William Cahoon

Not a known child of Sir John Colquhoun of Luss, Baronet

Findagrave confirms who his parents are.

WILLIAM CAHOON

The ancestry of William Cahoon has not been identified.

William Colquhoun fought the English in the brutal battles of Dunbar and Worcester in Scotland, and was captured by the Army of Parliament. He was indentured to the iron mines in Braintree, Massachusetts. Upon achieving his freedom, he sailed on the "Shallop" to Rhode Island and bought a share of Block Island there. In 1664 he went to Swansea RI and successfully petitioned the General Assembly to make him a freeman with full rights as a citizen.

"William Cahoon in America soon about 1652 (possibly aboard the Unity). He worked for a number of years at Saugus (Lynn, Mass.). He spent six months at Taunton before assisting in the construction of a shallop at Braintree. In April of 1661, he was one of the fifteen men who sailed from Taunton to Cow Cove and became one of the first settlers of Block Island, Mass. (now Rhode Island).

His period of servidtude presumably espired before the end of 1662, and on 13 January 1662/63 William Cahoune bought 9 from Thomas Terry 40 acres on the 'hieway' that then divided Block Island. On 4 May 1664 he was a freeman at New Shoreham, in 1665 he served on a Newport grand jury, and on 20 February 1669/70 he became a freeman and permanent resident of Swansea, Mass.

On 13 November, 1670 William Cohoun sold his 38 acres on Block Island to Samuel Hagbourne. At the coming of King Philips War, William Cahoone was killed by the Indians near East Rehobeth on 22 June 1675 and was buried at Swansea two days later.

He probably married about 1663/64 Deliverance (last name unknown), who married Caleb Lambert of Barnstable after his Wiliam's death. In 1681 Joseph Kent and Caleb Lambert were appointed guardians of Joseph Cahoon (son of William & Deliverance).

Children:

• 1. Samuel Cahoone, b. 1665 (II)
• 2. William Cahoone, b. ca 1667, m. Elizabeth Nicerson. Issue
• 3. Joseph Cahoone, b. ca 1669, m. (1)Hannah Kent, (2) Elizabeth Scranton. He has descendants in Rhode Island.
• 4. James Cahoone, b. 15 Feb. 1670/71, m. Mary Davis. Issue.
• 5. John Cahoone, b. 9 March 1672/73, m. Cofort Peet. Issue.
• 6. Nathaniel Cahoone, b. 2 Feb 1674/75, m. Janet Jones. Issue"

The above information comes from research done by Hugh Buckner Johnston, B.A., M.A. (from Ladson Papers)

Some also list a daughter Mary b 1664 m Thomas Jones

See also: Find A Grave Memorial# 26080818

From The William Cahoone (Colquhoun) Society Founded on the 325th anniversary of his death, June 24, 2000, by The Descendants Of William, The First American Cahoone.

What does Block Island have to do with William Cahoone? LOTS!!! In 1661, under the leadership of Dr. John Alcock of Boston, Mass. (one of the first graduates of Harvard),a group of men (some with their families), wishing to leave what they perceived as the "unfree" atmosphere of the Puritans, landed on Block Island. These free-thinkers defiantly believed that the State should have no power over people's religious conviction nor their right to vote. They held to their opinion that no one had the right to tell them what to charge for their own goods and services rendered nor what clothes to wear. They even DARED to support the basic rights of Native Americans, including their being"paid" for their land, rather than having it just taken away from them "in God's name".
It was this group's goal to found a new settlement where they could "breathe the air of freedom". To this end, Wiliam Cahoone, along with a few other indentured Scotsmen, was returned from the Leonard Iron Works back to Quincy where he worked on the construction of a shallop (a 22+' 2-masted shipdesigned for transport of people and goods along the shallower waters near the coast). William and this boat were returned to the Leonard Iron Works, on what today is the Raynham/Taunton line. In April of 1661, these "new pilgrims", who included William Cahoone, then traveled down the Taunton River, the Warren River, out into Mt. Hope Bay, Narragansett Bay, and out to Block Island at Cow Cove.As the settlers' boat came close to the shore, an unforseen problem presented itself: - how to unload the cattle?! After some deliberation, it was decided that the easiest way to accomplish this necessary task would be simply to push the cows overboard! The bewildered beasts were compelled to swim, much to the delight of the curious and excited Native Americans gathered there. Even til today, this stretch of beach is still known as "Cow Cove".
WILLIAM CAHOONE WAS FIRST LISTED AS A FREEMAN HERE ON MAY 4, 1664! In 1911, a lasting tribute to these stalwart souls was erected on Block Island in the form of "Settlers' Rock" on which a commemorative plaque lists the following settlers' names: Thomas Terry, Duncan M. Williamson, Samuel Deering , John Rathbone, John Clark, William Judd, Simon Ray, Edward Vorse, William Rosh, Nicholas White , Thormut Rose, William Billings, William Barker, Trustrum Dodge, , David Kimball, John Ackurs, William Cahoone, Thomas Faxun
Officially made Swansea's first town brickmaker, Dec. 24, 1673 William Cahoone finally met with "success" as a Freeman in Swansea, Massachusetts, when he was officially appointed as the sole brickmaker for that town. There is still in existence, in the Swansea Town Offices, the original bound volume entitled: "Proprietors Book of Grants and Meetings, 1668-1769". It includes the following entry:

"At A Town Meeting of the Towns Men, December 24, 1673, It was Agreed upon by and Between the townsmen In the behalf of the town and William Cohoone (Cohoune/Cohowne?) brickmaker that for and In Consideration of a Lot and other Accommodations or Grantes And Given by him from the town unto him the said William Cohoun. It was therefore Agreed and Concluded upon by the Parties Above so that the said William Cohoon Shall Supply all the Inhabitants of the Town with Bricks at a Price not Exceeding Twenty Shillings a Thousand in Current Pay Putting between Man and Man."

NOTE: in each instance where William's name is written, his last name is spelled differently! This, to me, indicates that perhaps William Cahoone was illiterate, not that uncommon for his times and circumstances. Is it any wonder, therefore, that even today this name is spelled in so many different ways?
On June 24, 2000, William Cahoone's direct descendants donated a Commemorative Plaque to the Swansea Historical Society. It will be affixed to a rock and erected near the site of the Cahoone Brickworks, close to the location of the Myles Garrisoned House along the Palmer River in Swansea, Mass

---

The Providence Journal newspaper sent a reporter to cover the William Cahoone Memorial Service on June 25, 2000. The following is the article which subsequently appeared on July 10, 2000. It was accompanied by four photographs.

A settler's sacrifice. Descendants gather to honor a Swansea founder. by Meredith Goldstein REHOBOTH - Deborah Cahoon Didick knows the story by heart. It was June 24, 1675. Native Americans and settlers were about to begin fighting in what came to be known as King Philip's War, a bloody battle over land and identity. William Cahoone, a Scottish immigrant, gathered with a group of local residents at the Baptist Meeting House in Swansea for a day of prayer. They prayed for peace, hoping that the growing tension would subside. That night, however, as they left the church, the settlers were ambushed by Native Americans who had becomevengeful for their stolen homeland. Some of the settlers were killed, others badly wounded. The survivors ran to the pastor's house to hide.
William Cahoone was a family man. He had come to the New Plymouth Colony as an indentured servant and became one of the first residents of Swansea (founded in 1668), where he and his wife raised seven children. He was the town's official brickmaker. That night, as his companions lay injured and dying, Cahoone volunteered to travel through what he knew was hostile territory to get medical help. He set off through Swansea toward Rehoboth to get a doctor. Cahoone was never seen alive again. His remains were found in Rehoboth near Providence and Lake Streets, the original Native American footpaths. He was never given a proper Baptist burial.
Three-hundred twenty-five years and one day later, a group of about 30 of Cahoone's descendants gathered at the Lake Street Cemetery in Rehoboth to lay their patriarch to rest. They wore pink name tags which said how they are related to Cahoone (now spelled Cahoon), and laid fresh flowers in honor of the anniversary of his death. "You can cry", said Didick, an 11th -generation Cahoon who organized the memorial service. "You're family. You're my cousins." Didick spent the last year finding Cahoons in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and all around the country, some of whom did not know their ancestor's history in Rehoboth and Swansea. She invitedthem all to the area to meet one another and learn about "Grampa Will", the man who sacrificed his own life for those who needed medical attention. After more than three centuries, Didick wanted to gather with her family together to put Cahoone's spirit to rest. During a memorial weekend, they toured Cahoone's past. They stopped at the Leonard Iron Works in Raynham where Cahoone worked before moving to Block Island in 1661. They followed the Taunton River, the same route he would have traveled to get to the island, where he was first listed as a Freeman. They went to the Luther Museum in Swansea to see his brickmaking handiwork, and stopped at the site of the Myles Garrison House in Swansea where Cahoone was last seen alive by his friends and neighbors.
The group celebrated their heritage at a testimonial dinner where newly-acquainted family members spoke about their ever-present connection to Grampa Will. And on Sunday, June 25, they had a proper funeral. To the cries of bagpipes played by Charles Neil Cahoon, they placed flowers on a small gravesite. The Rev. Edgar Farley of the Hornbine Historic Baptist Church led the service. He thanked Cahoone for making a journey of mercy, and sacrificing his life to help other people. "It reminds me of someone else. Someone who lived 2,000 years ago. His name was Jesus." Farley told a crying Didick that Cahoone lives in one of God's mansions, and will be reunited with his family in Heaven. "We did not know him," he said. "We believe as Christians that one day, we shall know him."

CARRYING YOU HOME

• We carried you. We carried you. We carried you home. We carried you William! We carried you home.
• We all laughed. We all cried. Some came in groups! And some came alone! We came from all around.We all came to carry you home!
• Some came from near And some came from afar To present their hearts. Some danced And we all sang. We all sang, William, As we carried you home.
• We brought our children. And we brought our parents. We came old We came young To remember your soul. We all came William To carry you home.
  • by Richard (Cahoon) Didick June 25th, 2000

    ---

Deliverance Peck and William Cahoon were married.

William Cahoon was captured by the English, along with his brother John, and they were sold as an indentured servants and sent to America. On 11 NOV 1650 William was taken to Liverpool and was transported from there to Boston, Massachusetts aboard the ship "Unity," commanded by Captain Augustine Walker of Charlestown, Massachusetts. Bex & Company, a London Merchant company, purchased several Scotch prisoners for indentured servants to exploit bog iron at Saugus, Braintree, and Taunton.

William's brother John was shipped from London aboard the ship "John & Sarah" on 11 NOV 1652, but he died either on the voyage or shortly after arriving in Massachusetts.

After working in Saugus, Massachusetts for several years, William worked in Taunton for 6 months. He then assisted in the construction of a shallop at Braintree, Massachusetts. He learned the brick making trade from James Leonard. (S5)

In 1660, with sixteen others, he purchased Block Island, Rhode Island,and became one of the first settlers there, and settled at Cow Cove on Block Island. {S5}. They sailed from Taunton to Cow Cove in 1661 and became the first settlers on Block Island {S11}. Apparently his term of servitude had ended by this time.

He married Deliverance PECK (about 1661-S11)(in 1662) at Block Island, Newport County, Rhode Island. {S5}.

On 13 JAN 1663 he purchased 40 acres from Thomas Terry, which were on the 'hiway' that divided Block Island. On 4 MAY 1664 he was a freeman in New Shoreham. In 1665 he served on a Newport Grand Jury. On 13 NOV 1670 he sold 38 acres on Block Island to Samuel Hogbourne.

William worked as a brickmaker in Braintree, Massachusetts, according to a contract dated 23 DEC 1673.

In "Hubbard's Narrative of Indian Wars" we find this record: "On the 24th of June, 1675, the alarm was sounded in Plymouth Colony, when eight or nine of the English were slain in and about Swansea, they being the first to fall in King Philip's War." William Cahoon was one of these nine. He was killed by Indians during the King Philips War, on 22 JUN 1675 near East Rehoboth, Bristol County, Massachusetts. He was buried two days later, on 24 JUN 1675, at Swansea, Massachusetts. We find in the records of this event the Americanized spelling of the name from Colquhoun to Cahoon. Note that even though Hubbard's Narrative says 24 June, the records consistently say he was killed on 22 June.

WIFE : [F2209]. Deliverance PECK. Born in (1635-S10)(1637-S11) on Block Island, Newport County, Rhode Island. She died (on Block Island, Rhode Island-S11)(she died in Rehoboth, MA-S10).

Samuel Cahoon in the Family Data Collection - Births

Add alternate information Report issue Name: Samuel Cahoon Father: William Cahoon Mother: Deliverance Peck Birth Date: 1663 State: VA Country: USA Save Cancel Source Information Edmund West, comp.. Family Data Collection - Births [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2001.

Description The Family Data Collection - Births database was created while gathering genealogical data for use in the study of human genetics and disease. Learn more... ___________________________________________________

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Cahoon-44

FROM SOLDIER TO BRICK MAKER:

The life of William Cahoone, c. 1633 to 22 June 1675

By - Stephen Lance Calhoun -- 30 June 1987 -- PREFACE

"William Cahoone was most likely the first member of Clan Colquhoun to come to North America. He came as an indentured servant in punishment for his service as a Scottish soldier in the royalist Army of the English Civil War in 1650. The indenture taught William the trade of brick making, which he worked at for the rest of his life. He was killed by Wampanoag Indians in the first day of King Philip's War. His death in 1675 ended what some people would call a tragic life of 42 years, but one that could be called exciting and successful. His seven children and their descendants spread out all over North America, becoming a large and proud Scottish-American family."

References

• https://www.familytreedna.com/public/calhoun?iframe=yresults retrieved 11 Sept 2019. William b 1632 in Hap'group R1b1a2 - Family A. John of Luss b 1698 in Hap'group E1b1b1 - Regrouping is coming.
• https://dougcahoon.wixsite.com/clan-colquhoun-tour/copy-of-beginnin...
• Way, George and Squire, Romily. Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia. (Foreword by The Rt Hon. The Earl of Elgin KT, Convenor, The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs). Published in 1994. Pages 108 - 109. the official Clan Colquhoun Society
• The descendants of Sir Alexander Colquhoun
• COHOON - WILLIS and the FAMILIES we came from Source list:
• RootsWeb: COHOON - WILLIS and the FAMILIES we came from
• Family Tree: William Cahoon (Colquhoun) and Deliverance Peck, Comments By Frederick W. Graham, 2013-03-26 [2]
• Find-a-Grave Website: Profile created by: David Cahoon, Record added: Apr 17, 2008, Find A Grave Memorial# 26080818; Find A Grave: Memorial #26080818
• Information on William Cahoon from Deborah A. Cahoon Didick, "Famous and Infamous Cahoons" (s.l.: Hazelnut Press, 1999);
• Lila Cahoon, "The Cahoons of America and Where to Find Them" (Cardston, Alberta: Lila Cahoon, 1991), p. 385-387;
• Stephen Lance Calhoun, "From Soldier to Brickmaker: The Life of William Cahoone c1633 to 22 June 1675," published in Orval O. Calhoun, "800 Years of Colquhoun, Colhoun and Cahoon Family History in Ireland, Scotland, England, United States of America, Australia and Canada" (Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1976-1991), vol. 3, p. 22-66;
• information provided by genealogist Burt Derrick of Harwich, Massachusetts.
• Source: S165 Title: Ancestry Family Trees Publication: Name: Name: Online publication - Provo, UT, USA:
• http://stephenokeson.com/genealogy/Calhoun_132.html lists 9 children & unproven parents. Cites:
• Dobson, D. Directory of Scots Settlers in America 1625-1685
• Fraser. Sir W. Chiefs of Colquhoun and Their Country
• Hume Brown, P. History of Scotland
• McPhail I Dumbarton Common Good Accounts 1614-1685
• The Clan Colquhoun Journal, Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2002, “Who Was William Cahoon?” (The United Kingdom Society) by Gary D. Calder
• https://www.facebook.com/theclanmuseum/

______________________________________________________________________________

Discussion of Origins

Please also see: https://www.geni.com/discussions/201668?msg=1328098

seen as son of Catherine Graham & Sir John Colquhoun of Luss, Baronet and argument dismissed below.

Taken From “Who Was William Cahoon?1631 - 1652, Scotland/England/America. AN EXAMINATION INTO THE PARENTAGE OF WILLIAM CAHOON Gary D. Calder. Via the site https://dougcahoon.wixsite.com/clan-colquhoun-tour/copy-of-beginnin... retrieved 11 September 2019

Much has been written regarding the uncertain parentage of William Colquhoun (aka Cahoon, Cahoone, Cohoon, Cahoune, etc.) commonly thought to have been born about 1633 - 35 and transported to America as an indentured servant about 1651, later marrying Deliverance Peck, siring a large family and finally tragically killed by Indians (1675) during “King Phillip's War” while running to obtain assistance during an Indian attack.
As his name is of Scottish derivation and, he himself, is recorded to have thought himself a Scot, his birthplace is found in many historic and genealogical records in various Scottish locations. However, to date and to my knowledge, there is no record in existence that confirms the exact date, place and parentage of William Cahoon. Let us start with the 2 most common assertions found in contemporary records of the Church of Latter Day Saints records (familysearch.org), ancestry.com, and family histories etc. They are:

Firstly,

• that William Cahoon is the son of John Colquhoun and Lilias Graham. Is William the son of John Colquhoun and Lilias Graham?

It is generally accepted that John Colquhoun b. abt. 1596 is the eldest son of Alexander Colquhoun b. 1573, Lord (Laird) of Luss and Margaret Helen Buchanan b. abt. 1576. John succeeded to his father's title as Laird of Luss in 1617.

Sometimes, the title of Baron is erroneously applied to his father Sir Alexander. This is incorrect as John Colquhoun received the title of First Baronet of Nova Scotia, August 1625 by Charles the First and the Colquhoun/Luss Lairds prior to 1625 were not Barons or Baronets. In 1620 (June 20?) John Colquhoun married Lady Lilias Graham (Lady Montrose) 2. Her parents were John Graham (Earl of Montrose) and Lady Margaret Ruthven (b. 1577 Perth, Scotland, d. April 15, 1618, Perth, Scotland), she died at 41 years of age 3. Her parents were William Ruthven and Dorothea Stewart. Her brother, was James Graham, the famous Marquis of Montrose.

The children of John and Lilias, as found in various records, including the Book of Dumbartonshire, are as follows (dates approximate):

• • John b. 1621 – the “Black Cock of the West”, died without a male heir
• • Jean b. 1622 - m. Walter Stewart
• • Lilias b. 1624 – m. John Napier
• • James b. 1626 – estates devolved to him. He left one son, “Humphrey”
• • Catherine b. 1628 – m. Drummond of Pitcaithley
• • Alexander b. 1630 - Sir Alexander of Tillichewan

So we find 3 legitimate sons and 3 legitimate daughters of John and Lilias Colquhoun, but William is not included in the list of recorded legitimate offspring.

Is William the son of Alexander Colquhoun and Marion Stirling?

Secondly, many claim that William Cahoon was the son of Alexander Colquhoun (b. about 1600, d. June 18, 1632, m. Sept. 1631, Canongate, Edinburgh), and Marion Stirling (b. abt. 1613, Edinburgh). However, this claim is not supported by Sir William Fraser, Colquhoun family historian.

“In 1867, Sir James Colquhoun asked Sir William Fraser to write a history of the Colquhouns and their lands. The chief of Colquhoun kept a huge charter chest in which were deposited, charters, copy letters, certificates, marriage agreements and all the other necessary paperwork relative to its legal and family affairs. These were very important in proving or disproving rights to lands, titles, legitimacy or otherwise, and all carefully stored. The charter chest was opened and Sir William carefully documented every piece of writing it contained and then began building the history of the family.”

The author goes on to say, “However, Sir William Fraser, the family historian states that there was only one child of that marriage, Jean Colquhoun, who was baptized in 1632. Apparently the daughter pre-deceased her father (d. June 1632) and Fraser records that Alexander left no issue. We must take serious account of Fraser's work as there were no baptismal registers kept in Dumbartonshire until 1666, some thirty years later. Luss Registers did not commence until 1698.”

The author of the Clan Colquhoun Journal states, “If he (Sir William Fraser) states that there were no surviving children of Alexander's marriage, then he is probably correct.”

The Book of Dumbartonshire states; “Alexander, who died without issue, his nephew, Sir John being served heir to him in certain tenements in the burgh of Dumbarton.”

The “One World Tree” ancestry.com site, does include a reference to their child, Jean (b. abt. 1632). Regrettably, this site is populated by additional children submitted by various families claiming descent from Alexander and Marion, including a son John and a son William. These additional boys claim to be born between 1632 and 1635. The difficulty in these assertions is that it is a matter of fact that Alexander died in June 1632, 10 months after his marriage in September, 1631. Fathering one child (Jean) prior to his death is certain, especially given that Jean is recorded in the Colquhoun charter chest. If Jean was conceived after her parents were married, she couldn't have been born before April and she died prior to June 1632. Fathering additional children, particularly those claiming birth in 1633 to 1635 would be miraculous as Alexander would have to have fathered them after he died or, at least, on his deathbed during the month of May-June 1635, his wife having just delivered a daughter that had passed away - highly implausible.

Male children carried the family name and title, and as such were highly valued. It is almost inconceivable that the Colquhoun family charter chest records would have contained a record of a female child, Jean, but omitted to record the male heir(s) to the family title. Any male children of Lord Alexander Colquhoun and Lady Marion would have been recorded. One must conclude that William cannot be their child.

Why are there so many claims that William was the son of John and Lilias or John's younger brother Alexander and his wife Marion if these claims have no merit?

There is probably more than one reason explaining how these claims have come forward. 1. Confusion; we shall see that William himself appears to have claimed to be related to the Colquhoun Lords of Luss – if not through one of the aforementioned couples, then who? 2. Preference for legitimacy and avoidance of scandal; the claims that William was a son of an aristocratic married couple have come down through North American family records. When William first landed in Massachusetts, in 1651, that state was a theocratic dictatorship. Religious law and harsh penalties for non-conformance were commonplace. Legitimacy was important and William himself may have been wise enough to imply a legitimate parentage, or at least not disclose anything to the contrary. Some of the research into the Colquhoun circumstances were undertaken by researchers during or from the Victorian era. Once again, strict Victorian morals may have been applied – on both sides of the Atlantic. Regarding Sir William Fraser in Scotland, the Clan Colquhoun Journal states, “There are claims that Sir William took a biased view of historical events, white-washing the family where necessary, as he was being financed by the Colquhouns. However, it would certainly not do his professional reputation any good to distort history in such matters, and I do not believe that he did. He may have 'skated over' some of the less savoury activities (from a Victorian moral viewpoint), but is unlikely to have fundamentally changed the facts.” In America, many Cahoon descendants became prosperous, highly regarded members of society. Descendancy from legitimate British and European aristocracy provided an impressive addition to a family pedigree. Miss Ida Cahoon (b. Ida Maria Cahoon, May 1852, Dover, Cuyahoga, Ohio, d. Dec. 1925), a direct 6th generation descendant of William Cahoon and Deliverance Peck wrote a “History of the Cahoon Family, with Especial Reference to Joseph Cahoon, First Settler of Dover, Ohio, and His Descendants” by his “youngest granddaughter,” Ida M. Cahoon (1910). Miss Cahoon, a Victorian spinster, may well have written in reflection of the morals of the time or, alternately, simply recorded the history, from earlier prudish eras, as she had received and understood it. The claim of direct descendancy from a legitimate Scottish Lord is appealing to many. It is easy to accept the “family lore” without delving too carefully into the verifiable facts of the matter. There are no verifiable facts that support William Cahoon as the son of either, Lord John and Lady Lilias Colquhoun or Lord Alexander and Lady Marion Colquhoun.

If William Cahoon is not the legitimate son of John and Lilias or Alexander and Marion Colquhoun – then who? In order to understand William's possible parentage an overview of the background of his probable parents must be understood. For the entire tale of the exploits of Sir John Colquhoun, Lord of Luss and 1st Baronet of Nova Scotia, the reader is directed to “Vicissitudes of Families” by Sir Bernard Burke, the same Burke of the redoubtable “Burke's Peerage.” The abridged facts of the strange case of John Colquhoun and his wife's younger sister Katherine (aka Catherine) Graham are as follows: As we have seen Sir John Colquhoun is married to Lilias Graham (former Lady Montrose) and they have six children. Lilias' mother, Margaret Ruthven was said to have been “addicted to the practice of magic”, Margaret’s grandfather and brother both have been linked to magic and sorcery. Practicing witchcraft in Scotland was known as “malefice or necromancy” and was illegal. John and Lilias lived in the ancestral home, Rossdhu, on the banks of Loch Lomond. Lilias' brother, James and sister, Katherine frequently came to visit their sister and her husband as children and teenagers. The two families were on friendly terms. Lilias' mother died April, 1618 and her father died in the autumn of 1626. At this time, some of their children (Lilias' sisters) were still living in the home of their now deceased father. At that time, Katherine would have been about 16 years old and her youngest sister, Beatrix about 11 years old. John and Lilias Colquhoun agreed to have Katherine and Beatrix live with them at Rossdhu until such time as they could be married and care for themselves. In November, 1629, the Colquhoun family, including the Graham sisters attended the wedding of their brother, James Graham, Earl of Montrose to Magdalen Carnegie where they “associated in harmony and cordiality”. “In the month of September, 1631, (35 year old) Sir John Colquhoun, and his (21 year old) sister-in-law, Lady Katherine Graham, eloped from his castle of Rossdhu on Loch Lomond. This event was no less sudden in execution than it had been secret in preparation. No one seems to have known, or even suspected what was about to happen, except Sir John's valet, a German of the name of Thomas Carlippis, who was the partner of their flight. Then the whole miserable story became public, and the ruin of this unhappy lady, still in early youth, by the arts of her brother-in-law and guardian, was proclaimed to the world.” The events from 1629 to 1631 are summarized by stating that Sir John was thought to have exhausted all of the usual methods of seduction and persuasion to secure the favours of Lady Katherine. She was believed to have resisted them all. Ultimately, Sir John is said to have given Katherine a gift of an enchanted jewel, and upon wearing the jewel, she was incapable of resisting Sir John's advances. The legal language of the charges against Sir John state, “...and not being able by his craft and subtlety to prevail and ensnare her, he thereupon addressed himself to certain witches and sorcerers, consulted and dealt with them for charms and incantations, and namely with Thomas Carlippis, whom he kept as his servant, and procured from him, being a necromancer, certain philtra, or poisons of love, or poisonable and enchanted tokens of love, especially a jewel of gold, set with divers precious diamonds and rubies, which was poisoned and intoxicated by the said necromancer; and had the secret and devilish force alluring and forcing the receiver thereof to expose her body, fame, and credit to the unlawful will and pleasure of the giver thereof.” As he had complete power over her through malefice (sorcery), she was thought to be legally and morally innocent of any wrongdoing. Sir John and, his valet, Thomas Carlippis were accused of abducting Lady Katherine. The trio made their way to London, “Sir John lived in London for many years, during the upheavals of the Civil War.” When their elopement is considered in modern terms, it appears probable that Katherine's publicly proclaimed lack of will or collusion in the affair, was a legal and moral defence cleverly contrived by her brother, James. This begs the question, was she in love with Sir John and a willing participant? Apparently, he was certainly obsessed by her. Meanwhile, back in Scotland James Graham, Lord Montrose, was humiliated by the circumstances of the desertion of one sister and abduction of another. James Graham was, at this time in high favour with the King. “The King's instructions ... to the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Sir Thomas Hope, are ... explicit as to the exact nature of the accusation, which was incest*, accomplished by means of sorcery.” *It should be noted that relations with the sister or brother of your spouse, whether your spouse was living or dead, was regarded in Scotland at that time as “incest.” Proclamations were made in Edinburgh, demanding that Sir John and Thomas Carlippis return to face the charges – failure to do so would result in a guilty sentence and forfeiture of estate, title, life rents and, most importantly at that time, excommunication from the church. By the 11th of January, 1633, Sir John and Thomas Carlippis had failed to appear and answer the charges, therefore, the sentence of fugitation (outlawry) was pronounced against them. Sir John and Lady Katherine were in London at the time of the pronouncements. “In 1633, the lands and assets of Luss were confiscated by the crown and sold to Viscount Balhaven. However through the intervention of Sir John's brother, Humphrey Colquhoun of Balvie, who purchased back the holdings before Viscount Balhaven could take possession of them, the estates of Luss remained in the family. Humphrey of Balvie held the lands until his nephew John, son of Sir John, became of age, then resigned the estates in his favour.” James Graham, Lord Montrose, left Scotland in “mid-summer 1633” to travel and study in Europe. His departure is partially credited to the shame of the scandal that embroiled his family. However, Napier states, “As the young Earl (Montrose) quitted Scotland immediately after the outlawry of his brother-in-law, we must cling to the hope, that he had made a point of discovering his ruined sister, and had provided some safe but secluded retreat for her abroad.” While this is a kind hope, Burke also mused, “It is sad to reflect on the misery of her blighted youth, beauty, and high birth. As Sir John Colquhoun was an unprincipled and profligate scoundrel, it is most probable that he deserted her as soon as he tired of her, or found that the scanty pecuniary supply which reached him in his exile made it inconvenient to maintain her. Unless she hid her shame and sorrows in an early grave (italics added), it is too probable that before his return to his own country, he had abandoned her to his confederate, Carlippis, the necromancer.” “Sir John lived in London for many years, during the upheavals of the Civil War.” By 1647, the Marquis of Montrose, who had originally prosecuted the charges of incest and sorcery against Sir John, was in exile, and under sentence of death and forfeiture. Sir John's brothers approached the Scottish Presbytery of Dumbarton in April, 1647 (16 years after Sir John and Lady Katherine's elopement) to have his excommunication rescinded. The Presbyter Kirk (church) had become the government, and Argyle (Montrose's bitter enemy) had become virtual dictator. “This total upheaving of all the former authorities, and the implacable enmity which the ruling powers entertained towards the Marquess of Montrose, doubtless seemed a promising conjuncture for Sir John to reappear on his native soil.” Burke states, “Indeed, Sir John judged correctly, as he found his crime by no means difficult to atone, for he had no sooner returned than he was freed from his sentence of excommunication, and received into the bosom of the Presbyterian Kirk.” Joseph Irving's relation of Sir John's “confession” to the Presbytery of Dumbarton, May 11, 1647, is as follows: “ 'Luss with many tears did regret did bemoan his case, and wished for nothing more than to be received again into the bosom of the church in which he was born and baptized, and where the ordinances of God were so pure; but he did somewhat decline a plain and true confession of the sin of incest with his sister-in-law, Lady Catherine Graham, till he had settled his estate in the world.' As the law of this country still prohibits marriage with even a deceased wife's sister, it is hardly possible to imagine the horror with which the Scottish divines of the seventeenth century regarded the marriage of a man with the sister of his wife, while that wife was still alive; and the Presbytery therefore, finding Luss unwilling to make 'a plain and true confession,' do not appear to have modified in any way their sentence of excommunication.” However, regarding Sir John's confession, Napier states, “no expression of indignation or severity accompanies the report. No austere, uncompromising sentence follows. The clerical tribunal, which raked the gutters of their language for opprobrious terms against Montrose, seems willing to take at his word the man who had seduced by the vilest of arts his own ward and sister-in-law...” Irving's conclusion that Sir John was not forgiven is contradicted by Burke (above), Buchan who says, “the malefactor was outlawed and excommunicated, returning fourteen years later to be received into grace by Church and State, the unhappy girl disappears from history,” and Napier who says, “Luss appears to have escaped all further trouble on the subject, either from Kirk or State, which, indeed, were then identical in the question of prosecuting such delinquents.” Given the combined authority of Burke, Buchan and Napier, one is persuaded that Sir John was forgiven, or least was spared “all further trouble on the subject”. Sir John's whereabouts and actions following 1647 are uncertain. Burke states, “It is probable that the villainous career of Sir John Colquhoun was cut short by death soon after his return to Scotland and restoration to the good graces of the Presbyterian Kirk ... Consequently Sir John Colquhoun, the magician and outlaw, must either have died within a year of his return to his native country, or he must have resigned his estates to his son, who is in 1648 designated as “Laird of Luss.” The aforementioned son that inherited the estates was the eldest son of Sir John and Lilias also named John. The Rossdhu House website, “Home of the Chiefs of the Clan Colquhoun”, brochure states, “This sinister laird's successor, Sir John Colquhoun 20th of Luss, was so swarthy and haughty that he was nicknamed, 'the Black Cock of the West.' His portrait at Rossdhu is of unusual interest as it shows him in his red baronial robes edged with white fur and may be unique in this period.” The Clan Colquhoun Journal reports that, “It is believed that Sir John died between February 1649 and May 1650.” A persistent piece of information found on numerous websites indicates that Sir John, “died in exile, in Italy in 1655”. Example quote: “But Sir John fell in love with his wife's pretty sister, Lady Katherine Graham, and after eloping with her fled abroad to die in exile in Italy.” There is absolutely no evidence, to my knowledge, that supports this prevalent assertion. Sir John remains a mystery to the end, as does the fate of his Katherine. Who Was William Colquhoun (b.abt. 1633-35 d. June 24, 1675)? As we have seen, it is improbable, if not impossible, that William was the legitimate son of John Colquhoun and Lilias Graham or Alexander Colquhoun and Marion Stirling. However, could William have been the son of John Colquhoun and Katherine Graham? Given the information available I suggest that this is not only likely, it is probable. I have constructed a 'forensic investigation' and, in the legal manner, and reached conclusions based upon the test of the “balance of probabilities”, as follows: 1. Sir John Colquhoun and Lady Lilias Graham had 6 children and are therefore, both from families of proven fertility. 2. Sir John Colquhoun deserted his wife and family in September 1631 and fled to London in the company of Lady Katherine Graham and his servant Carlippis. 3. “He lived in London for some years during the upheavals of the Civil War”, presumably in the company of Lady Katherine. “The last notice that I have of this young and beautiful lady, Catherine Graham, is that, in September, 1632 she was living with Sir John Colquhoun in London, whither he had conveyed her when he took her from Rossdhu in the preceding year. I have no further clue to the incidents of her sad story.” So records indicate that they were co-habiting in London for, at least one year. No records are known to reveal, if and when they ceased to live together – if ever, aside from Sir John's return to Scotland in 1647 where he returned unaccompanied. 4. Lady Katherine, having fled with Sir John in a love tryst, was with him from the age of 21 years old to an unknown date. Sir John has lost his family, title, fortune and good name to be with Katherine after years of attempted seduction. Katherine has betrayed her sister's trust. All for love. It is inconceivable that they did not make love. 5. Given these facts, it would be more probable than improbable that Lady Katherine, a young woman of a fertile family in prime childbearing years, had one or more children fathered by Sir John during their sojourn in London. 6. There is no record of any children by Sir John and Lady Katherine. On reflection, why would there be any records of illegitimate children of Sir John and Lady Katherine in the Colquhoun family record vault? Who would make them in the first place? Someone living in the area where the illegitimate child was born, a parish record in London perhaps? Would the parents want such a record to be made? Who would take and place the record in the Colquhoun family records? Sir John was persona non grata. Certainly not Lilias Colquhoun. Their son John, the succeeding Lord, to record his father's infidelity and his mother's shame? It would be astonishing if there was a record and the absence of same is somewhat predictable, as follows: Sir John and Lady Katherine were living in Cromwellian wartime London under an atmosphere of strict religious intolerance. Sir John has been found to be a “necromancer” by a Scottish Court – at that time witches were still being burned at the stake. Lady Katherine has either been abducted or acquiesced to elope with her sister's husband. From 1642 – 1651 Civil Wars between English armies and Scots or Irish armies were undertaken. Sir John and Katherine must have been somewhat akin to enemy aliens living in England and therefore couldn't afford being subject to suspicion. For their own protection, their relationship which would have been offensive to the church in London in those days, and the fact of any offspring would likely have been carefully sanitized. It is not inconceivable that any illegitimate children may have been sent away to school for their own protection and to further distance the parents from “living in sin” and facing the censure of those times. Alternately, if the children were at home, they would have led very private lives. It is also possible that such children were unaware of their illegitimacy and the illicit relationship between their father and mother. Through family discussion it is probable that such a child or children were aware that their parents were Scottish aristocrats, and aware of additional siblings by Sir John and may well have known that he/they are the sibling of Sir John's son John – “the Black Cock of the West”. 7. Sir John returns to Scotland in 1647 and though repentant, he refuses to admit his incest with Lady Katherine. By doing so, he jeopardizes the chance to obtain a pardon and regain respectability and possibly some of his former resources. We may deduce from his behaviour that he loves Lady Katherine and is not prepared to confirm the destruction of her already damaged reputation. 8. Any children of Sir John and Lady Katherine would be proof of their incest. Therefore, it is to Sir John's advantage to have the existence of any children remain unknown. 9. No mention is made of Lady Katherine's circumstances during Sir John's return to Scotland in 1647 or her presence after 1647. As she is not mentioned at all, the possibility exists that Lady Katherine has died prior to his return. (Her mother, in comfort, safety and with all resources, died of natural causes at 41 years of age. Lady Katherine, a fugitive, with who knows what limited resources, privation and lack of medical care would be 37 years old in 1647). Additionally, London suffered outbreaks of plague, particularly in the years 1645 - 46, notably in the parishes of St Botolph Bishopsgate, St James Clerkenwell and St Katharine by the Tower. Perhaps Katherine was a victim of the plague? If that were the case, Sir John would no longer need to be near her to love and protect her and that, and the change of Scottish political fortunes, may be the very reason that he feels free to return at his own risk. However, he is not prepared to sully her memory by confirming the incest. 10. Sir John dies sometime between February 1649 and May 1650. 11. Scottish and English forces are rallying for battle. Sir John is dead. William, 15-17 years old, without parental guidance and in a youthful search for glory and believing himself to be the (legitimate?) son of a Scots Lord, leaves his school or accommodation (in the care of an elderly Carlippis?) previously arranged by his now deceased father, and makes his way to the area of battle. The Battle of Dunbar takes place September 3, 1650. How would he have made his way from London to Dunbar? As the son of a Scots Lord William undoubtedly would have learned to ride and would likely have access to a horse. One can imagine him riding to Dunbar and presenting himself to someone in authority. Perhaps as he was on horseback, and as only a person of “means” could free up a horse from domestic use, he was assigned to the Scots cavalry? So, what capacity could William fulfil as he was only a youth? At this time the Scots had two types the cavalry. The first type was the lancers – obviously an unsuitable position for an untrained youth. “The second type of cavalry was dragoons, essentially mounted infantry. Armed with a short firelock musket that could be fired from horseback and a sword, they had the mobility of cavalry but fought on foot. In action, it was expected that every tenth dragoon would stay behind the battle to hold the horses of the others. They wore no defensive armour and were dressed similar to musketeers.” In this scenario, the obvious person left to hold the horses would be William, a youth, while the larger stronger men went to fight the English soldiers. This would explain how William, at such a young age, could be, as reputed by some descendants, part of the “Scottish horse” taken prisoner by the Army of Parliament at Dunbar. Note: The previous substantive points of William's deducted life were sent to a contemporary member of the Scottish aristocracy for review (permission not granted to release name at this time). This person has a keen interest in Scottish history and access to private records. Their reply dated May 28, 2008, in part, is as follows: “So your William, if he was born in 1635, could have been the son of John and Katherine. According to Buchan's Montrose, John came home 14 years after his fleeing the country. As you say, no mention of what became of Katherine, but their son might naturally have come “home” and joined with the Royalists. The Battle of Dunbar was also in 1650 – so your William was only 15, but there were many young soldiers in those days. One interesting thing is that William is not a Colquhoun name, and there have been many William Grahams of Montrose. It is this fact that makes me think that perhaps he was the natural son of Katherine and her abductor. Italics and underline added. But who knows?” 2nd Note: Sir John and Lilias' first 2 sons were named John and James. Katherine's father's name was also John and her brother was James. These Scottish “naming convention” relation names were already “used.” Katherine's grandfather's name was William. What name might a young woman, disgraced, lonely and far from home choose to give her some comfort, remembrance and link to her family? An obvious choice, her father's father. 12. Of the 10,000 Scottish prisoners taken at Dunbar, about 5000 described in an English document as “those wounded and those fatigued by flight” were released on parole. The balance of 5100 prisoners were marched south to stop them from being re-armed and fighting again. Through privation, disease, murder, and starvation by October 1650 only 1400 of 5100 prisoners remained alive “when England's traders in human flesh came for them. Nine hundred of those survivors went to the New World, mainly Virginia, Massachusetts and Barbados colony in the Caribbean.” If William was captured at the Battle of Dunbar, then his capture and incarceration is after the death of his father and, quite possibly, his mother. His father then would be unable to redeem him from transportation, and his mother, if even alive, would likely be unaware of his capture or at least not in a position to intercede for him either. That leaves his half-brother John. He may be entirely unaware of William's existence, and even if he was aware, would news travel to John of his half-brother's capture prior to his transportation? Likely not. John was an ardent Royalist, fined 2000 pounds for his aid to the Royal cause – would he have received a sympathetic ear from the Parliamentarians? If the news did travel in time, would John want to assist William? Doesn't William's existence stand as proof of his father's disgraceful behaviour (incest) and desertion of his wronged mother, Lilias? Given that Sir John is dead well prior to the Battle of Dunbar, who would have known of William's existence and circumstances that would have found an advantage to proffer the resources to secure his parole. No one. 13. William is sent to Massachusetts as an indentured servant. He works in various capacities, especially brickmaking, in and around the iron mines. “William Cahoon was most likely sold into an indentureship at Braintree, Massachusetts in 1651. It must have been to a brickmaker (Leonard?), living at Braintree, who most likely worked as a Freeman for the Iron Works of Bex & Co. The Owners of the Iron Works made it a practice of bringing Specialists over to work in the venture and then sold them Scotch Prisoners as helpers. (Ironworks on the Saugus, by E.N. Hartley, 1957) We know that William Cahoon became a brickmaker and that all the Scots, who settled on Block Island were sent there by their Proprietors (The Scotch Prisoners at Block Island; by G. Andrew Moriarty.)” “Some of the Scotchmen found their way to Block Island, after being freed, and became a respectable section of the early settlers of that island. Some had worked at Lynn, and others at the branch works in Braintree. They must have belonged to the Dunbar contingent.” This assertion implies that William, as he worked at Braintree, was indeed captured at Dunbar. “William Cahoon did not get his freedom until after he was sent to Block Island in 1661. This can be based on two facts. First, King Charles 2nds restoration to the throne in 1660, and his order to Parliament to set up a Parliamentary Committee, instructed to free all kidnapped Royalists. Second, we see that William Cahoon is one of the first 16 white men sent to settle on Block Island in April of 1661. On the 13th of January, 1662/63, William Cahoon purchased 40 acres of land from Thomas Terry. On the 4th of May 1664, William Cahoon was listed as a Freeman at New Shoreham, Block Island.” William meets and marries Deliverance Peck, sires a family, on Dec. 24, 1673 is contracted as the town brickmaker for Swansea, Mass. (copy of the handwritten contract found online). At the age of about 42 William Cahoon was killed by Indians on June 22, 1675, on the first day of King Philip's War, near E. Rehoboth, Massachusetts.

Generational family histories of North American descendants of William Cahoon As the Clan Colquhoun Journal asserts, “The life of William Cahoon in America has been researched and well documented by several people who claim their Colquhoun descent from him.” To my knowledge, these records are not subject to substantive dispute. Miss Ida Cahoon's ‘History of the Cahoon Family, with Especial Reference to Joseph Cahoon, First Settler of Dover, Ohio, and His Descendants’ states, “Let us return to Sir John Colquhoun of 1617, who was made Baronet of Nova Scotia in 1625...His son William, born in 1610, emigrated to America, and was in 1660, one of the sixteen original purchasers of Block Island, R.I., for four hundred pounds sterling.” While she is incorrect concerning the dates of both Sir John and William's births, she clearly believes that William is the son of Sir John. Concerning a document entitled, “THE CAHOON FAMILY OF SCOTLAND, MASS., RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT AND NEW YORK (who came to Cuyahoga Co. and the future Lorain Co., Ohio 1810 -14”). This document boasts an extensive and formidable “Source List”. The sources themselves lend credence to William's own view of his parentage being passed down through the generations. The document corrects the date of William Cahoon's birth as follows, “... was born 1635 (not 1610 as sometimes stated {likely a reference to Miss Cahoon's 'History'}) ... William was the youngest of three sons of Sir John Colquhoun of Scotland ... the 'Laird of Luss' ... who was made 1st Baronet of Nova Scotia (Canada) in 1625. William's eldest brother, Sir John Colquhoun, born about 1620 ... was known as 'The Black Cock of the West'.” The authors of this document report that William is, “the youngest ... son of Sir John Colquhoun”, and further that, “William's eldest brother, Sir John Colquhoun ... was known as 'The Black Cock of the West.'” Both of these assertions are in agreement with this hypothesis but, as often found, William is incorrectly recorded as a legitimate offspring. Again, through family research, historical notes and American documents, it appears that family members are convinced of a relationship between William and Sir John Sr. and Jr. Significantly, one of William's descendants became an important member of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon). A cornerstone of that religion encompasses ancestry and genealogy. It is inconceivable that a Member would knowingly insert an erroneous entry and one must accept that that information was believed to be correct. In LDS records William is found in one entry as the son of John Colquhoun and Lilias Colquhoun or, in the same entry alternately, the son of John and Lady Katherine Graham and, in a second entry mysteriously the son of Sir John Colquhoun and a woman known only as “Montrose.” How, in those days before instant communication and easy research via the internet, in times where illiteracy among adults was not uncommon, when most North Americans would have never heard of Sir John Colquhoun and his son John, the “Black Cock of the West”, could there have been an on-going and persistent family belief that William was the son of Sir John Colquhoun? How would this relationship have come to be known if William himself had not advised his family and that information was carried forward through Puritan , Revolutionary and Victorian generations to this day? Finally, in June, 2009 we travelled to Massachusetts and Rhode Island to further investigate William's journey. There are those who suggest that William was an illiterate peasant lad with the Colquhoun surname serving as a soldier of the Covenenters. As we pored over the 17th century documents of William's contemporaries it became obvious that the majority of Massachusetts, Plymouth Colony and Rhode Island residents were illiterate to the extent that they couldn't even write their own names. About 60% or more of the English landowners, when signing land transfer, court or legal documents, had the document created by a literate "recorder" including their written name, and beside their name would be an "X" with the recorder's notation, "his or her mark." These are the most common "signatures" on the Block Island records where William lived in the 1660's. 100% of William's comrade "Scotch prisoners" on Block Island could not write and all of them signed documents with an "X" - notated "his mark." However, in the case of a person that could write, that person always signed the legal documents with their written signature and there would be no notation of "his or her mark" beside the signature. The Rhode Island State Archives holds a document that is a Block Island land transfer between William and Samuel Hagbourne. Beside William's signature there is no notation "his mark." William signed the document himself. He could write; the only Scottish prisoner on Block Island capable of doing so. It is my respectful submission that William Colquhoun, based upon the balance of probabilities, is the son of Sir John Colquhoun and Lady Katherine Graham. The preceding theory concerning William's parentage is a hypothesis – but in my opinion more probable than other popular suppositions. However, I am anxious to receive any input, supportive or contrary, that helps reveal the true facts. Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration and feedback. Gary D. Calder 11th generation descendent of William Cahoon and Deliverance Peck calderg@telus.net Addendum: An intriguing mystery ... In December 1873, while returning from the island deer preserve island of Inch Lonaig on Loch Lomond, Sir James Colquhoun's boat foundered and he drowned. Some years later, a member of the Clan, "rowing on Loch Lomond not far from shore, saw something bright glittering beneath, in the gravel bottom of the lake, the waters of which are wonderfully clear, being a good swimmer he dived for it, and brought up a curiously chased silver box with the inscription inside I'll love thee as my wyffe I'll keep thee as my lyffe Gazing down again, the swimmer thought he saw another shining object, an on the chance of it he dived again, and brought up the lid of a box, which showed the owner had been Sir James Colquhoun ... The box, which has dated from Stuart times, was highly treasured by Sir James Colquhoun, which he carried with him at all times as a sort of talisman." How would a silver box from Stuart times come to be in Sir James Colquhoun's possession? Why was it precious to Sir James as a talisman? Did a bit of the Colquhoun/Ruthven belief in sorcery still exist? Had Sir James linked the box to his necromancer ancestor? We know that Sir John tempted Katherine with precious gifts, including jewels. In their hasty departure perhaps the box was too cumbersome to be carried and was left at Rossdhu only to be passed down to Sir James in the 19th century ...

SOURCES 1. The Clan Colquhoun Journal, Volume 2, Number 2, Summer 1999, “Sir John Colquhoun of Luss – Necromancer?” James Pearson, Clan Colquhoun historian. 2. “Vicissitudes of Families”, Third Series, “A Tale of Magic on Lochlomond. A.D. 1631”, 1863 Sir Bernard Burke (Burke's Peerage). *N.B. Burke credits 2 sources for his information re John Colquhoun, they are, “the judicial proceedings of the time” , that is, the existing written Scottish legal records; and “Mr. Napier” from “The Life of Montrose”. Regarding Napier Burke states, “...it is well to show a warrant for its authenticity in the published record of a distinguished historian.” 3. Ancestry.com, “One World Tree”. 4. The Church of Latter Day Saints, “familysearch.org” 5. The Clan Colquhoun Journal, Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2002, “Who Was William Cahoon?” The United Kingdom Society. 6. “Montrose”, 1928, John Buchan. 7. “Memoirs of the Marquis of Montrose 1612 - 1650”, two volumes, 1856, Mark Napier 8. http://www.turningwood.fsnet.co.uk/rossdhuhouse.html 9. “The Book of Dumbartonshire”, Volume II, Joseph Irving, 1879 10. “History of the Cahoon Family, with Especial Reference to Joseph Cahoon, First Settler of Dover, Ohio, and His Descendants”, Ida M. Cahoon, 1910 11. “THE CAHOON FAMILY OF SCOTLAND, MASS., RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND NEW YORK (Who Came to Cuyahoga Co. and the future Lorain Co., Ohio, 1810 -14)”, compiled for the Black River Genealogical Society by Jeff Segseworth, 11/7/95, Elyria, Ohio, assisted by Jean Fischer. Selected Source List: i “History of the Cahoon Family, with Especial Reference to Joseph Cahoon, First Settler of Dover, Ohio, and His Descendants”, by her “youngest granddaughter”, Ida M. Cahoon (1910); ii “800 Years of Colquhoun, Colhoun, Calhoun, and Cahoon Family History, in 2 volumes”, by Orval O. Calhoun (ca. 1980) iii “Rossdhu, an Illustrated Guide to the Home of the Chiefs of Clan Colquhoun, Since (the) 12th Century”, by Sir Ivar and Lady Colquhoun of Luss; iv “Directory of the Heads of New England Families, 1620 – 1700”, compiled by Frank R. Holmes (1923, reprinted 1980); v “Topographical Dictionary of 2885 English Emigrants to New England, 1620 – 1650”, by Charles Edward Banks (1937, reprinted 1981); vi “ Memorial to the Pioneer Women of th Western reserve”, edited by Mrs. Gertrude Van Rensselaer Wickham (1896, reprinted about 1980); “ The Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island”, by John Osborne Austin (1887, repr. 1982); vii The Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island”, by John Osborne Austin (1887, repr. 1982); viii “Cemetery Inscriptions of Lorain County, Ohio”, compiled by the Genealogical Workshop of the Lorain County Historical Society (1980); ix “Down Through the Years in Elyria”, by James B. Thomas (1967); x “History of Cuyahoga County, Ohio” compiled by Crisfield Johnson (1879, repr. 1982); xi “History of The Fire Lands, Comprising Huron and Erie Counties, Ohio, 1808 – 1879”, by W.W. Williams (1879, reprinted 1985); xii “History of Lorain County, Ohio, 1807 – 1879”, By Williams Brothers (1879, reprinted 1993); xiii The Ancestor Card File of the Ohio Genealogical Society, housed in the Society's library in The Bushnell House, Mansfield, Ohio xiv “The Encyclopaedia of Cleveland History (Cleveland, Ohio)”, edited by David D. Van Tassel and John J. Grabowski (1987); xv “Descendants of Joseph (Sr.) and Hannah (Miller) Moore”, from a chart compiled by Lorain Co. OGS Chapter member Frank A. Nesbit, S. Amherst, Ohio (article in the Summer 1995 issue of the LORAIN COUNTY RESEARCHER; v.12, o.3, pp.29, 34-35); xvi “From New England to the Western Reserve: a Potpourri of Century Homes in Avon's French Creek Historic District”, published (1987) by the Avon Historical Society; xvii “The Globe Publishing Company's Lorain County Rural Directory, Volume One, 1910”; xviii “Commemorative Biographical Record of the Counties of Huron and Lorain, Ohio” (1894, reprinted 1977); xix “Memorial Record of the County of Cuyahoga and City of Cleveland, Ohio”, published by The lewis Publishing Co. (1894); xx “Ohio Records and Pioneer Families”, vol. XV, pg. 11 (1974; and vol. XXII, pg. 15 (1981); xxi DAR Patriot Index”, compiled by the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution (1966); xxii “Ohio Wills and Estates to 1850: an Index”, by Carol Willsey Bell, C.G. (1981); xxiii “Ancestral File” (a CD-ROM database made available throough the LDS Church); part of the FamilySearch CD-ROM package (ver. 4.15), used at Lorain Public Library, Lorain, Ohio (updated to 1994); xxiv “Here is Lake County, Ohio”, compiled by the Lake County Historical Society (1964); xxv “Historical Atlas of Mormonism”, edited by S. Kent Brown, Donald Q. Cannon, Richard H. Jackson (1994); xxvi (Chart) “Genealogy – Reynalds (I.e., Reynolds) Cahoon Family”, compiled by Frank B. Hollenbach (1 Jan 1912); xxvii “Extensive Cahoon family notes, correspondence, and copies of articles, vital records, and maps; collected over 30 years (1965 – 95) by Dorothy Painter of North Ridgeville; xxviii Notes on the Cahoon and Moore families, collected and compiled by Frank Nesbit of South Amherst; xxix Notes on the Cahoon family, compiled by Dale C. Kellogg of Elyria; xxx “The Memoirs of Wyllis Terrell, Jr., by An Old Hunter”, compiled by Dorothy Painter xxxi “ The Squire and the Churchward families of Columbia (Twp., Lorain Co.)” by Lucille Churchward MacCleelan (1963). 12. www.geocities.com , “The Battle of Dunbar (September 3, 1650), The Armies, Cavalry 13. “Battle of Dunbar, 1650”, ScotWars, www.scotwars.com 14. “Our Calhoun Family”, Vol. 3, Orval Calhoun“, article “From Soldier to Brickmaker” Stephen Lance Calhoun 15. “Scotch Prisoners Deported to New England by Cromwell, 1651-52”, Massachusetts Historical Society, Charles Edward Banks, Lancour 16. “Historic Mansion Destroyed by Fire”, The Washington Post, April 10, 1912, Marquise de Fontenoy 17. Epidemic Disease in London, ed. J.A.I. Champion (Centre for Metropolitan History Working Papers Series, No1, 1993): pp. 1-17 (Copyright © Graham Twigg, 1993) ___________________________________________________

William Cahoon was born say 1633 in Scotland. He died on 22 Jun 1675 at the age of 42 in Bristol, MA, USA