The History   

 of  

   Johann Peter Hachenberg, Sr.  

by

Robert Earl Hackenberg   

Introduction:

William Penn was born 24 October 1644, the son of Admiral Sir William Penn. Despite his high social position and excellent education, he converted to the Society of Friends, Quakers. Even though they were unpopular, Penn was socially acceptable in the king’s court, because he was trusted by the Duke of York, later to be King James II.

Penn used his education to preach religious toleration and liberty. His preaching attracted crowds of thousands, as he traveled through the Netherlands and Germany in the 1670’s. During these times, he had become a famous defender of liberty.

The Netherlands was substantially free. It was a commercial center where people cared mainly about peaceful cooperation. Persecuted Jews and Protestants flocked to the Netherlands.

     Penn began to form a vision of a community based on liberty. He resolved to use his royal connections for this cause. With the blessing of King Charles the 2^nd and the Duke of York, he presented his case for religious toleration before Parliament. They would have none of it, because they were worried about the Stuarts imposing Catholic rule in England, especially since the Duke of York had converted to Roman Catholicism and married a staunch Catholic.

The Founding of Pennsylvania

     Penn became convinced that religious toleration could not be achieved in England. So, he went to the king, with the Duke of York’s support, and asked for a charter enabling him to establish an American colony. This seemed to be a good idea to the king. It seemed like a good way to get rid of the troublesome Quakers and Penn himself. On 4 March 1681, Charles the 2^nd of  England signed a charter for territory west of the Delaware River and north of  Maryland, approximately the present size of Pennsylvania. At the time, somewhere around a thousand Germans, Dutch and Indians lived there without any particular government. The King proposed the name of the colony to be “Pennsylvania” which meant “Forests of Penn”. The name was in honor of Penn’s late father Admiral Sir William Penn.

Penn would be the proprietor, owning all of the land, accountable directly to the king. According to traditional accounts, Penn agreed to cancel the debt of £ 16,000 which the government owed the Admiral for back pay for the grant, but there are no records of this agreement. Penn also agreed to give the king two beaver skins and a fifth of any gold and silver mined within the territory.

He sailed to America on the ship Welcome and arrived 8 November 1682. With assembled friends, Philadelphia was founded. The name means the “city of brotherly love” in Greek. Penn, himself, chose this name. He approved the site between the Delaware and the Schuylkill Rivers for the city. Penn had envisioned a city of 10,000 acres. However, his more sober minded friends prevailed. They wanted a 1200 acre city. William Penn proceeded to name several of  Philadelphia’s streets. They are Broad, Chestnut, Pine and Spruce. Editor’s note: I lived in Philadelphia for 12 years. Those streets are familiar to me.

In 1682 the Duke of York deeded to William Penn his claim to the three lower counties on the Delaware. These counties are now the present state of Delaware.¹

As Penn traveled through the Netherlands, and Germany preaching religious tolerance, during the 1670’s, he must have spoken of his vision of a community based on liberty. When Charles the 2^nd of  England granted him the colony of  Pennsylvania, the poor farmers and other oppressed folks that he preached to wanted to share his vision. These people prepared to go to the Netherlands and sail to the colony of Pennsylvania.

They did so because of the religious persecution and the heavy taxation. For these people, this was not an easy decision. Why? Because this meant leaving their homes, their families and their country for a land that was completely foreign to them. They were to face the unknown. To further complicate this decision, most of them had no money for the trip. They only had the clothes on their back, and their faith in the Lord. Fortunately, some of them had relatives that could help pay for the trip.

There were those who questioned whether they should leave everything and go to the Americas for a new life. They hesitated in giving up, totally, their past. However, when King Louis XVI, of  France, invaded Germany, they decided to go.

The trip that they were about to embark upon was a long and hazardous one. It took them 4-6 weeks to go up the Rhine River to Rotterdam, Netherlands. They did so in small boats known as Scows.^1a Note: This was a large flat-bottomed boat. There was somewhere around a thousand people a week that made this trip. According to the Palatines to America Society., Those who took the trip had to pay each castle as they went up the Rhine River. Also, the weather proved to be extremely cold and bitter. Unfortunately, this would only be the first part of their trip. At Rotterdam, they boarded an English vessel for the trip to the colony of Pennsylvania.. The ship first passed through the English Channel and stopped at Cowes, England and then proceeded to the Port of Philadelphia.

     The voyage was dreadful and long, some 70 days.² The following is taken from the Palatine & Pennsylvania-Dutch Genealogy: “Meanwhile, streams of Palatines went to America, with most going to Pennsylvania. The ocean voyage was harsh, with overcrowded, under-supplied and unsanitary ships. What provisions were supplied were generally the least expensive available to the ship’s master. Water frequently ran out as did food. Dreadful mortality occurred on many voyages. In addition to those woes, the Palatines faced robbery, deception and worse from those transporting them."

     I also have this account given by David A. Clary in his book "Adopted Son" on page 88. "The trip was miserable , as all sea voyages were then. Passengers were confined to their cabins, small, dark, damp, smelly holes infested with bugs and decorated only by mold. Rations were short and nasty, the water was foul, and the weather was often rough."

Their destination was a land grant that William Penn received from the British Government in payment for a debt that was owed his father, Admiral William Penn. The grant was west of the Delaware River. Penn named it Pennsylvania and proclaimed it a place for those who were religiously persecuted. He himself was a Quaker.³

During the years of 1749-1755, after the death of William Penn, some 30,000 Germans came to Philadelphia. Most of them did so by traveling up the Rhine River. They, then boarded a ship at Rotterdam, Netherlands that took them to the Americas.⁴

I. Documented Facts About Peter Hachenberg

Our progenitor, Johann Peter Hachenberg, was born in the year of our Lord 1741. I am sure of this date because his gravestone, in St. Peter’s Cemetery, located in Freeburg, Pennsylvania, says that he was in the 79^th year of his life at the time of his death. His place of birth is unknown. Horst Reschke ⁵ (see below) notes the likelihood that he was born somewhere in the former Prussian Rhine Province, sometimes known as the “Rhineland.”

We believe Peter emigrated from Germany. He did so in 1764. It was necessary for him to make his way to the Rhine River and then to Rotterdam as thousands of others did.⁶

The following are reasons for believing that Peter came from Germany: 1) His original gravestone says that he was from Europe; 2) the above material; 3) his last name; 4) his culture here in his adopted land; 5) His first name. It was common in Germany for men to take the name Johann for religious reasons. 6) Many men were aboard the ship “Jeneffer” with German names. These men also took the name Johann; 7)

William Penn’s efforts in Germany to colonize Pennsylvania and 8) Ron Brand’s statement below.

At the Rhine, Peter traveled up it. This would be north, because the river begins in Switzerland. It flows through the borders of France and Germany. Then, it travels north through Germany. From there it turns west and runs through Rotterdam, Netherlands.⁷

According to Aaron Spencer Fogleman in his book “Hopeful Journeys: German Immigration, Settlement and Political Culture in Colonial America, 1717-1775”, the time of Peter’s immigration was at the twilight of the Colonial German immigration to Pennsylvania.

The “Jeneffer’s” manifest STRONGLY indicates that Peter boarded the ship in Rotterdam,Netherlands and not in Cowes, England.⁸ The ship was English, captained by George Kerr. It was for transporting immigrants to the Americas. That is one of the reasons English vessels were in Dutch Ports. The following is an account from:

Mr. Ron Brand, Librarian

MARITIEM MUSEUM

ROTTERDAM

“During the 18^th century many thousands of German families immigrated to America, mainly to Pennsylvania. Many of these families left Europe from Rotterdam. However they could not be transported by Dutch vessels, because it was prohibited by the Act of Navigation that Dutch vessels sailed to British colonies. Thus, the transport was carried out by British ships with British captains, and they therefore settled themselves in Rotterdam. In the book ‘a collection of upward of thirty thousand names of German, Swiss, Dutch, French and other immigrants in Pennsylvania from 1772-1776 ’ by I. Daniel Rupp (Leipzig 1931) a list of the passengers of the ‘Jeneffer’ is published.” ⁹

 It was at the age of twenty-three that Johann Peter embarked for America from Rotterdam, Netherlands to make a new life for himself. He did this aboard the British ship Jeneffer. Captain George Kerr was its master.¹⁰

When the “Jeneffer” left Rotterdam, she traveled through the English Channel and stopped at the Port of Cowes, England. From there, she proceeded to Philadelphia, arriving there 5 November 1764.

Sources: Bob Hackenberg and Ralph Beaver Strassburger’s Pennsylvania German Pioneers. The book was edited by William John Hinke. Mr. Strassburger obtained this material from records in Harrisburg, the Commonwealth’s Capital. This material is in Volume 2, pages 797-798 of his book.

We now return to Cowes, England. This is in the south coast of the United Kingdom, and it is famous for boat races. The city is the main Port of the Island of Wight. The Island is divided into East and West Cowes by the river Medina.¹¹

When Johann Peter arrived at the Port of Philadelphia 5 November 1764, he took the oath of allegiance to the British Government. This is that oath: “We, subscribers, natives and late inhabitants of the Palatinate upon the Rhine, and places adjacent, having transported ourselves and families into this Province of Pennsylvania, a colony subject to the crown of Great Britain, in hopes and expectation of finding a retreat and peaceful settlement therein, Do solemnly promise and engage, that we will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Present Majesty, King George the Second, and His Successors, Kings of Great Britain, and will be faithful to the Proprietor of this Province; and that we will demean ourselves peacefully to all His said Majesty’s subjects, and strictly observe and conform to the Laws of England and this Province, to the utmost of our power and the best of our understanding.”^11a This oath was not originally required. However, because of the great influx of immigrants, the British Crown required it. This was so from 1727 to 1775.¹²

After Peter signed the oath of allegiance, he settled southeast of Philadelphia.¹³ The place of his settlement may have been somewhere around Chester, Pennsylvania, which is southeast of Philadelphia.¹⁴

     The "Jeneffer's" manifest has Peter's signature as Joh. Peter hachen Berg. A discussion of his surname is provided by Mr. Horst A. Reschke, a noted genealogist and a contributing editor of Heritage Quest Magazine, in a letter to Jan Grote Smiley dated 11 November 1996. His discussion concerning the surname is as follows:

“Hachenberg is a viable German surname. According to the learned professors ‘hache’ is Middle High German for ‘fellow’ or ‘guy.’ ‘Hacken’ is to chop or hack. Thus, we have two distinct acutely dissimilar concepts. Like East and West, ‘never the twain shall meet,’ intermingle or be taken one for the other. Only in America, where the guttural ‘ch-‘ sound, as in ‘lachen’ to (laugh) is to difficult to produce for the English speaking mouth, do we find that ‘Hachen’ was transformed into ‘Hacken.’ Having thus clarified that ‘Hachenberg’ can be our bonafide German surname, let’s address the ‘-berg-’ vs. -‘burg-’ phenomenon. A Berg is a mountain or a hill, while a Burg is a castle or fortress. The two Concepts are not synonymous or interchangeable.”

We will now discuss the use of the first name in the German Language.

Problems Associated With The First Names

Of German Ancestors

John T. Humphrey *

When researching German families problems associated with names can be particularly cumbersome. Difficulties arising from variant spellings of German surnames have been chronicled in this and other publications with some frequency.¹ First names are seldom discussed, yet the problems can be significant.

At birth, Germans traditionally gave their children two names. For sons, examples would be (in their Anglicized Versions) John George, John Peter or George Michael. For daughters, the names might have been Anna Barbara, Maria Sarah or Mary Magdelina

The custom of giving children multiple names originated in France., (There is a Mary Magdalina in the Bible. This is long before France was n existence.) The tradition carried over into Germany in the 16^th century, principally into the southwest portions of Germany Alsace-Lorraine Saarland and the Rhineland-Pfalz. Later the practice spread to the rest of Germany.² The tradition was strongest in that region of Germany where the 18^th century immigrants to Pennsylvania had their origins. Thus it was a tradition that was brought to Pennsylvania.

Problems arise because Germans did not use the formal name they were given at birth as their “call name.” When Germans were with their family or among friends, they used what we think of as their “middle” or “second” name. Thus, an ancestor who was given the name of Matthias Ernst Muller at birth was known as Ernst Muller. The first name was dropped. The same held true for women. If a female ancestor was named at birth Maria Barbara Dornbach, she was known by her family and friends as Barbara Dornbach.

The first names Johan and Johannes add to the confusion. Both translate to the English equivalent John, but in German there is a difference. In a letter to the author, German genealogist Ella Gieg noted the “Christian name Johannes stands always on its own, never Johannes Adam, Johann Georg ³ Conversely, Johann or Johann is always used with a second name such as Johann Georg, Johann Peter or Johann Ludwig.⁴

Thus, in the Muller family example above, in addition to the son of Matthias Ernst, the parents might also have had sons named Johann Heinrich Muller, Johannes Muller and Johan Christian Muller. The English equivalents being Matthew Ernst Muller, John Henry Miller, John Miller and John Christian Miller.

In the 18^th century in Pennsylvania, non German parents did not often give their children multiple names at birth – about five percent as compared to early two-thirds of German parents.⁵

Thus, it should not be too surprising that when records were recorded at the courthouse by clerks whose origins were in Great Britain, they often did not reference two first names because that was not part of the English naming system.

With a common surname, a large family, or migrating individual, the potential for uncertainty or erroneous conclusions increases. Many articles in the Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine illustrate the sorts of problems genealogists working on German families might encounter.

Source: The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine, Volume 43-Number 3, Spring/Summer 2004, Pages 211-212.

                                                                                                                                           References   

* John T. Humphrey, P. O. Box 15190, Washington, DC  20003, is a Vice-President of the Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, President of the Mid-Atlantic Germanic Society and former director of the NationalGenealogical Society Learning Center. He is the author of Understanding and using Baptismal Records; of the fourteen volume Pennsylvania Births Series; of Early Families of Northampton County, Pennsylvania; and of articles for the Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine and other publications.

1. See, for example, John T. Humphrey, “Establishing the German Origins of Several Northampton County Settlers.” The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [called publications of the Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania before 1948, hereafter cited as PGM], 38 (1993): 5-39.

2. Friedrich Wecken, Taschenbuch fur Familiengeschichtsforschung (Neustadt an der Aisch,Deutschland: Verlag Degener & Co., Inh, 1990), 345.

3. Ella Gieg, letter to the author, 25 December 1992; see PGM 38(1993): 27

4. Editor’s Note: Diminutives and abbreviations further complicate matters. In the 18^th century, Johan or Johann is seen as abbreviated Joh. (My ancestor Peter abbreviated Johann this way on the Jeneffer’s manifest.) Or the diminutives Hans, Hanb or Han , accompanied by a second name (Joh. Michael, Hans Gjorg, Han Nikel.) Johannes is seen as the diminutives Hannes, Hanis, Hans, Hanb, Han ect. As discussed in this article, however, the recorder of the name is a significant factor, so interpretation should always be based upon all records possible. The further removed from the native German tradition that the recorder and / or the individual were, the more likely it is that you will see deviations from adherence to tradition. An example showing the Jojann/Hans equivalence appears in Elizabeth B. Bunting, “Emigrants from Frommern, Weilheim, Waldstatten and Wurttemberg, 1750 and 1754,” PGM 43: 110-113, in which the minister recorded the departures of Joh: Ludw: Zimmerman, Joh: Georg Mercklen, Joh. Ludwig Stengel and Joh. Mart. Muller, but the men signed their oaths on arrival as Hans Ludwig Zimmerman, Hans Jerg Mekhel, Hans Ludwieg Stenel and Hans Martin Muller.

5. Early church registers for Pennsylvania furnish some interesting information detailing these differences. From 1709 till 1780, there were 9, 569 baptisms recorded in the registers of the Church of England resident congregation, Christ Church in Philadelphia, only 485 entries listed two names. One of several church books for the largest German Lutheran Church in Philadelphia, St. Michael’s and Zion in Philadelphia, has entries for 5, 072 baptisms performed between 1740 and 1772. Of that total, 3, 185 entries listed two names. In other words 63 percent of the entries in the Lutheran Church register identified infants and adults where two names were recorded versus only 5 percent in the Anglican Church register.

Continuing with Peter, It was not much later that Johann Peter met and married Anna Elizabeth Siphers, probably in early 1765, and probably in New Jersey. He was 23 and she was 21 years old at the time of their marriage.¹⁵

The reason that I give 1765 as the date of their marriage is as follows: Catherine was their first child. In John N. Land’s letter to his Uncle Zwingli Yearick, he states that Catherine was 17 years old when Rev. Friedrich Delliker admitted her to Holy Communion. This was in 1783. If you subtract 17 from 1783 you would get 1766. Give Anna nine months to carry Catherine and you come up with 1765, early 1765. The same information is given in the records of the Great Swamp Reformed and New Goschenhoppen Church.

Anna was born in 1743.¹⁶ I know this because her grave marker in St. Peter’s Lutheran Reformed Church Cemetery says that she died in December of 1808 at the age of 65.

A question had arisen as to whether Anna Elizabeth had died in 1808 or 1828. This question was resolved, when the Lord allowed me to go to Freeburg, Pennsylvania, the summer of 2004. There, I visited the church, where they were members. Peter and Anna are buried in the church cemetery right across the street. The clear reading of the year 1808 on her cemetery marker settles the question pertaining to Anna Elizabeth’s death.

The following is an e-mail conversation between Herb Zearfoss and I. Herb is related to us through Peter, Jr.’s daughter, Elizabeth.

Herb,

I have listed some thoughts next to your comments. My comments are in blue.

“You have presented me with a problem. I think it is important that the original deed referred to in paragraph 5 page 5 of Albrecht (Northumberland Co. Deed Book Q page 320) be carefully reviewed, but it certainly suggests that Peter had taken a second wife by 1811. (I certainly pray that you do this. Your legal background would give you great insight).

I wonder why she didn't affix her mark on the deed referred to at the top of page 6--she should have according to the law. (Was it the law then or could the man sell things without his wife's signature?)

Next on page 6, you have the Letters of Administration for Peter's estate granted to two of his sons and "(the widow having first veneuneed)." I don't recognize the word "veneuneed" and can't find anything close to it in my Black's Law Dictionary, but in the context I think it is a word that means the widow renounced her prior right to act as administratrix of the estate. (I have an Old English Dictionary, that I thought might help. No such luck). (Doesn't the fact that Peter, Jr. and John were granted Letters of Law suggest that, page 6). Perhaps she gave up her right to be the Administratrix of the estate was because Peter Jr. And John was blood relations.

Again the original Grant of Letters of Administration in Union Co., PA Will Book A, page 134, Volume I must be looked at, but the implication is that Peter had another wife when he died in 1820.

More troubling is the "Report of the sale of Hachenbergs estate" which is among the copies of court records that you gave me and which is referred to and partially repeated in Albrecht at the top of page 7. I didn't read this or focus on it when I first went over the copies, but it clearly indicates that there was a widow, Elizabeth, alive on May 22, 1827. I don't understand what this document is saying about paying the $80 purchase price, "two-thirds on the 1st June next & the residue immediately after the decease of Elizabeth Hagenberg the widow of the deceased." It may mean that the widows one-third intestate share is not going to be paid to her, but to Peter's issue. I wonder if there is a court record of the distribution of this $80. I asked for ALL records concerning Peter Hachenberg, when I wrote to the Union County Orphans Court. The clerk assured me, that what we have is it. Perhaps, you being a lawyer would better know what to ask for. Another thought just crossed my mind. Perhaps this second Elizabeth gave up this $ 80 to Peter’s issue because they were blood and she was not.

The census records on page 8 of Albrecht also give me a problem; especially the 1810 Swineford (Middleburg) census that shows Peter, the School Master with a female between the ages of 26 to 45 living in the same household with him. Was this his new wife, Elizabeth, or just someone living there taking care of his needs at 69 years of age?

He is listed as a Schoolmaster. For that reason, I don't think, that he needed someone to take care of his needs in his old age. I’m quite sure a Schoolmaster could get around. This must have been his second wife.

The 1820 Middleburg census (Albrecht page 9) lists a household headed by a "widow Hachenberg" presumably the female that is over 45. If this is the same one listed in the 1810 census she would have to have been at least about 36 years old in 1810. Yes, I was thinking, that this second wife was quite young. Albrecht doesn't list anyone that could have been Elizabeth on her 1830 censuses which implies that this Elizabeth died after 1827 and before 1830 when according to the censuses, she wouldn't have been more than 64 years old. I'm poor in math. How did you come up with the 36 years old figure for Elizabeth in 1810?

I think there is a good possibility that there was a second wife, Elizabeth, but where is the record of her death? She probably was living in Middleburg when she died and would have been buried nearby. Maybe this is the same Freeburg cemetery that the first Elizabeth and Peter are buried in. I also have come to the same conclusion, two wives for Peter.

I have more questions than answers at this stage. I think I will check some of the census records just to satisfy my curiosity. Don't know what you can check, but getting a clear picture of what is on Anna Elizabeth's tombstone is a start in the right direction. Hopefully, Robert will come through for me. There is no reason to believe, that he will not.

The fact that Peter had a second wife (even if it was pretty soon after the death of his first wife) doesn't bother me. How about you? No.

I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence to say Peter had two wives. When I go to the cemetery, I will walk it. This I will do looking for the second Elizabeth's grave. Maybe there is one.

Let me give you some further thoughts. Our five time great grandmother's cemetery marker says Anna Hachenberg and that she died in Dec.1808. From then on there is never a mention of another Anna only Elizabeth. I realize what you told me about the use of names, but could it be there way of separating between Anna and Elizabeth?

Anna is either addressed as Peter's widow or consort on the cemetery marker not as his wife. All of the remarks after 1808 concerning Elizabeth mention her as Peter's wife or widow. As I said above this second wife was quite young.”

Anna was the daughter of Michael Siphers of Greenwich Township, Sussex County, New Jersey.^17a Mr. Siphers was a wealthy man, however, his daughter, Anna could not write. When it came to signing her father’s will, she had to make her mark.^17b It has been said, that Anna is a German name women took for religious purposes.

The Lord gave Johann Peter and Anna Elizabeth three boys and four girls. They are Catherine, born in 1766. There is more about her on pages 13 and 18 of JPHAD. Elizabeth was born in 1767. There is more about her on pages 4 and 7 of JPHAD. Christina was born in 1771. There is more about her on pages 4, 6, 7, 13 and 19 of JPHAD. Peter (Johann Petrus) was born 22 June 1773. There is more about him on pages 4, 6, 7, 12 and 23 of JPHAD. He was Peter, Junior. Johanne (John) was born 27 August 1774. There is more about him on pages 4, 6, 7 and 12 of JPHAD. Michael was born in 1776/77. There is more about him on pages 6, 7 and 480 of JPHAD. Finally, Sophia was born 25 October 1781.¹⁸ There is more about her on pages 4, 7 and 12 of JPHAD. (JPHAD refers to the book, Johann Peter Hachenberg and Descendants by Roberta Hachenberg Albrecht and Jacqueline S. Rotering.)

Eleven to twelve years after Peter landed in Philadelphia; there was a skirmish at Lexington-Concord, Massachusetts between the Colonies and the British. This skirmish brought to a head the differences between the two. Thus, began the American Revolution.

Peter felt it his duty to enlist and fight for his adopted land. In 1776, he enlisted in the Buck’s County Flying Militia. This unit was commissioned on 4 June 1776. The Continental Congress resolved to establish a

“Flying Camp” of ten thousand men in the middle colonies of which Bucks County was to furnish a battalion of four hundred. Joseph Hart, of Warminster, was appointed Colonel and Valentine Opp, of Springfield; one of the Captains.¹⁹ Men for the Flying Camp came from all over. It was not limited to one area.²⁰

Peter’s unit went to Fort Washington near White Plains, New York. It was here that the Battle of Fort Washington took place on 16 November 1776.

     On 2 November 1776, at Fort Washington, a dastardly deed took place. Lieutenant William Demont snuck across the American lines to the camp of the British officer Lord Hugh Percy. There he gave to Lord Percy a complete report of the strengths and weaknesses of Fort Washington's defenses. As the Adjunct officer of Colonel Robert Magaw, the commanding officer, he had acess to this information. Alas, the deserter was from the 5th Pennsylvania Regiment!What his reward by the British for doing this is not clear. However, one thing is clear, Lt. Demont was not satisfied. He latter wrote a letter expressing this truth. Most of this information was obtained by Richard M. Ketchum and written in his book "The Winter Soldiers." It also came from "The Battle of Fort Washington" by James Renner.

    The treason of Lieutenant William Demont helped General Lord Earl Hugh Percy and the British to completely overwhelm the American forces and capture the fort.

From a force of 2,967 Americans, the British took 2,818 captives. Ninety-six of them were wounded and 53 were killed. Lt. Colonel Baxter was among those killed. Of the 2,818 captured 100 were officers. Peter was one of them. ²¹

Because of the above paragraph, we must conclude that Peter marched to Fort Lee going to Fort Washington where he was taken prisoner.²³

The following are some of the events that took place after the surrender of Fort Washington. General Knypausen gave the privilege of accepting the surrender to Colonel Rall. Because Captain Hohenstein spoke English and French , he was sent to present the terms to Colonel Magaw. One of the terms was that the prisoners would be treated well. They were not. Pages 130-131 of  Richard M. Ketchum's book "The Winter Soldiers"  reveals the terrible nature in which they were treated.

     I am now reading the book "Adopted Son" written by David A. Clary. On pages 70-71, an account of the Hessians attitude is given. They were so infuriated,that they bayoneted many of the prisoners.

The captives were then imprisoned at Long Island; New York.²⁴ This is just a short distance from where the battle took place. This information was taken from an online site about the Battle of Fort Washington.²⁵

I have this account of how the officers who were captives were treated. “...Until exchanged, in many cases years later, the officers captured here alternated between periods of parole on Long Island and of confinement in New York. The enlisted men were confined in the notorious New York prisons, and prison ships, where many of them died.” This account is taken from Pennsylvania History, Volume XLVI, January 1979, Number 1 Page 78. This account is also recorded in the Archives of Pennsylvania 2^nd Series, 15: 652. It states the following: “we find his name [Peter Hachenberg] among officers who absented themselves from ‘camp’ contrary to their parole but who returned to captivity agreeable to orders.²⁶ Records of the War Department show that on 5 August 1782, he was still a prisoner of war on Long Island.²⁷

^{Concerning the the survival rate of the prisoners, the following account is given in the book "The Winter Soldiers" by Richard M. Ketchum on page 131. It is quoted by permission of "Archiving Early America Website" It says," Of more than 2, 800 men who had marched out of Fort Washington on the afternoon of November 16, 1776, there remained, some eighteen months later when a exchange of prisoners was effected, only 800 survivors." [Editor's note: that means a little over 2, 000 men perished as prisoners. By the grace of God my ancestor Peter Hachenberg was not one of them.]}

     There is an account given that Peter was taken prisoner at the Battle of Trenton. That is not possible. Here is why. If he had been taken prisoner at Trenton, he could not have marched to Fort Lee. Trenton is close to the Delaware River and Fort Lee is in the northeastern part of the State of New Jersey

However, there is a better reason. At the Battle of Trenton General Washington and the American forces completely surprised the British. There were only four American soldiers wounded and there is no report of any prisoners being taken.²²

The chronology of the following events is important. The Battle of Fort Washington occurred on 16 November 1776. After the British captured Fort Washington, General Washington along with other soldiers could do nothing to help so they retreated to Fort Lee. The British followed them and forced them to abandon the fort. When the British entered the fort, a considerable amount of military goods and food was found. This happened 20 November 1776.

Then 26 December, General Washington and the American forces completely surprised the British at the Battle of Trenton. This attack by the Americans was one of desperation and a great victory for the morale of the soldiers.²⁸

During the Revolutionary War, Anna Elizabeth more than likely stayed with her father, Michael Siphers, in New Jersey. If this was the case, one could not blame her. She did have five children and was pregnant with Michael. Another reason for believing that she stayed with her father is that there is no record of Michael’s birth in the records of “The Great Swamp Reformed and New Goschenhoppen Church.” Because of this, some people believe that Michael was born in New Jersey. I tend to agree with them, but as to this date I have not been able to verify this.²⁹

Peter purchased 100 acres and 25 acres of land 4 April 1789, in Northampton County. This county was made up of land that was acquired from the Indians in 1749 and 1768. Sources: The Pennsylvania Archives, 3^rd Series, Volume XXVI, Provincial Papers: Warranties of Land in the several counties of the State of Pennsylvania 1730-1898

White settlement didn’t begin there until 1768. During the years 1778-1779 the Tories and the Indians troubled the population. This was two of the years of the Revolution. ³⁶

In 1790, with the American Revolution over and the Colonies being victorious, Peter and his family settled in Bucks, County, Pennsylvania.³⁰ Bucks County is northeast of Philadelphia.³¹ Historically, it was one of the three original counties, created in Pennsylvania. The County was named by William Penn in 1682. He did so in honor of Buckinghamshire, England, the ancestral home of the Penn family. Penn’s home, Pennsbury Manor, is also located within the county ³²

By 7 March 1794, Peter and his family lived in Penn’s Township, Northumberland County.³³ This County was created 21 March 1772, from Bedford, Berks, Cumberland, Lancaster and Northampton Counties.³⁴ When he moved the family to Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, they moved into what is now known as Snyder, County. Note: In 1855 Snyder County was created from Union County. Centre Township is part of  Snyder County and Northumberland, County no longer exists.³⁵

There are three possible routes Peter could have taken. Before we comment on them, we must remember Peter & Anna Elizabeth had been married for some 29 years. In that time furniture and other possessions had been acquired. It also must be remembered, that they had seven children at the time. The first would have been from Northampton, they could have gone to the Delaware River and sailed downstream to the Chesapeake Bay and north on the Susquehanna River to Middleburg, Pennsylvania. This would have been the most direct route. However, I do not believe, that they took it. This is why. They would have had to travel upstream against the current. There were no motor boats in those days. Peter would have to row his way upstream using manpower. The river was rocky, shallow and the current was swift.^35a The New Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 11, page 417, columns 2 & 3 record the Susquehanna River as having rapids. This is one of the reasons it never served as an important waterway. However, in the Encyclopedia Americana International Edition, book 26, page 77, columns 1 & 2, we find this statement. “Early settlement proceeded upstream from Chesapeake Bay to exploit fertile lands of the Piedmont and Great Valley to Harrisburg, PA. Later in 1779 removal of the Indian threat encouraged settlers into the upper Susquehanna...” The second possible route is from Northampton County, Pennsylvania, Peter and his family traveled to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. From there they went south on the Susquehanna River to Middleburg, Pennsylvania^35b Going this way on the river, Peter and his family would have been going with the current. However, the above mentioned problems would still be there. For those reasons, it is unlikely, that they traveled this way. Then the third possible route was as follows: Peter built a Conestoga Wagon or Wagons in Northampton County, Pennsylvania^35c He put his family and all his goods aboard the wagons and traveled to Philadelphia. From there he traveled to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and then to Middletown, Pennsylvania. Middletown is on the Susquehanna River. All of the roads that he traveled were poor in the best of weather and impassable at other times.^35d Then, he traveled north from Middletown along the Susquehanna River and at the appropriate spot crossed the river via ferry.^35e

I went to the Barberton AAA to get the mileage for the above routes. From Northampton to Philadelphia, it is 67 miles. From Philadelphia to Lancaster, it is 70 miles. Then, from Lancaster to Middletown, it is 29 miles. From Middletown to Middleburg, it is 59 miles. Considering the hardships and the roads being rocky and narrow and otherwise impassable, I added 10 miles to each of these routes^35f This would make the total miles traveled to be 265. If they made 12 miles a day, you could divide 265 by 12 and come up with 23 days of travel.^35g Remember, Peter and his family was in Northumberland County before 7 March 1794.^35h

In Northumberland County, Peter Hachenberg, Sr. is listed as an inhabitant of Middleburg, Pennsylvania in 1814.³⁷

Morton L. Montgomery’s, “Berks County,” Volume 1, Page 750 says the following: “Peter Hachenberg settled at Freeburg, Pennsylvania, where being a skilled linguist, he taught Latin, Greek, French and German. He also had local fame as a mathematician. Middleburg and Freeburg are close.³⁸ There are those who believe that this is Peter Junior. It makes more sense that it was his father. It is believed, that he received an education in Germany. This education allowed him to be proficient in the above languages here in America. Not only was he a schoolmaster, but it is thought that he was a surveyor.³⁹ This could be the reason that he moved to Union County later.”

On 4 or 14 March 1820, Peter died in Middleburg, Union County, Pennsylvania, at the age of 79.⁴⁰ His age is recorded on the gravestone at St. Peter’s Lutheran Reformed Church Cemetery in Freeburg, Pennsylvania. The place of his death, Middleburg, is now part of Snyder County.

According to his oldest son, Peter Jr., Johann Peter died intestate or without a will.⁴¹ The following is a record of Peter’s estate, that his son Peter Jr. settled: “Union County Pennsylvania, Orphan Court, May Term, 1823: Peter Hachenberg, eldest son of Peter Hachenberg, late of Middleburg, Union County, deceased, states that the petitioner’s father died intestate a few years ago, leaving a widow named Elizabeth; and issue (child, children or offspring): Catharine who was intermarried (marriage between two families, where each takes one and gives another.) with Peter Long which said Peter Long is now deceased. Christina now deceased, who was intermarried with Francis Long, who is still living, the (said) Christina left issue 10 children--Francis, Mary intermarried with Jacob Kreck, Catharine intermarried with Michael Nerhood, John, Elizabeth, George, Peter, Christina, Magdalene and Hannah); Peter the petitioner; John Hachenberg; Michael Hachenberg and Sophia married to Abraham Smith and that the said intestate died seized in his dimesne, (Today’s English word is demain.) (It means a manor-house and the land adjacent or near.) as of fee, (An estate in which the owner has the whole property without conditions annexed to the tenure.) Of and in the following Real (P) property, to wit A house and Lot of ground situate(d) in Middleburg in the county aforesaid known on the general Plan of said Town, by the number forty bounded by (M) market Street by lots number forty two and forty four and an Alley–Also four other lots in said Town lying contiguous to each other... Asks for partition. May 27, 1823, read and inquest awarded. Union County Orphan’s Court, Docket # 2, Page 154." The quotation marks are mine.

Peter Hachenberg Jr., settled his father’s estate. I have been able to obtain a copy of this record from the Snyder County Orphan’s Court. I find the wording interesting. I have also obtained pictures of Peter Sr.’s, still existing, property from a cousin of mine.

Peter and Anna are buried in St. Peter’s Lutheran Reformed Church Cemetery in Freeburg, Pennsylvania.⁴² This is in south central Pennsylvania in Snyder County. It is bordered by the Susquehanna River. The city is approximately an hour drive north of Harrisburg, the Commonwealth’s capital.

Next, I would like to address some fictional accounts of the Hachenberg Family.

II. Fictional Accounts of the Hachenberg Family

I must admit that these accounts are quite interesting but at the same time they cannot be verified. They have come about by one person writing these accounts. Then another person accepts that writing as truth. No one bothers documenting them. As a result, you have an unverified account of family history. If you repeat something long enough, it will be accepted as truth. In this case repeat a story without documentation and it is accepted as truthful. The following is the beginning of these accounts:

There is today, in Germany, a city named Hachenburg.^43a This city is part of the land Prince Mathias Petrus inherited from his father, King Wilhelmo. The land is in the state of what was known as Prussia.^44a Wilhelmo received the land and title in 1699, in Vienna, from the House of Hapsburg. Only the city can be documented.

Prince Peter Hachenberg, (Mathias Petrus) was born in 1715, in the province of Hesse-Nassau, Germany. This province was in the state known as Prussia.^44b Prince Peter was known for his love of hunting and his outdoorsmanship. It is believed that he was also an officer in the army of the Prussian King, Frederick the Great.⁴⁵ If this is so, that would explain why Peter was made an officer in the Revolutionary War.⁴⁶ Note: Petrus is German for the English Word Peter.

According to “The Genealogy of the Hackenberg Family” apparently written in 1896, the Prince held a principality of a Township and a “Dorf” (village or cottage) in Germany. This still bears the name of Hachenberg to this day.^43b The city’s population is about 2,000. This figure was given in 1984. Today is 9 February 2002. The population could be more or less.

Then old Prince Peter was a man highly respected and greatly feared. He is today still spoken of as “The Hunting Prince of Hachenburg.” [Note: he would have been pro-gun]

The fictional account continues. Our progenitor Johann Peter Hachenberg was born 10 April 1741, in Hachenburg, Germany. He was the third son of Prince Mathias Petrus Hachenberg.⁴⁷

The city of Hachenburg is in what was Western Prussia in the Province of Hesse-Nassau. The province came about this way. Prussia incorporated Nassau. It then attached Nassau to Hesse and became known as Hesse-Nassau. Today, it is known as Rhineland-Pfalz.⁴⁸

Peter came from somewhere in this area. In this province, Prince Mathias Petrus Hachenberg held a principality of a Township and a “Dorf”.⁴⁹ Note: the city of Hachenburg does exist.

In addition to the above information, I have read parts of the book “Armorial General” authored by Jean Baptiste Rietstap in the 1880's. Mr. Rietstap is Dutch and was born in Rotterdam, Netherlands.The book is written in French. It says the following: “Hackenberg of Bavaria; Enobled in Austria 14 January 1663.” [Note: Bavaria is now Bayern in southeast Germany check the map.]

While research in other parts of Germany, has shown the presence of the Hachenberg name, Johann Peter’s origin and family have not been identified.⁵⁰

The story continues. Johann’s mother’s name is only known as Jane.⁵¹ He had two brothers. The oldest inherited the title and the lands. His name is not given. [However, his name might have been Mathias Petrus. The reason being, that the father usually gave the oldest son his given name. Also, the son could have used Petrus to differentiate from his father; “Bob Hackenberg”]

The second son’s name was Casper Frederick. He moved to England.⁵² Then he supposedly came to the Americas. Where was that? Did he communicate with his brother? Did he go to New York?

Here is an account given by Imogene Miller, in a letter, to Roberta Hachenberg Albrecht. Imogene is from Sunbury, Pennsylvania. She states, “My Grandfather, Zwingli Yearick, repeated a story told to him by George P. Hachenberg. ‘George was walking in New York City one day, he saw a shoe establishment with the name George Hachenberg, Proprietor. He went in to talk with the New York George. He told him that his ancestor was the son of a Baron in Hachenburg, Germany. His ancestor went to a university in England. There he wrote a Greek Grammar. Another son went to America. Later, the New York City George’s ancestor came to America’.” In her genealogy records Mildred Cleary Hackenberg says that this brother, Casper Frederick, went back to Germany.

Continuing, Casper must have had some money. He needed it to travel the way he did, and it did not hurt being the second son of a Prince. While in Germany, he must have received an education. This education helped him to become a great professor at one of the universities in England. At this university, he taught Greek Grammar and wrote “Elements of Greek Grammar.” It was one of the most perfect works on Greek Grammar ever written. This Greek Grammar was edited by Goodrich and adopted by the colleges generally in this country, about the year 1850. He also edited “Hackenberg’s Media.” This work is yet largely quoted by the courts of the United States.⁵³

The following are accounts of other Hachenberg Families.

III. Other Hachenbergs

The following is from a letter written by Mr. Horst Reschke to Jan Grote Smiley in 1996. “Mr. Kessler, the head of the Hachenburg Museum, let you down gently when he disputed the authenticity of the Prince Peter Hachenberg saga, which he termed a wonderful fable. I have seen the Hachenberg book, a 609 page labor of love. Nobody will fault the compiler for including the already established story in her book. Still, I’m sure you will feel better having the facts.”

“There is North German folklore about the leader of the wild hunt, in the Harz Mountains. I remember hearing it as a child in Germany. Only his name was Hackleberg. Somewhere along the way Hackleberg, the wild hunter, turned into the hunting prince of Hachenburg.”

“It is documented that the Hachenburg (the Hachen Castle) existed as early as 1222. It was the preferred residence and central administration of the possessions of the Counts Von Sayn. The earldom’s main community was the settlement at the foot of the castle. In 1247 it is referred to as a city and in 1314 it receives a city charter and rights.”

“In 1246 the lineage of the Von Sayn family is without a male heir thus becomes extinct, but the sister of the last Count inherits the estate. Skipping over several centuries in which Hachenburg fell to various parties, including Electoral Cologne, we come to the year 1649, when as per the provisions of the Westphalian Peace Treaty ( which ended the Thirty Year’s War ), Electoral Cologne was compelled to return Hachenburg to the female heirs of the house of Von Sayn.”

“While here I am skipping some more history, I want to direct your attention to the era which includes the birth and life of your ancestor Johann Peter Hachenberg, 1741-1820. In 1714 the Burggrafen von Kirchberg are in possession of the Hachenberg estate. When this family becomes extinct, in the male line of 1799, the Earldom of Sayn-Hachenburg falls to the female heir’s husband, Prince Friedrich Wilhelm von Nassau, the ancestor of the last princes of Nassau.”

“This account merely corrects the Prince Peter Hachenberg of Hachenburg portion of the story. It does not purport to deal with the other part of the narrative. But we do need to concern ourselves with the account of how and when the name Hachenburg began to be actively used. This may surprise you because of the late time frame.”

“After Prince Alexander zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn ( born 1847, died 1940, who by birthright occupied a position in the line of succession to the throne of the Kingdom of Prussia ) renounced his rights of ownership of the invisible estate of the House of Sayn, and to the title of Prince zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn, in favor of his eldest son, thus declining membership in the German High Nobility, Emperor Wilhelm I bestowed upon him the title and name of Count von Hachenburg. The date of this action was 18 March 1883. Thus the name of Hachenburg as a surname occurs relatively late in history.”

“If indeed they were born in Hachenburg, it would be a relatively easy matter to try to find Johann Peter Hachenberg and/or his father in the parish records of the parishes of both the Lutheran and Catholic Churches. The Lutheran records go from 1597 to 1920, the Catholic records from 1641 to 1883. Try finding them. The Family History Library has the microfilm of the records.” [Note: Records of both churches were searched, and there were no recorded births of children bearing the name of “Hachenburg” or its variations during the time frame of interest.]

“I suspect, however, that the immigrant progenitor Peter was not born in Hachenburg, but somewhere in the former Prussian Rhine Province (German = Rheinprovinz; the Family History Library refers to it as Rheinland). The International Genealogical Index (IGI) shows quite a few Hachenburg listings in Dierdorf, Raubach and Bergisch Gladbach. A modern database shows an unusually large concentration in the last named city. I find 44 individuals or families named Hachenburg now living in Bergisch Gladbach.”

“The Family History Library has microfilms of Bergisch Gladbach church records, but only those of the Catholic parish fit the time frame of Johann Peter Hachenberg’s birth in 1741. They go from 1657 to 1810.”

Then, in a letter by Jan Smiley to Charles Ray Hackenberg dated 1 June 2002, the following is said: “According to the British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books, there was indeed a Casper Frederick Hackenberg, who indeed authored a Greek Text, published in 1771, place unknown. There is no record where this Casper might have come from. And there is a record of another book having been published, a Media of some kind. But its author was not Casper, but one Paulus Hachenberg. Paulus was a professor of Eloquence or Rhetoric and History in the University of Heidelberg in Germany, and had been created a Doctor of Civil Law in the University of Oxford in England on 9 September 1680.”

“Whether or not Paulus ( who pre-dated our Johann Peter by a hundred years ) was connected to the family we research is not known, but he was an interesting character. He was born in 1642, the son of a pastor in a Rhenish area, and when he had concluded his studies in jurisprudence at age 22 [he] was appointed tutor for the hereditary Prince Karl, son of Prince Karl Ludwig. In 1674, Paulus became vice-dean at the Universityof Heidelberg and on 20 January 1675, he was elected dean. In 1680, when the French marched into the Palatinate, Prince Karl Ludwig sent his son Karl to England accompanied by Paulus Hachenberg. The Prince hoped to get help against the French from his cousin King Charles 2, but nly got promises. In that year, 1680, Prince Karl became sovereign of the Palatinate and Hachenberg became privy councilor and minister. The ending was bitter, when on 6th December of the same year, Hachenberg became very ill and died on the 26th. At a dinner with titled gentlemen, he did not feel well and soon had violent cramps. Many rumors circulated, and the Prince himself had the body opened. It was found that the internal organs were completely eroded."