Mertz Genealogy - Person Sheet
Mertz Genealogy - Person Sheet
Birthbefore 27 August 1702
Memo(baptized in Germany 27 Aug 1702)
Death1768
Memo(dates of the releases signed by his daughters)
FatherPeter Mertz
MotherAnna Dorothea
Spouses
Marriage25 May 1723
Marr Memo(Weisenheim am Sand Reformed, noted by Annette Burgert)
Birth, Parent-Proof, Designation notes for George Mertz (G)
Many people have scoured the early lists of German ship’s passengers to Philadelphia searching for all those named Mertz (or Martz). For some of those early immigrants, I am quite sure we know what happened to them after their arrival in America — where they settled and something about their descendants. It is actually surprising, though, for how many of them we just don’t know. Where’d they go?
I have long been aware of the name George Mertz as one such immigrant. He actually was the earliest Mertz to come to America and he arrived on the Pennsylvania Merchant 11 Sep 1732 (accompanied by four women named Mertz). But just because he may have been the earliest person named Mertz to ever come to America, don’t for a minute think that means he was the progenitor of everyone in America of this name. Far from it.
For many years, I knew nothing about this man other than finding his name on the ships’ list. I didn’t know where he settled once in America nor the names of any descendants. Nor did I have an idea where in Germany (I assumed) he may have come from or the names of his parents.
There was a time when I thought George, the 1732 immigrant, might belong to the Mertz family of Frankenhausen, Germany who sent two brothers to America, one in 1737 and the other in 1748. Reportedly, from their records, a third older brother named John George possibly also went to America at some time. But whereas the 1737 immigrant became the founder of what is called Mertz Church in Berks County, PA and the 1748 immigrant found his way soon after his arrival to live nearby and worship too at that church, there was no sign of this supposed George Mertz associated with those two. If he did come to America, there was no indication he reunited with his brothers once here. And then, in 2017, a researcher studying the Mertz family of Frankenhausen contacted me to say he was pretty sure that John George, the older brother, never went to America.
Then, in 2018, I figured out at least where George settled once in America and the story of his family began to come together. I was reviewing land records of Northampton County and came across the name George Mertz of Heidelberg Township and the names of some of his family members and there was a reasonable resonance with the names of the Mertz family on the Pennsylvania Merchant. I now believe George settled in Heidelberg Township — which was Bucks County when he patented his land there, was part of Northampton County starting in 1752 when Northampton was created from Bucks and then became part of Lehigh County in 1812 when Lehigh was created from a part of Northampton.
As was true of everyone arriving in those days, his name appeared on three lists. One was the captain’s list on which the ship’s captain wrote down the names of every passenger aboard (in later years some captains only listed adult males). The captain of the Pennsylvania Merchant wrote the name Jerich Mirts as one of his men's names and then on his separate list of women and children he wrote: Margaret Marts, Dorothy Marts and Elizabeth Marts. No ages were given for anyone.
Strassburger and Hinke, using the “loyalty oaths” (the other two lists which only named the adult males), based on their examination of his signature, called this man Georg Mertz.
Now it might be argued, because of the captain's spelling, that the Marts females had nothing to do with the Mirts male. But I also look at the order of the names on the two captains’ lists and I picture the captain walking around the ship and as he encounters each family group he writes down names on two separate pieces of paper. On the list of adult males, the few names that preceded Jerich were Paul Ruyter, Hendrick Ruyter, Jerich Beats and William Creusemer and just after Jerich was Michael Slinagur. On the list of women and children, preceding the three Marts women (who were listed together) were six persons named Ruyter then four named Beats and two persons named Slynegar came just after. The explanation for the two apparent spellings of the same name could be as simple as maybe the captain in fact wrote Jerich Marts and, due to poor penmanship, it was misinterpreted as saying Mirts. In any event, I believe there was one family of four Mertzes on this ship.
Then, in 2021, Caleb Mertz, a descendant who I have worked with for several years, happened to find a little about George’s German ancestry. He found it in a book by Annette Burgert (the wonderful author of a different book which helped me so much with my own Mertz ancestry) titled Palatine Origins of Some Pennsylvania Pioneers. She discovered the baptism of Hans George Mertz on 27 Aug 1702 by his parents Peter and Anna Dorothea in the records of the Lambsheim Reformed Church. She also discovered the marriage of George to Anna Margaretha Roth, daughter of Albertus, and the subsequent baptisms by this couple of three daughters: Maria Catharina bp. 6 Aug 1724, Susanna bp. 19 Jan 1727 (sp. Susanna Roth, single) and Anna Elisabeth bp 21 Oct 1731 — all at the Weisenheim am Sand Reformed Church in the neighboring village to Lambsheim.
Burgert’s research style then is to match names of people from European records with names of people on the ships’ lists and also the names of people in American church records. So she realized the four names on the ship’s list matched known names of the Lambsheim/Weisenheim family and then also figured it must be a match to the names George and Margaret reported as parents at a 1740 baptism at the Jordan Lutheran Church, a church in the general vicinity of Heidelberg Township.
I totally agree with Burgert’s analysis that these citations all pertain to George Mertz the 1732 immigrant and his family. I believe the three women with him were his wife Margaret, his daughter Elizabeth and I think the third one must have been perhaps his mother Dorothea.
George is one of what I call the “eight original American ancestors” of this name, each of which gets a single-letter designation in the Mærtz Hierarchical Project which carries through to all of his male descendants. George is designated G.
George and his male descendants to 1850 are covered in the Mærtz Hierarchical Project:
https://www.mertzgenealogy.com/names/george_mertz_family_g.pdf
I have long been aware of the name George Mertz as one such immigrant. He actually was the earliest Mertz to come to America and he arrived on the Pennsylvania Merchant 11 Sep 1732 (accompanied by four women named Mertz). But just because he may have been the earliest person named Mertz to ever come to America, don’t for a minute think that means he was the progenitor of everyone in America of this name. Far from it.
For many years, I knew nothing about this man other than finding his name on the ships’ list. I didn’t know where he settled once in America nor the names of any descendants. Nor did I have an idea where in Germany (I assumed) he may have come from or the names of his parents.
There was a time when I thought George, the 1732 immigrant, might belong to the Mertz family of Frankenhausen, Germany who sent two brothers to America, one in 1737 and the other in 1748. Reportedly, from their records, a third older brother named John George possibly also went to America at some time. But whereas the 1737 immigrant became the founder of what is called Mertz Church in Berks County, PA and the 1748 immigrant found his way soon after his arrival to live nearby and worship too at that church, there was no sign of this supposed George Mertz associated with those two. If he did come to America, there was no indication he reunited with his brothers once here. And then, in 2017, a researcher studying the Mertz family of Frankenhausen contacted me to say he was pretty sure that John George, the older brother, never went to America.
Then, in 2018, I figured out at least where George settled once in America and the story of his family began to come together. I was reviewing land records of Northampton County and came across the name George Mertz of Heidelberg Township and the names of some of his family members and there was a reasonable resonance with the names of the Mertz family on the Pennsylvania Merchant. I now believe George settled in Heidelberg Township — which was Bucks County when he patented his land there, was part of Northampton County starting in 1752 when Northampton was created from Bucks and then became part of Lehigh County in 1812 when Lehigh was created from a part of Northampton.
As was true of everyone arriving in those days, his name appeared on three lists. One was the captain’s list on which the ship’s captain wrote down the names of every passenger aboard (in later years some captains only listed adult males). The captain of the Pennsylvania Merchant wrote the name Jerich Mirts as one of his men's names and then on his separate list of women and children he wrote: Margaret Marts, Dorothy Marts and Elizabeth Marts. No ages were given for anyone.
Strassburger and Hinke, using the “loyalty oaths” (the other two lists which only named the adult males), based on their examination of his signature, called this man Georg Mertz.
Now it might be argued, because of the captain's spelling, that the Marts females had nothing to do with the Mirts male. But I also look at the order of the names on the two captains’ lists and I picture the captain walking around the ship and as he encounters each family group he writes down names on two separate pieces of paper. On the list of adult males, the few names that preceded Jerich were Paul Ruyter, Hendrick Ruyter, Jerich Beats and William Creusemer and just after Jerich was Michael Slinagur. On the list of women and children, preceding the three Marts women (who were listed together) were six persons named Ruyter then four named Beats and two persons named Slynegar came just after. The explanation for the two apparent spellings of the same name could be as simple as maybe the captain in fact wrote Jerich Marts and, due to poor penmanship, it was misinterpreted as saying Mirts. In any event, I believe there was one family of four Mertzes on this ship.
Then, in 2021, Caleb Mertz, a descendant who I have worked with for several years, happened to find a little about George’s German ancestry. He found it in a book by Annette Burgert (the wonderful author of a different book which helped me so much with my own Mertz ancestry) titled Palatine Origins of Some Pennsylvania Pioneers. She discovered the baptism of Hans George Mertz on 27 Aug 1702 by his parents Peter and Anna Dorothea in the records of the Lambsheim Reformed Church. She also discovered the marriage of George to Anna Margaretha Roth, daughter of Albertus, and the subsequent baptisms by this couple of three daughters: Maria Catharina bp. 6 Aug 1724, Susanna bp. 19 Jan 1727 (sp. Susanna Roth, single) and Anna Elisabeth bp 21 Oct 1731 — all at the Weisenheim am Sand Reformed Church in the neighboring village to Lambsheim.
Burgert’s research style then is to match names of people from European records with names of people on the ships’ lists and also the names of people in American church records. So she realized the four names on the ship’s list matched known names of the Lambsheim/Weisenheim family and then also figured it must be a match to the names George and Margaret reported as parents at a 1740 baptism at the Jordan Lutheran Church, a church in the general vicinity of Heidelberg Township.
I totally agree with Burgert’s analysis that these citations all pertain to George Mertz the 1732 immigrant and his family. I believe the three women with him were his wife Margaret, his daughter Elizabeth and I think the third one must have been perhaps his mother Dorothea.
George is one of what I call the “eight original American ancestors” of this name, each of which gets a single-letter designation in the Mærtz Hierarchical Project which carries through to all of his male descendants. George is designated G.
George and his male descendants to 1850 are covered in the Mærtz Hierarchical Project:
https://www.mertzgenealogy.com/names/george_mertz_family_g.pdf
Relocated and Census Tracking notes for George Mertz (G)
Just as I had long been aware of George the 1732 immigrant but had no idea where he settled, I had also long been aware that a Philip Mertz just appeared in Heidelberg Township (his earliest mention there being in 1756). For a long time, I believed he was the earliest Mertz of Heidelberg Township and so I thought he might be the immigrant of that name who came in 1749 and who, like George, was otherwise unaccounted for.
It was when I was further researching Philip and his Heidelberg descendants that I learned what I now think is the more complete picture. I think George, the 1732 immigrant, was the progenitor of the Heidelberg Mertz line and that Philip was his son, born not long after George’s arrival in America, likely that baptism of an unnamed chid in 1740. I do not think Philip of Heidelberg was the 1749 ship’s passenger of that name, but I don’t know what happened to that Philip. I also know enough about the European ancestors for all but one of the other Eastern Pennsylvania Mertz immigrants that I believe I can rule out that George and Philip of Heidelberg Township were related in any way to any of those other eastern Pennsylvania Mertz immigrants, confirmed, I think, by DNA.
My conclusion regarding both George and Philip is based on a deed dated 5 Jan 1797 found in Northampton County Deed Book C2 page 479. Here is an abstract:
5 Jan 1797 - John George Mertz of Heidleberg Twp mortgage to John Peter, Sr. also of Heidleberg Twp. To secure the payment to John Peter, John George Mertz conveys to John Peter, 2 adjoining tracts of land in Heidelberg Twp as follows:
1) 163 acres adjacent to John George Mertz's other land, being the same land surveyed and granted to George Mertz on 29 May 1749, George Mertz died intestate and the land became vested in his son Philip Mertz. Four daughters granted releases to Philip Mertz in Apr and May 1768: Anna Margaret married to John Kern, Elizabeth married to Felix Arner, Maria Susanna married to John Ebert and Anna Juliana married to Samuel Wirth.
2) 66 acres adjacent to John George Mertz's other land, being the same tract surveyed and granted to Philip Mertz (date is missing).
Philip Mertz conveyed tract #1 on 2 Jan 1797 to his son John George Mertz, tract #2 on 3 Jan 1797 to son John George Mertz.
Based on this deed, I believe George Mertz, the 1732 immigrant, is the George Mertz who patented that land in Heidelberg Township in 1749. Now, I’m always critical of others who, upon finding someone named, for example George Mertz, in one place just cast about and when they find someone of that same name in a different place, they just assume it was the same person. It’s not as simple as that. How can it be known that George Mertz, the person on board the Pennsylvania Merchant, was the same George Mertz who patented that land?
The answer is we can’t ever claim we know it beyond any shadow of a doubt but to start I always look for carry-throughs and in this case it is the name of his other family members that is the carry-through. See discussion elsewhere where it is explained that Margaret was likely his wife, Elizabeth his daughter and Dorothy his mother.
It was when I was further researching Philip and his Heidelberg descendants that I learned what I now think is the more complete picture. I think George, the 1732 immigrant, was the progenitor of the Heidelberg Mertz line and that Philip was his son, born not long after George’s arrival in America, likely that baptism of an unnamed chid in 1740. I do not think Philip of Heidelberg was the 1749 ship’s passenger of that name, but I don’t know what happened to that Philip. I also know enough about the European ancestors for all but one of the other Eastern Pennsylvania Mertz immigrants that I believe I can rule out that George and Philip of Heidelberg Township were related in any way to any of those other eastern Pennsylvania Mertz immigrants, confirmed, I think, by DNA.
My conclusion regarding both George and Philip is based on a deed dated 5 Jan 1797 found in Northampton County Deed Book C2 page 479. Here is an abstract:
5 Jan 1797 - John George Mertz of Heidleberg Twp mortgage to John Peter, Sr. also of Heidleberg Twp. To secure the payment to John Peter, John George Mertz conveys to John Peter, 2 adjoining tracts of land in Heidelberg Twp as follows:
1) 163 acres adjacent to John George Mertz's other land, being the same land surveyed and granted to George Mertz on 29 May 1749, George Mertz died intestate and the land became vested in his son Philip Mertz. Four daughters granted releases to Philip Mertz in Apr and May 1768: Anna Margaret married to John Kern, Elizabeth married to Felix Arner, Maria Susanna married to John Ebert and Anna Juliana married to Samuel Wirth.
2) 66 acres adjacent to John George Mertz's other land, being the same tract surveyed and granted to Philip Mertz (date is missing).
Philip Mertz conveyed tract #1 on 2 Jan 1797 to his son John George Mertz, tract #2 on 3 Jan 1797 to son John George Mertz.
Based on this deed, I believe George Mertz, the 1732 immigrant, is the George Mertz who patented that land in Heidelberg Township in 1749. Now, I’m always critical of others who, upon finding someone named, for example George Mertz, in one place just cast about and when they find someone of that same name in a different place, they just assume it was the same person. It’s not as simple as that. How can it be known that George Mertz, the person on board the Pennsylvania Merchant, was the same George Mertz who patented that land?
The answer is we can’t ever claim we know it beyond any shadow of a doubt but to start I always look for carry-throughs and in this case it is the name of his other family members that is the carry-through. See discussion elsewhere where it is explained that Margaret was likely his wife, Elizabeth his daughter and Dorothy his mother.
Death and Find-a-Grave notes for George Mertz (G)
I do not know exactly when George died but I can make a reasonable estimate, likely 1767 or 1768, not too long before the land was transferred to his son Philip and his daughters signed their releases.
Known Daughters notes for George Mertz (G)
We know the names of George’s four surviving daughters, and their husbands, from the releases they signed in 1768 as mentioned in the 1797 land record:
Anna Margaret married to John Kern
Elizabeth married to Felix Arner
Maria Susanna married to John Ebert
Anna Juliana married to Samuel Wirth.
The issue is he baptized Catharina, Susanna and Elisabeth in Germany and Margaret, Dorothea and Elisabeth accompanied him to America and now daughters Margaret, Elizabeth, Susanna and Juliana survived him. How to sort out all these names of his daughters?
Let’s start with Margaret. Two 1740 baptisms at the Jordan Lutheran Church (not far from Heidelberg) name George Mertz as a parent in one case and a sponsor in another. He was named with Margaret as his wife on one record and Anna Margaret as his wife on the other. I think Margaret Roth, the woman he married in Germany, accompanied him on the ship and his daughter of that name must have been born after the family’s arrival in America.
I was able to find an Arner Family History on-line (arner.org) and it says that Anna Margaretha Arner born 1752, daughter of Felix and Elizabeth, married John Kern as “probably his second wife”. John was born about 1737.
I would guess from this that perhaps John Kern did marry first Anna Margaret, daughter of George Mertz (and interestingly he married second her niece also named Anna Margaret). But it seems to me unlikely, since John was born in 1737, that his first wife was born before 1732, confirming, therefore, that Margaret on the ship was George’s wife.
Elisabeth, too, is easy. She was born in Germany, came on the ship and survived her father. Her husband, Felix Arner, was born in 1727 according to the Arner Family History making him almost the exact age of Elizabeth. Everything fits. Felix and Elizabeth named daughters Elizabeth, Margaret and Dorothea, the last one being especially compelling.
Juliana must also have been born after the family arrived America.
There was no mention of a Catharina on the ship or among his surviving daughters, she must have died young before the family left Germany.
Which brings us to Susanna. He baptized Susanna in 1727 but no Susanna was named on the ship and yet daughter Susanna survived him. I tried briefly to determine perhaps when her husband John Ebert was born, but didn’t easily find record of him. So, either Susanna was on the ship and the captain simply missed her or the Susanna baptized in Germany died young, and Susanna, wife of John Ebert, was born after the family arrived America.
Anna Margaret married to John Kern
Elizabeth married to Felix Arner
Maria Susanna married to John Ebert
Anna Juliana married to Samuel Wirth.
The issue is he baptized Catharina, Susanna and Elisabeth in Germany and Margaret, Dorothea and Elisabeth accompanied him to America and now daughters Margaret, Elizabeth, Susanna and Juliana survived him. How to sort out all these names of his daughters?
Let’s start with Margaret. Two 1740 baptisms at the Jordan Lutheran Church (not far from Heidelberg) name George Mertz as a parent in one case and a sponsor in another. He was named with Margaret as his wife on one record and Anna Margaret as his wife on the other. I think Margaret Roth, the woman he married in Germany, accompanied him on the ship and his daughter of that name must have been born after the family’s arrival in America.
I was able to find an Arner Family History on-line (arner.org) and it says that Anna Margaretha Arner born 1752, daughter of Felix and Elizabeth, married John Kern as “probably his second wife”. John was born about 1737.
I would guess from this that perhaps John Kern did marry first Anna Margaret, daughter of George Mertz (and interestingly he married second her niece also named Anna Margaret). But it seems to me unlikely, since John was born in 1737, that his first wife was born before 1732, confirming, therefore, that Margaret on the ship was George’s wife.
Elisabeth, too, is easy. She was born in Germany, came on the ship and survived her father. Her husband, Felix Arner, was born in 1727 according to the Arner Family History making him almost the exact age of Elizabeth. Everything fits. Felix and Elizabeth named daughters Elizabeth, Margaret and Dorothea, the last one being especially compelling.
Juliana must also have been born after the family arrived America.
There was no mention of a Catharina on the ship or among his surviving daughters, she must have died young before the family left Germany.
Which brings us to Susanna. He baptized Susanna in 1727 but no Susanna was named on the ship and yet daughter Susanna survived him. I tried briefly to determine perhaps when her husband John Ebert was born, but didn’t easily find record of him. So, either Susanna was on the ship and the captain simply missed her or the Susanna baptized in Germany died young, and Susanna, wife of John Ebert, was born after the family arrived America.
Known Sons notes for George Mertz (G)
Annette Burgert says that the Jordan Lutheran baptism in 1740 was of an unnamed son. I didn’t catch the word son when I once found that record but it would make sense it was George’s son Philip, born in America, being baptized. That fits well with what I know about Philip.
The exact wording of the 1797 land record referring to the land George patented in 1749 is it “became vested in oldest son Philip” when George died intestate. This raises the question of whether there were other surviving sons?
I think not. If there were, wouldn't they too have had to sign releases? I think the deed was referring to the fact that by law, if someone died intestate, the land would go to the eldest son. In the case, the eldest son was the only son.
We cannot make a similar claim, though, about Philip. He may have had other sons in addition to John George, in fact I think he did. The story of Philip and all his possible descendants, for up to four more generations, is told more fully by reading my analysis of each of those descendants one-by-one. But I want to summarize it here.
I believe some descendants of this family that started out in Heidelberg Township became the Mertz family of nearby North Whitehall Township, Lehigh County. They stayed locally. I believe other descendants of this family moved to a different part of Northampton County — specifically the area that became Carbon County when it was formed in 1843 and then some of the “Carbon County” family moved to Westmoreland County. The name was spelled Mertz initially in eastern Pennsylvania and then, as often happened when anyone named Mertz moved to a new place in the 1700’s and early 1800’s, came to be spelled Martz in Westmoreland County.
So this is the story of George, his son Philip and twelve additional men who I believe were either Philip’s sons or grandsons — and their descendants. Every one of Philip’s descendants has a designated place in the family tree structure I present here — which might imply that I think I’ve figured everything out. But I haven’t figured everything out. There are some rather large “contradictions” — I call them “discordant notes” — that are hard to explain away. So my mission for all of these twelve men is to:
a. Make the case of why I believe they belong to this Heidelberg-Carbon-Westmoreland family.
b. Present the evidence that supports their placement where I have them in this family tree, i.e. who each person’s father was.
c. Present the contradictory evidence that gives me pause that I have something wrong. Remember, if I am wrong, it may be that I simply have the person linked to the wrong father and not that the person doesn’t belong to this overall family. Or, I could be wrong about that too.
This is just a brief sketch of each person, mostly explaining why I think they are of this overall family and explaining the geographic connections that tie them all together. I will state the connections I am confident of and perhaps suggest the discordant notes, which will then be covered in more detail in the followup discussions on each individual one-by-one. The first four I think were Philip’s sons.
1. (John) George Mertz (1761-1844). I use the parentheses around John to highlight that he was John George in Heidelberg and then (just) George elsewhere. We know that Philip gave land to his son (John) George in 1797. I think he is the man later known as (just) George and that he moved from Heidelberg first to East Penn Township (which would be later subsumed into Carbon County) and later to Westmoreland County.
George was listed in the 1790 Census in Heidelberg (as George March). In 1797, he pledged his Heidelberg Township land including the land patented by his grandfather George in 1749 to John Peter (Senior) as collateral for a substantial loan.
He then disappeared from Heidelberg and I think he is the George Mertz who then appeared in Penn Township, Northampton County in 1800 and then in East Penn Township in 1810.
I believe he then moved to Westmoreland County and was listed there in 1820 and 1830. One of the things that convinces me I have correctly tracked George from place to place and that in my opinion strongly suggests the overall Heidelberg-Carbon-Westmoreland connection is his statements in his Revolutionary War Pension application in 1833. He said he was born in Northampton County in 1761 and came to Westmoreland in 1818. When asked about his war service record, he wrote about being a part of several militia units whose initial encampment in every case was Heidelberg and on one occasion his unit marched to East Penn Township. (It wasn’t that far a march so I found it quite compelling that he so specifically made note of that march in his war record.)
2. William Mertz (the older). In the 1800 Census, Philip was joined in Heidelberg by William Mertz. He was 26-45 [1755-1774]. He must have been the Wilhelm Mertz who was named as a sponsor at Heidelberg Church in 1791 with Elizabeth Peter, I presume both single. So I believe he was not yet married in 1791.
A William Mertz, said to be of Macungie Township, died in 1807 with John Peter as Administrator of his estate and, I think, then disappeared from Census but, it seems clear, was replaced in Census by “Widow” Mertz in 1810 in Heidelberg, age 26-44. Her name was Elizabeth and when she died in 1814, John Peter was Administrator of her estate.
It is a little off-putting that William was said to be of Macungie Township and then Elizabeth too was said to be of Macungie Township when John Peter filed his estate accounts — but in several other places in her estate file, Elizabeth was said to be of Heidelberg Township. I think it was John Peter who was geographically confused.
In any event, it is John Peter here who ties everything together. He administered these two estates, he loaned money to (John) George — and remember when Wilhelm was a named baptismal sponsor, it was with Elizabeth Peter — I strongly suspect daughter of John. Clearly the Heidelberg Mertz family was associated with the Heidelberg Peter family in a variety of ways. And, in my studies of everyone of this name, I’m not missing any other William Mertz who might be the one who died in Macungie.
3. Daniel Mertz. Philip baptized a son Daniel in 1773. Somewhere I made a note, though I no longer can find any mention of it, that a Daniel Mertz (it may have been Merdz) was buried at the Heidelberg Church with dates 1773-1802.
4. Dewalt (or Theobald) Mertz (1776-1860). Dewalt Mertz first appeared in the 1810 Census in Heidelberg. From his Mortality Census death record he was born about 1776. I think he is of this whole family line because he started out in Heidelberg. He then went to nearby North Whitehall Township.
So those are, I believe, Philip’s four sons. Documents prove he had a son John George and another named Daniel, I am somewhat guessing though that I know what happened to each of them. No documents prove that Philip had a son William or Dewalt — it is their Heidelberg connection and age the make that case.
Moving to Philip’s grandsons, these first four I have placed as sons of (John) George.
5. Nicholas Mertz (1784-1867). He was first reported on an 1808 tax list as a single freeman in East Penn Township, George the only other Mertz on that list. Nicholas started showing up in Census in Westmorland in 1820. He married Amy Walton, daughter of Boaz Walton who came to Westmoreland County from the area of Northampton County that would become Carbon County. It is the fact that George was the only other Mertz on that 1808 tax list and both of them finding their way to Westmoreland that suggest that Nicholas may have been George’s son.
6. William Mertz (1786-1865). He showed up in Westmoreland in 1810. He married Mary Walton, also a daughter of Boaz. It is the fact of his marriage to the sister of the wife of Nicholas Martz that suggest perhaps they were brothers and that would mean William too was a son of George.
7. Carl (Charles) Mertz (1788-1860’s). George and unnamed wife baptized a son Carl in 1788 at the Heidelberg Church. I believe the next sighting of Carl is when he and wife Catherine baptized a daughter at the Weissport Church (in what would become Carbon County) in 1816 and then I think he is the Charles Martz who showed up in Westmoreland in 1830-1850 and then moved to Armstrong County. His age in 1860 (71) and 1870 (83) certainly fit with his 1788 baptism and his wife was named Katherine.
But perhaps the clincher is this: a death certificate of a daughter who died in Armstrong County gives her parent’s names as Charles and Catherine (Stull) Marts and one of the sponsors in 1816 at Weissport when Carl and Katherine baptized their daughter was Stull. Carl, like George, has the distinction of having been named in all three places.
8. John Philip (1797-abt 1875). John Philip first appeared in Census in East Penn Township in 1820, the Census year when George disappeared from that same place. He and his family then worshipped at the Weissport Church where Carl had baptized a daughter a little earlier. He then was the progenitor of the Mahoning Township, Carbon County Mertz family.
So as with the problem of naming the sons of Philip’s, naming George’s sons is also a problem. We know he had a son Carl but I am somewhat guessing that it was that very same Carl who I have tracked to Weissport, then Westmoreland, then Allegheny. There is less evidence that George had a son Nicholas — though the 1808 tax list and their East Penn to Westmoreland geographic patterns suggests that possibility. There is even less evidence that he had a son John Philip though his appearance in East Penn in 1820 “replacing” George suggests it as a possibility. (But wouldn’t 21-year old John Philip have moved to Westmoreland in 1818 with his father?) And there is really no evidence that he had a son William, in his case it is only the idea he was Nicholas’ brother that is the basis for my claim.
Nonetheless, there is also no evidence to suggest that Nicholas, Carl, William or John Philip were connected to Philip in some other way, so I believe all four were sons of (John) George. But it is one of the frustrations of figuring this whole family out that Census tick marks (the counts of people by age group) seem inconsistent with this theory.
Census tick marks do support the idea that William (the older) had two sons. I think he did.
9. Joseph (1793-1835). Joseph first appeared in Census in 1820 in North Whitehall where Dewalt also was listed. This is one thing suggesting a link to the Heidelberg Mertz family. And his Lehigh County tombstone tombstone says he married Elizabeth Arner. The Arner organization says she was the daughter of William Arner who was the son of Felix and Maria Elisabetha (Mertz — daughter of the immigrant George) Arner. So this is another connection of Joseph to the Heidelberg family.
10. Jonas (1803-1873). When Elizabeth, widow of William died, petitions were filed for guardians of her five minor children, Jonas and four daughters. That petition also said William had had four additional children but unfortunately didn’t name the older ones or indicate in any way how many were sons versus daughters. I believe Jonas survived, was the Jonas first listed in Census in North Whitehall and is the Jonas buried at Morgenland Church in Lehigh County.
I have placed Joseph and Jonas as sons of William (the older). It’s very parallel to the problem of naming the sons of Philip and/or George. It is documented that William had a son Jonas, I am somewhat guessing (though I think I am on pretty solid ground) that the Jonas who lived in North Whitehall and was buried at Morgenland was this Jonas.
There is no real document that would suggest that William had a son named Joseph. He well might have, there were four older unnamed children noted in his wife’s Orphans Court petition and Joseph’s 1793 birth is not inconsistent with the idea that William was single in 1791 (but possibly “courting” Elizabeth Peter).
And so now there are two more of Philip’s grandsons, who, I think, were sons of Dewalt.
11. & 12. Joseph (1809-1898) and Martin (1810-1852). I assume Martin was Dewalt’s son since Dewalt lived with him in 1850. I think Joseph was Dewalt’s son because when the older Joseph (born 1793) died in 1835, buyers at his vendue sale named Mertz included his immediate family plus three others: Dewalt and I believe his two sons: Martin and Joseph.
Census tick marks do not totally contradict this idea. But, as happens too many times in this whole family, if their birth dates are both right on their tombstones, it precludes Martin and Joseph being brothers as they were born five months apart.
DNA Evidence.
So I have noted several discordant notes with the proposed family tree structure — Census tick marks that are inconsistent with the theory and the supposed birth dates of Joseph and Martin. And there is one more related issue — something again which makes this family so interesting.
Y-DNA AND RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER MERTZ/MARTZ IMMIGRANTS
There is a Mertz/Martz y-chromosome DNA project at Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). By analyzing the DNA from males named Mertz or Martz today, we can see which other Mærtz males in the project they share a common Mærtz male ancestor with and then using genealogical practices we can pretty well determine who that long ago ancestor was.
And the surprise is that the Y-DNA is telling us, I think, that there is some relationship between the George Mertz (G) family of Heidelberg/Carbon/Westmoreland and the Theobald Martz (T) family — Theobald a 1753 immigrant who settled immediately in Frederick, Maryland.
Right now we have two persons who, based on our genealogical research, descend from Theobald, from two different sons of Theobald’s son Peter. Their Y-DNA places them in the I-M223 haplogroup and confirms they share a common Martz ancestor at sometime in the past (i.e. Peter and Theobald). Let’s call the two persons who descend from Theobald, A and B.
And there are two other persons in my Y-DNA project, let’s call them C and D, who descend from two different sons of John Philip and Teresa Mertz who lived in Carbon County. John Philip, a great-grandson of George the immigrant. Their DNA too, like A and B, suggest they share a common Mertz ancestor.
The surprise is that the DNA of persons A and B when compared to the DNA of persons C and D seems to suggest they all may share a common Mærtz ancestor. Yes, George (G) had a grandson named Theobald (he generally went by Dewalt), and yes, George’s was the only other Mærtz family where the name Theobald existed, but this only ever seemed like nothing but coincidence.
But the DNA now suggests maybe that is not just coincidence. Consider:
All four persons, A, B, C and D share haplogroup I-M223.
A and B, as said before, are seen as cousins because their DNA, at 37 markers, has a genetic distance of 2.
C and D, as said before, are also seen as cousins because their DNA, at 37 markers, has a genetic distance of 3.
And the wrinkle is that B matches D, at 37 markers, at a genetic distance of 4 and matches C at 12 markers at genetic distance of 0. These two measures of genetic distance are close enough that FTDNA who did the testing suggests they are cousins.
B, though, at 37 markers matches C at genetic distance 5 and A matches C at 37 markers at genetic distance 7 and matches D at genetic distance 6. All these measures of genetic distance are sightly outside the statistical limits by which FTDNA would tell two persons they are cousins. But, to my way of thinking, it is simply a matter of probabilities and how many generations back the common ancestor was. If two people are genetic distance 5, maybe their connection is 9 or 10 generations back which would explain that one additional genetic mutation over time.
So I believe the Y-DNA results of these four men is suggesting, strongly, there is some relationship between the George (G) family and the Theobald (T) family, though we have not yet made the connection.
And just like we have recently determined where Theobald came from, we have also recently discovered where George came from — he can be found in the church records of Lambsheim, Germany in one instance and nearby Weisenheim am Sand Reformed church in another. These two churches where George was found are about 60 km apart from the church where Theobald was found. It is certainly close enough to understand how maybe part of the family found their way from one place to the other in the one or two previous generations.
We are actively trying to find more male Mertz or Martz descendants of George and Theobald to shed more light on all of this.
An alternative explanation for the DNA match would be that John Philip was a direct descendant of Theobald and has nothing to do whatsoever with the Heidelberg-Carbon-Westmoreland family, despite the geographic coincidences I outlined already. The problem is I think I know the first few generations of Theobald’s family quite well and there is no place I can see where John Philip could fit in.
And another issue is the geography. Yes, there was some movement of some of the Berks County Mertzes to Northampton County — an eastward move though not a big one — but basically in those days people, if they moved, moved westward. Frederick County, Maryland, or nearby Franklin County, Pennsylvania (where one of Theobald’s sons lived) to Carbon County would be a very anomalous kind of move.
There are other possible explanations which I’ll explore in my discussion of John Philip but DNA can be added to the list of discordant notes that surround this family.
The exact wording of the 1797 land record referring to the land George patented in 1749 is it “became vested in oldest son Philip” when George died intestate. This raises the question of whether there were other surviving sons?
I think not. If there were, wouldn't they too have had to sign releases? I think the deed was referring to the fact that by law, if someone died intestate, the land would go to the eldest son. In the case, the eldest son was the only son.
We cannot make a similar claim, though, about Philip. He may have had other sons in addition to John George, in fact I think he did. The story of Philip and all his possible descendants, for up to four more generations, is told more fully by reading my analysis of each of those descendants one-by-one. But I want to summarize it here.
I believe some descendants of this family that started out in Heidelberg Township became the Mertz family of nearby North Whitehall Township, Lehigh County. They stayed locally. I believe other descendants of this family moved to a different part of Northampton County — specifically the area that became Carbon County when it was formed in 1843 and then some of the “Carbon County” family moved to Westmoreland County. The name was spelled Mertz initially in eastern Pennsylvania and then, as often happened when anyone named Mertz moved to a new place in the 1700’s and early 1800’s, came to be spelled Martz in Westmoreland County.
So this is the story of George, his son Philip and twelve additional men who I believe were either Philip’s sons or grandsons — and their descendants. Every one of Philip’s descendants has a designated place in the family tree structure I present here — which might imply that I think I’ve figured everything out. But I haven’t figured everything out. There are some rather large “contradictions” — I call them “discordant notes” — that are hard to explain away. So my mission for all of these twelve men is to:
a. Make the case of why I believe they belong to this Heidelberg-Carbon-Westmoreland family.
b. Present the evidence that supports their placement where I have them in this family tree, i.e. who each person’s father was.
c. Present the contradictory evidence that gives me pause that I have something wrong. Remember, if I am wrong, it may be that I simply have the person linked to the wrong father and not that the person doesn’t belong to this overall family. Or, I could be wrong about that too.
This is just a brief sketch of each person, mostly explaining why I think they are of this overall family and explaining the geographic connections that tie them all together. I will state the connections I am confident of and perhaps suggest the discordant notes, which will then be covered in more detail in the followup discussions on each individual one-by-one. The first four I think were Philip’s sons.
1. (John) George Mertz (1761-1844). I use the parentheses around John to highlight that he was John George in Heidelberg and then (just) George elsewhere. We know that Philip gave land to his son (John) George in 1797. I think he is the man later known as (just) George and that he moved from Heidelberg first to East Penn Township (which would be later subsumed into Carbon County) and later to Westmoreland County.
George was listed in the 1790 Census in Heidelberg (as George March). In 1797, he pledged his Heidelberg Township land including the land patented by his grandfather George in 1749 to John Peter (Senior) as collateral for a substantial loan.
He then disappeared from Heidelberg and I think he is the George Mertz who then appeared in Penn Township, Northampton County in 1800 and then in East Penn Township in 1810.
I believe he then moved to Westmoreland County and was listed there in 1820 and 1830. One of the things that convinces me I have correctly tracked George from place to place and that in my opinion strongly suggests the overall Heidelberg-Carbon-Westmoreland connection is his statements in his Revolutionary War Pension application in 1833. He said he was born in Northampton County in 1761 and came to Westmoreland in 1818. When asked about his war service record, he wrote about being a part of several militia units whose initial encampment in every case was Heidelberg and on one occasion his unit marched to East Penn Township. (It wasn’t that far a march so I found it quite compelling that he so specifically made note of that march in his war record.)
2. William Mertz (the older). In the 1800 Census, Philip was joined in Heidelberg by William Mertz. He was 26-45 [1755-1774]. He must have been the Wilhelm Mertz who was named as a sponsor at Heidelberg Church in 1791 with Elizabeth Peter, I presume both single. So I believe he was not yet married in 1791.
A William Mertz, said to be of Macungie Township, died in 1807 with John Peter as Administrator of his estate and, I think, then disappeared from Census but, it seems clear, was replaced in Census by “Widow” Mertz in 1810 in Heidelberg, age 26-44. Her name was Elizabeth and when she died in 1814, John Peter was Administrator of her estate.
It is a little off-putting that William was said to be of Macungie Township and then Elizabeth too was said to be of Macungie Township when John Peter filed his estate accounts — but in several other places in her estate file, Elizabeth was said to be of Heidelberg Township. I think it was John Peter who was geographically confused.
In any event, it is John Peter here who ties everything together. He administered these two estates, he loaned money to (John) George — and remember when Wilhelm was a named baptismal sponsor, it was with Elizabeth Peter — I strongly suspect daughter of John. Clearly the Heidelberg Mertz family was associated with the Heidelberg Peter family in a variety of ways. And, in my studies of everyone of this name, I’m not missing any other William Mertz who might be the one who died in Macungie.
3. Daniel Mertz. Philip baptized a son Daniel in 1773. Somewhere I made a note, though I no longer can find any mention of it, that a Daniel Mertz (it may have been Merdz) was buried at the Heidelberg Church with dates 1773-1802.
4. Dewalt (or Theobald) Mertz (1776-1860). Dewalt Mertz first appeared in the 1810 Census in Heidelberg. From his Mortality Census death record he was born about 1776. I think he is of this whole family line because he started out in Heidelberg. He then went to nearby North Whitehall Township.
So those are, I believe, Philip’s four sons. Documents prove he had a son John George and another named Daniel, I am somewhat guessing though that I know what happened to each of them. No documents prove that Philip had a son William or Dewalt — it is their Heidelberg connection and age the make that case.
Moving to Philip’s grandsons, these first four I have placed as sons of (John) George.
5. Nicholas Mertz (1784-1867). He was first reported on an 1808 tax list as a single freeman in East Penn Township, George the only other Mertz on that list. Nicholas started showing up in Census in Westmorland in 1820. He married Amy Walton, daughter of Boaz Walton who came to Westmoreland County from the area of Northampton County that would become Carbon County. It is the fact that George was the only other Mertz on that 1808 tax list and both of them finding their way to Westmoreland that suggest that Nicholas may have been George’s son.
6. William Mertz (1786-1865). He showed up in Westmoreland in 1810. He married Mary Walton, also a daughter of Boaz. It is the fact of his marriage to the sister of the wife of Nicholas Martz that suggest perhaps they were brothers and that would mean William too was a son of George.
7. Carl (Charles) Mertz (1788-1860’s). George and unnamed wife baptized a son Carl in 1788 at the Heidelberg Church. I believe the next sighting of Carl is when he and wife Catherine baptized a daughter at the Weissport Church (in what would become Carbon County) in 1816 and then I think he is the Charles Martz who showed up in Westmoreland in 1830-1850 and then moved to Armstrong County. His age in 1860 (71) and 1870 (83) certainly fit with his 1788 baptism and his wife was named Katherine.
But perhaps the clincher is this: a death certificate of a daughter who died in Armstrong County gives her parent’s names as Charles and Catherine (Stull) Marts and one of the sponsors in 1816 at Weissport when Carl and Katherine baptized their daughter was Stull. Carl, like George, has the distinction of having been named in all three places.
8. John Philip (1797-abt 1875). John Philip first appeared in Census in East Penn Township in 1820, the Census year when George disappeared from that same place. He and his family then worshipped at the Weissport Church where Carl had baptized a daughter a little earlier. He then was the progenitor of the Mahoning Township, Carbon County Mertz family.
So as with the problem of naming the sons of Philip’s, naming George’s sons is also a problem. We know he had a son Carl but I am somewhat guessing that it was that very same Carl who I have tracked to Weissport, then Westmoreland, then Allegheny. There is less evidence that George had a son Nicholas — though the 1808 tax list and their East Penn to Westmoreland geographic patterns suggests that possibility. There is even less evidence that he had a son John Philip though his appearance in East Penn in 1820 “replacing” George suggests it as a possibility. (But wouldn’t 21-year old John Philip have moved to Westmoreland in 1818 with his father?) And there is really no evidence that he had a son William, in his case it is only the idea he was Nicholas’ brother that is the basis for my claim.
Nonetheless, there is also no evidence to suggest that Nicholas, Carl, William or John Philip were connected to Philip in some other way, so I believe all four were sons of (John) George. But it is one of the frustrations of figuring this whole family out that Census tick marks (the counts of people by age group) seem inconsistent with this theory.
Census tick marks do support the idea that William (the older) had two sons. I think he did.
9. Joseph (1793-1835). Joseph first appeared in Census in 1820 in North Whitehall where Dewalt also was listed. This is one thing suggesting a link to the Heidelberg Mertz family. And his Lehigh County tombstone tombstone says he married Elizabeth Arner. The Arner organization says she was the daughter of William Arner who was the son of Felix and Maria Elisabetha (Mertz — daughter of the immigrant George) Arner. So this is another connection of Joseph to the Heidelberg family.
10. Jonas (1803-1873). When Elizabeth, widow of William died, petitions were filed for guardians of her five minor children, Jonas and four daughters. That petition also said William had had four additional children but unfortunately didn’t name the older ones or indicate in any way how many were sons versus daughters. I believe Jonas survived, was the Jonas first listed in Census in North Whitehall and is the Jonas buried at Morgenland Church in Lehigh County.
I have placed Joseph and Jonas as sons of William (the older). It’s very parallel to the problem of naming the sons of Philip and/or George. It is documented that William had a son Jonas, I am somewhat guessing (though I think I am on pretty solid ground) that the Jonas who lived in North Whitehall and was buried at Morgenland was this Jonas.
There is no real document that would suggest that William had a son named Joseph. He well might have, there were four older unnamed children noted in his wife’s Orphans Court petition and Joseph’s 1793 birth is not inconsistent with the idea that William was single in 1791 (but possibly “courting” Elizabeth Peter).
And so now there are two more of Philip’s grandsons, who, I think, were sons of Dewalt.
11. & 12. Joseph (1809-1898) and Martin (1810-1852). I assume Martin was Dewalt’s son since Dewalt lived with him in 1850. I think Joseph was Dewalt’s son because when the older Joseph (born 1793) died in 1835, buyers at his vendue sale named Mertz included his immediate family plus three others: Dewalt and I believe his two sons: Martin and Joseph.
Census tick marks do not totally contradict this idea. But, as happens too many times in this whole family, if their birth dates are both right on their tombstones, it precludes Martin and Joseph being brothers as they were born five months apart.
DNA Evidence.
So I have noted several discordant notes with the proposed family tree structure — Census tick marks that are inconsistent with the theory and the supposed birth dates of Joseph and Martin. And there is one more related issue — something again which makes this family so interesting.
Y-DNA AND RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER MERTZ/MARTZ IMMIGRANTS
There is a Mertz/Martz y-chromosome DNA project at Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). By analyzing the DNA from males named Mertz or Martz today, we can see which other Mærtz males in the project they share a common Mærtz male ancestor with and then using genealogical practices we can pretty well determine who that long ago ancestor was.
And the surprise is that the Y-DNA is telling us, I think, that there is some relationship between the George Mertz (G) family of Heidelberg/Carbon/Westmoreland and the Theobald Martz (T) family — Theobald a 1753 immigrant who settled immediately in Frederick, Maryland.
Right now we have two persons who, based on our genealogical research, descend from Theobald, from two different sons of Theobald’s son Peter. Their Y-DNA places them in the I-M223 haplogroup and confirms they share a common Martz ancestor at sometime in the past (i.e. Peter and Theobald). Let’s call the two persons who descend from Theobald, A and B.
And there are two other persons in my Y-DNA project, let’s call them C and D, who descend from two different sons of John Philip and Teresa Mertz who lived in Carbon County. John Philip, a great-grandson of George the immigrant. Their DNA too, like A and B, suggest they share a common Mertz ancestor.
The surprise is that the DNA of persons A and B when compared to the DNA of persons C and D seems to suggest they all may share a common Mærtz ancestor. Yes, George (G) had a grandson named Theobald (he generally went by Dewalt), and yes, George’s was the only other Mærtz family where the name Theobald existed, but this only ever seemed like nothing but coincidence.
But the DNA now suggests maybe that is not just coincidence. Consider:
All four persons, A, B, C and D share haplogroup I-M223.
A and B, as said before, are seen as cousins because their DNA, at 37 markers, has a genetic distance of 2.
C and D, as said before, are also seen as cousins because their DNA, at 37 markers, has a genetic distance of 3.
And the wrinkle is that B matches D, at 37 markers, at a genetic distance of 4 and matches C at 12 markers at genetic distance of 0. These two measures of genetic distance are close enough that FTDNA who did the testing suggests they are cousins.
B, though, at 37 markers matches C at genetic distance 5 and A matches C at 37 markers at genetic distance 7 and matches D at genetic distance 6. All these measures of genetic distance are sightly outside the statistical limits by which FTDNA would tell two persons they are cousins. But, to my way of thinking, it is simply a matter of probabilities and how many generations back the common ancestor was. If two people are genetic distance 5, maybe their connection is 9 or 10 generations back which would explain that one additional genetic mutation over time.
So I believe the Y-DNA results of these four men is suggesting, strongly, there is some relationship between the George (G) family and the Theobald (T) family, though we have not yet made the connection.
And just like we have recently determined where Theobald came from, we have also recently discovered where George came from — he can be found in the church records of Lambsheim, Germany in one instance and nearby Weisenheim am Sand Reformed church in another. These two churches where George was found are about 60 km apart from the church where Theobald was found. It is certainly close enough to understand how maybe part of the family found their way from one place to the other in the one or two previous generations.
We are actively trying to find more male Mertz or Martz descendants of George and Theobald to shed more light on all of this.
An alternative explanation for the DNA match would be that John Philip was a direct descendant of Theobald and has nothing to do whatsoever with the Heidelberg-Carbon-Westmoreland family, despite the geographic coincidences I outlined already. The problem is I think I know the first few generations of Theobald’s family quite well and there is no place I can see where John Philip could fit in.
And another issue is the geography. Yes, there was some movement of some of the Berks County Mertzes to Northampton County — an eastward move though not a big one — but basically in those days people, if they moved, moved westward. Frederick County, Maryland, or nearby Franklin County, Pennsylvania (where one of Theobald’s sons lived) to Carbon County would be a very anomalous kind of move.
There are other possible explanations which I’ll explore in my discussion of John Philip but DNA can be added to the list of discordant notes that surround this family.
Research notes for George Mertz (G)
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
This is the hardest line of Mertzes I have ever had to work on. My own Northumberland County, PA line was difficult because a lot of other “genealogists” had published family histories about one or more of them and there were a significant number of major errors made in their work that all had to be discovered, debunked and corrected. But in the end, everything came together and it all made perfect sense.
But the people in this book have not been researched much at all. Yes, I can find a few of the names in a few family trees on, for example, ancestry.com. But mostly, these are dead-end persons — unattached to any parents with no commentary on where they came from.
I’ve been researching everyone named Mertz or Martz who lived anywhere in America up to 1880 for well over 15 years. For most of them, I’m quite confident I can correctly link people of this name back to their immigrant ancestor. The task is made difficult since the same few names were used in most all of the different Mertz families. We can identify numerous persons named Jacob, Heinrich, Johannes, Philip, George, Peter, William — and others — in each of the different Mertz family groups. Tracking these people, especially when they moved to a new area, and being certain the match was correct was the big challenge.
But there were several “geographic clusters” of persons of this name who I could never connect to anyone else. There was a group of Mertzes who settled quite early in Heidelberg Township, Northampton County, PA and were listed there in the 1790-1810 Census. Another group was in Carbon County, PA after its 1843 creation from Northampton County and present from 1810 in the specific area of Northampton from which Carbon was created. And a group of Martzes began to appear in Westmoreland County, PA starting in 1810.
It was only when I began to discover coincidences that seemed to suggest that at least some of the Carbon County family must have come there from Heidelberg and some of the Westmoreland County family must have come there from (what would become) Carbon County that I began to form my unifying theory that all three of these geographic clusters of people were for the most part the same big family — they started out in Heidelberg, some moved to Carbon County and then some or all of them to Westmoreland County.
Over time, the evidence has grown to the point where I am now convinced my theory is largely correct. In this book, we’ll meet fourteen males named Mertz or Martz, born before 1811, who I believe in one way or another have some relationship to each other. The earliest-born of the fourteen was George Mertz, a 1732 immigrant who settled in Heidelberg. I believe the other thirteen in some way descend from him. In some cases, I can document the child-parent relationship I suggest, in some cases I lack the “smoking-gun” document that would establish the relationship but I can make a strong evidentiary case and in some cases, I’m the first to admit (and indicate in my commentary) that I am just guessing.
In fact, a few of my guesses would seem to be contradicted by the evidence at hand but when I am trying to place someone I believe fits somewhere into this family and there is no place to put him not seemingly contradicted by the evidence, I have to pick the best among the bad alternatives. But there are enough contradictions in some of the connections I suggest for me to fear I’ve not yet quite figured everything out.
I have always wished someone related to these people would pick up the ball and join me in further researching this family to try to tighten things up. It’s quite possible that one or two of the people in this book belong in another family or maybe it’s only they do belong here but to a different father. But I do believe the story I tell in this book is substantially correct.
This is the hardest line of Mertzes I have ever had to work on. My own Northumberland County, PA line was difficult because a lot of other “genealogists” had published family histories about one or more of them and there were a significant number of major errors made in their work that all had to be discovered, debunked and corrected. But in the end, everything came together and it all made perfect sense.
But the people in this book have not been researched much at all. Yes, I can find a few of the names in a few family trees on, for example, ancestry.com. But mostly, these are dead-end persons — unattached to any parents with no commentary on where they came from.
I’ve been researching everyone named Mertz or Martz who lived anywhere in America up to 1880 for well over 15 years. For most of them, I’m quite confident I can correctly link people of this name back to their immigrant ancestor. The task is made difficult since the same few names were used in most all of the different Mertz families. We can identify numerous persons named Jacob, Heinrich, Johannes, Philip, George, Peter, William — and others — in each of the different Mertz family groups. Tracking these people, especially when they moved to a new area, and being certain the match was correct was the big challenge.
But there were several “geographic clusters” of persons of this name who I could never connect to anyone else. There was a group of Mertzes who settled quite early in Heidelberg Township, Northampton County, PA and were listed there in the 1790-1810 Census. Another group was in Carbon County, PA after its 1843 creation from Northampton County and present from 1810 in the specific area of Northampton from which Carbon was created. And a group of Martzes began to appear in Westmoreland County, PA starting in 1810.
It was only when I began to discover coincidences that seemed to suggest that at least some of the Carbon County family must have come there from Heidelberg and some of the Westmoreland County family must have come there from (what would become) Carbon County that I began to form my unifying theory that all three of these geographic clusters of people were for the most part the same big family — they started out in Heidelberg, some moved to Carbon County and then some or all of them to Westmoreland County.
Over time, the evidence has grown to the point where I am now convinced my theory is largely correct. In this book, we’ll meet fourteen males named Mertz or Martz, born before 1811, who I believe in one way or another have some relationship to each other. The earliest-born of the fourteen was George Mertz, a 1732 immigrant who settled in Heidelberg. I believe the other thirteen in some way descend from him. In some cases, I can document the child-parent relationship I suggest, in some cases I lack the “smoking-gun” document that would establish the relationship but I can make a strong evidentiary case and in some cases, I’m the first to admit (and indicate in my commentary) that I am just guessing.
In fact, a few of my guesses would seem to be contradicted by the evidence at hand but when I am trying to place someone I believe fits somewhere into this family and there is no place to put him not seemingly contradicted by the evidence, I have to pick the best among the bad alternatives. But there are enough contradictions in some of the connections I suggest for me to fear I’ve not yet quite figured everything out.
I have always wished someone related to these people would pick up the ball and join me in further researching this family to try to tighten things up. It’s quite possible that one or two of the people in this book belong in another family or maybe it’s only they do belong here but to a different father. But I do believe the story I tell in this book is substantially correct.
Parent-Proof notes for Margaret (Spouse 1)
George Mertz married Anna Margaretha Roth, daughter of Albertus, on 25 May 1723 in the records of the Weisenheim am Sand Reformed Church in Germany.
Margaret Mertz was one of the passengers on the shop George came to America on.
At the Jordan Lutheran Church in Lehigh County, a church that predates the establishment of Heidelberg Church, a Georg and Margaretha Mertz baptized an unnamed child 15 Jun 1740. And he and (now) Anna Margaretha sponsored the baptism in August 1740 of a child named Anna Margaretha Strahl.
Margaret Mertz was one of the passengers on the shop George came to America on.
At the Jordan Lutheran Church in Lehigh County, a church that predates the establishment of Heidelberg Church, a Georg and Margaretha Mertz baptized an unnamed child 15 Jun 1740. And he and (now) Anna Margaretha sponsored the baptism in August 1740 of a child named Anna Margaretha Strahl.