“Through music we may wander where we will in time, and find friends in every century.” ― Helen Thompson

Through this post, I hope to reach out to anyone that might have recollection of or information pertaining to the career of "Rev." Beatrice Hemphill (30th March 1898 - 24th Aug 1969).

A respected early 20th century female African-American musician, she was sent to Hodgenville to accept a post as organist for both First Baptist and Lane Lincoln CME Churches. Sadly, we know little of the biography of this talented artist. The daughter of Kentucky parents who had left the Bluegrass for Ohio during the 2nd great Southern "Diaspora" of rural Blacks seeking economic betterment to the north, Beatrice's education and career in Church Music is poorly documented. Not only was she an instrumentalist, she composed & published Sacred music as well.

Beatrice had two children, Rose & Robert Hemphill, as well as step-children Edward & Dorothy (both born in NC). The best I can determine, Beatrice briefly married a George H. Hemphill, formerly of Rutherford County, NC, sometime after Dorothy Lois Hemphill's birth there about 1925. Dorothy & Edward's natural mother may have been an Effie Queen, to whom their father returned in later years, leaving them with their step-mother Beatrice.

(This portion of Beatrice's life is difficult to ascertain. I have yet to confirm her maiden name, or that of her parents, or even the father of her two children, but NC birth records do show Edward as born to George Hemphill, and next Dorothy born to George H. Hemphill and Effie Queen. Later Census records say they are a white couple. Interestingly, there was a Beatrice Jackson, d/o Joseph Jackson & Emma Page, born in Guernsey County, Ohio in 1898. Our Beatrice's tombstone denotes her as Beatrice J. Hemphill.)

It seems likely that Beatrice came to Hodgenville in LaRue County during the 1940s. In 1930 she is listed in the Springfield, Clark County, OH Census as head of household (George has gone back to his first wife), but by 1940 she had relocated to Christian County, KY, near Elkton, indicating she had lived there in that Kentucky county since 1935.

Records show during this period that she had attended college for two years earlier in life, but we don't know just where she studied. Apparently as a single Black mother in Ohio, Beatrice found it difficult to support her children through her musical gifts, instead taking a job as a book keeper for a local Ice & Coal Company. Things didn't get much better during the next decade. By the time she had moved to Kentucky, she is designated as "widowed" and working as a domestic (cook) for $312 a year.

There are too many blank pages in the story of Beatrice Hemphill, as is true with the majority of Kentucky's black leaders. If you know more, or can clarify her story, please share with me.

Athertonville, & the Early History of Catholic Education in Central Kentucky

By Gary Dean Gardner, Independent Scholar

The school near Athertonville that was attended by Abraham Lincoln

Master, Father, Brother, or Deacon Riney?  Frankly, I’m not quite reconciled as to what to correctly call the man.  Despite some lingering oral histories, no record exists of an ordination as priest, nor do we have reference to monastic vows.  Today we might consider him more a church Deason but in truth his title in faith is irrelevant.  Out of respect for his residency in the Trappist Monastery of Gethsemani, however, I feel we should today at least refer to him as Brother Zachariah.  For he was clearly so much more than just a boarder of the Monks.  He lived with, and amongst, and AS one of the brothers of the Order in those last years, and in the end, he was buried as one of them, as he lies, in peace, today.

Born in St. Mary's County, Maryland about 1763 to Thomas Edward and Eleanor Maraman (or Merriman) Riney, Brother Zachariah Riney symbolized a crucial early link between Church officials in the East and a quickly growing community of Catholics in the most rural parts of central Kentucky during those first years of the 19th century.   For here it was where so many waves of migrating Maryland Catholics had settled during the prior two decades.  With thanks mostly to emigration out of Charles County, MD, what would later become known as the Catholic "Holy Land" of Nelson, Marion, and Washington Counties was settled by a mass migration of faithful "pilgrims" to the western lands in central Kentucky between 1785 and 1792.  Those first concentrations of settlements, radiating outward from Bardstown, soon began to spread further into more sparsely settled sections of these and their surrounding counties.  As Catholicism spread further, it became apparent that many families required the services of additional, itinerant priests, teachers, and parish leaders to serve them spiritually and to educate their children.

Riney, one of many such Catholic educators dispersed to the wilderness, was one of the first sent to minister and teach in the developing parish in the southern section of Hardin County (now LaRue) which had once been part of Nelson County. Though his family had initially settled in the southern portion of Nelson County at Pottinger’s Creek (New Haven) Brother Zachariah moved one county over, to Washington County, per the tax list there of 2^nd April 1796.  According to the oral tradition of his family, Riney and his family arrived first in Hodgenville about 1811 or perhaps just prior, after leaving a young but larger parish & school of St. Thomas (St. Rose Priory) in Washington County, the same school a very young Jefferson Davis would attend a few short years later.  Early records substantiate this.  He is found listed there in Washington County for the 1810 Census, apparently the year before he removed to the remote regions of the Bardstown parish in Hodgenville (Hodgen's Mill). By 1811 Riney had purchased land once belonging to Joseph Hanks along the Rolling Fork River, just across the county line in what today would be the outskirts of New Haven.  Riney was returning to an overlapping region of Hardin & Nelson Counties that would become Athertonville at about the same time the Lincolns relocated from Hodgen’s Mill to Knob Creek.

Historic Marker at Athertonville

The school in the Knob Creek community was not one freshly started at the time of the Lincolns’ arrival but was in fact one of the first in Hardin County whose Court Order Book “A” (p. 231) for the year 1800 references “the old road near a schoolhouse on Knob Creek.”  This would show the rural one room log school to be nearly as old as the Hardin County Academy established by the Kentucky General Assembly on December 22, 1798.

By all oral accounts, Hodgen's Mill is where Riney initially established his school in 1814, which remained open for less than a year.   Its closure is unexplained, but Riney relocated closer to the Nelson County line at present day Athertonville, opening his school in the new location that fall of 1815. There he served the community and local families such as the Lincolns, Gollahers, Thompsons, Hutchins, and other.  It is thought that Thomas Lincoln had initially sent Abraham and Sarah Lincoln to Riney's school at "Hodgen's Mill" that first year it was opened, then sent the children to the much closer location along Knob Creek for a couple of sessions before the family left Kentucky in December 1816. 

Riney, however, remained in Nelson County near to Athertonville until perhaps 1820.  His removal may have been precipitated by a land dispute in June of 1819.   By the time of the 1820 Census, family had moved to near Bloomfield for a short period of time, then back to Washington County shortly thereafter where took a second wife.  Brother Zachariah married Sarah Bickett Bowles (Boles, also recorded as Bolds) on 12th February 1824. The Rineys remained in Washington County for some years, being enumerated there for the 1830 Census.  Here he joined the county Militia.  Likely sometime in the 1830s Riney moved yet again, this time back to Hardin County.  Settling northwest of Elizabethtown, a community grew up near his log house that would be called Rineyville in the family’s honor.

Riney would remain in Hardin County well into the 1850s.  In 1856 he made plans for a final move.  Selling the remainder of his Nelson County lands to the Abbey of Gethsemani on the 5^th of August 1856, the deed served as a contract between him and the Abbey, which accepted the land in exchange for room, board, and care of the aged Riney until his death.  There Brother Zachariah moved, with his Trappist grandson Brother Benedict Riney.  Here he lived as a monk, though there are no extant records of him formally joining the order.  Regardless, he was apparently treated by the monks as one of their own. 

Quoting the Hardin County Historical Society’s 1946 publication Who Was Who in Hardin County,

“When Zachariah Riney was ninety-four years of age he went to

Gethsemane [sic] to this monastery with his grandson, William B. Riney,

who was also a member of the Trappist order. This was in 1856. He

lived there a little over two years, dying in 1859. The grandson, William

B. Riney, was known as Brother Benedict, and about thirty years ago

wrote out a number of facts concerning the life and work of his grand-

                    father for the use of historians. Zachariah Riney was buried in the graveyard of the

 Trappist brother-hood within the enclosure of the monastery.”

 

As his grandson Brother Benedict would note (or was that comment added by Abbot Obrecht?) Riney was buried amongst his brethren monks upon his death on the 15^th of February 1859, his body later moved to the official, newer monastic burial grounds in 1893.  There a mass grave marks holds the remains of the deceased brothers and priests of Gethsemani from the early graveyard, Brother Zachariah included.  While his remains today lie in the cloistered section of the cemetery to which visitation is not normally allowed, a tablet was erected outside the walls that reference him.  Despite exhaustive questions and speculation on Riney’s burial place during the 1920s and 1930s, the issue is today settled, and all historians agree that Riney lies in the mass burial pit of relocated graves from the old Abbey.  Near by the granite marker lies Amanda Davis, sister of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

 

Marriage Bond from Hardin County signed by both Caleb Hazel and Thomas Lincoln

  While we know a Caleb Hazel was as well a teacher of Lincoln, we don’t know if Riney had closed his school, or if Hazel simply assisted him.  It would seem that Riney resigned from teaching at Athertonville and was replaced by Thomas Lincoln’s immediate neighbor along Knob Creek, Caleb Hazel, who had established a tavern along the Louisville & Nashville Turnpike back in 1797.  The two men were without doubt close friends, Lincoln being surety on Hazel’s 1816 bond when he married the second time, to Mary Stevens in Hardin County, following the death of Elizabeth Hall Hazel (widow of James Hall) (Marriage Book A p. 54).  The two families were also amongst the founders of Little Mount Church.  While much of Hazel’s family followed the lead of the Lincolns and moved to Indiana, Caleb supposedly went to Hart or Green County, Kentucky where he died.

From the Collection of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Museum, a small slate claimed to have been used by Calen Hazel when teaching.  Interesting story, but likely belonged to a later generation of the family, certainly not a pre-1820 school room artifact.

 

Bibliography, in no certain order.

Warren, Dr. Louis A., Abraham Lincoln’s First School Teacher, LINCOLN LORE, No. 52, 7^th April 1930.

Hackensmith, C. W., Lincoln’s Family and His Teachers, The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 317-334.

Futrell, Roger H., Zachariah Riney: Lincoln’s First Schoolmaster, KENTUCKY ANCESTORS, Vol.44, No.3, Spring 2009, pp. 106-113.

Riney Files from the collection of the Lincoln Financial Foundation Clollection.

McMurtry, R. Gerald., A Series of Monographs Concerning the Lincolns & Hardin County, Kentucky, 1938.

 Neil Gale, Phd. Abraham Lincoln's First & Second School Teachers., Digital Research Library of Illinois History Journal 18th Nov. 2020.

"Uncle Tom" & the "Cradle of Emancipation"

Few realize an interesting tie one early family of our county once had to both the creation of an immortal work of fiction that helped split our nation and propel it into war, and to Kentucky's fabled "Brown Water."   The Marshall Key House in the tiny hamlet of Washington, in Mason County, Kentucky, played host in 1833 to the demure Western Female Institute teacher Harriet Beecher. She was the guest of Colonel Marshall Key, then Mason County's Clerk. While staying with the Key family, Harriet witnessed  for the first time in her life a slave auction which, along with other experiences in Kentucky that introduced her to individual slaves and former slaves residing in the community, inspired the later writing of Uncle Tom's Cabin.  But did you know there was a Marshall Key house in LaRue County, too?

The ca. 1807 Col. Marshall Key house in Washington, Mason County, KY as it appeared about 1933

Colonel Key's nephew, and namesake, was as well a resident of Mason County at the time his uncle hosted the future author Ms. Beecher-Stowe.  Key's wife, Rebecca Carter, died, and he afterwards married on 9th February 1847 Mrs. Elizabeth Mayfield Atherton of LaRue County, the widow of local distiller Peter Atherton, and the mother of both famed whiskey man John McDougal Atherton and his brother, Confederate officer Peter Mayfield Atherton who died in service at Huntsville, Alabama in 1862.  The younger Marshall Key, known locally as "Captain Key," moved from Mason County after his marriage to manage Elizabeth's plantation and other business affairs, residing here the rest of his life. Marshall ultimately entered into partnership about 1866 with his step-son John Atherton to establish one of 19th century Kentucky's "alpha" whiskey distilleries there in Athertonville, LaRue County, Kentucky.

Arial view, ca. 1978, of the Atherton-Key plantation site along Highway 31-E.  Marshall Key constructed new slave quarters in a Gothic Cottage style, partly visible upper left, ca. 1860, which accommodated two families each in a layout comparable to modern day duplexes.

Both of the two Marshall Key's were far from being impartial observers of the institution of slavery as portrayed in Uncle Tom's Cabin. While staying with the Colonel Key family, Stowe would have interacted with some 30 slaves serving the Key family there in Washington near Maysville, Kentucky.  After removing to LaRue County in the central part of the state, between the Knobs and Barrens regions, his nephew Captain Key assumed ownership & management of Elizabeth Atherton's 16 slaves, ranging in age from 1 year to 70 years.  With freedom acquired from the passage of the 13th Amendment, the former enslaved Atherton men would become part of the initial distillery workforce in 1867, carrying on a tradition of black skilled labor by the slaves of John Boon who had owned & operated the site during the antebellum period.

John McDougal Atherton (1841-1932), step-son of Marshall Key, and his partner in distilling

Our Marshall Key died in 1877 after selling his 1/2 ownership in the LaRue County sweet-mash distillery plant "J M Atherton & Co." to wholesale liquor dealers Cochran & Fulton of Louisville, who eventually bought partial interest as well in the other family enterprise, A. Mayfield Distillery, who was making a sour-mash product. Under the management of his astute step-son, the whiskey firm started by Captain Marshall Key, quintessential Southern host whose family inadvertently inspired American's best known antebellum literary work, eventually became the largest distillery in Kentucky in those last year before Prohibition.  By the end of the 19th century the Atherton plants could produce 350 barrels of spirits a day, and house some 200,000 barrels at any given time.

The Atherton Distillery established by John Atherton & Marshall Key about 1866

Key's grave is found today with that of his wife, Elizabeth Atherton Key, and her first husband, Peter Atherton, in the Riverview Cemetery in New Haven, just across the Rolling Fork River from the Atherton plantation and distilleries.

Key's uncle (Col. Key) the original host of Harriet Beecher-Stowe, as well remarried and moved down river.  He settled near to his nephew, in Louisville, where he died in 1860 and was buried in the Bullitt family cemetery.

An Exploration of Kentucky-Made Silver of the Early Federal Period

Examination of the Hunter Family Silver Beaker

Ca. 1798-99, Bourbon County, Kentucky

Woodford County, Kentucky

By Gary Dean Gardner, Independent Scholar

Generally speaking, the study and evaluation of Kentucky-made silver is ultimately more  advantageous to the scholars of decorative arts than that of others areas of specialty due to the probable existence of silversmiths’ hallmarks.  While not always present, most Southern smiths of the late Colonial to early Federal Period continued the British practice of utilizing identifying marks not only to exemplify pride in their work, but to better identify their wares and even warranty the quality of their cumulative output.  This system, while moderated in America but for a few cities from a complex organizational structure of symbols encompassing maker, date, location and purity down to a minimal designation of the artisan alone, still sufficed in the early days of the United States to offer a fundamental mode of identification.  This was especially true when it is understood that these marks worked in conjunction with the engraved initials of the patron to act as a duel method of documentation to thwart theft and offer a modicum of security in an era of history when the silversmith assumed the role of the modern banker, exchanging and transferring precious metals into various forms of tendered exchangeable wealth.  Coinage of sundry origins, once melted and crafted into a utilitarian object, still represented the same intrinsic value of the bullion, and could upon demand be easily melted into ingot form and once again take on the role of currency. 

Sometimes, however, silver marks can be dismaying to identify, even deceiving due to lack of data or unintentional misinformation perpetuated within the scholarly community.  In such cases, the particular object of study requires a thorough determination of provenance to support new conclusions, or even to dispute earlier attributions made in error.  In the realm of early American silver, a forensic approach may even be required to fully and adequately refute old attributions in light of new research.   Such is the case with the Hunter family beaker, in which form alone fails to distinguish a variant makers’ mark from association with that of another craftsman.

A late 18th century coin silver beaker or julep cup originating in Paris, Kentucky.  

Approx. 3 1/2” H x 3 1/8”; 110 gm.

The cup in question, likely better known in the time of its creation as a beaker rather than the term of “julep” we find more common today, surfaced in early 2015 as part of the vestigial remainder of a Florida estate having been greatly diminished from a much larger family accumulation of Kentucky origin.  Of clearly very early form and construction, and in keeping with a supposed date of creation ca. 1798, it survived along with a scant few other examples of Kentucky coin silver dating to a later time period of several decades difference.  The cup is enhanced with bright-cut decoration in the form of a shield, within which is found the initials WSH standing for its first, or at least an early, owner.  Once again, the decoration and script are reflective of late 18th century style.  Enough information was gathered from the estate liquidator to confirm original ownership by the very early and prominent Hunter family of the Bluegrass Region of central Kentucky. 

Research supported this oral association, indicating early (likely original) ownership by one William Stewart Hunter, primarily of Woodford County, County.  The subject was born June 11, 1780 to William and Mary Stewart Hunter of Versailles, they having arrived in Central Kentucky some years prior from Virginia.  They built an early home approximately 1 mile from the Woodford County Court House.  William Stewart Hunter made his home also about the same distance from Versailles, but on the McCracken’s Mill (aka Glenn’s Creek) Road near to the Frankfort Pike.  His plantation was known as “Dupont.”  On Nov. 13, 1816, he married Catherine Mary Canfield, d/o Abraham and Elizabeth Hunt Canfield.  Hunter represented Woodford County in the Kentucky State Legislature from 1812-15, then again in 1817-1818, and finally 1820, serving at one time alongside noted Lexington craftsman Porter Clay.  Hunter died of cholera on August 13, 1835 in Versailles.  (See The Register of the Kentucky State Historical Society, Volume 19, A History of Thomas Canfield and of Matthew Camfield with a Genealogy of Their Descendants in New Jersey, and Wm. E. Railey’s History of Woodford County, Kentucky.)

Portrait of William S. Hunter:  © John Drew Photograph

While the association with an early Kentucky family makes a similar overall origin seem plausible, the Hunter family beaker’s marks might at first be misleading when making comparison to a published discussion of a similar punch utilized by a  partnership of two silversmiths in early Virginia.  Catherine Hollan, in her remarkable compilation of research entitled  Virginia Silversmiths, Jewelers, Clock– and Watchmakers, 1607-1860, Their Lives and Marks, references on pages 608-609 the  joint work of Virginia silversmiths John Foster and William Phillips who worked together in the small community of Winchester from 1817 until 1820.    She describes and depicts marks  of a “P&F” configuration attributed to their partnership.   As well, she discusses (but fails to illustrate) record of a mark on a large ladle in a private collection.  It would seem, from her description, that this unpictured mark was one of those used by Thomas Phillips along with one or both of the Frazer Brothers (Robert and Alexander) in Bourbon County, Kentucky.  Ms. Hollan records that this particular mark reads “F & P” rather than “P & F”, and is accompanied by an additional city punch for “Paris” in a shaped cartouche, the same extra mark used by Thomas Phillips in later years after the Frazer Brothers ended their partnership(s) with him.  Interestingly, Ms. Hollan attributed this “F & P” variant mark to the time after March of 1799 when Robert Frazer left Paris, Kentucky for Lexington to open an independent shop there, leaving his younger brother Alexander to work in Paris.  Though records neither deny nor corroborate her hypothesis, this scholar agrees with her that Phillips continued to work for a brief time with the younger Frazer, as there is no indication to support the idea that both brothers ended their partnership immediately with Phillips.  The author’s only correction to Ms. Hollan’s conclusions deals with her assumption that this was the only mark utilized by Thomas Phillips while working with either or both of the Frazer's.  As the Hunter family beaker now aids in proving, the partnership utilized at least two distinctly different punches, one of which, likely the first one made, displaying an ordination of  hierarchy placing Thomas Phillips as the initial senior partner as indicated by the “P & F” punch now depicted and here recorded for the first time. 

The unique mark, unrecorded by Boultinghouse or Hollan, as found on the Hunter beaker

Naturally there is found initial similarity in comparing marks composed of the exact same initials, so a closer examination of the punches themselves and the design of the letters is required to accurately rule out the unlikely chance that an early silver beaker with a strong Kentucky provenance to the correct time period could actually bear the marks of a somewhat later (<20 years) rural Virginia silver firm.  Mark (a) as illustrated on p. 607 of Virginia Silversmiths is documented with both a collection history and provenance of ownership to Virginia, so there is no reason to question the mark as shown as being that used by William Phillips and John Foster of Winchester, Virginia.  The punch is designed with a fairly distinct rectangular field within which lie the 3 separate components of the P, ampersand, and F.  The second mark given attribution to this firm, Mark (b), was denoted as being represented on a single spoon in a private collection without recorded provenance to any particular town or region.  Ms. Hollan makes the educated assumption that this mark was also used during the 3 years that this partnership made silver.  While the author doesn’t wish to challenge this conclusion, he would point out that most rural smiths at this time used the same punches for long periods unless they became damaged.  Sometimes they continued their use even then.  Mark (b) is distinctly different from (a) both in proportions and in the style and design of the letters themselves.  Mark (b), as Ms. Hollan points out, is shorter (tighter as she describes), with a very different font design.  The ampersand crosses itself only once, rather than twice as with (a), the left leg ending at an even juncture with the right, which then extends to the very top of the character where it then outspreads to the right to make the  top of the F.   Again, contrary to (a), the serifs of the F in the (b) mark end in an almost floral-like trumpet shaped flourish, a lower/middle serif which truly crosses the F and extends past its back.  Both serifs on the F of Mark (a) end in simple, definitive  and broad downward strokes.  These two marks are so very different, one might speculate that Mark (b) could at some point be attributed to another maker altogether.

Documented mark of the Virginia partnership of Phillips & Foster, so similar, yet distinctively different from that of the Kentucky silversmiths

At this time, however, the author does not feel that the 2nd mark Ms. Hollan infers to be that of Phillips & Foster of Virginia might actually be an unrecorded mark for the similarly named Kentucky entity of Phillips & Frazer.  This mark, while very similar in form to that on the Hunter beaker, does not contain the uniquely cut letters found on both it and later punches used by Thomas Phillips early in the 19th century when working alone.  It is intriguing that the Hunter beaker marks and Mark (b) both incorporate an ampersand that parallels and connects to the F’s top in the mark, but that coincidence alone is not sufficient to draw any conclusion.  The Hunter marks both display an ampersand with a left leg intersecting through the right but resulting in sharp downward angularity.  Again in contrast to the Virginia marks, the serifs on the Hunter mark letter F, while similar in  angular placement, don’t just point downward. The upper does, but the crossing serif to the F creates something akin to a backwards “check mark”, jutting down to the right, then making a vertical rise, the two right serifs ultimately flanking one another.  As well, the Hunter beaker displays the appearance of a marked downward left serif on the top of the F at the juncture with the connecting leg of the ampersand, separating it from both Marks (a) and  (b). 

 The differentiation in the design and cut of the letter P in the Hunter beaker marks, more than any other indicator, would tend to leave Hollan’s Mark (b) a mystery, while verifying a relationship to Thomas Phillips’ “TP” cartouches (with or without the additional shaped “Paris” mark).  Actually that rather unique P that Phillips used in his surname becomes a primary forensic indicator in identifying his personal mark when the city mark for Paris is not included.  Even with both marks attributed to the Virginia smiths of Phillips & Foster, there is seen a concentric duplication of the inner and outer lines creating the borders of the positive and negative space of the “belly” or “head” of the P.  This is to be expected, in fact, in most choices of font.  Strangely, this is not seen on the P used on punches by Thomas Phillips of Paris, Kentucky.  Instead, Phillips’ punches contain a P cut with contrasting, rather than concentric, lines defining the “head” of the P.  The outer negative space defines a vertical back and a rounded protrusion to the right, while the inner negative space rotates this “D” shape 90 degrees leftward, giving the semblance of a “D” lying on its back.  This juxtaposition of placement of negative space seems consistent throughout the career of Thomas Phillips, though very oddly he never used the same creative font for the “P” in his shaped punch designating “Paris.”  The Hunter beaker bears a “P & F” cartouche inclusive of this particularly differentiated P within a slightly misshapen, almost a “shaped” rectangle that bulges somewhat to the lower right.  A very similarly cut P utilized in a “T P” cartouche has been documented to an unidentified Scottish silversmith.  Further study is required however before making an attribution to Phillips’ use of marks prior to his arrival in America.

Glasgow, Scotland

In making final verification that the markings on the Hunter beaker coincide with that of Thomas Phillips from his earliest working dates in America in the 18th century rather than William Phillips from toward the end of the 1st quarter 19th century, we must as well examine the form itself.  No hollowware is recorded to the Virginia partnership of Phillips & Foster. (One Lexington antiques dealers explains that he once handled a pair of juleps bearing a P&F mark which he sold on the assumption they were made in Virginia.  Likewise, he recalls a similarly bright-cut decorated beaker with a P&F mark selling at auction in Tennessee some years prior, again represented as being by Phillips & Foster but without a Virginia collection history.  Sadly, no visual record of the marks on these three cups was retained.  There is great probability that all were actually crafted by Thomas Phillips and the Frazer brothers in Paris, Kentucky*.)  The Hunter beaker reflects a shape, size, and construction style appropriate for the late 18th century.  As previously mentioned, the bright-cut engraved shield decoration is fitting with an attribution of craftsmanship in the later 1790s.  This form of motif and engraving style would be somewhat outdated by 1817.  It is clearly much earlier than the ca. <1820 era when the Virginia firm worked.  Comparable decoration is documented on Virginia silver, but once again found only examples dating to this earlier period of ca. 1795 (see Hollan’s In the Neatest, Most Fashionable Manner:  Three Centuries of Alexandria Silver, pp. 27 & 29).  To date, no other example of Kentucky hollowware has been noted from so early an era*, much less with this sort of decoration.  It would appear to be the earliest such example of decorated Kentucky silver thus far documented. 

It should be here noted that the career of Thomas Phillips has yet to be fully and correctly laid out.  Previously, in Mark Boultinghouse’s 1980 publication Silversmiths Jewelers, Clock and Watch Maker of Kentucky 1785-1900, the biography of Phillips indicated he was an early settler of Nelson County, Kentucky.  This is apparently incorrect, as is his date of death and the place of his burial.  This attribution apparently comes from confusion with Thomas Fretwell Phillips (1729-1810), formerly of Charles Parrish, Virginia, who settled in Nelson County and resided there until his death.  In actuality Thomas Phillips was a Scottish-trained silversmith, having been born in Glasgow, Lenarkshire Scotland on October 10th, 1774 in the central Lowlands region of that country.  He emigrated to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the latter half of  the 1790s, staying perhaps a year before moving on to Paris, Kentucky.  Very likely he became introduced to Robert and Alexander Frazer (Frazier) while all three smiths resided there.  They may even have all traveled to Kentucky together.  These dates coinciding so closely, it is highly unlikely that any of these men had time to establish independent shops in Paris initially.  Their group partnership was apt to have been formed by late 1797 or early in 1798.  Robert Frazer exited the business relationship in early spring of 1799, moving on to Lexington, but Alexander remained in Paris.  As mentioned, there is no indication that Alexander Frazer dissolved his working relationship with Thomas Phillips until he too moved to Lexington after March of 1800 to partner with his older brother and their nephew, Robert Frazer Jr., who had come with them from Ireland (reference Bourbon County Tax List for 1800).  That venture also soon ended, with Alexander and Robert working separately by August of 1801.  There is some indication that Samuel Best arrived in Paris that same year and formed a short-lived partnership with Thomas Phillips which was ended by 1802.   No other partnerships are known for Phillips, and it is safely assumed he worked independently from 1802 on.  As for a record of military service, the dates of Phillips’ entry to America clearly rule out any Revolutionary or post-war service under George Rogers Clark. 

Other previously published discrepancies in Thomas Phillips’ life can also now be defined.  He has been confused with Thomas Phillips born in Wales ca. 1776 that emigrated to the U.S. about 1808, settling in Natchitoches, Mississippi and working as a tailor there by 1810.  Thomas Phillips the silversmith has as well been identified with another, later generation, Thomas Phillips who was appointed as a justice when Anderson County, Kentucky was created Feb. 5th, 1827.  Once again, there is no known connection by this Lawrenceburg, Kentucky tavern keeper with the silversmith Thomas Phillips of Bourbon, & later Todd, Counties. 

Phillips remained in Paris during those first years of the new 19th century, marrying the young widow  of Thomas Reeder on May 19th, 1803.  Susannah Edwards Reeder was the daughter of  United States Senator from Kentucky (serving along with John Brown as one of the Commonwealth’s first two senators from June 18, 1792 until March 3, 1795) John Edwards (1748-1837)  and Susannah Wrae.  (John Edwards had assisted in the drafting of Kentucky’s first state constitution. ) There remains some confusion as to the family’s length of stay in Bourbon County after the birth of their daughter Susan in 1804.  They may possibly have explored the notion of moving to Western Kentucky as early as 1806, but we do know, as Boultinghouse cites, their removal to Hopkinsville in Christian County by 1818, some four years after the birth of their daughter Mary Jane.  Their stay there was certainly brief, as they are recorded in the United States Federal Census of Aug. 7, 1820 as residing in Todd County, Kentucky where their household included one “foreigner, not naturalized” as well as 8 slaves and 1 “free person of color.”  Later, Phillips claims a grant of 13 acres on the Elk Fork of the Red River in Todd County, surveyed Feb. 29, 1823 (see Ky. Land Grant Book “N”).  While there is no record of his ever having entirely left Kentucky, as Boultinghouse claims, we do know that Thomas Phillips and family ultimately settled permanently in Elkton, Todd County, Kentucky, where the silversmith died in August 15th, 1843 (see “McReynolds Family Collection 1794-1965”, Western Kentucky University, Todd County, Kentucky Family Histories, 1995, also E. B. Crisman’s Biographical Sketches of Living Old Men of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church).  Susan died 5 years later and was buried beside her husband in the family cemetery there in Todd County near Elkton.  Interred with the couple were their children Emily Phillips Bone (1809-1840), wife of Rev. Matthew Houston Bone, Susan Phillips Reeves (1804-1829), wife of Davis Clarke Reeves,  Ellen Phillips (1819-1838), and son Benjamin E. Phillips (1811-1844).  

©2015gdg

Post Script

Brief mention should also be made here of Robert Fraz(i)er and the perpetuated confusion regarding his extended immigrant family.  It has never been adequately explained that there were two distinctly different men, of differing generations, referred to as “Robert Frazer Jr.”  Robert & Alexander Frazer did clearly either arrive in America with, or were followed very shortly thereafter by, a nephew named Robert.  The 1810 U.S. Federal Census for Bourbon County, Kentucky lists two separate households for the family.  Alexander is shown as head of his own household, while his brother Robert is listed as head of a household that included their nephew Robert Jr.  Per the listing for Robert Frazer Sr., and with the generally accepted date of birth for him of ca. 1769, the elder Frazer was 41 years old.  This fits with the delineation of the Census for “1 white male age 26-44.”  Robert Jr. is found next as “1 white male age 16-25,” putting his date of birth between 1784 and 1794.

There are several possible explanations for the eventual disappearance of this Robert Jr. and the ultimate blending of his history with that of another Frazer relation by the same given name who later migrated to Kentucky from Ireland and also took up residency with the family patriarch, Robert Frazer Sr.  (He may well be the R. Frazer that Boultinghouse referenced in Missouri advertisements for 1821, having migrated nearer to another uncle, James Frazer.) Those theories, however, are best left to a more intense focus upon this entire family and their contribution to Kentucky decorative arts outside the scope of relationship with Thomas Phillips. Let it suffice for now to show and prove that Robert Frazer Jr. II was born in Ireland ca. 1810-19 and is the jeweler referenced when discussing activities of the family during the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the 19th century.  Robert Frazer Jr. I worked as silversmith & watchmaker in Lexington prior to the birth of this younger relation and was likely active from 1800 until ca. 1820.  Little can safely be documented to this individual, though an 18k pocket watch survives in this author’s collection which is marked by Robert Frazer Jr. of Lexington, KY and dates to that period of the 1st quarter 19th century, prior to the age of majority for Rbt. Frazer Jr. II.

 

Very likely Robert Frazer Jr. I was also the man who appeared on War of 1812 service rosters rather than his uncle, Robert Sr.  Regardless, there is little indication that Robert Frazer Jr. I remained in Lexington more than a couple of decades.   Just when he was supplanted by his younger relation as well remains undocumented, but the newcomer’s April, 1831 marriage in Louisville to Catherine E. Coleman was announced in the local newspapers.   The date of their marriage would call into question the 1850 Fayette County U.S. Census listing for the couple, where Robert Jr. II is listed as being 31 years old.  That would make him about 12 at the time he married Catherine, who herself would have been, per these records, just 15.  The 1860 Census, however, confirms an 1819 birth year for Robert Frazer Jr. II, along with an estimated date of birth for Catherine Coleman Frazer of 1813 rather than 1816 per the prior Census.  That at least makes her 18 at the time of her wedding in 1831.  The later Census as well changes Catherine’s place of birth from Pennsylvania to Ireland. 

Despite all the contradictions and void of data, three men bore the name of Robert Frazer in the annals of jewelers and silversmiths in Lexington.  Future scholarship will have to examine immigration records and passenger lists to ferret out the details of this rather complicated familial association.

Compiled & written by Gary Dean Gardner, ©2015.

Sugar Wray, & I Do Mean Leonard!: Sorgham History Revisited, Part III

Yes, yes, this is my 3rd blog post on sorghum, I do realize this, but understand, as I research and speak with folks on this topic, more fascinating facts come to light.  I can't help myself.  I must talk about sorghum! 

This was hinted at in my 1st post, but demand for sugar was escalating in the 1850s, and with it the price.  Even factoring in maple syrup products, supply couldn't meet demand, so American agriculturists, and those in other countries, were active in seeking solutions to the problem, and to find another source of sweetness to supplement the annual output from the traditional sugar cane.

And here the two countries of interest began their competition in food history books. 

Let me be redundant in clarifying.  The sorghum syrup we know today came into being at this point in time, not the 17th or 18th centuries.  While grain sorghum came over from Africa with other native food supplies for the transatlantic slave trade, it was not a sweet variety, and was never intended, or dreamed of, for a sweetening agent.  It wasn't sugar, it was cereal, and relegated to the diets of Southern slaves as a flat bread or pudding/porridge well into the 3rd quarter of the 19th century.  For the rest of the world, for the white empowered world, sorghum, also called guinea corn, was nothing but feed for chickens and cattle.

Then suddenly, early in the 1850s, the world discovers sweet sorghum, Sorgho, "Holcus saccharatus",or Chinese "Sugar Cane" thanks to a French ambassador to Shanghai, China, and within a year or so the Imphee, "sweet reed" or African "Sugar Cane" was found.  Where did it come from originally, China, or Africa?  Ah, there's the rub.  Seemingly, one primary variety was native to china, and some 15 or maybe more native to Africa, though historically no "sugar" was produced by any of the native tribes raising it.  Only the Chinese have a long history of extracting the syrup to reduce.  By some accounts, the seeds traveled from China via Arab traders to Ethiopia, but others say the opposite was true.  Regardless, both sources were recognized at nearly the same time and were quickly dispatched to America, first the Chinese seed, and then the African seed.

Englishman Leonard Wray was in the southeast coast of Africa in March 1851 when he observed Natal "Zulu" tribesmen "snacking" on the stalks of the Imphee plant.  Recognizing the potential for the sugar market, he returned to Europe and cultivated crops in varied locations, experimenting on the extraction of the juices and reduction of syrup, applying for and receiving English patents for his processes that eventually brought him to the attention of Americans with a vested interest in expanding the American sugar trade. 

"Be it known unto all men, that I, Leonard Wray, of the City of London, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, have discovered a new process or method of making crystallized sugar, syrup and molasses, from all the African and Chinese varieties of the "Imphee" or "Holcus saccharatus" of Linnaeus, often denominated "Sugar millet," "Sorghum saccharatum," "Sorgho sucre'," etc., which process is also applicable to the manufacture of the same products from the juice of the maize, broom corn, the sugar maple, etc."

In essence Wray  was using lime to reduce the acidity levels.  He really didn't make great strides in the overall standard process as developed by De Bore & Morin of Louisiana back in 1795, but we must give him credit for his botanical skills in identification of the many variants of Imphee he was able to observe & classify, and, ultimately, for his entrepreneurship that brought him to America.

Gov. James Hammond 1807-1864 and his "Radcliffe" Plantation

Invited by Governor James Henry Hammond of South Carolina, Wray came to America in March of 1856 to continue experimentation with Imphee crops, and to define a lucrative American market for its cultivation.  He brought seeds of all the varieties he had defined, all grown for him in France, but confusion in harvesting/sorting of the seeds resulted in contaminated seed lots.  Regardless, the Imphee was grown in comparison to the sweet Chinese sorghum in test fields from South Carolina to Canada, but only perhaps 10 of the varieties could eventually be distinguished amongst the final crops examined. 

An early 20th century harvest at "Auvergne."

Today a leading producer of Sorghum, one of the primary test locations chosen by Wray was in central Kentucky.  Planter and horticulturalist Brutus Junius Clay was a marvel of 19th century antebellum ingenuity in the advancement of agriculture.  His plantation, "Auvergne", was, and remains, a model of grace and agrarian industry.  The only Kentuckian to participate in the experiment, Clay provided a summary at the end of the season to document his assessment of the dual sweet sorghums.  He wrote,

"Paris Kentucky 23 November 1857:  Dear Sir, I planted imphee on 23d day of May last.  I broke the ground twice and planted the hills three by four feet apart, two and three seeds in a hill; about three fourths of it grew, hence it was rather thin on the ground.  I did not well mature before frost; the middle of October. 

I think the average product of stalk was no more than eight feet.   They were, however, on third larger than the sorgho, and contained much more juice, of a quality very similar to that of the latter.  It stood up well, large at the bottom and tapers to the top:  is not liable to be blown down by the wind.

The sorgho I planted about the 13th of May.  It came up well, producing talks small and slender, ten to twelve feet high, very apt to be blown down by the wind; but this and the imphee require a little more are than corn.  Of the two varieties of cane, I think the imphee will prove the most valuable plant; if planted earlier and upon a good soil, with a southern exposure, I think it will ripen before frosts.  The past season has been a bad one for a fair experiment; even our corn is not yet dry enough to grind for bread, it has been so backward and late.  Your, Brutus J. Clay"

It would be fascinating now to examine the crop records for "Auvergne" to see what additional notes Clay may have kept, and to see what his choices were for sorghum after his participation with Wray and Governor Hammond.  Most of the farm accounts of "Auvergne" are preserved in the Clay family papers in the Special Collections of the University of Kentucky in Lexington.

"Auvergne" the majestic seat of Kentucky Congressman Brutus J. Clay near Paris, KY

Almost immediately, by 1858 in fact, and surely a result of the well publicized accounts of the Wray-Hammond experimentations, both the Chinese Sorgho ($.25 cents/pound) and the "Wray" or African Imphee seeds ($1/pound) were available to consumers from American seed distributors (4 Feb 1858  "Country Gentleman" Vol. XI No. 5).  Which variety of Imphee were commercially sold this early?  My best answer is any, and all, as seed distributors were quick to enter this market and acquire Imphee somewhat indiscriminately to sell, seeds out of Africa via France.

The failures of Wray's American trials may have themselves inadvertently sealed the fate for his many variants of Imphee that he'd studied and recorded so diligently.  No scientific control methods were implemented in the packaging & shipping of seed samples, and apparently poor, if any, records were kept describing who got what seed to plant.  Wray seems to have had "hands-on" participation only with Governor Hammond.  Shoddy handling of seeds in France was apparent (and likely in the US too by some of the test participants) which, coupled with an improper latitude & climate for some varieties, along with potential cross pollinations, and the aforementioned great rush to obtain seed stock for American distribution, all may have scattered, mixed, and lost many of these varieties before they could ever be fully cultivated and studied in the United States.  Per the Carolina Gold Rice Foundation, 3 of the 15 (or 16) varieties exist today in 2017.

Then again, some of Wray's original varieties may have been but "sports" or natural mutations of a smaller group of Imphee than he realized, something even Wray hints at in later comments.  As well, again as Wray states, sweetness varied, and some of the 15 may not really have been conducive in volume or sweetness to any sort of commercial syrup extraction, but suited more for grain cultivation.  It seems unlikely that so many truly differing varieties would be found in a small section of Africa, yet only one is identified in all of China.  With respect to Wray, his enthusiastic observations may have exaggerated the accuracy of his count.

David S. Shields explores all this in detail in his book, Southern Provisions:  The Creation and Revival of a Cuisine.  He explains that the simultaneous introduction of both the Chinese and African plants established the "basic breeding stock from which all the marketable varieties of sorghum originated." 

Wray, we might presume, went on to other pursuits, and failed even himself, quite oddly, to retain seed of all the Imphee varieties he originally documented, having sold most of his store of seeds to horticultural publisher A. O. Moore of New York immediately after the American test cultivations .  Moore in turn quickly advertised 10 of the 15 varieties for sale, corroborating the field notes of Wray that these were the only ones to clearly survive the test season, with most, or all, of these coming from Governor Hammond's fields.

On 7th Sept. 1882 Wray wrote the US Commissioner of Agriculture, speaking of his published pamphlet on the subject (an American version was included in an 1857 publication by H. S. Olcott, who opted to edit out references to crystallized sugar made from the plant), politely criticizing the Commissioner for changing his very African names of the varieties as discussed in Department reports, and requesting seed samples of some of the same so as to propagate his own plants from them.  (See Investigation of the Scientific & Economic Relations of the Sorghum Sugar Industry, National Academy of Science, Nov. 1882.  Olcott's book, Sorgho & Imphee, the Chinese & African Sugar Canes:  A Treatise Upon Their Origin, Varieties, & Culture, both the first issue of 1857 & the addendum of 1858, provides the most complete and comprehensive contemporary published history of Wray's work in America.)

Overall, the product of these test crops of Imphee, despite Wray's assurance, wouldn't granulate as anticipated.  The end result was a rich sweet syrup, not the replacement of refined sugar that Wary anticipated, but still a Southern staple today.  Never to displace sugar from cane, sorghum supplied a need in the South, and found an important place in our recipes and on our tables.

I'll conclude with a simple listing of the varieties noted by Wray (1-12) & Moore (1-10) in order of Moore's advertisements, new names applied by the 1880s, and the seeds Wray either didn't retain, lost, or allowed to become too old to germinate.  Those referenced as having been salvaged from the South Carolina fields of Gov. Hammond are marked by asterisk*.

1)  Oomseeana* (sold & not kept or lost by Wray- asked for new seeds)
2)  Booeeana*
3)  Koombana* (saved by Wray but deteriorated-asked for new seeds) aka Imphee Liberian, aka Sumac
4)  Neeazana*
5)  Enyama* (saved by Wray but deteriorated- asked for new seeds) aka White Mammoth
6)  Eanamoodee
7)  Boomvwana* (Boomvrana is as well referenced, and these are likely the same)
8)  Shlagoova
9)  Eengha
10) Sorghokabaie*
11) Minnesota E. Amber (sold & not kept, or lost by Wray- asked for new seeds) aka (?)
12) Vimbischuapa (or per Wray "Sorghum Brother) aka Honduras, aka Honey, aka Mastodon

We Gather Together, for 175 Years: Methodism in Hodgenville, Kentucky

What follows is an expanded version of my historical overview written for the Quartoseptcentennial Celebration in 2014 for Hodgenville United Methodist Church's 175 (actually a bit more) years of spiritual & community service to the people of LaRue County, Kentucky. 

It has taken awhile, but I think at last we as a church body have an identity. It was never an easy task for a small congregation so long on the fringes of established religion. Not to say that Hodgenville Methodists lacked faith. I think they had that in abundance from the beginning. No, it was only an identity that we as a congregation lacked for a long period of time, but looking back to our origins, that isn’t too terribly hard to understand. 

From the time of the first Euro-African settlement, and until Kentucky gained its statehood, we considered ourselves Nelson Countians. We hardly gave thought of a denominational identity at first, but even then we knew what county we were from! For the next 50 years, now an official recognized faith only 8 years old, we thought of ourselves as Hardin Countians, and our fledgling congregations began to organize. Then we up & change our identity once again in 1843 and become LaRue Countians! Still, as Methodists, we didn’t have an easy time becoming “established” in territory dominated by Baptists that spurned the old Anglican traditions, especially when some of our first members still clung to other older denominations & the original Methodist concept of “classes” as opposed to organized church.

But slowly things changed. Itinerant clergy like Peter Cartwright gave way to appointments. 2nd & 3rd generations were born into the church. We started to feel solid, unified, & firmly planted in the community. The venerated grey heads that began to dot the congregation were those of dedicated members with names as old as the long-dismantled pioneer fort. As we gained a history, we gained an identity. We took pride in the present out of a pride for the past. Today, we gather together to remember and celebrate not just a history, but a proudly shared common identity that has never yielded, never fractured or split in 175 years.

Over the past several months (referencing a series of bulletin inserts discussing the history of the church)we have read the vignettes of our congregational story as told by our windows. Like the light itself, these have been only glimmers of the entire saga. Many who deserved such memorials were never so remembered. This is especially so of the many who have ministered to us. We forget just how young Methodism was when it first took hold in the Bluegrass of Kentucky. Beginning as a communal study & fellowship rather than a denomination, that first Kentucky “class” was organized in 1783, the year before the very first Conference in 1784 to acknowledge Methodism formally. Appointed by Wesley himself, our first Bishop, Francis Asbury, was unanimously elected. He would officially recognize the Kentucky Circuit in 1786, at which time only about 90 settlers professed their ties to the young faith. To strengthen those ranks, Asbury himself traveled west to officiate over our 1st Annual Conference in May of 1790. This was no easy task. He recorded the perils of the frontier due to Indian attack when he wrote in his journals how they “saw the graves of the slain– 24 in one camp.”

Yet Asbury’s efforts were fruitful. By year’s end, Kentucky boasted a Methodist population of 1,459 white and 94 slave members, all spiritually led by only 9 ministers who served the entire state. Then a part of the Danville Circuit, residents of Phillips’ Fort & Goodin’s Station, those early fortifications that would eventually supply the first residents of Hodgenville, would have to wait some time for the famed Circuit Riders to finally carry their ministry that far inland from the church base closer to Lexington. In those earliest years, when still a part of Nelson County, the first faithful Methodists here studied together in their homes until the arrival of Rev. John Baird from Maryland. His first sermon in what was to be LaRue County was preached on August 7, 1796, after which he formed our county’s first Methodist Society which grew into the rural church that serves LaRue Co. to this day. 

There is no doubt that those residing in the area of “Hodgen’s Mill” took advantage of the country ministry of Rev. Baird until such a time as a Society could take root in town. Prior church historians even hint that the local Society that formed the nucleus of our church’s initial congregation was actually a direct result of Baird’s efforts. As well, those early Methodists in Hodgenville surely took religious guidance from the “Elizabeth Circuit,” once the old Salt River Circuit, which supplied the initial Methodist ministers to Elizabethtown & Hardin County, including our portion that “seceded” in 1843. Founding families of Methodism there, including the Helms whose descendants would later populate the Hodgenville church, wielded great influence spiritually and socially, giving credibility to the faith as a whole and aiding its spread. While still a part of the older Danville Circuit, and a good two decades before the first Methodist Society was formally established in Elizabethtown, that community’s first itinerant minister was sent out. Here, with this particular appointment, legend and lore tie in with another famed LaRue Countian.

To have had little direct influence upon our community’s formation, living only his first 7 years among its people, the formidable presence of Lincoln seems to cast its shadow upon the history of Methodism in LaRue County in countless chapters of our church’s story. Reverend Benjamin Ogden was the first official appointment by Bishop Asbury to Hardin County, inclusive of what would become LaRue. He arrived at least by 1803 but, due to tensions between him & Conference Elder Poythress, Ogden stepped down from his official assignment in 1806 to become jailer of Hardin County. According to oral history, Ogden continued to preach, as well as teaching school along with cabinet & chair making. In this capacity he came to know Thomas Lincoln who, in 1808, Ogden hired as a jail guard. Lincoln as well worked for Ogden as a county slave patroller. Clearly the two men had become acquainted a bit earlier, however, likely as a part of Ogden’s ministry. There was a special relationship formed between the two as early as 1806, for in May of that year Mrs. Ogden procured the silk for Nancy Hanks’ wedding dress &/or veil on behalf of Thomas. She may well have fashioned Nancy’s wedding trousseau.

Perhaps it was the commonalities between these two cabinetmakers that forged a lasting friendship, for after Abraham’s birth & the family’s move from Hodgenville (in part due to the ensuing gossip from a fight between Lincoln and Abraham Enlow of our church family!) to the Knob Creek farm on the Bardstown Road, it is said that Rev. Ogden traveled there to the fertile valley of the Rolling Fork River in the Knobs of LaRue County to hold revival in the great “camp meeting” tradition begun at Cane Ridge. It was one of the earliest religious experiences of the man destined to become President. The remainder of young Lincoln’s childhood would be influenced as well by Methodism, thanks to the impact of his beloved Methodist step-mother, Sarah Bush (whose descendants would later be members of our church). Thomas & the young widow Johnston were wed in 1819 by Methodist Rev. George L. Rogers who had only recently relieved the ministerial burden of Thomas’ old friend Ben Ogden upon his retirement.

Thomas Lincoln had been influenced by Methodism long before his acquaintance with Ben Ogden. He grew up in Washington County where as a young man he came to know yet another furniture making Methodist, the Elder Jesse Head, a Maryland born and trained cabinetmaker considered by some to be one of the men who aided in training Thomas in that craft & vocation. When Thomas Lincoln asked neighbor Nancy Hanks to marry him, it was Rev. Head who officiated over the ceremony on the 12th of June 1806. Ironically, Rev. Rodman's nephew and namesake, Dr. Jesse Head Rodman, would eventually become one of Hodgenville's most influential citizens long after the Lincoln's had left Kentucky. Rodman would be cited in 1900 recounting Abraham Lincoln's description of the Knob Creek farm in LaRue County given Dr. Rodman during an 1863 visit with Lincoln in the White House. Jesse Head Rodman related Lincoln's story of planting pumpkin seeds which were washed away by the deluge of waters off the knobs from heavy rains.

“We have many reasons for honoring Abraham Lincoln . . . He typifies and exemplified America; his life is a kind of epitome of our history, beginning as it does in the back woods, and reaching the crest of our civilization.  When we honor Lincoln we honor primitive Kentucky, and primitive America.”— From an address by the Reverend William E. Barton at the monument dedication at the grave of the Reverend Jesse Head, Thursday, November 2, 1922.

Decades earlier though, Thomas Lincoln surely heard the sermons of Dr. Rodman's austere Uncle Jesse, and may been directly influenced very early on by the elder Head's views on slavery, if not upon Methodism itself as a choice of denomination. Considered a moderate of the church and, per Dr. Graham, very "Southern", Head yet spoke out "boldly" in support of the rights of man and against the institution of slavery, a message that must have resonated with Thomas Lincoln who, with other's of the community, withdrew from South Fork Baptist to create the Little Mount congregation of anti-slavery Baptists, a church whose memory is nearly extinct in LaRue County today but for the ancient little cemetery that survives.

Yet another early, and important, Kentucky Methodist interjects his story into that of Abraham Lincoln himself. Rev. Peter Cartwright was a vehement anti-slavery Methodist circuit rider. Converted during the "Great Awakening" in Kentucky, Cartwright was ordained by Bishops Asbury and McKendree in 1806 and quickly became an Elder of the church. Kentucky's embrace of slavery repulsed Cartwright who, much like the Lincolns before, moved in protest from the Commonwealth in 1824 to Illinois. There he entered the political arena and in 1832 defeated Abraham Lincoln for a seat in the state legislature. Lincoln later wrote that he, "was beaten... the only time I ever have been beaten by the people." In 1846 the two Kentucky-born men opposed one another again, this time for a seat in the United States House of Representatives. Their race was far from complimentary. Associating with neither Baptist, Methodist, nor any established faith, Reverend Cartwright hailed Lincoln an "infidel" and a "Deist." Cartwright, already criticized for combining his electioneering with his ministry, spotted Lincoln in the crowd listening to his "message" at one campaign stop and tried to lure Lincoln into an embarrassing political opportunity. Calling to the crowd to repent of their sins and demanding an immediate display of obedience to the Lord (and to Cartwright), he ordered those accepting Christ to stand. Lincoln did not. Cartwright then said,

"I observe that many responded to the first invitation to give their hearts to God and go to heaven. And I further observe that all of you save one indicated that you did not desire to go to hell. The sole exception is Mr. Lincoln, who did not respond to either invitation. May I inquire of you, Mr. Lincoln, where you are going?"

Lincoln responded,

"I came here as a respectful listener. I did not know that I was to be singled out by Brother Cartwright. I believe in treating religious matters with due solemnity. I admit that the questions propounded by Brother Cartwright are of great importance. I did not feel called upon to answer as the rest did. Brother Cartwright asks me directly where I am going. I desire to reply with equal directness: I am going to Congress."

And he did!

Neither Abraham Lincoln, nor Thomas Lincoln, ever fully embraced Methodism, but the influence of Kentucky Methodists was strong nonetheless and shaped the lives of both father and son, as it shaped and influenced countless souls who passed through central Kentucky and rural little LaRue County. Always the politician, Abe summed up that influence of Methodism well when he said,

"Nobly sustained as the government has been by all the churches, I would utter nothing which might, in the least, appear invidious against any. Yet, without this, it may fairly be said that the Methodist Episcopal Church, not less devoted than the best, is, by its greater numbers, the most important of all."

So it was that these faithful men of God, Clark, Asbury, Baird, Ogden, Barnett, and so many others, planted & nurtured the seeds of Methodism that would sprout, and flower, in our own small town of Hodgenville. Some 15 years after those first evangelistic efforts of Thomas Lincoln's dear friend Rev. Ogden, the revival spirit was still working to at last create a cohesive Methodist community in Hodgenville. From Society in 1831 to congregation in 1839, we today are gifted with an identity, and heritage, to treasure for many generations & anniversaries to come.