Valentine “Wall” Hatfield Property in Logan County (1874-1893)

13 Saturday Feb 2021

Posted by in Big Sandy Valley, Hatfield-McCoy Feud

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The following land information is derived from Land Book 1873-1874, Land Book 1880-1886, Land Book 1887-1892, and Land Book 1893-1899 at the Logan County Clerk’s Office in Logan, WV:

Valentine Hatfield

No property listed in 1865-1873.

1874: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

144 acres Double Camp Branch, Beech $0.10 per acre no building $14.40 total

[Note: Regarding the latter tract, the book reads “entered on Books and corrected.”]

1875: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

144 acres Double Camp Branch, Beech $0.25 per acre no building $36 total

1876: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

144 acres Double Camp Branch, Beech $0.10 per acre no building $14.40 total

1877: Magnolia District

The record is blank.

1878: Magnolia District

48 acres Beech Creek $5.25 per acre no building $141 total

144 acres Double Camp Branch, Beech Creek $0.25 per acre no building $36 total

1879: Magnolia District

No records for this year.

1880-1881: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

144 acres Double Camp and Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $36 total

1882: Magnolia District

The Hatfield page is missing

1883: Magnolia District

The record is blank for this year.

1884-1885: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5 per acre $50 building $420 total

144 acres Double Camp, Sandy River $1 per acre no building $144 total

1886: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek, Sandy River $5 per acre $15 building $125 total

114 acres Double Camp, Sandy River $1 per acre $75 building $280 total

1887: Magnolia District

84 acres Beech Creek $5 per acre $50 building $420 total

144 acres Double Camp, Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $144 total

1888: Magnolia District

44 acres Beech Creek $5 per acre $50 building $220 total

144 acres Beech Creek $1 per acre no building $144 total

[Note: In this year, Wall Hatfield transferred 40 acres of the 84-acre tract to Doc Mahon.]

1889: Magnolia District

No property listed.

[In 1889, he transferred 89 acres on Beech Creek worth $1 per acre and total value of $89 to Ephraim Hatfield. Also, transferred with others 126 acres on Beech Creek worth $1 per acre and total value of $126 to J.D. Sergeant of Philadelphia.]

1890: Magnolia District

No property listed.

[Note: Wall Hatfield died on February 13, 1890 at Frankfort, KY.]

1891: Magnolia District

Jane Hatfield

84 acres, Beech Creek, $2 per acre, no building, $168 total

[Note: “Entered with 1 yr B tax.”]

1892-1893: Magnolia District

Jane Hatfield

84 acres, Beech Creek, $2.50 per acre, $40 building, $210 total

Elias Hatfield Property in Logan County (1869-1894)

12 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in Big Sandy Valley, Guyandotte River, Hatfield-McCoy Feud, Logan, Matewan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The following land information is derived from Land Book 1866-1872, Land Book 1873-1874, Land Book 1880-1886, Land Book 1887-1892 , and Land Book 1893-1899 at the Logan County Clerk’s Office in Logan, WV:

Elias Hatfield

No property listed in 1865-1868.

1869-1870: Magnolia Township

100 acres Mates Creek $4.00 per acre no building $400 total from E.K. Counts

30 acres Mates Creek $10 per acre no building $300 total from E.K. Counts

50 acres Mates Creek $20 per acre no building $1000 total from E.K. Counts

1871: Magnolia Township

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $90 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $150 total

1872: Magnolia Township

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $90 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $150 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $150 total

350 acres Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $87.50 total from W. Alderson (assessor)

1873: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $40 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

400 acres Two Tracts Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

350 acres Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $87.50 total

1874: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre $50 building $300 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $40 total

400 acres Two Tracts Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

350 acres Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $87.50 total

1875-1876: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre $50 building $300 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3.00 per acre no building $40 total

400 acres Two Tracts Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

[Note: In 1875, Elias transferred his 350-acre tract but records do not identify the recipient.]

1877: Magnolia District

Records are blank for this district.

1878: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $90 building $90 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $100 total

50 acres Mates Creek $2 per acre no building $100 total

[Note: Records for this year spelled his name as Allias Hatfield.]

1879: Magnolia District

Records are missing for this year

1880: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $90 building $90 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $100 total

50 acres Mates Creek $2 per acre no building $100 total

1881: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $90 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $100 total

50 acres Mates Creek $2 per acre no building $100 total

[Note: The 100-acre tract was noted with this: “yrs from G.W. Duty.” The 30 acre tract was noted as “change to Hardee Dist on Book 1882.”]

1882: Magnolia District

The Hatfield page is missing.

1883: Magnolia District

The record is blank for this district

1884: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre $30 building $120 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

1885: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre $30 building $120 total

400 acres 2 Tracts, Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $400 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

749 acres Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $749

322 acres Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $322 total

[In 1885, he acquired the 749-acre tract from a commissioner. No indication is given about the source of the 322 acres.]

1886: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre [blank]

30 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre [blank]

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre [blank]

1471 acres 4 Tracts Mates Creek $1 per acre [blank]

600 acres Sandy River $1.90 per acre no building $56 total

1887: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre $50 building $300 total

30 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre $30 building $120 total

50 acres Mates Creek $3 per acre no building $150 total

1471 acres 4 Tracts, Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $1471 total

600 acres Sandy River $1.90 per acre $40 building $1140 total

1888: Magnolia District

600 acres Sandy River $1.90 per acre $40 building $1140 total

1889-1891: Magnolia District

600 acres Sandy River $1.90 per acre $40 building $1140 total

1889-1891: Logan District

30 acres Big Island $20 per acre no building $600 total

13 acres Big Island and Washed Part $1 per acre no building $13 total

[Note: The 30-acre tract was acquired from Oliver Perry. No indication of the source for the 13 acres. According to the 21 March 1889 issue of the Logan County Banner: “On the 18th inst., Elias Hatfield, purchased of Oliver Perry, the property known as the ‘Big Island’ near this place.”]

1892-1894: Magnolia District

400 acres Sandy River $5 per acre $50 building $2000 total

1892-1894: Logan District

25 acres Big Island Guyandotte River $20 per acre no building $500 total

18 acres Big Island Guyandotte River $1 per acre no building $18 total

Anderson Hatfield Property in Logan County (1869-1893)

12 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in Big Sandy Valley, Hatfield-McCoy Feud, Matewan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The following land information is derived from Land Book 1866-1872, Land Book 1873-1874, Land Book 1880-1886, Land Book 1887-1892, and Land Book 1893-1899, as well as various deed books, at the Logan County Clerk’s Office in Logan, WV:

Anderson Hatfield

[Property listed in name of Levecy Hatfield in 1869, Levica Hatfield in 1870-1871, Levisa Hatfield in 1872, 1874, and 1876, Levitna Hatfield in 1873, Lavisa Hatfield in 1875, Levica Hatfield in 1889, Lovicy Hatfield in 1890-1891, Lovica Hatfield in 1892, and Levicy Hatfield in 1893.]

No property listed in land books for 1865-1867.

On October 19, 1867, George* and Nancy Hatfield of Pike County, KY, deeded 100 acres on Mate Creek to Levicy Hatfield of Logan County, WV, for five hundred dollars. The property began in the upper end of Mash Field and extended to the mouth of Meadow Branch. Witnessed by JP William Tiller on October 19, 1867.

No property listed in the land book for 1868.

1869: Magnolia Township

100 acres Mates Creek $4.20 per acre no building $420 total

55 acres Mates Creek $2.10 per acre $75 building $136.50 total

[Note: Based on the land book, both tracts were acquired in 1869 from George Hatfield of Kentucky. Also, the 55-acre total value figure did not include the value of the building. Note the actual date of purchase for one of the tracts was 1867, as per the deed.]

1870: Magnolia Township

100 acres Mates Creek $4.20 per acre no building $420 total

55 acres Mates Creek $2.10 per acre no building $136.50 total

1871-1872: Magnolia Township

100 acres Mates Creek $4.20 per acre no building $420 total

55 acres Mates Creek $2.10 per acre no building $115.50 total

[Note discrepancy in the valuation for the 55-acre tract.]

1873: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

55 acres Mates Creek $4.20 per acre no building $420 total

1874: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $4.20 per acre no building $420 total

55 acres Mates Creek $2.10 per acre $115.50 total

On December 29, 1874, Anderson and Lovicy Hatfield sold 200 acres to Polly Hatfield (all of Logan County) for $780 on Mates Creek. Began at the foot of the north hill at the upper end of the old Mash Field, a conditional corner between Ephraim Hatfield and Anderson Hatfield to the mouth of Meadow Branch to include all the land that George Hatfield had deeded to Lovicy Hatfield. Anderson and Lovicy signed the deed using an “x.” Justice of the peace Valentine Hatfield witnessed the deed on December 29, 1874.

[Note the original 100 acres from the 1867 deed has now become 200 acres.]

1875: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre $50 building $400 total

55 acres Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $13.75 total

1876: Magnolia District

100 acres Mates Creek $4 per acre no building $400 total

55 acres Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $13.75

[Note: In 1876, according to the land book, Anderson Hatfield transferred 200 acres on Mates Creek worth $0.25 per acre and with a total worth of fifty dollars to Polly Hatfield; the deed is dated 1874 (see above); the 1878 land record corrected the acreage to 55 acres by order of P.A. Counts]

1877: Magnolia District

No records available for this year.

On July 2, 1877, Anderson and Lovicy Hatfield deeded 150 acres at Double Camp and Road forks of Mates Creek for $75 to Floyd Hatfield (all of Logan County). Began at the back line of the John Green survey below Double Camp, then up the main ridge to the top of the point above Road Fork, thence to John Green survey line. Anderson and Lovicy signed the deed using an “x.” Justice of the Peace Valentine Hatfield witnessed the deed on July 2, 1877.

On December 24, 1877, Anderson and Levisa Hatfield deeded 1500 acres on Grapevine Creek to James Vance, Jr. (all of Logan County) for $1400. Began near the mouth of Wolf Pen Fork, thence to the top of the mountain between Grapevine and the river, thence with mountain to dividing ridge between Grapevine and Beech Creek, thence to head of Thacker Creek, thence down ridge between Thacker and Mates Creek… References the ridge between the Wolf Pen and Mill Seat Fork. Anderson and Levicy signed the deed using an “x.” Justice Valentine Hatfield witnessed the deed on December 24, 1877.

1878: Magnolia District

Anse Hatfield owned no property in 1878.

[In 1878, as per the land book, Anderson Hatfield transferred 150 acres on Double Camp and Road Fork of Mate to Floyd Hatfield worth twenty cents per acre and with a total worth of $20. Records showed this as “transferred from Anderson Hatfield.” Note: The deed (above) shows the transfer as 1877.]

1879: Magnolia District

No records exist for this year.

1880-1881: Magnolia District

As per land book, Anse Hatfield owned no land.

On December 9, 1880, Anderson Hatfield, Lovicy Hatfield, Elias Hatfield, and Henry Mitchell deeded 200 acres on Wolf Pen Fork of Grapevine Creek to Robert Cox (all of Logan County) for $200. Anderson Hatfield, Lovicy Hatfield, Elias Hatfield, and Henry Mitchell signed the deed. Justice of the peace Valentine Hatfield witnessed the deed on December 10, 1880.

1882: Magnolia District

The Hatfield page is missing from the land book.

On January 28, 1882, Anderson and Vicy Hatfield deeded 200 acres at Lick Fork of Grapevine Creek to Johnson Hatfield (all of Logan County) for $250. Began at a large rock near the creek bank just above the garden field at the mouth of Lick Fork, thence running out to the center of the point above Lick Fork…to the head of Lick Fork and down the top of the ridge between Grapevine and Thacker Creek… Anderson and Vicy Hatfield signed the deed. Justice Valentine Hatfield witnessed the deed on January 28, 1882.

1883: Magnolia District

Records for this district are blank.

1884: Magnolia District

37 acres Tug River $1 per acre no building $37 total

2900 acres Grape Vine, Tug River $1.25 per acre $50 building $3625 total

[Note: In 1884, Anse transferred 100 acres to Daniel Christian on Grape Vine and Sandy River worth $1.25 per acre with no building and valued at $125. In 1884, Anse transferred 150 acres on Beech Creek and Sandy River to Jacob Francesco worth $1 per acre with no buildings and total value at $150. This latter tract states “by A. Hatfield by P. Mayhorn” and adds that “books don’t show A. Hatfield is owner.” Anse is not named in the 1884 deed to Jacob Francesco.]

1885: Magnolia District

37 acres Tug River $1 per acre no building $37 total

2750 acres Grapevine Creek and Tug River $1.25 per acre $50 building $3437.50 total

[In 1885, he transferred 50 acres on Sandy River to Moses Christian worth $1.25 per acre with a total worth of $62.50. In 1885, he transferred 100 acres on Grapevine Creek to Samuel Mayhorn worth $1.25 per acre with a total worth of $125.]

1886: Magnolia District

No property listed for him in 1886.

[In 1886, he transferred 500 acres on Pigeon Creek to James Ferrell worth $1.12 per acre with a total worth of $500. This note referenced him as “A. Hatfield Sr.” In 1886, he transferred 25 acres on Tug River to E.S. Murphy worth $1 per acre and a total worth of $25. In 1886, he transferred 340 acres on Beech Creek to Harrison Steel valued at $2.25 per acre and with a total worth of $765. This latter note stated: “2 years back tax and with interest; transferred from Ans Hatfield.”]

1887: Magnolia District

37 acres Tug River $1 per acre no building $37 total

2360 acres Grape Vine $1.25 per acre $50 building $2950 total

[Note: For both entries, the record reads: “one yr bk tax & interest.” In 1887, he transferred 69 acres on Sandy River worth $1 per acre and total worth of $69 to James Mounts. In 1887, he transferred with others 100 acres on Sandy River worth $1 per acre and total value of $100 to Charles R. Mounts. In 1887, he transferred 200 acres on Beech Creek to Harrison Steel worth $1 per acre and total value of $200.]

1888: Logan District

[On April 10, 1888, Lewis S. Steel sold 200 acres on Island Creek to Vicie Hatfield for $900. Deed Book L, p. 53.]

[On May 1, 1888, Anse and Levicy Hatfield agreed to a quit claim deed for mineral rights to 600 acres in the head of Island Creek to Stuart Wood for $1, and fifty cents per acre once surveyed and the title perfected. Deed Book K, p. 158-159.]

[On May 10, 1888, L.D. and A.E. Steel sold 250 acres on Island Creek to Levicy Hatfield for $500. Deed Book L, p. 52.]

1888: Magnolia District

No property listed for him, but a note in 1893 lists back taxes owed for:

Anderson Hatfield

2656 1/2 acres Grapevine Creek $3.50 per acre no building $9297.75 total

[Note: In 1888, he transferred 300 acres on Grapevine, Sandy River worth $1.25 per acre and total value of $375 to J.D. Sergeant of Philadelphia, PA. In 1888, he transferred along with others 1385 acres on Sandy River worth $1.25 per acre and total worth of $1632 to J.D. Sergeant.]

1889: Logan District

Levica Hatfield

250 acres Island Creek $1 per acre no building $250 total

200 acres Island Creek $1.40 per acre no building $280 total

1889: Magnolia District

Anderson Hatfield

2656 1/2 acres Grapevine Creek $3.50 per acre no building $9297.75 total

[On April 9, 1889, Anse and Levisy Hatfield deed to James E. Price, trustee, for $825 the mineral rights of 821 acres on Island Creek. Deed Book 47, p. 67-70.]

[On September 6, 1889, Anse Hatfield deeded all of the timber on his Island Creek property to the Little Kanawha Lumber Company for $352. References Anse having the right to put in a grist mill at the splash dam. Deed Book O, p. 410-411.]

1890-1891: Logan District

Lovicy Hatfield

250 acres Island Creek $1 per acre no building $250 total

200 acres Island Creek $1.40 per acre no building $280 total

[On November 21, 1891, Anse and Levicy Hatfield deeded to Stuart Wood and J.A. Nighbert for one dollar a right of way for splashing timber at the 821 acres. References Conley Bottom, the mouth of Dempsey Branch, and Conley’s Creek. Deed Book M, p. 189.]

1890-1891: Magnolia District

Anderson Hatfield

2656 1/2 acres Grapevine Creek $3.50 per acre no building $9297.75 total

1892: Logan District

Lovica Hatfield

250 acres Island Creek $2 per acre no building $500 total

200 acres Island Creek $5 per acre $500 building $1000 total

[On June 18, 1892, Anse and Levicy deeded to G.R. Buskirk for $2 his timber on 400 acres. Deed Book Q, p. 370.]

1892: Magnolia District

Anderson Hatfield

2656 1/2 acres Grapevine Creek $3.50 per acre no building $9297.75 total

1893-1894: Logan District

Levicy Hatfield

250 acres Island Creek $2 per acre no building $500 total

200 acres Island creek $5 per acre $500 building $1000 total

1893: Magnolia District

Anderson Hatfield

2656 1/2 acres Grapevine Creek $3.50 per acre no building $9297.75 total

[Note: In 1893, the tract at Grapevine Creek was noted: “entered with 5 yrs back taxes and interest.”]

1894: Magnolia District

Anderson Hatfield

2656 1/2 acres Grapevine Creek $3.50 per acre no building $9298 total

*George Hatfield (1804-1883), son of Ephraim and Anna (Musick) Hatfield; father of “Preacher Anse” Hatfield.

NOTE: Many discrepancies exist between the land books and deeds for Anderson Hatfield.

Perry A. Cline Deed to Anderson Hatfield (1877)

12 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in Big Sandy Valley, Hatfield-McCoy Feud

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

P.A. Cline to Anderson Hatfield, 5000 acres (23 March 1877), Deed Book __, page __, Logan County Clerk’s Office, Logan, WV.
P.A. Cline to Anderson Hatfield, 5000 acres (23 March 1877), Deed Book __, page __, Logan County Clerk’s Office, Logan, WV.

Warning Issued to State Tourists (1925)

11 Thursday Feb 2021

Posted by in Guyandotte River

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

From the Logan Banner of Logan, WV, comes this item regarding streams in West Virginia. The item is dated September 11, 1925.

Warning Is Issued to State Tourists

Warning was issued Wednesday by officials of the state health department for tourists in West Virginia and to residents generally to be careful of the source of supply from which they may obtain their drinking water.

The drought in the state has caused numerous streams and wells to dry up, thus rendering persons liable to typhoid, which already has reached huge proportions, even beyond that of former years.

The typhoid germ, under such conditions, can easily breed, owing not only to safe wells becoming dry, but from low water in streams being unable to wash sewage and refuse away from communities.

Incidentally when rain does come, officials pointed out that precautions must be taken as the accumulated refuse and sewage which ordinarily is taken away gradually will be removed en-masse and often is thrown by high water upon banks to be left there after the waters recede.

E.S. Tisdale, chief sanitary engineer of the department, announced that his division is working out a system of seals which the officials plan to put on all safe water supplies for the benefit of tourists and residents. This system is similar to that of Ohio, which is called the “seal of safety,” and has been in successful effect in that state for a year. Indiana, Illinois and Pennsylvania also are employing the same method to insure safe water.

The season is so late, however, that it is not likely the drive to mark all safe water supplies will be put into effect before spring of next year.

The drought is not only causing disease menace but is causing the trees to die, thus creating fire menace in the forests and thousands of fish are dying in the streams for lack of water.

Harts News 12.04.1925

11 Thursday Feb 2021

Posted by in Big Creek, Harts, Huntington, Logan, Ranger

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An unnamed correspondent from Harts in Lincoln County, West Virginia, offered the following items, which the Logan Banner printed on December 4, 1925:

Here comes Harts again. All the boys and girls seemed to be enjoying themselves at Harts Sunday.

Mr. and Mrs. John McEldowney are with relatives at Harts.

Mr. Charles Brumfield was looking after business matters in Huntington Tuesday.

Mr. Albert Kirk of Henlawson was the guest of Mr. and Mrs. Watson Adkins at Harts Sunday.

Misses Thelma Dingess and Cora Adkins of Logan spent Sunday with homefolks at Harts and were accompanied by Miss Jessie Brumfield.

Mr. Tom Brumfield is visiting friends at Charleston this week.

Mr. Adams of Big Creek was calling on friends in Harts Sunday.

Mr. Fred Shelton was in town Sunday.

Mrs. Beatrice Adkins and her sister Miss Harriet Dingess were in Harts Saturday.

Mr. W.C. Smith of Ranger was calling on Mr. and Mrs. Chas. Brumfield at Harts Saturday.

Mr. Robert Adkins of Hamlin was the guest of Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Adkins Sunday.

Combinations: Inez and her cape; Bessie and her new dress; Jessie with furs on; May with her red sweater on; Hendrix and his saddle pockets; Sesco in his rattle trap; Hollena on her cane; Ed on his mule; Watson and his pipe; Bill and his best girl; Aunt Catherine with her bathrobe on; Nora and her curls; Enos with his straw hat on.

Dear old Banner, see you again next week.

Huntington Editorial about the UMWA (1925)

05 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in Coal, Huntington, Logan, Williamson

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From the Logan Banner of Logan, WV, comes this editorial regarding a visit to the region by UMWA officials in 1925. The story is dated September 4, 1925.

A STATEMENT OF INDISPUTABLE FACTS

The Sunday issue of the Huntington Herald-Dispatch contained a most interesting editorial which told the unvarnished truth about the recent visit the officials of the United Mine Workers to the Logan and Williamson coal fields. The editorial follows.

Disappointed Visitors

Within the past three days officials of the United Mine Workers of America have visited Logan and Williamson and some of the mining operations near these prosperous West Virginia cities. Up to the hour of this writing the visitors have made no statement either as to the purpose of their visit or the impressions they have gained from the conditions encountered.

It may be taken for granted, however, that the gentlemen representing the United Mine Workers are not highly pleased. They did not find in the miners of the Logan and Williamson fields the “serfs” and downtrodden creatures professional agitators have described. They did not find beleaguered camps of concentrados crying out for release through the medium of membership in the U.M.W. They did not find gunmen and desperadoes awaiting them at the train to turn them back with broken heads and verbal abuses. The absence of these things were disappointing.

But for the purpose of the U.M.W. the things these visitors did find were even more disappointing. They found for example miners who earn more dollars per year than any others in the bituminous fields in the world. They found more miners living in better houses than are to be found in any of the mining camps of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana or Illinois. They found miners and their wives and children better fed, better clothed and with better living conditions surrounding them than any others in the United States.

They found in Logan and Williamson fields men who are content and who are unwilling to leave steady employment, good wages, and good homes with all the comforts of life, to take up a miserable existence in the tents of professional strikers there to subject their wives and children to unwanted hardships and deprivations.

In short, they were not welcomed as needed deliverers. The miners in these fields know that it is not the purpose of these gentlemen to bring about a betterment of the conditions under which they live, but to create a condition which will cause coal production to cease. Organization is a fine thing and should be encouraged when it is for the good of the organized. But the proposal of the United Mine Workers, as it affects these miners and the business and labor interests of this section in general, is sinister and destructive. The unionization at this time of any considerable part of the Williamson and Logan fields would mean a strike. A strike, if effective, would paralyze business in all of Logan county, and in Huntington the result would be almost disastrous. An effective strike in these fields would paralyze Huntington’s wholesale and jobbing business. It would close many of the factories and worst of all would almost immediately result in unemployment for hundreds of railway shop workers and scores of train crews all the way from Charleston to Portsmouth with the brunt of the blow falling upon Huntington.

The United Mine Workers is no longer the helpful, constructive organization it was twenty years ago. Its ranks have been decimated and its policies have been so radical and unreasonable in many cases as to bring it into disrepute with the public, including the legitimate labor organizations whose members are ruled by reason. In West Virginia dues paying members have dwindled to almost the vanishing point. In strikes, fomented in an effort to destroy West Virginia coal in the interest of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois mines and the mine workers in those states, West Virginia has cost the U.M.W. millions and the officials now face the impending anthracite strike with a sadly depleted treasury.

The desperate plight of Mr. Lewis, his organizers, and well paid cabinet naturally produces its own results. The strike in northern West Virginia has had no effect other than to keep some thousands of men out of employment and deprive thousands of women and children of the comforts the pay envelope would provide. The mining of coal in the Kanawha and New River fields the Miners Union has, to use a baseball term, “struck out.” Attempts to force upon the operators a wage scale which prohibited the mining and marketing of coal at a price less than a ruinous loss have resulted in strike after strike in those fields until the union is but a band of disorganized stragglers whose representatives, when they bolted the State Federation of Labor convention in this city two weeks ago, went away unwept and were not urged to return.

If the miners of this district had any prospect, even remote, of gaining anything by organization, no self-respecting man could afford to oppose or discourage the movement. But the weight is all on the other side. If they needed the union, public sentiment would see that they got it. We are living like that today. But since they do not need it, since the movement is directed against their welfare and against the thousands of legitimate unionists and all business and all industry in this great tri-state area, the organization effort, if it is being seriously contemplated–which we very greatly doubt–has no appeal either to the miners or to public sentiment.

The Logan and Williamson miners do not want to exchange the well filled pay envelope for the miserable weekly doe from the U.M.W. treasury. They do not want to trade their comfortable, well furnished and well lighted homes for leaky tents with tallow candles. They do not want to take their families from places and stations of comfort and respectability to sloth and degradation.

Organization means strike. Strike means starvation and, if the bloody history of Mingo’s experience with the United Mine Workers is to be repeated, bloodshed, terror, and bold assassination. Mr. Lewis, by a blind and unreasoning insistence upon the impossible Jacksonville agreement, has gotten himself into a dilemma of the most embarrassing kind. He is at end of his tether. The treasury is low. The organization is in a state of decay, with miners every day discovering they are better off without it than with it.

If, instead of uttering strike threats; if, instead of trying to enforce a wage scale which is a grotesque economic absurdity and rank impossibility; if, instead of leading the miners into hardship and strike, he would lead them in the ways of peace by consenting to wage adjustments in keeping with the state of the coal market, the organization might regain public confidence, recover its vitality, and reclaim its usefulness. And Mr. Lewis himself, instead of facing the imminent danger of becoming a discredited industrial adventurer, would be acclaimed a leader, as was John Mitchell, and as was Samuel Gompers.

Harts News 11.27.1925

05 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in Harts, Logan, Man, Ranger

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An unnamed correspondent from Harts in Lincoln County, West Virginia, offered the following items, which the Logan Banner printed on November 27, 1925:

Business seems to be improving at Harts now.

Messrs. Herbert and Watson Adkins made a flying business trip to Ranger Tuesday.

Mrs. F.B. Adkins and sister Miss Harriet Dingess was calling on Misses Pearl and Cora Adkins of this place.

Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Adkins of Man were the week guests of Mr. and Mrs. R.L. Powers of this place.

Miss Jessie Brumfield was seen passing through Harts Tuesday evening.

Miss Cora Adkins spent Sunday and Monday with homefolks here. She is working in Logan.

Mr. Bill Adkins of this place seemed to be enjoying himself all alone Sunday. Never worry, says Billie, She will come.

Mrs. Hollena Ferguson has been ill for a few days, but seems to be improving now.

R.L. Powers has two fine hogs. Hope he soon makes pork.

Mrs. Delphia Dingess and sister were calling on Miss Cora Dingess Sunday.

Bill Adkins was calling on Mr. and Mrs. R.L. Powers Sunday.

Mrs. Vina Adkins and Mrs. Sadie Porter were calling on Mrs. Watson Adkins Sunday.

Combinations: Uncle Gibb and his horse; Pearl and her new dress; Cora and her callers; Sadie and her new sweater; Inez and her bobbed hair; Jessie meeting the tarin; Lewis and his mule; Luther and his truck; Herb and his flat tire; Bill and his yellow breeches; Beatrice and her purple umbrella; Ora and her beaux; Hendrix the mail carrier; Bessie at the pump; Kirt and his water bucket; Watson and his pipe; James and his dog; Aunt Catherine and her curls.

Ephraim Hatfield Property in Logan County (1865-1885)

02 Tuesday Feb 2021

Posted by in Big Sandy Valley, Hatfield-McCoy Feud, Matewan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The following land information is derived from Land Book 1866-1872, Land Book 1873-1874, Land Book 1880-1886, and Land Book 1887-1892 at the Logan County Clerk’s Office in Logan, WV:

Ephraim Hatfield

1865-1867: Magnolia Township

70 acres Murphys Branch, Mate Creek $0.50 per acre no building $35 total

125 acres Meadors Branch, Mate Creek $0.50 per acre no building $62.50 total

115 acres Mate Creek $6.00 $200 building $690 total

45 acres Double Camp $2.00 no building $90 total

20 acres South Side, Mate Creek [added in 1871, five years back tax]

24 acres Straight Fork $3.00 per acre no building $72 total

84 acres Beech Creek $5.00 per acre no building $420 total

1868: Magnolia Township

The book contains no entries for Magnolia Township)

1869-1872: Magnolia Township

70 acres John Murpheys Branch, Mate Creek $0.52 per acre no building $36.75 total

[125-acre tract was gone by 1869, bestowed to Nancy Varney, who had 125 acres on “Meadow” Branch worth $0.52 1/2 in 1869]

115 acres Mate Creek $6.30 per acre $200 building $724.50 total

45 acres Double Camp $2.10 per acre no building $94.50 total

20 acres South Side, Mate Creek $0.52 1/2 per acre no building $10.50 total

24 acres Straight Fork $3.15 per acre no building $75.60 total

84 acres Beech Creek $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

1873: Magnolia District

70 acres John Murpheys Branch, Mate Creek $0.52 per acre no building $36.75 total

[Note: The above building was likely noted in error.]

113 acres Mate Creek $6.30 per acre $200 building $724.50 total

[Note: The 115-acre tract is likely noted as 113 acres in error.]

45 acres Double Camp $2.10 per acre no building $94.50 total

20 acres South Side, Mate Creek $0.52 1/2 per acre no building $10.50 total

24 acres Straight Fork $3.15 per acre no building $75.60 total

84 acres Beech Creek $5.25 per acre no building $441 total

1874: Magnolia District

115 acres Mates Creek $6.30 per acre $200 building $724.50 total

45 acres Double Camp $2.10 per acre no building $94.50 total

20 acres S Side Mate Creek $0.52 per acre 1/2 no building $10.50 total

24 acres Trough? Fork $0.15? per acre no building $75.60 total

[Note: He transferred the 84-acre tract to Valentine Hatfield]

1875: Magnolia District

115 acres Mates Creek $4.00 per acre $45 building $460 total

45 acres Double Camp of Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $11.25 total

20 acres Double Camp $0.25 per acre no building $5.00 total

24 acres Strat Fork $0.25 per acre no building $6.00 total

1876: Magnolia District

115 acres Mate Creek $0.25 per acre no building $11.25 total

45 acres Double Camp Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $5.00 total

20 acres Double Camp Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $6.00 total

24 acres Straight Fork $0.25 per acre no building $18.75 total

1877: Magnolia District

Records are missing for this year.

1878: Magnolia District

15 acres Mates Creek $4.00 per acre $25 building $60 total

20 acres Double Camp Branch Mate Creek $0.25 per acre no building $5.00 total

24 acres Strate Fork Mate Creek $0.25 per acre no building $6.00 total

368 acres Mates Creek $0.10 per acre no building $36.80 total

[Note: In 1878, Ephraim transferred one tract of 100 acres on Mate Creek worth four dollars per acre containing a $25 building with a total worth of $400 to Smith and Patterson Hatfield. He also transferred one tract of 50 acres on Nashes Buck? Hollow Double Camp worth twenty-five cents per acre with no building and total worth of $12.50 to Floyd Hatfield.]

1879: Magnolia District

Records are missing for this year.

1880: Magnolia District

15 acres Mates Creek $4.00 per acre $25 building $60 total

20 acres Double Camp Branch Mate Creek $0.25 per acre no building $5.00 total

24 acres Strate Fork Mate Creek $0.25 per acre no building $6.00 total

68 acres Mates Creek $0.10 per acre no building $36.80 total

[Note: In 1880, Ephraim transferred 300 acres from the 368-acre tract to Ellison Hatfield. Note also that he died before the 1880 census.]

1881: Magnolia District

15 acres Mates Creek $4.00 per acre $25 building $375.00? total

20 acres Double Camp Branch Mate Creek $0.25 per acre no building $99.00 total

24 acres Strate Fork Mate Creek $0.25 per acre no building $200.00

68 acres Mates Creek $0.25 per acre no building $109.00

[Note errors in total valuation for his property.]

1882: Magnolia District

The Hatfield page is missing from records.

1883: Magnolia District

Records are missing for this year.

1884: Magnolia District

15 acres Mates Creek $5.00 per acre $40 building $75 total

20 acres Double Camp Branch $1 per acre no building $20 total

68 acres Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $68 total

[Note: The 50-acre tract was listed under Ephraim, Sr. and was transferred from Floyd Hatfield. The 114-acre tract was transferred from a commissioner.]

1885: Magnolia District

15 acres Mates Creek $5 per acre $40 building $75 total

20 acres Double Camp Branch, Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $20 total

68 acres Mates Creek $1 per acre no building $68 total

1886-1888: Magnolia District

No property is listed for 1886, 1887, and 1888.

Harts News 11.13.1925

02 Tuesday Feb 2021

Posted by in Big Creek, Harts, Huntington, Logan, Ranger, Sand Creek

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An unnamed correspondent from Harts in Lincoln County, West Virginia, offered the following items, which the Logan Banner printed on November 13, 1925:

Here comes Harts with a splash again.

The C. & O. has erected a new operator house at Harts again. Look out all you flappers.

Mr. Tom Brumfield was calling on Miss Mae Caines Sunday.

Miss Cora Adkins of Logan was a guest of homefolks at Harts Sunday.

Mr. Hardin Marcum of Ranger was calling on friends in Harts Monday.

Mr. Fred Shelton of Sand Creek was in town Sunday.

Mrs. Fisher B. Adkins, of Harts, returned to her school at Big Creek Sunday.

Mrs. Robert Dingess of Harts was shopping in Logan Saturday.

Miss Jessie Brumfield of Harts is attending the Teachers’ Association in Huntington this week.

Mr. and Mrs. Toney Johnson, of Tampa, Florida, have been visiting relatives at Harts the past week.

Chas. Brumfield has been on the sick list for several days.

We are glad to see Hendrix Brumfield able to be out on our streets again.

Whirlwind News 10.30.1925

03 Sunday Jan 2021

Posted by in Big Harts Creek, Shively, Spottswood, Warren, Whirlwind

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

An unnamed correspondent from Whirlwind on Big Harts Creek in Logan County, West Virginia, offered the following items, which the Logan Banner printed on October 30, 1925:

[The first line is illegible.]

Mrs. R. Bryant was calling on Mrs. Catherine Adkins last Saturday.

Mrs. Lizzie Carter called on Mrs. Jessie Carter Sunday.

Mrs. Mary Thompson visited Mrs. Ollie Mullins recently.

Joe Martin and Thomas Bryant were out joy riding Sunday.

James Toney Survey (1849)

03 Sunday Jan 2021

Posted by in Big Harts Creek, Guyandotte River, Lincoln County Feud

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

James Toney survey (1849), 95 acres, lower side of Big Harts Creek, Logan County, VA. Surveyors Record Book B, Logan County Clerk’s Office, Logan, WV. This property is located in present-day Lincoln County, WV. Note: I descend from James Toney through three of his children: Mary Jane Toney, Ann Toney, and Martha Rose Toney.