Letter from Benjamin Franklin Christlieb to Ervin G. Chrislip–30 Apr 1895

— Annotations by Ned Crislip —

In our quest for historical information, one of the most valuable pieces of information to come our way was this letter written by family historian Benjamin Franklin Christlieb to his second cousin, Ervin G. Chrislip in West Virginia. Written over 117 years ago, the letter reveals information about our family’s progenitor that otherwise would never have been known.

Long Lake, Minn., April 30, 1895

Ervin G. Christlip, Esq

As I informed your son, Col. Albert G. Chrislip, that there was some of the family history that I thought best not to print in my Family history which were of a nature that should remain as private tradition with the family. Part of my intention in having “The Christlieb Family” printed was to place some copies in the libraries of different state historical societies and perhaps some other libraries; so, besides giving the family genealogy and their history, I gave many items that the general reader might peruse with interest, but there are other items that would impress the general reader differently, especially at the present time should they appear with the family history, with all the circumstances and it would take much more space to make the explanation which, after all, might not remove the curious impression as such comes to mind. So I wrote to your son that some time in the future that I would write some [of] those things either to you or to him.

This explains the source of Albert G. Chrislip's elaborate family history as set down in the history of Barbour County, West Virginia. Albert Chrislip included the story of Turkish Boy as part of his heritage. Once published, the story became accepted by other Chrislip/Crislips in West Virginia as a valid part of their history.

The first circumstance I will refer to is concerning the character of Frederick Charles Christlieb [sic, Friedrich Carl Christlieb], the ancestor of the American family of Christlieb, (page 7). In that paragraph I only hint at several of his peculiarities, but for the purpose of showing further that he may have been a descendant of noble blood, I give further items, although they may not show the ideal nobleman, but they show the possibility of his being one of the noblemen of his day and time.

He had peculiar ideas, dignity, chivalry, and in a discussion with an opponent, he would not tolerate a third party entering the discussion, such action would be resented in a pugilistic manner and, on general principals, he was quick to resent any indignity and with it he possessed the courage to resent such as before stated by physical demonstrations, being a powerful man, physically. He was fearless. He had in this respect the traits that are usually ascribed to the Turkish race and give weight to the supposition that he was the son of the Turkish boy. These peculiarities were intensified in him by the excessive use of wine, which vice, as well as some other, the noblemen and courtiers of that time were not exempt, especially the Counts of Württemberg and Baden. In my historical investigations of those courts during those times, I find usages of the nobility quite immoral, and while these circumstances are perhaps not creditable to our ancestors, they show where he may have acquired his peculiar traits and habits and [these] are perhaps pointers showing his origin. The tradition is that these habits brought him from higher station to a much lower one socially, and that they brought him conflict with the strict and tyrannical laws of his native country and, at time, suffered the penalties that were in vogue at the time. It was a case where the poor old ancestor was more sinned against than sinning. The tradition represents him as a man upright in principal and that it was his impulsiveness in resenting insults or aspersions against his dignity that brought him into trouble.

There are several interesting points in this paragraph: Aside from his alleged immorality (which will be discussed later), it appears that Friedrich Carl Christlieb was a highly visible citizen of Dürkheim, a man whose baptism/conversion was witnessed and endorsed by Palatine Elector Prince Philipp III, two Counts of Leiningen, as well as the Director of the salt-distillery, who was a titled person, and other high-ranking personages of the region. Socially, Friedrich Carl enjoyed a high station (most likely at the salt works) and, because of his background, was probably resented. Politically, it was probably only a matter of time until he fell from favor. He is portrayed by Benjamin Franklin Christlieb as a victim of the tyrannical laws of the time. The reported "insults and aspersions to his personality" were probably anti-semitic in nature. Although he had converted to Christianity, he probably remained a Jew in the eyes of certain citizens of Dürkheim.

The tradition refers to a salt mine or saltworks at [or] near Dürkheim, and I learned through one source that the ancestor was connected directly with a family or one of the families owning the saltworks, and in recognition of that connection received a portion of salt at stated times. Another source gave that portions of salt were distributed amongst the poor people at certain times. I have been unable to learn from history as to what the exact circumstances might have been. The former came to me as the most reliable. In regard to his excessive use of wine, it may be stated that that luxury was produced abundantly in that country at that time as well as the present and seemed to be one of the necessaries of life in the same capacity as coffee and tea are at present. His excess use of wine was a habit likely acquired by association, however.

Somehow this "one source," which reportedly came to B.F. Christlieb as "most reliable," appears to have come from outside the family, possibly a written statement (from Germany?) that named Friedrich Carl as a recipient of salt at specific times. Because it was uncharacteristic for Benjamin Franklin Christlieb to omit sources of information, the "one cource" remains unknown.

Pertaining to Benjamin Franklin Christlieb's concern over Friedrich Carl's excessive use of wine and other vices, it is clear that he was addressing his ancestor's lifestyle against 19^th-century mores that existed in Pennsylvania during his own lifetime. B.F. Christlieb apparently thought that by linking Friedrich Carl's behavior to certain excesses of the nobility, he could strengthen the possibility that the man had descended from nobility. He also sttributed his fearlessness and physical strength to that of a Turk. Research has proven that the Turkish Boy and Simon aus Frankenstein were not one-and-the-same person. The name of the Turkish child who was raised in the court of Baden-Durlach was Friedrich August Christlieb. It is recorded that he was also born of Jewish parents.

I will now allude to the Turkish boy. As my family history states, the question arises at which Siege of Belgrade, that of 1688 or 1717, the capture of the Turkish boy took place. I believe as I claim in the Family History that it took place in 1688, but some may insist that the Siege [of] 1717 is the one alluded to, and should records establish the latter circumstance as the time of the capture of [the] Turkish boy, it is hardly probable that our ancestor was the son, because by 1747, when your grandfather [Jacob] was born, the Turkish boy would have been a grandfather, which could hardly be possible according to the tradition of the Württemberg family in its statement describing the Turkish boy at his capture as a lad, which his mother had hidden in an oven, and consequently too young to become [a] grandfather by 1747. In my investigations I have been unable to learn that … Prince of Baden-Durlach to 1717 ever served in any war but was a man of quite a different character. About that time he built a hunting palace where he kept a multitude of women in tradition of eastern Princes, a seraglio or harem at Karlsruhe, to which state of affairs his subjects protested and finally about 1722 he modified the institution some but did not totally abolish it. Those women bore him many children. We can at least congratulate ourselves that time would not permit our ancestor to have been reared there, and likely no theologians were developed under those conditions.

But, as I claim in my history, I think that the siege of Belgrade of 1688 was the one alluded [to] in the Württemberg and that the Prince of Margrave of Baden-Baden was the friend of Prince Eugene alluded to. He was unmarried, and I think was the last of his family to reign, and subsequently the house of Baden-Durlach ruled over both countries. The … rulers to 1688 of both Baden-Baden and Baden-Durlach were warriors, distinguishing themselves in many battles.

B.F. Christlieb believed that by linking Friedrich Carl's behavior to certain excesses of the nobility, he could strengthen the possibility that the man had been reared in the presence of nobility. He further attempted to strengthen this position by attributing Friedrich Carl's fearlessness and physical strength to that of a Turk.

As I stated in the Family History, the connection between the Württemberg and American family remains a matter of conjecture, but there are many things in the character of the ancestor of the American family to indicate that he may have originated amongst the upper classes of Germany, and there is a probability that through his habits and impulsiveness he may have dropped out of that circle or lost caste and wandered to other parts of Germany, from Baden or Württemberg to Dürkheim. In the Turkish boy incident and its possible connection to the American family in the family history, I thought best to state the facts that I had obtained with as little comment or surmise as possible and let the reader judge for himself. As I state in the Family History the conjecture of our family being connected with the Turkish boy has not become an established fact.

I will now refer to another circumstance that comes down direct through the American family, namely, as to how they were induced to come to America by the Newlanders to giving further details which I thought best not [to] print, as I stated before in this letter. These Newlanders came amongst these people of Germany and represented America as a land flowing with milk and honey – where there were mountains of gold – a promised land, etc., etc. Our old ancestor, while haughty and chivalric in disposition was like many positive characters in the world, [he was] an enthusiast whom these impostors could easily persuade to immigrate to America, which about exhausted his wealth. Georg Bock doing the same, as the family history states, they floated down the River Rhine to Holland in great spirits anticipating the good things that were to be realized in America. On the arrival in Holland they embarked for America, and when this ship was well out to sea, they were made acquainted with what was in store for them in the future. Every passenger and head of a family was presented with a document for him to sign which set forth that they had not the means to pay their passage to America and that in consideration of being transported to America, they agreed to serve a term of years in some manner as payment of such transportation, authorizing the ship master to dispose of such service to the highest bidder on their arrival in America. Just how it was arranged, I never fully learned. When the document was presented, old Frederick (our ancestor) peremptorily refused, because he had already paid for his transportation to the Newlanders. He was threatened and menaced with demonstrations of throwing him overboard unless he signed the document, all of which he resisted fearlessly and still refused to sign the documents. Finally, he was seized and after a stout resistance on his part, was tied preparatory to throwing him overboard, when he consented to sign the document. After which there were not further attempts to disturb them on the part of [the] ship’s managers, but they experienced a tempestuous voyage. They were driven out of their course and came near encountering a waterspout into which a ball was fired from a cannon from the ship which relieved the danger.

Benjamin Franklin Christlieb described their tempestuous voyage and their encounter with the waterspout in one of his drafts of the family history. For whatever reason, he omitted the incident in the final draft of his book.

On their arrival at Baltimore they were disposed of about the same as slaves under the provision of the fatal document which the ancestor was forced to sign. The services of the two sons were purchased by a humane German of Maryland on whom the sons prevailed to purchase the time of the parents, they agreeing to work it out. So that the parents were once more free. The sons served eight years for themselves and parents. This is the real history of what I allude to on page 10. There were many instances of that kind amongst the Pennsylvania Germans, but I find that historians and families omit that circumstance in published histories of their families. I would rather carry the idea that they were slaves, which term was hardly applicable. Still, these circumstances led to a protest on the part of Rev. Frances Daniel Pastorious, one of the founders of Germantown, Pa., against slavery, whom the post, Whittier, has immortalized as being the first man in America to raise his voice against slavery. In the treatment of these people there was not much difference made between the white and black servants. Poor old Uncle Buck (George Buck) and wife had a serious time in their servitude till they fell into Mr. Scouller’s hands, which I mention in the History. He was very kind and humane to Buck and wife. Previous to coming to him they served with an Irishman who quarreled more or less with his wife, and this old couple took into account the action of the servants in their quarrels. If the servants sympathized with the husband, they would fare poor at the table, or if they sided with the landlady, they suffered in the field at work. On one occasion Buck was rather in sympathy with the husband and on coming to the table on this occasion, Mrs. Buck discerned a cup of swill at her husband’s place instead of milk to eat with his mush (mush and milk being part of the fare [in] those times), she shyly exchanged the swill for the proprietor’s cup of milk. So, when the proprietor undertook to eat his mush, found swill instead of milk and in consequence, he flew into a terrible range exclaiming, “Dreadful1 Dreadful! In his Irish dialect. There was a racket in the household in consequence. Things went on till the proprietor became afflicted with Quinsy and was kept from eating for a time in consequence and was suffering with hunger. Finally, he thought he could eat some mush and milk which was placed before him. When he undertook to partake of it in a ravenous manner, he found himself choking from which condition he could not be relieved and death resulted. After his death, Buck and wife were transferred to Scouller.

Back to Top

The above not only offers proof of indentured servitude, it also explains how Friedrich Carl and Anna Catharina and Georg and Catharina Bock came to be located at Big Spring (later Newville), Pennsylvania. Simply put, the "Irishman" who bought Georg and Catharina's indenture, resided there. It also tells of the hard life and meager diet of the indentured servants in those days. The "Irishman" mentioned was most likely of the Scot-Irish community that populated Big Spring. The Christliebs and Bocks were alleged to be the first Germans to arrive in that community.

John Scouller apparently bought the remainder of Georg and Catharina Bock's indenture. In his history, B.F.C. reported that Friedrich Carl and his step-son, Georg, had been millers by trade. It is probable that Friedrich Carl worked for Scouller as a free man, prior to Scouller's buying the remainder of Georg Bock's indenture. It is interesting that George's nephews and nieces referred to him by the endearment, "Uncle Buck."

Jacob, your grandfather and Charles, my grandfather, after completing their term of service in Maryland came up into Pennsylvania as you will see in the Family history.

If you never had any instruction of this history, you may think it almost marvelous, but I often heard my father tell of these circumstances and many experiences of the two brothers (our grandfathers) during that time. Some were amusing while others were sad and pathetic. Amongst them was the occasion of the death of their mother. My grandfather, after he and his brother had retired one night, saw his mother approach his bedside, which he knew must be a vision for it was impossible for her to be there. That night a message came for them to hurry to the dying bed of their mother. They arrived in time to see her alive but unable to speak but to notice many manifestations of motherly affection.

Benjamin F. Christlieb wrote that Anna Catharina died within ten years after the family's arrival in America. By the time of her death, ca. 1775, the boys would have completed their eight years of indentured sevitude and would have located, as B.F.C. reported, at "Yellow Breeches Creek on the line of Cumberland and York Counties, Pa., where they were within easy communication of their parents." Anna Catharina's being unable to speak indicates that she may have suffered a stroke.

Being pioneer Germans of that locality they had many peculiar experience with those Irish settlers who were prone to treat the Germans with disrespect by calling them “Dutch,” etc. while they, our ancestors, kept within bounds, patience would cease to be a virtue with them sometimes, and perhaps an Irishman or two would be seen measuring their lengths on the ground from the effect of well-dealt blows from the “Dutch.” They [Friedrich Carl and his sons] were powerful men, muscular and fearless, but peaceable if not imposed upon, and I would add further that our grandfathers, etc. were not quarrelsome, and the few circumstances, for there were few of them, took place as [a] matter of self defense as far as our grandfathers were concerned.

The above is further evidence of Friedrich Carl Christlieb's difficult life. It was bad enough that he suffered the torments of living on the fringe of society in Germany; now in America, he had to endure the prejudices of the Scot-Irish population. It is apparent that his life was spent dealing with one societal problem or another. It is understandable how he came to develop the attitude and life-style he possessed. His wife and children must have been his only joy.

I will speak of one other circumstance. A few months ago I received a letter from one [of] our race who had evidently not been informed that my efforts in getting up the family history was only [concerned] with the historical and antiquarian idea. He stated that he was informed that I was investigating as to an inheritance in Germany that legitimately belonged to the family. I would state that I never heard of anything coming directly through the Christlieb race, for it there was anything, the old ancestor likely exhausted it before coming to America. But I often heard my father narrate a circumstance with which George Buck was associated and which my father learned from him.

This letter reveals that the 1747 birth date assigned to Jacob came from Ervin G. Chrislip. The date, which is consistent with the one recorded on Jacob's gravestone, was accepted until Jacob's confirmation entry was found in the Lutheran Church records at Dürkheim. According to the church record, Jacob's confirmation took place in 1763 when he was 14 years of age, thus fixing his birth in 1749. There is, of course, the possibility that the church record is incorrect, that Jacob was 16 years old when he was confirmed. Of the 40 persons confirmed that year, none were age 16; one was age 12, six were age 13, twenty-nine were age 14, and four were 15 years old. Since age 14 seems to have been the average age at confirmation, it seems likly that the church record is correct. Genealogically speaking, the Dürkheim record would be considered as a primary document and would, therefore, take precedence over the gravestone inscription.

Buck stated that when he left Germany he had an uncle still residing there who was wealthy but had no children and that he, George Buck, would naturally have been one of the uncle’s heirs, if not the sole heir. George Buck in his life never investigated as to the death of this uncle and I never heard that any of the Christlieb race ever did. George Buck also had no heirs, so his half-brothers Jacob and Charles Christlieb and descendants would naturally have been his heirs. I never learned whether this uncle of Buck’s was [an] uncle from his father’s side or his mother’s side of the house or even where he resided unless it was at Dürkheim. Also, I never saw Buck’s name written in any document coming from Germany, but likely his name in German was spelt B-o-c-k, Buck being the name in English for the male of animals of the deer species, so Bock is the German, but I learned through my father that his name was “Johann Georg Gottfried Bock – English, “John George Godfrey Buck.” This is all the traditional information I have on the subject. I have sometimes spoke to Germans as to the prospect of obtaining such inheritance and their answer was that the German laws gave estates to which no heirs laid claim to the government after a certain time, which was not a very long time either and also in claiming such a change in one letter in spelling a name would debar a claimant. This all the information I have as to any inheritance also. I might be mistaken as to the laws of Germany, but there [is] one thing certain, it would take a considerable sum of good money to hunt it up, as I learned last summer in trying to hunt something further abut the race in Germany, namely: The birth and marriage of the ancestor of the American Race and also the birth of your grandfather. Fortunately, however, you were able to furnish me that latter information. I learned nothing further in my correspondence with Germany than what I had already known.

Benjamin Franklin Christlieb felt the need to address an acusation that he was putting together the family history in order to claim an inheritance in Germany. In the 19^th century, many people were duped by scam artists who told unsuspecting people that a legacy awaited them in the Old Country; that inquiries could be made on their behalf provided certain payments were made in advance. It is obvious that Benjamin Franklin Christlieb wanted it understood that his intentions for publishing the family history were honorable.

The part regarding Georg Bock's wealthy uncle is very interesting: the uncle in question may have been one of two individuals mentioned in the baptismal entry for Georg Bock's sister, Johanna Susanna Elizabetha, who was baptized at Dürkheim on June 12, 1740. The first of these was a witness, "Johann August Bock, innkeeper at the White Bear Inn in Mannheim." The second was the father of a witness, referred to as "a well-situated citizen and merchant at Wachenheim, Herr Johann Caspar Bruch."

Did you ever learn much about your grandmother whose maiden name was Nancy Singer, as given by you? In my day I knew of people about Carlisle, one of whom was Jason W. Eby, who were related to your branch of the family. Aunt Sally (as we called Uncle Solomon’s wife and was your aunt also) was related to him. Jason W. Eby was a public spirited man and one [of] considerable influence and our venerable aunt often sought his advice especially after the death of her husband. There is some association of those people, which extended even to the relatives of my own mother, whose name was Wise, and I have sometime queried whether the association did not extend back to the first benefactor of the family in Maryland who kindly relieved them from the intrigues of the Newlanders.

In his draft of The Christlieb Family, Benjamin Franklin Christlieb mentioned Jason W. Eby in connection with Nancy Singer, but failed to mention it in the completed book. The connection between these individuals became a pivotal clue in unraveling Nancy Singer's genealogy.

In those days, especially [at the] beginning of the present century there was a very direct communication with Baltimore which was much nearer Carlisle than Philadelphia and, in fact, Baltimore was the most convenient market, and farmers did much freighting for other people besides marketing their own produce. My father and also his brothers in their young days made many trips to Baltimore, especially after the Turnpikes were constructed. I meant to have dwelt more on the transporting of produce to and from the cities and seaports in my history, but someway it was overlooked, owing to my sickness. This is about [all] I can think of at present. I remain as ever.

Sincerely, Your cousin, B.F. Christlieb

Back to Top