D1- The Chamberlain’s in America Y-DNA Link to William de Tancarville.

Three predominant Chamberlain families immigrated to America in the 1600s. These were the 1- Thomas, Edmond, William Chamberlain, presumably brothers; 2- Henry Chamberlain, known as the Black Smith, and 3- Richard Chamberlain of Braintree, MA.

Y-DNA tests show that these three families are unrelated. However, in my study of the Y-DNA data, I have found that in these three divergent lines of the Chamberlain family, at least two can be traced back to a single source. According to history, this might be the family of Lord Chamberlain to the Duke of Normandy and to King Henry I of England, William de Tancarville.

The origin of the Chamberlain surname

In January 1066, King Edward on his death bed granted the kingdom to Harold Godwinson, the head of a very powerful noble family in England. When the king died, Godwinson was proclaimed King Harold II. On the other side of the English channel, William Duke of Normandy was outraged.

Fifteen years earlier, William visited England and met with his cousin King Edward. According to Norman historians, the childless English King promised to make William his heir to the throne.

William was of Viking origin. The Vikings pillaged northern France in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. However, they eventually accepted that their territory of Normandy become part of France in exchange for peace. William and other Normans were descendants of these Scandinavian invaders. They grew up in Normandy loyal to the French kingdom.1

The Battle of Hastings 1066

On September 28, 1066, William, determined to have the promised throne, landed with thousands of troops and cavalry on Britain’s southeast coast. He seized the village of Pevensey.  He then marched on to Hastings where he paused to organize his forces.

King Harold soon arrived near Hastings with his army. The day after his arrival, October 14, 1066, William led his forces in to battle. It ended in a decisive victory. Harold was shot in the eye with an arrow and died and his forces were destroyed. After his victory at Hastings, “William the Conqueror” marched on to London which submitted to his army. There, crowned on Christmas day in Westminster Abbey, he became the first Norman king of England.

William and other Normans spoke French which became the language of the king’s court. It gradually blended with the Anglo-Saxon tongue to give birth to modern English.1

Tancarville Castle, Normandy

One member of the King’s court was Count William de Tancarville of Tancarville Castle. His castle was built on a spur overlooking the Seine River in Normandy. He came with “William the Conqueror” to England.  Though he returned to Normandy himself, his sons and descendants remained in England and occupied lands granted to them. William de Tancarville “is the progenitor of the Chamberlain family in England and America.”2

“John de Tancarville, son of the former Earl, was Lord Chamberlain to King Henry I”.2 Henry ruled England from 1100-1135. John “assumed his title as a surname. Richard, son of John, was also Chamberlain of King Steven and the surname Chamberlain has since his day been that of the family.”2

Famille de Tancarville

An English translation of a French record of the Tancarville family gives us a different version of the story. It is more detailed and therefore may be more accurate. It tells us that Guillaume de Tancarville (the French name for William) was the chamberlain to King Henry I.

Le Chateau Fort de la Tancrede, Picture from 1950s

Translation: “William I de Tancarville son of Raoul, chief chamberlain of Normandy and Angleterre. It seems certain that he was the chamberlain of Duke Robert Curthose, and his brother Henry Beauclerc, after his victory at the Battle of Tinchebray (1106). He was a close adviser to King Henry I of England.”3

When William the Conqueror died his oldest sons inherited the kingdom. Duke Robert Curthose ruled Nomandy and his brother William Rufus became King William II of England. Their younger brother, Henry Beauclerc, became King Henry I of England in 1100 when William II was killed in a hunting accident. Henry defeated his brother Robert for the control of Normandy in the Battle of Tinchabray.4

Rabel de Tancarville, the son of William, inherited the role of chamberlain of Normandy from his father. He refused to recognize Stephen as King of England for unknown reasons but quickly submitted. Therefore, apparently, King Steven confirmed him in his function as chamberlain.3

This French account gives us three successive chamberlains to the Duke of Normandy, Raoul, William and Rabel. The English chamberlains, John and Richard, are not mentioned in this report.

Do most Chamberlains descend from William de Tancarville?

About 100 living Chamberlain male descendants (mostly in the United States) were Y-DNA tested before 2011. Modern Chamberlain genealogist James Baldwin Parker concluded that the results of these tests  “absolutely proves that there are more than a dozen Chamberlain ancestral lines in the States and elsewhere who are completely and totally unrelated to one another. Only one of them, if any, could be a Tankerville line.”5

The Y-DNA data shows that the Chamberlain families tested are very diverse. That is certainly true. However, I am not sure what this proves and what it does not prove. The data just hasn’t been studied thoroughly enough to come to any conclusions.

Therefore, I decided to examine the Y-DNA data. I would like to find answers to a couple of interesting questions: Are any of these diverse Chamberlains related in their paternal line? And, how many of these Chamberlain families, if any, can be linked to William de Tancarville and his family?

Y-DNA genetic analysis

We all have 23 pairs of chromosomes. We receive one set from our mother which is paired with another set we receive from our father. One of these pairs, the X and Y chromosomes, are sex chromosomes which determine gender. Those with two X chromosomes are female. While males always receive an X chromosome from his mother and a Y chromosome from his father.

23 pairs of chromosomes of the human genome

Mutations in genetic markers called STRs (short tandem repeats) are used to track genetic diversity in father to son generations

When a mutation occurs in the Y-chromosome, it will also be passed on to future male progeny giving that line its own trademark.

This information can be used for many purposes including the following:

1- To identify for an individual their own Chamberlain or non-Chamberlain paternal ancestor lineage.
2- To estimate the number of different ancestral lines that exist among Chamberlain families through out the world.
3- To trace known USA Chamberlain lineages to common ancestors and locations in England or other countries.

The Chamberlain Story now has its own Y-DNA research project. Join today!

Modern Chamberlain family groups

Twenty four males with Chamberlain surname were included in a Y-DNA analysis by the Chamberlain Association in 2003. Twelve of these entries were from the Thomas, Edmond, William (TEW) family. My brother, Ernest Martin Chamberlain, Jr., was included in this data. Our family ancestor in this article is identified as Spencer Chamberlain 1786-1853 (William).

Thirty-eight additional subjects were selected from an unsorted Chamberlain surname project FamilyTree DNA chart.6 I selected only entries that identified an ancestor and which tested 25 STRs. The STRs are identified in my report with numbers 1 through 25.

All 62 tests were evaluated and divided into families.  I consider tests with 3 or less mutation differences to be the same family. There are 23 families. They usually had only 0-2 STR differences. After sorting, I assigned each family an identification letter, A through W.  The Thomas Edmond William family (family A)  was the largest with 18 individuals. The Spencer Chamberlain branch is A013.

Y-DNA Spread Sheet gives a brief ancestor description from all of the 62 Chamberlains who are organized into 23 familes. It shows the Y-DNA profile for 25 STRs for each individual.  Also, genetic divergence (the average number of different STRs) is evaluated within the TEW family and also compared to to other families.

A key to identify the letter assigned to each family and the names of the 25 STRs is also given in the Y-DNA spread sheet.

A unique allele in Thomas, Edmond and William Chamberlain’s American family

The TEW family has a unique allele not found in any of the other 22 families, STR 21, allele 32. This may be very helpful in identifying relatives of the three brothers in England and other countries.

In my own family line, one mutation occurred in one of the nine generations between William Chamberlain and Ernest M. Chamberlain, Jr. (STR 24, allele 17) This could help us identify close relatives in the United States on our paternal line.

Finding the Y-DNA profile of the common paternal ancestor (CPA) of related families

Some individuals tested from the TEW family have no changes in their STRs. In other words, they have the same Y-DNA profile as their common paternal ancestor (CPA), Thomas, Edmond or William. Variance from the CPA was 0, 1 or 2 for each of the 18 individuals tested. The average divergence score through the generations since the brothers emigrated to America was 1. The average mutations in the Henry Chamberlain family from their common male ancestor was 1.8. 

It is helpful to know the most likely Y-DNA profile of the CPA of various groups of related families. The likely profile was calculated for each group by counting and selecting the majority allele in each of the 25 STRs. In a case where there is an equal number, either choice will result in the same score. Example: In STR 12, in B- Henry above, if  either allele 17, 26 or 27 is chosen for the CPA, the average will still be 1.8.

My goal is to separate out all families unrelated to the paternal line of William de Tancarville. This should lower the divergence average as much as it is possible. When all unrelated families are removed, the common paternal ancestor profile should be very similar to that of William de Tancarville.

Separating out unrelated families

Some families will not be related to the Tancarvilles on the paternal line. In many cases, lines directly descending from the Tancarvilles may have passed on the surname though a female relative, or through an adopted male heir. Therefore, the Chamberlain name was passed on, but an unrelated Y-DNA family was formed  Also, some unrelated families may have independently assumed the name of Chamberlain.

To separate the unrelated paternal lines, my first thought was to match the STRs of each family with those of all other families. Their scores, averaged and sorted, might separate related from unrelated families. If these differences were great enough, I thought, two distinct normal (bell curve) populations would be formed.

In the diagram below, each of the 23 families is represented by a letter. The number of different STRs between each family is presented. The averages when sorted ranged from 9.5 to 19.2. (A key to family identification for each letter is found in Y-DNA Spread Sheet)

Charting the distribution of the average scores shows a definite separation of three families from the other 20. I then checked the average number of mutations from the estimated profile of their common paternal ancestor (CPA) for the remaining 20 families.

The average number of mutations from the common paternal ancestor is now 6.8. This is down from the 8.3 average for all 23 families, but it is still much too high. Generations from William de Tancarville to the present should be approximately 2.5 times that of the early American immigrants. Therefore, compared to the average of TEW or Henry reported previously, the Tancarville average should be between about 2.5 and 4.5.

Another diagram was designed to visually observe how close or how far each family is related to every other family. Letters assigned to the various families are shown at the end of the diagram. Each family is compared to every other family. Low scores on the scale of 5 to 15 show families that are likely related. High scores show which families can not be related.

Observation of this diagram shows that seven families C, D, M, P, Q, R and S are completely unrelated. All of the families were sorted and the unrelated families (non color coded letters) appear on the bottom third of the chart. This lower third of the diagram shows that none of these families (uncolored letters) are found in the green (likely related) section, but many letters are deep in the orange and red (not related section).

The seven unrelated families were removed and a CPA Y-DNA analysis was done on the remaining 13 families.

Analysis of the 13 remaining families lowered the average to 5.5. However, this is still too high. Further observation of the spread diagram shows that in the 13 families, there are two independent groups.

Group 1 contains families A, B, E, F, N and W. These, after sorting, were placed in the top third of the diagram and colored blue. Fourteen of the “blue” families are in the “likely related” section when compared with other “blue” families. However,  there are sixteen “yellow” but no “blue” families which fall in the orange “probably not related” section of the chart.

On the other hand, Group 2 “yellow” families show that 18 are “likely related” to other “yellow” families.  While no “yellow” families, but 15 “blue” families, are “probably not related” to other “yellow” families. Families G, H, I, J, K, L and O are in Group 2. (Key to family identification for each letter is in Y-DNA Spread Sheet)

Separating the two groups of unrelated families again lowered the average mutation changes from the CPA. The CPA Y-DNA analysis for Group 1 average was 4.5, and for Group 2 it was 4.7.

Conclusions

Sixty-two Chamberlain males tested for their Y-DNA analysis were grouped into 23 families. Members of the three American families who immigrated in the 1600s have three or less STR changes in their Y-DNA profile.

Ten of the 23 families, C, D, M, P, Q, R, S, T, U and V are completely unrelated in their paternal line, based on their Y-DNA profile. However, it is highly likely that two groups of paternal families originated at about the time of the chamberlains of Normandy and England.

Thirteen of the families form two unrelated groups.  Group 1, families are A, B, E, F, N and W; and Group 2, families are G, H, I, J, K, L and O. Both of these groups have one family with ancestor ties to France. (Group 1 family W, and Group 2 family  J) Y-DNA data shows that family members of one, but not both, of these groups could be the direct line father-to-son descendants of William de Tancarville. (Learn about your paternal line with Y-DNA Analysis by FamilyTreeDNA) 

Hereditary Office of Chamberlain

The family of Tancarville was of Norman stock, of likely Scandinavian decent, originating from the Viking Tancredus (fr. Tancrède). Tancrede was a companion of Rollo in the Norman conquest of northern France. His progeny was closely tied to the royal family and became the hereditary Chamberlain’s of Normandy and of England. The family was known as being, “in the highest ranks of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, the lords of Tancarville”7 Tancrede founded and gave his name to the castle fort built on a cliff overlooking the Seine.

Tancarville Castle

Raoul fitz Gerald le Chamberlain (c. 1008- c. 1080) was the son of Gerald II and Helisende. His was the earliest known use of the patronymic “FitzGerald”. Raoul was an Officer of Duke Robert the Magnificent and commanded his fleet in 1029.  Duke Robert placed his young son William in the trusted care of the Chamberlain’s household. Thereby, William (the future conqueror of England), was nourished, protected and educated in the skills of knighthood while in their gaurdianship.8

Guillaume I de Tancarville (c. 1045-1129) “le Chamberlain de Normandie et England”. Guillaume, son of Raoul and Avice, was the first to use the Tancarville name. He may be better known by the English version of his name – William de Tancarville.

Rabel de Tancarville (c. 1080-1140) “le Chamberlain de Normandie et England”. Son of Guillaume I and Maude d’Arques. Rabel de Tancarville remained the only chamberlain-in-chief of Normandy and England until Henry I of England created a separate hereditary office for England in 1133,9 and entrusted it to Aubrey (II) of Vere and his heirs.10

A second family held the office of Chamberlain

Aubrey de Vere II (c. 1085 – May 1141) was the eldest surviving son of Aubrey de Vere and his wife Beatrice. He may have been Norman, possibly from the region of Ver in the Cotentin peninsula of western Normandy.

Aubrey II served as one of the king’s chamberlains under Kings Henry I and Stephen. In June 1133 King Henry I awarded the office of Master Chamberlain to Aubrey and his heirs. His eldest son, Aubrey de Vere III, later was made Earl of Oxford. His descendants held that office and title which in later centuries was known as Lord Great Chamberlain until the extinction of the Vere male line in 1703.11

The ten known children of Aubrey II and his wife Adeliza include five sons and five daughters. It is unknown if any of these families took on the surname of Chamberlain.

Château De Tancarville – A Story Of Heritage In Danger

The website Normandy Then and Now recently published an article about the sad condition and need for restoration of the Chateau De Tancarville.

“The story of the château cannot be over, but now while it has stalled the buildings deteriorate and ancient carvings are lost. There are no longer open days, once hosted by the passionate local historical association.  Doors are padlocked.”

“Château de Tancarville was registered as an historic monument in 1862. Pierre Bortolussi, architect from the department of Historic Monuments is still waiting to hear from any firms employed to undertake the renovations.”

“We look forward to the day when we match our postcard of château de Tancarville and tell the full history of this fascinating place.“12

An ancient abandoned complex, viewed through padlocked gates, will chateau de Tancarville survive to open again?

TCS Surname Y-DNA Research Project

The Chamberlain Story is interested in data on the all versions of Chamberlain and other surnames including: Chamberlain, Chamberlin, Chamberlaine, Chamberlayne, Chamberland, Chamblin, Shamblin.

The following surnames may also be related: FitzGerald, Vere, De Vere, Tankersville or Tancarsville.  Or any name if you have reason to believe your genetic paternal line may be Chamberlain.

I am also interested in the surname Izatt from my maternal line.

Please let me know if you have done a Y-DNA test on any of these surnames!

Links:

Any surname is welcome to take the FamilyTreeDNA Y-DNA test. FamilyTreeDNA lab.

Key to identification of the 23 families for letters A through W: Y-DNA Spread Sheet

Summary Page 3- Other DNA studies

Thank you! Dennis Chamberlain

© Copyright Dennis D. Chamberlain, All rights reserved. The Chamberlain Story, 2019.

References:

1- https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-battle-of-hastings
2- William Richard Cutter, A.M., Genealogical and Personal Memoirs Relating to the Families of B & EM. Volume II, Lewis Histories Publishing Co., New York 1908, pp.780-81.
3-https://www.geni.com/projects/Early-Norman-Families-de-Tancerville/1473
4- King Henry I of England, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_I_of_England
5-  James Baldwin Parker, John Count of TANKERVILLE, Castle, Normandy, France,  Message Boards www.ancestry.co.uk
6- https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/chamberlain/about/background
7- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tancarville_family,  J. C. Holt, Colonial England 1066-1217.
8-  Abid,  Jacques Le Maho, Nicolas Wasylyszyn; Saint-Georges de Boscherville, 2000 ans, 1998, p. 12.
9- Abid, The Complete Peerage, vol. X, Appendix F, p. 53-55.
10- Abid, Geoffrey H. White, « Financial Administration under Henry I » Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, vol. 8 (1925), p. 56-78.
11- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Vere_II, Cokayne, George: “The Complete Peerage”, v. 10. St. Catherine Press, 1910–58.
12- http://www.normandythenandnow.com/the-footballers-and-forgotten-chateau-de-tancarville-a-story-of-heritage-in-danger/

E7- The Rifle and the Old Clock in Chamberlain Family Lore

As a child, I remember a story from family lore about a time when ammunition was very scarce. The husband was taking his rifle and going off to battle, so his wife melted down the lead weights from the family clock and ran them into bullets. Therefore, her husband had his needed ammunition.

It is interesting how family stories are passed down to younger generations. Sometimes certain facts and details may be forgotten or misunderstood in one’s memory over time.

There are two versions of this story in our family

Three Chamberlain generations view Spencer Chamberlain’s rifle.

Apparently,  John Harry Chamberlain and Alonzo C. Phillips both heard this story as a child. They are first cousins. Chamberlain likely heard the story from his father in Illinois. Phillips likely heard it from his mother in Vermont. Each of them recorded the story in 1926 in their later years. Chamberlain was 77, Phillips was 81.

1- Harry Chamberlain: Northwestern Iowa Its History and Traditions, 1926:

“A great-grandfather of Harry Chamberlain in the paternal line participated in the Revolutionary War. His wife melted and ran into bullets the lead weights of the family clock, replacing the weights with bags of sand. This clock and the old Queen’s Arm musket which the great grand father used are still in possession of the members of the Chamberlain family in Vermont.”

2- Alonzo C. Phillips letter: Runaway Pond Again, April 20, 1926:

“Spencer Chamberlain enlisted in the 1812 war. Before he went he took the lead weights out of this grandfather’s clock and substituted the weights with bags of gravel of the same weight. His wife ran the weights into bullets and he took the bullets and his old trusty (Queen Arm) rifle and started for the front. There he fired away his clock weights in the battle of Plattsburgh. My son, Mazzini Phillips, has the old gun in his possession at the present time with the word “London” on the lock. I have no doubt that this is the same gun that Spencer’s grandfather shot the Indian chief, Paugus, with on the shore of Lovells pond, May 8th 1725.”

Who ran the lead weights into bullets?

Who melted the clock weights into bullets? Was it Sarah Blake French in the Revolutionary War, or was it Millie French Chamberlain during the War of 1812?

In the first story, Silas French would be the great-grandfather on Harry’s paternal line (his father’s mother’s father). It is a known fact that Silas served in the Revolutionary War. Harry Chamberlain’s other great-grandfather on the paternal line is John Chamberlain. However, our family has no written record of him which seems to rule him out. Silas French’s wife was Sarah Blake.

In the second version, Spencer Chamberlain’s wife Millie would be the one who ran the lead into bullets. Spencer went off to fight in the  Battle of Plattsburgh in 1814.

Not an isolated incident

I searched the internet for similar experiences and found several stories recorded in books published in the late 1800s. All but one case was from the Revolutionary war and occurring between May 1776 and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777.

The melting of clock weights into bullets was not exclusive to the Chamberlain family. The Pennsylvania Committee of Safety, May 9, 1776, and the Provincial Congress of New Jersey, July 16, 1776 passed resolutions. The government then “collected lead clock weights that they might be run into bullets”.1

Apparently many, if not all, of the colonies at this time made a requisition for lead. The following story is from Windsor, Connecticut:

“During the harvest season of 1776 labor was so scarce harvests were done by women and children as all able bodied men were in the army. Constituted authority went forth in search of lead for bullets. The tradition which preserves this fact also mentions that not a clock in the whole town marked the flight of time, their weights having been melted down and run into bullets. This is owing to a requisition. This tradition is well authenticated, both in the case of this, and surrounding towns.”2

This makes it sound like the whole nation went around not knowing the time of day. However, our family solved their time keeping problem. They replaced the lead weights with an equal weight of sand or gravel.

A universal experience of the Revolutionary war

This likely occurred in our family during the Revolutionary War since almost everyone who had a clock and a rifle at that time shared this experience. Of course, lead was scarce in other wars as well. However, I documented only one other such case. In the early 1800s, Tyrolese peasants repulsed the over whelming numbers of Napoleon’s troops. “Lead had become a scarce article with the (Tyrolese), and pewter mugs, clock weights, spoons, and other domestic utensils were melted to make bullets...”3

I attributed this family experience to Silas French and his wife Sarah Blake in Chapter 12- The Chamberlains During the Revolutionary War. The critical need for bullets came when Silas enlisted in 1775, and during a time of extreme shortages in 1776 and 1777. However, Silas French and Sarah Blake were not married until December 8, 1777. Nevertheless, they likely knew each other and may have been engaged at the time.

Spencer Chamberlain’s Rifle was handed down through the Phillips family

Spencer Chamberlain’s rifle and powder horn belonged to Mazinni Phillips in 1926

It is unknown what happened to the family clock adorned with sand bags. However, the musket pictured above is certainly the one Spencer Chamberlain used in the battle of Plattsburgh. It was still in the possession of the Chamberlain/Phillips family in 1926, (and still is). But who owned it before Spencer Chamberlain?

It is unlikely that this rifle ever belonged to Silas French or that it was used in the Revolutionary War. Nor could it be the one which was used by John Chamberlain in the duel with Chief Paugus along the shores of Lovewell’s pond in 1725.

Spencer Chamberlain’s Rifle is marked “Ketland & Company”

Joe Puleo of American Long Rifle Association gives us some information about gun locks marked with the inscription “Ketland & Company”.

“As to the name on the lock… in 1791 there was only one Ketland firm, that of Thomas Ketland with his partners and sons. They probably used the name “Ketland & Co.” from at least 1778 until they went bankrupt in 1821 but there isn’t a shread of evidence they exported anything to America until at least 1789-1790. So far all evidence suggests that the Ketland export business in guns and gun parts did not start until 1794.”4

The rifle is just not old enough to be an import from London for either the War of Independence nor for the battle at Lovwell’s Pond. Nevertheless, it would be available for Spencer or his family sometime between 1794 and 1814. It was ready when Spencer went off to fight the British at  Plattsburgh.

Rifle is inscribed “Ketland & Company” under the hammer, and the word “London” on top opposite the hammer.

If you got this far, please click Goodbye or Table of Contents. This will simply tell me that someone looked at this post. Thank you! Dennis Chamberlain

© Copyright Dennis D. Chamberlain, The Chamberlain Story, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of the written content of this site without express and written permission from the author and owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that credit is given to Dennis D. Chamberlain and direction to  www.thechamberlainstory.com.

References:

1- Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston 1876-1877
2- Henry R. Stiles, History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor Connecticut 1635-1891. Hartford Conn. 1891, Page 324
3- James Knowles, editor, The Nineteenth Century, a Monthly Review, Volume 46, New York 1899
4- Joe Puleo, Technical Editor, Man at Arms for the Gun Collector, Mowbray Publishing,  54 East School Street, Woonsocket, RI  02895, American Long Rifle Association Forum, americanlongrifle.com

20- Alonzo Chamberlain Moves to Winnebago County, Illinois

On May 1, 1855 Alonzo Chamberlain loaded his wife and two children on a stage coach and traveled forty miles to Montpelier. There they caught a west bound passenger train to start a new life on the western frontier in Winnebago County, Illinois, ten miles south of Beloit, Wisconsin. When he arrived he had only $1.75 in his pocket. He bought a $5 cook stove and paid for it in work.1

Alonzo and his family traveled by Railroad from Montpelier Vermont to Beloit, Wisconsin to their new home in Winnebago County on the western frontier in 1855.

Why did Alonzo leave Glover and why was he broke? There are many unanswered questions about Alonzo after he left. However, a sequence of events before he left, may give some insight.

Alonzo Chamberlian

Lydia Blanchard Chamberlain

Alonzo had two children, Amanda and Harry when his wife Betsy died April 25, 1852. His father Spencer was living with him, but moved to his daughter Jeanette’s home sometime between 1850 and before the time Spencer died on December 21, 1853.

Alonzo purchased two adjoining  lots in the village of Glover on April 11 and May 5, 1853. Alonzo and his new wife Lydia Blanchard Chamberlain jointly owned this property in town. They sold it to Warren Smith on February 8, 1855 for $500. Then there was a “Transfer of Mortgage” deed from Alonzo to F. M. McLellan for $300 signed on April 12, 1855. This would leave him with only about $200 before he left Glover.23

John Harry Chamberlain

His son Harry wrote that Alonzo had “received letters from some friends who had moved to northern Illinois, thought he saw a chance in that new country to build a home and support his family of a wife and two children more easily than he could on the barren hills of his native state.”3

School Days- Amanda and Harry Chamberlain, Winnebago County.

So, Alonzo packed his belongings into some trunks and loaded his family on a stagecoach and headed for the frontier, which “our people then thought was the land of Indians and untold dangers.”3

They arrived at their new home in Shirland, Winnebago County, Illinois on May 14, 1855. He went to work to support his family. “Wages were seventy cents a day, and twenty-five cents a cord for cutting wood… wealth did not pile up much.”3

In the 1860 census the Chamberlain family of four lived in a structure in Shirland Township, Winnebago County, but no value was shown for the property.

The Underground Railroad in northern Illinois

Alonzo Chamberlain was an abolitionist. He was known to be a conductor on the Underground Railroad in Vermont. Though we know nothing about Alonzo’s personal activities, the UGRR was very active in northern Illinois.

There were well known stops of the UGRR in Byron, Illinois and in Beloit, Wisconsin thirty miles north. Alonzo Chamberlain lived between these locations. Byron has an UGRR museum known as the Read House which was one of three “stations” in town from 1850 to 1862, where fugitive slaves were hidden.  According to the museum director, “Byron held a large group of abolitionists during that time. Most were members of the Congregational Church and came here from New England”.4

Newman House Museum, Byron, Illinois

Newman House Museum UGRR cellar room

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is interesting because his son said Alonzo had been corresponding with friends who had moved to northern Illinois. And, Alonzo’s location in Shirland, Winnebago County, twenty miles north of Byron filled a needed gap between Byron and known UGRR safe houses in Wisconsin.

Also, there is an UGRR museum in Milton, Wisconsin called Milton House. It is near Janesville about thirty miles north of Shirland.

It was built in 1844 and has a distinctive hexagon shaped design and a basement where fugitives were hid. There was a 45 foot tunnel from the basement to a nearby cabin.4

This 45-foot long tunnel originally was 3′ high and caved in often.  (Jon McGinty photo)

 

Milton House UGRR museum built in 1844 near Janesville Wisconsin. There is a 45′ tunnel between basement and nearby cabin.

 

 

 Winnebago County Sheriff John Taylor and Alfred Countryman

The history of Winnebago County can give us great insight into the life and times of the Chamberlain family. As pioneers in this new land, they were certainly affected by both local and national events.

On November 11, 1856, Sheriff John Taylor was nearing the end of his term. A new sheriff of Winnebago County had been elected a few days earlier. Sheriff Taylor was looking forward to spending more time on his farm with his expectant wife and eighteen month old son.6

That day, two brothers, Alfred and John Countryman herded some cattle into Rockford from another county. They offered the cattle for sale at such a low price it raised suspicion. The purchasers withheld payment and notified the sheriff. Upon investigation, Sheriff Taylor arrested the men on suspicion of cattle rustling and searched them for weapons. He found a pistol ball in Alfred’s pocket and asked for the pistol, but said he had none.5,6

Sheriff Taylor assisted by the Constable escorted the prisoners to the jailhouse steps where Alfred broke loose. He leaped the fence on Elm Street and ran down the street to the livery stables. The sheriff pursued and was about to seize him. Countryman drew a concealed pistol and fired behind him striking the sheriff. He staggered a few steps and fell. His last words were “I am shot, catch him!“5

Many infuriated citizens chased him to the woods north of Kent’s creek where John Platt caught him. With assistance, he wrestled away his pistol and subdued him. Amid threats of lynching, they took him to jail. Sheriff-elect Samuel Church secured the captive with irons.

Alfred Countryman went to trial on February 24 for the murder of Sheriff Taylor. The prosecution and the defense presented their case and it went to a jury of twelve men. On Friday March 6 they returned with a verdict: “Guilty”. The judge sentenced him to be hanged.

Winnebago County’s first public execution was scheduled for the afternoon of Friday March 27, 1857. It was a major event. People started crowding into town the evening before, coming from as far as Dubuque, Iowa. Two special trains arrived from the west at daybreak. Rockford was packed solid with horses, carriages and people. An estimated 8000 citizens gathered at Sheriff Church’s farm, a short distance from town. (Other newspapers estimated 15,000 and 20,000 attendees).5,6

The prisoner arrived in a procession of five horse drawn carriages. The last carriage carried the Countryman family, father, brother, and sister. His wife and his mother chose to say their goodbyes at the jail. Two fire companies armed with sabers and carbines accompanied the procession. The armed guard escorted the prisoner safely to the scaffold.5,6

The Reverend Hooper Crews began the ceremony with earnest prayer. The prisoner then made a short speech and expressed repentance and forgiveness for his crime. At seventeen minutes past the hour of two, the bolt was withdrawn. The trap door fell and Countryman was “swung into eternity”.5 The immense concourse of people did not move for some time. Only the sobs of the family were heard above the silence of the multitude.6

Before the body was taken down, Sheriff Church addressed the crowd. He praised and thanked them for their order. Then he spoke these words: “These painful proceedings being now concluded, and the sword of justice is about to be returned to its sheath, I hope never again to be drawn with so much severity”.5

The new anti-slavery party

In the 1850s, the issue of slavery absorbed the minds of the people, and none more so than Alonzo Chamberlain. We can only speculate on the roll politics played in Alonzo’s decision to move to Illinois. There is no doubt, however, that he was now in the center of the action.

Democrat Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois introduced a bill that would allow settlers to choose whether slavery would or would not exist within a territory. He hoped the bill would satisfy the interests of both the North and the South. The Kansas-Nebraska act dissolved the terms of the Missouri Compromise and allowed slave or free status to be decided in the territories by popular sovereignty. This would likely extend slavery into the newly opening territories.

Douglas’ bill sparked outrage and protests in the northern states.  A small, dedicated group of individuals came together to pledge to fight against the spread of slavery. In a small school house in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, they organized a new party. They chose the name the “Republican Party”.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand”

Abraham Lincoln 1859

On June 16, 1858 in Springfield, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln accepted the nomination of the Republican Party to oppose Stephen A. Douglas in the race for the U. S. Senate. In his speech accepting the nomination, he paraphrased a passage from the Bible, Mark 3:25: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Lincoln continued:

“I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

These words obviously made a deep impression on Alonzo Chamberlain as Lincoln’s words from this event were quoted at Alonzo’s funeral forty-four years later. “Like Abraham Lincoln, he (Alonzo) thought and said this nation could not live part slave and part free”2

The Lincoln – Douglas Debates

Alonzo Chamberlain probably attended one or more of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates

The Senate campaign of 1858 involved seven three hour debates between the two candidates. Each debate was held in a different congressional district. The format was that the first candidate spoke for one hour, the second then had one hour and a half, and then the first had an half hour to finish. Spontaneous  comments, cheers and laughter from the audience punctuated the debates.

On August 27, 1858 the second debate was held at Freeport, Illinois about twenty miles southwest of Shirland. On a cool, damp day, special trains brought in an estimated 15,000 from all over northern Illinois.7 Freeport is the one debate location, if not more than one, that Alonzo would attend if possible.

At this location, Lincoln spoke first and answered the “interrogatories” which Douglas had raised in the previous debate. Douglas then began by complementing the audience for avoiding “vulgarity and blackguardism” while Lincoln was speaking. Douglas then spoke for an hour and a half, often playing the race card with an occasional racial slur and by repeatedly calling Lincoln’s party the “Black Republican Party”.

Lincoln then began his reponse:

“The first thing I have to say to you is a word in regard to Judge Douglas’s declaration about the ‘vulgarity and blackguardism’ in the audience- that no such thing, as he says, was shown by any Democrat while I was speaking. Now, I only wish, by way of reply on this subject, to say that while I was speaking, I used no ‘vulgarity or blackguardism’ toward any Democrat.” (Great laughter and applause)7

Douglas had long advocated that under popular sovereignty the settlers in each new territory would decide their own status as a slave or free state; and that this would allow northern and southern states to resume peaceful coexistence.

Lincoln, however, responded that the Dred Scott decision sealed the fate of the country with one of only two possible outcomes: the country would inevitably become either all slave or all free. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a slave who moved to Wisconsin with his master, was not a U. S. citizen even though he was in a free territory. In other words, residence in a free territory did not make Scott free. Also, that Congress had no constitutional authority to prohibit slavery in any territory. The decision effectively overturned the Missouri Compromise, and all of other political compromises negotiated between the North and South over the past 30 years.

At Freeport, Stephen Douglas argued that, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, slavery could be excluded from territories of the United States by local legislation. This became know as the Freeport Doctrine.

The Presidential Election of 1860

Abraham Lincoln lost the 1858 Senate race. However, the debates of 1858 gave him national stature. At the Republican convention, May 18, 1860 in Chicago, Lincoln over took William H. Seward of New York on the third ballot and received the nomination for President. Republicans opposed the extension of slavery into the territories.8

Douglas’ Freeport doctrine and popular sovereignty pleased Democrats in Illinois. However, these angered Southern Democrats, and the national Democrat Party was in turmoil. In April at the Democratic Convention at Charleston, SC, delegates from the Southern states pulled out and no nomination could be made. They held a second convention in June at Baltimore, MD. Stephen Douglas got the Democrat Party nomination, but Southern Democrats nominated Vice President John C. Breckenridge, a slave owner from Kentucky. Both Douglas and Breckenridge claimed to be the official Democratic candidates.8

The Constitution Union Party nominated John Bell of Tennessee. They, like the Whig Party before them, believed the best strategy was to ignore the issue of slavery.

1860 U. S. Presidential Election

Lincoln understood the value of unity. He campaigned to keep the Party united. Douglas actively campaigned in both the North and in the South where he gave a passionate defense of the Union and strenuously opposed secession.

On election day, November 6, 1860, Alonzo Chamberlain cast his vote for Abraham Lincoln, as he would for every Republican Presidential candidate for the rest of his life. With about 40% of the popular vote, Lincoln won in all the northern states except New Jersey. This gave him 180 electoral votes, enough to win the electoral college and the election. By the time of Lincoln’s inauguration in March, seven Southern states had seceded, and a month after Lincoln became president, the country became engaged in civil war.8

A complete victory in the battle at Antietam Creek might have decided the war, one way or the other

The rebellion of the Southern states and the Civil War opened the opportunity for Abraham Lincoln to free the slaves. President Lincoln first proposed the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet in July 1862. However, his cabinet opposed it. Secretary of State William Seward suggested waiting for a Union victory so that it might be credible that the government could enforce it. Lincoln drew up the document and patiently waited for an elusive Union victory.9

In mid 1862, the Union suffered three devastating defeats at Shanandoah, Richmond and Manassas, Virginia. With the War going badly, the Democrats began an anti-war campaign. They saw the opportunity to take over the House of Representatives in the November mid-term election. To make things worse, France and Great Britain were enduring a cotton shortage and were considered legitimizing the Confederacy.10,11

Confederate General Robert E. Lee, recognizing the dissent in the North, hoped a major battle won on Union soil might topple Lincoln’s congressional support and secure complete victory. His Confederate forces moved into West Virginia where Stonewall Jackson captured Harpers Ferry. Lee then moved his army to Sharpsburg, Maryland.

September 17, 1862, General Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia met Union General George McClellan’s Army of the Potomac at Antietam Creek. The two armies faced each other across a 30 acre corn field. In twelve hours of battle there were about 23,000 casualties. An estimated 3,650 died. It was the deadliest single day in all American military history.

The next day Lee began the retreat of his ravaged troops back to Virginia. Despite having the advantage, McClellan allowed Lee to retreat without resistance. Lincoln was furious! He believed McClellan missed the opportunity to attack the weakened Army of Northern Virginia and potentially end the war. After refusing Lincoln’s orders to pursue Lee’s retreating troops, Lincoln removed McClellan from command on November 5, 1862.10

The Emancipation Proclamation

Military historians consider the Battle of Antietam a stalemate. However, the routing of the Confederates from Maryland enabled President Lincoln to claim a Union victory.  On September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. If the Southern states did not cease their rebellion, it would go into effect on January 1, 1863.

Lincoln justified this action as a “fit and necessary war measure” intended to cripple the Confederacy’s use of slaves in the war effort. The ending of slavery in the United States  now became the focus of the Civil War. Unwilling to appear pro-slavery, England and France decided not to endorse the Confederacy, and the Republicans held the House of Representatives in the mid-term election. Also, over 200,000 African-Americans served in the Union army and navy.9

President Lincoln considered the Emancipation Proclamation to be the crowning achievement of his presidency. “I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper,” he declared. “If my name ever goes into history it will be for this act, and my whole soul is in it.”9

The Proclamation initially freed only the slaves in the rebellious states, but by the end of the war, citizens were more prepared to accept abolition for all slaves in both the North and South. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery in the United States on December 6th, 1865.9

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom”

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.”

“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

Abraham Lincoln

William Warren in the Civil War

William Warren was born in Stephenson county, Illinois, April 10, 1840. His father died when he was three months old. Therefore, he soon learned to depend on his own resources. He spent his youthful years working on a farm in Winnebago County.  There, he not only learned how to work the fields, but also received early lessons on industry, perseverance and integrity. When civil war broke out, he joined the Fourth Battery of the Wisconsin Light Artillery on November 10, 1861.12

Battle of Malvern Hill, water color by Sneden

The Fourth Battery of Artillery participated in the battle of Malvern Hill on July 1, 1862. There, Union artillery on the hill dueled with Confederate batteries on both the right and left sides of their lines, inflicting heavy losses. They repelled the Confederate Army, a great tactical victory for the Union. The next day, however, Union General George B. McClellan retreated, ending  his Peninsula Campaign to take the Confederate Capitol of Richmond.13,14

On April 11, 1863 the Fourth Artillery defended the Union Garrison at Suffolk, Virginia from the attack of Longstreet, holding until the siege was abandoned.

During encampment at Gloucester Point in August, 1863 the unit experienced a severe bout of sickness. For a while, there were only four enlisted men fit for duty.13

In March 1864, Ulysiss S. Grant was promoted to lieutenant general, and given command of all Union armies.15

On May 9, 1864, the Fourth Artillary took position in front of rebel Fort Clifton where Swift Creek meets the Appomattox. There they silenced the enemy guns within a half an hour. Four days later they marched to Proctor’s Run near Drury’s Bluff. There they engaged the enemy’s fortifications, losing one man wounded.13

In June, 1864 William Warren’s artillery unit was attached to General Kautz’ Cavalry Division and on the June 15th they, as part of the U. S. Army of the Potomic, became engaged in the battle of Petersburg,  Petersburg was an important supply center for the Confederate capitol of Richmond. General Kautz penetrated enemy lines which left him the dilemma of how to get back out. Under fire from fourteen guns, they escaped with the loss of three men wounded.13

By order of General Butler, the entire Fourth Battery Artillery was converted to a horse artillery, with all cannoniers being mounted. Then, on September 28, 1864, General Kautz’ cavalry, and the mounted Fourth Battery approached Richmond within 1000 yards of the rebel works. On the 29th they moved around the city under continuous rebel fire. The right section engaged a small force of the enemy on Charles City Road and drove them into the city. The next day, September 30th, the battery repulsed a cavalry charge.13

On October 7th, a heavy rebel force attacked the cavalry. The Fourth Battery of Artillery opened fire but could not stop the enemy advance. They then began receiving heavy fire from their left. Another large force of Confederates came at them from the right to cut off escape. They fell back four times while keeping up rapid fire. The rebels continued to press toward them, the order was given to retreat.13

Near a creek, the cavalry and artillery units got jammed together. An artillery piece got stuck in the mud and blocked those who were behind. Four cannons had to be abandoned and forty-five horses were lost. Private Isaacson was killed and Private Brooks, J. Flanders, L. Wells, and W. Warren were wounded.13  A piece of a shell struck William in the right leg disabling him. He had to remain in a hospital in Philadelphia for the rest 1864 and early 1865.12

The Siege of Petersburg from June 1864 to March 1865 led to the surrender of Lee’s army in April 1865 and the effective end of the Civil War.15  William Warren received an honorable discharge on April 14, 1865.12

William Warren married Amanda Chamberlain, Winnebago County, Illinois

Amanda Chamberlain age 19 and William Warren age 20.

William Warren returned to his home in Winnebago County where he spent several months recuperating his health. He then went to work on his farm. William married Miss Amanda Chamberlain February 25, 1866.12

In 1870, Alonzo Chamberlain was a farmer and his son Harry worked as a farm laborer. They owned a small farm in Shirland, Winnebago county valued at $1170. At that time, William and Amanda Warren had two children Nora and Florence. William Warren’s farm in Shirland was valued at $2100 plus he had $595 in personal property. Also, two farm laborers were living in their home.16

 

To be continued…. Chapter 21 Harry Chamberlain– leaves Winnebago County for Clay County Iowa. Homesteader, teacher, politician, lawyer and family man.

If you got this far, please click Goodbye or Table of Contents. This will simply tell me that someone looked at this post.

Six minute Video: Why the black race has not prospered since 1965

Thank you! Dennis Chamberlain

© Copyright Dennis D. Chamberlain, The Chamberlain Story, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of the written content of this site without express and written permission from the author and owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that credit is given to Dennis D. Chamberlain and direction to  www.thechamberlainstory.com.

References:

1- Harry Ellis Chamberlain, Biography of Alonzo Chamberlain, unpublished family document
2- Sale of Property “Alonzo & Lydia Chamberlain to Warren Smith” and email information from Joan Alexander, Glover Historical Society.
3- Memoir of Harry Chamberlain
4- Local Ties to the Underground Railroad http://northwestchicagoland.northwestquarterly.com/2011/01/local-ties-to-the-underground-railroad/
5- Charles A. Church, The History of Rockford and Winnebago County- From First Settlement in 1834 to the Civil War, Rockford, Ill., W. P. Lamb, printer, 1900.
6- Robert H. Borden, WINNEBAGO COUNTY’S FIRST EXECUTION, Nuggets of History, Vol 18, Number 3
7- Second debate: Freeport, Illinois, National Park Service https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate2.htm
8-The U. S. Presidential Election of 1860, https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1860
9- Civil War Trust, 10 Facts: The Emancipation Proclamation,
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/10-facts-emancipation-proclamation
10- The Battle of Antietam,  https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/battle-of-antietam
11- Civil War Battles Chart, https://www.iss.k12.nc.us/
12- History of Clay County, Iowa page 393.
13- Military History of Wisconsin, http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm/ref/collection/quiner/id/17199
14- Michael P. Gabriel, The Battle of Malvern Hill, Encyclopedia Virginia, https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Malvern_Hill_Battle_of
15- The End of the Civil War, LUMEN, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/the-end-of-the-civil-war/
16- 1870 U. S. Census