In the 1800 Census, in District 4, Harford County, William Wilgis and James Wilgis were listed side-by-side. William was age 26-45, James 45+. I believe William was barely 26, so James was more likely his father than, say, an older brother -- though brother cannot be ruled out.

James Wilguss was listed as a taxable in Harford County in 1774, another indication that he was enough older than William to suggest, if there was any relationship between them, it was father-son. However, I basically know nothing more about James so I have not included him in our family tree.

The 1790 Census may be even more informative. A search using wildcards so as to result in everyone whose name begins “WILG” turned up just two persons: James in Harford County and Richard in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

What makes that so interesting is that when William was discharged from the Army in 1815, his official discharge papers said he had been born 40 years prior in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

There were other spellings of this name besides Wilgis and Wilgus. There is a website devoted to all persons of the name Wildgoose -- a British name apparently -- that suggests that Wilgus and Wilgis are corruptions of that original name. Indeed, William himself, was listed in the 1850 Census as William Wilgoose.

So, to cover all the bases, I also searched the 1790 Census for any names that began “WILDG” and found William Wildgoose in Harford County (no doubt the William of interest to me) and Sarah Wildgoose in Caroline County, Maryland -- who knows who she was?

All I know about Richard of the 1790 Census is that he was probably the Richard Wilgus of New Britain Township, Bucks County who died 1 Dec 1 1817 at the age of 70. His age would make it seem that if there was any relationship between he and James, it was brother-brother. So, the possibilities are that James came originally from Bucks County and was William’s father or that Richard was really William’s father and either James and William were not related or were something like uncle-nephew.

In any event, just because of the uniqueness of the names, and the geographic coincidences here (Harford and Bucks County) my suspicion is that these three men had some familial relationship among them.

He is listed in what is apparently a special list extracted from the 1840 Census of Revolutionary War Pensioners. It gives his exact age.

1840. Age 70-80.

I have any number of sources that purport to tell us something about when and where William was born.

His Army discharge paper. This is a true source document, written in 1815. The Lieutenant Colonel who wrote it and signed it gave a physical description of William and stated his approximate age -- as if to protect against someone else in the future sometime getting possession of this document and claiming to be William.

This document states that William Wilgiss was born in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and was about forty years of age. A 1775 birth year implied.

Census. He was reported as age 60-70 in the 1830 Census and 70-80 in 1840, implying a 1765 (±) birth. Then in 1850, he was said to be age 74. A 1776 birth year implied. The 1850 Census also shows William as having been born in Maryland, that could be a reporting error.

1840 Pensioners List. A separate schedule on the 1840 Census listed War Pensioners. I thought when I first saw it that it pertained to the Revolutionary War, but it turns out it was probably mostly War of 1812 survivors, of which William was one. On this schedule, his age was given as 75. A 1765 birth year implied.

Pension payment document. In 1842, Matthew Cain represented William to collect his 1842 pension and he stated that William had been a resident of Harford County 71 years and previous thereto Pennsylvania. A pre-1771 birth date implied.

There is a family group sheet inserted in the Wilgis family file at the Harford County Historical Society. It gives an exact birth date for him -- 25 Mar 1776. I am using that date for William, I believe it is close, if not 100% accurate as, of all the sources above, I think the discharge paper is the most reliable and the 1850 Census agrees with it.

I’m not sure William Wilgis belongs in our family tree. He was of the right age in the right place and the only one of his name to meet that criteria, so I consider it likely he does and I have therefore put him there.

He was a sad character and I think must have had a tough life. The most notable fact of his life, I believe, was his service at Fort McHenry in the War of 1812. On the night before he was to be discharged, he was walking guard and fell over the wall and seriously injured himself and never felt able to work again after that. He was granted a pension for that injury -- a pension that took, it seems, an Act of Congress, I suppose because his injury did not come at enemy hands.

His petition to Congress was filed by his attorney Isaac Stansbury and included various sworn statements by persons familiar with his military service and the details of his injury. It was also signed by certain citizens of Harford County who called him a destitute creature and implored Congress to grant him a pension even though he was unable to prove the cause of his injuries according to the rules laid down. I have counted the names of 147 signers, I recognize many of the names from all the reading I have done on that period of time in Harford County and it is basically a who’s who of 1830’s Harford County.

I find it quite interesting that Isaac Stansbury’s petition, written in 1833, was, I am certain, a year off in its dates. Isaac said that William enlisted 14 Feb 1813 and was discharged 28 Mar 1814 -- but the dates given in William’s discharge paper, written in 1815, said he entered service 19 Feb 1814 and was discharged 28 Mar 1815. Clearly the contemporaneous one is more accurate.

And just to be sure, I checked Wikipedia (a source unavailable to Isaac Stansbury) and learned that the day 13 Feb 1814 was the day the British made their land and sea attack on Baltimore -- which attack was repelled after a day of bombardment of Fort McHenry. It was the morning of the 14th when Francis Scott Key could see the “star spangled banner yet wave”.
I think William enlisted just after the Battle of Baltimore and served at Fort McHenry. He was there at a very significant time in our history but must have just missed the action by a few days.

There were six marriages of persons named Wilgis in a list of Harford County marriages in the first half of the 1800’s: Margaret (1827), James (1839), Jemima (1841), George (1852), Sarah (1856) and Anna Maria (1856). James and Jemima married people named Connolly. All may have been William’s children.

The will of William Wilgis was written 19 Sep 1854 (hard to read may be 1855). He mentioned only daughters Sarah and Maria. George Wilgis was a witness. In the 1850 Census, living with William and Elizabeth Wilgoose was Ann M, age 30 -- I believe Anna Maria. Sarah age 41 was living with an older man, probably as a housekeeper, in Harford County.

And there is one other name that should be added to the list. Patty Wilgoose was baptized in the records of the Harford Methodist Circuit, daughter of William and Elizabeth. She was born in Nov 1812.

This brings me to the Family Group Sheet (FGS) filed at the Harford Historical Society. I believe the two most thoroughly researched children of William Wilgis were his son James and his daughter Margaret.

Descendants of James seem to take it as a matter of fact that he was indeed William’s son -- though I’m not sure what their “bullet-proof” evidence is. Descendants of Margaret tend not to say much about who her father might have been -- it is only my analysis that suggests she was William’s daughter.

It was a descendant of James, I believe, who placed the FGS in the Wilgis family file at Harford Historical Society. Ordinarily I don’t give such things much credence. They are often no better than all the cut and paste genealogy on the Internet I am so critical of. True this one cites sources, but the sources they cite do not contain all the details they provide.

Most importantly, none of the sources they cite have exact birth and/or death dates, so where did those come from? It is that little detail that makes me wonder if there is maybe a family bible out there. It was not listed as a source here, but where else could such specific dates have come from?

I am also extremely curious about the mention of Patty Wilgis and her possible marriage to John Wright. What is that all about? Where did the person who put together this FGS find that name and how could they not know about his wife Margaret Wilgis?

So it seems to me that I found a couple of sources the FGS author did not find -- specifically his pension application file and record of Margaret Wilgis who married John Wright. But it also seems to me that that the author of the family group sheet found at least one, maybe two, sources of information about this family that I have not found.

I think they found the name John Wright in some document associated with William Wilgis. I think they only knew of three daughters of William’s and they also knew who two of them married, leaving only Patty, for them, as a known daughter of William’s to perhaps be the wife of John Wright. I sure wish I could find that document.

I always had a suspicion that Elizabeth, William’s wife in his later years, may have been a second wife and not the mother of Margaret. The thing that caught my attention was that William was present in the 1800 Census with four daughters (presumably) under the age of 5. And Margaret was born in 1801. But there is a gap then between those children and the births of all the other children associated with William and Elizabeth.

So when Becky brought to my attention the 1806 marriage of William Wilgas -- widower -- to Elizabeth Chalk, my suspicions were confirmed. They married in York but the record said they both were of Harford County.

The Family Group Sheet I found listed no children older than George born in 1807. I believe it concerned itself only with William’s second family. This also could explain how or why a family bible, if one existed, might only mention William’s second family by Elizabeth and make no mention whatsoever of Margaret.

But I take great comfort that his marriage record did indeed say he was a widower. That doesn’t confirm that he had children by his first wife (though Census seems to), but it most certainly does not rule it out.