|Yoakum Lineage Update|
|Our database is continually being updated. Thanks to all family members who have responded with current information. Any one who would like to update substantiated family information please email request to Update Info at the Yoakum Pages.||
|Yoakum Lineage Notes, Correspondance, Current Issues and Point-of-View|
| Research Released
Issue - "Hendrickje Jochems" was a women and our immigrant forefather is now believed to have been Matthias Yoakum (b. ca 1700) to PA (Roy Yoakum had written and asked for our thoughts on this research and in particular ..."I'm wondering where you got the info that Heinrich was female???")
I quess it is time to share our view of the incredible conjecture that 'Hendrickje' was a women - on the Beaver not with a wife, but a sister and that Francis was the SON of Mathias and that he died in 1751 not 1780.
Yes, we have Dr. Smiths book and I am of the opinion that many of the family associations are only partially correct. When he quotes actual documents and relates spoken history, people often come forward and substantiate proposed data, but when it comes to connecting the ever moving, migrating and propagating Yoakums, well, we know conjecture often seems so right - but is still just that, a guess. The body of information does hold up as a critical consolidation of Yoakum data, but the lineages have been found to reflect the limitations of Dr. Smith's tools and available information. I believe the true value of the Smith tome is the information pertaining to the various immediate families, the citations, and the family lore. At best, as often been said, it gives a hint as to where to look. I admit I often include this reference in response to queries - just to give his perspective and often times to corroborate dates and locations with other sources - "just understand you will have to find another proof-document" has been reiterated many times to Yoakum searchers. It so happens that my line through George’s son Valentine b.ca1785 and Charlotte Reynolds was unlisted - except for a single reference to Valentines gggrandsons immediate family, my great grandfather, in the unconnected section of the book.
Most of the current research graciously published to the web has at one time or another depended on information from the book. Smith gave us a modern baseline from which to connect back to the immigrant. We, like many others, have used this baseline to start our own search and then add in contemporary work as it becomes available. We have all propagated his errors and will continue to do so until new substantiated information is published and the baseline extended. His work is the broadest Yoakum genealogy we have seen to date.
Greg Brown recently wrote his views on Smiths work as follows.
"Most, if not all, genealogy books which attempt to cover more than a few lines of descent have errors and should not be accepted as proof. The H. C. Smith book is no exception, and probably has more errors than most. It also suffers from the inclination of the author to state as fact that which is only supposition and to misquote and misapply original records. On the surface, Smith's apparently exhaustive work appears to be a treasure chest, but once you begin to research the evidence for yourself you soon find that it is a Pandora's box of frustration. His strong desire to tie various lines together resulted in much "wishful thinking" being translated into falsely authoritative statements. These flaws are relatively easy to document in later lines where evidence is readily available, but more difficult to expose on early lines where evidence is scarce and indiviuals with identical names abound."
"Considering the huge task that Smith undertook, I suppose we shouldn't be too critical of the results. But it would probably be wise to place more credence in the results of those who have properly researched individual lines extensively than in those who have attempted to "do it all". Smith's book is only a tool, and should be used very carefully."
We have always followed the guideline, sometimes with interpretation (the census takers spelling!), that our family history should only be trusted to some piece of physical evidence or I've heard, at most one degree of separation for oral histories and even then be cautious of remembered dates. Basic, basic criteria to be sure! This a softer approach then many and we have been tripped up many times in years past but even today we continue to list proposed connections and ‘Best Guess To Date’ information in order to represent ongoing research. Usually this amounts to conjecture on how to fill in missing relatives. We encourage substantiated recommendations and support the new awareness for crediting the source document, it seems Dr. Smiths intent wasn't to validate, but to associate, as his valid citations are minimal. With the help of so many people scrutinizing their own branches and the speed of disseminating information on the WWW - revisions to generally accepted lineages should be expected to occur much more frequently then in the past. Eventually, the consistency of the known data will solidify the known family lines and changes will again only happen once in a lifetime!
Actually, I find we continually refine our standard for which to accept as truth, a change in a family tie or, as at issue today, a pruning of the very root of our beloved American family tree…each new piece of information added to what’s currently documented makes it more difficult to change what’s currently generally accepted as fact. Which makes for this issue of 'No Heinrich' to be interpreted as not only another possible view, but what must be construed as a colossal challenge to the status quo.
I have to say, only as a family who cares can we uncover, assimilate and communicate the massive history that is our heritage. Each generation holds for a moment the universe of knowledge we call our history and must be true to accepting the frailties and limitations of our predecessors. As we use this incredible medium to communicate over distance and time we are only looking at a snapshot of a growing/evolving tree. What took a generation to communicate only 50 years ago can now be restated in an instant. Every link and piece of information is open to interpretation, as it is for any history. This is a double edged sword in many ways, not the least of which disinformation gets spread around as well. Our goal is to rationally compare new information against the generally accepted standard and redefine our view as warranted. We think the latest series of discoveries around Heinrich/Hendrickje, The PA lineage defined by Peter Stebbins Craig, Sara Pattons research contribution, Mr. Browns comments and our own review indicate this information is a special find.
started for us with a notice on a web site about the Three Yoakum Family's
of PA. The first male Yoakums to land in the new world and begin the
legacy we call our own, I wrote the publishers asking for additional information -and
found they were amused
that I didn't know
that their Peter Paul (the "Swedish" Yocum, Peter Jochimsson from
We received this aside last week and if the citations are correct, we have to accept the same as fact. Sara Patton writes...
"One of Dr. Smith's many unproven assumptions was that Francis Yoakum who died 13 August 1751 in Frederick Co (Will Bk1:480) was the FATHER of Matthias Yoakum. Original Frederick Co records present ABSOLUTE PROOF that Francis was the SON of Matthias Yoakum and that he died in 1751, NOT in 1780 as found in some family lists."
"Frederick Co, VA Will Bk 1:481 Aug 13, 1751 "Know all men by these presents that we Mathias Yoakham, John Varvel and Michael Harness are held and firmly bound unto Morgan Morgan Gent first Justice...in the sum of one hundred pounds Currt money....we bind our selves...on this 13 day of August 1751."
"The Condition of this obligation is such that by the above bond Mathias Yoakham administrator of all the goods Chattels and Credits of Francis Yoakham dec'd do make or cause to be made a true and perfect Inventory of all and singular the goods Chattels and Credits of the s'd deceased ...and further to make Just and true account of his actings and doings thereon which thereto required by the sd Court and all the rest and residue of the sd goods Chattels and Credits which shall be found remaining upon the sd administrators account the same being first Examined and allowed by the Justices of the Court for the time being shall deliver and pay unto such person or persons respectively...and if it shall hereafter appear that any last will and Testment was made by the sd deceased and the Executor or Executors therein named do Exhibit the same unto the sd Court making request to have it allowed and approved accordingly it the sd Mathias being there unto required do render and deliver up his Letters of Administration...." Mathias Yoakham signed with mark "ME", John Varvel signed with signature, Michael Harness signed with mark "T"
"Frederick Co, VA Order Bk 3:493 Aug 13, 1751:
Certificate for obtaining letters of administration of the Estate of Frances Yoakam decd is granted to Matthias Yoakam his Father he having according to law taken the Oath of an Administrator and with John Varvle (sic) and Michael Harness his Securitys entered into Bond for his true and faithful Administrations of the sd dec'ds Estate and acknowledged the sd Bond in Court the same is admitted to record. " Jonathan Cobourn, William Miller, Peter Casey and Peter Thorn appointed as appraisers."
"INTERPRETIVE NOTE: Since Matthias was appointed administrator, Francis did not have a will. This does not PROVE that Francis was not married, however. Since Francis had an estate, he was at least of legal age and COULD have been married. One's wife and/or children are not usually mentioned in estate administrations unless they are appointed the administrator. This also shows that Francis probably died sometime in the period between the May and August court sessions in 1751. "
"At this point, Francis was probably living in Hardy or Hampshire Co, WV, both of which were then part of either Augusta or Frederick counties. All of the men listed above as securities, appraisers, etc. appear numerous times in the court records of both Augusta and Frederick counties."
Photocopies of the above documents should be available on the web shortly.
Greg Brown responded to PS Craigs and Sara Pattons work as follows.
“...By presenting all theories and evidence (primary and anecdotal), we hope to encourage others to question and prove or disprove what is presented. The Heinrich-Matthias-Francis theory is still included until it is definitely disproved...however the revelation that the original immigration list for "Heinrich" indicates that he was a woman, not a man, and Sara's discovery of documents which prove that the Francis who died in 1751 was ("1705") Matthias' son, not his father as Smith contends, gets pretty darned close to disproving it! For my own line, I've now accepted that Matthias (b. ca 1700) was born in Germany and was the first immigrant of our "Virginia Yoakum" line."
posted the following to
the Yoakum-L list:
"Excellent discovery, Sara! I've never felt at all confident that the early generations of Yoakums presented by Smith were accurate. A recent review by genealogist Peter Stebbins Craig asserts that Matthias Yoakum (b. ca 1700) may have been the original immigrant of this line, and that the Heinrich-Matthias(1653)-Francis progenitors of Matthias (b. ca 1700)did not even exist. Indeed, a careful reading of Smith indicates that he had conflicting opinions about this part of the line, and he includes it in the book at the last minute because it "came to him" after the book had been essentially completed and indexed for publication. He mentions his inclination to accept the line because some of the names just sounded right and fit nicely with some of the later naming trends in the family. That the line may have been a fanciful construct created to do just that is now becoming a distinct possibility."
So, the foundations are quaking and it seems that a new lead back to Europe may be in the making. Check out Greg Browns opinions at [http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gwbrownx/yoakum.html ]. As always, we host many different views of the Yoakum lineage from many different sources on The Yoakum Pages, and we know that many pieces of it are found to be incorrect - this continues to happen, but we think with time and more data, such occurrences will diminish. How exciting! What do you think?
If you have any relevant additional information or comments, please let us know about it.
The Yoakum Pages
May 1661 in The Beaver from Lists Of Inhabitants Of Colonial New York by Edmund Bailey O'Callaghan Chapter entitled Early Immigrants to New Netherland 1657-1664
| Research Request
Issue - The Children of William George Yoakum and Hannah Potts (William G. born in 1829, Roane CO. TN, son of Valentine and Charlotte Reynolds Yoakum) can not be authenticated by any generally acceptable means. The two oldest are listed on the 1850 Bradley CO. TN census records as : Mary 2, George W. 4/12 TT Br-966-415. and this is the last we see of this family as a group in the known public record. By the time the1860 census rolled around, Edward Edwards (Williams Stepdad) had died and the other Yoakum boys had left Bradley CO.
"William is said to have died after being struck by lightning on June 27,
1854 while plowing the fields in Bradley Co., TN." This per Carlin
Yokem via Brenda Yoakum-Kritz. Carlin writes William G. was his ggg-grandfather and was the
youngest son of Valentine & Charlotte. He continues - "William George Yoakum married
Hannah Potts and they had 5 children:
The first two children of William and Hannah coincide with the census and Carlins' dates on the next three would indicate they were born after the 1850 Census and the census concurs. Since William was to have died in 1854 - do any of the childrens birthdates preclude this event - NO, good sign.
Did William live his entire adult life as the farmer son of Edward Edwards in Bradley CO? Did he leave Bradley CO when his brothers did (After Edwards died)? Did he follow his older brother Isaac Rite down to Alabama or his brothers George and Jesse to MO after mother Charlotte re-married Elijah Averitt in 1852?
Where was Hannah and the kids during the 1860 Census? Williams widow Hannah had moved to Jasper, TN and then remarried. After a few years, she and her new husband moved through MO to Howard, KS. Winding up there in 1867. Were they in Missouri during census time?
If you have any information that can help substantiate Williams story, or identify his siblings, please let us know about it.
The Yoakum Pages
| Progress Update-
How many and WHO exactly are the children of Valentine and Charlotte? The siblings of Mary, Pat, Ruth, George, Nelson, Isaac, Charlotte and William? There were either 11 or 13 (I've seen both quoted) children listed on the 1830 Roane Census for family of Valentine & Charlotte, and we can only account for 8.
Before we recount, remember that available resources as listed below relate information that is only conjecture - we haven't seen birth/census or other reasonable documentation, but this review is to know WHO we should be looking for...
Carlin Yokem shows first, twelve children of Valentine and Charlotte,
identifying six as:
Ruth is listed on LDS Family search as posted by 6 different submissions, seemingly descendants of Ruth and states:
Allright, so add Ruth to the list - then Brenda Yoakum-Kriz adds Jesse P. Yoakum (b. June 22, 1823 in Roane County, Tennessee, d. June 25, 1893 in Linn Co., MO. as the eleventh child of Valentine and Charlotte. She also gives a Nelson Yoakum (b. 1810 TN).
This gives us 9 of the eleven, twelve or thirteen children depending on which count you use! On that point Steve Smiths' census transcription for ROANE County 1830 shows:
Eleven children and Sharlotte (sic) - Hmmmm Carlin Yokem's list starts with 2 females, we added Ruth, so the 3 oldest children on the census should be girls - but the census shows a Male over 20, then a Female and 2 Males Fifteen to Twenty years old in any order. Doesn't work - except, from our compiled list the three eldest were born in '05, '07, and '08 and so were 25, 23 and 21 years old respectively in 1830 - they had probably married or moved off the farm (this could mean there were 14 (!) children total), and the next 4 children on our list are a Male who would have been twenty-one in 1830, the census concurs. Let's take the next child by the list, Charlotte, born 1810 and notice she was 20 years old in 1830, the census concurs. Then comes a slot for two boys 15-20 years old that Nelson and our Isaac, who were 20 and 18 in 1830, could fill - the census concurs. The two youngest boys we have on the list, Jesse (age 7) and William (Age 1) certainly can be construed to satisfy the census and this means the unknown children of Valentine and Charlotte are one female age 5-10, two females age 10-15, one male 5-10 years old and one male 10-15 years old at the time of the 1830 census and this works fine with the limited data we have - After Isaac, no names, just indications that a bunch of kids were born between Isaac b.1812 and Jesse P. b.1823.
To recount, we can reconcile 3 married, 4 eldest, 5 unknown and 2 youngest for a total of fourteen children - well it's possible, but only if the census transcription is correct and the assumptions of which kids are in which age group are correct and this still doesn't VERIFY anything - it's only a complete list of who we should be looking for!
It's interesting to note that Carlin shows a heap of unknown kids born between Isaac b.1812 and William b.1829 and comparing the ages of the 6 youngest known children on our compiled list with the 4 eldest and the two youngest on the 1830 census, we find the ages and sex to match. The census agrees with ALL 6 youngest known children's age and sex and lists 5 more children whose ages fit within the constraints of the known children's ages in 1830 - filling the gap in known births between 1812 to 1823. Interesting coincidence and maybe telling of the age and sex of the unknown children of Valentine and Charlotte.
Possibly our family had family staying with them and they all ended up on the census! We have to keep looking...
Can anybody identify our list of unknown children? or contribute birthdate or name verification of any kind? Could Nelson have been born after Isaac instead of the b.1810 quoted? or was he Charlotte's twin? or did Charlotte (Mother) really deliver two kids in 12 months? Isaac was born in February of 1812.
Issue - The father of Ike b. 1854 was an Isaac Rite Yoakum b. 1812. How this Isaac relates to Heinrich Jochem was unknown by most published sources in 1999. Complete acceptable documentation is as yet unavailable. As we search for conclusive evidence many possibilities are suggested - the current popular thought is that the handwritten history the descendants of Valentine's youngest son William G. have, that relates Isaac b.1812 to Valentine and Charlotte, known links to the Heinrich line, is the correct connection. We are searching for the appropriate documentation to back up this history.
Open to other possibilities? The grandson of Nellie Yoakum Shryock proposes Ike's father was ...
|William Isaac - George Shryock, grandson of Nellie Belle Yoakum Shryock refers to Ike's father as William Isaac son of Isaac, son of George I and Martha VanBibber. In the last few years as his published works have become referenced as a documented source and passed around from researcher to researcher, I was notified that some basic information was incorrect. As such, this conjecture presents itself for review. I have seen four separate references to this William Isaac from various cousins on the search and all point to G. Shryock as the source. The sons of George I and Martha Vanbebber have been extensively reviewed and results published by a number of sources in middle Tennessee. We may be able to shed some light on this perspective by using the current research on the sons and grandchildren of George I and Martha Vanbebber to either prove or disprove the relationship.|
story of a William Isaac was published by the Texas County Gen. Society in addition to
self publications and letters by the author. This was the only time I have seen Isaac Rite
Yoakum b.1812 referred to as William Isaac. I have subsequently come across various
Shryock publications and he is consistent throughout - connecting Ike b.1854 to William
early on via 'A Family Story'.
He published later letters from the grandchildren of Isaac who refer to him as Isaac Yoakum and of course all census, land docs and cemetery markers call him Isaac. I have never seen where anyone else refers to him as William Isaac.
However, here are Shryock's thoughts on why his name was William. Shryock believed the line to be George and 'Margaret' (sic) Van Bibber -> Isaac b. 2/23/1778 and Martha (sic) Davis -> 7th son, William Isaac (sic) b. 2/17/1810 and Rachel Sisk, then Ike b.1854.
There are a couple of problems here, but an interesting twist. The first are the children of Isaac and Mary Davis. We now know the following about Isaac and Mary from the Smith/Brown/Derryberry research:
"Isaac Y. b. 23 Feb 1778, Muddy Creek, Greenbriar, WV, m. about 1800, Mary Davis, b. 1779, Powell Valley, Claiborne Co., TN, (daughter of Aaron Davis, (I) and Rachel _____) d. 1845. Isaac died 24 Jul 1857, Claiborne Co., TN, buried: Yoakum Cem., Black Valley Rd., Claib.. They are on 1850 census of Claiborne Co., TN, , house 1394. On Mary: Some researchers have shown her as Martha Davis, but research by Steve Smith proves that wrong, that it was Mary. The confusion comes from incorrectly placing Isaac's mother's first name in association with Isaac's. See Claiborne Co. deed book K, pages 458-9. Harold M. Yoakum, in his book, names her Martha Davis."
...and from Lea Ann Yoakum of Powell Valley, who quotes
the 1853 Will of Isaac, we know their
children to be:
William wasn't born until 1819 and for the twist, no child ISAAC! Shryock didn't know all the offspring of Isaac and Mary. He lists an Isaac being born 1/27/1819 and no mention of William Franklin or Thomas. It seems he had confused the children of Jesse with those of Isaac and got William's middle name wrong. From the marriage of Rachel to ISAAC on, Shryock gives the documented history of Isaac Rite Yoakum to a William Isaac.
But even if the dates and names don't make complete sense (either source could be wrong) lets find out if William married Rachel Sisk Clark and went to Missouri.
Derryberry says of Isaac's son William:
Fairly complete, William went to Ray County. This discounts that the William, son of Isaac, son of George and Martha was our Isaac Rite and that the lineage relating Isaac 'Ike' b.1854 to a William Isaac is not through George's 1st son Isaac - So for now, I like the Valentine and Charlotte conjecture, that Isaac b. 23 Feb 1778 had a younger brother Valentine b. 1785 who had a son Isaac Rite b. 17 Feb 1812!
Just a note, George's brother Jesse had a son Isaac born
in 1810 - what ever happened to him? The children of Jesse b. 1787
and wife Anna Berry are known as:
These children often show up in internet databases as the children of Isaac and Mary Davis, this is thought to be incorrect. According to Jan Hoy, Isaac stops off in Ray County, MO. then moves to California - not our Isaac.
By-the-way: I tried for a while to connect Isaac as William, the son of Jesse b. 1738, and 1st wife Diane Dixon. This William was even in Alabama but a review of the census listing for 1850 and 1860 in RAY and TEXAS county confirms two separate families. Isaac and Rachel in Texas County and William and Sara in Ray - both out of Alabama.
Additionally - This leads me to believe there were at least two (and
probably more!) William Yoakums living in Ray County in the late 1800's!
Well, we've ended up disproving the George->Isaac->William->Ike lineage, but haven't made any headway on the Valentine and Charlotte problem. This is just one of many outstanding issues, some day we will know the whole truth...the answers are out there!
The Yoakum Pages
|Agree? Disagree? Want to add a Topic - Write back.|
* Home *
Rev 2b: 13 Oct 2000 : rdk
Copyright 2000, Yoakum Archives
'Standing on the shoulders of giants' ...the yoakum pages.™