|
|
|
Kniffen/Sniffen
Story |
|
The Jay Line |
||
|
|
George Knifton, our original ancestor
and only progenitor in America, arrived in Stratford, Connecticut in 1650
according to family legend. In a court deposition in 1682 he stated that he was
born in 1632. Our only knowledge of where he came from is in the family name.
Knifton was taken from the town of Kniveton in Derby County, England.
There was an old manorial family that also
took its name from this town in about 1275. Unfortunately this family fought
for King Charles I and lost and was forced to sell all its properties about
1645, because of heavy taxation by Parliament. We do not know if our George was
of this family, or perhaps was of a servant family that adopted the name.
In our search for an English background we
have several bits that could inspire further research. First there was a George
Kniveton of the old family who “died on a journey to Jerusalem” in the early
1600’s. Second, there was a George Kniveton, an Apothecary with a shop in
Newgate Market, London, who was one of two elders in both the ancient Puritan
Church of Scrooby, England and later Leyden, Holland. It is possible that these
two persons might be the same individual; in which case he would be of the old
titled family. If we carry this conjecture further, could this person be the
Grandfather of our George?
There is another relationship between
American and English Kniftons that should be explored. The original manorial
people who fought for King Charles I certainly must have been Church of England
patrons. The American family has tended toward the Methodist, Presbyterian, and
Quaker creeds. The George who “died on a journey to Jerusalem,” and might have
the Puritan elder, may have been a family maverick, causing different views.
Court and Church records tell us little
about George Knifton. Between the time of his arrival in Stratford,
Connecticut, and his marriage there is a gap of about 14-15 years, of which we
know nothing. There is no record of land or real estate purchase or
acquisition. He might have been a mariner during this time. There is no record
of his arrival; he might have jumped ship on his initial visit.
Shortly after George’s marriage to Mary
Whelpley, daughter of Henry and Sarah, in about 1664, they moved to Rye,
New York. The British had just taken New York from the Dutch and Englishmen
were migrating from Connecticut to the new territory searching for better
living opportunities. When George bought property in Rye he was cited as being
of “Stratford.”
In 1670 when he was “propounded for
freeman,” he was called George Snuffene of Ry.” It is possible that this might
have caused the name of Sniffen and Sniffin to develop years later. No recent
researcher has satisfactorily solved our name-changing tendency.
George Knifton’s estate was settled in 1694, but the name “Kniffen”
was now being used. It appears that he died either that year or in 1693. Mary
was the administrator of his estate. We do not know when she died, or where
either of them are buried.
It seems that no one has ever expounded on
the change to Kniffen, but it probably resulted from the slurring of Knifton in
their speech. In the early days in America our family shows little use of the
written record and formal education seems to have been minimal, which was not
unusual for that era. When the name changed to Kniffen all connections with
English family names was dissolved. In those days there were no Kniffens in
England, and certainly no Sniffens.
George and Mary Whelpley Knifton had six
sons and one daughter probably born in the period from 1665 to 1685, who we
know as having grown to maturity. The only writers who cover the second
generation of the family in any adequacy are Charles W. Baird in his “History
of Rye,” and Grenville MacKenzie in “Early Families of Westchester County,
N.Y.”. MacKenzie’s work is the more
orderly and, therefore, easier to follow, but both have gaping holes causing
frustration to researchers. Neither give any birthdates for these second
generation children.
Recent researchers using some of the
birthdates of the third generation tend to feel that Samuel, George, and Joseph
were the oldest of the second generation with Ebenezer, Jonathan and Nathan
being the youngest. No one has placed the daughter in this relationship. With
this background we might guess their data as follows:
Samuel ca.
1665-1704
George ca.
1667-nlt 1732
` Joseph ca.
1669
Ebenezer ca.
1672-1722
Jonathan ca.
1678-1724
Nathan ca.
1685-1761
What are the sources of the second
generation names? George is named for the father. Joseph, Jonathan and Nathan
seem to have been named after their maternal uncles. This leaves only Samuel
and Ebenezer to have any linkage to George Knifton’s family. Unfortunately, we
find none of these names in the noble Knifton family, which leaves us with no
clue to George’s parentage.
Since most researchers in our family have
relied on Baird or MacKenzie it seems prudent to examine their methods of
securing data on us. As has been expressed already, there was very little
positive data available from court or church records. These two writers,
therefore, had to depend almost entirely on oral advice from family members.
Both writers worked from a base in the Rye-White Plains area in the latter half
of the 19th century, some 200 years after the story began. Their information was fairly accurate for
the families still living in their immediate vicinity and time span. For the
very early families and those living in remote areas it was scanty and
undependable. In plain language, we came close to losing those families that
had strayed from the home base, or lived too far back in time.
At the present time we are recovering some
of the lost ones by researching in the counties to which they moved, but we
can’t always find “who begat whom.” One of the frustrations in this process is
that burial records in the 17th and 18th centuries are
almost nonexistent. Also, the quality of markers and stones used in the early
days in New York State were poor and have deteriorated or ceased to exist.
Hunting for cemetery markers put up between 1650 and 1800 is of negligible
value.
It is evident to researchers that families
formerly had one child born every two years up to the latter half of the 19th
century. It is also evident in our history that only a few units had the quota
of eight to fourteen children. It would appear that many children were lost in
their early years; in fact, a few lost all their children. Nathan’s line seems
to have been more fortunate in this respect, and therefore, is our largest
single lineage group today.
The third generation of Kniffens were born
between 1690 and 1731, and only a few strayed as far as Tarrytown, White Plains
and North Castle, all in Westchester County. Most were still living near the
home base of Rye. It appears that all owned real property and took a lead in
the early development of their areas.
Many
entered into the organizing efforts for first churches and held responsible
civic positions.
The first court use of the name “Sniffen”
was in a property purchase by Nathan, probably by the third-generation Nathan
as he signed his will Nathan Sniffen. No one has a good answer for this change
unless it came from the use of the name Snuffene in 1670.
While discussing the variations in the
spelling of our name, the author (Max K. Sniffen) should apologize for the use
of Kniffen and Sniffen in this story. To simplify the writing, he has simply
used his own spelling. In our history the endings “en” and “in” have been used
indiscriminately by many of our lines and have no significance. These
variations should bother no one.
After the name change by the
third-generation Nathan, the activity moved to the Samuel line when James Jr.
switched to Sniffen about the time of the Revolutionary War. Between this time
and the mid 1800’s, members of the George and Ebenezer lines changed the name,
but sometimes switched back to the Kniffen spelling. This movement has made
tracing of these lines difficult during this period. The Joseph and Jonathan
lines have always held to the Kniffen spelling. Most of the present-day
Sniffens are of the Nathan and Samuel lines.
There is probably more known early history
of the Nathan and Samuel lines because they stayed longer in the Rye-White
Plains area and were better documented by Baird and MacKenzie. The lines who
first strayed from this area tended to hang on to the old spelling.
The listing of the peregrinations of the
lines of the six sons of George and Mary Whelpley does not complete our review
of the Sniffen/Kniffen lines. There are a few progenitors whom we cannot
positively fit into any line as we do not know who begat them. The first of
these is Benjamin (1705-1789), who with his wife, Gertrude, began a sizable
clan of Kniffens. Since they were never name changers, they do not fit into the
Nathan or Samuel lines, but Benjamin could have been the son of any of the
other four men. The choice of George or Ebenezer is less likely as both had
Sniffen units.
Benjamin’s line is important and was
enhanced greatly by the large family of his son Benjamin (1728-1783) and wife,
Mary Brown. Most of this group soon moved out of New York State into Tioga
County, Pennsylvania and Huron County, Ohio.
A second “lost” person in our succession
lines is John (1710-1782), who was a loyalist and was killed by Whigs in front
of his home. By his political leanings he seems closest to the George line, but
we have no proof. His children seemed to have escaped the Revolutionary War
antipathy and ranged rather closely to the Ulster County area. There are
several other males born in the very early 1700’s, on whom we find no parentage
and very little history. Maybe some attic trunk will someday bring these
persons to light.
By the time of the Revolutionary War we
are tracing two families: Kniffens and Sniffens. Most of the members at that
time recognized that they were one family with different ideas of how to spell
the name. However, as the units moved from home base in Rye, New York to other
parts of the country, this knowledge grew dimmer. The big change toward Sniffen
began after 1790 and continued at a diminishing rate until 1850.
In mid 1800’s a small group of Kniffens,
mostly in Ulster and Albany counties, New York dropped the “K” and spelled the
name Niffen. This change seemed temporary and it is doubtful if we have such
spelling today. Also, about the same time one family in New Jersey adopted the
spelling “Snuffin.” This group moved on into the Midwest (Ohio, Indiana, and
Illinois) where that name still exists.
It is probable that most of our families
who haven’t gone into researching our history are unaware today of the
connection between the names Kniffen and Sniffen. Some have expressed surprise
in communicating with this writer (Max K. Sniffen). Most non-genealogists in
our country are aware of only the grandparents in their family. To know us,
both the spellings of the name must be considered.
The Revolutionary War years (1776-1783)
were hard on our families as most lived in the “no man’s land” between New York
City and West Point. This country underwent continual ravages by both Loyalist
and Patriot groups, called respectively “cowboys” and “skinners,” who were
mostly seeking cattle and other food, but would take anything they could get
their hands on. It was a harsh life and at the end of the war Rye and other
nearby settlements were mostly empty shells. We have found no written accounts
of these times by our forbears telling us how they survived. It could be a
great story.
There were about twenty members of the
family in the military units during the War, pretty well split between Kniffen and
Sniffen, but some persons may have used both names during this time. Most came
from Westchester and Dutchess counties including what is presently Putnam
County. A few were from Orange and Ulster Counties. Most of the men were in
militia units, which we might identify as “soldiers on call.” Only two, Amos
and Nehemiah, were actually on long enlistments in line units.
Six families had their estates confiscated
after the War. These were Loyalists who favored the King and included Daniel,
John and Jonathan Kniffen, and Caleb, Jonathan and Shubal Sniffen. It appears
that Jonathan Kniffen/Sniffen was killed by Patriots in 1777 and John Kniffen
was similarly killed in 1783. Shubal Sniffen was exiled to Nova Scotia in 1783,
after having fled to New York City in 1776. It appears that not all the
families whose estates were confiscated were exiled. Some may have escaped this
fate by moving into the hinterlands after the War.
When some degree of normalcy had returned
to this region, two developments began. As the upstate Indian opposition
deteriorated because of their wartime allegiance with the British, some of our
families began moving North and West to find better farming lands. These were
mostly Kniffens, as they escaped the name-changing tendency. Many members of
the families remaining in the Rye-White Plains area moved from farms into
trades and small businesses. These were mostly Sniffens and a number moved into
New York City in the early 1800’s. Up to this period most of our families were
farmers and perhaps a few were mariners.
Our study of family demographics is
interesting and is based almost entirely on U.S. Census Information. In
following this you may note that the Kniffen line was almost lost in the 1810
Census. Maybe they were on the move and not too accessible to the census
takers, or some of the results of the 1810 count may have been lost during the
War of 1812. One revealing fact here is that the big gain in the change to
Sniffen was between 1790 and 1800. Most of the family were still in the extreme
southeast New York State at this time.
In the first US Census of 1790 there were
33 Kniffen units and 8 Sniffen, and all were in New York State. In the 1800
Census, there were 25 Kniffen families and 31 Sniffen. At this time a few
Sniffen units were in Connecticut.
In 1810 we find 33 Sniffen and only 13 Kniffen
families. This count is undoubtedly erroneous. Because of travel and
communications difficulties, census taking must have been a tough problem for
the new government.
By 1820, the count of 52 Kniffen units and
30 Sniffen showed that the former were “on the move” and the latter were
“staying at home.” The Kniffens were distributed in New York State as follows:
Westchester 13, Ulster 12, Orange 3, Cayuga 3, Putnam 3, Onondaga 2, Sullivan
2, Saratoga 2, Herkimer 2, Ontario 1, Steuben 1. The Sniffens showed
Westchester 16, New York City 6, Onondaga 3, Greene 2, Ulster 2, Tompkins
1,Connecticut 5.
In 1830 there were45 Kniffens, 8 Niffens
and 51 Sniffens, as follows:
Kniffen/Niffen Sniffen
Westchester
County 4 26
Ulster
County 13
0
other
NY Counties 28 9
New
York City 2 10
Connecticut 0 4
New
Jersey 0 2
Ohio 3 0
Pennsylvania 3 0
In the1850census,which is the last chance
we have of a reasonable count of the families, the totals were about as
follows:
Kniffen Sniffen
New
York State 73 56
Ohio 9 1
Connecticut 0 6
Michigan 5 0
Illinois 2 2
New
Jersey 2 1
Pennsylvania 2 0
Wisconsin 1 1
Massachusetts 1 0
District
of Columbia 0 1
Hawaii 0 1
A review of the data for 1900 finds us
with 174 Kniffen Families and 169 Sniffen units. In compiling these figures
individuals listed were not counted as units. Two thirds of the Sniffens still
lived in the Westchester County-New York City-Connecticut area. Seventy percent
of the Kniffens were still in New York State.
Many family members have military records
in the War of 1812, but have no detail on what, if anything, they did in that
conflict. Most, of course were from New York State.
The family was heavily involved in the
Civil War with the preponderance of men coming from New York State. However,
there were veterans from Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Missouri. In the National Archives,
65 Kniffens have pension disability or death records; 32 Sniffens have similar
records.
Only one family member seems to have made
the grade to General. Brigadier General Culver C. Sniffen was Paymaster General
of the Army in the early 1900’s. Previously he had served as “assistant
secretary” to President Grant and Hayes. In the 1880’s and 1890’s he served 13
years paying the troops in remote areas of California, Arizona, Wyoming, and
Texas.
It has been noted by some of us that the
family has produced no outstanding persons in its long American history. As
noted previously, it was not strong on education until the 20th
century, which may explain the lack of noted personalities. On the other hand,
most of its members were strong in their church work, and helped in
establishing many of the early churches.
After the Civil War, a few persons
attended colleges and professionals, such as dentists, doctors and lawyers began
to appear in our ranks, particularly in the New York area.
There is very little cohesiveness in our
family. No organizations have existed on a large scale. In fact, very few have
been noted in local areas. Very little has been written about the family; few
know that the Sniffens and Kniffens are the same lot. Many members believe we
have a Germanic source as there are Nordic and Germanic names with spellings
similar to Kniffen.
This story has been compiled with the hope
that our members will acquire a greater interest and pride in the family
names-and how they have survived during the perilous frontier days from 1650 to
1860. Also, how the family existed for seven years during the Revolutionary
War, and how Sniffens/Kniffens have maintained a reputation for being “good
people” from 1650 to the present day.
1
This Chapter
is copied verbatim from The Kniffen/Sniffen Story
Copyright
1989, Max K. Sniffen, P.O. Box 723, Woodville, Texas 75979, First Edition 1989
Printed
by Herring Printing, Kerrville, Texas.