|Posted By:||Chuck Timmerman|
|Subject:||Identification of ‘Jeorge’ Heinrich/Heinrich ‘Jeorge’ ZIMMERMAN - 1764 – Charle|
|Post Date:||February 25, 2011 at 12:47:59|
|Forum:||Edgefield County, SC Genealogy Forum|
Identification of ‘Jeorge’ Heinrich/Heinrich ‘Jeorge’ ZIMMERMAN - 1764 – Charles Towne
I recently began the process of posting our analysis, with findings, regarding the identities of the three (3) sons for my paternal ancestral family of Frederich Wilhelm ZIMMERMAN and wife Margaretha Elizabetha NN. This was done in a series of three (3) posts beginning with http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/SCEDGEFI/2011-02/1296973743 for Johann Peter ZIMMERMAN and then http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/SCEDGEFI/2011-02/1297459960 for ‘Johann’ Jacob ZIMMERMAN.
I will now lay out our results of identifying ‘George’ ZIMMERMAN who, along with his sister Anna and their parents, is recorded as having arrived in Charles-Towne on December 16th, 1764 aboard the ship Union. Previously to this study, the 2 year old ‘George’ has been categorized as questionable, due to the fact that the expert TIMMERMAN researcher who formulated this ‘opinion’ simply failed to properly study commonly available records.
In our research for this project, the missing ‘George’ has clearly been determined to be the ‘Henry’ ZIMMERMAN that continues to be inaccurately posted in Edgefield, South Carolina discussions, family trees, etc. as ‘Henry’ TIMMERMAN. In other words, the ‘George’ recorded as a passenger of the Union, with application of the 1700 era style for the German process of naming babies, male or female, would actually be Jeorge Heinrich ZIMMERMAN, the oldest male child of Frederich Wilhelm and Margaretha Elizabetha (??) ZIMMERMAN.
Sources used for this study of Jeorge Heinrich (Henry), along with the previous analysis of his two (2) brothers Johann Peter and ‘Johann’ Jacob/Jacob ‘Johann’ ZIMMERMAN, encompassed the following:
1) copies we have of the original reports (total of 5) of actions taken by the SC Council between 12/14/1764 to 2/27/1765,
2) copy of the London Committee 1765 booklet,
3) Federal census records for 1790 to 1850,
4) Revill booklet of 1939,
5) pension sworn affidavit for Henry ZIMMERMAN … and especially
6) the exhaustive in-depth analysis performed by Gordon RAMPY in preparation for his booklet, ‘Poor Palatines’.
Jeorge Henry, or ‘George’ as he was identified in 1764 age 2, along with sister Anna age 9, have both historically been considered ‘lost’ by other subscribers to this message board. The fallacy of this ‘lost’ opinion no longer applies, as supported by our analysis of the sources referenced.
The age of ‘George’ recorded by the Charles-Towne authorities indicates he was likely born in (or near to) the year of 1762. Applying the ten (10) year census standards, the following results were considered, beginning with the 1790 census:
1790 = 28 years = recorded as head of household = marked as 16 and older
1800 = 38 years = recorded as head of household = marked as 45 & over
1810 – 48 years = recorded as head of household = marked as 45 & over
1820 = 58 years = recorded as head of household = marked as 45 & over
1830 = 68 years = recorded as head of household = marked as 60 & under 70
1840 = 78 years = in household of nephew = marked as between 80 & 90 = highlighted as 82
In 1832 Heinrich (Henry) applied for a Revolutionary War pension. In the court process of confirmation, his sworn declaration reflected an age of “ … 72 years, 7 months … “. This sworn statement, from Jeorge Heinrich, calculates back to a birth date of April, 1760 … clearly showing that ‘Henry’ was the ‘George’ that became ‘lost’ to other researchers.
[NOTE: This pension application presents the fact that after Loyalist Henry ZIMMERMAN saw his Loyalist father Frederich Wilhelm be fatally wounded during the 1779 Siege of Savannah, he later on joined the Patriot militia.]
Using the 1832 sworn statement age by ‘Henry’, it was noted that the calculated age in a couple of instances was off by a year or two (2). In our opinion this was not of concern considering the trauma and stress that the family sustained during their difficult and lengthy migration to the final destination of ‘Old 96 District’ in South Carolina.
At the same time, it was recognized that during the era of the late 1700s when birth details were verbally ‘handed down’ from generation to generation, including that calendars, birth certificates, baby showers, newspaper articles, etc. all not being common items of the day, this slight discrepancy falls within the realm of acceptance for a diligent researcher.