Conrad Ulp is a unique name in the time period he lived. Therefore, I take the tax record I found indicating that a man of that name was taxed in Hardwick Township, then Sussex County, NJ in 1793 to be very important. I believe it was him, he was about 20 and therefore eligible to be taxed. Barnet Ulp lived in Sussex County and was older than Conrad so I have presumed that he was Conrad’s father.

He moved from Sussex County, NJ to Northumberland sometime soon after 1800, with possibly a brief stop in time for the 1800 Census in what is now Lycoming County.

H L Eckert said at the 1911 Eckert-Ulp family reunion that the Ulps came from Rotterdam, Holland and settled in Monmouth County, NJ, that the name was spelled Olp in Holland and that Conrad emigrated to Northumberland at the close of the Revolutionary War.

According to early Northumberland Co Tax Records for Point Twp, Conrad Ulp is taxed on two town lots starting in 1824.

A published abstract of early Sunbury papers has this entry: ”Conrad Ulp died 19 May 1853 in the borough of Northumberland. He was aged 79 years, 9 months and 14 days.”

He was listed as one of a very large number of debtors to the estate of Benjamin F Young of Northumberland in 1803, so we know he was present there by then. Benjamin’s wife was Sarah Hariett Bull.

1790 Census. From what I know, I think Conrad Ulp is probably living with his father Barnet in Sussex Co, NJ -- unfortunately the 1790 Census for NJ is lost. John Ulp of Bucks Co is the only Ulp listed in PA.

1800. He may be the Conrad Oulps living in Washington Twp, North’d Co age 26-44 with wife 16-26 and a young son. These ages -- a wife a little younger than he and a son who could possibly have left a widow by 1820 -- do fit the known facts of Conrad Ulp and so this may be him. Except, shouldn’t daughter Elizabeth be there too? Washington Township is now part of Lycoming County and that is where Conrad Oulps lived, not to be confused with a later township of the same name now part of Snyder County but in 1800 part of Penns.

1810. Conrad Ulp lives in Point Twp.

1820. Conrad Ulp lives in Northumberland Borough. If her 1800 birth date is correct, then Elizabeth is 20, so where is she? The female 26-45 is most likely Conrad’s wife and their oldest younger female is 10-16. Mary, who married Jacob Eckert, could be the daughter 10-16.

1820. Curiously, also in North’d Borough, is Mrs. Ulp who is 16-26 with two sons under 10. Conrad did have a son present age 10-16 in 1810 -- so perhaps this son married before 1820 and died young. Was this son Jacob who is known from the 1837 deed?

1830. Conrad Ulp lives in Northumberland Borough. There is also an Elizabeth Ulp in Shamokin, I believe the widow of either Michael or his son David Ulp of that place.

1840. Conrad Ulp lives in Northumberland Borough.

1850 Census. Conrad Ulp lives in the household of Jacob Eckert 44 and his wife Mary 45 and their young children in Northumberland Borough. Mary, I’m pretty sure, is Conrad’s daughter.

THE ULP AND ECKERT FAMILIES OF NORTHUMBERLAND
Anyone doing any research on Conrad Ulp and his children will quickly encounter the Eckert name as there were several marriages of Conrad’s children to an Eckert. I never could figure out, though, if the Eckerts were also siblings and if so, who were their parents?

But two different articles in the Public Press, a (no longer published) Northumberland newspaper, provide a tremendous amount of background. An article in 1911 reported on the recent Eckert-Ulp reunion (also attended by the Morgans, McGregors, Hopewells, Blues and Lloyds) at which an address was given by H T Eckert on the history of the Ups and Eckert families. As I am sure there is at least one major error in his story, we need to be a little careful not to accept it all as “fact” but it certainly was informative for me. I basically therefore do accept it all as “fact” unless and until I come to find out something different for any one specific detail. (H T was?)

“The Ulps came from Rotterdam, Holland and settled in Monmouth County, NJ. The Dutch spelling of the name was Olp. At the close of the Revolutionary War, Conrad Ulp, our maternal grandfather, emigrated to Northumberland, and coequal with the Priestleys, Hannas, Taggarts, Kays and Shannons, with those five are closely interwoven in the old town’s history.

Abraham Eckert, whose wife was Peggy Stauffer, came from either Lancaster, Lehigh or Berks County, having lived in all three. The Eckert family came about the time the Ulps arrived. The former consisted of Jacob, John, Levi, George and Crawford, and Mary Ann and Harriett.

The Ulps were as follows: Mary, Elizabeth Elsie, Sarah, Peggy, John and William.

Here I must relate an almost unprecedented occurrence, that is a question if it was ever duplicated in the State. Jacob, George, Levi and Crawford Eckert married the four Ulp sisters — Mary, Elizabeth, Sarah and Elise, and John Ulp married Harriet Eckert.”

My comments:

1. I think the Ulps can be mostly associated with Sussex County, NJ. I’m not sure what the reference to Monmouth County is all about.
2. It would be nice had H T clearly indicted which Eckert married which Ulp. If they were in order, then he would be saying Jacob Eckert married Mary Ulp (he did) George married Elizabeth (but he married Elsie), Levi married Sarah (he did) and Crawford married Elsie (no, she married George and I am sure Crawford did not marry any Ulp).
3. I don’t know Peggy Ulp, I agree with the names of the other Ulp children but I also believe there was one more: Jacob. I do not believe that Elizabeth Ulp married an Eckert.
4. And I agree that John Ulp married Harriett Eckert.

Then, in 1917, a series of articles was published, the reminiscences of Emma (Eckert) Morgan. In this case, I’ll cite (not necessarily quote) what she says (and add comments in parentheses where appropriate. The most informative of these articles was “Chapter VI” where she recounted the deaths of family members in chronological order. Emma was born in 1836.

Emma was the daughter of Levi and Sarah (Ulp) Eckert. Her death certificate said she was the daughter of Levi and Harriett Eckert but there obviously was some confusion on that point.

“My first recollection of death was my maternal grandmother which occurred about the year 1839.” (That would be Elsie, wife of Conrad Ulp. I previously did not have any real idea when she died other than knowing she was not present in the 1850 Census.)

Next, Uncle William Ulp when I was about 5. (Implies 1841, I think it may have been a year or two later.)

A few months later, Aunt Hatty Up — John Ulps’ mother — whose husband died before my time. (Hatty is Harriett Eckert who married John Ulp who did indeed pre-decease her in 1838 so Emma was too young to remember it.)

Then when I was about 7, Uncle James Hopewell and then next his two married daughters Mary Voris and Elsie Gray. (James Hopewell may well have died in about 1843 though J L Floyd says 1839, but that is wrong. And his two daughters in the late 1840’s is right.)

Next is that of Aunt Betty Hopewell, mother’s sister, and mother of Mary and Elsie. This was August or September of 1850. (This is totally consistent with my belief that Betty— Elizabeth (Ulp) Hopewell — did not marry Crawford Ulp. And she died in August 1850.)

The following December, her last and youngest daughter Beckie died. (Correct.)

Next, my maternal grandfather. (Conrad Ulp, 1853).

Emma recounts that her paternal grandfather died before she was born and her paternal grandmother shortly after her birth.

A year or so after Conrad, Emm’s mother Sarah. (Actually it was 3 months later).

(Now it gets a title confusing). Pop Eckert in ’73. (That’s Levi, it was 1875.). A few years later Uncle Jacob. (I assume she means Jacob Eckert and Emma has totally omitted his wife Mary who died in 1873).

Meantime, Uncle George Eckert and Uncle Jacob Ulp, father’s and mother’s brothers. (George Eckert and Jacob Ulp both died in 1881).

And then in October 1895, Aunt Elsie Eckert, ”my second mother”. (Correct.)

“In mentioning my relatives…..aunts, uncles and cousins. We were almost as one family — our fathers were brothers and our mothers sisters, we were double cousins.” For instance, Jacob Eckert married Mary Ulp, Levi Eckert married Sarah Ulp, George Eckert married Elise Ulp and John Ulp married Harriett Eckert. Uncle Crawford Eckert escaped the mix somehow. (I agree with her summary, especially as it relates to Carwfrd debunking what H T Eckert sad at the Reunion.”

And she mentions John Ulp, son of John Ulp, “my double cousin and adopted brother, as my parents raised him.”

Conrad was the only Ulp in Northumberland in the early 1800's. I have no real proof that Elizabeth Ulp was the daughter of Conrad Ulp, but he was the only Ulp I can find in the area in that time period and he had a daughter of the approximate right age in the 1810 Census.

I have studied Census, the records of Riverview Cemetery and all the deeds dealing with the disposition of Northumberland Borough Lot #172 owned in trust for the heirs of Alice (Elsie) Ulp, wife of Conrad, and I have identified six (possible) children of Conrad’s who I can name. There may have been others. At least three of these children married people named Eckert.

Several of his known children, it would seem, were born around 1800-1802, one about 1812, and several 1820-1822 with no known children born in the gap. Normally that situation just screams -- two wives! But the evidence seems to suggest that Conrad’s only known wife, Elsie, was the mother of all of his children. The whole situation, however, has been one giant puzzle which frankly I am unable to solve to my satisfaction.

Census is no help. Before 1850, Census only told us the name of the head of household and then there were tick marks indicating the number of other persons in the household by sex and age bracket (e.g. 1 male 10-16). Often, I am able to match up a man’s known children with those tick marks and thus give a name to each tick mark. Not so with Conrad. In some years, children I think should have been present were not and in some years there were too many tick marks or too many in the wrong age brackets.

Part of the solution to this puzzle may be that in 1820, in addition to Conrad Ulp in Northumberland, there was a young widow -- as was the custom her name was given in Census as Widow Ulp. She had two young sons living with her, probably infants. Some or all of these people may have ended up later in Conrad’s household. It is all very confusing.

So let me first introduce Elsie and state what I know about her, especially the story of Lot #172 and then discuss each of these six possible children in turn.

She was Alice and at times apparently called Elsie. But I have been unable to determine her maiden name and thus haven’t a clue as to her parents’ names.

From LDS Film # 961202, Deed Book U -- (edited): “This indenture made 26 Dec 1818 between John Smith Haines of town of North’d, attorney at law, and John Boyd merchant and Samuel Jackson physician both of the same place for $56 [sells] to John Boyd and Samuel Jackson...certain lot...numbered in the plan 172 bounded on north by Queen St, on east by an alley, on south by Duke St and on west by lot 171; together with all and the buildings...and appurtenances belonging or in any wise pertaining and the reversions and remainder...thereof...of the said John Smith Haines in and to..granted with the appurtenances to the said John Boyd and Samuel Jackson their heirs and assigns forever, in Trust nevertheless for the use of Alice Ulp wife of Conrad Ulp of the town aforesaid during the natural life of said Alice Ulp and after the decease of the said Alice Ulp in trust for the use of the said Conrad Ulp aforesaid and after the decease of the said Conrad Ulp to each of the children of the said Conrad Ulp by Alice Ulp aforesaid him and her surviving their heirs and assigns forever as tenants in common and not joint tenants. Signed and sealed. I the above mentioned Conrad Ulp having read the above indenture do fully and entirely approve it. Conrad Ulp (seal).”

Then in 1837, Conrad and Elsie sold their life estate in lot 172 to Thomas T Bonham for $75. I’m not sure what he really got for his $75 -- just use of the land until both Conrad and Elise had died? -- but in any event he moved to Illinois within about two years, so this is very strange. Did he re-sell the life estate, deed it back, what?

Deed book U has the deed from John S Haines to Alice Ulp. Deed book Z page 781 on film 961205 has a deed from Conrad and Elsy to Bonham. And Deed book WW pages 197 and 198 has the deeds from Jacob and Mary, Jacob and Ann, George and Elsie to Levi and Mary.

Some other families -- notably Wistar and Hartshorne -- were also closely aligned with the Philadelphia-Northumberland axis and some of these other people. Many of these families were Quaker and in their wills exhibited a pattern of leaving something to everyone (nieces, nephews, uncles, aunts) in their extended family and if property was to be left to females, it was left in trust.

I have researched all these families, too, to see if I could perceive any hint that Alice had anything to do with any of them and for the most part not only couldn’t find a connection but I was able to find enough information to actually rule them out.

THE STRANGE STORY OF NORTHUMBERLAND TOWN LOT #172
There was an interesting deed dated 26 Nov 1818 recorded in the land records of Northumberland County. The deed covered the purchase of Northumberland Borough town Lot #172 from John Smith Haines and placed in trust for the heirs of Alice Ulp, wife of Conrad. Alice and Conrad were given, in essence, a life estate for that lot -- meaning it was theirs to use during their lifetimes -- but not theirs to sell -- as ultimately it was to belong to Alice’s heirs.

This is a fascinating document because of the questions it raises:

1. Why was the lot not just given directly to Alice? The custom of the times was that a married woman would not normally have owned land, it would have been owned in her husband’s name. So the clear implication to me is that either he already had heirs who were not hers -- or that whoever was giving this lot to Alice worried he would in the future. Otherwise, what difference would it have made if the land had been placed in Conrad’s name?

2. Who was giving Alice this land? I have worked hard on this question as I assumed it might lead to the identification of Alice’s parents. The 1818 deed has the names of many people, but no stated connections. John Smith Haines, the seller, came from an interesting family. Reuben Haines was a prominent brewer of Philadelphia who at one time owned most all the town lots in Northumberland. Those lots then passed over time to his son Josiah, then Josiah’s wife Sarah Harriet Bull, then Sarah’s second husband William Ambrose Lloyd. John Smith Haines, who died not long after the 1818 transaction, was the son of Josiah and Sarah. I have tried to determine if Alice was of the Haines, Bull or Lloyd family -- but could not find any way for this to be so.

3. The most interesting phrase to me in this deed is “him and her surviving”. These early deeds were notoriously lacking in punctuation and I wonder if that phrase was meant to be set off with commas. I can think of no similar phrase in other deeds. They are four little words, said once, in a deed where most all the rest of the language is repetitious -- did they mean that the only ultimate owners of this lot were to be only those heirs who survived both their parents?

The named trustees to hold the land on behalf of Alice were John Boyd (brother-in-law of Josiah Haines) and Samuel Jackson, a town doctor, who also seems to have been of the Philadelphia-Northumberland axis of connections. Alice does not seem to be related to either of them.

Now this land can be traced over time. Conrad was taxed on two town lots starting in 1824, one of which I assume was #172. A property ownership map of Northumberland Borough in 1858 sheds more light on the situation. Lot #172 was one of eight lots that span from Queen Street to Duke Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets broken into two sections by an alley. Lot #172 was the one just northwest of the alley. On the 1858 map, the name Jacob Eckert (whose wife was Mary Ulp) is written across the whole half-block (four lots) that included #172.

An interesting thing happened in 1837. Conrad and Elsie sold their life estate in Lot #172 to Thomas T Bonham for $75. Now this is strange in and of itself, because he was buying in essence their right to use, so it would be then his right to use -- which right would expire after the deaths of both Conrad and Elsie. In any event, Thomas moved to Illinois within about two years but there is nothing to explain if he did anything with his right to use that property when he left town. Did he re-sell the life estate to someone else? In any event, it doesn’t really matter, it just creates a historical gap from 1837 to 1853, when Conrad died (Elsie having died earlier) at which point the lot surely reverted in ownership to Elsie’s (surviving?) heirs and no life estate pertained.

And there is another strange aspect of the 1837 deed. It stated that Jacob Ulp, son of Conrad, had died “seized” of that lot -- meaning he was an owner, though it says, subject to Conrad and Elsie’s life estate. It does not say when Jacob died. Was it recent and that is what triggered this sale to Bonham? Or, was it sometime before? Why was Jacob mentioned and no other of Conrad’s children?

Finally, in 1865, in two different deeds, three couples -- Jacob Eckert and wife Mary on one of the deeds for $250 and Jacob Ulp and wife Ann and George Eckert and wife Elsie on the other deed for $250 -- sold Lot #172 to Levi Eckert and wife Mary. And so again, more questions are raised than answered.

1. Why two separate deeds? Was there something different about Jacob and Mary Eckert’s interest in the land versus the other two couples? Did Jacob and Mary own half of the lot worth in total $500 while both the other couples shared ownership of the other half of the lot?

2. Why no mention of any other of Conrad Ulp’s heirs -- notably Elizabeth (Ulp) Hopewell? She had died by 1865, but if her heirs were Alice’s heirs, shouldn’t they too have been a party to this transaction? Were her heirs excluded because she pre-deceased both her parents?

3. Why the delay? Alice died between 1840 and 1850 and Conrad in 1853, yet the property wasn’t re-sold until 1865. [This question may be unimportant, as perhaps there just was no reason or need to sell it until then.]

Here are the people who seem to have something to do with Conrad and Elsie Ulp and/or Lot #172 and a narrative of how all these documents may prove or possibly disprove their relationship to one or the other of those two parents.

Jacob (older). His name first appears in that 1837 deed wherein Conrad and Elsie sold their life estate in Lot #172 to Thomas H Bonham and that deed specifically made mention that Conrad’s son (presumably Elsie’s too) was deceased and at the time of his death was seized of Lot #172.

It is not clear when Jacob died. It might have been much earlier than 1837. The strangest part of this reference to Jacob is there was no reference made to any other of Elsie’s children and there is no reason given for why Jacob’s death was even mentioned. I believe the 1837 date tells us nothing about when exactly Jacob died, rather it just happened that in 1837, Conrad and Elise determined that they no longer required the use of Lot #172.

Widow. Reference to her appeared only in that 1820 Census listing. She was age 16-26 and had two young sons living with her. I do not know whose widow she was -- could it have been Jacob of the 1837 deed? I do not know what happened to her or her sons.

John. In the same document -- a summary of deaths mentioned in old newspapers -- where I found the details on Conrad Ulp’s death, there was also a statement that John Ulp had died in early January 1838 and he was approximately 26 years of age.

John Irwin. John Irwin is buried in Riverview with dates given as 1838-1910. From the 1900 Census, we learn he was born in May 1838. I believe he must have been the John Ulp, age 11, who was living in the Levi Eckert household in the 1850 Census (yes, it has to be the same one who later bought Lot #172). I do not have firm proof, but I am fairly certain that John Irwin had to be the son of John Ulp who died a few months before John Irwin’s birth. Moreover, I believe that Levi Eckert’s wife, Sarah, of the same age as John Ulp, was in fact John Irwin’s mother. To make it work, she had to have been Levi’s second wife -- but it is all quite plausible. Just another twist in this incredibly complex story.

Mary. She married Jacob Eckert and they sold their ownership of Lot #172 in 1865 to Levi Eckert. From Census, Mary was born about 1802 and it seems she had to be a daughter of Conrad and Elsie.

Jacob (younger). Jacob Ulp and wife Ann sold their interest in Lot #172 to Levi Eckert in 1865. From Census, he was born about 1820. We actually first know him from the 1850 Census when he and Ann were living in Sunbury. In 1860, they were in Northumberland Borough and then by 1870, the family had moved to Lock Haven, PA. He must have been either a son or grandson of Conrad.

If he was Conrad’s son, it would argue that Jacob (older) died before 1820 and Conrad and Elsie then named this son Jacob to honor their deceased older son of the same name.

But maybe he was one of the sons of Widow Ulp and maybe she was the widow of Jacob (older).

Elsie. She married George Eckert and they sold their ownership of Lot #172 in 1865 to Levi Eckert. From Census, Elsie was born about 1822 and her death record, working through a few typos and erroneous transcriptions, says she was the daughter of Conrad and Elsie.

Elizabeth. She married James Hopewell in about 1824 and named a son John Ulp Hopewell and a daughter Elsie. She died in 1850 and from her tombstone we know she was born in July 1800.

Note that we have Mary born about 1802 and Elsie born about 1822 who both had an ownership share of Lot #172 and both must have been daughters of Elsie. Note also that it does not seem that Elizabeth’s heirs or John’s (the older) heirs had an ownership share. It was John Irwin’s step-father who was the buyer, but John Irwin was age 27 or so in 1865, and there is no indication he was a seller.

My interest is in Elizabeth. She was my ancestor. It seems to me the only reasonable candidate to be her father was Conrad. I can think of only two other scenarios:

1. She was Conrad’s sister and came with him to Northumberland when he came about 1805 or so. But he was born in 1773, she in 1800. That just seems too big a gap to be brother and sister.

2. She was the widow listed in the 1820 Census. But if so, why would she have named a son John Ulp Hopewell -- her maiden name wasn’t Ulp. We also know she named a daughter Elsie, some indication perhaps that that was the name of her mother. Moreover, why weren’t her two infant sons -- or at least one -- listed in the James Hopewell household in 1830? Did both die young? Did both go to live with Conrad Ulp?

But if she was Conrad’s daughter, then the burning question is this -- why were her heirs not a party to the 1865 transaction -- the sale of Lot #172 to Levi Eckert. Again, I can come up with possible explanations -- but each one has a conundrum associated with it.

For example: maybe Elsie wasn’t her mother. Maybe Conrad had an earlier wife and Elizabeth was born to his first wife, Elsie came later. The problem with this scenario is that Mary was born about 1802 and seems to have been the daughter of Elsie. Had the 1800’s children not been owners and only the 1820’s children been involved, then this would be an easy explanation -- but that was not the case.

In the final analysis, I have come to believe that they key to the whole mystery is the fact that Elizabeth pre-deceased her father. And I believe that those four little words “him and her surviving” are why this was so. They meant that the lot belonged to only those heirs of Alice who survived both Alice and Conrad -- and clearly our Elizabeth did not. Maybe because of that her heirs were not entitled to a share of the ownership of Lot #172. Note that it does not seem that John Irwin was entitled to a share either.

[One little footnote is that there is a possibly relevant 1871 deed from John Hopewell to H T Eckert that may be related to this -- or may not have anything to do with it -- but I have been unable to get my hands on it. Early Northumberland County deeds are available on microfilm from LDS, but they only filmed up to about 1865 or so. I have emailed the Northumberland County Registrar of Deeds, but got no response. Someday I’ll get my hands on this deed.]

The problem with this scenario is that Jacob (the older) died sometime before 1837 and he was seized of Lot #172 (or some part of it) so he seems to have had an ownership interest (“seized of”), yet he clearly pre-deceased both his (presumed) parents. I think the 1837 deed was just totally off the mark in even making mention of Jacob, it had no stated or implied relevance. I think whoever wrote that deed did not study the 1818 deed (“him and her surviving”) and it wasn’t until 1865 -- when money for the heirs was involved -- that someone took a close look at the 1818 deed and determined who had a share and who did not.

I simply cannot come up with any other explanation that covers all the known facts.