First/Second Generations -- South Carolina (1750's)

 WARNING:  None of the relationships in this section dealing with these first and second generations has yet been proven.  All of the individuals discussed in this section actually existed; there are various records and documents proving this.  But, so far, no documents or records have surfaced to let us know how, if at all, these folks were related to one another.  What we do know, however, is that these Kerleys lived next to each other and sometimes were involved in each others' legal affairs.  What follows is my attempt to create a narrative that is consistent with the limited facts that are available.  I am receptive to other theories. 

OVERVIEW

During the early 1750's and 1760's, five men named Kerley arrived in America: William, Joseph, George, Henry and John.  Most of these men (and their families) settled in and around the area in South Carolina where the town of Rimini is currently located.  Given the proximity of their land holdings and other personal connections, it is highly likely that these individuals were all related.  Most of what I have been able to discover about this group has come through a careful study of South Carolina land records.  These records contain many useful hints about this group and their relationships with each other.  We know precisely where these folks settled, and that in many cases, they lived close to one another.  These records also tell us something about the land owner's approximate age (e.g., the fact that a person was old enough to possess land indicates that that person had to be at least 21 years old when he/she obtained the land).  Occasionally, we luck out and these records also tell us something about the landowner's profession.

By reviewing these records I have been able to gain some insight into this first group of Kerleys from which thousands of us (including me) are descended.  I believe that the members of this group were Scots-Irish Presbyterians who immigrated here from Northern Ireland about 1750.  This group remained in South Carolina for about 35 years.  In the early 1780's, as the Revolutionary War was winding down, they started to leave South Carolina and moved to Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama. 

WILLIAM

On April 15, 1751, a fellow named William Kirlay purchased 150 acres of land in Craven County, South Carolina, from a man named William Lenard.  This is the oldest reference that I can find to a Kerley ancestor in America who has modern day Kerley-named descendants still living.  I recognize that there was a group of Kerleys who settled in Massachusetts in the early to mid 1600's.  As explained in the section of this site dealing with those Massachusetts Kerleys, Dead End: Kerleys in Massachusetts in the 1600's, however, my contention is that the male line of that Massachusetts group died out in the early 1700's and so did any future use of the Kerley name by descendants of that group.  I have not been able to establish any connection between the Massachusetts Kerleys of the 1600's and South Carolina Kerleys of the mid-1700's.  There are all sorts of purported connections between these two groups on the Internet, but none, as far as I have been able to determine, have any supporting facts or evidence to confirm these alleged connections.  If anyone has any such evidence I would appreciate seeing it.

My contention is that this particular William is the original Founding Father of the Kerley family in America.  William paid 200 pounds for his land which was located on the north side of the Santee River near the Cyprus Pond.  To see a copy of this document, click here: https://sites.google.com/site/kerleyconnections/land-records.  This transaction is noteworthy for several reasons.  First, it indicates that William had sufficient funds with which to purchase land.  At a time when most of the land in that part of South Carolina was being given for free to immigrants, William had enough money to buy his land.  We can, therefore, assume that he was relatively well off (compared to many of his neighbors) and that the land he purchased was what he deemed to be prime real estate. 

Secondly, having funds to purchase land also tells us something about William’s age.  To accumulate that much money, this William presumably would have had to have worked for a while (unless, of course, he had inherited that money).  Two hundred pounds in 1751 would be worth approximately 30,870 pounds today.  See: https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ukcompare/.  Using 2019 currency exchange values, William was worth about $38,000.  Thus, I assume that this William was a mature gentleman.  For sake of argument, I am assuming that he was born somewhere around 1695 or so, making him around 55 when he relocated to South Carolina.

Third, the description of the land tells us where William lived.  We know his land was in South Carolina, north of the Santee River near something called Cyprus Pond.  We can get a good idea of where Cyprus Pond is by looking at the land records of William's neighbors.  In 1755, 1756 and 1757, William's land is referenced in plots granted to new settlers who were moving into that relatively uninhabited part of South Carolina.  By looking at these plots, we can see that William’s new neighbors included: Francis James, Israel Clark, John Roberts http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/onlinearchives/Thumbnails.aspx?recordId=96864, Andrew Spralding http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/onlinearchives/Thumbnails.aspx?recordId=97137 and Thomas Maples.  The Roberts and Spralding plots mention that William’s land was near Halfway Swamp.  Thus, we have a fairly good idea of where that land was since it was pretty close to both Cyprus Pond and Halfway Swamp.  Insert map of land holdings and neighbors  

Halfway Swamp is today listed on maps as Spring Grove Creek, and it flows into Lake Marion and the Santee River just a few miles south of the town of Rimini, South Carolina.  This land is located in Clarendon County, South Carolina (really close to the border with Sumter County).  Although I am not absolutely positive, I suspect that Cyprus Pond is now listed on modern maps as Elliott Millpond.   (Interstate 95 runs just a few miles east of both Rimini and Spring Grove Creek).  The fact that most of this area remains sparsely settled today shows that William did not make a good choice in selecting this particular region in which to settle.

Finally, William did not sign this purchase document, so there is no way to determine whether or not the spelling of “Kirlay” is correct.  The document, called an Indenture, is itself inconsistent in how it spells William's last name.  Sometimes it refers to William as William “Kirley,” but the Receipt attached to the Indenture refers to a William "Kerley."  So we can see that starting at the very beginning of the Kerley presence in America, there has been confusion and uncertainty over just how this name is spelled.   See Kerley Spellings and Pronunciation for a listing of all of the variations in the spelling of the Kerley name that have occurred over the centuries.

After buying these 150 acres, William completed the usual legal processes for firming up title to his new land.  Two years later, on March 7, 1753, he had his Indenture officially recorded.  The Justice of the Peace who recorded this transaction was William's neighbor, Richard Richardson.  (Richardson was a very important figure in early South Carolina history.  He was a colonel in the Cherokee Expedition (see later) and led troops during the Revolution.  He was a commissioner for the building of St. Mark’s Church, which was established in 1757 near Richardson’s house.  See, Meriwether, Robert L., The Expansion of South Carolina 1729 – 1765, p. 109.  Although William’s land did not adjoin Richardson’s, it appears that Richardson’s land was only one farm away).  Then, 5 years later, on July 21, 1758, William Kirley executed a memorial for 150 acres of land in Craven County near the Cyprus Ponds on the north side of the Santee River.  Although this memorial does not mention either of William’s new neighbors (i.e., the Roberts or the Spraldings), it does refer to the April 15, 1751, transfer from William Leonard.  Thus, we know that this document (with the more detailed description of the location of his land) refers to our William.

On October 3, 1758, William decided to expand his holdings in his new country.  William (the spelling here was Kearley) leased 50 acres of land from John Dowling.  This land was on Halfway Swamp.  All of the land surrounding those 50 acres was described as being vacant.  On the next day, October 4, 1758, these same parties entered into a purchase and sale agreement in which William bought those 50 acres from Dowling for 50 pounds.  Since the land was described as being vacant, we can assume that the land did not abut the 150 acres that William had bought in 1751.  But, since the land was also on Halfway Swamp, it was probably relatively close to those 150 acres.

These 1758 documents contain an important piece of information.  They refer to William Kearley as a “ship carpenter."  Family tradition has it that one of the early Williams in America was known as “Old Mate.” Being an expert ship carpenter would support our theory that William was a diligent worker who saved his money and used it to purchase passage to, and land in, America.   (His two purchases thus far had cost him 250 pounds).  This nautical-related profession would tend to support the "Old Mate" nickname for either him or one of his descendants.

Between 1751 and 1766 William apparently was content to farm his new holdings and raise his family.  The only surviving record of his activities during these years is a copy of a court document showing that in the early part of 1765 William bought some goods from a merchant named Robert Knox.  See Judgment Roll 1766, South Carolina, box 66a, no. 144a.  Once a month, during the first four months of 1765, William bought goods and merchandise from Knox on credit.  William made partial payments on his bill, but then on April 1, 1766, he died. After William's death, Knox sued Joseph Kearley, the executor of the last will and testament of William Kearley, for the unpaid balance on William’s account.  (There is no surviving copy of this will that I can find.)  Joseph was served with notice of the suit at St. Mark’s parish, near Colonel Richardson’s on May 14, 1766.  The case went to trial, and a jury issued a verdict on August 20, 1766, in Knox’s favor.  One of the more interesting aspects of this dispute is the fact that the costs assessed by the jury were more than double the actual damages that Knox suffered.  Knox’s suit was for a total of 21 pounds, 19 shillings and 9 pence.  The jury verdict not only gave Knox all of these funds, but it also awarded him costs in the amount of 56 pounds, 9 shillings and 2 pence.  Our legal system seemed to be out of balance even 250 years ago.

William’s death in 1766 ended his brief 15 year stay in South Carolina.  William appears to have been a relatively well-off individual when he first arrived, but seems to have suffered some financial misfortunes by the time of his death.  Did he spend all of his money in acquiring his land?  (It is interesting to note that even after William's death, his neighbors continued to refer to William's land grants.  In 1769 a neighbor named Arthur White, and again in 1770 a neighbor named Thomas Davis, referred to William Kerley's land in their own land grants.  The Arthur White document spells William's last name as "Careley."  We know that Messrs. White and Davis were neighbors of William because they refer to Halfway Swamp and to other common neighbors of William's.  So, this land continued to be referred to as William Kerley's land even after his death in 1766.)  

So, what else do we know about William?  Well, the only definite fact we have is that someone named Joseph Kerley was his executor.  It is highly likely that Joseph was somehow related to William (e.g. brother, son, cousin?).  I am assuming that Joseph was William’s son, but I can be convinced otherwise.  I also suspect that William's wife was probably named Dorothy.  One of the oldest Kerley graves in America belongs to a woman named Dorothy Kearley.  Dorothy's grave is located in the old Richardson Cemetery about 4 miles from Rimini, South Carolina, right near where Halfway Swamp runs into the Santee River.  This is just about where we expect the original Kerley settlements in South Carolina were.  Dorothy's head stone reads: "Here lies the body of Dorothy Kearley who departed this life May 23, 1762, aged about 66."  Her footstone reads in part: "In lov she lived. In loe she died, and left her dearest love behind."  http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~scclaren/cemeteries/richardsoncemetery.html   So we know that Dorothy was born about 1696, and when she died in 1762, her "dearest love" (her husband?) was still alive.  Given that we know of no other Kerleys in that area who were old enough to be her husband in 1762, it is plausible to assume that Dorothy was William's wife.  (I have visited this cemetery on several occasions and could not find any indications that any other members of the Kerley family are buried there.  Most of the gravestones are for members of the Richardson family.  (The name "Dorothy" is quite prominent among the Richardsons buried in that cemetery.  Is it possible that Dorothy was a member of that Richardson clan before she married William Kerley?)   William could be buried there, but there is no visible indication of that there today).

If my guesses about William and Dorothy ages are correct, then they were probably married about 1725 in Northern Ireland (before they re-located to America).  That is because, as described below, it appears that they started having children in the late 1720's and early 1730's.  Largely because of the land transactions discussed below, I believe that William and Dorothy had at least four sons: Joseph, Henry, George and John.  They probably had other children, including some daughters, but there is no surviving evidence to indicate who these other children were.

JOSEPH2 (William1)

Joseph Kerley was the executor of William's estate.  So, we know that Joseph was physically present in South Carolina in 1766 and that he was old enough to serve as an executor at that time.  The nature of the precise relationship between William and Joseph, however, is not clear.  But given the important fiduciary responsibilities that an executor has, I am assuming that William would have trusted Joseph to serve in this critical role only if Joseph was a close relative.  Joseph was, therefore, probably William's son, or his brother or cousin.  Until more evidence is presented, I am assuming that Joseph was William's son, and probably his oldest son.

Joseph's serving as an executor in 1766 provides us with some insights into Joseph's age.  An executor would have to be a fairly mature individual.  I doubt that this responsibility would have been given to a minor or someone who hadn't "been around the block" a few times.  So, I am guessing that Joseph was, at the very least, about 30 years old in 1766.  (That would make his birth date somewhere around 1736, and his parents, William and Dorothy, would have been in their late 30's.  Again, this is all speculation.

After settling his father's estate near Halfway Swamp, Joseph decided to set out on his own.  He relocated to a new homestead in Chester County, South Carolina.  In 1769, just three years after serving as William's executor, he relocated to "the head of Bullskin Creek" in Craven County, South Carolina.  There are three separate documents confirming Joseph's settlement on Bullskin Creek: (1) a plat for 250 acres that Joseph filed on Feb. 18, 1769, http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/onlinearchives/Thumbnails.aspx?recordId=110392  (2) a grant given to him for these 250 acres on June 2, 1769, and (3) a memorial executed on February 5, 1772 for these 250 acres.  Bullskin Creek is today in Chester County, South Carolina, about 85 miles north from Rimini.  These records of land transactions for Joseph between 1769 and 1772 are the first known records of him getting land of his own in America.  I suspect that Joseph lived with his parents until his dad passed away, and then he probably stayed on at that farm for a few years thereafter.  (If Joseph did not live on his father's farm between 1766 and 1769, then it is uncertain where he would have been living or who would have been living on William's farm).

These land transactions tell us a few things about Joseph.  Unlike his father (who had paid for his land), Joseph got his land for free.  Throughout the 1700's the legislature of South Carolina offered land grants to settlers as a means of encouraging settlement in the colony.  At this time, the laws of South Carolina provided that grants to immigrants would be calculated based on 100 acres for the head of the household and 50 acres for each other person in the family).  Since Joseph got 250 acres, he most likely was married and had two children.  (A grant of 250 acres would translate to one main immigrant (100 acres), a wife (50 acres) and two children (50 acres apiece)).

Joseph's land records also provide us with another tantalizing clue about the Kerley family.  Joseph's plat for his 250 acres was recorded on February 18, 1769, and it was recorded on the same page as a plat recorded for a person named George Kerley.   This is strong evidence that there was some type of relationship between Joseph and George.  The fact that plats for land assigned to two different Kerleys were recorded in Charleston on the same day is unlikely to be pure coincidence.  George and Joseph had to be related, and it appears that they decided to travel down to Charleston together to get their lands recorded.   (All deeds between 1719 and 1785 were recorded in Charleston, and they frequently were not recorded until years after their execution.  See, Holcomb, Brent A., Guide to South Carolina Research and Records at 6.)

On December 17, 1777, after living on his 250 acres on Bullskin Creek for only 8 years, Joseph sold that land.  A copy of the Indenture (i.e., contract of sale) for that transaction still exists and provides us with some useful information. (Although this indenture spells Joseph's name as "Carley", it clearly refers to the same land initially given to Joseph Kerley).  It specifies that Joseph's wife was named Nancy and that Joseph was a planter.  It also tells us that neither Joseph nor Nancy were literate since both used their marks to "sign" this Indenture.  They could not write their names.  After selling his land, Joseph appears to have returned to the area where his father first settled in America, that is, the area around Rimini, South Carolina.  He shows up in both the 1790 and 1800 censuses.  

 The 1790 census for York County (Camden District), South Carolina contains a listing for a Joseph Kerley.  There are six members of this household: one male over 16 years old; one male under 16 years old and four females.  Ten years later, in the 1800 census in Clarendon County (Sumter District), South Carolina, there is another listing for Joseph (but he is indexed as Joseph Keily.)  This family consists of two boys, one between 16 and 26 and one between 10 and 16.  There are also two females: one between 16 and 26 and one over age 45.  Joseph himself is listed as being over age 45.  So, he would have been born before 1755 - consistent with our theory.  

The 1800 census listing confirms that Joseph was then living in the same specific area where the Kerleys originally settled in South Carolina.  As noted earlier, the land owned by William and Henry Kerley in the 1750's was located in Clarendon County.  The 1800 listing for Joseph is in Clarendon County and is very close to listings for Richard Richardson and Thomas Maples, two of the original William Kerley's neighbors.  So, it looks like the old Kerley holdings that William Kerley purchased back in 1751 in Clarendon County were still in the possession of the Kerley family in 1800.

It is almost impossible to determine who the children listed in the 1790 and 1800 censuses were.  Since Joseph would have been about 54 in 1790 and 64 in 1800, it seems kind of strange for him to be having young kids in his household in those censuses.  (a young boy under 16 and 3 girls in the 1790 census, and 2 young boys and one young girl in the 1800 census)  They could have been Joseph's own kids, but given his wife's age at that time, it seems unlikely.  Maybe these kids were children of one of Joseph's deceased daughters?   

There are no records that I can find pertaining to Joseph after this 1800 census listing.  Since he is not listed in the 1810 census anywhere, I assume that Joseph died in he early 1800's when he was in his sixties.  

As best we are able to determine, Joseph got married to Nancy about 1758 (when he was about 22).  He and Nancy at least 2 sons: Josiah (abt. 1760)  and Jesse (abt. 1765).  (Josiah and Jesse could have been the two kids referred to indirectly in Joseph's 1769 land application).  The primary reason for my thinking here is that Joseph's listing in the 1800 census is very close to the listings for Josiah Kerley and Jesse Kerley.  (Again both indexed as Keily).  So, I assume, but have no proof whatsoever, that Jesse and Josiah were sons of Joseph.

They also might have had two other sons: Arthur (about 1785) and John (about 1788).  The circumstances for believing that Arthur and John were the sons of Joseph and Nancy are somewhat speculative.  These two guys were born almost two decades after Joseph's and Nancy's first children were born, and Nancy would have certainly been approaching the end of her child-bearing age.  But, at this point there is no other person who could reasonly be their parents.  More information on these children can be found here: 3rd generation: Joseph's children.  It would not be surprising if daughters were born to this family, but no evidence has yet been uncovered confirming that.  

GEORGE2 (William1)

George Kerley was another member of this initial group of Kerley pioneers.  As noted above, a plat for land in South Carolina was recorded for a person named George Kerley on the same page of the colonial records as was the plat for Joseph Kerley's land.  Even though George's plat was certified in 1771 and Joseph's was certified in 1769, they were both officially recorded on the same page.  This provides strong evidence that there was some form of a relationship among William, Joseph and George. I am assuming that George was a son of William and brother to Joseph.

George is mentioned in a series of land transactions in South Carolina in the early 1770's.  On August 6, 1771, he petitioned for 100 acres in South Carolina.  Ten days later, on August 16, 1771, a plat was drawn up for him on a branch of Crutch Pin Creek in Berkeley County and Amelia Township.  Then just about a month later, on September 14, 1771, he was given a land grant for this land.  And then, just a month after that, on October 21, 1771, he got a memorial for this land.  So, from start to finish, it took George only two and half months to get title to his land.   That was really unusual.  Most of the other land processes that occurred during this time frame took place over a period of years.  Here all of the legal formalities for George's land were completed in just about two and a half months.  I am not sure how or why this happened, but it is very curious.

In any event, these transactions provide a few critical pieces of information about George.  Recall that the law that was in effect in South Carolina at this time provided that a person could get 100 acres for himself and 50 acres for each member of his family.  Based on this, we can deduce that George was a single man when he applied for land in South Carolina.  

George's land was in Amelia Township, which today is near Totness, South Carolina.  This Township comprised most of what is today called Calhoun County, which happens to be right across the river from Rimini and where William and Dorothy Kerley first settled.  William and George's tracts were only 18 miles apart. 

We know that Dorothy (his presumed mother) was born around 1696.  I assume that she reasonably could have still been having children until her early 40's.  So, I estimate that George was born sometime in the mid-to late 1730's.  Let's say 1737.  Thus, he would have been about 34 years old when he got his own land in South Carolina in the early 1770's. 

George appears to have lived on this land in Amelia Township for at least the next decade.  We find references to him in two places.  First, land documents filed by some of his new neighbors in 1772 and 1773 refer to George.  Second, and more interestingly, there are Revolutionary War records pertaining to George in 1780 and 1782.  But, these records are not of service in the American cause.  George sided with the British during the Revolutionary War.  There are records of him serving two different tours of duty (in 1780 and 1782) in the British army in South Carolina.  On each occasion he served for about two months in the Second Regiment of the Camden militia in Colonel William Ballentine's unit.  George would have been about 43 when he became a soldier.

After this Revolutionary War service, I can find no records of what happened to George.  He simply seems to have disappeared.  Could he have been killed in the War?  Possibly.  In any event, there are no records describing any of his descendants.

HENRY2 (William1)

Another member of this initial group of Kerleys was a fellow named Henry Kerley.  I believe that Henry was William's son primarily because of the following sequence of land transactions which show him applying for, and getting, land right next to William’s on Halfway Swamp in Craven County, South Carolina.

On April 6, 1756, Henry filed a petition for 100 acres in Craven County, South Carolina.  Until November 5, 1755, the laws of South Carolina provided that settlers could get 50 acres for each person in the family.  On that date, however, the British government changed this practice and allowed 100 acres for the head of the household acres and 50 acres for each additional person in the household.   See, Holcomb, Brent A., Guide to South Carolina Research and Records at 6.  Since Henry’s petition was dated in early April 1756, it is uncertain which set of laws applied to his situation.  Although the law changed in November, 1755, it is highly unlikely that, given the length of time it took in those days to cross the Atlantic (especially during the winter), news of this development could have reached America much before early 1756.  It probably then took some time for the news to filter out to the settlers and to become official policy.  Thus, in 1756 when he applied for his land, Henry could have been married with no kids (thus getting 50 acres for himself and 50 acres for his wife) or he could have been a single guy getting the 100 acres under the amended law.  In either event, Henry apparently had no children in early 1756.  All of Henry's children thus have to have been born some time after mid to late 1756.

After filing his petition for his 100 acres in 1756, Henry went through the standard process for firming up his land claim.  His plat was drawn up later that year (on July 28, 1756) and a memorial for these same 100 acres was filed two years later (on September 19, 1758).  His land grant was finalized on September 19, 1759.  This land was located in what was then called Craven County, South Carolina, “on Santee, near the Cypress Pond.” 

Note that the reference to Cypress Pond is very similar to the reference to Cyprus Pond in William Kerley's initial land grant.  I assume that Henry's land was located fairly close to William's.  I find it highly unlikely that these two men with the same last name would settle right next to each other at around the same time and not be related.  I, therefore, assume that they were father and son (but concede the possibility that they could have been brothers).  If we assume that he was a minimum of 21 years old to get this land, he would have been born about 1735.  I suspect that he came over to this country with his father around 1750 (when he was 15 years old or so).  He lived with his dad, William, until he was old enough to set out on his own and get his own land.  So, when he was old enough to do so, he applied for some land (not too far from his father's place) and moved there to start his family.  Thus, I expect Henry got married in the mid-1750's.

In 1759, a little more than three years after settling down on his new farm, Henry (age 24) served in the South Carolina militia in its fight against the Cherokee Indians.  See Clark, Murtie Jane, Colonial Soldiers of the South, 1732 – 1774 at 885, 897.  (This was the 7 Years’ War; also known as the French and Indian War.)  Henry served from October 6, 1759, to January 10, 1760, in Captain Samuel Canty’s company under the command of Colonel Richard Richardson.  (Again we see a connection between the Kerley and the Richardson clans).  The men in this unit were “mostly from the Camden District of Craven County and some men from the western area of Williamsburg County.”  See Andrea, Leonardo, South Carolina Colonial Soldiers and Patriots.

Henry’s military service was noteworthy for two reasons.  First, it set the tradition for Kerley family members serving in the armed forces of this country.  As we shall see, members of this family have fought in virtually every war this country has had.  Second, it gave Henry the opportunity to meet Samuel Boone.  Samuel was the brother of the famous Daniel Boone.  Samuel lived in Camden, South Carolina, and thus was probably a neighbor of Henry’s.  Henry and Samuel are listed only 3 names apart in both of the records regarding this particular expedition against the Cherokees.  This was the beginning of a long relationship between the Boone and Kerley families.

Henry appears to have stayed on his farm for the next 25 years or so.  In May of 1760 there is a record of him buying a “grey mare and colt” at an estate auction.  And, in 1771, a new neighbor, John James, moved onto land next to Henry's, and Henry's farm is mentioned in the John James' land grant.  (Note that Henry is referred to as Henry "Carley" in James' grant).   (I am aware that there are several references to a person named Henry Kerley/Carley in Spartanburg Country, South Carolina, in the late 1780's that could refer to our Henry.  (Two references to Henry Kerley in the County Court minutes in 1786 and 1788, a listing for a Henry Carley in the 1790 South Carolina census for Spartanburg County (one male over 16, 2 females), and a reference to a Henry Kerley getting a plat for 233 acres in this same area of Spartanburg County in 1791.)  I do not, however, believe that these references in Spartanburg County refer to our Henry.  I tend to believe that these references point to a different person -- a man actually named Henry Carley.  There was a fairly big group of Carleys living in Spartanburg at this time, and this Henry lived close to them.  Simply for this reason, I tend to believe that this Spartanburg Henry is a Carley -- not a Kerley.  This family of Carleys later relocated to Wilkes County, North Carolina.) 

Then, sometime around 1780, when he was about 45 years old, Henry packed up most (but not all) of his family and re-located to Albemarle County, Virginia.  This move was precipitated either by a desire to seek greener pastures elsewhere, or more likely, by a desire to get away from his largely Loyalist neighbors.  In the early 1780's, the Revolutionary War was being waged throughout South Carolina, and the folks in the Rimini area were largely Loyalists.  If, as I suspect, Henry's sympathies were with the Patriot cause and not with the British cause, then Henry might have been uncomfortable sticking around with neighbors who wanted to remain loyal to the British crown.  So, he decided to go to what he considered to be friendlier territory.  He apparently sold his farm in South Carolina farm to his neighbor, John James, and headed to western Virginia.  (Evidence for Henry's selling his farm to John James exists in John James' 1787 will.  In that will, John James disposed of a parcel of land that is identical to Henry’s land.)

On November 1, 1782, Henry Kerley got a grant for 188 acres "on the waters of Buck Island Creek" in Albemarle County, Virginia.   I think it is more probable than not that this reference pertains to our Henry.  This spot of land in Virginia was located right next to land that had been granted to a person named John Kerley a year and a half earlier (on April 10, 1781).  Both Henry's and John's grants are located on or near the waters of Buck Island Creek.  Again, I find it highly unlikely that two men with the same last name would settle so close to one another at the same time without being related.  For this reason, I suspect that John was Henry's brother.  See the discussion below regarding John.  

Both Henry and John show up in the 1785 census for Albemarle County.  Their listings are only 7 names apart; each shows them as having 5 "white souls" in their families.  (Presumably, the head of the house, a spouse and 3 children each).  Both Henry and John also appear to be listed in the Personal Property Tax List for Albemarle County in 1787, but this time under the spelling of Kirby. 

The 1785 census listing for Henry in Albemarle County, Virginia, is the last definite listing we have for him.  At age 50, he pretty much disappeared from all records.  There simply is no reference to Henry Kerley in any census records in 1790, 1800 or 1810.  Plus, I have checked the census listings for every person named Henry in South Carolina and North Carolina in 1790, and every Henry in South Carolina in 1800 and 1810 and could find no likely candidates for our Henry. (Need to check VA too).

I suspect, however, that Henry lived for another 50 plus years after he disappeared from the written record.  My reason for this belief is largely the work completed by one of the very first Kerley family genealogists, a woman named Marina Blatherwick.  Marina started researching the Kerley family history back in the late 1800's and early 1900's.  At that time, she was able to talk first-hand to some of the elderly descendants of the first Kerley arrivals in America.  So, I tend to give Marina's statements a higher degree of validity than much of the other "research" floating around on the Internet. 

I have copies of several of her letters and notes.  In a letter dated December 1, 1917, Marina states that Henry died in the early 1840's and that he was 105 years old when he died.  That would be consistent with our theory that Henry was born around 1735.  (In some of her later letters (written about 14 years later in 1931), however, Marina says that it was Henry's son, William, who was 105 when he died.  Most researchers have adopted Marina's latter statement (i.e. they assume that William was 105 when he died).  I prefer Marina's initial statement (in 1917) that Henry was 105 when he died because it fits better with the overall theory.  Plus, there is other fairly persuasive evidence that William was 93 when he died, not 105.  See King Kerley biography.

Marina Blatherwick's letters (written in 1917 and 1931) also state that Henry's wife was named Sarah or Sallie, and that Henry and Sarah came “as old people from one of the Carolinas to live with their son William” in Middle Tennessee.  She says that both Henry and Sarah died there in the 1840's, and that they are buried in "the old family cemetery 5 miles north of Hartsville on the middle branch of Goose Creek, the piece of land owned by James Kerley."  Since Marina was a member of the Kerley family that was living in the precise section of Middle Tennessee where Henry and Sarah are supposed to have died, this gives her narrative additional credibility.   On a visit to this area in the 1990's, however, I was unable to find any gravestones with their names in either the James or William Kerley cemeteries.  (In another letter (April 12, 1918), Marina provides a different location for the site where Henry and Sarah are buried.  She states that they are buried in the "old Greer Graveyard."  The Greers did, in fact, own land next to the Kerley settlements on the middle fork of Goose Creek, and there is a cemetery there.   See Tennessee Records, Tombstone Inscriptions and Manuscripts (p.187 on Ancestry .com).   The list of names buried there does not include any Kerleys, but the person making this record noted that were "several unmarked graves."  Per this record, the cemetery is located on the Middle Fork of Goose Creek about .9 of a mile NW of the point where the Middle Fork merges with the East Fork."  Andrew Greer (1763 - 1819) is said to be buried there.  This location is marked on the Trousdale County web site.

So, Henry's whereabouts between 1785 (census listing in Albemarle, VA) and 1840 (death in Macon County, TN) is uncertain.  I assume that the lack of a reference to him by name in any of the census records during these years means he was living in one of his married daughters' houses.  If he was living with a married daughter then he would not be listed as a head of household and thus not be listed by name anywhere in these early censuses.  Note, there is only one 100 year old person in the entire 1840 census for Smith county TN.  That one person is a strange listing for a person with a first name of Henry, but with no last name.  Could this be our Henry?  Possibly.

Henry and Sarah had at least four children: William, Henry Jr., James and Larkin.   The evidence for the first three of these boys is fairly persuasive.  There are separate pieces of evidence for each son.  First, William.  Marina was quite certain that Henry and Sarah had a child named William (who settled in Macon County, TN and with whom Henry and Sarah lived just before their deaths).  I place a high degree of significance on this first-hand account of the relationship between Henry and his son, William.

Second, Henry Jr.  The evidence for Henry Jr. being a son of Henry and Sarah comes mainly from work done in the early 1900's by a fellow named Silvo Kerley.  Silvo determined that he had an ancestor named Henry (who was born in the 1750's) and that the parents of this Henry were a couple named Henry and Sarah.  He also determined that this couple lived at exactly the same time and in the same locations as the Henry and Sarah cited by Marina.  As far as I am aware, neither Marina nor Silvio were aware of, or communicated with, each other.

Third, James.  The evidence Henry and Sarah had a child named James is, by far, the strongest of all of these pieces of evidence.  There is an old, Kerley Bible record showing that a couple by the name of Henry and Sarah Kerley (who lived at the same time as Marina's and Silvo's Henry and Sarah) had a child named James who married in 1778.  See James Kerley Bible Record 

In short, these three pieces of evidence (the Bible record, Marina's oral history, and Silvio's research) are consistent and they present a compelling argument.  They all agree that a man named Henry Kerley was married to a woman named Sarah.  They all agree that Henry and Sarah had children beginning in the mid-1750's.  I find it difficult to believe that these records refer to three different Henrys.  Rather, given the consistency in each of these records as to the name of the person (Henry), his spouse (Sarah), the places where they lived (the Carolinas), the time period that they lived (the mid-1750’s), and the given birth dates for the children, I believe that the Henry they describe is one and the same person.  My conclusion is further buttressed by the similarity in the names given to the children of James, Henry and William.

The evidence for Larkin also being a child of Henry is much more speculative.  I believe that he was another son of Henry and Sarah primarily because he appears in the same general locations, at the same times, as Henry's and Sarah's other children.  Plus, the names of his children are generally consistent with the naming patterns of his brothers.

Three of Henry's kids, William, Henry Jr. and James, all ultimately moved to and died in Tennessee.  But, they got there via different routes and at different times.  William stayed on the old Kerley farm in South Carolina for about 10 years after his father, Henry, moved to Albemarle County, Virginia.  William then left South Carolina around 1789, moved to Kentucky for a short time, and eventually settled in Macon County, Tennessee in the early 1800's.  William's brothers, Henry Jr., James and Larkin accompanied their father to Albemarle County, Virginia, then they all moved together to Burke County, North Carolina, in the mid-1780's.  Larkin and Henry, Jr. stayed in Burke County most of their lives.   Larkin died there but Henry Jr moved to Wayne County, Tennessee near the end of his life around 1835.  James relocated to Cumberland County, TN and raised his family there.

 JOHN2 (William1)

The final member of this initial group of Kerleys is a fellow named John Kerley.  John settled in Albemarle County, Virginia, in the late 1770's and early 1780's.  Even though there is no record of John ever living in South Carolina, (unlike the documented records for his brothers Joseph, Henry and George) I assume that he was a son of William, and brother to George, Joseph and Henry.  Henry's purchasing land right next to John's land is strong evidence of a familial relationship between John and Henry. 

John purchased 111 acres "on the east side of Buck Island Creek" in Albemarle County.  (This was about a year before his brother, Henry, showed up and purchased 188 acres on "the waters of Buck Island Creek").  The Albemarle land grant is very interesting.  First, it was signed by the then-governor of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, thus giving the Kerley family a somewhat attenuated connection to that famous American.  Second, the very next grant that is listed in the record books after John's is one for a person named James Roberts.  The Roberts family had several connections to the Kerleys in South Carolina.  John Roberts was a neighbor of William Kerley on Halfway Swamp.  They were neighbors as early as 1756.  John Roberts also served in the same unit as Henry Kerley in the Cherokee Was in 1759.  In fact, John Roberts is listed immediately next to Henry (and both are very close to Samuel Boone) in the records pertaining to that military undertaking.  So, it appears that sometime in the mid-1700's, John Kerley and his friend and neighbor, James Roberts (son of John Roberts), decided to leave South Carolina and seek greener pastures elsewhere.  They ended up in Albemarle County, Virginia.

The final interesting aspect of John's 1781 land record is that he is listed as John Kerley Sr., thus indicating that he had at least one child; a son named John Kerley Jr.  I suspect that John Sr. had more than one child.  His other children probably included a William.

There are records of a John Kerley serving in the Revolutionary War in VA in 1777.  The National Archives has records showing that a John Kearley served in Captain Peter Bryan Bruin's company in the 11th Virginia Regiment of Continental Troops under the command of Colonel Daniel Morgan.  There is a record showing he served during the month of June, 1777, and that he signed up "for the war."  There is another record showing him on the pay roll in August of 1777.  John's service, however, did not go well.  He apparently was captured by the British sometime in August or September of 1777.  There are two records showing him as a prisoner in September, 1777.

Although we are not certain whether this war-service record refers to John Sr. or John Jr, , my guess is that it refers to John Jr.  The reason for this is that there is a record in the Pension Roll of 1835 which specifies that the veteran (John) applied for, and received, a pension for his service in the Revolutionary War.  This record indicates that John was 75 years old in 1835, thus making his birthdate sometime around 1760 (and his age when he began serving in the War as around 17 years old).  It is unlikely that John Sr. was born in 1760.  His mother (Dorothy) would have been 64 by then, far too old to be having kids.

(I am aware that the 1835 Pension record can be viewed in another light.  It is possible to interpret the record as indicating that John was 75 when he began receiving his pension in 1819.  This would give us an approximate birth date for John of 1744 and would mean that he would have been about 33 when he signed up to serve in the War.  Even by pushing John Sr.'s birth date back by 16 years to 1744 does not solve the Dorothy problem, however.  Under this reading of the record, Dorothy would have had to given birth to John when she was 48, possible but not likely.  So, all in all, I am inclined to believe that the Revolutionary War reference is to John Jr., not to John Sr.)

If John Jr. was born in 1760, then his father was probably born sometime in the 1730's (assuming he was 21 or older when he got married and started having children).  A birth date in the 1730's would fit nicely with the expected birth dates of his brothers Henry, George and Joseph, and would fit nicely with Dorothy's prime child-bearing ages.  Unlike his siblings, however, we have no record of any presence of John in South Carolina whatsoever.  It is possible that he was the youngest son born to William and Dorothy, and thus lived in their household until William died in 1766.  Then, shortly after William died, John decided to pack up and move to Virginia.  He was probably accompanied by some of his Roberts' neighbors when he made this move.

Another member of the Kerley family also served in the Revolutionary War from Albemarle County.  There is a record showing that a William Kerley served in Taylor's regiment of the Virginia Militia in 1779.  I suspect that this William was John Jr.'s brother.  We know from other records (see 3rd Generation: William (son of John) that William was born in 1761.  So, it certainly makes sense to see two fairly young brothers, both in their teens enlisting to fight with the Patriots in the early stages of the Revolutionary War. 

John shows up in the 1785 census for Albemarle County, Virginia, and has 5 people in his household (most likely his wife and three kids).  This is the last record we have of him.  We do not know how long he lived or where he died.  We do know, however, that John Jr. moved to Scott County, Kentucky, because the Pension Roll of 1835 lists him there.