POTTENGER’S CREEK
(Fourth Article)
By   L. S. Pence
The Lebanon Enterprise    April 2, 1920


At the end of article three, law suits were under discussion, “Justice is the idea of God; the ideal of men; the rule of conduct writ in the nature of mankind.”  Captain Samuel Pottenger, 1790, was sued in an action at law, termed by lawyers as “trespass on the case,” by one named Lowe.  By oversight, the servants of Captain Samuel Pottenger cut timber over the “property line” upon the land of Lowe.  At almost the minute of the unfortunate occurrence Captain Samuel Pottenger visited the scene of the cutting, and proffered to pay Mr. Lowe for any damage occasioned by the wrongful act of his servants in cutting over the line.  Mr. Lowe relished to “cuss the Captain” more than in demanding pay for timber.  However, Lowe had occasion at once, to amend his petition  against Captain Pottenger to that action called “trespass Vi et Armis,” because of the “beating and bruising of his body” inflicted upon Lowe by Captain Pottenger.  A verdict of “one cent” was registered by the jury against Captain Samuel Pottenger.  Don’t get the idea into your head that a “Pottenger” won’t fight.  A review of many other records during the career of Captain Samuel Pottenger well illustrates the justice and fairness of the man, so as to teach that he lived simple in his faith, and was sincere in his walk in the path of his Marker as he saw his way.
ROADS
The early pioneer, in his journey, made use of “traces” were formed by game, constantly on the travel, through the almost impenetrable forest.  It is uncertain as to the exact date when the first original road reached either Pottenger’s Creek or Pottenger’s Station.  Evidently when Captain Samuel Pottenger and (James) “Harrod” first journeyed over to the Rolling Fork, (and when Pottenger’s creek was discovered) they traveled within the “trace” formed by buffaloes; because in 1780 many witnesses relate this fact: “there existed a large buffalo road between the Beech Fork and Pottenger’s creek, and the same was much used by settlers.”  The habits of travel as thus occasioned by the above animals were their instincts to hunt salt water existing in numerous “licks” situated upon the head waters of and adjacent to Pottenger’s Creek.  The “pine lick” to Pottenger’s and the “Indian Lick” were two of the largest, and both are often cited in road directions, and mentioned in recorded depositions.
Frequently this query is put: When the first original road reached Pottenger’s Creek from Bairdstown, (or Cox’s Station) did the said road follow the route as now traveled in the turnpike leading by the monastery of Gethsemani or did the original route at that early date, follow in the present location of the Louisville & Nashville turnpike?  The former route must be the answer.  But the solution is difficult to prove by reason of the decadence of parts of many ancient orders pertaining exclusively to the jurisdiction of roads.  Watch closely and I will endeavor, if possible to outline the earliest road established in the Pottenger creek settlement.
Road No. 1--Although this is not the oldest road to reach Pottenger’s Creek, yet it must be first used.  The full “order” describing road No. 1 reads as follows: “From dividing ridge to the falls of Rolling Fork above the mouth Knob lick on the north (New Haven) side of the Rolling Fork to the mouth of Pottenger’s Creek below the knobs.” (From tradition, well defined, it is a fact that a century and a half ago, the mouth of Pottenger’s Creek at that early date was some two miles lower down the Rolling Fork than where at present said creek flows into the Rolling Fork.) The above road No. 1 must have come from Goodwin’s station (erected 1780) and have followed “below the knobs” all the way from “Old Boston” up to the Rolling Fork, until this road No. 1 stopped at the mouth of Pottenger’s Creek; that is it led into an “old road” called the “Pottenger Creek to Bairdstown” Road, which last road ran along upon the south bank of Pottenger’s Creek some two miles—perhaps more—to where the said “old road” crossed Pottenger’s Creek, and thence went northwardly up to and passed Captain Samuel Pottenger’s station.  A witness in 1780, certainly proves the above outlined routes in his deposition as follows:
“He lived at Goodwin’s Station on the Rolling Fork, and went up the fork (road No. 1) to the mouth of Pottenger’s Creek, and then went up the “old road” (called Pottenger’s Creek to Bairdstown) to where (Captain Samuel) Pottenger lived.”  It will be well to dwell at some length in a write up of this ancient “Pottenger’s creek to Bairdstown” road, for it was the first road that reached Pottenger’s settlement and terminated at the mouth of Pottenger’s Creek.  As early as May 21, 1785, in a remnant of order wherein “John Withrow” road was “ordered,” in that “Withrow order” this “Pottenger’s Creek to Bairdstown” road was designated as the “old road” at that ancient date of May 21, 1785.  It is probable that the above “old road” was established by an order of court in Jefferson and likely when originally ordered in Jefferson, said “old road” started perhaps, from Cox’s Station (then in Jefferson) and extended over to Pottenger’s Station, and when “Bairdstown” was put on the map, then by common usage the said “old road” was only called the “Pottenger’s Creek to Bairdstown” road; omitting “Cox’s Station” from all later designation.  The records in Jefferson have been hastily searched, but no order found wherein this “old road” had ever been a matter of record.  It could be entirely probable that Captain Samuel Pottenger and other sturdy settlers in 1779, and before “Order book A.” was commenced in 1780 in Jefferson, have energetically cleared this “old road”—made same—through the pathless forest from Cox’s Station over to Pottenger’s Station, and have—stopped at the “mouth of Pottenger’s Creek”, and when so completed, said “old road”—has never been the subject of any court order of “May 21, 1785” just merely makes mention of this “old road” but does not state that the said “old road” was ever established by any order of court.
 

Add Comment