensley Sarah, Abednego Casteel and Agness, his wife, Daniel Casteel and
Rhoda, his wife, Susannah Hensley, Polly Hensley, Catherine Hensley,
Samuel Hensley, Nancy Hensley, Ichabod C. Hensley, and Thomas Hensley,
Complts.
vs. Polly Benham, widow of William Benham, deceased. John, Samuel,
Catherine, Joel, Sampson, Isaac Benham, heirs of said William Benham,
deceased. & Elizabeth Godsey, widow of Gilbert Godsey, deceased,
Abraham, Jane, Sarah & Elizabeth, heirs of said Gilbert Godsey,
deceased. Catherine Johnston, widow of Thomas Johnston, deceased and
Jane Johnston, his heir at law. Defts.
Rule awarded against said defts to give security and as to nature of
said cause (Scott Co, VA Court Minutes
Book 1 page 385)
Now, the full entry from the actual minutes (the right margin of my
copy is slightly cropped, so some data missing:
Sarah Hensley, Abariah Abednego Casteel and Agness, his wife, Daniel
Casteel and Rhoda, his wife, Susanna Hensley, Polly Hensley, Chatherine
Hensley, Samuel Hensley, Nancy Hensley, Ichabod C. Hensley, and Thomas
Hensley, Pltffs
vs.
Polly Benham, widow of William Benham, decd. John, Samuel, Catherine,
Joel, Sampson, & Isaac Benham, heirs of said William Benham, decd.
Elizabeth Godsey, widow of Gilbert Godsey, decd, Abraham, Jane, Sarah &
Elizabeth, heirs of said Gilbert, decd. Catherine Johnston, widow of
Thomas Johnston, decd & Jane Johnston, his heir at law. Defendants
in --- the deponents Elizabeth Godsey, widow of Gilbert Godsey, decd,
Abraham, Jane, Sarah & Elizabeth, heirs of said Gilbert, decd. Catherine
Johnston, widow of Thomas Johnston, decd & Jane, his heir at law. not
having ent--- their appearance and given security according to the a----
assembly and the rules of this Court & it appearing --- the satisfaction
of the Court that the said --- defendants is not inhabitants of this
Commonwealth --- Condition? of the Complainants by their Counsel i---
ordered that the said defendants do aappear here on --- second Tuesday
in May next and answer the bill --- said Complainants and that a copy of
this order ------------ in same publick news paper ----- [several parts
missing from my copy] ---- Benham Decd, John Samuel Catherine Joel &
Isaac Benham heirs of the said William Benham --- failing to file their
answers within this month --- the said plaintiffs had filed their bills
having --- served with a a Subpeona at least Nine? months by --- said
lin for filing their answer. On motion of --- complainants by their
Counsel it is ordered that --- Complainants bill be taken for Confesse?
as to those --- said defendants & this Court will procede at --- to
de??? the matters and things therein contain--- the said defendants
shall on or before the first of ---- Court next after they shall have
been served will --- of this order appear and shew cause to the Con----
(Scott Co, VA Court Minute Book 1 page
385)
Now, having quoted the above case several things become clear. One is
that the case was not resolved at this time. Two, nothing in these two
records state what the case is about. Chancery cases can involve a
number of things, often to do with estates. Third, who were the
defendants, and how were they connected to one another, and to the
plaintiffs?
We know from other sources that Polly Benham, wife of William Benham,
deceased, is a daughter of
Samuel Hensley, suspected brother of Larkin, but other than her and
her children, the others are not heirs of Samuel Hensley. My personal
belief is that all of these are somehow connected via the Benham family.
That might lead to the conclusion that Larkin Hensley's wife Sarah was a
Benham, but I can't prove that. It is possible that the defendants were
not directly related to each other, but collectively, they all owed
Larkin Hensley money or something as heirs of someone he did business
with.
The above record is also useful in another way. The children of Sarah
were apparently named in descending order (oldest to youngest), and that
can be confirmed from other sources. That helps to prove we are talking
about the same set of children. For instance, using the same list as
above, and adding the known birth dates, we can see that this list must
be referring to this same set of Hensleys (which is beyond doubt, in my
view, anyway): Sarah Hensley (ca 1760), Abednego Casteel and Agness
(1780/90), his wife, Daniel Casteel and Rhoda (1780/90), his wife,
Susannah Hensley (1790/1800), Polly Hensley (1798), Catherine Hensley,
Samuel Hensley (1801), Nancy Hensley (1800/10), Ichabod C. Hensley, and
Thomas Hensley (1806). The only flaw in this is that Ichabod was listed
in a different place in the first version of this document, but that
actually helps, as the only Ichabod who really fits in this family was
born ca 1780/90, which works at that point in the listing.
Sarah (---) Hensley was still alive as of 1819, based on the Court
record quoted above. Unfortunately, the record does not give her place
of residence, though it seems very likely she was living in Knox Co, TN
at that time.
The 1820 census was lost for all of Eastern Tennessee, so I can not
locate Sarah and her children, though it seems obvious from other
records that they were in Knox Co, TN then. I did find a "Saray Hansley"
on an 1820 tax list in Morgan Co., AL, however, I have no idea if this
was our Sarah. It should be noted that Ichabod Hensley moved to that
county about that time, though whether this Ichabod is her son, or
another Ichabod, has not been firmly established.
In 1822, Sarah's daughter Mary married in Blount Co, TN (borders Knox
Co, TN). In 1823, Sarah's children Samuel and Nancy Hensley were married
(in what appears to be a double ceremony) in Knox Co, TN.
It is not known when Sarah died, though it was after 1819, and
probably in Knox Co, TN. |