HAYWOOD COUNTY, NC - BIOGRAPHIES - William Williamson, Part 3 ----¤¤¤¤---- WILLIAM WILLIAMSON OF HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND SHELBY COUNTY, ILLINOIS Compilation by Bill Williamson 12649 Mayflower Drive Nevada City, CA 95959 “An act in relation to the election of Members of Congress” was introduced and passed 45-39. Mr. Williamson voted Aye and Mr. Lincoln voted No, pages, 222-223. On January 24 the Judiciary Committee reported back to the House resolutions calling for a convention to amend the Illinois constitution. The judiciary committee recommended rejection but because there was no affirmative vote (both sets of votes were printed into the record as negative it is impossible to know who voted in the affirmative. It seems likely that Messrs Williamson and Lincoln voted against the proposal. Subsequently, the vote was to lay the resolutions on the table, page 240-241. A bill for “An act for the further consideration of the Illinois and Michigan Canal” with amendments came to the floor of the House. The amendments would authorize the governor to issue script (credit instruments) to be expended on specific projects. The vote on the bill and amendments to move to third reading was defeated 46-36 with Mr. Williamson in the majority and Mr. Lincoln in the minority, page 243. On January 25 the House took up an ”An act making appropriations for the year 1839-1840” which proposed to settle the expenses of rents and pay for the employees of the House during the session. Some members wanted to increase their pay to $5 and others wanted to reduce it to $3.50. The proposal contained a section that the members be paid a per diem of $4 per day to include expenses. The bill was approved for third reading, page 248. When the bill came to the floor it was defeated 38-33,page 280. Mr. Williamson voting no, Mr. Lincoln voting aye. Later the appropriations bill was again on the floor and open for amendment. One of these again concerned the amount of legislative pay, the legislature having the power to determine their per diem allowance. On a proposal to strike out $4 and substitute $3 Mr. Williamson and Mr. Lincoln supported the reduction, but the majority voted to retain $4,page 308.The effect of these votes was to leave their pay for the session at $4,LAWS OF ILLINOIS 1839-1840,page 81. Mr. Williamson moved that a Senate bill for an “Act to legalize the change of a certain state road therein named “ be referred to select committee and he also moved “an act to re- locate a state road from Charleston to Andrew Wilson’s in Macon County” and was rewarded for his efforts by appointment to select committee to report both bills, page 253. A Senate bill for “an act to repeal an act to establish and maintain a general system of Internal Improvements, and all acts amendatory thereto” was read a third time and the bill was passed 47-35 with Mr. Williamson and Mr. Lincoln voting against, pages 264- 265. An act supplemental to an act to incorporate the Vandalia and Mississippi Turnpike Company agreed to and advanced to third reading 39-37 with Mr. Williamson and Mr. Lincoln voting against the measure, page 265 Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Williamson voted adversely on “An act authorizing the purchase of a house for the use of the governor” with the proviso that the site be in Springfield. The act and amendments were postponed indefinitely, 57-25. Presumably, this was another attempt by the Springfield adherents to cement the move of the Seat of Government to that city, page 282 On January 29 “an act to modify An Act to establish and maintain a general system of Internal Improvements approved February 27,1837” came to the floor. Because the bill failed, members scrambled to salvage projects dear to them, and their districts, and the number of bills proliferated. Mr. Williamson proved to be no exception in the case of the Terre Haute, Shelbyville, and Alton Railroad and when an amendment was proposed that would salvage the Railroad he supported it. It is obvious from geography and his voting patterns that this railroad would be of significant benefit to Mr. Williamson’s district and region and he was probably prepared to scratch backs,” play ball” and bargain to get it. This act, and all efforts to salvage amendments to it, were finally defeated when the bill died by a vote of 53-29,page 283. On January 30,1840 the House again took up the “act to modify the system of Internal Improvements”. Some skirmishing took place but most proposed amendments were beaten back and the select committees report was adopted, 43-39. Mr. Williamson and Mr. Lincoln were in agreement to reject amendments, page 288-292.However an act to “modify the act of Internal Improvements was adopted, page 293. When this bill came up for its third reading the title was modified to be “An act to repeal an act entitled an act to establish and maintain a general system of Internal Improvements, and other laws amendatory to the same” was approved 48-33 with Mr. Williamson and Mr. Lincoln voting against, page 299. On this same day a committee bill for “An act for the relief of contractors and the adjustments of claims against the State” reached the floor and was adopted 38-35. Mr. Williamson and Mr. Lincoln voted aye, page 311, and in LAWS OF ILLINOIS ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1840, page 98. On the last day of the session, February 1,1840 Mr. Williamson was successful in securing House approval of: “An act to re-locate a State road from Charleston to Andrew Wilson’s in Macon County”, page 318. However, the bill did not pass in this session of the General Assembly. On 3 August 1840 Mr. Williamson was defeated for election to the senate (561-520) by Peter Warren, ELECTION RETURNS, page 332. The record does not allow us to objectively evaluate the responsibility and integrity of members of the General Assembly, but it seems clear with an economic crisis facing the state that Mr. Williamson performed in an admirable manner throughout the session. In my judgment this session was his “finest hour” as a public official. In 1841 people of the northern part of Shelby County petitioned the legislature for a bill to form a new county from Shelby and adjacent counties. Some conflict thus ensued:” It should be mentioned here, that the above petition provided that the new county should be named Fleming; but through a partisan feeling on the part of the representative from Shelby County he declared he would have nothing to do with establishing a county to be called Fleming. The result was that there was a second compromise, and Mr. Williamson, the Shelby county representative, had the honor of naming the new county. He named it in honor of Col. William Moultrie of early military fame.” HISTORY OF SHELBY AND MOULTRIE COUNTIES, 1881,page 65. The Williamson family was included in the 1840 US CENSUS IN SHELBY COUNTY, Page 15. Extracted from a compilation of T.M. Hall. DECATUR GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY publisher, 1978. In this year the state’s population had increased to 476,183,up from 157,447 in 1830. With this and the end of the Black Hawk War the northern half of the state began to grow with a shift in political power from the South to the North. In August of 1842 Peter Warren defeated (479-414-408) him for state Senate by a vote of 561-520. Mr.Warren again defeated him in the 1844 rematch, ELECTION RETURNS, page 383.The third candidate, John Chamberlain, ran strongly in the section of this district in Moultrie County which probably stripped votes from the other two. Mr. Williamson purchased, for $50, the NEquarter of the SW quarter in section 34 of township 12. EXECUTIVE RECORDS, 1843- 47,page 171. On June 1,1850 he added to his real estate by the purchase in Township 11 the N one half of the NEquarter. Certificate #3579 EXECUTiVE RECORDS, 1847-53,page373. On September 12 of that year he acquired in township 12 sections 34 the SE quarter of the SW quarter. EXECUTIVE RECORDS the same period, page 390. Certificate # 3610. For the service of appraising state lands the General Assembly authorized payment to WW of $3 for 35 days LAWS OF ILLINOIS 1845, page 368. William Williamson served as a delegate to the state LOCOFOCO Convention in August of 1846. The name Locofoco comes from the name given to safety matches that on one occasion were used to light candles at a party convention when the opposition, in a political ploy, turned out the gaslights. In fact, there was no Locofoco party, but the phrase, Locofocodom, was pejoratively applied to radical elements within the Democratic Party and perversely extended to all Democrats by its enemies. Politically, the term was used narrowly for those who were for a monetary system based on gold and silver, free trade, restrictions on monopoly power and the elimination of subsidies and special privileges for banks and corporations. Previous to Mr. Williamson’s legislative service, the Democrats were derisively divided into two camps: one designated “whole hog” Democrats and the other “milk and cider” Democrats. Before the election of 1824 the campaigns revolved around the candidacy of an individual or faction but, with the emergence of Jackson, issues and principles took on more importance and the parties consolidated. Likely Mr. Williamson’s attachment to Jackson was motivated by personality, and sympathy for General Jackson’s treatment that grew out of the disputed election result in 1824.Certainly the charge that General Jackson was a Caesar would have held no fear for a man who had a brother and nephew named Napoleon Bonaparte! Traditionally, the Democrats were the majority party in Illinois with the Whigs emergent after 1832. In general, the leadership abilities of early Illinois politicians were not admirable, and some skeptical observers, such as Governor Ford, held even more jaundiced assessments of the character of the population at large. Ralph Waldo Emerson thought the Democrats “had the best principles” and the Whigs the “best men”, and this might especially apply in Illinois. For these frontier officials character was more important than education, and they composed a different kind of “elite” that substituted commitment and experience for cultural polish. Moreover, within limits, they made themselves “available” to serve, in the realization that they had come to build a society in their image. The Journals repeatedly demonstrate that they held dogmatically to the principles of their fathers but, when faced with a problem, pragmatism was their guide. In the August 1846 elections for the House of Representatives William Williamson defeated three opponents (674-415-38-25) and was elected to the 15th General Assembly. ELECTION RETURNS, vol.72, page 14,THE ILLINOIS FACT BOOK AND HISTORICAL ALMANAC, 1673-1968,page 215. The House in this session returned 124 members, more than double the number in the House when Mr. Williamson began his legislative career in the 8th General Assembly. Of the members who served with him in the 8th General Assembly of the Senate, only Mr. Archer would serve with him in the 15th, ILLINOIS FIFTH CAPITOL, pages, 225- 234. Unless otherwise otherwise specified the following citations are taken from the HOUSE JOURNAL,GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1846-1847. This Journal is indexed. The House convened on 7 December 1847 in Springfield without Mr. Williamson who did not present his credentials and qualify until December 9,Page 14. Newton Cloud was elected Speaker and John McDonald was Clerk. William W. Pace was chosen to be assistant Clerk. The governor of Illinois at this time was Augustus C. French. The governor’s message set the tone for the forthcoming session and identified several conditions and challenges before the people and the government of the state. The Illinois and Michigan Canal was yet uncompleted but there were assurances that the end was in sight. The governor called upon the legislature to provide remedies including consolidation and refunding of the state debt because “the state was deeply in debt”. The banking problems were yet to be worked out as the banks were torn by partisan ideology, market conditions, and the distrust of the people in them. In fact, confidence was so low that a law had been passed in 1845 requiring that they be liquidated, although this task was incomplete at this time. Governor French went so far in his message to say “It seems to me that the interests of the people of this state will be better promoted by, hereafter, dispensing with banks altogether, than again to take their chance upon a sea of uncertainty and confusion as they have lately passed”, page 20. Other problems were with the common schools, the residual results of what was called “the Mormon difficulties” or “the difficulties in Hancock County”, the state militia and its ability to cope with insurrection, the insane, penal reform, re-apportionment of the legislature, and ways and means. The fiscal affairs of the state were such that there was a demand to reduce state expenditures and even re-apportionment was defended and presented as a move to economize. One of these, called upon state legislators to accept a cut in their per diem allowance to $2.50. One resolution summarized the problem this way: “now is the time when the pruning knife of retrenchment and reform should be used vigorously in every department “. This was also the age in which nativism was to produce the American Party, the Know Nothings, and the reactions they engendered may be found in skirmishing over how many copies of the governor’s message to print. Ten thousand appeared to be the maximum number but the issue turned on how many were to be in English and how many in German. This was an age of increased immigration from Europe, and the state census of 1845,which was to be the basis for re-apportionment, had provoked some alarm among nativists as to the political and economic influence of growing numbers of foreign speaking people. After several-failed votes, the House voted to print 8000 copies in English and 2000 in German. Mr. Williamson’s vote seems to be that 10000 were too many and he also voted against the 8-2 ratio that was finally adopted without his affirmative vote, pages 22-25.Related to the growth of the state’s population it was necessary to balance the population in each district by re-apportioning the seats in the legislature. At issue for Mr. Williamson was maintaining a voice for his district/county because the smaller the district, the more representatives could be sent to Springfield. The issue first came up early in the session and was to provoke lively conflict, page 29. The use of the word retrenchment is significant for Mr. Williamson because he was assigned to the Standing Committee on Retrenchment and his appointment to that committee would indicate his political and economic point of view at this time. Presumably, this committee was to find and propose legislation that would find ways and means of reducing expenditures and the state’s obligations. This could be and probably was a mean task and may explain his voting patterns in the session. There is no sign in the Journal that the Committee on Retrenchment played a significant role during the session. It seems probable that those whose voices were inclined to this position were given a platform and isolated in the committee as the leadership used other parliamentary devices to bypass them. His other committee assignments were to the Standing Committee on Federal Relations (newly established in this session) and the Standing Committee on Public Acts and Expenditures, page 33.Taken together, these were significant committee assignments. Mr. Williamson gave his vote to endorse a number of resolutions in re the war with Mexico. On December 10,1846f resolutions were introduced in the form of petitions to the Congress of the United States. These resolutions: 1.condemned the Mexicans as “insolent invaders” who had insulted US Diplomats and accused them of violating “solemn treaties, murdering our citizens” and behaving with “intolerable braggadocia”, 2.Expresed approval of the actions taken by the Polk administration of sending an American army to the Rio Grande “into our territory”, 3. Encouraged the Congress to provide the “sinews of war” 4. Commended the US army and navy for its gallantry to date and expressed specific hanks to General Taylor for the recent successes at Monterrey, 5.Recommended that the Congress reward each officer and man a grant of 160 acres of federal land for their service and if killed or disabled their families were to be rewarded with 320 acres of public land, 6.Praised President Polk for revising his claim of 54-40 or fight to accept the 49 parallel as the border with Great Britain in Canada, 7.Encouraged the administration to take all of California and Mexico on both sides of the Rio Grande and make Monterrey, Mexico the capital of the Southern Territory, 8.Urged the Congress and their delegates to support an increase in pay for regulars and volunteers while reducing the per diem allowance of the Congress from $8 to $5, 9.Condemned Mexican General Santa Anna for duplicity, and urged President Polk to discontinue further negotiations with him. HOUSE JOURNAL, op cit, passim. In the main Mr. Williamson supported these resolutions. Being a good party soldier did not inhibit Mr. Williamson from voting with the majority for a resolution condemning President Polk for vetoing a Rivers and Harbors bill that would have been of material benefit to the state, page 29. It should be remembered in his previous legislative service Mr. Williamson had been a strong supporter of the state bank. However, the bank’s record and economic events, persuaded him that an investigation of the bank at Shawneetown and its directors was in order, and he supported a resolution to establish a joint committee of the General Assembly to report on these matters, page 30-31.The failure of the bank imposed significant hardship on the availability of currency and the House, 67-41, resolved that the Judiciary Committee “be requested to inquire into the propriety of furnishing the citizens of Illinois with a reasonable supply of specie paying paper money upon sound constitutional methods at reasonable rates”. The resolution was adopted, pages 39-40. Mr. Williamson voted no. The requirement that the banks be liquidated proved to be difficult. The actions in this session resulted in repeal of the bank’s charter, and placing the bank into receivership by a State Commission with the commissioners to be entitled to an 8% commission. This Senate version of the bill was too much for the House and they voted to reduce the commission’s commission to two and one half percent and that was agreed to, 54-42,page 488. Mr. Williamson voted to support this language. The bill was finally cleared through the conference committee and passed by both Houses, page 546. This would be the last recorded vote by Mr. Williamson in the session. On December 12,1846 the General Assembly met in joint session to elect a United States senator from Illinois. Stephen A. Douglas received 100 votes against Cyrus Edward’s 45. Mr. Williamson voted for Mr. Douglas, page 36-37. Of some concern among some of the representatives was the fee schedule and qualifications for professional persons such as physicians and lawyers. A proposal to regulate their fee schedules and qualifications was proposed, “prohibiting men who have not the necessary qualifications from practicing as such” and a resolution containing this phrase was adopted with Mr. Williamson voting against, page 52-53. His vote provokes several questions, as his son Jefferson was later to practice medicine. On 21 December “An act to fix the pay of county commissioners” was read a second time. Amendments were proposed and defeated to reduce their pay from $2.50 to $2. The House voted not to reduce 44-68 and the bill was approved for third reading, pages 73-75. Mr. Williamson voted against the reduction. A resolution was offered on December 21 that would petition the Illinois delegation in Congress to work for legislation that would “donate” to the state of Illinois every alternate section of land along the Central Railway line. If the alternate section was unavailable because of previous disposition, the Congress was asked to substitute other suitable properties. An avalanche of amendments was then offered to extend the benefits of the resolution to a plethora of other railway lines. The resolution failed to be adopted 57- 50 but Mr. Williamson voted for it, page 57. The measure again came to the floor, as a motion to reconsider, but failed for lack of a quorum, page 96. Mr. Williamson voted not to reconsider. A revenue bill of December 18 engendered some heat before the House defeated the measure, 57-52. Included in the skirmish was a proposed amendment “that no appropriation be made to members of the legislature, before the termination of the session”, the amendment was not agreed to 68-41 with Mr. Williamson voting aye, page 61. Throughout this session there were numerous attempts to economize on the pay of other public officials. On January 2 a resolution was offered to reduce the pay of members of the General Assembly to $1 per pay. This produced an amendment that “for the first two months the pay of members and officers of this General Assembly, shall be three dollars per day, after which their pay shall be shall be one dollar and fifty cents per day”. Both resolution and amendment were tabled without a recorded vote, page 108. On the 6th a resolution was offered that would require members of the Supreme Court of Illinois to be paid equally with the result that some of the members of the court would have their pay reduced. This motion was laid on the table 47-45 with Mr. Williamson voting affirmatively, page 128. On the 7th a similar resolution was offered, “that in order to carryout the principles of justice, equality and economy” the justices of the court were respectfully requested to “relinquish” part of their salary. This measure would save the state $3000 per annum. It was laid one the table by the ayes (61) and nays (38). Mr. Williamson voted aye, page 134. Because of some civil disturbance, several attempts during the session were made to secure approval for a special term of the Circuit Court of Massoc County. The Judiciary Committee reported the bill with a “do pass” recommendation. An amendment was offered on the floor to strike out the words,” and also in protecting the citizens against mob violence, and in suppressing insurrection and rebellion in said county, or the counties adjacent thereto” The motion to strike out failed (48- 41) with Mr. Williamson voting to strike. There is nothing in the record to allow a determination of what the problem was. Some language seems to suggest that the problem was related to failure of the state to redeem its debt in a timely manner, page 115,156,197,207,229. On January 5,1847 “an act to amend an act in relation to Negroes and Mulattoes” was ordered to second reading. The vote was 43-42 to refer back to committee with Mr. Williamson voting to refer, page 117. This bill was reported back from the Judiciary Committee with a negative recommendation and failed its’ third reading, page 307. On February 23rd the Judiciary Committee recommended passage of “An act amending chapter seventy-four of the Revised Statutes, relating to Negroes and Mulattoes”. Mr. Williamson moved to lay the bill on the table which was not agreed to (48-47), page 467.The bill was moved to third reading and failed to pass with Mr. Williamson voting not to pass. (56-39), page 467. From the number of petitions from various counties it is obvious that there is a growing abolitionist movement within the state and several petitions and motions in this vein were made; yet none survived. Relative to this matter was a resolution providing: “That it is the opinion of this House it is inexpedient and contrary to sound policy against the best interest of the country to annex any additional slave territory to the United States” and further “That our Representatives in congress to requested and our Senators instructed, to act on all suitable and proper occasions in accordance with this opinion…”, pages 384-385.This resolution was laid on the table with Mr. Williamson voting aye. Mr. Williamson voted in the negative on “an act to fix the pay of county commissioners”, page 121. The impressions are, that, in matters that could be decided at the county level, he would prefer to have such decisions made there, or, that their pay should be adjusted as a economy measure. On another salary question Mr. Williamson supported a motion to lay on the table a bill “An act to increase the salary of the Justices of the Supreme Court of Illinois”, page 282. On January 7 a resolution came to the floor ”relative to improvement of navigation on the Great Wabash River” and was adopted 56-41 with Mr. Williamson voting aye, page 133. Apparently, the winter of 1846-1847 was unusually harsh and fuel must have been in short supply in the state capital. On January 9,1847 a resolution from the Senate, requesting that the House concur, came to the floor “authorizing the Secretary of State to deliver to the mayor, and others of Springfield, a quantity of wood, to be distributed, under their direction, among such of the citizens of this place as are suffering for the want of that necessary article, and are unable to procure it at this inclement season” This produced an avalanche of amendments proposing “that eight cords be furnished to the inhabitants of Jo Daviess county” Another proposed that “the Secretary of State furnish the like quantity to each county in the state”. At this point the proposals were laid on the table by a recorded vote of 83-12 with Mr. Williamson voting aye. Another amendment was then offered to add the following,” that the members of the Legislature hereby pledge themselves to pay for the same” but this one was rejected. The main question was then called and the resolution with the amendments cited passed 59-35,pages 146-147.Mr Williamson voted with the majority. Days later Mr. Pickering, who had not voted in these matters, proposed a resolution to the House that the doorkeeper buy a thermometer in order to maintain the room temperature at a constant sixty degrees, and ventilate the building so that the health and well being of the members would be insured, page 308. This series of recorded votes is typical of the record keeping during this session. On frivolous votes such as these we can determine something of the legislator’s views/position. On items of major merit we lack an itemized recording of the legislator’s position. On January 11,1847 a bill for “an act to authorize the inhabitants of school districts to employ such teachers as they may think proper” was read a second time when an amendment was offered to amend the state code to allow those who were less qualified to be employed if their pay was less than that for those who were qualified under the state code. The issue come up again in January 12 when it was proposed to refer a resolution to the Education committee to empower the directors of local school districts to determine, by examination, whether teachers were certified to teach certain subjects if they could not meet the qualifications of the state code, page 164.Mr. Williamson voted to lay the amendment on the table and the majority agreed 78-28. The bill on re-apportionment of the legislature was brought to the floor on January 13 and the debate carried over through the 22nd. When the joint committee first proposed a bill they left the numbers blank, subject to the will of the House. The resolution provided “that the joint committee on apportionment be and they are hereby requested, and instructed to report, a bill apportioning the representation of the several counties of this state upon the basis of 6,000 for a representative and 18,000 for a senator”… An intense floor fight then ensued. The initial vote on amendment was not to concur, with Mr. Williamson voting no. On a motion to set the number of persons for Senate districts, Mr. Williamson called for the votes on 33,000.This number was rejected by a vote of 15-86. 24,000 and 22,000 were also rejected before the House accepted 20,000 as the population for Senate districts. This vote was 76-37,Mr. Williamson voting no. On the question as to the number for House districts Mr. Williamson moved that this number be 10,000. Several other motions ranged from 5,450 to 14,000. Mr. Williamson’s call for the votes on 10,000 resulted in a vote to reject (85-27). Later he voted against proposals to set the number at 8,000,7,500,7000,6,666,6000,5000 and 5,450. A motion was made to instruct the joint committee on re- apportionment “it is the sense of this House that the said committee accept as a standard for the Senate a number varying above or below twenty thousand and for the House eight thousand.” Mr. Williamson called for the vote on the amendment and voted for it but it was rejected by the majority (64-47). Finally, on January 22 the House adopted (63-47) the original proposal calling for 18,000 and 6,000. Throughout, Mr. Williamson’s position was to work for the largest possible numbers for senatorial districts but preserve the size of representative districts to conform to Shelby County’ current population. It would be interesting and even vital to know what the population of Shelby County was at this time so that one could assess the future of the county’s political influence in Springfield, pages, 174-219. When the Senate version, with amendments, came back to the House for concurrence, the numbers were 6000 for Representatives and 18000 for Senators and the vote was 75-45 to reject this formula. Mr. Williamson probably thinking these to be the best numbers available for Shelby County voted aye, page 245. When the conference committee came back with a recommendation on the final version of the re- apportionment bill it was passed 78-34,page 312. Mr. Williamson, dissatisfied to the end, voted no. As a result of the re-apportionment the Senate membership in the next session was cut to 26 and the House memberships reduced more than half to 55 and Shelby County would not again have single representation of its’ own, ILLINOIS FIFTH CAPITOL, page 234- 235. It seems clear that Mr. Williamson favored reducing the number of legislators in both houses without diminishing the value of his county’s vote within the legislature. Probably, having previously served in a smaller House/Senate, he thought legislative duties to be more efficacious in a reduced legislature. The House made several attempts to pass an act on the subject of trespass during the session. The sense of the bill is lost in quarreling over a series of amendments that seemed to be frivolous (even ridiculous). Most of these amendments were beaten back, however, this one survived to be included in the bill as it passed its’ third reading: “any person having a wagon mired down shall be considered by this act as being in a distressed situation, and shall not be liable to the pains and penalties of this act for taking rails off fences to prize out their wagons”, Mr. Williamson voted not to pass the amendment and the act, page 186. “A bill for an act making appropriations to the individuals named, for subsistence clothing, forage and materials furnished to the Illinois militia under the command of Brig.Gen.J.J. Hardin”…. was read for the third time and passed 60-44,page 202-203. This action refers to the militia’s activity in Hancock County which at various times in the Journal is referred to as the “Mormon difficulties” Mr. Williamson voted against the appropriation. Mr. Williamson introduced a bill for “An act to investigate and settle the business in the canal office” and another act “to change the time of holding courts in the second judicial district”, page 204. “An act to establish district courts in the state Of Illinois” passed the House with Mr. Williamson voting aye, page 210 When a bill entitled “An act requiring property to be listed for taxation to be assessed at its true cash value” the House rejected it 71-29. Mr. Williamson, in the minority, voted for the principle, page 258. Ancillary to the problem of a shortage of legal tender and a devalued currency was the problem of borrowing for the state and for the private sector. One approach to remedy the problem was to set the rate of interest by law by raising the legal rate, page 39. Another was to allow recovery of six percent on existing contracts and no more, page 66,163. This bill proposed to encourage those who had custody of guardian accounts be allowed to lend at ten percent, page 67 When this particular bill came up a second time this amendment was offered: “That all money in this state, shall be placed under the care of guardians, to be loaned under the provisions of this act”. This amendment and the bill that carried it were defeated (54-48) with Mr. Williamson voting with the majority. On a motion to lay a bill on the table entitled “An act to amend the law relative to the interest on money”. Mr. Williamson voted aye, page 130.On February 4 this bill was reconsidered and was adopted 52 –50. Mr. Williamson voted no. Some counties requested the legal right to borrow money. A petition from Cook County asked that the usury law limit interest rates at no more than 12 percent, page 250.As late as February 10 another “act to regulate the interest on money “was read and ordered to a second reading, page 351. In all of this we still have to guess at Mr. Williamson’s preferences as to interest rates “An act in relation to turnpike gates, toll bridges and ferries” came to the floor. The bill was referred to the State Roads Committee without Mr. Williamson’s support, page 280. On January 21 a resolution was proposed that would request the Illinois delegation to vote for a proposition in Congress that would change the term of US Supreme Court justices from life to a limited term. The resolution was adopted with Mr. Williamson voting for it, page 215-216. This amendment also passed the Senate and the House was asked to concur, page 402. Mr. Williamson was appointed to a select committee to report on a petition from Logan County to re-locate their county seat by a direct popular vote, page 234-235. The committee reported the bill back to the floor and it passed its 2nd reading, page 341 before it was finally passed, page 454. On January 27 Mr. Williamson introduced a bill for “an act to define the practice of law”, page 240.The bill was back on the floor for second reading and passed with Mr. Williamson moving to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, page 281. An interesting colloquy occurred on February 5 that suggests that the members were a bit testy. A resolution was made that ”no member shall be allowed to speak more than twenty minutes on any one question before the House after this day”. Another member immediately proposed a substitute amendment that would read “that no member be allowed to speak on any question after this day”. The substitute was rejected. Mr. Williamson voted against both amendments to limit debate. The previous amendment, however, was adopted without his support 59-44,page 313. A motion was made that the House dissolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider “An act to provide for calling a convention to amend the constitution of this state”, page 319. Mr. Williamson and 74 other members voted aye. The Committee on Education, after reviewing a petition from Pike County relating to taxation for school purposes, reported a committee bill entitled “ An act to exempt the property of persons of color from taxation for school purposes”. The bill was read and moved to a second reading when a motion was made to postpone consideration indefinitely. The vote to postpone was rejected 66-32 with Mr. Williamson voting aye, page 320. There was no subsequent record of what happened to the bill. Individuals in what some called the “disturbances in Hancock County” made a significant number of claims against the state for contributions. The debate suggests that members consider some of the claims to be spurious or excessive, pages 389-390. Mr. Williamson voted no. On “an act making appropriations for the completion of the state house” Mr. Williamson voted first for lower amounts and when these failed against the bill, page 393. From February 7 through 12 and again February 25 to March 1 Mr. Williamson is not recorded on various roll call votes. On February 23 he reported from select committee on “An act to change the time of holding courts in the second Judicial District”. On his motion it passed third reading and on his further motion it was agreed to change the title to: “An act to authorize the Shelbyville School District to elect school directors”. The bill was passed and sent to the senate for concurrence, HOUSE JOURNAL, page 465. “An act to suppress riots and regulating companies, and maintain the supremacy of the laws” was taken up for consideration. Motions were made to set penalties of imprisonment and fines. The amendments were rejected with Mr. Williamson voting to reject. A motion to pass the bill to third reading was also defeated with Mr. Williamson voting against third reading, pages 468-469.However the bill was reconsidered the following day and, with amendments, was adopted by voice vote, HOUSE JOURNAL, page 484. In 1849 Mr. Williamson served as Associate County Judge EXECUTIVE RECORDS, Vol.5, page 242. In 1853 and 1854 he was recommissioned. COMBINED HISTORY OF SHELBY AND MOULTRIE COUNTIES1881, page64. On December 4,1851 William Williamson appeared before the Shelby County clerk petitioning for a Bounty Land Warrant. He had served 23 months in Nicholas Long's Regiment in the war with Great Britain 1812-1815. He testated that he had enlisted at Waynesville, Haywood County, NC about June 1, 1813 for five years and was honorably discharged at Fort Nelson, VA in the later winter or early spring of 1815. His record cited above identifies him as age 18 (in reality he was 14), 5’4", blue eyes, fair hair, light complexion. Under an Act Entitled MILITARY BOUNTY LAND ACT OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1850 BOUNTY # 21586 was issued to William Williamson on January 5, 1853. This gave him title to the West1/2of the South West quarter of section 26 in TS 13 North Range 5 East and the East1/2 of the SE quarter of section 27 TS 13 North and Range 5 East. In January of 1854 these 160 acres in Moultrie County were sold for $176 to Joseph Clark. In order to qualify for the above reward he had to prove that he was indeed entitled and, having lost his military papers, he appeared before the Court in Shelby County and gave the following testimonial: “On the fourth day of December in the year of our Lord, one thousand, eight hundred and fifty one personally appeared before me, Burrell Roberts, clerk of the county court, within the county of Shelby and state aforesaid, William Williamson, aged fifty two years, a resident of the county of Shelby and state of Illinois, who being duly sworn, according to law, declares that he is the identical William Williamson who was a private in the Company, commanded by Captain Robert Love, in the forty third Regiment of North Carolina Infantry, commanded by Col. Nicholas Long in the war with Great Britain, declared by the United States on the eighteenth day of June,Anno Dommi,one thousand eight hundred and twelve; that he enlisted at Waynesville in the County of Haywood, and the state of North Carolina about the first day of June A.D. one thousand eight hundred thirteen for the term of five years, and continued in actual service, for the term of twenty three months and was honorably discharged at Fort Nelson, in the state of Virginia, in the later part of the winter or the beginning of the spring in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, on account of opening (?) negotiations for peace as will more fully appear by the muster rolls of said company and that he received a certificate of honorable discharge, which he lost or mislaid, more than twenty years ago, and cannot now present the same. He makes this Declaration for the purpose of obtaining the bounty land to which he may be entitled, under “The Act granting Bounty Land, to certain officers and soldiers, who have engaged in the military service of the United States” passed September 28, 1850. Signed William Williamson (His signature appears) Sworn of subscribed before me the day and year above written and I hereby certify that I believe the said William Williamson to be the identical man who served aforesaid, and that he is of the age above stated. Burrell Roberts. Clerk His place of residence recorded in SHELBY COUNTY STATE CENSUS, 1855 Film #0977062 At Springfield in 1858 the State Democracy, as the Democratic Party of that time styled itself, met for the purpose of nominating candidates and drafting its' platform. William Williamson attended as a delegate from Shelby County. This convention split on the issue of Kansas' admission to the union. Followers of Stephen A. Douglas opposed admission of Kansas under the LeCompton Constitution, which had been drafted by pro-slavery elements in the territory of "bleeding Kansas". The Buchanan administration supported this constitution as a concession to the South, but Douglas (whom WW supported at the convention) took the position that the people of the entire territory of Kansas should vote on the language of the constitution of the state to be before it should be admitted. Since the free soil element outnumbered the slave element in the territory the supporters of the proposed LeCompton Constitution feared the balance in the US Congress would be upset to the future advantage of the free states. The Free Soil element had drafted a competing proposal, the Topeka Constitution, that would bar slavery from the territory under the popular sovereignty formula proposed by Senator Douglas and his faction. Subsequently, the territory of Kansas would petition for membership under two constitutions and two governments. It was these events, which confronted a divided Democratic Party and Nation in 1858. In Illinois the Democratic Party split into two factions. One of these supported Buchanan and were labeled national Democrats because they attempted to maintain the North-South Axis of the Party. The Douglas faction was styled “Bolters” because they held a separate convention in 1858. The ILLINOIS STATE JOURNAL, 22 April 1858,page 1. In that year the Democracy nominated Stephen A. Douglas for the US Senate and the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln. This campaign produced the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates. Douglas defeated Lincoln in that year but Lincoln won national recognition on the issue of a nation "half slave and half free". Senator Douglas' position was unacceptable in the South because it put a political solution (popular sovereignty) before a constitutional one (slavery was not illegal under the US constitution until 1865). It was unacceptable in the North because it went against the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which the Dred Scott case had nullified. Further Douglas' position did not condemn slavery but instead accepted it as a condition for continued union. A divided Democratic Party in the North and South split its vote in the presidential election of 1860 and Senator Douglas was denied election. Mr. Williamson’s position, like Mr. Douglas', was one of moderation (for that time) with concessions to the slave owner and the South but none to the abolitionist element in the North. It must be remembered that the North was not united behind the abolitionist minority and favored concessions to preserve the union even "half slave and half free". Our ancestor's views lacked the vision of Lincoln and rests on legalistic, cultural and family traditions. The following must have summarized his views at the time: Information For the People (From the SHELBYVILLE UNION, July 18,1863) “Keep it before the people that, at a Democrat meeting held at the Sulphur Spring church, Windsor Township, Shelby County Illinois, February 7,1863,the following resolutions were passed, signed by Wm. Williamson as chairman and published in the OKAW PATRIOT, a Democratic newspaper published in Shelbyville, February 19,1863” “”Resolved, That, inasmuch, as we are forced to the conclusion that this war, now waged by the administration against the South, is not, and has not been, for the restoration of the Union, but has had for its object, the abolition of slavery, the wiping out of state lines, and the territorializing of the Southern states, or failing this a dissolution of the Union, we here deliberately and firmly pledge ourselves, one to the other, that we will not render any support to the present administration in carrying on its wicked abolition crusade against the South; that we will resist to the death all attempts to draft any of our citizens into the army, and that we will permit no arbitrary arrests to be made amongst us by the minions of the administration.” “Resolved that while we regard the Emancipation Proclamation as the final blow that has destroyed all hope of a reconstruction of the Union as it was, we also view it as an entering wedge which will ultimately divide the Middle and Northwestern states from our Puritanical Fanatical New England brethren and finally culminate in the formation of a Democratic Republic out of the Middle Northwestern and Southern States, and for this we are thankful”, HISTORY OF SHELBY AND MOULTRIE COUNTIES, 1910,page 720. Now this is serious stuff with our guy on the wrong side of history. This meeting and these resolutions followed closely on Abraham Lincoln’s EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION (January 1,1863), which redefined the war’s aims. Thereafter, the war was to become revolution from the vantage point of the “peace Democrats” who maintained cultural roots in the Southern States. This element favored “the Union as it was and the constitution as it is”. Their program called for an armistice, the withdrawal of the armies from the border and Southern states, negotiation for reunion, retraction of the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION and, in the words of past Governor John Reynolds, “no more bloodshed to gratify a religious fanaticism”. Because the “peace” Democrats dominated the Illinois legislature they called for an armistice in the 1863 session and the vision of a Northwest Confederacy was given enough credence to pressure the governors of the upper mid- west to govern by decree. The radical abolitionists were also willing to see the Union split rather than to continue to live under a constitution that made slavery legal. The resolutions of February anticipated the adoption in Congress of the first conscription act in March 1863 in which men age 20-45 were subject to military service unless they could afford to pay a commutation fee of $300.The act also encouraged the hiring of substitutes. This act provided that Provost Marshals be established in each Congressional District to enroll the two targeted age groups. The act allowed exemptions and 75% of those called were able to “buy out” and, for various reasons, only 7% of those called to service actually served. No doubt intimidation influenced these results because, in areas such as central and southern Illinois, conscription was seen as an unconstitutional means to achieve unconstitutional ends. We have no record of William’s sons ever serving in the war or being “bought out”, but Thomas at 29, William at 22 and John Henry at 18, were in the age group least likely to be deferred under the law. Although there was grumbling and complaint from troops in the field after the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, and Lincoln had to disband two Illinois regiments, more typically the sons of Illinois were willing volunteers in the Union armies and continued to serve loyally after conscription became the law. Many of the settlers in central and southern Illinois had their origins in the South and William Williamson would have not been too far out of step with his neighbors in endorsing the sentiments expressed in these resolutions. William had brothers who also had sons who would have been subject to military service in the Confederate armies. There is some evidence that members of Martin”s and George’s families did in fact serve in the Rebel cause. For the Williamsons it would have been a brothers/cousins war. It is not beyond imagination to see the family’s removal to Missouri as a reaction to their reputation as Southern sympathizers. But the rhetoric is clear. This is the stuff spewed by Clement Vallandingham et al, and suggests that the makers of these resolutions were fellow travelers with the Confederate cause. Following closely on the bloodbaths at Shiloh, Antietam and Fredericksburg one can understand a desire for compromise and peace but at that time this resolution bordered on sedition. Unionists in the North considered such sentiments to be more than seditious speech; they considered them treason. Lincoln believed this element in the North to be “the fire in the rear” or a “fifth column” that could undermine the Union cause. There were other reasons for this element to be dissatisfied. The confederates at Vicksburg had cut the Mississippi River and normal traffic to markets throughout the Mississippi Rivers drainage forced increased dependence on eastern controlled rails, which charged high rates and sometimes gave poor service. After February, 1863 the establishment of a national banking system, founded on soft money (greenbacks and bonds) that pressured, even forced, state banks to recharter under federal law must have raised the same old fears that had led Illinois to experiment with the complete abolition of banking in the 1840’s. See, McPherson, op cit, and Donald, 416-419. The Williamson residence is recorded in the 1860 US CENSUS in Windsor Township, page 613. Film #0803228. All family members were close by. The residence in 1865 is recorded in the ILLINOIS STATE CENSUS 1865,film #0977767 END NOTES 1 Martin Bonaparte Williamson was born July 9,1804 presumably in Rutherford County, North Carolina, probably in that section that was formed into Haywood County in 1808. He married Rebecca Johnson, B.circa 1805 in North Carolina. They had children: Anderson, Margaret A., Martha J., Harriet A., and Martin. Anderson may have been the second or third child as the 1830 Macon County Census shows a male age 0-5 and a female child 5- 10. The 1840 Cherokee County, North Carolina Census shows a female child born 1820-1825. We do not know where Martin was in 1820 but in 1830 he appears in the Macon County, North Carolina Census on page 10. Macon was formed from Haywood in 1828. On that same page appears Elijah Johnson age 50-60 and possibly Rebecca’s father. In 1838 the removal of the Cherokee nation began from this region of North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. There were a number of North Carolina Companies formed into a regiment to “escort” these Native Americans westward. Most of the militia were from the western and surrounding counties and Martin B. Williamson was attached to the Macon County Company, L. See www.rootswb.com/~ncburke/ncbnc1838 for the list of others who served. In 1839 Cherokee County was formed from Macon County and Martin appears there in the 1840 US Census. This Elijah Johnson may have been the same Elijah Johnston who served as bondsman for his son, Elijah Johnson, who married Polly Riddicks, in Stokes County, North Carolina in 1825. The only verifiable name we have for Elijah Johnson’s wife is Mary. If proximity proves to be relevant it may be that the Elijah Johnston who sold land in Haywood County in September of 1806 is the elder Elijah described above. The property was 100 acres on Scots Creek, see Book A Page 7 of Haywood County Deeds. On 13 January 1844 Martin B. Williams(on) purchased from William Vaughn in Gilmer County, Georgia. See Book A, page 369.The name Riddicks or Reddicks appears in proximity to the Johnsons in several of these residences. A William Reddick served with Martin Williamson in Company L. In June (26) 1860 Martin and family have located to Fannin County, Georgia in District 1130, HH# 280 page 1007.In HH# 262 is Joseph R. Johnson, Born 1800 in NC, the brother of Elijah Johnson. In 1880 Martin B. is aged 76 living with daughter Margaret A. Chambers HH #49,page 25 in Fannin County. William Reddix is close by in HH# 42. Details (1880) show that Martin is widowed and disabled/crippled with a spinal problem. The census taker lists his mother as born in North Carolina and his father’s birthplace unknown. In any event the son of Elijah Johnson, John H. Johnson, married Mary Ann Williamson, the daughter of William Williamson after Elijah and wife Mary Johnson moved their family to Shelby County, Illinois circa 1855. Below are outlined some of several connections between the Johnson and Williamson families. Martin Bonaparte Williamson Rebecca Johnson Mary Ann Williamson John H. Johnson Sarah M. Watts Joseph Johnson John Hayden Williamson Florida Elizabeth John Wilson Williamson Florida Elizabeth Johnson Thomas Anderson Williamson Mary Cary Johnson Thomas Hann Sarah M.Watts Johnson 2 George Williamson We know little more of George Williamson. He was almost certainly born in October 1801 in Rutherford County, North Carolina .He married Elizabeth Lain. Most of their children were born in Haywood County, North Carolina where George and Elizabeth lived out their lives after some time earlier in Tennessee. George died circa 1867.Probably they lived in the Fine’s Creek area of western Haywood County in a region known as Hurricane. George Williamson is identified as an early settler on Hurricane Creek. The source from which this is taken does not stipulate that this is George the brother of William and Martin but almost certainly he must be. This area lies north of the Hurricane Mountains to the Tennessee line. The terrain and drainage pattern would run across the state line into Cocke County, Tennessee. See Medford, THE EARLY HISTORY OF HAYWOOD COUNTY. In 1849 William Williamson is identified as a Judge of Elections, page 84.George. Williamson is identified as some sort of official, page 121. William Williamson served as a private in Haywood Companies C and E of the old 16th N.C. Regiment, later reorganized into the 69th Regiment known as the “Thomas Legion”, page 121.In March 1849 “George Williamson took oath and filed bonds after election as constable in the Fine’s Creek Company. Bondsmen were: Peter Noland, William Williamson, R.B. Nolan, Willis Noland, N.D. Rogers, Mathew Rogers and Solomon Rhea”, HAYWOOD COUNTY MINUTE BOOK L, PAGE 1,1849-1858. This William Williamson is probably the son of George. However In HAYWOOD COUNTY MINUTE BOOK J, page 193 William Williamson served on a jury in January, 1834 and was called to serve again for the September, 1834 term of the Superior Court. page, 217. Now this citation is interesting because George’s (1801) son William was born in Tennessee in 1824 and would have been too young to serve on a jury in 1834. Who is this William? He is not William (1799) because he is in Shelby County Illinois. Martin does not have a son William as far as we can tell. The possibility exists that this William is the father of us all, uncles of George (1801) or another Williamson family altogether and the later sounds unlikely. There is additionally, a William Williamson in the 1830 Haywood County Census who could approximate the age of the elder William. Still another citation worth exploration in New Hanover County is the marriage of Margaret Williamson to Wm. Malpass 22 December 1801 with James and William Williamson Bondsmen. 3 Jefferson Williamson The Shelby County Census of 1850 identifies him as a schoolteacher page, 99. In the Census of 1860 he is a farmer in Big Spring TS, page 13 Shelby County, Illinois. Mary Jane Shields, his wife, birthplace is listed as Missouri. Also Listed with the family is Jefferson Mikel age 19 and Henry C. Mikel age 14. Film # 653,228 with the census taken July 6, 1860. The 1870 US CENSUS record identifies him to be a resident and physician in Medicine TS in Putnam County, Missouri, Page 8.In the 1880 US CENSUS we find him in Jackson TS, Putnam County, Missouri, page 516. In the 1880 record he is listed as a retired physician/paralysis. A letter from a resident of Putnam County describes him as a "country doctor". In a guardian's bond for the children of George and Nancy Williamson he signs as DR. Jefferson Williamson. At this time there is no documentation that he was certified as a physician. It is interesting to note that as a legislator, his father voted on the issue of certification for those who practiced medicine throughout/within the state of Illinois. From the PUTNAM COUNTY, MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT 1867-1873 March, 1871 Vol.1, Book C, Page 290 State of Missouri, Plaintiffs VS Jefferson Wiliamson, David Williamson, Wm.J.Williamson, defendants. Case #1766 "Now this day comes the grand jury and reports that they have ignored a true bill in this cause. It is therefore ordered by the court that the defendants be discharged and go hence without delay and a majority of the grand jury that the prosecuting witness should pay the cost of this cause. It is therefore considered by the court that the plaintiff have and recover against the said prosecuting witness, Benjamin A. Goddard, the sum of _____dollars her cost in this case expended and that she have execution therefore" There is a problem with this record. Perhaps I read it incorrectly. There is no known David or Wm.J. in the family. 4 Margaret Williamson Minor Margaret's death certificate provides an intriguing notation by her son, James Monroe Minor, who provided the information to the authorities. When asked for Margaret's mother's name he answered, CUPP. We have no evidence that this was in fact her name, however, we have the suggestion in the Ledbetter file that Margaret Ledbetter might have been the daughter or sister of Henry Cupp Ledbetter. Years ago a family acquaintance testated in a letter that she, meaning Mary Montgomery, was a Cupps. No evidence other than a memory-- perhaps a mistaken one. Why would James Monroe Minor have produced this for the death certificate if he had had no prior knowledge of the name? The name is not common. Also, as noted above, Harriet Ledbetter who married Margaret's brother in law, Daniel Minor, may have been the source of James Monroe's information and had heard that Harriet's mother or grandmother was a Cupps. Curious though, that William named his oldest daughter Margaret. See comments above on this connection to the Ledbetter name. 5 Thomas Williamson In 1850 US CENSUS he is listed with his parents in Shelby County, Illinois, Film # 0442916,page 603. In 1860 he is listed in Windsor TS, Shelby County, Illinois, page 13. Thomas Williamson age 26 $2700/1000 BP Illinois Martha Ann 27 Indiana John H. 4 Illinois Rebecca A. 2 Illinois William 6/12 Illinois In the 1870 US CENSUS (July 20) we find him in Jackson TS, Putnam County, Missouri, page, 8. HH#56 Thomas Williamson age 37 $1200/300 BP Illinois John H. 14 " Rebecca 12 " William T. 10 " Joseph 7 " In the 1880 US Census he is found in the city of Boynton, Sullivan County, Missouri, page 25. This document was filed for record in Putnam County, Missouri 29 November 1870 in Book 2-15. "I,T.C. Hill Justice of the peace within and for the said county certify that I did on the 19th day of October 1870 perform the marriage ceremony between Thomas Williamson and Mary E. Smith. Given under my hand this 1st day of November 1870. T.C. Hill J.P." Thomas and Mary had three children: Margaret E. Sarah and Effie as reflected in the following Census for Sullivan County, Missouri in 1880 Williamson, TA 45 Grocer ILL NC ILL Eva C. 32 Keeps House GA GA GA Joseph 17 Section Hand RR ILL ILL GA Margaret E. 9 MO ILL GA Sarah 5 MO ILL GA Effie 1 MO ILL GA Smith, Martin 13 MO VA GA The Martin Smith listed with his mother and stepfather Thomas A., is the son of Martin Smith who was Mary C. Johnson Smith's first husband. Interestingly, Martin Smith's brother, Alexander Smith, was first married to Florida Elizabeth Johnson. In effect sisters had married brothers. After Thomas Anderson's death the children lived in the Kansas City area but oral tradition says that the girls were taken "back east”. There is a problem in this as is suggested by the Grundy County record that follows. Joseph Williamson continued to work for the Santa Fe railroad in Kansas/Missouri until his death (30 January 1921) in Lawrence, Kansas. In Grundy County Missouri Thomas A. Williamson of Tindall, Missouri married Matilda Jane Pruden of Trenton, Grundy County Missouri. The license was filed at Trenton on 30 December 1882. The marriage occurred 4 December (possibly 24 December). On 21 March T.A. Williamson and Matilda J. Williamson, his wife, did sign a trust deed in the amount of $100 for Lot 10 Block 6 in the town of Tindall,Missouri. The presumption at this time (1998) is that this T.A./Thomas A. Williamson may be the same as the one who previously was married to Martha Ann Goddard, Caroline Whitamore, and Mary C. Smith. The question remains as to who took the children (the girls) Mary C. or Matilda J? 5 Mary Ann Williamson Johnson Her marriage to John H. Johnson establishes a second Johnson tie in the Williamson family. If the Rebecca Johnson who married Martin Bonaparte Williamson is connected to Elijah Johnson we have further explanation of the proximity that prevailed between these two families. The assumption is that Rebecca and Elijah were sister/brother and the moves of Elijah and Mary Johnson to Shelby County, Illinois and Putnam County, Missouri were not circumstantial events. Also there is that curious reference to Clary Johnson which remains unexplained. 6 Martin Williamson Much of the information on Martin's family/descendants came from Grace Williamson Rhoads, now deceased. Grace wrote that the family lived in a house on the Putnam/Sullivan County line with the kitchen on one side and the remainder of the house on the other. She also wrote that Newtown was at first called "Oldtown" until railroad expansion converted the old town into Newtown. Further, it was her opinion that "there will always be some doubt about whether Putnam or Sullivan County is the proper birth or marriage site for many of these northern Missouri Williamsons". Probably Martin was named for William's brother Martin and he must have been a favorite within the family as Martin was a name selected by several family members. There is a chance that Martin Van Buren was his namesake because of the time of his birth and William held political positions that supported and mirrored the President’s. For a time he operated a drug store in Newtown with his son Elmer. After the death of his first wife, Winifred Gaddis, he married Rosa Orr and they moved to Vernon County, Missouri. Martin and Rosa had a daughter named Winifred who, oddly, was named after his first wife. Upon his death he was buried in the Newtown Cemetery. 7 Reuben Goddard William’s son Thomas Anderson Williamson married first Martha Ann Goddard, the daughter of Joseph Goddard and Rebecca Heaton. Reuben was the elder brother of Joseph. Addenda 1 Properties in Shelby County that are or may prove to be associated with William Williamson and family: Name Purchased size # TS Section Portion Range Wm. Williamson 5/31/1850 79+ 11 2 N1/2NE 4 East Wm. Williamson 4/2/ 1844 40 12N 34 NESW 5 East Wm. Williamson 9/12 1850 40 12N 34 SESW 5 East Jefferson Williamson 11/4 1852 40 12N 28 5East Jefferson Williamson 9/20/1850 41+ 11N 3 W1/2Lot2NW 5East George Williamson 41+ 11N 3 E1/2Lot2NW 5East The first six properties are taken from the ILLINOIS PUBLIC DOMAIN LAND TRACT SALES Data Base. The next two are from the same source for Moultrie County. Wm. Williamson 1/5.1853 80 13N 27 E1/2SE 5East Wm Williamson 1/5/1853 80 13N 26 W1/2SW 5East Wm. Williamson 8/10/1838 40 2888 12N 28 SWNE 5East Wm. Williamson 8/10/1838 40 5392 12N 28 NWSE 5East Wm. Williamson 10/10/1840 40 9800 12N 34 W1/2SW5 5East Asa Ledbetter 11/20/1826 80 156 12N 34 W1/2NE 4East James Ledbetter 12/10/1852 40 9N 4 SESE 6East Wm.B. Ledbetter 10/15/1852 40 9N 4 W1/2NW 6East From the SHELBY COUNTY GRANTEE INDEX FILM#1009141 Wm.B.Ledbetter 9/15/1854 80 9N 9 E1/2NW 6East Green Womack 8/10/1838 40 12N 9 NESW 5East Green Womack 8/10/1838 80 12N 9 W1/2SW 5East John Wegar 10/8/34 80 12N 4 W1/2SE 5 East John Scroggins 9/15/1854 39+ 12N 31 NWNW 5 East William R. Puryear 2/27/1869 40 18 10N SENE 6 East(?) John Scroggins 11/1/1839 44+ 11N 6 E1/2NW 5East Levi Scroggins 11/1/1839 40 12N 19 NESE 5 East From the SHELBY COUNTY GRANTOR DEED INDEX, 1828-1857 VOL.#11009144 1.On 14 March 1839 William Williamson sold to W.F. Thornton the W1/2Lot8 and E1/2Lot B4.Filed 23 March 1839,Book 3,page 601. Presumably this is in Shelbyville. W. Womack listed as JP Price was $60. 2.On 25 January 1842 William Williamson sold to Mathias Snyder N1/2NW1/4 part of section 25, 36-11-3,Filed 29 Price was $150. January, 1842.Book 5,page 286. On 3 October 1845 William Williamson sold to David Harris Part of section 14/15, 24-24-5. Filed 11 On 10 December 1845. Book 7,page 92. Price $100 On 25 December 1845 William Williamson sold to John Cutler Part of section 34, 15-12-4.Filed 25 August, 1846.Book 8,page 58. Price $50 On 10 September 1850 William Williamson sold to Joel Hudson 2- 11-4.Filed 11 January 1851.Book 11,page 72.Price $70 Addenda 2 The Bond-Shelby county connection is based on conjecture and proximity. Because Jefferson, George and William Williamson married three women named Shields, and George Williamson’s widow married James A. Puryear, and returned to Bond County after his death, the following properties in Bond County MAY be associated with William and Mary Montgomery Williamson and family: Name Purchased # Section TS Range Portion William Williamson 1/1/1840 40A 17461 33 5N 3 West SENW William Williamson 1/1/1849 40A 24110 13 4N 3 West NESW Thomas Shields 7/10/1844 80A 10581 12 4N 2 West W1/2NW Thomas Shields 7/10/1844 40A 5831 12 4N 2 West SENW Thomas Shields 11/1/1839 40A 7706 13 4N 2 West NESW John Montgomery 1/1/1840 80A 18854 18 5N 3 West E1/2NE John Montgomery 1/1/1840 40A 20851 30 5N 3 West SENE Joseph Montgomery 1/1/1840 40A 20923 30 5N 3 West NENE William Puryear 12/1/1849 40A 24236 35 4N 3 West SESE Addenda 3 From the Shelby County Circuit Court Case Index 1828-1871 Plaintiff Defendant Wm Williamson, and others vs. John S.Gordon Involving the right of property Appeal Filed 24 August 1832 Box 21 At issue was the following agreement signed by John S. Gordon and W.A. Richardson: “Know all men by these presents that we, John S. Gordon and William A. Richardson are held and firmly bound unto William Williamson and others in the final sum of one hundred dollars, for the payment we and each of us do bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators. Jointly, and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our own seals and dates this 24th day of August A.D. 1832. The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas on the 23 day of August before Owen Prentice, justice of the peace in and for the said county of Shelby and state of Illinois, and Thomas E Blythe Constable of said county on the trial of the right of property judgment with cost was given against the said John S. Gordon and from which judgment the said John S. Gordon has taken an appeal to the Circuit Court of said county, now if on the trial of the said appeal the judgment aforesaid shall be affirmed ,which judgment is for $2.15 and the said John S. Gordon shall pay or cause to be paid the judgment aforesaid and all costs and damages that shall be awarded to the said plaintiffs then this bond to be nofora,otherwise to remain in full for and virtue in law” Signed John S. Gordon and William A. Richardson This case was to come on the first day of the October term of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal on a judgment against Mr. Gordon at the lower court presided over by Justice of the Peace Owen Prentice in which judgment was for the plaintiff. Mr. Gordon was appealing the costs against him in the amount of $2.15. The presiding judge in the 7th District that included Shelby County was one Theophilus W. Smith. A year later William Williamson, as a state senator, would sit in a court of impeachment on charges against judge Theophilus W. Smith brought by the House of Representatives. The judge issued summons to John Brawly and William Siler to witness. Peter Fleming was Sheriff who served the summons. See SENATE JOURNAL for 1832-33 for the transcript of Smith’s trial. Box 5 William Williamson vs. John Reynolds A case In Common law, Trespass “The clerk of the circuit court for Shelby County will please issue a summons in the above cause in an action of Trespass on the case----damages $2000. July 18,1836” This document is written in the clerk’s hand but it is signed W. Williamson in a hand we now recognize to be that of the plaintiff. Judge Joseph Oliver issued the following order to the sheriff of Shelby County: “We command you that you summon John Reynolds if he shall be found in your county to be and appear before the Circuit Court of said county, on the first day of the next term thereof, holden at the court house in the town of Shelbyville, on the first Monday in the month of October next to answer William Williamson of a plea of trespass on this case for words spoken to the damages of the said William Williamson two thousand dollars as he saith, and have you show there this writ”. Witness the Hon. Sidney Breen, Judge of our said court at Shelbyville this 18th day of July 1836. Signed Joseph Oliver, clerk. Though the name is a common one and there could be several John Reynolds out there in 1836 it is interesting to note that a John Reynolds had a notable career in public service and was governor of Illinois, 1830-1834. Additionally, he held many other state offices. Snyder says of him “life without an office being to him intolerable’ he was a perennial candidate. While he was one of the “good old boys” Snyder describes him as “destitute of financial tact and skill”. See Snyder, pages 277- 278 and 297-329. He had the survivor’s instinct and as a “milk and cider” Democrat was often at odds with the “whole hog” element of the Democratic Party to which Mr. Williamson seems attached. Given the disposition of the case, it is my personal view that Mr. Williamson was bringing suit against his fellow Democrat, ex Governor and Congressman John Reynolds for some real or imagined offense. Mr. Reynolds resigned as governor in November 1834 to serve in the House of Representatives in Washington, ILLINOIS FIFTH CAPITOL, page 256. Interestingly, when Adam Snyder, the Democratic nominee for governor died before taking office in 1841 the Shelby County Democratic papers recommended that John Reynolds replace Snyder on the ticket. Happily, the office devolved on Thomas Ford who had “financial tact and skill. See Snyder, page 402. Subsequently the Sheriff returned the order on 7 September 1836 with the following notation: “returned not executed by the order of the plaintiff this 7th Day of Sept, 1836. Signed Peter Fleming D Shrff for J.S. Fleming Shrff Brought before Justice of the Peace in Shelby County B.W. Henry vs. David Harris and William Williamson Filed 19 April 1845. #14 This case was initiated by Mr. Henry against these defendants because one Levi Wright owed Mr. Henry $12.80. Mr. Henry testated that Mr. Levi Wright who was indebted to him in the amount of $12.80 had no property to attach but that he had reason to believe that Mr. Harris and Mr. Williamson were indebted to Mr. Wright. When Mr. Wright’s assets proved nonexistent Mr. Henry asked the court to garnish the assets of Mr. Harris and Mr. Williamson. A summons was issued and Messrs. Harris and Williamson appeared before Justice of the Peace, Peter Potter, in answer to the complaint. Mr. Harris, under oath, denied owing Mr. Wright money and no judgment was issued against him by the court. Mr. Williamson, also under oath, admitted that he was obligated to pay $40 for Mr. Wright but had yet to do so. Judge Parker entered a judgment against Williamson in the amount of $12.80. Mr. Williamson gave notice that he would appeal the court’s decision and any further actions to enforce the ruling were enjoined by the court pending outcome of the appeal. On bond by Williamson on 10 May, 1845 the case was continued. Mr. Williamson sold property to David Harris. See above court case. Brought before the Circuit Court of Shelby Count Filed 18 July 1834 Box 5 William Williamson vs. Lewis Scribner and Jesse Walker, Assumpsit Damages $500 Filed 12 March 1860 Box 42 #139 The defendants signed the following promissory note: “On the 25th day of December next we or either of us promise to pay William Williamson three hundred and sixty one dollars and fourty cents for value received of him to draw at the rate of ten percent per annum until paid when due. This 6th day of September, 1858” Signed, $361.40 Lewis x Scribner, by his mark Jesse Walker, by signature The complaint alleges that the principal was to be paid by 25 December next after the date thereof which period has now elapsed and on the 8th of March were now indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $500 and, after several requests, still have not paid, the plaintiff, by way of his attorney, asked they be summoned to answer. The summons was issued. It is interesting to note that Jesse Walker was the father of Nancy Tamer Walker Williamson and, therefore, John Henry Williamson’s father- in- law. William Williamson, use of George B. Prentice Vs Charles E. Woodward Assumpsit Case #40 in the Circuit Court at Shelbyville Filed 19 March 1860 The plaintiff alleges that on 2 November, 1857 Charles E. Woodward signed a promissory note to pay $700 plus interest of ten percent per annum six months after this date to William Williamson. Thornton and Hall appeared for Mr. Williamson. Their complaint states that “the said defendant has disregarded his said promise and has not paid to the plaintiff the amount of said note and the interest, or any part thereof, or either of them, but has failed and still fails so to do.” A document filed by Mr. Woodward’s lawyer is written in a cursive scrawl that is totally unreadable and indecipherable. Apparently, Mr. Woodward had over the period 3 July 1858 to 4 July, 1859 paid someone $431.13 but the record is unclear to whom and for what. Perhaps Mr. Prentice gave the $700 note to Mr. Williamson with that amount credited toward the note and the case is an attempt to recover the balance. SHELBY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE INDEX 1828-1871 Plaintiff Defendant Gilpin, Thomas Williamson, William Wegar, John, use of Williamson, William Wegar, John, use of Williamson, William Holmes, John B. Williamson, William These cases do not involve the Senior William Williamson but rather his sons, William Williamson and John H. Williamson, as well as others. The case grew out of intent by John Wegar, who had loaned the defendants money in 1869, to recover the unpaid balance. The defendants lost at the trial court level and decided to appeal which also went against them. John B. Holmes who was a defendant at the trial court level sued the Williamsons after he paid the settlement and costs imposed at the lower court. He asserts in his motion that John H. Williamson has left the state and that William Williamson is preparing to leave. The result was that the court issued an attachment in favor of Holmes against the property of William Williamson and John H. Williamson on 31 March 1871. Census Records Addenda 4 ILLINOIS STATE CENSUS 1855 Page 1 Minor, Daniel (Married Harriet Ledbetter) 1 Ledbetter, James L (Married Jane Wegar). 13 Goddard, Joseph (Married Rebecca Heaton) 13 Williamson, Thomas (Married Martha Ann Goddard, et al) 14 Montgomery, William 15 Minor, Monroe (Married Margaret Williamson) Wegar, John Ledbetter, Henry (Married Sarah Jane Wegar) 17 Hyland, John S. (Married Margaret Ledbetter) Page 21 Williamson, George 21 Williamson, William 21 Johnson, Joseph 29 L.F or T. Womack Most likely G for Green or L for Levi 36 Johnson, Elijah (Married Mary Ann Williamson) _______________________________ Sources consulted: Beveridge, Albert J. ABRAHAM LINCOLN: 1809-1858,The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. COMBINED HISTORY OF SHELBY AND MOULTRIE COUNTIES, 1881 and 1910. Donald, David Herbert, LINCOLN, Simon and Schuster, NY, 1995,ISBN#0-684-80846-3 Eckert, Alan W. TWILIGHT OF EMPIRE, Little Brown, 1988.ISBN#0553280597. EXECUTIVE REPORTS in the Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library. Ford, Thomas. A HISTORY OF ILLINOIS, 1818-1847,University of Illinois Press, Urbana. ISBN#0-252-02140-1. 343 pages. ILIINOIS LAWS OF 1833 ILLINOIS LAWS OF 1835 ILLINOIS LAWS OF 1837 ILLINOIS LAWS OF 1839-1840 Johannsen, Robert. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, Oxford University Press, 1973.ISBN# 0-19501620-3 Medford, Clark W. EARLY HISTORY OF HAYWOOD COUNTY, 1961. Reprint from Waynesville Book Company. McPherson, James. BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM, Ballantine Books, NY, 1988.ISBN# 0-345-35942-9 Pease, Theodore C. THE FRONTIER STATE, 1818-1848, University of Illinois Press, 1987.ISBN# 0-252-013387 Reynolds, John. MY OWN TIMES, Chicago, 1879. Sandberg, Carl. ABRAHAM LINCOLN: THE PRAIRIE YEARS AND THE WAR YEARS, Harcourt Brace, and Company, NY, 1954. Snyder, John Francis. ANDREW W. SNYDER AND HIS PERIOD IN ILLINOIS HISTORY 1817-1842,1906. Reprint by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1968. Whitney, Ellen M. THE BLACK HAWK WAR 1831-1832. FOUR VOLUMES. Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library, 1970. ISBN# 912154209. Vol 1 contains rosters. Vol II, part I, ISBN# 0912154-23-2,contains letters and papers. Whitney, Ellen M. THE BLACK HAWK WAR, 1831-1832 VOL II, LETTERS AND PAPERS—PART 1, APRIL 30,1831-JUNE 23, 1832, Collections of the Illinois State Library, 1973.ISBN# 0-912154-22-5. Illinois State Historical Society. ILLINOIS ELECTION RETURNS XVIII, 1818-1848,published by Illinois State Historical Society, Springfield, Illinois, 1923. See also: Alvord, Clarence, COLLECTIONS OF THE ILLINOIS STATE HISTORICAL LIBRARY, VOL 12,1915. Contributor's Note: This file is a record of the public service of a native of Rutherford and Haywood counties North Carolina. He left the area circa 1825 and served in the state of Illinois in various positions. He may have descendants in the area. A brother, George lived out his life in Haywood County and died there in the mid 1860's. I invite any who can contribute or correct the record to reply to me. ___________________________________________________________________ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by: Bill Williamson ___________________________________________________________________